Okay, you inserted this submissive/dominant thing, not me. Then I said that I didn't write that, and you just carried on assuming that I am viewing this whole thing in the same terms that you are.
I don't really see how this "submissive/dominant" axis is relevant here. If a girl chooses to play mother with a doll, that doesn't seem very submissive, for example.
How about the aggressive/passive axis? How about the collaborate/compete axis? You don't think all of those are controlled by biology? Girls playing nurture with with dolls, for example, is very much an example of biology in action, not (as you appear to think) a product of the environment.
How does being "dominant" make a child favour the colour blue today but pink 100 years ago?
I thought you were talking about toys that children choose, not colours chosen for them? Regardless, I've not attributed "girl"/"boy" colours to biology, only male/female motivations.
I don't accept the basic premise which you are trying to force my statements into, that's why they seem contradictory to you.
I'm not forcing your statements into anything, you appear to be holding contradictory thoughts at the same time. Human behaviour, like it or not, is driven by biology (not the other way around).
When women like something more than men, and men like something else more than women you'd need pretty convincing evidence that it is *not* driven by biology. You entered this thread with the assertion that we cannot blame biology for the toys children choose, but the toys they choose is driven by their position on the collaborative/competitive axis which is something you are born with, not something society teaches you.
Biology mostly determines where an individual lies on specific characteristics, and it is those characteristics that result in different play for children. You cannot say that you accept that biology is responsible for a typical trait and then *also* say that that trait is a product of the environment.
It can be partially both for some traits, but in the case of toys, an area that is very well studied, there is very little to no evidence to support the position that males might prefer non-competitive play were it not for the environment.
For example, your continuous assertion that the environment is responsible for the difference between the sexes
Ah, okay. I'm not arguing that at all, that isn't my position. I've stated that there are biological differences between the sexes more than once on Slashdot.
What I'm saying is that the biological component doesn't account for things like girls preferring pink and boys preferring blue.
What you said was that society is the reason for females being more submissive. There is no evidence for that. Biology, on the other hand, provides repeatable and reproducible evidence that hormones control the characteristics such as submissiveness and dominance. Many many more characteristics are controlled by Biology, not by society.
Society is more a reflection of biology, not the other way around.
Hardly a "massive" social turbulence. The number of births where the expected father isn't the real father is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% (Find your own sources). This wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.
No. It's been measured from 20% to 35%. There are multiple sources for this, I suggest you start with the CDC.
If memory serves, the higher numbers are specifically for those children for whom paternity testing is done--the 2% number is what I've seen given as predicted for what might be expected with a truly random sample, and usually gets brought up to remind people that the 20%-35% number is better understood as the percentage of men who are actually right in suspecting that the child isn't theirs.
I've already answered this - see this link below. TLDR version is this: the 2% number is derived from the number of paternity fraud discovered when "daddy" tries to donate biological material to the child, and they realise that he is incompatible. The 2% number doesn't reflect wrong paternity, it reflects wrong paternity AND unusual medical procedures.
How do you predict something for which you have no data whatsoever? If most children haven't received paternity testing, how do you know how many of them have the expected father? It could be none of them, or it could be all of them, or anything in between.
It's measured at 2% for those who found out the real paternity due to a medical issue that cropped up. That 2% number comes from a perfect storm that requires all of the following:
1) A cheating wife (a given in the context of wrong paternity), and
2) The 50% dice roll that results in the other guys sperm managing fertilization in place of the husbands (also a given), and
3) That the child is biologically incompatible with the husband, and
4) An unexpected medical procedure that requires compatibility
So, yeah, I guess a "real" rate of 30% could work out to 2% if measured using the above constraints only.
If the other guy has compatible blood type with the husband, the true paternity will never be discovered. If the child never needs biological material from the husband, the true paternity will remain a secret.
Of course, this means that the true rate of female infidelity is probably twice as high as the 20% - 35% number, because a women who is alternating between two men (husband and non-husband) will only get pregnant by the non-husband around half the time, meaning that only around half of women who cheat get pregnant by the non-husband.
