Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    14247
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dahobbs

  1. 6 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

    He designates liberals with facts and logic beams that come out of his menancing glare. 

    Afterwards he tweets "Ok, that was epic" to AOC which she laughs as she only see that socialism wins again against her catcalling opponents. Plus she thinks that in 12 years he'll be kissing at her feet as she saves him and other republicans by throwing money down the drain where all our precious clean water is going to prevent is from becoming a large nation of desert. 

     

     

    Yeah, this rant is about as coherent as anything Shapiro has ever said. Thank you for illustrating the point. 

    • Like 1
  2. Quote

     

    Even more startling, Texas ranked as having the best infrastructure. Also scoring high were Tennessee, which has the third-lowest tax burden as a share of state personal income, and Florida, ranked fourth-lowest in taxes.

    Yeah, I'm calling shenanigans on any methodology that comes up with these outcomes.   In fact, here is the link: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/10/americas-top-states-for-business-2018.html

    It has: Texas, Indiana, George, Ohio, Tennessee, Minnesota, Kentucky, Nevada, Florida, Utah, Missouri, and Arkansas as the top 12, in that order for infrastructure. 

    Here here is what is says under methodology for infrastructure:

    "Access to transportation in all its modes is a key to getting your products to market and your people on the move. We measure the vitality of each state's transportation system by the value of goods shipped by air, waterways, roads and rail. We look at the availability of air travel in each state, the quality of the roads and bridges, and the time it takes to commute to work. We also consider the condition of each state's drinking water and wastewater systems."

    That pretty much tells me nothing. Hell, it has fucking Michigan at 18. The state has had a fucking water crisis for like 5 years now.  I've driven through every one of those states, and I'm calling bullshit. 

  3. 24 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

    OK

    The post I responded to said that maybe participation in sports should be based on sex instead of gender. Depending on what side of the fence you reside on, these terms are either intertwined or are two distinct ideas. The effinimite gay guy was a tongue and cheek reference to the argument that a trans woman with a dick is a woman because she self identifies as such rather than a man with effeminate characteristics. (Nancy boy, light in the loafers, cross-dresser, a “pussy”, etc.) Because she identifies as a woman, the rest of society is supposed to follow suit and play along even though she is a man in a dress that may or may not be taking hormonal treatment to further their womanly appearance. She’s not simply an “effeminate man” or “Queer” as these designations are reserved for another subcategory on the scale.

    Of course sex should determine athletic participation. If we want to get technical, amend that to biological sex. Using “Boys league/Girls league” implies the this rather than the social construct gender is being used as. WNBA should techically be FNBA (Female) to conform to the distinctions being made and the terms “boy’s sizes/girl’s sizes” should be abolished as they may misidentify current social constructs.

    I was commenting on the parsing of terms being dumb.

    Terms are parsed all the time so that we can address new or different concepts. Further, words can have different meanings in different contexts. In many contexts gender terms like "man" and "woman" are really referring to sex. We often make up new words or borrow from existing words when discussing new ideas. Neither way is wrong, it really just depends on how the ideas evolve. For instance, a modern "computer" is very different from the original etymology of the word, which literally just referenced a person who made calculations. The word "robot" was actually originally a borrowing of the Czech word for "forced worker," (made famous by Capek's Rossom's Universal Robots) and the Czech word itself is a borrowing of the Russian word for "work."  That the words have taken on new meaning now doesn't mean that prior usage was wrong or even incorrect in today's parlance. It just means words can gain new and different meanings depending on context. 

    And, again, you said actually leads to the logical conclusion that the effeminate gay guy (whether male or female) can't play sports.    

  4. Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

    Cool so you're OK with his as well then....

    Eh, one foundation had to be shut down because it was essentially a scam. The other has been investigated to hell and . . . um . . . something about emails I think?

    • Like 3
  5. 1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Holy shit, at some point the AMOUNT has to matter.  We saw similar "election law violations" with Obama -- it's not possible to run a pristine campaign.

    I find it extraordinarily telling that the right is very upset about this when (for instance) the Koch Brothers run a train on the Constitution 24/7.  Grow some fucking ethics.

    Is this even a violation of anything? If she paid an election consultant who then outsourced some of the work, what is the violation? Wouldn't it be at least somewhat dependent upon whether the boyfriend (do we even know he was the boyfriend at the time?) actually did anything? Does anyone really find it hard to believe that this person could have performed $6,000 dollars worth of work over the course of the campaign? I mean, even if all of that was for only  one month of work, isn't that just slightly above the pay of a janitor in New York?

