They are lawyers and politicians. Who among them are scientists for their warnings to have any credibility?
health risks that could be exacerbated by global warming
Funny, how the write-up said will, but the actual warning contains only the non-committal "could". Yeah, right, "15 minute call could save you 15% on car insurance". Sure.
The "could be" part makes the statement non-falsifiable and therefor unscientific. Nothing to see here, folks. Lawyers and politicians are mongering fears to the populace.
Congratulations, you've defeated a strawman. Your link explains, how improbable (though not impossible) it is to be attacked in a bathroom by a transgendered. But that's not, what I was talking about. Which was the treat posed by a heterosexual man pretending to be a woman in order to get into and stay in women's bathroom. Andthathashappened...
Am I insane because I identify as a woman?
Yes, one's elevator does not reach all the way to the top, if he considers himself a woman. But, as I wrote once before, we really ought to define terms before continuing. I am now asking you once again to post your definitions for the terms "man" and "woman". Further responses missing this information will be returned unopened. Thank you.
What becomes the labia in females becomes the scrotum in males.
Sure. And it all happens long before birth.
It puts transgender people at risk without increasing anyone else's safety.
BS. Certainly an opportunistic heterosexual voyeur, stalker (or even a rapist) can put on a dress and prey on women in bathrooms all day. Without this law, police have nothing to arrest him for until he actually strikes. So the law, by giving law enforcement legal means for removing such predators does increase somebody's safety. And, sure, the brave "progressives" denounce this argument as a "myth", but it is not.
Whether protecting women (50+% of population) justifies inconveniencing the transgendered (0.5%) may be a valid question, but North Carolina answered it for themselves, following a democratic process. I see no reason to disagree with them and you are yet to explain, why Evangelicals are especially responsible for the decision you dislike.
Did you read the papers on Dick Swaab's brain-bank studies of the brains of transgender people?
I will, before talking to him. Meanwhile you are yet to explain, why person born with penis and without vagina (or with both X and Y chromosomes) calling himself a woman is any more sane, than a human calling himself a cat or Napoleon. If you wish to further argue this part, please, be sure to include a definition of the terms "man" and "woman" in your reply. For a student of biology such as yourself, this should not a burden.
it also contained provisions explicitly banning local LGBT non-discrimination ordinances
Opposing special treatment of a certain group is not equivalent to attack on the group.
contention [...] doesn't make it a fact
Sure. It is just that I deem this particular contention self-evident and your sole attempt at a counter-example fell flat...
Two unrelated people are much more dissimilar than fraternal twins, one of whom happens to be male and one female.
From the point of view of genetics — maybe, depending on what you count. But the hormones and genitalia make the sexes rather distinctly and obviously different — hopefully, you agree.
I am expressing my true gender identity as it is forged in my brain.
"Forged into your brain"? Is that a scientific term too? How is it different from someone claiming to be a cat or Napoleon? Can they not have it "forged into their brains" too? Or am I dealing with the sole sane patient in an asylum?
It was Evangelical pressure that got the North Carolina anti-LGBT bill passed
I fail to see, how the demand, that people with penises use the male bathroom, is in any way "anti-LGBT". If asked, I — an atheist — would've supported it too. There is nothing "Evangelical" or even generally religious about it. You can dress however you want, and you can fuck whoever you want, but public bathrooms are shared spaces... As long as we are separating sexes there at all, equating penis (present or amputated) with maleness seems perfectly non-controversial.
he refused to reopen the abortion debate in Canada because most Canadians are pro-choice and he knew he could not force his religious beliefs on others
Seems like Mr. Harper was simply a realist. My contention — about inseparability of religious beliefs from a politician's job stands.
"Gotta keep the other guy from getting what's mine!"
I say, it depends greatly on who exactly the "other guy" is...
