DMC

Huh? Again, just looking at the rookie seasons. Especially considering the injury concerns with both the current skinny giants could go wayside very quickly. Point is Melo had the better rookie season than Wade, and that was what everyone was talking about that year. Obviously, Wade had the far better career.

Melo had a better rookie season than Wade, which is what I was going off of.

I think anyone expecting Alex Garland to deliver some grand message on the current political zeitgeist was kidding themselves. Including, at least based off some interviews I’ve seen/read, apparently Alex Garland.

I dunno, Lebron and Melo was pretty cool.

The concern about nuclear proliferation has never really been about the US (albeit, yeah, that’s part of it). But rather more of a domino effect worry - which, in case you haven’t heard - was pretty en vogue during the Cold War. China’s bomb begat India’s, which begat Pakistan’s. Now, put those relations into the context of the Middle East. Or sub-Saharan Africa. Or even Latin America. Not hard to see how even the most stolid IR observer can start to lose sleep at night.

This type of bullshit is always going to be there if you edit enough. At this point it’s almost ripping off Jay Leno and JayWalking. Not to say he was the first to think of it, cuz he wasn’t. Doesn’t mean shit. You interview enough people on the street, you’re going to find stupid people on the street.

I’m quoting the below purely out of amusement in the acronym. If Ukraine funding passes the House? Well then fuck yeah and Hoo…

I read the article. I strongly suspect I read more of the Cass report than you have at this point. And this began with me reading and citing an article you posted that you yourself couldn’t or wouldn’t back up with basic data. If you want to take your ball and go home, by all means, but it is because your arguments suck.

Nope, it’s not obvious and really gross to stigmatize an entire group in such a way for the benefits of your ideological argument. Nor is your suggestion that those with autism are just “waived through.” The implication here is frankly offensive to those with autism as well as anyone close to them. The suggestion is that some differences in the percentages in terms of referrals to Gids is because kids with autism apparently are less capable than everyone else to determine their gender identity. Which is what you’re asserting, whether you realize it or not. You keep on employing bad faith tactics that make it really hard to consider your arguments in any way credible.

You said: This seems like fear rhetoric. Why? Because why shouldn’t those with autism or mental health issues be afforded the same health care as everyone else? Why are you singling them out? Why is it apparently a problem that they “were just waved through” as opposed to every other kid? I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that the reason you’re emphasizing that aspect of the population is due to some type of lack of understanding or willingness on behalf of those kids. Otherwise, considering them in a different manner to the rest of the population is by definition bigoted. Further, acting as if everyone that is challenging your claims is “ideological” while you somehow aren’t is the height of comedy.

Please cite the evidence that autistic children were given treatment against their and/or their parents’ will. Again, honest question. I dunno what’s going on in the UK.

BTW, Cass’ report is 388 pages long, including appendices. Please respond if you can honestly tell me you read all 388 pages.

Ha! Must have really pushed a button for you to give such an absurdly stupid response! Good luck there snowflake!

Heh. My dad had a physiology PhD from Berkeley and was a leader in his field. When he asked for help a few years back I couldn’t believe how ill-equipped he was at analyzing his data. Dude was still like “well why can’t we just use ANOVA?” “Hard” scientists often have no fucking idea what they’re doing when it comes to statistical models. And even further when it comes to statistical models on human behavior. Especially when it comes to older researchers that are generally resistant to the methodological advances achieved over the past few decades. Make fun of me all you want, but this isn’t an isolated thing. Nor is the sitting government altering reports for their own benefit.

To be clear I’m not just criticizing you, I’m criticizing the Cass report. I haven’t read all of it, but reviewing the analysis in which she’s drawing conclusions, there are myriad methodological issues. Like, really basic modeling problems wherein she doesn’t employ instrumental or even controls to present her findings. I had no idea who Hilary Cass was until a few hours ago, and it’s unfair to put this on her - very likely the issues were due to others before publication. But I don’t put much stock in that report as a scientific study. At least in terms of the methods employed to assert behavioral trends. It’s plainly a production for a certain political agenda.

Yeah sure, doctors and the government should probably adopt some type of red flag mechanisms when the parents and/or the child themselves are making such a decision too hastily. But that has very little to do with the numbers you keep harping on. Indeed, emphasis on the latter generally impedes good faith efforts to achieve positive policy outcomes.

As I intimated I think there are other factors involved, sure, but in the main it’s really not worthy of such hyperbolic rhetoric. Again, I kind of agree with you regarding this shift should be carefully considered and discussed. However, I’m also trained as a statistical analyst, and this report does not align to the verbiage being used.

I guess what I’m wondering is why this - yes significant - increase is indicative of anything other than societal changes. Boosting from 250 to five or even ten thousand should be rather anticipated, all things considered. And I’m especially curious why this is an argument for or against anything. As the article originally linked states, doctors have a hard time themselves knowing what to do. That’s what should be emphasized if you are concerned about this change in treatment. And I think that’s a valid concern. I suspect there are a not insignificant proportion of young people that are expressing these preferences due to other problems. But just exploiting some numbers is not really addressing the issue. Like, abortion clinics in blue states bordering red states have skyrocketing admittance rates since Roe was struck down. That doesn’t mean there’s some abortion epidemic, it just means the circumstances and environment have shifted.

Um, what I asked, which kar provided.

I wasn’t, at all. I mentioned population increases just to note it’s going to affect the relative percentages over time. Obviously, a 16 times increase is not going to solely be accounted for by population increases unless, like, the NHS drastically changed their admissions criteria. Anyway, please stop projecting arguments I’m making simply due to me asking you for basic data.

I literally told you three times why I asked the question - as if it wasn’t obvious from my initial post. I don’t know if this is about our previous interactions or your general disposition on this topic, but I’d advise a different tack with others if you’re trying to have a productive discussion. And yeah, I did try to google but initially got results that weren’t informative. It’s kind of a weird search parameter I’m not used to making. Figured I’d just get a quicker answer here. Little did I know… Thanks. Hope providing that information was not preceded by a labyrinthine calculus in your head.

So..you either don’t know or are unwilling to tell me for some weird ass reason. Hohkay, yeah, let’s move on.

Perhaps instead of making broad assumptions take me at my word that I just want to understand the scale of the increase - as I’ve stated repeatedly? Because I honestly have no idea, and if you do, it’d be basic common courtesy to, ya know, just tell me.

No, that’s not all you need to do. Or at least it’s not all I need to do. Funny thing is, I’m inclined to agree with you about at least some of the reasons for such an increase. But your apparent hostility to me asking a basic question on the figures you’re using doesn’t endear one’s self.

To have a full understanding of the increase. For instance, let’s say the denominator is a million - and again I have no idea and am just trying to understand the context. If that was the case, 250 to 5000 is a change from .025 percent to .5 percent. People are going to interpret that a lot differently than if it’s out of 100 thousand, wherein the difference would be .25 percent to five percent. And that’s not even accounting for possible differences/increases of the overall population over time.