Peterkin

Yes! (Except for the fuming part.) I would certainly appreciate some of these issues separately. Each topic started with a single, unambiguous question would work best, IMO.

Works for inanimate objects to establish averages for calculation. Does not work for sentient beings to establish behavioural norms. Who was doing that? What is it you're responding to? For that matter, how do you demonstrate 'what these traits are' through unsubstantiated generalizations about who reacts in what way to being the object of which kind of attention for what reason? Science? You claimed that some people - more precisely, that some men - are more sensitive to heat than others and might require more ventilation than 'the average guy', which might therefore be mistakenly taken for display. Such a condition may equally well exist in women - in fact, if you take menopause into consideration, much more so - biologically. How, then, can science determine the degree of sincerity when either sex claims it as a reason to remove items of clothing? Standards of dress have nothing to do with science. Objectively, anyone who feels too hot should be free to remove excess clothing and go naked anywhere they liked, any time they liked (except laboratories, recycling depots, construction sites and similarly hazardous environments). Culturally, some societies are offended by female faces, others are offended by male genitalia, and there is no scientific basis for either prejudice.

How is that about the justification of transgressing dress codes? Are you just rabbiting on about girls being mean to guys, or what? That's an easy fictional character to hang anything on, as is "the average gal". They can't object to your generalizations, because they don't exist.

Agreed. It was a superficial gesture in response to a superficial concern: appearances. Doesn't change anything; may be futile, even silly. And I wouldn't care, but for the backlash. I don't think an administrator trying to be seen to do the right thing - whatever the motivation, however ineffectual the gesture - deserves a public flogging. That's what Peterson does; that's what all the right-wing commentators do: they inflate trivial missteps by social liberals to stand against the egregious crimes of social conservatives. MacDonald instituted the residential school system, yeah, okay, that was back then. (But Trudeau went to a costume party dressed as the Sheik of Araby - so there!) (Of course millions of poor South Americans are thrown off their ancestral land to make room for our steak; that's hard-wired Nature. Anyway, you're just a virtue-signalling hypocrite: I saw you in Starbucks one time.)

I'm glad you asked! Urban farming of several kinds is part of the answer. Cultured meat is another. Industrial farming doesn't require much building: it's carried out by massive machines on vast acreages, with tons of chemicals. The immense barns and chicken-factories already exist, as do the slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants, grist mills and transport depots. However, should new structures be needed, I recommend recycled plastic instead of new trees? It always is. We always do some, maybe lots. Nowhere near as many as get burned, an it will take 30-100 years for the new ones we plants to replace those. That's 25-100 years more than we have to spare. Still, planting anything green, especially on top of buildings or on the side of big ugly cement walls can only be good.

It is also, let us put things in perspective, merely a decision in interior decorating: what is displayed, where. If you want to create a welcoming atmosphere, you take the bars off the windows, remove the spikes from the sofa cushions, and replace the black candles with pink-shaded lamps - regardless of the motivations of preceding decorators who installed those things. No alumnus (in the unlikely event that any are still alive to care) was deprived of anything, except the resentful gaze of the great-grand-son or -daughter of someone who had been denied admission. (And whose family, due to that denial as well as all the other denials of access to economic and social betterment, had to struggle for two, three extra generations to catch up with their Anglo counterparts.) Not so so what. Nova Scotia has history, too. It had a large and [intermittently] thriving Black settlement, First Nations communities, French Canadian second-class citizens, small but vibrant Jewish settlements - none of whose children were represented in those photographs. If all of that were in my past, I probably wouldn't brag about it, either. But that doesn't mean I'd be automatically shutting down discussion about it. I don't know exactly what's going on in the Dalhousie administrative offices and board meetings - but I'm inclined to give them the benefit of several doubts before condemning their actions.

