Thing that really sticks in my throat here.

The most generous current estimate of trans % by population is 0.6%.

The mother of the child here is a vehement and very pro-active trans rights campaigner.

I don't know the proportion of life long trans campaigners, but I'm pretty sure the odds of them having a trans kid are vanishingly small. Much more so for such an extreme and unusual case as this one.

We are both relegated to pure speculation here but, I know at least one example (my brothers partner) of a girl being raised by a lesbian mother, who had deep emotional problems instilled into her from a very early age. i.e. men are bad, she should be attracted to women etc.

Took her well into adulthood to get over that and she is still a mixed up person (mother is to put it politely; a bit mental)

This is a different example of course, but the underlying problem and how it messed her up for most of her childhood seems like it could be similar. We are so used to the prejudices against "normal" gender roles and sexual orientation that it is perhaps easy to forget that this can work just as easily in reverse.
The problem can essentially be asshole parents instilling a mixed up and narrow concept of what is normal. Which either restricts their existing exploration of identity, or actively coerces towards a particular outcome.

IDK, you may just be right and the kid manifested this underlying genetic problem at a very early age. Her mother may be a perfectly even handed and caring person etc. etc.

It just concerns me that it could so easily be the other way around. But you are right about many people simply adopting alternative gender roles rather than physically transitioning. But if this kid starts the hormone blockers, she is sterile for life and will undergo irreversible changes in her development.

If she were to change her mind later in life as she matures... that 40% suicide rate is no joke

& yeh there are certainly strong arguments from inside the trans community against ideas of non binary genders. Most trans people are one gender wishing to transition to, or be treated as the other gender.

I can see an argument for perhaps having a third intermediary gender, beyond that it seems more like lifestyle choices than actual gender issues. e.g. like you say a T.V. man who likes to dress as a woman isn't someone who wants to be a woman, or even gay. It's just a man who likes to feel beautiful in a dress and makeup (to quote Eddie Izzard "male lesbian").

Anyway I don't think you have said anything offensive. This is a mire of a subject and anyone reasonable is going to appreciate your (our) confusion & concerns.

Although this woman was authentically traumatized by the experience of living outside her box, I kind of feel sorry for her. Sorry she is so close minded to living and learning. Sorry she has been brainwashed to the extent that she can't function beyond her religious upbringing. and I feel bad for all those who have to endure her and her beliefs. Her convictions will go on to traumatize her children, and her children's children, and so many more generations to come.

Her physiologic internal belief system will control her until the day she dies, and she will never see any of it from within her bubble. Such a waste of human potential. She obviously has potential for strong convictions, and deep emotion that, I'm sure, could have been put to use in more productive ways in her life.

it's become the fashionable way to cry out for attention and go out in a blaze of, perceived, glory.

I think part of the problem is that mental health is still largely an unknown science. There is no magic detector that goes off if you're in extreme personal turmoil and about to crack.

There are some very good mental doctors out there, but there are a ton out there who do nothing but prescribe expensive pills.

Until mental health science improves, we've got to go after the guns. As someone already mentioned, we've got the most guns per capita, so obviously "more guns" isn't working. I've heard people already arguing that we've got to arm teachers...are fucking nuts?? There's got to be some sort of increase in gun control, what it is, I cannot say, but something needs to be done.

I also think a lot of this has to fall on the parents too, probably not in all cases, but I think in many you have the issue of negligent parenting. I still remember The columbine shooting and how the parents of the shooters immediately lawyered up. Then it was discovered they had a arsenal of weapons and explosives right there in the home. The parents had to know and just didn't care.

That's the problem though, how do you correct that? how do you stop a shitty parent from being a shitty parent and stop shit like this from ever happening in the first place.

America has some deep emotional issues we need to fucking address or more shootings are going to keep occurring. I agree, banning guns isn't going to solve the problem, but the problem is that tackling the REAL reason why this shit occurs is so out of our reach that banning guns is the only realistic alternative. Yes the problem is crazy people + guns. We have absolutely no idea how to address crazy people, but we sure as hell know how we can address the gun problem.

Regulation, in my natural selection analogy, is like modern medicine: It can sustain companies that should be dead, making those invested in the company happy but having negative effects on the system as a whole.

When the bailouts were fresh news, there were a lot of cries that the free market didn't work. In truth, the free market was working. Those banks had unsustainable practices and they were going down because of it. Would it have been catastrophic when they failed? Yeah. But the recovery process would have started then and there and any banks still standing would have had good reason not to repeat the others' mistakes. Instead the government propped them up and they are back to fucking us.

