my foundation of "that old crap" is what gives me an edge over all of these kids out there who can't program without pretty pictures.
However, I really do think that the subset of tasks where a functional approach will help is significantly smaller than you think.
While you may never use the functional approach, I find that knowledge of that functional approach is what gives me an edge;-) It's not the functional approach that you use, it's the problem-solving ability that you gain that helps. For example, writing mini-DSL's in C++ is a damn sight faster if you're already used to the Lispish way of doing things. Writing anonymous functions in Java is a great deal easier after scheme thumped home the concept of closures (and lexical vs dynamic scoping).
Quite frankly, I find that the functional programming enthusiast crowd is a group of people who only know how to use hammers and they're trying to convince the world that every problem is a nail.
They are quite an annoying bunch, aren't they? I long ago stopped reading/posting to comp.lang.lisp purely because of the hostile and aggressive nature of that community. The NIH syndrome is especially strong with the lisp programmers - there's a reason that Lisp hasn't taken over the world even though it has all the language functionality present in almost every language that came after it (including Javascript, Java, C++, C#, Python, etc).
The others bring almost nothing new to the party. Lisp, Erlang and Haskell all brought something new. Python, PHP and Rust didn't. Being functionally proficient in Lisp, Erlang and Haskell gives you skills that vastly improves your Java/C++/Whatever. Being proficient in Python and PHP gives you no new skills other than Python or PHP and perhaps some hipster cred.
I've got a 'kind of bingo card that I use to keep track of languages. I place checkmarks for each language depending on how it's different from all the other languages.
Help me out. Does Haskell require or not require a block after an "if" statement? Is the block introduced by brace, bracket, "then" or something else?
Or... does it use some completely lateral way to specify an "if" statement?
I may have to update my bingo card to accommodate.
I urge you (in the friendliest terms possible) to learn one of Lisp, Erlang or Haskell. Until you do you are going to continue assuming that the only differences between languages are purely cosmetic ones ("where does the brace go?", "how do you start a block?", etc). If you're going the Lisp route, pick a dialect of scheme.
TLDR; If the only language differences that you can imagine ever existing are cosmetic ones such as those in your post, then you have not been exposed to enough other languages.
As a quick example, using any language you know... can you/add/ to that language a feature that implements say... a switch/case statement (assuming that it didn't already exist, of course). How about an object system based on... classes? If your language did not offer a way to define, create and instantiate objects would you be able to add the "class" keyword in? How about new operators? Every language lets you add functions, few let you add operators.
As it turns out, even though I hardly ever use those languages for anything these days, the deep possibility tree they open your eyes to gives you a more than passing mastery of concepts that all the other languages implement in an incomplete, half-assed way (looking at C++ lambdas here, btw).
He was known as one of the principle designers of Haskell, which you probably don't need to be told he defined as "a purely functional programming language."
I'm sorry, but this is the first time I ever hear about Haskell. There's just too many fringe projects, languages, frameworks, widgets and services out there, you can't know about them all.
The others bring almost nothing new to the party. Lisp, Erlang and Haskell all brought something new. Python, PHP and Rust didn't. Being functionally proficient in Lisp, Erlang and Haskell gives you skills that vastly improves your Java/C++/Whatever. Being proficient in Python and PHP gives you no new skills other than Python or PHP and perhaps some hipster cred.
You go on a one night stand with a girl at a bar... use a condom... she says she's on the pill... she calls you six months 9 months later to tell you that you're a father... Congrats, you're playing child support.
What exactly is wrong with that? You both made a decision to have sex, knowing that contraception is not 100% reliable and that the other person could be lying, and decided to chance it. The result is that you created a baby, and you are held responsible for your actions.
Two people have sex and one is responsible? The problem is your are conflating "consent to sex" with "consent to children". Just because I give my consent for sex does not mean that I give my consent to become a father.
Consent to sex is not automatically consent to children!. Down that path lies madness for everyone - if you believe that consent to sex is the same as consent to children then you'd better be prepared to force females to carry their foetus to term - after all they gave consent, right?
