iNow

Can you explain why gender should remain in any way relevant when grouping and classifying sports by size and ability seems much more appropriate? Consider it similar to the difference between junior varsity versus varsity, or Division 1 versus Division 2. There's really no need to keep the distinction between male and female (as classified at birth) other than "that's how we've always done it."

I'm just happy I know enough to call it a receptacle and not an outlet.

You're absolutely right. We should do exactly that, and we've already discussed this in the thread you acknowledged you haven't read. Categorize based on ability, size, strength, or other relevant criteria. Ignore gender and genital plumbing. Problem solved.

I, for one, hope they’ll be very concerned about incandescent bulbs and will have switched to LEDs by then.

It's ambiguous that way

Trump told Fox today that he wouldn’t go back to twitter and plans to stay on his failing extreme right platform, Truth. Speaking of truth, Trump doesn’t often tell it so he’ll almost certainly come back anyway bc he’s also an insecure attention whore.

The argument is that everyone wants to be selected based on merit. By announcing the demographic criteria, it may suggest the appointed person was chosen for reasons other than their competence, experience, and qualifications. I don’t agree with it, but that’s the position.

Harder to put the brakes on people intentionally lying and disinforming others, and yes. The ban on Trump would surely be reversed. That may not be a bad thing, though. The pushback against him has waned since he’s stuck shouting his bile on extreme right platforms with limited audiences / where he’s preaching to the converted. Putting him back in the public eye, however, might help remind the public more broadly how nice the quiet has been during his absence. Unfortunately, good ideas don’t seem to be winning out in the marketplace of ideas.

And yet you dismiss the arrogance of explaining god(s) INTO existence using our own devices. Strange hypocrisy, but appreciate you highlighting it. Much like your imaginary god(s), your perception of me being upset is also imaginary. I really couldn't care much less about you than I do now. As already shared, I mostly find you boring. I definitely don't find you upsetting.

Much like your god(s) If you plan on using logic to bootstrap your faith, then you should abandon the tautologies you seem so partial to There is no divide between science and belief in god(s). It’s all quite well explained using basic psychology and sociology.

No, this is a false equivalence in multiple respects. YOU’RE throwing in unfounded assumptions based on wish thinking, fantasy, and human mythological thinking. I’m challenging those assumptions as not being worth the bandwidth you absorbed to post them. Precisely why you need science to reject your conclusions when they’re so clearly flawed. You’re fooling yourself and asking others to join you in being fooled. No thanks. No, I’m gonna need more dressing before I swallow this word salad.

Why not unicorns or the tooth fairy then, since we’re “just looking for another path of enquiry?”

Governor Ron DeSantis wants to eliminate 70% of all math books currently used in Florida. He says the other 12% are fine

What else does your crystal ball tell you? Do you also know next weeks lotto numbers? Imminent? No. Existential? Depends on your time frame… a time frame which we’re very clearly accelerating on current trajectory. False choice. Both are concerning. So you seem to be suggesting my claim that the survival and existence of many millions of future people is being put at increased risk due directly to climate change is “misrepresenting the problem.” Am I reading you correctly here, because honestly I’m beginning to feel like the misrepresented one in this exchange. Phew. That was a close call. Thank god you returned us back to the actually important focus in all this… attacking “liberals.”

Correction. You place YOUR theology on a pedestal while dismissing the theology of those whose beliefs differ from yours. Basically, you have an imaginary friend and you’re trying to convince us it’s as good as (or better) than our real friends. Yay you. Yep. And who created THAT sentient being? You have answered no questions. You’ve merely displaced them and stopped searching for valid answers. Your game is boring.

If you wish to better understand your “creator,” then science is the single best path to doing so. It’s a shame that you’ve fallen into the same trap as so many other creationists before you who seem to think that science is about “accumulating knowledge,” when in fact it’s about removing our biases and blinders when learning how nature operates and behaves. Thou dost project too much when accusing others being victims to a “cunning distraction.” One might argue that religion and claims of gods have perfected that exact process for millennia.

A few folks have asked for this in the past. Just raising it up once again. Would be great if a Dark Mode / theme could be enabled in Admin Panel or via software plugin for SFN. Every time I’m surfing around doing stuff then come back over to SFN to see what’s up, it feels like I’m suddenly staring into the sun and need to go grab my eclipse viewing glasses. I tend to use Dark Mode / theme everywhere I can. Would be great having the same option on our profile settings here, as well. Cheers. 🥃

You seem to be suggesting my claims were bizarre and inaccurate. Am I reading you correctly?

Just because it’s not imminent doesn’t mean it won’t be existential. My kids are super grateful to you that you don’t care what their lives will be like, how hard it will be to grow crops to feed 9 Billion people, or find fresh drinking water during droughts, or survive the tornadoes and hurricanes and hard freeze blizzards each season, or the nasty illnesses evolving and transmitted during mass human migrations when you and I are both long dead and gone. Super grateful, we all are, that you acknowledge something should be done about this but you recognize how “putting libs in their place” is the more important topic to discuss here.

Are there extremes on both sides of the political aisle? Yes, of course. Are they equivalent? No, absolutely not, and anyone suggesting otherwise is arguing a false equivalence. The extremes in the right try kidnapping state governors, think there’s a secret child sex ring running the government and that teachers who let kids read books about slavery should be jailed, and ignore election results by rising up fully armed in a coup or insurrection, whereas extremes on the left try getting us to please address climate change, offer healthcare to poor people, and get the police to stop murder our black citizens in the streets without any consequences.

I knew someone would bite at that apple. 😂 Never said mine was the only correct POV. Thanks for playing, though.

It is

As we did in the gay marriage threads, and the universal healthcare threads, and the transgendered athlete threads, and the climate change threads, and the evolution threads, and the 9/11 truther threads, etc. IMO it’s not a waste of cognitive skills to stand up tenaciously and with persistence for what’s right and defend shared principles in the face of those who want us to question whether or not facts even exist or if our neighbors and school teachers are grooming young children for sexual exploit and need to be exterminated.

Mostly because, even though he lost the last election (and the one before that too by several million votes in the popular), he very much has not yet been defeated… and most of the world doesn’t seem to have realized it yet. That’s OT here, though.