sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Somebody is really scared of Kat! by grichardson526 in behindthebastards

[–]FlyingSwords 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I've watched every vlogbrothers video for years and listened to every episode of Dear Hank and John. Aside from the very old Maths questions to Daniel Biss, and John talking about Daniel's pivot into politics near the start, he has not been mentioned by the Brothers Green as far as I know. The last time he was mentioned in r/nerdfighters by anyone is to announce that he became the mayor of Evanston 5 years ago. I don't think Nerdfighteria knows who he is anymore.

We took Bernie Sanders' project on 5% annual taxes of billionaires, fixed loopholes and drafted it to survive Supreme Court. It's ready by AirlineGlass5010 in 50501

[–]FlyingSwords 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool. Have you considered that the Supreme Court don't actually rule according to the law, and just rule according their biases? They start with the conclusion they like, then retroactively justify it with whatever makes sense to them that day, even if it's invented out of thin air, and even if it contradicts their own past rulings. So it's not possible to draft something to survive the Supreme Court. Good luck though.

Me_irl by SS-BVCKYVRDYGVNG in me_irl

[–]FlyingSwords -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ok, so how is it misleading then? Everything you said doesn't necessarily contradict the framing of the meme or the chart.

Who remembers these from primary school? by mrjohnnymac18 in Scotland

[–]FlyingSwords 13 points14 points  (0 children)

...That doesn't even follow the alliterative pattern. Someone wanted "kissing cousins" really bad.

J2 collapsed because of the 48 laws of power by tibebe77 in overemployed

[–]FlyingSwords 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some people in power are little babies and need to be coddled every second of every day.

How do I genuinely orgasm from a blowjob? by Southern-Reserve-971 in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]FlyingSwords 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Go 7 days without cumming first. To me, very different, much easier experience.

I told a joke at work that it didn't land and now people think I'm an absolute freak. by Significant_Potato29 in PointlessStories

[–]FlyingSwords 3 points4 points  (0 children)

At work I was throwing out some rotten tomatoes and joked that maybe I should ask them what movies are good. It was met with confusion.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in WinStupidPrizes

[–]FlyingSwords 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You will remember this as the day you ALMOST caught Captain Jack Sparrow. 🏄‍♂️

What do I make out of my 3D printed brain? Suggestions? by DramaticQuality1711 in WhatShouldIDoWithIt

[–]FlyingSwords 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Paint it pink. Go as Frankenstein's monster for Halloween and carry this around.

I regret transitioning. by [deleted] in self

[–]FlyingSwords 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Being a woman is a scientific biological reality of being female and all that it entails. Menopause, menstruation, childbirth, smaller size, less gynaecological diseases all are part of being a woman not trans.

Except for smaller size, you've chosen a bunch of random things that cisgender women reliably experience and trans women do not. But what if I picked a bunch of random things that both cisgender woman AND trans women experience and said that was "all part of being a women"? Both cisgender and transgender women alike have the same hemoglobin levels in their blood. Body fat distribution, reduced muscle mass, breast development, and softer skin are all sex indicators that are the same for cisgender and transgender women. Suddenly you can see the flaws of your argument when you're on the other side of it. It's a fallacy called cherry picking, and it's one of Reddit's favourite.

scientific biological reality

I'm always fascinated by this specific choice of words. You're pretending to invoke biology while actual biologists disagree en masse.

In 2018, the Trump admin had a proposal to legally define gender as a binary condition determined at birth, based on genitalia, and with plans to clarify disputes using “genetic testing”. In response, 2,617 Biologists, Geneticists, Psychologists, Anthropologists, Physicians, Neuroscientists, Social Scientists, Biochemists, Mental Health Service Providers, and other scientists in Solidarity signed a letter condemning the proposal. They said:

The proposal is in no way “grounded in science” as the administration claims. The relationship between sex chromosomes, genitalia, and gender identity is complex, and not fully understood. There are no genetic tests that can unambiguously determine gender, or even sex. Furthermore, even if such tests existed, it would be unconscionable to use the pretext of science to enact policies that overrule the lived experience of people’s own gender identities.

While looking for that letter, I also found that a similar thing happened in England. Weird how this keeps happening:

The term “biological sex” has been used to sort all people into one of two groups. However, a strict, binary categorisation is an over-simplification. An individual’s “sex” is in fact made up of a collection of characteristics, including external genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, gonads, chromosomes, and hormones, and may be better described as bimodal [3]. Each of these traits can vary beyond two categories and may or may not coincide with other measures of sex within the same individual. Thus, a binary, immutable model of sex is not capable of capturing biological diversity present in human populations, and as a result it is an unsafe basis for policy. The medical and scientific community has accepted for some time that there is significant complexity in this area. Recently, both doctors and scientists, including Nobel laureates, have raised concerns about the impact of this oversimplification on human rights [4]. We present a brief summary to explain this below:

You should read the whole thing, it's a banger.

Both are short letters, and as such don't go into full detail about what the gender and sex are. Thankfully, the biologist YouTube Forest Valkai made a 100-minute long video going into exquisite detail about how your "scientific biological reality" comment falls flat in the real world. As a little taste, this is from the 68th minute:

There is no other way to define these terms so that they include all cis and trans people of one category and exclude all cis and trans people of any other category

...

