Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

[Tigzy]

You two are trying to make her sullen on her birthday?

Nope. Note that it's an early birthday present. I'd never be so cruel as to ruin her actual birthday...even further, as she weeps at yet another step closer to middle age without all those goodies which were meant for her and which instead have gone to those younger and more feminine pretenders such as Zoe Quim, Anita and Brianna Wu.

Would not be surprised if the last one in particular did not burn with the fire of a thousand suns. Never mind that all three have been much more successful in any category you care to think of, wealth, prestige, fame. You name it she is a nobody compared to any of them. :o

It's quite beautiful, really. Sure, I'm no fan of Quimster, Sarky et al - but at least none of them are Rebecca Watson. Even better is the fact that Watson is a long-time gamer - by rights, she should have borne the full brunt of the vitriol and gotten all them victim points to cash in on. But she's barely on the periphery, while Anita - who clearly knows fuck all about vidyagames - gets elevated to social justice sainthood. Fuck, that must burn.

[Service Dog]

That's killer :lol: :lol: :lol:

All I did was hit "Paste". Thats exactly the spot where Carrier appeared on the background image, at that scale, automatically converted to B&W, no tweaking exposure or contrast levels. It was meant to be. Hallelujah.

[rayshul]

I have never wanted to read posts about Elyse more than right now.

[dog puke]

I have never wanted to read posts about Elyse more than right now.

What does Elyse mean?

Elyse /el-yse/ [2 sylls.] as a name for girls is of Hebrew and Latin origin, and the name Elyse means "God is my oath". Elyse is an alternate form of Elise (French, Hebrew): short version of Elisabeth. Elyse is also a derivative of Elissa: version of Alice and Elizabeth. Elyse is also used as a variation of Elysia (Latin).


Read more at http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0 ... 7DrZJTV.99

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

*massive SNIP*
Let's try this: http://www.britannica.com/science/endemic-disease (emphases added by me)

When a disease is prevalent in an area over long periods of time, it is considered to be endemic in that area. When the prevalence of disease is subject to wide fluctuations in time, it is considered to be epidemic during periods of high prevalence. Epidemics prevailing over wide geographic areas are called pandemics.

1) Pandemic has to do with the "geographic area" being "wide"
2) Endemic has to do with the prevalence "over long periods of time" "in an area" being some level that's noticeable (not 0)
3) Would you believe, some people might consider the opposite of "wide fluctuations" to be "roughly stable" ;)

I have no dog in this fight, but your point #3 seems to be against your favor, based on your own data. The graph you provided earlier seems to show that the number of people with (or "living with" as the graph calls it, which seems to me a weird phrase, and perhaps indicative of some bias on the part of the source) is plateauing. That graph appears to me to show "the opposite of "wide fluctuations"" which, as you said, would be called "roughly stable".

Sorry if I haven't understood everything correctly, please let me know.

[Service Dog]

....And here you are stalking the shit out of Elyse's Facebook....

In your absence, did you miss the UN’s recent report on “cyberviolence”, which is (according to debunked citations) more lethal than real world physical violence? This is the Orwellian product of the mainstream feminists you endorse.

Look at the 2013 expansion to the Violence Against Women Act, which added “Cyberstalking” to the criminal provisions relating to Stalking.

AND added Stalking (and thus Cyberstalking) to sections expanding 13 different types of Grants, such as “Grants To Encourage Arrest Policies.”

AND THEN added Stalking (and thus Cyberstalking) to “Population Specific Services”— which means special funding and services exclusively-for special types of victims— namely women.

The ACLU has opined that the 2013 VAWA expansion “may significantly broaden the already overly expansive federal stalking law” by going beyond the previous“physical trigger—you're actually following somebody” which is “more closely linked to express threats of violence” than is internet or social media “cyber-stalking.”

The ACLU also says the VAWA 2013 expansion of cyberstalking to include “intimidation” is overbroad because it includes all forms of intimidation, such as “vigorous business negotiations.” And VAWA 2013 expanded cyberstalking to include online activity “reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress.”
[Is it reasonable to =expect= that the attention I’ve paid Elyse here might cause “substantial emotional distress”? If so, then that may now be construed as a crime under a Federal Violence Against Women law which was formerly limited to actual, physical, in-person “domestic violence, dating violence, and sexual assault.” Thanks, Obama!]

https://www.aclu.org/blog/new-expansion ... t-concerns

[AndrewV69]

Despite not reading AVfM they are still in my feed. In a moment of idleness I had a look and saw the following title but when I tried to go to the site to read the article it did a 404.

So I did a search in the web archive. For those with a prurient interest (yes you get a hard on over stuff like this ... admit it naow) I present the following:

The Sword Cuts Both Ways – Innards of Paul Elam & AVFM Exposed

Feet of clay. We all have feet of clay.

*shrug*

Whatever man. Fuck (Die Antwoord)

[Billie from Ockham]

You two are trying to make her sullen on her birthday?

Nope. Note that it's an early birthday present. I'd never be so cruel as to ruin her actual birthday...even further, as she weeps at yet another step closer to middle age without all those goodies which were meant for her and which instead have gone to those younger and more feminine pretenders such as Zoe Quim, Anita and Brianna Wu.

You guys are just haters. Rebecca Watson has the innocence of Zoe Quinn, the originality of Anita Sarkeesian, and the feminine sex-appeal of Brianna Wu, all rolled into one.

[KiwiInOz]

quote="KiwiInOz" Bloody French have just scored a try./quote

You're among friends. Feel free to say "bloody frogs." I don't think Phil will mind (and it might trigger a fascinating discussion of whether said use of "frogs" is inherently bigoted).

I'm trying to lift my game and not be so cruel.

I'm 99% sure that there's a backhand against in that. Fortunately, my accountant says that I'm part of the 1%.

Which tail?

Also, we won 62-13.

http://www.khmerkromrecipes.com/photo_r ... numkep.jpg

[Ape+lust]

Just cuz I'm bored: freethoughtblogs.com's Alexa ranking Oct 15, 2015

http://i.imgur.com/vo1JUA0.png?1

<snip> ...actually managed a modest uptick in his US ranking this week for the first time in months. His global ranking continues to tank, though.

Alexa ranking Oct 4, 2015

http://imgur.com/w23E8G6.png

<snip>

Wow, that's a surprise. Last week FtB was trending upward again for the 2nd week in a row. I thought Peez had found a new equilibrium, but they're plunging again.

http://imgur.com/ATK8oco.png

[Really?]

....And here you are stalking the shit out of Elyse's Facebook....

In your absence, did you miss the UN’s recent report on “cyberviolence”, which is (according to debunked citations) more lethal than real world physical violence? This is the Orwellian product of the mainstream feminists you endorse.

