Who watches TV these days.
This doesn't reflect my experiences with most companies these days. The problem with Google is they have essentially no real competition so they've no incentive to improve their services.
Good luck trying to contact them as an advertiser too.
Odd then that women get far lesser prison sentences than men for the exact same crimes. Muh soggy knees!
What criteria were they using to define intelligence? How quickly people learn, or general ability to retain information or what? Because someone raised by wild dogs and someone raised in the finest educational traditions of modern society are going be at very different levels of intelligence no matter how you slice it.
It's called entryism.
She was a member of a group pushing for the rights of women.
Give me your fucking papers, comrade.
Funny how often the champions of the "rights of women" seem to pair up with the kinds of people who would fit right in with the apparatchikistas these days.
I'd imagine it's not all that hard to improve on the lethality of nature. Just infect a large number of people with the relevant virus and extract the strain from the person it affects/kills the most etc, no different to breeding dogs for certain traits. Even the lowest tech terrorist could manage it with a large enough test population, although not being an expert I could be mistaken here.
Okay. You're wrong.
Sure, as long as you say it with sufficient certainty it becomes reality, right. Narrative!
You've got an unhealthy attitude towards information, tossing classes of it whole sale because of other examples with superficial similarities that are flawed for intuitive reasons.
You appear to mistake my attitude towards information with my attitude towards unabashed barefaced bullshit.
You've got an unhealthy attitude towards debate, being quick to develop a persecution complex
Right yes, it must have taken me years to let such hatred fester.
You've got an unhealthy approach to identifying zealotry, because, I'm not even a postmodernist.
Good for you. However I know you're a feminist zealot so don't even bother denying it.
What I'm getting at here, is that you've manifested some serious personal problems
There we go. Facts and logic aren't on your side, everyone else must have personal problems.
I'd like to think it was worth it if it provokes even a moment of introspection.
What would you know of introspection? Incidentally it appears we're into the bargaining stage, having gotten past shock, denial, grief and anger, and I'm not running out of popcorn yet.
Your tactical and indeed strategic error in this conversation lies in assuming I'm trying to convince you of anything. That, of course, would be a fool's game. Instead I address the wider audience who will read this and make up their own minds, and believe me you've been nothing but helpful in that regard.
So thanks, I guess.
Don't be stupid.
Oh I'm not. I wish I could say the same about you, but you went ahead and completely ignored the multiple difference referenced works and the linked paper from Straus et al.
None are so blind, etc.
Oh gosh shaming tactics, next you'll be asking who hurt me and why I hate women. Carry on, it's always fun watching a zealot vanish up their own arsehole.
Oh I'm sorry did you want more? Noted feminist Sandra Harding has described Newton’s great work Principia Mathematica as “a rape manual”. English professor Katherine Hayles’s elaboration of Luce Irigaray’s portrayal of the history of hydrodynamics as distorted by males’ fascination with “rigid bodies” and “linear models” and their association of femininity with fluidity, was marred by a serious misunderstanding of hydrodynamics, according to philosopher of science Noretta Koertge. Another gem from Hayles: “The special theory of relativity lost its epistemological clarity when it was combined with quantum mechanics to form quantum field theory. By mid-century all three were played out or had undergone substantial modification”. This will come as a terrible shock to real physicists.
“Women’s Ways of Knowing” is the title of a widely used text in Womens Studies. It claims that women “have cultivated and learned ways of knowing which are powerful but have been neglected and denigrated by the dominant intellectual ethos of our time”. A second claim is that educators can help women develop their own authentic voices if they emphasise connection over separation, understanding and acceptance over assessment, and collaboration over debate. Daphne Patai, from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, comments that like nearly all feminist research in this area, the authors fail to undertake comparative studies to see whether male students fall into similar patterns.
According to Patai, Women’s Ways of Knowing is based on inconclusive research and draws too uncritically on the books of Noddings, Ruddick, and Gilligan. Serious flaws in these books have been repeatedly pointed out in mainstream psychology journals but are not acknowledged. She says that Womens Studies faculty offer the book “as proof of the superiority of women’s wonderfully different and rewarding ways of knowing”.
Or maybe we should start a narrative about the distortion and concealment if not outright fabircation of data by feminist academics. I wonder what vocabulary would emerge to describe those problematic discourses.
And finally in “Words of Power: a Feminist Reading of the History of Logic”, Andrea Nye gives a critique of logic itself, concluding that “logic in its final perfection is insane”.
Yep, how dare those scientists talk back to their ideological superiors.
How about you take your fucked up little religion and fuck off instead hey.
Yeah, you and everybody else!
Very true, feminists are particularly frequent abusers of scientific openness. From the combined deconstructionist assault with postmodernism in the 90s back to Luce Irigaray describing E=mc^2 as a sexed equation and Mary Koss' wacky statistical contortionism and on and on. I recommend Paul Gross and Norman Levitt's book “Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science”, where they give an illuminating account of the growth of fallacious theories in US universities and how these have been allowed to grow unchallenged.