MigL

Of course you can refuse to do any of those things. And you won't be called an ignorant bigot, or have some 'holier-than-thou' internet poster make fun of your spelling mistakes, question your intelligence/communication skills, and call that a valid rebuttal of your argument. And no, I did not give you the demerit; I prefer to argue with ideas rather than demerit points.

So is the arrogance.

I think I was pretty clear in my statement, CharonY. If you consider almost all species more complex/advanced than asexual worms ( or snails, if you prefer ), any Biologist will be able to tell you which is male and which is female. And they classify them as such. But again, that is not my argument, as I don't have a problem referring to people by their preferred pronoun. ( I am a considerate person and tend not to cause undue stress to others ) I don't even mind if there are laws or other mechanisms/consequences preventing me from using certain words ( like the infamous 'n' word ) that may cause stress to others. That is understandable. I do have a problem with laws/repercussions/consequences that force ( directly or indirectly, such as contempt of court ) to say what others want me to say. And I note none of you seem to be rebutting that argument, or attempting to justifyenforcing specific speech or ideas.

Yet every Biology textbook will refer to the male and female of a species, according to their physical, hormonal, and even brain structure differences ... So, it's just a 'suggestion' then ? Albeit one with consequences and repercussions. Not the least of which is that Arete can call out your ignorant and discriminatory behaviour ?

Yeah right. Yet every biologist on the planet will classify species as male and female, unless you're an asexual worm. Those must be imagined differences, or maybe the species tell biologist how they want to be referred as. Never mind the fact that evolutionary forcings and environmental pressures have diverged the male and female aspects and markers of almost all species. Yet you guys claim there is no difference; maybe you guys are creationists and don't believe in evolution. What is it that INow has said in the thread about religious scientists ? If you let your personal beliefs get in the way of science, you're not doing good science. But that isn't even the issue here as I really don't care what you choose to identify as; as long as it doesn't affect me, i couldn't care less if you think you are a brick. I am a considerate person and will refer to you in whatever form you ask me to. When you boil it down to the basics, the issue here is whether anyone has the right to dictate to others what they may think or say. And I will never be convinced of that, yet that is what you guys are defending here. Sure, you can make it 'pretty' any way you want, and say that you're protecting the oppressed, but I don't kid yourselves, G Orwell already explored that kind of thinking in Animal Farm and 1984. The only question remaining, is which one of you three wants to be referred to as 'Napoleon".

No, nature does. You don't. Yet you expect others to give a fuck about yours.

Don't you know how offensive it is that you're not agreeing to their world-view, Koti ? And they are not offended at all that you can't voice your opinion without being accused of discrimination and ignorance IOW, if your opinion is that you are a 'Ze', you are a good person; and the echo chamber agrees and upvotes you. If you are of the opinion that someone who identifies as 'Ze', is a self-centered university student, with too much privilege, an agenda, and demands a 'safe' space to spew his/her nonsense, then you must be an ignorant prejudicial discriminator.

Just transplanted my lemon tree. It was starting to choke itself with root growth, which I trimmed back. I used a cut down yellow oversize 'recovery' drum, which is much larger than the original cut down 45 gal plastic drum it was previously in. I didn't have any gravel handy for a base, so I put the drain holes just above the bottom thickness, along the side. This tree comes inside in late October and goes back outside in April to avoid frost/cold damage. The low side holes seem to keep the soil well drained, but it is difficult to move in and out of the house, asthe damn thing now weighs a ton.

I'm OK with closing. It's getting hard to keep track of arguments that have been made, and the need to argue around one or more on going differing discussions.. I did find the discussion interesting, and hope that we have, at least, been able to consider each other's perspectives. I would not mind continuing discussion, but in a more tightly controlled manner and focusing on single issues as you have mentioned, Phi.

I was not expecting that response to Koti's post. I was expecting "Must. Resist. Urge... to tell you... that L M Krauss is out... of his area...of expertise" 😄 😄

You're gonna have to explain this one to me, INow. Why is it OK to tell Intoscience When he feels offended by your wording. But it is not OK for me to tell some university student, in his/her 'safe' space, that they are delusional if they insist on being referred to as 'Ze' ?

My favorite kind of people. There are quite a few of us here that fit that description. We know enough about many things so as to be interesting, and not enough about one particular thing so as to be boring. Welcome.

My apologies. It been a long, discontinuois thread, and its hard to keep track of previous posts. ( and I probably misread your post that I quoted )

And do you think we need a law that says I should partake in the rituals of that religion, so as to validate it for that individual ? We are not talking about discrimination, but validating someone else's subjective reality. Interesting video CharonY, but I note neither of the two opposing panelists wanted to be there, because doing so would validate J Peterson's ideas. IOW they think discussing the issues is perfectly fine, until your viewpoint disagrees with theirs. Not a good position to have on constructive dialogue, unless you've already made up your mind, rendering the dialogue useless.

