🔥 Popular | Latest

Dating, Family, and Friends: HOWTO DETERMINE IF YOUR DATE IS MARRIED 1Examine the left ring finger After a period of about one year, a wedding band leaves a circle of lighter skin around the base of the ring finger. Your date may also touch the base of that finger inadvertently, as if something is missing 2 Ask for a home phone number Most people in committed relationships spend at least one or two hours a week on the phone; if your date will not give you his home phone number, then he is wor ried someone else will answer when you call 3 Insist on holding hands when walking in public. If your date is interested and attracted to you, then he will not object to such a small and commonplace display of affection unless he fears that someone wil spot you together Search your date's car The automobile registration may be in the spouse's name, or in both names. It is usually kept in the glove compartment, behind the sun visor or, for non-smok- ers, in the ashtray. Look for signs of a spouse (clothing, makeup) or other indicators (pacifiers, pieces of crack- ers, toys) of a family your date has not mentioned. 27. bto determine if your date is married un vison glove compartment ashtray earch your date's car. The automobile registration may include the spouse's mame. 5 Ask to meet some of his friends. After two or three dates, this is not an unusual request. If your date claims that his friends remain close to his ex-wife, or that it's too soon to bring you into their social circle, you have good reason to believe that you are not the only woman in his life. Invite him to spend the night. f you have engaged in sexual activity on several occa- sions but he always refuses to stay the night, then he very likely has someone waiting for him 6 28. cbapter I: defensive dating novelty-gift-ideas:The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook: Dating Sex

novelty-gift-ideas:The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook: Dating Sex

Save
Dating, Family, and Friends: HOWTO DETERMINE IF YOUR DATE IS MARRIED 1Examine the left ring finger After a period of about one year, a wedding band leaves a circle of lighter skin around the base of the ring finger. Your date may also touch the base of that finger inadvertently, as if something is missing 2 Ask for a home phone number Most people in committed relationships spend at least one or two hours a week on the phone; if your date will not give you his home phone number, then he is wor ried someone else will answer when you call 3 Insist on holding hands when walking in public. If your date is interested and attracted to you, then he will not object to such a small and commonplace display of affection unless he fears that someone wil spot you together Search your date's car The automobile registration may be in the spouse's name, or in both names. It is usually kept in the glove compartment, behind the sun visor or, for non-smok- ers, in the ashtray. Look for signs of a spouse (clothing, makeup) or other indicators (pacifiers, pieces of crack- ers, toys) of a family your date has not mentioned. 27. bto determine if your date is married un vison glove compartment ashtray earch your date's car. The automobile registration may include the spouse's mame. 5 Ask to meet some of his friends. After two or three dates, this is not an unusual request. If your date claims that his friends remain close to his ex-wife, or that it's too soon to bring you into their social circle, you have good reason to believe that you are not the only woman in his life. Invite him to spend the night. f you have engaged in sexual activity on several occa- sions but he always refuses to stay the night, then he very likely has someone waiting for him 6 28. cbapter I: defensive dating novelty-gift-ideas:The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook: Dating Sex

novelty-gift-ideas:The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook: Dating Sex

Save
God, Ignorant, and Love: HE WO MAN FE MALE HU MAN PER SON visual-poetry »swofehuperx by richard tipping (+) [vial mitosisisyourtosis men fabricated the idea that they are the default sex to compensate for their biological inferiority and general superfluousness this is not just the natural order this is the language of a patriarchal culture rhysiare Omg no, you are wrong on so many levels and as a linguist this makes me ache something terrible. In my linguistics dass in undergrad, we actually made fun of people who think like you along these lines and for good reason, because you are wholly ignorant and are choosing to spin narratives about things and fields which you know completely nothing about yet pretend you do. 1 She: This word evolved naturally from Old English from seo/heo which were just words to refer to feminine-female people evolving from Proto- Germanic words meaning that/there. He as a word evolved from the same ideas but Proto-Germanic words for thishere, Your idea of patriarchal language further falls apart when you compare this part of English to other Germanic languages, of which English is related, the words in German for he and she are 'er and sie", completely unrelated So it is by clear happenstance, not some patriarchal conspiracy that the words he and "she in English have similar form. 2. Woman: Oh god this one always gets my goat when people go for this one. Man did not used to mean "male", man used to mean humanity/human being, the old words in Old English for male adult person and female adult person were werman and wifman respectively, we can see this relation in words like werewolf and wife as being the remnants of the base "wer- and the base wif-. Woman evolved phonologically from the word wifman by natural processes where the 'f sound dropped and the became lax. Man dropped its wer stem for reasons mostly unknown but I can guarantee have nothing to do with patriarchy because phonological change has no basis in that. 3. Female: Male and Female actually come etymologically from two completely different words. Male comes from Old French masle which meant masculine, while Female came from Old French as well femella which meant young woman. This is another case, just like he and she where the words coincidentally ended up looking similar without having any direct correlation in historical linguistic processes to make them as such 4 Hman: This word etymologically derives from Proto-Indo- European "ghomon which means earthly being as opposed to heavenly being which would refer to gods. You have some small glimmer of hope here in that the word does eventually branch off into the word for man in some languages but this is still too small of a precedent to base any conspiratorial thinking like you are doing off of 5. Person: This one offends me the most, simply because I love the fuck out of Etruscan language and your continued ignorance just irks me at this point. Person derives from persona from Latin which meant the same meaning, which ultimately derived from phersu Etruscan for mask as Etruscans would often have theatre performers use masks to give identity to the performers. So never once did "person have any meaning to do with son So yes, this IS the natural order or language. Please never proselytise your faulty ideology and misandrist thinking within speaking about word origins and morphology again, as unless you actually do fact checking I will school the everloving hell out of you, stay in vour lane. Swofehuper He Man Male Manson
Save
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Save
Crying, Dude, and Fucking: WVTM 13 YELLOWHAMMERNEWS.COM 11-year-old Alabamian shoots home intruder, mocks him for 'crying like a little baby' AT&T LTE 11:16 AM 96% і 1,680 comments Imagine breaking into a house, getting shot by a kid and then he fortnite dances over your dying body trilllizard666: hufflpuffin: thefreakynigga: broadwaybutterfly310: He’s gonna be a serial killer when he grows up. Who the fucks shoots and person for any reason and than mocks him for being in pain holy fuck How to tell someone is privileged and has never been victim of violence 101 I don’t know why that article says he mocked him, as if he was standing over his body and insulting him. He didn’t. The boy commented that the guy was crying after the fact. The man who robbed his house was a methhead and had done so multiple times to his house and others in the area. The intruder was armed and told the boy that he was going to kill him. The boy got his gun but the intruder didn’t take him seriously until he fired. The intruder was shot in the leg as he started to run and he was taken to the hospital with injuries that were not life-threatening. The boy later said the intruder was crying like a baby.  Dude got a taste of his own medicine, threatening to kill an innocent child with a gun. He wasnt mocked but he absolutely fucking deserves it because he wouldn’t be crying if he shot that kid and killed him.  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-alabama-boy-shoots-intruder-20160501-story.html “who the fuck shoots a person for any reason” well i dunno, someone breaking into someone’s house armed and threatening to kill them’s a pretty good reason in my opinion Every time somebody makes a brain-dead argument against shooting criminals in the course of their violent crimes a puppy dies.
Save