Phi for All

I'm glad to hear this. I don't understand those who view waking up to social injustices as a bad thing, but I've never been in the "ignorance is bliss" camp either.

Their definition of "chronic disease" is pretty broad, and includes anything you take a regular medication for, and anything that hampers any aspect of "daily living". That said, for the money we pay out, we have a terrible healthcare system, where who gets paid is more important than who gets well.

Yeah, that site is unfortunate. NOT to be confused with thescienceforum.org, another good site, which many of our members also frequent.

The big one is PhysicsForums. Lots of good moderation, lots of advisors, anything non-mainstream gets shut down pretty quickly. They have the largest member base by a lot, from what I've heard.

They each have a different character, imo. Some (one, at least) are huge and one can feel a bit lost. Some are very rigid about what can be posted, others not nearly rigid enough. Too many are just guesswork factories eschewing mainstream approaches. For me, it comes down to civility and respect for the process of science discussion, so we can all learn things we didn't know before and help pass that along to others.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/13/trump-admission-election-aides-january-6-panel Even if he won't say "lost" where the public can hear, he's admitted to not winning. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-finally-admits-defeat-i-didnt-win-election-1695339

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.