Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Simply put, yes. The biggest benefit is that it limits spread of droplets, so if you or someone else is infected unknowingly but wear a mask, it is much less likely that you infect someone. Whether it protects you depends on the type of the mask and how safely you handle it. For protection, keeping distance and washing hands seem to protect more reliably.
  3. Hi guys! Just wanted to know your opinion about medicine masks. Do they actually prevet infection of covid19? Does it make any sense to wear them?
  4. To add to that, and to repeat a question that I do not feel has been adequately answered: why is using one criterion (e.g. race) inherently bad, if it leads to a more favourable outcome (say better health or education), whereas another one (e.g. test scores) are inherently good, if they lead to disparity and benefitting the wealthy? In other words, what is the basis to assume that certain factors are inherently bad, if not the outcomes that they cause?
  5. Today
  6. Hi Swansont Thank you very much for your reply. In answer to your first question, I suppose it is a mixture of both. It is medical in that I believe it merits a discussion about the different functionalities of sexualizing hormones versus puberty blockers. So far as a link to the story is concerned, I saw it on this evening's news on TV. I will now try to find a link to a written article that mentions the male hormones and will then get back to you. EDIT: I have found the following link to a recent news article about the case which mentions the male hormones: https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/former-transgender-man-suing-gender-22800014 For more up-to-date news on the case, a search on Google for "Keira Bell" will give plenty of results. EDIT 2: Another answer to your first question has just occurred to me. It is also medical in that I believe it merits a discussion about the complex psychology of the case which unfortunately, some people have over simplified.
  7. Basically the root of 24.999999999 with 8 "nines" Is 4.999999999 With 9 "nines" As far as my T1-84 Plus CE A root is x^1/2 as 25^1/2 = 5 As with 24.999 and 25 And as with 24^1/1+2 = the root of 8 The 9 and 8 "Are To, Not The Same Number" Unless of coarse +24.99 and -24.99 cancell to 0...Then were back to square one, the x^1 thing going on here.
  8. ! Moderator Note Is this a medical topic or a legal (political) one? ! Moderator Note A link to the story would be appropriate
  9. Hi Everyone In my Opinion, the verdict of the Keira Bell case is the result of a horribly confused situation. According to the BBC News, she was given both puberty blockers and male hormones. In my view, it was obviously very wrong to give her male hormones but I think it was entirely right to give her the puberty blockers because they are reversible. I think that this case has caused terrible unnecessary damage to the cause of gender dysphoric children who will probably now be forced to irreversibly develop in the way they do not want to develop. If I was the judge, I would have penalized the Tavistock Centre for giving Keira Bell the male hormones but I would have very clearly and emphatically stipulated that there should not be any restrictions placed on the use of puberty blockers. What does everyone think? Thank you very much. Kind regards Tim
  10. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean 24.999 is not the same as 24.999...
  11. So in what way is it wrong that I said "over the last few decades"? Are you not being a bit overly pedantic? I am aware that this is a science site, however this is also within the ethics section of that site. If I am limited to only discussing science, moral psychology aside, then you're effectively asking me to put a muzzle on certain meta-ethical modalities and methodologies. I am a cosmopolitan ethicist. That requires expansive use of logic in order to relay myself as clearly as I can. However I suffer from diarrhea of the mouth at times so probably don't do myself any favours when I at times get lazy and become less precise than I mean to be. Forgive me. So long as people don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when I inevitably make mistakes. We are all here voluntarily and there have even been times where I've commented in this thread while having a beer or two. It would have been disingenuous if my argument and details hadn't been more nuanced than that. I specifically meant zero costs for mostly Scottish applicants. Obviously there is always a cost to be paid by someone for resources and man hours. However there is something to be said with how some colleges spend their funding and manage it. But I suppose you can say that anywhere. Oh and yes, I attended Scottish schools, primary, secondary and college. As I said before I was a student representative in two of those schools. In the ideal world, both. At our stage of moral development? I'd settle for the former... For now. I agree that right now, world as it is, impossible. I don't know if I'd say equality of result is impossible or possible. It certainly seems that way. I am glad you talked about equity, meaning fairness. For all my talk of equality, I feel it lies in how we apply fairness. Why I say I don't know if it is impossible, is just accounting for different criteria to meet the required educational milestones across different fields and occupations. I'm also accounting for futures where advances in educational psychology, medicine or evolutionary changes to the human physiology might make a world of equal opportunity and lets say scaled consistency in result if not equality which is silly when talking about result. I'll admit to that no problem. It is an ethical conundrum to be sure, I wouldn't say it is a dilemma as we aren't being forced to choose between two options. Ultimately the biggest issue with ethics, is that scientific experiments in that field are costly to carry out. Law is the closest we have to something which can present as experiments in ethics. Sometimes a government will decide to test out UBI or free housing but it takes time and money to do that. Moral psychology and neuropsychology are potentially on the verges of breakthroughs, if they can sort out the reproducibility problem and funding/priority issues.
