Guest_

guest_


— Guest_ Report User
/bi 82 comments
guest_ · 11 hours ago
That’s your prerogative. You know the risks and consequences, so do what suits you, and should there be consequences, take them like an adult. Reflexes, natural and conditioned, vary person to person and aren’t a catch all excuse to get out of trouble. One persons natural or conditioned reflex, like someone who’s spent enough time in prison for example, might be to attack a person who surprises them from behind.
“Self defense” or “it was reflex” probably aren’t going to cut it if their coworker or a police officer comes up behind them and taps them on the shoulder while they are distracted and they sock them.
As I’ve said before- people are entitled to their opinions and own way of doing things, but where the risks and potential consequences of an action are known, when those people get upset if they end up suffering consequences. Choice, reflex- whatever we call it it is an action. Generally speaking we are responsible for our actions and the consequences regardless.
society 14 comments
guest_ · 18 hours ago
So what do people recommend? A trans league? Let’s ignore the fact that realistically wouldn't happen and if it did it would likely be treated as an after, after thought. I mean- in most segments pro woman’s sports faced these issues. So let’s ignore that. Let’s ignore that there are fundamental issues with telling a person that identifies as a man or a woman “but you aren’t though…” If we ignore all that- what then? Any school that offers a sport is going to have to offer it for trans kids too? So every school needs to add the staff and equipment and everything else that the other teams get/ for trans kids. What do we do if there aren’t enough trans kids to form a team? Tell them too bad, sucks to be a minority? It gets complex man.
society 14 comments
guest_ · 18 hours ago
By American values that is a problem I mean- 99.9% of us can work as hard as we want our entire lives and if you dream of being a billionaire or flying a space shuttle- you won’t. Realistically, most peoples odds, and especially some people born or coming through disadvantaged positions just can’t do certain things even if it’s theoretically possible. BUT- it isn’t because we are telling them they can’t. No law or rules says that being a pansexual satanist amateur cam performer born to 7th generation welfare and addicted to heroine bans you from being president. There is basically NO chance you’d ever be president- but you theoretically COULD if you worked hard and smart towards the goal. Saying to a trans kid- you CANT do that… that’s not really an American value.
society 14 comments
guest_ · 18 hours ago
.. “something else.” As an American problem- that’s a big problem. For a country which prides itself on offering the opportunity to anyone to achieve their dreams through hard work- philosophically it fits that narrative better to tell the girl who got her “place stollen” to “get good,” to work hard enough to make it next time. Did others non trans women make the finals? If 5 women or whatever are chosen from a league or school or team or whatever- 4 aren’t trans, 1 is trans- did the trans woman “steal your spot,” or were you not good enough to make the finals with the other women who made it? Saying to a trans person: “you can NEVER achieve this dream because you are trans..” that’s final. NEVER. No amount of hard work, dedication, nothing they do will ever allow them to make it.
society 14 comments
guest_ · 19 hours ago
… give the total picture. A simple way to handle it would be to just ban any athlete that does a significantly better job at the sport than any other or the average. Of course that would probably hurt athletics on the whole, and athletes could simply “sandbag” by not playing to their full abilities all the time but holding back for “when it matters” etc. so this still maybe isn’t fair. The tempting thing to do is to try and ban trans athletes or advocate for trans only leagues. It’s simple and doesn’t require us to think or change anything. It doesn’t really directly harm anyone except the trans- which many people don’t care if they harm them anyway right? And that’s sort of the danger. Trans people are a minority of the population. Trans people are marginalized historically and in the present- In society, in law. Trans people who have a dream of living life as the gender they identify as can’t achieve that dream period if we tell them that no matter what they do they’ll always be…
society 14 comments
guest_ · 19 hours ago
It’s a sticky subject, trans identity and how to be inclusive in a society not built around the concept of having trans people as part of it. The moral of the story I see is really less that we can’t express our opinions but more that we need to be thoughtful in expressing our opinions. Thoughtful of others and their view points for example. If you feel like trans athletes shouldn’t be able to compete in a certain league, that’s an opinion and there are ways of expressing that without being disrespectful or hateful.
As I outline above- it doesn’t even really come down to “gender” does it? The average American man would likely lose a game of basketball against a WNBA star wouldn’t he? So we can’t say it’s “unfair” to allow men to compete against women in athletics can we? What does that mean? I don’t know. Intuitively most people would just say it isn’t fair to have “biological males” compete against “biological females,” if we explore the details though- that doesn’t really…
society 14 comments
guest_ · 19 hours ago
It gets complex fast. More so when we consider all the possible ways that we can modify or influence genetics or chemicals or biology l- and how those are changing and improving.
