See, now you're just part of the problem I was talking about. Reducing your risk for cancer by eating well or abstaining from tobacco use is not "pseudo-science," and by claiming that it is, you're just encouraging people to continue making poor decisions while they wait around for a "cure for cancer," when they could start reducing their risk right now by making important lifestyle changes.
The linked article is from the Mayo clinic... one of the most well-known and respected hospitals in the United States.
Ugh. I'm so sick of all this nationalist bullshit. Why are we so afraid of the global economy? People should be free to move between different countries and seek employment at will. Ultimately, it's better for the world if we break down these artificial barriers.
Cancer is a terrible disease and a cure would be a very amazing thing to have. Certainly, if there is any chance of curing it, we should do so.
The thing is, though, we already know how you can greatly reduce your risk factors for developing cancer, and we don't talk about that often enough. We speak so often of "curing" cancer when we should be focusing more energy on preventing it from happening in the first place.
Follow-up research suggests that the interview questions and responses were modified prior to publication, so for what it's worth, here is the woman's response to the article: http://www.femitheist.net/2014...
Again, I'm sure if I posted her exact words somewhere but reversed the genders, I would have feminists banging on my door complaining of misogyny.
I'm pretty sure that feminists are also banging on that woman's door to complain about her blatantly offensive and counter-productive ideas.
Also, considering that you read this on 4chan... are you sure that it was actually written by a woman? Or is it possible that this was made up in some way, as a strategy to discredit another group? Either way, you can't look at something like that and then seriously think, "this must be what all feminists believe in." That would be ridiculous.
I believe you, I do. You misunderstand what I'm trying to say, though. What I'm saying is, if we believe that war is harmful to the people who participate it, why would we encourage people to actually go out and take part in it?
If I wanted to teach a kid about the horrors of war, I would rather encourage them to meet people who had been affected by it, and spend some time in a conflict area, than encourage them to actually enlist and take part in the fighting.
The only people who should probably be "required" to spend time fighting a war are brainless, privileged politicians who declare war on other countries for trifling matters... sending even MORE children to war is not the answer. People need to STOP enlisting in the military and enabling the violence to continue. Unfortunately, as long as huge groups of our population live in poverty and the military continues to offer "a way out," we will continue to have millions of soldiers who volunteer to risk their lives for dirt-cheap pay.
This is a federal indictment of criminal charges, not a civil case that can be settled out of court for a cash payment. Everyone involved could get up to 20 years in a federal prison, if convicted.
If I go on vacation and turn on my out-of-office replies, I don't actually check my e-mail while I am on vacation, and my co-workers are aware of this. My supervisor has my cell phone number, she can call me if there is truly an emergency.
I work as an administrator in a higher education setting, so your mileage may vary...
You can't lump "feminists" together as a group and pretend like everyone who identifies as a feminist has exactly the same views on everything.
You're being completely sensationalist about this. Nobody is running around and demanding equal representation in dangerous, low-paying jobs because nobody in their right mind would ever encourage anyone to actively seek out a dangerous, low-paying job. Would you ever encourage your child, male OR female, to seek out a career as a coal miner? No, you wouldn't, because that would be stupid. Do you not understand that? Or are you just being willfully dense so you can stick to your completely misguided point? Furthermore, do you even KNOW any coal miners? Do you know ANYONE in your community who has ever even CONSIDERED the idea of being a coal miner? Because unless you live in a rural area, I highly doubt that you do.
Besides all of that, "feminists" do generally advocate for the idea that men and women should be regarded as equally capable of performing most tasks in most jobs with the proper training, so "feminists" would generally be supportive of a woman who wanted to pursue a job as a coal miner, or a construction worker, or a crab fisher, or any other number of traditionally "male" jobs. Do you actually think that "coal miners" would take kindly to a woman who wanted to do that kind of work? Would a woman even be considered for the job? Or would she be immediately rejected because of systematic sexism within that particular profession or working environment? It isn't some kind of privilege for women that they are generally considered too weak, frail or delicate to perform those kinds of jobs. It's benevolent sexism at best.
