warri0r45

Throw out your fairy tale perception of little green men and think of biological organisms in other locations existing in this universe right now. They could be bacteria, they could be simple multicellular organisms or they could be like us.

Source? Alcohol tolerance is, as far as I know, related to body mass, and Asians tend to have smaller builds than Caucasians as a result of their diet. Alcohol breakdown in the liver is mediated by an enzyme so inevitably, changes in the gene encoding that enzyme will impede the enzyme's function thus impeding the ability to metabolise or deal with alcohol. But, don't take my word for it. This is just my educated guess not incorporating other factors, possibly including body mass. Edit: I think this may have been what he was referring to: And, according to wikipedia: Somewhat supported by this: So this isn't technically an issue of alcohol tolerance per se. It's an issue of a mutant enzyme in some asian populations causing rapid break down of alcohol into acetaldehyde, which is more toxic than alcohol and makes 'dealing with' one's drinks a bit more difficult. (couldn't help myself, biochem is totally my thing :XD: )

The Dr Watson from Watson and Crick? Oh man, that's dissapointing. He cofounded one of the most important biochemical structures ever. All I can say is that it sucks the old bastard has to let his own prejudices tarnish the great work he's done for the field of genetics.

If I'm not mistaken, 'alien' basically means foreign, in which case any life we find elsewhere in the universe would in fact be alien, bacteria or otherwise. I believe it's possible that there is other life out there.

New Millenium Cyanide Christ by Meshuggah. Best. Outro. Ever.

That's the article I saw. And global warming isn't going to kill anyone. It's going to cause a mass-exodus of coastal cities....Very, very freakin' slowly. Assuming the data is correct, of course. So is this a change in opinion from 'the sun is freaking out'? Did you base that opinion on the national geographic article? The one in which Abdussamatov offered a dissenting opinion (which, in science, is fine :) ) with no scientific studies to back him up?

Yep, I have that article in my above post. I'm just stabbing in the dark here but I hope you realise this Abdussamatov guy is out in the wilderness in terms of scientific opinion. He's a global warming critic and the article even suggests he's dismissive of the greenhouse effect even though it's known that the earth would be a chilly negative 18 degrees celcius without greenhouse gasses. The article also offers the more mainstream view of the planetary wobbles of Mars affecting it's climate much like they do here on earth for the ice ages. See my previous post with all the sources for more detail. EDIT: Also, if you link from the article you presented to another national geographic one titled "Don't blame the sun for global warming, study says" (on page 2 of your article), you'll find it talks about a scientific study that I linked to from my previous exhaustive post.

Eh, about the documentary? No information or counterargument that isn't already over a year old. I kinda stopped caring about Al Gore in 2000, so I havn't felt any real need to bash him or his documentary. I don't really hate either side of the debate, I just hate any form of dogma on either side. That, or overuse of pathos on the "man-made Global warming" side (ugh, wish that would end, frikkin' finger pointing and holier than thou speeches from that side of the debate). I would count the Nobel Prize being offered to one side as a reinforcement of dogmatic opinions, so I'm not exactly a fan of Al Gore, or anyone for that matter in this overly political "scientific" debate, getting it for that reason. I agree, pathos, holier than thou attitudes and dogmatic opinions get us nowhere, thus why I suggest bypassing all your conventional media/politics/"this documentary says"/"my uncle Jed says" type debates and go for some literature sources: Science Nature PNAS Oxford Journals :)

edit. double post.

Alrighty, Flamecaller, this one's for you and anyone else interested. It's amazing what you can learn with a little research. General Reading: [1] [2] [3] [4] EPICA Ice Core data aligns with previous Vostok Ice Core data to reconstruct CO2 concentration and align it with temperature changes over the past 700,000+ years. Articles: [1] See figure 1 in detail. Notice the strong correlation of CO2 concentration and 'delta D' - a temperature proxy. Also notice the correlation of CO2 concentration and 'delta O-18 (isotope of oxygen)' - a proxy of ice volume. Also notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 260,000 year period was found to be around 290ppm. [2] See figure 3. Again, notice the correlation of CO2 concentration and temperature. Also notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 400,000 year period was found to be around 290-300ppm. [3] See figure 4 in detail. Again, notice the strong correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration. Again, notice the maximum CO2 concentration for this 200,000 year period was found to be around 290ppm. See figure 3 in detail. Notice the rise in CO2 concentration up to around 340ppm prior to the year 2000, uncharted territory for hundreds of thousands of years. [4] Notice the current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are in excess of 380ppm. [5] Notice this summation of CO2 concentrations, in ppm, over the past 400,000 years, in line with the data already presented. Now, notice the huge deviation from the trend of CO2 concentration from around the year 1800 on; the time of the industrial revolution where masses of CO2 were being pumped into the atmosphere. Connect the dots. I conclude, from this little data gathering exercise, that it is ignorant to claim that CO2 concentration increases have nothing to do with modern warming trends and that human activity has nothing to do with these concentration increases. Ergo, we are contributing to global warming. This is nothing new. The consensus is that human contributed climate change is supported by the evidence. [6][7] So what of the argument that Mars is experiencing global warming, therefore it must be the sun and thus the sun is making earth heat up too? [8] [9] [10] So, according to these sources, albedo variations, which are the determinant of sunlight reflection back into space, are changing due to dust storms which act somewhat analogously to CO2 and the greenhouse effect - trapping solar radiation within the atmosphere. No excess solar output required. [11] Here, another suggestion for the changing climate on Mars is put forth - periodical planetary orbital wobbles and tilts akin to Milankovitch cycles on earth - the orbital and tilt shifts which are suggested control the ice ages. Now, for the idea that the sun alone causes climate change: [12] [13] [14] [15] Enjoy.

