zapatos

Please show me where in my link it says it is "pseudoscientific". Please show me in the link where the absolute statement "there will be no difference what soever once you stop taking puberty blockers" is. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. You clearly have no idea what the word "unscientific" means, or what it means to "provide evidence".

Do most satellites orbit in roughly the same direction? And if that is true, are the relative differences in velocity between dust grains and satellites significant for those that do follow similar orbits?

Who in the hell put you in charge? Of course it is. What exactly do you think the BB is? The BB does not go back to t=0.

I can't tell if you really think that saying something is pseudoscientific is the same as providing evidence that something is pseudoscientific, or if you are just trolling me. Either way you are wasting my time.

I told my tennis coach that I didn't really need to practice volleying balls, and could just swing where I imagine the ball is going to be. Using my method I rapidly became a professional tennis player!

What do you mean you can't "prove" the BB. We observe it happening. We named it the BB. It is happening right now.

You are the one saying it is pseudoscience and therefore the onus is on you to support your claim. If you think the claim is "the result of research that is based on faulty premises, a flawed experimental design or bad data", then please show how the premise or experimental design is faulty, or the data is bad. You haven't proved your claim by asking me to prove the opposite.

If you are going to attack someone please be so kind as to provide evidence. They are not "pseudo scientists" simply because you don't like what they said. If you have evidence they are pseudo scientists please provide it. Otherwise the honorable thing to do would be to retract your statement. I don't care if you are right, but I care that we make reasonable and fair arguments here.

Sorry but I'm a bit confused. What argument are you talking about? I provided a link about a claim, not an argument. How was that claim political and emotional? Do you have any evidence that the claim is false? I'm certainly happy to be better educated if I'm in fact mistaken.

Then no, the claim is not from that group.

I don't know. Please give me the name of that crowd you are talking about and I'll compare it to the link I provided.

http://www.phsa.ca/transcarebc/child-youth/affirmation-transition/medical-affirmation-transition/puberty-blockers-for-youth Well then I guess we have no more to discuss.

Yes. Stop taking them and puberty continues. Do you have any evidence to support that? Soldiers used to suffer from 'shell shock', and women suffered from 'hysteria'. Fortunately the advance of science and medicine has led to better understanding and allowed us to give those conditions fancy, trendy names to better represent reality. After all, "confusion" is not really a very useful or accurate term for what these kids are going through. You make it sound like you think doctors are not taking this seriously, or using scientific, evidence based medicine. Even if that is not what you meant, that type of flippant remark is very insulting to those who are professionals and trying to improve the lives of children in very difficult circumstances.

I think I see the fundamental difference in our thinking here. You believe it is about winning, while we believe it is about being welcome to compete. My understanding is that physicians recommend beginning puberty blockers prior to them reaching puberty. This allows the child to mature more before making a final decision on gender. Isn't following the medical advice of physicians who specialize in gender being "a little more scientific"? That is the point of the puberty blockers. Delay puberty until they ARE mature and experienced enough. This is what Texas is stopping by outlawing "gender affirming care".

I think what the people (not referring to people here) who make the snarky comments about trans children and their parents fail to understand is how incredibly difficult this must be for the parents. They are going through something that is likely to have a hugely difficult impact on the person they love most. They would do anything for their kids and are dealing with what could be the most difficult thing they will ever have to address. They are trying harder than anyone to do the right thing for their child. They care more than anyone. And then some troll makes totally uninformed criticisms about some very personal and difficult family situation that has nothing to do with them. It really disgusts me how uncaring some people are for their fellow human beings.

First off, I am not J.C. MacSwell. Second, why are you so angry? All I did was disagree with some of the things you said. Perhaps you should re-read our conversation. The reason I am arguing with you is because I don't agree with some things you've said. Just because I agree with you that abortion should be legal, that does not mean I am obligated to agree with everything else you say. If something I said is not clear, all you have to do is ask. I'll be happen to explain further.

On a side note, that practice contributed to the rise in Christianity in Rome. Christians collected the dumped babies and raised them as Christians, rapidly increasing the Christian population. I agree. Both sides make what is for them compelling arguments and firmly believe they are correct. Those in the middle may pick a side but rarely seem totally at ease about it. I don't ever recall anyone changing their mind on abortion due to persuasion by the other side.

Please show me where I did that. "Rage quit". That's cute. You were making it personal. I've told you exactly what I truly think. Since I wasn't arguing for or against abortion my views on abortion didn't come up. I'm happy to share. I am for unfettered, legalized abortion until fairly late term, at which point restrictions should come into play. I don't have firm dates or firm restrictions in mind, but I feel at some point there should be restrictions. Don't respond in a childish manner. This was really a very interesting conversation for a while. Please show me where I ignored your questions. This post seems to indicate otherwise. You said you were open to criticism so I told you what I think. Sorry you found my perspective offensive. You are making it personal again.

Of course you are allowed to take issue. The problem from my perspective is that you don't seem all that open to criticism of your position. You started this dialogue as if it were a lecture, not a conversation. You seem to be more interested in telling me why I am wrong than to understanding what I am saying.

That sums it up nicely. I've not been advocating for or against abortion. All I've been advocating for is finding your own way rather than having it imposed on you, which is what you seem to be doing. To wit... For example, in this statement... Even you admit that you are not going "all in" on the environment because you continue to exist. Yet you feel you can tell others that since they are not "all in" (based on what YOU define as "all in") then they are just virtue signaling.

Since I'm not advocating for making abortions illegal, 'no'. No. A sperm is a male reproductive cell, a zygote is not a male reproductive cell. So much for you not minding if I am critical of you... Then you may as well quit riding your bike as it has not solved the problem with our environment. Or perhaps we should keep trying after all. Things do take time. Calling our efforts unsuccessful just because they haven't worked yet, or are only contributing to the overall effort, may be a bit premature.

Yes. Only about a million things. Can you be more specific?

Can you please tell me what you mean by this in plain and direct words? You are clearly implying something and I don't want to misunderstand you.

No offense but you've been crossing over between criticizing my arguments and criticizing me. My arguments are fair game, but you don't know me well enough to suggest I'm lazy, not doing enough, virtue signaling, not pro-life enough, or what my intentions are. I'm not telling anyone which rope to pull on, or whether or not to fight against abortion without fighting for increased adoptions. What I've been doing is suggesting that it is not up to others to judge the acceptability of how people choose to make the world a better place. There is no accepted baseline of how much is enough, or what the acceptable issues to support are. We have to leave it up to the individual.

I think you are misplacing your criticism. You seem to be saying it is valid to criticize someone for doing good, if by some arbitrary standard it is not deemed good enough. To the best of my knowledge no one on this site, or anyone mentioned here, has ever been criticized for not supporting juvenile dental care. But as soon as I mention someone who actually helps some portion of the population with dental care, they are now open to potential criticism for not doing enough. I don't believe that is the best path forward wrt solving problems through participation. We need to press the people who are doing nothing, rather than the people who are doing something. My wife and I used to get along with everyone at my kid's grade school. Then we started volunteering for fund raisers, Homecoming, etc. Suddenly there were a lot of parents who no longer cared for us and criticized us to no end because we did not do enough, or the right thing, or what it was that they thought we should be doing. Do nothing and you can be everyone's friend. But a sure way to make enemies is to attempt to help people.