Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Trump says he would encourage Russia to attack Nato countries


Unusual Tournament

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Ultimately though the European members of NATO, in particular Germany, France, Spain, and Italy, really need to start pulling their weight but most of the European NATO members need to step up their defense also.  There is no reason why Europe can't afford to defend themselves and why America should have to largely cover the defense of itself plus Europe largely alone.  

It appears that Denmark took a leadership role. Basically they said all of these weapons were designed to fight Russia and be used to destroy Russian equipment. Our country is not on the front line fighting Russia, so we  don't need this equipment here right now. We will send our all of our artillery to the front line in Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russia in our own country later.  At least that is what I got out of it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

I'm not trying to convince anybody.  If you don't think Reagan or Trump got their slogans from Hitler, then tell me where they did get them from.

I'm not saying they got them from anywhere. "Make X Great Again" seems to have a universal appeal, they could have got it independently. After all, where did Hitler get it from? If Reagan and Trump had to get it from somewhere then so too did Hitler. But it's not politically convenient for you to bother finding out, you're comfortable ending the discussion at Hitler because that supports your views about Trump. 

 

1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

Like I said, there may be some genders in that list that do not exist in fact.  The process for identifying a gender is to first recruit a large sample of people and have them list their reactions to various potential stimuli and factors.  Then group these responses into similar groupings.  Next see if there are correlations between the various factors.  The groupings with the greatest number of correlated factors are the gender groups.  The smallest number are not gender groups.  But that's statistics and statistics are not 100% accurate.

Whether you have any use for Money or not is irrelevant.  Some Nazi "researchers" subjected victims to tests on oxygen deprivation, killing many of them.  The methods were reprehensible, but they still established altitude limits that are still used by NASA.

Yes.  It's a horrible price to pay and because of that, we do not throw away the information thus collected.

Doug

I guess what this boils down to is the questionable validity of gender/sex research. I will call people by the pronouns they wish because it is respectful to treat people how they wish to be treated. But sex and gender are not separate terms, they became separate terms because horrible people like John Money want that to be so. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

You are the one brought up a conversation from about a month ago, where if I remember correctly you just hand waved away any and all evidence that proved you wrong.  You are also the one who started with the trolling immediately once it was shown you were proven wrong.

After your sad and pathetic attemp at trolling and the paragraph wasn't clumsy.  It was a rather straight forward and simple to understand paragraph if your reading comprehension is above an elementary school level which yours doesn't seem to be.

I didn't start trolling. You made this personal by bringing your feelings and expressing the feelings of frisson you were experiencing.  You're still trying to make childish personal digs; but, you're not a troll.

BTW,  that parapgraph could definitely be improved because was a clumsily written.

Lastly, none of this changes the original point - that was made - that GDP is not the appropriate metric and Luxembourg is seeking an alternative measure.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I didn't start trolling. You made this personal by bringing your feelings and expressing the feelings of frisson you were experiencing.  You're still trying to make childish personal digs; but, you're not a troll.

BTW,  that parapgraph could definitely be improved because was a clumsily written.

Lastly, none of this changes the original point - that was made - that GDP is not the appropriate metric and Luxembourg is seeking an alternative measure.

I posted a rebuttal to your incorrect statement, your response was to essentially ignore everything I said and provide a link that I had already posted in response to another poster.  I point out how your link disproved your position and you immediately started trolling.  You are assuming the feelings but I generally don't have a lot of tolerance for people who pretend to be smarter then they actually are which you constantly do.

I understood perfectly well and it seems you are the only one who couldn't comprehend a relatively simple couple of sentences.  My guess is you so desperately wanted to be right you didn't bother to actually read it.

So the 1,128 soldiers and approximate 100 infantry mobility vehicles is an appropriate military contribution for Luxembourg.  No matter how you try to spin it the European NATO members are in general not pulling their weight and there is no justification why America should have to spend so much to protect itself plus Europe when Europe won't pay to protect itself.

Edited by DarkHunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

I posted a rebuttal to your incorrect statement, your response was to essentially ignore everything I said and provide a link that I had already posted in response to another poster.  I point out how your link disproved your position and you immediately started trolling.  You are assuming the feelings but I generally don't have a lot of tolerance for people who pretend to be smarter then they actually are which you constantly do.

I understood perfectly well and it seems you are the only one who couldn't comprehend a relatively simple couple of sentences.  My guess is you so desperately wanted to be right you didn't bother to actually read it.

So the 1,128 soldiers and approximate 100 infantry mobility vehicles is an appropriate military contribution for Luxembourg.  No matter how you try to spin it the European NATO members are in general not pulling their weight and there is no justification why America should have to spend so much to protect itself plus Europe when Europe won't pay to protect itself.

You're making comments on my form after you say your not invest in this forum.

Anyway, you said I didn’t post a link, so i posted the link i used.  I simply fulfilled your request. 

