Re: Tale of the Laser - redux

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert Coe, Mar 28, 2013.

  1. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2013-04-04 23:20:37 -0700, "Charles E. Hardwidge"
    >> "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message


    >>> Tony is concerned at the state spending what was alleged to be
    >>> $900,000 on the necessary medical treatment. You are concerned at what
    >>> you perceive as a prejudice on his part. I think his prejudice is
    >>> fiscal, not social.


    >> Where do people pull a figure of $900,000 from?


    [...]
    > There are currently 12 prisoners in federal prisons who have been
    > diagnosed with gender identity disorder, and four are receiving hormone
    > treatments. So far their medical care and lawsuits for these conditions
    > have cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.


    So we're talking about single-digit-thousands of dollars per person?


    > Sex change operations
    > for all of them—operations that insurance companies won’t even pay
    > for—would cost at least a quarter of a million dollars.


    $250,000 / 12 = $900,000? Really? Are you serious?

    I understand you were a police officer. Was a basic math
    competency not required for that occupation back then?


    > If Kosilek is granted the operation, the results would cause a
    > nightmare for prison officials, who will then have to decide whether to
    > house him in a men’s prison or a women’s prison, and either situation
    > would certainly disrupt the prison and cause problems for other inmates
    > as well as Kosilek.


    Do you really agree to the argument that possible rights must
    be stunted because it would be complicated otherwise?

    How much trouble was the abolition of 4 million slaves in the
    south after the civil war?


    > Kosilek claims that the Corrections Department is violating his civil
    > rights and subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment by refusing
    > to provide him the treatment he deserves."
    > He deserves!
    > All he deserves is to spend the rest of his life behind bars
    > contemplating his crime.


    And if he's ill he doesn't deserve treatment --- unless *maybe*
    that may shorten the time to contemplate, right? That's what
    you said!


    But let's quote the article you quoted a bit further:
    | A psychiatrist testified that "Michelle" is likely to commit
    | suicide if he doesn’t get the operation. Perhaps the state
    | could save a lot of money and time by just letting him do
    | that. Or maybe they could just treat him the same way he
    | treated his wife—wrap a wire around his neck three times,
    | dump him in a car, and leave him at a mall.

    Seems to me that letting murderers commit suicide in prison
    and even killing murderers without proper judical procedure is
    perfectly acceptable to them. Is that fine with you, too?


    >> There are also costs for *not* spending the money. I've already mentioned
    >> estimates run as high as five times. That doesn't count the additional costs
    >> where denied healthcare may be a causal factor in hate crimes. How much does
    >> a full murder investigation cost? Those costs can run into the millions.


    > Irrelevant. This is a convicted, psychopathic, murderer.


    Cite for 'psychopathic'?

    Obviously, if you are convicted as a murderer, you do lose
    all rights and protections --- you're no longer a human being
    at all. Right?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 10, 2013
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. nick c <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> nick c <> wrote:
    >>> On 4/1/2013 1:48 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>>> nick c <> wrote:


    >>>>> ...... and should anyone openly disagree with your definition of a human
    >>>>> right you would immediately correct the situation through vilification.
    >>>>> Wise up, it doesn't work.


    >>>> So basically *your* definition of human rights is the only
    >>>> valid ones and/or human rights don't apply to certain groups,
    >>>> say Negros, Indians, Untermenschen, Jews and felons ...


    >>> What definition of mine are you referring to?


    >> The one you are using, never mind if you are even able to
    >> write it down.


    > The one I am using!!


    You say you use words like "human rights" without having any
    idea what they should mean to you --- never mind what they
    might mean to other people? Is that an advanced case of
    babbling?`

    > Again, what definition are you referring to.


    The one you are using.

    > I've interceded in a
    > conversation I don't recall "defining" anything, so .....


    .... so you use words that don't mean anything even to you?

    Or do words like "a human right" mean something to you? In
    this case, the definition is what such words mean to you.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 10, 2013
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 03:32:27 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave


    >>What do you mean by better than animals we are animals, although your inteligence appears to be better matched to a vegatable.


    >>I know a number of transgered people, even an intersexed person.


    >>The 'condition' is quite well documented and recorded, but if you live in such a narrow enviroment then I guess yuo'll never understand.
    >>I heard my dad say once that he;d never seen a black person until he saw one for the first time. I guess in some point in time some English people didn't know black peole existed or oriental people.


    > There are well documented differences between both the structure and
    > the performance of male and female brains. The situation is the same
    > with bodies.


    There are well documented differences between the structure
    and the performance of the *average* male and *average*
    female brain. The situation is the same with *average*
    bodies.

    In fact, males are larger --- yet it's trivial to find a large
    number of women that are larger than a large number of men.
    Same for stronger. Same for about every single attribute.
    OK, most women don't have testes and most men don't have
    ovaries and uteri. But not even that is 100%.

    [...]
    > All of this can lead to the development in an extreme case of a female
    > brain in a male body and vice versa.


    Interesting theory. I doubt that's the sole explanation --- and
    if that was so, there would be similar differences in the brain
    between a cleptomaniac or mass murderer and 'normal' brains.

    Personally I think people are just wired as they are ---
    without differences that are necessarily visible to our
    technology.

    Same as some people are good at math, have eidetic memories
    or perfect pitch, are gifted in some art form or technical
    skill or sports, are natural diplomats --- or happen to be
    bad at languages, have bad eyes, are incompetent in some area,
    are drawn back loners.

    Having a wide ranges of combinations are important in
    evolution: with that at least some part of the species will
    survive, even if that combination was far from perfect
    previously. And no, it's not necessary (not even better) if
    the whole population is reproducing.


    > The same sort of confusion can
    > arise over matters of sexual preferences and attraction.


    Sure, it's a confusion!

    Confused are mostly those people who
    a) insist on a binary male/female dichotomy
    b) insist that the only 'right' attraction and preferences
    are male-female

    Both are quite obviously wrong, even if most people do not
    obviously balk at self-sorting into male OR female and most
    people won't admit to anything except male-female attraction,
    as other answers can easily cause a backlash from society or
    even find it hard to admit to themselves that there may be
    some non-male-female attraction.


    But there's no confusion in regards to the non-standard wiring
    of some people. Confusion implies something is wrong. There
    is only confusion in these people who are affected and who
    are still stuck in the male-OR-female and "only male-female
    attraction is OK" teachings of some societies.


    > There is nothing the people who are hit by these problems can do.


    There's a lot they can do, for example accept that people who
    want to force them to be what they are not are wrong.

    > It
    > is not a psychosis or mental illness. Their 'ailment' cannot be fully
    > cured. The problem is built into them from before birth and the most
    > we can do is offer palliative surgery and/or medication.


    We can offer much more than that, and it's really cheap:
    full acceptance of them, as they are, as people.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 10, 2013
    #63
  4. Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 21:40:26 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >: Robert Coe <> wrote:


    >: > "Gender" is a linguistic, not biological, term.


    [snip]

    > I'm not out to embarrass anybody. If I'd known you'd degenerate into such
    > incomprehensible drivel, I'd have been more careful not to provoke you.


    I'm sorry you were wrong and can't follow reasoning nor URLs.


    > I'm up
    > for a truce if you are.


    OK ... maybe you were joking and I didn't get it.

    > Take two of your big white pills and two of the little yellow ones.


    That's a rather dangerous combination, don't 'cha think?
    Or maybe your big white pills and little yellow ones are
    different from mine.

    > Then get a
    > good night's sleep. We shall speak of this no more.


    Sleep well.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 10, 2013
    #64
  5. Robert Coe

    nick c Guest

    On 4/10/2013 1:21 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > nick c <> wrote:
    >> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>> nick c <> wrote:
    >>>> On 4/1/2013 1:48 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>>>> nick c <> wrote:

    >
    >>>>>> ...... and should anyone openly disagree with your definition of a human
    >>>>>> right you would immediately correct the situation through vilification.
    >>>>>> Wise up, it doesn't work.

    >
    >>>>> So basically *your* definition of human rights is the only
    >>>>> valid ones and/or human rights don't apply to certain groups,
    >>>>> say Negros, Indians, Untermenschen, Jews and felons ...

