Since Turboweevel courageously dismissed my response, here it is:

I'm not expecting anyone to take the high road. I do expect them, however, to fucking lay off using "poor" as an insult. It makes you just as bad as someone using "fat" as an insult. I really don't see what is so hard to grasp about this. Insult away, but don't be exactly the same kind of bigoted asshole as the person…

Please point out where I said what the cab driver did was "ok". On the contrary, I pretty clearly said he was an asshole, and that what he did was bad. I'm not holding the original poster to a higher standard, I'm holding them to exactly the same standard.

Oh, I forgot that two wrongs suddenly make a right. How silly of me.

If you're boasting about how much more money you make than he does, you are every bit as bad as him. There is no excuse for that kind of bullshit. Not being rich is not something to be ashamed of.

LOL thousands

Until there's some actual evidence to suggest otherwise, that's exactly what I am going to assume.

I guess the idea that there's something inherently wrong with women being promiscuous, and that STDs are directly attributable to female promiscuity.

AIDS infection rates are dropping.

It would seem that their evolutionary strategies are not so different after all, at least with regard to promiscuity.

Is this evopsych though? I can't read the study linked to. If it's demonstrating that promiscuity is a successful evolutionary strategy for women, or that there are non-human species where females engage in promiscuous sexual behaviour, that's not evolutionary psychology. (It's also not a new finding, though).

If that's the case, why were you defending the study that attempted to explain a correlation between gender and attitudes toward promiscuity as due to evolutionary "hardwiring"?

No, it doesn't. Evolution and evolutionary psychology are two different things, in that evolution is supported by science and evolutionary psychology is a bunch of made-up horseshit.

The opposite is also true. People like you and obvioushuh are all "See SCIENCE PROVES that women are naturally chaste because EVOLUTION" but then when a study like this comes along you're all "Nuh-uh". I mean, at least be consistent.

It's really funny how you defend evolutionary psychology when it's reinforcing your view that men are hardwired to be promiscuous and women chaste, but call bullshit on it when it's attempting to demonstrate the opposite.

There's a difference between offering a correction to someone who might not know they're using a (meaningless, redundant, clumsy, pseudo-intellectual) word incorrectly, and getting one's knickers in a twist over the use of (meaningful, useful, flavourful, authentic) colloquialism.

You shouldn't let it bother you now.

Oh, honey, no-one's getting mad but you. Why would anyone criticize the use of "y'all"? That's one of those fabulous neologisms that add character and precision to language, as opposed to redundancy and imprecision. The English language long ago lost the second person plural (like vous in French) — it's high time we…

So you don't like fucking on TV, but you don't mind fucking the English language? ;)

The message is "Stop using meaningless words incorrectly unless you want to sound fucking stupid."