Peterkin

Because, in the US and Canada, these protest actions did not succeed without conflict and the participants did not all come through it unharmed. In fact, the process is still ongoing; people are still protesting and demanding fair treatment, and they're still getting hurt, even killed. If they so much as want the basic human respect of having their declared identity recognized in school or workplace, they're derided and excoriated by highly paid, highly visible media celebrities. If none of that happens in Australia, you are a very enlightened nation and I salute you. Anyway, I wasn't casting aspersions on your character; mere defending the old farts you said would have to die off before civil discourse can become the norm. That was the only statement with which I disagreed, and it's been more than adequately discussed by now.

😃Thank you. We're not ready for the cart.

What makes you think I would consider your propensities relevant? In what capacity did you stand beside them? At a formal protest, sit-in, parade, public hearing? Maybe Australia made inclusion of minorities easier than Canada and such protests were not required to bring about the necessary change. Maybe Australian society just changes through the process of evolution. If so, I wish all nations could take Australia's lead. In any case, I believe having us old farts die off won't make very much difference to progress.

Lots of us old farts were heavily invested in making changes happen. Lots of us old farts absorbed a great many insults and much worse, simply for standing beside a person from one of the despised minorities - and for befriending, supporting or dating such a person... Thing is, society doesn't change. People change some aspect of society, one battle at a time.

And getting even that much accomplished was a long, hard slog. In Canada, as in the US, immigrants routinely had their names altered or shortened on legal documents, because a customs officer found it too much effort to spell or pronounce those weird names "you people" all have. It seems "you people" are chronically ungrateful and far too touchy. I do believe the hardest thing for entrenched privilege to understand is that these cumulative slights and dismissals are felt as a burden of "group identity" - because those persons are identified as a group, rather than as individuals. "Who, me? All I did was put one little straw on a camel - whyn't he just man up? "

The knob is no problem. It's the female part that makes it mysterious. If it doesn't attach to something, it must clutch something or squeeze two things together. Very small things.... I like the string theory: you could tighten it to increase tension or immobilize the string. But then the little cufflink thingies are just hanging there.... Unless... that tiny slanted groove on the button part runs in a rail, pulled by the loop of string. Confounding! (Oh, my @md65536 , that's a beautiful piece of machinery!)

I don't think that guy is very popular with Dr. Peterson's audience. But if our concern is with building sustainable societies, the law-makers need to don that veil, and the left-behind need it lifted.

Peterson's position seems to be that, since life is unfair, people shouldn't be fair or expected to obey laws that force them to be fair. Me, I don't consider that a good political idea. I think that, once humans came up with the concept of fairness, they should try to apply it, to make up for some of nature's injustices. After all, we try to make up for nature's lapses in medicine and technology.

What I actually wrote was: And if you will note the efforts currently, and for some time now, under way in various countries, they are not altogether successful. Meanwhile, in some other places, including part of the US, laws have recently been passed that make family planning, access to birth control and sex education more difficult. In fact, the efforts of people far more powerful and influential than you are have fallen short of their aspiration, for all the reasons that I've previously outlined. Changing attitudes is not fast or easy; when there is powerful opposition, it becomes even more difficult. "The will" does not materialize on demand, or uniformly, or globally. The reasons you deny do exist and won't disappear because you have this "idea".

Why do you think nobody tried? You really are not the very first person ever to think of this!

IF. And that's the whole thing in a nutshell. IF the will, then economic prosperity. IF the will, then no more tribal wars or colonial oppression. IF the will, then liberation of minorities, empowerment of women, birth control, universal literacy, comprehensive vaccination and perinatal health-care.... IF

They look as if the two parts go either side of a wall with a tiny hole in it. Securing clamps for a glass lampshade on a brass base? Only, there should be three.

Please present the ones that have not yet been discussed.

Which people talk this way? Expand You do. Over and over. I have shown, with numerous citations, what does affect the birth rate. There is nothing 'inhuman' about raising the standard of living or giving women social and economic autonomy. You don't have to follow the links or read the reports, but denying their existence is .... unproductive. I think it's impossible for you to change other people's - particularly heads of state and religious bodies - attitudes and persuade them to implement the measures you propose. Show us.

There are several reasons, both political and religious. Who makes these demands on whom? On what basis? How is the edict enforced?

