Steerzing in a New Direction...

[fafnir]

In fact, I'd say it was worse than "It is effectively grandparents robbing their grandchildren." For their grandchildren are put in a position where they will rob their own grandchildren in turn until the system someday collapses.

[Steersman]

:roll: When it comes to administering those drugs to horses and the like then I'll happily defer to your superior knowledge in that department. But it "eludes me" why you would apparently think that that has much if any relevance to their applications to the treatment of covid. Entirely different processes and effects involved.

Identify the differences in processes and effects.

Think I've already done so - in some detail - in an oldish comment or even two to you. And likewise in more recent comment to Service Dog; you might note that I've more or less conceded - on the basis of an NCBI article - that ivermectin does have some anti-viral effects.

However, those look to be rather minimal, although if one is on death's doorstep then it might qualify as a hail mary pass. Or it might boost a person's immune response by - maybe - 5% to 10%, sufficient to pull them back from it:

Ivermectin does, in fact, have some anti-viral effects. But those come from the fact that its target is "not a viral component, but a host protein important in intracellular transport". Entirely different chemistry from the Pfizer & Merck anti-virals under development.

But that kinda makes ivermectin somewhat toxic at the "half maximal inhibitory concentration" (IC50) level, and not particularly effective at the "highest regulatory approved dose of ivermectin" which is at least a thirtieth to a fiftieth of that IC50 concentration:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172803/

Sure there may be, as the NCBI article suggests, some benefit in enhancing a person's immune system at those much lower levels. As it says, it may be "key to enabling the body's immune system to begin to mount the full antiviral response before the infection takes control." And that benefit may well contribute to some of the differences in the Ivmmeta studies - even apart from the effects of possible worm infections.

But those benefits look to be marginal at best - entirely consistent with the concentration levels of recommended doses - and likely only to manifest themselves when the patient is more or less on death's doorstep.

Further, you might note the tailend of that NCBI document which states:

Ivermectin's key direct target in mammalian cells is a not a viral component, but a host protein important in intracellular transport (Yang et al., 2020); the fact that it is a host-directed agent (HDA) is almost certainly the basis of its broad-spectrum activity against a number of different RNA viruses in vitro (Tay et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2020). The way a HDA can reduce viral load is by inhibiting a key cellular process that the virus hijacks to enhance infection by suppressing the host antiviral response. Reducing viral load by even a modest amount by using a HDA at low dose early in infection can be the key to enabling the body's immune system to begin to mount the full antiviral response before the infection takes control.

Note the "host-directed agent"; ivermectin works by screwing with "key cellular processes" which is why it tends to be toxic at anything above the recommended dosages which are some 30 to 50 times less than what is required to really "kill" virus particles. Which that NCBI article goes into some detail on.

Note too this article that gives some explanations of the different mechanisms of operation with the anti-virals under development from Pfizer and Merck versus ivermectin:

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/scich ... vermectin/

And it more or less underlines and amplifies the NCBI article; note the "prevent a host protein from importing viral proteins into the nucleus", but preventing that host protein from doing that apparently interferes with other essential cell processes:

Several mechanisms have been proposed for how ivermectin limits coronavirus replication in cells in the lab, but protease inhibition, as is claimed in social media posts, is not generally one of them.

More often, scientists — including the Australians who first published on the drug — cite the drug’s potential ability to prevent a host protein from importing viral proteins into the nucleus, or, more rarely, to interfere with SARS-CoV-2’s ability to use its spike protein to enter human cells.

But studies have also shown that the concentration of ivermectin that inhibits the coronavirus in a lab is much higher than that used in humans, making it unlikely that the drug, if it offers any benefit to COVID-19 patients, works as an antiviral. That’s in sharp contrast to the Merck and Pfizer drugs.

Those are the quite significant differences between ivermectin and other anti-virals, the latter looking to be far more effective than the former against covid. For quite plausible and well-defined reasons.

When is Rx for dex indicated in E. caballus vs. in H. sapiens?

You mean the corticosteroid? Haven't got a clue.

But how is that relevant to the question of how ivermectin might work as a cure or immune-system boost in the cases of covid? Your horses are suffering from covid? :think:

[Service Dog]

Don't think you have a clue about science - particularly biology, and seem too pigheaded to even try learning something about either.

HOW SCIENCE WORKS:

Emails Expose Fauci, Collins Collusion To 'Smear' Anti-Lockdown Scientists

MONDAY, DEC 20, 2021 - 04:38 AM
Authored by Phillip Magness via The American Institute for Economic Research,

From October 2-4, 2020, the American Institute for Economic Research hosted a small conference for scientists to discuss the Covid-19 lockdowns. Just four days later, Dr. Francis Collins, the retiring Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), would call the three of the scientists in attendance “fringe epidemiologists,” in a directive he sent to Anthony Fauci and other senior staff of his agency.


They were “fringe epidemiologists” because they had the temerity to ask whether the lockdowns of 2020 were effective. Those three, Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford were simply doing what any good scientist would do: They were following the evidence.

They wrote the Great Barrington Declaration [GBD] as they parted company at AIER, posting it for all to see.

So why was Dr. Collins so intent on impugning these three scientists? It’s hard to know exactly, mostly because any scientist worth his salt should have been happy to see further research being done. That is, after all, how ignorance is replaced by knowledge. But Collins was clearly in no mood to replace his own possible ignorance with any kind of knowledge. He was pretty sure he knew all he had to know; and this is one of the most dangerous positions a scientist can take.

In an email obtained by AIER through a Freedom of Information Act request, Collins told Anthony Fauci, CCing Lawrence Tabak, Deputy Ethics Counselor at NIH, that he wanted “a quick and devastating published take down” of the Great Barrington Declaration’s premises.



One wonders why he would CC the Deputy Ethics Counselor on this, given the trouble these people seem to have with ethics, but here they were in October of 2020. Fauci wrote that same night to let Collins know that there was already a devastating take down of the Great Barrington Declaration…in that august scientific publication Wired.

“Francis,” Fauci wrote, “I am pasting in below a piece from Wired that debunks [the GBD].” There, science reporter Matt Reynolds told us there was no “scientific divide” over herd immunity, but that’s not the funny part. The funny part came when Reynolds declared quite confidently that we no longer had anything to worry about, as lockdowns were – as of October 2020 – a thing of the past.

“The problem [with the GBD] is that we aren’t in lockdown,” Reynolds explained. “t’s hard to find people who are advocating for a return to the lockdown we saw in March. When the Great Barrington Declaration authors declare their opposition to lockdowns, they are quite literally arguing with the past.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/ema ... scientists

[Steersman]

Society should instead regard prostitutes as fallen beings performing a morally damaging trade.

