http://gamingtrend.com
September 21, 2014, 10:30:58 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 41
81  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Is our children learning? on: September 13, 2013, 02:52:43 PM

Quote from: Purge on September 13, 2013, 02:35:35 PM

My problem is that science isn't being taught - but scientific realms (biology, chemistry, physics). The understanding of what science really is (the process, the challenges, and *what* the results really mean) needs to have it's own class.

When I was in school, that's what science classes covered through elementary school. In Middle School and High School we branched off into biology, chemistry, etc.

Quote
In that class, applying the thinking of science to all / any things, including creationism, beliefs, etc, and handled with curriculum that works not to debase peoples faiths, but instead understand the processes of how science builds upon itself (and fails more than it succeeds) is key.

Surely something like geocentrism would be preferable to creationism. Just for the sake of a teacher, you're inviting an invasion of busybody, angry fundamentalist parents if you start putting portions of the Bible to task scientifically.
82  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Is our children learning? on: September 13, 2013, 01:28:18 PM

Quote from: Purge on September 13, 2013, 03:36:28 AM

Creationism very MUCH has a place in science - it is a counterpoint. Can we disprove the world is more than 6000 years old? What methods are there? How reliable are they? Regardless of whether creationism is based on faith or not, it can be used to hold up against evolution, and even open discussions as to other possibilities. Creationism "taught" is different than "examined". There is nothing wrong with the examination.

Creationism may be stupid, but to bring it up in science classes just to ridicule it would be mean spirited, petty and unnecessary. There are less emotionally-fraught, lawsuit-baiting ways to demonstrate how science disproves nonsense.
83  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Is our children learning? on: September 13, 2013, 02:13:39 AM

Quote from: YellowKing on September 13, 2013, 12:08:27 AM

I'm talking more about the condescending and often downright hateful tone some non-religious folks have towards those of faith (usually Christians.) Respect is a two-way street. To a significant portion of the world's population, it's the atheists beliefs which are "bullshit."

I did not say that Christian beliefs are "bullshit". Genesis 1 and 2 are not factual history, but in no way is Christian belief depend upon them being. Now, I am well aware that some fundamentalist Christians worship the Bible as if it was God, and fetishize every letter and word, but that's immaterial to the factual question at hand: evolution is tested, proven science, and creationism is a fairy tale.

Genesis 1 and 2 being a fairy tale doesn't mean the message behind them -- that God created the world -- isn't true. I very much believe it is true. But the (contradictory) descriptions of *how* the world is created in Genesis 1 and 2 are not factual. We know they're not factual.

As to atheists beliefs, I can't speak one way or another to that. I go to church every Sunday. My brother says he's an atheist now, but I don't really believe him.
84  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Is our children learning? on: September 13, 2013, 02:03:45 AM

Quote from: naednek on September 12, 2013, 11:23:36 PM

Syllabus:

This semester we will be discussing in our science class various topics, such as how the earth was formed with different viewpoints people have such as evolution and creationism.  We'll also be discussing other topics related to earth science such as climate change and blah blah blah.

That might make an interesting philosophy class, but it is not a science class. There is no science to creationism. There is nothing to measure, nothing to test, nothing to confirm. There is no evidence, no data, no hypotheses. It is not science.

Children deserve to be taught true science. The future of our nation requires us to properly teach children real science.

You can no more teach creationism in a scientific biology class than you can teach astrology in an astronomy class.

Quote
You can teach a class that offers different perspectives.  It doesn't mean you are preaching to people or trying to convert or whatever else you're afraid of.  You can easily talk about both topics in a matter where it's not confrontational or misleading.

To tell people that the world is 6,000 years old and that Genesis is "correct" is preaching, no matter where you do it. To tell kids that creationism can be considered scientifically is by its very nature misleading.

