Youtube comments of Vic 2.0 (@Vic2point0).
-
1900
-
1500
-
1100
-
894
-
876
-
789
-
As usual, Shapiro gives an unpopular truth. Serena Williams' direct quote:
“For me, men’s tennis and women’s tennis are completely, almost, two separate sports... If I were to play Andy Murray, I would lose 6-0, 6-0 in five to six minutes, maybe 10 minutes. No, it’s true. It’s a completely different sport. The men are a lot faster and they serve harder, they hit harder, it’s just a different game. I love to play women’s tennis. I only want to play girls, because I don’t want to be embarrassed.”
713
-
632
-
624
-
596
-
573
-
555
-
555
-
541
-
525
-
497
-
484
-
462
-
455
-
441
-
398
-
395
-
380
-
352
-
312
-
307
-
290
-
255
-
249
-
246
-
235
-
235
-
230
-
227
-
225
-
223
-
221
-
213
-
202
-
195
-
193
-
191
-
190
-
176
-
161
-
160
-
157
-
156
-
155
-
150
-
149
-
148
-
145
-
143
-
143
-
134
-
134
-
133
-
"As Butler says, there are many perspectives on gender."
And all of those stemming from modern gender theory (e.g., transgenderism) are incoherent.
"As Butler acknowledges at 1:41, there are biological differences in sex."
And in age groups. Hence, we not only have terms to distinguish between sexes (male and female) but also terms to distinguish between age groups (child and adult). For efficiency's sake, we call an adult human female a woman, a human child that's female a girl, adult human males men, and human children that are male boys.
"To clarify: Most people are born with the sex of either male (with XY chromosomes and male anatomy) or female (with XX chromosome and female anatomy). A small proportion of people are born with different chromosomal or anatomical makeups (e.g. Klinefelter syndrome)."
And those people are also either males or females, because your chromosomal makeup is not what actually makes you one or the other gender.
"Gender is the role people of a specific sex play in different cultures."
Nonsense. You are confusing gender itself with gender roles and norms. But if we were to equate them, it wouldn't be workable with the rest of your worldview. After all, if someone were to adhere to the roles/norms expected of men but identify as a woman, what would you call them?
"The phrase 'assigned at birth' refers to how most of us are raised from birth with the gender role most typical of the sex you are born."
No. Doctors observe our gender (aka sex) and simply report it. Even in those extremely rare cases in which our external genitalia mislead them on our gender, the truth is still found by taking a deeper look at our biology.
"Transgender people are those who intuitively identify with a different gender from their sex or assigned gender, and decide to live as it."
First problem: We can't possibly know what we "intuitively" identify with, because we've no basis for that comparison. We've all only been just the one gender, so we'd have no way of knowing the difference between "feeling like" a man vs. "feeling like" a woman, or indeed if there is such a difference to begin with.
Second problem: What is meant by "decide to live as (a gender)"? Again, you seem to be confusing gender roles/norms with gender itself. But someone who adheres to all of the gender roles and norms of a man but doesn't identify as one wouldn't be considered one even by you.
"There are well-documented examples of transgender and non-binary people for hundreds, if not thousands of years"
Which doesn't explain the recent apparent uptick in its popularity. And if the narrative that not going along with their self-identification causes them to unalive themselves, it becomes inexplicable why there wasn't a huge amount in self-unalivings throughout history, as people were inarguably far less tolerant of this nonsense than they are today.
"For a deeper dive into the scientific research around transgender issues, check out our columnist Ethan Seigel's recent article..."
Let's not pretend that actual science can back this worldview. Science is about objective, observable reality. Transgenderism can't even produce objective, workable definitions for its terms. And neither can any of the so-called "scientists" giving the worldview lip service.
133
-
130
-
130
-
129
-
124
-
123
-
122
-
121
-
115
-
115
-
114
-
114
-
110
-
109
-
108
-
105
-
104
-
104
-
104
-
104
-
103
-
102
-
98
-
96
-
95
-
95
-
93
-
93
-
92
-
Most of the moderates (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, doesn't matter) are already gonna vote for Trump, we already know this.
@Sony Soldier (Posting this here because YouTube's up to something) (sigh) Evidence that he's a Russian traitor please? Because we all know no one else could come up with it. As for "warmonger", retaliating against people who are literally killing us is not being a warmonger.
We've always had a process for legal immigration, that can't be blamed on Trump either (not logically anyway). And it's not that free healthcare can't be done, but the ways it is done is not the way people like Bernie Sanders want it. For example, he keeps saying we should model ourselves after Scandinavia (implying that their socialists until Denmark's PM had to correct him) but these countries are more capitalistic than we are! No minimum wage laws, a relatively low corporate income tax, relatively high taxes for the lower and middle classes, school voucher systems, all the things Democrats typically oppose. That's because they want to grow government power at the expense of the American people (wonder why).
But at least you admit to not caring about the Constitution as a matter of principle. How bout the fact that the vast majority of mass shootings take place in gun-free zones, or that Texas just proved twice recently that a gun in the hand of a responsible citizen saves lives?
https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/
We all want fewer mass shootings, a better healthcare system, etc. But we disagree on how to go about it. And with the economy steadily improving under Trump's policies (and yes, that's for members of every class), radically transforming it now as the Democrats want to do comes off as foolish.
89
-
86
-
86
-
84
-
83
-
81
-
81
-
80
-
79
-
79
-
78
-
77
-
77
-
76
-
76
-
75
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
71
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
Sad thing is, this video barely scrapes the surface of Bernie's lies. Remember when he said that white people don't know what it's like to be poor? And yeah, he calls Scandinavian countries socialist (or "democratic socialist"), when in reality they're more capitalistic than we are!). But he also likes to accuse Trump of things that he's the one doing. Like, he says Trump is dividing the nation but he's the one promoting class warfare (e.g., against "the billionaire class"). He also says Trump is racist but he's the one making assumptions about blacks vs. whites as mentioned before... Actually, that example would work as an example of him lying, dividing, and being racist!
There's also the sleight-of-hand he pulls when it comes to our healthcare system, which you touched on. How much does it cost the American people? Not over 3 trillion dollars, more like 365 billion.
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/highlights.pdf
There's more, but you get the idea.
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
Transgenderism remains a wholly incoherent and inconsistent worldview. Every time I ask a trans person or trans advocate how they "know" they're the opposite gender, they inevitably confuse the inclination/disinclination to adhere to gender roles and norms with gender itself. That, or they say something like, "I just 'feel like' a man/woman", which is incoherent too because none of us actually have a basis for comparison there. We've all only been just the one gender, so we'd have no way of knowing the difference between "feeling like" a man vs. "feeling like" a woman. Indeed, we can't even know for sure there is a difference, or even such a feeling at all.
And it's also an inconsistent worldview. We're supposedly obligated to call men women solely on the basis that they identify as such. But if a white man identifies as black, or a child identifies as an adult, etc. they're corrected. An arbitrary exception's been made for gender here, clearly.
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
@user-kd1eb6vc7y "the reason saying all lives matter is racist is because it erases the history of black oppression in America"
Nonsense. It's just a another way of affirming that every life (including black lives) matter to us, without sounding like an anti-white racist. And there's no contradiction between affirming that all lives matter and acknowledging that black people were oppressed.
"and blindly asserts that all lives are equal, when they clearly aren't."
So you claim. But so far, no one's been able to actually provide evidence that black people are being kept down by any institution, laws, etc. in America. If anything, there is more in the system to keep non-black people down, considering programs and institutions which explicitly are not available to whites.
Take George Floyd, for instance. No evidence whatsoever that it had anything to do with race. A white man named Tony Timpa died at the hands of some cops pretty much the same exact way as Floyd 10 months prior. Differences? Timpa was held down for longer, hadn't committed any crimes, and actually called the cops himself. And of course, the mainstream media didn't cover it much, nor did anyone riot even though the cops got off scot-free.
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
Even as an atheist, I truly cannot stand the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They ask for your money and then throw it at pointless billboards which attack Christianity and/or use up tons of resources to remind us all that we are free to be atheists. Or, as is referenced in this video, stupid crap that not only is unprovable but isn't even necessarily the beliefs of atheists in general (whom they are supposedly representing). No, lack of belief in an afterlife is not a given among atheists! They've lost their focus (assuming they ever had any). So I don't have any respect for them, sorry.
I'm also shocked and appalled at the organization American Atheists for echoing the message on the billboard. These are people who by NAME claim to represent us, and are apparently inclined to do it just as poorly as the FFRF.
And finally, naturally, I agree that that bozo who started insulting him and atheists in general seemingly out of nowhere was way out of line, and he demonstrating how theists can also be quite intolerant. There are evil people on both sides of the god debate, PERIOD.
P.S. - Wanted to point out for anyone who isn't aware that even Christians are debating the existence of a hell. Some actually argue that there is no such place (yay them, eh?)
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
Transgenderism remains a wholly incoherent worldview. One in which people confuse gender itself with gender roles and norms (or appeal to circular reasoning). One in which they insist others are incorrect in using terms like "man" or "woman" while being unable to provide objective, workable definitions for these terms themselves. And one in which they often equate disagreement with hate or phobia, which is not only illogical but dangerous.
No, breast reduction for the reason he described is not "gender-affirming care" because it isn't being done in response to normal, healthy development in the body. Nor is it being done because the person "feels like" or "identifies as" a boy, but because they are one.
And obviously no one is accusing this of being woke on the basis of it being new but rather on the basis of it being grounded in nonsense.
As for "utility" in definitions, how is a circular definition (that gives literally no information at all about the word to be defined) useful? How is it useful to confuse gender itself with gender roles and norms, when it doesn't even work with the rest of your own worldview? For example, if someone exhibited the social and cultural traits commonly expected of men but identified as a woman, which would they be?
Forrest gets a lot of mileage out of proclaiming "We learn new things, and so we change our mind!" It's a fine principle, but I'm still waiting for the "things" we learned that somehow make this worldview coherent and functional.
"...and we're not judging them on their ability to reproduce..."
A very telling phrase. Defining "male" and "female" (and by extension, "boy", "girl", "man" and "woman") by how they relate to sexual reproduction is not a matter of "judging" them or claiming that's their sole or primary purpose as an individual. It's literally just an objective, workable definition for the kind of person they are in that one aspect.
"If I lose my testicles today, have I also lost my sex?"
No, because sex isn't defined by your genitalia; they're only one of the most reliable markers of your sex. Nor do we define "male" and "female" by chromosomes or which gametes are actually being produced. A male is someone whose body developed largely toward the function of impregnating females, and a female is someone whose body developed largely toward the function of bearing children. This would include those who due to aging, defects, or injury cannot actually fulfill their reproductive function.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@TomCL-vb6xc It would be interesting to see how the suicide rates change (or if they do, significantly) depending on where these people live. After all, if your theory is correct, we should be seeing far less suicidality among trans people living in, say, L.A. than most other parts of the country.
But at the end of the day, this is the world we're living in and raising our children in. If the suicide rate was "only" twice as high in trans people, and if I felt confident that it was mostly because people were bullying them, etc., I'd still be discouraging my son from thinking that because he feels a certain way that dispenses with the sex he is.
And I completely reject the idea of "gender", if we're defining it simply as "what you feel/identify as". For starters, how does anyone at all even know what it means to feel like a man vs. a woman? And secondly, this is obviously a slippery slope worth mocking. If we can't appeal to science or observation on the subject of gender, on what basis can we appeal to them on any other subject (e.g., my race, age, or financial status)?
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
Taxation is definitely theft. And I'm not saying that every form of stealing is automatically unjustified (if I steal a burglar's gun before he can shoot me with it, that's okay). But it is quite literally stealing when they take our money by force. We need to at least come to terms with that fact first.
People who say "The federal gov't can print out money, so there's no way it "stole from itself"" must think the pieces of paper themselves have the value they represent. No. What happens is that the government takes it (not the pieces of paper but what they can be used for) from us and then spends it how they see fit. And we think that we have some way of monitoring them but we really don't; we're trusting the government to regulate the government, which is beyond naive.
I've also heard people say, ""If you CHOOSE to make an income and then not pay back into the tax-funded economic infrastructure that allowed you to be so monetarily gainful in the first place, then YOU are stealing from that said infrastructure's upkeep."
Which is nonsense. I didn't force anyone to build the roads or provide any of the things I used (most of which I was forced by law to use in the first place), nor did I agree to pay them for such a "service". So I'm not stealing anything, not even a service. At best I'm guilty of not returning some sort of favor that someone did for me willingly, but the lesson to be learned is theirs: Don't do someone a favor expecting a favor in return if you haven't even gotten a promise from them that they'll pay you back!
Anyway, it seems to me they're arguing that since the previously stolen money helped me in some way, I should have no problem with my own money being stolen, but that just doesn't follow.
As for "choosing to make an income", I have to survive. I'm only choosing to earn income in the sense that I don't want to steal (neither by robbing a bank nor by taking someone else's money because I don't want to work for my own).
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Matt Walsh's actual words, shown in this very same video: "If you are not in a position where you feel like you should conceive a child, if conceiving a child would be disastrous for you (you believe), then do not participate in activities that literally billions of times in the past have resulted in the conception of a child."
An obvious truism.
Your spin on this is that he's saying the only purpose of sex is reproduction, which doesn't follow from what he said at all. For starters, he could concede (and probably has) that there are secondary purposes of sex (e.g., expressing your love for your partner, bolstering your relationship). Secondly he's not even saying you have to actively want to conceive a child when you have sex. He's just saying that if it would be some major problem for you to conceive a child, don't do the thing that could easily result in you conceiving one.
It's a pro-tip, really, not even a moral prescription.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@Eri Si "Than what is your point,"
That transgenderism is a completely incoherent and inconsistent worldview and no one should be encouraging it, especially in children.
"you just seem attracted to any avenue that would facilitate discriminating trans people.
"
I don't see what the "discrimination" would be...
"Science affirms gender is real,"
Well of course it's real. But transgenderism requires people to confuse gender with the inclination/disinclination to adhere to gender roles and norms. That, or say "Well I just feel like I'm a woman", but that angle has its share of problems too. I suspect you don't want me to elaborate, however.
"that it is seperate to sex"
Not at all. Gender and biological sex are one and the same. That's why the roles we're expected to play solely on the basis of our biological sex are called "gender roles". People look at us, determine we are biologically male, and expect us to "act like" a man. What we "identify" as doesn't even come into the picture.
"Respecting someone's pronouns is one aspect that helps certain people greatly and is incredibly simple to do."
And this is where the inconsistency of the worldview comes in. It would also help any person who believes x (no matter how false) if we agreed with them that x was true. And it's also incredibly simple to do. And yet, time and time again, when I ask a trans person or advocate whether they'd call a white man black or a child an adult (if they so identified), I typically get a resounding "No".
"I find it strange that people argue over such things rather than accord someone respect and humanity."
And I find it strange that you think disagreeing = disrespecting, or that it's somehow denying them their humanity.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
@twittyplayzvideos2742 "i think those are actual genders. Not personality traits."
Well if you actually read their definitions though, it's pretty clear that the only thing defining some of them are singular, very specific personality traits (e.g., "anxiegender - a gender affected by anxiety" or "corugender - a gender affected by flashbacks"). So you can call them "genders", but the point is that it doesn't take much for something to be called a gender.
"But again, gender is not determined by sex."
For use of the word "gender" to be coherent, it seems like it has to be synonymous with biological sex. But that's what I'm trying to see, if you can make sense of your worldview at all.
"And again, sex is not DETERMINED by genitals."
Obviously not. But it is determined by your chromosomal makeup which, 99% of the time, is reflected in your genitalia and secondary sex characteristics.
"But he can change his gender to be a woman."
Meaning, he can start identifying as one. Yes, obviously. I can identify as a toaster too, doesn't mean that I am one (and I can also call you a toasterphobe if you dare disagree with me that my gender of "toaster" isn't every bit as valid as these other "genders").
"A child is not a gender, neither is an adult."
See, this is the first hurdle you need to clear. If things like what's on that list can be considered a "gender", I don't see how you can argue that "child" and "adult" cannot also be considered genders. Hell, for all we know, such a thing is already on the list somewhere!
"Children dont wear certain clothes etc."
Neither do people with different personality traits, necessarily. If that's how you're defining "gender", we might as well call it synonymous with biological sex after all.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@completely100percenthuman "I was born female. I do not have a professional diagnoses,"
Well even the professionals cannot answer these questions (e.g., what makes someone a man or woman objectively), so don't sweat it.
"but I speculate that I may have gender dysphoria."
Okay, so you're not comfortable with being a woman/girl. That's different from being a man/boy though, right?
"I have periods of time often where I can not imagine a world where I am not a man."
And what is a man?
"I would like to be perceived as a man and use he/him pronouns."
Why? What do you expect this would mean?
"I do not feel like a woman."
How do you know? You have no basis for comparison, after all. You've only been just the one gender, so you'd have no way of knowing the difference between "feeling like" a man and "feeling like" a woman. Indeed, you can't even be sure there is a difference, or even that such a feeling exists.
I'm a man (because I'm a biological male who's also an adult), but I don't know if I feel like a man.
"If I could choose, I would have been born male."
But many of us would've chosen to be born as something/someone else if we could go back and choose. The question is, does this mean anything in terms of what we are?
"Obviously there are physical differences between men and women."
Not if transgenderism is valid. Indeed, just saying that would be to run the risk of being called a transphobe.
"But defining it is tricky."
Not for those of us who reject transgenderism.
"Gender is shaped by culture, upbringing, and your own perception of it."
This is a demonstration of my first point. You're confusing gender roles and norms (which are indeed socially constructed/shaped by culture), with gender itself. But gender is biological sex. It's gender roles and norms we're inclined or disinclined to adhere to. But we should always be able to acknowledge our gender, regardless.
I do appreciate your willingness to have this conversation, BTW. It's an important thing for people and society in general, and not just about this topic but any other.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@michellejean11 Ah, good catch! No, I'm not opposed to homosexuality because homosexuality isn't an incoherent (and inconsistent) worldview that falls apart under scrutiny. But as for -phobic, no, I'm not -phobic of either lifestyle or worldview.
I've spoken with tons of trans people and trans advocates, and I repeatedly get the answers I highlighted in my original comment. But again, if you think there's a better answer to give, feel free to give it.
Oh, and I wouldn't name these people even if I had kept some weird record of them. Whether you believe that I've received those answers from trans people or not is irrelevant. Call me a liar; that doesn't refute my arguments.
As for the "experts", again, your question seems to imply the premise that we disagree on something. What exactly do you think we disagree on? Let's start with that.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
"I think seeing other people in a seasonal joy - how can that be seen as an attack?"
I haven't met a single Christian who thinks we atheists shouldn't be joyful at Christmastime...
"Why is it considered an attack to say 'Holidays'"
Well what they originally considered an attack on Christmas was the banning of Christmas related expressions and/or decor in public schools, if not other public places. That quite literally was anti-Christmas. But now, I wouldn't say "Happy Holidays" is an attack on Christmas. Still, I always wondered of all the holidays in the year, do we feel the need to say "Happy Holidays" for Christmas? We don't say it in May or October, do we? I can understand "Happy Hanukkah" because you are still acknowledging what time of year it is; it doesn't seem like you're in some kind of denial based on hypersensitivity.
No, saying "Merry Christmas" isn't excluding anyone. It's INCLUDING EVERYONE. It would only be excluding someone if a person DIDN'T give a greeting to everyone they came across. And some of our fellow atheists DON'T want Christians to have their joy. That's why one of "our" organizations put up a billboard stating that no one needed "Christ" (that is to say, no one needed the religious aspects) in Christmas. And the reason this is anti-joy is because most of us are just trying to enjoy the holiday for what it is and not bicker over religious differences. Any seemingly antagonistic message is going to get in the way of that joy.
"Why can't you just say 'It's a beautiful season, we all love each other, let's all have a nice time'?"
Uhh, because "Merry Christmas" is much shorter and time specific? Because we don't just say "It's a beautiful season" for any other season with holidays in it? Because there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "Merry Christmas" to someone who happens to not believe in a god or in the Christian God. Just as there's absolutely nothing wrong with giving any other holiday greeting that people may not celebrate.
Also, atheists do that whole "Throw everyone in the same group" thing too. Organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation and American Atheists claim to represent atheists, agnostics, secularists, humanists, "reasonable people", etc. (when really, they only represent anti-theists, in my book).
Christmas is already bigger than Christianity, and most Christians don't seem to have a problem with atheists celebrating it any way they choose. And I don't think that Christians in general have hesitated to welcome us into their stores and homes. I think you're either speaking of their most nutty minority (who are intolerant of atheism) excluding all atheists, or you're speaking of Christians who (understandably) exclude OUR most nutty minority (who are intolerant of theism/Christianity).
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@natemiller6756 Okay, so you're not responding to my point about "gender" in the phrase "gender roles" and have yet to answer my question about how people "know" they're the opposite gender. To expand on the importance of the question, however, let me just say that we cannot actually know the difference (if any) between what it "feels likes" to be a man and what it "feels like" to be a woman. All any of us have experienced is one or the other, precluding us from being able to compare them, so they can't even answer the question with that. This is why they typically give an answer that exposes their confusion between gender and gender roles (talking about their likes, interests, personality traits, how they want to live their lives, etc.)
"Well when you take into consideration that there's millions of cases of intersex/hermaphroditism than I think that this whole notion that they,re the exceptions doesn't really hold water."
It definitely does. Partly because even a lot of "intersex" people are actually indisputably one of the two genders but with an abnormality of some kind. But mostly because it's still a very tiny percentage of the overall population. Hence, they are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule.
"And no I wouldn't call him black because just like gender race is a social construct as well."
I disagree (I think culture and gender roles are social constructs, but not race and gender). But even granting this for the sake of argument, it makes no sense why you wouldn't call a white man black if he asked you to. Why wouldn't you call him what he identified as, if you would do so for a trans person?
7
-
7
-
7
-
@TomCL-vb6xc "There is no place on Earth where transgender people aren’t mocked pretty much on a daily basis,"
Maybe, maybe not. But it's highly probable that they're more accepted in L.A. than in some small, highly conservative town in Texas. I think that in order to confirm your theory, we need data on whatever differences there may be between the suicidality of trans people living in one place vs the other.
"I completely disagree with people making decisions like this for their children, especially children younger than at least their mid-teens."
I'm surprised you would word it that way. Aren't you supposed to agree with them that it's the child who made the decision? And that the parent is just "doing what's best" for the child by going along with it? See, that's the problem. If it's true that we cannot go by science or observation (we have to go by what the person tells us), then we've no way to justify a parent waiting or disapproving of these procedures being done early. The moment a child affirms that they are indeed the opposite gender, they have to be permitted to go through this process if we're to be consistent. Even when the "doctors" choose to wait a year or two, they're contradicting the fundamental premise of this whole idea.
"However I also disagree with the notion that regardless of whether you actually disagree with your child’s transgenderism or you simply fear for their wellbeing in a world that seems to absolutely despise it, you would still discourage them for expressing it."
You can disagree all you like, my #1 priority is going to be to protect my kid.
"Someone has to. If every gay person decided to never express their homosexuality or worse kill themselves outright, we’d still be living in a world where homosexuals were frowned upon - we still are to some extent."
Difference being that the homosexual man knows he is a man and knows he is sexually attracted to other men. A trans person thinks they are the opposite "gender" (even though this entire concept is incoherent) and often wants to physically alter their entire body in an attempt to feel better, which still leaves them 18 times more likely to commit suicide than the general population.
"You also misunderstood what I wrote, gender isn’t as simple as how we feel, it is to do with how we are percieved by other people."
Which would mean that the biological man who says he's a woman is the gender of a biological man, since most other people are going to perceive him as a man. It sounds more like an argument for gender and sex being the same thing, than for them being different.
"How others percieve us pretty much decides how they treat us, which of course affects how we feel."
I agree wholeheartedly. Which is why I'll be treating my son like a boy, because I want him to understand that and feel like he's a boy.
Finally, I gave arguments as to why the "scientific consensus" should be rejected. No one has provided me with any science whatsoever that issues in the conclusions they're fighting for. Indeed, this sounds more in the realm of philosophy than science, because we need to make our conclusions explicit and discuss them. I'll repeat to you the questions you dodged:
For starters, how does anyone at all even know what it means to feel like a man vs. a woman? All any of us know is what it feels like to be us, and we've no basis for comparison with other people. And secondly, this is a slippery slope we have to call out. If we can't appeal to science or observation on the subject of gender, on what basis can we appeal to them on any other subject (e.g., my race, age, or financial status)?
7
-
7
-
7
-
Modern gender theory (e.g., transgenderism) remains incoherent. And until those subscribing to this worldview can give workable definitions for terms like "gender", "man" or "woman" to begin with, we've no reason to take it seriously.
For example, at one point in his response to Matt, Mr. Dave claims "woman means any adult person with female gender identity". This simply moves the unworkable definition over to the term "female". Because as we can see in this video, he thinks "female" can refer to either biology or this same "gender identity" he's supposed to be making sense of. If "female" refers to biology, then any biological males identifying as female are literally delusional. And if he means "female" as in the sense of gender identity, then "female = someone who identifies as female" is still a circular definition.
As for brain activity, differences in brain activity are characteristic of all sorts of mental conditions even Dave would call pathological. We don't say that therefore the subject's beliefs are true; at best, we say we can explain why they have said beliefs, however delusional.
Also, Dave should be ashamed of himself for equating disagreement with phobia. Not only is this disrespectful of people who suffer with actual phobias, but it's telling trans-identifying people that tons of people hate them or are afraid of them when we're not. If he really cared about these people, he wouldn't tell them tons of people hate their guts when that's not anywhere close to true.
Then he accuses us all of being "bigots". Bigotry is a strong and unreasonable prejudice or opinion. But he's yet to demonstrate that we're being unreasonable, while he himself is being unreasonable by calling people names just because they disagree with his worldview. Anyway, he should either learn the difference between men and women or stop identifying as a "Professor", because that's embarrassing.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
At the end of the day, I want to see minorities continue to rise so I'm voting for Trump. I want more deregulations so the unemployment rate continues to fall and opportunities continue to rise, more things like prison reform, more attention being brought to the shitty job Democratic leaders are doing with the communities/cities they're in charge of, and less crime along the border which disproportionately affects Hispanic Americans. I want to see the black population thrive rather than stagnate so we're talking more attention to black-on-black crime which is the #1 killer by far and fewer abortions of black babies. I want our freedom of speech and right to bear arms left the hell alone, I want school vouchers so that everyone can get their children the best education possible, and someday a minimization if not eradication of the welfare state, affirmative action, minimum wage laws, etc. All of these things have disproportionately affected minorities. I want it to get better and better for Americans in general, so I'll be voting for Trump.
Oh, and BTW, congress lied to us all in that congressional hearing on hate crimes, and not just about Candace Owens.
https://youtu.be/-qY0EwHFx3g
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Candace was speaking facts that night. Even T.I. and Killer Mike were agreeing with a lot of what she said. T.I. only interrupted her because he could see she was tryna give a thoughtful answer. Can't have that! Gotta shut her up! Meanwhile, Killer Mike gave what seemed like a very similar answer to what she was trying to give. Yet he gets all the applause, Candace all the disdain. No surprise there.
So to answer T.I.'s question, we got to make up our minds if we are talking about how Americans in general were living or just the disparities between black and white Americans. If we're talking about the latter, it was in the 50s before the welfare state had been established. From there, we would see fatherlessness in the home skyrocket, being incentivized by the so-called "War on Poverty". Take Killer Mike's advice and read some Thomas Sowell if you don't know about it.
But if we're talking more generally, in recent years we've all enjoyed blessings in medicine, technology, access to information, etc. that those decades could only dream of. Americans of all colors and socioeconomic status are doing better than ever before. But I'd say it was greater maybe a decade ago, before the SJWs and feminists and race-baiters (more oppressive inventions of the left) were given so much power. In our universities, in Hollywood, in the mainstream media, everywhere. And they took aim at EVERYBODY Just got through tryna cancel Dave Chappelle. Before that they tried to get Mario Lopez fired because he said maybe we shouldn't let 3-year olds choose their fuckin' gender. Trump was a response to exactly that sort of bullshit. T.I. jumps back to before women could vote or before blacks were freed from slavery because it fits his agenda. There's no need for all that. We all know that part of why Trump's in office is because he's a giant middle finger to the establishment, career politicians, and everybody trying to shut us up. And that's real.
7
-
@littlewriterboy "I was just telling you that not everything relies on xx or xy chromosomes."
Right, but your gender does. And that's kind of my point. You can be a man with likes, interests, thoughts, etc. typically associated with women. You can even be a man with a "female brain", which is simply the typical kind of brain women tend to have. Whatever kind of man you are, you're still a man according to your biology. And there's nothing wrong with that.
"I would respect someone's gender identity whether or not their brains matched up with the gender they identified as because what right do I have to just change a few words when talking to/about them to make them feel comfortable."
See, that exact same kind of reasoning could be used to justify any misnomer. That's why you always get that one guy asking you "Well what if I identified as a toaster?" It's a bit extreme, but the question is still a valid one if the entire principle is "Well we want to be nice, polite, not make them feel uncomfortable, etc."
So that is why we ask for any sort of objective measurement for what does/doesn't make you the gender you identify as. The brain studies clearly do not work as the measuring stick, so what does?
"No matter how long they've identified as that gender, it wouldn't changed the structure of their brain."
I see no reason to make that assumption, given what we know about how it physically change as we learn. Why couldn't it change in response to living one way vs. another? Particularly over multiple years of doing so?
In any case, even assuming that they're all born that way, it does nothing to validate the belief. At best, it can explain why they hold the belief; but it can't tell us the belief is true or false.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
More misrepresentation from Sam Seder. And you wonder why she won't debate you? The truth is that Candace was speaking facts that night. Even T.I. and Killer Mike were agreeing with a lot of what she said. T.I. only interrupted her because he could see she was tryna give a thoughtful answer. Can't have that! Gotta shut her up! Meanwhile, Killer Mike gave what seemed like a very similar answer to what she was trying to give. Yet he gets all the applause, Candace all the disdain. No surprise there.
So to answer T.I.'s question, we got to make up our minds if we are talking about how Americans in general were living or just the disparities between black and white Americans. If we're talking about the latter, it was in the 50s before the welfare state had been established. From there, we would see fatherlessness in the home skyrocket, being incentivized by the so-called "War on Poverty". Take Killer Mike's advice and read some Thomas Sowell if you don't know about it.
But if we're talking more generally, in recent years we've all enjoyed blessings in medicine, technology, access to information, etc. that those decades could only dream of. Americans of all colors and socioeconomic status are doing better than ever before. But I'd say it was greater maybe a decade ago, before the SJWs and feminists and race-baiters (more oppressive inventions of the left) were given so much power. In our universities, in Hollywood, in the mainstream media, everywhere. And they took aim at EVERYBODY Just got through tryna cancel Dave Chappelle. Before that they tried to get Mario Lopez fired because he said maybe we shouldn't let 3-year olds choose their fuckin' gender. Trump was a response to exactly that sort of bullshit. T.I. jumps back to before women could vote or before blacks were freed from slavery because it fits his agenda. There's no need for all that. We all know that part of why Trump's in office is because he's a giant middle finger to the establishment, career politicians, and everybody trying to shut us up. And that's real.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I'm sorry, but I really think Kyle lost this one. And I'll even explain why for anyone with the time and inclination to read it:
So first, if the "unemployment rate" he prefers to use is higher because some of the workers are "discouraged", or "underemployed", that's a bogus number. They're still employed (therefore not unemployed), and that is indeed better than being unemployed at any rate. Besides which, as Charlie pointed out that number's down under Trump as well anyway.
Similarly, just the fact that 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck tells us absolutely nothing. Just like with the wage gap, the question is why are they living paycheck to paycheck? It could be because they're getting paid less in relation to their essential needs, or it could be that we as a society have become far more irresponsible with our money (taking on unnecessary expenses, spending excessively, etc.)
In general, Kyle seems to really have a problem with any and all actions that directly help the rich despite whatever actions have helped others. I don't understand that logic, personally. Yes, the estate tax cuts only benefited the rich because they're the only ones with estates... But the tax only taxes the rich, so what's the problem!? He also doesn't seem to realize that his thought experiment opens the door to full-on socialism. Bernie Sanders was against millionaires... until he became one. Similarly, concerning Kyle, it's easy to go from saying "Okay so you only have 999.9 million dollars. Big whoop." to saying "Okay so you only have 9 millions dollars. Big whoop." and so on. It's just a very dangerous slippery slope he wants to move this country to.
Also, for the most part, Charlie Kirk was right. Another way to word "making money" is "providing value". The beauty of the free market is that it's the American people deciding who does/doesn't deserve their money, and they'll only say you deserve it if they find your product/service valuable.
I'm surprised Kyle argued against Charlie's point about California's laws regarding speech by just saying the 1st Amendment overrides it. While true on an official level, it doesn't magically guarantee anyone will be protected. And even if we were, it doesn't change the basic point that Democratically run local and state governments will at least try to undermine the freedom of speech which is bad enough and should make people take a second look at the current Democratic party.
Even the "Why do you always say it's anti-American?" question didn't quite work because Colin Kaepernik literally refused to stand for the national anthem to protest something entirely different. I'm not that big on symbols, but this was a direct refusal to respect what should be a universally acknowledged national anthem. Why did he choose that of all things if he's not anti-American? I think that's a fair question. And of course, it doesn't follow that because Colin's chosen method of protesting didn't check the box of "violent", that therefore everyone should have been okay with it. Frankly, that's a very low standard to set!
In general, I couldn't help but notice how Charlie had a direct answer to Kyle's allegations against Trump but then Kyle never brought a counterpoint to any of it; he just kinda turned up the attitude and switched to a different topic.
And finally, when it comes to seeing shades of grey instead of black and white, the whole point of not giving government too much power is that it only takes one (or maybe a few, to be fair) corrupt and evil people in positions of power to do a great deal of damage. The way I like to word it is this: Let's assume the majority of corporations are evil and the majority of government officials are good... I'd still prefer the free market because when I choose the minority of good corporations, I don't get thrown in jail for that. When it comes to government, you either give them your money (including the evil, corrupt minority) or it's off to prison with you. And once other government officials see how viable this approach is, they'll jump on board and corruption will literally spread throughout. Compare that to the free market, where the only thing the remaining good corporations will see is a bunch of failed has-been competitors that wasted away due to being corrupt!
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@mk......... "The real question is why this is so upsetting for you,"
No, that's just a question you're trying to use to get us off-topic. But to answer, nothing I've said suggests I'm upset about any of it. Are you meaning to ask "Why do you care so much?"
"If someone asks me to use the correct gender, I do so"
How do you know? What makes it the correct gender?
"cause I don't really give a sh!t."
Now that, I'm inclined to believe.
"If someone thinks he/she/it/whatever is a unicorn then I will call it a unicorn if it makes it feel better."
Lol, well at least you're trying to be consistent... so far. What about a white person who identifies as black? Or a 10-year old who identifies as 30?
"That's called being polite and kind."
There are many ways to be polite and kind, without blindly calling someone something they're not...
"And as long as it doesn't affect me personally,"
So you agree that people should be able to speak how they want, run their business how they want, etc.?
"Maybe it's because you want everyone to be like you"
Unfounded. Again, maybe you're meaning to simply ask me "Why do you care?" and just failing...
6
-
6
-
@DarkPuppy9 "well for starters nobody is indoctronating kids to be trans"
How could you possibly know that no one is doing this? And what does that have to do with anything I've said anyway?
"They do have definitions,"
All of them subjective and/or circular so far, yes, which is the problem.
"You see people don't explain it to you, because you don't want to listen and you engage in bad faith arguments."
Also unfounded. And I've actually had lots of people make an effort to explain it to me, but that resulted in me finding out there really isn't any sound logic there.
"No type of discrimination is justified"
Nonsense. We discriminate all the time. There's tons of things you can do that I wouldn't be permitted to do. Things having to do with your money, your home/business, your spouse (if you have one), etc. The question is never, "Is discrimination okay?" but always "What is justified and what is unjustified discrimination?" and then of course "Why?"
"I mean you're othering a minority,"
How do you mean "othering"? Just disagreeing? Because that's all I've done.
"insulting them and making accusations."
I haven't insulted them, no, and the only "accusation" I've made of trans people and trans advocates is that they subscribe to a worldview they cannot logically defend.
"So I'm sorry if you doing the same thing that people who commit violence do that I mistook you for one."
Except that's not what you did. People who commit violence are wrong because they commit violence, not because they might agree with any given statement. What next? Is "2+2=4" hate speech, since surely most violent criminals will agree with it?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Candace was speaking facts that night. Even T.I. and Killer Mike were agreeing with a lot of what she said. T.I. only interrupted her because he could see she was tryna give a thoughtful answer. Can't have that! Gotta shut her up! Meanwhile, Killer Mike gave what seemed like a very similar answer to what she was trying to give. Yet he gets all the applause, Candace all the disdain. No surprise there.
So to answer T.I.'s question, we got to make up our minds if we are talking about how Americans in general were living or just the disparities between black and white Americans. If we're talking about the latter, it was in the 50s before the welfare state had been established. From there, we would see fatherlessness in the home skyrocket, being incentivized by the so-called "War on Poverty". Take Killer Mike's advice and read some Thomas Sowell if you don't know about it.
But if we're talking more generally, in recent years we've all enjoyed blessings in medicine, technology, access to information, etc. that those decades could only dream of. Americans of all colors and socioeconomic status are doing better than ever before. But I'd say it was greater maybe a decade ago, before the SJWs and feminists and race-baiters (more oppressive inventions of the left) were given so much power. In our universities, in Hollywood, in the mainstream media, everywhere. And they took aim at EVERYBODY Just got through tryna cancel Dave Chappelle. Before that they tried to get Mario Lopez fired because he said maybe we shouldn't let 3-year olds choose their fuckin' gender. Trump was a response to exactly that sort of bullshit. T.I. jumps back to before women could vote or before blacks were freed from slavery because it fits his agenda. There's no need for all that. We all know that part of why Trump's in office is because he's a giant middle finger to the establishment, career politicians, and everybody trying to shut us up. And that's real.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@completely100percenthuman "I am active in many online trans communities and most, if not all, can agree that there differences between men and women."
But would they agree that men and women are characterized by physical differences? Because if so, then this really conflicts with the idea that you can be physically female but also a man.
"Trans people are really just common people trying to live their life."
I'm sorry, and I mean no disrespect, but it isn't common to draw from the wish that you were x the conclusion that you are x. Or even to think that by changing things about your appearance (up to and including "transitioning" surgeries) you can change what you are.
"Kaitlyn Jenner and other celebrities are not accurate representations."
What would be wrong with him as a representation? At least Kaitlyn acknowledges (publicly) the unfairness of trans "women" competing in women's sports.
"When I’m ever able to flatten my chest or mistaken for a man I’m pretty happy. It’s feels very right and is comparable to taking a breath of air after holding it for so long."
We all feel great when someone else shares our beliefs; that doesn't mean either of us are correct to hold those beliefs though, or even that it's good for us to hold those beliefs long-term.
"To me, a man is someone who identifies as one."
Which is just to admit that on transgenderism there is no objective definition. And there are two additional points tied to this we must consider:
1. If there is no objective definition of "man" or "woman", then it's literally impossible to ever misgender anyone. You can't say at that point someone's correct or incorrect when they call you a man/woman because there's no objective fact on the matter, according to your own worldview.
2. This highlights the inconsistency of transgenderism as well. If we're supposedly obligated to call a man a woman and vice versa solely because they identify as such, why are we not similarly obligated to call a white man black or a child an adult (if they identify as such)? An arbitrary exception has been made for gender here, clearly.
"
I expect it to mean that when people view me, they see a man. That is it."
So if it will change nothing, then why want it to occur? And why want it so much that you adopt a worldview that, frankly, falls apart under scrutiny.
"I’m guessing you are cisgendered,"
I find that term very annoying, but if you mean that I'm a man who acknowledges that I'm a man, yes.
"and because you are, you have probably never questioned your gender"
I've never questioned my gender for the same reason I've never questioned my skin tone, my age, the color of my hair, etc. I have eyes and believe what they tell me.
"or wanted to strongly be the other one for personal reasons, not because of a sexist society."
Granted, I've never strongly wanted to be a different gender. But I've strongly wanted many, many other things in my life that I had to accept I would never get. Indeed, most of us will strongly want to be 20 again by the time we're 80. It will hurt. Bad. To admit that we will never be 20 again. But concluding that we are actually 20, or can become it, won't help us.
"Transgenderism being valid doesn’t mean men and women aren’t different. Male and female is what you are looking for."
Not at all. Men are simply males who've grown to adulthood, distinguishable from boys who haven't. And women are female adults, while girls are females who are still children.
"
I disagree, gender does not equal sex."
We've known that gender and sex are one and the same for a long time now. It's the very reason the roles we're expected to play based solely on our biological sex, are called "gender roles" to begin with.
"The definition of gender from Oxford Languages is..."
We can no longer entirely trust the dictionaries, unfortunately (Merriam-Webster thinks you're an anti-vaxxer if you don't want vaccines forced upon others). Even the experts need to be able to show their work, answer these questions pointing out logical errors, and ultimately make sense of their claims.
But yes, many "experts" have also mistaken gender roles and norms (or people's inclinations to adhere to them) as gender itself.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@worldwidehappiness Nope. That just resulted in that comment being deleted too (sigh) In summary, the top 1% actually pays the highest income tax rate out of everyone. And if Bernie were sincere about following Scandinavia's model, he'd be against penalizing the wealthy with high corporate tax rates, against minimum wage laws, and for school vouchers. But he doesn't really want to be like Scandinavia, he's more interested in giving the government more power. Which, BTW, is why companies lobby politicians and government officials to do their bidding, because the government has so much control over the market to begin with. I don't think it's true that people on average are making less today, either; the median household income has gone up more than $4,000 since Trump took office. Lastly, healthcare prices skyrocketed due to government intervention in the 60s (with the advent of Medicare and Medicaid). Demand was radically increased while supply was hindered. And the supply part gets worse every year.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@littlewriterboy "yes, there's a difference between sex and gender."
Not in the slightest, no. Not unless you're redefining gender as your own inclination/disinclination to adhere to gender roles and norms.
"Because when you say gender roles, you are referring to the roles society has deemed appropriate for men and for women."
Based on their biological sex, aka their gender. If your theory were correct, they would hold off on expecting a given sort of behavior until after they've made note of your "gender" (what you identify as).
"But gender is also something that someone identifies as, not because they defy gender roles. But because that's what they are."
Notice I didn't say they necessarily defied gender roles. I said they're not inclined to adhere to gender roles and norms, and therefore they conclude they're actually the opposite gender. But that doesn't follow logically, and it doesn't explain the inconsistency in choosing not to apply this principle to anything else (e.g., race or species).
To be fair, I've also heard "Well I just feel like a girl/woman". But the problem with that angle is that you can't actually say that you feel more like one gender than the other, since you've never been both. You have no basis for comparison. We don't even know if there is a difference between "feeling like" a man and "feeling like" a woman.
"Actually no. I said I would still call them the pronouns and names they preferred because using different pronouns for someone out of respect isn't that difficult."
Ah, so you would play along... How far would you go? If I as a white man wanted to go to a black-only college because I said I identified as black, would you be okay with that? How bout if a 50-year old man identified as a 15-year old boy and wanted to date your 13-year old daughter?
"The toaster thing is stupid because being transgender has science backing it up,"
What exactly is the "science" saying? Because again, we've already discussed all the failings of the brain studies angle. What else ya got?
"There is actual proof for being trans, not a toaster."
I see no difference so far, unless we're equivocating on terms. There is proof that people of one gender identify as another, and we tend to call them "trans", so in that sense there's proof of trans people. But the concept was supposed to be that these people were born into the wrong sort of body. If that's the idea, then science has literally nothing to say about it because it operates in the world of objective, observable facts - what is the case, not what "should" be.
"If you had a female brain and you did have a female brain I wouldn't insist you were female if you identify as male."
But would you think I was? I mean, at this point, I'm just trying to figure out if you even have a measuring stick for these concepts.
"It has to do with what gender you are and need to be because all trans people have gender dysphoria because they were born in the wrong body."
You seem to be assuming a lot here. In addition to assuming that this person "should" have been born female and that person "should" have been born male, you assume that they need to think of themselves as the opposite gender. But there are actually people who have beaten dysphoria without going down that road. There are even people who went all the way down that road (up to the point of getting surgery) and then regretted it, coming back to their real gender and being happier for it.
"It doesn't have to do with gender norms, there are feminine trans men and masculine trans women."
Well no one adheres to gender norms perfectly. But I've spoken with plenty of trans people who've said the way they "knew" they were opposite gender was because they had the interests, likes, mannerisms, etc. typically associated with being that opposite gender.
But that's not how they know it, you say. What is?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@bigmike6461 Sure it is. We've known sex and gender to be the same for a long time now. It's the very reason the roles we're expected to play based solely on our biological sex are called "gender roles" to begin with.
But even if gender were something different, it wouldn't help your case here, because there would still be no objective definition for "man", "woman", etc. on your worldview.
Another problem saying they're two different things poses for you is the following: If I call someone a man, I'm referring to their biological sex, not their "gender" as you conceptualize it. So you can't even say I'm misgendering them, because I'm not referring to their "gender" at all there.
And of course, again, it's not possible to misgender someone anyway if there's no objective definition for those terms.
"people that spew hate like you"
Nothing I've said suggests I hate anyone. Disagreeing =/= hating. And it's actually very irresponsible of you to push that narrative. Trans people are more prone to suicide, and part of the reason why might just be that they've been convinced that tons of people who simply disagree with them don't just disagree, but hate them personally.
6
-
6
-
@anna d "the majority that i know say that you need dysphoria for your identity to actually be true,"
But that's a difference without a difference when you think about it. Surely if anyone identifies as a gender opposite from what they are, it will cause some discomfort. So there's no fundamental distinction; we're just talking about a matter of degree, which seems arbitrarily chosen.
"plus, even if they didn't have dysphoria they can identify as whatever the hell they want, it doesn't harm anyone, so u can call someone a she/he/they just to be polite."
Which gets us to the other part of the inconsistency. Whenever I ask a trans person if they would similarly call a white man black (if he so identified), they almost always say no. And if they happen to say yes to that one, there is always a line they won't cross... No, not even "to be polite".
"no, when someone has severe discomfort that can make them want to end their lives we help them remove the uncomfortable thing if possible."
I would agree, but I'd say the uncomfortable thing is the clash between their worldview and reality. Trying to change reality to fit the worldview is one approach, but it isn't the only approach. If they could come to accept their gender while still living however they like (e.g., "as a woman" when they're a man), it would be the best of both worlds. They'd be happy and also not subscribing to an incoherent and inconsistent worldview.
"even so, people do try to make us comfortable with our birth sex. usually it's family and friends who aren't accepting,"
You're not accepting, either. How is their refusal to agree with you any more awful than your refusal to agree with them?
"but there's some "therapy" thing a lot of trans people are forced to do (especially in the UK) where they try to make trans people live as their birth sex. it doesn't work,"
Nor does any therapy work unless the client is willing to work with the therapist. There are plenty of proven therapeutic methods for people with other conditions that "don't work", depending on who you ask.
"there's differences between male and female brains, and trans people have been shown to have the brain of their correct gender."
This fails for at least two reasons:
1. People with mental conditions also have brain differences; but we don't say that therefore their delusions are correct.
and 2. We both know that you wouldn't tell a biological man who identified as a woman but didn't have "a female brain" that therefore he isn't really a woman. You would go by how he identified, which shows how irrelevant the science really is.
And a third would be, depending on when these observations are made, that how you live and behave can actually change the physical size and shape of your brain too. Given time.
"again, i explained why people say that they just feel like a man or woman."
Yes yes, but you don't speak for all of them. Like it or not, plenty of trans people have doubled down on these statements, rather than downplaying them as "Well I don't have the time to explain it" as you're doing. Same goes for those identifying as the opposite gender because they weren't inclined to adhere to the gender roles put on their own. It's ironic you would accuse me of denying the very existence of trans people (which I haven't), while you essentially deny the existence of the trans people I've spoken with.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Trump's been doing a great job, IMO. Before the pandemic, we were seeing record-low unemployment rates (especially for minorities), increased wages, prison reform, Right to Try, lower prescription drug prices, the list goes on and on. And now we're seeing Trump trying to actually defend innocent people in the streets of these cities where Democrats have encouraged them to riot and kill people (including blacks, mind you). Biden's bailing these rioters out so they can get back to attacking innocent people and destroying their businesses. Trump is, soooo ironically, the voice of reason.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
"Who needs Christ during Christmas?" As an atheist, let me just say... ME! Why? Because it's the sameyness of Christmas that I look forward to every year. That includes things like religious Christmas carols and nativity scenes, I like it all! See, I'm not concerned with what's religious and what isn't when I'm just out there looking for a little fun. I consider it a very unhealthy way to live my life! And this is why I can't stand organizations like these, who by name claim to represent me and really only represent anti-theists and attention whores.
"(sarcasm) How dare atheists... be atheists?" It's not our being atheists that the religious folks are complaining about in this case, it's the use of seemingly antagonistic billboards that surely serve no other purpose than to rile people up.
Also, not all Christians believe any particular person will "burn in Hell for all eternity". Not only is there a dispute over what actually "sends" a person to Hell (i.e., some believe that if you're a good person, you'll go to heaven) and who actually has the ability to determine that, but there are also some Christians who do not believe in Hell at all (as the concept isn't altogether biblical). In his debate with Dawkins, Cardinal George Pell said he believed it was possible for even atheists to go to heaven. So let's not make assumptions about all Christians based on the loud and obnoxious ones who always end up on the mic. I know I wouldn't want Christians to think that things like this billboard speak for ME...
And it isn't religion or a belief in god that brings about war and conflict, it's intolerance. As much as it pains me to say it, Lanza was closer to being correct than you are. This billboard is not about us disagreeing with them, it's about "us" telling them their beliefs are not needed... That's intolerance, my friend, and as an atheist, you should be as embarrassed by the whole thing as I am.
But at least you're consistent: At the end you say it wouldn't bother you if the religious put up billboards that specifically targeted us saying we were gonna burn in hell. While that's admirable of you from a "free speech" perspective, you should have higher standards for them... and for us. That is all.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Ville "The NAACP helped her sue for discrimination back in 2015, then she turns around bad-mouthed the NAACP"
That's not accurate. The lawsuit (which was over having her life threatened) was in 2007, eight years before she was criticizing the NAACP. She's been very candid about the fact that she sees things differently now, and why.
"plus now claims everyone plays the victim and the race card (even though that's ALL SHE PLAYS)."
Nonsense. She says all the time that she's not a victim and she doesn't care about the race card.
"She is scared to debate real politically inclined black people and rather debate black celebs."
If this is the best these "politically inclined black people" can do, I can see why she wouldn't bother.
"She STOLE BLEXIT from a group of black people that ALREADY had a movement to help empower black people by putting their money in black controlled, community banks..."
It's more likely that both this earlier "Blexit" group and Candace heard about "Brexit", which was going on overseas in 2016 and made the obvious alteration to that name.
"How is that empowering anyone?"
Knowledge is very empowering. And like it or not, a lot of black people are appreciating the information. She's not telling people who to vote for, but she's exposing the failings and sometimes outright racism of a political party that really has just been taking the black vote for granted.
"Kanye West even turned his back on her for being a fraud."
Not quite what he said, but I understand you have to push your narrative through.
"The same person who thought black people were better off right after slavery..."
Better off than when? Because again, even Killer Mike was saying very close to the same thing. Black businesses and families were thriving between that era and around 1960, compared to now.
"She NEVER gave points or reasoning of why she felt that way..."
She didn't have the chance! The crowd was interrupting her from the very first answer she tried to give, and it only got worse from there.
"Just because Killer Mike was able to put words to her bs"
As she pointed out, you can't call it BS if she wasn't even able to form a sentence without being shouted down. It's logically impossible to do that. For example, "The sky is"... Is that BS? Is it true? Or is it just a sentence that never got finished?
"doesn't mean THATS WHAT SHE MEANT BECAUSE SHE NEVER SAID IT...."
But I think she was going there. She was talking about the abolishment of slavery and then was cut off. Killer Mike was talking about just a few years after slavery, which is basically the same era.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@happydillpickle "You know very well that legislation impacts the lives of Transgender people. Laws enabling Transgender people to get hormone treatment and surgery have absolutely nothing to do with people who aren't Transgender."
Make up your mind, should I care about people other than myself or shouldn't I? Maybe I'd prefer people to not subscribe to an incoherent (and seemingly dangerous) worldview for their own sake as well as my own?
"It's quite frankly none of their business."
Again, make up your mind. If it's truly none of my business then I should be free to call adult human males men in every situation. If I'm not (or if you're going to call me hateful or something over it), then obviously I should care a great deal about this worldview of yours.
"...a certain type of person who fears people who are transgender."
Another unfounded belief. Disagreeing =/= fearing just like it doesn't equal hating. And again, it's extremely irresponsible of you to equate these. I guess you don't think trans people have it bad enough; you want to convince them that tons of people hate them or fear them, when in reality they just disagree with them.
"Women are currently having their reproductive rights eroded in the US. You think that's okay too because you don't believe in abortion?"
Where "reproductive rights" means killing an innocent human being, yes, I disagree with "reproductive rights". But when it comes to transgenderism, if a grown adult wants to have their body mutilated for the sake of this incoherent worldview, I don't have a problem with that in a legal sense. I think it's immoral for any "doctor" to do this, but hey, he's gotta buy that new Ferrari somehow, amiright? 😉
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Em Kunz "You can literally google definition of gender and definition of sex and they are different."
Yeah, I get that a lot of people have bought into this incoherent and inconsistent worldview; that doesn't make it valid either. As I said, the very reason the roles you're expected to play based solely on your biological sex are called "gender roles" is that these have been understood to be the same thing. And when we ask people to define "gender", we actually never get a coherent definition at all.
"You can't apply the same logic to race because you can't change your race,"
You can't change your actual gender, either.
"race isn't something internal in your brain."
Neither is gender. Again, not unless you define "gender" as your inclination/disinclination to adhere to gender roles and norms, or perhaps "feeling like" a man or woman (and I've already explained how that's incoherent too).
"So you can't "feel" like a different race"
Every bit as easily as you can "feel like" a different gender, yes.
"because you don't "feel" white or "feel" black.
"
And I've explained how you can't really say you "feel like" a man or woman. That's because all of these things are objective, observable physical facts about us we can't change. We can only "identify as" something else.
Similarly, you can't use your experience as a trans person to proclaim that it's different from identifying as a different race, because you have no basis for comparison.
"Although age is a mental thing whereas child brains are different from adult brains, that's just by size and how they think, your brain doesn't make a 50 year old 15."
Well that's just another reason the "brain studies" angle fails. What are we on now, five different ways?
"Science says that are gender dysphoria is real"
And science can prove the suffering and discomfort of any person is real. Including people that we both would agree are delusional. It does nothing to verify their beliefs or claims.
"and that after transitioning, their dysphoria is, for the most part, relieved."
As it could be for any other person if we went ahead and agreed with them concerning any other claim.
"Yes, science doesn't typically observe what "should" be."
No, it literally never does. Science cannot access the metaphysical or moral truths about the world; it can only work in physical reality.
"No. I wouldn't because you identify as male. I don't know why you care what I consider trans."
Because when I posted about this topic, you wanted to say I was wrong. That requires (among other things) a clear definition of what a man is and what a woman is. If you don't even have a measuring stick for this concept, then you can't say I'm the one who doesn't understand.
"I just respect a trans person's identity.
"
But you do not respect the "identity" of a white man who identifies as black, an older person who identifies as a child, etc.
"No one "beats" dysphoria."
Lots of people have done exactly that, as I pointed out.
"You can wear things or do things to lessen your dysphoria but if someone "beat" dysphoria then they never had dysphoria."
No True Scotsman fallacy. Dysphoria is intense discomfort with the gender you were "assigned" at birth, correct? Or are you (already) redefining that word as well?
"Yes, there are detransitioners, but that's because 1.) They had other mental things going on"
Which could be claimed for any trans person at any time.
"2.) They did in fact feel like because they defied gender roles they were trans."
Which is the explanation I keep getting from trans people as well.
"Either way, those are a very very small percentage of people.
"
Do you have any proof of this claim? Because we know that the vast majority of kids, at least, who experience dysphoria grow out of it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25231780
"For most people it's a mix of not fitting in gender roles and just knowing you are trans."
We've dealt with the confusion of "gender" and not adhering to gender roles/norms. How do you "just know" in any way that's different from a random man who "just knows" he's the King of England?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@r-platt "Treating others the way they want to be treated does not require you AGREE with them."
Ah, good then. So you concur that I'm not breaking your "golden rule" by disagreeing with someone about their gender. What are you objecting to then? Just that I disagree openly? I shouldn't express my disagreement?
"Gender dysphoria is a medical condition like schizophrenia or autism."
Right. And transgenderism is an incoherent worldview and therefore not a good way to deal with gender dysphoria.
"You do not oppose people being transgender."
I absolutely do, yes. I think they should reject this worldview that says they are some particular gender all because they "identify" as that, or some other equally illogical reason.
"Medical science has made a great deal of sense of it."
So in order to claim that science supports transgenderism itself, you would definitely need to provide objective definitions for your terms. Just what are they assessing, and how? Do you even know?
"discrimination has existed FAR LONGER than the fight to end it."
1. I don't see how this refutes anything I've said.
and 2. Some discrimination is justified, and therefore no one should fight to end all discrimination.
"There is always the temptation to poke fun at someone with deformities or wearing glasses or writing poorly or doing anything abnormal. Civility holds my tongue."
Well that's great. Likewise I try not to poke fun at people over things they can't control. And even gender dysphoria is included in that. But once someone subscribes to a worldview they cannot logically defend (be that in response to gender dysphoria or any other condition beyond their control), I can at least criticize that if not make a little fun as well.
"If you tell me your name is Vickie then I will use that name. If you say it's Victor and you want me to use they/them, I will comply."
The problem with equating this with "civility" or following your supposed "golden rule", is that it is in fact extremely limited. Indeed, it is an arbitrary exception you've made for gender. By contrast, if I as a 40-year old white human being identify as a black 10-year old or as a giraffe, I will be quickly corrected. So your worldview is not only incoherent but inconsistently applied.
"It requires very little effort on my part and actually MEANS something to YOU."
And neither of these things morally obligate you to do as I request. Again, we all understand that in regards to literally everything else in the world. We should understand that about gender too.
5
-
@r-platt "Yes. There are limits on what you give."
Okay, so we should drop the pretense that the "golden rule" is to simply treat everyone as they want to be treated. There are exceptions, and for various reasons. If I as a white 40-year old man identified as a black 10-year old or a giraffe, I would be corrected despite this "golden rule" only applied to gender.
"What I want is EASIER."
Something being easy has nothing to do with it being right, logical, or what's best for society. So this doesn't constitute any reason for me to feel obligated to call a biological male a woman. Besides which, what would be easiest is for us to continue calling them men. And it'd be easier for those who've subscribed to a worldview they cannot logically defend, to abandon that worldview in general.
"I want you to short-cut that analysis so that you see a clear sign of femininity and you assume "she/her"."
Having "femininity" doesn't make you a woman, though. Some men who do not identify as women are nonetheless very "feminine". Some gay men would fall into this category, and your way of thinking would task us with labeling them women against their will (very, what's that goofy made-up word again? homophobic). Some men even cross-dress but do not identify as women. So we wouldn't be preventing "misgendering" others at any rate. That's if misgendering were even possible on transgenderism which it is not, as I explained earlier.
ME: "Yes, but in order for me to be incorrect in using a given word, you will need to assess it using an objective standard."
YOU: "The definition is the objective standard."
What definition? If it's the circular "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman", this is subjectively defined quite obviously. And you admitted this earlier...
"For example, "car: a four-wheeled road vehicle that is powered by an engine and is able to carry a small number of people"
Okay. Simple enough. But what qualifies as "a small number"? 5? Then some minivans are not cars, some are. 7? Then some trucks are not cars, some are."
Right, so this would mean you couldn't definitively say someone was incorrect if they called a minivan or a truck a car. This might even show that we need a better definition of "car". In any case, to call a dolphin a car would be incorrect as per the objective definition you gave. We can say someone is incorrect for using the wrong word in at least some situations. Now... what's the difference between a male who identifies as a woman and is correct, and a male who identifies as a woman and is incorrect?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"You don't have to have given birth to be a mother to somebody."
But even then, common nouns such as "mother" reflect some objective standard that's being met (e.g., having adopted and/or given birth to someone). So where is the objective, workable definition for "woman", on your worldview? Because in order to coherently claim "trans women are women" as a matter of fact, you'll need a definition that references some objective reality.
Similarly, "...for trans people to be accepted for who they are", you mean what they are. You want us to speak to them and treat them like they're women. But you're not able to give an objective, workable definition for "woman" either, which is crucial for establishing that they are women as a matter of fact. Otherwise, it's not even logically possible for anyone to be correct/incorrect in using that term.
5
-
5
-
@TomCL-vb6xc "Of cours we know what it feels like to be percieved as-"
Not what I said. I said we don't know what it feels like to be a man vs. what it feels like to be a woman. Indeed, as far as any of us know, they feel exactly the same (aside from specific biological events that women- real women, I mean- have to go through once a month and then during pregnancy). So it seems that when a man says "I identify as a woman", "I've always known I was a woman born in the wrong body", etc. there is no explanation of that forthcoming. I'm inclined to think it really just means that such a person likes things traditionally thought to fit "women's roles", but that of course doesn't mean he is a woman (or even that his "gender" is female), it just means he likes different things from most men.
"I don’t even understand what you are trying to get at in the other question."
Seems pretty straightforward, to me. What's to stop me from identifying as (and getting everyone around me to treat me as) a black man aged 74 with 10 million dollars in my bank account, when I'm in fact a white man in his 30s with... well, let's say a bit less than that? ;)
"You also misunderstood what I said in regard to what gender is actually defined as."
I took your words literally, is all I did.
"It is what peope percieve, and henceforth expect from us."
Right, so that's our gender, according to you. So my gender is what people perceive and expect from me. That means if I personally "identify as" a woman, it doesn't matter. My biological sex and gender is male, because that's what both science and society have determined.
"For instance, people expect from me to dress a certain way, move a certain way, to have certain opinions etc etc because they percieve me to have the gender of a man."
You're describing gender roles, not gender. Your gender is male, and the expectations people have of you reflect the gender roles of that society.
"There are people who look a lot like me and share the same biological sex but feel very uncomfortable in carrying out what people expect from them."
Absolutely, and I don't think they should have to do anything they don't want to do. Doesn't mean they are something else; it means they want something else.
"Rather, they might feel much happier in doing things that we would expect of a “woman” ( in the sense of gender ) such as dressing a certain way, move a certain way and have certain opinions etc etc. Hence why they feel like they would be much happier if people expected them to be the way that way and go through various processes to ensure that. Does that not make sense?"
I see the train of thought, but it's not a good one. There's disagreeing with gender roles and then there's misleading people as to what gender you are. If you are making a conscious effort to actually appear to be a gender you aren't, that's where you cross the line. And I'm not even necessarily talking about crossdressers (though they have to understand that anything that departs so radically from the norm is going to be considered strange, and that goes far beyond gender roles). When you look at a crossdresser, you still know he's a man. But with trans people, a lot of the times you can't tell, and that equals deception.
"I also don’t agree that children should make decisions that involve physical and medical procedures, as after all I understand that “boys” wanting to do “girly” things is not outright evidence that they are transgender."
My point was that, a lot of trans advocates would say you shouldn't even be asking for "evidence". You should just take the boy's word for it that he is a girl; and if not, how are you making the distinction?
I mean, of course I agree with you, but I'm not seeing the consistency.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@stefanielouise9715 "Yet when I am being me as I feel is right, i.e as a woman,"
You're always you. You're not talking about "being" you, you're talking about specific things you feel like doing. And that's fine as well, but it's good practice to keep in mind what/who you are as you're doing those things you want to do.
"Transgender is a scientific fact"
That's not even a coherent statement. Again, are you equating transgenderism with gender dysphoria? Because the latter is a scientific reality, but the former is just one of several ways you can choose to approach it.
"Me, living my life as I feel fit, which affects nobody except me is actually none of your concern"
To the extent that you're right about that premise (that it doesn't affect anyone else), sure, and I wouldn't deny you the personal right to live however you choose. But that doesn't make it a logical way to live, and unfortunately, it's not always true that it won't affect others.
"My world is full of women with whom I interact every day and they have no problem in accepting me as just another woman. Who do you think has a better idea of who a woman is, biological women or a biological man as yourself?"
I think logic would still be the best arbiter of truth, regardless of who accepts or evades it.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@User 123 Ahh, see how the goalposts have to be moved now? First you say it isn't any of my business, now you're trying to justify the fact that it obviously is my business.
"you would also be contributing to other things like abortion,"
Yes, and I speak out against that also. Partly (though not primarily) because it is my business for that very reason.
"it’s just unfair that if you grew up in a more poorer financial situation that you have to go through most likely depression"
Except that you don't unless you adopt this worldview, despite its incoherence and inconsistency.
"it’s called anti discrimination,"
Also nonsense. How am I discriminating? Discrimination is not just people not doing and saying what you want them to say...
"and by you directly calling a women that’s trans a man is transphobic,"
A. Their biological gender is what it is, and I have every right to say what it is, just like you have every right to disagree.
and B. There is nothing in my disagreement that suggests I fear, hate, dislike, or have a prejudice against trans people. But nice try!
"just like if you think trans children should not have the right to healthcare that is transphobic,"
That doesn't follow either. And not only for the reasons I already gave, but also because I could even support people "transitioning" just not when they're children.
"and if you support trump you are homophobic and transphobic,"
A. That doesn't logically follow, even if we assume for the sake of argument that Trump himself is "homophobic" or "transphobic" (and if we go by your made-up definition which seems to be "disagrees with" homosexuality/transgenderism).
and B. I don't think any of the things on your list necessarily indicate that Trump is opposed to homosexuality/transgenderism.
"if they have been used for 40+yrs on cis kids with precocious puberty then that’s enough time to know the long term affects"
Oh so you meant to type "precocious" earlier, I see. Still, there's a difference between regulating an abnormal hormone issue and deciding to toy with it when there's no actual danger. Altering the body because the mind has adopted a worldview that doesn't stand up to scrutiny is just never a good idea.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@littlewriterboy "you're SEX relies on your chromosomes. Not your gender."
No actually, gender and biological sex are one and the same. Why do you think the roles we're expected to play solely based on our biological sex are called "gender roles"? People simply look at us, determine we're biologically male and expect us to "act like men" on that basis. What we "identify as" doesn't even come into the picture.
And as I've pointed out, the only way of saying gender is something different is by confusing it with one's inclinations/disinclinations to adhere to gender roles and norms.
"There's female, male, and intersex for sexes"
But what is a male adult called? As opposed to a male child?
"But your gender relies on what gender brain you have."
Again, this doesn't work because as you yourself admitted, you would consider even a biological man without a "female brain" a woman if he identified as such. So the brain studies angle is a lie.
"No one identifies as a toaster,"
A. That's not the point. If someone were to identify as such, you would be obligated to call them and treat them as a toaster if you were being consistent in holding to your "We must be nice and call them what they identify as" principle.
and B. There probably are people (probably in men tal institutions) who identify as inanimate objects. But we need not dwell on just that. How bout people who believe they're some human person that they're not?
"Someone who identifies as a toaster either 1.) Doesn't exist or 2.) Is dumb because you can't identify as an inanimate object."
But see how quickly you dismiss it? Yet when we (who disagree with transgenderism) say that identifying as a woman when you're clearly a man is dumb, we get called transphobic, hateful, etc.
"There's no reason changing someone's name and pronouns would affect you in almost any way. So why not change them?"
Because we believe that the truth has inherent value. But notice that a person who identified as an inanimate object could flip that one back around on you as well. Would it hurt you to call them a "toaster", or refer to them as "it", etc.?
"The way men's and women's brains function differently."
Typically, yes, which is why most men have "male brains" and most females have "female brains". But that's not always the case. And again, there's nothing wrong with that.
A related question to the issues I've already highlighted (with the brain studies angle), is what if I had a "female brain" and just didn't know it? Would you insist that I was a woman, even with me identifying as a man?
"What belief? You mean trans people "believing" they're trans?"
Obviously not. I mean the belief that you are what you identify as. Along with the belief that your gender is something based on that identification, or anything else associated with gender roles and norms.
5
-
@littlewriterboy "You can literally google definition of gender and definition of sex and they are different."
Yeah, I get that a lot of people have bought into this incoherent and inconsistent worldview; that doesn't make it valid either. As I said, the very reason the roles you're expected to play based solely on your biological sex are called "gender roles" is that these have been understood to be the same thing. And when we ask people to define "gender", we actually never get a coherent definition at all.
"You can't apply the same logic to race because you can't change your race,"
You can't change your actual gender, either.
"race isn't something internal in your brain."
Neither is gender. Again, not unless you define "gender" as your inclination/disinclination to adhere to gender roles and norms, or perhaps "feeling like" a man or woman (and I've already explained how that's incoherent too).
"So you can't "feel" like a different race"
Every bit as easily as you can "feel like" a different gender, yes.
"because you don't "feel" white or "feel" black.
"
And I've explained how you can't really say you "feel like" a man or woman. That's because all of these things are objective, observable physical facts about us we can't change. We can only "identify as" something else.
Similarly, you can't use your experience as a trans person to proclaim that it's different from identifying as a different race, because you have no basis for comparison.
"Although age is a mental thing whereas child brains are different from adult brains, that's just by size and how they think, your brain doesn't make a 50 year old 15."
Well that's just another reason the "brain studies" angle fails. What are we on now, five different ways?
"Science says that are gender dysphoria is real"
And science can prove the suffering and discomfort of any person is real. Including people that we both would agree are delusional. It does nothing to verify their beliefs or claims.
"and that after transitioning, their dysphoria is, for the most part, relieved."
As it could be for any other person if we went ahead and agreed with them concerning any other claim.
"Yes, science doesn't typically observe what "should" be."
No, it literally never does. Science cannot access the metaphysical or moral truths about the world; it can only work in physical reality.
"No. I wouldn't because you identify as male. I don't know why you care what I consider trans."
Because when I posted about this topic, you wanted to say I was wrong. That requires (among other things) a clear definition of what a man is and what a woman is. If you don't even have a measuring stick for this concept, then you can't say I'm the one who doesn't understand.
"I just respect a trans person's identity.
"
But you do not respect the "identity" of a white man who identifies as black, an older person who identifies as a child, etc.
"No one "beats" dysphoria."
Lots of people have done exactly that, as I pointed out.
"You can wear things or do things to lessen your dysphoria but if someone "beat" dysphoria then they never had dysphoria."
No True Scotsman fallacy. Dysphoria is intense discomfort with the gender you were "assigned" at birth, correct? Or are you (already) redefining that word as well?
"Yes, there are detransitioners, but that's because 1.) They had other mental things going on"
Which could be claimed for any trans person at any time.
"2.) They did in fact feel like because they defied gender roles they were trans."
Which is the explanation I keep getting from trans people as well.
"Either way, those are a very very small percentage of people.
"
Do you have any proof of this claim? Because we know that the vast majority of kids, at least, who experience dysphoria grow out of it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25231780
"For most people it's a mix of not fitting in gender roles and just knowing you are trans."
We've dealt with the confusion of "gender" and not adhering to gender roles/norms. How do you "just know" in any way that's different from a random man who "just knows" he's the King of England?
5
-
@nvna1111 The point wasn't to compare "credibility" (which, anyone who can't give an objective, workable definition for "gender" shouldn't be considered an expert on the subject anyway). It was simply to show you why trying to redirect me to someone else to substantiate your position is silly.
"ur also right that basic research is just like a wild goose chase."
It is when I continuously come up empty-handed. No so-called "expert", no scientist, no doctor, no anyone has been able to define their terms in an objective way (that would support transgenderism). You don't believe I've looked hard enough. I don't believe you're truly confident there's a good answer; otherwise, you would've given it yourself.
"its a mystery how misgendering every trans person you meet-"
Not possible, on your worldview. So long as you fail to give an objective definition for terms like "man" or "woman", no one can ever be correct or incorrect in using these terms. Ironically, it's only those of us who reject modern gender theory would could accuse others of misgendering us in a coherent way.
"and denying their identity might fuck them up,"
Someone disagreeing with your beliefs should never mess you up...
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@paffles6696 "But you are averse to the people"
That's a lie. Disagreeing with someone's choices/beliefs is not the same as being averse to them (the person).
"or else you would make an attempt to understand them."
It is you who assumed I didn't understand. But again, I simply disagree. Equating disagreement with a lack of understanding is also irresponsible, though not as bad as chalking it up to hate/phobia.
"You conflate sex and gender as if they are the same thing"
Well they are, at least according to my coherent understanding of it. Yours on the other hand...
"where gender is a social construct that really is simply gender roles and norms"
The problem with defining gender itself as gender roles and norms is that it isn't even workable within the rest of your own worldview. After all, if someone were to identify as a woman while adhering to the gender roles and norms expected of men, which would they be? A woman whose gender is that of a man?
"Definitions for most words aren't "objective" since they're literally made up in order to communicate specific ideas."
Naturally that isn't what's meant by "objective". I'm talking about words that refer to some objective reality as opposed to referring to someone's opinions or beliefs. So for example even when everyone believed the Earth was flat, the objective fact was that it wasn't.
"The meanings of words and the ideas they represent can change."
Indeed, but that change should be able to stand up to logical scrutiny. Your proposed changes do not.
"There is no objective definition of "man" or "woman" because it describes something inherently subjective."
Not at all. Men and women objectively exist, as do the criteria we (those of us who reject your worldview) refer to when determining who is/isn't a man or woman.
"To flip this back on you, there is no biological definition of "man" or "woman" that you can ever come up with that could every encompass all cis gendered men or women."
Sure there is, though it's not as simple as defining it by the presence/absence of certain genitalia or even chromosomes. A woman is an adult human female, with "female" being someone whose body developed largely toward the function of bearing children. A man is an adult human male, with "male" being someone whose body didn't develop largely toward that function.
This would include so-called "intersex" people, BTW. Gender is a very decisive binary, though there can be some significant variations within either sex.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I'm sorry, but I really think Kyle lost this one. And I'll even explain why for anyone with the time and inclination to read it:
So first, if the "unemployment rate" he prefers to use is higher because some of the workers are "discouraged", or "underemployed", that's a bogus number. They're still employed (therefore not unemployed), and that is indeed better than being unemployed at any rate. Besides which, as Charlie pointed out that number's down under Trump as well anyway.
Similarly, just the fact that 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck tells us absolutely nothing. Just like with the wage gap, the question is why are they living paycheck to paycheck? It could be because they're getting paid less in relation to their essential needs, or it could be that we as a society have become far more irresponsible with our money (taking on unnecessary expenses, spending excessively, etc.)
In general, Kyle seems to really have a problem with any and all actions that directly help the rich despite whatever actions have helped others. I don't understand that logic, personally. Yes, the estate tax cuts only benefited the rich because they're the only ones with estates... But the tax only taxes the rich, so what's the problem!? He also doesn't seem to realize that his thought experiment opens the door to full-on socialism. Bernie Sanders was against millionaires... until he became one. Similarly, concerning Kyle, it's easy to go from saying "Okay so you only have 999.9 million dollars. Big whoop." to saying "Okay so you only have 9 millions dollars. Big whoop." and so on. It's just a very dangerous slippery slope he wants to move this country to.
Also, for the most part, Charlie Kirk was right. Another way to word "making money" is "providing value". The beauty of the free market is that it's the American people deciding who does/doesn't deserve their money, and they'll only say you deserve it if they find your product/service valuable.
I'm surprised Kyle argued against Charlie's point about California's laws regarding speech by just saying the 1st Amendment overrides it. While true on an official level, it doesn't magically guarantee anyone will be protected. And even if we were, it doesn't change the basic point that Democratically run local and state governments will at least try to undermine the freedom of speech which is bad enough and should make people take a second look at the current Democratic party.
Even the "Why do you always say it's anti-American?" question didn't quite work because Colin Kaepernik literally refused to stand for the national anthem to protest something entirely different. I'm not that big on symbols, but this was a direct refusal to respect what should be a universally acknowledged national anthem. Why did he choose that of all things if he's not anti-American? I think that's a fair question. And of course, it doesn't follow that because Colin's chosen method of protesting didn't check the box of "violent", that therefore everyone should have been okay with it. Frankly, that's a very low standard to set!
In general, I couldn't help but notice how Charlie had a direct answer to Kyle's allegations against Trump but then Kyle never brought a counterpoint to any of it; he just kinda turned up the attitude and switched to a different topic.
And finally, when it comes to seeing shades of grey instead of black and white, the whole point of not giving government too much power is that it only takes one (or maybe a few, to be fair) corrupt and evil people in positions of power to do a great deal of damage. The way I like to word it is this: Let's assume the majority of corporations are evil and the majority of government officials are good... I'd still prefer the free market because when I choose the minority of good corporations, I don't get thrown in jail for that. When it comes to government, you either give them your money (including the evil, corrupt minority) or it's off to prison with you. And once other government officials see how viable this approach is, they'll jump on board and corruption will literally spread throughout. Compare that to the free market, where the only thing the remaining good corporations will see is a bunch of failed has-been competitors that wasted away due to being corrupt!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"No marriage even though it's the law of the land in the United States?"
So you believe the law of the land should supersede even those actions specifically forbidden in the bible? On what basis do you make that assumption?
"When you say wives should be submissive to their husbands, why shouldn't they be equal?"
First off, it isn't this pastor who's saying that; it's the bible. You need to make up your mind if you're offering these questions or critiques to Pastor Wilson or Christianity. And second, nothing about being submissive suggests unequal worth or even unequal rights as an individual. We all submit everyday to various people and institutions (you yourself implied earlier that we should all submit to the law of the land, for example). Why do you not think we should be "equal" to the lawmakers?
"(Wilson said) that Southern slavery was mutually affectionate between master and slave."
I doubt that he said this was always the case, but I'm sure it did happen. It's a well enough known phenomenon that people invented the term "Uncle Tom" to describe those slaves who had won their master's favor. But in any case, she seems to be implying that the pastor was condoning forced slavery when that wouldn't follow from such a statement.
"He said members of our LGBTQ community... trans people should be exiled or possibly stoned."
First off, how very bigoted of you to leave out the "plus" at the end there. Are you some sort of -phobe? And second, I don't believe he ever said they should be exiled or possibly stoned but I await the link to him saying that if anyone should want to provide it.
"representing patriarchy"
Then you, a supposed "reverend", reject Christianity itself. Because again, that's not from pastor Wilson's brain; it's from the Christian bible. And if by "patriarchy" you mean where men's rules should be forced, Wilson didn't say that.
As for the Covid hysteria, they admitted to reporting on Covid with fake numbers (both cases and deaths) a very long time ago. And the state has no right to force you to wear a mask, social distance, shut down your business/church, etc. anyway. And of course, it doesn't logically follow from this that they're not trying to spread awareness or the good news of Christ. Indeed, if the Covid hysteria were valid, it would only mean they were so insistent on spreading the good news and awareness of Christ they were willing to die for it.
"If they just happened to disagree with me, that's fine, but when you're hurting people that's crossing many lines."
And what is "hurting people"? The context of this interview seems to imply that just speaking out on your disagreement = hurting people. And if that's your message (that people can disagree with you but they'd better not express that disagreement) that sounds very authoritarian of you.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@paramiind4730 Not at all. It's still the case, that outside of those anomalies, sex is binary. But again, even if it wasn't, it doesn't do anything for the transgender movement because it's still grounded in considerations of the physical. What is scientific, what is observable and objective. These are still irrelevant to the idea that you are whatever you identify as.
Also, note that since I said it's about the chromosomes, I'm acknowledging that a woman could be born with a penis in these extremely rare circumstances. Wouldn't make her a man. The genitalia are simply our best way of determining sex with the naked eye (no pun intended).
All you have to do to understand that gender and biological sex are the same thing, is look at the concept of "gender roles". What are these? Well, they're roles we're expected to play on the basis of our biological sex, not "whatever you identify as". People look at you, determine that you are biologically male, and therefore expect you to do whatever's expected of men in that society. They're basing it on your gender, which is that of a man, even if you choose to buck all of the norms and roles people place on you for being such.
4
-
@paramiind4730 "A binary is ‘a division into two groups or classes that are considered diametrically opposite’."
Right, and outside of those ultra-rare anomalies, a person is either male or female. You make definitions based on the rule, not the exceptions to the rule.
"You previously said chromosomes determine sex"
And it does.
" - but are now suggesting that “genitalia is the best way of determining sex”.
With the naked eye, I said. In other words, even when you can't look at the chromosomes to confirm, the most effective (albeit not perfect) method is go by the genitalia.
"By this logic, you’re suggesting that if a cisgender woman-"
Otherwise known as a woman.
"had a penis, then they would be sexually identified as a man."
If that's all the information we had to go on, yes. But it would be incorrect, if the chromosomes were that of a female.
"I have already said this, but will repeat. In a social context - you can not determine one’s sex in the way you are suggesting - that being genitalia - unless you’re some pervert. This is why we rely on gender."
Nonsense. There are tons of ways to determine, with over 90% accuracy, a person's gender without going along with however they "identify" (which is what you seem to mean by "gender").
And gender itself isn't socially constructed, but gender roles are.
"You are yet to list a way to “objectively” determine who is a man or a woman."
I explicitly said we can go by the chromosomes, which you argued (therefore you knew that I had given this reason, so you don't have to lie). And BTW, if your problem with it is that it's fallible, so is gender identity, since there are a lot of people who grow out of it if allowed to, and some even regret the "gender transitioning" surgery.
Still waiting for someone to make this worldview coherent. How exactly does someone "know" they're the opposite gender? And why are we not similarly obligated to call a white man black (if he so identifies)?
4
-
4
-
4
-
@paramiind4730 No, my point is that it's the trans people/advocates who seem to have confused "gender" with "gender roles" (or one's inclination to follow them). Almost inevitably, when you ask them how they "know" they're the opposite gender, they will base it on their likes, dislikes, personality traits, interests, and how they want to live their lives.
What I'm saying, however, is that the reason for the word "gender" in the phrase "gender roles" is that people are looking at your biological makeup and assigning a role to you on that basis! On the basis of your biological sex, aka your gender.
"You’d therefore suggest if a woman had a vagina, but had chromosomal abnormalities, she’d be a man?"
Typically, even if your genitalia doesn't match your chromosomes, the chromosomes will determine your gender, yes. And as I said, we define these things by the rule, not the exceptions to the rule. If your only objection for this distinction is that it isn't infallible, well let me reiterate: Neither is gender identity! People "grow out of" gender dysphoria all the time! Sometimes they even have the transitioning surgery and regret that.
"despite the fact in social situations, she would be treated as a woman?"
Depends on a lot more than just their genitalia, actually. Some folks have secondary sex traits that betray their genitalia. Those people will be treated (whether accurately or inaccurately) as whatever they "look like" based on secondary sex traits.
And I am still waiting for your answers as to how they "know" they're a different gender, as well as how we're not similarly obligated to call a white man black (if he identifies as such).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@scarface2223 "He was saying that she is not a real comedian."
Yeah, well that's subjective. To quote George Carlin, "Who's to say what's funny?"
"Luis never says women aren’t funny,"
Didn't say he did. But he denied that some guys say that.
"What I meant by the Peppe Le Pew is just like the cartoon, he hits on everyone including his long time producer Shannon all the time and fails miserably in his attempts to seduce whoever is around him. It’s a gimmick that he has been doing for years without ever being called out."
Okay then, he was just asking for someone to do it. And by the sound of things, Nicole stepped up. If women were indeed making it clear to him that they didn't want to be hit on, and he did it anyway, that's a problem. Doesn't matter if he does it often as a gimmick for his show. I'm not an SJW or feminist type, but there is a line.
"She attempted to slander Luis"
If you're still referring to his hitting on his female guests, it's not slander if it's true. If it's something he was actually doing, it's not slander to "call him out" for it.
"when if she is a “free speech absolutist”,"
When did she say this, I must've missed it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
What a biased video! What about all the records Trump set with the economy? You gave Obama his props, why not Trump? Here's a "first" for you: First president to be impeached on entirely partisan lines, against a bipartisan vote not to impeach him. Or, first president to be impeached despite no crime actually being committed (or even alleged against him in the articles).
No, what the 2010s will be known for, sadly, is how the radical left has taken over the Democrat Party, "outrage culture", everything becoming "racist"/"sexist", corporations getting woke then going broke, etc.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@happydillpickle "someone who thinks it's necessary to force transgender people to live in the role and clothes traditionally assigned to them."
Again, it sounds like you're confusing gender itself with gender roles and norms. Me saying that men should acknowledge that they're men =/= me saying that men should dress a certain way, act a certain way, only marry women, etc.
"They are not like you, they cannot live comfortably like you can,"
I don't live comfortably either. There are tons of things about the world and several things about my life I'm not happy with, that I'd really like to change but I can't. And it would make it easier on me if people would just pretend along with me that these things are different. But that doesn't morally obligate them to do so, nor does it mean I should.
"and just because you don't understand"
Disagreeing =/= not understanding.
"doesn't mean you have the right to make legislation against them in order to stop them receiving gender affirming care."
I do think that if adults want to ruin their bodies for the sake of this incoherent worldview, they should be allowed to. We can agree there from a legal perspective.
"If a transgender person wishes to fight against themselves and force themselves to live a life in the gender role that society expects of them, they are free to seek such support from the religious community projects that exist to promote this."
Agreed, except (again) you say things like "fight against themselves" as if it's objective fact that they're really a man/woman. How can you insinuate that when you can't even define these terms objectively?
"Let a transgender person express themselves as they feel comfortable, let a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew etc express themselves as they feel comfortable"
Sure, but the difference still remains that if I refuse to discuss god with a Christian (I'm atheist), I don't get called "phobic" or "hateful" for that. Yet when I call an adult human male a man (when they believe they're a woman), it's a different story.
"This is why there's such a high suicide rate in the transgender community: not because they're transgender, but because there's such hatred and discrimination against them."
There are many reasons people commit suicide. And I think that while hate (actual hate) surely plays a role for some of them (not just with trans people but with everybody), other contributors to the high suicide rate are the fact that they've committed their lives to a worldview they cannot logically defend, either to themselves or others, and this idea that those who disagree with them hate them personally.
"How can you possibly speak about a topic of transgender without looking into transgender people's experiences?"
I'm literally trying to do that right now, but no one's able to tell me what experience led them to believe their gender was something different from their sex.
4
-
4
-
@Ori-Hara "well I always felt off in my own body since I was a little kid, after I hit puberty it became clear that I am very much not a girl, it's a very physical feeling that I'm trapped in strange sack deeply glued to my skin, underneath is my real body,"
How did you get from this intense discomfort with and what even sounds like disgust for your physical body, to the conclusion that the opposite gender was your "real body" though? You say it became clear that you're not a girl, but you were presumably a human female child, right? What else does "girl" mean, if not that?
"what in your opinion is a woman?"
An adult human female, with "female" being someone whose body developed primarily toward the purpose of producing large gametes (ova). This would include, BTW, anyone who, due to aging, defects, etc. cannot actually produce ova.
"please describe to me how you know you are your assigned gender at birth then?"
I know I'm a male because my body developed primarily toward the purpose of producing small gametes (sperm). When I was born, the doctor used the most reliable method he/she had available at the time to discover that I was male, and simply reported that discovery. I wasn't "assigned" male, as one would do by looking around, determining we had enough females in the world, and choosing to give me that role or some such.
4
-
4
-
@Ori-Hara "you see they decide if your are male or female-"
They don't decide it though, they discover it. They're not involved in the event of me becoming male, they're only observers of the fact that I'm male same as I am.
"by looking at the genitals your born with, that is your sex and not gender,"
I still don't have any good reason to think that sex and gender are different things. I haven't been given an objective definition for "gender" at all (from those who subscribe to your worldview), nor have I been given one for "boy", "girl", "man", or "woman".
"but the reason they call it gender is because they still think sex and gender are the exact same thing when they aren't,"
What is "gender" then?
"you somehow know you're a man the same way I know I am a man."
Not at all. I refer to an objective standard in establishing that I'm a man. I don't claim to have some inner "feeling" of being a man, because how would I know that's what that feeling was? For all I know, men and women feel the exact same way. Just like you, how do you know that your internal feeling isn't the exact same internal feeling ciswomen have?
"like say you were in the body of a woman, your brain would be the same as it is now, but your body is female, if you feel uncomfortable then that would be dysphoria, you'd likely want to change back to being male, that's pretty much how it is for trans people,"
But I would no longer be male, no matter how unhappy I was with that fact. If my body was literally one structured toward the purpose of producing ova, I'd be a female. And I'd do well to accept that fact moving forward, or I'd be setting myself up for a series of disappointments as I tried to live as a male.
4
-
@Ori-Hara "but you'd be happier as a man wouldn't you?"
I don't believe I would be happier, long-term, trying to live as a man if my body were that of a woman. Emphasis on the "trying". You can't actually live as a man unless you're a man, after all. And I suspect by "living as a man" you mean dressing a certain way, adhering to the gender roles and norms of men, etc.? What's wrong with a woman acknowledging she's a woman while doing all these other things?
"if being biologically female would make you unhappy then what's the problem with changing to make you feel comfortable in your own skin?"
It would all be artificial. I would always know that I wasn't the gender I wanted to be, no matter how much I made myself look like that gender. Same as if I created a counterfeit law degree and hung it up on the wall. No matter how many people came along and congratulated me on it, I would know I didn't actually earn a law degree.
Do you believe there is no other way for people to overcome gender dysphoria, other than having these surgeries, taking medications, hormones, on a life-long basis, etc.?
"women aren't just for reproducing, they're people,"
Obviously.
"with feelings thoughts emotions, just like anyone in the world, saying a person's only value as a man or woman is down to their sex is honestly just wrong"
That phrasing is very odd. "A person's only value as a man or woman". It's what makes them men and women, along with their age and species, but I wouldn't say it's their only value...
4
-
4
-
4
-
@happydillpickle "Describing gender affirmative care for under 18s as "sick" certainly isn't kind,"
Sure, but that's denigrating a specific thing being done to children, not anything trans people do. And again, in what sense is it "gender affirmative"? There would have to be some objective standard by which someone is/isn't a man or woman, before you can say it's true they're a man or woman, and before you could be affirming anything as true in a coherent way.
"which is why I suggested you read Abby Stein's book, in order to gain a better understanding of what it's like to be Transgender."
Disagreeing with the worldview does not imply I lack understanding. Again, this would be like me saying if you haven't watched all of Matt Walsh's videos, you "need to gain a better understanding". Each of us should be able to discuss this without sending each other off on wild goose chases.
"Some children grow up feeling severe gender dysphoria."
And it's quite sad, and subscribing to transgenderism is by no means the best (let alone only) way of resolving that.
4
-
@Ori-Hara "our entire human history that points to trans people being real"
No one's denying that people who believe their gender is somehow different from their sex are real. But we are questioning the validity of that belief, especially in light of how difficult its subscribers find it to give objective definitions for their terms.
"and sex and gender being separate things,"
Well again, what is gender? Why is it a problem to define that?
"I have told you about my experience in a way that many would deem as perfectly coherent,"
Indeed, your description of the feelings you experience was coherent. But I had asked you how you got from those feelings all the way to the belief that your gender was actually something different from your biological sex. Being uncomfortable (even immensely) with something doesn't mean it isn't real or true.
"I don't honestly need to explain myself to you, I thought maybe you could learn and understand, but you keep back tracking."
I haven't backtracked. But what you call me not "learning and understanding" is really just me continuing to disagree. If you look over our conversation, I've made it quite clear as to why I disagree, and those reasons largely haven't been dealt with.
"so again, I bid you adieu."
Have a good one.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@r-platt "Would it help if I pointed out that medical scans show our brains are actually wired more like the sex we identify?
"
Not at all. Even assuming you mean that your brains are the size/shape of the opposite gender at birth (which you might not, Idk), it wouldn't mean that therefore you're that gender. People with conditions we'd both agree are mental disorders are sometimes diagnosed in that exact way. So there being a biological explanation for why you think you're a different gender, doesn't equal a biological confirmation that you are.
"That is, my 23 chromosome is male but my brain is wired like a normal female."
Which brings back the question I asked you in another comment section, which I don't recall you answering: What about a trans "woman" who doesn't have a similar brain to biological women, but identifies as a woman anyway? Would you tell them they're not a woman, or does the size and shape of the brain suddenly (and conveniently) not matter then?
"I literally think more like a woman than a man. I understand women better than I understand men."
Which, again, only means that you have a different personality than most men. So do lots of men, who still recognize that they're men despite that. But would you tell them they're not men either? Because they think "like a woman", which again, depending on what specifically you mean by that sounds sexist to begin with.
"Everything about my psyche says I should be a woman but my body is decidedly male."
Feelings about what "should" or "shouldn't" be are irrelevant, if only because they're so subjective. But it's just like I asked you before in that other comment section, how do you even know what it feels like to be a man vs. what it feels like to be a woman? If you're a woman and have always been a woman, you quite literally cannot know the difference (if there is a difference) between the two.
"None of this was my decision. It wasn't induced by trauma, abuse or teaching. It's quite the opposite. I was taught to be a boy. I even had special classes to help teach me.
"
Not that this matters a great deal (Again, some mental disorders "just happen" without any trauma, abuse, or teaching), but you really can't say for sure that nothing in the forgotten formative years of your childhood brought this on. It's not like people have memories of their birth and the first few years afterward.
"That was around 1975. There was no such thing as "transgender" back then just gay and transvestite. And I learned quickly both groups were hated outcasts. Why would I want to be like them?
"
I think this is a key paragraph. Not wanting to be part of these groups because they were hated doesn't address objective truth. Not saying you are just gay or transvestite, but it sounds like you haven't ruled those out properly.
"The divide between brain and body creates a strain that builds and builds until it gets so bad it destroys some part of me. You'll never see the scars because they're all on the inside. Yet they exist and they show a LOT of damage has been done.
"
I don't think anyone's denying that having such a condition would be painful and extremely difficult. But we do disagree that the best way to treat these sorts of conditions is by going along with it.
"In short, we CAN successfully change our body SHAPE and that's all we need to feel and be just as normal as everyone else.
"
I'm sure it would help you feel better, to force your body into the shape you think it should be. How could it not? But that doesn't mean you've changed what you are.
If you don't mind, I decided to tack on part of another conversation we were having, where I had asked you why a person can't also identify as another age, race or financial status. I never got a response from you, but I wanted to press the question to highlight part of why me and others find transgenderism so incoherent logically:
"Lastly, identifying as something measurable (age, race, social status) is provably true or false."
Exactly. And being a man or woman is measurable through biology. If you have zero biological evidence that you're a woman, yet you want people to treat you as one, there's nothing stopping me from applying this principle to pressure others into treating me as a different age, race, and financial status.
"In any case the most obvious difference between these identifications and gender dysphoria is that they don't cause distress."
To your knowledge. But I'm quite sure that if you give it time, people will be popping up with their stories of how "always knowing they were black" (when they're white) and having to be misraced, etc. caused them great pain and suffering. Because again, what's stopping them? Even if you say they're just faking it all, how can you prove that? You can't.
Besides which, is the level of suffering a person's going through with a "mislabeling" really a fundamental difference regarding what's true? The question, how do we determine what's correct? How can we look at someone else and tell them they're not what they feel they are, if we can't do it regarding gender?
"If someone does suffer then it's up to the individual to do something about it - just as it is with gender dysphoria."
Yeah, like coming to grips with the objective truth, and then asking why they identify as something they're not.
Just as I had suggested you ask yourself the following:
Why do you want to be a mother? What do mothers do? How do they contribute to their children/society? Isn't it entirely possible to fulfill those needs (which are indeed important) as a man?
"And if there's sufficient determination, a poor person may earn their way to a higher social class,"
No no no. Don't be a bigot. These people are already rich, and you have to treat them as such. And that will have all sorts of interesting applications when they happen to stroll into the nearest bank, wouldn't you say?
"an old person may act and think as a younger person."
Right, like a 40-year old man who identifies as a 15-year old boy can date your 15-year old daughter. What could you say against that? You don't want to be a hateful bigot, keep that in mind.
"Society accepts and encourages these people. Ever see an old man on a skateboard doing tricks and having a blast?"
That's just it, though. He can do these things because he's able to, not because he identifies as someone younger. Similarly, you can fulfill the same needs as any mother, without being a woman. And that would be OK but competing in sports against biological women is not. Just as the old man can ride skateboards in the park, but cannot date a teenage girl.
"But few will correct them if they say they feel young or rich or whatever. Yet many will correct me for saying I feel like a woman."
Partly because (so far), there isn't a movement of old people claiming they are in fact young or poor people claiming they are in fact rich. So the guard can be lowered there. Also partly because "feeling young" refers to differences in young people that most wouldn't dispute. It's almost inevitable that a young person (who is healthy) will have more energy. It is not almost inevitable that a woman will think, feel, and behave the way you are.
"So if I require a female-shaped body to function (regardless of my DNA), is it correct to deny it?"
You don't require that at all. The issue is in the mind, so that's where you should fix it.
"Living authentic is more important."
Indeed. So if you are a man who thinks, feels, and behaves in a very different way from most men, that's what you say. That's what you know about yourself, and so that's what you should tell others.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@danielmacdougall2697 "Just a little tip, it's not actually the size and shape of the brain (smirk) that makes the difference,"
Oh? So how else do you determine that a brain is a "male brain" or "female brain", because that's all I've heard about from trans people and trans advocates (when they bring up brain studies) so far.
"As to the black fella white fella thing. You're wrong, I would call a white skinned indigenous Australian a black fella."
But you would still appeal to objective facts, rather than solely what they identify as, is my point. You wouldn't refer to an Englishman as black, even if he told you that's how he identified.
"Answer the question about someone of mixed ethnic origin."
It's irrelevant to my question and the topic, as I explained. But sure, I would recognize a mixed person as mixed just as I recognize men as men and women as women.
"It has no relevance to gender at all"
True, but it is very relevant to the reasoning used to pressure me into calling a man a woman and vice versa. In short, if you can't adhere to the reasoning, you can't expect me to.
"and is racist as far as I'm concerned."
There is absolutely nothing racist about just mentioning people's skin color 🙄
"Burden of Proof, lol, you do realise this is YouTube ? It, kind of, doesn't work like that, sorry"
Sure it does. Your claims can be challenged and exposed as unfounded no matter where they are uttered.
"I don't feel any burden at all,"
Just like with transgenderism and being a man, you don't have to "feel" that x is true for x to be true.
"in fact, if anything it's been quite enjoyable."
Obviously, this isn't what the word "burden" in "burden of proof" means. But yes, I enjoy it as well!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@hanswurst2765 "you do know the concept of adulthood is highly subjective in different societies and cultures?"
Sure, but A. that's not the point of contention (the male-female distinction is).
and B. even then no one is saying anywhere that an adult is "someone who identifies as an adult"
"How does that fit in your worldview of OBJECTIVE workable definitions?"
Quite easily, because by "objective definition" I only mean definitions that refer to some objective (not universal) standard. These definitions can certainly differ, but they all refer to some objective reality or another.
"Also, so instead of "a woman is someone who identifies as woman" I could say "a woman is someone who identifies as an adault human female" and that would be fine to you, right? I mean, its not circular..."
That might get around the problem of circularity, sure, but then what is a "female"? If it's someone who identifies as a woman, we're back to square one. The definition would need to be objective and workable for me to take it seriously though, yes.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@nikhtzatzi "would you honestly respect my answer, as a conservative trans person?"
Maybe, maybe not. But even if I disagree with your answer or what you believe, it wouldn't mean that I'm disrespecting you as a person.
"i struggle with gender dysphoria and i chose to act upon it. not to turn to a woman, but to be something that at least i can tolarete to live in. this is one issue, what is projected , it is what traditionally is called *femininity" so the medical community, to make ppl feel better, as in being in a real human groyp , they say to the trans human "ok, you are becoming the prefered gender""
So far I generally agree, depending on what you mean by "being something I can at least tolerate to live in". I'm fine with people rejecting gender roles and norms for the most part. I don't think one should misrepresent themselves as something they're not, but they don't have to fall in line with all of the expectations placed on men and women either.
"obviously this is not an experienced fact, and mature trans, we know that. now , this as in issue, being true, that biology and intervention arent the same, doesnt at all mean , that this projected, evident feminine element should be belittled , treating hostile against as, saying "you are a man", "be a man" after a person's hormonal change,"
It depends. I don't think those of us who reject transgenderism should go up to people unprovoked and tell them they're wrong about something. But if the trans person is demanding that people change how they talk, act, run their business, etc., it's fine for them to defend just why they're refusing to do so.
"as it is already hard, and there is no turning back. so, understanding- i dont want- but toleration , resembling at least the minimum of respect, that would make things easier,"
That's fair enough. But again, it depends on where you draw the line. Everyone has a different opinion as to what is/isn't disrespect.
"and trans ppl less aggresive towards conservative values. because an opinion difference is different than erasing the evident existence and inclinations of another thinking indivintual."
Not sure I follow. But sometimes there are facts and logic to be considered. Not everything is mere opinion or else erasing/denying someone's existence or experiences.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Taxation is definitely theft. And I'm not saying that every form of stealing is automatically unjustified (if I steal a burglar's gun before he can shoot me with it, that's okay). But it is quite literally stealing when they take our money by force. We need to at least come to terms with that fact first.
People who say "The federal gov't can print out money, so there's no way it "stole from itself"" must think the pieces of paper themselves have the value they represent. No. What happens is that the government takes it (not the pieces of paper but what they can be used for) from us and then spends it how they see fit. And we think that we have some way of monitoring them but we really don't; we're trusting the government to regulate the government, which is beyond naive.
I've also heard people say, ""If you CHOOSE to make an income and then not pay back into the tax-funded economic infrastructure that allowed you to be so monetarily gainful in the first place, then YOU are stealing from that said infrastructure's upkeep."
Which is nonsense. I didn't force anyone to build the roads or provide any of the things I used (most of which I was forced by law to use in the first place), nor did I agree to pay them for such a "service". So I'm not stealing anything, not even a service. At best I'm guilty of not returning some sort of favor that someone did for me willingly, but the lesson to be learned is theirs: Don't do someone a favor expecting a favor in return if you haven't even gotten a promise from them that they'll pay you back!
Anyway, it seems to me they're arguing that since the previously stolen money helped me in some way, I should have no problem with my own money being stolen, but that just doesn't follow.
As for "choosing to make an income", I have to survive. I'm only choosing to earn income in the sense that I don't want to steal (neither by robbing a bank nor by taking someone else's money because I don't want to work for my own).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@bibulousape "As such, I can't really say I care whether there is an objective standard for working out a person's gender"
Well I must commend you for being honest about that. Still, if there is no objective standard by which someone is a man or woman on your worldview, this does away with the notion of "misgendering" or "affirming" (in that sense). It's logically impossible for anyone to be correct or incorrect in using terms that have no objective standard. So where does our moral obligation to call anyone a man or woman come from?
"and yet it's still an objective fact that people with gender identities exist."
If you mean that it's an objective fact that people who identify as different genders exist, sure, they exist. So do people who think the Earth is flat, people who think they're some celebrity they aren't, etc. What we want to know is how to respond to these people, not just if they exist.
"Cis people (and for the record I am cis) are seldom expected to question the source of their gender identity,"
Because those of us who reject transgenderism can provide objective, workable definitions for terms like "man" or "woman", and we refer to those when it's time to "identify" as one or the other.
"and there's this built-in fallback of saying "I'm this gender because of my sex" which is difficult to challenge since we can only rely on self-reporting for that."
No, that's not the reason it's difficult to challenge. The reason you can't challenge it is that you don't even have a workable concept of "gender" to begin with. You can't establish for sure what anyone's gender is, ever, until you figure out exactly what gender is first.
"we have a century of modern science supporting the fact that allowing someone to live as the gender they identify with produces better outcomes than forcing them to live the gender typically correlated with their genitals at birth."
A. That people are happier (at least temporarily) living however they want to live is not news. But it also doesn't follow that these same people couldn't be just as happy if they change their perspective and reject this incoherent worldview from the start.
and B. You still haven't told us what you mean by "gender", let alone "living as a gender". So it's impossible to establish your claim as fact just yet.
4
-
@bibulousape "we know conversion therapy does not work and we know it causes harm."
Depends on what the "conversion therapy" entails. But I'd say it's always going to be better to prevent someone from subscribing to this incoherent worldview in the first place, than to wait until after and then try to "convert" them away from it. For example, most cases of gender dysphoria in children don't even last into adulthood (Cohen-Kettenis; Drummond, Bradley, Peterson-Badali & Zucker).
I'd also ask, if it's true that the only hope for these folks is to play along with their worldview, where are all the cases of self-unalivings throughout history when we were far less accepting of it than we are today? Seems to me there would be a massive record of those until more recent times, if that claim were true.
"The overwhelming scientific consensus is that gender affirming care-"
Until these so-called scientists can define their terms in an objective, workable way, I've no reason to consider them experts on this and neither do you. But I will reiterate that it isn't news that people are happier (at least for a time) when you let them do whatever they want.
"With regards to B, you're simply incorrect."
What have I said that's incorrect?
"Things that exist exist, regardless of our ability to provide a perfect definition for them."
Again, no one's disputing that these people exist. I'm pointing out that their beliefs are incoherent.
"Trans people exist. Intersex people exist. Gender identity exists."
Yeah, intersex conditions are irrelevant to the topic, and see my above statement for the others.
"You claim to have simple, objective definitions for man and woman."
I didn't claim they were simple, but they are objective and unworkable unlike the definitions offered by those who've subscribed to your worldview (including the "experts"). A man is an adult human male, with "male" being someone whose body developed largely toward the function of impregnating women. A woman is an adult human female, with "female" being someone whose body developed largely toward the function of bearing children. These would include those who due to aging, defects, injury, etc. cannot actually fulfill their reproductive functions.
"If these definitions account for transgender and intersex people, then I'm eager to learn."
They account for so-called "intersex" people, as a few abnormalities do not somehow make you a new sex aka gender. They obviously don't include "trans women" as women or "trans men" as men, because modern gender theory (e.g., transgenderism) is an incoherent worldview.
"If they don't, then those definitions are insufficient. Defining a man as "a two-dimensional closed shape with 4 equal sides and 4 vertices" would be a simple and objective definition, but it definitely wouldn't be a good definition."
Agreed. Yet it would still give us more information about what a man is, than the definition offered on your side.
"I would really like to know what kind of social interaction you've experienced or are imagining where someone self identifying as a particular gender has caused harm?"
The subscription to a worldview that makes no logical sense is itself harm enough. But beyond that, there is also a persistent belief that disagreement with these beliefs = hate or phobia. I suspect a fair amount of harm is being done by that as well; after all, if you believe tons of people hate you, that could contribute to suicidal thoughts.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Destroyer754 "exactly, why distinguish?
