iNow

We don't have a human right to drive drunk or to avoid stopping at red lights. All rights have reasonable restrictions, and a request to wear a mask, avoid entry if lacking vaccination, or stay home for a bit if sick isn't the tyrannical oppression and removal of freedom that some people seem to think it is. That said, some regulations and rules CAN go too far. Where that threshold exists is where the debate is best focused, IMO. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of your neighbors nose."

Thank you

I recommend you calibrate your PC Detection device if this is what qualifies for the 25+ times in this thread you’ve lashed out against it, bc right now you’re getting far too many false positives.

It’s not really a story, but I seem to recall “Blackholes and Timewarps: Einsteins Outrageous Legacy” by Kip Thorne going into some detail here. Not a textbook, not fiction, but very well done.

Wait, what? Are we reading the same thread here?

I’ve never called any single one of you names or suggested ill intent in this thread (if only the same could be said of those responding to me). Please try again.

There. FTFY And if we consider ONLY reproduction, then yet again we return to the original counter: That’s dumb because it ignores the infertile, the prepubescent, and the post menopausal.

We already have one. It’s called “accepting that there’s more than 2 binary categories.” This thread is like: A: Do ALL substances contract when they freeze? B: Nope. A: Of course they do, and that’s what science has said FOREVER. B: Nope. There’s different behavior for water and other related substances when they freeze, for example. Not everything contracts. A: Right, but water is an anomaly. Everything contracts when it freezes. B: Well, I guess if you ignore water and related substances with different behaviors when they get cold then that’s true, but you can’t just ignore water if you wish to remain accurate. A: Yeah, but there’s only a tiny tiny fraction of substances that do this. MOST don’t. B: So what? Clearly not ALL substances contract when they freeze. A: I’m SO tired of the PC agenda that’s ruined science and can’t believe this nonsense is being taught to students. You should be ashamed of yourselves and just stick with the facts. It’s obvious that EVERYTHING contracts when it freezes and I can’t believe you idiots don’t see this! B: Sigh. There’s bismuth, too. A: I wish someone would give me an example of something that doesn’t contract when frozen. B: Silicon, gallium, germanium, antimony, plutonium… I could go on. A: I’m just going to keep waiting for an answer from the experts. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Even the present moment is not discreet, yet that’s the only place / only time we ever are / ever exist ✌️

Well said

You know what cracks me up? The ones I put on the bottom turned out even better (like super crisp and make this top one look sloppy), and nobody will ever see them or even know they’re there (except you and me and readers of this post) 😂 Smart man They’re hand cut. No jigs or templates. Thank you, both ✌️

Now that’s a super cool idea! Am curious how you finish them? Here’s a fun side view of the recently completed table I mentioned above

That’s brilliant. Except for the router, that’s how humans have done it for thousands of years. I haven’t tried it yet, but am looking for a reason. Exactly. That’s one of my favorite parts, too. Puzzles being solved. Skills being acquired. Ideas being made real.

Indeed, probably too many I’m curious how you did the grooves… maybe a straight cut bit in the router, or even a Dremel tool perhaps? They give it such a cool feeling of movement.

Awesome work! I also love that you did a panel glue up for the base. Red oak and black walnut? Ive made a bunch of end grain cutting boards as gifts for the holidays out of maple, mahogany, and hickory. Also just finished a new hat and coat rack in black walnut in our entry, a live edge river table for the living room, and working on a sitting bench with shoe storage now.

I already answered this above within the same post you just quoted, did I not? Why not? Please, be as specific as possible in your response.

Precision. Accuracy. Alignment with reality. Understanding. Clarity. There are others, but my only agenda is to present correct information and refute falsehoods. If I came in here claiming there were ONLY 2 types of quarks, up and down, would you not correct me for sharing falsehoods, and continue correcting me even if I remained obstinate in my stance and unable to defend it without casting personal aspersions at others?

I keep asking you to explain how my usage is flawed and you keep not explaining. Closest we got was some wiki links. Is a deviation not a type of “other?” It’s not male. It’s not female. Fine, call it a defect or deviation… I don’t care, but that’s still a 3rd group (aka there are NOT just 2)

We agree. Those are all cars... And all of these people are still humans. And they also each all have a sex, even if it's neither male nor female. All I'm saying is, since they are neither male nor female we must allow for a 3rd category/sex of "Other." What do you feel I am omitting or being eluded by? Your 3rd grade level presentation of biology has been repeated and debunked repeatedly in this thread already. Simply repeating flawed positions doesn't make them correct.

Yeah, poor Elon Musk is depressed apathy personified and has just given up.

The analogy here is you keep claiming ALL cars / ALL Fords are either a Mustang or an F-150, and others are asking you where then do we put the Taurus and the Fiesta and the Explorer and all of the other Ford models since they’re neither a Mustang nor an F-150. When we ask this, you call us manipulative walnut brains caught in a vortex of politically correct culture instead of offering an answer with any actual substance to this perfectly valid criticism / question. Worse, you're trying to dismiss the existence of the Taurus and Explorer and Fusion etc. as "defects" off the manufacturing line... but they're still cars that exist, and which are not able to be accurately called either a Mustang or an F-150

It is evidence of more than 2, whether or not you call “other” a sex. It means saying there are only 2 is inaccurate.

It's a shame that you refuse to even attempt arguing in good faith. You suggested my argument was flawed or somehow invalid because I used the word category instead of the word sex. I used the word category when suggesting we have male, female, and folks who don't fit into either. The existence of those folks who don't fit into either necessitate a 3rd "category" of "other" or "no sex" to use the OPs words. You then made a flip comment about category and sex being different. I don't disagree, but sex is obviously a type of category. I'm asking you to clarify why you think pointing out that these words are different in any way negates the logical argument I've presented. You keep calling me names and evading. I'm trying to give you a chance to defend your stance and change minds. Including mine.

Let me repeat myself. Please clarify what you see as the relevant differences btw those terms (in context of this thread).

Thank you for the wiki links, but the ask to you was to specify what YOU see as the most important ways these two differ (in context of this thread). As it stands right now, you’ve done little more than evade that request. I’m sure that I’m misunderstanding you, but you APPEAR to be arguing that sex is not a TYPE of category, and (as I’m sure you’ll agree) that’s patently absurd. Since this can’t possibly be an accurate reflection of your actual position, I’m requesting that you please clarify it.