People can dig holes, so if the earth was "flat" there would still just be at least one flat surface on a 3 dimensional shape. This would not necessarily make the earth special or unique there could be other objects in outer space with flat surfaces
I don't trust government funded astronomy that relies on computer generation graphics like a Disney pixar movie instead of real life footage and hides what they are doing from the public except the final conclusions that we should just believe because people claim those people are smart even though they don't show the mathematical framework for calculating and predicting hypothetical experimental results, followed by real life data, followed by calculations comparing predictions with results in these flashy news articles to the general public. They could just make stuff up and a public that resists even learning algebra would be none the wiser but feel smart about themselves for believing the final conclusions claimed by those with a reputation as celebrity scientists
What biological gender is a tsble? Why do we need so many linguistic genders if they do not indicate biological gender in most cases? What about statements that apply to people of an unknown gender or unknown number? Linguistic genders and numbers make artificially complex grammar rules. We need them to understand archaic language but if we are going to change linguistic gender in the future it should not be by creating more linguistic genders to satisfy whatever biological genders are currently believed to exist, instead linguistic gender should be removed this should satisfy both trans gender doctrine professors and deniers.
Articles, nouns, pronouns and verbs do not need linguistic gender or linguistic number. If you want to give a number add a number like 99, none of this singular and plural stuff and for biological genders add the word male or female. If a quantity or gender is unknown such as in a variable meant to be inputted then no number or gender should be used, choosing a plural number is problematic if it ends up having a quantity of 1 and using a singular number is problematic if it ends up having a quantity other than 1, this creates a false sense of information
No extra gender pronouns should be used, just to satisfy politically correctness 2 is already too much, pronouns should not have a gender or number if you are going to change how pronouns are used.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/BodybuildingWoman.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BodybuildingWoman.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20180709103111/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BodybuildingWoman.jpg If healthy men are 5 to 20 percent body fat and healthy women are 20 to 40 percent body fat. Then for a healthy male individual that is 100 units of mass they would have 80 to 95 units of lean body mass 80 units of lean muscle mass / 95 units of lean muscle mass approximately equals 0.84210526315 But for a healthy female with 100 units of mass they would have 60 to 80 units of lean body mass 60/80 = 0.75 But if women are typically 60 kilograms and men are typically 70 kilograms (80/95)*(60 kilograms /70 kilograms) approximately equals 0.72180451127 kilograms of female muscle per kilogram of male muscle in average And 0.75*60/70 approximately equals 0.64285714285 So women should only make 64 to 73 cents For every 100 cents men make per hour On physical Labour tasks if they get equal pay per Equal mechanical work Because the mechanical work done is equal to the dot product of the force resisted times the displacement against that resistance The maximum force is directly proportional to the cross section of muscle and the maximum displacement is directly proportional to the length of the muscle cross sectional area times length is directly proportional to mechanical work done by muscle And cross sectional times length is also directly proportional to muscle volume So muscle volume is directly proportional to muscle work And muscle volume times muscle density equals muscle mass If you think about it then the work someone can do per time should be directly proportional to their muscle mass except it is more complicated because endurance and other factors should be considered As people with smaller cross sectional areas of muscle can still sometimes perform the same or more work in a given amount of time if they are not doing 1 repetition maximum weight lifting but something higher like thousands of repetitions or more even. This is because even though their maximum 1 repetition maximum force tends to be lower there 1000 repetition maximum force can be higher if they have better endurance. however this is still biased in women's favor because the world record for male marathon time is less than the world record for female marathon time because men typically have better endurance So the mechanical work someone can do in an eight hour day should be more on average for men than women by an even greater extent So the average healthy women is capable of doing only 64 to 73 percent as much mechanical work as the average healthy man based on these calculations But if women make 79 cents per every 100 cents men make instead of 64 to 73 cents they maybe overpaid for doing less mechanical work if they are paid for eight hours of mechanical work at the maximum power they are capable of for that duration. This of course is oversimplified in numerous ways economical, biomechanical and physiological, etc. but not as much oversimplified as the epic failure of 79 cents per the dollar For one people generally are not paid to max out on mechanical work performed but to do complicated skilled tasks at sub maximal work, secondly my calculations were not laboratory driven or task specific. But we do have a consistent way to compare performance across genders for both weightlifting and endurance, the olympics plus numerous "more" formal scientific studies. Real women work but feminists are slanderous jerks always accusing men of hating but with bogus statistics they are baiting. This post is not misogynistic because feminists hate women and not all feminists are women and not all women are feminists. Thus I am not calling all women slanderous jerks only feminists some of whom are men https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-your-women-only-make-79-cents-to-the-dollar-statistic_us_597f6cece4b0c69ef7052a13 https://web.archive.org/web/20180709100947/https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-your-women-only-make-79-cents-to-the-dollar-statistic_us_597f6cece4b0c69ef7052a13 http://theconversation.com/will-women-ever-be-able-to-compete-against-men-in-olympic-events-64118
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Gilbert_Keith_Chesterton%2C_age_24_%281898%29.jpg https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/File:Gilbert_Keith_Chesterton,_age_24_(1898).jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20180709063906/https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/File:Gilbert_Keith_Chesterton,_age_24_(1898).jpg The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected Chesterton https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton https://web.archive.org/web/20180709063943/https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton
Is crime the only way to save the world from the ongoing economic holocaust against the poor and working class
More people are killed by the undue influence of economic problems than any other cause of death.
