Oh sweet baby James. Firstly- men do not need women to build the species, men and women are both needed to do that. Women do not need men to build civilization either, that alone is pretty ignorant In this totally ignorant statement. Lastly- attractive people tend to use flirting to get what they want- that includes men. Anyone can and often does use this behavior, some are just more successful at it. By its nature if used “right” we are still using flirting to get what we want- since what we would want would be the person we are flirting with. This is just a freaking mess that if you examine for even 5 seconds you’ll see is the sign of someone who needs to do some growing, and maybe some healing.

I don’t have hard numbers here, but there aren’t that many 60’s era vehicles left registered for road use, and most of those that are have become enthusiast vehicles and collectors pieces that aren’t driven as primary transport. It is true that we do have to consider the “worst” cases when setting safety limits, but there’s an argument to be made for personal judgment. Sadly we can’t rely on everyone’s judgment, and it’s simpler to just set rules based on the worst case, and safer as well. However that relies on our current system of treating cars like cell phones instead of complex 3,000lb murder machines carrying more kinetic force than a .50 cal rifle shot. Personally I’d advocate stricter requirements for driver ability. If a base skill of 5 is required to drive instead of 1, we could raise the “low” bar substantially and make roads safer.

When I was young a friend made over 2x what anyone else did. Most people waited after a meal for them to pay the check, after all that was a lot to each of us but so little to them. Eventually my friend started refusing to pay others way, lend money when people overspent. Those friends had grown to expect it, and many were left in a bad position when my friend told them no. We expect the rich to pay for things because they have more, but what are we doing? How much is star bucks worth? Where did they get that money? From us. If we Gabe that money towards helping the poor instead of buying sugar and beans, how many billions would be there to help? So people don’t want to give Ip their pointless excesses to help, but expect those with more to carry the burden. The royal family has done more to help than most people ever will. Even their pocket change they donate is probably more than most people will give in a life time. We need to stop expecting other people to solve our problems.

Self interest is almost always the key. A person will want what is best for them, or what impacts them the least negatively. We associate with groups we see having common interest as the strength of the group makes it more likely we get an advantageous outcome. Most all humans behave this way. The key is in being as fair as possible while making sure to allow equitable benefits to each individual- or more manageably on a large scale- group. Her mentality here is very self centered, countering with a self centered mentality doesn’t make one any better. Some people just don’t care about “fair” and only want what benefits them without concern for others. When people like this clash, we end up with problems like we face today. We tend to elect officials with this mindset who we identify with our group as we feel they will best protect our own interests. Imagine a world where we were above that- where we made concessions based on equitable distribution and not on wanting more for ourselves.

They may have made some improvements to the 88 series in the last 50 years.

To be clear I’m not saying I like it, or even that I endorse or approve it. I’m just saying these are some fundamental reasons it is a popular choice. Matte and low gloss tend to hide flaws. They are often used to flatter the less photogenic- or where touch ups won’t be done post. Important to humans is that what looks good in person and what looks good on camera are often very different and opposing each other. You may notice that people appearing on tv or movies, or people going all out to photograph an event like a wedding or gala look overdone- almost “trashy” and very heavy and fake in person. Similar deal. They were made up to look good on camera, in photos they’ll look good, but in person not so much.

There are a few reasons. Humans tend to have primitive desires buried below many of our sensibilities. One is “shiny=oooh.” Building on that- the implications of a shiny person can evoke ideas in our subconscious and make us think of sweat. This can give us an idea of activity and physical exertion and ability- or trigger parts of us that think of post coital exertion. The former feeds off the latter anyway- in simple terms a sex angle that speaks to our tiny monkey minds within. Another artistic reason is curves. In math a line is not interesting. Where the line changes trajectory is. This is true of aesthetics too. Clothing models tend to be straight and skinny to showcase the clothes. Walking clothes hangers. Figure models tend to have curves- and both general have prominent facial and bone structures. Like a white car versus a clean and waxed deep black- or a laquer piano- the shine causes light to accentuate curves and where lines change- drawing attention to those areas.

