-1=e^ipi

Yes. Arguably the very fact that men are on average physically stronger than women (and maybe even the observed cognitive differences) is due to male disposability. There is much stronger selectional pressure on men than on women. Genetic studies suggest that the Y chromosome has a mucher higher rate of genetic change than other human chromosomes. Edit: Obviously some species the female is larger than the male. However, this occurs pretty much entirely in egg-laying species. For pretty much all mammals (exceptions exist such as spotted hyena and blue whale), males are on average larger than females.

This argument doesn't make sense. Just because cultural evolution is slower, doesn't somehow mean that societal evolution is outweighted by cultural evolution. The speed at which humans develop certain traits (such as skin pigmentation) is much faster that the speed at which humans develop other traits (such as the ability to photosynthesize). But that doesn't somehow mean that our inability to photosynthesize 'trumps' changes in skin pigmentation over tens of thousands of years. Societal evolution just occurs on a much faster time scale. So while genetic evolutionary traits is primarily dominated by how humans interacted in hunter-gatherer societies (obviously there are exceptions such as prevalence of lactose intolerance), societal evolutionary traits are arguably dominated by the post-glacial environment that humans have lived in for the past 10,000 years. The reason I argue that societal evolution occurs on this time scale or shorter is because if you look through history you see many cases of competing tribes, which end in one tribe completely annihilating another tribe on this timescale (look at what the Romans did to the Carthaginians). Also, look at how much societal change has occurred over the past 100 years and compare that to the amount of genetic change. Human societies culturally evolved to become more agrarian after the end of the ice age, because conditions became more favourable to cultures with agrarian traits. Sure they can. Certain groups of humans consume more milk as adults than others. For example, people in Europe generally have a larger share of their diet as dairy than people in Southern China. Some of this is due to lactose intolerance (genetic evolution) and some of it is due to cultural evolution. One way you can test how much is due to culture and how much is due to lactose intolerance is to look at the consumption of dairy based on geographic location and lactose intolerance. For example, you could gather data and then obtain the ordinary least squares fit to the regression equation: Diary_i = A + B*Europe_i + C*Lactose_Tolerance_i + error, where A, B and C are the regression coefficients to be estimated, Dairy is the consumption of dairy as a percentage of total food consumption, Europe is a dummy variable for if the person is in Europe, and Lactose_Tolerance is a dummy variable for if a person has lactose tolerance. People should be treated as individuals. I agree with people like Martin Luther King Jr. when he says "people [should] not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character". You mean you are a closet racist that can't accept egalitarianism, but also can't accept your racism, so you convince yourself to support inherently racist policies to show how 'not racist' you are? This behaviour can be explained by evolutionary psychology. It's called tribalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism#Tribalism_and_evolution Women aren't an oppressor group, men aren't an oppressor group. This is just SJWist/Marxist nonsense. The evolutionary origins and psychology of tribalism is very different from that of gender roles. Men and women never lived in separate tribes where there was an evolutionary advantage to favour those in your tribe over those in other tribes. This is one of the main problems with how progressives approach gender issues, they treat it the same as racial issues. http://equalitycanada.com/cause/violenceagainstmen/ "Among men, 6.0% or about 585,000, encountered spousal violence during this period, compared with 6.4% or 601,000 women." Men make up nearly half of victims of domestic violence, but victims are ridiculed by society and get basically zero of the support. And that's just self-reported crime rates. There are social pressures for men not to report when they experience violence. There are also sexist 'primary aggressor laws' which add to the incentive of men not to report domestic violence because they know there is a good chance the police will arrest the man on the basis that he is a man. But it's interesting how as long as there is one category of crime that is more prevalent for females than males, all male violence or crime related issues get dismissed by people like you. Why not address both sets of issues? No, not really. Didn't have that. Didn't have that either. Things were different than in ancient times when you were a teenager. But that's one of the main issues when trying to bring up men's issues. Older people simply can't accept that things are different than ancient times when they were young. I don't think that very old women, obese women and infant girls are at great risk of sexual attacks. But if you want to go down that route then all males of all ages are at risk of sexual attacks by others. Speak for yourself. I'm certainly worried about going out at night, especially since I was violently assaulted and suffered brain damage. Also, the fact that women are more concerned about their safety compared to men is partially a result of reproductive utility/male disposability. Since society values women more than men, we care about the safety of women more than men, so women are told to be more concerned about their safety and take precautions to avoid violence, where as men are not told to care about their safety and instead to 'man up' and stop being afraid. The result of this gendered social conditioning is that men are more likely to be victims of crime. http://www.victimsweek.gc.ca/res/r512.html Way to completely ignore female agency. What? You mean marriage and the move towards more monogamous societies? That is arguably due to the fact that monogamous relationships generally result in more resources being used to raise children and takes advantage of the biological incentive to make sure one's offspring are successful. Over millions of years, humans have developed larger brains, delayed puberty and longer childhoods, which means that they benefit greatly from having parents support them for years. This is why humans are more monogamous than chimpanzees. I don't think you should generalize MRAs like this. There are obviously traditionalist and misogynist MRAs, but not all are like this (and I don't think the majority are like this).

