Re: Tale of the Laser - redux

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

  1. Robert Coe

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Monday, April 15, 2013 5:32:19 PM UTC+1, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > 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,


    Only with those that know what you're talking about, which I do.
    I have an empty bottle of this. It wasn;t a bad wine I've drank much worse.


    http://ediblejunk.tumblr.com/post/6445730053/quarks-klingon-deep-space-wine-blood-wine

    >their cultivation,
    >
    > their legends, how to properly enjoy them in the culturally
    >
    > correct way.


    We could do but it's still fiction, where as a lot of gender isssue and differncies exist in the real world.



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


    That's depends on what you mean by exists doesn't it.
    There's a Klingon culture and language in fdact I've heard more peole speakKlingon than Esperanto so which is a real language ?



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

    >
    >
    >
    > Claim of a fact. Proof? None.


    There's is a friend of mine.

    >
    > Definition of "male brain"? None.


    First you have to define male.


    >
    > How to detect a "male brain"? Nothing.


    Apparrently what are considered male brain are less dense regarding
    nueron density than female brains.

    http://voices.yahoo.com/scientific-differences-between-male-female-brains-5862878.html
    "The fact that male brains tend to have larger dorsal premammillary nucleusis one of the major differences. What this means is that the part of the brain that governs protecting territory is bigger in males than in females. Male brains also have a larger amygdale, which is the alarm system for threats. This means that male brains are wired to more readily sense threats and dangers to their homes, property, family and selves."

    The average vicar or priest or mid-wife can;t see these atributes staright after birth so they usually declare the child to be boy or girl based on what's currently between the childs legs.




    >
    >
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > > 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?


    Commonm enough to be noticed and not quite as uncommon as it used to be a bit like being lefthanded.


    > > 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?


    Seee above

    >
    > What is "male", and how do you define what is male?


    It's all there on-line if you care to read it.

    How would youo define a car ?

    How about the differnce between a boat and a ship.


    >
    >
    >
    > > 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.


    It's as wide as you want it, or as narrow.


    > As to 'The evidence': Where is it?


    It's all out there.


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


    The facts are out there but if your glasses have a tint or are in fact no transpaternt or have them on the wrong way around you might not see a correct view, or at least the view everyone else has.



    > >>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.


    and so can non statistics.
    But I''ve never seen pixes as a reason why planes fly, but if that;'s what you believe then fine, but you are wrong and always will be it seems.



    > >>>>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".


    We can't presently, but we may be able to in the furture.
    We can certainly see when the brain is excited about a certain thing.
    We can almost see dreams although that's not really to do with the brain assuch.

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/04/05/computers-can-see-people-dreams/
     
    Whisky-dave, Apr 17, 2013
    #81
    1. Advertising

  2. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2013-04-12 13:54:19 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >> 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.


    > Actually many prisons have medical facilities and hospitals, mainly for
    > non-surgical care.


    So they *have* noticed that "added costs to providing security
    for an inmate receiving treatment in a hospital outside the
    prison" can be circumvented. I read your words as "there are
    also some prisons that are equipped for surgery". Since there
    are many (even by your standards) necessary surgical operations
    that can be planned ... moving prisoners which need operations
    to thusly equipped prisons when possible would be blindingly
    obvious.


    >> 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.


    > Not quite as simple as you would wish.


    Ah, yes, you do have private prison systems, right?
    Of course the job of a private prison is to make as much money
    for themselves as possible ... not to save anyone money.

    Well, see me weep for your home-made problems.


    >> 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.


    > THAT is more than a little bit Orwellian.


    Nope. Orwellian is to do away with the lawer. They just cost
    the court time (which means less cases per hour, hence more
    courts are neded) and generally make trouble.

    It's perfectly all right to remove the accused if he continues
    to be unruly or tries to influence witnesses. So why not for
    saving money?

    In fact, make the *prisoner* pay for all the costs of his
    imprisonment. That would help!

    >>> 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.


    > Prison system mental health professionals are not exactly underpaid.


    So you're saying that it may actually be cheaper to actually
    perform the surgery? So, would that change your position
    because your objection is only financial, or was there another
    reason?


    [...]

    >>>> 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.


    > Maybe more.


    Oh, we do agree!

    >> a) does society have an obligation to it's members welfare,
    >> at least as far as the members are unable to care for
    >> themselves?


    > Yes.


    >> b) does a) also apply to people who are for whatever reason
    >> incarcerated?


    > Yes


    >> c) is being stuck in the wrong body harmful?


    > Maybe, but debatable.


    Interesting.


    >> My answers (note order!)
    >> c) Yes, proven. (If people regularly are willing to die rather
    >> than continue to suffer ...)


    > Perhaps.


    What sort of proof would you require for "condition X is
    harmful"?

    > However, at this time in the USA, those individuals have to
    > seek and fund the remedy themselves.


    Which goes against a).

    > Many do.