It all comes down to this: do you believe that consent to sex automatically gives consent to children?
That's like saying you can rape your wife because, at one point, she gave consent. It's completely idiotic.
Sorry, but by the time they've split up, he has withdrawn consent, and if she wishes to have a child he has the right to say "not with my sperm you don't". What's that, you now can't have children unless they're mine? Too damned bad.
This is very different from forcing her to abort a fetus, because it's outside of her body and frozen -- which means it's a tissue sample until someone goes to fairly extraordinary lengths to put it back.
I don't think this is nearly as cut and dry as people think. You can't just say "it's her egg, and he's already knocked her up"... because she isn't pregnant, and this isn't about what she can do with her own body.
Is her ex legally required to have a child with her now that they've split up? Because it's not like in most cases you knock up your ex long after the breakup.
Suddenly a tissue sample in cold storage comes down to "can she force him to have a child with her now"? Because since it's not in her body, it's not like that is the deciding factor.
There are further implications to this: the laws are drafted so that a child is always entitled to maintenance from a parent. Should the courts let her have a baby and agree to regard him as merely a donor and thus relieves him of his obligations there is a greater than even chance that sooner or later a court will be forced to accept that letting a man say "I don't want this obligation" before the first trimester ends is very similar to letting a woman say "I don't want this obligation" before the first trimester ends. Two precedents - Women can already give up their obligation to the child/foetus AND court somewhere (hopefully with jurisdiction) already let a man say "I don't want this obligation".
Re:a scientific approach in the land of personhood
on
Who Owns Pre-Embryos?
·
· Score: 1
Who Owns Pre-Embryos?
From a scientist: What the fuck is a pre-embryo.
Which scientist? I was a researcher for seven years, mind...
the disposition/custody of the pre-embryos is now hotly contested.
If the biomatter belongs to a specific person, then it is their biomatter. If you spit on a judge, your biomatter has incriminated you in the act of contempt. If you rape, then your vaginal secretion/sperm is accounted for by the prosecution during your trial as evidence and considered during sentencing. If you froze eggs, they're yours. At best the whole complaint here is a mysoginists tantrum.
Even leaving aside the fact that the biomatter in question belongs equally to both parties, you're still wrong and here's why: biomatter not attached to your body is not legally considered to be your part of your body. It's considered medical waste or similar and as such it is handled by the legal system as any other property; IOW you may be found responsible for it but you're certainly not going to be the default owner of it. You'll be accountable but with none of the privileges of ownership.
As with any business contract, party B would be free to buy party A out of their half of the contract. Presumably, this would absolve party A of owing any sort of child support later down the road.
Don't overcomplicate things. That's a good part of why our legal system is so corrupt.
You can't contract out of child support, much like you can't contract into slavery. You can write the contract, sure, but no court will enforce it. The only way to (currently) do so is to donate sperm to a state-endorsed sperm bank. If you simply just donate sperm you will still be on the hook for child support - this has already been tested in courts.
Each 'contributor' owns 50%. No decision regarding the subject pre-embryo may be be made without a majority.
Case closed.
So, what? You want to divide it in two and give each party one half? The problem you are missing is that one party may want to dispose of the pre-embryo while the other party may want to (eventually) birth and raise it. Those are mutually exclusive options.
It's pointless to ask for evidence on something that has no objective definition
Then it's equally invalid to make hard claims about things with no objective definition. Either way, the original claims are without merit.
Nope, sorry wrong. Only *one* of his original claims can be said to be without merit, and only if you define "emotion" to be something that is separate and distinct from any field of neurobiology.
Oh I remember you! You're the guy who makes up stuff about me in all the gender related threads.
Hello! Good to see you again. I await your crazy claims about me with a great deal of fascination and interest:)
The name-calling starts - as you were saying...
