dimreepr

All sports are run by arbitrary rules/line of demarcation, besides this is getting way off topic; my point is no one complained about a trans man playing with men, let alone threaten to kneecap them for wanting to play. I can't see why, all that's been suggested in this pregnant and well overdue thread is, lets find an arbitrary line/rule that let's anyone who wants to play, a chance to win and be cheered appropriately; like you would want if you ever find yourself in a similar pair of shoe's. Exactly... 😉 Even if it's spherical and in a vacuum?

define important...

Today you learned to be content with being wrong, or at least to accept the possibility; a great day

I imagine it's something like, can I honestly say my veiw is not selfish... 😉

Actually tennis is a prime example of how it could work, every professional tennis player gets paid despite their gender; with that as a given, every player is paid due to their presence in the sport; with that as a given, it's perfectly possible, for a woman who breaks into the top 100 to be paid more than the number 1; sport is just entertainment, it's like an improvised play/soap opera. Why would anyone get angry/threaten to harm/kill 'Dirty Den', he just wants to do what he's good at and get paid enough to live... Women are generally better at acting 'all innocent' grrr 😒

How dare you, my mother was born in Miserden.

In this case RG was aiming the joke's at the raving trumpist, the very people who stand up and applaud, whooping and whistling, but not laughing...

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/may/25/ricky-gervais-netflix-special-condemned-by-lgbtq-groups-for-anti-trans-rants-masquerading-as-jokes I've watched this lecture ("and it is a lecture" - Ricky) twice (because it's very funny and philosophically sound, I highly recommend it), at the beginning he said something like "a lot of people won't get the irony of my lecture" as exemplified by a friend (who's a raving trumpist), who commented on the article "Bloody snowflakes, he's exactly right" and some people in the LGBTQ community (who are raving 'snowflakes')... Indeed, but it does mean that segregation is entirely arbitrary, because women and men are clearly able to play with each other (pun intended 😁).

Prove it...

I was wondering how much older we'd need to get for the stagnation of 'our' society to occur/be assured? I just needed the help of all the poster's here to focus my question (because I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, hence the simple start).

This is an interesting article. https://www.itv.com/news/2022-06-07/emily-bridges-had-physical-threats-after-pms-trans-participation-comments?fbclid=IwAR3Tw8hkw90KofdWb9kZJPRydNwrfErnQEl0GtMVKn_pMT1bOyXnAice6F8

Indeed, they could live for a thousand year's and still be dead chuffed with their new fangled technology.

Exactly, that's why we need more guns to prevent death by guns...

The drone's would do what they're programmed to do, trudge slowly to the next village, like our Voyagers that, in 50+ year's have only just left the very small village; and the next village is fucking miles away... In the meantime the Lax that sent them are dead.

It was something explored by Isaac Asimov in his foundation series. As we get older we tend to get more conservative in our outlook, I think it's clear that an aging demographic has an effect on our society, and that's just a 50 year average age increase. Isaac was suggesting that an increased average age (300 year's in his world) would slow down the progress of society to the point of stagnation.

Then we differ in our definition of need...

Why do they need a transmiter, a tv or a vacuum cleaner (Is a better question)?

Discuss...

Surely that could only benefit communication, which is notoriously difficult to understand (imagine trying to decode a radio message from a Chinese speaker, when you don't speak Chinese.); and there's no reason to believe actual travel is possible. So how, even if the hypothesis is correct, does it answer the OP? Why include them? What makes you think the initial conditions match the present?

Mostly because we only understand human...

And we speak the same language... 😉

I can't believe I have to explain further, what would you deduce from >< % x? What number does a knot in a string mean to an ancient South American?

What if their symbol + actually meant - etc... how common could the languge be? I can communicate, basically, with a Chinese person (from 10 thousand years ago) because we both get hungry and sate it in the same way, so my symbol for eating, hand to mouth, me chewing and then rubbing my tummy and making a satisfied face, is the same as his symbol for eating when hungry. The results from a probe that 'we' won't receive???

What's the point of science, if you assume you know the answers?

What about my posts makes you think that I think 'it' exists? When I said god is a teacher, more acurately would read, god is a teaching aid. Of course you have to trust/believe your human teacher, until such time as you understand the lesson he/she is teaching and why; then you'll be qualified to judge his/her method's. Just a final FYI learning is never childish.