@palasta: Notice how they specifically use sex to refer to the mushrooms? As for the part you bolded, you ignored the previous 2 words. Traditionally recognized, which refers to how we, at least in the west have traditionally recognized gender.
Why do we change it now? Because quite frankly, the binary model we traditionally used for both gender and sex no longer hold up
Gender: We know more about other cultures, we know about the existance of nonbinary people.
Sex: We know more about other species now and genetics. It is far, far more complex than the X/Y. The fact that intersex people exist also completely defeat the binary model.
Do you understand what a binary is? A binary means there are only 0's and 1's, no numbers outside 1's and 0's, where 0 and 1 ∈ Z.
Scientists study the phenomena that is gender dysphoria. And the studies show positive results. You don't see papers that reject the validity of transgender people. Because the positive results have repeatedly shown that they DO in fact manifest.
So, by changing what you think gender means, it simply means the idea anyone can change their gender is a social construct.
@palasta: Notice how they specifically use sex to refer to the mushrooms? As for the part you bolded, you ignored the previous 2 words. Traditionally recognized, which refers to how we, at least in the west have traditionally recognized gender.
Why do we change it now? Because quite frankly, the binary model we traditionally used for both gender and sex no longer hold up
Gender: We know more about other cultures, we know about the existance of nonbinary people.
Sex: We know more about other species now and genetics. It is far, far more complex than the X/Y. The fact that intersex people exist also completely defeat the binary model.
Do you understand what a binary is? A binary means there are only 0's and 1's, no numbers outside 1's and 0's, where 0 and 1 ∈ Z.
Scientists study the phenomena that is gender dysphoria. And the studies show positive results. You don't see papers that reject the validity of transgender people. Because the positive results have repeatedly shown that they DO in fact manifest.
So, by changing what you think gender means, it simply means the idea anyone can change their gender is a social construct.
No one is changing what gender means. We have repeatedly proven you wrong. Showing how gender is a social construct across various cultures.
This really is akin to talking to a wall. You have nothing but the same recycled talking points that have been refuted in this thread several times over. And to be honest, it is getting exhausting.
This thread is so derailed and a dumpster fire that I can't keep up with it anymore.
Why do you guys fall for this bait? Half the people here can't defend their arguments, they just make up shit up or change the subject all the time.
Also, trans rights shouldn't be an issue, it's only an issue because some of the people here hate trans people that much.
Honestly, at this point it is just fun prodding them and see where they go. But eventually it gets exhausting, when they repeat the same talking points as if they hadn't been already refuted... countless times by now.
Broader truth to be learned—the more an idea becomes conventionally (universally) true, the more we should be wary of that idea. That doesn’t mean such an idea isn’t true now or won’t be true forever, but the simple exercise of critical thought and openness can prevent potential harm.
A chair only has to betray you once to teach this lesson.
Broader truth to be learned—the more an idea becomes conventionally (universally) true, the more we should be wary of that idea. That doesn’t mean such an idea isn’t true now or won’t be true forever, but the simple exercise of critical thought and openness can prevent potential harm.
A chair only has to betray you once to teach this lesson.
Agreed. Is the Earth really round? Who are we to discern the actual truth when liberal ideas have been infecting our children mind for decades.
@palasta: Notice how they specifically use sex to refer to the mushrooms? As for the part you bolded, you ignored the previous 2 words. Traditionally recognized, which refers to how we, at least in the west have traditionally recognized gender.
Why do we change it now? Because quite frankly, the binary model we traditionally used for both gender and sex no longer hold up
Gender: We know more about other cultures, we know about the existance of nonbinary people.
Sex: We know more about other species now and genetics. It is far, far more complex than the X/Y. The fact that intersex people exist also completely defeat the binary model.
Do you understand what a binary is? A binary means there are only 0's and 1's, no numbers outside 1's and 0's, where 0 and 1 ∈ Z.
Scientists study the phenomena that is gender dysphoria. And the studies show positive results. You don't see papers that reject the validity of transgender people. Because the positive results have repeatedly shown that they DO in fact manifest.
