-1=e^ipi

The title doesn't make an attempt to define manspreading. You need to improve your reading comprehension. So are you trying to argue that if a SJW hates X and hates Y then X is Y? That doesn't make sense.

So wanting the law to apply equally to everyone = evil libertarianism now? Well I guess communism is classified as evil libertarianism under that definition since everyone pays the same tax rate (100%).

The title doesn't make the claim that manspreading only occurs when multiple seats are taken up. Nice try though.

Could you explain how GWPF is a 'denier organization'? Simply showing that 'people disagree with Richard Tol' doesn't discredit Richard Tol, nor his work. Please prove your claim that developed countries will be the most affected by climate change. Developed countries are located further from the equator so will generally have larger temperature changes due to polar amplification.

Why not a tit-for-tat approach? I don't think you would need to get all countries to agree, just the major ones (US, China, India, EU). Then all you would need is for the compliant countries to threaten sanctions or military action against the non-compliant countries.

To be fair though, burning of fossil fuels has an external cost outside of its impacts via climate change. Pollution has impacts on human health, so a fuel tax can be justified in addition to a carbon dioxide emission tax. Whether or not the current fuel taxes are too high or too low, I don't know. Obviously you have the whole issue of game theory. Even if it is in the world's best interest for a $20/ton carbon dioxide emission tax, that is unlikely the case for individual countries. So it might be better to use the threat of 0 mitigation policy to get the world to comply with a global pigouvian tax.

I read on Judith Curry's blog that Richard Tol made the top 10 list of most influential climate change authors (http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/10/which-climate-change-papers-matter/) and I decided to check out Richard Tol's wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol). I noticed that it says that Richard Tol advocates a carbon dioxide emission tax of $20/ton, which in in line with the value of $22/ton I got in this thread (http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24202-what-is-the-correct-value-of-climate-sensitivity/?p=1069893). Although my value was in per ton of CO2 where as the wiki page is unclear if it's per ton of CO2 or Carbon (which is a difference of a factor of 44/12). Anyway, if one compares $22/ton with carbon dioxide emission taxes around the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax), it appears that many countries have very reasonable carbon tax levels around this value including Korea, Australia (before they scraped their carbon dioxide emission tax) and most of Europe. The only two countries that stand out as having absurdly high carbon dioxide emission taxes are Sweden and Norway. BC's carbon dioxide emission tax of $30/ton is arguably a bit too high, though not absurdly high. Alberta's rate of $15/ton (although it isn't as broad as a carbon dioxide emission tax) might be a bit too low.

You still haven't explained how I'm an evil libertarian.

That's rare. The existence of a few cases where child gets custody doesn't mean discrimination doesn't exist for child custody. And women don't do this? Women do the same. Doesn't justify discrimination in child custody.

I'm an 'evil libertarian' because I support gender egalitarianism and recognize the sexism in the court system with respect to child custody? Wtf. How does this even make sense? Japanese men are far less willing on average to marry than japanese women. They've done polls on this. The whole idea of working yourself to an early grave to while not seeing your kids much isn't very appealing to many young japanese men. It's one of the reasons you get the soshoku danshi phenomenon. I think you need to consider cultural factors as well. Plus the lack of finding stable jobs.

No.

Do you think that constant dismissals of someone's opinion, concerns or feelings on the basis of their sex, race or sexual orientation is a form of microaggression? Or the continued demonization of a group of people on the basis of their sex and race?

Unless the target group is white males, in which case it's free rain to insult them, discriminate against them, etc. We even have 'diversity officers' that tweet #killallwhitemen, exclude white men from university events (ex. Bahar Mustafa). Many aspects of SJWism is Orwellian, but I wouldn't describe microaggressions as an 'Orwellian Brainwashing Experiment'. For example, by having twice as many women as men in universities, because apparent men are inherently 'undiverse', so having more women increases diversity even when women grossly outnumber men on campuses. Microaggressions are more of an assault on freedom of speech and thought than white men. They want to make it so that anyone with an incorrect political opinion (such as thinking the most qualified person should get the job) should be fired, not get tenure, be subject to discipline, etc. Look this stuff applies outside of class. If you write on facebook something like 'I think the most qualified person should get the job' you can be subject to academic discipline.

Don't you just love the double standard. 'We need to be sensitive about other people's feelings.' Then 'How dare white males complain about anything! They aren't allowed to be sensitive of have feelings!' Then why not call it human spreading or just being inconsiderate? The term was started by feminists on tumblr that viewed men having their legs apart as displaying their genitals to spread 'rape culture' and oppress women. They then went on to publically shame men online for having genitals. And no reasonable definition of manspreading is accepted by these extremists, just if you have your legs apart slightly. Is this manspreading (you may recognize the actor from game of thrones)?

I don't have this. I guess I'm not a human.

Have you tried google? Here is a random example: http://jezebel.com/5967972/fuck-you-dudes-who-sit-with-their-legs-spread-so-wide-that-they-take-up-two-seats-your-dick-is-not-that-big Uhh, the people that are posting the pictures and claiming it is manspreading are the ones claiming it is manspreading. Go to tumblr or something if you fail to grasp this concept. Okay, now you are trying to get me to prove a negative. Maybe you don't understand the concept of burden or proof. I have not observed any SJWs trying to make a reasonable definition of manspreading, much like I have not observed the flying spaghetti monster. The burden of proof is not on me to show that the flying spaghetti monster exists, or that the SJWs are making a reasonable definition of manspreading.

But do they work as hard? Perhaps they say they work longer to get higher pay from their employers.

Most Greeks retire in their 50's, while Germans retire at 67.

Apparently you are oppressing women by pecocking your testicles at them... at least according to some feminists. If only the 3rd-wave feminists and SJWs pushing this agenda would agree with you. Shoulder width seems reasonable (maybe slightly over for someone with unusually long legs relative to shoulders). But like you can convince the SJWs to accept a reasonable definition of manspreading; then they can't use it as a tool to spread their misandry and shame men for existing.

Yes you could also make that argument. Although that argument would still result in the words subconsciously biasing perception of gender. Maybe.

See it's sort of like a religion. Cybercoma is born with this original sin of being a white male. The only way he can be forgiven for his sin of existing is if he accepts SJWism and attacks those that do not comply with SJWism. Not only that, but the belief system gives him a sense of self-esteem because he is now one of the few 'good' white males.

Oh, sorry. I apologize.

Because these SJWs are all super neurotypicals that have the ability to read minds. Didn't you know? http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Neurotypical_syndrome

There are benefits to gender neutral language such as convenience, that are unrelated to political correctness. Also, political correctness becomes a problem primarily when political correctness becomes more important than correctness (example: people thinking criticism of Islam is racist).

Who am I strawmaning? "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent." There can be no strawman argument if there is no one to misrepresent. Who's argument am I misrepresenting?