Look at the 2013 expansion to the Violence Against Women Act, which added “Cyberstalking” to the criminal provisions relating to Stalking.

AND added Stalking (and thus Cyberstalking) to sections expanding 13 different types of Grants, such as “Grants To Encourage Arrest Policies.”

AND THEN added Stalking (and thus Cyberstalking) to “Population Specific Services”— which means special funding and services exclusively-for special types of victims— namely women.

The ACLU has opined that the 2013 VAWA expansion “may significantly broaden the already overly expansive federal stalking law” by going beyond the previous“physical trigger—you're actually following somebody” which is “more closely linked to express threats of violence” than is internet or social media “cyber-stalking.”

The ACLU also says the VAWA 2013 expansion of cyberstalking to include “intimidation” is overbroad because it includes all forms of intimidation, such as “vigorous business negotiations.” And VAWA 2013 expanded cyberstalking to include online activity “reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress.”
[Is it reasonable to =expect= that the attention I’ve paid Elyse here might cause “substantial emotional distress”? If so, then that may now be construed as a crime under a Federal Violence Against Women law which was formerly limited to actual, physical, in-person “domestic violence, dating violence, and sexual assault.” Thanks, Obama!]

https://www.aclu.org/blog/new-expansion ... t-concerns

After reading all of that, it's no wonder why this completely fit mother of two accuses her consensual hookups of rape (bogging down the legal system and fucking over men in general in addition to the accused). The UN totally excuses how an otherwise perfectly fit 3X-year-old woman ends up in the hospital every other month with black eyes and why her shoeless daughter ends up in the hospital for some reason. And her cuckolded husband who totally fits into traditional gender roles while Elyse decries traditional gender roles.

Beyonce.

Independent Women Part 1.

If you liked it, then you shoulda spent two months dowry to demonstrate you loved the woman enough to buy her a rock that was extracted from a mountain with bloody fingers by someone making a hundredth of the salary you do.

Fuck my friends. Imma go solo.

[KiwiInOz]

I tried, I really did.

But how many weeks has this been going on? It has become the #1 Pit topic imo. Slymepit? More like Elysepit.

And despite flimsy rationalizations, Elyse isn't some grand representative of "SJWs." She's a crazy bint with mental problems on a downward spiral that may end in suicide-murder. She's been openly disowned by other SJW representatives like Becky, and I think with the benefit of hindsight, we can understand why and give Watson her due for that. I find it hilarious someone would discount Davis Aurini as representative of a certain kind of MRA but argue Elyse is a super important example of the SJW mindset. :popcorn:

Yes, she's putting her life "on display." Because she wants the attention, and you are giving it to her and making yourselves look bad in the process. But at least she's posting it on her Facebook and not Skepchick or FTB. IE it's only public if you're stalking her facebook. If I did the same with a Pitperson and posted all their Facebook shit to FTB, I think the person and their friends might be a bit miffed at me, even if it was their own fault for posting it publicly.

We already know Elyse wants your attention, so you shouldn't give it. Fuck's sake, her job description is Freelance Professional Victim.

Just chipping in to say that Hitler James Carruthers had the right idea. I really don't think the majority of the last month's Elyse posts have done much for the Pit's moral high ground.

Steerzo: AIDS is a global pandemic. The most significant, IMNEO, since the 1918 'Spanish' flu. You goddam nigger.

The Pt has a moral high ground?

“When you're in the shit up to your neck, there's nothing left to do but sing.” Samuel Beckett.

[Billie from Ockham]

Fortunately, my accountant says that I'm part of the 1%.

Which tail?

I don't know. I can't afford his hourly rate.

Oh, wait. I think I just answered your question.

[free thoughtpolice]

Brought to you by cute little birdies:
[youtube]gA9Ff-IpwKM[/youtube]

[KiwiInOz]

Australian Skeptics National Convention 2015, this weekend: lanyrd dot com/2015/auskepcon/

There seems to be an absence of certain "types" this year. :handgestures-thumbupright:

That's a great lineup. No one for Franc to assault by putting nasty things in their pockets.

http://lanyrd.com/2015/auskepcon/

Too many burnt bridges. Why pay top dollar to fly someone in who might end up turning you into witch of the week. Hell, even Watson has lost her relevance and following after she was dropped from Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. That side kick job was about her only legitimate claim to fame.

Bugger. It's in Brisbane and I didn't know that it was on. :cry:

[Matt Cavanaugh]

To this end, the language of chest feeding becomes important for discussion within the overall breastfeeding trajectory within perinatal health care, although I have not addressed this in my current research program. It is, however, aligned consistently within my educational initiatives with students.

But the word I must bring to your attention is describing the nourishment of infants by trans-men who have given birth: chestfeeding.

Yep - chestfeeding, not breastfeeding. Biological females who feel they are actually men, but have, embarrassingly and inexcusably betrayed their brothers (transbrothers or sisters, transisters (npn and pnp? - I can't begin to understand this)) by giving birth, and who wish to follow the dogma that <not formula> is best, do not use their breasts to breastfeed, they chestfeed. Got it? Chestfeeding. CHESTFEEDING.

CHESTFEEDING!

This immediately came to mind:

[youtube]LzXGhZebNOo[/youtube]

[MacGruberKnows]

So what you seem to be suggesting is that housing is simply not a wealth generator in the United States . So perhaps I should modify my view that PZ is mediocre by extending it to the United States in general on this front? :mrgreen:

No. Housing in the US is not a wealth generating investment. It is more of a gamble.

...
[blah blah blah, TL;DR]
...

Allen Greenspan was the guy who knew better. I remember him chastising banks and people for doing variable interest loans. I remember him pointing out that the housing market was in a bubble and people were under the influence of "irrational exuberance" similar to the dot com craze. He was dishing out good advice. But less than a decade later, he was encouraging variable interest loans, and encouraging people to buy homes. The best light I can cast on it is that he knew full well we were in the shitter as far as the economy goes, and he was hoping to soften the blow by getting people out there buying. It all just made things worse.

Best thing the US housing bubble gave us, the very bubbly Tanya Memme of 'Sell This House':

http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z44 ... ck4_lg.jpg

http://www.watt-up.com/j_gallery/Tanya_ ... 0(173).jpg

Very very bubbly.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

For her birthday, Rebecca is gets to role-play as me:

No, she's the vector.