Why wouldn't i ignore it? Explain to me what is "science" about "tradition"? It is you who is constantly trying to diviate from the "path of science", talking about "culture", ignoring the real "science". Soo... what did you ignore?
Where we have two traditionally recognized genders, male and female, some species of fungi can have thousands of sexes. It sounds confusing, but it’s actually helpful — with so many variations, the fungi can mate with nearly every individual of their species they meet.
If you guessed "male lion" then you're wrong. It is a lioness. Very rarely female lions grow manes. How much do you want to bet that it wasn't because one day someone told her "gender is a social construct" and she decided to be male and hump other females (yes, they do that), but because of hormones n stuff. You know, the same kind of biochemistry working in the human body.
What I am interested in, what gives academic research credibility to people?
To me, what adds credence to academic papers and concepts are the following,
Has strong support among papers that are peer reviewed, have been cited plenty of times, comes from respected journals and are less than 5 years old. When I read the papers, I also cannot find any fallacies.
Continuously provides positive results when tested.
What removes credibility for any academic claim is when
Finds support only in preprints and disreputable papers. (case in point Ivermectin)
Is rationalized with conspiracy theories about why the scientific community doesnt accept it. (Accusations of scientists having an agenda)
@palasta: Your arguments arent really helping your position, especially not the mushroom article which kinda speaks against your position... Gender Studies, which is an interdisciplinary field, and among other things, concerns the validity of transgender people, involves genetics, endocrinology, neurology, psychology, sociology and linguistics. All have evidence pointing towards the validity of transmen and women. But that is a scope for another topic.
Seriously, this is off topic and boring culture wars claptrap. My question above is far, far more interesting than this semantic debate.
@palasta: Notice how they specifically use sex to refer to the mushrooms? As for the part you bolded, you ignored the previous 2 words. Traditionally recognized, which refers to how we, at least in the west have traditionally recognized gender.
Why do we change it now? Because quite frankly, the binary model we traditionally used for both gender and sex no longer hold up
Gender: We know more about other cultures, we know about the existance of nonbinary people.
Sex: We know more about other species now and genetics. It is far, far more complex than the X/Y. The fact that intersex people exist also completely defeat the binary model.
Do you understand what a binary is? A binary means there are only 0's and 1's, no numbers outside 1's and 0's, where 0 and 1 ∈ Z.
Scientists study the phenomena that is gender dysphoria. And the studies show positive results. You don't see papers that reject the validity of transgender people. Because the positive results have repeatedly shown that they DO in fact manifest.
So, by changing what you think gender means, it simply means the idea anyone can change their gender is a social construct.
Gender and Sex currently have two different meanings (albeit highly related and intertwined) no matter how hard you try.
Sex and gender (coe.int)
The only way to change this would be for you to go back in time.
I would think both sides would welcome this, as we now have two words to define what we are talking about. You guys no longer have to screech when someone says there are more than 2 genders, and can refer to Sex. Vice versa for the left.
I'd say the only reason you are against this is so that Tucker, Chowder, Shitpirro, etc. can use word games on random people in the street to slip them up for "DESTROYED" clips. Just don't put them up against a real debater, things get bad fast.
THIS is still going on? How about we coin new terms and be done with it. That way we don't have to have semantic arguments and stupid GOP questions during a SC hearing.
Gender: We know more about other cultures, we know about the existance of nonbinary people.
Sex: We know more about other species now and genetics. It is far, far more complex than the X/Y. The fact that intersex people exist also completely defeat the binary model.
Why wouldn't i ignore it? Explain to me what is "science" about "tradition"? It is you who is constantly trying to diviate from the "path of science", talking about "culture", ignoring the real "science". Soo... what did you ignore?
Where we have two traditionally recognized genders, male and female, some species of fungi can have thousands of sexes. It sounds confusing, but it’s actually helpful — with so many variations, the fungi can mate with nearly every individual of their species they meet.
