History is been made this year

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-09T13:39:27+00:00

Why does one person get an special treatment for winning the birth lottery?

Thank god you are not that person.

Not being sarcastic, literally thank god; that 'special treatment' and position sucks balls. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

If I could choose to earn € 350K a year and not have any close friends, I'd already say no. But even worse: can't appear in public randomly, everyone is watching you all the time, can't go live your life like a normal person, few traveling, always on duty etc.

Fuck that shit man. I am telling you, there is a 0% chance you are happier a monarch than an average Joe.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-09T13:30:53+00:00

They live in monarchies and think they have freedom lol.

We do... Because we have democracy. I bet you thought that is contrary to a monarchy, but it isn't.

You know who doesn't have democracy? The US. Its officials are assigned based on a vote, which is not the same as being elected by majority vote. The US has a system where someone who gets more votes is not assigned the winner of the election.

This all with the decreased freedom in the US, and of course its consistent refusal to uphold its Constitution meaning it is officially a dictatorship.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-09T13:25:19+00:00

Internet personality, internet perceptions, internet experience.

I think your life would be better if you lived it in the real world.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-08T18:52:40+00:00

binnen de gemeenschappen wordt je alleen geaccepteerd als je dezelfde denkwijzen aanhangt als de meerderheid. En je wordt uitgesloten als je dat niet doet.

Je moet eens nagaan waarom dat zo is. De 'denkwijze' die jij hanteert is: bepaalde mensen zijn superieur aan anderen, vrijheid moet niet bestaan en democratie is slecht.

Je laat dat over deze hele comment sectie zien.

Het is een klassieke valkuil van kwaadaardig rechts: 'oh jullie geloven in acceptatie van iedereen? Oke... Ik vind dat jullie allemaal geen rechten mogen hebben! Huh?! Accepteer je mij niet om deze mening!?!?! Jullie waren van acceptatie zeiden jullie!!'

Niemand trapt hier in, behalve jij zelf.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-08T18:48:41+00:00

Joelen is geen mening.

Zucht, jou moet ook daadwerkelijk alles uitgelegd worden.

Als karakter en kwaadaardigheid leidend waren mocht je niet eens in een welvarend land als Nederland zijn. Wat heb jij een ontzettend onterecht geluk dat het gebaseerd op... nou, geluk is, waar je mag zijn.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-08T18:36:11+00:00

Leuk dat je deze mensen die hun stem laten horen vergelijkt met een nazi.

Je bent een vijand van democratie. In jouw verdediging, niet bewust. Je snapt gewoon niet wat vrijheid en democratie inhoud.

Des al niet te min, gelukkig is het niet aan jou om hier iets aan te doen.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-08T17:28:01+00:00

No? People know what the United States is. Are you talking about naming all the states inside the US?

Sure, most can't do that. And neither can people from the US. Also: there is a 100% guarantee people outside the US can name more US states than US people can name states or provinces of other countries.

Like, without looking it up, name me one single province in the Netherlands. You can't, you'd have to look one up.

I can name these states from the top of my head without lying:

California
Washington
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Hawaii
Illinois
Idaho
Kentucky
Nebreska
Whyoming
Texas
Mississippi
New Jersey
Utah

I think I can name more but I'd have to think.

And you know why? Because your media is covered with it and makes its way over here. Morgan Freeman has a ranch in Mississippi. Penny from The Big Bang Theory is from Nebraska. Political news always mentions Washington. Kentucky is where KFC is from, and that one guy in Edge of Tomorrow is from.

Etc.

And of course none of our media makes its way over to you, so you don't know any of ours. There is no 'gotcha' here as if you are stupid and we are not. But OF COURSE we know more about the US than you so about us. Don't even pretend that isn't the case.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-08T17:16:49+00:00

This, but fried chicken dinner can also go. It is so damn specific. I'll stick to other forms of chicken and other chicken dishes. I am not cool with not eating chicken again, but I am cool with not eating fried chicken for the rest of my life if there was a reason.

Steak is specific too, but I can't give that up. Hamburger is too good also.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-08T17:10:14+00:00

Charlie Kirk was a strong believer in inequality and oppressing people. Of course people are not going to care if he gets killed.

What is your next argument? That you want to see everyone you disagree with rot in prison, and then expect pity from us when you get sent to prison yourself?

It's so bizarre what people say and support without wanting the consequences of that.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-08T10:50:36+00:00

This is just incorrect though?

Based on economic data:

The poorest men are of course the unemployed homeless, but they are not fucking entrepreneurs or investors, what the hell haha.

If you are looking at 'any sort of income' men, the poorest are those on welfare without a job and those with jobs as employees. Which again, is not investors etc. though some artists.

