Because human females that are single, under 200lbs, and reciprocate my interest are proving... elusive/rare?

My dude, you asked Reddit why we're single, that feels like asking the redlight district why they aren't maintaining their virginity for marriage...

When the cartel boss says "I want an APFSDS round coming from that Ford" and doesn't specify details.

Plastic look. 50lbs of makeup, fake lashes, duckface in every photo. "Stereotypical blonde bombshell" look. Fake nails, wigs and weaves, shaved pubes, and pretty much anything cosmetic beyond basic nail polish or perfume.

Boob size is a non-issue. Even better if she's solid af, as long as hip width and shoulder width are roughly proportional. Linebackers and pears aren't sexy, but symmetrical dwarves and axe wielding amazons sure are.

Also, "trying so hard". I'd much prefer average looking women(think a 5-7), that show up to a date wearing cargo pants and a T-shirt(Form fitting is a plus but not a big deal), wanting to have a few beers by a bonfire, and shoot the shit (verbally OR with a firearm) in the back 40 acres.

I also have a strong preference for non-white women, so.... is there such thing as a "Blue-collar ebony redneck" woman?

Agreed, especially in later seasons. The slight amount of extra padding is a plus, IMO. Granted, I have a siccness for the thiccness. Same with Celina Juarez. Terrible character for a cop, but as a person, she's exactly the kind of kooky-sexy I'd be crazy for IRL.

Pretty much everything here. I've always felt like an early Gen-X that was unfortunately born ~25 years late.

Everything modern is such a complicated process of paperwork, applications, background checks, technology, making cheaper plastic crap to sell at a higher cost, but the consumers will likely lose/break and discard it within 2 years anyhow. People don't know the different between a car with DRL and "automatic headlights" (Admittedly the older generations do this more, which confounds me, since back in the day you had to actually TURN your headlights/tail lights on and off manually)

Much of it boils down to greed, bureaucracy, and complications, in no small part due to technology.

We're in the age of countless volumes of information at our fingertips, yet somehow in practical definitions, the population seems to be growing ever dimmer.

I've seen several of those. Never noticed the significance until now because I run pretty much any website with text in dark mode.

One of my favorite statements is "Get out of here with that sensible logic and reason, you're not my wife!"

If I knew a woman who understood your humorous statement on cellular replacement and giggled as I do... Well I suppose my above statement would no longer apply.

My black lab growls at any black males. While I doubt racism on the dog's part, I can't help but think of a certain Dave Chappelle skit involving a blind man joining a supremacist group...

What about animals preferring me at an unusually high rate, and experiencing the inverse with humans?

To err is human, to arrrrrrrr is pirate.

I'll get my cane and get out....

I don't do that with men or women. Unless "Thousand-yard stare at the forehead" qualifies. Then yes, guilty.

I mean, If women wear a shirt with the text directly across their breasts, "Reading the shirt" does not a creep make, anymore than wearing the shirt with boob-writing = "dressing like a slut".

Though both can be true, something something assumptions.

I'm like this. Brutally honest, but I don't volunteer my honest assessment in an unwarranted fashion. There's a difference between telling someone "Sorry ma'am, but it's not the dress" or quite plainly "Yes, I personally find you physically unattractive" when they ask your opinion, vs "dammmmn gurl you uggley" passing them on the street.

Most people that ask my opinion on such matters aren't seeking an honest response, and I take no blame for a homely person asking my opinions on their looks and being upset by the response. Notably this cuts both ways. Big breasted. blonde haired women with blue eyes are also an extreme turnoff to me. If you want me to tell you "Yes, you're pretty". Too bad, not to me you aren't.

Anyone that knows me knows this. Anyone that doesn't ... likely shouldn't be asking strangers for opinions on sensitive subjects.

Cells R bad. My father lives in a cell. It's 6ft by 8ft, and he has to read the same boring magazine all day. Cells R bad.

Thanks for reading my thesis paper!

Which leads to some deeply intriguing. existential Ship of Theseus-type questions involving consciousness and what constitutes the definition of "you".

Yeah, a 1 party USA with democrats is as bad for the nation overall  as a 1 party republican country.

  Can't make everyone happy, and both sides need an opposite to rein in the more extreme views that take hold in the mainstream.  Police can't police themselves any better than the rest of governments can.  The underdog always needs a say, even if its an unpopular one.  Thus lies the oft-forgotten difference between the USA and a pure democracy. 

Trump fracturing the Republicans could mean an opportunity for more libertarian causes to have a platform,  or for the democrats to seize power in a soft -coup of sorts.   Time will tell.

Black gold, you say?

Username checks out...

I guess if you have a completely independent and isolated location where only your immediate family lived, life without government might work...

Indeed, that's the only way such a lack of government would work in a functional sense.
More people, more problems

Apologies accepted. The discourse was both respectful and refreshing, no hard feelings here!