The auto industry situation isn't much better. Regulation imposes tariffs on foreign cars that get passed on to us in the price. Why? Because American cars suck ass and can't compete on a level playing field. Even with the deck stacked in their favor, the big 3 tank anyway. The government bails them out because of some misguided sense of national pride. They justify it with talk about lost jobs, but it's all nonsense. The demand for cars doesn't go down because car makers go out of business, people who would have bought from the big 3 just have to buy from someone else now. Toyota already employs more Americans than the big 3 combined. The textile manufacturers see no change in business volume as the other car manufacturers increase production to fill in the gap left by the big 3.

Let them tank. Let the jobs migrate. Let failed companies stand as examples to the rest.

I really feel like people are somewhat spoiled. They're no longer willing to see or endure anything "bad", but the old and sick must die to make way for new life, both in nature and in business, and things can get real ugly when you try to stand in the way of that.

I don't think everyone needs to be professionals at any level of market freedom. Even the most ignorant person knows they're being screwed at some point and there's nothing that says the free market can't contain professional advisers and watchdog groups.

What I think government's biggest role ought to be is enforcing a level of transparency so that we all have legit information to make our decisions on. The FDA requires ingredients to be listed on all food items. Some people don't pay any attention to it, but it's there. I'd like to see that sort of thing everywhere.

In reply to this comment by Crosswords:
If you view free market as a processes like natural selection, then everything counts including regulation. Regulation is simply an adaptation to market conditions by certain segments of a population. It is an ability to exert control on the market while avoiding the volatile, risky and harmful consequences other methods might accrue.

There will always be someone/something trying to control market forces in their favor. If you were to eliminate any regulation you would be eliminating one side's ability to exert control, they would be at the mercy of those who control the resources. So I guess in rebuttal to your argument, we either already have free-market working as intended or it doesn't exist and can't exist because anytime you put in a stipulation that you can't do X you're regulating someone's ability to exert control over the market forces.

As far as consumers go, I'm torn by the desire to see people acting more personally responsible and the opinion that you shouldn't have to be a professional in everything. You just can't compete when you're trying to know everything so you can make the right decisions, against someone who specialize in a specific area. At some point you're going to have to appeal to an expert. Unfortunately we have become so used to appealing to the experts its become increasingly easy for the experts to take advantage of everyone else.

Also:
I really think there are numerous systems which can successfully regulate a market but we've got these bits and pieces of several of them that don't work together. The people we've put in charge of this stuff all have such deep emotional attachments to their one economic gospel that they're often unwilling to even honestly discuss things with anyone from a different church.
I can't help but feel that is an exceptionally true statement. Our system of regulations has been cobbled together and broken apart by various ideologues over the years as painful a process it might be I wish we could redo everything in a manner that makes sense for the current market.

If you view free market as a processes like natural selection, then everything counts including regulation. Regulation is simply an adaptation to market conditions by certain segments of a population. It is an ability to exert control on the market while avoiding the volatile, risky and harmful consequences other methods might accrue.

There will always be someone/something trying to control market forces in their favor. If you were to eliminate any regulation you would be eliminating one side's ability to exert control, they would be at the mercy of those who control the resources. So I guess in rebuttal to your argument, we either already have free-market working as intended or it doesn't exist and can't exist because anytime you put in a stipulation that you can't do X you're regulating someone's ability to exert control over the market forces.

As far as consumers go, I'm torn by the desire to see people acting more personally responsible and the opinion that you shouldn't have to be a professional in everything. You just can't compete when you're trying to know everything so you can make the right decisions, against someone who specialize in a specific area. At some point you're going to have to appeal to an expert. Unfortunately we have become so used to appealing to the experts its become increasingly easy for the experts to take advantage of everyone else.

Also:
I really think there are numerous systems which can successfully regulate a market but we've got these bits and pieces of several of them that don't work together. The people we've put in charge of this stuff all have such deep emotional attachments to their one economic gospel that they're often unwilling to even honestly discuss things with anyone from a different church.
I can't help but feel that is an exceptionally true statement. Our system of regulations has been cobbled together and broken apart by various ideologues over the years as painful a process it might be I wish we could redo everything in a manner that makes sense for the current market.


In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
A totally free market runs on the same principals as natural selection. It's totally possible. The question is whether it's desirable. The problem with both is that you have to be willing to deal with some chaos and most people are not willing to.

My own tastes are for a somewhat high degree of market freedom, with with a handful of absolutes protected by regulation. A bill of rights for the market, if you will. I admit, though, that this is closer to a gut feeling than a detailed plan.

A healthy free market requires responsible consumers. I made a comment about this just a couple days ago so I won't rehash it here.

