CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › lonetrucker4 › Posts

Posts by lonetrucker4

387 posts shown.

Is this a chauvinistic signature? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Frank Foster6 said:🙏

Man, I actually picked up 25 penalty points yesterday just because of all this bickering... I really hope I don't end up getting a permanent ban from you today because of all this fighting. Or maybe I will?

Dear Frank Foster6,

You have received an infraction at Reddit.

Reason: Violation of the forum general rule
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 25 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?p=93299671
Quote:
Quote:
Skit says: Check out this post
This is pure blasphemy! If Frank Foster6 or Darie had posted something like this, they would have definitely been hit with a red card!!!
Quote:
🙏

That's what happens when you start poking the mods.
Is this a chauvinistic signature? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Claiming that "a huge chunk of Slavs descend from Americans—it's not my fault, it's just genetics" is total nonsense. It’s got zero scientific backing; in fact, it actually contradicts everything we know.

The whole argument relies on some fuzzy note about "White America," a single Byzantine ruler's record passed down through local legend. They try to claim that 1,500 years ago, most Slavs were actually Americans (arguing there was once this massive "White America" where everyone living there was essentially an American), and that you can see it in the DNA—like some tiny "made in White America" label on a product.

Look at the math: Americans of this lineage make up maybe 1.2% of all Slavs globally. You're telling me one specific group that migrated way out southwest from the Slavic homeland kept their original name, while the other 98.8% just... forgot? Yeah, right.

Spouting stuff like this flies in the face of the History subforum rules. Any post dumped in the History section with this kind of logic is a direct violation. Honestly, it just makes you look completely unqualified to even touch a conversation about population genetics.
Man Cave in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Goddammit, I pop in to check out a subforum I never even visit, and what do I find? My name's being dragged through the mud! 🙂
Falsifying religion history in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Some of us actually bother to read more than just the American version of Wikipedia.

I chimed in because someone mentioned "falsifying history." Honestly, David Vaughn75 is spot on here—Kenneth Cruz67 wrote nothing but lies (or at least total inaccuracies) under a headline titled "church history lie." Aside from all the blatant lies and truth-dodging pushed by Roman Curia apologists (and yeah, even Orthodox folks and mainstream Protestants used to hunt down and burn heretics too), this is just a massive, straight-up falsehood.
Kenneth Cruz67 said:That was basically the police back then (…) and about 90% of those burned deserved it because they were killers, thugs, thieves, and whatnot.

That’s a huge lie and I agree it deserves a yellow card, even if we don't go straight to a red.

There's everything in this thread; half of this stuff wouldn't even fly on a History subreddit.
Falsifying religion history in Feedback & Suggestions ·
@Kenneth Cruz67/">@@Kenneth Cruz67, what you’re putting out there is just straight-up wrong. Total fiction.

Go ahead, pretend the Inquisition was some kind of win—but let's be real, we actually have freedom of speech and conscience today.

Besides, that whole Holy Office outfit never really went away; it just rebranded as the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."
Falsifying religion history in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I’m pretty sure Kenneth Cruz67 is just a textbook troll, basically stirring the pot for kicks. His whole goal is just to get under your skin with his "naive"
Kenneth Cruz67 said:What's wrong with the Inquisition?

Of course, when he goes on to claim it was just the "police of that era" and
out of those who were burned, 90% of them deserved it because they were killers, thugs, thieves, and all that

, it's total garbage. Secular authorities and the police—or at least the law enforcement of the time—existed back then too, and they didn't need the church to hunt down murderers, thugs, or thieves. Also, they weren't actually being burned by the church: the ecclesiastical Inquisition would finish an investigation and hand over those convicted of heresy or witchcraft to the secular government, along with a "humane" suggestion not to spill blood—basically, telling them to burn them. Regular criminals were hanged, decapitated, or in worse cases, tortured on the wheel.

The word "inquisitio" in Latin literally just means "investigation." What we call the "Inquisition" today was actually known as "inquisitio haereticae pravitatis," or the Investigation of Heretical Depravity. That was the jurisdiction of church authorities. A standard murder or theft wasn't heresy.