And what is that difference? What are the signs to look for and metrics whereby to judge whether to respect someone's self-declared identity? I think it more like having two quite different perceptions of the same situation. What Peterson's position seems to be that he considers himself persecuted by a law under which he might, in certain hypothetical circumstances, be prosecuted for refusing to comply with a request that might sometime be made to use a syllable that could validate the possibly disingenuous non-standard gender identity of someone he might encounter in a minority-protected environment. My position is that Peterson's whole right-wing roadshow is disingenuous.

Nope. And that's why there isn't one. We, on the other hand, are talking about discrimination against a minority by selectively invalidating their reality.

There are too many of us, we want too much and we are, as a species, purblind and barking mad. The big flood worked once....

I'm not so sure. What those farming families eat, plus enough extra to take to market once a week, would comfortably grow on a small fraction of the lands needed for export. It's their governments, landowners and bankers that woo the foreign investment and trade - especially if part of the payment is in weapons to point at the peons, in case they get any ideas about the ownership of land and water The question is, who that's willing to can offer sufficient money reward to offset the enormous head start and ongoing advantage of capital? It might work -- but I'm skeptical.

It's a lot of hard work, but people are doing it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApSP5apZEfk Then, there is the other kind - small green walls https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dvFb2vC7_Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU-z_JAzNg4 Plenty of good ideas - but we still need to plant more, and consume less. The big challenge for most of these projects is water supply.

The rain forest is - and has been for a long time - in a perilous position: https://eartheclipse.com/environment/serious-threats-rainforest.html Educating the 'developed' countries that exploitation of resources in 'developing' countries doesn't remove the effects of damage from themselves, just because they can't immediately see the consequences. How do you persuade American, Russian and Middle Eastern investors to stop the growth of the mining industry in Latin America? Will the US consumer stop buying the coffee ? China may be 'greening up its supply chain', but won't stop importing beef. (That last link is also from the Guardian. Good little paper, that one.) Rich countries don't have to pay poor countries to stop cutting down trees: they just need to stop paying poor countries for cutting down trees. Then, there is the construction and bio-fuel problem.... This ought to be sustainable, if the industry were satisfied with waste from sawmills.... except that the lumber industry is always hungry for more mature hardwood, and still doesn't produce the quantity of sawdust required. Are we going to stop making paper for all those hygiene and convenience products and advertising garbage nobody wants? The "forest industry" with government support and subsidies is really terrifying! And of course, they're burning. All the forests, all over the globe. Nobody can stop the fires now. So, i guess, efforts could best be concentrated on consuming less - a lot less! - and planting more.

This is exactly the crux of Jordan Petersons argument. No, that isn't Peterson's argument. He may have a problem with renaming manhole covers - can't imagine why; I mean, he's not likely to be anywhere near one in that suit! Nor do I see any need for self-help gurus to step into that controversy: it's more the purview of stand-up comedians. Each one of those debates can wind down to some mutually acceptable end without causing any deep social rifts. The arguments of his that I've heard are directed at a law that [he falsely claims] forces him to call people by words of their choice, rather than his own. He seems unaware, or unwilling to admit, that self-identification is the right of all persons; that they are not objects to be defined by by someone [himself] who knows better what they are and what they need than they know themselves. That, to me, is an old and very bad political idea.

I do not. The majority - indeed, the entirety - of the population is concerned in and with mental health, the availability, accessibility and quality of health care, the societal and legal response to mental illness and the people who suffer mental illness. Every citizen of every country might, at some time in their life, become ill, might need help, might have family members who are ill and need help. It's not merely a majority issue - it's a universal one. That's true, though not applicable to the present topic, which was gender-denoting pronouns. (I know; it's a very tiny ball and hard to keep in focus.) Which values - other than pi, the speed of light and the boiling point of water - are objective? Where is the perch on which a deity must sit in order to get an objective view of human politics? Monarchist and republican values are in opposition. So are Christian and Ojibwa values. So are commercial and family values. When drafting the constitution, law-makers have to balance all the sets of values that make up the convictions of their people in such a way that no group is dispossessed. That's no easy task! From time to time, some aspect of the people's character comes to light that had previously been neglected and an amendment is drafted, proposed, debated and voted-on. So then, the laws of the land change a little bit, to make things better for some people - while everyone else keeps on truckin' like nothing happened. Predictably, a few object to the change and become oppositional. I tried, but can't guess what that means.

