You dodged a bullet there; doing IT for a law firm is horrendous. they don't want to pay you what you're worth and you're working with people who argue for a living.

If they could make a timepiece, i'd wear one. who needs straps!

Heh, it's been a while since I've cited that. I had to look it back up. Unfortunately, I can only find an article discussing the study in the limited time I have right now: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/dr-paul-irwing-there-are-twice-as-many-men-as-women-with-an-iq-of-120plus-426321.html

And, also, I must correct myself: 20+ points away from norm is 2:1. 70+ points away from norm is still 30:1

1) Please enumerate any government-granted rights which men enjoy that do not apply to women in equal or greater measure.
2) Please enumerate any government-imposed responsibilities which women endure that do not apply to men in equal or greater measure.

Now please reverse those questions.

Which gender is being discriminated against? Small hint: it's not women.

You're going to claim that the discrimination which is important is social? Women make up 52-54% of the population. If women are, in fact, "equal" then social discrimination will end as soon as women want it to end.

Are you going to claim that women are disadvantaged in money or spending power? Women make 80% of spending decisions (I can cite this if you actually care).

Equal rights without equal responsibilities or privilege is NOT equality.

Traditionally:
A) Men had greater rights.
B) Women had less responsibilities.
C) Women had greater privilege.

Feminism wants to correct A and ignore B and C... again proving Feminism is not a movement for equality.

The only real question remaining is if Feminism is a lie or a hate movement.

Did you read past the title? Apparently not.

No, but nice try to make his comment what you need it to be so you can actually debate it.

What he said was: [paraphrased]"There are more smart men than women (and more dumb men than women.) When we look at people who are skilled at math enough to apply to our math-heavy science college, there will be more men than women in the group."

The entire scientific community agrees with me. SAT scores agree with me. Nature agrees with me. Reality agrees with me.

See, mother nature was a smart cookie. She decided that it wasn't wise to waste reproductive capacity on environmental testing.

Actually, there is a difference in standard deviation depending on gender as well. Men have larger standard deviations than women in just about every physiological trait. IQs 20+ points away from norm (120 and above or 80 and below) are 6:1 male:female. IQs 70+ points away from norm have a gender ratio of 30:1. So, yes, to say that one gender is "superior" to another, even in IQ would be incorrect. However, to say that the superior people are much more likely one gender (male) is truth no matter how politically incorrect it is.

So you are correct that knowing one's gender is insignificant about predicting their IQ, but knowing one's IQ can help significantly in predicting their gender.

Actually, no. This false belief is one of the biggest problems in today's society. The truth of the matter is that men are more diverse than women, even if the averages are the same. What that means is that you'll only see 50/50 gender split if the job is something that 50% of the population could qualify for. As soon as you have a job/role/whatever that less than 50% of the population could do, you will see more men than women who are capable of doing said job.

For example:
Have a job that requires nothing other than a 50th percentile math ability? You'll see 50/50.
Have a job that requires nothing other than a 95th percentile math ability? You'll see 64/36 in favor of males.
Have a job that requires nothing other than a 99th percentile math ability? You'll see 71/29 in favor of males.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm

It's really that simple. A job that requires skills that only one out of a hundred people have, and you're already seeing a massive gender disparity on who is even capable of doing the job.

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)

What, am I the only one who remembers Daggerfall, or Outpost, or Darkfall? Game crushing bugs on PCs have been around for far longer than 10 years.

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).

yeah, and if you add in the glacial pace of gameplay plus the wolf/sheep problem of pvp games, this thing is going to be DOA if the three devs working on it don't get their head out of their asses.

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.