do you ever feel like a red pilled stanley kubrick

ClockworkHare 

1 hour ago#17

Evo2k17 posted...

Saw this cute girl, met for coffee. Told me she has a 2 and a half year old son.

Hey man, at least give her credit for that much. That's some nice honesty to see tbh.
Says she's got experience enough to just be up front about it and not waste time.

Some single moms these days...they don't want to face reality. So they try to stealth slip the kid into the picture when they figure they finally got you on the hook. Or they'll drop it on you in front of their friends, so you feel like s*** if you're not 100% on board with it. They try and bait you into a bunch of situations that basically translate to: "man up and accept my burden or you're trash". And it's wrong. It's dysfunctional. It doesn't set a good precedent for how honest they're going to be in a long term relationship. That's a woman you want to avoid.

I've sit back and watched a couple of my friends pull this kind of s*** with their boyfriends and I'm just like girl you don't want a man, you want a pack mule for your problems that you gave yourself.


Still, I don't believe just being a single mom should be an instant dealbreaker for every guy. Especially the gals who are being up front about it. Not all of them are golddiggers looking for a sucker to sponge off of and spoil their kid. Not all kids of single parents are absolute nightmares to make peace with. It doesn't really hurt to date the gal for a while longer to see how things go. And if her and the kid are crazy, you back out anytime. As long as you're not stupid, you always have the option to leave. Some guys might even learn some parenting skills for when they really want to settle down. It's good to have that kind of exposure because it can give you insight on whether or not you can deal with a family arrangement at all. Ending up married with kids when you don't want to be a family man...that's a huge bullet to dodge right there.

But hey, if just the fact that a woman has a kid at all is like voodoo to you, then yeah you're not ready for that kind of deal anyway. Bail. It's better for everyone.

Why Couldn't They Kill Harambe With Non Lethal Force (BLM'ers As Well)

Because it's very difficult to nonlethally incapacitate someone with a gun without getting shot particularly if they are at range. Fear, the need to make split second decisions and the simple fact that guns despite what some cop procedurals would have you think are difficult to aim under stress and most cops aren't former snipers or Olympic sharpshooters. Shooting someone in the arm to disarm is also a laughable suggestion often brought up. It's a great way to miss and get yourself shot instead,

Even "nonlethal" options can kill. Brain damage or iternal bleeding from baton hit can kill or leave one brain dead. Tasers can cause heart failure or other complications, pepper spray can cause allergic reactions or trigger a severe asthma attack. Even a bean bag gun can kill in certain circumstances. Gases have limited places in which they will be effective and not a danger to the cops or nearby innocents as well. Similar problems apply to flashbangs. Also flashbangs can and have started fires and caused burns and even a few deaths. Nonlethal weapons are occasionally rendered less effective on people who are high on potent drugs or in a "adrenaline rush"

Guns are the best balance of cost, flexibility, stopping power and range for police to use though all other options are viable in certain situations sometimes in tandem with one or more of the others including guns. 

Believe me most cops would love a ranged nonlethal option as good as a gun at incapacitating. But it's not realistic at the moment.

This is by no means a complete or professional analysis but I believe it is a decently informed view.