As I made clear, the issue is competition against males.
Women don't mind competing against women. They just shut off when they compete against men. I think I made this very clear.
Stop looking for a sentence to take out of context and try to actually understand what i'm talking about. It is in your own interest... you'll get more out of it.
The issue is evolutionary psychology as I said.
Men are MUST compete to obtain status and thus breeding rights.
Women historically were not in competition with males for status. They might be in competition with women but the nature of that competition was different.
Women furthemore do not NEED to compete to obtain genetic survival. All they need is for some guy to shoot a load of semen into them and bingo... genetic survival obtained. For men, they was harder. First, women are less generous with their reproductive cells than are men. A guy can fire off a multiple times a day and a woman can pop off with success at most about once every 9 months... add couple months in there just to let the plumbing heal. Basically about once a year.
What is more, men don't KNOW they're the parent. Women always know. If it came out of your vagina then its your baby. But the man... he can't know.
Point is, men need the woman to WANT his child. If she doesn't... she might not agree to breed with him in the first place and even if she does she might have many other partners thus statistically reducing his chances.
This is why men don't back down from a challenge and why women frequently fold when a man challenges them... the instincts say "this doesn't matter and this is also dangerous"... because to compete with a man for status in evolutinary psychology means you're competing for breeding status. And for men... low status means genetic death. And historically that is something men can get violent over. In an age before good medicine a good beating could be fatal. Thus women avoid conflicts with men when they compete. They have almost nothing to gain and a great deal to lose. The logic is simple. Disengage.
But for a man, he can't back down. Backing down means submission and lowering your status. This doesn't mean they never back down... or that all women will back down. It means they're inclined to do different things in the same circumstance because their perspective is different.
From the man's perspective... deep in his DNA... he knows that backing down lowers his chances of reproduction. And for the woman... well what is she risking here by backing down? Nothing. But challenging some big fellow that is full of his own genetic imperatives... Not a good idea.
Women competing against women though? Completely different. Being first amongst the females is worth something genetically. The same thing as it is amongst the men? Not even close. But something... and the risk is lower.
I never suggested anything of the kind... you're just taking me out of context. Your post is a strawman.
If you want to debate this with me, then login. Otherwise, I'll just leave you with that and will not respond to further comments from you unless you do login.
Its actually worse than that. Men aren't predisposed to math. We're predisposed to COMPETE. Where as women are predisposed to sit quietly and watch when males compete.
This is basic evolutionary psychology. What drives women out of anything is an atmosphere of competition. Think about it.
Anything gets competitive... where men start trying really hard... the women sit down. They don't even try. Not because they can't but because they're programmed to not try.
And it gets worse because anything where men are not allowed to compete... to one up each other. To show they are higher status than their peers... men sit down.
In female psychology, competition with males for status has no point and is actually dangerous.
In male psychology, anything without competition is meaningless. And anything that is hard and has no status is a literal threat to your genetic survival as a male.
Thus... if there is competition... women do not compete.
And if there is no competition... men lose all interest. This is why so many subjects and hobbies are dominated by one sex or the other. The males like competitive hobbies. Sure there are the guys that collect stamps or build model trains. But lets not focus on teh ultra betas for a second here. Men in general don't like to do those things. They like to do things that show mastery because at some level it shows they're higher status males than those that did not obtain that mastery.
And if there is competition... women both see no point in it against males because evolutionary they did not compete over the same mates or have the same breeding strategies. And competition with males is actively dangerous for females historically. Compete with a man and you are ultimately threatening him with genetic death. He loses status and he loses breeding rights. Anyone that stands in front a man competing for his genetic survival could get hurt. The only people that would compete with such a man would be other men that would be likewise competing for breeding rights.
Men compete and women sit down and watch.
If there is no competition... no status to be won... men generally don't care.
This is why men and women need to be educated separately at a young age at the very least if not carrying on into college.
Put the women in an environment where the men are challenging each other for who is smarter, faster, wiser, more knowledgable, stronger, more skilled... anything. And they're going to sit down. That is statistically there are female mutants that won't back down. The overwhelming majority will.
The anti DDT lobby could arguably be cited for much of the annual death toll to malaria which if deliberate would put them up there with the nastiest powers ever.
The kids getting sprayed with DDT in the face didn't suffer ill effects. Everyone has seen those old videos of the kids in the pool sprayed with DDT. And that is used as an example of hubris.
But... do they cite how many of those kids that got sprayed... In the face... actually suffered any kind of ill effects?
Nope. On that point they go dark for some reason. Which is odd because if there were ill effects you'd assume they'd cite them. It would have made their case stronger. But... nothing. Which contextually implies that they didn't cite it because actually there weren't any ill effects.
Does DDT harm eagles? Apparently. If I had to choose between eagles and millions of my own people annually... I'd fucking genocide the eagles. I mean... I'd try and keep the species going in a zoo or something. But I'm not sacrificing millions of people for some eagles.
entry level evolutionary psychology answers that question.
Women are psychologically uncomfortable with competing with men.
Argue with a women about something that your mutual power or status in the group. Women statistically shut off in these contests. Where as men statistically don't back down even if they have a good chance of getting pasted.
This goes back to our evolutionary roots in that men genetically DIE if they do not obtain status sufficient to obtain breeding rights where as women really just have to play it safe and they pass on their genes.
This encourages men to compete because if they do not compete they lose status, do not get breeding rights, and genetically die. And women both don't need to bother with that, their genetic priorities have nothing to do with their status or contests with males, and challenging males historically was dangerous because they could kill you if you threatened them with genetic death.
Thus in any competitive environment involving males, women do not feel comfortable or even motivated.
The idea from current education theory which has actually contributed to women doing better in a lot of subjects is to remote the competitive environment from subjects. Make things cooperative, turn the emotional intensity down a bit, and try to mellow things out.
This works really well for getting girls to feel comfortable.
The problem if you care is that in male evolutionary psychology, things that are not competed for are not worth anything. The male mind as programmed at a very deep level that it has to obtain status. If status is not being offered in something then it is probably pointless. If not only does it not offer status but it is hard and consumes a lot of time/energy/resources... then from an evolutionary perspective the male mind is programmed to see the entire thing as a threat to his genetic survival. He MUST obtain status and wasting a lot of his time doing something that doesn't get him what he needs means he'll have less time later to focus on that.
