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.
And we will end up with super-mosquitos that are even more resistant to anything we try to throw at them.
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?
Linux on the desktop is a failure because of its own lack of innovation and imagination.
Really? Because other than the availability of applications for it, can you name even one thing that Linux itself actually lacks? I'm betting that you can't. Can you further explain how the lack of applications being developed for Linux is anything other than a reflection of the fact that not many people use it in the first place, which itself is a direct consequence of the fact that the applications that people want aren't found on it? Of course, it's a vicious cycle... but that's not the operating system's fault. Before Visicalc came out, for instance, there was almost no practical reason whatsoever for any non hobbyist or professional computer programmer or computer scientist to ever own one of these new-fangled home computers. Visicalc's success was not because of any technical merits of the computing platform it was developed for, it was because it was software that did what people actually wanted, and so people went and bought it.
I would challenge you to find a study which backs the alternative. The human tendency to prefer choices that positively benefit oneself is almost axiomatic, and I would suspect you would actually need to give ample evidence that this is actually *not* the case. Practically every commercial game ever made, killer productivity appliications like spreadsheets and paint software, and even operating systems like Windows itself... the single greatest driving force behind them is nothing more or less than simple greed.
Of course, it's also greed that makes most of us get up every morning and go to work.... since we have to keep a roof over our heads. My point being that this is such a primal and instinctive characteristic of human nature that to thing that merely being a disruptive technology could overcome it is extremely naive. As was already said above, on technical merits alone, Linux easily meets the criteria of being such a disruptive technology, but because not enough people use it, there isn't an abundance of commercial application development for it, which in turn leaves the OS as feeling less useful to people who necessarily need or expect such applications to be available on their computer.
Linux desktop distributions in any usable form most certainly were late to the game.
No [application development] is driven by making something disruptive and useful,
I'm going to assume that you genuinely believe that and are not deliberately trolling... your assumption, however, is mistaken. The number one motivating factor in application development, by far, is the human instinct of selfishness and greed. I would challenge you to find any study which shows that this is *not* the case. While certainly there is no lack of applications developed with more altruistic motivations, mainstream application development is almost invariably motivated by some sort of commercial incentive... which does not necessarily mean that the software itself will cost any money, but that in some way the development of the application will provide an increase in revenue.
If a subordinate asks you a pertinent question, look at him as if he had lost his senses. When he looks down, paraphrase the question back at him.
