Leaderboard

https://earthlymission.com/dinosaur-mummy-science-discovery-nodosaur-intact-canada/?fbclid=IwAR2wWqKTY7lykqaIexocCP6L16aepPxOVr1dXe-bVywjNbJldL54l3fjgdM Scientists are hailing it as the best-preserved dinosaur specimen ever discovered. That’s why you cannot see its bones – they remain covered by intact skin and armor. This dinosaur was built like a tank. A member of a newly discovered species called nodosaur, it was an enormous four-legged herbivore protected by a spiky, plated armor. It weighed approximately 3,000 pounds. To give you an idea of how intact the mummified nodosaur is: it still weighs 2,500 pounds! more at link................

Yeah the poll is obviously made with a very specific viewpoint in mind. How about you are sexually abused but no one believes you? Or you are sexually abused, and report it but lose your career over it? How about you are sexually abused and have to explain your browser history in front of a jury? Or you are sexually abused and folks tell you not to be a slut? Or you are sexually abused and folks try to help you but you cannot overcome the resulting psychological problems? I mean, some things happen more commonly than others.

OK so perhaps one should look at broad picture and at the justice system rather than using individual anecdotes to extrapolate cases. We can address the rate of false accusations. Studies on college students have shown that in this group roughly 5% were false allegations. Or conversely 95% of allegations brought to police were not found to be false. Moreover, only about 10% of all rapes get reported to authorities to begin with. So from the get go we have a situation were we have 0.5% of wrongful allegations vs about 99.5% actual cases. The conviction rate is incredibly low, though. Even among the 10% reported cases only a fraction (again, about 10%) are actually resulting in conviction. So the likelihood of conviction in an actual rape is very low (~1%) and the likelihood of wrongful conviction much lower than that. So again, we are not talking about a symmetric situation here. There are a couple of issues, of course, especially in the absence of evidence convictions are unlikely and then of course victims (especially male victims) are very unlikely to come forward as they see no point in doing so and want to avoid social consequences. The other issue on the justice level side is that often rape allegations, even when reported, were simply not pursued. There are many reports, articles and internal investigations throughout at least UK, US and Australia which have shown that allegations from certain folks, especially indigenous folks, drug addicts, younger victims, victims from what are classified as problematic households, homeless and so on, were often routinely dismissed. In the US rape kits were often not submitted for analyses and so on. This is all because in those cases police deemed the victims unreliable from the get-go and decided not to even start investigating. It is also possible that due to low likelihood of success police focuses on the more winnable cases which might improve their statistics. Some of the campaigns, such as believe the victim slogans and alternative hotlines for rape reporting are attempts to address this systemic issue. Edit: crossposted with iNow, but same idea.

Thank you so much! May I ask one last question? I would imagine cancer would be at a huge scale right now if phones are harmful. Like, it takes 10-15 years to develop radiation-linked cancer, and right now rates are dropping. Phones became commonplace in the mid 90s, 26 years ago. Most recent data (from 2018) shows a decline in cancer rates, 23 years after phones became popular. Surely if phones did cause cancer we’d see it by now in the rates?

I think you are misunderstanding our position. We are not suggesting that we pre-favour the testimony of one over the other. What we are suggesting is that we STOP pre-favouring the testimony of one over the other. History has shown that all too often the accused is presumed innocent (as it should be) while the accuser is presumed to be making a false accusation. What we are suggesting is that we continue to presume the accused is innocent, while at the same time presuming that the accuser is telling the truth.

Again, I would be highly suspicious if there is only one researcher in the world being able to create a cohort that shows an effect.

I'm pretty sure everyone means well in this thread.

If Situation_A occurs 1,000,000 times, and Situation_B occurs 2 times, it is not obvious nor logical to assert the middle position is 500,001. You’re using average when you should be using median.

Seems an odd experiment. Was the system sterile apart from the rat dropping?

Yes, this is the kind of rationale that properly answers your question. +1

It never stopped me. As you've seen in that image, microwaves are so far away from uv in energy terms, and that's where the danger starts.

Most people don't really grasp that the term "radiation" spans a huge range. After microwave ovens came out, and people were told that they used microwave "radiation", they started to use the term "nuke" when heating things up in a microwave. After all, "radiation" is something associated with nuclear reactors and bombs. The fact that microwaves are nearer the opposite end of the spectrum isn't commonly understood.

Look at this EM chart: Wifi. and mobile wavelengths are around 3metres long and the lowest level of ionizing radiation is just into the uv range many, many times shorter. Look where visible light is, I don't think that causes ionizing radiation, so how can microwaves cause the purported issues if ionization starts and increases to the right of the uv segment?

Yes, that is what I said. Solar flares are what causes radiation storms. It could if the shuttles were still flying.

You are arguing that the content of his assertion is not true? I can't support that his quote is exactly correct verbatim but the general assertion is, I think... if my memory is to be trusted.

Our default position should be to assume they’re telling the truth. That’s not the same as saying belief should be automatic 100% of the time with zero doubt whatsoever.

"Einstein abandoned the concept in 1931 after Hubble 's discovery of the expanding universe. From the 1930s until the late 1990s, most physicists assumed the cosmological constant to be equal to zero. when did einstein learn cosmological constant was wrong - Bing

I have made no perverted argument about any of these things, just been accused. Just because I've heard it doesn't mean I support it. I made a comment in response to other comments, I've since been accused of being some kind of women hating incel who thinks they lie about rape. You're making outrageous assumptions about me, I find this deeply insulting. THIS IS NOT MY STANCE.

Which experts? Got a link? This isn’t jazz. Stop focusing on the notes I don’t play and read the words I do. Maybe try answering the actual GD questions I’m asking instead of dancing around them and evading. You either have a valid point that’s supportable or you’re inventing fictions and arguing a personal opinion.

Making what easy, what the fuck you going on about? What am I being accused of here? Once again you're making out like I'm accusing victims of being liars. You can f^^k off, you're pissing me off now. You're making all sorts of wild assumptions about me. 🖕🏻

I have nothing whatsoever against a genuine victim getting justice provided it is the result of an impartial cautious intelligent investigation where no presumptions whatsoever are made.

It seems that some of the mistakes are because of people taking extreme positions. It seems that your faith in the criminal justice system is unshakable which is either admirable or foolish.