Veiva

Anywhere from many to most Muslims in Muslim-majority countries, according to the studies I linked, support anti-humanist policies such as sharia law. In many of these countries, there is overwhelming majority for executing apostates. Example: 86% of Muslims in Egypt support executing apostates; that's 68.8 million Muslims. Individuals supportive, yet passive, of a cause enable said cause. How many Southerners actually hurt or killed blacks during the Jim Crow era? Now how many passively enabled persecution of blacks by affirming their support or doing nothing? I did not reinforce your point. edit: some clarification. edit 2: removed my views on refugees and pushed it into another reply

Although I'm not going to post an opinion regarding Islam and terrorism, I'd like to note your numbers are wrong by some large degree. There are 1,600,000,000 Muslims in the world (1 billion 600 million). You say only 0.003% are terrorists. That's 48,000. ISIS is one of many Islam terrorist organizations, and 10,000 ISIS members were killed in a nine month period as of June this year. ISIS is estimated to have upwards of 200,000 miliants according to Kurdish intelligence. Even if you go by the CIA's ~31,000 ISIS militants, you're at the 0.003% with just dead or alive ISIS members. What about the numerous other groups, such as, but not limited to, the Taliban, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram? The Pew Forum also indicates while many Muslims would not actively engage in terrorist activity, they do support or sympathize with terrorist activity. You can see the often-cited data yourself. Where are the immigrants seeking asylum in Europe coming from? And yes, there are liberal Muslims, mostly related to those who integrated into the West before the knee-jerk reactions after Sept. 11 attacks. This is the case very much in the USA. Islam terrorist groups keep away recruiting via American mosques because American mosques will report suspicious activities to law enforcement. The FBI has failed efforts to spy on American mosques, which is as useful as spying on your grandma. All said and done, there are many conservative Muslims who have a very narrow perspective on Islam. And the Islam population is massive. And extremist sects often have power and influence, either through militias or theocracies.

In the United States, center-right (such as Obama) are painted as communists/socialists (socialism and communism is used interchangeably here too often). Now imagine the reaction if (or hopefully when) Bernie Sanders became the Democrat nominee. He's a self-avowed social democrat. The Fox News headlines write themselves. I hold that Joseph McCarthy, the man who spearheaded an extreme centralization to the political right, was an extremely unpatriotic man. He did more damage to the United States, and political freedom in this country, than the USSR could have ever dreamed of. In his case, finding Soviet spies was meaningless compared to the extensive damage he did to viable political positions. Prior to the red scare, socialism was by no means a dirty word (and neither was communism). One of the greatest American novels, a historical fiction about the common man entitled The U.S.A. Trilogy by Dos Passos, has a large focus on workers and socialism in the turn of the century--if it were written 20 years later, it would have never been published.