    Which would constitute another hint that that condition is
    something people don't want to endure, even if they have to
    spend lots of money for it.

    > As for incarcerated
    > inmates, or should I say the inmate in this case, currently in our
    > society in the USA a free person seeking this type of surgery would
    > have to fund the procedure themselves, and many do.


    A free person --- the working poor, for example --- would
    also have to pay for many other treatments prison inmates get
    for free. So your point is?


    > Mr. Kosilek


    Mrs Savageduck, let it be known to you that the person who
    formerly was Robert Kosilek has changed her name legally to
    Michelle about 2 decades ago ...

    > had the
    > opportunity to fund his surgery before he got drunk and strangled his
    > wife.


    Same for hip replacements, right?


    At that point in her life Kosilek was married to a woman
    who actually believed all Kosilek needed was "a good woman".
    (And who apparently assaulted Kosilek with boiling water and
    a knife for wearing her clothes.)


    As to "got drunk" --- you sure have a source you can cite for
    Kosilek being drunk when Kosilek's wife died? No? Thought so.
    You just love to malign people you think deserve it. You'd
    be one of the first who throw stones.


    > He still has the opportunity to fund his surgery by raising the
    > funds himself from charitable folks such as yourself.


    So has any hip replacement needing person.

    Assuming *she* had the money, would she get the OP?


    > However, he is
    > demanding a free ride on the backs of taxpayers,


    She's demanding not to get cruel and unusual punishment. So
    far the courts seem to agree with that.

    > when those same
    > taxpayers wanting the same surgery would not be able to get the state
    > or private medical insurance in the USA to pay for it.


    The USA has medical insurance the same way North Korea has
    personal freedom, so that's saying about nothing.

    If you incarcerate someone and think you're civilized, you
    need to care properly for them. Much as you don't like it,
    in your country the courts interpret the law, not the police.
    Although they really try. And witnesses need to hide micro
    SD cards that contain proof of police brutality and so on.


    > Kosilek is a
    > manipulative murderer gaming the system. He needs to STFU and live out
    > his days in the secure comfort of his cell.


    The courts do seem to disagree. Of course, fomer policemen
    rank higher than any courts of law and know better what others
    must do.


    >> a) That's called civilisation.


    > Perhaps. Who defines civilization?


    The USA being the only country which went straight from
    barbary to decadence, surely doesn't.


    >> 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.)


    > Boy! You have stretched your argument to a ridiculous conclusion there.


    Ah, yes, YOU're an American. YOU think that whereever you
    go, local laws don't apply to you.


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


    > You think!


    I *know*.


    >>>>>>> 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.'


    > I am not here to debate the death penalty and the philosophy behind it.


    Neither am I. I debate "necessary". To execute someone it's
    not necessary for then to be healthy and pain free before the
    execution. It's only necessary they're alife.

    > In my opinion the cost of the death penalty to the taxpayer alone, is
    > reason enough to do away with it. Also, juries make wrong decisions,
    > and the mechanics and protocols surrounding executions differs from
    > state to state.


    Nice distraction. The point is "necessary". As in "Kosilek
    has all his necessary medical needs met by the Commonwealth
    of Massachusetts Department of Corrections" is really meaning
    "if they don't die too early, everything is fine".


    >>>>> 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.


    > Probably.


    Weasling out?

    So who decides?


    >>> 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.


    > In the case of the prisons appeal systems they are written into law. In
    > California that falls under the Penal Code, and the California Code of
    > Regulations, Title 15. Crime Prevention and Corrections. That book of
    > regulations covers things such as rights of inmates, the prison system
    > disciplinary process, the inmate appeals process, inmate
    > classification, inmate medical care, and a whole bunch more stuff.
    > Other States and the Federal prison system will have similar
    > regulations.


    > Take a look, the smart inmates know the "Title 15" from cover to cover,
    > and they know how to manipulate the system using these regulations and
    > the appeals system.


    Everyone manipulates. The police does tons of manipulation.
    Some of the manipulations of them are clearly on the wrong
    side of the law, not even in the grey zone anymore.

    There's a reason that they must be held in check by some
    actions tainting evidence.

    > This is the 4MB PDF if you care to download it.
    > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Title152006Final.pdf >



    > Ironically, in that publication, immediately following a sample of the
    > documents required prior to an execution you will find "Article 8.
    > Medical and Dental Services" which starts off with the following:


    > "3350. Provision of Medical Care and Definitions.
    > (a) The department shall only provide medical services for inmates,
    > which are based on medical necessity


    e.g. gender reassignment surgery for gender identity disorder

    > and supported by outcome data as
    > effective medical care.