Ah I see, instead of having a reasoned argument, you jump straight into invective. I think that means you basically have no reasoned arguments with which to support your view point and have instead resorted to supporting it entirely on emotion
Ah I see, instead of having a reasoned argument, you jump straight into invective. I think that means you basically have no reasoned arguments with which to support your view point and have instead resorted to supporting it entirely on emotion.
You do this all the time - in fact, all you do is throw insults; you even do that in this story's comments. Does that mean you have no argument?
They just made the courses more interesting to female students and they signed up of their own free will.
Hold the phone! Are you saying that women didn't previously sign up for this course because (gasp) they were not interested in engineering just for engineering's sake? That certainly puts paid to your previous unsubstantiated theories of sexism being responsible for the lower numbers of females in STEM.
You pay for schools because everyone in society benefits from having schools. A society of poorly-educated people is not successful and won't last for long. You don't pay for schools in case you need to send your kid there. The world is bigger than you, and you really should brush up on your logic, as the only way your crippled arguments make sense is if they are viewed through the prism of a toddler's reasoning skills.
Ah yes, the old standby of the religious right - insults! In light of your cogent arguments that anyone concerned about forcefully compelled medical procedures, a decision that has never turned out well in the history of mankind, I must indeed concede the point that this time forcefully compelled medical procedures could very well turn out okay because obviously anyone other than a toddler can see it. It's so obvious... we'd just need to break a few laws first, of course.
Okay. Can I have a refund on my taxes which paid for the public school that I can no longer use? See how that works?
That sounds fair as long as you also pay a large excess tax that covers the host of setting up quarantine zones, emergency medical care and lifelong disability benefits
Why should I? Other people aren't billed in advance for engaging in expensive-to-treat behaviour, like starting wars.
(I'm not really an anti-vaxxer, I vaccinate and encourage vaccination and, for my own kid(s), I am prepared to go to court to force the other parent to vaccinate my kid(s). I'm just the devils advocate here)
I guess like many on this site I'm not a huge fan of governments forcing people to do things against their will, but there are cases where it's clearly the best path forward, like obeying speed limits, paying taxes.... and being vaccinated.
There's a big difference between speeding, paying taxes and being compelled against your will to bodily penetration. There's a whole slew of laws that are specifically on the books just for those who want to refuse medical intervention of any sort - 'My body, My right."
Maybe the only solution is to physically separate the vaccinated from the unvaccinated AND refuse taxes from those you do not provide services to... i.e. offer a rebate. It's totally unethical to accept payment for something (access to school) and then refuse to provide the something. Much better ethically to simply give them back their money.
Fine. Pay for a private school which accepts unvaccinated children or home school them.
Okay. Can I have a refund on my taxes which paid for the public school that I can no longer use? See how that works?
The problem, as I see it, is that the "my body, my right" ideology is clashing with the "your rights end where my nose begins" ideology which is turning into a real problem for those people who have enshrined both ideologies in their heads as gospel. One right trumps the other and different people have different ideas about which right trumps the other one.
For example (using my question above), many people would respond that taxes are not opt-out and if you choose not to use a school it's YOUR choice and you do not deserve a rebate. Other people would respond that you should not have to pay twice to educate one child - once to a public school that your child does not attend and again to a private school that they do attend.
TLDR - the sides are not anti-vaxxer vs vaxxer, it's "get tax rebate for not using school" vs "pay twice for schooling".
The IRC logs are verifiable. They are plain text and were captured and published by two independent sources on opposite sides of the argument
So, two blokes on the internet who agree is "verified", while one bloke is not? I'm afraid I don't really see a difference in the verification of the two claims - they're both as unverified as you can get.
They match perfectly, neither side is disputing their authenticity.
And ZQ is not disputing being a rapist and domestic abuser. Doesn't mean she is, just like it doesn't mean those things are any more or less "verified" than screendumps. After all, from what I can tell, the subject of those screendumps aren't disputing the authenticity either.
To give an example, there are a number of women working in the games space who are targeted every time they express any sort of view.
To my knowledge, Zoe Quinn only shuts down charities. Her own patreon still gets money from dewey-eyed naivetes. Her "game" still holds the record for lowest score ever received for a game on metacritic.
