patrick.net

Seriously dude, you need to get out more. Go take a walk through the neighborhood Walmart and report back how many malnourished people are seen inside.

We'll be waiting for that report

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be Mr. Dude to you.

As for the report as soon as one of the attack club members coughs up that dissertation on inventory I've been patiently waiting for , I will consider the request above.

It would be nice to know the date of and source for the chart above - just sayin.

Body weight is not an indicator of proper nourishment or what health problems are not visible to the eye.

By mere coincidence was in an area Wal-Mart the other day. See the same shit day in and day out every time I go there.

People going up to the register putting back item after item because they do not have enough money to pay for everything and walk out with the bare necessities and those are really bare necessities by anyone's standards. This is called malnutrition, food hungry etc.

See it in the groceries as well -size doesn't matter - people are going fucking hungry and the few things they do buy are not high on the healthy or even high nutrition list but again this rolls to education and lack of resources to buy what is nutritious.

This place is getting like the Philippines where for most people finding food to eat is the big project of the day - sometimes the only project.

Kakistocracy says

To witness hunger in America today is to enter a twilight zone where refrigerators are so frequently bare of all but mustard and ketchup that it provokes no remark, inspires no embarrassment. Here dinners are cooked using macaroni-and-cheese mixes and other processed ingredients from food pantries, and fresh fruits and vegetables are eaten only in the first days after the SNAP payment arrives. Here you’ll meet hungry farmhands and retired schoolteachers, hungry families who are in the U.S. without papers and hungry families whose histories stretch back to the Mayflower. Here pocketing food from work and skipping meals to make food stretch are so common that such practices barely register as a way of coping with hunger and are simply a way of life.

A pound of ground beef costs $3 (pork and chicken would cost only $2 per pound); a pound of flour costs 50 cents; a pound of flash-frozen veggie or berries would cost only $2-3 (apples, oranges and melons would cost far less, about $1/pound). So a total of $5/day can can deliver 3 meals of feast (of balanced diet) that only Kings and Queens could dream of not long ago, and even today only the dictators and their families and friends can afford such in socialist paradises such as Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba.

$5 is 20minutes of work at $15 minimum wage! You can't possibly be telling me someone who can steal food from work doesn't have money to buy food. He/she is taking food from work because his/her income is taken by other expenses! ranging from taxes, government imposed medical monopolies and insurance mandate to pay such monopolies, education loans due to government imposed university monopolies and license requirement for jobs, high housing cost due to government restrictions on housing supply, etc. etc. in some cases, perhaps even high illicit drug cost due to government war on drugs.

Hunger is always a management/distribution problem: specifically government not allowing the free market place to function. When a person's nutritional requirement can be taken care of by $5/day or less, forcing people to pay taxes to maintain a gaggle of bureaucrats each making $200-600/day to run so-called welfare programs just doesn't make sense: the bureaucrats themselves suck up far more resources than the intended recipient would ever get.

Reality says

A pound of ground beef costs $3 (pork and chicken would cost only $2 per pound); a pound of flour costs 50 cents; a pound of flash-frozen veggie or berries would cost only $2-3 (apples, oranges and melons would cost far less, about $1/pound). So a total of $5/day can can deliver 3 meals of feast (of balanced diet) that only Kings and Queens could dream of not long ago, and even today only the dictators and their families and friends can dream of in socialist paradises such as Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba.

Where ?

Let me know asap as I will switch where I shop. The best I can do is buy one get one free on Pork Loins (2.29 lb.) and I have not seen 80% lean or higher ground beef in well over a year at $3 lb..

If I catch a good sale, I can get top round cheaper than ground beef

Kakistocracy says

A pound of ground beef costs $3 (pork and chicken would cost only $2 per pound); a pound of flour costs 50 cents; a pound of flash-frozen veggie or berries would cost only $2-3 (apples, oranges and melons would cost far less, about $1/pound). So a total of $5/day can can deliver 3 meals of feast (of balanced diet) that only Kings and Queens could dream of not long ago, and even today only the dictators and their families and friends can dream of in socialist paradises such as Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba.

Where ?

What do you mean by "where"? These are the prices at Costco and Walmart. Stop buying junk food, and especially expensive junk food.