    e.g. gender reassignment surgery for gender identity disorder

    > In the absence of available outcome data for a
    > specific case, treatment will be based on the judgment of the physician
    > that the treatment is considered effective for the purpose intended and
    > is supported by diagnostic information and consultations with
    > appropriate specialists. Treatments for conditions, which might
    > otherwise be excluded, may be allowed pursuant to section 3350.1(d).
    > (b) For the purposes of this article, the following definitions apply:
    > (1) Medically Necessary means health care services that are determined
    > by the attending physician to be reasonable and necessary to protect
    > life, prevent significant illness or disability, or alleviate severe
    > pain, and are supported by health outcome data as being effective
    > medical care.


    e.g. gender identity disorder: prevent significant illness
    (e.g. depression, suicide)

    > (2) Outcome Study means the definition, collection and analysis of
    > comparable data, based on variations in treatment, concerning patient
    > health assessment for purposes of improving outcomes and identifying
    > cost-effective alternatives.


    gender identity disorder

    > (3) Outcome Data mean statistics such as diagnoses, procedures,
    > discharge status, length of hospital stay, morbidity and mortality of
    > patients, that are collected and evaluated using science-based
    > methodologies and expert clinical judgment for purposes of outcome
    > studies.


    gender identity disorder

    > (4) Severe pain means a degree of discomfort that significantly
    > disables the patient from reasonable independent function.


    Under that definition untreated gender identity disorder causes
    severe pain, as the resulting depression "significantly disables
    the patient from reasonable independent function."


    > (5) Significant illness and disability means any medical condition that
    > causes or may cause if left untreated a severe limitation of function
    > or ability to perform the daily activities of life or that may cause
    > premature death.


    Well, that would include gender identity disorder -> untreated
    it very often causes severe depression.


    > NOTE: Authority cited: Section 5058, Penal Code. Reference: Section
    > 5054, Penal Code."


    >> The question is: who writes the standard?


    > The same folks who have written standards for eons.


    Prophets and religious leaders?


    >>> 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?


    > As yet not finalized in the Courts.


    As the state really wants to throw MORE of the taxpayer's
    money out of the window for a lost cause, yep.


    >>>> 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?


    > In most cases individuals have a hard time disciplining themselves, or
    > have access to minimal dental care such as regular cleaning, and check
    > ups. For many inmates the first time they have seen a dentist in their
    > adult lives is in prison. Many of them arrive in prison with bad bad
    > dental health due to lives lived hard, lack of care, and long term drug
    > abuse.


    > As to who decides, it is first the individual inmate in need of dental
    > care and the dental care protocols provided by the professionals
    > employed in the prison dental clinics.


    So what is "standard" dental care? Who decides on the dental
    care protocols?


    >>>> 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.


    > Yes they can.


    >> - Mental health patients are sent to prison extremely often.


    > Yes, quite often.


    >> - There is no proper care for mental health patients. Thus
    >> they commit crimes very very often due to this.


    > Yes. (Thank Reagan for 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).


    > Yes. Tragic isn" it?


    It seems "typical American".
    And by not curing the basic problem, one can scream for more
    prisons/troops/fighter jets.


    >>> 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"?


    > Even them.


    I thought such people 'need to STFU and live out their days in
    the secure comfort of their cells#, to paraphrase you.


    >>>>> 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.


    > Just one example I am familiar with.


    >> 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?


    > No, but it seems you have.


    It seems that I can read what real experts say. Apart from
    that, how many transgendered people have you talked to about
    them being transgendered for hours and hours?


    >>>>>>> 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?


    > This is something which as been worked on in the USA since FDR.


    Tell me again how the US managed to NOT get to the moon from
    1933 to 2013 because that was such a hard challenge.


    > However, we have an extremely polarized political system which has only
    > been able to reach a compromise solution to the problem, and then there
    > are those who oppose any such changes and have sworn themselves to
    > reverse what small changes have been made.


    Obviously the USA needs a benevolent dictator for a couple
    decades. Democracy doesn't become them.


    >>>> 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.


    > We as a nation deserve it.


    .... for not managing to properly care for your own working
    poor? Don't make me laugh.

    > Unfortunately not all are fortunate enough
    > to receive it.


    Really.


    >>> 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.


    > Wrong. Sex/gender reassignment is the ultimate elective surgery.


    Even with your usage of "elective surgery" I'd have thought
    you had heard about face lifts and sterilization and so on.

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


    > Are you?


    Yep.
    Please show me a reputable source that your definition of
    "elective surgery" == "surgery that's not needed" is correct.


    >>>>> 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.


    > We are slow that way.


    Glacially slow, indeed.
    How did you ever get the Mercury programme done?


    >>>> 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.


    > See, we do have something in common.


    Obviously.


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


    > Of course you were.


    Of course. After all, I'm *nearly* perfect.

    [...]

    >>>>> 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.


    > Many of those "self-made men" were ruthless sons of bitches, just as
    > they are the world over.


    Prime materiel for presidents, governors and other high level
    politicans.


    >>>>> 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.


    > Aah! History redux.


    Send me a mail when you're comissioning the United States.


    >>>>> ...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.