Creation beliefs of all religions is a great topic for a comparative religion class. And I'd be all in favor of requiring students to take a class that teaches them the basic precepts of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. But it's not science, can never be science, and has no place in a science class.
85  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Is our children learning? on: September 12, 2013, 08:10:07 PM

Quote from: naednek on September 12, 2013, 07:59:17 PM

The easy solution to this is this...

Present both in the curriculum.  Present the two sides equally, and let the person think, digest and decide what they think is true.  This is what this side believes, this is what this side believes. Simple

There aren't "two sides". We're talking about science here. There is only *one* side -- the scientific side. Religion has no place in a science classroom. Creationism isn't science. It's not a valid scientific criticism of geology or biology. Science classes aren't about "belief". People don't "believe" that biological lifeforms evolve; we know that they do.
86  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Is our children learning? on: September 12, 2013, 05:42:21 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on September 12, 2013, 05:34:48 PM

Also, I believe while our theory of evolution is correct, there's a reason it's called a theory. It can't be proven conclusively, so to call it a "fact" lumped in with the age of the Earth is incorrect.

Under the scientific use of the term, the word "theory" is the highest level of certainty that can be applied to a concept. When something moves from being a hypothesis to being a theory, what has happened is that a massive amount of data -- facts -- have been gathered to the point that the hypothesis is as close to "proven" as is possible at that time. While the "Theory of Evolution" is not *itself* a "fact," it is composed entirely of tested, proven facts. The individual elements of it are proven as conclusively as they presently can be, and are "facts".

The age of the Earth is also a "theory" in the same manner as evolution, though it is one that hasn't received nearly the degree of scrutiny that evolution has. Evolution is probably the most tested, and thus most confirmed, theory in modern science. We are more certain of the facts of biological evolution than we are those of the age of the Earth or gravity.
87  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Is our children learning? on: September 12, 2013, 04:25:26 PM

Quote from: ATB on September 12, 2013, 03:20:13 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on September 12, 2013, 01:21:51 PM

I, however, just posted a link about a conservative plot to dilute science education with fairy tale bullshit.

Your ignorance of the countering view does not make it a fairy tale. So uppity in your self-splendor.

So you're position is that there's an argument in favor of putting non-factual fairy tales in our science textbooks? Please, enlighten us poor benighted souls who mistakenly believe that science textbooks should only contain, you know, actual science.
88  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Is our children learning? on: September 12, 2013, 04:23:45 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on September 12, 2013, 03:18:55 PM

I wish we could discuss issues like this without calling other people's faith "bullshit."

Faith is one thing. But factual statements are either true or not true. Stating that the world is 6,000 years old is to state something that is not true. To say that evolution isn't real is to say something is not true. Those are not questions of faith, but of facts. And if you're telling people the world is 6,000 years old and humans didn't evolve from simpler lifeforms, you're peddling non-factual bullshit, regardless of why you're peddling it.
89  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Is our children learning? on: September 12, 2013, 01:54:17 PM

Quote from: ATB on September 12, 2013, 01:49:06 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on September 12, 2013, 01:21:51 PM

Why do conservatives hate science and reality?

Why do liberals love immorality and decay?

We don't. And you've shown no evidence that we do. I, however, just posted a link about a conservative plot to dilute science education with fairy tale bullshit. So my question stands.
90  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Is our children learning? on: September 12, 2013, 01:21:51 PM
Perhaps not in Texas: the State Board of Education is once again flirting with putting creationist bullshit into science textbooks.

Why do conservatives hate science and reality?
91  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Let's talk Iphone on: September 11, 2013, 09:33:05 PM
I'm on AT&T, and one year in on an iPhone 5 and two year contract. My quoted price from Apple is $549. Still too much for this year.
92  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Let's talk Iphone on: September 11, 2013, 03:05:34 PM

Quote from: Blackjack on September 11, 2013, 02:57:23 PM

Also, this just in (according to various reports), the China market wanted a crappy, dirt cheap (w/o contract) phone with the Apple logo on it. The 5C is NOT it (reports are the price in China will be something like $733 w/o contract), and they're not happy, so Apple's probably not going to sell a zillion phones there even if it did finally get one of the largest China carriers to finally sign on.