Just saw your edit, the last time I priced pork loin, about a month ago, Costco price was $1.69/lb, Walmart price was $1.75/lb. 83% lean ground beef was $2.89/lb at Costco; Walmart price ranged from $2.70/lb to $3.89/lb depending on package size.

Reality says

What do you mean by "where"? These are the prices at Costco and Walmart. Stop buying junk food, and especially expensive junk food.

Will be going to both tomorrow morning - I will give you an update. I try to avoid buying meat at Wal-Mart, Costco however has decent quality.

Don't have money to piss away on junk food actually - not a big fan.

Pork Loins are not junk food when I can get 5-6 meals out of one Pork Loin. Same with a few decent cuts of Top Round.

Anyway this conversation needs to get moved to another thread - this is not what this thread is for.

@Patrick - can you assist in this matter - moving these food related comments to a new thread ?

I agree, real meat is not junk food. I used beef instead of pork for reference, just to be generous and accounting for some people not eating pork due to religious or cultural reasons. BTW, 10lb frozen boneless and skinless chicken breast is $2/lb at Walmart SuperCenters (and slightly more at Costco, I think $2.30/lb in 10lb bags); whole rotissary chickens fully cooked weighing 3-5lbs is only $5-6 at Costco and Walmart SuperCenters. The junk food reference was relating to ketchup, mustard and macroni in the article you quoted earlier; these are not real food, despite government classification of them as Vegetable! in school lunch programs! That's the sort of nonsense when government bureaucrats are put in place of deciding what your kids can eat!

Kakistocracy says

Don't have money to piss away on junk food actually

Sounds like some problems with the retirement planning, doesn't it?

Kakistocracy says

The best I can do is buy one get one free on Pork Loins (2.29 lb.) and I have not seen 80% lean or higher ground beef in well over a year at $3 lb..

Wow, I have no idea of what the cost per pound are when I shop. If I like it, I buy it, but then, I planned appropriately for my retirement, and I'm not grovelling in dumpsters looking for my next meal.

Kakistocracy says

Anyway this conversation needs to get moved to another thread - this is not what this thread is for.

Who went off tangent on malnourishment in America in this thread?

The food cost discussion is actually quite relevant, and cuts to the core falsehood in the faith in welfare state. The cost of medicine, education and housing could be likewise much less expensive if not for the meddling by the government bureaucrats. For example, an MRI costs $2000 in the US, but only $100 in Japan! No, that's not price after Japanese government subsidy, but cash price in Japan, $100, not even $1000! Medicine in the US is expensive thanks to government regulation limiting supply and "capping" institutional profit margin (such as insurance profit margin) to 10%, so institutions have every incentive to run their own cost sky high! 10% of $100 is only $10, but 10% of $2000 is $200! Guess which route the profit-margin-capped institutions would take? The Road to Hell is Usually Paved with "Good Intentions."

Food just happens to be more obvious as we deal with food pricing more often than dealing with medicine, housing and education: an individual can feed himself/herself very well in the relatively free market place for $5/day, whereas government school lunch programs typically allocate $20+ per pupil per day (for one meal, lunch only), but are only able to serve crap like ketchup as "veggie" and the "pink slime" as "meat protein source"

Instead of allowing you to spend your own money, having someone else to spend your money on someone one else (a third party) is just about the most expensive and inefficient way of getting anything done. If you really care about the hungry, volunteer at food pantries and donate! Or better yet, hire them for a job! They'd be able to earn their day's balanced diet in 20 minutes!

@Hugolas_Madurez - fyi not based in Olgino anymore. Moved back to St. Petersburg, closer to the family dacha but rarely stay there now. Can't reveal the current base for security reasons.

It is just a hop, skip and a jump though to get to China, Russia or Pyongyang from Korea....just sayin.

@Goran - will get back to the NY Tax thread later - The only problem with the Kansas plan is the GOP took it national....

curious2 says

"We found 52 percent of identical twin brothers of gay men also were gay, compared with 22 percent of fraternal twins, compared with 11 percent of genetically unrelated brothers,"

Quite interesting that 11% of genetically unrelated brothers are gay, considering 4% of the population is gay.

Seems like evidence that gay is also taught, not just genetic. 52% of gay twin brothers seems strong for genetic argument. Would like to see the contradicting studies, if any.

