https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Saturday, August 27, 2016
j reacts to a dream about genetic factors in gender identity
i've been over this a few times: i really don't think that gender is genetic in the sense that there's a gene for liking skirts or a gene for liking cars. rather, i think it's partly hormonal and partly experiential. the only serious genetic determinant going into somebody's gender identity is consequently the way that their bodies regulate hormones.
that means that there actually might be an observable physical trait that i demonstrate that has something to do with things, which is the fact that i've never grown a single hair on my chest in my life. this is actually very rare. the categorization of "apilose" means "less than 6%".
...and i'm not exaggerating. nary a hair. ever. in my entire life.
(i'll remind you that i'm nearly 36. it's never going to happen.)
how does that happen? well, here's the truth: this is androgenic hair. that is, it's presence is triggered by the release of testosterone during puberty. humans demonstrate lots of variation, as a species. so, some dudes release huge amounts of testosterone and end up looking like hairy man-apes. others release a lot less and just end up with a little baby fuzz. and, yes: some women release enough testosterone to end up with hair on their chests and faces, too.
the fact that i've never grown any chest on my hair at all ever means that i didn't go through that testosterone flush. i can't tell you why not with any real certainty, but it's almost certainly genetic. note that my dad was a typical hairy italian jew.
and, hence this is where one needs to look at the genetic basis of things, for me. as mentioned: i think this is overly facile. it's not that easy. it's at most one of multiple factors. but, if i was a geneticist, that's where i'd be looking: the genes that regulate hormone release during puberty.
as an aside, that makes the issue reducible to a "hormonal imbalance" and the treatment of hormone therapy rational. but, it also means that the ultimate truth here is that i very much had a choice in correcting the imbalance: that i could have equally well chosen to pop testosterone pills. the ultimate choice here, at the end, has to be experiential, when seen that way.
that means that there actually might be an observable physical trait that i demonstrate that has something to do with things, which is the fact that i've never grown a single hair on my chest in my life. this is actually very rare. the categorization of "apilose" means "less than 6%".
...and i'm not exaggerating. nary a hair. ever. in my entire life.
(i'll remind you that i'm nearly 36. it's never going to happen.)
how does that happen? well, here's the truth: this is androgenic hair. that is, it's presence is triggered by the release of testosterone during puberty. humans demonstrate lots of variation, as a species. so, some dudes release huge amounts of testosterone and end up looking like hairy man-apes. others release a lot less and just end up with a little baby fuzz. and, yes: some women release enough testosterone to end up with hair on their chests and faces, too.
the fact that i've never grown any chest on my hair at all ever means that i didn't go through that testosterone flush. i can't tell you why not with any real certainty, but it's almost certainly genetic. note that my dad was a typical hairy italian jew.
and, hence this is where one needs to look at the genetic basis of things, for me. as mentioned: i think this is overly facile. it's not that easy. it's at most one of multiple factors. but, if i was a geneticist, that's where i'd be looking: the genes that regulate hormone release during puberty.
as an aside, that makes the issue reducible to a "hormonal imbalance" and the treatment of hormone therapy rational. but, it also means that the ultimate truth here is that i very much had a choice in correcting the imbalance: that i could have equally well chosen to pop testosterone pills. the ultimate choice here, at the end, has to be experiential, when seen that way.
at
16:37
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Connor_Phillipz
love how he completely forgets to discuss the libertarian platform of fiscal issues... why? because that's where the progressive agenda is weak. Libertarians are okay with welfare if the government can pay for it without going into debt. In a progressive society, the government would go bankrupt because the government would spend without limits.
jessica
if the government can spend without limits, what does it mean to go bankrupt?
robert h
if the gov is small and there is less corruption, the rich will pay more equal percent! witch should make billions of tax revenue! BUT at this point only the middle class pay for the poor and then pay to bail out the rich!!
jessica
what does the size of government have to do with tax fairness?
robert h
have you went to a forest but couldn`t see it `cuz all the other trees were in the way?
That is how our government is now!
For get just politicians , think of everyone who is part of the system, from the cops to the welfare people, everyone is part of government, so it will protecting its self...
~see Nazi Germany , not everyone agreed with the idea of Hitler, but then you can't bite the hand that feeds you, if you did you could be killed or made you into a known spy/terrorist, & all your family...
jessica
??
robert h
? that is mostly it, it is only part of a idea, not written in stone, I think it needs a little dash of communism...
Right now the Middle class pays for the poor and the rich!?(government protects its sefl)
We middle class, could pay for the poor for ever, but we can not bail out the rich & pay for the poor too?
Why & how did the middle class get the chance to protect the rich, it should never happen!!