Because of various reasons outside of the influence or control many younger voters currently, it's a matter of researching existing candidates and voting for the ones best aligned with their interests. I cite Sanders, who is rejected as being an outsider despite being the most progressive and forward thinking of any candidates (Republican or Democrat), and thus any vote for him is wasted because Clinton will assuredly claim the nomination (do note this is the popular view espoused by "the establishment" [whoever they are], not my view). Largely because Clinton being nominated is currently a self-fulfilling prophecy because of this logic; the mass media does its part to promote Clinton and ignore Sanders. However, media is only given its powers by individuals absolving their own intellectual autonomy to some varying degree, which is counter-productive because the media is under no obligation to be honest or intelligent. There are many occasions where an ideal candidate isn't an option. In some cases, it could be due to the ideal candidate not gaining a nomination or some other eligibility requirement. In others, it could be because nobody of note is running. Either options result in no choice on part of the voter, but most importantly, these situations most often arise due to current voting policies. A reformed ballot system (there's been plenty of proposals in Congress recently that are more than adequate) and campaign finance reform would fix a majority of these issues. And yes, there are occasions where you are damned if you do (vote against your interests in a textbook case of lesser of two evils scenario) and damned it you don't (simply refuse to vote in such a case). Progress isn't made in a vacuum, and idealism is only so useful. I do believe, given advances in technology and social/individual movements, a utopian society is possible in somewhat near future (perhaps even within some 100 years), especially if the massive growth seen in the last 20 years (mid-90s to now) compared to the 20 years before that (mid-70s to the mid-90s), and so on, is of any indication. Here's an anecdote: I think capitalism is essentially the only feasible economic model currently, despite communism being my utopian choice. Communism has criteria that aren't currently possible (absolving political and economic autonomy in such a way no person or group has power over another and human labor being replaced by completely autonomous methods), so implementing communism in its idealistic entirety would be impossible and disastrous (and it's why USSR was only communist in name, and barely at that). Similarly, capitalism would have been disastrous in feudal societies because the technology (i.e., means of production) didn't exist or wasn't viable, making feudalism a necessary evil. And in this modern era, social efforts must be implemented to prevent the side-effects of capitalism (concentration of wealth leading to massive political influence by a small minority of the population [the cliche 0.1% number]), which is some form of social democracy. However, if the necessary criteria for communism were made possible (namely an incomparably [to humans] advanced and proven general-purpose artificial intelligence in combination with total automation of all typically human positions [this includes everything from software developers to mechanical engineers to retail salespersons and custodians]), continuing with a regulated capitalistic economy and having current government influence (i.e., humans in power over other humans) would be a very poor choice, much like forcing capitalism on a feudal society. And you can create many scenarios where a choice, despite being the least wrong, is regardless the most right. For example, the classic case of an otherwise innocent someone either having to starve and die or steal food from someone else. In an ideal world, the scenario shouldn't occur, but the world is far from ideal, and while stealing food from someone who has it (and this someone is perhaps only slightly better off and would be tangibly impacted by being burgled, who knows) isn't an all-around moral choice, it's a necessary action. Still wrong, but less wrong than starving. But at the end of the day, voting isn't the only factor. Being an informed voter and speaking to representatives is a part of the system that typically only the very richest seem to take part in, despite it being available to everyone. Politicians listen to their supporters, for good or bad. If the 0.1% absolved from taking part in politics, while the 99.9% replaced them, politicians wouldn't be listening to the 0.1% :). However, the majority do little to nothing, while the very small minority entrench themselves in gaming the system. Sanders highlights this very well with his large campaign funds donated by the common person and the hopeful youths who attend his rallies. tl;dr: Often times a poor choice is the only choice. Progress isn't made out of rainbows and unicorns. However, there's many other actions that can be taken within the system to increase viability and promote progress, even if it's contrary to some idealist views. Such is life. I see. I had wrongly concluded it was referring to my post (evidently). Sorry for that mistake.

I'd like to note the internet, if used properly, enables relatively easy checking for any average Joe or Jane. Media can only be used as a point to begin research. With adequate research skills, filtering credible information from crap is not exceedingly difficult, just time consuming at most (cue retarded statements like "logic can be used to come to wrong conclusions" and other hot air; tell me something I don't know! Pedantry based on semantics is asinine; people rarely care to read my posts as-is, I'm not going to make them longer). However, research tends to end up being "find the first result that confirms my bias," if any research is done at all. With popular search engines adjusting results based on personal bias, this becomes more of an issue, as well. What a time to be alive. You're asking people who live in a house made of zinc plating, people who probably don't even know how to switch on a computer, to use the internet and do research on whom they're voting for. So in this case, internet is irrelevant. As an added bonus, these people are probably told the reason they don't have internet is because the white man doesn't want them to have it. "So vote ANC if you want internet." I wasn't referring to South Africa in regards to the utility of the internet. My post was framed on the United States in particular about authoritarian decline being a possible outcome given sufficient politicking. After all, you said the United States could never spiral into a political situation like South Africa. But ok. I can't stop you from reading what you want from my post.