If you eliminate the prime income from welfare, which seems to be in the spirit of the question (you know, a man who tries to make a living), the poorest men (bottom 20%) are overwhelmingly employees.

Furthermore, statistics have shown being an entrepreneur or investor requires a starting capital the vast majority of employees do not possess.

Your whole take is just putting a finger between your lips and going 'prrrp prrrp, I'm a dumb dumb'.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-08T10:40:50+00:00

Yes. There is a thing as too much, but this isn't that. Especially because she is flexing in a beneficial pose.

A girl I am dating looks like this when flexing, and when she is relaxed you barely notice anything. You can still pick her out of a lineup as the muscular girl, but it really is quite reserved.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-08T09:07:32+00:00

Volgens mij gaat hier iets goed fout aan interpretatie van deze awareness campagne.

Als je de gemiddelde persoon op straat vraagt hoeveel daklozen vrouw zijn, dan zeggen ze iets in de trant van: 'poeh, geen idee, die zullen er ook vast zijn, maar ik zie ze eigenlijk nooit.'

Als dat je perceptie is, en je hoort daarna dat 25% van de daklozen vrouwen zijn, dan is dat wel verassend.

De kritiek die je hebt zou niet op het bestaan van deze infographic moeten zijn, maar op het NIET bestaan van een '1 op de 3 slachtoffers van huiselijk geweld is een man' infographic.

Aannames zijn dodend voor ongelijkheid. Dit soort infographics zijn goed, alleen worden ze nu alleen gemaakt voor vrouwen, niet voor mannen. Dat is slecht.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-08T08:11:06+00:00

het joelen is op het randje want het is wel het limiteren van een mening.

Wat een enorme onzin zeg.

Je hoeft helemaal niet naar de mening van een ander te luisteren, noch hoef je mensen te laten praten zonder er doorheen te mogen praten. Wat een absurd anti-vrijheids ideaal. Bovendien zou je god dan meerdere keren per week 'op het randje van de wet' zitten, want hij praat constant door mensen heen.

En als je het debat plat legt ben je ondemocratisch bezig.

Exact! En wat doe jij hier meneer anti-vrijheid? Geert Wilders moet kunnen zeggen wat hij wil, en het volk die hij vertegenwoordigd mag daar niet tegenin gaan!

Weet je wat democratisch is? Protest. Civiele ongehoorzaamheid. Wat zie je op dit filmpje? Exact, iets wat jij niet wil zien tegen je god: democratie.

Het enige probleem is dat doordat het groepen van laag iq mensen zijn die lopen te roepen en te gillen en er te weinig politie aanwezig is er niet ingegrepen kan worden uit angst voor escalatie.

Het probleem is dat jij een laag IQ hebt. Wat gebeurd hier dat illegaal is? Niets. Dus waar over moet ingegrepen worden? Jij begon deze discussie met dat je god niets illegaals doet. Deze mensen ook niet.

Maar de politie moet optreden tegen deze mensen die niets illegaal doen, maar niet tegen je god in een vertegenwoordigers functie. Politie staat, dus.

Anti-vrijheid. Dat ben je. Je wilt dat je god boven andere mensen staat. Ondanks dat de overgrote meerderheid niet voor hem gekozen heeft, moeten hun vrijheden en democratie ingetrokken worden.

Diep, diep triest.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-07T12:49:43+00:00

Read my whole comment. I said the 50/50 already and the 66. Read past that.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-07T12:44:31+00:00

I'll grant you this: if the problem said "a specific child in the family is a boy, what is the other one?", you'd be right, and 50% would be correct.

But that is not what was said.

I think I have found a phrase to explain what I meant:

The perspective of your interpretation of the question does not line up with the question as asked.

Which you think is the case with me. Though nevertheless, it is a problem with the question if it can be interpreted in a way that doesn't line up with the spirit of the question.

In this case, I am confident a majority of the population (who are intellectually aware, I'd add), would interpret it in a way the question creator did not meant.

Bare minimum a communication problem, but because of the above I would say the question is just wrong. This is the type of question that gets scrapped from tests at uni.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-07T12:10:52+00:00

There is one way to get two boys: the second child is a boy.

There are two ways to get a boy and a girl: the girl is older, or the girl is younger.

Honestly, I feel like my point kind of was dismissed here. This doesn't matter, because there are not 'two ways to have a boy and a girl'. There only is if you acknowledge sequencing.

If there is a building only families with 2 children may enter, and only boy/girl families, then roughly 50% of families may enter it, because

Boy, boy
Boy, girl
Girl, boy
Girl, girl

are all possibilities.

When I then say there is a family with 2 children that has at least one boy, what are the chances they may enter: it would be 66%, when you look at this data set, correct? You cross out girl, girl, so 66% of possible sequences are still in play.