The earth does go through temperature cycles. Humans are not entirely responsible for the rise in temperature. But to claim that we have not played any part in it is absurd. And what part of my logic do you think is incorrect? You said that humans release lots of CO2, do you deny that CO2 traps heat the atmosphere? I was specifically referring to your claim that volcanoes are responsible for more CO2 in the atmosphere than humans. Luckily for the environmental cause that is unlikely to happen :roll: I beg to differ in that respect - and not just in regard to global warming. I read that thing about volcanoes somewhere and don't know if it's true, but it surely could be. Global Warming freaks act like Co2 is the bane of Earth. It isn't. Yes, we're certainly chuckin' lots into the atmosphere, but to think we're powerful enough to destroy the Earth by doing so is rather lame. The Earth is far more resilient than we think. ...And again, the sun is freaking out. It isn't us doing all this. The CO2 furor isn't about how the earth is going to be destroyed. It's not. The furor is about our way of life being severely compromised. If you want to put your side of the debate across I suggest doing a little more research and coming up with more than "the sun is freaking out". Cite a source. A scientific paper, anything.

That's what a military is for. If the safety of a country rests in the hands of gun toting civilians, then we're all screwed.

I can defintely agree with Flame's point about being to young too. It's definately something you shouldn't do hastily or at a young age.

Well, it's your perogative to call the APA liars and go with your opinion. I've got nothing more to say. I'm not...We can all clearly see by the OP's first post that what they said was not accurate. If someone is willing to be as drastic as to get hormone injections or a sex change, they were clearly distressed about their situation. Coming back to this topic, it looks like I actually made a mistake. The APA article refers to transexualism in general, not gender identity disorder, which is actually the subject of this thread. http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/genderiddis.htm So you're right, gender identity disorder actually is a mental disorder. :oops: :wall:

Well, it's your perogative to call the APA liars and go with your opinion. I've got nothing more to say.

As a general rule I try not to stereotype anyone, for any reason. But, you're right, I can't honestly say how I'd react if I was in a position where a stereotype may apply to one group of people. Regardless, I'd still acknowlege that it's unfair to claim I know that all 'x' are 'y' because it's obviously not true. My address of your point was merely to look at it from the point of view of the black person. If you were one and you got stereotyped and were of the position that you see it as ok to stereotype, you should have no qualms in sucking it up, as you say. This is just the idealist in me. On the whole I don't have too much of an issue to argue here as you acknowlege that you are fully aware that not all blacks are criminals, which is the main point to consider (as I said, not all 'x' are 'y' is the important aspect to acknowledge). I suppose when it comes to stereotypes it's all about keeping them in your conscious thoughts and not coming out of your mouth (I'm not trying to suggest that you do vocalize the stereotypes you see as justified). Yes, it is unfair to assume it, but we all do it anyways. Even people who claim they aren't prejudice or stereotypers do it. If they're stead-fast that they do not...Just watch them. They can say they do not fear Muslims, for it is only a small minority who blow stuff up (which is true), but if a Muslim in full Islamic get-up gets on a bus and sits next to them, they're PROBABLY going to start sweatin'. ;) People can't put down their natural defenses no matter how much PC bullcrap is shoved down their throat and they try to accept and believe. It's natural and you shouldn't really be ashamed of it. If these groups of people want to not be stereotyped in such a manner, they should be taking extra precaution in making sure no one in their community is doing such things, and spend less time making sure we're not stereotyping them by saying "Oh, we don't ALL do that...", because as long as one does it, your brain says they all do it, even if you know it's not true. As I said, as long as you don't vocalise your stereotypes, I've got no particular issue here. By the way your view of it being natural defence is an interesting perspective. I could definately see some truth in that. But, thankfully, our higher intelligence can alert us that slinging stereotypes across racial borders dosen't make for the most peaceful coexistance ever. :wink:

