>The increase in risks for complications during pregnancy at age 35 compared to younger ages can vary significantly depending on the specific condition. Here’s a breakdown of the orders of magnitude of some common risks:
>1. Chromosomal Abnormalities (e.g., Down Syndrome):
>At age 25: About 1 in 1,200 (0.08%).
>At age 35: About 1 in 350 (0.29%).
>Increase in risk: Approximately 3-4 times higher.
>2. Gestational Diabetes:
>At age 20-29: About 2-3% of pregnancies.
>At age 35-39: About 6-8% of pregnancies.
>Increase in risk: Approximately 2-3 times higher.
>3. Preeclampsia (High Blood Pressure in Pregnancy):
>At age <35: About 2-5% of pregnancies.
>At age ≥35: About 8-10% of pregnancies.
>Increase in risk: 1.5-2 times higher.
>4. Miscarriage:
>At age 20-29: About 10-15%.
>At age 35: About 20-25%.
>Increase in risk: ~1.5-2 times higher.
>5. Stillbirth:
>At age 20-29: 4 in 1,000 (0.4%).
>At age 35: 6-8 in 1,000 (0.6-0.8%).
>Increase in risk: ~1.5-2 times higher.
>Summary: The increases are generally not an order of magnitude (10x), but risks often double or triple by age 35. These percentages highlight the importance of regular prenatal care and monitoring for women of advanced maternal age

Yes Dawkins is a scientist so of course he's going to discuss religion with respect to its material claims. He wouldn't have such fertile territory to explore were it not for the fact that religions often do make material claims about the universe or, at the very least, they have a large number of believers who interpret their faiths in such a way.
You simultaneously criticize him having insufficient knowledge outside his field yet demand his arguments attain an unbounded breadth so as to encompass more diverse interpretations of religion. Now satisfying one surely means betraying the other, no? You admit no plausible criteria in which Dawkins' argument can satisfy you or even be evaluated by you as substantive because you have a puerile hostility towards his existence. In short, you're arguing in bad faith.
It's also worth nothing that defining a narrow bounds for a conversation is scholarly practice. If you don't agree with the material claims put forward by most religions then Dawkins' criticism should mean nothing to you. If anything, you should appreciate it, as it may drive away the more clownish adherents who tend to detract from everyone else.

He's trying to draw in an off beat "cutesy" artstyle. It's a big thing with the trans and furry lofi art communities on discord. Think of the kind of stuff adjacent to sewerslvt or the boykisser meme. It all rhythms with the archetype of low esteem men getting into anxious cylces who then end up surrounding themselves with other discord friends as a coping mechanism and outlet, but those same people who are highly receptive to their worries (and, woah, they are even flirting with pathetic guy like me!) trade their baggage in return. Then the guy starts getting more involved with their interests and what do you know they like quirky music, interesting art and are refreshingly open about porn. If that pathetic guy is an artist they will soon take inspiration while being egged on by their "alty" friends to do more and more. Then the cycle of egg cracking starts, because those exact same people who have become that guy's "friends" don't just like pornagraphy but also include it as part of their lifestyle which then gets pushed more and more on the guy. Overtime the he picks up the same habits and interests as these people and starts to see these groups as a big part of his identity, so he starts to conform with the desires and wishes of people who at their core are just as low in esteem as he is but make up for it with sexual gratification which he will fill. He will either crack or he will become a chaser for "cute" guys or "enbys" as he finally told about the pink or furry pill by his friends and takes it as a serious cool alternative for his life and not a confession of nerfarious intentions by people he knows online.
Shen is falling into that archetype and his art is an indicator of his gradual downward spiral.
Or maybe he just sucks, that could be true too

>i was going to call ye,I' m here what's up
so he was singing in the sketch
2009,reminding me of that time
song from way before tho
but still comes 2009 to mind
specially the program which the sketch is from

>Veronica Mars
never ever watched it but had a dream about it,at least what I considered as this series in the dream, the woman was talking to live animal shaped chocolates that were singing
this was about 20 years ago

>and that's it
*the end
-after 12 minutes only,supposed to be 60 at least
no slides and no effort whatsoever
and it was four years ago

>Maorksbxowkvnslndlqnvolokbpvan
in their language meaning"the one who fights with the wrong hand",cause he was left handed
and it's something I invented

>what's up anon? you are trembling
after discovering the stuff
tried to hide it and all but unsuccessfully
very much shame then but now laughter
2014

>fear! you won't be able to stare at the doll
>nothing scary about it,not only I did stare at her but I did even fap to her
so were the messages
from 2009

>ball,star,skull,scrawl,bomb!
at the moment he was tossing his hat in the floor out of anger
stuff from yet 1b

>[black] best song of all [black]. [yellow] enjoy it [yellow]
so was the message he wrote,but failed
in the end even the Flower was mocking him
and it was in 2007

>and as for you William,go take in your ass go! at least quit being a jerk
there was then anger and swearing
and it was in 2007

>>8073866