iNow

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.

Will you please elaborate a bit on this and explain what you see as the most important ways they differ (in context of this discussion)?

Incredulity and lack of rational counter argument it is, then. You're not being persecuted by a bandwagon, Koti. You're being called out for lacking a quality counter argument and insisting your view is the only correct one without good reason behind it. The point is you have failed to make a decent argument to an audience willing to listen to it. That's on you, buddy.

Help me understand your thinking here. You have one group called "Male." You have a second group called "Female." You acknowledge that some people then don't have a sex when we use your own definition. So, by default, doesn't this mean there's now a third group inclusive of "Other," or "no sex" to use your verbiage? I'm not an expert mathematician, but I DO have fingers on both hands... and when I use them like an abacus to find a sum / total of all groups... that leads me to a count of 3 groups, not 2. Is it possible you only have 2 total fingers on your hands and that's why you've stopped counting this last group... a group which YOUR OWN definition and which YOUR OWN logic dictates must exist... must exist since YOU YOURSELF claim they fit into neither male nor female? You say they have no sex. Okay, I'm fine with that, but they still exist and consequently they compose at least a 3rd category.

On their own? No, we agree. Seems unlikely, but following a US lead and operating in more of a supporting role? I see this as not only possible, but likely. A very poignant observation, especially as we head into winter. It’s difficult prioritizing principles over petroleum; doing the right thing over staying quiet because it’s the needed thing.

Biden laid out how he’d respond if Russia goes into Ukraine when he met with Putin today. It was mostly sanctions and economic restrictions, preventing Russia from being able to use certain banks and move their oil. He also explained that the US and NATO allies will be pushing troops for “training exercises” up against Ukraine as a sort of backstop to halt Russia’s aggression. Leaders from England, Germany, France, and Italy all came out to reinforce these commitments soon after. Biden also made comments that the US is prepared to respond today in ways they were not in 2014 when Russia did this same sort of thing. Now, will it be enough to prevent this? I’m doubtful.

My god. It’s full of stars.

Something else

Actually, military spending in the US continues to increase, not get cut. This is also not the topic of this thread. The question is how we might wind up using that spending which has already been approved and allocated and debited. I tend to agree, but the Ukraine thread is more proximal. Ukraine is also a key area in protecting the NATO alliance and keeping oil flowing throughout Europe. Biden and Putin speak today. My hope is much of this troop movement from Russia to Ukraine is little more than a shrewd negotiating tactic from Putin, but that seems hopelessly optimistic and a bit like fairy dust thinking to me.

I’m taking as a given that aggressive acts have already occurred, that they’ll include standard troop deployments and kinetic assaults over borders plus more modern cyber attack vectors, and that the US will be forced to either sit back and watch or respond. It’s the US response (or whether the US should even respond at all) where I feel most uncertain.

Water cuts through rock not because of its power, but because of its persistence. /NodsToDimreepr

And it’s this piece I’m hoping to explore further

This probably could be its own topic (how will wars be fought in the future and how will cyber and digital attacks play a role in that). This would be included, but I was thinking more about attacks on hard infrastructure, seizing control of energy grids, locking up banking, disabling food and resource distribute, etc. It's like traditional kinetic attacks from warships and troops and guns, but quicker to deploy and more impactful in many ways. Propaganda and sowing of unrest internally via social media is a separate, but clearly related, aspect of all this. It would also likely be a big part of any US response to China or Russia for such aggressions. Just speculating out loud... War today would look very little like wars yesterday.

It wasn't me, but you need to start considering member posts in context, JCM. This guy was just banned for his nonsense all across the site, in science threads, and in this thread here, too. If you ignore peoples behavior more broadly, of course sometimes it will look personal and like bullying, but that's rather obviously not what happened here. He was just banned for his ridiculous behavior, and frankly comments like these from you are what's too personal and closer to bullying than anything which happened here. Regarding the actual thread topic (now that the troll trying to force us off-topic is gone), you have always had a pretty good perspective on history and world affairs IMO, and I'd like to hear your perspective. Do you think it would be better for the US to sit back and watch if/when these events occur with Russia and China, or do you think we should ignite a new powderkeg with some sort of retaliatory action? Asking because we're already in a bit of a cyber cold war countering and launching attacks on a daily basis, so in some ways the next step could just be an escalation of existing activities.

Digital Cyber in other parlance