Thus you can't really educate girls and boys in the same school without shutting one of the sexes off... statistically.
If you have competition then the girls will shut off. If you don't then the boys will shut off.
This is basic and very very well understood and supported science at this point.
The problem is that its all political because there is this notion... which comes out of marxist theory... that people can be changed by their environments. I don't mean that in the way that you educate someone but I mean TOTALLY changed. As in your human nature can be entirely overridden and in fact the argument from a lot of people is that ALL human nature is a social construct.
So... gender itself is a social construct. A core belief of modern feminism is that there is NO difference between men and women mentally and psychologically. It is entirely a product of cultural and social conditioning. The theory from these people is that if you treat a girl like a boy you can make her identical to the boy mentally and psychologically. Indifferent to all the science that contradicts that.
Boys and girls are neurologically different. The brain structure can be told apart by neurologists rather easily. And psychologically boys and girls aver VERY different beasts.
The problem is that in many cases "science" is not politically correct. The left likes to think it is the party of science and reason. It is only that when science and reason either is convenient for the ideology or does not contradict it. But whenever it does... as science does in this case... they're as likely to be pigheaded on the subject as any bible thumping creationist.
And sadly while we recognize creationists for being what they are and largely exclude them from influencing the education system. We do not exclude marxist ideologues from influencing our education system.
Here some cute pink cheeked marxist dupe is going to contradict me. I welcome it. Come at me.
Look at the scores. The US team includes only dudes.
5= USA3 Allen Liu 7 7 7 7 1 6 35 Gold Medal 5= USA6 David Stoner 7 7 7 7 7 0 35 Gold Medal 10= USA1 Ryan Alweiss 7 2 1 7 7 7 31 Gold Medal 10= USA4 Yang Liu 7 7 7 7 3 0 31 Gold Medal 26= USA5 Shyam Narayanan 7 7 2 7 5 0 28 Gold Medal 40= USA2 Michael Kural 7 2 7 7 2 0 25 Silver Medal
The guys that were in the picture were the people that actually competed. I don't know what that reference to the two women refers to but it doesn't refer to the competition. They were clearly not in it.
He's a strong pick amongst libertarian republicans but... he isn't acceptable to the rest of the GOP base and even if he were, his ability to win moderates is likely poor.
You can vote for whomever you want in the primary but when it comes to the general election, you'll have to choose between whomever the DNC nominates and whomever the GOP nominates.
And keep in mind that if you throw your vote behind Rand and lots of like minded people like you do that... chances are the GOP nominee will be Jeb Bush. Thus your "vote for freedom" will cause Jeb Bush to get nominated.
The Democrats that waste their time on Bernie will probably get Hillary nominated.
This country doesn't need any more empty pointless gestures. Vote for someone that can win or you are voting for the establishment.
And if both the DNC and the GOP do that... then it will be Jeb vs Hillary.
My understanding is that most republicans and democrats don't like either of these options. But it is precisely what you'll get if you're not practical.
This country was not built by pie eyed idealists. It was built by hard headed pragmatic men of wisdom.
Choose wisely. That is all I ask. You think your vote for rand is "wise"?... Okay. You do that. It is my estimation that it is foolish. My opinion.
... except the input data isn't raw. Its modified by the NOAA. And they all layer their own modifications on top of that.
So independent datasets... not so much.
As to the disagreement about some degree of independence they might get by how they use the data or what they might blend the data with... the NOAA's data is the primary source in all of them. The NOAA's dataset is NOT raw. And thus every dataset inherits adjustments made by the NOAA indifferent to whatever adjustments they layer on top of it. The NOAA's adjustments are in EACH and EVERY SINGLE ONE of these datasets.
What is more, let us say you blend the sat data into these... well the sat data is calibrated to match the NOAA's records. So again... everything just matches this NOAA dataset. Everything links back to it and everything is calibrated against it.
If you say anything that is remarkably different from it then your reports are not taken as credible. So anything you'll ever see will very closely match the NOAA's data. One way or another.
Look... we can argue about degrees of separation but my point is that the NOAA's data and adjustments are in all the datasets. So they're not that independent are they? I mean, if you're doing that... how could your numbers actually be different? They can't be. You're using the same source material.
A more accurate statement from them would be 4 interpretations of the NOAA's data. I don't even want to use the word independent. We'll just say four different groups used that data and came to similar conclusions.
As to the defensibility of my adjustment, neither is the fact that all the adjustments from the IPCC have had to go in the same direction. DOWN.
Are they admitting bias which is a statistical fact at this point? Nope.
I at least have the integrity to admit my bias and I base my bias on a statistical trend of corrections out of the IPCC and the NOAA on the issue of forcing variables, climate models, and projected temperature readings.
If you look at what their predictions were 20 years ago... they were higher. If you go back 10 years ago... they were higher but not as high. If you go back five years they're still higher than what we have now but again less high.
Keep in mind, New York was supposed to be under water by 2015 according to some of the estimates.
All the errors go in one direction. They don't ever have to adjust the numbers up on a correction. Only down. Graph the trend line of the corrections and draw your own conclusions.
I not only find my position defensible but the only rational position on the issue. To the extent that it is "not" defensible it is because I haven't written my opinion up in formal scientific format and gotten it accepted by a journal. I'm not in that game. I'm just a guy. I don't really care and I lack the training to be able to put everything in that format. Which is not to say that I'm wrong or that I couldn't find the evidence to back my position. I just don't know how to format the papers properly. And it is my understanding that even if I did do that, the journals wouldn't even look at it without the byline of an actual accredited scientist on the paper. And then who is going to share a byline with me on that? The politics and social incrowd outcrowd issues would exclude me even if I were 100 percent valid.
So... I reject the notion that I have to do that to have a defensible opinion because its sort of bureaucratic catch 22 circular logic that I've no patience for really.
Do you want me to show you a series of corrections made to the climate models over the last decade or so? Because I'm not kidding when I say they only go one way. It won't even be hard. I'll just cite all the IPCC graphs and you can watch them change in order. As I said, the assumed forcing of CO2 if it doubled was assumed initially to be well in excess of 5C. Now its like 1.3C or something and I have no confidence that it will stop there. All these things have trend lines and trajectories of their own. Every iteration there is a correction down. My "indefensible" assumption is merely that the trend is likely to continue.
these companies keep trying to turn technology into pets. Like what i want when I buy a cellphone is a flat kitten that I can use to order pizza.
