Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Roundy

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 88  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: April 24, 2022, 03:07:27 PM »

I've read so many articles trying to justify Lia Thomas's involvement in women's swimming that have made arguments like this. Another one mischaracterized the argument against it by erroneously pointing out that the entire controversy is simply over the fact that she's, like, just really, really good.


I'm sorry. They can have their pronouns, I have no problem with that. They can also use whatever bathroom they want as far as I'm concerned. I have no problem with trans people. I'm a member of the LGBTQ+ community myself and want nothing more than for everyone to be accepted and to feel comfortable with who they are. It almost makes me feel guilty for actually having my own opinion on this issue.

This isn't as black and white as all that.

Lia Thomas doesn't have the same biological advantage that Michael Phelps did. When she swam as a man, she was mediocre. When she swam as a woman, she was number 1. The issue is not that she's "too good". The issue is that we know where she landed competitively as a man, and she SUCKED. So you really can't convince me that the biological differences aren't as great as I'm making them out to be. In Lia Thomas we have solid empirical evidence that a trans athlete ranks much, much higher as a woman than as a man. In her case, the difference is transparently obvious. And I think that, more than anything else, is why she's been such a poster child for those who are against it.

If the biological differences were really so miniscule, all team sports would be coed. Where are all the trans football players, anyway? How many female to male trans people are competing on men's teams?

Sorry, these arguments don't fly.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Questions about Zeteticism
« on: April 22, 2022, 09:41:48 PM »
This is incorrect. In the US there is a presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty. That is not the same thing. Assuming anything heading into a trial is a thing to be avoided

Assume and presume are synonyms.  They mean the same thing.

verb (used with object), pre·sumed, pre·sum·ing.
to take for granted, assume, or suppose:
I presume you're tired after your drive.
Law. to assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary.
to undertake with unwarrantable boldness.
to undertake (to do something) without right or permission:
to presume to speak for another.

No, they don't. They are similar. But assumption implies that one is sure of something without sufficient reason. Presumption does not carry that connotation.

If innocence was assumed there would be no trial.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Questions about Zeteticism
« on: April 22, 2022, 06:45:02 PM »
But there is an assumption of innocence, and it is up to the prosecution to disprove that assumption.  At least that is how it works in the US.

This is incorrect. In the US there is a presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty. That is not the same thing. Assuming anything heading into a trial is a thing to be avoided.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Hey, Congrats Sean
« on: April 22, 2022, 04:12:47 PM »

Hey, congrats Sean. You've managed to become the longest running cable news host in history, despite both you and your network clarifying several times over the course of your career that what you do isn't truly classifiable as "news" (I would call it propaganda, of course, but I think you and your cronies found a more respectable sounding way to put it). A staggering achievement, and yet another sign that the end times are near. It's time to repent if you believe that will help you folks.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: April 22, 2022, 03:49:50 AM »
Maybe they'll get Grant Gustin to play him. There seems to be some demand for it.


My takeaway: if you have an encounter with the police, and they are playing loud music, they are planning to deal with you inappropriately. This is disgusting and I sincerely hope it's outlawed across the board.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
« on: April 07, 2022, 12:32:28 AM »
Well one good thing about this law. It's like how Obama reminded us that there are still vicious racists out there. A lot of people seem to like to pretend to be friendly to those of the LGBTQ+ persuasion, it's kinda in vogue.

Anyone defending this law is doing it from a place of bigotry. They think they can make it sound righteous (Think of the poor children!). But you don't make an effort to defend this law in any way unless you're a bigot. There's no reason to; unless you are a bigot who is afraid the gay will rub off, you have no reason to think it necessary.

So it's rooted some of those fakes out. Shown their true colors.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
« on: March 24, 2022, 10:24:27 PM »
The biggest hypocrites in the world are the libertarians, lol. Keep your government out of my business, unless it's something I think you should govern. lol I can't even

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: March 24, 2022, 07:23:03 PM »
I think it's ridiculous to think of it as Oscar-worthy, but No Way Home was still pretty good, almost everyone who has seen it responded.