    >
    >>>> What definition of mine are you referring to?

    >
    >>> The one you are using, never mind if you are even able to
    >>> write it down.

    >
    >> The one I am using!!

    >
    > You say you use words like "human rights" without having any
    > idea what they should mean to you --- never mind what they
    > might mean to other people? Is that an advanced case of
    > babbling?`
    >
    >> Again, what definition are you referring to.

    >
    > The one you are using.
    >
    >> I've interceded in a
    >> conversation I don't recall "defining" anything, so .....

    >
    > ... so you use words that don't mean anything even to you?
    >
    > Or do words like "a human right" mean something to you? In
    > this case, the definition is what such words mean to you.
    >
    > -Wolfgang
    >



    I haven't the slightest idea of what your talking about. Rereading my
    posts I found a time where I said ".... and should anyone openly
    disagree with your definition of a human right you ....." which you seem
    to have determined to be a definition. I tend to think you can't find
    and post a quoted comment of mine defining a human right and therefore
    you resort to verbal subterfuge.
    nick c, Apr 11, 2013
    #65
  6. "nick c" <> wrote in message
    news:kk724e$l7v$...

    > I haven't the slightest idea of what your talking about. Rereading my
    > posts I found a time where I said ".... and should anyone openly disagree
    > with your definition of a human right you ....." which you seem to have
    > determined to be a definition. I tend to think you can't find and post a
    > quoted comment of mine defining a human right and therefore you resort to
    > verbal subterfuge.


    Yes, thanks for putting words in my mouth and giving me a slap in your next
    sentence. tbh, your strategy comes over as trollish...

    --
    Charles E. Hardwidge
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Apr 11, 2013
    #66
  7. Robert Coe

    Whisky-dave Guest

    Whisky-dave, Apr 12, 2013
    #67
  8. Robert Coe

    nick c Guest

    On 4/11/2013 3:36 PM, Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
    > "nick c" <> wrote in message
    > news:kk724e$l7v$...
    >
    >> I haven't the slightest idea of what your talking about. Rereading my
    >> posts I found a time where I said ".... and should anyone openly disagree
    >> with your definition of a human right you ....." which you seem to have
    >> determined to be a definition. I tend to think you can't find and post a
    >> quoted comment of mine defining a human right and therefore you resort to
    >> verbal subterfuge.

    >
    > Yes, thanks for putting words in my mouth and giving me a slap in your next
    > sentence. tbh, your strategy comes over as trollish...
    >


    Now .... I don't know what /you're/ talking about. What words .. what
    slap .. what troll?
    nick c, Apr 12, 2013
    #68
  9. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2013-04-10 10:38:57 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>> On 2013-04-04 13:32:40 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:


    >> $70K is on the expensive side of the whole package, but $700K?
    >> That's an order of magnitude off! What are you doing with
    >> the $630k? Buy a 13.8 pound gold implant for each breast?


    >> The only way I see to get to $700K is to add in all the extra
    >> psychological help (probably in a psychatric hospital) needed
    >> because an operation is denied *and* all the costs for judical
    >> proceedings because an operation is denied.


    >> So, if Bob wants to save his tax dollars for more deserving
    >> people, causing costs that are 10 times as high as the treatment
    >> certainly is *not* the way to do it.


    > There is added costs to providing security for an inmate receiving
    > treatment in a hospital outside the prison. There are secure
    > transportation costs to and from the hospital which would entail an
    > escort of a minimum of three officers. Then for the stay at the
    > hospital there would be a minimum of two officers hospital security for
    > three watches per day. That is six officers.


    I see your prisons don't have hospitals. Obviously paying
    all that for all other medical treatments needing operations
    or hospital stays is no problem at all.

    If that was a money problem like you say it is, you'd have
    at least some hospitals with the necessary medical facilities
    inside. Getting a specialized surgeon and his team to work inside a
    prison-hospital is about as expensive as having them work at
    their hospital.

    As to the transport costs: Would you advocate not
    transporting prisoners to and from their trial, as that
    also needs secure transportation costs (minimum three
    officers)? And don't forget: they need additional officers
    at the court to keep the prisoner in check and stop him from
    escaping --- and he isn't hampered by anaesthetics or painful
    wounds. I'd say, in the name of money over some vague human
    rights: The prisoner is represented by his lawyer. If his
    testimony is needed, use a video connection to the prison.
    Only in very rare cases get him to his trial in person.

    THAT saves money.


    > You cannot make a direct comparison to the costs a free person might
    > expect to pay, to the medical costs an incarcerated inmate might bring
    > to the taxpayer.


    > Incarcerated inmates have full access to psychiatric services within
    > the various State and Federal prison systems.


    And since the services are not paid per prisoner (right?),
    you can thin out the services and availability a lot and hire
    just the very minimum of overworked, underpaid, little skilled
    psychiatrists. And the body count is what's on the book.
    One 30 minute session a month surely is more than necessary
    for these criminals --- never mind these evil murderers.

    And as it's cheaper according to the books, let every problem
    that might at least in theory be tractable by psychiatry be
    dealt with that excellent (i.e. cheap) system.

    >>>> Some people think negroes to be not deserving.


    >>> That is a non sequitur in this thread,


    >> Correct.


    > Good! Something we agree on.



    >> The only connection is that the opinion of someone
    >> that someone is or is not deserving *may* *be* (not "is", not
    >> "must be", not "cannot be") wrong --- at least in the eyes of
    >> a different (part of) society.


    >> [...]
    >>> Bigoted individuals who's thinking is locked in unjust history and
    >>> cultural prejudice are to be found in all walks of global society. They
    >>> are found in all nations, and among many faiths.


    >> Yep. And "locked in unjust history" shows very much that many
    >> things do become clear(er) --- at least to a larger part of
    >> a society --- when looking back!


    > However, this is a subject for a different discussion.


    > <<< Le Snip >>>


    >> However the society I live in has decided that gender disorder
    >> --- if someone suffers --- needs treatment, including surgery,
    >> and therefore that *is* covered by statutory health insurance.
    >> Which is quite a bit more than a 'small fragment' of people,
    >> and they *are* looking back on the US, seeing them --- not
    >> only in this regard --- to be "locked in unjust history".


    >> Pardon me for coming from a different perspective.


    > Just to put my opinion into perspective, I have no issue with
    > individuals with sexuality which differs from mine, and I have no issue
    > with those who seek a surgical solution to their sexual/gender identity
    > issues. I do have an issue when it comes to those individuals making
    > the Tax payer responsible for such surgery.


    There are (at least) 3 aspects to this.

    a) does society have an obligation to it's members welfare,
    at least as far as the members are unable to care for
    themselves?
    b) does a) also apply to people who are for whatever reason
    incarcerated?
    c) is being stuck in the wrong body harmful?


    My answers (note order!)
    c) Yes, proven. (If people regularly are willing to die rather
    than continue to suffer ...)
    a) That's called civilisation.
    b) Yes. Unless you declare that individual is an outlaw (in
    which case you can and probably should legally kill that
    individual) or you declare that individual as no longer a
    part of this society, the norms of the society cannot be
    applied to this individual any more ... (in which case
    you hand over that individual to his society. Example:
    deportation of illegal immigrants.)

    As to "the Tax payer": Well, if you don't have a compulsory
    health insurance system, that's your homemade problem.


    >>>>> As far as human rights afforded to an incarcerated convicted murderer
    >>>>> goes, Robert (Michelle) Kosilek has all his necessary medical needs met
    >>>>> by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Corrections.


    >>>> By a certain definition of 'necessary', of course.


    >>> "Necessary" means just that.


    >> Really?
    >> As in
    >> http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/necessary


    > That seems clear.


    >> ? So basically it's necessary for death row inmates to be
    >> alife and probably conscious at their execution (it's cheating
    >> if they die too early), but it's not necessary for them to be
    >> pain free or in reasonable health ...


    > Silly argument.