How is that not a case of "moralizing"? How can you possibly say something is "morally damaging" unless you have a set of principles that constitutes a system of morality?

Or maybe you don't understand what morality is and what moralizing consists of?

I'm saying that our society needs to have a publicly enforced, stable morality that protects its foundations to survive.

Then you're moralizing. If the foo shits ...

<snip>

Which "traditional definition"? Do you not realize - or want to face - that the standard definitions for the sexes - which happen to be the biological definitions - stipulate that to have a sex is to be able to produce sperm or ova, to make them available for the biological process of reproduction?

No, we aren't going there.

:lol:

Too "distressing" for you? :think: :roll:

[Steersman]

Don't think you have a clue about science - particularly biology, and seem too pigheaded to even try learning something about either.

HOW SCIENCE WORKS:

Emails Expose Fauci, Collins Collusion To 'Smear' Anti-Lockdown Scientists

MONDAY, DEC 20, 2021 - 04:38 AM
Authored by Phillip Magness via The American Institute for Economic Research,

From October 2-4, 2020, the American Institute for Economic Research hosted a small conference for scientists to discuss the Covid-19 lockdowns. Just four days later, Dr. Francis Collins, the retiring Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), would call the three of the scientists in attendance “fringe epidemiologists,” in a directive he sent to Anthony Fauci and other senior staff of his agency.

<snip>

They were “fringe epidemiologists” because they had the temerity to ask whether the lockdowns of 2020 were effective. Those three, Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford were simply doing what any good scientist would do: They were following the evidence.

:roll:

"lockdowns" versus the definition for "herd immunity" - methinks there's a difference there. One that seems to escape you ...

Herd immunity (also called herd effect, community immunity, population immunity, or mass immunity) is a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that can occur with some diseases when a sufficient percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through previous infections or vaccination,[1] thereby reducing the likelihood of infection for individuals who lack immunity.[2][3][4]

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

[fafnir]

Society should instead regard prostitutes as fallen beings performing a morally damaging trade.

How is that not a case of "moralizing"? How can you possibly say something is "morally damaging" unless you have a set of principles that constitutes a system of morality?

Or maybe you don't understand what morality is and what moralizing consists of?

I'm saying that our society needs to have a publicly enforced, stable morality that protects its foundations to survive.

Then you're moralizing. If the foo shits ...

Do you have any intention of addressing my post...? I'm not interested in having yet another debate with you on the definition of a word when I have explained at length what I mean. I enjoy articulating my thoughts to get them straight in my head, but I think I'm done now on this topic unless you actually have something to say. Otherwise, go argue with a lexicographer.

<snip>

Which "traditional definition"? Do you not realize - or want to face - that the standard definitions for the sexes - which happen to be the biological definitions - stipulate that to have a sex is to be able to produce sperm or ova, to make them available for the biological process of reproduction?

No, we aren't going there.

:lol:

Too "distressing" for you? :think: :roll:
[/quote]
Yes, I'm hugely emotionally invested in your definition of sex.

[fafnir]

Damn you edit button. Even what's left of the JREF have an edit button.

[Bhurzum]

Which "traditional definition"? Do you not realize - or want to face - that the standard definitions for the sexes - which happen to be the biological definitions - stipulate that to have a sex is to be able to produce sperm or ova, to make them available for the biological process of reproduction?

No, we aren't going there.

https://c.tenor.com/qk6SO40YZzgAAAAM/su ... s-look.gif

[Bhurzum]

(Don't mind me, I'm just fanning the flames :P )

[Steersman]

<snip>

Then you're moralizing. If the foo shits ...

Do you have any intention of addressing my post...? I'm not interested in having yet another debate with you on the definition of a word when I have explained at length what I mean. I enjoy articulating my thoughts to get them straight in my head ...

Which word?

And I think your thoughts are more like a dog's breakfast than not, and that you need to do a bit more thinking. Defining your terms at the outset tends to be a good start ....

<snip>

Too "distressing" for you? :think: :roll:

Yes, I'm hugely emotionally invested in your definition of sex.

Except it's not just my definitions of sex, is it? Something you seem rather desperate to avoid facing.

See:

Standard dictionary definitions, common to OED, Merriam-Webster, Lexico, etc, etc:

Oxford_Definitions_SexCategoryMaleFemale1A.jpg

(151.12 KiB) Downloaded 153 times

Biological definitions going back some 50 years at least, endorsed by Paul Griffiths, co-author of Genetics & Philosophy:

MolecularReproduction_Lehtonen_Parker_DefinitionProduces_2A.jpg

(35.66 KiB) Downloaded 152 times

TheoreticalBiology_Parker_Baker_Smith_EvolutionOfGameteDimorphism_1A.jpg

(213.54 KiB) Downloaded 153 times

Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from defining each sex by the ability to do one thing: to make eggs or to make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can’t do either. ....

Many people assume that if there are only two sexes, that means everyone must fall into one of them. But the biological definition of sex doesn’t imply that at all. As well as simultaneous hermaphrodites, which are both male and female, sequential hermaphrodites are first one sex and then the other. There are also individual organisms that are neither male nor female. The biological definition of sex is not based on an essential quality that every organism is born with, but on two distinct strategies that organisms use to propagate their genes.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of ... -diversity

[Steersman]

(Don't mind me, I'm just fanning the flames :P )

:lol: :clap: ;)

Though I hope you checked out the Times article that Rowling had linked to. Particularly as it's happening in your bailiwick:

Police have been criticised for saying they will record rapes by offenders with male genitalia as being committed by a woman if the attacker “identifies as a female”.

Police Scotland said that they would log rapes as being carried out by a woman if the accused person insists, even if they have not legally changed gender.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/absu ... -s6576v825

What comes from not drawing a line in the sand when necessary. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil ...." - moralistically speaking, at least ... ;-)

[fafnir]

Which word?

And I think your thoughts are more like a dog's breakfast than not, and that you need to do a bit more thinking. Defining your terms at the outset tends to be a good start ....
fafnir wrote: ↑

If I got into a debate on defining words no good would come out of it. The only way your endless conversation about the definition of sex ever briefly halts is when the person you are arguing with loses the will.

Definitions of words do not matter so long as we understand each other. I know what you mean by sex. That I think you treat the definition like some kind of autistic fetish is no barrier to me understanding you. In as much as you do it deliberately to derail arguments it's all very clever but it does get dull.

[Lsuoma]

Which "traditional definition"? Do you not realize - or want to face - that the standard definitions for the sexes - which happen to be the biological definitions - stipulate that to have a sex is to be able to produce sperm or ova, to make them available for the biological process of reproduction?