1) This strikes me as somewhat unfair. You say the two options are the same (I don't disagree) and voting for them is bad. You also say not voting is bad. So, what other option is there? 2) I also have to say that although the US is far from a perfect place in general, it's quite silly to suggest that it's anywhere near a place like South Africa. Oddly enough it seems to be mainly North Americans who don't realize how good they have it making these ridiculous assertions. 1) Those aren't the only two options (voting for establishment or not voting at all). It's misleading or ignorant to claim otherwise. There's plenty of immediate actions you or me or anyone else can take, such as getting involved in local politics. This means not only voting, but attending city hall meets and contacting officials with concerns. Organize with local efforts that align with your views to spread your message more efficiently. Contacting existing legislators, even if they are seemingly contrary to your views, to personally voice your concern. Politicians, for good or bad, can only listen to those who speak. However, these efforts require individual effort. And while existing systems (primarily economic and political) inhibit feasibility of individual effort, life for most Americans is not so terrible that they are unable to commit some time to bettering society via civic duty. 2) Knowingly or not, you just vomitted the same notion that Darrel Issa (richest congressman, of Republican affiliation) did back in May :). Simply because others have it worse does not absolve those who have it better. Also "North Americans?" I'm sure Mexican citizens in towns ravaged by cartels (themselves caused largely by American policies) are so much better off, right? It's easy to deflect issues by saying "it could be worse" or "it is worse over there!" but it's not productive or honest. Like many proven processes that occur around us (evolution, climate change, geological processes...), erosion of liberty is a slow process. Many reject it's happening because it's so gradual. Sadly they're wrong.

The majority of the US who vote (upwards of 60% of the population on presidential elections; much less any other time) do so against their interests. To be blunt, the typical Republican or Democratic candidate is bought and paid for, from local government to federal, by special interests groups. In fact, involvement in local elections is becoming more of an issue as Congress gets little done due to contrarian partisan politics, making money in local politics have a better return. The mass media is owned by moneyed interests and will push a similar agenda across liberal (essentially anything other than Fox) and conservative (essentially Fox) outlets; opinion trumps reality in either side. Regarding education: it's going to get worse in the US. The education monopolies, like Pearson and McGraw-Hill, have no interest in providing excellent education materials or environments. Their money comes from contracts and elimination of competition. Without free market forces, the only other option is government intervention... but these companies essentially own school boards and legislators, so regulation is not an obstacle. Conservative legislators work towards privatizing education via various avenues, which will impact middle-class and below dramatically, worsening public education to the point of comicality. Liberal politicians do no better, otherwise education reform would be an issue, but it's not; Obama continued the failed policies of No Child Left Behind. Erosion of liberty is a slow process. In the Western world, tyrannies and dictatorships and other authoritarian governments are built piece by piece, not overnight. They are made possible by political apathy, but also fear and hatred and desperation. To think the United States could never become comparable to the next USSR or Third Reich (yes, I'm invoking Godwin's law; be edgy and inform if you want) is laughable. The alienation of various inalienable rights ensured by the Constitution in the name of terrorism or crime and the polarization of political discussion is inherent. Choosing between the bog-standard Democrat or Republican, especially in federal elections, has as much effect on outcome as choosing between a red cyanide pill and a blue cyanide pill. And to be blunt, it's the American population's fault. If you vote based on ignorance, you're to blame. And if you refrain from voting, you are also to blame. So it goes. I'd like to note the internet, if used properly, enables relatively easy checking for any average Joe or Jane. Media can only be used as a point to begin research. With adequate research skills, filtering credible information from crap is not exceedingly difficult, just time consuming at most (cue retarded statements like "logic can be used to come to wrong conclusions" and other hot air; tell me something I don't know! Pedantry based on semantics is asinine; people rarely care to read my posts as-is, I'm not going to make them longer). However, research tends to end up being "find the first result that confirms my bias," if any research is done at all. With popular search engines adjusting results based on personal bias, this becomes more of an issue, as well. What a time to be alive.