I'd say this young girl is in quite a state of distress because of it. Certainly it is "abnormal", but that's by default because the majority are not like this...Hence, it's the opposite of the norm - abnormal. I say it's a disorder because it's your brain telling you that you're something you're not, when you clearly ARE what it's telling you you're not. And if it's really "I'm a female but my brain is male", then that is a birth defect or a disorder anyways. I don't mean to put her down by saying it's a disorder. She should consider herself lucky that she can live her life as normal as she can now. Some people get disorders they can't live normally with. You're linking to the subject of the topic, which is fine, but my chatter about transgender being a disorder was in a broader sense. http://www.apa.org/topics/transgender.html This suggests it's not necessarily a disorder. I don't doubt that at least some transgender individuals can cope without persistant distress or disability because, well, saying they all do would be a stereotype (and untrue, according to the American Psychological Association). :wink:

I'm trained but I'm not an expert, what exactly is your point again? This is supposed to be a post about transgender, there's no need to go tangent just because you were proved wrong by calling it a disorder. ...I was "proved wrong"? By whom? You? That's certainly laughable. You "proved me wrong" by saying "This book and this doctor says it's not a disorder." even though if you clearly say the theory on what it is (being born female, but with a male brain) anyone would instantly say "yea, that's a disorder..." just like if you asked them "is being born female with a penis a disorder?" they'd say "Uhhh, yea..." Please, enlighten us, O' trained one. What exactly IS "transgender" caused by? Oh that's right...Your only other option is to say "it's completely natural!" when clearly it is not, or we'd all want a set of breasts to go with our male genitalia. Again, more propaganda on your part. "It's natural" you'd surely say, and if not, you'd say it's not natural, but we must accept it for what it is...Essentially agreeing with me and then throwing out common sense. I see no third option, perhaps you'd like to enlighten me. Open your magical psych book and tell us all that WE'RE the ones with the problem. Goes to show how messed up our society is. You try to get someone to REALLY think out what their doing and how their feeling before making any irreversible decisions, and you're immediately called a bigot and told to accept them for what they are. Fools. You seem to be mistaking 'abnormal' for 'disorder'. If anything abnormal was a disorder, then any trait expressed in low frequency in a human population, regardless of it's effects, would be considered a disorder. As disorder must cause distress or disability. Transgender dosen't neccesarily fulfill these requirements, but I suppose you could argue that it possibly can if the dysphoria is strong enough.

As a general rule I try not to stereotype anyone, for any reason. But, you're right, I can't honestly say how I'd react if I was in a position where a stereotype may apply to one group of people. Regardless, I'd still acknowlege that it's unfair to claim I know that all 'x' are 'y' because it's obviously not true. My address of your point was merely to look at it from the point of view of the black person. If you were one and you got stereotyped and were of the position that you see it as ok to stereotype, you should have no qualms in sucking it up, as you say. This is just the idealist in me. On the whole I don't have too much of an issue to argue here as you acknowlege that you are fully aware that not all blacks are criminals, which is the main point to consider (as I said, not all 'x' are 'y' is the important aspect to acknowledge). I suppose when it comes to stereotypes it's all about keeping them in your conscious thoughts and not coming out of your mouth (I'm not trying to suggest that you do vocalize the stereotypes you see as justified).