Saddam saw a meme about how Batman has better visuals than NWH so that is probably the basis for this most recent hot take.

I was wondering where it came from. Saddam just repeats what the critics are saying so often this review legit came out of left field.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: March 24, 2022, 05:15:22 PM »
I think it's ridiculous to think of it as Oscar-worthy, but No Way Home was still pretty good, almost everyone who has seen it responded.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: March 17, 2022, 08:15:57 PM »
You know, there is a link in the article to the poll itself. You can actually read it instead of guessing at what nefariously biased questions it asks.  ::)

Interesting how you're assuming that I'm assuming. I did read the poll, and even if it were a perfectly sensible, objective poll, there still would be no reason for the authors to describe its findings using right-wing snarl terms like "identity politics" or casually present the misinformation their respondents expressed belief in as fact. But of course the poll is neither sensible nor objective. To look at just a couple of questions here:

Please indicate if you agree or disagree with the following statement.

Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress are out of touch with hardworking Americans. They have been so focused on catering to the far-left wing of the party that they’re ignoring Americans’ day to day concerns, such as addressing the rising prices for goods and gasoline and combatting violent crime.

This question is ludicrously loaded. Good, reputable polls don't just blatantly spell out a narrative using this kind of partisan language and somehow maintain their neutrality by simply including the option to disagree. The question also takes it for granted that "catering to the far-left wing of the party" is a negative - the respondent is only asked if it's what they think Biden is doing, not if they think that Biden doing it is good or bad.

Do you think President Biden and the Democratic Party should move more to the left and embrace more liberal policies, move more to the center and embrace more moderate policies, or do you think President Biden and the Democratic Party should stay where it is right now?

This question, meanwhile, indicates their expected answer to the previous question, because here they are taking it for granted that Biden and the Democrats are already on the left, a claim that, regardless of anyone's opinions of the merits of being on the left, is objectively just untrue. Biden is not a leftist, he is a centrist, and there's no indication that more left-leaning Democrats has any real influence over his agenda or the party's as a whole. The notion that the Democratic Party as a whole is trending far to the left is yet another right-wing lie that conservatives are repeating as much as possible to gaslight the rest of the country into thinking that Democrats should in the interests of fairness move further to the right. And no matter how many concessions Democrats make or compromises they offer, Republicans continue to drift further and further into extremism while their stooges in the media keep up the chorus of how Democrats are so unfairly devoted to the left. This poll/article is just another example of that. Don't fall for it.

I feel like if your point was really valid you wouldn't have had to make up an obviously far more biased and ridiculous question to try to make it. Obviously there are no questions like the one you used as an "example" in the post of yours I initially quoted. I didn't assume anything; you clearly didn't read the poll; because if you had, and the examples you cite above that actually do appear in the poll really served as examples of your point, you wouldn't have felt it necessary to make one up.

I also don't recall the phrase "identity politics" actually showing up in the poll. I used it, to illustrate my point, independent of what the poll actually said. If you think the party whose current leader once opined on a popular nationally syndicated radio show "If you're not voting for me, you ain't black!" doesn't engage in identity politics, you're delusional.

But anyway, I was glad to see that you at least attempted to rationalize your ridiculous post, even if you did fail spectacularly at doing so.

You should probably stick to analyzing the capeshit movies rather than politics. You're obviously much more comfortable dealing with fiction than reality.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: March 16, 2022, 08:20:22 PM »

tldr: It will take a miracle for the Democrats to hold onto a majority in the midterms.

