I wholeheartedly disagree. Those professions you mentioned require extensive knowledge of multiple disciplines and an ability to interact with other professionals, not a singular ability to preform one singular act. The criteria are varied and there is no one way to determine future performance based on any single test of abilities. Edit : Temperment, perceived social standing, manners, vocabulary, intelligence, education across the board, etc all matter in those professions, but not in basketball.

Yep, agreed, just pointing out that sports are not immune.

Those people are deluded. We don't live in a vacuum. People consider race, if only subconsciously, pretending we don't is just dishonest, and more often than not just an excuse to discriminate against others, if only by ignoring the extra obstacles they overcome to be equal.

MY policy would examine a person's entire situation, financial, local, familial, social, educational, employment, extra curricular activities, etc. and take it all into account when determining what kind of hard working student to admit. If admissions tests included all those and more in their decision, not just a single biased test result, race could be excluded unless diversity is required. Because diversity is required, both morally and legally, it would be good to start there and examine the results, then maybe race/gender could still be ignored, maybe not. We don't do that, so we can't know, but we do know the tests we use like SAT tests are biased and don't measure achievement, only specific wrote knowledge, which is a piss poor measure of a student's potential.

I think I understand your position, I do think it's important to not swing the pendulum of injustice harder in the other direction and instead work to stop it in the middle, I just disagree with your theories, your methodology, and I think you ignore many major factors and the desired/required result in order to stand immovable in your position.

Your stance says it. Objecting to using race as one of many criteria for admission in favor of a single test that clearly benefits your group ignores "all racial discrimination and racial obstacles except that single instance you can point to where it doesn't come out in your favor, then suddenly racism IS a problem that needs eradicating...."

Short sighted tribal reasoning was electing a lying cheeto with anger issues because it wore red.

Yes, but that score must, to be honest and have any value, include a measurement of the obstacles overcome to achieve that score. Taking financial, societal, opportunistic, familial, etc obstacles they've overcome doesn't seem to bother you, race is one more obstacle for many, one that's rightly taken into account when measuring a student's efforts required to achieve their current status, especially proper when diversity is part of the desired outcome of the computation.

Include a numerical modifier that takes overcoming those multiple obstructions into account and skin color might eventually be reasonably removed, but not before.

Lower scoring candidates should be chosen over higher scoring candidates based on other factors. Race is, right now, the best way to generalize those factors when trying to create a diverse student body, something we've determined is a benefit to all students. Of course, it would be better to examine all facets of performance on an individual basis, but schools don't seem to do that anymore, it's a Herculean task. Again, fund them better and they tend to do better.

Researchers found that disabling the fucose mutarotase (FucM) gene in laboratory mice – which influences the levels of estrogen to which the brain is exposed – caused the female mice to behave as if they were male as they grew up.

"The mutant female mouse underwent a slightly altered developmental programme in the brain to resemble the male brain in terms of sexual preference" said Professor Chankyu Park of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology in Daejon, South Korea, who led the research.

- https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-11-62

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Study shows Transgender brains more closely resemble brains of the sex they align with, rather than what they were born with.

Julie Bakker, who led the research, utilized 160 MRI scans of transgender people diagnosed with gender dysphoria when they were either kids or in their teens. These scans also measured the brain’s microstructures with a technique called diffusion tensor imaging.

After all of these scans were made, they were then compared with people of the same age who had not been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The study found that transgender boys’ and transgender girls’ brain activity corresponded to both cisgender boys and girls. The MRI tests examined brain activity after an exposure to a steroid and measured gray matter as well.

Bakker believes that this research could be used to help children at an earlier day who’re diagnosed with gender dysmorphia. Bakker stated:

"Although more research is needed, we now have evidence that sexual differentiation of the brain differs in young people with GD, as they show functional brain characteristics that are typical of their desired gender.”

- https://bigthink.com/mike-colagrossi/transgender-brains-more-closely-resemble-brains-of-the-sex-they-align-with-rather-than-what-they-were-born-with

[This study is also in line with multiple previous studies done since 2011, with MRI results showing differences. The major change with this study is that it involved children who had not been exposed to hormone treatment and that were pre-pubescent. - Mordhaus]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As long as they aren't hurting anyone and any sexual interactions are between consenting adults, who cares if it is genetic or behavioral? Personally, I don't even give a fuck if people use different bathrooms. If a cis gender woman wanted to use the Men's restroom, I would say "Go for it, just don't flip out if you see a dick or two." Same goes for vice versa.

This lady is welcome to her opinion, but science is starting to weigh against her in increasing degrees. At a certain point, this is going to be equivalent to the Flat Earth people, if it isn't already.

he claims not to be... but when you examine his positions, he clearly is.

