Post Ironic

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2013
31,993
:disagree: Everybody knows Otto Hahn did all the work for Lise Meitner
Oh, you mean when Meitner suggested the experiments that Hahn carry out and then how Hahn asked Meitner for the explanation of the experiments' results he didn't understand:

“Perhaps you can come up with some sort of fantastic explanation. We knew ourselves that [uranium] can’t actually burst apart into [barium].”
Or perhaps in another case of women receiving no credit, it was Ida Noddack who suggested that Fermi’s neutron irradiation experiments may have led to uranium fission, and that he should look at elements lighter than lead as possibilities for the observed radioactivity.
 

X Æ A-12

Senior Member
Contributor
Sep 4, 2006
74,968
Would you date someone who's been fucked by one of your closest friends?
depends what the relationship is like between them now and how often you hand out with both. Would sex on but date, unless circumstances are really good, would be messy. If they are on good terms and can both be mature about it but how often does that happen
 

ALC

Ohaulick
Oct 28, 2010
43,513
Women with very significant contributions from only post-1900 when women were actually allowed to have a voice in these fields:

Sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Neuroscience, Math, etc):

Lise Meitner
Vera Rubin
Lene Hau
Deborah Jin
Jocelyn Bell
Lisa Randall
Nergis Mavalvala
Margaret Burbridge
Marie Curie
Irene Curie
Ada Yonath
Fabiola Gianotti
Margaret Murnane
Maria Goeppert Mayer
Dorothy Hodgkin
Andrea Ghez
Chien-Shiung Wu
Mildred Dresselhaus
Ana Maria Rey
Margaret Geller
Helen Quinn
Beth Stevens
Danielle Bassett
Melody Swartz
Julia Robinson
Maria Chudnovsky
Claire Gmachl
etc

Philosophy:
Simone De Beauvoir
Julie Kristeva
Judith Butler
Hannah Arendt
Susan Haack
Mary Midgley
Elizabeth Anscombe
Simone Weil
Luce Irigaray
Ayn Rand
etc

Literature:

The list is well-nigh endless.


No contributions? Right... Ignorance at its finest.

What a cesspit. See ya.
Pretty much, but that's just typical X behavior. Say an outlandish statement and then when confronted about it, twists it around by saying people lack reading comprehension. See Buffon not being good in the '90s, F not being equal to M times A, denying holocaust, etc. At least Dusan isn't trying to twist what he says by blaming people for having bad reading comprehension.

This was the first comment:
"women have not contributed to the advancement of humanity in either science, technology or philosophy. Their forced entry into the workplace has indeed rendered marriage obsolete and as a result made for a more promiscuous society."

"Forced entry in the workforce": technically women have been in the workforce forever but he must be talking about the white collar workforce, right? To become part of the white collar workforce, you need an education and college degree. Keep in mind for example that Harvard Medical school only started accepting women in 1945. At a much lower rate then men. So they were not on equal footing, which can explain why they haven't gotten as many chances as men.


"has indeed rendered marriage obsolete" - not quite true as people still get married every day. They do get married less and at an older age but there is no way to contribute the decrease in rate of marriage to women being in the workforce. A study done by Pewter states that:
"Marriage, while declining among all groups, remains the norm for adults with a college education and good income but is now markedly less prevalent among those on the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder."

"In 2008, there was a 16 percentage point gap in marriage rates between college graduates (64%) and those with a high school diploma or less (48%). In 1960, this gap had been just four percentage points (76% vs. 72%). The survey finds that those with a high school diploma or less are just as likely as those with a college degree to say they want to marry. But they place a higher premium than college graduates (38% versus 21%) on financial stability as a very important reason to marry."


So the women in the workforce (or at least white collar workforce) are getting married, it's the people who don't make a lot of money that don't see getting married as necessary. IMO, people now have more options and ability to chase after things they enjoy doing rather than settling down in a loveless and soul-sucking marriage because "that's what everyone does". Nothing wrong with that.

The next comment: "and as a result made for a more promiscuous society." Promiscuous is a derogatory word, first of all. Type it in on google and right above the definition it says derogatory. Then he says to Matt:

"That things are not better that's his interpretation which in this case really boils down to personal preference. "

That tells us his interpretation of women is negative or derogatory based on his previous statement. Or maybe it's just his lack of writing comprehension. Not an invalid theory given that his grammar is pretty atrocious.

