dimreepr

My apologies, it was intended as an ironic joke ("grow a pair" tits or bollocks, "The song/joke remains the same"), which I assumed JC got, given his reply. I had a friend like you, a real man's man (no homo😣), then karma gifted him a gay son, that taught him; would it teach you?

I hope I get the appropriate treatment... 🙄

I'm just suggesting that YOU think about it, I like to choose my own drug... Jesus, I can't believe you're still arguing that your drug is better than everyone else's; it's clearly off topic, grow a pair... 😉

Great, just as I said a rule adjustment, I'm not advocating a utopia, where everyone can compete, win lose or draw. No, I'm just suggesting that if someone is so convinced that they should be a wo/man, that they're willing to sufure through "mistermack's" to get a nip and a tuck and no end of pills, let them play with their peers; it's hardly setting us back to the time before women had the vote, is it? Hmmm 🤔, that's an interesting turn of phrase, are you suggesting that transexuals should be protected from themselves? Because that's kinda your vibe in this thread... 🧐 Besides you haven't answered my question, did you think about it? Page 60 now Dr, "I don't think so...🤔"

And you haven't understood my main point; sports have rules and those rules are set by the governing body. Rules change all the time, so why not let them play? How does their inclusion hurt anyone? Just frame the rules accordingly, sometimes 'they' might win at some game, so what? Coming second only hurts ones feeling's; or are you suggesting that the women are so fragile that we 'men' need to protect them from a butch female? Can you clarify what is meant by what you said?

Because maths actively work's toward a solution, life just works until it doesn't...

This whole argument can be summed up thusly; It's like Lewis Hamilton saying "It's not fair, Max Verstapen's got a girly shape!!! oh, and a better car" I honestly don't understand the defence's argument, bc as far as I know none of the participants in this thread, are directly affected by anyone of uncertain sexual tendencies, so why such a strong bias against their participation in any sphere of society? A question I think you should ask yourself @J.C.MacSwell. Sport is an arbitory measure of a specific quality, and like Cruft's the tighter the measure, the more likely it's going to spit out an aboration of some sort (cough, incest ect.). Open Cruft's to every dog and see the benefits for every dog. So, what you're saying is what Kellog espoused, wanking is bad for you, especially when you're fantasising about something I don't agree with... 😣

Why do WE need to compromise? 'It's' either accurate or not... 🧐

Officially, fairness = same effort = same reward; 'them' only enters the equation when I 'might' loose, something...

58 pages and counting, of a discussion about 'them' competing; "I'm Dr Who, I'm sorry I've lost my place, are we past racism yet?"

Kinda sums up my point to mistermack though.

Every sense is deludable, optical illusions, audible hallucinations, sea sickness, yawning, laughing (because they did) etc... Every sense we have both internal and external, helps us navigate life; so, which is more worthy of the epithet?

There you go again, hiding behind complexity to obfuscate; it's not arbitrary, the definition of my species is, someone can I successfully mate with it? Not something we can know about homo erectus, but I'd wager that I couldn't. Assuming I'm right, then the last homo erectus died when they could no longer successfully mate with the next evolutionary step of us; sure some of their genes servive in us, but then so do the genes of a worm.

Evolution can never halt, but when you limit it too human's we enter a type of 'zeno's paradox'. . Exactly... 😉

Derrens experiment is reproducible and, as I said, is very real for the subject. What about a sense of rhythm or people with Synesthesia? Besides, what makes you think you wouldn't feel the same as Derrens subject? And I thought you were questioning what is and isn't a sense...

Are there though? 1/ to make sense of the world. 2/ to stand upright. Does it though? 1/ to make your life suferable. 2/ to make the prospect of your death, something to avoid/accept, depending on the context and phrasing. Unless we have these silly discussions and decide what to call it, AI will slip by on the slippery slope of apathy. Besides, AI should get the binary nature of the post. How could you tell? 😉

Indeed, but then you aren't an Olympian of indeterminate sex... Unless you're flicking the correct part's... 🧐

Careful, you're showing your bias Knickers...

And we're back to the start. 😣 Every Olympian has a physical advantage, in a very narrow window of opportunity; mine was wanking, I ripped the head off that thing... 😉 But don't worry, I tucked the rest in and made a beautiful job of it, I'm so proud...

What's the colour of their skin got to do with it? It's just a relection of our thread, the defence coming up with excuse after excuse to do nothing, or at least the bare minimum; the U.S. Constitution is colorblind, is a doozey. 🙄 When all we keep saying is, let's at least "reduce entrenched inequalities".

If we get all solipsist, then everything could be an illusion. The subject of his experiment (a PhD student) is both awake and sceptical and she past a previous test of suggestion, that gave everyone else the illusion of a sense of being watched, so not a frightened little boy that's struggling to stay awake. She was overwhelmed by a sense of awe, that was very real for her, he explained how he did it and it wasn't tapping into a primal fear. What I think he's saying is that this sense of awe/god/whatever (you want to call it) is hardwired into the system, which obviously has evolved to our advantage. My point is, if it's hardwired then it must be a sense, of some sort.

Depends on how reactive you are...

He got over it...

Nope, a true GOP American, thinks only about saving their money... Everyone, has to think about money or the economy goes tits-up... Do you want me to explain 'ozymandias' too?

That fact doesn't mitigate the vast profits the US and Europe made on the back of the black-on-black slavers, the significant historical evidence is, Africa is still poor despite being the inventors of the trade. It doesn't matter how you dress the argument, it's still a Barbie; it's just an excuse to not put your hand in your pocket; like the one many people use to not give the change in their pocket to a beggar: They'll just spend it on booze; so what? Most one of them made more money than I do; so what? But the best excuse of all, I don't have any cash, because I'm damn sure you don't have a card reader...