Sorry if I broke your rice bowl. Science should be independent of the sexual orientation of the scientist. If it ain't, then it ain't science. I am tired of people who claim that a trans approach to science brings new insight. It shouldn't. Unless you are investigating the sexual orientation of fish, it shouldn't make any difference.
Sorry if I broke your rice bowl. Science should be independent of the sexual orientation of the scientist. If it ain't, then it ain't science. I am tired of people who claim that a trans approach to science brings new insight. It shouldn't. Unless you are investigating the sexual orientation of fish, it shouldn't make any difference.
The laws of fluid dynamics are not dependent on the sexual orientation of the observer. If you think they are, you ain't a scientist. I don't care about your sexual orientation, because it's scientifically irrelevant unless the paper is about sexual orientation.
I have lifelong friends that are gay. I have no hate for anyone. You, on the other hand, seem to have a new, unprecedented, required framework for science & politics that's completely intolerant of opposing views. Sorry, but I won't comply. The Party will not censor my thoughts. For the moment at least, the Bill of Rights is still in force. Good luck with being a domestic enemy of the Constitution.
You said: "You, on the other hand, seem to have a new, unprecedented, required framework for science & politics that's completely intolerant of opposing views."
You realize what you said is the exact opposite of what I spoke about above when I said: "There is a very important term that came out of the Enlightenment called "Pluralism," which is the idea that multiple ideas can coexist. Both patriarchy and other systems of power can and do coexist. Being queer and viewing the world through other lenses than patriarchal lenses is one way to live that exists alongside other ways of living."
And when I said: "How people like you come to the conclusion of a "zero-sum" or "mutually-exclusive" reality is a branch of psychology and sociology that ought to be studied by a diverse and wide community of scientists from a range of backgrounds to really get a pluralistic view of the condition."
The fundamental basis of pluralism is embracing opposing views. Yet you accuse the person (me) who supports pluralism as being intolerant of opposing views. You become more and more interesting to study as the dialogue advances.
You mention the party will not censor your thoughts. No one ever said your thoughts were to be censored -- that's un-American and uninteresting. Your thoughts are central to the American ideal -- to say whatever you want, think whatever you want regardless of how inconsistent, hypocritical, or uninformed others make think of you. I'd carry a gun to war -- one of my many -- to defend your right to ignorant non-sequiturs, if not because it would also protect all rights to free speech, but because of the entertainment value.
As a card-carrying paying subscriber of The Free Press and proud Real American, I appreciate this opportunity to engage a person who thinks the world is out to get them and that they are under attack by people who, just by living their own lives, threaten your sense of safety, security, and welfare. While ideas are powerful and diverse lifestyles are fascinating, they are not out to get you. You live your life true to your own self and quit worrying about how others live theirs and sooner than later, you'll find peace and serenity is this dynamic and interesting world you are not the center of.
Your claim to pluralism is laughable. What is a woman? Even asking that question is defined as hate speech on many campuses across the US, and you know it. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.
You missed my point entirely. It's about science, not political tolerance. On tolerance, I follow John Locke. You may not have heard of him, because he's an old dead straight white guy. Even so, his "On Tolerance" is worth reading.
Science generally should not change based on the gender orientation of the scientist. The only time the gender orientation of the scientist might matter is if the subject of the study is gender orientation itself. In that case, the gender orientation off the scientist would give insight into the subject.
I am secure in my beliefs. However, I view cancel culture with alarm. Democracy dies without free speech. Perhaps you're unaware of the Twitter files and Missouri v Biden? The government paid Twitter $3 million to censor posts and cancel accounts. In Missouri v Biden, the DOJ is fighting an injunction that would prohibit parts of the government from "suggesting" censorship activities to private companies. This ain't my imagination. It's a serious threat.
Perhaps the ignorance you seek is your own. People who depend on censored news and social media have no idea what they're missing.
You make so many speculative assertions, including comments no one has made, that it's like debating with a person suffering from schizophrenia. If you suffer from such a malady, please understand I wish you well and hope you are cared for by loved ones.
As regards John Locke, I studied him in college, specifically, his "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." Along with Locke, I studied other empiricists, such as Berkeley and Hume. I also studied the rationalists, namely Liebenez, Spinoza, and Descartes. Yeah, I'm pretty sure your speculations are off as to my understanding about the things you say or contemporary events and movements you wonder if I am aware of.