CBOEtrader says

evidence that

closet cases lie about what they are inside, for example (as noted above) "restroom enthusiast" Larry Craig claims to be "straight" while soliciting other men for sex in public toilets. They are desperate that all homosexuals must go "back in the closet" and that nobody should ever talk about it, especially around kids (millions of whom are also gay).

Also, some people dread being perceived as gay and are even "willing to pay a surcharge" to avoid that. The ones who are secretly homosexual would, in addition to paying extra, lie about it.

One can usually identify these people by their recurring obsession with homosexuality. Closet cases head on down to the local truck stop toilet, blowing Teamsters and other motorists. Laud Humphreys published a whole book about this "Tearoom Trade." They go to public toilets because they can find men in a state of partial undress, away from women. It's a whole subculture: the motorists who want free head might be straight, and maybe the wife or gf won't do that sort of thing, so the closet cases spend a lot of time kneeling or practicing their "wide stance".

BTW, the public toilet closet cases crave status, and often have wives at home. Having sacrificed so much to appear "straight," they "despise" the fact that openly gay couples can get married and have the same legal status without needing to pretend at all.

In a Republican midterm primary, closet cases and their scared wives make up around half the Republican electorate. That is why the Republican party continues to oppose marriage equality. Meanwhile, 2/3 of Americans support marriage equality and our current President congratulated Elton John and David Furnish on their marriage even before it was legally recognized.

Patrick says

Only men can impregnate women.

@Patrick, you persist in denying the existence of intersex persons, who are in fact born that way. Many can and do reproduce as adults.

I have to wonder, what is the motivation for denying other people exist? Looking at your comment about "opinion" (really, your stated rationalizations for lying), is it "motivation by identity"? Does identifying as a software engineer result somehow in wanting to reduce everything to binary code? If so, then why do more successful software engineers (e.g. at Facebook) not suffer the same affliction? More successful software engineers prosper happily coding for many different genders, so why insist that people don't exist when their existence is widely documented?

curious2 says

Patrick says

Only men can impregnate women.

@Patrick, you persist in denying the existence of intersex persons, who are in fact born that way. Many can and do reproduce as adults.

I have to wonder, what is the motivation for denying other people exist? Looking at your comment about "opinion" (really, your stated rationalizations for lying), is it "motivation by identity"? Does identifying as a software engineer result somehow in wanting to reduce everything to binary code? If so...

You are talking about 0.000001% percent of the population that get to keep only one genitalia. That's a stupid argument curious2, becuase it's not significant or improtant enough. Might as well bring up people who are born with 3 fucking arms, same shit.

FortWayneIndiana says

percent

Any sources for that percentage? I have seen significantly higher numbers. 1% works out to more than three million Americans, and even the lowest percentages I've seen add up to millions of people worldwide. Pretending they don't exist is absurd, and a lie from Patrick.

You have no idea what you talking about.

Gender is decided by chromosomes. Not genetic abnormalities or presence of penis or lack there of. As a liberal you can leave your balls and yet you’ll still be a man. You can be in accident that mutilates your privates and it won’t change your gender. Xx or xy is the only factor. And your stats are wrong. That’s a fag propaganda website, hence biased and has no facts.

curious2 says

FortWayneIndiana says

percent

Any sources for that percentage? I have seen significantly higher numbers. 1% works out to more than three million Americans, and even the lowest percentages I've seen add up to millions of people worldwide. Pretending they don't exist is absurd, and a lie from Patrick.

FortWayneIndiana says

Xx or xy

World Health Organization:

"Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex... a single sex chromosome (45X or 45Y) (sex monosomies) and some with three or more sex chromosomes (47XXX, 47XYY or 47XXY, etc.) (sex polysomies)...some males are born 46XX...some females are also born 46XY... There are a number of cultures, for example, in which greater gender diversity exists and sex and gender are not always neatly divided along binary lines such as male and female or homosexual and heterosexual. The Berdache in North America, the fa’afafine (Samoan for “the way of a woman”) in the Pacific, and the kathoey in Thailand are all examples of different gender categories that differ from the traditional Western division of people into males and females."

Looks like some people have no coding to do today or insurance products to schlep...wasting the Governments money as well as that of Private Enterprise

curious2 says

@Patrick, you persist in denying the existence of intersex persons, who are in fact born that way. Many can and do reproduce as adults.