  6. 1 hour ago, Spankytoes said:

     


    You know exactly what I’m talking about. “Gender” is a definition of convenience, useable and changeable, depending on your argument. I’m responding to the specific post I referenced.

    There’s a trans thread in CR. Not going to derail this one arguing about it.

     

    What does that have to do with your conclusion that "effeminate gay guy is fucked" or that gay guys wouldn't be allowed to participate in sports? I honestly don't understand the reasoning and I'm asking you to explain to me. Under the rubric I've discussed gay males would be allowed to participate in male sports, same as they do today. I'm not seeing how recognizing distinctions between gender and sex affect that outcome in anyway. 

    Also, kinda chickenshit to make an argument in this thread and then declare you can't/won't discuss it here. You brought it up, not me.  

  7. 4 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

     


    Exactly what I said. If we are parsing “sex” and “gender” to conform to social constructs instead of what they’ve meant throughout all of human history, then an effeminate gay guy is fucked.

     

    What are you talking about? How are they fucked by recognizing gender and sex are separate things (and have always been separate things in reality if not lexicon)? How did you reach the conclusion that they wouldn't be allowed to participate in sports? That is not a logical implication of anything stated in this thread.  

  8. 25 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    If I had a trust fund, I guess you might have a point.  I just don't get jealous of people who make more than me like you do.  I also am not jealous of people with trust funds either, and I know more than a few.  I have this ability to be happy for other's good fortunes and never thought their unearned cash somehow is holding me down or costing me money.  Losers think like that.  This is America. The best place on this planet to make your own fortune.  

    My privilege was having family member role models to show me how it is done.  And along with my parents' help, scholarships and working, being able graduate debt free.  Other than that, everything my wife and I own is from the money we earned.

    The left constantly telling people they are victims and the deck is stacked against them due to capitalism, racism, sexism, whatever is immeasurably harmful to them.  And makes it less likely for them to go out there and maximize whatever opportunities they do have.  But the left is not actually interested in helping the poor.  They are interested in telling them what they want to hear so they can win elections.

     

     

    Being concerned about the increasing wealth imbalance doesn't mean one is "jealous." Rather, it indicates ability to see beyond one's own narrow perspective and maybe, just maybe, think about people other than oneself. It also means recognizing that no one in modern society had accomplished it all on their own. Too much of what we do depends on services, social structures, and infrastructure built and provided by society as a whole. I'll be better off than 95% of the population. But I still care how the 95% do and I want to see our country's good fortune actually benefit the entire population and not just the top 5% of it.  You think saying you "don't give a shit" about all that says something about yourself. And I agree, it really does. 

    • Like 4
  9. 47 minutes ago, Kyle said:

    I feel like I should send you a rent check for all the space I'm occupying in your head. You're certainly welcome to keep creating all the strawmen about me you want. If there was a bomb thrown, it was the emotional reaction to Navratilova's comments by immediately labeling her "transphobic." Maybe she does walk around with a MAGA hat, rope, and bleach, but I would be surprised.

    The issue is complicated, and I certainly do not have an easy answer. If believing that reactionary, hyperbolic name calling might not be productive makes me some sort of secret party hack or whatever your earlier strawman was, so be it. News to me.

    I dont think you are a secret hack if it makes you feel better. 

  10. 16 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

    Is that supposed to be some big gotcha? I read the whole thing and I don't understand what the big deal is.

    Yeah, I'm not understanding. Shoestring campaign paid $18,880 to campaign consultant to effectively manage campaign. Campaign consultant paid boyfriend a total of $6,000 for media consulting work (most likely something to do with all those flyers she had). Candidate then hired campaign consultant as chief of staff. That all seems... reasonable? The big mystery is apparently why big name campaign consultant would hire boyfriend to do media consulting work. I thought it was rather obvious: shoestring campaign can't afford to spend the money on a "real" media consultant, so instead recommends boyfriend as someone who can be subcontracted to do stuff cheap. 

  11. 24 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

    Ok....   Then gender and sex are related?

    Male, as in sex. Not man as in gender. As I covered before, gender and sex are distinct concepts. They are highly correlated in that the vast majority of males are men and the vast majority of females are women. In that sense they are related. But sex is not dispositive of gender, nor gender dispositive of sex. 

  12. 15 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

    I can't access the article posted.  Were the overlaps within the same sport?  I think that's key.  Do female sprinter testosterone levels compare to male sprinters or is the overlap a female powerlifter versus a male archer?  If you were to draw a testosterone line each sport would need it's own limit, correct?

