What Are You Doing Right Now? (164 Viewers)
- Thread starter ßöмßäяðîëя
- Start date
- Tags gay space iliveforfinasteride iliveforjuve is not white loldevil size queens sweet matt is sweet errwhere virgin devil
It's goalpost changing. As always.
First was "women have contributed nothing" in any of the aforementioned fields. Then it was "nothing significant". And now it is nothing "major revolutionary". Add to that, it's comparing what Men have achieved over 3000 years to what women have achieved since being welcomed into these fields 100 years ago, and more realistically less than 50 if we are talking about widespread acceptance.
But saying Marie Curie's research and discoveries were not major and revolutionary for the atomic age is pretty damn farfetched.
Add to that, as women have gained acceptance in the sciences, they have contributed more and more. Look at Deborah Jin's work with fermions which probably would have won her a Nobel in physics had she not died. Or Lene Hau with slowing and stopping light, transferring qubits from light to matter to light, performing the first successful manipulations of coherent optical information. Barring a premature death she'll surely win a nobel shortly and her research alongside Bose-Einstein condensates may lead to revolutionary progress in the field of quantum information processing.
These are just a couple women from post-2000. It's pretty clear from the progress made by women in the sciences already, that as women gain more acceptance in the physical and applied sciences and start to make up a bigger percentage in these fields, they will make more and more significant contributions.
All one needs to look at is the number of female scientists winning things like MacArthur fellowships compared to 25 years ago. It's night and day.
The laughable part is trying to suggest that it is "a fact" that women haven't contributed and don't possess the capability to. And suggesting everyone who doesn't agree with this opinion is either a) in an "intellectual coma"; or b) in a "mental prison"; frankly, it's shameless.
First was "women have contributed nothing" in any of the aforementioned fields. Then it was "nothing significant". And now it is nothing "major revolutionary". Add to that, it's comparing what Men have achieved over 3000 years to what women have achieved since being welcomed into these fields 100 years ago, and more realistically less than 50 if we are talking about widespread acceptance.
But saying Marie Curie's research and discoveries were not major and revolutionary for the atomic age is pretty damn farfetched.
Add to that, as women have gained acceptance in the sciences, they have contributed more and more. Look at Deborah Jin's work with fermions which probably would have won her a Nobel in physics had she not died. Or Lene Hau with slowing and stopping light, transferring qubits from light to matter to light, performing the first successful manipulations of coherent optical information. Barring a premature death she'll surely win a nobel shortly and her research alongside Bose-Einstein condensates may lead to revolutionary progress in the field of quantum information processing.
These are just a couple women from post-2000. It's pretty clear from the progress made by women in the sciences already, that as women gain more acceptance in the physical and applied sciences and start to make up a bigger percentage in these fields, they will make more and more significant contributions.
All one needs to look at is the number of female scientists winning things like MacArthur fellowships compared to 25 years ago. It's night and day.
The laughable part is trying to suggest that it is "a fact" that women haven't contributed and don't possess the capability to. And suggesting everyone who doesn't agree with this opinion is either a) in an "intellectual coma"; or b) in a "mental prison"; frankly, it's shameless.
While I do genuinely feel that women in general are less capable drivers (most of them just aren't passionate about driving), young men are by far the highest risk group. Which is also why they pay higher premiums on their car insurance. So if you're talking strictly about risk and you think rationally about it, you should pray for a female, not a male driver.
- - - Updated - - -
I can see why the incentive would be bigger for men. Up until recently it's also been easier for men in general to devote their entire lives to science or philosophy. But I don't think that is a completely satisfactory explanation of your view, which is that women aren't capable of revolutionary contributions to mankind.
It's goalpost changing. As always.
First was "women have contributed nothing" in any of the aforementioned fields. Then it was "nothing significant". And now it is nothing "major revolutionary". Add to that, it's comparing what Men have achieved over 3000 years to what women have achieved since being welcomed into these fields 100 years ago, and more realistically less than 50 if we are talking about widespread acceptance.
