Great Episode! Thankyou for this Series!!!

It seems like discussions in the media on the following topic is set on repeat, with not much progress, other than what feels like ... How can people have proper discussions if they can't see all the relevant parts of the question or reasoning ... context? Any way ... I could be wrong, however, it looks like Stanford GSB is better placed than most to possibly make sense of this, understand, or actually know what's what with this ...

@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807

2 жыл бұрын

So who is deleting the comments? How ... so quickly ... first resfresh of the page and they're gone ... talking seconds ... less than than a minute from posting ... ? Earlier today (actually, yesterday now ... ooops, actually, it just ticked over, so, the day before that ... actually, now last week) ... elsewhere ... Couldn't post anything more ... at all. ... then ... What is a error server 404? ... what is, "There was a problem with the server [404] RETRY ". ... everywhere it seems on yt ... At other times, there are select comments in particular which repeatedly 'disappear' or won't really post.

@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807

2 жыл бұрын

It looks like issues have been been conflated, as if they are only one issue, when there are multiple issues. If: a) birth certificates are: how things appeared or appear at birth, (not necessarily, what they actually were or are (XY or XX), and or, how things now appear and or are identified), when it comes to males or females or intersex; and, b) transgender or trans is: i) how things appear on a birth certificate and how things are identified in the present, and, don't match/are different/are not the same, when it comes to males or females; and, ii) a person who is a male on a birth certificate and emotionally or psychologically does not identify as a male, or, a person who is a female on a birth certificate and emotionally or psychologically does not identify as a female. Then: Issue one: If a female in appearance on paper at birth who is genetically a female (XX), chooses to identify as male, and or, as male and take pharmaceuticals/undergo medical procedures to alter their physique to appear male, then, that sounds like it is that they emotionally or psychologically identify as a different sex. (For arguments sake, assuming, that in this situation it is psychological is it always necessarily though, a psychological disorder?) Issue two: If there are two scenarios, where in scenario one, and or, scenario two, the person is genetically a male (XY) and in appearance looks female, but only in scenario one is female in appearance on paper at birth, and, only in scenario two is intersex in appearance on paper at birth. Then: In scenario one - if a female in appearance on paper at birth, who is genetically a male (XY), didn't identify (not necessarily also outwardly appear) as male or intersex, then, they would not be trans. If they choose to identify (not necessarily also outwardly appear) as either male or intersex, then, it sounds like they would be considered trans and possibly in a position for any choice made to be considered as a choice, to emotionally or psychologically identify as a different sex, (and, for arguments sake, it taken to be a psychological disorder?). In scenario two - if a female in appearance on paper at birth, were instead, intersex in appearance on paper at birth, who was genetically a male (XY), it sounds like they would have the option to identify (not necessarily also outwardly appear) as female or male or X, and, the person would not be considered trans or in a position for any choice made to be considered as a choice, to emotionally or psychologically identify as a different sex, (and, for arguments sake, it taken to be a psychological disorder). So, it appears there is a: a) discrepancy in outcome: for Issue one and or scenario one of Issue two - the person would be considered trans, and or, considered to have a psychological disorder(?); and, b) different outcome: for scenario two of Issue two - the person would not be considered trans, and or, not considered to have a psychological disorder; and, c) discrepancy of outcome: in Issue two: scenario one and scenario two - between scenarios which are not dissimilar. It looks like ... either, the options for how an intersex person is able to identify, might need to be brought into line with the other options, and or, the definition of trans/transgender, might need to be modified/updated. Issue three: It seems like outside the scope of issues to do with: - trans/transgender; and or, - intersex/male/female; fall those discussions/definitions/debates on: - what is a woman and or man; and or, - what it is to be a woman and or man; and or, - womens/mens/unisex/cross dressing; And, It seems like discussions/definitions/debates when it comes to issues of: - what is a woman and or man; and or, - what it is to be a woman and or man; and or, - womens/mens/unisex/cross dressing; fall outside the scope of issues to do with trans/transgender and or intersex/male/female. Issue four: Sexual orientation/attraction/partner/other half/spouse/personal relationship ... For example: It looks like 'lesbian' is defined in terms homosexuality in women; and, It sounds like, lesbians and feminists, were/are fighting for women's rights, equality between men and women; however, It seems like there could be couples, who: look like they are in a lesbian relationship; look like a woman and a woman; and, genetically are male and male; or, genetically are male and female; and, on their birth certificates: female and female; or, intersex and intersex; or, female and intersex, or, intersex and female; and, If those genetically male, who look like a woman, and on their birth certificates, female, then choose to: identify as male (not necessarily also outwardly appear); and or, appear as a male; then, might be considered trans: if female on their birth certificates; or, might not be considered trans: if intersex on their birth certificates. Which variable(s) would change the: perception of the relationship: how it looks; definition of the relationship - sexual orientation: homosexual: lesbian or gay; and or, heterosexual; legal status of the relationship: dating, other half, partner, de facto, married; religious status of the relationship: becomes nullified; gives an option for an out (a reason for divorce); there's no getting out of the relationship; nothing changes/things stay the same (you were already living in sin, anyway, in a de facto marriage); other's perceptions (some people just don't aprove of other people's partner choices, even when a partner, ticks all the right boxes so to speak,); it's upto the couple and or individuals in the relationship; and or, nature of the relationship: how two people feel about each other: their commitment to each other/for each other. ... conversely there could also be couples, who look like they are in a heterosexual relationship, look like a man and a woman, genetically are a male and a male, and on their birth certificates, female and female, intersex and intersex, or, male and female, or, ... e.t.c. ... *It looks like, statistically, there is more chance of being born with your situation not being simple, male or female, then there is of catching covid. ( ... in other situations, things come in some sort of three? Why not here? If people are born in the image of? All creatures of? By a design of a higher power? I don't know. Who knows?)

