Intoscience

Just a thread to openly discuss what you might consider strange. Whether that be personal experiences or stories you have heard about, inexplicable coincidences, spooky experiences etc... For instance, I have been reading a few novels (paper back fiction) just lately and within those novels some of the details used in the narratives are often based on real events or real places/agencies/people. I read 2 books related by author but unrelated by story line. Both are fictional stories, but feature real life details that I had not come across previously. The things I read in each book, one was a place and one was an agency. Both which I had never ever seen or heard or had any idea existed, so never mentioned previously. On separate occasions following reading each book I flicked on YouTube to find exactly to the letter what I had read, the exact thing being prominently advertised. Now, I have heard of and witnessed this happening when verbal or electronic discussions are made, where you get advertisements popping up on based key words that have been identified. But on this occasion it really appears that something read my mind! Now being skeptical on these matters I dismissed it as a very unlikely, but a possible coincidence. Even so it spooked me somewhat. Do you have any similar experiences to share?

You see, I read each as: u r joking - you are joking ur joking - you're joking

I'm in support of any mechanism which enables fair participation for all people, non to be excluded! At the same time the focus has to be on "fair" whether based on ability, physical size/prowess or any other advantage/disadvantage. Else you will get exclusion of outcome, minority groups dominating. I'm not sure what you are getting at? I have no problem with people being free to identify what gender or any other definition they want to use. But I don't see how this would work in competition? I don't understand how someone's personal feelings about their gender identity has to do with rules in sport? How is it strange, if anyone is free to decide what gender they want to identify as and thus then allowed to compete in what category that identity permits, then what is strange about that? It's just logic. I might decide to identify as a tortoise and thus from this day forward compete against other tortoises in the tortoise Olympics. Who's to stop me? Would you allow an abled body athlete compete in the Parra Olympics? Why not if a person identified as disabled? Why should all those people who "feel" they are disabled not be allowed to compete in the Parra Olympics?

The argument appears to be based on gender identification rather than biological sex (XX/XY chromosomes). In that your inclusion into categories should be aligned with your personal (arbitrary) gender identification. Which makes no sense to me, since how can we have distinctively fair categories which allow for inclusion without some form of discrimination based on clear definitions? Why not? what if the heavy weight boxer decides to identify as a twelve year old girl? If there is no limit to what a person can identify as and such they would be in their rights to enter the category which aligns with the identification of their own choosing, so how can we stop it happening? You are using an extreme made up scenario to counter my arguments exactly which I'm criticised of doing in return - Usain Bolt transgenders and comes out of retirement to compete in elite women's sprints, he/she would dominate every discipline from 60mtr to possibly 800mtrs go on to exceed every world record by a massive margin and would win 99% + of every race he/she chose to participate in. No one would be physically harmed so no argument there. But many elite cisgender women could be profoundly mentally affected and would be denied the opportunity to achieve their dream of becoming a champion. So where is the inclusion and equality in that scenario? Like I said - inconsistencies are the root cause of all these types of arguments.

Ok that's fine, but if your difference is arbitrary (as iNow suggested) then why bother with a definition at all? Because if we cannot agree on what the differences are whether personal to the individual or in general then how do we categorise and should we even bother? Therefore all the sporting categories may as well be abandoned. In which case you will just end up with a minority group of people totally dominating all sporting disciplines. If you are happy with that and feel this shouldn't be an issue then fine. I just don't agree. I'm asking if a person born with male genes decides they are now identifying as a women then how do they define what makes them a woman and if this is an individual choice based on their perception of what a man is and what a woman is then does that align with the general consensus of the difference between a man or a woman? Is there a general definition which separates the 2 sexes -XY & XX? There seems to be two arguments one of biological sex and one of personal gender identification. I just can't see how the 2 can be consolidated to form a general consensus that allows for fair ruling in sports. If the definitions are going to be arbitrary then how can you set fair rules?

So what is the definition between a man and a woman? Because the way I see it, if we can't all agree on what makes a man or a woman then how can we continue with this argument? JC is criticized for using outliers as examples (real events). Then you argue back with a ridiculous response. This forum is full of inconsistences. I might jump off a tall building in protest.

