Raider5678

Someone else: "You're a smart kid." Me: "How dare you????" I don't follow. I really don't see the point in getting overly offended about something like that. And I am a minority.

Ah, I never noticed it until a days ago that even inside of posts and quotes, hoving over someone's name shows it.

I noticed if you hover your mouse over someones name, then it'll show a pop up about them.

I'd argue the exact opposite of what you said. I don't want the language to be needlessly offensive, but what's really important here is that a single mistake doesn't label you. Take, for example, a girl who just got dumped by her boyfriend and says "All men are just assholes." (I've heard it. Many, many, many, many times.) The language is needlessly offensive. She could have said his name instead. But no, she says "men". That's sexist, is it not? Or perhaps we use another phrase, more related to this thread. A woman, after her husband forgets to put the big spoons separately from the small spoons, says exasperatedly, "Stupid man.", takes the spoon, and does it for him. I mean, according to you(I think it was you who said that), there is no reason to include gender in that phrase unless it's used in a sexist way to demean that gender. Should we label that woman as sexist, in the name of reducing needlessly offensive language? I could go on. But I think my point is clear. I really believe that allowing a mistake to label someone is far worse than there being needlessly offensive language. And if it's sexist, as it obviously is, and the speaker made a mistake when saying that, should we label him as sexist? (This is assuming you agree with Phi's statement. If not, ignore this.)

What was the first example of the "misrepresentation" of the facts you were speaking about? And nobody on this forum said it. However, there are plenty of people talking about it outside of this forum. And a lot of those people are.

Teaching someone that it's inappropriate is taking them aside and saying, "Look. You don't say that. It's wrong, it's hurtful, and it's sexist. Don't say it." Not calling for their resignation from their career, calling you a sexist bigot on social media and the news, make you out to be a disgrace to humanity, and acting like you're one of the sexist bigots who actually do exist.

I apologize then, I thought you were still discussing in relation to the comic.

If he said "stupid women" it'd be general. Woman is singular, meaning it was directed at her. Not women in general.

We can, but it's so much more fun to just chew bubble gum instead of walking as well.

I thought he was whispering to an aid?

Dan won the 10 kilometer race by winning a 3 kilometer sprint? Doesn't follow. I think he left something out.

So for a 10 kilometer race, Dan ran 3 kilometers, stopped, and won?

Wouldn't he be the loser if he only ran 3 kilometers?

Specifically, the question said predator. A human being actively hunting an African elephant is probably going to win. Even a human hunting a tiger could probably beat it if he had a gun. Crocodiles eat people, but that doesn't mean hundreds more of them are killed by humans every year. And if a human is hunting with a nuclear device, then it's not the question of a "human with a gun". A kodiak bear is also no match for a human hunting it. Obviously, if you just drop a human into a flat open plain with these animals, the animals will probably win. But it's not the question. The question is during a hunt. A hunt where humans are vastly smarter then the prey. A human could think that the African elephant will charge him when he open's fire, and simply hide somewhere before opening fire. Somewhere the African elephant won't be able to charge him easily. A tiger can ambush a human, but then the human simply keeps on the high ground and waits to ambush the tiger instead. When your killing range is over a four hundred times that of the tiger, it's easy to set up an ambush that covers a huge area, instead of the one little area the Tiger could do. Crocodiles too, are actively hunted by humans with guns. The humans almost always win. And even a Kodiak bear would face the same problems as the tiger.

But the secondary set of photosynthesis doesn't work.

Ah, okay. Looking at it now, I see that the ball always accelerates at the same spot: Right where he pushed it. Initially, he gave it enough of a push to make the ball go around in a circle, and he just keeps looping that.

The energy input is the magnetic potential energy. Magnets won't remain magnetic forever. Every time the ball goes around, they lose some of their magnetic potential energy(It might be called something completely different.). Eventually the field will become weaker and it'll stop.

When he puts the ball down, it appears he pushes it. So that's how it seemingly started. As for speeding up, I figured it had to do with it passing through magnetic fields.

Magnets, unless I completely misunderstood what those black rings are.

I can confirm I've heard it quite a bit from my area. But like you said, I can virtually assure you the cultures we've grown up in are very very different. I haven't heard stupid boy/stupid girl so much as "stupid child"/"Stupid teenagers" in regards to age. However like I told Ten Oz, I have heard "Stupid Man" said quite a few times. And, as MILG mentioned, the occasional shout in a restaurant, a toss of a glass of water, and the word "MEN!" ringing throughout as a woman leaves. Albeit he didn't include context. However it's a generalization of a gender, and something that isn't universal. So, according to your definitions it would be sexist either way, which I think was the implication. I watch a lot of you tube, and there are a lot of advertisements like what he described. I've heard most of them. In fact, I've even heard the phrase "You'd think that after living by himself for three years he'd be able to make a pot of spaghetti!" Next question. If in one area, the phrases "Stupid man" and "Stupid woman" are used all the time, are they both sexist? I mean, sexist is the treating or speaking of someone differently simply because of their gender, not so much how you treat them in regards to equally.

Specifically, I believe they are saying he said "Stupid people" instead

It's referencing the OP. Allegedly, Jeremy Corbin said "Stupid woman" under his breath while whispering to an aid during the prime minister question time, after the prime minister didn't answer his questions adequately. The discussion is essentially split between 4 sides: Saying "Stupid Woman" could likely simply have been an identifier, it shouldn't matter. Saying "Stupid Woman" could likely have been a sexual comment, it does matter. Saying "Stupid Woman" could have been either, it depends on what he meant and since we don't know that, we should withhold judgment. Saying "Stupid Woman" could have been either, but since it can be interpreted as being a sexual comment, we shouldn't have to withhold judgement.

Quite frankly, I'm not looking for a fight. I'm trying to have a discussion, which would be going a lot better if you'd stop making comments about my ability to comprehend things.

So using the except same set up, theoretically that means if I ask the same questions as you're asking me I'll get a response: I was lead to that conclusion because it's possible he didn't mean to use gender as a weapon. I don't think the rest of you should just accept mine as valid. Okay.