Notices by 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org), page 98

Interesting fact about me... my step-dad was a Professional Racecar driver. He has been on ESPN multiple times. He still builds his own cars but is now retired.

He won the World Championships in Nitro Coupe racing in 2000.

#sports #cars

@meowski

If you want to redefine the work and make up your own nonsense, go for it.

I'll stick with using the actual definition of the word, the historic one. The one where gender is not dictated by sex.

@georgia @moonshine @rice

@meowski

Except you have it completely backwards. Historically the definition of Gender was not equivelant to sex, it described ones outward expression of femininity and masculinity.

So what you call "modern liberal" is actually the classic and historic definition of gender. It is the people who want to redefine "gender" to mean the same as "sex" who are the ones trying to create a modern redefinition. That would be the real "brainwashing" then, the people who want to redefine the word to mean sex.

@georgia @moonshine @rice

@moonshine

To put it another way. If I had boobs I wouldnt bind them. But I'd be hesitant to tell others they cant if they are dealing with body issues.

Especially without strong evidence.

@IStandWithQ

@moonshine

I personally agree that instinctivly wearing no bra is probably healthier by the way. But I wont use my "gut" here if im going to be against it, id need some proof.

So just saying i do understand your opinion. But I dont think its so clear cut.

@IStandWithQ

@moonshine

Do you have any evidence these devices, which are medically approved, would be bad for you? They are specifically designed not to be, so if your going to say they arent healthy youll need to back that up.

@georgia

@mngrif

If you want blizard level coat for -20 weather, then north face.. If you want a warm but light jacket suited for freezing temp then go columbia.

Both my jackets are columbia though, even my -20 one and i love both.

Columbia Im hooked on columbia

@design_RG

@chaos_hydra I agree, I felt the same.

@moonshine If it was really so unnhealthy to be in an "unnatural state" then we wouldnt be wearing bras, or clothes for that matter.

Natural is a pretty poor measure IMO.

This was a beautiful exhange seeing a mother go from angry to accepting their child's gender expression. I love it.

https://imgur.com/gallery/fBrhZcj

@cowanon Anytime! Happy to help.

@cowanon well respected journals are ones that use scientific consensus, rigorous analysis and the caliber of the scientists it attracts is on par with other journals.

Journals arent always even associated with universities. Generally we dont really rank journals much. Its credible or its not. You make that call by looking more closely at its peer review process.

But ea you get the idea.

@Craigvulcan

https://qoto.org/@freemo/103198308438191710

@max

Its amazing you cant see the problem with "Oh my science just proved there are 10+ more planets than we first knew about, I dont like this so quick lets redefine the word"....

@null0x0 @Vamp898

@max

If we had kept the original definition of a planet then many more objects other than pluto would have been added to the list.. **that** is science, you observe facts, and as you do you admit the consequences of that.

Thats not how it went down with pluto however. There was nothing in the definition of a planet that would exlude Pluto at the time. Yes, lots of people did want to exclude pluto at the time, but this was motivated more by their bias to not include other objects in the list of planets, rather than strictly adhering to science and admitting they were, in fact, planets as well.

What happened was because scientists felt uncomfortable with the existing definition which would cause us to have dozens or more planets within our solar system, they wanted to change the definition because they arbitrarily decided they wanted there to be relatively few planets. So instead of using the data to dictate what something is or is not (science) they went the other way around, changed the definition of the word and therefore redefined what was and was not a planet not through science but an arbitrary act of linguistics.

IF we use the original language for planet, the one that was used prior to 2006, then pluto would simply have been called a "Secondary planet" (along with several other bodies) and the other planets we know of would be "primary planets". This would of course, as a distinction, would have been science, not linguistics, since it was based off discovery rather than an arbitrary act of linguistic gymnastics.

@null0x0 @Vamp898

@max

Few decades off there buddy...

I guess when you dont have a leg to stand on the only thing you have left to resort to is name calling... way to go, I guess that is going to be the hill you die on.

@null0x0 @Vamp898

Is Pluto a planet?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] No opinion

@max

Few decades off there buddy...

I guess when you dont have a leg to stand on and pull dogma out of your ass the only thing you have left to resort to is name calling... way to go, I guess that is going to be the hill you die on.

@null0x0 @Vamp898

@max

Not all consensus is science, all good science involves consensus.

This was not science it was consensus, the fact that science does involve consensus is irrelevant to that.

This was us deciding what we wanted the definition of a word to be, again, that has nothing to do with science.

We didnt discover or learn anything new about planets that resulted in this change. We made the change for no other reason then we liked the new definition better.

Again that isnt science.

You seem to be under the impression we learned something new about pluto and then from that determined it wasnt a planet.. No thats not what happened at all. We knew for a VERY long time about plutos orbit and its nature.

We changed a definition of a word, thats it, nothing was discovered that caused the change.

I think you dont understand why or what happened that caused planet to be redefined...

@null0x0 @Vamp898