    > Actually they can sue with the help of various assistance groups.


    i.e. dependent on the goodwill of someone else.

    [...]

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 29, 2013
    #82
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Coe

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Monday, April 29, 2013 1:39:03 PM UTC+1, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >



    > > Actually many prisons have medical facilities and hospitals, mainly for

    >
    > > non-surgical care.

    >
    >
    >
    > So they *have* noticed that "added costs to providing security
    >
    > for an inmate receiving treatment in a hospital outside the
    >
    > prison" can be circumvented.


    No they found it cheaper to keepa stick of aprin locally rathern tha get someone to go into town to buy it.

    > I read your words as "there are
    >
    > also some prisons that are equipped for surgery". Since there
    >
    > are many (even by your standards) necessary surgical operations
    >
    > that can be planned ... moving prisoners which need operations
    >
    > to thusly equipped prisons when possible would be blindingly
    >
    > obvious.


    'when possible' I wonder what's meant by that ?


    > >> 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.

    >
    >
    >
    > > Not quite as simple as you would wish.

    >
    >
    >
    > Ah, yes, you do have private prison systems, right?
    >
    > Of course the job of a private prison is to make as much money
    >
    > for themselves as possible ... not to save anyone money.


    It would seem that way but you could have govenrment intervention or just make prison abey the law(s) curretnly in force or make new ones.



    >
    > > Prison system mental health professionals are not exactly underpaid.

    >
    >
    >
    > So you're saying that it may actually be cheaper to actually
    >
    > perform the surgery?


    Mental health, surgery are you talking about the same thing.


    > So, would that change your position
    >
    > because your objection is only financial, or was there another
    >
    > reason?


    For me it would be financial, to tell my friened who works in the care industry and is on minium wage for me to tell him he needs to go out a murder someone before he has the option for free surgery because the NHS can;t afford it isn;t the sort of message I want out there, it's bad enough that somethink that they can get a free mobile phone by carrying a knife and threatening people is bad enough but to pronmote such a thing I think is wrong even if the court of humans rights decided that it's everyone's human right tohave a smartphone.




    >
    >
    > >> a) does society have an obligation to it's members welfare,

    >
    > >> at least as far as the members are unable to care for

    >
    > >> themselves?

    >
    >
    >
    > > Yes.


    How about defining that society and when someone comits a crime a crime that goes against the society, should that person be condiered an equal part of that society of be a lessor memeber or perhaps head of the society.


    >
    > What sort of proof would you require for "condition X is
    >
    > harmful"?


    I'd say the same as for finding a condition not harmful.
    Usually provided by people that know about the subject and are qualified.


    > > However, at this time in the USA, those individuals have to

    >
    > > seek and fund the remedy themselves.

    >
    >
    >
    > Which goes against a).
    >
    >
    >
    > > Many do.

    >
    >
    >
    > Which would constitute another hint that that condition is
    >
    > something people don't want to endure, even if they have to
    >
    > spend lots of money for it.


    They don;t have to spend any money if an alternative is to commit a crime and get it done for free.
    Another friend of mine opted to spend a few days in a cell rather than pay a fine because he didn;t have the ~£50 asked for.


    > > As for incarcerated

    >
    > > inmates, or should I say the inmate in this case, currently in our

    >
    > > society in the USA a free person seeking this type of surgery would

    >
    > > have to fund the procedure themselves, and many do.

    >
    >
    >
    > A free person --- the working poor, for example --- would
    >
    > also have to pay for many other treatments prison inmates get
    >
    > for free. So your point is?


    My point would be why do criminals get free medical care while law abiding people have to pay ?
    We aren't quite that bad in the UK yet, but this sort of thing does exist.



    >
    >
    > > had the

    >
    > > opportunity to fund his surgery before he got drunk and strangled his

    >
    > > wife.

    >
    >
    >
    > Same for hip replacements, right?


    I didn;t think he even considered such surgery before being convicted.
    Hip replacement is somewhat differnt you have them when yuo hoip needs replacing the clues in the wording a sex change op doen't happen because the bits yuo have no longer do what they should.

    Without a working hip mobility is difficult the same can't be said of not haviong breats, a vagina or a penis.



    > At that point in her life Kosilek was married to a woman
    >
    > who actually believed all Kosilek needed was "a good woman".
    >
    > (And who apparently assaulted Kosilek with boiling water and
    >
    > a knife for wearing her clothes.)


    Not the most understanding of people.


    >
    >
    > > He still has the opportunity to fund his surgery by raising the

    >
    > > funds himself from charitable folks such as yourself.

    >
    >
    >
    > So has any hip replacement needing person.


    How many people get free hip replacements
    in the UK it's about 70k a year IIRC, most are free.

    > Assuming *she* had the money, would she get the OP?


    There;s no evidence she would have gone for the op is there ?


