Raider5678

Your theory is wrong.

I agree.

I didn't list everything, I know that.

You know, sometimes I don't see staying at home cleaning and doing laundry as hard as getting up and going to work everyday. Just saying.

Yes, but then you also have to note the mothers are teaching their daughters the same thing. I agree, it's stupid and sexist, but blaming it on the men isn't really the solution. A good portion of problems feminists complain about are caused by other women, or isn't just the mans fault. Although some are. Also, the traditional role of the father as disciplinarian has already changed. The majority of child abuse and domestic abuse is on fault of the woman, and in my area the mother is usually the one that disciplines the child. At least it seems that way, as the mother often yells at the children rather then the father if the child is doing something wrong, so I can assume that at home it's probably likewise. Sexual harassment is a big issue, agreed. If a man at an office says a woman looks good, she can complain that he was sexually harassing her and he could get in trouble. I've heard of this happening fairly often lately. Now I can understand comments like "Nice ass" and stuff like that, but just saying "Hi, you look good today" seems like a compliment that should be taken with good will rather then assume the person has bad intent. Likewise, women can sexually harass men just as well. If a woman keeps trying to make moves on a guy, how is that different from a guy trying to make moves on a woman constantly? The majority of men do not sexually harass women, and the majority of women do not harass men. The 80% discrepancy is the cause of the problem, not the result. As for what girls and boys are taught at a young age, I disagree on your viewpoint. They are raised differently, granted, but there are pros and cons for each. Boys are raised often to not cry and to deal with things on their own. They're taught to be independent and to focus hard on getting things done and being productive. But there are cons, as emotional problems are often dismissed as them being sissies. Any sign that they're weak, and they're picked on at school. Growing up as a male is often a large amount of competition between each other to be the strongest, smartest, and the best overall. As for girls, they're far more pampered as a kid. I'm not being sexist, it's true. Their emotional problems are far more catered to, if they get hurt they are taken care of rather then told to deal with it, and if someone is bullying them physically someone will almost always step in. In school, if a guy pushes another guy nobody could care less. If a guy pushes a girl, immediately at least 3 guys will take a step toward him. But while they're pampered, they're not pushed as hard to focus on things such as education, sports, or to get a job. They're taught to have proper manners and to be good and probably to play a musical instrument of some kind. But recently, they've also being taught more and more to be independent. This shows a slight shift in how they're raised, but it's not enough yet. Evidence of the differences in how they're raised shows in the higher occurrence of suicide and depression in males. For every 1 female that commits suicide, 3.5 males commit suicide. Out of all suicides, 7/10 are white males(not sure if this matters or not, so I included it.) This almost had a nation men's day started to raise awareness about suicide rates in males, but feminists shut it down saying it was for sexist pigs and that the men were just sissies(sigh). The difference I believe starts with how they're raised. But the question is how to raise them? Should we stop pampering girls emotional needs and push them harder to do well in school, sports, and education? Or should we start pampering guys and stop pushing them as hard to succeed? If we don't pamper anybody, then everything is one massive competition where every weakness will drastically decrease your chance of success. But if we pamper everybody, then the drive to succeed isn't as high. The motivation to get into things like physics is less, and they will settle more to just get jobs.

Brilliant lol

True. Basically, it will happen. But it will take a long time.

What is confusing?

Have you checked my calculations yet?

Look. Pretty much the same thing I was doing. Except. He's wrong. He's so frickin wrong. He's saying the works of Shakespeare is something special. But instead, it's the same as every other 6,000,000 character long piece of work. There's nothing different about it. And in an infinite amount of time. INFINITE. Never ends. It will go on, forever and ever. Every single 6 million character long document they make, has an impossible chance of being made according to him. Because "the chances of this particular thing being made is impossible." Except, it was made. Each document the monkey makes is impossible, yet it's still there. There's nothing special about Shakespeare's works. It's just another document. Eventually, it would happen in an INFINITE amount of time.

Well, it's not perfect, but a rough way to do it is equate it to 100%. The probability of flipping heads 5 times in a row is 1/32. Obviously, any order of flips is 1/32. But to figure out the amount of time it would take you to flip 5 coins in a row and have each land on heads is simple enough in my opinion. First, assume each coin flip will take 1 second. To flip 5 coins, it would take 5 seconds. Now accounting for the time it would take you to pick up the coins let's say it takes 10 seconds to pick up the coins. Each flip takes 15 seconds. Now obviously, there's a 10 second difference now, because you would start with all coins in your hand, and all coins in your hand when you ended. So just subtract 10 seconds to the final figure. Either way, you can assume that in 32 total runs, you would have flipped 5 heads in a row at least once. Obviously, this is wrong. You can't guarantee this. Some things would have showed up twice. But lets just call it approximate. It would take 470 seconds to run this 32 times. In 32 times, it can be assumed that 5 heads would appear once. Probably not, but you get the idea. But that's how I tried to calculate the monkey scenario. I took the probability fraction. 1/26^130,000 and multiplied the denominator by the amount of time. But since the denominator was so frickin large, I took a much smaller number. 1 Octillion. Which is way way way way way way way less. Octillion is only 10^26. We need 2.6 ^ 130,001. So the amount of time is 1 year(rounding down. Let's say the monkey types fast and if he typed constantly he could get it done in 1 year.) It would take 2.6^130,001 years. And even then, its just that would be the estimated amount of time before he even had a remote chance of having typed it. Infinity, is a long time. After an infinite amount of time, the monkeys would.

