search results matching tag: puberty

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (37)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (3)     Comments (157)   

MAGA Witness Admits He Is A Russian Intelligence Agent

newtboy says...

You first coward. I’ve been waiting for over a month, for the third or fourth time, and I’m still waiting for an infant to hit puberty and grow a pair. Those tiny grapes haven’t dropped yet, Bobby. I think they might have withered on the vine.

Why would I comment on some stupidity that has no basis in reality? Trump is flailing, trying anything to escape the trials where he will be found guilty of treasonous activity because HE IS GUILTY. That paperwork isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, neither is the silly meaningless accusation about Willis.
Edit: his latest fraud, trying to move his NY business addresses to Florida before the judgement was entered to attempt to avoid ever paying the judgement, was discovered immediately and failed, judgement entered, Trump’s broke as a joke with no one willing to loan him a dime…I bet if he sold his interest in all of his properties worldwide it wouldn’t pay his fines, legal bills, and outstanding loans. His creditors and the state are coming to fight over his financial carcass. Lucky Ivanka has billionaire Jared (who isn’t helping with daddy’s bills), the boys will end up on the street. 😂

Don’t you find it odd that Trump’s defenses are all attacks against the prosecution and false equivalence whataboutisms but never actual defenses for the crimes he committed?

Yes, you absolutely have a full blown case of TDS, and massive ignorance of the law and courts functions, and a willingness to ignore all ethical, moral, legal, even human failings by your guy and make up more then exaggerate their importance about his rivals.
If you applied the same criteria to judging Trump that you apply to judging Biden you would hate and despise him far more, but you don’t.
Seeing how 99% of my claims are verified in courts and 99% of yours are debunked completely within a week of you making them up, I think it’s clear who is blinded and who sees reality.

bobknight33 said:

How about your reply on the paperwork filed with the Supreme Court about Jack Smith not being a legitimate Special Prosecutor?

Or Fani Willis procurator banging the hired help and her conflict of interest- let along paying her lover twice as much as the other 2 she hired.

Do I have Trump derangement syndrome or do you have so much Anti Trump running through you that you are blinded by reality?

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Still waiting. 😂
I’ve heard testosterone injections might help you finally hit puberty and grow a pair. Talk to your doctor.

High School Senior Takes Book Banners To School

newtboy says...

Some books are not age appropriate and hence should be kept away from kids ….Like the Bible?
Some people never become adults because they had adult knowledge kept from them as “age inappropriate”, which stunted their development so they NEVER learned “adult” topics and never became adult enough to comprehend even slightly adult topics and themes….some never have knowledge kept from them based on chronological age and their minds grew to adulthood well before puberty. You are clearly in the former group.

99.999% of books on book banning lists are not inappropriate to anyone who actually reads them. Any child raised to not be ignorant, to accept differing viewpoints, to think for themselves, and to question the unknown has absolutely nothing to fear from any book or knowledge. Only ignorant, intolerant, unthinking, cowardly know nothing morons think banning books is a good idea. You want others to be as dumb and ignorant and intolerant as yourself. That returns us to the Dark Ages in a generation….when knowledge was not tolerated.

Books with specific instructions on how to make drugs, bombs, and other deadly devices that children might be able to follow, those should not be in schools. Books that deal with sex and sexuality, since parents like yourself wouldn’t teach it at all, absolutely belong in school so we don’t have a 50% pregnancy rate in high school and a 30% suicide rate.

It’s not up to you to decide what’s appropriate for others to learn anymore than it’s appropriate for me to ban bibles from churches and burn any that don’t comply. If you want children to grow up ignorant of life, send them to religious schools and set them up for failure or cult life.

bobknight33 said:

Some books are not age appropriate and hence should be kept away from kids till they are adult enough to comprehend fully the topic.

Some books, if providing such abhorrent behaviors or topics should be deemed as not being necessary of a schools system.

There are a lot of odd books out there not all belong in a local school.

Transgender Rights II: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

newtboy says...

Yes. Kids are capable of understanding these concepts at very young ages if you’re just honest with them and don’t dance around facts. It’s the lies, obfuscation, misdirection, and misinformation that makes them confused and prone to stupid permanent decisions and unhealthy/unsafe experimentation.
Just say no was an abject failure. Same with abstinence only sex education. Every attempt to hide the facts from kids ends with kids finding out the hard way.
What’s more, it’s often painfully obvious when a child born with male genitalia has a female brain, and vice versa, and stopping or delaying puberty is a reversible way to make their transition as adults much more successful and less invasive. There’s no legitimate reason to oppose that type of reversible treatment when everyone involved agrees it’s called for.

