So, because he didn't go into how well he knows them at all, you are going to jump to the conclusion that he doesn't know them and claim he just randomly assumes any black person is a champion level sprinter?
And, if true, why you don't see that as another roadblock, people making assumptions about their abilities based purely on race, confirming his point?

I disagree completely, it's a near certainty he personally knows them, likely they are part of his group putting on this event, an event designed to open people's eyes to their own racial privileges. It would be a ridiculous and self defeating gamble on his part to make those statements if he didn't know them personally....ridiculous and racist, basing his assumptions purely on race to make a point that you shouldn't do that.

You are making huge assumptions based on a lack of information to try to discount his message.....why? Why is his message so scary to you that you feel the need to discard it over your likely mistaken red herring assumption?

Try it. If she takes the kid and bolts, it's legal. Even if you manage to get a court order before she leaves state, chances are you won't get equal custody unless she's a documented certifiable nutjob. I say this because you live in a fault state which are invariably the same states backwards enough to automatically give women custody and force fathers to prove the mother is unstable and dangerous, and even then you'll share with her as primary without documented abuse.

So you've been together 20 years and share nothing. What a way to live.

Shared assets when not married aren't divided by the courts. If you want their help, gotta be married or sign an ownership contract with every purchase.

I can find no instance where I said my brother "won". He got custody, that's different from "winning". Be real. If you're going to quote me, please don't make up the quotes. Spending over $100000 on a two week marriage isn't winning by my definition.

That link is off topic. Find a study of similar jobs with similar hours worked and compare salaries, not a study that says average women work X ammount less so overall earning should be X amount less but instead it's X-1 less, so women are overpaid. That's not what their study showed, they're extrapolating there, and ignoring that the lower hours are usually not their choice, but their superiors orders to avoid paying overtime and full benefits to women. Also, they said Married men managers without kids also earn more for each hour at work: they earn $38.40 per hour while married women without kids earn only $28.70. That means that for each hour spent at their jobs, male married managers without kids earn about 34% more than women. 34% more for each hour. Did you read it? Mic drop.

See, more insulting dismissiveness...those women couldn't possibly be more competent or harder workers, they must be succeeding because of preferential treatment. In case you missed it, that's incredibly misogynistic.

What?! Prove it.....with data not an anecdote.

So....You wouldn't marry a crazy person only because of what divorce would cost. Yeah....right.

" I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators" sounds like personal issues to me, they aren't good enough to marry....because of divorce....Again ignoring the prenup that dictates divorce splits.

Lol. Such utter bullshit. Maybe if they have an impairment and no lawyer, and can prove it in court, not because they say so.

Ashley Maddison.

Wedding rings are aphrodisiacs. It's why I don't wear one, hit on repeatedly wearing it, never once without it. My experience differs from your assumptions and statistics, same with my friends. I'm 5'9", so not tall cute and photogenic....but two out of three ain't bad.

Bob said it, you agreed with him and more.

An uncodified partnership is one of convenience or even imaginary. Nothing to stop either of you walking tomorrow if you meet your new soul mate. That's not a stable partnership. It may be exactly what you want. It seems you made up your mind that marriage=bad for men long ago, in which case you should not partake. I hope your path leads to at least half the happiness mine has.

Newt

"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

What on earth are you talking about?
Do you believe the government dictates your vows? What "rules"? You just cannot grasp the concept of no fault divorce or prenuptial, can you?

I guess you never planned on kids or shared assets. If you do, not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives, and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first. Uncle Sam is in your relationship, married or not....without a marriage contract, he makes ALL the rules and you have no say.

My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas that in my state would have cost under $10K and you congratulate him? You are one strange person.

Again, your perception, not based in fact since the 60's. You assume women take off time to raise the kids and take care of parents and assume fathers don't take paternity leave or have obligations outside work. How 50's. You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. It certainly hasn't been my experience, I've seen women in the workplace working harder and longer for less pay, sacrificing just like their male counterparts if not more, putting off having families until it's too late while men can have kids long after normal retirement age, putting themselves in dangerous situations where those with power over them have opportunities to abuse that power and abuse those women in ways that rarely happen to men. These aren't exceptions, they're the norm.

Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that, meaning soon women in most catagories will out earn men and have more to lose, you admit you're wrong in your position now, right? Of course not, I expect you will still start from a point that hasn't been correct since the era and sexual revolution, early 70's at latest.