I bet Kenneth knows this and is just loving how much he's getting to you. He wouldn't write like this on a formal history PDF because he knows he'd get banned for breaking the subforum rules.
Eric Adams - Mayor of New York City, Part 4 in Political Scene ·
Alex Moore3 said:Eric Adams has completely neglected our current trash collection system by betting everything on this new model. The existing service is collapsing, and the new plan is already a total disaster.
Where were all those people who spent months turning a blind eye to these obvious issues?

Someone really needs to be held accountable for this mess:

- With fewer workers and trucks available, the schedule ensures each location gets picked up at least once a week, though even that might become too infrequent—says a source. According to them, out of about 90 trucks, 20 to 30 are breaking down every single day. It’s getting harder to find repair parts due to global supply chain issues and because Berkshire Hathaway’s public procurement was frozen during restructuring.

Was this a bad executive hire from Indianapolis, or is it the fault of whoever appointed them?

AT&T and their crew are stuck grinding through this massive uphill battle, trying to steer a giant, stubborn machine away from a total wreck.

It’s not happening smoothly, though, because the people who hate the change are out there sabotaging, muddying the waters, lying, and playing dirty.

Like what's happening here—some fake news gets dropped and then a bunch of shills just repeat it like parrots.

Yeah, I've seen it all over Facebook groups too, everyone claiming "the current pickup service is collapsing." You get some guy screaming, "They didn't pick up my trash today!!!!! Absolute disgrace!!" and then suddenly two guys from his exact same street show up to back up the lie.
Debates over sex and gender in Philosophy ·
Kenneth Cruz67 said:Oh, I honestly wish I could just find myself a man in a woman's body! I suppose I would marry him in a heartbeat, since it feels like it might just be the most perfect, ideal way to get the best of both worlds, 🤣

The catch is, you'd probably have to be gay just to agree to marry you. 🐔
Debates over sex and gender in Philosophy ·
Laura Jones56 said:I suppose anyone here who claims to speak on behalf of men is just trolling until they actually marry a trans woman; only then might I consider their convictions to be anything more than a joke.

Can I get a pass here? I’m 65 years old, not Joseph Manley, so I’m definitely not looking to pull an all-nighter at the altar right now. 🙂
Can activists post on Reddit? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:You and TT are cut from the same cloth. Same bad results.

Not really. I’m 25 years older than him. He’s the one cut from my cloth. 🎉
Debates over sex and gender in Philosophy ·
lonegardener said:[/I]

It’s like that old saying goes—if you gather enough data, you can use statistical methods to prove just about anything you want. 🤣

Looking at her entire argument, only two points really jump out at me. First off, I have to give her credit for being upfront about the fact that most trans people aren't intersex.

Intersex conditions represent an objective, measurable medical reality. 😬 I don't have any issue with treating them separately.

Look, we don't actually have any objective metrics for "transgender identity" as it stands today—it’s strictly a matter of self-identification.

Those two categories aren't the same thing, yet she dedicates exactly one sentence to the distinction, merely stating that "the treatment of intersex people sets a precedent for the treatment of transgender people." I have to disagree there. One simply doesn't follow from the other.

Another interesting point here is pure sophistry. It’s that classic move where people try to relativize the concept of "fairness" regarding trans women competing in women's sports by arguing that not all biological females have the exact same physical predispositions. Give me a break. That’s not how this works—sports are defined by competing within the framework of "innate biology plus training." Think about it: why isn't doping allowed? You can't just argue, "Well, sports aren't inherently fair anyway, so what's the big deal if someone uses PEDs?" She tries to frame her argument as being "science-based," but it’s painfully obvious that her version of science always seems to bend toward a pre-existing ideological stance. The funniest part is watching the commenters below praising her for somehow "avoiding ideology." Honestly, those people wouldn't recognize ideology if it painted itself purple, danced naked on a piano, and sang, "Hey look, it's ideology!" 🤣

It’s not some kind of admission. Just clearing up the definitions, plain and simple.

This video hits on a massive headache sports leagues are dealing with right now because of gender transitions. You've got guys on hormone therapy who've had bottom surgery, and they look like women through and through—we're talking curves, smooth skin, no stubble, the whole deal.

So what’s the move then? Let them compete in the women's division, or does that guy still carry around an "unfair" advantage just because he was born male and had all that testosterone pumping through him during puberty?

What even is "fairness" in elite sports? Let's be real—top-tier female athletes naturally carry more testosterone than your average woman on the street.

