Hatfort

Well, donation is not a word I'd use, that would imply they are voluntary. Can you imagine? Pay only if you want to.

@Carl-Richard Amazing Shapiro impersonation! It's fine, man, had enough debate, no better way to settle it!

Funny man, he is missed.

What makes age different from sex and gender? Age is known as the time we have lived since we were born. With sex, we traditionally differentiate two biological ones, male and female and I'm not going to explain much about gender or gender roles, but there are things we socially understand about them, that have become more flexible in recent times. Quite different concepts, with very different implications, I don't see why we have to apply the same logic with both of them.

No, I don't think it's similar, only on the surface. As said, what's it's valid in one case, doesn't hold in the other.

So you do think people should be allowed to change their age legally, is that right? Okay, go for it! In any case, I think we have a false analogy or faulty comparison case here. Yeah, there is a shared characteristic, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what is valid in one case is automatically valid in the other, as you present it and believe yourself, apparently. Mountain boots and swimming flippers both are worn on our feet, but you certainly shouldn't exchange one for the purpose of the other.

You didn't answer the question. I'm not annoyed though and I'll answer yours. I'm willing to do what I ask for, that's fair enough. We do allow people to change their birth gender legally in many countries, yeah, I think that's fine, we should allow it. Can you honestly answer yes to my question now? My suspicion is that you don't answer it because it's a no and you don't want to say it. If you avoid it again with another question, I won't answer it this time. I think that's fair too.

I won't say being a transage can't be something real in a sense, some old people look and behave like younger and the opposite as well. That's fine, who cares, I do feel younger myself sometimes. So what, should we allow people change their legal birth date at will? Please, someone answer me honestly yes to this question.

Agreed, any party with radical on the name is born dead. They will have a number of loyal followers, but people, in general, won't support them, just for the name. Providing rights and a decent life to people must not be radical, it must be common sense.

From the title, what is that conscious politics truth? I'd like to know.

Let's take a case of murder. Law enforcers can make mistakes, it can be the police officers, forensics, lawyers, judges, anyone in the chain. An innocent man gets convicted and with the "eye for an eye", sentenced to death. Law enforcers can be corrupt as well, they may know who the real murderer is, it could even be themselves, so they fabricate evidence to blame someone else. An innocent person gets the death penalty. We gotta acknowledge that the justice system is not perfect and there have been so many cases of people proven innocent after being executed. You can always get a man out of prison, can't give him those years without freedom back, but at least he is alive. You can't revive a dead man, this should be enough to put the death penalty off the table.

I have not said what should be discussed or not, I have commented on both topics myself. I'm not offended by the discussion, let's make that clear too. My point is that we don't need to apply the same logic in such different concepts, it won't work. The comparison you make with transgenders 50 years ago, to transages now is precisely doing that. Let's bet a little franc here, do you think in 50 years people will be able to change their legal age because they feel younger? Just because you change the word gender for age, doesn't mean it's the same kind of thing we are talking about. Yes, there is the parallelism that in both cases it's about something people feel inside doesn't correspond with the outside, I guess. But that's it, just surface, from then on the implications both cases entail are completely different.

On the other hand, somewhere else in America, Republicans chose this woman for congress. A loony that doubles Trump down in red. They had to choose between her and an educated, conservative neurosurgeon also pro-Trump, of course, they choose the loony.

There was another debate about the race too, now the age, comparing to the transgender community. If you people want to go deeply philosophical, whatever, everything you say is a social construct, language is a social construct itself, it wasn't given by nature. But in practice, that's how we understand each other. Gender, skin color, or age are different concepts and we don't need to measure or treat them the same way. Just for swapping one concept into the context of another, that won't change it and all it's characteristics magically. Age is not gender, gender biology and identity have very particular characteristics that we can't really apply to age, which has it's own and that's fine. I don't think it's fair to compare people who deal with gender identity issues, with this non-issue. You feel younger, good for you, go and enjoy your life, while you can.

And what is what is easy for them these days? To lie? To fake a race? To burn this woman on a pyre? Perhaps at other times they had it easier. Whatever...

What? Easy for what?

And what plans are those? Could you show any reliable source, or is it just rumor based information? Just curious.

Is it wrong what this woman did? Yeah. Does she deserve to be fired? I think so. Does she deserve to be incarcerated? Well, that sounds like too much for lying, she didn't really directly harm anybody. She should apologize, deal with the consequences of her actions, and then move on. Related, should these kinds of teachings be exclusively done by those minorities? Well, they know first hand what they are teaching really means, but if a white woman is really interested in those topics, studies them hard because she is passionate about them, and proves herself, I don't see why not. Lying about herself is not the way, I'd say it's insulting for these minorities. Like what Elizabeth Warren did, insisting she was Native American, it feels wrong and it's wrong.

Not all drugs are the same, we don't need to regulate all of them the same way. A more honest education about their effects should be done, people should be informed they can be potentially addictive for some, or that high dosages may even cause death, I don't deny that. But those are extreme cases, people should and is informed that alcohol and vehicles are a deadly mix and I believe most people take that seriously. New ways of regulating them will start arriving in the first world within the next 20 years (I hope). We'll make mistakes, that's natural, but it's also how we'll improve as individuals and societies. It's clear for anyone who follows this website that there are big potential benefits in some drugs like psychedelics, these notions are spreading. I also don't think is that bad a certain amount of leisure or just for fun use of them. Youngs will be youngs. Decriminalization and social help for those who lose themselves on drugs should be a route to follow too, the sooner, the better. For those lost and their close ones especially, but for everyone else as well.