No, I am an egalitarian. No, that's just you projecting onto everyone else.

I wasn't equating all forms of FGM with circumcision. Only removal of the clitoral hood. The clitoral hood and the foreskin come from the same set of cells in the genital region during fetal development. They are equivalent, much like how the head of the penis is equivalent to the clitoris, the underside of the penis is equivalent to the labia minora, the scrotum is equivalent to the labia majora and the testes are equivalent to the ovaries.

Just because you feel threatened by women doing the same job as you and have internalized sexism doesn't mean all men do. I certainly don't care about the sex/gender of my coworkers. Some muslims are ISIS. Does that mean all muslims are terrorists? Some black people commit crime. Does that mean all black people are criminals? Some people from Sweden like the colour orange. Does that mean all Swedish people like the colour orange? Just because there are some men that are misogynists and harass women, doesn't mean that all men do. That's a generalization. Welcome to the psychology of white knights and male feminists. You convince yourself that 'you are one of the good ones' to give yourself self value, make yourself feel 'manly' and hide your sexism. See, I don't share the belief that a patriarchy was set up, let alone that a patriarchy exists. Making claims about the intent of the patriarchy is about as meaningful as discussing the diameter of the noodles of the flying spaghetti monster. So they are transmen or men that had their genitals removed? No, they are (as far as I know) cisgendered heterosexual women. And this has nothing to do with being 'masculine' or being transgendered. Being in a senate defense committee has nothing to do with being male, female, masculine or feminine.

What happens when a women tries to be a man for a few weeks and is treated as a man by society: "Men are suffering. They have different problems than women have, but they don't have it better." "I like [being a women] more now because I think it's more of a privilege."

This issue is fixed with a flat tax + guaranteed income system. Marginally progressive and regressive tax systems are open to abuse.

50 C isn't enough to make the oceans evaporate From memory the strength of the sun isn't strong enough to cause run away global warming on Earth for the next billion years.

I made a poll of 2 ridiculously scenarios to maybe make a point about the relative threats of ISIS and global warming. Personally, I'd rather live in a world which is 50 C hotter (you would need like 36 atmospheres of CO2 for this, but whatever) than a world controlled by ISIS. Even if humanity is forced to flee underground and live in poverty, at least they have freedom of thought/speech.

I discussed the idea of calculating social welfare maximizing income in this thread: www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24624-so-what-would-an-ndp-government-do/ as well as other threads. At best, all you can do with fairness arguments is that people be treated equally. But that doesn't tell you the best type of tax system. Ultimately, you need to maximize Social Welfare, which means defining a social welfare function (though you can argue for one based on empirical data) and looking at empirical data on wage distribution. The idea of this thread, that you can determine the optimal relative distribution of tax burden without looking at tax level is flawed. Both need to be solved simultaneously.

Anyway, there are better arguments for a gauranteed income + flat tax (such as Occam's razor arguments, simplification of tax code making things more efficient, and Social Welfare Optimization arguments), but Reefer in his original post has excluded these arguments. Heck, with a flat tax + guaranteed income system I can't even argue for a given level or effective progressiveness since with this system the progressiveness is directly tied to the tax level.

The thing is, I could have constructed the fairness argument to be 3 years, 4 years or any number of finite years and argue that 2 identical people that earn $X over N years should pay the same amount of taxes. So you would need to keep track of someone's earnings over their entire lifetime. And this leads to many questions: How do you deal with immigration, interest, inflation, income splitting in households, changes in the tax system over time (like say we have those 2 fisherman, but from year 1 to year 2 you change how 'progressive' the tax system is; how do you satisfy the fairness principle and allow for changing tax systems)? What if someone goes on disability or goes into then comes out of retirement? How much does this cost to implement and deal with fraudulent claims? It gets overly complicated fast.

@ Bonam - Okay, now how do you deal with immigration, inflation, interest, income splitting within households, changes in the tax system over time, etc. with your overly complicated tax system that uses tax history?

