metalslug

Perhaps much like the Rockies 'Dinger' incident which was also a 'racial incident' until more rational minds opened their f***ing ears.

I expect whoever you're hoping to convince are either tired of this debate by now, or might assert that they have 'blocked' you, or may utter something about 'feeding trolls', as may be their subjective reasons for abstaining. I am 'on your team' (if assuming I have to pick one) although both sides have exhaustively had their say here and in the longer span of this debate you're not going to convince them and they won't convince you.

Excellent point. They were not doing that based on "because I say I'm that gender", which is the direction being taken now.

Funny for you? Fair enough. Perhaps much like 'being alpha' is funny for them. It's existed for ages so why fuss now? I'm not aware of cases from the 70's and 80's in which biological men were placed in women's prisons, or loudly expressing an entitlement to use women's public facilities, or participate in (and sometimes win) an expressly women's event or award. Not to hash this further, it's been covered in previous posts.

That last line is subjective opinion. I'm sure you're aware of incidents in which someone was harmed. Not many incidents, I concede, but a higher tolerance over time logically suggests a future of higher incidents, until a question is reached of how many incidents would people be willing to 'get used to' ? Consider that the gun lobby use the same argument; "don't punish everyone for the sake of a few transgressors."

There's a truckload of songs that have 'non-mainstream' lyrics in them and I expect most people did not (and do not) concern themselves much if they are more interested in melody than lyrics. Many fans of Puccini don't know a word of Italian. It's also possible that such lyrics were interpreted by conservative ears as a deriding context. The degree of gender identity enthusiasm that we see now is relatively new.

We've beaten this one to death already, but I'll venture one more go; There's definitely a social and legal context to this, IMO. People legally change their names for many reasons over a lifetime and I'm more interested in the name on their passport or equivalent current legal document than the name on their birth certificate. Try entering a courtroom and demand that the court refer to you by a name other than that. Several countries require one to produce a certificate (digital or otherwise) of their Covid vaccination status prior to certain kinds of services or public access, and a verified name on that certificate becomes rather important. In very informal social settings, if someone wants to be called something else; yes, I'd be OK with that.

I agree with most of this, but I also think it's a very manageable 'problem'. A person's opinion is only as important as the weight that you give it, not that they do. Hearing and respecting other's opinions does not necessarily imply adopting their opinions, people are still entitled to disagree and it's generally a democratic outcome. Within a formal workplace, as you have said, the CEO is the most important voice. No problem there. Within other formalised meetings there is typically a moderator or chair that assigns equal time for speaking. If alpha's dominate then that's a failure of moderation. Consider a session of parliament during 'question time'; pretty much every person present is an alpha type and yet the speaker can usually moderate fair time and evict repeat transgressors. In less formal social settings, water will seek it's own level; don't associate with alphas if they make you uncomfortable, there's a wide world of other people out there to replace them. Five 'Trumpians' loudly returning from Nascar in their monster-truck somehow make it work between them and still want to see each other next week. If you are actually are asking alphas to 'not be alpha' then that's outright hypocritical, since you seem to favour the woke movement's right to behave in any way they choose and expect others to get onboard with that and to be referenced according the fantasy names and fantasy genders that they have chosen for themselves.

My opinion on what? Respected where? Your question above is vague to me and hence difficult to answer. Pretty much anyone can find a place where their opinions are heard and respected, such as within their own choir. In my circumstance; a confidence in my own viewpoints does not depend on a consensus of my own viewpoints. If I needed to feel a constant warm & fuzzy affirmation from this forum, as an example, then I wouldn't be posting right-of-centre political commentary here. I would find it curious if you're equating an 'alpha' personality with poor basic etiquette (such as interrupting others in conversation). I don't see those traits as synonymous and it's regrettable (as a reflection on those individuals, not you) if you have noticed it differently.

Yup, for the most part I expect they did. 'aerosols' is a rather widely-encompassing term and from the Washington Post article I expect they are referring to the kind of solid particles from fossil burning that obscure sunlight. The only remediation that I've read about was along the lines of "Coal-fired power stations in the US, Europe and Japan are compelled to fit bag filters to control particle emissions, flue gas desulfurisation to control sulfur dioxide emissions and selective catalytic reduction to control emissions of oxides of nitrogen." , and I'm aware of legislation for vehicles, catalytic converters and similar, but it's not global. That still leaves a significant portion of the world exempt and one may fairly assume there has been a lot more particulate-emitting fossil burning since 1971 proportionate to industry & population growth. Therefore, we've somehow shifted from '6 degrees lower within 50 years' (therefore expected now), to actually being around 1.5 degrees warmer. It stretches credulity if you're saying that a handful of nations legislating and remediating their 'high altitude aerosols in the stratosphere' since 1971 have offset the predicted outcome by 7.5 degrees globally. Based on that, the article was alarmist IMO. Then I expect you won't be criticising BH for deflecting emissions concerns to China. Fair enough.

