Is the year really 2006? Because, according to this Reuters story, the first female crash-test dummy was just created.
Just. Created.
According to the story, "All current crash test dummies are based on how men's bodies react in collisions and other accidents."
It is the year 2006, right? So automobiles have been around for like a century, right? And female human beings have existed for at least the majority of that time, right? Yet this whole time they've been using only male crash-test dummies.
18 Comments:
Maybe Detroit was worried that the day after they hired/purchased female dummies, they would get pregnant or file sexual harassment claims. Maybe the dummies' response to crashes would vary too much during each month. Maybe they knew better than to call anything female "dummy".
Hey Author, I know you were worried about me being a "sheep" all over your site, but don't worry, your own pet Freedom Poodle warned me to stick to your topics even after you've moved on. So your back is plenty guarded, just watch your ankles.
It's hard to believe that there is data suggesting women are more prome to certain injuries than men, yet insurance companies were not pushing for gender-specific crash test dummies. It seems unfathomable. Maybe it's just that "male" is the default for "dummy."
And Aleks, I'm sorry if you took that as a warning, that wasn't my intention. I was only trying to say that I didn't respond to your off-topic comment because I don't like commandeering the comments thread of someone else's blog for my own personal causes. I didn't mean it as a threat or a warning. I don't think ZDK needs or wants my help. Since your mischaracterization of my comments in that thread (calling them a "warning" rather than an explanation) was clearly a mistake and not a lie, I thought I'd clarify for you.
CF
So that was a "mistake", but saying that you called yourself a "truth monster" as you call yourself a "wolf" was a lie, even though you present no reason I should have known you weren't giving yourself yet another silly title and every instance of my (supposedly) lying about you calling yourself a "truth monster" came before you said you weren't? I was going to say "Interesting", but I guess that wouldn't be honest.
Aleks,
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry if that offended you.
CF
==I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry if that offended you.==
Is there anything in what I said that would lead an intelligent or honest person to conclude that giving me the "benefit of the doubt" offended me? Just as silly to ask of you, are you going to answer the question or just continue to whine?
Yes, the fact that you typed anything at all when no response was necessary could lead someone to that conclusion.
And I already answered the question in the previous post.
CF
==CF: I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry if that offended you.
A: Is there anything in what I said that would lead an intelligent or honest person to conclude that giving me the "benefit of the doubt" offended me?
CF: Yes, the fact that you typed anything at all when no response was necessary could lead someone to that conclusion.==
Good analytical skills. No wonder you're the one who's "NOT A SHEEP".
==And I already answered the question in the previous post.==
You did? What was your answer? I'm not calling that a lie, I just don't see it. So that was a "mistake", but saying that you called yourself a "truth monster" as you call yourself a "wolf" was a lie, even though you present no reason I should have known you weren't giving yourself yet another silly title and every instance of my (supposedly) lying about you calling yourself a "truth monster" came before you said you weren't?
"A: Is there anything in what I said that would lead an intelligent or honest person to conclude that giving me the "benefit of the doubt" offended me?
CF: Yes, the fact that you typed anything at all when no response was necessary could lead someone to that conclusion.==
Good analytical skills. No wonder you're the one who's "NOT A SHEEP"."
I used a conditional statement. "Sorry IF that offended you", not "sorry THAT that offended you". If it didn't offended you I'm not sorry. If it did, I am. It clearly shouldn't have offended you, but your (interpreted as) hostile response led me to believe it was a possibility and, thus, I provided a conditional apology.
The question:
"So that was a "mistake", but saying that you called yourself a "truth monster" as you call yourself a "wolf" was a lie...?"
The answer to the question:
"I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt."
In other words, I answered in the affirmative. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming it was a mistake. Am I misunderstanding the question? Is there some other answer you are looking for?
CF
Since I obviously (to pretty much anyone but you) wasn't lying in either case, I thought an explanation of how you came to decide that I was probably lying in the one and not in the other might be in order. Obviously you don't feel inclined to give one, so I'll drop it. Also, how did it get downgraded all the way from "clearly a mistake and not a lie" to needing the "benefit of the doubt"?
"Also, how did it get downgraded all the way from "clearly a mistake and not a lie" to needing the "benefit of the doubt"?"
I was exaggerating when I said "clearly" in an attempt to refrain from implying any accusation of dishonesty.
I think it's possible that you intentionally try to redefine the intent my statements to change their meaning into something trivial or offensive. If you know that I wasn't "warning" you and you said that I was because you thought you could defend the position then you are a liar. I have no evidence that you did and know desire to prove you lied in that instance. I just don't want your inaccurate statement to go uncontested. You misrepresented my statement. That is a fact. Whether it was intentional or not, I don't know for sure. All I can do is give you the benefit of the doubt. Of course, if it were unintentional I think you'd apologize. You haven't. You can take that for whatever it's worth.
CF
If I saw the distinction you're making the big deal over it I would apologize. And you saying something hardly makes it a "fact". Maybe a "truth monster", but not a "fact".
==Do you have a source for saying that the Democrats made warrentless wiretaps of American citizens illegal?==
I didn't respond to this before, out of kindness, but I suppose you really should learn something. Yes I do, you smug ignorant "wolf".
Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush's decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without a court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/?page=2
I suppose I shouldn't have expected your education to include Watergate and the reaction. Why would O'Reilly or Limbaugh feel you needed to know about that?
If the link doesn't work this is the article, although the fact that you actually need a "source" presented on that probably shows I'm just wasting my time.
Bush could bypass new torture ban
Waiver right is reserved
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 4, 2006
WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.
After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/
washington/articles/2006/01/04/
bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/
Oh and Author if you're still reading this one, in Boy Scouts we did a lot of target shooting, and sometimes we used silouettes instead of the circles. The silhouettes were all male. Does that help compensate for the dummies, or just make things worse?
"If I saw the distinction you're making the big deal over it I would apologize."
If you truly see no distinction between an explanation of why I didn't respond and being "warned to stick to [ZDK's] topics" then I don't know what to say. Can you explain why what I said was could be honestly described as a warning?
CF
"I suppose I shouldn't have expected your education to include Watergate and the reaction. "
I suppose I shouldn't expect you to follow my links to articles that have discussed that law and how it applies to the current issue.
CF
Cat got your tongue? No, I know what it is: you mysteriously stopped reading this thread exactly when I pointed out that I referenced a source that referred to the very law that you "shouldn't have expected [my] education to include", thus proving that you don't follow my links and that every time you've said "you don't support your arguments with facts", you've really meant "I don't read the facts you present." Mysterious indeed.
Post a Comment
<< Home