No, we aren't going there.

https://c.tenor.com/qk6SO40YZzgAAAAM/su ... s-look.gif

As it happens, adult human females don't produce ova, IIRC: they present them.

[Service Dog]

"lockdowns" versus the definition for "herd immunity" - methinks there's a difference there. One that seems to escape you ...

Ok.

HOW SCIENCE WORKS:

[Steersman]

Which word?

And I think your thoughts are more like a dog's breakfast than not, and that you need to do a bit more thinking. Defining your terms at the outset tends to be a good start ....

If I got into a debate on defining words no good would come out of it. ....

In your opinion .... You just don't want to accept the standard definitions.

Definitions of words do not matter so long as we understand each other.

What absolutely unmitigated horse shit. It's standard procedure in most sciences and most fields of mathematics to explicitly define one's terms before one wishes to consider various consequences.

That the law has failed to do that, particularly in the context of sex and gender, is the proximate cause of no end of problems. Which some are seeking to rectify.

I know what you mean by sex.

I rather doubt it. If you did then you could say whether you accept them or not.

In as much as you do it deliberately to derail arguments it's all very clever but it does get dull.

What a joke. You might just as well "play the race card":

RaceCard.jpg

(37.71 KiB) Downloaded 144 times

[Steersman]

"lockdowns" versus the definition for "herd immunity" - methinks there's a difference there. One that seems to escape you ...

Ok.

HOW SCIENCE WORKS:

https://youtu.be/3JbqncSBxU0

:roll:

[Bhurzum]

As it happens, adult human females don't produce ova, IIRC: they present them.

You say tomato, I say non-binary, pan sexual, gender juggling man-girl with huge hairy she-nuts and an eight inch femicock.

What's your point?

/SniggeringIntensifies

[Steersman]

Which "traditional definition"? Do you not realize - or want to face - that the standard definitions for the sexes - which happen to be the biological definitions - stipulate that to have a sex is to be able to produce sperm or ova, to make them available for the biological process of reproduction?

No, we aren't going there.

https://c.tenor.com/qk6SO40YZzgAAAAM/su ... s-look.gif

As it happens, adult human females don't produce ova, IIRC: they present them.

Gametogenesis has to be one of the more complex and intricate biological processes, maybe more so in females than in males:

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

But generally, while human females are born with a million or so "primary oocytes", they don't fully mature into ova that can be fertilized until after the onset of puberty:

The succeeding phase of ootidogenesis occurs when the primary oocyte develops into an ootid. This is achieved by the process of meiosis. In fact, a primary oocyte is, by its biological definition, a cell whose primary function is to divide by the process of meiosis.[18]

However, although this process begins at prenatal age, it stops at prophase I. In late fetal life, all oocytes, still primary oocytes, have halted at this stage of development, called the dictyate. After menarche, these cells then continue to develop, although only a few do so every menstrual cycle.

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

And of course, if an "adult human female" - aka, "woman" ;-) - has her ovaries removed then she can no longer do so. Which means she no longer qualifies as a female. And likewise with transwomen who have their nuts removed - they no longer qualify as males.

Which is basically the same with prepubescent "boys" and "girls" - we're born sexless and generally don't acquire a sex until puberty.

Although some of us - XXers and XYers, and other variations - never do so and remain sexless for the rest of their lives.

[Bhurzum]

Which "traditional definition"? Do you not realize - or want to face - that the standard definitions for the sexes - which happen to be the biological definitions - stipulate that to have a sex is to be able to produce sperm or ova, to make them available for the biological process of reproduction?

No, we aren't going there.

https://c.tenor.com/qk6SO40YZzgAAAAM/su ... s-look.gif

As it happens, adult human females don't produce ova, IIRC: they present them.

Gametogenesis has to be one of the more complex and intricate biological processes, maybe more so in females than in males:

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

But generally, while human females are born with a million or so "primary oocytes", they don't fully mature into ova that can be fertilized until after the onset of puberty:

The succeeding phase of ootidogenesis occurs when the primary oocyte develops into an ootid. This is achieved by the process of meiosis. In fact, a primary oocyte is, by its biological definition, a cell whose primary function is to divide by the process of meiosis.[18]

However, although this process begins at prenatal age, it stops at prophase I. In late fetal life, all oocytes, still primary oocytes, have halted at this stage of development, called the dictyate. After menarche, these cells then continue to develop, although only a few do so every menstrual cycle.

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

And of course, if an "adult human female" - aka, "woman" ;-) - has her ovaries removed then she can no longer do so. Which means she no longer qualifies as a female. And likewise with transwomen who have their nuts removed - they no longer qualify as males.

Which is basically the same with prepubescent "boys" and "girls" - we're born sexless and generally don't acquire a sex until puberty.

Although some of us - XXers and XYers, and other variations - never do so and remain sexless for the rest of their lives.

Question: If an old lady, say 70 years old or so, fingers the bum of an 8 year old boy, did a sex crime take place?

Asking purely to be a cunt and further muddy the waters!

[Steersman]

<snip>

And of course, if an "adult human female" - aka, "woman" ;-) - has her ovaries removed then she can no longer do so. Which means she no longer qualifies as a female. And likewise with transwomen who have their nuts removed - they no longer qualify as males.

Which is basically the same with prepubescent "boys" and "girls" - we're born sexless and generally don't acquire a sex until puberty.

Although some of us - XXers and XYers, and other variations - never do so and remain sexless for the rest of their lives.

Question: If an old lady, say 70 years old or so, fingers the bum of an 8 year old boy, did a sex crime take place?

:-) Both being sexless, how could a sex crime have been committed? ;-)

Interesting how various laws - and definitions - "intersect" and their often amusing consequences. See the case with the farming of rats in French Indochina:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_ ... r_examples

Asking purely to be a cunt and further muddy the waters!

:-) Curious how sex is often a "fertile" - so to speak - field of humour. Though often rather illuminating.

Reminds me of having seen a Monty Python skit with John Cleese - maybe 50 years ago :shock: - where he played a headmaster in a boys' school and demonstrated sex to the students with his wife. "You in the back - pay attention; there will be a test!" :-)

[Bhurzum]

See the case with the farming of rats in French Indochina:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_ ... r_examples

Christ almighty, what did they think would happen?

[Service Dog]

Interesting how various laws - and definitions - "intersect" and their often amusing consequences. See the case with the farming of rats in French Indochina:

Nice work, Steers.

Keep reading a just little further down your Wikipedia link... to the "Current Examples" section...

HOW SCIENCE WORKS:

Paying medical professionals and reimbursing insured patients for treatment but not prevention encourages medical conditions to be ignored until treatment is required.[30] Moreover, paying only for treatment effectively discourages prevention (which would reduce the demand for future treatments and would also improve quality of life for the patient). Payment for treatment also generates a perverse incentive for unnecessary treatments that could be harmful—for example, in the form of side effects of drugs and surgery. These side effects themselves can then trigger a demand for further treatments.