No. Ignorance ALWAYS does more harm than good….as do palatable lies.

Keeping kids ignorant leads to dangerously ignorant adults….something you know about.
More knowledge is always better and leads to informed, well considered decisions.
More ignorance is always worse and always leads to kids making uninformed decisions, often horrible decisions.

But the GOP says “to keep ‘em dumb, get ‘em young.”

The idea that informing curious children that their sex can be altered (with years of difficult, very expensive treatments and eventually painful risky surgeries after years of long term psychological counseling and doctor consultations) is “grooming” them, is convincing them to alter their sex, is moronic and says WAY more about those that claim it than they understand.
Did you want to change your sex from the first time you heard it was possible? Is that why right wingers say they think that? It’s the only logical conclusion.


Sad you are still incapable of addressing the traitor Ashley Babbitt who fucked around with police and found out. That says volumes.

bobknight33 said:

Your talking about kids, not adults.

This is more harm than good.

The Best Female Swimmer in the World!

newtboy says...

They are real women, no matter how you wish otherwise.
Are men that take testosterone supplements not real males? Same for women taking estrogen, not real females? Women who’ve had a hysterectomy? Men who had penectomies or testicular removal?
Is this a “real woman” who should compete against women? https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/id/31662608/boxer-patricio-manuel-transgender-pioneer-looking-next-fight

What expertise in the fields of gender vs sex vs sexual orientation do you boast to contradict the actual experts with careers in those subjects?
A:None, you’re an alleged maintenance/service tech with embarrassing language skills, and apparently a total lack of scientific knowledge.

Where’s your evidence of that “disadvantage “? Where are the rest of the 2% of athletes that are top of their sport and trans? You make the claim, prove it (one example does not prove anything). Guess you failed math too.

That could be true if your loopy idea that men are pretending to be women to get an advantage in sports were in any way true, but it’s pure unadulterated nonsense.
Trans women must go through years of hormone therapy; supplements, hormone blockers, sometimes even surgery to be able to compete. In many leagues they must never go through male puberty. They cannot, as you clearly think is the norm, just put on a woman’s swimsuit and compete with women, then whip their dicks out after competition and go back to being macho men. Your insistence on keeping your head firmly encased in your lower intestine, in the dark, listening to yourself echo through your own fart chamber is what lets you believe such utterly ridiculous nonsense.

I think it’s abundantly clear to everyone which of us lives in an echo chamber of lies and nonsense and which of us thinks for themselves, and equally clear which prefers the light of knowledge and fact and which sticks to their dark cave of ignorance and misinformed opinion.

Er mer gerd…. ROTFLMFAHS!!! Mr cranial rectosis projects so freaking hard, yo.

bobknight33 said:

It puts real women at a true disadvantage.
Even a fruit loop like you should see this.

Guess your head still up you ass and you are living in the dark listening to your own echo chamber..

Missouri tries to legislate reality away

newtboy says...

If you are talking policies that govern individuals, average is meaningless, you need to include the outliers. What I really said was, on average it’s somewhat true a bit more than half the time….with many exceptions, so incredibly far from a rule…far from “I can agree”.

You said “ Are you saying you do not believe that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)?”.
I pointed to one instance where (I assume) chromosomal males do not have an advantage over a chromosomal female in an athletic field….just an example of why I don’t believe it’s always true that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)..one you can’t contradict.

People are never equally gifted or talented, not even with themselves yesterday or tomorrow. I find the premise faulty.

Appears to, so far, in most but not all categories.
In many, the difference is minimal and an exceptional female will surpass males one day in most. Top ranked Kenyan woman already routinely beat top ranked non Kenyan males in long distance running, for one example.

I won’t extrapolate from a temporary skewed position, it leads to ridiculous conclusions….so I won’t be able to agree.
I can agree people believe that.

It’s not just sexual biology. It has nothing to do with genitals. It’s hormones, dna, rna, mental toughness, upbringing, training, health, environment, opportunity, etc. if someone born a woman wants to compete with men, and your position is correct, what’s the harm? If a trans woman, born male but never going through male puberty or taking estrogen and hormone blockers to reverse the effects wants to compete against women, what proof do you have to show any advantage? Two athletes excelling? Out of how many?

