@Sagemind
yep..yahoonews had a clarification,and it took an old friend to point it out to me.

but you are right sage,the larger implications of a private for-profit company abusing a court system to extract profit by way of force is the REAL situation.

which will be drowned out by this mans actions....

i never used misandrist as a definition,but my final few words on my comment "if you own a penis,you are evil" was directly taken from a placard i saw in some feminist rally.

and that was a tame one.

another one read "all men are rapists".

but as i stated.
i am fairly new to this third wave feminism.
not a big fan so far.

anyways,guess we disagree and thats fine.

peace brother.

*edit* probably should add why i even came to your page teehee.
thanks for the clarification on the different feminisms.

Never heard of that. Must look it up. Thank you for the clarification

Sweet Bastard Zombie Jesus!

You don't think well, and are 100% wrong about both my education and acquaintances, but you, on the other hand, do not seem to have either education or personal acquaintances to draw from on this subject. It seems some militant Feminist (they are not the only brand of Feminist, BTW) left a bad taste in your mouth, so now all feminism, to you, is distasteful. That's like eating a single spoilt sausage and from then on loudly telling people at dinner "meat is all tainted and it all makes you sick...you're just too dumb to know it", and continuing on that vein until they either (from exasperation) either stop eating it in your presence or find a way to ignore you, IMO, because attempting to rationally explain that some improperly handled meat is tainted, but not all, falls on deaf ears.

Dictionaries are where you look up the definitions of words, which is exactly what I did. Because you can't grasp the concept doesn't make it wrong.

Because your mind can't grasp the difference between the name of a movement based loosely on an idea and that idea does not mean there isn't one. Sorry, fail, just like your second paragraph in your last post which included many ANTI-feminist theories along with some overboard militant Feminist theories...I wonder if you can follow that thought since you don't grasp the difference in the words and claim there isn't one.

Equality is not advancement of one group at the expense of the other, it's the discontinuation of that process.

MY dictionary?!? Me thinks you protest too much. What's your issue with the English language (or language in general) that use of one of the main tools of language causes you such consternation and spawns such disrespectful and angry sounding replies? I honestly think you're just angry that I proved your argument's major flaw (that flaw being your inability to distinguish between a loose group's name and an idea...which makes one wonder, do you believe there were roaming gangs of large, dark colored cats protesting and attacking police in the US in the 60's and 70's?), but can't bring yourself to admit your argument had any flaw.

"Cultural fiction of gender"?!? Oh...I didn't realize I was having a discussion with a completely crazy person. If you actually believe gender is a "cultural fiction", there's no point discussing anything with you, because you live in a different reality from the rest of us that actually HAVE a gender, and not just culturally derived gender, and have ancestors that had gender before there was such a thing as "culture". What an insane statement, one that totally missed the point as well.

Spit on me, you'll find yourself in a bad place, and you'll find that many in favor of Women's rights are also in favor of removing ALL involuntary cultural distinctions of gender, a thing that has NOT been done by far, and you wish to stop any advancement towards equality of genders while one side is SO far ahead based solely on their GENDER. (damn, that word again describing a thing that doesn't exist...you must hate that, huh?)

Yes, if you fail to even conceive that, unfairly, there is a gender split in society that 99% of the time favors one gender to the detriment of the other, you by default fall into that opposing force, opposing fairness and equality, and individualism. No question. It's sad to me that you can't see that.

I'll ignore your last 2 paragraphs, I'm not speaking for @bareboards2, she's perfectly capable of speaking for herself, but has intelligently decided that further discussion with you on this subject is pointless...and I see she's likely right, you just want to argue about it, as made clear by your never ending arguments spawning from a simple clarification of what 2 words (spelled the same, but one being a proper name, the other an idea) actually mean...according to THE dictionary, and your insistence that the dictionary is wrong because it doesn't support your position that feminism and Feminism are the same thing. BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAA!! That's too funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Enjoy exploring that hypothesis further, but without my further input. My points are made, some repeatedly.

Lol, I just thought it was typical Sage gibberish. Kidding, thank you for this clarification buddy

FYI I was thinking $1500/month to 3000$/month. Which would make 75 to 150$/day.

Its nice to have a civil discourse with you.


Other than the clarification above I AGREE WITH ALL THE BENEFITS YOU MENTION.


All I am saying is it the responsibility of the employer to pay for this benefit?


Should the young couple or single woman wait till they can afford such time off? With all the family planning available should the couple or single woman take some responsibility.


According to report California and few other states have placed a tax of sorts to spread this cost over all its citizens. I do not see an issue with this as long all are taxed equal.

-----------------------------------------------------
My reform plan

We do need welfare and social security reform ( which will have to happen) it should be 1 in the same. Everyone over 25 should be able to take 10 years of government paid time off (PTO).

All get 10 years, All pay a tax, call it what you want. But when it is used up then that's it. no more government cheese.

If I am 25 and going to school I should be able to collect a year or two OF government PTO ( paid time off). Your choice.

If I have a baby and want to take 3 months off then I will have 9 years 9 months left for retirement.

