Bill Maher Goes Off On Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Mr. Friscus]

again, at one time, black people riding at the front of the bus was considered being a woke nutjob.

I don’t think that was ever a thing. Sorry.

It was your party that forced them to the back by the way.

What killed the Democrats was that their President dropped out and gas was too expensive.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Captain Caveman]

It just shows he won’t speak against the woke belief, but he’ll offer added facts for the whole belief.

he’s not an aggressive advocate, but he won’t fight against unscientific woke claims

It shows he won't take sides, he's impartial. He'll give facts because he's objective, he won't take sides because he's not subjective.

 

[OldFlame]

The quote mentioned inequalities between males and females not being because of biological differences but because of social constructs or something along those lines.

I was speaking to somebody in this thread who was pointing to that as anti science because he thought that was saying that males and females are equal in a biological level and that is absolutely opposite of of what the article was about.

He was taking the word inequality out of context.

Yall should just read the article

The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong

The influential idea that in the past men were hunters and women were not isn’t supported by the available evidence

www.scientificamerican.com

I want you to explain it, how was 'inequalities' taken out of context? You keep saying it, you should explain it.

 

[OldFlame]

That would be an absurd scientific proclamation to make. Pick a specific sport and yes you can make a statistical and scientific argument about who is better… but also… why? What a silly thing to push a scientist to say. Obviously politically juiced up.

What if future sports are virtual or in a zero atmosphere or involve other elements than our traditional sports that were developed by men and for men? You see why a scientist wouldn’t want to go down these political rabbit holes, don’t you?

Why? Because the leftie, woke crowd in this country is pushing the opposite belief and arguing directly against science.

 

[Slade3200]

I’m sorry, but if you want to be reputable magazine, you can’t be floundering in crazed ideas…

Let’s go back to the article in question from Mayers interview. I hope you’ve read it by now. What was the crazed idea? Please sum it up for me

 

[Slade3200]

SLADES AMERICAN SCIENCE JOURNAL
Pg 3: Humans don’t breathe oxygen
Pg 10: The earth doesn’t revolve around the sun after all! A study.
Pg 17: evidence that the earth is flat!

You’ve failed in this debate so you’re turning to hyperbole now? Come on you can do better than that

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Book of Genesis, a talking snake convinced Eve to eat an apple off a magic tree.

Frigid Paradise

The fable used a phallic symbol. Eve got excited and came on to Adam, which excited him, too. But Eve had to obey her phallic symbol. her aphrodisiac. Adam went along, because he was controlled more by his sex drive than by piety. The contradiction is that if he had actually seen and been talked to by God, he would have refused Eve's advances.

 

[Slade3200]

Name a sport that women are better than men at?

There isn’t one.

As per the article there is evidence that women’s biological make up supports extreme endurance activities better than a males. In some extreme endurance races we’ve seen women performing with similar results, sometimes worse and sometimes better.

 

[Slade3200]

Human biology is at the forefront of importance in modern science.. and here you are not wanting scientists to address it?

I’ve never said I didn’t want science to address it. Where did you get that absurd notion. Articles like the one in question is exactly science addressing it.

You want science to take a definitive political stance. That’s not how science is meant to work

 

[Slade3200]

Fumes Fumigate

Would my theory that auto emissions exterminate viruses meet your criteria on what is worth debating?

Sure. I think most anything is worth of debate as long as you have two sides bringing facts and conversing in good faith

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I’ve never said I didn’t want science to address it. Where did you get that absurd notion. Articles like the one in question is exactly science addressing it.

You want science to take a definitive political stance. That’s not how science is meant to work

Saying men are male and women are female isnt political. It’s a fact. Saying it’s political is you attempting to distance from science into the ideological.

You’re trying to make it complex. It’s not

 

[Slade3200]

I want you to explain it, how was 'inequalities' taken out of context? You keep saying it, you should explain it.

I did explain it. What did you not understand about my explanation. I’m happy to elaborate. You gotta ask a question though

 

[Slade3200]

Saying men are male and women are female isnt political. It’s a fact. Saying it’s political is you attempting to distance from science into the ideological.