This is what I mean. You have a bunch of shitty images that are totally unverifiable. On the other hand we have the IRC logs that GamerGate themselves released
Wait, what? What makes your binary files more verifiable than his binary files? Do you have a LEO-enforced and court-verified trail of evidence that he does not? Your evidence does not automatically trump his.
Oh yes, you seem to be one of the crowd that accuse Zoe Quinn of everything that was actually done to her to presumably destract from everything that WAS done to her.
What on earth do you have against her? And did you base that on things 4channers posted to the internet? Are your standards for evidence always so low?
Things might be going easier for gamers-are-stoopid movement had they chosen someone other than a non-technical sociopath, lying domestic abuser as a rally point.
IOW, I'm not surprised that she turned out to be a poor champion for the feminist cause. Surely there must be *some* gifted female game dev who would have made a better champion for the cause - the ZQ scandal backfired horribly; it has caused more real change in gaming journalism in six months than we saw in the last decade and a half AND caused a much more critical eye to be turned on females in the gaming industry.
Honestly, feminism needs a less insane public face.
If millions of people die because of inadequate testing then that's the fault of the people who tested the drug. There are plenty of humans who would volunteer for tests with full knowledge and understanding of the risks.
That's a slippery slope indeed - you've repeatedly made the claim that a full 50%+ of the population is indoctrinated by society to view themselves as inferior in some respect. Why do you now think that a certain segment of the population *can't* be indoctrinated into self-sacrifice?
There is no logical difference between execution and murder versus imprisonment and kidnapping.
Except that one of them is irreversible.
You think imprisonment is reversible? Anyway, regardless of one's stance, everyone should really read this before forming their opinion on death sentences...
Slashdot Mirror
That he knows about incredibly common, often-used languages? Have fun coding in Lisp with the five other people that use it.
I suspect there's only four of us :-)
my foundation of "that old crap" is what gives me an edge over all of these kids out there who can't program without pretty pictures.
However, I really do think that the subset of tasks where a functional approach will help is significantly smaller than you think.
While you may never use the functional approach, I find that knowledge of that functional approach is what gives me an edge ;-) It's not the functional approach that you use, it's the problem-solving ability that you gain that helps. For example, writing mini-DSL's in C++ is a damn sight faster if you're already used to the Lispish way of doing things. Writing anonymous functions in Java is a great deal easier after scheme thumped home the concept of closures (and lexical vs dynamic scoping).
Quite frankly, I find that the functional programming enthusiast crowd is a group of people who only know how to use hammers and they're trying to convince the world that every problem is a nail.
They are quite an annoying bunch, aren't they? I long ago stopped reading/posting to comp.lang.lisp purely because of the hostile and aggressive nature of that community. The NIH syndrome is especially strong with the lisp programmers - there's a reason that Lisp hasn't taken over the world even though it has all the language functionality present in almost every language that came after it (including Javascript, Java, C++, C#, Python, etc).
The others bring almost nothing new to the party. Lisp, Erlang and Haskell all brought something new. Python, PHP and Rust didn't. Being functionally proficient in Lisp, Erlang and Haskell gives you skills that vastly improves your Java/C++/Whatever. Being proficient in Python and PHP gives you no new skills other than Python or PHP and perhaps some hipster cred.
I've got a 'kind of bingo card that I use to keep track of languages. I place checkmarks for each language depending on how it's different from all the other languages.
Help me out. Does Haskell require or not require a block after an "if" statement? Is the block introduced by brace, bracket, "then" or something else?
Or... does it use some completely lateral way to specify an "if" statement?
I may have to update my bingo card to accommodate.
I urge you (in the friendliest terms possible) to learn one of Lisp, Erlang or Haskell. Until you do you are going to continue assuming that the only differences between languages are purely cosmetic ones ("where does the brace go?", "how do you start a block?", etc). If you're going the Lisp route, pick a dialect of scheme.
