Like you did last year

More fitting title, I thought.

- Empirical evidence is defined (N) as that which is obtained by means of the senses, gained by observation and experimentation. I'd be interested in hearing how this (R) could possibly make sense, especially comparing the number of (N) small business employees (N) versus not-at-all-small (N) business employees (N). The global total of the latter doesn't even come close to the small business total of the former. How many businesses will close because they can't afford to pay their people (more jobs lost here), and how many will automate because they can't afford to pay as many people as they would without automation a la tentacle beast (more jobs lost here too)? By the way, I see that argument received little more than a sentence in that listicle there.

- Empirical evidence is defined (N) as that which is obtained by means of the senses, gained by observation and experimentation. Tell me again who's ignoring what around here. It's a good thing this article acknowledges multiple times that people with either bent are capable of the same action, because here are the numbers for the (N) student (N) population (R?) and for the professors (N) who (N) teach (N) them (N). That's not a trend that changes in a year or two. Or four. (N) Or five. (N) There are plenty of reasons to consider the possibility of bias in studies such as these.

- Inclusive means All. Equality means the same for each. So why not let people (?) use the bathroom (R)* when they need to?

Why not capitalize all the colors (both R way back) used to refer to race? And why not extend the protections other religions receive (N) to Christianity (R)** as well? Or is there reason to think that, like protests about (N) the metal detectors (N), these topics are presented in a manner that makes a political point? (Bit of a tangent, but this has got me wondering how precedent works.)

* Also, at (R?) the (N) risk (R?) of (R) plaid (N), the rule itself isn't the problem, because 'protecting girls and women' (isn't that important or some such crap?) from stupid-boy-without-a-degree shenanigans (looks like they proved the need for the rule after all) is a good thing. The school that didn't uphold the rule, instead expelling the girl for protecting herself when it wouldn't, that's the problem. The argument is sound, as is this rule. Looking to make a political point? Try that twist elsewhere. (N, found while searching for that bathroom volunteer chaperone article.)

** By the way, at what level of cassock do these political dealings come with a muzzle (R)? (I will take the opportunity to remind you that that's not an answer to the question that was asked. [R])

- If this (R) is happening, what will happen to this (N)?

- Here's to those (R) who made an opening for this (R) criticism even as they generated some 敌害 (R) boo-hoo (R).

- Ending with this (R), because it's a laudable choice under any circumstances. (Best cut after they're fried, not before.)

Featured Posts
Recent Posts