Define many. .0000001% of the population isnt many. That's a freakish medical anomaly.

It is absolutely amazing how many people have time at work to post and comment on this forum while whining about tax dollars being wasted
and people being lazy and not wanting to work - go figure.

curious2 says

FortWayneIndiana says

Xx or xy

World Health Organization:

Whatever you posted has nothing to do with giving birth. there is xx and xy. One gives birth, other does not. Male / female. end of story. You lose, because you chose a wrong debunked argument. Men can't give birth. Cut your nuts all your want, still a man.

FortWayneIndiana says

Gender is decided by chromosomes.

My biology knowledge is weak and outdated, but there are several possible abnormalities that result in a person who is not strictly male or female (xy or xx):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_X_syndrome (0.1% of population)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome (0.1-0.2%)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome (0.05%)

Even if we discount (and we SHOULD discount) the inter-sectional politically correct crap about "fluid gender" and so on, there is biological, scientific basis for saying that we have people who are neither male nor female from genetic standpoint.
I get that many of you are annoyed by over-the-top propaganda and lies from left, but let's look at science instead of our emotions. "Facts don't care about our emotions"

d6rB says

FortWayneIndiana says

Gender is decided by chromosomes.

My biology knowledge is weak and outdated, but there are several possible abnormalities that result in a person who is not strictly male or female (xy or xx):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_X_syndrome (0.1% of population)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome (0.1-0.2%)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome (0.05%)

Even if we discount (and we SHOULD discount) the inter-sectional politically correct crap about "fluid gender" and so on, there is biological, scientific basis for saying that we have people who are neither male of female from genetic standpoint.

The problem I have with this is that those mutations are extremely rare. And we cannot cater and prioritize every rare conditions just to make sure nobody is offended or "disadvantaged". Where does it start and stop? Do we have to start catering to people with over or underbites, slight muscular deformations, allergies etc.? These all have genetic components, but it's not the normal state. We should teach kids what is the norm but also to be compassionate when they encounter those that are not. But we certainly should not let the exceptions become the norm and have every institution kowtow around those exceptions. Cause then you go against nature which - for a reason - established norms and normal behaviors as well as gender differences. And you will eventually destroy your society with these absurd twists.

mell says

And we cannot cater and prioritize every rare conditions just to make sure nobody is offended or "disadvantaged".

That's a different issue from admitting that some (very few) people do not biologically fit in "male" or "female" category. I don't see why we need to pander to anyone.

d6rB says

mell says

And we cannot cater and prioritize every rare conditions just to make sure nobody is offended or "disadvantaged".

That's a different issue from admitting that some (very few) people do not biologically fit in "male" or "female" category. I don't see why we need to pander to anyone

Agreed but even acknowledging those few who are different it is still fair to say to me that you have 2 genders - or better sexes - in general and to teach this to kids. When the kids become older they have more brain capacity to understand all the subtleties and exceptions biology has to offer, but as long as they are young just stick with the norm IMO, it is healthier for them. Same goes for sexual preference, girls like boys, boys like girls. Occasionally there are same-sex preferences, some temporary, some permanent, and there's nothing wrong should one experience those, mention it, then move on and back to the norm. Don't make it the norm because it isn't.

d6rB says

My biology knowledge is weak and outdated, but there are several possible abnormalities that result in a person who is not strictly male or female (xy or xx):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_X_syndrome (0.1% of population)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome (0.1-0.2%)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome (0.05%)

This is what I've been saying. Basically it's an abnormality, which is not worth changing the world for, certainly doesn't make everything crazy leftists been promoting on twitter with their bots true. It's why we call them npc's, because I bet 90% of those twitter mobs are just api automation.

Literally straight from there, xxx doesnt mean they are suddenly a man, still a woman (slightly retarded likely, but a woman). Not a whatever the fuck new acronyms they came up with.

Most females with triple X syndrome have normal sexual development and are able to conceive children.

Triple X syndrome is associated with an increased risk of learning disabilities and delayed development of speech and language skills. Delayed development of motor skills (such as sitting and walking), weak muscle tone (hypotonia), and behavioral and emotional difficulties are also possible, but these characteristics vary widely among affected girls and women. Seizures or kidney abnormalities occur in about 10 percent of affected females.

All 3 conditions, literally point to "learning disability (aka form of retardation)", but not gender differences.

