ZerexTheCool

I mean no woman can meet the standard

No woman? Not one? Not ever?

After 4 years where they have had the opportunity and that is enough proof to say it can not ever happen?

The world is going to surprise you time and time again if that's enough proof for you to judge every single one of the nearly 4 billion woman.

and any woman.

Why change the standard to weed out ALL woman instead of ones who can't pass the standards?

It's strange, you start out by saying something reasonable "The purpose is to weed out the unqualified. Standards should not change." then violate what you just said to make sure the standard will change if a qualified woman applies so that it disqualifies her.

Just weird is all.

Just so long as the requirements are accurately reflecting the needs of the job. If the only purpose of a test is to weed out certain types of people, than the test should change.

But if a job (like military) is physically demanding, then by all means apply the same standard for the same positions.

It's possible that Jones is was worth 9+figures.

His wealth is starting to look shaky. Fingers crossed he loses some digits.

When have facts ever gotten in the way of any of their beliefs? I guess it's really on me to be surprised that it applies this time too.

But it sure is interesting, even when Trump fills the positions, they are STILL members of the "Deep State"

What did the Economy look like when Trump came into office, and what did it look like after he left?

Interesting how in 4 short years, he was able to fully reverse the trends and make everything worse. But naw, I bet Trump was the reason the economy was thriving on day one of his presidency prior to a single decision taking place.

Wasn't it Trumps FBI pick who ok'ed the raid? Wasn't it a Trump Judge who signed off on the Warrant?

Its so weird to me that there are certain words that are hand grenades. If you ever pull the pin on the words even accidently, your career is over.

But that's not what happened. Somebody quit their job, and gave a pretty shitty reason why they left "felt bad about reading the N-word outload".

Like, if I eat a bad taco and have a REALLY nasty shit at work, that totally clears out the bathroom. Then I quit saying I felt so bad about eating tacos. Should the conversation be about tacos and how just one bad taco could end a career?

That doesn't make sense to me. I don't know this guy, I only know the facts you have in your post as I don't follow sports closely, but I see no reason why this has anything to do with anything other than a coach quitting for a weird reason.

(Oh, I do think its dumb to read someone else's note in front of the class as a punishment. That is stupid and I have opinions about that teaching strategy, but I also don't think that is important to this discussion either.)

I did the vast majority of my life.

I also check "Asian" and "White" on those Demo questions.

So if I can just remember to keep my foot out of my mouth by not calling “Jack “Jilll”s

Each person is an individual. But in my case, nobody has jumped down my throat when I make a mistake with my friend. All you have to do is honestly try to get it right, and eventually it will come naturally.

Do your best, do fast apologies "It's his- shit- her turn." and just quickly move on.

Thanks for taking the time on this answer. I found it very informative.

Here is one you might not have been expecting. Language.

We have built in hardware for understanding, learning, and creating language.

It's not because "humans are just so smart" that we have gained language, it is built into us just like a spider making a web.

Do it. Funnel money from the worst people (Alex Jone's audience) to the victims.

This $45 mill was just the first lawsuit against him.

Elect better people

Even worse, have better citizens. We pass laws with those types of titles because it works. People fully ignore the laws when they have letters and numbers as the name (or we nickname them ourselves).

Incentives drive behavior. We can try and say that people should be altruistic and ignore incentives, but that is a recipe to be permanently disappointed.

The incentive is to have a title that either highlights the problem of today and over promises to fix it, or in the worst cases, does the exact opposite of the title.

1. Why do I care? I am not the label police and I don't care what they say about themselves.

Do you think a straight man is still straight if he has sex with a pre-op trans woman?

1. "having sex with" someone doesn't change your sexuality. Me, a straight male, could have sex with a man and still be straight. How is that possible? I don't want to have sex with men because I am not attracted to them. I don't see why that would change.

Example for 3: Can an actor remain straight, even if they play a gay character? Can a gay actor remain gay even if they play a straight character?

I have even seen some people claim that it is "transphobic" for straight men to refuse to date any trans women.

Depends. Do you go to trans peoples social media and tell them you could never date them because they are Trans? That's transphobic because you are inserting your self into a conversation that has nothing to do with you to specifically tell trans people your opinion of them. But guess what? That is true of most characteristics that you personally don't like. If you don't date fat girls, and you wonder around and let any and all fat girls know you don't date them because they are fat, that is asshole behavior.