I'm not some ignorant savage that flies in the silver sky birds and speaks with magic rocks. Enough you arrogant pricks.
yes yes... there are some profoundly stupid people but can we agree they don't actually matter because they don't actually advance the species at all. They're cannon fodder. Make technology for the people please.
I more cynically believe that they're getting airtime to distract from those two bores so that by the time the election comes around they're still viable because people haven't learned how much they hate them yet.
I mean... I am about 95 percent sure Trump is just trolling. He can't be serious. Most of what he says contradicts shit he's said and done in the not too distant past, the views seem very contrived to fit opinion polls of current events, and frankly they're just too dumb for him. Trump is an educated guy... I think he has bad taste in hotel design... why is everything painted gold like a saudi whorehouse... its an odd thing. But I don't think he's stupid and he's pushing things that are stupid.
Bernie is a victim of his ideology. He's just so trapped in his little box that you could bury him in it. The guy's entire world view is this sad recitation of bygone socialist talking points that anyone that knows anything knows isn't going to happen. And unlike trump, I credit Bernie with not being a liar. But that sadly means he's a deluded fool instead.
I think the circus sideshow makes Bush and Hillary look better by contrast. The opposition is painted as crazy and so people flock to the establishment.
The DNC and GOP have better candidates than the crazies or the establishment. O'Malley or whatever his name is seems better than hillary and there are three or four people in the GOP ticket that less sell out cunts than Jeb... and I just refuse to have another f'ing Bush in office for another 100 years at least. Just no.... I mean... Trump? Anyone that takes that seriously with a straight face is either an accomplished liar or a nitwit.
As "entertainment"... I have no problem with this... highly amusing. I think if I heard she was coming I'd borrow some human skulls from some doctor friends of mine and just go all out so she walked into what looked like a legit necromantic/satanic ritual. I'd greet her with a goat skull on my head and scream "KALIII MAAAH!!!"
You have to have fun with these things.
Man... so much fun... I'd have to go full blow Halloween mode on that shit... get myself an "apocalypse cloak"... draw a giant pentagram between five servers... possibly put a dead squirrel in the middle of it all.
Yes.
This is how you make people stop being goofy in your presence. You act even goofier so you weird them out and they go "hey man... not cool"... and then they have to be the normal ones.:D
I said nothing about gods or theology. Your instant inpossition of an ideology on me that i have not expressed and do not share merely speaks to your own lack of mental flexibility.
You likely think in presets. You have a little cache of stored up arguments and whenever you get into any discussion, rather than thinking, you just do a lookup call, compare the situation to one of your stored argument profiles, and then vomit a bunch of shit at people that only applies in your own mind.
Its a main reason why I try to avoid arguments that are worn out because people like you just have stored up profiles for them. Ideally, if I do have to touch a well worn subject, I try to come at it from an unusual angle.
It excludes all the idiots that aren't even able to think anymore. People can disagree with them... but they have to come up with a rational argument using their own little brains to do that. And right there I've excluded 90 percent of the population can't even really grasp the concepts from even participating.
Sounds evil right?... Only its not because they're stupid and serve only to distract and cloud the issue with limitless idiocy. And then every so often... they'll get fixated on something really really dumb... and rather than concede the point, they'll get stubborn. That's the funniest. Those people that think they can hold a position just by refusing to acknowledge they're full of shit. No no... 1+1=5...
Anyway... hit me with your best shot if you have fucking anything besides little smug cheap shots. Try. I dare you to hold that argument you made. I am begging you. Do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I listed people that are officially running and said who I thought could actually be credible in a national election.
My point was that neither Bernie nor Trump are credible for president. Bernie is an ideologue and is one of those fellows that mistakes adherence to dogma with wisdom. If that were how it worked the men muttering about their old gods would win every time.
And Trump... I really really doubt he's sincere. I think he's playing the crowd and just saying whatever he thinks people want to hear.
What's worse... a person that pretends to believe crazy shit to get attention or a guy that actually does believe crazy shit and doesn't care if people think its crazy?
They're both non-viable. Trump has personally fucked over so many business partners and people that loaned him money over the years. I mean... the guy basically is out for himself all the time. And that's not the sort of guy you put in the white house. You want as much as possible the George Washington model... a guy that could have been king if he wanted to be... could have started a royal dynasty. The whole thing. And he gave it up on principle after winning the war and winning the politics.
Who here thinks Trump would give up a chance to be king if he had it? He'd take it. And who here thinks Bernie could win the war or win the politics? He's a joke even amongst his allies.
That the press and the political establishments and the voters are taking these people seriously is depressing. They're not going to win.
What is trump's big message? Close the borders, shut down immigration, deal with crime, and I think I heard him say we should boycott mexico... I mean... I can't even take this shit seriously its so stupid.
Is our immigration system messed up? Yep. Do we get too many welfare cases from mexico largely attracted by our messed up labor market that is starved for low level labor but is denied it domestically through a mixture of overly aggressive minimum wages and labor laws? Yep.
But the solution here is not to attack an ethnic group or suggest the mexican people are bad. They're poor and their government is corrupt/incompetent. That's the level of decision making that has gone into their end of things. Most of the fuck ups have happened on OUR side of the border and fixing it is not productive engaged by blaming the mexicans for stuff.
You reform our labor policies, you reform enforcement for illegal immigration, you make a point of not offering welfare to new immigrants illegal or otherwise, and you make a point of coming down hard on businesses that exploit the situation. And while you're at it, look at whatever revenue stream the cartels are using to make money and make it not profitable. The legalization of weed for example is forcing the cartels out of that market. Domestic weed from various domestic pot growers are driving them out of the market.
Does that mean I'm suggesting we do the same thing with cocaine and heroine? Yep... I'm one of those people. I'll fucking sell you bleach to inject into your eyeballs if you know what you're doing.
The hypocrisy of the people that say "oh its your body you should be able to do what you want" in one situation and then say "oh but you need a doctor's prescription to get the heart medication you've been taking for 20 years"... the fuck? If I want to eat rat poison... I don't need to get a prescription. I can go to the hardware store, buy rat poison, bake myself a big rat poison cake, and have a fucking party. But if I want to get a drug to lower my cholesterol and I was previously suggested by a doctor to take that drug and possibly had past prescriptions for it... no, you have to go get another one for no rational reason.
