Intoscience

I'm not arguing anything other than why would the Earth be a target for visitation unless there was something special about it or happened just to be on route? It's like walking on a beach and aiming for a particular grain of sand that's of interest. Unless you already new about it and specifically aimed in that direction then the likelihood is you would never even notice it, unless by shear chance you happened upon it and was looking for something in particular that the grain of sand possessed. Now it might turn out that the Earth is special and as a result we are being noticed. In this case stealth maybe a preferred option from outside visitors, and for reasons not known or understood by us.

Yes, I just couldn't remember his real name, Thanks No offense, but what a crock of shite...

How many rocky planets are there with liquid water in 10 light years of Earth? I only know of one so far but it could be more. However 10 light years is a small region relative to the size of the galaxy so the question would be how many technological species are there in a region of 10 light years of the Earth, existing at the same time? There are billions of choices of paths, what are the chances that Earth happened to be on one of them?

I get your point, however rocky planets similar to ours could be quite common. Indeed current observational data suggests that many, if not the vast majority of stars with solar systems contain at least one rocky planet. Earth may well be on the list of targets, but if nothing special and quite common, then out of the billions of choices there is no reason why we should expect Earth to be picked out of the bunch. Based on this premise, I would assume the Earth would be chosen purely based on its accessibility/location, i.e. along the path of "potential fuelling stops."

Earth may not yet have been noticed anyhow, even with the radio signals broadcasted over the past century, maybe no one has seen us waving?

Because they can..., who says they are hiding? we might be just too blind to see.

Forgiveness and judgment can be 2 different animals, there is no requirement for a judge in a court of law to forgive, only to serve justice based on the law. Yep, Jesus was full of nice sentiments, if people actually followed his example in many aspects of life this world would be a better place. Unfortunately, a child murdering rapist, especially repeat offenders are not likely to "go and sin no more" and if not dealt with are highly likely to commit further atrocities. "We shall not cast stones because we are all guilty of sin, therefore non are qualified to cast judgement on this poor soul, so we forgave him, we let him go, and told him not to sin again" Good luck with explaining that one to the parents of the victims.

Some crimes are unforgiveable, The kidnap, rape torture and murder of an innocent child springs to mind. But there you go... maybe that's just my archaic view point, and not PC.

My apologies, this is one of a few words I always mix up, sometimes along with "were and where". I also regularly get letters in the incorrect order in words. If it wasn't for spell check my sentences would read rather amusing or irritating, depending on your OCD. I'll drop it then.

Do you find peace on this merry go round of a thread?

Peace from not acting in a way that makes me feel bad, or peace from knowing that my actions may result in prevention?

Possibly, I can't argue against this since I haven't (fortunately) had to experience such. Though PTSD takes different forms in different individuals for many different experiences, so there maybe a chance, but its not a given. I may suffer PTSD from the experience of losing a loved one at the hands of a killer, by which any further PTSD from seeking personal justice maybe be negligible. Who knows?

I'm a little archaic in that I'm quite a firm believer (to a degree) in an eye for an eye and all that... I don't believe in god/s, heaven or hell and I don't really believe in souls per say.

Justice is an ideology, there is no such thing as one "true" justice. Ordinary folk are chosen so you (ideally) get an objective view from a variety of differing individuals, that as a collective agree upon a course of action which best suits. A collective which aims to make society a safer and better place for themselves and others. What qualifications are required in a jury? The professionals are called upon to give their opinion based on their expertise, this is not required for judgement but rather medical evidence to aid in that judgement. Professionally qualified people can be prone to biases towards what they have been schooled on, rather than what they experience in life. We all suffer mental "illness" some more than others, dependent on your point of view.

A similar thing happened to a friend of mine. He was jailed because semen was found on the girl and she had light bruising. Even though they had had sex in his car which was awkward and possibly accounted for the light bruising, which by the way he had bruising himself after knocking his arm and knee also. However she made a convincing case to the court and although he appealed profusely, he was sentenced to 5 years in prison which he served 2.5 of them. It was since discovered that she was notorious for sleeping around and had had sex with many men prior to my friend. Some of which came forward in his defence, though unsuccessful. She admitted to loosing her virginity at 13, she was 15 when she spent the evening with my friend, she had convinced him she was 17, he was 19 at the time. Sadly he died aged 48 from alcohol abuse, after leaving prison he struggled to deal with the stigma and embarrassment. There are many sad cases like this, and I'm sure there will continue to be. Some cases are always going to be complicated, some simple. Either way, protecting society from violent crimes must take priority over anything else. Maybe he did, your example, like mine, is a complicated one that relies on witness statements, the witness's being the 2 participants. Sometimes a good liar gets away with a crime.