@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807

2 жыл бұрын

... this is part of the Australian Constitution .... Chapter 1: The Parliament: Part V: Powers of the Parliament. Section 51 "... subject to this Constitution, ... to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth ... "; and, (xxiiiA) "... medical ... (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)" (Australian Parliament House, website) and, ... this is part of the Australian Constitution .... Chapter V: The States Section 116 ("Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion") "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." (Australian Parliament House, website)

@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807

2 жыл бұрын

Generalised classifications versus an average class curriculum. (i.e., g, pg, m, ma, r, r+) National Classification Code, Board, Review Board, Branch: Publications, films, videos, computer games. Destroying books ... 'Fahrenheit 451' by Ray Bradbury. 'The Chrysalids' by John Wyndham. Also, 'Brave New World', by Aldous Huxley.

@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807

2 жыл бұрын

? ... it was deleted ... again.

Empathetic or empathic? A comment section. Yay. ... Although ... A comment disappeared ... ? How can people have proper discussions if they can't see all the relevant parts of the question or reasoning ... context?

@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807

2 жыл бұрын

? ... it was deleted ... again.

@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807

2 жыл бұрын

This isn't the comment, but, it is another that often has been deleted. Comment deleted? ... ... (on yt:various) A conversation on fb: From (written in) a comment section elsewhere: (yes, an Aussie in Australia). In remembrance, of who we are, for where we've come from, and for where we are going, as a democracy, because this is Australia, and with respect, we are Australians, and because: Anzacs or their offspring, wouldn't purposefully contribute to creating a climate or environment where it possible for the erosion of democracy and the separation of powers between the legislature(parliament), executive(administration and enforcement), and judiciary(due process), would they; and, Stolen generation(s) or their offspring, wouldn't purposefully contribute to creating a climate or environment where it possible for a sort of generation stolen to be happening on current generations, would they; and so too, WWII survivors or their offspring wouldn't purposefully contribute to creating a climate or environment where it possible for current generations to either end up in camps of enforced medical procedures and being medicated, or to end up in the alternative camp of elimination, or to be told all generations the same and then all individually tested and told where their differences make them best placed to be positioned for the betterment, sake and showcase of all being the same, would they; and so too, .... , would they; and so too, .... , would they; and so too, .... , would they; and so too, etc. Stay well. Peace. Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski South Australia How can procedural fairness be maintained and how is 'silence' achievable in court, if unable to secure representation and without giving up the legal presumption that, as an adult, you can make your own decisions from choices? Life is full of unexpected surprises. If, "people are entitled to the best defence they can get, these days, that usually means the best defence they can afford", does that mean that if the best defence a person can get isn't very good, then, their entitlement is limited to a defence that isn't very good? Is that then not a judgement, a determination that a person who does not know any better, is entitled to defence that isn't very good? AIso, does that mean there is a correlation between quality of defence and quantity of the monetary value sought for time, i.e. rate, and proportional to total monetary quantity available over time? If so, the amount sought for defence would be representational of quality, and for the purposes of defence, it would not then matter if a person is eligible for legal aid, as a fixed total amount available for a given rate would not be competitive with an amount available over an indetermined amount of time greater than could be afforded by legal aid at the same rate. A reply: Rubbish, If you want to live in a society, don't risk being a "typhoid Mary"! That ain't rocket science! , "Rubbish, If you want to live in a society, don't risk being a "typhoid Mary"! That ain't rocket science!" ... that came from? The reply: Eleonora Formato It didn't need to "come from" anywhere. Society can and must protect itself from those who would intentionally harm it! People who plant bombs, and people who spread killer viruses are but 2 examples! A reply: Eleonora