Phi for All

So the "general consensus" is what you go by to determine what being a man is for you? You let society tell you how you feel about your gender identity? I think many people do, so you aren't alone. It just seems baaaaaaad to me.

You seem to have trouble with rigor of any sort. ALL your posts? This one isn't. An opening post to a discussion needs more than bald assertions with no support. In a science discussion, we appreciate it when you show us your reasoning, including any evidence you may have that supports your assertions, because anybody can squawk like a chicken about things they don't understand. Understand?

Are you going to discuss this topic, or just pontificate on it as if we weren't asking you questions? You need to let us know what you mean by "real", because many things have abstract applications but are nonetheless very real. You've made it past the first day five post limit, so feel free to join the conversation.

You mean difference? Not what I'm talking about right now. I'm focused on who decides what it means to be a man for you. Is it you, or do you let others dictate what it means for you? And if you decide what being a man is for you, don't you think others deserve the same respect?

You think it's a silly question? I think it's the only one worth answering. You rely on yourself to decide what being a man means to you, and denying that to others seems hypocritical. Do you disagree?

The only person who tells me what makes me a man is me. Is it different for you? Who tells you what makes you a man?

How is the universe "illogical"? With behavior governed by chemistry and physics, how does a principle of reasoning, which requires an intelligence, fit into the overall structure of the universe? Does your explanation only become relevant after human life on Earth happened?

You need to define how you're using "logic". Logic in philosophy is different from that used in maths, and none of that looks anything like what most people think of as "logic". Pop-sci articles make it seem like "logic" means "this makes the most sense to me", and that's definitely wrong.

Why focus on only the male side? Why not study how various species compete for mates without skewing the results with bias? What kind of argument are you trying to make based on this cherry-picked data?

! Moderator Note Copying and pasting the work of others is plagiarism, and is against our rules here. You are suspended for a week.

I have no idea what this sentence means. I can't believe it's in response to my post asking you for more rigor about a sensitive topic. I don't think "too sentimental" is a clinical diagnosis. I don't think "romantic" is a term most professionals use wrt suicide prevention. I can't find it anywhere in the literature I've read on the subject. Again, I find it a bit offensive that you're posting these highly subjective observations of yours as if they were part of some general mental health journey you're advocating. There are places for that kind of guesswork, but the Medical Sciences section of a science discussion forum isn't one of them. I'm really concerned that someone trying to read this thread for help is going to take statements like this seriously, as if it's advice from a mental healthcare professional. I've never heard a mental health expert talk about "spirituality" or anybody being "spiritually weak". You are NOT using clinical terminology, and your assessments are guesses that are either too broad to be meaningful or just word salad like the above. Science. Discussion. Forum.

You got down into the dermis, like a tattoo needle. Ouch! That sounds like a long-haul, painful recovery. Triple ouch! Glad you're still with us.

! Moderator Note You need to STOP attacking people if you can't discuss a topic civilly. I'm more than happy to give you a short vacation from posting if you think personal abuse is appropriate.

Hemostasis is the first step, forming a clot to stop the bleeding and form a scab. Inflammation flushes debris and micro-contaminants from the wound and introduces nutrients to help form new tissue. Rebuilding the tissue forces the scab off eventually, which should remove any macro-contaminants (like cotton or other bits). Your skin grows from the bottom layers to the top, so anything trapped on a layer will eventually be forced to the surface and shed with other skin.

! Moderator Note I'm not following you. Restart what, exactly? This is a science discussion forum. We talk about sciencey stuff, in a threaded, written format. Each conversation basically stands on its own merit. From scratch? Other than post count, why begin again? This isn't something Moderators can do, so I want to know this isn't some whim before I drag an Admin away from trying to earn their funding or get out ahead of their lab work.

! Moderator Note Not a philosophical question. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note Advertising links removed per our rules. As mentioned above, we're a discussion forum. We aren't a blog and don't promote religions, we discuss various subjects in a reasoned manner. If this isn't a drive-by spam attack, please respond and tell us what you'd like to discuss about this church and its beliefs, or I'll have to close this thread.

From the Greek myth about a guy who goes blind from grasping his serpent too often, right?

According to the Yankovic horoscope, you should try to avoid any Virgos or Leos with the Ebola virus. You are the true Lord of the Dance, no matter what those idiots at work say.

While I can easily see alternatives to Christo-Fascism gaining in popularity as the white supremacists in the US are taking off their hoods, I do wonder how the recent rise in social media, YouTube video followings, and TikTok lifestyle livestreams have affected the numbers. Certainly it's much easier to count your following today than it was in 1990. How many of these new pagans have always been pagans, just uncounted or misnamed as "free spirits"?

! Moderator Note We don't review videos. If you want to discuss the rise of paganism, we can do it without padding the views on a YT video. Videos are notoriously difficult to discuss scientifically in a forum like this, and nobody has the time to watch and try to catch all the inconsistencies. If you're only here to support the video, I need to close this, but if you're truly interested in discussing the rise of paganism, you need to present your arguments here, and not require that folks watch a video in order to participate. Also, we'll do it civilly or we won't do it at all. We attack ideas here, not people.

OMG, this is a disgusting response to what I said. Fallacy much?? I won't insult your reading abilities the way MigL does with mine, but you can shove this strawman appropriately. I'll wait for a better thread, or start one myself. Thanks for engaging, FWIW.

I did NOT claim all black Americans need to be compensated for government sanctioned redlining practices. My claim is that all black Americans who were victims of government sanctioned redlining practices need to be compensated. YOU keep claiming that means we're only using skin color to determine who was victimized, and YOU keep ignoring that we have records of the cities where this type of discrimination was practiced. And YOU keep moving the goalposts on my argument to include the Civil War and other incidents where reparations are being discussed. Again, I wish we could have a focused discussion on JUST the issue of redlining, where I don't think your "you can't use skin color or it's racist" argument holds any water at all.

No. 21 pages in and it's still NO. If we somehow discovered we'd been systemically discriminating against people with albinism, those with almost no melanin, denying them the potential to prosper because of the way they look, what other factors do you want to consider besides those that make them albino? Seriously, this objection has NEVER made any sense to me. If a judge determines a thief who stole my money must pay that money back, is the judge practicing thievery by using money as a factor?

! Moderator Note We can't do anything about your rep count, other than what The Vat did. We saw your report but by that time enough people had disagreed with the negatives.