Gender dysphoria & ''Age dysphoria''?

[Lammie]

Fellow dutchman Emile Ratelband is going around UK news networks to tell about his plan to change his age legally from 69 years old, to 49 years old. Claiming his doctor said his ''biological'' age is 42. He says he feels younger, and claims people who feel younger, and engage with younger people, will live older.

He also compared his self proclaimed ''Age dysphoria'' to Gender dysphoria, you can watch that discussion here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE-xLnrnXMg&t=1s

So, is this guy just a troll? Or does he make some good points?

[Lammie]

Some people are willing to do anything just not to work.
Man, sometimes it scares a growing number of crazy people around me. Some of them need to seriously reduce their free time.

You don't think being a positivity guru is a real job?

[jonemil24]

I'm not entirely sure if the 69 year old man is being sarcastic, raising a different kind of awareness against transgenders, or he just really wants his age to be legally changed to 49.

The man kept on talking about his feeling, then the trans argued "it was not purely about feelings, it's about a sense of identity". Thinking about the "sense of identity", it made me think, how do I sense that I should be younger or a different gender?

On my point of view, legally changing the number of age is a stupid perspective. The number of age determines how long have you been living in this planet, and not about your capabilities.

[TECSHARE]

Post modernism. The idea is to constantly question everything until the very foundations of what holds our society together are no longer even considered a collective reality. It is right out of Critical Theory & The Frankfort School. The goal is to destroy society as we know it to pave the way for Marxism, Socialism, then Communism.

[Jet Cash]

As probably the oldest member of Bitcoin Talk, I can confirm that it has been proven scientifically that people who have more birthdays live longer. Why would anybody want to reduce their birthday count?

[Lammie]

As probably the oldest member of Bitcoin Talk, I can confirm that it has been proven scientifically that people who have more birthdays live longer. Why would anybody want to reduce their birthday count?

I feel honored to have you on my thread, veteran.

[cryptohunter]

Some people are willing to do anything just not to work.
Man, sometimes it scares a growing number of crazy people around me. Some of them need to seriously reduce their free time.

Would he not go from being a pensioner (not having to work) to looking forward to another many years self supporting himself financially. If he is willing to do that there could be a reason to let him have his way.

[Spendulus]

Post modernism. The idea is to constantly question everything until the very foundations of what holds our society together are no longer even considered a collective reality. It is right out of Critical Theory & The Frankfort School. The goal is to destroy society as we know it to pave the way for Marxism, Socialism, then Communism.

Although much of post modernism drones autonomously forward, post-collapse of the major Marxism countries and power systems, which have largely morphed into gangster operations today.

But post modernism drones on.

[coins4commies]

Age is pretty silly.  Sure, the approximate number of trips you have made around the sun is correlated with aging but your age is not an amount of aging that can be compared with the age of others.  Now that we have better methods of measuring aging instead of just approximating it, we should start to think about the end of cosmic age. 

These arbitrary numbers only limit society.  Someone long ago decided that 35 trips around the sun is necessary to be president, but now we have our oldest president and he happens to have the temperament of a teenager.   Meanwhile, we have kids in school who know calculus but are grouped with kids who struggle with fractions not because of math ability, but because they have taken a similar number of trips around the sun. 

Post modernism. The idea is to constantly question everything until the very foundations of what holds our society together are no longer even considered a collective reality. It is right out of Critical Theory & The Frankfort School. The goal is to destroy society as we know it to pave the way for Marxism, Socialism, then Communism.

You often talk about the importance of logic and critical thinking so its strange to see you attack critical theory as a philosophy.  I can understand attacking specific things that critical theory have produced but not the philosophical approach in general.

 Why would you insist on doing things certain ways just because that is the way they have always been done.  Why not think critically about why we do everything the way we do it.  Why not ask ourselves "whats the best way to do x?" instead of "how has x always been done?"  
  Why blindly follow the people of the past?  It doesn't sound like a great way of improving ourselves and progressing as a society.

Its almost like you are rejecting this just because it can vaguely be linked to marxism.

[JSRAW]

Interestingly this gentleman comes out and giving interviews on news channel when he turns "read magic number" 69. Symbolic? Don't know. This guy not a troll but have a different mindset when comes to life or want some publicity?

That would be more interesting and funny if his children too coming out and raise the voice that they want to change their age from 29 to 49

[TECSHARE]

Post modernism. The idea is to constantly question everything until the very foundations of what holds our society together are no longer even considered a collective reality. It is right out of Critical Theory & The Frankfort School. The goal is to destroy society as we know it to pave the way for Marxism, Socialism, then Communism.

Although much of post modernism drones autonomously forward, post-collapse of the major Marxism countries and power systems, which have largely morphed into gangster operations today.

But post modernism drones on.

Post Modernism is the delivery mechanism of Marxism. This is all under Hegelian dialectic.

Age is pretty silly.  Sure, the approximate number of trips you have made around the sun is correlated with aging but your age is not an amount of aging that can be compared with the age of others.  Now that we have better methods of measuring aging instead of just approximating it, we should start to think about the end of cosmic age.  

These arbitrary numbers only limit society.  Someone long ago decided that 35 trips around the sun is necessary to be president, but now we have our oldest president and he happens to have the temperament of a teenager.   Meanwhile, we have kids in school who know calculus but are grouped with kids who struggle with fractions not because of math ability, but because they have taken a similar number of trips around the sun.  

Post modernism. The idea is to constantly question everything until the very foundations of what holds our society together are no longer even considered a collective reality. It is right out of Critical Theory & The Frankfort School. The goal is to destroy society as we know it to pave the way for Marxism, Socialism, then Communism.

You often talk about the importance of logic and critical thinking so its strange to see you attack critical theory as a philosophy.  I can understand attacking specific things that critical theory have produced but not the philosophical approach in general.