A trend I've noticed is, barring the extremists on both sides, the bulk of liberals and conservatives want the same things as far as personal liberty, bodily autonomy, and living without oppression, the disagreement is often around the methods of achieving said things, and the ripple effects created by such methods.

Props for the kindness(silly though that may sound). Too many problems occur from both sides of the aisle if there's a misunderstanding, and people double down or dodge instead of simply acknowledging it. I know I've been guilty of the same in the past, since despite feeling like an alien among my own species... I am, in fact, a human, too.

This. 100%

Being told " CALM THE FUCK DOWN" while speaking calmly in a normal tone.

I'm a beefy 6'4" male, so perhaps my "normal voice" is disconcerting to some, but if that's the case, how is assuming and accusing someone scary of "being too angry" going to make them calmer?

I referred to people that blindly trust others as useful idiots. That includes blind faith in Trump, blind faith that the election was legitimate, blind faith that it is stolen.

I raised the issue of the lefts people's blind trust in government, You countered with conservative's blind trust in Trump. Both are indeed, equally unwarranted.

I don't broadly like the conservative or democrat views on economy. Taken too far in either direction without checks and balances from opposing viewpoints, you wind up with a corporate dystopia or a welfare state. I prefer to not speak on economic matters overall because of my views on property taxes and other matters, I'd prefer to not live under a government at all.

No, I'm not an anarchist, but perhaps a misanthrope. If you break it down to core elements, ANY form of government is in essence providing a structural framework for an authority, to offset the downsides of human nature that come with people living together in a common community under a common banner. The larger it gets, the more inefficient and corrupt it becomes. Humans are still by and large a tribal species that as of yet isn't quite adapted to the larger scale of "tribes" in this industrialized age.

Individuals don't need a government to decide right and wrong for them. Societies do. Unfortunate the overwhelming bulk of humans are social primates so I end up having to work around them.

Still not sure what you're trying to refute, though. If anything, we agree that blind faith in a demagogue is a bad, risky proposition.

And this is the true issue /danger of "social media". It's a lot easier to subtly influence the masses and obfuscate the process of weaponizing information than it was in the early 20th century. Print and early broadcast were good enough for Hitler to seize power. Now we're in an age where information is plentiful but the populace at large is content with being poorly informed, because many are either too trusting, too apathetic, or simply too damn busy with work, life and kids, to actually go dig out parts of the truth from the mountains of BS.

I don't blame them there.

I don't believe you understand what "critical thinking" is.

Was that your point? You initially asked "Isn't the Right saying we "should blindly trust" trump?" And my reply was we shouldn't blindly trust anyone, regardless of political affiliation.

You respond with : "Are you calling the red hat people "idiots"?

You ask : "Does lack of "critical thinking" include continuing to believe an election was stolen"
I point out that questioning the government despite there being no evidence doesn't imply a lack of critical thinking any more than questioning the police because their internal investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing.

The economic angle has nothing to do with either left wing authoritarianism nor blindly trusting Trump. I clearly stated I don't blindly trust either side of government, nor should anyone else IMO.

I'd wager that many people outside of the financial sector and government roles aren't as concerned with the nationwide economy as a whole, unless it directly affects them and their lives.

Now you may question my reading comprehension for not understanding what your "DIRECTLY STATED" point was, if you so desire. I do question your definition of the word "DIRECTLY", because your point is still not clear.

If there's a specific point of mine you'd like to refute, list it out and do so, please.

This is a situation where Freedom of Speech, and Separation of Church and State tend to collide. If government is desired to be impartial, then yes, any public institution, be it courthouse or school, shouldn't be about religion. A school should be able to offer a bible studies class if the community desires it, as well as equivalent options for Islam, Judaism, and whatever else. It should be an OPTION, not an educational requirement, however.

I'm purely speaking on government though, a private business SHOULD have the ability to say "we won't serve you here". If a restaurant in Memphis can legally post a sign saying "No blacks allowed". Let them. Why would you want to spend your money there regardless of your skin color? It's their decision to post that sign, and accept the consequences that come with it.

I wouldn't claim racism if a black church said I can't be there because I'm translucent. I'd take my shiny ass to another church that better represented my religious values. Forced acceptance in the name of legal protection can cause just as much discontent as forced segregation. If a group or community wants to self-segregate, let them!

Why force people to be where they're not wanted? We're now seeing the pendulum start to swing back from Jim crow era to "minority privilege". All men may be created equal, but not all are born into the same situation with the same skills and abilities. That's not oppression, it's cold reality. I feel that humans should focus more on making the best of the hand they're given than demanding the govt give them a stepstool because they were born shorter than average.

So in a sense, yes and no. Atheism is not the same as "science as religion" though some would treat it that way. It's like free speech, once you start adding conditions and exceptions to the rule, it isn't free speech anymore.