Just one of the many reasons, I've stopped paying attention to him.

Hmm . . . well there's an interesting claim! I should examine it closer because it sounds like bullshit.

Let's see here, dictionary.com, atheist, enter key aaaaaaaaaand:

"Atheist:
noun

1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

Well, there seems to be some words missing. Those words are "actively" and "God". In fact, there's even a Boolean, "or", that gives equal weight to both "denies" and "disbelieves".

So in other words, not only did your own link just shoot down your own argument, but you actually proved ChaosEngine's statement as being correct.

Well played!

As Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Honestly, it's farcical, if you'd make the slightest attempt to examine both sides with some semblance of intellectual rigor and honesty, there's no contest. Trump and Faux aren't even internally consistent, often they'll say completely different things about the same subject as it suits their needs.

Debunking them, or you, is a waste of time. If you have any interest in finding the truth it's out there, but I can't be bothered trying to force-feed it to people like you.

I've seen plenty doing body removals for the medical examiner in NJ and now in FL. Surprisingly not all attempts result in death.

Either you're a complete moron or a troll. If you honestly believe what you wrote then you live in one weird bubble and are honestly racist. You're definition of racism is so far removed from the actual definition it is straight up racist itself.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess you are a American or Canadian who lives in that typical America bubble where the world is just your immediate doorstep and things like ethnic cleansing and racial prejudice between Africans, Chinese, etc simply dont exist to you.

I would invite you to sincerely re-examine your beliefs and world-view my brother because you're views are frightening.

PS: I love how it took you only two posts to devolve straight into Godwin's law. That must be a record.

Maybe he saw how strong the sign was and it related to the values this sign represents. So he probably realized he should go home, re-examine his values and maybe tomorrow he'll be out holding that very sign and supporting its message.

I do body recovery and transport for several funeral homes and also a Medical Examiner in Florida. Basically, I'm a "Body Snatcher." I handle bodies from hospitals, hospices, private homes, crime scenes, auto accidents, etc,etc,etc.

The "cremation machine" is called a retort. It gets fairly loud and fairly warm while standing next to one. Surprisingly, there is very little odor if at all.

There is usually a waiting period of about a few days before a body can be cremated. This time can vary from state to state.

Cremations have become more popular over the years as it can reduce the cost for families that can't afford all the pomp and circumstance or just want simple send-off.

Bob, I honestly believe you need to be psychology examined. You have apparently gone off the deep end into full blown delusional political paranoia....or perhaps you really are just a Russian troll.

Please acknowledge that your hero Trump has repeatedly suggested that slander and libel laws are too lax (except when applied to his baseless accusations against others) and that the press should be hobbled and stymied if they speak out against him or reveal what he's trying to hide, as in have their licenses and credentials revoked and be sued into bankruptcy or even charged with treason among other sanctions, but published lies that support him are totally acceptable, even praiseworthy.

Thanks StukaFox, you managed to produce no peer reviewed papers but have claimed some sort of research victory because you got some answers from Google. Nice. I'd hire you as a researcher for sure.

So I mentioned the Australian and New Zealand legislation. Lets see if there is a peer reviewed paper that examines this.

McPhedran, Samara; Baker, Jeanine (2011). "Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence". Justice Policy Journal.

New Zealand didn't enact Australia's draconian laws. You can buy an AR15 there with high capacity magazines. They also haven't had a mass shooting in 20 years. The peer reviewed paper examines this and comes to the conclusion I stated above.

I see you have some ABS data. Nice. I use the ABS all the time.

Oh wait. You took only the last two years of data for a data set that spans over 40 years. Bad form mate. Lets see if the rate of firearms related homicide was reducing at a similar rate before the legislation changes using a much larger time period.

Lucky for me someone else already did this to make my day easier. They used Australian Institute of Criminology (the official government source) data over a 30 year period. It shows the rate did not change with the legislation change in 1997.

Nice examination of the issue on Quora

Are there peer reviewed papers which come to the same conclusion? Yes.

Lee, Wang-Sheng; Suardi, Sandy (2010). "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths". Contemporary Economic Policy. 28 (1): 65–79

Jeanine Baker, Samara McPhedran; Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 47, Issue 3, 1 May 2007, Pages 455–469

Chicago? I wasn't going to mention it. I'm not American. I am Australian.

Conclusion: go wipe the egg off of your face.

Edit: forgot to answer your question.

"What conclusions can we draw from this? "

We can conclude that for a short period of time the homicide by firearm rate went up. Just as it goes up and down for any short period of time in most countries. This does not negate the TREND, which in the USA has been downward year on year for the last 25 years. The rate of firearm ownership has increased over the same 25 year period.

