Social constructionism is a sentral doctrine of second wave feminism, and it is not compatible with evolution. Social constructionism essentially denies that any aspect of human behavior is biologically determined. Every aspect of behavior, is socially learned or constructed. This is obviously not compatible with what we know about evolution. Feminists also deny evolutionary psychology.
The feminist movement has been far more successful at getting it's antiscience into the education system. Social constructivism, postmodernism, curriculum transformation projects to rewrite history, womens studies in general, are all anti-scientific doctrines and ideas which feminists have managed to get tought in schools and universities as gospel.
It's easy to criticize christianity, but second wave feminism is a much larger threat to objective science than right wing conservatives are.
"If harassment is defined by the system of oppression, and the current system of oppression is patriarchal consisting of toxic masculinity, then what I said is not a lie." Harassment isn't defined that way, and there is no patriarchal system of oppression consisting of toxic masculinity. So it was a lie.
Our experience is [piracy] leads to more penetration, more paying subs, more health for HBO, less reliance on having to do paid advertising If you go around the world, I think you're right, Game of Thrones is the most pirated show in the world. Well, you know, that's better than an Emmy.
That right there is why I happily pay a premium for a technically poor streaming service (HBO Nordic ). Even though it's much easier for me to download episodes than to use the service, I still think that HBO has met me half way in providing their content in a reasonable, fair manner. Time to put our money where our mouths are.
No, I think the real story is that it took 4 whole replies before someone conflated criticism of a religion with racism. Usually, it takes less than 3.
Actually, The Social Sciences have been fairly heavily criticized for being unscientific. They seem to be more concerned with perpetuating a politically correct model of human behavior than an accurate one.
Steve Pinker has written extensively on the subject.
Personally I could forgive some inaccuracies to make the story more fitting as a film, but I get the impression that the inaccuracies aren't there for story-telling convenience, but as a noble lie for political purposes. IE portraying him as openly gay witty, and confident, instead of closeted and tortured would undermine the films victimization of him, and it's pandering message of anti-discrimination and gay rights.
As if this film's audience needs convincing of that.
That makes it just another voice in an echo chamber, and propaganda. A lot of people will consider it "noble" propaganda, but it is propaganda none the less.
I think these guys are thinking about traditional web pages, while you are talking about web apps.
As far as I'm concerned a pure javascript frontend just straight up wins for web apps. A RESTful backend and a js frontend scales far better than the traditional all-in-one paradigm. It is less resource and bandwidth intensive - since your backend no longer needs to spend time generating html or bandwidth sending all that overhead, so it will also provide the end users with a faster better experience. Since the frontend is stateless it's also cachable. You can just put the entire frontend on a CDN, and you have an API already in place for other front ends like apps etc.
It's just a straight up technically superior solution.
Don't kid yourself into thinking they give a shit about anything beyond their bottom line. Sure they take risks, but these are coldly calculated risks, and love of geek culture, or promotion of "social justice" is not part of the equation. It might be part of the creators agenda, but not of Disney Incorporated's decisions of which films to release.
For example, everybody that watched children grow up and really looked knows that children come into the world with a personality. There is no way that results from some randomized biological process. [citation needed]
I think you'll find that this is precisely what the available data is showing. If it is not our biology that determines personality, and we are born with innate personalities, what then IS "personality". A ghost in the machine?
Steve Pinker has documented that across all recorded societies, there is a pattern of men being more interested in things, women in people, thus eliminating the idea that this difference is caused by society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
Programming and IT in general are definitely on the extreme thing end of the spectrum, and thus attracts less females, and will continue to attract less females in spite of Disney and Googles "noble" efforts.
For fuck sake you god damn moron, how many times do I have to tell you: IT'S DOCUMENTED IN THE BOOK! A book detailing the available evidence is acceptable as evidence by any standard. Your fucking moronic opinions and anecdotes are not.
You don't want to invest the time to examine the available data? Fine, but then you forfeit the right to argue against it. I'd tell you to read the book, but it's clear the book is way beyond your level of comprehension, since there are very few pictures in it.
You have not provided any citations for your claim, so I have won this debate, and you have once again proved you have the intellect of an 11 year old.
No, your anecdotes hold precisely zero value as evidence, you moron. You keep mentioning your reference, but you never say what's in it. The way citing normally works is something along the lines of:
Complete bullshit. I have made several falsifiable claims and they are all documented in The Blank Slate.
That is what we can observe. What is your point? We can also observe the following across all cultures Women always invest more in offspring. Men always take more risks Women are more interested in people, men in things.