I don’t claim there is no difference."
Then why not let our language reflect the fact that there are differences?
"There is difference between XX bodies and XY bodies. I say that socially constructing the difference as man or woman is not objective."
Again, that's incoherent. We're not socially constructing the difference, that's objectively real and consequential. We may have socially constructed the words used to describe the differences, but again, why wouldn't we do that for this when we're perfectly fine doing that for everything else?
"There is no man or woman,"
Well then now you're just going to fly in the face of everyone, INCLUDING trans people. Because they will tell you very clearly "I'm a man" or "I'm a woman".
So we can't even make sense of catering to trans folks here; why should the whole world cater to you, making up an even tinier percentage of the population, who doesn't even believe that men and women exist?
"An objective definition of words? I just gave you."
No you didn't. You essentially said that a man is someone who identifies as and/or is accepted as a man. That's a completely subjective basis.
"Gender is subjective,"
No, gender itself is objective. It's interchangeable with the word "sex". This is why those roles we're expected to play solely on the basis of our biological sex, are called "gender roles" to begin with.
"Your body is XY or XX. That is all."
Nonsense. It is also full-grown, and human. Which makes me a man, as opposed to a male human who is not yet grown (aka a boy).
"Anything else, be it woman man Apache helicopter is your subjective opinion and your society’s concepts."
Well I'm surprised to hear you admit the comparison to someone identifying as an Apache helicopter is valid. But I don't think that's going to help the trans agenda at all.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@MotoCat91 Ok, so you've dropped your point about it taking more effort to go against transgenderism; dodged the question about why this isn't applied to other people saying they identify as different races, ages, or even species; and passed on trying to define "man" and "woman" yourself.
Incidentally, I did skim through the link you provided and it seems to be concentrated on nothing but defending surgery, hormone therapy, etc. as a means of treating the dysphoria. It does absolutely nothing toward making transgenderism itself more coherent or explaining why its central principle is so inconsistently applied.
But there was one "myth" I noticed was tackled with links that didn't actually address the "myth". This being "Myth #4: There is no need to transition". Notice that none of the links actually show that transition was needed, they only gave ways that it had been helpful.
Now, according to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, gender dysphoria in childhood does not inevitably continue into adulthood, and only 6 to 23 percent of boys and 12 to 27 percent of girls treated in gender clinics showed persistence of their gender dysphoria into adulthood.
Given that fact, it would seem that "transitioning" really isn't needed for most (and note that this research is more recent than the studies they posted trying to suggest otherwise).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25231780
And of course, that isn't the only instance of findings varying on this subject. According to one study, the suicide rate for transgendered people is very high (compared to those who are not transgender) even when you just look at those who undergo sex reassignment surgery. These people are still at least 18 times more likely to commit or attempt suicide.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@gracco9960 "If she says, she is a woman, then, she is a woman."
Doesn't logically follow, no. Or at least, if you're admitting there is no objective definition of "woman" on your worldview, then you can't simultaneously hold that I'm incorrect in calling them a man instead. You can only be correct or incorrect regarding terms with objective definitions.
"the patriarchal system and the old paradigms have seen their days,"
Maybe, maybe not, but it's completely irrelevant to the incoherence of transgenderism.
"live and let live."
And you're actually being a bit of a hypocrite here, trying to criticize me. You're not even following your own principle of "live and let live", so why should I?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
So typically, those who subscribe to modern gender theory (e.g., transgenderism) will explain their view of "gender" in one of two ways, both of them unworkable:
1. The "experts" we're supposed to defer to, give definitions like "the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for different genders". This is clearly confusing gender roles and norms with gender itself, but supposing we went with that definition, it would cause a more fundamental problem. It would mean that anyone who identified as a woman but rejected those socially constructed expectations would be wrong about their own gender, which is a big no-no for any trans "ally" to suggest.
or 2. They will say that a person is whatever gender they identify as. Neverminding that this isn't even a definition of "gender" for a moment, it's circular reasoning. And if someone is "identifying as a woman", we still have no idea what they are identifying as. Nor do they, apparently. "Woman" seems to be a meaningless label, on their worldview, same for "man", except they still want to be treated differently on the basis of this ostensibly meaningless label. Incoherent from that angle too.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Leafsdude "Identity can be based on a belief."
No, as I said, it is a belief. Your self-identity is literally what you believe yourself to be.
"It also can be based on a feeling, or an idea."
Idea would be the same as a belief. And the notion of "feeling like" a man or woman is incoherent too, as none of us have a basis for that comparison. We've each only been just the one gender, so we'd have no way of knowing the difference between "feeling like" a man vs. "feeling like" a woman, or indeed if there is such a difference at all.
"It's still an identity, which is not "the gender you believe yourself to be", it is "the distinguishing character or personality of an individual"."
Not at all. You can have any given character or personality you want, but you'll only be trans if you believe your gender is different from your sex. Just as you can experience gender dysphoria yet not be trans unless you believe your gender and sex are different.
So can you give an objective, workable definition for "gender", "man" or "woman", or can you not?
4
-
@Leafsdude "And the notion of "feeling like" a man or woman is incoherent too, as none of us have a basis for that comparison."
You mean you have no basis for that comparison."
No, I mean that none of us have that basis. Are you telling me that "trans women" know what it feels like to be men and women both?
""We've each only been just the one gender"
You mean you have only just been the one gender."
If you're claiming here that some people are both genders, then they should be able to "live as" the gender that matches their biology. Problem solved. Otherwise, I'm still waiting for you to explain what makes "I'm a woman" a correct statement. I'm still waiting for you to give an objective, workable definition for "man", "woman" or "gender".
"Not at all. You can have any given character or personality you want, but you'll only be trans if you believe your gender is different from your sex."
Or feel. Or have the idea. And that can be their personality or character."
So what personality or character traits make someone a woman then?
"Again: not an "objective" one."
Okay then, so no one is really a man or woman, on your worldview. They subjectively identify as a man or woman, but they're not. So why should thinking people take that seriously?
""Gender" is, primarily, how one identifies themselves in consideration for social norms and how their behaviour and characteristics fit them."
So in order to be a woman you have to want the expectations of the gender roles and norms applied to women?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"an adult who lives and identifies as female"
So this definition is typically disingenuous, because when I ask about what it means to "live as" female I'm never given a clear answer as to what that must entail. Feel free to give one though, if you're a different case. For now I'll move on to what I think is a more intellectually honest answer...
"someone who says theyre a woman"
The problem with this one is circular reasoning. How are we defining "woman" in that definition? If it's the same meaning as the term to be defined, then we can replace "woman" in that definition with "someone who says they're a woman", and just keep doing that until we end up with:
"woman - someone who says they're someone who says they're someone who says they're..." on into infinity.
But perhaps you just mean someone who wants to use the label of "woman"? That definition would avoid the circularity problem but then makes the word ultimately meaningless. It's literally just an utterance with no meaning, like a proper noun (e.g., David or Wal-Mart). And as an empty label, it doesn't do anything to morally obligate others into letting these "women" into certain restrooms, locker rooms, sports or prisons, etc. which is what "transwomen", for example, tend to want. A certain kind of treatment from society requires more than just a meaningless label.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
"Who needs Christ during Christmas?" As an atheist, let me just say... ME! Why? Because it's the sameyness of Christmas that I look forward to every year. That includes things like religious Christmas carols and nativity scenes (though I don't think truly religious aspects of the holiday should be on publicly funded land), I like it all! See, I'm not concerned with what's religious and what isn't when I'm just out there looking for a little fun. I consider it a very unhealthy way to live my life! And this is why I can't stand organizations like these, who claim to represent me and really only represent anti-theists and attention whores.
Christians come to thinking we're all idiots because of groups like 'American Atheists', the Freedom From Religion Foundation, etc., and frankly I'm pretty sick of it.
Glen Beck to the AA: "It's not necessary. It speaks volumes on who you are. You're not somebody who can coexist with others. You're not." Never thought I'd say this in a million years, but Glen Beck gets it right in this simple quote. These people are intolerant assholes, simple as that.
And this idiot giving commentary might like to think he can justify what one intolerant group of assholes is doing by pointing to another group of assholes, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way. These people, like all others, should be held accountable for their idiocy. No excuses.
"Atheists just try to say, 'Well how bout you let EVERYBODY have a say'"
That's not the message on the sign being discussed and you know it.
The Christian billboard saying "Thank god you're wrong" was in retaliation to another stupid billboard that an atheist organization put up first. Kind of illustrates my point, thanks for bringing it up.
"They can't beat us because we're right. Nobody knows if there is a god or isn't a god"
The American Atheists themselves (the group you're defending) would disagree with you there. They put up billboards ALL THE TIME saying there is no god, it's all a myth, etc. But I gotta give you credit for irony. You misrepresent a group that misrepresents you, lol.
"So we're the ones who are honest."
You're talking of agnosticism still, and I feel I must inform you that this isn't exclusive to atheism. Theists are every bit as likely to admit they do not know for sure if there is a god, just like some atheists (such as the ones you're defending) are very likely to pretend they DO know. You really should do better research on the people you throw your lot in with, because here you just come off as an ignorant defender of hate and intolerance.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@erinmylungs8711 "I dont know if i would call transgenderism a worldview,"
Well the belief that you are x because you identify as x certainly is, and that seems to be the basis for transgenderism.
"Me for example, i wonder what makes me feel like im a girl and i cant answer it."
It could just be a delusion. People have them all the time.
"I know im male,"
And then are you an adult? Because a man is simply an adult male.
"but for some reason on almost a daily bases my brain tormented me with thoughts of being a girl"
What did these thoughts entail, exactly?
"and when I gave into it, it went away and in a way, my life began that day."
But surely you must realize that any person with a delusion would feel the same way. Even people that you would agree are delusional, they would tell you, "You don't know what it feels like", "You don't understand", and "This makes me happy". So where do we draw the line? I'm curious.
"I dont spend anytime thinking im a boy,"
Well neither do I. But I'm a boy (well, a man) regardless. And that's another part of the issue here. How do you even know what "feeling like a boy" feels like vs. "feeling like a girl"? Since you haven't been both, how do you know there's a difference at all? I know I don't ever "feel like" a man, I simply know that I am due to biology, and move on with my life.
"but i agree that gender roles and self identification should not be a way of determaining who is and isnt transgender."
Well then we really have no way of establishing it. Because the trans movement already tried the "brain studies" angle. The problem with that was two-fold:
1. Even people we all would agree have a men tal dis order have differences in their brain sizes and shapes. We don't conclude that therefore their beliefs are valid; at best, we refer to that as an explanation as to why they have the beliefs.
and 2. We all know that even a biological male who identifies as a woman but doesn't have a "female brain" would be called and treated as a woman regardless. So it really is all about how the person identifies.
But it only applies to gender, as I said. If you're a white man who identifies as black, these same people will be quick to tell you "You're just a crazy white dude", lol. So no consistency here at all.
"Its a moral challenge that faces the world really, how do you help something that has very little evidence to support it? I just hope proper research continues and people like Dr Soh in the video keep pushing back against any activism discouraging it."
I guess. But even Rogan and Dr. Soh are not going to be willing to consider that transgenderism itself could be invalid, because they don't want to be "transphobic".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@arthurwise5178 "Do you believe it is wrong for a person to not behave according to their gender roles?"
No, I think gender roles should be mostly disregarded. That being said, the way you dress and present yourself should adhere to the virtue of honesty, especially if you are dating, competing in sports, etc.
So if a man wants to be a "mother" (I had one trans person share his story with me and this is where his views on the subject originated), he should feel free to do all things traditionally deemed the "mother's role" without coming to believe that he's a woman. You can be sensitive, nurturing, into grooming (not the Biden kind, mind you), wanting to teach your child a lot about cooking, all the things we normally think of when we think of what mothers are "supposed to do" while still being a man.
3
-
3
-
@MrMacbridemax "Gender" has always been understood as interchangeable with "sex". As I said in the original comment, there's a reason why the roles we're expected to play solely on the basis of our biological sex, are called "gender roles". We don't say that someone is not conforming to gender; we say that they're not conforming to gender roles and norms, because gender (aka biological sex) is what the roles and norms are based on.
At any rate, it's far more important to acknowledge the incoherence and inconsistency of transgenderism as a worldview. In addition to confusing the inclination/disinclination to adhere to gender norms and roles with gender itself, it requires a person to say they "know" they're the opposite gender because they can just "feel" it. Problem there being, no one can say they "feel like" one gender as opposed to another because we have no basis for comparison. Each of us has only been one gender or the other. So for all we know, the two "feel" the exact same or there is no such feeling at all.
And of course we don't obligate others to call people what they "identify" as in any other case. If a white man identifies as black, tough, he's white. If a child identifies as an adult, tough, she's a child. But if a man identifies as a woman, we must all call him and treat him as one...
3
-
@MrMacbridemax Okay, so the dictionary definition (likely updated within the last few years) seems to be contradictory. The two sexes is a reference to biology, so it makes no sense to say that "gender" is either of the two sexes especially when referring to something other than biological differences.
"The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
Which is a whole other problem, in which people seem to be trying to redefine "gender" to include just any personality difference they can think of.
"I don't see that transgenderism as you call it has to be a worldview, even if it can be extrapolated to one."
It is a belief or lifestyle structured around the belief that you are what you identify as. And it shapes everything you do, so I think "worldview" is about right.
"Essentially it's a question of personal identity,"
And how do you define that?
"and if someone doesn't feel the gender, or sex, they were born, they have my full sympathy"
They have mine too, but only because they actually believe that gender is something you "feel" or "identify" as, rather than something you simply are.
"You say we don't have any basis for comparison as to what the different gender roles 'feel' like."
No, I said we don't have any basis for comparison between the genders. And that simply can't be argued. Even biological men who insist that they've always been a girl/woman are testifying that they don't know what being a man "feels like".
"I disagree. I think it's clear in the way society perceives and treats men and women that there are differences,"
I'm not saying there aren't differences between men and women; I'm challenging the claim that there is some internal "feeling" associated with one that can help us distinguish it from another.
"To me, the interesting tension at the heart of the transgender debate is that gender roles must be at once broken down and reinforced. They must be broken down in order to make the case that anyone can identify as anything because these roles are socially constructed, but they must also be reinforced, as otherwise what is anyone transitioning to, from?"
A very good point. And of course, it hasn't escaped everyone's notice that one of the most common things for a biological man who identifies as a woman to do, is adhere to feminine stereotypes to the point of sexism (if we acknowledge the fact that they're actually men).
3
-
@MrMacbridemax "In your original post you make the point that gender roles are constructed, whereas sex is not. Which is both blindingly obvious and sadly necessary to state in these discussions. However, you seem to be of the view that how someone identifies is immaterial, and should be superceded by the biological facts. You say: 'gender isn't simply something you feel, it's something you are'."
Yes, I'm saying gender and sex are one and the same, and they're biological facts upon which social constructs like gender roles and norms are based on.
"But if you mean gender roles aren't something you can 'feel', then I strongly disagree."
I'm not sure just how one would "feel" gender roles, but they can definitely feel self-conscious that they are/aren't adhering to gender roles and norms. They can definitely be of the persuasion that they should/shouldn't act a certain way because of their gender, but apart from that I'm not sure what you're asking.
"For me, while I think it's important not to lose sight of the biological facts, I also think that our ideas of masculinity, feminity, 'male', 'female' and so on are very messy and complicated."
Sure.
"As is identity in general. Gender identities are constructed, complicated, based partly on biological realities, and partly on societal evolutions that continue to evolve."
Depends on how you define "gender identity". But if it's your understanding of your own gender, that has nothing to do with society.
"Yes there are inconsistencies and flawed logic all over the place, but that is the result of the messy roles and boxes that society creates,"
How so?
"rather than evidence that trans people who identify differently than their biological sex are missguided or just plain 'wrong'."
If they are a grown male adult human being identifying as a woman, then they're incorrect about that. This is not to say that they're horrible people, should be treated poorly, etc. But they have subscribed to an incoherent and inconsistent worldview as I've been explaining.
3
-
@MrMacbridemax "They haven't subscribed to a worldview."
If they believe that you're x because you identify as x, that's a worldview. It's just not a very coherent one, and as I say, it's inconsistently applied.
"They haven't made a choice mostly, it's like sexuality."
You can have a worldview regarding these things too. But the choice is in how to interpret the fact that you have feelings, interests, personality traits, etc. more stereotypical of the opposite gender. Some people take that for what it is; others conclude on that basis that they must be the opposite gender.
"They don't identify with the gender role that they are expected to perform based on their biological sex."
Which is just another way of saying they don't adhere to gender roles and norms; like I said, it's a matter of confusing that disinclination with gender itself.
"They feel out of place in their body. It must be a terrible thing."
Granted. But that doesn't lend any validity to the view they've adopted.
"It's not a political stance.
"
Nor am I saying it is.
"My point is that identifying as a 'man' or 'woman' is more than just what genitalia you have."
Not for most of us, unless we're to equivocate on "man" or "woman". I might say, for instance, that I don't feel like a man if some guy half my size beats me up. But I don't literally mean I feel like another gender.
"But the crux of the issue is that they feel a different way than society expects of them based on gender norms."
That's not the issue at all. Tons of people feel different from how society expects them to feel, act, think, etc. based on gender norms, without concluding that they must not be that gender.
"If someone says, 'I am born a man but feel more like a woman and want to live my life as such' would you take issue with that?"
Yes, because it's also incoherent. We have no basis for comparison, as I said, so there's no way of knowing what difference (if any) there is between "feeling like a man" and "feeling like a woman". We don't even really know that there is such a feeling.
But also, it would be far better to just live as you want without calling it "living as a woman" altogether.
3
-
@MrMacbridemax "Some things are empirically self-evident in their existence. E.g. a car is clearly a car."
Right, but not because it identifies as one...
"Other things are more complex, like, I would say, gender roles,"
Again, gender roles and norms are not the same as gender. And even granting that what determines someone's gender is complex (as in intersex people), it doesn't follow from that that how we identify has any bearing whatsoever.
"and self-perception is relevant in definition."
Not if you mean to say that how you perceive yourself determines what gender you are.
"A very small minority find this disconnect in their identity so intolerable that they are compelled to live their lives by identifying fully as the other sex."
And again, the "living as the other sex" part is what's entirely unnecessary. No one's saying you can't live however you like, but you don't have to consider it "living as" a gender you're not. No, not even if it flies in the face of gender roles and norms.
I am glad to know you draw the line somewhere, however. I just don't think it will be enough to ward off what they're pushing. I mean, there's really no reason not to grant that sex is "changeable" or "doesn't exist" once you've done something similar with gender.
And as I keep saying, if what obligates me to call a man a woman is their "identifying" as such, then all bets are off. It can obligate us to call a white man black, to call a child an adult, on into eternity.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dariocarraresi1823 Nothing I said was false, but if you want thinking individuals to believe I lied you need to be able to show where exactly.
"He repeatedly confuses gender in sociology, gender identities, and gender roles/norms."
Actually, I define "gender" the same way we define "biological sex". I reject equating gender itself with people's self-identifications and the roles/norms they choose to follow. So if anyone's lying here, it's you, because that's the exact opposite of my position (and we've conversed before, so you knew that).
"He has inconsistent rules for which definitions are "workable" and which aren't"
Not at all, but let's take a look at the issue you have with my stance...
"he demands that gender identities - which, by definition, are subjective -"
I've made no demands as to how "gender identity" should be defined. I only ask, what is gender itself. For example, I can identify as a kangaroo, and you can't tell me that that isn't my species identity (the way I identify depends on what I choose to think, after all, that's the subjective part). But you can tell me that that isn't my species itself. Same with gender. I can grant that someone's gender identity is "woman" while pointing out that their actual gender is man.
"must have objective and rigid definitions"
Yes. In order for anyone to be correct/incorrect in their use of a word, there must be some objective standard by which they're correct or incorrect. To think you could cross a line from correct to incorrect (or from incorrect to correct for that matter) without there even being a line is incoherent.
"And he depicts all criticisms as irrational hatred."
Oh not at all. Again, I'm opposing the view that criticism = hate. But plenty of trans people and trans advocates will accuse you of hating them based solely on your disagreement or criticism of their worldview.
3
-
3
-
@TheMarsCydonia "Those of you who reject the existence of transgender individuals-"
I don't reject or deny the existence of people who believe their gender is somehow different from their sex; I reject their beliefs. You really need to learn the difference and steel-man my position, if you're ever going to defeat it.
"Again, you claim existence of transgender individuals is an "incoherent worldview". You have failed to back up this for over 30 comments."
I don't claim their existence is an incoherent worldview; I claim their worldview is incoherent. Their beliefs are incoherent, and I explained why in the original post here. You haven't been able to refute any of those statements thus far.
"You could not even back up your claim that the APA's definition, which I have no issue is, is not workable beyond that you feel it's a synonym for "gender roles""
While I did point out that their definition confuses gender itself with gender roles and norms, I also went on to show how it doesn't work with transgenderism. Namely, it would mean that someone who did not adhere to the expectations society has for women wouldn't be a woman, even if they identified as such.
Now that that's cleared up, can you define "man", "woman" or "gender" yet?
3
-
@dariocarraresi1823 ME: "Actually, I define "gender" the same way we define "biological sex". I reject equating gender itself with people's self-identifications and the roles/norms they choose to follow."
YOU: "Case in point."
Well, quite. I don't confuse gender itself with gender identity and gender roles/norms (as you claimed I did), because I'm opposing that confusion of these things very clearly. My very first comment here was bemoaning the fact that others do this.
"there hasn't been one single trans person or pro-trans activist who ever, EVER confused biological sex with gender roles/norms."
Correct, but they do at times confuse gender with gender roles and norms (because they believe gender and sex are different things). I believe gender and sex are one and the same, which is why I don't confuse gender with gender roles/norms.
"So either you falsely accused modern gender theory"
Which is not the case; I even gave the example of the APA's definition, quoting them doing exactly that.
"or, when you said "gender", you were NOT referring to biological sex"
When describing how someone else interprets "gender", I let it be known that they believe it means something different than biological sex. When I refer to gender, I'm talking about biological sex.
"you were referring to something else. Like, oh, I don't know, gender identities."
Sometimes they define "gender" in that circular fashion too, yes. But not always. I was addressing both unworkable angles at defining "gender".
ME: "I only ask, what is gender itself."
YOU: "I gave you three different definitions:"
Okay, let's take a look at them.
"1) The cultural beliefs that a society has about sex, sexuality, masculinity and feminity. This includes its tendency to divide people into different cultural categories based on those lines."
As I recall, I pointed out to you that this definition wouldn't be workable with transgenderism, because trans people and trans advocates clearly believe that it's the individual who determines their own gender (not society). So for example, if all of society insisted that Pat was a man, they would say Pat is a woman if Pat identifies as such. Do you not agree? Are you saying that Pat in this scenario is wrong about their own gender?
"2) The aforementioned cultural categories/labels."
Sounds like you're just referencing the first definition, not really giving a second. At any rate, same rebuttal would adequately address this one.
"3) Shorthand for "gender identity","
Which would conflict with the first two definitions in the event a person identifies as something their surrounding society/culture disagrees with. So what do you really believe? Which of the two (the person's self-identification or society's identification of them) actually determines a person's gender?
"aka the category/label (see definition 1) that an individual picks because they believe it best describes their personal relationship with their own sex/sexuality/masculinity/femininity."
On what basis would they believe that? It sounds like you're saying "Whatever label they like best", which would just make "man" and "woman" completely meaningless words. And can a person ever be wrong about their own gender (as allowed by the first definition you gave) or can they never be wrong about it (as per the circular reasoning you promote in the third definition)?
"Every time you mention "gender" in this thread, you must specify EXACTLY which definition you are using."
Well no, I don't have to do that, but I can give my definition to you again, sure. My definition of "gender" is "biological sex". But of course, when we're discussing your worldview, I'll be pointing out issues with your concept of "gender" instead.
ME: "Yes. In order for anyone to be correct/incorrect in their use of a word, there must be some objective standard by which they're correct or incorrect."
YOU: "Give me an objective definition for "beautiful"."
I don't believe there is a correct or incorrect use of that word, so no objective standard is needed. It wouldn't be incoherent to say "I see it differently/I like that even if you don't" but it would be incoherent to say "You're wrong, even though there's no right or wrong".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@MsM1975 "A real Politician?"
Yes, people need to make up their minds if they want a politician who's just going to say what he thinks or one that's gonna be fake.
"This was Trump's first Political job, you can't run a Country the same as a TV show or business"
Actually, much of the job of president is like running a business. And IIRC Trump studied Economics which was reflected in his policies and that's why they tended to work.
"I saw children at his rallies-"
Okay?
"he's not Presidential- that first debate? Terrible behavior-"
Yeah, again, I'm not worried about whether he plays nice with the other politicians. Especially those who want to call him a xenophobe for implementing travel bans (and then of course do the same exact thing themselves once they're in office).
"the last election young people were involved, if they see the President of the United States acting a fool, they will think it's ok-"
Lol, if your kid is watching politics to determine how to treat people, you need to step in and stop letting strangers on TV raise them for you.
"what do you do, tell them to look away?"
Depends. But most of the time these are teaching opportunities. You don't shield your kid away from everything (depending on age), you talk to them about what is/isn't acceptable behavior. Again, you raise them, not the politicians.
And you'd do well to be more mindful of the "cool" people on TV, if anyone. Your singers, actors, etc. I always laugh when people wanna talk about Trump's behavior in light of "the children", then say absolutely nothing about Cardi B.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@greyjedi1272 "she was wrong about him when she brought up race,"
No, just incomplete. Lieu was counting on everybody being stupid, including her primary target audience (blacks).
"she was wrong when she said the south strategy was a myth."
Again, that depends on definition. If it's just that some politicians were appealing to racist voters, sure. But it wasn't, as typically presented, near enough to use in some verdict against the Republican Party in general. Especially not compared to all the facts regarding the Democratic Party, of which she only scratched the surface there in congress.
So no, I don't think she was wrong, much less intentionally wrong (which is what "dishonest" would entail).
"and it’s clear she is just playing for a team."
It's the word "just" I find suspicious here. She has a set of views and she works for an organization that shares those views. That organization pays her for her services. Again, where's the scandal?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@r-platt No, it's still a big deal even if only ten children are mutilated and we don't say anything about it. And my point was just that the narrative "Children aren't being operated on" is false.
ME: "that definition must be an objective one, referring to some objective reality outside of feelings."
YOU: "That is a ridiculous artificial limit."
No, it's a necessary limit. Again, if you're admitting that you don't have an objective definition for terms like "man" or "woman", then it's logically impossible for anyone to be correct or incorrect while using these terms according to your very own worldview. So from where does the obligation to call men women and vice versa come?
ME: "the problem with [Woman: a person with the qualities traditionally associated with females] is that it would make men (who identify as men) with qualities traditionally associated with females a woman."
YOU: "Ah, but the selection of qualities and their measure is subjective."
So this has the same issue I already highlighted, if you're admitting there's no objective truth to any "This is a man" or "That is a woman" statements.
"You want to limit the discussion to physical traits"
It could in theory be any collection of traits, but if you're going to present it as a definition whereby we can determine who is/isn't a woman, you should be able to apply it consistently, which you're not willing to do.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@christinemusselman5499 "Someone to look up to" as some kind of moral leader is not the president's role. I know people have been literally calling Bernie Sanders "daddy", but that doesn't mean that's how we should look at the president, no.
But members of all classes have benefited from Trump's economy. Record-low unemployment for blacks and latinos, over 7 million jobs provided overall. Average weekly paychecks are up 2.8%. The poverty rate and food stamp rolls declined. Real median household income (that's the amount earned by those in the very middle) hit $65,084 (in 2019 dollars) for the 12 months ending in July, which is the highest level ever and a gain of $4,144, or 6.8%, since he took office. There's more, but you get the idea.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/trumps-numbers-october-2019-update/
https://www.atr.org/thanks-trump-median-household-income-highest-level-ever
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/american-workers-thriving-thanks-president-donald-j-trumps-middle-class-tax-cuts/
Also, good luck in general finding an honest politician to vote for.
And really think about what you said at the end there, because it's important. You would rather someone who does a worse job, but talks a better game, be president.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@babs_babs "they’re identifying as the gender most associated with females and femininity."
Okay, but how? Like I said, when they identify as a "woman" for example, what exactly are they thinking about themselves there?
"when someone identifies as a woman, they’re either identifying with females,"
Identifying with or identifying as females? That distinction matters, because "identifying with" someone just means you have something in common with them.
"or they’re identifying with more social aspects of womanhood, or both. depends on the person."
Ah, but if they neither identify as a biological female nor identify with the social aspects of womanhood (e.g., they want to behave in ways typically expected of men), while identifying as women, are they wrong about their own gender, or not?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dariocarraresi1823 "So by your logic, anyone whose body didn't develop correctly and therefore can't produce ova-"
If their body developed primarily toward that purpose, they're female. As I said, this includes those who, due to aging, defects, etc. can't actually produce ova. If their body developed along that pathway, they're a female. In the same way an ear is an ear even if it's incapable of hearing.
"the rule is objective,"
Right, the definition I gave is objective because it refers to an objective reality as opposed to referring to someone's opinion (e.g., a woman is someone who identifies as a woman, a bobcat is someone who identifies as a bobcat, etc.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dariocarraresi1823 "So, by your logic, all psychological diagnoses are useless. They're based on the doctor's opinion"
Lol, if the doctor's opinion wasn't based on some objective reality (e.g., if the doctor diagnosed someone as having cancer because they identified as having it), yes, it'd be useless. But instead, doctors observe objective reality and on that basis give their opinions.
"Likewise, nobody can say that someone is sad, or happy, or angry."
Sure we can. You're talking of feelings now, which are in fact objectively measurable and we can question people's claims regarding how they feel. But note that there is a difference between saying you feel a particular emotion and whatever interpretation you might have of said feeling.
3
-
3
-
@dariocarraresi1823 "Feelings are objectively measurable HOW?"
Brain activity. You can actually measure positive emotions and negative emotions by observing the brain. And people will also question those who claim to be happy, for example, if their face looks like they're really quite sad. Again, we don't just go with whatever a person claims about themselves if we've been given good reason to question it.
"Do YOU measure them before saying that someone is "happy","
We go by the information we have in the moment, same as with gender. But notice: even if I go along with someone in saying they're happy, it still doesn't mean they are. Again, same with gender.
"or do you base your opinion entirely on subjective observation?"
I base my opinion on observation of objective reality, same as most people.
"Diagnosing a psychological issue isn't like detecting the presence of a cancer; a cancer is a physical thing, a psychological issue is entirely mental."
Sure, but even then, a trained psychologist will look at objective reality in making their diagnosis. More is needed than a simple self-identification, is the point.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dariocarraresi1823 "Gender identity is also made of brain activity,"
So we can confirm that the belief is there, sure. But what makes the belief correct? With happiness, it's easy. The feeling itself is the claim (If you feel happy, you're happy). But gender identity isn't an emotion you feel, it's a belief you have about yourself.
"Likewise, you demand that we must use "objective reality" to determine people's gender identity."
Wrong. I'm pointing out that a person could identify as something they're not across the board. And in order to establish that someone with the gender identity of a woman (identifies as a woman) is a woman, we need an objective definition, which you haven't been able to give.
"you blatantly avoided my points on social concepts like culture or religion."
Which points?
"if we followed your logic, nobody would be a Christian"
Nonsense. But if we followed your logic, anyone who self-identified as a Christian but didn't even believe Jesus existed would still have to be accepted as Christian.
3
-
@dariocarraresi1823 "Happiness, a feeling, is valid because "the feeling is claim""
The feeling is the claim, yes. So if a person feels happy, they are. The feeling isn't being denied (unless we've reason to think it's not there). What can be denied, is the interpretation of a feeling. So for example, if someone says to you "I feel worthless", do you tell them "Well then you must be!" No, you grant that they feel sad but question their interpretation of that feeling.
Similarly, if someone has gender dysphoria (an intense discomfort with their gender), you can grant that feeling. But if they interpret that as them being somehow born in the wrong body, some sign they are the opposite gender, etc. we can reject that interpretation. And we should, since transgenderism is wholly incoherent. Its subscribers can't even provide objective definitions for their terms, for example. When asked to, they stall... For about 30 replies sometimes, even...
"but gender identity, which is ALSO a feeling, somehow is not valid."
Gender identity isn't a feeling, it's an identity. It's a belief about yourself. Or, if you wish to argue that a person can "feel like" a man or woman, I'd challenge that as well. How might someone know the difference between the two "feelings"?
"and yet other beliefs that people have, like religion or culture, are valid?"
Neither religion nor culture are beliefs. They might consist of beliefs, though, which should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
3
-
@dariocarraresi1823 "Feelings can't be denied"
If you have good reason to deny them, sure they can. Some people claim to be happy even though you can see misery in their eyes. They might even admit to being miserable with just a little prodding.
"unless you decide that the other person is "interpreting" their feelings wrong,"
Yes, sometimes they do that as well. Sometimes an unhappy person can even believe, on a conscious level, that they're happy because admitting the truth (if only to themselves) is too painful.
"But to determine if a feeling is true or not, you must objectively determine it - and you can't objectively determine it, because it's mental."
As said before, you absolutely can detect in an objective way (by observing brain activity if nothing else) whether someone is feeling happy or not.
"when someone determines their own gender,"
What is "gender"? You still haven't given an objective definition for that. And are you saying that they're "feeling like" a man/woman. Because again, how would they know the difference between these two "feelings"?
"Oh, and also gender identity is now an identity, not a feeling or a belief"
Not a feeling, but it is a belief. Specifically it's a belief about whether or not you're a man or woman. And that belief could be correct or incorrect. But to determine if it's correct or incorrect, you need an objective definition for these terms.
"you have the gall to complain when people "stall" and refuse to answer your question."
Well of course! You're wanting to insinuate or flat-out say that I'm wrong in calling certain people men, right? Or at least you're wanting to say they're correct when they call themselves women? An objective standard is needed to establish either of those contentions.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@arod077 Lol, true, there's no denying that Trump loves to exaggerate the hell out of everything. But to be fair, I think he compares himself to Obama because he knows everyone else is going to do it anyway so he's trying to beat them to the punch. The truth is probably that he's worse than Obama in some ways, better in others.
I'm glad to hear someone on the other side admit that it's getting dangerous though. Usually, when a conservative tells people that, the response is "Oh boo hoo, a Trumptard's been triggered!" Lol, and that happens on both sides regarding various issues. I think we should all just take a deep breath, and have civil conversations about what the president is/isn't doing right (and why we think it is/isn't), as well as what his competition has planned and why that is a good or bad idea.
3
-
@arod077 It's one thing to say you're against all violence, but it's another to ignore when your own campaign organizers are clearly promoting it. Also, what about putting people in "re-education camps"?
If you're talking about Cesar Sayoc, it would appear that Trump did denounce him, but the MSM didn't want to cover it that way.
https://deadline.com/2018/10/man-arrested-12-bombs-donald-trump-critics-florida-1202490118/
And more to the point, this was a random guy who supported Trump, not someone affiliated with his campaign or administration.
Trump neither committed a crime nor an unethical action, as I see it, that would justify an impeachment. As for why he denied there being a quid pro quo at all, I don't know, he probably thought a lot of people would instantly think that was wrong regardless of the reasoning.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@drewesrock9414 "1. what is normal in culture is literally what ethics is based off of."
Only if you're talking about what people in that society consider ethical. But if you believe that right and wrong are objective realities (e.g., that forced slavery is immoral across the board), then what's "normal" is irrelevant to this conversation about what is right or wrong.
"A transgender person IS in a state of being transgender."
Naturally. Someone who believes their gender is somehow different from their sex, is in the state of being a person who believes their gender is somehow different from their sex.
"BEING transgender is literally a part of their essence as a human."
And that is determined by whether or not they believe their gender is somehow different from their sex. Or, are you confusing having gender dysphoria with being transgender?
"Last, if doctors perform genital surgery and botch it (which happens all the time) and even if they don't botch it, are the doctors not assigning a gender to that person?"
Not at all. Your genitalia isn't what determines your gender.
"I mean if they literally cannot tell the sex of a person,"
There are ways to tell more accurately, but it's typically deduced by external genitalia. The vast majority of the time, this results in the correct label.
"if a person is born intersex and a doctor performs a surgery that may or may not shape them female genitalia, then that doctor is prescribing that person to be a female in life"
That would be a huge mistake. So-called "intersex" people are also either male or female from birth throughout their lives, whether they're mistakenly mutilated at birth, in childhood, or in adulthood.
"So on a personal note, it's literally no one else's business if that person wants to live their truth as male, female, or somewhere in between."
The word "truth" suggests an objective standard is being met. Are you ready to give the objective, workable definition for "man" or "woman", on your worldview?
3
-
@abyssssbmusic1370 "i asked what a workable definition is"
And I gave you one for "gender" ("biological sex"). If you're literally just asking what a "workable definition" is, it's simply a definition that works with the rest of your worldview. The definition for "gender" that keeps being proposed by those who subscribe to transgenderism doesn't work with the rest of transgenderism, as I showed.
""But we want to ask, what is the best way? " why?"
So we can communicate effectively. So for example, when someone who rejects modern gender theory says "I'm a woman", I know what they mean by that. But when someone who subscribes to it says "I'm a woman", I literally have no idea what that means.
"people dont have to care about what the gender roles and norms expected of men are,"
That's all fine and good. But the point remains that the definition of "gender" offered by those who believe in this worldview doesn't fit with the rest of their beliefs (e.g., you are what you identify as). If the definition were actually applied to the scenario I described, it would make such people men despite identifying as women.
"and they don't have to consider whether they think of themselves as a man or a woman based upon gender roles or norms"
It sounds like you're saying they can reject that definition of "gender", and if so I agree. But then, what definition would you offer instead?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
In addition to the economy and record-low unemployment rates (especially for minorities), the median household income has gone up over $4,000, Trump has given us prison reform, stood strong against terrorism, signed the Right to Try Act, lowered prescription drug prices, and more. And yes, I agree with what he's done for the pro-life movement but I know that's a more controversial topic. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates (yes, all of the ones with a serious chance) have lost their effin' minds. That's the incomplete summary of why I'm voting for Trump this time.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hanswurst2765 The point is still that common nouns (e.g., "woman" and "mother" alike) actually mean something outside of modern gender theory, whereas within your worldview they don't.
"I could call a woman my mother even thought I have no biological or legal relationship with that women."
Okay sure, but even then there would be some reason for doing so, right? There would be some objective standard she's met to qualify as your "mother".
"So If its ok for you that a mother can be a person without any biological or legal relationship to another person, than I guess its ok for you that a woman can be a person, who's sex assigned at birth was male?"
No, because I reject that definition, as I could for any number of definitions one might propose for "mother". And at any rate, neither mothers nor women are mothers and women just because they are given/give themselves those labels. Common nouns need objective, workable definitions to support coherent worldviews.
"You see, I dont doubt you would crisice any definition of "women" I gave you, so I just gave you the shortest one to spare some time."
Because your "definition" didn't actually give any meaning to the word. You just appealed to circular reasoning which referenced the word itself. And whether I'm inclined to criticize it isn't the point; you should want a good definition for your own sake, if nothing else.
"So then please tell me your non circular definition of the term woman."
Sure, I'd stick with the traditional understanding of the word, which is "adult human female", with "female" being someone whose body developed largely toward the function of bearing children. This would include, BTW, those who due to aging, defects, etc. can't actually fulfill that reproductive role.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Celestina0 "I provided an objective definition for a woman already, someone with hair longer than 3 inches."
Is that really what you believe? So a woman who loses her hair due to alopecia or chemotherapy is no longer a woman?
"But I’m guessing you’d reject this criteria, despite the fact that it is objective and measurable. Why?"
No no, go right ahead calling everyone with hair longer than 3 inches a "woman" if you like. You will finally at least have a coherent worldview. Not that it will support your views on transgenderism or anything...
"Now how I determine women in practise is roughly whoever says they are a woman, true."
And that would not be an objective definition, since it is based only on someone's opinion (in this case, of themselves). So which is it really? The hair nonsense or the circular nonsense?
"But because when we’re talking about gender identity we’re talking about some kind of mental experience, we don’t have the technology or the understanding of human psychology sufficient enough to get to the root of what this experience ultimately is."
But people can "experience" all kinds of things that aren't real. So this doesn't seem like a good basis for saying "Yep, this is a woman".
"But we can’t find the neutron pathway that could predict whether someone likes marvel comics movies either, but you don’t reject the idea that some people are more prone to liking marvel comics movies than others."
Even that can be proven/disproven. If someone says they like Marvel comics but you discover they don't know anything about them, that person was lying/incorrect.
3
-
3
-
@Celestina0 Well just because there is a difference between a worldview being coherent and it being correct. What makes transgenderism incoherent (as well as incorrect) is that they want to say two things that are incompatible with eachother:
1. That people who call men who identify as women "men" are incorrect (e.g, misgendering).
and 2. There isn't an objective definition for terms like "man" or "woman".
Since it's logically impossible to be correct or incorrect while using terms with no objective definition, that makes their worldview not only incorrect but incoherent.
"So a chair is TYPICALLY a seat with four legs, not always. So I can define women similarly, typically a woman is a human being with two xx chromosomes, a womb, etc. but not always."
What you're not getting is that the "but not always" part does not mean anyone called a woman is a woman, any more than it means anything you call a chair is a chair. There is still an objective standard for chairs, bananas, planets, etc. You only want to make an exception for this regarding gender. And I'm still not getting an answer as to why.
"And no I don’t believe that a woman is defined by whoever says they are, because I accept the possibility that some people may be lying."
But do you recognize that some people might also be wrong, even if sincere, on this? Because if not, then you define "woman" as someone who identifies (sincerely identifies, doesn't just claim to identify) as a woman. It's the same circular, non-objective definition.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sunshynff Disagreement =/= bigotry. But let's take a look at your arguments.
"two things you seem to care about....facts and white people"
Facts, and people, yes.
I'm not sure what you think follows from the statistics you gave, but even if less than 1% of the surgeries done for the sake of this incoherent worldview were done on minors, it wouldn't mean this is no big deal. Especially because it is still promoting/facilitating an incoherent worldview in children which only seems to boast an increased suicide rate.
"Were you really though? Really aware they targeted black mothers for abortion?"
Yes.
"Were you aware that the CDC experimented on over 400 black men by giving them Syphilis, that's it, no other part to the "experiment" except for observing their lives and how they suffered, from 1932 -1972 , only giving them placebos when they sought treatment."
No, but I think that's despicable too, naturally.
"First off, lets face it, they spoke up because of the abortion issue, the fact it was also about black women was just a happy coincidence for them to appear non racist and have diversity among the church."
Could be! Sometimes exposing racism is done for reasons other than just exposing racism.
Anyway, the rest of your comment seems to be about this other topic which is irrelevant to the comment wall we're in. But I sincerely wish you luck in exposing how black people have been done wrong.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Neo-fascist", lol. Trump has given more freedom to the American people than any other candidate would dare to (this is particularly true of Bernie). And it's led to great things! In addition to the economy and record-low unemployment rates (especially for minorities), we've seen increased wages, prison reform, Right to Try, lower prescription drug prices, etc. And yes, I like what he's done for the pro-life movement, though I understand that's a more controversial topic. Trump's done a great job, IMO, so I'll be voting for him this time.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@irialoshi4089 "they would be a woman"
Okay, so you seem to be rejecting her definition of "gender" then. How would you define it?
"If Judith said that cultural norms and values help us define our gender, that means gender is an external concept that shapes us and our identity."
But at the end of the day, it seems to be saying that we must adhere to the norms and values the culture we live in expects of women, to be a woman. You said that a person would be a woman even if they adhered to the norms and values their culture expects of men, if they only identified as women, which means what you really believe is simply "gender is whatever the person identifies as" aka "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman". Is that not the case?
"As norms and cultures are always changing (they are not static), so are our ideas of what it means to be a “man” or a “woman”."
Speak for yourself. For many of us, "man" has always meant "adult human male" and "woman" has always meant "adult human female". Even between cultures and despite the variance in gender roles and norms from one time and place to another.
"Therefore, someone can identity as a woman while posturing masculine traits."
Well of course they can identify as a woman regardless of anything else. I'm only asking what makes them a woman? What is the difference between someone who identifies as a woman and is correct, and someone who identifies as a woman and is incorrect?
"Women is Saudi Arabia were allowed to drive a few years ago, and so they started driving, a man activity. Does that make them any less of a woman?"
Not according to my worldview, which recognizes them as women regardless of what rights they have, how they behave, etc. And by the way, when you say "women in Saudi Arabia were allowed to drive a few years ago", who were you referring to there?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@MotoCat91 "that argument can go both ways.
"
Exactly, which is why I'm wondering why you brought it up.
ME: "but you go with what evidence you have."
YOU: "Oh, like science, right?"
Indeed.
"This ever evolving concept of the world agreed upon by a consensus of the world's leading academics and researchers."
No no, what most people agree on (even scientists) does not necessarily constitute science. That's why I asked the other commenter exactly what the science is telling us about trans people. So far, none of it gets around transgenderism's incoherence or inconsistency.
"What is it you're actually fighting for?"
Logic and truth, I guess, if we have to put a label on my stance for some reason.
"Because the reason why trans people are in the news a lot the last few decades is they are being attacked, harrassed or discriminated against"
Well I would say those things are wrong, but also that this is not why trans people are in the news. They're in the news because they're some sort of minority group and those stories are more appealing to the mainstream media.
"and just want respect and fair treatment."
Some do, but most of them want me to address them as a gender they're not, or treat them as if they are.
"Are you, or is someone close to you being negatively impacted by others wanting fair treatment?"
No. Now shall we discuss the topic?
3
-
3
-
@MotoCat91 "What is science if not a consensus among scientists?"
Science would be the actual research and findings. There could be any number of reasons why most people (even most scientists) agree on a proposition.
"Science today does support transgender identities,"
And when you say that, what do you really mean? What exactly is the "science" saying? Because so far all we've seen is a "brain studies" angle that falls apart under scrutiny, and the standalone fact that dysphoria is real.
""Well I would say those things are wrong"
Tell that to the people being killed,"
Which, again, I'm saying is wrong.
"refused employment, evicted from housing or verbally abused for their identity."
People in general have the right to refuse employment and business for any reason, and it would depend on what you mean by "verbally abused" as to whether it's perfectly fine, ethically wrong, or should be illegal.
"It takes more effort to go against them than otherwise"
Well that's a weak reason to play along. It takes more effort to do lots of things you should absolutely do.
And again, how come trans people and trans advocates don't say the same for people identifying as a different race, age, or even species? It's because they don't even believe in the principles they themselves are trying to sell me on.
"and you've probably met countless trans people without even realising.. and gendered them correctly."
And what makes them correct when they claim to be one gender rather than the other? Can you give a straight answer to that question, because so far no one else can.
"So if you have no issue calling someone a man who looks, dresses and acts like a man then you don't have a problem with recognising gender expression,"
No, it's just that I have to go with whatever evidence I have at that time. Just because we can't always tell what's true at first doesn't mean we shouldn't value the truth when we learn it.
3
-
3
-
@littlewriterboy "im pretty sure you hate trans people,"
Nnnooo you're just not wanting to have the debate you started, because I was presenting arguments and questions you couldn't deal with. So you choose to attack me personally.
"but because you typed out paragraphs arguing against me where I was supporting trans people"
And "hating" and "disrespecting" anyone who might identify as a different race, age, etc.
"and you compared being to a white guy identifying as a black guy which makes 0 sense."
It makes perfect sense. The central principle of transgenderism seems to be that you are what you identify as. But if it cannot be applied to anything else, it's clearly incorrect.
"Those things are completely different than being trans!"
Not in any fundamental way, no.
"A white guy's brain is the same as a black guys brain would look the same even though they are different races, that's because your brain structure doesn't change between races."
Again, this angle fails for multiple reasons, which we covered. If a biological male identifies as a woman but does not have a "female brain", he is still considered a woman by the trans community. If I have a "female brain" but identify as a man, I'm still considered a man. And there are brain differences among those we would both agree are ment ally ill, but we never say that this means their delusions are correct; we attribute those delusions to the brain differences, if anything.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@nibbatron6283 It's the fact that I do think critically about all this, that makes me reject it.
"Sex is biological, gender is the metaphysical interpretations we base on that biological reality,"
Not at all. You're just confusing gender roles/norms with gender itself. The former are interpretations we base on the latter ;)
"SEX is an evolutionary tool"
Characterized by what?
"Sociologically: Trans women experience similar hardships to that of cis women, intrapersonally and socially."
Which doesn't make them women. The type of hardship you endure has no bearing whatsoever on what you literally are.
"Ontologically: We construct our own ideas of our place in the world, all humans; how a trans woman understands her place in society, in her body, and in her mind, comes to that understanding like all people."
All fine and good. But those ideas, and that understanding, can either lead to coherent or incoherent worldviews.
"Biologically: Sex is determined by biologists-"
Well, no, it's determined by biologY. And ideally biologists will acknowledge the facts about biology, for example the facts about gender, and disregard the unwarranted claims.
So can you tell me, without confusing gender with the inclination/disinclination to adhere to gender roles and norms, just how a person "knows" they're the opposite gender? Can you come up with a dividing line by which we can say it's a matter of objective fact, rather than something that's all in the mind? Because the brain studies don't work to establish that, as I've explained. So what does?
"Psychologically: Part 1 (self-actualization) - All humans ever do is attempt to live a life that is most fulfilling and comfortable to them."
Which they can, without concluding that they are women all because they have some things in common with the stereotypical woman.
"For trans people, it's living life being associated with the gender they feel an internal connection with, the gender they wish to be perceived as, to live as, to have sex as, to raise children as, to form relationships as, to grow old as and to die as, to themselves and to the people they love the most."
Which leads us into the "inconsistency" part of your worldview. None of this would be sufficient justification for any of the other sorts of self-identification critics of transgenderism have brought up (from the more mellow comparison like a person's race or age, to the more comedic, like people saying they identify as an attack helicopter).
"But I am curious, what reason do you have for denying someone their sense of identity,"
They can have whatever sense they like, but we don't have to agree with them.
"or at least not agreeing with it... when knowledge, experiences, the ways we understand our place in the world are so vast and so complex, so particular to the minds, bodies and societies we are shoved into..."
So would you call (and treat) a white man as black if he so identified? What about a child who identified as an adult? Etc.
"If you truly appreciated balance, I'd hope that you would come to understand this as a magnificent aspect of it."
No no no. Balance doesn't mean that you approve of everything. I would say, in fact, all things in moderation... including moderation itself.
3
-
@nibbatron6283 "But you're not thinking critically, not technically."
Well it all depends on what you mean. Naturally, I've come to my conclusions after thinking critically, and now I'm just pointing out how your worldview is incoherent and inconsistently applied. Thinking critically doesn't mean never coming to a conclusion.
"Coming from your personal perspective without even recognizing valid scientific discourse isn't you being a critical thinker,"
Nor is that what I'm doing. But when it comes to the science, I'm questioning precisely what you think the science has established. That's critical thinking!
"without any consideration towards outside perspectives,"
I'm literally inviting outside perspectives. It's just that they never work when held to scrutiny.
"especially one's validated within the scientific community?"
So what exactly has "the scientific community" validated?
"Race is indeed a social construct, like gender."
Neither of these are social constructs, no. What we expect from or believe about people based on their gender/race are social constructs, sure, but their gender/race itself is very much an objective fact that is wholly biological.
"so it's a false comparison,"
You didn't actually point out how it's a false comparison though. You just sort of... claimed that it is.
"Race is caricaturized by culture, language, ethnicity, skin color, experiences and cultural understandings."
Not really. The common interpretation of "race" has more to do with unchangeable characteristics such as skin color, ethnicity and nationality. No one denies that a Latino is Latino, if he doesn't speak Spanish or have an upbringing more stereotypical of the Latino community.
"Race inevitably comes with certain disadvantages/advantages and social/cultural experiences that white people can't replicate,"
The same could be said of gender.
"similarly, white-passing black people"
So you are affirming that you would expect a black person who identifies as white to "pass" for a white person? Just how might they do that?
"however, unlike white people, white-passing black people still have their own fundamental understandings that make up their black identity. White people don't."
Well never minding that that is an extremely racist thing to say, just what is "the black identity"? What if a black person (who is literally black) knows nothing and cares nothing for "black culture"? Are you trying to say they're not black either?
"If a white man wanted to identify as a black man, I wouldn't care"
Not what I asked. And you're moving the goalposts. We're not talking about a white person wanting to identify as black, just as we're not talking about men wanting to identify as women. I'm asking, quite simply, would you apply the same justifications that obligate us to call men women, to white men who identify (that is, truly inwardly identify) as black?
Would you insist that we call them black, consider them in affirmative action, etc.? And if not, why not? Why don't the same things you just finished saying about transgendered people apply to whites who identify as blacks?
"In comparison, gender can be experienced in vastly opposing ways by anyone of any sex, unlike race which can't be experienced by anyone of any other race."
That's just an assertion. You're just claiming a white man can't experience "being black" in exactly the same way a man experiences "being a woman". But seeing as how it's really all about how that person identifies in their own mind (again, the brain studies angle has been laid to waste), there's no way you can establish that a white man isn't black if he says he is.
"Gender norms and roles are expectations built on gender,"
Exactly! And more precisely, they are expectations built on that person's biological makeup. People look at me, determine I'm biologically male, and expect me to therefore "act like a man". These are called gender roles and norms because they are roles and norms based on our genders (not to be confused with gender identities).
"If you want to define yourself based on the fact that you have a penis or a vagina, that's no problem to me."
Well that's just the point. We who reject transgenderism do not consider simply admitting that we are men/women "defining ourselves" based on that fact. We understand that we can be men/women in various ways, even if that means rejecting the social norms/roles put on our gender.
"But others don't hold so much importance in trivial biological features as you do."
Says the spokesperson of the worldview leading people to have major surgeries to cut off their penises or have one "built" for them.
"You say a trans woman doesn't have to conclude herself to be a woman, but what if she feels dysphoric and uncomfortable identifying as a man?"
Then that's what should be dealt with. They are a man, and there's no reason they can't identify as such and then live however they want with that acknowledgement.
"Calling a trans woman a man, or making a trans woman call herself a man,"
No, we're not the ones trying to force the other side to use our preferred pronouns, sorry.
"If you actually believe that a penis immediately stops a woman from being a woman,"
I don't necessarily believe that, no. There are exceptions. But even they are biologically based.
"Not to mention, recognizing male and female as the only sexes within society further perpetuates doctors into feeling obligated to mutilate intersex babies' genitals [as they are still doing today, despite intersex people pushing back on their lives being completely taken against their consent]."
Well I think the rational way to approach that whole subject would be to look at it on a case by case basis. I'm sure it varies. But again, this isn't about intersex people and what should be done for them. It's about transgenderism which, whether you admit it or not, disregards biological facts in favor of how a person "identifies".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@nvna1111 "im not here to define and explain to you all the nuances of gender"
Clearly. But you made the claim that I'm incorrect on this. I'm just saying that in order to substantiate your claim, you would need to explain why I'm incorrect. Defining "man", "woman", or "gender" would be a great start.
"you wrote a dumb and disrespectful comment."
1. You haven't established that it was dumb. Indeed you're now saying you're not inclined to even try.
and 2. Disagreement =/= disrespect. Or, if you're just protesting the fact that I'm disrespecting the worldview itself, there's no such thing as a moral obligation to respect ideas, beliefs, etc.
"if you truly have any motivation to learn,"
Not the topic (I could be the closed-minded type and still be correct on this). But do you really think you're the first trans advocate I've spoken with? How many hundreds or thousands of subscribers to this worldview (including "experts") must I talk to before I'm allowed to disagree with it?
"you claim it doesnt make sense."
I've given reasons why it doesn't make sense, actually. The only one making assertions without backing them up here, is you.
"will only serve to ruin trans peoples lives"
What exactly are you saying will ruin their lives? Me disagreeing with them? How would that happen if they're otherwise mentally healthy people? Again, if you want to establish that I'm wrong here, you'll need to explain why. Sending me on a wild goose chase won't work anymore for your side, than if I were to tell you "Transgenderism is incoherent, and just watch all of Matt Walsh's videos if you want to know why".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@harnessmadeofhopes There are at least two major problems with the brain studies angle, though. One is that even people we would both agree are delu ded will show differences in the physical size, structure, etc. of their brains. We don't conclude that therefore their beliefs are correct. We might, if anything, say that's the reason they have the beliefs.
Second, we both know that a man who identifies as a woman yet lacks a so-called "female brain" will still be called a woman by people subscribing to your worldview. Similarly, if I (a man who identifies as a man) turned out to have a "female brain", no one would insist that I was a woman.
So the science is really quite irrelevant; it's just something to bring up for the sake of posturing.
A potential third problem would depend on just when these studies were conducted. Because the environment you're brought up in, along with the way you think and behave, can actually change the physical structure of your brain.
In any case, it's not enough to get around the incoherence and inconsistency of this worldview. And even scientists don't seem to have any answers that make sense when you look at the logic of it all.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Robert Platt "Sex is between the legs. Gender is between the ears.
"
So, again, you're just saying that gender is what a person thinks they are, or maybe how they feel, etc. A person has "gender dysphoria" or gender identity disorder when their "gender" (as you're defining it here) doesn't match up with their physical gender, or sex. Typically, when I ask a man with this sort of condition how they know they're "really" a woman, they'll tell me about how they think differently from most men. But that does not mean they are a different sex or gender. It simply means they don't fit into the gender roles of the culture they're in.
"Sex is binary: male, female. Gender has infinite variation from man's man to hyper-feminine.
"
Which is part of what makes this concept of "gender" silly. All you're really saying is that people in general have countless different types of personalities, particularly as it pertains to gender roles.
"My mind works just like a woman's mind, with many of the same desires, dreams and aspirations."
Seems to be a very sexist thing to say. Are you implying that women who don't have these stereotypical "female" desires, dreams and aspirations aren't women? Even if they identify as women, in addition to being women biologically? See, there's just too many problems with this worldview. Why can't you just be a man who doesn't think like most men?
"How can I know I have a woman's mind without physically being a woman?"
That wasn't the question. I'm asking how you can know how either a man's mind or a woman's mind "feels", and be able to compare them? Even a person who has multiple personality disorder couldn't do that, because the two are (supposed to be) different people altogether, so they're still unaware of how the other feels. In addition to that, they're unaware of which aspects of that difference are due to being male vs. being female, as opposed to just being different people in general.
"On the flip-side, how do you know you have a man's mind?"
I don't agree with the premise that there's a such thing as a man's mind or a woman's mind. I'm a man because of biology, and then I have a mind. That mind is partially shaped by my life experiences, and so I think "like a man" because I think the way men are generally conditioned to think in the society I was born and raised in. Biology has something to do with it too, but neither of these things guarantee you're going to think a certain way. Regardless, I'm a man because of biology, because that's what the term is referring to.
And I'm also waiting for an answer as to the fundamental difference between this and "identifying as" a difference race, age, or financial status. If science and observation cannot make the former distinction, why can it make these others?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tonygrowley5275 "Abortion is just an alternative."
Well, it's the one alternative that results in an innocent human being dying for the sake of convenience...
"The point is the woman's individual right to decide,"
That would need to be proven, not just asserted. And so far, we have no reason to grant women the special privilege of taking an innocent life for her convenience.
"only for herself, when she give birth, or not."
Giving birth isn't the issue. The baby has been created already, and usually because of choices the woman already made.
"More than 1/2 of women who have an abortion in the US, already have a child, or children. They don't want any more, right now!"
Well she already has more. And she shouldn't be allowed to kill either of them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@kishanrao936 "you’re equating a fetus with someone who is in a coma being kept alive by machines"
No, but I am pointing out that the viability argument doesn't work by using them as an example. Again, it doesn't change what they are, only their circumstances.
"You are entitled to your belief"
It's not my belief; it's common scientific fact the ultimate sign of life is brain activity. You're literally not pronounced dead until that's gone.
"but brain activity doesn’t equate to being a human being"
Having brain activity while being of the human species, yes, that makes you a human being that is alive.
"There are some that say the zygote also should be treated as a person which it is not."
It's interesting how you claim that everything I've said about what makes someone a person is mere belief, and how I have no special right to proclaim what is/isn't a person, but then go on to make strong claims about what a person is yourself.
Anyway, I would agree that a zygote isn't quite yet a live human being. But this does nothing to help the pro-abortion crowd, since they typically want the "right" to kill living human beings.
And I'm still waiting for you to distinguish in any meaningful way between a newborn and a fetus with brain activity. You've tried to draw the line using an arbitrary standard of viability, but now that that's failed you seem to have given up...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@FartyBalls42069 "Obviously disagreeing with someone's opinions isn't being disrespectful or hateful."
Okay then, why were you addressing me saying "It's as simple as being respectful and kind, or disrespectful and putting others down"?
"What I am saying is that aggressive messages and actions that damage individuals-"
Which, depending on what you mean by "aggressive messages and actions", is either irrelevant to anything I've said or not something that should "damage" anyone in the first place.
"such as racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc."
These "phobia" terms. What do you mean by them?
"harassment and bullying."
Right, I would agree that harassment (actual harassment) and bullying (actual bullying) are wrong. But again, what does that have to do with me?
"and people like you throw temper tantrums because of change,"
Ah, so you are opposed to someone merely disagreeing. Even to the point of calling it a "temper tantrum".
"due to a lack of knowledge on a topic."
This is just posturing on your part. What do you think I'm wrong about, and why?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@paffles6696 That right there is exactly what I'm talking about, and why you should be ashamed of yourself. We're not averse to the people, we're averse to this incoherent worldview they (and BTW, you) have subscribed to.
And since you seem ignorant as to why it's incoherent, here are just a couple examples:
1. You confuse gender itself with gender roles and norms. But this would create a self-contradiction for anyone who identifies as a man while adhering to the gender roles/norms of women, and vice versa.
and 2. You can never give an objective, workable definition for terms like "gender", "man" or "woman". Yet you insist that others are incorrect in using these terms, which is logically impossible if there's no objective standard for qualifying as a man, woman, etc.
3
-
@paffles6696 "Except by denying a trans persons identity you are being adverse to their existence."
Those are your interpretations of what I'm doing, not actually what I'm doing. I'm simply saying what they believe on this one topic is incoherent and they shouldn't believe it. People can be mistaken about things, even including how they perceive themselves.
"This whole "debate" is because people like you don't want trans people to exist."
You continue to be reckless with your language, yet you claim to care about trans people. Why do you insist that they feel like people like me hate them when we don't?
"your denial of the difference between gender and sex."
Right, I reject the notion that sex and gender are different, because you haven't given me an objective, workable definition of "gender" with which to establish that. Indeed, you seemed to be admitting that on your worldview there isn't one.
ME: "The problem with defining gender itself as gender roles and norms is that it isn't even workable within the rest of your own worldview. After all, if someone were to identify as a woman while adhering to the gender roles and norms expected of men, which would they be? A woman whose gender is that of a man?"
YOU: "Except there's a difference between identifying as something and existing as something."
On this we agree. You can exist as x while identifying as y. Like trans people do when it comes to their gender, for example. Is that really the concession you were attempting to make?
"All trans people start with identifying then doing work towards becoming what they identify as."
Oh? And how might a man who identifies as a woman become one? The contradiction remains: If you equate gender itself with gender roles and norms, then anyone who identifies as one gender but doesn't adhere to those gender roles and norms is a walking contradiction according to your own terms.
"your opinion is that a word that factually represents something social and not biological should only be used to refer to biology."
If you're talking about "gender", that is indeed the most coherent way of doing it. Unless you're ready to give an objective, workable definition for these terms?
"When you go outside and point out a woman on the street do you know what that persons genitals are like? Do you know their chromosomes? Their DNA? No? So what features are you using to identify those people then?"
We go by how they "present" (as you would word it), in hopes they're presenting themselves honestly and accurately. Now if your point is that we could still get it wrong, that's very true, but the ability to trick someone into thinking you're x doesn't mean you're x, or that their methods are illogical. I probably couldn't tell the difference between a real law degree and a counterfeit either; wouldn't make the fake lawyer a real one.
ME: "A woman is an adult human female, with "female" being someone whose body developed largely toward the function of bearing children."
YOU: "So women born barren aren't really women?"
Women who are barren still have bodies that largely developed toward the function of bearing children. Same as how an ear is still an ear even if it's incapable of hearing.
ME: "This would include so-called "intersex" people, BTW. Gender is a very decisive binary, though there can be some significant variations within either sex."
YOU: "you are giving up some ground here"
Not at all. But let's see your argument...
"by saying that gender is binary. Why do you think gender is binary and biological sex is bimodal?"
I don't agree with your claim that sex is bimodal. Sex (aka gender) is a binary. Male and female. That's it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TheMarsCydonia "You have given more than one definition or have you not noticed?"
I cited one definition. It is the definition the APA uses, word for word. But where is your definition of "gender", since you claim that my reference to theirs is somehow a strawman. I can't read your mind, you know...
""What it does is confuse gender itself with gender roles and norms"
It doesn't."
Of course it does. "The socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for different genders" are what we used to call gender roles and gender norms. Because they are the roles and norms expected of people on the basis of their gender.
""when it does that, it makes it so a person has to adhere to those expectations to be a particular gender regardless of how they identify"
It doesn't do that either."
Indeed it does. Because if your gender is determined by the roles, behaviors, activities and attributes your society considers appropriate for your gender, then to have the gender of "woman", you have to adhere to those roles, behaviors, activities and attributes. Otherwise, you're saying a person can have the gender of "woman" while not meeting the criteria in the definition.
3
-
@TheMarsCydonia No lie at all. I gave exactly one definition for "gender". And I'm still waiting for you to offer an alternative (or admit it is the definition you believe in, making it even more clear it wasn't a strawman for me to bring it up). But you refuse to do so, because you know there is no workable definition for "gender" on your worldview.
"gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of gender (i.e., masculinity, femininity, nonbinary, nonconforming, or other gender)".
Which is a continuation of the same confusion between gender itself and gender roles and norms. What specifically are you thinking of, that can make someone a woman while rejecting these aspects which are expected of women?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You seem to be confusing gender itself with gender roles and norms here. But if we go with that definition for it, it still isn't workable with the rest of your worldview. After all, if someone adhered to the cultural norms, historical formations, influences, psychic realities, desires, wishes and "performances" of a man but still identified as a woman, what would you call them?
The Cambridge definition you refer to tries to do better, in saying "a woman is someone who lives and identifies as female", but it doesn't work either. Disregarding the error in saying "female" rather than "a woman" (when "female" refers to your biology and therefore such a person would be technically delusional), such a person would still have to "live as" a woman. Whatever we imagine that to mean, there are going to be at least some people not inclined to meet that requirement while identifying as a woman.
I find it despicable to compare being gay/bi with being trans. In the former, you acknowledge what you are and simply have sexual attraction to the same gender as you. In the latter, you subscribe to an incoherent worldview which makes various logical errors. A gay man can define both "gay" and "man", but trans people and their advocates consistently have trouble giving objective, workable definitions for "man", "woman", and "gender" as you yourself demonstrated.
As for "rights", no one has the right to force or coerce anyone into speaking in accordance with their worldview (especially when it's logically incoherent). And if you would pressure others to do so, then it's your ethics that have to be questioned.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
There are many reasons people consider Bernie a communist. He tries to justify his policy ideas by pointing to other nations who have some form of "free" healthcare, "free" college, etc. But his policies go far more toward taking power away from the people and giving it to government. He wants to ban private healthcare, for example. And when he talks about Scandinavia, what he doesn't tell you is that they're simply not doing what he plans to do to America. In addition to having private health insurance, they have school voucher programs, they have no minimum wage laws, and they don't penalize the wealthy with high corporate tax rates, to name a few differences.
Bernie's divisive rhetoric when it comes to "the billionaire class" is also reminiscent of Soviet Russia and the horrors that sort of talk unleashed. And yes, Bernie's praise of socialistic nations that took government power too far doesn't help either (e.g., Russia, Cuba, Venezuela).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
There's nothing about being a tradwife that says you can't be into politics, economics, etc. My wife is a tradwife. And while men are much more likely to be intrinsically interested in things like that, she and I talk about these things all the time. She does ultimately believe in submitting to me as her husband (she's a Christian), but we discuss ideas and our takes on these things, religion, philosophy back and forth on a regular basis.
It's a fair criticism that the tradwife content on YouTube, TikTok, etc. doesn't usually talk about the risk of harm to the woman if the man leaves, becomes abusive, etc. But at the same time, they do encourage finding men who are also traditional in their thinking. This isn't a substitute for the disclaimers we both agree they should give, but it does work as a way of minimizing that risk. One of the key questions here is, why are you getting married? Is it through the lens of feelings and emotions (you mentioned what is/isn't "enjoyable" for example when it came to staying home vs. having a career), or through the lens of roles and responsibilities? Because that makes a ton of difference long-term.
About that BekahDayspring video. She says "I was miserably married. Like, in a miserable situation where I could not get out of this marriage." Now it's possible that he cheated on her or become abusive (actually abusive), but it begs the question as to why she didn't include that part of the story if that were the case. Because there are plenty of women who just "get bored" with their marriage (or some better-sounding variant) and want a divorce for that reason, which is obviously a very different story.
Finally, there's nothing about being a tradwife that means you can't earn supplemental income or whatever. Tradwives simply believe their role is to take care of the home and any children they have. Similarly, while it's the husband's role to provide the income they actually need, it's okay for him to cook or clean on occasion. The emphasis is on what's expected of each, not what they "can" or "can't" do so long as they're taking care of their primary responsibilities.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@gigameter I explained very clearly how it's a worldview (which beliefs it entails), and followed that up in my last comment by citing what I believe to be the central belief of it. So far, you haven't addressed the original points made in the first comment.
"How are sex and gender not separate things in your mind?"
Sex and gender are one and the same, which is why the roles we're expected to play based on our biological sex are called "gender roles". Moreover, modern gender theory (e.g., transgenderism) has consistently failed to give any objective, workable definitions for "gender" to establish it as something different from sex.
"If sex and gender were the same thing, why are gender roles so different when comparing different species that have the same sexual roles?"
Gender roles being different between species doesn't do anything to suggest that gender itself is different from sex. I'm not denying the existence of gender roles and norms, or variance in them from one species to another, one culture to another, etc.; I'm saying that to equate them with gender itself is a mistake.
"If gender and sex are the same, shouldn’t gender roles and sexual roles be exactly the same for every species that has males and females?"
No, because gender roles and norms are socially constructed. But that doesn't mean gender is socially constructed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@junetalon8796 "You must have missed the part where I said that there's no such thing as a metaphysical innate "being" a social construct."
But you gave a definition for "gender" that made it all about these socially constructed characteristics. You said that that's what made up a person's gender. Now you seem to be wanting to abandon that definition by suggesting the word can't be defined...
"You can be read as a certain gender and identify with another gender for various reasons,"
But the only way you can definitively say that gender itself is different from biological sex is by telling us what gender itself is. Even those of us who reject modern gender theory (e.g., transgenderism) can tell the difference between biological sex (what I consider "gender") and gender identity, gender expression, etc. because we have workable definitions for "gender" whereas you do not.
"but there's no "soul" or something that makes you a certain gender."
Right, you said the socially constructed characteristics do that. But that would mean even those who identify as women are men if they possess the socially constructed characteristics society expects of men. You seem unwilling to come right out and say those people would be wrong about their own gender though.
"maybe you are religious and/or do believe in gendered souls or something,"
Neither. I'm an atheist and I believe gender = biological sex. So far, that's the only coherent line of thinking I've seen on the topic.
As for "science", until at least the so-called experts who subscribe to this worldview can give workable definitions for terms like "gender", "man", and "woman", we've no reason to take them seriously on this issue either.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
The question is an old anti-theist trick. A loaded "Gotcha!" question which is practically never asked for the purposes of a sincere discussion. As such, I think the Christian should always ask the following questions about the question before answering:
1. Do you mean what would I do, or what should I do? If it's the former, then the only honest answer anyone can give is "I don't know". We never know what we would do in these situations. It's kind of like asking "If you saw three gang members beating up a woman, but you had no phone or any way of getting outside help (no weapons, etc.), would you help her?" We want to say "Yes, I would!" but we don't know until we're placed in that situation.
2. By "God", do you mean the Christian god? If not, then I wouldn't believe it was god and so I'd say no, I shouldn't obey its command.
and 3. Do you mean if God told me to do it, or just if I thought God was telling me to? If it's the former, then it grants for the sake of argument that the Christian god is real and is definitely giving this command. So the answer would be yes. Because we're talking about an omniscient, always morally correct being. It's just a truism that you should do what he says at that point. If I just thought it was god, I wouldn't think that. It's like asking "What does the square circle in your room look like?" It's an incoherent question because I wouldn't draw that conclusion. But if I did see and hear something "like" a god (e.g., a holograph-like but very real-looking glowing person with a booming voice telling me "This is God. I command you to murder your child", then I would take the least risky option and say no. Because the bible tells me not only "Do not murder" but also to test all prophecies, holding only to what is good. So I'm potentially disobeying god either way, but holding to the scripture seems to be the safer option.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
RugbyLOLs I agree. Squall is my #1, actually, followed by Locke, Zidane, Tifa, Kefka, Rinoa, Balthier, Ultimecia, Selphie, and Shadow (You'll notice 4 of these characters are from FF8).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
cruelsuit1 "You're not an atheist--you're just a stupid fuckhead who hasn't confronted his philosophical cowardice yet." Huh. That's cute. Would you care to address any one of my arguments now?
"The fact of claiming to be an atheist IS the claim that God is a delusion."
Absolutely incorrect. I suggest you look it up. In fact, no, let me save you the trouble. Atheism is a simple lack of belief in a god or gods. There is "positive" atheism in which the person believes there is no god, but then there is "negative" atheism in which the person simply does not believe IN a god. And then there are agnostics (who acknowledge that no one really knows if there is or isn't a god) and gnostics (who foolishly claim to know for sure).
"And no atheist would say that there is no God BUT there could be an afterlife."
Well of course an atheist could do that. The definition of atheism says nothing about a belief for or against an afterlife. You really should read up on this stuff before making a fool of yourself on the internet!
"If an afterlife was possible then you would have to admit the possibility of a God who administers it."
Most atheists DO admit the possibility of a god. We don't typically claim to know there isn't one, because that would gnosticism, and gnostics are nutjobs.
But yes, it's possible to believe in an afterlife without believing in a god. Why would you insist that an afterlife would have to be created by a deity, when you don't insist that THIS life had to have been created by one?
"Why don't you just shut the fuck up, you confused imbecile!!"
I just detailed for the world to see, how YOU'RE the one confused. You sure you wanna go there? Lol.
"You have no need of something so you have no respect for that thing."
I think I articulated exactly why I have no respect for the billboard and organization in question, if that's what you mean. It wasn't that I personally have no need for it.
"If you don't need it then why are you concerned about it?"
This was also explained in my comment.
"Is everybody supposed to consult with you to get your approval? Is everything about you?"
Well I think if someone's going to claim to represent atheists, they should represent your typical atheist and not just intolerant, anti-theistic assholes. But you seem to disagree... why?
"So fuck you. Maybe they help some budding atheists to escape the brain-fuck of 'hell' which tortures the minds of innocent children."
Ohh, so you think the billboard says there is no HELL... You'd better look again :)
2
-
2
-
cruelsuit1 "I live atheism. You read about it, and got it all fucked up." Not so. Everything I've said is right on the money. If you disagree with anything specific, now is the time to tell us what that is.
"The fact that life arose is in no way a premise for believing in the continuation or transmigration of an immaterial soul, you colossally stupid shit brain."
How close you come to seeming intelligent. Once again, I'm not saying I personally believe in an afterlife. What I'm telling you is that the claim "There is no afterlife" is neither provable nor necessarily relevant. Like it or not, atheists can (and many do!) believe in an afterlife, and therefore this slogan is not representative of us in general. And you failed to answer my question, which was, Why would you insist that an afterlife would require a deity, when you don't insist that about THIS life?
"All that he was saying is that he, himself, could make no definitive assertion regarding the existence of God."
No. That is NOT what "God is a delusion" means. "God is a delusion" means exactly that it is not real, and no one knows that. Stating it as fact is in no way defensible, PERIOD. You can't pick and choose which rules you would have theists follow but not yourself. If theists can't get away with making truth claims based on no evidence, neither can we. And you throw a lot of insults my way regarding intelligence for someone who cannot comprehend this simple fact.
2
-
cruelsuit1 "The argument that the evil suffered in this world is minimized by the relative infinite reward is a believer's argument also."
"Believer's argument", "nonbeliever's argument", this means nothing to me. Nor should it to you. We should be dealing with the arguments themselves, not who they might side with or who they might come from. The point is simply that, since love is far from objectively defined, there is SOME argument against the one that contends the existence of pain and suffering disproves a loving god. You and I may disagree on whether it could conceivably be "worth" eternal bliss, but the argument is there; that's all that matters.
"You are just digging a deeper hole for yourself and retreating further and further from atheism with these arguments."
Incorrect. I've said nothing to indicate I've suddenly started believing in any of it. All I've done is try to get you to see that not believing in something does not automatically mean it is invalid, untrue, etc.
"It does not explain why some are chosen for horrendous suffering so that others don't have to endure it."
Obviously because that was not what it was meant to do...
"The argument becomes "evil is not evil after all.""
No, it does not. It becomes "The existence of evil does not prove the absence of an all-loving deity", mainly because we have no objective definition of "love" in the first place.
And the reason NEITHER of us can comment on just what eternal ecstasy might "make meaningless" is that neither of us can fathom eternity, let alone eternal ecstasy. But you're going to pretend you can, eh?
2
-
2
-
Buck Rogers Okay, this will be my last reply to you. You're obviously just here to antagonize, and I've better ways to spend my time.
"It's like you have read absolutely NOTHING of what i have written and made up replies that you are responding to."
Actually it's not like that at all. I quote and reply directly to your every statement.
"WHERE did i the organization antagonize people for what they believe?"
I just gave you an example! Talk about not reading. How else should one interpret "Imagine no religion", except as "It would be great if religion stopped existing"?
"You do realize that the opposite is fucking written into the religion itself, you are a sinner,"
Actually, Christians tend to believe everyone is a sinner, not just atheists. Nice try, though.
"a man without any form of morals if you don't accept the objective morality of god"
I've never heard a Christian say or imply this. Ever. But I suppose we should just come to expect completely unfounded allegations from you by now, hmm? Now what "objective morality" arguments coming from Christians do entail is the statement that the existence of objective moral values (the idea that certain things are right or wrong completely independent of human opinion) is somehow evidence of god's existence. It's not saying atheists cannot lead moral lives, just that the morality comes from god.
"and objecting to that is antagonizing them?"
This is also not part of the religion or necessarily part of any Christian's point of view. Strawman much?
"If you are an atheist then your self hate cannot have any limits."
Oh, please. You don't have to be an anti-theist to be an atheist. It's a simple lack of belief in a god; look it up.
"it telling of a society that is ruled by religion and where atheists are not allowed to participate in the democratic process."
Tricky language. Atheists are allowed to participate. Trouble is, not many would vote for them. Now, part of the reason is as you imply that tons of Christians have a misconception of atheism that it necessarily means something bad. Like perhaps that if an atheist got into a position of authority, he'd start trying to get rid of Christianity/theism. However, what you're failing to understand (or perhaps pretending not to) is that organizations such as the FFRF and American Atheists are perpetuating that stereotype too! They criticize/ridicule religion in blatantly anti-theistic ways (that means they oppose it). They are intolerant of religious differences.
But it's OK for an anti-theist to do something fucked up, just not Christians; that's basically what you're telling us.
"It is ok to condemn you, you are evil just for not believing in Jesus, you are going to hell and so are your children who btw are worthless as atheists, you have no morals so how do i know you are not abusing them? I mean, without Jesus torturing your children isn't wrong. Without gods morality nothing is ever wrong."
If you think this is representative of Christians/theists, you are beyond help. Heck, many Christians don't even believe in such a place as hell. It's called Christian Universalism, and once again I suggest you do a bit of research! And they certainly don't jump into saying that atheism = immorality, that's something I've never even heard from a Christian.
"Perhaps it's just because you ARE unusually stupid?"
More irony. You are completely ignorant of what religion does and does not necessarily entail; yet you call me ignorant. Wow. Nice talking to you, dude. What an insightful argument, lol.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Mims Zanadunstedt "True, but then I guess I am specifically anti-theist when it impacts intelligence, decision-making, long term negative effects, etc."
That sounds to me like you don't really oppose theism but specific causal factors that might influence one to be unintelligent, lack good decision-making skills, etc., which surely can affect atheists as well as theists.
"Also its dishonesty, prayer does help the one that is praying for example, but it doesn't do much beyond that."
I find that a very premature assumption. If it does help the person praying (in pretty much any way), then it's very likely indeed that that in turn can influence other things.
"but when you tell others you are praying for them their risk for complications during surgery actually increases."
Do you have any proof of this? Because I studied psychology and based on what I know, anything that increases your sense of hope can actually help heal you.
"Overall, studies do show that the religious misunderstand the world more often and have a harder time distinguishing fact from fiction in childhood."
Correlation does not show causation, especially when you have a much more sensible conclusion waiting to be drawn (namely, that being closed-minded can hinder your knowledge of the world).
"The only reason why I would ever advocate religious practice is when it doesn't impair decision-making, and when it provides a benefit without any negatives."
Which seems to me, to be the majority of the time.
"And even then I wouldn't say believing it is good, because it'd cause you to accept other things related to it in the future that are detrimental."
The bible itself tells Christians to test all prophesies and hold onto what is good. There's absolutely no demand in the religion itself for the believe to stop thinking critically.
2
-
2
-
It's not like the anti-theists are any better. I'll re-post my response to this video here, for your ignoring pleasure: Straight from the anti-theists' mouths, this is the best argument they got. So if it doesn't work, then anti-theism is certifiably unjustified. Let's take a look at this argument!
He begins by telling Christians and other theists to stay out of this one (insecure much?) and then proceeds to just assert that religion is "bullshit". Not off to a good start, logically speaking, mate.
He claims that theism should just be assumed false, which surely would result in strong atheism automatically, if this method were at all logically valid. But of course, it's his job here to show that theism is false (which is synonymous with strong atheism being true).
He does offer one argument against Christianity as an aside, and that's that since not everything in the bible is true and literal, that means that Christianity itself is false. That of course doesn't follow. If there still is a god, and Jesus was his son, that's plenty for calling anyone who believes these things a Christian. He's arguing against biblical inerrancy/literalism, not for atheism. And that's interesting because most Christians report that they believe in the Christian god on the basis of personal experiences, not the modern-day bible being 100% accurate.
He addresses the act of inferring design from complexity and improbability, but there are at least some examples of valid theistic arguments which fit into this category. For example, the fine-tuning argument concerning the constants and quantities given at the beginning of the universe. Explaining it away with the "chance" alternative eventually requires one to adopt belief in countless other universes, and these so-called "multiverse" theories also lack any corroborating evidence. So design seems a perfectly reasonable inference in at least some cases.
Finally, he gives his argument, and it's an utter fail (unsurprisingly). He asks, "Where did god come from?", as if this hasn't been asked millions of times by other anti-theists. What they don't seem to understand is that one can only ask for a cause of something if that something apparently had a beginning. It makes no sense to ask what caused something which might have been timeless, which is why Christians didn't start pushing the argument for a cause of the universe very heavily until there was evidence that it had a beginning. To ask the question "Where did god come from?" is basically claiming that any god that might exist must've had a beginning, and good luck developing an argument to prove that!
So the Christians are right, on this point. No one can say "God was either designed or appeared by accident" until they can justify thinking he/she/it must've had a beginning in the first place.
And despite his empty rhetoric, it remains the case that anyone offering a claim can be asked to support it with an argument (which he actually knows already, or he wouldn't be trying to come up with arguments for his view). Atheists are not special; if we make a claim (e.g., "There is no god"), we need to be able to support that claim or admit it's just an unfounded belief. And contrary to his assertion, the starting point is "I don't believe in anything", not "That is not true". Because the latter is also a claim that you adopt later, not a default position.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Robert J. Williamson "You seem to post on a lot of videos on atheism, claiming to be atheist, but attacking atheist organisations."
That's misleading. I am an atheist, and I attack anti-theistic organizations. That's because I'm tired of all the feuding and disrespecting people on the basis of their beliefs. We don't want that from the Christians; we shouldn't be rewarding or encouraging it going the other direction.
"I have to say that I'm pretty sceptical about you being an atheist-"
Irrelevant.
"-as on another video you don't even know about the philosophy of reason."
Also misleading. I'm well aware of this use of the word "reason". On the other video, as I explained to you, I took issue with the organization naming itself "Coalition of Reason" because it implies that atheism = being reasonable while theism = unreasonable. You disagreed, but only explained it by pointing to the usage of the word "reason" in philosophy.
"To some extent I agree that a better message would be "you don't need Christ to enjoy Christmas." As, that is less confrontational, and is reaching out to the atheist audience more exclusively, which is I assume the point."
I don't even see a point, to be honest with you. People know they don 't have to be religious to have fun on Christmas day. As I said before, I consider the so-called "American Atheists" nothing but a bunch of attention whores, because there is really no need for any of the billboards they put up. Sorry if that seems a little harsh, but then, they really should come to expect this kind of backlash when they antagonize people over the holidays.
2
-
Robert J. Williamson "After you comment on the other video about faith, it's impossible in my opinion that you are an atheist."
Telling the truth means I can't be an atheist, what?
"There are a few Christians and Muslims who pretend to be atheists, to try to challenge lack of belief from the inside. In your case you claim to be atheist, but you hate atheist organisations-"
Again, you are trying to mislead. Ironic that you question my honesty here. I "hate" anti-theistic organizations. If you think the words "atheist" and "anti-theist" are synonyms, then you have bigger problems than trying to ascertain my personal worldview.
"and apparently the entire atheist way of thinking it seems."
Pray tell, what is the "atheist way of thinking".
"You think that reason and faith are the same pretty much."
Didn't say that; I only pointed out that everyone believes at least one thing with no evidence, and that would be the belief that this is not all just a dream, or that we're not just minds in a 'Matrix'. It's called a necessary assumption in philosophy, and speaking of it doesn't make me a theist any more than you typing on a keyboard makes you L. Ron Hubbard.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, the question is an old anti-theist trick. A loaded "Gotcha!" question which is practically never asked for the purposes of a sincere discussion. As such, I think the Christian should always ask the following questions about the question before answering:
1. Do you mean what would I do, or what should I do? If it's the former, then the only honest answer anyone can give is "I don't know". We never know what we would do in these situations. It's kind of like asking "If you saw three gang members beating up a woman, but you had no phone or any way of getting outside help (no weapons, etc.), would you help her?" We want to say "Yes, I would!" but we don't know until we're placed in that situation.
2. By "God", do you mean the Christian god? If not, then I wouldn't believe it was god and so I'd say no, I shouldn't obey its command.
and 3. Do you mean if God told me to do it, or just if I thought God was telling me to? If it's the former, then it grants for the sake of argument that the Christian god is real and is definitely giving this command. So the answer would be yes. Because we're talking about an omniscient, always morally correct being. It's just a truism that you should do what he says at that point. If I just thought it was god, I wouldn't think that. It's like asking "What does the square circle in your room look like?" It's an incoherent question because I wouldn't draw that conclusion. But if I did see and hear something "like" a god (e.g., a holograph-like but very real-looking glowing person with a booming voice telling me "This is God. I command you to murder your child", then I would take the least risky option and say no. Because the bible tells me not only "Do not murder" but also to test all prophecies, holding only to what is good. So I'm potentially disobeying god either way, but holding to the scripture seems to be the safer option.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Scandinavian countries aren't socialist (remember, the prime minister of Denmark had to correct Bernie on this). They have no minimum wage laws, until Trump came along they had lower corporate income tax rates, they have a less progressive tax code (e.g., higher taxes overall, not just for "the very wealthy" - at about $50,000 you're paying at least 50% in taxes), a 25% VAT tax on goods which hits the poor harder than the rich, no financial transaction fees like the ones Bernie proposes, no wealth taxes (especially since it failed in Sweden), no UBI (especially since it failed in Finland), no estate taxes. In other words, they're not down with Bernie's ideas of punishing the successful because they know these are the ones creating wealth. Not just for themselves, but for the country.
Also, are there are any Scandinavian politicians who've gone from zero to 100 million on a government salary? I can't find one. But we have plenty of examples in the U.S... and Venezuela...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@iceevc "T.I. interrupted here because she was going around the bush with irrelevant info."
Can't really say it was irrelevant since she wasn't given a chance to even utter a sentence. And as it turned out, it looked like her answer was gonna be similar to Mike's (but they let him talk because they like him).
"Then you said America was great a decade ago (10 yrs ago). That's the most laughable crap in your comment. Drugs was still flooding our neighborhoods, our school system was still poorly ran, black men was still getting beat up, murdered, and unlawful locked up on bogus charges. We was still under paid compared to whites. We was still paying high interest on loans to buy homes and start business compared to white folk with poorer credit scores than us and that's if they loaned to us at all."
Never said "perfect", I said "great". And I gave my reasons for thinking it was much better then than now. There are tons of positive things we could fixate on instead. What's interesting though, is that her point about fatherlessness is relevant to almost all of the problems (or at least if families were still strong like they were before the so-called "War on Poverty")
"T.I asked her if it was before women could vote and after slavery being sarcastic because she would not give a simple answer."
No, I think he really just wanted people to think Trump was imagining all that happening again.
"But it's my opinion that it was before slavery."
When people were dying of disease left and right, didn't have 10% of the blessings we have now, etc. Look, we all agree that slavery should've never happened, but that doesn't mean that because it happened everything's so awful today in 2019.
"Trump is in office to do the dirty work for these corrupt politicians. They are using him because he don't know the laws and have no issue with breaking them. He is doing a hell of a job padding the federal bench, repealing laws, making sure power remains white even even white is the new manority."
In what way is "power remaining white"? What laws has he passed that discriminate based on race? And I know people like to make the accusations that he's breaking laws and everything, but no evidence seems forthcoming there either.
And if you think something I've said isn't factual, feel free to correct me.
2
-
2
-
@iceevc "I'm going to start by asking why did you copy and paste my whole comment instead of making your point?"
I did both, and I quoted you directly so that you would know what I was responding to with each point.
And like I said, I disagree that Candace was "beating around the bush". I think she was taking her time answering, but at the same pretty clearly was gonna give a similar answer to Killer Mike. But they didn't like her so they shouted her down and let Mike take all the time he needed speaking.
"Now your comment about what Candace said about black fathers. You do realize those statistics only reflect married couples? It's plenty of black fathers in households that isn't married to the mother. Do that make them less than or unaccountable because they don't have paper work?"
Not sure, but even that's significant. If it had an impact on fatherlessness in the home concerning married couples, that's bad!
"Let me just add the bible doesn't even say paper work is needed for marriage."
Doesn't seem relevant...
"Next what power does black people hold in this country-"
The same power as anyone else. We just had a black president for eight years...
"and if we hold any power why is the wealth gap growing instead of decreasing?"
That's the question! I still think single motherhood is a very consistent predictor of all kinds of problems children will have to deal with as they go through life, but there may also just be cultural differences. And not even so much about race as socioeconomic status, it's a cycle. If you grow up in a ghetto, you already have a bunch of obstacles in your way that you wouldn't have if you didn't, and that's regardless of your skin color.
"Your whole act as if Trump is doing wonderful things for blacks shows your lack of research as well."
It's not an act, it's just common knowledge. Deregulations alone help businesses have more money to hire more people (though if they were something they could count on, it could also enable them to pay more too). And the prison reform he passed will disproportionately help blacks more than whites. On the other hand, I understand your disagreement with the things you listed and I won't pretend that I could defend them individually. But I wouldn't chalk it up to racism when they're so diverse; if there's an agenda, it seems to be freeing up businesses which in all probability does mean he made some mistakes in the process.
Also, you didn't respond to my criticisms of the era you picked (for when America was supposedly "great"). Do you really think that Americans in general were doing better back then than now? I get your concern about the wage gap, but that's comparing one group with another, not one time period with another.
2
-
2
-
@iceevc "I did answer your question about when America was great"
You didn't respond to my criticism of it. You didn't acknowledge that the economy we all enjoy today is still way better than it used to be. You didn't acknowledge how technology and medicine, shit like that is way better. You're so caught up in the wage gap that you'd be willing to sacrifice objectively better quality of life and go back to when we had to worry about dying from diseases and shit.
"Then you had the audacity to state blacks and whites hold the same power and try to use having a black president as proof."
It is! Why was he president and not some white dude from a trailer park? He had better advantages because of his own socioeconomic status, that what matters, I told you it's a cycle.
"It's too many disparities in our justice system, jobs, schools, neighborhoods, homeownership, etc to even attempt to say we play on the same field as white people."
Poor people play on the same field as other poor people. There is no "we". Half the black celebrities you think represent "us" represent rich motherfuckers from rich neighborhoods.
"Trump deregulations helped business keep money in their pocket. Especially builders like hisself. That money did not trickle down to the workers. Yes more ppl are working. More ppl are working 2 jobs to make ends meet in this new economy."
It's a very small percentage of people working two jobs. And if you're having to work two jobs to make ends meet, you probably have excess expenses for what you're making. I'm supporting my wife and kid with just one between us, and it's not a high-paying job believe me.
"As far as single parent households go your strerotypicly speaking on black families like we are the only ones affected by dead beat dads."
I never said that at all, and we weren't talking about dead beat dads necessarily. Just kids that have only the mother in the home for whatever reason. The welfare state incentivizes that. If dad lives at home, you get less money because they want the fuckin government to be your dad. A fuckin' pay you some chump change to survive and go screw the rest of the neighborhood dad, that's what you're fighting for.
"As a black woman from the hood, with a college degree, tradesman license, and her own small business, I give them black girl magic every time my feet hit the ground."
See? You own a fuckin' business, how are you talkin like you represent those who are strugglin just to live check to check? And don't get mad, because all I'm doin is putting up a mirror right now. We can draw us/them lines anywhere, which is the whole problem, we shouldn't be doing it. We should be encouraging everybody to do the best they can and not blame other people unless we can point specifically to where they held us down.
And I still don't know why you think Candace has said something bad about black fathers. She idolizes her granddad, gets onto the feminists for giving men a hard time over stupid shit, and preaches all the fuckin time about why they're important.
ETA: By the way, if I had my dad in the home growing up, who knows? I might have a small business of my own too.
2
-
@jean-luceyesofyoureyes5502 I did answer it, in my first comment. America was great (compared to now) maybe a decade ago, when we still had equal opportunity (though we will always have disadvantages compared to others) but we didn't have to fear losing our jobs, being blocked/banned, being targeted in various ways over something we said. Before we gave too much power to the SJWs, feminists, race baiters, etc.
But I suspect what you really mean is, when were black people doing roughly as well on average as whites (if not better). And as Killer Mike said (because T.I. wouldn't let Candace say it), black people were thriving most by comparison to whites after the abolishment of slavery. But that actually lasted up until the late 60s. After single motherhood was incentivized by the welfare state, things began to change rapidly. The victimhood narrative, combined with increased fatherlessness in the home, stacked the odds against black people like it had never been done before. And things are only now starting to (slowly) turn around thanks to the work of people like Thomas Sowell, who have inspired people like Larry Elder and Candace Owens to carry the torch of informing the black community as to just what the fuck really happened to its once great subculture.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@magnusorn7313 I'm getting how it works just fine. Those who think x amount is "not enough" will refuse to work there; those who want that x amount because they're not qualified for anything better, can still work. This is the way it should be, so that the government doesn't screw it up too much.
And no, it's not what Bernie wants, or he would be campaigning on that rather than raising the legal minimum to 15 (which would, again, only hurt the middle class and the unemployed).
There's a reason why none of these other countries have banned private health insurance, and that's because it's a really stupid idea. Our healthcare industry is already essentially controlled by our government, and it's the whole reason prices skyrocketed in the 60s with the advent of Medicare and Medicaid in the first place. They are the problem, if you want to talk about affordability. To think that the American people should give an already incompetent and corrupt government more power is insane.
These things, along with the tax system, are very different from what Bernie has proposed, and so for him to point his finger at other nations and say "That's all I'm wanting to do" is incredibly dishonest.
2
-
@magnusorn7313 Even "closer" would be a lie. Forcing employers to pay a certain wage by law goes further in taking power away from the people and giving it to government, than unions and collective bargaining. Same goes for banning private health insurance. It's pretty clear what Bernie really wants.
There are multiple reasons why comparing the U.S. directly to other nations is foolish. We have a much larger population than most of these other countries, for starters, so efficient management of resources by our government (which is already highly inefficient in getting anything done) wouldn't be a realistic expectation. And indeed, some nations struggle with it regardless (e.g., Canada and the U.K.). Also, American culture is one of excess lending itself to unhealthy lifestyles. And then there's our already noticeably corrupt government, a feature other countries might have but not apparently to the extent seen in the U.S. There's probably more, but you get the idea.
All of this is secondary, however, to the fact that we've already seen the results of giving our government too much power, and they're not pretty. It's no coincidence that the healthcare industry is both our most insanely expensive and most heavily regulated. The solution is known: open this industry up to the free market just like any other. Some may not know about our history (especially Bernie supporters from other countries). But the people in power almost surely do. They just don't care about the poor or middle class; that's why they persist with their power-seeking.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Trump's doing a great job, actually. In addition to the economy and record-low unemployment rates (lower than before the recession), we're talking increased wages, prison reform, Right to Try, lower prescription drugs prices, the list goes on and on. I also like what he's done for the pro-life movement, but I understand that's a more controversial topic.
What people aren't getting most is this issue of healthcare and what's really behind it. Prices skyrocketed in the 60s (with the advent of Medicare and Medicaid) because our government had radically increased demand while hindering supply. It's no coincidence that our healthcare industry is both the most insanely expensive and the most heavily regulated.
https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
As I said though, Trump's made some progress here by applying free market principles. Namely, getting more drugs approved by the FDA (competition!) has led to prescription drug prices falling at historic levels. He's also fighting for transparency in the costs of medical treatment, which will help even more.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/prescription-drug-prices-falling-historic-levels-thanks-trump-administration-policies/
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Austin Murphy Exactly. I think the median household income is up something like $4,000? And unemployment rates are at all-time lows. Aside from non-economic accomplishments (e.g., prison reform and Right to Try), we've seen deregulations, tax cuts, transparency in the costs of medical treatments, more drugs approved by the FDA, etc. Trump's taking steps in the right direction while Bernie can't seem to even get pointed there.
@Most Hated I certainly don't agree with the deficit continuing to go up, but I don't see how we can think it wouldn't be as bad if not worse under someone like Bernie. We're talking trillions of dollars to see his plans put into action. As for the middle class shrinking, YES! But you've only been told one part of the story so as to mislead you. The upper class is growing while the middle and lower classes are shrinking 😉
https://www.cato.org/blog/middle-class-shrinking-households-become-richer
I'm not understanding your last point though, could you elaborate?
2
-
2
-
@mroceans8336 Indeed, our healthcare industry and education system (both far more heavily regulated by the government than anything else we do) are a mess. The stock market booms are great news for many Americans, as a lot of us have money in the stock market without realizing it. These are our pensions, IRAs, 401Ks, etc. Finally, you mention that that middle class is shrinking as if that's automatically a bad thing. We're to assume that the lower class is growing, to support your claim that things are getting worse in America, but in reality both the middle and lower classes are shrinking while the upper class grows. That is, of course, a good thing 😉
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In reality, Trump has done well with the economy. And no, not "just for the upper 1%" as Bernie likes to claim. Members of all classes (and races, since the Democrats can't help but fixate on the color of people's skin) have benefited from Trump's economy. Record-low unemployment for blacks and latinos, over 7 million jobs provided overall. Average weekly paychecks are up 2.8%. The poverty rate and food stamp rolls declined. Real median household income (that's the amount earned by those in the very middle) hit $65,084 (in 2019 dollars) for the 12 months ending in July, which is the highest level ever and a gain of $4,144, or 6.8%, since he took office. There's more, but you get the idea.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/trumps-numbers-october-2019-update/
https://www.atr.org/thanks-trump-median-household-income-highest-level-ever
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/american-workers-thriving-thanks-president-donald-j-trumps-middle-class-tax-cuts/
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@@murami_matzominkes "Oh well, I think that people who want to be called women are women, regardless of appearance."
I do agree that a person can be a woman regardless of their appearance. But when you say that a woman is just someone who identifies as a woman, this makes the word meaningless. After all, when they're identifying as a "woman", what are they thinking of? Or, if it's just about the label and they don't necessarily identify as a woman, then they're literally wanting to be called something they don't even think they are.
"biological women aren't the only people associated with feminimity."
Right, they're just the ones who typically are. But if we were to say that one's degree of "femininity" is what makes them a woman, it would mean that lots of men (who identify as men) are not men but might just be women or somewhere in between. Same would go for any women (who identified as women) that were more masculine than the majority of women around them.
"Now, 'women' and 'biological women/females' aren't able to be used interchangably as words, since their meanings are different."
On your worldview, maybe. But on mine, the only difference between "female" and "woman" is that the latter is the adult version of the former.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@franklinbadge1215 Not at all. Not repeating the word to be defined is just the most basic rule of definition. There are many other problems you can run into while trying to define (or redefine) terms. For example...
"Gender includes the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity."
Sounds like Wikipedia has confused gender itself with gender roles and norms, a common problem among those who've subscribed to your worldview. But notice how this definition doesn't even work with transgenderism itself. After all, if someone exhibited the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of men, but identified as a woman, which one would they be?
2
-
@franklinbadge1215 ME:"Not repeating the word to be defined is just the most basic rule of definition"
YOU: "And I gave you a definition for male in which the word "male" isn't repeated. But, that's not enough for you, apparently."
Right, as I just finished saying, not repeating the word to be defined is just the most basic rule of definition. You corrected that problem but then gave a definition with a different problem.
"The word "and" has multiple applications, so in order to describe them all in a single sentence, you might have to use the word "and". Doesn't make it an invalid definition."
To include it in the actual definition itself, yes, would make it invalid.
ME: "Sounds like Wikipedia has confused gender itself with gender roles and norms"
YOU: "It's not really a consfusion when they outright say that, depending on context, gender can refer to gender roles."
Of course it is. It's just them admitting to equating the two. But as I went on to show, that definition doesn't even work with transgenderism itself.
ME: "if someone exhibited the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of men, but identified as a woman, which one would they be?"
YOU: "A pretty significant part of the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of men is identifying as male,"
And if someone identifies as male but doesn't exhibit any other social, psychological, cultural or behavioral aspects of men?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
First off, disagreement =/= hate, and it's not only illogical but dangerous of you to equate the two. Second, it's not actually possible to misgender anyone, on your worldview, because your side consistently fails to provide any sort of objective standard by which someone qualifies as a man or woman to begin with. It's logically impossible to be correct/incorrect in using terms with no such objective standard.
As for defining "female", it doesn't work to say that a female is someone who identifies as female, because you're still appealing to circular logic. But a female is someone whose body developed largely toward the function of bearing children. This would also apply to so-called "intersex" people, as having a few abnormalities does not make you some mysterious third gender, no gender, etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dariocarraresi1823 ME: "Correct, but they do at times confuse gender with gender roles and norms (because they believe gender and sex are different things)."
YOU: "Completely and utterly false."
No, it's very much true. For example, the APA defines "gender" as "the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for different genders" and also as "the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of gender". But these are what people mean by "gender roles" and "gender norms". So it's very clear that those who subscribe to modern gender theory equate the two.
"Trans people and pro-trans activists never confused gender identities with gender roles."
Right, but they do confuse gender itself with one or the other, sometimes even alternating between when one or the other is shown to be unworkable.
ME: "Sometimes they define "gender" in that circular fashion too, yes."
YOU: "Wrong."
No, it's also correct. For example, people will sometimes plainly say that a woman is whoever identifies as a woman, that identifying as female is what makes you female, etc.
"Gender identities aren't circular."
Concluding that you are x because you identify as x is what's circular, yes.
YOU: "The cultural beliefs that a society has about sex, sexuality, masculinity and feminity. This includes its tendency to divide people into different cultural categories based on those lines."
ME: "As I recall, I pointed out to you that this definition wouldn't be workable with transgenderism, because trans people and trans advocates clearly believe that it's the individual who determines their own gender (not society)."
YOU: "Wrong."
Not at all. Indeed, if trans people and trans advocate accepted what the larger society had to say about their gender, they themselves would admit they were wrong about it. So it's either you believe that the individual determines that or that society gets to determine it. It can't be both because they're not always going to agree.
"Trans people and pro-trans advocated believe that the individual determines their own gender identity."
Sure, but they also believe that their self-identification of their gender (their gender identity) is never wrong. That is, they believe it always correctly tells them what their gender itself is.
"Society determines gender norms."
Very true! Gender roles and norms are what's (for the most part) socially constructed. They're the expectations people place on us on the basis of our biological sex aka gender.
ME: "So for example, if all of society insisted that Pat was a man, they would say Pat is a woman if Pat identifies as such. Do you not agree? Are you saying that Pat in this scenario is wrong about their own gender?"
YOU: "No, Pat is correct."
Okay, so you don't really believe in that first definition you gave. Because you're finally admitting that on your worldview, one's gender isn't determined by societal or cultural beliefs but by someone's self-identification.
"The first two definitions refer to social norms and beliefs"
But these were supposed to be definitions of "gender". It wouldn't make sense to substitute the word "gender" with "beliefs" unless you're saying a person whose gender is woman = a person who has certain beliefs. But as you admitted, you think a person can be a woman even if they reject those social norms and beliefs, making the first two definitions you offered very disingenuous.
"You're basically saying that individual people cannot have their own subjective beauty standards,"
No, because beauty isn't something anyone is trying to insist others are correct/incorrect on. We accept it fully as subjective, leaving no obligation for an objective standard.
"Ah, so the reason why you don't like it when trans people determine their own gender identity is..."
Already a misrepresentation. It's the belief that you are x because you identify as x, that's the problem.
"Because you simply believe that they are incorrect."
Well I point out how the worldview is incoherent in that internal way we've covered. But yes, I would also say they're incorrect, and I can do that because I can give an objective standard by which they even can be incorrect. But you haven't been able to lay out any objective standard by which anyone can really be a man or woman on your worldview, so it'd be incoherent for you to say any person is correct/incorrect in using either term.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nxdboi "Why "Largely"?"
Because sometimes there are abnormalities. But this, again, doesn't make you a totally different gender. If you think otherwise, then you're the one ultimately saying things like infertility keep women from being women. Up until this point, I've given you my objective, workable definition for "woman" but you've yet to give us yours...
"Where in the threshold in which some ones body has "largely developed" the function for bearing children?"
No definition works like that, where only a specific part of x makes it x. Again, the ear is a good example. We all know and agree on what an ear is, yes? Even though it's the totality of the ear (minus any particular imperfection) that makes it an ear. The real question is, why do you want this not to be the case for women?
"An ear is an appendage. It has no will, intention, conscious thought, or purpose beyond it's function."