TLDR; If the only language differences that you can imagine ever existing are cosmetic ones such as those in your post, then you have not been exposed to enough other languages.
As a quick example, using any language you know... can you /add/ to that language a feature that implements say... a switch/case statement (assuming that it didn't already exist, of course). How about an object system based on ... classes? If your language did not offer a way to define, create and instantiate objects would you be able to add the "class" keyword in? How about new operators? Every language lets you add functions, few let you add operators.
As it turns out, even though I hardly ever use those languages for anything these days, the deep possibility tree they open your eyes to gives you a more than passing mastery of concepts that all the other languages implement in an incomplete, half-assed way (looking at C++ lambdas here, btw).
I'm sorry, but this is the first time I ever hear about Haskell. There's just too many fringe projects, languages, frameworks, widgets and services out there, you can't know about them all.
The others bring almost nothing new to the party. Lisp, Erlang and Haskell all brought something new. Python, PHP and Rust didn't. Being functionally proficient in Lisp, Erlang and Haskell gives you skills that vastly improves your Java/C++/Whatever. Being proficient in Python and PHP gives you no new skills other than Python or PHP and perhaps some hipster cred.
You go on a one night stand with a girl at a bar... use a condom... she says she's on the pill... she calls you six months 9 months later to tell you that you're a father... Congrats, you're playing child support.
What exactly is wrong with that? You both made a decision to have sex, knowing that contraception is not 100% reliable and that the other person could be lying, and decided to chance it. The result is that you created a baby, and you are held responsible for your actions.
Two people have sex and one is responsible? The problem is your are conflating "consent to sex" with "consent to children". Just because I give my consent for sex does not mean that I give my consent to become a father.
Consent to sex is not automatically consent to children!. Down that path lies madness for everyone - if you believe that consent to sex is the same as consent to children then you'd better be prepared to force females to carry their foetus to term - after all they gave consent, right?
It all comes down to this: do you believe that consent to sex automatically gives consent to children?
That's like saying you can rape your wife because, at one point, she gave consent. It's completely idiotic.
Sorry, but by the time they've split up, he has withdrawn consent, and if she wishes to have a child he has the right to say "not with my sperm you don't". What's that, you now can't have children unless they're mine? Too damned bad.
This is very different from forcing her to abort a fetus, because it's outside of her body and frozen -- which means it's a tissue sample until someone goes to fairly extraordinary lengths to put it back.
I don't think this is nearly as cut and dry as people think. You can't just say "it's her egg, and he's already knocked her up" ... because she isn't pregnant, and this isn't about what she can do with her own body.
Is her ex legally required to have a child with her now that they've split up? Because it's not like in most cases you knock up your ex long after the breakup.
Suddenly a tissue sample in cold storage comes down to "can she force him to have a child with her now"? Because since it's not in her body, it's not like that is the deciding factor.
There are further implications to this: the laws are drafted so that a child is always entitled to maintenance from a parent. Should the courts let her have a baby and agree to regard him as merely a donor and thus relieves him of his obligations there is a greater than even chance that sooner or later a court will be forced to accept that letting a man say "I don't want this obligation" before the first trimester ends is very similar to letting a woman say "I don't want this obligation" before the first trimester ends. Two precedents - Women can already give up their obligation to the child/foetus AND court somewhere (hopefully with jurisdiction) already let a man say "I don't want this obligation".
Who Owns Pre-Embryos?
From a scientist: What the fuck is a pre-embryo.
Which scientist? I was a researcher for seven years, mind...
the disposition/custody of the pre-embryos is now hotly contested.
If the biomatter belongs to a specific person, then it is their biomatter. If you spit on a judge, your biomatter has incriminated you in the act of contempt. If you rape, then your vaginal secretion/sperm is accounted for by the prosecution during your trial as evidence and considered during sentencing. If you froze eggs, they're yours. At best the whole complaint here is a mysoginists tantrum.