No, many of the studies I've seen compared people in the same exact positions in the same industries, even same companies, and women consistently get paid less for the exact same job and hours, and women rarely work less today, and just as often out work their male counterparts knowing they are often token hires not valued by the bosses so have less job security. If I recall correctly, 80% of job losses due to Covid were women, and the men are getting rehired faster. I think you are thinking of some studies from the 80's that made those assumptions and accusations. Comparing apples to apples, women still get shortchanged and as often as not overworked.

Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk"

And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are? Specify what you expect and agree, and you walk with exactly what you agreed to, no government rules or split involved. Geez. You speak as if you had never heard of them.

Most divorces may be initiated by the woman (if that's true, I expect it's just another assumption) because their husbands are more likely to break their vows first, but are not willing to pay to end the marriage, including penalties for breaking the marriage contract, and we're too dumb to get a prenuptial (or got one that spells out harsh penalties for cheating). Yes, I am assuming men cheat on their spouses more often than the reverse, because men are wired that way.

You are not more likely than not to face a divorce, because it's unlikely any woman meeting your criteria would give you a second thought, and you need to get married to get divorced.

I bet if you show your significant other this thread your 20 year relationship will be in big trouble, or at best enter a long dry dark spell. Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches that take more than they deserve or even could give back and destroy you whenever they think it serves them. It's probably a good thing you aren't married.

Laws and family court aren't as you describe. Maybe when you enter the 21st century you'll recognize that. The rules of your marriage can be whatever you agree to, including the specifics of the split if it ends.

It's a sad thing you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks.....almost always unless one or both of you are total douchebags.

Don't get your news from twitter or Trump. Neither is credible.

So far, allegations are all that's surfaced, not any evidence of wrongdoing....and most allegations have proven to be assumptions at best. Election officials have found no serious violations, nor are there any allegations in the lawsuits that could possibly swing the results.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be discarded without evidence against it. To date, there's been no evidence produced of these or other allegations.

Edit: And those allegations have now been recanted by the person who alleged them, admitting he made it up. D'oh

Sorry sugar, newsmax isn't being honest with you.

Almost every challenge has already been tossed out of court or ruled against Trump. Those remaining deal with a miniscule number of votes that may have arrived (not mailed) late thanks to the USPS acting as a part of the Trump campaign and slowing deliveries, and ignoring court orders to "sweep" mail rooms for missing ballots. When forced, one single Houston mail room found over 800....most for Biden. The vote fraud that's been found are all Republican frauds, again, and the numbers aren't large enough to swing the election for Trump in any states. Some might turn blue if all legal votes were delivered.

Most lawsuits were asking to stop vote counting, and were tossed in the trash. Some were about observers, but have zero effect on the counts. The rest are based on pure assumptions, not evidence, of things like late votes being counted, or normal processes like ballot "curing" which is filling out the circle/box when the vote intent was clear but the box not totally blacked out. They're even trying g to disqualify ballots that only had a vote for president...as if that was abnormal or illegal.

Even his case for a recount in Georgia is highly unlikely to proceed, since the margin is over .25% the team requesting a recount must pay for it, and the Trump team is too broke to even hire real lawyers, forget paying up front for a statewide recount.

There aren't even enough votes being questioned by Trump's campaign to swing any states...so there aren't enough to cast doubt even if every one being questioned is fraudulent...and so far there aren't many if any verified fraudulent votes, and my bet is the few found are double votes for Trump anyway.

Sorry sunshine. You lost, and are just stewing in your sour grapes. Just another never Bidener. There's a decent chance you'll lose the Senate too when Georgia is through.
Red tsunami 2020!

Edit: if you donated to the legal defense fund, I hope you read the fine print, because at least half is going to pay pre-existing debts from the campaign, and still more goes directly into Trump's pocket for using his donation portal. Not much is going towards his legal battles, battles he knows are lost causes (most already lost in court). Don't be surprised if you also signed up for monthly donations too, watch your credit card bill, his campaign has repeatedly suckered donors into agreeing to that by hiding it in the fine print, now that his presidency is done he has no reason to not be a pure con man/thief again. Russia won't extradite him, so he's going to grab every penny of your money he can before he flees the country.

Judges...makes me wonder. Has Amy Coney Barrett--do you think she has had "the talk" with her two adopted black children about how they should respond to, approach, expect to interact with police?

It's amazing what the assumption of privilege provides as armor for someone in interacting with someone armed with a gun...

„Nothing racist about this statement“...really?

Then tell me what thoughts led to this conclusion? „Bad People“ is not a absolute Term; how does he determine who qualifies as bad?

Just because he tries to skip over his racist assumptions by NOT referencing skin color, he cannot legitimately define who is „bad people“.

