... (6 cont.) Being mindful of each others schedule is big here. Also, if you know your partner has an allergy, be mindful to avoid bringing the allergen into your home (pet dander, plants) OR IF the allergy is food, make sure food containing it is well labeled (especially if their allergy is to something less obviously in the food)
7. Save competition for game night. Don't compete over earnings, chores completed, or other life skills/tasks. You are partners, this things should be collaborative. Playing competitive games is often fun and good hearted-just don't let that go to far either.
I know this list is incomplete, but I hope it's still useful to anyone struggling with relationships.

(Cont. 3) ... Obviously this doesn't work if you are in a car or at some kind of social event that demands you both stay. But when people get angry they are more likely to say and do hurtful things. Even if information should be communicated about the problem, it likely benefits from waiting until people have cooled down and are going to approach the issue calming and with respect. I know something's are time sensitive, and those often need to be an exception.
4. Be honest. I feel this should be obvious, but sometimes even things that seem obvious go right over our heads when we aren't thinking about them. Generally speaking the truth upfront will be better that the truth when it finally catches up to you months later.
5. Don't be mean. Don't put each other down or insult the others friends or family. Make sure when you are being honest about bad things its constructive.
6. Be considerate. Your actions always effect other people and your partner more than most....

I have been glomped by someone.
I also decided to break your rules. I know what "glomp" means, obviously.

@guest_ touched on some really good points already. I do want to argue on the point that men impose these views. Not because its false but because it is incomplete. Society at large pushes these views. I have definitely since women push these believes too. It's something we as a society need to work on.
I have my own example that I think most of us can actually envision ourselves in. You come across a woman, she is hurt, she doesn't want to go to the hospital, she doesn't want to go to the cops. She insists she is fine when she clearly is not fine. I am going to guess a majority of people will assume she is a victim of abuse. I paint the same situation with a man instead of a woman. If this is presented outside a discussion about abuse and gender discrimination most people would probably assume he is a criminal. I know that's what I would probably think.
And that is still an example of the deeply rooted issues with gender biases.

...therefore nothing is true. But everything is possible. Except things we know for certain are not true. Because we can test something and prove a hypothesis false relativity easily.
And so essentially if you can't prove its false it is probably true is sort of the best we have for theories of the universe. And therefore, since we can't disprove the existence of God-there probably is one. Sure, it's a lot more complicated than that. But at its core, this is the kind of rational that Christians in the scientific community use to justify their beliefs.
The important thing is-science isn't opposed to religion. And when you refuse to even learn about something because it might oppose your beliefs, you are the problem.

...do with science opposing thoughtlessness and lack of education. Church officials understood that their power in the world came largely from the fact that most people couldn't actually read the bible for themselves and had to rely on a middle man for their ability to achieve an afterlife in heaven. Scientists supported reason. Reason is a natural enemy of the state. An ignorant people is one who is easier to control. And that is exactly what the church in those days wanted.
And some church officials may want that now, but a lot has changed, and their is less power in it now.
And as such there is less reason now than there has ever been for science and religion to be at odds. The fact is, science is sort of based on the idea that if you try really hard to disprove something and fail repeatedly, that thing must be true. Because you can't actually prove something is true without first taking some things as true on faith. And science tries to take as little on faith as possible...

@mostlyghostly06 The problem here is that you think it is a question of science or religion and have already made up your mind as to which is correct without even entertaining the possibility of the other even as a tool for understanding others beliefs. This is the root kind of refusal to be educated that the post is making fun of. It's also the kind of mentality that allows for discrimination and hatred to grow unchecked for generations. Even if your beliefs result in being kind and fair to all people, if your starting point is blind adherence to the religion with no room to even understand other beliefs you are still wrong. And more often than not that blind adherence actually leads to allowances to terrible acts.
Science isn't against religion. In fact some of the greatest scientific minds in history have been religious men. Often scientists found themselves at odds with the church, but this usually had very little to do with science opposing religion. It almost always had to...

I agree that people who do not have mental illnesses are just as capable of such acts, but so are people with good parents, or people who were never bullied. Mental illness is a factor as much as any of these things are. Video games not being on the knife is saying video games aren't even a factor. Which I agree with to be honest. We have seen no tangible evidence that video games are a factor, and studying that say otherwise are coming from some pretty biased places.

You're very welcome. I'm glad you found it worth the read.

