Phi for All

! Moderator Note Thank you for using the Report Post function. This seems more like a misplaced humor rather than active trolling. Reminder to all, we're in the Medical Science section, and replies should reflect that!

! Moderator Note The OP has not engaged in discussion with those patient members who bothered to supply some science, and instead has chosen to stand on a soapbox and wave a metric into existence with their hands. This fails all the parameters for Speculations. Thread closed.

We don't delete anything. People put work into their posts, no matter how they're received, so at most we move the posts into the Trash. Still here, still readable, but nobody has to waste time responding to concepts that can't pass basic tests and smell like word salad. If you'd like to learn some science, I suggest you stick around and read.

! Moderator Note It was worth a try, thanks for the attempts at reason by the reasonable. Thread closed.

My point about all white males being suspect was lost on more than just you. Stop thinking from your own perspective and put yourself in somebody (almost anybody) else's shoes. Black people don't know which white males to trust. Neither do Latinx or Asian folks. Women especially have to watch out for resentful, hateful, ignorant white men who think women are the cause of all their problems. How could they possibly tell the difference between me and you just by looking? If I'm not with my wife, you and I might look the same in that regard. I might be the one who holds hostility towards women because they won't have sex with me. I know you hate facts and statistics, but I don't know another way to actually show you how white men are the main suspects in all sorts of crimes against women. I know you wanted to come here to explain an idea you had about science but instead started talking about how oppressed you are by women and intellectuals. It's obviously a big hangup for you, but this is a discussion forum. We'd like to think you might actually LISTEN to some of the points being made, but you haven't yet, so I don't think your ideas are best for conversation with adults. This isn't the echo chamber you've been spending time in, listening to other men disparage women to make themselves feel better. In this type of discussion, we use reason to help others see our points of view, to persuade them that there are other ways to look at a problem. I haven't seen much that's reasonable from you. It's great that you've taken the time to respond to so many replies, but your responses make it seem like women and intellectuals are printing up "Keep kicking Greg A!" t-shirts just because you're so perceptive about the True Nature of the World. Regardless, it's easy to see you misinterpret most of what's being said to you, so in that regard a science discussion forum will probably do you more harm than good. You just don't understand what we're talking about when it comes to supportive evidence and critical thinking skills. I love discussing topics with the members here, mostly because the rest of them know what reason (and irony) looks like.

I wish you could hear what we hear when you post things like this.

The thread began 18 years ago? I'm going to go with that. ... to the response you so wanted to give yet didn't? I so wanted to listen to it but you didn't respond.

Interesting read. I was hoping the Times article about medical sexism could shed some light on why 19th century American women conspired to foment war between the North and South in order to wipe out all the men and create a single-sex society. Alas, no.

So, by that same reasoning, WWII was more about killing animals than anything else? The fatalities were mostly horses and dogs. In modern times, the US lost less than 3000 troops in Afghanistan, but but wiped out half the total livestock population. Was the underlying influence of that war to kill goats?

... with stall walls covered in executive Sharpie memos.

Don't forget the crimes we haven't even heard about yet. My first thought was that we're going to hear about something Alex Jones confessed about Trump, or that someone checked Trump's Twitter feed and found a comment that supports him being taken to Walter Reed to remove a wad of chewed up documents from his colon. But you're right, that he's a suspect held zero surprise for anyone.

Have you all thought about how much evidence was needed for a judge to sign off on a warrant like this?

But that's not because of censorship, or because you're speaking some kind of Truth we want hidden. It's because your predictions aren't based on anything you can explain. We gave you pages to explain yourself, but you mostly used that time to cry about censorship and how oppressed you are. We pointed out how many of your "observations" were incorrect, and we provided data that supported that. You didn't bother, so we assumed you had no evidence. We asked you many questions hoping to draw out more information about your ideas, and again you ignored those you couldn't answer. That's why your ideas won't make it into the textbooks. Accuracy is one of the hallmarks of science, and scientists are always going to be triple-checking for it.

This is the "All lives matter" argument again. It's not bigoted to want the discrimination against women and BIPOC folks by white men to stop. Can you tell me how they're supposed to know how you're a "good white guy"? Did you build a toxicity meter yet? Right now, a lot of these folks have to treat all white men the same, because the consequences of misreading which are good is too steep.

I don't know about that, but I did see a thread last year on another science discussion forum where three of our old crackpots (I recognized the names but can't recall them now) were expounding on an idea one of them had stitched together with guesswork, wild hairs, and thin ice. Talk about clusterfuck! It was just those three, and they each had differing "theories" about why relativity is wrong, and none of them could explain it to the others, just like they couldn't explain it to us. It ended up looking like a word salad food fight, and the only thing they could agree on was how wrong Einstein was.

"Common" usually means more than 1 in 100. "Risky" is purely subjective, and something only you and your doctor can assess. That said, I wouldn't risk a 1 in 100 chance when the side effect is so opposed to my objective. If I want to keep my hair because I think it makes me attractive, why risk impotence? Finasteride isn't a "cure" for androgenetic alopecia. At best it can help you keep hair you currently have. The attitudes towards male baldness are changing for the better (much faster, easier acceptance than women are getting, certainly). You might want to consider getting rid of the "ruff" and embracing total baldness. I'm blessed with an almost full head of hair at my age, but I'd pluck it all out by the roots rather than risk a 1% chance of impotence.

