Phi for All

Part of me understands why you want your opinions to be held to less rigorous standards, but part of me thinks you just want to be able to make bald assertions without having to do the work to persuade us of your superior position. I, for one, don't want anybody to feel like they can make claims that won't go uncontested. From my perspective, NOT challenging you would be tacit approval of your claim. I hope you can see that it's waaaay more than picking nits.

The first is your opinion, and we can ignore it or relate to it as we will. The second is you magically knowing what's actually going to happen, but not providing a shred of evidence meant to persuade us. So, duh, you get a great deal of pushback from people who put a high value on rigorous, reasoned arguments. And you've been doing this to us for a long time.

That's another subject entirely, but I think it evens out. We get "tired" but they get "knackered". The UK and US also have some contradictory definitions for the same words. For instance, if you suggest that a subject for the meeting be "tabled", if you're in the US it means you want to postpone or cancel the subject, but in the UK it means you want it brought to the table.

I've noticed this as well. Very intelligent and successful, but miss the spelling of fairly simple words, or don't bother with punctuation other than periods, exclamation points, and question marks. I've always thought it was because of spellcheckers.

In my head, I always break down words I think need an apostrophe. If I start to write "they're", I say the sentence and substitute "they are" and see if that makes sense. I think people forget the proper way, but pretend they don't care, or that it doesn't matter ("You know what I meant!"). My personal rule about "their" and "there"? Decide if it's a person or a place that's being talked about. Spelling and grammar rules for me seem to be about memorization and patterns. A word misspelled JUMPS out at me, so "the proper way" is the ONLY way. Archaic? We think you're using too many letters in your spelling, like the extra "i" you put in "aluminum". What's archaic is words that are longer than they need to be. And don't get me started on pronunciation. You cook with "Bah-zil" and "or-eh-GAHN-o", eat your "VITT-a-mins" and "YOGG-urt" while watching "ad-VERT-iz-ments" about "vawzes" for your "GAIR-udj".

Well, I'm very impressed by YOUR journey here. In just five posts, you went from "who can i win money in internet ?" to bullet-pointed essay answers to philosophical questions. I'm certain we'll soon explore your particular purpose in life.

So the "general consensus" is what you go by to determine what being a man is for you? You let society tell you how you feel about your gender identity? I think many people do, so you aren't alone. It just seems baaaaaaad to me.

You seem to have trouble with rigor of any sort. ALL your posts? This one isn't. An opening post to a discussion needs more than bald assertions with no support. In a science discussion, we appreciate it when you show us your reasoning, including any evidence you may have that supports your assertions, because anybody can squawk like a chicken about things they don't understand. Understand?

Are you going to discuss this topic, or just pontificate on it as if we weren't asking you questions? You need to let us know what you mean by "real", because many things have abstract applications but are nonetheless very real. You've made it past the first day five post limit, so feel free to join the conversation.

You mean difference? Not what I'm talking about right now. I'm focused on who decides what it means to be a man for you. Is it you, or do you let others dictate what it means for you? And if you decide what being a man is for you, don't you think others deserve the same respect?

You think it's a silly question? I think it's the only one worth answering. You rely on yourself to decide what being a man means to you, and denying that to others seems hypocritical. Do you disagree?

The only person who tells me what makes me a man is me. Is it different for you? Who tells you what makes you a man?

How is the universe "illogical"? With behavior governed by chemistry and physics, how does a principle of reasoning, which requires an intelligence, fit into the overall structure of the universe? Does your explanation only become relevant after human life on Earth happened?

You need to define how you're using "logic". Logic in philosophy is different from that used in maths, and none of that looks anything like what most people think of as "logic". Pop-sci articles make it seem like "logic" means "this makes the most sense to me", and that's definitely wrong.

Why focus on only the male side? Why not study how various species compete for mates without skewing the results with bias? What kind of argument are you trying to make based on this cherry-picked data?

! Moderator Note Copying and pasting the work of others is plagiarism, and is against our rules here. You are suspended for a week.

I have no idea what this sentence means. I can't believe it's in response to my post asking you for more rigor about a sensitive topic. I don't think "too sentimental" is a clinical diagnosis. I don't think "romantic" is a term most professionals use wrt suicide prevention. I can't find it anywhere in the literature I've read on the subject. Again, I find it a bit offensive that you're posting these highly subjective observations of yours as if they were part of some general mental health journey you're advocating. There are places for that kind of guesswork, but the Medical Sciences section of a science discussion forum isn't one of them. I'm really concerned that someone trying to read this thread for help is going to take statements like this seriously, as if it's advice from a mental healthcare professional. I've never heard a mental health expert talk about "spirituality" or anybody being "spiritually weak". You are NOT using clinical terminology, and your assessments are guesses that are either too broad to be meaningful or just word salad like the above. Science. Discussion. Forum.

You got down into the dermis, like a tattoo needle. Ouch! That sounds like a long-haul, painful recovery. Triple ouch! Glad you're still with us.

! Moderator Note You need to STOP attacking people if you can't discuss a topic civilly. I'm more than happy to give you a short vacation from posting if you think personal abuse is appropriate.

Hemostasis is the first step, forming a clot to stop the bleeding and form a scab. Inflammation flushes debris and micro-contaminants from the wound and introduces nutrients to help form new tissue. Rebuilding the tissue forces the scab off eventually, which should remove any macro-contaminants (like cotton or other bits). Your skin grows from the bottom layers to the top, so anything trapped on a layer will eventually be forced to the surface and shed with other skin.

! Moderator Note I'm not following you. Restart what, exactly? This is a science discussion forum. We talk about sciencey stuff, in a threaded, written format. Each conversation basically stands on its own merit. From scratch? Other than post count, why begin again? This isn't something Moderators can do, so I want to know this isn't some whim before I drag an Admin away from trying to earn their funding or get out ahead of their lab work.

! Moderator Note Not a philosophical question. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note Advertising links removed per our rules. As mentioned above, we're a discussion forum. We aren't a blog and don't promote religions, we discuss various subjects in a reasoned manner. If this isn't a drive-by spam attack, please respond and tell us what you'd like to discuss about this church and its beliefs, or I'll have to close this thread.

From the Greek myth about a guy who goes blind from grasping his serpent too often, right?

According to the Yankovic horoscope, you should try to avoid any Virgos or Leos with the Ebola virus. You are the true Lord of the Dance, no matter what those idiots at work say.