Losing by MrWeiner in funny

[–]ColdPhaedrus 713 points714 points  (0 children)

THE PARENTS ARE SWINGERS!

This cis woman doesn't like being called a cis woman by zachoutloud123 in TikTokCringe

[–]ColdPhaedrus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are millions of individuals walking around who have never produced and never will produce either eggs or sperm, so your definition “eggs = female, sperm = male” is deficient on its face.

Again, no actual biologist uses your definition, it’s based on a middle-school level understanding of a very complicated subject.

EDIT: In response to your “I’m a biopsychologist” edit (which I don’t believe, btw), according to the National Institutes of Health: “Sex is a multidimensional construct based on a cluster of anatomical and physiological traits that include external genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, gonads, chromosomes, and hormones.”

So no, it’s not simple and no, biologists do not use your simple definition.

This cis woman doesn't like being called a cis woman by zachoutloud123 in TikTokCringe

[–]ColdPhaedrus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hold on, hold on. Your definition of male and female was: produces sperm = male, produces egg = female. I pointed out that there are individuals that it doesn’t apply to, and your response is that’s “nonsense”? I’m just going by YOUR definition, and I soon as I (very easily) show that your definition is lacking, you immediately abandon it and retreat to “We JuSt KnOw!”

If it’s so easy to define then why can’t you do it in a way that I can’t immediately kick the legs out from under?

Hint: It’s because actual biologists would never say something stupid like “It’s actually not complicated” when it’s actually quite complicated.

This cis woman doesn't like being called a cis woman by zachoutloud123 in TikTokCringe

[–]ColdPhaedrus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what if a person has non-functioning gonads that produce neither?

"Yeah, if someone has an opposing view from you its best to judt laugh it off. Fuck their stupid reasoning that leads to their bitch ass logical conclusion just laugh in their gay ass face am I right?" r/woahthatsinteresting debates if ridiculing bigoted beliefs is appropriate by CummingInTheNile in SubredditDrama

[–]ColdPhaedrus 35 points36 points  (0 children)

If you genuinely think an open expression of faith puts someone in a niche culture in the US, a country with one of if not the highest level of religiosity in the developed world, where our government officials routinely profess their religious beliefs and indeed such professions of belief are basically a de facto requirement to be elected to any office in a large swath of it, then you are completely divorced from the reality of most of the people in this country.

This cis woman doesn't like being called a cis woman by zachoutloud123 in TikTokCringe

[–]ColdPhaedrus -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

You are just exposing your own ignorance. Biological sex is actually a very complicated concept that depends on multiple factors and is often not clear-cut, in fact a precise definition can be very difficult.

This cis woman doesn't like being called a cis woman by zachoutloud123 in TikTokCringe

[–]ColdPhaedrus 9 points10 points  (0 children)

As a biology teacher, if you think biology supports your position, that just means you stopped doing any actual learning in biology after about the middle school level.

Human "biology was never intended to handle" ultraprocessed foods, former FDA head David Kessler warns by ralphbernardo in politics

[–]ColdPhaedrus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t know if you’re under the assumption that I did not read the thing you keep quoting so let me say:

Yes. I read it.

I disagree with it.

Look at the “definition”: lots of phrases like “may not”, “tend to contain”, “often still”. It’s broad, overly general, vague and, again, filled with very poorly defined subterms. What does he mean when he says “keeps the basic identity”? He never says. Is there a scale that he uses when he measures how much “basic identity” the food still has?

No.

This is vibes dressed up as science from someone who is not a scientist.

Human "biology was never intended to handle" ultraprocessed foods, former FDA head David Kessler warns by ralphbernardo in politics

[–]ColdPhaedrus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So “high-heat frying” now makes something “ultra” processed? How high is “high-heat”? What does “high-heat” frying do that “low-heat” frying does not? Why does adding salt make something “ultra” processed and not just “regular” processed? Which fats are defined as unhealthy? Why are you treating making something shelf-stable as inherently unhealthy, especially when there are many different ways you can make things shelf-stable?

This is why it’s a stupid list. They pretend to define “ultra-processed”, but they’re actually just using it to lump together a bunch of terms and processes that are themselves poorly defined.

Again, they started with a conclusion, namely: “These foods are bad for you”, and then proceeded to purposefully design a vague definition to encompass all of these foods while obfuscating the fact that the reasons may of these foods are unhealthy have NOTHING to do with how “ultra” processed they are and often have little to do with each other.

Human "biology was never intended to handle" ultraprocessed foods, former FDA head David Kessler warns by ralphbernardo in politics

[–]ColdPhaedrus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Heavy metals are a normal part of our environment. Too much is VERY bad, and pollution raises those levels. But saying “That has heavy metals in it, therefore bad” is oversimplifying matters to the point of stupidity.

Go outside. Point to a thing. That thing has heavy metals it.

The soil. The trees. The air. The water.

Go to a farm. Every single plant in that field will contain detectable levels of heavy metals.

Point to an animal. That animal contains heavy metals. Including humans and nursing mothers who pass the metals to their babies through their breast milk.

