Brutus_buckeye

Probably will just complete the original plan of adding another 22 story tower. While nice, I would hope for something a bit more grand at this point in time.

they could play at First Energy and then decide where to put a stadium if it appears successful. It is walking distance to bars and entertainment, in the city, easy transportation options, and gives that stadium an addition 15-20 events a year of use. Indy uses Lucas Oil for their USL team. Why not Cleveland.

As long as the county does not try and do something stupid by putting an additional sales tax on the ballot then the bus levy will have a chance. If they want to raise the sales tax by .50-.75 to support a bus tax and another .25-.50 to balance the budget, it would kill both of them.

^ There are already a ton of programs like that in Cleveland though. John Carroll, BW, Case, Ashland, Wooster, Mt. Union just to name a few. Yes, they are D II and III but is it really that much different than FCS? Yes, there is a big drop off from FBS, but otherwise, there are talented kids who can still play football in the area and get a great education. These schools have 3-6000 seat stadiums like you propose. Heck they can redo the stadium at JCU Or BW instead of building a new one at CSU and accomplish the same goal much cheaper.

Planet Fitness is the perfect fit for that spot. It is not on the main path, does not require a lot of foot traffic to generate business, has parking built in underneath and is a lower overhead (equipment heavy) business that has a low variable operating costs. Whether it makes it or not, it is a business that can ride out a 3 or 5 year lease successfully at that location. Another bar or restaurant will fail there. Plus, it is going to get a ton of free visibility for other locations in the chain because everyone is walking by that sign going to the Reds game.

Any parent with school aged children at least middle school through 10th grade will often be aware of the viciousness of young girls and how often many young male acts of bullying often have a young girl behind the scenes heavily influencing the situation.

The APA has lost their mind to politics.

Reading through these pages the last few days, the one thing that strikes me, besides the passionate arguments on both sides, with the exception of a couple people on this board, the vast majority of people on both sides of the issue pretty much are in agreement on the general principles of the issue. On the big broad issue, there is a lot of passion and disagreement, but when given a specific detailed example, I have noticed a large amount of agreement amongst both liberals and conservatives on specific detailed situations. Now, each side has nuances, but for the most part, as much as we have passionately argued the issue over the last few days, I do see a decent amount of agreement.

I don't know. I would think it would probably have a bigger outcry from the activist crowd. The problem is that this ad, for Gilette razors does not speak to men. Men are influenced by different methods and ways than women. The bigger question is who was the true audience for the ad? Was it men or was it really intended for women? Because if you want to 1) sell razors to men, or 2) influence them to engage in a certain behavior, it is evident the ad failed miserably in both respects, because it did not connect with how they think. Now, did the ad resonate with women. I tend to think it did. It spoke to them in ways they could directly relate too. This is why the Pantene ads or "Throw like a Girl" or "thanks mom campaign" are so successful for P&G. They hit their target audience and speak to them with a sharp message. The bigger question as to the success of the ad is going to be whether Gillette doubles down on the narrative or lets it fade away and treats it as a one off. P&G doubled down on "Throw like a Girl" and "Thanks Mom". Nike to an extent has kept the Kaepernick theme going with their ads, with other ads of the same vein. Pepsi quietly retreated from the Kendall Jenner ad, and the Audi ad from last year has faded into memories (Some would argue the Audi ad was just a one off quick hit, but I argue if it hit the right nerve, they would double down on the success of it, which they haven't to date).

It is how the bullying is carried out. girl on girl bullying is carried out in more of a psychological way. Boys bully differently. It does not easily cross genders. A girl trying to psychologically bully a boy would not have the same effect it has if he were bullying a girl. A boy bullying a girl in a boy manner often would get the kid thrown in jail for hitting a girl.

I don't think people would ever claim they are toxic behaviors. Irresponsible does not = toxic. Is it irresponsible to walk home alone from a party if you are drunk at night? Absolutely.

We were at a school bullying talk a few months back. The experts said, if you are a boy parent, the first 5 minutes concerns you, if you are a girl parent, the next 85 minutes are of concern to you. They went on to say the majority of the bullying issues in school today are caused by the girls and they are subtle and less obvious.

^ The point was to name a trait of toxic femininity. Bullying is a toxic trait would you not agree?