    > > However, he is

    >
    > > demanding a free ride on the backs of taxpayers,

    >
    >
    >
    > She's demanding not to get cruel and unusual punishment. So
    >
    > far the courts seem to agree with that.


    So far....


    > > when those same

    >
    > > taxpayers wanting the same surgery would not be able to get the state

    >
    > > or private medical insurance in the USA to pay for it.

    >
    >
    >
    > The USA has medical insurance the same way North Korea has
    >
    > personal freedom, so that's saying about nothing.


    It says everything.
    The only way to get noticed is to act like North Korea, i.e threaten people..


    > If you incarcerate someone and think you're civilized, you
    >
    > need to care properly for them.


    Do you care for them in a better way or the same way.
    if that person didn't request the hair translant op before they commited nurder why should they get a free hair translpant op because they are now guilty of murder.



    > > Kosilek is a

    >
    > > manipulative murderer gaming the system. He needs to STFU and live out

    >
    > > his days in the secure comfort of his cell.

    >
    >
    >
    > The courts do seem to disagree. Of course, fomer policemen
    >
    > rank higher than any courts of law and know better what others
    >
    > must do.


    The most powerful usualy get their way, that's why some of them are locked up out of harms way.




    > >> '"Necessary" means just that.'

    >
    >
    >
    > > I am not here to debate the death penalty and the philosophy behind it.

    >
    >
    >
    > Neither am I. I debate "necessary". To execute someone it's
    >
    > not necessary for then to be healthy and pain free before the
    >
    > execution. It's only necessary they're alife.


    Why is that "necessary" ?





    >
    >
    > > Take a look, the smart inmates know the "Title 15" from cover to cover,


    They can't be that smart if they've been caught.

    >
    > > and they know how to manipulate the system using these regulations and

    >
    > > the appeals system.

    >
    >
    >
    > Everyone manipulates.


    and the better you are at it the more you earn or the higher you climb the ladder of suscess is that it ?

    > The police does tons of manipulation.
    >
    > Some of the manipulations of them are clearly on the wrong
    >
    > side of the law, not even in the grey zone anymore.


    As you say Everyone manipulates.



    >
    > > "3350. Provision of Medical Care and Definitions.

    >
    > > (a) The department shall only provide medical services for inmates,

    >
    > > which are based on medical necessity

    >
    >
    >
    > e.g. gender reassignment surgery for gender identity disorder


    Did he 'suffer' from this before being found guilty of murder
    or did this happen in prison.



    >
    > > (b) For the purposes of this article, the following definitions apply:

    >
    > > (1) Medically Necessary means health care services that are determined

    >
    > > by the attending physician to be reasonable and necessary to protect

    >
    > > life, prevent significant illness or disability, or alleviate severe

    >
    > > pain, and are supported by health outcome data as being effective

    >
    > > medical care.

    >
    >
    >
    > e.g. gender identity disorder: prevent significant illness
    >
    > (e.g. depression, suicide)


    Was there any evidence he suffered from this apsect ?


    > > (2) Outcome Study means the definition, collection and analysis of

    >
    > > comparable data, based on variations in treatment, concerning patient

    >
    > > health assessment for purposes of improving outcomes and identifying

    >
    > > cost-effective alternatives.

    >
    >
    >
    > gender identity disorder


    not sure why GID keeps appearding.



    > > (4) Severe pain means a degree of discomfort that significantly

    >
    > > disables the patient from reasonable independent function.

    >
    >
    >
    > Under that definition untreated gender identity disorder causes
    >
    > severe pain,



    Was there any evidence of that.

    > as the resulting depression "significantly disables
    >
    > the patient from reasonable independent function."


    and of this.


    > > (5) Significant illness and disability means any medical condition that

    >
    > > causes or may cause if left untreated a severe limitation of function

    >
    > > or ability to perform the daily activities of life or that may cause

    >
    > > premature death.

    >
    >
    >
    > Well, that would include gender identity disorder -> untreated
    >
    > it very often causes severe depression.


    Yes it can, but did it.
    and are you saying this only happens to those in prison.


    >
    >
    >
    > As the state really wants to throw MORE of the taxpayer's
    >
    > money out of the window for a lost cause, yep.


    The money doens't disapear it just ends up in someone else's pocket that's important to remmber.




    >
    > > As to who decides, it is first the individual inmate in need of dental

    >
    > > care and the dental care protocols provided by the professionals

    >
    > > employed in the prison dental clinics.

    >
    >
    >
    > So what is "standard" dental care?


    depends on many factors including country and perhaps down to local area.

    > Who decides on the dental
    >
    > care protocols?


    I'd assume dentists but maybe polititions.


    > >> - There is no proper care for mental health patients. Thus

    >
    > >> they commit crimes very very often due to this.

    >
    >
    >
    > > Yes. (Thank Reagan for 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).

    >
    >
    >
    > > Yes. Tragic isn" it?