Now how expert are you in this field? Expert enough to define the exact point where each person has an advantage vs a disadvantage? I doubt it. But you think it’s fine to deny them the right to participate based on your ignorant assumptions. Do you accept such ignorant, biased assumptions to determine what you may do, how much you may participate in public events? I doubt you would accept it for a second. Think about that.

You want to equate them to non trans people while trying to prove how they’re so different. Pick a lane please.

No matter what your opinion, denying a citizen a chance to compete in public sports is totally unAmerican. I notice how you ignore that, as if to concede it under your breath. It doesn’t go unnoticed that you can’t address that. It IS the point.

Edit : as to the olympics, they have allowed trans gender athletes since 2004. If trans women are really men, why haven’t those records become equal between men and women?

bcglorf said:

@newtboy,

On average you can agree…

I never said anything against any given pro/competitive female athlete probably beating out plenty of biologically male folks.

I was only pointing to advantages between equally gifted/talented and trained people.

To that point, can you agree that most standing olympic records as currently separated into mens and womens records, indicate that the historical separation based on XX and XY certainly appears to show an advantage. Would you be able to agree following from that, the existence of distinct mens and womens records is because without it, women would be “unfairly” left almost entirely unrepresented in every sprint distance, every lifting record and most other records.

For instance, the Olympic qualifying standard for the mens 100m was 10.05s, while the standing Olympic womens record time for 100m is 10.49s. AKA in absence of a separate competition for biologically female athletes, even the standing Olympic record holding female wouldn’t pass the bar to qualify to compete in the Olympics.

That is the advantage I am stating exists, and matters and I am asking if you acknowledge that distinction existing as a result of biology or not?

Danse Battle in Black

The Paris Accord: What is it? And What Does it All Mean?

Diogenes says...

I don't support our pulling out of the Paris Accord. I think it was the wrong thing to do. And I don't mind GDP growth for other nations, even China. What I do mind is the notion that the world's greatest polluter can increase its amount of Co2 emitted and still be touted as successfully contributing to reduced Co2 emissions worldwide.

"Telling China to limit their total CO2 emission to pre 2005 values is like telling a teenager in the middle of puberty to limit their food consumption to the same amount as when they were 9 years old. It's just not an option."

Who's telling China to do that? I only suggested that China's pledge to reduce their Co2 emissions to 60-65% of their 2005 levels as a ratio of GDP isn't all that it's made out to be. Your analogy is faulty because food consumption is necessary for life, but spending billions on destroying coral reefs while making artificial islands in the South China Sea is not. The CCP certainly has the funds necessary to effect a bigger, better and faster transition to green energy. Put another way, I believe that China has the potential to benefit both their people through economic growth and simultaneously do more in combating global climate change. I simply don't trust their current government to do it. I've been living in China now for over 19 years...and one thing that strikes me is the prevalence of appearance over substance. Perhaps you simply give them more credence in the latter, while my own perception seems to verify the former.

"But their total emissions is still increasing! This is just a farce and they're doing nothing!"

The second half of your statement is a strawman. They are doing something, just not enough, imho. And China's emissions have yet to plateau, therefore it's not an achievement yet.

"Now you may say "China's not putting funds towards green energy!" Well, that's also not true. China already surpassed the US, in spending on renewable energy. In fact, China spent $103 billion on renewable energy in 2015, far more than the US, which only spent $44 billion. Also, they will continue to pour enormous amounts of resources into renewable energy, far more than any other country."

This is also misleading. What I'm suggesting is that China could do more. It's certainly a matter of opinion on whether the Chinese government is properly funding green initiatives. For example, both your article and the amounts you cite ignore the fact that those numbers include Chinese government loans, tax credits, and R&D for Chinese manufacturers of solar panels...both for domestic use AND especially for export. The government has invested heavily into making solar panels a "strategic industry" for the nation. Their cheaper manufacturing methods, while polluting the land and rivers with polysilicon and cadmium, have created a glut of cheap panels...with a majority of the panels they manufacture being exported to Japan, the US and Europe. It's also forced many "cleaner" manufacturers of solar panels in the US and Europe out of business. China continues to overproduce these panels, and thus have "installed" much of the excess as a show of green energy "leadership." But what you don't hear about much is curtailment, that is the fact that huge percentages of this green energy never makes its way to the grid. It's lost, wasted...and yet we're supposed to give them credit for it? So...while you appear to want to give them full credit for their forward-looking investments, I will continue to look deeper and keep a skeptical eye on a government that has certainly earned our skepticism.