And I extend that to heroine or magic mushrooms or whatever. I have family that are drug addicts... I know the "pain"... drug enforcement isn't stopping my junkie cousin from getting as much heroine as he wants now so I don't see what this is accomplishing. Last time I saw him... he was bragging about his new exercise/diet thing... As if everyone didn't know he was just back on the needle again. Hilarious.
So yeah. Trump is playing the crowd. He doesn't even belief half the crap that comes out of his mouth. He's just stirring up the crowd. And it will go no where and it isn't a productive discussion.
Then you have bernie sanders... less overtly insane and likely a great deal more sincere. However... equally unrealistic.
His first idea is to get rid of all the US free trade agreements and basically reintroduce tariffs. That's about as practical as the idea to put the US back on the gold standard. It isn't happening. Every business interest... F"ING ALL OF THEM... would start suicide bombing congressman to stop that. And economically, whether it would actually help us is debatable because there would be international reprisals. It would basically start trade wars all over the place. And have fun with dealing with that for decades on end. And then you'd have foreign policy problems because now our allies that are mostly the people we have these agreements with would start hating us or causing problems or forming alliances with rival powers. I mean... he has no idea the fucking third rail he's talking about pissing on. Lightening will go up the urine stream and fry his dick completely off his body.
Oh but he gets better, he wants to do another of these genius "eat the rich" ideas where you just go after those rich people. This idea always fails. Because rich people can just pull thei
... to protect entrenched special interests from competition/audit/legal action/defunding/etc... using "health", "safety", and/or "the children" as the reason monopolies, cronycapitalism, campaign donors, and other shill like behavior has to be protected from... literally anything that would clean house.
Name anything broken in government or the economy and I shit you not... every last bit of it is armored in babies.
And why does this work? Because voters/readers are lazy and don't look past the surface. They just see the baby armor and the guy taking shots at it. they don't look closely enough to see the babies are mostly plastic, and there is some cynical shit giggle in the middle of the babies that have been tied to his body while he's getting away with pretty much whatever he wants because after all... baby armor.
I'd cite specific issues outside of the fucking taxi companies but then I'd endure endless comments from fuckwits that don't realize they're enabling systemic corruption/dysfunction because... baby armor.
The GHCN and ERSST the source in the other datasets. Both of which are controlled by the NOAA.
The GHCN is a cooperative effort to combine data sets going back as far as 175 years... It is the source of the land surface data. And the ERSST is used for the sea data.
The primary difference between the datasets is not the source information which is the GHCN/ERSST but rather what sort of adjustments they use to modify the data. Everyone has their own methodology. I won't get into the whole adjustment argument. But I will simply point out that the datasets are not independent if they all have the same source dataset.
There is ONE dataset. And it comes from the NOAA.
As to numbers... As should have been obvious from my first response to you, I am drawing a lot of information sources and none of it is especially well organized in my mind. I'm not trying to get my doctorate here. I'm just trying to figure out what is going on. And from the frankly vast array of information I was taking in... I saw more estimations in the low 30s than I did in the 40s and above. What is more, I believe a bias to cool the figures is valid considering that there is a verifiable bias to cite higher figures than lower ones. When you take all that into consideration... numbers around 35... are tweaked to 30. Why? Because the only counter to a consistent bias is an opposing consistent bias. If a scale always says things are a bit heavier than whatever they actually are then you need to apply an adjustment to the figures recording them as slightly lighter.
As to waiting a minute... my bias corrects from 35 to 30. The figures based on the math alone were showing something around 35 to 38 percent. But given that we've had corrections to the models and the figures going on for years and they always correct them DOWN... I personally decide to read the numbers as being slightly lower than cited if only in anticipation of the next correction.
I think the climate forcing variable is down to 1.3 degrees C if CO2 doubles... which is down from like 5 C. More recently they were saying 4.5... then they ran their numbers again and got to 1.5... and then subtracting other forcing variables it got down to 1.3. So...
There's a lot of hype on this subject. Its very political.
The whole BEST debacle has been annoying for years because their "raw" data turned out to not be raw. And then they refused to actually release the raw data. Though apparently they're saying they're going to do that soon. A few people have confirmed they were actually able to get access to it. So anyway...datasets... there are fewer of them in this field than people realize.
She's not running and is unlikely to run against Hillary.
Note that I'm not endorsing any of these people. I'm just saying some people can win and some people cannot.
The republican field is a complete three ring circus at this point. I think they have something like 20 people officially running. Of those... MAYBE 5 have a chance of getting so much as nominated. The rest are just a giant waste of time. And trump is of course on that list.
He won't be nominated and if he is, he won't be elected.
Random dude that uploads something?... this is silly... but if we're talking about a serious piracy outfit that is pushing a lot of crap on a regular basis... it might be reasonable. That said, the internet is global so this will just push piracy to less regulated countries.
Hmmm... First, citizens united merely over turned a restriction that hadn't actually been in place for very long and was pretty much instantly brought to trial where it immediately lost.
Second, there are serious problem with the idea behind restricting political speech. It really is a violation of the first amendment. You either believe in free speech or you don't.
Third, Bernie isn't winning. He's the Left's Donald Trump. Trump is not winning the white house and any republican that backs him is wasting their time and money... and credibility. Bernie ain't winning either.
If you only vote for people with D's after their name, then here are your POSSIBLE chances at the white house in 2016:
Hillary Clinton Martin O'Malley
Unless someone else throws their hat in the ring... that's all you've got.
I excluded these people:
Jim Webb Bernie Sanders Lincoln Chafee
They are not getting elected.... Jim Web... MAYBE... I doubt it because he doesn't have any support that I can see. But Bernie is going no where. If you dominate him, then unless the republicans also nominate Trump... you've got zero chance.
A contest between two crazy candidates is unpredictable. I wouldn't count on either of them getting so much as nominated though.
Slashdot Mirror
As I made clear, the issue is competition against males.
Women don't mind competing against women. They just shut off when they compete against men. I think I made this very clear.
Stop looking for a sentence to take out of context and try to actually understand what i'm talking about. It is in your own interest... you'll get more out of it.
The issue is evolutionary psychology as I said.
Men are MUST compete to obtain status and thus breeding rights.
Women historically were not in competition with males for status. They might be in competition with women but the nature of that competition was different.
