SMR

How come drivers in Omaha, Nebraska, haven't started driving more so that there is as much congestion in Omaha as there is in Los Angeles? If it were really true that drivers just drive more or less depending on how many roads are available and how much congestion there is, then every road everywhere would have exactly the same amount of congestion. People don't just drive because it's fun and don't stop driving just because it sucks. They drive because they need to get somewhere.

Now, of course there is a fair bit of hysteresis, which is what the article is showing. When traffic is bad, people who can avoid driving will. If traffic is tolerable, the people who want to get somewhere but don't absolutely need to will come out of the woodwork. But that doesn't mean we should start getting rid of roads. At the end of the day, people need to get places.

.???? I give up. What does that stand for?

Canada, America, Ireland, Britain, Australia, [New] Zealand? Maybe

Dying her hair red is not a good look on her. Still the same, he should have just called her up and told her it was over.

This girl should just move to Vermont...

This girl should just move to Vermont...

Wait, what? Really?

I can think of no moral reason to not allow multiple wives or multiple husbands.

Can you? (this is to anyone)

Read my post.

The fundamental, undeniable difference between men and women is that women become pregnant with children while men do not. This has two important corollaries. First, women have maternal certainty while men are left without a simple method for knowing which children are theirs. Second, women are biologically required to invest heavily in their children while men can conceivably pursue a reproductive strategy that involves little investment in offspring. These conditions are obviously asymmetric, but marriage is essentially an arrangement in which men and women trade their respective disadvantages (or respective advantages). A woman agrees to exclusivity to assure that the children are the man's while the man in return agrees to invest substantially in those children. Within this framework, polygyny, but not polyandry, makes sense. A man can agree to substantially invest in the children he has with more than one woman while a woman cannot meaningfully agree to exclusivity with more than one man. If a closed group of men could manage to not be internally competitive long term, polyandry would conceivably be possible, but I am not convinced such men exist.

However, marriage also has a secondary purpose. Not only does marriage allow for collaboration between men and women as individual pairs, it also allows for collaboration between men. In short, men can only collaborate if they can declare some type of truce in the field of sexual competition. Monogamous marriage fulfills this need by designating boundaries between men. These boundaries allow for collaboration between men, which in turn makes civilization prosper. If, for some reason, the sexes became hugely imbalanced such that there were many more women, polygamy could become viable, as long as some framework allowed for continued male/male collaboration. Unfortunately, the opposite sexual imbalance is quite typically more violent in effect. The fundamental problem with polygamy is that if employed in a population that is predominantly gender balanced it will lead to the perception of female scarcity. This leads to disgruntled men and enough disgruntled men inevitably leads to violence.

In regards to homosexual marriage, it fulfills neither the first nor the second role of marriage. However, it is also not the biggest threat to the framework of society on which marriage is based. Divorce, infidelity, and premarital sex all pose much greater threats. This is actually quite obvious once you understand the basis for marriage in the first place and the reason that civilization does not function without marriage.

It probably doesn't matter, but my wife used her patronymic in the middle name fields. She now uses her patronymic as her middle name.

In Russia, it's easy for young teens and even pre-teens to get alcohol and for the most part it's a terrible thing. 12 and 14 year olds get plastered in the streets and destroy their bodies. It's not just a question of emotional and mental maturity, but also physical maturity. Extreme alcohol consumption screws up 12 year-olds more than 21 year-olds and it has little to do with judgment.

Also, people don't really drink because it's taboo. If that were the case, 22 year-olds would just stop drinking. I understand that banning something can caused organized crime. But making it legal doesn't stop people from using it. In fact, shockingly, making things legal usually results in more people doing them.

_{I would agree that they very well might let you in, but they almost certainly won't talk to you and your presence will likely be irrelevant. In my opinion, your presence is slightly more likely to hurt than to help, but by far the most likely scenario is that it won't matter.}

This is just trash talking because you beat somebody. Gaucho is similar to cowboy and is more regional than racial, as far as I know. It is possible to criticize or even mock someone without it being racist, even if that person is of another race.

Both Ghana and Portugal know they need tons of points for any possible salvation to the next round. Should be a fun game to watch!

Portugal for sure. If Germany beats US, Ghana only needs to win by 2.

You may think so, but as the opinion of experts is on one side, the the biased opinion of a layman on the other, you would be wrong.

I could argue with you, but I don't think this is really going anywhere. Hence, impasse.

As your dismissal of psychology and psycologists is based on prejudice not information, it can be summarily dismissed as irrelevant.

That's how I feel about their opinion, so we're at an impasse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/upshot/world-cup-opinions-in-19-countries-likes-dislikes-predictions.html

US and Russia agree to root against the US and Russia in that order.