Case in point: a non-racist claim focuses on the individual crimes, whereas a racist will always see a group of people as the default criminals.

Instance(s) vs group

He is an ignorant asshat unqualified for service in public safety.

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data is one of the more complete and user friendly sites ive come across regarding climate

and...

Being the fastest growing city isn't directly related to the number of deaths or the temperature in the city. He's the one who made that assumption not bloomburg. I believe that's called a straw-man argument.

As far as deaths from extreme temps are concerned, it's telling that he didnt take the time to isolate extreme temperatures from the natural disasters chart. Here, let me isolate it for you using the same source. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters?time=1936..2018&country=~Extreme%20temperature


Or, again using that same source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/natural-disasters-by-type focus on ONLY the extreme temperatures and it's clear that the natural disasters of that type are on an upward trend.

The benefits are mostly in reverse. You wear a mask because it better protects others from you - you should always assume you're infected, if you're truly being safe.

If you can get a medical-grade mask, then it can have additional benefits, but that's not really the point here. Everyone can and should wear a mask, and then everyone has an improved chance of preventing the spread.

It's not a psychological thing. Every time I go to the store and see someone without a mask, they are a greater risk to me and my health. I don't know if they are infected, and quite possibly, neither do they. That's the problem with this disease, the incubation and spread can be done entirely without awareness of infection. Blind assumptions are absolutely awful.

You can catch this disease today, and spread it without knowing you're infected, completely without symptoms. That's why we quarantine, contact trace, and above all, always assume you're infected and therefore wear a mask to protect others.

Now as for whether a simple bandana mask is worth it or not, hell -- we can talk, but I'm going to push everyone to do something rather than nothing. If I could get a medical grade protections I'd do it, but the point is when you have to have a worldwide effort, if this helps 20-50% more than nothing, I'll take it. Everyone should. To the point of this video -- there's no reason not to, the science has spoken loud and clear on these points.

We have already established your experience differs from this in that there was no impact causing the roll.

citation for maximum/force time being a primary factor in vehicular CSI .

You're also making the assumption that the roll doesn't send you roof first into oncoming traffic, telephone pole, tree, parked car, building or whatever.

We saw a rollover on here recently that was the result of a pit maneuver where the driver died. Guess that wasn't an easy flop for him.

Yes, but my understanding is that the point isn't to starve the virus for hosts until it's dead, it's to slow the spread enough that hospitals aren't overrun. When they are, death rates explode, logically from 3-3.5% up to 15-20%. Of course, this plan relies on the hope that immunity is relatively full and permanent, something we don't know yet.

If people weren't morons, I would agree about parks and beaches....but they are. Even those smart enough to try and social distance in public often forget and hug goodbye, and most aren't being that smart.

The problem with sending people back is we don't have a single study on immunity. We don't know if you have full immunity after recovering from being infected, or if so how long it might last. Many other coronaviruses mutate enough that immunity is for one season at best. We need to study the virus in detail before making assumptions on life and death issues, and it's smart to err on one side of caution with stakes this high until we know. Opening up before we know is a pure gamble....the odds might be good, but the stakes are sky high.

In a near worst case scenario, it's possible that Covid19 is going to remain as dangerous as it is today for some time with reinfection possible, and that any future vaccines will need yearly changes and booster shots to be effective, like the flu shot but hopefully more effective. In that case, the best we can really do is be prepared for a constant flow of large numbers of patients and deaths. That's going to require a complete retooling and expansion of the medical system, but silver lining, it's hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs that robots can't do...yet.

Many aspects of quantum mechanics are observational evidence (not proof) of somewhere outside our observable "universe". I gave an example. Matter springing out of nothing, and returning to nowhere are indicators of "somewhere" else....conservation of mass demands it.

Yes, that's one definition of the word, (edit: The Universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. There may be more than spacetime, or something that's not matter or energy, or something outside the limits of our expanding but finite "universe" .) ...that doesn't make the concept correct anymore than saying "God is omniscient" makes it true or proves God's existence.

If there is a universe, it contains all. That statement doesn't prove there is one, neither does our inability to prove it one way or the other....yet. "Universe" might turn out to be a narcissistic concept born of ignorance...we just don't know. Your opinion/best guess/assumption stated as unassailable fact shows me you aren't (being) particularly scientifically minded. You may be correct, but there's no way to know with our current understanding of physics.

Don't forget, his whole plan is based on the mistaken assumption that it's only dangerous to old people.

This from the same group that lost their minds over the fallacy that universal health care would include creating "death panels" that would decide if grandma was worth giving medical care.