swansont

It’s almost like I didn’t point out the for-profit healthcare system motive a few posts back…

According to this, the US accounts for more than half of recent cancer funding, with China and Japan just under 5% https://ascopost.com/news/june-2023/global-funding-for-cancer-research-2016-2020/ I suspect the US’s for-profit healthcare system contributes to this

The universe was here before there were minds, so it’s not like the latter is a necessary ingredient

Voting isn’t a new policy or policy change and all of these policy issues existed before Biden stepped aside. The surge only happened afterwards. In a document of his from October 2016 “the Keys predict the popular vote, not the state-by-state tally of Electoral College votes” https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ksm9n3qsptqkjd7avr5km/Allan-Lichtman-2016-The-Keys-to-The-White-House-Social-Education-80-5.pdf?rlkey=qdtcni8kxv60qxfz52ewecy1u&e=1&st=27o5ep7i&dl=0

! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 says, in part, …members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone.

A compound descriptor, saying that you fill two of the categories, is how I read that.

! Moderator Note I hope you understand that movie clips do not tally anything in the “rigor” column.

It’s not all that broad of a brush. White Christian Nationalists (White+Christian+Nationalist) is the intersection of three groups. It does not imply that all whites, or all Christians, are nationalists.

! Moderator Note You’ve been warned before about this analogy-laden, science-lite posting style. It needs to stop. ! Moderator Note And, on a related note, your thread on this was closed for lack of rigor.

! Moderator Note Per policy, ChatGPT can’t be used as a source.

Truten banned as a sockpuppet of Bart, bart2, ravell, exuczen

! Moderator Note Just a reminder that not posting is an option

I think the list is flawed, but it’s not off-topic.

How is it a catch-22? There are actual physiological differences, and the system pays less attention to roughly half the population

Phone/computer/tablet, perhaps?

Not really. A forum typically has an area of interest, and if you show up posting something outside that area of interest, their policy might just be to delete it. You weren’t posting about Canadian law in that screenshot. They also probably have other rules, as we do, about other aspects of posting. Soapboxing, for example, isn’t permitted here, and it’s what you are doing.

There are some examples of men and women being treated differently by the medical community, both in research efforts and in diagnosis and treatment. Studies that focused on men, and the tendency to discount pain complaints from women are two that pop to mind immediately. Not all symptoms manifest the same in women as in men (e.g. heart attacks) https://www.qualityinteractions.com/blog/what-is-gender-bias-in-healthcare Since this bias exists and there are gender-based differences, yes, such framing is necessary.

IOW, very recent and very brief in evolutionary terms. So it likely didn’t arise directly from evolutionary pressures. i.e. there’s no extended period where the genetic makeup of the population was shifted to favor this behavior. (are a lot of people descended from Solomon, et al?) It arose because of societal circumstances.

It’s a matter of degree. It can be better but not avoid a bad outcome. Heating the atmosphere to 199 C instead of 200 C is better, 999 km^2 of impact crater is better than 1000. But the question asked was if you reduce damage. As to whether there’s any advantage of a defense system, it’s going to be “it depends” as iNow said. Above a certain size, you aren’t going to avoid a cataclysm.

That’s a screenshot from the Canadian Law forum. Different site, different user name. What in the world do you think we can do about that?

So his current model has only predicted the last two elections (and that should be 2000, not 2020, for Gore) This suggests he didn’t predict the results of 2016 correctly. People were pretty satisfied with Obama’s governance, but some were dissatisfied with the color of his skin, and also there was foreign meddling. Is there a key for that? How about election rules regarding contributions, which changed drastically. Or changes to how voting rights were safeguarded? The problem with all of this is that correct answers can be gotten by accident; it’s like the octopus that predicted sports outcomes. There’s meager evidence that this works.

None of your posts have been deleted.

You should not choose “poll” you should click on “content”

! Moderator Note From rule 2.1 Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited A request like this presupposes you are not violating our rules, which you are.

The reasons for believing are also irrational. I think not believing is not the same as disbelieving. A lack of belief can be based on no evidence existing, but an active disbelief requires either positive evidence or is irrational.