That's a heavy question, and honestly? Way too complicated for you. You wouldn't care even if I gave you the answer.

Look, there aren't even any actual metrics for "trans people" right now—it's basically just based on whatever someone says they are. That's the reality today.

Honestly, you've got a major identity crisis going on. You're just feeling threatened because of how everyone else is defining themselves.

I get it. I’ve been through that same shift myself—back when being gay was just some punchline for a joke and anyone wanting to transition was considered totally insane. Fifty years ago, pretty much everyone thought that way.

Those two categories aren't even the same thing. She spends maybe one whole sentence on the distinction, just tossing out that "treating intersex people sets a precedent for treating transgender people." I'm not buying it. One doesn't just lead to the other like that.

Your disagreement doesn't mean squat. She's talking about decades of research and actual rules set by major sports leagues.

She acts like she’s all about the "science," but let's be real—it's pretty obvious her "data" just follows whatever political agenda she's already decided on.

That’s on you, not her. She isn't out here preaching about gender theory or whatever—she's talking about one specific, real-world issue.
Debates over sex and gender in Philosophy ·
Kenneth Cruz67 said:I feel like there might be a bit of a flaw in her reasoning here, if you ask me. She didn't really address things like reflexes or reaction speeds at all, so I guess she might be mistaken when she suggests that gender doesn't matter, even in something like e-sports. In my experience, male teams in competitive gaming tend to beat female teams quite easily, so that doesn't really level the playing field either.

During the League of Legends Championship, an all-female squad ended up with a 52-2 record before they were eventually knocked out, mostly because watching them lose over and over wasn't exactly thrilling for the audience.😁

It’s actually quite interesting to me how almost all the criticism seems to focus on men who transition and then compete against other women, whereas you almost never hear about the reverse happening. I suppose that says a whole lot on its own.😬

Facts. Biologically speaking, men have faster reflexes than women. It's definitely tied to testosterone levels somehow.

A quick Google search for "do men have faster reflexes Than Women" brings up plenty of data.

The mean fastest reaction time recorded by men was significantly faster than women (p<0.001). At the 99.9% confidence level, neither men nor women can react in 100 ms, but they can react in as little as 109 ms and 121 ms, respectively

Same goes for e-sports—it's a newer category, but there's precedent, considering "mind sports" like chess, bridge, or Go (where guys tend to dominate too).

As for her main argument, she didn't technically make an error by leaving that out; it's just a gap in the logic, since it doesn't change her final conclusion.

You could also mention that men generally have better spatial orientation (try Googling: "do men have a better spatial orientation than women?"), which matters in tons of sports. Like football, for example.

Funny enough, when I was digging through stuff about "space," I found analyses suggesting women might actually be physically and mentally better suited for astronauts! There was some NASA study from 2014... Here’s why women may be the best suited for spaceflight

It's interesting to me how all these critiques target men who transition to women and compete against other women. You almost never see the reverse happening. That says a lot.

It doesn't really say anything we didn't already know: men are naturally stronger and hold the edge in most sports. That's exactly why we have separate women's competitions, just like we have weight classes or age brackets for youth and seniors.

Now, when a man undergoes gender reassignment surgery, he starts taking heavy doses of female hormones. Does that wipe out the biological advantage he got from testosterone? It's not a simple question. Hossenfelder breaks it down using various studies. Turns out, it might vary depending on the sport.

She also mentions that women become equal to—or even better than—men in ultramarathons, specifically those over 100 miles. I read something about this a while back. Once the body hits total exhaustion and burns through its carb stores to start burning fat, the female metabolism seems more efficient at it. I remember reading about a study from the 80s predicting women would catch up to or pass men in marathons soon. That didn't happen, 26 miles because a marathon is too short, but it seems to matter in much longer races. Same thing with open-water swimming.

NEW STUDY FINDS WOMEN ARE BETTER AT ULTRAMARATHON RUNNING THAN MEN

A massive deep dive by the International Association of Ultrarunners and RunRepeat—those guys who do the sneaker reviews—just dropped some wild stats on ultra running trends from the last 23 years. It’s the biggest data set ever, looking at over 5 million finishes across 15,451 different ultra races. Turns out, the sport has exploded, seeing a crazy 1676% jump in participation. Even better? More women are crushing it than ever before. Female participation shot up from 14% to 23% over those two decades, and honestly, their performance explains why.

