Phi for All

! Moderator Note This is NOT a GDPR issue, and an open appeal doesn't seem to be the correct course either. Staff is working with the opening poster behind the scenes to solve this particular problem. Thread closed.

Last I heard, Admins were going to change the account name, but leave the posts up so the threads make sense. Seems to be the best compromise. The name is obviously important and personal, and we don't want the others who participated to look silly, and we can stand by our commitment not to delete posts made in good faith.

We have an extremely small subset of humans who feel non-typical enough about their gender at birth to change it, and go through all that entails (definitely not a "whim" event). Once they've done it, they just want some acceptance, but instead their lives are threatened regularly, and they're blocked from participating in many aspects of life, and one aspect they particularly enjoy. My morals won't let me come down on the side that wants to persecute these humans for the temerity of wanting to sport. I'm not a sports fan any more, but, to me, this fuss about transgenders really makes sports fans seem weak and fearful and hateful. It just reinforces the big bully jock stereotype for me. Systemic problems often seem to get solved by overcorrection and radical action. We've been off course for quite a while, so just steering a bit left isn't going to work. We may need to go hard a-port for a ways to get where we want to go. That's if y'all want to go to the same place, where our equal rights are guaranteed and actually in writing, and humans are respected more for themselves than how well they fit our expectations.

Must the tokens all fit within the perimeter, or can they be almost halfway over the line? Trying to eliminate any variables.

Is moving one token with another allowed as long as they don't overlap, or does "place" mean the token is fixed once it's on the table?

! Moderator Note Unfortunately, you haven't been able to explain your idea adequately to others, and you haven't addressed the obvious concerns expressed through discussion. You need to be able to elevate this beyond your own incredulity that we can't see your vision as well as you do. You're obviously uninterested in meeting the criteria we have for making assertions like yours in the Speculations section, so this thread is closed. Do NOT bring this concept up again, since you can't be bothered to support it. It's certainly not enlightening to talk about it with you.

I don't agree. In its present state indigenous farming can't feed the whole world, but can you state with authority that it can't "grow" to sustain today's world population? In fact, with global warming and water scarcity threatening the monocrop European fields that need to be rotated and pesticided and whatnot in order to produce big, bland vegetables, indigenous farming could hold the key to keeping us fed. https://www.iied.org/indigenous-peoples-food-systems-hold-key-feeding-humanity White male Europeans set up the present system to make it easier to harvest, where most indigenous farming is aimed at producing superior products. MigL, they've used indigenous farming in Italy to raise the feed for the special cows they milk to get the aged Parmigiano Reggiano that gets the Protected Designation of Origin stamp on every round. It's a centuries old process, and the cheese is flat-out amazing.

Innate abilities are something you're born with. Can you support this statement with examples? Critical thinking requires quite a bit of learning, so how can you be born with something you have to learn? You'll gain something useful when you realize your own confirmation bias against science that seems to work for us very well is holding you back. You've become blinded by the idea that scientists are "hidebound" and "stuck in their ways", so you don't see the actual steep progress curve that's been happening for the last 150 years or so. While there is some truth that profit often eclipses reasoned solutions, I hope you can see the problem with you demanding scientists follow the scientific method while simultaneously claiming you can only accept data that you personally deem true. Your cognitive biases (all our cognitive biases) need to be removed and that's just not happening.

Can you give me some examples of "the 'extreme' side of woke" that aren't overreactions or misinterpretations or pure whataboutism? Because this is a pretty straightforward fascist tactic, trying to argue obliquely that examples of extremism invalidate any attempts to solve problems like this reasonably. And "creating more problems than it solves" also needs to be supported and clarified. Who is it creating more problems for? Whose problems are being solved at a lesser rate because there are extreme ends to the spectrum of solutions to discriminatory behavior? Lately I'm struck by the pervasiveness of the white European perspective in the US, and how much I've ignored it most of my life. I've been learning about Native American culture in general and in my area, and I'm astonished by the inaccuracies in what I was taught. I was told they were primitives who followed the buffalo, but the truth is they nurtured the land and created abundance without plows and European methods. The buffalo followed the natives, because the natives created seas of grasses for them to crop. They were far from primitive. Australia's natives did the same thing, and after almost ruining parts of Oz with European farming methods, indigenous farming is making a comeback. I don't think I'm being extreme or over-sensitive when it comes to correcting some of the bad information I've received in my life. And thanks to those helping me work on it through discussion.