So is this someone being banned for speaking their mind? I guess it depends. If you think Joe shouldn’t be allowed to play on the high school team because he tries to sell drugs to the team- that’s not “hate based.”
If you think Joe shouldn’t be allowed to play because he’s gay- that’s kinda based on who Joe is. Something Joe can’t change.
society 14 comments
guest_ · 19 hours ago
That’s a Pandora’s box though right? Transitioning is a touchy subject. Adults can make decisions they later regret on the subject. Kids are… kids. It’s a sticky subject how to be certain a child is committed to such a change and knows what they are getting into, understands. It also raises potentials for all sorts of abuse and exploitation. Many parents of child actors or models or pageant contestants or sports players already push their children against their wills and in unhealthy ways to achieve the parents dreams or make money for the parents. So certainly it could raise potentials for abuse and exploitation to open the doors to allowing parents to give children legal hormone therapy. Such therapy COULD be used to essentially disguise training programs involving pharmaceutical manipulation of a child’s body to create a future star athlete at a specific sport.
society 14 comments
guest_ · 19 hours ago
Most people who will say this statement tend to be against allowing the transitioning of minors- so if they can’t transition before those changes make a difference, they’ve already been banned right? That argument falls apart when people are forced into that position right? Now let’s examine another angle- don’t some kids have advantages beyond genetics as well? Due to their parents choices and ambitions or their own interests or their parents finances, some kids start training at an early age. Growing up I knew a girl who’s parents built an actual ice rink in their back yard and hired Olympic level coaches starting in elementary school so their daughter could grow up to be a pro. Should she be banned from competing or forced into a league for rich kids because she has the experience and muscle memory and advantages that not every one or even most of her hopeful peers could possibly have?
society 14 comments
guest_ · 19 hours ago
… it is inherently unfair. Tyson makes a fortune boxing and no matter how hard some people train they’d never be competitive at that level. How do we handle that? The only remotely “fair” way is some
Complex system of testing actual ability and monitoring it, and testing genetics and hormone levels etc. and matching athletes by their absolute theoretical capability in leagues that have minimum and maximum “skill caps.” Too good and you get bumped up a league and maybe go from best in league to worst. Too bad and you go down a league and maybe go from worst to top pick. So it’s still full of problems.
“It’s different. Trans people have all the advantages they gained through their life and biology as their born sex!” Well yes. But… let’s look at that too.
society 14 comments
guest_ · 19 hours ago
If we examine this under another light- in which OP was beaten out for a spot in the finals by a “biological female” who outperformed her, were she to post something saying her spot was “stollen,” most people would probably read the words of a sore loser, not a battle in a “culture war” or whatever. Of course, we can’t necessarily say what she would have posted had it been a “biological female,” but for the sake of argument let’s assume she wouldn’t have complained. Ok. But like… why? Micheal Jordan has advantages from his genetics in basically every aspect of athletics vs. Ricky Gervais- it’s fundamentally unfair. Ricky Gervais in his prime just wouldn’t be able to compete with Jordan in his prime. He could moan that Jordan should be in another league- but doesn’t that already exist for people who can’t compete at the pro level- semi pro or amateur leagues? “That league has less exposure, less pay..” well yes. Because that’s the league where people who aren’t the best at a sport go….
Fillosuffee 3 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
.. infrastructure wasn’t there. The way economies work, the way people think, culture values, all sorts of things change over time. Sometimes politics or special interests kill ideas history is a great teacher, but the lessons we learn depend on our ability to interpret and understand. They depend on wether we go to history with an open mind to learn, or we go to history looking to prove or disprove a conclusion we have already decided upon. In the end, history is an indicator of the future but not a guarantee. The stock market is a human creation that reflects the moods of people and shows us that even in a simplified man made system, historical data only gives so much useful insight to the future. It also shows us that trying to divine the future from the past can create self fulfilling prophecy. It is good to know history and consider it, but we can’t just say because some idea didn’t work once it wouldn’t work now or vice versa.