This doesn't mean that we need to send Kim Jong Un a 'Nukes for Noobs' tutorial just to be nice
Are you sure, this is not going to happen, given our government's incredible efficiency in general and handling of classified materials in particular? What safeguards are you hoping to see in place to prevent it from happening?
rarely achieves excellence or greatness if they focus more on making sure that the other guy isn't somehow free-riding
The "crazy" starts with the very rejection of who you actually are and continues into demanding to be made into and/or treated as something else. In that sense, my analogy is perfectly valid. I apologize for the term "crazy", but the earlier-used "confused" certainly applies.
If religious beliefs manifest themselves in how a person conducts his or her own life, that's completely fine. But if the beliefs are pushed onto others via public policy [...]
I contend, that "his own life" and "pushed onto others" are inseparable, if formulating and/or executing public policy is the person's very job.
And it is just that for most office-holders, which is why I accused you of wishing to ban the religious from public office earlier.
BTW, you are yet to explain, why you single out Evangelicals so fervently? Abortions are very illegal in Catholic Ireland and Mexico, for example, and don't even get me started on "Pride" parades in Muslim Jakarta and Tehran, or even in Hinduist Delhi.
Likewise, your claim of facing high risk visiting a wrong bathroom because of Evangelicals remains unsubstantiated.
Well they're using iphones, so there goes that theory.
Maybe, Apple did a special run in an American facility just for the White House (and, maybe, some other agencies)? Or, maybe, NSA did it for them — as they've once made a special Blackberry...
In North Carolina, it is illegal for me to use the women's restroom even though I am a transgender woman and look completely female.
I suppose, a human convinced he is a zebra, would also consider any policy barring him from working as a zoo exhibit "discriminatory". But I — a Soviet-raised atheist — would simply consider him crazy. And you, probably, would too until the "oh wait!" kicks-in...
And transgender people face enormous rates of harassment when forced to use the wrong washroom with 9% reporting assault.
And how is this the fault of Evangelicals?
Religious people are quite welcome to run for office.
You said the exact opposite, when you claimed that "Religion mixed into politics is totally, unquestionably evil."
What they should not do is push their religious beliefs on others by making public policy.
Ah, so you are Ok with religious beliefs as long as they don't manifest themselves. Nice...
... conflate gender identity with sexual orientation...
Distinction without difference to the conversation.
Neither the gain nor the loss are even quantifiable, but I'm satisfied that you agree, that "it is complex" — rather than insist on it being a "clear benefit".
brookings.edu
Brookings is a Left-leaning institution, and thus favors immigrants from poor countries, where government is the main source of wealth — who happened to represent the vast majority of new immigrants over the last several decades.
If even Brookings' analysis remains "complex", then it is probably a net loss. At least, with the currently applied methods of absorption...
I don't think anything done at the White House can be considered "non-secure".
For example, when Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin met in 1945, Soviet doctors were analyzing the foreign leaders excrement daily. This was, how Stalin learned, Roosevelt does not have much longer to live... A similar analysis was done on Chairman Mao.
Bet you would've ridiculed an attempt to classify shit until you've read this...
The new equipment better be made in the US and carefully examined by the folks like NSA afterwards. White House remains home to the most powerful man on the planet — both militarily and commercially.
It is the highest-value target for a very large number of people and even a printer can be used creatively by spies.
I'm not sure you can blame this on "diversity". It seems to me the real culprit is intolerance [...]
I blame it on diversity because it is at the very root of this problem — there are enough people foreign (despite being born here) to American values and culture to credibly threaten violence over the very symbol of America. This othering by them is the problem — they would not "melt" in the the "pot" — and having to deal with such issues is the burden, the diversity presents.
Thanks to the Evangelicals, if I go to certain parts of the United States, I must put myself at risk of harassment, assault or murder just to use a public washroom
Citations missing.
Religion mixed into politics is totally, unquestionably evil.
So, you think, the First Amendment protects a school principal's decision to ban American flag, but would like to ban religious people from running for office?
I'm afraid, your understanding of laws and ethics is just as messed up as your sexuality...