In other words, for each woman who is found to have perpetrated paternity fraud, there is one other woman who cheated but got pregnant by husband instead.
Sociology is not evidence free. It's just that it is impossible to reproduce circumstances exactly, so people dismiss it.
No. People dismiss it not because the environment is not reproducible, but because the results are often "we feel that it must be this way". For example, your continuous assertion that the environment is responsible for the difference between the sexes; biology has already weighed in on the difference in behaviour being caused by different hormones, and things like risk-taking (for just one example) is a result of testosterone.
There are lots of other useful sciences where the same is true.
No, there aren't any respectable sciences where that is true
Medicine, for example. We can't exactly reproduce specific cancers,
Horseshit. When we want to reproduce a study on a rare cancer we have any number of willing participants - effectively recreating the experimental conditions.
but that doesn't stop us developing effective treatments because we accept trials with statistical significance.
Note that term you used: statistical significance? That's the difference between gender studies and medical studies. Medical studies are reproduced all the time.
Same with psychology, we learned how to treat things like PTSD and depression despite the lack of hard evidence or even a deep understanding of how the brain works.
Because we can easily reproduce the experiments, because there are so few medical conditions that are so rare, because those that are so rare that only one person is ever afflicted, ever, are never treated anyway.
Look, obviously we need to be cautious with social sciences, but dismissing them entirely is silly. Especially as your argument appears to be "social sciences can't know this, but somehow I can". Oh, you have some statistics... But those are soft and non-reproducible. So what, should we just not even try? What exactly are you arguing for here?
I'm arguing that pretending that sociology is at the same level as biology is outright dishonesty. My argument is quite simple: if biology and social sciences disagree on something, the odds are that biology is correct.
I'm also calling out this strawman of yours, that people are dismissing gender studies due to not being able to reproduce the environment. No, we're not. We're dismissing them because it appears that it is almost all pure conjecture and opinion that disagrees with actual science.
Take your assertion that women being more submissive is due to environment: in exactly which way did anyone manage to collect statistical significant data that supports the assertion? OTOH, the assertion that women are more submissive due to men's extra testosterone is supported by multiple reproduced scientific trials.
Guess which one I am going with? Full disclosure - I worked as a research scientist for seven years, so I'm always biased towards evidence.
I was merely pointing out that the proposed experiment was flawed, because it did not control for environmental influences and thus could not discount them.
However, the question of how much human behaviour is instinctive vs. learned is still the subject of much debate and study. Most experts accept that there are elements of both. Obviously if you reject all the "soft" sciences like biology and sociology, you can't claim to know that the answer to this question because you just said that it's unknowable.
The other issue is that even if it was 100% hormones, we expect people to overcome their hormonal responses. In fact, we see things like self control as positive character traits.
Biology isn't a soft science. Chemistry isn't a soft science. Sociology is a soft science, in that it does not adhere to the any scientific process. Biology and sociology aren't the same, in much the same way that a fish and bicycle aren't the same. I'm not sure why you want to conflate the two in the minds of the readers. Maybe it's because one is a respectable scientific field and the other is filled with evidence-less witchdoctors?
Biology is almost always at odds with what social scientists claim, hence my (repeated) tendency to side with science over feelings.
Lastly, the question of instinctive vs learned is not the subject of much debate amongst scientists. It's only being debated between social scientists, because they aren't actually scientists nor are they performing the scientific method. Social science shares more with religion (belief, faith, etc) than it shares with science (evidence, reproducibality, etc)
You're using "biology" and "sociology" in the same sentence together, hoping to form an association between the two so that some of the respectability of biology rubs off onto sociology. I hope it doesn't, but of course it will - this method is a popular and oft-used one for lending legitimacy to a dubious cause primarily because it is so successful.