Your SAME source when actually directly tackling this topic at hand, and not lolmushrooms:
Untangling Gender and Sex in Humans | Discover Magazine
“Sex is the thing the doctor declares the day the child is born by looking at the child. Even though they use gender terms, what they mean is ‘this child is a male,’ or ‘this child is a female,’ which are sex terms,” explains Kristina Olson, a developmental psychologist at the University of Washington. “And the child's gender — I usually talk about gender identity — is the way that someone feels about their social category, whether they feel like they're a boy, a girl or something else.”
Skeletal Studies Show Sex, Like Gender, Exists Along a Spectrum | Discover Magazine
An increasing recognition of this complexity by researchers and the public has affirmed that gender sits on a spectrum: People are more and more willing to acknowledge the reality of nonbinary and transgender identities, and to support those who courageously fight for their rights in everything from all-gender bathrooms to anti-gender-discrimination laws. But underlying all of this is the perception that no matter the gender a person identifies as, they have an underlying sex they were born with.
Gender: We know more about other cultures, we know about the existance of nonbinary people.
Sex: We know more about other species now and genetics. It is far, far more complex than the X/Y. The fact that intersex people exist also completely defeat the binary model.
Why wouldn't i ignore it? Explain to me what is "science" about "tradition"? It is you who is constantly trying to diviate from the "path of science", talking about "culture", ignoring the real "science". Soo... what did you ignore?
Where we have two traditionally recognized genders, male and female, some species of fungi can have thousands of sexes. It sounds confusing, but it’s actually helpful — with so many variations, the fungi can mate with nearly every individual of their species they meet.
Your SAME source when actually directly tackling this topic at hand, and not lolmushrooms:
Untangling Gender and Sex in Humans | Discover Magazine
“Sex is the thing the doctor declares the day the child is born by looking at the child. Even though they use gender terms, what they mean is ‘this child is a male,’ or ‘this child is a female,’ which are sex terms,” explains Kristina Olson, a developmental psychologist at the University of Washington. “And the child's gender — I usually talk about gender identity — is the way that someone feels about their social category, whether they feel like they're a boy, a girl or something else.”
Skeletal Studies Show Sex, Like Gender, Exists Along a Spectrum | Discover Magazine
An increasing recognition of this complexity by researchers and the public has affirmed that gender sits on a spectrum: People are more and more willing to acknowledge the reality of nonbinary and transgender identities, and to support those who courageously fight for their rights in everything from all-gender bathrooms to anti-gender-discrimination laws. But underlying all of this is the perception that no matter the gender a person identifies as, they have an underlying sex they were born with.
Oops?
😆
Bro you awake? The 2 guys who came to defend this kid can't even do it right lol.
Bro you awake? The 2 guys who came to defend this kid can't even do it right lol.
Acting so pompous, while an important part of my previous post was ignored. Lolmushrooms? No lol-genderfluid-lions? Yes? No?
To me it's unclear whatelse should be said what hasn't already been written multiple times. Maybe you just didn't get it the first 50 times and need a more extensive thrashing. OK.
Let's start right away with this banger by Maroxad:
Is rationalized with conspiracy theories about why the scientific community doesnt accept it. (Accusations of scientists having an agenda)
The claim is, science doesn't have an agenda. But what has plenty of agenda, my little "political gamer" friends? Right, politics has plenty of agenda. It is mandatory. You will of course oppose that sciencists came to their conclusions independently and in their valiant endavour let the honest and brave politicians know about their new knowledge in order to bring justice to the people. Social justice that is. However, that would be incorrect.
Continue with another outrages claim:
The fact that intersex people exist also completely defeat the binary model.
Definition of intersex:
There is no clear consensus definition of intersex and no clear delineation of which specific conditions qualify an individual as intersex.[39] The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD), the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and many medical journals classify intersex traits or conditions among disorders of sex development (DSD).[40]
A common adjective for people with disorders of sex development (DSD) is "intersex".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
Disorder of sex development. Explain how you pointing at outliers is making a normative obsolete? You're arguing that in order for the "binary model" to be valid no disorders of sexual primary and secondary are to occur. Not once. Every newborn 100% perfect in that respect. That's a little coo-coo if you ask me. Does that apply to all species of mammals? Whatabout other, non-sexual disorders? Are those also new genders? Or even branching new human species' maybe? X-lgbtqetc? Both of you (maxorad/Zariya) ignored the 'gender fluid' lioness.. es.