  12. No, i meant 2 things, ""a derivitive"" ""needs 2 points"" and I meant that if a limit is 5, then approaching it "getting close to it" can only be a maximum value of 4.99999, i gave the backwards example...Here is a table.. Also, there needs to be a "span" inbetween say 0.001 for a total of 5,000 points "only" not an infinite amount that's crazy. 24.999 is "not the same" as 25 I thought "all limits" involved 4 points.. Maybe Derivitves, Difference Quotient or delta h can get my point across here.. F(x) = F(x-dx)^2 - F(x)^2/ delta h Becuase y2-y1/x2-x1 is linear is 4 points.. I also just wanted to note: To say x is to imply it has a base of +1 ie x^1 it's simple things like this that cause "much" confusion..
  13. It is OK because it identifies those who are impacted. It makes no sense to say blacks were hurt but we cannot help them because they are black and therefore we cannot identify them. If only the black people in my neighborhood were exposed to a disease, do I also have to treat all of the white people just so that I'm not sorting according to race? If we applied your logic to tornados the insurance companies would not have to pay anyone with a claim because that would require us to sort based on the criterion of 'damage'. It is self evident that the criteria you use is the one that identifies who is impacted, whether that is damaged homes or race. You said previously that is was okay if it was used for good (see below). Now you are saying it is not okay. Did I miss something?
  14. The Trump team is very actively discussing how best Trump can preemptively pardon himself, his family, and his allies. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-vetting-pardon-requests-push-trump-preemptively/story?id=74482289&fbclid=IwAR3wpqQ6SgmRV1YNq9xIFWhbI8BMgQNR8kEit0pxyAjLrY8CGmHbITtI6XM Meanwhile, Trump has raised $170M through nonstop donation requests falsely claiming the election was stolen and money was needed for his election defense fund. It’s money he is using to pay debts and for funding activities after he leaves office
  15. I'm not 100 % sure of what's bothering you, but it's useful to distinguish in these integrals the field point \( x \) and the source point \( x' \). Now, the sources \( \boldsymbol{J} \) do not extend to spatial infinity. Nor do the fields \( \boldsymbol{A} \) (at the field points: the points at which the field is calculated, \( x \) ). So, \[\int\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{i}}\left[f\left(x\right)g\left(x-x'\right)\right]=\left.fg\right|_{\textrm{boundary}}\rightarrow0\] The boundary is spatial infinity. I hope that helps.
  16. Yesterday
  17. Education structures in Scotland have never been the same as in England. Holyrood was established on 12 May 1999. So it has been barely two decades. It is all too easy to expand and generalise to support a view, but this is Science site and we are supposed to discuss the subject in a scientific manner, not an expansive one. I am not clear if you are saying you attended school in Scotland, but surely you would know that it is disingenuous to suggest that degrees of any sort incur zero cost in Scotland. Some folks (mostly Scots) have their fees paid. This also used to be the case in England until greedy bursers and governments made them amongst the most expensive in the world. FYI, the structures in France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, are hugely different, both from each other and from those in the UK. Edit I think you are asking the wrong question here. Consider this Which do you prefer equality of opportunity or equality of result ? You cannot have both, but you can make some adjustment to the balance between them. How to achieve a fair balance is the ethical dimemma.
