ObjectivityIncarnate

No, it isn’t.

Yeah, I get the point they’re trying to make, but this is a pretty silly comparison. It’s like “oh, so you can eat a 6” sub but not an 18" pizza? Pff, fake hunger".

we just barely squeaked Obama into office

???

Obama won in 2008 with 52.9% of the popular vote, a larger % of the popular vote than any President since.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. What are you on about?

women must be the ones to bear the inconvenience in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Women are the ones who get pregnant. Take it up with evolution.

This is like complaining that you’re the one who’s expected to lock your doors to prevent unwanted people in your house. Sure, you CAN choose to trust someone else to lock your doors for you, but ultimately, it IS your house, and YOU’RE the one who suffers the consequences if there’s a break-in, so when it comes down to it, it makes perfect sense to consider it primarily YOUR responsibility to take the precaution against the outcome that YOU (at least, you more than anyone else) don’t want.

Used correctly, condoms are about 1% off from hormonal birth control in effectiveness. But I guess headaches, nausea, and other side effects for women aren’t all that bad compared to some reduced sensation for the penis.

Don’t pretend women don’t also prefer sex without a condom, lol. Condoms are never wanted, by either men or women, when their STI/contraceptive ‘abilities’ aren’t needed.

After all, women are already used to it from their cycles, right?

The biggest irony of this is that women can stop having periods altogether with the right contraception, and that’s one of the many reasons women (especially those who have especially-unpleasant/painful periods) go on them, aside from actually needing to prevent pregnancy.

Uh, yeah, as an idea, lol:

Since spring 2016, we have had the OK from an ethics committee of a renowned clinic in Germany for the clinical study on the Bimek SLV Model 4. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to find the financial means to start the clinical study.

For an investment of 600k € we could at best have the test valves manufactured. But then there would be no money left to push the study forward in compliance with all medical device laws. If no further investments were made then, the validity of the sterile packaging would expire.

It is not easy to find investors for this project if one is honest and openly communicates known risks.

Seeing “© 2018” at the bottom of the website doesn’t exactly inspire confidence either, lol.

Mailing someone more letters than they’re capable of replying to is not equivalent to, nor a component of, gaining access to the inside of their home.

Yeah, that is the key question. Not to mention that the headline is giving 100% of the ‘credit’ to the psilocybin.

Smells fishy to me.

No thanks, I value my time.

Youtube acting like it has anything to offer

This is weapons-grade copium, there is no other platform with even 1% of the content on YouTube.

Probably because you’re making references to a ~30 year old episode of a cartoon, as if it’s your own joke.

Why are you proposing scenarios other than the ones I used to specifically exemplify the fact that the measure of sexual assault/rape was massively overinflated?

Do you think “but what about the situations that are rape” is a counterargument to that? My point is that they counted a lot MORE in ADDITION to those legitimate scenarios, and that’s why such a scary number was arrived at.

The bottom line fact is, no survey etc. that doesn’t massively dilute the definitions of those terms has ever or will ever reach a conclusion like “1 in 5 female college students have been sexually assaulted or raped”. There is a reason that figure isn’t being thrown around anymore these days–it’s been debunked thoroughly.

In my college there was a flyer in the restroom about how something like 1 in 6 women will experience sexual assault or rape.

And that was shown to be complete horseshit arrived at by defining ‘sexual assault or rape’ in a survey more broadly than any reasonable person ever would.

It’s similar to the survey in the 80s all the ACABers cite to claim 40% of cops are domestically violent–in that survey, even if a voice was raised one time in the past six months, and it was the cop’s spouse yelling at the cop, that survey dumped the relationship in the domestic violence bucket. Big surprise that 40% figure has never been replicated since, lol.

One example: at the end of a first date that you weren’t really feeling, the guy goes in for a kiss and you decline? Guess what, even if he ‘graciously’/completely accepts the denial and the date ends without incident, that went in the “sexual assault” bucket, regardless of whether the woman herself felt anything bad had happened.

Ever had sex while less than stone cold sober (keep in mind the entirety of the surveyed considered to arrive at this figure were college students)? Survey says you were raped. Doesn’t matter if you were just tipsy, doesn’t matter if you and your partner were equally drunk, doesn’t matter whether you think you were raped/assaulted, nope, we decided you were.

Stuff like that is the only way to get to a figure so absurd.

The fans of it are the ones who are weird to me–I’ve never wanted to watch a single episode of that shit.

You all showed them there’s a market for it, don’t call them weird for giving you all what you all wanted, lol.

Women can’t be president in America. We have a shitty culture that prevents that from happening. We keep trying, we keep failing.

Tried twice with two exceptionally shitty candidates. Blaming Hillary and Harris’s losses on their sex is a massive cop-out. Trump should have been destroyed in every election he ran in, but the only time he lost was with the weight of a worldwide pandemic working against him, and even then, he wasn’t exactly blown out of the water.

A woman can definitely be president in America. But as long as people like you blame the losses on that, the actual reasons these candidates are losing will never be fixed.

It’s time to take some accountability.

What do you think the cost of a house is, just with the cost of the materials and labor to build it, with zero markup?

The reason most renters are renters and not owners is not because there aren’t any houses available to purchase.

This would just make countless people homeless as they lose the option to rent, because they can’t afford to buy/maintain an entire house.

It would be a crisis for anyone who wants to rent, because they won’t be able to anymore.

No one’s going to rent out an apartment if they’d have to do it at a huge loss. So as soon as this went into effect, all rentals would vanish and everyone who can’t afford to buy a house would be homeless.

This isn’t a good argument in general–you can call anything anything, even if it doesn’t fit what it actually is. This would be like accusing someone of being anti-democracy for opposing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), or anti-life for opposing the “pro-life” movement.

Whether the label is accurate in any given circumstance doesn’t change the fact.

practically speaking, cities and towns would have to be able to sustain that high level of policing, which hardly anyone wants.

But it’d be temporary for it to be that high, no? Am I misremembering, or is this basically the way that NYC stopped being so infamously crime-ridden? I was under the impression that it’s not as aggressive now as it was then.

Hastily-googled, but this seems to confirm at least some of what I remember reading a while back: https://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/what-reduced-crime-new-york-city

I think there’s very little appetite in America to actually put a police officer on every corner. Nobody would like living in that world.

Yeah, probably. Was just wondering about it hypothetically.

After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, right?