MigL

Not at all. But you did mention that the 'adversarial system' works best, and I provided some examples where it didn't. Would you be happier with the American Civil War ?

With how many victims ? ( but we both know this is off topic. Revolutions are never a good way to solve society's problems )

You haven't been playing with a full deck for a while. Did you read Zap's post, where he made comparisons to M McConnell and Supreme Court nominations ? Or are your blinders on all the time ?

But you've already made up your mind that any I name, have lost their jobs for being ignorant bigots, not just for being labelled ignorant bigots. That is your problem; that you misinterpret a different opinion as being ignorant and bigoted. People are allowed to have their own personal opinion, not one foisted on them by someone else. IOW, you get to see reality as you observe it yourself, not what someone else wants you to see. ( for the 37th time )

OK Zap, I can make an absurd comparison too ... The French Revolution, the October ( actually November ) Revolution of the Bolsheviks and the Nazi 'night of broken glass', involved all of those things. How did the 'adversarial system' work out for those societies ?

I thought that's what I said. It helps if you think before you post. Nobody loses their job for being discourteous. People DO lose their jobs after being labelled ignorant bigots. See the difference ? Or should I send a PM explaning further ?

Yup. If someone asks me to call them Fred, or even Ze ( short for Zeke ), I don't have a problem, it is so written on their licence and ID cards, after all. But if someone chooses to make up a pronoun like 'Ze', because that is how they feel, or their way of 'standing out' in a crowd, I should be able to choose NOT to be courteous, and suffer the consequences of being discourteous. However, what is happening is that immediately the label ignorant bigot gets thrown out, and we all know the ramifications and repercussions of being so labelled. Nobody makes the news for being discourteous, and very few lose their jobs for it. That is not the case for people with different views who get labelled ignorant bigots. is it ? Lets stop pretending.

Would you call me an ignorant bigot, or cause me to lose my job, if I called you 'Fred' ?

I believe I'm starting to be.

That is incorrect. You were using incorrect science. Frequency is cycles per unit time. The 'space' these cycles occur in is actually the time domain. If you shorten the TIME that these CYCLES occurr in, you get a blue-shift, or increased frequency. So yes, if you detect a frequency change between two heights in a potential well ( from the same source ) it has to be due to a change in the duration of the time unit between each cycle. Either a lengthening ( dilation ) or shortening ( contraction ). Again you risk being shut down for using incorrect science.

Ahhh, but that's exactly the point. I'm only deciding for MYSELF. You want to decide for EVERYONE ELSE. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of force/coercion. I can pressure you to do all sorts of things. I could label you ignorant/bigoted and besmirch your professional reputation, simply for having the 'unfashionable' opinion, and you could lose your job. I don't see that as moving goalposts; I see it as force/coercion. Again, you are fine with calling anyone who doesn't believe there are any 'Ze' identities in the homo sapiens species, a racist or bigot, vilifying them, causing them all sorts of distress, and possibly having them lose their job, yet, you don't think it is 'helpful' to call someone who thinks he is a 'ze' delusional, as that might hurt their feelings. I think I need to mplore you. Please brother. Help me understand why and how you can have such double standards.

So you think it is a fantasy that people who have opposing opinions are labelled ignorant and bigoted ? Yet its happened in this very thread. And you might think this fantasy I'm living in makes me delusional. Just like I might think someone who refers to themselves as 'Ze', is. So, contrary to previous statements, you've no problem calling out delusional people. Or maybe you're of the opinion that only those delusions you agree with are valid.

That cuts both ways ... If you want a positive outcome from a discussion, forcing/coercing them to say what you want to hear, is not productive.

Let us further examine these statements. But they seem to know that IT IS a female that LOOKS like a male. ?Yet, oddly enough, they can tell that a change has happened, and can even identify the markers that allow for such a change. So are you really going to tell me Biologists don't know whether a member of a higher order species is ( currently ) male or female ? If we were having this discussion in a bar, with a couple of beers, you would be almost laughing when you made that argument, as you realized it would not be taken seriously. But again, that is not what I have a problem with. I will not be forced to say what someone else wants me to say. ( unless I want to become President, become a citizen, or take a certain job )

Yeah. Some people have all the 'tolerance' in the world, if you believe you are a 'Ze'. Yet none whatsoever if you believe that person is not a 'Ze'. Maybe Peterkin can inform me that I don't know what 'tolerance' of someone else's ideas means.

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" 😄 😄