This article reads to me more like right-wing concern trolling designed to set a narrative than any serious effort to actually gather information. I mean, yes, Democrats are almost certainly going to lose their majority in the midterms, but it won't be because Democrats as a whole are too leftist (a claim that is objectively just ridiculous, and very suspect for a supposedly neutral pollster to take for granted), nor will it be because Democrats are too focused on "identity politics" (a snarl term used almost exclusively these days by conservatives, to uncritically use a term like that is also very suspect for a supposedly neutral pollster). It'll be because Republicans have used their own strong messaging and gamed a spineless media into accommodating them for fear of being accused of bias to create a playing field that overwhelmingly favors them. The pattern works like this: Right-wing media decide on a falsehood to sell to the public. It could be the idea that there's a war on Christmas, that Dr. Seuss has somehow been banned by liberals, that schools are teaching white kids to hate themselves, that LGBT teachers are somehow indoctrinating kids into the LGBT lifestyle, or any other of the numerous cultural boogeymen they've dreamed up over the years. Right-wing politicians pick up on the lie and begin repeating it themselves. The back-and-forth amplifies the controversy until the mainstream media takes notice, and because they know that they'll be attacked for "bias" if they accurately report that, no, of course schools aren't teaching white kids to hate themselves, they report it like "Some people say that schools are teaching white kids to hate themselves. Some people say they aren't. Who can say what's true? Both sides have a point, really." Then stupid polls like this one ask people "Do you agree or disagree with teaching white kids to hate themselves?" and when they get the obvious answer, they write stupid articles saying, "The public largely reject teaching white kids to hate themselves! This is bad news for Democrats!"

You know, there is a link in the article to the poll itself. You can actually read it instead of guessing at what nefariously biased questions it asks.  ::)

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: March 15, 2022, 05:55:57 AM »
Okay, spoilers.

I enjoyed the Riddler confronting Batman about being Bruce Wayne because it's a fun nod to the Hush storyline in the comics. I saw it coming and it gave me chills when it happened.

Overall I really enjoyed it. I loved that it played up the detective aspect of his character and that it kept true to the no-kill aspect of his character. How hard was that?

I wasn't a fan of emo Bruce Wayne. I guess I always thought it was an integral part of his character that he put on the playboy facade as a way to differentiate Batman from Bruce Wayne, something Christian Bale and even Ben Affleck put across well. There are like one and a half emotions from Robert Pattinson in this movie.

Okay, he wasn't bad. He served.

Dano was chilling, that monologue was amazing. But better than Heath Ledger's Joker? Come on.

I agree that the Riddler flooding Gotham story came out of nowhere and made little to no sense in context. The only thing, I guess, is that Riddler always has been a bit of a psychopath, and he probably felt a lot of power from all those followers ready terrorize the city at his behest, so maybe? It was a fun set piece, anyway.

Is it just me or has the "I am because of you, hero" trope, and the general anxiety that the hero is actually making things worse, been a bit overused? It was effective here, don't get me wrong, it just felt old.

I also think they nailed Batman's relationships with both Gordon and Alfred, as well as the general atmosphere of Gotham City. And I don't know why anyone would dislike Catwoman's part in this? That was something else that was done well. For the most part they really nailed the relationships between the main characters.

I also liked Turtorro as Carmine Falcone. They're setting up a nice little side plot about Gotham's underworld. I'm sure the Penguin series will continue that. We'll see how that is. I thought Penguin was kind of the weakest of the main characters in this.

Overall, considering it stars a former sparkly vampire, it was surprisingly really good, probably truer to the comics overall than Batman Begins.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies
« on: March 13, 2022, 09:23:48 PM »
Hey, thanks for, the first time ever, providing a reference.
Wrong, as usual.
However, I just read it. There's literally nothing in there even remotely relevant to this topic. It's about pedantic/rigid academic teaching styles/curriculums versus more montesori/experimental/play-based teaching styles/curriculums. Nothing whatsoever to do with age developmental and appropriateness in terms of the subject matter in question. Dig a little deeper and find something that's actually germain to the conversation.
Wrong, again, and indicating the major problem with your whole take on the matter. You cannot understand written communication and you should work on that.

"Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) is a strongly supported early childhood education framework grounded in the scientific literature on child development and effective educational practices, and incorporates both theory and research (NAEYC, 2009). DAP recognizes the interrelated contexts of early learning skill domains and emphasizes the variability both in early learning opportunities (prior to school) and developmental maturation rates up until age 8. The DAP framework calls for school environments which are able to adjust to this variability between children and provides an educational foundation through active learning experiences tailored to the rapidly changing abilities and needs of young children (NAEYC, 2009)."