    >
    >
    >
    > It seems "typical American".
    >
    > And by not curing the basic problem, one can scream for more
    >
    > prisons/troops/fighter jets.


    well if it's cheaper in prison to treat those people then it makes sense not to 'cure' mental health problems until those individuals commit a crime.
    Not that, that approach makes much sense to me but I'm not a politition ora care worker.



    > > No, but it seems you have.

    >
    >
    >
    > It seems that I can read what real experts say. Apart from
    >
    > that, how many transgendered people have you talked to about
    >
    > them being transgendered for hours and hours?


    For me it's just two (but know of quite a few more[1]), one of which I'll see tonight maybe the other one if he's around, although I see him more as atransexual than transgendered.




    >
    > Tell me again how the US managed to NOT get to the moon from
    >
    > 1933 to 2013 because that was such a hard challenge.


    I thought the reason they went to the moon wass to beat the russians at it.



    > > We as a nation deserve it.

    >
    >
    >
    > ... for not managing to properly care for your own working
    >
    > poor? Don't make me laugh.


    I thought they refused to recognise them as people neccessary of caring foruntil they commited murder.




    > Of course. After all, I'm *nearly* perfect.


    Nearly just isn't good enough :D



    [1] one girl, now a man is a male stripper in the USA.
     
    Whisky-dave, Apr 30, 2013
    #83
  4. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:32:19 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg



    >>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.


    > Where have you looked?


    The one who makes the claim has to provide the proof.

    If not:
    "The moon is made out of cheese. Proof? Where have
    YOU looked?"

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 2, 2013
    #84
  5. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 2 May 2013 22:55:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:32:19 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>>>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.


    >>> Where have you looked?


    >>The one who makes the claim has to provide the proof.


    > Why?


    Quoting you:
    | ... especially when the 'proof' is well known to those
    | even passingly familiar with the field.
    | See http://tinyurl.com/6n2tpuv.

    If you were capable of though and willing to apply your
    brains, it would become very quickly clear why.

    If you're still unable to come up with a reason, ask again.

    > ... especially when the 'proof' is well known to those even
    > passingly familiar with the field.


    "Everyone who disagrees has not the slightest idea"?
    Suuuure. Everyone even passingly familiar with the field of
    science knows that that's bull.

    > See http://tinyurl.com/6n2tpuv


    I see. You do not have a SINGLE source.

    I have looked, though: There's not a single one who looked if
    Jane had a male brain, there's noone who has analyzed Jane's
    brain. There's not even an agreement what a "male brain"
    would be.

    Let's assume Jane *had* a male brain. So?
    "Granddad lived to 102 and smoked 60 cigarettes every day".


    >>If not:
    >> "The moon is made out of cheese. Proof? Where have
    >> YOU looked?"


    > You haven't looked at the moon, that's for certain. But I have looked
    > at the statements of those who have been there and looked, and I have
    > read the reports of those who have analysed what was brought back.
    > It ain't cheese.


    That's not proof, and you know it. Compare the surface area
    of the moon with the surface area where they looked and from
    which probes were brought back. BTW: The moon can't have
    changed to cheese after the samples were brought back because?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 7, 2013
    #85
  6. Robert Coe

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 07/05/2013 19:27, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 2 May 2013 22:55:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>> Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:32:19 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

    >
    >>>>> 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.


    MRI and FMRI can do it. Whether or not they did I don't know.

    A more mundane series of tests that can distinguish is online at:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/index_cookie.shtml

    >
    >>>> Where have you looked?

    >
    >>> The one who makes the claim has to provide the proof.

    >
    >> Why?

    >
    > Quoting you:
    > | ... especially when the 'proof' is well known to those
    > | even passingly familiar with the field.
    > | See http://tinyurl.com/6n2tpuv.
    >
    > If you were capable of though and willing to apply your
    > brains, it would become very quickly clear why.
    >
    > If you're still unable to come up with a reason, ask again.
    >
    >> ... especially when the 'proof' is well known to those even
    >> passingly familiar with the field.

    >
    > "Everyone who disagrees has not the slightest idea"?
    > Suuuure. Everyone even passingly familiar with the field of
    > science knows that that's bull.
    >
    >> See http://tinyurl.com/6n2tpuv

    >
    > I see. You do not have a SINGLE source.
    >
    > I have looked, though: There's not a single one who looked if
    > Jane had a male brain, there's noone who has analyzed Jane's
    > brain. There's not even an agreement what a "male brain"
    > would be.
    >
    > Let's assume Jane *had* a male brain. So?
    > "Granddad lived to 102 and smoked 60 cigarettes every day".
    >
    >
    >>> If not:
    >>> "The moon is made out of cheese. Proof? Where have
    >>> YOU looked?"

    >
    >> You haven't looked at the moon, that's for certain. But I have looked
    >> at the statements of those who have been there and looked, and I have
    >> read the reports of those who have analysed what was brought back.
    >> It ain't cheese.