Under the American Medicare program, doctors are reimbursed at a higher rate if they administer more expensive medications to treat a condition. This creates an incentive for the physician to prescribe a more expensive drug when a less expensive one might do.[31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_ ... t_examples

[Steersman]

Interesting how various laws - and definitions - "intersect" and their often amusing consequences. See the case with the farming of rats in French Indochina:

Nice work, Steers.

Keep reading a just little further down your Wikipedia link... to the "Current Examples" section...

"Thank you, thank you ver' much ... I'd also like thank my many co-editors at Wikipedia ..." ;-)

HOW SCIENCE WORKS:

Paying medical professionals and reimbursing insured patients for treatment but not prevention encourages medical conditions to be ignored until treatment is required. ....

Under the American Medicare program, doctors are reimbursed at a higher rate if they administer more expensive medications to treat a condition. This creates an incentive for the physician to prescribe a more expensive drug when a less expensive one might do.[31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_ ... t_examples

Methinks that's less how science itself works than how the medical system works, how it "intersects" with the "grim meat-hook realities" - as John D. MacDonald once put it - of the economic system in which science and medicine - and many other professions are forced to exist and to contend with.

Many others have pointed to the same sorts of pathologies in medicine, journalism, academia, and even science itself. See:

Norman looked at us sympathetically. “I don’t know how else to tell you this but bluntly,” he said. “There are still many good individuals involved in medicine, but the American medical system is profoundly broken. When you look at the rate of medical error—it’s now the third leading cause of death in the U.S.—the overmedication, creation of addiction, the quick-fix mentality, not funding the poor, quotas to admit from ERs, needless operations, the monetization of illness vs. health, the monetization of side effects, a peer review system run by journals paid for by Big Pharma, the destruction of the health of doctors and nurses themselves by administrators, who demand that they rush through 10-minute patient visits, when so often an hour or more is required, and which means that in order to be ‘successful,’ doctors must overlook complexity rather than search for it. ...."

If the medical industry was comprehensively broken, as Norman said, and the media was irrevocably broken, as we knew it was ... Was everything in America broken? Was education broken? Housing? Farming? Cities? Was religion broken?

Everything is broken. ....

If, on the other hand, the idea of mass brokenness seems both excruciatingly correct and also paralyzing, come sit with me. Being on a ship nearly 4 million square miles in area along with 330 million other people and realizing the entire hull is pockmarked with holes is terrifying.

But being afraid to face this reality won’t make it less true. And this is the reality. ....

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news ... -is-broken

I think the author - Alana Newhouse - is maybe a little bit hyperbolic, that her "portrait of America" - and of the West in general - is maybe a little overdrawn but not by much.

Many others have said pretty much the same about Academia:

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news ... -salvation

https://michaelrobillard.substack.com/p ... w-academia

And even of science:



Kind of the nature of the beast - there is probably no behaviour pattern of humans, and of most other species, that doesn't have its pathological manifestations. With the possible exceptions of motherhood and apple pie - and I'm rather skeptical of at least the former ... ;-)

No doubt there are - as "Norman" suggested - "many good individuals" and sound principles in all of those fields. But "we" can't very well leave Dracula in charge of the bloodbank - so to speak - and not expect that there will be a great many serious and very problematic consequences. Price of freedom, eternal vigilance and all that ... :-)

[Steersman]

See the case with the farming of rats in French Indochina:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_ ... r_examples

Christ almighty, what did they think would happen?

:-) Methinks that that's with the benefit of hindsight and/or of a less rosy and naive view of human nature than what the authors of that policy had.

But that's also in the nature of the beast - we simply can't see far enough ahead to see the consequences of all of our choices and policies. Bit of a crap-shoot from square one.

[Service Dog]

I recall a similar story about Red Indians collecting bounties for the scalps of Runaway Slaves.

The scalp had-to include two ears, to prevent a single afro being cut into several pieces/ to collect several bounties.

But enterprising injuns learned to bisect the scalps-- to make 2 half-ros, each half-scalp retaining half-a-left & half-a-right ear. 2 bounties.

[Service Dog]

"...and that is how we bought the Cadillac." --my dear, departed great grandfather: Shiny Horse.

[MarcusAu]

Reminds me of having seen a Monty Python skit with John Cleese - maybe 50 years ago :shock: - where he played a headmaster in a boys' school and demonstrated sex to the students with his wife. "You in the back - pay attention; there will be a test!"

Most prescient of you. Monty Pythons 'Meaning of Life' film cam out in 1983.

[Steersman]

Reminds me of having seen a Monty Python skit with John Cleese - maybe 50 years ago :shock: - where he played a headmaster in a boys' school and demonstrated sex to the students with his wife. "You in the back - pay attention; there will be a test!"

Most prescient of you. Monty Pythons 'Meaning of Life' film cam out in 1983.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDoQFcQEpOQ

Can't remember what I had for breakfast this morning but a scene or two from that movie is crystal clear. :-)

Though probably didn't see it in a theatre when it came out, probably somewhat later on TV.

But thanks for the link. Thought it might have been on their TV program but clearly better production values than that.

[fafnir]

I rather doubt it. If you did then you could say whether you accept them or not.

What is this, The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? We discussed this topic at length. I'm not having the same discussion with you in every post just because you're obsessed with it.

[fafnir]

To once again answer the question about your definition, Steersman. Definitions are neither right nor wrong, neither acceptable nor non-acceptable in any absolute sense. Your definition is fine, it's just not talking about the thing that I am talking about, or what your average man in the street is talking about, by "man" and "woman". The job of a definition is to document what people mean not, unless we are in some sub-1984 Bearnaisian thought control project, to change what people mean when they use a word.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

New York State legislature considering a bill that would allow the guv to detain any unjabbed individual with the stroke of a pen:

Upon determining by clear and convincing evidence that the health of others is or may be endangered by a case, contact or carrier, or suspected case, contact or carrier of a contagious disease that, in the opinion of the governor, after consultation with the commissioner, may pose an imminent and significant threat to the public health resulting in severe morbidity or high mortality, the governor of his or her delegee including, but not limited to the commissioner or heads of local health departments, may order the removal and/or detention of such a person or of a group of such persons by issuing a single order, identifying such persons either by name or by a reasonably specific description of the individuals or group being detained. Such person or group of persons shall be detained by a medical facility or other appropriate facility or premises designated by the governor or his delegee.