[MacGruberKnows]

Ape+lust, you are truly inspiring. :bow-blue: :bow-blue: :bow-blue: :bow-blue: :bow-blue: :bow-blue:

Thank you, Fuzzy :D

I was watching this yesterday:

[youtube]1oGpR_TP7ME[/youtube]

...and was floored, as always, that I have to struggle to do in software what he did with scissors and an airbrush. And I'm just talking about technique, not his exuberant loopiness, which is another damn thing :lol:

Yep, all that work and then cut, as in laying on the cutting room floor. Hours of work, and snip snip. Must have been tough for Gilliam to see maybe days worth of work gone like that.

I remember the days of literally writing essays by cutting and pasting my notes to fit the outline I made and writing and editing and rewriting it by hand maybe three times with more cutting and pasting and lots and lots of white out and then paying my sister to type it.

The snowflake college kids today would have had meltdowns.

[Skep tickle]

*massive SNIP*
Let's try this: http://www.britannica.com/science/endemic-disease (emphases added by me)

When a disease is prevalent in an area over long periods of time, it is considered to be endemic in that area. When the prevalence of disease is subject to wide fluctuations in time, it is considered to be epidemic during periods of high prevalence. Epidemics prevailing over wide geographic areas are called pandemics.

1) Pandemic has to do with the "geographic area" being "wide"
2) Endemic has to do with the prevalence "over long periods of time" "in an area" being some level that's noticeable (not 0)
3) Would you believe, some people might consider the opposite of "wide fluctuations" to be "roughly stable" ;)

I have no dog in this fight, but your point #3 seems to be against your favor, based on your own data. The graph you provided earlier seems to show that the number of people with (or "living with" as the graph calls it, which seems to me a weird phrase, and perhaps indicative of some bias on the part of the source) is plateauing. That graph appears to me to show "the opposite of "wide fluctuations"" which, as you said, would be called "roughly stable".

Sorry if I haven't understood everything correctly, please let me know.

Because Steers is down with wikipedia as a source :) let's try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemic_% ... miology%29

From near the bottom:

...An infection that starts as an epidemic will eventually either die out (with the possibility of it resurging in a theoretically predictable cyclical manner) or reach the endemic steady state, depending on a number of factors, including the virulence of the disease and its mode of transmission.

...

While it might be common to say that AIDS is "endemic" in Africa—meaning found in an area—this is a use of the word in its etymological not epidemiological form. AIDS cases in Africa are still increasing, so the disease is not in an endemic steady state. It is correct to call the spread of AIDS in Africa an epidemic.{citation needed}

(And given the global spread it's a pandemic.)

It looks like the term "pan-endemic" may be used in botany. Perhaps when HIV infection is in a steadier state, that term might be used in regards to HIV in humans.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

I believe the reasons for Elyse's presence in the pit has been more than adequately covered by Service Dog and Parody Accountant. While I find it depressing and occasionally angering, I understand the rationale. James, you might do better to address what they said rather than accusing the pit of being stalkers. Especially as it really isn't stalking when somebody puts their life so prominently on display.

CFB: You need to educate yourself and read the SJW dictionary.
stalking: ( staw' king) Reading stuff on the internet written by people that you don't particularly like or agree with
harassment: (haw rass' ment) Disagreeing with an SJW

Hi James. :)
Good thing Service Dog isn't an SJW or you would guilty of stalking and harassing him. :P

I was accused by Service Dog of stalking Davis, RooshV and others and bringing them up for no reason.

But it's super relevant to know every little detail Elyse posts on her facebook. It's critical to the cause of anti-SJW!

Peezus Fucking Christ. How super critical was your constant fat-shaming crap, the endless pictures of fat people trying to feel good about themselves? Your endless amount of Iron Pill chunder? And of course you really spruced up the pit with all the antisemitic cartoons. That really enhanced our reputation, yeah sure, you bet. But we scrolled, even as it went past old, because hey, open forum. You deal with it.

And Elyse is not just some bint. She may be an outlier, but I'm not at all sure she's unique. She was very mainstream for a long while, and remains a force with more followers than most pitters. She still typifies a lot of SJW behavior. And nearly all of them use drugs, and drink, often to excess. Is she a forerunner? As the SJW movement continues to lose steam, a lot are suddenly going to find all their attention gone. They may end up going in a very similar path as their relevance dwindles. I don't know, and neither do you. But it may be that this little microcosm of ridiculousness may be the new norm before long. Hers might be just the most public display that we're aware of to date, and she might still continue to ruin lives and wield power right up to her imprisonment. That seems relevant. If it doesn't to you, then scroll away.

Apparently you've decided that the men she accused of rape are fairly insignificant. Perhaps they'll learn something from the experience. If they didn't rape Elyse, could they have? Maybe you have gone full SJW. So change Picard's picture to the Borg getup and get on with your life. But I would not be so judgmental considering what you've seen fit to post here yourself. YMMV.

[Steersman]

<snip>
Service Dog
Total Posts: 1477
# that mention Elyse by name: 99
% of total: 6.7%

James Caruthers
Total Posts: 6253
# that mention Davis Aurini by name: 80
% of total: 1.3%

OMG! A couple of depraved stalkers here, right here!, in the Pit! Why, I never; I can't even ....

Though I might suggest that the corresponding numbers for Brive and Watson, or Brive and Stollznow, might put both of those worthy gentlemen to shame .... ;-)

[Steersman]

For her birthday, Rebecca is gets to role-play as me:
[.tweet][/tweet]

Probably the closest she'll get to real science. :-)

But are pandemics part of your day-to-day work? Can see how that might apply to Ebola and such, but I thought your focus was HIV.

Such a cunt

Who? Watson? Me? Why? Because I questioned Abby about one minor, peripheral aspect of her work (i.e., the definition for "pandemic")? Hardly looks like the third degree to me.

And look at all of the comments it's generated - no doubt a welcome respite from accusations about who is the bigger stalker ....

[CuntajusRationality]

<snip>
Service Dog
Total Posts: 1477
# that mention Elyse by name: 99
% of total: 6.7%

James Caruthers
Total Posts: 6253
# that mention Davis Aurini by name: 80
% of total: 1.3%

OMG! A couple of depraved stalkers here, right here!, in the Pit! Why, I never; I can't even ....

Though I might suggest that the corresponding numbers for Brive and Watson, or Brive and Stollznow, might put both of those worthy gentlemen to shame .... ;-)

Brive1987
Total Posts: 5773
# that mention Watson by name: 435
% of total: 7.5%

# that mention Stollznow by name: 190
% of total: 3.3%

Steersman
Total Posts: 6085
# that include "cunt": 480
% of total: 7.9%

# that include "nigger": 262
% of total: 4.3%

[Steersman]

<snip>

I have no dog in this fight, but your point #3 seems to be against your favor, based on your own data. The graph you provided earlier seems to show that the number of people with (or "living with" as the graph calls it, which seems to me a weird phrase, and perhaps indicative of some bias on the part of the source) is plateauing. That graph appears to me to show "the opposite of "wide fluctuations"" which, as you said, would be called "roughly stable".