    >
    > That's not proof, and you know it. Compare the surface area
    > of the moon with the surface area where they looked and from
    > which probes were brought back. BTW: The moon can't have
    > changed to cheese after the samples were brought back because?


    What have you been smoking?

    Planetary geology by remote sensing has been well established for some
    time. Even amateurs can detect small variations in the minerology of the
    moon by contrast enhancing normal white light images. Spectroscopy and
    dedicated remote sensing satellites can do a whole lot more.

    http://marswatch.tn.cornell.edu/rsm.html

    Covers most solar system bodies geology.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, May 8, 2013
    #86
  7. Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    > On 07/05/2013 19:27, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 22:55:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>> Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:32:19 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

    >>
    >>>>>> 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.


    > MRI and FMRI can do it.


    They can detect specific things that are more common to one
    or the other gender in some (hopefully carefully specified)
    population group. However, as usual, the range of these traits
    is much broader in a gender than the difference between the
    average of the different genders.

    However: No such thing was stated. With unstated methodology
    one can't prove anything as it's not possible to disprove it
    --- and thus it's outside of science.

    Given that you need to define what exactly is male, what
    exactly is female and what is a gray area, if any. Such a
    definition is necessary to argue a --- and easy to disagree
    about --- and again: No such definition was offered, yet it's
    absolutely necessary to argue about 'male brains this' and
    'male brains that'.

    > Whether or not they did I don't know.


    They used a literary device. Jane doesn't even exist.

    Even if Jane existed and had a male brain and noone could
    doubt the classification or the methodology, it'd still be on
    par of "Grandfather smoked 100 cigarettes a day and lived to
    be 102 ==> smoking is not unhealthy". One swallow does not
    make a summer --- without proving that male brains in female
    bodies lead to transgender and female brains in female bodies
    do not (and vice versa for male bodies) you have nothing.


    > A more mundane series of tests that can distinguish is online at:


    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/index_cookie.shtml


    | On average, men generally outperform women at this task,
    | although it is important to note that many women score
    | extremely well.

    Well, what did I say? Averaged over all males respective females,
    there is a difference, but *many* individuals are *way* out
    of their average ...

    | Did you know that women tend to outperform men on this
    | task?

    same old same old

    | Studies have shown that men tend to do better than women at
    | this task because performance is influenced by testosterone
    | levels. Women with high testosterone levels often perform
    | well too.

    So this part of the test measures testosterone, which can be
    high in women.

    [results, meaning of score]
    | [low score] You have more of a female brain.
    | [medium score] This suggests your brain has male and female
    | traits when it comes to spatial ability.
    | [high score] You have more of a male brain.

    Well, obviously this is a tendency and there's a large gray
    area ... and:

    | Interestingly, men's testosterone levels fluctuate through
    | the seasons and studies have shown that men's scores are
    | lower in the spring, when their testosterone levels are at
    | their lowest.

    So we're in fact measuring testosterone levels ... not brain
    types.

    | [low score] You may have more of a male brain.
    | [medium score] You may have a balanced female-male brain.
    | [high score] Those with a female-type brain generally
    | score in this range.
    (a nice gray area) and
    | There is also a theory that oestrogen levels in women give
    | them an added advantage in spatial memory.
    So again we're likely testing hormone levels (in this case
    oestrogen, not testosterone).

    | Women in general are better at empathising.
    Again: in general only.

    | Men in general are better at systemising.
    Again: in general only. (As an aside: I'm good at systemizing
    --- comes with the job --- but THIS test doesn't think I am.)

    [Eyes test]
    Average score men: 6.6. Average score women: 6.6. 7-10
    points: "Women generally fall into this category." Men
    obviously fall into that category just the same.

    [masculine/feminine faces]
    | Interestingly, women's preferences are said to vary across
    | the menstrual phase. A more masculine face is preferred
    | during the 9 days prior to ovulation, when conception is most
    | likely.
    Actually, this is true; women also react differently to male
    (natural) body scents; in fact, women on the pill prefer
    different partners than when they stop taking the pill ...

    So basically here we're testing the phase of the menstrual
    cycle!

    [3d shapes]
    | [low score] Twice as many women as men score in this
    | category. Previous studies suggest that those
    | with a female-type brain or with an arts
    | background fall into this range.

    So arts background and women go hand in hand?

    | [high score] Are you an engineer or do you have a science
    | background? People with these skills tend to
    | score in this range.

    Girls are discouraged from these 'male' stuff, girls should
    learn to cook and tend to their dolls, while boys get to play
    with science and tools. And you wonder that more males have
    these skills?

    [Words]
    | Average score for men: 11.4 words total
    | Average score for women: 12.4 words total
    |
    | If you produced 1 - 5 words: You are more of the strong,
    | silent type with a male brain.[...]
    |
    | If you produced 6 - 10 words: Most people in this range have
    | a female-type brain.