    On what grounds is it necessary for an execution that the
    executee has to be pain free? Can't the execution proceed
    when the executee has pain?
    Yes -> why?
    No -> then it's obviously not "needed to be done, achieved,
    or present" or "essential".

    '"Necessary" means just that.'


    >>> Diabetics get the daily monitoring, special meals, and care they need.
    >>> Inmates with heart disease get the care they need.
    >>> Inmates with various cancers get the care and treatment they need.
    >>> Inmates with dermatitis, gastric ulcers, hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, vision
    >>> problems, dental issues, the flu, bad head colds, and a whole shopping
    >>> list of life threatening, chronic, and the incidental ailments many
    >>> folks can suffer in a lifetime, get the treatment and care they need.


    >> What is the definition of "they need"?
    >> Who decides? By which strandards?


    > Prison systems in the USA have full panels of medical professionals,


    Who are deciding either upon their training (which is based
    on some written standard) or on the base of some (written)
    standard.

    > and inmates have access to an appeals system if they believe they have
    > been treated unfairly, or denied treatment.


    Which again is based on the same standard, just crewed by
    different people.

    The question is: who writes the standard?

    > Kosilek has taken that to
    > an extreme.


    And the court didn't strike it down as groundless or called
    it a frivolous litigation --- *quite* to the contrary, right?


    >> Let's take dental issues --- they're rather easy to understand,
    >> often have various possible treatments the lay person knows of,
    >> and can be thought of as partially self inflicted (bad food,
    >> bad dental hygiene).


    >> Say someone has an aching tooth. Caries is diagnosed.
    >> The tooth can be saved. Now, do you get


    > << Shopping list redacted for brevity's sake >>


    >> Well?


    > The dental clinics in US prisons are well equipped to provide standard
    > dental care from basic cleaning, to fillings, to extractions, and
    > provision of crowns and dentures.


    So what is "standard" dental care? Who decides what that is?


    >> I also note that you only listed physical illnesses. How
    >> comes? Mental illnesses aren't real enough? Or just
    >> inventions of bored, manipulative inmates?


    > Mental health issues are real, and in California prisons approximately
    > 38% of the inmate population suffer from mental health issues and are
    > treated for them by the Mental Health division with in the prisons.


    What is true?
    - Prisons cause terrible mental health problems.
    - Mental health patients are sent to prison extremely often.
    - There is no proper care for mental health patients. Thus
    they commit crimes very very often due to this.
    - People rather pay for prisons than for mental health care.
    Thus mental health patients are thrown into prison (with
    the hope that someone loses the key permanently).


    > The
    > have professional service and medications provided by psychiatrists and
    > psychologists.
    > There are also those with controlled substance addiction issues and
    > there are programs to treat those within prison walls.


    But do they deserve that if they are "convicted psychopatic
    murderers"?


    >>> Note; elective surgery such as cosmetic/plastic surgery and gender
    >>> reassignment surgery is not a "necessary" treatment to meet the
    >>> requirements of providing a vague "human right" while incarcerated.


    >> Amongst the fields of plastic surgery are things as

    [...]
    > I know of a case of a life term inmate who lost three fingers and a
    > thumb in an accident in a vocational education shop, and who had all
    > those digits reattached by micro surgery.

    [...]
    >> ... so you *probably* meant "frivolous, unnecessary" treatment.
    >> So you basically say that gender reassignment surgery is
    >> unnecessary and in similar to as, say, a face lifting for a
    >> perfectly normal face. Is that correct?


    > For an incarcerated life term inmate it is unnecessary. As unnecessary
    > as a face lift or nose job.


    So reattaching fingers is fine, even though I don't think
    anyone ever killed himself over losing a couple fingers.

    But an operation that seems to prevent many a suicide in this
    condition is unnecessary. Especially when experts say that
    here a suicide is very likely.

    Have you somehow become an expert for transgendered people?


    >>>>> In many
    >>>>> States prison inmates have far better access to medical and dental
    >>>>> care, than a large sector of the US population, the working poor, who
    >>>>> are tax payers denied access to Federal & State health programs.


    >>>> Which means --- obviously --- the prison inmates /are/ more
    >>>> deserving.


    >>> No! It means that prison inmates are provided a full medical care
    >>> department within the prison system, from vision care, to dental care,
    >>> psychiatric care & counseling, substance abuse counseling, medical
    >>> care, and for some, hospice care. All of this because they are
    >>> incarcerated and cannot walk through the prison gates to visit their
    >>> family doctor, if they had one.


    >> The working poor cannot visit their family doctor either,
    >> if they don't have insurance for that --- and I understand
    >> they don't have it --- as they simply cannot pay the doctor.


    > ...and there is the true injustice of life for the working poor in the USA.


    So how about changing that first?


    >> Which means inmates (who get care) are still more deserving
    >> than the working poor (who don't).


    > No! Not more deserving, more fortunate,


    If you got it, you deserve it. And vice versa.

    > that due to their incarceration
    > the State is compelled to provide for them, inmates that is. That does
    > not mean that the State (& the Taxpayer) should be compelled to pay for
    > elective surgery (and sex-reassignment is very much an elective
    > surgery).


    | An elective surgery is a planned, non-emergency surgical procedure. It
    | may be either medically required (e.g., cataract surgery), or optional
    | (e.g., breast augmentation or implant) surgery.
    http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/Ce-Fi/Elective-Surgery.html

    | Though the name "elective" might imply that this type of surgery is
    | optional, that's not always the case. An elective procedure is simply
    | one that is planned in advance, rather than one that's done in an
    | emergency situation.
    http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/surgery/elective.html

    | Elective surgery is a term used for non-emergency surgery which is
    | medically necessary, but which can be delayed for at least 24 hours.
    http://www.health.wa.gov.au/ElectiveSurgery/whatsnew/index.cfm?CFID=20747747&CFTOKEN=97989046

    Sex-reassignment is as much an elective surgery as hip or
    knee replacements or cancer operations.


    Are you really sure you're even using the right words?


    >>> After all once they leave the prison
    >>> gates they too might be among the working poor or unemployed with
    >>> limited access to elective procedures such as gender reassignment, or
    >>> cosmetic surgery.


    >> The limited access for the working poor (and the unemployed,
    >> AFAIK) is a zero access in reality, AIUI, unless they're fairly
    >> rich to begin with.


    > "Rich to begin with"? That sort of screws up the working poor thing.


    Yep. But it *might* apply to some unemployed, therefore I
    included it. And it does have that nice ironic tinge ...


    >>>> If people thought the working poor were deserving
    >>>> proper medical and dental care, at least to the same degree
    >>>> as prison inmates, they'd change the laws.


    >>> You should have a chat with President Obama about that.


    >> It's *your* country and *your* laws and *your* president.
    >> So why in hell should it be *my* damn job to tell you and your
    >> fellow citizen how to live? I doubt you'd thank me if I managed
    >> a successful invasion and ruled you all as *I* think it right.
    >> Though such things do look good on a resume ...


    > You missed the point of my remark. Consider the national health care
    > debate we have had in this country for the last 30+ years, and the role
    > Obama has played for the last 5 years.


    I've noticed he's tried hard to bring the USA into the same age
    as the German Empire under Wilhelm I, 2 centuries in the past.
    (Actually, Bavaria had a 15 year start there.)

    I've also noticed that unlike in the German Empire, where the
    social democratic party and trade unions were asking for *way*
    more and only a rather minimal version was implemented by
    Bismark (just the bare necessities for the poorest workers),
    there are massive resistances against even a minimal standard
    in the US.

    >> On the other hand, freedom of speech here and over there where
    >> you are allow me to speak my mind, and all'y'all to not listen
    >> to me.


    > Hence you are reading my reply.


    I noticed early in life that me beating sense into others
    doesn't work. Not only am I way too few, there's also the
    problem that others may want to beat their nonsense into me ---
    and there are way more nonsense than sense people.

    Apart from that I found that (*very*, very occasionally,
    of course) I was only 99.98% right.


