J.C.MacSwell

When you can be as omnipresent as required...how is this difficult? Also why would He choose to to be the mortal Messiah for each species? Don't forget He works in mysterious ways. For all the questionable things done in his name...by "official accounts" He seems like a pretty good guy. i'm starting to think you lack a little faith...

Fairly easy to do. A bit harder but much for effective if the conditions are right is to wear boots with steel blades attached and add the ability to glide on it. At that point it's no longer religion. It's in the realm of science. I think you might be underestimating Jesus a little here. If St. Nick can cover all of Earth in one night, bringing gifts to all the children as appropriate to what they have become accustomed to, an infinitely greater being with omnipresence would manage all you've mentioned above, and more, without problem.

So...here we are half a year later and I'm scheduled for a booster shot between Xmas and NewYear. After two Pfizer shots that I tolerated well, I was wondering whether to get that again or a Moderna booster. I chose Moderna despite slightly higher safety risks of Myocarditis or Pericarditis (I'm guessing driving to get vaccinated poses similar level of risk), mostly due to availability. Moderna also seems to be considered more effective. Apparently Pfizer shots only have 30% of the mRNA load of the Moderna shots, so the Pfizer boosters are full doses where the Moderna boosters are half doses. Related to that, for those without vaccine (and even those that have been), can the Omicron variant serve as a "vaccinator" (or booster)? Not that it would be recommended, but if it is a better "non-option" than say Delta, could it eventually be useful in that way? Also, are the variants competing with each other? Can some strains crowd others out?

I think a significant minority have surgical procedures but still far from a majority: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6626314/#:~:text=As a whole%2C less than,in the future (7).

+1 for the article. Hard to pick sides. A classic example of "They said, she said". Well...I did skip to start posting on page 7, after scanning page 1.

Are you "B." INow? I assumed "A." and "B." were composites you made up of members in this thread, for the purposes of mocking the "B." leaning arguments, even while most making those arguments have accepted from the outset that, depending on context, sex can be more than binary.

More accurate fix: B: Nope. Even by that definition...what about water? You're starting to sound hydrophobic. You're not hydrophobic, are you? Because that seems like the type of argument a hydrophobe would make. Lather, rinse...repeat as necessary

You forgot: A: What if we only consider substances that contract when they freeze...can we categorize them all as substances that contract when they freeze? B: Nope. Even by that definition...what about water?

Yep. We await the technology from our biology community, just as we await a more precise definition of biologically male and female that can include everyone...with no guarantee whether it is theoretically possible...or not.

You're one of a kind Dim...at least for now...

Have you tried other methods?

There are two and only two roles in successful human reproduction. They are distinct from each other and both are required. This is clearly binary proposition. It makes no attempt to classify unsuccessful roles. It makes no attempt to be inclusive. It just looks at the two critical roles that keep the human race enduring. The fact that there many additional ways to categorize sex does not change the fact that this is a biologically accurate context. When coming up with that figure of 0.001% as intersex, what do they consider the other 99.99% of the population? Do they consider them divisible into "male" and "female"? From the abstract of that article: "We surveyed the medical literature from 1955 to the present for studies of the frequency of deviation from the ideal male or female. We conclude that this frequency may be as high as 2% of live births." So to get to that figure they are clearly including many readily categorizable males and females as intersex. If you go by organizations with political agendas. The majority of the 1.7%, a number often cited for political purposes, are XX and XY individuals. And 99.9+% of XX and XY individuals are readily categorizable as either male or female. After removing those 99.9+% a reasonable estimate of intersex individuals would be around 0.4%. Categorizing those 0.4% into male and female might be more problematic, but for many quite possible.

Roles in successful human sexual reproduction. Please explain why you can't see this? First off, how can it possibly be defined to be as little as 0.001%? Second, is 1.7% anywhere close to your opinion on a reasonable definition you prefer to use? And if so how many XX and XY chromosome individuals are included in that 1.7%? (and you can exclude very rare cases of mixed) All that said/questioned +1 on your post.

And there is nothing wrong with that, but it it isn't limiting itself to successful human reproduction, which is the basis for our species. If it did, it would be a much smaller infographic. But I wouldn't really call it a spectrum in that infographic, the reference (proper IMO) to gender spectrum aside. For all the colours indicating a spectrum, there's an awful lot of arrows connecting distant colours. That said, I think anyone placing the intersex at greater than 1% of our population are including an awful lot of people that are clearly male, and clearly female, fertility issues notwithstanding.

Sex can reasonably be stated to be a continuum when you are considering gender, or sexual preference. How is sex biologically/reproductively speaking a continuum? I can accept readily that there can be multiples based on a reasonable definition that obviates that it is. What definition can possibly put it on a continuum?

Are you considering the definition given or are you not? You have 3, and only 3, objects in your hands: a football, a basketball, and a hammer...so is it fair to say you have 3 balls, spherical, oval, and "other"? The answer of course is yes, if by "ball" we agree to the definition that it is any object, and by the stricter normally definition generally used you don't need to be an expert mathematician to know you only have 2. Granted. Nor has anyone stated a clear definition of biologically male and biologically female beyond referring to the two different roles in successful human reproduction. And it's pretty evident there are only two. So we have at least 2 reasonable answers to the question and it depends on the context of what is meant by sex. However difficult the categories are to define, I think we all know what Koti is referring to. His inability, my inability, your inability, or biology's inability to state it clearly enough for you doesn't change that. And of course sex can also take on contexts that you can only conclude it's non-binary. And some of those contexts can be important for science, unlike the inclusion of the hammer as a "ball", which I don't think will ever happen short of some group seeing it as politically expedient to do so.

...and he might want to explain it That way forum members can decide if they really need to open a war games thread that includes assessing the effects of military spending. No. But the point was with respect to China taking Taiwan being more substantially strategical than symbolic, counter to Vat's claim it would be otherwise, not implying it was morally justifiable.

How is it not pertinent to the topic?

Generally speaking, the mass would tend toward the centre when it wasn't ingesting more mass from outside, and infinitely various states otherwise, but a homogenous state would be pretty unique/unlikely.

Under what conditions, or history, would the BH's mass distribution be that of a homogenous sphere?

China does have some concerns, whether real or imagined, for their limited access to the Pacific.

This could all lead to a major politico-economic Cold War. Hopefully not WW3. +1, but I think the purpose of being there was to send a slightly different message. I'm okay with China having some Laws I don't agree with. Treatment of the Uyghurs? Not so much. Not to imply sending warships through the Taiwan Strait was about the Uyghurs in any way whatsoever. It would have been about Taiwan, International Waters and possibly Japanese Islands along the route. Apparently someone didn't like the +1 on that post. And neg rep'ed it. I guess there is also the possibility they simply disagreed with something in it...be quite the situation if we all did that, when we saw something we didn't agree with. But don't mind me. Bully away.

LOL. I thought it was some reference to limiting communication, and I just wasn't in on the lingo. No doubt. But the US does like the backing, even militarily, of countries like Canada for posturing and political purposes. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-canada-warships-taiwan-strait-1.6214303 All invasions claim moral grounds. The US response would of course include disagreeing with any Chinese moral premise.

I learn something new everyday Phi...I never would have guessed you prayed that much!

Bare with me while I check the dictionary... Yep, you're right...I guess we better get dressed...