Again, makes no difference. And ears do indeed serve more functions than just hearing. They hold earrings and glasses, for starters. They also contribute to our sense of balance. But none of these are what make them ears.
"In other words, you ignore definitions when they are inconvenient for you."
No, I reject definitions that aren't workable. Again, if you think you have one that works, feel free to give it.
"But you are, though,"
That's a lie. No one's wanting genitalia checks. But we are wanting people to accurately represent themselves.
"because in your mind, that is literally the only differentiating factor, is it not?"
No. In fact, the definition I gave didn't base it on just genitalia.
"How would you know someone is "misrepresenting their gender [sex]""
How we would know in any given circumstance is a totally different question. I probably couldn't tell the difference between a real law degree and a counterfeit either. Wouldn't make the fake lawyer a real one, nor would it make my trust in them to tell me the truth (as they're being deceptive) the unreasonable action. Instead, they would be in the wrong.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nathan And yet, Amazon itself began as just some loser in his garage reselling books. I'm sorry, but we can't seriously claim that there's no demand for other businesses or room for the kind of innovation that would make people choose one company over another. Government interference absolutely does hinder people from starting a business and making their own fortunes.
@Nathan It's not the government's role to undermine what the American people have decided. It's the government's job to get out of the way and let other businesses have a chance. If you want to know what government interference really does to an industry, you should have a look at healthcare. In the 60s, prices skyrocketed as a result of government interference. Demand was dramatically increased (with the advent of Medicaid and Medicare) while supply was hindered, and it's hindered more and more each day. It's no coincidence that the healthcare industry is both the most insanely expensive and the most heavily regulated.
Even when you look at a lot of these allegedly socialist countries with "free" healthcare and the like, you find that they're actually more free market than we are. Take Scandinavia, for instance. The PM of Denmark actually had to correct Bernie when he said they were socialist. He pointed out that they're a market economy instead. No minimum wage laws, school voucher programs, they don't penalize the wealthy with high corporate tax rates, etc. All the things Bernie opposes, and yet it works (at least for now) to fund a much larger welfare state. More could be done to boost supply, but the point is they're at least doing better than we are. Scandinavia learned its lesson about capitalism some time ago (especially Sweden), while the U.S. sort of bumbles around and people like Bernie aren't helping.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@scorpionxiiclips Disagreeing with trans people isn't an aversion to them, either.
"Just because somebody is axiomatically opposed to an aversion to trans people,"
Irrelevant. I'm pointing out that we reject transgenderism (the worldview, not people who subscribe to it) because it can never provide objective definitions for its terms.
"doesn't mean they believe their ideas have objective validity"
If they don't believe there is objective validity to their views, then it's all the more nonsensical for them to ever say they've been misgendered.
"but we do not share axioms with somebody like Matt Walsh, who believes trans people are undesirable and should be sociologically erased."
I don't believe Matt Walsh has ever said such a thing. He does see the worldview as incoherent, and I do as well. But that doesn't mean the people themselves should go away.
"The fact that we can't readily give precise definitions negates Matt Walsh's documentary in which he asks people to give readily precise definitions."
Not in the slightest. You can still try to define any given term, after all. The people he asked in the documentary didn't dare to.
"There's no such thing as an objective definition."
Sure there is. Indeed, we hold almost every word to some objective standard, except "gender", "man" and "woman" for some strange reason.
"If scientists decide Pluto isn't a planet, it's no longer a planet."
Ah but would actual (serious) scientists do this because someone said so, or would they probably give objective standards they were assessing Pluto on? You know... if it were real science...
"Language is purely crafted for the purpose of utility."
And there is no utility in claiming someone's gendered you incorrectly concerning terms you admit there's no objective definition for.
"First... the "because they say they are" is not a definition of woman,"
It is possibly the most intellectually honest definition you could give, yes. But if you're of a different view, feel free to tell us the difference between someone who identifies as a woman and is correct and someone who identifies as a woman and is incorrect.
"Second... a women in academia is a social category"
So all of academia is confused too?
"in which a member sees within herself at least on attribute which she regards as sufficient for membership of said category."
Sounds a lot like "because they say they are" to me...
2
-
2
-
@scorpionxiiclips "Disagreeing with a trans person on whether pineapple belongs on pizza is not what aversion means,"
That wasn't the topic, agreed. But even disagreeing with them on their worldview concerning what gender is/isn't, is not aversion either, right?
And yes, to believe someone should be erased as a person is hateful and wrong, but that's not what everyone who disagrees with or even criticizes transgenderism believes.
And for the purposes of this conversation, when I call it "transgenderism" I'm not talking about some kind of cult, just the belief that you are a different gender than what your biology suggests purely on the basis of you identifying as such.
"There's no such thing as an objective definition of terms."
Sure there is. Indeed, most words are objectively defined in that there is some objective standard they have to meet. But if you are admitting that there is no objective definition for "man" or "woman", on your worldview, then this makes it impossible for anyone to ever be misgendered.
"increases human harm, and violates the scientific literature."
In order for science to even be relevant, we would need some objective standards for our terms, but you seem to be admitting you don't have any. As for "increasing human harm", I do not believe correction and/or criticism in and of itself should harm an otherwise healthy mind.
I agree with Matt Walsh on abortion also. But that doesn't mean we want to get rid of everyone who disagrees with us on these subjects!
"They did..."
Oh? What definitions were given then?
"If the definition of pluto was based on an objective standard, pluto would have to change in-order for the definition to change"
Not at all. We can change our minds about which objective standards something should meet at any time. The point is, we have a standard for pretty much everything except gender (on your worldview, anyway). I'm just asking why.
ME: "It is possibly the most intellectually honest definition you could give, yes"
YOU: "No..."
Then tell me, what is the difference between someone who identifies as a woman and is correct and someone who identifies as a woman and is incorrect?
"the full academic definition of woman is... a social category in which a member sees within herself at least on attribute which she regards as sufficient for membership of said category."
So, so long as the person considers themselves a woman they're a woman? How is that not "because they say so"?
"People aren't gay or trans because they say so"
Agreed on the gay thing. If a man sincerely says he's gay but is sexually attracted to only women, he's incorrect. Now... what about someone saying (sincerely) they're a woman? How might they be incorrect?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MotoCat Ok, so you've dropped your point about it taking more effort to go against transgenderism; dodged the question about why this isn't applied to other people saying they identify as different races, ages, or even species; and passed on trying to define "man" and "woman" yourself.
Incidentally, I did skim through the link you provided and it seems to be concentrated on nothing but defending surgery, hormone therapy, etc. as a means of treating the dysphoria. It does absolutely nothing toward making transgenderism itself more coherent or explaining why its central principle is so inconsistently applied.
But there was one "myth" I noticed was tackled with links that didn't actually address the "myth". This being "Myth #4: There is no need to transition". Notice that none of the links actually show that transition was needed, they only gave ways that it had been helpful.
Now, according to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, gender dysphoria in childhood does not inevitably continue into adulthood, and only 6 to 23 percent of boys and 12 to 27 percent of girls treated in gender clinics showed persistence of their gender dysphoria into adulthood.
Given that fact, it would seem that "transitioning" really isn't needed for most (and note that this research is more recent than the studies they posted trying to suggest otherwise).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25231780
And of course, that isn't the only instance of findings varying on this subject. According to one study, the suicide rate for transgendered people is very high (compared to those who are not transgender) even when you just look at those who undergo sex reassignment surgery. These people are still at least 18 times more likely to commit or attempt suicide.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@wulf67 "...a comment about the “beauty of having the freedom to choose how you want to live your life”?"
That wasn't the comment I was replying to (obviously). It was your claim that "no one cares what you prefer" when your side of this issue continuously criticizes tradwives. I see through that claim, is the point.
"I just want everyone to be happy, and the clearest empirical evidence that someone is happy with their life is that they’re not trying to convince everyone, including anonymous strangers on the internet, that their way is “better.”"
And yet here you are, trying to convincing anonymous strangers on the internet that not trying to convince someone that their way is better, is better 😉
"You trying to convince everyone that your way is “ better” seems like contempt for the lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness of everyone else"
Irony aside, I know the political left loves to call every form of disagreement "hate" or "phobia" (when it's convenient), but even "contempt" is still a bit silly. Don't you find that when and if someone is correct that a certain way is better, then they should say that, and maybe others should even agree? I mean, that premise shouldn't be controversial even if you disagree that traditional marriage is indeed better.
"If we say that your “trad” lifestyle is “better” will you go way and live your own superior life in peace and harmonious bliss?"
I'm not so selfish as that. I want everyone to have a better life, not just me 😋
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ebalicious1775 "So for me, outcomes are what is most important."
Outcomes for whom? Surely the people who are being stolen from aren't having a good outcome there. And you might say, "Well they'll benefit from it later", but A. you can't guarantee that, and B. if you're just going to run their lives for them in this way, what's to stop you from running it in other ways (deciding where they should live, who they should marry, how many kids they should have, etc.)?
"You can call taxation theft,"
Because it literally is. Now you can keep trying to justify this theft, but let's not evade the reality of what we're doing here.
"but what actually has to be analysed is the outcome of it."
No. Both what you're doing and why need to be analyzed, as I explained earlier.
"As you and I know, the payroll taxes that millions of Americans pay, go towards social security, roads, welfare, water, etc..."
And even if we had reason to think the government would run those programs efficiently, that still doesn't justify stealing the money for it in the first place.
"And not on that, but the majority of the population believes that taxation is necessary."
That's fine, the majority of the population has been wrong many, many, many times before.
"And when I said 'people of the society want the most' I was talking about the populism part of utilitarianism. The idea that of the greatest number of people believe something to be good, that it is good."
Well that's patently false. Used to be standard education, for example, that the world is flat. Women used to be considered inferior to men (and still are) in much of the world, even according to many women themselves. Sorry, but an appeal to the majority doesn't work in justifying something.
"Most people in the U.S. believe taxation is necessary, which is why it is morally good."
Well that just reduces morality to something subjective, then. In which case you can't actually say something is actually good, you can only say that you like it.
2
-
@ebalicious1775 No, in fact I'm quoting you so as to not misrepresent your side, but clarify away.
"Utilitarianism-the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct."
But who should get to determine what will/will not result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people? Who can even determine what will result in the greatest happiness for their next-door neighbor? Surely the neighbor himself has an advantage in that regard.
And so you're still wanting to justify stealing because the assumption is made that it will help the most people (which may or may not include the person you stole from).
"Taxation (at this current moment) provides the greatest utility at reducing income inequality,"
1. Where's your evidence of that?
2. Income inequality isn't in and of itself a bad thing. For example, if some people work more often or work harder, then they should be getting more money.
and 3. Even if this does fix the "problem" of income inequality, how does it justify stealing when we wouldn't say other types of wrongdoing could be justified by other good outcomes? Again, what's to stop you from deciding where I should live, who I should marry, or how many kids I should have?
"and not only that, it provides great utility to those who want roads, water, protection, etc."
Providing utility to someone after you've stolen from them hardly justifies the stealing, though, right?
"We can talk about the other contentions you had with utilitarianism, but I want to cover this one first."
Yes, you should really respond to everything I've said, not pick and choose from each comment.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ME: "Okay then, what question do you imagine Craig dodged? What arguments do you think Hitchens gave that refuted Craig? Or, alternatively, which arguments do you think Hitchens gave to support strong atheism, that weren't refuted by Craig in the debate?"
YOU: "there are many but I don’t really get into YouTube arguments or debates anymore so I don’t need to give any examples."
There are none, and that's a cop-out.
"Go back on the video watch it again and you’ll see how poor Craig’s arguments are."
I watched (and gave my analysis on) the Hitchens debate twice. Hitchens had absolutely zero arguments standing at the end of it, whereas he couldn't refute any of Craig's arguments.
"Even some of Hitchens arguments aren’t the best in the debate but overall for me he won."
And yet, you can't articulate why. I think you're just admitting here that you'd rather think Hitchens won, because you're an anti-theist like he was.
"A debate is for the person to decided who they think won."
No, a debate is governed by the rules of logic, which are not subjective.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mixuaquela123 "1. Simply put; we dont know what causes it precisely. It's probably a factor of genes/environment and chance."
I'm not asking how someone becomes a man/woman, on your worldview. I'm asking what definitively makes them one.
"2. The thing is who decides if it's "true" or not?"
Truth is not decided, it's discovered. Truth is about the objective reality, not our subjective feelings about that reality.
"It's a matter of subjective feeling like with homosexuality."
Except that even with homosexuality, there are some objective standards. If the thought of having sex with anyone (your choice) of the same gender as you makes you sick to your stomach, you're not homosexual no matter how much you might want to identify as such. Same goes for men and women.
"Ofc if someone claims that their biological sex is something it's not it's false since it can be objectively defined."
Well that's part of the problem too, people are altering their bodies and appearances to make it look like they're a biological sex they're not.
"But different gender identities cannot be objectively determined."
I don't care about anyone's "identity" in that sense. You can't objectively determine if I identify as me, or as Elon Musk either. But you can determine if I'm correct/incorrect in that self-identification.
"3. Homosexuals wouldnt say that because its a different phenomenom. In both cases though the feelings come from inside."
Right, it's a different phenomenon in that homosexuality isn't an incoherent worldview. It's a sexuality and as I explained even it can be subject to falsification.
"4. Who are you to say it's untrue?"
It's not about who's saying it; it's about whether or not it's true, and for that determination you have to look at the thing you're discussing. If I were a world-renowned mathematician and told you that 2 plus 2 equaled 5, I would hope you'd question that, no matter how many times I bellowed "Who are you to question me!?"
"Its the same as saying that "you're not depressed" to a depressed person."
Do you mean actual depression in the clinical sense? Because there are tests for that diagnosis. If you just mean that someone can be sad, sure, but we're not discussing how someone feels when we talk about transgenderism; we're discussing how they've interpreted those feelings.
So if someone said to you, "I'm sad", you can tell them "I'm sorry you're sad". But if they say they feel worthless, I'd hope you wouldn't respond "I'm sorry you're worthless"!
2
-
@mixuaquela123 "1. "I'm asking what definitively makes them one."
Biologically: someone whose sex is female"
What about them? What do you call an adult human female, on your worldview?
"Psychologically: someone whose gender is a woman."
So are you saying a woman is someone who is a woman here, or what? What psychological characteristics make someone a woman?
"2. "Truth is about the objective reality, not our subjective feelings about that reality"
I mean sure this is the case in natural science like biology and physics"
It's true in everything, including metaphysics. For example, there either is or is not a god. It's logically impossible for both of these propositions to be true or for both to be false. So there is an objective reality (that's the truth) and then there are everyone's opinions which are of course subjective.
"Transgenderism is part of psychology."
So are many conditions we'd both agree are unhealthy disorders of the mind...
"3. "makes you sick to your stomach, you're not homosexual no matter how much you might want to identify as such"
Exactly!"
Right, so we agree that there is an objective standard to meet when it comes to being homosexual. Now what is the objective standard for being a man or woman?
"The same feeling applies for this topic too."
I'm not talking about what people "feel like" they are. I'm talking about, how do we determine that their interpretation of any given feeling is correct/incorrect.
"4. "Well that's part of the problem too, people are altering their bodies and appearances to make it look like they're a biological sex they're not."
I mean I don't see a problem with that."
Well it's deception, for starters...
"My morals is often based on letting people live how they see fit unless it harms somebody."
Yes, but I would include deception as something that is at very least unethical. But that's not my main case against transgenderism, so it's whatever.
"5. "if I'm correct/incorrect in that self-identification"
I understand that you think the biological sex is the only truth there is,"
Um, no? There are many truths in this world. But calling someone a man/woman on the basis of their biological sex (and age and species) makes more logical sense.
Also, even if you want to say that biological sex doesn't determine your gender, the question remains "What does?"
"but that doesn't make their FEELINGS unreal."
No one's saying the feelings are unreal, unless you're talking about the notion of "feeling like" a man/woman, which is logically incoherent and I can explain why if you like.
"Saying they're "incorrect" is quite unproductive and doesn't help anybody. More productive way would be to try to understand them."
Understanding does not require agreeing. But yes, if you really want to help someone, you shouldn't just say "You're incorrect", we agree on that.
"They differ because homosexuality has nothing to do with identity."
Exactly. I'm rejecting any and all common nouns being given to people on the basis of them saying "I identify as that".
"but it's actually NOT about who's right and wrong."
It is for me. You can decide that you don't care about the truth if you like, but I'll continue to care about it.
"And that math example is inapplicable because it's a natural science."
No, the math analogy works for the point I presented it for. Which is simply that you don't have to be someone others consider special to make a valid argument. So asking "Who are you to say what's right or wrong?" is silly.
"8. " Because there are tests for that diagnosis".
There are also clinical tests for gender dysmorphia just so you know."
Of course! But having gender dysphoria doesn't mean you're a different gender. And that's the question, how we can know that someone who believes they're a woman is correct.
"I think saying "I'm sorry you FEEL worthless, or better "I'm sorry you feel that way" is an acceptable answer."
So you agree that someone can feel something, and draw a faulty interpretation of that feeling. Good then! That's progress.
2
-
@mixuaquela123 ""What do you call an adult human female"
"If you mean specifically me, first I would call them woman."
Same.
"But if I'm mistaken with their gender and they correct me-"
But wait, you just said an adult human female = a woman. How would you be incorrect in calling an adult human female a woman, if that's what a woman is? And in general, this is part of why modern gender theory (e.g., transgenderism) is incoherent. They insist others are incorrect in using terms like "man" or "woman" while being unable to provide objective, workable definitions for these terms themselves.
It's not logically possible to be correct/incorrect in using terms with no objective standards.
"I'm saying that psychologically a woman is someone whose GENDER is a woman"
That's still circular, and doesn't tell us what makes someone's gender a woman at all.
"meaning someone who identifies as a woman."
So if we say a woman = someone who identifies as a woman, what does "woman" mean in that definition? If it's to be echoed "someone who identifies as a woman", then the translation becomes...
"someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as..." on into infinity.
Humorously enough, that's the exact definition of "man" on your worldview as well.
"It could be more precisely defined with social norms related to a specific sex etc."
And that's where we run into the problem of it being unworkable with the rest of your worldview. After all, if someone adhered to the social norms expected of men but identified as a woman, what would their gender be? Seems you'd have to choose one incoherent definition or another.
""It's true in everything, including metaphysics."
That is absolutely not the case."
Yes, it is the case that the truth is about objective reality. And I gave an example of how this applies in metaphysics; even a supernatural being either exists or does not.
"In many cases objective truths are not relevant in sciences like psychology. For example, diagnosing someone with depression is not an "objective truth" and it can depend on the clinical test."
The clinical test would be a means of discovering the objective truth, despite what is being claimed. You can't just get anti-depressant pills, for example, by saying "I'm depressed", they're going to want to know more first. And even if they do give you your pills quickly, it's because they're operating on the assumption that you really do have depression, not just that you identify as having it.
In any case, you seem to be arguing that we don't always care about the objective truth or some such. But that doesn't mean truth isn't objective.
""unhealthy disorders of the mind"
- That statement is filled with emotion"
There's nothing emotional about that phrase at all, actually. There are objectively unhealthy mental disorders. If that fact bothers you, I'm sorry, but it's still a fact.
""their interpretation of any given feeling is correct/incorrect"
- What does that even mean?"
Well we just discussed an example. A person can feel very sad and interpret that as feeling worthless. But they're not worthless (we agreed), despite feeling like they're worthless. And this of course goes for everything. You can feel like or believe that you're x without actually being x.
""calling someone a man/woman on the basis of their biological sex (and age and species) makes more logical sense"
- I mean yes it's simpler"
Not always simple. But it is always more logically coherent.
"Now we understand that body is not the only thing which matters when it comes to gender"
Not if we can't even give workable definitions for "gender", "man" or "woman" we don't. We don't understand anything about gender if we can't at least define it clearly.
""Understanding does not require agreeing"
- But the thing is this is not a matter of agreeing."
Of course it is. I understand what they feel and believe, but I disagree with the interpretations of those feelings and those beliefs.
"I think you're constantly getting mixed the following concepts of being a female and identifying as a woman."
Nnnooo, but I am equating being a female (who's also adult and human) with being a woman.
""I'm rejecting any and all common nouns being given to people on the basis of them saying "I identify as that"."
- Sure. That is also called "not respecting people"."
Not in the slightest, or at least you shouldn't equate disagreement with disrespect. You shouldn't want trans people to feel more disrespected, hated, feared, etc. than they actually are.
""you don't care about the truth if you like, but I'll continue to care about it"
- I can see that. Continue not caring about the psychological aspects of it."
Oh, I care about all of the truth. I think trans people should abandon that worldview in favor of a more logical one that works.
"(again) gender cannot be objectively determined unlike things in math."
On your worldview, no. But then it follows from there that no one can ever be correct/incorrect in calling someone else (or themselves) a man or woman. Since there's no objective standard, there is no correct or incorrect way to use these terms at all.
2
-
@mixuaquela123 ME: "How would you be incorrect in calling an adult human female a woman, if that's what a woman is"
YOU: "No I'm saying I WOULD say that."
Okay then, why? Why would you default to calling an adult human female a woman? It's because that's what they are.
"I don't necessarily think that calling someone based on biological sex while conflicting with their gender is INCORRECT in colloquial language. It's just disrespectful."
Nothing disrespectful about it at all. But it is a bit rude to expect others to speak in accordance with your worldview, especially when that worldview doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny.
ME: "It's not logically possible to be correct/incorrect in using terms with no objective standards"
YOU: "True"
Okay then, so the statement "You are a woman" can never be correct on transgenderism. And no one is morally obligated to utter a statement that isn't even correct.
ME: "if someone adhered to the social norms expected of men but identified as a woman, what would their gender be"
YOU: "That kind of situation would be very rare."
I'm not convinced of that. I think plenty of women and "trans women" reject the expectations placed on women in our society and adhere more to the norms expected of men, however unintentionally.
"But the social norms doesn't explain everything (for example body dysmorphia) is part of it too."
So are you saying that a person must experience body dysmorphia and adhere to the social norms expected of women, to be a woman? Because that would exclude most of what you call "cis women", no?
"If they just "claim" it without actually feeling it,"
Feeling what? "Like a woman"? As said before, this notion is incoherent too. And that's due to the fact that none of us have a basis for that comparison. We've all only been just the one gender, so we'd have no way of knowing the difference between "feeling like" a man vs. "feeling like" a woman, or indeed if such a difference exists at all.
"Depression existed even before it was "properly" defined."
Right, but it's not "identifying as having depression".
ME: "The clinical test would be a means of discovering the objective truth"
YOU: "That's simply a false statement."
No, that's how science (real science) is done. You don't just claim to have something and walk out of the building with a diagnosis of what you claimed to have. No, not even for psychological disorders.
"How could an objective truth be fully dependent on definition?"
Because the fact of the matter is true, whether we acknowledge it, have a word for it, etc.
"It is not considered a mental disorder."
If you're talking about transgenderism, I didn't claim that it is currently considered one...
"You still didn't give me an example of how you would apply this "interpretation" of feeling sad."
Not sure what you mean by that. People can have feelings (e.g., sadness) which may be correctly or incorrectly interpreted.
"No one says "I believe I'm sad", but they could say "I believe I'm worthless". There's a subtle difference which I cba to explain."
Or they could say that they feel worthless. And in that case, you've already agreed that we both should not go along with that interpretation of their feelings but tactfully correct it.
"There are way better definitions of gender compared to the one I gave you."
So far, I've heard from countless people on YouTube, including many "experts", and none of them (who subscribe to modern gender theory) have been able to give an objective, workable definition for gender.
"I can for certain say you don't understand what they feel."
You've no reason to assume I understand it any less than you do. Again, disagreement =/= lack of understanding.
"so tell me these "interepretations and beliefs"."
We already know what they are, but sure. The interpretation of gender dysphoria that says "This must mean I am the opposite gender". And the belief that sex and gender are different things itself is unfounded, with nothing but incoherent attempts at redefining "gender" at the end of the process.
"Most transgender people understand their biological sex, but feel like they have born in a wrong body. What do you disagree with?"
The interpretation of "being in the wrong body". That's not a feeling, that's an interpretation of a feeling (e.g., anxiety, sadness).
""You shouldn't want trans people to feel more disrespected, hated, feared, etc. than they actually are"
- That's good to hear. That's why we should promote diversity in schools and stuff."
And why you shouldn't be saying that someone who disagrees with trans people is necessarily disrespecting them!
"" I think trans people should abandon that worldview in favor of a more logical one that works."
- This is simply not possible."
Of course it is. Ever hear of detransitioning? Also, what I'd prefer is that this worldview is rejected from the start, which would be much easier (admittedly) than turning away after subscribing to it. Most cases of gender dysphoria in children, for example, don't even last into adulthood (Cohen-Kettenis; Drummond, Bradley, Peterson-Badali & Zucker).
"It's not a "world view"."
Sure it is. It's a system of beliefs that people tend to base their life around. Some of them even go so far as to have their bodies mutilated for it.
"There are just respectful and less respectful ways."
What makes it disrespectful for me to call adult human males "men"? Because the person wants me to call them a woman? What about what I want? Your side isn't automatically in the right here just because it's your side...
2
-
@mixuaquela123 No, there is nothing disrespectful about disagreeing with someone else's beliefs. And you shouldn't want trans people to feel more disrespected, hated, or feared than they actually are. If you do... then I have to question your real motives here concerning them.
"If I called you a "she" do you think it's respectful?"
If it's false, then that's disrespectful. But as you admitted, on your worldview, there is no correct/incorrect when it comes to labels like "man" or "woman".
"On the context of transgenderism (psychology), it can be correct, since it refers to gender."
Except that you haven't been able to give an objective, workable definition for "man", "woman" or "gender" this entire time. Indeed you repeatedly say that gender is a subjective matter. So without an objective standard, it's logically impossible for anyone to be correct or incorrect.
"Maybe you have some example of a (actually) trans person who is rejecting every social norm and doesn't have any behavioural patterns placed on their gender identity"
"Any"? What percentage of "feminine" behavior is needed to qualify them as women? What if they adhere to some norms/roles of men and some of women (as most people do)? Would they be "non-binary" then, regardless of how they identify?
ME: "Feeling what? "Like a woman"? As said before, this notion is incoherent too"
YOU: "This tells me you don't actually understand how they feel."
And that tells me you haven't spoken with enough trans people. I've been told directly by them on several occasions that they "feel like" a man/woman. I was simply explaining why that's incoherent.
"It often starts with conflicting feelings in childhood."
As I said, it's the interpretation of these feelings I take issue with.
"Some studies have shown that there are actually structural differences between cis and trans people but that isn't clear yet. If that's the case would you consider it closer to your beloved "objective truth"."
The problem with the brain studies angle is at least two-fold:
1. We both know that even someone with a so-called "male brain" would be called a woman by those who subscribe to your worldview, if they told you they identified as one. The actual science is really quite irrelevant to trans ideology.
and 2. Differences in brain size, shape, and structure are also found in others with conditions we both would agree are unhealthy disorders. We don't conclude that therefore the subjects' beliefs are true; at best, we might say this shows why they hold said beliefs.
"Simply but; sadness is subjective and worthless is not."
And in the same way, anxiety is subjective but gender is not. Not if you want to define it in a coherent way, that is.
"Gender identity is a fundamental aspect of a person's sense of self, representing the internal understanding and perception of oneself as male, female, a mix of both, or neither".
I didn't ask what gender identity was; I'm well aware that "gender identity" is the gender someone identifies as. But there is no objective, workable definition for "gender", "man" or "woman" on offer from those who believe what you do on this subject. Not even from the alleged experts.
"You for example said it is a "world view" which is a very poor way to describe their feelings."
I never described their feelings as a worldview. I described modern gender theory (e.g., transgenderism) as a worldview. Because you can experience gender dysphoria without going down the path of considering yourself "transgender".
"You would "agree" with them if you actually can sympathize with their experiences and understand how transgenderism actually works."
So far, you've not been able to explain "how transgenderism actually works" at all. And it is not true that being able to sympathize automatically = agreeing. A former drug addict can sympathize with a present-day addict, while still telling them they should get clean.
"So now you're saying the conflicting feelings they have with their body is actually not a feeling but an interpretation ??"
I didn't say that. I said the statement "I was born in the wrong body" is an interpretation of those conflicting feelings.
"But I got the image that you're a bit disrespectful after saying it's a mental disorder"
I didn't say that either. But even if I had, that also is not necessarily disrespectful.
"and when rejecting their pronouns."
And you are rejecting my proposed language. Are you disrespecting, hating, or having a phobia of some kind against me?
And I didn't say anything about forced detransitions. You claimed that there's no way for someone to kick gender dysphoria without turning to transgenderism; I gave an example of how that's incorrect.
"The social norms decides if it's disrespectful or not."
How silly. So in the days of slavery, the slave owners were not being disrespectful to the slaves, because slavery was a social norm?
2
-
@mixuaquela123 "I'm not saying the disagreeing is disrespectful. The actions you take can be."
Ah so, it's okay for me to disagree, but I shouldn't be able to express that disagreement by refusing to speak in accordance with their incoherent worldview. I should let others control my behavior and speech, lest I... oppress... them?
""If it's false, then that's disrespectful."
- Nope being false does not equal being disrespectful."
If you call someone something they're not, yes, that's disrespectful. And if you demand that others say something that isn't true (as you are doing right now), that is also disrespectful.
"If I called you a "she" it's considered disrespectful because I intentionally called you with your non-preferred pronoun"
No, that's not ever what makes it disrespectful. Not getting your way =/= being mistreated.
"Gender: gender refers to the roles, behaviours, activities, expectations and societal norms that a particular society considers appropriate for individuals based on their perceived or assigned sex."
As I pointed out already, this definition confuses gender itself with gender roles and norms. Furthermore, it's not workable with the rest of your worldview. Because to the extent that someone chooses to adhere to roles, behaviors, activities, expectations, and norms of men, they cease to be women, even if they identify as such.
Or at best, you'd have to say they're "less of" a woman than those women who more closely adhere to the gender roles and norms traditionally expected of women.
"Woman: a person whose gender identity is woman (apply the term "female" to the gender definition to avoid circularity)."
So obviously the definition is circular, or else you should tell me what a "female" is on your worldview because I suspect circularity there. Same issue arises with your definition of "man" (and male) of course.
ME: "What percentage of "feminine" behavior is needed to qualify them as women?"
YOU: "I see so now you are using the "nitpicking" tactic."
And I see that you still can't define the word you're demanding I use your way.
"What percentage of "depression" is required to be clinically depressed? How stressed should you be to be considered as burnout?"
Since they are able to define their terms throughout discussing that first question, I'd refer to a psychologist there. As for "burnout", to my knowledge, people don't treat that as an objective reality others must alter their speech for. If they ever do, they need to be the ones to define "burnout".
"And feminine behaviour doesn't make anyone a woman."
But you just defined "gender" by way of feminine behaviors, norms, roles, etc.
"It's the feeling (identity) from inside that does,"
What is the "feeling"? Again, it can't be the claim that they "feel like" a woman, because that's incoherent for the reason I gave earlier.
ME: "Differences of brain size, shape, and structure are also characteristic of several conditions we both would agree are unhealthy disorders. We don't conclude on the basis of this that therefore the subjects' beliefs are true; at best, we might say this shows why they hold said beliefs"
YOU: "It's not a matter of belief (from the perspective of trans people)."
I understand that they and you do not consider these beliefs (e.g., "I was born in the wrong body") beliefs. But you alluded to brain studies as evidence that their conclusions are true. I was simply refuting that point.
"Define "anxiety" coherently for me."
Oh I'm not asking you to define a feeling (I never asked you to define "sadness" or even "conflicting"). We both know what all of these feelings are. But it doesn't follow that if you're feeling anxious or conflicted, that you were born in the wrong body, just like it doesn't follow that if you're feeling sad that you're worthless. So again, it's the interpretation of the feeling that matters. In life in general, and in this conversation.
"But internally the condition works very similarly to homosexuality (conflicting feelings at the start etc.). That's a good way to start understanding it."
Not at all. Because when asked to define "gay" or "man", a gay man can do both without appealing to circular logic.
""sympathize automatically =/= agreeing"
- True, it doesn't automatically mean that. But it is most often the case in this context."
How convenient.
"It 10000% is disrespectful to call someone mentally ill, who isn't."
A. For the third time now, I didn't call them mentally ill.
and B. All of a sudden, you seem to agree with my earlier premise that it's when something is not true, that's when it's disrespectful to say it about someone.
""And you are rejecting my proposed language"
- Again your desires doesn't matter."
Okay, so rejecting someone's proposed language =/= disrespecting them. That goes both ways though. You can't just arbitrarily say that your proposed language must be accepted (and not to do so is "disrespectful") while my proposed language can be rejected without that being "disrespectful".
"The example you gave might rarely work (probably for people whose gender identity was not deeply rooted, and is at its forming state)."
No True Scotsman fallacy.
"But we both probably can agree that this operation have been proven to not work well."
What operation? Rejecting transgenderism is a simple realization that it's incoherent and you don't want to handle your gender dysphoria (if you even develop it) that way.
ME: "So in the days of slavery, the slave owners were not being disrespectful to the slaves, because slavery was a social norm?"
YOU: 'From their world view, you are correct."
No, according to your position here, if something adheres to social norms it's not disrespect. Don't put that craziness on me, lol. I'm just pointing out the absurd conclusions that position leads to.
"Remember "objective truth" doesn't exist"
I remember that you believe that objective truth doesn't exist. But... is it true that objective truth doesn't exist?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cook1ezz "The only thing that makes someone transgender is the inherent feeling of wanting or needing to be a different gender."
See, even here, you're talking about gender roles. You're talking about how someone chooses to live, which can be addressed without denying what gender you are. Gender roles are the social constructs, like "Men are supposed to be tough", "Women are supposed to be nurturing", etc. But if you're a man who doesn't want to be tough and wants to be nurturing, you are a still a man and you are free to live however you like.
"In my experience, I learned I was trans when I hit puberty and began to experience extreme dysphoria with the changes I experienced. For my own mental sanity, I know I need to transition."
And I bet if you were to get specific, you would be talking about gender roles, not gender. Also, even after surgery, trans people are 18 times more likely to commit suicide than non-trans people. I think it's the worldview that needs to be ditched, with all due respect. Because that's the common denominator no matter what you change physically.
"I've also heard that last question and arguments from both sides seriously arguing the issue. I have no idea how to address it. A lot of people dismiss the question because it is usually brought up in a way to delegitimatize trans people, like the "oh well I identify as an Apache helicopter" meme, so people probably never give it serious thought."
Even if it is done in mockery, it presents a valid point. If we are to alter the way we address and treat others based solely on how they identify, that principle can be applied in all of these ridiculous ways. And it will because people are attention-seeking, so they will continue to push the limits of what they can say without being corrected.
2
-
@cook1ezz "All it takes for you to believe that I feel this way."
Yeah, like I said, no one's questioning whether or not you feel that way.
"Even though internally I don't feel like a male, I would have known if I did since I lived my life as a male for most of it so far."
The point is, you don't know if you feel more comfortable because you're now living "as your true gender" or just because you're now living your life the way you want to. Since neither of us know what it feels like to be both genders, we can't compare the two experiences so as to say there is any difference between those feelings.
"Gender does not traditionally mean biological sex. The term gender was coined in the year 1955 by John Money."
Not at all, the word "gender" has been around as long ago as the 1400s. And it always meant biological sex until Money did his sick little "experiment" (which failed, BTW).
"It is the actions or responses someone gives that reveal their status as male or female."
So now you're defining "gender" as the actions or responses themselves?
"While the word did exist before 1955, gender had a very different meaning than even sex, and was a word that was related to categories of grammar, in no way related to the human body or psychology."
In other languages. But the English word "gender" always referred to biological sex.
"There are scientifically and psychologically backed studies,"
Proving what, though? And how?
"Are you going to say being gay is incoherent?"
No, because being attracted only to members of the opposite sex is a pretty clear concept.
"You use incoherence as a scapegoat to not accept trans people."
No, I accept trans people, but I disagree with transgenderism. Because it is incoherent and so far all the evidence we have suggests that it's harmful.
"Transgenderism is clearly defined,"
Not at all. I mean, you yourself gave quite a confusing definition of "gender" just now. And we never got around to making sense of the "brain studies" angle.
"The thing is, when someone is not rich but claims to be rich, it is not the same thing as saying that I don't know I am more comfortable living as a female, they are hardly comparable in the slightest."
Nor is any person with a delusion (those people we both would agree are delusional) comfortable with our refusals to treat them as if we agree with the delusion. This is not a distinction between transgenders and these other scenarios.
"I have lived as a male, even though I say I didn't feel like one in my head, I still lived inside a male body, presenting male, socially recognized and treated as male, if I was male inside like my sex would suggest then I should have been comfortable right? Well, I wasn't. I went down a deep spiral of discomfort and depression and almost ended up taking my own life."
And I hope you never do; I wish you the complete and total best! But that aside, any given person who identifies as something that you would tell them they're not, could easily say the same things you just said. Then what? Would you address them and treat them as they requested or no?
"That in no way is the same as a poor man saying he is rich, there is no merit to that claim."
Which is what we're saying about transgenderism.
"Stop using the poor person claims to be rich comparison to me being transgender,"
identifies as, not just "claims to be".
"You should be able to see a clear difference between a quantitative thing such as being rich vs poor, and someone not meeting the quantitative standards of being rich whilst claiming to be rich, and the qualitative psychological things I experience that give me saying I am trans backing,"
The comparison isn't between your experiences or feelings and the physical facts about the poor man's bank account. It's between the physical facts in both cases, as well as between the experiences and feelings in both cases.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Eh. Trump's doing a great job, so I'll be voting for him this time. Record-low unemployment rates (lower than they were before the recession), increased wages, prison reform, Right to Try, lower prescription drug prices, the list goes on and on. Plus, the government is what got us into this mess, concerning healthcare, to begin with. If anything, history (and recently, Trump) has shown us we should free up the market instead.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@H T "Their brain structure still does not actually affect what sex they are."
Exactly. So a man can have a so-called "female brain" and still be a man. In fact, this is what trans people and trans advocates would say about a biological male who had a "female brain" but still identified as a man.
"In your brain structure explanation, you forgot to add that there is a typical 'male brain' and then a slightly different version, a more 'feminine' but still male brain."
Actually, I suspect that brain types are on somewhat of a spectrum. But whether they are or not, it wouldn't affect my points about why we should reject the "brain studies" angle.
"this implies that your statement about the brain structure not being a determining factor of femininity or masculinity is incorrect, as even the traditional brain has a counterpart in which it is more like how the opposite sex brain operates, making the behavior more 'feminine' or 'masculine' depending on how your brain developed."
Which would still just make them men who "think like" or "act like" women, or women who "think or act like" men. Again, all of this is quite irrelevant to the transgender worldview, if we're honest, because at the end of the day it's all about how a person identifies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@gagetomerlin2497 There are many reasons why transgenderism is incoherent. Every time I ask a trans person or trans advocate how they "know" they're the opposite gender, they inevitably confuse the inclination/disinclination to adhere to gender roles and norms with gender itself. That, or they say something like "I just feel like a woman", which is also incoherent since none of us actually have a basis for comparison. We've all only been just the one gender, so we'd have no way of knowing what the difference is between "feeling like" a man and "feeling like" a woman. Or if there even is a difference, or if such a feeling exists at all.
Moreover, the worldview is inconsistently applied. We're supposedly obligated to call a man a woman solely because they identify as such. Yet this is the only characterization we do that with. No one would call a white man black if he identified as black, or an adult a child if they identified as a child. But an arbitrary exception is made for gender, and gender alone.
Now, as for pride, it really wouldn't make sense for anyone to feel pride that they happen to have been born into some random group. But you can certainly be proud of your own individual accomplishments or virtues, nothing wrong with that at all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DarkPuppy9 "no, you haven't given arguments to the contrary"
Sure I have. For example, I pointed out that we are expected to adhere to certain roles purely based on our biological sex, and those roles are called "gender roles", indicating that sex and gender are indeed synonymous. People just look at me, determine I'm biologically male, and expect me to adhere to the gender roles and gender norms of a man.
I've also pointed out that since you cannot give an objective definition for terms like "man" or "woman", on your worldview, this makes it impossible to misgender anyone. After all, if there is no objective standard to meet to qualify as either a man or woman, then no one can be correct or incorrect while using these terms.
Ironically, it's only those of us who reject transgenderism that can accuse others of misgendering them in a coherent way.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tiredasexual_8334 "or maybe these gender terms of "man and woman" aren't and shouldn't be based on biological structures."
Even if we say that "man" and "woman" isn't defined biologically, they would still need objective definitions. Without definitions based on some objective standard, misgendering is logically impossible, in addition to the whole topic being entirely irrelevant to science at that point.
"We can't define something in a spectrum. Try defining the color blue without saying the color blue."
Actually, the dictionary's already done so: the pure color of a clear sky. Or, if you prefer to reference the spectrum it is the primary color between green and violet. And with this objective definition, we can say what is/isn't blue. That isn't incoherent, whereas modern gender theory is.
"Gender is a societal construct, not a biological one."
You've confused gender roles and norms with gender itself. Gender roles and norms are socially constructed, and they're constructed on the basis of gender (aka biological sex). But again, even if you say gender is something else, you would need an objective definition for the reasons I gave earlier.
Another problem with saying gender and sex are different things, BTW, is that it even further makes it difficult to accuse someone of misgendering. After all, when I call someone a "man" I'm not referring to their "gender" as you conceptualize it; I'm referring to their biological sex. So you can't say I've misgendered anyone, if I haven't mentioned their gender at all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@feechlamana-n7m I actually didn't mention Wall Street, but it is important for the average American as well. In addition to the indirect benefits of having businesses perform well (e.g., median household income has gone up more than $4,000 since Trump took office), about half of America has money in the stock market in the form of retirement plans. So when Bernie talks about taxing investments in the market, that's going to result in less money for a lot of people, not just the evil "greedy" top 1%.
And Trump signed the First Step Act, that's the prison reform I mentioned. Other presidents never got around to it, sadly. So these things, the economy at large, record-low unemployment rates, increased wages, Right to Try, and lower prescription drug prices, these are all really good things. I'm excited to see more along these lines.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Dominic Addenbrooke Your insults have been noted. Now what do you think of the job he's doing?
@Dominic Addenbrooke How has he damaged democracy worldwide? Or shown that the system of checks and balances doesn't work? And I'm not convinced that the U.S. is less respected; I've heard a lot of good things from other countries, about the U.S. and Trump both. I agree that he's added to the deficit and that's not good. I'll just make the assumption that it could've been helped, although in truth no one really knows what our military needs to be doing or how much it'll cost. We don't have that kind of intel.
The reason people give Trump credit for improving the economy is that, after Obama implied that he couldn't bring jobs back without a "magic wand", Trump did just that through deregulations and tax cuts. He's also made some improvements to healthcare, such as Right to Try, transparency in the costs of medical treatment, and getting more drugs approved by the FDA. Prison reform is another big thing he signed into action (Some of these things, really, shouldn't have taken someone like Trump to get done).
So yeah, I think he's doing a great job overall. Certainly better than what his opponents are planning to do if they're elected.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Andrew12217 "and yet people still sign up to it without thinking about it because they are told it's a blessing and it gives purpose and meaning."
Well it is a blessing that gives purpose and meaning. And I think we're using the phrase "without thinking about it" in different ways here. But it's specifically if someone becomes a parent without thinking about the best way to actually raise a child, then you get the problems we're talking about.
Yes, ideally, they should be sure they want to be a parent before "signing up". But as with most things, there are bound to be some surprises. That's life in general though, not just parenthood. If you said no to everything you couldn't perfectly predict everything about, then you'd never do anything in life at all.
"That's the whole trouble, people shouldn't be told that it is always like that by default. You need to understand why it would be that way for you... Or why it wouldn't."
Not really possible. You can say what type of life you think you'd be happier with, but there's no way to live every alternative out and find out for sure. But there used to be a time when people in general understood that they could be relatively happy no matter what occurred (outside of something severe like being kidnapped and tortured). Now everyone's insecure about everything, and it's not healthy.
"But in the end it's not children but the person who has chosen that job as meaningful and worthy to sing up for even before there's a kid. Then the kid becomes a "blessing" because it was a fulfilment of that desire"
Sometimes, sometimes not. Some people have kids by accident yet consider them a blessing.
2
-
@Andrew12217 "not even the best way. Just the thought of if they want to be parents, it's not that people can't learn, the thing is would they even want to learn in the first place?"
You can always change your values, hence the point of this conversation. And I'll skip ahead, since that response covers most of what you say after. A person can be raised with skills and the resolve to be a good parent, and I think they should be.
"How can anyone carelessly recommend having kids when we understand that any other aspect of a person's life is their own and so it's their own journey to self discovery?"
No one's doing this carelessly, but we're doing it because there are bigger priorities than "self-discovery". We're in a birthing crisis in the West right now, where we're not reproducing enough to replace our current population.
"Would you recommend someone to study medicine when their desire is to be a lawyer?"
If there were a shortage of doctors, yes. And the government would even get involved in a propaganda campaign and other incentives to encourage more people to consider it. And with enough incentive, magically more people would want to become doctors again. As I say, there are ways of shaping (and reshaping) values and desires.
@CactusCowboyDan
"1: You’ve misunderstood. 50/50 means the chances of loving or hating parenthood is half and half."
And where is your source for that claim? Especially since "hating" is a very strong word. You admit that "It doesn’t mean that half of parents regret having kids." so what does it mean to "hate" parenthood and yet not regret having children?
"That’s not treating them like a plague, it’s just they don’t like them."
The problem is still in the brain of the parent. Either you need therapy because you dislike your children for no good reason, or you failed to raise/discipline them right and that's why they annoy you. But that goes back to teaching people both the skills and resolve to be good parents from the start.
"2: It’s a simple fact that there’s more than one definite route to “purpose”."
While this is technically true, parenthood locks you into a clear purpose (you have a child you're responsible for raising) while other pursuits of that sense of purpose could much more easily be abandoned. And so you know deep down this sense of "purpose" is artificial.
"And it’s another fact that there’s more than one route to fulfilment."
Yeah, but the parenting route is more promising. That's not to say it's a guarantee, but it's more likely you'll raise a kid into an adulthood and feel fulfilled with that accomplishment than most other pursuits of fulfillment that require a bit more luck.
"Lastly, having a kid isn’t exactly a “large contribution” to the betterment of the world."
Sure it is, if you raise them right. That's a whole other human being! who will go on to interact with countless other human beings. And odds are, they'll get married making another human being very happy and creating more people. Even disregarding the birthing crisis we're in, that's a big deal! And the fact that you said "Nobody outside of your immediate family cares if you have a kid or not in reality" just shows you haven't really thought about this point at all. I'm very glad my wife's parents decided to have her.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@abbytrilights4692 "The problem about the term man or woman, is the used of it."
Well, not for those of us who don't subscribe to the transgender worldview.
"People give gender role to someone on the basis of their genital."
You're quite right, which is one of the biggest confirmations that gender and biological sex are one and the same. People look at you, determine that you're biologically male, and expect you to conform to the gender roles and norms of a man.
"There 3 things that must be consider, 1) gender identity is like the consciousness that make you know your existence, your being, your person whether through your comprehension you know which set of people you mostly align with."
But how someone identifies can be different from what they are. Again, this is acknowledged in every other category, except gender. If a white man identifies as black, he's simply incorrect. But if he identifies as a woman, this is just "her truth" or some such.
"2) gender expression how you express yourself maybe as femininely or masculinely or gothly or hippies. Its how you present yourself irrespective of your gender identity. And expression had varies over time and place and culture."
Certainly. And this has more to do with gender roles and norms (or your inclination/disinclination to adhere to them) than gender itself.
"3) sex and your body, yes it's important, your biology is important. But not to an extent that its everything."
Completely agree. So we should be able to acknowledge, for example, if we're a man who simply doesn't conform to all of the gender roles/norms of men. That shouldn't make us think we're a whole other gender. Men and women differ, not just with one another but with other men and women respectively.
"You don't need to know about someone chromosomes or genitalia to address to someone."
Sure, but I won't be using language in a dishonest way either. And that brings up another incoherence, regarding the trans worldview: I've had a number of them admit to me that gender doesn't have an objective definition (according to them). But if that's true, then there's no such thing as "misgendering", because there's no correct or incorrect gender to call someone.
"If you need to address a stranger just ask them about their names, pronouns and address with great respect surely."
I would no more ask an apparently male person his "pronouns" than I would ask them if they're black, an adult, a human being, etc. We have eyes for a reason. Not to make 100% sure of something but to help us logically deduce the truth.
2
-
@abbytrilights4692 "transgender people had existed since history."
Sure, but that doesn't in any way validate their beliefs.
"Colonization had brought sexism and triggering Transphobia to the trans individuals."
Even if all this were true, that wouldn't validate the transgender worldview (in light of the criticisms I've given so far and many others), nor would it invalidate "transphobia" (if you mean "disagreeing with transgenderism").
"misinformation."
If my disagreement with this incoherent worldview is based on misinformation, feel free to directly address something I've said and point out how it's wrong.
"why its on you to give gender roles on genitalia basis."
It's not on me as an individual, but different cultures assign roles and norms to people based on their biological sex (called "gender roles"). And though these differ in how they manifest from culture to culture, it is in fact a universal phenomenon that men and women are expected to dress and act differently.
"You are messing up with someone nature. Because u r giving and ordering them to do so."
If you mean to ask me if I approve of strictly holding people to gender roles and norms, I do not. There are some biological differences between men and women that we shouldn't ignore, but by and large I'm fine with people choosing how to live their own lives (so long as they're not trying to force others to live how they want them to).
And of course, all the labels you try to throw at me bounce off. I'm not sexist, racist, transphobic, etc. just because I disagree with a worldview that falls apart under scrutiny.
2
-
2
-
@abbytrilights4692 You may believe gender is different from biological sex, but I've given an argument as to how we know better. And you've yet to provide any objective definition of "gender" by which to even start building your own argument.
"And when given facts about history and colonization."
Actually, all I did was point out that even if your claims there were true, it doesn't validate/invalidate the positions of anyone living at that time.
"i know the transphobe are so broken"
Seems quite irrelevant to our conversation, since I'm not someone who hates, dislikes, fears, or has a prejudice against trans people.
"they claim that trans community say " sex is not real". But all this was a lie. U invented your own lies"
Again, this isn't something I've claimed. If you would like to debate those people, feel free. But I'm still waiting for an answer to the questions and arguments I've presented, and you're stalling.
"And now you are claiming " obejective definition "."
If you mean to say that I pointed out how no one advocating transgenderism has been able to provide an objective definition for "gender", you're right. But you're not realizing the importance of that, if you want to insist that we're "misgendering" someone. If "gender" is simply a subjective matter (which it is on your worldview only), then it's not actually possible to misgender someone, because no one can actually be correct/incorrect when they call someone a particular gender.
"Many term don't have objective definition. Like love. I hope you still believe in love."
Ah yes, but I don't go around insisting that x person does/doesn't love someone. I don't call them -phobic or some such because they disagree with me on what love is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@abbytrilights4692 "you are not trans, so why you need to agree or disagree with them."
As I pointed out in my last comment, this angle doesn't work either. You are not someone who identifies as Superman, or a white person who identifies as black, etc. either. Yet you would disagree with such people, on how they identify.
Furthermore, you're not someone who disagrees with transgenderism; so why do you need to agree/disagree with those of us who disagree with transgenderism? :P
One final problem with that approach: If I agreed with transgenderism, you would not be downplaying my opinion. It's only when people disagree with you, that this actually "matters".
"You are limiting your belief."
To coherent worldviews that doesn't fall apart under scrutiny, yes. BTW, you can also be accused of limiting your beliefs, by not agreeing with me.
"By saying objective definition or whatever."
I gave sentences including the phrase "objective definition", which you are trying to dismiss without addressing.
2
-
@abbytrilights4692 "You are saying scientists as if you will stop believing in love because scientists can't prove that love is heart shaped particularly."
No, I pointed out that scientists can't provide an objective definition for "gender" even though you're making the claim that this is in some way different from biological sex. And also note that while people will differ on what does/doesn't constitute love, they will not agree that anyone who identifies as someone who loves another, necessarily does. So for example, a man who beats his wife may sincerely believe that he loves her, but most people would say he's incorrect about that.
So the difference really is that "identifying as" x doesn't work to convince people, except on the subject of gender where you make an arbitrary exception.
"You are brainwashed to do not believe in gender identity."
Depends on what you mean by that. I certainly acknowledge that people identify as different genders. I simply disagree that your inclination/disinclination to adhere to gender roles and norms should be confused with gender itself.
"the superman part is an all transphobe argument."
Not at all, it's just a valid point in which I turned your reasoning back around on you and you didn't like it (so you resumed with the mindless name-calling). But it remains true that you can't obligate me to call a man a woman just because I don't know what they're feeling or experiencing. Just like your not knowing what other people are feeling or experiencing, doesn't automatically invalidate your arguments.
"You start with race and now a dc superhero. Then what a tree, a n animal. What the heck. Lol."
Indeed! That's the point of my comparisons, to show that transgenderism is not only incoherent but inconsistent in its application. I'm supposedly obligated to call a man a woman solely on the basis that they identify as such (and my observations and science itself can take a hike), but we are not similarly obligated to call a white man black if he so identifies. Or to call someone Superman, etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@abbytrilights4692 "But for you personally. Why are you asking for a obejective definition on gender?"
Because it demonstrates how incoherent transgenderism is. And the importance is three-fold. For one, people are sometimes pressured to call men women or to treat them as such when we don't subscribe to your worldview. This even extends into telling people how they should run their own business. Second, I think truth has inherent value. And third, admittedly a distant third, trans people are more likely to be suicidal and I'm not convinced it's because they're all bullied.
"here is a facts, trans people had existed since history."
Again, this doesn't do anything to validate their worldview, just saying it's always existed.
"Now about your gender obejective definition. Things don't actually need a obejective definition to exist."
What an odd way to word it. Well the things themselves don't have to be defined with words to exist, that's a given. But if you're going to claim that a proposition (e.g., "I'm a woman") is correct or accurate, that requires an objective definition. Otherwise, you are indeed just trying to push your own subjective beliefs onto others.
"Tell me something ,if someday it happens that you met accident and you had to remove your genital for you survive and apply estrogen to you to prevent complications."
Then I would still be a man, because the genitalia and even hormones are brought about naturally from the fact that you are a certain gender.
But of course, this answer doesn't matter either way. If someone experienced that, and we both agreed that this would make them a woman, transgenderism holds that we should flip-flop on that the second that person stands up and says "But I still identify as a man".
"As fake and unreal it can be. Just believe it. You we remove your genialia and you start to look like a woman, will you change gender. Will Your consciousness switch in some way that you stop connecting with your man gender and starts to connect with a woman entity."
Not mine, no. But you're missing the point. Another man might go through the exact same thing and come out thinking it was all a sign he was "born into the wrong body" and is "really a woman". On your worldview, you have to wait to hear what each of us "identifies as", to know what to think.
"If you consider a man attracted to a transwoman as gay. Soooo. Okay. You are living in ur own world. Lol."
How so? If a man is sexually attracted to another man, that's pretty much the definition of gay.
"do a research on reimer twins."
I won't go on a wild goose chase trying to prove your arguments correct. If you have a point to make, you can make it here.
"Maybe you can found how gender is real."
On the contrary, I accept that gender (biological sex) is real. But on your worldview, it's a subjective notion.
And you're still dodging most of my questions and arguments. Why?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So his solution is to not support Trump and let the pro-abortion, child-groping Biden win again? I also find it ironic that he criticizes "bringing politics into the church" (which, news flash: everything is being made political including your religious beliefs so there will be no separating them) and then he goes on a political rant when he's supposed to be talking about the bible.
And no, no one ever said politics is spiritual stuff. That's a straw man.
He claims it's not our duty to "be political". But again, everything you say and do will be politicized. As for "serving God", this is precisely what the enemy wants. Read and pray and nothing more. They want everyone to "serve God" in some vague, ineffective way. Basically keep your beliefs about right and wrong (which, once more, can and will be politicized) to yourself, whether it's in the bible or not. I'm shocked that people think this man is making some strong statement, when in reality he's advocating the opposite.
As for the bible Trump had published, he didn't really say exactly what's wrong with it. But ironically he's coming pretty close to blasphemy himself by stating that the book is blasphemous. Which part? The bible part? "The gospel is not an American gospel". No one said it was. Again another straw man, as is "Oh you're encouraged by it/you're glorying in it". Nope, they just bought it. If he's disgusted by some part of it or don't think the documents therein can be reconciled, he should be able to elaborate on why.
"But we're only here temporarily." As is the book. And any other version of the bible, with or without the U.S. Constitution which he seems to have a problem with...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Tsimosh "Well, I mean.. the email was published, and Sam's manager actually replied to "Jim","
Ohh so you think that because you can put "Jim" in apostrophes that therefore Jim doesn't exist. What an airtight argument!
"They offered, Ann Coulter and Jimmy Dore.. neither of them actually confirmed any of it though or formally agreed to this,"
The point you're conveniently skipping over is that Sam refused to debate either of them. He only wanted to debate a specific person, and was too much of a coward (by your logic as it applies to Dave) to just debate whoever was willing on Gavin's show.
"The offer they were proposing, was incredibly shady, which included $5,000, VIP transportation and "free drinks at a bar" for a 1 hour show for 1 guest. The offer was very fake."
I see your claim that the offer was fake, but no actual evidence to support that claim. As it stands, all we know is that Gavin made an offer and Sam refused.
"This "Jim" character also called in to David Packman show (saying he was a liberal and hated Gavin).. well turns out, "Jim" was GAVIN MCINNES HIMSELF!!!!
"
Again, that was the claim, but the two don't sound like the same person to me. I need actual evidence here, not just the same cowards trying to make up excuses or substitute a good reason with a personal attack. I mean, seriously, even if it were Gavin himself pretending to be someone else, how is that relevant to their refusal to go on his show?
Apparently, you will allow Sam, David, and Ana their excuses not to go and have a dialogue, but when it comes to Dave Rubin there can't possibly be an equally sensible reason.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hannahchapman4662 Yeah, but then when Charlie pointed out that even when you go by the unemployment numbers Kyle prefers it's gone down, Kyle didn't have a response to that. Same for when Charlie pointed out that the Republicans have been trying to extend the tax cuts for the middle class (and that's in addition to Trump's talking about giving us more tax cuts now).
As for Charlie supposedly using identity politics, he only brought up minorities because that's typically the lowest-earning group.
Charlie admitted to disagreeing with Trump on certain things before Kyle claimed he wouldn't do so. But apart from that, he waited patiently for Kyle to give an example and he couldn't do it.
Even on the side topic of how valuable Kaepernik is to the NFL, Charlie provides actual arguments and stats to back up what he's claiming, while Kyle just scoffs. Then, as signs of Kyle's upcoming emotional breakdown begin to show, Charlie corrects him again: It isn't that conservatives are saying to BLM, Antifa, etc. "If only you'd protest peacefully I wouldn't have a problem with it". It's "If you protest peacefully, I won't say you should be locked up for it". But in principle, if you're saying or doing something I think is dumb I'm going to criticize what you're saying/doing. Kyle's argument is a false dilemma. Something isn't automatically good just because it isn't bad in one particular way.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Chat gpt... In society, "woman" often refers to gender identity and roles associated with femininity."
Notice first that these aren't definitions. But assuming the first part means "woman - someone who identifies as a woman", that's a circular definition resulting in the word "woman" being meaningless. Google Bard/Gemini's definition has the same problem. And the second part is unworkable too, because what would you call someone who rejected what society deemed feminine but still identified as a woman?
"According to the World Health Organization... "gender" refers to the social and cultural roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a particular society considers appropriate for men and women."
Same problem as the second part of Chat gpt's definition. What if someone adheres to the social and cultural roles, behaviors, activities and attributes that society considers appropriate for men, but identifies as a woman? If you stuck with this definition, you'd have to say that person is wrong about their own gender, a big no-no of a suggestion in modern gender theory.
"The definition of "woman" is important because it has implications for how people are treated in society."
Implications for how they are treated, or how they should be treated? Because at one time, slaves were considered inhuman. This resulted in their being treated like non-human animals. But people who believed that were wrong, despite what the Democrats were saying about slaves at that time, because of logic as applied to definitions. Likewise, anyone calling an adult human male a woman today is wrong.
"For example, if "woman" is defined based on biological sex, then only people with female sex organs would be considered women, and this could lead to discrimination against transgender women. On the other hand, if "woman" is defined based on gender identity, then anyone who identifies as a woman could be considered a woman, regardless of their biological sex. This could help to reduce discrimination against transgender women."
Who says we have to build this around "trans women" and not around biological women, or men, or children? You're starting with the assumption that you were being challenged to support. If this worldview is logically incoherent (which it is), then we should not redefine or use words with the bias being in their favor at all.
"There is no right or wrong answer, and it is up to each individual to decide what definition works best for them."
Agreed, actually, but those who subscribe to modern gender theory (e.g., transgenderism) are never able to give workable definitions for terms like "gender", "man" or "woman", which is why we reject this worldview completely.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brendannyman7788 That's somewhat incoherent. How exactly does proof that when the government got involved in our healthcare industry, prices skyrocketed not undermine the idea of giving them even more control of it? Because as I see it, I've posted historic proof and recent data on the effects of Trump's appliance of free market principles, both strongly suggesting that opening up the market is the way to go.
@Hans R. There could be any number of reasons why the two can't be compared. Population size, unhealthy lifestyles, a corrupt government. But we know it isn't working, and the free market does.
Are you guys really more heavily regulated? That's crazy because in the U.S. there were approx. 130,000 pages (PAGES!) of regulations applying to the healthcare industry alone in 2013. Doubtless the number has increased significantly since then.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119841/
Another issue is that a lot of countries end up sacrificing quality and/or efficiency to make it "free". For example, major surgery under the U.K.’s healthcare system is four times more likely to kill you than the same services in the U.S.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-195277/NHS-death-rates-times-higher-US.html
Wait times are also a major problem in the UK, with some actually being denied care.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/08/patients-suffering-direct-result-nhs-wait-time-failures
There's even talk of them denying care on bases not relevant to scarcity. I have a hard time thinking the United States, with our uber-reactionary culture, wouldn't implement similar (or worse) ideas.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/33955-uk-health-service-to-deny-treatment-to-patients-deemed-racist-or-sexist
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aaronrosenberg6633 "Regarding gender, no, I cannot. Can you?"
So it's not even logically possible for their claims of being men/women to be valid, on your worldview. My definition for "man" would be an adult human male, with "male" being someone whose body developed primarily toward the purpose of producing small gametes (sperm). Similarly, a woman is an adult human female, with "female" being someone whose body developed primarily toward the purpose of producing large gametes (ova). This would include those who, due to aging, defects, etc., cannot actually produce their respective gametes.
"Our identities are shaped in our brains."
Sure, but so are all of our beliefs, both true and false. So it obviously doesn't follow that because a thought is shaped in our brains that therefore it's valid.
"Deciding to label them as something with which they do not identify would paint me as someone who's insecure, apathetic."
That doesn't logically follow at all. If a 10-year old identified as 40, I'm sure you would refuse to label them as such...
"What it seems like you're saying is, "I refuse to validate your gender identity because gender identity is not yet fully understood.""
No, I'm saying I refuse to believe your claim until you can make it make sense.
"You get to learn from history if you want to !"
I'm willing to learn, but you don't seem to have anything to teach so far... And I don't mean that as an insult; I'm just pointing out that your replies on this topic have been pretty empty at present. Appealing to generalities, implying it's about me being "uncomfortable", etc., anything to dodge the actual points I'm making.
"Is your gender identity a "belief?""
I don't have a "gender identity", any more than I have a race identity or age identity. I observe objective reality and acknowledge it rather than deny it (though it would be a lot easier for me to live as a 10-year old, believe you me!)
"the same way people label homosexuality a "lifestyle" just to invalidate it."
Well technically engaging in homosexual acts (which is what most of the religious types are actually disagreeing with) is part of a lifestyle. The question isn't, is it a lifestyle? or even is it a worldview? It's, is it coherent and/or harmful? I've showed why transgenderism is incoherent. That's enough to differentiate it from being gay.
ME: "Empathy does not entail agreement. Don't you have empathy for people with schizophrenia? I'd imagine you do, but still don't agree with their beliefs.
YOU: "Agreement isn't even a talking point."
It is for me, because it's the fact that I don't agree that makes people try to smear me as lacking empathy for, fearing, or even hating people.
"Schizophrenia is not a "belief.""
But it's a condition in which people often have beliefs that are untrue. You sought to accuse me of lacking empathy on the basis that I disagree with the beliefs of trans people. Why doesn't that make you lacking in empathy of those with schizophrenia?
"But imagine responding to people with schizophrenia with, "Gotta love how even the 'experts' can't come up with an objective definition for 'schizophrenia', yet they insist we follow them anyway.""
If the experts started saying we should go along with the beliefs of schizophrenics, it would be very appropriate to respond to them that way regarding schizophrenia too. Indeed it would make schizophrenics yet another group not getting the help they actually need.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@LucareonVee "When x = becoming a parent, it absolutely does follow that you shouldn’t do it if you don’t want to. Becoming a parent when you don’t want to be one can do irreparable harm to multiple people, including the one you helped create."
So I think you're conflating two different questions. It's true that a person shouldn't become a parent when they don't want to, but that doesn't mean not wanting to have children is natural, healthy, or preferred in the long run. There are plenty of people, for example, who start out not wanting to have kids and then change their minds a few years later.
And that's why I've been addressing certain faulty arguments or statements, rather than just saying "Have kids anyway!"
"And yes, that is the way that we childfree want things to be. We say that we don’t want children, the other person accepts it, and we move on. Is that something you’re not capable of doing?"
Depends on what you mean by "accept". These days, that could mean anything from tolerance to agreement.
2
-
@LucareonVee "Accept clearly means tolerance. You don’t have to agree with it, but just realize that they’re different from you."
Well obviously we recognize that people are different from us, that's why we voice our disagreement in the first place. But so long as you don't mean "Be quiet about your disagreements!", sure, I think I'm perfectly tolerant.
"And I think you’re actually confusing childfree with being a fencesitter. For childfree people, “when” they don’t want children is “always.”"
I'm not confusing anything; we are in agreement that when and if a person doesn't want children, they shouldn't have kids. The questions of why they don't want kids and should they want kids are still up for discussion though. No matter how they label themselves.
"Childfree people usually don’t change their minds, but they usually do think about that possibility. For that case, there are two things they usually say. One: if I really wanted to be a parent, I’ll adopt a child who needs a family."
Which is less than ideal, right? There are way more risks involved in adopting a child than in having and raising one from birth.
"And two: even if I regret not having children, that’s a preferable outcome to having children and regretting that decision."
Not sure I would agree with even that, because the latter is still a whole other human being who exists. Typically, those people are glad they exist on balance. But it's also assuming the likelihood of each outcome is comparable, and I don't think they are. I think it's possible that far more people regret not having children than regret having them, especially if we're talking about a long-term regret.
2
-
@LucareonVee "And stories are coming out about people who do regret having become parents. So yes, it’s clearly possible."
I never suggested it wasn't possible, just that it's also very possible that more people regret not having children than having them.
"Your response is typical of a pronatalist. The ends justify the means."
Not sure what you mean; sometimes the ends justify the means and sometimes they don't.
"So long as a person exists, it doesn’t matter if their parents wanted them or not."
No one ever said that. In fact, I said the opposite. To quote from my last reply to you (did you even read it?) - "We are in agreement that when and if a person doesn't want children, they should have kids." But you keep straw-manning me to saying everyone should have kids regardless of their mental state, when that's clearly not my position.
"That’s the attitude that’s gotten the world population up to over 8 billion. We never should have grown beyond 4 billion, if even that."
Where's your argument for that claim then?
"No, regret of having had children is far worse than regret of never having children. In the former case, you’ve not only ruined your own life, but also the life you created."
How silly. You can't ruin a life that doesn't exist yet, and probably a good fraction of those whose parents regret having them still are generally glad they exist. You talk as if regret of having children automatically and inevitably leads to being the absolute most abusive parent ever. It doesn't.
"Also, I disagree about the adoption stance. You’d rather a child in need of a family never get that family as opposed to bringing a whole new person into existence and increasing the overpopulation problem?"
You haven't established yet that there is an overpopulation problem. But yes, I used to work with kids in the foster care system - troubled kids, even. The vast majority of them were very happy to exist, including most of the ones who were literally abused beforehand. Not having everything you should've had growing up doesn't mean a life a pure misery.
"And yes, like I said in the other thread, you should stop at a person telling you they don’t want children. Once they say that, you show tolerance by dropping the subject entirely."
Lol, that's not tolerance, that's pretending to agree. Ironically, it's very intolerant of you to say you just can't bear communicating with someone who doesn't agree with you.
"Childfree people by and large can’t stand the constant crap they get from pronatalists asking them why they don’t want children."
Well that's life. People are going to ask you why you do things differently, especially if you're in the minority on any given topic.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Heybuditsme The incentive to stop cheating would be in your competition (which has been greatly hindered by our government in the healthcare industry). Once you are exposed as a sub-par company (whether that be because of incompetence, high prices, corruption, inefficiency, whatever), then people will try a different company if such a company exists.
And the justification to sue would be the same as it is in every other industry; if there is some kind of fraud going on. If you've been lied to about what you're purchasing, how it works, etc.
Again, we can argue over different theories about what "could" work, or we could just look at the data. And all the data we have shows that opening an industry up to the free market results in lower prices, higher quality, and more efficiency. I invite you to actually take a look at all the links I provided, because it seems like you've just been ignoring them so far.
2
-
2
-
@Heybuditsme First off, if you're going to accuse these sites of cherry-picking, you'll need to show what other data there is that they're leaving out in their arguments. And secondly, we're not talking about their arguments. We are instead talking about the data itself, which so far is 100% confirmatory that the free market is better for affordability.
And yes, I think most services that are publicly funded could be better if privately funded, but that conclusion isn't necessary to make the original point. Even if we assumed (based on nothing) that some of these needs are better met by the government than the free market, it doesn't erase the confirmation that these others are better off without government intervention.
Once more, we have already seen that healthcare in particular is far more expensive as a result of government intervention, and that prescription drug prices can be lowered by applying free market principles. You can ignore or dismiss the data all you want, but that doesn't change the facts whatsoever. If you really care about helping those who are less fortunate, you should probably stop playing games and go with what the numbers are telling us.
2
-
@Heybuditsme "Basically with drug prices because of the patent system, companies get monopolies on certain drugs."
And who gets to decide what a company can/can't put a patent on? The government, exactly ;)
"So if you want to fix drug prices you need to end pharmaceutical patents so generics can be produced, but no capitalist would support that because they would say it violates their intellectual property rights."
I don't know where you get the idea that no capitalist would be for that. If you read the definition of capitalism, our suggestion is quite compatible with capitalism. Some might even say it's a necessary part of it. Beyond that, it took me literally 10 seconds to find the following article from a libertarian-leaning website.
https://mises.org/wire/case-against-pharma-patent-monopolies
"Edit: and yes, I agree that some areas are better off without much regulation. If a burger is too expensive at one place, yeah I'd like to be able to go to the competitor (I would still like regulators to ensure my burger isn't full of toxic chemicals)."
Which they always are anyway, hehe. The FDA's approved some pretty harmful substances over the years, and of course held back drugs that would've saved lives. That's why I'm so glad that Trump signed the Right to Try Act. There's still an application process (and government is still insanely inefficient), but at least that is one less barrier in people's way from getting the help they need.
"On the healthcare side, there isn't much consumer freedom. The patient NEEDS a medication to survive, so the company gets to name their price and establish a huge profit margin that is predatory to the patient."
But as we discussed, it's specifically because we don't actually have a free market in the healthcare industry now, that this is going on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@uweinhamburg Deregulations, tax cuts (that have benefited members of every class, I think the median household income went up something like $4,000?) which have resulted in record-low unemployment as well as job growth, prison reform, Right to Try, transparency in the costs of medical treatments, getting more drugs approved by the FDA. I'm not a fan of the increase in national debt, not sure what you mean by "killing people" without health insurance, and the only reason the 0.1% are being "given" huge sums via the tax cuts is that it's percentages we're cutting. They already pay far more (percentage-wise and in terms of dollar amount) in income taxes than the rest of us, so I see no reason to cry about anyone getting to keep more of their money.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alecbader7433 "The question is really whether or not you think the unborn child's right is more important that the right of the mother."
The child's right to stay alive is more important than the woman's right to convenience, yes.
"If, for example, a man was somehow packed up and placed in my body, you might be able to argue that choosing to get him out by killing him isn't defensible because it violates his rights, and we're on equal footing as people (though I think it's still clear that you would be justified in removing him through any means necessary)."
Well for starters, I do think killing a grown man is different from killing an innocent baby. So I would change the scenario. And I'd absolutely say every effort should be made to save the life of the baby who did not choose to be conceived, much less inside the body of someone contemplating their death.
"But a fetus isn't on equal footing because it isn't self-aware"
Again, this "self-aware" approach doesn't work. Newborn babies are also not self-aware, yet we would agree (I hope) that it would be wrong to kill them. Same for people in a coma being kept alive via machine.
"and isn't an established person."
Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean in a legal sense? Because that has nothing to do with the reality of just what they are.
"In such a case, the conflicting bodily autonomy rights of the two things in question resolve in favor of the established person."
Well again that sounds like a very arbitrary distinction. Are they not "established" before passing through the birth canal and then suddenly "established" afterward? Because it seems to me they are the exact same entity regardless of where they're geographically located.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dariocarraresi1823 "Your scenario says that they identify as a very, very masculine woman."
But your definition of "gender" (whether someone's a man or a woman) says it's determined by how they perceive their own masculinity/femininity. So I'll ask again, if someone perceives that they are very, very masculine, what is their gender on that basis? In order for your definition to work, you should be able to answer that regardless of what gender they identify as. You seem to be arbitrarily granting that the person in my scenario is a woman purely because they identify as such, which is a circular argument.
"Funny how you're constantly trying to determine other people's gender identity,"
I'm not, but I am addressing what makes someone a particular gender. I couldn't care less what someone's "gender identity" is, just like I don't care what someone's "age identity" might be.
"my definition explicitly states that "gender identity" is the way someone looks at themselves."
Right, but we were discussing gender, not gender identity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Anvilman Okay, so to address the arguments you posted there...
There's really no justifying a "pro-choice" (what really means "pro-abortion") position. By any consistent definition of life, it's a human being that you're killing. That said, Planned Parenthood is a misleading name so long as you're not planning on being a parent, which is evident by the killing of your own child.
CPCs are pro-choice in the sense that they're for you making choices. But common sense always told us that the choice to kill someone was never included. Do you have the choice to go out and make money? Sure! But not by murdering someone. And there are no lies at all being spread by these CPCs (unlike when PP flat-out lied about having mammograms?), and both sides could be accused of emotional manipulation. Just check the video of the woman specifically complaining that one of the CPCs "made me feel bad". The difference is that the CPCs want you to know what you're doing before you do it, and Planned Parenthood doesn't.
The point of showing late-term abortions is to combat the movement that is constantly threatening to influence laws that would make it legal. And then of course it would be far less rare. But am I to understand that you at least agree that is murder?
I'd like to see on what basis you assume that the increase in likelihood of suicide (among women who abort rather than having the child) is based on factors in the home. Because I'm not seeing any data supporting the idea that women who have abortions have worse home lives in general vs. women who have their babies.
When you say that taxes don't pay for abortions themselves, you're probably thinking of the Hyde Amendment which only applies to federal taxes, and not even very effectively. Multiple state taxes still go directly to fund abortion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgB5E91lD6s
Besides, at the end of the day, the most important question remains: Are we killing an innocent human being? And no one's been able to find a way out of the obvious answer there.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tnightwolf Bernie's already getting our money, because he's already a government official. And if he's elected, he will be getting even more of our money, but again that's not the point.
I also believe in the promotion of human well-being, which is why I promote the free market over socialism. We need the government to get out of the way, remove the barriers to entry it has set up so more businesses can have a chance. This provides competition to other businesses and that drives prices down and wages up. But as it stands, we have a government that prevents this sort of improvement. This is especially obvious when you look at the history of our healthcare industry. Prices skyrocketed in the 60s (with the advent of Medicaid and Medicare) because the government had radically increased demand while hindering supply. And they make it worse and worse every year. You can't even build a clinic/hospital if the government doesn't think the people there need it. Nevermind how much it would help to lower prices or even save lives; if the almighty government says no, then high prices it is!
You're still misunderstanding my original point. I was not judging Bernie for being a millionaire. Even though it is true that he made his fortune through taxes that were forcibly taken from people plus a book he wrote, while the allegedly terrible billionaires provided way more value to way more people, that wasn't the message. The message was that he conveniently changed his speeches to no longer say "millionaire", when he became one himself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Theimmure You're right that "All Lives Matter" is a rebuttal. But it's being painted as a rebuttal to the fact that black lives matter, when it's instead a rebuttal to the implications of the Black Lives Matter movement.
"Define equality. We have it, according to what? Encoded law that many have and will continue to ignore?"
Opportunities, and when and if encoded law is ignored that can be called out more specifically (and therefore effectively) than by claiming there's this systemic racism holding black people down in general.
"Hold on a second. Success?"
No. It's not the government's job to ensure everyone has equal success, only equal opportunity.
"Resisting arrest and not committing crimes?"
Yes, that would be a great start. But sometimes (as in the case of Tony Timpa) bad cops, or bad practices, will still lead to unjustifiable deaths even if you haven't committed any crimes and indeed even called the cops yourself!
"Unjust violence and murder due to questionable behavior or practically nothing at all somehow warrants the death of a person as if it isn’t in the hands of the cop wielding the gun."
Depends on the specific case, but it often isn't a question of whether or not the person "deserved" to die.
"So I suppose anyone can feel they can stand there and tell others what would be a good start to avoid sudden death. Sounds like victim blaming."
Not until it's established that they were indeed a victim of someone else's wrongdoing (and not in any way their own).
"Apparently we can ignore who receives this treatment the most because all of a sudden we want to focus on the focus themselves rather than the race of the people who suffer from them."
The question is not, Is this happening more often to black people? The question is, Is this happening to black people because they're black? At least if you're wanting to talk about racism. If you're wanting to actually solve the problem, then the question is simply how.
2
-
@Theimmure "Perhaps you can point me to the implications that defend actual criminals that are justify apprehended."
That's a bit incoherent. But the specific implications would be that this is happening because of racism on a wide scale. And even the cases that people put up front as examples turn out not to be examples of this (e.g., George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, that guy more recently who thought it'd be a good idea to reach into a car while the cops were warning him to stop and put his hands on his head).
"There are a variety of ways to take advantage and put the other in a difficult situation. One may believe they are overcoming the odds that people claim are nonexistent when they pretend we do not live in a shady world, but it’s much more complicated to than that."
All fine and good. It is complicated and there are shady characters in power. But is there some massive oppressing force against black people in particular. So far, it doesn't look like it.
"Again, it’s not as simple as being “successful,” which is the point I made and the one you seemed to have brushed off."
I'm not even sure that's relevant to any argument I've made. But if the claim isn't that it's keeping blacks from being successful, then what is it?
"Of course it couldn’t possibly be about whether they deserved it or not."
Indeed. That's not the judgement call in the vast majority of these cases. But it's what people focus on when they're trying to be rhetorical.
"That is why you stress the details of Tony Timpa’s death. Yet in any other scenario you pretend whether they live or not is their decision,"
No, I only bring him up to highlight that this is not exclusive to members of any race.
"and not the cop that’s been granted the permission to handle a situation in many ways. You change your argument when it’s convenient."
Not at all; I'm being perfectly consistent. I'm admitting that sometimes even if no crime has been committed, someone will die at the hands of cops. But I'm also willing to acknowledge the other side to this, which you don't seem to be willing to do.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheRealSaintNickNorthside We won't know the specific ways they're going to increase regulation in the health insurance industry. But so far, every time they've taken over funding they've restricted the supply side of the picture as well. And it's understandable, quite honestly, why would you agree to manage the funding of something you can't control in other ways?
"Why would the system be more expensive than private insurance?"
Same reason it is for healthcare in general. Without competition, there is no incentive to improve. No incentive to make things cheaper, better in quality, or quicker to access. The only reason for-profit companies bother with doing these things is because they have to, for fear another company will do it and take all of their business. The government doesn't have that incentive; they're getting their money from us no matter how poor a job they do.
"Already, government health insurance programs are a million times cheaper than private healthcare for the consumer."
Yeah, that's easy to do when you can just get the remainder of what you need by force - through taxation. Give me the ability to just steal a million every now and then and I'll be the cheapest provider of pretty much anything you can name. Also, there's the question of quality, and how much time it takes for the good/service to actually get to you, and again what incentive is there to keep making your service cheaper.
"Taxes would increase because of a government program, but because premiums and deductibles would essentially vanish the total cost for insurance would decrease."
This ignores the purpose of premiums and deductibles in the first place. It's not like insurance companies charge those just for fun. The money still has to be there. But I suppose the government could kick it off being "cheaper" for awhile, and then just take more when they need it without officially counting it as the costs of government-run health insurance.
Answer me this: Do you think we have a free market when it comes to health insurance now?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jumpsmcgee "If abortion is illegal, miscarriages would have to be manslaughter."
Obviously not. Miscarriages happen all the time without the mother doing anything wrong. It's not what happens to the person affected that determines what is/isn't a crime; it's specifically what another person did to cause it.
However, I would say on that note, I'm far more in favor of punishing the "doctors" who carry out these abortions, than the women getting them. A woman may or may not know enough to realize she's killing a human being. A doctor certainly does realize he/she is killing a human being, but does it anyway.
"There's no practical way to implement it without invading privacy"
I don't see how that follows at all. If there's evidence the baby/fetus was killed, then you would investigate just like with anyone else. Think of a baby who has died of SIDS, for example. Typically there is no reason to suspect the mother, and so her privacy will not be violated for the sake of an investigation. But sometimes there may be evidence (e.g., the mother is on record alluding to the idea of killing the child), and in those cases privacy must be temporarily violated, sure.
In any case, if it's true that we won't be able to stop women from intentionally killing the unborn or catch them when they do so, that's still not an argument for why it should be legal. And of course certainly no argument for why it should be taxpayer-funded!
2
-
@jumpsmcgee "If abortion is illegal, then a miscarriage would be manslaughter."
Again, no, and I explained why. And you go on to confirm...
"Miscarriage usually happens because the mother's body detects something wrong with the fetus or the mom and ends the pregnancy."
So the body does this, the mother does not. In order to warrant any sort of investigation against the mother, there would need to be evidence of wrongdoing on the mother's part. Same as when any newborn baby dies.
"This would be manslaughter if abortion was illegal because the mother is unintentionally killing the fetus."
No, it would be a biological problem same as now... Forget the debate on legality for a moment. Are you suggesting that women should feel like they're to blame when they have a miscarriage?
"How would you know if she intentionally killed it? An investigation."
And what warrants an investigation? Not just death, but evidence that it wasn't some sort of preventable accident.
"What other living beings start being counted as alive before they are born? It isn't even done in agriculture."
It really doesn't matter how/if society at large is consistent on this issue. We do acknowledge brain activity as the ultimate sign of life for humans. The unborn are human beings; it's a scientific fact.
"If a woman's body can naturally decide to terminate a pregnancy without repercussion, then why should her mind not also be given the same ability?"
The body isn't "deciding" anything, so the comparison fails right out of the gate. And given that "terminating a pregnancy" is just a euphemism for killing someone, I might ask you why the mother cannot extend that "right" to killing a newborn baby, or even perhaps a one-year old...
2
-
@jumpsmcgee "
The mother and the body are the same entity."
Not at all. The mother is a person, not just a body. And you wouldn't punish someone for something outside of their control (such as a miscarriage). But, again, if you think the woman should be blamed for having a miscarriage (whether it has legal ramifications or not), you should admit it. Though I think that's wildly irrational.
"Manslaughter is when you unintentionally kill someone."
No it isn't. It can include unintentionally killing someone, but even then, you would have to be doing something wrong (in this context, something illegal) to justify the charge of manslaughter. This is why, again, we wouldn't blame a mother in the case of a miscarriage any more than we would her baby dying of SIDS.
Pretty much exactly how it is already. By no stretch of the imagination would we be more inclined to blame a mother for a miscarriage.
"The body does "decide" to terminate the pregnancy"
The fact that you had to put "decide" in quotations proves my point. People decide things, not the body. Saying the body "decided" something is not literal.
Also, the scenario you described is not how investigations work. There has to be some reason to think a miscarriage (or death from SIDS, or anything else we already have going on) was intentional. And then it is on the accuser to provide proof of guilt as well.
"The fetus is just a fetus if the woman's body decides to end the pregnancy, but it becomes a baby if the woman's mind decides to do it."
This is obviously illogical thinking. Whether they are wanted or unwanted, does not change the nature of what they are. Do you think children who've been born and are abused/neglected are also less than human because of it?
Regardless of whether you want to call them a fetus, a baby, etc. they are human beings. The most innocent on the planet, in fact, and should not be killed. We all know this by now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Warren Shiflett No one is saying that Trump hasn't said stupid things, people with a ton of self-confidence often do. But notice how I can admit Trump's faults, while you guys changed the subject from the original comment because you can't do the same when it comes to Bernie. So you change the subject, call people names, even openly say that you'll vote for anyone who will oppress people you don't like, because you think it's going to distract us from the topic. In reality, all it does is convince us we're on to something.
@Warren Shiflett So you claim. But he has a degree in economics and puts it into practice. He knows that deregulating the market and lowering taxes are good steps in the right direction, as was prison reform, right to try, transparency in the costs of medical treatment, getting more drugs approved by the FDA, etc.
But again, you don't really care about all this. All you want is for me to forget that you can't defend/admit Bernie's faults.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
My problems with Bernie are quite different from these silly critics in the MSM. He once said white people don't know what it's like to be poor in an effort to pander to minorities, because he thought that's what they wanted to hear. He promotes class warfare against "the billionaire class" (as if they're somehow more "greedy" than the rest of us), yet he claims Trump is the one "trying to divide us up". And in general, he doesn't seem to understand economics in the slightest. Wants us to have "free" healthcare like Scandinavian countries but opposes the actual model they use. They're more free market than we are, not less! No minimum wage laws, school vouchers, they don't penalize the wealthy with high corporate tax rates, etc. They learned their lesson about capitalism some time ago (especially Sweden), while the U.S. bumbles around and people like Bernie aren't helping.
Also, not one but two of his campaign organizers were promoting violence and/or gulags for anyone who disagrees with Bernie and, to my knowledge, he's yet to denounce them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@J10005 "Those topics are massively correlated to each other as much of that money goes to the largely counterproductive offensive wars worth trillions of dollars hence why I mentioned it."
Well again, I wasn't talking about whether the money purportedly going to our defense, actually is. I was just saying that this is the role of government whereas making sure we can all go to college isn't.
But coincidentally, I'm assuming you agreed with Trump's decision to at least pull troops out of Syria then?
"That is why some people argue using some of that military budget and reallocating for tuition-free education is good money since we don't need such of an excess of military spending and can some if that money use it for other important matters."
Well no, the money should go back to the American people, if it isn't needed for the purposes it was taken for to begin with.
"College became extremely unaffordable in the US with a trillion-dollar student loan debt issue that people are graduating into making it harder to effectively start-up in life."
And while that's a problem we need to do something about, I don't think it justifies stealing from the taxpayers at large. Particularly in light of the problem I highlighted earlier, where almost half of the people graduating are underemployed with many of them destined to be so perpetually.
"Like i said before 1. You need degrees now these days to make effective money"
The link you put under this one says many good things about having a degree, but it doesn't say that. And I don't know what your idea of "effective money" is (sounds suspicious, like "living wage"). But I get by pretty well, and even though I have a degree it wasn't really necessary for what I'm doing.
"2. Almost all new jobs being created are going to college grads without high school grads dying out"
That, again, doesn't mean they needed those degrees for those particular jobs. In fact, the link I provided would suggest that almost half of them didn't. I suppose it could be argued that having some sort of degree is more impressive than not, generally speaking; but then again, so is having more work experience which time spent earning a degree (particularly one that isn't directly relevant to the job you end up with) diminishes.
What this means, BTW, is that the American people would not only be funding the acquisition of these degrees, but the degrees themselves wouldn't even be worth funding about half the time.
"3. High school grads face higher rates of unemployment than college grads https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/D693DF78-8897-11E9-B5BC-B448D8AE8ED6
"
From the article,
"The EPI researchers found this year’s graduates who head directly into the workforce are likely to fare better than graduates from the classes of 2008 through 2018, but worse than 2000 graduates."
That sounds, to me, like an improvement over recent years, and specifically for those with only a high school diploma. But to your point, again, I'm not finding the statement you gave anywhere in that article. But even assuming you're correct on that, that's a correlation one could just as easily attribute to a general lack of determination, willingness to work hard, etc. The lazy individuals are probably less likely to enroll in college, and also less likely to hold a steady job.
"While some people with degrees face job issues that largely due to how extremely demanding and competitive the job market people want to experience in top of degrees for their companies which is pretty difficult for some early just out of college grads to achieve right away."
Regardless of the reason, these degrees prove useless to many.
"Making college tuition-free would remove the financial barriers that people have going into college without graduating into deep debt who would help a lot of people."
At the expense of even more people (poor and lower-middle class people disproportionately, I might add). And with just over half of these degrees proving useful in any real way, this is just another layer of issues with that idea, on top of the fact that government was never meant to have the power to just take your money for anything the masses (or sometimes just the few in power) deem "worth it".
"It'd also help better prepare our economy for the inevitability of automation with more people ready to have more higher-skilled jobs in the loss of low skill high school grad like jobs that will be lost under it."
Yeah, I don't get why people talk about automation as if it's something new. Our entire society is already automated far beyond anything people a hundred years ago could've imagined. There's always talk of never having to work again; meanwhile, we've literally more jobs than we know what to do with and there's no real sign of that changing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Celestina0 By "objective", I mean a definition based on something outside of opinion or feelings. And we require objective standards for everything else we wish to say "I'm correct and you're incorrect" on. Why make an exception for gender?
"Not even definitions for the simplest things, like chairs. If a chair can be ‘typically a seat with four legs’, leaving open the possibility of a chair with three legs,"
But it would still exclude something like an orange, or a computer. Meaning the definition includes some standard a thing would have to meet, in order to be a chair.
"then a woman can be defined as ‘typically someone with two xx chromosomes’, leaving open for women with different chromosomal makeup."
Well it already does as far as that goes. What makes someone a male or female isn't quite as simple as their chromosomes. But that doesn't mean there isn't an objective standard. Indeed, it has to do with whether or not your development involved an active SRY gene and functional androgen receptors.
The point is simply that it's more than "someone who identifies as a woman". And to the extent that you insist what obligates me to call someone a woman is that they identify as one, then it follows we're similarly obligated to call anyone anything (or anyone else) on that same basis. In short, transgenderism is inconsistent as well as incoherent.
2
-
@Celestina0 "...defined by the decisions we make collectively about how we communicate with each other about each other and the world."
Which, again, also refers to something objectively true or real. So for example, we don't call someone a lawyer if they don't have a law degree. We don't call them a basketball player if they've never touched a basketball, etc. Now, again, what is the difference between someone who identifies as a woman and is correct, and someone who identifies as a woman and is incorrect?
"So misgendering is not a question of whether someone’s ‘correct’ about a transgender man being a man or a woman,"
Then it isn't actually MISgendering. That's the point there. The essential complaint is then "You're not doing what I want you to".
"It is wrong to misgender people, I.e. refer to them as female when they insist on being referred to as male, because we SHOULD want to categorise people in a way that improves their wellbeing and allows everyone to function happily and healthily in society."
Not at all. Something making a person feel happier in no way obligates everyone (or anyone) to do it. You can feel happy in any number of ways, including doing truly immoral things. And those who experience gender dysphoria can choose a logical, coherent approach or something like transgenderism. If they choose the latter, I'm in no way morally obligated to facilitate that.
"When we say a chair is typically a seat with four legs, it’s not that oranges or computers are not, objectively, chairs,"
Sure it is. Because we've given an objective standard for chairs which excludes oranges and computers.
"but that it would render the word useless if we included oranges and computers in that category."
Likewise, it renders the word "woman" useless to say that anyone who identifies as a woman is one.
2
-
@Celestina0 No, they support my point which is that we have objective standards by which we correct everyone else who claims/believes themselves to be something they aren't. And I ask you again, why should gender be the exception?
"Neither having a law degree makes someone a lawyer, and nor does touching a basketball make someone a basketball player."
But both of these things are required. Therefore, if they don't have a law degree they are not a lawyer, and if they've never touched a basketball, they're not a basketball player...
"I mean, try and define art. Is there one common thing that links every piece of art and excludes everything that isn’t?"
Yes. Art is something created. If it wasn't created by anyone, it isn't art.
"I want a happier, healthier society,"
Which typically requires minimizing cognitive dissonance. Not subscribing to worldviews you cannot logically defend (neither to others or even yourself). And definitely not equating disagreement with hate; that will only make you less happy and less healthy.
"This is proven to improve the wellbeing of trans people."
As said before, there are many ways of achieving a goal, and sometimes that goal may even be achieved long-term. But that doesn't mean it was the best way, nor does it necessarily take into account other harms you are doing (e.g., you admitted earlier you'd treat a 40-year old like a 10-year old, which reveals a very dangerous precedent you've set by accepting transgenderism).
"You can’t claim to have found the true definition of women, to which transwomen don’t conform,"
Sure I can. A woman is an adult human female (someone whose development didn't involve both an active SRY gene and active androgen receptors).
And the harm is all on your side. For promoting an incoherent worldview to begin with, which leads many to mutilating their bodies permanently and even encourages them to feel hated when most of the time they are merely being disagreed with.
2
-
@Celestina0 "All you seem to be saying is that a category needs at least one necessary condition to be met in order for someone or something to belong to that category."
Yes, that is in general how we all operate in our use of language.
"You need to be a human to be a woman."
But also to be a man, right? So what is the difference, according to your worldview?
"Your attempt to define art is telling, because you’ve identified a necessary condition, I.e., being created by human hands, but your definition lets in loads of stuff nobody would want to call art. Is a Big Mac art?"
Actually there's probably someone who considers a Big Mac they've just created for a customer "art", lol, but that's besides the point. I didn't say everything that is created is art, I just answered your question about having one way of separating art from non-art.
"Now you claim to have found the true definition of woman, but how can you demonstrate that this is the true definition?"
Not necessary; I can fully admit that we all sort of agree socially what is/isn't a particular thing. The definitions are chosen subjectively but based on something objective as I've demonstrated. So again, we can correct a person who claims/believes that they're 10 years old (when they're not), that they're a lawyer (when they're not), literally anything else. But you want to make an exception for gender, why?
2
-
2
-
@Celestina0 "why do you choose to define women in such a way that it excludes transwomen."
Because there are many biological differences between men (including so-called "transwomen") and women, and the only definition on offer for "woman" on your worldview seems to be, "someone who identifies as a woman" which is no definition at all.
"Neither of us can provide an objective true definition of what a woman is,"
I can and have. All it requires is a definition referring to something objectively true/real, same as we do for literally any other descriptor we would seek to correct someone on.
"I’ve given my opinion of how I think we should categorise people, which in practice respects peoples professed gender identities."
Would you similarly "respect" if a 40-year old white person identified as a 10-year old black person?
"Doing so improves peoples lives in quite straightforward, demonstrable ways."
Again, there are many ways of improving your life, even if you experience gender dysphoria. The vast majority of children who are treated for gender dysphoria do not show continued dysphoria as adults.
The question is, of the ways a person can feel better, is the best way to subscribe to an incoherent worldview in which they think it's possible for someone to "misgender" them with terms that have no objective definition? Is what's truly in their best interest a belief system teaching them that those who simply disagree with them actually hate their guts? Well, I'm quite skeptical of that.
"What I think you’re still trying to do, is to suggest that transwomen arent ‘actually’ women, and so they’re deluded."
Indeed! After all, literally the only thing supposedly obligating me to call them women is just that they identify as such. You tell me, what's the difference between that and a delusion? Again, what is the difference between someone who believes they're a woman and is correct, and someone who believes they're a woman and is incorrect?
"You might be right to call them deluded if they believed they were born with vaginas,"
Why? Why couldn't they just identify as people with natural vaginas? And would you correct them if they did? After all, they could just say "You're trying to impose your definition of 'vagina' onto others". Maybe what you traditionally call a "penis" is what they will call a "vagina", hmm?
"They just want to be accepted into that rough class of people we call women"
Everyone would like to be accepted as something or another they're not. I would like to be accepted as Elon Musk's 12-year old son. It would certainly make my life a lot easier and I've good reason to think I'd be happier that way. Now... why can't I do this? Since "being respectful" (as you conceptualize it) is the highest priority?
"who tend to certain behaviours, certain roles and expectations in our society."
Right, this is the confusing of the inclination/disinclination to adhere to certain gender roles and norms with gender itself I mentioned earlier. None of that means or implies you're the opposite gender. Never has, and never will.
2
-
2
-
@Celestina0 "We do distinguish between cis-men and cis-women."
I said men and women. What is the difference? You're still not able to say. And Idk why you keep bringing up chromosomes; I told you, the difference between a male and a female has to do with the SRY gene and androgen receptors.
"If someone says they’re ten years old, and they mean that they’ve been on this earth for ten years when they actually haven’t,"
No, even without that, if they say "I identify as 40 years old" (just like how a "woman" will want to be treated like a woman) would you treat them like a 40-year old. Yes or no?
"But this isn’t what’s happening with trans women. They’re not saying they were born with xx chromosomes, or that they have vaginas."
But they're wanting to be called "women" and treated the same way as women regardless. The point is that coming up with a different word/using an established word a different way doesn't solve the problem. If the person in question used a different word for "40 years old" which meant they wanted to be treated like a 40-year old, what difference would it make?
"And detransitioners make up only a small proportion of people who’ve undergone transition."
So we're told. But again, we already know that the vast majority of children treated for gender dysphoria in gender clinics (which isn't even all of the ones who experience it) do not continue to have dysphoria in adulthood. So for all we know, most people really shouldn't be "transitioning" even if the worldview were coherent, which it isn't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stefanielouise9715 "As I stated sex and gender are only interchangeable by those who are trying to muddy the definitions."
You can claim that all you want, but I've given a reason we know they're interchangeable.
"Gender refers to "the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men."
Not at all. And in addition to my proof of how "gender" is actually the same as biological sex, I pointed out that when you try to equate "gender" essentially with gender roles and norms you make the phrases "gender roles" and "gender norms" nonsensical.
Gender is the biological state of what you are. Gender roles and norms are what's socially constructed based on gender (hence why they are called "gender roles" and "gender norms").
"I came out 60yrs ago long before self-identification became a thing."
Ok, so then how do you "know" you're the opposite gender?
"I have been clinically identified as trans by a male psychiatrist and a female psychologist."
On what grounds? Or, do you equate "people with gender dysphoria" with "trans people"?
"You are just clutching at anything you can to try deny that I am who I say I am. All because you don´t like it."
No, I've given very specific reasons why this worldview is incoherent and inconsistent. And you're not addressing any of them directly; you're just making up a narrative about me by which you can easily dismiss me as a bad person.
"Is your justification that you are who you say are just a feeling."
No, quite the contrary. I only know I'm a man because I'm a biologically male adult human being. Indeed, this was one of my original points; we can't even know what (if anything) it "feels like" to "feel like" a man vs. "feeling like" a woman.
"Have you been identified as being who you say you are by a medical professional?"
The professionals are only as good as how well they stick to their profession. So for example, for science to be relevant here, we would need to see objective definitions of terms such as "man" and "woman" (because scientific theories have to be falsifiable). These, alas, aren't forthcoming.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@malolazap5377 No contradictions at all, but let's see what the confusion is...
"So, transsexualism can be, but... not through knowing/feeling like X?"
Can be what? If you're asking if a man can identify as a woman, sure, no one's disputing that. But if their reasoning is "Because I feel like a woman", that doesn't work for the reasons I've laid out.
"Does it follow that because I'm not you and I can't compare the subjective experience of both of us, then you don't feel X way?"
Not at all. That's why I didn't make the claim that I don't feel "like a man" or that some women don't also "feel like" men. I only point out that we've no basis for comparison by which to say definitively there's a difference. It's no reason to conclude that you are/aren't a man or woman, is all.
"If "feeling like a woman" is not a thing... Then "feeling like Vic 2.0" is not a thing either."
That's probably correct, yes. Like with gender, I only know I'm Vic 2.0 because of objective reality, has nothing to do with feelings.
"Don't autistic people have subjective experiences as autistic people?"
They have their own experiences, which we can label "feeling like an autistic person" if we like, but that alone wouldn't be enough to actually diagnose someone with autism.
2
-
2
-
@malolazap5377 I'm paying attention to everything just fine, including how you keep desperately trying to zing me instead of having a normal conversation.
"Then you pass to say people that adhere different role are still of X gender."
If you mean that I do say that, yes.
"Then what is gender?"
Biological sex.
"If I change the characteristics of X gender to the other, am I still of that first one or not?
If you mean genitalia and secondary sex characteristics through manipulation of hormones, these are only the natural results and signs of your gametes and chromosomes, which actually determine your gender. So yes.
But notice, even if you disagree with me on that, it doesn't help transgenderism, which holds that you're x because you "identify" as x, not on the basis of anything biological, natural or otherwise.
2
-
2
-
@malolazap5377 "I don't know if everyone who think there is such a thing as "transgenderism", "transsexualism" or whatever non-conforming identity would subscribe to what you say they subscribe. I'm guessing not all since you're stating "people (...) TEND to confuse gender itself with their inclination/desinclination"."
Indeed. Some of them give entirely different faulty reasons.
"If I can have X gender, but not such gender roles... then I can be X WITHOUT having (or adhering to) X characteristics that makes X."
No, it'd be logically impossible to be x without having the characteristics that make someone x. However, you can be x while not adhering to the gender roles and norms for x which is all I was saying there.
"Now that you've stated that gender is biological sex, you've put yourself in a conundrum-"
My friend, telling the truth will not put you in a conundrum. Not in and of itself anyway!
"where whoever doesn't adhere ENOUGH to X roles is a logical impossibility."
How so?
"You may dislike, disagree, find not needed a phrase such as "feminine man", yet such phrase does inform people about some people."
Yeah, it's a linguistic shortcut which isn't well-defined. What's your point though?
"Also, whatever is not XY or XX would be ANOTHER type of sex (that is not male/female) and gender, then."
Could be! For the sake of time, I'll leave that debate aside as it's quite irrelevant to transgenderism and my original comment. Again, none of it helps those who think just identifying as x makes you x.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@eiyukabe "Like I said -- you can't when all arid land is already owned."
We were talking about the individual "having to" buy from businesses, right? Well that's what I was saying; you only have to buy what you can't/won't grow on your own property.
"You're not entitled to their labor, but you are no less entitled to the land they have monopolized than they are"
Eh? Who the hell has monopolized land? You're not making any sense. No, people (tons of different people) own land because they or their ancestors bought it. And by the way, if we keep giving the government more power, then there will be a monopoly on the land and one that it's literally impossible to break.
"just because they got there first or had the largest army to take it."
Well we draw a clear distinction between the two. The latter is truly just "might makes right", the former is that, even though you had an advantage (not always, mind you, but usually), the land wasn't acquired by force but mutual exchange, and with money you typically had to create value for others in order to get.
"If we are talking about people staking out the property that they need for their families (and no more)that is one thing -- but businesses try to own as much as they possibly can."
So you would have everyone grow their own food?
"If left unregulated, all arid land in a region would very quickly become privatized from a gold rush frenzy mentality. At that stage they aren't "laboring" even though they will later -- they are simply hoarding for wealth."
If they can come up with enough uses of it to make it worth the money, they might. But more likely they'll expand as they can make that expanse worthwhile.
"And the only reason you "need" their labor to give you food is because they took your ability to labor for food"
I disagree. I could be growing tomatoes (at very least) outside my house right now, but I choose not to. I'd rather buy it, so I can spend my time sitting here arguing with you about how bad capitalism sucks :P
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dariocarraresi1823 "Your idea of "incoherent" repeatedly proved itself to be incoherent, changing wildly from comment to comment for the sole purpose of classifying all pro-trans positions as "incoherent"."
Unfounded. But feel free to give whatever you think is an objective, workable definition for "gender", "man" or "woman" anytime.
"You repeatedly confuse gender roles with gender identities"
Not at all. Indeed, part of why the common definition of "gender" your side often gives is unworkable, is precisely because someone could identify as a woman while rejecting the roles and norms socially expected of women.
"frequently renaming both of them with the generic "gender" just to confuse further."
My position is quite different. I maintain that the only coherent and workable way to conceptualize "gender" is to use it interchangeably with "biological sex".
"You keep insisting that definitions must be "objective" to be workable"
Well they must be both, yes.
"yet you make use of subjective definitions with zero complaints."
What do you mean by "subjective definitions"? Because what I mean by objective definitions, is simply a definition that refers to some objective reality in the world. For example, we don't say a lawyer is anyone who identifies as a lawyer, that kind of thing.
"Your definition of what counts as a "workable" definition is completely incoherent"
Not at all. A workable definition would be one that works with the rest of your worldview. Think back to the example of how "gender" is defined by "experts" such as merriam-webster, along with how it would mean some people could indeed be wrong about their own gender (which is a no-no on your worldview).
"You treat anyone who disagrees with you as hateful."
I disagree. I'm fully aware that plenty of people who disagree with me do not necessarily hate me, and I try to remind trans people and trans advocates that disagreement =/= hate on a regular basis.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CosmoPhiloPharmaco "If you say you do have a wife and a son, then your testimony is sufficient evidence to me."
Well you wouldn't even be obligated to believe me on that, that's not my point. My point is simply that when one person has experienced something someone else hasn't, you end up in that situation where the former has reason to believe something the latter doesn't. I submit that it could be the same for many theists.
"Without some reason to think you're a liar, I'll take your word for it. Do you believe WLC is a liar?"
I don't, but I thought that was your angle?
"Like Quentin, I can't conceive of a soul, spirit or consciousness."
You can't even imagine one? Really?
"So, perhaps that's a cognitive limitation only Quentin and I have."
I think you both can conceive of an unembodied consciousness, unless you're thinking about what one might "look" like or something. But again, if you can imagine an invisible man who can go through walls, you've pretty much conceived of a spirit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CosmoPhiloPharmaco "If your wife says she experiences love for your son (and she is justified in holding this belief), wouldn't you be justified in holding the belief that she really loves your son?"
I'd be justified in believing her, but not because she's justified in trusting her own experiences. It'd be because I know her and therefore can trust both her honesty and judgment on that question. But if a total stranger also claimed that they had love for my son, me, or anyone else they don't even know, I'd have no reason to believe them. And of course, beyond that, someone concluding that x exists is a different matter from them simply reporting on their feelings. So, as it relates to Christians who report having these experiences in which they conclude god has "made himself known" to them, I can grant they had the experience without agreeing with their conclusion.