"War on men"... right. As if we, as men, have to face harassment and discrimination that is even comparable to the daily bullshit that most women have to deal with.
Calling someone a "redneck" sounds more like classism than racism to me. Which is still bad, but don't conflate the two.
If you want to get really particular, it isn't actually possible to be "racist against white people" if you subscribe to the definition of racism as power + prejudice. In other words, you can't be "racist against white people" in the United States because "racism" requires the application of power at a wide-spread, institutional level. There are no institutions within the United States which are systematically biased against white people. You can be "prejudiced" against white people, but you can't be "racist" towards them. Calling it racism actually minimizes the severity of the systematic, institution discrimination that people of color have to struggle against within this country.
If high testosterone was simply "no longer vital," then low testosterone levels wouldn't be selected for by the process of evolution. If an organism's trait has neither a positive or negative effect on the organism's survival, the trait will generally persist. The fact that testosterone levels dropped at all indicates that a lower testosterone level provided an advantage over a higher one.
I would, however, want to know more about the effects of environmental conditions on testosterone levels. Would a change in diet, for example, trigger a change in testosterone level?
A computerized system can respond to a sudden stop much more quickly than a human driver. As human drivers, most of the distance we need to keep between our vehicle and the next is due to our delayed reaction time, and not the time it takes to actually stop the vehicle once the brakes are applied.
Slashdot Mirror
How on earth does this make him a "scumbag" and why do you want his career to fail, exactly?
See, now you're just part of the problem I was talking about. Reducing your risk for cancer by eating well or abstaining from tobacco use is not "pseudo-science," and by claiming that it is, you're just encouraging people to continue making poor decisions while they wait around for a "cure for cancer," when they could start reducing their risk right now by making important lifestyle changes.
The linked article is from the Mayo clinic ... one of the most well-known and respected hospitals in the United States.
Ugh. I'm so sick of all this nationalist bullshit. Why are we so afraid of the global economy? People should be free to move between different countries and seek employment at will. Ultimately, it's better for the world if we break down these artificial barriers.
Dear Gods, your font. Why do you have that font. That is the worst font ever, it hurts my eyeballs. Monospaced fonts are obsolete for a reason.
Where is your marketing department? Do they know that you're posting on /. with that horrible, eye-melting font? Why did they let you out. Why.
Cancer is a terrible disease and a cure would be a very amazing thing to have. Certainly, if there is any chance of curing it, we should do so.
The thing is, though, we already know how you can greatly reduce your risk factors for developing cancer, and we don't talk about that often enough. We speak so often of "curing" cancer when we should be focusing more energy on preventing it from happening in the first place.
Cancer prevention: 7 tips to reduce your risk
Follow-up research suggests that the interview questions and responses were modified prior to publication, so for what it's worth, here is the woman's response to the article: http://www.femitheist.net/2014...
Again, I'm sure if I posted her exact words somewhere but reversed the genders, I would have feminists banging on my door complaining of misogyny.
I'm pretty sure that feminists are also banging on that woman's door to complain about her blatantly offensive and counter-productive ideas.
Also, considering that you read this on 4chan ... are you sure that it was actually written by a woman? Or is it possible that this was made up in some way, as a strategy to discredit another group? Either way, you can't look at something like that and then seriously think, "this must be what all feminists believe in." That would be ridiculous.
I find porn on Google all the time. Google video search has tons of porn if you use the right search terms.
I believe you, I do. You misunderstand what I'm trying to say, though. What I'm saying is, if we believe that war is harmful to the people who participate it, why would we encourage people to actually go out and take part in it?
If I wanted to teach a kid about the horrors of war, I would rather encourage them to meet people who had been affected by it, and spend some time in a conflict area, than encourage them to actually enlist and take part in the fighting.
The only people who should probably be "required" to spend time fighting a war are brainless, privileged politicians who declare war on other countries for trifling matters ... sending even MORE children to war is not the answer. People need to STOP enlisting in the military and enabling the violence to continue. Unfortunately, as long as huge groups of our population live in poverty and the military continues to offer "a way out," we will continue to have millions of soldiers who volunteer to risk their lives for dirt-cheap pay.
