Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


zapatos last won the day on October 31 2019

zapatos had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1458 Glorious Leader


About zapatos

  • Rank
  • Birthday October 11

Profile Information

  • Location
    St. Louis
  • College Major/Degree
    BS, MBA
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Occupation
    Scientific and Medical Publishing

Recent Profile Visitors

37783 profile views
  1. Since about 40% of scientists are atheist (https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/) how do you explain the underperformance of atheists when it come to the Nobel Prize?
  2. Because it doesn't matter. Pick one. Pros and cons going both ways. If stronger they can lift more. If stronger they need more resources to survive. More food. More clothing. Bigger vehicles. There is nothing inherently beneficial about the strength of man. It is an arbitrary target.
  3. Because the objective of the OP was was make them equivalent.
  4. Strength is relative. If today's strongest men could only bench press 100 pounds then saying we should make women as strong as men means they could only pick up a large sack of potatoes. There is nothing magical about the strength of men. Why not target everyone to be as strong as a gorilla, or an elephant?
  5. So why not make the men more like the women?
  6. Well, for one they seem to have a better understanding of biology, psychology and sociology than some men.
  7. I was thinking it might make more sense to erase the differences between males and females, by making the males more like the females.
  8. I don't really follow them either which is probably why I am unsure if what I'm reading is even true. It caught my eye because like some other 'celebrities', there seems to be a general dislike for her and the reasons why are unknown to me. On top of that, the royal family seems to be very active in the dealings of the country even though they have next to no authority to do anything. It's all so murky to me.
  9. Maybe we are talking about different things. I was referring to the many critiques from multiple newspaper articles, not just a single article.
  10. I can't find where the source data came from. I looked at the book the chart came from in the first link but I don't see his methods. How does one know the religion of someone who won the prize 100 years ago? My brother in law (a scientist) claims Christianity but that is for the sake of his mother. He is an atheist in reality. Did claiming atheism impact your ability to receive grants 100 or even 50 years ago? That may also have some impact. I also would have expected a higher percentage of atheists, but on the other hand, Jews are highly over represented. Go figure.
  11. He didn't claim it "mattered". Some of us just find certain things interesting and are curious about them. You also didn't answer his question.
  12. I think you are mistakenly equating individual events with a pattern. While it is true that an individual criticism may be nothing more than valid observation, a pattern indicates there is something more involved. Police pulling over a black person for suspicious behavior that doesn't lead to an arrest does not necessarily mean it is a racist act, but when you find blacks are disproportionately pulled over and released at a higher rate than whites, that is an indication that there was more involved in the decision to pull them over than simply "suspicion".
  13. There is a common sense rule that disagreeing with someone who has proven himself time and again should be done cautiously.
  14. I find the dynamic fascinating. So little chance for a 'normal' life. Rules upon rules. Expectations drilled into them since childhood. Centuries of precedents. Incredibly rich but still collecting money from the public. Frequent rearranging of the succession possibilities. Living your life under a microscope. Sibling rivalries that have created wars and murder. The list goes on and on. Possibly it is more interesting to me because I'm not exposed to it like you are.
  15. Why do you say that? She seems to never do anything untoward, but I keep reading these stories about all her (IMO) stupid rules. The Queen decides when everyone stops eating dinner, the Queen decides the type of clothing the royal family can wear, etc. Not to mention a young married couple has to get her 'ok' to run their own lives. Can you (or anyone else) tell me a bit more about the perception of her?
  • 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.