Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, April 03, 2014

OTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments

Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 03, 2014 at 01:59 PM | 4718 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 7 million aca signees and counting, i-95 south, nc, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 46 of 48 pages ‹ First  < 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 > 
   4501. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4699030)
You are equating "basic human decency" with on-line interpersonal civility and seem to be judging anyone who doesn't get on board with that. There are people who would tell you that many of the views you have stated over the years on this board "catastrophically fail" the "basic human decency" test, no matter how calm your rhetoric may be in expressing them.

As to the part about belief systems, you missed the point. It is fine to say that "I disagree with Ray, but I like him as a guy." But given some of the stuff he says here, I think it is also understandable that some people basically tell him to f-off based on some of his beliefs, even though he may be a "nice guy" in the social sense.

As I have said a few times, at BTF, you pretty much get what you give 95% or so percent of the time, and there is more to showing respect for others than not calling them names or cussing at them.


I'm equating basic human decency with how you actual treat other people, not what philosophical or political views you hold.

If you think that describing some action as morally wrong or not morally fails that test, you have a very poor grasp of the difference between belief and action. I find abortion morally reprehensible, do you see me personally insulting the people who believe it should be allowed? Good people hold bad views, and bad people hold good views.

Despite his NAACP awards, Donald Sterling was a far worse racist than 99% of the Confederate flag waivers, because his acted on his racism to actually hurt people.
   4502. BDC Posted: May 02, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4699032)
that's what I did for a living for a while, dieing

Was your nature subdued to what you worked in?
   4503. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 02, 2014 at 02:34 PM (#4699033)
It's been my experience that spelling isn't a huge priority for Bitter Mouse. To each his own!


Priority is not the problem. I suck at it. I am terrible at crossword puzzles as well. Additionally I have no sense of direction. I am (sob) flawed.

My mild dyslexia also does not help (more my general typing and spelling than this particular error). And when I go fast, well watch out! But mostly I suck at spelling.
   4504. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 02, 2014 at 02:35 PM (#4699035)
Despite his NAACP awards, Donald Sterling was a far worse racist than 99% of the Confederate flag waivers, because his acted on his racism to actually hurt people.

This seems like a common-sense statement, but I'm not sure it's true anymore. We seem to be in an era in which saying something bad is worse than doing something bad. Otherwise, it's kind of inexplicable that Sterling's comments to his mistress were his downfall rather than the housing discrimination, etc.
   4505. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 02, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4699037)
No, not really. I'm not aware of any insurance policy that covers breast implants for flat-chested women, while scar revisions are almost always considered elective.

All you're doing, as per usual, is operating from preferences rather than principles, elevating Gender Identity Disorder to a higher place than all sorts of other misery-inducing issues — to use Lassus' description — relating to birth defects, injuries, personal preferences, or even body dysmorphic disorder.


How effortlessly you glide from "people with awful scars and disfigurations" to "breast implants for flat-chested women".

Here is a hint for you Joe. I am deferring to the experts who have studied the issues and worked with regulators, insurers and so on and decided which procedures are necessary and under what conditions. They are not perfect guidelines, but they are also not my preferences. Feel free to disagree with them, but pretending by funding gender reassignment we are dooming "people with awful scars and disfigurations" is just silly, especially when you - when convenient - bring in breast implants.
   4506. Greg K Posted: May 02, 2014 at 02:46 PM (#4699040)
Priority is not the problem. I suck at it. I am terrible at crossword puzzles as well. Additionally I have no sense of direction. I am (sob) flawed.

My mild dyslexia also does not help (more my general typing and spelling than this particular error). And when I go fast, well watch out! But mostly I suck at spelling.

Ah that is a bummer, I thought you just didn't give a ####. I'm ok with directions, unless I change floors whether by stairs or elevator. I'm currently at my parents house, where I spent the first 19 years of my life, and I have absolutely no idea what is directly above or below me on the other floor at any given time. I'm actually quite proud of my cartographic skills though, and I often play the role of navigator on road trips. However, I am unable to drive a car (or rather, my ability is such that for the safety of those around me, I don't).
   4507. rr Posted: May 02, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4699041)
I'm equating basic human decency with how you actual treat other people, not what philosophical or political views you hold.

If you think that describing some action as morally wrong or not morally fails that test, you have a very poor grasp of the difference between belief and action.

--
IMO, you have a very poor grasp of the importance that some people place on beliefs, the implications of beliefs, the societal relationship between beliefs and actions, how beliefs can affect real people, and also an elevated sense of civility in the hierarchy of human values. Saying hi to a guy instead of walking up to him at a water cooler at the company and saying, "You and your wife are morally reprehensible for aborting that baby" doesn't make you a "good guy." It makes you a civil and polite guy, who understands the basic social lubricants of daily American life. But there are also people who operate more based on principles and avoid contact, or directly tell off, those who have beliefs that they find abhorrent. For a variety of reasons, doing that in daily face-to-face life is tough. Doing it on the internet under a handle is easy, as we (including me, for sure) all know.

If we are talking about more extreme actions, either good or bad, then you may have a point.
   4508. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: May 02, 2014 at 02:49 PM (#4699043)
Here is a hint for you Joe. I am deferring to the experts who have studied the issues and worked with regulators, insurers and so on and decided which procedures are necessary and under what conditions. They are not perfect guidelines, but they are also not my preferences. Feel free to disagree with them, but pretending by funding gender reassignment we are dooming "people with awful scars and disfigurations" is just silly, especially when you - when convenient - bring in breast implants.


As I pointed out to you yesterday, it's meaningless to cite to experts when agreement with the underlying thesis of transgender rights (that one's self-perceived gender identity is innate and independent from one's anotomical gender) is a necessary condition to becoming an expert in the field. One of the great things about, for example, climate change, is that agreeing that global warming is anthropogenic is not a litmus test for admission to graduate programs, publishing papers, etc. Belief in and support of transgender rights is a prerequesite to becoming a transgender expert, so the experts views are necessarily biased.
   4509. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 02, 2014 at 02:52 PM (#4699049)
Ah that is a bummer, I thought you just didn't give a ####.


