iNow

All over your post, too.

Nah, it’s due to your words and the way you describe others.

No, but it’s hard enough buying a well fitting cap online. It’s always better to try a few on in the shop before deciding. A wig is sure to be 100x harder than a cap, too, and 1,000x more embarrassing if it doesn’t fit correctly. I’d say find another route or in-person shopping

This looks like another example of you putting the cart before the horse and having a preconceived view or conclusion THEN seeking out and cherry picking data which seems to support it (instead of looking at the entire landscape of data and letting the data inform / alter your views).

It’s part of a broader global trend where individual values and principles get replaced with fear and simplistic answers to massively complex and existentially challenging questions. Monolithic bogeymen are easier than fluid dynamics The world is flatter and more interconnected than ever, and our collective daily experiences involve active war zones, rapidly spreading pandemics, Terminator style AI, and disastrous destructive climate change that is both worsening and driving drought and famine induced migration of whole swaths of the population. This is the threat and risk landscape in which we currently exist, one where the survival of our children and grandchildren is genuinely in question, and where for tens upon tens of millions even the availability of food to feed ourselves today is often uncertain. So, to overcome the natural human feelings of anxiety and fear this rightfully creates, many people turn to simple answers and, while it’s false, tend to find comfort in the authoritarian arms and words of hateful strongmen. We’re just apes with grocery stores and computers, basically, and the silver back quarterback still appeals to us more than the problem solving pencil geek. The right wing is rising on a current of fear, blaming “the other” to whip up frothy masses instead of driving solutions to the aforementioned disasters happening all around. It’s easier, and in a lot of ways we’re a mostly lazy species who prefers simplicity. I know I do.

I freely admit that I’m biased against argument via hand waving and empty “what-if” speculation in favor of measurable testable evidence in support. Not all bias is bad. The best ideas will always withstand criticism. It’s important to be open minded, but not so open minded that our brains fall out. This is a science forum. If you want to post on a wild assed guess forum, then do so, but I’d say you and your ideas posted here have been treated both respectfully and with more kindness than most. Maybe you just need a thicker skin (or, even better, a better argument). Thus far, I’m open to the idea that consciousness and mind may extend farther throughout nature than our society currently believes, but I find your attempts to convince others of that possibility thus far rather lacking (and also off topic here in this thread). You seem only to see data which supports your preconceived conclusions. There is bias, and it’s in your sampling approach and cherry picking.

Those on the margins, or those who don’t like Trump but like Biden even less, will be less likely to cast their vote for Trump. Yes, it’s marginal, but with the electoral college system this race will be won or lost based on a few hundred votes in states like Wisconsin and Michigan. Not only that, but the jury was picked with involvement from Trumps own legal team. They helped select the jurors in the first place, but as always in our modern dystopic political arena:

And yet you persist in being trivially wrong In similar spirit, this thread should go dormant

You need education. Subspecies doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means You must also think calico cats are a different subspecies from black cats and white gray ones. I’m sorry your day gets so confusing every time you walk passed the bell peppers in the produce section of your local market.

Haley coming out and endorsing him was example number one of how tied to this cult of personality the whole party has become. Governor Hogan seems to be the only one with enough of a spine to continue stating what's factually true, and he's paying a price for it. But when Haley came out to endorse? I literally shook my head and palmed my face.

Ethics, too ✌🏼 His lawyers are already appealing.

So much so that many in the legal community are suggesting she’s guilty of conspiracy.

Just stay on topic, dude. You’re not Galileo

Huh?

Peer review helps minimize this issue in science, and helps tremendously despite not being perfect. However, groupthink is off-topic in this thread here (whether or not it's applied to religiosity or scientific method)

Can you find an office phone or open cubicle somewhere? Break room, perhaps?

OP probably lacks sufficient education to avoid such simplistic stereotypes

Also whether on mobile or laptop

This seems about as likely as humans becoming infinite

Religiosity is most likely tied to our tribal tendencies and adherence to group norms and mores. Members of the tribe who acted and behaved in ways contrary to local social expectations tended to find themselves ostracized or separated from the group and so consequently lost access to food, protection, and access to mates for reproduction (I.e. they were selected against). Cooperation and shared explanatory narratives fed cohesion, basically. Belief in god(s), however, is slightly different than religiosity and is far more likely related to our abilities around mental rehearsal of interactions with unseen others and our tendency while young toward accepting stories from parents and tribal elders.

Number of humans isn’t the issue. As others have mentioned, it’s how we use our resources. Reducing our numbers doesn’t solve that challenge.

Yes, sometimes even all at once.

My worldview is a work in progress, evolving, not static. Changes with experience and based on context. <insert random Nietzsche quote>

W.I.P.