LaurieAG

APolitical Correctness, a scientific approach

Recommended Posts

Being an identical twin I am in a category that any person who is not an identical twin can identify with or as, or even aspire to be or have a preference for.

As such there are people who are identical twins and people who aren't identical twins.

Can anybody name any other human classifications, apart from triplets etc, that are also apolitically correct? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you translate it to English, please?

Do you meant that you have twin brother/sister who is not sharing your political views?

 

6 minutes ago, LaurieAG said:

As such there are people who are identical twins and people who aren't identical twins.

Twin brother/sister means that you have (or had, at the beginning) the same (or similar) DNA, because you were made from the same cell..

After separation of organisms, DNA could mutate differently in separated organisms..

WTF, it has anything to do with politics.. ??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think I can name. I have a sister who's 5 years younger than I am. So we are in "siblings 5 years apart" category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twins are monozygotic or dizygotic (polyzygotic if they are triplets etc).

When you talk of "political correctness" are you referring to the use of the phrase "fraternal twins" for dizygotes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is apolitically correct the opposite of politically correct, or does it just mean correct (with no regard to politeness/politics)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

Is apolitically correct the opposite of politically correct, or does it just mean correct (with no regard to politeness/politics)?

I agree with you entirely here. I don't see political corectness having to do anything with this. I don't even understand the OP. As far as I can tell (and translate to English), it asks whether there are other groups of people apart from twins and non-twins. I would say no. Identical twins and not identical twins pretty much covers the entirety of humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

Identical twins and not identical twins pretty much covers the entirety of humanity.

And anybody who is not an identical twin cannot prove the claim that they are an identical twin. 

Edited by LaurieAG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

And anybody who is not an identical twin cannot prove the claim that they are an identical twin. 

Also, anybody who is not an identical twin cannot prove that they are a begonia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/12/2017 at 2:55 AM, zapatos said:

One per every crowd.

Every time I read one of your posts, I hear Micheal Palin prepping a grenade, but in a thread like this, I hear John Cleese threatening to bite your legs off.

A moose once bit my sister...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Every time I read one of your posts, I hear Micheal Palin prepping a grenade, but in a thread like this, I hear John Cleese threatening to bite your legs off.

A moose once bit my sister...

Ah yes, The Majestic Moose! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What on Earth does political correctness have to do with twins?

And what the heck is "apolitical correctness"?

This is a bizarrely incoherent thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, LaurieAG said:

It's interesting to see from the responses who is PC on this forum. 

Productively Communicating?

Proudly Coherent?

Preemptively  Cynical?

Pleasantly Clear-minded?

Profoundly Chill?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's interesting to see from the responses who is PC on this forum. 

If you wanted serious discussion about subject, you should answer questions like Strange wrote above..

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2017 at 12:56 AM, LaurieAG said:

Being an identical twin I am in a category that any person who is not an identical twin can identify with or as, or even aspire to be or have a preference for.

As such there are people who are identical twins and people who aren't identical twins.

Can anybody name any other human classifications, apart from triplets etc, that are also apolitically correct? 

!

Moderator Note

You've had multiple requests to clarify what you want to talk about. From the first sentence, it's unclear, and just gets worse from there. 

If any person who is not an identical twin can identify with your concept, why doesn't it make more sense?

Please define "apolitical correctness" as well, since Google is not forthcoming. No more responses from others, please, until the OP can help sort this out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Identical twins are not in a political category like male or female where you don't have to genetically or physically be a male or a female to actually consider yourself to be a male or a female.

apolitical
eɪpəˈlɪtɪk(ə)l/
adjective
  1. not interested or involved in politics.
    "he took an apolitical stance"
correctness
kəˈrɛktnəs/
noun
  1. the quality or state of being free from error; accuracy.
    "there was evidence to support the correctness of the identification"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LaurieAG said:

Identical twins are not in a political category like male or female

1. Being a twin is not unique in this. Surely the same us true of having blue eyes, being tall and many other characteristics. 