 Why would you insist on doing things certain ways just because that is the way they have always been done.  Why not think critically about why we do everything the way we do it.  Why not ask ourselves "whats the best way to do x?" instead of "how has x always been done?"  
  Why blindly follow the people of the past?  It doesn't sound like a great way of improving ourselves and progressing as a society.

Its almost like you are rejecting this just because it can vaguely be linked to Marxism.

As long as you can imagineer it and explain it away, any reality you like can be yours! It is as easy as lying to yourself!

Thank you for being the perfect example of how post modernism rots brains. The solar cycles are not arbitrary, it is what humans evolved under. Furthermore it is the mechanism of action we use to give a universal definition to what we call time. Time is not arbitrary, and neither is the mechanism under which we calculate it. In fact for you to say so is pretty insulting to the people who worked so hard to change human history to make these discoveries. Those people were killed by people like you for doing so. Communism is the religion of the atheist.

Age is important because young people VERY regularly, I would almost go the route of saying always, but not quite, think they know WAY MORE about the world, and living in it than they do. For example when I was about 20 years younger I thought Socialism was great, Bush was the devil, and all cops were bastards. As I grew older I learned first hand the results some of these things have for society. I learned Socialism is cancer, Bush is the devil, and some cops are bastards.

In a youth's teenage years they are in a process of individualization from their parents. As a result of this they will OFTEN overestimate their abilities and endurance, and engage in situations that are WAY over their heads. They also take more dangerous risks, this is why insurance rates are higher for youths. Also there is a well known "invincibility" complex many young people, especially males, experience where they feel like they can face more wear and tear on their body than they actually can because their body is still growing, regenerating, and pumping out hormones. Once this time passes all those old injuries and abuses come back, and you feel it all.

So to sum it up, there is a very good reason why the age is set to 35. Older people have been around a lot longer, and believe it or not they know more than young people on average. You know how I know this? They made it. Dumb people don't make it, they kill themselves in the risk taking phase. Best we don't let them take the nation with us during this phase isn't it? I mean the very concept of giving a teenager or even someone in their early 20s control of a nuke is terrifying.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH IS THE PROBLEM.

I know you still operate under the rubric of Communist indoctrinated academics of the US, but this time try doing some actual reading, not just skimming and arguing to confirm your bias. The VERY REASON Socialism/Communism is so dangerous is because it is BEYOND a political ideology, it is a MIND VIRUS. It uses people just like you who want to do good, but don't wanna work too hard to think about it. It offers all the warm fuzzy fantasies you desire, and only feeds you poison in return. It literally destroys peoples minds. The "philosophical approach" was literally designed to give Marxism the facade of being scientific. So your claim that the concepts are not linked is ignorant at best, disingenuous at worst. Critical Theory IS the source of the problem, and Critical Theory, Marxism, Socialism, and Communism are all interchangeable phases of the same spectrum.

I am not just trying to link it to Communism and Marxism, it is INTRINSICALLY LINKED to it, as it was created as a DELIVERY MECHANISM for Communism, with a nifty little scientific shell so the virus can slip past the immune system of our brains because it is fooled by the protein shell of "science". This whole trans movement is a direct result of Marxism via Critical Theory thru post modernism. As predicted it is resulting in just pure retardation and chaos, the very goal of Communism in a Capitalist society, so that it collapses to make way for Communism.

You got some balls telling me I need to think critically when I have about 100 years of history of the horrors of this ideology to reference. You are the one being lead around by your nose via your emotions and the Hegelian dialectic. I am very sorry if you can't see this or look at this, but like I said, Critical Theory literally destroys minds. Some times the subconscious of the human mind does not let people see the truth if it would be exceptionally painful, such as say if you just spent a decade going into debt to be indoctrinated into this ideology just to find it is designed to destroy you.

To wrap this up, get off your high horse. Pull your head out of your ass. Stop being so fucking arrogant and presumptuous and actually look into what I say. Then come back with an argument based on logic, facts, and (actual) science and get back to me. Or come back with more of your desires and fantasies and I will just keep ripping them apart.

[coins4commies]

.  

Thank you for being the perfect example of how post modernism rots brains. The solar cycles are not arbitrary, it is what humans evolved under. Furthermore it is the mechanism of action we use to give a universal definition to what we call time. Time is not arbitrary, and neither is the mechanism under which we calculate it. In fact for you to say so is pretty insulting to the people who worked so hard to change human history to make these discoveries. Those people were killed by people like you for doing so. Communism is the religion of the atheist.

. I am not saying time is arbitrary.  I am saying that tying time to a universal aging process is arbitrary. 
-time is real
-aging is real
-aging increases with time
-everyone ages at different rates

So two people who have lived for 40 years have not aged the same but linking aging to time suggests that.  Its a very inprecise way of measuring age.  Time was the most practical way of measuring age for most of history, but today Science has given us more precise ways of measuring age and it may be time to think about a transition away from the outdated time-age system.

Age is important because young people VERY regularly, I would almost go the route of saying always, but not quite, think they know WAY MORE about the world, and living in it than they do. For example when I was about 20 years younger I thought Socialism was great, Bush was the devil, and all cops were bastards. As I grew older I learned first hand the results some of these things have for society. I learned Socialism is cancer, Bush is the devil, and some cops are bastards.

Ok but just because it took you 20 years to figure out your political stance, doesn't mean 20 years is how long it takes everyone to figure things out.  I would say it is different for each individual.  Aging is not linear and is affected by our experiences and environment.

In a youth's teenage years they are in a process of individualization from their parents. As a result of this they will OFTEN overestimate their abilities and endurance, and engage in situations that are WAY over their heads. They also take more dangerous risks, this is why insurance rates are higher for youths. Also there is a well known "invincibility" complex many young people, especially males, experience where they feel like they can face more wear and tear on their body than they actually can because their body is still growing, regenerating, and pumping out hormones. Once this time passes all those old injuries and abuses come back, and you feel it all.

This is all generalized which is very useful when it is the only way but we now have ways to measure someones specific psychological development.  There are plenty of 25 year olds who are still taking dangerous risks and 20 year olds who have advanced from the phase you are referring to.  Why not treat people as individuals instead of this arbitrary solar number?  Why not just charge the people who are reckless?

