Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
No bio...
User ID: 290
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
4hr ago
This is something called Chekhov's gun, which is a storytelling principle that says if a gun is shown on screen, it must be fired later in the story.
Note that in the original form, the principle was that 'If a gun is shown on stage, it must be fired later in the story.' Live-theatre productions usually do not have as elaborate set decoration as film or television.
it's completely inconsistent with the show's genre, which has no magical elements up until that point.
But was it portrayed as actually happening within the storyline, or was it a dream or hallucination? (I haven't seen the show.)
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
13hr ago
That's not to say it's true or accurate, any more than Islam being able to compel suicide bombers means Mohammad actually flew to heaven on a winged unicorn.
Minor nitpick, but the animal on which Muslims believe Muhammad flew to heaven was not described as a 'winged unicorn'; it is usually depicted by less fundamentalist denominations as a winged horse with a human face.
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
13hr ago
The biggest difference is that Floyd was human excrement.
Less of this, please.
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
13hr ago
I think the 'eggshell skull' principle would apply to this case.
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
13hr ago
Or, as the Rightful Caliph put it,
A car with a broken engine cannot drive backward at 200 mph, even if the engine is really really broken.
"Reversed Stupidity Is Not Intelligence", December 2007
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
5d ago
There is a kind of ant called a 'gam·ergate' (from the Greek words 'γάμος' [marriage] and 'ἔργον' [work]) which is, unlike many ant species, capable of both work and reproduction.
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
6d ago
It rgas always felt to me like something broke in the world around 2010 - 2013.
Maybe we owe the Mayan Calendar people an apology....
(What does 'rgas' mean? I couldn't find any relevant results....)
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
12d ago
Every good normal, local football team loving, sydney sweeney gooning person hates people with [autism] and loves to see them suffer
That would disqualify them from being considered 'good'.
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
15d ago
"'No.' is a complete sentence."
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
16d ago
So how would you have handled the Depression? If you woke up on 4th March, 1933 as Mr Roosevelt, how would you have proceeded, knowing that your active attempts to solve the problem are the only thing keeping the Republic from falling to either the jackboots or the proletarian abyss?
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
16d ago
...he stays fairly active....
That's not what I heard. It was my understanding that he believes the human body to be akin to a non-rechargeable battery, used up faster if one moves more.
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
16d ago
A senile kleptocrat who had innocent civilians murdered in an attempt to intimidate the public into surrendering their human rights.
To what action of Mr Biden is this alluding? (I'm guessing that the first three are Mr Clinton and the Branch Davidian fiasco, Mr Bush and the War Of Terror, and Mr Obama and 'Fast and Furious'?)
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
16d ago
· Edited 15d ago
I don't think 'gay condom art' is the best metonym for 'worthless USAID spending'; if it convinces some fraction of gay people to wrap their todgers, there will be fewer cases of HIV transmission, leading to less need for funding anti-retroviral medications, which I recall many esteamed members of this forum found objectionable.
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
18d ago
Well, I just happen to disagree with him on that particular point. (Is it not written, only half facetiously, that a rationalist is someone who publicly disagrees with Eliezer Yudkowsky?)
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
19d ago
There's a certain type of mind, over-represented among the singulatarians, that's deeply uncomfortable with the entire notion of power relations and social status on a fundamental level.
The 'fundamental level' is that they cause a lot of human misery to those who find themselves on the bottom end.
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
24d ago
I don't see how. People are perfectly within their rights to tell anyone day-in, day-out that they are delusional and wrong. Christians, vax-skeptics, climate change deniers, opponents of Critical Race Theory, and indeed people with gender critical views... take your pick, people are being told their beliefs are delusional and wrong, and as far as I can tell, that's exactly the way things should be.
You are quite welcome to disagree with someone else's Views. However, if you tell someone that they are wrong, and they tell you that they'd rather not discuss the matter right now, should you follow them around with a sign that says 'you are wrong', and constantly wave it in front of them?
getting people fired from jobs, and terrorizing venues into cancelling events
I do not condone these. If your employer fires you for Poasting on this forum, or writing a Disgusted-of-Tunbridge-Wells letter to your local fish-and-chips wrapper, I will condemn his or her actions, and wish more people on the left would do the same.
Not at all.
In that case, it appears that you do not have a gender identity, and have thus defaulted to living as whichever biological sex you were born as.
Some people identify very strongly with their biological sex, and in that hypothetical, would be very motivated to restore it; these people have a gender identity that aligns with their biological sex.
He'd be doing the exact same thing your examplary trans woman would be doing, except twirling his mustache villainously as he does so.
And if that is 'go into the women's lavatory, do his business, wash his hands, leave', then he isn't doing anything wrong.