Yeah, I had expected the pricing for the no-contract 5C to be $100 to $150 less than it is. It does seem to be a missed opportunity. Perhaps the 5C should have been a repackaged 4S with the 5's screen at the lower price point.

Quote
Although I understand why, not making the fingerprint sensor available to devs is a little disappointing to me.

I expect that to be part of iOS 8. Apple probably wants to work out all the functionality hiccups first (and get people comfortable with fingerprint scanning).

Quote
I love my iPhone 5, and it seems puzzling to me that the Fastest Selling iPhone Ever is getting put to pasture so quickly, even if the 5S/5C clearly are following its DNA, so to speak.

Except that it wasn't -- the iPhone 5C *is* the iPhone 5, for all intents and purposes, just with a new case and slightly better front camera.
93  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Let's talk Iphone on: September 11, 2013, 01:42:32 PM
Actually, Apple calls the gold color "Gold", not champagne. smile

I'm on an iPhone 5, so I'm not due for an upgrade, but this is a pretty standard degree of iPhone evolution. I'd love to have the new camera. The "S" releases tend to consist of an improved camera and one other major feature. In fact, most iPhone releases only have a couple of hallmark features.

iPhone 3G: 3G radio, assisted GPS and a faster processor.

iPhone 3GS: improved camera with video capabilities, faster processor, more RAM and VoiceControl.

iPhone 4: new glass body design with antenna ring, the retina display, improved camera with flash, VGA front camera, A4 processor and more RAM.

iPhone 4S: improved camera with 1080p video capabilities, new screen coating, A5 dual-core processor and Siri.

iPhone 5: new metal body design, larger screen, LTE radio, improved front camera, noise canceling mics, A6 processor and more RAM.

iPhone 5S: improved camera with dual flash, finger print security detector, M7 motion co-processor, A7 64-bit processor.

I'm glad the 5S isn't bigger. I'm afraid that the 6 will be, however, and that's likely to be my next phone.

My only disappointment is that the iPhone 5C starts at $99. I was hoping the 5C would cover the $0 and $99 price points, and the 5S would be the $199, $299 and $399 options. While the 5C is basically a redesigned iPhone 5, it'd be nice if Apple's entire iPhone line was "new". Perhaps next year with the 6 models.
94  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: MSFT buys Nokia 7.2 bil - Win Phones here to stay on: September 09, 2013, 06:43:49 PM
I hope this works out for Microsoft. Though I'm going to stay with an iPhone for the foreseeable future, I like what I've seen of Windows Phone, and like the notion of having a decent platform out there to fall back to if I ever sour on iOS. My only problem with most of what Nokia's done recently is that the screens are too big. All phones seem to be heading that way, unfortunately. The iPhone 4 had the perfect screen. I could handle the iPhone 5 because it didn't make the phone wider. I imagine next year's iPhone 6 (or iPhone 6 family of phones, if my suspicions are correct) will be wider. Blech.
95  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: how come we're not attacking syria? on: August 31, 2013, 06:43:28 PM
Well, this is going to be complicated.
96  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Germany's War on Homeschooling on: August 31, 2013, 06:07:45 AM

Quote from: Blackhawk on August 31, 2013, 05:14:44 AM

The only way the schools can create 'automatons' is if the schools are the only source of information kids are exposed to.

I teach my kids, first and foremost, how to think.  Not what to think, but how to listen, how to question, how to doubt, how to decide.  I didn't wait and see if the schools would do so, but taught them before and throughout their time in school.  We discuss issues all the time, refreshing these concepts.

The schools is welcome to present any set of ideas that they like.  My kids know how to think.

We need more parents like you!
97  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Germany's War on Homeschooling on: August 31, 2013, 06:03:04 AM

Quote from: ATB on August 31, 2013, 03:26:38 AM

But the world has changed, Ironrod. We've seen through the veil of state funded indoctrination and that the State is wrong about a lot and they teach things that are not true to make us 'patriots'.

