Leaderboard

I encounter this argument against a variety of reforms. The underlying logic seems to be that only some kinds of problems are worth solving. E.g. let's withdraw money for treating depression, because they're fine physically and other people are starving or sick. They should just grow a pair and quit whining. You see the flaw there? Just because you don't experience a certain category of suffering doesn't mean it's not a real problem for someone else. Human life can't be reduced to one short menu of problems. If I send money to the Nature Conservancy, it's because preserving wild lands is important to me and I believe it's critical to keeping the planet sustainable, it doesn't mean I don't care about discrimination or food insecurity or malaria.

'All classifications are arbitrary' is an immutable fact. Humans decide what is what. Classifying is what we do to turn the continuum of natural phenomena into discrete concepts that we can share with other humans. All of our concepts and associations are constructed. You have been here long enough to know that facts evolve over time in scientific research. This subject is no different.

Almost two-thirds of US adults are overweight or obese, and that triggers a lot of chronic issues. https://www.aha.org/system/files/content/00-10/071204_H4L_FocusonWellness.pdf There’s also the overall aging, as the baby boom generation are all senior citizens now. I wonder if the CDC meant to say adults, vs all. There’s also this https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-04-05/americas-decline-in-life-expectancy-speaks-volumes-about-our-problems

You’ve yet to comprehensively define what a real man or woman is (and good luck with that - talk about a false dichotomy!). This is a straw man argument - nobody has asserted this - there is no such insistence on “real” men and women supported by science. To cast the argument this way misses the whole point, starting with the confusing of sex and gender.

I am not sure why having a broad definition is an issue. In fact, it is rather necessary to assess health burden. I may be misunderstanding OP, but it sounds to me that it is potentially assumed that "chronic" is somewhat aligned with severity and should therefore be visible. However in this context the issue with chronic diseases is that they require ongoing management, regardless of severity. A lot of folks have hypertension, for example. Often it is well managed. Similarly, you would not easily notice folks with osteoathritis or osteoporosis other in their most extreme forms. Likewise, depression is a chronic disease, which has spiked a fair bit during the pandemic. And if you go down the list of common chronic diseases, it is rather easy to see how you would get to 40-60% of the population having at least one of the issues especially taking an aging (and/or overweight) population into account. It should also be noted that chronic disease information in various jurisdictions can vary or missing, so comparison between countries could be difficult. Some require multi-year treatment rather than 1yr to qualify, or could be based on self-reporting (as in some European databases). That being said, diabetes is a very strong indicator with enormous health burden and we can see here that the UK has a surprisingly low prevalence (about 4%), whereas Canada, Germany USA and Mexico are way higher (7.6, 10.4, 10.8 and 13.5).

If you are a member of the professional class, active and in work, you won’t see that much of the unhealthy portion of the population. Commuting to work in London, one notices how young and healthy many people are, compared with say a coastal English town that one might visit on holiday. In the US I suspect there is also a strong ethnic divide, with poor health prevalent among groups one meets fewer of. But I see they include as chronic disease anything that lasts over a year and requires treatment. That strikes me as very broad.

Their definition of "chronic disease" is pretty broad, and includes anything you take a regular medication for, and anything that hampers any aspect of "daily living". That said, for the money we pay out, we have a terrible healthcare system, where who gets paid is more important than who gets well.

Anecdotally, friends who have been over there say there is a lot of very overweight people your side. The UK isn't great either these days, but Americans top the overweight podium, it seems.

What does this have to do with what I said? This isn’t what “woke” means to a lot of people - to those who coined it, it means alert to prejudice and discrimination. Perhaps you could use another word, rather than appropriating it. Personally I think eliminating prejudice and discrimination is a positive in society. Real equality and inclusion should include sex and gender. Given that trans people are shunned, beaten and killed, I’d say they are not folks who have “nothing else to worry about” Sports is just one area of inclusion that’s become a focus, and used by some as the scapegoat du jour; other minority groups used in the past have gained acceptance, so it’s not as effective in stirring up the emotions of the masses. But you could look at this from the other perspective - why are we paying attention to the folks who have nothing better to do than stirring up trouble for people who haven’t done them any harm?

For the last two days I've been "studying" recent and ongoing discussions in half a dozen different science forums. They differ to some degree and the choice depends on personal preferences. I'll stick with this one.

I agree with you that this distinction is the heart of the matter. Mathematicians have a beautifully involved and highly abstract theory of the infinite. Yet nobody has ever demonstrated a completed infinity in the physical world in which we live. Some cosmologists speculate that beyond the visible universe, the universe as a whole may be infinite. If so, then it would be a question of physics as to whether set theory applies to physical infinities. I believe this is a question for many decades in the future. It has often been the case that crazy abstract math later becomes necessary to describe the world we live in. Riemann and others pioneered the math of non-Euclidean geometry in the 1940s, and everyone considered it a great curiosity but of no use to the physicists. Then when Einstein was struggling to formulate his general theory of relativity, one of his math buddies said, "Hey, math has just the thing for you," and showed him Riemannian geometry, which is the perfect mathematical setting for relativity. Einstein reportedly said that when he got his own theory back from the mathematicians, he no longer understood it. So this is my thesis, or my belief. That some genius not yet born is going to find a use for infinitary set theory within physics; and that breakthrough, whatever it is, will enable the next huge leap in scientific understanding. I also think that answer to consciousness is NOT to be found in today's understanding of computability and AI; but rather within some future scientific revolution. Our current focus on computer AI is on the same level as the 18th century vision of the world as a great machine. Whatever is the technology of the age, we think the universe and/or our minds are that thing. We are not 18th century clockwork machines, and we are not computers as we currently understand them. I think the mathematics of the infinite is the key to the next revolution in physics; but that we're many decades or a century early.

