If only it wasn't a militant of the far right...
Their motto is "We should shoot immigrants on sight".
Random Politics & Religion #00
Random Politics & Religion #00
Now that's a motto some Americans are working to actualize.
Papers please.
Papers please.
[+]
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Now that's a motto some Americans are working to actualize.
Papers please.
Papers please.
It's ironic, those who usually spout off about rights want to destroy the rights of citizens by putting up checkpoints inside the borders.
There was a video I found not too long ago that was amusing at one of those checkpoints though.
[+]
Not feels, I explained in another thread there are genetics implications. But I know this stuff is hard for you Nausi.
[+]
If your "authentic self" requires tons of plastic surgery and hormone therapy, you should seek psychological help, not affirmation.
If you thought transgender was cray cray, wait till you get a load of 'trans-able".
Same concept, same political solution i.e. lets celebrate and affirm their illness.
Same concept, same political solution i.e. lets celebrate and affirm their illness.
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
If you thought transgender was cray cray, wait till you get a load of 'trans-able".
Yet what you decry as "cray cray" is, in the very article you posted, postulated to be not attributed to a psychological impairment, but rather a neurological one.
150 years ago you know what was cray cray? Flying.
I bet those people dreaming to fly were crackpots who belonged in a padded room! If God wanted us to fly he'd have given us wings, an aluminum frame, jet fuel and a runway!
I bet those people dreaming to fly were crackpots who belonged in a padded room! If God wanted us to fly he'd have given us wings, an aluminum frame, jet fuel and a runway!
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
150 years ago you know what was cray cray? Flying.
I bet those people dreaming to fly were crackpots who belonged in a padded room! If God wanted us to fly he'd have given us wings, an aluminum frame, jet fuel and a runway!
I bet those people dreaming to fly were crackpots who belonged in a padded room! If God wanted us to fly he'd have given us wings, an aluminum frame, jet fuel and a runway!
I see what you're going for here in showing that there are things that were considered crazy before but are not anymore. However, there's no guarantee that anything that we now consider normal won't be crazy again in another 150 years. Hindsight is way easier than foresight.
It doesn't really matter if something becomes crazy in the future if but for a brief moment people were able to recognize it as not really being that big a deal. Flying was once considered impossible, crazy and crackpot - we now use it everyday. Perhaps in the future we'll lose the ability to fly or people will choose teleportation over it, relegating flight to insane crazy people.
The reason the trans community gets as much ***as they do is because their existence challenges the binary sexual framework. Homosexuality rattles its cage but the idea of people changing gender really scares people because it questions what it means to be 'male' or 'female' and goes alot further than genitalia.
The reason the trans community gets as much ***as they do is because their existence challenges the binary sexual framework. Homosexuality rattles its cage but the idea of people changing gender really scares people because it questions what it means to be 'male' or 'female' and goes alot further than genitalia.
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
It doesn't really matter if something becomes crazy in the future if but for a brief moment people were able to recognize it as not really being that big a deal.
I assume you're talking about things that you view as socially acceptable, as opposed to societies where, say, murder is recognized as "not really being that big a deal".
Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
If your "authentic self" requires tons of plastic surgery and hormone therapy, you should seek psychological help, not affirmation.
Looks like a good business plan for conversion therapy! Capitalism Ho!
Granted, i am for a psych evaluation to make absolutely sure, but after that it shouldnt be anyones business of whether or not someone else is insane or not for that particular assessment, because its not you and it doesnt affect you.
Freedom Act, sounds legit.
U.S. Congress reverses post September 11 surveillance program
Quote:
The U.S. Senate on Tuesday passed legislation reforming a government surveillance program that swept up millions of Americans' telephone records, sending the bill to the White House for President Barack Obama to sign into law.
Reversing security policy in place since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the bill would end a system exposed by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. The spy agency collected and searched records of phone calls looking for terrorism leads but was not allowed to listen to their content.