I was watching, until you rudely interrupted by replying 🙂 . I will now go back to finish watching. But I should point out that there are bad laws on the books, and there have been even worse laws in the past, that way overstepped their initial intent. It is not a slippery slope argument as much as historical precedent.

Well, I'm glad you've agreed that some personal pronouns can, indeed, be silly. Now let's move on to Bill C-16. What is a Bill, if not a precursor to a law? And if it's not a law, why have it ? Is it merely a 'suggestion' ? Once this Bill becomes law, are you not mandated to follow the guidelines of this ( now ) law ? How is that different from 'force of law' or 'threat of law' ? And once a law is passed, punishments for non-compliance can be changed any time. The fact that no-one has been persecuted, or gone to jailyet is meaningless. I've never been hit by a bus either; that doesn't mean I don't take precautions and look both ways before crossing the sreet. ( I use that analogy often, with my nephews/neice, when they say "That won't happen to me" )

Anytime someone uses the words 'I believe' in a discussion about science, I assume the person doesn't know what they are talking about. Science doesn't deal with 'beliefs'. It deals with observational evidence, facts and mathematics. When you can step up and deal with science in the required manner, we will engage in discussion, as we are a science site, and will not have religious ( or otherwise ) beliefs forced on us.

Very true, Beecee. And there will always be 'gaps' in our knowledge. Some people won't, but others will feel the need to insert a deity in those gaps. My 'reality' does not trump their 'reality', because science cannot disprove beliefs. Similarly ( to tie this in to the J Peterson thread ), neither they, nor I, can demand that our view has to supersede theirs.

Not an issue. My response was to INow who made the claim ... And I suggested that JP is calm and sincere in all the videos I've seen, while his opponents/detractors are usually disrespectful, and sometimes raving lunatics. I can post the videos to back that up, or, if so inclined, you can watch some of them. I don't know which ones Peterkin has watched ( as he seems to believe differently ), but they are just a google away. And again, I have no problem calling a Trans person by the pronoun of their transitioned gender, and several pages back I posted a video showing that JP has no problem with it either. What JP ( and I ) have a problem with is the decision to use a different 'made-up' pronoun, for each day of the week, depending on how you might feel that day, and expecting, actually demanding, others use those made-up pronouns, and buy into your subjective version of reality. I understand language is fluid/evolving, but it has to evolve in a natural way, not be forced. Are you arguing for forcing its evolution to a specific ( and subjective ) endpoint ?

While I can agree with the premise that religion must be put aside when doing science, I cannot agree with your conclusion that a religious person cannot do science. Your premise is akin to saying 'belief' must be put aside when doing science, which is certainly true. And your 'beliefs' have to be separated from experimental observation and mathematics when doing science. No one ( well some do, see other threads 😄 ) says I understand Special Relativity and the experiments that have verified it, but I don't believe the world works that way, so SR must be false. At least, not scientists. Keeping in mind I'm not religious, the separation of 'belief/faith' from evidence/facts seems very simple to me.

I have posted a couple. How about you ?

There are not more worldlines for different frames. The 'block' universe is a static universe. You can have many different 'foliations' of the 4D hypercube, and all are equally valid. The worldline of an object starts with the formation of that object, and winds through space, and time, to its endpoint, or destruction, of the object. There is no 'present'. All time that the object exists, and all distances that it travels during its existence, are encompassed by its worldline. As Marcus has already explained, different frames imply different foliations, resulting in different projections onto the axis of the 4D hypercube, and are the observations ( length contraction/time dilation ) we see in different frames. I suggest some reading on Special Relativity before you jump to the 'block' universe model. And NO, there is no valid frame 'outside the universe, or in another 'dimension'.

He might be making lots of money 'milking' this cash cow, but he has always come across as respectful in his debates. He considers the other's viewpoint, and calmly rebuts. I cannot say the same for a lot of the people he has debated. Maybe "Have a respectful discussion. Problem solved." is advice you should be giving them.

Kind of hard to do, when they start calling you 'Transphobe'. Just ask J Peterson.

I'm not protesting at all; It is not my right to change your opinion, or how you see the world. But you previously said ... And I asked what genders They/them, Ze/hir, Xe/xem, Hy/him or Co/cos refer to. To which you replied "Ask a Proctologist". I won't make any comments about pulling an answer out of your a*s 😄 .