Shakespeare, does not count as the aforementioned monkey.

1. Alright. But it's a really low probability. 2. Dude. We can't assume the money will write this out in it's first try. That's ludicrous. If you roll a dice, you have 1/6 chance of rolling a 1. If it's a perfectly fair dice, you can assume that within 6 rolls a 1 would have showed up at least once. Now it's not guaranteed, but it's probable. So you'd have to multiply the 1/6 chance by 6 to get a fair idea of how many times it would take before the monkey should have done it by that point. The monkey has 26^130,000 of typing hamlet. 3. Then do it yourself.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/jesus-christ-tomb-discovery-jerusalem-israel-scientists-uncover-marble-rock-a7384206.html ?

Most people get through their whole lives having never beaten the crap out of someone. According to your theory, they should all start becoming murderous idiots whenever the full moon comes out or they drink alcohol. You know what? I consent. You're correct and right 100% absolutely. Just let me out of this argument.

Oh. Math. Alright. Let's take a try at this. Hamlet has approximately 130,000 letters in it. Not counting spaces. The average typing speed is 200 characters per minute. So if the money typed it perfectly, it would take about 650,000 minutes. Or 10,833.3 hours. Or 451.4 days. Or 64.5 weeks. Now, the money has a 1/26 chance of typing the first letter of hamlet. For the second letter, it's 676. For the third, 17,576. All in consecutive order. So there's a 1/17,576 chance the monkey will type the first 3 words in order. 26^130,000 would be the probability of it typing out the whole hamlet story. Without spaces. That, is a really really large number. Really large. Now what ever chance that is, we have to multiply it until it's equal to 100%. Which would be by a factor, at minimum, of 1 octillion. 1 octillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That's 27 zeros. The number we're looking for has 130,000. Either way, let's say its a really fast typing monkey, and could type all of hamlet in a year. If it's odds were 1/1,000,000,000,000000000,000,000,000, it would take 1 octillion years. The universe is 13.772 billion years old. You would need to take at least 72,000,000,000,000,000,000(72 quintillion) times as long as the age of the universe for the monkey to have a good probability of typing out hamlet. NOW REMEMBER. That is if it's odds are only 26^27 The real odds are 26^130,000. It's impossible to calculate how long it would take. The idea that a money will do that is deceiving. It makes some really really large numbers seem a lot sooner then they really are. +1 if this was helpful. It took a while. wtf *sarcastic clap* Lets see. How long would it take you to do the math required?

Yes, but at the time Jesus wasn't as famous as Plato. Take for example a king that rose to power. We have records of his life, but not his childhood. Jesus wasn't famous until a long time after his death. Also, I found this article. Written by an Atheist, so now you can't call out biased. http://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

Maybe such is true, but we're still figuring out how to describe sapience more detailed then "Human." If you don't like this process, then wait until we've figured out a way to describe sapience without it being so human centered. Then we can classify the animals and decide which ones are sapient or not. Humans are animals. So what? Animals aren't all the same. We're trying to figure out the ones with qualities that may show that they're more aware then the rest.

You didn't answer all my points. Just a select few. Answer the rest.

Alright alright fine. I'll point out what I disagree with. 1. No it isn't. The human mind has the cognitive ability to repress instinct in many different ways. The most common one with through logic. They logically know that they should stop at a road and look both ways. But that doesn't pent up their repressed instinct to just keep walking while looking. Now obviously, not everyone stops, but it's a vague example. 2. What regulates itself? And what about all those people who could care less about social norms? 4. Humans drink booze because they like the feeling of being drunk, do it because the people around them are doing it, or simply to take away their pain. Not so that they can go wild without a reason. You're still responsible if you damage something whether you're drunk or not. 5. No argument there. 6. There is no evidence of a subliminal slip in restraint. Please show me some. 7. "Acknowledge"(FTFY) I've never heard someone try to get out of trouble by claiming the full moon did it. And if I went to my parents claiming the full moon did it, I'd receive a swift kick to the rear. Now, what are some of these animal instincts that are supposedly being suppressed? To run around naked and bang on your chest?

Seek medical attention immediately.

If you can't figure it out yourself, I can't explain it to you over the internet.