Look, buddy, denigrating the hydrologist for bringing their trans-worldview to their work is a below-the-belt disrespectful and dishonorable act. Your insistence on canceling people who do science from a perspective that is not from the same hegemonic worldview as yours is regressive and a losing bigoted position to take.
Your idiotic insistence that the sexual point of view of the scientist changes the science is typical of the woke word view, which posits everyone has their own truth, and there's no one scietific truth for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. On this subject you are full of Schiff, and completely intolerant of traditional views of science and truth. The world wasn't invented yesterday for the benefit of 23 new sexual orientations. Scientific principles don't have to bend to accommodate trans sex. It can exist on it's own, without imposing impossible world views on the world. A trans woman ain't a biological woman. A chromosome check will show the difference in every cell native to the organism. I don't have to play make believe on a scientific level to tolerate whatever you want to do on your own behind closed doors. Insisting I have to accept your distorted view of reality ain't tolerance.
Bob Hope was asked one time if he was leaving California because they made gay marriage legal. He said he was leaving before they could make it mandatory.
There you go again...making assertions neither I or anyone else ever said and then attacking them. You invent falsehoods in order to have something to parry. Your entire first paragraph is a folly of invented statements all of your own making I have not said.
You said: " Insisting I have to accept your distorted view of reality ain't tolerance." I never said you have to accept my view or anyone else's. Where did you get that idea from? You invented it just to have something to parry. I have stated repeatedly that pluralism, the circumstance of having multiple ideas floating around simultaneously, is of preeminent importance. You can and should have your ideas, no matter that they are falsely attributed non-sequiturs.
BTW, you never told me what your "rice bowl" reference was -- you said: "Sorry if I broke your rice bowl." I think there's a tone of sarcasm in there; otherwise, I'm not sure how that non-sequitur fits in.
You also said: "I have lifelong friends that are gay. I have no hate for anyone," but then you make a quip about Bob Hope who made a defamatory and ludicrous remark about gay marriage. What's up, bro? It's a stupid joke that only jerks think is funny.
Your rice bowl, IOW your making a living, seems to depend on your sexual identity. Your misunderstanding of the joke shows you have no idea what you're arguing for.
Your insularity and ignorance is impenetrable. You ain't worth any more of my time.
Sorry if I broke your rice bowl. Science should be independent of the sexual orientation of the scientist. If it ain't, then it ain't science. I am tired of people who claim that a trans approach to science brings new insight. It shouldn't. Unless you are investigating the sexual orientation of fish, it shouldn't make any difference.
The laws of fluid dynamics are not dependent on the sexual orientation of the observer. If you think they are, you ain't a scientist. I don't care about your sexual orientation, because it's scientifically irrelevant unless the paper is about sexual orientation.
I have lifelong friends that are gay. I have no hate for anyone. You, on the other hand, seem to have a new, unprecedented, required framework for science & politics that's completely intolerant of opposing views. Sorry, but I won't comply. The Party will not censor my thoughts. For the moment at least, the Bill of Rights is still in force. Good luck with being a domestic enemy of the Constitution.
Rice bowl? I don't get the reference.
You said: "You, on the other hand, seem to have a new, unprecedented, required framework for science & politics that's completely intolerant of opposing views."
You realize what you said is the exact opposite of what I spoke about above when I said: "There is a very important term that came out of the Enlightenment called "Pluralism," which is the idea that multiple ideas can coexist. Both patriarchy and other systems of power can and do coexist. Being queer and viewing the world through other lenses than patriarchal lenses is one way to live that exists alongside other ways of living."
And when I said: "How people like you come to the conclusion of a "zero-sum" or "mutually-exclusive" reality is a branch of psychology and sociology that ought to be studied by a diverse and wide community of scientists from a range of backgrounds to really get a pluralistic view of the condition."
The fundamental basis of pluralism is embracing opposing views. Yet you accuse the person (me) who supports pluralism as being intolerant of opposing views. You become more and more interesting to study as the dialogue advances.
You mention the party will not censor your thoughts. No one ever said your thoughts were to be censored -- that's un-American and uninteresting. Your thoughts are central to the American ideal -- to say whatever you want, think whatever you want regardless of how inconsistent, hypocritical, or uninformed others make think of you. I'd carry a gun to war -- one of my many -- to defend your right to ignorant non-sequiturs, if not because it would also protect all rights to free speech, but because of the entertainment value.