Staking is optimistically 50:50; you will make as much as you lose. However, most people will get cleaned, because they don't abuse bugs and don't stop if they get ahead. I'm certain only maybe a handful of stakers have ever profited, either through clever deception that's within the rules or just outliers; the rest either RWT or scam. Everyone else gets cleaned. I went from royal crossbow (500k) and staff of light (150k or some such) with some untradable gear (just a time investment at Pest Control; no skill necessary) to a total of ~2b pretty much just killing a single monster type (Tormented Demons) for 330 hours spread over 1.5 years. That's not even an hour a day. If I had sold drops at more opportune times and maintained my now-consistent 150+ KPH, this would have been nearly 3.3b... Unlike any random 'Scaper would have to now, I tried a bunch of different methods to perfect the strategy, going from an average ~90 KPH to a solid 150 KPH at a minimum. Most people now would be able to get up to 120-130 KPH with "free" weapons (royal crossbow and Chaotic staff) after a few hours based on the methods I discovered. Judging by current red partyhat prices, it would take ~310 hours based on the "lifetime average" price of limbs. It's very possible for an average 'Scaper, especially because party hats are artificially inflated at this moment. In the context of Tormented Demons, memorization is all that's necessary, not quick thinking or high APM. i turned 30m into over 3b poly staking in a week and a half :3 its pretty easy guessing when you're going to win. There was a game series I played, Pokemon. It's all very random, the act of getting "good Pokemon." There's 6 independent "stats" that are generated on encounter, as well as a few other traits that affect viability. On top of that, there's a minute chance for the Pokemon to be shiny (1/8192 chance that has quirks to modify it). It's very possible to get a "perfect" Pokemon through sheer determination in these games... Breeding a perfect Pokemon (6 maxed stats) from two parents with 5 optimal maxed stats is 1:80,000. To get said parents (5 IV) from a 4 IV parents is 1:5000. To get said 4 IV parents from 3 IV parents is 1:250. And so on... And those odds are considered good because, outside of total abuse of the random number generation method, catching a perfect wild Pokemon is much less likely, oftentimes impossible (due to how the RNG works). Yes, 1:80,000 odds is considered "good" in this case, because assuming a perfectly fair RNG, getting a perfect legendary is something like 1:1,300,000,000. However, those seeking perfect Pokemon aren't slaves to chance. The random number generator for Pokemon is very abusable. The algorithm in use, as well as seeding mechanics, as well as output mechanics, is well documented from the GBA games to the DS ones. This means I, or anyone else, can force the RNG to ensure a perfect Pokemon in a fraction of the time with minimal or no reliance on outrageous odds. Why did I provide this anecdote? Because RuneScape's RNG is not reverse engineered. Similarly, there is no way--client side--to predict the outcome of the RNG. Realiabily "guessing" when you'll get lucky isn't possible. Most likely you are mistaking your outlier luck with some sense of precognition or strategy. Given two maxed players with identical gear and legacy combat, the probability of you winning is 0.5, just like your opponent. The only criteria that changes that is deceit (and therefore, increasing your raw DPS or defensive capabilities compared to your opponents). Again, staking is never a reliable means of making money. Only gamblers or scammers think so.

Staking is optimistically 50:50; you will make as much as you lose. However, most people will get cleaned, because they don't abuse bugs and don't stop if they get ahead. I'm certain only maybe a handful of stakers have ever profited, either through clever deception that's within the rules or just outliers; the rest either RWT or scam. Everyone else gets cleaned. I went from royal crossbow (500k) and staff of light (150k or some such) with some untradable gear (just a time investment at Pest Control; no skill necessary) to a total of ~2b pretty much just killing a single monster type (Tormented Demons) for 330 hours spread over 1.5 years. That's not even an hour a day. If I had sold drops at more opportune times and maintained my now-consistent 150+ KPH, this would have been nearly 3.3b... Unlike any random 'Scaper would have to now, I tried a bunch of different methods to perfect the strategy, going from an average ~90 KPH to a solid 150 KPH at a minimum. Most people now would be able to get up to 120-130 KPH with "free" weapons (royal crossbow and Chaotic staff) after a few hours based on the methods I discovered. Judging by current red partyhat prices, it would take ~310 hours based on the "lifetime average" price of limbs. It's very possible for an average 'Scaper, especially because party hats are artificially inflated at this moment. In the context of Tormented Demons, memorization is all that's necessary, not quick thinking or high APM.

