The short answer is, evolution is not a morality - period.

It's just a fact. (Yes, a fact.)

What you do with facts is, of course, subjective by definition. Claiming that the "unnatural" family is, strictly speaking, unnatural, is easily disproven by the existence of homosexuality and other variances in nature, even in our closest relatives.

I'm vaguely curious about the 38% of women who apparently have never been given the finger or overheard some randy remark at college. How'd that happen?

"Breaking News: Teenagers Disagree With Their Elders!" Shocking.

" Do you think there's a way I could somehow ruin just that guy's fun?"

His life is already miserable if his thrill of the year is seeing scantily clad women dressed up as video game characters.

" But maybe E3 is different?"

E3 isn't supposed to be a children's venue at all - it's supposedly an invitation-only industry-only event, although in reality it's become mostly a media and hype event.

The definition used in the study is clearly stated in the article as including offensive jokes and gestures. I.e., per this standrad, if someone flicked you off in traffic, you've experienced "sexual harassment". And that's nonsense.

The person claiming that there is a different standard in use is flat-out wrong, given that their standard (damage done to the victim) is explicitly rejected by the article in question, which sub-categorizes such cases - and even in that percentage, I suspect the vast majority of cases would not stand up as sexual harassment in legal terms.

The point which you are missing is that they're simply not talking about meaningful incidents in getting such large figures. They're including everything that could possibly be construed as sexual as being sexual harassment, and the only mystery is why the numbers are so low.

Now, if you only counted actual convictions, you'd get a very different number, wouldn't you? It'd be too low, yes, but at least there'd be a standard of reasonable doubt.

" It is OBVIOUS when a comment will make someone uncomfortable and when its harmless 95% of the time."

I don't think your (made up) figure makes the point you think it makes. So, if I open my mouth twenty times in a day, I'm highly likely to unknowingly offend someone, according to that? Heck, I'm not known for being PC, but I'm not THAT bad. Some people are... And in my experience, the vast, vast majority of things that people get offended by were not intended as such.

" Being given the finger is not sexual harassment."

That is pretty much my point - and my objection to the study in question is that it apparently treats it as such.

Yeah, I'm reading that first post thinking "who IS this guy", then realize, "oh, just him again".

"paid less for doing the same job" "paid less for doing the same job" "paid less for doing the same job" "paid less for doing the same job" "paid less for doing the same job" "paid less for doing the same job" "paid less for doing the same job" "paid less for doing the same job" "paid less for doing the same job" "paid less for doing the same job" "paid less for doing the same job" "paid less for doing the same job" "paid less for doing the same job" "paid less for doing the same job" "paid less for doing the same job"

SAME job

same JOB

paid less for doing the same job

paid less for doing the same job

I'm glad to see this argument debunked, however, it never held much water in the first place.

Allow me to summarize the argument as I first heard it: Ethanol takes more gasoline to produce than it replaces. Since it requires more energy to create than it provides, it can never be created in a self-sustaining fashion, since creating one gallon can only fuel creating less than a gallon. Additionally, more carbon dioxide is released by creating ethanol than is saved by using it.

The first interesting caveat is that the second sentence doesn't actually follow from the first, even though it sounds reasonable. According to the studies I've read, we've long since already reached this situation with gasoline itself: the amount of gas required to bring a gallon of gas to the pump is apparently more than one gallon. And yet, the gas still flows. If they have to pump 3 gallons of gas to get 1 into your car, as long as you're still paying the pump price, they'll still provide it. This is because they don't have to pump 9 gallons of gas to get that 3 gallons of gas - which would shut the system down.

The second, closely related caveat is that the ethanol doesn't just replace the gas on a one-to-one basis: it also replaces any gas used to power the pumping, refining, and, in the case of more distant sources, extra transportation required to get that gas out of the ground and to the pump. That's a very large factor.

You can't be too careful nowadays; there are a very large number of "studies" which are little more than thinly disguised propaganda pieces underwritten by "think tanks" which are, in turn, little more than engines of bribery (a partisan gets a job at the tank, the tank is supported by money from those the partisan helped or will help when back in office through the revolving door).

Biofuel has a large number of technical hurdles in front of it, but if solved, it could easily be the magic bullet which hydrogen never can. Since biofuel exists entirely within a short carbon cycle, it is fundamentally sustainable on a human time scale (fossil fuels could be fundamentally sustainable on a time scale involving eons - they're part of the vulcanism carbon cycle - but that's not helpful in the next few centuries).