Women furthemore do not NEED to compete to obtain genetic survival. All they need is for some guy to shoot a load of semen into them and bingo... genetic survival obtained. For men, they was harder. First, women are less generous with their reproductive cells than are men. A guy can fire off a multiple times a day and a woman can pop off with success at most about once every 9 months... add couple months in there just to let the plumbing heal. Basically about once a year.
What is more, men don't KNOW they're the parent. Women always know. If it came out of your vagina then its your baby. But the man... he can't know.
Point is, men need the woman to WANT his child. If she doesn't... she might not agree to breed with him in the first place and even if she does she might have many other partners thus statistically reducing his chances.
This is why men don't back down from a challenge and why women frequently fold when a man challenges them... the instincts say "this doesn't matter and this is also dangerous"... because to compete with a man for status in evolutinary psychology means you're competing for breeding status. And for men... low status means genetic death. And historically that is something men can get violent over. In an age before good medicine a good beating could be fatal. Thus women avoid conflicts with men when they compete. They have almost nothing to gain and a great deal to lose. The logic is simple. Disengage.
But for a man, he can't back down. Backing down means submission and lowering your status. This doesn't mean they never back down... or that all women will back down. It means they're inclined to do different things in the same circumstance because their perspective is different.
From the man's perspective... deep in his DNA... he knows that backing down lowers his chances of reproduction. And for the woman... well what is she risking here by backing down? Nothing. But challenging some big fellow that is full of his own genetic imperatives... Not a good idea.
Women competing against women though? Completely different. Being first amongst the females is worth something genetically. The same thing as it is amongst the men? Not even close. But something... and the risk is lower.
I never suggested anything of the kind... you're just taking me out of context. Your post is a strawman.
If you want to debate this with me, then login. Otherwise, I'll just leave you with that and will not respond to further comments from you unless you do login.
It currently shows as entirely unmodded to me.
It looks like (2)... which is what all my posts default to because I have an excellent rating at the moment. :D
I logged out to see if it changed and it still said (2).
Not sure what you're referring to.
So rather than back your bullshit up, you decided to label me an "enemy" and then run away?
Okay, chump.
And before you presume to get upset with that comment, I'm merely claiming what is owed me. You conceded. I'm taking what is mine.
Not a single european country.
Its actually worse than that. Men aren't predisposed to math. We're predisposed to COMPETE. Where as women are predisposed to sit quietly and watch when males compete.
This is basic evolutionary psychology. What drives women out of anything is an atmosphere of competition. Think about it.
Anything gets competitive... where men start trying really hard... the women sit down. They don't even try. Not because they can't but because they're programmed to not try.
And it gets worse because anything where men are not allowed to compete... to one up each other. To show they are higher status than their peers... men sit down.
In female psychology, competition with males for status has no point and is actually dangerous.
In male psychology, anything without competition is meaningless. And anything that is hard and has no status is a literal threat to your genetic survival as a male.
Thus... if there is competition... women do not compete.
And if there is no competition... men lose all interest. This is why so many subjects and hobbies are dominated by one sex or the other. The males like competitive hobbies. Sure there are the guys that collect stamps or build model trains. But lets not focus on teh ultra betas for a second here. Men in general don't like to do those things. They like to do things that show mastery because at some level it shows they're higher status males than those that did not obtain that mastery.
And if there is competition... women both see no point in it against males because evolutionary they did not compete over the same mates or have the same breeding strategies. And competition with males is actively dangerous for females historically. Compete with a man and you are ultimately threatening him with genetic death. He loses status and he loses breeding rights. Anyone that stands in front a man competing for his genetic survival could get hurt. The only people that would compete with such a man would be other men that would be likewise competing for breeding rights.
Men compete and women sit down and watch.
If there is no competition... no status to be won... men generally don't care.
This is why men and women need to be educated separately at a young age at the very least if not carrying on into college.
Put the women in an environment where the men are challenging each other for who is smarter, faster, wiser, more knowledgable, stronger, more skilled... anything. And they're going to sit down. That is statistically there are female mutants that won't back down. The overwhelming majority will.
Yep.
The anti DDT lobby could arguably be cited for much of the annual death toll to malaria which if deliberate would put them up there with the nastiest powers ever.
The kids getting sprayed with DDT in the face didn't suffer ill effects. Everyone has seen those old videos of the kids in the pool sprayed with DDT. And that is used as an example of hubris.
But... do they cite how many of those kids that got sprayed... In the face... actually suffered any kind of ill effects?
Nope. On that point they go dark for some reason. Which is odd because if there were ill effects you'd assume they'd cite them. It would have made their case stronger. But... nothing. Which contextually implies that they didn't cite it because actually there weren't any ill effects.
Does DDT harm eagles? Apparently. If I had to choose between eagles and millions of my own people annually... I'd fucking genocide the eagles. I mean... I'd try and keep the species going in a zoo or something. But I'm not sacrificing millions of people for some eagles.
entry level evolutionary psychology answers that question.
Women are psychologically uncomfortable with competing with men.
Argue with a women about something that your mutual power or status in the group. Women statistically shut off in these contests. Where as men statistically don't back down even if they have a good chance of getting pasted.
This goes back to our evolutionary roots in that men genetically DIE if they do not obtain status sufficient to obtain breeding rights where as women really just have to play it safe and they pass on their genes.
This encourages men to compete because if they do not compete they lose status, do not get breeding rights, and genetically die. And women both don't need to bother with that, their genetic priorities have nothing to do with their status or contests with males, and challenging males historically was dangerous because they could kill you if you threatened them with genetic death.
Thus in any competitive environment involving males, women do not feel comfortable or even motivated.
The idea from current education theory which has actually contributed to women doing better in a lot of subjects is to remote the competitive environment from subjects. Make things cooperative, turn the emotional intensity down a bit, and try to mellow things out.
This works really well for getting girls to feel comfortable.
The problem if you care is that in male evolutionary psychology, things that are not competed for are not worth anything. The male mind as programmed at a very deep level that it has to obtain status. If status is not being offered in something then it is probably pointless. If not only does it not offer status but it is hard and consumes a lot of time/energy/resources... then from an evolutionary perspective the male mind is programmed to see the entire thing as a threat to his genetic survival. He MUST obtain status and wasting a lot of his time doing something that doesn't get him what he needs means he'll have less time later to focus on that.