    We don't know, but that is what I was surmising. As for testing, I think the test is simple: are you taking testosterone? If yes, male sports. If no, are you genetically male? If Y, male sports. I think testosterone is too big of a developmental advantage even if one suppresses it later on. I'd be open to data to seeing showing I'm wrong on that. 

  13. 1 minute ago, Llano Estacado said:

     


    Not in Olympic level athletes in the study Huck posted...unless they’re all already doping at the same level. Heheh

    “16·5% of men had low testosterone levels, whereas 13·7% of women had high levels with complete overlap between the sexes. Women had a lean body mass 85% that of men – sufficient to account for sex differences in performance. There were highly significant correlations between many of the measured hormones.”


     

     

    We can't tell much from those statements. It does seem to indicate there is more overlap than I would expect based on the normal range in the population. But, the statements are vague and mixing relative and absolute measures. I think the implication is supposed to be that the males with low testosterone had levels comparable to the females with high testosterone. But I'd like to see the data from the study to better understand what the authors are saying. They also mentioned there was measurable variation between sports, so it could be something like males with low testosterone in a low testosterone sport (curling?) had levels comparable to females with high testosterone in a high testosterone sport (weight lifting?). That result would be less surprising than female weight lifters having comparable testosterone to male weight lifters.  I also wouldn't be surprised at all if doping affected those results. It is after all a population that we know has an issue with doping comparative to the overall population. 

  14. 8 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

    Dumb question amnesty:

     

    How do older males T levels compare to fit female at 25? I’ve never had my levels checked and don’t care to, but as that’s become popular for middle aged men there has to be a solid sample size. If T level is the only thing used to separate the sexes for sports would there ever be a case where an aging champion in golf or tennis switched to the female division at the end of his career?

     

    Are we talking order of magnitude base 10? Base 2? Or overlapping ranges?

     

    Edit: nevermind. should have finished the thread before posting. Huck posted they may overlap in Olympic athletes.

    Normal range is a order of magnitude different.

  15. 11 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    There's a joke in there somewhere about grasping a dick.

    The discussion is interesting. The testosterone perspective makes sense, but it also illustrates the untidy aspect of the issue.

    Where will the line be drawn on where that test determines male or female relative to sports competition? For persons right on the line, you would have controversy and dispute similar to who ends up being #5 in the college football playoff rankings.

    If you were to apply the standard of testosterone, how would we feel if Martina or Selena or Evert came out on the male side? 

    Testing for testosterone levels may make sense, but whether you're talking about gender or sex, it's still complicated.

    This thread is about sports, but I can't help thinking eligibility to compete in professional sports is among the least of problems for the vast majority of transsexuals. Our society makes it physically dangerous for them to reveal themselves as transsexual particularly while in public school. The new right has used them to scare the morons. I don't envy their path.

     

    I don't think you should have males (sex) in the female (sex) division, primarily for the developmental reasons listed by Huck. But you may certainly have men (gender), primarily females identifying as men without testosterone supplements, competing in a female division. I also don't have any issue with females competing in male divisions, but I don't think a natural female without hormone treatment should ever have to compete against men. I'd be curious what data exists on females with high enough testosterone to be at all comparable to men.The natural testosterone levels of females are so low comparatively that even a multiple fold increase doesn't approach normal levels in males.  

  16. 13 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

     

    But here's the rub....   "Some" is still very, very small number.    The incredibly vast majority of men and women identify as men and women respectively.    That does not mean there is any stigma or something wrong with those that don't.   But my main issue with how prominent the trans issue has become is that BOTH sides try and use it as a wedge.   Martina's entitled to her opinion.   There is science that backs up her claim.    But there is also science that disputes it.   Right now, we're still grappling with how to handle these kinds of things as a society.    There's no need to demonize someone who says something like this unless they are being some kind of asshole.   

    It's a question that we're going to have to debate and find some kind of resolution to.    But having it doesn't make one side or the other wrong.  We're not talking about fundamental rights like marriage, adoption, land ownership or voting rights for trans individuals.   We're talking about whether someone who transitions from male to female has an unfair advantage athletically because of their genetic and hormonal makeup.   This is also not about employment even though some might want to go down that road.   It's the  same situation as asking whether there should be different age groups for competition.   We wouldn't let an 18 year old compete with 12 year old middle schoolers, right?

    It's not discriminatory to have the conversation.  

    I absolutely believe it is discriminatory to deny one the right to self-identify one's gender. But, as the rest of my post indicated, we can treat gender and sex separately. Some societal rules should be based around gender. Others, like sports, should be based around sex. I dont think recognizing that distinction or discussing how to apply it is discriminatory. I think this is a long way to say I agree with you, but with a caveat. 

×
×
  • Create New...