Now the governments only chance is to import cheaper workers that will vote, to support...
jessica
if i'm able to piece together your thinking, what you appear to be suggesting is that reducing the size of government will reduce the amount of revenue required for government to operate, which will increase the percentage of expenditure attributed to the wealthy because the net expenditure will decrease. but, this is not a reduction of inequality, it's the institutionalization of it.
there's no causal relationship between tax fairness and the size of government.
why don't we just tax the rich?
robert h
google it!
jessica
i really think that google is more likely to provide me with reasons why we should tax the rich.
more broadly speaking - and language of trees and forests is truly ironic, here - this is a good example of the kind of demagogic argument that frequently pops up on the libertarian right. they consistently twist around concepts into these incoherent messes. i'm a message board veteran - i've been doing this for very close to twenty years, now. more than 19. i started on usenet. i can disassemble this nonsense pretty quickly. a lot of people can't.
casual observers/readers just need to know to be very, very wary of their arguments. most of what they throw at you is disingenuous at the source - worse is that a good percentage of them don't realize it, themselves.
there's a kind of honest conservative that i enjoy debating with. but, right libertarians are more often than not of the same mindset regarding the truth as the hosts on fox news.
they just don't care. they'll twist anything and everything in any and every direction....
robert h
I`m not sure if you are doing any good, after 19 +years? you are to confusing to read!
then you ask silly questions, that you already have the answer too, and like!... that is not debating, that is playing with people!?
No wonder you have to try so hard for so long...
on a side note~ Use caution with google that is the place to get the same answers everyone else got!
google ~ Mediocrity & equality @ its best...soon everyone will have the same FREEDUMB!
jessica
well, no - that's my point. i'm not intending to debate with you. i know better than to debate with people that are dishonest.
robert h
feeding off of others is why we are here, greed and personal power...
feed away if you are that hungry!
jessica
it's not a waste of time to debunk you. i'm simply clarifying the difference between debating and debunking. hey, man, you tied your own rope, i just gave it to you.
(deleted)
jessica
well, no. i don't accept any concept of property rights, so the term "take something away from others" is incoherent to me. rather, i would reject the idea of hoarding things from the common good. taxation is not theft. property is theft.
love how he completely forgets to discuss the libertarian platform of fiscal issues... why? because that's where the progressive agenda is weak. Libertarians are okay with welfare if the government can pay for it without going into debt. In a progressive society, the government would go bankrupt because the government would spend without limits.
jessica
if the government can spend without limits, what does it mean to go bankrupt?
robert h
if the gov is small and there is less corruption, the rich will pay more equal percent! witch should make billions of tax revenue! BUT at this point only the middle class pay for the poor and then pay to bail out the rich!!
jessica
what does the size of government have to do with tax fairness?
robert h
have you went to a forest but couldn`t see it `cuz all the other trees were in the way?
That is how our government is now!
For get just politicians , think of everyone who is part of the system, from the cops to the welfare people, everyone is part of government, so it will protecting its self...
~see Nazi Germany , not everyone agreed with the idea of Hitler, but then you can't bite the hand that feeds you, if you did you could be killed or made you into a known spy/terrorist, & all your family...
jessica
??
robert h
? that is mostly it, it is only part of a idea, not written in stone, I think it needs a little dash of communism...
Right now the Middle class pays for the poor and the rich!?(government protects its sefl)
We middle class, could pay for the poor for ever, but we can not bail out the rich & pay for the poor too?
Why & how did the middle class get the chance to protect the rich, it should never happen!!
Now the governments only chance is to import cheaper workers that will vote, to support...
jessica
if i'm able to piece together your thinking, what you appear to be suggesting is that reducing the size of government will reduce the amount of revenue required for government to operate, which will increase the percentage of expenditure attributed to the wealthy because the net expenditure will decrease. but, this is not a reduction of inequality, it's the institutionalization of it.
there's no causal relationship between tax fairness and the size of government.
why don't we just tax the rich?
robert h
google it!
jessica
i really think that google is more likely to provide me with reasons why we should tax the rich.
more broadly speaking - and language of trees and forests is truly ironic, here - this is a good example of the kind of demagogic argument that frequently pops up on the libertarian right. they consistently twist around concepts into these incoherent messes. i'm a message board veteran - i've been doing this for very close to twenty years, now. more than 19. i started on usenet. i can disassemble this nonsense pretty quickly. a lot of people can't.
casual observers/readers just need to know to be very, very wary of their arguments. most of what they throw at you is disingenuous at the source - worse is that a good percentage of them don't realize it, themselves.
there's a kind of honest conservative that i enjoy debating with. but, right libertarians are more often than not of the same mindset regarding the truth as the hosts on fox news.
they just don't care. they'll twist anything and everything in any and every direction....
robert h
I`m not sure if you are doing any good, after 19 +years? you are to confusing to read!
then you ask silly questions, that you already have the answer too, and like!... that is not debating, that is playing with people!?