I was writing assembly for the Apple II back when the TRaSh-80 was being sold, and I also had access to the TRaSh-80. I didn't say it didn't happen. I said the same thing you used different words to say. As with the Apple II, almost nobody wrote in assembly language, because again, it had a BASIC interpreter in ROM. There was a significant barrier to writing in assembly, and the vast majority did not do it. It is true today and it was true then. Almost nobody writes in assembly language. You should know that given your SlashID.
The barrier to writing in assembly was not that significant, but the payoffs were relatively large enough that many programmers did it, and not just for the TRS. The smaller the chip the larger the payoff for assembler.
Why are there more women graduating with tech degrees than men in Iran?
In Iran women are not as free to choose their profession as they are in Western countries.
Time and time again I've pointed out to you that female rights are very highly correlated with choosing something other than CS/IT.
And yet, here you are again going "I'm only asking a question" when you know very well that countries which limit women's choices have higher rates of women in CS/IT, and you know this because it's been repeatedly pointed out to you.
At this point you're just being dishonest by asking your question, because you're trying to convince people to support your cause by omitting the answer to that question - that it's because those women have fewer choices.
Unless you somehow exclude those children from society, with no TV or other outside influence, then your point doesn't really stand up.
Like the AC below said, sounds like you have an unfalsifiable belief.
IOW, your implied claim of behaviour being a product of environment can't be even a scientific hypothesis until you can raise a human in isolation. All the data, however (you know, actual science, not "unreproducible social sciences") points towards hormonal influences having the largest impact on human behaviour.
The same crew that claims traditional religion is horseshit has created their own called secular humanism. And it will brook no dissent.
Don't group all atheists with those bag of dicks who get their feelings hurt whenever someone disagrees with them. Speaking as an atheist, the clear majority of us don't care for identity politics, and we don't go around telling our friends and families that their beliefs are wrong.
For example, I'm openly atheist, and married to a woman who follows two major religions (Catholicism and Hinduism), and yet we have no problems. It's because, unlike those asshole thought-police above who want to silent opposing opinions, we (current wife and I) grew up instead.
The people you are angry with are not assholes because you're christian, they're assholes because they're assholes.
In much the same way, the hard-left crowd who will attack and shame free thinkers aren't doing so because of the free-thinkers, they're doing it because they're assholes.
Hardly a "massive" social turbulence. The number of births where the expected father isn't the real father is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% (Find your own sources). This wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.
No. It's been measured from 20% to 35%. There are multiple sources for this, I suggest you start with the CDC.
Newsflash, In the wild catching prey is hard. wolves will eat fruit and veggies as a 'desperation move' they biologically get very little nutrition out of it. this doesn't mean you should feed fido your strict vegan diet.
Who said anything about feeding a dog a vegan diet? Certainty not me. All I said is that it is a proven fact that dogs (and evidently wolves) can live healthfully without eating animal flesh if necessary.
That's so laughably wrong I half suspect that I'm being wooshed.
Wolves cannot live healthily without meat. There is literally no supporting evidence for your position.
Sorry but pet ownership is significant, and has been a known problem for years. If you want to keep a pet that is fine but you need to be honest with yourself about the environmental and ecological impacts that your choice has.
Removing you and your descendants from the environment would have a greater positive impact than removing my pets.
In order to look something up you have to know it exists.
You've obviously never gotten lost on a wikipedia excursion. After a few hours not only do you find things you had no clue existed, you find things you would have never wanted to know about.
Little known fact about wikipedia - go to any random page and click the first link, and then the first link in the page that loads, and repeat the process. After around 15 clicks you end up at philosophy:-)
Troll. Also maybe DEVIANT, or SOCIOPATH. In any case: Fuck you sideways with a rusty chainsaw, asshole. We're not talking about $1000 a night independent callgirls. We're talking about people being treated like cattle to be bought and sold, who have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in where they go or what they do.
Spare me the histrionics; both the summary and the article were quite unambiguous.