But saying Marie Curie's research and discoveries were not major and revolutionary for the atomic age is pretty damn farfetched.
Add to that, as women have gained acceptance in the sciences, they have contributed more and more. Look at Deborah Jin's work with fermions which probably would have won her a Nobel in physics had she not died. Or Lene Hau with slowing and stopping light, transferring qubits from light to matter to light, performing the first successful manipulations of coherent optical information. Barring a premature death she'll surely win a nobel shortly and her research alongside Bose-Einstein condensates may lead to revolutionary progress in the field of quantum information processing.
These are just a couple women from post-2000. It's pretty clear from the progress made by women in the sciences already, that as women gain more acceptance in the physical and applied sciences and start to make up a bigger percentage in these fields, they will make more and more significant contributions.
All one needs to look at is the number of female scientists winning things like MacArthur fellowships compared to 25 years ago. It's night and day.
The laughable part is trying to suggest that it is "a fact" that women haven't contributed and don't possess the capability to. And suggesting everyone who doesn't agree with this opinion is either a) in an "intellectual coma"; or b) in a "mental prison"; frankly, it's shameless.
First was "women have contributed nothing" in any of the aforementioned fields. Then it was "nothing significant". And now it is nothing "major revolutionary". Add to that, it's comparing what Men have achieved over 3000 years to what women have achieved since being welcomed into these fields 100 years ago, and more realistically less than 50 if we are talking about widespread acceptance.
But saying Marie Curie's research and discoveries were not major and revolutionary for the atomic age is pretty damn farfetched.
Add to that, as women have gained acceptance in the sciences, they have contributed more and more. Look at Deborah Jin's work with fermions which probably would have won her a Nobel in physics had she not died. Or Lene Hau with slowing and stopping light, transferring qubits from light to matter to light, performing the first successful manipulations of coherent optical information. Barring a premature death she'll surely win a nobel shortly and her research alongside Bose-Einstein condensates may lead to revolutionary progress in the field of quantum information processing.
These are just a couple women from post-2000. It's pretty clear from the progress made by women in the sciences already, that as women gain more acceptance in the physical and applied sciences and start to make up a bigger percentage in these fields, they will make more and more significant contributions.
All one needs to look at is the number of female scientists winning things like MacArthur fellowships compared to 25 years ago. It's night and day.
The laughable part is trying to suggest that it is "a fact" that women haven't contributed and don't possess the capability to. And suggesting everyone who doesn't agree with this opinion is either a) in an "intellectual coma"; or b) in a "mental prison"; frankly, it's shameless.
All I read is excuses; the fact, yes fact whether you like it or not, they have not, and all you have provided is only more proof that what I say is correct, foraging for either half credit efforts at best or obscure meaningless stuff. Why is it so hard to find one major contribution, which was and still is what I postulated from the get go, to shut me up instead of the long scorned high School girl essays?
oh and speaking of shameless and scorned, and really why I even replied to you considering your real motives, it's really odd to have you around you know me still a mod here and all
can't wait for your next I'm never coming back here again, shall we say 2-3 weeks?- - - Updated - - -
That's not my view. I stated a fact. What you extrapolate from it is yours
Facts 
What a joke. You can't even respond. You just state your opinion is a fact without a single scrap of evidence to back it up. You haven't once since the argument began given a shred of evidence to support your so-called "fact". The burden of proof is on you. Not on anyone else. The efforts and contributions of the female scientists I listed, and those ALC listed are widely recognized as significant by their male peers, by the awards and fellowships they have won, by the impacts they have had.
Obscure and meaningless because you say it's so? Certainly makes it a fact... And now you expect everyone to bow down to your superior knowledge and alternative facts, just because you state them. As always you can't even defend your own opinions.
Just like with your holocaust denials. David Irving as evidence. Yeah, the man who was found in a court case to have mistranslated, fabricated, omitted, and manipulated materials and sources in order to revise history around the holocaust. Very good evidence.
