The consequences, in this particular case, is that the someone will forever be shunned by institutions. The only good thing to come out of this is that they will never work again. Their name is forever tainted due to the large amount of non-science that they did. The other party of this little drama will continue being a well-respected nobel prize-winner working on cancer research, with offers of employment and requests for assistance pouring in.

The witch-hunter in this round fully got what she deserved. When your publicly available CV does not match up to publicly available information *AND* that particular fact is the first hit on google you may as well kill yourself - no one else is ever going to believe a word you say about your competence again.

Are you really so dim that you would really take the thus far unsubstantiated word of a couple of activists over tens of the worlds most eminent female scientists? That you believe that sexist jokes are a bigger issue than plagiarism? In the science world (yeah, I used to work as one) plagiarism is the biggest sin one can commit. Religion ideals like you tend to espouse? Not so much.

What? No MRA conspiracy post? No violent invective hurled at imaginary manbabies? Your standards are dropping poperatzo :-)

How the hell is this insightful? She claims to have published stuff that she hadn't. She claims to have worked in positions that she hasn't. There is a large body of evidence that she has fabricated her CV. She now claims a nobel prize-winner said sexist things. Many of the eminent female scientists, as well as people who were actually at the toast her gave disputes this, yet you jump to her defence? What the hell is wrong with you?

That's because the goal isn't to be productive, it's to remind the plebs of their places. Offices are reserved for those who are higher in the organisation, not those who require offices. It's a class system and its' designed to remind you that you are the cattle.

The occasional loyal worker will, of course, argue that open-plan is better ("collaboration", "exchange of ideas", etc), but that's because they consider themselves important enough to the organisation that they will one day get their own office - IOW they aren't poor, they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

There are no credible reports that estimate anything above 8%. There are very very few that find above 4%. I generally round up to 10% when talking about the homosexual population. In general, any "report" that finds above 4% (including bisexuals) is suspect.

You're probably already married, and in the worse way possible (community of property). The reason I keep getting married is because I don't want to live with a woman for longer than the length dictated by my jurisdiction for cohabitation. The easiest thing is a prenup marriage. If I *don't* keep getting married then I don't get the protection that a prenup gives in the event of a breakup.

TLDR; if you cohabitate with your partner for a long enough length of time the laws decide that you *are* married in community of property.

It only serves no purpose if you never intend sleeping with this person again. If you want to play around a little more next time with this person, this condom absolutely serves a purpose.

One doesn't. The others do. You've simply displayed a link between lack of womens rights and their propensity for CS. Well Done!

There's no restrictions in the west either.

Just like the west.

Their young girls have fewer choices than western young girls. Western girls have many more choices, and are *encouraged* from birth to believe that they can do anything they want to, so they go ahead and do whatever they want to. "Follow your heart" is a western expression for kids, not a middle eastern one.

My point still stands: When young girls (like in the west) are told they can do whatever they want to they avoid CS like the plague. When they are not given a choice they can be found in CS. Did your Iranian friends forget to tell you that they didn't get to choose their major; that their parents did? Or is that a fact you conveniently "forgot"?

FWIW, I'm from a culture closely related to the eastern and middle-eastern ones, and the way it normally goes is that the parents choose on their childs behalf, for everything from spouse to college major. Next time you meet with your friends ask them about it - I very much doubt a culture with arranged marriages does not have parents arranging the majors too.

He said "I see no good reasons for $FOO". Almost by definition, it means that the ones you feel satisfy your minimum level for being "good" do not satisfy his. You're basically saying that if someone disagrees with your opinion of "good", then they haven't understood the issue.

By the same logic, if you disagree with someone else's opinion of "good", then does it mean that you don't understand the issue?

Nope. You are getting modded down for using creationist arguments. You, personally, keep getting asked for evidence. You haven't provided any.

When the

What leads you to believe that? All you've done is display a link between "countries with fewer rights for women" and "women in STEM/CS". This would lead a rational person to believe that when women have more options they exercise them (like in the west). When they have fewer options they are stuck with STEM/CS.

And you know for sure that this does not happen in those countries you listed? As far as I know of those cultures, they treat women much much more different than they do men, including toys and such.

You proved his point - even when attacked for their choices, boys still do whatever they are interested in.

If the best you can do is an online chat service open to all (not just men), then you've already lost. You keep getting asked for evidence. Repeatedly. And this is what you eventually come up with?