    >>> ...and here is where there are major differences in the various
    >>> political parties in the USA are revealed. Some feel the State should
    >>> not provide any taxpayer funded medical care to any part of the
    >>> population,


    >> ... which is IMHO uncivilized, uncharitable and unchristian,
    >> but what do *I* know how to interpret "love thy neighbour"?
    >> Mad muslim hate preachers don't have an exclusive right to
    >> twisting a religion towards hate and egomania ...


    > I couldn't agree more.


    At least some common ground.

    >>> others like the idea of a means test to provide for the
    >>> poor, and working poor. Then there are the advocates and opponents of a
    >>> universal health care plan for the US citizens.
    >>> We have those who oppose such a plan, believing that they are
    >>> subsidizing free loaders. The odd thing about that is many of those
    >>> folks come from states which benefit the most from tax funded health
    >>> programs.


    >> If you got something, you deserved it for your good works;
    >> if you don't have something, you don't deserved it in first
    >> places for your sins. So if you're born (or moved) to a
    >> state that has little tax funded health and are poor and in
    >> need of medical help, you obviously have been bad and don't
    >> deserve help. Protestant work ethics.


    > Silly, and hypocritical isn't it?


    But oh-so-convenient.
    You're not required to change anything.
    In fact, it would be counter-productive.

    Hey, look at the "self-made men" mythology of the US.
    You've got to make it by yourself, that's the only proof
    you're valuable.


    >>> Personally I believe the USA should have a health care program which
    >>> will provide for all it's citizens, particularly the excluded working
    >>> poor who would be more than happy to get the level of care provided in
    >>> the prison systems of the USA.


    >> This may require another civil war ...


    > We might be just a sneeze away from that right now.


    And you're gonna have *sooo* much fun.
    Whoever manages to get the Hunley to play wins by style but loses
    the war.

    England's gonna be neutral for a while, but you'll have to
    use barter trade. Maybe you'll be building trade submarines
    to break the blockade, too.


    >>> ...and I doubt that any of them would sue the system to have gender
    >>> reassignment surgery, as the convicted, psychopathic, murderer
    >>> discussed in this sub-thread has done.


    >> You doubt it?
    >> Are there really that many more prison inmates than working
    >> poor in the US?


    > Another point missed.


    Ah, yes, the working poor *can't* sue even for the most
    dire surgery, where even you have no qualms when convicted,
    psychopathic murderers get them.

    However, if they had similar access to medical treatment as
    prison inmates, you can bet your last dollar there would be
    lawsuits.

    -Wolfgang

    [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 12, 2013
    #69
  10. nick c <> wrote:
    > On 4/10/2013 1:21 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> nick c <> wrote:
    >>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>>> nick c <> wrote:
    >>>>> On 4/1/2013 1:48 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>>>>> nick c <> wrote:


    >>>>>>> ...... and should anyone openly disagree with your definition of a human
    >>>>>>> right you would immediately correct the situation through vilification.
    >>>>>>> Wise up, it doesn't work.


    >>>>>> So basically *your* definition of human rights is the only
    >>>>>> valid ones and/or human rights don't apply to certain groups,
    >>>>>> say Negros, Indians, Untermenschen, Jews and felons ...


    >>>>> What definition of mine are you referring to?


    >>>> The one you are using, never mind if you are even able to
    >>>> write it down.


    >>> The one I am using!!


    >> You say you use words like "human rights" without having any
    >> idea what they should mean to you --- never mind what they
    >> might mean to other people? Is that an advanced case of
    >> babbling?`


    >>> Again, what definition are you referring to.


    >> The one you are using.


    >>> I've interceded in a
    >>> conversation I don't recall "defining" anything, so .....


    >> ... so you use words that don't mean anything even to you?


    >> Or do words like "a human right" mean something to you? In
    >> this case, the definition is what such words mean to you.


    > I haven't the slightest idea of what your talking about.


    It seems you need a design drawing of the concept.


    > Rereading my
    > posts I found a time where I said ".... and should anyone openly
    > disagree with your definition of a human right you ....." which you seem
    > to have determined to be a definition.


    You obviously don't have the slightest idea of what I am
    talking about. As you said. Thus you're poking around in the
    dark. And are of course wrong as wrong can be.


    No, I don't determine something to be a definition here.


    > I tend to think you can't find
    > and post a quoted comment of mine defining a human right


    I tend to think I can't find and post a quoted comment of you
    defining yourself as someone speaking English. So what?


    > and therefore
    > you resort to verbal subterfuge.


    "... and should anyone openly disagree with your definition
    of 'verbal subterfuge', you would immediately correct the
    situation through vilification. Wise up, it dowsn't work."

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 12, 2013
    #70
  11. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:34:44 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 03:32:27 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave


    >>>>What do you mean by better than animals we are animals, although your inteligence appears to be better matched to a vegatable.


    >>>>I know a number of transgered people, even an intersexed person.


    >>>>The 'condition' is quite well documented and recorded, but if you live in such a narrow enviroment then I guess yuo'll never understand.
    >>>>I heard my dad say once that he;d never seen a black person until he saw one for the first time. I guess in some point in time some English people didn't know black peole existed or oriental people.


    >>> There are well documented differences between both the structure and
    >>> the performance of male and female brains. The situation is the same
    >>> with bodies.


    >>There are well documented differences between the structure
    >>and the performance of the *average* male and *average*
    >>female brain. The situation is the same with *average*
    >>bodies.


    >>In fact, males are larger --- yet it's trivial to find a large
    >>number of women that are larger than a large number of men.
    >>Same for stronger. Same for about every single attribute.
    >>OK, most women don't have testes and most men don't have
    >>ovaries and uteri. But not even that is 100%.


    > Try reading 'Brainsex' for an introduction
    > http://www.amazon.com/Brain-Sex-Dif...=UTF8&qid=1365715070&sr=8-1&keywords=Brainsex


    For what?
    To find out that a 21 year old book jumps from "men are
    statistically (more) X and women are statistically (more) Y"
    to "men are X and women are Y" and to "therefore men have to
    have the role according to their X and women have to have the
    role according to their Y"?

    For the statistics, I want a somewhat newer book. (Never mind
    that I want more info than just a percentage.)

    For the logic of "men (or male brains) are X and women (or
    female brains) are Y" --- thank you very much. The statistics
    tell me that while there are some more-or-less typical traits
    of men, women, asians, lesbians, nerds, politicans and so on ...
    there are way more variations inside the group.

    For "are you good at X -> Yes: 1 point for male, -> No: 1 point
    for female" tests (where 62% males and 44% females are good at
    X) I can read any number of pseudo-psychological articles in
    "women's magazines". They're offering such tests for about
    anything and everything --- and they're 20 years more up
    to date.

    For the "therefore [...] role [...]" --- sorry. I don't buy
    that, unless males and females are not overlapping in traits.


    >>Personally I think people are just wired as they are ---
    >>without differences that are necessarily visible to our
    >>technology.


    > They are visible allright. Between psychologists and MIR scans we are
    > learning a great deal about the differences between various brains.


    So what are the markers to find a cleptomaniac with MIR
    scans?


    >>Same as some people are good at math, have eidetic memories
    >>or perfect pitch, are gifted in some art form or technical
    >>skill or sports, are natural diplomats --- or happen to be
    >>bad at languages, have bad eyes, are incompetent in some area,
    >>are drawn back loners.


    >>Having a wide ranges of combinations are important in
    >>evolution: with that at least some part of the species will
    >>survive, even if that combination was far from perfect
    >>previously. And no, it's not necessary (not even better) if
    >>the whole population is reproducing.


    > I long ago concluded that few if any people have a complete set of
    > mental competencies.


    So you agree that few if any people have a complete set of
    "male" mental traits or "female" mental traits?

    And do you agree that there is a continuum between male and
    female --- while relatively few may be sort of in the middle,
    they exist?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 12, 2013
    #71
  12. Robert Coe

    nick c Guest

    On 4/12/2013 2:08 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > nick c <> wrote:
    >> On 4/10/2013 1:21 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>> nick c <> wrote:
    >>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>>>> nick c <> wrote:
    >>>>>> On 4/1/2013 1:48 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>>>>>> nick c <> wrote:

    >
    >>>>>>>> ...... and should anyone openly disagree with your definition of a human
    >>>>>>>> right you would immediately correct the situation through vilification.
    >>>>>>>> Wise up, it doesn't work.

