You act when there’s evidence of abuse, not ‘predictors’. This is fucking twitter/reddit moon-logic where every day 5000 supposed serial killers are identified based entirely upon whether they kicked a dog or left the toilet seat up.
Yeah - the National Institute of Health’s National Library of Medicine is a junk source, but here’s the actual data. Spoiler: it’s a predictor. I think it’s time you calmed down and started acting based on evidence rather than rage and moon logic.
You also seem to be confusing looking upon something with suspicion and actively intervening - why?
If you’re desperate enough to denigrate yourself using tinder, you’re desperate enough to cast as wide a net as possible and settle for anyone not actively smoking meth.
I thought we were dismissing moon logic and deferring to evidence. One in eight people in my country use online dating without controlling for anything - age, relationship status, nothing. Forbes Health state that 52% of American adults that have never been married use online dating, and Statistica report 57.44 million users of online dating in the US in 2022. On the other hand, the NIH report 2.5m Americans have used meth in the past year. Reeeally scraping the bottom of the barrel with over half the available dating pool, eh?
Are these feels based on your personal experience? You might be able to do better than meth addicts if you calmed down a little. There are plenty of free meditation resources online - it can’t hurt to give 'em a try!
I read this over a couple of times looking for your thesis statement… nope, there wasn’t a point hidden in there anywhere, just poorly-contextualised quoting of statistics, like how you gloss over the very poor success rates on dating apps/sites, and an opening strawman.
Just a very overwrought u mad troll. Okay, cool, can’t believe I interrupted my movie for a ploy straight out of 2010.
You also seem to be confusing looking upon something with suspicion and actively intervening - why?
Because there isn’t a difference. The moment someone falls on the wrong side of a taboo, they’re considered fair game. You’re just doing the work of rationalising it.
I read this over a couple of times looking for your thesis statement… nope, there wasn’t a point hidden in there anywhere
Did you get as far as the first two sentences from the study? I’ll give them here.
Adolescent girls with older male main partners are at greater risk for adverse sexual health outcomes than other adolescent girls. One explanation for this finding is that low relationship power occurs with partner age difference
I’ve brought credible, relevant studies and stats, you continue to defer to feels. “nuh-uh - I am rubber you are glue” isn’t going to cut it. That’s the feels covered, now tell me why you’d type the way you did it you weren’t blinded by rage.
There’s no difference between looking upon something with suspicion and actively intervening? This is just stupid on the face of it - tantamount to “There’s no difference between investigating someone and executing them.”
Is your treatment of reasonable suspicion (informed by credible studies) as active intervention, and insistence that you can only date the handful of crackheads in your age group the result of a persecution complex linked with relevant experience?
Take a deep breath, my guy.
Yeah - the National Institute of Health’s National Library of Medicine is a junk source, but here’s the actual data. Spoiler: it’s a predictor. I think it’s time you calmed down and started acting based on evidence rather than rage and moon logic.
You also seem to be confusing looking upon something with suspicion and actively intervening - why?
I thought we were dismissing moon logic and deferring to evidence. One in eight people in my country use online dating without controlling for anything - age, relationship status, nothing. Forbes Health state that 52% of American adults that have never been married use online dating, and Statistica report 57.44 million users of online dating in the US in 2022. On the other hand, the NIH report 2.5m Americans have used meth in the past year. Reeeally scraping the bottom of the barrel with over half the available dating pool, eh?
Are these feels based on your personal experience? You might be able to do better than meth addicts if you calmed down a little. There are plenty of free meditation resources online - it can’t hurt to give 'em a try!
I read this over a couple of times looking for your thesis statement… nope, there wasn’t a point hidden in there anywhere, just poorly-contextualised quoting of statistics, like how you gloss over the very poor success rates on dating apps/sites, and an opening strawman.
Just a very overwrought u mad troll. Okay, cool, can’t believe I interrupted my movie for a ploy straight out of 2010.
Because there isn’t a difference. The moment someone falls on the wrong side of a taboo, they’re considered fair game. You’re just doing the work of rationalising it.
Did you get as far as the first two sentences from the study? I’ll give them here.
I’ve brought credible, relevant studies and stats, you continue to defer to feels. “nuh-uh - I am rubber you are glue” isn’t going to cut it. That’s the feels covered, now tell me why you’d type the way you did it you weren’t blinded by rage.
There’s no difference between looking upon something with suspicion and actively intervening? This is just stupid on the face of it - tantamount to “There’s no difference between investigating someone and executing them.”
Is your treatment of reasonable suspicion (informed by credible studies) as active intervention, and insistence that you can only date the handful of crackheads in your age group the result of a persecution complex linked with relevant experience?