Intelligence_06

And obviously males are better at running and women better at acrobatics in terms of Olympics. If there must be a "male" and "female" category, then I suggest cutting a "male" and "female" cardboard outline in which such as that if you have this amount of testosterone you are auto-qualified as a man no matter what organs you have and the inverse for oestrogen, etc. Putting biological females with mutated levels of testosterone comparable to that of a male athlete in a female category is indistinguishable from putting a dude in there, and neither is fair biologically.

In my opinion, the better definition is a biological one due to the psychological distinction is much harder to draw the line. Plus, the fact that "you feel like a man" or so with "women" basically come with gender roles or stereotypes or similar things: You feel like what you thinks girls would feel like, so you are trans girl if so. However, since anatomies shape how men and women produce value in society(for example, due to that males generally having more strength, there are more male construction workers, and due to that females are generally more compassionate, there are more female Elementary school teachers), not the other way, although everyone can say what they are with their freedom of expression, There essentially no difference with a trans woman and a femboy biologically unless a surgery is performed and anatomy has been changed.

I think that the motive for the second classification based on psychology, ironically, is based on social discrimination. In fact, I think there is no reason a boy should be mocked by doing a "feminine" thing resulting in him(now her) thinking she would have been a girl all this time. No. Male is not associated with strength nor female with compassion fundamentally, and I think society should be OK for calling a person by their biological definition apart from what they appear as, masculine or feminine. Reporting male on someone that looks, acts, and has hobbies in alignment in what we call "feminine behavior" because there is a penis and 2 balls should not be frowned upon. The male and female classification should be for what set of anatomical organs you have, and not an implication of what roles you serve in society, and you should not be pressured to do anything or not do something because of your gender.

It is crazy, that TERFs only add to this stereotype by not only excluding trans people but actually trying to distinct more from female to male. They are achieving the complete opposite of what they initially intended.

Things like that(if they actually sway the publics) should be used against such as Russia, and not the other part of the same country. I doubt it will work on Russia or anything though because although they are low on rights they are more alert on how their political opponents internationally are. In America, the impression is that both sides are jokes. Then again, there is no good way I know of to be a "good" American politician due to that you are gonna be disgreed upon with 50% of the individuals all the time no matter how controversial or non-controversial your opinions are.

Since conspiracy theories attempts(and fails) in challenging science, I suggest putting all of them in the SCIENCE and NATURE class of forum threads here so they could be debunked in proper category fashion.

If the HISTORY is affecting today's society, then put it in the SOCIETY category.

If the HISTORY is basically only talking about what happened in the past and not about how it affects present nature, put it into SCIENCE AND NATURE category.

If the HISTORY is religious(e.g. whether Jesus' cross exists), put it into RELIGIONS category, same with other exclusive appeals.

 A 3 wheeled tricycle is different from taking a tire off a car, and only one of them is actually a car. Guess which one?

Our technological progress has essentially removed the utility need of sentient humanoid robots that look like C-3PO due to us developing technology for a human skin substitute much earlier than we will develop sentience. We could make a molded model using even silica-constituted material and make it move and use it to make human faces, but we can't make it sentient as of yet.

Essentially, the creation of those like C-3PO are ultimately down to the people decades ago can imagine a robot gaining sentience but can't imagine how humans will make stuff that look like flesh in models, and thus cannot make models or even props of skins and flesh without it looking like obviously NOT one. If Star Wars actually obeyed how human society progresses, all the Super Tactical droids would not look like that, they would look like humans. Star Wars represents a human(and alien) society where you overlay transhumanism with Imperialism and whatever the clusterfuck the tumor on the US political system is. Tech advances but not the minds of the people running it and that is why it is not realistic.

But somehow, yes, we do need robots like that, because that is exactly what some of us think what robots look like. The impression given by the film industry or even the mechanical industries for decades before the introduction for tissue-lookalikes has been imprinted so deeply into the hearts of some people that eventually we need robots to be looking like that, based on an arguably incomplete and incorrect impression made by an age who cannot really produce such robots, in order to even recognize them as a robot as opposed to a person. Sure, their speech patterns may be weird, but people do weird shit all the time that eventually a humanoid android would be passed around like a literal human until someone cuts their limb off and electricity sparks.

Maybe Andrew Martins is investing big money here. We have in fact got close to developing a way to make humans that making such sentient droids is simply useless.