So to sum it up, there is a very good reason why the age is set to 35. Older people have been around a lot longer, and believe it or not they know more than young people on average. You know how I know this? They made it. Dumb people don't make it, they kill themselves in the risk taking phase. Best we don't let them take the nation with us during this phase isn't it? I mean the very concept of giving a teenager or even someone in their early 20s control of a nuke is terrifying.

Age of key revolutionaries in 1776:

Andrew Jackson, 9
(Major) Thomas Young, 12
Deborah Sampson, 15
James Armistead, 15
Joseph Plumb Martin, 15
Peter Salem, 16**
Peggy Shippen, 16
Marquis de Lafayette, 18
James Monroe, 18
Henry Lee III, 20
Gilbert Stuart, 20
John Trumbull, 20
Aaron Burr, 20
John Marshall, 20
Nathan Hale, 21
Banastre Tarleton, 21
Alexander Hamilton, 21**
Benjamin Tallmadge, 22
Robert Townsend, 22
George Rodgers Clark, 23
David Humphreys, 23
Gouveneur Morris, 24
Betsy Ross, 24
William Washington, 24
James Madison, 25
Henry Knox, 25
John Andre, 26
Thomas Lynch, Jr., 26*
Edward Rutledge, 26*
Abraham Woodhull, 26
Isaiah Thomas, 27
George Walton, 27* **
John Paul Jones, 28
Bernardo de Galvez, 29
Thomas Heyward, Jr., 29*
Robert R. Livingston, 29
John Jay, 30
Tadeusz Kosciuszko, 30
Benjamin Rush, 30*
Abigail Adams, 31
John Barry, 31
Elbridge Gerry, 31*
Casimir Pulaski, 31
Anthony Wayne, 31
Joseph Brant, 33
Nathanael Greene, 33
Thomas Jefferson, 33*
Thomas Stone, 33* **
William Hooper, 34*
Arthur Middleton, 34*
James Wilson, 34* **

The funny thing about 35 is that Benedict Arnold was 35.

The point is that trends are not rules and should not be enforced on all individuals.  These trends you speak of are real but there will always be people who are older and not as developed and vice versa.  I am not denying that each individual gets wiser with age, I'm just saying we should look at people as individuals instead of grouping them based on times around the sun.   

Everyone is learning at a different pace.

I am not just trying to link it to Communism and Marxism, it is INTRINSICALLY LINKED to it, as it was created as a DELIVERY MECHANISM for Communism, with a nifty little scientific shell so the virus can slip past the immune system of our brains because it is fooled by the protein shell of "science". This whole trans movement is a direct result of Marxism via Critical Theory thru post modernism. As predicted it is resulting in just pure retardation and chaos, the very goal of Communism in a Capitalist society, so that it collapses to make way for Communism.

So are you saying that academia is just communist propaganda?  Why do you put "science" in quotations?

To wrap this up, get off your high horse. Pull your head out of your ass. Stop being so fucking arrogant and presumptuous and actually look into what I say. Then come back with an argument based on logic, facts, and (actual) science and get back to me. Or come back with more of your desires and fantasies and I will just keep ripping them apart.

I try to suspend disbelief and read everything with the assumption that the person is correct but when you go on rants about mind viruses and communism being dangerous, it really makes it hard. 

[alexrosenb]

Of course he and the media are messing around with people. That's what they do, that's what gets the views. And for whatever reason when you read about notorious/famous people, lying about or concealing the date of birth comes up quite often. I wouldn't complain if I got rid of few years off mine but then again I wouldn't tell anybody.

And if one wants to fight communism I don't think going after some random jokers is the way to go

[TECSHARE]

I am not saying time is arbitrary.  I am saying that tying time to a universal aging process is arbitrary.  
-time is real
-aging is real
-aging increases with time
-everyone ages at different rates

So two people who have lived for 40 years have not aged the same but linking aging to time suggests that.  Its a very inprecise way of measuring age.  Time was the most practical way of measuring age for most of history, but today Science has given us more precise ways of measuring age and it may be time to think about a transition away from the outdated time-age system.

And here we are... right off the bat, head still firmly up your posterior, rather than reply to any of my quite valid arguments you begin to address the Postmodernist philosophical nature of time, and I am just closed minded and need to expand my line of thinking to reach "your level". No. This is another perfect example of Postmodernist mind rot. Rather than addressing the very real issues I raised you turn it into a philosophy discussion, and I just need to listen to the teacher until I "get it" (AKA operant conditioning).

Ok but just because it took you 20 years to figure out your political stance, doesn't mean 20 years is how long it takes everyone to figure things out.  I would say it is different for each individual.  Aging is not linear and is affected by our experiences and environment.

You are again demonstrating your problems with basic logic and reading comprehension. I didn't say it took me 20 years, I said it was 20 years ago. It was an anecdotal personal story as a reference of the progression of maturation in thought. The differences don't matter. The fact is this process is known and universal regardless of the scale and velocity of that progression. Age is not linear? Ok Mr. Postmodern.

This is all generalized which is very useful when it is the only way but we now have ways to measure someones specific psychological development.  There are plenty of 25 year olds who are still taking dangerous risks and 20 year olds who have advanced from the phase you are referring to.  Why not treat people as individuals instead of this arbitrary solar number?  Why not just charge the people who are reckless?

No. We don't. Psychology is not a hard science. It is barely a science. On the scale of most to least scientific studies it is at the absolute bottom of accepted sciences. By scientific I mean follows scientific method and measures empirical data. Also there is the fact that there are no controls to compare to, no known "normal".

Why not? because the law doesn't address individuals, it addresses all of us. In order for it to serve all of us this generalization is a requirement. Rule of law is important because it is the foundation on which we all agree to build our common reality. If this common reality is disassembled or destroyed then there is no rule of law, no society. You believe whatever you like in private, this concerns all of us.