""But China is building more coal plants!" Well that's not really true either. China just scrapped over 100 coal power projects with a combined power capacity of 100 GW . Instead, the aforementioned investments will add over 130GW in renewable energy. Overall, Chinese coal consumption may have already peaked back in in 2013."

Well, yes, it really is true. China announcing the scrapping of 103 coal power projects on January 14th this year was a step in the right direction, and certainly very well timed politically. But you're assuming that that's the entirety of what China has recently completed, is currently building, and even plans to build. If you look past that sensationalist story, you'll see that they continue to add coal power at an accelerating pace. As to China's coal consumption already having peaked...lol...well, if you think they'd never underreport and then quietly revise their numbers upwards a couple of years later, then you should more carefully review the literature.

"So in the world of reality, how is China doing in terms of combating global warming? It's doing a decent job. So no "@Diogenes", China is NOT the single biggest factor in our future success/failure, because it is already on track to meeting its targets."

Well, your own link states:

"We rate China’s Paris agreement - as we did its 2020 targets - “medium.” The “medium“ rating indicates that China’s targets are at the last ambitious end of what would be a fair contribution. This means they are not consistent with limiting warming to below 2°C, let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit, unless other countries make much deeper reductions and comparably greater effort."

And if the greatest emitter of Co2 isn't the biggest factor, then what is? I'm not saying that China bears all the responsibility or even blame. I'm far more upset with my own country and government. But to suggest that China adding the most Co2 of any nation on earth (almost double what the US emits) isn't the largest single factor that influences AGW...I'm having trouble processing your rationale for saying so. Even if we don't question if they're on track to meet their targets, they'll still be the largest emitter of Co2...unless India somehow catches up to them.

To restate my position:
The US shouldn't have withdrawn from Paris.
China is not a global leader in fighting climate change.
To combat climate change, every nation needs to pull together.
China is not "pulling" at their weight, which means that other nations must take up more of the slack.
Surging forward, while "developed" nations stagnate will weaken the CCP's enemies...and make no mistake, they view most of us as their enemies.
The former is part of the CCP's long-term strategy for challenging the current geopolitical status quo.
I believe that the Chinese Communist Party is expending massive amounts of resources abroad and militarily, when the bulk of those funds would better serve their own people, environment and combating the global crisis of climate change.

The Paris Accord: What is it? And What Does it All Mean?

mentality says...

While you can try to be idealistic and point the finger at total CO2 emissions, it's not a practical target for developing countries like China.

It's not a matter of them trying to "grow their economy faster than their emissions". They are a developing country, and their economy will grow fast, whether you like it or not. Telling China to limit their total CO2 emission to pre 2005 values is like telling a teenager in the middle of puberty to limit their food consumption to the same amount as when they were 9 years old. It's just not an option.

Now you may say "But their total emissions is still increasing! This is just a farce and they're doing nothing!" Well, saying that they're doing nothing is not true. Do you know what China's emissions would look like if they did nothing to limit them? Having China's emissions plateau is already quite an achievement, as the alternative is far far worse.

Now you may say "China's not putting funds towards green energy!" Well, that's also not true. China already surpassed the US, in spending on renewable energy. In fact, China spent $103 billion on renewable energy in 2015, far more than the US, which only spent $44 billion. Also, they will continue to pour enormous amounts of resources into renewable energy, far more than any other country.

"But China is building more coal plants!" Well that's not really true either. China just scrapped over 100 coal power projects with a combined power capacity of 100 GW . Instead, the aforementioned investments will add over 130GW in renewable energy. Overall, Chinese coal consumption may have already peaked back in in 2013.

So in the world of reality, how is China doing in terms of combating global warming? It's doing a decent job. So no "@Diogenes", China is NOT the single biggest factor in our future success/failure, because it is already on track to meeting its targets.

Don't let China distract us from our own responsibilities and how shitty of a job Trump is doing.

Diogenes said:

I'm torn by our pulling out of Paris. I think it's critical that we all cooperate to reduce our Co2 emissions. But I also understand that at least what China offered (not) to do is the single biggest factor in our future success (failure).

Bill Maher - Milo Yiannopoulos Interview

newtboy says...

