bcglorf

Member Profile


Member Since: July 23, 2007
Last Power Points used: March 21, 2014
Available: now
Power Points at Recharge: 1   Get More Power Points Now!

Comments to bcglorf

newtboy says...

I had to quit discussing things like this in private thanks to bob (and his sock puppets). I refuse now because he likes to be a completely different person in private, admitting things he would never admit in public conversation, admitting he’s lying, that Trump is an awful human being, etc. he ruined it.
Sorry…replying publicly.

If you can’t/won’t answer one simple question, there’s no point. I’m sick of answering all of yours and having you dodge mine….especially sick of it since you refuse to even acknowledge my answers and pretend I didn’t give you a straight answer. I refused to answer one red herring, biased, loaded, off topic question because I disagreed wholeheartedly with its premise, but answered every other you asked.
I feel like you’re wasting my time here..

I must point out, the question you continue to ignore trumps every question you asked….how can you deny the rights of legal women to compete in publicly funded contests as women? It’s their constitutional right to not be discriminated against based on gender. Case closed. Nothing overrides that legality.

I answered your question 3 times now. If you can’t understand, why keep trying? One last time, but I’m out. I’m not going to answer you without the same consideration.

There is no evidence that xx vs xy denotes one automatically has an advantage based on just chromosomal arrangements. None.

Women CAN be stronger, faster, better than men in most arenas, and vice versa. Genetic gender may indicate a likelihood random men will be stronger than random women, it alone does not dictate biological differences that can/will be advantageous in athletics. Hormone levels, hormone therapy, supplements, mental fortitude, training, environment, opportunities, dna, rna, diet, HGH, etc can all go into creating (or erasing) those possible physical “advantages” you reference, not just chromosomal arrangements. Since that’s true, discrimination based on chromosomal arrangements is not just wrong and illegal, it’s ignorant and evil.

I’ve been over that 3 times, now 4. I’ve given specific examples. What’s the issue in comprehension? Are you even reading? What?!

I’m bored of this. We won’t get anywhere with this one sided discussion where only one of us answers questions or pays attention to the answers. Fuggetaboutit. This isn’t a discussion

Have a nice day. Bye.

bcglorf said:

Gonna try and continue this in private, public comment sections have enough anti-trans toxicity and the pages of projected/anticipated hatred you’re trying attribute to me doesn’t seem helpful for anyone else to read.

Can we start from trying to understand each others positions, definitions and assumptions before concluding a dozen other anticipated conditions on top? For my part, I honestly do want to try to understand where the disconnect in thought process here exists.

For instance, one of my first inquiries was if you agreed or not that biological sex(XX,XY) dictates biological differences that can be advantageous in athletics?

I am not attempting to project anything further, but instead to understand if even that observation is common ground or if it’s a point where our world views already diverge.

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment on The simple tool that can open most US stores has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 14 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


Dschubba says...

It is not an unreasonable question for parents to ask themselves.

Businesses just simply need to publicly place signage they are trans, and/or coed friendly and parents can move on if that bothers them

bcglorf said:

Honest question for everyone really angry at the lady in the video. Is the problem her manner and attitude alone? That is to ask a second question, do you think it is unreasonable for a parent to not want their young daughter seeing naked penises?

siftbot says...

Happy anniversary! Today marks year number 13 since you first became a Sifter and the community is better for having you. Thanks for your contributions!


siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment on A Scary Time has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 3 Badge!

newtboy says...

Again...Race is not the ONLY criteria looked at, finances, family, school districts, etc all come into play....and the two students I mentioned were excellent students, far better than I was, and I'm certain their applications were accepted before race had been factored in, their scores were that good. As I understand it, race is only factored in to choose between two relatively equally scoring students, never to accept students who aren't proficient simply due to ethnicity.
Given the same educational opportunities across the board, race could be removed completely....that's simply not where we are. The proper order of things seems to be fix the underlying issues like unequal schools/education THEN remove the programs implemented to address the results of those issues. Reversing that order only further harms the downtrodden and likely never addresses the underlying issues as it removes any incentives for the ruling class to do so.

Properly funding public education so it's on par with private education seems to be step one to me. As I mentioned, we are moving in the other direction here, defunding it in multiple ways.

I mentioned why racial assumptions are often used instead of a full individual examination of all factors, lack of staff to do that examination thoroughly and a desire for diversity in the outcome.

Nice discussion, thanks for staying respectful. Time for me to move on, though....my opinion doesn't matter anyway, I'm no policy maker, just an unemployed welder/house husband with an opinion.

bcglorf said:

it behooves us to give a leg up to those trying hard to do it for themselves....no?