Sorry if I haven't understood everything correctly, please let me know.

Because Steers is down with wikipedia as a source :) let's try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemic_% ... miology%29

:-) My go-to source; while it has its flaws - mostly political or ideological bias, although one might suggest other sources have similar limitations - I find it a "quick-and-dirty" source for an overview; if more details are required then there are, generally, plenty of links to get corroboration or clarification.

From near the bottom:

...An infection that starts as an epidemic will eventually either die out (with the possibility of it resurging in a theoretically predictable cyclical manner) or reach the endemic steady state, depending on a number of factors, including the virulence of the disease and its mode of transmission.

...

While it might be common to say that AIDS is "endemic" in Africa—meaning found in an area—this is a use of the word in its etymological not epidemiological form. AIDS cases in Africa are still increasing, so the disease is not in an endemic steady state. It is correct to call the spread of AIDS in Africa an epidemic.{citation needed}

(And given the global spread it's a pandemic.)

It looks like the term "pan-endemic" may be used in botany. Perhaps when HIV infection is in a steadier state, that term might be used in regards to HIV in humans.

I don't dispute that some are calling, with some justification, HIV a pandemic; my quibble or question is about a rather narrow qualification that Wikipedia has provided to the term or definition. One which you more or less agreed with:

<snip>

And I was also curious about a qualification:

A widespread endemic disease that is stable in terms of how many people are getting sick from it is not a pandemic.

What's "stable"? Less than a 1% increase per year in the number of sick people? 5%? 25%?

Rate of new acquisition of infection is roughly equal to rate at which previously-infected people are no longer counted (infection resolves, whether through cure or spontaneously - and/or infected people die).

Now you're going to want a definition for "roughly"...

And your WHO graph (below) shows that, to a first approximation, "the rate of new acquisition of infection [world-wide] is roughly equal to rate at which previously-infected people are no longer counted":
http://i.imgur.com/pQRFhOU.png?1
And, in particular, you might note that the difference between those dying every year and those being infected every year (left scale) is somewheres in the vicinity of 800,000 - which is probably less than 3% of the total population "living with AIDS" (right scale - about 35 million). Now one might quibble whether those rates are "roughly equal" and whether that percentage of the total (3%) qualifies as "stable", but I think it is worthwhile quantifying - rather difficult to make decisions otherwise. Reminds me of a quote of William Thomson (Lord Kelvin):

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.

However, I will concede or point out that those numbers refer to the entire world which might just justify "endemic" whereas the numbers for Africa, for example, would seem to readily justify "pandemic": the importance of being precise about what we are referring to, and how we define the relevant measures.

[CuntajusRationality]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoon ... n3_low.jpg

[Steersman]

<snip>
Service Dog
Total Posts: 1477
# that mention Elyse by name: 99
% of total: 6.7%

James Caruthers
Total Posts: 6253
# that mention Davis Aurini by name: 80
% of total: 1.3%

OMG! A couple of depraved stalkers here, right here!, in the Pit! Why, I never; I can't even ....

Though I might suggest that the corresponding numbers for Brive and Watson, or Brive and Stollznow, might put both of those worthy gentlemen to shame .... ;-)

Brive1987
Total Posts: 5773
# that mention Watson by name: 435
% of total: 7.5%

# that mention Stollznow by name: 190
% of total: 3.3%

Steersman
Total Posts: 6085
# that include "cunt": 480
% of total: 7.9%

# that include "nigger": 262
% of total: 4.3%

:lol: Was wondering how my numbers would have stacked up. But not quite the case of comparing apples with apples as Brive, Caruthers, and Service Dog were/are posting about people; most if not all of those of mine were posts about a concept or principle - hardly subject or prone to an accusation of stalking. Different kettles of fish. :-)

[MacGruberKnows]

Don't know if this has made the rounds here, it's a couple of years old, but I found this interesting:

Meet the world's Mrs Averages: Scientists blend thousands of faces together to reveal what the typical woman's face looks like in 41 different countries from around the globe
Pictures of hundreds of women were used to create an average
Images of women from 41 different ethnicities were laid over one another before a computer programme deduced the common look
Created by online tool hosted by experimental psychologists at the University of Glasgow


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3otEgUyk0
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/ ... 34x448.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/ ... 34x487.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/ ... 34x443.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/ ... 34x457.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/ ... 34x453.jpg

As a Canadian I must note that no Canadian average woman was present, and we are the world leaders in being average. I apologize for protesting. Anyway, why is it that the average woman also appears to be the most beautiful woman possible? I suspect it has to do with why when enough lousy singers get together they tend to cancel each other out and you have a decent sound. I would love to have seen Mz. Average England with a smile on her face. She would probably have had really nice teeth since all the bad teeth of the women who made up her image would have canceled each other out.

[Really?]

Don't know if this has made the rounds here, it's a couple of years old, but I found this interesting:

SNIP


As a Canadian I must note that no Canadian average woman was present, and we are the world leaders in being average. I apologize for protesting. Anyway, why is it that the average woman also appears to be the most beautiful woman possible? I suspect it has to do with why when enough lousy singers get together they tend to cancel each other out and you have a decent sound. I would love to have seen Mz. Average England with a smile on her face. She would probably have had really nice teeth since all the bad teeth of the women who made up her image would have canceled each other out.

I know that the average women thing is slut shaming, I'm just not sure how.

It seems to me that these weren't composites, but photos of attractive women blurred with the heads of others to get attention from the mainstream media, who is perfectly willing to report an alien invasion so long as it starts in a Curves, indicating that the ETs are misogynist.

[Service Dog]

On the morning of 9/1, when the Pit was briefly hacked, never forget, displaying only a farewell message attributed to the Fascist Tit... I took a walk for some fresh air.

I wasn't happy if Lsuoma was burned-out. But I was glad that the decision to stop spending so much time here had been made for me. So it might be fair to call me "obsessed" with the Pit. Am I stalking the pit? No, of course not.

But with just a little nudge, I can be accused of being "obsessed" with El_Mofo, and suddenly we have a retarded fairy tale about a damsel in distress and a bad scary dangerous man. Mattress clutching. Somebody allocate federal funding. Kickstart the UN blue-helmets. #hashtag

During my 9/1 fresh air walk, I asked myself if there was anything I regretted not posting before losing the Pit.

