Had sex ed in middle school when I was a kid in GA. That was like... Almost 20 years ago, though :/

No, but I did work with a guy who I could get to laugh really easily compared to most people, some people just click. Combine that with love and the fact you're making money just by listening to your husbands corny jokes, and a husband who knows exactly how to make you laugh could probably give you giggle fits multiple times a day.

I have literally been the guy in a situation fairly identical to the video, several times and off the cuff. Once you get someone to start laughing it takes way less effort to keep them laughing. All you really need is one or 2 good jokes to get the giggle fit rolling and you can ride that wave for a minute or 2 to keep them laughing.

Maybe that's why I'm not so cynical about the video being fake. I've seen that scenario play out just like that often enough.

If she doesn't laugh... Wouldn't they just not post it? Or better yet, maybe they do it more than once and post the one in which she laughs the most. Plenty of possibilities. Her laugh seems quite genuine, but maybe she's really good at faking? Either way the video is wholesome and made me smile, mission accomplished whether it's fake or not.

The seat belonged to the families other son. And while policy says otherwise, common sense would say they could use one son's seat for the other son.

Right? I guess none of these guys have a weed dependency cause I can get ripping drunk, smoke a bowl and actually feel better!

I think they're both in the wrong. The dad for not just accepting that he messed up and holding the child as originally planned. And the airline for being assholes about giving a 2 year old a seat because they over-booked a flight.

And none of those ungrateful bastards are bothering to help!

I think you're just confused about the scale these guys are talking about. It's like this .gif https://imgur.com/zvxhk

The metal particles they're talking about would be the moon and the metal particles you're talking about would be Jupiter or maybe even the sun. You wouldn't feel them move because they would only affect a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of cells in your body if the magnet was even strong enough to reach them, which even an MRI would likely not be strong enough.

Maybe we're just watching vastly different shows and movies, because I honestly don't see much of either attacking men or women in that way.

All these comments make it seem like the only thing on Netflix is manhating feminist garbage... Tbh, I don't really watch the new stuff unless it's an action or comedy. And while there are some obvious feminist propaganda scenes I've never considered it overwhelming or even particularly bad.

Are you guys being sarcastic? Wtf, ya'll are upset because... a woman made a joke about a guy having flaccid dick? Why? Would you be upset if someone said her vagina was dusty? If yes, why?

Did the show portray all the men as unable to have an erection? Did the story have a bunch of guys with erectile dysfunction and laugh at them? Or was it a one off "clever" quip that came across as in bad taste, but was otherwise inconsequential?

I just finished watching 30 rock a few weeks ago and they constantly mock Liz Lemon's looks, and other female cast members looks, too.

Edit: Sorry OP comment, this comes across as more of an attack on you than I meant. I was just hijacking your comment for some visibility. I'm genuinely confused how you guys are upset over this.

Edit: Typical mass downvotes for a different opinion and questioning the narrative. As bad as femaledatingstrategy around here.

Your skin shouldn't be scratching anything, my man. Go see a doctor.

You can't prove anything!

Here's the thing. You said a "jackdaw is a crow."

Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.

As someone who is a scientist who studies crows, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls jackdaws crows. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.

If you're saying "crow family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Corvidae, which includes things from nutcrackers to blue jays to ravens.

So your reasoning for calling a jackdaw a crow is because random people "call the black ones crows?" Let's get grackles and blackbirds in there, then, too.

Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A jackdaw is a jackdaw and a member of the crow family. But that's not what you said. You said a jackdaw is a crow, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the crow family crows, which means you'd call blue jays, ravens, and other birds crows, too. Which you said you don't.

It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?

Holy shit. That's unexpected.

Ok buddy.

Arbitrary refers to your definition of large. Given, for example, 10,000 people in a city of 5 million would be insignificant. And I assume you think 10,000 is a large number, since you keep saying it and using it as a bolster to your argument.

Why do I have to be confused to have a different opinion? Your opinion appears to be that they won't bomb a city with some arbitrary "large" number of "Americans." My opinion is that, while that may be a factor they consider, it would not stop them from bombing said city. Civilian, even American, casualties can and do happen all the time because they're willing to bomb within the vicinity of civilians and Americans.

Yes, you said they're not gonna bomb their CIA director, a statement I pretty much agree with, I don't think they would purposefully bomb him.

You then went on to say "OR," denoting a separate event, "bomb a city where 10,000 Americans are trying to escape." I then linked incidents where the US killed civilians with bombs, and then more incidents where the US killed Americans specifically, including on American soil.

I think you're the one who is confused. I'm saying that they would, in fact, drop bombs on a city with Americans. I'm not saying they would target Americans specifically, either. I'm saying, that if a city has 50,000+ people in it, and 10,000 are Americans then the military would absolutely and unequivocally drop bombs, if necessary, on that city.

You said they wouldn't bomb a city with 10k Americans and a CIA director. My argument is that they can, do, and would. That's not the same as bombing 10,000 Americans directly like a mini version of Hiroshima.