*E-Punches you as hard as possible* To the thread starter: don't listen to a word this mad guy says, it is all bs. I have been e-punched by a child. Whoopie? What the hell did that accomplish? Feel better? I am not obligated to agree with any of you, nor am I obligated to be politically correct, or to bow down to YOUR opinions. As far as I'm concerned, my opinion is the right one, and yours isn't. Hence why I say mine. Arrogant? Indeed. But do you really feel or act any different? Nope. You just don't out-right SAY it. (1) I was merely warning the poor kid that she should think about what she's doing before being brain-washed by opinionated pro-mutilation sites who are not looking out for her best interests. You know who IS looking out for her best interests? Her parents. And she has chosen to ignore them and to side with a website ran by people who are not 1) her parents 2) medical experts or even 3) intelligent people in general. The people who run those sites are not looking to comfort you or help you. They're looking for people to join the cause so that it becomes an acceptable thing to do. Feel like you should have been male, but you're female? Great! We do too, so come join us and mutilate your body, because it's okay to do! We're perfectly sane. Honest. Riiiight. There is nothing sane about loppin' your woo-woo-dilly off and replacing it with a wa-cha-cha no matter WHAT you feel like. I just made those words up, but I think you see my point. What I would like to know is why that's an acceptable answer. People like Mad4u (as darling as she is) have obviously just sat here and spewed "acceptance and diversity" garbage that we're taught our whole lives that completely forsakes common sense. (2) There is nothing that makes sense about "I'm a girl, but I feel like I should have been a boy...So lets take hormones and get a sex change!"...No. That makes absolutely no sense at all. None. (3) If I was a girl and felt like I should have been a boy...I'd obviously just do manly things that I enjoyed and felt like I was supposed to be doing...Because thankfully, in our society, that is absolutely accepted and an awesome thing to do. But what in the hell do you need to be fake for? Taking hormones and getting a sex change isn't "you", it's you being fake. She was born a girl and she feels like she should've been a boy...So you're encouraging her to stop FEELING fake by actually become fake? That's..good...advice...I guess...:roll: (4) Please, people. Use the part of your brain that thinks for yourselves, not the part that remembers waht you've been told. Diversity and acceptance is bullcrap. If a black man robs you, and then another rapes you, and then another shoots you, and then another kills your family, are you still going to like black people? According to diversity and acceptance, you must. According to human common sense, you're going to at least be suspicious of all black people, if not out-right hate them all. And no, I'm not racist. Just thought I'd cover that base since I said the word "black", which to morons of all races alike that worship "diversity and acceptance", is racist. (5) And for the record, I do have sympathy for the OP. I'm not a heartless bastard who doesn't understand. I'm a person who is concerned that someone with a mental disorder is going to act upon it. Would you knowingly let a person commit suicide? Didn't think so. Being born with a male brain and a female body is no excuse to mutilate yourself to try to match the inside. if you were really born in such a manner, then it's a disorder, and most people with disorders have to *gasp*...Accept them for what it is. (6) I'd really love for someone to tell me what mutilating yourself really accomplishes here. It's blatantly obvious that you're all spewing acceptance and diversity propaganda, because not one of you could tell me why it's acceptable or sane to mutilate your body and make yourself fake in order to make yourself "real". it doesn't make any sense. (1) Her parents may have good intentions, but sending her to a 'christian psychologist' whose intentions are to shake her out of her fad isn't going to help. As for choosing to side with a web site which is not her parents, a medical expert or intelligent people in general, as far as I can remember, she has been actually seeing a medical professional and I don't think she's docile enough to take anything we or anyone else on the internet says as a source of authority without first consulting a medical professional. At least, that's what I think she should ensure she does, so in a way I agree with you here. (2), (3) I wouldn't be so sure of the reaction you should be having to this unless you're in Serephurus' position. The common sense position is of course not to mutilate yourself unneccesarily but I don't think you'd accept the common sense position so easily if you were in her position. You assume you'd easily control the way you feel when any number of anectodes suggest that controlling how you feel when it comes to matters of sexuality is a hard ask and that many genuinely do yearn to be the opposite sex (or can we just put that down to pro-mutilation opinionated propoganda?). (4) And I suppose you'd be totally fine with this if you were a black person? You'd be totally fine being stereotyped and suspected of being a criminal because of your skin colour? Come on now, it's totally logical and fair to be skeptical of your innocence if you're black, you shouldn't have a problem with it at all. (5) I think you need to revise what a mental disorder is. (6) I don't know what it accomplishes myself and I can't understand it. But I have empathy and don't feel like jumping to conclusions about the effects transgender 'mutilation' has on people without first reading the psychological outcomes and secondly actually understanding the feelings of those who have it done before and after the procedure. Only then, if the story is a resounding 'useless effects', could you actually be justified in calling diversity and acceptance attitudes when it comes to transgender surgery propoganda.

How is this foolish or contradictory? Because if we were not supposed to build great civilizations, reproduce, and shape the world today, we would not have. It is arguable that the "nature" for humans is to build societies and not become hermits. If that was natural, we would be doing it! By preaching it to the public, they are being part of public life. Makes sense. By the way, where did you read that Taoism emphasises that they believe civilizations are unnatural and that we should restrain from public life? I wouldn't mind reading up on it more. Are you sure that they don't mean it's unnatural in that it's not typical of non-human nature (i.e. non-human nature as in trees, waterfalls, grassy fields, etc. I don't think they refer to human civilization as supernatural), which they see as the place in which your harmony must rest? Are you sure the message is not simply refrain from modern human civilization and focus on the natural world? If that's the case, I don't see what the problem is with it. I think it's a pretty decent message that a lot of people neglect to take heed of and when they do, they feel better for doing it.

