swansont

To fend off the issue we saw in a recent thread, this does not mean treating women exactly the same as men. The issue here is also about equity, which not really the same as equality. Equal opportunities and equal outcomes, which don’t always happen by treating everyone exactly the same https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/

If it’s just preaching, we’ll shut it down. If a pattern emerges that shows there’s an agenda, we’ll deal with it, but that sometimes takes time.

Is this a surprise? Social media is not academia. It seems to me you are leaning heavily on social media as your source here, and citing opinion rather than fact. People on social media have warped definitions for e.g. socialism, too. they want to use a hot-button word to evoke a response. That has more to do with people who like trolling than anything else. So what is it you want to discuss? Trolling on social media, or actual feminism? If it’s the latter, don’t be citing the former.

This is a statistical blip. One must remember that participation in these threads is voluntary.

! Moderator Note Then you do not have material that fulfills the requirements of the speculations section Do not reintroduce this subject

Ghideon posted a screenshot that looks quite straight.

A jump of any distance would follow a parabolic path, not a straight line. And a jump (especially upward) wouldn't be at ~constant speed

What rodent would follow those paths, through the air?

! Moderator Note Are you using wikipedia as a source? You haven’t provided any citations. And social media is definitely not a source. Neither is this. You need to do better

What is it you want to discuss? Gender schema, or transgenderism? There might be some overlap, but AFAICT these are not the same thing.

You posted this in medical science, so you’d better be discussing science.

! Moderator Note Where? Who is making the arguments? This is in medical science - are these medical science arguments? Let’s see what science you’ve heard on the subject.

But you said IQ, which is intelligence, not education. (actual IQ tests, OTOH…) Yes, they were better-educated, but there were relatively few of them, because the masses were doing manual labor. They had opportunity and probably family means or a patron. The average person today is much better educated - “developed” countries send their kids to school rather than the mines or to plow a field - plus they have the benefit of accumulated knowledge. (more than half of US adults >25y.o. have some level of college education https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States#General_attainment_of_degrees/diplomas)

You said “The average person as recently as the early 1900s didn't even read or write” so it’s not at all obvious that that’s what you meant, but I appreciate the tap-dancing.

Literacy is a matter of education opportunity rather than intelligence.

No. It doesn’t address the issue. But your response suggests it was a quote from an AI source. Was it? If you can put forth the effort to consult a chatbot, you can use a search engine. I skip past the AI summary when I use Google.

They did, in fact, have separate water coolers for a long time, and SCOTUS decisions require a majority. But this doesn’t rebut the point; it only attempts to rationalize minority influence.

And yet slavery was supported by Bible followers. If that book can be used to support and deny slavery, just think what other things it can be used to support or deny, based on the wants of the individual? How can it be a moral guide if that’s possible?

Your errors are omissions, so this is not possible. You show me where you’ve explicitly explained how causality is invoked. Show where you’ve provided a transform that changes a photon to a muon.

Counterpoint: social science? not so much. There’s a reason social science and natural science are in separate categories.

Who, specifically, to whom do you refer? And you say “us” so you must count yourself among that group, but your posts urging folks to consider something beyond science, do not convey unconditional faith in it. Yes, natural and social sciences, not science in general. It points to a lack of rigor and possibly poor framing of questions, among other issues. Don't paint with such a broad brush.

1 LY is 9.461 × 10^15 meters By inspection, the number seem to at least approximately match

I think that ship has sailed Religious people owned slaves, and used the Bible to justify it, since it’s mentioned in there. Your reasoning would suggest that abolition is an atheistic immorality pushed upon society.

But these are generally agreed-upon issues. Not the cases where religious groups, in the minority, exert influence. Abortion is but one example of this. (but this is not an invitation to start a debate about abortion) Nobody has claimed otherwise. Straw man argument. Because there are other laws/rules that don’t have this overlap. It’s not the generally-agreed-upon issues, as I already mentioned, it’s the fringe cases. Yes, one can say dishonest things. It’s usually a red flag when someone admits that they do so easily.

Probably because religious jerks are continually forcing people to live their lives a certain way. If they kept their noses out of other peoples’ business, a lot of us wouldn’t give a flying f&$* about it. But as long as that happens, “because God said so” isn’t enough; you’re going to have to give real evidence of invisible sky buddy. You might deem evidence “unnecessary” but unless you have examples of people intruding into the lives of theists, demanding it, I think that’s a mischaracterization. I’ve never had anyone ring my doorbell, demanding evidence for God. I have had numerous people do so, trying to spread their religious word.