One of the guys I hung out with a few decades ago was a professional karate fighter and also gay, hispanic, ... He had some issues. One was that he wad disgusted by girly guys and tried to smack some man into them in various ways. He also hated macho guys, whom he considered closet queens. He beat the crap out of quite a few straight men because they were acting too macho. Then there were the nights of hanging out in front of the gay bars waiting for a thug to come by to pick on queers.

Luckily, he got his blood lust out in the street and was very calm and centered in the ring or on the sparring mat.

Thanks for your advice and well wishes.

Would you please share the story of your own journey to retardation? I'm only interested in techniques that provably work.

Thanx for your response. Do you believe the disabled are targeted out of hate, out of opportunity, or something else?

It seems to me that predating upon the weaker is cold blooded and opportunistic, but not otherwise motivated to torment. Hence outside of "hate". You are closer to the situation. What other motives and intent do you actually perceive?

I understand that you can give some statistics about targeting probabilities. Supply them if they are shockingly disproportionate to the general population. But most of all, hate crime goes to motive and intent. That is in the mind of the perp. That's the insight I'm asking for if you have it.

Sometimes it would be nice to have a neonazi on the board to explain things like hate crime from the perps eye view. Where's your stalker?

melthough, yeah, maybe a bit lucky ducky, but the point is that cash or color - the victim suffered the same fate. Should a black on black murderer be sentenced less harshly than a black on white? Should the Jena 6 get a little bit more because a white kid taunted them and got beat down?

Enjoy your afternoon, your link was sufficient and no follow up is required.

I am convinced that there are classes of people who are vulnerable to and should be protected from predation. I think I'm guilty of conflating hate crime legislation with hate speech legislation. I'm also guilty of reacting to what I think the bill says. I need to take the time to actually read/parse it. It might have nothing to do with hate. (eg "patriot act").

See ya on another thread.

failure of US companies to offer attractive, fuel-efficient models that consumers might want to buy...

That horrible refrain doesn't at all get to the root of the problem. Why isn't "reliable" ever on the list?

How about "affordable and reliable transportation that consumers might want to buy."

Do employees have to sign something or take a loyalty oath to have the "right" to wear the wristband? It could be some sort of peer pressure thing to legally bind people into silence or from suing the company.

It is slightly reminiscent of the citigroup folks being leveraged into silence/loyalty by their severance packages

Your math is off. It is a yes/no question but the probabilities are not 50-50 because women are not ovulating 50% of the time.

Here's an example. Imagine sitting in an airport and guessing if the next person to walk past is white or non-white. That too is a yes/no question but not 50-50 in most of the world's airports.

I suspect the original blog post was a troll. Regardless, it drew out CZEdwards and her very excellent ev psch lesson. (Thank you).

On the other hand, it also brought out Laurel962 who says:

for anyone remotely interested in some real scientific theory, I believe the accepted one is that higher primates like humans have evolved discreet, undetectable ovulation in females for the reason that we want to keep our mates around to help raise the children they father (ideally anyhow)

The referenced theory may be true, I have no idea if it is. The problem is that no one really has an idea if it is likely true. Evolution is an accepted theory because it has been tested for decades and because it yields predictable results in fields ranging from virology to agriculture.

Laurel962's "real scientific theory" on the other hand is an assertion. It is an attempt to explain prior observations and it certainly sounds rational, but that doesn't make it either scientific or a theory. Has the it been tested? Can it be tested? How? What does it predict?

A similar assertion (that an anon referred to) is CZEdwards statement: Primatology is a woman's field, and men don't, can't do it as well as we do. It explains the observation that the top people in the field are women. Testable - sure, I can think of a few ways, but who'd want to?

Umm, I've read the illiad in both english and in homeric greek. That was over 20 years ago though. I don't recall even a hint that the raid on illium was a grab for textiles. Can you give a reference?

My read was that the greeks were after revenge. The first word of the story is "anger" and it really is a story of anger. Similarly, the first word of the odyssey is "man" and it is the story of a man.

Then there is plunder. Horses were mentioned a lot more than textiles. Illium was famed for horses...

As for Athena playing a role, lots of gods played roles. Some far larger than hers. Poseidon wouldn't let the fleet go. Apollo helping Paris make the shot on Achilles. Envy tossing the golden apple.

Then there is Euripides who suggested a gang bang motive:

Let each of the Achaean Horde

draw forth his vorpal sword

and forthright thrust her through

all in a row and maybe then

she'd have her fill of men.