You seem not to know much about rape. One thing that is agreed upon is that rape is about power and domination, not sexual lust. Perhaps you misunderstood what it means when psychologists say that rape is not about sex? What it means is, that it is not about sexual lust, feeling horny if you will and wanting to satisfy that urge. What it is about is power, domination, subjugation, humiliating the victim. None of which are integral aspects of the sexual act amongst the consenting population.

So you are an expert on rape? I'm completely aware of what you are saying and heard in all in school. But it's garbage.

And who agrees? Rapists? Rape victims? You and your mother?

Honestly, I don't have a lot of use for most psychologists. Their conclusions reflect more on their brains than those they try to analyze. They change what they agree on based on what seems socially and politically expedient. The entire idea of a psychological disorder is simply a reflection of what society thinks is normal.

Do you think all male rapists are fat and ugly?

Maybe you think rape is about sex?

Do you think that women should like rape if the rapists aren't fat and ugly? Most men can probably imagine a situation where they wouldn't enjoy being raped (by women).

And yes, rape and alleged rape is often about sex. Obviously sex itself involves a lot of other things. Rape also can involve power and control, but when you force someone to have sex with you, I'd say that sex is involved.

The whole line about rape not involving sex is an obvious deflection. It's like saying that robbery isn't about money.. Yeah, there may be other things involved in robbery and occasionally there may be robberies where the money is not really the point, but the exception doesn't prove the rule.

Studies have shown that 8.3 out of 10 men like being raped (by women).

You have to ask yourself, though: What does the average woman who can't find a consensual partner for no strings sex look like?

No, just like having a ####### isn't a sign of consent either. Erections are physiological reactions. You can get one against your will.

Exactly my point.

You're supposed to get them every night. Waking up with one every night is a sign of good health, I am told.

Good to know. I'm still going strong.

Yes that could happen.. I remember there was a law-and-order about the wordage of this law.. A male stripper was chained to a pipe and three drunk women got on top of him and worked him up and went to town. The whole crux of the case was if a man gets into an aroused state does that in itself de-facto consent (that he was excited and into it). They really had to be creative to have a set of circumstances where it would apply.

If she gets wet, does that in itself imply consent?

The degree of creativity is a false argument. Even if only one in a million cases of forced sex have a male victim (and it's certainly more than that), that doesn't provide a good justification for ignoring those victims. Making the law gender neutral wouldn't make it any more difficult to punish men who rape women.

So a man could rape a woman (####### in ####### mode) and then claim he did not consent and in actuality her ####### landed on his #######? Then you have two people who both claim to have not consented. Hey, we might end up with America's first rape case where there were two rapists and two victims.

Yeah, it sounds like a joke until you think about it. If a man and a woman get very drunk (too drunk to consent) and have sex, present law says that the man raped the woman. But unless the woman stuck something up the man's ####### (I'm sure it happens but it isn't exactly par for the course), she didn't rape him.

As far as those here trying to argue that the quoted text can be construed to mean that if penetration occurs, the rape victim is the one who didn't consent, that simply isn't how the law is applied. According to present law, the rape victim is the one who was penetrated, if that person did not consent.

I also think it has to do with the fact that we look at sex differently. If you come to and find out a woman had sex with you while you were passed out, chances are you will file it under '#######', consider whether you should exchange phone numbers, and move on from there; unless of course you were to find out you're physically harmed, because something was inserted in your body.

No, actually I'd go to the police and figure out what my legal recourse is. And honestly, that's what any reasonable man should do. Besides the psychological concerns, there are STDs, potential child support, and moral character to consider. I also don't drink, so I'd wonder why I was passed out.

It is, as it is defined as "body part or object" and "####### or #######". How is that not gender neutral? Unless you need to be shown an object can penetrate an #######...

Because men and women have different body parts. Men and women have sex in different ways, so a law that punishes certain sex acts and not others is not gender neutral.

What if the law for public urination said that people are not allowed to urinate in public unless doing so with a #######? Would that be gender neutral as well?

True. There seems to be a presumption that only men can perpetrate rape because it involves penetration. However don't forget we may be speaking of male on male rape.

Certainly haven't forgotten about that. If prisons are included, there is statistical evidence that most rape victims in the US are actually male. However, that doesn't make the definition of rape gender neutral.

Yes, a man can rape a woman and a woman can also rape a man.

A woman can rape a man, but only by penetrating his ####### with a foreign object without his consent. Whether or not this text specifies it, the interpretation that is applied by the courts is that you have to be penetrated to be raped.