If you were so certain the biopsy was unnecessary and harmful, why didn’t you just refuse it, seek a second opinion (especially as you evidently are portraying the doctor as a villian).
Also your last paragraph doesn’t even read well as preteen fall fiction.
How so? A doctor can always refuse to do a surgery and suggest you see a different doctor. All they would have to say is that I don’t feel comfortable doing the surgery without the test
> It may not be a "disorder" but no one is sure whether it's biologically "normal."
This is not a legitimate question to be answered and therefore has no scientific or research merit, so stop dragging biologists into it. How do you define “normal”? Once you have picked a suitable definition, what do you intend do to with that information?
Your linked article asks the questions about the genetic origins of homosexuality, which has fuckall to do with your own invented concept of “normal” or “disorder”.
Your whole premise is bollocks. You’re convinced that you have some enlightened thought exercise here but you really need to get your head out of your own ass. We get what you’re trying to say - but it’s too stupid to argue against.
>This is not a legitimate question to be answered and therefore has no scientific or research merit, so stop dragging biologists into it.
Stop dragging biologists when a biologist was attached to the research study I sent you? Makes no sense.
>Your linked article asks the questions about the genetic origins of homosexuality, which has fuckall to do with your own invented concept of “normal” or “disorder”.
All conceptions of the terms "disorder" and "normal" are invented concepts and highly opinionated. Humanity at one point called Homosexuality a disease and at another time they called it normal. That is simply a choice of definition.
Regardless of the semantic pedantry you're trying to bring up here, you know what I fuckall mean by the terms. If homosexuality is proven to have no genetic basis and is only a recent phenomenon, then it is not biologically normal. Simple.
>Your whole premise is bollocks. You’re convinced that you have some enlightened thought exercise here but you really need to get your head out of your own ass. We get what you’re trying to say - but it’s too stupid to argue against.
You know it's actually not MY premise. It's well established that this is inconclusive in academia.
Why the hell do you think the genetic origins of homosexuality was researched at all if it was definitively considered to be normal and genetic? The problem is INCONCLUSIVE hence the research study.
You need to realize you are not arguing with me. You are arguing with established opinions in academia.
The fact that you're a doctor makes me question the scientific neutrality of doctors in the field. Are all of them as biased and emotional as you?
> Thus homosexuality must be an recent anomaly as an evolutionary trait as it would have naturally selected itself out eons ago if it was a natural trait.
All this wall of text proved is that your verbal skills are tedious and you’re bad at math.
Personal attacks and name-calling will get you banned on HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. If you'd please read the rules and stick to them from now on, we'd appreciate it.
Calling ME a successor to 98 isn't quite fair either, considering the amount of NT that was shoehorned into ME's code base. It really was an amalgamation of both code bases.
There was some networking shit, a few utilities and shell enhancements, what else? I don’t think much of NT was shoehorned into Me, correct me if you think otherwise.
Fun times we live in where a system pretty much designed primarily for attention seeking over effective communication now can be deemed some kind of private/protected space. This is classic manipulative behavior though, make a big scene in a public forum and then claim your privacy is being invaded. If you don’t want the attention, delete it.
They never claimed their privacy was being invaded. They simply asked (allegedly? I haven't seen any actual request from them but lets just assume there is one) not to be linked to from HN.
They aren't manipulating anyone... they're just making it known they'd prefer not to be linked to from another platform.
Is this a reasonable expectation? I'm not sure -- my gut says probably not. Is it a reasonable request? IMO yes.
Contrived scenario for expository purposes: lets say I'm an expert in pre-civil war era southern cuisine. If I find out that people on stormfront are linking to and discussing my posts for their own agenda, do I have a right to make them stop? Of course not. Is it reasonable for me to say "I'd prefer if your platform didn't link to my blog"? Of course it is.
This goes against the purpose of the internet. It is not a reasonable request at all. He doesn’t pay for the bandwidth, he posted thoughts on a public forum, and people felt they were notable enough to be shared to another public audience. Reap what you sow.
In my opinion, it's a totally reasonable request. It's not a reasonable expectation, but that is a different matter. I'm not sure what the 'purpose of the internet is' but I don't think Al Gore had such a request in mind when he invented the internet.
It is a reasonable request to ask your neighbor to take down their billboard that says "THE GUY NEXT DOOR WROTE ${THIS} BLOG POST AND IS A REAL PIECE OF SHIT", even though they aren't obligated to do so. It becomes unreasonable when you expect that they take it down.
FWIW, calling somebody a piece of shit goes against personal insult laws in many countries, so in your particular example, the neighbor may in fact be obligated to take down the billboard, or at least to modify it.
FWIW there are few expressions of free speech that aren't in violation of some arbitrary law enforced by some arbitrary country. It was probably short-sighted of me to assume that my exaggerated example wouldn't be recognized as hyperbole, but honestly what is the point of this comment?
Everything depends on jurisdiction, that's the very nature of law in and of itself.
Were these disposable lithium metal batteries or rechargeable lithium ion? They’re pretty different technologies. Both are prone to rapid discharge overheating problems though.
Who do you think I’d rather go after for malpractice? Someone that went to school for many years dedicated to medicine or the idiot stiffs behind a machine that can’t even spell the word “you”. That is in large part also what it is really about.
Having said that I do ML research on cross-sectional neuroimaging, and basically everything you said is nonsense.
If you were so certain the biopsy was unnecessary and harmful, why didn’t you just refuse it, seek a second opinion (especially as you evidently are portraying the doctor as a villian).
Also your last paragraph doesn’t even read well as preteen fall fiction.