I'm more incredulous that Slate ran a factual story that wasn't 99% opinion.

Considering that "AC" is a pseudonym in itself, I'd say yes, yes it is.

The "libertarian viewpoint" isn't that every opinion is worth considering, it's that every opinion has an equal right to be heard.

And really, that's not a "libertarian viewpoint" so much as "the spirit of the 1st Amendment."

Quite obviously they were asking for proof of your claim,

But yea, pretend to be dense, that'll sway people's opinions for sure.

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

A duck is a duck, regardless of whether you choose to call it a fowl or a mallard.

In fairness, much of the chagrin towards people who self-label themselves in such a manner is a result of their apparently contradictory behavior.

Consider that many people here consider "Christian" to be a perjorative, even though the classical meaning of the term implies a person who lives by the teachings of a man once known as the Prince of Peace.

Same shit, different flies.

Actually it's not, because it's not "a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing."

Now, claiming that the people who control the world are all members of the aforementioned group? That is stereotyping.

Link, perchance? Please and thank you.

Dreamworks, too - plenty of strong female protagonists in How to Train Your Dragon.

Watch your mouth, or I shall crush you with the power of my MIND

Unless, apparently, that society is Japanese. Those cats are into some seriously weird porn, a lot of which qualifies for what you refer as material that only an insane, irrational sociopath would enjoy. Aside tentacle porn (never seen it, but know it's a big part of their culture), but I remember a manga called Crying Freeman that had one or two rather graphic depictions of brutal rape/murders.

Personally, I found those scenes disturbing, yet I don't consider the Japanese insane sociopaths. A little twisted, maybe, but not insane.

I'm not "anti-social."

I'm also not an idiot.

I'm a person who's made the mistake of trusting strangers before, and gotten burned for it.

Do you trust me? Why should you?

Then you haven't been a member for long enough (or you're hyperbolizing based on your subjective beliefs). Give it time.

Because people are inherently greedy, competitive creatures. When society is built upon the concept that one cannot succeed if another person does, it's only natural for those aware of the construct to be wary of the motivations of others.

Ever played Rust? There's a valid allegory there.

That's not been my experience - just because I don't trust you doesn't mean I'm going to be an asshole about it, or even let you know I feel that way.

But I'm also not going to hand you the keys to my truck. Because only an idiot would do that.

It always means something, if only philosophically.

Um... OK... That makes about as much sense as tits on a bull gator.

What's so extraordinary about it? Other than the fact that a number of people are finding the image extraordinarily dubious?

But it can be sexism to automatically assume the plaintiff in this case is being 100% honest with us, despite her past indiscretions, purely because she is a she.

Childish.

Of course not - what I'm doing is pointing out that you are choosing to trust one actor in this, despite the fact that said actor has been known to lie in the past, and as a result are automatically demonizing anyone who disagrees with you.

Actually, nevermind on that last one - it's not a result of your stance so much a result of your personality.

Yea, that personality - the one that assumes it's own infallibility while simultaneously launching unjustified attacks on anyone who dares have the audacity to contradict your godly beliefs.