- brigandishWe all handle cognitive dissonance in our our way.
- The hill where take a dim view on and investigation are distinct from charging and conviction, because they are.
You would also have to contend with the problem where you've decided that it is incitement, as if conviction is a formality, even though:
- investigation
- charging
- court process
all come before conviction, which is convenient but not particularly bright or persuasive when they're mentioned in the comment you replied to.
- You're mixing up "take a dim view" on and investigation, with charging and conviction.
- All the best with getting back on your feet.
- The US has a three part test[1] for what constitutes incitement:
- intent
- imminence
- likelihood
If the UK had speech protections like the US (which I wish they would) then it would fail the imminence and probably the likelihood tests (you rightly note that it is ineffective).
- > To make sure I am not speaking to a bot
Do grow up.
> Sex is a parameter of biology, gender is a parameter of social constructs.
So you assert, but until you can show the moment that gender was shown to be different from sex beyond bare assertion then I'm not willing to accept your assertion. Do you see how that works?
> Gametes are not relevant.
They are relevant to sex determination and hence gender, see previous paragraph for why.
That's all your points, if they can be called that, addressed.
> Also stop bringing up the Nobel prize like it matters for the conversation.
You'll need to provide something that can be competitive for it to have any impact <shrug>. I won't hold my breath.
- Kunrei makes more sense to a Japanese native, Hepburn makes more sense to a non-Japanese native. As the article points out, Hepburn has come to dominate, so they're simply aligning with it rather than having two systems hanging around.
- I keep addressing your points and you keep moaning about other people. Since sex and gender are not different until you are able to provide some reason that they are beyond bare assertion then gametes are relevant.
> you could tell us all what the scientific discovery was that made gender separate from sex, who found it and when, and what the defining difference is. Did they win a Nobel for that?
Take your time, but please avoid making me restate what I've written along with the obvious implications simply because you find it all too inconvenient to address.
- Not only have you undermined your claim to a Nobel award by showing a spurious understanding of biology, you wrote, quite sarcastically "it is impossible for humanity to discover new information that updates our world model". Well then, we will all await your discovery of that 3rd gamete, or some theory so innovative that it tips this well studied, well understood, uncontested (by any valid competitor) model to the wayside and humanity can revel in this new information, the better model of reality that you promise.
While you're at it, you could tell us all what the scientific discovery was that made gender separate from sex, who found it and when, and what the defining difference is. Did they win a Nobel for that?
I request that in any reply, you refrain from spamming me with Wikipedia links to articles you don't understand and probably haven't read.
- We all await your Nobel for finding a third type of gamete.
- That's the dream.
- I agree, and it's sad to see. I will do all I can to challenge it.
- > This theory mixes up the distinct concepts of the government, as a trusted entity (where applicable), issuing identity document for the use of its citizens (including in person-to-person or person-to-private-company scenarios), and that of the government requiring its citizens to identify themselves to it on demand.
I don't agree that there is any such mix up, you'd need to point to the actual mix up.
> Sure, its slightly harder to have a government issue credentials to everybody and not have them abuse the possibilities that come with it, but if a society can pull it of, there are vast benefits in many areas of life.
There are lots of things that may benefit the group at the expense of individuals, but that is exactly why any group that values individual liberty should be opposed to it.
> On top of that, the flip side of people regularly not carrying any identification documents seems to be a police force much more eager to arrest people on the spot to figure out their identity.
The police in the UK aren't allowed to arrest people simply for not providing ID, and they are sued and lose when they do. I used to enjoy watching the Crimebodge account on Youtube where there are plenty of such scenarios. It's especially fun watching teenagers who know the law frustrate authoritarian rozzers.
So no, the way to lower the risk of the police arresting people for not having ID is to make not having ID a normal thing and increase the rights the individual has against persecution by the police.
- > > The fundamental proposition on which all of English culture flows from is that of innocence.
> Is this not true in all highly advanced democracies?
Been to Japan?
- If what you say were to be true then an accusation of ad hominem would itself be ad hominem.
I addressed their unkind and ad hominem argument. If you think me unkind then I will shrug and say, in hacker parlance, they should RTFM. They have not put in the slightest work before opining and criticising, and on something as important as this?
May they receive such weird vitriol until they learn to at least Google first. Doesn't it automatically run a GPT for you now? They, and surely the people around them, will thank me for instilling such basic discipline.
- The fundamental proposition on which all of English culture flows from is that of innocence. For example, in court, you do not have to prove your innocence because you are presumed innocent.
In the case of ID cards and the like, the state does not rule over the populace, it rules on behalf of the populace. I am innocent and they work for me. Hence, I do not have to prove to some random government agent who I am unless it is relevant to the task they perform, e.g.
- the police have a reasonable and justifiable suspicion that I am engaged in criminal activity - an immigration officer may only ask for my details when I am crossing a border or, again, have some reasonable and justifiable suspicion that I am in need of deportation etc. - Or perhaps I just need some documents from my local municipal office, and they rightly ask who I am and to prove it before giving out my private info.
Me going about my business is no business of the government's until I start abusing the rules.
The opposite view is that:
- I am ruled over - Any agent of the government can question me and prevent me from going about my business
Of course, in practice, the application of such liberal principles like not requiring ID to go about my day are often not done well, but to change the principle is to change the entire character of the most fundamental aspects of Englishness. You'll note, much of the continent lurches between different forms of collectivist oppressive government whereas, until of late, the UK has not. This is because of the lack of this fundamental principle there, I am sure of that, and those calling for these kind of ID laws, digital or otherwise, are not to be entertained.
The most interesting case will be the USA, where they still care about the principles of English liberty, far more than the English do.
- > It has always received weirdly vitriolic push back.
Because, as the Home Secretary herself observed, it would fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state.
> What really is the Government going to do with a digital ID service that they can't do already?
This gives the impression of having done no research into a topic of which you now opine opposition to be "weirdly vitriolic". We live in an age of search engines and GPTs, free encyclopaedias and entire lecture series online, and even libraries are still open and free, but you've done nothing to get past the very first thoughts you've had on the subject.
Was that weirdly vitriolic, or someone pointing out that an argument to undermine everyone's rights should have some effort behind it?
- I often can't tell the difference between my Readme and Claude files to the point that I cannibalise the Claude file for the Readme.
It's the difference between instructions for a user and instructions for a developer, but in coding projects that's not much different.
- The reports I’ve heard and read would be contrary to your claims. When I was in Hong Kong, for example, I saw huge protests, so I wouldn’t call it fine. Inside and out of Hong Kong, I’ve never met an HKer that was pleased about the China government’s plans. I also have heard that “its own system” is not a correct characterisation of the situation.
Have you been to Hong Kong?
- How’s that going in Hong Kong?