metalslug

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    1,160

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by metalslug

  1. 2 minutes ago, billvon said:

    They result in organs in the same place as ovaries that look like ovaries and, on exam, present like ovaries.  If you asked her doctor about her ovaries, they would likely check and say "they're fine - why?"

    They are not ovaries. Period. What they 'present as' on cursory examination has no relevance at all.  (I can present as Santa Claus). You wrote nonsense and were caught on it.

    7 minutes ago, billvon said:

    So I'll pose the same question to you.  You have a child.  At birth - as far as you can tell - that child has a vagina, ovaries and (later) breasts.  They grow up as a girl.  At age 15 they test as XY.  What sex are they?  What will you make them identify as?

    'make them'?   that your preferred parenting style?  I would encourage them to identify as female, as the closest approximation of what they are and have familiarity with.  I have certainly never stated that women are strictly XX as I'm familiar enough with the difference between DSD and transgender. I'll even do you one better; I'd be willing to call a XY born male, after fully transitioned , a woman.

  2. 21 hours ago, billvon said:

    OK.  If you have a child, and at birth that child has a vagina, ovaries and (later) breasts, and tests as XY - what are they?  In Winsor's reality?  What will you make them identify as?

    The scenario above can never happen. Neither AIS (Morris) or Swyer syndrome can result in ovaries. Also; DSD or intersex should not be confused with transgender, not mutually inclusive at all. The former occurs in approx. 1 in 15000 women with XY and the latter around 2% who self-identify as trans or some variation thereof. Arguing the case of one group to explain another is dishonest.

  3. 10 hours ago, billvon said:

    Unbiased media presents a real danger to some politicians. 

    To test this theory, researchers offered incentives to regular FOX watchers to watch other networks for a month (specifically CNN.) 

    Heey.. wait a second; https://adfontesmedia.com/product/media-bias-chart-latest-edition/#iLightbox[]/0

    Were they working on the theory that if they go from right to left then they would end up in the center?  If they switched from Fox to CNN then they were never exposed to the 'real danger' of unbiased media.

  4. · Edited by metalslug

    29 minutes ago, jakee said:

    What is wrong with it? If indeed it was that case that a large number of people would rather vote for a circus clown than any white male candidate then what could possibly be wrong with pointing that out? 

    Read it again carefully and then put away your strawman. Not 'people'. 'Americans'. Do you see what's wrong with it yet?  For Joe to assert that votes against Harris would be based exclusively on race and gender is as absurd as asserting that votes against Trump would be based on the same.

  5. 23 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

    It's true that a disturbing number of Americans would choose a traitorous, grifting, lying, narcissistic, conniving crook over a black women as our President? 

    Did it occur to you how your own racism and sexism shows in that statement? You've asserted that a particular race and gender are superior, on their own merits, irrespective of other character faults.
      Compare your statement to this example;
    "...disturbing number of Americans would choose a giggling, insincere buffoon over a white man as our President?"

    Are you able to see what's wrong with this?

  6. 26 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

    I guess it'll be a bit more trouble the next time you claim you aren't getting your facts from Fox News.

    So long as they are facts, it would seem irrelevant where they come from in this case. It's not as though 'the Post' would publish anything that embarrasses their narratives. Feel free to dispute that any of those quotes are accurate.

  7. 11 hours ago, jakee said:

    At least they’d be reading something. Have you figured out your problem with the 50 intel guys yet?

    Nothing that hasn't already been covered by previous posts, unless it helps you if I add a "So what ?"

  8. 6 hours ago, billvon said:

    ?? Of course people read their own sources.  By definition.  Once you read it, it's your source.

    Allow me to spell it out then; I had 'corrected' it to read as "people who only read their own sources", as in the context of exclusively referencing typically biased media sources who decline to publish anything that disturbs a left (or right) world view narrative;
    Righties: "The lefties are only reading left-wing biased media."
    Lefties: "Not true! I read widely from sources A, B, C, D ...."
    Righties: "Really? The you've missed this factual event reported in source C" 
    Lefties:  <silence>

    To be fair, both sides do this, so neither can be sanctimonious about it. There are regular news events that would make lefty politics feel awkward to discuss that never make it into SC, it's rather surprising that the 'trolling' is actually so limited considering the abundance of available material. It's then also automatic that none of these events would be posted by the lefties themselves as they are likely never even reported in their focused media of choice.

  12. · Edited by metalslug

    4 hours ago, billvon said:

    Nope.  She was asked for a definition of "woman."  