FortWayneIndiana says

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome (0.1-0.2%)

Klinefelter's sufferers don't seem any different than normal males. They are no more likely to have gender dysphoria than normal XY males. Only a larger risk of infertility.

It's a genetic error, as it's not inheritable. Just an electron smacking an egg or sperm cell at the wrong time and jumbling up the code.

Gender Dysphoria in pre-pubescents mostly (~75%) disappears by the end of the first year of puberty in favor of the genitalia-indicated sex, so calls for pre-pubescent sex changes and hormone treatments are anti-science and anti-medicine. Those experiencing it DO tend to homosexual tendencies more than the norm, but the Dysphoria itself disappears and they are comfortable in their own skin.

Several studies have tracked the persistence of gender dysphoria in children as they grow. For example, Dr. Richard Green’s study of young boys with gender dysphoria in the 1980s found that only one of the 44 boys was gender dysphoric by adolescence or adulthood. And a 2008 study by Madeleine S. C. Wallein, at the VU University Medical Center in the Netherlands, reported that in a group of 77 young people, ages 5 to 12, who all had gender dysphoria at the start of the study, 70 percent of the boys and 36 percent of the girls were no longer gender dysphoric after an average of 10 years’ follow-up.

https://books.google.com.py/books?id=TgliDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=Madeleine+S.+C.+Wallein,+at+the+VU+University+Medical+Center+in+the+Netherlands&source=bl&ots=0KK26XwtfT&sig=ACfU3U2xDyYIK0XbCykQTF7nsNzr2KY1iQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbh46kuf3gAhXBB9QKHdNWD6QQ6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Madeleine%20S.%20C.%20Wallein%2C%20at%20the%20VU%20University%20Medical%20Center%20in%20the%20Netherlands&f=false


The Danger is that the Left wants immediate Sex Change - preferably without parental permission or even input - for these pre-pubescent sufferers. Basically damning the majority of sufferers to permanent and irreversible sex changes that are unnecessary.

Many people report their Gender Dysphoria Waxes and Wanes, and some report it entirely disappearing in the late teens and especially around age 25.

Most hermaphrodites clearly identify with their functional set of gonads, which makes sense because the ovaries/testes are producing hormones.

But most of these are vanishingly rare genetic disorders, as opposed to homosexuality which is an order of magnitude more common and seen across the animal kingdom.

Hello Goran - you must have me on alert - you show every time I do - never knew I had such a fan club. My own personal moderator.

MisterLearnToCode says

Many people report their Gender Dysphoria Waxes and Wanes, and some report it entirely disappearing in the late teens and especially around age 25.

I'd say that strict genetic definition of male is xy, female xx. The rest of definitions fall into "feelings" category. xxx, xxy, xyy are neither male not female according to the strict genetic definition.

MisterLearnToCode says

The Danger is that the Left wants immediate Sex Change - preferably without parental permission or even input - for these pre-pubescent sufferers. Basically damning the majority of sufferers to permanent and irreversible sex changes that are unnecessary.

Most of those "pre-pubescent sufferers" just need a belt taken to their backside, as their sufferings are in their heads, derived from too easy life. In some cases there might be a real problem (esp with teens who are gay - their peers can be extremely cruel and ostracize them), but in most cases this is invented.

MisterLearnToCode says

The Danger is that the Left wants immediate Sex Change - preferably without parental permission or even input - for these pre-pubescent sufferers. Basically damning the majority of sufferers to permanent and irreversible sex changes that are unnecessary.

Isn't it amazing that these kids aren't encouraged to supplement their natural sex hormones instead of taking hormone blockers and opposite sex hormone supplements for life..........let alone chopping up their bodies?

socal2 says

MisterLearnToCode says

The Danger is that the Left wants immediate Sex Change - preferably without parental permission or even input - for these pre-pubescent sufferers. Basically damning the majority of sufferers to permanent and irreversible sex changes that are unnecessary.

Isn't it amazing that these kids aren't encouraged to supplement their natural sex hormones instead of taking hormone blockers and opposite sex hormone supplements for life..........let alone chopping up their bodies?

Left does not see the absurdity in that. Promoting lifetime patients, fucking peoples lives up at the same time in name of profit, at detriment of patient.

d6rB says

I'd say that strict genetic definition of male is xy, female xx. The rest of definitions fall into "feelings" category. xxx, xxy, xyy are neither male not female according to the strict genetic definition.

