Incindiary comments made by conservatives being blocked on social media is not the same as a baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. That's a red herring that everyone seems to be throwing around, and the analogy is all wrong.

This is more akin to a baker refusing to bake a cake that is shaped like a penis. Should a baker be forced to bake a cake that is shaped like a penis? No. Should it matter that the people who want it baked are gay? No. But if a person keeps on asking the baker to bake cakes shaped like penises, then the baker should have every right to further deny service to them.

Likewise, social media sites aren't banning people because they are conservative. They are banning them for saying things that go against the values that those social media site claims to adhere to.

Statistically, the reason life expectancy is so high nowadays is that the expected mortality rate of infants is historically low thanks to cultural lifestyle changes, vaccines, medical technology, and birth control.

That's the only argument of yours that I am going to respond to. You put a lot of words in my mouth there. I wrote 45 words, which is not nearly enough for you to safely assume that I was against half as many of the things you mentioned. Slow your roll, and think before you diatribe.

Well said. I wish I had mod points to upvote your post.

Our world is in tatters because of rich people who seem to think that everything is their playground to do with what they want so long as they can afford it. Just because something doesn't cost you money, doesn't mean you aren't paying for it.

Neurons need good nutrition in order to develop healthy, strong connections. Not even considering the beneficial effects of growing up in a reduced stress environment. People who get proper nutrition during the early stages of development are going to be better equipped to handle stress as an adult and make better life choices overall.

You need to cite your sources. A loss of 80 points? The way they score IQ tests, 100 is always going to be the average, and 50 points is the range for people who need assistance with daily tasks like going to the bathroom and eating. Assuming these students are higher than average, you are probably looking at a sample in the 120-130 range. You're telling me that by going vegan, in 6 months a group of university students went from being at around 120 to needing assistance with going to the bathroom?

Here are 5 studies that correlate race with IQ, either directly or indirectly. These are peer-reviewed academic papers, so they are all behind a paywall, however, you can read how relevant they are to the subject in the abstract.

Ethnicity and intelligence in children exposed to poverty environments: An analysis using the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.in...

Future cognitive ability: US IQ prediction until 2060 based on NAEP http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/jour...

Maternal and offspring intelligence in relation to BMI across childhood and adolescence http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s413...

Generally representative is representative of none: Commentary on the pitfalls of IQ test standardization in multicultural settings http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1385...

Racial and ethnic group differences in the heritability of intelligence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.in...

Nobody would publish a study like that, because it wouldn't pass peer review. Not because of the woke mob; simply because intellect can't be directly studied. If you want to look at difference in IQ or standardized test scores based on cultural, ethnic, gender, or socio-economic status, there are plenty available. I'm on my phone, so it's not exactly easy to throw up references, but I will say that I wrote a paper a few months back that cited a study that compared racial demographics, test scores, and crime rates.

Having said all that, if the results aren't worth publishing, then they will probably not get published, and that has nothing to do with biases in the prevailing view.

Due to the fact that they are all based on user voting, they are all popular opinions. However, informative 5 is a different ball of flux than funny 5.

Well, most people who use hard drugs will use whatever is easy to get at the time: crack, heroin, meth, or whatever. The idea of someone being a crackhead or a junky is a myth, for the most part.

My favorite so far is a silence.

You're suggesting that the operating system that has the highest amount of variation within itself is the best option, even though it has the lowest number of preexisting users for practical personal computing?

Voting with your wallet doesn't work any longer. For every person who actually changes their mind with a future TV purchase based on getting annoyed by the ads, there are dozens of people buying the tv who will not be annoyed enough to overlook the fact that it can connect to their Netflix account.

And I just realized that you were joking. I'm smart.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you, but I think it's pretty clear that this is a result of the last 4 years of American exceptionism.