2. I don’t see how being male  or female is political. 

3. Providing definitions of the words apolitical and correctness does not clarify what you mean by the phrase. 

You have done nothing to clarify the point of this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, LaurieAG said:

Identical twins are not in a political category like male or female where you don't have to genetically or physically be a male or a female to actually consider yourself to be a male or a female.

apolitical
eɪpəˈlɪtɪk(ə)l/
adjective
  1. not interested or involved in politics.
    "he took an apolitical stance"
correctness
kəˈrɛktnəs/
noun
  1. the quality or state of being free from error; accuracy.
    "there was evidence to support the correctness of the identification"

 

Being "political correct" has (almost) nothing to do with "politics"..... (it would have in nazis country..)

It means f.e. you don't insult f.e. "Afroamericans" by calling them "Nigers", "Black" etc.

People started to use normal words, which started to be considered as insulting, and after using them in wrong moment, in wrong place, you could be beaten/shot/killed. So new, alternative words for the same, were created, to replace them. It can be repeated over and over again. In couple years "Afroamericans" could also be considered as insulting... (as almost everybody lost mind on this planet)

 

 

Being "apolitical correct", would suggest you're against political correctness..

Are you against political correctness.. ?

Are you supporting using words which started to be insulting to some people (minorities).. ?

 

I would suggest to treat people, like you would like to be treated (am I not repeating myself, again.. ? ;) )

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

Identical twins are not in a political category like male or female where you don't have to genetically or physically be a male or a female to actually consider yourself to be a male or a female.

!

Moderator Note

This part at least can be broken down to be understood, hopefully.

Defining "apolitical" and "correctness" as separate words has not helped to clarify what you mean when you use them together as a phrase. Can you help once again? Can you give examples of apolitical correctness so a scientific approach can be applied?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking to a guy with a phd in chemistry this afternoon and he said that they would have extreme difficulty doing useful science if they could not discriminate against those results that were from non female females or non male males (or non identical identical twins, and throw them in the bin).  It would be politically correct to not make the correct distinction and apolitically correct, or if you like not politically correct, to make the correct scientific distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LaurieAG said:

I was talking to a guy with a phd in chemistry this afternoon and he said that they would have extreme difficulty doing useful science if they could not discriminate against those results that were from non female females or non male males (or non identical identical twins, and throw them in the bin).  

Huh? I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

The only sense I can get from it is that he thinks transgender or homosexual people should not be allowed to do science. That seems bizarre, but people do have odd beliefs. Is that supposed to be an example of political correctness or apolitical correctness?

If you are unable to make sense, perhaps the mods should just close this thread.

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LaurieAG said:

I was talking to a guy with a phd in chemistry this afternoon and he said that they would have extreme difficulty doing useful science if they could not discriminate against those results that were from non female females or non male males (or non identical identical twins, and throw them in the bin).  It would be politically correct to not make the correct distinction and apolitically correct, or if you like not politically correct, to make the correct scientific distinction.

What's the field of research?
If, for example, you are looking at  oestrogen receptors, you are allowed to publish results that say males are different from females.

What you can't usually expect to do is publish papers  that say "we didn't bother with these results because they were measured by a female member of staff and- you know- they just suck at science."

There are published studies on things like  correlation of exam scores in monozygotic and polyzygotic twins which strongly indicate that some of the ability to do well in exams is heritable.

That may not be politically popular in some circles, but it's  observably true and thus scientifically publishable. It's hard to see how anything in chemistry could be controversial. 

 

It would  be good if you clarified what you are actually talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

What you can't usually expect to do is publish papers  that say "we didn't bother with these results because they were measured by a female member of staff and- you know- they just suck at science."

15 hours ago, Strange said:

The only sense I can get from it is that he thinks transgender or homosexual people should not be allowed to do science.

I never said anything like that at all.

If the only things you can come up with are straw man arguments then this thread should be closed, and future readers can make up their own minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.