In reply to this comment by Crosswords:
Well many of us don't think there is such a thing as a 'free market'. Not just that there isn't one now, but that the idea of a free market is only possible conceptually. We see it as a chimera, a mythical beast constructed of other animals, that does not exist and cannot be created. So while individual pieces exist, lions, eagles, supply, demand, the combination of these pieces into some self balancing force seems impossible.

So I guess to put it another way when we hear the words free market we think about the human factor, those people actually exerting their control and manipulating market forces and the basic hierarchy for control goes something like this:
1% > next 4% >> government >>>> everyone else.
So when we hear free-market we usually think of the people who can exert the most control.

As for the free market or the 1% giving us child labor laws, that was government regulation in the form of the Fair Labor Standards Act. If you want to call government regulation free-market corrections go ahead.

(I don't exclude myself from any of the criticisms in this comment.)

The thing about a true free market is it requires responsible consumers and we are most certainly not responsible people on the whole. Consumers need to be willing to organize protests and boycotts, and even to create new competition by starting new businesses in order to keep everything in check. How many protesters are looking to start their own small credit unions?

Ironically, OWS is one of the first signs I've ever seen that people are moving away from the complacency which prevents a free market system from working and yet all they want is to be able to go back to the complacency we've all enjoyed for our entire lives until recently. We don't want to take responsibility for our country on a daily basis; we want to think about it for a week before election day and designate someone else to do it for us. After all, the McRib is back and those things aren't going to eat themselves.

I really think there are numerous systems which can successfully regulate a market but we've got these bits and pieces of several of them that don't work together. The people we've put in charge of this stuff all have such deep emotional attachments to their one economic gospel that they're often unwilling to even honestly discuss things with anyone from a different church.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Even Aethists turn to the magical way of thinking--we just don't like to admit it.

Quite true. It's a deep emotional response to feelings of disempowerment. But the atheist will recognize it as such.

Insisting that atheists are unique and special is an example of the pseudo-magical way of thinking you claim will be recognized for what it is...
Do we have recognition???

I suppose you are right. Not all atheists will recognize their own magical thinking when it happens. Atheism is too broad a category, and includes some who are still considering the possibility of supernatural influence on the real world. Rather I should say that those people who do recognize the absurdity of magical thinking are atheists (or perhaps deists), therefor it is more likely that they will recognize it, depending on what kind of philosophy they hold.


Of course, that doesn't really roll of the tongue quite as well.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Even Aethists turn to the magical way of thinking--we just don't like to admit it.

Quite true. It's a deep emotional response to feelings of disempowerment. But the atheist will recognize it as such.

Insisting that atheists are unique and special is an example of the pseudo-magical way of thinking you claim will be recognized for what it is...
Do we have recognition???


I suppose you are right. Not all atheists will recognize their own magical thinking when it happens. Atheism is too broad a category, and includes some who are still considering the possibility of supernatural influence on the real world. Rather I should say that those people who do recognize the absurdity of magical thinking are atheists (or perhaps deists), therefor it is more likely that they will recognize it, depending on what kind of philosophy they hold.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Even Aethists turn to the magical way of thinking--we just don't like to admit it.

Quite true. It's a deep emotional response to feelings of disempowerment. But the atheist will recognize it as such.


Insisting that atheists are unique and special is an example of the pseudo-magical way of thinking you claim will be recognized for what it is...

Do we have recognition???

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Even Aethists turn to the magical way of thinking--we just don't like to admit it.


Quite true. It's a deep emotional response to feelings of disempowerment. But the atheist will recognize it as such.

>> ^bareboards2:

And so it begins.
If I were black, would you be ignoring me so completely if I said I was being made extremely uncomfortable by overtly racist vids on the Sift?
Would you insult me by making more denigrating black comments?

>> ^blankfist:
Worst. Vagina. Monologue. EVAR.



If sum-one is retarded to you just point out why they are been retarded directly at them thats all you can do (obvouly don't let yourself be baited by trolls) , I don't get why you feel you need to make this post about it its not like they can do anything to you or Evan know you well for what they say to have a truly deep emotional impact on you . and aside from that if sum one is a total munch to you then all you do is respect them less and pay less atentoin to them.

granted women due to there minority online ( in certain places) get different treatment to men , but other minorities or people that are different get different or disproportional treatment as well and the people that you disagree with are not likely to change how they are by reeding what you just wrote at the top.

People go on about my spelling all the time and its frustrating to have to keep exsplaing the same thing , but in the end it dosen't really matter all i can do is exsplain why it snot important and how they are wrong and then hope they get it if not then they don't.

