• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback

  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by DougH

  1. Welcome back! I have friends who are still jumping into their 80's. They all jump nice large canopies that fly slow and land soft.
  2. I also believe the scripture is very clear. If Jesus was to return he would be riding a magical unicorn flanked by the flying spaghetti monster. He would proceed to flay Johnson and all of the other hypocrites before sending them down to a fiery hell where they would wake each day to never ending suffering for acting like horrible human beings and perverting his teaching to justify their shitty ways.
  3. What is it that they say about broken clocks, or blind squirrels?
  4. The discussions that ADL was having with twitter started long before Elon decided to waste part of his fortune on buying it. The ADL's goals here aren't the opposition of free speech, they are against the amplification of hate speech that calls for violence. Sensible people understand that you can't scream fire in crowded movie theater, and that it would be unreasonable for the movie theater management to give a megaphone to the person who was actively doing that. If Elon doesn't want advertisers to run for their lives he should probably stop making X look like the digital version of a Mad Max dystopian hell scape.
  5. Honestly I have been seriously disappointed with all of these sentences, but I am not a lawyer, and definitely not a federal prosecutor. owing allegiance to the,not less than %2410%2C000%3B and I think anyone who entered the capital buildings during the riot should have been charged with seditious conspiracy and the prosecution should have requested the maximum penalty. I think the high level Oath Keepers and Proud Boy organizers should have been charged with treason, and we should have been going for the death penalty. Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
  6. No. Ten years ago most conservatives, liberals, and moderates supported being able to have rational discussions with people that had disagreements on policies. They could disagree on issues without needing to vilify the individual. There was some common understanding of the importance of facts. Back then I would have considered myself a conservative except for my positions on personal liberties like marriage equality and abortion rights. Lots of my skydiving friends were way more liberal than 10 year younger me. I didn't want to destroy any of them, and I could have polite constructive conversations with them where we actually could debate the reasons behind our positions. Ten years later I absolutely wouldn't consider myself a conservative. Not because my views have changed that drastically, but because the right has sprinted off towards extremism while I remained mostly sane. I don't want to destroy the GOP, I just would like them to return to reality. I would like for there to be a sanity check around personal liberties, I would like a return to some amount of civility, and I would like people to go back to respecting facts and intellectual honesty. There are currently over a million conservatives who actually believe in the validity of QAnon. There are people way too many people that genuinely believe all of Trump's election fraud falsehoods. Lets not forget all of the anti-science and insane quackery during the peak of covid. Horse dewormer anyone? I didn't willfully sign up to have that be a significant part of my nations political environment. I don't want to destroy them, but some mental healthcare would be a compassionate response.
  7. Giving more than a second of your attention to an article shared on is WRONG. Lots of different people believe and say lots of different things. From the article: "In 2021, KUTV states, A Black Lives Matter Utah (BLMU) had a post that was showing significant reactions, surpassing the impact of their street protests. The post claims that individuals who display the American flag are racist and referred to the flag as a symbol of hatred. " An unattributed "post" from 2021 is news worthy? Newsworthy enough to make it into a current "news story" in 2023? Relevant enough for you at actually read it and then think you should share it here for the rest of us, with bonus commentary from you? The real world relevance is overwhelming. This is A+ posting from you, and A+ journalism from The Independent News.
  8. It is amazing that they have tricked families making 55k dollars a year that lived in random backwaters to cheer for tax cuts that benefit the ultra rich. These are the same people who are high fiving each other after their representatives cut their healthcare benefits.
  9. Because skydivers never connect humor with tragic circumstances. You must have only come here to repress your sexual desires through hate speech!
  10. Mud puddles, brilliant. If only we could become so unshackled from the tyranny of environmental protection that rivers could start catching fire again. That was awesome! Could you imagine the end zone dance from all the conservatives if we could get back to that Golden Era? "Nasty stuff in our ground water, wooohooo." "Cancer clusters, YESSSSSS, take that you snow flake cucks, that is true freedom" "Leave those Corporations alone, this is America we have freedom, let them fuck things up for our kids and grand kids".
  11. Great effort responding to what I took the effort to write Bill. You have successfully channeled your inner Brent this time around. I have better thing to do than talk to myself, so I will see myself out.