Age of key revolutionaries in 1776:

Andrew Jackson, 9
(Major) Thomas Young, 12
Deborah Sampson, 15
James Armistead, 15
Joseph Plumb Martin, 15
Peter Salem, 16**
Peggy Shippen, 16
Marquis de Lafayette, 18
James Monroe, 18
Henry Lee III, 20
Gilbert Stuart, 20
John Trumbull, 20
Aaron Burr, 20
John Marshall, 20
Nathan Hale, 21
Banastre Tarleton, 21
Alexander Hamilton, 21**
Benjamin Tallmadge, 22
Robert Townsend, 22
George Rodgers Clark, 23
David Humphreys, 23
Gouveneur Morris, 24
Betsy Ross, 24
William Washington, 24
James Madison, 25
Henry Knox, 25
John Andre, 26
Thomas Lynch, Jr., 26*
Edward Rutledge, 26*
Abraham Woodhull, 26
Isaiah Thomas, 27
George Walton, 27* **
John Paul Jones, 28
Bernardo de Galvez, 29
Thomas Heyward, Jr., 29*
Robert R. Livingston, 29
John Jay, 30
Tadeusz Kosciuszko, 30
Benjamin Rush, 30*
Abigail Adams, 31
John Barry, 31
Elbridge Gerry, 31*
Casimir Pulaski, 31
Anthony Wayne, 31
Joseph Brant, 33
Nathanael Greene, 33
Thomas Jefferson, 33*
Thomas Stone, 33* **
William Hooper, 34*
Arthur Middleton, 34*
James Wilson, 34* **

The funny thing about 35 is that Benedict Arnold was 35.

The point is that trends are not rules and should not be enforced on all individuals.  These trends you speak of are real but there will always be people who are older and not as developed and vice versa.  I am not denying that each individual gets wiser with age, I'm just saying we should look at people as individuals instead of grouping them based on times around the sun.  

Everyone is learning at a different pace.

Uh huh. Hey, can you tell me, what was the average life expectancy back then? Of course you didn't even bother to think about this because you are too busy struggling to confirm your bias. It was 36. Back then 36 was an old grandpa. Now it is closer to 72. People are living almost twice as long and you feel that no old people in charge then is evidence of anything other than the shitty living conditions of the time?

I am not just trying to link it to Communism and Marxism, it is INTRINSICALLY LINKED to it, as it was created as a DELIVERY MECHANISM for Communism, with a nifty little scientific shell so the virus can slip past the immune system of our brains because it is fooled by the protein shell of "science". This whole trans movement is a direct result of Marxism via Critical Theory thru Postmodernism. As predicted it is resulting in just pure retardation and chaos, the very goal of Communism in a Capitalist society, so that it collapses to make way for Communism.

So are you saying that academia is just communist propaganda?  Why do you put "science" in quotations?

No, I am saying academia is over run with Communist propagandists and those that parrot its ideology. I put science it quotations because there is no science involved in "Critical Theory", unless you count the ulterior motive of the Hegelian dialectic being applied.

I try to suspend disbelief and read everything with the assumption that the person is correct but when you go on rants about mind viruses and communism being dangerous, it really makes it hard.  

Yeah, who ever heard of memetics right? Didn't you claim to have a degree in psychology was it, and you say you don't know what a meme is? I don't just mean like I posted above, I mean the concept of a mind virus. Ok, well thanks for again demonstrating your total incompetence in the area you claim expertise in.

[Christopher_Hayes]

I'm not entirely sure if the 69 year old man is being sarcastic, raising a different kind of awareness against transgenders, or he just really wants his age to be legally changed to 49.

But wouldn't changing his age from 69 to 49 be all for nothing if he eventually falls sick? Plus, instead of begging to have his age change to 20 years younger, I think he should rally for life longevity instead, as well as increased healthspan. That will be more beneficial to him than literally just changing his age.

[coins4commies]

I am not saying time is arbitrary.  I am saying that tying time to a universal aging process is arbitrary.  
-time is real
-aging is real
-aging increases with time
-everyone ages at different rates

So two people who have lived for 40 years have not aged the same but linking aging to time suggests that.  Its a very inprecise way of measuring age.  Time was the most practical way of measuring age for most of history, but today Science has given us more precise ways of measuring age and it may be time to think about a transition away from the outdated time-age system.

And here we are... right off the bat, head still firmly up your posterior, rather than reply to any of my quite valid arguments you begin to address the Postmodernist philosophical nature of time, and I am just closed minded and need to expand my line of thinking to reach "your level". No. This is another perfect example of Postmodernist mind rot. Rather than addressing the very real issues I raised you turn it into a philosophy discussion, and I just need to listen to the teacher until I "get it" (AKA operant conditioning).

I didn't reply to a lot of your arguments because I agree with them.  You wrote a lot about the importance and utility of age and why time is a real thing.  I never disagreed with any of those things.  We only disagreed on what is the best way to measure human aging.

You are again demonstrating your problems with basic logic and reading comprehension. I didn't say it took me 20 years, I said it was 20 years ago. It was an anecdotal personal story as a reference of the progression of maturation in thought. The differences don't matter. The fact is this process is known and universal regardless of the scale and velocity of that progression. Age is not linear? Ok Mr. Postmodern.

Again we agree, the difference is that if someone who is 30 is aging at a different scale and velocity than other people who are 30, then why should they be given the same standardized level of maturity based on trips around the sun? 

No. We don't. Psychology is not a hard science. It is barely a science. On the scale of most to least scientific studies it is at the absolute bottom of accepted sciences. By scientific I mean follows scientific method and measures empirical data. Also there is the fact that there are no controls to compare to, no known "normal".

I can't make sense of what you are talking about here but I assure you psychology research is fully scientific.  You don't need a variation of the independent variable to be labeled as "normal" for a study to be scientific.   It sounds like you are just trying to discredit psychology because most of what you believe about the world was initiated before psychology existed and now the field is upending everything. 