I even quoted the paragraph which stated very few members spent more per capaita than Luxembourg.  It wasn't none. Your reply was full of expressionism.

The paragraph could have been improved.

Back to the topic, by how much would the USA reduce its military spending without NATO?

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You're making comments on my form after you say your not invest in this forum.

Anyway, you said I didn’t post a link, so i posted the link i used.  I simply fulfilled your request. 

I even quoted the paragraph which stated very few members spent more per capaita than Luxembourg.  It wasn't none. Your reply was full of expressionism.

The paragraph could have been improved.

Back to the topic, by how much would the USA reduce its military spending without NATO?

Wanting to switch back to the topic now after your trolling was pointed out and you bringing up stuff from about a month ago.  You really do have a fragile ego and can't stand being corrected.  If anyone is projecting it seems to be you.

You were the only one so far who couldn't read a couple of sentences correctly, it even listed NATO nations that spend more then Luxembourg per capita.  It just seems your reading level is at an elementary school level.

Nice try at the attempt to control and redirect the issue.  American military spending isn't the issue, it's the European nations not paying enough that is the issue.  Since you can't justify Europe spending approximately half of what America does and having even less than half of military assets you try to direct the conversation to how much America should cut spending without NATO.  

You can twist and try to troll your way out of this as much as you want but European NATO countries need to start paying for their own defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2024 at 5:49 PM, Paranoid Android said:

I'm not saying they got them from anywhere.

Then why are you making a big stink about it?

On 2/19/2024 at 5:49 PM, Paranoid Android said:

I guess what this boils down to is the questionable validity of gender/sex research.

It boils down to statistical processes not being absolute.  The standard for this type of research is 95% accuracy, which means that 1 out of 20 conclusions will be wrong.  The question:  which one is that?

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

Then why are you making a big stink about it?

YOU were the one who claimed Trump got it from Hitler. I deny that utterly, there is no evidence that he did, and plenty of evidence he got it from Reagan or simply made it up himself independently. 

You're so bent on the idea that Trump's a Nazi or some such that you can't see anything else. 

 

7 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

It boils down to statistical processes not being absolute.  The standard for this type of research is 95% accuracy, which means that 1 out of 20 conclusions will be wrong.  The question:  which one is that?

Doug

John Money is a criminal who should have been executed for what he did, but instead the LGBTQIA+ (did I get all the current letters, I wouldn't want to offend anyone by accident) treat his research like he actually proved gender was a social construct when his "study" did the opposite! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

You're so bent on the idea that Trump's a Nazi or some such that you can't see anything else. 

https://www.wsmv.com/2024/02/19/i-was-horrified-lawmakers-speak-out-after-nazi-group-marches-through-nashville/

The Tennessee lawmakers are not Nazis.  But the rise of Trump's hate rhetoric has brought them out of the woodwork.  Neither you nor I know where Trump got his slogan, but he sure found a receptive audience.

 

48 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

John Money is a criminal who should have been executed for what he did, but instead the LGBTQIA+ (did I get all the current letters, I wouldn't want to offend anyone by accident) treat his research like he actually proved gender was a social construct when his "study" did the opposite! 

John Money wrote several papers about gender.  Which one are you talking about?

Also, I could not find a reference to what you said he did.  Could you please post a link?

Doug

 

Edited by Doug1066
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

https://www.wsmv.com/2024/02/19/i-was-horrified-lawmakers-speak-out-after-nazi-group-marches-through-nashville/

The Tennessee lawmakers are not Nazis.  But the rise of Trump's hate rhetoric has brought them out of the woodwork.  Neither you nor I know where Trump got his slogan, but he sure found a receptive audience.

There were about twelve of them. 😄

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

https://www.wsmv.com/2024/02/19/i-was-horrified-lawmakers-speak-out-after-nazi-group-marches-through-nashville/

The Tennessee lawmakers are not Nazis.  But the rise of Trump's hate rhetoric has brought them out of the woodwork.  Neither you nor I know where Trump got his slogan, but he sure found a receptive audience.

What does that have to do with where Trump got the phrase "Make America Great Again"? Donald Trump isn't even mentioned in that article! 

 

1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

John Money wrote several papers about gender.  Which one are you talking about?

Also, I could not find a reference to what you said he did.  Could you please post a link?

Doug

 

https://slate.com/technology/2004/06/why-did-david-reimer-commit-suicide.html

David Reimer was a biological boy given hormones and raised as a girl. If gender is a social construct then being raised as a girl and given hormones and never told he was a boy should have given him a life of satisfaction as a girl and no one would ever have known. But despite this he grew up to hate being a girl, and eventually committed suicide, arguably because of his horrid upbringing and the torture that John Money put him through trying to prove that gender was a social construct. That Reimer was a boy through and through despite all this proves that sex is biological and gender is not a social construct but an inevitable response to biological norms. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

What does that have to do with where Trump got the phrase "Make America Great Again"? Donald Trump isn't even mentioned in that article! 