Jordan Peterson, an interesting figure nowadays, no doubt. He may deserve recognition for his contribution in the field of self-development. A best-seller book "12 rules for life", which I have not read, so I can't say much about it. If he has helped thousands of guys to clean their rooms, it's not a bad accomplishment. He became famous by opposing to use new alternative pronouns, which I find it's okay. A lot of his fame comes from these culture wars, which are not that important in the big picture, although they can be interesting in many ways. He uses those culture wars to make other political points that have no relation at all or to ridicule the ideas that he doesn't like by pointing those extremes as they were a whole. Politically he has not proved to have a lot of knowledge, he can debate students and mainstream media figures, but when put beside a real intellectual in the field like Zizek, it's clear he is far below. That wouldn't necessarily mean he doesn't make valid political points, but it's not the case. I'm not sure if he really believes progressives that want to fight inequality, poverty, and injustice want to build some kind of tyranny, or he just uses that as a strawman fallacy, both cases would leave him in a bad place. Neo-Marxist means nothing, but the term triggers his followers, so good for him, but it's quite dishonest. He is having some health issues lately if I'm not wrong. I really hope he gets well.

It's been a while since I've been in the forum, but as the elections are getting closer, I'd like to participate a bit again, as it is not a minor event and I personally find the topic interesting, as many other people do. I'm not qualified to make predictions using the website linked, as my knowledge about the idiosyncrasy of each state separately is low, I'm not American, but European. But I'd like to share my thoughts anyway. I was disappointed that Sanders didn't win the nomination for the Democrats, but the fact is that Biden got more support, so he won. I can understand some progressives not supporting Biden, but it's not the right move, there's a lot in the game, and getting Trump out of the White House should be enough incentive. If you didn't like his first term in office, I can tell you the second would be much worse, you don't want it. Two factors I'd like to point out: Biden lost to Bernie, so many of the supporters of his former rival may not stand for him, and the ones that do, won't put nearly the same enthusiasm they would have put for the candidate of Vermont. Enthusiam is not a minor ingredient for the Democrats to win. Trump is a clown and behaves like a spoiled child. Although he has a solid unconditional base, part of the Republican voters may even feel that Biden represents better their ideals now. There is going to be a significant vote transfer, will it be enough for Biden? Now my prediction. I think both can win, it will be very close. But I'll pick one, I think Trump is going to win. I've been wrong in my predictions many times before, so this doesn't mean much. I hope I'm wrong again!

Enough is enough, said the responsible of Iowa Democrat party, even before releasing full results by then. Well, I feel the same way, but I don't think he should be the one saying that. They released a 100% result finally, which gives Buttigieg a narrow victory over Bernie by less than 0'1%. They can recount votes all they want, but I don't think the multiple round system can be replicated anyway, so this is it. Whatever, I said I would leave the forum with an apology if finally Bernie didn't win and I'm doing so. I'm sorry, I never intended to feed any conspiracy theory, but a messy process by the responsibles didn't make it easy to analyze the situation fairly. If Buttigieg wins the nomination, my best for him and he'll have my full support against Trump. But I'm totally with Bernie, medicare for all, no to unnecessary and endless wars, cancelation of the student debt, decent living wage, MJ legalization with cleaning of past criminal records for its possession, etc... I like his music, things like those would impact lives for the better. Of course, some powerful companies don't like it, they profit so much in the current situation and that could stop or be reduced. They only think short term though, a part of the society in the edge of poverty, criminalized and with fear of even getting sick doesn't benefit anybody, the contrary. So this is my last comment, be good to each other and discuss and share with an open mind and heart, it's best. For Leo, I'll be still following your videos and blog, I find them valuable and seems you're going through an interesting journey. Myself, I have things I gotta take care of, so that's what I'm going to do. Bye!!!!

@Emerald I don't think they are going to release the 100%... I had given up on the idea that the delay on the results was intentional this morning, whoever the winner would be in the end. But how is it that the counting stops exactly when the difference is in 0'1, the smallest possible, kidding me? I think it was and is intentional again, I can't understand why they are not giving complete results by now. With BIden fallen, Buttigieg has been the virtual winner for three days and this has bumped him in donations and polls for New Hampshire. We don't know who won yet. But, yes, I think it was Bernie in all metrics, not only popular vote. I'm open to be proven wrong, but how is it that I have not yet? Yet, even stolen a good healine bump this week, at least if I'm not wrong, Bernie has ended up well from Iowa. His biggest rival was Biden, Buttigieg could be a weaker rjval in the overal USA picture. He cannot appeal to the senior moderate voters that well, in fact, those may start sympathising with Bernie too as he is as old as them.

What's wrong now? All day stuck in 97%, why does it take so long to count the remaining 3%? I say this because I'm reading something about a recanvass. They haven't even finished counting yet! What recanvass? Is this a bad joke? The difference is 0'1 now, 3% is still relevant.

@Parththakkar12 I'd say Trump had some kind of anti establishment halo around him on 2016, he wasn't taken seriously either and that's a big mistake all his opponents in his primaries made and also Hillary. There are some kind of odd candidates, like actors, comedians and famous people, Beppe Grillo in Italy seemed a joke, Schwarzenegger in California or Trump in this case fall in that category too, and for some reason they get simpathy and support and they win. But the enchantment is gone, he does not have that now, he is the president and everyone has seen him in charge. A lot of his supporters got very loyal, but a lot of them have distanced from him and his manners too. This is just my perception, I could be wrong.