ObjectivityIncarnate

The US’s incredible levels of prosperity back then was essentially a unique period of time created by extremely specific circumstances (i.e. the US was THE superpower, and the primary economic force on the planet for decades). There’s a reason the ‘baby boom’ happened then. It was literally a unique slice of world history.

It is unrealistic to expect to ever return to that level. Comparisons between now and then are all disingenuous for that reason.

Instead of framing the changes we want to make in terms of ‘but we had X back then’, they should simply be framed in terms of what improvements are beneficial, feasible, and sustainable, in the present.

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".

The last sentence of my comment is my contradicting an assertion they directly made, with the information that backs up that contradiction above it.

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?

The fact that the University of Pennsylvania swimmer soared from a mid-500s ranking (554th in the 200 freestyle; all divisions) in men’s competition to one of the top-ranked swimmers in women’s competition tells the story

In the 100 freestyle, Thomas’ best time prior to her transition was 47.15. At the NCAA Championships, she posted a prelims time in the event of 47.37. That time reflects minimal mitigation of her male-puberty advantage.

During the last season Thomas competed as a member of the Penn men’s team, which was 2018-19, she ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. As her career at Penn wrapped, she moved to fifth, first and eighth in those respective events on the women’s deck.

Removing the records set while competing in women’s events seems justified in this case.

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.

Probably because they qualified it by making an excuse for themself instead of just owning the error without ‘strings attached’.

This take generally comes from looking at the profits of successful drug X, while being unaware of (or ignoring) all of the drugs that have millions upon millions put into their R&D, that never result in anything that can go to market.

Overall profits will seem much higher than they actually are if you leave out that very-relevant data.

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.

It is obviously clickbait. It would take no more effort for that headline to say “model” where the word “one” is, but they deliberately wrote “one”, because the intention is to make you think it’s the exact same plane.

The 10% of the time when it’s both folded and unfolded must be sublime.

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

A lot of the gay elders i know are tired of history being changed when they were actually there. Unfortunately the biggest myth is that [Marsha P. Johnson] started the stonewall riot and kicked off the lgbt movement.

But in fact she wasn’t even there when it started. She also referred to herself as a drag queen/transvestite… not trangender. Sylvia Rivera is the one who is trans not mpj.

If anything it was likely a big butch lesbian who started it.

There wasnt even a brick that started the riots. A lot was happening at once, but it most like started when cops began harassing Butch Lesbian Stormè DeLarverie and someone, no one is sure who, stepped in to her defense. Violence broke out and next thing we know, we have the stonewall riots. Maybe bricks were thrown with Molotovs, but no one can be credited with doing anything first except maybe DeLarverie asking for help.

I’ve never witnessed a man beating on his on girlfriend/wife, so domestic violence isn’t real

he should’ve been charged with at the very least, reckless endangerment. The fact that he wasn’t hit with that charge is an absolute fluke of legal work.

He was the one endangered, aka put in danger by others! What the fuck are you talking about, lmao?