Like everyone I have strengths and weaknesses. I am happy with me in total. Regarding spelling I would have been much better off had I grown up in the modern (spell check) age. In fact I have gotten much better as a result of programs YELLING at me that I spelled X wrong. But when I spell the wrong word correctly that is no help to me. Yes it is true, I used to be much worse at spelling. In fact spell check caught two different misspellings in this very paragraph (gotten and correctly if you must know - correctly was more a typo, but I always spell/type gotten as "gotton", no idea why, but there it is).
   4510. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 02, 2014 at 02:55 PM (#4699051)
And gee, you'd think that with the government breathing down the neck of businesses and law firms everywhere, forcing them to hire and promote unqualified African Americans, that the person making a comment like this could easily supply some first hand evidence to back up his assertion from his own workplace.

Andy, anyone of mine/Ray's generation with our experiences and career path and employing institutions understands that what Ray says is not even up for debate. It's taken as a given by virtually everyone in the system. Every word he said about it is true in every sense.


Then we should assume that his answer to my question would provide evidence for his (and your) assertion. But does it?

   4511. Greg K Posted: May 02, 2014 at 02:55 PM (#4699052)
(gotten and correctly if you must know - correctly was more a typo, but I always spell/type gotten as "gotton", no idea why, but there it is).

For the life of me I never, ever get "occasion" right the first time (this time was no different. Always with the single c!)
   4512. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 02:56 PM (#4699054)
The idea that wanting others to see you as you see yourself is a mental illness strikes me as more than a little odd. (Not that you are, just making that as a side point).
But of course nobody makes that claim; the claim is that "seeing yourself" as something other than what you are is a mental illness.
   4513. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4699056)
How effortlessly you glide from "people with awful scars and disfigurations" to "breast implants for flat-chested women".

Effortlessly, indeed. Without a doubt, there are people with awful scars who are less "miserable" about it than some women are about being flat-chested.

Here is a hint for you Joe. I am deferring to the experts who have studied the issues and worked with regulators, insurers and so on and decided which procedures are necessary and under what conditions. They are not perfect guidelines, but they are also not my preferences. Feel free to disagree with them, but pretending by funding gender reassignment we are dooming "people with awful scars and disfigurations" is just silly, especially when you - when convenient - bring in breast implants.

I'm not the one in need of any "hints." Politics and ideology have elevated gender reassignment surgery above all sorts of other medical issues that cause "misery" to people. It's yet another example of liberals putting preferences ahead of principles.
   4514. Lassus Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:01 PM (#4699057)
Why do you draw the line for "life of misery" at gender reassignment surgery? What about people with horrible disfigurations? Scars? Burns? Flat-chested or huge-chested* women? People with big, crooked noses?

Can't anyone ever answer a question with an answer as opposed to some other question?
   4515. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:02 PM (#4699058)

Sure.
   4516. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:02 PM (#4699059)
As I pointed out to you yesterday, it's meaningless to cite to experts when agreement with the underlying thesis of transgender rights (that one's self-perceived gender identity is innate and independent from one's anotomical gender) is a necessary condition to becoming an expert in the field. One of the great things about, for example, climate change, is that agreeing that global warming is anthropogenic is not a litmus test for admission to graduate programs, publishing papers, etc. Belief in and support of transgender rights is a prerequesite to becoming a transgender expert, so the experts views are necessarily biased.


Being a government regulator or insurance plan benefits coordinator does not require that at all. Do you think a small coterie of medical transgender activists set all insurance policy? It is not that at all.

Medical professionals, even in gender studies, have plenty of disagreements. The whole area is rife with them in fact. Whether or not to call it a "mental illness" is one topic that has been under discussion (as far as I know) for years, and the consensus opinion is changing on it. However even with that change, regulations and insurance policy does not change at their whim.

I get that you think deferring to the process is unreasonable, but my position is two fold. First of all they (regulators, medical professionals, etc) know more and have studied the issue in depth. They have examined what the real world examples are and the impacts of their various decisions are. They usually end up with fairly nuanced (though occasionally wrong) policy positions. So my default position is that they are going to be correct more often than random internet dude who is an independent baseball guy who never went to college and never studied any of this in an academic or real world situation. Perhaps this is an appeal to authority.

My second point is while I may be deferring to the existing policy (though I admit it is likely flawed) it is not my policy. JoeK calling me out for my insensitivity towards people with scars is ridiculous because even if the policy is insensitive, it is not a policy I worked on and own in any sense of the word.

Note: Many spelling errors above. Maybe I caught them all, maybe I didn't. So yeah, maybe I just don't care!
   4517. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4699060)
Do you think a small coterie of medical transgender activists set all insurance policy? It is not that at all.

Activists have a huge role in influencing such decisions, as they have for decades.
   4518. Lassus Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4699061)
Sure.

Then I invite you, Ray, and 'zop to try that with the question of mine you quoted.
   4519. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:09 PM (#4699063)
Then I invite you, Ray, and 'zop to try that with the question of mine you quoted.

No one denied that gender identity disorder can result in "misery." The discussion moved beyond that. Also, your question:

Did the thought ever occur to you or Ray that a life of misery might be considered necessary if it was your existence?

... wasn't all that well-phrased. The general thrust seemed to be, "You wouldn't like it if you had _____," which is true for all sorts of things and mostly irrelevant.
   4520. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4699064)
Did it ever occur to you that the reason people are less enchanted with AA than they were is because it has worked fairly well and hit their personal point where the cost of it and the benefit of it has changed?

As with virtually all these issues, yes, I considered the opposite of what I believe and found it to be lacking.

The late 70s/early 80s were more socially liberal than 2014 in many, many ways.
   4521. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4699065)
But of course nobody makes that claim; the claim is that "seeing yourself" as something other than what you are is a mental illness.


I assure you, my ex was totally aware that physically they were female. They hated that. At one point my ex mentioned that they caught them self wishing they had breast cancer so they could be removed. If I remember correctly that was the moment when they really realized they needed to get gender reassignment (I have a bad memory, goes well with the bad spelling, so I am not 100% sure on the sequencing - especially since I heard about this after the fact).

