mistermack

The law in the UK says I'm right. I don't know about the US, but I think our courts have it right. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trans-people-could-face-rape-charges-if-they-don-t-declare-sexual-history-warns-trans-activist-a7076546.html By we, I think you are talking about yourself. Parroting "Citation" is your usual substitute for any kind of thought-out comment.

You should let those people running the experiment on the Barrier Reef know, then. " Daniel Harrison, from the Southern Cross University's Reefs and Oceans Research Cluster, heads the team, which has been shooting sea water from canons for three years to brighten clouds in a bid to help tackle global warming." They are totally evaporating the sea water, so as to shoot salt crystals into the air in a bid to brighten clouds, making them more reflective. Someone should tell them that their nozzles are doing diddleysquat. They would surely be grateful to you.

That was a misconception I didn't expect from you. You break the water up into a spray, as in the Australian example I posted, where they are experimenting on creating clouds to cool the barrier reef. The energy to evaporate the water comes from the air, not the sprayer. The onshore wind will be cooled and humidified, and the energy input from man is restricted to creating spray droplets, not evaporating the water.

What do you think it is? Most straight people would view it as sexual assault by deception, or rape by deception, depending on how far it went.

The clue is in the name.

Where's the evidence for that? Not necessarily. You can have dry winds coming in off the ocean, from a Hadley Cell. And I did specify the obvious point earlier, that this kind of installation would only be sited where there are onshore winds, and would only be turned on when the wind was in the right direction. To me, that's stating the obvious. You're not going to just rush in without doing the research. As far as evaporation goes, what's the problem? It can fall as rain again. The Amazon creates it's own weather, from evaporation. The only way you can lose the water, is if it blows back out to sea. You can research prevailing winds to forecast what happens to the moisture you have produced. If you were successful in altering the climate, it's possible you could get rivers flowing and derive hydro-electric power from them.

There are two sex classes for sporting competition. Mens sport and women's sport. It doesn't matter to what extent a man has been castrated, surgically or chemically, or what other nips and tucks have been applied. I've got nothing against any of that, if that's what the individual wants. The only justification for allowing people to compete against women, is if they are women. Self identifying doesn't make you a woman. There are an absolutely tiny number of people who are born of very rare conditions that truly make their sex indeterminate. And very few of them will be athletic enough to compete at elite level. They can be asessed medically and genetically on an individual level, with the onus on not allowing anyone who has had a clear hormonal or genetic advantage to compete against women. The question should be, is this person a female by birth? But the vast majority of trans women, are men who want to present as women. They don't have rare physical conditions, it's just that they don't 'feel' male. It's fair enough to live as a woman, if that's what makes them happy. But not to play sport against women. I wonder what people feel about how a man who has had sex change treatment should handle sexual encounters with men ? Should they be obliged to inform a prospective sexual partner that they were born male ? I have no idea if there are laws governing that in this country, but I can imagine some pretty extreme reactions if someone finds out that the 'woman' they've been having sex with was previously a man.

It was, my arse. And yet, pop a few pills and chop off a few bits, and you too can become a woman. Apparently. They don't seem to be having many babies though. On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree that sexual inclination is a grey area. Who could argue otherwise when you can read all about it in ancient greek literature? And good luck and a happy life to every single one. I have a good friend who transitioned, and I'm more than happy to go along with it, when he chooses to present as a woman. But I wouldn't want him competing with women. I've heard about him fighting in the past, and the damage he could do to bigger guys.

So personal attacks are allowed these days ? They never were in my day. 😄

Nobody is stopping them. They are free to play against their own sex. It's this fiction that a pill here and a snip there turns a man into a woman that's the problem. Men identifying as women are not forbidden from competing against other men, as far as I'm aware. But they shouldn't be allowed in a women's contest, and that goes for all men.

The effect is a bit of a red herring anyway. It's likely to be tiny, in either direction, and would be accounted for in the design, and would have happened identically in all of the previous dives, so it's not going to have any bearing on an out-of-normal nearly double descent rate. And in any case, the descent rate is shown as excessive, right from the start, when the pressure would have been much lower. If the transcription is genuine, the bouyancy/weight balance must have been seriously compromised early in the dive, and they should have abandoned descent far earlier. How they could be doing such a dive, and not be acutely aware of their rate of descent boggles the mind. But the transcription being genuine is a big if at the moment.

That wasn't what i said, was it? I find it's easy to quote people honestly and accurately, by copying and pasting what they said.

If the transcript is genuine, I'm thinking that the sub had a separate section at the rear, and that began to flood, without initial failure, causing the error messages and the too fast descent. That's if it's genuine. It does have a genuine ring to it.

