That’s not my theory. That’s the data.
One interpretation could be that women were constantly engaged in strenuous endurance activities and so through evolution built up tolerances against exhaustion that at least rivals if not exceeds that of men. And one historical activity that used a lot of stamina and took a lot of tolerance against fatigue was the way in which ancient humans hunted.
That’s not what a theory is, it’s a hypothesis at best, hope that helped.
Women were first allowed to compete in marathons in 1972. In 1972 the men’s record was 2:10:30. The current record is 2:00:35 which is about an 8% difference. Pretty close to the difference between men and women currently.
The first women’s record was 3:40:22 and the current women’s record is 2:11:53.11 which is 40% faster.
Once funding for women’s athletics reaches parity and once girls are encouraged into athletics as much as boys, then we will see if the ladies catch up. So far they’re doing a pretty good job catching up, and you can’t look at one current window in time and say you have the answer, you need to look at trends.
Evidence shows that women have better endurance for long distances. They tend to be less susceptible to fatigue and beyond 195 miles are actually faster than men. Considering humans were better at outlasting their prey and chasing them to exhaustion rather than burst speed, this data indicates that women are at least as capable as men at those tasks if not better.
What do you mean ‘now’? Even 4chan had to remove illegal things, this isn’t new.
They’re also misunderstanding Buddhism. Fair to assume they’re probably misunderstanding quite a lot.
“I donated a million dollars to a charity for impoverished children and I also murdered a few people for funsies. Hey, they even out right?”
No. That’s stupid.
Choices are already limited… by our brains. Some people choose to stick objects up their urethra. Based on statistical probability, I would guess you do not. Does the fact that your brain limits you from making that choice mean your will is not free? You didn’t choose which brain you would get. Or are you going to go stick something up there to prove how free you are?
Prove there is free will anyways. All modern studies of the brain and consciousness indicate our free will only exists in a compatibalist way, in other words we can be free to act without another actor forcing us. But libertarian free will, such as would be required for any being to act against their “design” has no evidence whatsoever.
That’s already the case with humans. There are things that a human CAN do that I would never do. The same goes for you and every other human. Are you saying I don’t have free will because there are actions that I COULD do but never would? Because the same goes for evil. God could have made a world where people COULD do evil things but never chose to. Therefore the only reason to have made not only people who COULD choose evil, but also people who DO choose evil, is because he wanted some people to be punished for being made in a way that they would do things he already knew they would do and chose to make them anyways.
I can’t imagine that’s the main reason. You can buy a 3.5" floppy reader with a usb connection for like 20 bucks on amazon and anyone who wanted to get their hands on government secrets would not be deterred by that.
I think the simplest and most likely reason is that updating things and making changes in bureaucracies is hard on its own, and any time you start dealing with tech it’s all a house of cards where one system depends on another and so changing any one thing will either make it all fall down or bring along with it massive sweeping changes.
It’s one of the things I’ve bounced off of many times, but each time I come back and give it another shot it gets a bit easier until one day I thought, hey this isn’t as bad as I used to think. Not really a ringing endorsement, but I definitely don’t hate it anymore. I would still rather do as much as I possibly can in Krita though.
He looked at me. And I looked at him. And he looked at me. And I looked at him. And he says what did you want again?
Dante’s Inferno went into detail that was not biblical, but there’s enough in the bible that writing it off completely is cherry picking.
“They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
“And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”
Because there is no downside
Sure, unless you care about LGBT+ people not being discriminated against and murdered. And unless you care about teaching strong critical thinking to avoid conspiracies including anti-vax. And unless you care about the future of the planet in the face of climate change which is largely ignored by religious people who are more focused on the next life than this one. And unless, and unless, and unless…
There are tons of downsides.
As the only way in which the human condition can be contextualised is in a world that is created, and religions are the keepers of that knowledge.
Yeah no, we can contextualize with rational thought, it’s just that more work needs to be done that has historically been stifled by religion considering they have historically killed people who didn’t go along with them. Religions don’t have some monopoly on knowledge in this field, what they have is some shit they just made up, some of which works, and a lot of which doesn’t. But they have no methodology by which to test which parts work and which don’t so they just push all of them regardless.
Hmm, I’m not sure how to correctly word my question.
It was really just aimed at the implication in the comment I replied to that if this were true, we should have seen evidence for it in telescopes already. So my question was, what phenomena would we expect to see because of these topological defects that we don’t already see and have attributed to dark matter.
As far as I’m aware (which really isn’t that far tbh) gravitational lensing is explained without needing any new hypotheses. But if dark matter was implicated in it to heighten the effect, that would still be something we have seen in our telescopes which could be explained by this so it still would answer the comment to which I replied as being something we have observed.
Edit: OK I looked it up and yeah dark matter (or another explanation) is required to account for the amount of lensing we see. But still, that’s a thing we have observed so I guess my question would be, does this new idea not account for the same effect? If it does, that should answer the comment I was replying to.
Isn’t the point of this that it explains the phenomena that is commonly attributed to dark matter? Therefore wouldn’t the things we observe that would point to this be the same things that we observe that point to dark matter? I guess the thing I don’t understand is why we would expect to observe something different because of this than what we attribute to dark matter.
I don’t understand any of this so this question isn’t snarky but something I’m actually wondering. How would we be able to see “topological defects” in space with telescopes?
Smolitov’s! D’awww! The revolution will be cutified!
Because otherwise it might seem weird to offer people an egg for trying times
That’s father than I would take it personally