LD50 research is how much does it take to kill this lab mouse. I'm talking about the social behaviors, etc., of wild animals in their natural habitats. Not really seeing the similarity :/
I'm a biology major with an interest in animal behavior, so chemistry/medicine isn't really in my field of interest, just adjacent to what I''m currently studying. Thanks for the offer though!
"It is also not more medically applicable than drugs like morphine, cocaine, heroin, ketamine, methamphetamine, etc. "
Those are some VERY strong drugs to be comparing it too, and those are highly addictive. I don't think anyone's arguing that cannabis is anywhere near the same ballpark, though to be fair, I've done little-to-no research on the supposed medical uses of cannabis.
I've always been more of a recreational use arguer anyways.
To be clear, since I commented before the debate took place that I agreed with Con's claim supporting abortion, transgender, and euthanasia, I support them on the grounds of bodily autonomy, not population control.
This debate needs
1. Distinction of battle vs. war
2. Distinction of the colloquial phrase 'war on Christmas' (referring to the Christian notion of secularists trying to draw away the 'true meaning' of Christmas) vs the concept of a literal war (military conflict) taking place on December 25.
"You don't personally know anybody that practices biblical law faithfully do you?"
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
Do you endorse this biblical law as a 'bible believer'?
I took tae kwon do classes as a kid. I luckily never had to use those skills in a real fight and most of the ability and flexibility has deteriorated by now, so I can't really evaluate how helpful they were. In general there were some basics that were good to learn, i.e., if you close your fist around your thumb you'll break it, hit soft places with hard strikes and hard places with soft strikes (smacking someone in the head to stun them rather than a bareknuckle punch, not a softer version of the same strike)
I don't regret the time I took in that class and maybe I will take a martial arts class again some day, but I have no particular preference for tae kwon do.
'pro-choice' is to 'for abortion' as 'pro- freedom of speech' is to 'for Holocaust denial'
pro-choice legislation allows abortion, but does not endorse it.
freedom of speech legislation (in the U.S.) allows Holocaust denial, but does not endorse it.
Certainly a large proportion if not all of Holocaust deniers are supporters of free speech, but this doesn't mean that freedom of speech is bad. I can think that every abortion has negative utility and still be pro-choice, just as I can be pro- freedom of speech and still think that Holocaust denial is bad.
'should' is almost always a moral argument. A good argument will not focus on law or precedent but the most basic human VALUES and whether or not flag desecration follows those values. Don't cite freedom of speech, point to the arguments the Founding Fathers gave when they decided that it was important enough to make it the First Amendment.
I agree that knowledge can be used for bad things. But that doesn't make science bad. You described it as witchcraft before. Many cultures describe a white magic and black magic used for good and bad respectively. The same understanding of chemistry that allows us to make harmful plastics and pollutants also lets us engineer new materials for spacecraft, medicine, and improvement of living conditions. Chemistry isn't a white magic or a black magic, but a grey one; without morality or motivation behind it intrinsically.
I support telling them to do their own research and make their own choices. I personally think that if I felt as dysphoric as trans people have described, I would be willing to take those risks to be happier, but that is a decision that each person has to make, not have it forced upon them.
I spent enough of my life being forced to do things I didn't believe in to ever wish it on anyone else.
"Your solution is to promote dangerous and experimental medial treatments and call it "gender affirming therapy." That seems to be your solution."
Since you're not listening to me, I see no reason to further this conversation.
Again, listing the side effects of a specific drug that is sometimes used for gender-affirming therapy doesn't prove that ALL gender-affirming therapy is dangerous, and especially more dangerous than other forms of elective treatments such as cosmetic surgery.
Furthermore, Spironolactone has also used to treat high blood pressure and acne and has been in use since the 50s, but as soon as it's used in HRT, it's a problem?
"please remember to tie your shoe" is an imperative, not a declarative, so it doesn't hold a truth value like 'your shoe is untied' does. It can neither be true or false.
'The weather is nice today huh' Although often said in meaningless contexts, this statement holds a truth value and can be used to communicate knowledge/beliefs. If I said this to someone who doesn't know what the weather is like, it is a useful statement, and not obviously true or untrue.
'one plus one equal two' This still has a truth value. At some point in your life you will learn this for the first time. A sponge does not have knowledge of this, but a two-year old human does.
"gender itself is the naming of the two sexes"
'sex' is the naming of the two sexes. Words are just names for concepts, that's how language works. You say 'age' to describe someones age, and 'sex' to describe their sex.
"the abuse of nature for wicked things is intolerable."
Are you referring to animal testing? Or by abuse do you mean "defying the natural order" such as flying and vaccines?
And do you believe that the end result of all science is "wicked"? Even eradicating smallpox?