That's interesting, and is in line with what James Cameron said on interview, that he had heard that in their last communication with the mother ship, the crew reported that they had "dropped the weights", and so were performing an emergency ascent. It seems hardly possible that the sub could descend too fast. The volume of air in the sub is fixed, barring collapse, so the bouyancy should be fixed. I can't think of many ways that the bouyancy could be compromised without catastrophic failure. Maybe an external mechanism had some sort of failure and let water in to a separate section? It seems hardly likely, and that probably wouldn't affect the integrity of the hull. Maybe the hull did delaminate early, and allowed some water in without collapsing? That seems hardly feasible. I can't really think of a likely or realistic scenario for this kind of loss of bouyancy at all. The thing weighed about 10 tons, so to affect it's bouyancy by a significant amount would take quite a bit of flooding.

I'm getting a bit bored with the repetition now, so if you have questions, I suggest you read back through the thread. So this is my last post on the subject, unless someone comes up with something new. Here is the definition of extinction. Again. Right from the top, first line : Extinction is the termination of a taxon by the death of its last member. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction Can you explain how that applies to homo erectus? The taxon was never terminated by the death of it's last member. It's been terminated arbitrarily, by an imaginary dividing line drawn in time by people. They don't know when that line falls, or who was the last homo erectus, and who was the first homo heidelbergensis, because it's an artificial imaginary distinction, it never happened in reality. So the taxon was never terminated, there never was a death of the last homo erectus, and therefor they never went extinct. They just had their name changed, two million years later.

I have actually linked these pages before : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11921113/More-half-parents-trans-kids-say-pressured-transitioning-child.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Gender_Identity_Development_Service Citation where I said that please.

Did I say it wasn't ?

It's not just parents who push. In fact, it's often psychologists etc pushing, against the instincts of dubious parents. But rare occurrence doesn't matter in the slightest. Murder is a rare occurrence, but we have strict laws around it because it's life-changing. That's the point. It's even illegal to aid an adult to commit suicide, even though they are old enough to know their own mind, and not be overly influenced by someone else. We acknowledge that irreversible life-changing actions can sometimes be the business of legislators.

Well, I've already addressed it numerous times. But here we go : You said point to a living homo erectus. I referred you to yourself. I assume that you acknowledge that you are a mammal? Even though the original mammal is referred to as "extinct" ? In the same way, you are a homo erectus, even though the original homo erectus is referred to as "extinct". All of thes sub-divisions are purely arbitrary, just man-made convenient labels for a group/era. You are just as much a homo erectus as you are a mammal.

I agree of course, but only up to a point. Children are a special kind of individual. What they want isn't always the best for them, and we do owe them protection, sometimes even from themselves. As in the case of anorexics and bulimics, or self-harmers etc. And children can get pushed and indoctrinated by an overbearing parent. So when they say "I want this", is it them speaking, or someone exerting influence ?

Very nice, but is it art ?

It's a strange situation with transgender people. It's considered impossible to change their sexual inclinations to match their genetic makeup. In fact it's considered demeaning, insulting and abusive to even suggest it. But the same attitude doesn't apply in the reverse, to "change" their physical makeup to match their sexual self-identity. I wonder what would happen if in the future, they found a drug that actually did change the sexual orientation mentally. Would it be considered abusive to give it to children in their teens?

People are missing the point i'm making over and over. It's a question of terminology, that's all. I'm making the distinction between creatures that went extinct, and creatures that simply evolved. Homo erectus never went extinct. You are pushing the notion that they are extinct, even though they never went extinct. All you are doing is drawing an imaginary line in their history, and claiming that before that line they existed, and after that line, they didn't, they were homo heidelbergensis. That's fine, it's a way of creating a picture of development that's easy to follow. But I prefer to draw a distinction between real extinction, and imaginary lines. Creatures don't go extinct, just because you change their name. Instead of referring to "extinct species" I would prefer "ancestral species" , because they're not extinct, by the definition of extinction, or by my own view on what extinction is.

Seeing as the definition of extinct clashes with the definition of extinct species, it's obviously down to your own preferences, there is no official consistent position. My preference is to reserve the word extinct for creatures that have no direct descendants. Many evolutionists will insist that dinosaurs are NOT extinct, they are alive and well, and flying about all around us as birds. Even though the birds have clearly evolved from so-called "extinct species" of dinosaurs. The root of extinct is in the word extinguish, which means to put an end to a process. When the last ember goes out, the fire is extinguished. If the fire has just evolved, and is just burning differently, I wouldn't call it extinct. It was never extinguished. And that's how I see homo erectus. The line was never extinguished, they just changed a bit. They never died out. That's my fundamental point.