KidnappedByKitties @ KidnappedByKitties @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

120

Joined

2 yr. ago

I understand that this information is against your internal narrative, but a quick look at data for 2021 shows:

One in two women and one in five men felt unsafe walking alone after dark in a busy public place.

And data from 2022 shows 45% for the same measure.

As for harassment:

2022 - 55% of women 16-34 felt harassed

2021 - Three out of five, 60% felt harassed during the year.

Twice as many women reported being harassed as men, and several reported changing their behaviour because of harassment.

This is also echoed in international studies over multiple cultures. Women are much more often harassed than men, almost exclusively by men, and have more limited freedoms, expressions and rights than men.

This is not controversial, it is well established in study after study, there is an actual right answer to this, and it's not the one you're proposing.

How is it that you keep ignoring data when faced with it, and instead of presenting supportive data resort to arguing feelings and whataboutisms?

Edit: Link to 2022 raw data

From the study summary:

Three out of five women aged 16 to 34 years experienced at least one form of harassment in the previous 12 months

Three out of five is 60%.

Did... did you miss the #metoo movement?

Where like 60% of women get harassed regularly, and 50 % felt unsafe walking home in public, due to men. Or 79% of women felt unsafe while exercising, due to men. And 88% of travelling women felt unsafe, due to men.

Bears are hungry, scared, have cubs to protect, or mostly want to be left alone. They won't stalk you, leer at you, catcall or grope you.

You sir, are the one lacking self reflection.

When does this raise questions of precedent? Is everyone entitled to 10 violations of a gag order in NYC now?

I'd agree that there are some variation in the European far right. In contrast to Italy, Spain and Russia: German, French, UK, Nordic far right are not restricting abortion, but are doing most of the rest (northern European ones not as much dismantling welfare/healthcare as making it inaccessible to some, especially immigrants, trans, lgbt, etc).

From a European perspective, the US centre-right are more conservative than the European fringe right. The European far right doesn't (typically) want to restrict abortion, sabotage education or reinstate child labor for example. And are mostly about increasing and militarizing police, disenfranchising minorities, and different schemes to control that only the right people get to vote.

I'd argue that the US centre right is actually as radical, or even more so than the European fringe right, they are certainly causing about the same commotion, but of course have much more power in the US.

The best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago, the second best time is now.

What I find interesting is that for me personally, writing the fantasy down (rather than referring to it) is against the norm, a.k.a. weird, but not wrong.

Painting a painting of it is weird and iffy, hanging it in your home is not ok.

It's strange how it changes along that progression, but I can't rightly say why.

@toboggonablaze is essentially correct, but let me try explain it in a slightly different way.

Lasers do a bunch of things to basically shoot a stream of photons at something. There's basically two ways you can affect how much energy comes out of a laser, you can make the stream denser (more photons per second) - called intensity, or you can increase the energy in each photon.

The weird part about photon energy is that higher energy photons are of a different "color", where red is lower than green, is lower than blue, is lower than gamma rays, etc.

So changing the color of a laser already means you've changed how much energy it can output.

Then there's another part of your question: how lead gets heated up. Different materials respond differently to different types/wavelengths of light, an example you might be familiar with is that glass panes let through visible light, but not the heat from the sun, or that water also is see through, but can easily be microwaved (by microwaves - low frequency light).

Basically, a material can be more or less "translucent" in certain frequencies. I'd like to look lead up for you, but Google isn't cooperating today. But basically, there are frequencies that lead will be more and less susceptible to.

That's probably not what you meant with the question, but if that's the application you want to use the laser for, you might want to take it into consideration.

So, in summary: color is energy, intensity is energy, you can change both independently, so your question doesn't quite make sense.

Also, different targets will heat differently, also not making it a fair comparison.

We're trying to describe the scarcity of something in units of something becoming less scarce every year. ftfy

For anyone else allergic to apples, maybe consider a pear, or an orange.

The concept is to imagine something you wouldn't typically crave.

Your last response wasn't constructive, and this one does even less to further a discussion. I'll just end this here.

Have a nice rest of your existence.

There are a lot more changes influencing your perception of reality than just sensory development.

I'd agree, but those are enough to clearly demonstrate a mechanism for changed perception in the proposed time span. The underlying question is question begging and whataboutism, so I think I've provided an overly generous answer to a dishonest question.

That's dependent on your consciousness being limited to your physical body. Who's to say that your consciousness wasn't limited so a pantheistic deity could interact with itself. Both theories are equally unscientific as you can't disprove what happens before or after life

As we can reliably affect consciousness though manipulating the body, it's well established that it's contingent on the body.

And as we can map consciousness happening in the body down to individual neurons firing, where would a non-corporeal consciousness interact with a body?

You calling these reliably reproducible facts unscientific belies a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

Though naturalism might not be the only way to investigate the universe, we have yet to encounter any reliable other paradigms. And even if we would discover them, naturalism would still be part of science, we'd just add the other paradigms to the areas they're useful, like we've done with psychology, sociology, and even quantum physics.

A difficult question for unfalsifiable hypotheses is that if they're unfalsifiable, they are also undetectable, and as such no different from figments of imagination. Why should I believe your imagination when my imaginary friend says not to?

I feel different today as my sensory as well as sensory processing organs have developed.

Being dead, just as before being born, I possess no such organs and expect not to "feel".

But my position isn't the interesting one, @RadicalEagle suggested something I interpreted as still having perception beyond life, and I was wondering if that excludes having perception before life, and how that ties into their metaphysics.

This is such an understated but useful description in this context. It's also how I understood algebra for applied matrix computation.

Is there any reason to feel different after you've died than before you were born?

Real tip I received recently: Ask yourself if you'd eat an apple (instead of whatever you're craving), if not, then it's not because you're hungry.

Yes, very much so, many many things.

MBTI most definitely takes magnitude into account. It's bullshit for many other reasons, including not being reliably measurable.