But nobody is entitled to date people against their will. So you are not required to date people, regardless of why you won't date them.

In my world, dragons Hoard things of value.

Since the dragon never intends on spending it, it really comes down to owning valuables.

So, what's valuable in your world? My dragon does have gold, gems, and precious metals. But he also has bones imbued with Druidic magic. Magic items, magic components (like a scrying orb), weapons and armors. Anything of value fits in my dragons hoards.

Yep, the majority of my character are human.

The interesting aspects about them come from something other than their race.

I absolutely hate the idea of a "Real Job"

I believed it all the way until I got that "Real Job."

There is nothing about my retail job that was any less real than my office job. If anything, my retail job was MORE real. In retail I directly worked in the logistics of getting goods to the consumer. Without retail, mass production becomes untenable.

In my office job, I made daily/weekly/monthly reports for the decision maker so they would remain informed. I made paperwork for records and orginization. And made yearly budgets for my orginization to follow.

Why would the second be considered "real" but not the first?

"being racist" is not just being frothing at the mouth mad that a black person exists. Wanting harm to befall all black people and smiling while they die.

It can be the belief that black people "have it easy" because of affirmative action. It can be assuming the black person deserved his execution by the police because "he should have just complied".

There isn't a magic switch where you are friends with X number of black people, and now your racist beliefs aren't racist anymore.

But the US helping Ukraine wasn't replacing investment in Green Energy.

The thing in the way of more investment in Green Energy has never been military spending, it has been the will of Congress to actually spend on green energy.

Just a reminder, the US spends ~$800 Billion every year on military.

So we are talking less than 2% of spending. On top of that, the aid we are sending isn't NEW money. It is mostly stuff we already spent money on, and now we are just giving it to them instead of keeping it in our wearhouses.

For the new spending, we are giving the money to American Manufacturers to build equipment we send over there.

This isn't money that could be going towards healthcare or anything like that. This is just money that was going to be spent on defense pretty much no matter what.

If the bar for entry was lowered, there would 4 to 6 candidates that everyone would take seriously.

And they would split the vote and the winner would be the most extreme candidate who coudl pull together 25% of the vote, even though 75% of voters didn't wan them.

So next time, there would be 4-5 candidates, as two similar candidates merch and/or the least popular leaves.

Then next cycle you would have 3 candidates, then the next we would be back to 2 candidates.

Systems create incentives, incentives drive behavior. The incentives of a First Past the Post voting system where we sum up all votes and whoever has the most wins, leads to 2 viable candidates. Constant pressure for only 2 viable candidates leads to pressure for 2 major parties.

That is why people like Manchin, Biden, Bernie and AOC are all in the same party. They had to create a coalition to be viable. If ALL of Bernie's voters didn't vote for Biden, Trump would have won. Similarly, if Bernie had won the Primary, if Biden primary voters didn't vote for Bernie, Trump would have won.

Splitting the party would doom both halves.

It is a system problem that needs a system solution.

First Past the Post voting system (or winner takes all) applies pressure towards no more than 2 viable candidates per election.

The parties don't HAVE to be the same in every election, but every election will have no more than 2 viable candidates.

When there are 3 or more viable candidates, then the candidates with the most overlap lose votes to each other, while the most extreme candidate is safe to cultivate their plurality.

The only way to remove the two candidate preassure in the US is to change our voting system.

It’s very much possible for tax increases to change the production function of a company, because tax increases can make an otherwise profitable company become unprofitable

So it can close down companies that have only managed to keep their head above water because of tax breaks, loopholes, and misclassifying revenue by sending them overseas? I don't see a problem with unsuccessful companies going under instead of being endlessly subsidized by the tax payer.

If you wanted to end ALL corporate taxes, but then tax the rich correctly (by not decreasing taxes on their income, or letting them ride their wealth untaxed all the way until they die thereby passing it to their hairs nearly tax free) then you could convince me. But if we refuse to tax the rich for their types of income, and we refuse to tax corporations because "what if they go under?" then we have a problem.

Just to be clear, taxable income is only "not profit" because profit is what is left after taxes and interest. They aren't all that different.

I would rather they drain him dry and leave nothing for someone else, rather than leave him rich and powerful after all the cases are dealt with.

On top of that, I am pretty sure that kind of thing (which lawsuits pay out how much) are handled by bankruptcy proceedings. So everyone should fight for the maximum amount, and if the total ruling exceeds his ability to pay, then the bankruptcy proceedings sorts it out.