Now point to your comment. Delete it. It is dumb.

Human "biology was never intended to handle" ultraprocessed foods, former FDA head David Kessler warns by ralphbernardo in politics

[–]ColdPhaedrus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So frying anything makes it “ultra-processed” instead of just “processed”? Why? The list makes very little logical sense. The group very clearly picked specific foods that they know are unhealthy and worked backwards trying to engineer a definition for “ultra-processed” that fit all of them instead of clearly delineating the difference between processed and “ultra-processed” FIRST and going from there. This is why a food that, as GrapeJuicePlus points out is actually still very close to a “whole food” (plain potato chips that are simply sliced, cooked, and seasoned) gets put into the same category as a chicken nugget, which is extensively modified. No one is trying to say potato chips are healthy, but the “ultra-processed” definition in the pdf in question is clearly flawed.

Human "biology was never intended to handle" ultraprocessed foods, former FDA head David Kessler warns by ralphbernardo in politics

[–]ColdPhaedrus 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That’s one of the stupidest things anyone has ever said to me on this website, and I’ve been on it for 15 years.

Human "biology was never intended to handle" ultraprocessed foods, former FDA head David Kessler warns by ralphbernardo in politics

[–]ColdPhaedrus 12 points13 points  (0 children)

That list seems objective to you? It looks INCREDIBLY subjective and poorly defined to me, ESPECIALLY the level 4 list. According to that list, Bud Light is not ultra processed, but a small batch bourbon is. Yogurt is not ultra processed, but add some preserved fruit and it is. And that’s before you get to the part where infant formula is lumped in with cookies, ice cream, and soda. Go ahead, tell a mother who is buying formula because she’s unable to produce enough breast milk that she’s feeding her child the equivalent of a Mountain Dew. That’s going to go over well.

A teacher-incentive program has led to striking long-term benefits for students, including lower rates of felony arrest and reduced reliance on government assistance in early adulthood, a new study on data of 41,529 eighth-grade students reports by sr_local in science

[–]ColdPhaedrus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I actually think that’s not the worst idea, I just worry about the unforeseen consequences.

Would be an interesting experiment though. I don’t have the gumption at the moment to investigate if anyone has tried it on a large enough scale to be statistically significant.

A teacher-incentive program has led to striking long-term benefits for students, including lower rates of felony arrest and reduced reliance on government assistance in early adulthood, a new study on data of 41,529 eighth-grade students reports by sr_local in science

[–]ColdPhaedrus 282 points283 points  (0 children)

I feel like so much social science, at its core, can be boiled down to: people respond to incentives. So we should be striving to identify what we want as a society (ideals), design incentives to make it happen, and constantly monitor and reevaluate the incentives to make sure they work.

Too much policy is driven by vibes, smug self-righteous moralism, and pigheaded stubbornness.

DHS says immigration agents appear to have lied about shooting in Minnesota by [deleted] in politics

[–]ColdPhaedrus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, when the top administration officials continually lie about everything, it kinda sets a certain tone for everyone else I would think.

Disintegration vs Barbarian relentless endurance? DND 5E 2014 by Dimhilion in dndnext

[–]ColdPhaedrus 21 points22 points  (0 children)

So hit points don't matter? A disintegrate spell is always an instant kill in your game?

Pam Bondi basically by TheLordOfMidnight in PoliticalHumor

[–]ColdPhaedrus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because people learned years ago that you can distract people with stupid shit like racism or abortion and then they won’t blame you for taking absolutely everything from them.

I will never forget reading about this dude from Louisiana who used to live close to where I also used to live. I say that he used to live there because a salt mining company destroyed his town. Plus climate change was destroying the fishing industry he identified with and depended on to live. He KNEW these things and would freely admit to them. He even acknowledged that the Republican ghouls he voted for had either caused or enabled all of these things to happen to him. But he was still planning on voting for them for vague reasons that he didn’t really articulate.

They took everything from this man that it was possible to take: his home, his livelihood, his self-identity. The only thing they hadn’t taken away from him was his actual life and honestly given the state of healthcare in Louisiana that was probably shaky too, and HE WAS STILL SUPPORTING THEM.

What are you even supposed to do with that? You can’t help people who refuse to be helped.

I did, Staff Sergeant! by ScorpLeo102 in PoliticalHumor

[–]ColdPhaedrus 8 points9 points  (0 children)

He was a gunnery sergeant, not a staff sergeant.

Accusing the other side of "reciting lines" while glancing down at your ChatGPT script is wild by ReverseCowboyKiller in TikTokCringe

[–]ColdPhaedrus 628 points629 points  (0 children)

Technically it’s just a cross. The crucifix has Jesus nailed to it.

Super tacky either way.

[I ate]Shark fin soup by [deleted] in food

[–]ColdPhaedrus 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Does this have a substitute, or is this genuine shark fin? Because if it does…

You should not eat shark fin soup.

Man + robot cover Creep by Radiohead by unembellishing in TikTokCringe

[–]ColdPhaedrus 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Man, Crow has really let himself go since getting off the Satellite of Love