    As a judge, she would be remiss if she just assumed one or the other without knowing all the above.  Good for her for not giving the easy (and potentially) wrong answer.

    Utter nonsense and deflection. This was a questioning for a judicial position, she was quite logically being asked her legal opinion on a legal definition and did not offer any definition at all, other than to assert that only a biologist could possibly provide a definition. There's no amount of woke spin you can put on that.

    4 hours ago, billvon said:

    As a simile, consider three witnesses in a court case.  They are all asked if they saw a woman at the scene of the crime.  Witness 1 says "yes,"  Witness 2 says "I saw someone who looked like a woman."  Witness 3 said "I saw the back of someone with long brown hair wearing a blue dress."  Justice is most likely served when person 3 testifies.

    Nope. Witness #3 would be the most useless as they had the worst view, from behind. The witness with the best view gets the higher regard. Did they all see a man in drag? It's not the witnesses' obligation to make that determination, the courts and the investigators do. They should hope their presiding judge knows what a woman or a man is.

  13. 25 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

    Bill is dead right; the legal definition of gender, where it matters, is not necessarily the same as the biological.

    And yet an actual legal expert, on questioning for a judiciary position, deferred the question in it's entirety to expertise in biology. 

    28 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

    ..but all just knowing something is wrong.

    Absurd sporting outcomes by trans participants , non-transitioned men using women's public facilities.  'knowing that something is wrong' does not only apply in the context that you've used it.

    I would agree that it doesn't seem fair to permanently deny such participants the ability to ever compete in sports again and there may yet be a method to include these participants fairly, it's just not happening reliably enough yet.

  14. Hmm.. we might require a special qualification to know the answer. It's a hard question ! According to at least one member of the judiciary; one needs to be a biologist to know (to their credit they thereby acknowledge that gender is biological), in the same way that only a veterinarian or zoologist would know what a horse is and only a botanist could define an apple...

    • Like 1

  15. 16 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

     The team that has been investigating Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes — he did,

    Perhaps I'm a little naïve but I'd still like to believe that the US justice system still works on the presumption of innocence and that courts of law can prevail over courts of public opinion.

    How many cases have we already seen, against defendants on the left and right, in which the prosecutors had stated that they had 'overwhelming evidence' only to be undone by insufficient evidence or a failure to properly understand the actual law. For this reason I'll take any politically tainted claims of 'overwhelming evidence' with a pinch of salt. 

    Therefore, in these future cases too, vs Trump and now vs Hillary, I'd be keen to see how both would fare. Bragg wont have his position forever and unless there's a statute of limitations on the charges then there will surely be opportunities later for it ?

  16. 10 hours ago, billvon said:

    And not denying something is the same as confirming it.  Right.

    Forgive my previous acerbic comment to you. Is this perhaps better?  Now compare that to "Hunter didn't deny that Putin ordered Trump to try to discredit his father". With all the effort from the left in attempting to debunk the laptop it would be really easy for Hunter to deny the laptop as his, would indeed be one of the strongest testimonies per his personal knowledge of it.  By comparison; I didn't deny it was my laptop and you didn't deny it was yours. Yet if either of us were asked the same question it would be an unequivocal response easily proven. Yet Hunter doesn't, keeping his options open for when it awkwardly comes clean.

    • Like 1

  17. 8 hours ago, jakee said:

    First of all, you’re conflating two different subjects here. The DOJ probe into his taxes and the contents of his laptop not the same.

    Nope. My very first sentence was "Returning to the OP.." which is "Hunter Biden's laptop". I intentionally made no mention of the DOJ probe which, I agree, is a separate issue. I was however referring to the 'so what?' line you've had since the laptop was authenticated. 

    8 hours ago, jakee said:

    Surely you are perceptive enough to have noticed that Brent’s argument is that Hunter Biden owns a laptop therefore Joe Biden is corrupt? Therefore the question ‘So what?’ to Brent pointing out that Hunter Biden owns a laptop is an invitation for him to fill in some of the blank space in between. An invitation which he has not in anyway taken up, which tells me the question is still a very good one.

    Since those officials you’re mentioning are not participating in this conversation with Brent, I really don’t think there’s any meaning to be gleaned from the fact that they haven’t asked him a question. Honestly no idea why you think otherwise.

