You really don't get biological imperatives, do you? Or the vagaries of human interaction.
No I do, I'm just not a massively entitled asshat.
You treat sex as if it's interchangable.
It's not and that's tough on you. No, you don't get to have sex with whomever you like simply because sex is not 100% interchangable. Not only that but no you don' get to pursue it as you like just because it's not interchangable.
You're also making the assumption that initial advances were made by the man.
No I'm not. This is just you making shit up to support your point. If you haven't actually read my post, read it. If you have, then you know I made no such claim and you've admitted you lost the argument because you have nothing eal left with which to support it.
Hey, there's no reason that you should allow your employees food in the working day.
Nobody stops wokes going and getting sex during the woring day. But if one worker stats stealing food off the others because they can't be ased to wait to the end of the day then yes there's a problem.
If they're that desperate for sustenance, they can wait 'till the end of the day and go and pick up some food from the trash cans, and drink from the gutters.
Or wait until the end of the day and go to a shop on the way home?
See how your argument starts to fail?
Not with you reasoning.
If you have all the answers, please, lay it out with evidence that would be suitable quality for a court case
Lol you hypcrite! You gave zero evidence for anything you wrote as is entirely normal in a conversation between humans. You're a hypocrite for expeciting it from me but bein far too lazy to do it yourself.
Honestly at this point you appear to be both very dishonest and hypocritical. Unless your next post is decent I won't respond further.
[list of things that apparently liberals say everyone is intitled to excluding sex]
None of those things, just like sex, ae things you can simply take without consent. You don't get ot eat some food just becuase you like it if it's not yours. So kinda just like sex really.
personally, I prefer to live in a civilised wold where there are rules and regulations that keep it civilised. If I ever get tired of pesk laws, I'll up sticks and move to the Libertarian Paradise of the Congo where there's no government to interfere with, well, anything really.
What's interesting is you're not objecting to the massive amount of power amazon has been granted by the government with its limited liability protection. It seems your libertarianism only really swings one way and is really more corpratism.
You missed the point (intentionally I suspect, because I've spoken to you before and you are exactly the same kind of apologist). This is about him equation serious misconduct to flirting as a generally equivalent thing, because he wants to downplay the importance of serious harassment.
It's irrelevant for that discussion and my point whether the comparison is for the purposes of an accusation or an event. It's the comparison that's the problem.
Has he been charged with sexual crimes and convicted?
We both know that's irrelevant to whether flirting is broadly equivalent to serious sexual harassment.
The question remains though: why do YOU want to see the distinction blurred?
Humans are also creatures that eat. The desire to eat it way stronger tha nthe desire to have sex. If you put humans around a souce of food, they will start killing and eating it. o eally we should expect owrkplae cannibalism.
Or we should expect people to exert some self control. We'e not talking about someone starved of resouces here either. It'a guy woth 300,000,000. If he's that desperate for sex, he couls always wait until the end of the day and go hire a sex worker.
But no, you'e just an apologist. Clearly you don't think it's important becuase you're talking about "flirting and microaggeaaions". You have never bothered to read about what happened because you clearly don't think this is fundamantally important and it's all more or less equivalent.
First give a definition of of SJW that actually encompasses any people and isn't applicable to moe or less anyone of any politicial orientation you don't like.
How about an 89% share? An 88% share? An 87% share? At what level is it reasonable,
What are you 12 or something? Have you really only just discovered that there can an entire continuum between something OK and something not OK? Clearly though you haven't realised that just because thee are unclear cases does not mean that some cases are not clear.
and how exactly do you determine that?
A court. That is literally their job.
Seriously? How do you not know that?
Common sense is allowing consenting adults to make their own decisions.
No it's not common sense to allow absolutely anything provided some people agree. That's not how any legal system works for entirely good reasons.
I'm not sure if you're a liar or an idiot. Not that there's a practical different.
Without reading it (and the attendant report) I know exactly how it goes:
1. A preamble about how its even worse than worse.
No it doesn't.
2. Then description of how researchers put new scarier variables in a video game oracle of some kind.
No it doesn't.
3. Followed by dour descriptions that the video game oracle now says that its all that much more terrible.
No it doesn't.
4. A doom-day has to be quoted if we don't repent (all cults work this angle); so something like 2050 or 2100 and we're Venus, unless...