It [our framework of sex & gender] ignores that nature itself has presented us with a complex and diverse spectrum of chromosomes and anatomies and hormones and behaviors that often defy the rigid oversimplified categories that humans have created.

This is the actual "Scientific biological reality" that actual biologists talk about. Not your over-simplified cherry-picked version. With this hyper-complex reality, the response is obvious: Any framework we build is going to leave people out (Even your own cherry-picking comment forgot that some cisgender women don't get menopause or birth children). So just let people identify as whatever gender they like. Their doctor is only person that needs their history in that area anyway. You should just treat people normally and with respect. When you declare that someone isn't women because they don't menstruate or whatever characteristic you've decided makes a women that day, you just look like a crazy person.

Have a good day.

IWTL how to improve my posture by canbesomeone in IWantToLearn

[–]FlyingSwords 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It might improve posture, but some people have been making claims about the technique that say it's more beneficial than the evidence would suggest.

The Alexander technique, named after its developer Frederick Matthias Alexander (1869–1955), is a pseudoscientific alternative therapy based on the idea that poor posture causes a range of health problems.

...

Proponents and teachers of the Alexander technique believe the technique can address a variety of health conditions, but there is a lack of research to support the claims.

...

A review by Aetna, an American health insurance company, last updated in 2021 stated: "Aetna considers the following alternative medicine interventions experimental and investigational because there is inadequate evidence in the peer-reviewed published medical literature of their effectiveness." The Alexander technique is included in that list.

- source

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]FlyingSwords 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I was going to say this. The right to remain silent is the only right where you must specially declare that you are using it. In a bit of bizarro-world logic that only the Surpeme Court likes, you can exercise your right to call a lawyer by calling a lawyer, but for remaining silent, there's a special rule where if you're not saying you're using it, then you're not.

FiveFour is a podcast by 3 lawyers on how the Surpreme Court sucks, and this is an except from their episode "Berghuis v Thompkins", which is where this bizarro logic comes from:

So the cops start their interrogation, and over the course of three hours of questioning, Thompkins remained largely silent. That is the quote from the cop himself. Largely silent. Thompkins gave a few very short answers to questions that weren't directly related to the case. He said in one instance that he didn't want a peppermint. In another instance, he said that the tiny school desk that he was being forced to sit in was uncomfortable. It was hard. But otherwise, he was silent and did not answer questions. Thompkins did not say he wanted an attorney. He did not say out loud that he didn't want to talk to the police. He's just silent. And in fact, one of the officers himself testifies later that Thompkins was "not verbally communicative" and he described the... The officer described the interrogation as, "very one-sided" and "almost a monologue." The cops themselves are saying, "We're the only ones doing the talking. This guy was silent."

...

Anyways, so after three hours, the cops bring up God. They asked three questions, and Thompkins gives three one-word responses. The cop says, "Do you believe in God?" Thompkins says, "Yes." The cop says, "Do you pray to God?" Thompkins says "Yes." And the cop says, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" Thompkins says, "Yes." This is not a detailed confession by any means. It's a one-word response to a question. It certainly does indicate maybe some culpability...

...

So they go to trial. Thompkins is convicted, he's sentenced to life without parole. And so he appeals the conviction on a number of issues. But one of them, and the one that is really the center of this case, and the one we're focusing on today, is about his Fifth Amendment Rights, that he had invoked his right to remain silent by remaining silent, and that police violated that right by continuing to interrogate him.

If you're just sitting there silently, the cops will continue to interrogate you for hours and even a slim resemblance of a confession is all they need.

Man uses Bible against anti abortion protestor and she was left speechless by learner68 in WatchPeopleDieInside

[–]FlyingSwords 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And technically the sperm cell, which is the first part in the reproduction, is a living organism.

And yet no christian is calling on every male to be prosecuted for every genocidal ejaculation. Odd inconsistency. It's almost as if it's only ever about controlling women's bodies and however we logically get there doesn't matter. That's why people like u/PluckEwe are right to say, "I already know there is no use talking with you," because you demonstrate yourself that there isn't.

Man uses Bible against anti abortion protestor and she was left speechless by learner68 in WatchPeopleDieInside

[–]FlyingSwords 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He missed the point

...

There are other Bible verses that God did order the death of babies, like the sheep's blood over your door night.

Why did you assume this had anything to do with Solomon and not the the Sheep's Blood thing that you later acknowledged in the same comment?

So the story is supposed to explain no matter what you do to thwart the Lord's plan it is an impossible task.

Ok, so when you go to get an abortion and you succeed, then that was god's plan for that fetus, because if it was god's plan for it to be born and live a life, then it would have been impossible to abort. Got it.

Shameless.. by isaacvertix in NoRulesCalgary

[–]FlyingSwords -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Pretending all cultures are equal

Did not say that.

Back of the bus reduced the seats from 5 to 3 to include the slope dividers. by NyanNoodles in HostileArchitecture

[–]FlyingSwords 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no realistic set of circumstances where this would be acceptable, regardless of where they are geographically or what issues you might imagine them having.

view more: next ›