Passage of the USA Freedom Act, the result of an alliance between Senate Democrats and some of the chamber's most conservative Republicans, was a victory for Obama, a Democrat, and a setback for Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Obama used his Twitter account, @POTUS, after the vote to say he was glad it had passed. "I'll sign it as soon as I get it," the tweet said.
Before voting 67-32 to pass the bill, senators defeated three amendments proposed by Republican leaders after they reversed themselves and ended efforts to block it. The House of Representatives had passed the measure overwhelmingly last month.
In the end, 23 Senate Republicans voted for the Freedom Act, joining 196 who backed it in the House. In a rift between Republicans, who control both chambers, House leaders had warned that amendments proposed by McConnell would be a "challenge" for the House that could delay the bill.
A federal appeals court on May 7 ruled the collection of "metadata" illegal.
The new law would require companies such as Verizon Communications Inc and AT&T Inc, to collect and store telephone records the same way that they do now for billing purposes.
But instead of routinely feeding U.S. intelligence agencies such data, the companies would be required to turn it over only in response to a government request approved by the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The Freedom Act is the first major legislative reform of U.S. surveillance since Snowden's revelations two years ago this month led to debate over how to balance Americans' distrust of intrusive government with fears of terrorist attacks.
Along with the phone records program, two other domestic surveillance programs authorized under the 2001 USA Patriot Act have been shut down since Sunday.
MISSED DEADLINE
After Republican Senator Rand Paul, a 2016 presidential candidate, blocked McConnell's efforts to keep them going temporarily, the Senate missed a deadline to extend legal authorities for certain data collection by the NSA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
McConnell made an unusually strong last-ditch argument against the Freedom Act after his amendments failed. "It surely undermines American security by taking one more tool from our warfighters, in my view, at exactly the wrong time," he said in a Senate speech.
Telephone companies had been less than thrilled about potentially overhauling their record-keeping systems to become the repositories of surveillance records.
Together with civil liberties groups, they opposed specific requirements for how long they must retain any data, which were proposed in some amendments that were later defeated. A Verizon official, for instance, spoke in support of the Freedom Act, without such a mandate, in a Senate hearing last year.
After the vote, Microsoft Corp. General Counsel Brad Smith praised Congress. "Today's vote by the Senate on the USA Freedom Act will help to restore the balance between protecting public safety and preserving civil liberties," Smith said in a statement.
Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, a leading Senate privacy advocate, voted for the Freedom Act. He pledged that he and his allies would continue pushing for more limits on surveillance.
"This has always been about reforming intelligence policies that do not make America safer and threaten our liberties," Wyden told reporters.
The American Civil Liberties Union said the Freedom Act was a milestone, but did not go far enough. "The passage of the bill is an indication that comprehensive reform is possible, but it is not comprehensive reform in itself," ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement.
A senior U.S. intelligence official said the bulk telephone data collection system has been shut down since shortly before 8 p.m. EDT (midnight GMT) on Sunday.
It was not immediately clear how soon the NSA program would be restarted. The Freedom Act allows it to continue for six months while the new system is established.
The White House said the administration would move quickly to get it up and running again.
After Obama signs the bill, the executive branch would have to apply to the surveillance court for reauthorization.
Reversing security policy in place since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the bill would end a system exposed by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. The spy agency collected and searched records of phone calls looking for terrorism leads but was not allowed to listen to their content.
Passage of the USA Freedom Act, the result of an alliance between Senate Democrats and some of the chamber's most conservative Republicans, was a victory for Obama, a Democrat, and a setback for Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Obama used his Twitter account, @POTUS, after the vote to say he was glad it had passed. "I'll sign it as soon as I get it," the tweet said.
Before voting 67-32 to pass the bill, senators defeated three amendments proposed by Republican leaders after they reversed themselves and ended efforts to block it. The House of Representatives had passed the measure overwhelmingly last month.
In the end, 23 Senate Republicans voted for the Freedom Act, joining 196 who backed it in the House. In a rift between Republicans, who control both chambers, House leaders had warned that amendments proposed by McConnell would be a "challenge" for the House that could delay the bill.
A federal appeals court on May 7 ruled the collection of "metadata" illegal.