No it doesn't.
5. The "unless" narrative that follows essentially says we need to just shutup and implement statist schemes...or its Venus.
No it doesn't.
6. Trump - or the entire USA somehow - gets tossed under rhetorical bus somewhere somehow.
No it doesn't.
Wow that's 6 for 6! Since you're a denialist idiot, the fact that you opinions are 100% opposite of the actual facts will not cause you to actually modify your opinion.
Now FFS MOD PAENT DOWN it's simply an easily verifiable falsehood.
Abusing market position, monopoly power, other scary words to justify our existence!!!
Yes that is a thing. And it's bad and histoy is replete with examples. Amazon has well over a 90% share in some sectors. What's reasonable for most companies is not reasonable for a company with a 90% market share.
Except instead of using common sense you're just "hurr derrr gubbmint is teh evul!!11!11oneelevenONE11!11"
The Netherlands because there are a mixture of Dutch, German and French speakers they use English as a common language
Simila in Belgium: you'e much better off speaking English than attempting the local languages because if you use the wrong one people ger REALLY pissed off and can be incedibly rude. But if you stick to English you just seem like a tourist and are generally OK.
Living overseas, I cannot find American Cheese or a decent Cheddar ANYWHERE!
Odd because you can't find decent Cheddar anywhere in America.
But yes you can't find the much derided, much loved American cheese abroad either. A burrito with flavouful cheese in just tastes of cheese. You need Ameican cheese to get the right texture and feel.
Well, some shit is somply worth knowing. Pure maths has no application (by definition, if you are applying it, then it's not pure), neither does astronomy or archaeology to name a few. If we used your miserable criterion of application then the world would be a much duller place.
Why are women having to second guess anything around you?
Instead of being Schrodinger's date where juts status as a date is left entirely ambiguous, you need to risk rejection and actually ask her on a date so your intentions for future romantic involvement are abundantly clear.
On the other hand you only seem to be considering the monetary cost of getting your dick wet, not actual dating. Why not just visit a sex worker rather than faff around with dinners if you wanna a purely transactional model of sex?
A better filter would be his students, or some from a junior high school.
So you clearly dn't understand peer review, what it's for or how it works. Yet you're 100% sure that you could do it better (I assume you think you're moe competent than the averate junior highschool kid).
The arrogance is breathtaking. Tell you what you suggest a practical way to do it better and I'll listen. Othewise you are just as you say farting in the wind.
He demonstated crappy journals exist (well known). He demonstrated that peer review is not robust to fraud (well known). He demonstated that journals accept crappy papers (well known).
What they then did was found that with a lot of work targeting known vulnerabilities, he could get 1/3 of his papers accepted. Fom that he concluded not that there was a problem with the jounals but that the whole field was junk.
Notice how they didn't try to do the same thing in a field they think isn't junk, in other words theyy jumped to conclusions with no control.
I doubt the team of three spent more than a weekend on it.
From TFA:
This was a full-time job for Lindsay: He secured funding from a group of donors whose names he would not reveal to spend, in his words, "90 hours a week" on this project.
So seems you were mistaken.
This wasn't a casual effort, it took a lot of work.
Slashdot Mirror
You really don't get biological imperatives, do you? Or the vagaries of human interaction.
No I do, I'm just not a massively entitled asshat.
You treat sex as if it's interchangable.
It's not and that's tough on you. No, you don't get to have sex with whomever you like simply because sex is not 100% interchangable. Not only that but no you don' get to pursue it as you like just because it's not interchangable.
You're also making the assumption that initial advances were made by the man.
No I'm not. This is just you making shit up to support your point. If you haven't actually read my post, read it. If you have, then you know I made no such claim and you've admitted you lost the argument because you have nothing eal left with which to support it.
Hey, there's no reason that you should allow your employees food in the working day.
Nobody stops wokes going and getting sex during the woring day. But if one worker stats stealing food off the others because they can't be ased to wait to the end of the day then yes there's a problem.
If they're that desperate for sustenance, they can wait 'till the end of the day and go and pick up some food from the trash cans, and drink from the gutters.
Or wait until the end of the day and go to a shop on the way home?
See how your argument starts to fail?
Not with you reasoning.
