Tawasakm

Naturally my belief in my macho manliness is precipitated by my deep baritone voice and my manly masculine physique. I wonder at the relevance of this question if it intended to guide one to an understanding of the deviances men are permitted that women aren't It is my understanding that the official designation is made by the doctor at birth after examination of ones 'equipment'. Well understandings of what a 'man' is varies. In some cultures it may be that you would stop being a man if you run away from a lion... From my point of view I won't stop being a man so long as my tackle is attached. After all thats what the doctor looked at when determining my gender at birth. Being a man, as I understand the term, stems from possession of certain biological attributes. I seriously doubt my biology is the result of a neurotic fear of women. Activities would include, but are not limited to, farting, eating, drinking, sleeping, having sex, jumping up and down, relaxing, conversing, reading, watching tv, listening to the radio, scratching (yes women scratch too!), yawning, belching and contructing paper aeroplanes. I can't even begin to see the relevance of this question in relation to TTS question. Not to put too fine a point on it but I don't think 'horniness' is restricted to any one gender. Additionally there are many reasons why an individual (of either gender) may place an emphasis on sex. Yup they are aware of it. I'm also aware of the fact that my Mum doesn't wear makeup - she doesn't feel the need. I do know some male 'goths' who wear makeup. Their parents are also aware. Relevance? I know plenty of men who think their hair does need to be stylish and plenty who don't care. Of course it isn't. You are continuing to suffer from the fact that you aren't placing your questions in context so that the answer may be meaningful. What are the conditions of the change? You are still lacking any context to make all this meaningful. I can actually see your point here but what does it have to do with deviance? Additionally women, here at least, are not required to change their name. And of course men can choose to hyphenate their name. Relevance to deviance? I have never once, in any conversatio or discussion, seen any doctor referred to as an overachiever by virtue of being a doctor. Not once. In my experience both men and women talk about feelings. It does seem to me, though, that the two genders generally go about it differently when speaking to members of the same gender. I think thats an individual thing which depends on many factors. Rephrase? I don't agree with the premise. Interpersonal relationships, and their dynamics, vary from person to person regardless of gender. I question the generalisation of the premise. I question the premise. This card is generally played by both men and women who have not learned to communicate effectively. In my experience I have known both men and women who like to dominate. The desire is not gender specific. RB I answered these questions to see if it really would lead me to 'enlightenment'. It has not. I still don't see the answer to TTS question. I questioned the relevance to deviance in several of my answers but really that question extends to all of your questions. Could you please place these questions in context or, even better, deliver a straight answer. Exactly what is this deviance I am permitted (as a man) that you are not (as a woman)?

Is this private or can I answer your questions aswell?

Even if that is true who is going to help you when a tree falls on you? Or if you stab yourself in the eye with a tin foil hat (which can be nasty)? When I was 26 I didn't believe I'd ever get chicken pox (I was the only kid in my school NOT to get it). Yet lo and behold when I was 26 I got it in spades. I have a friend who never believed she would get Multiple Sclerosis (she didn't even know what it was) but she had it by age 21. I don't personally think that hard wishing can alter physical reality.

You know we have a government sponsored station here in Australia too - the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). We all pay for it with our taxes (I think its a few dollars a year from every tax payer) and so it is billed as 'Our ABC'. It definitely fails in the ratings compared to the other free to air stations but I am glad we have it. In point of fact its current affairs shows, I think, are much sharper then the other stations. I've certainly seen more politicians (from both sides) completely flummoxed and caught out during interviews on the ABC then any other station. The content (of the current affairs shows that is) also seems much more thorough compared to the superficial diggings of the others. I really do believe that the ABC, as a whole, is not biased toward the government in any way - although some programs may be biased one way or the other. The long and short of all this is that I hold the opinion that a state sponsored tv station can be reputable and responsible. Of course it can also be corrputed but this is not necessarily always the case.

Sorry TTS I somehow missed your post. Didn't mean to duplicate your point.

I realise this may be a little off topic, caesar, but on how many occasions over the last few weeks have you characterised posters opinions as 'whining'? In addition to which it appears from Digby's arguments that he does support the idea of quotas. It would seem the issue of contention is the implementation and organisation of the quotas.

Your choice of the word 'now' would seem to imply that it was not the case previously. I'm pretty sure the previous regime tortured people with alarming regularity. So even if what you are postulating is true, that the US allows torture in prisons, then it does not represent any change from the status quo. Personally I believe that the US is far more more accountable for its actions then Suddam ever was. Mind you I still have alot of issues with their treatment of prisoners - especially in regards to detaining people without evidence indefintely (a situation outside of Iraq I realise). I further reason, caesar, that if you think people have a closed mind when they don't acknowledge inappropriate US actions then you have a closed mind if you are focusing on that to the exclusion of all else. Which may not be the case. We will see.

This is a little off topic but that is a very intersting signature you have there Kimmy Iknowbest (not an inspiring name) Realistically Greg can do whatever he wishes on this site. What he is doing, in my view, is protecting the integrity of the discussion. Which means that posters who don't follow the guidelines and the 'spirit' of Maple Leaf may run the risk of being banned etc. In my view freedom of expression does exist here so long as you can support your claims. This is the important addendum which is meant to set a standard of reasonable debate. Thats entirely between the two of you but I thought I would make that distinction for you.