Steady on. It was not meant to imply that you were making wild doom prophecies (not that I've seen yet), I thought that was rather obvious when I started paraphrasing Prince Charles and Greta. I was referring to the loss of credibility of the 'left' side of the climate debate with regard to the more extreme elements in that crowd, perhaps the same way that the centre-right are thrown in with the far-right. It pollutes (forgive the pun) the actual status and undermines arguments. Similarly, I recently cited a few examples, at least one reputable scientist from a reputable source even by lefty standards, forecasting an ice-age from fossil fuel burning no less. Everyone believes they are correct in the moment and when such arguments are published with supposed satellite data backing them up and NASA's name being dropped, it's curiously reminiscent of the current 'we're quite sure that warming will cause catastrophe XXX in XX years time', and subsequent failure of that prediction. Credibility. While we're discussing BH's (supposed) arguments; it is happening but there's nothing we can do about it, because China In an earlier post we had bill offsetting wind turbine bird deaths by deflecting to several other more substantial causes of bird deaths, suggesting that anyone who feels aggrieved by bird deaths should pursue the larger causes. A curious argument because it pretty much applies the same logic as to BH's point above (if assuming that BH has actually implicated China in that way in a post).

One report eh ? Then I guess you missed quite a few, they are rather easy to find, such as this one or this one ...or how about Kallend's good friend The Washington Post; Surely there is no more reliable gospel than that source ?

People who have the viewpoints above (rather exaggerated but not entirely inaccurate) are weighing that against demonstrably failed doom prophecies and tunnel-vision mantras;. This year is the 'last chance saloon'. Pacific Islands and/or arctic ice and/or snow weather phenomenon will be gone by.. <current year + 20 to +50 years>, rinse & repeat. Also, lest we forget the 70's warnings of a looming ice age and Greta's more recent advice to 'stick your climate crisis...' There are some valid arguments for the existence and dangers of climate change aspects but the kinds of circus sideshows, hyperbole and wildly inaccurate pseudoscience that pervades the discussion does significant damage against creating believers on the 'green' side, along with the undeniable hypocrisy of climate speakers and public figures who are not following their own 'green' advice. IMO the net-zero push also has a curiously narrow focus towards a 'climate is all that matters' mantra, appearing to disregard the social and economic realities of many nations, such as the cobalt industry (widely used in green solutions) mining & conditions for workers in those countries.

So which is it then ? You can't have it both ways. Either power from green is already cheaper than fossil, without subsidies, taxes or penalties for either, or it's not. If the former applies then my earlier comment about energy types competing fairly (and naturally drawing consumers to green) in the market should apply, or do the examples you've linked apply to countries that already penalise fossil power?

I take your point, although you're really saying that wind and solar should be cheaper (in consumer utility bills) than fossil, or will be cheaper than fossil once the taxes take effect. Alternatively worded you're saying wind & solar are cheaper clean energy than fossils (albeit not cheaper energy, period). I think it's rather important to include that qualifier in statements. The comparisons you've made in your second post (fossil power vs public land dumps, sewerage in rivers) are hyperbole, unless you've had no faith at all in the EPA and related legislation for the last 50 years. I could make a comparable absurdity by saying that Bentley vehicles are cheaper than Dacia's because the latter 'get away' with not using Connolly leather and titanium.

How much longer then until this can truly become a cheaper energy than fossil fuels for the average bill-paying user ? The technologies are still heavily subsidised in most places, the consumers' utility bills are higher and the net-zero push includes proposed future taxes or bans on carbon emissions of fossil energy types. If 'green' technologies are an economic winner then why not allow them to compete fairly with other energy types? Users will surely gravitate to the cheaper energy on their own. When Henry Ford started making cars he didn't call for a tax or a ban on the horse & cart.... What is this showing exactly ? Regardless of 'green' technologies we're always going to have domestic cats, glass buildings and power lines for quite some time. More turbines might logically imply more bird deaths but surely this should be compared to bird deaths caused by other energy types, if it's a specific criticism of wind turbines.

Read back on your own words (edited for brevity) ; "Who decides what they are? You . . . or them? ...... I'd argue that it is up to her..." Medical science does not recognise self-assessment as an accepted standard of biological gender. I suspect you know this and you're talking around the point, a rather dishonest debating style. Criminal misdemeanours are quite separate from filing a suit in a civil action for 'harm'. Again, I suspect you know this and you're grasping at arguments that have no relevance.