Another lion picture. Be-autiful children, aren't they?
Mane growth in female lions is due to hormone imbalance caused by malfunctioning glands (tumor). In one article the term gender-fluid is used. As in gender is a social contruct. How does that work in lion society? How do they "socialy construct"?
While we're at it: Sexual Dimorphism.
Sexual dimorphism is the condition where the sexes of the same species exhibit different characteristics, particularly characteristics not directly involved in reproduction.
Examples are the mane of male lions or different body sizes, like it is with Great Apes (e.g. Homo Sapiens). As you might have guessed, as it is with some of those traits, a lot of complex biochemistry is involved. Your explaination of how this is incorporated in this social construction theory of yours?
Let's have look behind the curtains...
Showing how gender is a social construct across various cultures.
Social constructionism is a theory in sociology, social ontology, and communication theory which proposes that there are certain kinds of facts which, rather than depending on reality itself, instead depend on the shared ways of thinking about and representing the world that groups of people develop collaboratively. The theory centers on the notion that meanings are developed in coordination with others rather than separately by each individual.[1]It has often been characterised as neo-Marxian or also as a neo-Kantian theory, in that social constructionism replaces the transcendental subject with a concept of society that is at the same time descriptive and normative.
Mh. Interesting. A... theory...
I'd like someone, anyone, to explain what "replacing the transcendental subject" in this context means. I know exactly what lies behind, but i'd like to know if people actually understand the implications. It's the key to understand why it isn't science that is the driving force here.
It gets better.
One criticism that has been leveled at social constructionism is that it generally ignores the contribution made by natural sciences or misuses them in social sciences.[52] Most notably, social constructionists have been accused of using the term "society" in both a descriptive way and a normative way, thereby failing to provide adequate explanation as to what they mean by society, whether it be an ideological concept or a description of any historically located community.[53]
As a theory, social constructionism rejects the influences of biology on behaviour and culture, or suggests that they are unimportant to achieve an understanding of human behaviour,[9][54] while the scientific consensus is that behaviour is a complex outcome of both biological and cultural influences.[55][56] Social constructionism has been criticized for having an overly narrow focus on society and culture as a causal factor in human behavior, excluding the influence of innate biological tendencies, by psychologists such as Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate[57] as well as by Asian Studies scholar Edward Slingerland in What Science Offers the Humanities.[58]John Tooby and Leda Cosmides used the term "standard social science model" to refer to social theories that they believe fail to take into account the evolved properties of the brain.
Caricature interpretation: You're taking science, violently smash it to the ground from your tactical superiour position, sit on it and ducktape your hiney to its face and declare yourself from thereon its mouthpiece.
I'm not a denier of anthrophogenic climate change. I mention it because i think it is a perfect contrasting example of actual verifiable data scientifically aquired driving politics without murky socialist framework in the background as ulterior motive.
Now, there is the good old retort: "But nobody gets hurt, you know, it's just sementics duuude... bro..."
No it isn't. Or at least i don't get how you get from "interdisplanary field of scienfff" to "oh itsjustsemantics and culture wars claptrap". This is not a widely used tactic to chicken out of a valid scientific debate (being generous here) and belittle anyone engaging in it, is it? I mean besides the typical political supercharging and moral high-grounding.
The evolution of human cognition and language are inseperable. Changing defintion of integral parts in regards of human life (reproduction) and altering perception collectively is not something that should be glossed over.
@zaryia said:
Your SAME source when actually directly tackling this topic at hand, and not lolmushrooms:
Untangling Gender and Sex in Humans | Discover Magazine
“...feels...”
Your "science" boils down to "lolwhateva idun care" in a stereoptypical valley girl accent.
Further down it reads:
She also highlights that the science is still far behind many people's lived experiences. If the science eventually catches up, Richardson notes there will be an upside for all. “It will allow us to appreciate the incredible diversity to better capture and understand our own human nature,” she says. “When we exclude the diversity among and within sexes and genders, we create a science that is unjust.”