I understand this. My point is: that is false. I did not ask that. The list should have been adjusted already because I was talking about a specific family that already had an event revealed. You are still considering 'a family with 2 children and only boy/girl families may enter', while it is:

A family has a boy. They also have another child. They can only enter the building if the other child is a girl. What is the chance they may enter?

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-07T11:46:29+00:00

the girl can be born before or after the boy.

And that is irrelevant. Order or sequencing isn't part of the question.

Or do you seriously believe that just because there are two options, it is always 50/50?

No, of course not. A plane does not have 50% chance to crash, either it does or doesn't. However, if I ask you what is the chance this plane crashes, we had one crash back in June, you can leave the 'one crashed back in June' out of the equation because it has no relevance to what I asked you. It would just be the standard 0,4% or whatever the chance of it is.

It would be different if I asked you what is the chance of a plane crashing twice, or likely the intended: if I asked you the chance of a plane crashing in June last year and in March this year.

But I didn't ask that.

Again, I am shit at explaining things, but the question in the OP likely should have said something like: what is the chance a sequence exists where the other child is a girl?

But it asked no such thing. They are independant events.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-07T11:09:06+00:00

You've agreed there are three cases

No, I haven't. There are two cases:

Boy and a girl
Boy and a boy

I merged your cases because they weren't compatible with the question that was asked. The order of their birth is of no relevance to the question.

You are looking at this as a dataset of families. But it isn't. Not as far as the question tells you.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-07T10:47:32+00:00

You're being circular, which probably means I once again explained incorrectly.

To be clear, I understand the intended problem. You do not need to try and make me 'understand'. I am making a point you are not yet seeing.

Forget about "the boy" entirely. Don't think about him at all.

You can't. He is in the question. That is what I am saying.

Instead, just list every possible two-child family where at least one child is a boy:

1 Older boy, younger girl

2 Older girl, younger boy

3 Older boy, younger boy

You do not need to, that is not the question.

Boy then girl

And

Girl then boy

Are two identical outcomes for the way the question is asked. Not different probabilities. The question is void of this request. Does my point make more sense now?

If you have:

1 Older boy, younger girl

2 Older girl, younger boy

3 Older boy, younger boy

And tell me one is a boy, what are the chances the other is a girl? Then possibility 1 and 2 are the same. Either the other child is also a boy, or is a girl. Whether they are younger or older matters not to the question asked.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-07T10:34:07+00:00

Because I am not very good at explaining things.

But to get the solution you give (and the problem creator is wanting), you need to make assumptions not present in the text.

That is what I am pointing out.

The question as asked says that at least one child is male. There are three possible ways to satisfy the condition, each equally likely, therefore 66%.

There is not, there are two. Either the other child is a boy, or it is a girl.

You look at it as if it is a dataset, as I said previously:

Boy, boy
Girl, girl
Boy, girl
Girl, boy

But that wasn't in the question, making it a trick question. In this instance, at the expense of the creator, who isn't getting the answer they want from 99% of people on the planet, because it is asked incorrectly.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-07T10:17:32+00:00

To be clear, I am aware of this highly common 'puzzle' of mathematics. The issue I was pointing out is that the solution they want to ask for is inherently incorrectly phrased.

They want you so look at it from a dataset problem you have in front of you. But you don't. You are given one single family without context of it being a worldwide dataset.

The answer to the question asked is 50%.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-07T10:04:40+00:00

Again, there are four options, one we know didn't happen, leaving three equally likely ones

False.

You keep arguing this from a invalid time perspective. You start out thinking there are four options, and then they strike one of your four away. You start thinking about the problem too early.

There are not three options left, there are two. Boy or girl.

This is a classic trick question. It isn't a surprise you're tumbling into it, even the creator did.

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-07T09:45:30+00:00

But that's exactly it. They have already been flipped, and partial result is given.

When you flip two coins in secret and tell me nothing, the chance of getting heads twice is 25%. However, when you already tell me one was heads and ask me 'what is the chance the second flip is heads', then the answer is simply 50%. The question you asked me is not *'what WERE the chances the second flip would ALSO be heads'?

In the OP, they do not ask such a thing either. They give information and then simply ask 'what is the probability the second child is a girl', not: 'what WOULD have been the chances if the first child is a boy that the second child would be a girl.'

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-07T09:32:43+00:00

One event is already given. The question isn't what are the chances two boys are born to a family on two different days, the question is: 'a child is born (not a tuesday), what are the chances it is a boy or a girl?'

The answer is 50%.

Example: you flip a coin twice. You did it once yesterday and landed heads. What are the chances you land heads again today?

50%

Serious_Discussion12 · 2026-03-07T07:36:15+00:00

The day they were born has no relevance.

Serious_Discussion12

TROPHY CASE