zapatos

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/new-years-day

I'm not sure you are reading my posts. The odds of you and me being here are tiny. The odds of anyone at all being here are less tiny. The odds of this planet forming are small. The odds of any planet at all forming are 100% The odds of life existing on some planet somewhere is probably pretty good. So why is it so surprising to you that this planet with life is here? Given the laws of physics coupled with the matter and energy in the universe, the thought that life would exist is not daunting at all. IT IS NOT PURE LUCK. IT IS BASED ON PHYSICS. I CAN'T CALCULATE THE ODDS. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE DATA TO DO SO.

You are being ridiculous and naive. How could I possibly calculate the odds of this planet being here when I have no data that tells me if there would be enough gas here to form this planet?

Whatever floats your boat. People like you are why there are theists in the world. Why do we need evidence if in someone's humble opinion the look of something is all that is required? I thought I saw Bob Marley's image in a piece of toast the other day. Now THAT was providential. I still have goosebumps.

As StringJunky pointed out, the chances of 'my' sperm out of the 150 million my dad shot out winning the race to the egg were very small. It may not be 1 in 150 million as some are better swimmers than others, but it is still pretty small. And the chances of my dad being the 1 out of 150 million HIS dad shot out being the winner, which was a prerequisite for 'my' winning sperm to even have existed, has the same minuscule odds (about 1 in 150 million). How many generations do you want me to go back in time?

Of course I agree. That was kind of my point. The chances of you and me being here are astronomically small. If your mother chased a butterfly on the day you were conceived and she and your father delayed sex that afternoon by one minute because your mother happened to see that butterfly, you wouldn't be here talking to me. The sperm that was "you" would have likely ended up wasted. So don't get hung up on the idea that the chance of YOU being here is significant in some way. If you weren't here, I'd be talking to someone else this morning. The way chemistry works, and the chances that a planet ends up in a goldilocks zone, and all of the other factors you mentioned, are all but guaranteed. Don't think yourself so special, you are just the result of the conditions around you.

The odds of the group of us being here based on all the events that had to take place from the Big Bang till now are astronomical. But it's rather misleading. The odds of winning the lottery are also (near) astronomical, yet someone wins it all the time. In fact, we'd be shocked if no one won it. So a better question wouldn't ask the odds of US being here, but instead would ask the odds of ANYONE existing in the universe. In which case we would calculate the odds are very good, if not 100%.

Are you saying that it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach this point?

Most jokes I hear about men, or commercials that poke fun at men, use some version of these stereotypes.

I knew we were close. I recently turned 60.

And while we're at it, did you say you are 3x Raider's age?!?!

No, but even after perhaps a dozen discussions on Reputation, all we've ever been able to agree upon is that different people use it for different reasons. In addition, unless you are told by the person giving out the rep, it is impossible to determine if they are taking sides, making a comment on style or content, objecting to fallacious arguments, or any of dozens of other reasons.

There are at least three people downvoting Raider in this thread (one of his posts received three downvotes). So either at least three people disagree with you, or perhaps your assumption regarding the reason for the downvotes is incorrect. I'm not sure we need another thread about the proper use of the reputation system.

Sounds like you are advocating a permanent and potentially huge impact to earth's ecosystem without trying to understand, or even caring, what the downside is. Don't expect to win many followers on this site with that approach.

I have no problem targeting a species for extinction if we have a sufficient risk/reward/ethical scenario. Extinction already happens naturally, it happens accidentally by humans, and it happens as a result of purposeful acts by humans. I don't know the details about mosquitos in particular, other than that they are a true human scourge.

No one said anything like that. You seem to be so busy defending your position that you aren't taking the time to read (and understand) what others are saying. That's a first. Not many people actually admit they are building a straw man before knocking it down. So... I guess this means you aren't going to show me where I did that?

If he had, would we be having the same discussion but accusing him of being elitist instead of sexist? I'm not necessarily condoning him, but it is difficult to please everyone.

So it's likely he just chose his words poorly (because he was misunderstood as saying something sexist), although one would think that when muttering under your breath you'd be given a little slack.

Although your later point about 'how we use language matters' is in my opinion what is important here. Corbin used language that was not particularly clear, as is shown by his many defenders and detractors. If what you say can easily be interpreted as sexist, then you are doing yourself and women an injustice.

Couldn't agree more. A lesson I think Corbin is learning. Whether he was being sexist or not, he is being told the way we use language matters and he needs to think before speaking.

I don't think we can say if it was sexist or not, because we don't know his intent or history (at least I don't). I often comment 'that guy's an idiot', or 'that woman's an idiot'. It is just an identifier. For me, anyway. Was it just an identifier for him, or was he degrading women in general? How could we possibly know based on so little information?

Sure it is. Both you and the cop are taking some fact you know (or believe) to be fairly common within a group, and applying it to all the individuals within the group as if it applies to ALL of them. That is core to racism, sexism, and bigotry in general. Again, acting as if ALL women react one way and ALL men react another is sexist. I don't remember saying or implying that. Can you show me where I did?

And when the white cop says "I don't think it's racist to pull over black drivers and search them for drugs", is he just being logical?

Thanks! What makes it sexist is when you treat (or think of) individuals within a group as all having the same traits that are simply 'common' within the group. Similarly you should not treat all blacks, jews, white males, Catholic Priests, etc. the same simply because of traits that are common in their group. Nothing wrong with being thoughtful about your actions in case a person does have a certain trait, but you shouldn't take actions as if you know they have a trait.

It's not a very fair tactic to first present your 'off topic' position, then avoid having to defend it by claiming "off topic - I'm out".