Why not? because the law doesn't address individuals, it addresses all of us. In order for it to serve all of us this generalization is a requirement. Rule of law is important because it is the foundation on which we all agree to build our common reality. If this common reality is disassembled or destroyed then there is no rule of law, no society. You believe whatever you like in private, this concerns all of us.

updated/upgraded

Uh huh. Hey, can you tell me, what was the average life expectancy back then? Of course you didn't even bother to think about this because you are too busy struggling to confirm your bias. It was 36. Back then 36 was an old grandpa. Now it is closer to 72. People are living almost twice as long and you feel that no old people in charge then is evidence of anything other than the shitty living conditions of the time?

I'm glad you acknowledge that environment and living conditions affect aging.  That is really my key point in this entire thread.

No, I am saying academia is over run with Communist propagandists and those that parrot its ideology. I put science it quotations because there is no science involved in "Critical Theory", unless you count the ulterior motive of the Hegelian dialectic being applied.

You said the trans movement, which is backed by science, was just critical theory. Is this because you aren't counting psychology as science? Who is really the one trying to redefine reality and how the world works.  Facts aren't facts and entire fields of scientific research are really just communist propaganda. Those are some serious conspiracy theories that put you up there with the flat earth people.

Yeah, who ever heard of memetics right? Didn't you claim to have a degree in psychology was it, and you say you don't know what a meme is? I don't just mean like I posted above, I mean the concept of a mind virus. Ok, well thanks for again demonstrating your total incompetence in the area you claim expertise in.

Its hard because you are trying to switch things around by saying that science is faith and just blindly following tradition is enlightened.  When you can just ignore facts, bodies of reearch and entire fields of science to just make up your own rules, it becomes hard to follow and I can be labeled however you see fit. 

[TECSHARE]

And here we are... right off the bat, head still firmly up your posterior, rather than reply to any of my quite valid arguments you begin to address the Postmodernist philosophical nature of time, and I am just closed minded and need to expand my line of thinking to reach "your level". No. This is another perfect example of Postmodernist mind rot. Rather than addressing the very real issues I raised you turn it into a philosophy discussion, and I just need to listen to the teacher until I "get it" (AKA operant conditioning).

I didn't reply to a lot of your arguments because I agree with them.  You wrote a lot about the importance and utility of age and why time is a real thing.  I never disagreed with any of those things.  We only disagreed on what is the best way to measure human aging.

Over and over, round and round you go with the endless relativism of Postmodernism. Nothing is real any more under your rubric. Definitions are meaningless. You define things as you go and as it suits you. A definition to confirm every bias. Yeah its only math, why should the method of measuring it be important? lets like, just try something new dude... like where everyone just like... fits in and is happy dude man. No.

Reality is fucked up. Nature is fucked up. The world you live in is the plastic layer applied over this fucked up reality. You have lived in it SO LONG you have forgotten how ABSOLUTELY FUCKING RARE it is we get to live in such a civilized state. You mistaking one for the other think all we have to do to reach perfection is just to take one more step into your Postmodern relativism and we will finally reach this perfection you imagine in your mind. ITS NEVER GONNA FUCKING HAPPEN. GET OVER IT AND ENJOY THE EXCEPTIONAL STATE OF CIVILIZATION YOU ALREADY ENJOY and work to preserve it. Or you know, be an arrogant child about it and demand perfection and get hell on Earth. Your pick.

You are again demonstrating your problems with basic logic and reading comprehension. I didn't say it took me 20 years, I said it was 20 years ago. It was an anecdotal personal story as a reference of the progression of maturation in thought. The differences don't matter. The fact is this process is known and universal regardless of the scale and velocity of that progression. Age is not linear? Ok Mr. Postmodern.

Again we agree, the difference is that if someone who is 30 is aging at a different scale and velocity than other people who are 30, then why should they be given the same standardized level of maturity based on trips around the sun? 

So we agree that you have problems with logic and reading comprehension? Good. I am glad we are on the same page. Did you say you were a teacher?

I already explained why age is important, and why the law doesn't give a shit about your Postmodern relativism.

No. We don't. Psychology is not a hard science. It is barely a science. On the scale of most to least scientific studies it is at the absolute bottom of accepted sciences. By scientific I mean follows scientific method and measures empirical data. Also there is the fact that there are no controls to compare to, no known "normal".

I can't make sense of what you are talking about here but I assure you psychology research is fully scientific.  You don't need a variation of the independent variable to be labeled as "normal" for a study to be scientific.   It sounds like you are just trying to discredit psychology because most of what you believe about the world was initiated before psychology existed and now the field is upending everything. 

Here I will let this author from Psychology Today explain this to you. This isn't some fringe argument, it is one that has always existed with psychology.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201601/the-is-psychology-science-debate

I am not discrediting anything except for your arguments. Psychology is ABSOLUTELY the least scientific of the main stream accepted sciences. Within psychology, Critical Theory is even at the bottom of THAT barrel and doesn't even qualify as being science. Critical Theory was simply a superficial layer of authority applied over Marxist doctrines to give it the trust and authority of a newly budding scientific industry of the time. Critical Theory is not science, it is Marxism wrapped in a superficial shell of science in order to use it to give itself credibility. This is a tactic you see repeated over and over within Marxist and Communist hijacked groups as well. They infiltrate an organization, control and subvert it to serve Marxist doctrines, diverting the effort and resources intended for some other cause, using that cause not only as a cover from criticism but then hindering it in the original goal in the process. You see this in countless minority and activist groups. Any organization that is publicly perceived to be a "victim class" is exploited to serve these goals. They pretend to champions of these causes while stepping on them to raise themselves up.

You don't know a God damned thing about what I believe. Why don't you stick to figuring out what is going on in your own head first Captain Postmodern.