This isn't the strong argument you seem to think it is. For one, it's wrong. Theories are constantly being changed and updated to represent our best current explanations. And for two, some things are too simple and elegant to change very much, especially when they work so well. You can come up with all kinds of new ideas for a door leading into a house, but in the end a solid panel in a frame with hinges, locks, and a knob is a hard concept to top. Golly, we've been using the same technology for centuries!

Well, those weren't the goalposts I'd aimed for originally. My statement about dogs was based on being able to save a human life through the sacrifice of my dog. You've just Strawmanned into meaninglessness. Never mind. Kidding? Sorry, I don't get it. Lots of white people in the US don't appreciate that we've been getting our hands dirty when it comes to discrimination against people of color just by participating in processes that actively promote it. It's not something that's been placed upon us, but rather a consequence of our own behavior. I mentioned white racial tendencies as being particularly relevant to the topic, and you replied with "Don't you think all people have racial tendencies...?" It just seemed like the same argument.

Are you saying "All lives matter" right after I said "Black lives matter?" Then why is my "assumption" bold? It's a better perspective than claiming you've been "branded", which is wrong AND racially insensitive.

It would be pretty cool, but magnetic attraction drops off steeply with distance, much more than with gravity, which also gets weaker the farther away it is. Magnets strong enough to reach across travel distances would surely attract other magnetic materials too.

I've loved every dog I ever had, and they all wanted for nothing, and were considered part of the family. But none of them were EVER loved as I love my child. As much as it would bring me terrible grief, I'd sacrifice any dog for my child if it were required. Sorry if it seems callous, but I'd sacrifice the best of my dogs to save the life of any human if I knew it would work. When it comes to human life that I have a chance to save, I wouldn't stop to ask about their ethics. I may regret it later if I found out they were a shithead, but I wouldn't be OK with letting a person die to save my dog's life. Branding? I guarantee you that you have many racist tendencies if you're white in the US, simply because it's part of the structure of the country. It's up to all of us to remove as many as we can if we want equity for our citizenry. "Branding" implies something that can't be removed that others have placed upon you against your will. Maybe you should think of racism as more of a stain that YOU got on yourself by interacting with racists, but you can wash it off if you put a little work into it.

If you're looking to make some money, this is a huge distraction from offering upbeat philosophy. Just charge a reasonable fee that's accepted before you bring on the pith. Otherwise every encounter is a negotiation aimed at judging you.

Unfortunately, you're ignoring an important part of the equation: reason and critical thinking. The books are built on data turned into information, but when you actually study the books and debate/discuss them, critical thinking helps turn the information into knowledge. I think you've been using this whole "scientists are arrogant" narrative as an excuse not to "conform". Since I have absolutely no contempt for you, I'd love to see you get over this stumbling block and gain something useful from science discussion.

Because he's posting as a moderator, not a member. His first point was that you used Argument from Incredulity, which is a logical fallacy, and against the rules for discussion here. His second point was that you're using a Strawman argument in your description, another logical fallacy, also against the rules. And third, he's reminding you that bringing up something supernatural in a mainstream section is against the rules. You can believe what you want. Some folks here prefer knowledge they can trust rather than wishful thinking or believing based on faith.

So... you find it hard to believe something, and that leads you to believe in magic?! Why do you need the supernatural when you have changes in gene variants within a population every generation for millions of years?

This sentiment doesn't clash with owning a smart phone with a video recorder. How about a booth for Philosophical Help $5 (The Philosopher is IN)?

This also requires you to gather multiple customers in one place (rent?) so you can charge them all to hear your explanation. A phone would let you deal with individuals throughout the day, or record your explanations for later use.

For a philosopher? Word of mouth.

You made this generalization, not me. I was commenting on the culprits behind most racial injustice. But on that subject, I make a distinction between extremist billionaires and the ones who understand how a society works. Buffet, Gates, and Abigail Disney have both repeatedly encouraged Congress to charge a wealth tax. As I said before, I don't mind a little over sensitivity when it comes to something I've probably not paid enough attention to in the past because I knew my intentions were good. Questioning entrenched systems doesn't have to be evil.

You can find a following on social media for some uplifting philosophical content. TikTok has folks like you who share bits of wisdom from their own unique perspective. I don't know exactly how the monetization is achieved. I'd recommend focusing on the positive. You already have a short, punchy style, so I'd also recommend reading from a script you've written rather than just turning on your camera and pontificating. Only respond to positive feedback so you don't come off as defensive. If your videos are engaging enough, there are people watching who like the idea of supporting you so you can create more content.