The entire article is directed on a focus of building a strong fundamental base of age-appropriate socialization and learning activities. Last I checked, teachers talking about the way they like to swing is not age-appropriate until sex education classes begin.

But is it okay for the teacher to point out that there's nothing wrong with the fact that Little Suzy has two daddies? Or will the new bill discourage even that kind of discussion? That's what I think some people are afraid of with this. Other than that, I seriously doubt frank and detailed discourse about non-cisgender sexual practices was ever something anyone ever had to worry about in early grade school. It's just another case of Republicans raising the spectre of fear among their followers about a supposed problem that never really existed, like (shudder) critical race theory being taught in classrooms.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: March 13, 2022, 05:03:43 PM »
Neither party is a real party and they all spend heavy.

They are a party of ONE and they both spend money on things resulting in little to no long-term economic benefit for the populace in general.

I hate myself for saying it but I actually mostly agree with this. Politics in this country just sucks in general.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: March 13, 2022, 05:01:39 PM »

Here's a case in point.

Rising gas prices? This is just proof that we need to go out and buy those electric cars like everybody can totes afford to do at the drop of a dime. That'll show Putin whose fault this totally and entirely is!

It's insulting tbh.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: March 13, 2022, 03:27:10 PM »

tldr: It will take a miracle for the Democrats to hold onto a majority in the midterms.

I think they seriously have to focus on the economy if they're to have a shot. Whether explicitly Biden's and the Democrats' fault or an unavoidable consequence of world affairs right now the economy is tanking harder than it has in recent memory, in a way that people are really feeling, and nobody in the party seems to be offering any solutions.

Given that economic issues are often blamed on the Democrats because of their spend-heavy policies this is a Problem with a capital P that they are not going to be able to overcome by trying to shift focus to identity politics or environmental issues or even Russia. They need to address this and they need to find some kind of a solution. It's hard to imagine anyone not seeing the economy as the number one issue heading into the midterms.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Religion for flat earthers
« on: March 12, 2022, 07:51:56 AM »
The flat earth movement has always demonstrated a strong Deist movement. The reasons as to why are in many other threads already on this site but theories such as the clockwork universe are a good starting point for your understanding.

We've polled this many many times over the years and flat earthers are overwhelmingly Deists above any other denomination on our forum. Round earthers that visit this site are overwhelmingly atheist. God will roast them over an open fire eventually though, so they have it coming to them.  >:(

Hiya Doc,
I really don’t want to come across as confrontational but I felt compelled to respond to your augment, in the interests of transparency I am a practising Christian and round earth proponent, here to research the FE movement with a view to writing an article with an open mind. I honestly believe that my god is a good of freedom and love who doesn’t care whom you love (within legal limits) and who forgives much easier than they punish.

If you don’t mind my asking, why would a kind, benevolent and most of all forgiving god damn a person for something as easy to believe as globe earth?

Why would a round earth be fundamentally blasphemous? I don’t seem to recall a passage that refers to the earth as being flat.


Because they tend to be atheists. You're probably good though.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: March 10, 2022, 06:13:54 PM »
The Democratic establishment thought Biden was their only shot at beating Trump, so they engineered it so that he got the nomination, knowing full well (I believe) that he wasn't all there. It's really a shame that this is what politics is in this country, but there you go.

God forbid a fully lucid candidate like Bernie get a shot. No, they had to smear him because he was doing too well, in favor of a candidate that should never have really been seriously considered.

I'm glad Trump is out. I'd rather have someone incompetent in office than someone who's both incompetent and has no respect for decorum, democracy, or the rule of law. But my God does Biden suck.

Whether you're on the left or the right politics is just a shit show in America right now.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: March 09, 2022, 05:15:37 PM »

I love the irony, Tom! You've been brainwashed to love Russia, so when Russia invades a sovereign country any backlash from Americans must mean that we've been brainwashed to love Ukraine! I'm sure Comrade Putin is pleased with the work you're doing on his behalf, keep getting those strings pulled by those Russkies!  :D

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 88  Next >