You have no means of measuring that so you either have to comply with my ridiculous request or face consequences of not adhering to your own rules. Consequence = 0 Demanding to be addressed in the singular/familiar/condescending* form of the same pronoun to which we are accustomed is not a point of grammatical correctness in this case - since you don't seem to able to give a reason in terms of English usage. Nor can it be a statement of identity, since you have not - and thou hast not - articulated a reason for the reduction in status. (*The familiar 'thou' - in French, tu - was used for close friends and family, children and social inferiors. The proper form for peers and superiors is second person plural: you - or vous - and for the exalted, such as high-ranking priests and aristocracy, the formal third persons, thus: "Does Your Eminence deign to sit at one's humble table?" ) Even more to the point, there can be no discrimination, substantial or social harm to an internet construct, as it has no human rights. Was there something to discuss that has not yet been amply covered three or four times? If that's preachment, I wish all priests were as succinct. Indeed, I wish Dr. Peterson were as succinct.

How else would you protest what you believe to be unjust treatment of your sdaughter ( son ) ? Daughter. He doesn't acknowledge the child's right to be a boy. The "unjust treatment" is to give him what he asked for and the mother approved. How else [other than blabbing the child's private problem to the tabloids, which helped nobody] you might protest a medical procedure of which you disapprove is to talk to the patient's doctor(s). One clinical child psychologist, afaik, and presumably some medical practitioners. With whom the father did not speak. I thought you knew. He used to be a university professor, a researcher in some whole other field of psychology, a writer of self-help books and is more recently an overpriced inspirational speaker at right-wing rallies. I'm reasonably sure the ex-wife of a mailman couldn't afford to consult him, even if she'd wanted to. Why did you think this was relevant?To what do you think this is relevant? Who gives a ...... ....?

Most people have trouble getting the corresponding verb tenses right, and those who are comfortable with Elizabethan English, methinks are but faint inclined to exchange pleasantries with the likes of thee.

That will be difficult. For one thing, you don't want to know. For another, it's messy, and very badly reported, because the 'concerned father' publicized his child's situation to just the kind of outlets who distort stories to push their own agenda. He's not a single parent; there is a perfectly functional mother in the picture, and the boy is in Grade 9. He doesn't just have "certain ideas"; he has been convinced of his incorrect gender assignment since 5th grade and that is why he sought help. Typically, gender dysphoria presents before age 10, before the the mis-assigned child has heard any 'ideas' on the subject or been exposed to any "ideology". The father seemed entirely unconcerned with the child's emotional distress. So unconcerned as to refuse the mother's repeated pleas to meet with the health team; instead he went to court against his child. The child won. The unconcerned father was so distraught by this defeat that he set his child up as a target for hate-mongers. His precious right to his precious opinion outweighs his child's welfare? The court disagreed.

While missing points is my superpower, I didn't miss this one. The UK population is not separate from the world, with its own "natural" and "artificial" trends. It's part of the world and subject to the same influences as every other country. Immigrants are not artificial: they are a natural outcome of having had a big empire, and once in the UK, they become part of the UK population, contributing to its natural trends. The natural trend is downward in certain conditions and upward in other conditions. Which is why it's not the same in all countries at any given time. Nothing, except death - no, not even taxes - is inevitable. Which people talk this way? Oh, well, if that's all.... Full employment in an era of accelerating automation, given the relative turnover time of a generation of humans vs a generation of robots, is unlikely. And, afaic, unnecessary. If growth capitalism is the wrong way to go, its institutions and infrastructure are also the wrong way to build societies. China is learning that - or starting to. Africa may be learning it in little patches.

Except he wasn't prosecuted for his views; he was prosecuted for flouting a gag order and blabbing very private matters to the media, and for harassing the poor kid whom he wanted to be his little girl but who experienced himself as a boy. No, the issue on which they disagree is what for. There is a fair amount of other bias in that article, as well.

That's from a conservative new York-based magazine. https://www.city-journal.org/magazine?issue=344 this is Global news - Canadian mainstream (conservative) network. Slightly different point of view.

And? How does this affect world population growth? We have already seen that by the second generation, the birth rate of immigrants, from less to more prosperous nations levels off to match the rest of the population. The immigrants themselves are having the very same babies they would have had somewhere else (true, more of those babies survive than they might have in the country of origin, but many, both adults and children, are lost in transition); their children have fewer babies than they would have had in their native land and their grandchildren have fewer still. Overall, it makes no difference to the current world population and reduces future increase. A rise in the standard of living invariably decreases population increase.

So... um... does Professor Peterson actually have any political ideas? That's just another of the myriad matters on which I am unclear. Whining, yes. Ranting, yes. Posturing, yes - oh, plenty of that! Snapping at students, check. Baiting opponents, often. Ideas...? I didn't see any.

Shingles doesn't care.