Why not? because the law doesn't address individuals, it addresses all of us. In order for it to serve all of us this generalization is a requirement. Rule of law is important because it is the foundation on which we all agree to build our common reality. If this common reality is disassembled or destroyed then there is no rule of law, no society. You believe whatever you like in private, this concerns all of us.

updated/upgraded

So, if some one were to ask you if it was ok if they "upgraded" your living room with a bat and a sledge hammer, you would be ok with that? This is again more Postmodernist mind rot. You imagine it to be an improvement all you like. Your hallucinations don't effect reality, and are not proof of anything but your own delusions.

Uh huh. Hey, can you tell me, what was the average life expectancy back then? Of course you didn't even bother to think about this because you are too busy struggling to confirm your bias. It was 36. Back then 36 was an old grandpa. Now it is closer to 72. People are living almost twice as long and you feel that no old people in charge then is evidence of anything other than the shitty living conditions of the time?

I'm glad you acknowledge that environment and living conditions affect aging.  That is really my key point in this entire thread.

Oh I see, you are graciously and studiously seeing that I learn about history are you? I see so that wasn't a horribly embarrassing oversight on your part? Ok. Your point seems to be whatever you desire it morph into any given situation that serves your existing bias.

No, I am saying academia is over run with Communist propagandists and those that parrot its ideology. I put science it quotations because there is no science involved in "Critical Theory", unless you count the ulterior motive of the Hegelian dialectic being applied.

You said the trans movement, which is backed by science, was just critical theory. Is this because you aren't counting psychology as science? Who is really the one trying to redefine reality and how the world works.  Facts aren't facts and entire fields of scientific research are really just communist propaganda. Those are some serious conspiracy theories that put you up there with the flat earth people.

"The trans movement" whatever the fuck that means, is NOT backed by science. Some people are physiologically hermaphroditic, but this is EXTREMELY rare. There is a larger percentage of people who have certain hormonal or genetic conditions, which in some circumstances, with treatment, can lead to the successful and happy stabilization of the patient. No one wants to force trans people to be one way or the other, but lying to them and telling them there is no medical condition involved is cruel and again as I explained before using those with victim status to elevate Marxist/Postmodernist doctrines at THEIR expense. Many who get reassignment surgery are not happy with the results and wish they could go back, but they really can't. Instead of getting therapy that might help them decide whatever they want to be, and be happy with their existing body, they are taught the world hates them, and what they are feeling is because of society, not because a medical imbalance. Frankly I find the fact that Marxists/Communists/Postmodernists hide behind these people quite abhorrent. Because if you criticize them, automatically you are racist, sexist, homophobic, Nazi, bigot, insert label here. The very people claiming to fight for them are using them and holding them down.

Yeah, who ever heard of memetics right? Didn't you claim to have a degree in psychology was it, and you say you don't know what a meme is? I don't just mean like I posted above, I mean the concept of a mind virus. Ok, well thanks for again demonstrating your total incompetence in the area you claim expertise in.

Its hard because you are trying to switch things around by saying that science is faith and just blindly following tradition is enlightened.  When you can just ignore facts, bodies of reearch and entire fields of science to just make up your own rules, it becomes hard to follow and I can be labeled however you see fit. 

I am not ignoring anything. I love how you just blatantly and openly apply your anti-religious bias to me and assume because I don't agree with your Postmodernist mind conditioning I must be some kind of evangelical or something. Please do me a favor and pull your head out of your ass and focus on the subject at hand instead of trying to impugn my character with your imagination. I also find it absolutely fucking HILARIOUS you have the nerve to accuse me of "labeling however I see fit" when this is pretty much your exclusive debate tactic.

Also, do me a favor, stop using fucking lazy quotes and quote me the right way so I don't have to fix your bullshit slacking every time I reply.

[coins4commies]

And here we are... right off the bat, head still firmly up your posterior, rather than reply to any of my quite valid arguments you begin to address the Postmodernist philosophical nature of time, and I am just closed minded and need to expand my line of thinking to reach "your level". No. This is another perfect example of Postmodernist mind rot. Rather than addressing the very real issues I raised you turn it into a philosophy discussion, and I just need to listen to the teacher until I "get it" (AKA operant conditioning).

I didn't reply to a lot of your arguments because I agree with them.  You wrote a lot about the importance and utility of age and why time is a real thing.  I never disagreed with any of those things.  We only disagreed on what is the best way to measure human aging.

Over and over, round and round you go with the endless relativism of Postmodernism. Nothing is real any more under your rubric. Definitions are meaningless. You define things as you go and as it suits you. A definition to confirm every bias. Yeah its only math, why should the method of measuring it be important? lets like, just try something new dude... like where everyone just like... fits in and is happy dude man. No.

Reality is fucked up. Nature is fucked up. The world you live in is the plastic layer applied over this fucked up reality. You have lived in it SO LONG you have forgotten how ABSOLUTELY FUCKING RARE it is we get to live in such a civilized state. You mistaking one for the other think all we have to do to reach perfection is just to take one more step into your Postmodern relativism and we will finally reach this perfection you imagine in your mind. ITS NEVER GONNA FUCKING HAPPEN. GET OVER IT AND ENJOY THE EXCEPTIONAL STATE OF CIVILIZATION YOU ALREADY ENJOY and work to preserve it. Or you know, be an arrogant child about it and demand perfection and get hell on Earth. Your pick.

Do you know why our civilization has gotten better over time?  Not because of people trying to keep things the old way, but because of people looking at specific aspects of society and coming up with ways to improve them.  In science, more and more precise ways of measurement have been developed over time.  It doesn't mean they become perfect, but they do become better.  These improved tools of measurement provide us with more specific information which is more helpful.

No one is saying that age is not important, I'm just saying that there are more precise ways to measure human aging that we should (and will) move to in the future.  You explained why age is important but not why trips around the sun is the only way it should ever be measured.

No. We don't. Psychology is not a hard science. It is barely a science. On the scale of most to least scientific studies it is at the absolute bottom of accepted sciences. By scientific I mean follows scientific method and measures empirical data. Also there is the fact that there are no controls to compare to, no known "normal".