I know, right? It seems to describe so much of what's going on with politics and religion these days. Arbitrary?! It's most definitely NOT arbitrary. Alpha on top, lessers below in ranked order. It's like a thermometer, and men are assuming hotter is always better, and you're not hot enough if someone hotter says so. Do you see that as inherently fair and equitable? You obviously don't understand me properly if you can argue using this stinky False Dilemma. I'm arguing that there are many ways to change our societies to be more inclusive and favorable to the overwhelming majority of people. You can't let the past make you afraid of trying. What kind of scientist says, "Well, they tried a Socialist experiment and it failed. Let's never test THAT again!" Communism/Marxism was a major smokescreen back in the 50s in the US. We actually didn't hate the Communists so much as we hated that the American Communist Party was siding with women, Jews, gays, and Blacks in the US and threatening to push forward legislation that many white people also favored, like an anti-lynching bill. Anti-communist rhetoric worked so well they used it to erode the Socialist programs we had in the US, like public schools and utilities. So I'm not convinced about your monarchy argument. The vertical assignment assumes anyone above you is "better", or knows more, or has more power, or is more capable, and anyone below you is "lesser", or knows less, has less power and capability. The horizontal assignment is forced to assess the situation and the capabilities of the people involved, and solve problems based on THAT rather than on the say-so of a higher-up. I keep trying to make this simpler, and I worry that this will continue to fail. OTOH, I'm not convinced a more detailed explanation will help if you really don't want to hear about this. Of course it includes me, from anyone else's frame of reference. And I can speak for you in this instance too, because from a woman/BIPOC/LGBTQ frame of reference, you and I are identical. 77% of domestic homicide victims are female, and 96% of the suspects are male. https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/domestic-abuse-is-a-gendered-crime/ Do you know what hoops some people have to jump through just to please the average 65 year old white male? I can wear my grubbies to the store if I want and still expect everyone to treat me well, but BIPOC people have to be dressed immaculately or they're frowned upon. You and I might say, "You don't need to do anything special for me!", but again, there's no toxicity meters for men, and there's more than you and me, so they have to assume it's all of us.

Really, "not all men"? Until an alpha male toxicity meter is invented that works at least as well as my irony meter, I'm going to assume it's all men. They're free to change my mind by doing more than just talk about equality. I think you make a mistake in taking it personally, rather than accepting that modern patriarchal capitalist societies have created a hostile environment for women and other non-white male groups. You need to understand nobody is calling you a shithead, but they are asking you to help stop shithead behavior by not encouraging it or even accepting it tacitly from your male colleagues/friends/family.

Perhaps you know of some good studies, Arete, but I think this is exacerbated by the way men specifically tend to organize in a hierarchy with some kind of alpha at the top controlling those below who are stacked vertically the same way. Some men have a hard time letting women be in charge partly because they assume women just want to usurp them in a similar hierarchy. But a matriarchy or a woman-owned organization might not be set up that way at all. Women might feel a council is a better approach to politics or business as opposed to having a president who's over a VP, who's over the next in line and so on. Men worry about being displaced from a pecking order, and don't see a female dominated group as a rearrangement of responsibilities.

Until they whine online about how life is stacked against them now that non-white people matter. Poor white men, denied their right to abuse their families as they see fit by a system created by rich white men. Poorly educated monkeys who can't grasp the complexity of the systems they rely on, yet have enough human capacity for intelligence to realize something is very wrong. Unfortunately, they turn away from the one group that could actually help improve their lot in life, the intellectuals and progressives who crawled out of ignorance one book at a time to accept the responsibility of accumulated human knowledge.

What if the men are getting kicked out of their marriages because they're abusive, ignorant, malicious SOBs who hurt their wives and children? That seems to be the trend. Why are you boohooing over them getting the treatment they deserve? Or do you think a woman is just supposed to stay quiet and take it when they get beat up by their man? What if a man loses his job because a woman came along who was better at it? Isn't that what the standard hierarchy says, best person for the job gets it? Do you believe men are always best for every job except raising children, cleaning, or cooking? I hate to assume you know anything, so it would help if you answered some of these questions. Your stances seem to ignore a great deal of reality in favor of some kind of Tucker Carlson spin-vomit engineered for those whose education left them in a steep deficit.

It's also because it assumes people who can speak maths fluently haven't already done the calculations in their heads and dismissed the idea as unphysical or unworkable. And the irony is, if the mathematician took the time to show how the math disproves the idea, the overconfident person wouldn't understand it anyway.

This is me, showing you where you're wrong. Please take note, since you seem to have missed all the other times. You're wrong: https://fortune.com/2020/07/14/billionaires-philanthropy-coronavirus-crisis/ I have more statistics that support where YOU'RE WRONG about the rich hoarding wealth. You're wrong about them not hoarding commodities because they can't consume them all by themselves. That shows an almost childlike naivete about how supply and demand work. And nobody said anything about "wasting" resources, we're talking about hoarding. The working class can't afford to hoard. What you think you know about the economy is WRONG.

Nobody but YOU is calling anyone stupid sacks. You have no respect for the reasoning process. The fact that none of the arguments against your stances got through to you shows none of the mistaken information was corrected. I showed you some statistics about which party OVER A SEVENTY YEAR PERIOD has grown the economy more, and your response was some bullshit about lag time. Between presidencies, your lag time argument can affect the economy, but over a long period the trends are clear and precise. The Dems have grown the economy more, and you continue to lie about that. But the real problem is that you don't understand the basics of a lot of these concepts. We can explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you. You seem to have adopted a worldview first, and now only listen to "facts" that support that view. Sorry, but I don't think discussion, especially science discussion, is for you. I would recommend some online courses in various studies, because you need to learn more before making arguments you're going to base your whole life on. Wouldn't you hate to find out you were mistaken AFTER you did something really dumb based on what you've been told? I know there are some folks who found out recently that their ignorance can be weaponized by unscrupulous leaders.

The maths misunderstanding comes to mind. "I came up with an intuitive idea that makes perfect sense and solves all the problems of the universe, now someone else should do the math!"