Happy Columbus Day

[Equilibrium31]

Depends on the science. They typically believe in genetic science while the libs believe a human can pick their gender. What's the difference? One science can be used to collect taxes and the other can't?

I think you're confusing "sex" with "gender".

No one disputes the science of sex. Some people do choose a different gender, however, because gender is behavioral/cultural, not physiological.

And nothing with how someone identifies makes them liberal or conservative, although all the hate from the right does pidgeonhole a lot of LGBTQ people into voting liberal.

 

[Bofa-Deez]

I think you're confusing "sex" with "gender".

No one disputes the science of sex. Some people do choose a different gender, however, because gender is behavioral/cultural, not physiological.

And nothing with how someone identifies makes them liberal or conservative, although all the hate from the right does pidgeonhole a lot of LGBTQ people into voting liberal.

I'm not confusing anything. The science is gender dysphoria.

But I am going to call out that conservative bullshit. What you are claiming about conservatives as a majority not tolerating LGBTQRSTG whatever is an absolute fallacy. I don't have the time or crayons to explain it, but that is crap. They can identify as a ship for all I care.

 

[jjvw]

You are confusing science with politics, morals, ethics and feelings.

Science actually is consensus. And science is an act of continual efforts to disprove itself. If an assertion cannot withstand being disproved (or falsified) it is not science and the assertion must be amended to agree with what has not been falsified. And the process continues.

Science is uncertainty because nothing is assumed to be known with any certainty. To say that gender is simply limited to genetics assumes that there is nothing else that contribute to the concept of gender.

How government and politicians use and misuse scientific understanding is an entirely separate endeavor.

 

[jjvw]

...

But I am going to call out that conservative bullshit. What you are claiming about conservatives as a majority not tolerating LGBTQRSTG whatever is an absolute fallacy. I don't have the time or crayons to explain it, but that is crap. They can identify as a ship for all I care.

Conservatism doesn't have a great track record of that kind of acceptance or indifference or disinterest. I'll go back to an earlier statement of not understanding what conservative or liberal mean anymore. I do know that a good libertarian does not care if one identifies as a ship.

 

[Bofa-Deez]

Consensus means nothing. If your data matches mine, that is not consensus. If the data collection is flawed, you can have all the consensus you like, but your science is flawed.

I didn't connect politics to anything. Someone here made the connection between conservatives not liking science and conservatives giving people with gender dysphoria a hard time. I called bullshit on both!

 

[Equilibrium31]

I'm not confusing anything.

But I am going to call out that conservative bullshit. What you are claiming about conservatives as a majority not tolerating LGBTQRSTG whatever is an absolute fallacy. I don't have the time or crayons to explain it, but that is crap. They can identify as a ship for all I care.

(Most)Conservatives are more accepting of LGBTQ than they used to be, but it's traditionally been the party that's opposed every LGBTQ issue that's come up, from marriage to civil rights protection.

It's definitely not a fallacy though. You can explain whatever you want, but the recent politics have just about always put any LGBTQ policy that's come into question with Democrats in the "for" category and Republicans in the "against".

Hell, just look at the maps:

http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

 

[jjvw]

Consensus means nothing. If your data matches mine, that is not consensus. If the data collection is flawed, you can have all the consensus you like, but your science is flawed.

The process of science is self-correcting. If the collection and interpretation of data is not subject to falsification, it is not science.

I didn't connect politics to anything. Someone here made the connection between conservatives not liking science and conservatives giving people with gender dysphoria a hard time. I called bullshit on both!

That was me.

 

[Bofa-Deez]

Conservatism doesn't have a great track record of that kind of acceptance or indifference or disinterest. I'll go back to an earlier statement of not understanding what conservative or liberal mean anymore.

I'll admit, that I have never been to Colorado, but I live in a state that is majority conservative and I for one will not tolerate judging people based on sexuality, but I will demand that they keep it to themselves in professional environments. I'm a heterosexual and I have never felt the need to tell anyone at work that I like having sex with women. I appreciate it when others remain professional as well. Now if we are having drinks after work, it's all fair game

 

[Bofa-Deez]

That was me.

I know

 

[jjvw]

I'll admit, that I have never been to Colorado, but I live in a state that is majority conservative and I for one will not tolerate judging people based on sexuality, but I will demand that they keep it to themselves in professional environments. I'm a heterosexual and I have never felt the need to tell anyone at work that I like having sex with women. I appreciate it when others remain professional as well. Now if we are having drinks after work, it's all fair game

You're too fast for my ninja edits!

I do know that a good libertarian does not care if one identifies as a ship.