I can't make sense of what you are talking about here but I assure you psychology research is fully scientific.  You don't need a variation of the independent variable to be labeled as "normal" for a study to be scientific.   It sounds like you are just trying to discredit psychology because most of what you believe about the world was initiated before psychology existed and now the field is upending everything. 

Here I will let this author from Psychology Today explain this to you. This isn't some fringe argument, it is one that has always existed with psychology.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201601/the-is-psychology-science-debate

I am not discrediting anything except for your arguments. Psychology is ABSOLUTELY the least scientific of the main stream accepted sciences. Within psychology, Critical Theory is even at the bottom of THAT barrel and doesn't even qualify as being science. Critical Theory was simply a superficial layer of authority applied over Marxist doctrines to give it the trust and authority of a newly budding scientific industry of the time. Critical Theory is not science, it is Marxism wrapped in a superficial shell of science in order to use it to give itself credibility. This is a tactic you see repeated over and over within Marxist and Communist hijacked groups as well. They infiltrate an organization, control and subvert it to serve Marxist doctrines, diverting the effort and resources intended for some other cause, using that cause not only as a cover from criticism but then hindering it in the original goal in the process. You see this in countless minority and activist groups. Any organization that is publicly perceived to be a "victim class" is exploited to serve these goals. They pretend to champions of these causes while stepping on them to raise themselves up.

You don't know a God damned thing about what I believe. Why don't you stick to figuring out what is going on in your own head first Captain Postmodern.

My only problem with the psychology today blog is that it is a bit contradictory because it calls the "its too complicated" argument a red herring but goes on to conclude that it is less scientific because there is no core body of knowledge.  So in essence, the world of psychology is too muddy and incomplete to be a field of science.   That is a very "after the fact" view of science.  Research doesn't have to yield useful conclusions to be scientific and no field's core body of knowledge exists before it is discovered. If you want to say psychology is a less evolved field then go ahead and say that but that shouldn't discredit it altogether.  

Its a stretch to link any of this to marxism.  You have so much negative passion when it comes to Marxism that it seems to be a paranoia.  If Marxism was so powerful and ubiquitous, it would probably be more successful at creating Marxists.

Why not? because the law doesn't address individuals, it addresses all of us. In order for it to serve all of us this generalization is a requirement. Rule of law is important because it is the foundation on which we all agree to build our common reality. If this common reality is disassembled or destroyed then there is no rule of law, no society. You believe whatever you like in private, this concerns all of us.

updated/upgraded

So, if some one were to ask you if it was ok if they "upgraded" your living room with a bat and a sledge hammer, you would be ok with that? This is again more Postmodernist mind rot. You imagine it to be an improvement all you like. Your hallucinations don't effect reality, and are not proof of anything but your own delusions.

The appropriate analogy would be if someone took my farmers almanac and replaced it with a national weather service because I am talking about improving precision and accuracy by removing generalizations that were made long ago simply because that was the best tech that existed when these traditions started.  

Uh huh. Hey, can you tell me, what was the average life expectancy back then? Of course you didn't even bother to think about this because you are too busy struggling to confirm your bias. It was 36. Back then 36 was an old grandpa. Now it is closer to 72. People are living almost twice as long and you feel that no old people in charge then is evidence of anything other than the shitty living conditions of the time?

I'm glad you acknowledge that environment and living conditions affect aging.  That is really my key point in this entire thread.

Oh I see, you are graciously and studiously seeing that I learn about history are you? I see so that wasn't a horribly embarrassing oversight on your part? Ok. Your point seems to be whatever you desire it morph into any given situation that serves your existing bias.

So if you acknowledge that difference of environment and living conditions affect aging, regardless of the fact that everyone moves around the sun exactly the same way, then why is it so much of a "postmodernist" stretch to believe that there could be a way of measuring this difference in aging?

No, I am saying academia is over run with Communist propagandists and those that parrot its ideology. I put science it quotations because there is no science involved in "Critical Theory", unless you count the ulterior motive of the Hegelian dialectic being applied.

You said the trans movement, which is backed by science, was just critical theory. Is this because you aren't counting psychology as science? Who is really the one trying to redefine reality and how the world works.  Facts aren't facts and entire fields of scientific research are really just communist propaganda. Those are some serious conspiracy theories that put you up there with the flat earth people.

"The trans movement" whatever the fuck that means, is NOT backed by science. Some people are physiologically hermaphroditic, but this is EXTREMELY rare. There is a larger percentage of people who have certain hormonal or genetic conditions, which in some circumstances, with treatment, can lead to the successful and happy stabilization of the patient. No one wants to force trans people to be one way or the other, but lying to them and telling them there is no medical condition involved is cruel and again as I explained before using those with victim status to elevate Marxist/Postmodernist doctrines at THEIR expense. Many who get reassignment surgery are not happy with the results and wish they could go back, but they really can't. Instead of getting therapy that might help them decide whatever they want to be, and be happy with their existing body, they are taught the world hates them, and what they are feeling is because of society, not because a medical imbalance. Frankly I find the fact that Marxists/Communists/Postmodernists hide behind these people quite abhorrent. Because if you criticize them, automatically you are racist, sexist, homophobic, Nazi, bigot, insert label here. The very people claiming to fight for them are using them and holding them down.

So to clarify, when I say the trans movement, I'm referring to transgender.  Transexual movement exists to try and make transgender individuals cis-gender so they can better fit into a society that largely insists (1)gender is static, (2)binary, and (3)always easily identifiable by cis-association with genitalia at birth--- all of which are scientifically false.  Yes those three are the case for most people but transgenders ARE rare.  Fear-mongers try to paint an illusion that everyone is waking up becoming trans because its the cool new trend.  Also, I have never met a transphobic person who knows there is a difference between sex and gender.  That immediately disqualifies them from the conversation.

[TECSHARE]

Do you know why our civilization has gotten better over time?  Not because of people trying to keep things the old way, but because of people looking at specific aspects of society and coming up with ways to improve them.  In science, more and more precise ways of measurement have been developed over time.  It doesn't mean they become perfect, but they do become better.  These improved tools of measurement provide us with more specific information which is more helpful.