Again, Klinefelter's sufferers report feeling no sexuality difference disproportionate to that of normal XY Males. Klinefelter's is the most common gender genetic disorder.

d6rB says

Most of those "pre-pubescent sufferers" just need a belt taken to their backside, as their sufferings are in their heads, derived from too easy life. In some cases there might be a real problem (esp with teens who are gay - their peers can be extremely cruel and ostracize them), but in most cases this is invented.

I said or suggested nothing to this effect. Only that the arrival of puberty and their birth gonads firing up the hormones usually solves it the clear majority of the time.

Why give a pre-pubescent child hormone shots when 75% of the dysphoria resolves itself?

socal2 says

Isn't it amazing that these kids aren't encouraged to supplement their natural sex hormones instead of taking hormone blockers and opposite sex hormone supplements for life..........let alone chopping up their bodies?

Exactly.

Money and the rest of the gang then and today are on a mission to exaggerate and hype sexual/gender behaviors/conditions on the extreme tail of the human experience.

Again, bring up Laing and the idea that Families had "Family Environments" leading to Schizophrenia. Leftists immediately said the science was settled and demanded the end of all mandatory hospitalization of Schizophrenics. Within a decade, after the Leftists said the science was settled, we did indeed find that Schizophrenia ran in families.

But not because of "Family Environments", but because of DNA.

All I said was a few facts:

Only women can get pregnant.

No man can ever get pregnant.

No woman can impregnate another woman, or herself.

Only men can impregnate women.

Are any of these statements false?

d6rB says

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_X_syndrome (0.1% of population)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome (0.1-0.2%)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome (0.05%)

XXX is female, can get pregnant.

XXY (Klinefelter) is infertile.

XYY is male, can impregnate women.

So I stand by all my assertions above.

In any case birth defects (and all three cases are correctly classified as birth defects) do not challenge the fact that there are only two human genders. And in fact, there are only two genders among all vertebrates.

Uh oh, for the socio-cultural crowd:

Brand new research on sex-related brain differences measured ?? ?????. The last bastion of hope for blank slatism has now evaporated.

"These observations confirm that sexual dimorphism in functional brain systems emerges during human gestation."https://t.co/5Kvp625qxe

— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) March 11, 2019

Out of curiosity, I discovered Heart isn't this patriarchal Calvinist type dude former military with 5 kids in Kansas and a part time old fashioned preacher with a big beard or some shit. He's 50 at works at FINRA, no kids, dresses like a 20 year old preppy. Possibly... Jewish.

Ironically, he was doxxed by some chick he wrote 6 posts on, included her children in it, by his own coworkers.

Man, I love kiwifarms and encyclopediadramatica.

I gotta remember to check internet celebrities there more often.

Also, Zoe Quinn's real name is Katrina Van Zandersorn or something, and she had like 12 aliases before Gamergate, when she was a nobody.

Oh, sorry - and apparently she's from a wealthy family, apparently cut off for some reason (Lying? Drugs? False Accusations?) .

Here is her very honorable Grandfather.
https://archive.is/z6dzh

Kakistocracy says

@Goran - will get back to the NY Tax thread later - The only problem with the Kansas plan is the GOP took it national....

NYC is looking to do bankruptcy for the first time in 40 years as opposed to it's most famous or infamous resident who is imitating a head of state who has how many bankruptcies under his belt ?

Patrick says

All I said was a few facts:

Only women can get pregnant.

No man can ever get pregnant.

No woman can impregnate another woman, or herself.

Only men can impregnate women.

Are any of these statements false?

They are all 100% true, but at least one is incomplete.
Not all women can become pregnant, ergo we can not define woman as someone who can become pregnant as not all can.
I still stand by assertion that the best scientific definition of man is xy, and of woman xx. I do not think xxx, etc are "other genders", and perhaps they are better described as abnormalities or birth defects, but just defining woman as "someone who can give birth" is insufficient.
MisterLearnToCode says

Money and the rest of the gang then and today are on a mission to exaggerate and hype sexual/gender behaviors/conditions on the extreme tail of the human experience.

And at the same time drown out male-female sexual experience due to #metoo.