    >
    >>>>>>> So basically *your* definition of human rights is the only
    >>>>>>> valid ones and/or human rights don't apply to certain groups,
    >>>>>>> say Negros, Indians, Untermenschen, Jews and felons ...

    >
    >>>>>> What definition of mine are you referring to?

    >
    >>>>> The one you are using, never mind if you are even able to
    >>>>> write it down.

    >
    >>>> The one I am using!!

    >
    >>> You say you use words like "human rights" without having any
    >>> idea what they should mean to you --- never mind what they
    >>> might mean to other people? Is that an advanced case of
    >>> babbling?`

    >
    >>>> Again, what definition are you referring to.

    >
    >>> The one you are using.

    >
    >>>> I've interceded in a
    >>>> conversation I don't recall "defining" anything, so .....

    >
    >>> ... so you use words that don't mean anything even to you?

    >
    >>> Or do words like "a human right" mean something to you? In
    >>> this case, the definition is what such words mean to you.

    >
    >> I haven't the slightest idea of what your talking about.

    >
    > It seems you need a design drawing of the concept.
    >
    >
    >> Rereading my
    >> posts I found a time where I said ".... and should anyone openly
    >> disagree with your definition of a human right you ....." which you seem
    >> to have determined to be a definition.

    >
    > You obviously don't have the slightest idea of what I am
    > talking about. As you said. Thus you're poking around in the
    > dark. And are of course wrong as wrong can be.
    >
    >
    > No, I don't determine something to be a definition here.
    >
    >
    >> I tend to think you can't find
    >> and post a quoted comment of mine defining a human right

    >
    > I tend to think I can't find and post a quoted comment of you
    > defining yourself as someone speaking English. So what?
    >
    >
    >> and therefore
    >> you resort to verbal subterfuge.

    >
    > "... and should anyone openly disagree with your definition
    > of 'verbal subterfuge', you would immediately correct the
    > situation through vilification. Wise up, it dowsn't work."
    >
    > -Wolfgang
    >



    Subterfuge:
    "Something intended to misrepresent the true nature of an activity"

    Yes indeed, when you called Robert Coe a bigot, you resorted to verbal
    subterfuge through vilification.

    Vitrification:
    "Slanderous defamation"


    Both words are defined in the dictionary and need no further definition
    from me.
    nick c, Apr 13, 2013
    #72
  13. Robert Coe

    nick c Guest

    On 4/13/2013 3:27 PM, nick c wrote:
    > On 4/12/2013 2:08 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> nick c <> wrote:
    >>> On 4/10/2013 1:21 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>>> nick c <> wrote:
    >>>>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>>>>> nick c <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> On 4/1/2013 1:48 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >>>>>>>> nick c <> wrote:

    >>
    >>>>>>>>> ...... and should anyone openly disagree with your definition
    >>>>>>>>> of a human
    >>>>>>>>> right you would immediately correct the situation through
    >>>>>>>>> vilification.
    >>>>>>>>> Wise up, it doesn't work.

    >>
    >>>>>>>> So basically *your* definition of human rights is the only
    >>>>>>>> valid ones and/or human rights don't apply to certain groups,
    >>>>>>>> say Negros, Indians, Untermenschen, Jews and felons ...

    >>
    >>>>>>> What definition of mine are you referring to?

    >>
    >>>>>> The one you are using, never mind if you are even able to
    >>>>>> write it down.

    >>
    >>>>> The one I am using!!

    >>
    >>>> You say you use words like "human rights" without having any
    >>>> idea what they should mean to you --- never mind what they
    >>>> might mean to other people? Is that an advanced case of
    >>>> babbling?`

    >>
    >>>>> Again, what definition are you referring to.

    >>
    >>>> The one you are using.

    >>
    >>>>> I've interceded in a
    >>>>> conversation I don't recall "defining" anything, so .....

    >>
    >>>> ... so you use words that don't mean anything even to you?

    >>
    >>>> Or do words like "a human right" mean something to you? In
    >>>> this case, the definition is what such words mean to you.

    >>
    >>> I haven't the slightest idea of what your talking about.

    >>
    >> It seems you need a design drawing of the concept.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Rereading my
    >>> posts I found a time where I said ".... and should anyone openly
    >>> disagree with your definition of a human right you ....." which you seem
    >>> to have determined to be a definition.

    >>
    >> You obviously don't have the slightest idea of what I am
    >> talking about. As you said. Thus you're poking around in the
    >> dark. And are of course wrong as wrong can be.
    >>
    >>
    >> No, I don't determine something to be a definition here.
    >>
    >>
    >>> I tend to think you can't find
    >>> and post a quoted comment of mine defining a human right

    >>
    >> I tend to think I can't find and post a quoted comment of you
    >> defining yourself as someone speaking English. So what?
    >>
    >>
    >>> and therefore
    >>> you resort to verbal subterfuge.

    >>
    >> "... and should anyone openly disagree with your definition
    >> of 'verbal subterfuge', you would immediately correct the
    >> situation through vilification. Wise up, it dowsn't work."
    >>
    >> -Wolfgang
    >>

    >
    >
    > Subterfuge:
    > "Something intended to misrepresent the true nature of an activity"
    >
    > Yes indeed, when you called Robert Coe a bigot, you resorted to verbal
    > subterfuge through vilification.
    >
    > Vitrification:


    Typo .. Should read "vilification."

    "Slanderous defamation"
    >
    >
    > Both words are defined in the dictionary and need no further definition
    > from me.
    >
    >
    nick c, Apr 13, 2013
    #73
  14. Robert Coe

    nick c Guest

    On 4/13/2013 3:55 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:18:02 -0700, nick c <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I haven't the slightest idea of what your talking about.

    >
    > "I haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about."
    >


    Correction "your vs you're" noted and accepted.
    nick c, Apr 14, 2013
    #74
  15. Robert Coe

    nick c Guest

    On 4/13/2013 3:44 PM, Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:
    > "nick c" <> wrote in message
    > news:kkclv6$up8$...
    >
    >> Yes indeed, when you called Robert Coe a bigot, you resorted to verbal
    >> subterfuge through vilification.

    >
    > Who are your referring to/talking to??? I may never speak to (or talk
    > about)
    > Bob again so your purpose is?
    >
    > At the risk of wasting my breath...


    Enlightenment is never a wasting of breath.

    > One of my schoolteachers was a lesbian
    > and I got sucked in by one of the boys and said something I shouldn't
    > behind
    > her back. She was upset and had a talk with me. I was in the wrong. She was
    > one of the sweetest, kindest, loving, clever, funny, full of life women you
    > could ever meet. I was too stunned to say anything. This was unfortunate
    > because she died young and I've regretted to this day I never made
    > things up
    > with her.


    Your sincerity has meaning and is not taken lightly.

    >
    > This isn't a game or a pissing contest. It's about people. You may like to
    > rest on that...
    >


    People are the most unpredictable creature creations of a divine being.
    In character they appear to be as individualistic as finger prints and
    perhaps should be treated accordingly. Good and bad (as in acceptable or
    unacceptable) are social concepts of a viewers mind. Unless otherwise
    directed, I tend to take people at face value giving all the benefit of
    doubt, reserving just a bit to caution. Perhaps, at times, that appears
    to be seen as indifference. But the world is a stage that people,
    engaging in social intercourse, act upon. What is seen is ofttimes not
    what really is.
    nick c, Apr 14, 2013
    #75
  16. Robert Coe

    nick c Guest

    On 4/13/2013 4:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 00:31:13 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:34:44 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>> Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 03:32:27 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave

    >>
    >>>>>> What do you mean by better than animals we are animals, although your inteligence appears to be better matched to a vegatable.

    >>
    >>>>>> I know a number of transgered people, even an intersexed person.

    >>
    >>>>>> The 'condition' is quite well documented and recorded, but if you live in such a narrow enviroment then I guess yuo'll never understand.
    >>>>>> I heard my dad say once that he;d never seen a black person until he saw one for the first time. I guess in some point in time some English people didn't know black peole existed or oriental people.

