«12. . .2,2102,2112,2122,2132,2142,2152,216. . .2,5112,512»
Not everyone has it, those who do have it still often have copays, and job losses remain an issue.
Equal does not mean identical-obviously not, given that men and women literally have differences in genetic makeup, those differences lead to differences in hormone production, and for men, that means a stronger sex drive, something virtually universally attested to.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_5
Across many different studies and measures, men have been shown to have more frequent and more intense sexual desires than women, as reflected in spontaneous thoughts about sex, frequency and variety of sexual fantasies, desired frequency of intercourse, desired number of partners, liking for various sexual practices, willingness to forego sex, initiating versus refusing sex, making sacrifices for sex, and other measures. No contrary findings (indicating stronger sexual motivation among women) were found
It's not 'sexist and chauvinistic', it's biology. Men and women are plainly different in a number of different ways, and this is one of them.
I won't pretend to be the expert on the minutiae of those definitions, but it should be quite obvious regardless of what terms are used that your examples of outright lying about something in a contract are far different from accepting the known risk of pregnancy.
There's no universal assurance that can be given. Even assuming that a large number of cases involve false assurances, and I would put those at a distinct minority, even if she says "I'm on the pill", you're still going in with the conscious risk of a failure of birth control, and assuming that risk by proceeding.
Self-justifying teenagers aside, I don't think most living and breathing human beings would say, if they're being honest with themselves, that getting to the amnesia level of blackout drunk is a responsible decision.
No, they're really not. You can't get conception without intercourse, and all intercourse (by the reproductive definition) carries the possibility of conception. Far from being completely different, they are inextricably tied together, about as closely as you can get.
Horatius Cocles, Phydios, and Lagrodia
National polls should be lightly weighed at this point, but are not useless, and the inconsistency in state polls still shows a clear trend towards a Biden advantage. Turnout in 2018 was almost unimaginably high (really something that I think is worthy of more discussion, it went from 36 to over 50, compared to 40 in 2010), and that was for Trump as a spectre rather than the man himself, I think it's self-delusion to think that people will not be pouring to the polls to vote against him. Even if one wanted to take things to an incredible extreme, and say that every single Democratic black voter stays home, the turnout boost among other races alone would still see the Democratic turnout in 2018 midterms swamp any other year in recent history.
I expect that the gap will start to close, but Trump has been the single most consistently unpopular President in modern American history, and has had the economic strength that was really his main hope for survival utterly destroyed by COVID. Whether or not one blames him or outside forces for that does not matter, blaming the dismal approval ratings on a hostile media (and it certainly has been hostile) does not mean that media coverage will turn to flowers and butterscotch. Wherever the finger is pointed, what matters is what it is pointing at, that the Trump administration has by all indications failed to win the support of near enough of the American people relative to those who despise it to have anything more than an outside chance.
He should have picked Tammy Duckworth.
Ugh, technically better, but not a fan. Have had plenty of experience with her and not much of it puts her beyond largely self-serving politicking in my opinion.
I have a particular animus towards people who try to spin up political favor out of military service (Applies to the GOP as well), most particularly when it is used for a plainly-stated lie, as she has in decrying "Assault rifles"-and now just going out of her way to double down on lies 'even the military doesn't provide our troops with automatic weapons.' Any sympathy you get for service gets flipped into the negative category if you use it to make deliberately and knowingly false claims for political purposes. Politicizing it for self-promotion is one thing, using it to lie when you know you're lying is quite another.
She'd still be better than Harris, hard to be worse, and at least she makes overtures to moderacy, but I wouldn't clap for that pick either.
Phydios and Lagrodia
The law is blind. It cannot recognize such distinctions.
Mistakes of fact are not lies. They are mistakes. Just because someone gave you a warranty that turned out to be false does not mean they did so knowingly.
I'm not sure I agree with that assessment; I think reasonable minds can disagree to what extent a man knowingly encounters a foreseeable risk when he is told, point blank, there is no risk. Words have to have consequences.
Responsible and possible are two different things.
Except they're not. You can have sexual intercourse and have 0% chance of impregnation. That doesn't sound like inextricable to me. If that were the case, birth control would be worthless.
I still have the old RTL one on my country page (although the image links have expired). There's no reason not to make one on yours, and you at least can make the thread on the offsite forums. If it's a province map, I want to see the provinces I can request, and how many we are allowed to have.