The new law would require companies such as Verizon Communications Inc and AT&T Inc, to collect and store telephone records the same way that they do now for billing purposes.
But instead of routinely feeding U.S. intelligence agencies such data, the companies would be required to turn it over only in response to a government request approved by the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The Freedom Act is the first major legislative reform of U.S. surveillance since Snowden's revelations two years ago this month led to debate over how to balance Americans' distrust of intrusive government with fears of terrorist attacks.
Along with the phone records program, two other domestic surveillance programs authorized under the 2001 USA Patriot Act have been shut down since Sunday.
MISSED DEADLINE
After Republican Senator Rand Paul, a 2016 presidential candidate, blocked McConnell's efforts to keep them going temporarily, the Senate missed a deadline to extend legal authorities for certain data collection by the NSA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
McConnell made an unusually strong last-ditch argument against the Freedom Act after his amendments failed. "It surely undermines American security by taking one more tool from our warfighters, in my view, at exactly the wrong time," he said in a Senate speech.
Telephone companies had been less than thrilled about potentially overhauling their record-keeping systems to become the repositories of surveillance records.
Together with civil liberties groups, they opposed specific requirements for how long they must retain any data, which were proposed in some amendments that were later defeated. A Verizon official, for instance, spoke in support of the Freedom Act, without such a mandate, in a Senate hearing last year.
After the vote, Microsoft Corp. General Counsel Brad Smith praised Congress. "Today's vote by the Senate on the USA Freedom Act will help to restore the balance between protecting public safety and preserving civil liberties," Smith said in a statement.
Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, a leading Senate privacy advocate, voted for the Freedom Act. He pledged that he and his allies would continue pushing for more limits on surveillance.
"This has always been about reforming intelligence policies that do not make America safer and threaten our liberties," Wyden told reporters.
The American Civil Liberties Union said the Freedom Act was a milestone, but did not go far enough. "The passage of the bill is an indication that comprehensive reform is possible, but it is not comprehensive reform in itself," ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement.
A senior U.S. intelligence official said the bulk telephone data collection system has been shut down since shortly before 8 p.m. EDT (midnight GMT) on Sunday.
It was not immediately clear how soon the NSA program would be restarted. The Freedom Act allows it to continue for six months while the new system is established.
The White House said the administration would move quickly to get it up and running again.
After Obama signs the bill, the executive branch would have to apply to the surveillance court for reauthorization.
Quote:
While Hillary Clinton remains the clear front-runner in the race for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, a growing number of American voters view her unfavorably and distrust her, new polls released Tuesday show.
According to a CNN/ORC poll, 50 percent view Clinton unfavorably — up from 44 percent in March (before she announced her presidential bid) and the highest level since 2001, when it was 53 percent. The only other time a majority of Americans viewed Clinton unfavorably was in 1996, when she was first lady.
The survey found 46 percent view Clinton favorably, down from 53 percent in March and 61 percent in May 2013.
Meanwhile, 57 percent of Americans say she is not honest and trustworthy (up from 49 percent in March), 47 percent feel she cares about people like them (down from 53 percent in July 2014) and 50 percent feel she does not inspire confidence (up from 42 percent in March 2014).
According to a CNN/ORC poll, 50 percent view Clinton unfavorably — up from 44 percent in March (before she announced her presidential bid) and the highest level since 2001, when it was 53 percent. The only other time a majority of Americans viewed Clinton unfavorably was in 1996, when she was first lady.
The survey found 46 percent view Clinton favorably, down from 53 percent in March and 61 percent in May 2013.
Meanwhile, 57 percent of Americans say she is not honest and trustworthy (up from 49 percent in March), 47 percent feel she cares about people like them (down from 53 percent in July 2014) and 50 percent feel she does not inspire confidence (up from 42 percent in March 2014).
