EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 297
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3245 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43203 Posts
| ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37043 Posts
On June 02 2020 03:00 ChristianS wrote: A quick googling suggests the average nipple is 4cm in diameter, which yields about 12.5 square centimeters of surface area. If I did my math right, multiply by the global population and there’s almost 10 square kilometers of nipple in the world. If you’re wondering “why is ChristianS posting nipple surface area statistics,” the reason you’re wondering that is because people don’t normally cite statistics in a conversation unless they’re trying to make some kind of point. If you don’t explicitly state your point people are left to infer what conclusion you were trying to demonstrate with those statistics. In the context of a conversation about police brutality against blacks, there’s a lot of very offensive points you could be trying to make by citing welfare and murder rates among blacks. I’ve tried pretty hard to imagine a non-offensive argument someone could be trying to make with those statistics, and I haven’t come up with one. Maybe that’s a lack of imagination on my part, but that’s the risk you run when you force your readers to imagine your point rather than state it yourself. Someone gift this man TL+ | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On June 02 2020 03:12 ChristianS wrote: Areola included. Dunno how I didn’t think to multiply times *twice* the global population (most of us have two, after all), so it’s actually almost *20* square kilometers! In engineering terms, it's really a conservative estimate to assume only one nipple per person. You can't go designing for the nominal amount of global nipplage, you need that factor of safety. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12318 Posts
On June 02 2020 03:00 ChristianS wrote: A quick googling suggests the average nipple is 4cm in diameter, which yields about 12.5 square centimeters of surface area. If I did my math right, multiply by the global population and there’s almost 10 square kilometers of nipple in the world. If you’re wondering “why is ChristianS posting nipple surface area statistics,” the reason you’re wondering that is because people don’t normally cite statistics in a conversation unless they’re trying to make some kind of point. If you don’t explicitly state your point people are left to infer what conclusion you were trying to demonstrate with those statistics. In the context of a conversation about police brutality against blacks, there’s a lot of very offensive points you could be trying to make by citing welfare and murder rates among blacks. I’ve tried pretty hard to imagine a non-offensive argument someone could be trying to make with those statistics, and I haven’t come up with one. Maybe that’s a lack of imagination on my part, but that’s the risk you run when you force your readers to imagine your point rather than state it yourself. Another line of attack that I find interesting: If you have a worldview where this statistic is important, if you think it should be brought into conversations, and should be combined with race science and David Reich, why not be a racist? That seems extremely illogical. It would be like noticing a lot of differences between people who are 90 years old and people who are 30 years old, but then not argue that we should have a different view of them, and that society should treat them exactly the same. If you see such a difference between white and black people and think it's childish to discount race science, then I don't see why you aren't a racist. What is it about racism that you don't like? | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3245 Posts
On June 02 2020 03:22 Nebuchad wrote: Another line of attack that I find interesting: If you have a worldview where this statistic is important, if you think it should be brought into conversations, and should be combined with race science and Robert Reich, why not be a racist? That seems extremely illogical. It would be like noticing a lot of differences between people who are 90 years old and people who are 30 years old, but then not argue that we should have a different view of them, and that society should treat them exactly the same. If you see such a difference between white and black people and think it's childish to discount race science, then I don't see why you aren't a racist. What is it about racism that you don't like? I think there’s a hell of a lot of people that don’t have a good answer to that question and are just hoping no one will ever ask them. But that’s probably a conversation for another thread. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7381 Posts
| ||
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37043 Posts
Wow... This worked? Someone actually gifted him TL+  | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3245 Posts
On June 02 2020 04:11 Seeker wrote: Wow... This worked? Someone actually gifted him TL+ Your powers of persuasion are undeniable. | ||
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37043 Posts
Holy shit... You have one hell of a clean mod record. You have exactly one warning from Chill back in 2011. And then you have a post from a mod who says that he loves you. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3245 Posts
| ||
TheEmulator
28092 Posts
On June 01 2020 07:46 KwarK wrote: It's not at all like that. There was another staff member (can't remember his name, it's been a few years) who went full alt right a few years back and got banned. xDaunt was staff for a while too but his shit was deemed equally unacceptable. TL has a 100% success record of addressing this stuff. The idea that TL is anything like the police (blue wall of silence, protect your brothers) is absurd. If the cops routinely investigated themselves, found themselves at fault, and arrested the officers involved then TL would be like the cops. The issue is that they don't and that American police can't hold themselves to the high standard that Starcraft community forums set. You can't see the internal staff discussions on this stuff but TL has absolutely earned the right to ask that you trust the process because the process has consistently been shown to work. This isn't like a cop saying "wait for the results of our investigation, trust the process" and letting their buddies off once the heat is down. This is like a cop saying the exact same shit after a 100% track record of correctly arresting their buddies after the investigation. Good response. There are some other instances you left out as well that have been kept more internal throughout the years. Also on another note, I think people need to remember we're all just a bunch of nerds volunteering on a starcraft website. Comparing us to real life cops is just straight up not fair even if we did protect shitty staff members (we don't tho). | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