I've got a bit of a headache. I guess staring into this screen won't help. Just had a pretty big day and got some marks sealed for one of my subjects in uni which I'm happy about. I actually managed to wrap my feeble brain around some Mendelian inheritance pedigree problems. I wish I could go back to wednesday. I wish I could live it over and over again in perpetual suspention. I liked the morning rain and total lack of having to think about anything. Probably not the most topic relevant thing I've ever said but oh well.

How is this foolish or contradictory?

(1) Loving to commit particular sins is pretty much the same thing as loving sin. (2) The key is free will. Adam knew what the consequences of his actions were. Yet he chose to defy God's will knowing it would mean he would surely die. You can question why God planted such a tree there. Perhaps free will wouldn't mean much if it was impossible to do anything wrong. If we want true free will, perhaps we must have good and bad choices to choose between. I'm just speculating. However, I think there's a reason for us to repent and ask for forgiveness. If we never repent and ask for forgiveness, we gradually make sinning something normal and okay. Perhaps the first time we sin really make us feel bad, but when we've done the same thing over and over lots of times, it won't be as significant anymore. The first time it's a pretty big threshold to overcome, but the 100th time that threshold is practically gone unless you always repent and ask for forgiveness. I think forgiveness whether it's to God or to your friend is very important. It reminds us that some things aren't okay and that we shouldn't do them. (1) Again with the all inclusive claim. No, I don't love to kill people, I don't love to or think I'm a rebellious genious by saying 'god damn' or not heeding on the sabbath, I don't love disrespecting my parents or neigbours, I don't love (or don't) having gods or idols before yours and I don't love to (or don't) steal or commit adultery. But hey, don't worry, I sometimes love to covet, which means I love sin. (2) True, we have free will too. But we also have an innate evil within us which leads us into sin for which we have to apologise. But why are we apologising for acting on innate qualities? The key here is the apology or the need to be saved. Why shouldn't god apologise to us for expecting apology for acting on innate evils which are the consequence of happeing to exist after the effects of Adam come into play? Don't you see this as unfair? If your first born failed in life, would you hold this against your second born? Would you put him down as a consequence of his existance happening to come after his older sibling's? Would you ask your second born to apologise because your first born screwed up, even going so far as to say an apology is necessary so he can go to college or avoid a casting out to the gutter on his own? As for the tree, would you ever try and make your home safe for your kids or do you like leaving knives around the place? Faulty wiring? Boiling water? It's a set up for failure exacerbated by Adam's curiosity and the brazen crime of yearning for knowledge. It's almost as if it was supposed to happen. As for the second part of this section, of course, we should apologise if we're in the wrong. But I'm going right back to the essence of why it is we are evil in the first place here. The innate quality of evil and a tendancy to sin had to come from somewhere. Adam's curiosity and the tree of knowlegde had to come from somewhere. All signs in this little scenario lead to purpose behind us being the evil that we are. But who needs to apologise here? Us, for existing consequentially by the hand of another, or the other, which made us and expects us not to do what it is we were set up to do?

(1) Some people love to kill. Serial killers seem to get some kind of satisfaction from it. Sin is a wide concept, just because you don't like to kill doesn't mean you don't love other sins. (2) We are inherently evil since the initial choice made by Adam. We weren't inherently evil from the beginning. So if you want to blame someone, blame Adam. (1) So we've gone from all people love to sin, which implies all inclusiveness, to merely some people loving to commit particular sins. Problem solvered. By the way going through the ten commandments, the only thing I can think of that I love to do would be to covet. Even then it comes in phases, namely when I discover a CD I want to buy. Others I would be against or indifferent to. (2) And who made Adam who he is? Did he have the same vices we do? Who gave him these vices? The same general argument as before applies. According to Christian theology, we are inherently evil according to the actions of Adam, whom god made with the curiousity required to eat the fruit (and the actual fruit itself, talk about leaving the boiling saucpan handle in reach of the toddler). He eats the fruit and the human race is damned and needs to apologise or repent for forgiveness. So as not only an innate quality of humans, that being curiosity (and the yearning for knowlege, what a crime), yet also as the result of the actions of another, I need to apologise and repent. Isn't it fair to at least in part blame god or question why I need to apologise to him? If not, why not? Why is he not apologising to me for expecting me to apologise for being inherently evil as a consequence of existing in a time where I'm damned because of the actions of one who came before me? It's like me discriminating against all Germans because of the Nazi regime in the 1930's and 40's. I'm never going to blame or ever mention the current day Germans in the same light, with the same baggage, as thier predecessors, based on thier predecessors actions. You see, I don't see that as fair.