Quote from pooch12
1. It's because there'svery littleno distinction between feminist and feminazi. If you actually support equal rights for both genders, you're egalitarian, not feminist/feminazist.
Your "feminazis" don't understand what feminism is. You don't understand what feminism is. Neither of you seem willing to listen to what feminism is. I don't see much distinction between you two, honestly.
I'll reiterate this for your benefit, though:
Feminism is about equality between all people. The reason it's called "feminism" is because the single most repressed position in the history of human civilization is being feminine. For true equality to exist between the sexes, the focus must be on femininity. We must both value women for filling traditionally feminine roles in society and respect men who occupy traditionally feminine positions.
Feminism doesn't stop with gender issues, though. The same underlying philosophy which critiques hidden power structures in society that support sexism can be applied effectively to power structures which support racism, classism, or any other form of discrimination. In fact, there are areas of animal "rights" and environmentalism that fall under the heading of feminism for this very reason.
Egalitarianism movements tend to be focused on economic or political systems such as socialism or communism. It's certainly compatible with feminism, but is not itself the same system of critiquing hidden power structures. In truth, historical egalitarianism has suffered from the very things that feminism attempts to rectify; sexism, racism, and classism. Feminism is the answer to what egalitarianism has traditionally failed to do or unknowingly supported. To reduce feminism down to egalitarianism would, as a result, be sexist, racist, classist, etc. as it denies the unprivileged the means to acquire equality in society.
Your confusion between feminism and what you call "feminazis" is part of the problem that is actually reinforcing and empowering oppression today. By painting feminism (the means to equality) as "feminaziism" (sexism), you discredit the means by which we obtain equality in the future. You perpetuate the inequality that you pretend to condemn. You become an unknowing bigot who is really only concerned with protecting your own privileged position above others in society, even if you can't see it.
The ugliest aspect of sexism is how invisible it is. Most people don't mean to be sexist. It's what they were taught all their life and they were never exposed to anything any different. Yet, here you are, online. You have the means to expose yourself to your own prejudices. All you have to do is listen to a viewpoint that is not your own.
1
No, it's not. Expansion causes an apparent acceleration of distant objects away from each other, where regular motion does not. That is the relative velocity of two objects is proportional to the distance between them. Since the distance is growing over time, so too is the relative velocity.
Relative motion doesn't do that. While an explosion would result in the same observation that relative velocity seems to be proportional to distance, the relative velocity of a specific object wouldn't change (again, ignoring gravitational effects). Additionally, the objects would not "feel" any acceleration. As far as each object is concerned they're not accelerating at all, but the apparent velocity between them is changing.
There's also a number of other pretty subtle differences that I'm not qualified to explain.
To be fair, my rubber sheet analogy is actually pretty wrong. It really does not accurately describe what the expansion of space is, but that's difficult to do.
I suppose another wrong way to think about it is to consider that everything in the universe is shrinking except for space. Again, this is wrong, but it does illustrate how the distance between two points changes if all your rulers are getting smaller. Rather what's really happening is space is getting bigger relative to all the rulers. Sort of.
3
If you understand something well enough you will find a use for it.
2
If each generation is slightly better than the last (which isn't a given), then every generation currently contains the most perfect organism in existence.
Of course since there's more than one way to measure superiority, there will never be a single "most perfect" organism. It's not mathematically possible.
1
No, that's Lamarckism and it's wrong.
1
Of course the problem here is that humans don't pick uniformly random passwords. A completely random password is difficult to remember, which makes it very secure, but generally a bad password because you want to remember it. It's not impossible to memorize a long, random password, but it is difficult.
So people are far more likely to pick something that has some kind of meaning. Usually the password will be pronounceable in some way, so the letters will form phonemes. Very frequently they'll contain words. If there's numbers in the password those, too, will not usually be random. By a wide margin any numbers in a password will be the user's birthday or some other significant date expressed as 2-4 digits.
This reduces the search space for passwords quite drastically and pretty much makes your analysis totally wrong.
1
1
Anytime anything reproduces you get a new animal.
1
3
Sort of. Species is a somewhat arbitrary classification applied by us humans, they don't actually really exist in reality. What actually exists are populations composed of individuals capable of reproducing with one another. Generally once two populations are no longer capable of reproducing with one another, we say they're different species.
But nature is not quite so simple as to make that distinction very clear. For example, horses and donkeys are different species but interbreeding between them produces mules (if its produced by a male donkey and a female horse; a male horse and a female donkey technically produces a hinny). What makes this more interesting is the fact that horses have 64 chromosomes whereas donkeys only have 62. The resulting mule ends up having 63 chromosomes (32 from the horse and 31 from the mule). This usually results in mules being infertile since the chromosomes can't pair up properly. There are a few cases of female mules producing offspring, but never with another mule (there are no documented cases of a male mule ever being fertile).
So don't think that the line between species is somehow impassable or that it even exists. Nature possesses no such notion of a species, there are only populations.
2
One thing I don't think I've seen anyone actually talk about is this:
This statement is true.
Anyone bothered by that? You ever notice that that statement can be both true and false?
Why do we always have people so concerned with contradiction but no one seems to care about all their tautological counterparts? I mean, after all, if we're upset by the idea that a statement can have no truth value, why shouldn't we be upset that it can have all truth values?