da1's comments

He has admitted that it's a sock-puppet account.

He stated himself that he has created dozens of accounts and that uses them to post even when his accounts are throttled due to down-voting.

How is stating a fact a personal attack?

Well, they do show in-group preference.

Does that count?

I'd say yes.

> When the Australian minister for communication introduced record keeping laws for ISPs he encouraged people to bypass it using VPNs. Said thats what he was doing.

Do you have a source for that? If true I find it very bizarre.

> Any serious criminal/terrorist will use a VPN

Or just plain old stenography in very public forums.

Basically impossible to detect.

In another comment he claims he's been in HN for eight years but this account is like 16 days old.

It is a sock-puppet account.

> I've been on HN like 8 years

curious because your profile says

> created: 16 days ago

Thank you for confirming you are using a sock-puppet account!

(Edit: While apparently using your main account to down-vote. Classy!)

True but the vast majority of protein intake was provided by males.

They also performed the most dangerous activities because women are reproductively far more "valuable".

Not dear husband.

Many of those "men" were teens.

Harassing 15 year olds was not uncommon.

Harassing WWI veterans not in uniform was very common.

> Is this really manipulation or is it just sexual selection for bravery/aggression/dominance?

What's the difference?

Dark tetrad?

I think he means restricted to humans.

In the animal kingdom you have uncommon scenarios such as seahorses where the male caries the fertilized eggs or spiders where many times the male is just eaten by the female.

> > "Do you have the capability to retrieve this PIN number?"

> The answer to this question is no

Doesn't matter. All the judge needs is to notice in your face that you do have that capability.

Don't believe me? Look at this case:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-07/news/ct-met-lo...

According to the judge:

"What I saw in his face was just defiance. He was not going to testify in this double homicide case because he wasn't going to testify. That's all there was to it. So I saw pure scorn for the judicial system in the defendant's face."

Because the judge didn't like his face he gets 20 years for contempt.

20 years!

> If they can find anything shady

This is always better but they don't even need to find it. That's just a bonus.

They can just fabricate it. Assange is still in effective house arrest because someone apparently was a victim of "sex by surprise".

> Yes, a judge could hold them in contempt and jail them for some time.

Not some time, there's no limit. It can be extended arbitrarily.

All the others points I made in the legal section are indeed legal and have been used in the past though they are indeed unusual.

This is actually very simple. The state can just harass them into compliance. Tools at the state's disposal include but are not limited to:

#Legal:

* Judge orders them to comply, if they refuse they can be considered to be in contempt and incarcerated for a de facto arbitrary period of time at the judge's discretion (vide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick incarcerated for contempt for 14 years just because the judge suspected he had funds that apparently he didn't have, also Terrell Geiger http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-07/news/ct-met-lo...)

* Civil forfeiture. The state can just de facto steal every single item those people have and leave them unable to fight that in court (not that it would make much difference)

* Involuntary commitment. They can just be committed into a psychiatric institution where they can be drugged against their will and even tortured. This can be extended to an arbitrarily long period of time

* They can have their children taken away

* IRS can just accuse them of an astronomical tax debt, take all of their possessions and leave them effectively unable to get legal representation (not that it would make much difference)

#"Illegal":

* Just detain them in a secret facility and do with them as they dam well please

TLDR: The state does with you what it damn well pleases and there's nothing you can really do about it. Granted this usually doesn't happen but that's just because the stakes usually aren't that high.

Not one mention of variance in that presentation.

The author is either ignorant or just dishonest.

> Of course the diagnosing psychiatrist could always fudge the facts

But there is no fudging. Someone not liking something about you that you are totally OK about does negatively impact you if that person is say your spouse.

There is no fudging. This is the usual modus operandi.

Totally correct.

Everything that relates to outlier characteristics will disproportionately affect more boys than girls. The more extreme the outlier the much more likely it will be a boy.

This is just basic human biology that like the GP mentioned is routinely deliberately ignored by feminism.

> The diagnosis criteria for most mental illnesses include that the patient is negatively affected by their specific symptoms.

Even if this were true (which it isn't) the psychiatrist can always argue that the fact that someone else doesn't like the symptoms negatively affects the patient and therefore he is ill.

Circular reasoning like this is common practice.