Leaderboard

I said it 5 days ago and 4 days before that, and probably a few other times throughout this thread before then, but…

TThis is becoming sad, shameful and ridiculous. I guess Americans have decided they would rather protect their 2nd Amendment rights than their kid's lives.

This is a science discussion forum. It works best when you treat it like a conversation around a table, rather than lecturing from a podium to an audience. I want to be able to stop reading when I encounter something questionable, ask a question, and get an answer before I read any more. I learn this way, a piece of information at a time so I can see if it fits well with accumulated human knowledge. I eat the same way, so it's like you're trying to make me fit a whole pizza in my mouth, instead of taking small bites to make sure it's not going to make me sick.

bud, cut tub, dub, put, nut, pet, net, cede, ten, but, deeds

Yes, If he's in Russia, he's not going to see open-minded news.

Ukraine beat the Russian air forces, the Russian logistics are horrible, the equipment failures are catastrophic, the Russian leaders are fielding confused and undersupported troops, and it's obvious that if what you say is true, Russia would be in control right now. Serg, I'm sorry you're so easily foooled by state propaganda, but we're here to help.

I've never proclaimed myself a philosopher, and just to be clear "I AM NOT A (trained) PHILOSOPHER"; I am, however, guilty of philosophising, the quality of which you're not qualified to assess, as your no expert. So, FFS, stop using it as an excuse. "Science is a discipline in eternal progress way of thinking, and we do science even if we do not to understand what we are doing." FTFY And for science read philosophy.

But if being 100 pounds heavier is a specified class division requirement, you aren't going to be competing there.

Ever feel like you are stuck between a rock and a hard place... Apologies, I appreciate your position. I was reminded earlier in this thread that the evolution of modern humans plays little part, since there has not been time long enough. So unless we start seeing females physically enhanced by genetic manipulation then we aint going to see females (in general) as big and strong as males (in general) any time soon. I'm all for removing prejudice, but not by shifting the problem around. I don't see how categorising (equally) persons by gender is such a big deal? Why should a person not feel proud to be who they are and applaud the category they find themselves in? So what qualification standards do you suggest would be suitable and fair? Your idea in my mind just encourages discrimination, basically you are saying - you can play in the with the top players, if you like cause you have shown that you have the skill sets to compete, but tough shit that you weigh 100 pounds less and stand 1' shorter.

I say this very tongue in cheek and it might be out of place during yet another tragic event, but it might be time to pry the guns from their cold dead hands.

Unfortunate that 25-30% of Americans have completely hijacked the machinery of politics and jurisprudence so they can stand vigilant against the imaginary marauders. Charon is right about the paranoia and hyperreactivity. My daughter teaches elementary and middle school and I'm just fed up with this shit. Y'all got plus ones - consider that my group hug.

There isn't enough people with them... apparently. The Constitution is equivalent to the tablet of the ten commandments. It belongs in a museum as a curiosity.

So all it should take is a majority of American's to get up off their fat arses, (don't be too concerned, plenty of Aussies have fat arses too) and their elected representitives to do something concrete and take the bit between the teeth.

It's happened 27 times in US schools this year. It seems like wasted energy to feel affected by it anymore. Fuck the GOP, NRA and the 2nd.

And the CDC is not allowed to study or track gun violence. I always found that defenders of the second amendment use arguments of fear to justify having guns on coffee tables within easy reach (including for toddlers and dogs). In fact, I found it astonishing how fearful in general the US population seems to be and how violent the response to perceived threats are, compared to many other countries (including Canada) When radical religious fanatics killed folks, trillions of dollars were spent to curb their influence (whether successful or not). But kids getting randomly murdered is apparently just the price folks have to pay (for what?).

Philosophy doesn't accept what's generally believed, it's there to question 'why it's generally believed'; you freely admit that you've not been trained in either discipline. To do something practical in a violent situation also requires training; otherwise you're just an angry old man trying to take out Bruce Lee in a street fight. Just because you're capable of throwing a punch, it doesn't mean you'll be effective. Entropy is in eternal progress, science/philosophy lives and dies with us...