Formato It was a response to just this rubbish! "end up in camps of enforced medical procedures and being medicated, or to end up in the alternative camp of elimination" , that hasn't happened in history? ... how do people spread killer viruses? A reply: "Eleonora Formato Not getting vaccinated, not social distancing, not covering their faces when coughing or sneezing ... etc, etc,!" , not getting vaccinated, is on a similar level to people who plant bombs? , almost sounds like it is seen or treated as if like terrorism or a terrorist? ... also, seems a bit authoritarian. Today, in this modern era, it would seem to be about keeping covid, a virus, a foreign entity, out of the body, yet, there are those injected with a foreign entity; those who are infected by a foreign entity; those who naturally were infected with a foreign entity; and those who are not infected. It seems, that as long as some insist all must be injected to be vaccinated, and with ongoing regular booster shots (or else!), that there are again, two classes of citizens: citizens paying to be infected with an injection, to be given a first-class status, with all the rest, citizens infected and not infected, being given a second-class status. Part V: Powers of the Parliament. Section 51 "... subject to this Constitution, ... to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth ... "; and, (xxiiiA) "... medical ... (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)" (Australian Parliament House, website) Stanford University Lecture 17. Professor Robert Sapolsky 1:29:00 min ... "one of those dark horrible chapters in the history of science, another realm of legally enforced psycho surgery ... " 1:30:29 min ... "people subjected ... because, they were argumentative, because they as teenagers didn't listen to their parents, they didn't listen to their teachers, thousands of cases of these ... " If it is valid, as it seems it is suggested, that just about everyone needs to be vaccinated, for the good of others, or, it is not unacceptable to use as a singular criteria, of some sort of success to do with covid, in insisting most if not all be vaccinated, how is it then not valid to have a lockdown, without regard to context, of just about everyone, for the good of others, or, it not unacceptable to use that same or a singular criteria for lockdowns, in general? It seems like: All are as if in a 'preventative detention' not for punshmiment, but for fear of being humans with immune systems vulnerable to re-offending indefinitely with infections and transmission of COVID, under a control order necessitating getting a 'jab' in the arm, vaccinated, prohibiting associations, visiting certain places, activities, ownerships, etc; or, All are as if slaves awaiting to receive a vaccine ticket ' jab', in the arm, to be contractually bound by terms and conditions on accepting that vaccine ticket to freedom, but not indefinitely, and not unlike personal'property on a lease that cannot be held indefinitely, needing to renew regularly; and, It does not seem unreasonable under those circumstances to foresee potential doors opening for opportunities of ease for coercion, undue influence, exploitation, blackmail, harassment in supply of consumer goods and services, sale of a vaccine as if a body part by a destitute person, etc.? It may sound like, when it comes to COVID the issue is a question of vaccination, one of education, in science, statistics and seriousness of outcome, or convictions, however, it seems like the issue is confusion around duty of care and causation. It looks like the consensus is, that the extent to which being vaccinated eliminates transmission, is uncertain, therefore, a civic duty argument for being vaccinated to minimise transmission, to eliminate causation as a factor with certainty, seems moot, and as a precautionary burden, not the most pragmatic. If on the other hand, the idea of vaccination is to provide, at a lower intensity, an immune response to give a memory for the body on how to deal with a virus if it should encounter it again, then, perhaps, it is that the government ought to have a duty of care to make vaccinations available and accessible, with and through educational information, however, it sounds like it is as if the body has no memory if there is a variation of the virus, and, there are new variations of the virus each season, then, on balancing competing beneficial outcomes, it may not be of social utility to expect that COVID vaccinations ought to be available, taken or made to be taken, by all? A reply: "Eleonora Formato None of that has anything to do with the medical stuff that I was responding to you about. Nothing at all!" , nothing at all?

If you don't know psychology of self and common people, you cannot detect the issues and so you cannot come up with proper solutions. Get yourself acknowledged.

Second

First

thirth