That is the difference between a human classification system and what is in the natural world. Nature has all the variability, including non-viable, sterile and everything in-between. I.e. they exist. Our classification system is cruder and as you mentioned, mostly ignores rare conditions in most contexts. That does not make them non-existent. At minimum we have therefore XY, XX and one big box for all other configurations on the karyotpe level (which by my count exceeds two categories). It should be noted that this is not even all that determines the development of sexual organs. Folks with Swyer syndrome, for example have an XY karyotpe, but develop female genitalia. So the karyotype would be male, but the phenotype clearly female. Gender development is not fully genetic, but has strong developmental aspects. During childhood we develop something that we associate with our identity and including aspects like sexual orientation (which are further developed during puberty) but also gender identity. While there appear to be genetic dispositions (which are still under investigation), the link is likely quite a bit more complicated. As far as I can tell, no one decides out of the blue to be of a certain gender without some form of identify formed behind that.

I don't know what you mean here, i.e., what should be the same. The body A has velocity v in S, and velocity v'=0 in S'. The body B has velocity u=v/(4-3v2/c2)1/2 in S, and velocity u'=(u-v)/(1-uv/c2) in S'.

The origin of S moves with the speed -v in S'. The body B moves with the speed u in S. Use relativistic velocity addition formula: the speed of B in S' = (u-v)/(1-uv/c2).

Then why have categories? Then why do males who feel they have been born in the wrong body want so desperately to become women? It's hypocritical and inconsistent. There is no such thing as binary sex just a spectrum Some people born male want to become female I oppose making sporting events unfair and boring Yet there is lots of media exposure & fuss on transgender rights, but we are to dismiss the rights of those affected by this. Typical. Funny how all of a sudden when suits a person's opinion, beliefs and feelings matter in science? Yet if I claimed that aliens are real, and that I was born a human but really I should have been an alien. You would then quickly dismiss this as nonsense, show us the evidence, you need therapy... Double standards. Yeah sure. All the nonsense that is being shoved down peoples throats, that is nothing more than a cry for attention and getting rather tedious and boring and promotes nothing positive in society, but actually encourages more contempt and resentment. The LGBQTAA+1, I mean WTF is this supposed to represent? and what are the people who are supporting this trying to achieve? I think it's insulting and patronising for the people who are gay, lesbian... and people are getting tired of it. Lets focus on things that really matter like saving our planet, saving near on extinct species, famine, poverty, disease... sustainability for the human race. Kindness & harmony in society, real equality & inclusion... Or shall we continue to pander to attention seeking people who have nothing else to worry about? Do you think the starving poverty stricken dying people in third world countries give a flying f about people who are complaining about wanting to be identified as "they"? And for those that are whining about being born male/female and should have been the opposite. Wow! how insulting to those people who are born disabled. I'm very embarrassed that I suffer from body dysmorphia, because I know that I'm very fortunate to be relatively healthy and that there are millions of people who would trade places with me! Ok, Lets cut to the chase Educate me please, Define the difference between male & female If there is no difference explain to me why the term male & female exist Define the difference between man & woman If there is no difference then explain to me what the term man & woman represent Assuming the above answers are satisfied, when a man wants to be identified as a woman what does this mean? What if my definition of a man or a woman doesn't match another person's definition of a man or a woman , how do we categorise such? If a person born male claims they are really female what do they mean by this? Would you say that if a person believes they are something that they are physically not, this would be regarded (scientifically) as a mental issue? I'm more than happy to change my views on this matter if we can find some consistencies and common ground.

I thought i was banned LOL. I don't even know what you are saying... You don't understand how bad this is, it is derealizing how mindless other ppl are... Because I was called names for posting something which was correct and ridiculed, i posted this article about ADs into science news, because you were wrong and yet you were offensive for no reason and yet hypocritical accussing me of something you are doing yourself... You say talking about science, i said literally nothing wrong at start and was bullied for no reason, but you are in group so you have other ppl back you up without reading anything... You are bunch of bullies, I was even told that I Am creating new accounts and to not spam, while had like 68 comments on 2.5 years account. That's just show how ridiculously arrogant you are... I did not make new accounts... And also my post were banned and some elitists were laughing, that if depression is not chemical imbalance: "what it would be?", while even APA never held this hypothesis and scientists which came with it laughed at it... This just show you are uneducated... No one under 160IQ can even understand me, you are just salty... I get that all the time even from 140/150IQs, but from 160IQ I can have polite conversation. If I was delusional, then this couldn't happen, it is inconsistent! I know you won't believe me, you are here only to circle jerk your own egos.. Gifted have no break, normal ppl are cruel, abusive, barbaric... I literally read others have same problems, you just couldn't understand. I had chat over 1000 pages with 160IQ 4 areas of science and philosophy and he told me i am extremely intelligent, deal with it... You were wrong and you yet accused me ahead of something, that wasn't even true and you act like high school teenagers... Doesn't matter everything is one whole, only biggest geniuses that ever lived thought so, if you don't overcome your ego, we will torture each other forever... We should make it like sport, to have fun and make it fun for everyone and using selfish-altruism elevating other ppl with us, instead of trying to push them down. I talked to some 160IQ, can't get job after 1000 application after cleared record, because Pharmas are nothing but criminal syndicates... Look what happen on other forums, you would have to be most self deluded ppl ever to still talk the way you do after reading this: https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/38439-is-this-science-forums-dying/#comment-395814 99.9% ppl can't even engage with argument of other side, look at Eliezer Yudkowski, he is called doomer and names for just doing science, this is bullying... ANd what he says is besides the point, not many ppl can even engage truly with argument, their start from their own point of views and try to justify their pre-existent believes with logical fallacies... As we didn't evolve to know the truth, that is rather statistical fluke, but to sell our truth to others...