And the thing I which came to mind was this:

"Stalking" is like most "hate-crimes" in that it depends on intent and/or motivation; even more so, in fact, because almost all actions that end up being listed as part of a specific "stalking" are perfectly legal when you don't have ill intent.

I regretted not having had the sporks that-day, to tell Billie that the truth is even-worse than that.

Here in NY, the crime of Stalking isn't based on the intent of the stalker... (Mens rea is a legal phrase used to describe the mental state a person must be in while committing a crime for it to be intentional. It can refer to a general intent to break the law or a specific, premeditated plan to commit a particular offense.)

...but, rather, in many American jurisdictions, the law defines stalking in the eye of the beholder-- the mental state of the person who =feels= stalked. A necessary criteria for prosecution of stalking is whether one "feels fear". This makes the crime subjective. The same action-- such as calling an ex late at night/ or leaving an unwanted gift on a doorstep... may be deemed punishable based on whether the recipient testifies to a specific emotion, under oath. And there may be a gender difference between women being more prone to fear (and entitled to protection under the law)/ vs. men being prone to feeling annoyed or angered (no dice fella.) A stoic male victim would be punished for being a grown-up. A panicky woman rewarded. Yeah, but... could the genders be flipped? No. Because a male complainant is more likely to be treated badly by police and courts for expressing vulnerability & fear.

Under the Violence Against Women Act, any woman who shows up at a police station & tells the desk sergeant she feels stalked-- triggers the provision that the police MUST provide her a social services advocate. This is not mandated for a man with the same complaint, so the police are free to scoff at his claim & discourage him from filing a report. In NY, the motive for police to discourage crime reporting is the CompStat system which places heavy emphasis on year-over-year "improvement" in crime rate reduction, often speciously-obtained. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/nyreg ... .html?_r=0

I confess to being "obsessed" with the Orwellian dungeon of our criminal justice system.

But feminists call it 'rape apologist' 'misogyny'.

[SJWwatchdog]

ELYSE IS ON A DATE! CALL 922!

[dog puke]

Don't know if this has made the rounds here, it's a couple of years old, but I found this interesting:

Meet the world's Mrs Averages: Scientists blend thousands of faces together to reveal what the typical woman's face looks like in 41 different countries from around the globe
Pictures of hundreds of women were used to create an average
Images of women from 41 different ethnicities were laid over one another before a computer programme deduced the common look
Created by online tool hosted by experimental psychologists at the University of Glasgow


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3otEgUyk0
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/ ... 34x448.jpg
[img.]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/ ... 34x487.jpg[/img]
[img.]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/ ... 34x443.jpg[/img]
[img.]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/ ... 34x457.jpg[/img]
[img.]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/ ... 34x453.jpg[/img]

As a Canadian I must note that no Canadian average woman was present, and we are the world leaders in being average. I apologize for protesting. Anyway, why is it that the average woman also appears to be the most beautiful woman possible? I suspect it has to do with why when enough lousy singers get together they tend to cancel each other out and you have a decent sound. I would love to have seen Mz. Average England with a smile on her face. She would probably have had really nice teeth since all the bad teeth of the women who made up her image would have canceled each other out.

Wow! Is that really what women look like? Having never seen a real one myself I had always imagined them to look kind of like this.

http://i.imgur.com/RaIfoM0.png

[John Greg]

HAHAHAHA dog puke! Wheeee!

[James Caruthers]

Caruthers wrote:

Fuck's sake, just admit that if I posted this much consecutive facebook info about Davis Aurini or RooshV, you would have had a cow and called me obsessive. :lol: Which you already did btw. :lol:

James; did you know that my idol Thunderf00t went out of his way to trash Aurini, making several videos which I dutifully posted. Odd that Service Dog didn't call Tf00t obsessive and to my recollection neither did anyone else.
Did you see those vids? If so I wonder if you don't hate him quite as much?

Yes, I saw that. I have added him into my weekend rotation as a household deity and have built a small shrine in his honor.

[James Caruthers]

So Service Dog mentions RooshV in the 4 posts that Cuntajus Rationality found. Doesn't sound obsessed.On the other hand...

James Caruthers
Total Posts: 6253
# that mention Davis Aurini by name: 80
% of total: 1.3%

Nice how you avoided mentioning the number of times he's said Elyse's name and its proportionality to all his posts.

[Steersman]

On the morning of 9/1, when the Pit was briefly hacked, never forget, displaying only a farewell message attributed to the Fascist Tit... I took a walk for some fresh air.

<snip>

I confess to being "obsessed" with the Orwellian dungeon of our criminal justice system.

But feminists call it 'rape apologist' 'misogyny'.

Indeed. Looking more Kafkaesque all the time - hard not think that "American Blind Justice" - so to speak - is becoming deaf, dumb and stupid. And malicious:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRjZQL_UAAA0JQn.jpg:large

[James Caruthers]

....And here you are stalking the shit out of Elyse's Facebook....

In your absence, did you miss the UN’s recent report on “cyberviolence”, which is (according to debunked citations) more lethal than real world physical violence? This is the Orwellian product of the mainstream feminists you endorse.

Look at the 2013 expansion to the Violence Against Women Act, which added “Cyberstalking” to the criminal provisions relating to Stalking.

AND added Stalking (and thus Cyberstalking) to sections expanding 13 different types of Grants, such as “Grants To Encourage Arrest Policies.”

AND THEN added Stalking (and thus Cyberstalking) to “Population Specific Services”— which means special funding and services exclusively-for special types of victims— namely women.

The ACLU has opined that the 2013 VAWA expansion “may significantly broaden the already overly expansive federal stalking law” by going beyond the previous“physical trigger—you're actually following somebody” which is “more closely linked to express threats of violence” than is internet or social media “cyber-stalking.”

The ACLU also says the VAWA 2013 expansion of cyberstalking to include “intimidation” is overbroad because it includes all forms of intimidation, such as “vigorous business negotiations.” And VAWA 2013 expanded cyberstalking to include online activity “reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress.”
[Is it reasonable to =expect= that the attention I’ve paid Elyse here might cause “substantial emotional distress”? If so, then that may now be construed as a crime under a Federal Violence Against Women law which was formerly limited to actual, physical, in-person “domestic violence, dating violence, and sexual assault.” Thanks, Obama!]

https://www.aclu.org/blog/new-expansion ... t-concerns

Could you please tell me which mainstream feminists I endorse?

It's a very curious thing, to find oneself supporting mass online censorship quite without ones own knowledge of any such thing. It's very strange, because my first thought was to look at your post and think "Hmm, I don't believe I support any of this."

But Service Dog said it, so it must be true. I support censorship. Heil Pitler!