Conservatives likes to paint liberals as "feels over reals." Interestingly enough, it seems those who are primarily conservative--typically religious zealots or xenophobes or just all-around ignorant scum (unless they're exceedingly wealthy, at which point it's a method to protect their power and the rest is a show)--tend to promote their irrational, wishy-washy moral beliefs over humanist values, in turn using "feels over reals." See: erosion of inalienable rights in the name of security. In the case of transgender individuals, it's discriminating against them on because "women will be raped!" Of course, they don't mention that transgender individuals are the victims of heinous crimes at an exceedingly higher rate than someone who identifies with their physical sex... Let's not get started on the war on terror (or, in other words, the war on anyone-who-looks-like-a-stereotypical-Muslim in order to enable mass surveillance of the population), war on crime (or, in other words, the war on those with a low socioeconomic status), war on drugs (see war on crime), the red scare, and so many others... After all, conservative ideology is based on the individual being the sole responsibility for his or her actions, which is undeniably wrong. The fact is an individual is a culmination of all his or her experiences, and experiences are caused by external actors, most of which the individual has no control over (genetics, upbringing, culture, society). Since conservative thought is based on a lie, truth is the enemy.

I have no objection to advice. But this is the advice I get from most everyone regarding my illness if I even dare to mention any aspect of it: 1) Get more sleep! Followed by generic sleeping advice. 2) Why not go outside more? Followed by advice to talk and socialize. 3) Why not go to school / get a job? Followed by feel-good bullshit about how it'll help keep your mind off your problems or find a purpose in life. 4) Why not try and do something (cleaning/hobby/something new)? Followed by "you were doing good when you did these things" or some such. And this ignores an equally common "Well, that sucks, but I have it worse!" style response. It's understandable, to some degree, when I haven't explained a rough outline of my situation. The generic advice typically works for normal individuals, after all. But in this instance, I did provide an outline of my situation prior to the unwarranted advice, which immediately shines light on why pursuing a higher education or getting a job isn't wise or possible. And then there's acquaintances I have no choice but to interact with (mostly family) that, despite them knowing even more, repeat the same old bullshit. In any case, I'm just going to ignore certain users using the forum features and resume my previous behavior of keeping to myself. Though it probably would happen anyway, if previous experience is any guide. The last time I started posting more frequently on social media (forums or whatever) resulted in a severe break that lasted months. A side effect was a sharp decline in posting.

1) I pointed out that views about nudity are not biological (such views are nurtured, not instinct), while you claimed the opposite. As well, you did, in your own words, say "biological [driven] aversion:" 2) You said cultures that shame nudity outnumber those that don't (and then finish by stating the majority [that shame nudity] tend to be more successful), as if shaming nudity is some criteria for a "successful" culture. I provide some examples off the top of my head indicating that's naive. I do suppose I provided unnecessary detail; they were simply examples, there was no need of me to provide evidence for this particular arguments. 3) It is dishonest if you don't define "success." Especially because you are framing distinct, independent cultures on your own ideals. And any examples involving religion has nothing to do with Christianity in particular. They are examples of flawed conclusions/thinking/whatever. I simply write use Christianity because it's most familiar to those of us in the Americas (i.e., you and me). Replace Christianity with Islam or Hindu or the Greek pantheon, doesn't matter in the end. Also, I don't know why you'd call them rants? I never insulted Christianity or Christians in any of these examples.

I'm not sure what views you are requesting in the first place. To be frank, I'm not going to humor you. Irrational or not, I feel you are very antagonistic of anything I post (e.g., just recently, your generic and unwarranted 'advice' regarding 'improving' my situation despite the immediate roadblock of my illness that I had [or so I thought] clearly explained, and the recent ordeal over efficiency of bathrooms [seriously, that's just outlandish]). I'd even go as far as to say you're ridiculing me (especially seeing your [pretentious?] edit about logic notation???). I don't know if you enjoy playing devil's advocate or what, but it's tiresome. edit: some words and phrasing and other stuff