So you "see through" the "indoctrination" the rest of us have been brainwashed into?

Quote
Quote
I think it's important for those kids to learn the same enculturation that their peers are getting, both for their own mental development and for society's well-being.

Automatons? All taught to think the same way about the same thing?

Right, because public schools produce kid after kid after kid who all think the same way.  Roll Eyes

Quote
If the public indoctrination is superior, then there should be no fear that children who actually spend their time learning rather than putting up with the ineffectiveness of public education will lean that way eventually anyway.

Unless of course they are "taught" by parents who think the most important thing the kid can learn is that the Baby Jesus™ created the world 6,000 years ago and anyone who says otherwise is deluded by Satan™. Not much learning going on in those sorts of households.

I went to great public schools. We had some home school kids transfer in as we were in high school. A couple were fine, if a bit socially awkward. Bright kids who did well and continue to do so. A couple thought that an old man in the sky put dinosaurs in the rocks to test the faithful, and struggled in science and history classes because the teachers were teaching "lies". Haven't heard much from them since graduation.

Homeschooling, like any form of schooling, is a mixed bag.

I don't agree with an outright ban on it. I also don't agree with letting kids be taught "science" that is not science. In the long run, not teaching kids real science doesn't just hurt the individual kids, it hurts the community, and nation, at large. It is a legitimate national priority to produce future generations that are capable of understanding, and building upon, the scientific progress that has been at the core of American prosperity.
98  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Germany's War on Homeschooling on: August 31, 2013, 05:57:06 AM

Quote from: ATB on August 31, 2013, 03:20:07 AM

Also, asylum isn't the issue here. Freedom for parents to do what they think is best for their children is.  However, I'm sure you'll continue to focus on the [edit] former.

Unless any of us are from Germany, we don't really have a say in what "freedoms" people have in Germany regarding education. And I don't think you'll find many people who think education policy is worth sanctioning or otherwise antagonizing an enemy over, so there's really no way for the United States to influence that.

The question at hand in America is whether not being able to homeschool your kids in Germany raises to the level of a human rights abuse that justifies granting asylum to homeschooling parents. Given that we *don't* grant asylum for far more egregiously abusive policies of other foreign governments, that's a hard question to answer in the affirmative.
99  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Germany's War on Homeschooling on: August 30, 2013, 11:02:45 PM
Homeschooling is not particularly common outside the English-speaking world. Germany's far from the only major nation to not allow homeschooling. Even within the United States, regulations on homeschooling vary from programs that ensure kids are taught good information about history, science, and the like, to states let parents teach children pretty much anything, up to and including fairytales.

Granting someone asylum from another country is to effectively charge that country with gross violations of human rights. That's a pretty dramatic step to take against an ally such as Germany over an issue like education policy.
100  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Nope, not any better (HP/Windows 8) on: August 30, 2013, 06:27:26 PM

Quote from: Lee on August 30, 2013, 06:07:42 PM

The ribbon on Word and Excel is nowhere near as featured packed as on Windows. And little stuff like the toolbar that pops up when you highlight something on Windows Word that is missing on Mac (I overstated my dislike of the Mac version, but it really does feel like a step back after using the Windows version at work all day). It wish they would update it a bit, but MS seems to be done with Mac Office for now.

Mac Office always gets updated 9 to 12 months after Windows office. A Mac Office 2014 is expected at the end of this year, or late next year.

Quote
Heck Word is still far better than Pages though.

Agree to disagree. If anything is going to end up on paper, the far-better typesetting of Pages makes it a better option, in my opinion. Plus, until Microsoft gets off its butt and releases an iPad version of Office, iCloud and iWork let me keep all of my documents available to me everywhere I go.

Quote
I used Essentials for about 6 months, and decided it was pointless since it doesn't really support investments. I don't understand what Intuit is thinking, guess it's not worth their money to do better.

