It genuinely seems unreasonable to me to simultaneously both be in a public place and while still having any expectation of privacy. Unless they are turning around and arresting the people whose plates they found at such lawful meetings without charging them with a crime beyond the fact that they were there in the first place (which is not illegal) then there'd be something wrong. That's not what's happening, so I don't see the problem.

If it really works people won't give a damn about patents.

Bleed you dry how, exactly? At what point does stating the truth, that is specifically, that facts are not copyrightable, require paying a lawyer?

How would they bankrupt a person who they haven't got any successful ruling against yet? To get a successful ruling, they would still need to convince a judge that events from history, or mere facts, could actually ever be considered a form of intellectual property. They cannot be.... and this point is even explicitly stated in copyright law.

They are, of course, perfectly welcome to claim that they will prohibit it all they want to... the fact of the matter is, however, that they have precisely zero ability to actually enforce that prohibition except against people who believe that they ever had such power in the first place.

Tell that to the NFL Lawyers after they file suit against you.

I would. I would hope I should not have to ever remind a judge of the point, since they should be more versed in such matters.

Then you will be bankrupted just getting it in front of a Judge.

How do you get bankrupted without a judge making a ruling against you in the first place?

You seem on poor terms with the muse of language. I take it that you mean "usually" when you say always. Well, I know you do because we argued round this circle before. Debating with you is difficult because you lack precision in your language and so your points come across as very confused.

Women always invest more in offspring.

Most kids get raised as part of a family. that seems very much like pooling resources to me.

I've stated that by the very nature of sexual reproduction the males job is to spread genes, the females to produce offspring.

And producing offspring isn't spreading genes? The purpose of sexual reproduction is to spread genes.

Don't even think about arguing this, as you explicitly stated that you agree with this in a previous post.

Nope.

You claimed I believed all this in spite of evidence to the contrary.

What evidence?

You have not produced any evidence to the contrary, but rather argued that your anecdotes are sufficient to disprove peer reviewed meta studies

what peer reviewed metastudies? You never gave any, you merely asserted they existed.

There is a fundamental difference between anecdotes and evidence. A scientific study with a large enough selection size is evidence, like my reference

Meh. Firstly, observation is the core of science. Secondly one only needs a single counterexample to disprove a claim along the lines of the ones you made.

You keep mentioning your reference, but you never say what's in it. The way citing normally works is something along the lines of:

there is an arument which says blah blah blah[cite].

Or

there is data[cite] which implies blah blah clah.

The way you don't cite something is: I'm right because [cite].

You can't provide a citation for your claim that there is evidence that supports the idea that human gender roles are exceptions from the norm because "noone[sic] has argued it with me"?

Nope, despite your claims that I'm a special kind of stupid, you're the one who appears to be unable to read. Try going back and reading what I wrote. You'd look an awful lot silly if you argued against real points rather than making up ones you prefer.

Anyway, what we can observe is the following:

Humans are largely, but not exclusively serially monagmous.

Humans usually, but not always couple up and raisd offspring as a pair, where both adults pool resources to raise children.

Sometimes this doesn't work and the mother is left to raise the children alone.

Sometimes (more rarely) that doesn't work and a father raises the children alone.

Sometimes, neither works and humans collectively pool resources to raise children.

That is what we can observe. What is your point?

the thing is you can't even decide if you're talking about eukariotes, animalia, craniates, vertibrates, mammals, or great apes. You keep swinging wildly between different ones cherry picking the stories that best fit what you already believe.

So how about you choose here and now which gender roles you consider the norm. You have to chose any one of the following, otherwise you're just cherry picking:

Homo
Hominini
Hominidae
Hominoidea
Primates
Placental mammals
Mammals
Amniotes
Stem land animals
Lobe-finned fish
Bony fish
Vertibrates
Craniates
Chordates
Deuterostomia
Animalia
Eukariotes
All life

So which is it? Which subgrouping are you going to chose to define "gender norms", and why do you think it is more valid than the supergroup or subgroup.

Until you define a grouping, then your claims of "gender norms" are more or less meaningless.

You need a Citation for the bolded claim.

There was no bolded claim. Would you care to restate?

They can "prohibit" it all they want... them saying something does not make it true.

History cannot be copyrighted. Accounts of those historical events can be, but the events themselves are facts, and facts cannot be considered property, intellectual or otherwise.

To successfully sue somebody, you still have to actually show how that party had actually done some sort of wrong by you... and them simply saying that it is wrong doesn't actually make it so. They would still need to convince a judge of that.

In the case of tool use there is evidence that humans are an exception.

we're the best tool users, but there are others. Apes, crows, sea otters, egyptian vultures, to name a few.

When it comes to gender roles there is no such evidence. Your turn to provide a citation, as I've already provided a citation for my claim. And please no anecdotes, as you seem to erroneously equate anecdotes with evidence.

You can't just bleat "anecdote is not data" and make the data go away. As some point a bunch of observations is data. There are innumeral examples where the general trends don't hold, including our closest relatives.

If the general trends are not universal truths, then they're nothing more than useful starting points. You can't prove anything by saying they exist.

My claim is that your original argument that "There is a huge gap between what we know about sex and gender from science, and what people generally believe about sex and gender." is fundementally flawed. I can't provide a specific citation to that because noone else has argued it with you.

To be honest I'm not even sure which points you're trying to argue any more.

I still disagree that feminism is responsible for everything wrong we know about gender (this is trivial to disprove). I also disagree that the existence of sexual reproduction proves that men and women must have different brains.

If something is true for 99% percent of all species it is reasonable to think that it is also true for humans.

Not at all. If that was the case it would be reasonable to think that humans aren't tool users, humans don't build stuff etc etc.

If you're coming across a new species and have no other information it might be reasonable to start by weakly assuming the most likely things given what 99% of other species do.

However, insisting on sticking to that (what Hashead is doing) when there's evidence to the contrary and you know the assumptsions don't represent universal truth (as he initially claimed), would be a vewy silly thing to do indeed.

Humans are the most observed species ever, you don't generally need to take guesses by extrapolating from other species to fill in the gaps.

I love how you switch between generalities and specifics as if I won't notice. You were using your reasoning to infer things about the differences between men and women. At least you've finally admitted that you're claims are not universal. Now you should admit that therefore you cannot use those claims to prove things about humans.

To reuse your analogy, your claims are like you trying to prove that an American appeals English without bothering to check. Sure, he probably does, but you can't be 100% sure. So, your original claim that evolutionary biology disproves feminism is equally shaky.

As for you ragequitting, didn't you accuse me of cowardice for not skewering a question of yours? How is this any different?

Are the BT routers used now combined router/modem or do they still need the separate fibre box?

Answer my questions in the post above, coward.

sure.

From the context it is very clear that by "always" i mean all societies showed these trends. You would only need to explicitly state that for an idiot of your caliber.

uh... you know, it's not cowardly to not answer a question which doesn't exist. Tell you what, if you actually pose a question rather than mandlessly blather about biology all while revealing your own ignorance, then I'll gladly answer it.

But you have to, you know, actualy pose a question first!