Apparently in (Brazilian) Portuguese they don't even distinguish between the two.
DiallingWand
diallingwand
A superb excuse to post one of my favourite internet pictures ever
I find it equally annoying when the men and women do it. Although in my unscientific-but-admittedly-watched-quite-a-lot-of-tennis, the women seem to do it louder. Or the pitch of their yells carriers further, or gets picked up by the microphones more.
Awesome link and information. Appreciated. I'd promote this if I could so more people would see it. Hell, it should be added to the original article.
The other argument is that we ALL benefit indirectly from living in a society where women can take charge of their own fertility via the Pill.
I decided to leave them out because the sentence would have become less pithy and a bit unwieldy.
This totally makes sense, it's not like heterosexual men and their infamous reluctance to use condoms benefit from the pill or anything.
I like the double standard here; not only did the Republicans make this election about social issues, they've always made the elections about social issues because it's the only way they can sell their by-millionaires-for-millionaires political party to people who aren't millionaires.
Either people are stupider than we thought, OR a lot more people look at child porn than we thought.
Meh, I toyed with the idea of not posting that on the grounds that it might have made me look like an arrogant jackass. I've been reading a novel with some seriously monster sentences and I seem to have forgotten that this generally isn't how journalism written. And there's a strong case for this being a very good…
Did anyone else understand the article as written? Maybe it's because I tend to write long, run on sentences too but I didn't find it that difficult.
What he's saying is that the survey featured leading questions that predisposed responders to answer in a certain way.
Hyperbole much? Geocentrism is no more a legitimate scientific opinion than creationism, I assume the author meant to convey this. Also the Catholic Church (which, to its credit, has actually endorsed evolution) had a famous stance against heliocentrism, so it's probably also a reference to that.
You can just remove the "actually if you look at evolutionary microbiology" part from this post because it has no reasonable basis in science. Your argument boils down to "we don't know how it happened, therefore god did it". That's not a scientific argument.
No. Certainly not one that you could eat more than one course on.
American exceptionalism is a really insulting philosophy. It's worrying how many top-level US politicians openly endorse it. It is admittedly made less insulting by how self-evidently wrong it is.
Isn't the most likely individual outcome 50/50? I think you're overstating the roles of the other decisions in the specific (and quite general) measurement of how many white, male, black or female characters there are. Shouldn't the aggregate statistical result tend towards 50/50? I agree there are a number of things…
...Either you're not explaining yourself very well, or my brain's tired from exam revision, but I'm not really following your reasoning.
...I think what you're saying is that racism and sexism are inevitable, could only feasibly be ended by heavy authoritarianism, that I'm naive for expecting people to not be sexist or racist, and that the sexism and racism of society is merely a statistical quirk.