A World Without Men?

[Skepdick]

That depends on the pretentious wanker.

Nah. It depends on how trivially you can relate the idea to the pretentious wanker's existing experiences and intuitions.

"Grok" relates to intuition empathy.
Obtains relates to... I actually have no idea what it relates to.

Ah well, pretentious philosophical wankers can have a group wank. A real wanker does it on his own.

Solo-wanking sure doesn't have to deal with the synchronisation problems of circle jerks...

[uwot]

Solo-wanking sure doesn't have to deal with the synchronisation problems of circle jerks...

Good news then: you're on your own.

[uwot]

Although you continually keep repeating that the, so called, "evidence" supports the hypothesis, you seem to keep FORGETTING that the hypothesis ONLY came to exist because of the, so called, "evidence".

Age, why would you have an hypothesis to explain something there is no evidence for?

[Age]

Although you continually keep repeating that the, so called, "evidence" supports the hypothesis, you seem to keep FORGETTING that the hypothesis ONLY came to exist because of the, so called, "evidence".

Age, why would you have an hypothesis to explain something there is no evidence for?

That is NOT THE POINT. And, AGAIN, you are just 'trying' your HARDEST to DEFLECT and DETRACT.

I could use this same of CONFIRMATION BIAS and "logic", which you use, to tell you that the hypothesis that the Universe IS CONTRACTING is based on blue shift, which is THE EVIDENCE that the Universe IS CONTRACTING.

BUT, this would be illogical, nonsensical, and ridiculous, just like what you are 'trying to' propose here.

[FlashDangerpants]

You seem to VERY QUICKLY thee ACTUAL things I WRITE and SAY. I have SAID, and WRITTEN, that I do NOT do BELIEFS, GUESSES, THEORIES, and/nor HYPOTHESIZES.

This is BECAUSE of what those things ESSENTIALLY ARE. I, INSTEAD, LOOK AT what ACTUALLY IS, and then DISCUSS 'that' ONLY.

Then why did you use the word "seem"? If you only ever see exactly what is, then you never see anything as it merely seems.

[Age]

You seem to VERY QUICKLY thee ACTUAL things I WRITE and SAY. I have SAID, and WRITTEN, that I do NOT do BELIEFS, GUESSES, THEORIES, and/nor HYPOTHESIZES.

This is BECAUSE of what those things ESSENTIALLY ARE. I, INSTEAD, LOOK AT what ACTUALLY IS, and then DISCUSS 'that' ONLY.

Then why did you use the word "seem"?

Because you MAY, ACTUALLY, 'miss' VERY slowly and NOT VERY QUICKLY at all.

If you only ever see exactly what is, then you never see anything as it merely seems.

You SEEM to have MISSED the POINT, ONCE AGAIN. I am, and was, ONLY ever expressing thee ACTUAL Truth, EXACTLY, how It IS, to me.

[Gary Childress]

Greetings all,

I'm new here, so before diving in I thought I might pause to gauge the interest of members in discussing the possibility of a world without men, that is, a world without male humans.

I've had this conversation elsewhere, and it seems that some folks find this topic highly offensive. Making trouble is not my intention, so it seems wise to at least briefly put my finger in the air to see which way the wind blows on this topic, on this forum. I'm particularly interested in guidance from the mods.

If this isn't going to work, ok, no problem. Just let me know and I'll drop it without complaint.

Thanks!

Is this really a serious inquiry? It seems a bit like asking, "should we kill children or not." I mean, what sane human thinks there should be no men in the world? Really weird.

[Walker]

In a world without men everyone would be first into the Lifeboat.

[uwot]

Although you continually keep repeating that the, so called, "evidence" supports the hypothesis, you seem to keep FORGETTING that the hypothesis ONLY came to exist because of the, so called, "evidence".

Age, why would you have an hypothesis to explain something there is no evidence for?

That is NOT THE POINT. And, AGAIN, you are just 'trying' your HARDEST to DEFLECT and DETRACT.

No Age; I am trying to get someone who keeps banging on about being truly open and honest to be truly open and honest. The point is that there is a phenomenon, galactic red shift, and there is a reason why we observe red shift. We might never know the actual reason because human ingenuity is such that we can always think of different reasons, but red shift is consistent with the demonstrable effects of movement on the relative energy of waves. It's called the Doppler effect and it is not some esoteric mystery that only physics initiates are party to, anyone who has heard something fast and noisy pass is familiar with the Doppler effect. When a motorbike goes EEEEEYYYOOOWWWW!, that is the Doppler effect in sound. We can hear it because a motorbike might be doing 150mph, roughly 20% of the speed of sound, and the compression a stretching of sound waves is appreciable. However, 150mph is such a tiny fraction to the speed of light, 671 000 000mph, that the shift in wavelength is negligible. But with the appropriate equipment, it is measurable in galaxies.

I could use this same of CONFIRMATION BIAS and "logic", which you use, to tell you that the hypothesis that the Universe IS CONTRACTING is based on blue shift, which is THE EVIDENCE that the Universe IS CONTRACTING.

No you couldn't. As anyone truly open and honest would accept, 100 nearby galaxies demonstrating blue shift is not equivalent to the 1 000 000 000 000 more distant galaxies which show red shift. To insist 100 = 1 000 000 000 000 is about as clear an example of confirmation bias and catastrophic logic as anyone is likely to find.

BUT, this would be illogical, nonsensical, and ridiculous, just like what you are 'trying to' propose here.

It would be all those things, but it is not 'like what I am trying to propose'.

