What useful things can be harvested from the atmosphere? Are there chemicals that could be used to make plastics? Could a small habitat expand into a floating city?
I might not understand what you're saying.
The farther away galaxies are from each other, the faster they are moving from each other, and, the faster they are accelerating. Wouldn't this and other phenomenon be independent of my perception? I mean gravity doesn't only affect my physical being and the construction of it in my mind. It objectively affects the passage of time throughout the universe. Doesn't it?
Time cannot go backwards because time, as an independent phenomenon doesn't exist. The passage of time, and what enables "change" is the expansion of the universe. It expands slower or faster near or away from the influence of gravity as time passes faster or slower near or away from the influence of gravity. Time and space aren't simply "relative". The are the same thing. Entropy is strongly correlated but not actually coupled.
IANAP, and I haven't actually convinced anyone that the way I see it is true. But I think the universe described by Renate Loll is probably the closest to my own mental picture. Or, at least, the idea that there are not really three spacial dimensions but one made my own mental map easier to "run" in my mind.
nice shift loser
wtf. YOU are the one shifting and deflecting. ONLY YOU. And that's the fucking point. There is nofuckingway you didn't read that post, or have been exposed to same or similar evidence IN FUCKING GENERAL.
Your ENTIRE series of postings has been under the PRETENSE of being ignorant of all such information. You are a LIAR.
Right above my original reply to your post, in reply to the same post I replied to. FFS are you going to deny reading it? Pretend you've never seen references to same or similar EVER?
Yeah, well done.
links to said evidence was posted BEFORE my reply
Flat out fucking lie.
I never said anything even remotely close to "hard evidence that proves that girls are hardwired to develop interests or traits in the absence of social feedback." YOUR BULLSHIT WORDS that you tried to attribute to me.
"Should be easy for you to provide a single counter-example then." YOU NEVER PROVIDED ONE GODDAMN EXAMPLE TO COUNTER LIAR.
Your original post stated there is no evidence...but you know there is, links to said evidence was posted BEFORE my reply AND I believe you already fucking knew there was evidence. You are dishonest.
Liar. A counter example would imply that you provided an example to begin with -you didn't. You simply made an assertion.
And you are shifting your point AGAIN, and no I did NOT argue that point. God you're a fucking liar.
I didn't argue that point, and don't you go changing your argument after the fact. And no, I'm not going to do your research for you, unless your ignorant or a liar you know damn well where the studies are.
YOU prove YOUR point, as YOURS is the extraordinary claim.
"The truth of the matter is that there is no significant difference, physiologically, between men and women, as far as the brain is concerned; and thus no difference psychologically."
No matter how many times this is repeated it STILL won't be true. Biology is at work here (too) and male and female brains generally do differentiate *in utero* , and again *at puberty*. It's just the truth. That it doesn't fit your ideology is just something you're going to ( eventually ) come to grips with. That truth says nothing whatsoever about the ability of a specific female or a specific male to perform a specific task, but the fear that common people might use this truth to justify institutional bias is the root of all "science" that might support your claim. And that's just fucked up. The truth matters, and as a culture we should strive to be mature enough to deal with it.
"Definitely true anatomically, but there is no evidence that is true behaviourally."
There is a metric ton of evidence, you just *choose* to ignore. Not just you, lots of educated people choose to ignore the evidence. In documentary after documentary ( that I've watched ) the ideologue social "scientist" dismisses one study after another as irrelevant...or my personal favorite, responding to pointed questions with something like "It's *striking* that you think this question is important." --seriously was there a meeting or something? Because that's the response to hard questions again and again and again.
If the job market says my labor is worth $50.00/hr then why isn't it valued at that rate when I exchange it? I "own" something with an objectively verifiable market price of $50.00 , and, it did not become worth that much for "free". It cost decades of growing and learning, devoting my attention to things I do not enjoy and cannot be considered leisure.
The premise is that if the job market values my labor at X , then it is true that the expense of creating that value is also X --regardless of my ability to itemize that expense.
Not even close to the right perspective.
My labor is valued at $50.00 per hour. If I exchange one hour of labor for $50.00 then my profit is 0, and I should be taxed a percentage of 0.
And you have no inherent natural right to electricity, plumbing, roads, safety from murder/rape/robbery, etc. Society gives that to you in EXCHANGE for your taxes.
Next, try to separate Society from Government to continue your argument. Then I'll just call you you a Liar, because you do actually understand the manipulation you (will) be making.
Or, you have another, more fair, method that results in every member of Society contributing to the whole, let's hear it. But if you think you should be allowed to live here and profit from our infrastructure and then not pay for it you can get the fuck out you communist free loader.