Right to Life World Province Roleplay Map:
To request regional map space, please 
make a request on this thread to Cartographer Imperii Ecclesia and Founder Culture of Life. If they both find your request to be reasonable and if you have been a member of Right to Life's offsite forums for at least one month, your nation will be added, and ₤5 will be charged to your regional bank account. You may view our previous regional maps here: Stellonia and Mandatory Fun.
I'm aware that you oppose this policy, but policy absolutely does take into account differences between the sexes, exemplified best in the basic fact that men have to register for the draft while women do not, Rostker v. Goldberg. I'm certainly up for having a more philosophical debate on that question, but going back to the whole matter of what practically is the case, the law has had its eyes open to sex throughout American history.
I feel like most people aren't oblivious enough to knowingly sell a house without insulation while claiming it has it. Regardless, in both examples, whether with intent or without, we've got situations in which the buyer is doing a pretty bad job of 'measure twice, cut once' in blindly stumbling into purchases.
In a vacuum, I could agree with that, if we're talking about entering into a situation with no foreknowledge, but we're talking about something that virtually everyone in America has at least basic knowledge of, that sex is reproductive, and that no birth control is universally effective, you'd really have to hunt pretty far and wide to find someone living under a rock who's unaware of those fairly basic pieces of knowledge.
Oh, absolutely possible, I don't disagree with that, I was just saying that if you've gotten yourself into that situation, you've been making mistakes that are on your own head.
No, you can't. There is literally no form of birth control with a perfect success rate. Obviously it's not useless if it is not perfect, it simply mitigates the risk rather than eliminating it, same as basically every kind of safety feature or precaution.
Not when you weigh the sampling data honestly; and even then, that generalization is a few weeks out of date.
As I've said before, it's illogical to think that Trump's presidency was worse than people expected, and after four years, I think the anecdotes of people who voted for him the first time and now won't are overstated, just like they were with Obama. Him being an unknown quantity was a disadvantage, one that has now been replaced by the incumbent advantage.
And I think it's self-delusion to think that people won't be pouring out to vote for him. Everything Trump has predicted about the left, from the police and law and order, to wokeness in sports and corporate politics, to foreign policy, has proven true. People who are angry about the lockdowns and riots are not going to vote for Biden. Trump is their only outlet. As people begin to realize who exactly Biden is (or rather, who he isn't), you're going to see those numbers for Biden fake. Very few if any contenders maintain their spring/summer advantage; the race always tightens up the closer you get to the election.
This is statistically false. Trump is already outperforming his own record high numbers in 2016 with blacks and latinos.
According to polls which are controlled by his enemies and oversample Democrats.
Yet according to those same polls you love so much, a majority of Americans do not blame him for the downturn. It's true it's a big advantage he lost, but he's gained others in its place.
This is so incredibly off-based you don't even know. Even though you acknowledge the media is biased, you've let it poison your perspective, and I think you will be surprised how wrong you were. Unfortunately with someone who has their head this far buried in the sand, I can't really argue facts, I'll just have to wait for you to be proven wrong. But you sound like Bill Kristol or George Will 2.0. One of these sanctimonious "true conservatives" who are so out-of-touch with real people that they cannot even begin to understand Trump's appeal. I am more confidant today in my predictions than ever. The worst person Biden could have put on his ticket was Harris.
That's an interesting map, looks vaguely like HoI2.
I will try to upload a map asap. Unfortunately the 12,000 province map I had made was lost, and there are too many provinces for me to fill in for me to remake it, so I'm using a simpler one.
As I mentioned earlier, this is an outdated and sexist rule that is likely (or at least hopefully) to be resolved soon. The problem is that the draft is not active and therefore there's been little opportunity for it to be adjudicated.
You have such forgiving view of mankind I'm tempted to call you Montesquieu.
The law still favors people who are in an inferior position of knowledge. You can't always necessarily inspect a house thoroughly before you buy it (though it's considered good practice, you also don't have to and you'd be surprised how often people don't), and you can't exactly "inspect" someone to see if they're really on birth control or not. At some points, you just have to take the "expert's" word for it.
People know that "birth control isn't 100%" but they also don't know that doesn't always mean it's just 99% effective. Again, I think you're giving most people too much credit. Not to be dismissive to the Average Joe, but remember the average IQ is 100.
(Jack Sparrow voice): "*finger to chin*...I've heard of one...supposed to be very effective, nigh infallible...the pull-out method."
I don't know how to make it bigger; as to the quality, remember that it's a work in progress.
It's not as if there is only one organization conducting all of these polls, even groups such as Rasmussen, which tend to show more conservative outcomes, are showing a Biden advantage.