A skin lesion may simply be harmless acne, or it may be a sign of cancer. When American children are told, that American flag may be "offensive" to the supposedly fellow Americans, I'm afraid, we are towards the latter. It is not "all" I got, but I deem this to be most troubling because of how wide-spread it is — California and South Carolina are very different locales in many respects, but not in this one...
Isn't banning the flag just a form of protected expression?
Wow, that's a creative interpretation... No, a ban issued by a government official is not an expression at all — much less "protected".
Freedom of expression doesn't mean anything if only expression we approve of is allowed.
That maxim is certainly true, but irrelevant to our conversation. Mexicans weren't prohibited from displaying Mexican flag in an American school, and I proudly have a Ukrainian bumper sticker without any harassment. But I recognize and respect the American flag — while the various schools consider it "offensive" enough to be banned. To me such bans are a clear sign of our "melting pot" struggling (if not outright failing) in dealing with the diversity.
First of all, a university receiving public funds is also a public school (especially, if it is entirely State-owned as any branch of University of California is), and it did ban the flag — whether that move was initiated by the monkeys running the zoo or the older officials is secondary in importance.
This is the language of someone who cannot win the fucking debate
I don't need to "win" it — you do, if you wish to convince me and the millions of others to change our ways.
And you aren't even trying, happy to force everybody instead. So fuck you, a condescending and totalitarian asshole — you aren't fit to open your mouth on the subject of Science.
American employees are all-rounders, excellent for presenting and sales. European employees excel in creativity, East Asian employees push all nighters and get things done through discipline, and Indian graduates are as book smart as you ever need.
If these stereotypes aren't racist, I don't know, what can possibly be...
"The embracing of diversity as opposed to it being some sort of political issue is a huge advantage we have."
Contrary to the widely-known meme, diversity is not strength. It is a weakness — a society consisting of people from different countries and races can break apart much too easily along the ethnic and religious lines, with each group "othering" the rest.
It does provide for a nicer variety of available restaurants and decorative styles, but a "strength" it is not. It is a luxury, that drains the society's resources — both monetary and the less tangible. The US is admirably good at handling it, but don't fool yourself — a strength it is not.
President Putin is, supposedly, a "selfless servant of the people", while President Poroshenko was (and remains) the multi-millionaire owner of a very successful company, who financed his own election and pays for his own travels even when on the official business. His wealth was very well-known to voters...
I'm not sure about the other people on the list, but listing these two as equally suspect of wrongdoing was decidedly bad journalism...
Slashdot Mirror
They are lawyers and politicians. Who among them are scientists for their warnings to have any credibility?
Funny, how the write-up said will, but the actual warning contains only the non-committal "could". Yeah, right, "15 minute call could save you 15% on car insurance". Sure.
The "could be" part makes the statement non-falsifiable and therefor unscientific. Nothing to see here, folks. Lawyers and politicians are mongering fears to the populace.
What's there to stop him?
Congratulations, you've defeated a strawman. Your link explains, how improbable (though not impossible) it is to be attacked in a bathroom by a transgendered. But that's not, what I was talking about. Which was the treat posed by a heterosexual man pretending to be a woman in order to get into and stay in women's bathroom. And that has happened...
Yes, one's elevator does not reach all the way to the top, if he considers himself a woman. But, as I wrote once before, we really ought to define terms before continuing. I am now asking you once again to post your definitions for the terms "man" and "woman". Further responses missing this information will be returned unopened. Thank you.
Ah, that... Well, it is done through TCP/IP — and is thus trivially controlled... Not a concern — certainly not, when NSA is helping you.
You did not list the logical steps leading you to this conclusion...
Nor this one...
Yes, yes. For everyone to be nice, you must kill all of the naughty ones.
Please, pardon my ignorance, but this is the first time I hear about it. Could you share a couple of links, please? Thank you.
Sure. And it all happens long before birth.