[+]
It is a mental illness and a severe one at that. You have zero science to point to that says otherwise. Show me the transgender gene. All sexuality is mental. There is no straight gene, there is no gay gene. There is no transgender gene. All of our sexuality is a result of our experience and how we interpret and internalize it. But when you get to the point where you believe you are a woman and you clearly are not, and all physical evidence, biological, scientific, all shows you definitively that you are not a woman. Yet you still believe that you are a woman, yes I am sorry that you are to PC to admit it, but that is a mental illness. When you believe you are something that you are not, it is a delusion.
[+]
Valefor.Sehachan said: »
In other news...
we had regional elections here the other day and a town elected as mayor a guy who is only 20 years old.
Discuss.
we had regional elections here the other day and a town elected as mayor a guy who is only 20 years old.
Discuss.
As for content goes he does not seem any different to the usual right wings. Safety as top topic while claiming his party to be the language of youth and truth using his age as selling point.
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »
It is a mental illness and a severe one at that. You have zero science to point to that says otherwise. Show me the transgender gene. All sexuality is mental. There is no straight gene, there is no gay gene. There is no transgender gene. All of our sexuality is a result of our experience and how we interpret and internalize it. But when you get to the point where you believe you are a woman and you clearly are not, and all physical evidence, biological, scientific, all shows you definitively that you are not a woman. Yet you still believe that you are a woman, yes I am sorry that you are to PC to admit it, but that is a mental illness. When you believe you are something that you are not, it is a delusion.
Fact is you have no idea what you're talking about. Whilst true that experience and environment have a great influence, they are not enough on their own, everything stems from the genetic material: you can't make happen something that isn't there to begin with.
You seem to have no idea that men possess oestrogens and women testosterone, and each person has varying levels of them(even throughout their own lifespan - menopause says hello). Or that an individual with XY can actually be female because gender characteristics are developed through a rather complex sequence of signals.
So you see, gender is not only male and female, but it's a spectrum and that is why people who look male might not identify with it(and viceversa). The fact that someone somewhere suffers from delusions does not change that, plenty of cisgender people do too. So don't pull a Hempel's raven.
And don't even try to bring up the DSM cause only one DSM ago homosexuality was still listed as illness. Also a psychiatrist recently told me it's mostly still listed as such for legal reasons only.
let's keep it nice and simple, according to tumblr-fuzzy-trigger-feminist logic:
-Behaviors, preferences, and style cannot dictate your gender(girls can like boy things, do boy things, wear boy things, and vice versa)
-Your genitalia cannot dictate your gender
-Your physical appearance cannot dictate your gender
That doesn't leave much. If someone enjoys typically male things, has a male appearance from birth, has male genitalia, and 'feels like a girl'.. how can you interpret 'feels like a girl' to be anything deeper than 'wants to be a girl'..?
Whether it's acceptable or not is a different debate entirely, there are plenty of bizarre and irrational behaviors that don't harm others and are thus fully accepted within our society. Calling it anything except a mental disorder is catering to a fringe group who don't want to accept their own behavior as under their control.
-Behaviors, preferences, and style cannot dictate your gender(girls can like boy things, do boy things, wear boy things, and vice versa)
-Your genitalia cannot dictate your gender
-Your physical appearance cannot dictate your gender
That doesn't leave much. If someone enjoys typically male things, has a male appearance from birth, has male genitalia, and 'feels like a girl'.. how can you interpret 'feels like a girl' to be anything deeper than 'wants to be a girl'..?
Whether it's acceptable or not is a different debate entirely, there are plenty of bizarre and irrational behaviors that don't harm others and are thus fully accepted within our society. Calling it anything except a mental disorder is catering to a fringe group who don't want to accept their own behavior as under their control.
[+]
I'm telling you that it's not a mental illness. The only people triggered here and bringing up their feelings are those refusing what I said.
It's okay, I was wrong too once, then I learned more about it.
It's okay, I was wrong too once, then I learned more about it.
You've got no logic to back you up, doll. You can't just say 'I'm right and you're wrong' and expect it to be taken seriously by anyone older than 10.
There's strong sociopolitical backing for calling it normal. There's not strong evidence. Every 'study' I've seen cited on behalf of that idea has been produced by a group aiming to find backing for it, and lacks significant sample size/methodology.
