Search Results: size

it doesn't have to be the case 100% of the time and it doesn't have to be based on what is considered tall globally. a 5'8 guy is tall in Guatemala. so I'm not asking your opinion on whether or not guys under 6' are illogical. I'm asking if there is a higher degree of logic in tall men in your experience. I do know women rate tall men are more intelligent than average even though IQ is the same. which is another thing to clarify, someone who is relatively stupid can actually be more logically oriented than someone who is highly emotional and smart. Einstein famously believed playing violin cultivated a healthy balance of emotionality and logic

I see people say this all the time in reference to fights.

If the person attacks someone weaker they'll be like: "Wow. Look at that asshole attacking someone two times smaller than he is. What a coward. Go pick on someone your own size."

HOWEVER. If the person attacks someone STRONGER they'll also be like: "Fucking idiot. What the hell did he think was gonna happen? Attacking someone two times bigger than him. He deserved that ass beating."

So basically the moral of this story is to attack someone who is similarly as strong as you rather than someone weaker or someone stronger.

But of the two extremes which is worse?

Have one election, no primaries, and the top vote-getters go to Washington as the state’s representatives. It would result in wildly more diverse delegations, more moderates representing a wider range of ages, races and political beliefs than we have in Congress.

Rural voters wouldn’t lose “their” representatives under this system any more than urban voters would. In fact, all voters would be more represented, not less. For example, each Pennsylvanian would go from having three representatives to having 19. And each member could cultivate a statewide constituency based on political orientation, social beliefs and moral reasoning rather than geography.

Electing all the representatives at large would make all the districts in each state the same size. More important, it would end the redistricting wars that bedevil us only after the census but now seem destined to become a permanent & ugly fixture of American politics.

If each state chose its representatives in a single statewide election, the result would be a House of Representatives truly representative of the people. Smaller parties would finally stand a chance of winning a seat at the table. The two major parties would be forced to enter coalitions, which would require compromise and moderation — qualities sorely lacking.

Critics will insist that the House is no place for the 17th-place finisher. Perhaps. But could the resulting Congress be any more dysfunctional than the current one?

A single-vote, winners-take-all system would remove party politics and geography from the process. Representatives would represent people with shared ideologies, not some artificially constructed “district” where half the voters feel their representative is not representative of their beliefs.

For example, there aren’t enough socialists or libertarians in any one congressional district in PA to win a seat. But maybe there are enough socialists or libertarians statewide to enable a candidate to finish in the top 17.

It would be worn by an athletic man.

With nicely fitted jeans and a simple white tee shirt.

The location is just an office or supermarket etc.

Please ignore the sizing in the photos (it's not all the same person so it's hard to tell the size from photos).

All of them are roughly the same size except the last one is smaller.

Thanks!