They've been promising a "feature complete" successor to Essentials for years now. I understand that their old Quicken for Mac codebase was so dated and unworkable that they had to start over from scratch, and I like the user interface, but some of the missing functionality is unforgivable, especially after so long. I chalk it up to lack of a major competitor on either platform.
101  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Earphones for swimming on: August 30, 2013, 06:20:43 PM
That Neptune thing looks awesome, but the Amazon.com reviews warn that breaststroke (which is what I mostly swim, having been a competitive breaststroker in high school) causes the volume to rise and fall in an annoying way. Hmmmm....
102  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Earphones for swimming on: August 30, 2013, 05:35:12 PM
I would so love to find something like this.

Perhaps these work?
103  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Nope, not any better (HP/Windows 8) on: August 30, 2013, 05:33:52 PM

Quote from: Lee on August 30, 2013, 04:46:19 PM

If you make the switch to Apple, just be aware things like Office suck on it. I love OS X, but it does take some getting used to, and you have to get used to finding alternate software. Office is useable, just not as good.

I've always preferred Office for Mac. I like that in Office 2011, we have the ribbon, but also the full set of standard menus available. Other folks' mileage will vary.


Quote
Quicken is all but useless if you do any investing (but sounds like Windows Quicken is worthless nowadays as well). Stuff like that.

I don't get why Apple lets the CEO of Intuit sit on its board while Quicken is such a festering pile of crap on the Mac. The "Essentials" version is fine, and very modern, if you have very simple finances. The "more powerful" still-available 2007 version is way behind on features compared to the Windows edition, and in places still has interface elements that are in System 7 style -- a look that has been obsolete since 1998.
104  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [movie] Transformers 4 on: August 30, 2013, 02:00:40 PM
I agree that Transformers 3 had a clear plot. It's complicated, and doesn't mesh well at all with the "plot" of Transformers 2, but that's mainly because Transformers 2 was a complete train wreck.
105  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Nope, not any better (HP/Windows 8) on: August 30, 2013, 01:56:22 AM

Quote from: JohnathanStrange on August 30, 2013, 01:27:46 AM

Were PCs really more reliable when they were more expensive? Seems to me that I've been hearing about dead or dying laptops/desktops since forever - long before cheaper PCs became common.

I dunno. I've always bought Apple laptops. Early on in the $1,500 to $2,500 range, lately in the $1,200 to $1,700 range. They've always been very reliable.
106  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Nope, not any better (HP/Windows 8) on: August 30, 2013, 01:55:30 AM

Quote from: Biyobi on August 29, 2013, 11:32:12 PM

I'm ambivalent on Office 2013, other than I detest the fact they changed the Outlook icon to blue and made me expend effort to change it.

Not to sidetrack, but that baffled me. For more than a decade, they've had a clear color scheme for Office: Word is blue, Excel is green, PowerPoint is red, Outlook is yellow, Access is purple, Publisher is teal, etc. Why is Outlook all of a sudden a lighter blue color?
107  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: how come we're not attacking syria? on: August 29, 2013, 10:14:59 PM
The UK is out.
108  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Chelsea (Bradley) Manning - when does gender assignment change you on: August 29, 2013, 10:07:03 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on August 29, 2013, 09:09:28 PM

I am curious about where people think she should be held?    There is a lot of talk that she will ask to be held at the woman's prison for military detainees.    As I said before I have no clue what is appropriate and when for something like that.

It is common practice in the United States that prisoners by imprisoned according to their sex, regardless of their gender. There are some local jails that may on occasion not follow this practice.