BS. Certainly an opportunistic heterosexual voyeur, stalker (or even a rapist) can put on a dress and prey on women in bathrooms all day. Without this law, police have nothing to arrest him for until he actually strikes. So the law, by giving law enforcement legal means for removing such predators does increase somebody's safety. And, sure, the brave "progressives" denounce this argument as a "myth", but it is not.
Whether protecting women (50+% of population) justifies inconveniencing the transgendered (0.5%) may be a valid question, but North Carolina answered it for themselves, following a democratic process. I see no reason to disagree with them and you are yet to explain, why Evangelicals are especially responsible for the decision you dislike.
I will, before talking to him. Meanwhile you are yet to explain, why person born with penis and without vagina (or with both X and Y chromosomes) calling himself a woman is any more sane, than a human calling himself a cat or Napoleon. If you wish to further argue this part, please, be sure to include a definition of the terms "man" and "woman" in your reply. For a student of biology such as yourself, this should not a burden.
Opposing special treatment of a certain group is not equivalent to attack on the group.
Sure. It is just that I deem this particular contention self-evident and your sole attempt at a counter-example fell flat...
From the point of view of genetics — maybe, depending on what you count. But the hormones and genitalia make the sexes rather distinctly and obviously different — hopefully, you agree.
"Forged into your brain"? Is that a scientific term too? How is it different from someone claiming to be a cat or Napoleon? Can they not have it "forged into their brains" too? Or am I dealing with the sole sane patient in an asylum?
I fail to see, how the demand, that people with penises use the male bathroom, is in any way "anti-LGBT". If asked, I — an atheist — would've supported it too. There is nothing "Evangelical" or even generally religious about it. You can dress however you want, and you can fuck whoever you want, but public bathrooms are shared spaces... As long as we are separating sexes there at all, equating penis (present or amputated) with maleness seems perfectly non-controversial.
Seems like Mr. Harper was simply a realist. My contention — about inseparability of religious beliefs from a politician's job stands.
I say, it depends greatly on who exactly the "other guy" is...
Are you sure, this is not going to happen, given our government's incredible efficiency in general and handling of classified materials in particular? What safeguards are you hoping to see in place to prevent it from happening?
Fallacy of excluded middle.
Are you really trying to dispute the utility of stool and urine analysis to medical diagnosis?
I don't know, what such "biological basis" can possibly mean.
What a bigoted thing to say! Seriously, a few more revolutions in science, and it might become possible — but that's irrelevant. Any male body is much closer to Napoleon's, than it is to a female body — yet, people claiming to be Napoleons are usually locked up...
The "crazy" starts with the very rejection of who you actually are and continues into demanding to be made into and/or treated as something else. In that sense, my analogy is perfectly valid. I apologize for the term "crazy", but the earlier-used "confused" certainly applies.
I contend, that "his own life" and "pushed onto others" are inseparable, if formulating and/or executing public policy is the person's very job.
And it is just that for most office-holders, which is why I accused you of wishing to ban the religious from public office earlier.
BTW, you are yet to explain, why you single out Evangelicals so fervently? Abortions are very illegal in Catholic Ireland and Mexico, for example, and don't even get me started on "Pride" parades in Muslim Jakarta and Tehran, or even in Hinduist Delhi.
Likewise, your claim of facing high risk visiting a wrong bathroom because of Evangelicals remains unsubstantiated.
Maybe, Apple did a special run in an American facility just for the White House (and, maybe, some other agencies)? Or, maybe, NSA did it for them — as they've once made a special Blackberry...
I suppose, a human convinced he is a zebra, would also consider any policy barring him from working as a zoo exhibit "discriminatory". But I — a Soviet-raised atheist — would simply consider him crazy. And you, probably, would too until the "oh wait!" kicks-in...
And how is this the fault of Evangelicals?
You said the exact opposite, when you claimed that "Religion mixed into politics is totally, unquestionably evil."
Ah, so you are Ok with religious beliefs as long as they don't manifest themselves. Nice...
Distinction without difference to the conversation.