Professionals who believe it to be a mental illness are quickly blasted by the LGBT community, as they see it as an affront to their existance. They lose their credibility, Of course a transexual would want to believe it's part of their person, it removes any liability for their behavior and allows them to claim the high road when in any questionable situation.
Thus, it's become a situation where scientific criteria will categorize it in one way, but feelings force it to be treated differently. Anyone providing evidence for it, no matter how shaky, is commended. Anyone attempting to decry it is shamed into compliance. This is what feminist culture created, but fortunately having crowd support doesn't inherently create correctness.
There's strong sociopolitical backing for calling it normal. There's not strong evidence. Every 'study' I've seen cited on behalf of that idea has been produced by a group aiming to find backing for it, and lacks significant sample size/methodology.
Professionals who believe it to be a mental illness are quickly blasted by the LGBT community, as they see it as an affront to their existance. They lose their credibility, Of course a transexual would want to believe it's part of their person, it removes any liability for their behavior and allows them to claim the high road when in any questionable situation.
Thus, it's become a situation where scientific criteria will categorize it in one way, but feelings force it to be treated differently. Anyone providing evidence for it, no matter how shaky, is commended. Anyone attempting to decry it is shamed into compliance. This is what feminist culture created, but fortunately having crowd support doesn't inherently create correctness.
[+]
Fact is I'm the one using science as basis for discussion, you're using "if conflicts with my ideals".
Again, the one with triggered feelings is you, not I.
Or they could actually be wrong. You see a mistake in the reasoning "if lgbt disagree with it then it must be because they feel challenged"?
Again, the one with triggered feelings is you, not I.
Leviathan.Comeatmebro said: »
Professionals who believe it to be a mental illness are quickly blasted by the LGBT community, as they see it as an affront to their existance. They lose their credibility
Abnormal psychology has two theories, somatogenic (biological disorder or illness) or psychogenic (psychological problems).
Which is it? I'd go with psychogenic, unless there can be a biological issue or brain damage found.
Which is it? I'd go with psychogenic, unless there can be a biological issue or brain damage found.
[+]
Biological components basically come down to Carl Sagan's dragon in the shed analogy. You can't disprove their existance, you can only rule them out as they come up. However, the strong backing of this argument will result in people looking for any possible difference in their dataset they can market as a cause. The problem with this is you're taking your intended result and aiming for a methodology to support it instead of making a methodology and following it to gain results. Studies that don't support the theory are inherently treated as looking at the wrong component, while those that do support the theory are touted as fact.
Of course any dataset will have some correlation between binary groups. For it to be a reliable study, it needs to be a correlation that carries through all tested datasets. As is, that has not been proven to be the case for any of these theories. The tests are done once, with a sample size of 150 or less members. A repeat test by a different group shows different results, or no repeat test is ever conducted and they claim it to be fact. The flaws in this methodology should be obvious to anyone who went through even middle school science, much less any real program.
To prove it isn't biological, every aspect must be examined over an extremely large sample size. This isn't remotely possible, and if the resources were allocated for something like this it would be for a far more pressing issue.
This leaves poor options, with essentially no funding. There aren't people willing to dump piles of money for proof that it's not biological, both due to the political implications and the relative impossibility to do so.
The closest anyone can get to disproving it using our current understanding and a scope that can be executed under that funding is to examine twins. Given they have identical genomes, we would expect that the majority of transexuals within identical twins would also be transexual.
With a sample size of only 17 sets of twins containing at least 1 transexual, only 7 of their siblings were also transexual. I am NOT saying this is proof of anything. There are obvious flaws:
-Twin siblings will share many qualities of their upbringing, given they are in the same household and presumably treated similarly.
-Sample size is much too small to be conclusive, a few closeted transexuals in the mix could cause a significant shift to the conclusion.
-Biology extends beyond genetics.
However, it's all that's available as far as the biology/environment debate.
The disorder/behavior trait debate is much simpler. It fits all criteria that the APA uses to classify something as a mental disorder. Thus, unless we're to redefine mental disorder on their behalf, it remains a mental disorder in every sense except political.