The bill would “require an individual who has been exposed to or infected by a contagious disease to complete an appropriate, prescribed course of treatment, preventive medication or vaccination,” essentially giving the government the right to detain anyone they want and forcibly vaccinate them.

https://redstate.com/mike_miller/2021/1 ... se-n494660

[Service Dog]

Yesterday I watched the closing arguments in the Taser!Taser!Taser! trial of Officer Kim Potter.

Representing the prosecution was the same bony shrew who cross-examined Potter, berating her, making Potter look sympathetic by-contrast.

Shrew was again ineffectual. She accused all the cops who her-side had called as prosecution witnesses... of being a 'family' who would lie to the jury to protect Potter. Of course, when this trial is over, the same prosecutor will prosecute other people arrested by those same cops-- and tell the jury those same cops are reliable to arrest and testify-against people.

Defense attorney Earl Gray's closing remarks began strong-- in a gravelly raised voice he skewered the Shrew's absurd claims. Then he used the written page jury instructions as his template-- guiding the jury step-by-step-- showing how the 11 (?!) days of testimony corresponded to exonerating Potter of the charges as-written. Good plan. Unfortunately, Earl Gray lost his way & his momentum. Perhaps it made more sense to the jury-- if they were following-along with him, scanning the instructions as he spoke. But, to me, it seemed like he was chasing-down stray details... and not capturing them decisively...unintentionally muddying the main 'story' he was trying to tell.

The prosecution got the last word. Rather than the shrew, an officious monotone little man gave the rebuttal. He droned on for 40 minutes. The purpose of the rebuttal is to address specific points of contention in the Defense's closing statement. But monotone man did not confine himself to such specifics. He gave an entire second-closing-argument. The Defense objected several times, during & after he spoke... and the judge quickly shot-down every objection. (But these objections are 'preserved for the record' to enable an appeal.) As they did throughout the trial-- the prosecution recklessly brandished the everyday idea of 'recklessness' --rather than confining themselves to the narrow applicable legal definition of 'reckless' in the state of Minnesota.

As I woke to today, my first thought was to remember the closing arguments. I shuddered to think-- that, every day in countless courtrooms, someone's fate is in the fragile hands of unethical prosecutors & imperfect defense attorneys.

This police/citizen/death case, and this trial, are in the same Milwaukee suburb where George Floyd enshrined himself as The Greatest Black Man Who Ever Lived. And, as in the trial of Officer Derek Chauvin, we see another cops being fed-to the same corrupt Justice System... which that cop had fed other-people time-after-time, year-after-year. To that extent, the injustice of this case contains an ironic, poetic justice.

[Steersman]

I rather doubt it. If you did then you could say whether you accept them or not.

What is this, The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? We discussed this topic at length. I'm not having the same discussion with you in every post just because you're obsessed with it.

Yes, it is true that we have "discussed this topic (at exhaustive & exhausting) length". But we have not resolved the issue because you refuse to state what you mean by the terms in question, "male" and "female" in particular. Have you done so? Where and when? I'll wait ... :think: :roll:

But as long as you refuse to do so there is the very real possibility that what you mean by those terms is entirely different from what I mean by them. Which will cause no end of problems - why else do you think Voltaire said, "if you wish to converse with me, define your terms"?

You said in a subsequent post:

The job of a definition is to document what people mean ....

Quite agree. But how do you think that most credible dictionaries and encyclopedias document the definitions of those terms?

Do you agree with those ones - that I've posted dozens of times - or not? Yes or no?

That you're unable or unwilling to answer that simple question suggests - if not provides a smoking gun - that you're too intellectually dishonest to deal with the issues on the table. Makes any conversation with you largely pointless and impossible of resolution.

Maybe you're trans or maybe your "wife" is trans - or had her ovaries removed - and it's too "distressing" for you to face the consequences of those definitions. But if you can't then you're more a part of the problem than of the solution.

In particular and as a case in point, if some transwoman - AKA, male transvestite - rapes a "real" woman then are the Scottish police justified to say that "they will record rapes by offenders with male genitalia as being committed by a woman if the attacker 'identifies as a female'."?

Does that transwoman qualify as a female? Why or why not? What are the criteria to qualify any human - or, for that matter, any member of any sexually reproducing species - as a member of the "female" category?

You simply cannot answer that question - and those types of questions - without saying exactly - without equivocation and with justification - what you mean by "female".

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/absu ... -s6576v825

[Service Dog]

New York State legislature considering a bill that would allow the guv to detain any unjabbed individual with the stroke of a pen:

Upon determining by clear and convincing evidence that the health of others is or may be endangered by a case, contact or carrier, or suspected case, contact or carrier of a contagious disease that, in the opinion of the governor, after consultation with the commissioner, may pose an imminent and significant threat to the public health resulting in severe morbidity or high mortality, the governor of his or her delegee including, but not limited to the commissioner or heads of local health departments, may order the removal and/or detention of such a person or of a group of such persons by issuing a single order, identifying such persons either by name or by a reasonably specific description of the individuals or group being detained. Such person or group of persons shall be detained by a medical facility or other appropriate facility or premises designated by the governor or his delegee.

The bill would “require an individual who has been exposed to or infected by a contagious disease to complete an appropriate, prescribed course of treatment, preventive medication or vaccination,” essentially giving the government the right to detain anyone they want and forcibly vaccinate them.

https://redstate.com/mike_miller/2021/1 ... se-n494660

"Jews"

[Service Dog]

What is this, The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? We discussed this topic at length. I'm not having the same discussion with you in every post just because you're obsessed with it.

This is my fault. Steersman was still under warranty, but the manufacturer would only trade him for a new one.

I thought that was worth a shot, but his memory card was too clotted with spike proteins to re-use.

► Show Spoiler

https://media.patriots.win/post/7KaLQbwUkajB.jpeg

[fafnir]

I rather doubt it. If you did then you could say whether you accept them or not.

What is this, The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? We discussed this topic at length. I'm not having the same discussion with you in every post just because you're obsessed with it.

Yes, it is true that we have "discussed this topic (at exhaustive & exhausting) length". But we have not resolved the issue because you refuse to state what you mean by the terms in question, "male" and "female" in particular. Have you done so? Where and when? I'll wait ... :think: :roll:

You are asking for something like a scientific definition for an evolved, cultural concept. Your definition just isn't the type of definition people use day to day, or have historically used. You seem to be looking for one single "correct" definition that is used in all contexts. That isn't how words operate in day to day use. There is no thing against which one can compare the definition and say it is correct beyond how it relates to usage.

As with every other natural born human, raised by humans, since before the dawn of history, I grew up and learned what male was and what a female was from my culture, not a dictionary. People weren't confused about what these words meant before Dr Johnson. In common with the culture that I grew up in I think post menopausal females are still female and a man in a dress who cuts his genitals off is not female. Are there cases where the definition gets unclear, sure... but that is true with pretty much any such word used by humans.