I have also been critical of MRAs. MRAs oppose feminism. Feminists (ALL OF THEM) want to remove any presumption of innocence in our legal system for accusations of rape. Therefore, I support false rape accusations.

But perhaps I support other things:

I was quite obsessed (almost as obsessed as service dog) with that nice young man, Davis "On Paper" Aurini. Davis supports white culture. I dislike Davis. I dislike white culture. Therefore, I hate white people.

Let's keep going!

RooshV teaches young men to get laid, for which he charges them money. I think he is unethical. I oppose men having sex. I am against sex.

So to conclude, I am a sex-hating, whites-hating, false rape accusation-loving, censorship-adoring Pitler. :dance:

[James Caruthers]

Despite not reading AVfM they are still in my feed. In a moment of idleness I had a look and saw the following title but when I tried to go to the site to read the article it did a 404.

So I did a search in the web archive. For those with a prurient interest (yes you get a hard on over stuff like this ... admit it naow) I present the following:

The Sword Cuts Both Ways – Innards of Paul Elam & AVFM Exposed

Feet of clay. We all have feet of clay.

*shrug*

Whatever man. Fuck (Die Antwoord)

Yes, I saw this.

There are some 4-5 former MRAs/MGTOWs/whatevers who have left AVfM on bad terms. Maybe that's normal for the size of their staff, or maybe Paul is an asshole. I can't tell because the accusations of wrongdoing always flow both ways when this shit happens.

Diana, JtO and WBB went through the same with Elam.

[didymos]

Hey Fascist Tit: is there any way to make Youtube embeds use the HTML5 player instead of Flash? I've seen it done on other forums.

[Brive1987]

<snip>
Service Dog
Total Posts: 1477
# that mention Elyse by name: 99
% of total: 6.7%

James Caruthers
Total Posts: 6253
# that mention Davis Aurini by name: 80
% of total: 1.3%

OMG! A couple of depraved stalkers here, right here!, in the Pit! Why, I never; I can't even ....

Though I might suggest that the corresponding numbers for Brive and Watson, or Brive and Stollznow, might put both of those worthy gentlemen to shame .... ;-)

Brive1987
Total Posts: 5773
# that mention Watson by name: 435
% of total: 7.5%

# that mention Stollznow by name: 190
% of total: 3.3%

Steersman
Total Posts: 6085
# that include "cunt": 480
% of total: 7.9%

# that include "nigger": 262
% of total: 4.3%

7.9%. :think:

Seems a bit low. Did you include "RW" (and "KS") ? :lol:

[Brive1987]

7.5. Fuck it.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Has anybody else ever noticed that when you lose your sense of humor (humour, you extra-letter queen-worshipers) about a subject, you tend to go off the rails about it? Wheeeee!

[Service Dog]

"... I am opposed to false accusations of crimes, so I'd be quite the hypocrite if I had falsely accused Caruthers of any such thing. And I'd be the mirror image of feminists if I said he was stalking MRAs. Fortunately, Caruthers is merely shit-talking...."

...You did say that about me. Maybe not in exactly those fucking words, but the meaning was the same...

False. I did not accuse you of stalking Aurini. I accused you of overemphasizing Aurini's role as an MRA. As evidence, I pointed-out that over half the mentions of Aurini on the Pit were you, and most the the remainder were replies to you. The equivalent would be if I accused others of being obsessed-with (or stalking) Elyse-- while myself being responsible for most Elyse posts & replies. But that never happened. So you're making a false equivalency.

You're also being a steersman about words, implying that "stalking" can only ever be a criminal accusation and not a description of a certain type of obsessive internet behavior.

False. I'm saying that stalking is the name of a crime-- which our bigoted system unfairly pursues against males and exempts female perps.
So-- as someone who is opposed to false rape allegations/ inflated campus rape stats/ moral panics about phantom sexual harassment at atheist conferences -- I'd be like a homophobic preacher caught sucking dick, if I falsely accused you of stalking. But I didn't. You're not telling the truth.

If you really cared about her kids or her being an abuser or whatever, you'd send the information to the fucking cops. Talking about it endlessly on a tiny forum doesn't do shit for her kids.

I am less concerned for her kids than are others here. For example, I think they're better of with her than with CPS. Those who are more concerned for her kids-- including posters I know to be responsible parents-- have a specific action-plan for reporting her to authorities, with a coherent reason for waiting for a specific date to send the information to the fucking cops.

Fuck's sake, just admit that if I posted this much consecutive facebook info about Davis Aurini or RooshV, you would have had a cow and called me obsessive. :lol: Which you already did btw. :lol:

I said you were obsessed with convincing-yourself that all MRAs were as-bad as those bad-apples, so you could spare yourself the cognitive dissonance of internalizing the best of what MRAs have to say. I speculate that you love your wife & see Being A Feminist as an extension of loving her. So you tell yourself scary stories about Those Bad Men, lest you become one of us & stop deserving your wife. Likewise, you hate the Bad SJWs, so that the good Feminists remain compartmentalized, unsullied. That's just a hunch. Maybe I'm just projecting.

I remember you posting a RooshV video a while back and commenting on how good it was or something. Could you maybe explain what about Roosh "buy my books and day bang your way to glory and manhood" V you find cool? He seems like as big a scammer as any SJW I've seen.

Somebody-else posted the Roosh vid. I think Delurch mocked it, because Roosh's big secret for getting laid was: Sleep With Women You Can't Stand. My reaction was to praise the video-- because one thing he did right, was take-responsibility for sleeping with those women: He didn't blame the alcohol or the women or society for his regret. He didn't play victim or feign rape. And the video ended with him saying it was healthy to outgrow a 'notches on the belt' quantity-over-quality mentality.

I think Roosh is an infomercial hack. 'Scammer' seems too strong: does he steal customers' credit card info, or fail to deliver the books he sells? I doubt it. He's a slick Confidence Man, but not a Con Man, as far as I know. I used a friend's computer recently to watch some MRA stuff. Days-later YouTube suggested to my friend a Roosh video on "Neo Masculinity" as "Recommended For You". My friend is a sucker for any soothing, fatherly voice offering 'straight talk', so he called me, enthusiastic about the video. My friend was disappointed-- even a little mad at me-- when I said I thought Roosh was in it for the money. My friend was basically like, 'You are the reason that was on my computer/ and now you're wrecking my enthusiasm for it?! WTF?'

I never-did watch the Neo Masculinity video. Sounds lame. Searching for it, I found a response by a MGTOW named Messenger Rising. Now there's a dark, bitter, angry dude. Watched one of him telling-off John The Other, too. Greatly enjoyed both. Like drinking black foamy beer with bite.

[Brive1987]

<snip> Life wasn't meant to be easy.

