Jump to content

ScienceNostalgia101

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    377
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About ScienceNostalgia101

  • Rank
    Atom

Recent Profile Visitors

3639 profile views
  1. The people who were blaming it on the left. Especially the ones who were doing so directly like the creators of the above memes, of course, but also to a lesser extent the ones who were doing so indirectly by not refuting it. I know that word choice isn't the only possible word choice there, but I would think if a lot of conservatives were distancing themselves from it a few of them ought to have landed on that word choice by sheer random chance.
  2. Years ago, at least in the context of Internet culture, it used to be taken as a given that being against vaccines was a leftist thing. But lately, amidst the deluge of right-wing anti-vaxxers like Tucker Carlson and Lauren Boebert, the myth that the vaccine is bad for you has been challenged aplenty, while the even more unmistakably disproven myth that anti-vax narratives were inherently a left-wing thing has been virtually ignored. How come there are no repercussions for that sort of myth? How come the people responsible for it get to walk away from this
  3. To be clear, the goal for my purposes is to have as many kJ of heat per litre of smoke; or alternatively, as few litres of smoke per kJ of heat; as possible.
  4. So when I use the outdoor fireplace, I often like to flip the logs upside down partway through their burning so that i have fresh unburned wood in direct contact with the flames at least twice as often. An uncle of mine once told me this actually does more harm than good to how well it burns, because the heat drives the moisture to the top of the log, and flipping it would cause the flames to be in contact with wetter wood instead of drier wood. I tried Googling this but I haven't found anything on this either way. To those of you better versed in chemistry does this make sense? Why or why not
  5. But it's not called an "athletics & self-control" competition. It's called an "athletics" competition. Can't self-control be assessed in separate competitions, so as to give credit where credit is due on the otherwise athletically skilled ability of someone low on self-control? If people admire athletic ability so much that they pay to see it, why would they fail to give credit, where credit is due, wherever they see it?
  6. "Brand recognition" through the name of a foreign company? How did that not piss off the same tens of millions of voters who were xenophobic enough to vote Trump?
  7. Possibly because the real "education" they got was on their own minds through close proximity to several members of the opposite sex. You can teach them all the biology you want to (and in some private schools, parents still get to pay to separate them from the opposite sex) but experiencing it for itself tells you what to believe about what applies to you, and what doesn't, and in turn who to believe about biology based on advocates of any narrative get right about you, and what they get wrong about you; who has discredited themselves, and who has not. Anyway, I don't think we sho
  8. Is it at all affiliated with its Japanese counterpart, though? If not, why use the name?
  9. I'm kind of left wondering how many of her opponents attempted to get themselves tackled by her on purpose at the expense of winning the game...
  10. My bad on the mixup; the acronym NCAA reminded me of those used by actually profit-driven sports institutions such as the NFL. Still, one doesn't need to believe women "shouldn't" be playing sports so as not to be as inclined to actively funnel tax dollars toward their sports as to those of male athletes. The voters are notoriously stingy with tax dollars; they opposed funding abortion instead of letting the customer pay, even though low-income women need it most, but stopped short of banning it altogether. They opposed funding embryonic stem cell research, even though the alternat
  11. How the hell were politicians even allowed accepting campaign contributions from companies headquartered in foreign countries in the first place? I mean, by rights, they shouldn't be allowed accepting campaign contributions from domestic companies either, but foreign companies? How was that not stomped out if only by public pressure from corporate-power opponents from the left and globalization opponents from the right combined? EDIT: To be fair, I get that a lot of people have a soft spot for Japan in particular because anime's cuteness tugs at people's heartstrings, b
  12. Care to link to what in particular you're referring to? I'm not much into sports, I'm just going by the explanation that seems the most directly relevant to the... anatomical notions of male and female. The rest are just murkier hormonal reasons that could go either way and are not as widely accepted in other settings. Funding in particular is directed at expected return on investment, not skill. If customers would rather watch a mediocre man than the most skilled woman in the world, it's not some private investor's job to impose the latter on them.
  13. Forgot about this thread until recently. Biases wouldn't get "cancelled," just combined. If you'd mixed hydrochloric acid with sodium hydroxide you'd get saltwater, but that's not necessarily a good thing if pure water were what you were looking for. In theory, if every bias and its opposite were equally "cancelled" you'd be left with objectivity. Trouble is I doubt there's any objective metric of what constitutes the opposite direction of a bias, let alone its opposite magnitude. A better idea would be to have as much variance in biases possible and see how these biase
  14. And yet, even after that policy changed, sex-segregation of sports has not.
  15. Yes, yes I have. But even the notion that sports in particular are not necessarily women's forte in general wouldn't necessarily be enough to make or break whether or not someone opposed funding women's sports at all any more than, let's say, the notion that cooking isn't necessarily men's forte in general wouldn't necessarily make someone oppose funding home ec classes that male students are eligible to attend. If people disagreed with the former statement, they'd distance themselves from it more often. If they opposed male students' eligibility for home ec classes, they'd find a school board
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.