I was introduced to Venn diagrams with intersections, unions, etc. in 1st grade. My kids preschool had trinomial cubes and prisms. I am not sure why it’s weird that some schools teach stuff. They aren’t all Oregon and Baltimore.
I was taught how to read balance sheets and income statements when I was 8. So, yay?
What I did was say that a large number of physics PhDs accept the block universe even though it’s philosophically troubling because it gets into the topic of free will, morality, etc. Did I formally prove it from first principles? No. Nor does GR theory of gravity yet the implications are pretty clear even with a layman’s understanding. Einstein himself commented on the illusion of time that was clear from GR.
“Vehemently oppose”???
What the hell do you expect when you post hard conservative viewpoints on a liberal board? Of course you are going to meet vehement opposition! Seriously, why would you expect anything else?
Fuck this whining about being vehemently opposed. Is that what this tiresome thread is really about?….are you so lacking in self-awareness that you actually think you are putting forth some sort of viewpoint that any liberal on this board would find remotely compelling? You’re not anywhere near as clever or brilliant as you think you are. You put forth the same shitty reasoning and talking points as Fox News and NewsMax, you aren’t bringing us anything original or unique.
Now it turns out that your complaint about this board comes down to “we won’t stroke you ego and agree with you?” That’s some highly level snowflakery right there. If you want that you should go find whatever sewer has replaced Stormfront,
And I don’t hate YOU but I do hate pretty much every political viewpoint you’ve espoused here and I will continue to oppose them. Vehemently.
Well, US education isn’t exactly famous for being great… but I understand what you were learning now.
What do you mean by “trinomial cubes and prisms”?
I think there must be a typo in there somewhere.
How you perceive the colors of the notorious The Dress has nothing to do with being “blind”. Yes, it’s objectively true that The Dress was made out of fabrics dyed with pigments that almost everybody would call blue and black if viewing them under typical lighting conditions. But visually perceiving the viral photo of The Dress as being white and gold rather than blue and black doesn’t mean that one is “blind”.
What specifically are you talking about here? Are you trying to make some point about gender identity?
Because if so, your remark doesn’t seem to make sense. Transgender people and others who acknowledge transgender identity aren’t trying to deny physical reality in any way. Nobody is trying to tell you, for example, that a transgender woman who was born with a penis was instead born with a vagina. That would be factually inaccurate, and I know of exactly zero transgender-rights advocates of any kind who are suggesting any such thing.
Gender identity is a social category, not a biological one. Your “perception” doesn’t count when it comes to establishing another person’s gender identity. Your “perception” of their gender identity is not “equally valid to their own perception”.
If a transgender person identifies socially as a woman, for example, then the fact that you may perceive her as “looking” biologically male is irrelevant. You aren’t entitled to prioritize your perception over her identified gender, any more than you’re entitled to call her Louise when she’s told you her name is Ellen because you just think she “looks like a Louise”.
You are still entitled to think in the privacy of your own mind that she looks biologically male, of course, if it interests you to think about that. But that doesn’t mean that your “perception” of her gender identity gets to override her own.
That really sounds as though it means “I’m potentially willing to acknowledge transgender people’s gender identity as an optional courtesy on my part, but I resent being expected to do so or being considered rude if I don’t.”
If that’s not in fact what you mean by those statements, could you kindly explain what you do mean?
Whatever. You’re a libertarian, right? So I wouldn’t expect you to agree with me. I don’t care if people disagree with me, that’s the entire point of debate. I object to people dehumanising their opponents and spewing vile abuse.
No, we just got done explaining that biologists don’t always agree on which animals should be classified as lions, or tigers for that matter.
Are you trying to say that biologists, if presented with a selection of felines that are all confidently classified as either lions or tigers, would all 100% agree on which is which?
If so, sure, nobody’s disagreeing with that. But it doesn’t contradict any of the points we’re making here about biological variability.
Yes, everyone is entitled to prioritise their own perceptions over someone else’s. The alternative is literally mandating thoughtcrime.
My perception is as valid as anyone else’s. So you are quite right. I am entitled to perceive the world around me as anyone else is.
At Demontree this is a trinomial cubes and prisms.
Though the whole trinomial cube makes a cube when I’m chatting with the kids I like to distinguish between the cubes and the non cubes.
Not in their social interactions with that person, not necessarily.
Nonsense. I explicitly stated that of course there’s nothing wrong with octopus’s indulging his own perceptions of another person’s apparent gender or sex in the privacy of his own brain. So you can let go of your gratuitous fearmongering about “thoughtcrime”.
You may think you have. I still say this is bullshit. Show me a living animal that biologists don’t know how to classify.
Not necessarily. But when it is relevant, yes.
I disagree with that. We have every right to say what we wish. Now, we might not be able to say what we wish in certain venues due to censorship (most of social media) or threats of violence (pacific NW) but that doesn’t mean that, at the moment at least, that we don’t have freedom of expression.
The American Taliban hasn’t fully ascended yet.
Well, we already told you about several living categories of felines which biologists disagree about classifying as a particular species or subspecies. That’s not the same thing as an example of a living animal about which biologists literally can’t tell whether it’s a lion or a tiger, of course, but then, nobody here ever claimed that there was such an example.
I realize that you thought you had a “gotcha” with your lions-aren’t-tigers argument, but it doesn’t actually contradict the points about biological variability that are being made here.
If we’re willing to accept the consequences, sure. We have constitutional protections against certain kinds of legal prohibitions of certain kinds of speech, but that doesn’t mean that we’re entitled to say anything we wish with no consequences of any kind.
You have no constitutional right to be protected from being considered an asshole, or possibly even banned from a social circle or fired from a job, if you deliberately choose to be offensive to another person. If you consider that an intolerable restriction on your “freedom of expression”, then you need to get busy writing and promoting some additional constitutional amendments.
Okay, so ignoring your attempted obfuscation re subspecies, you admit I am right. There is no continuous distribution between lions and tigers in the present day.
Sure, but again, you aren’t automatically entitled to prioritize your perception of other people’s identity over their own, in your interactions with other people.
For example, you may happen to perceive individuals of some other race as subhuman monsters, and in the privacy of your own brain you’re certainly entitled to do that. But if you go around trying to speak to or about those people in accordance with your own perception that they’re subhuman monsters, rather than publicly deferring to the perception that they’re fully equal human beings, then you are stepping way beyond what you’re entitled to do. And you needn’t think that appealing to “freedom of expression” can or should protect you from the consequences of that.
I already said exactly that way back in post #1798, remember?
Your octopusish desperation for achieving some kind of rhetorical “gotcha” seems to be making you oblivious to the point I’m actually making here. I repeat:
Yes, as everybody here has already agreed multiple times, the modern human-defined species categories of lion and tiger do not overlap in individuals. That doesn’t imply that real-life biology isn’t fundamentally about continuously variable distributions. The fact that we categorizing humans can impose some mutually distinct categories on parts of the natural world doesn’t invalidate the point about natural variability.
Sheesh, it’s bad enough to have one octopus to argue with.
New Zealand is also an island (well, three and some change islands) nation with a small population on the far side of the world where it’s easy to restrict access in and out as the only ways to get there are via aircraft or boat.
Australia is a patchwork of outcomes - Queensland, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Tasmania have no cases (or they’re all being managed in hospitals/quarantine) and people are carrying on life as normal (more or less), Sydney and Melbourne are in the grip of weeks (months?)-long lockdowns, and Western Australia appears to be plotting to become its own country.