Yes the spirit of cricket is alive and well in Australia so I do understand what you are talking about. I don't think non-cricket nations really get 'it'. The most truely cricket mad nation, however, is not England or Australia - its India. As an addedum perhaps I can draw the attention of TS back to this thread.

I don't suppose you would be kind enough to translate that for me?

Bearing in mind that I am talking about a situation where somebody has made a factual claim, and used sources to back up that claim , and a person who has not is disagreeing with him let me go over a few of your points. First of all anybody can claim to have read thousands of books and that claim would have equal merit with yours in this situation. Secondly memory isn't the most perfect of things. If you are relying on recall, bearing in mind you can't even remember where the info was gleaned, there’s nothing to say your recall is spot on without reference to your source. Thirdly the point of providing sources is for other people to assess how credible that source - obviously you have already assessed it be so if your opinion is based on it. Even professionals keep reference books for their field - even though they are specialised and trained extensively in their field it is necessary to have reference books on hand to ensure perfect recall and to refresh as necessary. So if you are going to disagree with somebody who does know their source, and has provided it, how can you reasonably disagree with them on this basis? Your validity can't be tested. If the book (ie the source you don't remember) turns out to be a twenty-year book which was thoroughly discredited five years ago that cannot become a relevant fact if nobody knows where your info came from. Let me make a hypothetical example. Let us suppose you've had an interest, amongst others, in elephant tusks throughout your life. You've read various articles on them as the chance arose over the years. Now one day a topic is started on Maple Leaf Web about elephant tusks. The debate is - what is the average length of an elephant tusk? The two main respondents are citing different recent studies which provide a different result. They have been debating the research methodology of the different studies. You remember reading, although you can't remember where, that the average is really 4 foot (I have no idea myself - I made that number up) so you join this debate and tell them so. You don't provide a source since you don't remember it. When they ask for a source you just repeat your point, perhaps phrasing it a different way. Why on earth should they take you seriously? They have a concrete argument underway and such an assertion (even if it ultimately wound up being true!) becomes meaningless under those circumstances. Bear in mind that even then I only have a problem if you make your interjection an assertion of fact. If you join in and say, "I remember reading something about this years ago, don't remember where though, and the figure they came up with was four foot" then how could anyone have a reasonable problem with that? Your argument is transparent then and can be taken at face value. Should you try to make that an authoritative statement it would seem to me to be completely unreasonable. And there have been times that you haven't responded to that request. You wouldn't have to do it with everything if you altered the way you are introducing the information - refer to the above example. You might think it makes your arguments weaker but I think it means your argument will be resting on its merits. I don't think you would be the only presenting information that way - I know I would at times. I'm glad you agree with me. Isn't that part of what I've been saying? That people should produce evidence when they disagree. Additionally I think people should provide evidence for a statement of fact when challenged on it - or at least be transparent in regards to sources. I would make the additional point that if only one side is producing evidence it’s a meaningless argument. In other words the onus for evidence is not on only one person. I am advocating this requirement under certain circumstances - not under every circumstance. As for your assertion I disagree. I believe that a transparency in sources will enhance discussion. I don't believe it can do anything but that. As to your apparent point about general discussion not always needing formal sources you are correct. I had a long participation in a thread about religion and that was all about opinion and interpretation. That’s fine though since the sources were still transparent - our source was our own thoughts and ideas. The whole thing was based on opinion. It’s when one starts dressing their opinion up as something else that things go awry. And so on and so forth. I think everybody understands my position by now. And where did I say they conclude debate? I provided an example of a web site that could be a credible source. That was that the American Psychiatric Association's website would provide a credible definition to Dissociative Identity Disorder. Do you think that they wouldn't? Providing sources as required for definitions or assertions of fact is, to my mind, a necessary part of reasonable debate - I never claimed it was the conclusion of debate. But you are being condescending. You are implying I am at a point you were at before becoming more 'advanced'. Which doesn't really address any of my points - although it may seem an attempt to reduce their validity in comparison to yours.