Now I think of it, here is Johnson's definition: "A she; one of the sex which brings young." That works for me. Never again say that I haven't given you a definition.

Incidentally, I just got through watching The Thing. I wonder if I might have a sample of your blood. There is a test I'd like to run.

But as long as you refuse to do so there is the very real possibility that what you mean by those terms is entirely different from what I mean by them. Which will cause no end of problems - why else do you think Voltaire said, "if you wish to converse with me, define your terms"?

No it won't cause problems if we are both human, since we are both familiar with the narrow scientific definition that you are using and the colloquial one we were both raised with as children. That we don't agree on what the meaning should be in a legal context, or a social context, or a sporting context doesn't mean we can't understand what the other person means. For myself, I mean different things by the word "female" in different contexts.

You were raised in human culture, weren't you? A few drops of blood should be fine for the test.

You said in a subsequent post:

The job of a definition is to document what people mean ....

Quite agree. But how do you think that most credible dictionaries and encyclopedias document the definitions of those terms?

If they claim 80 year old females aren't female, they are either talking in a narrow domain specific context or they are written by something unfamiliar with human culture and the colloquial meaning of words.

Do you agree with those ones - that I've posted dozens of times - or not? Yes or no?

You can't cite an authority to persuade me that the meaning of a basic word like "female", in the language and culture I grew up in, is different from that I have used all these decades. To support that, I refer you to the vast majority of the conversations you've had with people on this topic where your meaning is at odds with the meaning of the person you are arguing with. You don't have to mount a one man crusade to persuade people of the normal, everyday meaning of a word.

I just want to heat the end of the wire and dip it into the blood. If there is no reaction, we'll know you are human.

That you're unable or unwilling to answer that simple question suggests - if not provides a smoking gun - that you're too intellectually dishonest to deal with the issues on the table. Makes any conversation with you largely pointless and impossible of resolution.

There is an old joke about a man driving home from work. His wife phones him and tells him to watch out because some lunatic is driving on the wrong side of the road. Her husband replies that it's worse than that..... everybody but him is driving on the wrong side of the road. I think I've told that joke before talking to you. Did you ever wonder if maybe it's you that's mad and everybody else who is sane?

Maybe you're trans or maybe your "wife" is trans - or had her ovaries removed - and it's too "distressing" for you to face the consequences of those definitions. But if you can't then you're more a part of the problem than of the solution.

No. I'm using the traditional definition of the words that evolved out of the primordial ooze of language and culture.

In particular and as a case in point, if some transwoman - AKA, male transvestite - rapes a "real" woman then are the Scottish police justified to say that "they will record rapes by offenders with male genitalia as being committed by a woman if the attacker 'identifies as a female'."?

That's a different question. We know what they mean by male and female in that case and my objection would be about the impact in the world of recording the statistics in that way rather than obsessing fetishistically over the definition. There may well be contexts were a different definition for male and female makes sense. I suspect in Scotland the intentions and impact are nothing I would like, but I have no in principle issue with them using a different definition.

Does that transwoman qualify as a female? Why or why not? What are the criteria to qualify any human - or, for that matter, any member of any sexually reproducing species - as a member of the "female" category?

Depends on the context.... as I have told you 100 times at least. Any word as useful as male and female in multiple different contexts and fields has multiple definitions.

You simply cannot answer that question - and those types of questions - without saying exactly - without equivocation and with justification - what you mean by "female".

This is like asking why I can't answer a simple Yes or No to what time does the next train arrive. Asking for the single correct definition for a word with multiple context dependent definitions is retarded. Beyond that, the definition of the normal, day to day use is an attempt to capture in a few words a concept that developed organically without the need for a dictionary and relates to concepts in the culture that predate language. Any human who has grown up in an English speaking culture knows what "male" and "female" mean without reference to a dictionary. The dictionary definition is an attempt to record that meaning, it isn't where the meaning comes from.

[fafnir]

It seems I am having the same conversation again after all. Fucking Groundhog Day!

[fafnir]

This conversation about the meaning of words reminds me of a book on AI I read 30 years ago. It was talking about thing like the history of expert systems. Back in the 70s or 80s they'd been trying to make a computer understand the world by teaching it lots of facts. The problem was that each fact they wanted to teach it relied on other facts. Unless they had told it the relevant property, the computer wouldn't understand that a sentence about Lincoln going to Gettysburg could by assumed to imply his arms and legs also went to Gettysburg as well.

It's like the line from Bladerunner:

After all they are emotionally inexperienced, with only a few years in which to store up the experiences which you and I take for granted.

Humans learn language by being humans living in a world filled with humans using language.

Are you a replicant, Mr Steersman?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Steerz failed the Voight-Kampff already.

[fafnir]

Voight-Kampff

Was it when they asked about his mother and the whole test veered off into an argument about whether or not his mother was currently female?

[Bhurzum]

Steerz failed the Voight-Kampff already.

The way things are going, we're going to need something like V-K to identify skin-job traps!

https://i.gifer.com/WD0X.gif

"Tell me about your vagina, ma'am?"

"My vagina? I'll tell you about my vagina..."

[Service Dog]

[Service Dog]

...choosing a name for a squirrel. ...a deer-proof baffle that will normally repel any mammal in North America. ...gingerly crawl to the edge of a tree branch and drop 8 feet down to my feeder pole. The leap was an epic journey. ... plummeted 8 feet ... had they missed grabbing the feeder they would have fallen another 9 feet. ...this amazing risk taker is devouring my suite and seed.

"Putin."

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I might need to adjust my previous estimation of Coyne's grasp of evolution:

The bad news is that the omicron variant of Covid-19, highly infectious, has now surged from being found rarely in the U.S. to the dominant variant causing new cases, comprising (according to last night’s NBC News) 73% of them.

That's great news. Delta was already a doddle, but Omicron is no worse than the common cold. Its high infectiousness is a blessing, as that will allow it to out-replicate and replace the versions with more deadly alleles. The threat will soon be ovah.

Which is, of course, bad news for the covid tyrants.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

"Putin."

Putin, of course, has a seven army nation.

Not a bad rendition. This, imo, is the best:

[Steersman]

<snip>

Yes, it is true that we have "discussed this topic (at exhaustive & exhausting) length". But we have not resolved the issue because you refuse to state what you mean by the terms in question, "male" and "female" in particular. Have you done so? Where and when? I'll wait ... :think: :roll:

You are asking for something like a scientific definition for an evolved, cultural concept.

