So robbery has a 40% false allegation rate*? I never knew.

*"False Rape Allegations" by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12)

Well I don't know about your species, but humans tend to keep their reproductive organs quite a bit lower than between their ears.

An authoritative law review article debunked the canard that only two percent of all rape claims are false -- the author traced this number to its baseless source. See http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf.

As reported by "False Rape Allegations" by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12), Professor Kanin’s major study of a mid-size Midwestern U.S. city over the course of nine years found that 41 percent of all rape claims were false. Kanin also studied the police records of two unnamed large state universities, and found that in three years, 50 percent of the 64 rapes reported to campus police were determined to be false, without the use of polygraphs.

In addition, a landmark Air Force study in 1985 studied 556 rape allegations. It found that 27% of the accusers recanted, and an independent evaluation revealed a false accusation rate of 60%. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.

I always wonder about the mental capacity of people willing to make idiotic statements like this.

What would you do in the situation? Nothing?
Or would you inform management? And if the person who cut in line tells management to F-off? Then the cops are called. And if that person tells the cops to F-off? Then violence is used to keep the person in line.

The only difference between you (assuming you do something other than nothing) and the person you are criticizing is that they are willing to handle the problem themselves rather than pass the buck to someone else. If you do anything to stop the person from getting in line, you ARE justifying having their ass kicked, or the threat thereof, to keep that person "in line" with social norms. Morari is willing to admit to himself that this is what is being done, while you hide behind the power of "socially acceptable" violence in the form of police action (and hide behind being an AC).

The difference between democracy and anarchy:

Anarchy is mob rule.
Democracy is mob rule on a national level.

The difference between anarchy and civilization:

Under Anarchy, you must project the threat of violence to keep yourself safe.
Under Civilization, you pay taxes to people who will project the threat of violence to keep you safe.

These statements are the truth of the matter, no matter how much you want to pretty them up. Violence is what makes the world go 'round.

That same 'social contract' that states you don't kill someone over a disagreement?

But let's look at the root here: WHO put that child in danger?
A) The guy who "didn't do enough" (in your opinion) to protect the child.
B) The guy with the fucking axe invading the house with the intent to do harm on person A.

Out of those two, who really deserves your scorn?
Since you chose A, I can tell how fucked up your moral code is.

When you compare never-married childless women to never married childless men (and control for education and work experience) you will find that the average woman's wage is 118% of the average man's wage.

Source: Why Men Earn More, by Warren Farell

Actually, Google should sue the country of Brazil for damages for allowing the Internet inside their domain.

I mean, if it's Google's fault for allowing an anonymous posting, then it's Brazil's fault for allowing Google to be seen.

Well the trick is to define "sexist" and "racist" in manners that don't cause one to be an idiot if they refrain from being racist and/or sexist.

Is the average black man different from the average white man? Yes. This is truth. So if "being non-racist" means that you have to ignore truth, then you are being an idiot.

Is the average man different from the average woman to the point where one would be stupid to not treat them differently unless given reasons to believe otherwise? (i.e. would you be very likely to get a different response for cracking a lewd joke in front of a unknown random male co-worker than a random unknown female co-worker?) Again this is yes. So to treat them the same rather than make best guesses means you must refuse to use deductive reasoning... again making yourself an idiot for "being non-sexist"

So I have no problem with being "racist" or being "sexist" as I am not an idiot. If someone wants to define racism or sexism in a way that doesn't make someone an idiot for conforming, please feel free to make the attempt... I haven't seen success yet.

Oh, and yes there is such a thing as bigotry, but that's a separate issue and can apply to much more than race or gender. There is no need for a special word to mean "bigotry in regards to race" or "bigotry in regards to gender" when just plain bigotry will work.

(Damn, this is worth losing the mod points used)
what is interesting from a science standpoint is that a simple deletion of some 26 genes of the 7th chromosome can result in extreme, but uniform social difference from neurotypical people.

It's not really interesting once you realize that genetics works above the neck as well as below. That it's ok to say Blacks are more likely to get sickle cell, but not state their average IQ is lower. It's fine to think the subset of Cacusians called Jews are more likely to get Tay-Sachs, but to say they are more likely to be good with money is bad. Nobody would disagree with "boys have penises and girls have vaginae" but everyone gets up in arms if you state men prefer to go do things while women prefer to leave work and stay home once they have babies.

People don't want to allow the admission of a genetic driven behavior. It entirely destroys many of the "progressive" movements which are based on the fallacy of equality. But, unfortunately, we as a society have decided to put the goal of equality over the reality of human existence... and we'll eventually pay the price for that.

I've been thinking about this, and here's my "this just might work" answer.

Remove any and all DRM other than a simple "CD in tray" check or Steam-like authorization (one time at install, possibly periodic infrequent after).

Every game comes with a "key" of some sort, and register online.

That key grants the first 1 thru X DLC free for that user, even if it's total crap like the multiplayer "patch" for Bioshock2. If the registered user gets it for free, they don't care because it "came with the game" even if it came out later. Have an activation method for installing the DLC and authorizing it online.

Yes, this idea does hamper the second-hand sales market, but I'm honestly not as concerned about that. But what it does do is get people to buy the game and get a few DLC free (bringing them back to the game and getting another chance to get re-interested in it), while not being draconian and hampering the end-user.

Ahh, but that would be taxing the people rather than the big bad corporations. It matters not that it would change what the corporations do to cater to the new market (and be more effective, to boot).

And the average voter, who isn't responsible for their own decisions, would have no part of that and replace any incumbent who dared to say that the voters are responsible for their choices.

Look up the post.

The only time "all" was used was in the post he quoted.

The only time he used a similar word "always" he prefaced it with "pretty much"

So your proposition is that a witty reply to me is going to change fundamental human behaviors?

So, basically, you admit I'm right but you just can't stomach the truth. That's ok. Message received.

I don't see anything in there that would contradict Unwin's work. Was there anything in particular that you saw?

(The fact that some men are attracted to other men does not diminish that the vast majority of men are attracted to women. Those women, in turn, require a level of "success" aproximated by social norms before they'll engage in sex with the man.)