Were it up to me, I would probably house Manning in a male facility for the first year or two, until hormone treatments have begun to alter her appearance and produce breasts, etc. At that point, she'd probably be safest in a women's facility. I'm not certain how to deal with shower situations there; I can imagine it would be disconcerting for other prisoners to shower with a woman with a penis between her legs. I imagine a shifted schedule with isolated showering could be established.
109  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Chelsea (Bradley) Manning - when does gender assignment change you on: August 29, 2013, 08:06:24 PM

Quote from: Grifman on August 29, 2013, 07:44:35 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on August 29, 2013, 04:54:37 PM

To compare the plight of transgendered people to someone who thinks he is actually a completely different type of creature, well beyond the scope of the sort of hormonal/genetic combinations that may be the cause of transgenderism, is insulting and derisive towards an already maligned and misunderstood portion of our community.

I'm simply asking on what basis you decide one is "normal" and one is "not normal"?  You still haven't answered that question.  All you are doing above is engaging in "argument by outrage".  Give me the principle that you use to distinguish between the two.  That's all I'm asking.

Normal in a situation like this means something like a condition or state of being that is within the range of common human experience that does not in and of itself cause harm to other people or one's self. Transgendered people may not be the "norm," but they have existed throughout history, are not a danger to anyone. However, attitudes that tell them that they are "wrong," "ill," "disordered", etc, are a danger to them.
110  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Nope, not any better (HP/Windows 8) on: August 29, 2013, 05:46:56 PM
The PC industry long ago abandoned quality in the search for low prices. You can blame anyone who ever went "Ooh, $400 for a laptop! That's awesome!" for your problems.
111  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Chelsea (Bradley) Manning - when does gender assignment change you on: August 29, 2013, 05:24:17 PM

Quote from: Alefroth on August 29, 2013, 05:05:21 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on August 29, 2013, 04:54:37 PM

Quote from: Alefroth on August 29, 2013, 04:37:46 PM


What is at issue is not whether he is a monkey, but whether he feels like one. Who are we to say how he feels?

If there is a biological "cause" of transgenderism, it likely has to do with hormones during pregnancy -- where the genetic codes in the fetus cause hormones to be released that shape its physical traits, but for some reason the hormonal mix that effects mental development comes out differently, resulting in a mentally-imprinted gender that is at odds with the physically-developed sex. Given the complicated nature of sex/gender and fetal development, it's surprising that transgenderism is actually as rare as it is.

To compare the plight of transgendered people to someone who thinks he is actually a completely different type of creature, well beyond the scope of the sort of hormonal/genetic combinations that may be the cause of transgenderism, is insulting and derisive towards an already maligned and misunderstood portion of our community.

Not sure why you chose to respond to me rather than the person who made the comparison. All I was saying is that it isn't up to us to decide whether a male who feels she is a woman is really feeling that.

Ale

Sorry, I read your sentence entirely backwards from how you meant it.
112  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Chelsea (Bradley) Manning - when does gender assignment change you on: August 29, 2013, 04:54:37 PM

Quote from: Alefroth on August 29, 2013, 04:37:46 PM


What is at issue is not whether he is a monkey, but whether he feels like one. Who are we to say how he feels?

If there is a biological "cause" of transgenderism, it likely has to do with hormones during pregnancy -- where the genetic codes in the fetus cause hormones to be released that shape its physical traits, but for some reason the hormonal mix that effects mental development comes out differently, resulting in a mentally-imprinted gender that is at odds with the physically-developed sex. Given the complicated nature of sex/gender and fetal development, it's surprising that transgenderism is actually as rare as it is.

To compare the plight of transgendered people to someone who thinks he is actually a completely different type of creature, well beyond the scope of the sort of hormonal/genetic combinations that may be the cause of transgenderism, is insulting and derisive towards an already maligned and misunderstood portion of our community.
113  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Chelsea (Bradley) Manning - when does gender assignment change you on: August 29, 2013, 04:27:54 PM

Quote from: ATB on August 29, 2013, 03:13:12 PM

Quote
They don't have a "misconception" about their gender -- you do.

Again, medical science up until now disagrees with this assertion.

No, those who treat transgendered people disagree with you.