Economic problems kill people from malnutrition
Economic problems kill people when people make bad lifestyle choices as a way to handle the stress of employment or the stress of being a spouse or child of someone who is employed and takes out their frustration of employment in you.
Economic problems kill people when they have difficulty finding time to exercise because of forced public school attendance as a child, forced employment as an adult or taking college classes in order to get employment upgrades. Plenty of time is also wasted for those who think they own their own business or are self employed but have to deal with government regulations.
Additionally auto accidents are influenced by mandatory work attendance and state designed roads as there would be less man hours spent traveling on roads if not for going to places of employment or schools.
Additionally massive pollution is a result of forced employment and the number one source of pollution is the state department of defense where military members just do their jobs using things such as depleted uranium.
When one considers that the economic problems caused by people obeying government and corporate policies kill far more people than homicide and suicide including police and military shooting criminals perhaps it is safer to just break laws in order to be economically self sufficient even with the increased risk of being physically assaulted by the police and military for disobedience to their policies.
Copyright Carl Janssen 2018
Large piles of dead bodies at a Nazi concentration and death camp in Mauthausen, ...HD Stock Footage
How can you frighten a man whose hunger is not only in his own cramped stomach but in the wretched bellies of his children? You can't scare him – he has known a fear beyond every other.
Some of the failure to shift to more productive agricultural products may be related to ignorance about the benefits of changing land use. A second explanation is a lack of availability of credit, caused by the high rate of failure of banks in the Plains states. Because banks failed in the Dust Bowl region at a higher rate than elsewhere, farmers could not get the credit they needed to buy capital to shift crop production.[45] In addition, profit margins in either animals or hay were still minimal, and farmers had little incentive in the beginning to change their crops.
Patrick Allitt recounts how fellow historian Donald Worster responded to his return visit to the Dust Bowl in the mid-1970s when he revisited some of the worst afflicted counties:
Capital-intensive agribusiness had transformed the scene; deep wells into the aquifer, intensive irrigation, the use of artificial pesticides and fertilizers, and giant harvesters were creating immense crops year after year whether it rained or not. According to the farmers he interviewed, technology had provided the perfect answer to old troubles, such of the bad days would not return. In Worster's view, by contrast, the scene demonstrated that America's capitalist high-tech farmers had learned nothing. They were continuing to work in an unsustainable way, devoting far cheaper subsidized energy to growing food than the energy could give back to its ultimate consumers.[46]
We do not need the state to save us from violence. We need to be saved from how the state effects our lifestyle choices through economic warfare.
Homicides are not even in the top 10 causes of death excluding suicide. You should be more scared of a heart attack than people with or without weapons attacking you of any and all races, sexual orientations, genders and religions combined.
That means violence of people from one of these groups against another because of bigoted hatred is a much smaller issue than the shared economic hardships of people within all these groups. Of course the threat of violence effects economics but people do not usually die by being murdered directly through assaults.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php
Accessed online 2018 July 7
You do not need to obey any laws recognized by any of the states agreed to exist by the United Nations as they are all legal fictions. However other people believe in the legitimacy of such laws and will use violence against you if they perceive you as breaking such laws and will view you as a bad person reducing your opportunity for them to listen to you if they think you are a criminal. So I would suggest doing what other people think is legal in front of them even though there is no objective legality because of so many contradictions in legislation. With the exception that when doing what other people perceive as legal goes against your conscience you should disobey. But for me personally it often does not go against my conscience to do something I would normally consider unethical to reduce the chance that someone else would do a greater harm than the harm caused by doing what I would normally consider to be unethical in the absence of the threat of harm. It is important to have an informed conscience so you do not do something you would consider unethical if your conscience was more informed. Now as for those psychopaths and sociopaths who do not view harming other people as morally wrong for them to do or do not care about what is moral they should consider the possibility that harming other people might have undesirable consequences for them in the long run.
.jpg)
