swansont

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.

Which societies are these, and when was this, in the course of human evolution?

True and completely beside the point. No, it would not beg the question. The premise was already presented with a question about science finding God, so finding science is already a given here. Anyone is free to be willfully ignorant about science, but for them this question would not arise.

The energy is the same, but it does take more energy to heat up water. An ocean impact can produce a tsunami. The atmosphere is pretty big, so that heating (as I’ve said) will be spread out in space and time.

Consider that a hurricane contains a lot more energy than a nuclear bomb and while hurricanes cause serious damage, they do not flatten cities. It’s dispersed in both area and time. Small bits of a broken-up asteroid will burn up in the atmosphere and never impact the earth.

You wouldn’t have all the energy deposited in the same place. Dispersing it would likely reduce the overall damage. Energy deposited in the both the atmosphere and ground over a wider area, less energy at the primary impact point.

This is a version of the argument that people who don’t believe in a supreme being have no reason to be good, which is absurd. Not everyone is motivated by the same things.

I think you need to more narrowly define this, since prosthetics and hip replacement surgery arguably fall into the category of transhumanism.

We wouldn’t have known it to be true without rigor, and that has consequences. Theories have predictive value; wrong theories make wrong predictions, and no theory means no predictions. Can’t land on the moon without Newton.

! Moderator Note Anything for discussion must be posted. Links and uploads are insufficient, per rule 2.7

So a candidate that had more “keys” steps aside for another who polls better and has raised a boatload of cash, and the new candidate has fewer “keys”?

! Moderator Note There’s nothing here that comes remotely close to what we expect in speculations

Of what use is analyzing an incorrect model?