Just pointing out that Trump and the Nazis are fellow-travelers.

 

14 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

What does that have to do with where Trump got the phrase "Make America Great Again"? Donald Trump isn't even mentioned in that article! 

 

https://slate.com/technology/2004/06/why-did-david-reimer-commit-suicide.html

David Reimer was a biological boy given hormones and raised as a girl. If gender is a social construct then being raised as a girl and given hormones and never told he was a boy should have given him a life of satisfaction as a girl and no one would ever have known. But despite this he grew up to hate being a girl, and eventually committed suicide, arguably because of his horrid upbringing and the torture that John Money put him through trying to prove that gender was a social construct. That Reimer was a boy through and through despite all this proves that sex is biological and gender is not a social construct but an inevitable response to biological norms. 

I found it.  I believe you said Money was a criminal, so I was trying to google "John Money criminal."

Money was never charged or convicted.  He was, at least technically, not a criminal.  But what he did was child abuse and medical malpractice.  It was also bad science in that his "sexual rehearsal play" had no control.  He had no way to tell whether the "treatment" was doing anything or not.  It also sounds like some of his reports may have been false.

Genetics were probably a factor in the tragedy, too.

https://wiki2.org/en/David_Reimer

Gender research is long past Money.

 

 

You don't know anything about gender.  But that's OK.  Neither do I.  My training is in the hard sciences - STEM.  Warm fuzzy things make me nervous. 

But I do know how data is collected and analyzed.  The technique used in gender research is straight out of Intro to Statistics.  They're using the chi-square test to determine when two characteristics correlate.  If they correlate, the characteristics are part of the same gender type; if they don't they're not.  New genders are identified thusly:

Draw a random sample of test subjects.  Have each make a list of characteristics they associate with certain words and phrases like "Boy," "Girl," "Sex," "Love," etc.  Then examine the lists to determine how frequently given responses occur together.  The counts are then used in a chi-square test.  Critical values are set to give an accuracy of 95% (19 times out of 20), meaning there will be about one wrong result for every 19 correct ones.  The chi-square test is conservative.  When it produces a wrong result, that result has an "insignificant" bias.  The test will conclude that there is no correlation and, hence, no gender type.  This is what you want - you don't want to identify a gender type that doesn't exist in reality.

There are 16 types on the list I originally posted.  To find a 17th would require a minimum sample of 510 individuals and that only if the data just happened to fall perfectly.  If you had a sample size of 1000 people, you might be able to define up to 30 gender types, if they exist.  More likely, you'd find 20-25.  Typically, you'd show one or two types that do not exist in fact,  To double-check your work, you would need to repeat the experiment, or compare your result with what others have found.  So simple logistics is starting to limit the number of gender types that can be discovered.

It doesn't matter whether you think different gender types are real or not.  This is the real world we're talking about and it is what it is.

Doug

 

 

Edited by Doug1066
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
7 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

Just pointing out that Trump and the Nazis are fellow-travelers.

Since the article didn't even mention Trump, you failed hard and instead only proved your inability to discuss this topic rationally. 

 

7 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

I found it.  I believe you said Money was a criminal, so I was trying to google "John Money criminal."

Money was never charged or convicted.  He was, at least technically, not a criminal.  But what he did was child abuse and medical malpractice.  It was also bad science in that his "sexual rehearsal play" had no control.  He had no way to tell whether the "treatment" was doing anything or not.  It also sounds like some of his reports may have been false.

Genetics were probably a factor in the tragedy, too.

https://wiki2.org/en/David_Reimer

Gender research is long past Money.

 

 

You don't know anything about gender.  But that's OK.  Neither do I.  My training is in the hard sciences - STEM.  Warm fuzzy things make me nervous. 

But I do know how data is collected and analyzed.  The technique used in gender research is straight out of Intro to Statistics.  They're using the chi-square test to determine when two characteristics correlate.  If they correlate, the characteristics are part of the same gender type; if they don't they're not.  New genders are identified thusly:

Draw a random sample of test subjects.  Have each make a list of characteristics they associate with certain words and phrases like "Boy," "Girl," "Sex," "Love," etc.  Then examine the lists to determine how frequently given responses occur together.  The counts are then used in a chi-square test.  Critical values are set to give an accuracy of 95% (19 times out of 20), meaning there will be about one wrong result for every 19 correct ones.  The chi-square test is conservative.  When it produces a wrong result, that result has an "insignificant" bias.  The test will conclude that there is no correlation and, hence, no gender type.  This is what you want - you don't want to identify a gender type that doesn't exist in reality.