The science is faaar behind and eventually catches up!? Far behind and catching up to... feels? And then straight to political moral high grounding. Some academic credibility right there. A very... very common theme. It's almost like a prerequisite.
....
(Accusations of scientists having an agenda)
Evidently, it is a political theory that is being followed and advocated for, my political gamer flamer friends.
The irony, a political program is not a negative by default. But implying there is no such thing, going into defense mode, even using justified accussations to broadly discredit any opposing voices, is an attempt to obscure/deceive. This is a complementing proof how shallow and scientifically unsound your little political philosophy is - and that's all what it is. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need of continued denial. Not only that, but glamorizing it to be the one and only scientific truth.
The way i see it, you have two options. Either you're what you deny. Or you're just oblivious indoctrinated chaps. Take your pick.
Your SAME source when actually directly tackling this topic at hand, and not lolmushrooms:
Untangling Gender and Sex in Humans | Discover Magazine
“...feels...”
Your "science" boils down to
That's YOUR source! 🤣 Try looking at the URL and banner.
It's not my fault YOUR source is citing expert scientists to disagree with your nonsensical arm-chair theory. You originally linked Discover Magazine when using them earlier for a red-herring on mushrooms. I merely linked where they actually talk about human gender and sex lol.
You got caught. Relax. Do better research next time on your source when using a red-herring.
@palasta said:
She also highlights that the science is still far behind many people's lived experiences. If the science eventually catches up, Richardson notes there will be an upside for all. “It will allow us to appreciate the incredible diversity to better capture and understand our own human nature,” she says. “When we exclude the diversity among and within sexes and genders, we create a science that is unjust.”
The science is faaar behind and eventually catches up!? Far behind and catching up to... feels? And then straight to political moral high grounding. Some academic credibility right there. A very... very common theme. It's almost like a prerequisite.
So you disagree with your own source? Funny how that worked out.
Anyway, nice opinions, but you skipped most of your own source's statements on human gender vs sex differences. The two articles are far more than that one paragraph. Time to refute the actual entirety of both articles, with citation this time preferably.
P.S. Discover Magazine wouldn't be my primary source to show you gender and sex are different. There are better studies and reports on that. I'm mostly using them to laugh at your mushroom blunder.
@palasta said:
(Accusations of scientists having an agenda)
Politics. Smh.
Agreed. Politics has made the conservatives in this thread disagree with accepted definitions and accepted science. The same people who thought the vaccine doesn't work and climate change is fake. Facts do not care about your feelings.
You know it's bad when cons can't even agree with simple dictionaries:
Gender Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and genderis typically prescribed, withsexas the preferred term for biological forms, andgenderlimited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits.
Sex Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
: the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and femalesDoctors can alter the physical characteristics of sex, but bodily sex does not determine gender.
Gender Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
:the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
Sadly this isn't the first time. I've had far right clowns tell me dictionaries are now wrong on "vaccine" and "virus" as well.
@palasta: Umm... do you know what a theory is in terms of academia? That REALLY is not helping your argument one bit.
Yes, there are massive gaps in our understanding in scientific concepts though. But scienec is still our BEST understanding. And I would rather be less wrong, than more wrong. Which these science denying right wing politicians are doing.
Steven Crowder is a joke, don't cite him in support of anything if you want to prove any sort of point.
You don't have to understand something to accept it. If you don't like things you don't understand, you might want to reassess your worldviews because you might be an intolerant person.
Trying to disprove it with examples of mushrooms and lions-lionesses is getting down to minutiae which is lame.
Get over it, move on, follow the golden rule. They're not hurting anyone outside of maybe being a little loud about their cause.
We all have bigger problems to worry and deal with, don't pretend this matters that much to you.
@LJS9502_basic said:
THIS is still going on? How about we coin new terms and be done with it. That way we don't have to have semantic arguments and stupid GOP questions during a SC hearing.
Yeah I was surprised to see this thread still active. I guess people sure don't like what they don't understand.