If I turn 40 and find myself lost in life and just want to check out of society and go back to school or travel the world for 2 years then I would have 8 years left.

I don't care what you spend you government check on. Schooling, traveling, hookers, drugs. Its you life.

When I turn 65 and think I will still live another 20 I better not retire with my remaining PTO time.

Its your life use it when you need it.


This would stop all the complaining towards welfare people. Also it will keep people from retiring early and sucking tax dollars for years to come. It would naturally provide an incentive to work and to stay working.

There would be no unemployment benefits. Other programs eliminated and rolled into this program. It would streamline the government. Reduce government costs create a a level playing field for citizens. Your PTO pay should be based on you current skill level with minimums and caps.


Granted this is a pie in the sky ideal world thought. But it does have some merit.

Have a good day.

After the clarification, the dad thought he said "titties" and said sure...

Oh, innocent baby that you are (ha!), YES IT IS TERRIBLE.

Thank you for that clarification.

I was going to comment on your inclusion of a lot of action movies. Your clarification to bareboards is helpful. Do you draw distinctions around what is believable in action movies? I've found myself get a bit jaded over the years with how everything has to be bigger and now with 17% more explosions. A good example is how the James Bond movies have evolved. Part of it was how technology evolved in the movie industry. I think that the old Bond movies that included high tech gadgets were so much cooler and the newer ones became unrealistic. I appreciated the reboot of that series because they went back to the old ways, but it seems that they are already going down the bigger and bigger road again.

Please re-read. I made no assumption (best or worst) about the confusing sentence, I simply said I didn't understand what was meant.
When people write in 3/4 thoughts, assuming others will complete the thought, some of us (especially those who don't think "normally") will have to question their meaning to understand. It's not about insisting they write 'tailored for me to understand', it's asking (quite respectfully I thought) to clarify, and expressing my thought on how it might be done.
What he said was "Aren't the police complicit in this scenario?", but in reference to a post that discussed multiple scenarios. I read it multiple times before replying, it didn't make sense to me and wasn't clear...were they complicit in the scenario of subjecting others to disgusting images (the last scenario discussed)? No? Is there actually murder happening that they are complicit in? No? Then clarification was required....and I thanked you for providing some.
I can't fathom why that set you off this morn., but it seems to have done so.
Please try reading it differently. Sometimes you have to take a breath in and out and read what someone else is saying.
Best advice, don't assume the worst. (which it seems you've done here).

EDIT: Some more good advice, if you intend to quote someone's statement, you should get the statement/quote right, otherwise you're paraphrasing and should use ' not ". "I think he should have said" is completely different from 'well they should have wrote it differently'. The former is my opinion, clearly, the latter is not (nor is it something I have said or written that I recall).
If someone is replying to someone else, intending to have a conversation, it's fairly important that their 'script' be tailored to the other person if they wish to actually converse and not just spout words at them.

Thanks the clarification Oritteropo.

I figured it was some regional form of Strine but for an outsider, it's hard to distinguishing Ocker from Bogan or Yobbo.

Another great piece by John Oliver.

@Jerykk It would be good if your comments were sarcastic, unfortunately your passion shows they are not. Many of your points comprise of disturbingly inconsiderate, unsustainable and uneducated core values.

Pay attention to @Januari previous post. All the areas seeking clarification on what you advocate, these are most of the areas you should review and consider alternatives with someone who is rational, compassionate, realistic and a critical thinker. Your suggested solutions are horrific.

Ah no worries. I think the guy's an ass too for the most part, but I have a deep disappointment in my fellow humans for allowing that shit to fly in the first place, and it's made me overly sensitive to the point where I have to chime in whenever it comes up. Thanks for the clarification.

I just saw what a noob you are. What an intro to the Sift!

Unless you are a sock puppet. Then that is another layer of something.

(Is sock puppet a general internet term, or specific to the Sift? I've never asked...)

EDIT -- SEE NEXT COMMENT FOR CLARIFICATION

I have a lot of things I think would be better, but I don't know if you mean wholly different ideas with the same setting, or things I would do different with this, or what. My criticism was mainly that elements didn't line up with each other to support the universe they created, and most of all the acting was so stilted.
If you want me to be specific about this:
They lay on that danger is around every corner, but seem to separate from one another regularly despite literally stating not to at least once.
Their attitudes and the way they move and behave in the environment are more like a couple people on vacation, and show nothing to support that this environment could kill them at any second.
I couldn't tell if the daughter was estranged from her father, because there seem to be this "get to know you" scene in the tent, but it could have easily been terrible acting. If it weren't, a single line of clarification could have surpassed that.
This stuff their collecting is extremely precious, but at a point of leisure in their tent they still have to open up their container and look at it to know how much they've collected?
Also, said resource has a stupid name. Almost as bad as "unobtainium" (I don't care if it's a real mineral, it pulls you immediately out of the story).
The girls attitude toward pursuing and killing the other soldier was almost lackadaisical.
They have pretty heavy respiratory suits, but it's possible to survive a slog through the jungle with nothing more than your head wrapped in tape with an air-hose?

I don't like long posts on the sift because at a certain point you just don't want to read anymore, so I'll stop there.