It's clear, and has been for some time, that there's a segment of the population online who feel a deep need to virtue signal. You are obviously one of those people - any opportunity to signal your virtue you'll take, and (like in this case) you'll make one up if there isn't any opportunity.
Go on then - signal your virtue to the whole world - does it make you feel better about yourself?
Fuck you. You know damn well we're talking about people (usually WOMEN) being forced into a life of slavery. Go troll someone else.
No, we're not. You want to make it about women who are forced into a life of slavery, but the story and summary are quite clear - it's only about prostitution.
Get out of other peoples bedrooms - a consensual contract between adults is none of your fucking business.
'Sex trafficking'? Really? How much of a primitive animal do you have to be to treat other members of your own species that way? Really, honestly, seriously,
Why the hate for prostitution? How about you keep your puritanical judgements about what consenting adults do to each other to yourself?
Now the key question is: is the Home Secretary a Real Person?
She should release her and her husband's/sons'/father's browsing history. Why would she want that kept secret? The world deserves to know what google keywords are popular in her house.
Around 4.4% of the population said they were Muslim at the last census (2011). Keep in mind that the census tends to inflate the numbers because the people filling it in put their kids down as being religious when they aren't really and stop participating when they grow up.
Anyway, that's up 1.7% since 2001, so in a decade. At that rate, by 2050 a massive 10% of the population will be Muslim. I don't think we have too much to worry about.
Aren't you muslim? ISTR you saying so in one of your comments.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, you inserted this submissive/dominant thing, not me. Then I said that I didn't write that, and you just carried on assuming that I am viewing this whole thing in the same terms that you are.
I don't really see how this "submissive/dominant" axis is relevant here. If a girl chooses to play mother with a doll, that doesn't seem very submissive, for example.
How about the aggressive/passive axis? How about the collaborate/compete axis? You don't think all of those are controlled by biology? Girls playing nurture with with dolls, for example, is very much an example of biology in action, not (as you appear to think) a product of the environment.
How does being "dominant" make a child favour the colour blue today but pink 100 years ago?
I thought you were talking about toys that children choose, not colours chosen for them? Regardless, I've not attributed "girl"/"boy" colours to biology, only male/female motivations.
I don't accept the basic premise which you are trying to force my statements into, that's why they seem contradictory to you.
I'm not forcing your statements into anything, you appear to be holding contradictory thoughts at the same time. Human behaviour, like it or not, is driven by biology (not the other way around).
When women like something more than men, and men like something else more than women you'd need pretty convincing evidence that it is *not* driven by biology. You entered this thread with the assertion that we cannot blame biology for the toys children choose, but the toys they choose is driven by their position on the collaborative/competitive axis which is something you are born with, not something society teaches you.
Biology mostly determines where an individual lies on specific characteristics, and it is those characteristics that result in different play for children. You cannot say that you accept that biology is responsible for a typical trait and then *also* say that that trait is a product of the environment.
It can be partially both for some traits, but in the case of toys, an area that is very well studied, there is very little to no evidence to support the position that males might prefer non-competitive play were it not for the environment.
What you said was that society is the reason for females being more submissive.
I definitely did not write that. Link to the post where I make that statement please.
You seem to be reading more into what I say than just what I wrote. I thought we were talking about choice of toy.
1) You think that a persons sex influences their position on the submissive/dominant axis.
2) You think that their position on the submissive/dominant axis doesn't influence their choice of toy
Those are two mutually exclusive and contradictory positions to hold. You can't claim both are true because one contradicts the other.
Choose one.
Call me naive, but don't those two religions contradict each other?
Hello Mr naive :-)
All religions contradict all other religions and themselves.
For example, your continuous assertion that the environment is responsible for the difference between the sexes
Ah, okay. I'm not arguing that at all, that isn't my position. I've stated that there are biological differences between the sexes more than once on Slashdot.
What I'm saying is that the biological component doesn't account for things like girls preferring pink and boys preferring blue.
