iNow

Person A will act one way. Person B will act another. Persons C+N also with variance. In simple terms, I’m telling you that it depends. Your question is akin to asking how a single molecule of water will react in the current of a mighty river.

With variance

And I think the galaxy is made of bathtubs bc it looks the same as when the water swirls down their drains. 🙄

This neatly sums up your whole thread. Lol

Yes Depends. While many paths are similar, none are identical. Some do. Some don’t.

That’s fair and there’s no issue with that. However, this doesn’t appear to be what’s happened here. OP: “Here’s my brilliance... behold!!” Replies 1,2,3... : “Actually, your idea doesn’t work for reasons X,Y, and Z as demonstrated by experiments A,B, and C.” OP: You clearly just don’t understand! How dare you comment before understanding. Replies: “Yawn. Yet another crackpot.” Lather. Rinse. Repeat... I thought it was obvious, but I actually want sushi and sake

The larger point is that you don’t have an accurate baseline or representation of all the things you DON’T remember. What you do have is a preconceived idea that your memory is great coupled with a confirmation bias for any information supporting that perspective. Maybe your memory is truly impressive and worthy of further study. I really don’t know. But also maybe you’re only listening to the folks on the margins who comment because their own memory abilities are garbage.

Nah... It’s WAY easier to keep screaming at the cashier at Arby’s for not serving sushi and sake. I want sushi and sake and it’s the job of this minimum wage cashier at Arby’s to oblige me. Duh! Then start making your points more clearly and succinctly. If you can’t explain it on an index card, then you don’t understand it well enough yet to try. Science is our attempt to model the cosmos, make predictions about how it behaves, test those predictions, and discard as trash the ones that don’t work. Science follows a method of finding every flaw in an idea to ensure only the strongest survive, of making sure we are not simply fooling ourselves or unconsciously ignoring those flaws, and any conclusion ever made is provisional, at best. The strongest idea accepted today would be discarded tomorrow if a better, more informative, and more accurate idea came along. When people say that they cannot or do not trust science, it tells me immediately that they are ignorant of how it really works and are basically arguing against straw men.

Cannot be answered with the current information provided.

This thread has obviously become just another venue for Axion to spam their unsupported ideas and needs to be split / merged with the 12 other existing threads on this topic / just trashed along with his posting permissions /2cents

Wait... What the what? Nobody has suggested anything even remotely similar to this. Don’t be so sensitive, snowflake

You misspelled doody

I’m saying that this is one of those topics in critical need of nuance, care, and precision and that anyone even remotely hinting at anything other than purely equal treatment be treated with a bit more skepticism and vigilance than usual.

It’s interesting that you mention pack behavior and ganging up on folks. It reminds me of how brutal attacks and killings of transgendered people have been rising these last 4 years, and how they’re being targeted more. Perhaps it’s against this background that some of us push back harder than might seem appropriate to our friends here at SFN when the topic arises and intentions aren’t crystal clear. It really is life and death for too many folks and the trend is clearly and consistently going in the wrong direction. https://whyy.org/episodes/new-push-to-boost-lgbtq-protections-in-pa/ https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/25/trump-administration-doubles-down-trans-discrimination# https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewareham/2020/10/02/30-trans-woman-have-now-been-violently-murdered-in-america-in-2020/?sh=4353c2d864a4 People die all of the time, sure... but not from lynchings and hangings. That’s different in important ways and needs to be treated differently by all of us.

It does. In this case, poverty is the disease we’re seeking to eradicate. It strains every layer of the system, too. It results in lower tax revenues and thus fewer public services for those who need them most. It results in lower revenues for businesses so they can’t hire as many people or franchise to new locations and expand. It adds to criminal activity as people turn to the black market and to illegal actions just to help make ends meet. That then strains the prison system which exacerbates the poverty directly and indirectly, it splits up families, and spreads the disease to future generations. A minimum wage that hasn’t kept up with inflation and which results in families working 3 jobs and still unable to succeed is a type of virus. Offering services to help those in need is like wearing a mask. Raising the minim wage at the federal level is like a vaccine that’s much more likely to be much more effective at helping us get closer to herd immunity.

