ZGDUwpqEWpUZ

I didn't choose 15 at random.

It's unclear why you think putting words in my mouth is going to achieve anything. ICOs don't need any special regulations, existing contract law is fine.

Finally, I'm not sure why you've written "regulatory clarity" there. Of course we'd like the authorities to act in a predicable way, but that's an orthagonal issue to how restrictive those regulations should be. It feels like you're just throwing out phrases you don't quite understand.

It was a genuine question, and from your response I'm guessing the answer is "no". If you're wondering what provoked the question, it was the crying about "unregistered" ICOs - at that point it was clear that you're either a child or an adult with a child-like need for external authority to make you feel safe.

Pro-tip going forward in life: try not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Are you older than 15?

Women Are Wonderful.

I prefer explanations that fit observed behaviour - men take larger overdoses, and neither a propensity for violence nor a higher tolerance for messiness can explain that.

Likewise, I don't believe women become more violent or selfish as they reach middle age, yet they also start taking larger overdoses. It seems more likely there are specific problems that affect women at that point in their lives and/or they they feel less able to overcome problems they'd have coped with earlier (due to shrinking support networks, for example).

As for pain, I'd note that females are much more likely to self-harm than males (which, incidentally, is also messy).

Men kill themselves more even if you only look at intentional overdoses, which are about as non-violent as you can get. Older women also take larger overdoses than younger women - there are undeniable differences in intent between demographics.

$100m seems to be a made up number.

Saagar is a male forename, but yes, reducing kidnapping to "losing your wallet" in an attempt at whataboutery is a bit tasteless.

apt handles this by marking packages as manually installed. You and the author could both be happy with that solution but afaik pip doesn't currently store such information.

That part about child pornography was a bit...weird. Am I misreading it or is the author suggesting children can consent?

> the manosphere

You're talking in circles here - you brought up what "sort of person" is in the manosphere, and your answer is people in the manosphere. Not exactly insightful.

The so-called manosphere is a wildly diverse grouping with different experiences, complaints, and conclusions. Lumping in Andrew Tate with Men's Rights is just nonsensical.

> bash feminism rather than a reason to fight things like rape culture

I can do both and it's served me very well. When feminists like Koss et al. downplay female abuse of boys, that is rape culture and I'll fight them all day long.

> If even with your experience can't figure out why serial rape victims might murder their attackers

This is a schizophrenic strawman. I understand that perfectly and I've said nothing that could lead someone of sound mind to think otherwise.

I've been called a feminist in real life (much to my annoyance) in arguments about abortion, or about behaviour online or at work. There's nothing about Men's Rights that requires taking legitimate rights away from women. I can be a good person without identifying as my own enemy.

If you were actually sorry about my experience, you might like to prove it by not making up lies, cut from whole cloth, about me and men like me, in what looks like a desperate attempt to paint yourself as One of the Good Ones.

> just popular among the same sort of people. Which I think you'd have a hard time denying.

I'd have a hard time denying it because I have no idea what that "sort of person" is even supposed to be. Is it just people you don't like?

I went down the Men's Rights rabbithole because I got sexually assaulted by a woman as a teenager and didn't know how to deal with it. They were the only ones talking about it, and I assure you nobody involved had any interest in relegalizing marital rape.

Rather, that seems to be a bit of DARVO given that feminist thinkers like Mary Koss would see happened to me reduced to "unwanted contact".

> And my point isn't that the men's rights people don't have legitimate points about how patriarchy also harms men.

"Patriarchy hurts men too" is empty handwaving, not a substitute for genuine solutions.

Given your little quip - "think of all the men who haven't been murdered as they slept" - I doubt you'll be interested in providing help for men (or boys, as it was) like myself. If that's the feminist line, then it is clear that feminism, to put it mildly, isn't for me.

I didn't. I gave a concrete example of the phenomenon I was already talking about. If he wants to give concrete examples of what he's talking about, he's more than welcome to do the same, but he can't, because it's a lie.

The conversation would have ended up the same way had I seen his reply before editing the example in - I'd just have given it afterwards, and he'd still have no answer.