"Likewise, (1) if Craig claims he experienced God, (2) you believe he had an experience and (3) to the best of his ability, he concluded that this experience is mystical, then why shouldn't you accept his judgement?"
How does it logically follow from there that I should believe his conclusion? All that follows is that I acknowledge he might have good reason for believing.
"Yes, I can't form a mental representation of a disembodied mind. It is just words, as Quentin pointed out (at least by my lights)."
But they're very easy words to comprehend. Can you or can you not imagine an invisible man who can go through walls? Bear in mind I'm not asking if you've seen something like it before; I'm just asking if you can picture it happening.
2
-
@CosmoPhiloPharmaco "(1) But we have already established that you believe in Craig's word"
No, we only established that I do not believe he is a liar (because that's the question you asked). That doesn't automatically mean I believe he's honest. I don't know the man personally, so why would I assume he's honest about his experiences?
"and presumably you think his judgement is that of a well-informed, lucid and intelligent man (probably much more intelligent than you'll ever be)."
You and me both! The man has dual doctorates on the very subject we're fumbling our way through here on YouTube, and has debated tons of academics on the subject as well. However, does that mean his judgment is on point in every circumstance? Does that mean he can't fool himself? No. Hence why, while his experiences (if real) would justify him believing, they do not constitute evidence that should convince you and I.
"So, this talk about trust is irrelevant."
Not at all. You're wanting me to believe someone else's conclusion based on their experience, despite me not ever having that experience. I would need to actively trust them which requires knowing them.
"(2) In addition, you didn't explain why the difference -- between information gained through introspection v. sense-perception -- is relevant."
Simply because if someone's reporting their own feelings minus a conclusion based on those feelings, that's a lesser claim than the feelings plus the conclusion.
"(3) Further, my choice of example was arbitrary; we can take something that is learned through sense-perception."
Perhaps. And I'd volunteer that if it's something I've experienced too, I'd be more likely to believe it was experienced by another. But in any case, it's a non sequitur to think that because one person had an experience that justifies their belief in something then everyone else should believe it too.
What is it you're wanting though? Cut to the chase. Are you suggesting that personal experience is only reason to believe if shared by another person? Two other people? Three? Four hundred?
2
-
@CosmoPhiloPharmaco "Unless we have some reason for thinking our source is untrustworthy (i.e., a defeater), we have sufficient evidence for accepting the proposition in question."
Nonsense. Even Craig himself has pointed out that not having evidence of x doesn't imply the opposite conclusion. One should never assume someone is lying, and one should never assume someone is telling the truth.
"For example, If I'm talking to a stranger and she asserts that she experiences love for her son, I'll take her word for it."
So what? You still haven't explained why anyone (including yourself) should assume she's telling the truth. Besides which, again, someone telling you how they feel and someone telling you how they feel + their conclusion about something based on that feeling are claims on two different tiers.
"Likewise, I've never met any cosmologists, but I believe them when they assert they have found evidence that supports the current cosmological theory of the evolution of the cosmos."
And increasingly, giving scientists the benefit of the doubt is backfiring on us drastically. To the point where many of them will refuse to show their work when questioned (Did you watch Matt's documentary?)
"So, do you believe that Craig is being honest when he asserts that he had a mystical experience? Yes or no?"
I don't assume he's being honest, and I don't assume he's being dishonest.
"(2) Sure, I never said Craig is infallible; only that his judgement with respect to the phenomenological properties pertaining to his alleged mystical experiences is probably informed, lucid and intelligent."
Or, his investment in the subject overall and his larger-than-average interest in it bestows upon him all the more risk of jumping to conclusions. We simply do not know.
"Ergo, his fallibility is not an excuse (for you) to not accept his alleged mystical experience as evidence that God exists."
Lol, even you call it an "alleged" experience. Yet you want me to accept it as evidence. You're all over the place. No, it's not evidence with which to convince another (this is why Christians tend to invite outsiders to call upon god for themselves in the first place). You're just going to have to be OK with me admitting that Craig could be justified in his own belief.
"Why is the judgement that something in the external world exists relevantly different from the judgement that a certain feeling exists -- i.e., in the internal world? Feelings also have to be interpreted, no? Teenagers may interpret their temporary feeling of affection as love, even though it is not."
False comparison with how you used "love" before. In the case of a mother having feelings of love for her son, she's talking about the feeling itself. In the case of the teenager, they're drawing additional conclusions based on what they feel (e.g., "I've found my soulmate", "This is the one I'll spend the rest of my life with", etc.)
In any case, I await to see what one's actions prove, when it comes to that. But I am curious: What of others who might tell you they had an experience of a different deity? Would you say their testimonies are evidence for their god, and against the Christian god?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CassidyCope "A) Not high enough."
I disagree. I think that if someone who's getting the same uses (less, actually) out of a system, is paying more into that system (both in terms of dollar amount and percentage of their income), that's more than enough.
"B) They pay a lesser share of their income compared to other income groups when accounting for other taxes."
What other taxes?
"C) They still have a shitton of disposable income that is needed by the employees that actually made them rich.
"
What made them rich is that they provided a product/service the American people wanted more than their money. The employees wanted in on that business because they wanted money. And the profit incentive is why people like Jeff Bezos bother putting in the work, risking it all to start a business in the first place.
"What does Jeff Bezos do for America?"
He has provided tons of value (products and services) to the American people, which they themselves said was more valuable than the money they gave for those products/services. Additionally, Amazon employs over 200,000 people in the U.S. alone
(and over a million Americans make money through the website).
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/08/13/hq-2-second-headquarter-not-seattle/663283002/
https://sellercentral.amazon.com/forums/t/amazon-has-millions-of-sellers-and-yet-only-2-are-able-to-build-a-business/400044
"Amazon pays a stunning $0 in taxes to the US,"
Not true. They ended up not owing anything one year, regarding one sort of tax. They still paid billions over the past few years.
"and yet Bezos is allowed to be the richest man in the country"
'Allowed'? Like it's our place to dictate who should have what money? This whole approach is insanely presumptuous. The American people decided collectively that he should have that wealth; it's not up to me or you to tell them they shouldn't have given him their money (and I say "they" as if neither of us have bought anything on Amazon when chances are, we both have).
"Just a reminder: Bezos has 100000 millions of dollars, and odds are, you will never see a single million in your life."
Depends on how much I apply myself. Honestly, I never thought I would have the wealth I have now, and I'm by no means rich. But just a reminder to you: Jeff Bezos started out as just some loser in his garage reselling books. But because he was better at selling books than Bernie, he's a bad guy, ok 👍
2
-
@CassidyCope Not at all. I just think that if you provide a product or service for someone, and they value that more than the money, there is a mutual exchange and no one else has the right to forcibly take that money from you.
We have the same goals, I don't know why that doesn't register with some people. My argument is that it's in free markets (which, again, we do not have when it comes to healthcare) that everyone benefits the most. There's absolutely no excuse for hindering supply (of the actual healthcare) so dramatically that the cost gets so unforgivably high.
"Goods and services taxes,"
You mean like sales tax? Because we all pay the same on goods and services in that regard. So we're talking about them paying the same when they buy a product/service, and then paying a much higher dollar amount and percentage of their personal income.
"You're ignoring my point about disposable income."
No, I didn't, I addressed it when I talked about the profit incentive. The reason they're providing society with so much value (and jobs) in the first place is that they want to have as much disposable income as possible, not unlike anyone else.
BTW, the tax cuts and deregulations did not just benefit the wealthy! Since Trump took office, median household income has gone up $4,144.
https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AZ014_Moore_16U_20190926102706.jpg
And of course, both the middle and lower classes continue to shrink, while the upper class keeps growing.
https://www.cato.org/blog/middle-class-shrinking-households-become-richer
So while I agree we have a moral duty to help those in need, these libertarian-leaning approaches are doing just that. And I'd also say we have a moral duty not to steal, especially if it's grounded in jealousy or misinformation about what is/isn't helping the poor.
"And why does Bezos having done those things mean that he shouldn't contribute to our society?"
A. Those things have contributed to society, on a far greater scale than we have.
and B. He is still paying taxes assuming that's what you mean, as is Amazon. Just because Amazon didn't owe anything more in taxes in 2018 doesn't mean they didn't pay taxes at all.
"Tens to hundreds of thousands of Americans are sleeping on the streets tonight. Why should our society let those people suffer,"
We shouldn't. But we should implement policies that work, and discard the ones that don't. We’ve spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs since the so-called “War on Poverty” began. And we’ve only seen the rate at which the poverty rate was already declining slow down as a result.
https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years
"30000 of them having served our nation in the armed forces,"
And who the fuck was in charge of making sure they were well-reimbursed for their service, and well taken care of in terms of their physical and mental health? I'm sorry, not cussing out of anger at you, but it pisses me off that the government screws people over and is never held accountable for it, especially when we're talking about veterans because I am one.
"Bezos became what he is now because he, as I mentioned earlier, holds a near monopoly on online shopping."
49.1% is not a near-monopoly. And a lot of Americans get their own start in retail through selling on Amazon. Again, I just think in your haste to punish Jeff Bezos, you're more likely to just punish everyone else. Besides which, do you think the wealthy are just going to pay the increased taxes you want, without it being passed down to employees or consumers?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JM-ex3uq He pretty much did exactly what he should have, put a brave face on things while actively working to combat the virus from day one. But again, even if we say that he was wrong for "playing it down", that should apply every bit as much to his political opponents (including Biden) because they played it down with their words while opposing efforts to combat it with their actions.
And again, we still don't have a proper way of testing people because they're (admittedly!) inflating the numbers.
And no, he didn't call the virus itself (or the pandemic) a hoax; he called their efforts to blame him a hoax, which it is.
Your way of dismissing Sweden's success with the virus is interesting, and not just because you're avoiding the point (that the travel ban seems to be the only thing that was ever necessary). Sweden is not a socialist country by a long shot. They're actually more free market than we are in some respects. They don't penalize the wealthy with high corporate tax rates, they have school vouchers, no minimum wage laws, etc.
And yes, we should put politics aside. But if you're buying the numbers people use to try and argue that Trump handled the virus poorly, you're a long way from there on at least two levels:
1. The very reason they're inflating the numbers (again, they've admitted to doing so) is that this is an election year.
and 2. You're trying to use those deaths (some of which were actually from Covid, sure) as a political tool against Trump.
2
-
@JM-ex3uq It's not a conspiracy at all; they admitted that they are counting non-Covid deaths as Covid deaths. And they admit on their website that a Covid diagnosis doesn't mean you actually have Covid.
Now, yes, when it hit, it hit Sweden hard. But the point is that even though they never went to wearing masks, never implemented "social distancing" and never shut down, they've been doing at least as good as the average country and in some cases better.
The problem for the political left here in the U.S., is that if they say the shutdowns, social distancing and masks help, then it becomes inexplicable why the U.S. isn't at least doing better than Sweden in terms of Covid. I know, I know, "not enough" people are wearing masks, social distancing, and shutting down. But the point remains that we should be doing better than any country that has not at least partially implemented these allegedly crucial measures.
That's unless they want to go ahead and admit that the numbers are fake, but then they lose that political talking point against Trump. Suffice to say, the truth isn't going to help you make Trump look bad. It just isn't.
Also, are you seriously trying to complain that I'm being biased here? You have yet to say one critical word for the Democrats who, like I said, not only "played down" the virus but actively opposed life-saving measures to fight against it.
"I’m sure you’re pro-life,"
Absolutely. When does this "ball of tissue" become a human being? Most left-wing answers to this make no sense scientifically or logically. One might say when the brain develops, but that's around six weeks after conception (and no pro-abortion person is going to be okay with drawing the line there).
"anti-immigration"
Anti- illegal immigration, sure. Why wouldn't I be?
"and against a progressive tax."
Absolutely.
"You know you can think for yourself, right?"
Yep! And that's why I've come to these conclusions. I dared to think about it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Modern gender theory (e.g., transgenderism) remains incoherent. And until those subscribing to this worldview can give workable definitions for terms like "gender", "man" or "woman" to begin with, we've no reason to take it seriously.
For example, Dave claims "woman means any adult person with female gender identity". This simply moves the unworkable definition over to the term "female". Because just below where that claim is written on his screen, he shows that he thinks "female" can refer to either biology or this same "gender identity" he's supposed to be making sense of. If "female" refers to biology, then any biological males identifying as female are literally delusional. And if he means "female" as in the sense of gender identity, then "female = someone who identifies as female" is still a circular definition.
As for brain activity, differences in brain activity are characteristic of all sorts of mental conditions even Dave would call pathological. We don't say that therefore the subject's beliefs are true; at best, we say we can explain why they have said beliefs, however delusional.
Also, Dave should be ashamed of himself for equating disagreement with phobia. Not only is this disrespectful of people who suffer with actual phobias, but it's telling trans-identifying people that tons of people hate them or are afraid of them when we're not. If he really cared about these people, he wouldn't tell them tons of people hate their guts when that's not anywhere close to true.
Then he accuses us all of being "bigots". Bigotry is a strong and unreasonable prejudice or opinion. But he's yet to demonstrate that we're being unreasonable, while he himself is being unreasonable by calling people names just because they disagree with his worldview. Anyway, he should either learn the difference between men and women or stop identifying as a "Professor", because that's embarrassing. Good video though, Warren!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Destroyer754 "
Theory 1 is that the body is the concept... Theory 2 is that the concept creates the body."
Neither...? ...The body is the body. From there, we can acknowledge biological facts about the bodies. We can come up with words (e.g., "man", "woman", "XX body", "XY body") to describe the objective, biological realities. Once we've done that, however, people will be thinking of the bodies (and the objectively real and consequentially real differences between them) whenever we use whatever word we've largely agreed on.
This is why it wouldn't help anything to call everyone "XY women", "XX women", etc. Because the differences would remain and be acknowledged in our actions if not our words, and those "XY women" would still have all the same reasons (in their minds) to complain that they're not being treated like "XX women" that they have now.
And this is speaking to your other point, though you may not realize it. Even if we don't call someone with an XX body a woman, they will be treated as what we call a woman today. That's because gender is an objective reality we can either acknowledge, deny or ignore; it isn't something we create.
This is also, BTW, why we don't shy away from such names when it comes to anything else. I can call a thorn bush a pillow until I'm blue in the face. But I will never throw myself upon it, because I know perfectly well what it really is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@adam_p99 Wow, do you think latinos are incompetent or something? That certainly came out of nowhere. Anyway, Trump's done amazing work, IMO, especially with the economy. Unemployment just keeps plummeting, with record lows for minorities. The deregulations were a great step toward the economic freedom we've been steadily losing (despite the Scandinavian models candidates like Bernie keep pointing to being more capitalistic, and that's why they're doing well). I also applaud things like prison reform, transparency on the pricing of healthcare, etc.
Now, what could he do to be worse than the Democrats. Well I guess he'd have to promote full-on socialism/communism, or maybe promote the deaths of the unborn rather than protecting them. He'd have to actually be divisive, sort of like the Democrats are being. Stuff like that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jillylove101 Trump's regulations and tax cuts provided over 7 million jobs, and members of every class has benefited. Average weekly paychecks are up 2.8% and the poverty rate's declined. And real median household income went up over $4,000 (6.8%) since he took office. I don't agree with painting our military men and women as victims; everyone who joins the military knows they could be sent to fight in a war they might not believe in; that's the tradeoff for all the benefits. As for "destroying the planet" (which is done by Bernie, Greta Thunberg, etc. as well, not just the billionaires), our only realistic chance of turning that around is through innovation. Clean energy has to be practical and affordable to not just get the U.S. but other nations on board. So I do think Trump's done a great job for the most part. Also like what he's done with prison reform, right to try, right to know the costs of a particular medical treatment beforehand, getting more drugs approved by the FDA, and so on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm sorry, but I really think Kyle lost this one. And I'll even explain why for anyone with the time and inclination to read it:
So first, if the "unemployment rate" he prefers to use is higher because some of the workers are "discouraged", or "underemployed", that's a bogus number. They're still employed (therefore not unemployed), and that is indeed better than being unemployed at any rate. Besides which, as Charlie pointed out that number's down under Trump as well anyway.
Similarly, just the fact that 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck tells us absolutely nothing. Just like with the wage gap, the question is why are they living paycheck to paycheck? It could be because they're getting paid less in relation to their essential needs, or it could be that we as a society have become far more irresponsible with our money (taking on unnecessary expenses, spending excessively, etc.)
In general, Kyle seems to really have a problem with any and all actions that directly help the rich despite whatever actions have helped others. I don't understand that logic, personally. Yes, the estate tax cuts only benefited the rich because they're the only ones with estates... But the tax only taxes the rich, so what's the problem!? He also doesn't seem to realize that his thought experiment opens the door to full-on socialism. Bernie Sanders was against millionaires... until he became one. Similarly, concerning Kyle, it's easy to go from saying "Okay so you only have 999.9 million dollars. Big whoop." to saying "Okay so you only have 9 millions dollars. Big whoop." and so on. It's just a very dangerous slippery slope he wants to move this country to.
Also, for the most part, Charlie Kirk was right. Another way to word "making money" is "providing value". The beauty of the free market is that it's the American people deciding who does/doesn't deserve their money, and they'll only say you deserve it if they find your product/service valuable.
I'm surprised Kyle argued against Charlie's point about California's laws regarding speech by just saying the 1st Amendment overrides it. While true on an official level, it doesn't magically guarantee anyone will be protected. And even if we were, it doesn't change the basic point that Democratically run local and state governments will at least try to undermine the freedom of speech which is bad enough and should make people take a second look at the current Democratic party.
Even the "Why do you always say it's anti-American?" question didn't quite work because Colin Kaepernik literally refused to stand for the national anthem to protest something entirely different. I'm not that big on symbols, but this was a direct refusal to respect what should be a universally acknowledged national anthem. Why did he choose that of all things if he's not anti-American? I think that's a fair question. And of course, it doesn't follow that because Colin's chosen method of protesting didn't check the box of "violent", that therefore everyone should have been okay with it. Frankly, that's a very low standard to set!
In general, I couldn't help but notice how Charlie had a direct answer to Kyle's allegations against Trump but then Kyle never brought a counterpoint to any of it; he just kinda turned up the attitude and switched to a different topic.
And finally, when it comes to seeing shades of grey instead of black and white, the whole point of not giving government too much power is that it only takes one (or maybe a few, to be fair) corrupt and evil people in positions of power to do a great deal of damage. The way I like to word it is this: Let's assume the majority of corporations are evil and the majority of government officials are good... I'd still prefer the free market because when I choose the minority of good corporations, I don't get thrown in jail for that. When it comes to government, you either give them your money (including the evil, corrupt minority) or it's off to prison with you. And once other government officials see how viable this approach is, they'll jump on board and corruption will literally spread throughout. Compare that to the free market, where the only thing the remaining good corporations will see is a bunch of failed has-been competitors that wasted away due to being corrupt!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@destroctiveblade843 Okay, so let's just assume for the sake of argument that these dollars are not being reinvested in their own company (sometimes by way of raising wages, giving out bonuses, hiring more people, etc.), invested in other companies (which help the less wealthy to start their own business), or donated (some of these people being targeted have donated insane amounts to the poor). Let's assume that every dollar they get to keep from tax cuts is saved... Did you know that even that benefits the less wealthy? Because when we go to buy a house, we don't write a check to anyone for $100,000 because we can't. Instead, we go to the bank and get a loan. We're borrowing from the wealthy when we do this, or go to start a business, sometimes to buy a car or just on home repairs, using the bank as a middle man. So saving your money does not mean taking it out of circulation.
But I do think things should improve fast. I think the government should get out of the way for the most part, and let the rest of us freely open our own businesses. I think they should let people open more clinics and hospitals instead of dictating what they think the people in that area do/don't need. And I think Right to Try shouldn't have even been an issue in the first place, but I'm glad the big, evil orange man took care of it. It's shameful that no one did it before him.
@Destroctive Blade I don't think banks should be bailed out for making mistakes in terms of how much they loan out, either. That's just another example of government getting involved in the market and screwing things up, as far as I'm concerned.
When it comes to automation, improvements in technology have always helped Americans at large and I see no sign of it being different today. The unemployment rate is still going down. When it starts going up considerably, then I'll worry that there aren't enough jobs for everybody.
And how do you imagine "Wall Street" is making billions of dollars? Unless you think they're stealing it (which is already against the law), or the government is giving it to them in some way, what are you referring to?
Finally, concerning other nations, these are the countries that tend to be more free-market than the U.S. Take the Scandinavian countries for example. No minimum wage laws, they've school vouchers, they don't penalize the wealthy with high corporate tax rates. All things Bernie Sanders opposes. But Scandinavia learned its lesson about capitalism some time ago (especially Sweden), while the U.S. sort of bumbles around and people like Bernie aren't helping.
2
-
@destroctiveblade843 But their tax system is far less progressive, with high taxes kicking in on the middle class and everyone paying a VAT tax of 25% (which disproportionately affects the lower class). The corporate income tax rate is much lower than what Bernie wants to do in the U.S. Although in truth, I think we're better off comparing nations to what they themselves were like. And when Sweden's government was more controlling, it was going downhill fast. The U.S. is in the middle of experiencing the same, especially when it comes to healthcare.
My point about unemployment still applies. "Jobs going away" doesn't mean more people are unemployed, it just means that we're having to move into other lines of work as technology improves (BTW, government interference such as minimum wage laws add to this trend; if it's cheaper to buy and maintain a robotic stocker than to pay workers the new wage, employers have every incentive to do it). It's been going on forever like that. And the unemployment rate is going down which means there is no cause for worry anytime soon.
One thing to remember about Amazon, though (in addition to the fact that we all benefit from their services), is that they're also providing jobs. Not only in the sense that they've employed over 400,000 Americans, but also in the sense that over a million Americans are active sellers (running their own business) through Amazon. So this is an example of how workers are displaced rather than simply out of a job.
https://www.geekwire.com/2019/amazon-tops-750000-employees-first-time-adding-nearly-100000-people-three-months/
https://www.marketplacepulse.com/amazon/number-of-sellers
2
-
2
-
So his solution is to not support Trump and let the pro-abortion, child-groping Biden win again? I also find it ironic that he criticizes "bringing politics into the church" (which, news flash: everything is being made political including your religious beliefs so there will be no separating them) and then he goes on a political rant when he's supposed to be talking about the bible.
And no, no one ever said politics is spiritual stuff. That's a straw man.
He claims it's not our duty to "be political". But again, everything you say and do will be politicized. As for "serving God", this is precisely what the enemy wants. Read and pray and nothing more. They want everyone to "serve God" in some vague, ineffective way. Basically keep your beliefs about right and wrong (which, once more, can and will be politicized) to yourself, whether it's in the bible or not. I'm shocked that people think this man is making some strong statement, when in reality he's advocating the opposite.
As for the bible Trump had published, he didn't really say exactly what's wrong with it. But ironically he's coming pretty close to blasphemy himself by stating that the book is blasphemous. Which part? The bible part? "The gospel is not an American gospel". No one said it was. Again another straw man, as is "Oh you're encouraged by it/you're glorying in it". Nope, they just bought it. If he's disgusted by some part of it or don't think the documents therein can be reconciled, he should be able to elaborate on why.
"But we're only here temporarily." As is the book. And any other version of the bible, with or without the U.S. Constitution which he seems to have a problem with...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
treydarling Okay, so as I suspected, the study was on adolescents, not newborn babies, or toddlers, or even young children. The problem with trying to draw the conclusion you want from this is that behaviors, thoughts, feelings, the way you're treated over time can actually change your brain size and shape. So it isn't established that trans "girls" had brains resembling that of the gender they identify as first, it could easily have been the other way around.
And again, all it would mean anyway is that they have a brain abnormality causing them to think they're a gender they aren't.
Also, I'd really like to stop avoiding my question: Are you suggesting that trans people who don't have brains that resemble those of the gender they identify with aren't really trans?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"I don't see color" is expressing, among other things, that it's not just assumed you have more struggles with racism, because you don't necessarily have that. A white person in a predominantly black neighborhood deals with racism all the time too. And a black person who spends most of his/her time around other black people will deal with a lot less racism than a black always surrounded by whites.
But beyond that, what is this "struggle"? The vast majority of the time it's people just looking at you from a distance and judging you in ways that won't affect your life. Should that be "seen" or thought of, when we just see black or brown skin? No, because chances are that person we're looking at has way bigger problems in their life, far more significant things about them as a person, and those are things we should be thinking of when we see them.
So "I don't see color" means we don't assume that means a whole lot to you, makes a whole lot of difference, tells us a whole lot about you as an individual, etc. Because it doesn't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
So his solution is to not support Trump and let the pro-abortion, child-groping Biden win again? I also find it ironic that he criticizes "bringing politics into the church" (which, news flash: everything is being made political including your religious beliefs so there will be no separating them) and then he goes on a political rant when he's supposed to be talking about the bible.
And no, no one ever said politics is spiritual stuff. That's a straw man.
He claims it's not our duty to "be political". But again, everything you say and do will be politicized. As for "serving God", this is precisely what the enemy wants. Read and pray and nothing more. They want everyone to "serve God" in some vague, ineffective way. Basically keep your beliefs about right and wrong (which, once more, can and will be politicized) to yourself, whether it's in the bible or not. I'm shocked that people think this man is making some strong statement, when in reality he's advocating the opposite.
As for the bible Trump had published, he didn't really say exactly what's wrong with it. But ironically he's coming pretty close to blasphemy himself by stating that the book is blasphemous. Which part? The bible part? "The gospel is not an American gospel". No one said it was. Again another straw man, as is "Oh you're encouraged by it/you're glorying in it". Nope, they just bought it. If he's disgusted by some part of it or don't think the documents therein can be reconciled, he should be able to elaborate on why.
"But we're only here temporarily." As is the book. And any other version of the bible, with or without the U.S. Constitution which he seems to have a problem with...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@irialoshi4089 "nonetheless if someone identifies as a woman that makes them a woman because gender is a social construct."
Calling it a social construct leads us back to confusing gender itself with gender roles and norms - the socially constructed expectations placed on us based on our biological sex. But if you're really just saying, regardless of what society is doing or expecting and regardless of how they carry themselves, a woman is someone who identifies as a woman, that's guilty of another problem which is circular reasoning.
"I think you must always remember the distinction between sex and gender."
You haven't given me any good reason to think they're different things so far.
"Just look up the definitions on google if you have troubles understanding this"
Yeah, those definitions aren't workable either. They have the same problems I've highlighted with Judith's definition in this video, or they are circular which ultimately makes the words meaningless.
"Also, for the question of what makes someone a woman, well that completely depends!"
Let's not pretend your thinking is deeper than it is. You've already said that all it takes is for the person to identify as a woman.
"Depending on location and time, people experience gender differently"
How so?
"as well as what is expected of them"
Right, so gender roles and norms change. But we shouldn't confuse gender itself with those gender roles and norms, or else at least some of the people who identify as women will have the gender of "man" regardless.
"For you, a woman is an adult human female"
Yes, that's the definition that works.
"but for someone else, it is be a feeling"
The notion of "feeling like" a woman is incoherent as well, since none of us have a basis for that comparison. We've all only been just the one gender, so we'd have no way of knowing the difference between "feeling like" a man vs. "feeling like" a woman, or indeed if there is such a difference at all.
"an aesthetic, etc."
Those who contend that a woman is an aesthetic are saying that you have to look a certain way to be a woman, which is not only offensive to real (biological) women but would be offensive to any trans "woman" who simply refused to dress and look the way society expects women to dress and look.
"“women” is a term almost always ascribed to humans of the female sex in conservative countries that don’t make the distinction. Of course, I do not know the individual feelings of people in Saudi Arabia individually,"
No no, you very clearly had a specific group in mind when you said "Women in Saudi Arabia were allowed to drive a few years ago". What was the group of people you had in your mind when you said that?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Potomacstud Yes, very exciting times. Trump has made things better in the ways I described (and I don't see much by way of refutation of that, BTW, but I will address the topics you're bringing up now).
"do you know that a whole lot of medications that are essentials to saving lives cost 10 to 20 x in US then other parts of the world?"
I already agreed they're too expensive, but I pointed to the fact that government involvement is what made those prices skyrocket. So the solution for genuine change would be to open up the market and let healthcare providers compete just as we've done with everything else.
Additionally, part of the reason we're more expensive than in other nations is that we lead the world when it comes to the creation of new drugs and medical research. The money lost in this process has to be recouped.
"i simply cannot find any other logical reasons that causes this trend other than exploitation"
Essentially, that's what we're talking about. Because there is no downward pressure on the prices (like there would be if there were significant competition), the healthcare industry is ridiculously expensive. Also, because the government has so much control over the market, people can lobby and bribe government officials and politicians to do their bidding and create an effective monopoly.
"and income cannot keep up on expenditure"
Are you suggesting that inflation has gone up to such a degree that $4,000 today is equivalent to $0 when Trump took office? I'm afraid I don't understand what you're claiming here, but I'd probably ask for proof of it (just a heads up).
"and this give rise to a never ending vicious cycle of being caught in a poverty trap and when people are constantly being stressed on all sides even though they are working damn hard to make ends meet , they find life meaningless by the constantly bickering of the lack of money and something happen in their mind they get depressed , suicidal and even angry and they either do something to themselves or to their society"
Granting all of that, I don't see how this is a point for Bernie or against Trump. We both have the same goal here; we want to see everyone thrive and be healthy. But we disagree on how that should be attempted.
"and the gun industries will exploit on this by saying a good guy with a gun will stop bad guy with a gun"
Why pretend it's just the gun industries saying that? It's true! Not long ago, we saw two examples of that happening in Texas. And most mass shootings take place in gun-free zones because everyone knows it's true.
"and the sales of guns will be doubled regardless whether whether good or bad guys get killed"
Why pick on the gun industry? Why not go after the automobile industry on the same premise? Or the fast food restaurants, or literally anyone selling anything that could harm somebody?
I'm with you on the national debt though. More has to be done to address that. Trump's far from being a perfect libertarian, but he's still the closest to one that we have.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Potomacstud "corporate exploitation is to commoditized essentials like healthcare , education and public housing and turned it into enterprise for profit"
It's the profit motive that drives prices down, quality up, and efficiency up, however. This is something you're not really addressing, the fact that healthcare prices didn't skyrocket until the government interfered with the market. Similarly, it's precisely in the areas that have let the government take over in regards to housing, that homelessness is most rampant. Rent control and the like have convinced the suppliers of housing to either move to another city or to another profession altogether. And our education system is heavily regulated and controlled by the government as well. We'd be wise to adopt a school voucher system, but Bernie is against that as well.
"but to deprived basic rights like health care"
None of us have the right to someone else's time, money, or labor. That's like saying "I have a right to food" means you should be able to just walk into a grocery store, take some food and walk out without paying. Still, it isn't the profit-driven healthcare providers depriving you of healthcare; it's the government who literally will not let them provide it. You can't even build a clinic/hospital with your own money if the government doesn't see the "need" for it in that area. My heart breaks to think of all the people who've probably died en route to a hospital that was too far away, all because the government wants to control everything. And that's in addition to the fact that if we allowed more competition (along with the transparency in the costs of medical treatment that Trump is pushing for), we'd see hospitals and clinics lowering their prices, at least on the variety of drugs and treatments that were not emergencies.
"i am very glad that you have a job that pays your generous perks , bonuses and whatever elses thrown in ,"
Oh, it's not just me. As I said, the median household income for the U.S. went up more than $4,000 since Trump took office. And we'd see a lot more of this if employers could trust that the deregulations, tax cuts, etc. weren't going to be reversed by someone like Bernie Sanders.
"but what i cannot accept nor comprehend is Americans paying 10 to 20x the same medications that cost abroad a fraction of the price ,"
Again, the differences can be explained by a couple of factors:
1. The U.S. leads the world in terms of the creation of new drugs and medical research. That's where a lot of that "excess" money is going, into the innovation required to make sure the world is healthy.
2. The regulations, taxes, and fees placed on the healthcare industry have stifled competition in the market, where there's little to no incentive to come up with ways of making drugs (and making them available) cheaper. This all started in the 60s when government got involved to "help" us. Thankfully, we (currently) have a president who is putting effective laws into place that have actually brought prescription drug prices down.
"perhaps you are a middle class person who is working for such pharma companies"
No, I work with troubled kids at a residential treatment center. Americans in all sorts of careers have benefited from the deregulations and tax cuts provided by Trump.
"you have no bargaining power when you are stricken with stage 4 cancer and needs urgent surgeries and chemotherapy ,"
And you're completely out of luck in other countries where the wait times are insane. Not to mention all the blood that's on the government's hands concerning life-saving medications they've denied. Trump is combating this by getting more drugs approved by the FDA and his Right to Try Act, but we can look at other countries where the government is failing miserably (and dangerously).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2901367/Anger-fund-cuts-six-breast-cancer-drugs-Thousands-women-denied-chance-medication-sparking-fierce-condemnation-campaigners.html
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Potomacstud He could still make Mexico pay for the wall yet, through trade if nothing else. But yes, the "crisis" (healthcare being too expensive) is being addressed effectively. More needs to be done, but Trump's on the right track.
But I agree with you, about not believing what any of these politicians are saying. Results are far more important. But again, I didn't vote for Trump last time because all I knew about him was his personality (which I do not like!) Now, given his performance, and the ever-increasing insanity from the Democrats, I'm convinced we should be voting for another four years of the evil orange man 😋
"if what you assume what Trump did is lowering healthcare cost ,"
It's not an assumption. I even gave references to prove it.
"more people are losing their healthcare protection in US , that is why his bill killed !"
What exactly are you referring to? I hear these sorts of vague claims about Trump all the time, but people so rarely get specific.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Then they would only build roads that benefit them."
Same for the government. Plus the government doesn't really have any direct incentive to do their job fully. And if they can get more votes or funding from higher government another way, they've no reason to build/maintain most roads.
"But what will the poor do for roads?"
Like you said, it's not a terribly difficult thing to build one. Are you saying the poor are too stupid to build a functional dirt road? And BTW they'd be less poor if they didn't have to pay taxes...
"But then the rich people won't let them use the roads they built!"
Fine, someone else will find a way to build one for public use and monetize it. You don't realize that your "Greed!" and "Lust for power!" narratives are conflicting here. And besides which, maybe you're just projecting your own personal potential attitudes in such an economy. Maybe you would be like that, but you haven't given us any reason to think anyone else would.
"They would determine what benefits them not by having a civic society."
Unfounded. Who are you to say that wealthy people wouldn't want a "civic society", or that it wouldn't be "smart" to work towards one? Seems to me that depends on your values. If I personally care about x problem in society, I'm going to want to fund fixing that problem, whether a monetary payback is promised or no.
And let's not forget about charity. People give tons of money to strangers for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical expenses, the list goes on forever. But then with roads no one would contribute (if and when the need arose) because, reasons?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@iantkach6640 ""this already happens in a variety of circumstances."
Indeed it does, but not to conform to an incoherent worldview such as transgenderism. Trans people are the only ones who get to say, "I identify as x, and that is why you must call me and treat me as x".
"Certain people with PhDs or similar postgrad certifications get prickly when you don't refer to them as "Dr. ___""
Right, but they don't try to bust us for violating "hate speech laws" if we choose not to. Besides which, calling someone who has a doctorate "Dr." is hardly incoherent. But trans people will say you're using terms like "man" and "woman" incorrectly, while being unable to give any sort of objective definition for these terms themselves.
"When you're in court, you can't refer to the judge by their name, you have to say "Your Honor"."
You don't have to, but again even if you did, there's an objective standard by which they expect you to do so. I can't obligate you to call me "your honor", and everyone understands that's because I'm not a judge and we're not in a trial.
"suddenly, it's a problem to use different names or pronouns because somebody wants you to?"
It's always been a problem to expect someone to do something just because you want them to. But that problem is made more serious when it's A) coerced if not forced, and B) in accordance with an incoherent worldview.
"What's the cutoff? Are business owners allowed to refuse service to people who follow a religion they don't like (or even just a different religion)? What about race? People with disabilities?"
It's everybody's right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. No one owns your body, your tongue, or your business but you. We're not allowed to exercise these rights in many cases, but I would hope your argument isn't "What's legal = what's right, and what's illegal = what's wrong".
2
-
@iantkach6640 "OK, so which is it? Either there's no restrictions or limits on business owners being able to refuse service, or there are restrictions and limits."
What's the confusion? We have the right to say what we want and run our places of business as we want, but sometimes governments infringe on those rights and do not allow it.
If you're only wanting to talk about what authorities will allow, then there is no need for discussion or debate; we can just look it up.
"while people can choose to run their businesses however they want, it's frankly just not polite or nice to refuse someone service because you think they have an "incoherent worldview"."
A. Transgenderism is incoherent and I gave one of the reasons why.
and B. Most of the time, it isn't even a matter of refusing service. For example, if an adult human male comes into your restaurant wanting to be called "ma'am", you providing service won't mean a thing to them if you call them "sir".
That being said, even providing service to men dressed as women will most likely "affect you a little bit" because you could lose other customers as a result (if not end up in trouble if you "misgender" them, which isn't even possible on transgenderism but I digress).
2
-
2
-
2
-
@be7256 "yet being a billionaire is based off of your net worth no? Thats a number you can't change"
Exactly, and your biological makeup is something you can't change. Yet you arbitrarily make an exception for gender, in saying we're supposedly obligated to call someone a woman just because they identify as one.
"Compared to gender which is a social term"
No, that's a confusion between gender roles and norms and gender itself. Gender roles and gender norms are the social constructs, which we're expected to adhere to (socially and culturally) on the basis of our gender, aka biological sex.
"Something that is based off of you and not any external factors"
When you say "based off of you", you are admitting it's a purely subjective term. Therefore, not only is "woman" defined in a circular way (e.g., a woman is someone who identifies as a woman), it's also defined in such a way that actually makes misgendering impossible. You can never be correct or incorrect while using these terms, on your worldview, since there are no objective definitions for them.
2
-
@be7256 "first of all you aren't obligated to call them a woman"
Well I know that. I'd be morally obligated to call them women if they were women, though. But they insist that to call a "trans woman" a man is incorrect, while being unable to give objective definitions for these terms, which is incoherent.
"But its quite expected of me to do so because
Well you identify as a man"
Oh dear god no, that's a horrible reason to call someone something (be it a man, a billionaire, a giraffe, whatever). You should want your words to reflect truth or at least logical thinking, not be literally whatever other people want them to reflect.
"dont you"
I don't 'identify as" as a man, no. I recognize the fact that I'm a biological male who is also human and also an adult. Same way I recognize I do not have a billion dollars in the bank, do not have four legs, etc.
"Assuming gender and sex are one and the same isnt quite right"
It's not assumption; we've known gender and sex are the same thing for a long time now. Again, it's the very reason the roles we're expected to play based solely on our biological sex are called "gender roles" to begin with.
"But gender is quite literally the norms, behaviours, and roles associated with men and women"
But that's a very disingenuous definition, no? Because if I adhere to the norms, behaviors and roles of a woman, but identify as a man, trans people and trans advocates will still call me a man. The most intellectually honest definition for "woman", on transgenderism, is in fact "someone who identifies as a woman".
"My source would be the WHO"
Which also fails to provide an objective definition for their terms here.
"And this also addresses your point about the definition of woman since we have norms associated to women"
Yet plenty of women reject those norms while still being (and identifying as) women. It's almost as if your gender does not change with/is not defined by gender roles and norms after all...
2
-
@be7256 No, I'm the one saying your gender is entirely different from your "gender expression", "gender identity", along with gender roles and norms.
"Gender is the subconscious and conscious identification of your sex"
So again, why? Why do we make this arbitrary exception for gender, when we don't do it for anything else? Surely I can subconsciously or consciously identify as a billionaire, a giraffe, etc. as well. But I'd be corrected on those self-identifications, why isn't it the same for gender?
"Thats why trans people often feel like they're in the wrong body
Because their head says different to their physiology"
Since when does that lend any validity to a claim though? Tons of people believe things that are not true about themselves and these beliefs can be traced back to even the biological functions of their own physical brains.
"But gender dysphoria is very proven"
No one's arguing that gender dysphoria doesn't exist. I'm asking why turn to an incoherent worldview like transgenderism in response to it?
"trans men are also shown to have brains more similar to women and vice versa with trans women"
Right, and there are at least two major problems with the brain studies angle:
1. As I alluded to earlier, disorders of the mind in general are characterized by differences in brain function and structure. We don't say that therefore their beliefs are true; at most, we can say that might be why they believe they're a woman, etc.
2. We both know that even a biological male with a so-called "male brain" who identified as a woman would be called a woman by trans people and trans advocates. Likewise, if it turned out that I myself had a "female brain", yet I continued to identify as a man, they would call me a man.
As I said before, the most intellectually honest definition of "woman", on your worldview, is simply "someone who identifies as a woman".
"The reason why gender and sex used to be the same word is because we didn't consider this back then
And language evolves with knowledge"
Doesn't give any reason to change the definition of "gender" though, given the points I just made (along with the end result being no objective definition at all).
2
-
@be7256 "youre not a billionaire because its based on how much money you have"
Right, just like how gender is based on biological makeup.
"you would be a woman because your gender is based on your gender identity which happens to be psychological"
Okay, so we're ditching the definition which equates it with gender roles and norms (that's progress). But it still doesn't grant any validity since we end up with a circular definition anyway.
"and i get your point, if its decided by how we feel then there needs to be a strict definition of man and woman to feel like one or the other
and i dont quite know how to describe this since its a tricky concept"
It's more than just tricky. It's actually not coherent either since none of us have a basis for that comparison. We've all only been just the one gender, so we'd have no way of knowing the difference between "feeling like" a man vs. "feeling like" a woman, or indeed if there is such a difference at all.
"i assume youve never thought that maybe youre a woman"
No, I was raised long before all this became trendy, to tell boys they might "really" be girls and such.
"so what makes you think youre a man
im guessing your response to that would be your penis"
No, there are biological males who are born without; it does certainly get more complicated than genitalia. It has to do with whether or not your development involved active SRY genes and androgen receptors. But even a faulty or inaccurate definition is better than an incoherent one, a circular one, or none at all!
"and to remind you no this doesnt equate to a person with brain damage calling themselves a unicorn, because thats not how we decide species"
So the reason you arbitrarily make the exception for gender is just "we do" and "we don't decide it that way for anything else".
"and its because thats just what those words mean"
Right, just like "man" and "woman" used to have very different meanings. But then someone decided someone identifying as a woman means they are a woman. Why can't/Why won't it happen that way with anything else?
"and pronouns are based off of gender and not sex too"
I refuse. You haven't given me any reason to adopt your way of thinking, that gender and sex are different. But even if I did agree that gender and sex were different, why couldn't I simply call someone a "man" and then explain that I'm referring only to their biological sex (and of course species and age)? I can't be misgendering someone if I'm not referring to their gender in the first place, after all.
"you should call a trans woman a her
not only is calling them a him frankly rude, it would also be incorrect"
What makes it incorrect? What's the objective definition for a "woman"?
2
-
@Orangekid65 "there's nothing illogical about having a gender identity,"
Agreed, so long as you're identifying as what you are. So for example, I as a 40-year old white person shouldn't be encouraged to identify as a black 10-year old.
"Gender identity is a real thing. And it doesn't necessarily have to do with gender roles."
Then how do you define "gender"? Because most people subscribing to this worldview give a definition which confuses it with the inclination/disinclination to adhere to gender roles or norms.
"Also, no one is asking you to use words like "man" or "woman" incorrectly."
What they're doing is insisting that when I refer to certain adult biological males as men, I'm incorrect. But it's logically impossible for anyone to be correct or incorrect while using terms without objective definitions. This is part of why transgenderism is incoherent.
"And why do you need objective definitions for them, beyond internal gender identity?"
To make the worldview coherent. And "gender identity" isn't an objective definition since it's based on someone's feelings, opinions, etc.
"how do we know you're not the one framing hatred as disagreement"
Because I'm literally just disagreeing, and the burden of proof would be on you to show that the reason is hate. After all, if you just assume hatred whenever someone disagrees with someone else, then that would mean you are now admitting to hating me (since you're clearly disagreeing with me). That silly game of unfounded accusations goes both ways 😉
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Swiss Cheese I appreciate that!
"On the subject of your original comment, though, my own impression of the whole movement is that it's a reactionary philosophy in opposition to the feminist idea of deconstructing gender roles."
Interesting. Could be.
"For quite a while, the prevailing idea in feminism was that men could do "girly" things, and women could do "manly" things, and that was okay, and it didn't make you any less of a man, or any less of a woman.
Now though, the "progressive" action seems to be to take your children to the gender clinic to get hormone replacement therapy if they don't adhere completely to their gender norms, and you're a monster if you criticise the idea. Really, it's quite bizarre how quickly the moral landscape seems to change these days."
You could very well be right. I don't really have a strong stance as to the origins of this, but I think it's an invalid worldview either way.
2
-
2
-
@nibbatron6283 "Like I said, gender can be experienced by anyone, race cannot."
And like I said, that's just an assertion you're making. If we say that a man can experience "being a woman", there's no reason a white man can't experience "being black". Seeing as how we're obligated to call men women solely on the basis of them identifying as such, it would be inconsistent to say that this isn't sufficient basis on which to obligate us to call white men black.
"Trans people can literally alter their biology,"
Well part of the problem with that justification is that they're supposedly already the gender they identify as, with or without altering their biology. So you're really just arguing that a person's access to these "treatments" is what makes them what they claim to be, which is wrong on a variety of levels. You need to first make up your mind what makes a trans "woman" a woman. You haven't done so yet, clearly.
"a white person does not need black protections like a trans person would."
Which, even if true, has no bearing on what a person is or why we should/shouldn't call them what they identify as.
"but they all tie back to black identity and have their own fundamental experiences that can only be experienced by black people"
Obviously untrue. There isn't a single thing you can name that only black people experience, or that all black people experience for that matter.
"Remove the skin from a white and black person, and there will always be a fundamental difference in mind and understanding (at least from what I've seen every time a white person attempts to discuss black issues)."
Which is, again, highly racist. Some of these issues may be predominantly relevant to black people, but that doesn't mean or suggest that it's because they're black that they understand "black issues". A white boy raised in a ghetto knows about life on the streets more than any black boy raised in a nice neighborhood, for example.
"You only believe you're thinking critically... But by sheer technicality, it's not exactly what you're doing"
BS. Again, you've tried to claim that I'm not listening to the other side. But I am; I'm just not buying what you're saying mindlessly. You're not addressing any of the difficulties I've highlighted with your worldview. So you need to actually give me a reason to think I'm wrong, I'm not going to do it just for the sake of "thinking critically" because that's not what that means.
"thinking critically does not mean disregarding facts or science"
Which facts or science are you accusing me of denying? Because I flat-out asked you what the science is establishing and you haven't specified anything that would undermine my arguments.
"Also, trans women experience womanhood, they also experience the struggles of women in society just like all women have, whether you want to believe it or not,"
Again, even if this is true, you need to realize that it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they are women. Just like a white man understanding what you called "black issues" earlier (whatever they may be) doesn't make him black.
And yes, transgenderism is correlated with biological males cutting off their penises; who are you trying to kid?
"No one can force anyone to use certain pronouns, that's just another oddly pointed misconception on your part..."
People absolutely can force others to speak the way they want them to, and it's worth fighting against that at every turn.
"if you do misgendering someone, that is your right, just as it is their right to tell you you're rude or to leave them alone... if you're actively barrating someone, repeatedly misgendering them in an attempt to upset them after they've told you to leave them alone,"
Ah, but who gets to decide whether "misgendering" them (aka calling a man a man) is being done to upset them? And why can't I similarly claim that some guy is calling himself a woman just to upset me and get them in trouble for it?
"gender and sex hold linguistically different meanings."
Only in the sense that they each have various definitions. So a person can say that "sex" (being the noun we use for sexual intercourse) is different from "gender". But other than that, as I've explained, gender has always been what gender roles/norms are based on. And this has never been how the person identifies; it's always been their biological makeup, more specifically their biological sex.
"No one will ever give you the time of day like I am within the scientific community using points like this."
Well then I will continue to point out their lack of an argument as well.
And I am still waiting for an answer to my question, about how a person "knows" they're the opposite sex. What is the objective difference between a woman who is merely "trapped in a man's body" and just a man who thinks he's a woman? And why do you keep bringing up the science anyway, after I've pointed out how irrelevant is to your worldview?
2
-
@nibbatron6283 "That is not an assertion I'm making on my own, scientific discourse has made that assertion for me."
Except that it hasn't. You haven't been able to quote any science directly saying that white people can't experience "being black" in the same ways men can experience "being women". And do note that I said science not scientists.
"The same cannot be said about transracial people, unless you're willing to prove otherwise somehow via your own experiences,"
Well neither can be proven, obviously. But even if we say that it's been proven that a man can experience being a woman, it doesn't follow that it's been proven that a white man can't experience being black. You're the one who made this claim, however, and now seem to be shifting the burden of proof when that claim is challenged.
And let's keep in mind that this "science" is all irrelevant anyway. Because a man who identifies as a woman is said to be a woman, regardless of what anyone (including any scientists) say about him. Nothing has to actually be proven. It doesn't matter if he does/doesn't have a "female brain", or to what extent (if any) he experiences "being a woman".
"Well, on top of the 'scientifically', trans people are also legally protected as the gender they are. You don't have to think it means anything, but it wouldn't be law if their identities weren't deemed valid by a professional psychiatrist"
Which, without being able to make sense of the problems with the incoherence and inconsistency of this worldview, amounts to just an argument from authority. And also reinforces my earlier claim that your side is most definitely the side trying to force other people to speak/act differently.
"I'm not trying to name a single experience because human experience differs,"
Okay then, you can't say that a white man cannot experience "being black" (whatever you think that entails).
"Similarly, ALL women (including trans women), experience a level of kinship and understanding towards being women,"
And the same could be claimed for transracial (or whatever they would be called) people. One could say that all blacks (including transracial blacks) experience that level of kinship and understanding towards being black.
"The fact that you assume the "ghetto" has anything to do with being black, is racist in and of itself, no?"
Well no, I gave that as an example often given by others (including black people themselves) as to what "being black" entails that whites supposedly don't know anything about.
"Regardless of location, financial stability or community, being black comes with a fundamental understanding of what it means to be so,"
Which you conveniently cannot define. So it could very well be that "being black" means having black skin and/or being of a certain ethnicity and nothing more/less.
"I'm sure you'd do well on giving your personal analysis on being whatever race or sex you are, but that is only an authority you have over yourself..."
Well again, I'm not the one on the side of "Do and speak the way I want you to!", but okay.
"Part 2: You say experience has no bearing on womanhood (the sense of being a woman),"
No, I say (because it's true) that having similarities in experiences with women has no bearing on actually being (not "having the sense of being") a woman.
And this highlights yet another reason why the worldview is incoherent. No one can actually say they have the sense of being/feel like a woman or a man. Because none of us have any basis for comparison. We don't know that there even is such a thing as "feeling like a man" or "feeling like a woman", much less how they differ. For all we know, the two feelings could feel exactly the same.
"You have every right to believe what you want, BUT when you disrupt the peace, and start telling someone that they're a man when they've specifically told you NOT to,"
But you're not answering the question. Who gets to decide that me calling a man a man is harassment rather than simply me exercising my own freedom of speech? And why can't I similarly demand that they not call themselves "women" in front of me or else it's "harassment" and get them in legal trouble? To be clear, this is just a question. Unlike your side, I've no intention of forcing people to speak in accordance with my personal beliefs.
"Again, gender-affirming surgery for a trans woman does not consist of "cutting off penises", that's just a misconception."
No, it's just what happens. You're seriously trying to tell me that trans "women" do not opt to have their penises removed and I'm not buying that lie because it's too blatant.
"But gender roles are based on gender, gender is based on sex."
Nonsense. People are expected to adhere to gender roles and norms based on their biological sex. There is no second step in between. There is no consideration of anything beyond their biological sex at all. Certainly nothing about the person's gender identity, which you are confusing for gender itself.
"Gender roles are simply arbitrarily established expected behaviors in societies,"
Exactly, those are the social constructs, not gender itself.
"Yes, I'm sure people with academic authority over these fields of study will absolutely listen to someone with no academic authority over these fields of study. Good luck."
I'm not morally obligated to force anyone to listen. All I can do is point out the errors and let them make their own decisions.
And you're still not providing any science that contradicts anything I've said. You tried the brain studies angle, but when I pointed out all the issues with that, you've since abandoned that entire discussion. Now all you're doing is posturing, claiming that since I don't agree with you it must mean I don't agree with the scientists when that doesn't follow at all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Secular Talk Okay, so you're wrong about a number of things. For one, just pointing out that since Candace Owens primarily speaks to the black community Lieu's misrepresentation of her was an insult to their intelligence in particular is not "playing the race card". From the Wikipedia: "The phrase is commonly used to allege that someone has deliberately and falsely accused another person of being a racist in order to gain some sort of advantage." Candace neither asserted that Lieu thought only black people were stupid (indeed, I'm sure she'd be fine with saying Lieu was trying to trick everyone) nor did she lean on such a label. She instead pointed out why he was wrong.
Second, you go on to give the same misrepresentation Lieu gave. But you don't acknowledge that she was answering a totally different question on a totally different topic, nor do you seem to know/be willing to acknowledge that the very next phrase after the clip Lieu played said "(The problem with Hitler was that) he wanted everybody to look different", an obvious reference to his prejudices which led to genocide. I appreciate that you don't think she's pro-Hitler, but your claim that "she says stupid shit" isn't backed up either because she was in fact criticizing what you falsely say she didn't. Not that she should have to say it was wrong for Hitler to kill the Jews, but she did. She just didn't spell it out because she thought, surely, no one would be... well, stupid enough to not understand.
And no she didn't get offended at the idea that she "said stupid shit". That obviously was not Lieu's angle (that sometimes Owens says stupid shit), and if you're gonna insinuate that then you're just a liar too. Watch the video again, she got offended at the implications that she was defending Hitler!
I also agree with her point that to kill your own people (on no basis beyond racism and hate) is not really nationalism. It's not keeping your nation's best interests at heart; it's just prioritizing your own personal intolerance.
Also, she did not get "too defensive". The man tried to completely smear her and paint her as a Hitler-sympathizer, and did not call on her to answer (another Republican had to give her his time, otherwise she would've never been able to set the record straight). You're showing a very strong bias in insinuating that she shouldn't have responded as she did. She most certainly should have! You just don't like it.
"All I care about is what's true."
LMAO!!! Ok.
Next you make this bizarre non sequitur of "Oh, Candace Owens pointed out that she went to the opening of the embassy in Jerusalem to prove she's not anti-Semitic... that must means she thinks anyone who criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic". That doesn't follow. Sure, she does point out that no Democrats went, but that only means they can't use that as evidence as she can.
Also, I watched her whole interview with Joe Rogan (which was really great, I highly suggest people check it out), and she consistently said she'd be open to having her mind changed but was skeptical due to some other stuff she had read long ago.
And what's this whole misguided attack on her credibility for, if you can't see the irony in passing along a message from Politicon (which you yourself admit has a history of misinforming people about who's backing out of debates) as if we should take that seriously? Similarly, you don't see the irony in following "Debates are more about performing for the audience than having the actual truth on your side" with "Owens' people said 'She not quite ready for a one-on-one debate setting, therefore she must not have the truth on her side!"
At any rate, I'm very skeptical that you have the truth on your side in general, when you're getting the aforementioned things so wrong already.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@otogun3324 I get that Trump doesn't have the majority of black or Hispanic support, but you can't deny that he has a fair amount. That's the point; Trump has a more diverse coalition if only because, in addition to having support from minorities, gay people, etc., he doesn't share Bernie's prejudice against "the billionaire class". And it's not a "Fox News" thing, you can find black and Hispanic supporters of Trump all over social media.
I honestly think Bernie's rhetoric is more divisive. In addition to promoting class warfare against the billionaires (which, it used to be "millionaires and billionaires" before he became a millionaire, but nevermind), one time he said whites don't know what it's like to be poor. I get that he was just trying to pander to minorities with what he thought they wanted to hear, but it can still cause a divide between whites and minorities if people actually buy into it.
I'm voting for Trump even though I didn't like him at first. I think he's doing a great job! In addition to the economy and record-low unemployment (especially for minorities), we're talking increased wages, prison reform, Right to Try, lower prescription drug prices, the list goes on and on. I also like what he's done for the pro-life movement, but I understand that's a more controversial topic.
2
-
@otogun3324 True that the economy was already improving, and Obama deserves credit for what he did, absolutely. But Trump brought unemployment down further than it's ever been, further than it was before the recession. Remember that Obama had said that not much more could be done. Said Trump would need a "magic wand" to bring those jobs back. Turns out, all he needed to do was apply some free market principles.
"One of my brothas got freed because of Obama's commutations which was over 300 for non violent drug offenses."
Then it should be easy to give Trump credit for the First Step Act.
"And Republicans were EXTREMELY against increasing wages."
We're not talking about Republicans in general though, we're talking about Trump, who did increase wages. Median household income has gone up $4,144 since Trump took office. That's a lot faster than it did under Obama (not an attack, just giving Trump credit as I think we should do).
https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AZ014_Moore_16U_20190926102706.jpg
For these reasons, and the other accomplishments I listed along with them, I'll be voting Trump. But you do you. I don't think we should hate each other or anything, just because we disagree politically.
2
-
@otogun3324 I think the Right to Try Act is new, isn't it? And the increase in median household income I talked about contrasts sharply with the rate it was climbing under Obama.
And I take it you're not wanting to give Trump credit for prison reform?
"Not to mention all the healthcare programs he is slashing at that my community so desperately needs."
Can you be specific? And don't you think it should matter that Trump's simultaneously increased wages and lowered prescription drug prices? Getting more drugs approved by the FDA and working for transparency in the costs of medical treatment? These are libertarian steps in the right direction concerning healthcare, considering prices are so high thanks to government intervention to begin with.
What about the Right to Try Act? Should he at least get credit for that? I mean, that's something that's going to end up literally saving lives.
And I'm glad to see you acknowledge the importance of the stock market! I usually end up talking to someone who thinks it only benefits the rich.
@Otogun Cutting spending doesn't necessarily mean anyone who needs to be on Medicaid (or Medicare or social security for that matter) will be taken off the program.
On Right to Try, I can't read the article without a subscription, and it's over a year old anyway. But if any lives are saved, which at least one person has said the Right to Try Act saved their life already, it's a good thing. And in any case, it was the right thing for him to do. Government shouldn't be standing in the way of people getting the help they need, no matter how good their intentions.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/im-living-proof-party-healthcare-trumps-natalie-harp-mba/
And what's with the sleight-of-hand here? You jump to criticize the Right to Try Act for not being effective, but when it comes to prison reform you just stick with the private prison talking point. Nevermind that contrary to the Right to Try Act, it's been enormously effective. Over 1,600 sentences have been reduced, over 3,000 prisoners have been released.
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2019/sep/9/first-step-act-update-over-1600-sentences-reduced-3000-prisoners-released/
And the increased wages and lower prescription drug prices have gone largely unaddressed. These things matter too! Especially when the methods of how he got them done say a lot about the competence of the free market over government rule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@christhomas3720 There's plenty of reasons that transgenderism is incoherent. Every time I ask a trans person or trans advocate how they "know" they're the opposite gender, they inevitably confuse the inclination/disinclination to adhere to gender roles and norms with gender itself. That, or they'll say something like "I just feel like a woman", which is also incoherent since none of us actually have a basis for comparison. We've all only been just the one gender, so we'd have no way of knowing the difference between "feeling like" a man and "feeling like" a woman. Or indeed if there is any difference, or any such feeling at all.
"Gender is a social construct."
No, gender roles and norms are the social construct. This is why the roles we're expected to play solely on the basis of our biological sex (or gender) are called "gender roles" to begin with.
"It literally does not exist outside of humankind."
Again, gender does, but not the roles and norms assigned to people based on their gender.
"So I see nothing at all wrong with people that feel that they are female but have male sex organs or vice versa.."
You're actually confusing their own terms. They will admit to being male/female, but insist that this doesn't make them men/women respectively. But a male is a man, unless he's not an adult yet (then he would be a boy). Likewise, adult females are called women and female children are called girls.
2
-
2
-
@sixela3455 "nah, because I don’t talk about you everyday"
A. Even that wouldn't mean someone is obsessed with a topic.
and B. It's interesting how a person can talk about transgenderism approvingly every day and not be accused of being "obsessed". It's almost as if you're just throwing that word out there to dismiss people who disagree with you.
"or think about hating you."
Well, great. Likewise, I don't think about hating trans people. Disagreeing with =/= hating (even though that does seem part of the worldview, to tell trans people that whoever disagrees with them on this hates them personally).
"why do you care SO MUCH"
There are plenty of reasons to care about this. For one, we believe the truth has inherent value. So that we should want to know what's true (logical, coherent, consistent) even if there's no extra benefit in doing so.
Secondly, it's not as if this worldview exists in a bubble. There are trans people and trans advocates who would use the government to force others to speak and run their businesses in accordance with this worldview (which, again, falls apart under scrutiny). So it's not as simple as "mind your own business" in any case.
And a distant third would be that transgenderism correlates with high suicidality and it isn't clear that this is solely because trans people are harassed or even attacked (which I do not condone either way). It could just as easily be the effects of taking on a worldview which is incoherent and thereby frequently criticized, and/or being told that you're surrounded by people every day that "hate" you (because they disagree with you).
"about demeaning their pride or existence??"
Well I "demean" the pride of any group who claims to derive real pride from just being part of that group by accident. Because it doesn't make sense either. As for their "demeaning their existence", I'm not sure how that accusation even makes sense.
"Just relax and live your life bud,"
You too! :)
"no need to throw tantrums"
If disagreeing = "throwing tantrums", then again, you too!
"because others get to live their lives proudly after being discriminated against for centuries (AND STILL)."
It would make sense to feel relieved and even celebrate after being discriminated against (depending on what you mean by "discriminated against", of course). But pride is something you obtain because you personally have accomplished something. So that's different.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@EmmaT23 Not at all. I'm not assuming that government will always make bad decisions with the industries they take over. It being inevitable that they will do this occasionally is bad enough. And what's worse, if that mistake created government agencies wherein dozens if not hundreds are employed, the odds of that mistake being reversed are practically zero.
"Also, do you seriously not think that competition between drug manufacturers wont exist or even increase when they're bidding to get the government contract to fulfill all drug/medical equipment requirements for an entire state, or country?"
Well I think you're answering your own question here. There will be competition, but only among those who can bid for government power competitively. It need not be about who is turning a higher quality product, who's operating more efficiently, or even who can get their product to the end consumer at the lowest price. It's really just another way that giving government such a power (over the market in general, really, but especially in the healthcare industry) lends itself to corruption.
But I agree that healthcare is unforgivably expensive and what we're doing isn't working. But what people need to realize is that what we're doing is closer to socialism already than a free market system (at least when it comes to healthcare specifically).
Another thing to consider is that these other countries (if we insist on just comparing the U.S. to them rather than looking at our own history) tend to sacrifice quality and/or efficiency to an absurd, and at times deadly, degree so that the healthcare provided can be "free". We know about Canada's atrocious wait times, but people don't seem to know as much about the U.K. For example, major surgery under the U.K.’s healthcare system is four times more likely to kill you than the same services in the U.S. They’re also highly inefficient.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-195277/NHS-death-rates-times-higher-US.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/08/patients-suffering-direct-result-nhs-wait-time-failures
Why is it that most of the people too poor to afford healthcare nonetheless own a cell phone? They probably also own a car, and maybe at least one computer, TV, and gaming console? Don't get me wrong; I am not implying that they're not really struggling financially. I'm pointing out that the industries from which all these things they can afford come are astronomically less regulated by the government, which has put downward pressure on the prices so that even those who are struggling financially can afford them. This can be attained (again) in the U.S.! Without sacrificing quality or inefficiency. Without the conjoined restrictions coming from the same government we're told is trying to save us. Did you know we can't just build a clinic/hospital somewhere (with our own money) if the government doesn't see the "need" for one in that part of town or neighborhood? Are you familiar with the Right to Try Act signed by Trump, and the reason it was necessary?
2
-
@rorycannon7295 You didn't really address hardly any of my points, but I will nonetheless address yours.
"The healthcare market has been shown to be completely different than a normal market, you cant make a comparison to others.
"
The link you gave doesn't say anything to support this claim. And the healthcare industry is just like any other, which is why we're seeing that it happens to be the most heavily regulated... and happens to be the most expensive. And you can see this general trend in other industries as well. Prices in those industries that are heavily regulated by the government have all gone up, while prices in those industries that are relatively free-market have gone down.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/CPIChart2018.png
"And healthcare companies DONt make bad decisions?"
The difference is, in a free market system, we can stop giving our money to those bad decisions (at times, we can even get our money back). By comparison, the government is going to get our money regardless of how poor a job they do. And when government agencies are founded on those bad decisions, forget it.
"government is meant to help, while private corporations are meant to profit."
It really doesn't matter what the intentions are. What matters are the effects. But I will reiterate that no one in government has to actually fix anything, to keep getting their money. Businesses, on the other hand, whether they care intrinsically about other people or not, will have to provide those people with value or they go out of business. That's, again, in a free market, though, not what we have right now (concerning healthcare).
"drug prices? there isnt competition on drug prices."
Well not enough, no. But there's more than there would've been, thanks to Trump getting more approved by the FDA. That's how he got prices to fall at historic levels, and that's the direction we can keep going if we really care about the affordability problem (especially if we don't want to sacrifice quality and/or efficiency as other nations have done).
2
-
@rorycannon7295 You're still skipping over a great many of my points. And could you give me one or two arguments from that article instead? You can't expect me to read all that trying to find something that supports your case. It'd be like me linking you to the book 'Basic Economics' by Thomas Sowell and saying, "Refute THAT if you can".
However, the fact that prices skyrocketed when the government largely took over is inarguable. And to think that giving the government even more control would somehow have the inverse effect seems silly. More to the point, Trump's given a demonstration on how free market principles lower prices. So when we look at either history or the modern day, we get confirmation that, yeah, we should get back to a relatively free market.
""But I will reiterate that no one in government has to actually fix anything, to keep getting their money." if they dont fix it, they will lose their job."
In theory. But if the people who are in charge of doing that decide not to, what's going to happen? You can say "Well then that person will get fired" but you should see the problem eventually. The further up you go, the harder it is to fire them, so they will definitely keep getting paid. Besides which, I'm not just talking about individuals but the policies and practices involved, especially those which entire government agencies are built upon. As hard as it would be to fire some higher-level government official, it would be even harder to dissolve an entire agency full of government employees (harder than hiding the inaccuracy and ineffectiveness of the aforementioned policies/practices at any rate).
In short, what are we to do, if they're not providing us with half the value it would take to make the money we're paying them worth it for us? Well we're going to keep paying them anyway. That's not what happens in the free market, obviously.
""Businesses, on the other hand, whether they care intrinsically about other people or not, will have to provide those people with value or they go out of business." not even true for a free market. You are assuming perfect information."
I'm entirely on board with laws that protect consumers from fraud, or the ability to take some business to court for various legal reasons, if that's the kind of stuff you mean. You can't freely consent to a decision if you don't what that decision entails. But I'm saying that they can't just steal the money from us, legally, as the government can.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michelletackett9489 "I have,"
No you haven't. I reviewed our conversation again just to be sure. And until someone (you, James, anyone at all) can provide an objective, workable definition for "man" or "woman" on your worldview, I've no reason to think it's "science" or anything to be taken seriously.
"Because if I say a woman is someone who gives birth. There go all the women who can't."
Right, so that would be an incorrect definition of "woman".
"If I say women have XX chromosomes, goodbye to women who have X, XY, XXY, XXYY, and so on."
True. Same as above. But of course, the point of the question isn't to test you at trivia (plenty of people who reject transgenderism sadly don't know the right answer either). It's to see if you can come up with an objective definition that would support transgenderism, which we know you can't.
"All you want is a definition that you'll agree with."
Well no, but it would have to be workable in conjunction with your worldview.
"Woman-someone who identifies lives and socializes as a woman."
We dealt with the "identifies" part already; it's circular and doesn't logically follow. But how might a person "live and socialize" as a woman, exactly?
"There are intersex trans people"
Which isn't relevant to my point. Inter-sex people are inter-sex on the basis of biological facts concerning their bodies. They're not the same as someone who just claims to "feel like" a woman (which is incoherent too, BTW, let me know if you want elaboration on that as well).
"and there is proof that trans people have biology that makes trans people trans."
The problem with that angle, though, is that you've already claimed it's based on how someone "identifies" or how they "live and socialize". These qualifications all contradict one another. For example, someone with a so-called "male brain" might still identify as a woman.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bigmike6461 "actually, promoting anti-lgbtq2+"
First of all, that's a silly grouping. I have no issue with homosexuality or bisexuality because those are not incoherent worldviews (like transgenderism and modern gender theory in general).
"is in fact spreading hate and intolerance."
Not in the slightest. Disagreeing =/= hate, and it's irresponsible and dangerous of you to equate them. I'm also not intolerant of them as people; I just disagree with their views.
"You spread fake science"
I haven't mentioned science yet at all. But if you're claiming that science (the science itself, mind you, not the people who call themselves scientists) supports transgenderism, then you'll really need to provide the objective definition for your terms.
"and deny a person place in society"
Haven't done that either. They have a place in society. But they've no right to push their beliefs onto me, try to force me to speak differently or run my business differently, etc. in accordance with those beliefs.
"Then You further the negative stigma saying that if a person doesn't capitulate, they're inherently wrong,"
What's to be said? Some people are wrong. Like, you seem to think I'm wrong. Does that mean you're being hateful toward me?
"you choose to ignore the science,"
You haven't presented any science yet. Which makes sense because you haven't even defined your terms in a way that would make science relevant to begin with.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SuperPorthoss I think Bernie thinks he's looking out for the middle class, but in reality his policies would hurt us. He wants to put a tax on stock market trading, for example. And while people tend to think that this would only hurt "the very wealthy", the fact is that about half of America has money tied up in the stock market right now. That's our pensions, 401Ks, retirement funds, etc.
And you're not addressing my point about Bernie's take on "greed". Despite his calls for class warfare against "the billionaire class", there is no fundamental difference between a millionaire and a billionaire. The only difference is how much value they provide society. Bernie hasn't provided as much; that's the only reason he's not a billionaire.
Also, on consistency, Bernie used to rail against the millionaires too, before he became one. How convenient that all the millionaires ceased to be part of the problem when he joined their ranks 🙄
"disparity and abuse is rampant"
Actually, the lower and middle classes continue to shrink while the upper class continues to grow. And what sort of "abuse" are you referring to, can you be specific?
Bernie lies too, BTW. "White people don't know what it's like to be poor"? "The Scandinavian countries are socialist"? If you're holding out for an honest politician, might as well stay home on election day.
2
-
@SodaiGoku "the billionaires are the ones who just take advantage of it and manipulate it,"
Nonsense. We all take advantage of the system, every chance we get. We all try to pay as little in taxes as we can. We all try to make as much money as we can too. Even Bernie wrote a book and made a handsome profit from it.
"and also buy off corrupt politicians in order to change it incrementally over time for their own financial gain."
The problem is, that's always going to happen so long as politicians have so much influence over the market. No matter what law you put into place, it'll happen behind the scenes. It's really just one more reason we should be giving the government less power, not more.
"What Bernie is saying is it’s gone too far, and now just a handful of people literally own half the wealth in the country,"
Yes, I've heard him complain about that too. But that in and of itself doesn't mean something unjust has taken place. Again, these people have become wealthy by providing value to the American people (products/services provided that we all deemed worth more than the money we freely exchanged for them) or invested/put money in the bank which also benefits the working class.
"while poverty is at an all time high"
That's actually not true.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-266.html
And note that the poverty rate has declined as well.
"and the middle class is shrinking."
Both the middle and lower classes are shrinking, while the upper class grows.
https://www.cato.org/blog/middle-class-shrinking-households-become-richer
"Wealthy corporations use to pay taxes, over time these decreased to the point where they now pay none at all,"
That's not true, either. Although they do find ways to avoid paying corporate or federal income taxes. But note that Bernie always says he wants the U.S. to be more like Scandinavia. Well... They're even more free market than we are, and they don't penalize the wealthy with high corporate income taxes because they've learned their lesson about that (especially Sweden).
"All Bernie wants to do is try to balance things out again,"
I believe that he means well. But I also know that the policies he's pushing, and the rhetoric he uses to push them, are highly dangerous.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@habl844 "1. The fair share is subjective."
Thank you for admitting that. But it does greatly undermine the foundation of Bernie's promotions of class warfare against "the billionaire class".
"3 people have more wealth than the bottom 50% who live paycheck to paycheck while there are 500 000 homeless people."
Why single them out though? Aren't you and I, right now, enjoying relative luxury compared to the homeless? Why do you even own the device in your hand? Why haven't you sold it and given that money to a homeless person?
There's something highly presumptuous about this idea that the billionaires shouldn't have the money they do. It was the American people (likely including us!) who collectively decided they should have that money. Jeff Bezos created a service I considered more valuable than the money he wanted in exchange for it, and so I agreed to make that transaction. It isn't anyone else's place, quite frankly, to dictate where my money should have gone.
"I'm not proposing a plan which removes the difference between the rich and the poor,"
Why not?
"The rich are literally supposed to be paying the most taxes."
And they do! Both in dollar amount and percentage.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/
Also, when are you and Bernie going to provide your "fair share" of value (products/services) and jobs to the American people?
"2. The high healthcare prices of today have nothing to do with that."
Have nothing to do with what? The price of healthcare did indeed skyrocket in response to government intervention in the 60s, and has gotten worse since.
https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
"The other countries have made it work, so it's clearly not an impossible task.
"
What is "it" though? Because Bernie doesn't want to do "it". He wants to ban private health insurance, which is not something they're doing in these other countries. There are also points to consider when trying to compare the U.S. with these other nations, chief among them being the difference in population and how we live more unhealthy lifestyles. These may have contributed to the failure of our government to manage the healthcare industry thus far, along with our government being so corrupt.
Also, you end up sacrificing quality and/or efficiency just to make it "free". We all know about Canada's atrocious wait times. Well the U.K. is awful about it too, along with just providing lower-quality healthcare overall. For example, you're four times more likely to die from major surgery in the U.K. than you are in the U.S.
"3. But the prices still need to go down much much more."
Yes, but in an authentic way. Just slapping an artificially low price on something with no respect for its cost is a horrible idea. So I would agree more needs to be done, which is why I'm voting for the guy who's at least pointed in the right direction.
2
-
@habl844 "If I sold my computer, it would procentually be a bigger financial hurt to me than for the rich person to pay that amount."
See, that's the problem, everyone's just passing the buck, even the people who swear that "Give them more money" is the solution.
"I am singeling them out because to them the financial hurt would be miniscule,"
According to you, that's a difference. But someone who has much less than you might view you the same way.
"Jeff Bezos can have his money,"
What do you think taxes are, if not taking people's money without their consent?
"The middle class pays their fair share in taxes."
I would argue that the upper class does too.
"As I've explained, assuming those costs of the social democratic society have to be paid by someone, the rich are the best choice as it hurts them the least."
Well, who's kidding who, higher taxes for the rich would hurt everybody. They would probably even hurt the working class and the poor more than the rich. Taxes are figured into the cost of running any business; they could, and very likely would, simply raise the prices on their goods/services, hire fewer people, pay the workers they do have less, etc.
"On healthcare, what is your solution then?"
Revert back to a relatively free market. Open up supply so that there can be competition putting downward pressure on costs, and upward pressure on quality and efficiency.
"If you deregulate, they will do everythign they can to get profits,"
But if we remove the power government has over the market, the only way they'll be able to do that is by finding ways to provide their drugs/treatments cheaper, with better quality, and more efficiently than their competition.
"M4A will not work unless everyone is in the same system."
Is that your way of defending the ban on private health insurance? Because again, those other nations Bernie has been pointing to to justify the general push for "free" healthcare, aren't having to do that. Don't you wonder why this guy they're calling a communist has to take that power away from the American people, when the other nations aren't?
"The reason universal healthcare works in other countries is obviously not just because there is a private option."
Of course not. But again, we've already seen (and are seeing) the results of letting our government control healthcare in our country. As I said, potential reasons for the difference are population, lifestyle choices, and a corrupt government.
"On the wait times, you do realize they are for elective procedures,"
No, I realize that many are saying otherwise.
https://www.pacificresearch.org/canadians-cant-wait-any-longer-for-healthcare-justice/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2018/06/11/canadians-are-one-in-a-million-while-waiting-for-medical-treatment/#777643fd3e7d
"The real costs will be looked at by seeing what the specific drug is sold for in other big countries."
Which is an artificial price tag, given that the costs will be different, especially if drugs have to meet FDA requirements here that they don't have to meet elsewhere.
"Trump is pointing in the right direction?"
Yes, by lowering prescription drug prices at historic levels by applying free market principles.
"Is kicking millions of people off their government health insurance the right direction?"
That would depend on the specifics, naturally. And I hate the fact that politicians make promises they cannot keep (or don't know if they can keep, which is all of the promises). But I don't see that as a differentiating factor between Trump and Bernie.
2
-
@habl844 "Giving the poor more money does help the poor with being less poor."
Temporarily, sure. But the point remains that we could all be considered "rich" from a homeless person's point of view. Seems silly to pass the buck to those we call rich.
"The 1% has nobody above them they feel should be hurt by this instwad of them.
"
Again, very subjective and arbitrary. There's always someone who is richer and/or more powerful.
"Or they'll do exactly what they've done so far and not magically sotp caring about the profits."
Why would we want them to stop caring about profit, when that's what incentivizes them to provide value (again, products/services) and jobs to the American people?
Again, the fact is already established that prices skyrocketed in the healthcare industry in response to the hindrance of the free market. We're already letting the government control this industry, which is why almost no one can afford healthcare.
"You explained yourself that america is in a terrible state with the nation being in bad health overall."
Yes, as one of the reasons we can't logically compare the U.S. to other nations (so as to say "Look! Sweden can do it, why can't we?")
"PRI is funded by right wing billionaires."
No reason to deny the data presented there.
"The forbes article does not mention deaths.
"
But it does undermine the claim that it's all "just elective" treatments that people are having to wait for. Also, this isn't just in Canada. For example, major surgery under the U.K.’s healthcare system is four times more likely to kill you than the same services in the U.S.
They’re also highly inefficient.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-195277/NHS-death-rates-times-higher-US.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/08/patients-suffering-direct-result-nhs-wait-time-failures
And I'm sorry, but there is no sensible way of comparing how heavily regulated healthcare is in the U.S. with other nations. There were approx. 130,000 pages (PAGES!) of regulations applying to the healthcare industry alone in 2013. Doubtless the number has increased significantly since then.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119841/
So yes, bring the prices down. Open up the market so more competition can make that happen. It's interesting how no one ever pauses to ask why most of the people here who cannot afford healthcare can nonetheless afford a cell phone, a car, at least one TV, and probably at least one laptop and one gaming console. The reason healthcare is so insanely expensive is that it's so insanely regulated.
So Trump's policies work whereas the idea of giving government more control has historically failed. Prescription drug prices have fallen at historic levels in direct response to getting more drugs approved by the FDA. I'm excited to see what else Trump will do! 👍
2
-
@habl844 "Who does Jeff Bezos point to when he doesn't want to pay higher taxes?"
If you mean, who has more power and more money, that would be the government. They are the absolute top example of a corporation not paying taxes, not doing their job with the money they steal, and never being accountable for their failings.
ME: "Why would we want them to stop caring about profit"
YOU: "Because people are dying over the 1% getting more profits."
Nonsense. Again, the healthcare industry is the least free market we have. It is the most heavily regulated by the government. It is already the case that we've trusted government to make sure who cannot afford healthcare have it, and they have failed. Saying "people are dying because of profit-seeking in healthcare" is like saying "people don't have cell phones because of profit-seeking in the phone industry". Happens to be a wild difference there, but you're not understanding why.
And I'm sorry, banning private health insurance is a really bad idea. It would mean the government could deny your healthcare at any time for any reason and you would simply go without. They're already denying us clinics and hospitals in regions where millionaires are willing to risk their money to build one (this typically means those clinics/hospitals would be valued by the American people), because the government doesn't see the "need" for it. You want to talk about deaths? How many have died en route to a hospital that was too far away because the government doesn't give a damn though they pretend to every four years.
Seems we've established, though, that Bernie's plans are indeed more radical and extreme than the nations he keeps pointing at supposedly to justify his plans.
"The monopolies don't care about the competition. They have the biggest market share. They can just make deals with other big companies and buy the smaller ones."
In theory, but in all other industries, these supposedly untouchable companies do in fact go under. Government still does some things to prevent competition against them, which also needs to stop, but nothing like it is in healthcare.
"You cannot just compare the amount of regulation pages between the US and other countries."
You're right, they can't be compared. The U.S. is on a whole other level in terms of over-regulating (and ruining) its healthcare industry.
"If there is no problem with insurance screwing over people then you need less regulation to address it.
"
This is where Trump's policy to make healthcare costs transparent comes in. More competition in the actual supply of the actual healthcare itself + transparency in how they compare = the free market. We know from what we've seen in history and what we've seen recently from Trump, that this is where we should go.
"Trump's policy where he kicked millions of people off of their insurance surely worked for the 1%.
"
You mean that millions of people, since they were no longer being forced to by the government, decided not to buy insurance. But Bernie would literally kick millions (over 200 million actually) off their insurance. And no, saying "but the government will take care of us" doesn't make it right or even better because, as I've been stressing, they have done nothing but make things worse and we've absolutely no reason to expect any better.
"Why are drugs cheaper in other countries?"
Price caps have a lot to do with it. A drug that is sold in both the U.S. and Canada can be capped in Canada, leaving the U.S. to pay higher prices just to break even, much less make a profit. But mainly, we lead the world in the creation of new drugs and research (which the rest of the world benefits from at no additional costs, BTW) That, especially due to our government, is an extremely expensive undertaking.
"The biggest thing I disagree with you about is the idea that deregulation will solve healthcare in the US. That's just going to make it worse as the health insurance industry can do what they want to."
Not whatever they want. As in other industries, there can still be anti-fraud laws and other legal obligations to operate honestly and fairly. But the idea is to make health insurance far less relevant in the first place. Healthcare providers should be permitted into the market at a far more rapid rate. The reason everything is so expensive in the first place is that we have such high demand and such low supply.
"In some areas the government is better than the free market."
But clearly, and factually, not in healthcare.
"For example should the US remove all public firerighters and replace them with private businesses?"
Not remove public firefighters, but the only problem I see coming from allowing private fire departments to operate at full capacity is that there could be a conflict if the private dept. shows up at a house before the public one. The public dept. would be obliged to ensure that the surrounding houses weren't endangered. But if that issue can be neutralized logistically and financially, I'm fine with letting them in.
As for monopolies, the government shouldn't have the power to affect the market in those ways to begin with.
"Even if we asume that the healthcare prices go down and the quality goes up, there will still be tons of uninsured people who cannot afford insurance."
I'm not suggesting we get rid of Medicaid and Medicare. I'm saying this is the extent to which it is acceptable for government to play a role. The goal should be to minimize the need for these programs as much as possible. And I really do believe that if we opened up the market when it came to healthcare, we'd have far more healthcare providers and drug companies competing, which would've led to much more affordable healthcare for all by now. Again, the (relatively) free market has done this with every other industry. Practically everyone has a cell phone and a car, most people have at least one TV, at least one laptop, and at least one gaming console. None of these things are inherently more expensive than healthcare minus all the government interference.
"If there is no regulation what prevents the drug prices from being systematically raised?"
The regulations themselves are what's jacking up the prices. Almost all of them cost the healthcare providers and drug manufacturers money, which has to be recouped. And especially since the government only pays so much of the costs, leaving the providers/manufacturers with the difference, they do what they have to do to make a profit.
And what is the regulation that keeps companies from artificially raising prices in every other industry?
"If the drug companies just all agree to raise the price at once?"
Why would they do that? Why wouldn't they keep their prices low and get everyone's business? That's what I would do.
2
-
@habl844 "The government is not a member of the society, it is an entity that works for the society."
In theory. But sometimes it only works for the highest bidder, which is why it should get (and stay) out of the market.
"You're comparing tens of thousands of annual deaths to free phones."
No, I'm pointing out that healthcare doesn't inherently cost more to provide (minus government intervention) and so if it were a relatively free market, there's no reason why people couldn't afford it like they can afford their phones, cars, TVs, etc. today.
"Their greed is causing people to die."
Again, this claim doesn't work. Aren't all people running a business "greedy", in the sense that they're trying to get as much money as they can? And yet, the "greed" in the cell phone industry (or automobile industry, whatever) has only led to more people having access to these things. Why?
"Universal healthcare is not about denying care."
I get that that isn't the intention. But the point is, if they decided to deny care, and you can't have private health insurance, you're just screwed. And it's because healthcare itself has been made so insanely expensive by our government.
"Can you give me examples where the government ran universal healthcare system just denied care to a citizen of their country?"
Here's one article I was able to find pretty quickly.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2019/04/01/britains-version-of-medicare-for-all-is-collapsing/#fa7c52236b89
There's even talk of them denying care on bases not relevant to scarcity. I have a hard time thinking the United States, with our uber-reactionary culture, wouldn't implement similar (or worse) ideas.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/33955-uk-health-service-to-deny-treatment-to-patients-deemed-racist-or-sexist
"You complain about the quality of government care. You get higher quality if you give it more money."
That's not necessarily the case, either. And besides, this sounds like free market principles, minus the theft. Why not just let me choose who I give my money to, and whoever does the best job gets it?
"Do you have a number of deaths per capita on how many people die in other countries with universal healthcare on their way to the hospital?"
I don't even know if that's one of the mistakes they're making in other countries (not building enough hospitals/clinics). Everyone screws up in their own unique ways 😋 But when people are willing to put thousands if not millions of dollars of their own money into a venture, you can bet they've good reason to think people will value it. As for deaths related to ambulance delays, you can find articles on that for any country. My point is just that ambulances would be able to get to patients and then to the nearest hospital quicker, if there were more of these hospitals around.
"You still didn't address my point which was that corporations make profits, and prioritize that, which in most cases is still much much better than a socialist system but in some cases such as healthcare and firefighters, it's better to have government deal with it as their number one priority is to provide the best results with the money they are given."
The government is made up of people, not angels. And we've busted just as many government officials and politicians of corruption as we have businessmen. Also, they're not "given" money, they just take it, which might explain why the government has not performed well. They just plain don't have to; they're going to get your money regardless of how many people wait for healthcare, how many people are denied it, or how many people die.
"The transparency won't suddenly fix the free market's problems with certain industries. If turmp can do it by implementing it just like that it should be fixed already.
"
It will make a massive difference, if people can found out ahead of time how much a particular doctor/hospital is going to charge for something. But you're right, it should've been done long before Trump came along. Same for the Right to Try Act, there's no excuse for the government to withhold potentially life-saving drugs from people.
"Yes the people with disabilities and low income parents who were relying on the government insurance surely wanted to be wihtout it.
"
Are you talking about his changes to Medicare and such? Because yes, Trump's critics were claiming that his changes to the Medicare budget would hurt beneficiaries. In reality, the savings wouldn’t come from benefit reductions, but largely from policies that would reduce the cost of care for the taxpayer and Medicare beneficiaries.
http://www.crfb.org/blogs/does-presidents-budget-slash-medicare-845-billion
The year before, they were making the same unfounded claims about his changes to Medicare and social security.
http://www.crfb.org/blogs/does-presidents-budget-slash-social-security-and-medicare
This year, it seems to be the same song and dance.
https://amac.us/the-presidents-budget-saves-medicare-600-billion-while-reducing-out-of-pocket-costs/
And no, I want no part of a system that taxes people (including the middle class) heavily for healthcare that is sub-par in quality and efficiency, when the free market would make it affordable, higher in quality, and more efficient. Bernie himself admits the government is corrupt, so we shouldn't be trusting them in that way at all.
ME: "A drug that is sold in both the U.S. and Canada can be capped in Canada, leaving the U.S. to pay higher prices just to break even, much less make a profit."
YOU: "Why is it being sold in canada then?"
Because there's a demand for it in Canada, just as there is in the U.S.
"The answer is that making the drug is very cheap"
Not anywhere close to cheap, no. Especially not in the States where it's highly regulated by the government.
"and that in america they are allowed to aise the prices, so thats exactly what they'll do."
So if you really think that they're just raising the prices in the U.S. "just because" (disregarding the reasons I gave you), you should be even more in favor of opening the market. Because someone else would come along, provide it cheaper and steal their business.
ME: "As in other industries, there can still be anti-fraud laws and other legal obligations to operate honestly and fairly."
YOU: "So you support some regulation."
Naturally, if people are being lied to about what they're buying, that's not a free market either. But if they are giving informed consent to the purchase, government should stay out of it.
"Are you saying medicare and medicaid are already there to help with this issue?"
It's just a fact that Medicaid is based on income (and Medicare is for senior citizens). Still, people have to apply, and wait, and wait, and often be denied. Why? Same reason we can't have more than one hospital in my town. Government doesn't think it's needed (or doesn't care, which I really think Democrats need to remind themselves is possible).
ME: "if we opened up the market when it came to healthcare, we'd have far more healthcare providers and drug companies competing, which would've led to much more affordable healthcare for all by now"
YOU: "Or then you'd see what you have seen. Businesses needing to make a profit by charging more than what it costs for them.
"
So again, I'll ask you, don't businesses in every industry need to make a profit? And yet, their need to make a profit has only made their goods and services more affordable (without sacrificing quality or efficiency). If your theory were correct, every retail store would've agreed to charge 1,000 for T-shirts long ago. Then we'd have no way of buying T-shirts, we'd need the government to step in. But alas, that is not what happens in a free market which the healthcare industry is not.
"Do you have an objective peer reviewed study that says lowering the gov interfearance by huge amount would raise the prices?"
If you mean "lower the prices", we have historical data on it, as I've been saying all along. Prices skyrocketed when the government took over, and only when someone applies free market principles (as Trump has done, which we discussed) do they go down to any degree.
https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
ME: "The regulations themselves are what's jacking up the prices."
YOU: "Greed is."
Apparently not, because every industry has the "greed" thing going on, where the companies therein want to make as much money as possible. And yet, that greed only translates to lower prices there.
"Because they get more money from that. Make sure the people have no other place to go to,"
Which is what government helps them with. Putting up barriers to entry so that competitors are few. Only one hospital = You have to go to that hospital, no matter what they charge, how poorly they do, or how efficient they are. Only one prescription drug that covers your ailment = You have to buy that drug, no matter how poor its quality or how high its price. This is, again, how Trump was able to lower prescription drug prices at historic levels just by getting more drugs approved by the FDA.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pathevermore3683 That, of course, isn't what I said. You tried to attack me personally by calling me a Republican, so I corrected you (and learn to spell "sense").
So far, government doesn't have a very good record of making anything cheaper, especially if you also want it to be good quality. Again, Trump's policies take history and economics into account, so they're a more realistic approach. We need to do more in opening the market up. There's no reason at all why I shouldn't be able to open a hospital/clinic which can provide (there's that pesky supply side of the real world again) healthcare as well as competition for other hospitals/clinics in that area. But it's better to have a president who's at least pointed in the right direction.
If you watch the actual Veritas videos, they show proof that they are indeed real campaign organizers for Bernie. Also, if your theory were correct, it would be all too easy for Bernie himself to say that. Instead, he pretends the whole issue isn't there.
2
-
@pathevermore3683 That, of course, isn't what I said. You tried to attack me personally by calling me a Republican, so I corrected you (and learn to spell "sense").
So far, government doesn't have a very good record of making anything cheaper, especially if you also want it to be good quality. Again, Trump's policies take history and economics into account, so they're a more realistic approach. We need to do more in opening the market up. There's no reason at all why I shouldn't be able to open a hospital/clinic which can provide (there's that pesky supply side of the real world again) healthcare as well as competition for other hospitals/clinics in that area. But it's better to have a president who's at least pointed in the right direction.
If you watch the actual Veritas videos, they show proof that they are indeed real campaign organizers for Bernie. Also, if your theory were correct, it would be all too easy for Bernie himself to say that. Instead, he pretends the whole issue isn't there.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pathevermore3683 No one is saying let them do anything they want. But when you allow for competition in the marketplace, you give those businesses the incentive to improve. This is why virtually everything has gotten cheaper in the past few decades, except for healthcare and higher education (another industry the government has seen fit to "help" us with).
Now, I don't think the government officials and politicians are "the devil", no. I think they're ordinary people who are looking out for their own self-interests just like anybody else. And just like any company with guaranteed money from the government, the government itself has no incentive to make things cheaper or better quality (or provide them faster) so they just naturally don't. They're getting our money no matter how poorly they perform. With the free market, however, it's a very different story. They have to do what we want or they go under.
And again, if you're looking to dismiss my arguments by just calling me a name, you might as well aim correctly. These are libertarian arguments, and Republicans don't always agree with them either. Just because the Republicans are (currently) more knowledgeable on this stuff than the Democrats doesn't mean they're consistent in applying that knowledge.
Yes, it's highly illogical of you to reject what's proven because the people who provided the proof (according to you) have been wrong in the past. If you want me to believe what you're claiming though, feel free to post a link or something.
And no, you haven't addressed the point that if these people weren't Bernie's campaign organizers, he would've at least claimed they weren't. I even double-checked to be sure.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kishanrao936 "first of all the moniker of pro-abortion is a stupid one"
Not at all. That is indeed the topic. I for one am against killing innocent human beings in the womb. You are for this, I take it?
"that you anti-women, misogynistic crowd"
Nothing anti-woman or misogynistic about saying someone (whether man or woman) shouldn't be allowed to kill babies for the sake of convenience. In fact, insomuch as you are OK with women doing this but not men, there's more evidence that you're anti-man than there is of me being anti-woman.
"people who support women making their own choices."
We all support this to a degree. I simply draw the line at killing innocent human beings whereas you apparently don't.
"Abortion is a medical procedure-"
Any number of horrific things can be done by someone with a medical degree. This is a very poor argument.
"you really can’t be pro or anti it- just as you can’t be pro or anti root canal."
You can be for or against both of these things.
"Our laws are based on our constitution which counts everyone who was born within its purview."
Again, that's simply irrelevant to the rightness/wrongness of an action. Hence the entire concept of amendments.
"If you think that the unborn should count as people, then pregnant women should count as two people-"
That doesn't logically follow, no. A pregnant woman is simply a person with another person in her womb.
"(they should be) allowed to claim their fetus as a dependent in their taxes."
Actually that's not a bad idea. You do have to eat more (and eat different things) and generally spend more money on taking care of both yourself and your baby while pregnant, than you would if you weren't pregnant.
"If the fetus is part of the woman’s body,"
That's exactly the premise you want people to accept blindly here. The fetus not only has their own heartbeat but their own lungs, their own independent brain activity and their own unique genetic code. By no logic whatsoever is the fetus part of the woman's body, albeit he/she is connected to the woman's body temporarily.
"So ultimately your goal is to control women"
Technically any law saying "You can't kill another human being" is about control. But it's empty rhetoric to just throw that word out there, because we can agree that some laws are justified while others are not. So your issue isn't with the law being about control, it's about the "right" specifically to kill the unborn (if you're a woman).
2
-
@kishanrao936 "If you believe root canals are wrong, then don’t get one"
Obviously this is a poor argument too. We're talking about the life and death of another human being, not something the woman is doing solely to her own body.
"but if I want to get one, how does it affect you?"
It affects me to exactly the same degree it would affect me if you chose to kill (sorry, "abort") your two-year old child. All in all, this is just another red herring. Something doesn't have to affect me directly to be wrong.
"a fetus isn’t a person."
Scientifically and logically, this is an absurd claim, and you haven't given any arguments or evidence to support it. The fetus has their own heartbeat, their own lungs, their own independent brain activity and their own unique genetic code. They are a human being by every definition.
"It cannot survive on its own"
Neither can a newborn baby, or most toddlers for that matter.
"you can believe anything you want that’s your right"
There you go again pretending as if society at large doesn't agree with the premise that it's wrong to kill an innocent human being for the sake of convenience. At any rate, I've established why this is more than a mere belief but fact.
"our laws are based on the constitution."
Yeah again, that's irrelevant. Laws and the Constitution itself can be changed, but first people need to realize they're wrong in the first place.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kishanrao936 "Nobody is arguing for the right to kill living human beings."
That's literally what abortion is. The right to kill an innocent human being with its own unique genetic code, its own heartbeat, and its own independent brain activity. If you would change the standard for "living" on this topic, then you're not being scientifically consistent, as brain activity in particular is the universal sign of life (you're not pronounced dead until that's gone).
"the tucker Carlsons of the world who really don’t give a hoot about abortion but are catering to the anti-woman, pro-fascist crowd."
Lol, again, you've given no reason for me to believe that Tucker Carlson or anyone else is any of those things. But even assuming that he is, and everyone who is anti-abortion is just a woman-hater (including the women), how does that justify killing an innocent human being?
"You’re not defined as alive until you are born. That is how science and the constitution define life."
Dead wrong about the science, as I explained. As for the Constitution:
1. I would like you to provide a link to show that it denies that fetuses are living human beings.
and 2. The laws are supposed to follow ethics and reality, not the other way around. So even if the Constitution denies the reality that someone is alive before they're born, that's simply it being wrong as well as you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jennyjung4884 "We don't need to follow every single policies of Scandinavian countries but we can learn from them."
Well okay then, we don't to have social programs like they have either 😋
"When you trust your government, paying tax will not be considered to be as bad things."
Well that still depends on whether you think it's OK to steal from people, so long as your intentions are good. But you're right about the issue of trust in government. I don't know how big of an issue corruption is in Scandinavian countries, but I suspect it's much less prevalent than the U.S. Our government has repeatedly and even consistently done us wrong, in countless ways.
"Trump will cut social security and medicaid, medicare"
These programs are already insolvent, but don't buy into the fake news. Get the details; it's not really that bad (and in some ways will actually help beneficiaries of these programs.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-budget-proposal-wont-reduce-your-social-security-check-but-it-could-lower-your-quality-of-life-and-health-care-2020-02-11
"and raise defense budget."
As a libertarian, I am inclined to think this is bad. However, the truth is none of us really know what the military needs and how much it should cost. It's a problem that can't really be helped unless we declassify all intelligence, and most would probably agree that would cause far bigger problems.
"Corporate tax is calculated very smartly to boost entrepreneurship and economy."
Well that's what I'm saying. Bernie doesn't seem to care about any of that. Right now, under Trump, the U.S. and Scandinavia have virtually the same corporate income tax rate. Bernie wants to raise ours to 35% and the only "reason" he ever gives is "The rich need to pay their fair share!" (Nevermind that the wealthy already pay far more in taxes, and I mean percentage-wise, not just dollar amount, than any other group [and Nevermind that he's not providing his "fair share" of value, as in products/services, or jobs])
"As far as I know, their government is not corrupted unlike America."
Okay then, so shouldn't that factor into the equation as to whether we should give our government more power?
@Jenny Jung "In tax we trust
"
Pushing aside the debate over whether you should be able to steal from one person to give to another, taxes are only as good/evil as the people in charge of collecting and distributing them. You seemed to admit earlier that the U.S. government has serious problems with corruption. This is probably due to the sheer size of it, where accountability and transparency is far more difficult. Our country is, of course, astronomically larger than those in Scandinavia, so that doesn't help either. So the question remains, should you be so keen on the U.S. giving their government more power?
"many Swedes tolerate – and even welcome – high taxes."
No offense, but this doesn't mean much. People throughout history have been willing to tolerate (and even welcome) unjust treatment for the sake of some other interest. I'm not saying that this proves taxes are fundamentally unjust, but it certainly shows that they're not to be assumed justified merely because a lot of people are in favor of them.
I also want to make it clear that I'm not in any way suggesting that Scandinavia should do things differently. This is somewhat of an unpopular approach, but I really think each country should pay more attention to their own history and even place more emphasis on that than comparisons with our countries. What works for us might be disastrous for other nations, and vice versa.
"As you said tax became very negative things to Americans due to the distrust for the corrupted government controlled by mostly pharmaceutical, Insurance, millitary industrial complex , Fossil fuel industries and Wall street."
No no no, I said it's due to distrust in corrupt government, period. Our misgivings about taxation date all the way back to the start of our country, when we were being taxed by a government that only represented itself, not us. So you're putting (left-wing) words in my mouth, when my whole case has been quite the opposite. No one wants to ask why government is "controlled" by these special interest groups, but the answer is simple: money. Because the government has the power to control the market, these interest groups have taken to bribing, lobbying, or otherwise financially contributing to particular government officials and politicians so they can get special favors to help them with their own businesses. They might even lobby for regulations and taxes/fees placed on their own industry, because they know they can afford to (if they haven't already) accommodate those regulations, taxes and fees while their prospective competition will not. It's a government- well, taxpayer funded assurance of an effective monopoly. Stealing from us to harm us. And there's no realistic way of putting a stop to that, aside from taking that power away from the government and giving it back to the people.
"I partially agree that Bernie needs to explain more to good entrepreneurs about the benefits of Democratic Socialism..."
The point is, you didn't seem to be aware that Bernie disagrees with a number of facets of what you're calling "democratic socialism" (which, again, the PM of Denmark specifically said they're not socialists but a market economy so I don't see the need to keep pushing for that label). What makes you so sure he agrees with everything (or ANYthing) you listed in that paragraph? What makes you so sure his actual policies aren't closer to Venezuela's brand of democratic socialism, than they will ever be to the "democratic socialism" in Scandinavia?
"Socially conscious good entrepreneurs are very important people in a society."
What if they're in the "top 1%" or "the billionaire class"? Because Bernie thinks that in the U.S. they're not paying "their fair share" when they're paying more than their fair share. And he doesn't even think billionaires should exist at all. He doesn't draw any distinction between "socially conscious and good" billionaires and those who aren't socially conscious and good. He also mentions "greed" a lot, as if they're more "greedy" than the rest of us.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dariocarraresi1823 "I gave you three different definitions of "gender": one about social beliefs, one about social categories, and one about individual self-chosen labels."
Yes, and as I recall, none of them were workable with transgenderism. But again, if you think otherwise, feel free to post them here and we can explore that further.
"Repeatedly, when I gave you said definitions, you responded with "But if gender is socially determined, how can people pick a gender that isn't the one that society decided?"."
That sounds relevant to some definitions I've criticized, yes. But I also pointed out to you that if it's "about individual self-chosen labels", that presents another problem making it unworkable for different reasons - namely circular definitions resulting in the word having no meaning at all.
"In other words, you cannot understand how an individual can have a preference that doesn't follow social norms."
Of course I can. Indeed, part of what I've argued is that rejecting certain social norms and roles doesn't mean you're not the gender they're associated with. But if you define "gender" as those social roles/norms, then that's exactly what it would mean.
2
-
2
-
@dariocarraresi1823 "The three definitions I gave you (for 'gender') are:
1) The socio-cultural beliefs that a society has about sex, sexuality, masculinity and femininity. These include the way society divides its own people into different categories based on those characteristics."
Right, so by this definition, at least some people who identify as women will be men (if they adhere to the "man" portion of their society or culture's beliefs on sex, sexuality, masculinity and femininity). You might say their gender is only "man" by this definition, but it still amounts to them being both men and women at the very least.
"2) One of the aforementioned characteristics based on sex/sexuality/masculinity/femininity."
Which opens us up for the above problem even moreso.
"3) The socio-cultural label that an individual person chooses to describe their personal relationship with their own sex, sexuality, masculinity and femininity."
So, this seems to just be saying "your gender is whatever label you like". I mean, it implies the decision is made based on some reference to sex, sexuality, etc. but it's really just whatever the person deems fitting. Circular logic, and it doesn't help distinguish between men and women at all. Both terms seem equally meaningless if not identical in definition, on your worldview.
"MY FIRST DEFINITION: Your argument is nonsense. People cannot be something immaterial like socio-cultural beliefs."
But if their gender is defined by those beliefs, then their gender is "man" if they resemble what society/culture believes appropriate for men.
"MY SECOND DEFINITION: Yes, actually, that's how social categories work."
Right, so you admit that someone can identify as something they're not. But acknowledging that is a big no-no on transgenderism, as I'm sure you're aware.
"MY THIRD DEFINITION: Rejecting feminine social norms doesn't mean that your gender identity is "woman"."
That's the point. Adhering to masculine social norms would make your gender "man" or "masculine" (according to your first definition), even while you identify as a "woman" or "feminine" making you a woman or feminine (by this definition).
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dariocarraresi1823 ME: "Are you saying that your first two definitions help determine what a person's gender is, or not?"
YOU: "The first two definitions don't help to determine what a person's gender identity is."
Didn't ask about gender identity. I asked you if they helped determine what their gender itself was. And if the answer's "no" to that, then they're not definitions of the word "gender" by your own admission (i.e., you can stop presenting them as workable definitions for "gender").
And if the answer to that is "yes", then my previous argument stands: Some people will have genders they themselves don't identify as (because they'll match up with society/culture's beliefs about sex, sexuality, etc.)
That leaves us with only the circular definition of "The socio-cultural label that an individual person chooses to describe their personal relationship with their own sex, sexuality, masculinity and femininity", which seems to be saying words like "man" and "woman" are meaningless labels. Just whatever the person prefers.
"I don't care that you find gender confusing or incoherent or whatever"
Oh it's not that I find "gender" itself confusing or incoherent. It's that attempts to define it as something other than biological sex don't hold up to scrutiny, as we've seen.
"you have admitted that the government has no right to dictate how other people identify."
Correct. But that doesn't suggest some worldviews aren't incorrect or illogical.
"And neither do you, if you care about your health."
Was that supposed to be a threat, or...? Anyway, we all (people in general) tell others when we think they're wrong, all the time. I see no reason why I should be the exception when it comes to who gets to do the telling, or why trans people should be the exceptions when it comes to who gets told.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@arkcritic6080 "It's hardly normal."
Sure it is. I'm looking at the chart right now. It's actually less dry than it was in 1895.
"When the conditions are right, these disasters happen."
Okay, so what disasters? The drought angle didn't work. What else are you claiming is happening more on average than it was decades prior?
"You didn't hear about the drought in India in 2013?"
Again, that's an individual instance whereas we should be looking at averages. Just like the drought of 2012 in the U.S., shining a light on that one instance does nothing to establish a dangerous trend, much less one caused by climate change.
"Hurricanes Harvey, Maria and Irma in 2017 alone."
A. Individual instances, once more.
B. If you look at the data, averages once again seem to be about the same. And that's measuring ACE, not just the severity of the storms (Maue, 2015).
2
-
@arkcritic6080 "I don't get why you're obsessed with how wet or dry some place is."
Not obsessed, just on topic. You brought up droughts as if they're on the rise when they're not. Showing that the amount of the U.S. which is very dry has not gone up (but has in fact gone down) is one way of rebutting that narrative.
"There's a difference between rain over a period of time and water dumped by a hurricane, for example."
Naturally those are two different questions, and I didn't confuse them. I addressed the drought narrative, and then I addressed the narrative about hurricanes.