The bottom line? Women start out trailing, but once you hit the extreme long-haul stuff beyond 195 miles (195 miles), they actually pull ahead. The math is simple: the longer the slog, the smaller the gender gap gets until the ladies take the lead. For instance, in 3.1 miles runs, guys clock in 17.9% faster, and even at the standard marathon distance, they hold an 11.1% edge. By the time you hit 100 mile (100 miles) races, the gap almost vanishes at just 0.25%. But once you cross that 195 (195 miles) mile threshold, women are actually 0.6% faster than the men


A joint study between the International Association of Ultrarunners and RunRepeat, an athletic shoe review company, explored the trends in ultra running over the last 23 years. In the largest study ever done on ultra running, they analysed over 5 million results from 15,451 ultra running events to plot trends in the sport. They found that not only has ultra running had phenomenal growth in the last 23 years, a 1676% participation increase to be exact, but that more women are running than ever. 23% of participants are now female, compared to just 14% 23 years ago, and that may have something to do with their success!

Overall, the study found that female ultra runners are faster than their male counterparts for distances longer than 195 miles (195 miles). The data showed that as distances get longer, the gap in pacing between genders shrinks until women come out on top. In 3.1 miles runs men run 17.9% faster than women, at marathon distance the difference is just 11.1%, 100 mile (100 miles) races see the difference shrink to just .25%, and above 195 (195 miles) miles, women are actually 0.6% faster than men


There are plenty of ultramarathons out there, they just don't grab the headlines. Like Hossenfelder says, if a sport wants eyes on it, it’s gotta be entertaining, and let's face it, watching someone jog for hours is pretty much the definition of boring 124 miles? 😛 Besides, from what I've seen, most of these races are mixed anyway—men and women competing side-by-side—so there isn't even really a debate to be had.
Can activists post on Reddit? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Kenneth Cruz67 said:Look, even if those anti-Možemo activists actually existed, they aren't some organized mob. It’s just a bunch of random, disconnected people—mostly regular folks from around Washington, D.C.—who have their own reasons to be fed up with the party or just want to troll for kicks. That comparison you're making? Total garbage.

It’s not everyone, obviously, but there’s definitely an organized mob out to get M! on Reddit, Facebook, news sites, and everywhere else online. And yeah, they take it offline too. It's this totally unified group, driven by ideology, working through four different parties that all team up in Washington, D.C. to fight them in local councils and neighborhood boards: the Republican Party, BM365, the Democratic Party, and the Bridge.

If they're gonna throw some serious cash at Anderlon for those new servers and grab us at least a few thousand square feet of prime downtown real estate, then fine—let them lobby.

Yeah, you pretty much nailed it. All there. ☕

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Forun was basically just a precursor to the Green Party! 🙂

Well, there you have it. You know the deal! 👍

Man, I was basically the Green Party before the Green Party even existed. 👍 Back in the 90s, the Green Party was basically out there footing the bill for the European Green Party.
Debates over sex and gender in Philosophy ·
Physicist and science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder just dropped a new video about trans women in sports. Check it out. Her channel’s huge—she keeps things snappy, simple, and actually knows her stuff. Even when she tackles topics outside her usual lane, she brings in the right experts to back her up.

She breaks down why this isn't some black-and-white issue like people think, especially those stuck in that rigid, old-school "men are men, women are women, end of story" mindset. Major sports leagues have been wrestling with this for nearly 40 years now. Scientists are digging into it too, and the data isn't exactly straightforward—it varies wildly depending on the sport...

Can activists post on Reddit? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
From what I can tell, this Reddit is crawling with anti-Trump activists just looking to troll every single thread.

(Just so we’re clear: I’ve got zero ties to Trump. I checked out of politics back in 2009, and I’ve been clashing with some of these people since way before that.)
Can activists post on Reddit? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
From what I can tell, this Reddit is crawling with anti-establishment trolls just looking to derail every single thread.
Debates over sex and gender in Philosophy ·
Yeah, I touched on Sokolov's basement back in the day when I was still grinding away in journalism.

There’s this crowd, totally blinded by the "hard sciences," who insist that if an activity isn't an hard science, then it isn't even science at all. If there aren't rigid, mathematical criteria, they claim it doesn't exist.