A guy I worked with’s father in law set many of the speed limits seen on curves and the like looong ago. Part of the job involved driving around and increasing speed until things got “unsafe” and then recording that in a note book. The car he used? An ancient Oldsmobile 88. Those speed limits were set based on a car that arguably couldn’t be driven safely in a parking lot at a crawl let alone at any speed, with engineering that hasn’t been close to satisfactory for about a century. Many posted speed limits are based off assumption about old technology and not the capabilities of newer vehicles. Of course- drivers still play a role, and whenever you set an operational safety limit you set it for the worst operators, not the best. Still- speed limits carry very little weight when scrutinized beyond needing an upper limit for the lowest denominator.

No worries. You’re welcome.

It’s contentious and complex. There’s very compelling arguments that bugs fed on waste would be the most sustainible food source. There’s layers of economic and social baggage as well since the food industry is global, and major changes can effect people all over in unknown ways good and bad. I can say that the intention behind it may be commendable- but if you look at the right angle we can find a reason to say almost anything is really. Taken to extremes things like recycling our dead would be good for the planet- in theory at least. It depends on how far you want to take things, and what we are willing to give up. Someday you may be homeless- that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t sleep in bed to save that money just in case. It also doesn’t mean you should buy a $100k bed either per se. Being responsible doesn’t always mean taking things to extremes- corruption is in every industry including agriculture. But we are all just trying to do what we think is “right.” Isn’t that commendable?

Or she has strict parents. They look rather young.

This is one of those cases of “words” having pesky “meanings” being inconvenient I suppose. Perhaps something like: “Karrueche looks like Disney’s Pocahontas.” Or: “If Disney did a live action Pocahontas they should cast Karrueche.” That doesn’t begin to touch on underlying issues with Disney film itself, or many of the complex feelings people have about it. The comment itself shows an ignorance that while may not come from malice, is still a slap in the face. Nor does it endorse either of those statements- which in their own right may be controversial. They at least show some level of thought or care on a sensitive cultural matter.

Each person has their own opinion. The general guideline is that a vegetarian does not eat animal flesh, but will consume animal products like milk, egg, etc. a vegan does not consume animal flesh, but also does not consume animal products, or products derived from animals and their components. While not exclusive to veganism- a proportionally larger sampling of vegans will refuse to wear or use products involving animal products such as leathers, cosmetics and soaps with animal fats etc. They are more likely to refuse products tested on animals, as well as foods prepared or served where “contamination” by animal products is possible (such as off the same grill, or “picking” meat out of a dish like a stir fry. Vegans may be so specific as to refuse products where even a process of extracting or preparing chemicals and compounds uses animal products, even if no measurable trace of those compounds is in the final product.

It’s more about choice, and the standard we hold men to versus women. Shaving ones legs is not basic hygiene, nor is it required of men- but less so if one doesn’t show their legs in a professional setting. Yes- we expect men for the most part to shave facial hair- but compare the cost and effort of shaving or trimming facial hair to the costs and effort of the standards of makeup, eye brows/lashes, skin regiments, body image, etc we hold women to and you’ll see that things like “they get to wear dresses when it’s hot!” Don’t hold up. The classic argument is that “women do it because they want to! They are the ones holding themselves to those standards!” Ok. Look at these comments for when a woman doesn’t hold herself to those standards. Would you still argue that societies idea of what a woman should do as the minimum to leaving the house is “self imposed”?

Or.... maybe they don’t see being poor as worse than not being alive? Maybe they see a world where their kids may have a better shot, and if they don’t make it they think life is still worth living? Let’s look at history. Through history people tended to have larger families. It was advantageous. Like modern “poor” these people didn’t have easy abundant access to food, much of the technology used in modern life, or medicine let alone modern medicine. A larger family allowed them better odds. Even in modern life many of those advantages exist. A $3,000 a month 2 bedroom home (a good deal where I live), if you have 4 people earning money living there- that’s $750 each must earn for rent. 8 people makes it $375 each. Food is relatively cheap and can be skimped on. Same with clothes etc. a home is the basic foundation of life- especially in the modern world. When you are old and have no retirement many kids+grand kids means more people to carry the burden of taking care of you.

One of us always lies, and one of us always tells the truth....