dimreepr

There's a difference between being (politically) correct and being righteously indignant...

I certainly hope you do, just with reasoned arguments, rather than your usual handwaving insistence that you're right, because you say so. Not the same in a literal sense, but the same in the way they think about our contemporary surroundings and knowledge there of; the question's haven't changed, only the day the answers are given.

Yet again!!! you've failed to directly address a single point I've made, if and when you do (and I hope you do) we can have a decent conversation; until then I won't be replying to you...

Indeed, football is the most egalitarian of sport's; it doesn't care who your ancestors are or what gender you are, it only cares if you're good enough to pay; it's only a matter of time before some women are recognised as good enough to pass a ball to a man...

OK my bad, I assumed you were referring to their interpretation's, as you've suggested in previous thread's; please clarify their interpretations, as they relate to this thread. That doesn't argue the point I was making, as regards to ("the coin") the way of thinking; his dislike of philosophy suggests a bias, that 'he' can't see past, or are you cherry picking to justify your own bias? That's an appeal to authority (a logical fallacy) and it doesn't argue my comment; BTW did he actually author what you've quoted him saying? I haven't got the time to investigate... I joined this site because I was arrogant enough to believe I knew better than a trained scientist, I stayed because the member's here taught me the error's in my thimking and because I trusted what they taught me; and like you (I love science now) I thought philosophy was wrong and superceded by science until @Eise taught me the error in my thinking... We all think, but poor philosophers are like poor scientist's, they just lack the training.

And so, my fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

Philosophy and science are two sides of the same coin; it's a way of thinking, and they both think in exactly the same way; the goal of both is also exactly the same, to eliminate, as far as possible, one's bias' and expectataion's in order to discover the fudamental truth of the question at hand. The only difference between the two is, the type of question they 'tend' to ask. The problem here is, none of them are applying the scientific way of thinking; Lawrence Krauss and Neil Degrasse Tyson clearly use a different way of thinking about an experiment, as they do in the interpretations you speak of; as for Bertrand Russell he's got it arse about face, science is what we don't yet know:philsophy is asking, are we sure we know that?

I can't help but go old school...

That "Eureka!" moment is oh so sweet and not limited to science; the problem is, so few, if any, of our contemporaries understand "the joke"...

As are you... It's not. Then WTF are we talking about?

You should really stop digging...

The question's that have yet to be addressed, in this thread, are: The psychological damage, of being a mother, before one is capable. The psychological damage, of killing one's offspring, because one's not ready. And the psychological damage, of not killing one's offspring, because society demands it.

How is that gender specific?

Maybe you should consider the option to stop diging, given Rachael's success.

You're changing the goalposts, your assumption was based on strength not fitness; why can't a woman be as fit as a man?

https://www.thejockeyclub.co.uk/aintree/events-tickets/grand-national/about-the-event/previous-grand-national-winners/rachael-blackmore/#:~:text=Rachael Blackmore rewrote the history,win in the iconic race.

Is that a male horse or a female horse or a horse that's unsure?

Indeed, but I just extended the argument, I haven't ridiculed it... I haven't said it has, but surely it's clear that such thinking can lead to law's that train the young, the Hitler youth for example... Every slope leads to the bottom, not every argument does...

I didn't twist your statement, I extended it to show where a conservative mentality could lead; and given the propensity of the elderly to become more conservative in their thinking, it's entirely reasonable to exclude them from a conversation that's got nothing to do with them; they've made it to retirement and their future entirely depends on how the youth are shepherded...

The very definition of an unworkable philosophy Indeed, but I was following beecee's logic, as in, if society dictate's it's needed to allow society to work properly, then it's not unreasonable to show where that slope may lead.

If society "dictates as a social necessity in all walks of life" then surely it would be illigal to refuse to drink alcohol.

Indeed, here's another -1 for your collection; the sad thing is, despite that and all the reasonable argument's presented, you can't even concieve of the possibility that you may be wrong. So instead you condemn everyone that doesn't conform to your standard's, presumably including your loved one's.

OTOH, it sound's like the start of a myth. 😉