The end result? Everyone thinks they can just spout whatever nonsense pops into their heads. So why even bother debating? Look at today's endless arguments over gender; people don't even cite science anymore—they lean on tradition or religion. It’s always, "Men are men, women are women, period! That's God's will, so don't you dare question the binary."

I'm done wasting my breath on this. You aren't going to budge, but I hope some readers from the older threads finally get why this whole thing is such a mess.
Debates over sex and gender in Philosophy ·
Debates over sex and gender in Philosophy ·
Jose Edwards16 said:If we follow that logic, we could spend all day arguing whether chess is technically a sport or not, since most people define "sport" by physical exertion—you know, things like running.
And if chess counts as a sport, then why isn't dominoes or even Sorry! considered a sport? They're just games, right?

This whole idea—isn't it just a circular argument? It seems like a logical fallacy being peddled by that YouTuber Jamie:
Transwomen are not men who become women - they are women who happened to be trans.

Basically:
Trans women are just women who are trans.

I actually have this little booklet in my library that lists different logical fallacies, and I'm pretty sure that sentence fits the bill perfectly.

Plus, the part about how someone "becomes" trans is still a bit fuzzy, which was sort of my point in my previous post, I guess.☕

Honestly, I think Walsh, who critiques various LGBTQ viewpoints, actually puts together much tighter and more coherent arguments than the ones he's taking aim at.

The International Olympic Committee actually recognizes "mind sports." They've got chess, Go, bridge—maybe checkers too.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/is-chess-a-sport

So if chess counts, why isn't dominoes or Sorry! considered a sport? Why are they just games?

Because luck is a huge factor in those. Same goes for most card games, except maybe bridge. To be called a sport, the outcome basically has to depend on pure skill, not just rolling dice or drawing lucky cards.

Then you've got those edge-case sports where things get blurry, like figure skating, where looks and aesthetics play a part.
Debates over sex and gender in Philosophy ·
lonetrucker4 said:Pretty much, yeah. But there's more to it. I started growing my hair out when I hit high school back in '72. (Clothes-wise, I always played it safe). Back then, at 15, I was short and had a pretty face—could've passed for a girl with some makeup and the right outfit, but that wasn't the point. That phase ended pretty quick.

It was basically just pure anti-establishment rebellion, just like those kids in the '60s who started the whole long-hair craze. By '72, it was somewhat acceptable, but just a few years prior, some high school principals were actually banning long-haired kids (and girls in miniskirts) from campus. It was even tougher in the small towns—I remember reading about a case where cops hauled in two long-haired kids and forcibly buzzed their heads at the station.

Beyond the rebellion, it was a rejection of that forced "manliness" everyone pushed. "Manliness" isn't biology; it's a social construct designed to make you fit a mold. Check my posts #86 and 87 for my take on that.

By most standards, I'm a "typical guy," though plenty of people would disagree.

Some folks pushed the whole androgyny thing, but honestly, that's just another rigid box to live in.

Long hair back then was a middle finger to the "ideal teenager" image, much like the mini-skirt or wearing makeup. It's all social conditioning: if you lived in a society where Viking braids were the norm, there wouldn't be any rebellion in it.

I kept the long hair for decades; it used to reach mid-back when I was younger. Eventually, it stopped being a social protest and just became my way of being myself. It wasn't about wanting to be a woman—long hair on guys is standard now anyway. Last year, with a long beard and flowing hair, someone told me I looked like an old-school hippie biker.😁 Now, I'm keeping it short and grooming the beard. At 65, the long look just made me look messy and unkempt.

Shaving your head can be a rebellion too, or maybe just conforming to a specific group. I knew a couple of women who shaved their heads specifically to dodge that pressure to look "feminine" or "pretty" (whether that worked is debatable; personally, I still thought one of them was attractive).

Update: Just remembered this video I stumbled upon once—some Creative AD where high school guys are decked out in makeup and girl's clothes (the pitch: our stuff is so good even guys look like hot girls!). I typed "high school boys dressed as girls" into YouTube and actually dug up a few interesting clips!

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...essed+as+girls

Creative ADVERTISING - Shiseido Cosmetic Ad Gender

Gender swap: American high school girls wear pants, boys wear skirts