  12. No that isn't the only problem, but it is the only problem that you seem willing to acknowledge. Crystal clear descriptions fail to address the problem of situations with unfair competitive advantages that can arise where there are no alternatives for the competitors to select outside of your approach of letting them eat cake. My Connecticut example clearly illustrates this. The qualification description is crystal clear in CT for HS athletes, choice of gender identification is the qualification to play on a "female" high school sports team. There is no alternative option for a CT biological female high school students to compete in HS track events that have a level playing field where they don't have to compete against trans gendered athletes that posses physical characteristics that are outside of the potential range of potential variability for a biological female. Who is making that sideline argument? Not once have I referred to inherent athletic skill or females being "good or bad" at a sport as the reason for justifying letting females playing male league. It doesn't matter if they are "good or bad", it matters if they have unattainable physiological characteristics that give them an unfair competitive advantage. Care to explain how situations of unfair competitive advantage are addressed by bettering the qualification description?
  13. You are being obtuse, and you know it. Is it a male ballet league or is it an open league that takes all comers? If it an open league then they knowingly chose their pool of competitors. The females in the open league compete against other cis females as well as the cis men, they can compete against trans men trans women, non binary. The best athlete giving the best performance wins. If it is a "male" only league then I would say that it would be unfair to the biological males. The males have joined under the knowledge that they would be competing against individuals that fall somewhere on the spectrum of potential male physiological. They are at an insurmountable disadvantage if they have to dance against 95 pound Mike who identifies as female who has unattainable bone structure (pelvis hips etc.), stature, and flexibility due to having been exposed to less testosterone, and more estrogen. The female winners of your ballet competitions aren't 175lbs and playing catcher on their HS "girls" softball team in the off season, if there was an off season for ballet. Women of that physical stature could potentially still have an advantage over some of the men, but at least they would overlap more with the spectrum is what is normally attainable for a biological male.
  14. Bill this is the kind of let them eat cake response that frankly legitimizes some of the Alt-Right backlash. If the state rule states that the criteria is the students chosen gender identification, then the female cis athlete has the following choices, compete against transgendered women who have physiological characteristics that are outside of the range of physical variability for biological females, or don't compete. Here is the CT policy. And here is an athletes account of the resulting unfairness to cis gendered female athletes from that policy who participate in individual sports like sprinting. You are dancing around one of the real issues here with this cute story, unfair competitive advantage. No one has a problem with Kam playing with the "boys" because there isn't an unfair advantage held by Kam. Kam is likely at a physical disadvantage in terms of explosiveness and size. If she can overcome that with skill and athleticism then good on her. In football there have been high school and college female kickers going all the way back to the 1990's, little to no complaint there. If you find me a competitive female offensive lineman at the collegiate level I will go to the games to cheer because that will be impressive! There are female wrestlers competing against men below the collegiate level. Any complaint would be about having to wrestle a girl, not that the girl has some sort of an uncompetitive advantage, or not wanting to "hurt" a girl or get beat by a girl. Tough cookies for those male athletes in my opinion. The real issue is if Kam was originally a Kurt and could chose to play on the "all girls" water polo team, and Kam weighs 60lbs more than the other players, and routinely contributes to wins for her school because of her excess size compared to her competitors. I guess those athletes should eat cake to make up for the difference in stature, muscle fiber motor units, measured explosiveness, etc.
  15. A casual reading of the science suggests that differences in androgen exposure exist as far back as in utero, 8 weeks after conception, and exist through early childhood. I have heard it claimed that this has a meaningful influence on performance and physical characteristics, but I don't know what the science actually supports. I know that science supports that individuals who are exposed to supernormal levels of androgens through taking steroids experience physiological changes that are long lasting, years after the steroids are discontinued, and potentially for life. Setting aside the science I think both sides are crazy here. The Alt-Right ignores the importance of inclusion, is often viewing this through a lens of bigotry and hate, and I think is distorting the scale of the problem. The Left on this issue is promoting societal and moral arguments as if they are science, and refuses to consider situations where the inclusion of trans athletes is potentially unfair to cis female athletes. Bill how does that apply to high school athletes who are competing in individual sports like track and field? It isn't a team sport. There isn't a second league to chose from.