Their mental image of their identity, who they should be and how they fit, did not match their physical gender identity. This was made worse by the fact that (naturally) everyone treated them as female. Now, all that is better. They appear male, people respond to them as male and their self image of their identity is male.

No one can stop you from calling it mental illness. However the people who compile the DSM and put a great deal of time and energy into getting things correct disagree with you as do many (but not all) experts in the field. Authority appealed to I guess.
   4522. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:12 PM (#4699066)
It makes you a civil and polite guy

Civility and politeness are positive goods, arguably virtues.
   4523. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4699067)
Activists have a huge role in influencing such decisions, as they have for decades.


Are all activists bad and wrong, or only those you disagree with? And BTW influence and set policy are different things. You know what else influenced the decision, how it was categorized previously.
   4524. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:15 PM (#4699068)
...and yet...

And yet I went on to explain that it's different from mental illness.


Mmmm hmmm...here's what you said in #4412:

Well, I won't defend the silliness of religion, but it's more of a brainwashing/indoctrination thing as opposed to mental illness.


Being "brainwashed" is considered a mental illness in psychiatry. The technical term is "coercive persuasion". From the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders v.IV:

"300.15 Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified...3. States of dissociation that occur in individuals who have been subjected to periods of prolonged and intense coecive persuasion (e.g., brainwashing, thought reform, or indoctrination while captive."

From the DSMV:

"300.15 Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified...2. Identity disturbance due to prolonged and intensive coercive persuasion: individuals who have been subjected to intensive coercive persuasion (e.g. brainwashing, thought reform, indoctrination while captive torture, long term political imprisonment, recruitment by sects/cults or by terror organizations) may present with prolonged changes in or conscious questioning of, their identity."
   4525. The Good Face Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:17 PM (#4699071)
Civility and politeness are positive goods, arguably virtues.


Arguably?
   4526. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4699072)
Then we should assume that his answer to my question would provide evidence for his (and your) assertion. But does it?

The number of Af-Am's at Ray's law firm wouldn't prove anything you've ever said or asserted, or disprove what he and I have said.
   4527. Lassus Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4699074)
No one denied that gender identity disorder can result in "misery." The discussion moved beyond that.

The discussion was the definition of "necessary surgery". Do you agree or disagree that if you were in the position of someone requiring that surgery to avoid further daily confusion and misery, you would therefore consider it necessary?


... wasn't all that well-phrased.

Yeah, I was on my phone, I ###### up the wording, I admit. You get the point, and a refusal to answer is still a refusal to answer.
   4528. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4699075)
I assure you, my ex was totally aware that physically they were female. They hated that. At one point my ex mentioned that they caught them self wishing they had breast cancer so they could be removed. If I remember correctly that was the moment when they really realized they needed to get gender reassignment (I have a bad memory, goes well with the bad spelling, so I am not 100% sure on the sequencing - especially since I heard about this after the fact).

Their mental image of their identity, who they should be and how they fit, did not match their physical gender identity. This was made worse by the fact that (naturally) everyone treated them as female. Now, all that is better. They appear male, people respond to them as male and their self image of their identity is male.

No one can stop you from calling it mental illness. However the people who compile the DSM and put a great deal of time and energy into getting things correct disagree with you as do many (but not all) experts in the field. Authority appealed to I guess.

Did this happen after having children or was it an "always felt that way" kind of thing?

***
Are all activists bad and wrong, or only those you disagree with? And BTW influence and set policy are different things. You know what else influenced the decision, how it was categorized previously.

It doesn't matter whether they're "bad and wrong." The issue is the potentially undue influence that leads to the prioritization of Issue X over Issues Y and Z when allocating limited resources. (The proverbial squeaky wheel getting the oil, etc.)
   4529. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4699076)
Medical professionals, even in gender studies, have plenty of disagreements. The whole area is rife with them in fact. Whether or not to call it a "mental illness" is one topic that has been under discussion (as far as I know) for years, and the consensus opinion is changing on it. However even with that change, regulations and insurance policy does not change at their whim.

I get that you think deferring to the process is unreasonable, but my position is two fold. First of all they (regulators, medical professionals, etc) know more and have studied the issue in depth. They have examined what the real world examples are and the impacts of their various decisions are. They usually end up with fairly nuanced (though occasionally wrong) policy positions. So my default position is that they are going to be correct more often than random internet dude who is an independent baseball guy who never went to college and never studied any of this in an academic or real world situation. Perhaps this is an appeal to authority.


Sure, but what I'm saying is that you have to be able to identify expert dissent in order to cite to the validity of expert opinion. Regulators may not be preselcted for their support of trans causes, like trans therapists are, but woe be to the regulator who stands astride the unanimity of the academic establishment - an establishment that uses an ideological litmus test to selects its members.

My view here is probably biased from my experience studying climate change, because I was told many times by my advisor and other faculty how important it was to them that they did NOT select students based upon fealty to the cause. I don't get the sense thats true for trans-studies, or queer studies, etc. I think it is inconceivable that someone who thought trans identity was, even in a significant minority of cases, a symptom of a mental disorder would ever be allowed to get a graduate degree from a top-tier institution. I think you know that, too.

I don't think an appeal to authority is valid when that authority is defined by group think. Then again, that's a huge issue with social science in general on both sides. (There are plenty of conservative areas of study that effectively require certain beliefs at the exclusion of others - what I'm describing is not unique to progressives.)

   4530. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:24 PM (#4699078)
The discussion was the definition of "necessary surgery". Do you agree or disagree that if you were in the position of someone requiring that surgery to avoid further daily confusion and misery, you would therefore consider it necessary?

What a person believes to be necessary and what's actually necessary are often two very different things.

Yeah, I was on my phone, I ###### up the wording, I admit. You get the point, and a refusal to answer is still a refusal to answer.

I didn't refuse to answer. I just didn't answer in the way you apparently wanted.
   4531. rr Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:25 PM (#4699079)
Civility and politeness are positive goods, arguably virtues.