As a card-carrying paying subscriber of The Free Press and proud Real American, I appreciate this opportunity to engage a person who thinks the world is out to get them and that they are under attack by people who, just by living their own lives, threaten your sense of safety, security, and welfare. While ideas are powerful and diverse lifestyles are fascinating, they are not out to get you. You live your life true to your own self and quit worrying about how others live theirs and sooner than later, you'll find peace and serenity is this dynamic and interesting world you are not the center of.
Your claim to pluralism is laughable. What is a woman? Even asking that question is defined as hate speech on many campuses across the US, and you know it. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.
You missed my point entirely. It's about science, not political tolerance. On tolerance, I follow John Locke. You may not have heard of him, because he's an old dead straight white guy. Even so, his "On Tolerance" is worth reading.
Science generally should not change based on the gender orientation of the scientist. The only time the gender orientation of the scientist might matter is if the subject of the study is gender orientation itself. In that case, the gender orientation off the scientist would give insight into the subject.
I am secure in my beliefs. However, I view cancel culture with alarm. Democracy dies without free speech. Perhaps you're unaware of the Twitter files and Missouri v Biden? The government paid Twitter $3 million to censor posts and cancel accounts. In Missouri v Biden, the DOJ is fighting an injunction that would prohibit parts of the government from "suggesting" censorship activities to private companies. This ain't my imagination. It's a serious threat.
Perhaps the ignorance you seek is your own. People who depend on censored news and social media have no idea what they're missing.
You make so many speculative assertions, including comments no one has made, that it's like debating with a person suffering from schizophrenia. If you suffer from such a malady, please understand I wish you well and hope you are cared for by loved ones.
As regards John Locke, I studied him in college, specifically, his "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." Along with Locke, I studied other empiricists, such as Berkeley and Hume. I also studied the rationalists, namely Liebenez, Spinoza, and Descartes. Yeah, I'm pretty sure your speculations are off as to my understanding about the things you say or contemporary events and movements you wonder if I am aware of.
Look, buddy, denigrating the hydrologist for bringing their trans-worldview to their work is a below-the-belt disrespectful and dishonorable act. Your insistence on canceling people who do science from a perspective that is not from the same hegemonic worldview as yours is regressive and a losing bigoted position to take.
Your idiotic insistence that the sexual point of view of the scientist changes the science is typical of the woke word view, which posits everyone has their own truth, and there's no one scietific truth for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. On this subject you are full of Schiff, and completely intolerant of traditional views of science and truth. The world wasn't invented yesterday for the benefit of 23 new sexual orientations. Scientific principles don't have to bend to accommodate trans sex. It can exist on it's own, without imposing impossible world views on the world. A trans woman ain't a biological woman. A chromosome check will show the difference in every cell native to the organism. I don't have to play make believe on a scientific level to tolerate whatever you want to do on your own behind closed doors. Insisting I have to accept your distorted view of reality ain't tolerance.
Bob Hope was asked one time if he was leaving California because they made gay marriage legal. He said he was leaving before they could make it mandatory.
There you go again...making assertions neither I or anyone else ever said and then attacking them. You invent falsehoods in order to have something to parry. Your entire first paragraph is a folly of invented statements all of your own making I have not said.
You said: " Insisting I have to accept your distorted view of reality ain't tolerance." I never said you have to accept my view or anyone else's. Where did you get that idea from? You invented it just to have something to parry. I have stated repeatedly that pluralism, the circumstance of having multiple ideas floating around simultaneously, is of preeminent importance. You can and should have your ideas, no matter that they are falsely attributed non-sequiturs.
BTW, you never told me what your "rice bowl" reference was -- you said: "Sorry if I broke your rice bowl." I think there's a tone of sarcasm in there; otherwise, I'm not sure how that non-sequitur fits in.
You also said: "I have lifelong friends that are gay. I have no hate for anyone," but then you make a quip about Bob Hope who made a defamatory and ludicrous remark about gay marriage. What's up, bro? It's a stupid joke that only jerks think is funny.
Your rice bowl, IOW your making a living, seems to depend on your sexual identity. Your misunderstanding of the joke shows you have no idea what you're arguing for.
Your insularity and ignorance is impenetrable. You ain't worth any more of my time.
My sexual identity? Bitch, your talking to a cis-gender heterosexual white male whose armed to the teeth with privilege. On your knees.
All men (& women) are created equal.