Not liking to be hit on by people to whom you're not attracted doesn't make you phobic. If a lesbian did not want to go to some mostly-straight meat market because guys would hit on her, that would be totally understandable. It would not make her a misandrist or a heterophobe.

Unless that hockey player's first name is Alexander. Then you might see it all the time.

PROTIP: Not dating someone you like solely because of your fear that other people will think ill of you for doing so makes you a coward.

BobbyRush is a conservative troll who posts nothing but reductio ad absurdum versions of "liberal" positions on this site.

That kind of attitude also allows these nuts to treat "the government" as some monolithic entity instead of being a thing which is made up of people.

You can't recover on the potential for economic damages to manifest at some point. You have to have concrete, provable damages with a causal link to the false statement, or you'll be dismissed for lack of standing out of the gate. So: what's the damage done by a comment on Concourse - a comment that, as you…

It's about as attractive as the picture in the above article, right?

Actual malice subsumes reckless disregard within its definition. I did not leave it out.

I would advise no such thing, as I already stated.

I wasn't discussing defamation writ large. I was discussing the immediate case.

When a statement is so blatantly false that average people will not believe it, or when it is so easily disproven as to be brushed aside with a simple Google search (a step that any reasonable employer would take), it's hard to argue damages in any significant amount. See, you have to be able to prove tangible,…

I didn't say that there were no potential liability issues (there are always potential liability issues); I said it's not as simple as you portray it.

"What's the effect on reputation? What are the possible damages?"

You're missing an element in your definition:

You've got to be kidding me. Drew is God-awful on the radio. His speaking voice is grating and his demeanor is simultaneously preeningly condescending and gigglingly insecure.

No. There is only a physical exam to confirm the presence of a hymen, which can be lost in about an infinity of ways that are not fucking, including, but not limited to:

I'm definitely not arguing that every C-section is necessary, and your mileage may vary with regard to babies in your thirties and forties, for sure.

History is not science.

The difference between the questions is that the one you pose begins with the premise that the historical event happened.

Part of that is that more people are having kids later in life, I suspect. After a certain point, the connective tissue in the pelvis is not as flexible, and if the baby's got a big head, you can labor and labor without much progress.