Which is why sports have categories based on physical criteria, so everyone gets to compete fairly. At 170 pounds and average height I wouldn't want to be pitted in a physical combat sport against someone 6'4" and weighing in excess of 250 pounds with similar skill levels. Yeah sure I might get lucky and win the odd match but the odds would be heavily stacked against me wining. Over a period of time and a number of matches the score card would more than likely read 9-1 against me. in which case i would never get the opportunity to be ranked at the top of my sport without a category that allows me to compete on a level playing field. The whole point on tackling inclusion issues guarantee (or at least get as close as possible) to include everyone with a fair shot at winning. I don't agree that unnatural changes using drugs should be allowed either way. Performance enhancing drugs are not permitted, why else should any other unnatural procedure be permitted? By the way I didn't resurrect the thread, and nothing yet has convinced me to change my opinion on the matter.

Yeah maybe, I see your point.

I'm sorry this upset you that was never my intent. It was nothing personal. I was giving you an example of how discrimination by skin color both positive and negative can be perceived as racist. This is my point and has been throughout the thread. If you want to expel racial attitudes then you have to stop focussing on skin color for discriminating purposes, good or bad. Sorry @Phi for All But I have to agree with MigL on this because I have experienced the same on numerous threads from a few long standing members. I keep posting though because I do enjoy the discussions and even though we don't always share opinions I get to engage with like minded folk across many cultures.

Fair enough.

Thanks, It was so long ago now, I don't really think about it much these days, only if someone enquires.

Possibly, but how can that "sense" be proven as real other than an intuition or illusion or some other sensory misperception. I think it would be better to define what do we mean by "sense" in the first place. We all have had a "sense" or feeling about something. I often get those myself which I have expressed in other threads. But the subjects within my premonitions are real people proven to exist in the first place.

Sorry, I I thought the ongoing argument was around transgender women competing against cis gender women? Where there can be and has proven to be, in many disciplines, a clear unfair physical advantage. In the case of these boxers they are competing along similar physical capabilities where there is no clear advantage. Also boxing rules are such that skill 7 tactic can often outweigh pure force.

To be fair to the OP the thread started with - The OP may well be using the video to make a personal claim but that wasn't exactly clear from the offset, even though the title of the thread suggests such.

Nothing prevents God from anything, including being present outside of space & time as we experience it. Which would also unable us to "sense" God, along with the inability to observe, detect or prove God's existence. There is no requirement to prove God's non existence and there is no credible proof of God's existence. To make the OP's question valid, one must first undeniably prove of God's existence. Until then, one cannot sense God because one cannot prove God exists in the first place.

And I accept that, pursuit of perfection can (does) often hinder progress. This is true however if you only focus on and accept perfection as the only goal. If though you set out realistic goals along the journey towards the perfection you seek that does not hinder your pursuit and accept each of those as an achievement within itself then you can quickly make progress, especially so if action is taken and not delayed towards each step. I worry that knowing that perfection is an unrealistic goal, we may give up in our pursuit and accept something much less, thus missing out on potential we never thought was possible. Especially if in doing so we end up taking steps back or at best sideways. Ok, we are in disagreement then. Crudely put my point is - A system that assumes that all people black have suffered injustice directly or indirectly, and therefore, all black people, no matter each individual case, shall be compensated, is a racist system by definition. In this case then fine, there is a common denominator for the injustice that as occurred, and these people should be compensated on individual or group cases . No one is arguing this. But it has been mentioned many times about reparations for people who's ancestors suffered injustices, especially focused around all black people. Intermating that justice should be so that all living black people should be compensated even if/ or not it's for past injustices dating back hundreds of years. In which case the system is using a blanket racial positive discrimination tactic which may not really be fair justice for all. Referring back to iNow's point about the pursuit of perfection, maybe a blanket system is the sensible approach. From my perspective I don't agree. I still stand by my opinion that invoking a system that uses any form of racial discrimination tactic will in the long run add fuel to the fire. Those who are arguing against a blanket system by giving examples of injustices both past and present across many cultures are just offering you the opportunity to consider perspectives.

No all was good, though back then there was a more lack luster approach to health & safety. I'm in no doubt it was entirely my own fault, just a lack of concentration for a moment. Though one could argue that if the guarding was up to modern day standards then the accident may not have occurred, but that is just if's, but's and maybe's. I was de-burring a load of pipes that I had cut to length and somehow as I spun the pipe against the grinder wheel the pipe snagged dragging my thumb into the wheel. It was just one of those freakish accidents that can happen when you get complacent. The strange thing is that since the accident I have used these types of machines many times since, and weirdly when I do I have this (luckily controllable) urge to grab the grinder wheel.

The evidence suggests that it is a region of space where the gravity prevents light from escaping. How do we know it's not an alien, or the fairy godmother, or a space giant's butt hole...? But this is an illusion, I "sense" many things myself, sometimes in fear of my life if I'm half asleep and think there is a monster in my bedroom. We are hard wired to be self preservative in which case our brains may invent something unnatural to provoke us to act fast - Better to run in fear than wait to see if it really is a monster.