I've known many 14 year olds, male and female, that had not reached full puberty, I was one. Some had not even started it. I admit, he did say he thought the law had set the 'line' at the right place, but went on to say that many 14 year olds and even younger were fully prepared for sex with adults and at least implied that it would not be immoral to have sex with them, just illegal. He didn't say how one would determine which were ready and which weren't that I heard....I guess trial and error.

Language is alive, and the meanings of words change, like it or not. When the common usage is so common that the actual definition is almost never what's meant when using the word, it's time to amend the definition. That's different from one generation who misuses language constantly out of laziness in their thought processes...most educated people at least know what literally means, even if they accidentally misuse the word more and more often.
Common usage today of "pedophile" is not limited to pre-pubescent, it includes mid-pubescent...in fact Merriam Webster's primary definition uses the word "children" as does the medical definition lower on their page.
The top googled legal definition is listed as...
Pedophile Definition: A medical condition causing a sexual preference for young children. ... A person afflicted with a serious mental disorder, a mental abnormality known as pedophilia, a sexual perversion in which children are preferred as sexual partner.

I think any of those definitions would/should include many if not all 14 year olds in most people's minds.

...but I don't mean to say that you aren't technically correct, the best kind of correct. ;-)

greatgooglymoogly said:

Most Americans literally can't use the word literally right to save their lives. That doesn't change the actual meaning of the word. Same with pedophilia. Males are biologically programmed to be attracted to girls who have reached puberty, it is not a psychological disorder to be aroused by a 14 yr old in a bikini. It is for a 10 year old. If that impulse is acted upon, one is an antisocial pervert, the other is mentally defective.

Bill Maher - Milo Yiannopoulos Interview

greatgooglymoogly says...

Most Americans literally can't use the word literally right to save their lives. That doesn't change the actual meaning of the word. Same with pedophilia. Males are biologically programmed to be attracted to girls who have reached puberty, it is not a psychological disorder to be aroused by a 14 yr old in a bikini. It is for a 10 year old. If that impulse is acted upon, one is an antisocial pervert, the other is mentally defective.

Happy 11th Birthday, VideoSift :-* (Sift Talk Post)

Kids' Honest Opinions on Being a Boy or Girl

xxovercastxx says...

Have you met kids? It's pretty common for kids, even "normal" kids, to play with toys of the opposite gender. Boys play with dolls; girls play with toy soldiers. Boys put on sparkly dresses; girls put on football helmets.

http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/meet-avery-9-year-old-transgender-girl-who-made-it-cover-national-geographic-54412

When you've got a 4 year old boy asking how to kill himself, but putting on a dress makes him feel better, maybe he's on to something.

While I agree it's absurdly complicated, I suspect that gets worse as you get older and more firmly affixed in your pigeonhole. Plus, if Avery decides to undergo physical alteration, whether it be hormone treatment or full surgical reassignment, it goes a lot better if you start that process at or before puberty starts making its own changes.

Chairman_woo said:

So after a brief google-foo: The mother of the child is an active trans campaigner (what a co-incidence!). And the child in question began transition at.....wait for it.....FOUR FUCKING YEARS OLD!

Mind-blown

Brock Lesnar's Scream!

Drachen_Jager says...

Too much steroids.

Basically testosterone is responsible for "man" growth, strong chins, muscles, all that shit. You take 100x the puberty dose of testosterone for a decade and you look like that. It also pushed his vocal chords too far, which is why he sounds like that.

NaMeCaF said:

What the hell is with that dudes head? He looks like one of those babies born with Microcephaly.

Is There A Pimple Cure?

MilkmanDan says...

Interesting. I think I got through puberty with an average or slightly below average level of acne / pimples. But my (rather large) nose is a goddamn pimple factory that refuses to subside with age. Still going strong halfway through my 30's. Not usually large / overly noticeable pimples, but small ones pretty much all the time.

I do have one complaint about the video though -- their discussion of the subject at hand is pretty much precisely 3 minutes long, then immediately followed by 38 seconds worth of shilling for Gates Foundation stuff. That may very well be a good cause, and maybe this isn't a paid advertisement for it, but it definitely falls into the category of bait and switch that is getting WAY too common in YT videos.

A) Make that segue clear, don't rush over it to try to hide it and then pretend like nobody will notice.

B) Announce clearly if you are shilling for it because you think it is a good cause, because you are getting paid or otherwise having your back scratched, or both.

C) It is a *bit* cheeky to have the ratio of content vs "special message" as low as 3 minutes vs 40 seconds.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon