Male and female plants still have to act differently.

You know that most angiosperms are hemaphoraditic, right?

The fact that hemaphoriditic organisms exist and reproduce sexually indicates strongly that they do not in fact need to behave differently. And tell me, for plants whihc are not hemaphoriditic, how do they behave differently?

Look, females have a cap on their reproductive success, males do not.

Oh jeez. You seem to be presenting this as a "univeral truth" again. Go tell it to a sea-horse. Or a queen bee. Or an angler fish. Or a goose (they mate for life. did you know that?).

we expect sexes to behave differently because of this

By "we expect them to behave differently" you mean "I want to make a bunch of unwarranted assumptions about human sexuality based on cod-evolution and discounting the last 10,000 years of human society".

Males want more sex partners and are less choosy, because sex i cheaper for males. This imbalance is why sexual reproduction works Men compete for females, and females preference for good genes drives the species forward

How on earth does that explain the way that Bonobos (our closest relative) carry on?

I think you will find that feminism is surprisingly friendly to Islam, and how women are treated in these countries is not a major feminist issue, compared to say, violence and sexism in media. Feminism is concerned mainly with western culture.

OK, well, if you define feminism with your own private definition that no onw but you knows, then sure, you get to define it however you like and can tell everyone else they're wrong about it. On the other hand, words mean things and if you use private definitions known only to you then people will start to think you're very silly.

To make such statements shows an entertainingly high level of ignorance.

It's also entertaining that your biological-based explanations show an astounding level of ignorance about biology as well.

I strongly suspect that you hold these views because of blind adherence to ideology, rather than facts or logic.

That is an absurd definition.

It's a glib joke.

That's like saying "Christianity: the notion that there is one god".

That's quite a big part of it. There's whole passages in the bible about slaughering people who believe in other gods. It was quite a big thing back in the day, when Abrahamic religions got started. Possibly, that was THE defining thing about it in the beginning.

I reserve the right to criticize ideology based on the actions of it's followers regardless of what they offer as their own definition.

Well then would you actually get on and criticise? All you've done is whine all over the internet about the evils of feminism without actually saying why you feel they're evil.

You've also whined that it's bad science, and yet failed to provide a definition. I strongly suspect your definition of "feminism" is "things I hate on the internet".

Feminism has been spreading lies about sex and gender for decades.

Such as?

It has also been able to label all critics as misogynists, as clearly illustrated by your reaction.

That's a sort of reverse ad-hom attack. Interesting.

You do also seem to be one of those people who insists men and women are "just different", in some vague sort of hand-wavy evoloutionary-biology way that focusses on a small branch of lobe-finned fish while claiming to be a global truth. What this means is you're almost certainly drawing conclusions about people based on their genitalia rather than on what's in their head. This means you're almost certainly mistaken about many of the women and men that you know.

I have precisely the same problem with feminism as I have with creationism. Ideology posing as science and fact.

Feminism: the radical notion that women are people.

And you're ideologically opposed to that because it's posing as science and fact? U wot m8?

And thanks for the ad hominem. I always know I'm doing something right when people use it.

Or, it might just mean you're like that chap from the "lol i trol u" comic.

First you criticize me for using Steve Pinker as a reference.

Nope, I'm not criticising you for using him as a reference, I'm criticising you for breezily telling me he's written a few books by means of explanation. That's great, but I'm not going to spend 3 weeks reading to know what point you're trying to make.

So i tl;dr it for you, and now all of a sudden you're all "citation needed!"?

OK let me explain for you. The way you argue things is you first make a point. You then back up the point with arguments. The arguments and especially facts may then be supplemented by citations to make them more convinving.

You simply provided a citation (Steve Pinker) with no point and no argument/fact. How would I even use a citation like that?

In this case you came up with a fact (there ARE studies which support...) without providing any corroborating evidence.

We know for a fact that for sexual reproduction to work, males and females have to act differently.

I asked you to provide some facts. You are providing abstract (and very simplistic) reasoning. You are seriously ignorant of biology as well. So if "for sexual reproduction to work" "makes and females HAVE to act differently", then how on earth do you explain plants which are often but not exclusively hemaphoraditic and just kinda sit there and grow towards the light? No brain is required at all for sexual reproduction.

Seriously the evidence for that literally grows on trees.

So go on provide some evidence that evoloutionary biology means that men and women have different brains.