Yeah, but females are far less likely to engage in that sort of behavior
Some of us don't consider Minority Report or Psycho Pass to be an aspirational ideal.
The only way this argument makes sense is if you are arguing for abolishing segregation.
Offer accepted. Gender neutral WCs for everyone!
Don't you mean it's not the definition?
I mean that it is not a single definition.
'Biologically female' can refer to
-
people with XX chromosomes
-
people born with vaginas
-
people who currently have vaginas
-
people born with ovaries
-
people with high estrogen levels and low testosterone levels, or something along those lines
If you want to change the definition of "woman", I can step over that and use another word, like "female" for the concept I'm referring to.
WRT human beings, 'female' is the adjectival form of 'woman'; using it as a noun is rather impolite. For the concept to which you are referring, the more appropriate nomenclature to attach a modifier referring to whichever biological aspect you consider relevant; thus 'genetically female' excluding both trans-women and those with androgen insensitivity syndrome, 'natal-anatomical woman' including AIS but excluding trans-women, 'anatomical woman' to exclude trans-women before chirurgery but include them after, 'aspiring anatomical woman' to also include those planning to have chirurgery or who can't access it but would if they could, 'hormonally female' to include those taking hormones.
The possibility space for different ways of doing things is nearly infinite, so if you want to change things, you need to show how your way is better than all the other possible ways.
All the other possible ways, nothing could ever be changed until the mountain is worn down by the bird sharpening its beak every thousand years.
It should be enough to demonstrate that the proposed changes are an improvement over the status quo.
On the other hand "it's been working fine all this time" is a perfectly valid reason for keeping things the way they are
If it has been working perfectly well, yes, but usually when people demand change, it's because the previous ways weren't working for them.
...which is why I explicitly postulated a sex-based marker.
...which not everyone has; e. g. the cis-woman from a blue state who whenever she has needed ID has never had any trouble using her driver's licence before, and doesn't expect to need a special document just to empty her bladder in a red state.
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
24d ago
And is the solution for female people who don't want to go through agony in childbirth 'talk therapy until they understand that the pain of childbirth is their just deserts for the sin of Eve', or is it better living through chemistry?
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
24d ago
So you've got a dichotomy. Either they want us to know they're here, in which case the demonstration is trivial and we'd already have it. Or they don't, in which case routinely showing up on cockpit thermal cameras is a level of opsec failure inconsistent with the engineering required to be here at all.
Or they want some of us to suspect that they're here, but not be able to prove it, because it amuses them.
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
24d ago
Or it could be aliens messing with us.
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
24d ago
the first listed example is "adult human female"
It's first because they're in alphabetical order.
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
24d ago
(As an aside, this is probably the origin of the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" joke about Scholasticism)
So they're arguing whether angels are fermions or bosons?
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
24d ago
-
Reduce the factors leading people to criminality, such as poverty and lack of opportunity in the legitimate economy. This will not, contra the left-wing prison-abolitionists, eliminate the need for a criminal justice system, but it will reduce the scale of the problem.
-
Reform prison conditions to be less damaging, thus reducing recidivism.
-
Decrease the extreme sentence lengths, maintaining an option to extend for those who are still a danger to the public. (Cf. Scandinavia, and yes, they have Black criminals there too.)
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
24d ago
Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
24d ago
You're the one who brought up gamete-producing organs. If you asked someone at any time prior to the invention of the microscope what the biological definition of 'male' and 'female' are, they would point to the configuration of the parts between the legs. I can think of no reason for preferring your definition over the classical one as the One True Criterion Of Biological Sex that would apply in any society in which either both or neither were changeable; thus I can only come to one of two conclusions:
-
You started with the assumption that biological sex is both unchangeable and single-variable, chose 'gamete-producing organs' as your dividing line because we do not yet know how to fully transition them, and, having chosen that as the definition of biological sex, used it to support your claim that biological sex is unchangeable.
-
You have some valid reason, which would have applied even prior to the development of what, even thirty years ago, was called a 'sex-change operation', for favouring one definition over another, but that reason is entirely beyond what I can derive from the extent of my knowledge.
I am not assuming that (1.) is the case, but if it is (2.), can you spell out your reasoning for defining sex on the basis of gamete-producing organs?
But don't you agree it would be phenomenally irresponsible to go back in time before the invention of the telegraph and urge a small child to play with a dog that was visibly foaming at the mouth?
I wouldn't think that advisable even now. I just don't think letting trans-women use the ladies' room is equivalent to that.
But as the wise man said: “If you did it for a good reason, you'd do it for a bad one. You couldn't say 'We're the good guys' and do bad-guy things.”
More options
Context Copy link