As for your racism example i would say the exact same thing if sum one is racist then everyone can see that there view is retarded and they can point that out and why.

the only time admin should step in is if sum-one was spamming your account to the existent that you cannot technically use video sift or something along those lines.

everyone should just stick there dick/Munt flaps out the window and let them flap around in the wind following that they should chill the fuck out.

Definitely worth watching... but if you don't have the time, it can be condensed pretty easily:

"The more you are educated, the more you discover what is wrong with the Bible and religion"



Which is really the thing that most atheists (who have thought about their atheism rather than just being 'born into it' like a religious person) have probably found. The more you read, the more you discuss, the more you look into it, the more you find how completely bizarre it is that anyone could actually believe in the Bible.

But... those that are only ever taught by fellow believers are never challenged, are never shown the other side, are never given pause for thought that there are some glaring problems with the text they so fervently believe in.

Also, from a purely video point of view, I found these to be well made, pleasant to watch and have nice background music, I found no deep emotional play going on with it, just nicely produced video.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
And too, remember, the man was not charged with rape. He was charged with deceit by rape. I assume those are two different crimes (If not, then that is bullshit and there needs to be two different laws.) So those who say a lie isn’t rape, Israel law agrees.
Think about aiding and abetting. “But I just intentionally lied to the police in order to allow the rapist to escape. How is that a crime? I mean I did not rape the woman…”

You meet a woman on an online dating site. You claimed you made between $50,000 to $100,000 on your profile, when in fact you averaged about $35k. You meet, you take her home, you have sex. You're a rapist, aren't you?
You meet a different woman on the same site. You claim to be white, but in fact you're 1/4th Hispanic (your mother's mother). You meet, you take her home, you have sex. You're a rapist, aren't you?
You meet another woman on the same site. You claim to be single, but in fact you're still involved in a long, messy, bitter separation. For any of a hundred reasons, you and your wife have agreed not to divorce, but you live your lives apart and basically do whatever you want as long as you don't bring it home. You don't tell your date. You take your new-found paramour home, and you have sex. You're a rapist, aren't you?


If a situation causes deep emotion destruction and that can be proven, sure. It can't be minor, it can't be something completely subjective like lying initially about money (Since the woman is in no way entitled to your money from the start,) it must be palpable...

However, since I already brought up the argument about money *Like being a doctor instead of a nurse, i.e. money made through a profession* then please address that. If the money does not affect the person in a majorly significant way, then no, that is not rape. But if it does, (Say you are relying on the money to pay for your hospice grandmother's bills after enough of a relationship is developed that you would be entitled to said money and you find out that she will die alone an cold.) Laws about alimony and such are on the books, so again, I addressed this point adequately.

It took a lot of time to write those responses so please read them...

Your second example I will respond with this... Some people value skin color more than anything. If you can prove that her skin color caused mental damage and was 100% unknown to the layer, well, possibly. Of course that proof would be quite hard to obtain and unless it is documented that you are Arian Nation, KKK, or some such other organization that hates Hispanics, it would even be harder to prove that you hate hispanics enough to be scarred perminately.

You're last example, again, circumstances. Many women have murdered because of this cheating shit (Wife or stalkers.) Many more have committed suicide and guess what, it is only the women who had the emotional problems...yeah, blame, meet shift...

Overall, that is what the court it there for. I think any woman who alleges rape should be jailed for an equal time as a rapist so long as she is convicted of lying about said rape (If it did not really occur.) Same here; which would dissuade many from lying.

I think you have a right to your belief Roughy, it is understandable. I am a devil's advocate and hate lying about all else.

^Completely agree. I get the feeling that agnostics are actually atheists who fear offending the religious or are trying to live up to some standard of objectivity. If you can't put yourself in the 'I believe in God' category, then you don't believe in God. Even if you are 50/50 on the fence, if you can't say you believe, then you are not a believer. It doesn't mean that you believe there is no God or that you are closed off to the possibility, just that you don't currently believe. If we swapped out 'agnostic' for 'religio-curious' the term would die out in a matter of weeks.

"I'm a very spiritual person." is another term that bugs me. It doesn't bug me to call one's self spiritual, but rather to imply that others are not. Everyone experiences deep emotional connections with loved ones, music, art, nature, the cosmos, psychedelics, religion and/or existence in general. Spirituality is part of the human experience regardless of religious beliefs.

Nice piece, sagemind, and nice discussion.

>> ^mentality:

Personally, I hate the epic space opera and drama that is a part of most Scifi tv shows.
For Firefly, I think the opening song summarizes wonderfully: it's about the freedom of having your own ship, and being your own man. That is a dream I've had since I was a little kid, and the show speaks to me on such a deep emotional level that I don't think I'll love any other show as much as Firefly.


I love spic space opera but I agree with everything else you've said.