But let's get back to the point at hand. The society we're in now is more promiscuous. Promiscuous means "having or characterized by many transient relationships". Surprisingly, people are now having less sex (according to bbc, NYT, etc) than in the previous millenium while women continue to gain ground on the workforce. So this completely invalidates the theory that the promiscuity is due to women forcing their entry into the workforce, because then the more and better jobs they get, the more promiscuous sex they'd have, right?

And lastly, I'd like to mention women like Rosalie Franklin and Barbara McClintock who are responsible for how far we have gotten in DNA research, Grace Hooper who created the first compiler, which translates human coding language into binary, Rachel Carson who has helped us take care of the environment and our bodies through her research and efforts to ban the pesticide DDT, Dorothy Hodgkin who helped pave the way to saving countless lives by discovering a technique of mass producing insulin and penicillin, and many more women who have contributed to science and technology, among other things.
 

Fr3sh

Senior Member
Jul 12, 2011
35,931
Pretty much, but that's just typical X behavior. Say an outlandish statement and then when confronted about it, twists it around by saying people lack reading comprehension. See Buffon not being good in the '90s, F not being equal to M times A, denying holocaust, etc. At least Dusan isn't trying to twist what he says by blaming people for having bad reading comprehension.

This was the first comment:
"women have not contributed to the advancement of humanity in either science, technology or philosophy. Their forced entry into the workplace has indeed rendered marriage obsolete and as a result made for a more promiscuous society."

"Forced entry in the workforce": technically women have been in the workforce forever but he must be talking about the white collar workforce, right? To become part of the white collar workforce, you need an education and college degree. Keep in mind for example that Harvard Medical school only started accepting women in 1945. At a much lower rate then men. So they were not on equal footing, which can explain why they haven't gotten as many chances as men.


"has indeed rendered marriage obsolete" - not quite true as people still get married every day. They do get married less and at an older age but there is no way to contribute the decrease in rate of marriage to women being in the workforce. A study done by Pewter states that:
"Marriage, while declining among all groups, remains the norm for adults with a college education and good income but is now markedly less prevalent among those on the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder."

"In 2008, there was a 16 percentage point gap in marriage rates between college graduates (64%) and those with a high school diploma or less (48%). In 1960, this gap had been just four percentage points (76% vs. 72%). The survey finds that those with a high school diploma or less are just as likely as those with a college degree to say they want to marry. But they place a higher premium than college graduates (38% versus 21%) on financial stability as a very important reason to marry."


So the women in the workforce (or at least white collar workforce) are getting married, it's the people who don't make a lot of money that don't see getting married as necessary. IMO, people now have more options and ability to chase after things they enjoy doing rather than settling down in a loveless and soul-sucking marriage because "that's what everyone does". Nothing wrong with that.

The next comment: "and as a result made for a more promiscuous society." Promiscuous is a derogatory word, first of all. Type it in on google and right above the definition it says derogatory. Then he says to Matt:

"That things are not better that's his interpretation which in this case really boils down to personal preference. "

That tells us his interpretation of women is negative or derogatory based on his previous statement. Or maybe it's just his lack of writing comprehension. Not an invalid theory given that his grammar is pretty atrocious.

But let's get back to the point at hand. The society we're in now is more promiscuous. Promiscuous means "having or characterized by many transient relationships". Surprisingly, people are now having less sex (according to bbc, NYT, etc) than in the previous millenium while women continue to gain ground on the workforce. So this completely invalidates the theory that the promiscuity is due to women forcing their entry into the workforce, because then the more and better jobs they get, the more promiscuous sex they'd have, right?

And lastly, I'd like to mention women like Rosalie Franklin and Barbara McClintock who are responsible for how far we have gotten in DNA research, Grace Hooper who created the first compiler, which translates human coding language into binary, Rachel Carson who has helped us take care of the environment and our bodies through her research and efforts to ban the pesticide DDT, Dorothy Hodgkin who helped pave the way to saving countless lives by discovering a technique of mass producing insulin and penicillin, and many more women who have contributed to science and technology, among other things.

