Phi for All

In fact, the first three violate the First Amendment, four and five are unenforceable, six, eight and nine are enforced haphazardly, and without ten, we wouldn't have capitalism.

This is an example of how redefining words in your own way causes problems in science. Actual means "observed", and that's what mainstream science is interested in. Natural means "according to nature", which again is tied to observations we've made so often that we can now predict what might happen in similar situations. But reality means "how things really are", and that goes beyond nature and observation. Reality is more of a philosophical concept. For the rest, I'm not sure whether you're simply pointing out that members of a species are usually independently mobile, or if you're proposing some kind of cellular travel across space. Frankly, you write like this is a lecture rather than a discussion, and you have to cram everything into fifteen minutes. Your concepts are all over the place. Can you pick an aspect of this idea of yours and just have a conversation about it? Or do you have some evidence of the element you claim exists so we can examine that? Where does this element fit on the periodic table?

DUCTS. STUBS.

Putin's strategy so far has been to make it seem like the world is against Russia, rather than against what Putin has done in Ukraine. Hopefully Russia is NOT its current leader.

Ukraine beat the Russian air forces, the Russian logistics are horrible, the equipment failures are catastrophic, the Russian leaders are fielding confused and undersupported troops, and it's obvious that if what you say is true, Russia would be in control right now. Serg, I'm sorry you're so easily foooled by state propaganda, but we're here to help.

This is an assumption you need to support. On its face, it seems overly simplified, and easy to disprove, unless you change definitions to the point of meaninglessness. I also think you don't understand entanglement. You've invented some concepts that aren't mainstream, and then try to stitch mainstream concepts to them, and that's not good methodology. You risk filling the gaps in your knowledge with stuff you've made up, and it always sounds good because you used concepts that made more sense to you, but aren't necessarily correct.

Senator Ted Cruz and Governor Greg Abbott of Texas will be attending the NRA convention this weekend in Houston, where Cruz is a keynote speaker, and they don't care much about the ethics or the optics. They made it clear it was a shame what happened, and now want to move on to a great convention.

It's not just the skill sets to compete, it's whatever the category calls for. If you have the skills but don't meet other category factors, like height and weight, you can't try out for that category. You should always be able to play with "top players" within the group you compete against. And I'm convinced you and others know this is what I and others have been talking about, but you've purposely been misrepresenting it for 44 pages now. We're not that bad at explaining ourselves, but you always end up with some ridiculous image like that above as your argument.

But your argument was: So you're obviously moving the goalposts just as many times as you've stated your arguments. It's a version of No True Scotsman, really. No example will truly suffice, because you'll keep bringing up more extreme examples. "No woman could ever compete with the top Whitewater Apple Bobbers!"

Pam Reed. Lynn Hill. Gertrude Ederle. Danica Patrick. You need to remove dexterity and endurance from this list as prejudices. Women are either more dexterous than men or their equal (depending on whether you adjust for finger thickness) on most tests for this quality. Wrt endurance and stamina, women are the clear winners.

That's a very good perspective, Serg. The whole world is in danger because of "leaders" like Putin and Orban. Perhaps the whole world would be better off without "leaders" who risk their people this way.

If this kind of manufacturing can be done on small scales, I think it would be perfect for rural job creation, which is also where we have problems pushing utilities anyway. Give the USPS the fleet of planes they need, and we could push manufacturing US solar panels to anyplace with a post office.

FossilDiscovery has been banned for posting links to their YT channel videos after being told repeatedly that it's against the rules.

You at least need to remove American football from this "no women could qualify" list. There's no rules stopping women from being recruited in the NFL, and there are women kickers like Becca Longo still in college (Go Grizzlies!) who can qualify for professional positions on any team. But mere kicking is probably not the "level of skill" you're talking about.

Saying you aren't a racist while using non-standard terms like Anglo-Saxon is a lot like saying you aren't a creationist while using non-standard terms like Darwinian evolution. You seemed confused, so I spelled it all out for you. Or perhaps you replied to the wrong thread?

This seems similar to folks who've posted here claiming NOT to be a creationist, yet they use terms like "Darwinian evolution". Riiiiiiight, you're not a creationist.

Because you phrase it just like this, but it gets heard as "I want women to get hurt" or "it's more entertaining when average people can compete" or "any woman can compete against the top elite men in all sports". And I don't see those supporting transgendered athletes misinterpreting the opposite stance in the same way. The pushback I've been getting seems mostly arguments from incredulity and don't be a snowflake and we already have categories.

The GOP has dressed all these concepts up as scarecrows, stuffing them with straw and misrepresenting the stances behind each in a fallacious endeavor to knock them all down. Progressivism is also mischaracterized, as we've seen quite recently with FOX News and Tucker Carlson promoting the Great Replacement theory, helping indoctrinate white supremacists across the country and, imo, directly leading to the recent mass shooting in Buffalo. The GOP, FOX, and Carlson all have a LOT of blood on their hands, imo.

Under the second amendment, as long as she didn't plan for that to happen, it's her right to risk her child's life that way (the American way).

It seems like all the arguments you mention either mischaracterize opposing arguments, or argue from incredulity, or are outright strawmen attacks. If you can meet the physical requirements necessary to compete at a certain level, can you explain to me again why your age or gender is an issue?

Page 36, still strawmanning hard. I believe there are women out there who, if supported as athletes from a young age (the way men are), are fully capable of trying out for pro sports at virtually every level and qualifying for all the physiological benchmarks. Most assuredly, some sports would have a level of competition that would disqualify MOST people, men or women, and men may indeed dominate that league/class.

If you were looking for a binary result (is capsaicin present in ANY amount - yes or no), that would be a pretty cool school project. What you're talking about has some real commercial applications. This site https://www.zpchilligroup.com/ claims to have such a device.

The meme has been around a while, without Skeletor, so perhaps this is He-Mansplaining? I got hung up on the bad punctuation.

It's not an analogy, it's a scenario, and it's not like your strawman either. You obviously wouldn't qualify the way my example did. My 80 year old woman qualified for every test she needed to pass for heavyweight boxing in this scenario, and she's a monster in the ring. She's strong enough, and has the capabilities and endurance, and thinks you should take your "protect the women" and shove it. Why won't you let her box with Tyson Fury if she has all the skills? Is it her age? Is it her gender?

Does that sound like what the arguments I mentioned said? When I read them back, they say "rankings should rely on all sorts of other factors, and that age and gender become meaningless if you've actually bothered to test for sporting capability". Why does that sound like anybody would be competing against anybody else who was stronger and faster? Isn't that what classification is all about? If you run the 100m in a certain time, and fall between this weight and that, you qualify to compete against others, regardless of age or gender, who also qualified. As for your boxing example, if an 80-year old woman (trangendered or not) qualifies for the heavyweight class (one that's centered on various capabilities that aren't age and gender), why would you think that person is automatically invalid?