 

[Bofa-Deez]

The process of science is self-correcting.

Like when Al Gore said in the 90s that Florida would be underwater in 10 years?

I know there is a problem, but like with Trump, when you overplay your cards and exaggerate the facts. Logical thinking folks are less likely to listen. You know, like when you send children to scold the UN.

 

[jjvw]

Like when Al Gore said in the 90s that Florida would be underwater in 10 years?

I know there is a problem, but like with Trump, when you overplay your cards and exaggerate the facts. Logical thinking folks are less likely to listen. You know, like when you send children to scold the UN.

Al Gore is not a scientist, nor should be be treated as such. Though, it's not like he was entirely off base in his efforts.

The Greta situation is complicated. Regardless of whether one agrees or not, I have trouble with the idea of putting a child in that position as much as I don't think children should be kept from being involved in important issues.

 

[Bofa-Deez]

As an aside, I don't have many friends (go ahead, insert jab here) and one of my really close friends is gay. I always envied him a bit as I have been through 2 failed marriages (man, I'm really giving u guys too many opportunities.) I would have loved to be able to tell the exes: "baby, I wish we could get married. I would marry you in a heartbeat, but... It's illegal and there isn't much I can do about it."

 

[Bofa-Deez]

The Greta situation is complicated. Regardless of whether one agrees or not, I have trouble with the idea of putting a child in that position as much as I don't think children should be kept from being involved in important issues.

Agreed, but children don't always have the life experience necessary to make solid decisions on issues, especially those with deep social or scientific ramifications. It makes those that put them in the spotlight look foolish and disingenuous, especially when it's so easy to tell they are reading a script. That's not to say they shouldn't be involves, but they should know their place.

 

[jjvw]

Agreed, but children don't always have the life experience necessary to make solid decisions on issues, especially those with deep social or scientific ramifications. It makes those that put them in the spotlight look foolish and disingenuous, especially when it's so easy to tell they are reading a script. That's not to say they shouldn't be involves, but they should know their place.

It reminds of idiotic Facebook posts from parents who gush about how intelligent their toddler is.

It isn't so much that the kids should know their place, it is the parents who need to find a balance between protection from and exposure to the world. And these parents need to be cautious of using their kids as their mouthpiece.

 

[Equilibrium31]

Like when Al Gore said in the 90s that Florida would be underwater in 10 years?

Or like when Trump said that climate change was a Chinese hoax?

I know there is a problem, but like with Trump, when you overplay your cards and exaggerate the facts. Logical thinking folks are less likely to listen. You know, like when you send children to scold the UN.

The threat is real, even if the timeline is uncertain. Logical thinking doesn't involve dismissing what the world's leading scientists are saying just because a former politician was too exuberant in portraying worst-case scenarios at a time when people were just as furiously denying that climate change was real at all. You take for granted how many people accept climate change as a fact now, but back when Gore was pressing the issue, it was something that many politicians still outwardly denied.

And his science wasn't really off, even if he did over-play the outcome of worst-case scenarios.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/e...ionists/inconvenient-truth-sequel-al-gore.htm

 

[jjvw]

I have no reservations trusting Al Gore playing scientist far more than Donald Trump's efforts to be an authority in that arena.

 

[Equilibrium31]

Agreed, but children don't always have the life experience necessary to make solid decisions on issues, especially those with deep social or scientific ramifications. It makes those that put them in the spotlight look foolish and disingenuous, especially when it's so easy to tell they are reading a script. That's not to say they shouldn't be involves, but they should know their place.

I typically agree with this, but actually think she's played a reasonable role in everything so far. She's just been an advocate for an issue that she knows will affect people her age much more than people our age (and older). She hasn't tried to assert speculation on everything that climate change is (for the most part), but has primarily said that climate change should be taken seriously and then pointed to the scientific community to explain why.

Now, when I've seen other kids talking about the same issue, I can't help but cringe.

Skip to the 34 minute mark here for the opening statements from the kids and you'll see what I mean, lol.

 

[Deuxdiesel]

Next year, can we celebrate Adolph Hitler day? He did after all give us the model for rebuilding a society after a major war, gave us the framework for what the boy scouts are, and gave us the origins of a simple, effective and durable car that anyone could afford.

 

[jjvw]

Next year, can we celebrate Adolph Hitler day? He did after all give us the model for rebuilding a society after a major war, gave us the framework for what the boy scouts are, and gave us the origins of a simple, effective and durable car that anyone could afford.

At the risk of being a sourpuss, we can do that as long as we are open and honest about his efforts to conquer Europe and exterminate the Jews.