Dilemma of determinism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

I'm going to say that any reasonable definition of Free Will that is incompatible with determinism is a definition for a thing that doesn't exist, regardless of how deterministic or non-deterministic the environment is.

I will however accept that reasonable definitions for Free Will can be made that are compatible with determinism (and non-determinism). I feel that the difference between Compatibilism and Incompatibilism is, at that point, simply a matter of the semantics around "free will", which has never had a simple, universal, well-posed definition.

It's not that men are better negotiators, it's that they are more likely to try to negotiate in the first place, when an offer is not explicitly described as negotiable.*

I thought this was really well known. It is scientifically recorded -- one citation is here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18...

It's actually often cited as a big reason for the gender pay gap, especially when you consider that negotiation isn't just about salary but also about position.

* There are also further possibilities, not fully proven, that can compound that. One you've already identified: perhaps women are just worse at it, either biologically or through socialization. Another is that people on the other end of the negotiating table might be better at negotiating against women, again either biologically or through socialization or other economic factors.

That only makes sense if negotiation is a core competency of your job.

It *will* bias the company away from hiring people who are good at their jobs and *also* good negotiators...but at the same time it should tend to bias them toward hiring people who are good at their jobs and *bad* negotiators.

The problem with ignorance is that you have no good basis on which to choose what not to be ignorant about.

Spaces are unquestionably useful in some cases. Tabs need to justify their existence.

I can virtually guarantee if you were inventing the first character set today, with no backward-compatibility constraints and no knowledge of the real world's history of keyboarding, you would not include a tab key. It's a relic of the typewriter era, and it's redundant. You *would* probably have a "change the currently focussed element" key, but I suspect it would be related to the arrow keys and would be positional rather than linear. Word processors would have a different affordance for "indent bulleted list".

Disk space for source code tabs vs. spaces is irrelevant.

To me, the tab character causes problems and the only real problem it solves (different tastes for how much width to indent) are better solved by an IDE which is already solving the same problem in so many other contexts, like syntax highlighting in different colours etc.. An IDE could easily say that a line that starts with a string of X consecutive spaces should be represented as Y consecutive spaces. Y may even be a fraction, or a function if you choose to have tab mean "align to previous", but 2, 4, and 8 fixed-width spaces are pretty common. Personally I like 3, but at my workplace the standard is 4 and that's just fine.

Depends what you mean by "easily transportable".

A packet of powder is harder to break than a glass, and if it does break, less devastating to other contents of your backpack.

Extortion is not necessarily violence (though violent extortion is certainly a real thing). The definition of violence requires physical force. There seems to be a trend of people confusing "violence" and "force" with coercion. They aren't the same thing.

A bank robber who robs 5 banks is charged with 5 bank robberies.

This guy isn't extorting a consortium of 10000 people over a single something they all share, he's doing 10000 extortions.

You should go argue with the other AC who claims that your side is the side of feminists abusing the term rape.

At *best* this is a conflation. The guy used the same word, rape, to mean two completely different things in that sentence. Once about forced sexual intercourse and once about an invasion of privacy (albeit with a sexual component).

You're losing track of the argument. The AC above said that society was guilty and the revenge porn operator was innocent. He lieterally said

. The person you're quoting is pointing out how stupid that is. You are attacking a straw man.

It should be disabled by default, and optionally re-enabled to support video streaming sites where autoplay video makes some sense.

You are implying the GP is objectively describing reality, rather than making things up.

Reduction in suicides is a good thing. Relative rates of suicides between male and female people might inform what solutions are effective, but no, parity between males and females is not particularly important or "good" here. In exactly the same way that it's not important that we have parity in the number of men who are sexually harassed by their bosses at work.

Parity is a reasonable goal for allocating limited amounts of a good thing in many cases.

Instead of saying we shouldn't do something about this, how about suggesting ways we can reduce suicide that helps male people who commit suicide? Then you can assemble an argument this action on the basis of resource allocation.

That's rather Lamarckian though. You'd have to demonstrate a selection mechanism that applies to those who have power in society, which has lasted for enough generations to generate a measurable response.

Isn't this obviously true?

Surely you can't deny that there are non-feminists who engage in human trafficking for sexual slavery. Thus, not being a feminist means you support sexual slavery. Right?

Or are there multiple branches of non-feminism?