Neither the gain nor the loss are even quantifiable, but I'm satisfied that you agree, that "it is complex" — rather than insist on it being a "clear benefit".
Brookings is a Left-leaning institution, and thus favors immigrants from poor countries, where government is the main source of wealth — who happened to represent the vast majority of new immigrants over the last several decades.
If even Brookings' analysis remains "complex", then it is probably a net loss. At least, with the currently applied methods of absorption...
So, foreign governments can save money as well? Even the hostile ones?..
I don't think anything done at the White House can be considered "non-secure".
For example, when Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin met in 1945, Soviet doctors were analyzing the foreign leaders excrement daily. This was, how Stalin learned, Roosevelt does not have much longer to live... A similar analysis was done on Chairman Mao.
Bet you would've ridiculed an attempt to classify shit until you've read this...
The new equipment better be made in the US and carefully examined by the folks like NSA afterwards. White House remains home to the most powerful man on the planet — both militarily and commercially.
It is the highest-value target for a very large number of people and even a printer can be used creatively by spies.
I blame it on diversity because it is at the very root of this problem — there are enough people foreign (despite being born here) to American values and culture to credibly threaten violence over the very symbol of America. This othering by them is the problem — they would not "melt" in the the "pot" — and having to deal with such issues is the burden, the diversity presents.
Citations missing.
So, you think, the First Amendment protects a school principal's decision to ban American flag, but would like to ban religious people from running for office?
I'm afraid, your understanding of laws and ethics is just as messed up as your sexuality...
A skin lesion may simply be harmless acne, or it may be a sign of cancer. When American children are told, that American flag may be "offensive" to the supposedly fellow Americans, I'm afraid, we are towards the latter. It is not "all" I got, but I deem this to be most troubling because of how wide-spread it is — California and South Carolina are very different locales in many respects, but not in this one...
Wow, that's a creative interpretation... No, a ban issued by a government official is not an expression at all — much less "protected".
That maxim is certainly true, but irrelevant to our conversation. Mexicans weren't prohibited from displaying Mexican flag in an American school, and I proudly have a Ukrainian bumper sticker without any harassment. But I recognize and respect the American flag — while the various schools consider it "offensive" enough to be banned. To me such bans are a clear sign of our "melting pot" struggling (if not outright failing) in dealing with the diversity.
First of all, a university receiving public funds is also a public school (especially, if it is entirely State-owned as any branch of University of California is), and it did ban the flag — whether that move was initiated by the monkeys running the zoo or the older officials is secondary in importance.
More importantly, it happened in various actual public high schools too — on the authority of local principals and school districts alike. And the courts support that — for "safety". Evidently, the "batshit crazy" is spreading, while you remain in denial (and sniping at the harmless Evangelicals).
I don't need to "win" it — you do, if you wish to convince me and the millions of others to change our ways.
And you aren't even trying, happy to force everybody instead. So fuck you, a condescending and totalitarian asshole — you aren't fit to open your mouth on the subject of Science.
Yes. Like I said, the US dealing is with diversity better than most — with the possible exception of Brazil.
But it is still a burden and even our success is overestimated — if an American public school bans American flag as "offensive", there is a big problem.
If these stereotypes aren't racist, I don't know, what can possibly be...
Contrary to the widely-known meme, diversity is not strength. It is a weakness — a society consisting of people from different countries and races can break apart much too easily along the ethnic and religious lines, with each group "othering" the rest.
It does provide for a nicer variety of available restaurants and decorative styles, but a "strength" it is not. It is a luxury, that drains the society's resources — both monetary and the less tangible. The US is admirably good at handling it, but don't fool yourself — a strength it is not.
President Putin is, supposedly, a "selfless servant of the people", while President Poroshenko was (and remains) the multi-millionaire owner of a very successful company, who financed his own election and pays for his own travels even when on the official business. His wealth was very well-known to voters...
I'm not sure about the other people on the list, but listing these two as equally suspect of wrongdoing was decidedly bad journalism...