I was going to get all huffy at you for not providing a trigger warning before that line, but I would have been joking.

Shaw may have said it first but the line has been (in)famous in Australia ever since it was uttered by our Prime Minister decades ago.

[youtube]arlz53X6Ge0[/youtube]

Rebecca Watson Karen Stollznow

[Brive1987]

Don't know if this has made the rounds here, it's a couple of years old, but I found this interesting:

Meet the world's Mrs Averages: Scientists blend thousands of faces together to reveal what the typical woman's face looks like in 41 different countries from around the globe
Pictures of hundreds of women were used to create an average
Images of women from 41 different ethnicities were laid over one another before a computer programme deduced the common look
Created by online tool hosted by experimental psychologists at the University of Glasgow


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3otEgUyk0
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/ ... 34x448.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/ ... 34x487.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/ ... 34x443.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/ ... 34x457.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/ ... 34x453.jpg

As a Canadian I must note that no Canadian average woman was present, and we are the world leaders in being average. I apologize for protesting. Anyway, why is it that the average woman also appears to be the most beautiful woman possible? I suspect it has to do with why when enough lousy singers get together they tend to cancel each other out and you have a decent sound. I would love to have seen Mz. Average England with a smile on her face. She would probably have had really nice teeth since all the bad teeth of the women who made up her image would have canceled each other out.

Ummm, Australia? Hello?

Ok, I'll supply a couple of typical sheila's

https://abigailkb.files.wordpress.com/2 ... =468&h=711

[youtube]MOPmVW_HtuY[/youtube]


You pick the reality.

[Service Dog]

Service Dog
Total Posts: 1477
# that mention Elyse by name: 99
% of total: 6.7%

James Caruthers
Total Posts: 6253
# that mention Davis Aurini by name: 80
% of total: 1.3%

The # of my Elyse posts is higher, if you didn't count all the times I posted screencaps with no text.

[Service Dog]

Could you please tell me which mainstream feminists I endorse?

http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articl ... l/360x200/

It's a very curious thing, to find oneself supporting mass online censorship quite without ones own knowledge of any such thing. It's very strange, because my first thought was to look at your post and think "Hmm, I don't believe I support any of this."

But Service Dog said it, so it must be true. I support censorship. Heil Pitler!

I have also been critical of MRAs. MRAs oppose feminism. Feminists (ALL OF THEM) want to remove any presumption of innocence in our legal system for accusations of rape. Therefore, I support false rape accusations.

But perhaps I support other things:

I was quite obsessed (almost as obsessed as service dog) with that nice young man, Davis "On Paper" Aurini. Davis supports white culture. I dislike Davis. I dislike white culture. Therefore, I hate white people.

Let's keep going!

RooshV teaches young men to get laid, for which he charges them money. I think he is unethical. I oppose men having sex. I am against sex.

So to conclude, I am a sex-hating, whites-hating, false rape accusation-loving, censorship-adoring Pitler. :dance:

You're shitting all over yourself. Reminds me of taking care of grandma.

Congress should pass a Brady Bill background check for Sarcasm.
http://i.imgur.com/ltmDGj2.jpg?1

[Skep tickle]

Don't know if this has made the rounds here, it's a couple of years old, but I found this interesting:

Meet the world's Mrs Averages: Scientists blend thousands of faces together to reveal what the typical woman's face looks like in 41 different countries from around the globe
Pictures of hundreds of women were used to create an average
Images of women from 41 different ethnicities were laid over one another before a computer programme deduced the common look
Created by online tool hosted by experimental psychologists at the University of Glasgow


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3otEgUyk0
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

"Created by online tool..." - seems to be this: http://www.faceresearch.org/faq
(you can create an account, it seems, to see more of what's there already and to put in your own photos)

A 1990 paper on the topic (well, at least the abstract): http://pss.sagepub.com/content/1/2/115.abstract

Attractive Faces Are Only Average

Scientists and philosophers have searched for centuries for a parsimonious answer to the question of what constitutes beauty. We approached this problem from both an evolutionary and information-processing rationale and predicted that faces representing the average value of the population would be consistently judged as attractive. To evaluate this hypothesis, we digitized samples of male and female faces, mathematically averaged them, and had adults judge the attractiveness of both the individual faces and the computer-generated composite images. Both male (three samples) and female (three samples) composite faces were judged as more attractive than almost all the individual faces comprising the composites. A strong linear trend also revealed that the composite faces became more attractive as more faces were entered. These data showing that attractive faces are only average are consistent with evolutionary pressures that favor characteristics close to the mean of the population and with cognitive processes that favor prototypical category members.

The abstract above & related search results at google scholar

[Sunder]

Yep, all that work and then cut, as in laying on the cutting room floor. Hours of work, and snip snip. Must have been tough for Gilliam to see maybe days worth of work gone like that.

It's just something that animators have to put up with. Most would say that if any of your work at all made it onscreen, you're luckier than those whose productions petered out in the early stages.

[Steersman]

:whistle:

Though while Milo has his good points - and he certainly did yeoman's duty in documenting the UN fiasco on violence against women on the Internet - he also has his blind spots, notably and maybe arguably more than a tinge of outright misogyny as in his Sorry, Girls! But-the Smartest People in the World Are All Men. While he did say this:

It’s not fair to simply say “men are smarter than women.” It’s a bit more subtle than that. But it is clearly preposterous to assume that the only reason there isn’t gender parity in the sciences and maths is some kind of discrimination. Unless, of course, you consider Mother Nature a bigot.

It's hard not to conclude that he's making rather more out a few statistical differences than is justified, that he's reluctant to consider that some 50% of the women are "smarter" - whatever that term means - than some 50% of the men.

[rayshul]

Milo's specialty is to troll with actual facts.

[Aneris]

...more feminine pretenders... Brianna Wu.

Forget sullen, that could have someone toying with self-harm. Aaaaaaack!

You know, I'll never get over how Brianna walked in that vid where she had that fat bloke chucked out of a conference. She actually loped in the manner of a bipedal predator, such as a dinosaur. I half expected her to cry 'WRRARK! WRRARK!' and have the back and centre of her stringy hair rise up in a raptorlike threat display as she stalked round that table. Fucking terrifying creature.

[youtube]y4Eh-xpcJsY[/youtube]

Hornbeck Index: #saurophobia, #rexshaming

[Steersman]

Milo's specialty is to troll with actual facts.

You may well be right as I haven't followed him enough to have an understanding of his outlook and values.

