It would be nice if we were all sitting around so we could fight.
Marriage has a purpose. It is a bargain society makes with fertile couples to subsidize the creation and nurturing of the next generation of mankind. It's not a human right, and it imposes an obligation on the people getting married to be loyal partners and good parents.
If it's not that, then it shouldn't exist. I reject the idea that any two people qualify for special treatment under the law just because they sleep in the same bed, and so should the rest of you.
If I've got a roommate, and the guys across the hall from us get special treatment under the law, at mine and my roommates expense, just because they "love" each other, that is not fair, and not right. No amount of bullshit, sophistry, propaganda and shaming is going to make it fair or right.
I was referring to the fact that he actually was begging the question, but 'First there was everything' was the question he was begging. Irregardless was thrown in to poke fun at the people who think it's about grammar.
Journalists report on things they've observed first hand.
Just because 100,000 partisan gossips refer to each other as journalists and publish words that have been strung into paragraphs doesn't make what they do journalism.
Ideal journalism is devoid of opinions, devoid of conclusions. It informs without attempting to lead the reader towards a value judgement, allowing us to make better decisions.
Journalism is dead, and it's the likes of Gawker that killed it in the first place. They put it right in their mission statement:
I was going to finish the survey, but then I saw this question. There's no way to express my desire for them to stop promoting diversity and participation of underrepresented groups, and I don't want to be counted among those who oppose egalitarianism in the community.
Men only truly die when their family line dies. It is through ploughing women, planting seeds in them and nurturing our progeny that we are made immortal.
To be fondly spoken of by your neighbours descendants isn't immortality, but more reminiscent of being a pig, and having people remember how good you tasted when they consumed you.
The barrage of nerds-are-chauvenists women-are-entitled rhetoric and propaganda has permanently galvanized me against women in the industry. They are disruptive underperformers and I reject the premise that they belong in our ranks.
A man should lead according to his conscience. If the circumstances are right, he will be the ideal leader, if they're not, someone else will be. But he shouldn't run around asking the people he's leading what they think in order to hold on to his position. What's the point of having a leader in the first place if that's all they're going to do?
Leaders lead, they don't take surveys. A leader should lead from his heart, and if the people don't want to follow him any more, they should follow someone else.
A leader whose actions are dictated by public opinion is not a leader at all, and should be immediately replaced because he has nothing to offer.
1) The desire to have a diverse workforce is inherently prejudicial. The workers should be judged on their abilities, not their sex, not their race. 2) When women express a desire for more diversity in tech, they are being sexist. Workers should be judged on their abilities, not their sex. 3) When men express a desire not to have women in tech, they are being sexist. Workers should be judged on their abilities, not their sex. 4) When men express that their anger at the push for diversity in tech, they are complaining that they are the victims of sexism. 5) We need wives and mothers. If we don't have them, we will all die of deprivation when we reach retirement age. 6) We don't need computer programmers. Nice to have, but we can totally do without it. 7) When industry leaders express that there is a need for diversity in technology, they are not expressing a desire to be inclusive, rather, they are expressing a desire to coerce women to abandon other roles and serve them, regardless of the larger needs of society. They are acting in the best interests of themselves, and themselves only.
In summation, every person who expresses a desire for more diversity in tech is prejudicial, and a bully. You do not occupy the moral high ground, and you should stop.
They used to do things that men liked. Then, they all got together and set their bras on fire, and marched in the streets, and said "WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THINGS THAT YOU LIKE".
And, in an effort to get them to shut up, we agreed. Now, they don't do things that we like any more, and now, outside of fucking them, we don't particularly like them.
And now, having excised every character trait they had that made us like them for their deeds, they say that we've reduced them to sex objects.
They reduced themselves to sex objects.
On a completely different note, here's a wikipedia link to a newspaper advertisement selling sex robots for women in 1913.
Real science takes the form of, if you do this, that will happen; try it for yourself if you don't believe me.
This is what gives it the power to overturn popular opinion.
If it fails to uphold this standard, it's nothing but deduction and no better than myth.
People have ridden on the coattails of "scientific credibility" for a long time, hiding the fact that it's not science that they're doing by presenting a suitable image to the world, to the point that the word has mostly lost its meaning.
Listening to creationists argue with athiests about the origin is amusing because generally speaking, the creationists don't understand religion, the athiests don't understand science, and nothing is ever said that changes how anybody behaves in the slightest.
It may be a fact. It may not be a fact. But it is an irrelevant piece of information that doesn't guide a persons actions when they get up in the morning, which is why people continue to fight over it, because you can't conclusively settle something that doesn't really matter one way or the other.
At the end of the day, it's just a bunch of bullies trying to force you to bow to their favorite myth.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, our Canadian wimmenfolk deserve a "tits n ass" politician! It's 2015!
It's about forcing you to care for the childless elderly. The ones who used to act superior to your parents.
It would be nice if we were all sitting around so we could fight.
Marriage has a purpose. It is a bargain society makes with fertile couples to subsidize the creation and nurturing of the next generation of mankind. It's not a human right, and it imposes an obligation on the people getting married to be loyal partners and good parents.
If it's not that, then it shouldn't exist. I reject the idea that any two people qualify for special treatment under the law just because they sleep in the same bed, and so should the rest of you.