This is an interesting and pretty good idea, but not much different from JCMs proposal that the minimum wage ought to vary by region. I haven’t thought deeply about it, but my initial concern is it would lock people into the same one locale. Sure, maybe making $9/hr is fine in Alabama, but doing so means I can never really scrape by and save enough to go somewhere else in the country outside of Alabama. It’s enough to subsist where I am, but not enough to thrive or explore new lands. I’m not certain this criticism has merit, btw. It’s just an initial thought and requires more thinking on my part.

And that’s completely expected since it also significantly diminishes the need to do so

No, that does not follow from this or related charts, IMO. States can surely adjust minimums above the federal floor, but the federal floor is needed to address the national economy on the whole. The unit of measure here is the USA, not “Alabama.” Opinions may differ here, but I believe it’s unhealthy and uncompetitive globally to treat each state as its own little country or fiefdom not subject to federal standards or minimums. Being able to afford rent is not the same as living comfortably, but yes. It’s easier doing it in Pitt than in places like San Francisco or DC. Now, if only these folks could earn enough money per hour to relocate and move their families comfortably to those cheaper locales, then maybe then these market forces could work better, but alas... these low wages have the unintended consequence of indenturing workers in servitude without the ability to pickup and go elsewhere. I haven’t researched nor even thought about it so will refrain from comment.

Totally fair. I would just ask you to keep in mind that some topics are highly charged. This is clearly one of them. Are you familiar with the concept of a 3rd rail... as in, the third rail of politics? It’s a saying that I believe comes from the way subway cars run along 2 rails on the track and then draw power from an electrified 3rd rail. That 3rd rail is an important part of our infrastructure, but it is dangerous. People who touch that rail often get shocked and killed due to their lack of awareness of its power. Regardless of your intentions or curious nature, if you’re willing to start touching these rails then you must also be willing to occasional face consequences when doing so. You really can’t/shouldn’t be too surprised when you occasional get electrocuted for inadvertently using loose language, sloppy logic, or not introducing enough caveats or nuance when posting. That’s a shame. We should all IMO be trying to make the world better for those still too often classified as subhuman or “less than” others, who are so often marginalized and treated as bogeymen.

It’s not clear what problem you think you’re trying to solve here. Likely unintentionally, you’re comments reek of biased thinking. You said look at the 100m sprint times, for example. Okay. And? So some folks are going to voluntarily and of their own volition occasionally enter races that are statistically harder for them to win. So what? Who cares? They will probably lose, and that’s part of competing. ‘The question is: Why do you think they need you to paternalistically rewrite the rules to prevent those potential losses? Or what about the other side of that coin? Some athletes will enter races they’re statistically more likely to win. Again, who cares? So long as they’re doing so within the rules of the governing body of that sport and adhering to the same guidelines as the other competitors, then that’s totally fine. The fact that you’re even asking these questions or considering a rewrite of the rules proves that you see these transgendered athletes as separate, as different, as needing “special” and “unequal” rules and treatment. They’re just humans, and male/female sports is just an old status quo that’s dying as we continue waking up to the realities of human sexuality amd abilities. This transgendered sports topic is just a modern day version of women not being allowed to drive cars or open their own bank accounts. It’s rooted in misunderstanding, regardless of how noble or sincere the desire is to help.

What “tweaks” do you recommend? So no?

And even if I stipulate this point that your wiki link about this sub population of notable transgendered athletes makes it SEEM like there are more male to female transgendered athletes entering sports than female to male transgendered athletes entering sports, we’re still left with the question of relevance. In what way are you suggesting this assertion is relevant? Is it possible for you to answer in a manner that doesn’t rely on preexisting misogynistic assumptions and gender biases? I don’t believe you can. I’m ready to be proven wrong, but doubt your ability to demonstrate that I am. In fairness, by posting this, you already have.

Your link doesn’t support your claim. Your link mentions “notable” athletes, but you claimed that there are “a lot more male to female athletes entering sports than female to male athletes.” The notable entries are highlights, not exhaustive indices. Would you like to try again, or take the smarter and simpler path of just acknowledge that I had a valid criticism of your point? Those are your options. What if my horse truly is larger than yours and I enjoy riding it?

Perhaps you’re wrong. Perhaps you’re correct. These claims can be verified. Do you know how to count? Then count. Return when done. It’s a simple count based on what’s actually happening in actual reality. You haven’t done that, though. You’ve not cited someone else who’s done that, either. You’re literally extracting assertions from your colon, arriving at conclusions based on those deposits, and expecting all of us to accept them as valid. In a word, No. In another word, Stop.