    >>
    >>>>> There are well documented differences between both the structure and
    >>>>> the performance of male and female brains. The situation is the same
    >>>>> with bodies.

    >>
    >>>> There are well documented differences between the structure
    >>>> and the performance of the *average* male and *average*
    >>>> female brain. The situation is the same with *average*
    >>>> bodies.

    >>
    >>>> In fact, males are larger --- yet it's trivial to find a large
    >>>> number of women that are larger than a large number of men.
    >>>> Same for stronger. Same for about every single attribute.
    >>>> OK, most women don't have testes and most men don't have
    >>>> ovaries and uteri. But not even that is 100%.

    >>
    >>> Try reading 'Brainsex' for an introduction
    >>> http://www.amazon.com/Brain-Sex-Dif...=UTF8&qid=1365715070&sr=8-1&keywords=Brainsex

    >>
    >> For what?
    >> To find out that a 21 year old book jumps from "men are
    >> statistically (more) X and women are statistically (more) Y"
    >> to "men are X and women are Y" and to "therefore men have to
    >> have the role according to their X and women have to have the
    >> role according to their Y"?

    >
    > You are guessing. Irrespective of it's age it still does quite well
    > discussing the role of hormones in both the development and the
    > functioning of the brain.
    >
    > So what made Jane Jane? While the doctors were sorting out her
    > problems as a baby, they discovered that she had an abnormality in
    > the adrenal glands of her kidneys. This so-called adrenogenital
    > syndrome resulted in the secretion of a substance much akin to male
    > hormone while she was in her mother's womb. This condition often
    > results in the formation of underdeveloped male external genitalia,
    > along with a normal set of internal, female, reproductive apparatus.
    > Surgery can correct the unnecessary boyish bits - but it cannot
    > reverse what has already happened to the brain. While in the womb,
    > Jane's developing brain had been exposed to the male chemical. Her
    > brain, then, had felt itself 'instructed' to develop along male
    > lines.
    > Jane had a male brain in a female body. It didn't stop her being
    > a woman, and having babies. But it stopped her behaving completely
    > like a woman and, to a great extent, feeling like one.
    > Sometimes, the kidney abnormality results in so high a release of
    > this male-like hormone that the genetically female (XX) baby comes
    > into the world with the sexual equipment of a boy. Naturally, such
    > babies are brought up as boys. It is only at puberty, when the boy
    > fails to develop into manhood, that the doctor is consulted, and the
    > hospital laboratories find that 'he' is genetically female.
    > The parents usually opt for treatment involving supplementary
    > doses of the male hormone — and the boy becomes a man. He may marry,
    > but will not have children; being a genetic woman, of course, he
    > does not produce sperm and so cannot be a father.
    > But in his mind, whatever the genetic code is insisting, he has
    > always been male. That same, abnormal, bathing in male hormone that
    > turned a would-be girl into a sexually identifiable boy, didn't just
    > affect the growth of the genitals; it also cast the embryonic brain
    > into a male pattern.
    > Just like the girls, the brains of these children had already been
    > set in the womb as male - because of their exposure to an overdose
    > of mind-altering androgen hormones.
    > The evidence suggests that brain sexing is a matter of degree: the
    > more male hormone the foetus is exposed to, the more the adult will
    > be male in behaviour. The less the amount of male hormone, the more
    > feminine the adult behaviour.
    >
    >>
    >> For the statistics, I want a somewhat newer book. (Never mind
    >> that I want more info than just a percentage.)

    >
    > Bugger the statistics. Have a look at what's going on.
    >>
    >> For the logic of "men (or male brains) are X and women (or
    >> female brains) are Y" --- thank you very much. The statistics
    >> tell me that while there are some more-or-less typical traits
    >> of men, women, asians, lesbians, nerds, politicans and so on ...
    >> there are way more variations inside the group.

    >
    > The statistics won't tell you why there should be transgendered
    > people.
    >>
    >> For "are you good at X -> Yes: 1 point for male, -> No: 1 point
    >> for female" tests (where 62% males and 44% females are good at
    >> X) I can read any number of pseudo-psychological articles in
    >> "women's magazines". They're offering such tests for about
    >> anything and everything --- and they're 20 years more up
    >> to date.

    >
    > You are missing the point which is whether or not (and how and why)
    > transgendered people come about.
    >>
    >> For the "therefore [...] role [...]" --- sorry. I don't buy
    >> that, unless males and females are not overlapping in traits.

    >
    > This is not a question for behaviourist psychology: it't a question
    > about how and why transgendered people come about and what can or
    > should be done for them.
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Personally I think people are just wired as they are ---
    >>>> without differences that are necessarily visible to our
    >>>> technology.

    >>
    >>> They are visible allright. Between psychologists and MIR scans we are
    >>> learning a great deal about the differences between various brains.

    >>
    >> So what are the markers to find a cleptomaniac with MIR
    >> scans?

    >
    > We are discussing transgender etc.
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Same as some people are good at math, have eidetic memories
    >>>> or perfect pitch, are gifted in some art form or technical
    >>>> skill or sports, are natural diplomats --- or happen to be
    >>>> bad at languages, have bad eyes, are incompetent in some area,
    >>>> are drawn back loners.

    >>
    >>>> Having a wide ranges of combinations are important in
    >>>> evolution: with that at least some part of the species will
    >>>> survive, even if that combination was far from perfect
    >>>> previously. And no, it's not necessary (not even better) if
    >>>> the whole population is reproducing.

    >>
    >>> I long ago concluded that few if any people have a complete set of
    >>> mental competencies.

    >>
    >> So you agree that few if any people have a complete set of
    >> "male" mental traits or "female" mental traits?

    >
    > 'Competencies' and 'traits' aren't the same thing.
    >>
    >> And do you agree that there is a continuum between male and
    >> female --- while relatively few may be sort of in the middle,
    >> they exist?

    >
    > I would expect so, although I don't actually know that.
    >
    > There is of course the problem that male/female characterisation is
    > not based on a single factor.
    >


    I find your post very interesting, if applicable. I say applicable only
    because it's a concept of thinking which I had not applied to the
    subject before your post. Which leaves me to wonder what /evolutionists/
    would think about your explanation. Since man has not reproductively
    changed in thousands upon thousands of years, is there something to
    think about, such as, were there gay Neanderthal's. Published historical
    cave drawings (or illustrations) have not disclosed that there were gay
    Neanderthal's; leastwise not that I'm aware of.

    Another thought to be applied is:- Is there such a thing as a gay ape,
    elephant, or pig. I have not seen nor read about such. Are not the
    reproductive genes in many animals similar to the reproductive genes in
    humans, in that they too have DNA and RNA genetic plans associated with
    each animals physical chemistry. Is there really a genetic difference to
    even be considered, with respect to the cause of how transgendered
    people came about or is what you posted a working theory yet to be
    proved, exclusive to humans.
    nick c, Apr 14, 2013
    #76
  17. Robert Coe

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Sunday, April 14, 2013 2:26:51 AM UTC+1, nick c wrote:
    > On 4/13/2013 4:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >
    > > On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 00:31:13 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

    >
    > > <> wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > >> Eric Stevens <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:34:44 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

    >
    > >>>> Eric Stevens <> wrote:

    >
    > >>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 03:32:27 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>>>> What do you mean by better than animals we are animals, although your inteligence appears to be better matched to a vegatable.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>>>> I know a number of transgered people, even an intersexed person.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>>>> The 'condition' is quite well documented and recorded, but if you live in such a narrow enviroment then I guess yuo'll never understand.

    >
    > >>>>>> I heard my dad say once that he;d never seen a black person until he saw one for the first time. I guess in some point in time some English people didn't know black peole existed or oriental people.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>>> There are well documented differences between both the structure and

    >
    > >>>>> the performance of male and female brains. The situation is the same

    >
    > >>>>> with bodies.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>> There are well documented differences between the structure

    >
    > >>>> and the performance of the *average* male and *average*

    >
    > >>>> female brain. The situation is the same with *average*

    >
    > >>>> bodies.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>> In fact, males are larger --- yet it's trivial to find a large

    >
    > >>>> number of women that are larger than a large number of men.