If I've got a roommate, and the guys across the hall from us get special treatment under the law, at mine and my roommates expense, just because they "love" each other, that is not fair, and not right. No amount of bullshit, sophistry, propaganda and shaming is going to make it fair or right.
They could use X
I was referring to the fact that he actually was begging the question, but 'First there was everything' was the question he was begging. Irregardless was thrown in to poke fun at the people who think it's about grammar.
The funny part is, he was begging the question, but you used it wrong irregardless.
Journalists report on things they've observed first hand.
Just because 100,000 partisan gossips refer to each other as journalists and publish words that have been strung into paragraphs doesn't make what they do journalism.
Ideal journalism is devoid of opinions, devoid of conclusions. It informs without attempting to lead the reader towards a value judgement, allowing us to make better decisions.
Journalism is dead, and it's the likes of Gawker that killed it in the first place. They put it right in their mission statement:
http://gawker.com/5951868/the-...
If you want people to be well informed with unbiased information, maybe protecting them from the likes of Gawker would be a good start.
You were neglected by your parents.
They fail to replace themselves sexually, then they coeirce other peoples children into serving their needs to the detriment of their parents.
Reproduction is a duty. The grasshopper hurts the ants when he spends the summer of his life playing instead of preparing for the winter of his life.
Doesn't really matter if you enjoy gay sex, straight sex, all sex or no sex. If you don't reproduce, you should work till you die.
For any of you who find it confusing, that was an example of begging the question.
Another example is "So, do you still beat your wife."
I was going to finish the survey, but then I saw this question. There's no way to express my desire for them to stop promoting diversity and participation of underrepresented groups, and I don't want to be counted among those who oppose egalitarianism in the community.
Men only truly die when their family line dies. It is through ploughing women, planting seeds in them and nurturing our progeny that we are made immortal.
To be fondly spoken of by your neighbours descendants isn't immortality, but more reminiscent of being a pig, and having people remember how good you tasted when they consumed you.
The barrage of nerds-are-chauvenists women-are-entitled rhetoric and propaganda has permanently galvanized me against women in the industry. They are disruptive underperformers and I reject the premise that they belong in our ranks.
Adblockers aren't about bandwidth, they're about keeping people from manipulating us.
Myself, I prefer to use stored procedures for all db interactions, and set table access to deny for the account used by the web server. But that's me.
A man should lead according to his conscience. If the circumstances are right, he will be the ideal leader, if they're not, someone else will be. But he shouldn't run around asking the people he's leading what they think in order to hold on to his position. What's the point of having a leader in the first place if that's all they're going to do?
Leaders lead, they don't take surveys. A leader should lead from his heart, and if the people don't want to follow him any more, they should follow someone else.
A leader whose actions are dictated by public opinion is not a leader at all, and should be immediately replaced because he has nothing to offer.
He's not a member of the right priesthood.
Typical straw man argument thrown out by sexist SJW
Lets break it all down.
1) The desire to have a diverse workforce is inherently prejudicial. The workers should be judged on their abilities, not their sex, not their race.
2) When women express a desire for more diversity in tech, they are being sexist. Workers should be judged on their abilities, not their sex.
3) When men express a desire not to have women in tech, they are being sexist. Workers should be judged on their abilities, not their sex.
4) When men express that their anger at the push for diversity in tech, they are complaining that they are the victims of sexism.
5) We need wives and mothers. If we don't have them, we will all die of deprivation when we reach retirement age.
6) We don't need computer programmers. Nice to have, but we can totally do without it.
7) When industry leaders express that there is a need for diversity in technology, they are not expressing a desire to be inclusive, rather, they are expressing a desire to coerce women to abandon other roles and serve them, regardless of the larger needs of society. They are acting in the best interests of themselves, and themselves only.
In summation, every person who expresses a desire for more diversity in tech is prejudicial, and a bully. You do not occupy the moral high ground, and you should stop.
Why play their game? Just pretend they don't exist and get on with your life.
Y'know how you can tell women are crazy?
They used to do things that men liked. Then, they all got together and set their bras on fire, and marched in the streets, and said "WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THINGS THAT YOU LIKE".
And, in an effort to get them to shut up, we agreed. Now, they don't do things that we like any more, and now, outside of fucking them, we don't particularly like them.
And now, having excised every character trait they had that made us like them for their deeds, they say that we've reduced them to sex objects.
They reduced themselves to sex objects.
On a completely different note, here's a wikipedia link to a newspaper advertisement selling sex robots for women in 1913.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Real science takes the form of, if you do this, that will happen; try it for yourself if you don't believe me.
This is what gives it the power to overturn popular opinion.
If it fails to uphold this standard, it's nothing but deduction and no better than myth.
People have ridden on the coattails of "scientific credibility" for a long time, hiding the fact that it's not science that they're doing by presenting a suitable image to the world, to the point that the word has mostly lost its meaning.
Listening to creationists argue with athiests about the origin is amusing because generally speaking, the creationists don't understand religion, the athiests don't understand science, and nothing is ever said that changes how anybody behaves in the slightest.
It may be a fact. It may not be a fact. But it is an irrelevant piece of information that doesn't guide a persons actions when they get up in the morning, which is why people continue to fight over it, because you can't conclusively settle something that doesn't really matter one way or the other.
At the end of the day, it's just a bunch of bullies trying to force you to bow to their favorite myth.
Heheheh... holesale