"Also, quite a lot of weather phenomenon are controlled by ocean temperatures."
Okay, are we moving the goalpost to claiming the ocean temperatures are on the rise now? Because even if we did, we're seeing that droughts and hurricanes aren't on the rise, despite what one might predict based on the supposedly rising ocean temperatures alone.
And your citations don't seem to contradict mine, which referred to specific studies showing neither narrative works. Take the first one for example. In its opening, it makes it clear it's grouping together disasters "related to a weather, climate or water hazard", so it's not even focusing in on weather events. It also mentions "improved reporting" as part of why we have "more" weather-related disasters. In other words, we might not be having more at all; they might just be reporting them more.
2
-
@arkcritic6080 "I wasn't just limiting it to droughts."
I understand that. I just dealt with the droughts narrative first, by showing there is no upward trend of droughts after all.
And what exact point in the EPA article is supposed to save this narrative that droughts are on an upward trend? If less of the country is dry, and more of it is wet, how does that = more drought?
"Saying "nope, we should look at averages" is not a response."
Lol, well it was part of the response. The rest of it was me directing you to the study that shows the averages contradict the narrative that droughts are increasing.
"If the amount of water is the same but how it's distributed is different, that would be an issue."
What do you mean by "distributed"? What exactly is your claim here?
"droughts and hurricanes aren't on the rise"
Are you being serious?"
Yes, and I provided both charts to demonstrate my claim. By contrast, the articles you provided don't seem to contradict anything I've said.
"You need to find more than just wetness/dryness."
Not at all. If more of the country is very wet than before, this means there is less drought. Unless you're trying to say something's changed with how it's being "distributed" but in that case it wouldn't be a climate change problem; it would be on whoever made that change.
"What other research of yours that say climate change is no big deal?"
Lots, but you have your hands full already. I want to know how you get more drought while also covering more ground in water. I also want to know if you're conceding that hurricanes have not in fact been on the rise (or at least that you haven't found any evidence that they are).
""related to weather, climate or water hazard"
Storms, floods, droughts and wildfires. All can be affected by weather."
Right, but again, the article admits that it's grouping together not just disasters related to weather or climate but disasters related to water hazards as well (which may or may not be caused by weather or climate). And you didn't address the point about them saying reporting has been improved. If there's more reporting of x than previous years or decades, that doesn't mean there's more x than previous years or decades. It could just be that the same amount of x wasn't being reported before but now it is.
2
-
@arkcritic6080 "These are the ones I've found
"World drought frequency, duration, and severity for 1951–2010" - RMetS""
You might ask yourself why you're finding smaller scale studies to contradict the 125-year study I first referenced. Furthermore, it's measuring rainfall which is associated with drought but isn't the whole picture (leaves out the factor of evapotranspiration, etc.). What I referenced is literally ground moisture or lack thereof, which is specifically what characterizes drought.
""Drought in numbers 2022" - UN"
This one's covering an even smaller time period, 22 years. I can't help but wonder why, you know? It also doesn't cover the severity of droughts, which is very important.
""What do you mean by "distributed"?"
It's the difference between having rain over a whole state vs heavy rain in one county and drought in another at the same time."
Oh okay, well the study I referenced is talking about how much land is dry vs. wet. You get a larger average only if more land is wet/dry.
"You already think that the dryness/wetness chart means there's no climate change."
Not even close to what I said. Indeed, the chart I referenced shows climate change, and it shows a trend of less drought over the last 125 years.
2
-
@arkcritic6080 "Because your 125-year study is for the US only while the other one is for the world?"
Yes, but is it your contention they couldn't find a study covering a longer period of time? To me, this smacks of the same trick I exposed in the beginning: zoom in on a small period of time so people won't see the bigger picture and realize there's no trend of dangerous climate change at all.
ME: "Furthermore, it's measuring rainfall which is associated with drought but isn't the whole picture (leaves out the factor of evapotranspiration, etc.)."
YOU: "Which study says that evapotranspiration is a cause of drought?"
Not what I said. The point is that a lack of rainfall =/= drought, because there are other factors involved in that.
ME: "It also doesn't cover the severity of droughts, which is very important."
YOU: "Quote: "Severe drought affects Africa more than any other continent, with more than 300 events recorded in the past 100 years, accounting for 44 percent of the global total.""
I'm talking about when it specifically says "The number and duration of droughts around the world have increased by an alarming 29% since 2000" (again, still a very tiny amount of time to try and draw catastrophic climate change conclusions on but nevermind). It doesn't say the severity of the droughts has increased. Even the first study you gave at least remembered to do that, despite its other flaws.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheMarsCydonia "Well, if you're not seeing anything, that is easily remedied: Look."
Lol, that's what I meant: I looked and I don't see it. But again, feel free to reiterate the argument you claim you've made which I can't find anywhere.
"So point away, I will keep pointing out that you strawman the term "gender"."
Words can't be straw-manned. And I didn't straw-man any arguments either, because I made it clear I was responding to a definition others have given. If you'd like for someone to respond to a definition you've given, you need to, well, give it. Lol.
"For example, the APA's definition obviously rebuts your argument though"
How so? The APA's definition demonstrates what I argued, which is that they use a definition that isn't workable. I then explained to you why it fails and you haven't responded directly to that argument at all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bverji I'm responding to every point you make; there just isn't a lot there.
"As I said there have been cultures throughout history that have genders that don't fall into the dichotomy of masculinity/femininity."
If they called it "gender" though, then this is incorrect. Just like all the people talking the nonsense found here:
https://www.wattpad.com/341462536-complete-list-of-genders-the-complete-list-of-all
Personality =/= gender either.
"There is a reason that these 2 words exist separately."
Needs to be a good one, though. So far it doesn't seem to be.
"The term gender is specifically a anthropological term meant to identify what different cultures define as characteristics based upon biological sex, sexual orientation, sexual expression, and social dominance."
Again, these are gender norms and gender roles. What is expected based on your gender (e.g., In the States if you are a man, you're expected to be physically stronger, like sports, be sexually attracted to women, know a bit about cars, etc.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bverji "That is because gender is an identifier of a group"
Right, traditionally being interchangeable with "sex". But you're saying it goes beyond that into other distinctions. I'm still wondering what you think of the link I posted. Do you think all of those "genders" are legitimate? Because if so, now I have to ask what's the difference between "gender" and *personality"! Here's the link again.
https://www.wattpad.com/341462536-complete-list-of-genders-the-complete-list-of-all/page/13
"and gender role/norm refers to the characteristics that make a person part of that group."
Not at all. What makes you a man, for example, is your biological makeup (and of course age). Gender roles and gender norms refer to what's expected of men, whether it be in terms of their obligations in society, what traits, features, skills, or interests they possess, etc.
But that is the confusion I've been referring to. I'm not a man because I like video games or because I'm not super-affectionate; I'm a man for purely biological reasons. And I would still be a man even if I literally defied every single gender role and gender norm imaginable.
"You are drawing distinction in terns that don't exist, by attempting to suggest these aren't more similar than different."
Not clear what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?
"It would be like saying people should stop referring to people as human when they mean the human race. The human race are human the addition of race is meant to distinguish from other possible races and denote plurality. It doesn't change the inherent meaning of the word human/gender."
Again, I'm not sure what you're saying here, sorry.
ME: "But that's why I said gender isn't personality either"
YOU: "Gender is based on characteristics, your characteristics make up your personality. they aren't the same, but they are related."
In ways, sure. But since you do acknowledge that personality and gender are not one and the same, I'm even more curious as to what you think about that page of "genders" I linked to.
"Your gender is part of your personality,"
No, my gender might influence my personality. But then it might not.
"a lot of things that define your personality also define your gender."
Naturally, I disagree with this as well.
ME: "why do people call it "misgendering" for me to refer to a man as a man?"
YOU: "because a man is a gender,"
Well, it refers to an adult of the male gender, yes. But remember, you're wanting to use "gender" in a different way that doesn't refer to biological sex. So I should be able to call a transgender "woman" a man because his biological sex is male. In theory, even if I did agree with transgenderism and agreed with the person that their gender is female, I should still be able to call them a man. Because they'd still be biologically male. Hope that makes sense!
"generally people aren't referring to biological sex"
Nonsense. Those of us who don't buy into this idea of gender and sex being different can only be referencing their biological sex. If I see an adult who is biologically male, I'm going to refer to them as a man, making no assumptions whatsoever about how they're conforming/rejecting the gender roles and norms of the culture we happen to be in.
"intellectually dishonest to claim that when people refer to other's they are referring to their chromosomes and genitalia rather than physical attributes and persona"
It's true that we take the shortcut given to us by nature (observation of these features that indicate a person's biological sex with great accuracy 99.9% of the time). But when we refer to them as "male" we are invariably doing so from the conclusion that they have the chromosomes and genitalia of a man.
Also, what do you think of someone identifying as much younger or much older than their, let's say, "biological age"? Would you accept a grown man telling you he's actually a 6-year old boy? What about a 10-year old girl identifying as a 20-year old?
2
-
@bverji No, I'm challenging the suggestion that we should use them differently. And please respond to the rest of my comment. I'll even post it again here:
I'm still wondering what you think of the link I posted. Do you think all of those "genders" are legitimate? Because if so, now I have to ask what's the difference between "gender" and *personality"! Here's the link again.
https://www.wattpad.com/341462536-complete-list-of-genders-the-complete-list-of-all/page/13
"and gender role/norm refers to the characteristics that make a person part of that group."
Not at all. What makes you a man, for example, is your biological makeup (and of course age). Gender roles and gender norms refer to what's expected of men, whether it be in terms of their obligations in society, what traits, features, skills, or interests they possess, etc.
But that is the confusion I've been referring to. I'm not a man because I like video games or because I'm not super-affectionate; I'm a man for purely biological reasons. And I would still be a man even if I literally defied every single gender role and gender norm imaginable.
"You are drawing distinction in terns that don't exist, by attempting to suggest these aren't more similar than different."
Not clear what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?
"It would be like saying people should stop referring to people as human when they mean the human race. The human race are human the addition of race is meant to distinguish from other possible races and denote plurality. It doesn't change the inherent meaning of the word human/gender."
Again, I'm not sure what you're saying here, sorry.
ME: "But that's why I said gender isn't personality either"
YOU: "Gender is based on characteristics, your characteristics make up your personality. they aren't the same, but they are related."
In ways, sure. But since you do acknowledge that personality and gender are not one and the same, I'm even more curious as to what you think about that page of "genders" I linked to.
"Your gender is part of your personality,"
No, my gender might influence my personality. But then it might not.
"a lot of things that define your personality also define your gender."
Naturally, I disagree with this as well.
ME: "why do people call it "misgendering" for me to refer to a man as a man?"
YOU: "because a man is a gender,"
Well, it refers to an adult of the male gender, yes. But remember, you're wanting to use "gender" in a different way that doesn't refer to biological sex. So I should be able to call a transgender "woman" a man because his biological sex is male. In theory, even if I did agree with transgenderism and agreed with the person that their gender is female, I should still be able to call them a man. Because they'd still be biologically male. Hope that makes sense!
"generally people aren't referring to biological sex"
Nonsense. Those of us who don't buy into this idea of gender and sex being different can only be referencing their biological sex. If I see an adult who is biologically male, I'm going to refer to them as a man, making no assumptions whatsoever about how they're conforming/rejecting the gender roles and norms of the culture we happen to be in.
"intellectually dishonest to claim that when people refer to other's they are referring to their chromosomes and genitalia rather than physical attributes and persona"
It's true that we take the shortcut given to us by nature (observation of these features that indicate a person's biological sex with great accuracy 99.9% of the time). But when we refer to them as "male" we are invariably doing so from the conclusion that they have the chromosomes and genitalia of a man.
Also, what do you think of someone identifying as much younger or much older than their, let's say, "biological age"? Would you accept a grown man telling you he's actually a 6-year old boy? What about a 10-year old girl identifying as a 20-year old?
2
-
@bverji That's the third time you've ignored my challenge. Please look at the link I provided and tell me if those are, in your opinion, legitimate "genders". And if you think they are, explain to me what the difference between "gender" and "personality" is, because I think that's the main problem here. People are just choosing to call all of these arbitrary distinctions "genders" when they're not.
Also, we haven't really resolved this issue of me calling a biological man a man, then being accused of "misgendering". If sex and gender are different things as you claim, no one should mind if I call a transgender "woman" a man at all.
ME: "Would you accept a grown man telling you he's actually a 6-year old boy? What about a 10-year old girl identifying as a 20-year old?"
YOU: "No, because a year is a defined unit of time and a number is a unit of quantity."
So we have the right to require confirmation (along scientific and observational lines) of anyone identifying as a different age, but not those identifying as a different gender?
"adolescence is a cultural term which is more comparable to gender"
So if a grown man identifies as an adolescent, that should be accepted? Should we treat him as an adolescent then? "Adult" is also a term defined differently by culture. What of a 10-year old girl who identifies as an adult?
2
-
@bverji The relevance is that there doesn't seem to be any clear definition of "gender" at all at this point. It's as if people can just pick a trait at random, and just make up a name for the "gender" they want to be called on the basis of having that trait. And you guys wonder why a lot of people don't take this idea seriously.
"I have explained the misgendering, you are drawing a false dichotomy. just because gender can be a part of biological sex doesn't mean it has to be or the only thing that can determine gender."
That's not even relevant at all to my question. Again, even if I agreed that sex and gender were different things, and even I agreed with a biological man who identified as a woman (that their gender was in fact that of a woman), I could still refer to them as a man if I'm referring to their biological sex. Alternatively, we can simply call men men and women women regardless of how well they adhere to gender norms/roles.
And BTW, I'd say they're called gender roles and gender norms, inarguably referring to roles and norms expected on the basis of biological sex, because "gender" and "sex" are in fact interchangeable. Same goes for "transgender". You're not called "transgender" for going from having one personality trait to another; you're called that because you're making your best attempt to change your biological makeup, going from a man to woman or vice versa.
"A person identifying as a certain gender is not just accepted."
That's what we're being told to do, yes, just accept it. I get what you're saying about culture, but that doesn't change what we should do. Whether or not we should go along with it or call it into question. So there doesn't seem to be any good reason why I should accept that someone who is obviously male is a "woman" or someone who is obviously female is a "man", just like there's no reason for me to accept that an adult is a child or vice versa.
"Because your sex and age are quantifiable your gender is a cultural construct."
Which is why I asked about an 11-year old who identifies as (has the "gender" of) an adult, or vice versa. We're supposed to treat biological men who identify as women, like women, right? So why are we not supposed to treat children who identify as adults, like adults?
2
-
@bverji So if we are literally just talking about people arbitrarily choosing a personality trait and making up "genders" associated with that trait (which you're not denying), then the concept is indeed very silly. A more effective way to communicate would be to call personality types personality types, just as we should call men men and women women.
"what you are trying to assert is that you can refer to sex,"
Lol, that's not an assertion, just a fact. I can just be referring to biological sex when I call a man a man, and indeed that's what people who do not subscribe to your worldview generally are referring to.
"however, you are being intellectually dishonest and trying to assert you can determine that you aren't referring to gender-based solely on your perspective."
There's absolutely no reason for you to doubt when I tell you that I'm referring to someone's biological sex, that that's what I'm doing. It's your own assertions that need substantiation here.
ME: "gender roles and gender norms, inarguably referring to roles and norms expected on the basis of biological sex, because "gender" and "sex" are in fact interchangeable. "
YOU: "Um no,"
Yes! "Gender roles" refer to what men are supposed to be doing vs. what women are supposed to be doing. This term is never used to refer to any of these made-up "genders" (that link I posted earlier) and what they're supposed to be doing, at all. Same for "gender norms"; it refers to what is customary for men and women, not these made-up "genders".
"Again you chose to ignore the part that actually countered your argument, which is that people for decades have been trying to self-identify with little acceptance,"
Entirely irrelevant to the question of what should/shouldn't be accepted.
ME: "So why are we not supposed to treat children who identify as adults, like adults?"
YOU: "because our culture doesn't accept that."
(sigh) So should "culture" accept it? I take it you think culture should accept that when a man identifies as a woman, he should be treated like a woman. If so, if you were to be consistent, wouldn't you have to say that culture should accept that when a child identifies as an adult, they should be treated like one?
"A 6-year-old is a six-year-old that is quantifiable that can't change."
And a man is a man; that's confirmed through science and observation and can't change. Yet, if that man's "gender" is a woman, none of that matters; we're supposed to be on board with treating him as a woman. Now... what if a child (his/her biological age duly noted) identifies as an adult? What if that is their "gender" (because apparently "gender" can mean anything)?
2
-
@bverji "arbitrariness is defined by culture."
No, arbitrariness is a universal concept where there is no rhyme or reason whatsoever. And it's what makes this idea of using "gender" to describe a personality trait silly.
ME: "Now... what if a child (his/her biological age duly noted) identifies as an adult? What if that is their "gender""
YOU: "So what part of me saying repeatedly that it has to be culturally acceptable keeps alluding you?
"
It has to be "culturally acceptable" for what? I'm asking you, point blank, what should we/"culture" accept. You seem to be on board with accepting a biological man identifying as a woman, because they can call the latter their "gender". You also don't seem to mind when people call just any old thing about themselves their "gender". So should we promote or lead the fight for the acceptance of children identifying as adults, or adults identifying as children?
"If you identify someone by a pronoun or moniker of sex that refers to non-biological necessity it is disingenuous to assert you were referring to biological sex."
If I call someone a man, I am referring to their biological sex. I don't know why that's confusing for you.
"it is like calling someone a bitch in a heated discussion and then asserting you just meant it as a reference of being playful like a puppy."
Obviously these are not the same, as I go around calling every biologically male adult a "man" regardless of context. We are using the term very literally, all the time.
"Calling someone other than their identified gender and then claiming you are just referring to biological sex is a lie,"
No, what would be a lie is if I went along with calling a man a woman, because that's not what they are. Just because someone sees something differently from you, doesn't mean they're lying 🙄
"you are choosing to ignore how they wish to be identified"
No, I'm just refusing to be controlled by their wishes. You guys haven't made a convincing case as to why I should play along with this idea, and so I don't.
ME: ""Gender roles" refer to what men are supposed to be doing vs. what women are supposed to be doing."
YOU: "And again I will say that has been true in western culture"
No, it's been true everywhere. There isn't any culture that has talked about "gender roles" or "gender norms" while referencing the made-up "genders" on that list I linked you to.
"If our culture went all wackadoodle and gave 6-year-olds all rights-"
Do you mean to imply that culture shouldn't do this? Even if the child says their "gender" is adult?
"that still doesn't change the definition of gender"
I thought your whole case here, was that "culture" gets to change these definitions without any sort of objective confirmation (from science, math, observation, etc.). Are you saying that you would reject "adult" as a gender if "culture" accepted it as such? Or that you would in some way resist that particular "gender" identification?
The reason this is important should be pretty obvious. We cannot justify throwing out the requirement for objective confirmation in some cases but not others. If the reason I should treat a man as a "woman" is only because that's what they identify as, I'm left with no reason to reject the same request from a child identifying as an adult or vice versa. And yes, I'm intentionally using a more obviously problematic example to get you to wake up.
2
-
2
-
@bverji Again, I explained why my questions are important and should be considered. If we're to accept people's "gender" by treating them as whatever "gender" they identify as, this has serious implications for any child who identifies as an adult or says that "adult" is their gender, and vice versa. You don't seem to have drawn any lines here, but we really should!
I'm not trying to "win" anything either 🙄
Nor am I changing the subject. I began talking about what I think we should/shouldn't do in terms of language and how to use it most effectively.
"There are many cultures throughout history that have or have had groups of behaviours that the cultures identified as a gender role or gender normal based on sexual orientation, sexual expression, social dominance, and sexual identity and this has been referred to in western academia as gender for centuries."
Seems you need to make up your mind, first of all, as to whether or not "gender" refers to the behaviors themselves or some objective fact about a person's identity. Because I can behave in all sorts of ways without it changing what I actually am. But like I said, this is why I think it always boils down to a confusion between gender roles/norms and actual gender. I've even had a man tell me, once asked "How do you know you're a 'woman'?", that they didn't like the same things as men, didn't have the same interests, behaved "more like a woman", etc. That's not a woman, that's a man who doesn't fit into gender norms and defies gender roles.
And I'm still waiting for an example of the terms "gender roles" and "gender norms" being used historically (in this culture or any other) without referring to men and women and what they're "supposed to do" or "supposed to be like".
So there are several problems with the worldview, suffice to say. "Sex" and "gender" are allegedly different, but if I address someone by their biological sex I'm accused of "misgendering". We're supposed to just accept whatever identification/"gender" a person claims when it comes to the man/woman distinction, without requiring any sort of objective confirmation, but we can continue rejecting similar claims when it comes to other distinctions for apparently no reason at all.
I could go on and add more, but we've enough on our plate already.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
My problems with Bernie are quite the opposite. He once said white people don't know what it's like to be poor in an effort to pander to minorities, because he thought that's what they wanted to hear. He promotes class warfare against "the billionaire class" (as if they're somehow more "greedy" than the rest of us), yet he claims Trump is the one "trying to divide us up". And in general, he doesn't seem to understand economics in the slightest. Wants us to have "free" healthcare like Scandinavian countries but opposes the actual model they use. They're more free market than we are, not less! No minimum wage laws, school vouchers, they don't penalize the wealthy with high corporate tax rates, etc. They learned their lesson about capitalism some time ago (especially Sweden), while the U.S. bumbles around and people like Bernie aren't helping.
Also, not one but two of his campaign organizers were promoting violence and/or gulags for anyone who disagrees with Bernie and, to my knowledge, he's yet to denounce them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chadsimmons4496 Okay then, so we need more competition in the healthcare industry to maximize innovation (competition for profit is the incentive), and that requires government to get out of the way.
As for "surgery, injury and disease are not markets", healthcare absolutely is. You can say "Healthcare is a human right" all day long, but that won't produce more doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc. The reality of scarcity cannot be denied, if we're gonna get serious about solving this problem.
@Chad Simmons Oh, I don't trust corporations or government outright. But unless a crime is committed, corporations can't get my money without competing for it. I can always give it to someone else who's doing more for me. By contrast, the government gets to take our money no matter how poor a job they do.
So I definitely want prices to go down (and especially without sacrificing efficiency or quality). I just want us to do it the way that works.
2
-
@chadsimmons4496 What does your being Canadian have to do with anything? Even Canada ranks higher than the U.S. in terms of economic freedom. That's like how Bernie keeps saying we should be like Scandinavia, but doesn't realize that those countries are much more free market than the U.S. No minimum wage laws, they have school vouchers, they don't penalize the wealthy with high corporate tax rates, etc.
@Chad Simmons "You want to pay a middle man..."
Do you not see the irony in what you just said? I want to be able to take my money and pay a doctor. I don't want my money forcibly taken from me so that the government can take its cut and then pay a doctor.
"Less bombs, more clinics."
We agree on the objective. But the government has kept more clinics from being built, that's what you're not understanding.
"Less lobbyists, more doctors."
The only realistic way to prevent people from lobbying the government for special favors, higher costs for would-be competition that can't afford it, etc. is to take that power away from the government in the first place. So again, we agree on the objectives, but disagree on how to achieve them.
"Less air craft carriers, more schools and nurses and hospitals.
"
Similar to above, it's the government that keeps people from building more schools and opening their own hospitals/clinics for more doctors and nurses to work at.
"Less corporate lawyers, more corporate criminal prosecutions.
"
I haven't read up on these statistics yet, so fine... unless you're saying that corporations shouldn't be able to hire lawyers to defend themselves in court or some such?
"Less private profit influence, more choice for workers and employers.
"
More competition in the market is more employers, and it means more choice for workers.
2
-
@ugeofaltron5003 Yet again, you won't say what you're challenging so how can I do that?
@Chad Simmons "You do NOT have choice of doctors when insurance draws the networks and employers control your packages.
"
I want us to have choices in all of these ways, but even in these things, the government prevents us from actually being free. And you're not responding to my point about how they put up barriers to entry, or how the ability of corporations to lobby them comes from the fact that they have this power to begin with.
""Competition" isn't a thing in this case."
Well at least you admit it. But it should be.
"My post-tax budget does not include unknown doctors fees, etc. That is freedom, brutha.
"
Lol, yes, after they take what they want from you, then they leave you alone for a bit. That's not freedom, no.
I also don't see why you would bring up Reagonomics when we already know when this started. Again (at least concerning healthcare) it was in the 60s, with the advent of Medicaid and Medicare. This radically increased demand while government radically hindered supply. You can't do it that way, which is why prices skyrocketed at that point. It's been getting worse ever since because the regulations (yes, probably brought on in large part by lobbyists) have been getting worse ever since.
2
-
2
-
@chadsimmons4496 "keep their money? So you think"
Yes, I think whatever you earn you should get to keep, that's right.
"Yes. Demand was always there! Sick and dying, injured and disabled, was always a thing..."
Nice sleight of hand. Naturally, there were sick and dying, injured and disabled people before government got involved and screwed up our healthcare system. But as I explained, when you make healthcare free or (artificially) cheaper than it was before, you get more people lining up for it. That in and of itself wouldn't have been a bad thing, but the government's also in the business of preventing supply from ever rising to meet that demand. And so we get ridiculously high prices in healthcare.
"Go buy some insulin in the US. Go buy some in Canada. See who is being taken for a ride..."
Again, Canada ranks higher in terms of economic freedom too, so I don't see how you think this is a point in your favor...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chadsimmons4496 So we've touched on another fact you don't want to hear about, ok.
@Chad Simmons Naturally, I'm talking about the fact that Canada's wait times for healthcare are atrocious when compared to the U.S. (where the demand-supply ratio is still awful but not quite as bad). As for where to read about it, so you can quickly dismiss more facts, you can take your pick among these pages or countless others:
https://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-canadas-medical-wait-times-are-unacceptable
https://fee.org/articles/america-outperforms-canada-in-surgery-wait-times-and-its-not-even-close/
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/12/10/1958372/0/en/Canada-s-health-care-wait-times-eclipsed-20-weeks-in-2019-second-longest-wait-ever-recorded.html
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/podcast/2018/oct/truth-about-waiting-see-doctor-canada
And don't misunderstand me, I'm not commending Canada when I say that the reason they're kinda sorta making "free" healthcare work is because they're slightly more free market than the U.S. I'm saying that this is one of the factors that go into a stable economy. But wait times are ridiculous in Canada, because demand is so much higher (for now) while supply is comparable. Again, a better place to look concerning the market overall would be Scandinavia, which is even more free market, or the U.S. in the early 1900s (pre-1965 if we're talking exclusively about healthcare). It would make more sense anyway, to compare the U.S. to itself but people don't seem to want to do what makes sense these days (sigh).
And I'm not sure how you think I'm a feudalist, but the act of simply labeling someone to dismiss them is name-calling.
2
-
@chadsimmons4496 Scandinavia's more free market than the U.S., these are not socialist countries (again, the PM of Denmark actually had to correct Bernie on that). No minimum wage laws, they've school vouchers, they don't penalize the wealthy with high corporate tax rates. All things Bernie opposes. So he claims to want something similar to Scandinavia, but doesn't want to do what they did to get there.
And yes, there are wait times in the U.S., but the links (which you predictably ignored) show that the wait times in Canada are far worse. And both places could benefit from increasing supply to meet the increased demand.
Also, a truly free market would allow people to build clinics/hospitals in those places you say have been abandoned. In reality, the U.S. government actively prevents these places from being built. So the masses are denied the benefits of healthcare that is closer, cheaper and/or better quality because the government has decided they don't need it. The left wants to talk about stopping lobbyists and anyone "buying politicians", but they don't realize that this is inevitable so long as the government has the power to manipulate the market in the first place.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, typically, when an employer is forced to pay more in wages or in taxes, they will do various things that end up hurting the people that policy was trying to help. Hiring fewer people, cutting the hours of those already working there, laying people off, and/or passing the costs down to the consumer (which will hurt the unemployed the most, and the working class disproportionately to the rich). Plus, bigger companies are more likely to be able to afford the higher wages, so you'll end up hurting more small businesses than those evil, greedy giant corporations people are being taught to hate so much.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AlwonDomz "The point was, whether or not the tax cuts helped is irrelevant post-quarantine..."
Not at all, it's still better that we started at point A rather than point B. And if it happens that more businesses were able to stay open (when Democrat governors weren't shutting them down, anyway) because of the tax cuts, that's a good thing. It didn't save everyone from a pandemic, but to set the standard that high would be unreasonable.
"especially when household income and employment were already trending upward."
They were, indeed. But even Obama himself expected it all to plateau (he went so far as to say Trump would need a "magic wand" to bring jobs back).
"People and business owners forced out of work need cash in-hand, not a tax cut,"
They need both, naturally, because the latter is just an example of the former.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@missmorbid1439 It's not just a "concern", it's knowledge about what raising the minimum wage does. And yes, it's fair because in the same way the prospective employee needs a job, the company has to have employees. There is a point at which no one will work for the wages they're offering, because it won't be enough for anyone to make ends meet anyway, so employers already have to pay a fair wage. And with more jobs being created (something minimum wage laws do the opposite of), employers wind up competing with each other for employees, which means wages go up in an authentic way. When the government tries to force it, costs for that business remain the same and so they just end up doing the things I mentioned to make up the difference. If they can't adjust their expenses (by hiring fewer people, laying people off, or giving fewer hours to the ones already hired there), they'll have to raise their prices which disproportionately hurts the lower and middle classes. And if they can't make it work any of those ways, they shut down and then everyone suffers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So his solution is to not support Trump and let the pro-abortion, child-groping Biden win again? I also find it ironic that he criticizes "bringing politics into the church" (which, news flash: everything is being made political including your religious beliefs so there will be no separating them) and then he goes on a political rant when he's supposed to be talking about the bible.
And no, no one ever said politics is spiritual stuff. That's a straw man.
He claims it's not our duty to "be political". But again, everything you say and do will be politicized. As for "serving God", this is precisely what the enemy wants. Read and pray and nothing more. They want everyone to "serve God" in some vague, ineffective way. Basically keep your beliefs about right and wrong (which, once more, can and will be politicized) to yourself, whether it's in the bible or not. I'm shocked that people think this man is making some strong statement, when in reality he's advocating the opposite.
As for the bible Trump had published, he didn't really say exactly what's wrong with it. But ironically he's coming pretty close to blasphemy himself by stating that the book is blasphemous. Which part? The bible part? "The gospel is not an American gospel". No one said it was. Again another straw man, as is "Oh you're encouraged by it/you're glorying in it". Nope, they just bought it. If he's disgusted by some part of it or don't think the documents therein can be reconciled, he should be able to elaborate on why.
"But we're only here temporarily." As is the book. And any other version of the bible, with or without the U.S. Constitution which he seems to have a problem with...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@junetalon8796 You're not reading what I typed. You said "there's no such thing as a metaphysical innate 'being' a social construct", after defining gender as "the socially constructed characteristics that are typically associated with sex". But this would suggest that having the socially constructed characteristics that are typically associated with males means your gender is "man". I've been asking you for confirmation on that for several posts now and you continue to evade that simple question though.
"You admit that social roles and norms exist as social constructs,"
Right, and I call them gender roles and gender norms when they're based on someone's biological sex. This is part of why people use "gender" and "biological sex" interchangeably in the first place, after all.
"but you just call it that every time instead of using "gender" as an overarching term for this"
Right, because I don't agree with your definition of "gender" that tries to equate them. And I've explained why I reject that definition multiple times now.
"I already said your objection is purely semantics,"
Well, words need to have clear meaning if we're going to communicate effectively. Reframe my objections however you like, but at the end of the day your worldview needs to make logical sense if you want thinking people to adopt it.
"and you're calling several scientific fields "ideological" over it."
That was the OP's choice of words. I mostly agree with them that it's an illogical view at very least, but not taken by the scientific fields themselves, only some (perhaps all) of the individuals our beloved government deems worthy to be called "scientists". An appeal to authority isn't going to get you out of this conundrum, at any rate.
"My guess is you have a personal problem with trans people for some reason."
Same problem I have with the trans advocates, and that's that they've subscribed to an incoherent worldview.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@junetalon8796 "What exactly was unclear about the answer I've given you already?"
You didn't give an answer to the question I asked at all. If gender is "the socially constructed characteristics that are typically associated with sex" as you claimed, then if someone has the socially constructed characteristics typically associated with the male sex while identifying as a woman, what is their gender? Again, not that I'm not asking what gender they're "more likely to be read as", I'm asking what gender they are.
"If sex and gender are synonymous,"
Which seems to be the only workable definition of "gender" so far...
"what biological mechanism is there put place to force male people (whatever that means to you since its neither phenotype nor chromosomes nor gamete size) to be referred to as "men" ?"
To force them to be referred to as men? There's nothing in biology forcing anyone to refer to anyone as anything. Nor does there need to be to justify requiring language to be used in clear ways, since the whole point of language is to make communication more efficient.
Also, not all males are men; some are boys. But in case you meant what biological reality qualifies them as male, I'll answer that also. While a female is someone whose body naturally developed largely toward the function of bearing children, a male is someone whose body naturally developed largely toward the function of impregnating females. These would include those who due to aging, defects, etc. cannot actually fulfill their respective reproductive role (e.g., so-called "intersex" people), as one or a few defects don't make you some third (conveniently unnamed) sex.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
Sir Simplexton "1) If you believe in an afterlife, then this life on earth is a test, and your deeds will go rewarded or punished with divine I.O.U.s for the next life.
This is why a jihadist can strap a bomb to his chest in exchange for no payment in this life: he's expecting to get paid big time in the next. This is why the mothers of these martyrs don't weep endlessly, and instead profess that they wish they could join them in martyrdom, since they're thoroughly convinced that their deceased sons are enjoying an eternal bliss."
But this is no longer just talking about belief in an afterlife. I'm addressing the argument that says people who believe in an afterlife in general might not life this life "to the fullest" because they expect to have an eternity to do so. It simply will not matter in the end, if there is no afterlife.
But do note that in this same bullet, you inadvertently highlight a pro to belief in an afterlife, which is the notion that one might be punished for bad deeds and rewarded for good ones. If there is no afterlife, these are not going to be motivations for good behavior. If there is one, you have reason to be "good" even when no one on Earth will know of your behavior.
Okay, I see that you briefly touched on that point later on.
"2) If you don't believe in an afterlife, your life here on earth is a one shot deal. It's like a video game where you have a single life, and "game over" really means just that. There is no redemption, there is no second chance.
Now life becomes infinitely more precious."
Well no, it doesn't. When I die, assuming there is no afterlife, my life will instantly and forever be meaningless to me. "Wasting" it will make me feel the exact same thing as making the most of it will - nothing.
1
-
1
-
Sir Simplexton "The trouble I see is that this often leads people to assume a lot more propositions like this:
If there is an afterlife, and its state hinges upon our accountability to God, then our ultimate accountability lies, above all else, to God."
I would agree, and also agree that this would be a step in the wrong direction. It's the "its state hinges upon our 'accountability to god'" (assuming you mean obedience to the bible) part that is problematic, and I would argue that even beyond Christian Universalists (who believe that everyone goes to heaven) most Christians do not really think this way even when they say they do. You know this as well as I. As a former Christian, I can tell you that many of them believe "god's grace" is what saves them, not their actions. There are still multiple ways to avoid going down the road you describe, while being a Christian.
And I'd insert some counter propositions like:
"The accountability we have towards others here in this same life is what ultimately fills this very life on earth with meaning and purpose. When our ultimate accountability and purpose lies with God, then we're shifting the focus more to the next life than this one."
Well I think this life is inevitably temporary, is their point. Assume everyone's life has the same meaning while we're all alive. But now ask yourself when we (the human race) is completely dead, what meaning our natural lives will have. None if there's no one to even remember it or be affected by it in any way whatsoever.
"When your ultimate responsibility is to God, it does give you a lifelong responsibility, albeit one that is often very vague for most, and often too harshly defined for extremists."
Agreed. They still have to decide for themselves what is right (only they word it "what god wants").
ETA: It's interesting to read about different people's experiences in either coming into or leaving religion/theism, that doesn't bother me. But I think a flaw that is plainly human no matter what you believe is figuring that surely most people have/would experience the same feelings and thoughts if they'd only follow suit (i.e., follow us) ;)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, it isn't plausible that Squall is dead. All of the arguments in favor of it were shot down years ago. For example, what's so dreamlike compared to what's on the first disc? Talking moombas? Well in Disc 1 you can have monkeys and shadows talking to you! Esthar? Because you can actually find a Timber Maniacs with a picture of Esthar in it, on Disc 1. How bout the Lunar Cry? Nope! That's also established to be real in Disc 1. But also, consider Diablos. Though it's also unrealistic that you get sucked into a magical lamp to fight essentially the devil in an alternative universe (most people do this on Disc 1), if you wait and do it on Discs 2-4, you get the same exact encounter. Seeing as how Squall has never done this before, if he does it on Disc 2, how is that his imagination paints the entire scene and battle accurately? Are we do believe he just happened to imagine it the exact way it is? I mean, it's OK if you want to subscribe to this theory, but that's all it's going to be based on - you wanting to.
But to be fair, that Pokemon music would make pretty much anyone want to kill themselves a little bit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Right away, you get it wrong. Russell Brand never said consciousness = god. And it's very transparent of you to cut the video short at that particular point so that you could slip this misrepresentation of his statement in. And no, the anti-theist doesn't have to agree that there could be a god that doesn't adhere to any particular religion's teachings, for it to be the actual standard. You don't get to make up how "god" is limited in these debates.
If Stephen Fry's argument was about omnipotence, then yes it was about literalism, not theism in and of itself. That is a very specific and unnecessary trait to give to "god" (though I'm quite convinced the argument wouldn't serve to refute even an all-powerful god).
Science cannot explain the "why" because science deals specifically with the objective way things work, not the subjectively decided reasons why. Your example is a great (and embarrassing) confirmation of this. The reason we're here is "to be happy"? Really? Did science tell you that, or did you tell that to yourself?
"What matters is what we can prove."
This statement actually defeats itself. We can't prove that anything matters; therefore to accept that anything matters (which you have just done) is to entertain something unprovable. Your statement, by your logic, doesn't matter.
Science is not plainly the process by which we determine what is true. It is a process for determining what is true about the natural world, which explains why people say that it cannot help us with supernatural claims. But it is also useless in assigning values to anything at all.
Your "rebuttal" to his argument about the supposedly well-designed universe is poor also. He does not just assert that the parameters necessary for life are what they are; we know that they are. We know that they are complex. Conversely, we do not know anything about "god", so we can't say with certainty that he's complex.
The rest of my post will be a lengthy rebuttal of the problem of evil argument and that's it, just so anyone reading will know.
The problem of evil argument sounds like a good one, but is quite weak. It states the following: “If god is omnipotent (all-powerful), he would be able to end all suffering (or evil, the obvious problem thereof being suffering). If god is loving or omnibenevolent (all-good), he would want to end all suffering. So why is there suffering?” I will address the implied conclusion in regards to premise 2, concerning both variations of this argument:
Variation "God cannot possibly love us"
This is proposing a definition of "love" that is neither in the dictionary nor in the bible (the proposed definition being “the inclination to prevent suffering to the best of one's ability"). Closest to come to a dictionary definition that fits is "charity", but this of course is referring to either putting an end to suffering (which we've yet to see if this "god" will do) or simply helping to ease the suffering, with no specification as to what extent of help qualifies as charity and therefore love. And indeed, this limitation on the definition of "love" is reflected in our own behavior. We can say we love our children, for example, despite introducing them to their inevitable suffering just by conceiving them (not out of necessity, but because we just plain wanted a child), which is obviously choosing not to prevent said suffering (though we know it’s inevitable and we know we have the power to prevent it). We can still say we love them, so long as we "minimize" their suffering to the best of our ability after they're born. (I put "minimize" in quotations here because we're not really reducing the amount of suffering to the lowest possible amount; we let that opportunity pass by already).
IOW, so long as god does all he can at some point to "minimize" suffering to the best of his ability (which does of course mean getting rid of it altogether), he's acting in accordance with the definition we give love in practice. We just start when our babies are born, whereas god starts after we die. And who's to say where the line in time should be drawn after which one is obligated to start "minimizing" suffering to prove their love for another?
And no, this doesn't answer the question "Why didn't god just make us all so that we'd never suffer?", nor is it to deny that it's a great question in its own right. But obviously we have no basis for the implied answer in the problem of evil argument, that the Christian god cannot possibly love us.
Variation "God is not good."
This variation of the argument is a little better, in that we at least have a dictionary definition of "good" that could help us form an argument, theoretically (this being "beneficent"). But I do think it's way too simplistic to take "good" in the context of the "Holy bible" to mean "beneficent to humans on earth while they're on earth". I've always figured it's referring to god's moral "goodness", which makes the very term subjective and therefore no objective argument can be made here (we cannot prove objectively what is morally right or wrong). This is just my opinion, of course, but I see no reason to take the alternative opinion as truth, which would be necessary in showing that this argument disproves the Christian god.
To someone who hasn’t thought much about it, the problem of evil argument seems airtight. But it actually fails, as we can clearly see.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Logan Carter "Oh, with first one:it's awful. Second situation is good, still it's milking."
Yet again, how is it "milking" the franchise if they put in a ton of effort?
"The best thing is put a lot of effort and wait 3-4 years."
But what about those fans who want more and more often? See, the problem with your suggestion is that it serves only you, whereas the way AC does it currently serves everyone. Those who want more of it more frequently can have it, and those who don't want it so frequently can wait with no harm done.
"It does, farming a money from their pockets every year."
Which again is a very arbitrarily chosen time frame. What if I feel like 5 years is still too often? Is there any way to argue otherwise?
"Problem is divided actually; it's fans' fault for ordering game, and company's fault for making them, knowing die-hard fans would buy it, no matter what."
Lol, I'm still missing the part where you explain why this is a problem. Giving the fans what they want should be encouraged, I would think.
"It's business, but it's greed.Like gamblers; it's nature of business, but their greedy, wanting more money."
Greed is not defined simply by wanting more. Thefreedictionary.com defines it as "An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves." So ultimately, you would need to explain why the AC franchise doesn't deserve compensation for their games, and how frequently they make them has nothing to do with that.
"Buying games in stores depends on number of games, AC has over 8-9 games. Of course it will cost more than Fallout which has 4-5 games."
Well yes, naturally it will cost more to buy 8 games than to buy 4...
"People want Fallout series, but they don't get them often, same with GTA."
If the fans want more, they should get more.
"Also, AC has a lot of bugs, same with every game released every year.Example; Unity."
Haven't played Unity yet, but from AC1 to AC4 I haven't experienced that many bugs/glitches, as to keep me from enjoying each game immensely. And even if Rogue and Unity suck, it's too early to say they're milking it because that's just one release year where things (allegedly) started going downhill. GTA has been doing that for years, taking out more and more fun activities with every installment and replacing it with boring crap like yoga and the stock market.
"As I recall, AC is same shit every year, just like CoD."
Well you recall wrong. Every single game adds a plethora of improvements; they've actually come under fire for changing too much here lately.
"You see same jumping, sneak attacks, parkour every year."
Not true. They've improved all of this. But what's more, they've added a lot of activities, and brought us to a new, highly detailed city every time rather than recycling the same city every few years like some franchises.
1
-
Logan Carter "Because they release it every year. A lot of effort, releasing game every 3-4 years( waiting for fans to get money); not milking."
Fans very clearly have the money, if the games are being sold. Let's be real, no one would have trouble gathering 60 dollars in an entire year. Now, if they choose to buy other games or spend it on going to McDonald's every other week, that's their business. But to blame the developers because people... want more, of their game? That's just silly.
"Their proble. They have problems, playing same game ever year."
It's not the same game, when so much is changed from one installment to the next. You're trying to sneak in this other part of the definition now, which I've already shown does not describe the Assassin's Creed franchise. Or, AC is the same game every time in the same way Fallout is the same game every time. Run around shooting and build up your character, every single bloody time, am I right?
"That's why I wrote " I call it milking". So, it's all my opinion."
I understand that, but it doesn't mean your opinion can't be wrong, and it doesn't mean other people can't openly disagree.
"5 years is defo not often. 5 years is big timeskip."
This is where it gets very subjective. A person could easily think otherwise, especially if they try to buy and play every new game that comes out. Just like a person could think an entire year to wait for a new AC game is too long, if they only care about 3 or 4 franchises (which surely won't last you an entire year if you game on the regular).
"Example, people want L4D 3 to come out soon as possible, they wanted L4D3 since 2013.Last 4 L4D game came out in 2009.They're getting impatient."
And people like me who couldn't care less about Left for Dead don't care if it takes them ten years. Conversely, I wish Alan Wake 2 was out by now.
"Problem is:losing a money on AC every year. ( if we count DLC , merchandise) it's a lot of money."
No more/no less than spending that money on other games or other things altogether. If it's what makes them happy, I see no problem.
"Plus, those fans' don't play only AC, they play a shit tons of games. I am not sorry for those kids, I am sorry for their parents."
Well technically, kids aren't supposed to be playing AC games (or anything else rated M) to begin with. But I'm a parent of a five-year old boy who's just begun to show interest in video games. I'll simply teach him that you have to wait for some things in life, and enjoy what you have. We'll be smart about our purchases. Instead of spending 60 dollars on a brand new game that won't last long (which I don't personally think includes AC by any means), buy three 20 dollar games that got good reviews and they'll last you much longer. I've played over 100 hours on Just Cause 2, haven't finished but half of it, and am still having a blast with it. Had I have bought GTA 5 instead of renting it, it would've been a waste of money.
"More games= more money. It's showing their greed, because they're popular."
No. Like I said, you have to establish that they don't deserve more money, given the fact that they're giving the fans more games. It balances out perfectly. You put out more product, you deserve more money.
"They are just providing AC with new graphics,"
No. I've already explained that this is not the case. New cities, new characters, new stories, and wildly improved gameplay often with entirely new activities. "New graphics" is practically an afterthought.
"Also, Ubisoft doesn't only produce AC, they produce Far Cry, Splinter Cell, Rayman etc."
Soooo?
"They'd rather produce AC every year, than producing Prince of Persia or Rayman every 2-3 years? lol that's sad."
Not really, no. Maybe they have no new ideas for Prince of Persia, and therefore doing it your way would be milking it, because they'd just come out with a new Prince of Persia game devoid of innovation.
"I'd rather see ; for example: 2008: AC, 2009: Prince of Persia, 2010: Rayman, 2010: Far Cry. 2011: AC 2
Not: AC1 2008, AC2 2009, AC3 2010 etc( those were examples."
Well evidently, what you want and what the majority of actual fans of particular franchises are not one and the same :)
"Milking has something to do with neverending franchise too."
Not so long as the effort and innovation are never-ending as well.
"Those fans are idiots, then. I am die-hard Fallout fan and I don't wanna Fallout every year. It will ruin franchise, it'd be milked."
By some abstract principle you've created out of thin air, maybe. But not necessarily by any objective standard. Only if the quality of the sequels began to suffer, then it would be ruined. But like I've said, I see this in a lot of franchises that do take 4-5 years to come out with a new game (GTA 5 included). The Thief franchise took a huge break and then when it came back, it was shit.
"AC4 should've been final game. Ubisoft should've stopped after 4."
Too early to say, once more. Even assuming Unity was horrible, it could've been a fluke. I'll wait until I see a pattern of things going downhill before I jump to any conclusions. Plus, I heard Rogue was really good.
"CoD also puts something new here and there and people still called it: milked franchise"
Yes, but I always hear them justify that by saying "It's the same game every time!" I'm quite certain they'd be saying this regardless of how often CoD released a new game. If it's the same gameplay, it's being milked. If it's different every time (indicating they put actual effort and thought into it), then no.
1
-
Logan Carter "Actually, AC is not the only game played around here."
I never said it was...
"There are thousands of games.So? My opinion, I blame them for farming a money in that way, only with AC."
Which, again, is not harming anyone. Those who want that many games will buy them; those who don't, won't.
"If they released AC in 2008, FC in 2009, Rayman in 2010, AC 2 in 2011, I wouldn't call AC milked,"
Quite frankly, making their AC fans happy is probably more important to them than your arbitrary idea of what "milking" means.
I've already refuted the claim that AC is the same thing every year; not going to keep repeating myself on that point.
"How is that subjective?"
In the way that I explained. Those who want a new AC game every year will not consider it too often.
"People who think that waiting for AC for 10 months is long, have some serious issues/problems."
So you say. But we both know that there is nothing harmful about only following a few franchises.
"And they say waiting for certain game for 4 years is not long? lol"
Who? What I suggested to you is that other people might think a new game every 4 years is also too often. Again, entirely subjective.
"Still, what's the point of buying small action figures of Edward Kenway or Ezio + all games?"
What's the point in buying any kind of decoration?
"Look like die hard fans would buy.Those people have problems. I'd never buy that."
Them being different than you does not automatically mean they have problems.
"People all ages play all kind of games. CoD is overflowed with kids."
Obviously. I was just saying that technically, they're not supposed to be playing them.
"I meant, They showed their greed in producing only AC every year, because it's popular."
And I gave you the definition of the word "greed", and asked you to explain how they don't deserve more money for more games.
"They threw out(Example;) Rayman because he doesn't make that much money as AC makes.That's why they're greedy."
So by making a good business decision, they are automatically greedy?
"Still, it's same style of gamplay, year after year.."
As can be said of literally every franchise.
"New cities, new characters are small details,"
Not to a lot of people who value them. And AC has always been known for its vast cities with tons of detail added to every block of each. Same with characters. Whether you personally appreciate it or not, it takes effort to write and animate new characters. And that's especially if you make a new game every year. And that's nothing to speak of the gameplay. These are the reasons AC is not being milked.
"Why can't we create our assassin like in Fallout? What if I don't want my character to wear a hoodie?"
Because they actually put forth the effort themselves to create the character. Now why can't you do a leap of faith in Fallout?
"And they have new "same" ideas for AC year after year? Please, they can have a lot of ideas for PoP, but they're not making it, because AC is giving them a lot of money, more than PoP. That's why I said Ubisoft is greedy company and it's milking AC."
There is simply no point in making both all parallel like that. We'd probably end up with sub-par AC and Prince of Persia both. And people want to follow the story of AC, that's another thing. They put a lot of effort into every aspect of their games, which is what makes it such a good franchise.
"That's why AC is milked. :) Fans want AC, they don't care about Far Cry, or Splinter series or ZombiU."
So basically, because it's not your personal favorite franchise, it's being milked. Got it.
"So, you'd like to see/play neverending franchise with same gameplay year after year"
I've established already that AC games are not the same gameplay every year by any stretch of the imagination. Again, they often get criticized for changing it too much so this claim is unfounded.
And because they change it up and improve with each game, I see no reason why I wouldn't want it to continue.
1
-
Logan Carter "It's not harming anyone, just it's sad they threw out other series only for producing AC year after year."
You're acting like they're not making Far Cry, Splinter Cell, etc. at all anymore. No, they're just doubling up on the games that are selling the most (and they're selling the most inarguably because more people want them).
"What about making Ubisoft( not only AC fans) fans happy?"
If you're representing Far Cry and Splinter Cell fans, then they are because as you have made perfectly clear, you don't want a new Far Cry or Splinter Cell game more often than one every 4-5 years. So what are you complaining about?
"I am saying it is same game year after year,"
And I've already elaborated on why it isn't.
"Who? AC fans, I guess.
Ask AC fans about decoration."
The point was that, objectively, AC figurines have no more/no less value than any other sort of decoration. I could just easily criticize people for buying a painting, as you can criticize them for buying AC figurines.
"As problems I mean, they'd rather give 10 dollars on figure instead of buying 10 dollar game on Steam and enjoying 4-5 hours of gamplay."
If that's what makes them happy, why not?
"All games should be treated equally, no matter how much money they make."
Except that the amount of money they make shows the developers how much their customers like the franchise. You are, again, suggesting they make bad business decisions.
"Plus, Rayman was created before AC."
So? Pong was created before the whole lot of them! So we should get a new Pong game before any other new releases come out?
"Some franchises add new stuff like Fallout 4."
And Assassin's Creed :)
"They should let us create a character..."
And Fallout should let us climb buildings like Ezio and do a leap of faith. Otherwise, it's being milked. See how quickly your own logic can be turned against you?
"Still AC is milked compared to PoP."
Idk, haven't played Prince of Persia. But unless they've added the same number of improvements to that franchise as they've done with Assassin's Creed, then that's false.
1
-
1
-
Logan Carter Speaking of milking it, your entire comment was just a repeat of what you've been saying all along. Yes, AC has been changing its gameplay. No, climbing a ladder in Fallout is not climbing the building and doing a leap of faith off of it, but you miss the point: we can't expect every game to add what the others have. You're nitpicking things like "no first person view" to try and argue that AC hasn't put in the effort to improve the gameplay and add tons of different features, when everyone knows that isn't true.
You're ignoring the definition of milking it (creating your own, actually, in which you emphasize how many games there are over how much effort was put into them, which is stupid) and the definition of greed, all because you have some weird anti-AC fetish. *Since* they put in a lot of effort in everything from the settings, to the story, to the gameplay, Assassin's Creed is not being milked. Since you have failed to explain how they're asking for more money than they deserve (given that they produce more product than the franchises you might prefer, then they're not being demonstrably greedy either. Fail on all points. You take the last word, I'm done.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Walter Mantler "Getting your message across is not intolerant."
If it's a message of intolerance (essentially telling people it's wrong to be religious), then yes it's intolerant.
"Will you at least be consistent and say that any time a Christian puts up a billboard or evangelizes they are "being intolerant because they can't accept some people answer the God question differently"."
First off, there was nothing inconsistent about the arguments I made before, so you're misleading people by phrasing it that way. Second, some Christian billboards are intolerant while others are not. Depends on who they're targeting, how, if anything is being ridiculed or criticized, etc. I have no problem with "I'm an atheist and that's OK" types of billboards. Unfortunately, these usually come from organizations who also put up offensive, antagonistic billboards. The one in question is just trying to tell people how not to celebrate the holiday, and that's what Glenn Beck was pointing out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
More shit from the American Anti-Theists Pretending To Represent Atheists. What an embarrassment they are, seriously.
"You know it's a myth... and you have a choice".
WE don't even know it's a myth, how tha fuck do you figure they do? And of course they have a choice, Capt. Obvious. Way to spend your thousands of dollars, educating the public!
"We're not trying to convert anybody."
Why of course you're not...
"(What we're trying to do is) raise awareness to the atheists in the Hasidic communities, that the movement exists, that we know they're here."
I'm sorry, I've misplaced my incoherent drivel dictionary, uhh...
"We have respect for people. We do not have to have respect for beliefs."
Now where have I heard that before... Oh yeah! Christian fundamentalists! "Hate the sin, not the sinner", I got ya, I got ya. That's some impressive logic you got there, Dave.
Well hopefully very few people will believe that your organization actually represents atheists in general. Hopefully most will see through it. You are a merchant of intolerance, and you have my pity. Good day friend.
1
-
mikewalker678 "Yeah, we also don't know if fucking goblins are real or not, because we need to treat all myths as if the likelihood of truth is 50/50. That makes sense."
Well that's not what I suggested, now is it? But a little honesty couldn't hurt.
"Also, let me explain what they mean by not converting anyone. Obviously, no one is going to radically alter their own belief system by reading a sign. However, a sign that reminds them that they're not alone in thinking Judaism is a myth MAY convince them to come out of the closet."
Or, it may make them all the more hesitant to do so, seeing as how now upon coming out as an atheist they're likely to be considered an anti-theist! If we want the negative stereotypes of us all being condescending assholes, it would really help if those organizations that claim to represent us... you know, not be that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree with almost everything you said, except I don't think Final Fantasy peaked at 7. If I were to be super strict about things, I'd say it peaked at 6. But then I also enjoyed FF8, FF9, and FF12 a lot more than 7. I would reword this, "Final Fantasy decided that once they switched to the PS2, their games would suck... and FF12 was only good by accident."
I also think the Assassin's Creed series got better and better with time (with Unity and Rogue being possible exceptions, as I haven't played them yet). Only changed little things? No no no, they changed very big and appreciable things having to do with the gameplay itself and, for the most part, the changes were improvements. Black Flag is easily one of my top 5 games of all time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
cruelsuit1 "An afterlife would necessarily have to be a supernatural phenomenon, while life arising from natural events is necessarily natural. There would be no natural continuum, no cause and effect to link the two. Why you make a connection between those two concepts is beyond me."
For the third time now, I personally DON'T believe in an afterlife. All I said was that you don't have to reject a belief in an afterlife, to be an atheist.
"If someone defines 'God' in a provably illogical or self-contradictory way then you can say definitively, without qualification, and positively, that the God described is a delusion - - that it DOES NOT exist."
No interpretation of a god is necessarily the same as the entity, if one should exist. And if Dawkins meant to refer to a specific religion's God (or better still a specific interpretation OF that god), he should've (and I think a man as intelligent as he WOULD'VE) specified.
"That is precisely what the Problem of Evil allows atheists to do. It is an absolute logical refutation of the existence of an infinitely good God depending on the existence of evil for His existence."
Which god depends on the existence of evil for his/her/its own existence? As for evil being in the world, I used to reason that it was proof against an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-caring deity as well. But only for a time. Sooner or later, I realized that caring for someone does not necessarily mean you give them everything they want, all the time. It could all be possible. Nothing's been disproven just yet.
"The fact that you don't know this proves that you are too ignorant to claim the intellectual position of atheism."
LOL! Atheism is not an "intellectual position", my friend. Indeed, many would say we are atheistic at birth! Your problem is that you keep trying to tie in things you personally believe in or against with simply being an atheist, and it doesn't work that way, sorry. That is the whole point of this conversation, and you keep missing it.
1
-
cruelsuit1 "Gotcha! You just proved you are not an atheist. You are a believer." Umm, no. Yet again, I am an atheist. And if I were a Christian, I wouldn't say otherwise because (if memory serves) the Christian bible tells you that will keep you away from heaven/God. What my argument DOES prove is just as it says: evil and suffering being in this world does not necessarily disprove the existence of a god that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving, because love does not necessarily require taking away all suffering. This is especially rational to think, when you consider the purported reward - an eternity of nothing but sheer bliss!
"You just said that giving someone everything they want is the moral equivalent of allowing them to be raped and murdered."
Eh? No. No, I did not say that...
"A parent giving their children too many ice cream sundaes is not analogous to a parent standing by while one child stabs the other to death."
Considering the purported reward, who's to say? I mean, can we even FATHOM eternity to begin with? No. So we cannot say... well, ANY amount of finite suffering would not be worth an eternity of pleasure without pain or even sadness.
Thank you for turning civil semi-civil with me, BTW.
1
-
1
-
cruelsuit1 "If people are telling children that they are going to hell if they don't believe in a God which the child feels strongly is an absurd notion,( which was my precise situation as a child,) then they are engaging in an assault on an innocent brain."
Then that would give us reason to say "There is no hell" at best, because hell is in and of itself a hurtful notion. I think this is why Christians have taken a second look (assuming the denial of a Hell in the bible hasn't always been going) at the Christian bible to argue that there actually is no such place as a hell. I read some of the argument, and it's actually pretty convincing (that the bible doesn't really give mention to eternal torment).
"To terrorize anyone with threats of damnation, images of eternal torture, or even eternal separation from all goodness, telling them that to not conform to a particular belief makes them an evil and incorrect person is itself an evil act."
It is certainly a call for religion to EVOLVE, as I think we'd both agree it has been doing (however slowly). Even Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens have said they don't think religion is going anywhere, so the best we can hope for is the pruning away of hurtful notions such as hell. I was surprised to hear Cardinal George Pell (in his debate with Dawkins) say that he thought it possible for an atheist to go to heaven. I don't recall that ever being said by a religious authority figure before.
"The fact that you can't see that as wrong is further proof that you don't have the mentality of an atheist."
On the contrary, I am a skeptic (another characteristic said to necessarily come with atheism). And SINCE my skepticism is a trait, not an excuse for bias, I don't believe saying "There is no god" or "There is no afterlife" is the only or most effective way of annihilating this fear of Hell (which you do have a good point about). I think we have many tools at our disposal, we've just taken a liking to certain ones - ones that will never work.
On the rest of it, I'm not aware of any bible verse that says the Christian god is infinitely good, to suggest he only has the capacity to do things we define as "good". I know we've jumped to "good" from "love", but that doesn't change the fact that our terms are undefined. I think it says God is perfect, but not "morally perfect" which I take it you mean as another term for "good". All in all, that we still cannot fathom eternity nor eternal bliss puts a limit on how well we can address the issue. Since no one can speak on an afterlife (whether we believe in one or not), it makes it impossible to determine how much all our suffering "on this earth" would matter. It's for this reason I think both the religious and the nonreligious find a use for belief in an afterlife in the first place. To put it all in secular terms, "What does it matter that I suffer slowly for 80 years or suffer greatly for hours, if I have eternal ecstasy to look forward to?"
Of course, those of us who do not believe in an afterlife can counter "Since you probably DON'T have an afterlife to look forward to, we should all focus on making and enjoying this life BETTER." And people can decide on their own values from there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** "You don't HAVE TO give them money but it is as good of a cause as any other cause, it helps people who are atheists in communities where everyone is a Christian to know that they are not alone."
This is quite the insult to atheists' intelligence, to figure any considerable portion of them don't know "they're not alone". I grew up in a small, Southern, highly religious town and my mom was also highly religious. Even I knew I wasn't the only atheist around!
And no, I don't consider giving money to fund anti-theism a good idea, no matter how many times the anti-theists claim to represent atheists/agnostics in general.
"You may not agree with that and you may not want to spend money on that and here is the kicker, YOU DON'T HAVE TO but whining about it?"
No one ever implied people have to give them money. And criticizing is not necessarily the same as whining. Just ask any anti-theist who likes to criticize religion.
"Why not whine about something worthwhile like tithes being used to promote political parties and still keeping their tax exempt status, tithes being used for conversions, sometimes forceful and the defeat of witchcraft by using torture in Nigeria..."
Do I really have to choose between one stupid thing and another? Why can't I just be against stupidity? Why can't I just say, "How bout we all stop antagonizing people because we don't like their answer to the god question"?
"Why not fucking whine about somehting that actually hurts people instead?"
I would argue that religious intolerance is very harmful indeed. And before you try and claim they're not about that, what does the slogan "Imagine no religion" mean to you?
"The condescending attitude is clear in the video "people who are intelligent believe in god"... damn those atheists for being so condescending..."
Obviously, it goes both ways (and I did say the Christian was wrong for his behavior). You don't wrestle yourself free from accountability by pointing at someone else and saying, "Yeah but so-and-so did such-and-such!" People should be held responsible for their bad behavior, whether they're a theist or an atheist.
1
-
***** "Wow, you're a special kind of stupid, aren't you."
Grow up :)
"So victimized by atheists only because they do not believe as you do."
This makes no sense. And I am an atheist. I'm saying antagonizing others for the way they answer the god question, which the organization you are defending here most certainly does, is inexcusable. It makes no difference who's doing it, are you kidding me? Different rules for atheists than theists? No, thank you. Take that bias bullshit somewhere else.
"The thing that amuses me more is that you don't understand the extreme irony of your post."
Probably because there isn't any.
"Riddle me this, if an atheist politician said that he was a Christian, would his dishonesty result in more or less votes?"
This is entirely irrelevant, except that I can tell you want me to reassure you: Yes, when I suggest people not be antagonized for their religious beliefs, I am also suggesting they not be treated any differently for them either. Now, do you have any other red herrings you would like me to fry?
"There you have your answer, atheists are literally shut out from the democratic system, i can't think of something that is more telling than that."
Telling of what exactly? Regardless of the rationalizing, people shouldn't be dickheads to each other because they have a personal problem with religion or the lack thereof. It's actually quite simple.
1
-
djayjp "Regarding the delusion claim--
"Faith": to hold something to be true despite no, or contrary, evidence.
"Delusion": to hold something to be true despite no, or contrary, evidence.
So you can see that belief in a god is a form of delusion and also fully unjustifiable, as is the case with faith, always."
So... belief that this is not all a dream, or that there are minds other than my own, is not justified?
Obviously, those who would prefer to use the term "delusion" are relying on its negative connotation. You bring up a good point, however inadvertently. The reason they call it a delusion and not just a faith is that hope to get away with the implication that it's a false belief... not just one without evidence.
1
-
djayjp "I'm saying that we should never be absolutely certain of anything, so, yes, one should consider that reality being an illusion (i.e., solipsism) is a possibility. There is, however, a big difference between considering something a possibility (e.g., with regards to the existence of a deity) and to hold it to be true (i.e., faith)."
Actually, theism and agnosticism are not at all mutually exclusive. Same goes for the beliefs that this is not all a dream and there are minds other than our own, and acknowledging this belief could be false. The atheism/theism distinction is a matter of faith, whereas the agnosticism/gnosticism distinction is a matter of claimed certainty.
"Such is why I advocate being a weak atheist-- that, according to the mountain of evidence that reality is natural and free from such supernatural entities, one ought to think that the probability of there being such an entity is proportionately small or consider its existence with a proportionate degree of doubt."
I agree that negative ("weak") atheism is the way to go, but disagree that there is any evidence at all that reality is only natural and free from supernatural deities.
"As to your last paragraph-- I wouldn't claim that. What is technically accurate about such is that holding a delusion is unjustifiable and wrong,"
But not widely considered "unjustifiable and wrong" unless we happen to share the delusion, as we do with the aforementioned metaphysical claims. I call that a bias, and ironically enough, unjustified.
"not necessarily that the premise itself is not true (although one has no good/just reason to think it true). So it's a wrong belief to hold (independent of its actual truth value)."
Maybe you are trying to say instead that it's a belief held for the wrong reasons. I find that without support too, though. I mean, what reasons do we have to believe this is not a dream, or there are other minds? The usefulness of such beliefs is all I can think of, and I'm not at all convinced theism isn't useful to those who choose it.
1
-
djayjp "I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk of "metaphysical delusions we share" (?). I don't have any delusions."
You yourself said,
""Delusion": to hold something to be true despite no, or contrary, evidence."
Seeing as how there is no objective evidence that this is not just a dream, or that there are minds other than your own, to believe in either of these things (and if you say you don't, I will not hesitate to call you a liar) would mean believing in a delusion, as you defined it for our conversation.
"About there not being any evidence of supernaturalism, you're right of course, I should've stated that there isn't any good evidence! By that I mean evidence which is objective, controlled, verified/replicated (i.e., the scientific method). None such exists afaik."
Agreed. There is no evidence either way - of a god's existence or absence.
"Holding delusions and promoting ignorance-irrationality is never a good thing,"
Why are you throwing "ignorance-irrationality" in? That's not a necessary part of theism...
"ultimately, whether it's theism or anything else. It can only ever be maladaptive as truth/reality is the moral basis for goodness."
Well this is just incoherent. There is no truth/reality that we know of to give us a foundation of morality. The idea that we as a species should thrive, is subjective. It's not based on "truth/reality" but a value judgment 100% opinion through and through.
"How are theism and agnosticism not mutually exclusive? Theism means considering it is true that there is a god. If not, then that's agnosticism (different properties)."
Theism means believing it's true, yes. But it does not mean denying (either to yourself or others) that you could be wrong. It's very common knowledge that atheism/theism and agnosticism/gnosticism are two different distinctions.
ME: "the agnosticism/gnosticism distinction is a matter of claimed certainty."
YOU: "I don't follow."
The agnostic, be they a theist or atheist, will admit they are not certain. They will admit they do not know if there is a god or not.
The gnostic, be they a theist or atheist, will insist that they do know whether or not a god exists.
"Ah, but such beliefs (that solipsism isn't true) grant one functional utility in how one is able to operate in reality (whether "reality" is real or not), unlike the epistemic foolishness of faith (which holds whether reality is real or not, whether there is a god or not), which only provides good (temporary) feelings, not truth about "reality" or the best means to learn, or reach truth, period."
They are both faiths, by the definitions you yourself gave. And the belief that this is not just a dream doesn't provide us with any truth about "reality" either! It is itself a means to good feelings (namely that we have a good understanding of what we're experiencing), no more or less than theism. And again, I just plain reject the implication that theism/religion cannot serve a good purpose, at least for individuals in their personal lives.
"One is intrinsically good, the other is just a matter of feeling. "Religion[/faith] is the opiate of the people. See now? ;)"
I see, alright. I see you making claims but not giving any substantiation for them.
1
-
1
-
Alexia Richardson How did you arrive at the conclusion that I'm "crazy", exactly? Anyway...
"Untill any evidence is presented it is true to say something dosent exist,"
Incoherent. But if you are claiming something doesn't exist, you put yourself in the position of taking up your very own burden of proof, you do realize that. Further, as I have pointed out time and again here, there are beliefs widely accepted as rational that require no evidence. They are called "necessary assumptions" in philosophy, such as the belief that this is not all a dream, or that there are minds other than your own. You cannot provide objective evidence for these beliefs, yet they are perfectly rational to believe.
"Can you truly say the earth is round? you havent seen it for your self from space and it could be a illusion see how stupid you sound?"
What I'm seeing here is you making statements, then calling them stupid.
1
-
1
-
Alexia Richardson "evil things happened in the name of religion."
All this means is that some religious people did evil things, and said it's what god wanted (because it would make no sense to think, "This is what should be done, but god doesn't necessarily agree").
And again, this is a far cry from proving religion was any sort of causal factor, much less a significant one or the only one.
"God is man made this is not a fallacy. This is a fact."
But what is committing the genetic fallacy is saying that because we can point to the origins of a belief (which you haven't actually done, BTW) we know that belief to be true/false. It doesn't work that way. I'm afraid you are still without an argument to show that there is no god.
"Basis my cat dosent know of god or tries to spread the word. But my mother is."
Also fairly incoherent, but assuming I understand you correctly, this isn't evidence of a god's absence either.
"The boogyman dosent exist neither does the easter bunny santa clause the tooth fairy."
Personally, I agree. But again theism is somewhat different, given the multitudes of people who have claimed and still do claim to have experienced "god". I don't believe in such a being, but I cannot comment on their experiences. Luckily, when it comes to these other analogies, there are practically no experiences to comment on in the first place!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Who is "we"? Atheists? I don't think that's necessarily true, if you mean to say that atheists base their beliefs firmly on evidence. Never minding any atheist who may believe in an afterlife, they may instead believe in karma, destiny (e.g., true love or a "calling"), magic, ghosts, etc. And then there are metaphysical claims we take on faith everyday, such as the belief in minds other than our own or that we're not all minds in 'The Matrix'. There's no objective evidence for any of this, but we'd be considered irrational not to believe in them. To answer your question more directly, there doesn't have to be evidence for an afterlife, to justify simply believing in it. Maybe to justify insisting on one, but not just believing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Green "I personally speak out against this when it gets to a point of theists telling me that without god my life is meaningless. Not only is it unreasonable to me, it's downright insulting. And its scary when I think of how many people could be gullible enough to let that be reason enough to be drawn into a religion."
I agree with this. I don't think anyone should be antagonizing/criticizing people on the basis of or pressuring others to change their answer to the god question. This goes for theists and atheists alike.
"Furthermore, this whole "life is meaninless without god" assertion is a little backwards". Not yours, mind you, the assertion I've heard from theists in general.
I mean, their precious bible tells them they can go out and kill, rape, or steal, etc as long as they repent and give their lives to JC for a free pass into heaven."
I don't think it's natural life they're saying is meaningful per se, but existence itself. But of course it would still be a fail, because all value judgments are by definition subjective. Even omniscience would be irrelevant, so long as god is deciding "life" or existence is meaningful. And if he's not the one deciding it, well that proves we don't need god for that.
Where belief in an afterlife can help in establishing a lasting "value" of natural life, though, is simply in the fact that if we all just cease to exist, it will not matter (not even to us) what we did or didn't do while alive. We won't be proud or ashamed, regretful or happy about how we lived, because we won't be anything. Still, belief in an afterlife is not exclusive to theists, and it makes no difference to humankind while we are living either way.
"I think the billboards are there for people who don't give things like thay a whole lot of thought."
I'm familiar with these organizations; they have an agenda. They're not atheists so much as they are anti-theists. "Enjoy life" is meant to facilitate the stereotype that theists spend their time worrying about the afterlife and not enjoying this one. They depend on miseducation such as this, to get more and more powerful with every dollar donated to their cause. In a way, these people are more religious than most of the religious people I've spoken with.
I agree with minimizing (if not getting rid of) the labels "good" and "evil". And of course agree that being obedient to "god" is not the only way (sometimes it's no way) to be "good".
"The way I see it, if God is all-knowing, knows everything his creations are going to do before we do it, then he is ultimately responsible for everything that happens to us."
That's my interpretation of it, and it's one reason why I take a firm stand against the doctrine of hell. Christian Universalists can claim to follow a god that loves everybody. I don't see how orthodox Christians who believe that any number of us will be thrown into hell for guessing incorrectly on the god question, can logically claim this same god "loves" us.
1
-
Green ""If we all cease to exist, it wont matter what we did or didn't do when we were alive." That's not a word for word quote, I know but I have to work in a few minutes.
But, bcome again?
Are you talking about ceasing to exist all at the same time, as a species, or just when we die?"
When we die, if we completely cease to exist, it won't matter to us how we lived our lives. The advice "There is no afterlife. Enjoy your life now!" only has so much value. That's partly because we don't know the first statement to be true, and partly because if you're really so concerned that others might "waste" their life, who are you really looking out for? Because no one's going to regret a single "wasted" minute of their lives... if they completely stop existing. We can logically deduce that the FFRF is really just trying to take a stab at religion here; they're not really thinking about the shame it might be to not "enjoy your life".
"I think it does matter. Life is finite, and it is precisely because of our mortality that we endeavor to leave something meaningful behind, be it a child, a word of advice, an important lesson etc."
In terms of that, yes (and religious people are every bit as motivated to procreate and teach). I'm talking about all of this "Enjoy your life now!" nonsense, in the context of anti-theism. Not only does it perpetuate the stereotype that religious people are somehow less likely to already be enjoying their lives; but if there is no afterlife, not a one of us is going to regret not enjoying our lives. Not a one of us will remember enjoying/"wasting" it, so what difference does it make? In truth, it's only if there is an afterlife, that we'll even have a memory of how we spent this one.
"The world is unfair at its core, but if we work together I believe we can make it a better place to live."
A good sentiment. I think we all feel that way, but have different opinions on what needs to be done to make it "better". I'd personally say not antagonizing people (which IMO includes implying negative stereotypes) for beliefs/behaviors that don't do any harm in and of themselves, is not making the world better; it's making it worse.
"Tthink of it like this: if not for fellow atheist youtubers or great philosophers, etc some of whom are probably dead right now, would you still have the resolve to stand your ground against ridicule here?"
Philosophers generally are held in high regard precisely because the things they say ring true for people on a large scale. They don't have to alienate or attack anyone, or anyone's beliefs. They give their opinion and/or insight that hasn't been given before, and when they're right, they get recognition for it.
Without most of the atheist YouTubers and organizations like the FFRF and 'American Atheists', I'd be every bit as comfortable saying I'm an atheist in public. Perhaps more, because all these people really do is perpetuate stereotypes against atheists that we're all obnoxious, intolerant assholes wanting to change people. And yes, this is a stereotype of religious people as well. In general, all that needs to go. I'd hate to be a teenager "coming out" as an atheist today. People just hear the word "atheist" and think of those billboards attacking religion. And why wouldn't they? "American Atheists" sounds very representative of American atheists, yes?
No. No. A thousand times no.
1
-
1
-
Green ME: "our natural lives would have more lasting meaning if there were an afterlife"
YOU: "I don't follow."
How is that possible. If we continue to exist after we die, we will go on remembering this life and therefore will appreciate/regret the way we lived it. If we cease to exist, there will be no meaning to any of it after we've all died. It simply will not matter in the future, how any of us lived our lives.
"And frankly, it sounds nice at first glance, but have you ever really thought about what it would be like?
For starters if God is anything like Christianity describes him, I don't think I'd want to get in on his terms."
Oh, absolutely. If I were to imagine a heaven for myself, it'd be quite different. It'd be nighttime and raining a lot more often. I'd prefer the streets to be silver, not gold. And I'd have to remain a sexual being. Or at very least still be able to play my video games or I'm not interested :P
"How amny times you you heard this: "Oh well im sorry you to hear about your loss, but he/she is loooking watching over you from heaven." Yeeaah sounds like it might be cool for a while, but what if I end up having to watch over future generations full of people I don't even know?"
Eh? I've never heard it said that people have to watch over others on Earth after they die.
""Oh, but there's no sinning in heaven." Oh, wonderful. That means there's no freewill there either. Just what I need."
I've actually never heard it said that there will be no sinning in heaven. But there is a precedent (within the story) of just the opposite: the devil himself was an angel who chose to sin.
"You get to be born all over again and start life anew." And...ytf would I want to do that? Have you ever wondered how many times your life has turned out exactly like this? And how many times you are fated to relive it again and again with no say in the matter? I mean, people don't seem to realize what they're talking about: an endless cycle of life and death, probably with no escape. Why would I want something like that?"
I never figured they meant we would literally die and be reborn. But Idk.
1
-
Green ME: "if we cease to exist, there will be no meaning to any of it after we've all died." YOU: "Well, you're half-right. It won't mean anything to us since our brains will stop functioning. But I think its not just about any one of us, but all of us as a species."
And it won't matter to any of us as a species once the entire species has died out. Unless there is an afterlife.
"Not to point fingers but if you feel like your life will lose all meaning to it, it's probably because you're worried about yourself more than anyone else."
Well the billboard is directed at the individual. The one they're telling to "enjoy their life". They're the ones either in denial or simply lying, because they come off as if a person might regret not "enjoying their life" (which evidently requires being an atheist) after they're dead. Yet, their very assertion that there's no afterlife means that they won't. It means none of us will be happy or sad about the way we lived our lives, because we won't be anything at all.
"Invest your time in making a difference in someone else's life and maybe inspire them to do the same, and your life will still have meaning to those who remember you, to pass along whatever you had to offer this world.
Is that not worthwhile?"
Of course it is (meaning we all assign value to this), but only for a while! It won't matter after the last human being has died from heat death or whatever may come before to wipe us off the face of the Earth. That's all I'm saying. If there's an afterlife, the importance of living our lives to the fullest and teaching others will carry on into eternity. If there is no afterlife, the importance will die right along with us.
1
-
Green "Evidently requires being an Atheist? What does Atheism have to to with enjoying ones life?"
I was commenting on the insinuations of the billboard, telling people to "Enjoy life now: There is no afterlife".
"Atheism is the lack of belief in deities, usually due to a lack of evidence. Notice the assertion, "There is no afterlife". Its not "There will never be an afterlife", that'd be foolish, and then they really would be in denial.
It's present tense, you see?"
I find it highly unlikely that all they meant was "There's no afterlife at the moment".
"The only reason they say that is because for the time being there is no evidence for an afterlife, and as long as that is the case there no sense in spending ones whole life wishing upon a star."
What does this even mean? It takes just as much time and effort believing in an afterlife as it does not to. They're not "spending" anything just to believe in an afterlife. I mean, really, what are you assuming here?
"If there is no afterlife our brains will be incapable of regretting anything because they'll just shut off.
Im sure the people who put up the billboard would explain that to you if you asked them."
I'm the one who said that first... And if they would be willing to concede that point, then it's just as I said; their advice has very little value.
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** "I used to be a christian because i was brainwashed to belive it in my childhood, like most christians. Belive me, if you were born in, let´s say India and raised as a hindu, it´s very unlikely that you become a christian one day."
Aside from maybe the "brainwashing" part (don't know how you mean that), I agree.
"All theists no matter what they belive or in wich god, will tell you about this or that event that made them become what ever they call themselves, so don´t expect me to be impressed about some more so called "personal experiance.""
I wasn't asking you to be impressed (I myself continue to reject every religion despite my knowing this). I was pointing out that this is, from their perspective, why they believe. It's because they feel that what's been claimed (about this "god") has been shown to them to be true.
"What i meant when i said that knowledge made me become an atheist, i spoke about reading the bible and realising what a nonesense is written in it, with all this stupid and childish fairys, with all this sacrifises and slavery and massmurder.
I was talking about lerning about were the storys from the bible came from. (it´s older gods like Horus, Chrishna or Mythras)
It´s lerning about that nearly all storys of the bible has never realy happened, like angels slaughtering all the firstborn children in egypt, or even the census that brought Maria and Joseph to bethlehem has never realy taken place."
See, none of this would drive someone who has had the aforementioned experience to atheism. At most, it would drive them away from all religion; and at least, it would drive them away from the belief in biblical inerrancy, literalism, etc.
"And i would say that not only evolution does destroy christianity, because: No Adam and Eve, no original sin, no need for a saviour and just like that christianity fall apart."
As I understand it, there's plenty of logic with which a person could conclude we have "original sin" as human beings. I mean, I don't think it's productive to word it that way, but we all have those inclinations to do wrong, c'mon.
"It´s the suffering in the world that show very easy that there is no loving god."
Eh. Not so sure about that. I mean, does a newborn baby's suffering show there is no loving parent? Better yet, does the conception of the baby, under knowledge he/she will inevitably suffer, mean the parent doesn't love him/her?
"The fact that not a single supernatural effect has been demonstrated to exist in all mankind is evidence that there is nothing supernatural."
I've never agreed with that form of reasoning - that the seeming lack of evidence = evidence of absence. I think it's just personal reason not to believe, and that's that.
"Thinking about this theme made me become an atheist, now tell me what made you think that this or that god is real?
And if you think that the christian god is real, then wich of the over 39.000 different denominations, and how the fuck do you know that?"
I'm not a theist of any kind. But I chalk both my past theism and present atheism up to taste, for which, as they say, there is no accounting. I don't believe in a god because I don't find it enjoyable/beneficial to me personally. If others do, more power to 'em.
1
-
***** "I meant that no child would ever give credit to a story from a god who fucked his own mother to give birth to himself,"
Well that's a wild deviation from the actual story!
"to be able to sacrifise himself, to himself, for himself, because a women made out of rips was told by a snake to eat a magic apple, no way, not when not been brainwashed to belive this for years."
And yet, adults come to believe this on their own, in going from being atheists to being Christians for the first time... At any rate, a lack of credibility doesn't mean those who believe it have been brainwashed.
ME: "It's because they feel that what's been claimed (about this "god") has been shown to them to be true."
YOU: "Yeah and sometimes i feel myself invulnerable and as i would be the most important person on the world, feelings does not make things true."
No one's suggesting that, either. But if you truly feel invulnerable without the use of some kind of drug, I'd seek help for that.
"How can you accept and understand evolution and still talk about childish fairytales like original sin?"
Because it depends on how you're defining "original sin". Like I said, to my understanding, it's basically just the idea that we have the inclination to do wrong in our very nature as human beings. How could one deny that?
"Not sure that a loving god would not help billions of starving children instead of giving them aids and ebola?"
Not sure that not preventing temporary suffering = no love.
ME: "I mean, does a newborn baby's suffering
show there is no loving parent?"
YOU: "Sry, but what a stupid argument."
How so?
"We are not talking about parents here, we talk about an allmighty being that knows stuff before they happen and who has the power to prevent bad things from happening."
Then the analogy fits. Parents know that their children will suffer before they have them, and they have all the power they need to prevent it, by simply not having them. But they instead choose to bring another suffering person into the world, solely because they just plain wanted a baby. The only difference is in what the parent can promise (nothing) vs. what the Christian god allegedly promises. Now, there is no defending the hell doctrine, that's just a fact. But Christian Universalists believe that everyone goes to heaven, and there would be no logic in emphasizing a temporary suffering (even something as dramatic as murder and rape) over eternal happiness.
"Oh realy, so you would not agree that the fact that nobody has ever demonstrated that fairys for example exist, is not very good evidence that they don´t? Realy?"
I would not agree that the absence of that evidence = evidence of absence, no. Just that it's personal reason for people to reject it until something compels them to believe. And it's spelled "really"...
"So you would realy say that they might exist somewhere and we only failed to find any trace of them? Ok, your opinion, but i think that´s realy nonesense."
It's not nonsense; it's just admitting what is known, and what is not known.
"That realy makes no sense. We belive in stuff because of the evidence that we think support it."
Oh? So what is the evidence that all of this isn't just a dream, or that you're not merely a mind in 'The Matrix'? You don't have any! But it's considered perfectly rational to take that on faith. Why? Perception of benefit. Helps us move on with out lives to not question it. Thassit.
"Otherwise i would not belive that cancer exist because i don´t think that cancer is realy enjoyable."
Ah, but you do believe you can trust your senses. And that gives you comfort. BTW, lots of people go through phases of denial when given bad news, ironically.
"Realy? More power to crazy theists?"
When did you establish that they are crazy?
"To people that are willing to kill people for no other reason then what stupid morons wrote in some books long time ago? Why?"
Are you actually equating those people with modern-day Christians in general? Yes "more power to" (which does not mean what you seem to think it means) people who find comfort in apparently harmless beliefs such as "There is a god and he loves us". Why should I oppose that? Just because you have a problem with it?
1
-
***** ME: "Well that's a wild deviation from the actual story!"
YOU: "Realy? Why?"
Because you said god "fucked" Mary? C'mon now, you must be trolling.
ME: "And yet, adults come to believe this on their own, in going from being atheists to being Christians for the first time... At any rate, a lack of credibility doesn't mean those who believe it have been brainwashed."
YOU: "Nah, i think that most so called "christians" have not even read the bible or do not think much about details that are crazy or childish."
This has nothing to do with what I said. But basically, what I'm telling you is that a lot of Christians based their belief in the Christian god on alleged experiences they have had in their lives. It isn't the case that they read the bible, and say "You know what? What the hey, I'll believe in god now!" And a lot of them do not believe in biblical inerrancy/literalism either. You're misrepresenting the whole thing.
"Can you give an example for this idea you have? What has the fact that people do wrong to do with sin. Googel the world sin in a dictionary and compare if it´s realy what you mean by that."
Because sin is wrongdoing, when it comes right down to it. I know that it's not called that outside of religion, but that wasn't the point. The point was that there are reasons, once you've adopted the faith that there is such a thing as "sin", to believe that it's innate in the human being.
ME: "Not sure that not preventing temporary suffering = no love."
YOU: "Realy? If your child would suffer and you had the power to end this suffer, would you end it?"
I said preventing, and no, no parent has consistently chosen to prevent their kid's suffering to the best of their ability. Because, as I explained to you already, merely having a child = not preventing their suffering when you have all the means to do so.
And that is, again, in addition to the fact that we cannot promise that the good will outweigh the bad. I very well might not! But we don't care; we want a baby and so we have them. The god of Christian Universalism on the other hand? Can promise the good will outweigh the bad, as eternal happiness in heaven > any temporary suffering.
"Sry but are you serious. Parents bring babys into this world because they want them to have the best live they can."
And we're not saying that about the Christian Universalist's god because...?
"They do all they can to prevent them from harm."
Nonsense. If they did, they simply wouldn't have the child in the first place.
"They invest all the money they can, and if the only way to save the child from harm, would be to die, then most parents would not hesitate a second and give there own live to protect their children."
Commendable. But we've already turned down the most efficient way of ensuring they are never harmed.
"And please can you stop to compare this with a god who is watching children get raped, murdered and starving to death by the billions?
Please?!"
I already did. You ignored my argument. There is no logic in emphasizing a temporary suffering (including murder, rape, and starvation) over eternal happiness. Just as there is no logic in emphasizing a baby's teething or some such over the bigger picture of the child's life thereafter.
"No, most parents can promise a good live to their children"
Are you being serious? No, parents cannot promise that. They can plan it, but things could go wrong any number of ways. Parents consider it worth the risk, so long as they have the baby they wanted.
"your god let most of the humans get born, well knowing that most of them will go to hell.
That´s sadistic and evil."
First, I'm pretty sure I've told you this already, but I'm not a Christian. And second, I know I already told you I'm opposed to the hell doctrine (you even quoted me saying it!)
"That´s not correct. Christians belive that everyone who belives in Jesus will go to heaven."
Yes, what I said is correct. Christian Universalists believe everyone goes to heaven; look it up.
ME: "I would not agree that the absence of that evidence = evidence of absence, no. Just that it's personal reason for people to reject it
until something compels them to believe. And it's spelled "really"..."
YOU: "So should we belive that fairys exist? What about giant flying assholes with wings?"
I never said a person should have any kind of faith, only that we shouldn't make bold claims that things don't exist when we do not know. As I said before, it's not probable that there is a god, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one. And like it or not, yes, it's the same for anything. At least until we've observed the entire universe.
"In what a world do you live? In the world that i live in, things that can not be demonstrated that they exist, does not exist, untill anybody can proof that they do."
That's logically incorrect. Things that cannot be demonstrated to exist, may or may not exist.
"That´s not how reality works my friend. The person who makes the claim that something exist, has to proof it, otherwise it would be nonsensicall to give credit to it."
It's equally nonsensical for one to claim that something doesn't exist, when they do not know. You are showing a blatant bias in favor of your side here. *All* claims should be supportable, or not made (keeping in mind of course that an expressed faith is not necessarily an assertion).
ME: "So what is the evidence that all of this isn't just a dream, or that you're not merely a mind in 'The Matrix'? You don't have any!"
YOU: "Sure this all could somehow not be real, but we can only use the tools we have to figure out what is true and not. And science give us this tools."
It cannot help us either, actually, because we have to assume the reality of what we perceive before science even comes into the picture.
ME: "But it's considered perfectly rational to take that on faith."
YOU: "I give a fuck about faith, i only care about evidence and what you can test, observe and measure."
Nonsense. Or are you going to deny that you believe this is all real?
ME: "When did you establish that they are crazy?"
YOU: "People that belive in talking snakes and talking burning bushes, in flying angels and demons and virginbirth and prayer, can not be called normal or rational in a world were nothing of this has ever been proven to exist or work."
So you're switching that "crazy" to "abnormal" then. Fair enough. But of course there is nothing wrong with being abnormal...
ME: "...people who find comfort in apparently harmless beliefs such as "There is a god and he loves us". Why should I oppose that?
Just because you have a problem with it?"
YOU: "No, just because it´s not true."
But you want me to just believe you are correct on this, yes?
"How i hate this nonesense like "may god bless america" and all this shit."
Whether you hate it or not has nothing to do with whether it's real or not.
"That people belive in a loving god is ok, as long they keep this privat."
I see. Kind of like "Don't ask, don't tell" with gays in the military...
"But they go into the world and force their belive over others."
There's a word that's misused quite often: force. But assuming I know what you mean, yes, some Christians do that. But many of them don't.
"What is this loving god doing in your point of view?"
I don't believe in a god of any kind.
1
-
***** No. It is a dishonest tactic to say that Christians believe that god had sexual intercourse with Mary.
And no, it isn't cherry-picking when the things they believe in aren't believed in on the basis of their presence in the bible. Cherry-picking would be if they believed one thing from the bible because it was in the bible, but rejected other things just because they didn't care for it. When/if claims are put to any sort of test, you can't say that the results of that test are the results of cherry-picking.
As an atheist, I don't have to be told it might just be the case that there's no god. However, this is true even of many Christians, because theism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.
"it´s just very simple logic. If you have the power and the knowledge to stop really evil things from happening, and you don´t do anything, then you are as evil as the person that commit the crime."
"stop", or "prevent"? Just curious. Because we haven't seen what will or will not be stopped by this alleged god. All we know for sure is that it wasn't prevented. But then, parents know that any children they create will inevitably suffer, yet they make them anyway. Evidently, the standard is actually making the good outweigh the bad, and the god of Christian Universalism certainly would meet that standard.
ME: "Contrary to what you may have heard, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
YOU: "Why not?"
Because no conclusion logically follows from total ignorance.
"If i claim to own a hundred billion dollars, but it would really make absolute no sense, and i can not back it up with anything. what more evidence do you need to say that i tell you bullshit?"
I would need evidence, period. What is this "more" business?
"Can you give me a single argument why they speak about hell and all this fire, and tourture and pain in at least 127 verses in the bible? How can you ignore that? What do you say to such verses?"
Again, the predominant argument is that these are mistranslations, though it could also easily be reasoned that they were added to try and control people with fear. Or it could be a little of both.
I have no idea what your point was, about god not being able to kill himself though.
"This christian god is more evil then any human dictator, at least you can fucking die and escape this dictators on earth"
So by your logic, suffering and then eternal nothing is better than suffering and then eternal happiness?
ME: "I just finished saying I wouldn't condone it! But you're still ignoring the argument. You can't ensure that either of you will be around for an eternity in which you're "nice" to your child. Much less ensure that they'll actually be happy for an eternity. If you could, and it was guaranteed that you would, there'd be no logic in me emphasizing the temporary suffering you caused the child over the eternal happiness, just as there is no logic in emphasizing the temporary suffering parents cause their child just be having them over a lifetime of general and relative happiness."
YOU: "in my point of view you are an evil bastard if you let somebody suffer and you could do something about it, absolute nothing you will do later to this being, and may it good and nice as it wantes, does matter in this theme."
Well you are more than free to hold that point of view, but it is not grounded in any sort of logic. It's emotionally driven, at best.
YOU: "My point was that christianity is absolutly immoral and unjust."
ME: "Well you've yet to actually establish that."
YOU: "No? What about all this killing of unbehaving children, gays, witches, people who have sex before mariage, work on sabbath and so on? What about all this support of massmurder and slavery?"
Absolutely none of that is a necessary part of the religion. You are attacking what Christianity is today on the basis of what it was/is in primitive times and/or cultures. This is dishonest. But, I suppose if you were to give an accurate image of what you hate so much (religion in the here and now), you'd really be struggling to further your agenda!
If you want to learn more about the arguments of Christian Universalism, I would suggest doing a little research on it. Believe me, there isn't a single verse you can find in the bible that they haven't already dealt with.
"For the very last time, this argument suck big time, it is so enourmously stupid that i have never heard it ever before from someone other then you, and i am sick of hearing it all the time from you."
Yeah, assertion alone is not a rebuttal.
"Please why is it so hard to understand that perents don´t try to do any harm to their children,"
But they do knowingly put them in a position where they know they will be harmed. They just don't know if the good will outweigh the bad... unlike the god of Christian Universalism, once more.
"when a child die the moment it is born, how again does the good outweight the bad?"
Huh? Because, according to Universalism (which is all I am defending), that child goes directly to heaven and enjoys heaven for all eternity! How is that not a case of the good outweighing the bad?
And when are you going to get around to defending parents already? If neglecting to prevent any and all harm is really your standard? Personally, I think you're full of shit, and the only standard you're holding people to is whether or not they agree with you on the god question.
"When a person lives a live in whealh and crime, like a mafiaboss and he dies, what again is his punishment? When a girl is raped 30 years in a dungeon and dies, what exactly is the difference to a girl that is not raped and dies? Logic is a bitch, correct?!"
These are emotional arguments, not logical ones. It is grounded in what you subjectively value. You personally don't think the mafia boss should get to go to heaven. You personally don't think the girl who wasn't raped should enjoy the same sort of afterlife as the one who was. But none of this takes away from the mathematical fact that the good will have outweighed the bad for all three people. Pure equality before this eternity begins is what you fixate on, whereas the logical person would fixate on the eternity itself.
"WTF is "the god of christian universalism?"
Self-explanatory.
"What seperates this god from the god who slaughtered 42 children for calling a man "boldhead"(2.kings2,23-24)?"
For those who believe in biblical inerrancy as well as Universalism, I suppose they'd be one and the same! But again, logically, you can't emphasize any temporary suffering over eternal happiness.
"I don´t think you realy mean this. I don´t know if you play computergames, but i do, and for example final fantasy 7 or 10, i played hundreds when not thousends of hours, because it are great games,"
You are even wrong about that :P
"but when i would play it an other thousend hours it would not be fun, and if i would have to play it for 50 years it would be like prison, and if i had to play it for a billion years, it would be hell. So hard to follow this logic?"
The problem with this analogy is that you are playing one game with a limited number of possibilities, and it rests on the assumption that a person cannot be happy with ever-changing activities. But it is perfectly conceivable that a person can switch activities without going from happy to sad or even from happy to less happy.
"Please go to www.kyroot.com there are over 500 arguments why christianity is crap"
I'll do that as soon as you read through all of the Christian websites and learn why it isn't. Until then, I expect those who come into my field of vision to meet the challenge of defending anti-theism themselves.
"But you said, that you don´t belive that christianity is fake, that´s something different like saying:I don´t know if it´s fake or not."
All it means, is that I do not actively hold the belief that it is fake. There is no logical contradiction between that, and "I'm an atheist".
"So you are not sure that a workless carpenter zombie was able to walk on water and turned water into wine, and all this stuff?! Ok i get it, fine then."
Actually no, and neither are you! But that's not even dealing directly with Christianity, because even these things may or may not be taken literally by a Christian.
"Yeah you hero, because it´s logically impossibel to proof a negative."
Okay see, now if you know that, why make assertions you cannot prove?
"I can make up any shit i want and you can never say that it´s not true, because you can not proof it. Here for example:"
Oh save yourself the time and trouble, I've heard just about every goofy anti-theistic analogy. None of it can be proven false, so I just say I don't believe and leave it at that. You guys try way too hard!
"misinterpretations?! Lol, ok you hero, go give it a try and tell me about the verses i posted above how and why they are "misinterpretations? And really, can this god not comunicate in a way that everybody can understand?"
Wouldn't strictly forcing the scripture to remain exactly pure, be a violation of free will? You mock different approaches to this subject, but yours are no better. Yes, mistranslations. And I have no idea why you seem to think that's unlikely...
"Please do yourself a favor and watch the video "quizshow"..."
Oh good grief...
"as long you can not name any evidence for this matrix or massdelusssion, or dream ´stuff that you named, come back when you can back it up, or leave us alone with it."
Lol, I'm not making the assertion that it's all a dream, merely pointing out that you actively believe it isn't. And now you're having difficulty admitting that this is a belief without evidence.
"ALL Evidence worldwide support this belive. ABSOLUTE NOTHING support the idea that we would live in some kind of matrix."
What evidence do you think supports the belief that it isn't all just a dream? Because, don't you have to start with the assumption that this "evidence" is real to begin with? Because that isn't evidence, my friend.
Look, this is very elementary stuff in philosophy. They are considered necessary assumptions. "Necessary" because we have to assume the reality of what our senses tell us before we can move on to other topics. And "assumptions" because there can be no evidence.
"sry, but this discussion is really stupid."
Most solid refutation ever (sarcasm).
"I hope it´s true, but that´s because you have higher moral standards then the idiots that wrote the bible"
You do realize, of course, that a lot of Christians also are fine with homosexuality, and indeed many of them also have arguments to the effect that anti-gay sentiment in the modern-day bible is the result of mistranslation.
ME: "Yes, TRIVIAL! It's completely insignificant whether someone wants to believe in a god or not. It doesn't hurt you, it hurt doesn't hurt them, it doesn't hurt anybody. And anyone who claims otherwise is nothing but a damned liar."
YOU: "LOl, oh please go to syria or iraq, or to boko haram or somewere similar and tell them this. Then you see how much freedom many theists will grant you."
Availability heuristic. Just because examples of theists doing hurtful things are more easily accessible in your mind, does not somehow make those events common. Do you also believe that people are more likely to die in a plane crash than automobile accident?
"Billions of dollars go to the churches every year, from public money, that is really much money, only to make evil organisations like the cathlic church unreal rich."
And people should probably stop doing that! What's your point?
"Many people die every day because of what they belive or don´t."
Well, specifically, they die because someone has a problem with other people's trivial beliefs not matching their own... Sound familiar?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
D Treats "You said "I think most of us are agnostics and would never make that claim." Are you implying that atheists by definition claim to know there is no god(s)?"
No, I'm saying quite the opposite. I'm saying the 'American Atheists' do not represent most atheists because we don't claim to know there is no god. We don't, for example, spend millions of dollars putting "You know it's a myth" on billboards, and we certainly don't go around telling religious people to "dump the myth" or some such because (I believe) we're generally not intolerant of religion like this organization claiming by name to represent us.
"Secondly, you do understand gnostic deals with knowledge, correct?"
That should've been obvious.
"Why would most of "us" claim agnostic if we lack belief in god(s) and doubt/deny any possibility of a supernatural being?"
First off, if one denies the possibility of a supernatural being, they are saying it's impossible, which means they are in effect claiming to know there is no god. A person can be a positive ("strong") atheist and express the belief that there is no god, but once they refuse to admit they could be wrong, they cross the line into gnosticism and IMO are not to be taken seriously.
Second, agnosticism/gnosticism and atheism/theism are not mutually exclusive. So everyone - whether they want to be labeled in these ways or not - is technically either a theist or atheist and either a gnostic or agnostic. I'm not really saying most atheists "claim agnosticism", but I do believe most atheists are agnostics, yes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
MrPoster42 ME: "I've explained quite thoroughly the difference between 'American Atheists' and atheists in general"
YOU: "American Atheists is an advocate organization devoted to trying to make the country abide by the constitution and the separation of church and state."
Aaaand plus a whole bunch of other things, including in a way big way anti-theism. Otherwise, explain to me how the vast majority of their billboards attack religion and give no mention whatsoever to the constitution or separation of church and state.
"If you see Silverman talk you will find that he is an agnostic atheist-"
Fuck what he is; his organization (which is what I'm criticizing) has already erected billboards saying that theism is a myth (and don't be disingenuous; we already know they're depending on people taking that to mean it's false). But either way, it's more their anti-theism that I cannot stand. It's really just pointless intolerance and there's no place for it, IMO.
"In fact he often is very pleasant and respectful within the bounds of how respectful we are on beliefs that are not religious."
It doesn't matter that he's civilized while debating a single Christian one-on-one. That doesn't excuse his organization and what they're doing with these billboards.
"The "You Know It's a Myth" billboard is in reference to the Christian Christmas story commonly told and the idea that Jesus was born on December 25th."
And yet, they could specify exactly that? Nope. I don't buy it.
"You don't have to be a gnostic atheist in order to identify certain parts of religions as not true."
Well again, they're not doing that, so this is irrelevant.
"Now you can argue that American Atheists don't always act in the best of taste but in any social movement you have to have a "front-line" willing to do some over the top things to shake things up."
I... completely reject that reasoning. And don't sugar-coat it. They're not just failing to act "in the best of taste"; they're being bigoted assholes! And what pisses me off the most is that it means more Christians are coming to the opinion that atheists in general are intolerant assholes, because his organization is called "American Atheists". That's misleading to say the least, and it doesn't make things any better no matter how you spin it.
"I can't prove it doesn't exist but everything I see about the world seems to be evidence against it."
Such as?
"However that still leaves me as an agnostic atheist because I'm not going to say 100% no about any god simply because it's not possible for me to completely prove. Maybe all that "mysterious ways" stuff really is true and somehow a god that lets thousands of children starve to death every day somehow is actually still all-loving."
Are we going with an emotional argument or a logical one? Because I would think the real question is the matter of hell. Even if no one was suffering in this entire world, a god would let anyone then go to hell would surely not be "all-loving", correct? Well what if the opposite is true? Some people suffer in horrible ways before they die, but then everyone goes to heaven? Because there are Christians who believe that, and I can't think of a logical reason to emphasize temporary suffering over eternal bliss, can you?
1
-
MrPoster42 ME: "Otherwise, explain to me how the vast majority of their billboards attack religion and give no mention whatsoever to the constitution or separation of church and state."
YOU: "I already did that when talking about Malcolm X type tactics having value even if MLK tactics will be what eventually wins the day. I really couldn't have been more clear."
Are you or are you not denying that "American Atheists" is an anti-theistic organization, opposing religion itself (regardless of why)? Because that is what I'm saying it is, and I've also pinpointed the illogic behind that. There is neither a moral nor logical justification behind being, essentially, a bigot.
"Obviously they would like for people to realize the lack of evidence and stop believing based on faith."
See, this doesn't work as an excuse because we all take at least one thing on faith, if defined as a belief without evidence. Called "necessary" assumptions in philosophy, they include the belief that this is not all a dream or that we're not just minds in the Matrix. What really justifies our believing here is a perception of benefit. We don't entertain the thought that we're minds in the Matrix because we see no point, not because the evidence is on our side.
"I really don't see how you don't see the double-standard of feeling pro-theistic billboards are just fine and anti-theistic billboards are not."
It's not a double standard at all. To oppose something, you need to have good reason. Otherwise, you're just facilitating unnecessary prejudice and stirring up unnecessary conflict. I'd compare this more to anti-atheism billboards or perhaps Christian billboards that do promote harmful doctrines (like anti-homosexuality or some such).
"The point is to make people stop and think because many think the story of Jesus' birth that is so widely spread is from the bible when it's really bits and pieces but together from the two conflicting stories in the bible."
Well they're really failing, then, in "making people stop and think". All they're doing is making the rest of us (atheists) look bad. And I do know this; I've spoken with Christians who've told me (unaware that I was an atheist) that atheists are just trying to start trouble, and when I ask why they think that, they always reference organizations like AA.
"Voicing your opinion or sharing facts that are not well known is not being intolerant."
If the opinion is that people should not be a certain way, yes that's intolerance of that other group. And in this case, it's unjustified.
intolerance: "lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/intolerance
"Intolerance would be refusing to allow one or the other to put up billboards."
That would be the next logical step of intolerance. But it begins much earlier, in the mind, and comes out first in verbal form.
"This country is already in violation of the constitution in regards to the separation of church and state and for those of us that feel that is harmful we have every right to put forth our ideas. You may feel such a cause is pointless but a growing number of people do not."
You're trying to equate the fight for equality between atheists and theists (which is noble and I've said nothing against) with anti-theism here. One is not pointless at all, the other is pointless and probably doing more harm than good. You could actually garner support from some religious people if you weren't being an asshole and disrespecting their entire world view.
"The billboards need no excuse unless you want to say that no billboards related to Christmas either pro or con are allowed."
Why would a billboard be wrong just for including the word "Christmas" again? Yes, the AA's billboards need justification, because they're opposing a particular way of celebrating Christmas, for no good reason at all.
ME: "I completely reject that reasoning. And don't sugar-coat it. They're not just failing to act "in the best of taste"; they're being bigoted assholes! And what pisses me off the most is that it means more Christians are coming to the opinion that atheists in general are intolerant assholes"
YOU: "You are free to disagree but that is just your opinion and it's a free society. So just like you get to share your opinion so do the people at American Atheists."
No one is saying they should be banned or imprisoned here. But I am saying that it's foolish and wrong, because again it's leading a lot of Christians who might otherwise come to know better, to think that atheism = anti-theism. And if they draw that conclusion, we really can't complain when they start opposing our worldview. And then it's just a huge mess of mud-slinging back and forth. You may not be tired of it yet- you may never tire of it, but I've certainly had enough. It's the most ridiculous thing to fight over, but that's what the AA would have us do.
"Christians are just pissed because they are used to having special privileged and now that they are losing the pedestal and being put on equal status with everyone else they whine like spoiled brats."
I really don't think this is describing most Christians. I think most (especially the younger ones) would be fine with all of this equality, but are still justifiably offended by anti-theistic billboards.
"Sorry but you don't get to openly argue for and deny rights to certain groups and then tell others they are bigoted for standing up to you and your bigotry."
