J.C.MacSwell

If you've chosen to use a binary system? One or the other.

If I'm using a binary definition they are male or female. If not they could be male, female, or something else.

If you want to define sex that way yes. More than 2. If you prefer a different definition where it's just 2, then it's just 2, and this can be a reasonably justified definition for humans. It depends on how you define sexes. A detached scientist could use either. If you are emotionally attached to one in particular...you're probably trying to compensate for human biology rather than doing human biology.

There are two sexes required to create a human, correct? No human can do it alone, and a third (or more) is never required, facilitation of the other two notwithstanding. But not all can take part in reproduction. Could be age, to young or old or another reason. It doesn't mean those individuals should be less respected, but for purposes of biological reproduction human sexuality is binary. edit: or have i missed something? Has there ever been an individual that can sucessfully reproduce on more than one side of the equation?

There's probably something to this but I don't believe we are born knowing what colour our skin is (or what other characteristics we will turn out to have). We just have an instinct to be tribal, as that is what (among other "attributes") got us here through evolution. I think we get comfortable with the people around us and those that don't look similar to them seem "foreign". It probably helps to have positive interactions with many different peoples, especially in our formative years. Assuming some truth to that, survival of humanity might depend to some extent on multiculturalism and multiracial communities.

My bad on the wording. Not posted for me in particular...it just wouldn't surprise me if it was right there, for everyone, but I continuously missed it. Edit: Also didn't mean posted by Studiot...I meant posted in a totally different context. Edit again: Right in the name of the subforum! Politics What's going on in the world and how it relates to science.

It wouldn't surprise me if that was conspicuously posted for me to read, but I honestly was not aware of that.

If you want to hypothesize, you want to do so while comparing to standard theory and/or experiment, correct? Comparing it to other hypothesis or speculations, unless they are well understood, can derail your line of inquiry pretty quickly, private conversations aside.

Other than...you know...clarifying with accurate points of physics in a physics thread?

When writing laws to keep people safe, maybe a safety factor higher than 0.99 should be considered.

+1 So...essentially two totally "law abiding" citizens can meet in the street, and because each is legally allowed to shoot the other if they feel threatened...and since each is armed with deadly force...they should feel threatened...so...what's to stop them? I'm sure there's more to it than that...but if it's a crowd and not just two individuals...with emotionally opposing views...how much of a margin of safety can exist? Twice as old?

We are aware of that...but we share the idea that we are personally almost always right...and the others not quite so much...

What optimal size of stick should one take into a crowd wielding AR 15s?

I don't think so. He could have done the same damage, but it would have been much harder. This is why laws restricting the carrying of given types and levels of weapons, and when and where, are vital.

Let's take the root cause off the table, and discuss around the periphery?

The "Higher Power" is answering to experiment.

Of course it's flat...like your head...

The fact that you and a few others have misrepresented Bill 16 as a toothless guideline doesn't change the fact that other concerns and ideas of J Peterson have also been discussed. But I know you mean well and likely overlooked them so all good.

You mean the concerns that something that effects free speech get a foothold in law? You might want to point your strawman meter a little less directed outward. To you of course, yes absolutely. to those that read the title of the thread...not so much... The OP:

Let me see if I can express in your modus operandi, even if ensures you will continue to be blind to one side of the issue: The format where you decide what I meant, interpreted in the most absurd fashion? You're probably right, and why you are incapable of understanding J Peterson's argument, and will continue to choose to believe that it's about his malicious attempt to avoid showing any respect for some very vulnerable members of society. How did I do?

Well, IMO, all that makes you a good father, with high personal accountability...and a bit of a fascist if you expect judges to throw the book at your neighbours if they don't meet your standards.

What would you prefer to call it, if someone condemns someone with no effort to consider the facts that are available, and consider the amount available? If someone is fed misinformation, but can reasonably believe it, I might consider their boycott legitimate even if they are wrong. In that case they're not the source of the problem. But if they continue to trust the source, I give them less of a pass. No. But those feeding those folks that misinformation certainly don't help the cause...even when they are nicely dressed and speak well after getting off the jet.

I agree. What's the alternative?

I think the difference, in my mind at least, between cancel culture and legitimate boycott is the level of actual evidence, and effort to examine it, required to make an informed choice whether to join in on the boycott. Cancel culture (my definition of it) absolutely reeks of virtue signalling, where legitimate boycott has clearly less of it. Of course there is a spectrum of grey areas between the extremes of the two, and as per the political climate the Right and Left don't tend to agree on what is legitimate and what is not. ...and much of the formerly respectable "mainstream media" exacerbates the problem...often ignoring the actual evidence until and if it ever smacks them in the face.

And I don't claim some things aren't better left to government directly. It's a tool...you still need to use it properly.