I vehemently agree on this. I merely argue that giving the leg up shouldn't be based upon race but upon lack of opportunity. The two fellow black students you mentioned, who were nearly as advantaged as you would have similarly destroyed other black students from crappy inner city schools, but a race based system would give no quarter to the inner city kids in that insistence, still favouring privileged kids over the unprivileged, just so happens these privileged kids would be black.

I agree fully with helping out the disadvantaged. If a race is grossly over represented among the poor, then policies to help the poor will also grossly provide more assistance to that race. I don't consider that discriminatory though, it's just a historical consequence.

In the Canadian model, direct assistance or compensation for past harm is also something I can get behind. Of course, proving and carefully adjudicating what that should mean is a tough nut, but our courts are expressly for that kind of dispute.

newtboy says...

I don't disagree, and we have much the same thing in practice if not by law with our native people's, they even have their own separate tribal police, courts, and laws. They are in many ways a different country inside our borders.
I agree, removing the disparities in lower education is far more desirable....but at least here we're doing the opposite, defunding public schools and programs that offer assistance like breakfast and lunch while also making it easier for affluent people to use public funds to pay for private schools, effectively defunding the public schools even farther.
That leaves us trying things like affirmative action in admissions to try to mitigate the continuing unfair, unequal opportunities lower income students face. Far from ideal, but better than another poke in the eye with a sharp stick, as my wife used to say....and she ought to know! ;-)

They might put the argument in different terms. Which do you prefer....giving admission advantages to aboriginal students in recognition of the piss poor opportunities they've had educationally, or give sentencing advantages to aboriginal criminals in recognition of the across the board piss poor opportunities they've had, recognizing that neither approach addresses the underlying problems, only the results of those long standing issues that simply are not being addressed at all.
What doesn't work is ignoring their lack of opportunities and expecting them to perform on par with other, non disadvantaged kids. That just gets you uneducated, pissed off adults with a chip on their shoulder and no prospects for improvement.

So.....until we actually get to work improving their overall situation, easier said than done, it behooves us to give a leg up to those trying hard to do it for themselves....no? Otherwise we're likely just perpetuating a cycle of criminality that hurts us all.

newtboy says...

So you get where I'm coming from, I went to 3 "good" prep schools k-12 for a total of 7 years. In that time there were a total of 3 black kids at the same schools, one of which dropped out because of harassment. I also went to 5 years of public schools with up to 70% black kids, those schools taught me absolutely nothing. That's a large part of why I'm convinced just using SAT scores (or similar) only rate ones opportunities, not abilities. That was thousands upon thousands of white kids well prepared for years to take that test and two black kids....hardly equal opportunities. It's hard to ignore that personal experience.

bcglorf said:

@newtboy
"Discrimination by itself is not bad, it's discriminating against someone (especially based on racial assumptions) that's considered wrong."

And there we can agree. I would count assumptions of white privilege as racial assumptions that are wrong to be used as a basis for discriminating against people. I get that you disagree vehemently.

Fairbs says...

thanks for letting me know; I'll have to check it out

bcglorf said:

It's the Malazan book of the Fallen, a series of books actually.

It's a fantasy series with magic and gods, but it gives a more accurate and unflinching look at human history than any history textbook ever has. It gives a very personal look at soldiers on all sides of wars being waged and the brutal choices forced upon them in very cruel world. Another quote from the series summarizes what sticks with me the most:
"The harder the world, the fiercer the honour."

It's the difference between heroic acts demonstrating actual sacrifices, versus hero's 'risking' dangers that we know will never harm them.

enoch says...

perfection my friend.

bcglorf said:

Chomsky\s position doesn't surprise me in the least and I think is much more easily explainable than you want to make it. Chomsky is taking the default most anti-American position that he can. Part of that includes not letting Russia be painted any more black or dark than America. There's nothing new, surprising or different in his opinion here, he's just expressing it in a way that goes against the democrats which throws people that hadn't seen Chomsky that way before when he was mostly condemning right leaning America. It's pretty much the exact same thing as the shift in opinion towards wikileaks before and after they ran a freight train over Hillary. When they were releasing secrets damaging to the right end of the spectrum they were doing the lord's work. The explicit and sole focus on western evils was ok until suddenly the left end of the west got included. Now suddenly a pro-Russian conspiracy was visible to left leaning folks. You know, the now that it's affecting me it's a problem viewpoint.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Member's Highest Rated Videos