Quote

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 27, 2013, 10:11:42 PM

Ignorance and fear about this issue lead to things like this:

Transgender Woman Dies After Beating in Front of NYPD Precinct

True, but I'm not sure how your point or the link is relevant to this conversation.  

Transgendered people face violence and discrimination because of the attitudes of those who think they are "disordered" and "wrong" about their gender.


Quote
Quote
They aren't denying reality.  They are stating that 'male' and 'female' applies to more than just the number of penises present.  It refers to that, it refers to how one sees ones's psyche, and it refers to how one fits in with society.  

Thank you for actually trying to answer the question. But I have to ask again, just because one's psyche tells them something does not make it true, so why do we say 'ok, fine, you're a female' instead of 'treating' the disconnect.

Doctors and therapists spent years trying to "treat" transgenderism like it was a "disorder" or "illness", but found that such treatments typically worsened the problem and led to bad results. The only "treatment" that has shown to at all alleviate the depression, suffering and self-hatred that plague many transgendered people is some form of embracing their mental gender, sometimes including hormone therapy or surgery to correct the mismatching physical features.

When one's body and mind assert a different truth about one's gender, research and therapy work has regularly shown that the mind, not the body is "right" -- ie, the disconnect can be fixed by altering the body, not by trying to convince the mind to feel differently.

Quote
If someone puts their right shoe on their left foot and vice versa and we say hey it's true to them, this still does not make it so.

Gender, as a mental state of mind, has nothing to do with physical traits. This metaphor is fundamentally flawed, and reflects the common bias transgendered people face, where the physical facts of their anatomy are thought to trump their mental reality.

Quote
Quote
Theres a huge difference between issues of trans-gender and issues of trans-species.  There is plenty of medical evidence that supports trans-gender issues, Im not aware of any medical evidence supporting trans-species.  

We're splitting hairs now. The larger issue is the disconnect between the person's mental state and the physical reality.

Physical traits are (mostly) determined genetically, but a person's mental reality is far more complex. There is no reason to preference the physical as being "right" and the mental as being "wrong", which you are continually asserting. In fact, experts who actually deal with these issues have found the exact opposite.
114  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Snowden on: August 28, 2013, 04:25:45 AM

Quote from: Rip on August 27, 2013, 10:23:38 PM

Quote from: hepcat on August 27, 2013, 09:58:09 PM

Quote from: Pyperkub on August 27, 2013, 09:34:17 PM

During the Cold War however, we actually tried to live up to it - the GWoC (global war on communism) kind of demanded it.  We acknowledged that we weren't perfect, and tried to be an example.  Now we're more like Capitalism, YAY!  There is nothing we won't do for a dollar...

Vietnam, Korean War, Bay of Pigs, McCarthyism, HUAC, the arm's race, the spying (numerous and well documented)....

I fail to see how we were trying in any way to live up to a golden standard during the Cold War.  Heck, the feds, as ordered by Robert Kennedy, taped almost every single phone conversation of people like Dr. Martin Luther King because our government was afraid of what "the nation's most dangerous negro" could do to capitalism.  If anything, it was far worse back then.

You think that now because you don't know.

I consider the blanket recording of all calls of targeted individuals like Dr. King, who were targeted because of their (relatively anodyne) domestic policy agenda, far more troubling than the NSA creating a vast catalogue of cell phone call metadata for everyone in the country.
115  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Snowden on: August 28, 2013, 04:22:54 AM

Quote from: Isgrimnur on August 27, 2013, 05:43:55 PM

There's an old chestnut that I heard that stated the only countries we don't spy on are Britain, Canada, and Australia, and I'm not even sure if that's true. 

Of course that's not true. Everyone spies on everyone.

Quote
The myth of American exceptionalism in terms of a moral high ground is just that, a myth.  I've said it before.  There's a line there somewhere as to what we should and shouldn't do, but I have no idea where it is.  And not knowing the full truth of what we're up against, I imagine that I never will.