I have looked at them.

Now I understand the source of misunderstanding! We have been watching different videos.

Can you bring about understanding through rejection? If you want to know what a word means, ask the person who requests that you use that word, or find out from other sources. If it's not important to do that, you can accept the word and use it, without fully understanding its intricacies. You don't need to know what it means, unless you are seeking an intimate relationship with that person. You don't refuse to call a person by the name Changying, until you have verified that it's Chinese for 'flourishing and lustrous'. The validity of anyone's claim to their own identity - whatever identity - is not for you to assess. It's that simple.

Nope: I'm commenting on the tenor of our times. Indeed. Assuming a bunch of givens about both participants. Where did you get this? Not from me. Not from anyone in this discussion, other than your own preconceptions. What about it? That still only leaves two probable reasons for baring his chest in public. The first - cooling - might be achieved though other means: thermostat, damp towel, open window, fan, stepping outside, taking a cold drink.... Which is probably what most white-collar workers would do at their place of work, while some manual workers would be free to strip of their shirts and uniformed personnel would not. The second - display - cannot be achieved without the removal of covering. In Victorian times, such display was strictly forbidden, and even for cooling, he could do that only in a sporting venue, or at some plebian work places, but not anywhere ladies might be present. Whether it's appropriate and socially acceptable for him to bare his chest in public is a matter of social convention, in either case. Whether he's offended about being looked at, and why he's being looked at, doesn't depend on his reaction to the weather; it depends on the current social climate. Speculation about another's sincerity and motives is never more or less valid - it's never anything more than speculation. Can you explain what is meant by ? Start with a definition of 'body image', if you please. Then explain what its "issues" might be and how a fictional character can have a real and a fake body image.

Hyperbole. (We have to phrase everything in the crudest possible terms now, to get any attention on social media.) It used to be called "undressing with the eyes" - welcomed from some suitors, unwelcome from others. I very much doubt that's true. Much depends on the nature of the stare, the cause of the stare* and the power of the starer to do damage to the staree. What doesn't? The only connection i can see here to attire is that your guy in the example unbuttoned his shirt, voluntarily and for some reason - unless he's in the middle of a hasty costume-change, the only one that comes to mind is baring his chest. There are only two probable reasons for that: relief from heat and display. If he was doing it for the heat, odds are, nobody else in the room is wearing more than they have to and they're all sweaty and wilted, which is not particularly alluring, even if they had the energy to waste on libido. If he's doing it for display*, he hopes a person of the appropriate gender will pay attention. In either case, he could not do it at all if clothing didn't exist, and he wouldn't think of doing it if clothing were not significant in his culture. A woman, on the other hand, could not do it in polite western society without drawing down on herself legal, or at the very least social retribution.... unless, of course, she were doing it professionally in a designated commercial venue, for the purpose of titillating male customers. Because, in their culture female chests are considered sexual objects while male chests are not; the uncovering of genitalia is acceptable in some contexts unrelated to love and procreation and forbidden in others. We're a species very, very conflicted about reproduction, mating, carnal relations and sexual attraction. Our attitude to clothing reflects that conflict.

je. tois. il. nous. elles. mimi. wewe. yeye. wao. ты. вы. онá. они. ego. ea. nos. ei. הוּא. תָּה. אָנֹכִי Can you scientifically defend that any of these pronouns are valid ? They're words, not chemical formulas! All words are made up. Words have meaning by convention and usage. If people use them, words become meaningful. Some people refuse to use them. What motivates their attempt to blackball a few words is the central focus of this investigation. Just what's so scary about those syllables? We're giving the benefit of a doubt to those who may be delusional, and validating the right to self-designation of those who are not.

