here's a real-life example:

what's dire? who's taking advantage of whom when you get paid a year's salary in a month? who's to judge? You and your "you sound ignorant but i'll believe you if you've actually been to India" ethnocentric self? No thanks.

it might sound easy, but you *could* live on what the government calls poverty level wages. It might not be easy, but you won't die. You could even live on less than that if you receive other government benefits like public housing or welfare. Then the "living wage" would be almost zero.

at what point is pay shit? $1/hour? $100/hour? $10000/hour? It's all relative. A rich guy like George Soros might not be willing to work for $100/hour, but his housekeeper might. A barista in NYC would not work for $1/hour, but a walla in India might think that's pretty good pay. You certainly wouldn't pay a…

Umm... Starvation vs. Not starvation is an easy choice. Just like being a baby factory vs. a cappily paid housekeeper. It's a matter of perspective. Just because *you* don't want to do that job doesn't mean *nobody* should do the job.

It's not easy to tell from the context of the article, but sarcasm is a pretty safe bet on this site. There ought to be a sarcasm emoticon or something.

"it's more than a little weird that the Department of Public Safety didn't notify the campus when a member of the student body was being investigated on charges of rape"

"sex between any two consenting adults is often a religious experience"

By your definition, exploitation is another word for "everybody wins". It's only exploitation from our outsider perspective. If I'm making $30/month busting my ass cleaning houses and someone offers me 300 times that, I see that as a wonderful opportunity rather than exploitation.

this is the beauty of free markets. When people who need money are willing to work for people who are willing to pay, anything is possible. It's no more exploitative than a billion dollar coporation (Walmart, McDonalds, etc) hiring laborers to work for a pittance. People need money and they do what it takes to get…

I think this theory, once again, comes down to whether or not you believe nature or nurture is more likely to dictate behavior. I'm a nature guy, so I'm on board with these studies giving statistical evidence about gender trends. The OP (and probably a ton of nurture favoring feminists) think culture is the stronger…

it's admirable to want to change douchebaggery, but often being a douchebag is the shortest way to success. This is especially true when it comes to drunken hook-ups at frat parties. As the sorority's response says: those jewish girls are trying just as hard to get into the gentile boys' beds.

so when a woman gets a haricut that's too short, you should offer her something longer?

Only inexperienced or careless men give their honest opinions about the way a woman looks. This is because women typically ask how they look when they themselves don't think they look good, or when they already know they look good and just want to hear it.

thanks for your openness!

I assume being trans-woman means you were physically a man and are now physically a woman. Here's a few questions I have:

Never been asked to ask a trans-woman questions before. I assume trans-woman means that you're physically and mentally a woman now, but were previously a physical man. Here are some questions off the top of my head:

the violence stands out so much in this game is because there is so much contrast in the game. The beautiful, blissful Columbia clashes drastically with the creepy lighthouse with the dead guy in it you saw just a moment before that it makes the happy places happier and the dark places darker. You could have a game…

i'm also going to wait until the last minute before i decide on an alternative. I think a trend will emerge after a couple months as people fill the Reader void. Maybe Google will have a change of heart.

PLex. it's easier to set up and use, plus you can stream from one server to multiple clients (e.g. 1 PC can stream to iphone, ipad, roku, xbox,etc)