I don't need to shut you up. Your own intellectual dishonesty does it for me. The hilarious part is your stuck living in this apparently nightmarish world of female empowerment.
What a joke. You can't even respond. You just state your opinion is a fact without a single scrap of evidence to back it up. You haven't once since the argument began given a shred of evidence to support your so-called "fact". The burden of proof is on you. Not on anyone else. The efforts and contributions of the female scientists I listed, and those ALC listed are widely recognized as significant by their male peers, by the awards and fellowships they have won, by the impacts they have had.
Obscure and meaningless because you say it's so? Certainly makes it a fact... And now you expect everyone to bow down to your superior knowledge and alternative facts, just because you state them. As always you can't even defend your own opinions.
Just like with your holocaust denials. David Irving as evidence. Yeah, the man who was found in a court case to have mistranslated, fabricated, omitted, and manipulated materials and sources in order to revise history around the holocaust. Very good evidence.
I don't need to shut you up. Your own intellectual dishonesty does it for me. The hilarious part is your stuck living in this apparently nightmarish world of female empowerment.
Major contribution? No, especially since it was a shared effort. So at best 1/3 of a contribution. But this doesn't negate that she was obviously a brilliant scientist, she just doesn't fit the bill here.
- - - Updated - - -
Blah blah blah not one major contribution cited. You write so much to say nothing, appropriate since you word means nothing.
- - - Updated - - -
Facts
What a joke. You can't even respond. You just state your opinion is a fact without a single scrap of evidence to back it up. You haven't once since the argument began given a shred of evidence to support your so-called "fact". The burden of proof is on you. Not on anyone else. The efforts and contributions of the female scientists I listed, and those ALC listed are widely recognized as significant by their male peers, by the awards and fellowships they have won, by the impacts they have had.
Obscure and meaningless because you say it's so? Certainly makes it a fact... And now you expect everyone to bow down to your superior knowledge and alternative facts, just because you state them. As always you can't even defend your own opinions.
Just like with your holocaust denials. David Irving as evidence. Yeah, the man who was found in a court case to have mistranslated, fabricated, omitted, and manipulated materials and sources in order to revise history around the holocaust. Very good evidence.
I don't need to shut you up. Your own intellectual dishonesty does it for me. The hilarious part is your stuck living in this apparently nightmarish world of female empowerment.
What a joke. You can't even respond. You just state your opinion is a fact without a single scrap of evidence to back it up. You haven't once since the argument began given a shred of evidence to support your so-called "fact". The burden of proof is on you. Not on anyone else. The efforts and contributions of the female scientists I listed, and those ALC listed are widely recognized as significant by their male peers, by the awards and fellowships they have won, by the impacts they have had.
Obscure and meaningless because you say it's so? Certainly makes it a fact... And now you expect everyone to bow down to your superior knowledge and alternative facts, just because you state them. As always you can't even defend your own opinions.
Just like with your holocaust denials. David Irving as evidence. Yeah, the man who was found in a court case to have mistranslated, fabricated, omitted, and manipulated materials and sources in order to revise history around the holocaust. Very good evidence.
I don't need to shut you up. Your own intellectual dishonesty does it for me. The hilarious part is your stuck living in this apparently nightmarish world of female empowerment.
No one is saying it's equal. The argument is literally whether women have contributed 0 of note, or something. Of course it's far less than men. Light years less.
The discussion shouldn't be about why this was the case, as thousands of years of exclusion make that obvious.
The discussion should be about why women haven't made more progress now that these fields are opened up to them, contrasted with what men have achieved in that same time period, and whether this shall remain the case long term. But that's pretty hard to extrapolate given the small sample size.
The discussion shouldn't be about why this was the case, as thousands of years of exclusion make that obvious.
The discussion should be about why women haven't made more progress now that these fields are opened up to them, contrasted with what men have achieved in that same time period, and whether this shall remain the case long term. But that's pretty hard to extrapolate given the small sample size.