These are some of the falsifiable claims I have made, and provided citations for. All consistent with my claims about human gender roles. And don't even think of pulling that all/none always/never bullshit again.
the thing is you can't even decide if you're talking about eukariotes, animalia, craniates, vertibrates, mammals, or great apes. You keep swinging wildly between different ones cherry picking the stories that best fit what you already believe.
No, I've stated that by the very nature of sexual reproduction the males job is to spread genes, the females to produce offspring. Don't even think about arguing this, as you explicitly stated that you agree with this in a previous post.
You claimed I believed all this in spite of evidence to the contrary. You have not produced any evidence to the contrary, but rather argued that your anecdotes are sufficient to disprove peer reviewed meta studies, like the borderline mentally challenged moron that you are.
Unless you can provide a link to this alleged evidence, I consider this debate won - and you a complete fucking tool.
You can't just bleat "anecdote is not data" and make the data go away. As some point a bunch of observations is data.
My god, you are a special kind of stupid. There is a fundamental difference between anecdotes and evidence. A scientific study with a large enough selection size is evidence, like my reference.
I can't provide a specific citation to that because noone else has argued it with you.
You can't provide a citation for your claim that there is evidence that supports the idea that human gender roles are exceptions from the norm because "noone[sic] has argued it with me"?
When we finally got past all your insults, straw man arguments, semantic gymnastics and logical fallacies, you actually made a falsifiable claim about the issue. Well done!
However, insisting on sticking to that (what Hashead is doing) when there's evidence to the contrary
You need a Citation for the bolded claim. If you cannot produce it then you have lost the debate and we are done here.
The male is optimized for spreading genes, the female for producing offspring.
So Anglerfish don't exist? Geese don't exist? Seahorses don't exist? Snails don't exist? Albatrosses don't exist? Bees don't exist? None of those fit your cute little narritive. If you're going to make wild claims please don't make ones that fly so flagrantly in the face of facts.
You are disagreeing with me here. Later, you claimed to never have opposed this statement.
Slashdot Mirror
Read up on social constructionism, and tell me how the hell this doctrine is compatible with evolution.
Not that long ago. Tell your mom I'm sorry about the crabs.
Social constructionism is a sentral doctrine of second wave feminism, and it is not compatible with evolution. Social constructionism essentially denies that any aspect of human behavior is biologically determined. Every aspect of behavior, is socially learned or constructed. This is obviously not compatible with what we know about evolution. Feminists also deny evolutionary psychology.
The feminist movement has been far more successful at getting it's antiscience into the education system. Social constructivism, postmodernism, curriculum transformation projects to rewrite history, womens studies in general, are all anti-scientific doctrines and ideas which feminists have managed to get tought in schools and universities as gospel.
It's easy to criticize christianity, but second wave feminism is a much larger threat to objective science than right wing conservatives are.
So you are refusing to honor your burden of evidence.Truth is you can't provide a single piece of evidence to support your claim.
Where is the proof of this patriarchal system of oppression consisting of toxic masculinity?
"If harassment is defined by the system of oppression, and the current system of oppression is patriarchal consisting of toxic masculinity, then what I said is not a lie."
Harassment isn't defined that way, and there is no patriarchal system of oppression consisting of toxic masculinity. So it was a lie.
Judging by the hype and how popular it is with the general populace, it seems my decision is the correct one.
Is that not the definition of being a hipster?
Our experience is [piracy] leads to more penetration, more paying subs, more health for HBO, less reliance on having to do paid advertising If you go around the world, I think you're right, Game of Thrones is the most pirated show in the world. Well, you know, that's better than an Emmy.
That right there is why I happily pay a premium for a technically poor streaming service (HBO Nordic ). Even though it's much easier for me to download episodes than to use the service, I still think that HBO has met me half way in providing their content in a reasonable, fair manner. Time to put our money where our mouths are.
No, I think the real story is that it took 4 whole replies before someone conflated criticism of a religion with racism. Usually, it takes less than 3.
Or how about one about how Muslims don't hate jews and aren't prone to ridiculous conspiracy theories?
How about a story about how Islam is a religion of peace? That would be a funny April fools joke, although I guess it's been done to death already.
Actually, The Social Sciences have been fairly heavily criticized for being unscientific. They seem to be more concerned with perpetuating a politically correct model of human behavior than an accurate one.
Steve Pinker has written extensively on the subject.
Personally I could forgive some inaccuracies to make the story more fitting as a film, but I get the impression that the inaccuracies aren't there for story-telling convenience, but as a noble lie for political purposes. IE portraying him as openly gay witty, and confident, instead of closeted and tortured would undermine the films victimization of him, and it's pandering message of anti-discrimination and gay rights.
As if this film's audience needs convincing of that.
That makes it just another voice in an echo chamber, and propaganda. A lot of people will consider it "noble" propaganda, but it is propaganda none the less.