But I did have a brief exchange with him and a bunch of his followers on Twitter, and the latter at least seem to have a poor understanding of the population distributions that Milo was using in that post, or they have a tendency to put their thumbs on the scales to the disadvantage of women in general; to read the graphs in the most uncharitable or unfair ways possible:

Not that it's particularly easy to develop or convey much in the way of nuance or depth in 140 characters.

[Aneris]

Milo's specialty is to troll with actual facts.

You may well be right as I haven't followed him enough to have an understanding of his outlook and values.

But I did have a brief exchange with him and a bunch of his followers on Twitter, and the latter at least seem to have a poor understanding of the population distributions that Milo was using in that post, or they have a tendency to put their thumbs on the scales to the disadvantage of women in general; to read the graphs in the most uncharitable or unfair ways possible:

Not that it's particularly easy to develop or convey much in the way of nuance or depth in 140 characters.

What do IQ tests measure, exactly? Even when you grant everything and you go with a steelman version of Milo's presentation, it still only measures IQs of men and women at present. This small, seemingly unimportant detail is however the generator of different interpretations.

One side argues “it's biology, bitchez” the other side points out that men occupied intellectually demanding roles for centuries, and women did not. You say this is unimportant, since this isn't the case anymore for “a long time” and delevoping IQ in a population is practically instantaneous (i.e. takes immediate effect someone is raised in an egalitarian culture). But for one, take a look at the well-known Flynn Effect, that shows how IQs are steadily on the rise, and don't appear to jump up, and for another consider the gender roles of your parents or grandparents. Still in the 1950s, women were regarded as responsible for the housekeeping, and this shouldn't be a controversial claim. Not just cringeworthy advertisement (which reflect a zeitgeist well) demonstrates it plainly, also the specific movements and societal questions at the time point into that same direction. The change towards emancipation happened in the late 1960s onwards in the west.

http://i.imgur.com/QOTTxUH.jpg
Intellectually stimulating environment?

This means, a group — or their children — that begins enjoying the same conditions does not instantly catch up. Women only have comparable conditions for one or two generations, at maximum. Roles and role-models also do play an important role, especially when we believe the side that insists that common gender stereotypes say something about human nature. That might be counter-intuitive, but when you believe that women are naturally more nurturing and social, then you must grant that they would even more align thenselves along social expectations, than men. There are not many “cool” female scientists or inventors to look up to, and it's not something girls at present commonly find interesting. That might change slowly, especially with the internet. But you cannot seriously claim girls were, in the recent past, encouraged to get enthusiastic about telescopes and microscopes and all that. They may never be as enthusiastic about these things as boys, it may account for a small difference, or none — at present we just don't know.

Also, if the Flynn effect has ended for the majority in developed nations, it may still continue for minorities, especially for groups like immigrants where many may have received poor nutrition during early childhood or have had other disadvantages. A study in the Netherlands found that children of non-Western immigrants had improvements for g, educational achievements, and work proficiency compared to their parents, although there were still remaining differences compared to ethnic Dutch.[17]

If we consider the work of Simon Baron-Cohen on autism, and his hypothesis that autists have extreme-male brains, we can take away a few more things: autists, or savants have remarkable abilities of the kind we see as “intelligent”, but somehow autists are not known to win the Nobels or occupy the elite (towards which Milo builds his case). The same line of research that is used to justify gender dimorphism of minds is not helping the theory of the male-brain being the ”smart“ one in the sense that is required for the case at hand!

The careful take away should be — IQ curves and all granted — that at present, men perform better. I know, boring. That's just what was measured. While genetic factors certainly play a role overall (this is known from other areas of research, e.g. Jews, Tay-Sachs-Disease, Intelligence, Jewish nobel laureates) we cannot know at this point if intelligence is one of the things where our species is sexually dimorphic, and if so, whether culture can overcome it and to which degree. It may come down to, yet again, a complicated interplay of everything, especially since “intelligence” is a high level concept.

[Brive1987]

Peez's ongoing moral crusade against sleezy scientists everywhere is struggling to break 20 or so comments a post.

Oh the SZvanity. He is rapidly turning into just another tumble-weed blog.

[Oglebart]

You know, I'll never get over how Brianna walked in that vid where she had that fat bloke chucked out of a conference. She actually loped in the manner of a bipedal predator, such as a dinosaur. I half expected her to cry 'WRRARK! WRRARK!' and have the back and centre of her stringy hair rise up in a raptorlike threat display as she stalked round that table. Fucking terrifying creature.

[youtube]2xjIWxj9uCI[/youtube]

Fuck me, check out the "security" guy in the batman t-shirt, I'm sure he's wearing a skirt? What a bunch of fucking weirdos, so true about Wu, like some sort of praying mantis, or the aliens in District 9.

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/ali ... 0911025730

[Oglebart]

Best thing the US housing bubble gave us, the very bubbly Tanya Memme of 'Sell This House':

http://www.watt-up.com/j_gallery/Tanya_ ... 0(173).jpg

Very very bubbly.

Well, I say, how absolutely super

http://www2.b3ta.com/fp-archive/host/10797793-1.jpg

[Dave]

Fuck me, check out the "security" guy in the batman t-shirt, I'm sure he's wearing a skirt? What a bunch of fucking weirdos, so true about Wu, like some sort of praying mantis, or the aliens in District 9.

I believe thats what kids these days call a utilikilt. Also known as a black man-skirt for people who are envious of scots.

[Parody Accountant]

Probably the closest she'll get to real science. :-)

But are pandemics part of your day-to-day work? Can see how that might apply to Ebola and such, but I thought your focus was HIV.

Such a cunt

Who? Watson? Me? Why? Because I questioned Abby about one minor, peripheral aspect of her work (i.e., the definition for "pandemic")? Hardly looks like the third degree to me.

And look at all of the comments it's generated - no doubt a welcome respite from accusations about who is the bigger stalker ....

No, you corrected a doctor. And you are wrong.

It's funny, no worries. I know that you can't help it

[Parody Accountant]

<snip>
Service Dog
Total Posts: 1477
# that mention Elyse by name: 99
% of total: 6.7%

James Caruthers
Total Posts: 6253
# that mention Davis Aurini by name: 80
% of total: 1.3%

OMG! A couple of depraved stalkers here, right here!, in the Pit! Why, I never; I can't even ....

Though I might suggest that the corresponding numbers for Brive and Watson, or Brive and Stollznow, might put both of those worthy gentlemen to shame .... ;-)

Brive1987
Total Posts: 5773
# that mention Watson by name: 435
% of total: 7.5%

# that mention Stollznow by name: 190
% of total: 3.3%

Steersman
Total Posts: 6085
# that include "cunt": 480
% of total: 7.9%

# that include "nigger": 262
% of total: 4.3%

Steersman is stalking all the niggercunts