There are 16 types on the list I originally posted.  To find a 17th would require a minimum sample of 510 individuals and that only if the data just happened to fall perfectly.  If you had a sample size of 1000 people, you might be able to define up to 30 gender types, if they exist.  More likely, you'd find 20-25.  Typically, you'd show one or two types that do not exist in fact,  To double-check your work, you would need to repeat the experiment, or compare your result with what others have found.  So simple logistics is starting to limit the number of gender types that can be discovered.

It doesn't matter whether you think different gender types are real or not.  This is the real world we're talking about and it is what it is.

Doug

 

 

Money may not have been charged, but he's a criminal. He failed to prove gender was a social construct and via David Reimer proved that biological sex has real world ramifications. As noted, I will happily call someone by their preferred pronouns because that is the respectful thing to do. I will treat everyone's individual choices with respect, and for people over the age of 18 if they wish to have a sex change operation that is also their choice and I 100% support their right to act as they see in their best interests. 

Just keep the kids out of being medically or chemically castrated and I'm as happy as anyone else. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Just keep the kids out of being medically or chemically castrated and I'm as happy as anyone else. 

Hormone treatment should not start before age 14.  The recommendation these days is to get a second opinion and make sure both opinions are EXPERT opinions.  Most doctors are not qualified to advise in such a situation.  That's the source of most disaster stories.  AND take three or four days to think it over.

I don't think Money was qualified to make such a decision.

Doug

Edited by Doug1066
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

Hormone treatment should not start before age 14. 

Correction - hormone treatment should not start before 18! 

For the rest I think we've reached the end of the discussion, thanks. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GG_ixk2WoAEeWFH.jpg.032c55c490306145d4fb0f6d17f42b9f.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2024 at 12:21 PM, Michelle said:

More things Biden wants banned...

To name just a few things Biden wants banned, Fox noted, the list includes “water heaters, furnaces, clothes washers, dishwashers, ceiling fans, microwave ovens and shower heads,” all in order to push his unattainable net-zero climate goals.

In 2022 alone, the Biden administration pushed out more than 110 new regulations to strangle products extreme climate activists don’t like.

It's Not Just Gas Stoves Democrats Are Coming For - Here Are Other Home Appliances on the Chopping Block (ijr.com)

Fact check: False claim Biden administration wants to ban gas stoves (usatoday.com)

Is Biden Administration Banning Gas Stoves Over Climate Change Concerns? | Snopes.com

FACT FOCUS: Biden administration isn't banning gas stoves | AP News

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Correction - hormone treatment should not start before 18! 

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (https://www.wpath.org/) has lowered its age-recommendations for transgender transition.  Hormone therapy can begin at age 14 with some surgeries as early as 15.  There are risks, but it is harmful to withhold treatment.  The benefits include psychological health and reduction in suicidal behavior and allowing teens to experience puberty at the same time as their classmates.  Besides age, other considerations include emotional maturity, parental consent, gender discomfort and psychological evaluation (Tanner 2022).  A multi-disciplinary approach is recommended.

 There are pros and cons to trans-gender surgery.  Gender-questioning kids are more aware of their options.  But, some clinics are too quick to offer permanent surgery; kids may outgrow their questioning.  There are horror stories, all of which underscore the need for careful professional evaluation.

 Politicians who want to punish parents for letting kids have transgender treatments are “absolutely cruel (Anderson 2022).”  But with the political right, cruelty is the point.

 

The reason for starting hormone therapy at a younger age is to start the transition before the onset of puberty.  Serious complications can result from delaying.  Waiting until 18 can cause life-long problems.

Now who do you think I'm going to believe?  The best medical advise, or some know-nothing from the outback?

"Correction" rejected.

 

Doug

 

 

Anderson, Erica.  2022.  In: Tanner, Lindsey.  2022.  Trans kids treatment can start younger, new guidelines say.  Associated Press (15 June 2022).  https://apnews.com/article/gender-transition-treatment-guidelines-9dbe54f670a3a0f5f2831c2bf14f9bbb  24 Oct. 2023.

 Tanner, Lindsey.  2022.  Trans kids treatment can start younger, new guidelines say.  Associated Press (15 June 2022).  https://apnews.com/article/gender-transition-treatment-guidelines-9dbe54f670a3a0f5f2831c2bf14f9bbb 24 Oct. 2023.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

"Correction" rejected.

I was posting my views, your impassioned argument has not swayed me to change, no child should EVER be subjected to such "treatment", in my view (calling it treatment is a sick joke to begin with)! We won't agree with each other so let's just agree to disagree, aye :)

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2024 at 5:01 PM, Paranoid Android said:

I was posting my views, your impassioned argument has not swayed me to change, no child should EVER be subjected to such "treatment", in my view (calling it treatment is a sick joke to begin with)! We won't agree with each other so let's just agree to disagree, aye :)

 

 

As I said, you don't know what you're talking about.

Doug

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.