I'm more certain it's a social aversion, not biological. Instinctively, countless animals, humans included, err away from stagnant water. That's a biological aversion. It's not nurtured; it's a genetic disposition. However, plenty of cultures do not shame nudity, modern and historical. Hence, it's more probably to conclude aversion to nudity is nurtured. Unless you want to dismiss anthropology to cater to a conservative viewpoint. The 1) number of cultures that do shame nudity massively 2) outnumber the ones that don't (and have been 3) more successful, which is interesting). 1) Fallacy. Appeal to majority is not correct or worthwhile on its own. For example, an argument that 70% of Americans are Christian; therefore, Christianity is [some trait] is illogical, because there is no criteria for someone to be Christian. The only conclusion one can draw from that is... 70% of Americans are Christian. However, an argument along the lines of 90%+ of climate scientists agree humans are the primary cause of global warming based on [???] data is not illogical or shaky, because (in this context), the climate scientists have evidence, and therefore a consensus was formed. 2) Fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. It's like saying humans are intricately unique are special because we are the most successful animal on this planet. It's like saying Christianity has more truth because it's the most successful religion on the planet. It's like saying capitalism is the best economic model simply because it's used in the richest countries. In all of these example cases, it's a simple case of circumstance. Homo sapiens are successful only because of some uncontrollable chain of events that favored our two superior traits (intelligence/learning and minute dexterity) over the immense competition (many of which have superior longevity, superior numbers, superior lifespans, superior strength, superior speed, superior maturation progression [i.e., babies aren't defenseless and hindrances; doesn't take 6+ years to be somewhat autonomous/independent; doesn't take 16+ years to reproduce viably]; superior senses [sight/vision/smell/hearing/feeling/etc], superior offensive abilities [horns, husks, teeth, claws, venom, etc], superior defensive abilities [camouflage, thick hides or shells, poison, spines, etc] and many times combinations of these). There's many crucial prehistoric instances, if absent (Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event) or slightly different (just about everything, but perhaps most identifiable would be the geological impact of the current ice age), would have caused us to be only an alternate future or ensured our extinction while we were vulnerable. Christianity popularity is similarly the result of a bloody, chaotic history, and soon enough Islam will be the predominant religion across the world. And capitalism is only successful now because of technological advances; before then, feudalism was essentially the most effective and successful model, and supposing we reach a post-scarcity society, communism will finally be ideal (not to mention, other potentially viable economic models were never implemented on any reasonable scale). 3) Dishonest and misleading. Success must first be defined solely on some shared values in both civilizations/cultures/societies or you might as well compare an the nutritional value of an apple to Shakespeare's favorite hobby. I can reasonably claim that hunter-gatherer societies provided people more time to live a fulfilling life since they needed to only hunt and gather for a few hours a week individually compared to modern societies, where individuals are compelled to work in some fulfilling position for 40 hours, or 60, or even 80, or even longer to gain some sense of purpose, and I'd technically be right. But it would be misleading--outright dishonest, in fact--to use that criteria to say hunter-gatherers economic model was superior and so we should return to such a life.

1) I never said nurture vs nature is a good argument (though depending on context, it very well is a valid approach, and to be blunt, your opinion is irrelevant as long as such logic is sound; opinions are irrational, proper logic is not). I simply rebutted an unsubstantiated* claim. Much like someone who uses the Bible as the basis of their argument that the Christian god exists, I can counter by using a scrap piece of paper with the words "Potato is god" proving the existence of Potato being god using the same logic. Essentially, it's to illustrate the absurdity of someone's logic using their own framework. 2) As long as bigots make strawman arguments to discriminate, then yes, unisex bathrooms are superior to gender-segregated bathrooms. A unisex bathroom eliminates the exceptional claims of increased sexual harassment, since both men and women will be using it, eliminating the possibility of a lone-wolf predator targeting women by using gender-segregated bathrooms to reduce confrontation. edit: I accidentally a prefix (substantiated vs unsubstantiated). Now corrected.