Can we use it to create an amalgamation of the "average" first post on a /. article?
This is a federal indictment of criminal charges, not a civil case that can be settled out of court for a cash payment. Everyone involved could get up to 20 years in a federal prison, if convicted.
If I go on vacation and turn on my out-of-office replies, I don't actually check my e-mail while I am on vacation, and my co-workers are aware of this. My supervisor has my cell phone number, she can call me if there is truly an emergency.
I work as an administrator in a higher education setting, so your mileage may vary ...
Wait, if the intention of this is to show why war is so violent and problematic, why would we actively contribute to it?
That really is too perfect.
If that wasn't published in the paper, how do you know that is true? I've taken a look at the paper and I don't see anything in it about race.
Your reactions to comments are wildly hostile. "Dense," "attention whore," "superficial drones" ... what's that all about? Why are you so angry?
You can't lump "feminists" together as a group and pretend like everyone who identifies as a feminist has exactly the same views on everything.
You're being completely sensationalist about this. Nobody is running around and demanding equal representation in dangerous, low-paying jobs because nobody in their right mind would ever encourage anyone to actively seek out a dangerous, low-paying job. Would you ever encourage your child, male OR female, to seek out a career as a coal miner? No, you wouldn't, because that would be stupid. Do you not understand that? Or are you just being willfully dense so you can stick to your completely misguided point? Furthermore, do you even KNOW any coal miners? Do you know ANYONE in your community who has ever even CONSIDERED the idea of being a coal miner? Because unless you live in a rural area, I highly doubt that you do.
Besides all of that, "feminists" do generally advocate for the idea that men and women should be regarded as equally capable of performing most tasks in most jobs with the proper training, so "feminists" would generally be supportive of a woman who wanted to pursue a job as a coal miner, or a construction worker, or a crab fisher, or any other number of traditionally "male" jobs. Do you actually think that "coal miners" would take kindly to a woman who wanted to do that kind of work? Would a woman even be considered for the job? Or would she be immediately rejected because of systematic sexism within that particular profession or working environment? It isn't some kind of privilege for women that they are generally considered too weak, frail or delicate to perform those kinds of jobs. It's benevolent sexism at best.
So, if your intimate partner doesn't like it when your breath smells bad, that makes them a "superficial drone?"
If your co-workers don't like it if you smell like body odor because you haven't showered in days, that makes them "superficial drones?"
Wait, so, maintaining basic hygiene so that you can be presentable to other people makes you an "attention whore?"
"War on men" ... right. As if we, as men, have to face harassment and discrimination that is even comparable to the daily bullshit that most women have to deal with.
This is what I'm talking about, in case you don't know: http://www.robot-hugs.com/harassment/
Why on earth would you ever encourage ANYONE to line up for work in a coal mine?
Calling someone a "redneck" sounds more like classism than racism to me. Which is still bad, but don't conflate the two.
If you want to get really particular, it isn't actually possible to be "racist against white people" if you subscribe to the definition of racism as power + prejudice. In other words, you can't be "racist against white people" in the United States because "racism" requires the application of power at a wide-spread, institutional level. There are no institutions within the United States which are systematically biased against white people. You can be "prejudiced" against white people, but you can't be "racist" towards them. Calling it racism actually minimizes the severity of the systematic, institution discrimination that people of color have to struggle against within this country.
If high testosterone was simply "no longer vital," then low testosterone levels wouldn't be selected for by the process of evolution. If an organism's trait has neither a positive or negative effect on the organism's survival, the trait will generally persist. The fact that testosterone levels dropped at all indicates that a lower testosterone level provided an advantage over a higher one.
I would, however, want to know more about the effects of environmental conditions on testosterone levels. Would a change in diet, for example, trigger a change in testosterone level?
"clear up bad breath" = "sell yourself to your personal audiences"
A computerized system can respond to a sudden stop much more quickly than a human driver. As human drivers, most of the distance we need to keep between our vehicle and the next is due to our delayed reaction time, and not the time it takes to actually stop the vehicle once the brakes are applied.