I wouldn't say "gay agenda", but it definitely panders to the hordes of SJWs out there.
I think these guys are thinking about traditional web pages, while you are talking about web apps.
As far as I'm concerned a pure javascript frontend just straight up wins for web apps. A RESTful backend and a js frontend scales far better than the traditional all-in-one paradigm. It is less resource and bandwidth intensive - since your backend no longer needs to spend time generating html or bandwidth sending all that overhead, so it will also provide the end users with a faster better experience.
Since the frontend is stateless it's also cachable. You can just put the entire frontend on a CDN, and you have an API already in place for other front ends like apps etc.
It's just a straight up technically superior solution.
Also "citation needed" -> "experience with the real world needed".
Spoken like a true denier of science.
Don't kid yourself into thinking they give a shit about anything beyond their bottom line. Sure they take risks, but these are coldly calculated risks, and love of geek culture, or promotion of "social justice" is not part of the equation. It might be part of the creators agenda, but not of Disney Incorporated's decisions of which films to release.
For example, everybody that watched children grow up and really looked knows that children come into the world with a personality. There is no way that results from some randomized biological process.
[citation needed]
I think you'll find that this is precisely what the available data is showing. If it is not our biology that determines personality, and we are born with innate personalities, what then IS "personality". A ghost in the machine?
This is just incorrect.
Please read The Blank Slate by Steve Pinker, or at least check out some of his lectures or debates online.
Steve Pinker has documented that across all recorded societies, there is a pattern of men being more interested in things, women in people, thus eliminating the idea that this difference is caused by society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
Programming and IT in general are definitely on the extreme thing end of the spectrum, and thus attracts less females, and will continue to attract less females in spite of Disney and Googles "noble" efforts.
For fuck sake you god damn moron, how many times do I have to tell you: IT'S DOCUMENTED IN THE BOOK! A book detailing the available evidence is acceptable as evidence by any standard. Your fucking moronic opinions and anecdotes are not.
You don't want to invest the time to examine the available data? Fine, but then you forfeit the right to argue against it. I'd tell you to read the book, but it's clear the book is way beyond your level of comprehension, since there are very few pictures in it.
You have not provided any citations for your claim, so I have won this debate, and you have once again proved you have the intellect of an 11 year old.
No, your anecdotes hold precisely zero value as evidence, you moron.
You keep mentioning your reference, but you never say what's in it. The way citing normally works is something along the lines of:
Complete bullshit. I have made several falsifiable claims and they are all documented in The Blank Slate.
That is what we can observe. What is your point?
We can also observe the following across all cultures
Women always invest more in offspring.
Men always take more risks
Women are more interested in people, men in things.
These are some of the falsifiable claims I have made, and provided citations for. All consistent with my claims about human gender roles. And don't even think of pulling that all/none always/never bullshit again.
the thing is you can't even decide if you're talking about eukariotes, animalia, craniates, vertibrates, mammals, or great apes. You keep swinging wildly between different ones cherry picking the stories that best fit what you already believe.
No, I've stated that by the very nature of sexual reproduction the males job is to spread genes, the females to produce offspring. Don't even think about arguing this, as you explicitly stated that you agree with this in a previous post.
You claimed I believed all this in spite of evidence to the contrary. You have not produced any evidence to the contrary, but rather argued that your anecdotes are sufficient to disprove peer reviewed meta studies, like the borderline mentally challenged moron that you are.
Unless you can provide a link to this alleged evidence, I consider this debate won - and you a complete fucking tool.
You can't just bleat "anecdote is not data" and make the data go away. As some point a bunch of observations is data.
My god, you are a special kind of stupid. There is a fundamental difference between anecdotes and evidence. A scientific study with a large enough selection size is evidence, like my reference.
I can't provide a specific citation to that because noone else has argued it with you.
You can't provide a citation for your claim that there is evidence that supports the idea that human gender roles are exceptions from the norm because "noone[sic] has argued it with me"?
When we finally got past all your insults, straw man arguments, semantic gymnastics and logical fallacies, you actually made a falsifiable claim about the issue. Well done!
However, insisting on sticking to that (what Hashead is doing) when there's evidence to the contrary
You need a Citation for the bolded claim. If you cannot produce it then you have lost the debate and we are done here.
The male is optimized for spreading genes, the female for producing offspring.
So Anglerfish don't exist? Geese don't exist? Seahorses don't exist? Snails don't exist? Albatrosses don't exist? Bees don't exist? None of those fit your cute little narritive. If you're going to make wild claims please don't make ones that fly so flagrantly in the face of facts.
You are disagreeing with me here. Later, you claimed to never have opposed this statement.