I'd challenge that claim-when running following a two-term President, the newcomer tends to have an advantage, not a disadvantage, H.W. Bush was the only guy to win a third term for his party since FDR's nonsense. I do agree that incumbency does tend to be an advantage, but I would not rate it any higher than the edge Trump already had in 2016, more Presidents have lost after one term than parties have taken the White House for three in a row.
I don't think the reason he's likely to lose is people moving away from him in any case, I generally agree that those anecdotes are somewhat overstated, I think it is primarily going to be people who skipped out on Clinton's lower-turnout campaign in 2016 and are coming back to vote in 2020.
Unfortunately, hitting the nail on the head in predicting where your opponents are going to go does not always translate to the political advantage that it ought to. During the debates around the time of Obergefell conservatives were consistently predicting, correctly, that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to Christian businesses facing government action and loss of conscience rights. It happened just as predicted, but following the tendency of slippery slopes, it did not change anything, as the line changes from "That'll never happen" to "Well, you deserve it." Just look at how seamlessly the line changed from "No one wants to take your guns!" to "H*ll yes we're going to take your AR-15!", constantly predicted, nothing changed. Trump absolutely was right about things like statues and who the headsman was coming for next, but the tide has not shifted, rather miserably, being right in politics doesn't help much when one does not control the narrative, that's not Trump's fault, but it hurts him all the same.
The race will tighten somewhat, I don't doubt it, but I think the idea that voters en masse are going to 'see who Biden is' is a fantasy. Most have either already rationalized his failings, or are so against Trump that they'd be willing to pull the lever for a reanimated Stalin, or they just aren't paying enough attention to his failings that are so little reported-on. COVID had given Biden the insane advantage of simply being allowed to disappear without consequence, Americans aren't going to get to see who he is before the election because they aren't going to get to see him before the election.
Those numbers aren't dependent on Trump's polling, unless you're actually going to argue that he's going to win a majority of the black vote.
Also, "record high"? Trump's numbers with black voters were literally the lowest in modern GOP history for any candidate not running against Obama. W. beat him, Dole beat him, H.W. beat him both times, including a three-way race, and so did Reagan and Ford.
Is Fox News really an 'enemy' of Trump?
I'm assuming you might say that elements within it are opposed to him, at which point you get to the point where the conspiracy argument against him (conspiracy, not conspiracy theory) means that it does not even particularly matter if the polls are slanted, because there is such fundamental opposition to him among all corners that he's no chance of actually breaking through with his message regardless.
And a substantial majority disapprove of his handling of COVID. He can try to pin riots and radicalism on Biden, but it's hard to spin the pandemic as something that has not hurt him, most polls still show majority support for the protests/riots, which is his only real area for growth when he's taking hits from both the economic downturn and the pandemic itself.
I can never meet enough 'real people' to get a representative idea of how the country is going to vote, and it's the rare person that's spending their time flying from Florida to Ohio to Arizona to Pennsylvania to suss out how the real people think around there. I don't deny that Trump has appeal. I understand some of it, I don't claim perfection in being able to explain all of it, but that he has a base that's eager to vote for him isn't something I deny-rather, the matter is that the bulk of the people who are eager to vote against him is a larger one. George Will and Bill Kristol are jumping ship to try to sweep Democrats into power. I very much want to see the GOP win, I would love to have your confidence-I just don't see it happening.
I heard the same kind of lines before the 2018 midterm, that the polls were out of touch with the real people, that a silent majority supported the President, that the caravan would swing a red wave, that it would be like 2016 all over again. It didn't happen, and people scrambled to pin blame on someone besides the President who still has, across four years, never managed to break through 50% approval, first President since we started polling for that to happen. I'm sure there'll be plenty to lay blame on in 2020, but I can't say I see something different happening.
I assume you're aware of this, but it does have a federal court ruling against it as of last year, which is interesting.
Hey, I rather like Montesquieu!
Though I have to say that this is the first time in a while that I've been called out for not being cynical enough rather than the opposite (as the other discussion shows)
Agreed, but as I have said earlier, even if one knows for a fact that the other person is on birth control, they are still taking a definite and accepted risk.
Oh darn, and here I thought I was real impressive because I got a perfect 100 as my score!
-
I do think that there are a fair number of people who overestimate the effectiveness of birth control, but that they are mentally minimizing a risk does not mean that they are not accepting it, any more than people who convince themselves that they'll never get lung cancer while smoking a pack a day.