Then you may find yourself arguing against medical science and law; I agree that it would be nearly impossible to police in everyday settings, hence a reliance on courtesy and civil obedience of the person in most cases. I'm sure you're aware that the IOC, as one example, has processes to evaluate a suitable degree of gender compliance for Olympic competition purposes. A court magistrate also has resources available to address gender identity questions, which we'll get to in a moment below... You've got me there at the moment, With winsor's example aside, I cannot find six. I am however curious that harm is the only measure that you regard as meriting concern in such cases. I assure you that if I brazenly walked into the ladies shower rooms at my local gym, without harming a soul, I would make people uncomfortable and would likely find myself arrested and charged on anything from trespass to disorderly conduct to indecent exposure depending on what actions I took while there. Could I 'identify as female' before a magistrate ? My choice ? Not likely. Outside the courtroom I suppose I could, the magistrate's not watching.

Gee thanks, 'Stumpy'. I really value your awards. If it's not yet clear; That part of my comment was specifically referring to males who have not sufficiently physically transitioned, who assert themselves as being female to inappropriately leverage an entitlement. My comparison therefore refers to people who are ignoring a requirement and asserting to being something they are not. Do you regard it as 'dumb' because unvaccinated people are a health hazard and men are not ? In reality of course; unvaccinated people are a health risk, transitioning to a hazard only if they test positive. Similarly; many males-who-identify-as-female are harmless but, for the purposes of the above comparison, risk exists in some public spaces regarding those who are not.

Gay still does mean happy, if used in a specific context. The meaning did not change, it's merely become ambiguous. Likewise; adding new words does not equate to changing existing words. When the woke cultures are attempting to change 'male', 'female', 'father' 'mother', rather finite and distinct terms that reach into the sciences, I regard that as problematic. You're presenting a strawman for inane debate. I specifically referred to "choose to identify as", not birth certificates. There are varying degrees of biological and surgical transformations to arrive the type of image you posted and people should indeed be judged on what they currently are, rather than a birth certificate. Maybe you'd be OK with unvaccinated people "choosing to identify as" vaccinated, to gain all the same privileges and public access as vaccinated people ? I'm sure you'd agree they need the medical procedure before making such assertions.

It's no longer a subculture if attempts are being made to change mainstream English language and definitions in absurd ways, to push onto the majority. I have no problem with any person adopting any name they like; I've already known quite a few women with unisex names or male nicknames that they prefer. It's more of an issue when one is able assert pronouns and titles for anything that one "chooses to identify as", as this allows transgenderism to be faked and there are undoubtedly public spaces in which women would rightly prefer to feel safe from potential male predators, or having various '..woman of the year' awards usurped by men, or claiming gender-specific rights or privileges that were never intended. I'm also not overly concerned by transgender persons competing in sports; it's the prerogative of the sporting body to adjudicate that and the choice of the athletes to either accept a transgender opponent or refuse to compete. I have no stake in that. However; when a female Olympian bags 3 gold medals and loses out on 'sportswoman of the year' in her own country (NZ) to a transgender who didn't place in any event , some reflection may be required on what defines sporting merit over woke culture.

I call bullshit on Olof asserting his own opinion as public opinion (if assuming he actually implied 'word on the street' to be public opinion). I'm an Australian in Australia, so I would welcome his source to back that up. Do you really think the AER's decision to keep coal power going will depend on public opinion? Their brief is to have a stable grid. If renewables cant do it, I expect coal will. I don't expect to see them having a referendum on it. Even the UK grid fires up their coal when needed without polling the street first. Then perhaps Neoen SA should not have made contractual promises in that regard, and I expect the AEMO would have already examined their own grid and traced the problem to Hornsdale before filing papers. In fairness to your argument, the reports do not make enough facts available. The outcome of the case will hopefully reveal more detail for both of us.

I would be in favour of that, if it works as promised. It does seem a bit strange however that a grid that nearly failed during freezing winter weather, is the selling point for a project that "...could power about 20,000 homes on a hot summer day." So, they're still f*cked in winter ?

Do you have a reliable citation for any of that? Until you do, I call bullshit. If the "word on the street" is the new measure of accuracy & credibility then I expect we'll hear a lot more 'street words' in future threads here. Here's a report from another source, unless you regard Reuters as less reliable than 'the street'. In fairness; the report wording does not distinguish between unwilling or unable (to provide power) but either scenario does not bode well for trust in renewables to feed the grid. More reason for the AER to keep the coal burning until the trust exists. Again I'll state that I'd like to see renewables work reliably, but there needs to be realistic assessments of the costs, the time required to achieve a specific outcome, and the cost/benefit to climate. If Australia's domestic emissions were entirely net-zero tomorrow, after spending billions to get there, the impact would reduce about 1.5% of the global total, with zero impact on actual surface temperatures. It's a tough sell at the moment.