Trying to disprove it with examples of mushrooms and lions-lionesses is getting down to minutiae which is lame.
Yup those are both red-herrings, and don't have anything to do with the debate on human gender and sex semantic differences. It was downright bizarre when he started typing those red-herrings, since the very source he used disagreed with him when it came to the actual discussion.
We have seen posters here do this before. Posting a NASA article to disprove climate change via red-herring, even though the article didn't support that claim and NASA themselves couldn't be in more of a disagreement of that claim. Same for CDC once, someone linking their death rate page to say how Covid is a nothing burger even though the same page said the opposite directly and to get vaccinated.
I don't know how people can be that bad at debating lol.
Trying to disprove it with examples of mushrooms and lions-lionesses is getting down to minutiae which is lame.
Yup those are both red-herrings, and don't have anything to do with the debate on human gender and sex semantic differences. It was downright bizarre when he started typing those red-herrings, since the very source he used disagreed with him when it came to the actual discussion.
We have seen posters here do this before. Posting a NASA article to disprove climate change via red-herring, even though the article didn't support that claim and NASA couldn't be in more of a disagreement of that claim. Same for CDC once.
I don't know how people can be that bad at debating lol.
I just don't know why they care so much about it lol. Are they arguing for argument's sake, or are they just that intolerant?
I mean to read scientific articles that don't support their argument, and to then misquote or paraphrase those articles into falsely supporting their argument....that's a bit of work right there.
Trying to disprove it with examples of mushrooms and lions-lionesses is getting down to minutiae which is lame.
Yup those are both red-herrings, and don't have anything to do with the debate on human gender and sex semantic differences. It was downright bizarre when he started typing those red-herrings, since the very source he used disagreed with him when it came to the actual discussion.
We have seen posters here do this before. Posting a NASA article to disprove climate change via red-herring, even though the article didn't support that claim and NASA couldn't be in more of a disagreement of that claim. Same for CDC once.
I don't know how people can be that bad at debating lol.
I just don't know why they care so much about it lol. Are they arguing for argument's sake, or are they just that intolerant?
I mean to read scientific articles that don't support their argument, and to then misquote or paraphrase those articles into falsely supporting their argument....that's a bit of work right there.
Probably because the left went full batshit insane. They can no longer define a women, put trans athletes in female sports and started sharing bathrooms. It is an absolute clown show. If we were arguing about semantics That's one thing but the left wants to redefine terms and pass policy to go with it.
Trying to disprove it with examples of mushrooms and lions-lionesses is getting down to minutiae which is lame.
Yup those are both red-herrings, and don't have anything to do with the debate on human gender and sex semantic differences. It was downright bizarre when he started typing those red-herrings, since the very source he used disagreed with him when it came to the actual discussion.
We have seen posters here do this before. Posting a NASA article to disprove climate change via red-herring, even though the article didn't support that claim and NASA couldn't be in more of a disagreement of that claim. Same for CDC once.
I don't know how people can be that bad at debating lol.
I just don't know why they care so much about it lol. Are they arguing for argument's sake, or are they just that intolerant?
I mean to read scientific articles that don't support their argument, and to then misquote or paraphrase those articles into falsely supporting their argument....that's a bit of work right there.
Really? And what if Trump was president right now and said he was going to create his own ministry of truth to combat disinformation... would you still want it?
I just don't know why they care so much about it lol. Are they arguing for argument's sake, or are they just that intolerant?
I mean to read scientific articles that don't support their argument, and to then misquote or paraphrase those articles into falsely supporting their argument....that's a bit of work right there.
Really? And what if Trump was president right now and said he was going to create his own ministry of truth to combat disinformation... would you still want it?
What does that have to do with anything he said?
@mrbojangles25 said:
I just don't know why they care so much about it lol. Are they arguing for argument's sake, or are they just that intolerant?
I mean to read scientific articles that don't support their argument, and to then misquote or paraphrase those articles into falsely supporting their argument....that's a bit of work right there.
I think it is mostly just rooted in tribalism.
As for their arguments, I think what they are doing is just googling somethign that looks to agree with them, cherrypick the line that seems to agree with them while ignoring the rest of the article.