RM doesn't pump out rounds. He actually stops to think about things and makes sure he's arguing from the right angle before he even starts writing. It's actually one of the things about him that I admire most and something that I need to work on myself. I've put myself in bad corners by posting the first argument that comes to mind.
As friendly advice, if you're going to complain about opponents taking a while to post, maybe don't give a week for arguments.
Honestly, I think the most important thing to realize about gender-affirming therapy is that more cis people undergo it than trans people. Any biological female who wears makeup, gets breast implants, etc., is taking steps to affirm their gender. Similarly, men who take testosterone to compensate for a hormonal disorder is receiving gender affirming therapy.
Obviously these are less extreme than bottom surgery, but they are still gender-affirming care.
Pointing to specific treatments used today that have risks doesn't prove that gender-affirming therapy is dangerous in and of itself. Simply supplementing estrogen has no more risks for young trans woman than it does for older menopausal women who take the same medication. No surgery is without risk, and top surgery is a relatively safe procedure compared to many operations.
And surgeries only get safer over time. In 1971 the survival rate one year after a heart transplant was 37-42%. It is now 84.5% (study from 2015), more than double.
I know they're different. However, many go on to surgery even after HRT. Furthermore, finasteride is a fairly uncommon choice for HRT as it doesn't actually block testosterone, only DHT.
There's not really a rule as to what initialisms become acronyms, other than ease of use. Eff-bee-eye is more clear and easy to pronounce. There are also "backronyms" commonly seen in politics, where you come up with a clever acronym then back-fill the words it stands for.
USA FREEDOM Act: Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring Act
The only thing I'm SAYING is that your definition is factually incorrect in that "most other living things" inherently DO NOT HAVE SEX or sexual characteristics. And that's just bacteria. I'm not even going into plant reproduction. It would be accurate to say that MOST VERTEBRATES have sex divided into male and female, and probably even most animals, but I would draw the line for anything else.
I am not referring to intersex disorders or "mutations", but to ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF REPRODUCTION. These are perfectly normal and in fact male/female sex binary is easily outnumbered by other forms.
"The difference between initialisms and acronyms, escapes me,
Though I suppose initialisms tend to be harder to pronounce as an acronym,
It 'seems more a convienence, than a hard rule."
An initialism is when you say the 'initial letter of each word. An acronym is when those letters are pronounced as their own word, like the examples in argument, SCUBA, NASA, etc. I was merely correcting the use of the word acronym to describe words like FBI, there wasn't an important argument being made here.
'Sex as its defined in the dictionary is," either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans AND MOST OTHER LIVING THINGS are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."'
The vast majority of organisms reproduce asexually (via mitosis rather than meiosis).
What makes 12 a better benchmark age than 18? For that matter, why not stipulate that anyone, regardless of age, must demonstrate a basic literacy and understanding of current politics in order to vote? I expect most 18-year-olds don't know that much either.
The voting age has long been associated with the age of majority, when you become a full person in the eyes of the law. Similarly to children, in the past women or people of color could not vote, own property, operate businesses. One might look at this and say that equal suffrage for children is the last frontier in true legal equality, but I would say that this one is distinctly more justified than the other two.
That is possibly the least legible claim I have ever seen.
Do you mean you have the most disagreed with beliefs of anyone on DART? Because I certainly disagree with your grammar.
"Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes."
"I'd rather say my position is neutral and I am only looking to debate with a LGBTQ+ member that can share with me they perspective about this. "
The debate tab is for defending a specific claim. I recommend posting in the forum tab, as you can get multiple people's perspectives simultaneously and can focus more on an open discussion than "winning" the argument.
^^ A single declarative statement, such as "gender identity independent of biological sex is a net negative for non-stereotypical gender expression" that can be clearly critiqued and defended is the ideal for a formatted debate (it doesn't need to be as complicated as my example). If you just want to argue/discuss your general stance on gender matters, the Forum page would be better suited to your wants.
Even studies of animals on drugs (while interesting) are done in laboratory conditions, not the wild.
LD50 research is how much does it take to kill this lab mouse. I'm talking about the social behaviors, etc., of wild animals in their natural habitats. Not really seeing the similarity :/
I'm a biology major with an interest in animal behavior, so chemistry/medicine isn't really in my field of interest, just adjacent to what I''m currently studying. Thanks for the offer though!
"What if I identified as space alien leader, is that ok?"
That is an occupation, not a gender.
Orange isn't even the only color with no rhyme. Think of silver and purple.
"It is also not more medically applicable than drugs like morphine, cocaine, heroin, ketamine, methamphetamine, etc. "
Those are some VERY strong drugs to be comparing it too, and those are highly addictive. I don't think anyone's arguing that cannabis is anywhere near the same ballpark, though to be fair, I've done little-to-no research on the supposed medical uses of cannabis.
