You flee a war zone. No bed, little food. Always danger. Make it to a developed country. Menial job. Crappy bed, food. Relatively safe. Your life is done? You have all that you didn’t. Probably not. You’ll probably want a better place, better bed, more security, to give things to your kids you never could have. It doesn’t really end. So any relationship seems good when you have none, but don’t sell yourself short. Relationships have problems too, challenges unique to them. One of the biggest mistakes and self sabotages we can do in relationships is to idealize and dehumanize the other person. We are all imperfect. But most people want to feel special, and there’s nothing special about being with someone who would take anyone. What’s more- YOU aren’t the special one. You’re just a place holder for a person to project their idea of a perfect being into. They love the idea of you and not you. A bad relationship can do as much or more damage as loneliness.

Sucks to hear when you’re there- but wise words. Just do you. Focus on building yourself and enjoying life and yeah, that’s usually when you find love. Good luck. As for tradsies: few people would trade a house with problems for no house; but they would seek to trade for a house with less problems or would just hope to improve their house. Just the way of the world. We idealize what we don’t have, get used to it when we do, and want better. Nature of ambition, first world problems and all that.

People get tattoos before they turn 18. Sometimes it is a parent giving permission, sometimes they get it illegally or it’s a “prison tat” done by a friend. If you or anyone you know did- was it a mistake? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Now- ask people who got tattoos at 18,20. Was it a mistake? Some say yes. Some no. It’s a mixed bag. So perhaps running out and getting OTC gender transitioning is a bit much, but I can’t say that I know someone’s kid better than they or a team of professional mental and physical doctors do either.

I’d say 10-12 is generally not an age we should just say “meh. Give the kid a gun. See what happens.” But in the circumstances we were in, and based on the individual kid and their maturity etc- it was done. So I think that’s what it is more about. It’s about the individual kid, what their parents and an accredited professional; having gotten well acquainted with a child and vetted the whole affair, have to say. Not every kid who says they want to transition should, but surely some should.

So personally I think age isn’t the best way to look at it. It’s certainly a factor in determining experience and development. However, some kids are just more mature, more self aware, more resolved and intelligent that others. Growing up we had guns at 10-12. We’d hike and ride bikes with our riffles over our shoulders. Go to town, 15 cents at the hardware store for a bag of popcorn and a dollar or 2 for a box of rounds. Then we’d go plink and varmint shoot the day away. Our parents would teach us gun safety, and instill upon us the fear of god should they ever find that we did anything dumb with a weapon. Then when we seemed old enough to handle it, we got a BB gun, then a rifle. Some kids didn’t get rifles until they were late teens, some never got one from their parents.

I respect these views as presented. Age is a tough thing. You aren’t likely to pick up a violin, ballet slippers, a ball, or get behind the wheel to race at 18+ or even 13 and ever be a top level pro. These choices are usually made when you’re a child. A smart phone while growing up will expose you to anything and everything the world has to offer in your formative years and change the course of your life. Before you’re old enough to vote you must make choices about your future education and career. On the last day you’re 17 you aren’t old enough to join the military or take on $100k in debt but 24 hours later... you are- like magic.

Tl:dr- the basis of the problem lies in our social attitudes towards gender. We have 2, and those 2 have certain traits we expect. We don’t let people just be themselves. We judge them as more or less manly or womanly based on the little things they do, what they like or wear, etc. So people- being programmed to try to fit a group- will try to force themselves into one camp or the other. Man or woman. If you like wearing dresses as a man society will not see you as manly. You’ll largely e seen as broken. Those are the gender roles we build and perpetuate. You’ll get crazy and foolish parents who will put their kids into a game of gender politics on ALL sides of the issue- but either way a little boy that wants to wear a dress and have long, pretty hair isn’t gonna likely be treated well by society. So if you want to help, make that kid feel welcomed, and give him something to associate with that fits who he is.

And that forces parents and kids into a corner. A boy who doesn’t act “enough like a boy” or a girl who doesn’t act quite like a “girl” are generally not embraced. They and their parents face judgment and ostracizing most likely. People don’t know what to make of them because they don’t fit the label we have given them.

There are so many types of man and woman that when I say that- when I say someone is a “woman” what does it mean? What does it tell you? You’re looking for Keith. Kieth is a feminine drag queen who passed for a lady. I say “look for a man with a red hat.” Will you find Keith in a crowd? Probably not. So our attitudes about gender identity are a primary cause behind this. Little boys don’t play with dolls and men don’t do this or that and women... what does a woman do in 2019? She’s a home maker and an executive and a mechanic no? She can “do everything a man can...” but we still look down on stay at home men or male nurses and flight attendants as a whole. So we all have these gender traits in our heads but we don’t have a way to classify the myriad of types of people who might fall under one of two possible (at present) generally used categories.

So and so insists they are a “real man” while their partner rolls their eyes. “So and so? Sure. I have to change the oil and kill spiders for them and they love soap operas more than me... but yeah. A regular Bruce Willis....”

A persons gender identity is a collection of gender traits that are identified with a gender. “Susie is very masculine. She’s like a guy.” “Jerry is very feminine. Sensitive. He’s like a girl.” Joey dresses like a woman, Jane talks like a man, etc. etc. As you mature in life you will develop traits based on your nature. What you like and what you do. That will shape what your gender identity is. It’s something you select through a million tiny choices and not one check box.

