Look for a hybrid apnea mask. Has nasal pillows and a lower portion that covers the mouth.
Did the study attempt to cope with the underreporting issue?
Your completely ignoring the hamburger analogy makes it quite clear that you have no interest in participating in an honest debate.
If the author had said "all men..." then there would have been no room for interpretation. She did not, thus we are left to infer which men she is speaking about. You choose to interpret it as all men.
My point is that you are interpreting her statement incorrectly. Anything that follows from that is useless, a straw man.
That is why 'not all men!' is a worthless argument, and widely mocked. It is arguing against a statement that is not even being made.
Once you can get over that hurdle you will see that authors such as the one mentioned here are not attacking every man in the world. They speak only of the ones that fit the criteria of the negative traits they discuss. You will stop seeing their words as personal attacks, which they are not, and instead see them as the first step of progress. Step one, acknowledge there is a problem.
It's shocking to me that we STILL can't collectively as a society get past step one without people jumping in to defend men. as if we need to be defended!
Soon, every desktop in the world will be running it!
Next year, actually.
I assumed it was a joke. Nobody who has ever spent time in a US prison or spoken with someone who has would refer to the problem as 'an urban legend'.
Now how is Michio Kaku going to portray black holes as marauding monsters that travel around like itinerant serial killers, gobbling up everything in their path?
I suggest bringing in a robot sidekick named Maximillian to improve ratings.
no, you are interpreting it as you want to interpret it. the author did not write 'all men...' she simply wrote 'men...' which could be interpreted several ways. you choose to interpret it in a way that is ridiculous, and then go on to refute the ridiculous statement that you have put into her mouth. this is what we call a 'straw man'.
how about this: if i were to say 'hamburgers are delicious', would it be a constructive response to say 'not ALL hamburgers are delicious! McDonald's hamburgers are terrible, and you are wrong for claiming that ALL hamburgers are delicious!'
no, it would be a ridiculous response, because any reasonable human being could infer that when i say 'hamburgers are delicious' i mean that some hamburgers are delicious, that i think hamburgers are delicious in a general sense but that there could certainly be some hamburgers that are not delicious. certainly i would not claim that every single hamburger in existence is delicious.
from that, we could perhaps infer that the author thinks that the majority of men are overly sensitive to criticism from women. based on the comments on this story and past stories that mention sexism, i would tend to agree with her.
Did YOU look at the graph? The bars are comparing all of 2013 against the first half of 2014 (obviously, as the second half is in the future). So the fact that IE already matched last year's record is where the 100% figure comes from - it's another way to say "doubled". Unless the second half of 2014 has a lower exploit rate then the conclusion will be correct.
No, I am trying to drag you, kicking and screaming, into an epiphany.
I assure you, the author is not an idiot. It would be idiotic to claim that all men are overly sensitive to criticism. Anyone with half a brain, who is not also blinded by their own defense mechanisms, can see that the author does not mean all men. that would indeed be a ridiculous statement.
You can either interpret your way, which gets us nowhere, or my way, which is the beginning of a dialog. Choice is yours.
Let's try this.
One of the consequences is that [some significant portion of] men are extremely sensitive to being criticized by women
Do you still disagree? Because that is the statement the author was making.
you're being so obtuse, i would think you were trolling if you didn't sound so sincere.
One of the consequences is that men are extremely sensitive to being criticized by women
This is something that is simply not true of all men so why make statements like that?
that's you, defending us men against criticism.
Oh, i assure you, the post is terribly ironic. You are making a post defending men against criticism, against an article that says men are overly sensitive and quick to defend themselves. Delicious.
Every time a man responds to "men are this..." with "not ALL men!" an angel gets her wings.
We get it. Not ALL men. The author was not implying all men. Just some. That's still too many! There is still a problem that needs fixing! Self centered asshats assume they are being personally attacked, and feel the need to defend themselves, but THE CONVERSATION ISN'T ABOUT YOU.
Once that hurdle is overcome, maybe we can move on to actually making progress.
i suppose you don't appreciate the irony in your post, but i do. i appreciate it enough for both of us.
yes, we understand that NOT ALL MEN are extremely sensitive to being criticized by women.
some of them are. plenty enough to cause problems. jumping in and saying NOT ALL MEN is just derailing the conversation before it can get anywhere productive. way to defend us downtrodden and persecuted men everywhere!