Changing of the mind is inevitable. Even if you don't "move", your consciousness is clearly progressing through the time dimension. Your mind changes, it picks information never picked up before because it is new.

Update: I just ate because I am hungry. What I meant was that essentially I just forgot to eat breakfast today. The -0.9kg was also because of me taking a massive dump, well mostly, since I didn't workout in the last 24 hours.

I have started a lack of diet within the last day. I have lost 2 pounds or 0.9 kg in in the process.

Having a dislike button on a site where practically every post is a hot take(at least could be) would likely make the site worse. Like buttons likely shows that your post has been read and respected by other users on this site.

A herbal tricycle scooter thing is closer to a car than a plane, and actually way too far from either one of them to be considered them. So, at this point, is considering what is or isn't a car by the number of wheels even a good choice here?

That thing is 3 wheeled and is more an electric scooter with a canopy than an actual car. It is literally more this than a car.

Or, I believe, we can just find more effective ways of contraception(or even keeping a growing fetus after it has been aborted), so there is no pressure.

That is gonna take a hell long of time, but I am sure that this way could work.

Using individual exceptions to disprove a macroscopic pattern? That is unbecoming of a debater at your level. I think this just means your sense of humor, etc, are different from others. You have the right to determine what is funny or not for yourself, but you don't have the right to determine that for other people.

Plus, more visited topics tend to get more likes. A singleton topic with little to no responses(@ebuc) get only 1 or 2 likes even when they include well-planned thinking, whereas 2 is the usual number for a popular topic.

I think the MBTI test is just a model. No one can just categorize human beings perfectly under a single(or even 4) metric. It is a model designed to simplify things.

3ru7al has encouraged other users to like posts. As a user for 2 years I can say of course that in my first few months I wasn't even aware that you can like posts. For that period, I don't press the like button even if the post is "based". 3ru7al has stimulated people to press the like button when they think a post is of enough quality. And that is what we see here. We don't see like 12 likes on every post even if that person was spewing unfunny ironic shit. Instead, we see 1 like on regular responses and 2 on better ones, and 5 or more on the best ones here. While 3ru7al isn't "just" at liking due to him giving likes to all sorts of posts in practically every thread he ever visits and responds to, he made people, such as me, to do what you always had done: Liking posts, instead of leaving that function in the darkness.

That is okay, although maybe this thread is not about you. You can be yourself for an indefinite long period of time.

Ah fine.(pulls away with Liebherr dump truck, obviously a car)

What does the second one mean? Countries run by counts?

And the terrorists should not have crashed in 9/11. Not everything is ideal. You are essentially telling people who are exactly the age that is being designed to have sex to not have sex, that is gonna take much more than 3 sentences.

All social media have on average comments with thousands of likes. While that is simply unrealistic for DART, I believe it is better if how valuable a post is is determined by how many likes it has, rather than whether if it has any likes.

I believe there are many people here who do that, but right now I am just going to tag the most obvious one I know of. Thank you.

I have read thousands of threads and what I have noticed is that in the older ones, most constructive posts don't get a single like. Whereas now if you say anything, you are being liked on that forum post. That is a good thing, it shows you that your posts are being read and respected by another fellow user on the site, as well as that it...boosts your like counter and fuels your arrogance...heheh...(although that is not the main point)

But the main thing is that in crucial threads here, most posts get not only a like but two or three, with the exceptionally useful tips getting five or more, whereas they are on par with the quality of posts of generally what you would expect a single like two or three years ago. Liking posts not only has been brought up, but it is a common behavior here. I find myself liking other posts much more often than before, before a certain point I didn't even realize there is a like button, and just read on without showing a feedback of respect even if I do. Discussions are really getting more civil, it seems, as you are firm to be respected no matter which standpoint you are on(although, a Nazi deserves no like on his posts exhibiting this view, obviously). Bottom line, I am pleased with it. Thank you.

You are arguing against your own definition doc. You are saying a 4-wheeled truck is a car because it has 4 wheels then saying it is not because they have a different purpose. What is the practical definition then.

Trucks(some) are 4-wheeled.

A small truck is more of a car than Peel P50. Why?

What monster eats their bread sliced. I just compress my loaf of bread into a 5x5x5(centimeters, lol) cube of wheat substance then eat it in one bite, maybe two or three if I don't have any water with me.