There is no credible evidence to support the existence of God. So based on this reasoning, I would choose this (my bold) as the most likely reason out of all the other possibilities.

Yep, I'm a victim of a 9" pedestal grinder. Lost part of my thumb when I was 18, it happened so fast I had no time to react. My thumb was a mess, luckily I can still use the remaining part to grip things and I don't have much trouble other than a bit of maintenance keeping tidy the tiny bit of nail that persists on growing out the side of it. Oh... I do get the odd phantom itch in the missing part which can be frustrating. So good advice! It's easy to get caught out even if you are experienced, so never get complacent and get the right training.

If you are prepared to use skin color as a factor for discrimination whether positive or negative then does that not automatically qualify it as racist? This is the argument that is often used by many racial activists on the flip side. My argument is more about changing people's attitude towards racism, a start would be to stop highlighting skin color differences in circumstances where it may invoke further racial tension. There are people out there who fully believe that if you are black then you cannot be a racist and that if you are white then this automatically makes you a racist. Then you have the very racist people who genuinely believe that skin color defines a person's status in society. These attitudes need to be expelled. My point being, skin color should have no influence. Discrimination both positive & negative by skin color has done nothing but cause harm to people either directly or indirectly. The people who have suffered injustice as a result of their skin color deserve reparations, full agreed. However, iNow keeps point out to me that an ideological system which I may envision will not work. Maybe iNow is correct (nothing is infallible). All I'm trying to point out is that invoking further discrimination by skin color, even if positive, may not in the long run produce positive outcomes for all and may further invoke directly or indirectly negative racial attitudes. Honestly I'd be a fool to say I have an answer, maybe the sensible approach is to follow your proposed system. But again honestly, I'm of the opinion that to eradicate racism is to change people's attitudes towards it, starting with stop making a deal about all physical differences, including skin color.

I can think of one - nonsense 😝

I think Zaptos is on the right track with his reply to this question. MigL then goes o to make what I feel are some valid points. This is sort of where I'm at. I think the misconception is that I'm against reparations for injustices towards black people. This couldn't be further from the truth. I would just prefer reparations to be calculated based on individual losses. In that the reparation process doesn't need to follow any racially lead approach even if the outcome is that the majority of cases will be based on skin colour. If you want to focus on a particular group and use a mechanism which compensates based on the defining factor of that group then by all means if this is the best way to fix the problems in the US then I'm in no position to pass judgement since I'm not a US citizen. No, you are misunderstanding what I mean. Sure you have been kicked in the nuts, I'm sure you feel like kicking them back in their nuts. This is the point. I don't think anyone is suggesting to do anything to cause further injustice or delay reparations. Why do you feel that we are trying to make it seem less wrong? I think in general I'm/we are trying to point out that any system that is successful in its goal requires consistences for all.

Fair enough I see your point. Again though this is an assumption from people who automatically assume the declaration is a defensive move as guise to cover the person's underlining racist attitude. And I get that people often use this as a defensive tact in many other contexts also. I think I'm probably blinded somewhat due to my own circumstances. My best friend is my partner's brother (that's how we met). I also accept that I'm not familiar with the situation in the US, so I understand that people from the US may not appreciate my comments. All this said, I still stand by my opinion that to eradicate racism (at least to reduce it to the extreme minority) we all need to change our attitudes. For me the first step is to divert attention away from the source of the issue, because the source of the issue really shouldn't matter and to make it not matter is to divert away from it. This doesn't mean we should ignore the problems that need fixing as a result of the source, on the contrary. Reparations, compensations... need to be made.

Then I have mis interpreted many posts over the past 19 pages worth. Fair enough, I'm happy for you to compensate as required asap. I can only imagine the situation in the US and comparing that to my own experiences within my own country they may not align. Likewise, someone from the US who has only experienced from that perspective may not be able to align their experiences with other countries across the world. Yet here we are often making arguments based on our own experiences and accusing each other of being wrong. Because some people jump on this and twist it to make racist accusations against others. I have been accused of being racist for not recognising and celebrating a person's skin color. On the other hand when recognising and acknowledging a person's skin color I have also been accused of being racist. So in the case of my anecdote I recognised that I could not attend the event because I'm not black, I was accused of being racist for stating that I was not invited to an event because it was for black people only. On the other hand I'm also a racist for not celebrating my friend's skin color, even though I recognise that Mike is a wonderful guy, a good, kind , honest and generous person.