Bit condescending there? I've seen you bring up a person's age before when you disagree with them. See what I am interested in here is some accountability. If I am debating a point with someone and bring up sources to support my claim I think its reasonable to expect somebody who disagrees to come up with their own sources. Otherwise its a meaningless argument made up of assertions. Secondly I think I being misunderstood a little here. I am not insisting that everybody always come up with evidence for any post they make - I am only insisting that it is necessary when somebody is asserting something as fact. When that fact is challenged a person should be able to back it up instead of saying 'it's true' over and over. That is, as I have said, meaningless debate. It is legitimate to introduce opinion or a line of reasoning so long as it is clear that is what it is - in other words don't pass it off as fact if you can't support it. I have given plenty of other reasons why introducing one's sources adds to the quality of debate - points which you have failed to address. Why should I accept something as evidence just because you say it is right? If I think you are wrong and challenge you surely you should be able to back yourself up. The same goes vice versa. If I make a statement of fact but cannot back it up, for whatever reason, then I should withdraw it as a 'fact'. Thats not unreasonable - it is being as accurate as I can be and accountable for what I have said. In the first place sources aren't limited to the web. You can cite from books, newspapers, journals and so on and so forth. In the second place web sites can be a great deal more credible then a poster. For example if one wanted to get the exact definition of Dissociative Identity Disorder the website of the American Psychiatric Association should be considered credible - for obvious reasons. Yes some websites won't be that credible for various reasons. All the more reason that should be known. If people are basing their facts on such questionable sources it should be known - in this fashion a person's 'evidence' is more transparent and assessible. This is a much better system then, "I tell you it's right because I say it is." Additionally such close examinations of the validity of various sources will improve everybody's knowledge base. Every rationale I have heard behind a rejection of giving evidence appears to me to be entirely spurious. (Notice that I clearly introduced my opinion there AS an opinion not a statement of fact) As I see it if a persons argument depends on statements of fact then they should be able to demonstrate the validity of those claims.

I agree that we should be able to self-regulate. However I believe a consistent committment is required by posters to adhere to the rules and that the rules should clearly outline a necessity of providing evidence to back up statements and support claims. With regards to moderation any poster who consistently ignores this rule over time could be brought to the moderator's attention and given warnings etc as warranted. I really believe its important to have a common understanding over the requirements for evidence.

Perhaps I could draw your attention back to this thread August. It may have gotten lost under recent activity. I would very much appreciate your reply.

Actually I agree with RB. There is a more then adequate warning system in place. Its not as if he immediately, without warning or explanation (and while high on cocaine), flew into a rage and banned MS for no reason. It can be a thankless job being a moderator. As best I can determine Greg moderates impartially, with a thick skin, and with reasonable warnings with explanations given. He really does seem to moderate according to the rules and not his own personal feelings. Lets give the poor fellow a break.

Bear in mind also, Grantler, that I may not object to you starting new threads on existing topics but I do object if you do it without incorporating existing debate. While it may be fresh and new for you on this forum it may not be fresh and new for the regular posters - rather it may be an exercise in repetition. I would suggest that a good approach would be to read through everything existing before starting a new topic on it. Then you could say I have read back through this forum regarding <insert subject> and I see you have covered a, b, c and d. However I do not believe you covered e, also b and d were incomplete for this reason. This way you are acknowledging what has gone before and still making your fresh start. You are also ensuring that you are not asking regular posters to repeat themselves and therefore doing everything you can to increase your pool of respondents.

OK then. To start with here is a definition from dictionary.com: Emphasis mine. Let us journey onwards. This quote is taken from nationmaster: Empahisis mine. I'm getting tired of supporting the obivous but I will add on more from Encarta: Predictably the emphasis is mine. Now that we have established that Australia is a continent will you still proclaim the following? Bear in mind also, as caesar correctly pointed out, Antarctica is also regarded as a continent. I would suspect that both Antarctica and Australia, overall, have seen less voilence on their soil (or ice) then South America has.

This touches on it a little record on human rights The last post is February the 18th. Also do a search and find all of Stokers posts. He has brought up this issue more then once - of the UN being composed of 'thugs and dictators'.

Come now - thats complete nonsense. Australia is defined as the largest island and the smallest continent. The only continent to contain only one nation.

I haven't reported the posts to admin Grantler. I was only making sure you were aware of the rules. Plenty of people don't bother to read them before they begin posting and creating new topics.

You are a little quick to accept his/her's assessment and then conclude: Why don't you debate with August for a while and then see what you think. Making hasty judgements concerning others can be a mistake that robs us of insights. Or in other words why don't you form your own opinion of Augusts leanings through the exchange of ideas over time?

This issue has been raised in other threads. I suggest you perform a search and read through them first. In fact you should always search through existing threads before beginning a new one to avoid duplication.

This thread is a duplication of existing threads. I suggest you search for them and reply in them instead.

Don't take this the wrong way - but that 'ultra liberalism' amongst students may also be the last stages of adolescence. Most teenagers rebel against authority and against their parents telling them what to think. And there are people at university telling them they were right to 'stick it the man' and those in authority shouldn't be. It probably adds to the lure. Also, I don't know about you, but I was alot more emotional as a teen. Definitely more likely to act on my passions.

What you call 'liberalism' in students could, perhaps, be more correctly termed as 'idealism'. To my mind most students are idealistic and want to see a 'better world' - no doubt full of love, tolerance and understanding. Liberal views would naturally be influential. It is also my exeperience, however, that as students progress through their courses (therefore gaining an increasing knowledge base) alot of students become more pragmatic as their idealism 'compromises' with their increasing knowledge of 'reality'. I don't see many third year students who are unthinkingly liberal (except perhaps for arts students) but rather I see a group of people who are amassing large amounts of theoretical information and are attempting to fit/apply it practically. That idealism has its place and hopefully leads people in the right direction to becoming the best people they can be - no matter the political ideology they settle on. Also that idealism often leads to critical analysis of the way the world is which is by no means a bad enterprise.