They traveled in a wave formation- not neat little rows like revolutionary era soldiers- but still it would look from a distance much like a bunch of gents out for a stroll across no man’s land to the casual observer. And from these details comes the misconception that such a tactic was intended and ordered as a shock and awe technique. Somewhat in the way that it is often said WW1 was started because of an assassination- or even because of a sandwich. There is some truth to the story but it is more complex than that.

This strategy has advantages but a major disadvantage is against machine guns- still relatively new inventions- but most of those along the forward line were supposed to be taken out by artillery. The Germans had dug bunkers into the chalk ground effectively protecting most of their troops and positions. Much of the artillery didn’t detonate on impact or sunk in the mud and had greatly reduced effect. Many of the shells- especially at the forward positions weren’t high explosives. They were shrapnel charges- explosives designed to throw debris. The British had theorized the shrapnel would break up the barbed wire protecting the German trenches. It dis not in any effective manner. Hence- the troops made their way across difficult terrain at a greatly reduced speed as made prudent by the terrain, impending assault, and projected resistance.

So these folks practically couldn’t run- but they also had no reason to. The artillery barrage (largest in history at the time) was supposed to have softened up the Germans and their defenses and left little resistance. At the time of the start f the battle- wave formation was popular in tactics. A row of troops would advance- scattered to prevent clustering that would make it easy for enemy artillery to take out large groups at once. Behind them by a ways another wave and so forth. As the waves advanced- taking out defenses and providing suppressing fire, men from the wave beyond would replace men who were wounded or out of the fight, and cover the retreat of the wounded.

Thick mud sucks you in and clings to you. Anyone who’s been off roading knows that a 4,000lb truck can’t be pulled from deep mud by a winch of give or take at least twice that rating. If you’ve ever been in deep snow or sand you know it is hard to walk through let alone run- mud is worse. Add that mud can be slicker than ice, and throw in uneven terrain or a grade and that puts you at a huge disadvantage.

Contemporary reports often tell of soldiers being so burdened and terrain so rough that they couldn’t climb out of their own trenches without helpers. So carrying that much gear through thick mud- running isn’t really an option. Even in modern times regular military forces and even special operations units have failed missions or been killed in large part thanks to mud.

As for the walking- sorta true. But contrary to the myth it wasn’t just some ploy. A WW1 battle field in Europe tended to be thick mud full of trenches and craters. Very rough terrain that made movement difficult. WW1 soldiers carried ALOT of gear and it tended to be heavy and crappy. Sometimes they had to carry doubles of things like gas masks for when, not if, the first failed or broke in use. The soldiers at Somme were being sent on a mission where they weren’t expected to see resistance or barb wire until they were through the lines- and were expected to not have resupply for a whole day of heavy fighting. Many were loaded up with 90,100 or more lbs of gear, hundreds of rounds of ammo and everything else a soldier needs in the trenches.

I like where your Head is at. Although we have to define what we mean by “destroy” and by “iron.” Iron which rusts isn’t “destroyed” so much as it is converted. To “destroy” it must we break physical structures, separate or change the molecular structure? Split the atoms of the iron itself? Split the very quarks of those atoms? What point is the iron “destroyed” and not transformed? If we use the iron to make steel is the iron destroyed? Is the iron defined by molecular structure or what? Because if we split the atoms we still have the energy of the iron and that can’t be destroyed in known physics.

You all get backed up and throw around words like “straw man” (often incorrectly in application) when you have no ammo. I already asked FOR A NAME. ONE NAME. OF ANY PERSON, VERIFIED IN A PEER REVIEWED HISTORY PUBLICATION- who supposedly was so benevolent. You haven’t produced it. This conversation is done until you can do that. Otherwise talk all you want in ignorance. Prove it with citations or it’s an opinion. Go. Be gone. Teacher is tired tonight. I’ll try to educate you urchins more tomorrow if you do your homework like good kids.

Believe what you want. Go read. REEEEAD. FOR GODS SAKE I WISH YOU PEOPLE KNEW HOW TO READ. Get your fucking news somewhere besides memes because it is WELL DOCUMENTED fact that can be easily sourced that the “happy slave” is sugar coated revisionist history. It’s white guilt and bedtime stories. I’m done with this thread.

Add the orgs etc. figure the rest out. Use google. Read something besides minstrel pamphlets and get to the fact that the credible community of American history will almost ALL agree that the “happy slave” is bullshit. Were there a few? Sure. By and large the closest most any reputable historian gets to saying “good slave owner” is to admit as I have- buying a family and then not setting them free was about as “good” as it got.

nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/slavery/
com/identities/2019project-anniversary/8/22/20812883/1619-slavery-
ushistory.0RG/us/27b.asp
history.C0M/news/debunking-slavery-myths

Says the person who in the past 3 threads we’ve debated can’t answer direct and simple questions. You can’t even define what a man or a woman is yet you were arguing for 2 genders. But I defer to your masters in American history and surely as it was only a minor for me I do not understand it as well as you.