You just described the primary reason why Twitter is popular. It really only allows vacuous shouting so it attracts people incapable of forming coherent ideas but still want to blurt out their opinions without having to worry about them being challenged by meaningful discussion.

It is also good for making fun of people. So it at least can be amusing watching the dynamics of these two incompatible groups of people interacting.

Don't get me wrong- C is definitely the right tool for some jobs. I'm not about to give up my C compiler. I am merely lamenting this macho culture around it. "Real programmers use C" and the idea that if you don't use it it means you are a bad programmer.

Perhaps I am just extra critical of this because it was the prevailing attitude with the faculty and student body at the university I attended. Coupled with a fairly anti-math culture it produced less than stellar results as you might imagine.

This is why romanticizing C is not a good idea. It's a pain in the ass language that should only be used when it has to. Currently there a far too many C zealots that are trying to project to the world that they are experts but would be better described as Dunning-Kruger sufferers.

The [string of ad hominems]s here are a larger group of people who are tired of being labeled [string of ad hominems] because they don't think you alone should be able to declare who deserves "mutual respect" and "tolerance" and who doesn't. Nor that you should be the arbiter of whose ramblings deserve criticisms (not your own of course!) Apparently you think a lot of things deserve to be insulted (not too respectful really) including being "right wing".

Never have I seen such a succinct example of why people get annoyed with what has now become known as "SJW". "I'm just a morally superlative person that believe in mutual respect and you're a dumb, horrible [string of insults] that does nothing but ramble." Brilliant.

No but you did say that thinking these biological differences might cause, you know, differences was ignorant. And that's just a flat out stupid thing to say.

Yeah, yeah they do. I mean you can keep repeating that but it makes it about as true as a creationist saying evolution is wrong.

No sweat- I was just mocking you.

Excuse while I put little weight in the grading of comprehension and logic from someone that believes thinking biological differences could cause differences is ignorant of biology. Seriously- I find the fact that that train of thought could exist in someone's head fascinating.

Girls may like pink because it is associated with "girly" things but that in no way proves or indicates that they like girly things because they are "taught" to. Things are considered girly because girls tend to like them. Colours are a fashionable thing and preferences tend to change seasonally. So you are right to state that there is little reason to think colour choice is strongly influenced by biology. Congrats but that would be a red-herring in the discussion of sexual dimorphism.

Biologically there is considerable sexual dimorphism in almost all primates including their behaviour. Humans are included in this group. Claiming that biology cannot influence differences in the way boys/men and girls/women act is not just ignorant. It's flat out absurd.

That is not the naturalistic fallacy. "Fallacy" is not some word you can just throw around to feel smart. If the discussion is about whether someone/some group/some thing is naturally inclined to behave a certain way it is not a fallacy to posit that it may be natural.

But you go ahead and tell your daughters that liking princesses is bad and they aren't allowed to do it. You sound like a great parent. You should probably prevent them from listening to devil music too. Oh- and dancing with boys. That leads to kissing, nookie and being a house wife (which is super bad, just like liking princesses).

Something changed around 2000 that affected the IT industry? But it was so stable and risk free around that time; I wonder what it could have been.

Men and women are biologically different. Stating that differences between the two can be biological in nature is not ignorance of biology. Asserting that any differences are absolutely not biological is ignorance of biology.

Well doesn't that just prove that all differences between men and women are because evil society is forcing pink on women.

Realistically you don't. It is a hard enough job simply defining "intelligence" so without the parameters to define intelligence how can we objectively measure it? At best we can say that IQ is correlated with intelligence.

I'm not sure not selling phones is a good business plan for a company that was in the process of hemorrhaging market-share. Their drop had nothing to do with this move. If anything the countries in question saw an opportunity to pressure the weakened RIM at that time.

What kind of threat would that be anyway? "Won't sell us phones? Alright, our people will buy iPhones instead which already do what we want".

If they could then there would be some kind of metric. There are plenty of nonsensical and/or completely contradictory philosophies. There are reasons for this, of course. They all boil down to things being "unknowable" though. So philosophers cannot identify serious or "correct" philosophies.

If children were performing science on equal level with tenured professors then yeah I would say it is not exactly respectable. Likewise if my high conversations with friends are indistinguishable from serious topical discussion then it isn't the most respectable.

That was a complete non-sequitur. Science can be described using philosophy. You might be able to define science as a philosophy but saying science is philosophy is useless.

This whole conversation is about whether science was achieved by philosophy instead of in spite of it. Which you have agreed with. A few philosophers realized they couldn't get meaningful results using traditional philosophy and had to develop better methods. That they were classified as "philosophers" by the context of the time means science no more came from philosophy than it did from theology.