swansont

! Moderator Note Then find the material and link to it. This is unacceptable in a scientific discussion. ! Moderator Note This and the first statement are also unacceptable Rule 2.12 We expect arguments to be made in good faith. Honest discussions, backed up by evidence when necessary. Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling. Specifically, a claim that you can make the models say anything, and that NASA/GISS are manipulating data. You want to believe this things? That's your business. But you don't get to claim that here without having the receipts.

I have seen precious little discussion of the physical factual evidence in this thread. I see repetition of talking points, appeals to grade-school biology and plenty of hyperbole. What you call reality seems to be a world view. You probably identify as right- or left-handed. Why do you choose to do so?

Is there any scientific basis for this?

We’d expect the crash rate to be the baseline if the self-driving feature was not employed.

The rules don’t, and there’s been no evidence presented that this is being attempted. So we’re where we started on page 1, with a made-up scenario.

Haven’t found fatalities (yet), but according to these sources driverless vehicles have ~9 crashes per million miles driven, while the overall US rate is 0.26 per million miles https://www.knrlegal.com/car-accident-lawyer/self-driving-car-accident-statistics/#:~:text=Self-Driving Car Quick Facts,autonomous car to drive them. https://safetydawg.com/measure-collision-rate-safety-consultant/#:~:text=Recently the “American Transportation Research,average or better than average%3F Fatalities depend on several factors, including how close you are to a hospital, so driverless vehicles not being legal everywhere might not give a true safety comparison, but having a ~36x higher collision rate surely suggests the technology isn’t there yet, and we’d not be safer edit: 2nd source has a somewhat restrictive definition of collision; it doesn’t include “fender benders” https://jalopnik.com/self-driving-car-vs-human-99-percent-safe-crash-data-1850170268 Cites a higher rate - 1 crash per .55 million miles. Still lower than driverless

! Moderator Note Non-speculations discussion of warming has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132160-global-warming-split-from-atmosphere-correcting-lamp/

What’s the rate, though? You can’t just compare the raw numbers.

But you didn’t cite this earlier. You said it was because they are different. Evidence has been provided that transgender women who undergo HRT (which is the rule for many sports) have no advantage. So which is it?

We’re arguing that gender is nonbinary and not determined by your chromosomes. Also that “choose” is perhaps not the right phrasing; does one choose to be right- or left-handed? The IAAF, for example, started using gender for their competition category designation in the 90’s (you said you read the article where this was pointed out). Part of the current controversy is their pivot to using testosterone levels. And part of this discussion’s difficulty is the confusion between sex and gender, despite protests from some that they aren’t confusing the two. You seem to have done so here. In the context of “what is the definition of ‘ban’ you’d find in a dictionary, that people use in discussions that are in good faith” rather than Humpty Dumpty’s “A word means what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less." But in the context of iNow’s post, which is what you quoted; that will do. It would be a mistake to paint feminists as wanting to exclude. That’s a subset, the trans-exclusionary radical feminists, or TERFs. There are plenty of feminists who are trans-inclusionary

What does “ban” mean?

I didn’t twist anything. And the context was set by iNow’s post. If you think I’m guilty of twisting the context, you must also acknowledge the iNow’s context was twisted (and this is what I was attempting to show. How dare I do that!). I have to assume someone meant what they said. If their words were incorrectly chosen, they should clarify. If they meant to use that phrasing, they would just respond with snark. And we see what has transpired.

I’m not sure why you think I didn’t understand the context. On the contrary, I think perhaps you don’t understand the context of transgender bans occurring in the US. It’s not just telling kids they can’t compete. Almost a third of transgender youth live in states that have banned gender-affirming care. Banned as in there are no legal options. An actual ban. In that context, men are not banned from competing. They are restricted, in some cases, in which leagues they might compete. But they are not banned from competing, which means they would not be allowed to compete at all. The claim is BS. It relies on the fallacy of equivocation. Do you really want to defend it? Transgender women have been participating in women’s sports for a number of years. Women’s sports exists. The claim is BS as well. While one might defer to a subject matter expert, in this case I won’t.

I know that this is one approach, but another is to not give such tripe any oxygen. The problem here is the assumption that one is dealing with people truly interested in rational discourse, rather than trying to appeal to emotion, and also the assumption that they will argue in good faith. We have too many examples of this not being the case. Diso had many of the hallmarks of someone showing up to stir the pot until they got banned, so they can tell themselves they were persecuted for telling the truth instead of the reality that they were being insufferably boorish, and also boring, and it’s just not worth having them around. The “I am a legend in my mind” folks are a dime a dozen.

Women’s sports don’t exist? Odd that I haven’t noticed. Men have been banned from sports? Odd that I haven’t noticed.

Also to rail about how everyone should be free to say anything, and then whine about being insulted.

Of which you are a member, and joined voluntarily.

One wonders why you are here, rather than there.

There is no controversy. I support the first amendment: the government should not censor you. But freedom of speech does not carry any requirement that you have to be provided the megaphone by anyone. Because this forum does not belong to you.

Too bad it doesn’t work that way. A lot of folks are swayed by emotion, not reason. That’s why we have people that repeat nonsense. And too often people that appeal to freedom of speech are advocating for freedom from consequences of their speech.

A derivative is in one variable, e.g. dx/dy; a direction can be inferred by the sign A gradient is in more than one variable, and is explicitly a vector The derivative is basically the 1-D case of the gradient

AFAIK they are allowed to follow their own policies. They have to follow the law, such as complying with copyright takedown notices, issues involving harassment, etc. They can ban whoever they please. People can “vote with their feet”

Rights are between you and the government. Freedom of speech, in terms of the US first amendment, means the government can’t censor you. Forums, in general, are not government entities. Some more quotes for you “They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” — Carl Sagan “Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.” — Robert L. Park. And this: https://xkcd.com/1357/

It happened, and if you know that and say that it didn’t, you are lying. If you don’t know, you are ignorant, and saying it didn’t happen is a misrepresentation, because you are saying you know something you don’t. But the burden is on you to educate yourself. If you make the argument, there really isn’t a scenario where you can say that it didn’t happen that isn’t an argument in bad faith. It doesn't really matter what your motivation is - whether you have an agenda, whether you are trolling, whatever - there’s little chance if convincing you otherwise, and we don’t want to waste time on it. And arguing by belittling others is another tactic that’s not going to fly.

You said “our government” before referencing Casey, and didn’t exactly make a direct connection. Protip: we can’t read your mind, so you need to do better (much better) in providing context and making rigorous arguments.