Just pointing out to anyone taking the above poster seriously that he's quoting a nazi site. Friatider.se.

Swapped X and Y by mistake.

The given problem: Environment X sucks for population Y.

Your solution: Forbid population X from working in environment Y.

You also conflate thinking about sex and being sexist. Those are distinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

GP is wrong. Even in, say, Sweden, fiber isn't close to be standard. ADSL pretty much IS standard, though.

Yes because a "We just cured cancer"-discovery isn't going to be profitable AT ALL. Nope. Not at all.

You know i think the fundamental problem with the american system is how easy it is to sue.

It sounds like a fundamental limitation on the target system the fact that it only has a garbage text editor.

What "enemy"?

I'm talking about government influence, not random acts of violence.

But if you want to argue random acts of violence I think Breivik takes the cake.

Not if he cannot be promoted at his current position and if wage increases are unlikely.

Then it's an issue of staying at some place and knowing you can't get more, and possibly lose some of what you get now to start working at a position where NOT being promoted isn't a certainty.

I think you're overestimating the influence of the islamic far right in Europe while underestimating the christian far right.

There are two reasons for that.

1: Feminism is reacting to the historical fact that it has usually been the reverse that was true. It is only contraceptives which have managed to change this.

2: This is compounded, and this is where it probably gets "too complex" for a lot of people, by the fact that this behavior IS inherently sexist. Of course, here a lot of people fail to understand that the famous "patriarchy", which feminists decry, is also sexist toward men.

Women, it says, are all harmless victims who cannot abuse children. Women are perfect parents who should stay home and care for their children. Men are child abusers and rape monsters and are not fit to care for children.

Note that there's some overlap between a certain subset of feminists (known as radical feminists) and conservatives to confuse the matter further.

We need the sarcasm font to be made into a standard.

That's because culture shapes interpretations of religious texts. You cannot simply look at a religious text and, using only that, make broad statements about the religion itself.

The religion filters the text through human interpretations. What you put in is not necessarily what you get out.

Look at christianity, for example.