Besides their lives? But why do you think that's relevant anyway? Why do you think those risks made any more difference to their behaviour than to that of all non-human species? Death from disease and birthing was as much part of life for apes as for every other animal, as it is for all humans with no access to modern health care. Clothes - except for that one little raincoat - make zero difference to the transmission of AIDS or perinatal complications. Of course. Once clothing was invented and generally adopted, it could be designed for all kinds of different functions, from battle gear to beach-wear, from bridal train to safety boot, from evening gown to hijab, from papal vestments to the exotic dancer's feather boa. That's not down to the wearing or not-wearing of clothes, but to the conventions of society, what function is associated with what attire. All of them. Fashion is never all of a logical piece; isn't just about body parts hidden or revealed - it's an aspect of culture. None to hand, sorry. It may be incorrect. IIRC, the DNA of both are very close to a 99% match with humans. The kinship of human to chimpanzee is suggested by their size (bigger than bonobo) and prehistoric range (wide overlap with early hominids). But of course, we're all descended from the same common ancestor(s), so if you think bonobos are most like humans and I think chips are, I guess it's because we reference different human interactions. None of which has any bearing whatsoever on the effect of clothing on human behaviour. No other species has invented clothing or anatomical taboos or schools and churches where sexual mores and taboos are impressed upon the young.

I don't see how there can be a concept of 'nakedness' without a corresponding concept of 'clothedness'. That's the whole point of the Eden story: as long as they were innocent, they didn't know they were naked. None of our ancestors did, and it simply wasn't an issue. When they ventured far enough north to need covering against the cold, clothing stopped being optional - eventually stopped being seasonal or protective. Only after that did they begin to make a fetish of dress; use it to display social rank and affluence, to denote tribal identity, to enhance their appearance and attract mates. On the contrary, types of clothing, the selective covering and uncovering of body parts etc. are specifically designed to elicit sexual response. And we didn't descend from the bonobo branch of the family, but from the chimpanzees, who are far more prone to sexual aggression, and whose behaviour is not modified by the clothes we put on them sometimes - but is substantially modified by the training to which we subject some of them.

I just didn't know that bonobos had ever worn clothes to begin with, or that covering whatever skin was not already covered by fur had ever been a concept known to their culture. Nor was I aware of a close biological or psychological connection between bonobo and H. sapiens. Still, if having more consensual sex served to blunt some of our more destructive aggression, then by all means, Make Love, Not War.

That's not about principles of education or the administration of educational facilities; teenage psychology is about cultural norms, stages in social maturation, mating rituals and sexual taboos. The co-educational public school has a whole lot more to its social dynamics, as well as its standard of pedagogy, than what students are wearing. So do segregated, parochial, vocational and specialized schools. What??? Please vet your source for that.

It's partly a question of POV. When everyone is wearing a swimsuit, or nothing, no big deal. If everyone is weirdly or partly clad, it's just another Saturday night in la-La land - but not appropriate for work or school. If everyone is naked or nearly so, while you alone are fully dressed, you're a pasha - and that should feel wrong. If everyone else is fully dressed while you alone are naked, you're in a nightmare or on display - if that doesn't feel terribly wrong, seek help asap. Whatever people get used and accept as normal soon becomes unremarkable. I'm told it takes no more than a couple of hours for someone (with a reasonably healthy self-image) who always wears clothes in ordinary life to get accustomed to a nudist colony. What a young man most fears before entering is his response to naked women; in fact, the biggest obstacle is self-consciousness about his own nakedness. (That of course, is because he's seen lots of female bodies exposed in glossy magazines, on screen and probably on a live stage, where they were on display, but this is his first experience of being himself publicly exposed.) But it's mostly a question of norms. What is the current generally accepted standard of decency? The limits can be poked, bent, stretched, challenged and changed - but there is an unavoidable process and an unpredictable price.