No one is saying that age is not important, I'm just saying that there are more precise ways to measure human aging that we should (and will) move to in the future.  You explained why age is important but not why trips around the sun is the only way it should ever be measured.

Good for you, you know how progress works on a very superficial level. Just to clarify, humanity, society, and technology don't progress by just randomly experimenting with the very fabric of society and "seeing what happens". That is why I stress actual scientific analysis based on empirical data, so educated modifications can be made with predictable results. Not just turning all of society into word salad and seeing what happens.

You haven't come up with a more precise way of measurement, you have come up with word salad that superficially sounds scientific. All of this is just a red herring so you can avoid admitting there is ZERO SCIENCE behind any of your Postmodernist dogmas.

My only problem with the psychology today blog is that it is a bit contradictory because it calls the "its too complicated" argument a red herring but goes on to conclude that it is less scientific because there is no core body of knowledge.  So in essence, the world of psychology is too muddy and incomplete to be a field of science.   That is a very "after the fact" view of science.  Research doesn't have to yield useful conclusions to be scientific and no field's core body of knowledge exists before it is discovered. If you want to say psychology is a less evolved field then go ahead and say that but that shouldn't discredit it altogether.  

Its a stretch to link any of this to marxism.  You have so much negative passion when it comes to Marxism that it seems to be a paranoia.  If Marxism was so powerful and ubiquitous, it would probably be more successful at creating Marxists.

Good for you, you don't like the article. The fact is this isn't some crackpot fringe argument, it has been one ongoing since the "science" of Psychology was invented.

The rest of what you say here is really just a mind numbing amount of mental gymnastics to twist your mind around your bias. Let me count some of the many ways Psychology is not scientific:

1. No control (no known normal to base studies on)
2. Results are not directly observable and largely subjective (exist in the mind and must be observed by secondary behavior)
3. Results are not repeatable (there is no way to standardize results)
4. It uses ambiguous unclear terminology
5. The results are not quantifiable

There are more but I am bored with your endless diversionary side topics.

It is not a stretch at all to link Postmodernism to Marxism. Here is some reference material for you.

https://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/

https://www.thoughtco.com/frankfurt-school-3026079

https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/the-philosophy-of-praxis-marx-lukcs-and-the-frankfurt-school/

So as you can see The Frankfurt School of Critical Theory from which your specific brand of Postmodernism originated from was DIRECTLY INSPIRED BY MARXIST IDEOLOGIES BY SELF PROCLAIMED MARXISTS. You keep on denying reality if you like though.

You don't see Marxists anywhere because you don't even know what Marxism is. You think you know, but you are just a pretender as evidenced by your pathetically inadequate replies.

The appropriate analogy would be if someone took my farmers almanac and replaced it with a national weather service because I am talking about improving precision and accuracy by removing generalizations that were made long ago simply because that was the best tech that existed when these traditions started.  

Well I am glad I have you here to tell me what analogies I should be using, thanks. You aren't talking about anything except PURE IMAGINATION. Let me know when you want to involve some FACTS.

So if you acknowledge that difference of environment and living conditions affect aging, regardless of the fact that everyone moves around the sun exactly the same way, then why is it so much of a "postmodernist" stretch to believe that there could be a way of measuring this difference in aging?

Your hypothetical is meaningless. If you have a "more accurate way" then present it. Don't sit around here advocating we just fuck around with the very fabric of society just to "see what happens" because it "might be better" with absofuckinglutely zero evidence to support your claims. You are fucking with serious things we all depend on, you need to present serious evidence to support this kind of intervention on the systems WE ALL DEPEND ON.

So to clarify, when I say the trans movement, I'm referring to transgender.  Transexual movement exists to try and make transgender individuals cis-gender so they can better fit into a society that largely insists (1)gender is static, (2)binary, and (3)always easily identifiable by cis-association with genitalia at birth--- all of which are scientifically false.  Yes those three are the case for most people but transgenders ARE rare.  Fear-mongers try to paint an illusion that everyone is waking up becoming trans because its the cool new trend.  Also, I have never met a transphobic person who knows there is a difference between sex and gender.  That immediately disqualifies them from the conversation.

Uh huh. Good for them. People can identify however they like. They have a right to decide this for themselves. What they do not have a right to do is demand ALL OF SOCIETY share this identification. Sure people should respect each other, but compelling the speech of others is not respect, that is totalitarianism.

You see this is exactly what I was talking about. Who said anything about being transsexual is "the cool new trend" but you? I didn't you did. You have no argument so you need to set up a straw man to knock down so you can declare a victory.

Convenient isn't it you can just disqualify people from debate unilaterally because they don't share your Marxist gender ideologies? Then you never have to answer to legitimate criticism, just call some one transphobic - boom thought process done.

This ideology is HARMFUL to transsexual and gender dysphoric individuals. Instead of telling them that they could potentially seek helpful treatments such as hormone therapy, you sell them pseudo-scientific fairy tails about 347 genders instead in order to maintain them as a victim class, and condition them into believing everyone hates them and that's why they feel bad. These people are being USED as fodder to push Marxist ideologies as their expense, and it is LITERALLY costing lives. That doesn't bother Marxists though because they will just turn right around and claim they committed suicide because of trans-phobia. With victim status more firmly entrenched, they can continue selling the lie the world hates them and continue to weaken them to create a system of interdependence.

[Becksinsky]

I do not agree that age should be changed on the basis of only biological indicators. But what about psychological? And social? And moments of history?
I believe that age can not be changed, because it is a fact.
He has lived for 69 years, has accumulated some experience, he found specific historical events!
Suppose a person is over 70 years old. He found the Second World War. But he feels himself to be 50 years old, and therefore he reduces his age by 20 years. It turns out that he erases from his destiny the events of the world that he found, erases his experience?
I think this is some kind of madness.