What horse crap. It's an "evolved cultural concept" to think the earth is the center of the universe ... :roll:

Your definition just isn't the type of definition people use day to day, or have historically used.

So fucking what? A definition for "female" that has been "historically used" is "she who suckles". Jenner & his ilk might be able to qualify even if the milk is unlikely to be fit for human consumption. Think that's the one we should use in law?

https://www.etymonline.com/word/female# ... ine_v_5841

You seem to be looking for one single "correct" definition that is used in all contexts.

You see any qualifications for "context" in the standard definitions? Applies only to several million sexually reproducing species but not to humans? :roll:

Oxford_Definitions_SexCategoryMaleFemale1A.jpg

(151.12 KiB) Downloaded 64 times

Now I think of it, here is Johnson's definition: "A she; one of the sex which brings young." That works for me. Never again say that I haven't given you a definition.

Hallelujah! :roll: Like pulling teeth.

But what makes you think that that definition should trump the standard dictionary ones that are in common use throughout much of biology?

<snip>

I just want to heat the end of the wire and dip it into the blood. If there is no reaction, we'll know you are human.

Ah, ye olde dunking chair for testing witches! If they float they're witches but if they drown then they were human! :roll: ;)

<snip>

Did you ever wonder if maybe it's you that's mad and everybody else who is sane?

Certainly feel at times as if I'm trying to convince the crowd that the Earth isn't flat and not at the center of the universe ...

No. I'm using the traditional definition of the words that evolved out of the primordial ooze of language and culture.

:roll:

Ah, the good old days when men were men - and the sheep were nervous ...

You seem to be as much a "fundamentalist" and rejector of modernity and the Enlightenment as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi

In particular and as a case in point, if some transwoman - AKA, male transvestite - rapes a "real" woman then are the Scottish police justified to say that "they will record rapes by offenders with male genitalia as being committed by a woman if the attacker 'identifies as a female'."?

That's a different question. We know what they mean by male and female in that case and my objection would be about the impact in the world of recording the statistics in that way rather than obsessing fetishistically over the definition.

What rank insanity. That you're contributing to:

Wikipedia_HumptyDumptyAliceWords_Sctn.jpg

(109.38 KiB) Downloaded 68 times

<snip>

The dictionary definition is an attempt to record that meaning, it isn't where the meaning comes from.

And what do many dictionaries and encyclopedias currently "record" for the definitions for "male" and "female"? :think: :roll:

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

[Service Dog]

I'm watching the 1980 TV mini-series 'The Martian Chronicles', an adaptation which Ray Bradbury called 'just boring'. He was right. My pre-teen memory of the show is spotty. Maybe I didn't watch all-3 nights back-then. Maybe I drifted in-and-out of sleep watching it. Or maybe the it's a mind-eraser, not worth remembering. Mostly-- it reminds me that TV was often a low-IQ wasteland, back then. And-- at that time-- science fiction was preoccupied with a variety of pretentious conceits & lukewarm social-issue 'causes'. It's a time capsule from the 'malaise era'. And so is Joe Biden.

malaise
mă-lāz′, -lĕz′
noun
A vague feeling of bodily discomfort, as at the beginning of an illness.
A general sense of depression or unease.
Uneasiness; discomfort; specifically, an indefinite feeling of uneasiness, often a preliminary symptom of a serious malady.

[MarcusAu]

Reminds me of having seen a Monty Python skit with John Cleese - maybe 50 years ago :shock: - where he played a headmaster in a boys' school and demonstrated sex to the students with his wife. "You in the back - pay attention; there will be a test!"

Most prescient of you. Monty Pythons 'Meaning of Life' film cam out in 1983.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDoQFcQEpOQ

Can't remember what I had for breakfast this morning but a scene or two from that movie is crystal clear. :-)

Though probably didn't see it in a theatre when it came out, probably somewhat later on TV.

But thanks for the link. Thought it might have been on their TV program but clearly better production values than that.

This clip from the same movie seems appropriate...

[fafnir]

<snip>

Yes, it is true that we have "discussed this topic (at exhaustive & exhausting) length". But we have not resolved the issue because you refuse to state what you mean by the terms in question, "male" and "female" in particular. Have you done so? Where and when? I'll wait ... :think: :roll:

You are asking for something like a scientific definition for an evolved, cultural concept.

What horse crap. It's an "evolved cultural concept" to think the earth is the center of the universe ... :roll:

That is a different type of thing. Folk cosmology involving crystalline spheres or the planets moving in perfect circles may be disproven by sending a spaceship through where the crystalline spheres are supposed to be or more accurately tracking the movements of the heavenly bodies. Classification systems can't be disproven in the same way.

Male/Female Man/Woman are just ways of organizing the social functions of the tribe and mapping that onto animals so you can talk about which ones give milk and bear young. It's job is to be socially useful and practical. Whether or not it applies well to seahorses isn't important. Making the definition be about ova is not useful or helpful to 99.9% of people who use the word.

Scientists invented a new concept with the ova definition and called it by the same name as the old one. They didn't prove the old concept wrong because the old concept wasn't falsifiable. There is no thing like the crystalline spheres in the old definition of female that science can get hold of and confirm or refute. We see it in the endless debates on whether trans women are 100% women or not. The traditional definition does not really specify a specific thing that is the essence of femaleness that can be looked for. Why would there be any such thing? There didn't need to be any such thing. Scientists needed something and made it up. Good for them.

Your definition just isn't the type of definition people use day to day, or have historically used.

So fucking what? A definition for "female" that has been "historically used" is "she who suckles". Jenner & his ilk might be able to qualify even if the milk is unlikely to be fit for human consumption. Think that's the one we should use in law?

Maybe. I suspect such a law would be written so that it was about suckling females rather than going back thousands of years to folk meanings that may or may not have informed the evolution of ancient latin. Typically, I think the law would generally use the common meaning in use at the time of writing in the country of writing, as I am. I would imagine law concerning sports would be a prime candidate for a definition that differed from the conventional one since the context is so specific.

You seem to be looking for one single "correct" definition that is used in all contexts.

You see any qualifications for "context" in the standard definitions? Applies only to several million sexually reproducing species but not to humans? :roll:

Your link has two definitions. Do they not each apply in different contexts? Otherwise we would only have one definition. We see this all the time with the social science definition of "racism". Particular fields of study come up with particular definitions that are useful to them. Where things get stupid is when people start insisting that that narrow domain specific definition is the "correct" one.

Now I think of it, here is Johnson's definition: "A she; one of the sex which brings young." That works for me. Never again say that I haven't given you a definition.

Hallelujah! :roll: Like pulling teeth.

But what makes you think that that definition should trump the standard dictionary ones that are in common use throughout much of biology?