  18. A fair observation and I don't want to mislead people about how education works in Scotland and how it is different from England. The devolution of powers from Westminster to Hollyrood (The Scottish Parliament) powers over how education works in Scotland. In the past few decades, this has led to many rapid and different changes in law and policy. Up to and including numerous changes to grading, certification and unit names. These rapid changes left many of my generation in the middle of some of the most confusing and at times blatantly experimental education decisions. For starters, it was decided somewhere, without our consent that our specific year would sit our English standard grade exam, a year early. With no explanation. Now, Scotland offers a great deal, but offers it poorly if that makes sense. Education is free, bursaries with no obligation to repay are attainable. You can get an undergrad degree without spending a penny of your own money on your education. It is not perfect however, now I can only relay 2nd hand knowledge about a handful of Scottish higher education facilities and first hand knowledge about 3. Up to and including relevant statistics on the student body makeup and pass rate for 1 (although I could probably find the same information for most Scottish schools easily enough). I have been a student representative in highschool and college. Most of the students who needed my help, were old, disabled, black, poor, gay and there was even an addict. This was more so in college. I was doing all of this, even though I was homeless and couch surfing at this time. The sheer amount of not just alienation and discrimination but complete lack of responsibility in some of the staff was just shocking to me. Lines of communication were terrible, one person would promise to help a student only to be told by management later that they were not to, applying for funding took a long time and was removed from individuals just for attending a funeral they had informed their tutors and admin about. Faculty were often jaded, resentful and pessimistic. Due to the fact that the drop out rates were so high among those demographics because the admin seemed to just make their jobs harder. Then there is the SQA, they handle qualifications and certifications, sending out the holo signed certificates, degrees and diplomas etc. Absolute cluster fuck, priorities for them seem to be hard to pin down. Getting in contact with them is difficult but at times people have been left after sitting through college exams and courses to have nothing to show for it at the end. That all being said and so I'm not talking generally about all Scottish Schools, I can only relay my mine and others experiences within associates level courses and colleges. That and I'm emotionally close to the situation there to be completely free of bias so take what I say with a grain of salt as mine and others experiences of a few schools and may or may not apply to most of the others. Now, my intent with this discussion isn't to single out and focus on the US. It is to look at education holistically, how it operates in different places and what the pros and cons are of different approaches. I'm a cosmopolitan after all. Sometimes that will mean talking about the US Federally subsidised education and state differences. Sometimes I'll mention Scandinavian growth models. In the end, I can only talk about what people herr want to talk about. So far it's predominantly US centric but I have tried to steer the conversation a little bit at times. The thread is about barriers, not a barrier. I'm glad you asked about Scotland though I would be open to hearing about how it might work in other places. I know nothing about Asian education or the differences between Asian demographies. Same with Africa, although I hear some good things about Australia in terms of philosophy departments at least. Peter Singer for example is brilliant in my honest opinion. Maybe MigL could describe his College experience in Canada too and how it differs from now? That all being said I am limited in how much I can provide to the discussion and know less about educational science, ethics and philosophy than others. I didn't say I cannot sometimes fall into a hypocrite hole. That is the definition described to the letter that I was referring too. Blind men can't fly planes, pedos can't work around kids or not be monitered heavily in or outside prison, racists ought not to be in positions of authority when it comes to make admission decisions. Some are though, just like there are heavily biased people in those positions of authority. I agree with the sentiment that we are all the same human race, with differences in features that only really define our physical appearance, not our character. In an ideal world there would be no requirements in place that we consider ethnic demographies at all when it comes to these sorts of things. Unfortunately, prejudiced people do not play by the rules and can still make their way into these positions of authority. How do we counteract the misalignment with multiple individual drivers? That's why people who are willing to act as agents of affirmative action, to counteract the effects of their more subversive colleagues in the same field, are currently a requirement in some places that seem to be battlegrounds of racial tension, like the ivy league schools. Ultimately we share the belief that education should leave no one behind. We disagree with the modal quality of that shared value. Now, I'm willing to bet that for some schools in certain places, being managed by certain people, affirmative action is not a required policy. This means one of your ideals is possible within certain contexts. However, some places cannot legally function without out affirmative action policies due to management differences of a different set of certain individual people. Meaning in some places, without affirmative action, your ideal is not possible and the only way to get closer to it, is currently through affirmative action. However let's ask the question; what would be better than affirmative action in advancing equality of opportunity within schools at all levels for all demographics? Come on Boffins Sketch. This is me right now haha hope this lightens the mood here somewhat and gives people a laugh.