[FlashDangerpants]

You seem to VERY QUICKLY thee ACTUAL things I WRITE and SAY. I have SAID, and WRITTEN, that I do NOT do BELIEFS, GUESSES, THEORIES, and/nor HYPOTHESIZES.

This is BECAUSE of what those things ESSENTIALLY ARE. I, INSTEAD, LOOK AT what ACTUALLY IS, and then DISCUSS 'that' ONLY.

Then why did you use the word "seem"?

Because you MAY, ACTUALLY, 'miss' VERY slowly and NOT VERY QUICKLY at all.

If you only ever see exactly what is, then you never see anything as it merely seems.

You SEEM to have MISSED the POINT, ONCE AGAIN. I am, and was, ONLY ever expressing thee ACTUAL Truth, EXACTLY, how It IS, to me.

So theeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee actual truth is different for different people?

[Age]

Then why did you use the word "seem"?

Because you MAY, ACTUALLY, 'miss' VERY slowly and NOT VERY QUICKLY at all.

If you only ever see exactly what is, then you never see anything as it merely seems.

You SEEM to have MISSED the POINT, ONCE AGAIN. I am, and was, ONLY ever expressing thee ACTUAL Truth, EXACTLY, how It IS, to me.

So theeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee actual truth is different for different people?

NO. You are, ONCE AGAIN, COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSING and MISUNDERSTANDING the POINT.

[FlashDangerpants]

Because you MAY, ACTUALLY, 'miss' VERY slowly and NOT VERY QUICKLY at all.


You SEEM to have MISSED the POINT, ONCE AGAIN. I am, and was, ONLY ever expressing thee ACTUAL Truth, EXACTLY, how It IS, to me.

So theeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee actual truth is different for different people?

NO. You are, ONCE AGAIN, COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSING and MISUNDERSTANDING the POINT.

So theeEEeeeEEEEEEE truth is exactly one thing, but it seems like different things, and you only see it exactly as it is, or so it seems to you?

[Age]

Age, why would you have an hypothesis to explain something there is no evidence for?

That is NOT THE POINT. And, AGAIN, you are just 'trying' your HARDEST to DEFLECT and DETRACT.

No Age; I am trying to get someone who keeps banging on about being truly open and honest to be truly open and honest.

ABOUT 'what', EXACTLY?

If 'you', people, do NOT ask CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, then what is IT that 'you', people, WANT 'me' to be Truly OPEN and Honest about?

The point is that there is a phenomenon, galactic red shift, and there is a reason why we observe red shift.

JUST LIKE there is a phenomenon, galactic blue shift, and there is a reason WHY 'we' observe BLUE SHIFT.

But you seem to be, "coincidentally", ALWAYS IGNORING this PART and this FACT.

We might never know the actual reason because human ingenuity is such that we can always think of different reasons, but red shift is consistent with the demonstrable effects of movement on the relative energy of waves.

JUST LIKE blue shift IS.

It's called the Doppler effect and it is not some esoteric mystery that only physics initiates are party to, anyone who has heard something fast and noisy pass is familiar with the Doppler effect.

You, ONCE AGAIN, are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSING the POINT.

When a motorbike goes EEEEEYYYOOOWWWW!, that is the Doppler effect in sound. We can hear it because a motorbike might be doing 150mph, roughly 20% of the speed of sound, and the compression a stretching of sound waves is appreciable. However, 150mph is such a tiny fraction to the speed of light, 671 000 000mph, that the shift in wavelength is negligible. But with the appropriate equipment, it is measurable in galaxies.

'We' also can read hear what is written and said.

By the way, there are a LOT of things, which are written and said to 'try to' back up and support what people ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

I could use this same of CONFIRMATION BIAS and "logic", which you use, to tell you that the hypothesis that the Universe IS CONTRACTING is based on blue shift, which is THE EVIDENCE that the Universe IS CONTRACTING.

No you couldn't. As anyone truly open and honest would accept, 100 nearby galaxies demonstrating blue shift is not equivalent to the 1 000 000 000 000 more distant galaxies which show red shift.

LOL
LOL
LOL

You STILL, OBVIOUSLY, have NOT YET GRASP the POINT.

To insist 100 = 1 000 000 000 000 is about as clear an example of confirmation bias and catastrophic logic as anyone is likely to find.

WHY? What do you BELIEVE 'it' is that you BELIEVE that I am LOOKING FOR "confirmation bias" for, EXACTLY?

And, WHERE is the "catastrophic logic", which you BELIEVE is in my words, EXACTLY?

By the way, this is a good time to REMIND you that you STILL DO NOT YET KNOW what I have to say here.

BUT, this would be illogical, nonsensical, and ridiculous, just like what you are 'trying to' propose here.

It would be all those things, but it is not 'like what I am trying to propose'.

LOL
LOL
LOL

And what are you 'trying to' propose, EXACTLY?

That because from the perspective of earth there are more red shifted galaxies. Therefore, this MEANS that the Universe, Itself, IS EXPANDING?

[Age]

So theeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee actual truth is different for different people?

NO. You are, ONCE AGAIN, COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSING and MISUNDERSTANDING the POINT.

So theeEEeeeEEEEEEE truth is exactly one thing, but it seems like different things, and you only see it exactly as it is, or so it seems to you?

LOL
LOL
LOL

You are only getting EVEN FURTHER AWAY from thee ACTUAL Truth of things now.

[uwot]

By the way, this is a good time to REMIND you that you STILL DO NOT YET KNOW what I have to say here.

That's because you are not truly open and honest. Either that or you are a fucking moron.