Sure. So are "living according to your principles as much as you can" and "speaking your mind", depending on the context and the value system of the person in question.

I have known and know people (and you probably have and do, too) who were/are polite, pleasant, and civil, but had some other major character flaws that manifested under pressure and/or whose beliefs were really abhorrent to me. And I have known and know people who I wouldn't want to watch baseball or basketball with or hang out with, but whose principles and/or integrity I find admirable. Basic human decency can IMO take many forms.
   4532. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4699081)
Additionally I have no sense of direction.


Same here. Perhaps it's a rodent thing.

Hell, I sometimes confuse "left" & "right" (well, not politically, though of course at the extremes some overlap [in]famously exists ...), even. "Up" & "down" I'm pretty sure about, though.
   4533. Lassus Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:29 PM (#4699082)
What a person believes to be "necessary" and what's actually necessary are often two very different things.

That's actually an answer to a question I didn't ask.

Whatever. You don't feel surgery is necessary unless YOU think it's necessary, I guess. Funny how that works.
   4534. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:29 PM (#4699084)
IMO, you have a very poor grasp of the importance that some people place on beliefs, the implications of beliefs, the societal relationship between beliefs and actions, how beliefs can affect real people, and also an elevated sense of civility in the hierarchy of human values. Saying hi to a guy instead of walking up to him at a water cooler at the company and saying, "You and your wife are morally reprehensible for aborting that baby" doesn't make you a "good guy." It makes you a civil and polite guy, who understands the basic social lubricants of daily American life. But there are also people who operate more based on principles and avoid contact, or directly tell off, those who have beliefs that they find abhorrent. For a variety of reasons, doing that in daily face-to-face life is tough. Doing it on the internet under a handle is easy, as we (including me, for sure) all know.

If we are talking about more extreme actions, either good or bad, then you may have a point.


I think it is incredibly narrow minded to think that you can only engage civilly with people who share all your views. Not to mention self-limiting.

It's far more interesting and educating to debate and argue with those you disagree with. No need to be a jackass about your disagreements, either in person or online.
   4535. rr Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:31 PM (#4699086)
Furthermore, I believe very strongly that you shouldn't say things or make arguments in these discussions that you wouldn't say if we were having the conversation in person, say in a bar.

I believe Ray would make absolutely the same arguments in person he does on the web. I doubt many of the people who insult him would have the balls to do the same.

--

Perhaps, but I would suggest that this is also your ideological bias coming into play, and the fact that meeting Primates tends to be a bit of a perception-changer. On the first point, it is not as if the righties here are more upfront collectively about who they are than the lefties, and you and Ray are both on the same team in many respects. On the second, it is harder to hate on a guy for his worldview/politics if you have hung out with him and had a good time doing so.
   4536. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:32 PM (#4699087)
It's far more interesting and educating to debate and argue with those you disagree with. No need to be a jackass about your disagreements, either in person or online.


Right, but this is a core difference between modern lowercase-c conservativism and progressivism.
   4537. rr Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:33 PM (#4699088)
I think it is incredibly narrow minded to think that you can only engage civilly with people who share all your views


Neither said that nor implied it. I just said--and this quote demonstrates it yet again--that IMO you are making too much of equivalency between interpersonal civility and other forms of "human decency." You are of course entitled to your own sensibilities on this issue, but others may have very good reasons for not sharing them.
   4538. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:36 PM (#4699091)
That's actually an answer to a question I didn't ask.

No, it was a clear answer to the question you asked.

Whatever. You don't feel surgery is necessary unless YOU think it's necessary, I guess. Funny how that works.

Not funny at all. Subjectivity is a major issue in situations like this, as I mentioned earlier.
   4539. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:38 PM (#4699092)
On the first point, it is not as if the righties here are more upfront collectively about who they are than the lefties,

Come on. There are only three non-lefties who post regularly in these threads whose names are unknown to the thread's participants. Three.

-that IMO you are making too much of equivalency between interpersonal civility and other forms of "human decency."

Sounds like we're back to it being OK to attack people who hold different political opinions.
   4540. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:39 PM (#4699093)
Then we should assume that his answer to my question would provide evidence for his (and your) assertion. But does it?

The number of Af-Am's at Ray's law firm wouldn't prove anything you've ever said or asserted, or disprove what he and I have said.


The operative word there was "evidence", not "proof". But proof is the culmination of many examples of evidence.

And is it really that hard to get a simple answer to those original two questions? I'm not asking him for names, nor am I asking him to identify his law firm by name, though I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find with a few minutes of searching. Nobody's being outed here.
   4541. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:43 PM (#4699099)
Neither said that nor implied it. I just said--and this quote demonstrates it yet again--that IMO you are making too much of equivalency between interpersonal civility and other forms of "human decency." You are of course entitled to your own sensibilities on this issue, but others may have very good reasons for not sharing them.


I think what snapper is trying to say is that you think that you know what human decency is. No one should be particularly confident about that, and certainly not confident enough to label someone else's beliefs as abhorrent.

You disagree with others. You may, or may not, be right.
   4542. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:45 PM (#4699100)
And is it really that hard to get a simple answer to those original two questions? I'm not asking him for names, nor am I asking him to identify his law firm by name, though I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find with a few minutes of searching. Nobody's being outed here.

No, but it's silly to ask for evidence for the purpose of trying to infer from a single law firm what is obvious from experience and observation. The contents of affirmative action policies are easily accessible, in the Supreme Court AA cases and elsewhere. The extent of the privileges they confer is easily discernable. And the testimony of Ray and me is, as noted, incontrovertible.
   4543. rr Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:49 PM (#4699102)
I love how robinred pops into these threads now not to offer any substantive points, but to render verdicts on how "revolting" or "unpleasant" people are.


--

Didn't say any of that. But hey, cheer up, even If I had,--unpleasant beliefs is a nice step up from revolting human being, yes?

Also, in terms of "substantive points" I generally just try to read and learn when the topic is outside my knowledge base, and the education discussions I have been involved in here have been, well, a bit "unpleasant", and I am, as you politely reminded me once, "just a teacher."
   4544. Greg K Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:50 PM (#4699104)
Come on. There are only three non-lefties who post regularly in these threads whose names are unknown to the thread's participants. Three.

