Phi for All

While I agree with this part of your solution, I think this may be the real fear at the heart of the matter, what gun owners are most anxious about. A focus on mental health evaluation is quite likely to determine that people who are obsessive about owning hundreds of guns are mentally ill, just like those who hoard money they'll never be able to spend in their lifetimes, or people who lie after gaining a position of trust, or those who refuse to help people gain access to medicine, or those who judge others by the color of their skin. If they're paranoid about the government coming after their guns, they're probably more paranoid about their obsessions coming under scrutiny.

! Moderator Note Our rules state that members must be able to participate in a discussion without opening any docs or following any links. Is there any reason you can't copy/paste the information you want the members to have?

So it's wrong to sell assault rifles, but if you already have one it's OK forever? Is it really? Are you saying it's dangerous because these people will use their guns to defend their right to have guns? Or are you saying amendments are dangerous? I think this is the bullshit that's being shoveled, sure, but it's NOT what's being asked right now. Right now, we need to reduce the availability of guns through better checks, and we need to regulate private sales better. Claiming that means all your rights will be lost is an extremist talking point, a strawman that has a bright red target on it to make it easier to hit. I don't agree either, or with your assessment. I think the reason nothing gets done is because of heavy lobbying, average people believing arguments about losing guns totally if we ban assault rifles, and a climate of racist fears and paranoia that will help keep arms makers in business ad infinitum.

Here's your hypocrisy in action, right here. It's only common sense to ban guns for a good reason.

This is business, special bird seed shingles for car wash roofs! I'm on it!

Not sure if anyone brought this up before, but the Alliance for Gun Responsibility points out that "gun control" is how the right wing have framed this whole issue, and humans hate being controlled. "Control" becomes "confiscation", and even law-abiding citizens object. Reframing this issue as "gun responsibility" will force politicians into a clearer stance. I don't think they'd get elected if they objected to responsible gun use.

I only jumped back in this thread because I did not like the way beecee was treating rebuttals with lazy arguments, copy/pasting his own words, and dismissing concern for underrepresented folks as overactive PC measures. And how has your original objection changed as a result of being exposed to other perspectives through disccussion? Do you still think the suggestions that have been made will harm cis women's participation in sports?

So you're saying, "Being male is not generally to possessing those qualities" is straight? I'm accusing you of being grammatically wrong. But I also think you've got a LOT of emotional investment in this issue, because you keep repeating the same arguments, even though lots of folks have peeled them apart fairly reasonably. And instead of then addressing THOSE points, you just double down, copy/paste something you've already said, and insist that any rebuttal is some kind of overactive political correctness, even though the positions have been thoroughly explained to you. If it's debatable, why do you keep copy/pasting the same things? And is thorough rejection a competent scientific stance? What's happened to your objectivity? Nobody is saying you have to agree, but it would help, if you're going to continue to discuss this, if you would at least keep moving forward instead of staying mired in your complete rejection.

This is a science discussion forum. It works best when you treat it like a conversation around a table, rather than lecturing from a podium to an audience. I want to be able to stop reading when I encounter something questionable, ask a question, and get an answer before I read any more. I learn this way, a piece of information at a time so I can see if it fits well with accumulated human knowledge. I eat the same way, so it's like you're trying to make me fit a whole pizza in my mouth, instead of taking small bites to make sure it's not going to make me sick.

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.