What you said was that society is the reason for females being more submissive. There is no evidence for that. Biology, on the other hand, provides repeatable and reproducible evidence that hormones control the characteristics such as submissiveness and dominance. Many many more characteristics are controlled by Biology, not by society.
Society is more a reflection of biology, not the other way around.
Hardly a "massive" social turbulence. The number of births where the expected father isn't the real father is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% (Find your own sources). This wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.
No. It's been measured from 20% to 35%. There are multiple sources for this, I suggest you start with the CDC.
If memory serves, the higher numbers are specifically for those children for whom paternity testing is done--the 2% number is what I've seen given as predicted for what might be expected with a truly random sample, and usually gets brought up to remind people that the 20%-35% number is better understood as the percentage of men who are actually right in suspecting that the child isn't theirs.
I've already answered this - see this link below. TLDR version is this: the 2% number is derived from the number of paternity fraud discovered when "daddy" tries to donate biological material to the child, and they realise that he is incompatible. The 2% number doesn't reflect wrong paternity, it reflects wrong paternity AND unusual medical procedures.
How do you predict something for which you have no data whatsoever? If most children haven't received paternity testing, how do you know how many of them have the expected father? It could be none of them, or it could be all of them, or anything in between.
It's measured at 2% for those who found out the real paternity due to a medical issue that cropped up. That 2% number comes from a perfect storm that requires all of the following:
1) A cheating wife (a given in the context of wrong paternity), and
2) The 50% dice roll that results in the other guys sperm managing fertilization in place of the husbands (also a given), and
3) That the child is biologically incompatible with the husband, and
4) An unexpected medical procedure that requires compatibility
So, yeah, I guess a "real" rate of 30% could work out to 2% if measured using the above constraints only.
If the other guy has compatible blood type with the husband, the true paternity will never be discovered. If the child never needs biological material from the husband, the true paternity will remain a secret.
Of course, this means that the true rate of female infidelity is probably twice as high as the 20% - 35% number, because a women who is alternating between two men (husband and non-husband) will only get pregnant by the non-husband around half the time, meaning that only around half of women who cheat get pregnant by the non-husband.
In other words, for each woman who is found to have perpetrated paternity fraud, there is one other woman who cheated but got pregnant by husband instead.
Sociology is not evidence free. It's just that it is impossible to reproduce circumstances exactly, so people dismiss it.
No. People dismiss it not because the environment is not reproducible, but because the results are often "we feel that it must be this way". For example, your continuous assertion that the environment is responsible for the difference between the sexes; biology has already weighed in on the difference in behaviour being caused by different hormones, and things like risk-taking (for just one example) is a result of testosterone.
There are lots of other useful sciences where the same is true.
No, there aren't any respectable sciences where that is true
Medicine, for example. We can't exactly reproduce specific cancers,
Horseshit. When we want to reproduce a study on a rare cancer we have any number of willing participants - effectively recreating the experimental conditions.
but that doesn't stop us developing effective treatments because we accept trials with statistical significance.
Note that term you used: statistical significance? That's the difference between gender studies and medical studies. Medical studies are reproduced all the time.
Same with psychology, we learned how to treat things like PTSD and depression despite the lack of hard evidence or even a deep understanding of how the brain works.
Because we can easily reproduce the experiments, because there are so few medical conditions that are so rare, because those that are so rare that only one person is ever afflicted, ever, are never treated anyway.
Look, obviously we need to be cautious with social sciences, but dismissing them entirely is silly. Especially as your argument appears to be "social sciences can't know this, but somehow I can". Oh, you have some statistics... But those are soft and non-reproducible. So what, should we just not even try? What exactly are you arguing for here?
I'm arguing that pretending that sociology is at the same level as biology is outright dishonesty. My argument is quite simple: if biology and social sciences disagree on something, the odds are that biology is correct.
I'm also calling out this strawman of yours, that people are dismissing gender studies due to not being able to reproduce the environment. No, we're not. We're dismissing them because it appears that it is almost all pure conjecture and opinion that disagrees with actual science.
