"False advertisement" - women aren't products. It's fine if you prefer not to be with a trans person, but they're not "traps." There's not a secret cabal of trans women plotting to trick men into relationships. Most people disclose that they are trans at an appropriate point in the relationship. You'd probably all be happier if you focused more on who people are rather than what genitals they have.

I can't believe in the course of my getting a PhD in clinical psychology they never told me about this "you can only be diagnosed with mental health problems if you've spent a year going outside and still feel shitty." Seems like a glaring oversight in my education.

Cars are dangerous - that's why there's requirements for who can have a license and it can be taken away from those driving recklessly. If cars aren't a necessity then neither are guns because there are plenty of alternatives to deter wildlife or home invaders. But people should be allowed to own guns just like we own cars. However, I've never heard of a situation so bad that someone needed an automatic or semi-automatic weapon to hunt an animal or defend themselves.

The bottom of the post literally says "Title is in my name."

This might be a wild thought but…don't poison a dog? Even if you don't like them?

I mean passengers exist…but go off I guess.

Abused children are only at risk of becoming abusers themselves if they grow up thinking that this is how things are. If they have any inkling that what's happening is not okay then they're almost guaranteed to not become abusers. Awareness of your own upbringing and a desire not to recreate it with your children is enough to break the cycle.

I'm not sure someone who is antisocial would be drawn to the field of psychology. I've met plenty of fellow psychologists with depression, anxiety, narcissism, etc. but I think it'd be very difficult for a "sociopath" to succeed.

AAVE is a recognised dialect of English that follows a rigid set of grammar rules. So yes, "they" can speak English but also choose to use a colloquial dialect in casual conversation.

Depending on the positions of the planets, the trip could be anywhere from 5-10 months so not terribly far. Humans have been communicating with Mars since we sent the first rovers and satellites, so that's not a big issue.

I'm really passionate about this movie so here we go. Gaston desires Belle because she's the most beautiful girl in the village and the only one not interested in him. I can't say whether he really loved her or not but he is shown to love himself more. He never listens to her and disregards things she cares about (throws her book in mud, has her father sent to the asylum). No matter how many times she says no to marrying him, he thinks he can /make/ her say yes (You may say he's a product of his time but women in pre-revolution France had a surprising amount of agency in marriages and any normal man would've taken her rejection). As for Stockholm Syndrome, there's absolutely no indication that Belle has it. She only treats Beast with kindness when he stops abusing her and only falls in love with him after she leaves. He yells and acts petty to her and she yells and acts petty right back instead of submitting. When he tells her she can leave, she does so without hesitation.

I never meant to state opinions as facts; I apologise if it came off as such. The very nature of science means that you can never conclusively "prove" anything, especially for a subject such as this. Because it would be unethical to assign some children to be spanked and some not, the only studies that can be done are correlational. Meaning that we can't say that spanking causes problems, only that problems seem to be associated with spanking. So we have to look at the body of research as a whole and see that there are more dangers than benefits associated with physical punishment.

As much as I love debating, I know that many people won't just take a stranger's word for it. My anecdotes mean as little as yours compared to empirical, peer-reviewed research. So I'm urging you guys to look into it yourself, read the relevant research, and see what science has to say. There is a pretty strong consensus that spanking is at best ineffective and at worst harmful. This is a divisive issue, even among scientists, because nobody wants to admit that theirs' or their parents' parenting style may have been wrong and it's impossible to remember our experiences from childhood with 100% accuracy. Anyway, please look into it yourselves because I strongly believe it's important that we all understand what's best for children.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-science-says-and-doesn-t-about-spanking/

I have a 5 year old and a 2 year old and I've never had to hit or raise my voice to either. While I was pregnant I read much of the research literature on parenting. I also taught a rehabilitation and training class for parents who abused their children. So for every story you have of spanking helping you learn a lesson, I can tell one where it led to pretty severe abuse because it didn't help control the child's behaviour.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Children don't understand the connection between the punishment and their previous behaviour. Many parents don't explain why the punishment is being given. My suggestion included having a dialogue with the child where they can ask questions and have things explained to them in a mutually calm situation. Again, sorry, and I hope that clears it up.

Research shows that physical punishment is harmful to children of all ages. It may work temporarily to stop the behaviour, but is not an effective deterrent in the long run because children don't understand the punishment's connection to their behaviour and don't know other ways of behaving. Because physical punishment isn't effective long term, parents may resort to more and more severe methods. The best strategy is to talk to children about why you don't want that behaviour, give them alternative ways to do it, and use time outs/cool downs if necessary. Elizabeth Gershoff is a leading researcher on physical punishment if you're interested in more info.

A child doesn't know the difference. They don't understand that the punishment is caused by their behaviour, and it's likely the most pain they've ever felt in their young lives. It doesn't teach them a lesson or correct their behaviour, it shows them that people they love and trust will hurt them for reasons that don't make sense to them. Spanking is abuse because a child cannot developmentally comprehend the difference.

Massaging them every day may stimulate growth and is also a great time to check for lumps!

This comment is ignorant as hell, but the phrase "other assorted flavors of freaks and weirdos" is really tickling me right now.