No wonder you have to try so hard for so long...
on a side note~ Use caution with google that is the place to get the same answers everyone else got!
google ~ Mediocrity & equality @ its best...soon everyone will have the same FREEDUMB!
jessica
well, no - that's my point. i'm not intending to debate with you. i know better than to debate with people that are dishonest.
robert h
feeding off of others is why we are here, greed and personal power...
feed away if you are that hungry!
jessica
it's not a waste of time to debunk you. i'm simply clarifying the difference between debating and debunking. hey, man, you tied your own rope, i just gave it to you.
(deleted)
jessica
well, no. i don't accept any concept of property rights, so the term "take something away from others" is incoherent to me. rather, i would reject the idea of hoarding things from the common good. taxation is not theft. property is theft.
at
11:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
no, i'm a fan of drama.
i don't watch films, like, ever. but, when i did i always went right to the drama section.
the best are the hybrid comedy-drama films. jim carrey was always the best at that. robin williams. bill murray. steve martin. that's the good shit....
coen brothers.
tarantino, to an extent.
spacey...
i used to watch a lot of films with my dad & step-mother & sister. it was kind of a weekly thing. and, i'm not at all exaggerating when i say i always went right to the drama section. then, i'd more often than not end up watching the films by myself.
the other three would always go for action films. sci fi. military. murder/mystery. blockbuster type films. the only way i could get them to watch something at a slower pace was if it had certain actors in it. so, my step-mother liked nicholas cage. and my dad like kevin spacey. otherwise, the same thing would always happen - they'd watch the first twenty minutes, decide the film was boring and walk out.
i saw some classic films under those conditions. pi was one that i specifically remember everybody walking out on. pleasantville was another that nobody could get through. even my dad couldn't get through american beauty, despite the spacey...
by the time i got to my late teens, it was pretty much a routine. they'd watch their boring shoot 'em up thing, while i sat in my bedroom recording. when they were done, dad would (sometimes) come in and say he picked something up that he thought i'd like and try to get through it with me. they were actually often good films. he rarely made it through half. he tried, though :)
but, yeah. drama? i'm not opposed to it. i'm all about it.
i don't watch films, like, ever. but, when i did i always went right to the drama section.
the best are the hybrid comedy-drama films. jim carrey was always the best at that. robin williams. bill murray. steve martin. that's the good shit....
coen brothers.
tarantino, to an extent.
spacey...
i used to watch a lot of films with my dad & step-mother & sister. it was kind of a weekly thing. and, i'm not at all exaggerating when i say i always went right to the drama section. then, i'd more often than not end up watching the films by myself.
the other three would always go for action films. sci fi. military. murder/mystery. blockbuster type films. the only way i could get them to watch something at a slower pace was if it had certain actors in it. so, my step-mother liked nicholas cage. and my dad like kevin spacey. otherwise, the same thing would always happen - they'd watch the first twenty minutes, decide the film was boring and walk out.
i saw some classic films under those conditions. pi was one that i specifically remember everybody walking out on. pleasantville was another that nobody could get through. even my dad couldn't get through american beauty, despite the spacey...
by the time i got to my late teens, it was pretty much a routine. they'd watch their boring shoot 'em up thing, while i sat in my bedroom recording. when they were done, dad would (sometimes) come in and say he picked something up that he thought i'd like and try to get through it with me. they were actually often good films. he rarely made it through half. he tried, though :)
but, yeah. drama? i'm not opposed to it. i'm all about it.
at
10:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to trump's obvious turn on immigration being obvious
i said from the start that trump seemed to be unaware that the major benefactor of the current immigration status quo in the southern part of the united states is the corporate interests that control the american right, and he'd have no choice but to modify his stance once he won the nomination. if he were to actually follow through on his proposals, you'd end up with hyperinflation in the price of food. this immigration rhetoric is a useful control mechanism, sure. but, don't be confused by it. the republican party will never do anything to restrict the flow of cheap labour into the united states. ann coulter knows that, too. she's just a troll.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvMA0r3esw8&lc=z12synpzoqffwrvfm23zstup5ye3gtsyy04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvMA0r3esw8&lc=z12synpzoqffwrvfm23zstup5ye3gtsyy04
at
10:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
you mean, leafy is older than 18?
the idea is correct. it's just that the number is arbitrary. those kids look old enough to stand trial, to me.
the idea is correct. it's just that the number is arbitrary. those kids look old enough to stand trial, to me.
at
09:59
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
actually, i think that proper polling would uphold the hypothesis that trump's supporters are people that have never heard of brexit, think angela merkel is the lady from murder, she wrote and answer "american" when asked what language they speak. the association between clinton and merkel is just based on gender. it's that crude.
ppp could have some fun with these questions. you could probably get a sizeable number to answer murder she wrote. and, a vast majority would not be able to name who the chancellor is...
ppp could have some fun with these questions. you could probably get a sizeable number to answer murder she wrote. and, a vast majority would not be able to name who the chancellor is...
at
09:31
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)