Unrelated to the discussion at hand, but I'm trying to think of the names I know on here. Yours, obviously, Ray and Sam. Szym too. There's another layer of people who have made it fairly clear what they are, I don't know off-hand, but they've made it easy to look up should I want to know: Andy, BDC off the top of my head. I've linked the fox painting which has my name attached enough that anyone who cared to pay attention would know (or for that matter google a Greg K who works in 17th century gender and politics).

Intuitively I don't immediately see why anonymity or non-anonymity would track with political belief, but I'd be mildly interested to see a study. I'd guess it tracks fairly closely to age, but that's just a wild guess.
   4545. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:54 PM (#4699106)
But unlike a C-section, completely unnecessary. No one dies as a result of living under the "wrong gender".


I'm pretty sure humans gave birth before c sections were invented. As such they are only performed when doctors deem them medically necessary. They are elective. The fact that one is common and the other weirds your conventional morality about sex and gender out has no bearing on the question.

Ray is a good guy, but has a lot of archaic ideas about sex and gender. And he's not good at caging his debate in civil terms or understanding that his belief is not an arbiter of reality. For example his religious belief that the only proper means of treating gender dysphoria is by modifying the brain chemistry (treating it as a mental illness) rather than modifying the outer biological components (gender transition.)
   4546. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:55 PM (#4699107)
On "human decency" -- I suppose there's some small areas where political stances translate to decency (or indecency), but nowhere near as many as "progressives" think. A guy who walks into a voting booth and votes for a candidate that will increase welfare payments is not more "decent" than a guy who walks in and votes for a tax-cutter.

At the extremes, the idea is quite offensive -- see, e.g., the passages in Adam Clymer's bio of Ted Kennedy that essentially argue, "Who cares about Chappaquiddick, Kennedy was an influential advocate for social spending." OTOH, saying, "Yeah, he voted for Hitler, but he's quite polite to old ladies and therefore quite decent," would also be rather silly.
   4547. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:56 PM (#4699108)
I'm pretty sure humans gave birth before c sections were invented. As such they are only performed when doctors deem them medically necessary. They are elective. The fact that one is common and the other weirds your conventional morality about sex and gender out has no bearing on the question.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. Humans gave birth before c-sections, but mortality among women giving birth was high! There's a big difference between a procedure that saves lives and a procedure that makes folks feel better about what gender they are.
   4548. rr Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:56 PM (#4699109)
I think what snapper is trying to say is that you think that you know what human decency is


It is actually the exact opposite. snapper asserted that he believed in "treating people with basic human decency"--which means that he is the one who knows what it is. I simply told him that I think it encompasses many kinds of behaviors and that other people may not share his definition.

And, of course, snapper is also absolutely sure that some people's beliefs are abhorrent, or "morally reprehensible", if you like.

You disagree with others. You may, or may not, be right.


Sure. And check the mirror on this the next time you make broad assertions about liberals or other topics on which you have already expressed strong opinions. Your 180* on South Africa was an admirable moment in that regard.

   4549. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:57 PM (#4699110)
Insurance covers reconstructive surgeries from mastectomies. Specifically as a treatment for the mental pain associated with that surgery by cancer survivors. That is another analog of transition surgeries (that are only covered by a vanguard liberal outpost like DC.)
   4550. zenbitz Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:58 PM (#4699112)
That's because the "preferences" you cite don't make it better to be non-white, non-male; they just make it less bad to be so. You confuse closing the gaps created by privilege with privileging the other.


On White/Male/Hetero preference. It's a lot like the platoon split. Every person is (of course) a valuable and special snowflake, but in the aggregate LHB hit worse against LHP and likewise for RHs. The existence of *SOME* people that buck trends doesn't mean trends don't exist.

   4551. zenbitz Posted: May 02, 2014 at 03:59 PM (#4699113)
If it were not normal for "gender identity" to match with sex then the matching would be random. We'd see half the people conflicted ("mismatched") and half not.

That's not what we see. Instead, we see a very small fraction of people "mismatched."


Aren't robots supposed to be good at math?
   4552. rr Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:03 PM (#4699115)
On "human decency" -- I suppose there's some small areas where political stances translate to decency (or indecency), but nowhere near as many as "progressives" think. A guy who walks into a voting booth and votes for a candidate that will increase welfare payments is not more "decent" than a guy who walks in and votes for a tax-cutter.

At the extremes,

--

Yeah, I agree with that to an extent, although I think labeling it as something "Progressives" do but other people don't do as much is just a generalization.

And, I did say in one of my posts addressing snapper, that the point is re-contextualized at the extremes. Looking at partisan politics specifically, I have certainly never claimed that Team Blue et al has fewer personal sleaze bags on it than Team Red et al does. I read a lot about LBJ (Caro, and some other books) and about Goldwater back in 2012, and that was a good lesson from recent history on the subject.
   4553. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:03 PM (#4699116)
On White/Male/Hetero preference. It's a lot like the platoon split. Every person is (of course) a valuable and special snowflake, but in the aggregate LHB hit worse against LHP and likewise for RHs. The existence of *SOME* people that buck trends doesn't mean trends don't exist.

Women live longer than men. Female privilege.
   4554. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:04 PM (#4699117)
Sure. And check the mirror on this the next time you make broad assertions about liberals or other topics on which you have already expressed strong opinions. Your 180* on South Africa was an admirable moment in that regard.



Ah, close but no cigar. I think you can go into a debate and be quite certain that you are right (as long as you're willing to change your mind in the future) - I'm saying that you can disagree vigorously, but you can't ascribe moral value to the position you agree with.
   4555. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:04 PM (#4699118)
Insurance covers reconstructive surgeries from mastectomies.

Not always, at least not all types. Regardless, you're just hand-waving the fact that you were wrong about gender reassignment surgery being covered by insurance and, thus, subsidized by others.
   4556. rr Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:07 PM (#4699120)
but you can't ascribe moral value to the position you agree with.