I see that a large group with an unsubstantiated belief is very active about that belief. It doesn't prove anyone is right or wrong, but if they weren't biased in their belief they wouldn't be so active about it. You can be biased and correct, but being biased doesn't MAKE you correct.
Of course any dataset will have some correlation between binary groups. For it to be a reliable study, it needs to be a correlation that carries through all tested datasets. As is, that has not been proven to be the case for any of these theories. The tests are done once, with a sample size of 150 or less members. A repeat test by a different group shows different results, or no repeat test is ever conducted and they claim it to be fact. The flaws in this methodology should be obvious to anyone who went through even middle school science, much less any real program.
To prove it isn't biological, every aspect must be examined over an extremely large sample size. This isn't remotely possible, and if the resources were allocated for something like this it would be for a far more pressing issue.
This leaves poor options, with essentially no funding. There aren't people willing to dump piles of money for proof that it's not biological, both due to the political implications and the relative impossibility to do so.
The closest anyone can get to disproving it using our current understanding and a scope that can be executed under that funding is to examine twins. Given they have identical genomes, we would expect that the majority of transexuals within identical twins would also be transexual.
With a sample size of only 17 sets of twins containing at least 1 transexual, only 7 of their siblings were also transexual. I am NOT saying this is proof of anything. There are obvious flaws:
-Twin siblings will share many qualities of their upbringing, given they are in the same household and presumably treated similarly.
-Sample size is much too small to be conclusive, a few closeted transexuals in the mix could cause a significant shift to the conclusion.
-Biology extends beyond genetics.
However, it's all that's available as far as the biology/environment debate.
The disorder/behavior trait debate is much simpler. It fits all criteria that the APA uses to classify something as a mental disorder. Thus, unless we're to redefine mental disorder on their behalf, it remains a mental disorder in every sense except political.
Quote:
Or they could actually be wrong. You see a mistake in the reasoning "if lgbt disagree with it then it must be because they feel challenged"?
[+]
You're making this a tautological problem. If you say I see any information as reinforcement to my stance, I can say the same about you and see everything as a proof to your own argument. Then what do we do from this point?
Population genetics are hard to test on humans in general cause we don't reproduce fast enough. Let alone have a large sample of people with gender dysphoria which are even less, and even less likely to reproduce...
But the fact that samples are poor does not mean we have to completely disregard them. We have to work with what we have and at least take it into consideration.
Also I already said genes alone don't do anything because environment and a big dose of randomness play into it.
Either way I don't have any agenda about this. I don't care if it stays labeled as disorder, it's no big deal.
Population genetics are hard to test on humans in general cause we don't reproduce fast enough. Let alone have a large sample of people with gender dysphoria which are even less, and even less likely to reproduce...
But the fact that samples are poor does not mean we have to completely disregard them. We have to work with what we have and at least take it into consideration.
Also I already said genes alone don't do anything because environment and a big dose of randomness play into it.
Either way I don't have any agenda about this. I don't care if it stays labeled as disorder, it's no big deal.
Please review my posts and cite where I claimed to have proof or even claimed an argument. I've stated, repeatedly, that there's no evidence in favor of a biological cause that would stand up to scrutiny. I explained why arguing against a biological cause is futile. In case you didn't follow, I'm advocating that it's ambiguous at present.
The day a study shows an adequate correlation is the day I have to re-evaluate my stance. At present, neither side has shown any compelling evidence, leaving the debate largely about perception. I see millions and millions of funding turning up nothing as an indication there likely isn't anything. I also accept that disproving it is near impossible. I just completely disagree with the politically correct crowd trying to turn junk science into absolute fact.
The day a study shows an adequate correlation is the day I have to re-evaluate my stance. At present, neither side has shown any compelling evidence, leaving the debate largely about perception. I see millions and millions of funding turning up nothing as an indication there likely isn't anything. I also accept that disproving it is near impossible. I just completely disagree with the politically correct crowd trying to turn junk science into absolute fact.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.