I'm more certain it's a social aversion, not biological. Instinctively, countless animals, humans included, err away from stagnant water. That's a biological aversion. It's not nurtured; it's a genetic disposition. However, plenty of cultures do not shame nudity, modern and historical. Hence, it's more probably to conclude aversion to nudity is nurtured. Unless you want to dismiss anthropology to cater to a conservative viewpoint.

Alright, I really don't understand your train of thought in your replies. This discussion has spiraled into Bizzaro-Land. Do you think bathrooms should be segregated so women feel safe? Or is it because you think male bathrooms are more efficient, and therefore a universal system of unisex bathrooms would inconvenience men and therefore bad? I really don't get how this even relates to transgender discrimination when using bathrooms, in either case... Seriously, male restrooms being more inefficient because of the choice of urinals (which is still oversimplified and incorrect) instead of toilets doesn't permit, by any means, discrimination or oppression of minorities. And the quickest, simplest, and fairest method would be to collapse gender-segregated restrooms into a unisex one, so even bigots would have no leg to stand on. I'm going to absolve continuing this discussion, because it's just pointless.

It's not a matter of urinals vs toilets in regards to men vs women restroom utilization. I use toilet stalls over urinals in public restrooms for the privacy; the act of closing a door and then opening it adds an insignificant time to total time. Of all things, hand washing should cause the largest build up, because proper hygiene would necessitate washing your hands for around 20 seconds, and there's much less sinks than toilets/urinals. Much on the contrary, it's the fact women have to sit and have more hygienic responsibilities due to physical differences. Also, I really dislike "feeling safe" being an excuse for otherwise able and safe individuals. It's completely irrational in about every circumstance. When I worked at a local grocery store, the unwritten policy was the front-end (cashiers/office/customer service) didn't have to collect shopping carts from outside at dark if there were no men scheduled because of "safety." Considering I was scheduled in the evening, and it would obviously get dark, I had to handle that (as part of my custodial duties). I would have no qualms, all things said and done, since it was part of my duties--but there was no effort to cater to a genuine, debilitating fear of darkness, in my case, while there was an effort to cater to unsubstantiated bullshit! All said and done, the faux-drama around transgenders using restrooms is childish. Make all restrooms unisex. Ridicule people who are bigoted or refuse to be mature. Done.

1) Very little difference, if any, in practice. Evidently, the murderer wasn't obeying the laws in the first place. I'm not saying gun free zones are good, either (I'm referring to the USA here, to be precise), especially considering the sheer number of guns possessed by Americans, both law-abiding and otherwise. That's why I mentioned it. 2) I can't say for certain because it's not something I've actively researched (but neither is it something that is a prominent issue), but unisex bathrooms seem to work out in Europe. To be honest, gender-segregated bathrooms are silly and archaic. If all bathrooms were unisex, this would not be an issue (since both men and women would use the same bathrooms).

Yes, because those situations are totally comparable in any way, and as such it completely justifies stripping away previously existing nondiscrimination protections. Yes. I am reminded of faux-controversial news about transgender students being allowed in restrooms/showers/changing rooms of their identified sex (and always male to female, funnily [/s] enough). Often the discussion is that male students will abuse the protections to perv/molest/rape female students. The fear is irrational, though, for a very simple line of reasoning that invalidates their ignorant outrage: A rapist (or some such) has already made the intention of violating the law. Going into the restrooms of their target does not affect this decision to any significant degree, because it's not illegal to use opposite gender restrooms/whatever (at least in the Western world). The act of a male rapist entering a women's bathroom is as much as a factor as the color of the president's suit when a murderer decides to murder: none. The outrage is a strawman. In the end, such ignorant/bigoted regulations hurt minorities, and offer no protection otherwise. Funnily enough (again, /s), gun nuts tend to say "gun free zones" have no affect on someone intending to go on a massacre, and as such, are useless. Does that logic sound familiar? Yet, at the same time, many of these gun nuts belong to the parties (and oftentimes are the ones) that get up in arms about gendered bathrooms being used by transgender individuals.