- - - Updated - - -

kinda wanted to use this one cause fat christina is sexy as fuck



- - - Updated - - -



lord have mercy
 
Jan 17, 2011
15,667
in dollars or pesos? :p


Then why did you even in ask?
I'm always curious about Tuz members' opinions on certain topics.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty much, but that's just typical X behavior. Say an outlandish statement and then when confronted about it, twists it around by saying people lack reading comprehension. See Buffon not being good in the '90s, F not being equal to M times A, denying holocaust, etc. At least Dusan isn't trying to twist what he says by blaming people for having bad reading comprehension.

This was the first comment:
"women have not contributed to the advancement of humanity in either science, technology or philosophy. Their forced entry into the workplace has indeed rendered marriage obsolete and as a result made for a more promiscuous society."

"Forced entry in the workforce": technically women have been in the workforce forever but he must be talking about the white collar workforce, right? To become part of the white collar workforce, you need an education and college degree. Keep in mind for example that Harvard Medical school only started accepting women in 1945. At a much lower rate then men. So they were not on equal footing, which can explain why they haven't gotten as many chances as men.


"has indeed rendered marriage obsolete" - not quite true as people still get married every day. They do get married less and at an older age but there is no way to contribute the decrease in rate of marriage to women being in the workforce. A study done by Pewter states that:
"Marriage, while declining among all groups, remains the norm for adults with a college education and good income but is now markedly less prevalent among those on the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder."

"In 2008, there was a 16 percentage point gap in marriage rates between college graduates (64%) and those with a high school diploma or less (48%). In 1960, this gap had been just four percentage points (76% vs. 72%). The survey finds that those with a high school diploma or less are just as likely as those with a college degree to say they want to marry. But they place a higher premium than college graduates (38% versus 21%) on financial stability as a very important reason to marry."


So the women in the workforce (or at least white collar workforce) are getting married, it's the people who don't make a lot of money that don't see getting married as necessary. IMO, people now have more options and ability to chase after things they enjoy doing rather than settling down in a loveless and soul-sucking marriage because "that's what everyone does". Nothing wrong with that.

The next comment: "and as a result made for a more promiscuous society." Promiscuous is a derogatory word, first of all. Type it in on google and right above the definition it says derogatory. Then he says to Matt:

"That things are not better that's his interpretation which in this case really boils down to personal preference. "

That tells us his interpretation of women is negative or derogatory based on his previous statement. Or maybe it's just his lack of writing comprehension. Not an invalid theory given that his grammar is pretty atrocious.

But let's get back to the point at hand. The society we're in now is more promiscuous. Promiscuous means "having or characterized by many transient relationships". Surprisingly, people are now having less sex (according to bbc, NYT, etc) than in the previous millenium while women continue to gain ground on the workforce. So this completely invalidates the theory that the promiscuity is due to women forcing their entry into the workforce, because then the more and better jobs they get, the more promiscuous sex they'd have, right?

And lastly, I'd like to mention women like Rosalie Franklin and Barbara McClintock who are responsible for how far we have gotten in DNA research, Grace Hooper who created the first compiler, which translates human coding language into binary, Rachel Carson who has helped us take care of the environment and our bodies through her research and efforts to ban the pesticide DDT, Dorothy Hodgkin who helped pave the way to saving countless lives by discovering a technique of mass producing insulin and penicillin, and many more women who have contributed to science and technology, among other things.
X gon' give it to ya.
 

Osman

Koul Khara!
Aug 30, 2002
53,472
Greg Still the Louis CK of Tuz (taken Drus pantless dogma too far lol).


He's been trying hard to get my attention, but he's just not smart enough to warrant an answer.
Personal grudges aside, he made a sensible reply, maybe you don't have anything to add if your automatic reply to everyone is they aren't smart enough for your precious attention?

While elaborating on nothing you get asked about basically for how many pages now?

Skickat från min SM-G930F via Tapatalk
 

pitbull

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2007
11,045
Pretty much, but that's just typical X behavior. Say an outlandish statement and then when confronted about it, twists it around by saying people lack reading comprehension. See Buffon not being good in the '90s, F not being equal to M times A, denying holocaust, etc. .
can you please link me to the last two? Buffon not playing in 90ties was great fun, reminded me of RUS's Montero fiasco, I bet those are golden as well
 

Raz

Senior Member
Nov 20, 2005
12,217
I see people are starting to catch up to the real mr. (X). Since I'm terrified of another ban i purposely didn't mention any names, but you know about who I'm talking about.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 12, Guests: 26)