Thus you can't really educate girls and boys in the same school without shutting one of the sexes off... statistically.
If you have competition then the girls will shut off. If you don't then the boys will shut off.
This is basic and very very well understood and supported science at this point.
The problem is that its all political because there is this notion... which comes out of marxist theory... that people can be changed by their environments. I don't mean that in the way that you educate someone but I mean TOTALLY changed. As in your human nature can be entirely overridden and in fact the argument from a lot of people is that ALL human nature is a social construct.
So... gender itself is a social construct. A core belief of modern feminism is that there is NO difference between men and women mentally and psychologically. It is entirely a product of cultural and social conditioning. The theory from these people is that if you treat a girl like a boy you can make her identical to the boy mentally and psychologically. Indifferent to all the science that contradicts that.
Boys and girls are neurologically different. The brain structure can be told apart by neurologists rather easily. And psychologically boys and girls aver VERY different beasts.
The problem is that in many cases "science" is not politically correct. The left likes to think it is the party of science and reason. It is only that when science and reason either is convenient for the ideology or does not contradict it. But whenever it does... as science does in this case... they're as likely to be pigheaded on the subject as any bible thumping creationist.
And sadly while we recognize creationists for being what they are and largely exclude them from influencing the education system. We do not exclude marxist ideologues from influencing our education system.
Here some cute pink cheeked marxist dupe is going to contradict me. I welcome it. Come at me.
I can't find any evidence of them even competing:
http://www.polyomino.org.uk/ma...
Look at the scores. The US team includes only dudes.
5= USA3 Allen Liu 7 7 7 7 1 6 35 Gold Medal
5= USA6 David Stoner 7 7 7 7 7 0 35 Gold Medal
10= USA1 Ryan Alweiss 7 2 1 7 7 7 31 Gold Medal
10= USA4 Yang Liu 7 7 7 7 3 0 31 Gold Medal
26= USA5 Shyam Narayanan 7 7 2 7 5 0 28 Gold Medal
40= USA2 Michael Kural 7 2 7 7 2 0 25 Silver Medal
The guys that were in the picture were the people that actually competed. I don't know what that reference to the two women refers to but it doesn't refer to the competition. They were clearly not in it.
He's a strong pick amongst libertarian republicans but... he isn't acceptable to the rest of the GOP base and even if he were, his ability to win moderates is likely poor.
You can vote for whomever you want in the primary but when it comes to the general election, you'll have to choose between whomever the DNC nominates and whomever the GOP nominates.
And keep in mind that if you throw your vote behind Rand and lots of like minded people like you do that... chances are the GOP nominee will be Jeb Bush. Thus your "vote for freedom" will cause Jeb Bush to get nominated.
The Democrats that waste their time on Bernie will probably get Hillary nominated.
This country doesn't need any more empty pointless gestures. Vote for someone that can win or you are voting for the establishment.
And if both the DNC and the GOP do that... then it will be Jeb vs Hillary.
My understanding is that most republicans and democrats don't like either of these options. But it is precisely what you'll get if you're not practical.
This country was not built by pie eyed idealists. It was built by hard headed pragmatic men of wisdom.
Choose wisely. That is all I ask. You think your vote for rand is "wise"?... Okay. You do that. It is my estimation that it is foolish. My opinion.
... except the input data isn't raw. Its modified by the NOAA. And they all layer their own modifications on top of that.
So independent datasets... not so much.
As to the disagreement about some degree of independence they might get by how they use the data or what they might blend the data with... the NOAA's data is the primary source in all of them. The NOAA's dataset is NOT raw. And thus every dataset inherits adjustments made by the NOAA indifferent to whatever adjustments they layer on top of it. The NOAA's adjustments are in EACH and EVERY SINGLE ONE of these datasets.
What is more, let us say you blend the sat data into these... well the sat data is calibrated to match the NOAA's records. So again... everything just matches this NOAA dataset. Everything links back to it and everything is calibrated against it.
If you say anything that is remarkably different from it then your reports are not taken as credible. So anything you'll ever see will very closely match the NOAA's data. One way or another.
Look... we can argue about degrees of separation but my point is that the NOAA's data and adjustments are in all the datasets. So they're not that independent are they? I mean, if you're doing that... how could your numbers actually be different? They can't be. You're using the same source material.
A more accurate statement from them would be 4 interpretations of the NOAA's data. I don't even want to use the word independent. We'll just say four different groups used that data and came to similar conclusions.
As to the defensibility of my adjustment, neither is the fact that all the adjustments from the IPCC have had to go in the same direction. DOWN.
Are they admitting bias which is a statistical fact at this point? Nope.
I at least have the integrity to admit my bias and I base my bias on a statistical trend of corrections out of the IPCC and the NOAA on the issue of forcing variables, climate models, and projected temperature readings.
If you look at what their predictions were 20 years ago... they were higher. If you go back 10 years ago... they were higher but not as high. If you go back five years they're still higher than what we have now but again less high.
Keep in mind, New York was supposed to be under water by 2015 according to some of the estimates.
All the errors go in one direction. They don't ever have to adjust the numbers up on a correction. Only down. Graph the trend line of the corrections and draw your own conclusions.
I not only find my position defensible but the only rational position on the issue. To the extent that it is "not" defensible it is because I haven't written my opinion up in formal scientific format and gotten it accepted by a journal. I'm not in that game. I'm just a guy. I don't really care and I lack the training to be able to put everything in that format. Which is not to say that I'm wrong or that I couldn't find the evidence to back my position. I just don't know how to format the papers properly. And it is my understanding that even if I did do that, the journals wouldn't even look at it without the byline of an actual accredited scientist on the paper. And then who is going to share a byline with me on that? The politics and social incrowd outcrowd issues would exclude me even if I were 100 percent valid.
So... I reject the notion that I have to do that to have a defensible opinion because its sort of bureaucratic catch 22 circular logic that I've no patience for really.
Do you want me to show you a series of corrections made to the climate models over the last decade or so? Because I'm not kidding when I say they only go one way. It won't even be hard. I'll just cite all the IPCC graphs and you can watch them change in order. As I said, the assumed forcing of CO2 if it doubled was assumed initially to be well in excess of 5C. Now its like 1.3C or something and I have no confidence that it will stop there. All these things have trend lines and trajectories of their own. Every iteration there is a correction down. My "indefensible" assumption is merely that the trend is likely to continue.