2
Fillosuffee 3 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
Studying history is important. Learning from past mistakes is important. However- it takes a certain type of mindset and thinking to do this. We can’t paint too broad a stroke when looking to history- for example, when we look at the League of Nations or countless other councils of “powers” and nations in history- all have ultimately ended. In recorded human history the longest running and most stable governments have been forms of dictatorship, monarchy, feudal systems and the like. So simply looking at an idea and saying “it won’t work because it hasn’t worked before” or vice versa doesn’t factor in the details and conditions of WHY it didn’t work. Modern high tech aircraft designs literally couldn’t fly if they were tried in the past. Without computer controls they are too unstable for a human to fly. Computers and videogames or countless other technologies and concepts that are HUGE in the modern world have failed or been poised to fail because people just weren’t ready or…
1
Someone explain why water is dangerous in airports? 12 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
.. major incident. It’s on the level that passes a point where statistically, if people were trying, that with those numbers you’d be likely to have “one slip through” even the most draconian security over a span of decades.
So for the sake of the passenger, but more so the sake of the business, our airport security doesn’t aspire touch besides hoping to deter trouble makers simply through existing, and placating the public and passengers. That isn’t to say our security never catches any potential dangers at all- but largely it’s inefficient and questionably effective.
1
Someone explain why water is dangerous in airports? 12 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
? By observing, “people watching,” and applying logical deduction with some general assumptions, you can pin point suspicious passengers and those are the specific passengers who may need to have enhanced screening, additional scrutiny, or be informally interviewed by security. There are lots of other effective strategies used elsewhere when it comes to either providing high quality security or providing efficient security; or finding the balance between the two. By and large what we have in the US isn’t particularly either and relies primarily on passengers being familiar with and practiced at the process to have any sort of efficiency. The truth is that a critically high level of security in US air ports would largely making flying prohibitive for most people. To protect the industry, we just don’t bother; and honestly we don’t really need to. Actual incidents of the sort critical security would prevent are EXCEPTIONALLY rare. We are talking billions of passengers flown per single..
1
Someone explain why water is dangerous in airports? 12 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
For starters, Ben Gurion tries to avoid massive passenger queues before security. Gathering large number of people closely together before they’ve been security screened is just creating a target and opportunity. You don’t need to slip a bomb past security to kill 150 people on a plane if you can just walk up to the unsecured area of the airport and stage an attack against the hundreds of thousands of people huddled up. Ben Gurion doesn’t have the senseless scrutiny of every passengers every little item. They do have screening and “sniffers,” but a major tactic they use is to… employ skilled security professionals. Security and airport agents observe passengers. Their systems and employees look for the suspicious. Where is a person coming from or going to? For what purpose? How are they dressed, what kind of luggage or amount of luggage do they have? Who do they say they are, and does the person you see seem to match that? Do they behave oddly or suspiciously? How’s their body language
1
Someone explain why water is dangerous in airports? 12 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
Well said. Yes. Theater is the intent. Politics asides and ignoring recent congestion caused by post covid demand surges overlapping major holidays and a staff level that hasn’t returned to pre covid levels- Ben Gurion airport in Israel is consistently ranked among the worlds top international airports. Ben Gurion saw over 24 million passengers in 2019 compared to the pre covid figures of JFK airport in New York USA- one of the worlds busiest airports- at around 32 million a year.
Normally Ben Gurion is an extremely fad and efficient airport, and despite Israel being a major target of regional and international hostility and being in an area known for various conflicts and terrorist or militant organizations- Ben Gurion is very safe. Their security is very unlike what you see at American airports.
1
/bi 82 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
YOU do whatever you want to do, because YOU are the one who deals with whatever consequences your choices have.
Were I to offer someone advice on defending themselves, from a woman or anyone else, I would advise they apply their best judgment to the situation, and to not forget that often, the best way to protect one’s self or mitigate harm to self when threatened or attacked is to flea the situation if that option exists and is prudent, which also happens to be generally the method which is least likely to result in legal trouble as well. If one cannot run, one should apply best judgment to respond with the minimum proportional method and magnitude of force the situation and threat level calls for, to the extent required to no longer be in danger or be able to escape.
· Edited 1 day ago
Someone explain why water is dangerous in airports? 12 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
So I mean, there are these 90000 reasons big and small for why it might be a pain or cause problems to allow water to go through security. That said- airport security for all its restrictions is painfully mismanaged, Almost pointless. A mish mash of compromises and poor policies which allows huge gaps while being overly focused on minute details. A major reason though is… money. Simply put, much the same as many amusement parks and venues don’t allow “outside food or drink,” prohibiting certain items like drinks incentivizes travelers to buy in the terminal where a water or soda might cost 4-6x or more what it costs outside.