You're still equating one fight with another. Again, you don't have to be anti-theistic asshole to stand for equality.
"I'm quite sure that I don't and I doubt anyone at American Atheists cares if you feel like they are assholes for expressing their views just because they conflict with your views."
Oh I'm sure you guys don't care, which is why I find it funny that you even mention Christians who also don't. You're being hypocrites. If you can plug your ears to logical argumentation and valid criticism, they can too. But of course I'm not posting for your benefit; you're too far gone. I'm posting for anyone else who may be reading, who hasn't been sucked into this needless fight quite yet.
"Problem of evil,"
Not near as big a problem as people think. It states the following: “If god is omnipotent (all-powerful), he would be able to end all suffering (or evil, the obvious problem thereof being suffering). If god is loving or omnibenevolent (all-good), he would want to end all suffering. So why is there suffering?” I will address the implied conclusion in regards to premise 2, concerning both variations of this argument:
Variation "God cannot possibly love us"
This is proposing a definition of "love" that is neither in the dictionary nor in the bible (the proposed definition being “the inclination to prevent suffering to the best of one's ability"). Closest to come to a dictionary definition that fits is "charity", but this of course is referring to either putting an end to suffering (which we've yet to see if this "god" will do) or simply helping to ease the suffering, with no specification as to what extent of help qualifies as charity and therefore love. And indeed, this limitation on the definition of "love" is reflected in our own behavior. We can say we love our children, for example, despite introducing them to their inevitable suffering just by conceiving them (not out of necessity, but because we just plain wanted a child), which is obviously choosing not to prevent said suffering (though we know it’s inevitable and we know we have the power to prevent it). We can still say we love them, so long as we "minimize" their suffering to the best of our ability after they're born. (I put "minimize" in quotations here because we're not really reducing the amount of suffering to the lowest possible amount; we let that opportunity pass by already).
IOW, so long as god does all he can at some point to "minimize" suffering to the best of his ability (which does of course mean getting rid of it altogether), he's acting in accordance with the definition we give love in practice. We just start when our babies are born, whereas god starts after we die. And who's to say where the line in time should be drawn after which one is obligated to start "minimizing" suffering to prove their love for another?
And no, this doesn't answer the question "Why didn't god just make us all so that we'd never suffer?", nor is it to deny that it's a great question in its own right. But obviously we have no basis for the implied answer in the problem of evil argument, that the Christian god cannot possibly love us.
Variation "God is not good."
This variation of the argument is a little better, in that we at least have a dictionary definition of "good" that could help us form an argument, theoretically (this being "beneficent"). But I do think it's way too simplistic to take "good" in the context of the "Holy bible" to mean "beneficent to humans on earth while they're on earth". I've always figured it's referring to god's moral "goodness", which makes the very term subjective and therefore no objective argument can be made here (we cannot prove objectively what is morally right or wrong). This is just my opinion, of course, but I see no reason to take the alternative opinion as truth, which would be necessary in showing that this argument disproves the Christian god.
"the vast number of gods,"
Which does nothing to suggest one of them cannot be real.
"things attributed to gods repeatedly being proven just a part of nature,"
Correction: they've been proven to be a part of nature. They haven't been proven to be just a part of nature, as in not from "god".
"the gospels being written by anonymous people that never even talked to Jesus,"
This is neither evidence that Jesus didn't pass down these stories to the anonymous authors from other sources, nor that there is no god.
"the conflicts in the bible even on it's most important stories like creation, Noah's flood, Jesus' resurrection. On and on."
Which is damn good reason to reject biblical inerrancy, which a lot of Christians already do. But it doesn't suggest the god they believe in isn't real.
"No it's a logical one. If someone says Bob is the greatest dad in the world. Then you go visit Bob and you see him burning his child and explains to you that it's because the child refused to love him. Would you not say you can draw a logical conclusion that Bob is not an all-loving dad?"
Because he's putting the child through suffering that I know is significant in the grand scheme of things, yes, I'd draw that conclusion. But if you allow a young kid to catch a glimpse of a baby's father holding him down so a doctor can cut into the baby's ankle (which is often done to newborns to collect blood samples), the first kid might reasonably "logically" conclude that father doesn't love his kid either. The point is that with knowledge, your perspective is bound to change.
"If I based my beliefs on emotion I would still be a Christian. I mean who doesn't want to live forever in eternal happiness?"
Emotional arguing goes both ways. I've had plenty of atheists tell me that religion is bad because they were personally treated badly by their religious parents.
"I also don't really see why such a god would not just make everyone in heaven in the first place. Why bother with this first life that is literally less than the time of blinking an eye in relation to eternal life after if everyone has a free pass to heaven anyway?"
Questioning why is all fine and good. I'm merely responding to the challenge to reconcile the belief that "god" is loving with the existence of this temporary suffering.
"The entire idea of redemption in the bible is just insanity. God makes two people in a garden and tells them not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good & evil. For some reason God also created a talking snake who convinced them to eat the fruit. After eating the fruit they are ashamed of their nakedness and hide their delicates and are now aware of good & evil. But since they weren't before how could God have ever expected two people who have no understand of right and wrong to not be talked into eating the fruit by that snake he made."
Does it even say they knew god created the talking snake? Not sure. But in general, I think it was obedience that "god" was testing. And I won't go further because I'll admit that making sense of the whole thing is beyond my- probably anyone's capability. But then again, I haven't studied the bible at length (and don't tell me you have, I won't believe it because most anti-theists I've spoken with who've claimed this were clearly lying).
The point is, unless something is demonstrably false or demonstrably harmful in and of itself (neither of which is true of Christianity - you don't have to subscribe to harmful or confirmed-to-be false doctrine to be a Christian), then opposing it is without justification. But I can tell we're never going to agree on this, so I'll respond to you once more and then give you the last word.
1
-
MrPoster42 Alright, last reply to you, as promised.
"I'm saying they their core message is separation of church & state but that they do somethings that are fair to label as anti-theistic."
That's silly; if they're consistently doing anti-theistic "things" they are anti-theists. And I see no evidence that separation of church and state is any more their goal than getting people to not be religious in the first place.
"However it's not bigotry to attack an idea. If one person can promote a religious holiday then another person can refute the myths behind the holiday and neither person is being a bigot."
First, telling someone "You don't need Christ in Christmas" is not attacking a mere idea but a lifestyle. Second, since intolerance and bigotry are synonyms, and intolerance is any refusal to respect a difference in opinion, they most certainly are being intolerant bigots. The only question is if there is any justification for it, and there clearly isn't.
YOU: "Obviously they would like for people to realize the lack of evidence and stop believing based on faith."
ME: "See, this doesn't work as an excuse because we all take at least one thing on faith, if defined as a belief without evidence. Called "necessary" assumptions in philosophy, they include the belief that this is not all a dream or that we're not just minds in the Matrix. What really justifies our believing here is a perception of benefit. We don't entertain the thought that we're minds in the Matrix because we see no point, not because the evidence is on our side."
YOU: "This is pointless drivel. Fun for bar talk but of no other use."
Translation: You don't know how to counter it. It follows logically that, since the belief that we are not just dreaming all this is considered rational despite there being no evidence, evidence is not the be all and end all of rationality. Perception of benefit, however? Yes.
"Unless you are willing to say anything goes because you could just be a brain in jar so killing people is fine."
This is only confirming my point. The reason we don't subscribe to this point of view has nothing to do with evidence. It has everything to do with perception of benefit. There is no use, and in fact there may be harm, in thinking we are just minds in the Matrix.
"However it's reasonable to dismiss "brain in a jar" scenarios because we have to function the same way regardless. Trusting that when my senses say a chair is there and I get confirmation from others that the chair is there then it's not "faith" that leads me to conclude the chair is there."
Confirmation from others? Are you assuming the reality of things in this possible Matrix to confirm that there isn't one? Again, the brain having to "function the same way regardless" is asking "What difference does it make?" aka relying on perception of benefit and not evidence. It absolutely is faith.
"Jumping to "brain in a jar" when talking about faith and reason is just nuclear option. You are conceding you cannot win a debate of reason so you attempt to attack reason itself but you are using reason to do it."
I'm not attacking reason, I'm attacking the specific form of NON-reason that suggests we shouldn't have faith. I'm saying there is no reasoning behind it, because there isn't.
ME: "You're trying to equate the fight for equality between atheists and theists (which is noble and I've said nothing against) with anti-theism here. One is not pointless at all, the other is pointless and probably doing more harm than good. You could actually garner support from some religious people if you weren't being an asshole and disrespecting their entire world view."
YOU: "I'm equating a person promoting an idea and another person rejecting an idea."
No, that is not what you were doing. You were talking about the fight for separation of church and state, in response to my challenging anti-theism.
"Both people have equal right to voice their opinion."
Obviously...
"I don't really care if you label it as atheist or anti-theist."
Well you should, because language is very important. Atheism is merely not believing in a god, whereas anti-theism is the opposition of theism. It's exactly the misleading message that atheism = anti-theism that I despise, because it creates unnecessary tension between theists and normal, sane atheists like myself.
"It does nothing to change that it's free speech for either party."
I don't know why you keep coming back to this; I never proposed that the morons at AA lose their freedom of speech.
"I don't find anti-theism to be a problem on near the level that I find theism promoting faith as a noble thing."
You don't find antagonizing worldviews that are apparently harmless in and of themselves problematic? Are you serious?
"I really don't see how you can't understand that Christians are assholes that disrespect others entire world view all the time and so have no right to throw a hissy fit now that others are doing the same back to them."
Ah, I knew that when pressed for a justification you would turn to stereotypes. That, or appeals to the availability heuristic (e.g., "Look at the Crusades! Look at the WBC!"), that tactic is popular among anti-theists as well. I don't "understand" that Christians are assholes because I've known countless Christians not to be. Conversely, anti-theism is about being an asshole, because it's about opposing something that no one has proven harmful (and thereby deserving opposition) in the first place.
"Again if you think a billboard highlighting faults with Christianity is being an asshole-"
What "faults"? I've seen many *assertions" about religion being a myth (again, we can't be disingenuous and deny they meant for people to take it as "it's false") and stuff like that, but no mention of things that are necessarily a part of Christianity, that is also flawed or harmful. Else, you are tacking things onto Christianity that need not be added. It is, strictly speaking, the belief that there is a god and Jesus Christ was his son who came down to Earth, was crucified, rose on the third day and ascended to heaven where all or some of us will join him. Unfounded? Sure. Proven harmful or certifiably flawed? Not by a long shot.
So yes, these billboards reveal that the American Atheists, FFRF, etc. are assholes.
"then I would say you have to also say a billboard pushing Christianity is being an asshole."
Some are, some aren't. You say "pushing Christianity", which is clearly an attempt to misrepresent the nature of most of these billboards, but in reality most are very non-antagonistic expressions of faith or invitations to churches (not even aimed at atheists per se). There is a big difference. I'm looking at it objectively though, not just saying "These people are assholes" because I personally don't like what they're doing. The AA are intolerant bigots because they are opposing worldviews, not because they are expressing worldviews. Difference.
ME: "Why would a billboard be wrong just for including the word "Christmas" again? Yes, the AA's billboards need justification, because they're opposing a particular way of celebrating Christmas, for no good reason at all."
YOU: "The billboards are exposing the flaws/myths in the story being promoted as the reason for Christmas."
Again, no they're not. I haven't seen a single one that gets that specific. But even if one does, it doesn't explain or justify all the others.
"You can say they need justification and have no reason but again I disagree. I think they are doing a lot more good than the 100x amount of signs that promote ignorance on the subject."
If in fact some of them are factual and educational, sure. But it would be highly dishonest to pretend this kind of education makes up any significant fraction of their billboards.
"You don't like the signs. I get it."
Apparently not, because I have very specific and very valid reasons. It's not just that I don't "like them".
"I don't like having bans on alcohol on Sunday or that my two gay friends can't get married. I think those are much bigger problems than worrying about the people promoting such social wrongs are offended by a sign."
I would agree. But just how many billboards have the AA erected focused on any of these issues? Be honest. And if you were to say, "Well, they're just getting people's attention so they'll go to their website and contribute to fight against these problems", we have plenty of reason to believe otherwise. They would at least mention the subject, for one, if that were their aim. And second, they wouldn't be blasting Christianity because a lot of Christians might otherwise support their aim. So, in ensuring that fewer people respond to the problem by attacking Christianity as a whole, they pretty much confirm for us that their true goal is to try and get people to not be theists.
What makes the argument that religion is bad because someone was personally treated badly by their religious parents an emotional one is that it's based on how they feel rather than what is known. If you zoom out of your own feelings on the matter, you find that most Christian parents (like most parents in general) are quite good to their kids and overall decent people.
"I'm against religion because I think circumcision is barbaric."
Well that's just stupid. A. There are plenty of religious people who are against circumcision. B. There are plenty of atheists who are for it (I happen to be one of them), and C. A lot of children actually undergo a lot of pain because they weren't circumcised, and at times have to be anyway. It's not near as simple a topic as a lot of people think.
"Here is the underlying problem. Promoting the idea of faith as a virtue is demonstrably harmful."
Apparently not, because not a single anti-theist I've ever spoken with (including you) has proven it. Best they can do is point to correlational data, but they should understand that correlation does not show causation and that they're back to square one - with no evidence.
"Religion does need to be opposed and the justification is that religion is harmful."
That's not a justification; it's an assertion, and a baseless one at that.
"If you are coming from a place that all religion is good and should never be challenged or provoked then indeed we are never going to agree."
I think specific doctrines can be challenged or provoked, but religion in general is not the problem. And it's both illogical and immoral to target everyone who is Christian, for the sake of a few doctrines that may actually be harmful.
"I agree with Hitchens, Dawkins, and others that modern societies have got to get past the idea that if an idea is religious then it's sacred and it's wrong to challenge it."
I agree with them on that one particular point as well. And so do a lot of Christians actually, if we're defining "religious" as just "associated with religion". Think about it. Both the view that there is a hell and the view that there isn't, are religious views, if proposed/argued by things written in the Christian bible.
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.
--Steven Weinberg"
Yeah, very false. We know from actual studies (rather than conjecture from a biased anti-theist) that "good people" will do "evil" for many reasons. You should look up the Zimbardo prison study or Milgram experiment for more information on that.
"I am actually very versed on the bible as I was an evangelical Christian with design to be a minister when I stopped believing."
Yeah, so a lot of them tell me. In the meantime, one of the AA guys who put up that offensive Christianity=slavery billboard in Harrisburg said he used to be a minister, yet he tried to equate the Christian bible with pro-forced slavery ideals. Even included a picture of a black man with chains around his neck, so we'd associate biblical slavery with that of the American South Problem is, the bible itself actually tells people not to oppress slaves, not the threaten them, to treat slaves as they are to treat their master, and if one runs away to leave them alone. Hmmm....
"However study after study shows that atheists are far more knowledge about religion than the actual followers of religion."
I actually don't deny that one. Obsession will do that to a person.
"I know for myself the primary reason I reject the existence of the Christian god with as much certainty as one can reasonably have is because of how much I studied the bible."
Yeah yeah, heard that one too...
As with most complaints atheists and anti-theists have about the bible, the story of Elisha has varying interpretations. Here is one that breaks down the components of the story most of us take for granted:
http://christianthinktank.com/qmeanelisha.html
But again, a lot of this depends on one's beliefs on the subject of hell. For if everyone goes to heaven as Christian Universalists believe (and are always prepared to provided biblical support for, BTW), then there would be no logical reason for emphasizing any temporary suffering over eternal happiness. So it really, again, boils down to an emotional argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
0okamino "Explaining their cherry-picking doesn't excuse it from being cherry-picking."
On the contrary, the term "cherry-picking" refers to picking and choosing things because you personally prefer them, whereas if another explanation can be given (e.g., there are some very elaborate debates among Christians on whether or not homosexuality was ever actually forbidden in the original text, and if the verses on "hell" are mistranslations) then it isn't cherry-picking but consideration of the facts.
ME: "I tend to think almost everything mainstream sucks."
YOU: "Falling back to the perceived fringe doesn't seem like it helps your argument."
The point was that insinuating that the mainstream of anything is representative of the larger group from which it comes is idiotic. There is a whole other world beyond the mainstream.
"That's where you find even more whackos, like the snake-handlers, the dominionists, the literalist fundies, the folks just chomping at the bit to be able to adhere violently to their religious text."
So you say. And yet, Christian fringes include those who are 100% okay with homosexuality and Universalists.
"By the way, are you critical of Islam?"
I don't know enough about the religion itself to be a critic of it. But I do refuse to automatically assume its most loudmouthed and obnoxious members represent Islam.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Walter Mantler "If you're an atheist you believe there is insufficient or no evidence for the existence of gods."
No. Being an atheist simply means I don't believe in a god. It's not based on evidence or the lack thereof; I just don't believe. Same way I do believe this isn't all just a dream or that we're not all just minds in the Matrix. I've no evidence to support that belief, but I believe it anyway because I perceive a benefit. Same for Christians.
"I take it you're not an American, and that's fine,"
Yes, I am an American.
"but know that there's a huge difference between American Christians and European Christians."
Not necessarily, no.
"The church I grew up in, United Methodist, still denies gays should have equal rights and says homosexuality is incomparable with Christianity. It is even worse in third-world nations where Christianity is an excuse to murder Muslims, Gays, minorities, etc."
Availability heuristic. Just because you can think of easy examples of Christians who are also bigoted, homophobic, etc. doesn't mean all or even most of them are like that. And it certainly doesn't justify telling people how they should or should not celebrate the holidays.
"Christians outside of Europe are very serious about their religion, and they most certainly have Christ in Christmas."
Sooooo?
"Besides it isn't just my way ro celebrate the holiday, it's the true and original way, Saturnalia should be free of superstition, and every atheist should support that."
Why? Why should every atheist obsess over how someone else chooses to celebrate the holiday - be it the "wrong way" or not? How will this benefit society, to run around telling people not to be Christian and to focus on the Rockettes (which is listed on the billboard) instead?
I still contend that what would help us, is for people to learn to be tolerant of these differences. Christians aren't harming anyone just by focusing on their religion at Christmas. There are certain specific behaviors that are harmful, but that's not what is being targeted here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Is religion responsible for a lot of the world's problems?"
NO. Because "religion" isn't even a thing. You have to talk about specific doctrines to even make the claim that some part of "religion" is harmful, and then if you have a brain you realize that none of the hurtful doctrines come necessarily with religion. This is particularly true of Christianity, which is ironic because that's the religion anti-theists like to attack the most.
"For good people to do bad things, that takes religion" is demonstrably false. If you look up the Milgram experiment or the Stanford prison study, this should become clear to anyone.
"Once you've said you believe something that you can't prove to someone, you have completely walled yourself off from the world, and you've essentially said no one can talk to you."
WTF? Why can't we talk to people who believe differently than we do? Does every conversation have to be trying to change someone's mind on something? And we all say that (we believe in something we can't prove). You made mention of one such "necessary assumption" in philosophy, which is the belief that we're not all just minds in the Matrix. That's something no one can prove, yet we're expected to believe it.
And people can say or believe whatever they want. We attack those who actually do harm to others, not those who just happen to believe something you personally suspect might make them violent (logic be damned, because most religious people aren't violent somehow).
Tolerance is not condescending. It's the default for any sane and moral individual.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well the Christmas tree, more accurately, is pagan AND Christian (the lights were added to the pagan use of the evergreen to make what I must say is the most beautiful symbol of unity, peace, and tolerance I can think of).
http://www.history.com/topics/christmas/history-of-christmas-trees
And did you seriously imply that Christians WORSHIP the tree at Christmastime?
While I gotcha where I wantcha, allow me to tear David's argument that Christmas being a federal holiday is an "establishment of religion" and therefore unconstitutional to shreds. You see, Christmas isn't a religious holiday. And I've heard every argument contending that it is. First, the argument of its origin doesn't work, because what something USED to be doesn't define what it is in the here and now. Second, the name itself doesn't make it religious because as we all know (and live accordingly), a name is just a name. Christmas is no more a religious holiday than Santa Fe and St. Petersburg are religious cities! If the origin and name arguments were valid, how do we explain Thursday? Named after and originated as a day to honor the Norse god Thor, we still recognize it as a secular occasion by its CONTENT. Christmas' content - its customs, decor and such - are mostly non-Christian (it doesn't refer to the religion of Christianity). Finally, in desperation, some atheists have taken to arguing that merely having religion in it AT ALL makes it religious, but that would make the whole WORLD religious!
In reality, only those aspects that are literally (by definition of the word) religious... are religious! We should think more about this proclamation! If Christmas were a religious holiday, wouldn't the fact that most Americans are Christians mean most of the customs and decor of Christmas would be religious too, and not secular? What can you mix with a populace that is mostly Christian to get a mostly secular holiday? Logically speaking, it would HAVE to be a secular holiday. Any other answer just wouldn't make sense!
So yes, we need to think more about it. Unless we just can't stand Christians, in which case I'd say we have bigger problems.
Now, to be fair, what the Constitution DOES say cannot be ignored. There are truly religious aspects of the holiday that unquestionably refer to the religion of Christianity (e.g., nativity scenes and Christmas carols with religious lyrics), and those should stay off of public property. But the rest of it is fine and should be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Michael Edwards "Terms like Good. Morning and Good Night do not devalue someone's beliefs...not that I think it's the intention when you say it to someone....but others do because this world is full of morons. Honestly, I find it more progressive to do the least possible to piss off the general population(if even possible) than to say "it's going to anyway so why not just let me do it.""
So your solution is to cater to the "morons"? No, I think the solution is education and tolerance. Looking at things the way they are instead of how they can be twisted. People who are offended by "Merry Christmas" have bigger problems, frankly, than these two words. They need to get their heads right (and I don't mean that in an ugly way). Because changing the way we do things just because people erroneously believe these things presume religious affiliation is not the answer. It's not for the sake of keeping things the way they are, but for the sake of not changing things to appease those who are just plain incorrect. That's not progressive, it's moving backwards!
"I have no problem with Merry Christmas, but it does indicate truth of your religion... Imagine if someone said Happy Hanukkah to you... It might not offend you...but you'd think "Why would they tell me something I do not believe in?""
Did you read my first reply to you, or no? No, I wouldn't think that at all. That's my point, there'd be nothing to say about that except, "Huh, this person celebrates Hanukkah (Good for them!)" and I would either say it back or just say "You too". Who needs the drama created by adding hurtful meanings to someone's well-intentioned greeting?
1
-
1
-
1
-
LucisFerre1 ME: "No, saying "Merry Christmas" isn't excluding anyone. It's INCLUDING EVERYONE. It would only be excluding someone if a person DIDN'T give a greeting to everyone they came across. And some of our fellow atheists DON'T want Christians to have their joy."
YOU: "That's complete bullshit and you know it."
I'm afraid you'll have to support this claim before anyone here can "know* that it's true.
"December has Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Ramadan, New Year's Eve, Boxing Day (whatever the hell that is), Yule (Pagan), and who knows what else. "Happy Holidays" covers the whole gamut. To pretend that "merry Christmas" does the same is to just be an obtuse asshole."
Lol, I never claimed that "Merry Christmas" explicitly acknowledges all holidays. I said it included every person, which it does. It's a simple holiday greeting, and only if it were intentionally withheld from certain people would it become exclusionary. The ironic thing is, this is what psycho anti-Christmas atheists want! They want Christians to stop saying it to them, for instance. But there's no rational explanation as to why.
BTW, you do realize that your argument makes every holiday greeting despite the time of year "exclusionary", right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Resident Evil
Not a bad franchise. Never got into survival horror much myself. I like psychological thrillers though (apparently), because Alan Wake's in my top 10.
"Sim"
Odd that you choose to bundle SimCity and The Sims together like that, but in any case, no! No franchise that ruined itself by trying to make players pay more for less content (which applies to both SimCity and The Sims) should be in the top 10, IMO.
EA Sports and Halo
Don't know. Don't care.
Final Fantasy
I used to think it was great, but then I realized that all of their success has been accidental. Looking at the series again from game to game, it seems their ideas in terms of gameplay have come from literally rolling the dice to decide what should/shouldn't be implemented. That's why every other game they make sucks. They show no concern for what the critics or even the fans like/dislike, and so no, they don't deserve to be in the top 10 either.
Zelda?
Sure, why not.
Call of Duty
Fucked if I know.
Pokemon
Don't see how, but okay.
GTA
Somehow I just knew this tragedy of a franchise was going to show up. GTA was a good franchise, but spiraled out of control after San Andreas. No franchise that replaces demolition derby with tennis, gang wars with golf, or a fucking jet pack for yoga deserves to be on this list (I'm sorry, fanboys, but you know I'm right).
God of War - I think Darksiders is more fun (and of course less perverted).
Metal Gear - Yeah, alright.
Elder Scrolls - Now that's not a bad franchise!
Assassin's Creed - Probably the best franchise on this list, actually. I mean, from AC1 to AC4 at least, the games just got better and better in countless ways. That's six games! I don't even know another franchise that can say that! (BTW, I don't include Rogue or Unity because I haven't played those yet, but even if they suck it could just be a fluke.)
Tetris? - Quit being stupid and get to number one already.
Mario
Well... All's I know is I liked them all the way up to Super Mario World and Mario Kart then I lost all contact, so, maybe?
1
-
1
-
Only problem with "Keep the Merry, dump the Myth" (aside from you once again telling others what to believe) is that by trying to get us all talking about religion on Christmas (and referring to billboards that seem rather antagonistic, truth be told), you are in fact making the holiday LESS "merry" for us all. That's in addition to the fact that most of us (including most of us atheists) don't mind the religious aspects of this holiday. In fact, I rather look forward to it. ALL of it, because the religious Christmas carols and nativity scenes are just parts of the sameyness that make it enjoyable. You see, I don't concern myself with who's religious and who isn't on or around Christmas. I feel that is quite an unhealthy way to live! I don't know who invited Debbie Downer to Times Square, but it was no ordinary atheist.
"We're saying to those people (atheists), 'You don't have to go to a church in which you don't believe-"
Two things wrong with this one. First off, your billboard doesn't address atheists in particular, it's very logically presumed it's talking to EVERYONE because you neglected to put "Dear atheists," or some such at the top of it. Second, if that's your goal, you are not only offending Christians but your fellow atheists' intelligence, because we all KNOW we don't have to go church! So that's a fairly empty point. I'm sorry, there's just no defense for this billboard at all, dude.
And I suppose the "Turk" on the left side of the screen is correct in suggesting that David just come clean and be honest about this agenda, but American Atheists has never been known for its honesty. Remember the billboard that suggested the Christian bible condoned forced slavery? It was a lie. The bible actually forbids it rather explicitly. And we know it was a lie, not just an expression put up in hasty ignorance, because the guy who put it up used to be a minister (who surely would know more about the scripture than little old me who found Exodus 21:16 via one quick Google search!) To a degree, I concur that if you're going to be an intolerant asshole, you might as well be an HONEST one.
And OF COURSE atheists shouldn't be trying to convert people! It's exactly this mentality (and NOT religion in and of itself) that has caused all our worst conflicts! INTOLERANCE. If we would just accept that not everyone answers the god question the same way, the world would be a better place.
"You're running an ad that could very well irritate religious people-"
"That's fine"
"-who are 100% on your side."
GIVE THAT MAN A PRESIDENCY! The thing that makes David Silverman an id iot is that his is an organization that swears up and down that what they care about most is equality for atheists and separation of church and state. Yet, 90% (at very least) of their billboards are simply and merely anti-theism and anti-religion, no mention of any of these issues whatsoever! Lol, and the REALLY bizarre fact of it is just as the "Turk" in the middle pointed out, that if they could just let go of their prejudice toward theists/religious people, they may just find a healthy sum of them who would be interested in contributing to these issues too! Or do they just assume that no theist/religious person could possibly be in favor of equality and/or separation of church and state? Hmmm...
And does Silverman wish everybody "Happy Holidays" in May and October as well? Why, I think not. Like I said, this obsession with who's religious and who isn't? NOT HEALTHY, DAVE!
The fear of death is not exclusive to religious people, that's intellectually dishonest. But then, so is the implied notion that all atheists reject the idea of an afterlife. They most certainly do not!
Well a Christian shouldn't get/appear mad at an atheist because they don't believe. But then, atheists shouldn't belittle theists and Christians because they DO...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** ALEX (ignoring my arguments): "A little resistant to progressivism, aren't we."
ME: "You've yet to establish that this change would be progress, to hide from the word "Christmas" because certain people can't help but think of religion when they see a friggin' tree with lights on it."
YOU: "That's what, dipshit."
And you've yet to establish that as well!
"Except you asked what progress the change would enact. Which I explained: a country that privileges a single religion is begging for a fucking holocaust somewhere down the line. That's what, dipshit."
But as I have argued, Christmas is not a Christian holiday if you go by content, which is what we clearly go by concerning everything else with religious origins/names. Thursday ("Thor's Day"), names of cities and people, etc. We don't insist that these are religious times, people, and places despite their overwhelmingly secular content; why do it for Christmas? I've yet to get a strong rebuttal for that.
And moreover, it doesn't follow by any stretch of the imagination that 1984ing Christmas by having everyone say "Happy Holidays" (as if every day of the year isn't a holiday) would lead to changes in laws that provide privileges for the religious. Indeed, these two things have nothing to do with each other at all.
ME: "Christmas doesn't celebrate anything"
YOU: "*Christ*mas isn't clear enough for you? Do you need me to explain it to you again, dipshit?"
On the contrary, you need to read what's already been covered and explained here. A name does not make something religious, and no amount of personal insults is going to serve as a counterargument, lol.
YOU: "The only way to have a country that won't implode into a bloody religious war somewhere down the line is a country that does not give special rights to any religion, you stupid fuck."
ME: "Irony. So you're the voice of reason, eh? Someone barking out insults at a total stranger for no apparent reason? Grow up, or stop acting like we should turn instead to you for moral advice (rolling eyes)"
YOU: "Yes. I'm the guy who isn't a dipshit who says that christmas isn't religious."
Well you do seem to be asserting that it is, without providing argumentation to support that assertion...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Casey Speaks
First you say the mind and self are not things that have a location. Then, you go on to say that the mind is an electrical signal that can be measured by an EEG machine. That signal most certainly originates somewhere; it's how it can be measured in the first place. Therefore, you're contradicting yourself, just as you do when you say investigators have found the location of the self. They have not.
At any rate, the "mind"/"self" in the context of this conversation is referring to the soul. That part of us that is without localization and generally outside of scientific explanation up to this point. Now we do know plenty about self-AWARENESS and even what parts of the brain are involved in this (I'm guessing that's what you were referring to earlier), but we do not know where the actual self (what's there to be aware of in the first place) resides in the human brain. Indeed, it's only an assumption that it's in the brain at all! That is what I'm saying. We have not established the self to be matter or energy as we understand them in science. Therefore, the rules of matter and energy do not necessarily apply.
The question of Santa's existence can be investigated physically. The question of a god's existence (which I for one do not believe in) cannot be. Same goes for an afterlife. There is no way to determine what is more likely here, save just another ungrounded faith. Pretending to have an objective understanding that one faith is superior to another? Yes, that is foolish.
"I see no shame in belief - only in trying to teach it to others or trying to derive benefit of some kind from that belief."
I see no shame in any of it, necessarily. I see shame in things I can positively say are harmful. That is all. And when you are condescending upon people just for being different (without so much as an opinion that what they're doing is harmful to someone), why, you're no better than religious zealots. Because that is precisely what most atheists (claim to) have against religion - lack of intolerance... for no good reason at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
airm whatever I've always felt that Squall "fell for" Rinoa (which BTW I think is entirely the wrong way to put it - I think he just became dependent on her, rather than "falling in love" as we usually know it) because she was, simply put, harder to ignore. She would confront Squall about his flaws, whereas Quistis would tease him, make semi-serious suggestions for improvement, and move on. Squall needed someone equally stubborn as he, so that his way of thinking would be challenged and he couldn't just walk away from it. And Rinoa liked Squall for all the reasons a teenage girl would like someone such as him, plus she probably (subconsciously) saw him as a good mental sparring partner. If you really think about it, they don't talk as directly with other people, as they do each other.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My problems with Bernie are almost too many to count. He claims that Trump has divided the country despite the fact that he's the one promoting class warfare (i.e., against "the billionaire class"), nevermind that he's a millionaire himself. Like Buttigieg said, he issues for others a purity test he himself cannot pass. Instead, Bernie likes to pretend that there's some fundamental difference between his level of wealth and those who've made considerably more (e.g., maybe they're more "greedy" than he is?), but that's not an assumption he ever backs up with evidence.
And BTW, people like to say he's "consistent" but that's false because the guy used to rail against the millionaires too, until he became one. Suddenly, and quite conveniently, millionaires were no longer part of the problem.
Bernie also likes to call Trump a racist despite the fact that he's the one who panders to blacks/latinos with the victimhood mentality by saying whites don't know what it's like to be poor. Which is racist, a lie, and a way of dividing the American people!
And speaking of lies, Bernie lies every bit as much as the other politicians. He lied multiple times on the Joe Rogan podcast, for example:
https://www.goodmorningliberty.us/post/bernie-lies-9-times-in-32-minutes-on-the-joe-rogan-experience-podcast
And finally, Bernie refuses to admit that Trump has done well with the economy. And no, not "just for the upper 1%" as Bernie likes to claim. Members of all classes (and races, since the Democrats can't help but fixate on the color of people's skin) have benefited from Trump's economy. Record-low unemployment for blacks and latinos, over 7 million jobs provided overall. Average weekly paychecks are up 2.8%. The poverty rate and food stamp rolls declined. Real median household income (that's the amount earned by those in the very middle) hit $65,084 (in 2019 dollars) for the 12 months ending in July, which is the highest level ever and a gain of $4,144, or 6.8%, since he took office. There's more, but you get the idea.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/trumps-numbers-october-2019-update/
https://www.atr.org/thanks-trump-median-household-income-highest-level-ever
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/american-workers-thriving-thanks-president-donald-j-trumps-middle-class-tax-cuts/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@erinmylungs8711 "well a world view is a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world."
And I would say that if you think you're a whole different gender because of the belief that you are what you identify as, and you base your whole life on that belief, you have a worldview. In any case, it wouldn't change anything about my critique, to call it a belief instead.
"But I agree, you cant describe the feeling of being male or female, but one can have a serious conflict within themselves."
But because we cannot know if there is even a difference between "feeling like" a man and "feeling like" a woman, it would be illogical to assume the conflict has anything to do with that.
"The thoughts I had of being female were just that. I looked at myself in the mirror and felt i was looking at a stranger."
So it was based on looks? You don't look the way you think you should? Because even that doesn't mean you are (or should have been) a different gender.
"I cant elaborate any more really, it feels as right to call myself a woman as it does to call myself white."
But it probably also feels right to a person somewhere who believes they're the King of England (when they're not), or a host of other examples we all (yourself included) would say they're wrong about. Not to be mean, either, but just because we can point to objective and observable facts to disprove their belief.
"but from what I have read there is a scientific bases of trans womens brains having a link to a female brain."
Yes, that they closely resemble biological women's brains. But I dealt with that already. Brain differences can be found in people with a host of men tal dis orders as well; it obviously doesn't validate their beliefs even if it can explain where they come from. And also, any biological male who identifies as a woman will be called a woman whether they have a "female brain" or not, so it's irrelevant.
"I do aknowledge that anyone with a delusion would feel happier affirming this belief, but thats why we do it. to be happier. So long as there is no harm being done to individuals and the affirmation of your inner feelings doesnt change, then the logical thing to do is to live happily."
Not if you care about truth. And this isn't to pick on trans people, BTW; tons of us are carrying at least one comforting lie. But we should all strive to live (happily) with the truth as a general rule of thumb.
"Im a man who feels they are a woman and just tries to live as comfortably as possible."
Did you mean to say it that way? Because if so, I commend you for your bravery. In any case, what about just living in defiance of gender roles and norms? What about living "as a woman" but not calling it "living as a woman"? Like me, I'm not a very masculine man when it comes to certain aspects. I don't watch sports, not really into cars, can't stand beer (prefer wine or something similar), etc. But when someone tells me that men are supposed to do these things, I just laugh it off.
"I give people the choice of what pronouns they use with me but I have a choice of wether I associate with that person. They may not be a bad person, but to hear myself be refered to as he and him doesnt feel good to say the least, so i stick to those who respect my wishes and give me my prefered pronouns."
I can understand that. So long as it "feels right" to be called the opposite, you'll be inclined to steer away from people who don't say it.
"And also medicating children is of course ludicrous to me."
And what happens when the children begin to "identify as" adults? You know that at very least the pedophiles will be pushing this next. I mean, you should be commended for your bravery (again) for daring to say that, but I just don't think your protests of that will carry any weight with them. They'll simply say "You should understand what it feels like" and use similar arguments. Pedophilic doctors (or those who are simply paid good money by pedophiles) will push some "new science" and you and I will both be called -phobic of some kind and hateful for not supporting it.
1
-
"I see a difference between sex and gender as ive stated previously in this thread."
How do you account for the fact that what we call "gender roles" are roles we're expected to play based purely on our biological sex? People simply look at us, determine we are biologically male, and expect us to "act like" men based on that. What we "identify as" doesn't even come into the picture.
"I believe that my sex is male but my gender is female, gender being what you percieve yourself to be."
On what grounds though? Just a feeling? Keeping in mind, of course, that you don't even know how "feeling like" a man differs from "feeling like" a woman (if it does at all) because we have no basis for comparison.
"The problem with this conversation is that its looking at the philosophical elements to transgenderism and not the actual research. Its all very well and good to ask "but what does it mean to feel female". I dont know anyone that can explain it."
But the actual research fails, too. I've given just a couple of the reasons when it comes to brain studies. And as a general rule, the central principle seems to be that if someone identifies as x, you shouldn't question it, which directly conflicts with the scientific process (It's all about questioning!)
"Explain love for example. its strong compulsion to act in certain way, sometimes acting in ways that dont seem to make sense, but to the individual feeling it, its very real."
And if someone is "in love" with someone that is continuously hurting them and shows objectively they don't really care for them, we let them know it (unless we don't care about them either, I suppose). And it's an unwelcome truth they avoid us over, and seek more approval from the person telling them what they want to hear. So the experience of the feeling may very well be real (I'm not denying what "feels right" to you, or suggesting that you're faking it for attention, etc.), but it doesn't make it true unless you equate gender with the inclination to adhere to gender roles and norms (including what women are "supposed to" look like).
"So how do we decide which things are a problem and which arnt. Harm to others."
Yes, but that's incomplete. We also want to be as accurate as possible, if only to prevent some unforeseen harm that may come of living a lie later on.
"Pedophilia will never (i seriously hope) be as promonent as transgenderism and i really take issue to it being linked in any way."
Well please understand that I'm not linking transgenderism itself to pedophilia. But I do firmly believe that some (if not all) of your justifications for transgenderism could be applied rather easily to pedophilia. This includes the question of harm, BTW, because I can see a pedophile saying that the sexual abuse of a child only harms them in societies where it is not widely accepted. This seems to parallel with "The only reason the suicide rate for trans people is so high is that they're not accepted", kind of the same logic.
I would also disagree that there is no deception in cosmetic surgery; I think there absolutely is. You're literally hiding what you look like. You're not even "accentuating" it as you would do by wearing makeup, you fundamentally change the shape of your face, and most of the time people don't want others knowing they had it done.
1
-
@erinmylungs8711 "I wouldnt say that that expectation is there as much anymore."
I would agree, but that wasn't the point. The point was simply that they're called "gender roles" while being based on biological sex, and this has always been the case.
"its not solid, but we all identify ourselves in some way or another when it comes to our gender even if we dont know it."
But most of us simply do so by looking at the biological facts. Again, I never "feel like" a man (to my knowledge), I just am one.
"Well taking that further, I identify as "x" if you will and i am all for that being questioned. I want to understand why I am the way I am and i genuinely believe that someday science may be able to answer those questions."
In the end, they'll only be able to explain why you have those feelings (if that). They won't be able to speak to the issue of what you "should" be, and probably won't feel safe speaking on whether your belief that you are x is true, regardless of what's discovered.
"Until then all I can do is make the most of what the medical proffesionals say"
The ones that can speak freely, that is. Which happens to be the ones who agree with transgenderism. But I'm left wondering just what else they've discovered, apart from correlations in brain studies which don't prove anything.
"Thats a good point but we tell them about it because they are at risk of harm."
That's going off the thread of the argument, though, which was that a person can very strongly feel (even insist) that x is the situation when it isn't. And that we can tell what the truth of the matter is by looking at objective data.
"I am not at risk of harm because of my desire to endulge in these feeling i have, nor am i a risk to anyone else."
Hopefully not. Although if you haven't had the surgery yet, you may feel compelled to one day and regret it like others have. I mean, they obviously felt like they needed it done at the time. In any case, whether or not there's harm only changes the volume at which I speak against something; it doesn't solely determine whether I will critique it. That's because I still think truth has inherent value.
"I would have to disagree with the first point you made, on pedophiles being able to use these arguments in their favour as I dont believe there could ever be an arguement for their favour."
There can be arguments in favor of all sorts of horrible things; I don't think we should drop our guards. Indeed, my point was exactly that we should be able to draw a clear line in the sand. We should be able to say what the fundamental difference is between a man identifying as a woman and a child identifying as an adult. And quite frankly, I haven't heard a good one yet. Not one that couldn't easily be dismissed by statements similar to what dismisses the arguments against transgenderism today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Patrick Bullard "So the economic boosts affect everyone, but two thirds of Americans think they are no better off? Fill in the bit that I'm not understanding, because that doesn't make sense to me."
Well I touched on it already; if you ask someone who hates Trump "Has he made things better for you?", they're going to be inclined to say no. And that's not even necessarily out of pure dishonesty, it might be a subconscious process. Think of it as a reverse placebo effect.
And of course we don't know the political leanings of the people who took part in the poll, that's an issue too.
"The economy is not the only thing that matters, not even close."
Well neither is the deficit as far as that goes. But I mentioned some of the other things I like that Trump is doing. Along with the various economic boosts, I'm a big fan of prison reform and am also very pro-life so I like what he's done in these arenas as well.
"So are you cool with him being that way if he can make one third of americans feel financially better off?"
This is backwards. You're the one who appealed to how people feel, I'm the one who gave the statistics on what is. And I'm not "cool" with any wrongdoing, but I'm cool with choosing one imperfect person over another when the other is promising to do things I think are worse (and not all things have equal importance). I have libertarian leanings, is part of it, so I'm for deregulation, giving the government less power, etc. as a general rule. But no, that's not it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@phoenixobrien163 Well for starters, it's not that I'm calling lies and exaggerations "free speech", it's that they literally are part of having free speech. But the great thing is, if you maintain freedom of speech, then you can correct the lies and exaggerations on both sides of the political fence. So whether you think the Democrats or the Republicans are the primary sources of corruption, lies, etc., you should be in favor of an open forum in which they can be exposed.
"It's the same as calling Fire! in a packed theatre when there ain't no fire."
It is by no stretch of the imagination the same as shouting fire in a crowded theatre (which is legal, BTW). We are talking specifically about someone being able to make a claim and someone else being able to refute it.
Now the interesting thing is, you go on to say that because there's so much lying on the political right (according to you), that's why we need a government-run agency to censor those lies. But surely you realize that your favorite politicians will not always be in control of these agencies. What happens when the next Donald Trump or just any Republican for that matter holds the reins, and adds in their limitations on what they consider Democrat lies? I don't think you've really thought this through. The power we just hand over to the government will be wielded by good and bad people alike. And if it's true that power corrupts, we'll end up with mostly bad actors calling the shots.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kevin Ingraham I disagree that Trump is trying to be a dictator. He's deregulated the market far too much for me to think that. But yes, he's done a lot of great things for this country! Before the pandemic, we were seeing record-low unemployment rates (especially for minorities), increased wages, prison reform, Right to Try, lower prescription drug prices, the list goes on and on. And now he's also taking a more sensible approach to Covid, while most people are lying to us about how many people actually have it and how many actually die from it. After November, no matter who wins the election, Covid will miraculously clear up, just you watch. All of a sudden, people will start reporting the real numbers, and BLM will fade into obscurity just like it did after the last election.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenp4980 The deregulations and tax cuts have benefited everyone because they free up the market so more jobs can be provided. We've even seen higher wages in some places (the median household income went up $4,000). And some of those deregulations might have to do with the environment, but not all. Also, there are plenty of ways that more regulation can hurt the environment, with the most obvious being excessive paperwork. Finally, you don't have to care about the economy, but most Americans do, especially those who've put in decades of hard work and need to see that their pensions, retirement funds and 401Ks are taken care of.
I also mentioned prison reform, Right to Try, transparency in the costs of medical treatment, and the approval of more drugs by the FDA. There are lots of things Trump has done (some of them literally life-saving) that we should pay at least as much attention to as his character flaws. Probably more. Because the fact of the matter is that we can have a good-hearted person in the White House that will totally ruin our country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenp4980 I'd still like to see these stats for myself. As for blaming Obama vs. Trump, it goes both ways. For example, the situation at the border? Happening under Obama. But the general uptick in job growth? Also Obama. However, Obama and others sat on prison reform and these other improvements I mentioned whereas Trump got them done.
And obviously I don't agree that he's trying to be a dictator. Deregulations, tax cuts, creating jobs (so trying to make people less dependent on the government), prison reform, Right to Try, transparency in the costs of medical treatment, getting more drugs approved by the FDA. In my opinion, none of these would be done by a power-hungry politician who wanted more control over the people. What the Democrats are wanting to do, however...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@magnusorn7313 "it wont, but you are leaving them with no real option,"
Entirely depends on the situation. Sometimes the unions and employees are correct and sometimes they're asking for too much. But the interesting point is still that this will be the case regardless. If you are demanding higher pay than what you're actually bringing the company, chances are you're not going to get that higher pay and the normal wages will go to someone else. Someone who knows what they're worth to the company (and what they're not) and appreciates the job opportunity while they hone their skills to increase that worth.
In any case, I'm glad we don't have Bernie as president and have Trump instead (and probably will for another 5 years). I didn't like him at first, but he's done a great job! Record-low unemployment rates, increased wages, prison reform, Right to Try, lower prescription drug prices, the list goes on and on. Also like what he's done for the pro-life movement, but I understand that's a more controversial topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Scandinavian countries aren't socialist (remember, the prime minister of Denmark had to correct Bernie on this). They have no minimum wage laws, until Trump came along they had lower corporate income tax rates, they have a less progressive tax code (e.g., higher taxes overall, not just for "the very wealthy" - at about $50,000 you're paying at least 50% in taxes), a 25% VAT tax on goods which hits the poor harder than the rich, no financial transaction fees like the ones Bernie proposes, no wealth taxes (especially since it failed in Sweden), no UBI (especially since it failed in Finland), no estate taxes. In other words, they're not down with Bernie's ideas of punishing the successful because they know these are the ones creating wealth. Not just for themselves, but for the country.
Also, are there are any Scandinavian politicians who've gone from zero to 100 million on a government salary? I can't find one. But we have plenty of examples in the U.S... and Venezuela...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blackout07blue "And what Bernie said was white people don’t know what it’s like to live in a segregated poor neighborhood."
No, I'm talking about when Bernie literally said "When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor". Look it up if you're not aware that he said it, because he did.
"Not sure how you even object to that."
How bout the fact that I've lived in segregated, poor neighborhoods throughout my childhood, as a white boy?
"White people are not black or brown, therefore can’t suffer from racial segregation."
Also false. I've had people tell me to my face they don't want to hang out with me because I'm white.
"Trump literally tweeted “WHITE POWER” recently."
Are you talking about when he shared a video in which someone else said "White power"? And it wasn't even the point of the video?
"Trump and republicans say racist stuff every other day."
Apparently not, seeing as how you guys are always struggling to provide real examples. But then, everything is racist, right? 🙄
Meanwhile, the Democrats founded the KKK and opposed the civil rights movement. But we're supposed to be all offended because Trump tweeted something you claim is anti-black while actually doing things to help black people.
"Get back to your cross burning."
No, that's the Democrats again, lol.
"Literally nobody has spoken up more for the white, black, and brown working-class than Bernie Sanders"
A fine sentiment. But actions speak louder. And Trump is on a whole other level while Bernie and the other Democrats continuously try to convince black people that they're victims in a white supremacist nation who will always be held back. Not true. And not a healthy mindset to sell.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ryansymons8915 Naturally, I was referring to his work for the pro-life movement, which should be counted as progress in the right direction, as opposed to what the Democrats would do if they had their way.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/abortion-laws-states.html
Here's my point: If not Trump, then a Democrat. We know this is the case. I understand the mentality that not voting for Trump =/= voting for Biden or Sanders. But the real-life effect of not voting for Trump is indeed denying him the edge against those two. If enough people chose not to vote for Trump because they didn't think God wanted them too, then we would end up with a Democrat who will likely expand legal abortions to include newborn babies nationwide (among other things that could prove deadly). We're talking the difference between an Earthly man doing some very noteworthy good things, and another Earthly man bringing us closer to hell.
Now, I think you're equivocating a bit on the word "savior". Even if Trump literally called himself a "savior", that word does not necessarily have religious connotations. And I think so long as he's propping up Christianity, the bible, etc., it would be silly to think he's a force in the opposite direction as far as that goes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheMarsCydonia Yes, I quoted the parts of the "definition" that actually attempt to define the word. They are technically two definitions because they don't mean exactly the same thing, strictly translated, but they both refer to things we used to call "gender roles" and "gender norms". And then you refused to deal with my arguments against those definitions.
If you truly agree with the APA's definition, then please explain how a person who rejects the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women is somehow still a woman if they identify as one? Because that's the point you keep evading. If those roles, behaviors, etc. are what make up a person's gender as the definition states, then they are only a woman if they adhere to them. Otherwise, you don't really go by this definition at all.
1
-
@TheMarsCydonia "You spent all this time defending you quoted the APA to finally come out and say you only quoted what you personally feel to be relevant."
Lol, I said I would quote the definition and I did. I just didn't quote the statements around the definition, which is perfectly fine. Can you defend the definition or not? You're doing a lot of stalling here.
ME: "If you truly agree with the APA's definition, then please explain how a person who rejects the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women is somehow still a woman if they identify as one?"
YOU: "the APA covers this and I invited to look at what the APA says about it."
How conveniently vague. Can you at least copy and paste the APA's supposed coverage of this problem here? I shouldn't have to go and dig up a defense for your side of the argument.
Until you provide an answer, I must reiterate the question: If someone's gender is determined by the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities and attitudes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women, how could someone still be a woman (for example) while rejecting those socially constructed roles, behaviors, etc.?
1
-
@TheMarsCydonia No, as I said (and you ignored), I did quote the entire definitions, I just didn't quote the statements around them.
"That it isn't society that determines other people's gender."
Which contradicts the APA's definition completely. Because they defined "gender" as "the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for different genders". Since society gets to determine the socially constructed roles, behaviors, etc. expected of men and women, it follows logically that they get to determine your gender according to the APA's definition.
You're wanting to ignore it, but this is proof positive that those who subscribe to modern gender theory (including these so-called experts) really can't give a workable definition of "gender" at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jambononi "yeah so you don't objectively, scientifically, unequivocally know the exact feeling."
I don't have anywhere near an idea of what the feeling is, and neither do you. You assume that when you feel like doing something that adheres to a gender role/norm that this is something like "feeling like" a boy/girl, but for all you know it isn't. For all you know, there is no such feeling.
"But because men and women aren't so unbelievably far apart from each other and because we are able to communicate in deep and nuanced ways, it's very probable that we can approximate the feelings of others. It's basically what empathy is."
And so what if you could approximate the feelings of others? What has you convinced that men and women feel differently purely by virtue of being different genders? Even if we talk about something like pregnancy (which only women can experience), that isn't the same as feeling like a woman, since many women cannot get pregnant. And if a man could somehow feel what it's like to be pregnant (which, they have introduced studies along those lines before), he would only know what it feels like to be pregnant; this mysterious "feeling" of being a woman would still be absent.
"Do you truly know what it feels like as the other gender?
No possibly not."
And quite possibly neither do they. There may indeed be no such feeling as "like a boy" or "like a girl".
"You don't say, "I objectively want a sandwich." Because why do you specifically want a sandwich?"
There'd be nothing wrong with saying "I objectively want a sandwich", even if you haven't analyzed why you want that exact food. When it's true, it's objectively true.
"You don't actually objectively know that it's the sandwich you want. You might have subconsciously seen an advert on TV 25 mins ago."
You would still objectively want it, even if you don't understand why you want it. And my rebuttal stands: You can say you feel like having a sandwich only because you know what it's like to not want a sandwich. If you literally always wanted one non-stop, even after eating million of them, you'd have no way of identifying that feeling as compared to the lack of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Heyoka86 "Well in that case, what people really need to agree on is the definition of the word 'gender'."
Well we used to...
"But if gender was biological as you say, then why is it even a thing, why not just go by 'sex'?"
Originally, "gender" just meant "type" and then only sometimes referred to sex. So we were using "sex" instead, but they were always interchangeable. This was probably at least partially because "sex" also refers to the act and so "gender" was safer to use.
But it's only been a few decades that people have been trying to use "gender" to mean something different from biological sex.
"Also, even if gender's biological that still doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards a society so free that it allows us to change what we are, to transcend nature."
Well so far, it's literally impossible to change your gender, even with surgery and hormone treatment. And for whatever reason, transgenderism itself comes with a drastic increase in suicidality, both with and without these attempts to alleviate "gender dysphoria" successfully.
I suppose if we ever got to the point where all of these concerns were a thing of the past, then we could debate over whether we "should" opt to transition. But even then I don't see a point to it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ME: "But of course, it's his job here to show that theism is false (which is synonymous with strong atheism being true)."
HaileyMarie: "Russell's Teapot."
The purpose of Russell's Teapot wasn't to prove that god doesn't exist. Rather, it was to remind us that we shouldn't believe in something just because it can't be disproven. But Christians typically believe on the basis of alleged personal experiences in which god has "made himself known" to them. So it misses its mark entirely here.
"Neither of which is reason to believe that Christianity or religion are truthful"
Which, again, doesn't constitute proof that it isn't. The point is that, while some Christians have come up with good arguments for theism (William Lane Craig, for example), the anti-theists have fallen dramatically behind. And it shows throughout this video.
"There is nothing "fine-tuned" about the Universe."
At this point, you are rejecting science, you do realize that...
"It is utter, sheer madness and nightmarishly, horrifying chaos that we can't even fully comprehend."
One thing that we do comprehend is that the constants and quantities given in the Big Bang fall within an extremely narrow life-permitting range. That is what's meant by fine-tuning. The only question is, how do we best explain it? Necessity, chance, or design. But we've very good arguments against necessity, and the "chance" explanation relies on the existence of a multiverse which we've no independent evidence or arguments for.
"Good luck proving that this God has always been there, too."
The point is that unless you've reason to think that a god would have to be finite in the past (as we do with the universe), then you cannot insist that the causal principle applies to god, or indeed any past-eternal entity.
ME: "And despite his empty rhetoric, it remains the case that anyone offering a claim can be asked to support it with an argument (which he actually knows already, or he wouldn't be trying to come up with arguments for his view). Atheists are not special; if we make a claim (e.g., "There is no god"), we need to be able to support that claim or admit it's just an unfounded belief. And contrary to his assertion, the starting point is "I don't believe in anything", not "That is not true". Because the latter is also a claim that you adopt later, not a default position."
YOU: "The burden of proof is on your camp"
True that Christians bear a burden of proof when/if they make a claim. But it goes for atheists too. Here you are simply showing your bias. You're OK with atheists making claims but not having to support them, but because you have a problem with Christians you treat them differently about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kathypop4 "It is important to understand that gender identity is a deeply personal and complex experience, and it cannot be reduced to a simple matter of adhering to gender roles and norms."
Very well then, what are the complex definitions of "gender", "man" or "woman"? How do you determine who is a man or woman on your worldview?
"Transgender individuals experience a disconnect between their gender identity and their sex assigned at birth,"
Sex isn't assigned but noted and reported on. But yes, granted that trans people identify as a gender that isn't their biological sex. The question is, why should they (Are they correct, rational, or logical in doing so)?
"Furthermore, it is not necessary for individuals to have a basis for comparison in order to identify their gender."
Sure it is. You can't actually know if you feel like a woman and don't feel like a man, unless you know what the feeling of "feeling like a man" feels like. For all you know, you "feel like" your biological sex, something else is wrong, and you're misinterpreting that something else.
"It is also important to note that gender is a social construct,"
On your worldview, that's the claim. But again, it seems that those on your side of this issue are really just confusing gender itself with gender roles and norms (which are indeed largely social constructs).
"and while biological sex is a tangible aspect of our bodies,"
So it isn't just assigned. It's a physical reality we can learn about and report.
"the ways in which we express and identify our gender are socially constructed."
But the way you "express your gender" or the way in which you "identify your gender" isn't the same as the gender itself. Think about it. What is meant by "expressing your gender"? And when you "identify your gender", what are you identifying?
"Finally, misgendering someone is not a matter of objective definition,"
There must be an objective standard by which someone can qualify as a man/woman, before misgendering is even possible. It's logically impossible to be correct/incorrect in using terms with no objective standard at all.
"but a matter of basic respect for an individual's identity."
It hasn't been established that that identity is correct, and therefore it hasn't been established that anyone is morally obligated to respect it.
"Refusing to acknowledge someone's gender identity can cause harm and contribute to the marginalization and discrimination of transgender individuals."
Some marginalization and discrimination is justified (e.g., people discriminate against me when I go to the bank and claim that I'm Elon Musk). So what you need to do is give an argument for why the specific things trans people want = things we are morally obligated to give. As for harm, people disagreeing with your worldview in and of itself should not cause you harm if you're otherwise mentally healthy. But I would like to point out that transgenderism also frequently equates disagreement with hate or phobia, and it's quite plausible that can do serious harm to those who buy into that lie.
"It is important to approach this topic with empathy and an open mind,"
And are you approaching my take on this with an open mind? Or are you just as guilty as I am of having your mind made up already?
"and to listen to the experiences and perspectives of transgender individuals."
We can listen to it and even try to understand it, but that doesn't automatically entail agreeing with their conclusions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JamesHLanier Okay, so where's the evidence that the system itself is racist, rather than just certain individuals in certain places? Also, you should read what I typed. If capitalism were the problem, Scandinavia would be doing worse in terms of affording "free" healthcare and the like. Or considering healthcare in the U.S. alone, prices skyrocketed in the 60s with the advent of Medicaid and Medicare. Why? Because the government radically increased demand while hindering supply. If they would let people open clinics/hospitals instead of dictating where they think the people need it, then we'd have competition in that industry and we'd see prices going down, the quality and efficiency of healthcare going up, etc. See, part of the problem in communication between the right and the left is that the left thinks we're a capitalistic country right now, but we're not. We're actually already more socialist-leaning than the places people are calling socialist, for the reasons I laid out earlier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-bx1bj4of7b "Discussion or not, nobody has the authority to tell someone how they're oriented, emotionally, or otherwise."
Of course they do, people do this all the time. If someone's acting a certain way, you draw conclusions about their mental state on the basis of their behavior. And it's strange how you claim we can't know how someone is oriented emotionally based on a single conversation, but then it's perfectly fine for you to call them insane going by the same limited knowledge.
Technically, the tradwives knew the feminists better than you know them, because a lot of the conversation they had back and forth was probably cut from the final edit.
"To say "thats because you're hardened and can't feel" to a stranger because they don't share your beliefs is (like I said) insane.... and very much a judgment."
Yes, it's a judgment (just like you're making against them), but you haven't been able to show why it's incorrect so far. You're just complaining about them doing something you're doing too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Robert Platt "Gender is a way for us to categorize ourselves and others by action and reaction. This is driven by psychology which is derived from both biology and experience - thus the near infinite diversity."
Also known as "personality". You don't have to call it a different gender every time someone differs in how they think, feel, and behave.
"I know I have a woman's mind because no matter how anyone has taught, explained, hypnotically suggested or commanded, I cannot think differently than I do."
So certain things about your personality cannot be changed. Doesn't mean you have "a woman's mind". Again, how do you even know what having a woman's mind vs. having a man's mind feels like? For all you know, they feel the exact same, and the only way men and women ever feel differently is through biological causes.
"My thoughts and emotions cause distress because they don't fit this body"
Again, gender roles. You are not obligated to think or feel particular ways just because you're a man. Tons of men out there "think like a woman" or "have emotions like a woman" (and I put these in quotations because I still find the idea sexist to begin with) and yet "identify" as men because they understand that the distinction is the realm of biology.
"A few examples include: I have always wanted soft, smooth curves and to be a mother."
So you are unhappy with your gender. That's unfortunate. But it doesn't change or affect reality, and I think the sooner you acknowledge that the better your changes of accepting that gender so you can move on to asking the better questions:
Why do you want to be a mother? What do mothers do? How do they contribute to their children/society? Isn't it entirely possible to fulfill those needs (which are indeed important) as a man?
"I'm highly empathetic toward others. I don't understand the intrigue with sports or porn."
Same here x3. But I know that doesn't make me any less of a man. Also, plenty of women (who "identify" as women) lack empathy, love sports and watch pornography.
"I am isolated from most men because I am so different psychologically and isolated from most women because I am so different biologically. Etc."
Story of my life! And I'm not just saying that. My friend, I don't even know how to change a tire. I know pretty much none of the things men are expected to know, and the only stereotypically "guy thing" I'm into are video games.
"To make my thoughts and emotions fit my body requires barbaric "brainwashing" techniques that are only marginally successful and produce a multitude of equally nasty side effects like PTSD.
"
You need to let go of this notion of thoughts and feelings "fitting bodies", and so does anyone who gives you shit over not being "enough of a man". Your body is male, and I presume that you're an adult, therefore you're a man. Your thoughts and feelings only make you you. The odds were that biology would greatly influence your personality, but you beat those odds and broke free from gender norms. If anything, this is something to celebrate, not run or hide from.
"Lastly, identifying as something measurable (age, race, social status) is provably true or false."
Exactly. And being a man or woman is measurable through biology. If you have zero biological evidence that you're a woman, yet you want people to treat you as one, there's nothing stopping me from applying this principle to pressure others into treating me as a different age, race, and financial status.
"In any case the most obvious difference between these identifications and gender dysphoria is that they don't cause distress."
To your knowledge. But I'm quite sure that if you give it time, people will be popping up with their stories of how "always knowing they were black" (when they're white) and having to be misraced, etc. caused them great pain and suffering. Because again, what's stopping them? Even if you say they're just faking it all, how can you prove that? You can't.
"If someone does suffer then it's up to the individual to do something about it - just as it is with gender dysphoria."
Yeah, like coming to grips with the objective truth, and then asking why they identify as something they're not.
"And if there's sufficient determination, a poor person may earn their way to a higher social class,"
No no no. Don't be a bigot. These people are already rich, and you have to treat them as such. And that will have all sorts of interesting applications when they happen to stroll into the nearest bank, wouldn't you say?
"an old person may act and think as a younger person."
Right, like a 40-year old man who identifies as a 15-year old boy can date your daughter. What could you say against that? You don't want to be a hateful bigot, keep that in mind.
"Society accepts and encourages these people. Ever see an old man on a skateboard doing tricks and having a blast?"
That's just it, though. He can do these things because he's able to, not because he identifies as someone younger. Similarly, you can fulfill the same needs as any mother, without being a woman. And that would be OK but competing in sports against biological women is not. Just as the old man can ride skateboards in the park, but cannot date a teenage girl.
"But few will correct them if they say they feel young or rich or whatever. Yet many will correct me for saying I feel like a woman."
Partly because (so far), there isn't a movement of old people claiming they are in fact young or poor people claiming they are in fact rich. So the guard can be lowered there. Also partly because "feeling young" refers to differences in young people that most wouldn't dispute. It's almost inevitable that a young person (who is healthy) will have more energy. It is not almost inevitable that a woman will think, feel, and behave the way you are.
"So if I require a female-shaped body to function (regardless of my DNA), is it correct to deny it?"
You don't require that at all. The issue is in the mind, so that's where you should fix it.
"Living authentic is more important."
Indeed. So if you are a man who thinks, feels, and behaves in a very different way from most men, that's what you say. That's what you know about yourself, and so that's what you should tell others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mixuaquela123 "I shouldn't be able to express that disagreement"
- Correct. I mean "I shouldn't express that disagreement", more precisely."
Well that's beyond disrespectful of you, to demand that when people disagree with something they just shut up and pretend to agree. I refuse your attempt to control my language, especially since you've failed to logically defend the worldview you're wanting me to change it on behalf of!
"I mean it comes down to what "true" mean"
True as in correct. Right. Accurate. You've no right to demand others to say things that are not true.
"Tell me what makes calling someone fat (who is actually overweight) disrespectful?"
Well "fat" (to refer to a person) is itself an insult, used as a hurtful way to say "overweight". I don't think anyone is fat, but plenty of people are overweight. By contrast the word "man" is not an insult in and of itself; it depends on how it's used.
""this definition confuses gender itself with gender roles and norms"
- No it doesn't."
Sure it does. The definition you offered literally described gender roles and gender norms.
"It links the gender to the culturally appropriate roles/norms normally assigned to a specific biological sex."
And is also unworkable with the rest of your worldview; you can no longer say a man is someone who identifies as a man if their gender is actually determined by how closely they adhere to the behaviors, activities, norms, etc. expected of men.
YOU: "Woman: a person whose gender identity is woman (apply the term "female" to the gender definition to avoid circularity)."
ME: "you should tell me what a "female" is on your worldview because I suspect circularity there"
YOU: "Female: biological. No circularity."
Oh? So a woman is someone who identifies as a biological female? Again, you're trying really hard to come up with an objective, workable definition of "woman" on your worldview here, but it always ends up being unworkable. Same for every single definition I've heard from the so-called "experts" and psychologists who subscribe to modern gender theory. That ought to tell you something.
YOU: "But internally the condition works very similarly to homosexuality (conflicting feelings at the start etc.). That's a good way to start understanding it."
ME: "Not at all. Because when asked to define "gay" or "man", a gay man can do both without appealing to circular logic."
YOU: "What the fk does the definition have to do with internal experiences?"
I'm not talking about the "experiences" (if you mean feelings), I'm talking about how these feelings are interpreted. On homosexuality, you don't have to subscribe to an incoherent worldview in which you can't even give workable definitions for your terms. On transgenderism, you do. That's the difference.
ME: "Okay, so rejecting someone's proposed language =/= disrespecting them. That goes both ways though. You can't just arbitrarily say that your proposed language must be accepted (and not to do so is "disrespectful") while my proposed language can be rejected without that being "disrespectful".
YOU: "Your proposed language is not part of social norms."
And as we discussed, something being a social norm does not make it okay. Someone speaking out against a social norm that is wrong (logically or morally) is not necessarily disrespectful. It may very well be (as it was in the case of slavery) that the social norm is what's disrespectful and needs to be corrected.
""No True Scotsman fallacy"
- No fallacies. It has been proven."
What, that those who detransition didn't really have gender dysphoria? Where?
"lright tell me the "absurd conclusion" about this example?"
It's absurd to think that speaking against slavery back when it was a social norm was the disrespectful thing to do.
""But... is it true that objective truth doesn't exist?"
- It is true in some cases."
Okay then, lol, objective truth exists.
1
-
@mixuaquela123 "I'm not saying you should pretend to agree. I'm saying you should use the correct pronouns"
A. There are no correct/incorrect pronouns, on your worldview, because there is no objective standard by which anyone qualifies as man or woman.
and B. Using the pronouns you want me to use = me speaking as if I agree those pronouns are correct when I don't.
"It's just respecting other people."
Then you and others should likewise be obligated to speak the way I want you to; otherwise it's disrespect on your part. Again, your side isn't automatically in the right just because it's your side. Nor is it in the right because (according to you) "social norms" agree with it.
""I don't think anyone is fat, but plenty of people are overweight."
- Well that didn't make a lot of sense did it."
Sure it does. Because I don't think of people as "fat" (because the word itself is an insult when referring to people), but plenty of them are overweight.
"You can say things which are true but disrespectful to say."
Perhaps. Like, if your friend recently lost their job and you go around telling everyone against their wishes. But at the very least, it would be wrong of your friend to ask you to lie and say they didn't lose their job. Likewise, it's wrong of you to ask me to call men women and women men, or even to imply it indirectly.
"The definition said: "particular society considers appropriate for individuals based on their perceived or assigned sex". In where does it mention gender?"
Here is the complete definition you gave: "gender refers to the roles, behaviours, activities, expectations and societal norms that a particular society considers appropriate for individuals based on their perceived or assigned sex". The roles you're expected to play based on your biological sex are called "gender roles" and always have been. The behaviors, activities, etc. that a society considers appropriate for a man = the gender roles and norms expected of men.
"It's not only about "adhering"."
Well then you should stop giving those things (which people can adhere to or reject) as the definition of "gender".
"Part of the gender identity definition said:"
I don't care what "gender identity" is. In order to determine that the gender you identify as is actually your gender, we have to discuss the latter.
"deeply held sense of their own gender"
Which remains incoherent, as none of us have a basis for that comparison. We've each only been just the one gender, so we'd have no way of knowing the difference between "sensing" we're men vs. "sensing" we're women, or indeed if such a difference exists at all.
"I don't think it's possible to have a deeply held sense at some gender while having identity of other gender. You haven't provided me any examples of that."
Nor would I need to, because that isn't anything I've argued. But I have pointed out to you that someone can adhere to the roles, behaviors, attitudes, etc. of men (your definition of "gender") while identifying as a woman. And in order for you to be consistent, you'd have to say such a person was wrong about their own gender.
""So a woman is someone who identifies as a biological female"
- You are literally ignoring the definitions I provided you. I've never given that definition lol."
I quoted the entire conversation. In fact, here it is again:
YOU: "Woman: a person whose gender identity is woman (apply the term "female" to the gender definition to avoid circularity)."
ME: "you should tell me what a "female" is on your worldview because I suspect circularity there"
YOU: "Female: biological. No circularity."
ME: "Oh? So a woman is someone who identifies as a biological female?"
This would mean that a woman is a person whose gender identity is female. So my question's a good one, no matter how much you stall.
"You already agreed that being a trans does not mean "subscribing to an incoherent worldview"."
Never did I agree to that, no. I did say the feelings of having gender dysphoria do not constitute an incoherent worldview in and of themselves. But transgenderism interprets those feelings by way of adopting incoherent beliefs (e.g., "I must be the opposite gender"). Homosexuality does not involve that.
"I meant that it has been proven that detransition doesn't work well."
Detransitioning "works" just fine; there are several people who've done it quite publicly.
""Someone speaking out against a social norm that is wrong (logically or morally) is not necessarily disrespectful"
- It is disrespectful if we perceive it through the lens of the community-"
I'm not talking about what the community thinks; I'm talking about what is actually the case. The community used to think slavery was okay. Those who said they disagreed were not necessarily being disrespectful, while those who facilitated slavery were being disrespectful and then some!
"It was in the eyes of the slavers."
And the slavers were wrong. It wasn't disrespectful; what they were doing was.
""Okay then, lol, objective truth exists."
- Again repeating: it exists in SOME cases."
And again, this means objective truth exists. Whether you want to acknowledge that it exists in all cases is a different matter.
1
-
1
-
@CircmcisionIsChi1dAbus3 "what's unethical about cutting away a childs healthy se-xual organs...?"
The foreskin is not a sexual organ...
"If I were to do the same exact procedure to a grown adult, I would be committing dozens of felonies."
As you would if you strapped him into a car seat and decided he's moving to another state or some such, without consulting him. Parents make decisions for their children all the time.
Comparing this with "gender affirming surgery" is wrong on at least two levels:
1. The latter is based entirely on an incoherent worldview, not any sort of biological realities or knowledge. Parents may choose circumcision after learning about balanitis, phimosis, etc.
and 2. The circumcised child can still live a normal life, reproduce, etc. when they get older, whereas the "gender affirmed" child's body has been entirely ruined in these ways.
"Why on earth would it he okay to cut a BABY?"
That's the question, isn't it? And it has to be answered more specifically, on a case-by-case basis. Should a doctor not perform life-saving heart surgery on a baby?
And no, these reasons are not akin to the excuses given for trans surgeries. Again, one is based on medical knowledge (albeit not medical consensus regarding the conclusion) and the other is based on transgenderism which is an incoherent worldview.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cook1ezz "I do not think it is due inherently because they transitioned,"
Right, it's despite the fact that they "transitioned" (had the surgery). So in other words, even if they go all the way into doing that (which a lot of trans people don't), they still have an extremely high rate of suicidality.
"but because of the way trans people are treated in society,"
A. I haven't seen any evidence that this is the reason (e.g., no one's shown a difference in suicidality between trans people in areas where it's less accepted vs. areas where it's more accepted).
and B. I don't think it's realistic to be expect everyone to jump on board with transgenderism because, like I said, it's also very incoherent.
"I get why you think gender roles are the important thing in being transgender,"
Because trans people themselves inevitably start talking about gender roles when telling me how they came to the conclusion that they're really the opposite gender.
"but "being more feminine" and wanting to wear girly clothes and do make-up isn't what makes me trans, its just something I enjoy.
"
Then how do you know you're "supposed to be" or "are really" a woman, despite your biological makeup?
"I hope to you, puberty is not a gender role,"
Obviously not. That's a purely biological process.
"because if I could decide what body I was born with, then maybe I'd agree. Think of anything that happens during male puberty. Growth of body hair for example. Whatever it is, I will tell you I noticed it, and hated that it was happening, and hate that it is a part of my body. I hate that I have a penis, I hate the lack of feminine features I have etc."
Granted. But that doesn't mean you aren't a man.
"The feminine features thing doesn't come down to public perception either, I subconsciously expected to get them when I was younger, so when I hit male puberty and it did not align with what I got, that is what triggered heavy gender dysphoria and as a result me being discovering being trans."
Could you elaborate on this, please? Are you saying you were expecting to develop naturally as a female (despite your chromosomes and genitalia being male)?
"I've never truly cared what other people think, I do feminine things if I want to, I do masculine things if I want to. I do care about pronouns, and I care about having the right name, because I feel like I should have been born that way,"
Well there is no "right name", that's just chosen by your parents and then changed by you later on if you don't like it. But even if I conceded that there is a "right gender" to be born as, it still wouldn't mean that you are in fact that gender. No more than it means that because there shouldn't be any murder that therefore there isn't.
And to what extent do you "care about pronouns"? If you would try to force me to call you a woman or refer to you as "she" and "her", sounds like you care a great deal about what other people think!
"but they are not the most important thing in my transition, and even if people never addressed me the way I wanted them to, and even treated me like a joke, I'd still transition."
To be sure, lots of people are going to do whatever they want to do regardless.
"So yes, my answer in short boils down to the ever annoying answer of I was born this way."
And if a white man identifies as black, saying "I was born black, just in the wrong body", etc., would you call him black?
"I cannot control the fact I am trans. It's annoying, for me and other people who just need to know why I'm like this."
Well it's become a bigger deal, in part, because a lot of trans people and trans advocates are trying to force the rest of us to say and do things we disagree with. So naturally, we're going to challenge the idea more often and more directly in response.
"At the core, I have no idea why I was born transgender. If I could have picked at birth, I wouldn't have picked to be transgender, it is not fun, it is mentally exhausting, but here I am. Even though I am not finished transitioning, transitioning was the best decision I have ever made in my life, even through all of the insults I get. I probably would be dead if I didn't transition."
I would attribute all of this to the worldview itself, personally. It takes two of anything (beliefs, observations, events) for there to be a conflict. If you were so inclined, you could live as a man who simply lives the way he wants to live, even if it flies in the face of cultural and social norms regarding gender.
"I've heard people say, without knowing I am trans, that if they saw someone who was trans they would beat them up."
I've never heard anyone say anything like that. What was the context of that conversation?
"The "trans panic" defense still exists in most places, including where I live. The trans panic defense is a legal protection for people who killed someone who is trans because they were in a relationship and did not know that the individual was trans, and panicked when they found out. While yes, I should disclose that I am trans before entering a relationship, I do not think a viable response to finding out if I didn't tell them is to fucking murder me."
I agree, but these sorts of "defense" (it's not an official law or provision) can be found in tons of cases independent of those involving gay or trans people. If a man walks in on his wife cheating on him, and kills the other man, the jury might rule in his favor the same way. I think if you kill someone outside of self-defense, you should probably get prison time either way, but it's on a case-by-case basis. Same goes for whether you should be hired by a given employer. I myself am more libertarian on that issue. It really isn't the government's place to tell people who they can/can't turn down for a job, provide service to, etc.
1
-
@cook1ezz "I'm saying trans people do not commit suicide because they are uncomfortable with their transition"
Right, I'm not suggesting that either; I'm saying that despite the transition that's supposed to help them so immensely, they're still 18 times more likely to do it.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
"I'm guessing you've heard or talked to people who say "when I was younger I loved to play with dolls" and you may make the connection that they are saying "they played with dolls, so therefore they think they are transgender.""
Not so simply. But I do think that they have interests, feelings, etc. more typical of females, are told about transgenderism and then think "I'm transgender" rather than "I'm a tomgirl" or just "I'm a boy who has so-called "feminine" traits.
"How do I know I'm supposed to be a woman? I do because like I've said, I expected, despite my biology, which seems silly but its just what I thought, that I would develop feminine features."
That doesn't mean you were right to expect it. Doesn't mean you should have been a woman, and certainly doesn't mean that you are.
"I know I am uncomfortable with male features, and now being during transition, I know I am more comfortable being addressed as female."
As any person with a delusion (again, talking about people you and I would agree are delusional) would be, if the people around them referred to them as desired.
"I care about pronouns to the extent that I will ask you to use my pronouns, and if you refuse then I will probably move on with my life"
Then I would wager you are at least somewhat less likely to become suicidal. Which is something we are both hoping; I don't want anyone to hurt themselves over anything like that.
What do you think about the general push from trans people and their advocates, to force it, though?
"Gender is a social concept,"
Disagree. I think gender roles are the social construct/concept, and they're roles placed on people due to their gender/biological sex.
"What most people fail to realize is that sex is not what we base our social standards on, because we force people who are intersex into the "gender binary" by removing the intersex individuals testes even if they are fully functioning etc. usually under the guise of "they will cause cancer" which in most cases is provable to be false."
That doesn't mean that for those who are born biologically male or biologically female (the vast majority of human beings), society doesn't expect them to adhere to gender roles on that basis.
"There are intersex individuals with xy chromosomes, so you'd think they'd have a penis right? Instead they have a vagina."
Which simply means that your genitalia typically but not always corresponds to your biological sex.
"This is why I do not agree with the trans-racial thing that much unless someone can prove to me some things."
But why? TransGENDER people don't have to prove anything. As I said, even if you say "Well, trans women have 'female brains'", we both know that's not always the case. And we both know you wouldn't tell a biological male who identifies as a woman without a "female brain" that they're actually not a woman. So why pretend there's some objective way of confirming or falsifying it for transgenders, that only trans-racial people would be lacking?
"Race seems to be accepted as a biological thing, both medically and in public standing."
For now. Until the medical experts are given enough hell for being "hateful" and "denying transracial people their rights/humanity".
"I wouldn't say transgenderism is a world view either, it's just what I am."
The way you interpret it is the worldview. In theory, you could interpret it as "I'm a man, but that doesn't mean I have to talk, think, feel, or behave in any particular way".
1
-
1
-
@cook1ezz "but internally no, I've never felt like a man inside."
That's my point. You don't actually know what it feels like to be a man, according to you, because you're saying your real gender is that of a woman and always has been. So how can you be so sure that you don't feel like a man? Again, I think if we're honest, we'll have to admit we haven't had both experiences so we don't know how they compare, which means we don't know if they feel different or the same.
"but the congruence between what I feel inside my head and what my body is should be enough to dismiss needing to compare them."
Not if the question is, What am I? And again, all kinds of people identify as something we would both agree they're not. We would say they're mistaken. But even they would feel better if we agreed with them that they are what they claim to be.
"And if enough people have the feeling, transition, and become happier, like in my case, who are you to say that I am invalid?"
I'm not saying you're invalid (I don't even know what that means), but I think your conclusion that you're a different gender from your biological sex is wrong. The same way you would think a white man who says he's black is wrong, or a poor man who says he's a millionaire. You would refer to observable, objective facts despite however they might identify.
1
-
@cook1ezz "I know I am more comfortable living as female, I was uncomfortable when I was living as male. That should be all it takes."
All it takes for what?
"Besides the fact that it's shared with your sex, how do you know socially you are comfortable with your gender?"
That's not the question. I don't think anyone is questioning whether or not you're comfortable with your gender (or how you know you're uncomfortable). It seems to be a consensus that you aren't. Where we disagree is just what that means and what the best thing is to do about it.
"for you there is no reason to have a distinction between your sex and gender because they line up with each other,"
It's not about having a reason or not having a reason. I simply acknowledge that "gender" traditionally means biological sex (which is why "gender roles" is a phrase; they are roles given to us by society based on our gender). What I don't see a reason for is changing it to mean one's inclination or disinclination to follow gender roles, or what a person "feels like" they are or should have been.
"Why don't you want to acknowledge the difference between sex and gender? It is scientifically accepted after all, even if you want to dismiss it."
Because the scientists have accepted it, without being able to escape the incoherence themselves. I've yet to be shown any studies that reveal what a person "should have been born as". And in general, the closest thing we've come to scientific confirmation is the brain studies, but then we have the various problems I brought up earlier.
"Also, "invalid" just means you don't think I'm trans, or don't believe in trans people."
Depends on how you define "trans", I guess.
"The thing is, when someone is not rich but claims to be rich, it is not the same thing as saying that I don't know I am more comfortable living as a female"
Why not? Naturally, such a person (who truly believed they were rich despite being poor) would be very uncomfortable living as a poor person and would experience great relief if they were acknowledged as and treated as someone who's rich.
"That in no way is the same as a poor man saying he is rich, there is no merit to that claim."
I'm sorry, but that's precisely how we view transgenderism. We are regretful that you go through depression and can't bring yourself to live as a male, but we think the claim itself is incorrect.
"Are you saying that my dysphoria is fake or unrelated, that all of the depression I went through because of my dysphoria and discomfort is fake or unrelated?"
Not at all. As I said earlier, no one is questioning the reality of your pain, depression, discomfort, etc.
"Are you me? Do you know what I experienced? The answer to the last two should obviously be no. I bring this up because you do not have a basis to dismiss my depression and dysphoria is fake, nor my experiences that lead to me coming out as trans."
But we both know a poor person who truly believes they're rich, or a white person who truly believes they're black, etc. could and very likely would say the same things.
"The observable objective fact about me is that I am female in gender,"
That's neither observable nor objective. Again, that's unless you stick rigidly to the brain studies as the way you can confirm it. But then you'd have to disregard any trans "woman" who didn't have a "female brain"; you'd have to say at least they're not really women, despite their identifying as one. And I don't think any trans people or advocates are prepared to do that.
"strangers who don't know me address me as female because I present that way."
Oh okay, but does that mean you're more legitimately a woman than biological men who are just starting on this journey? Surely you would say you are both women, which means that isn't what we're talking about (when it comes to what's observable) anyway.
"Now my main question is, why do you have a problem with me?"
I don't have a problem with you, I disagree with transgenderism. That's partly due to the incoherence and partly because I think it (itself) is harmful and heightens the risk of suicide in trans people. I suppose the way it stands to affect what I can/can't say, women's privacy in public restrooms, women's sports, and how it's being promoted to kids would be additional concerns.
"Do you deny that science supports the distinction between sex and gender"
I challenge the claim, sure. Because the science itself doesn't even seem to be aimed at the relevant questions.
"based solely upon "pandering to hate" which is purely an assumption?"
You lost me there.
"If you were talking to/about me, what pronouns would you use even though I socially am accepted/seen as female?"
If you looked and sounded like women typically sound, I would deduce that you were a woman and address/refer to you as such. Otherwise, or if I knew it was you, I'd probably avoid using a pronoun at all so as not to cause a scene. But if asked, I would tell you the same in person (that I disagree with transgenderism and believe you are actually a man).
1
-
@cook1ezz Not dodging anything, but let's have another look at your argument.
You said,
"I have lived as a male, even though I say I didn't feel like one in my head, I still lived inside a male body, presenting male, socially recognized and treated as male, if I was male inside like my sex would suggest then I should have been comfortable right? Well, I wasn't. I went down a deep spiral of discomfort and depression and almost ended up taking my own life."
And then I responded (which means I didn't dodge it) with,
"And I hope you never do; I wish you the complete and total best! But that aside, any given person who identifies as something that you would tell them they're not, could easily say the same things you just said. Then what? Would you address them and treat them as they requested or no?"
Now we're caught up. Let's see your response to mine now...
"No they could not easily say the same thing."
Of course they could. They could say have lived as a poor person, even though they didn't feel like one in their head. They could say they've lived inside a poor person's body, "presenting poor person", and socially recognized and treated as a poor person. They could also say that if they were poor like their bank account suggests then they should have been comfortable living as a poor person. But they weren't. They went into a deep spiral of discomfort and depression and even considered suicide.
So I'll ask you again, if they said all that, would you stick to your guns and tell them "Oh well! You're not rich, you're delusional"? And if so, why?
"These are already impossible to compare due to the quantitative vs qualitative thing I stated before,"
And I pointed out that you're comparing things which are not to be compared. Biology is quantitative, we can look at physical, objective, observable facts to draw our conclusions about what someone really is. But you're wanting to talk about the experiences and feelings when it comes to you, but downplay their importance when it comes to a poor person identifying as rich or a white man identifying as black.
"Money, it is measured in value, hence it is quantitative. To be rich, you must have the socially expected amount of money to qualify as being rich."
And to be a man, you must have the socially expected chromosomes.
"Identifying does not matter if you cannot back it up with the money."
We see transgenderism the same way. The rest of your paragraph seems to be repeating the same argument, but let me know if you think there's a crucial part I missed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Maksie0 "Think about it this way. Age as a number is an objective measurement of how long one has been alive."
Right, but again, what if they came up with a different word (like you're conceptualizing "gender" as something different from "sex"). You're wanting males who identify as women (so-called "transwomen") to be called and treated like women. Why couldn't a 10-year old acknowledge their biological age is 10 but then identify as 40, thus obligating you to call them and treat them as 40? That's if there's really any validity to the premise "This person is a woman by virtue of identifying as a woman", which there isn't.
"But the concepts of "child", "adult", "elder', etc are social constructs."
Okay then, so see? You've already found a way that such a person could spin this into obligating us to treat 10-year olds like they're 40. They could say "my biological age is 10, but I identify as an adult because that's a social construct". Then what?
"But the concepts of "men" and "women" are social constructs."
That's according to your worldview. But on mine (and remember, I'm the one who can define my terms in objective ways), a man is an adult human male, and a male is someone whose development involved both an active SRY gene and active androgen receptors. Nothing about that is socially constructed, it's all science. Real science, I mean.
1
-
@dariocarraresi1823 ""Gender" are the cultural beliefs that a society has in regards to, among other things, masculinity, femininity, and sex."
That would be confusing gender itself with gender roles and norms. But even supposing we ignore that, your definition here would suggest that anyone who was far more masculine than feminine would be a man, even if they identified as a woman. And if you say, "No they're still a woman", that's not what your definition reflects, so you should update it to establish exactly how someone is/isn't a man or woman. What determines that (their gender), that's the question.
"The difference between gender and gender roles is pretty much the same difference between "most girls like to play with dolls" and "girls like to play with dolls, therefore if a girl doesn't like to play with dolls she needs to be corrected"."
No, the first would be an example of a gender norm whereas the second would be an enforcement of gender roles. And neither of these determine your actual gender.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Jay Middleton William Lane Craig's arguments for theism still stand. As for our specific conversation...
"What can I say to this?"
I don't know, that's up to you. But I maintain that just calling it (or me) "stupid" isn't a refutation, despite what your fellow anti-theists have taught you about debate.
"I guess it's worth mentioning that it was not "nothing" before the big bang."
Yes, it was. As Barrow and Tipler (each of them eminent cosmologists as well as physicists) emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo."
John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. 442.
Stephen Hawking agreed in a lecture available online: “The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.”
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
"You go from saying god is hypothetical in the Kalam to the Kalam being evidence for god."
Actually, god would be a hypothesis later in Craig's cumulative case. All the Kalam Cosmological Argument provides is a cause of the universe that is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immensely powerful, and personal.
"you've been convinced by a fallacious argument."
You've failed to support the claim that the KCA commits a fallacy. You tried to say that it was special pleading but ignored my refutation that the universe and god are not comparable given the evidence of the former (and not the latter) having a beginning.
"There is no god,"
You still need an argument of some kind to support this claim. Or would you have us all take it on faith?
As of now, anti-theism remains unjustified.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CactusCowboyDan "1: Have you ever met any 18 year olds? They don’t exactly act like adults."
Depends on how they're raised. Once again, it comes down to effort. If you're lazy and don't teach them right, then they'll be a handful. Otherwise, they'll be quite mature and responsible.
"Because their brains are still developing, they have no real experience or knowledge yet. So they haven’t fully matured. True adulthood is more like at the age of 21 these days."
Well for starters, if you treat them like a kid, they won't mature. As you yourself said, part of this equation is experience and knowledge. Your initial approach was to assume they just might not be able to take care of their younger siblings and the parent will still have to spend the vast majority of their time taking care of them directly. But you have to teach them and give them the opportunity to learn with your guidance.
And second, if you want to get technical, the brain doesn't stop developing until around 25. So you might as well commit yourself to this absurdity and claim they're not adults until then.
"2: Again, there’s no guarantee a kid will learn anything regardless of effort you put into them. Some kids just don’t want to learn. Don’t believe me? Go to any young juvenile school."
I've actually worked with troubled youth in a residential treatment center, and they all have the potential to learn except for those with literal mental disorders (e.g., brain damage). And even those have some ability to learn a few things. As for not wanting to learn, well that's where you have set boundaries and enforce them. Once again, effort.
1
-
@CactusCowboyDan "18 year olds don’t usually act like adults regardless of what effort your put into them."
A very bold claim I'm awaiting any sort of proof of... But yes, I know a few and knew dozens of them just a few years ago when I worked in the RTC. They were easily more mature than many of the people I've known in their late 20s. I'm not going to buy this idea that they're all just inevitably immature despite upbringing, you might as well give up on that one.
"There’s nothing absurd about the fact that brains don’t fully develop until 25 (it’s mid 20s actually which can mean any number) and therefore nobody is a true adult till then."
Except that "maturity" isn't typically used in such a literal way. It's used in reference to behavior, sense of responsibility, etc. And it turns out you don't need a fully developed brain to easily be more mature than a lot of full-grown adults out there.
"I’ve met 28 year olds who have never so much as had a job."
Well exactly. Despite being "true adults" in the physical sense, they probably were treated like helpless and hopeless little children until they were 18 (or beyond). Minimal teaching. No opportunities to learn, etc.
"And it’s totally true that many 18 year olds don’t take care of their siblings or parents. No matter how much you nag them to."
Nagging isn't going to magically transform them into a mature and responsible person, no. That's what bad parents do after they've failed. But it doesn't follow from there, that there isn't anything you can do to make sure they grow up with that minimal level of decency. Seriously, IME, the idea of an 18-year old not wanting to take care of their little brother/sister is an oddity.
"3: Again, some kids don’t want to learn regardless of how much you want them to. Enforcing them to learn doesn’t help and it just makes them resentful. Just go to any juvenile school and see for yourself."
I already addressed this. In my own personal experience I've seen pretty much every troublesome kid in a group turn things around. But if you approach with a mentality of "It's too hard, I'll just give up", then that's what you're going to get in return.
And notice the example you're using. A kid whose parents already screwed him up! We were talking about parenting the right way from the very beginning, not being lazy about it until they start giving you an attitude at which point we'd agree - it usually is too late for the parent to do anything about it on their own.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cielonehellofaservicedog4648 "Maybe read how gender is a social construct"
This would be the confusion I mentioned earlier, between gender roles and norms (which are socially constructed) and gender itself. The roles and norms are based on a person's gender, aka biological sex. People look at me, determine that my biological sex is male, then expect me to adhere to the gender roles and norms of a man.
"and in other cultures there are multiple genders or none at all."
There may be multiple sets of gender expectations, but there are still males and females, everywhere we look.
"Why do u think children even know gender roles and things that attribute to gender like barbie vs hot wheels?"
Because gender roles and norms are taught, unlike gender itself.
"How do you know u are a man?"
Because I'm a human who's biologically male, and grew into an adult. But notice that on your worldview, you can never give an objective definition for terms like "man" or "woman". This makes it all the more incoherent, because you clearly want to say that I'm incorrect in how I use these terms. But it's logically impossible to be correct or incorrect while using terms that have no objective definition.
As for science, in order to claim it supports transgenderism, you would need an objective definition for your terms all the more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Thejericko17 "I believe that as Americans we have a responsibility to make systems that are equitable"
How do you mean "equitable"? Ensuring the same results or just allowing the same freedoms?
"which means righting the wrongs that we can."
But if the idea is to give a leg-up to those who are indirectly affected by unfairness in the past, then that's everyone deserving a leg-up. And who gets to decide the dollar amount for each?
"We can't even begin to do that if one side flat-out REFUSES to listen to experiences outside of their own."
You obviously want more than just for people to listen. You want to change something, right? That's where people disagree, on which change will bring about the most good.
"This isn't even about my ancestors this about things that have happened in my immediate family, in my lifetime."
Just the same, everyone has suffered unfairness. Most of us have suffered it directly. And it would be an impossible task to compensate everyone for the near infinite factors we've suffered unfairness in. And again, who gets to decide what weighs heavier? I never hear you guys (meaning the left) advocating compensation for just "people who were raised with only one parent", for example. It's always, well, less impactful differences like race or gender, sometimes sexuality.
"People of color"
Ugh. Cringeworthy label. And all too reminiscent of how racists use to call black people "colored".
"are AT MOST one or two generations removed from being second class citizens."
It is still in the past, and there is now wide disparity between black households. Why is that?
"In my view, people who lack that perspective or worse who are unwilling to acknowledge that fact are the greatest impediment to meaningful progress"
What would you consider meaningful? Many of the people today saying black people are at a disadvantage for these reasons, are some of the most rich and powerful people in the U.S. despite being black.
1
-
@Thejericko17 "A: Equity is about making sure that people get access to the same opportunities."
Even assuming you literally mean opportunities and not "to the same things", this isn't possible. There are too many factors involved, that will inevitably mean that people have varying degrees of access to different opportunities.
"Sometimes, as is the case with people of color, differences in our history (Slavery, Jim Crow, Segregation, Sun Down Towns, Red Lining etc) create barriers to participation."
No. Things in history are not creating barriers for you today. They do serve for some black families to explain part of certain types of unfairness. Meanwhile, as I pointed out, other black people are doing absolutely fantastic, and it's worth asking yourself why. And again, beyond that, it's a very narrow focus when there are countless other factors that equal unfairness for everyone.
"By contrast, equality promotes fairness and justice by giving everyone the same thing but it only works if we all start from the same place."
Okay, so you are talking about trying to force equal results. That's never going to happen. Partly because there are way more factors that affect your chances of success which are never talked about much less considered into any calculations, and partly because when people are given equal freedom they still make wildly different decisions with that freedom.
The only way to ensure absolutely equal results is to literally control every aspect of every person's life.
"Equity is about giving people what they need in order for ALL OF US to start at the same place. It is not about equity of outcomes."
The only way to ensure we all start from the same place, is to ensure equity of outcomes though.
"Just because we all plant an apple seed doesn't ensure that we'll all grow successful apple trees."
And just because we're all given apple seeds, doesn't mean we'll all plant them. And that's America today. Tons of people of different skin tones, genders, etc. live in a land of opportunity but squander it. It's why immigrants (yes, even black ones) tend to do better on average than most American-born citizens. They appreciate the opportunities more, and so they take advantage of those opportunities better.
"However, EVERYONE should START with the same fertile land, quality seed and access to clean water and sunshine."
And then what do you think would happen? You said yourself that it would inevitably result in unequal outcomes. So we'd be back to square one every generation, to reset it lest people complain once more about the inequity in "opportunities". Wouldn't be my fault if my father or grandfather was lazy and didn't tend to his land after all, right?
"Q: And who gets to decide the dollar amount for each?
A: History decides. If you took $5 from someone in 2006 money then you should give them the equivalent of $5 of 2006 money in 2022."
If I take it, sure. But I haven't taken anything from you...
"Also, please stop saying that people are "indirectly affected by unfairness.""
Well they are. It's not directly holding you back, what happened in your family's past. Heck, even what's happened to us personally doesn't usually hold us back in the present or the future.
"As an example, people of color deal with disproportional health disparities as a DIRECT RESULT of discriminatory housing practices."
Some "people of color" (which remains a silly phrase) are dealing with that, while many aren't. Some white people are dealing with that also, for similar if not identical reasons. But the point is you can rise above it, unless you assume you can't.
"I only seem liberal because I'm advocating for EQUITY lol."
Well of course, that's a very left-leaning thing to do. Equality (equal opportunities) would be one thing, but that's not where you stop.
"To your point, we did not all suffer the same kinds of "unfairness" to the same degrees or magnitude."
Well of course not. But neither did all black people suffer the same kinds of unfairness (nor do they all face hardship the same today), and so it makes no sense to talk about this problem as if it's black and white, so to speak.
"Surely you can acknowledge that. Growing up with one parent is NOT THE SAME as growing up under Jim Crow."
You're right, growing up with only one parent is far more likely to impact you than what your grandparents or even parents went through.
"If your cancer is in remission that cancer is IN THE PAST. Does that mean you should start smoking cigarettes and eating terribly?"
If it's still there and in remission, it's not in the past. And biology is very different from one generation struggling and the next not necessary struggling with everything else.
"In this example, the "cancer' is the systemic racism that existed for years in this country. TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR, the United States is 244 years old. For the MAJORITY of that time people of color were legally treated as second class citizens or WORST. Jim Crow laws stopped being legal in 1965. This means that LEGAL RACISM HAS ONLY BEEN GONE FOR 57 years! Only 23.36% of US history has been without LEGAL RACISM."
Absolutely none of this means that there is still systemic racism in this country, or that black people necessarily are being held back by the racism of the past.
"No reasonable person would believe that."
Why not? Again, how come there are so many successful black people in this country? How did they get successful?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dariocarraresi1823 "The minimarket's owner paid for the business and its maintenance"
Right. They paid for that, you didn't. So by your own logic, if I can't benefit even indirectly from roads I didn't pay for, you shouldn't benefit indirectly (or directly) from buildings you didn't pay for.
Also note that we all benefit from roads we don't pay for, as our tax dollars don't fund literally every road in the country let alone the world.
"We, as a society, paid for all the things run by the state and their maintenance; that includes roads. Therefore, our society owns those roads, sets the terms of service, and decides the prices."
And "society" will decide to provide goods and services to whoever they can profit from, including people who didn't pay for the roads they use.
1
-
1
-
@Mike Ponti Agreed. At least Trump understands economics.
@00matthew2000 (Posting this here because YouTube's up to something) Not at all, it means the freedom for people to rise up and compete with them. And of course for consumers, employees, etc. to benefit from that competition. And yes, that means that some businesses go under, but that's literally always going to happen.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "bullying", but I'd say that's going on right now because of big government. Even Bernie complains about companies and special interest groups lobbying politicians and other government officials for favors. The only real way to prevent that, though, is to remove that power altogether. So long as the government can decide who stays and who goes in the market, people will find a way to harness that power and "bully" others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm sorry, but transgenderism is still incoherent and without any basis in reality at all.
@Robert Platt "Would it help if I pointed out that medical scans show our brains are actually wired more like the sex we identify?"
Not at all. Even assuming you mean that your brains are the size/shape of the opposite gender at birth (which you might not, Idk), it wouldn't mean that therefore you're that gender. People with conditions we'd both agree are mental disorders are sometimes diagnosed in that exact way. So there being a biological explanation for why you think you're a different gender, doesn't equal a biological confirmation that you are.
"That is, my 23 chromosome is male but my brain is wired like a normal female."
Which brings back the question I asked you in another comment section, which I don't recall you answering: What about a trans "woman" who doesn't have a similar brain to biological women, but identifies as a woman anyway? Would you tell them they're not a woman, or does the size and shape of the brain suddenly (and conveniently) not matter then?
"I literally think more like a woman than a man. I understand women better than I understand men."
Which, again, only means that you have a different personality than most men. So do lots of men, who still recognize that they're men despite that. But would you tell them they're not men either? Because they think "like a woman", which again, depending on what specifically you mean by that sounds sexist to begin with.
"Everything about my psyche says I should be a woman but my body is decidedly male."
Feelings about what "should" or "shouldn't" be are irrelevant, if only because they're so subjective. But it's just like I asked you before in that other comment section, how do you even know what it feels like to be a man vs. what it feels like to be a woman? If you're a woman and have always been a woman, you quite literally cannot know the difference (if there is a difference) between the two.
"None of this was my decision. It wasn't induced by trauma, abuse or teaching. It's quite the opposite. I was taught to be a boy. I even had special classes to help teach me.
"
Not that this matters a great deal (Again, some mental disorders "just happen" without any trauma, abuse, or teaching), but you really can't say for sure that nothing in the forgotten formative years of your childhood brought this on. It's not like people have memories of their birth and the first few years afterward.
"That was around 1975. There was no such thing as "transgender" back then just gay and transvestite. And I learned quickly both groups were hated outcasts. Why would I want to be like them?
"
I think this is a key paragraph. Not wanting to be part of these groups because they were hated doesn't address objective truth. Not saying you are just gay or transvestite, but it sounds like you haven't ruled those out properly.
"The divide between brain and body creates a strain that builds and builds until it gets so bad it destroys some part of me. You'll never see the scars because they're all on the inside. Yet they exist and they show a LOT of damage has been done.
"
I don't think anyone's denying that having such a condition would be painful and extremely difficult. But we do disagree that the best way to treat these sorts of conditions is by going along with it.
"In short, we CAN successfully change our body SHAPE and that's all we need to feel and be just as normal as everyone else.
"
I'm sure it would help you feel better, to force your body into the shape you think it should be. How could it not? But that doesn't mean you've changed what you are.
If you don't mind, I decided to tack on part of another conversation we were having, where I had asked you why a person can't also identify as another age, race or financial status. I never got a response from you, but I wanted to press the question to highlight part of why me and others find transgenderism so incoherent logically:
"Lastly, identifying as something measurable (age, race, social status) is provably true or false."
Exactly. And being a man or woman is measurable through biology. If you have zero biological evidence that you're a woman, yet you want people to treat you as one, there's nothing stopping me from applying this principle to pressure others into treating me as a different age, race, and financial status.
"In any case the most obvious difference between these identifications and gender dysphoria is that they don't cause distress."
To your knowledge. But I'm quite sure that if you give it time, people will be popping up with their stories of how "always knowing they were black" (when they're white) and having to be misraced, etc. caused them great pain and suffering. Because again, what's stopping them? Even if you say they're just faking it all, how can you prove that? You can't.
Besides which, is the level of suffering a person's going through with a "mislabeling" really a fundamental difference regarding what's true? The question, how do we determine what's correct? How can we look at someone else and tell them they're not what they feel they are, if we can't do it regarding gender?
"If someone does suffer then it's up to the individual to do something about it - just as it is with gender dysphoria."
Yeah, like coming to grips with the objective truth, and then asking why they identify as something they're not.
Just as I had suggested you ask yourself the following:
Why do you want to be a mother? What do mothers do? How do they contribute to their children/society? Isn't it entirely possible to fulfill those needs (which are indeed important) as a man?
"And if there's sufficient determination, a poor person may earn their way to a higher social class,"
No no no. Don't be a bigot. These people are already rich, and you have to treat them as such. And that will have all sorts of interesting applications when they happen to stroll into the nearest bank, wouldn't you say?
"an old person may act and think as a younger person."
Right, like a 40-year old man who identifies as a 15-year old boy can date your 15-year old daughter. What could you say against that? You don't want to be a hateful bigot, keep that in mind.
"Society accepts and encourages these people. Ever see an old man on a skateboard doing tricks and having a blast?"
That's just it, though. He can do these things because he's able to, not because he identifies as someone younger. Similarly, you can fulfill the same needs as any mother, without being a woman. And that would be OK but competing in sports against biological women is not. Just as the old man can ride skateboards in the park, but cannot date a teenage girl.
"But few will correct them if they say they feel young or rich or whatever. Yet many will correct me for saying I feel like a woman."
Partly because (so far), there isn't a movement of old people claiming they are in fact young or poor people claiming they are in fact rich. So the guard can be lowered there. Also partly because "feeling young" refers to differences in young people that most wouldn't dispute. It's almost inevitable that a young person (who is healthy) will have more energy. It is not almost inevitable that a woman will think, feel, and behave the way you are.
"So if I require a female-shaped body to function (regardless of my DNA), is it correct to deny it?"
You don't require that at all. The issue is in the mind, so that's where you should fix it.
"Living authentic is more important."
Indeed. So if you are a man who thinks, feels, and behaves in a very different way from most men, that's what you say. That's what you know about yourself, and so that's what you should tell others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ghani666 "Omg you actually answered the question! Genuine props for that. So let me ask you this"
Fine, but will you ever answer the question? Let's see...
"you have a complete breakdown of androgen receptors and gamates for every person you consider a woman?"
Naturally not. But society functions on holding people to a standard of honesty rather than deception. Same reason I might call someone "doctor" without having a copy of their medical degree. How/Whether or not we can tell who really is/isn't a woman isn't the question though. What makes someone a woman is, and I've answered that. But you still seem to be having difficulty there.
"when you see a person walking down the street and someone asks you “is that person a man or a woman?” you answer “I have no idea” right?"
No, because I do usually have some idea. Even if I'm wrong, the clues are there. These are ways of determining what a person is in the absence of complete and total proof, in hopes the person is being honest with how they present themselves. Again, this is how we operate with pretty much everything.
"Why not have the definition you just provided be the medical definition of “female” (no one would argue with you) and have “gender” remain as it’s always been: a social identity?"
Well for starters, it hasn't always been considered a social identity. Gender = sex, and we've known that for some time now. It's the very reason the roles we're expected to play solely based on our biological sex are called "gender roles" to begin with. And when you call "gender" a social identity or construct, you're actually confusing it with gender roles or gender norms.
"Four years ago, you would never have even cared,"
Because it wasn't being pushed at me before. Sometimes we don't address problems until they've gotten a bit out of hand, unfortunately.
Now... what is a woman, on your worldview?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@The Workers Bearded Dragon "No, I have explained in many different ways all my positions.
"
But you haven't shown me specifically where institutions or policies or laws are discriminating against black people, which is what I challenged you to do.
ME: “Except that narrowing it down to regions also underestimates how complicated it is. Say that x is the amount chosen as the minimum wage for that region. You will still have workers in that region who are not providing x amount of value to the company they're employed at. So that paying them x is a loss to the company they will have to make up by either hiring fewer people, cutting said workers' hours, laying them or other workers off, passing the difference down to the consumers in the form of higher prices. Otherwise they're forced to shut down because they're now losing money.”