If you have all the answers, please, lay it out with evidence that would be suitable quality for a court case
Lol you hypcrite! You gave zero evidence for anything you wrote as is entirely normal in a conversation between humans. You're a hypocrite for expeciting it from me but bein far too lazy to do it yourself.
Honestly at this point you appear to be both very dishonest and hypocritical. Unless your next post is decent I won't respond further.
[list of things that apparently liberals say everyone is intitled to excluding sex]
None of those things, just like sex, ae things you can simply take without consent. You don't get ot eat some food just becuase you like it if it's not yours. So kinda just like sex really.
There is no power an government can't take over citizens that fluffernutter won't defend.
Yeah enfocing consumer potection laws == govpocalypse
personally, I prefer to live in a civilised wold where there are rules and regulations that keep it civilised. If I ever get tired of pesk laws, I'll up sticks and move to the Libertarian Paradise of the Congo where there's no government to interfere with, well, anything really.
What's interesting is you're not objecting to the massive amount of power amazon has been granted by the government with its limited liability protection. It seems your libertarianism only really swings one way and is really more corpratism.
Please do try to read TFS first. Yeah yeah I muse be new yere.
Now after going through all that effort and work, apparently that means the person didn't actually want the product
From TFS:
"complained that Amazon's terms enable the company to switch out an ordered product with something else,
see?
The line between flirting and serious sexual misconduct has already been blurred.
No, that's one of those things that's so wide of the mark that it's not even wrong.
For almost everything there is a smooth continuum between something that's absolutely fine and something that's absolutely not.
You'e pretending it's something new in order to parlay "some cases are bordeline" into "eveything's borderline" which is utter bullshit.
Do we know that more than that happened
You missed the point (intentionally I suspect, because I've spoken to you before and you are exactly the same kind of apologist). This is about him equation serious misconduct to flirting as a generally equivalent thing, because he wants to downplay the importance of serious harassment.
It's irrelevant for that discussion and my point whether the comparison is for the purposes of an accusation or an event. It's the comparison that's the problem.
Has he been charged with sexual crimes and convicted?
We both know that's irrelevant to whether flirting is broadly equivalent to serious sexual harassment.
The question remains though: why do YOU want to see the distinction blurred?
Humans are also creatures that eat. The desire to eat it way stronger tha nthe desire to have sex. If you put humans around a souce of food, they will start killing and eating it. o eally we should expect owrkplae cannibalism.
Or we should expect people to exert some self control. We'e not talking about someone starved of resouces here either. It'a guy woth 300,000,000. If he's that desperate for sex, he couls always wait until the end of the day and go hire a sex worker.
But no, you'e just an apologist. Clearly you don't think it's important becuase you're talking about "flirting and microaggeaaions". You have never bothered to read about what happened because you clearly don't think this is fundamantally important and it's all more or less equivalent.
First give a definition of of SJW that actually encompasses any people and isn't applicable to moe or less anyone of any politicial orientation you don't like.
...from house/white brands that you find in supermarkets and stores around the world?
It's not, if those supermarkets are in an antitrust position. and if they get there they'll have the same scrutiny.
Seiously why is the most basic point of antitrust so hard for people here to understand?
How about an 89% share? An 88% share? An 87% share? At what level is it reasonable,
What are you 12 or something? Have you really only just discovered that there can an entire continuum between something OK and something not OK? Clearly though you haven't realised that just because thee are unclear cases does not mean that some cases are not clear.
and how exactly do you determine that?
A court. That is literally their job.
Seriously? How do you not know that?
Common sense is allowing consenting adults to make their own decisions.
No it's not common sense to allow absolutely anything provided some people agree. That's not how any legal system works for entirely good reasons.
I'm not sure if you're a liar or an idiot. Not that there's a practical different.
Without reading it (and the attendant report) I know exactly how it goes:
1. A preamble about how its even worse than worse.
No it doesn't.
2. Then description of how researchers put new scarier variables in a video game oracle of some kind.
No it doesn't.
3. Followed by dour descriptions that the video game oracle now says that its all that much more terrible.
No it doesn't.
4. A doom-day has to be quoted if we don't repent (all cults work this angle); so something like 2050 or 2100 and we're Venus, unless...
No it doesn't.
5. The "unless" narrative that follows essentially says we need to just shutup and implement statist schemes...or its Venus.
No it doesn't.
6. Trump - or the entire USA somehow - gets tossed under rhetorical bus somewhere somehow.
No it doesn't.