Even leaving aside the fact that the biomatter in question belongs equally to both parties, you're still wrong and here's why: biomatter not attached to your body is not legally considered to be your part of your body. It's considered medical waste or similar and as such it is handled by the legal system as any other property; IOW you may be found responsible for it but you're certainly not going to be the default owner of it. You'll be accountable but with none of the privileges of ownership.
As with any business contract, party B would be free to buy party A out of their half of the contract. Presumably, this would absolve party A of owing any sort of child support later down the road.
Don't overcomplicate things. That's a good part of why our legal system is so corrupt.
You can't contract out of child support, much like you can't contract into slavery. You can write the contract, sure, but no court will enforce it. The only way to (currently) do so is to donate sperm to a state-endorsed sperm bank. If you simply just donate sperm you will still be on the hook for child support - this has already been tested in courts.
Each 'contributor' owns 50%. No decision regarding the subject pre-embryo may be be made without a majority. Case closed.
So, what? You want to divide it in two and give each party one half? The problem you are missing is that one party may want to dispose of the pre-embryo while the other party may want to (eventually) birth and raise it. Those are mutually exclusive options.
It's pointless to ask for evidence on something that has no objective definition
Then it's equally invalid to make hard claims about things with no objective definition. Either way, the original claims are without merit.
Nope, sorry wrong. Only *one* of his original claims can be said to be without merit, and only if you define "emotion" to be something that is separate and distinct from any field of neurobiology.
Oh I remember you! You're the guy who makes up stuff about me in all the gender related threads.
Hello! Good to see you again. I await your crazy claims about me with a great deal of fascination and interest :)
The name-calling starts - as you were saying...
Ah I see, instead of having a reasoned argument, you jump straight into invective. I think that means you basically have no reasoned arguments with which to support your view point and have instead resorted to supporting it entirely on emotion
Huh?
I'm asking to clarify how the OP believes that male and female emotions are different.
How about you first define "emotions"? You know, these thingies over here: "...but scientific discourse has drifted to other meanings and there is no consensus on a definition..."
It's pointless to ask for evidence on something that has no objective definition, as per the page you linked to.
Ah I see, instead of having a reasoned argument, you jump straight into invective. I think that means you basically have no reasoned arguments with which to support your view point and have instead resorted to supporting it entirely on emotion.
You do this all the time - in fact, all you do is throw insults; you even do that in this story's comments. Does that mean you have no argument?
They just made the courses more interesting to female students and they signed up of their own free will.
Hold the phone! Are you saying that women didn't previously sign up for this course because (gasp) they were not interested in engineering just for engineering's sake? That certainly puts paid to your previous unsubstantiated theories of sexism being responsible for the lower numbers of females in STEM.
You pay for schools because everyone in society benefits from having schools. A society of poorly-educated people is not successful and won't last for long. You don't pay for schools in case you need to send your kid there. The world is bigger than you, and you really should brush up on your logic, as the only way your crippled arguments make sense is if they are viewed through the prism of a toddler's reasoning skills.
Ah yes, the old standby of the religious right - insults! In light of your cogent arguments that anyone concerned about forcefully compelled medical procedures, a decision that has never turned out well in the history of mankind, I must indeed concede the point that this time forcefully compelled medical procedures could very well turn out okay because obviously anyone other than a toddler can see it. It's so obvious... we'd just need to break a few laws first, of course.
That sounds fair as long as you also pay a large excess tax that covers the host of setting up quarantine zones, emergency medical care and lifelong disability benefits
Why should I? Other people aren't billed in advance for engaging in expensive-to-treat behaviour, like starting wars.
(I'm not really an anti-vaxxer, I vaccinate and encourage vaccination and, for my own kid(s), I am prepared to go to court to force the other parent to vaccinate my kid(s). I'm just the devils advocate here)
I guess like many on this site I'm not a huge fan of governments forcing people to do things against their will, but there are cases where it's clearly the best path forward, like obeying speed limits, paying taxes .... and being vaccinated.
There's a big difference between speeding, paying taxes and being compelled against your will to bodily penetration. There's a whole slew of laws that are specifically on the books just for those who want to refuse medical intervention of any sort - 'My body, My right."