4
Someone explain why water is dangerous in airports? 12 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
.. potential problems and expense, and any which one of these methods or most conceivable methods of security for checking out water are going to add yet another step in security screening and yet more delays. Imagine how an airport like JFK might run during the winter holiday peaks with snow storms and such going on amongst peak travel- and now we are having to wait out testing every passengers water…? I suppose they may be able to settle for a visual inspection, but that precludes non transparent water bottles. And I mean… if you allow only clear bottles people will start complaining “what’s so dangerous about a non clear bottle..?” And people will say: “so water is safe but tea/soda/juice are deadly weapons…?”
“Water is safe but if I add koolaid/crystal lite/etc THATS deadly?” And then we will scoff because you can carry the drink mix and the water through security and mix them in the other side, but if you walk through security with them mixed together you need to toss it out?
4
Someone explain why water is dangerous in airports? 12 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
Bottled Water is not terribly dangerous on a plane. Allowing water is potentially dangerous because it is a fluid. Many explosives and hazardous or flammable/combustible fluids resemble water. Many fluids which are inert but can be mixed with other fluids to create dangers follow these guidelines too.
Couldn’t they just confirm it is water? Well… like… how? Sniff it? Let’s ignore covid etc. that’s still kinda gross right? Having someone sniff your water, being the one that has to sniff other peoples drinks? All sorts of silly little problems. A booger falls in or a nose hair or whatever. But many chemicals that can pose a risk have no smell or can have their smells disguised. On the opposite end- a chemical with dangerous fumes etc- someone could die or be hurt sniffing that. For obvious reasons “taste testing” is out too. I suppose they could install spectrometers or allow chemical test strips or something that are used to test the liquid- but that’s not perfect, still lots of…
3
/bi 82 comments
guest_ · 1 day ago
I mean… I just spent like… 10,000 words outlining how and where that statement isn’t true, including real world examples with legal cases.
I will accept that in your personal opinion “a strike for a strike is self defense, and there’s no….” But as far as making it as a statement of fact, we’ve demonstrated it is not a factual statement nor an objective truth. Much the same that one can believe that eating lb of butter a day will cure heart disease- it is their prerogative what they believe, but it is not fact, can it be demonstrated or supported by body of evidence, and if they act in that belief, their beliefs and reality might conflict in a way which reality will generally win, and when it comes to hitting- reality hits hard.
So as I said before- your beliefs are your choice, but belief is not fact.
Lmao got em 18 comments
guest_ · 2 days ago
For real. I mean, it can be hard to reconcile. Most people generally do t enjoy or would rather not be responsible for hurting others, but it’s just part of the rules. Many people feel a guilt- how can they generally enjoy life knowing that their life causes harm or that others are suffering on their behalf? The view is a bit narrow though. As you point out, one way or another, at some point life rules that we will also help others- if at least as raw materials back to the world when we decompose etc.that said we can certainly make conscious choices to reduce the harm we cause and increase the good we do. It’s not a numbers game, I can’t say how much or what “goods” can “balance” out bads, all I can say is that I think most people would agree that if something has guaranteed “bads” they’d at least prefer it come along with some “goods.”
Tax money being put to good use again 16 comments
guest_ · 2 days ago
Ah! Apologies. Thank you for citing the line in question. Thank you for the correction as well. I didn’t recall writing that. Yes. That is written incorrectly, and as I wrote it, I agree it reads to imply exactly what your correction sets to clear up. As far as I am also aware- but I cannot say it is completely impossible or has never happened- you are correct in that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that a person would have male and female sex organs that are fully functional for reproduction. Also I agree that I find this stuff fascinating too. What we consider the “norm” is largely a host of mutations, and what we consider “mutations” could one day be the “norm” as well. Factoring in environmental evolutions of different groups and other changes from environment adaptation of an individual, we can get some crazy stuff. The human body is quite the odd wonder.
2
/bi 82 comments
guest_ · 2 days ago
A body can constantly filming 24/7 is slightly less limiting but still has potential limitations and there are additional legal liabilities, social consequences likely, and of course that’s a tad extreme for most people.
So what is “best” best as I’ve said all along is to avoid a fight. If you fail to or cannot mitigate risks of confrontation occurring, running away or escaping is “best” generally if it is a prudent option. By the time we get to the point where we are hitting back we are basically at or towards the far end of the “bad” option side of scale liability wise. So “best” is avoiding use of force as much as possible so that you effectively remove all personal liability and risk. As the old wisdom goes- the “best” case in war is to win without fighting. If your goal is to not get hurt and you can do that without fighting- that is a “win.”