Go ahead. Name a major feminist cause that is not rooted in the notion that men and women are not different, that we are all blank slates.

Er how about that cause where are a bunch of people are trying to stop other people from mutilating young girls so they will be unable to get pleasure from sex when they are older?

Since you're convinced that men and women are different and that this somehow goes against all feminism, I'm going to say this: your brand of nutty antifeminism does as much damage to men as it does to women. Please stop.

No you couldn't argue it is ignorance unless they literally don't know.

I'm arguing that id they disbelieve science because of ideology then they are ignorant on what science fundementally is. That I think is more important than ignorance or knowledge of lists of facts.

Get it?

I understand the point you're making, I happen to disagree.

Second, ignoring what you know to and instead holding to ideological positions even though they are in opposition to what you know about science is not evidence of ignorance of science but rather evidence of a strong ideological association.

One could well argue that this is a deep degree of ignorance: it indicates on a very fundemental level that people do not understand that science is a matter of "belief". And fundementally if disbelieve it because of ideological reasons that shows such a fundemental misunderstanding of what it is that it is a better indication than any number of facts.

As for my definition of feminism, pretty much every single major feminist cause is rooted in the Tabula Rasa.

huh?

This isn't logically valid reasoning. There is debate, therefore differences are subtle? There is a debate about creationism too. I guess that proves the jurys still out on creationisms scientific validity then.

OK fine. There is very serious debate among the people who actually study this about what the nature of the differences are and if there are really any significant ones at all. There's a slew of papers, counter claims and so on and so forth. That means there aren't any obvious, glaring differences.

Hard scientific data, as in meta studies in evolutionary biology, neuroscience and linguistics, tells us there are significant and fundamental differences between the sexes. There is very little data supporting the opposing argument.

I've never seen any evoloutionary biology studies which support it, so [citation needed]. And define significant. If there was a significant difference, you could pick a man and a woman from the population at random and make some prediction about mental capacity (discounting any cultural factors) and be right some "reasonable" amount of time.

"reasonable" of course is the core of how significant it is. There might be a provable prediction you can get right 50.0001% of the time, which would mean there is a difference but it wouldn't be very significant.

If you are ACTUALLY interested in scientific literacy, then ask questions on which no major political faction has any stake.

I disagree: if you're willing to spew political talking points than pay attention to actual science, then that is a pretty good measure of being scientifically illiterate because that's more or less ignoring science because you don't like the conclusions it comes to.

Just because someone is politically and culturally invested in the idea that the earth is 6000 years old, doesn't make them any more scientifically literate than if they they were simply a nutcase.

I did reference Steve Pinker

Specifically, you told me he has written several books. Saying, I have a point but you're going to have to read several books to figure out what the point is never mind the arguments for and against is not really very solid. I mean sure, you might have a point and you might be right, but I'm not going to do several weeks of reading just to find out.

and that there are no inherent differences between men and womens brains is the corner stone of post modern feminism.

The differences between male and female brains seems to be a subject of intense debate, whichpretty much means that the differences are subtle. There is undeniably more variation across humans as a whole than between genders on average. Secondly where on earth do you get your definitions of feminism from?
 

Well you've done nothing except make a wild, axe-grindy claim that "feminists" are responsible for something. You haven't even elucidated what you're even blaming them for or why you think they're to blame.

So, while that lack of stuff doesn't make you wrong, it does make you lack credibility.

Shit, I'll just say it; It's post modern feminism

I love the smell of a grinding axe in the morning.

The bombast is strong with this one!

Or in England, where party that received the most support is kept out of power by a similar coalition.

How on earth does that make no sense? The coalition combined got much more support than Labour. Therefore it makes much more sense for them to share power than to hand it all to Labour.

It has the highest rate of worker productivity, the economy is growing, it has the largest manufacturing economy in the world by a large margin,

It also has higher rates of poverty and longer working hours, with fewer holidays than anywhere in the EU. Is that good? Is it worth the tradeoff. As for largest, well it helps being a large country. China has a very large industry sector, comparable to the US. Germany has a smaller one, about 1/3 of the size but then again it's about 1/4 of the size in overall GDP and population, too.

top colleges are basically all US,

Because Oxford and Cambridge don't exist? Actually if you look at the top university rankings woirldwide it's nearly an even split these days between the US and the UK. And the UK is much, much smaller (about 1/6 of the size in most economic measures).