You can do that if you want but he's not getting nominated. his numbers are terrible.
... or respond to these things.
these companies keep trying to turn technology into pets. Like what i want when I buy a cellphone is a flat kitten that I can use to order pizza.
I'm not some ignorant savage that flies in the silver sky birds and speaks with magic rocks. Enough you arrogant pricks.
yes yes... there are some profoundly stupid people but can we agree they don't actually matter because they don't actually advance the species at all. They're cannon fodder. Make technology for the people please.
I more cynically believe that they're getting airtime to distract from those two bores so that by the time the election comes around they're still viable because people haven't learned how much they hate them yet.
I mean... I am about 95 percent sure Trump is just trolling. He can't be serious. Most of what he says contradicts shit he's said and done in the not too distant past, the views seem very contrived to fit opinion polls of current events, and frankly they're just too dumb for him. Trump is an educated guy... I think he has bad taste in hotel design... why is everything painted gold like a saudi whorehouse... its an odd thing. But I don't think he's stupid and he's pushing things that are stupid.
Bernie is a victim of his ideology. He's just so trapped in his little box that you could bury him in it. The guy's entire world view is this sad recitation of bygone socialist talking points that anyone that knows anything knows isn't going to happen. And unlike trump, I credit Bernie with not being a liar. But that sadly means he's a deluded fool instead.
I think the circus sideshow makes Bush and Hillary look better by contrast. The opposition is painted as crazy and so people flock to the establishment.
The DNC and GOP have better candidates than the crazies or the establishment. O'Malley or whatever his name is seems better than hillary and there are three or four people in the GOP ticket that less sell out cunts than Jeb... and I just refuse to have another f'ing Bush in office for another 100 years at least. Just no. ... I mean... Trump? Anyone that takes that seriously with a straight face is either an accomplished liar or a nitwit.
As "entertainment"... I have no problem with this... highly amusing. I think if I heard she was coming I'd borrow some human skulls from some doctor friends of mine and just go all out so she walked into what looked like a legit necromantic/satanic ritual. I'd greet her with a goat skull on my head and scream "KALIII MAAAH!!!"
You have to have fun with these things.
Man... so much fun... I'd have to go full blow Halloween mode on that shit... get myself an "apocalypse cloak"... draw a giant pentagram between five servers... possibly put a dead squirrel in the middle of it all.
Yes.
This is how you make people stop being goofy in your presence. You act even goofier so you weird them out and they go "hey man... not cool"... and then they have to be the normal ones. :D
You need to login if you want a response. I assume ACs are sockpuppets, trolls, by default.
I don't know who you are and can't let you speak for the other person. Login and repost that.
I said nothing about gods or theology. Your instant inpossition of an ideology on me that i have not expressed and do not share merely speaks to your own lack of mental flexibility.
You likely think in presets. You have a little cache of stored up arguments and whenever you get into any discussion, rather than thinking, you just do a lookup call, compare the situation to one of your stored argument profiles, and then vomit a bunch of shit at people that only applies in your own mind.
Its a main reason why I try to avoid arguments that are worn out because people like you just have stored up profiles for them. Ideally, if I do have to touch a well worn subject, I try to come at it from an unusual angle.
It excludes all the idiots that aren't even able to think anymore. People can disagree with them... but they have to come up with a rational argument using their own little brains to do that. And right there I've excluded 90 percent of the population can't even really grasp the concepts from even participating.
Sounds evil right?... Only its not because they're stupid and serve only to distract and cloud the issue with limitless idiocy. And then every so often... they'll get fixated on something really really dumb... and rather than concede the point, they'll get stubborn. That's the funniest. Those people that think they can hold a position just by refusing to acknowledge they're full of shit. No no... 1+1=5...
Anyway... hit me with your best shot if you have fucking anything besides little smug cheap shots. Try. I dare you to hold that argument you made. I am begging you. Do it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I listed people that are officially running and said who I thought could actually be credible in a national election.
My point was that neither Bernie nor Trump are credible for president. Bernie is an ideologue and is one of those fellows that mistakes adherence to dogma with wisdom. If that were how it worked the men muttering about their old gods would win every time.
And Trump... I really really doubt he's sincere. I think he's playing the crowd and just saying whatever he thinks people want to hear.
What's worse... a person that pretends to believe crazy shit to get attention or a guy that actually does believe crazy shit and doesn't care if people think its crazy?
They're both non-viable. Trump has personally fucked over so many business partners and people that loaned him money over the years. I mean... the guy basically is out for himself all the time. And that's not the sort of guy you put in the white house. You want as much as possible the George Washington model... a guy that could have been king if he wanted to be... could have started a royal dynasty. The whole thing. And he gave it up on principle after winning the war and winning the politics.
Who here thinks Trump would give up a chance to be king if he had it? He'd take it. And who here thinks Bernie could win the war or win the politics? He's a joke even amongst his allies.
That the press and the political establishments and the voters are taking these people seriously is depressing. They're not going to win.
Not really.
What is trump's big message? Close the borders, shut down immigration, deal with crime, and I think I heard him say we should boycott mexico... I mean... I can't even take this shit seriously its so stupid.
Is our immigration system messed up? Yep. Do we get too many welfare cases from mexico largely attracted by our messed up labor market that is starved for low level labor but is denied it domestically through a mixture of overly aggressive minimum wages and labor laws? Yep.
But the solution here is not to attack an ethnic group or suggest the mexican people are bad. They're poor and their government is corrupt/incompetent. That's the level of decision making that has gone into their end of things. Most of the fuck ups have happened on OUR side of the border and fixing it is not productive engaged by blaming the mexicans for stuff.
You reform our labor policies, you reform enforcement for illegal immigration, you make a point of not offering welfare to new immigrants illegal or otherwise, and you make a point of coming down hard on businesses that exploit the situation. And while you're at it, look at whatever revenue stream the cartels are using to make money and make it not profitable. The legalization of weed for example is forcing the cartels out of that market. Domestic weed from various domestic pot growers are driving them out of the market.
Does that mean I'm suggesting we do the same thing with cocaine and heroine? Yep... I'm one of those people. I'll fucking sell you bleach to inject into your eyeballs if you know what you're doing.