YOU: "That can happen, but it doesn’t always happen."
ME: “So what? It's still a lot of people harmed unnecessarily. The point is, if you're worth $15 in labor, you can find someone to hire you for that amount. You shouldn't have the ability to point the government gun at people and force them to pay you what they might not be able to afford.”
YOU: "I can’t fix stupid."
Unfortunately for you, that doesn't work as a rebuttal.
ME: “Yeah. Look at them. Self-checkouts and robotic stockers. Tons of people without jobs. But more generally, you're not asking the important question of why they can "get away with" paying their workers less. Could it be that those workers aren't able to provide more value in terms of their productivity (because if they could, they'd have better-paying options elsewhere)?”
YOU: "I can’t fix stupid
"
That doesn't work as a rebuttal either.
ME: “So you think that if they're guaranteed more money by the government, that will somehow give them incentive to improve?”
YOU: "You start by ensuring adequate funding then you can start having policies that further improve them."
That's awfully vague. But again, if you let the parents decide where their kid (and that money) goes, this automatically gives each school real incentive to improve. You don't need government to control every little thing. You just need there to be natural consequences for a school that refuses to improve.
ME: “You make it sound like when 20% of a school's students leave, then the government takes 50% of their funding. That's not what we're advocating. We're talking about literally determining how much money is needed for each kid, and then letting that amount of money follow the kid to whichever school the parent decides.”
YOU: "I can’t fix stupid."
Not a rebuttal.
ME: “Nonsense. If the money isn't in the bank to loan out, or isn't expendable by the ones who have it, that money will not go toward home loans, investments or anything of the sort. There will be some investments, sure. But nothing like it is currently.”
YOU: "Can’t fix stupid.
"
Not a rebuttal.
“I don’t care about your definition of stealing”
Taking someone's property without their permission is just the definition of stealing, lol.
ME: “How so? Where is your rebuttal specifically addressing my argument that the government not paying for everyone's tuition and/or guaranteeing student loans would result in fewer students being so reckless with the degrees they choose? Or your rebuttal to address my argument that if they couldn't afford to attend a particular school in general (because they can't get the taxpayers to pay for it or the government to guarantee a loan for it), that college would see a decrease in enrollments and would be forced to lower their tuition costs, offer better degrees, or both?”
YOU: "Can’t fix stupid."
Not a rebuttal. And if your article contained something to refute what I'm saying, you would've quoted it. I'm done going on wild goose chases trying to prove your claims for you.
ME: “Depends on what you mean by "horrible". But even objectively harmful working conditions may be beneficial to the worker in the long-term. Again, the point is that people should be free to choose for themselves; it shouldn't be forced on anybody.”
YOU: "Can’t fix stupid."
Not a rebuttal.
ME: "Again, there's a reason we only see "technology" making things more expensive in the healthcare industry and nowhere else. Technological improvements also allow for more products to be built and built better. And yet, those products get cheaper and cheaper.”
YOU: "Can’t fix stupid.
"
Not a rebuttal.
ME: “No, what I want is for the government to allow people to provide the actual healthcare itself and stop pretending that proclaiming it a "human right" magically makes it available. I want to see the shortest wait times imaginable. I want to see the lowest prices imaginable. But I don't want us to fall into the trap of thinking that A. government is trustworthy/competent enough to manage it, or B. it's okay to steal from people so long as you have good intentions.”
YOU: "Can’t fix stupid."
Not a rebuttal.
ME: “American culture doesn't give much of a damn about health, for starters. Living life in excess, obesity, etc.”
YOU: "I looked at the data regarding this. Americans are not in any significant way that unhealthy compared to other developed countries.
"
So you claim. But the actual data shows otherwise.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154469/
ME: “But that's why I compare the U.S. now to the U.S. from the previous era. It's a much more controlled experiment, so we can have far more confidence that the difference is due to that one factor that changed.”
YOU: "Not really healthcare has developed a lot over the last few decades"
I was talking about the very sudden (and very apparent) rise in the costs. The effects were seen immediately. In just ten years after the advent of Medicare and Medicaid, inflation had doubled. Instantly, the medical care price index departed from the consumer price index where it hadn't before. By 1995, it was twice that of the consumer price index. That's twice where it probably would have been had the market remained (even relatively) free.
https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KingGh0st_o Apologies for not answering sooner, my notifications are all screwed up.
"do you believe that media makes up fake news because I hear a lot of that from from trump supporters"
It's not so much a belief but a realization. And to be fair, it's more that they carefully craft their stories to be factually true but very misleading. For example, they go on and on about the things Trump said about Covid ("downplaying" it and such) and forget to mention all the things he's done to combat it. They also forget to mention how his critics used to downplay it too, even going so far as to oppose what Trump was doing to fight it (e.g., Pelosi's efforts to keep him from implementing the travel ban).
"if so , then why would you trust Google?"
I don't trust Google completely either. I've actually switched to DuckDuckGo for the time being. But what we can find through these search engines is still mostly good information, even if we have to do a little digging for it.
"How can you trust that what the internet says is the truth when it comes to race relations with African Americans if you don't trust the media? If you think that they can fake numbers on covid-19 they can fake anything."
That's always true in general, but the difference is that they even admitted to the numbers being fake concerning Covid. And no one's challenging the numbers concerning race relations with any serious, focused critique.
"I'll also tell you how he can win black people over simply say black lives matter"
Well it would win over the ones who believe in that movement, sure. But not everyone does (and yes, I mean not every black person). At the end of the day, he should call it like he sees it. And BLM is based on a very faulty premise. There simply isn't any evidence that the people they keep naming were killed, shot, arrested, etc. because they were black.
"just like all lives we need to cut all this Division and come together as one."
Which is why we don't agree that we should go around saying "black lives matter"; it's very divisive.
"If he said that I guarantee you he would get the black vote but he won't say that because he doesn't believe that."
See, you're going by what people say and not what they do again. That's why the Democrats take the black vote for granted, they know they can get by on rhetoric and never do anything to help. Trump on the other hand, is just the opposite. He's done a lot of great things for Americans in general (some of which disproportionately benefit black Americans). That he doesn't do all the cringe-worthy pandering shouldn't matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well to put it plainly, I think he's doing a great job overall. I think we need to be firm with terrorists and others who threaten to do us harm. I also approve of the deregulations and tax cuts, prison reform, Right to Try, transparency in the costs of medical treatment, getting more drugs approved by the FDA, etc. And yes, I like what he's done for the pro-life movement (though I understand that's a more controversial topic).
That's in addition to the original comment, which hints at how Trump was absolutely right about Baltimore.
@Ash "being pro-life is disgusting."
I think it's just the opposite; being willing to kill another human being is what's disgusting.
"pregnancy takes alot of resources and not all women have the energy or money to stay safe while pregnant or get their child somewhere safe."
Which could be said of any parent of a small child. Does that make it okay to kill those children too?
"also back alley abortions becayse of abusive husbands or unaccepting cultures kill people."
I would say that abortions of any kind as well as domestic abuse are wrong...
"sacrificing real, breathing and feeling women to protect cell lumps"
We can all be written off, technically, as "lumps of cells". And do you really think that breathing and the ability to feel things is what makes you a human being? Because if so, then we can start killing all those people in hospital beds throughout the country. Same goes for the ability to show/express emotion. There is no logical and consistent definition for "human being" that would allow us to kill the fetus (or even embryos after about 6 weeks following conception) but not many other people we both acknowledge the humanity of.
"tax cuts mean the chronically ill live in shittier situations if they live off of welfare."
How do you figure? The ones who literally cannot work aren't affected by any of these changes. But the ones who can work but perhaps cannot find a job are helped by the tax cuts and deregulations because more jobs become available when employers can actually afford to hire more people.
"there would be no need for transparency if costs were you know...covered for people who would die without Medicare."
There's always a need for transparency, even when (or perhaps especially when) the government's in charge of it all. But you're starting the story in the middle rather than the beginning. If the market were opened up, supply could actually catch up to demand. More doctors, clinics and hospitals would mean that consistent (and not artificial) downward pressure was being put on the prices of healthcare. As it stands right now, providers of the healthcare itself are rare by government design.
I agree that it's disgusting when people have no sympathy for the less fortunate! That's why I advocate for the free market. How great would it be if the same cost-reducing competition we enjoy in every other industry were available in healthcare? And not just cost-reducing, but concerned with maintaining quality and efficiency as well. So many countries with "free" healthcare end up sacrificing either quality and/or efficiency which is harmful if not deadly as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Okay, so you're wrong about a number of things. For one, just pointing out that since Candace Owens primarily speaks to the black community Lieu's misrepresentation of her was an insult to their intelligence in particular is not "playing the race card". From the Wikipedia: "The phrase is commonly used to allege that someone has deliberately and falsely accused another person of being a racist in order to gain some sort of advantage." Candace neither asserted that Lieu thought only black people were stupid (indeed, I'm sure she'd be fine with saying Lieu was trying to trick everyone) nor did she lean on such a label. She instead pointed out why he was wrong.
Second, you go on to give the same misrepresentation Lieu gave. But you don't acknowledge that she was answering a totally different question on a totally different topic, nor do you seem to know/be willing to acknowledge that the very next phrase after the clip Lieu played said "(The problem with Hitler was that) he wanted everybody to look different", an obvious reference to his prejudices which led to genocide. I appreciate that you don't think she's pro-Hitler, but your claim that "she says stupid shit" isn't backed up either because she was in fact criticizing what you falsely say she didn't. Not that she should have to say it was wrong for Hitler to kill the Jews, but she did. She just didn't spell it out because she thought, surely, no one would be... well, stupid enough to not understand.
And no she didn't get offended at the idea that she "said stupid shit". That obviously was not Lieu's angle (that sometimes Owens says stupid shit), and if you're gonna insinuate that then you're just a liar too. Watch the video again, she got offended at the implications that she was defending Hitler!
I also agree with her point that to kill your own people (on no basis beyond racism and hate) is not really nationalism. It's not keeping your nation's best interests at heart; it's just prioritizing your own personal intolerance.
Also, she did not get "too defensive". The man tried to completely smear her and paint her as a Hitler-sympathizer, and did not call on her to answer (another Republican had to give her his time, otherwise she would've never been able to set the record straight). You're showing a very strong bias in insinuating that she shouldn't have responded as she did. She most certainly should have! You just don't like it.
"All I care about is what's true."
LMAO!!! Ok.
Next you make this bizarre non sequitur of "Oh, Candace Owens pointed out that she went to the opening of the embassy in Jerusalem to prove she's not anti-Semitic... that must means she thinks anyone who criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic". That doesn't follow. Sure, she does point out that no Democrats went, but that only means they can't use that as evidence as she can.
Also, I watched her whole interview with Joe Rogan (which was really great, I highly suggest people check it out), and she consistently said she'd be open to having her mind changed but was skeptical due to some other stuff she had read long ago.
And what's this whole misguided attack on her credibility for, if you can't see the irony in passing along a message from Politicon (which you yourself admit has a history of misinforming people about who's backing out of debates) as if we should take that seriously? Similarly, you don't see the irony in following "Debates are more about performing for the audience than having the actual truth on your side" with "Owens' people said 'She not quite ready for a one-on-one debate setting, therefore she must not have the truth on her side!"
At any rate, I'm very skeptical that you have the truth on your side in general, when you're getting the aforementioned things so wrong already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@f.u.c8308 Well, the very reason few anti-theists admit that's what they are is because they know it puts a burden of proof on their shoulders no one's been able to bear. It is, by definition, opposing theism. But to justify that, you'd have to show that theism is false. Originally, I thought like you did, that if it's harmful in and of itself (which also hasn't been proven), that's reason enough to oppose it. However, if we discovered that god did in fact exist, we wouldn't deny that. We'd be theists, and we'd simply work to minimize whatever harm came from acknowledging god exists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobsponge797 "I’m guessing you’re whites"
And I'm guessing you think that's important. And you wonder why we (meaning Republicans) are turning the "racist" label around and using it on you.
"and you’re talking about how trumps not racist because you know literally google , YouTube racist things trump has said you’ll find it"
I've watched a few videos claiming to have proof that he's racist, but nothing so far that really works. But then, the word's misused so often these days, I'm not sure half the country knows the definition.
"now if you wanna close you’re eyes and say oo well trumps just joking okay do that as a person of color it offends me and hurts me"
No no, as your own person it offends you. There are plenty of "people of color" (which is a grotesque term, IMO, sounds too much like "colored people" and that's not good!) who find Trump and his jokes hilarious.
"and I find it hilarious how people think the impeachment was not fair or overhyped"
Well, it was. They weren't even claiming Trump had broken any laws by the time they decided on articles of impeachment. And it was a purely partisan vote pro, against a bipartisan vote con.
"of Obama did everything he did y’all would of been marching for his impeachment till his last day"
Maybe some would, but I wouldn't. I'd wait until I had actual evidence of a crime, or else wait until election day.
On gay marriage, all I meant was that he didn't oppose it and wanted to leave it up to the individual states (which is really how most things should be).
Anyway, what are your thoughts on the rest of my response to you?
1
-
@bobsponge797 "I’m telling you it’s important as a white person you haven’t felt racism"
Well that's BS too. There are plenty of racist black people, hispanics, etc. And depending on where you live, there might actually be more anti-white racism than anti-black or anti-hispanic racism.
"you’ve never been oppressed your white"
BS as well. Oppression comes from whoever's in power; it's not always based on differences in skin color at all.
"how dare you try and be labeled as a victim of racism by poc that’s insane"
1. No one should live life with the victimhood mentality, no matter what you've been through.
2. I wasn't even talking about being victimized by racism, I was talking about Bernie's absurd claim that white people don't know what it's like to be poor.
"As a POC that lives in a very democratic state and have all poc friends we use that term so don’t educate me on what poc like to be called"
So you think that your group of friends represent black people in general? Look, whether this upsets you or not, not every black person thinks alike. Some won't mind "person of color", others will. You'll just have to get over it.
"and look at his trump rally ITS ONLY WHITE PEOPLE WITH A DROPLET OF POC"
Well yeah, the majority of people in the U.S. in general are white. Plus, a lot of people have been taught to just assume Republican = racist so minorities mostly vote Democrat (although Trump's changing that at a rapid rate).
"I think you’re responses disquieted me I can tell you’re not that ignorant I recommend leaving Texas of Missouri or one of the red states your in and go to blue states and see how us people that don’t fly confederate flags live and how we feel about trump and if you don’t take a seat and don’t try and tell poc why he’s not racist because a white man will never be able to justify trumps not racist for that fact nobody can"
Well that's a whole lot of assumptions you're making! You even seem to be assuming that I'm making assumptions about you. In reality, I've never owned a confederate flag, called myself a Patriot, anything like that. But I will still express my opinion, whether it's to a black person, white person, whatever. And I don't think any evidence that Trump's actually a racist has been presented.
But I will say that most of what Trump's done helps all Americans, and some of it (e.g., prison reform) actually helps blacks disproportionately.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@penguinstrophe “Anyways, undergoing the sex change surgery and all of that does legally change your sex. However, according to transcare, under US federal law (and likely other countries) a surgery is not required to change legal sex."
It's not possible to change your sex (aka gender). The law can say whatever it wants, it doesn't change reality. Same for any "gender expert" in the medical field who cannot even provide an objective, workable definition for "gender" to begin with.
ME: “In what sense are you “choosing your gender”?”
YOU: "Gender dysphoria is when an individual is uncomfortable with the mismatch they feel with their sex and gender identity. Gender identity is one’s personal sense of gender."
The problem here is that no one can say for sure what gender they are "sensing" or "feeling like", as we've no basis for that comparison. We've all only been just the one gender, so we'd have no way of knowing the difference between "feeling like" a man vs. "feeling like" a woman, or indeed if such a difference exists at all.
"Think of it like the first time you heard your voice recorded. You may have felt surprised or embarrassed because it sounds totally different from what you thought it sounded like to others. Gender dysphoria and gender identity can be compared to this."
Being unhappy with either (your voice or your gender) doesn't issue in the conclusion that your voice/gender should be different, and especially that you should undergo sometimes irreversible "treatments" to "fix" it.
"Gender identity is what gender a person feels most comfortable with being perceived as"
What is "gender" then? And remember, you're saying it's something different from sex. So an adult human male can't say he's more comfortable with being perceived as an adult human female if sex and gender are different.
"Oh yeah, most dictionaries, including the Oxford English Dictionary, desperate sex from gender. The world health organization does the same."
And all of them fail in making sense of this worldview as well. Oftentimes, they confuse gender itself with gender roles and norms. Speaking of which...
"“The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones.”
Are you really gonna argue with the most trusted dictionary in the world?"
Trust implies trustworthiness. Once something is no longer worthy of trust, that trust shouldn't be given.
"Oh yeah, I don’t really understand what side you are on, wether you support trans people or not, so I don’t know exactly from what angle to respond to you."
I support trans people fully abandoning their worldview for something more coherent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taco9061 Unfortunately, there are many (even doctors) who mis-use the term "brain dead". If there is brain activity at all, it's not actual brain death, although it can still be determined to be irreversible or in such a state that will only advance until all brain activity is gone.
https://blackdoctor.org/brain-dead-vs-coma-vs-vegetative-state-whats-the-difference/
And yes, choice is an essential component of no longer being innocent.
Finally, functional uses (or "working definitions") will not be helpful for falsifiability so that demand is still not met. Simply put, both are required for a scientific hypothesis.
But again, I'm still waiting for you to provide an objective definition of "man" or "woman" here, if you think one can be given. How, for example, can we differentiate between a biological male who believes they're a woman and is correct, and a biological male who believes they're a woman and is incorrect?
1
-
@taco9061 "So according to you brain death isn't scientific."
That doesn't follow from anything I said, no. Brain death is a very real, scientific fact. It's just that sometimes people (even experts) call something brain death when it isn't.
"Also a dead salmon can show brain activity via an FMRI so a dead salmon is alive according to you."
Last I checked, salmon are a very different species than human beings. So I wouldn't apply all of the same rules across species; that would be silly.
However, I will reiterate: There is no scientifically consistent way of justifying killing an unborn human being, seeing as how (for humans) we recognize that the presence of brain activity is the ultimate sign of life.
"Not in all uses of innocent, sport."
In every use of "innocent" that is applicable here, yes. And I've explained why. The fetus did not choose to be created or placed where the mother and father placed them, nor do they have any options other than to remain there.
"All you need is a clear definition not an "objective" one."
To do science, you need to consult objective reality, yes. And defining x as "someone who believes they're x" is not scientific.
"Man and woman have multiple definitions depending on context."
See, this is the problem with transgenderism; you end up struggling with the simplest questions. If you ask someone who has not subscribed to that incoherent worldview, they can answer. For example, a man is a biological male human being who is an adult. A woman is a biological female human being is also an adult.
But you would define these terms... how?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@taco9061 "You said objective definition"
Indeed! And I stand by it. If you can't supply an objective definition which references objective reality as opposed to what someone thinks, believes or identifies as, you're nowhere near the scientific method and you've no way of establishing that anyone's been "misgendered".
""There are inconsistencies in concept, criteria, practice, and documentation of brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) both internationally and within countries." - this directly contradicts you."
Not in the slightest, no. Because all of these differing concepts of brain death will still reference objective reality. You are confusing disagreement over a definition with its being objective. But objective truth is true even if no one agrees with it.
So I'll repeat the question you continue to dodge: How would you distinguish between a biological male who believes they're a woman and is a woman, from a biological male who believes they're a woman and is not one?
"
Please quote me saying "Whatever someone feels or believes is Man or woman"
Oh, do you not agree with the typical view, among those who subscribe to transgenderism? That someone who identifies as a woman is a woman? Because if you have another way of answering, I'd truly love to hear it!
"It's not a red herring"
Of course it is. We were talking about human beings and when they are alive or not. Obviously this will differ from one species to another, so I won't be distracted with that topic. You hold whatever view you like on those other species; I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency your side takes concerning humans.
"They can be guilty but not culpable"
Nonsense, these are synonyms.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/guilty
And even if you're going for a legal definition sort of loophole, you have to establish that a person could have done otherwise (at very least). And of course, neither a fetus nor a person in a coma can do different from just be where they're placed.
"why would I cared if you are or are not a woman?"
Not relevant to the question. I simply asked how you could determine that I was/wasn't.
And you continue to dodge :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If God told you to kill your child, would you do it?"
This question is an old anti-theist trick. A loaded "Gotcha!" question which is practically never asked for the purposes of a sincere discussion. As such, I think the Christian should always ask the following questions about the question before answering:
1. Do you mean what would I do, or what should I do? If it's the former, then the only honest answer anyone can give is "I don't know". We never know what we would do in these situations. It's kind of like asking "If you saw three gang members beating up a woman, but you had no phone or any way of getting outside help (no weapons, etc.), would you help her?" We want to say "Yes, I would!" but we don't know until we're placed in that situation.
2. By "God", do you mean the Christian god? If not, then I wouldn't believe it was god and so I'd say no, I shouldn't obey its command.
and 3. Do you mean if God told me to do it, or just if I thought God was telling me to? If it's the former, then it grants for the sake of argument that the Christian god is real and is definitely giving this command. So the answer would be yes. Because we're talking about an omniscient, always morally correct being. It's just a truism that you should do what he says at that point. If I just thought it was god, I wouldn't think that. It's like asking "What does the square circle in your room look like?" It's an incoherent question because I wouldn't draw that conclusion. But if I did see and hear something "like" a god (e.g., a holograph-like but very real-looking glowing person with a booming voice telling me "This is God. I command you to murder your child", then I would take the least risky option and say no. Because the bible tells me not only "Do not murder" but also to test all prophecies, holding only to what is good. So I'm potentially disobeying god either way, but holding to the scripture seems to be the safer option.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@k3v1n47 "You were talking about "Blexit." I called bullshit.
"
Not enough to just "call bullshit". It's inarguable that it at very least supports my statement that minorities are beginning to rally together. And what they're saying happens to be true. The unemployment rate for black Americans is at an all-time low, fatherlessness as incentivized by the Democratic Party decades ago has done nothing but hurt the black community, meanwhile Democrats keep going on and on about 'the rise of white nationalism/supremacy and racism!" even though blacks killing blacks is much bigger problem.
"And yet, you think the media isn't "Pro-Trump" enough."
Never said that. Do try and focus. You brought up "People don't trust politicians and the media" as some sort of counterargument against the idea that people are going to be supporting Trump. But I pointed out that Trump is not a career politician and "the media" is mostly anti-Trump too.
ME: "Trump's been able to accomplish a lot though,"
YOU: "Like what?"
Are you kidding?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trumps-list-289-accomplishments-in-just-20-months-relentless-promise-keeping
"Also, how do you define "Accomplishment" in a political situation? Who did he benefit with these "Accomplishments"?
"
Well, most of them benefit everyone (like the unemployment rate). But even if they don't all benefit every single person, the cumulative effect is pretty impressive. And let me just say I didn't vote for the guy; I voted for Jill Stein the last two elections. But it's hard to argue with the numbers.
"I think you're simply on a fucking team."
Well I'm not. But even if I were, the question is "Which team should you be on?" Bias toward the truth, for example, is a great bias to have!
1
-
@k3v1n47 "YEAH...that's why I offered ample evidence to show that it's bullshit."
That's a lie. You offered no evidence that BLEXIT was insufficient to support my statement that minorities were beginning to rally together for leaving the Democrat Party.
"What the fuck does it mean "minorities are beginning to rally together"? What like in teh 1860s when blacks fought in the Civil war on the side of the Union?"
Umm, no one compared it to that at all, nor would I have to for my statement to be correct.
ME: "The unemployment rate for black Americans is at an all-time low,"
YOU: "go look at the earning of 50% of the American people. Its at $30,000 or less. Go look at the numbers of people who have dropped out of the job market."
Not sure how either of those stats would disprove the low unemployment rate...
ME: "fatherlessness as incentivized by the Democratic Party decades ago has done nothing but hurt the black community,"
YOU: "really? You mean the incarceration rates that the Drug war, started under Nixon and continued to this day is what hurts the black community you're concerned about?"
Actually, the point would still stand. People are more likely to get hooked on drugs and/or commit crimes when there's no father in the home as well. So it still begins with this phenomenon of marrying people to the government in a welfare system.
"Black Dads Are Doing Best of All
Charles M. Blow
... a C.D.C. report issued in December 2013 found that black fathers were the most involved with their children daily, on a number of measures, of any other group of fathers — and in many cases, that was among fathers who didn’t live with their children, as well as those who did."
Seems to be a straw man. I never compared black fathers to non-black fathers in terms of how involved they are with their children. But the effects of father absence are pretty widely known.
https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/38560/EllisCory.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y
ME: meanwhile Democrats keep going on and on about 'the rise of white nationalism/supremacy and racism!" even though blacks killing blacks is much bigger problem."
YOU: "Is it? What about whites killing whites."
Yes. And what about it? If there's a group of white people blaming their issues on racism (from black people), they should probably be corrected too. Again, you seem to think I'm comparing black people to white people for some reason, when I'm not.
YOU: "And yet, you think the media isn't "Pro-Trump" enough."
ME: "Never said that."
YOU: "Oh really?
"
Yes, really.
"You:
"Similarly "the media" is vastly anti-Trump."
"What news station favors him besides Fox News?"
What do you think this means, stupid?"
Again, you're failing to focus on the thread of the argument. You thought that "People don't trust the media" was a good counter to my saying that people are going to favor Trump. But the media is largely against Trump! So that response doesn't make sense. If people don't trust the media, and the media is spinning things against Trump, that would only imply that the people are going to not trust the media and therefore might even become more fond of Trump because of that. Do you get it now?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Robert Corfield Yes, it is exploitation, but I'm not saying she's been brainwashed. We're not so concerned with whether or not she's been forced/coerced to believe certain things; the question is, are people taking advantage of her feelings on the matter with a total disregard for whatever harm it may cause her, for the sake of a political agenda. And I think they very clearly are.
"She would have no reason to question them since after all they are scientists who have studied climate change."
More like, she knows of no reason to question them. But that's part of the problem too. She should be informed of just how unreliable these scientists and other "experts" have proven themselves to be.
"Her distress seems to be caused by the intransigence of people who are refusing to accept that we need to act now in order to prevent greater environmental disasters: flooding, drought etc."
These are the same types of predictions that were false in the past. And even granting the general premise that at some point it will be "too late" to prevent a "mass extinction", what's got her so troubled is the idea that it's inevitable (and imminent) unless we do certain things within a certain window of time.
"But this would not mean exploitation : the people exaggerating the threat could be just mistaken as opposed to telling lies in order to manipulate Thunberg."
While I highly doubt that no one she's interacted with so far knows about the false predictions dating back to the 60s, the point isn't that she's being intentionally deceived. It's that they can see for themselves that this isn't healthy for her and yet they encourage her to keep going anyway.
"I think Thunberg should be advised of the pushback etc and the possible abuse that she might receive,"
True, but it seems pretty one-sided, to want to warn her about the big, mean conservatives while not saying a word to her about what trauma the climate hysteria itself could cause.
"it seems to me it would be oppressive to deprive her of her voice on an issue she feels strongly about."
She. Is. A. Child. And children often want to do all kinds of things that will cause them harm or put them in danger. It's the parents' job to say, "No, you are going too far with this and it's not good for you, so you're not going to be involved in it anymore (or at least for a while)".
"Just because a person makes an unwise decision, does not mean we should deprive them of their autonomy."
Setting boundaries, especially regarding something very specific =/= depriving someone of autonomy.
"If she was so deprived, it could cause even greater distress, because the politicians would still not be taking the necessary action to combat climate change and she would not be able to do anything about it."
Make no mistake: Removing your child from a dangerous situation is only the bare minimum expectation, it doesn't make you a good or even decent parent. The second thing you want to do is inform your child about what's got them so afraid. You don't just let the child sleep in your room for fear of monsters under their bed, you show them there aren't any monsters there in the first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dis2666 "So are you saying that the word gender may refer only to biological sex??"
If it's to be used coherently, yes.
"Oxford and Cambridge dictionary define gender as societal as well as biological sex."
Yeah, they confuse gender itself with gender roles and norms. But this isn't even workable with the rest of their worldview. After all, if someone were to adhere to all of the societal expectations placed on men but identify as a woman, which one do you think the people at Oxford, Cambridge, etc. will call them?
"You say gender role is the term that can speak of society role in regards to biological sex. Okay. If not gender then what word do you propose to describe the topic at hand??"
Are you asking what I would call a man who believes he's a woman? I'd say both his sex and gender are "man" and he's simply incorrect. And maybe he wants to reject the gender roles and/or norms expected of men; I don't think we need a word for that, especially since plenty of so-called "cis" people also reject plenty of these traditional roles and norms.
"Trans gender then describes the difference between what is seen v what is felt."
I'm more interested in the difference between what is and what is believed to be. Besides which, the notion of "feeling like" a man/woman is incoherent too. We can go into that as well if you like.
"You say that no one's sexual organs suggest that they are anything but male and female. But is not the topic of trans-gender about the incompatibility within a person as regards bio sex v everything else they think and feel about who they are??"
The topic is about their beliefs which don't hold up to logical scrutiny. If I were to believe I'm Elon Musk, we don't need to come up with a special name for that - I'd simply be wrong.
"So then, are you saying this doesn't exist?"
The people exist. And I do believe that most of them genuinely believe they were "born in the wrong body" or something similar. But that doesn't mean they were.
"There is an issue and trans-gender is a topic that faces the issue. Your statement seems to disregard it completely."
Not at all. I simply regard it a different way. If you're asking what should be done about these beliefs, that will vary from person to person. But it's evidently possible to overcome gender dysphoria without subscribing to transgenderism, going the route of hormone treatments, surgery, etc. For example most cases of gender dysphoria in children don't even last into adulthood (Cohen-Kettenis; Drummond, Bradley, Peterson-Badali & Zucker).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pelopota Okay, you wanna change the subject? Fine. I do think we should work to solve the problem of climate change, but I don't share in your fear of it. Doomsday predictions from climate scientists and the like have proven unreliable for decades now.
@pelopota No, I just don't believe what groups that have lied to me before are saying about a subject they lied to me before on.
"Supplemental care. Everything is covered under medicare for all."
But you've never thought to ask, "What happens when the government just decides you don't need x sort of treatment?" That's my point. You should be thinking more critically, because it is excessive (even compared to all these other nations) to completely ban private health insurance.
Now, we already happen to know when and why our healthcare costs are so unaffordable. Prices skyrocketed in the 60s (with the advent of Medicare and Medicaid) because our government had radically increased demand while greatly hindering supply. And they've done nothing but get worse every year.
https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
Trump's managed to have some success (i..e., lowering prescription drug prices at historic levels) by applying free market principles, however. Namely, he's gotten more drugs approved by the FDA (competition!) He's also working for transparency in the costs of medical treatment, which will help even more.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/prescription-drug-prices-falling-historic-levels-thanks-trump-administration-policies/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaccbolton Again, that sort of argument could be used to justify killing at any age. Woman doesn't want or can't raise a child. There are supposedly too many orphans for the number of people wanting to adopt already (even though that's largely because the government has made it so insanely expensive to adopt), so why shouldn't the woman be allowed to just kill the child? That's why I asked you where you draw the line? Because to me, killing an innocent human being is wrong, even if you think it will help the world in some way.
"You act concerned but when was the last time you cried over somebody's miscarriage?"
False implication. I didn't cry when Kobe and his daughter died, either. Doesn't mean they weren't human beings. Doesn't mean I don't care, just because I don't cry at every death 🙄
"But you have no problem with grown people, who others will miss and mourn, being given the death sentence because he isn't "innocent"."
Actually, I'm against the death penalty. But yeah, I'm definitely less sympathetic when a criminal dies than when a literally innocent human being (like a fetus or a baby) is killed.
"Well he was an innocent little fetus at some point."
Ok? And so was Hitler, what's your point?
"So you basically just want to wait until they are old enough to hate"
No, I don't believe in hating people.
"and people actually grow attached to them before its ok to kill them."
I don't consider whether or not someone else has grown attached to a person a factor in deciding whether or not they should be killed. What a horrifying concept.
"It's not a black and white discussion and just because you think it is right or wrong doesn't make it either."
So again, I ask you: Is it wrong to kill an innocent human being?
1
-
@jaccbolton I care a great deal, which is why I'm standing up for those lives in arguments such as this.
"I don't think it is right to kill anybody. Doesn't mean that if put in a terrible situation i would or would not kill an innocent or guilty person."
But "terrible situation" is awfully vague. It's not like I'm asking "If someone put a gun to your head and made you choose between killing one infant vs. killing another (and if you said neither, they'll kill both), what would you choose?" This is more like, you created a human being. Now you don't think you'd be able to provide for and raise that human being. Is that justification to kill him/her?
"And your examples have no point."
Sure they do. The point is that just because you don't cry at every death you hear about, it doesn't mean you don't care. And it certainly doesn't imply that you don't think they were human beings.
"Nobody has been inspired by the aborted fetus because its life has not started yet
"
So again, that argument could be used to justify killing any newborn, most babies, most toddlers, and even a handful of kids beyond that age. I do not consider someone's life less valuable because "they haven't inspired anyone". If they are an innocent human being, I think they should be spared. Now, again I will ask you, Where is the line drawn? Surely you don't think a woman should be able to just kill her two-year old child. You probably don't think that they should be killed, say, an hour after birth. But where do you admit that it's a human being whose life should be protected?
1
-
1
-
@alecbader7433 "You're ignoring that a newborn baby is no longer connected to anybody's right to bodily autonomy."
No, I'm saying that in order to justify killing an innocent human being you need more than "my bodily autonomy". Besides which, in the vast majority of cases, the woman exercised her bodily autonomy to create the second human being to begin with.
"If you took a newborn baby and it somehow ended up back inside somebody, they'd have the right to abort it."
Not at all. It'd still be a matter of killing an innocent human being for the sake of convenience.
"The goal of preserving a life is not as important as preserving people's inarguable rights to control their own bodies."
And yet, you are controlling the second human being's body (to the fullest extent and in the worst way by killing them). That's what you keep forgetting; there are two lives involved in an abortion. Or, if it's more your language, two bodily autonomies.
""Established" means that they possess the things that we value in a human being,"
What I value most in a human being is just the fact that they are a human being.
"the things that make people unique."
And the fetus (actually the embryo) has its own unique genetic code.
"These things include personality and intelligence, which a fetus lacks"
No more, no less than a newborn baby. So you are in fact admitting that from your standpoint a newborn baby isn't an "established person" either.
"Therefore, any hypothetical rights of a fetus are trumped by the rights of the parent."
Well we simply disagree on this. There is no such right to kill someone for the sake of convenience.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Scott Holder "But did they red pill? Her "claim to fame" is red pilling from the democrats to republicans.......while being black."
What exactly is your argument? Because it doesn't logically follow that because she changed her position on a few topics that therefore she's only famous because of her skin color.
"Nothing policy wise made her famous,"
Her positions on various issues and the way she argues for those positions absolutely are what made her famous (oh, and good ol' lyin' Lieu). Again, there were already plenty of black Republicans before her. If you took the time to actually listen to her instead of fixating on her skin color, you would be able to see that she makes good points and she makes them well.
"the republicans promoted her so they could say, "see, we are not a racist party since we accepted her.""
Again, where's your proof?
"Republicans think, "we can't be racist, if we let blacks into our party."
"
Excuse you? Black people don't need permission from anyone to vote Republican. Not from the Republicans, and damn sure not from racist Democrats who go on and on about what color they are and never about what they have to say.
"If the republicans are promoting Candace Owens in a way that highlights her race,"
'The Republicans', or Candace herself? Would it be better for them to tell her what she's allowed to talk about? Would that ward off these goofy allegations that they're racists in your backwards world?
"Now, hopefully, in your next response, you will prove that you are willing to have an honest discussion..........but I do not have my hopes up."
Ditto. I'm still waiting for you to start backing up these absurd claims you're making. Why are you automatically suspicious when a black person thinks in a way you don't approve of? Are they human beings or not? Because if they are, they should be able to give their arguments and not have it all ignored for the sake of some dumbass conspiracy theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MuffinsAPlenty "What's interesting is that the "adult human female" definition mixes law with biology. You use a biological definition for both "human" and "female", but eschew the biological definition of "adult" for a legal definition of "adult"."
Because the legal definition for "adult" is at least coherent and workable. The definitions offered for "gender", "man" or "woman", on your worldview, are not.
"Otherwise, most 13 year-old girls would be women - exactly the age Matt Walsh likes them!"
Unfounded accusation, especially about someone who specifically says all the time that children cannot consent.
"This, obviously, raises the question, then, why "woman" can't have a legal definition separate from the biological definition, if "adult" also does."
I don't think it does. But again, the reason the proposed change to how we define "woman" is being rejected is because it's incoherent.
"After all, women aren't discriminated against on the basis of having a body structured toward the purpose of producing large gametes of based on their chromosomal composition; rather, they're discriminated against by their appearance."
Nonsense. It is very much the assumption of sexists that because women are different biologically they should be discriminated against. A woman might be able to trick these people into thinking she's a man, to avoid discrimination, but from their perspective they're not discriminating against that person because she's one of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Chuck-U Farly "pointless intolerance is one of the tools of religion"
Nonsense. Just because someone believes in a god and you don't, doesn't mean they're intolerant of your worldview, much less that they're pointlessly intolerant of it.
"You said, "and that anti-theism should go away." This is an intolerant statement which proves my point."
It's okay to be intolerant of pointless intolerance. And anti-theism is completely devoid of justification for its opposition of theism. You guys have consistently failed throughout the decades to show that theism is false or harmful in and of itself. You resort to emotionally charged rhetoric if not personal attacks in lieu of a proper argument. So you're opposing something you've no good reason to oppose. And that is why it's okay for me to oppose anti-theism. Same reason it's okay to oppose racism: you have no case.
"Religion thinks that it should be treated as privileged"
Religion is not a person, first of all. Second, any religious person who argues that religion should be treated as privileged is wrong. But that doesn't in any way imply that religion itself is wrong, harmful, etc.
"For centuries it has been religion that been persecuting others"
Wrong. If it were religion that caused the persecution, we'd be seeing a great deal more of it living as we are in a world mostly dominated by religious people. So there's no evidence there. And there's no logical association between being religious and persecuting others. There is, however, a logical tie between being intolerant and persecuting others. So again, if any "type of person" is likely to be for persecuting people they don't agree with, it would be your type.
"TAX RELIGION JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!!!"
It would be hard to tax religion, but if you mean the churches and such I agree.
"Religion is an evil self perpetuating scam"
So far, all you've done is reassert this. You have yet to give a good argument for why we should think religion/theism is false or evil.
1
-
"I am glad that you agree."
Just that churches and such should be taxed, not that religion is evil or a scam, because you've done nothing to establish those claims.
"Religion does persecute."
No, it doesn't. Because religion is not a person. The people who persecute others are cut from the same cloth you are, because you're both needlessly intolerant of different views despite having no case against said views.
"It teaches people to be separate themselves from the rest."
What do you think anti-theism is all about, if not trying to separate people? Look, I would agree that atheists have been discriminated against in various ways. But that's the nature of power in general. Power corrupts. If atheists were the majority, no doubt we'd begin to abuse that position in similar ways. And people like you would be the first to promote such abuse.
"The fact here is that religion LIES it is a SCAM!!!"
Unfortunately for you, it doesn't follow that because religious people have abused power and tried to use their beliefs as an excuse to be assholes, that therefore religion is a scam. Theism could still be true, particularly in light of recent arguments presented asking just that question. That some theists are not nice people doesn't refute theism itself.
ME: "Just because someone believes in a god and you don't, doesn't mean they're intolerant of your worldview, much less that they're pointlessly intolerant of it."
YOU: "I never said anything of the kind."
You said that pointless intolerance is one of the tools of religion. But it's not even necessarily part of religion. That's what I was pointing out. Theists are not typically intolerant people, particularly in comparison to people like you.
"No business is allowed to make false claims about its product yet that is what religion does all the time."
Again, you seem to be thinking that false claims are necessarily part of religion, when they're not. There are plenty of critical thinkers, truth-tellers, logicians and the like who are theists. And there are tons of atheists who are dishonest, do not think critically, etc. These negative characteristics are no more "part of atheism" than they are part of theism.
"They never proved that any god ever existed."
As I said, those who actually make the claim (which is not all of them but I can see that stereotyping people is kind of your thing) can be challenged to support it. Not prove it with absolute certainty as that would be unreasonable (again, we know very few things with certainty). And many Christians have attempted to support their claims, and a few of them have done a really good job! Similarly, there are also atheists who make claims and sometimes provide support of them, sometimes not.
"They claim pray works when it has been proven that it does not."
Well, specifically, what's been proven is that prayer doesn't always get you the results you're asking for. The Christian can respond to this in a number of ways. Two that come to mind are that god says in the bible not to test him (and so this could explain why he isn't jumping through hoops to appease human beings), and that we're all supposed to be praying for god's will to be done, not our own.
"How may time have you heard someone answer a question by starting, "well I'm a christian...." That line means they are expecting special/privileged consideration for what they say next."
Not necessarily, no.
"So, you need to go after your fellow christians who are the ones who are intolerant and expecting special treatment."
I'm not a Christian. I'm an atheist, and funnily enough, I usually end up "going after" my fellow atheists when they think they're special (e.g., when they claim that god doesn't exist but then shift the burden of proof onto theists who haven't necessarily even made a claim).
"But religions is wrong and is harmful."
So you guys keep claiming, but you always fail to support the claim.
"Religion does not offer anything tangible that you can not get or do on your own. Religion is divisive by its very nature."
I've already addressed the second baseless claim. As for the first, I find it very presumptuous of you to assert that no one needs religion. I mean, how could you possibly know that? Moreover, even if religion was entirely useless (which I seriously doubt), it wouldn't support your claims that it's false or harmful.
"According the the Abrahamic holy books it say that homosexuals are an abomination and they should be put to death."
1. Not all Christians believe that's the original text.
2. Christians are not bound to belief in biblical inerrancy/literalism.
"So, when christian actively work to deny them the right to marry and even hold a job that is not being tolerant dude."
Right, but that emphasizes my point. The vast majority of Christians aren't doing these things. If your claim that religion was the cause were true, then the majority if not all Christians would oppose homosexuality, and in these (or worse) ways.
"How many times a Atheists have thrown their child out cause the child said he believes in god? ZERO"
To our knowledge, none. And this is extremely rare for Christians to do. It's just another example of your appealing to the availability heuristic instead of opting for reality instead. Also, I can see a militant atheist resorting to this if not other forms of emotional abuse upon hearing that their son/daughter is a Christian. You yourself exhibit this sort of intolerance.
"Are you an idiot cause history is filled with religion persecuting non believers."
Are you an idiot? Because you seem to think that because we can easily think of examples of religious extremism that therefore it's a common result of religion. That's the availability heuristic again, and it's fallacious to think that way.
"For you to make the claim that religion does not persecute people is just so dishonest of you to make such a claim."
I've pointed out the fact that religion doesn't persecute people (because IT ISN'T A PERSON capable of doing anything). And I never said/implied that religious people haven't persecuted others; I'm only suggesting that you've over-exaggerated how common it is and have chosen to overlook the pointless intolerance that comes from your side of the fence.
"Religion has never proven any of its claims."
Even if this were granted for the sake of argument, it wouldn't follow that therefore theism is false. You need a positive argument for that, and you don't have one.
"Anything that asks you to accept something on faith is a scam."
How are you defining "faith" here?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Okay so straight from the anti-theists' mouths, this is the best argument they got. So if it doesn't work, then anti-theism is certifiably unjustified. Let's take a look at this argument!
He begins by telling Christians and other theists to stay out of this one (insecure much?) and then proceeds to just assert that religion is "bullshit". Not off to a good start, logically speaking, mate.
He claims that theism should just be assumed false, which surely would result in strong atheism automatically, if this method were at all logically valid. But of course, it's his job here to show that theism is false (which is synonymous with strong atheism being true).
He does offer one argument against Christianity as an aside, and that's that since not everything in the bible is true and literal, that means that Christianity itself is false. That of course doesn't follow. If there still is a god, and Jesus was his son, that's plenty for calling anyone who believes these things a Christian. He's arguing against biblical inerrancy/literalism, not for atheism. And that's interesting because most Christians report that they believe in the Christian god on the basis of personal experiences, not the modern-day bible being 100% accurate.
He addresses the act of inferring design from complexity and improbability, but there are at least some examples of valid theistic arguments which fit into this category. For example, the fine-tuning argument concerning the constants and quantities given at the beginning of the universe. Explaining it away with the "chance" alternative eventually requires one to adopt belief in countless other universes, and these so-called "multiverse" theories also lack any corroborating evidence. So design seems a perfectly reasonable inference in at least some cases.
Finally, he gives his argument, and it's an utter fail (unsurprisingly). He asks, "Where did god come from?", as if this hasn't been asked millions of times by other anti-theists. What they don't seem to understand is that one can only ask for a cause of something if that something apparently had a beginning. It makes no sense to ask what caused something which might have been timeless, which is why Christians didn't start pushing the argument for a cause of the universe very heavily until there was evidence that it had a beginning. To ask the question "Where did god come from?" is basically claiming that any god that might exist must've had a beginning, and good luck developing an argument to prove that!
So the Christians are right, on this point. No one can say "God was either designed or appeared by accident" until they can justify thinking he/she/it must've had a beginning in the first place.
And despite his empty rhetoric, it remains the case that anyone offering a claim can be asked to support it with an argument (which he actually knows already, or he wouldn't be trying to come up with arguments for his view). Atheists are not special; if we make a claim (e.g., "There is no god"), we need to be able to support that claim or admit it's just an unfounded belief. And contrary to his assertion, the starting point is "I don't believe in anything", not "That is not true". Because the latter is also a claim that you adopt later, not a default position.
1
-
ME: "But of course, it's his job here to show that theism is false (which is synonymous with strong atheism being true)."
HaileyMarie: "Russell's Teapot."
The purpose of Russell's Teapot wasn't to prove that god doesn't exist. Rather, it was to remind us that we shouldn't believe in something just because it can't be disproven. But Christians typically believe on the basis of alleged personal experiences in which god has "made himself known" to them. So it misses its mark entirely here.
"Neither of which is reason to believe that Christianity or religion are truthful"
Which, again, doesn't constitute proof that it isn't. The point is that, while some Christians have come up with good arguments for theism (William Lane Craig, for example), the anti-theists have fallen dramatically behind. And it shows throughout this video.
"There is nothing "fine-tuned" about the Universe."
At this point, you are rejecting science, you do realize that...
"It is utter, sheer madness and nightmarishly, horrifying chaos that we can't even fully comprehend."
One thing that we do comprehend is that the constants and quantities given in the Big Bang fall within an extremely narrow life-permitting range. That is what's meant by fine-tuning. The only question is, how do we best explain it? Necessity, chance, or design. But we've very good arguments against necessity, and the "chance" explanation relies on the existence of a multiverse which we've no independent evidence or arguments for.
"Good luck proving that this God has always been there, too."
The point is that unless you've reason to think that a god would have to be finite in the past (as we do with the universe), then you cannot insist that the causal principle applies to god, or indeed any past-eternal entity.
ME: "And despite his empty rhetoric, it remains the case that anyone offering a claim can be asked to support it with an argument (which he actually knows already, or he wouldn't be trying to come up with arguments for his view). Atheists are not special; if we make a claim (e.g., "There is no god"), we need to be able to support that claim or admit it's just an unfounded belief. And contrary to his assertion, the starting point is "I don't believe in anything", not "That is not true". Because the latter is also a claim that you adopt later, not a default position."
YOU: "The burden of proof is on your camp"
True that Christians bear a burden of proof when/if they make a claim. But it goes for atheists too. Here you are simply showing your bias. You're OK with atheists making claims but not having to support them, but because you have a problem with Christians you treat them differently about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jumpsmcgee "Ultimate, but not only."
I guess? I mean, we do check first for breathing and a heartbeat, etc. but the point remains that it's only when there is no brain activity that you're declared dead.
"And again, the big difference is that the fetus is unborn."
That's not a fundamental difference, just a matter of location.
"The mother's own body could still kill it."
Sure, but not unlike how any one of us could drop dead from natural causes (or from bad luck concerning where we happen to be located).
ME: "The fetus isn't actually a part of the woman's body (though they are connected). It is its own body with its own unique genetic code and, again, its own independent brain activity."
YOU: "This is mental gymnastics."
No, it's just a fact. Being connected to someone does not make you them or a part of them.
"They are literally connected."
And siamese twins are literally connected (and far moreso than a pregnant woman). Yet, there are two people in that scenario as well.
"Obviously a fetus would have different DNA and its own organs."
Yes, which is already considerable evidence that they're a whole different person.
ME: "As for dependence for survival, the same argument could be made for any newborn or infant, and even toddlers and most small children. That neither gives a good reason to justify killing someone nor changes the nature of what they are, no matter how dependent they are on another."
YOU: "Obviously the fetus is more dependent on the mother than a newborn or infant."
So this is to admit no fundamental difference, just one of degree. Now, similarly, an infant is more dependent on the mother than a 12 year old. Does this also mean the infant is less of a human being?
Again, none of this is addressing what they are, just what their circumstances are. And it's a very dangerous precedent, to say that the circumstances you find yourself in through no fault of your own, determine what you are or what rights to not being killed you have.
"You seem to kind of ignore the whole "fetus is part of the woman's body""
On the contrary, I've directly refuted it. The fetus is not part of the woman's body, just attached to it. And only temporarily and through no fault of their own. By no stretch of the imagination can we find justification for killing these people.
1
-
1
-
@jumpsmcgee "The difference is, the people on the machines to stay alive have already been born, and therefore have a right to continue living."
That's circular reasoning. I was using that point to highlight how dependence doesn't change what you are, as you suggested.
Now, if it were true that the reason those people shouldn't be unplugged from the machines is because they were born, why is it okay to unplug them once there isn't any brain activity?
"Still not the same as the symbiotic relationship between fetus and mother."
It's not different in any fundamental way though. They are still entirely dependent on someone else to survive. Just like any fetus, infant, or toddler.
"The fetus originates inside of her"
So do infants, toddlers, children and full-grown adults...
"and somehow you see this as a completely separate entity."
I explained exactly what makes them a separate entity. They, unlike any part of the woman's body, have their own unique genetic code and their own independent brain activity. And there is no evidence whatsoever that they are magically transformed into something else while passing through the birth canal.
"I agree with all of your points for late-term abortion,"
Why then? I thought you were arguing that birth is what makes them a human being?
"but "brain" activity could start as soon as 5-6 weeks."
Well exactly. But are we supposed to throw this inconvenient fact away, never to be mentioned again, because it's inconvenient? Or are we supposed to change our views in accordance with the facts?
And more precisely, if the line isn't drawn at brain activity or birth, where do we draw it? I think you will find that any consistent answer as to when someone is/isn't alive, will have to do with brain activity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielwilliams173 "My question is: What is an "objectively existing standard"?"
A standard in which you are referencing something that objectively exists, outside of the mind. For example, a woman is an adult human female, with "female" being someone whose body naturally developed largely toward the function of bearing children.
"we could see it this way. "The controversial issue is what should replace medical designation, for legal purposes. In ordinary personal life and interaction, we should treat people, and refer to them, according to whatever gender identity they prefer—or none."
Why should we? Why should we change how we speak (even in non-medical contexts) for the sake of an incoherent worldview in which people pretend that x person is a woman while not even being able to give a workable definition for "woman" to begin with?
"It is an insult to do anything else."
No, but it's disrespectful to demand people change how they speak for no good reason. And you should never teach or facilitate the view that disagreement = an insult, a phobia, hate, etc., not if you really care about the people you're supposedly advocating for.
"When a former-man who is now a trans-woman demands,"
Yeah, what is a "man" on your worldview again? What is a "woman"?
"Compare the following two statements. A republican is a republican. A republican is someone who identifies as republican."
Both are circular in their reasoning, as both just loop you back to the term to be defined without actually giving information about what the term is referring to.
"The second is simply true."
Nonsense. You can be a Republican without thinking of yourself as one, easily. If you register as a Republican but forget you did so, and then make it a point to only vote for Republican candidates for 50 years after that, you'd be a Republican whether you think of that way of labeling yourself or not.
"After all, some self-identified republicans will vote for Biden or other non-republicans in the next election, some will vote for Trump and not down-ballot candidates, and vice versa."
Right, which is why I said "generally inclined" and "more likely".
1
-
@danielwilliams173 "I don't think 'woman is someone who identifies as a woman' is the most helpful definition we can offer. I was just making the point that it's a perfectly coherent definition."
How? I mean, it literally gives no information about the term it's supposed to be defining. You could perhaps take it as saying "a woman is someone who likes the label 'woman' for themselves", but then how are we obligated to play along with that label but no others? Why are we morally or even logically obligated to change how we speak or run our business, etc. just because some people want us to?
"So in this context, a woman might be someone who identifies as more feminine than masculine, who adopts the social and cultural accoutrement associated with womanhood, etc, in addition to the biological and anatomical features of a female, etc. Some women have some of these features, others have other features. I think that definition works best."
That was a definition followed by a "nevermind", is all that was. Because if someone can be a woman while only having "some" (and you don't say which ones are necessary) of those features, then it would be the case that tons of people are women while identifying as men or one of the imaginary alternative genders.
1
-
1
-
@danielwilliams173 "You are confusing logic with usefulness."
Not really, I just think it'd be logical to expect our definitions to be useful, lol.
"I said that "A woman is someone who identifies as a woman" is coherent"
Okay then, so what is the second appearance of "a woman" in that definition referring to? If it's a coherent definition, you should be able to tell me that.
"first, all definitions and categories are necessarily limited."
It doesn't follow from there that we should automatically change the way we use words on the basis of preference, at least until workable substitutes are on offer.
"Second, ethics. The point of morality, in my view, is to optimize wellbeing,"
Short-term or long-term? And should we get people hooked on a dependent sort of ideology (to the point that they feel hated and have thoughts of deleting themselves if we don't speak to their liking) or teach them definitions that actually work and stand against scrutiny?
"Your last point is very good, but it's not "never mind." It's just the nature of definitions."
It was only the nature of that definition you gave, and I explained why.
1
-
@danielwilliams173 "Yes, your definition is nice and succinct."
That doesn't matter, it's workable and non-circular, which is the bare minimum of what a definition needs to be before anyone says (or pretends that) it's the "right" one.
"But it also excludes an entire subset of people who are petitioning to be included within the definition, and you have not given a reason why we would do that, other than simply stating, in a question-begging manner, what you (and many others, to be fair) take woman to mean."
Actually, I hadn't been asked why in this conversation yet. But the reason we distinguish between males and females should be obvious enough. Beyond that, I think it's helpful to be able to distinguish between adult and non-adult females that are also human in an efficient manner.
"But workability must include a nuanced discussion of the ethics involved,"
If and when your definition can make it that far. But the newer definitions for "woman" that keep being suggested by those with your worldview usually don't survive that first round of scrutiny. For example, many of the "experts" actually confuse gender itself with gender roles and norms when trying to define it, which results (as yours did) in at least some people who identify as women actually being men/having the "gender" of "man" or vice versa.
""They could feel.." No, that is untrue. For many trans people, being recognized as the identity they prefer is, as Green also points out, as sign for them that they are fully, finally women."
Yeah but deep down they know they're still the same person and type of person, no matter how many people agree (or pretend to agree) with them. In the meantime, it is true that a person can feel at home in their body once they realize that the most workable view of gender is as interchangeable with biological sex, because if they have that view they cannot possibly think their gender is different from their sex as I said. You might feel like something is wrong, but you won't take the radical view that you need to get everyone to call you something different lest you slide into an extreme depression.
"All definitions fail to cover the full range of instances of whatever phenomenon they are trying to define."
How did my definitions of "Republican" or "woman" fail then?
1
-
@danielwilliams173 "I replied to all of your points and you didn't reply to mine."
Not only did I reply to every one of your points, but I quoted you each time before doing so. Meanwhile, after I pointed out that your definition of "woman" didn't work because it would make plenty of people who even identified as men "women", you didn't respond to that at all.
"For example, I have explained multiple times why there is circularity in any of the definitions you have labeled as such."
Assuming you meant to type that there is no circularity, the reason defining "woman" as "someone who identifies as a woman" is circular is that it loops back into the word to be defined. I also asked you what "a woman" referred to in the definition and you wasn't able to tell me. Do you really not see how "I identify as x without having a concept of what x is" is incoherent? Really think about it. Do you identify as a kangaroo? If not, you must have some idea of what is/isn't a kangaroo in order to say that you don't in fact identify as one. Same should go for "man" and "woman".
"I can't take seriously the suggestion that you know what another person feels "deep down.""
I didn't say "feel", I said "know". And what makes me confident they know that their worldview is incoherent is that they typically refuse to even offer a definition or engage in this sort of dialogue despite having plenty of time to join others in promoting it.
"But you asked me a specific question. How did your definition of republican fail? Your definition of republican failed because you said "generally inclined" or "likely" which means that you acknowledge that there are people who belong within that definition who would not be included within it."
That's not a failed definition at all. It still allows for us to distinguish between two groups:
1. those who are generally inclined or likely to vote for Republicans
2. those who are not generally inclined or likely to vote for Republicans
So the definition works because we can look at (at very least) someone who says they have never and will never vote for or support any Republican in any way, and tell they are not a Republican. This is how nouns (especially common nouns like "woman") tend to function.
"That's not even close to true. Look up how res publica has been used around the world and in political theory."
A. We weren't discussing how "res publica" should be defined.
and B. We were talking about this in the context of American politics. But I'd be more than happy to add "In the U.S.A." to the definition if that helps.
So as it stands, we don't have any logical reason to change how we use terms like "gender", "man" or "woman". And as for what's ethical, my suggestion is still to not teach or facilitate these ideas to the youth in the first place, and then their mental health will not be dependent on who is/isn't willing to use these words their way. We can also do without equating disagreement with hate, phobia, or even insults, because that's likely to contribute to thoughts of self-deletion as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Figgy20000 And what of the ones who become homeless next year? You would have to steal another $20 billion or so, and do this every time. And as you're doing that, billionaires are selling their shares in the stock market to get the money, the stock market's crashing, and/or (more realistically) the wealthy are just moving to another country so they can keep the money they've earned.
Alternatively, you could have a look at just what other countries are doing. Most of them that are doing well tend to be more free-market than the U.S., not less. Take Scandinavian countries for example. No minimum wage laws, they've school vouchers, they don't penalize the wealthy with high corporate tax rates. All things people like Bernie Sanders oppose. That's because it's not really about fixing the problem, it's about control. But Scandinavia learned its lesson about capitalism some time ago (especially Sweden), while the U.S. sort of bumbles around and people like Bernie aren't helping.
@Figgy Newton The prevalence of mental illness among homeless people is where I'd say our healthcare system could stand improving, and the government screwed that up in the 60s. And conservatives are big on family values; that'd be relevant to young adults being disowned and/or simply striking out on their own in a fit of rebellion before they're ready, either way. The point remains that stealing billions from the top 1% will not work. It's not realistic at all, for the reasons I laid out.
"Free" college would only (further) incentivize more risky decisions in terms of the chosen degree. A huge part of the problem in the first place is that government pretty much nationalized student loans (and they get a huge profit from these loans, BTW) with the passing of the Affordable Care Act. So they'd be wasting taxpayer dollars instead of their own, though they'd still be wasting their own time and energy.
I don't see how you think welfare forces people into gainful employment. But yes, the idea is supposed to be that once you're making money of your own you don't need as much (if any) welfare. I don't think anyone should be dependent on the government in that way. And Trump's doing good at creating more jobs for the American people to bid on (what with the deregulations and tax cuts), but more needs to be done to get government out of the way so more businesses can have a shot. When and where you have employers actually competing for prospective workers, that's when you see genuine wage increases that don't backfire on the even less fortunate (e.g., minimum wage laws disproportionately hurting the unemployed).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@samuelrosander1048 "sex and gender are not the same,"
Sure they are, and we've known that for a long time. It's the very reason the roles we're expected to play based solely on our biological sex are called "gender roles" to begin with. And when people deny this they usually do it by confusing gender itself with the inclination/disinclination to adhere to certain gender roles and norms.
"Is it XX and XY chromosomes? What about people who have XXY or just X?
Is it a penis and vagina? What about people who are born intersex?
Is it the ability to produce eggs? What if you have a penis and also a functioning uterus?"
These are indeed faulty definitions conservatives unfortunately offer. In reality, it has to do with the SRY gene and androgen receptors. If your development involved an active SRY gene and active androgen receptors, you develop as male. Otherwise you're female.
"gender is not easy to define, because on what do you base it?"
I base it on biological sex, as was customary in American English until fairly recently.
"What about "men" who are more domestic more "feminine" in their behavior/thinking/interests? What about "women" who are more aggressive and "masculine" in their behavior/thinking/interests? Should the "man" who is more like a "woman" be beaten into submission until they behave like a "man?""
No, but you are highlighting the confusion of gender with one's inclinations regarding gender roles and norms I mentioned previously. And another problem with that definition for "gender" would be that it isn't even workable with transgenderism itself. After all, if someone adheres to all of the behavioral norms and socially constructed roles of a man, but identifies as a woman, which one are they?
"In reality, the kids aren't being hurt by anyone but the conservatives"
You don't consider an increased suicide rate harm? I mean, I get that you place all of the blame for it on those who reject transgenderism, but it could just easily be due in part to committing yourself to a worldview you cannot logically defend (to yourself or others) along with the common trans belief that tons of people don't just disagree with you but hate you personally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielmacdougall2697 Okay, so you've completely dropped the point about brain studies, after I explained that even people with men tal dis ord ers (people we would both agree have men tal dis ord ers) show physical brain abnormalities. I pointed out that this shows we do not say that their beliefs and thoughts are valid on that basis, so it doesn't mean anything when applied to the trans debate.
Similarly, you seem to have avoided the challenge to explain the fundamental difference between race and gender, that would obligate me to call a man a woman (solely because he identifies as such) but not obligate you to call a white man black (on the same basis). You attempted to shift the burden of proof back onto me, asking me how they're equivalent, but when I pointed out that you were the one that made the claim, that argument was dropped also.
"Unless you've actually eye balled their junk how can you REALLY know what someone is sporting in their trunks ??
You may have friends with secrets that surprise you :0
Has every friend of yours seen your genitals ??
How do I know for that matter ????? ps pine cones don't have visible bits, phew"
All of this is irrelevant to the incoherence of transgenderism itself. But I can say that I'm not going through my life wondering who is or isn't trans, if that's your concern.
"And what difference does it make if the cuffs don't match the collar, unless you're about to get busy, who cares :)"
In theory, it should be so simple. But again, we're talking about your most vocal representatives trying to compel speech as well. Trying to force people who do not agree with transgenderism to call men "she" and "her", and to call women "he" and "him". That's in addition to concerns about public restrooms, women's sports, how it's being promoted to children, etc. But even if you say, "I don't care about all that, they're all just transphobes!", you should at least care that trans people, even after they get their surgeries, are 18 times more likely to commit suicide than non-trans people.
"General consensus is that it's often due to discrimination and lack of acceptance."
Except that there are no studies showing a difference in suicidality in places where it is more accepted vs. places where it is less accepted. Besides which, the rate difference should be zero. And if these people didn't believe that they were somehow a different gender from their biological sex in the first place, they wouldn't have these internal struggles which lead to the depression and suicide attempts at all.
"Why do transgender issues have to be coherent to you ? if you are unaffected ?
"
We're all affected by absurdity sooner or late, whether directly or indirectly. I listed a few of the ways that can happen already. But people should strive to hold a coherent worldview regardless, especially those who end up depressed and suicidal as a result of their worldview.
"Surely it's up to the individuals involved to make sense of that."
And so far, no one's been able to do it. They just yell "transphobe!" at the person asking questions and run off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Mercurial Silver "I didn’t make the claim that there is no god or gods"
You said and I'll quote "Anti-theism is pro-reality." If opposing theism is standing up for reality, then that must mean you're claiming theism is not real (i.e., false).
"just that I lack a belief in those baseless claims."
Actually, there are good arguments in favor of theism (William Lane Craig has presented a few that have yet to be refuted). But apart from that, most Christians believe on the basis of alleged personal experiences, and while they're not enough to convince us to believe, they're enough to show that theism isn't necessarily unfounded.
"Sorry, but snakes and donkeys don’t talk"
Hence the significance of them being in the bible story. If it were to happen, that would be quite miraculous. Neverminding that Christians aren't obligated to believe in biblical inerrancy/literalism, the claim isn't that snakes and donkeys talked naturally but that they talked via supernatural means. And on that point, all we can do is be skeptical, not say it didn't happen.
"and the Earth is older than 6000 years old."
Nor does the bible say that it isn't. And again, Christians do not necessarily hold to biblical inerrancy/literalism.
"And yeah, it would be great if Christians embraced the nicer part of the Bible, but here in the USA Christians embrace the uglier and crazier interpretations and expressions of their “faith.”"
I think this is nothing more than an appeal to the availability heuristic. Because examples of religious extremism are so vivid and readily accessible in the mind, you think it's in some way a common result of religion/theism. But of course, that isn't reality (what you claim to care about). The vast majority of Christians seem like decent, civil people to me. By contrast, anti-theists are not generally decent. They (you?) oppose theism without being able to show that it is false or harmful in and of itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"no, you are making a claim that a God exists"
Not once have I done this, no. But some Christians have, and I'm not denying that it's perfectly fine to challenge the claims they make. But you can't dismiss the entire subject by playing word games about "possibilities", as I've shown they can just direct the game right back at you and we get nowhere that way.
"atheists don't believe you."
I am an atheist. And if your statement is that atheists do not believe that there is a god, then obviously.
"If you want to argue you need to give sufficient evidence."
Christians have been providing arguments (some of which constitute evidence as they are deductive arguments whose conclusions follow necessarily from plausibly true premises), and atheists have also provided arguments. Sadly, most arguments on either side aren't very good. But apologists such as William Lane Craig have succeeded in providing some good ones, and sadly the atheists have fallen embarrassingly behind.
""strong atheism is false until it has been proven true." No"
Did I say this? You're not even quoting me here, much less quoting this in its proper context. Here is what I said:
The problem with that little game (I've been through it before) is that the Christian can always say "Strong atheism is false until it has been demonstrated to be at least possible" and we're back to square one. Better to just admit that since we don't know which is true, either one of them are possibly true. And then we evaluate the evidence presented both for and against theism to get at truth instead of playing games.
I was responding directly to your claim that "Theism is false until it has been demonstrated to be at least possible." If you can say that about theism, the theists can say it about strong atheism (that is the belief that there is no god). But, if you acknowledge this, then it leads to contradictions. It would mean that since neither strong atheism nor theism has been "shown to be possible", they're both false. But that's logically impossible. Surely, either there is a god or there isn't one. So again, we can't get anywhere playing that game so I suggest you give it up.
1
-
+Mercurial Silver "I didn’t make the claim that there is no god or gods"
You said and I'll quote "Anti-theism is pro-reality." If opposing theism is standing up for reality, then that must mean you're claiming theism is not real (i.e., false).
"just that I lack a belief in those baseless claims."
Actually, there are good arguments in favor of theism (William Lane Craig has presented a few that have yet to be refuted). But apart from that, most Christians believe on the basis of alleged personal experiences, and while they're not enough to convince us to believe, they're enough to show that theism isn't necessarily unfounded.
"Sorry, but snakes and donkeys don’t talk"
Hence the significance of them being in the bible story. If it were to happen, that would be quite miraculous. Neverminding that Christians aren't obligated to believe in biblical inerrancy/literalism, the claim isn't that snakes and donkeys talked naturally but that they talked via supernatural means. And on that point, all we can do is be skeptical, not say it didn't happen.
"and the Earth is older than 6000 years old."
Nor does the bible say that it isn't. And again, Christians do not necessarily hold to biblical inerrancy/literalism.
"And yeah, it would be great if Christians embraced the nicer part of the Bible, but here in the USA Christians embrace the uglier and crazier interpretations and expressions of their “faith.”"
I think this is nothing more than an appeal to the availability heuristic. Because examples of religious extremism are so vivid and readily accessible in the mind, you think it's in some way a common result of religion/theism. But of course, that isn't reality (what you claim to care about). The vast majority of Christians seem like decent, civil people to me. By contrast, anti-theists are not generally decent. They (you?) oppose theism without being able to show that it is false or harmful in and of itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
D W Actually, I think it's Bernie who's divisive. Constantly promoting class warfare against "the billionaire class" (as if they're somehow more "greedy" than the rest of us), telling minorities that white people don't know what it's like to be poor, etc. I haven't seen any evidence that Trump is actually racist (doesn't like people based on the color of their skin), and I see far more hatred coming from liberals, who statistically speaking are more likely to be Bernie supporters than not.
But what I meant when I said that Trump's doing a great job (regardless of what we think about his personality) is a reference to many things. In addition to the economy and record-low unemployment (especially for minorities), we're seeing increased wages, prison reform, Right to Try, lower prescription drug prices, etc. Lots of great, sometimes even life-saving, things!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Goyaboyayoga Well, I do think Trump's done a great job as president (though he's far from perfect). Even with the economy aside, prison reform, Right to Try, lower prescription drug prices, standing firm against terrorism, these things should count for something. And yes, I like what he's done for the pro-life movement, though that's a more controversial topic.
I don't agree that he's inciting or promoting violence either. I see "the Trump train" as quite inclusive! And he's not promoting class warfare against "the billionaire class" (as if they're somehow more greedy than the rest of us) or telling minorities that white people don't know what it's like to be poor.
Where is your evidence that Trump doesn't care about the working class, poor people, or minorities? Because he didn't claim to carry hot sauce around everywhere he goes? The unemployment rates for minorities are at an all-time low and median household income has gone up more than $4,000 since he took office. So I'm not sure where you're getting that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markjamie4002 "Just because we have not yet seen something that begins without a cause doesn't mean that there isn't something."
Ok, so for starters, none of these premises have to be proven with certainty. But Craig gives arguments in defense of this premise. He notes that it's literally worse than believing in magic, to think that the universe could come into being without either a material or efficient cause. He also asks the important question of why we don't see anything else coming into existence without a cause. If there are no causal restraints, we should be seeing this happen way more often than, literally, never.
"And completely separate to that, apparently in Quantum Mechanics things can begin to exist without a cause"
So there are two things I've heard this sort of argument for - radioactive decay and virtual particles. But both of these have causes of one or both kinds. The cause of the decay of an unstable atomic nucleus is the interaction between constituent quarks. An energy threshold is exceeded and this is what triggers decay. Now since the quarks move randomly it’s true we cannot predict when the nucleus will decay, but that doesn’t mean there is no cause of it.
Similarly, virtual particles are fluctuations of the energy in the quantum vacuum. And the vacuum is not nothing. It is a roiling sea of physical energy.
As theoretical physicist Matt Strassler puts it, “A ‘virtual particle’, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.”
So it's actually neither without efficient nor material cause. It's just not with a predictable cause, is all.
And the reason Craig sometimes rewords the premise is to avoid getting bogged down on this one topic, when most of the arguments for the causal principle as it relates to the universe, will work even if radioactive decay and virtual particles did "come into existence" with no cause.
"his second premise is even more flimsy than his first - we DON'T KNOW if the universe began to exist or not.
"
We don't have to know it with certainty, but it seems that the evidence strongly suggests a beginning. And no evidence is ever presented (at least not to Craig in these debates) for the opposite conclusion.
"Craig sets the parameters of his debates very strictly - he does not like any discussion about his premises"
Blatantly false. Indeed he specifically challenges his opponents to show which of the premises are false, saying that this is the only way to refute the arguments.
"For example, when he debated Richard Carrier, he had several idealised premises that led to his conclusion that the Resurrection was the most reasonable explanation that supported all the facts."
Makes no sense. There are two premises in the resurrection argument: One, that we have various historical facts to explain, and two, that the resurrection is the best explanation.
"Yet he became annoyed when Carrier questioned those "facts" (whether there was an empty tomb, whether 500 people saw Jesus after he was "resurrected" etc.)"
Actually, Carrier was more concerned with discussing the gospels as a whole, than dealing with any of Craig's arguments for the specific facts he said supported the resurrection. If anything, Carrier was just another example of someone dodging to talk about irrelevant matters.
"He had set the parameters to exclude any discussion of the historicity of the Bible - ridiculous given that his premises depended on it."
The facts of the empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and the disciples' belief that Jesus rose from the dead most certainly do not depend on the reliability of the gospels overall (and certainly not of "The Bible" overall). To think that everything in a document must be correct or the whole thing should be thrown out is ridiculous and not in line with how historians work.
"Dawkins has no desire to be involved in that kind of farce."
Again, you are inventing excuses for Dawkins that Dawkins himself hasn't even given! You should look up the list of his excuses and start there. But of course, do know that I've looked into them ahead of you and are prepared to show how they're BS as well :P
"And really, if you're trying to convince my by saying stuff like, "So and so says they're a good debater" then your own debating skills need work as well."
No, I think Craig's skill as a debater is apparent in light of how he constructs arguments that people repeatedly fail to refute. I only mentioned Hitchens and Harris because I'm genuinely shocked that you would deny that he is at very least a challenge to anti-theists like Dawkins. You don't have to accept that Craig is right about anything, to admit he's a formidable opponent in debate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sspbrazil "wages haven’t increased,"
They absolutely have. Median household income went up $4,144 since Trump took office.
https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AZ014_Moore_16U_20190926102706.jpg
And no, the cost of living has not gone up that amount over the last three years 🙄 If you want to claim that it has, you're going to need to post proof of your own here.
Also keep in mind that the middle and lower classes continue to shrink while the upper class grows.
"unemployment had already been on a steady decline since after the Great Recession,"
Sure, but we're seeing record-low unemployment rates far lower than the norm, lower than they were before the recession even hit. And Obama didn't even think it was possible to bring some of those jobs back without a "magic wand".
"Pharmaceutical medications still cost the highest of any developed country in the world,"
Which is a different point altogether. My point was that Trump had caused prescription drug prices to fall at historic rates, and he did so by getting more drugs approved by the FDA.
http://caseymulligan.blogspot.com/2019/07/a-brief-summary-of-activities-in.html
There are many reasons why drugs still cost more here. I suspect that our healthcare industry is just plain more heavily regulated (over 130,000 pages of regulations in 2013, doubtless it's climbed a great deal since). We're also dealing with corruption in our government, which is inevitable so long as government has power over that market which can be bought by corporations. But mostly, we lead the world when it comes to the creation of new drugs and research, none of which is cheap (the government is a factor there as well).
"The costs have not been negotiated and capped,"
Right, because those would be artificial "solutions" not addressing the real costs, because costs and prices are two different things. But when there is competition in an industry, the companies competing have incentive to find ways to provide their goods/services cheaper without sacrificing quality or efficiency as we're seeing happen in nations with "free" healthcare. Government interference causes prices to skyrocket (as it did with healthcare in the 60s), whereas a relatively free market causes prices to fall.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/CPIChart2018.png
And regardless of what I think about Trump on a personal level, I will always appreciate efforts to further the pro-life agenda.
So these points, in addition to prison reform and the Right to Try Act, still stand despite your trying to brush them off or explain them away. I don't agree with everything he's done and said, but I think he's doing a great job overall, far better than I'd expect any of his opposition to do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nicht von dieser Welt "Groups. As if I talk about groups."
You just finished saying "How stupid can people be?" Whichever "people" you meant, that's a group.
"Atheism is not about being in a group."
Well no group of people is about being in a group, but they still are...
"To reject something does NOT make me part of a GROUP."
It does, technically, but note that I wasn't saying anything about those who merely reject theism (I myself am an atheist). I was commenting on anti-theists, those who oppose it.
"To reject theism all it needs is thousands of years of human history and the never happening PROOF for god's existence hence ALL claims on and about god fail on a human level."
Well, evidentialism (and especially seeking absolute proof of something before believing in it) is an invalid and self-refuting worldview. But yes, without good reason to believe something, you're justified in rejecting that belief, we agree on that.
"Theism remains unjustified until god shows uphimself and tells is right from wrong and as long as theism justifies specific terms of actions against nonbelievers.
"
You're being somewhat of a hypocrite here. In the same way that atheism doesn't necessarily entail anything irrational or antagonizing, neither does theism. So you can't allege that theism is unjustified on those grounds either.
"Fuck yourself for getting me mad now you idiot."
You are responsible for your own emotional troubles, not me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+David Pakman Show What do you mean, "Candace Owens is a fabricated conservative"? She switched because liberal idiots revealed their bonkers "outrage culture" to her when she was a teenager and just kept amping up the idiocy. Anyway, your video here just seems to be sour grapes because you don't like the fact that people who disagree on so much can JOKE ABOUT IT (which is what they were doing), get along and give each other praise.
And I agree with Owens on both points in the second clip. If she hasn't seen anything (and admitted ignorance), it's fine for her to say "I haven't seen anything banworthy". Apart from that, words in general shouldn't be met with censorship, banning, feigned outrage, etc. If there is a call to action is harmful, that's one thing. But everything else is free speech and should be left alone from a legal standpoint.
Candace (rightly) supports the rights of private companies to employ as they see fit and also the right of people like Alex Jones to exercise his First Amendment rights. I don't see the issue, unless you're one of those who think we shouldn't have free speech...
And just because you don't think it's a big deal when a man can stomp a woman in a "women's fighting" championship or any other sport doesn't mean it isn't. It's a HUGE deal, in fact, when it means that if allowed to continue, pretty much every women's sport will have all the records broken by MEN.
You also need to look up what "straw-manning" is. The fact is that what they're talking about is going on, and is a big issue in and of itself. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying they were implying it might lead to something worse... when they didn't... so you straw-manned them. See how it works?
Oh, and tell someone like Jordan Peterson that people on "the left" don't want to shut down conversations about biological realities. That it's just a figment of the conservative imagination (rolling eyes).
Finally, it certainly is a free market of ideas that they're celebrating, because they are free to express their views and we are free to ignore, criticize, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arnv4487 And again, you're not asking shit, you're trying to force it. Do you really not know the difference? It's not about "oppressing" him, either; I don't use stupid words like that to argue from emotion because the facts alone will do.
And no, it's not necessarily the case that just because a judge signed off on it that there's a reason. The reason could very well be political bias for all any of us know. You're just giving the justice system the benefit of the doubt because you oppose Trump. Anything anti-Trump, no matter how blatantly un-Constitutional and immoral, is fine with you.
As for him saying he'll release it, if he was lying or bluffing about such a stupid thing (or just pulling a fast one, knowing it's a great way to troll), well that's Trump. I don't agree with it, but it would be a really dumb reason to stop supporting him after he's done such a great job at, you know, his actual job which isn't to appease the Democrats.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Celestina0 "finding a single characteristic that all women have and all none women don’t is a fools’ errand."
Apparently not, since I've done just that (again, there being active SRY and active androgen receptors in their development).
"Generally women want to be referred to as women, identify as women, and typically dress and behave in certain ways that distinguished them from typically male patterns of dress and behaviour."
But wanting to be, identifying as, and "acting like" a woman doesn't make you one. Otherwise, you're admitting there's no objective definition and therefore no way for anyone to be correct/incorrect while using terms like "man" or "woman" on your worldview.
"You obviously keep insisting it has to do with SRY gene and androgen receptors… receptors which everyone has by the way."
Ah, but if they are not active and paired with active SRY genes, you get a female, never a male. This is why there are only types of gametes, BTW, and why there are only two genders.
"And I don’t even know what treating someone as if they were forty years old would even mean."
Seriously? You don't think we treat 40-year olds differently from 10-year olds?
"And your claim about children in gender clinics kind of disproves all the scaremongering about gender clinics right?"
Depends on what exactly is being done in them, naturally (which will surely vary from place to place and time to time). And it's not a claim, it's established science. Studies have been done and replicated to show that gender dysphoria typically does not continue into adulthood.
1
-
@Celestina0 "saying you define women as not having SRY genes, because women don’t have SRY genes,"
Not quite the standard I cited, but go on...
"is a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT."
That's not why it's defined that way. We've created the word "woman" to distinguish those without this particular development from those with it (aka "men"). All definitions can be accused of circular reasoning in this same fashion, but it's imperative if we're going to use language effectively.
"And I already said debating the correctness or incorrectness of definitions is pointless,"
Which isn't addressing my point. The point is you cannot call someone's use of a word correct or incorrect (e.g., can't say they're misgendering) if you admit the word doesn't have an objective standard at all. That places it squarely in the realm of subjective opinion where no one is correct or incorrect.
"So please explain the utility of your trans-exclusive categorisation and why I should drop my trans-inclusive one."
Let's not pretend you're not just as "exclusive", with your comments on how you would treat a 10-year old who identified as 40, first of all (not letting them operate machinery or drive cars). And secondly, the utility in defining every word is simply to give clear distinctions. You haven't offered one that will do so on your worldview, so I'm not the one on trial here when it comes to that.
1
-
@Celestina0 "How is it POSSIBLE that woman emerged as a concept to refer to people with inactive SRY genes/androgen receptors or whateverthefuck, BEFORE people even knew what SRY genes were,"
Oh I'm definitely not making that claim. But people have observed the differences between what we've called "men" and "women" since long before we understood what made them develop so differently.
"before they even began to think that words even NEEDED definitions?"
Well it's kind of like hunger, or thirst, in that regard. Humans have recognized the need for food and water since the beginning of humankind, but only recently (in the grand scale of human history) came to understand why. Same for precise language (including definitions).
"I already said that the critique of misgendering isn’t based on correctness or incorrectness."
Which means it isn't actually MISgendering.
"It is wrong to misgender someone-"
It's impossible to misgender someone, on your worldview, as I've shown. But I understand that you mean "It's wrong to call someone a gender they don't identify as".
"because it is extremely disrespectful to deny someone such a simple common courtesy."
It being simple in no way means I'm obligated to do it. And it's not common to call someone something they're not (which was my earlier point on the inconsistency of transgenderism). So how can we conclude that anyone "should" call someone a woman when we can't even decisively conclude that they are a woman.
Basically, so long as you can't distinguish between someone who identifies as a woman and is correct and someone who identifies as a woman and is incorrect, you can't say I'm right/wrong for using these terms either.
"It would be like refusing to use someone’s name properly."
Not at all. Because you can change your name, but you can't change your gender.
"As I’ve shown ten times, your claim to have the true definition of woman/man is completely empty, based on circular reasoning."
It's not a question of having a "true" definition of something (We both acknowledge those are subjectively chosen by society at large). But the definition itself should be based on something objective (if we're wishing to claim someone is using the term incorrectly) and non-circular. The typical answer for defining "woman" on your worldview, for example, is "Someone who identifies as a woman". That's obviously subjective and circular, so we can't take that seriously.
"If a ten year old claims to be forty, and what they mean by that is that they were born in 1982, then that is something we can objectively verify as true or false."
The scenario presented to you was not that. I was asking if a ten-year old who identified as forty, should be called and treated as a 40-year old based on their self-identification. These "women" (men who identify as women) may freely admit to being biologically male, but they still want to be treated like the biological females are. So if they get to be plainly called "women" and treated the same as actual women, why wouldn't you call a 10-year old 40 and treat them exactly as an actual 40-year old (you said you wouldn't let them operate heavy machinery or drive cars, for example)?
Also note that any talk of "maturity level" misses the point of the question. You don't require any of these biological males who identify as women to meet some criteria apart from just identifying as women. Why would you require someone born ten years ago but identifying as forty to meet some criteria apart from identifying as forty?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ashlet6035 No, but Trump could buy tons of houses any time he wanted to. He doesn't need (and damn sure doesn't need to put himself at any sort of risk for) 300,000. That's the point you're not appreciating. It is like us doing something corrupt for 3 bucks!
I wasn't saying that Charlie won the debate because he's so right all the time. Generally, I never was all that impressed by him either. But that's why I was shocked to hear just how weak Kyle's arguments were in response.
Now, for the sake of time, let me just assume you're right that Trump said all those things about Saudi Arabia. Let me say for the record that all that is bad. I don't agree with his habit of firing off at the mouth without having the facts, nor his exaggerations and lies, nor his general attitude most of the time. But I definitely approve of his performance in terms of what he's gotten done with the job he was given.
Finally, what you're demanding has nothing to do with trust - except for in the sense that you can't "trust" him to just fall in line with every silly idea people bark at him. If a man earns something, it's his (yes, even if he's the president) and no one else has the right to tell him what he has to do with it. Especially when you start talking about sacrifices for sacrifice's sake? That's dumb.
But of course, good to know you people are consistent. I can't hear myself think over the sound of you all commending him for not taking a salary for the job he's doing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Candace was speaking facts that night. Even T.I. and Killer Mike were agreeing with a lot of what she said. T.I. only interrupted her because he could see she was tryna give a thoughtful answer. Can't have that! Gotta shut her up! Meanwhile, Killer Mike gave what seemed like a very similar answer to what she was trying to give. Yet he gets all the applause, Candace all the disdain. No surprise there.
So to answer T.I.'s question, we got to make up our minds if we are talking about how Americans in general were living or just the disparities between black and white Americans. If we're talking about the latter, it was in the 50s before the welfare state had been established. From there, we would see fatherlessness in the home skyrocket, being incentivized by the so-called "War on Poverty". Take Killer Mike's advice and read some Thomas Sowell if you don't know about it.
But if we're talking more generally, in recent years we've all enjoyed blessings in medicine, technology, access to information, etc. that those decades could only dream of. Americans of all colors and socioeconomic status are doing better than ever before. But I'd say it was greater maybe a decade ago, before the SJWs and feminists and race-baiters (more oppressive inventions of the left) were given so much power. In our universities, in Hollywood, in the mainstream media, everywhere. And they took aim at EVERYBODY Just got through tryna cancel Dave Chappelle. Before that they tried to get Mario Lopez fired because he said maybe we shouldn't let 3-year olds choose their fuckin' gender. Trump was a response to exactly that sort of bullshit. T.I. jumps back to before women could vote or before blacks were freed from slavery because it fits his agenda. There's no need for all that. We all know that part of why Trump's in office is because he's a giant middle finger to the establishment, career politicians, and everybody trying to shut us up. And that's real.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@friendlypup5650 Raising the minimum wage is not a way to increase wages across the board; it's just a way to incentivize employers to lay people off and/or charge more for their products and services.
Giving Trump (well-deserved) credit for passing prison reform does not require giving Obama any less credit. But you need to be consistent; if we're going to disregard the good things Trump has done by speculating that it was "just because celebrities asked him to do it", then we should do the same for Obama, Biden, and others.
And yes, the deregulations were fine; it's never been the government's place to restrict the free market (no, not even "for our own good" which can and has been used to justify outright atrocities and we all know it). We've let them have way too much power already.
The 423% number is a misleading one. It's based on a 45-day period in which drone strikes were most active, rather than based on the entirety of his four-year term. On the other side of the coin, however, he's been nominated for several nobel peace prizes and is credited in large part for the peace between North and South Korea.
As for Covid, Trump acted quickly and with one of the most proven methods of safeguarding the American people - a travel ban which the Democrats criticized and even flat-out opposed. The reason the numbers are "going up" are two-fold:
1. With more testing, you find more cases.
and 2. The numbers are fake anyway, which they openly admitted to us. And that's both concerning the number of people who actually have Covid and the number of people who've actually died from it.
1
-
@friendlypup5650 "it’s not proven either of those things will happen if enough money is taken from fossil fuel companies"
Nor would it have to be a proven fact (no one can prove what will happen, just as you can't prove this will actually help the lower and middle classes as [allegedly] intended), for it to be an incentive for them to do so.
"Obama didn’t do prison reform because Kim Kardashian asked him lol."
Naturally. But the point is you're willing to dismiss the good things Trump has done (which are many) because you can come up with some unfounded speculation. Why aren't you doing that for everybody? Why are you only doing it to Trump?
"But I will say this is the one thing I’ll give trump credit for, as other republicans lose their minds over it, it’s the one thing trump wheels out to make him seem like a good president for black people."
There are several things he's done that are great for black people, and of course many more that are great for the American people at large (including them).
"I don’t even need to respond to this. Regulations are put in place to protect the environment."
In theory. But there will always be some way for government to grab for more power (and money) under the pretense that it's really in all our best interests.
"This is such a complicated issue and I’m not really in the mood to go over reasons why government needs to take radical control over this
"
Which is fine. Just know that a lot of us acknowledge the problem but don't trust government to be the best solution for it. And we recognize straight away that climate change alarmists have been getting it wrong (with the "experts" backing them) for decades.
"45-days are a lot more than 8 years,"
Not sure what you were trying to say here, but I'm going to disagree...
"while he’s not pulling out of any of the wars like he said he would."
He's been bringing troops home for a while now, actually. Just a few months ago in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one of his nobel prize nominations was specifically for being the only president in recent decades to not start a new war or get our troops into more conflict.
"Also he got nothing accomplished with North Korea. It was just a big waste of time that legitimized a communist authoritarian dictator. No denuclearization, no pre conditions, just a big meme. While he pulls out of the Iran nuclear deal."
See, you're really just applying your own rhetoric to it now. If you were consistent about wanting peace, you should be commending this, not looking for some way to spin it in a negative light.
"Trump knew how bad it was back in February and refused to tell the citizens."
He put a brave face on it while (actually, after) making moves to combat the virus. It's pretty much exactly what he should have done.
"Meanwhile other countries were taking drastic measures and America was barley taking any drastic measures to protect people from a virus that was already in the country."
None of the drastic measures have been working, however, except perhaps the travel ban. And we know this because until recently, Sweden did literally nothing except the travel ban and was showing a lot of progress until recently.
"On top of that McConnell consistently fails to offer anything of value with stimulus checks and Trump is just doing these pointless legal processes."
The legal processes are valuable if only that they give us all a chance to see what both sides are saying. But the stimulus checks have been largely the Republicans wanting to offer x and the Democrats denying it saying it isn't enough. I work with the state in getting people their unemployment checks. Trust me, most people would be happy to get anything that will help; they just need it quickly.
"1k deaths a day and we’re about to go into Christmas."
You didn't address either of the points I made about these phony numbers. Why?
"Trump has failed as a leader who brings a country together"
Actually, he was doing a great job but the party of the division (Democrats) have done everything to mislead the public because it's good for the business they're in. Take just one example. Race relations had actually been improving at a better rate under Trump than in previous years.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/race-relations-position-of-minorities-better-under-trump-than-obama
Enter the George Floyd incident with mainstream media coverage non-stop and Democrat-funded organizations like BLM pushing a racism narrative. Never mind that a white man had died at the hands of some cops pretty much the exact same way 10 months prior. And if you don't know who I'm talking about, there's a reason. He was white. The Dems couldn't use this to fuel a race war, so he was largely ignored.
"but instead emboldens the police, who should be held in higher standards,"
Everyone should be held to higher standards though. And the vast majority of these recent stories where the police are said to be at fault, if you examine the case more closely it turns out they weren't.
"and spits in the eye of protesters by inflating them with looters and rioters."
You probably mean "conflating". There the best I can do by way of agreement is to say Trump is not as careful with his words as he should be. But in his actions he hasn't done a thing against protesters.
Coincidentally though, what exact statement are you referring to? I want to see for myself how he's conflated the two.
1
-
1
-
@friendlypup5650 From what I've read the minimum wage has cost more jobs than it has ever created. Just look at how it's decimated the car wash industry in New York. Exactly what you'd expect, logically, has played out, with more employers either shutting down or replacing workers with machinery. And even if you do enforce minimum wage laws and neither of these things happen, who do you think is really paying for the new wage? It won't be the employers, ultimately. They have to see to it that their bottom line stays about the same, for their shareholders if not themselves. So, they will tend to raise prices on their services or products, which negatively affect the community (workers included).
Pulling troops out is commendable, and your claim that he's just "reorganizing" doesn't seem to come with any evidence.
Again, the numbers concerning Covid are fake; that's a huge problem with your want to blame Trump for the cases and deaths. But again, what has been proven to work abroad, where there are no agencies admitting that the numbers are fake? Where there wasn't an election year taking place? Only the travel ban.
And no, Trump never claimed that Covid was just the flu (nor did he say it was just like the flu, if perhaps that's what you meant).
So, Trump acted quickly and with the best action he could have taken. But the lies spread faster than the truth, unfortunately.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MalaikaHaywood "I personally say happy holidays since I don’t know someone’s beliefs."
That's part of the problem, though. Giving a holiday-specific greeting isn't making any assumptions about their beliefs. Again, I'm an atheist and I prefer "Merry Christmas". And "Happy Holidays" is no better, since its literal meaning is "holy days". If people can understand that you're not assuming they think the days are holy when you say that, they can understand that you're not assuming they're Christians when you say "Merry Christmas".
"I ask my friends what they celebrate and greet them based on that. Half of my family is Jewish I wish them a happy Hanukkah the other half is Christian I wish them a merry Christmas."
Which is fine, although I have a hard time believing most of these disputes arise between friends and family members either way. I think the debate is mostly about how to address strangers and acquaintances.
"To people I don’t feel comfortable enough to ask for there beliefs I wish them a happy holidays. Since holiday is used as a synonym to vacation in some places. So I’m really wishing them a happy vacation."
Not in the literal sense. Plus, what if they don't celebrate any holidays in December, or indeed any holidays at all?
Now, make no mistake; I'm not personally bothered by you choosing to say "Happy Holidays". But I don't think you should kid yourself into thinking it's "all-inclusive" as people are defining it. It is all-inclusive to give any holiday greeting, if you're giving it to everyone. But this idea that people are truly offended by "Merry Christmas" for all the reasons I mentioned in my original comment, is just a lie. You shouldn't be made to feel like you're doing something wrong or "less inclusive" by saying it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@communistcatcometh9892 "please name the freedoms "Liberals" are attempting to take away from you.
"
Our freedom of speech, mostly. So-called "hate speech" laws? You honestly don't know anything about this? Or an endless movement to restrict how (or if) the American people can own guns? There are even some who want to tell you what you can/can't say on the trans debate.
And understand, I'm the one who put "liberals" in quotation marks, because I'm talking about that subgroup on the left who are doing these things. There are liberals, who actually believe we should be free to pretty much do what we want so long as we're not hurting anybody, and then there are people who just call themselves liberal but act more like fascists... Oh, and Antifa, these are "liberals" trying to take away our rights too, just in a different way.
"We aren't the douchebags advocating for a Christian Sharia, we aren't the ones banning organic substances that grow form the ground, we aren't the ones banning people based on their religion, and we aren't the one's putting restrictions on the human body."
That last one is coming from both sides. But yes, there are things that some conservatives are doing wrong too. Doesn't erase what the radical left is doing, nor the significance of how fast their power is growing.
"The only people who want to take your guns is the Rich,"
Very doubtful. There are plenty of people who support these politicians and celebrities pushing for more gun control. And they're primarily "liberals".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@malolazap5377 "You're making a case that because we don't have different experiences to compare with (I quote: "since none of us have a basis of comparison"), then transgenderism/transsexualism is incoherent."
Not quite. I'm saying that this "explanation" given for how someone "knows" they're the opposite gender doesn't work, for that reason. And I'm perfectly consistent about this, as I go on to say that I myself (a man who identifies as a man) do no know for sure if there's such a thing as feeling like a man. I simply know I'm a man on the basis of objective reality.
"But by that stance, you're only "poisoning the well" and making a case that no matter what anyone says, since we can't compare... we cannot know."
We can compare, and we can know, many things. But we can't say we "feel like" a man/woman because we have no way of knowing if that feeling even exists, and how it may (or may not) differ from "feeling like" the opposite gender.
"I mean... "There are other minds such as my own" is a metaphysical assertion we all accept and that includes minds such as autistic minds and psychopathic minds. I only know my non-autistic, non-psychopatic mind, yet it's not crazy to say there are autistic and psychopathic people who think and feel differently than I do."
We can say that people apparently feel in some way different from us. But we cannot definitively say that this person feels like a man while this other person feels like a woman.
"As for the equivalence and comparison between races and gender, I believe it's false. There are biological differences in genetic populations (maybe exacerbated by inequality), but there is no "Caucasian brain" nor "Negroid brain"."
Well the comparison isn't between race and gender; it's between the willingness to ignore physical reality for the sake of one vs. the other. So, in light of what you're saying, if transgenderism were consistent, the biological differences between whites and blacks would be ignored and we'd be obligated to call white people "black" if they so identified. If they cannot bear to acknowledge an objective definition for "man" or "woman", why do they acknowledge any objective definitions for "white" and "black", or indeed anything at all?
1
-
@malolazap5377 "We say other people feel different than us..."
In other ways, because we have felt similar feelings as well as the lack of them. But in the case of the claim that one can "feel like" a man/woman, again, how can you know? I don't know if I "feel like" a man despite being a man. And I could easily be convinced that whatever I'm feeling is actually "feeling like a woman" if I were younger and/or more naive.
"How do you know what an autistic person or a psychopathic person feels or does not feel like?"
Through measuring brain activity only. But that's the point, granting a claim about their feelings without evidence isn't necessary in their diagnosis. Clinical diagnosis requires more than just reported feelings. Even if we look at depression, if there's evidence that one is not clinically depressed they shouldn't be given drugs for it. Although diagnosing depression does enjoy the benefit that we all know what it feels like to be sad vs. happy.
Same goes for transgenderism. Part of what makes it invalid is that the feeling is supposed to justify the claim that therefore a biological male is a woman and so forth. But we don't do that for anything else nor should we.
"Then you insist that there's no such a thing to feel like a female or male; but it begs the question... Do you feel like a female?? (I understand you're a male.)"
As I said already, we have no idea if there even is such a feeling. So I can't even answer that legitimately. I can only say that I know I'm a man because I'm biologically male, human, and adult.
"You probably feel like a male..."
On what basis do you make that probability claim?
"If there's an autistic brain, then there is a different way to feel and understand the world (read: "to have those subjective experiences") from the people who don't have autistic brains."
I'm sure that measurable differences in brain activity can justify the claim that someone feels differently. But in the case of transgenderism, a biological male can have what they've dubbed as a "male brain" but identify as a woman, and we'd still be obligated to call them a woman.
"You missed the point with Caucasian and Negroid example. I'm making a case that our brains are different."
And I'm reminding you that all physical, objective, observable realities are irrelevant to the transgender worldview, and re-asking the question "Why not apply this to everything else?"
"If I wake up and somebody has changed my body to look like a male, I'd probably kill myself and not just because of the violation of the body but out of not wanting such presentation."
Which would be horrific (both the violation and the suicide). But if you only had that presentation from birth, then there's no rational reason you would have at all, for wanting to kill yourself over it.
"Is there such a thing as a "race" in the brain? If you're going to argue "culture", I would agree. But you're going to argue "brain differences", I most certainly disagree."
We can go with either answer; again, the point is it doesn't matter. A biological male with a "male brain" who identifies as a woman will be called a woman, on the transgender worldview. Therefore, a white man with white skin and only European ancestry, etc. (with or without a "white brain" if such a thing existed) would need to be called "black" if he identified as such, if they were being consistent.
"In the case of sex and gender I do believe there are biological differences in the BRAIN."
Most of the time but not always.
"If you disagree, then you're basically saying that women are taught to be women..."
That doesn't follow at all. Women for the most part simply recognize that they're women, same as I recognize I'm a man.
"and I agree that culture gives us gender roles and whatnot, but I disagree that ALL of our interests, desires and so on are culturally imposed."
I would disagree with that as well. But where biology leaves off, gender roles and norms pick up as a social construct. The trans worldview confuses this with gender itself, though, which is the problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tambaha I think we should continue to maintain that gender = sex, and this is why the roles we're expected to play solely based on our biological sex are called "gender roles". Someone looks at me, determines I'm biologically male, then proceeds to hold me to the gender roles of a man based on that alone.
Those who argue that gender and sex are different things are basically confusing gender with gender roles/norms. Gender roles and norms are social constructs, but they're based on biological differences between men and women (e.g., men tend to be stronger and therefore they're expected to protect women).
I would also add that, even if we agree with these people that gender and sex are different, this nullifies their accusations of us "misgendering" them. You can simply tell them, "When I called you a man, I was referring to your sex, not your gender".
Furthermore, even talking about gender as something other than sex, they couldn't say you're misgendering them anyway. If they can't give an objective definition for "man" or "woman", you can't actually be correct/incorrect about that judgment. The only way you can MISgender someone is if it's a matter of objective fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Okay so straight from the anti-theists' mouths, this is the best argument they got. So if it doesn't work, then anti-theism is certifiably unjustified. Let's take a look at this argument!
He begins by telling Christians and other theists to stay out of this one (insecure much?) and then proceeds to just assert that religion is "bullshit". Not off to a good start, logically speaking, mate.
He claims that theism should just be assumed false, which surely would result in strong atheism automatically, if this method were at all logically valid. But of course, it's his job here to show that theism is false (which is synonymous with strong atheism being true).
He does offer one argument against Christianity as an aside, and that's that since not everything in the bible is true and literal, that means that Christianity itself is false. That of course doesn't follow. If there still is a god, and Jesus was his son, that's plenty for calling anyone who believes these things a Christian. He's arguing against biblical inerrancy/literalism, not for atheism. And that's interesting because most Christians report that they believe in the Christian god on the basis of personal experiences, not the modern-day bible being 100% accurate.
He addresses the act of inferring design from complexity and improbability, but there are at least some examples of valid theistic arguments which fit into this category. For example, the fine-tuning argument concerning the constants and quantities given at the beginning of the universe. Explaining it away with the "chance" alternative eventually requires one to adopt belief in countless other universes, and these so-called "multiverse" theories also lack any corroborating evidence. So design seems a perfectly reasonable inference in at least some cases.
Finally, he gives his argument, and it's an utter fail (unsurprisingly). He asks, "Where did god come from?", as if this hasn't been asked millions of times by other anti-theists. What they don't seem to understand is that one can only ask for a cause of something if that something apparently had a beginning. It makes no sense to ask what caused something which might have been timeless, which is why Christians didn't start pushing the argument for a cause of the universe very heavily until there was evidence that it had a beginning. To ask the question "Where did god come from?" is basically claiming that any god that might exist must've had a beginning, and good luck developing an argument to prove that!
So the Christians are right, on this point. No one can say "God was either designed or appeared by accident" until they can justify thinking he/she/it must've had a beginning in the first place.
And despite his empty rhetoric, it remains the case that anyone offering a claim can be asked to support it with an argument (which he actually knows already, or he wouldn't be trying to come up with arguments for his view). Atheists are not special; if we make a claim (e.g., "There is no god"), we need to be able to support that claim or admit it's just an unfounded belief. And contrary to his assertion, the starting point is "I don't believe in anything", not "That is not true". Because the latter is also a claim that you adopt later, not a default position.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm sorry, but I really think Kyle lost this one. And I'll even explain why for anyone with the time and inclination to read it:
So first, if the "unemployment rate" he prefers to use is higher because some of the workers are "discouraged", or "underemployed", that's a bogus number. They're still employed (therefore not unemployed), and that is indeed better than being unemployed at any rate. Besides which, as Charlie pointed out that number's down under Trump as well anyway.
Similarly, just the fact that 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck tells us absolutely nothing. Just like with the wage gap, the question is why are they living paycheck to paycheck? It could be because they're getting paid less in relation to their essential needs, or it could be that we as a society have become far more irresponsible with our money (taking on unnecessary expenses, spending excessively, etc.)
In general, Kyle seems to really have a problem with any and all actions that directly help the rich despite whatever actions have helped others. I don't understand that logic, personally. Yes, the estate tax cuts only benefited the rich because they're the only ones with estates... But the tax only taxes the rich, so what's the problem!? He also doesn't seem to realize that his thought experiment opens the door to full-on socialism. Bernie Sanders was against millionaires... until he became one. Similarly, concerning Kyle, it's easy to go from saying "Okay so you only have 999.9 million dollars. Big whoop." to saying "Okay so you only have 9 millions dollars. Big whoop." and so on. It's just a very dangerous slippery slope he wants to move this country to.
Also, for the most part, Charlie Kirk was right. Another way to word "making money" is "providing value". The beauty of the free market is that it's the American people deciding who does/doesn't deserve their money, and they'll only say you deserve it if they find your product/service valuable.
I'm surprised Kyle argued against Charlie's point about California's laws regarding speech by just saying the 1st Amendment overrides it. While true on an official level, it doesn't magically guarantee anyone will be protected. And even if we were, it doesn't change the basic point that Democratically run local and state governments will at least try to undermine the freedom of speech which is bad enough and should make people take a second look at the current Democratic party.
Even the "Why do you always say it's anti-American?" question didn't quite work because Colin Kaepernik literally refused to stand for the national anthem to protest something entirely different. I'm not that big on symbols, but this was a direct refusal to respect what should be a universally acknowledged national anthem. Why did he choose that of all things if he's not anti-American? I think that's a fair question. And of course, it doesn't follow that because Colin's chosen method of protesting didn't check the box of "violent", that therefore everyone should have been okay with it. Frankly, that's a very low standard to set!
In general, I couldn't help but notice how Charlie had a direct answer to Kyle's allegations against Trump but then Kyle never brought a counterpoint to any of it; he just kinda turned up the attitude and switched to a different topic.
And finally, when it comes to seeing shades of grey instead of black and white, the whole point of not giving government too much power is that it only takes one (or maybe a few, to be fair) corrupt and evil people in positions of power to do a great deal of damage. The way I like to word it is this: Let's assume the majority of corporations are evil and the majority of government officials are good... I'd still prefer the free market because when I choose the minority of good corporations, I don't get thrown in jail for that. When it comes to government, you either give them your money (including the evil, corrupt minority) or it's off to prison with you. And once other government officials see how viable this approach is, they'll jump on board and corruption will literally spread throughout. Compare that to the free market, where the only thing the remaining good corporations will see is a bunch of failed has-been competitors that wasted away due to being corrupt!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@es1452 "Such as wearing a smoking jacket, having a beard"
That's up to the WHO, I guess. They're the ones (and you by extension) who think that stuff determines someone's gender.
"Look "Socially constructed" is the key. It depends on their 'society' not yours,"
Okay, so on your worldview a person's society is what determines their gender, no matter how they identify?
"Remember, it's important to recognise that gender identity and expression are fluid."
Fine, but the fact remains that the definition you advocate for regarding "gender" suggests that a person's gender identity (their identification of their own gender) can be wrong, if they don't also have the socially constructed characteristics their society expects of said gender.
"While societal norms influence how we understand gender, individuals have the right to express themselves in ways that feel authentic to them,"
That's fine too, people can be allowed to do whatever they want and believe whatever they want. I'm highlighting how certain beliefs are incoherent, is all.
"We should avoid judging others' identities based on superficial characteristics or our own limited understanding of gender."
Except that the WHO's very own definition of gender would literally mean some people's gender identities were wrong. You didn't answer my question, BTW. What would a person's gender be, if gender is "the characteristics of men, women, etc. that are socially constructed", they had the socially constructed characteristics their society expects of men, and they identified as a woman?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jesusislordsavior6343 "The repercussions of the George Floyd murder (and murder it was)"
Even though he was already saying he couldn't breathe before he even laid down on the ground (which he asked to do)? I mean, don't get me wrong, the officer who put his knee on his neck after the fact should still be held accountable for it, up to and including prison. But there isn't much evidence that it was premeditated murder, which is what they're going to end up charging him with, which means he might even be acquitted (which means more senseless rioting).