--

Well, OK, but I suppose that depends on how you define "moral value" and how you apply it.
   4557. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:09 PM (#4699121)
"But of course nobody makes that claim; the claim is that "seeing yourself" as something other than what you are is a mental illness."

Tue question is how to approach gender dysphoria. Do you preference the biology of the brain or the biology of the reproductive organs. "Liberals" suggest preferencing the chemistry of the individual's sense of identity. You and the anti-individualists preference the biology of the dick/vagina. All you are doing is siding with the sex organs because it's the anti-liberal position. A real libertarian would preference personal choice of the individual. But we both know you are actually willing to follow your so called principles on this matter, because at this point you value religious orthodoxy over the freedom of others.
   4558. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:12 PM (#4699122)
Joe, I acknowledge the link you provided. I noted its scope. I responded with counterpoints. If that's what you think is hand waving... Well you're not particularly famous for valid discourse, I guess.
   4559. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:14 PM (#4699124)
A real libertarian would preference personal choice of the individual. But we both know you are actually willing to follow your so called principles on this matter, because at this point you value religious orthodoxy over the freedom of others.
I have no "religious orthodoxy." And you've tried this lame gotcha numerous times in this discussion, getting feebler every time. Once again: libertarianism is about the relationship between the individual and government. If the government were banning (or mandating¹) sex change operations, then libertarianism would be relevant. Since that isn't the issue, your comments are just a red herring.


¹But Roberts would call it a tax.
   4560. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:15 PM (#4699125)
. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Humans gave birth before c-sections, but mortality among women giving birth was high! There's a big difference between a procedure that saves lives and a procedure that makes folks feel better about what gender they are.


1. Transition surgeries save lives by reducing suicides.

2. The question is what a doctor deems "medically necessary" versus what is "biologically necessary". A c section is an elective surgery.
   4561. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:15 PM (#4699126)
Also, a really nice employment report today. I know we don't care about these anymore. The headline number of a drop from 6.7 to 6.3% unemployment is misleading, as it's basically due to a similar size drop in the LFPR. That is the one soft spot of the report, but the rest of it is very good. 288K jobs, with an extra 36K in upward revisions to March/Feb. Very slight gains in hourly wages (but probably not significant).

It's better than the unemployment rate going up, but not by much. The added 288,000 jobs were more than offset by the 806,000 who left the workforce.
   4562. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4699127)
You don't cop to your religious orthodoxy. That doesn't make it disappear.
   4563. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:17 PM (#4699128)
Tue question is how to approach gender dysphoria. Do you preference the biology of the brain or the biology of the reproductive organs. "Liberals" suggest preferencing the chemistry of the individual's sense of identity. You and the anti-individualists preference the biology of the dick/vagina. All you are doing is siding with the sex organs because it's the anti-liberal position. A real libertarian would preference personal choice of the individual.


Nobody here has taken issue with people "self-identifying" in any way they choose (*). So that's not really why we're having this discussion. We're having this discussion because some of us think this is properly classified as a disorder, and some of us -- the Party Of Science -- want to ignore that it's a disorder in favor of ideology.

A secondary issue is that this isn't only about Person X "self-identifying" but on insisting that others also identify Person X in a certain way, and demanding that others agree (or at least state) that Person X does not have a mental illness, with the sentence for this crime being to be called revolting and unpleasant.

(*) Or with getting a sex change (is it still called that? I guess not) if they so choose. (The issue with the latter is who pays for it.)

   4564. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4699129)
Libertarians who have any principles support human liberty. Period. You are not one of those. You're a guy who wants to suck society for what he wants but hide behind lib Econ theory when it comes to others.
   4565. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:19 PM (#4699130)
Joe, I acknowledge the link you provided. I noted its scope. I responded with counterpoints. If that's what you think is hand waving... Well you're not particularly famous for valid discourse, I guess.

You downplayed the link and then claimed that gender reassignment surgery differs little, if at all, from a C-section in terms of medical necessity.

"Valid discourse," indeed.
   4566. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:20 PM (#4699131)
When you can't win on the merits, you brand the people who disagree with you bigoted or revolting or just generally unpleasant people. It's an old play, and it says more about the people using the play than it does about the people being branded.
   4567. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:23 PM (#4699133)
1. Transition surgeries save lives by reducing suicides.

For every transgendered suicide, I bet we could find a hundred people with physical disfigurements or body dysmorphic disorder who committed suicide.

2. The question is what a doctor deems "medically necessary" versus what is "biologically necessary". A c section is an elective surgery.

The possible suicide of a transgender person makes gender reassignment surgery more medically necessary than a C-section during a problematic or otherwise high-risk childbirth?
   4568. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:23 PM (#4699135)
Nobody here has taken issue with people "self-identifying" in any way they choose (*). So that's not really why we're having this discussion. We're having this discussion because some of us think this is properly classified as a disorder, and some of us -- the Party Of Science -- want to ignore that it's a disorder in favor of ideology.


Not exactly. Everyone save maybe TGF acknowledges gender dysphoria as a condition of the person. You want to deny neuroscience, brain chemistry and personal identity in service of rote reproductive organs. I want to preference brain chemistry and personal autonomy over reproductive organs. Outside of religious arguments that deny that human consciousness is essentially biological you have no reason to choose cocks over consciousness.
   4569. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:25 PM (#4699138)
"For every transgendered suicide, I bet we could find a hundred people with physical disfigurements or body dysmorphic disorder who committed suicide."

And we should take their mental anguish seriously and acknowledge the medical issues of that depression. If their doctors deem reconstruction medically necessary, as they often do with mastectomies...
   4570. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:27 PM (#4699139)
Ray, if 4566 is directed at me, I tell David the truth about himself. That's all I've done here.
   4571. rr Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:30 PM (#4699140)
Ray, if 4566 is directed at me


That is at me, and at the guy who actually called Ray revolting. Also, I just said that I find some of Ray's beliefs unpleasant--never met the man in person.
   4572. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:31 PM (#4699142)
Joe, I have made a couple of posts explaining WHY a c section is an elective surgery used where deemed medically necessary, which are the conditions of the DC coverage for transitions.
   4573. BDC Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:32 PM (#4699143)
some of us think this is properly classified as a disorder

So your position would be that transgender feelings are either truly delusional (à la Morgellons), or alternatively, mere whimsical petulance?