These transgender deniers are just as bad as the creationists were 10 years ago. Both peddling nonsense, both antiscience, both motivated by politics rather than curiousity and both trying to refute what the science actually says with ridicilous levels of cherrypicking, often citing sources flat out disagreed with them, while pretending they agree.
If they were citing sources that disagreed with them, while also acknowledging as such, that would have been massive respect, as it would be clear they are more interested in understanding a phenomenon than to push a narrative. But that is the issue, they don't, they cite it, cherrypick it while ignoring 90% of hte page. Achieving nothing but making their argument for us and demonstrating their illiteracy.
Trying to disprove it with examples of mushrooms and lions-lionesses is getting down to minutiae which is lame.
Yup those are both red-herrings, and don't have anything to do with the debate on human gender and sex semantic differences. It was downright bizarre when he started typing those red-herrings, since the very source he used disagreed with him when it came to the actual discussion.
We have seen posters here do this before. Posting a NASA article to disprove climate change via red-herring, even though the article didn't support that claim and NASA couldn't be in more of a disagreement of that claim. Same for CDC once.
I don't know how people can be that bad at debating lol.
I just don't know why they care so much about it lol. Are they arguing for argument's sake, or are they just that intolerant?
I mean to read scientific articles that don't support their argument, and to then misquote or paraphrase those articles into falsely supporting their argument....that's a bit of work right there.
Really? And what if Trump was president right now and said he was going to create his own ministry of truth to combat disinformation... would you still want it?
Wrong thread, the one you're looking for is this way.
I think the difference in epistemology in various posters has been made abundantly clear in this thread.
The unscientific, will usually handwave ideas they find ridicilous without giving it any consideration. As we continue to see with Steven Crowder. The more curious individuals might entertain ideas, not necessarily accept them at first, but give them the benefit of doubt/debate. As we saw with the academics.
The fact that curiousity was written off as a BAD thing by the TC and Crowder is extremely telling, of the anti-intellectualism that is plaguing political discourse.
Unfortunately, lazily writing off ideas like that can have very bad consequences, as Napoleon got to deal with.
There is but a step from the sublime to the ridiculous. Go, sir, gallop; ask me for anything but time.
You would make a ship sail against the winds and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I have no time for such nonsense.
Needless to say, he paid his price steeply for his mistake.
I used to be skeptical of the whole Environmental Justice thing, but I never rejected it outright. I was just waiting for more evidence before I jumped to a positive statement or negative conclusion. Familiar enough with the engineering and scientific arguments, but lacking enough on the socio-legal side to form a full conclusion.
Nowadays though, I would argue that environmental justice is very clearly a thing that needs to be addressed.
Nowadays though, I would argue that environmental justice is very clearly a thing that needs to be addressed.
X face consequences of their pollution?
Pollution affects certain communities disproportionally
Especially those of Latino and African communities
Various Zoning laws, including Redlining, has caused these communities often to be trapped into living in places where air and ground pollution is reallly high, most damningly, lead.
These people, while bearing the brunt of the environmental damage, are also the ones who are the least likely to cause the problem.
Corporate infrastructure will often build infrasture bypassing affluent communities, those with voting power, instead tunnel through entire swathes of historic neighbourhoods with marginalized populations. Why, because those marginalized populations have no way to fight back. As a result, these people live in toxic zones, emphasizing profits over people. Often also having to put up with noise pollution coming from cars and trucks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Alley
And that is just the US alone, for a more global look,
The poorest, and lowest polluting countries are those hit hardest by climate change, by far.
Many of which will become uninhabitable.
These countries are also treated as toxic landfills for us.
With growing nationalist sentiments, I wouldnt be surprised if many refugees would be barred access to more affluent countries, the ones that caused this mess in the first place. Essentially we are condemning people to die simply because of where they were born.
Countries (looking at you Germany) Will continue buying Russian energy, which has had obvious consequences for Ukraine. All for some short term gain. Because transitioning is expensive.
I am cutting out a lot but I think you get the idea.
Log in to comment