Take your assertion that women being more submissive is due to environment: in exactly which way did anyone manage to collect statistical significant data that supports the assertion? OTOH, the assertion that women are more submissive due to men's extra testosterone is supported by multiple reproduced scientific trials.
Guess which one I am going with? Full disclosure - I worked as a research scientist for seven years, so I'm always biased towards evidence.
Consider your strawman fully burnt.
I was merely pointing out that the proposed experiment was flawed, because it did not control for environmental influences and thus could not discount them.
However, the question of how much human behaviour is instinctive vs. learned is still the subject of much debate and study. Most experts accept that there are elements of both. Obviously if you reject all the "soft" sciences like biology and sociology, you can't claim to know that the answer to this question because you just said that it's unknowable.
The other issue is that even if it was 100% hormones, we expect people to overcome their hormonal responses. In fact, we see things like self control as positive character traits.
Biology isn't a soft science. Chemistry isn't a soft science. Sociology is a soft science, in that it does not adhere to the any scientific process. Biology and sociology aren't the same, in much the same way that a fish and bicycle aren't the same. I'm not sure why you want to conflate the two in the minds of the readers. Maybe it's because one is a respectable scientific field and the other is filled with evidence-less witchdoctors?
Biology is almost always at odds with what social scientists claim, hence my (repeated) tendency to side with science over feelings.
Lastly, the question of instinctive vs learned is not the subject of much debate amongst scientists. It's only being debated between social scientists, because they aren't actually scientists nor are they performing the scientific method. Social science shares more with religion (belief, faith, etc) than it shares with science (evidence, reproducibality, etc)
You're using "biology" and "sociology" in the same sentence together, hoping to form an association between the two so that some of the respectability of biology rubs off onto sociology. I hope it doesn't, but of course it will - this method is a popular and oft-used one for lending legitimacy to a dubious cause primarily because it is so successful.
I was writing assembly for the Apple II back when the TRaSh-80 was being sold, and I also had access to the TRaSh-80. I didn't say it didn't happen. I said the same thing you used different words to say. As with the Apple II, almost nobody wrote in assembly language, because again, it had a BASIC interpreter in ROM. There was a significant barrier to writing in assembly, and the vast majority did not do it. It is true today and it was true then. Almost nobody writes in assembly language. You should know that given your SlashID.
The barrier to writing in assembly was not that significant, but the payoffs were relatively large enough that many programmers did it, and not just for the TRS. The smaller the chip the larger the payoff for assembler.
Why are there more women graduating with tech degrees than men in Iran?
In Iran women are not as free to choose their profession as they are in Western countries.
Time and time again I've pointed out to you that female rights are very highly correlated with choosing something other than CS/IT.
And yet, here you are again going "I'm only asking a question" when you know very well that countries which limit women's choices have higher rates of women in CS/IT, and you know this because it's been repeatedly pointed out to you.
At this point you're just being dishonest by asking your question, because you're trying to convince people to support your cause by omitting the answer to that question - that it's because those women have fewer choices.
Unless you somehow exclude those children from society, with no TV or other outside influence, then your point doesn't really stand up.
Like the AC below said, sounds like you have an unfalsifiable belief.
IOW, your implied claim of behaviour being a product of environment can't be even a scientific hypothesis until you can raise a human in isolation. All the data, however (you know, actual science, not "unreproducible social sciences") points towards hormonal influences having the largest impact on human behaviour.
The same crew that claims traditional religion is horseshit has created their own called secular humanism. And it will brook no dissent.
Don't group all atheists with those bag of dicks who get their feelings hurt whenever someone disagrees with them. Speaking as an atheist, the clear majority of us don't care for identity politics, and we don't go around telling our friends and families that their beliefs are wrong.
For example, I'm openly atheist, and married to a woman who follows two major religions (Catholicism and Hinduism), and yet we have no problems. It's because, unlike those asshole thought-police above who want to silent opposing opinions, we (current wife and I) grew up instead.