I'll try to describe my question in a more concrete setting. Let's say we have two Stern–Gerlach apparatuses, side by side, and two entangled electrons as before. The apparatuses are parallel to each other. We measure one electron in one apparatus and find out that it moves toward the magnetic N of the apparatus. If we measure the second electron in the second apparatus, it will move to its magnetic S. If the second apparatus were set e.g. perpendicularly to the first, then the second electron could move there to the N or to the S with equal probabilities. Now, the second apparatus is in M87 and we want it to be set parallel to the first for the purpose of the measurement of the second electron spin. How do we determine the correct setting for the second apparatus? Wouldn't it depend on the path of the electron from Earth to M87 through the curved space?

It does seem to be a truly American phenomenon. I think it is bred into us from an early age, learning about individualism, making your own way, being responsible for yourself and no one else. James Braddock was an American boxer who is widely praised for giving back the welfare money he received to feed his family during the Great Depression. So many of the people who are put up for heroes are the people who take care of themselves.

I suspect we're talking past each other, I'm not saying the question's are literally the same, I'm saying they think about the answer's in exactly the same way. It's a good job I took @MigL advice, and invested in a quality 'irony meter'...

It must be difficult living in constant fear that you could melt at any time. LOL! Stop it Smalls, you're killing me! 😂

You are of course correct, no extraordinary evidence is forth coming. There are some that were so sloppily explained by the air force it reeked of incompetence at least. I often wonder just what would extraordinary evidence look like? Is it reasonable to think we could acquire such evidence on this subject with out intent from the source? I honestly wonder if this subject is going to be limited to circumstantial evidence unless the source, what ever that may be, decides we get such evidence. The comparison to meteorites comes to mind. In the beginning of "science" the experts were quite sure that rocks did not fall from the sky. Even rock falls witnessed by people were dismissed as rocks blown by winds or thrown out of volcanoes. Even a collection of meteorites that was on display at a famous museum were taken off display because the prevailing wisdom decried they could not be extraterrestrial. Of course today we know better, but did the evidence suddenly become extraordinary? No the same evidence was all we had at the time but it became apparent that the debunkers were just that, debunkers, and that rocks falling from the sky could only be explained by rocks falling from the sky. All the other arguments of mistaken eye witnesses, wind blown rocks, and volcanoes simply served to muddy the water for the real explanation. When we see something that, while unknown, is inexplicable by by all other evidence do we really require that the object land on the Whitehouse lawn?

Yes, the idea of personal sacrifice for the good of a community is one that's currently in danger of being swamped by extreme ideologies. Somewhere I was reading this social philosopher who mentioned the pizza analogy - at a party, some people grab three slices of pizza because they think the supply will run out, while others take only a single modest slice, for the same reason. We seem to have a lot of three slice grabbers dominating the conversation atm.

All you need show us is an example of professional women, competing on a level footing against professional men and holding their own or winning. I won't hold my breath. You failed to comment on the progressive reasonable NRL situation. And some people believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden. Except sport is defined as a test of skills, endurance, speed, physical ability, athleticism, dexterity, toughness, both mental and physical and the pursuit of excellence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport Sport is usually governed by a set of rules or customs, which serve to ensure fair competition, and allow consistent adjudication of the winner. Sportsmanship is an attitude that strives for fair play, courtesy toward teammates and opponents, ethical behaviour and integrity, and grace in victory or defeat

But your argument was: So you're obviously moving the goalposts just as many times as you've stated your arguments. It's a version of No True Scotsman, really. No example will truly suffice, because you'll keep bringing up more extreme examples. "No woman could ever compete with the top Whitewater Apple Bobbers!"

Another post illustrating what my claim has been. Let's get down to the nitty gritty, no matter how much it disturbs the extreme PC brigade......Professional rugby players, or professionals in other body contact sports, will always be segregated for obvious reasons. That will not change anytime soon. That stance is supported by medical and expert advice, based on the physical differences and biology between men and women.