As of cup holders, I haven't got a license in driving but I am pretty sure that most cars have a general hold for anything, right next to the shift stick, and I have heard numerous Americans, southerners or not, putting cheeseburgers there with a side of dipping sauce, well, more times than they put coke. Other than that, I simply don't know of an explicit cup holder in the average car.

Do you actually believe in that there will be fewer cars in 20 years than now?

They can live their life and there is no obligation to tell you why they live that way. You can control your own life however and make up for them.

Looks like Airmax doesn't even care.

Oh my god. Can we just agree on restricting guns on all people, not just adults or minors.

So a car needs a cup holder. Understood. All F1 cars except maybe Kimi's are not cars.

Eh, what about if we change our scope to "automotive transportation device"? What is the bare minimum for that?

I am trying to draw cars on paper and after 40 minutes I have essentially created...a 4-wheeled wheelbarrow. That is not automotive.

You can stimulate discussion, or you can choose not to.

Agree. People do have the right to do whatever they want with their body without being controlled by the government or even by the market. I generally disagree with selling kidneys and prostitution: They are basically trading health for money. The body shouldn't be have itself damaged explicitly for the stimulation of the economy, and while a doctor's visit shouldn't be free, it should't cost as much as so it seems the hospital is trying to make money rather than to help people.

And it goes without saying that not only legally intervening with bodily autonomy doesn't make people comply, it makes the problem worse. When abortion is illegalized, people who really are in need are switched from authorized hospitals to shady clinics in reality.

A seat, a single steering wheel and a shaft, an engine and 4 wheels with no suspension. Should you could this as a car? Why, or why not?

I want practical definitions. Attack helicopters are not cars practically even though we can define anything to the point of anything.

When do cars become NOT cars?

We should all agree on that before 22 weeks where the fetus can survive outside the womb, it should be legal and it should not be comparable with murder. Outlawing anything after that is understandable, but before 22 weeks it sounds absurd.

No? What do you mean?

Thanks, I guess, but hopefully the oil is not full of impurities and ceases to work as a war on resources.

Wait, you guys didn't already all get vaccines?

But society won’t let us. We don’t want to everyone to have no more education than middle school to make kids. That way the problem is worse.

Sure, kids can have guns, but it is better if they don’t.

You don’t compare a man to an attack helicopter aside from that these two are both things.

if anything, you identify as something nonorganic, and to specify, an attack helicopter. Maybe attack helicopters have no gender nor sex, but I don’t see the point identifying as that.

Ah, forgot to tag you. The post numbered 32 is written in a background without knowing that post 31 has been posted.

As to respond #31:

1. Contradiction: See #32.

2. Spectrum: I agree with you.

The root in that there even being gender roles is due to sexism, I think, even though the sexism has been flattened up to this point for men and women to be "separate but equal", when for the last millenia or two men are superior legally-wise.

If men and women are truly equal in all measures in terms of gender role, then a "masculine" body and a "feminine" body are just skins. The reason there are even transgenderism is because of prejudice(I think), or that people think people with a penis can do something people with a vagina cannot do, vice versa, leading to people with a vagina trying to be more like people with a penis.

Maybe it really is better to categorize people based on biological sex, because transgenderism either reinforces what "male" and "female" individuals should be like, aka stereotypes, or it just makes the categorization of gender as a social construct less rigid, less meaningful and less convenient. I wish for a world where men are seen as normal men even if everything they do is "girlish" and "unfitting for a man" for today's standards to some. In such world, they should be able to do anything in trade of that no matter how "masculine" or "feminine" their actions are to the current society, they are always categorized by biological sex.

In the end, "male" and "female", "man" and "woman", these terms should hint nothing about them other than what set of sex organs they have. That is my view.

Well, I don't think Airmax did anything after his election, being on Dart everyday for the past 2 months.

I vote yes, if I am even eligible.

A strong buff biological woman wearing a moustache is indeed a woman. That is literally the counterpoint of:

Unless I am misunderstanding, you are using an example of physical attributes hinting the gender identity when in reality it does not.

As for what I think, what if there is spectrum of male and female, with 100% male at one side and 100% female on the other(most people are in these two categories, or so it is being classified now), and true non-binary is at 50% male and 50% female retaining balance. What if we class our genders in such fashion? What downside would there be, aside from slight about inconvenience?

Because it is easier to regulate. 18 is when most people mature enough to use a gun, supposedly. 

Guns are being less and less depended on within all of society. Today you literally don't need a gun in order to live a life unlike in the 1800s. Not in a few years, but I believe in a bunch of decades.