You’re trying to make it complex. It’s not

That wasn’t the controversy from the article was it?

You posted a paragraph three times where you took the word “inequities” out of context. Now you’re skipping around all over the place.

Just admit you jumped the gun without having all the information. Just be honest

 

[OldFlame]

I did explain it. What did you not understand about my explanation. I’m happy to elaborate. You gotta ask a question though

No you didn't, you just said 'read the article'. So there is no other context than the one plainly stated in the video by Maher.

 

[Slade3200]

No you didn't, you just said 'read the article'. So there is no other context than the one plainly stated in the video by Maher.

You should read the article. You’re coming from a place of ignorance and trying to take a position based on talking points you get from others.

The inequity wasn’t between the biological make up… it was between societies perception of males and females in the context of hunters and gatherers and performance capabilities

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You should read the article. You’re coming from a place of ignorance and trying to take a position based on talking points you get from others.

The inequity wasn’t between the biological make up… it was between societies perception of males and females in the context of hunters and gatherers and performance capabilities

societies beliefs do not explain why men are better than women at sports. Claiming it does is not scientific

 

[OldFlame]

You should read the article. You’re coming from a place of ignorance and trying to take a position based on talking points you get from others.

The inequity wasn’t between the biological make up… it was between societies perception of males and females in the context of hunters and gatherers and performance capabilities

I read the article, I saw nothing out of context with how Maher interpreted it at all, and you can't explain what you meant by it.

This was also in the article:

For ethnographic and archaeological evidence, we are attempting to reconstruct social roles, for which the terms "woman" and "man" are usually used. Unfortunately, both these word sets assume a binary, which does not exist biologically, psychologically or socially. Sex and gender both exist as a spectrum, but it is difficult to add that nuance when citing the work of others.

Tell us what other sex there is biologically that is not male or female?

This was written by two women who now insist that women were better hunters than men in hunter/gatherer societies because they are better at endurance due to their estrogen. The whole article is a bunch of bullshit.

 

[OldFlame]

Another article written by one of the authors:

What I have in red is 'wokism' taking precedence over science, pure and simple. And wtf does the 2nd bolded part mean?

To Understand Sex, We Need to Ask the Right Questions

Within academia, disagreements about sex recently came to a head when the American Anthropological Association (AAA), the world’s largest professional organization for anthropologists, and the Canadian Anthropology Society (CASCA) removed a panel discussion entitled “Let’s Talk about Sex Baby: Why Biological Sex Remains a Necessary Analytic Category in Anthropology” from their upcoming annual meeting. The panel was submitted for review and initially accepted in mid-July. It was then removed in late September, following concerns in the anthropological community that the panel conveyed antitransgender sentiment and decrepit ways of thinking about human variation.

Both among the general public and in academia, the core argument boils down to the question of how many sexes exist. The tricky thing is that the answer to this question differs depending on the context. One perfectly accurate response is: “To a first approximation, zero.” The vast majority of life-forms—including bacteria and archaea—do not reproduce sexually. But if the question concerned the number of animal sexes present in a given tide pool or backyard garden, the answer would need to account for organisms that switch sexes, sometimes mate with themselves or switch back and forth between sexual and asexual reproduction. When we ask, “How many sexes are there in humans?” we can confidently answer “two,” right? Many people think sex should be defined by a strict gamete binary in which a person’s sex is determined by whether their body produces or could produce eggs or sperm. But when you are out and about in the human social world, are you checking everyone’s gametes? And what of the substantial number of people who do not produce or carry gametes?

 

[Slade3200]

societies beliefs do not explain why men are better than women at sports. Claiming it does is not scientific

The article wasn’t about who’s better at sports. If you had read it you’d know that

 

[Couchpotato]

While it’s clear more and more of society is publicly rejecting the woke agenda, some will continue to support it, or be afraid to speak against it.

No idea which camp Tyson is in there, but he was presented with a complete unscientific claim and refused to oppose it. Again, it’s like if Maher and brought up flat earth theory and Tyson sat there and refused to attack it, and even offered a small support of it

Yeah makes no sense. It would no different than saying the reason men dont lactate is because of societal pressures. If only society treated them differently and expected them to lactate they could.