I can kinda dig that, I mean, sometimes somebody will complain about gluten or chemical senstitivities or some ####### thing and I roll my eyes and think please, just go get happy and stop being such a hypochondriac. But then I have to remind myself that (a) I have no medical training; (b) I'm an old crank who wishes they'd stop playing the music so loud at the ballpark; and, crucially, (c) I'm an idiot.
   4574. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:32 PM (#4699145)
Ray, if 4566 is directed at me, I tell David the truth about himself. That's all I've done here.


No, it wasn't directed at you, but at some of the people in this thread who have called others names.
   4575. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:33 PM (#4699147)
"The possible suicide of a transgender person makes gender reassignment surgery more medically necessary than a C-section during a problematic or otherwise high-risk childbirth?"

C-sections are not reserved for high risk pregnancies. They're done every time unless the mother fights against them.
   4576. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:38 PM (#4699148)
Joe, I have made a couple of posts explaining WHY a c section is an elective surgery used where deemed medically necessary, which are the conditions of the DC coverage for transitions.

The discussion began with you saying, wrongly:

Elective surgeries are not subsidized. This paranoia.

As for the above, elective surgeries that are deemed medically necessary are not, for all intents and purposes, "elective." Otherwise, the phrase "medically necessary" has lost all meaning.

C-sections are not reserved for high risk pregnancies. They're done every time unless the mother fights against them.

That C-sections might be performed too often doesn't change the fact that a C-section necessitated by a problematic childbirth is more medically necessary than gender reassignment surgery.
   4577. Ron J2 Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:39 PM (#4699149)
For Ray primarily, but for others as well. According to Bill Simmons (in his podcast with Chuck Klosterman)

a) the players were planning to not play if they were not satisfied with Silver's actions on Sterling. According to Simmons this was a serious threat. Not just the players on the Clippers either. All games would have been affected.

b) All of the players were planning on the Clippers were planning to file lawsuits asking for free agency (citing work environment)

OK, anonymous rumors. Still, everybody talks to Simmons. He's usually pretty well informed on the vibes around the league.
   4578. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:41 PM (#4699151)
b) All of the players were planning on the Clippers were planning to file lawsuits asking for free agency (citing work environment)

Doing this was probably more likely than the boycott, but they'd get laughed out of court.
   4579. The Good Face Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:43 PM (#4699152)
Everyone save maybe TGF acknowledges gender dysphoria as a condition of the person. You want to deny neuroscience, brain chemistry and personal identity in service of rote reproductive organs.


I deny no such thing. There are some people out there who truly suffer from some jacked up brain chemistry. But to indulge madness is to breed it.

Outside of religious arguments that deny that human consciousness is essentially biological you have no reason to choose cocks over consciousness.


Feh. Society chooses cocks over consciousness (if there even is such a thing). Cocks (and other physical sexual characteristics) are easy to verify. Consciousness? Not so much. I merely hew to the traditional modes of gender that have provided the normality and social cohesion necessary for our civilization to thrive.
   4580. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:43 PM (#4699153)
You're simply preferencing "problematic childbirth" as socially important while refusing to acknowledge "problematic gender identity." This is
Purely arbitrary bias on your part.
   4581. The Good Face Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:45 PM (#4699154)
C-sections are not reserved for high risk pregnancies. They're done every time unless the mother fights against them.


/facepalm

This is not remotely true.
   4582. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:45 PM (#4699155)
You're simply preferencing "problematic childbirth" as socially important while refusing to acknowledge "problematic gender identity." This is
Purely arbitrary bias on your part.

Women die from problematic childbirth. People don't (involuntarily) die from problematic gender identity.

Also, I didn't say anything about "socially important"; that's your ideology creeping in again. We were talking about medical necessity.
   4583. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:45 PM (#4699156)
It is actually the exact opposite. snapper asserted that he believed in "treating people with basic human decency"--which means that he is the one who knows what it is. I simply told him that I think it encompasses many kinds of behaviors and that other people may not share his definition.

Which definition of human decency includes calling someone a "revolting person", merely over a political/philosophic disagreement??
   4584. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4699157)
"Feh. Society chooses cocks over consciousness (if there even is such a thing). Cocks (and other physical sexual characteristics) are easy to verify. Consciousness? Not so much. I merely hew to the traditional modes of gender that have provided the normality and social cohesion necessary for our civilization to thrive."

Convenience for you to "verify" something isn't a convincing argument.
   4585. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:49 PM (#4699158)
a) the players were planning to not play if they were not satisfied with Silver's actions on Sterling. According to Simmons this was a serious threat. Not just the players on the Clippers either. All games would have been affected.


I would have needed to see them to actually boycott before I believed it would happen.

b) All of the players were planning on the Clippers were planning to file lawsuits asking for free agency (citing work environment)


Unless I'm missing something those lawsuits would have gone nowhere, as these issues are governed by the CBA, and to the extent the players tried going beyond that what was the hostile work environment? Particularly if Sterling had been banned. And why would the remedy be to award them free agency?

And why would all of the players have wanted free agency? Blake Griffin, for starters, has a 5 year extension for about $20 million per year that kicks in next year. He'd have asked for free agency? I don't see it.
   4586. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:50 PM (#4699159)
And, of course, snapper is also absolutely sure that some people's beliefs are abhorrent, or "morally reprehensible", if you like.

I said abortion was morally reprehensible. I didn't ascribe that to any person, or even to any person's belief.

