MigL

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 😄 .

you've wasted a lot of time searching for my quotes, but maybe you should have taken that time to ubderstand them. The question is whether I think Trans people are delusional if they think they are a different gender than assigned at birth. You seem to think that your quote prove that ( as do some others apparently ) Then please explain what gender They/them, Ze/hir, Xe/xem, Hy/him or Co/cos refers to. These were all pronouns that I found online, and in use. What does it mean when someone says I'm a Hy trapped in a man's body, or a Xe trapped in a female body ? Can you go to the doctor and say "I want a sex change to Them ? Or a Co ? Or a Ze ? What do you think the doctor will say ? When you start rebutting the topic. We are discussing pronouns, valid ones and 'made-up' ones. ( I have a problem with the made-up ones ) You are disingenuously bringing up Trans people, which no-one has called delusional. They are referred to as whatever gender they transition to. When you can transition to a 'Ze', then you can call me a transphobe. And all those people you found online are not part of this discussion, and have no bearing on my argument.

As was asked of me ... Who would those people be ? Can you name names ?

I envy ScienceNostalgia101. Must be so nice to live in a world where clothing norms, and fashion sense are your biggest concern. Just kidding SN101 😀 .

I'll remind you of that , the next time you put down a 'crank' as delusional, when he/she has some misguided idea about science. I don't know who that argument is directed at; if you re-read my post, you might realize that doesn't apply to what I posted. What I posted was the following ... Let's try to keep the discussion honest.

I can only speak for myself, and I've never suggested Trans people are delusional. If you can live a happier, more fulfilling life as a member of the gender you were not born as, why should I stand in the way. I have suggested 'some' people are delusional, and since some people includes some Trans people, then some Trans people must also be delusional ( see set theory ). To clarify, I see 4 possible choices, on a sliding scale ... 1 - you identify as male to various degrees 2 - you identify as female to various degrees 3 - you identify as both to varying degrees 4 - you identify as neither with a varying degree of conviction and, as mentioned, the sliding scale between the 4 variations. ( like an x-y co-ordinate graph, you can be anywhere on that graph, not just the extremes ) Where on these axis, of gender/non-gender and male/female do you find 'ze', or any of the other 50-odd pronouns which are in use ( look it up ) ? Is that an indication of delusion ? Or can you scientifically defend that all those pronouns are valid ? Are we merely giving in to people some of whom may be delusional in fear of hurting their feelings ? What if I'm of the opinion that giving in to delusional people only makes the situation worse for everyone involved ?

@tar Are you really arguing about the results/methods of the Hafele-Keating experiments with a guy who designs/builds atomic clocks for a living ? Surely you must realize you don't have enough firepower to win that battle 🙂 .

As far as Dave Chapelle goes, if you don't like what he has to say, you have the option of not watching/listening. Why try to muzzle him by having him cancelled ? Ricky Gervais says it better than I can ... since we're now discussing comedy.

From any valid frame, inside the universe, length is frame dependent, as so many people have repeatedly told you. There is NO valid frame outside the universe ( block or any other model; nor other dimensions in the way you describe ), from which to measure the train. The OP is ill-posed, and cannot be answered, or even considered, as such.

I can respect ( OK, tolerate ) differing opinions and beliefs. I cannot respect differing facts if those facts are wrong. And the distance to Saturn is a fact ( wormholes or not ).

If someone sues you for repeatedly calling them by the 'wrong' pronoun, it goes to court, and the judge rules that you are in violation of their personal rights, does it not become case law then ? And it can be cited in any future cases; it effectively becomes law of 'common practice'. Our Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has many such cases, and a similar reason for 'stacking' your Supreme Court; an 'activist' judge can decide law. Do you want the name of the judge 😄 . ( and yes, I realize this is a 'slippery slope' argument )