I've always been more of a recreational use arguer anyways.
To be clear, since I commented before the debate took place that I agreed with Con's claim supporting abortion, transgender, and euthanasia, I support them on the grounds of bodily autonomy, not population control.
This debate needs
1. Distinction of battle vs. war
2. Distinction of the colloquial phrase 'war on Christmas' (referring to the Christian notion of secularists trying to draw away the 'true meaning' of Christmas) vs the concept of a literal war (military conflict) taking place on December 25.
"You don't personally know anybody that practices biblical law faithfully do you?"
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
Do you endorse this biblical law as a 'bible believer'?
character.ai shows in maintenance mode on my end. I would be curious to try ChatGPT.
Man what a great argument. It was so good you must have forgotten to tag me it was so good.
I took tae kwon do classes as a kid. I luckily never had to use those skills in a real fight and most of the ability and flexibility has deteriorated by now, so I can't really evaluate how helpful they were. In general there were some basics that were good to learn, i.e., if you close your fist around your thumb you'll break it, hit soft places with hard strikes and hard places with soft strikes (smacking someone in the head to stun them rather than a bareknuckle punch, not a softer version of the same strike)
I don't regret the time I took in that class and maybe I will take a martial arts class again some day, but I have no particular preference for tae kwon do.
'pro-choice' is to 'for abortion' as 'pro- freedom of speech' is to 'for Holocaust denial'
pro-choice legislation allows abortion, but does not endorse it.
freedom of speech legislation (in the U.S.) allows Holocaust denial, but does not endorse it.
Certainly a large proportion if not all of Holocaust deniers are supporters of free speech, but this doesn't mean that freedom of speech is bad. I can think that every abortion has negative utility and still be pro-choice, just as I can be pro- freedom of speech and still think that Holocaust denial is bad.
'should' is almost always a moral argument. A good argument will not focus on law or precedent but the most basic human VALUES and whether or not flag desecration follows those values. Don't cite freedom of speech, point to the arguments the Founding Fathers gave when they decided that it was important enough to make it the First Amendment.
I agree that knowledge can be used for bad things. But that doesn't make science bad. You described it as witchcraft before. Many cultures describe a white magic and black magic used for good and bad respectively. The same understanding of chemistry that allows us to make harmful plastics and pollutants also lets us engineer new materials for spacecraft, medicine, and improvement of living conditions. Chemistry isn't a white magic or a black magic, but a grey one; without morality or motivation behind it intrinsically.
I support telling them to do their own research and make their own choices. I personally think that if I felt as dysphoric as trans people have described, I would be willing to take those risks to be happier, but that is a decision that each person has to make, not have it forced upon them.
I spent enough of my life being forced to do things I didn't believe in to ever wish it on anyone else.
"Your solution is to promote dangerous and experimental medial treatments and call it "gender affirming therapy." That seems to be your solution."
Since you're not listening to me, I see no reason to further this conversation.
My solution is to let consenting adults do whatever the hell they want with their own bodies.
Again, listing the side effects of a specific drug that is sometimes used for gender-affirming therapy doesn't prove that ALL gender-affirming therapy is dangerous, and especially more dangerous than other forms of elective treatments such as cosmetic surgery.
Furthermore, Spironolactone has also used to treat high blood pressure and acne and has been in use since the 50s, but as soon as it's used in HRT, it's a problem?
"please remember to tie your shoe" is an imperative, not a declarative, so it doesn't hold a truth value like 'your shoe is untied' does. It can neither be true or false.
'The weather is nice today huh' Although often said in meaningless contexts, this statement holds a truth value and can be used to communicate knowledge/beliefs. If I said this to someone who doesn't know what the weather is like, it is a useful statement, and not obviously true or untrue.
'one plus one equal two' This still has a truth value. At some point in your life you will learn this for the first time. A sponge does not have knowledge of this, but a two-year old human does.
Comparing your intelligence to an inanimate object is always a huge plus
"Its a stupid game. I never win."
Usually when someone is bad at a game we call them stupid, not the game.
"gender itself is the naming of the two sexes"
'sex' is the naming of the two sexes. Words are just names for concepts, that's how language works. You say 'age' to describe someones age, and 'sex' to describe their sex.
Not sure how I missed your reply, sorry.
"the abuse of nature for wicked things is intolerable."
Are you referring to animal testing? Or by abuse do you mean "defying the natural order" such as flying and vaccines?
And do you believe that the end result of all science is "wicked"? Even eradicating smallpox?
RM doesn't pump out rounds. He actually stops to think about things and makes sure he's arguing from the right angle before he even starts writing. It's actually one of the things about him that I admire most and something that I need to work on myself. I've put myself in bad corners by posting the first argument that comes to mind.
