TACOMcCail

On the feminist spectrum, I consider myself an anti-feminist. However, I am NOT anti-women, or anti-equality.

I agree with some of what some feminists on this site say. I also believe some of them, when they say that feminism is about equality. By believe, I mean that I do not think that they are lying when they say it. However, when I hear about feminists like Anita Sarkeesian and that whole video game absurdity, I cannot take that claim seriously. Feminists, can you decry the whining about silly things like video games? If you could do that...if you could say, "Ya, Anita is a wacko...she's not one of us," I could take you guys a little more seriously. Rinse and repeat for all crazies for best results.

Anti-feminists, I tend to agree with most of you, but sometimes I see things like, "Women aren't smart enough to understand X or Y," and stuff like that makes you look bad.

I believe that the moderates from each camp are capable of reconciling some things, and I think it's very important that we do. Not that think this little group of regulars on this section is going to save the world, but if we can bridge the divide that I think the WORD feminism has left in the wake of its success, on the national scale, I think we can improve things tremendously in this country.

What do you guys think? Are we doomed to do battle forever, or can we turn this into something useful?

When we censor, we hide ideas from the rest of the world. If it's a good idea, then clearly censoring it is bad, and if it's a bad idea, then isn't it still useful for others to see it, to be aware that those bad ideas exist?

Isn't talking about how terrible an idea is, vastly more effective than pretending that it doesn't exist?

I'm not saying there should never be interference, but that it should happen rarely so it would actually be surprising and gain heat for someone rather than just being copout endings.

It would be more interesting to see different wrestlers facing each other in singles matches that had actual outcomes with tangible consequences.

Tag team matches would be about tag team titles, and not just filler Raw main events.

BQ Who do you think will win the 2015 Royal Rumble?

1988 - Jim Duggan

1989 - Big John Studd

1990 - Hulk Hogan

1991 - Hulk Hogan

1992 - Ric Flair

1993 - Yokozuna

1994 - Bret Hart/Lex Luger

1995 - Shawn Michaels

1996 - Shawn Michaels

1997 - Stone Cold Steve Austin

1998 - Stone Cold Steve Austin

1999 - Vince McMahon

2000 - The Rock

2001 - Stone Cold Steve Austin

2002 - Triple H

2003 - Brock Lesnar

2004 - Chris Benoit

2005 - Batista

2006 - Rey Mysterio

2007 - The Undertaker

2008 - John Cena

2009 - Randy Orton

2010 - Edge

2011 - Alberto del Rio

2012 - Sheamus

2013 - John Cena

2014 - Batista

Brock wins the triple threat match and as he's celebrating, Rollins returns to the ring, attacks him from behind and cashes in the MitB briefcase. Before he can get the win however, Randy Orton interferes, costing him the championship and the briefcase, and setting up their match at Wrestlemania.

Bryan wins the Royal Rumble.

There are many instances where I hear someone saying something like, "$500 million is being spent on such and such...or maybe it's $500 Billion..." and carrying on as if the distinction is of minimal consequence. The people listening to this 'factoid' don't seem bothered by the uncertainty either.

Of course, the difference between $500 million, and $500 Billion is enormous. It cost something like $500 million to make the movie, The Avengers. $500 million is a high feature film budget. $500 Billion is a number you won't see many places beyond the US military budget. The entire Walton family that owns Walmart has about $100 billion between them.

I know the examples aren't necessary for those who understand the difference between a million and a billion, but I just wanted to illustrate my point a bit for those who may think that I'm nit-picking. It isn't nit-picking at all. It's pointing out a major intellectual laps, on the part of a large number of people. Not being aware of the vastness of the difference between these numbers means you can't comprehend money at all. You think of millionaires and billionaires as being in the same club. Millionaires drive nice cars and have nice houses. Billionaires control the world. It's an important thing to be aware of, in order to have a rational grasp of the world.

If God is infallible, and all-knowing, then why would he do anything in response to your prayers? Wouldn't that mean that you've thought of something that God overlooked when he set up the universe in the first place?

"Atheists, where does dark matter come from?"

"Atheists, what caused the big bang?"

These types of questions all follow the same tired logic. Do theists understand that this logic is the same as saying 0 + 0 = 1?

My lack of knowledge + your lack of knowledge = a certainty that God did it.

Does this help at all to illustrate the problem with this thinking?

Imagine a man punching a 10,000-foot-thick brick wall in an attempt to prove that his fists are stronger than the wall is. His knuckles are bleeding in his futile effort to crack this impenetrable wall. He mistakenly believes that he can crack the wall, and that doing so will prove that his fist is stronger than the entire wall.

Of course, even if the wall DID crack, all it would prove is that there was a weak spot in the wall. The rest of the wall would still remain, and he would be no closer to proving that his fists are stronger than the wall.

Is that a fair comparison to the plight of the creationist?

The comments option is great. It allows for much deeper understanding of peoples answers, but it's not possible to edit once you've commented on someone's answer. Why is that, and can/will Yahoo fix it so that comments can be edited like answers?

I've been singing WWE's praises lately, but, as you all know too well, WWE isn't always on the right track.

What do you think the worst booking blunders in WWE history have been?