Wow that's 6 for 6! Since you're a denialist idiot, the fact that you opinions are 100% opposite of the actual facts will not cause you to actually modify your opinion.
Now FFS MOD PAENT DOWN it's simply an easily verifiable falsehood.
Stop using common sense
Well clearly you're following you'e own advice.
Abusing market position, monopoly power, other scary words to justify our existence!!!
Yes that is a thing. And it's bad and histoy is replete with examples. Amazon has well over a 90% share in some sectors. What's reasonable for most companies is not reasonable for a company with a 90% market share.
Except instead of using common sense you're just "hurr derrr gubbmint is teh evul!!11!11oneelevenONE11!11"
plonker.
The Netherlands because there are a mixture of Dutch, German and French speakers they use English as a common language
Simila in Belgium: you'e much better off speaking English than attempting the local languages because if you use the wrong one people ger REALLY pissed off and can be incedibly rude. But if you stick to English you just seem like a tourist and are generally OK.
Living overseas, I cannot find American Cheese or a decent Cheddar ANYWHERE!
Odd because you can't find decent Cheddar anywhere in America.
But yes you can't find the much derided, much loved American cheese abroad either. A burrito with flavouful cheese in just tastes of cheese. You need Ameican cheese to get the right texture and feel.
I don't know how a food is different from a food product
I dunno? Maybe the food is cheese-like stuff in a packet and the food poduce is the awesome stuff you can spray out of a can.
Math has practical applications.
Not pure maths. That's by definition. If it has an application it's applied maths.
So do astronomy and archaeology.
Like what?
that doesn't have any real world applications.
Well, some shit is somply worth knowing. Pure maths has no application (by definition, if you are applying it, then it's not pure), neither does astronomy or archaeology to name a few. If we used your miserable criterion of application then the world would be a much duller place.
Why are women having to second guess anything around you?
Instead of being Schrodinger's date where juts status as a date is left entirely ambiguous, you need to risk rejection and actually ask her on a date so your intentions for future romantic involvement are abundantly clear.
On the other hand you only seem to be considering the monetary cost of getting your dick wet, not actual dating. Why not just visit a sex worker rather than faff around with dinners if you wanna a purely transactional model of sex?
Well, not in dollars anyway. To hold down inflation, the FED artificially limits the amount of currency available.
But it's not zero and the dollar can go up and down.
Zimbabwe did...
Zinbabwe had rampant inflation so the fact that a lage amount of the world has gone from subsistence farming to considerable wealth is irrelevant.
Look around you. Compare the wold now to 50, 100 and 200 years ago and tell me precisely how it's a zero sum game.
A better filter would be his students, or some from a junior high school.
So you clearly dn't understand peer review, what it's for or how it works. Yet you're 100% sure that you could do it better (I assume you think you're moe competent than the averate junior highschool kid).
The arrogance is breathtaking. Tell you what you suggest a practical way to do it better and I'll listen. Othewise you are just as you say farting in the wind.
It's not important,
Then why were you banging on about what he "exposed" it so much?
No, he just picked low hanging fruit.
No he went afte long-picked fruit.
So he did nothing new and extraordinary. Big deal.
finally you admit that.
The "case" against him is out of pure vengeance for exposing fallibility.
No matter how many times you repeat that it doesn't make it true. Everything they supposedly "expose" was already well known. For example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
https://www.nature.com/article...
http://science.sciencemag.org/...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and so on and so forth.
He demonstated crappy journals exist (well known). He demonstrated that peer review is not robust to fraud (well known). He demonstated that journals accept crappy papers (well known).
What they then did was found that with a lot of work targeting known vulnerabilities, he could get 1/3 of his papers accepted. Fom that he concluded not that there was a problem with the jounals but that the whole field was junk.
Notice how they didn't try to do the same thing in a field they think isn't junk, in other words theyy jumped to conclusions with no control.
I doubt the team of three spent more than a weekend on it.
From TFA:
This was a full-time job for Lindsay: He secured funding from a group of donors whose names he would not reveal to spend, in his words, "90 hours a week" on this project.
So seems you were mistaken.
This wasn't a casual effort, it took a lot of work.
And yet, there's only $2 trillion in cash in circulation.
Which means it's zero sum because there's no way of growing wealth without making someone else poorer.