  16. I understand the concerns you raise, especially #2. I also get what Normiss is saying. In my fantasy world we should be able to build due process into the system, and I am not picturing a system of informing, rather I am thinking of a spectrum of evaluation where multiple data points are weighed against each other. For example, I think it would be fine to have people pick their own character references. The type of people you can or can't get to vouch for you is a data point itself. A change in the people you pick would also be a data point. Why did you no longer use your parent and a close friend to be a reference. Is it because they were on vacation, or is it because the people that know you closely have had concerns about changes in your behavior. Cap it with a robust system for timely appeal, that would protect against the fun hating coworkers that Normiss had. Unfortunately this is ultimately nothing but a thought experiment about a dreadful problem because we don't have the political will to solve big complex problems in the country.
  17. 1000x, but I would go further. As a gunowner I have said multiple times in one way or another that I think my rights should be tempered with evaluations and continued monitoring. I live in MA where there are a bunch of gun laws that restrict ownership, but none of them directly tackle the problem. People owning guns that are unfit to own them. There is an assault weapons ban, large capacity laws. But none of the laws truly evaluate my fitness to own a firearm. I could go buy an assault weapon that was manufactured before the enactment date of the original federal assault weapon ban, and I could buy a storage locker full of "pre-ban" magazines. Totally legal. The only hinderance is a much higher cost because of supply and demand, there are only so many pre-ban guns and magazines to buy. There was no true evaluation of my mental health, and no real check that I am not a reckless moron aside from attending a brief NRA firearms safety class. I could be bat shit crazy, with huge anger issues from day 1, and if I managed to avoid getting entangled with the legal or mental health system it would completely fly under the radar because I could mask long enough for my 10 minute conversation with the officer assigned to process permits at the local police station. Or maybe I was previously fit to own firearms, but recently lost my job, got divorced, and have been having getting increasingly isolated. Maybe I have start to become unhinged after feeding myself a steady stream of extremist videos on YouTube. There is no system to catch that either, short of someone spotting outward signs and reporting me to law enforcement. I like my firearms, but I also know the risk they pose. I think it would be complete reasonable to have yearly evaluations of my gun safety knowledge, practical evaluations of my handling of them, a check on my gun storage, and a mental health evaluation that includes interviews of acquaintances for character evaluation.
  18. Sport jumpers often don't give a shit about anything other than jump prices. I would be more concerned past issues raised by the faa about aircraft mx requirements, but the tandem fatality did fit into that theme. Can't buy your next cheap jump ticket if you are a mangled or crisped body at the crash site. To be fair I don't have any direct knowledge about how things are there today.
  19. I just purchased a copy on Amazon. I love skydiving stories that are from before my time and I am looking forward to the read. Thanks for sharing your stories!
  20. No you aren't. Being not white and or not of reasonable economic footing impacts experiences and outcomes. You can't be in favor of having "equal right and equal responsibilities" if you are unwilling to acknowledge those influences, and sometime work to address them. Is that even a coherent thought? Can you give an example? Frequency of existing violations explains the focus, not necessarily racism. Lets look at the focus on negative interactions between minorities and law enforcement. Per capita nonwhites are more likely to have interactions with law enforcement, and they are more likely to be the type of interactions that result in the violation of rights. Getting better funding and training for law enforcement can cause positive interactions for everyone irrespective of color, but the focus isn't on Frappuccino Karen in her Lululemon active wear because she will probably go the whole year driving shitty like everyone else, but she will never get pulled out of her car by police, or be in danger from interactions with them, because she is white her husband is a lawyer and she lives in a very nice neighborhood with high property values and a really high property tax rate.
  21. They are like sports fans, they only care about their team. Facts don't matter if they aren't in your favor. Integrity, nope. Decency, nope.
  22. DougH

    Fort who?

    I give this a week or two before it becomes the distorted subject of some bullshit Facebook meme that gets shared by people who want to virtue signal their racism, as well as the conservative over 50 crowd who can't be bothered to research a single thing that they repost.
  23. Haa! I quoted Lippy without reading on to page four. This amuses me.
  24. Even a blind squirrel gets a nut now and again. IF that was to occur, it would probably be accidental, and on account of not reading the source material.
  25. Wow. That is surprising! Who would have thought that our American Taliban party, the party of alternative facts, the party that widely endorsed a failed insurrection would be shunned by a group of people that generally have post high school educations in science and math, and experience with critical thinking. But hey, you have Hobby Lobby and the My Pillow guy right?