Maybe a suboptimal source for well-reasoned decisions.
She literally joked on the radio about doing something she incarcerated 2,000+ people for. And they think her and the guy who helped craft the 90s crime bill is the dynamic duo to run in the year when anti-police riots are wracking the country.
Phydios and Lagrodia
I had heard of it, yes; that's the case I had in mind.
There's always someone out there a shade more cynical.
Cue the sad Spongebob ukulele music.
I guess this gets down to the difference between the average person and the reasonable person; but I still feel like your reasonable person is too reasonable.
Considering Jack Sparrow, on the issue in question, also said "I've never actually been that drunk," I think he's more reasonable a decision-maker than you give him credit for.
Amen!
Blessed be God forever! I prayed very hard for a long time for you to see the Light of Christ in the Orthodox faith, especially since I was just Confirmed myself last year. Have you been received into the Church yet?
Horatius Cocles and Slavic lechia
Phydios and Lagrodia
1 and 2. Adoption requires that the birth mother be willing to go through nine months and labor/delivery. Not always the case. Plus, the cost of adoption is prohibitive, which is why forcing the cost to go down would actually help reduce abortion rates.
https://www.adoptuskids.org/adoption-and-foster-care/overview/what-does-it-cost#:~:text=Other%20types%20of%20adoption%20usually,the%20prospective%20adoptive%20parent's%20income.
Aside from foster care adoptions, here's an excerpt: "According to Child Welfare Information Gateway, working with a private agency to adopt a healthy newborn or baby or to adopt from another country can cost $5,000 to $40,000. Some agencies have a sliding scale based on the prospective adoptive parent’s income. The cost of working with an attorney and not involving an agency may range from $8,000 to $40,000 and averages $10,000 to $15,000."
Compare that with the average abortion cost in my state (Texas): https://www.aclutx.org/en/know-you-rights/abortion-in-Texas#:~:text=The%20cost%20of%20an%20abortion,%241%2C500%20for%20a%20procedure%20abortion.
"The cost of an abortion varies depending on several factors including how far along you are in your pregnancy and which abortion provider and method you choose. The cost in the first trimester is between $300 and $800 for a medication abortion and between $300 and $1,500 for a procedure abortion."
It's relatively easier to get that kind of money rather than assume people have thousands of dollars sitting around for potential adoptions. Also, re: "financial support" plenty of married couples get abortions to, and two-income situations are the norm as it is. So, financial support would be there in that case, there's other reasons for why they would be wanting an abortion.
3. If the guy doesn't remember the event, he's likely way too intoxicated and opening himself up for possible legal charges as well, depending on the consent for sexual activity on both sides. If you're that drunk, should you really be trying to have sex at that point? As mentioned in previous post, contraception doesn't fully eliminate risk, it can only reduce the likelihood of the natural consequence of sex. This also ties in that BC is solely on the woman's shoulders (you didn't mention the guy needing a condom or anything else here), expecting that every woman would like to be/should be on BC, is willing to accept the side effects, etc.
Not yet. I am recieving catechism for now and the priest tells me to be patient, so I am...
Thank you for the prayers! I have a small problem as Jehovah's Witnesses shun their members who leave and I am facing loosing contact with all people I knew that are JWs including friends and falimy... So that's a problem... Other than that I believe in the apostolic faith and I can't pretend to be a JW qnymore like I did since last year...
Horatius Cocles and Rosa-gallica
and the Son
;)
lol, though our fellow Eastern Catholics pray the Creed that way too.
The Gallant Old Republic and Lagrodia
Indeed, the difference between proceeds through and proceeds from a single source.
Louis Armstrong is not a dead traitor.
Horatius Cocles is right that “likability” works against women. But I think this particular point is correct. Obama could be funny, regardless of what side of the aisle you were on. Kamala Harris’ sense of humor is racist stereotypes of her heritage that her own father has to distance himself from.
I don’t find it’s as much of a problem with Republican women (although Carly Fiorina tapped into Amy Klobuchar energy with her suburban mom jokes), but I find very few Democrats funny in the first place. Even Bernie, who I like, is not remotely funny (although I don’t think he’s so serious he can’t laugh at a good joke).
Obama at least used to be a very good politician. He was so charismatic he could always mask his true intentions. The Democratic Party, by and large, has abandoned even that facade. They’re just blatantly donor-driven and corrupt.
«12. . .2,2102,2112,2122,2132,2142,2152,216. . .2,5112,512»
Advertisement