I think there are just as many societal problems caused by ladylike behavior. As a parent of school age children, bullying is a big problem and the biggest issue is because people look at the wrong things. Most of the bullying problems in school are not caused by the traditional school yard bully beating someone up over their lunch money. It is not boys roughhousing like it was 30 years ago. The vast problem with bullying, and many experts will point out, occurs between the girls. This would be a perfect example of toxic femininity. Society has focused the bullying efforts almost exclusively on boys because it is open and obvious, but the worst forms of bullying have been done by the girls

I am saying they are both irresponsible behaviors. You are not any more dumber or wrong or whatever for being a drunk female as opposed to being a drunk male. Wrong is wrong. Now how people deal with each situation may be different, but it does not change the fact that both are equally wrong.,

It is scary that society wants to teach its children that you don't need to look out for yourself because we can just train others to act responsibly all the time. Men getting drunk and acting irresponsible is the same as women getting drunk and being irresponsible too. It is trust but verify. Yes, we should teach people to not get wasted at parties and take advantage of others. We should be teaching people to treat others with respect and the golden rule. Duh!! I think we are doing that as a society. However, at the same time, there will always be outliers and we need to teach people to be vigilant and to be in control of themselves and be responsible for their actions at all times because that is the one thing they have control over. We cannot rely on others do to the right thing, so we better be vigilant in doing so ourselves. I teach all my children, sons and daughters to watch what they drink, because you cant always trust those around to you to do so. Don't leave a party alone if you have been drinking. Travel with a group and avoid compromising positions if you are not in control. Watch your drink. This applies to both the boys and girls. It is teaching responsible behavior. If they take care of themselves and are vigilant in looking after themselves, there is less of an opportunity something bad will happen to them. The other thing that irks me is that many on the left argue that teaching kids this way is essentially shifting the blame to them if something happens. THis is not the case. This is teaching people to be vigilant and look after themselves and their bodies. It does not excuse someone from acting in a malicious manner. It is trying to teach people to minimize the opportunity to be a victim. That is a huge difference between that and victim blaming.

^ My point was in response to FreeFourur's responsible about why I used a female in the situation and not males and why a drunk female was acting irresponsibly.

Dude, take off the liberal glasses here and look at things through a normal person's light. The scenario @YABO713 was what would happen if there was a Venus commercial showing a female drunk at a party. I was responding to that. The scenario involved a female acting irresponsibly. It is also irresponsible for males to act similar at parties. Even though it is a right of passage and everyone has pretty much done it, it does not change the fact that anyone at a party who may be a slobbering drunk is acting to a limited extent irresponsible.

Even taking the Devils advocate argument, my problem with the ad is that many men take the ad as if it is a societal problem that applies to all men, not the 2% of men who are the assholes and jerks and are actually causing the problem. The thing is, and it goes to counter your fiancé's point, if I am a consumer who you want to purchase your product, don't insult me by telling me that I create a societal problem solely because I belong to a certain class. If you want me to buy your product, you need to start kissing my butt and sucking up to me, otherwise, your product must be the best thing out there that I have no other choice in the marketplace to buy. My wife and I had a similar conversation last night and the outcry would have been the same if not worse, you changed it to women getting drunk at a party and engaging in irresponsible behavior. It would be the same if you had a minority dropping out of school, or selling drugs or whatever bad stereotype you choose there. Point being the outcry would be the same if not much worse because people do not like to be lectured to, especially by companies who are trying to sell them a product for profit. The profit motive portion of it comes across as phony and disingenuous in many cases.

Toxic Masculinity is such an obnoxious smug term. It oozes with elitism. I think just calling a person a jerk or ahole is a much better term and perfectly assesses the person.

^ the theme was that it was not acceptable behavior.

you act like 63 million people voted for Trump because they liked that he was a jerk to women? That is just an ignorant statement and shows that you have no clue how or why Trump won. This has nothing to do with Trump and it is pathetic to try and bring this back to Trump, if you want to, go save it for his thread and talk about it there. The issue with the ad is virtue signaling and how people have an issue with a company telling them how to act and accusing 50% of the population of being a problem when in fact that is not the case.

^ I think people take issue with the fact that the commercial shows 2 boys wrestling and engaging in rough house behavior and calling such behavior toxic. There is a clear line between boys being boys and toxic behavior and that is what angers a lot of the many good men out there. Boys will be boys is fine. When my boys wrestle and fight, or climb out on a tree limb, or are making a mess in the mud, that is boys being boys. We don't want to discourage this.

There are 2 things going on here. Men being Men and Women being women, there is always going to be some expectation that men act more masculine and women act more feminine. It just is the fact that the majority of men and majority of women exhibit those traits. Now majority is not everyone and of course we need to recognize that not everyone falls into these neat/ succinct categories. We need to be aware that certain guys will be more sensitive and that is ok and certain women will be more manly, and that is ok too. Now the other pressure at play here is the conformity issue. Even if, as society we are more open and accepting of these traits, the other challenge is that the people who tend to be more sensitive do not conform to the majority and are always fighting the internal battle for that conformity. The sensitive boy, may be accepted for his sensitivity, but feels out of place with general society because he struggles with his desire to be who he is yet try and conform to the majority.

The problem lies with the people who try and find offense or take offense with your good deeds. Your basketball example rings home to me all the time. My son is a bit of a drama queen and exacerbates his pain or symptoms a lot and have to explain to him all the time that you fight through these ailments and tough it out. When you are really sick or really injured that is one thing. Kudos to you for your effort there. The kid's mother is the problem there. We need to teach our kids to be resilient.