The hypocrisy of the people that say "oh its your body you should be able to do what you want" in one situation and then say "oh but you need a doctor's prescription to get the heart medication you've been taking for 20 years"... the fuck? If I want to eat rat poison... I don't need to get a prescription. I can go to the hardware store, buy rat poison, bake myself a big rat poison cake, and have a fucking party. But if I want to get a drug to lower my cholesterol and I was previously suggested by a doctor to take that drug and possibly had past prescriptions for it... no, you have to go get another one for no rational reason.
And I extend that to heroine or magic mushrooms or whatever. I have family that are drug addicts... I know the "pain"... drug enforcement isn't stopping my junkie cousin from getting as much heroine as he wants now so I don't see what this is accomplishing. Last time I saw him... he was bragging about his new exercise/diet thing... As if everyone didn't know he was just back on the needle again. Hilarious.
So yeah. Trump is playing the crowd. He doesn't even belief half the crap that comes out of his mouth. He's just stirring up the crowd. And it will go no where and it isn't a productive discussion.
Then you have bernie sanders... less overtly insane and likely a great deal more sincere. However... equally unrealistic.
His first idea is to get rid of all the US free trade agreements and basically reintroduce tariffs. That's about as practical as the idea to put the US back on the gold standard. It isn't happening. Every business interest... F"ING ALL OF THEM... would start suicide bombing congressman to stop that. And economically, whether it would actually help us is debatable because there would be international reprisals. It would basically start trade wars all over the place. And have fun with dealing with that for decades on end. And then you'd have foreign policy problems because now our allies that are mostly the people we have these agreements with would start hating us or causing problems or forming alliances with rival powers. I mean... he has no idea the fucking third rail he's talking about pissing on. Lightening will go up the urine stream and fry his dick completely off his body.
Oh but he gets better, he wants to do another of these genius "eat the rich" ideas where you just go after those rich people. This idea always fails. Because rich people can just pull thei
... to protect entrenched special interests from competition/audit/legal action/defunding/etc... using "health", "safety", and/or "the children" as the reason monopolies, cronycapitalism, campaign donors, and other shill like behavior has to be protected from... literally anything that would clean house.
Name anything broken in government or the economy and I shit you not... every last bit of it is armored in babies.
Baby armor.
https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfro...
And why does this work? Because voters/readers are lazy and don't look past the surface. They just see the baby armor and the guy taking shots at it. they don't look closely enough to see the babies are mostly plastic, and there is some cynical shit giggle in the middle of the babies that have been tied to his body while he's getting away with pretty much whatever he wants because after all... baby armor.
I'd cite specific issues outside of the fucking taxi companies but then I'd endure endless comments from fuckwits that don't realize they're enabling systemic corruption/dysfunction because... baby armor.
As to sources:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
The GHCN and ERSST the source in the other datasets. Both of which are controlled by the NOAA.
The GHCN is a cooperative effort to combine data sets going back as far as 175 years... It is the source of the land surface data. And the ERSST is used for the sea data.
The primary difference between the datasets is not the source information which is the GHCN/ERSST but rather what sort of adjustments they use to modify the data. Everyone has their own methodology. I won't get into the whole adjustment argument. But I will simply point out that the datasets are not independent if they all have the same source dataset.
There is ONE dataset. And it comes from the NOAA.
As to numbers... As should have been obvious from my first response to you, I am drawing a lot of information sources and none of it is especially well organized in my mind. I'm not trying to get my doctorate here. I'm just trying to figure out what is going on. And from the frankly vast array of information I was taking in... I saw more estimations in the low 30s than I did in the 40s and above. What is more, I believe a bias to cool the figures is valid considering that there is a verifiable bias to cite higher figures than lower ones. When you take all that into consideration... numbers around 35... are tweaked to 30. Why? Because the only counter to a consistent bias is an opposing consistent bias. If a scale always says things are a bit heavier than whatever they actually are then you need to apply an adjustment to the figures recording them as slightly lighter.
As to waiting a minute... my bias corrects from 35 to 30. The figures based on the math alone were showing something around 35 to 38 percent. But given that we've had corrections to the models and the figures going on for years and they always correct them DOWN... I personally decide to read the numbers as being slightly lower than cited if only in anticipation of the next correction.
I think the climate forcing variable is down to 1.3 degrees C if CO2 doubles... which is down from like 5 C. More recently they were saying 4.5... then they ran their numbers again and got to 1.5... and then subtracting other forcing variables it got down to 1.3. So...
There's a lot of hype on this subject. Its very political.
The whole BEST debacle has been annoying for years because their "raw" data turned out to not be raw. And then they refused to actually release the raw data. Though apparently they're saying they're going to do that soon. A few people have confirmed they were actually able to get access to it. So anyway...datasets... there are fewer of them in this field than people realize.
She's not running and is unlikely to run against Hillary.
Note that I'm not endorsing any of these people. I'm just saying some people can win and some people cannot.
The republican field is a complete three ring circus at this point. I think they have something like 20 people officially running. Of those... MAYBE 5 have a chance of getting so much as nominated. The rest are just a giant waste of time. And trump is of course on that list.
He won't be nominated and if he is, he won't be elected.
Bernie is the same. Waste of time.
Random dude that uploads something?... this is silly... but if we're talking about a serious piracy outfit that is pushing a lot of crap on a regular basis... it might be reasonable. That said, the internet is global so this will just push piracy to less regulated countries.
Hmmm... First, citizens united merely over turned a restriction that hadn't actually been in place for very long and was pretty much instantly brought to trial where it immediately lost.
Second, there are serious problem with the idea behind restricting political speech. It really is a violation of the first amendment. You either believe in free speech or you don't.
Third, Bernie isn't winning. He's the Left's Donald Trump. Trump is not winning the white house and any republican that backs him is wasting their time and money... and credibility. Bernie ain't winning either.
If you only vote for people with D's after their name, then here are your POSSIBLE chances at the white house in 2016:
Hillary Clinton
Martin O'Malley
Unless someone else throws their hat in the ring... that's all you've got.
I excluded these people:
Jim Webb
Bernie Sanders
Lincoln Chafee
They are not getting elected.... Jim Web... MAYBE... I doubt it because he doesn't have any support that I can see. But Bernie is going no where. If you dominate him, then unless the republicans also nominate Trump... you've got zero chance.
A contest between two crazy candidates is unpredictable. I wouldn't count on either of them getting so much as nominated though.