For the same reason that it would be retarded to generalise the definition for "racism" that is used throughout much of sociology. Sociologists have no more discovered the "correct" definition of "racism" than biologists have discovered the "correct" definition of "female".

Did you ever wonder if maybe it's you that's mad and everybody else who is sane?

Certainly feel at times as if I'm trying to convince the crowd that the Earth isn't flat and not at the center of the universe ...

And yet you feel you are just arguing for the standard definition. There feels like there is a strange contradiction there.

No. I'm using the traditional definition of the words that evolved out of the primordial ooze of language and culture.

Ah, the good old days when men were men - and the sheep were nervous ...

You seem to be as much a "fundamentalist" and rejector of modernity and the Enlightenment as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

On some things, perhaps. On this I am just arguing for the definition that your average man, or woman, on the street has.

What rank insanity. That you're contributing to:

Wikipedia_HumptyDumptyAliceWords_Sctn.jpg

Except that that is how these kinds of words get their meanings. That is how as human children we learn the meaning of these words. Female is the category our mother belongs to, and if we are a girl we find we belong to. Male is the category our father belongs to and if we are a boy we find we belong to. Your project is like Russell and Whitehead trying to reduce mathematics to logic, only you want to do it with language. That isn't how humans use language.

The dictionary definition is an attempt to record that meaning, it isn't where the meaning comes from.

And what do many dictionaries and encyclopedias currently "record" for the definitions for "male" and "female"?

Given what a political hot potato sex and gender are at the moment, linking to Wikipedia is foolish. Even more conventional dictionaries and encyclopedia are being changed. Be that as it may, the article is about the scientific concept, not the day to day usage. If I looked up racism and got an article on the social science definition, that wouldn't invalidate the older meaning of the word. The wikipedia article is about the scientific meaning of the word not the social, cultural, day-to-day meaning.

[fafnir]

It strikes me that this endless discussion about the definition of female and a fixation on definitions is rather like a conversation between somebody who comes from a common law tradition talking to somebody who has no conception of a law outside the Roman law tradition. Most people are effectively operating under a common law understanding of "female". Steersman is absolutely unwilling to consider anything outside the defined and specified Roman Law tradition. His is the Academie Francaise tradition which "gives" rules to the language. The English tradition has always been more about recording usage.

[Service Dog]

What comes from not drawing a line in the sand when necessary. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil ...." - moralistically speaking, at least ...

This is an atrocity. How daaaare they claim this 87-year old pile of meat is "female" and a "woman". Disgusting.

[fafnir]

I guess we must presume that the journalist is signaling that the 87 year old was still fertile. That seems kind of personal and unnecessary, but I suppose such prurient details add clicks. It's amazing the otherwise hidden meanings of these articles that you can discover with the aid of a dictionary and no knowledge of human culture. From a Wikipedia article on tennis I understand the real meaning of "returning". She was involved in some kind of confrontation with the Waukesha Public Library that was projecting books at her, which she was returning, I imagine some kind of bat or racket was involved. That probably distracted her allowing the attacker to strike.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

“Chevy” Cavalier Johnson is about become Milwaukee’s interim mayor, as the current mayor has been named ambassador to Luxembourg. He’s pushing an initiative to reduce reckless driving:

https://cbs58.com/news/cavalier-johnson ... erim-mayor

9,000 auto thefts a year.

As president of the common council, he’s been an advocate of equity and diversity.


Waukesha is only 3.5% black, but apparently has a blacks from Milwaukee crime problem. The granny-rapist's uncle himself:

Cavalier-Johnson_Sq.jpg

(211 KiB) Downloaded 42 times

[fafnir]

I just noticed. They say the attacker was a boy. Presumably they are calling him a boy because they confirmed he was still too immature to produce spermatozoa. I wonder if they milked him in the police station to confirm this?

It's a wonder that people managed to navigate the world at all before science discovered the correct definitions for words.

[Bhurzum]

It strikes me that this endless discussion about the definition of female and a fixation on definitions is rather like a conversation between somebody who comes from a common law tradition talking to somebody who has no conception of a law outside the Roman law tradition. Most people are effectively operating under a common law understanding of "female". Steersman is absolutely unwilling to consider anything outside the defined and specified Roman Law tradition. His is the Academie Francaise tradition which "gives" rules to the language. The English tradition has always been more about recording usage.

Some questions, if I may?

(sorry if you've already answered these elsewhere)

1) Do you think that a trans* woman is female in the same way that your mother is/was female?

For the record, I don't. I'm happy to explain the differences between the two (as I see it) but will only lay-out my workings if requested to do so. I understand your reluctance to open yet another can of gender based worms, especially when bred by a fucking buffoon such as I.

2) Do you think your average man-in-a-dress thinks he's female in the same way your mother is/was female?

For the record, I do. By employing endless verbal chicanery, political pressure and now, as evidenced in numerous legal or public battles, the gap between the two is slowly but surely closing. The definition(s) of words used in these situations are of critical importance. Perhaps this is why Steers (and others) are doggedly clinging to them and refuse to give an inch? Definitions, especially scientific ones, are tactically important hills which must be defended.

2) Do you think your average man-in-a-dress should be considered female in the same way your mother is/was?

For the record, I don't. The notion is preposterous, shouldn't even be given any clock cycles and yet, thanks to question two (above), here we are. No, I think a trans person is a human being with a pretty serious wiring problem. How they "identify" (there's another bullshit buzzword) plays second fiddle to reality - they are not what they think they are and we should not be pressured into playing along with their delusions.

Your answers to these questions will undoubtedly provoke a response (I'm counting on it, this is a subject I really enjoy!) but please don't think I'm trolling - I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on this.

Obviously you're free to tell me to go fuck myself.

[Service Dog]

Clearly, the young book-lover was just trying to get an education. The correct term is "scholar".

[Bhurzum]

This is an atrocity. How daaaare they claim this 87-year old pile of meat is "female" and a "woman". Disgusting.

Old lady?

(now I'm trolling)

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Surprise! CDC lied. About masks in schools this time:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ky/621035/

[Bhurzum]

Clearly, the young book-lover was just trying to get an education. The correct term is "scholar".

You mean picture book.

Because...

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/fac ... 52/3cc.jpg

(yes, I hate myself!)

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Do you think your average man-in-a-dress thinks he's female in the same way your mother is/was female?

A true trans might. An autogynephile just gets off imagining himself as / presenting as a woman.

But at the end of the day, neither a trans, nor an AGP really thinks, acts, or 'feels' like a woman. They can't, because their bodies and brains are not wired that way. They at best emulate female behavior they observe.

Obviously you're free to tell me to go fuck myself.

Only if you're an autogynephile.