Phi for All

I agree completely. This isn't about individual rights, and I think those who think protecting our population from viruses and disease is a choice they get to make individually are being obtuse. Some things need to be agreed on by everyone participating or the system won't work at all. I see little difference between "You can't make me wear a mask!" and "You can't stop me from urinating in the streets!", other than current enforcement.

! Moderator Note You need to post information here, and give the membership a good starting point for a discussion with your opening post. Also, Word docs are often unsafe. It would be best to copy/paste your information here, but you can also convert your doc to a PDF and I think more folks would click on it.

Questioning your credibility based on ANYTHING would be a personal attack in a thread like this, imo, and was never my goal. I was attacking your stance on this particular issue, and I had asked if there might be something in the national mood that might have influenced your stance in the same way it did wrt gay rights in the past. You had said your opinions no longer align with the national sentiment, and you regretted your earlier stance (or did I misread that all completely?!). I was trying to draw a parallel with this issue, that it may seem very cut and dried to you now, but isn't there a possibility your stance might relax a bit in time? But I did it so badly that you and MigL and others think I was either stereotyping you, or questioning your credibility, or blindly being overly emotional about the topic while calling out others for it. I reread what I wrote and I can't find where I said these things, or even implied them, but it has happened so often that it must be me. Blame it on the busy holidays, maybe later I can take more time to figure out what I keep doing wrong. I hope all the genders stay safe this holiday season! Take care.

That's an insulting strawman attack on StringJunky's post and his obvious intentions. We both were questioning koti's own words about local influences on his stance regarding gender, and I find your twisting of that to make it look like we're caricaturizing him as homophobic to be cheap and beneath you. Why must so many feel so threatened by this?

Still so many variables! We radiate a lot of molecules even if we aren't exchanging fluids. Does sweat from moist hands count as a fluid exchange, since it could be one way only? How long ago did you bathe? Are you looking for skin cells left behind from shaking hands, and other bits of someone else you might wash off, or are you looking for bits from someone else you've accidentally incorporated into your own system?

I'm not. I'm referring to your comment about the former Polish national stance against homosexuality, which you said a lot of people are ashamed of, including you. If that didn't involve a concession, my apologies for assuming. Perhaps I phrased it poorly, but this is what I meant, that you've had to defend your stance against anti-vaxxers who are close to you, not that you've agreed with them. Apparently so.

Or, OR, we could be wondering why you can easily concede that you've been wrong in the past about other topics that involve gender, but can't even conceive of it in this case. You've also had trouble before with anti-vaxxer stances as well, and iirc you followed the science on that one and reasoned through a LOT of arguments you were getting locally. That may not seem related either, but I can't help but see you as someone trying to navigate life like the rest of us, with a hopeful eye towards the future and one foot stubbornly dragging in the past. I know that my stubborn foot rarely sees reason, so it's up to my hopeful eye to sort out what's rational. Stubborn is where my emotions lead me when I can't come up with good reasoning, and perhaps I'm merely projecting that onto you. If so, I'm sorry.

Does "allmighty bandwagon" suggest the arguments are merely popular but have no merit or reason? It's frustrating to think you view the opposing arguments as intractable when they're trying to point out the unwavering futility of requiring that only two sexes be acknowledged. It's especially frustrating because you've expressed concern about authoritarian stances in your own country, and it's hard to separate this concern from the ones you've expressed about the possibility of there being more than two sexes.

I care what the words "reasoned argument" mean, and I see one being employed in iNow's post, but you keep choosing the "throw my arms up in disgust and refuse to engage rationally" approach. Is there a doubt about iNow's argument? I haven't seen anyone disassemble it yet, only wave their hands and claim it's a ridiculous parade, without showing exactly why. I'm willing to listen, but your incredulity isn't as compelling as you might think.

We don't give answers here, but can help if you let us know how far you've gotten and what parts you don't understand.

! Moderator Note This isn't our policy, as swansont made clear. I'm closing this, so please open a separate thread for each topic.

! Moderator Note I hope you can understand why we can't let anyone promote their YouTube videos on a site made for discussing science. The written word can be scanned quickly for basic veracity, but videos take time, and the usual signal-to-noise ratio is horrific. If you can, please give us a summary of what you're proposing, unless feedback on your video was the only goal. If that's the case, best of luck elsewhere.

Pbob is very sorry, but they have to leave this science discussion forum, and there's no objection from staff.

! Moderator Note Oh gosh, don't be sorry! Thanks for the time we got to waste with you! Bye!

! Moderator Note Any more posts in Homework Help from you will be removed to the Trash. Work on your own misunderstandings before trying to teach others.

I have no feelings towards you. We don't attack people here, but we do attack ideas, and yours are ill-formed, overly loquacious, and suffer from a lack of any kind of evidential support. You're style is anathema to our rules, and a competent mod would give you a warning point for spamming.

It's anathema to a meaningful science discussion. You seem to have abundant time to waste, and should probably start a blog somewhere else.

Ah, good luck with that. Frustrated science discussion forum moderator, dealing with a member who wants to jump up on top of the table and rant rather than having a seat at a science discussion.

If you could leave your memory out of it, and stop making so many generalized statements you're not willing to support, and maybe focus on a point or two instead of posting these railing walls of text that jump from point to point aided only by the waving of your hands, it would add some much needed clarity to the discussion.

Coincidentally, my total praying time = amount of time I talk to my mother when I'm in trouble.

Then asking how effective the courses are seems like it's only going to be 20% effective. Also, you can't have two accounts here, especially if you're going to use one of them as a sockpuppet to comment on the other's posts, and doubly especially if you're going to use them to advertise crap websites. Decide whether you want to stay to discuss science, and which account you want to keep. Or I can spam-ban both, if you're not here for science discussion.

! Moderator Note Please attribute your sources, plagiarism is against the rules here: https://astronomyfacts.quora.com/What-do-you-think-is-beyond-our-observable-universe?share=1

1. Consider the source. Your other two posts claim "G-d delivers us", and that "Jordan Peterson is A genius". With the addition of the CNN claim, your credibility isn't even on the radar. You seem like a candidate for both believing AND spreading fake news.

I don't know what "hails a thread" means, but you seem to be drawing modern conclusions based on historical evidence, so I'd like to see how it supports your stance, please. "That really messed up physics" is similarly lacking in evidential support. "The hard problem with UFOs influencing consciousness" also seems like hand-waving assumptions unsupported by anything scientific. Are you certain whose "animal beliefs in science" are hampering our "progress to the stars"?

When you only get 5 posts on your first day here, some folks get a bit bloggy. And like a chef that wants you to taste a little of everything to see what you like, it can be too much for those who like to chew each bite thoughtfully, to see if they should savor or spit. It's hard to sip from the firehose!