    >
    > >>>> Same for stronger. Same for about every single attribute.

    >
    > >>>> OK, most women don't have testes and most men don't have

    >
    > >>>> ovaries and uteri. But not even that is 100%.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>> Try reading 'Brainsex' for an introduction

    >
    > >>> http://www.amazon.com/Brain-Sex-Dif...=UTF8&qid=1365715070&sr=8-1&keywords=Brainsex

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> For what?

    >
    > >> To find out that a 21 year old book jumps from "men are

    >
    > >> statistically (more) X and women are statistically (more) Y"

    >
    > >> to "men are X and women are Y" and to "therefore men have to

    >
    > >> have the role according to their X and women have to have the

    >
    > >> role according to their Y"?

    >
    > >

    >
    > > You are guessing. Irrespective of it's age it still does quite well

    >
    > > discussing the role of hormones in both the development and the

    >
    > > functioning of the brain.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > So what made Jane Jane? While the doctors were sorting out her

    >
    > > problems as a baby, they discovered that she had an abnormality in

    >
    > > the adrenal glands of her kidneys. This so-called adrenogenital

    >
    > > syndrome resulted in the secretion of a substance much akin to male

    >
    > > hormone while she was in her mother's womb. This condition often

    >
    > > results in the formation of underdeveloped male external genitalia,

    >
    > > along with a normal set of internal, female, reproductive apparatus.

    >
    > > Surgery can correct the unnecessary boyish bits - but it cannot

    >
    > > reverse what has already happened to the brain. While in the womb,

    >
    > > Jane's developing brain had been exposed to the male chemical. Her

    >
    > > brain, then, had felt itself 'instructed' to develop along male

    >
    > > lines.

    >
    > > Jane had a male brain in a female body. It didn't stop her being

    >
    > > a woman, and having babies. But it stopped her behaving completely

    >
    > > like a woman and, to a great extent, feeling like one.

    >
    > > Sometimes, the kidney abnormality results in so high a release of

    >
    > > this male-like hormone that the genetically female (XX) baby comes

    >
    > > into the world with the sexual equipment of a boy. Naturally, such

    >
    > > babies are brought up as boys. It is only at puberty, when the boy

    >
    > > fails to develop into manhood, that the doctor is consulted, and the

    >
    > > hospital laboratories find that 'he' is genetically female.

    >
    > > The parents usually opt for treatment involving supplementary

    >
    > > doses of the male hormone — and the boy becomes a man. He may marry,

    >
    > > but will not have children; being a genetic woman, of course, he

    >
    > > does not produce sperm and so cannot be a father.

    >
    > > But in his mind, whatever the genetic code is insisting, he has

    >
    > > always been male. That same, abnormal, bathing in male hormone that

    >
    > > turned a would-be girl into a sexually identifiable boy, didn't just

    >
    > > affect the growth of the genitals; it also cast the embryonic brain

    >
    > > into a male pattern.

    >
    > > Just like the girls, the brains of these children had already been

    >
    > > set in the womb as male - because of their exposure to an overdose

    >
    > > of mind-altering androgen hormones.

    >
    > > The evidence suggests that brain sexing is a matter of degree: the

    >
    > > more male hormone the foetus is exposed to, the more the adult will

    >
    > > be male in behaviour. The less the amount of male hormone, the more

    >
    > > feminine the adult behaviour.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> For the statistics, I want a somewhat newer book. (Never mind

    >
    > >> that I want more info than just a percentage.)

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Bugger the statistics. Have a look at what's going on.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> For the logic of "men (or male brains) are X and women (or

    >
    > >> female brains) are Y" --- thank you very much. The statistics

    >
    > >> tell me that while there are some more-or-less typical traits

    >
    > >> of men, women, asians, lesbians, nerds, politicans and so on ...

    >
    > >> there are way more variations inside the group.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > The statistics won't tell you why there should be transgendered

    >
    > > people.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> For "are you good at X -> Yes: 1 point for male, -> No: 1 point

    >
    > >> for female" tests (where 62% males and 44% females are good at

    >
    > >> X) I can read any number of pseudo-psychological articles in

    >
    > >> "women's magazines". They're offering such tests for about

    >
    > >> anything and everything --- and they're 20 years more up

    >
    > >> to date.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > You are missing the point which is whether or not (and how and why)

    >
    > > transgendered people come about.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> For the "therefore [...] role [...]" --- sorry. I don't buy

    >
    > >> that, unless males and females are not overlapping in traits.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > This is not a question for behaviourist psychology: it't a question

    >
    > > about how and why transgendered people come about and what can or

    >
    > > should be done for them.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>> Personally I think people are just wired as they are ---

    >
    > >>>> without differences that are necessarily visible to our

    >
    > >>>> technology.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>> They are visible allright. Between psychologists and MIR scans we are

    >
    > >>> learning a great deal about the differences between various brains.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> So what are the markers to find a cleptomaniac with MIR

    >
    > >> scans?

    >
    > >

    >
    > > We are discussing transgender etc.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>> Same as some people are good at math, have eidetic memories

    >
    > >>>> or perfect pitch, are gifted in some art form or technical

    >
    > >>>> skill or sports, are natural diplomats --- or happen to be

    >
    > >>>> bad at languages, have bad eyes, are incompetent in some area,

    >
    > >>>> are drawn back loners.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>> Having a wide ranges of combinations are important in

    >
    > >>>> evolution: with that at least some part of the species will

    >
    > >>>> survive, even if that combination was far from perfect

    >
    > >>>> previously. And no, it's not necessary (not even better) if

    >
    > >>>> the whole population is reproducing.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>> I long ago concluded that few if any people have a complete set of

    >
    > >>> mental competencies.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> So you agree that few if any people have a complete set of

    >
    > >> "male" mental traits or "female" mental traits?

    >
    > >

    >
    > > 'Competencies' and 'traits' aren't the same thing.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> And do you agree that there is a continuum between male and

    >
    > >> female --- while relatively few may be sort of in the middle,

    >
    > >> they exist?

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I would expect so, although I don't actually know that.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > There is of course the problem that male/female characterisation is

    >
    > > not based on a single factor.

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > I find your post very interesting, if applicable. I say applicable only
    >
    > because it's a concept of thinking which I had not applied to the
    >
    > subject before your post. Which leaves me to wonder what /evolutionists/
    >
    > would think about your explanation. Since man has not reproductively
    >
    > changed in thousands upon thousands of years, is there something to
    >
    > think about, such as, were there gay Neanderthal's.


    I doubt we'll ever know for sure, there is a likehood of there being a certain number.

    > Published historical
    >
    > cave drawings (or illustrations) have not disclosed that there were gay
    >
    > Neanderthal's; leastwise not that I'm aware of.


    Theere are no cave drawinn to suggest hetrosexualioty eiether are there?.
    In Romon times and with Sparticains it was quite common for a male to have a youung boy to have sex with in faxct it appears that a man wouldn;t normmly have sex with a female first he would be 'broken in' by a male.


    > Another thought to be applied is:- Is there such a thing as a gay ape,


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

    "Homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them"

    >
    > elephant, or pig. I have not seen nor read about such.


    Maybe loking is the answer... ;-)

    A female friend of mine saw two maqle dogs locked together, one had his dick in the others both had erections.


    here's some real fun
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/08/highereducation.research

    "The strange case of the homosexual necrophiliac duck "
    Ducks behave pretty badly, it seems. It is not so much that up to one in 10of mallard couples are homosexual - no one would raise an eyebrow in the liberal Netherlands - but they regularly indulge in "attempted rape flights"when they pursue other ducks with a view to forcible mating. "Rape is a normal reproductive strategy in mallards," explains Mr Moeliker.