People can hold wrong opinions for a variety of reason.s
   4587. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:50 PM (#4699160)
Reichstag fire in goverment bulding in Odessa, Ukraine. Over 30 dead, many Russian fifth columnists. War apparently imminent.
   4588. Lassus Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:50 PM (#4699161)
For what it's worth on my end, Ray is absolutely pleasant in person, and good to hang out with. Doesn't mean his general views aren't generally abhorrent, we've just never DISCUSSED them in person. Heh.
   4589. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:51 PM (#4699162)
"Women die from problematic childbirth. People don't (involuntarily) die from problematic gender identity"

Again mere personal bias about which deaths count more.
   4590. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:51 PM (#4699163)
Adam Silver never heard a thing about a boycott. Would have been odd not to tell him, since he's the guy you want to leverage.
   4591. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:52 PM (#4699164)
And why would all of the players have wanted free agency? Blake Griffin, for starters, has a 5 year extension for about $20 million per year that kicks in next year. He'd have asked for free agency? I don't see it.

I agree that it's dumb, but remember, this is the NBPA we're talking about. Yosemite Sam seems to be their idol.
   4592. The Good Face Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:54 PM (#4699165)
Convenience for you to "verify" something isn't a convincing argument.


Has nothing to do with me. Reread the comment and try again.
   4593. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:54 PM (#4699166)
Again mere personal bias about which deaths count more.

It's not personal bias. It's knowing which is more medically urgent and, thus, more medically necessary.

A person's hypothetical suicide days/months/years into the future is less of a medical emergency than a woman in the middle of a problematic childbirth. It's absurd that this even needs to be pointed out.
   4594. rr Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:58 PM (#4699169)
Which definition of human decency includes calling someone a "revolting person", merely over a political/philosophic disagreement??

---

The word "merely" is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you there. Like I said before, not everyone sees these issues (gender identity, abortion, homosexuality) as being on the same level as whether you vote for Team Blue Centrist Joe Jones or Team Red Centrist Jane Smith for City Council. It is a deeply personal issue that affects them on a different, and arguably more "basic human", level.

I personally would not--and did not--call Ray or whomever a "revolting human being" based on what he says about gender identity in an internet discussion, but I am not going to sit in judgment of someone who does, for a variety of reasons.
   4595. rr Posted: May 02, 2014 at 04:59 PM (#4699170)
I said abortion was morally reprehensible. I didn't ascribe that to any person, or even to any person's belief.



That is cutting it pretty fine, particularly after the comma.

   4596. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 02, 2014 at 05:02 PM (#4699171)
Nah, there's almost no definition of "revolting" that would cover not caring enough about the plight of transgenders. I don't care enough about starving kids in Africa. Sam, Andy, Lassus and the rest don't care enough about the plight of white working and middle-class Americans. And on and on.

None of that makes any of us "revolting." The word doesn't fit these issues.
   4597. Publius Publicola Posted: May 02, 2014 at 05:05 PM (#4699172)
War apparently imminent.


It's foregone conclusion.

The parallels between what Putin is doing and what Hitler did is creepily similar. It's almost like he studied Hitler's crisis-creation tactics in minute detail and is copying them to the letter. The brownshirts, the fifth columnists, the cries of persecution, the false but shrill claims of historical injustice, the manipulation of media, the use of local criminals and losers, the taunting of the western democracies, the silencing and persecution of domestic critics, the excuse of ethnic homogeneity to buttress ever more gluttonous territorial claims...

What will be next? Let's see. A pact with Belarus to partition Ukraine?
   4598. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 02, 2014 at 05:05 PM (#4699173)
Feh. Society chooses cocks over consciousness (if there even is such a thing). Cocks (and other physical sexual characteristics) are easy to verify. Consciousness? Not so much. I merely hew to the traditional modes of gender that have provided the normality and social cohesion necessary for our civilization to thrive.


So when does traditional stop? Because the norms you are referencing are changing, and never were static in the first place (as our historian friends have noted up thread). Basically you are picking an arbitrary point in time and declaring that, that is correct. Which is fine, but but then you go way over the top with "necessary for our civilization to thrive" and you lose all credibility.

I mean really? Allowing people to self identify, treating them as they want to be identified, and even helping fund (to the tune of how much? Maybe a few million) their surgical treatment will end civilization? But trillions for war won't and other elective activities won't? OK then.
   4599. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 02, 2014 at 05:07 PM (#4699174)
What is hilarious is that I'm "revolting" and "unpleasant" for calling it a "disorder".... just like WebMD does, just like Psychology Today does, and it wasn't even two years ago that DSM re-labeled it from "disorder" to "dysphoria."

Yes, quite a revolting and unpleasant person I am.
   4600. Publius Publicola Posted: May 02, 2014 at 05:09 PM (#4699175)
He got caught cheating on his Spanish Final at Harvard because he was spotted having lunch at Elsie's while the exam was going on. He wasn't bright.


Oh right. Because a single incident by a post-adolescent certainly defines an entire lifetime.

C'mon, snapper. You don't really believe that, do you? How well would YOU pass that test, assuming you came from a famous family and lived in a fishbowl where most of what you did was being observed and recorded?
Page 46 of 48 pages ‹ First  < 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(534 - 7:44pm, Nov 22)
Last: Mike Webber

NewsblogFriars show interest in dealing for Bruce | MLB.com
(17 - 7:43pm, Nov 22)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(20 - 7:41pm, Nov 22)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(9 - 7:39pm, Nov 22)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(9 - 7:33pm, Nov 22)
Last: Bruce Markusen

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(9 - 7:26pm, Nov 22)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4160 - 7:12pm, Nov 22)
Last: GregD

NewsblogPirates DFA Ike Davis, clear path for Pedro Alvarez - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(2 - 7:11pm, Nov 22)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(90 - 7:06pm, Nov 22)
Last: Shredder

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(23 - 5:40pm, Nov 22)
Last: Kiko Sakata

NewsblogMatthews: Cashman sleeps on the street, says all is quiet on the free-agent front
(20 - 5:23pm, Nov 22)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(407 - 4:51pm, Nov 22)
Last: Howling John Shade

NewsblogMLB.com: White Sox Land Adam LaRoche With 2 Year/$25M Deal
(18 - 4:14pm, Nov 22)
Last: Kiko Sakata

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(955 - 4:09pm, Nov 22)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogJosh Lueke and the Ways of Anger
(11 - 3:55pm, Nov 22)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

Page rendered in 0.5882 seconds
52 querie(s) executed