  19. No apology necessary; I'm fairly thick-skinned. I just found it galling that you would complain about something which you also do. Do you mean like this ... Just what exactly do you think 'discriminate' means ? dis·crim·i·nate /dəˈskriməˌnāt/ verb 1. recognize a distinction; differentiate. Discrimination is simply the act of sorting according to some criterion. I think that we can all agree that discriminating, or sorting, according to the criterion of 'race' is wrong as it has led to oppression, slavery and genocide. Even worse, there are no actual 'races', but the one; it is essentially sorting according to distinguishing features, that has caused all these problems. Yet you guys feel it is still OK, because you're using it for 'good'. edit I miss the Physics forum where words are strictly defined, and meanings are not colored by the subjective life experiences of the user
  20. Also, I'm sorry I upset you MigL. I had just woken up and had not had my coffee yet. I could have been far more diplomatic.
  21. Reading through this thread it seems to me to be a discussion between North Americans about the system in the US. I can't see the relevence of this comment about Scotland, which is so short as to be misleading about Scottish education. What exactly did you mean please ?
  22. I did not intend for what I said to be a straight up accusation, but a suggestion that you aren't using language effectively enough to portray what I'm sure to you feels like a good point to raise. I'm not directly attacking what you say, I'm assuming you are indeed arguing in good faith but that explaining what we are misunderstanding about your points thus far are probably creating more misunderstandings. Ethical debates are not easy, it's important to understand that it may seem like we are both only taking snippets of what the other is saying and ignoring the rest. In your defense I write a lot and it takes me a long time to write my responses. In the end people do kind of have to wade through and grab only a paragraph or two. From my perspective, because you're arguing from an obscure and hard to follow definition of racism and prejudice I have to focus on that, I'm not dismissing the rest of what you are saying. I just can't follow it without figuring out how your use of these words are being utilised within the context of the full conversation back to the OP. The best way to describe this misunderstanding I think, is to say that we are on the same game board, but one of us is playing checkers and the other is playing chess (I know INow, more chess talk, sue me!) Now, a few comments back, I made an attempt to illustrate that it is entirely possible to be acting on a prejudice without being racist. This is due to us all having biases. Implicit and explicit. By implicit I mean they can be unbeknownst to a person. We all here when it comes to racial bias, fall within the implicit bias camp. Meaning, not racist but we do have the capacity to delude ourselves when we think we are speaking from a place of care for a different racial group. Hell, Albert Schweitzer was potentially one of the most progressively minded people of his time when it came to racial disparities, but even he was paternalistic and called black people the younger siblings of white people. Still familial, but overly paternal. Implictly biased. No one here feels you are a racist MigL. On the contrary, I think you are extremely intelligent and beneficially progressive. Like me, you are human though, which means like me, you can be either wrong about something or not explaining yourself well. I do also like that although ethics and philosophy aren't your AOE, you do contribute to the discussions and hold your own. Let me ask you something, and this is something I'd really appreciate your focus on. Are all forms of discrimination wrong? Just what you believe and we won't judge you. I'll even come right out and say no. I don't think all forms of discrimination are wrong.
  23. .The variable of integration is volume in the equation. Not current. dV, not dJ. You are integrating the current over the volume. “What other components could there be?” doesn’t make any sense. There can’t be any “other components”. The equation clearly says dV. There’s no wiggle room.
  24. Or it may be God or pink fairies. Throwing out random ideas is weak.
  25. The problem is that all is NOT equal, and you are fighting against the effort that is devised to make it equal I didn't call you racist. You are the one who said liberals have ruined that word by throwing it about so easily. I'm pointing out why liberals do so. If one fights against racism, then that person is (probably) not racist. If you are neutral in the fight then who knows what you are. But when you fight the effort to repair the effects of racism, one has to expect that people are going to question their motives. You are calling the effort to repair the effects of racism racist. You don't see that as reminiscent of Trump? Yes, that is also out of Trump's playbook. He doesn't want to antagonize white supremacists because that will only make them more angry at blacks. I don't see the point of not fighting for the oppressed just because it might piss off the oppressors. Then it is a good thing no one has said you are suggesting racism does not exist. What I am saying is that you are fighting the effort fix the problems caused by racism with your reasoning being that the effort itself is racist and might piss off the racists.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.