Sorry, I'm not seeing this at all, Regardless of the different stages / abnormalities a female may go through. The fact that females are inherently evolved/designed to bare offspring and males are not is a distinct difference between them. Your argument still stands regarding "other" I'm not arguing this. A person who has genitals' from both male and female may not have the required biological mechanisms to bare offspring, granted and maybe classed within the "other" group. My question is what do you use to define - male, female, other? if there is no clear distinction between them? I'm not being pedantic, I'm asking for a definition so that I can understand what the differences are.

I never said "the best definition" I just said that it was a simple obvious "general" difference between a male and female. Or are you telling me that men can bare children (without medical intervention)? Is there a single case in human history where a male human has become pregnant, carried a child and then given birth? I'm not claiming anything, I'm not arguing that there are only 2 sexually categories. I'm asking to define scientifically the difference between a male and female. This is relevant to the question because in order to define "other" sexes do we not require to define the difference between male and female, since the binary category is used as the base line to which all others are measured? CharonY answered this, stating that technically its not so simple, however CharonY then went on to say that even single celled organisms can be defined sexually (if I understood correctly) during reproductive stages changing as either one or the other. So forgive me if you think I'm being silly, my purpose was to gain an understanding through the eyes of a layman. Just to be clear, I actually agree that for the purpose of categorization then we need more than 2 sexes as you have continuously pointed out throughout this thread. So I also agree, if this is within the context of what the OP asked then you have given the answer. However for the purpose of biology which focuses on reproduction to characterise the sexes, are there only 2 definitive sexes?

This is all well and good but, you are describing the extremes or rarities to argue against the generally accepted. If we consider "all" possibilities then we have a muddy water situation where the terms male & female become useless undefined terms. So technically there appears to be no clear distinction between the 2 yet the terms are still used as though there is. So which is it and what would you consider defines the difference in such a way that is undeniable? Why is it silly? what's wrong with starting with this premise and thrashing out why this is not a useful argument? technically it may not be accurate but if you took a poll in the general public and asked them to describe the differences between a male and female then you would get the obvious "general" physical differences scoring top, child baring being one of them. As scientists the experts on this subject, like CharonY, would then educate us on why this is not strictly the case. However, none has yet offered a undeniable difference between a male and female that clearly defines the 2. So where do we draw the line? what would you describe as an acceptable difference, or rather when would you use the term male or female to describe the sex of a person? Would you describe yourself as either, none or both?

+1 Yes and this can make arguments difficult especially if the context is not clear. My attempt on this subject was to define the sexes with a basic generally accepted construct. I certainly wouldn't argue with experts like yourself on the technical details at levels that go beyond my understanding.

I think this sums it up really. David Blaine, Dynamo?? Joking of course, however people genuinely believe that both perform miracles. Yes and this is it really, But much like your good wife and my dear mother, belief in such gives comfort, hope and direction and so shouldn't be dismissed if that belief produces positive and constructive results.

I think it depends on your arguments, style and the intent behind them. One thing I have learned in life is that some folk just love to argue because they enjoy the drama. Some folk argue because they think/believe they are always right or know more than others. Some folk argue just to be awkward and disruptive. On the other hand some folk argue because they are passionate or care, or actually genuinely know more... The trick is to discover the intent and argue (or not) back accordingly. Ask yourself which category do you fit into? +1 An excellent point!! I especially excelled in high school in the subjects where I had a connection, and mutual respect with the tutor. We do some coaching in sports and forming a connection with students, especially with young students, is paramount to success.

No, of course not you know full well this was not what I meant, you are just being pedantic. Yeah which is why I stated in my post that you conveniently left out in your quote. - Based on design, structure and mechanics. I understand and accept that at a technical level where chromosomes vary and all the other subtle changes, differences show up etc... the definition between male and females gets very muddy. Not unlike most things in nature as we probe deeper into the workings of the universe. So where do we draw the line on definitions? At what point do we consider the actual differences to define the terms? I may say a snow is white, you may correct me and say, actually each flake is transparent but is perceived as white due to the way the crystals that form the snow flake reflect the light. Technically you would be correct, generally though snow is accepted and defined as white. Why do we define the sexes as binary, then argue that this is not the case? My point was that generally speaking a human male and female differ because one is designed to bear offspring and the other isn't. I couldn't think of any simpler explanation of how we could define the differences without going too deep into the muddy waters.

The only thing I can think of that is undeniable is the capability to give birth. Human males have no capability human females do, by this I mean the design, structure and mechanics.

Nice, that was funny, I'm always putting the h's in the wrong place. In fact where I come from, during speech we tend to drop the pronunciation of h's from words. For example we would say "ad" instead of "had" etc...

Agreed, my partner struggles with such tests especially specific questions and tends to score low. She struggled academically, yet she is an amazing artist, very astute to detail, so for example she notices things in situations most other people would miss. She would probably make a good detective. Some people are just good at these tests, others not so. Intelligence or as String Junky states "strengths, skills and abilities" may lie elsewhere.