Maybe the only solution is to physically separate the vaccinated from the unvaccinated AND refuse taxes from those you do not provide services to... i.e. offer a rebate. It's totally unethical to accept payment for something (access to school) and then refuse to provide the something. Much better ethically to simply give them back their money.
Fine. Pay for a private school which accepts unvaccinated children or home school them.
Okay. Can I have a refund on my taxes which paid for the public school that I can no longer use? See how that works?
The problem, as I see it, is that the "my body, my right" ideology is clashing with the "your rights end where my nose begins" ideology which is turning into a real problem for those people who have enshrined both ideologies in their heads as gospel. One right trumps the other and different people have different ideas about which right trumps the other one.
For example (using my question above), many people would respond that taxes are not opt-out and if you choose not to use a school it's YOUR choice and you do not deserve a rebate. Other people would respond that you should not have to pay twice to educate one child - once to a public school that your child does not attend and again to a private school that they do attend.
TLDR - the sides are not anti-vaxxer vs vaxxer, it's "get tax rebate for not using school" vs "pay twice for schooling".
The IRC logs are verifiable. They are plain text and were captured and published by two independent sources on opposite sides of the argument
So, two blokes on the internet who agree is "verified", while one bloke is not? I'm afraid I don't really see a difference in the verification of the two claims - they're both as unverified as you can get.
They match perfectly, neither side is disputing their authenticity.
And ZQ is not disputing being a rapist and domestic abuser. Doesn't mean she is, just like it doesn't mean those things are any more or less "verified" than screendumps. After all, from what I can tell, the subject of those screendumps aren't disputing the authenticity either.
To give an example, there are a number of women working in the games space who are targeted every time they express any sort of view.
To my knowledge, Zoe Quinn only shuts down charities. Her own patreon still gets money from dewey-eyed naivetes. Her "game" still holds the record for lowest score ever received for a game on metacritic.
This is what I mean. You have a bunch of shitty images that are totally unverifiable. On the other hand we have the IRC logs that GamerGate themselves released
Wait, what? What makes your binary files more verifiable than his binary files? Do you have a LEO-enforced and court-verified trail of evidence that he does not? Your evidence does not automatically trump his.
Oh yes, you seem to be one of the crowd that accuse Zoe Quinn of everything that was actually done to her to presumably destract from everything that WAS done to her.
What on earth do you have against her? And did you base that on things 4channers posted to the internet? Are your standards for evidence always so low?
Things might be going easier for gamers-are-stoopid movement had they chosen someone other than a non-technical sociopath, lying domestic abuser as a rally point.
IOW, I'm not surprised that she turned out to be a poor champion for the feminist cause. Surely there must be *some* gifted female game dev who would have made a better champion for the cause - the ZQ scandal backfired horribly; it has caused more real change in gaming journalism in six months than we saw in the last decade and a half AND caused a much more critical eye to be turned on females in the gaming industry.
Honestly, feminism needs a less insane public face.
Do the antivax people have a thing with Jews?
Also: Today someone told me that circumcision causes autism. I laughed but they were serious.
That's not a bad rumour to pass around :-) Genital mutilation is too readily accepted in otherwise civilised societies.
That's a terrifying scenario. I have no idea who I'd feel...
You're a bigfinger... you can feel whoever the hell you wanted to ;-)
If millions of people die because of inadequate testing then that's the fault of the people who tested the drug. There are plenty of humans who would volunteer for tests with full knowledge and understanding of the risks.
That's a slippery slope indeed - you've repeatedly made the claim that a full 50%+ of the population is indoctrinated by society to view themselves as inferior in some respect. Why do you now think that a certain segment of the population *can't* be indoctrinated into self-sacrifice?
There is no logical difference between execution and murder versus imprisonment and kidnapping.
Except that one of them is irreversible.
You think imprisonment is reversible?
Anyway, regardless of one's stance, everyone should really read this before forming their opinion on death sentences...