America has never had clean hands. Our treatment of the Native Americans alone is as bad as most of what we condemned communist countries for during the Cold War. We spent decades knocking over third world leaders and replacing them with our puppets, even if that meant financing brutal oppression of local populations. We backed the apartheid regime in South Africa, which was, of course, morally abhorrent.

However, America has also done amazing good in the world, often when there was little benefit to us, geopolitically. For all our mistakes of recent years, and all the bad we've done before, it still remains that most of the time throughout history that someone has looked up and seen troops with American flags on their uniforms streaming into their city it's meant their lives were about to get better, not worse.
116  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Snowden on: August 28, 2013, 04:18:18 AM

Quote from: Moliere on August 27, 2013, 03:14:44 PM


No, he wasn't. Some random person saying "this guy should win the Nobel Peace Prize!" doesn't actually nominate you for the prize.
117  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Chelsea (Bradley) Manning - when does gender assignment change you on: August 28, 2013, 04:15:13 AM

Quote from: Grifman on August 27, 2013, 11:22:44 PM

Quote from: Blackhawk on August 27, 2013, 05:03:48 PM

Quote from: ATB on August 27, 2013, 04:39:12 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on August 27, 2013, 04:09:55 PM

Gender is a mental state

I'm not trying to start a ruckus here, but chromosomes say hello.

It is a modern usage, and not a universal one.  It is one that is starting to catch on, however, and I can see it becoming standard in another generation.

The idea is that 'sex' refers to a physical status - chromosomes, plumbing.  Gender, on the other hand, is used to refer to a social role and/or construct.  It has been used in certain social sciences this way for decades.

Like I said, it isn't a universal usage, but it does provide a word for a concept that is becoming more relevant to society, and I have no problem watching the language get tweaked a little in this regard.

It's really not accurate.  Gender's primary definition is grammar related, the secondary is sex.  I cringe every time it's used in the above manner.

A word was needed that was related to maleness/femaleness, but which wasn't sex, so that it could be separated from the issue of reproductive organs or genetic sex. Gender served that purpose as well as any other word. It's hardly uncommon, or a misuse of language, for a word to slowly accrue a new meaning.
118  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Chelsea (Bradley) Manning - when does gender assignment change you on: August 27, 2013, 08:25:21 PM

Quote from: ATB on August 27, 2013, 07:31:58 PM

This eschews the point and I'm going to choose to ignore it.  

There are people all over the world who see reality in a way that is contrary to reality. How is it that if someone says they feel like a woman even though they are a man suddenly validate the misconception? Rather than it being looked at as a mental issue like so many other mental disconnects?

So you're saying that transgendered people are mentally ill. They are not. Gender is much more than just your genetics or body parts. Transgendered people are a deeply mistreated and misunderstood portion of society. They don't have a "misconception" about their gender -- you do.
119  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Chelsea (Bradley) Manning - when does gender assignment change you on: August 27, 2013, 06:05:41 PM

Quote from: ATB on August 27, 2013, 05:53:36 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on August 27, 2013, 05:42:12 PM

Quote from: ATB on August 27, 2013, 04:39:12 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on August 27, 2013, 04:09:55 PM

Gender is a mental state

I'm not trying to start a ruckus here, but chromosomes say hello.

Gender and sex are different things. You have have XY chromosomes but a female gender identity, or XX chromosomes and a male gender identity.

But I'm not sure how gender confusion is a passable standard for what constitutes one's gender just because someone believes it to be true.

Then it's a good thing for transgendered people that you don't get a say.
120  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Chelsea (Bradley) Manning - when does gender assignment change you on: August 27, 2013, 05:42:12 PM

Quote from: ATB on August 27, 2013, 04:39:12 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on August 27, 2013, 04:09:55 PM

Gender is a mental state

I'm not trying to start a ruckus here, but chromosomes say hello.

Gender and sex are different things. You have have XY chromosomes but a female gender identity, or XX chromosomes and a male gender identity.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 41
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.385 seconds with 20 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.089s, 1q)