I was gonna do it, but it's wonky on mobile and I couldn't. I'm glad someone did tho. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On June 02 2020 02:41 Xxio wrote: An appropriately safe and morally bankrupt decision. Here is an example of the so-called "oppressed" that I referred to (i.e. violent rioters of any color). But you decided not to discuss your issues honestly. It's sad to see. For the rest of you, be careful about posting raw government data. You never know who it might upset. A video of some guy talking shit then getting hit. Deep and convincing. I've been swayed. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
nobody expects the moderation to be perfect but in my experience with other platforms, TL does a remarkable job in conjuring a tranquil haven in the maelstrom that is the internet. | ||
|
Jealous
10229 Posts
On June 02 2020 03:00 ChristianS wrote: A quick googling suggests the average nipple is 4cm in diameter, which yields about 12.5 square centimeters of surface area. If I did my math right, multiply by the global population and there’s almost 10 square kilometers of nipple in the world. If you’re wondering “why is ChristianS posting nipple surface area statistics,” the reason you’re wondering that is because people don’t normally cite statistics in a conversation unless they’re trying to make some kind of point. If you don’t explicitly state your point people are left to infer what conclusion you were trying to demonstrate with those statistics. In the context of a conversation about police brutality against blacks, there’s a lot of very offensive points you could be trying to make by citing welfare and murder rates among blacks. I’ve tried pretty hard to imagine a non-offensive argument someone could be trying to make with those statistics, and I haven’t come up with one. Maybe that’s a lack of imagination on my part, but that’s the risk you run when you force your readers to imagine your point rather than state it yourself. I find the statistics you provided to be deeply problematic. For one thing, you are deeply underestimating or at the very least overlooking the female contribution to the net global nipple surface area. Based on field research I have myself conducted first-hand in this sector, my self-examination as a representative of one side of this demographic split, as well as supporting evidence from Wikipedia (please pardon my use of this potentially contentious source), women on average have much larger areolas AND nipples than men. It is important to distinguish the two, as the former is the surface of the skin surrounding the latter, the latter being generally conical or tubular in shape, thus increasing net surface area by an exponential margin. For simplicity, we will refer to the surface area of the nipple as S(n) and the surface area of the areola as S(a). The average areola for a woman is 38.1 mm, while the average man's is 28.0 mm. However, women who are lactating, pregnant, or have exceptionally large breasts can have areolas that exceed 100 mm (same source). Because this does not apply to pre-pubescent women, for simplicity's sake we will ignore the outliers (due in part to my reasoning that follows as well). It should be noted that the obesity epidemic in much of the Western world has likely contributed to a continuously growing average S(a) for both men and women; while obesity in the USA affects more men than women, I hope you will entertain my proposition of eliminating the much more extreme female S(a) outliers as a counter-balance to eliminating the higher rate of obesity and resultant S(a) in men vs. their average. We can simplify the relationship between average areola diameter in men and in women as being 0.74 to 1. We can thus simplify the relationship between average areola surface area in men [S(am) henceforth] and S(a) in women [S(aw)] as being 0.55 to 1 (as per pi*r^2 for generally circular surface areas). Meanwhile, the ratio of men to women in the world population is 1.080 to 1 [N(m) : N(w)]. Thus, the relative values [S(amr); S(awr)] of the contributions of women and men to the net areola S(a) [S(an)] can be described as follows: {S(am) + S(aw) = S(an) {S(am) : S(aw) = 0.55 : 1 {N(m) : N(w) = 1.080 : 1 [N(m) * S(am)] : [N(w) * S(aw) = S(amr) : S(awr) = = [0.55 * 1.080] : [1 * 1] ~= .59 : 1 .: S(amr) : S(awr) = .59 : 1 That's right, women contribute 62.8% of the net areola surface area while being less than 50% of the population. Statistics on nipple volume, surface area, and size differences is much harder to source and find because of its dependency on a number of factors ranging from arousal to room temperature at time of measurement, but I believe we can safely agree that the surface area of the average male nipple [S(nm)] is less than that of the average female nipple [S(nw)]. I can bore you with the Euclidian proof for why (x + y) < (a + b) if x < a and y < b, but I also have a basic respect for my estimation of your intelligence and thus I believe we can agree to agree on this point without further proof. To wit, female contributions to S(an) and S(nn) [net nipple surface area], simplified from here on out as S(ann), far outpace male contributions to the same. --- QED: ChristianS, having provided statistics with no interpretative of qualitative analysis thereof is making an inherently sexist point. This user has failed to acknowledge the disproportionate burden of women in elevating S(ann) to the levels we see today. Furthermore, biologically defined women have birthed every nipple-bearing man, and a large number of them have fed them with precious nutrients, antibodies, and calories through those same, over-burdened nipples. Let that sink in. As such, I request summary moderator actions levied against ChristianS for his misogynistic views, as evidenced by his lack of data interpretation. In response to another misguided user of these boards, while it may appear safer to assume the average number of nipples to be less than 2 for reasons such as breast cancer and other reasons for removing the bodypart, one must also contend with the incidence rate of third nipples (and in some cases, more) in both men and women. Until statistics provided demonstrate that the rate of mastectomy, congenital lack of nipples, etc. outweighs that of supernumerary nipples, this point is null and void. Addendum: Some animals have upwards of 19 nipples, as per an aforementioned Wikipedia source. Why are we being speciest in discussing nipple surface area? A discussion for another day, perhaps. Edit 2: Math has been revised as per above. | ||
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37043 Posts
| ||
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34495 Posts
| ||
| ||