Nobel prize winners are more US than elsewhere,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Yep looks like the US has most, but not by any factor out of proportion to the size of the country. 353 winners according to wikipedia. That compares to 115 for the UK (remember about 1/5 of the size), 26 for Switzerland (1/37 of the population), 30 for Sweden (1/30 of the population), 13 for Norway (1/60 of the population), 19 for the Netherlands (1/18 of the population --- this is about the same proportion), 12 for Israel (1/18 of the population), Germany (102, about 1/4 of the population), France 67 (1/5 of the population --- this is about the same proportion) and etc. I've got bored working through the list backwards from the US.

End point: yes the US has more but it's also much larger. Weighted by population, it's up there with the best developed countries, but is quite a bit below the top of the heap. Even if you discount the very small ones as statistical errors, you still have the big hitters like the UK, Germany and France which have respectively better and comparable numbers of prizewinners per capita.

and the US has won the world series for like 20 years in a row

That's becauese everyone else (to a first order approximation) is busy playing football. That's soccer to you guys.

The lack of government subsidizing of ethernet to some bumfuck exurb is just a sign that the US doesn't treat broadband as an inherent right of being a citizen, and personally I would agree.

I'm a Brit (you might have guessed). I actually like the US and would move there if I had the chance, but mate, you need to pull your head out of your arse. If you go and live in almost any other civilised country you will realise that everyone else has telecoms figured out much, MUCH better. Basically, it's faster, cheaper, more readily available and less abusive in almost any other country.

Some countries are just crap at things. What's more this is often a result of mass blindness on the part of the population who refuse to acknowledge that things are better elsewhere. In the UK we're like that about property purchasing (all fucked up 6 ways to Sunday here) and, rather entertainingly, mixer taps. Seems you Americans are like that about telecoms.

While Europe usually seem willing to commit fully to the second best choice

Do you have any evidence that it is the second best choice? Is there a region where there has been a free market for telecoms which has better results than the EU?

First bear in mind the attacker has local code execution. If they can put up a fake screengrabber, it's just a logout/reboot away from running a trojaned compositor (if you use Wayland), a trojaned screenlocker (if you use X) and on either system without even a reboot, a trojaned browser, terminal, ssh program and so on and so forth. So to say this is a serious flaw with X is hyperbole.

The next case is that you also claim Wayland is secure. Therefore X11 running on Wayland is secure. Therefore in that case X11 is being run in a secure manner. I claim that if that is the case, then X11 could very easily be secured, because it's eassy to see it in operation nowrunning in a way that the additional insecuritu doesn't break things.

I'm not really sure how creating yet another way for a "designated program" to monitor input events is supposed to address the problem that any X11 client can monitor keyboard events on any window in the absence of a grab, unless you intend to rewrite all existing software to grab the keyboard on receiving input focus, and force all the desktop environments to implement support for the extension and move their global keybindings into a specially designated client. At that point you might was well switch to a system designed for secure I/O from day oneâ"like Wayland.

OK, I'm lightly lost so I'm going to swing back to the original point.

First there's the one about server grabs which prevent other windows from opening. Well, you could easily have a protocol extension that allows only one connected client to bring up windows anyway. The continuation of the grab could either be faked to the grabber, or killed outright (the latter feature---killing grabs---was removed from Xorg by the wayland people because they decided we didn't need it!). Let's say it's first come, first serve, so that the first client to request this feature is the only one to get it. Or the screenlocker could get that command. This requires the WM and screenlocker to be run on boot before a trojan, but as I pointed out, if the system is that deeply trojanned anyway, then this is all pointless.

That requires some rewriting to whichever screenlockers you want to add the feature to, hardly a major undertaking since there's about 3 in common use and a few, more obscure, ones.

The other problem---a designated screen lock key combo. Well, if the screen locker has a passive grab on ctrl-alt-delete, then the fake screenlocker can't grab that, so that already works.

It's easy to implement the insecure X11 model on top of a secure system. The reverse is much more difficult.

Why? Why not have exactly the same security model? You haven't explained, only asserted, that your chosen security feature couldn't be easily available under X.

In fact when it comes to locking things down, there are things like the X security protocol, which blocks untrusted programs from executing various protocol commands. This already exists and could (I haven't checked if it does) easily block things like receiving events from a window on another connection, reparenting or redirecting a window on another connection, diddling with the global keymap and so on.

Anyway if there's unsanboxed local code execution, you're basically screwed on any system.