With respect to 'fairness', do you think a tax system should satisfy the following 'fairness' principle?: Suppose you have two otherwise identical fishermen that both earn $100000 over 2 years. One earns $50000 each year and the second earns $40000 in the first year and $60000 in the second year (+ this economy has no interest rates or inflation). Should the two fishermen pay the same amount in taxes? If your answer is yes, then how about we generalize the numbers: Suppose you have two otherwise identical fishermen that both earn 2X over 2 years. One earns X each year and the second earns X-Y in the first year and X+Y in the second year (+ this economy has no interest rates or inflation). Should the two fishermen pay the same amount in taxes? If your answer is yes, then only tax systems that consist of a flat tax + guaranteed income will satisfy this fairness principle provided that income is taxed by year. It might be possible to make an absurdly complicated tax system that tries to use past income and predict future income that is non-flat and satisfies this fairness principle, but that is impractical and difficult to implement.

You haven't adequately defined tax 'fairness'. Could you try to define it please? Flat tax fixes all this.

I'm skeptical that this is a cheaper option compared to making a more conventional hydroelectric dams. Anyway, thought I would try to quantify the idea of raising the height of Lake Ontario say by 1 meter (so half a meter drop height + half a meter of storage capacity). Surface area is 1.9 x 10^10 m^2, so that would lead to 9.5 x 10^9 m^3 of storage volume. Rate of water flow out of lake Ontario is 6910 m^3/s. So this means it might be possible to store as much as 2.2 x 10^11 m^3 of water for Lake Ontario (but I'm choosing a low amount because obviously flooding cities such as Toronto would be problematic). If I calculated it correctly, this gives 12.9 GWh of annual storage capacity. Not very much... Anyway, flooding cities to avoid cities being flooded. Wonder if people would buy it.

No. People should be equal under the law. And as far as I am concerned, there should be zero compromise to that principle. But I doubt such extreme measures are necessary. History is full of examples of groups of people voting in favour of giving themselves proportionally less say in elections if it is for egalitarian purposes (otherwise, women, black people, natives and other groups wouldn't be able to vote).

And would this cavern be geologically stable, especially if it is underneath a lake?

Wait, but where does all the debris that was in the cavern go? Won't it just sink down towards the cavern?

Wow, cool. So the UK could go 100% renewable if they are okay with killing the Loch Ness monster with salt water (and of course the large costs involved).

It probably makes more sense to actually look at currently constructed damns rather than theoretical nonsense. The three gorges damn has 22 cubic km of flood storage capacity. By comparison, 6.8 TWh of highly variable renewable energy could be smoothed by hydroelectric power with 4.54 cubic km of storage capacity (assuming water falls at 55m). Of course hydroelectric damns aren't 100% efficient. The 3 gorges damn has a flow rate of about 15000 m^3/s, a height of 181 m and produces 98.8 TWh (which suggests and efficiency of about 42.4%). So you would need about 10.7 cubic km of flood storage capacity in Ontario to deal with the current levels of renewable energy. That's basically half a 3 gorges dam. Ontario's hydroelectric power is 33.8 TWh per year, which is a third the power generation of the 3 gorges dam (and I doubt capacity per TWh of hydro is as large in Ontario as the 3 gorges dam). So Ontario has already arguably exceeded a reasonable level of wind/solar based on hydro capacity.

Maybe there is more stigma again men reporting that they have attempted suicide, or women are more likely to fail at suicide because they are more likely to get attention/support if they fail. So what matters is actual suicide rates. This thread. So gender egalitarians and MRAs need to pull fire alarms or try to ban people from disagreeing with them on twitter?

Okay, just as a hypothetical: Suppose that a damn is constructed that floods the region between Montreal and Ottawa. Lowest elevation in Montreal is 6m, elevation in Gatineau is 64 m, so 58 m difference. The flow rate of the Ottawa river is about 1950 m^3/s. Suppose this floods a region of ~10000 square kilometers. In half a year, this means that a blocked damn would cause an increase of water height of about 3 m. So a damn might be able to cause water to fall 55 m. The power produced by 1950 m^3/s of water falling 55m is 1.051 GW. Over the entire year, this corresponds to 9.21 TWh. By comparison, Wind + Solar power generation per year in Ontario is about 6.8 TWh and total consumption is about 140 TWh.

Wait... what if we damn up the great lakes and the St. Laurence Sea way, and use them as hydro storage for renewables? How viable is that?

Sounds like me when I was getting mugged and punched in the head.