Leaderboard

That's interesting. Maybe it's like stuttering in that sense where they don't repeat the same letters when they're writing. I never stutter when I'm forming my thoughts in my head but very rarely in conversation I might jumble up a word. Replacing what you were going to say with a synonym makes it easier but it might also make the problem more frequent in your self-awareness. Thus many strategies alter the ratio of frequency versus intensity without being perfect cures. If you imagined that you were speaking impersonally to a robot instead of a conscious being then this would be much like writing. However you'd then have to sacrifice a lot of your metaphysical awareness which might be a Pyrrhic victory. You might solve one problem by creating another!

A woman is arrested for attacking her husband with his guitars. Judge: First offender? Woman: No, I started with the Gibson. Then a Fender.

What puzzles me is that, as a Post subscriber, I don't recall Heard saying one mean thing about Depp (or singling out anyone, actually) in her Op-Ed piece. It struck me, at the time, as more an indictment of showbiz culture and exploitation. I am continuing to increase my baseline level of skepticism about our nation's present jury system. I would like to say all my thoughts on the Depp/Heard case are unbiased and I have strived not to take sides or draw any conclusions on what a jackass Depp is. (JK) I would guess that incidents of spousal abuse of men are understudied, not least because they are vastly underreported. This skewing would seem pretty obvious, and yet maybe difficult to quantify. My guess is that, if you conducted a survey of men that contained the question "Would you contact law enforcement if your wife hit you?" the ink that had been used to print the YES box would be largely wasted. Though a good social scientist would hopefully derive multiple questions with greater specificity, like how would they respond if hit with a fist, or a rolling pin, or an unabridged dictionary, etc. I guess if sledgehammer or andiron was one of the options, there would be police involvement whether or not the victim was able to make the phone call.

It's obvious that StringJunky is Sean Bean's handsomer little brother, and String Bean is what Sean affectionately calls him.

We have multiple documents on the events of Harry Potter's life, and the miracles he performed. A document is just a written-down thought. If you accept all thoughts just because somebody wrote it, you're basically a mug, wide open to any loony theory. And in fact, all of the documents that you refer to were written by people who never met Jesus. The one exception is St. Paul, who met Jesus "in a vision". Your documents are worthless as evidence.

What is your understanding of the word 'machine'? Stars are machines. In that they convert mass into electromagnetic radiation. And yet they seem to self assemble from merely a locally higher than average abundance of hydrogen. No apparent intervention by any 'designer' here.

I mean, the introduction of this, and several other papers discusses the hypothesis that women are more likely to suffer physical forms of spousal abuse, and men are more likely to suffer psychological forms of spousal abuse, and investigates one part of that hypothesis of the asymmetry in the type of abuse likely to be suffered by men and women. While it is well established that women are more likely than men to be the victims of physical violence, this paper discusses the fact that the research is biased towards investigation of physical violence toward women, and that both psychological abuse and spousal abuses of males are understudied, before presenting a dataset showing men and women are equally likely to report psychological spousal abuse. But I guess that kind of nuance wouldn't fit the narrative you're trying to paint.

You seem to be having issues following our conversation. Either that or you abhor having to acknowledge that you are not an expert on every topic under the sun and someone may have a valid counterpoint. You stated: To which I responded: Ever since then you've been tap dancing around my queries, setting smoke screens, tossing red herrings about, and generally obfuscating. Once again you dropped a big pile of poop on the ground and I was naive enough to step in it, assuming you would discuss in good faith. My fault, again, for failing to recognize the real Peterkin behind the curtain.

I do not see that as an inherent progressive trait, but that of virtually most of folks on any topic. Minus the statistics, which increasingly is replaced just by opinion. I am not saying that everyone with a progressive view is inherently correct or even informed on the subject matter. However, many folks who are researching various aspects of the human condition tend to be progressive almost by definition. The more you look at human society and its mechanisms, the harder it becomes to accept that these things are unchangeable. It is their job to try understand why certain things are the way they are and from there it is almost a natural step to think about how these things can be changed (ideally for the better). It is easy to dismiss the whole thing just by pointing at folks who agree at least somewhat with the conclusions but are unable to follow the details. It is a bit jarring like Oz trying to explain human biology (some things are correct but then wild and unfounded assumptions are put on top and sold as the real thing). But it is important to acknowledge that this is going to be true for the vast majority of the population for anything even slightly complicated. Just because someone on youtube doesn't understand special relativity, we are not going to dismiss theoretical physics. Likewise, we cannot use internet mobs to dismiss actual societal issues and theoretical frameworks. As another addendum to the example of male criminality, I forgot to mention that there are studies and pilot programs where certain interventions (such as providing money and training) for violent or at-risk folks are tested and mostly found to significantly reduce risk of criminal behaviour. Because we find that men are more at risk, these interventions are mostly targeted at them (similar to interventions targeting black folks or specific minorities). Example are programs like BAM (becoming a man) that can be considered rational progressive programs. There are also studies that show that e.g. in Ecuador, legalization of gangs and integrating them into societal programs reduced murder rates (and thus criminalization of men).

Seems simple enough to me ... Have half of the males running the Government say they identify as females. Problem solved, and 'progressives' are happy. ( 🙂 😃 😆 I'm joking; don't go losing it, Peterkin )

they are not different species and you know it very well. they are the same species. called finches. They are only different races. Like dog races which are all the same species called DOG No you are mistaken. It is an Illusion to construct species Evolution from some proven different races of the same species. Microevolution is not Makroevolution like you Claim.

Symmetry Arete. The abstract talks about gender symmetry not only gender assymetry. Your error would be meaningful but considering the context were in here and all I said about bias - its hilarious.

It’s a good thing that you ackowledge the nuance of Johny Depp getting his life back in the narrative youre trying to paint.

The chart of evolution, the one with monkeys progressing from monkeys to humans, just shows both made up species and monkeys drawn as standing up. What? You are the one who believes that every complex living creature that's made perfectly all happened by chance after a big bang. Can you fit the entire universe into a period-sized space, I would like to see you try. Every simple machine has a designer. Not to mention complex machines. There was a study that tried to make a cell by recreating the "early-Earth's" atmosphere, but all they made was toxic gasses, like you, and a few amino acids, but to make a cell, you would need those to form proteins, then the proteins to form a cell. This study was also designed by humans. Also, God isn't a fairy. There are recorded historical documents of what we believe. You only have made up monkey/human species and guesses on how the earth began, we have multiple documents on the events of Jesus's life.

Yes, he has a good point. At the time that Darwin discovered those finches, they thought that a cell was just an empty space that made up a body, not the complex mechanism we know it is today. May I also add that the beaks had differences of less than a centimeter, only about 18.92 millimeters. Earnst Haekel's embryo evolution was a fraud. He just drew the pictures without evidence, and they're not even accurate. They don't show real pictures, that's because there are no pictures, it can't be proven, but still it's shown in science textbooks. They even know they're wrong, but they still do. Then there's Nebraska man. A whole in-between species made up because of a pig tooth. The Java man, they found a monkey skull cap and a human thigh bone close to each other and called it Java man, a "new species". Carbon dating can't tell how old the earth is, it's incredibly inaccurate, it once showed a 3 year old bone to be thousands of years old, and animals that have different carbon dating for different parts. There are some large animals that were carbon dated and they got different dates for different parts of the body.