Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases New Diversity Numbers, Hired Over 11,000 Women in Past Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
People who invent stuff are one in a million. We need to do better.
Because racing is a lot more dangerous than driving on the road or flying.
Typical armchair warrior SJW talking about things they don't know about. We are talking about General aviation not commercial aviation. The pilot and type of flying in question is general aviation and I mentioned general aviation.
- General aviation (GA) is all civil aviation operations other than scheduled air services and non-scheduled air transport operations for remuneration or hire. General aviation flights range from gliders and powered parachutes to corporate business jet flights.
http://www.flyingmag.com/forums/training-safety/flying-really-safer-driving
"When I considered fatalities per 100 thousand hours flown or driven (using all USA numbers), I got 2.1 for general aviation, 1.25 for air carriers, and around 0.06 for motor vehicles (i.e. driving). (I did have to make an assumption to try to convert driving miles to driving hours, since only miles are known. For all reasonable values, the order remains the same, i.e. with driving having the least fatalities.) This makes general aviation some 35 times more fatal than driving using this measure, and airlines 21 times more fatal."
"When I considered fatalities per 100 million vehicle or aircraft miles, I got 23.32 for general aviation, 3.06 for air carriers, and 1.53 for motor vehicles. (Again, some assumptions were necessary to make things comparable, in this case an assumption about average velocity to convert general aviation hours to miles, since miles flown are not known in GA. However, as was the case in my assumption above, for all reasonable assumed values the order does not change: GA, then air carriers, then driving.) Using this measure general aviation is only 15 times more fatal than driving, and the airlines only twice as fatal as driving. But driving still comes out on top for safety (or at least survivability)."
Not really, per mile it might not be that much worse than general aviation.
Now from my post above you know that flying general aviation aircraft are more dangerous than driving cars, maybe you can see why someone could take issue of a pilot flying in a dress. It sets a bad example to new pilots who want to become professionals. Using a bike helmet though not mandatory for adults were I live but it's safer to wear and sets a good example.
If someone said, "I don't wear a helmet when I walk, so why should i wear one when I ride a bike" I would think they are retarded and not a very good role model for children. I know that it sounds harsh but in aviation safety should never be compromises needlessly, a proactive attitude is what is making the accident rates keep going down.
Last edited:
People don't fight back because they fear violence will be used against them... not because they just can't be bothered.
Correct, they my also not fight back for other reasons as well like if they are passed out. Thats my entire point, force is not required to rape anyone.
Reading through your many many posts on this subject, IMO you have a problem with females who wish to be more than doormats, and have a major problem in the area of relationships.
Really how is saying force is not required to be raped misogynistic in anyway?
I'm the one defending that rape is a crime here, others have been telling me that statutory rape is not a big problem, and that if a person does not fight back is a form of consent. Others have even claimed that males can't be raped because they are stronger than females.
Standard feminist, if you can't attack the message attack the messenger. If you truly believe i'm being misogynistic, than you must be one for those #killallmen supporters and think it's funny.
Really? Show me where people have said that. Cuz from my perspective, that's more your gross misinterpretation of what's been said, than actual reality.
No one else mentioned this but me. What would people have said if I said "Only with date rape - which isn't that serious. "
You did mention another post in relation to the Statutory rape one, which I will give you credit for.
And notice that was the one I didn't quote you on above. I thought Eraserhead was wrong on that call.
As for the rest, remember, "more difficult to do", and "suspicious in some circumstances" is a far cry from "never" and "isn't".
I agree with taht, but my issue is the word unless.
What if the victim is not conscious and can not give consent, there could not have felt thier life, health safety and standing was in jeopardy.
What if someone if they feel that someone else's life, health, safety, or standing is in jeopardy.
I'm not sure why consent is such a bad thing from the definition of rape. If a person gives consent and is legally able to give consent than it is not rape.
Last edited:
I missed that. I disagree with Zen there, too. The definition of rape is pretty straightforward. The barest definition of it would be forced penetration without consent. It doesn't always have to be physically violent, your life doesn't always have to be on the line, your livelihood doesn't always have to be a stake. It's simply someone being forced to have sex against their will.
Though I will say that proving rape beyond a reasonable doubt in court without any of those abovementioned three reasons in play is notoriously difficult to prove. This is true of both sexes. The vast majority of rape cases all come down to he said she said, which is why you don't see nearly as many rape convictions as reports, and why, beyond that, most go unreported.
I agree with all that, and when I take issue with people who say this, I'm called a misogynist with women issues.
For me, it's more your tendency to jump to extremes all of a sudden that I take issue with. It exasperated the hell out of me earlier. You see yourself arguing against staunch opposition to your beliefs, which isn't always the case, and when you start responding to criticisms as such, it doesn't make you look too good.
His distortions of others' arguments convinced me that it's a waste of my time to discuss this issue with him.
The only question is whether he's sincerely confused about these positions, or purposefully misrepresenting them.
I agree to a point, but I don't care when the other side claim to be progressive and say things like "statutory rape is not too serious".
I can't imagine all those little boys and little girls who have been raped by their parents or priests, coaches ect wouldn't also take issue.
I think only NAMBLA or a weird religious sect would not consider statutory rape as not being serious.
Okay ... but what would it take to "force" you to have sex against your will? It wouldn't simply be someone demanding you have sex. There would need to be something behind that demand. And it doesn't have to be physical violence. For instance, a boss could threaten your job ... or a police officer could threaten to arrest you if you didn't have sex.
But there needs to be a consequence. Without consequence, there's no reason to comply with the demand.
Ya, a direct quote is a misrepresentation!!
Or when people are claiming general aviation is safer than driving when its is 35 times more dangerous depending on which numbers you choose.
You've got a point, but I think you forgot to consider a couple. Such as having sex with someone unconscious. There's no real coercion or threat there. It's a crime of opportunity. Same with drugging someone or getting them drunk to lower their inhibitions. You'd be doing that specifically so they won't say no, but there isn't any threatening involved.
I might be at risk for defining things too broadly, but I'd say that it all comes down to consent was given freely, and clear mindedly. Now I don't want to get to the point everyone has to sign a waiver before getting it on, but that should always be the base assumption.
I have considered that scenario, and I would agree that anyone drugged to incapacitation for the purpose of being helpless against sex — is rape. It's rape for both men and women.
And had I been discussing that question with someone like yourself, we could have established and moved past that rather obvious point a long time ago.
Last edited:
What do you mean? Apple has been hiring women since the outset. Been to an Apple store recently?
Apple gave 11,000 females jobs, and some people threw a gigantic hissy fit.
Wake up and smell the coffee, this is the 21st Century there are no "Jobs for the boys", females have got their foot in the door and they are not going away.
Wake up and smell the coffee, this is the 21st Century there are no "Jobs for the boys", females have got their foot in the door and they are not going away.