The people you are angry with are not assholes because you're christian, they're assholes because they're assholes.
In much the same way, the hard-left crowd who will attack and shame free thinkers aren't doing so because of the free-thinkers, they're doing it because they're assholes.
Speaking for structural engineers, that's college stuff. EVERYBODY on the team knows it.
No, not the gender studies grads.
Hardly a "massive" social turbulence. The number of births where the expected father isn't the real father is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% (Find your own sources). This wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.
No. It's been measured from 20% to 35%. There are multiple sources for this, I suggest you start with the CDC.
[Dogs] love sweet potato for example.
So? They love chocolate too. Doesn't mean that you should give them any.
Newsflash, In the wild catching prey is hard. wolves will eat fruit and veggies as a 'desperation move' they biologically get very little nutrition out of it. this doesn't mean you should feed fido your strict vegan diet.
Who said anything about feeding a dog a vegan diet? Certainty not me. All I said is that it is a proven fact that dogs (and evidently wolves) can live healthfully without eating animal flesh if necessary.
That's so laughably wrong I half suspect that I'm being wooshed.
Wolves cannot live healthily without meat. There is literally no supporting evidence for your position.
Sorry but pet ownership is significant, and has been a known problem for years. If you want to keep a pet that is fine but you need to be honest with yourself about the environmental and ecological impacts that your choice has.
Removing you and your descendants from the environment would have a greater positive impact than removing my pets.
PopeRatzo is making sense .... what is this alternate reality that I've been thrust into?
In order to look something up you have to know it exists.
You've obviously never gotten lost on a wikipedia excursion. After a few hours not only do you find things you had no clue existed, you find things you would have never wanted to know about.
Little known fact about wikipedia - go to any random page and click the first link, and then the first link in the page that loads, and repeat the process. After around 15 clicks you end up at philosophy :-)
Get a powered signal amplifier
They are $25 bucks on Amazon for a decent one.
I lived rurally for many years. Makes a hell of a difference.
The problem with amplifiers is that they amplify both the signal and the noise.
Troll. Also maybe DEVIANT, or SOCIOPATH. In any case: Fuck you sideways with a rusty chainsaw, asshole. We're not talking about $1000 a night independent callgirls. We're talking about people being treated like cattle to be bought and sold, who have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in where they go or what they do.
Spare me the histrionics; both the summary and the article were quite unambiguous.
It's clear, and has been for some time, that there's a segment of the population online who feel a deep need to virtue signal. You are obviously one of those people - any opportunity to signal your virtue you'll take, and (like in this case) you'll make one up if there isn't any opportunity.
Go on then - signal your virtue to the whole world - does it make you feel better about yourself?
Fuck you. You know damn well we're talking about people (usually WOMEN) being forced into a life of slavery. Go troll someone else.
No, we're not. You want to make it about women who are forced into a life of slavery, but the story and summary are quite clear - it's only about prostitution.
Get out of other peoples bedrooms - a consensual contract between adults is none of your fucking business.
'Sex trafficking'? Really? How much of a primitive animal do you have to be to treat other members of your own species that way? Really, honestly, seriously,
Why the hate for prostitution? How about you keep your puritanical judgements about what consenting adults do to each other to yourself?
Now the key question is: is the Home Secretary a Real Person?
She should release her and her husband's/sons'/father's browsing history. Why would she want that kept secret? The world deserves to know what google keywords are popular in her house.
Around 4.4% of the population said they were Muslim at the last census (2011). Keep in mind that the census tends to inflate the numbers because the people filling it in put their kids down as being religious when they aren't really and stop participating when they grow up.
Anyway, that's up 1.7% since 2001, so in a decade. At that rate, by 2050 a massive 10% of the population will be Muslim. I don't think we have too much to worry about.
Aren't you muslim? ISTR you saying so in one of your comments.