Speaking of elections/voting results from Tuesday, only 14.3% of Cumberland County, NC citizens voted. The incumbent mayor of Fayetteville, whose policies and stances are against the interests of just about everyone but most especially youths, won by some 600ish votes. His opponent pushed for policies to decouple Fayetteville from its dependence on the military/Fort Bragg by aligning with the Research Triangle (Raleigh [lots of medicine companies and research], Durham [see Duke University, a premier medical school], Cary [Epic is located there--y'know, Unreal Engine/Unreal Tournament/etc], and Chapel Hill) to move towards the tech and medicine sector, as well as properly reduce crime (i.e., education, community, and reducing poverty; the incumbent used higher property taxes to hire more police and line the police budget, amazingly backwards). If only ~5% of voters 18-24 or ~3% of those 18-29 had actually voted (and voted in their interests), our new mayor wouldn't be some Republican stereotype. I was #92 to vote in my area approaching 11:00 am (4-5 hours after polling started), and probably one of the youngest to turn up (out of the four others who voted while I was there, they were all at least 20 years older, most probably more). There was an issue with my brother's voter registration (thank you, Republican poll quiz advancements!) so he was unable to vote, sadly, but that should be fixed before the upcoming primaries... Vote in local elections. Vote in state elections. Vote in presidential elections. Vote in mid-term elections. Apathy is a terrible excuse, and enables abuses of the political system, especially in local elections, where a few hundred votes can make a dramatic difference. Not voting is worse than voting against your interests; at that point, you might as well live in a dictatorship.

BBC is adapting Pullman's "His Dark Materials." And just a few days ago I was thinking of bastardized movie adaptations, of which "His Dark Materials" I hold the most dislike for. Especially because there was no "The Last Airbender" movie adaptation, so I can't hate what doesn't exist :). Hopefully BBC can do the series justice.

I came across a very relatable video today (thanks to Reddit): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V521Umt1NjU (Warning: minor self-deprecating swearing). I have only been diagnosed with psychotic disorder NOS (and therefore not schizophrenia; to be frank, a label in my opinion is meaningless for me, wrong or right), but the guy's thought process and reaction is like looking at a mirror. What I fear is becoming less lucid over time. The brainhurt of having two opposing thoughts/beliefs and brief moments of detachment/complete irrational behavior is bad, but being completely irrational and detached day after day would be horrible. Treatment can only do so much, and it's honesty a band-aid with current methods (especially antipshychotics, which are controversial in effectiveness per independent studies). I hope I get better, somehow, or at least stay the same (if getting worse is the other option, I mean)...

Now I'm curious, what would you attribute to the large discrepancy between your estimated gp/hr at TDs (7mil/hr) and RSwiki's (3.5ish/hr)? So I know what to avoid in particular. RuneScape Wiki assumes 70 KPH and 1:300 drop rate for limbs/claws. Both assumptions are terribly wrong. I average 150 KPH and have peaked at 164. As well, the drop rate is surely around 1:250, or I've been extremely lucky getting 166 limbs and 166 claws in about 42,000 kills. Assuming limbs are 13m gp a pop right now, each Demon is worth about 54k gp (add another 10k if you use a Legendary Pet with Scavenge and Beast of Burden abilities, so 64k gp/kill). 150 KPH multiplied by 64k/kill is 9.6m gp/hr; 120 KPH would be 7.6m gp/hr; and so on. Here's a brief explanation for my method. Generally, you've got to use certain abilities in a certain order, no exception (so no Legacy and no Revolution); you avoid luring, it's a terrible waste of time; and switching efficiently (such as using ability bars). I had a guide here on tip.it but it's really out of date due to Jagex's ADHD combat patches/nerfs/fixes/wtfs.

To add to Poppet, the Completionist's cape should be cosmetic. It especially shouldn't provide gameplay benefits that can't be found elsewhere. Most pressing, it's the BIS single-style and hybrid combat cape, which is stupid. The best alternative are the TokHaar-Kal, all of which are 12 damage less, 21 armor less, 4 prayer less, and single-style (so no hybrid benefits), as well as no lifepoint bonus. That's like comparing Amulet of ranging compared to an Amulet of Souls; grossly outclassed in each and every way.