Brad

Oy. There are all sorts of reasons to argue it should be legalized. Men not getting sex because of feminism is not one of them.

Hmm...unless we're talking about sci-fi level robots that might as well be humans with reason and feelings, then wouldn't a robot just be a masturbatory aid? Let's start simple. I certainly prefer making a connection and being intimate with a woman...but I don't think I'd be shocking anyone if I admitted that I masturbate every now and then. And ya know what, I even enjoy it. That doesn't mean I see it as a replacement for all the enjoyment and benefits (physical and emotional) of true sex and intimacy. If this topic was about fleshlights and vibrators, I don't think we'd be jumping to the conclusion that it's a replacement, or saying we'd never use such because we can't interact with them on the same level (though the way I've heard some talk of their magic wands... ;) ) Now suppose there was a fleshlight or vibrator that had different settings and was programmed to respond to verbal and physical cues. Well that would just seem like an improved toy, wouldn't it? Isn't a robot--again, assuming we're talking a glorified roomba and not getting into a moral issue where a robot is intelligent enough to have rights--just an advanced sex toy?

Do you need a laugh for the day? Of course you do! So take three minutes and watch the following video on Kevin Bacon's PSA spoof on male nudity and enjoy a smile:

..

Keep in mind he is ahead in the polls that are made up of those Republicans that are registered to vote in the primaries. That is a big difference than what he would likely poll across the general populace. I do agree with you that I'm so glad our own election period is shorter. I'm even a little annoyed we're having to spend the extra money for the longer one we are having! (long for us anyway)

Not being from Winnipeg, I'm always a little disappointed when I see this thread title pop up but then realize that no, the Loch Ness Monster has not actually been located. Sorry, carry on.

It's certainly always worth considering side effects of any medication, questioning whether safety standards have been met, and to ensure such things are monitored. However, often reports of illness/death from vaccines turn out to be...more complicated or flawed than those warning against a vaccine would have you believe (not saying all cases...but many). And generally even when serious side effects are a risk, you only have to measure them against the number of deaths and illnesses the vaccine prevents. If I said you had less than a 1% chance of a negative side effect by taking a medication, and a 10% chance of an equally negative side effect by not taking it, what would you choose? (I don't know what the percentages are for this particular vaccine, but you see what I mean). I always liked Penn & Teller's explanation of why vaccinations tend to be worth it, in their minute long video discussing vaccines in general vs. the myth they can cause autism:

Feel the need to clarify... When I said for me "it's a tricky issue" I only meant reconciling how I feel about the question of hunting in general. As I said, in the case of what happened with Cecil it is unambiguous and clearly unethical.

If I'm honest with myself it's tricky. My emotional reaction is exactly likes yours, and I can't help but agree with you. However, at the same time I eat all kinds of meat. Now, one can make the argument that killing animals for food is not the same as killing them purely for sport...and yet, it's not like I don't have alternatives. I could survive without eating meat but choose not to, because I really like the taste. Does that make me who gets enjoyment from eating meat any different than someone who hunts because they enjoy the sport? I'd actually feel better if someone can suggest there is a key difference, so please do! Now, in this specific case of Cecil the Lion there's no doubt it was unethical. It was a protected beast and there are real ramifications beyond the ordinary to its suffering and death. The dentist claims he was unaware and simply trusting his guides, but it still seems shady to me. Even if what he says is true, I suspect he was quite content to simply not ask questions.

I'd be in favour of a coalition government between the NDP and Liberals. I think they would balance each other out well, but more importantly we'd be finally done with Harper. The stifling of scientists, his unwillingness to allow dissent within his party or scrutiny from the media, environmental policies, loss of privacy rights...I can't think of a comparable Canadian Prime Minister for how much we've lost in some of these areas. Even his attack ads drive me crazy and could be used as a lesson in logical fallacies! I find what is tricky in Canada is that all those who vote left of center are split between the liberals, ndp, and even green. Anyone who wants to vote right, however, is basically voting conservative. It's why election after election even though the majority of Canadians are more liberal leaning we keep getting the conservative party. I actually didn't mind the conservatives so much before they joined with the alliance, and can think of great historical conservative prime ministers. But I truly hope we finally get a change.

I find him despicable . Ego and more ego is what allows him to speak as he does, not some higher sense of virtue or honesty. He likes to hear himself speak. On one hand, his running is probably one of the best things democrats could hope for since he wouldn't (I hope!) have a true chance of winning the general election. And if he decided to run as an independent, all it would do is steal enough votes from the right to guarantee a democratic victory. On the otherhand, I find it a depressing commentary on the States that enough people take him seriously and support him that he is any kind of contender. Confidence is hard not to admire...even if the confidence is just to spit out prejudice, intolerance, and vague promises and patriotic lines that, when you look for any substance, turn out to be empty. Sure, candor and confidence are great and entertaining. But someone's beliefs and deeds will always mean more to me, and I find his too abhorrent to be overly entertained or impressed by exaggerated bluster. And that, I suppose, is my own "say what I think" moment. :)

Do you suppose there's an unscrupulous companion out there somewhere who plays sensual, sexy music that you can hear as you approach but when the door opens it turns out to be a bait 'n switch and suddenly the playlist cuts to Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up"!? :icon_twisted: (Bad joke, I know! And you can google 'rickrolling' if you don't get it. Not that the explanation will make me funny, but....hmm, maybe I best just cut my losses and answer the actual question...) I don't mind or notice if there isn't music, but I find it a nice touch when there is. Usually adds energy and atmosphere, plus a nice surprise if you discover you like a similar style or song.

Given the staggering number of possible planets out there (so many that's it almost impossible to wrap one's head around the number), statistically speaking I'd be shocked if there wasn't other life somewhere. I'd be equally shocked, however, to learn that it had actually visited earth. So my guess is aliens...sure...but aliens with the technology and desire to travel all the way to earth to see what they can learn from anal probing...I'm thinking no.

Easy to see how that would be very frustrating. I also doubt in many cases it's that they aren't reading the ads so much as hoping they can push things and see what you'll waver on. Some guys will take the "there's no harm in asking" approach, or figure if they try it with everyone then eventually they'll get their way. The thought that they're inconveniencing or frustrating someone either doesn't occur to them or doesn't concern them. Either way, perhaps you can look at it as an easy test to quickly tell who you don't want to see. And on the flip side, there's a lot of gentlemen who appreciate an ad that's informative and clear on a lady's preference. Just try to remind yourself your putting the effort and information in for them. :)

.

Always, always at the beginning. This goes beyond etiquette and you have to appreciate what a highly charged topic this is. Think of it from a lady's perspective and paying after is basically holding a threat over her head the entire time that you won't pay her. That isn't a recipe to help with chemistry. And truly, far more often the lady has a whole lot more to worry about from the unknown client than vice versa! Pay for your time. If you don't enjoy it then don't repeat.