Assume Nothing

It's two very different uses of the same term. A trial period of the full version isn't the same as a long-term trial of a limited version. My main concern on the whole notion would be the fact that it could be abused if poorly executed, giving free access to bots to money-make and rwt. The bots are slowly making a return to the game, even if they're very simplistic ones.

It doesn't sound great. Could you provide a picture?

I'm checking through my older posts, and I do see that in some cases that my posts are riddled with overly complex terminology. However, the claim that it occurs in the 'majority of my posts' is simply dishonest and inaccurate. On a more related note, I've been wondering for a while now: Why is it more socially acceptable for minorities to be racist? The social taboo of 'racism' doesn't seem to apply as much to a black man calling a white person 'white trash', or 'cracker'. On the contrary, a black man being called a '[racist term]', even as a joke, is considered highly offensive and derogatory.

What defines a 'big word'? Is it defined by the character length, or the complexity? I think it's fine to use it sparsely for emphasis or vividness. I'm sure there's at least one case where the use of complex terminology is beneficial in the way highlighted above. I don't see your point.

They're more relevant to women - there's a stronger psychological attachment to the child, and it's cultural for the mother to spend more time with the baby. I agree that there's definitely some levels of discrimination that prevents accessibility to better posts for women - it's undeniable that employers are still slightly misogynistic because of traditional values. I'm not disagreeing on that point. I'm claiming that the difference in rates may not be as significant as the figures suggest, because there's a slight inclination for women to spend less time working in comparison to males anyway. It's also one of the things that prevents employers from employing women, since they're more expensive in terms of productivity (paid maternity leave is costly to a company).

There's a distinction between feedback and criticism. Feedback would include suggestions, which there's a lack of. On a more related note; Is it a good idea to discuss religious double standards, or should it be saved in the 'Religion' thread? I can name quite a few on the top of my head.

You can't gauge my intent. I've stated before - correct usage of more complex terminology provides clarity in expressing thoughts. I realise that it fails sometimes, as I write posts too quickly thus damaging the legibility of my posts. I correct these mistakes when I reread what I've written, so what's the problem here? It's unnecessary criticism that serves little purpose beyond stroking your ego it seems. I like how you've deliberately gone into a tangent to personally criticize my posts, though. Good job.

It seems like you're trying to use as many big words as possible, and yet your use of them (combined with incorrect grammar and poor usage) makes your posts very hard to understand. Somebody needed to say this. It's only difficult to understand when it's phrased poorly, or grammatically incorrect. Why quote him and derail this thread? I've fixed those posts already. I've already stated before - thoughts are jumbled and incoherent when written hastily. It's normal.

The responses to this thread is disappointing. The details of the case is still rather vague, so it'll take some enlightenment before making a judgement call on whether it was the right decision for the woman to have won the sum she won. If the car was only going to get 20 MPG, but was advertised to get 50 MPG, then it's arguably a case of fraudulence. If only this applied to broadband speeds too.

Banned for misinterpreting my terminology. Justification; I meant quotable in the context of 'worth quoting,' not 'can be quoted, or suitable for quoting.' There's a difference.

Black, White, American, Mexican, whatever. If you're a US citizen, you're American. I don't see the need for a 'black history month' at all. I feel it probably perpetuates the racism - it acts as a reminder that there's (irrelevant) differences in humanity. Why can't we treat each-other as simply human, with the only difference that should separate us to be death? EDIT @above - That argument operates under the assumption that we're all equally competent. Perhaps the figures are distorted by maternity leave affecting experience or education. I understand there's still a discrepancy, but the figures presented probably exaggerate the inequality by comparing figures with something that doesn't represent what women should get.

The fact that I can't compose a legible post in a tired state. It's actually happened twice to me already, just today.

I know, it's been taken into account. The convicted are more likely to go to jail. The question in dispute is whether they deserve their sentences, and whether it's fair to have a seemingly discriminatory justice system. EDIT - That's interesting. Some of the findings are incomplete because they have biases of their own. The point still stands though.

That's the issue - those who belong in ethnic minorities are still more likely to be jailed for a crime than a white person.

I realise that my thoughts were incoherent, so I've corrected my posts. I write poorly composed posts more frequently when I don't get enough rest, or if I'm writing my posts too hastily. Please read the revised version for a better understanding of what I meant. EDIT - I've always used the same kind of terminology, as when it's used correctly, it provides clarity. The problem is just the fact that I can't phrase it into a legible sentence when I'm tired, so it causes confusion at times. I do replace unnecessarily complex terms that's synonymous with more simplistic, easily understandable terms though, as to do otherwise would be pointless and counterproductive.

I supposedly talk like a dictionary now? How should I go about fixing that? It may be the fact that I'm writing posts too quickly, therefore the incomplete thoughts that I've written becomes difficult to interpret. The basic gist of the above post - How do we go about determining how bad a crime is (thus determining how much punishment the convicted should receive) if there's so many variables? Or, alternately, what should we do if the issue becomes unfair convictions due to accounting irrelevant details - such as gender/ethnicity? An example of a scenario may be when there's a conviction of domestic violence; female perpetrators get less punishment in comparison to their male counterpart, for an equal offense (on the basis of the male is stronger than female argument, which is highly flawed). How could you argue that this is fair? It's simply discriminatory. EDIT - grammatical fixes in both posts.

Banned for being a serious... banner

Banned for the lulz.

GCSE's don't tend to matter so much when applying for University, unless you've failed to achieve A*-C in the three main ones: Maths Science English Language

I've found that one of the most annoying dishonest forms of argumentation would be the straw-man approach. It takes so much time/effort to explain why it's flawed, because I'd have to quote and refer back to old material - and it's hampered by the lack of character-limits on YouTube.

Question(s) - Should a crime be judged by the extent of the harm caused towards the victim, or should it be judged on the basis of who it's inflicted to and who it's inflicted by? Should we measure 'harm' by the potential harm that could have occurred, or should we measure 'harm' by the injuries sustained - e.g. if someone was attacked with a knife, but left with only minor cuts? Could you place psychological harm on the same scale as physical harm, e.g. in the cases of an assault vs rape? In other words, are all types of harm equal?

There has always been a pro-female bias in the judicial system - the associated stigma with misogyny has gotten to the point where a double standard exists against men, which is frankly discrimination. It's exactly what they were trying to solve. It has always annoyed me since it's so hypocritical to do so. Religion exemplifies this perfectly. EDIT @above - that's precisely the problem. It's only applicable when both parties are average. It's unfair in a scenario whereby the female is stronger than the male, especially in sub/dom relationships. Does elucidating your preferences somehow change the truth value of the claim? It does occur, and it's not uncommon. It's exploitation of a judicial system that's very biased for minorities and women.

Isn't that the entire notion of religion?

It depends how you define theft. I personally don't see them as equivalents.

Please elaborate - why is it a bad idea? I don't know anything about those organizations.