    Colour me puzzled: 11.4 words (male average) is larger than 6-10
    words. Yet males are in the 1-5 word range only?
    (and even if they meant 5+5 words each: that's still only 10,
    so how do they get to 11.5?)

    >>>> If not:
    >>>> "The moon is made out of cheese. Proof? Where have
    >>>> YOU looked?"

    >>
    >>> You haven't looked at the moon, that's for certain. But I have looked
    >>> at the statements of those who have been there and looked, and I have
    >>> read the reports of those who have analysed what was brought back.
    >>> It ain't cheese.

    >>
    >> That's not proof, and you know it. Compare the surface area
    >> of the moon with the surface area where they looked and from
    >> which probes were brought back. BTW: The moon can't have
    >> changed to cheese after the samples were brought back because?


    > What have you been smoking?


    The idea that the one claiming something doesn't need to
    bring any proof. It's a pretty powerful dope for sure.
    A ... *very* ... interesting trip!


    > Planetary geology by remote sensing has been well established for some
    > time. Even amateurs can detect small variations in the minerology of the
    > moon by contrast enhancing normal white light images. Spectroscopy and
    > dedicated remote sensing satellites can do a whole lot more.


    > http://marswatch.tn.cornell.edu/rsm.html


    > Covers most solar system bodies geology.


    So? Have they comprehensively remote sensed cheese in vacuum?
    All sorts of cheese? To how many centimeters deep did they
    sense?

    Remember, playing *that* role after smoking *that* dope does
    allow me to disbelieve any and all counter arguments.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 12, 2013
    #87
  8. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 7 May 2013 20:27:57 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 22:55:39 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:32:19 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>>>>>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.


    >>>>> Where have you looked?


    >>>>The one who makes the claim has to provide the proof.


    >>> Why?


    >>Quoting you:
    >>| ... especially when the 'proof' is well known to those
    >>| even passingly familiar with the field.
    >>| See http://tinyurl.com/6n2tpuv.


    >>If you were capable of though and willing to apply your
    >>brains, it would become very quickly clear why.


    >>If you're still unable to come up with a reason, ask again.


    > It's a waste of time asking you. All you would do make another attempt
    > at being deviously clever.


    I'm not Eric Stevens, therefore your self-insight does not
    apply.


    >>> ... especially when the 'proof' is well known to those even
    >>> passingly familiar with the field.


    > This is the tail end of my remark about why it is not necessary to
    > include a proof with every remark one makes in a conversation.


    Since you don't seem to be passingly familiar with the
    scientific method, how come you would be familiar with a field
    of science?


    >>"Everyone who disagrees has not the slightest idea"?
    >>Suuuure. Everyone even passingly familiar with the field of
    >>science knows that that's bull.


    > That's got nothing to do with science


    That was the point: Your claims have nothing to do with
    science. I'm surprised you got that, but not surprised you
    can't connect the dots.

    >>> See http://tinyurl.com/6n2tpuv


    >>I see. You do not have a SINGLE source.


    > I did have (in fact I had many) but Googles changed its behaviour once
    > again.


    Liar!
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/6n2tpuv
    | This TinyURL redirects to:
    | https://www.google.co.nz/

    Google never had specific claims on their front page, nor did
    they change that behaviour.

    Even if you had added some phrases for Google to search for
    that would not constitute a proper reference to a source
    (except for Google listing these sites on such a search).


    You Do Not Have A SINGLE Source *And* You Lied About It.


    >>I have looked, though: There's not a single one who looked if
    >>Jane had a male brain, there's noone who has analyzed Jane's
    >>brain. There's not even an agreement what a "male brain"
    >>would be.


    >>Let's assume Jane *had* a male brain. So?
    >>"Granddad lived to 102 and smoked 60 cigarettes every day".


    >>>>If not:
    >>>> "The moon is made out of cheese. Proof? Where have
    >>>> YOU looked?"


    >>> You haven't looked at the moon, that's for certain. But I have looked
    >>> at the statements of those who have been there and looked, and I have
    >>> read the reports of those who have analysed what was brought back.
    >>> It ain't cheese.


    >>That's not proof, and you know it.


    > Who said it was?


    So you *intended* it to be an ad hominem?


    >>Compare the surface area
    >>of the moon with the surface area where they looked and from
    >>which probes were brought back. BTW: The moon can't have
    >>changed to cheese after the samples were brought back because?


    > For the same reason that the sun is going to rise tomorrow.


    .... as it obviously revolves round the Earth.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 12, 2013
    #88
    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:
    7,189
    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:
    151
    David Taylor
    Mar 26, 2013
  3. RichA

    Re: Tale of the Laser - redux

    RichA, Mar 26, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    170
    Rikishi42
    Mar 27, 2013
  4. Rikishi42

    Re: Tale of the Laser - redux

    Rikishi42, Mar 27, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    160
    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:
    131
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Apr 3, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page