    I'm unable to say with certainty, in my independent capacity, that the laptop content indicates anything directly negative towards Joe Biden, but  these 50 officials seem to believe that perception by association merits concern. You seem to be of the opinion that (alleged) dirt on Hunter has zero impact on US voter thinking and you're welcome to believe that. By contrast, these 50 officials do. If you trust their acumen and judgement that the laptop content is a Russian fabrication but distrust the same people on their opinion of it's influence on the election, then I find that to be curiously convenient for you.

    For the left (including NYT) to fight so hard to debunk the laptop before the election and then have NYT concede it's legit after the election, is also rather convenient.

    • Like 1

  18. 1 minute ago, billvon said:

    As I recall, Hunter didn't deny that Putin ordered Trump to try to discredit his father.

    Right, totally the same thing. Hunter is just as familiar with Putin as his own laptop. I can always count on you for insightful comment, bill...

  19. 9 hours ago, jakee said:

    The DOJ is probing Hunter Biden. So what?

    Returning to the OP and because I'm generous to a fault, I have bolded the piece you missed earlier regarding 50 former intelligence officials who wrote “..this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election..." . These former officials (as no current official worth their salt would put their name to it)  believe that the laptop content could have influenced the election outcome, it's implied in that very statement. You're welcome to hold an opinion that you disagree with these officials (as none of them have said 'so what?'), although to disagree with them would also imply that you don't believe it's a Russian fabrication. Can't have it both ways. Hunter himself certainly hasn't denied it's his.

  20. 33 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

    Maybe countries should start having to accept climate refugees in the proportion to which they contribute to global CO2 emissions.

    Wendy P. 

    Other than the US; refugees would then go to China, Russia,...  Do I detect a mean streak in you, Wendy ? :rofl:

  21. On 3/19/2022 at 4:42 AM, brenthutch said:

    Now that Trump is safely out of the White House, the NYT admits the laptop belongs to Hunter.  

    On 3/19/2022 at 6:10 PM, jakee said:

    So what?

    So 50 former intelligence officials have written “..this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election..." . Evidently these 50+ people believe that the laptop content could have been damaging to the Biden family and consequently the election outcome. With the tin-foil ushanka now removed....

  22. 11 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

    On the flip side, why don't Trump supporters believe Trump was a Putin stooge, despite all the evidence?

    You mean the 'evidence' from Michael Sussmann, Igor Danchenko and the Steele document' ?   I'm no Trump supporter, but I like horseshyte smear campaigns even less.

  23. There are aspects of the ongoing conflict that have me mildly puzzled;  Zelensky has recently said that Russia's terms of negotiation are now sounding 'more realistic' and include terms such as;

    Ukraine must remain outside of NATO forever. Crimea must be recognised as Russian. Eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk must be independent.

    These terms are not much different from the practical reality of 3 weeks ago before the fighting started. Sweden and Finland seem to be doing OK (outside of NATO) and both Germany and France have indicated in the past that they will oppose Ukrainian membership, so NATO membership was always unlikely for Ukraine anyway. The other two terms are not fantastic for Ukraine, but to resist them prolongs the conflict arguably longer than it needs to. With those terms accepted Putin can get his 'win' without decimating more of Ukraine. Unless Ukraine truly believes it can win this war alone, then these terms merit consideration. Furthermore, a future less autocratic Russian leader may well revoke the NATO condition in future decades. Few things are 'forever'.

    Zelensky keeps repeating his request for a NATO no-fly zone and I expect it has been repeatedly explained to Ukraine why NATO will not agree to it. Most of the civilian and urban damage has come from land-based artillery strikes, significantly more than from the air, therefore the limited benefit of a no-fly zone is even weaker now relative to the risk of WW3. While I empathise with Zelensky's desperation, the repeated calls seem illogical at this point.

    Poland has called on NATO for a 'peace-keeping' mission to Ukraine at a time when there is no peace to keep and should surely be aware that such forces are only relevant before or after a war.

    Would I be alone to think that some of the political positions (taken by these respective leaders) above are a bit odd ?

  24. 1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

    An employee on Russia’s state Channel One television has interrupted the channel’s main news programme with an extraordinary anti-war protest. The protester, who was identified by Russian media as Marina Ovsyannikova, burst on to the set of the live broadcast of the nightly news on Monday evening, shouting 'Stop the war. No to war.'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URTrP1xHpQA

     

     

    Her courage is admirable although I hope she finds it worth it balanced against the reach of the message. This lady now potentially faces 15 years in Siberia or worse. There have been indications that a great many Russians already know the truth via a huge increase in VPN subscriptions to bypass internet restrictions within Russia, a growing awareness of truth albeit still unwise to protest publicly.