As friendly advice, if you're going to complain about opponents taking a while to post, maybe don't give a week for arguments.
Honestly, I think the most important thing to realize about gender-affirming therapy is that more cis people undergo it than trans people. Any biological female who wears makeup, gets breast implants, etc., is taking steps to affirm their gender. Similarly, men who take testosterone to compensate for a hormonal disorder is receiving gender affirming therapy.
Obviously these are less extreme than bottom surgery, but they are still gender-affirming care.
what a shitshow
"the University of California San Francisco medical center isn't even ranked top 10 in the nation and isn't even in the top 3 in California"
It's ranked higher than drugs.com
Once again, the only point I'm making is that your definition of "sex" is wrong. I'm not claiming anything about humans
Yes, drugs.com *screams* reputability.
UCSF lists Spironolactone as the most common androgen blocker, in the same category as finasteride.
https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/feminizing-hormone-therapy
Pointing to specific treatments used today that have risks doesn't prove that gender-affirming therapy is dangerous in and of itself. Simply supplementing estrogen has no more risks for young trans woman than it does for older menopausal women who take the same medication. No surgery is without risk, and top surgery is a relatively safe procedure compared to many operations.
And surgeries only get safer over time. In 1971 the survival rate one year after a heart transplant was 37-42%. It is now 84.5% (study from 2015), more than double.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7944212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4387387/
I know they're different. However, many go on to surgery even after HRT. Furthermore, finasteride is a fairly uncommon choice for HRT as it doesn't actually block testosterone, only DHT.
That's basically the reasoning, yeah.
"Finasteride (a.k.a. Proscar) [6] causes prostate cancer"
Sounds like a problem only if you keep your penis ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There's not really a rule as to what initialisms become acronyms, other than ease of use. Eff-bee-eye is more clear and easy to pronounce. There are also "backronyms" commonly seen in politics, where you come up with a clever acronym then back-fill the words it stands for.
USA FREEDOM Act: Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring Act
The only thing I'm SAYING is that your definition is factually incorrect in that "most other living things" inherently DO NOT HAVE SEX or sexual characteristics. And that's just bacteria. I'm not even going into plant reproduction. It would be accurate to say that MOST VERTEBRATES have sex divided into male and female, and probably even most animals, but I would draw the line for anything else.
I am not referring to intersex disorders or "mutations", but to ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF REPRODUCTION. These are perfectly normal and in fact male/female sex binary is easily outnumbered by other forms.
"The difference between initialisms and acronyms, escapes me,
Though I suppose initialisms tend to be harder to pronounce as an acronym,
It 'seems more a convienence, than a hard rule."
An initialism is when you say the 'initial letter of each word. An acronym is when those letters are pronounced as their own word, like the examples in argument, SCUBA, NASA, etc. I was merely correcting the use of the word acronym to describe words like FBI, there wasn't an important argument being made here.
Call me a pedant if you want.
'Sex as its defined in the dictionary is," either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans AND MOST OTHER LIVING THINGS are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."'
The vast majority of organisms reproduce asexually (via mitosis rather than meiosis).
Fair enough.
How so?
What makes 12 a better benchmark age than 18? For that matter, why not stipulate that anyone, regardless of age, must demonstrate a basic literacy and understanding of current politics in order to vote? I expect most 18-year-olds don't know that much either.
The voting age has long been associated with the age of majority, when you become a full person in the eyes of the law. Similarly to children, in the past women or people of color could not vote, own property, operate businesses. One might look at this and say that equal suffrage for children is the last frontier in true legal equality, but I would say that this one is distinctly more justified than the other two.
I would debate this with you using more rigid starting conditions, á la r/whowouldwin, such as bloodlust, prep time, etc.
There's a reason that it's called pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
I agree on all counts except your spelling of euthanasia.
This might be the dumbest series of forfeits ever.
That is possibly the least legible claim I have ever seen.
Do you mean you have the most disagreed with beliefs of anyone on DART? Because I certainly disagree with your grammar.
Would you say that science is more or less accurate than it was 100 years ago?
"Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes."
I just noticed that this was copied from DDO.
"I'd rather say my position is neutral and I am only looking to debate with a LGBTQ+ member that can share with me they perspective about this. "
The debate tab is for defending a specific claim. I recommend posting in the forum tab, as you can get multiple people's perspectives simultaneously and can focus more on an open discussion than "winning" the argument.
^^ A single declarative statement, such as "gender identity independent of biological sex is a net negative for non-stereotypical gender expression" that can be clearly critiqued and defended is the ideal for a formatted debate (it doesn't need to be as complicated as my example). If you just want to argue/discuss your general stance on gender matters, the Forum page would be better suited to your wants.