    > Are not the
    >
    > reproductive genes in many animals similar to the reproductive genes in
    >
    > humans, in that they too have DNA and RNA genetic plans associated with
    >
    > each animals physical chemistry. Is there really a genetic difference to
    >
    > even be considered, with respect to the cause of how transgendered
    >
    > people came about or is what you posted a working theory yet to be
    >
    > proved, exclusive to humans.
    Whisky-dave, Apr 15, 2013
    #77
  18. nick c <> wrote:

    > Subterfuge:
    > "Something intended to misrepresent the true nature of an activity"


    > Yes indeed, when you called Robert Coe a bigot, you resorted to verbal
    > subterfuge through vilification.


    This is a very very good example of subterfuge.

    Proof: "nick c" can't show any Message-ID where I call Robert
    Coe a bigot.

    > Vitrification:
    > "Slanderous defamation"


    > Both words are defined in the dictionary and need no further definition
    > from me.


    Yep: your posting is a prime example.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 15, 2013
    #78
  19. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 00:31:13 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:34:44 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 03:32:27 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave


    >>>>>>What do you mean by better than animals we are animals, although your inteligence appears to be better matched to a vegatable.


    >>>>>>I know a number of transgered people, even an intersexed person.


    >>>>>>The 'condition' is quite well documented and recorded, but if you live in such a narrow enviroment then I guess yuo'll never understand.
    >>>>>>I heard my dad say once that he;d never seen a black person until he saw one for the first time. I guess in some point in time some English people didn't know black peole existed or oriental people.


    >>>>> There are well documented differences between both the structure and
    >>>>> the performance of male and female brains. The situation is the same
    >>>>> with bodies.


    >>>>There are well documented differences between the structure
    >>>>and the performance of the *average* male and *average*
    >>>>female brain. The situation is the same with *average*
    >>>>bodies.


    >>>>In fact, males are larger --- yet it's trivial to find a large
    >>>>number of women that are larger than a large number of men.
    >>>>Same for stronger. Same for about every single attribute.
    >>>>OK, most women don't have testes and most men don't have
    >>>>ovaries and uteri. But not even that is 100%.


    >>> Try reading 'Brainsex' for an introduction
    >>> http://www.amazon.com/Brain-Sex-Dif...=UTF8&qid=1365715070&sr=8-1&keywords=Brainsex


    >>For what?
    >>To find out that a 21 year old book jumps from "men are
    >>statistically (more) X and women are statistically (more) Y"
    >>to "men are X and women are Y" and to "therefore men have to
    >>have the role according to their X and women have to have the
    >>role according to their Y"?


    > You are guessing. Irrespective of it's age it still does quite well
    > discussing the role of hormones in both the development and the
    > functioning of the brain.


    That's fine. People can discuss anything.
    We, for example, could discuss for example Klingon wine, their cultivation,
    their legends, how to properly enjoy them in the culturally
    correct way.

    Does that mean that Klingon wine exists and that our discussion
    contains true facts about Klingon wine and culture?

    [... prelude ...]
    > Jane had a male brain in a female body. It didn't stop her being


    Claim of a fact. Proof? None.
    Definition of "male brain"? None.
    How to detect a "male brain"? Nothing.

    [...]
    > babies are brought up as boys. It is only at puberty, when the boy
    > fails to develop into manhood, that the doctor is consulted, and the
    > hospital laboratories find that 'he' is genetically female.


    Statistics that that is common?

    [...]
    > But in his mind, whatever the genetic code is insisting, he has
    > always been male. That same, abnormal, bathing in male hormone that
    > turned a would-be girl into a sexually identifiable boy, didn't just
    > affect the growth of the genitals; it also cast the embryonic brain
    > into a male pattern.


    What is a "male pattern" and how is it defined?
    What is "male", and how do you define what is male?


    [...]
    > Just like the girls, the brains of these children had already been
    > set in the womb as male - because of their exposure to an overdose
    > of mind-altering androgen hormones.

    [...]

    Proof of that claim?

    > The evidence suggests that brain sexing is a matter of degree: the
    > more male hormone the foetus is exposed to, the more the adult will
    > be male in behaviour. The less the amount of male hormone, the more
    > feminine the adult behaviour.


    Ah, ok, there is a wide range between female and male.

    As to 'The evidence': Where is it?


    >>For the statistics, I want a somewhat newer book. (Never mind
    >>that I want more info than just a percentage.)


    > Bugger the statistics. Have a look at what's going on.


    "Ignore the facts. Have a look through these rose-colored
    glasses."


    >>For the logic of "men (or male brains) are X and women (or
    >>female brains) are Y" --- thank you very much. The statistics
    >>tell me that while there are some more-or-less typical traits
    >>of men, women, asians, lesbians, nerds, politicans and so on ...
    >>there are way more variations inside the group.


    > The statistics won't tell you why there should be transgendered
    > people.


    The theory that pixies live under the wings of planes and lift
    them *does* explain why planes fly. Statistics can be used
    to prove or disprove such theories.


    >>For "are you good at X -> Yes: 1 point for male, -> No: 1 point
    >>for female" tests (where 62% males and 44% females are good at
    >>X) I can read any number of pseudo-psychological articles in
    >>"women's magazines". They're offering such tests for about
    >>anything and everything --- and they're 20 years more up
    >>to date.


    > You are missing the point


    .... which is that the book contains such tests.


    >>For the "therefore [...] role [...]" --- sorry. I don't buy
    >>that, unless males and females are not overlapping in traits.


    > This is not a question for behaviourist psychology: it't a question
    > about how and why transgendered people come about and what can or
    > should be done for them.


    This is about if that book makes these conclusions.
    Obviously it does.

    This book is about pushing a single theory and preconcived
    role models.


    >>>>Personally I think people are just wired as they are ---
    >>>>without differences that are necessarily visible to our
    >>>>technology.


    >>> They are visible allright. Between psychologists and MIR scans we are
    >>> learning a great deal about the differences between various brains.


    >>So what are the markers to find a cleptomaniac with MIR
    >>scans?


    > We are discussing transgender etc.


    I take that as a "NO, we cannot see such differences".


    >>>>Same as some people are good at math, have eidetic memories
    >>>>or perfect pitch, are gifted in some art form or technical
    >>>>skill or sports, are natural diplomats --- or happen to be
    >>>>bad at languages, have bad eyes, are incompetent in some area,
    >>>>are drawn back loners.


    >>>>Having a wide ranges of combinations are important in
    >>>>evolution: with that at least some part of the species will
    >>>>survive, even if that combination was far from perfect
    >>>>previously. And no, it's not necessary (not even better) if
    >>>>the whole population is reproducing.


    >>> I long ago concluded that few if any people have a complete set of
    >>> mental competencies.


    >>So you agree that few if any people have a complete set of
    >>"male" mental traits or "female" mental traits?


    > 'Competencies' and 'traits' aren't the same thing.


    Traits include competencies.


    >>And do you agree that there is a continuum between male and
    >>female --- while relatively few may be sort of in the middle,
    >>they exist?


    > I would expect so, although I don't actually know that.


    > There is of course the problem that male/female characterisation is
    > not based on a single factor.


    "Traits" are plural.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 15, 2013
    #79
  20. Eric Stevens <> wrote:

    > This is no longer a theory looking for evidence. As Wolfgang pointed
    > out the theory had reached a point where a paper back could be written
    > about it 24 years ago. Many gaps have been filled in since then.


    Theories that negros are better off as slaves have been
    widely distributed back when --- it wasn't a theory looking
    for evidence, it was truth.

    As to paperbacks: There have been paperbacks about almost
    everything. Including completely abstruse things with a
    pseudoscientific construct around it. Some people do take
    such things seriously.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 15, 2013
    #80
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    30
    Views:
    7,106
    Alpha
    Apr 25, 2005
  2. David Taylor

    Re: Tale of the Laser - redux

    David Taylor, Mar 26, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    139
    David Taylor
    Mar 26, 2013
  3. RichA

    Re: Tale of the Laser - redux

    RichA, Mar 26, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    157
    Rikishi42
    Mar 27, 2013
  4. Rikishi42

    Re: Tale of the Laser - redux

    Rikishi42, Mar 27, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    144
    PeterN
    Mar 28, 2013
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Re: Tale of the Laser - redux

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 30, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    115
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Apr 3, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page