No.
1. A monkey isn't a specific species. Different monkeys have different genetic codes. Their similarities to humans are not uniform.
2. Monkeys are not apes. Both are primates. Humans are far more closely related to other apes than we are related to monekys. We share more of our genetic code because we have a closer common ancestor.
3. Humans are only about 60% genetically similar to bananas. The number varies a little from moneky to monkey, but it's around 90% in general.
4. Even if your statement was true, it wouldn't suggest evolution was false. It would suggest we had a closer common ancestor with bananas. It would suggest that humans aren't actually primates at all. Or perhaps, oddly, that bananas were primates. It would raise a lot of questions and almost certainly shift our view of evolution. But it is not actually evidence against the theory of evolution.

Over time this meant that less of the population had certain traits, and the primates who did were still less likely to have children. Even if you have start with a population that is 100% blue hair and only has a .01% chance of producing a red haired child. If every blue haired child was killed on their 30th birthday, eventually you would be up with a population that has nearly all red hair.
This is again a simplification of the process, but they key is there. Changes are the result if random mutations I'm the genetic code being beneficial enough that they get passed on more than what used to be typical. Evolution is slow.

I want start by stating I don't think there is anything wrong with believing God created humans who were genetically the same species of humans we see today with no evolution having happened. I think it raises questions about the origin of other humanoid species in our genus and why God choose to create humans specifically when similar species already existed in the world. But again, I don't see anything wrong with believing that.
The problem I have is with people having a problem with learning what the theory is to better understand it because it is contrary to their religious beliefs.
And on that note, I have a problem with your statement. It's an obvious strawman argument. You make the belief in evolution seem stupid by misrepresentation and oversimplification. No primate, monkey or otherwise, changed in its life to become more human like. At least not in the theory of evolution. Instead, primate children which more closely resembled humans had a high survival or mating rate.

It depends. If the spaghetti is cooked but not overcooked there is a good chance it will stick to a porous surface like a cupboard or wood paneling. It may even stick to wallpaper or painted plaster. Increased chance if your spaghetti is cooked in the minimal water needed for the amount of pasta. You know how spaghetti sometimes sticks to itself in the pan? This is mostly due to starch, which makes your spaghetti stickier in general. If you have more water less starch will stick to each piece of spaghetti, so your spaghetti will be less sticky.
In short, various factors determine if your spaghetti will stick and therefore well it is completely possible to get spaghetti to stick to your wall, it is not a good measure of if your spaghetti is cooked.

Evolution is change in genetics over time. That's all. There is literally no reason why belief in creationism should cause you to believe evolution is impossible.
Believing a powerful being created the universe makes you a creationist. Believing evolution is impossible just makes you ignorant. It has happened within recorded history. Animal husbandry is literally humans taking control of evolution in particular species.

So was I. This joke always seemed dumb to me. Like, this is an old man with a still empty jar, of course he had a hard time opening the jar. The doctor in this story is an idiot.

The doctor thought the man got assistance jerking off

Now I feel super old.
It was an extremely popular song when it came out. I can remember listening to it in my english class. It was played everywhere, and people who bothered to listen to the lyrics tended to enjoy it for the beat anyway. A lot of people knew what the song was about, but almost no one cared.

Yes. And as @jasonmon pointed out, this can be especially problematic if you or your partner are tall. A queen size bed is both wider and longer than a full. And while full xl does take up less space, it's still takes up more space than a full, and finding sheets is a huge pain in the ass. I had a full xl for space reasons at one time (because I am tall). I HAD to order sheets online, as there were literally no local options. And then the first sheets I ordered the company sent me the wrong sheets and never responded to my complaint. (Amazon refunded me the money, but I still didn't have sheets)
I was able to get sheets, but it was an ordeal.

Yeah, being tall has downsides. I'm not too tall for my bed now, but when I was a teen I had a full size bed. And my feet didn't hang off the edge (I'm not THAT tall) but if my feet were against the foot board and I was laying parallel to the edge, the top of my head was just about an inch shy if the headboard. And I was one of those one arm under the pillow sort of people in those days. My solution was to lay at an angle and take advantage of the diagonal being longer than the length.

The Incredibles 2 is actually referencing something called "New Math" which was a brief but drastic change in the way American schools taught math in the 1960's.

The thing is, having your parent bounce in and out of your life is often worse than them being gone entirely, especially if you have a healthy family with your adoptive parents. So I understand the desire to keep your child's birth parents from being involved, especially when the child is young. Especially if the situation surrounding them being given up is a complicated one.
There is a big difference between an open adoption of a child of a 14 year old, who wants to keep seeing their child and being part of their life, but just isn't in a place to raise a child, and the adoption of a child of a drug addict, who can't be there consistently for their child. And maybe the parent wants to be, and maybe they are even working to improve themselves. But at some point it's not about if the parent is deserving of seeing the child, but what is best for the child.
In any case it's not a simple answer, and probably needs case by case assessment.