Thanks for that link -- really good.

I do think that "the left" is perhaps a bit too focused on specific weapon or accessory types. AR-15's, bump stocks, magazine sizes, etc. It's not completely ridiculous to say that if we banned AR-15's with 20-30 shot magazines, most of these shooters would just move on to the next best thing; maybe a Ruger Mini 14 or something with a 15 shot magazine.

Would that mitigate some of the deadly potential? Sure. Slightly. But it wouldn't prevent things at all, just (slightly) mitigate them. That might be worth doing, but it isn't beneficial enough to be what we should be focusing on.


I think two things could help contribute to prevention. Registration, and Licensing.

Step 1) Anyone who owns or purchases a firearm would be legally required to get it/them registered. Serial numbers (if they exist), etc. Anyway, descriptions of the weapon(s) on file and linked to a registered owner. If a firearm is used in a crime, the registered owner could be partially liable for that crime. Crime resulting in death? Owner subject to charges of negligent manslaughter. Violent crime, but no deaths? Owner subject to charges of conspiracy to commit X. Registered owner finds one or more of their firearms stolen or missing? Report them as such, and your liability could be removed or mitigated. Failure to register a firearm would also carry criminal penalties.

Step 2) Anyone who wants to use a firearm would be legally required to get a license. Licensing requires taking a proficiency and safety test. The initial license would require practical examination (safety and proficiency) at a range. Initial licensing and renewals (every 4 years?) would require passing a written test of knowledge about ownership laws, safety, etc. Just like a driver's license. And just like a driver's license, there could be things that might reasonably preclude your ability to get a license. Felony record? No license for you. Mental health issues? No license for you.


The NRA loves to tout themselves as responsible gun owners. Well, responsible people take responsibility. Remember that one kid in your class back in third grade that talked back to the teacher, so she made you all stay in and read during recess? Yeah, he ruined it for the rest of you. Guess what -- that's happening again. These nutjobs that shoot up schools or into a crowd of civilians are ruining things for the rest of you. We've tried unfettered access and an extremely lax interpretation of the second amendment. It didn't work out well. For evidence, compare the US to any other developed country on Earth.

Guns are a part of American culture, to an extent that taking them away completely would be ... problematic. But there are many, many things between the nothing that we're doing now and that.

dr peterson is a professor of psychology at university of toronto,and former harvard professor.

i like him but often disagree with some of his criticisms,but he does source all his claims on his website and his books.

though his book "maps of meaning" is a bit of a slog.

one thing i admire about peterson is his careful use of words,which is where the interviewer was getting tripped up.

she was not really listening,and was instead reacting based on assumptions,rather than his actual words.which is why she kept with the "so what you're saying.."

the extreme left has labeled peterson an "alt-right" demagogue and a "transphobe" but both of these allegations are patently ridiculous with even a tertiary examination of what peterson is saying.

you don't have to agree with him,but as this interviewer found out,presume at your own risk.

he will may you pay for your presumptions and arrogance.

i find both dr peterson and dr haidt invaluable in understanding the psychology of human societies.peterson is an evolutionary psychologist while haidt focuses on moral psychology.

but what do i know..i am just a ghetto white trash kid from the burbs.
still interesting.

I agree for the most part, but with batteries, now becoming reasonable in size and price, it's not so hard to be totally off grid. Micro hydro can also be efficient power storage if properly designed with a dual reservoir system.
Granted, that seems to work best in small scale setups so far, but there is an island .....(https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/09/17/349223674/tiny-spanish-island-nears-its-goal-100-percent-renewable-energy)
...currently (since 2014) using this tech to be nearly 100% green.

Dismissing projections as unrealistic without fully examining them may doom our economy and planet.
That's what happened with solar, people just claimed it's expensive and unreliable, which meant those they convinced didn't know how wrong that is, and didn't buy systems or support solar farms. I ignored them and did some light math, and found that even an expensive high tech system with batteries, professionally installed, would pay for itself in about 8 years, with a 20 year expected lifespan (and I live in Humboldt county, with the foggiest airport in America, not Arizona). I'm damn glad I didn't listen. Even a 2 year delay would have cost me 1/2 my rebates, making the system take an extra 2+ years to pay for itself by costing me thousands upon thousands of dollars (instead of saving me thousands per year).

Edit: Also, here in Humboldt we just switched to choice in electricity, we can choose regular pge power (mostly old school generation), a mixture of up to 75% (I think, maybe higher) renewable for cheaper, or 100% renewable for more. All 3 now bill transmission (including voltage/frequency regulation) separately, so it's easy to see what generation alone costs. It's clear so far that mostly renewable is the best bet economically, and I assume it will become more renewable as new technologies become available.....at least I hope so.