"Now I personally DO NOT LIKE the style or substance of BLM messaging. I am the sort of person who stays clear of public protests."
Yeah, me, I'm fine with protesting. I'm just not fine with the faulty premise that George Floyd was killed because he was black.
"But I think you are COMPLETELY WRONG in your estimation that racism 'had nothing to do with' the death of George Floyd."
Why? Especially in this case, the two of them even knew each other personally, so there'd be more reason to suspect a personal vendetta was involved, than racism. And are you aware that this happens to white people too? Just 10 months prior to this incident, a white man named Tony Timpa died in pretty much the same exact way. He was actually held down longer by the cops, and he hadn't even committed any crimes. He had called the cops himself and ended up dying for it.
"The behavior of those cops was absolutely reprehensible, scarcely explicable EXCEPT in the context of racial animus;"
Not sure what that last part means, but I'm with you up until that point.
"Something had to be done, though 'defunding police' is a foolish slogan IMO."
Agreed.
"I would go so far as to say that one who DENIES the role of racism in this murder-"
Which you still haven't provided any evidence for whatsoever.
"must be PARTIAL in his racial attitude, or else incredibly naive."
Name-calling won't suffice as evidence, either.
"I credit you with considerable intelligence; I do not think that you are naive. So, in light of what you have just said, I don't think that my 'hat' comment was far off base."
I'm still trying to figure out what it even meant. But if you're implying that I'm racist, then I'll ask for evidence of that as well (but won't hold my breath expecting you to actually provide it).
1
-
@jesusislordsavior6343 "We are not speaking of accidental death, as in manslaughter."
Indeed, we are. It's going to be hard for them to argue in a court of law that the officer intended to kill Floyd, in front of all those witnesses. Heck, it's hard enough to argue that the knee was the primary cause of death in general.
"nevertheless it was motivated by hatred."
I think so too. But that doesn't = racism, either.
"I am not saying that GF's race was the ONLY factor which caused his death,"
We shouldn't be saying it was any factor, since we don't have evidence for that claim.
"but if it played NO part, then the officers' error is doubly difficult to understand."
I don't see how. Again, these two knew each other prior to the incident. And don't forget about Tony Timpa.
"If a personal vendetta was involved independently of racial bias, it may be difficult to show in court, because we are dealing with a rather stereotypical interaction that is usually interpreted in racial terms."
Therein lies the problem. It's typically interpreted in racial terms, even when there's no reason to do so.
"Now I was not familiar before with the Tony Impala case, which deserved equal attention if it happened as you describe."
It was Tony Timpa, and you can find the video here on YouTube. Might also look up Daniel Shaver and Kelly Thomas, which are even more egregious.
"However you cannot enlist that terrible misfortune to disprove racial bias in the GF case."
The burden of proof isn't on me in the first place. You're the one making the claim that race was a factor; I'm simply asking you to substantiate the claim.
"There is no necessary connection apart from police indiscretion and lack of discipline."
The point of bringing it up is simply to show that this happens to white people as well, therefore there is no reason to jump to the assumption that Floyd's death had anything to do with his skin color.
"But I don't hear any qualified expressions of sympathy for black folks who are having a hard time, whether they 'deserve' it or not."
Notice that I never said anything about George Floyd (or any other black person) "deserving" what happened to them. But why would I express sympathy for black people going through hard times in this particular conversation? This isn't about black people going through hard times; it's about one specific black man and some cops.
"But I cannot see beyond the letters of this page into your heart. It remains a closed book to me, and maybe that is just as well."
If you want to know something specific, all you gotta do is ask. It'd be a lot better than making assumptions, which you did appear to be doing earlier.
And the reason I quote you is simply to make it clear which part I'm responding to. Nothing rude about it. But I will gladly assure you that I'm not trying to be rude to you at all.
1
-
@jesusislordsavior6343 Nope. I'm using the same definition of "accident" as anybody else in all other contexts. But if there's something I said that you think is false, feel free to correct it.
"Do you mean that GF's death was not intended?"
I don't remember making that claim per se. But I think it will be hard for anyone to prove that death was the intended result.
"Do you mean that the officers had no control over whether GF lived or died?"
Didn't say that either. At the very least, they probably could've gotten him medical help sooner (I say "probably" because I don't recall just when that was considered, via the transcript).
"they appear to have had options to do right, which they chose not to exercise."
I'm inclined to agree. But just out of curiosity, what specifically are you saying they should've done differently/sooner?
"The question may enter in, 'was abandonment of some of their duties justified by the alleged bad character of Mr. Floyd?'"
Not at all.
"And in evaluating their professional conduct (as well as the quality of their own citizenship) it might be asked, 'did they allow emotional factors (including race prejudice)"
Where is the evidence of either?
"to interfere with proper decision-making?' At first sight, that certainly appears to be the case."
Based on what, exactly? Because again, you're making implications here and refusing to give any rationale behind them.
And yes, I see how a narrative can be twisted. But it doesn't mean it was/is being twisted here.
"And so too were the officers who watched GF die doing their jobs'"
That would depend on how quickly they called for medical assistance, primarily.
"You SEEM to be in a hurry to justify the officers' conduct."
Nope. I'm just not on board with making assumptions either way, especially given the footage and the transcript.
"If you wish to put away black radical activism from among you, you're going to have to address problems which encourage its growth."
Yeah, like the lies about widespread and systemic racism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@barbarabeasley364 Trump did many great things for the country, and many of them did indeed help blacks disproportionately to whites. Criminal justice reform, funding for HPCUs, record low unemployment rates, the sickle cell anemia bill, black home ownership went up, there's quite a list actually.
As for Biden, I know he keeps trying to blame inflation, gas prices, etc. on everyone but himself, but there's a reason all this happened after Trump left office. When the government toys with the economy (even if they mean well, which would be quite an assumption for a lot of these career politicians who know better), it ends up backfiring drastically.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Adam-mv4fw You mean, you want to know how best to convince the kids to abstain. Well teaching them them how it works to avoid multiple problems is a start. But it also has to do with how a child is raised, and not just by the parents. A lot of parents make the mistake of assuming that so long as no one else has legal custody of their child, no one else is raising them, but that's usually not the case. You're raising your child, but so is the school you send them to, the media they consume, the other kids they hang out with, other kids' parents, etc. We can get more specific if you like, but it seemed outside the scope of the original topic.
"Not only that, you proposed solution to pregnant teens is for them to carry to terms even though I just said they are more likely to die from it!"
And? Being statistically more likely to die from pregnancy doesn't mean you should kill someone months ahead of time in an effort to prevent it...
"Why does a living human need to risk their life for an unborn human?"
Why does the living unborn human need to die because there may be a risk to the other living human's life?
"Is the childs life less than that of an unborn one?"
Neither is less. Which is why you don't kill either of them unless it's actually necessary in their particular case.
"ALL teen pregnancies are dangerous."
All pregnancies in general are dangerous. All everything is dangerous to some extent or another. Again, you have to judge these on a case by case basis. Abortion may be warranted in some cases but by no means all or even most.
1
-
@knowledgeanddefense1054 "Yeah ladies just don't get raped while you live out your very fun life where you're not even allowed to make love"
Okay so again, we were talking about teenagers originally. And you specifically targeted me and Walsh as "pedophile sympathizers" (even though we advocate abstinence) but now you're saying we should encourage them to "make love"? And there are indeed steps every teenage girl and woman should take to protect themselves from sexual assault. But if you're trying to tie that in with abortion, it's still killing an innocent human being for no adequate reason. No one is saying that situation would be easy; I'm sure it'd be tremendously difficult. But then, people find it tremendously difficult to avoid doing all sorts of wrong things. Doesn't make the wrong thing justified.
""Again, one of these positions is far more pedophile-like than the other, and it isn't ours."-nope"
Yep! If you're saying we shouldn't discourage teenage girls from "making love", you're way closer to a pedophile sympathizer than I could ever be. Pedophiles don't tell kids (teenagers or otherwise) to just plain abstain from sex, lol.
""I don't see how killing an unborn child fixes anything."-because an unborn child is not a real concept,"
Right, it's not a concept; it's a child! A living human being in the womb.
"you made that up using not facts but your feelings for a religious text"
I'm an atheist. And this angle is unfounded. The fetus is a living human being according to science, not anyone's feelings.
1
-
@knowledgeanddefense1054 "You advocating for abstinence does not render you immune to hypocrisy - you get that, right?"
Naturally, but we haven't been hypocrites on that either. We contend that teenagers should abstain. Our critics (who seem to be mostly left-leaning types) don't echo this and some even seem to encourage teenagers to think it's inevitable that they'll be sexually active.
"Also, I'm pretty sure it's not pedophilia if 2 teens have intercouse"
Obviously. But a pedophile wouldn't discourage teenagers from being sexually active in general, that's the point. He/she would want teenagers and other kids to be sexually active, to think they're old enough to consent to a wide variety of things they're not old enough to consent to, etc... again... like the political left.
"Also also, source that a fetus is a human being?"
Again, science, namely that the unborn develops brain activity (the most scientifically consistent standard for life) as early as six weeks after conception.
"Coming from the same side that denies climate change and its dangers,"
I've heard very few conservatives deny that climate change exists. But we are reasonably skeptical about the catastrophic view. "The record" is not the record, to make a long story short.
1
-
@knowledgeanddefense1054 "Yes dude, teenagers making out being considered OK is a communist plot"
No one said anything about communism... But it remains true that if anyone's to be accused of sympathizing with pedophiles, it's not going to be the side who insists that teenagers not engage in sexual activity. It's not going to be the ones talking ad nauseum about how kids cannot consent to multiple things. It's going to be the side opposing those sermons. Not my fault that's the side you fall on...
""Teenagers are the most fertile, the problem isn't teenage pregnancies, wink wink" -very internally consistent non-hypocrite"
No inconsistency there at all. You're trying to make it sound like he was advocating for it, but those words don't reflect that in the slightest. If, for example, he was talking about reasons it was considered okay historically (which he was), that's very easy to reconcile with saying they shouldn't be getting pregnant.
Matt's constant preaching about how kids cannot consent to various things is much stronger evidence that he isn't a groomer/pedo than what you're bringing to the table to argue that he is. Again, groomers don't do that; they want children to be allowed to "consent" to various things.
"As for the "science" point, you're gonna have to be a little more specific than that,"
I thought I had? Anyway, the unborn child develops brain activity as early as six weeks post conception. Brain activity is what is typically used as the scientific standard of life in a human being (e.g., you're not pronounced dead at the hospital until you lose brain activity). There's really no scientific justification for killing the unborn.
"as well as mention which experts and official instutions agree with you on... literally anything regarding this field."
Not at all. We defer to them on the science itself (and what I just said isn't disputed), not for wisdom on the right/wrong of an issue that's become political.
"Now go watch hbomberguy's video to get a good look at the totally not climate denying neo-con (con being the operative word) brigade you worship,"
I don't worship anyone, so I'll dismiss this part as irrelevant. But if you know of an argument that can refute something I've said, it's up to you to present that argument. Not up to me to prove your claims correct 😉
1
-
@knowledgeanddefense1054 ""Nobody said anything about communism" excepts leftists are the ones who advocate for socialism, lmao."
Didn't say anything about socialism, either. I merely pointed out that your side of the political fence criticizes conservatives for advocating abstinence. Pedophiles and groomers would not promote abstinence but rather "birth control". Similarly, pedophiles and groomers would not go around saying that children aren't old enough to consent to various things but instead insist that they can.
"Not my fault you think being OK with teenagers kissing-"
We weren't talking about that either...
"meanwhile you and matt want to impregnate all 16 year olds hahaha"
Unfounded, and the evidence seems to be against you on that one. Unless you think they're going to get pregnant while abstaining from sex which is what conservatives recommend?
"lol you really just said that him saying that teenage pregnancies aren't a problem (since that is when they're most fertile) is "easy to reconcile" with advocating for the literal straight up opposite."
He never said that teenage pregnancies aren't a problem. Again, you take "the problem with" too literally. But it's a phrase people use all the time in reference to things that have multiple problems. For example, the problem with you is you're biased against conservatives. Doubtless you have more than just that one problem 😉
"By the way, my favorite conservative is that republican on twitter saying "don't take your kids to drag shows, take them to the MUCH MORE SEXUAL hooters""
Not familiar with that one. I'm against taking kids to either place, personally. But drag shows can go much further than anything you'd see at Hooters.
"So... no citation of scientific sources of any kind"
For what claim? That the unborn develop brain activity as early as six weeks after conception? Because that's the only scientific claim I made.
And yes, climate change is most irrelevant to the topic we're discussing. But again, if you really knew of an argument that refuted something I said (on either subject), you would've posted it yourself. Not my job to go on a wild goose chase looking for something to prove your position correct.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CosmoPhiloPharmaco "Vic (an atheistic/godless individual) holds inconsistent beliefs"
Not at all, no.
"because he thinks that Craig is justified in believing in God given his mystical experience,"
I said I think he could be justified in that belief, if he has had the experience.
"but Vic can disregard this alleged experience as a potential lie,"
I didn't disregard it at all; indeed, I was the first to offer it as justification for his belief! However, it is simply a truism that any person reporting an experience which you do not share could be lying.
"or delusion or something else."
Indeed! Any one of us could be deluded. Just like you're deluded in thinking there's a contradiction in what I've said.
"The problem is that if Craig is justified in believing in theism due to this experience, then he is justified by virtue of it being a sufficient indication that God exists."
For him, who's purportedly had the experience, yes. Not for those of us who haven't had the experience. Again, this is why Christians invite non-Christians to reach out to god themselves.
"Vic's worldview seems to imply a kind of epistemic relativism about evidence, similar to the one Matt explored in his brilliant film What is a Woman?"
Nonsense. As I explained, Craig's belief is different because he can give objective definitions for his terms. Same with mine. The whole point of Matt's documentary was to show that those who subscribe to transgenderism cannot do this.
"Vic then brought the question of conflicting experiences (the Christian and the Muslim, say). However, if that is a sufficient reason for us to disregard their experiences, then why is it not a sufficient reason for them?"
No one is suggesting we disregard anything (you're putting words in my mouth). But, since you claimed that we should just believe in the Christian god because Craig says he experienced him and we've no reason to think Craig is dishonest, I pointed out to you that this would obligate you to believe in every other god some other seemingly honest person has claimed to have experienced.
And no, there's nothing "relativistic" about requiring actual evidence (and/or a personal experience) aside from testimonies you yourself are fine with "disregarding" (yet you preach at others for doing so).
"Surely Vic believes in all kinds of scientific, historical, political and sociological propositions without ever knowing the authors"
Indeed, but there's a difference between one individual's personal experiences and externally observable and verifiable data.
"(much less learning that they can be trusted)."
You assume I don't engage in and watch other debates on a variety of topics. That's your fault, not mine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zarrakon Well he doesn't understand that socialism leads to really bad places. Giving the government more power, especially in the U.S. where that's what caused the problem in the first place, means making things more expensive, less efficient, etc. And he originally thought (Idk, maybe he still does) that Scandinavia is socialist, but then the PM of Denmark had to correct him on that. They're more free market than we are! That's why they can sustain (arguably) a larger welfare state. No minimum wage laws, school vouchers, they don't penalize the wealthy with high corporate tax rates, etc. They learned their lesson about capitalism some time ago (especially Sweden), while the U.S. bumbles around and people like Bernie aren't helping.
And yes, trying to play it off like the billionaires are somehow more greedy than the rest of us is promoting class warfare.
1
-
@Zarrakon "Billionaires are by far greedier than regular people."
See, that sentence is dripping with classism; you just don't realize it. In reality, billionaires are just like anybody else. They want to get as much as they can while putting in as little effort as they can. And they want to pay as little in taxes as they can. You cannot expect me to believe that this doesn't describe most people in general, not just the billionaires whom we're told to hate.
"10 billionaires could pool 5% of their wealth and end homelessness."
That's false. We've poured trillions of dollars into the problem of homelessness, yet it remains. Part of the problem is that you're thinking that giving everyone living on the street right now a house will last some really long time when, year after year, it's entirely different people who find themselves homeless. We'd have to keep taking from the most wealthy. And eventually we'd run out of money (or at least wealthy people because they'd move somewhere else) and the problem would persist just as it has been for decades now.
"Regular every day people would do this."
So you claim, yet most people don't give to charity even for people who are literally dying of starvation.
"Also, Bernie has said many times he wants to make america more like the Scandinavian countries. He isn’t a socialist, he’s a social Democrat, just like the Scandinavian model."
He literally calls his approach "democratic socialism", and no he opposes the Scandinavian model; he just wants us to magically achieve Scandinavian results.
"Minimum wage laws don’t need to exist in those countries because they have strong unions,"
There's no fundamental difference between unions and the free market, so this is really just proving my point.
"Also not sure where you got the idea that government power makes this less efficient,"
Because it does. Most of the countries Bernie will point to are known for their long wait times in the healthcare industry, for example. And it's no coincidence that here in America the healthcare industry is both the most ridiculously expensive and the most heavily regulated. Prices began to skyrocket in the 60s with the advent of Medicaid/Medicare because demand was dramatically increased while supply continued to be hindered.
"can you fucking imagine if police and emergency services and libraries were for profit and not run by the state?"
The only one I see a potential problem with is the police (and that's just because combining competition with the authority to shoot at people sounds like a bad idea for other reasons). As for the rest, I see no good reason why I shouldn't be able to have a choice between an ambulance that's going to charge me hundreds of dollars and one that has found a way to charge significantly less. Same for libraries, although a for-profit library would have to offer more in features because it'd be unrealistic for them to compete in price!
1
-
1
-
1
-
+MISTERWHITE111 William Lane Craig's arguments for theism remain valid. You haven't even attempted to deal with his premises, you just attack the man on a personal level (seems like that's all you anti-theists can do these days).
"I have given you quite a few items of CREDIBLE EVIDENCE for the existence of other SPACE-TIMES"
Lol, no you have not, and your lists of alleged "evidence for" things have proven completely devoid of such evidence every. single. time.
"You namedrop Hawking
You didn’t read Hawking"
You pretend that one quote from Hawking makes the other irrelevant. It doesn't.
"I have given many scientific reasons on why MAINSTREAM SCIENCE disagrees with your supernatural claims."
First, I haven't made any supernatural claims. And second, science deals with the natural world. You probably mean to say that most scientists disagree with theism. But the question is, why? You haven't given a single good reason to oppose theism, or even a solid objection against any of Craig's premises. Indeed, the few times we have delved deeper into your "reasoning", it turns out you agree with Craig's premises (whether you realize it or not). For example, your saying that actual infinites do not exist.
"you don’t realize that Craig used the “singularity” at the start of time"
Right, but unlike what you're proposing, there is actual evidence for a singularity (It is the most likely result of our universe's expansion being extrapolated backward in time).
"A singularity (which really doesn't exist anymore than an infinity does but Craig doesn't realize it)"
The problem (for you) is that actual infinites cannot logically exist, whereas a singularity could indeed exist as the starting point of space and time, if only theoretically.
"is too small to have dimensionality."
Which is just another way of saying that at some point, there was nothing.
"Let’s examine the two positions to see which one is more complex
Science says that what we observe EMERGED from something natural."
Wrong. Science studies what we observe, and then scientists theorize about what's beyond what we observe.
"Christian occultists claim that there god popped into full form out of a philosophical nothing,"
Also wrong. Christians believe that their god is past eternal, and therefore never "popped into" being at all.
ME: “Not to mention that "something so small it has no dimensions" is literally nothing,”
YOU: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
You laugh because you'd rather cry :P Because you know I'm right.
"I guess you have never heard about quantum mechanics."
All quantum theories involve something physical, with Craig's example of the quantum vacuum being the most talked about in the Science and Religion debate. And if it's physical (not to be confused with "tangible", mind you) it has dimensions. You keep trying to imply that science is somehow studying things outside of the natural realm, things that are not natural/physical. But that's an altogether impossible endeavor for science, and we both know it.
"Brian Greene writes about research that has demonstrated that below the Planck Scales, there is structure but I have not had time to read the literature on this topic. There are just so many hours in a day."
Maybe you should make the scholarly decision (since you are such an intelligent character) to shorten your "HAHA"s here on YouTube? Just tryin' to help ya!
ME: “it's logically fallacious to think that literally nothing could create something”
YOU: "Yes, Craig (and other non-scientists who are theists) commit the fallacious blunder of claiming that their god popped into existence"
I've corrected you on this several times now. No, theists do not believe god came into being.
ME: “He is a philosopher”
YOU: "He is an apologist which is based ENTIRELY on theology."
Fine, so in fairness, we can dismiss Dawkins and the like as "anti-theists which is based ENTIRELY on intolerance" and don't have to acknowledge them as scientists?
1
-
@Zhwazi "Gender is a social construct"
Sounds so far like you're confusing gender itself with gender roles and norms (which are indeed socially constructed, for the most part, expectations placed on people because of their sex, or what I call gender).
"Gender also has ideological characteristics, it is a system of ideas and ideals. Many of those ideals relate to biological characteristics."
Okay, still sounds like gender roles and norms. But if we equate gender with these ideas and ideals, this turns out to be unworkable within the rest of modern gender theory (e.g., transgenderism). After all, if someone adheres primarily to the expectations traditionally placed on men, but identifies as a woman, what is their gender at that point?
"Gender identity is how you relate your internal sense of self"
Here too we find a huge problem. We can't actually know that we're feeling like a man/woman, as we've no basis for that comparison (we've all only been just the one gender). So we'd have no way of knowing the difference between "feeling like" a man vs. "feeling like" a woman, or indeed if such a difference exists at all.
"...these social constructs are socially taught to us, and we learn how to navigate in society by performing these genders and seeing how people react to them. It is as easy for a man to learn what it feels like to be a woman as it is to learn what it feels like to be a man."
But in reality all they're learning is what it feels like to adhere to certain gender roles or norms. But if I adhered to primarily the gender roles of a woman, but still considered myself a man, how could I learn from that what it feels like to be a woman (since I wasn't a woman at any point)?
"Gender dysphoria is gender incongruence that is extremely distressing, and the most effective treatment for it that we know is transition."
That may indeed make them feel better, if they've subscribed to modern gender theory in the first place. But it'd be ideal for them to reject transgenderism altogether from the very start.
And how would you go about defining "man" or "woman"?
1
-
@Zhwazi "I'm going to be brief because you're doing the thing I said I thought you'd do."
No need to pretend I'm the only one being stubborn here. I'm asking you questions in response to what you say; either you can answer them logically or you can't.
"I am not confusing gender and gender roles. Gender roles are part of gender, but all of gender is a social construct, gender roles included."
I said "gender roles and norms", because you said gender was made up of ideas and ideals. What else determines someone's gender, on your worldview?
"Someone performing masculinity, but whose gender identity is feminine, is still a woman."
Okay, so the ideas and ideals wouldn't be what determines their gender. So it seems that definition is being abandoned now. Can you tell me what it means for someone's gender identity to be feminine? Because when I hear the word "feminine", I still think of gender roles and norms, which would result in the same problem I highlighted in your original definition.
"Trans people do not actually "feel like" a gender. I didn't even use the word "feel" in my last reply"
Fair enough, you said they have an "internal sense". But the counterargument remains the same. Let's say you're one of these "trans women". How can you know what you're "sensing" is what a woman senses and not what a man senses, unless you've sensed both? And if you have sensed both, how do you know your conclusion that you're a woman is the right conclusion?
"Transgender people existed before modern gender theory existed, we just didn't call them that."
Even granting that for the sake of argument, this does nothing to lend their beliefs credibility. I mean, flat earthers have existed for quite a long time too, yes?
1
-
@Zhwazi "I'm not pretending that I'm not being stubborn, but I am saying you're not empathetic or openminded enough to be worth the time"
But you haven't shown any signs of being open-minded either. You're disagreeing with me every bit as much as I'm disagreeing with you (and asking fewer questions, I might add, as to what I think and why).
As for empathy, we are discussing worldviews from a logical standpoint. Neither of us have necessarily shown empathy because it isn't relevant to what's been said so far. If you were to ask me what I think about the turmoil trans people must be going through, I'd say it must be incredibly difficult and I hope they can overcome it. But that has no bearing on the incoherence of the worldview itself, except that I think they'd be better off rejecting it because of said incoherence.
"The way you happily and carelessly mix up concepts (e.g. gender vs gender identity),"
I didn't mix them up at all. We were discussing gender, you said it was comprised of ideas and ideals, so I pointed out that these sound a lot like gender roles and norms. And you haven't been able to give any further information on what gender consists of since.
"insert words that weren't used (e.g. "feel", "feeling"),"
A difference without a difference, as I pointed out in my last reply to you. And you still haven't been able to address the fundamental point on how it's impossible for anyone to know what feeling or internal sense they are having.
1
-
@Zhwazi "It is the receiver, not the explainer, of a new idea, that needs to be openminded."
Which is just a fancy way of saying you are not open-minded enough to accept that you might be wrong, but you expect everyone else to immediately conclude that they are.
And I've given various reasons why your model is incoherent.
"And yes, it does take empathy, if you reply to everything I say as if I am your enemy, who you must not empathize with as you attempt to assert dominance through facts and logic,"
See, this is a big problem with your worldview as well. The equation of disagreement with hate, phobia, etc. I should be able to point out where I disagree with you and why, without you interpreting that as me looking at you as an enemy.
"you won't make a sincere attempt to understand things in the various possible ways it could be interpreted to select the most likely or strongest formulation,"
And yet I've been sticking with the subject matter, asking you questions and presenting arguments while you largely ignore them and continue to attack my character...
No one is forcing or even obligating you to keep responding, but I won't knowingly let falsehoods just go by.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulelkin3531 Okay, skipping over the parts where you're simply posturing... Ah here we go...
"explaining how you determine "whether a person's body developed primarily toward the purpose of producing either large gametes (ova) or small gametes (sprem)."
This is in reference to the overall reproductive system (most of which is internal), things like ovaries, gonads, etc. Everyone's development follows a pathway including most if not all of what's needed to either impregnate or become pregnant. While so-called "intersex" people develop with a few defects, or deviations, from this, internally it's very clear which pathway their bodies developed in general.
"we notice that we start our guesses about a person's sociological presentation-"
Who is "we"? I don't make any guesses about their presentation. That much is, well, presented. But we do start our guesses about a person's biological sex (aka gender) by looking for signs of that. Ideally, their presentation won't be misleading, but all any of us can do is our best with what clues we're given.
"And of course, for any given such trait popularly associated with one gender-"
Did you say "gender" there? What are these traits associated with again? Because it sounds like you're thinking of biological males/females when you use the word "gender" in this statement...
1
-
@paulelkin3531 "the phrase "popularly associated" in "traits popularly associated with one gender," is used to show I'm referring to commonly assumed correlations between being a particular trait and having a particular gender."
Well, sure. But my question was, how are you meaning "gender" here? Because people typically base gender roles and gender norms on a person's biological sex, which is part of why I still equate sex and gender myself.
"Secondly, you did say you determine a person's internal anatomy "by looking for signs of that," but again wussed out of-"
(sigh) Or, you didn't get the answer you were hoping for.
"explaining what these signs are."
Ah. I thought you were asking what I meant by "developed primarily toward the purpose of producing large/small gametes". So I answered that. The signs we look for in determining which of the two genders a person is (given limited knowledge of their biology) are indeed secondary sex characteristics like facial hair, body type, the sound of their voice, whether or not they have breasts, etc.
But again, if someone is presenting in a misleading way, that's not a mark against this otherwise reliable method. You can't always know for sure, just like you can't always know for sure that the law degree hanging on a lawyer's wall is real and not a counterfeit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This question is an old anti-theist trick to try and make the Christian look foolish, mean, etc. But it's actually easy to answer from a logical perspective (and I'm not even a theist). First, you have to establish that the question presupposes that the Christian god is real. This is very important! Because if the Christian god is in fact real, then eternal life is part of the equation and, with Christians believing that children go to heaven when they die, there'd be no logic in emphasizing any temporary suffering over that eternal bliss. All the anti-theist could respond with is an emotional argument, which they do quite often. Again, the aim is not to get at truth here; it's just to make Christians unpopular by non-Christians who aren't thinking very critically. Now, if the questioner is really asking "If you thought god asked you to kill your child, would you do it?", the answer should be no. And indeed, the vast majority of Christians are just like the vast majority of atheists, in that they don't go around killing their children. Why? Well because for whatever reason, they don't think god is asking them to do that. Even in light of the story of Abraham, they believe that god is not asking for such proofs of love, devotion, etc. and they also believe that Jesus' death was the end of it.
Finally, suppose the question is not about killing a child but someone else (who may just go to hell). Obviously, the logical argument I used earlier wouldn't apply. And so I think we do have good reason to object to belief in hell, for what that is worth. The Hell doctrine is without justification, but not just for logical and moral reasons. Christian Universalism contends that everyone goes to heaven eventually. Universalists (who now make up roughly 25% of all Christians) have dealt with the verses used in support of the hell doctrine (most of which they say were mistranslations of if not plain ol' additions to the original text), and the following verse presents an illustration of Universalism’s accuracy:
John 12:32
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."
So there are but four possibilities here:
1. Jesus lied.
2. Jesus never ascended to heaven.
3. Jesus went to hell, and everyone's going to go there with him.
4. Jesus went to heaven, and everyone's going to go there with him.
It seems to follow that, according to the bible, everyone's going to heaven sooner or later. And so one could adopt Universalism and every argument against the rightness of listening to god on these matters will be a failure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zefix1234 Our healthcare system is extremely regulated by our government. You can't even build a hospital without nearby hospitals appealing to the government to keep you from it. And this is the problem, dating back to the 60s, where the government increased demand for healthcare services without increasing supply (They actually do things, such as the above, to decrease supply). The free market works. There's no reason to think healthcare is the exception.
https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
As for minimum wage laws, doing away with them would be one way of strengthening unions. The unions in Sweden say that minimum wage laws interfere with "collective bargaining", which is true but incomplete. They interfere with bargaining in general. They also hurt your chances of being employed if you're low-skilled. If you can provide roughly $10 of value an hour, but the minimum wage is $15, you won't be hired. Or else, your company will simply raise prices on goods/services which will negate the effect of the minimum wage laws in the first place. One way or another, companies will ensure they make the usual profits. This is also why Sweden doesn't penalize "the very wealthy" as Bernie intends to do if elected. Corporate taxes are simply passed down to employees/consumers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patrickmc4851 ME: "You think that the different chromosomal combinations = different sexes?"
YOU: "I said that or anything like it?"
You said what I quoted you saying, which was "In addition to the most common XX and XY chromosomal sexes, there are several other possible combinations". And you used the word "sexes", which implies that these other chromosomal combinations form other sexes. But if that's not what you meant, I'll hear your clarification whenever you want to give it. Are you suggesting there are more than two sexes, or not?
ME: "But even ignoring all this, what is your definition of "gender"? Do you think there is an objective definition of "gender" that's actually workable with transgenderism?"
YOU: "Then it's even sadder when you latch onto propaganda-"
I'm not interested in your posturing here. If you wish to argue that I'm wrong for thinking that sex and gender are one and the same, that gender is biologically determined, etc., you'll need to be able to establish what gender even is first.
"You'd never suggest that there's no difference between boys and girls."
Umm, right, because there are differences between boys and girls, most notably how their bodies developed.
"But because you're a sheep literally anything they put in front of you you'll believe and use EVEN when it doesn't make sense like this EVEN when it contradicts your actual beliefs like this EVEN when it contradicts your other arguments."
Sounds like an empty (and incoherent) claim. Again, what exactly are you saying I'm wrong about?
ME: "The question is, what makes an adult human male's belief that he's a woman true?"
YOU: "What would make it true is that he'd been living with it since early childhood."
That doesn't logically follow, no. The amount of time spent with a belief has no bearing on its validity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bullet Anarchy I am reading and responding directly to everything you say, yes.
"The vast majority of organisms there is no question that they are defined by separation and not DNA"
Not sure what you mean by this, but the unborn fetus is a separate human being with its own unique genetic code and its own independent brain activity. By all consistent scientific accounts, it is its own human being.
"Categorically birth does change what they are."
Not in the slightest, no. And it's magical thinking which says they transform into a whole other sort of organism just by passing through the birth canal.
Now, you might say they're legally considered a human being at that point, but that's hardly relevant in a discussion about what is scientific fact and/or what should be legal.
"because you continually change your criteria,"
Not at all, I've stuck with the same criteria since the beginning: brain activity is the ultimate sign of life, recognized in every other instance where we ask "Is this person alive?" And you haven't given any good reason to make an exception for the unborn.
"is it conception ?"
According to most embryologists, yes. But as I said, I take a more modest approach in determining not just when we have a human being but when that human being is alive.
"is it a heartbeat ?"
Not really because a machine can keep your heart beating long after you're dead (or "brain dead", as the experts would call it).
"is it brain activity ?"
Yes.
"Is it sentience ?"
No, because a person can be completely unconscious but still alive.
"A female ovum is alive and human"
If you wish to extend it even earlier than most scientists and myself, I won't stop you. My only statement is that it should at least be acknowledged that by the time we're dealing with an organism with its own unique genetic code and independent brain activity, we are dealing with a living human being which should not be killed.
1
-
Bullet Anarchy "Why should I acknowledge that we are dealing with an organism ?"
If you meant "a human being that's alive", I already told you. It has its own unique genetic code and brain activity (at about six weeks). And these are the signs of independent existence and of life, respectively.
"Categorically birth does change what they are."
Not at all. They are in fact the same organism that they were a few minutes ago before they exiting the womb. The only thing that has changed is their circumstances. And it's silly to think that moving someone from one location to another magically transforms them into another organism.
"birth is the point at which it survives alone,"
Not at all, a newborn baby will die if you just leave them alone. Same for an infant, a toddler, and even some children beyond that age.
Same also goes, BTW, for people who are older but are being kept alive by machines in hospitals today. They're not dead, having brain activity, but they need machines to keep their hearts beating and lungs breathing. But they would die if left alone; are you saying they're not alive either?
"any scientist worth speaking of would refuse to give such a subjective account."
Of what? They may not give a statement on what's morally right or wrong regarding abortion for any number of reasons (chief among them that they are not expert on morality but on science). But they will almost unanimously tell you that human life begins at conception.
This is, once more, being even more strict than I am being - when I say they're actually alive several weeks afterward.
"What don't you understand about the vast majority of organisms don't give birth and are not even animals ?"
I understand that statement. But it doesn't seem to have anything to do with determining when life begins for those species that do procreate as humans do...
1
-
@turdferguson2961 I don't think it's about empathy though, nor the assumption that the desire to have sex with people of the same gender is a choice. Ben even says there are things that straight males are naturally tempted to do a lot but are forbidden from doing in accordance with his religion.
@Turd Ferguson I'm not sure Ben thinks masturbating is a sin (I know this is debated among Christians, it may be the same for Jews). But either way, would your wedding be a celebration of masturbation? Lol. Because that's the only way I can think of that as a good comparison.
Ben isn't forcing anyone to follow Judaism. In the podcast with Joe, he just said that there's a "buy-in" for choosing to adopt that religion, and part of that is not having gay sex. So long as he's not trying to keep anyone from doing what they want (that isn't harming anyone), I think that's fair.
I actually am an atheist, but I think most religious people would disagree that god makes people gay. Could be wrong on that. Either way, I don't think it follows that god creating gay people and telling them not to engage in homosexual behavior is cruel; or at least, it's no more cruel than creating men with a recurring desire to have sex with every relatively attractive woman they meet and then telling them not to do that either. When you get into that sort of argument, the assumption always seems to be that god couldn't have any morally sufficient reason for allowing (or even causing) some degree of suffering. Naturally, we wouldn't have any way of knowing that though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bibulousape "Can you point me to conversion therapy which is demonstrably effective?"
Well the very reason I put it in quote marks is because you brought it up. I don't think of the effective alternatives as "conversion therapy" in the first place. But as I said, the best alternative would be preventing someone from subscribing to this worldview in the first place.
"For the sake of argument, let's assume that the study's finding of a 12% persistence rate can be extrapolated across the board. This in no way diminishes the number of adults with gender dysphoria."
Nor was that the goal. It was only an example of how it can go away; there are probably many ways of accomplishing that and still rejecting belief systems that don't hold up to logical scrutiny.
"Also, this study relies on self-reported gender identity so... doesn't that mean you think it's based on an illogical and nonsensical worldview?"
That part will always be incoherent, but the fact that the gender dysphoria went away was the focus, because you wanted to assert that transgenderism is somehow needed.
ME: "Until these so-called scientists can define their terms in an objective, workable way, I've no reason to consider them experts on this"
YOU: "So here's how this reads for me. Either (a) the scientific community has devoted decades of study into this topic without realising it's illogical and incoherent, or (b) the scientific community is deliberately propagating a lie for... reasons... or (c) you've concluded that, because something doesn't make intuitive sense to you, the scientific community can be dismissed entirely."
None of those assumptions are necessary. They consistently fail to define their terms in an objective, workable way, regardless of why. So I've no reason to refer to them as experts on this and neither do you.
"How do these account for what you call "defects"?"
What do you mean? The point is simply that defects do not change your gender to something else.
"What does it mean to have a body "largely developed toward the function of impregnating women" if the man is never fertile?"
It means exactly that. His body for the most part developed toward that function but not fully there.
"Where would someone with a vagina and internal testes (as opposed to ovaries) be categorised?"
It would rely on much more than two singular factors, but even those with CAIS develop the genitalia and secondary sex characteristics of women and their bodies even work out a way to produce more estrogen than testosterone.
""The subscription to a worldview that makes no logical sense is itself harm enough"
I just don't think we'd be able to do science on this if it was in fact illogical and nonsensical."
What is the science you think makes sense of it?
"But y'all want to argue cause you can't wrap your head around gender identity being a fuzzy, subjective concept."
Again, the question isn't "What is gender identity?". It's "What is gender?". In other words, what makes the gender someone identifies as, the gender they actually are?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Destroyer754 "Man or woman have not objective meaning, only subjective."
The terms "man" and "woman" are words subjectively assigned to refer to biological, objective realities, just like the terms "X chromosome", "XX body", etc.
"You argue that gender is biological."
I point out that it is the same as biological sex, which is why those roles we're expected to play based solely on our biological sex, are called "gender roles" to begin with.
"It can’t be biological because it is name for a role-"
No, "gender" is the word given to describe the physical reality of your body. "Gender roles" is the name for the roles we're expected to play on the basis of our gender.
"An XX body can fulfill no biological function that is womanly, but it would still be an XX body."
How silly. They'd still be a woman, too. Or, to reverse this logic, an XX body might not be able to fulfill the biological functions usually permitted by an XX body, but it's still an XX body. You see, the term "woman" is only being substituted with "XX body" here.
Anyway, give an answer to the issue: where "XY women" would still want to be treated the same as "XX women". Address the argument that your proposal wouldn't actually change anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joeymac4302 "It's not a magical transformation. It's a legal one. As in, they aren't considered "persons" by the government until they are born."
So what? How does that have any impact at all on the moral implications of taking its life?
"There are no post birth abortions."
Technically no. But there was that governor talking about people sitting a baby on a table and just letting it die.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkTopSKo1xs
"Also, We non-radicals believe a woman's right to abortion only goes through the first trimester, as laid out via Roe v. Wade."
Which was still a pretty radical idea. Any line we might draw at which point it becomes a human life will be inconsistent with how we define it elsewhere. The only one that doesn't lead to contradictions is a line drawn at conception, when a unique genetic code is formed.
"your assertion is false that the Democratic party is increasingly OK with partial birth abortions."
In other words, you didn't know about the bill they were trying to pass not long ago.
"Also, I don't document each time he says "democrats are pushing for socialism" on his daily show."
That's not the claim you made earlier, which was that he said all Democrats want socialism...
"his dehumanizing tweets. Which I note you didn't even bother trying to fight that one."
I must've missed it, or I would've simply pointed out that, yet again, you're being conveniently vague about what Shapiro's allegedly done that's so bad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JamesHLanier Naturally, I'm going to find it offensive when someone tells me I don't know what it's like to be poor just because I'm white. And yeah, I know, Bernie was just pandering to minorities because he thought that's what they wanted to hear. Doesn't change the fact that it was a lie.
And having more money than you need doesn't mean you're greedy, or again, no more than the rest of us. But most of the billionaires are doing things to help! When they're not donating (far more money than we can because we didn't make billionaires out of ourselves), they're providing value (products/services) and/or jobs.
The numbers don't lie; Trump's economy has indeed helped Americans in every class. And I didn't make any excuses for the military actions themselves; I just don't appreciate when people use military men and women for political purposes.
When you say we should "commit" to clean energy, that doesn't address my point that it actually has to be practical and affordable. And again, if we're (honestly) looking to save the world, we need the free market to innovate ways of doing that so that other countries (who couldn't care less about how many food stamps Americans are getting) will get on board with that newly doable clean energy.
You lost some credibility there, calling the camps at the border "concentration camps". And I listed the specific things Trump has done to lower healthcare costs, so it doesn't work to just respond with "He hasn't done anything".
1
-
JamesHLanier If you have to lie about who does/doesn't know what it's like to be poor, you should probably revisit your whole argument. You might find that white people are harassed and killed by cops too!
"You're right, but having a dickload more money that you would ever need in a thousand lifetimes does make you greedy."
Sounds arbitrary, and no basis for dividing us by wealth. Especially when it's the American people who decided they should be billionaires. What makes your definition of "greedy" (found absolutely nowhere in the dictionary) better than simply "If you have more money than you will need to get by, while some people are literally starving to death overseas"?
"They're not doing shit to help."
Most of the billionaires are doing plenty to help, and I listed how.
"And yeah, tell me more about how we should be thankful we get the scraps from our exploited labor."
You should be thankful that you even have the gall to think of the life you live as "scraps".
"And why not use military people for political purposes?"
Because they're human beings, adults in fact, and they made the decision to support the U.S. even if they don't agree with the specifics. The military would be worthless if everyone in it just did what they felt like doing.
"It is practical and affordable."
Not at all. For example, solar energy. We can't even store it properly. It literally would not work, even if it were affordable.
"As long as coal and oil have a voice in the free market,"
We don't have a free market, that's the problem.
"They're camps where a certain group of people are concentrated for punitive reasons."
So would you call prisons concentration camps too? Why or why not?
"Trump has done NOTHING to lower healthcare costs. Absolutely nothing."
Again, I specified what he's done. It doesn't work to just repeat "He hasn't done anything".
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zefix1234 No, I'm just wanting to introduce a different perspective is all. I don't think we should be voting on the basis of who's "nice" or just "consistent". I think we should base our vote on who's going to do a good job and so far Trump has!
@CBTela Trump has actually raised wages. The median household income went up more than $4,000 since he took office.
https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AZ014_Moore_16U_20190926102706.jpg
So while a huge amount of people live paycheck to paycheck, the answer as to why doesn't seem to be the big evil orange man.
Similarly, some people do have to work multiple jobs to get by (at least temporarily and with their current expenses). But the number of people who do hasn't gone up under Trump either.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/jul/18/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wrong-several-counts-abou/
Aside from the economy, record-low unemployment rates (especially among minorities), and the increased wages, Trump has given us prison reform, taken a strong stand against terrorism, provided Right to Try, and lowered the costs of prescription drugs at a historic level. That's partly due to getting more drugs approved by the FDA (competition!) but he's also fighting for transparency in the costs of medical treatment which will do even more good. And yes, I like what he's done for the pro-life movement, but I know that's a more controversial topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@erisi6204 "Than what is your point,"
That transgenderism is a completely incoherent and inconsistent worldview and no one should be encouraging it, especially in children.
"you just seem attracted to any avenue that would facilitate discriminating trans people.
"
I don't see what the "discrimination" would be...
"Science affirms gender is real,"
Well of course it's real. But transgenderism requires people to confuse gender with the inclination/disinclination to adhere to gender roles and norms. That, or say "Well I just feel like I'm a woman", but that angle has its share of problems too. I suspect you don't want me to elaborate, however.
"that it is seperate to sex"
Not at all. Gender and biological sex are one and the same. That's why the roles we're expected to play solely on the basis of our biological sex are called "gender roles". People look at us, determine we are biologically male, and expect us to "act like" a man. What we "identify" as doesn't even come into the picture.
"Respecting someone's pronouns is one aspect that helps certain people greatly and is incredibly simple to do."
And this is where the inconsistency of the worldview comes in. It would also help any person who believes x (no matter how false) if we agreed with them that x was true. And it's also incredibly simple to do. And yet, time and time again, when I ask a trans person or advocate whether they'd call a white man black or a child an adult (if they so identified), I typically get a resounding "No".
"I find it strange that people argue over such things rather than accord someone respect and humanity."
And I find it strange that you think disagreeing = disrespecting, or that it's somehow denying them their humanity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@destroctiveblade843 Sounds almost exactly like what the Republicans are recommending for the youth here in the U.S. What I found interesting was it saying that the government has effectively nationalized the student loan industry (with the Affordable Care Act), and it profits a great deal off of these student loans. If that's true, then it's all the more reason to think the government should really, truly butt out, lol.
I don't think it's as simple as saying "international relations are suffering because of Trump"; indeed, I've seen and heard people from various countries say positive things about the U.S. and Trump himself, so I'm thinking that not everyone agrees over there just like not everyone agrees over here. But I will gladly admit that Trump is not a perfect libertarian. Assuming we (the people) know all the relevant little details about what's going on with other countries (which is probably a foolish assumption but nevermind), we should start bringing our troops home. But at the same time, I also don't trust Bernie to fight the necessary fights. He does well to stand up for himself and his own supporters. He won't denounce his campaign organizers for promoting violence and/or gulags for people who don't agree with them. We need someone stronger than that as our leader, IMHO.
But I think Trump is more libertarian-leaning than Bernie in pretty much every other way, especially when it comes to the economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@halcyon_garden As I said in the original comment, wages have gone up as well. Median household income has increased $4,144 since Trump took office.
https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AZ014_Moore_16U_20190926102706.jpg
And of course, the middle and lower classes continue to shrink while the upper class keeps growing 👍
https://www.cato.org/blog/middle-class-shrinking-households-become-richer
I am in some ways inclined to join you in assuming that the amount of money going into the military is "a waste", but the truth is that none of us know (nor can we know) what the military does/doesn't need for sure. We don't know what's on the horizon, what intelligence has been gathered on various nations and threats. Suffice to say I don't agree with everything Trump does/says.
Prescription drug prices have indeed fallen at historic levels since Trump took office. But the "why" is more important, because it speaks to the general direction we should be pointing our economy. For now, I'll just say that all Trump did was undermine the government's excessive level of control over the healthcare industry (by getting more drugs approved by the FDA than were going to be approved). Competition! He's also fighting for transparency in the costs of medical treatment, which will help even more.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/prescription-drug-prices-falling-historic-levels-thanks-trump-administration-policies/
So for these reasons, the others I listed, and more I'll be voting for Trump this time around.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@darkpaw1522 Everything you're saying applies to both sides of any given issue. As I said, there are trans people who've become violent as well. I don't blame trans people in general for those individuals, or in any way imply that it's because they expressed their disagreement with others. You shouldn't do that in the other direction. After all, the kind of talk you're engaged in can ironically be accused of advocating for some type of '1984' scenario.
"By your logic segregation was okay"
No, my logic is based on whether or not a worldview is logically coherent. Transgenderism is not, therefore it should be rejected.
"And honestly, controlling whether someone can wear slacks or a skirt is a very dumb law that serves no purpose."
I'm not saying the government should be able to tell us we have to dress one way or the other. I'm saying businesses and other private parties should be free to tell guests and patrons how they're required to dress and behave on their property.
"those people spiral faster and deeper towards bigotry."
What do you mean by "bigotry"?
"It’s like levels. Take race for example, someone can be a 1 and be mildly uncomfortable around black people, a very mild racist; but you put a bunch of 1’s in a room and they quickly can become the KKK over time."
And those people should be openly criticized, without the kind of censorship you seem to be advocating, so that the vast majority of people remain aware that there is no logic involved in racism (actual racism like the KKK). You will never completely eradicate a bad worldview. But you can minimize it and its effects with free conversation. Fight bad ideas with good ideas, that sort of thing.
"In the end as long as you can at least stop the worst transphobes that makes me comfortable."
What do you mean by "transphobe"? If someone becomes violent (actually does something violent) they should have the book of the law thrown at them, and hard. But that should go for everyone who is violent, not just people who disagree with your beliefs.
"I think we can at least both agree that everyone deserves to be treated with respect and kindness."
This is another problem with modern thinking. Should we be serious about the actual threats trans people face, and lock violent people (including those who are violent against trans people) up? Or should we be kind to them? I think it's the former.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm sorry, but I really think Kyle lost this one. And I'll even explain why for anyone with the time and inclination to read it:
So first, if the "unemployment rate" he prefers to use is higher because some of the workers are "discouraged", or "underemployed", that's a bogus number. They're still employed (therefore not unemployed), and that is indeed better than being unemployed at any rate. Besides which, as Charlie pointed out that number's down under Trump as well anyway.
Similarly, just the fact that 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck tells us absolutely nothing. Just like with the wage gap, the question is why are they living paycheck to paycheck? It could be because they're getting paid less in relation to their essential needs, or it could be that we as a society have become far more irresponsible with our money (taking on unnecessary expenses, spending excessively, etc.)
In general, Kyle seems to really have a problem with any and all actions that directly help the rich despite whatever actions have helped others. I don't understand that logic, personally. Yes, the estate tax cuts only benefited the rich because they're the only ones with estates... But the tax only taxes the rich, so what's the problem!? He also doesn't seem to realize that his thought experiment opens the door to full-on socialism. Bernie Sanders was against millionaires... until he became one. Similarly, concerning Kyle, it's easy to go from saying "Okay so you only have 999.9 million dollars. Big whoop." to saying "Okay so you only have 9 millions dollars. Big whoop." and so on. It's just a very dangerous slippery slope he wants to move this country to.
Also, for the most part, Charlie Kirk was right. Another way to word "making money" is "providing value". The beauty of the free market is that it's the American people deciding who does/doesn't deserve their money, and they'll only say you deserve it if they find your product/service valuable.
I'm surprised Kyle argued against Charlie's point about California's laws regarding speech by just saying the 1st Amendment overrides it. While true on an official level, it doesn't magically guarantee anyone will be protected. And even if we were, it doesn't change the basic point that Democratically run local and state governments will at least try to undermine the freedom of speech which is bad enough and should make people take a second look at the current Democratic party.
Even the "Why do you always say it's anti-American?" question didn't quite work because Colin Kaepernik literally refused to stand for the national anthem to protest something entirely different. I'm not that big on symbols, but this was a direct refusal to respect what should be a universally acknowledged national anthem. Why did he choose that of all things if he's not anti-American? I think that's a fair question. And of course, it doesn't follow that because Colin's chosen method of protesting didn't check the box of "violent", that therefore everyone should have been okay with it. Frankly, that's a very low standard to set!
In general, I couldn't help but notice how Charlie had a direct answer to Kyle's allegations against Trump but then Kyle never brought a counterpoint to any of it; he just kinda turned up the attitude and switched to a different topic.
And finally, when it comes to seeing shades of grey instead of black and white, the whole point of not giving government too much power is that it only takes one (or maybe a few, to be fair) corrupt and evil people in positions of power to do a great deal of damage. The way I like to word it is this: Let's assume the majority of corporations are evil and the majority of government officials are good... I'd still prefer the free market because when I choose the minority of good corporations, I don't get thrown in jail for that. When it comes to government, you either give them your money (including the evil, corrupt minority) or it's off to prison with you. And once other government officials see how viable this approach is, they'll jump on board and corruption will literally spread throughout. Compare that to the free market, where the only thing the remaining good corporations will see is a bunch of failed has-been competitors that wasted away due to being corrupt!
1
-
1
-
treydarling "no shit experiences alter brain structure why must you strawman?"
So if you didn't present that link to suggest that they were born with a brain representing the opposite gender (and that's why they identify as that opposite gender, rather than the other way around), then what is the point of the link?
"if therapy alone could fix the problem it would have by now."
Therapy is only as good as both participants' efforts. That, and societal encouragements vs. enablings.
"its far more practical to change the body."
Given how much time, energy and resources go into it, and given that you still end up with an extremely high suicide rate, I disagree. And that's not even to mention the risk of regretting it. You don't believe that the changes are actually temporary, do you?
"huh, this is the first time talking to you outside the original post which had no question how the fuck can i ignore you?"
Well I responded to your first comment in this thread about three days ago, and you never replied to it. But that's fine, let's see if you can answer now.
"i don't see a point in making a distinction between the infinite points of the spectrum of human brain structure we could designate as a gender, im a gender abolitionist."
Not sure what that means. But again, if you would recognize, say, a biological male who identifies as female but doesn't have a brain resembling a female's brain, as a real trans woman, then what's the point in talking about how "the trans brain structure is that of the perceived gender". It apparently has nothing to do with verifying their identity, if they can be "a woman" without it.
"also there is a lot we don't know about the brain yet so there may be other causes we yet know of."
Yes, like a mental condition. There are plenty of examples of mental disorders and the like that feature an abnormal sized/shaped brain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brittanyd2820 Well it's definitely not a fallacy just to cite these so-called "experts". But to conclude that you're right just because they say so is fallacious, sure. They (or you) need to actually give the argument in favor of whatever you're claiming.
"science denier"
I don't deny science, but I do challenge scientific claims (because that's how science is actually done).
"gender has many definitions,"
And if you wish to claim that someone's incorrect while using terms like "man" or "woman", the definition you're using will need to be an objective one. So far, all the "experts" can offer to define gender confuses it with gender roles and norms. But even if we ignore that point (which you're keen on doing), the definition doesn't work because if a man adheres to all of the behavioral norms and such of women, but identifies as a man, the trans community (along with these same "experts") will still call him a man.
"gender is defined as many things, not just social norms"
Very well, what definition would you like to go with here?
"words are by definition subjective"
While it's true that each definition is decided upon by people, every word we might want to say someone is correct/incorrect about refers to some objective standard. You want to make an arbitrary exception for gender though; that's the problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Since Trump took office, there have actually been more people in the upper class than in the middle. In general, the lower and middle classes have been shrinking, while the upper class gets bigger.
https://www.cato.org/blog/middle-class-shrinking-households-become-richer
Members of all classes have benefited from Trump's economy. Record-low unemployment for blacks and latinos, over 7 million jobs provided overall. Average weekly paychecks are up 2.8%. The poverty rate and food stamp rolls declined. Real median household income (that's the amount earned by those in the very middle) hit $65,084 (in 2019 dollars) for the 12 months ending in July, which is the highest level ever and a gain of $4,144, or 6.8%, since he took office. There's more, but you get the idea.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/trumps-numbers-october-2019-update/
https://www.atr.org/thanks-trump-median-household-income-highest-level-ever
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/american-workers-thriving-thanks-president-donald-j-trumps-middle-class-tax-cuts/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Chuck-U Farly "What different christians pick and chose to follow is not my concern"
1. You still haven't substantiated your claim that they are just picking and choosing, rather than applying logic and reason (sometimes a second look at the original texts of the bible) to come to a more informed decision.
2. It is a major problem for your claim that religion is harmful. Because if the vast majority of religious people aren't actually going out and harming others, it undermines the notion that religion is the cause of when someone does do that.
"it does do more harm than good"
Nonsense. Your "throughout history" is really an attempt to collect all of the examples of (very rare) religious extremism so that it adds up to be a large number. Meanwhile, you overlook (perhaps intentionally) all of the people around you who keep doing good things in the name of their god - giving to charity, offering kind words and prayer, forgiving people for wronging them, etc. Quite frequently, people do good things and give "god" the credit. Yet you want to ignore all that and focus on the psychopaths that probably would've done the things they did regardless of what religion had to say.
As I said, in any decently run experiment, your hypothesis would've been laughed out of the laboratory given that the vast majority of people exposed to this alleged harmful substance (religion) are not being harmed.
"Power. That is really what religion is about."
Not for most people, no. Most Christians just believe (usually attributing it to alleged personal experiences in which god "makes himself known" to them) and don't seem to be trying to push their beliefs onto others. You anti-theists on the other hand...
"Then why even mention this when I never said this nor implied it?"
Try reading what I said in context. You were talking about theists/religious people thinking they deserve special privileges. I pointed out that some atheists (and I did use the word "some") think they're special too, in that they make claims and then shift the burden of proof when asked to back their claims up.
"You are just looking to create an argument for the sake of arguing."
Says the guy who opposes religion for no good reason.
ME: "Now you're assuming that Christians are cherry-picking."
YOU: "No I am not"
Okay then, stop throwing the phrase around.
"Some have arguments why they pick and chose to follow some section over others"
(sigh) If their decision not to follow some verses is based on arguments (logic and reason), then they're not picking and choosing at all.
"do you think denying a gay man equal rights a form of persecution?"
Yes. And so do many Christians.
"How about thinking they should be killed cause the bible explicitly says that they should be killed? How about trying to pass a law that says they should be executed?"
Obviously that would be persecution. But again you are trying to make it sound like this is a common feature in Christianity, when most Christians don't believe that god wants them to do these things (and again, some of them dispute whether anti-homosexuality was ever in the original texts).
"I never said that most people follow the religion to the letter."
They are following the religion; they're just rejecting that very specific doctrine. And if they are rejecting the harmful doctrines, then they're disconfirming your claim that religion itself is harmful.
"That does not change the fact that religion is and evil scam."
I'm still waiting for you to establish this "fact."
"Also, not everyone that claims to be a christian as read the bible. So your argument that if the religion was truly bad there would be more bad in the world is a false argument."
Nonsense. They're still Christians if they believe that god sent his son to die, he rose on the third day, etc.
"Arsenic is poison and can be found all around the world so why aren't people dying from if all around the world. The reason is first you have to ingest enough of it to kill you."
And that would be more analogous to a harmful doctrine, not religion.
"believing in something without a good reason is a bad reason to believe and can lead to bad decisions in life."
So a Christian should only believe for good reasons. I agree. Doesn't help your claims one iota.
"Anti-Theism it belief in no god. It has nothing to do with intolerance."
Wrong. Anti-theism is the opposition of theism, and has everything to do with intolerance.
"religion is a set of doctrines which does teach intolerance."
False. It's just a set of doctrines. They can be primarily/all positive or primarily/all negative, that's why it makes no sense to pretend that you're targeting "religion" when you're really just harping on a few harmful doctrines.
"When I asked you to name me something tangible that religion offers that you can only get from religion you dodged the question."
Yet again, I didn't dodge it, I pointed out that your claim (that it doesn't) isn't supported. You're just trying to shift the burden of proof now because I called you out on yet another baseless claim. I also pointed out that even if religion didn't offer something you couldn't get without it, it wouldn't do anything to support your claim that it's harmful/false.
"What this quesition points out is that religion is not needed"
No, a question is just a question; it doesn't point out anything. You need a positive argument for why we should believe religion is not needed.
"which would then follow that all the rest of the bad doctrines are not needed."
Incoherent. "Religion" is not a doctrine, as I've explained to you before.
"Then show me 1 example of an atheist group that is actively trying to ban all religions from being allow to practice their faith and/or hold public office?"
As I just finished saying, denying rights is not the issue. No one's trying to take religious freedoms away. But opposing religion (this meaning the core beliefs and not just particular secondary doctrines) requires justification, and you don't have any.
"Now if wish you would stop bringing up anti-theism cause I have not said I am anti-theist. I oppose religion but-"
Lol. Right, just like "Don't call me a basketball player, even though I play it professionally". I feel ya, I feel ya.
"made it quite clear that I do not support forcing anyone to stop believing in what every they want to."
Which is irrelevant.
"there is always reason to oppose bad idea and doctrines."
Right, but you must first show that religion is necessarily comprised of bad ideas and doctrines, to justify opposing it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@laurelbeach4529 If there was a demand for it (e.g., if there was no tax-paid option), someone would step up to make a profit from that service as well. And they'd probably find a way to do it cheaper and/or better as businesses tend to do vs. the government.
I'm also more concerned with what's motivated by profit (or fear of loss) vs. what can be stolen, than what can be considered "centralized". Wal-Mart is not successful because it managed to "centralize" something; it's successful because it found a way to provide goods cheaper than most companies. And it only did that because it couldn't just take our money and give us an unverifiable claim that it did something good for us in return.
I don't think our healthcare system is worse than most developed nations (the insurance statistics often given are misrepresentations, playing with the definitions of "underinsured" and so on), but in any case the healthcare system is already run by our government so that's not to be blamed on the free market in the least. Generally, the most regulated industries are the ones in which costs continue to rise, with the healthcare and higher education industries being at the top of the list.
But yes, if we could find a way to always have benevolent dictators, we'd see better results (provided they were also always competent and knowledgeable). But the free market seems to provide cheaper and more efficient means, so that's what I support.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spikeleo5941 Actually, Candace was answering quickly enough but T.I. interrupted claiming she was trying to make light of slavery (which, of course, she wasn't). Also, I posted this 8 months ago when it happened; I'm just re-posting it so more people will see ;)
Now, were things better under Obama than Trump? Absolutely not. Since Trump took office, we've seen record-low unemployment rates (especially for minorities), increased wages, prison reform, Right to Try, lower prescription drug prices, the list goes on and on. And he's also daring to tell the truth about Covid while so many others are lying to us, about how many people actually have it and how many actually die from it. The Democrats are destroying their own cities (even when it's their job to defend it) and simply want to make every city look like CHAZ/CHOP. Or are we supposed to pretend that never happened?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@morrisnakes "I believe that I have a brain that more closely matches with a male brain than a female brain based on my behaviors and the way I think,"
A. Even if you had scientifically confirmed that you have a brain more closely resembling a "male brain" (not sure if you have yet), this could simply be the reason for your thoughts and behaviors; it doesn't actually speak to whether or not you are a man or woman.
B. "based on my behaviors and the way I think" is what I meant by confusing gender with the inclination to adhere to gender roles and norms. In this case, the gender norms regarding behaviors and thoughts. Wouldn't it make more sense to say "I'm a woman who behaves and thinks more like your typical man" than to conclude that you're a man on that basis?
"The current story is that men and women are exactly alike and we should be treated exactly the same, but this simply isn't true."
On average, I agree. But there are exceptions. And when there are exceptions, we don't typically question the gender of the person. E.g., a man who prefers shopping, ballet, and "chick flicks" to fishing, contact sports and action movies is still a man.
ME: "how do you differentiate between that and the suffering those who believe they're Superman, Batman, etc. experience?"
YOU: "My other comment you responded to addresses this somewhat as far as genetic differences that might cause a person to have extra strength, intelligence and so on,"
We were talking about the suffering though, and how that's supposedly a determining factor. What if someone really really believes they're Superman (whether this is due to a condition found to be genetic or not) and they suffer immensely with this, particularly when people tell them they're wrong?
"but anyone could decide they are a super hero and go try to be a vigilante. Maybe unsuccessfully, but they could at least make a go at it.
"
By the same token, any woman can decide they want to (insert stereotypically male behavior here). But that's different from saying they are a man.
""Are you implying that it should be the requirement? And if so, why?" Yes."
See that's actually more "transphobic" (dare I say) than my take on it. Because I think full-grown adults should be able to have access to whatever hormones or surgeries they can afford. I mean, the doctor's job is to tell them the truth and let them know what the risks are. But beyond that, I think they should be free to make whatever mistakes they insist on.
"As far as being required to call them what they choose, I believe in free speech. If you call me a woman, I'm not going to like it, but I wouldn't want you thrown in jail over it."
But many would. That there's the occasional rational-minded trans person or advocate who wouldn't want to force/coerce their beliefs onto others is great and all. But you know like I do that the most loud and obnoxious among you will ultimately exact the changes they want to see made, if given the opportunity.
"I think if you are educated about what transgender people go through enough to really understand it, you would want to respect their wishes for names and pronouns if you respect them,"
And I think respecting people entails not lying to them. I couldn't in good conscience facilitate a worldview that I know is incoherent and inconsistently applied.
"Regardless of if I have changed your opinion one bit or not, thank you for being open to having a respectful conversation and having well thought out arguments instead of parroted nonsense."
Likewise. Thanks for not just calling me names.
1
-
@morrisnakes "We are getting into a deep semantics argument now,"
Not really. I mean, we have always understood that a biological male (who is grown) is a man while a biological female (who is grown) is a woman. And we've never defined it in light of how a person "identifies" or even how they think, how they behave, etc.
"Language does evolve over time,"
Sure, but there needs to be a clear definition before it can "evolve" to facilitate this worldview, and there simply isn't one. You're saying it's about a person's level of suffering with the gender they were "assigned" at birth, but others are saying it's about how they identify. And even if you all agreed that it was about the level of suffering, that's a very subjective and arbitrary distinction on its own.
"and the left extremists want to change those words to mean "whatever I say I am" which is no different than saying you are black/white, superman, the easter bunny, dinosaur, or whatever have you despite anything they may say."
Well I appreciate you agreeing with me on at least that.
"Historically a man has a penis, a woman has a vagina, a few exceptions exist for intersex and people with injuries. I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't think the conventional use has any purpose outside of the doctors office or bedroom."
Well, quite. But there's nothing wrong with that either.
"When we are talking to others outside these two reasons, if we are going to denote gender at all, it should be meaningful."
It's meaningful, just not relevant to every decision we make. But that's a non-issue. Again, very similar to race, the fact that my friend is black really isn't relevant to hardly anything, but that doesn't mean he isn't black.
"I think the brain is far more important than genitals in denoting this."
But there's no need for it and, as you yourself already alluded to, it only stands to confuse people should the context ever switch over to medical or sexual/relationship. It's like you now need the word "man" or "woman" to have two different meanings, and to have to clarify just what you mean by "man" or "woman" in different contexts.
""we don't typically question the gender of the person." I disagree. Even though a lot of the time it is used as bullying or teasing, our minds do make these associations."
Sure, but we're not literally questioning their gender. If someone bullies a boy who likes ballet and calls him a girl, they're not actually thinking he might be a girl.
""We were talking about the suffering though, and how that's supposedly a determining factor." Where suffering becomes relevant is where treatment is effective."
Understood, but even that doesn't lead to the conclusion that the client is a different gender.
"If you agree to call your delusional buddy superman and he goes out and fights crime, what are the chances that it will bring him a more productive and meaningful life?"
See, that's my whole point, it just doesn't matter. He's not Superman, and wouldn't be Superman even if me calling him Superman improved his life.
"I must clarify here, I am talking about in being deemed transgender medically,"
Now see? It gets even more complicated. Now we have people who are "transgender medically" and people who are just "transgender". Again, what is the need for all this?
"provided medical treatment through insurance,"
And that's where I say I think people should have the right to get whatever treatment they want. Government should actually butt out of this entirely. If the doctor and the insurance company are being honest with each other and the patient (including about the risks), then let them get whatever hormones or surgery they insist on having.
"being taken seriously by society, etc."
Well this can easily conflict with your earlier criterion of being considered transgender "medically". As I pointed out earlier, the brain studies are a great illustration of this. We're told that if a biological man has a "female brain", then he's actually a woman. But we know that if he identifies as a man, he will be considered a man. Furthermore, if he doesn't have a "female brain" but identifies as a woman, he'll be considered a woman despite the science. The science becomes irrelevant.
"but we do not give them a medical diagnosis and support delusions just because they say they want it.
"
Naturally I'm very on board with this principle. But to suggest that some of the men who think they're women (as an example) are delusional means you must have some objective criteria, apart from them identifying as such, that would draw the line between the delusional and the "true" transgenders (or whatever you prefer to call them).
"It's unfortunate that without being transgender or having a close transgender friend, you would have no way of knowing just how rational many of us are,"
Well I have had many conversations with rational-minded trans people (or advocates), but they still seem to be in the minority. I've had far more people just call me names throughout the "conversation".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Petrus Camacho Yes indeed, I have values which is why I'm voting for Trump (I didn't the first time, I didn't vote for either one). As for the claims about "Trump lying while people are dying", do you mean the whole thing with Covid? Because those numbers are fake; they admitted as much, so it's hard to claim that x amount of people died because of Trump when we don't even have the real numbers.
We do know, however, that Trump took early action against Covid in January, while the Democrats opposed that action (literally, they tried to stop him from implementing the travel ban). It's no wonder the numbers have to be faked; the real numbers probably aren't that bad when compared to other countries. I mean, until recently, Sweden had made a lot of progress with Covid with the travel ban being the only thing they implemented.
And we're sitting here with a country we've shut down, enforced mask-wearing and social-distancing in, expecting critical thinkers to believe we haven't done enough.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If God told you to kill your child, would you do it?"
This question is an old anti-theist trick. A loaded "Gotcha!" question which is practically never asked for the purposes of a sincere discussion. As such, I think the Christian should always ask the following questions about the question before answering:
1. Do you mean what would I do, or what should I do? If it's the former, then the only honest answer anyone can give is "I don't know". We never know what we would do in these situations. It's kind of like asking "If you saw three gang members beating up a woman, but you had no phone or any way of getting outside help (no weapons, etc.), would you help her?" We want to say "Yes, I would!" but we don't know until we're placed in that situation.
2. By "God", do you mean the Christian god? If not, then I wouldn't believe it was god and so I'd say no, I shouldn't obey its command.
and 3. Do you mean if God told me to do it, or just if I thought God was telling me to? If it's the former, then it grants for the sake of argument that the Christian god is real and is definitely giving this command. So the answer would be yes. Because we're talking about an omniscient, always morally correct being. It's just a truism that you should do what he says at that point. If I just thought it was god, I wouldn't think that. It's like asking "What does the square circle in your room look like?" It's an incoherent question because I wouldn't draw that conclusion. But if I did see and hear something "like" a god (e.g., a holograph-like but very real-looking glowing person with a booming voice telling me "This is God. I command you to murder your child", then I would take the least risky option and say no. Because the bible tells me not only "Do not murder" but also to test all prophecies, holding only to what is good. So I'm potentially disobeying god either way, but holding to the scripture seems to be the safer option.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Look up David Dorn or Patrick Underwood, that should get you guys started. These are black men killed by rioters, and there have been about a dozen or more others. They don't make the mainstream news or cross your favorite celebrity's lips, however, because their deaths don't fit into the narrative they're trying to sell you (IOW, their deaths don't matter to "Black Lives Matter"), it only counts when a white cop kills a black person because this is all a political game.
You'll also never hear about white victims of police brutality (Tony Timpa, Daniel Shaver, Kelly Thomas, etc.) for the same reason.
Gov. Cuomo is wanting to force everybody else to stay inside to protect them from Covid-19. Trump's MAGA rallies are the hot topic. But they won't say anything about the predominantly black crowds. So either risking Covid deaths for political gain is OK, or black people dying more often than whites is OK with these people. In any case, these are Democrat-run cities and states, refusing to protect their people (whether black or no) and indeed even wanting to see more of them die.
1
-
@sixela3455 "existence isn’t wrong."
Nor did anyone say or imply it was. But the worldview itself is incoherent and inconsistently applied, as I've shown.
"transpeople are just like everyone else.."
Not true. Most of us acknowledge that if we're biologically male, we're either a man or a boy.
"we’re all human and have differences."
For sure! No one's suggesting that trans people are the only ones out there who believe something illogical.
"And transphobia is wrong."
Again, depends on what you mean by "transphobia". If you mean someone who fears or hates trans people, I completely agree. But it doesn't follow that because I disagree with someone about something that I therefore hate them.
"Challenging it is just done out of ignorance"
How so? I've spoken with tons of trans people and trans advocates, and most of the points I've made to challenge this worldview were inspired by what they've told me about it themselves.
"because all the science is there bud,"
Actually, the science seems quite irrelevant to the worldview. Consider the point sometimes raised about brain studies. We're told that because trans "women" often have similar brains to that of biological women, that this confirms they're really women. But there are at least two problems with that angle:
1. Even people we both would agree are delusional feature differences in the physical structure of their brains. We don't conclude that therefore their beliefs are true. At most, we might say that this explains why they believe what they do.
2. We both know that even a biological male who identifies as a woman and doesn't have a so-called "female brain" will be accepted as a woman regardless. Similarly, if it turns out that I (a man who identifies as a man) have a "female brain", no one would insist that I'm really a woman. This highlights how the science itself is irrelevant; this worldview is based on how people identify.
And a possible third would depend on just when the brain studies are done, since we can actually alter the physical structure of our brains over time by changing our lifestyles and environment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rorycannon7295 A free market would make insurance much less relevant to begin with. The problem, as I've said a few times now, is that our government began hindering supply along with the increased demand. Just as it would be in any industry, fewer providers of healthcare means little to no downward pressure on prices. In terms of the actual good/service (which isn't the health insurance but the healthcare itself), there is no fundamental difference here than there is with the goods/services provided in other, less regulated industries.
It's a historical fact, and Trump demonstrated recently with prescription drug prices, that more government interference means higher prices. And this is an effect that crosses industry lines! Prices in those industries that are heavily regulated by the government have all gone up, while prices in those industries that are relatively free-market have gone down.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/CPIChart2018.png
ME: "In short, what are we to do, if they're not providing us with half the value it would take to make the money we're paying them worth it for us? Well we're going to keep paying them anyway. That's not what happens in the free market, obviously."
YOU: "again, you are making free market assumptions that you CANT MAKE IN THE REAL WORLD."
Not even sure what you mean by that. I didn't make any assumptions there; I merely described the difference between being taxed by the government and freely exchanging money for goods/services.
"Uh no you VOTE THEM OUT."
Well you should certainly try. But until then, and thereafter if your attempt to vote them out fails, they're taking your money.
""More to the point, Trump's given a demonstration on how free market principles lower prices". all trump has created is an economic bubble"
How do you imagine he created an economic bubble? You do realize that recessions are common, right? Anyway, the demonstration I was referring to was that just by getting more drugs approved by the FDA, Trump was able to get prescription drug prices to fall at historic levels. More of that needs to be done, because it's what works.
1
-
@rorycannon7295 "You did, you assumed that people know the value that they are getting from the services."
Not at all. My point was that even if and when we do know that the money stolen from us by the government isn't going to good use (e.g., the "War on Poverty" actually slowed the rate at which poverty was declining!), that's just tough, we have to keep giving them our money anyway. By contrast, when and if we know (or even suspect) we're not getting our money's worth from businesses, we can just stop giving them our money. Like I said, I wasn't making any assumptions there, just describing factual differences.
ME: "there is no fundamental difference here than there is with the goods/services provided in other, less regulated industries."
YOU: "And that is another false assumption."
So you claim. But you've yet to provide that fundamental difference. Again, we know from history that government intervention causes healthcare prices to skyrocket. And we know from recent events that a more free market can cause prices to fall (this being how Trump got more drugs approved by the FDA and caused prescription drug prices to fall at historic levels).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ethrhrhh "Chemical composition of your brain. It affects things like your desires for your body."
So there at least two problems with that angle:
1. I'm quite sure that even someone who didn't have the "brain chemical composition" typical of women would be considered a woman by those of your worldview if they merely said they were one. "They're a woman because they identify as one" is a very common response.
and 2. Differences in brain chemical composition are also a feature in people with conditions even you would admit are pathological. We don't say that therefore the subject's beliefs are valid. At best, we might say this explains why they hold such beliefs.
"Assuming you’re a guy, you want to be muscular, tall, and have a deep voice no? That’s because your gender is male."
It's more like, I will likely be more muscular, tall and have a deeper voice than females because I'm biologically male. Me "wanting" that is just accepting my biology instead of trying to fight against it. Now, the acceptance of it can be attributed to a society's gender roles and norms, but you don't appear to be equating "gender" itself with "gender roles and norms" (as many of the so-called experts who believe in transgenderism do)...
"If your gender was female, regardless of your sex, you would want to be curvy, have boobs, etc."
The terms "male" and "female" refer to biological sex, not gender. Even most people who agree with transgenderism will admit that much; they'll say things like "I'm male, but my gender is still 'woman'".
But yes, females tend to develop in those ways compared to males, and a healthy-minded female will accept that instead of trying to fight against it.
"This does answer your question and is what is supported by science (you can look up this info for yourself it’s not hard)."
Actually, as I said, most of the "scientists" I've seen who agree with transgenderism don't give the definition of "gender" that you gave. But at any rate, just giving a definition for a term is not science, especially when it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
"However knowing conservatives you’ll likely insult me and tell me I need Jesus"
I am a conservative, but I don't believe in insulting people unprovoked. I'm also an atheist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Robert Platt "Gender is a way for us to categorize ourselves and others by action and reaction. This is driven by psychology which is derived from both biology and experience - thus the near infinite diversity."
Also known as "personality". You don't have to call it a different gender every time someone differs in how they think, feel, and behave.
"I know I have a woman's mind because no matter how anyone has taught, explained, hypnotically suggested or commanded, I cannot think differently than I do."
So certain things about your personality cannot be changed. Doesn't mean you have "a woman's mind". Again, how do you even know what having a woman's mind vs. having a man's mind feels like? For all you know, they feel the exact same, and the only way men and women ever feel differently is through biological causes.
"My thoughts and emotions cause distress because they don't fit this body"
Again, gender roles. You are not obligated to think or feel particular ways just because you're a man. Tons of men out there "think like a woman" or "have emotions like a woman" (and I put these in quotations because I still find the idea sexist to begin with) and yet "identify" as men because they understand that the distinction is the realm of biology.
"A few examples include: I have always wanted soft, smooth curves and to be a mother."
So you are unhappy with your gender. That's unfortunate. But it doesn't change or affect reality, and I think the sooner you acknowledge that the better your changes of accepting that gender so you can move on to asking the better questions:
Why do you want to be a mother? What do mothers do? How do they contribute to their children/society? Isn't it entirely possible to fulfill those needs (which are indeed important) as a man?
"I'm highly empathetic toward others. I don't understand the intrigue with sports or porn."
Same here x3. But I know that doesn't make me any less of a man. Also, plenty of women (who "identify" as women) lack empathy, love sports and watch pornography.
"I am isolated from most men because I am so different psychologically and isolated from most women because I am so different biologically. Etc."
Story of my life! And I'm not just saying that. My friend, I don't even know how to change a tire. I know pretty much none of the things men are expected to know, and the only stereotypically "guy thing" I'm into are video games.
"To make my thoughts and emotions fit my body requires barbaric "brainwashing" techniques that are only marginally successful and produce a multitude of equally nasty side effects like PTSD.
"
You need to let go of this notion of thoughts and feelings "fitting bodies", and so does anyone who gives you shit over not being "enough of a man". Your body is male, and I presume that you're an adult, therefore you're a man. Your thoughts and feelings only make you you. The odds were that biology would greatly influence your personality, but you beat those odds and broke free from gender norms. If anything, this is something to celebrate, not run or hide from.
"Lastly, identifying as something measurable (age, race, social status) is provably true or false."
Exactly. And being a man or woman is measurable through biology. If you have zero biological evidence that you're a woman, yet you want people to treat you as one, there's nothing stopping me from applying this principle to pressure others into treating me as a different age, race, and financial status.
"In any case the most obvious difference between these identifications and gender dysphoria is that they don't cause distress."
To your knowledge. But I'm quite sure that if you give it time, people will be popping up with their stories of how "always knowing they were black" (when they're white) and having to be misraced, etc. caused them great pain and suffering. Because again, what's stopping them? Even if you say they're just faking it all, how can you prove that? You can't.
"If someone does suffer then it's up to the individual to do something about it - just as it is with gender dysphoria."
Yeah, like coming to grips with the objective truth, and then asking why they identify as something they're not.
"And if there's sufficient determination, a poor person may earn their way to a higher social class,"
No no no. Don't be a bigot. These people are already rich, and you have to treat them as such. And that will have all sorts of interesting applications when they happen to stroll into the nearest bank, wouldn't you say?
"an old person may act and think as a younger person."
Right, like a 40-year old man who identifies as a 15-year old boy can date your daughter. What could you say against that? You don't want to be a hateful bigot, keep that in mind.
"Society accepts and encourages these people. Ever see an old man on a skateboard doing tricks and having a blast?"
That's just it, though. He can do these things because he's able to, not because he identifies as someone younger. Similarly, you can fulfill the same needs as any mother, without being a woman. And that would be OK but competing in sports against biological women is not. Just as the old man can ride skateboards in the park, but cannot date a teenage girl.
"But few will correct them if they say they feel young or rich or whatever. Yet many will correct me for saying I feel like a woman."
Partly because (so far), there isn't a movement of old people claiming they are in fact young or poor people claiming they are in fact rich. So the guard can be lowered there. Also partly because "feeling young" refers to differences in young people that most wouldn't dispute. It's almost inevitable that a young person (who is healthy) will have more energy. It is not almost inevitable that a woman will think, feel, and behave the way you are.
"So if I require a female-shaped body to function (regardless of my DNA), is it correct to deny it?"
You don't require that at all. The issue is in the mind, so that's where you should fix it.
"Living authentic is more important."
Indeed. So if you are a man who thinks, feels, and behaves in a very different way from most men, that's what you say. That's what you know about yourself, and so that's what you should tell others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@habl844 "It should be illegal for the government to be corrupt."
It already is, but people will always find a way. The only realistic way to keep them from lobbying/bribing the government for special favors, is to remove the government has over the market in the first place.
And I guess I'm ignoring your other point because I don't think it's good for society to think that way. "Instead of me, them!" Why not both? And why not stop pretending the wealthy aren't already paying more (both in dollar amount and percentages)? They're paying more than their fair share. Stealing more has never been and never will be the answer.
"Not everyone can afford those products you mentioned."
But most of the people who can't afford healthcare can, which is the point.
"healthcare should be treated as a human right"
You can say that all you want; it's not going to fix the problem which is one of scarcity. Demand is vastly higher than supply right now, by government design, which is why the prices skyrocketed when government took over and only show signs of going back down when free market principles are applied.
"The article you showed didn't say care was being denied."
Yes, it did. Scroll down some. Besides which, longer wait times are bad enough.
"Allocating more money would solve that issue."
This is a problem specifically in those countries who are taxing their people more than we tax ours though...
"If you fel like your care is being denied you could still get a private doctor in M4A, but that would be out of pocket."
And if it's too expensive but wouldn't have been with private health insurance? Again, you really need to ask yourself why Bernie is the only one saying private insurance has to be banned, when none of the others are going that far. It's all about giving the government more power, it's not about what's in the best interests of the people at all.
"An underfunded system cannot function."
Obviously. But it doesn't follow from that, that if a system if functioning poorly, the answer is more money.
"Adding more funding will fix the issue. Assume the NHS had infinite funding. Would it still have those queues?"
If they were incompetent or didn't give a shit, sure. But of course, we operate in the real world where there is scarcity, and that's not addressed by making it "free". That's why the U.K. is having to deal with a doctor shortage, which is probably the biggest reason for the wait times.
"Yes but how many of those are because the hospitals was unreasonably away and not because the patient was so badly injured?"
It's always a combination. But the articles themselves are saying it's related to ambulance delays.
"My point is that if Trump now fixed it then why didnt it do anything"
It hasn't been implemented yet. It will take almost a full year (because government, remember, is so gosh darn efficient!) to actually implement this and then we'll see the results. But they're free market principles, so I'm not worried. Again, lower prescription drug prices all for just getting more drugs approved by the FDA!
"If you're able to make savings on medicare then shouldn't you insure more people instead of giving tax breaks to the 1%?"
Only those who need taxpayer help should get it, and only for as long as they need it. And in the meantime, we should be working hard to minimize the need for such programs. That's why we very much appreciate the record-low unemployment and increased wages that came from "giving tax breaks to the 1%", along with the lower prescription drug prices, etc.
"Bernie is going to eliminate the paymentes the middle class makes to the health insuracne companies,"
Yeah, no good. I like my health insurance, and I like the freedom to choose my health insurance company even more.
"If it is being sold in the US for a "normal price","
It isn't. It's being sold in the U.S. for the difference between what they can get in Canada and what they have to get here to break even, much less make a profit. Without price caps, they would make it more expensive in Canada but less expensive here. That's all other things being equal, though. We also need more competition in this market, to put downward pressure on prices.
"If it was unprofitable to sell at the canadian price as you to my understanding claim, why sell it there at all?"
I'm sure they're making some profit, but they have to fund the creation of new drugs and research as well. Just selling the drugs we currently have for a profit won't allow for that.
"they're raising the prices as they get more profit from that, as the buyers have no other option."
Exactly! Why are you not pissed about the government preventing other options?
"The government needs to regulate the drug companies and negotiate with them, otherwise US will see the same thing happen over and over again. Drug prices raising."
Apparently not, because Trump lowered them simply by getting more drugs approved. Didn't have to "negotiate" with anyone, all he had to do was tell the FDA to move over a bit.
"The politicians making these desicions are being paid huge amount of money from the 1%, and a big part comes from big pharma. Why would that regulation be bad for them. They're the ones making the regulations.
"
It would be bad for any of their would-be competition who couldn't meet said regulations (which again, almost always cost money).
ME: "And yet, their need to make a profit has only made their goods and services more affordable (without sacrificing quality or efficiency). If your theory were correct, every retail store would've agreed to charge 1,000 for T-shirts long ago. "
YOU: "So you're literally denying the exsistence monopolies that raise prices now."
No, I'm pointing out that profit-seeking is not the reason they exist.
"The thing it that it happened over such a long period that it can have more reasons to it than the one you're saying.
"
It happened immediately in response to the increase in demand while supply was being hindered.
"But instead of competing, it's more effective to systematically raise the prices at the same time."
Then why are they all competing? Why does this chart exist?
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/CPIChart2018.png
ME: "Which is what government helps them with"
YOU: "Clearly they're not"
Walked right into that one, didn't ya? 😉
1
-
@habl844 Same here, and the only realistic way to stop the bribery and lobbying for special favors is to remove the power government has over the market to begin with. This is especially true for healthcare.
"Your solutiuon is to hand the job of the government to the people who are doing the corruption."
If you're talking about regulations on how other people do business, that isn't anybody's job. But the way it is currently, those corporations and such, already have the power (through the government) to come up with any regulations, fees, laws, or tax-related ideas that might help them and/or hurt their competition.
"It is both, which is exactly the reason the wealthy need to pay more."
So because we care about everyone equally, some people should be pay vastly more than others (both in terms of dollar amount and percentage)?
"The question that matters is who is having the hardest time financially."
No, that is not the only question that matters. Why are they having a hard time financially, is every bit as important (if not more).
"Every time you do tax cuts to the wealthy, you are putting more pressure on the poor. The options are to cut spending (not military of course, but social security for example because that's what's definetely unnessescary),"
Cutting spending on these programs does not automatically mean anyone's benefits will be affected. And for that matter, tax cuts don't necessarily mean spending will be cut on any particular program. It might just mean they found out someone was being less-than-honest along the chain somewhere, or that they're simply not needed in the process of distribution.
"You say the rich are paying more than their fair share. So you want to give them tax cuts and increase taxes on the poor?"
No, I'm very much in favor of lower taxes for everybody. But I also pay attention to the effects of these changes. Record-low unemployment rates (lower than before the recession) and increased wages, for example.
"Why is the idea of rich people paying their fair share to take care of the country radical to you?"
The idea of stealing under the false premise that they're not already paying their fair share bothers me for pretty obvious reasons. Plus, people in general are getting wealthier, even if they didn't change anything to earn it. The middle class and the lower class are both shrinking, while the upper class grows.
"Do you have some data on this?"
You're asking if I have data to confirm that almost every American owns a cell phone? And that vastly fewer than that can afford healthcare?
"You're really claiming the poor are not really poor and are actually just spending too much?"
No I am not. I'm pointing out the fact that goods/services from industries that are not as heavily regulated get more affordable as a result, whereas goods/services from industries that are heavily regulated get more expensive.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/CPIChart2018.png
"The supply will increase as the demand increases."
Unless government hinders supply, which it does.
"If you think regulations regarding the care itself are bad then you surely oppose your surgeon being sober for example?"
You don't think the person/people running the hospital would have that rule in place? Who's making sure your mechanic isn't screwing something up that will endanger your life?
"The reason the prices are high are directly because of the monopolies."
Right, exactly. So the government needs to stop doing special favors for certain corporations, stop getting in the way of people trying to build hospitals/clinics, weaken if not abolish the FDA, things like that. Again, concerning that last one, we already know it would work today, because Trump has gotten prescription drug prices to fall at historic rates just by getting more drugs approved by the FDA.
"I'd much rather have longer wait times on elective procedures than 68 000 deaths."
A. We know how to make healthcare more affordable, but we're just not doing it.
and B. Wait times are much bigger problem than what you're letting on.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2019/04/01/britains-version-of-medicare-for-all-is-collapsing/#56ca806736b8
But again, if we open up the market in healthcare as we've done with almost everything else, we can see prices go way down without sacrificing quality and/or efficiency.
"It's not a common practice to just deny care. They do it because they don't have the resources, and more money would buy those resources.
"
I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: Government? Will never say they have enough money.
"I told you why the health insurance needs to be banned."
And I told you why the U.S. government doesn't need to be (any more) in charge of healthcare, but your answer seems to be "Well those other countries are doing it". Why isn't the fact that those other countries haven't banned private healthcare relevant?
ME: "Only those who need taxpayer help should get it, and only for as long as they need it."
YOU: "Oh so those 68 000 annually duing people did/do not need taxpayer help in your opinion?
"
Nobody said or implied that at all.
"How about make 20 million jobs with the green new deal?"
Or just letting Trump keep creating jobs, and not ones that have to be funded by taxpayers?
"But in certain cases it's better to have the government do it because they prioritize functioning instead of making a profit."
Nonsense. Government consists of human beings, not angels. And if a government agency is bringing in loads of money, it doesn't matter how well (or how poorly) they're functioning, they're not going anywhere. For example, the so-called "War on Poverty" actually slowed the rate at which poverty was improving. But all these programs have done since we started this "war" is grow.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pathevermore3683 You seem to have lost the thread of the argument. I merely pointed out that, yes, cell phones are a great example of things that have gotten cheaper over the past few decades (thanks to capitalism, like it or not). So much cheaper, in fact, that now everyone has one, even the poor.
Now, you ask about food and housing. Well, these turn out to be somewhat more regulated by the government than products like cellphones. There are tons of regulations on each of these. And some of these might be justifiable! But then you have policies like rent control where the government tells the supply side of the housing market how much they can charge. Sounds like a good idea at first. But if that amount isn't tenable for them (e.g., if they do the math and realize they'll actually be losing money if they lease/sell their buildings out for that price), they move to a different place or a different market altogether, resulting in fewer buildings available.
But again, I'm not saying the government officials and politicians are "bad". I'm saying that people in general are going to look out for their own self-interests. They're not going to work much harder (if any) to be efficient or effective if they get paid the same either way. When you remove competition, you remove the incentive to worry about such things.
1
-
1
-
@pathevermore3683 Okay, so I don't think that everything is cheaper (In fact, I pointed out some things that aren't and explained why), nor do I think there are no poor people. I also wouldn't just dismiss Bernie as a "dirty commie" (the way you wanted to dismiss me as a "Republican") because I think having these conversations is important. In addition, I'm not saying what the poor do/do not deserve. Some probably deserve to be doing better than they are, and some rich people probably deserve to be doing worse. My aim isn't to attack people on that personal level; I just want to give my case for why I think opening up the market is the best way of helping them.
Naturally, I'm not in favor of letting Apple take control of the market either. The idea is that we (the people) should be in control, by way of deciding who does/doesn't deserve our money. That's what capitalism is, at its core. And I don't think Johnson and Johnson should be able to kill people to make cheaper drugs, lol. Killing someone is very much an anti-libertarian thing to do!
I didn't say or suggest that the self is the only thing that matters, either. But it is what people prioritize. And so we should have a market that requires people to actually provide value in order to be successful, so that those who are looking to make a better life for themselves will have to make other people's lives better first (whether they personally care a great deal about others or not).
So when you characterize libertarian values as "all for me and @#$% everyone else", that's actually the opposite of what we advocate. We don't think anyone should have it "all" unless they're providing value to others.
"who needs a governemet for the people, by the people when we can have a governement for the shareholders, by the shareholders."
This is definitely touching on a legitimate concern (whether intentionally or otherwise). Right now, there's a big problem with money in politics. Lobbying, bribery, or otherwise making deals with politicians or government officials to "buy favors". For example, a company that wants to prevent others from rising up and giving them a little competition, might lobby the government to put regulations or high fees/taxes on a certain part of their industry. The companies that are already wealthy can afford the change, while the rest are unable to, so they can't join the market. Unfortunately, making all this illegal wouldn't stop it; people are always gonna find a way to buy favors and hide it. The only realistic way to stop this problem, is to remove the power the government has over the market to begin with. If the government can't twist the market in favor of one company or another, then those companies are not going to be giving them their money as there wouldn't be any point.
I don't think Veritas is right about all things (although I still haven't seen your proof that they were wrong in the past). But I do think that when they post the actual proof, we should acknowledge it. I also don't think that all of Bernie's supporters are hateful like these two campaign organizers. But they don't seem very bothered by it, and they don't seem to care that Bernie won't denounce them. Sometimes, just remaining quiet about hatred is all the hateful want from you.
1
-
1
-
@hexl702too5 "there is justification, you just don’t like it."
Not at all. Killing an innocent human being is a very serious thing. And just to avoid the temporary suffering of pregnancy isn't sufficient reason to do that.
"but you don’t have any jurisdiction over a woman’s uterus"
And you don't have any jurisdiction over someone else's life. I know the baby is geographically located in the woman's body, temporarily, but how does that grant her the right to kill him/her?
"How do you force a woman to undergo nine months of unwanted suffering, against her will?"
I wouldn't be forcing anything. There is a force of nature that brings that about, but that's put into motion by the woman. Then you end up with a human being (still inside the womb) who she wants to kill.
"What pro-lifers call a woman’s convenience, I call her life, liberty and future"
Nonsense. Unless you believe that a woman's life, liberty and future are just gone after childbirth (which of course is false). The woman goes on to live the rest of a full and happy life either way. Only person who has their life taken is the baby.
As for conservatives vs. liberals, I'd take the side of those who care about women before they're even born, over those who like to kill them or sniff them from behind 😋
1
-
1
-
@hexl702too5 "one way to force a woman to stay pregnant against her will, would be to put her into a sheep pen and detain her for nine months"
Actually that, too, would probably be bad for the baby. Besides which, there's no need to shackle or closely observe every person just because some of them are violent. That'd be like putting everyone in a sheep pen and detaining them, men included.
"should abortion be a criminal offense?"
Yes, because it is killing an innocent human being for the sake of convenience. However, I tend to think it's the "doctors" who should pay most dearly for this. A layman (e.g., a random pregnant woman) may or may not know the extent of what she's doing when she "gets an abortion" (which, even the term "abortion" itself implies that the creation of life is simply being cancelled when in fact it's already created but I digress). But a doctor knows perfectly well what's going on out of sight, what the being they're killing is. They know it's not just a "clump of cells", for example. So they're more responsible than someone who goes along with it not thoroughly understanding the science.
"what penalty should women pay?"
As it is with most crimes, it would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. But there should be some penalty for taking an innocent life or being an accomplice in doing so.
1
-
@hexl702too5 "When a prosecutor gets a murder case, the range of penalties will not include “you get to have a good cry and go home""
Indeed! There needs to be a tangible penalty for those who kill innocent people for convenience. Yes, even if they're doing it to "help" a woman who really, really, really doesn't want to be pregnant.
"Which one is a suitable penalty for abortion?"
Again, it would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. As it is when anyone else kills someone. It isn't always as simple as even ruling it as a murder, sometimes they call it something else and consider a different range of penalties. That's the legal system for you.
""A random woman may not know what she’s doing"
Wow…."
Wow how? It's neither false nor offensive to simply acknowledge that a layman might not understand the reality of something such as an abortion.
But see that's me giving the woman the benefit of the doubt. If she does thoroughly understand that she's agreeing to the killing an innocent human being for convenience, then she's worse than ignorant - she's evil.
"almost 50 years of you guys hollering “Murder!” and “it’s a child not a choice!”"
Idk who "you guys" is referring to; I myself wasn't always anti-abortion. As for the label of "murder", that may depend on legal definitions which makes it a fairly trivial point in either direction. And it's certainly a choice of a kind, just like I can make the choice to either befriend or be violent against someone.
"And women are STILL so ignorant!"
I disagree. I think some women are ignorant just like some men are. But others are getting smarter and wiser by the day.
"Are you accusing the pro-loafers of doing a lousy job of getting their message across?"
Actually, yes. Pro-lifers are not unlike most groups: they think it a good strategy to put their most loud and obnoxious (and often ignorant) members up front to represent them.
"I thought you were the ones with the impeccable arguments."
You think too much in terms of group identity. Some pro-lifers are right by accident. They believe that a fetus is a life because someone told them god said so, for example. If you look at the science, a fetus is a human being, but not everyone knows that.
"Maybe the doctor thinks it’s a clump of cells too!"
And maybe there's a mathematician somewhere who thinks 2 plus 2 equals 5. Anything's possible, I guess.
""The doctor should get the penalty"
wow..."
What's so shocking about holding someone accountable, for directly killing an innocent human being when they should know that's what they're doing? Again, it's highly unlikely they don't know the science behind it.
"so you wanna let a co-conspirator to murder totally off, every time!"
If you're talking about the woman, again, that would depend. Some people do really bad things entirely by accident, or with faulty information we can't reasonably blame them for believing. If you're helping me throw some "trash" away, but I've hidden a live baby in one of the trash bags without your knowing, should you get some sort of penalty there?
"Just because liberals are so good at brainwashing women into thinking they aren’t killing real babies!"
Men and women both. There's plenty of men out there saying women should be able to get these "abortions" too, and for most of the same reasons.
"Would you accept rationale for other crimes?"
Naturally. You have to determine intent as part of any case. And part of that is figuring out who knew what, and when.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My response to you was blocked again. Gonna try and add it to my last comment here.
@jeep23862 Of course I'm serious. The fetus is not the woman's body; it is a completely different human being. And I would challenge you to find a consistent definition of "human being" that would justify killing them but not fully born people that even you would agree are human beings.
"I also suspect you would say the fertilised egg, embryo, foetus does not belong to the mother (it does)?
"
In the same way my 9-year old "belongs to" me, I suppose.
"Her house, her rules."
Except when "her rules" involve killing an innocent human being that happens to be in "her house", by no choice of their own, mind you.
"There is no "someone else" only a fertilised egg, developing embryo and foetus."
So what, in your opinion, is the fundamental difference. At what point do you think this "thing" becomes a human being?
"Just like you the female owns her body"
Exactly. And in the same way I can't justifiably use my body to harm another person, she can't either.
"If a law is made that deny's females the right to a lawful abortion the females will do in the dark ages and in the no so long ago ether try to self-terminate or pay some butcher to carry out a back street abortion"
Hopefully not, but I'm not about to be blamed for her decisions if that's what you're hinting at.
As for "moral rights", I'd say it's a generally agreed-upon principle that you shouldn't kill other human beings. So again, that's what it really comes down to, and I await your definition of a "human being". I'm sure it will be logical...
I certainly didn't force the woman to create the human being, either, why would it be my job to take care of him/her?
1
-
1
-
I'm an atheist (not that that should matter). And no, shame on you for so haphazardly going along with the killing of innocent human beings.
"Rubbish, You ask your mother whose developing in the womb baby where you and if she does reply you were my developing baby then get a new mother.
"
This is incoherent. But just dismissing what someone says isn't an argument anyway.
"Ok, if is a completely deferent body to the mother then simply on those grounds alone she has every right to terminate if she so chooses.
"
The way this reads is that, if someone is a completely different body from you, that that makes it okay to kill them. I'm going to guess that's not what you meant, though...
"One thing is 100% certain the baby developing in her womb has NOTHING to with YOU.
"
Nor would someone killing their two-year old down the street from me. This is a terrible argument as well.
"NO! your 9 year old is not only a complete viable individual citizen with full citizens rights."
The government does not decide who is/isn't a human being, nor who it's morally justifiable to kill. At best, their job is try and figure that out. And how are you defining "viability"?
"Tell me if you should have to make a Sophies choice which would you allow to die one of your partners fertilised eggs, developing embryo or foetus or your 9 year old child."
Which would you rather allow die - a 9 year old or a 50 year old? And would answering "the 9 year old" imply that the 50 year old isn't a human being? Of course not. So these sorts of questions aren't relevant to whether or not someone is a human being.
"If your answer the egg you should be locked up.
"
No, we don't go locking people up for not being able to save all human beings in danger; that's not a thing.
"she owns the house , she decides who lives in it."
Indeed! But if I allow someone to live with me, I can at most kick them out. I can't kill them, lol.
"Given you have no idea in what circumstances how do you know the female host is not "innocent"?
"
Even assuming her innocence, I would be choosing between inconveniencing (however significantly) one innocent human being and killing another. I'd still choose the first!
"Suppose your 13 year old daughter in her sexual arousal had sex with and equally unexperienced 13 year old boy only to discover she was pregnant would you seriously and in all humanity force her to carry that pregnancy full term and force her to give birth to a childish cannot possibly deal with?
"
If she's the one who created the human being, all I would be "forcing" is the not killing of that human being. Same as we all do, all of the time. And I would recommend abortion over adoption.
"But YOU would be to blame."
See, this is the problem. You want to pass the blame for your own actions onto others. But if I neither created the human being nor killed it, I'm not responsible for any of that situation.
In a civilised society there would be no back street abortions only lawful abortions carried out under high quality medical supervision, no guilt, no shame, no need to explain.
"only a fertilised egg, embryo, early stage foetus while being human is NOT in reality a human being in the sense your 9 year old child is."
But is a human being, by all consistent definitions we can think of. A one-year old is also "not a human being in the same sense a 9 year old is", but that would hardly justify killing a one-year old.
"OK try this ...
human being | ˌhjuːmən ˈbiːɪŋ |
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens,"
And the definition of a "child"?
1a: an unborn or recently born person
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child
In any case, we're not just talking about what other people have written in their books. I'm asking you directly, at what point do you think this "thing" becomes a human being. And if you would say that it magically transforms into a totally different organism by passing through the birth canal or some such, you're not thinking about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Shingblad So you're not going to tell us what the difference between a "neoliberal" and a "progressive" is? Or how we're misusing any of the other terms? Contrary to your personal attacks, I do care a great deal about the state we're in. I agree that we need to solve these problems but I disagree with you on how.
@Shingblad See right off the bat, I don't think you're being objective. Pretty much no one is "for war" as a general rule; we'd all prefer that problems are solved without it. But are you telling me there isn't any war you'd support for any reason? Most of your classifications seem to be like this, so I'll leave it at that.
And if your definition of "progressive" is correct, then it's precisely the progressives I'm criticizing. What would be an example of "Nordic-style democratic socialism"? Because we already know that Scandinavia isn't socialist, both by the PM of Denmark's correction of Bernie and just a look at how they actually run their countries.
And yes, you should have to tell me what these relatively new terms mean if you want to divide people up on their basis.
As for Trump, I'm not convinced he's a warmonger. He could've retaliated militarily when Iran attacked a base trying to kill our soldiers, but he didn't. And in general, he's been surprisingly good at coming to agreements with other world leaders so far.
It shows your bias, though, that you say "there is no difference between Republicans and corporatist/centrist neolibs" (Why would I be amazed to learn that you're biased?) I do not agree that these people are simply "putting profits ahead of people and the future". Again, we agree on the objectives but disagree on how best to achieve them. It just so happens that (and both American history as well as what the other nations are doing confirm this) capitalism is the best way (though not a perfect way) to ensure a balance between supply and demand, which accomplishes all those things you say you want - from lower prices to higher wages.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jennyjung4884 Yes, but again, the U.S. already knows what putting our government in charge of these things will do because we've already done it for the most part. Our healthcare prices did not begin to skyrocket until the advent of Medicare and Medicaid in the 60s. That was because demand went way up while supply went down. Put simply, government took control and screwed everything up.
https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
Now, I have no doubt with high enough taxes (assuming everyone in the U.S., particularly the wealthy, would stick around for it), we could provide "free" healthcare and it would be cheaper in cost as well, but even the countries who have done this end up sacrificing quality and/or efficiency (e.g., the wait times in Canada are atrocious). But with a free market, we could make it cheaper, better quality, and more efficient. That's because the government always takes their cut, often presumes to know what's best when they don't, and always takes a lot longer to get it done. Why? Because they've no incentive to do better. Contrary to suppliers in a free market (which we do not have), the government is getting our money no matter how poorly they perform.
"I understand what Bernie says sometimes may offend good successful entrepreneurs or innocent workers in the industries he refered in his speech. However, he is not personal to those individuals."
Bernie flat-out said there shouldn't be any billionaires. Not only is this personal against any billionaire who got their money honestly and is doing good things (e.g., giving to charity) in addition to the good they've done just by providing America with value (good/services) as well as jobs; it's also personal against the American people overall. It's extremely presumptuous to tell them they don't deserve the money they own after the American people collectively voted for them to have that money.
He's also said that white people don't know what it's like to be poor, trying to pander to minorities with what he thought they wanted to hear. As a white person who grew up poor and living in nothing but ghettos, I can't put into words how offensive that is.
"He needed to be a little harsh and straight forward to make the point of our broken system."
Everybody knows the system is broken; but he would have us blame all the wrong people for it.
"It's hard to explain details when you talk about things in front of thousand people or in the limited short time."
Actually, he's had many opportunities (ranging from an hour to three hours) to explain the details. He was very famously on the Joe Rogan podcast for example, and IMO, failed to elaborate on pretty much every important point.
"However, you should know he is more interested in HELPING people than punishing bad ones."
Even if I assumed he did care about helping people (which is not something I typically assume of career politicians), it wouldn't change a thing because I disagree with the policies themselves.
"I was bombed with debt when my kid went to college."
Another industry that is heavily regulated and funded by government (Well... funded by the taxpayers and then regulated by the government but anyway). I wonder how much tuition would cost if the government didn't guarantee student loans? And this is not to say that your son did, but many young people go in for a degree that turns out to be worthless. I wonder how careful they might be if they had to earn the money and/or good credit themselves first and then pick their degree?
"When I accidentally fell from stairs, I thought my life was finished. That was America to me. If there was no Bernie, I would probably be in a deep depression by now."
And that's the problem. What will you do if Bernie loses the election? Lose hope? Give up?
"As a single mom, I worked really hard but working hard was not enough to improve my life. Then I realized there was a systematic problem in America"
Then how come other single moms are able to make it? What are the differences between your life situation and others'?
"I know he wouldn't want Venezuela style for sure."
Well he seems to be very interested in nationalizing and controlling practically everything, so forgive me if I see it differently.
"If you never have felt the struggle as a working single mom in America, maybe you might not understand my views entirely"
I was raised by one, and in government housing. My mom didn't have the money to go into debt and pay for my college; I had to school online.
@Jenny Jung "Government housing" refers to residences (usually apartments) that are paid for either partially or fully and run by the government. They're also called "the projects" and are known for their high crime rates, poorly managed buildings, etc.
"Which candidate do you support? Just curious.."
I'll be voting for Trump this time, definitely. I didn't the first time but I think he's doing a great job, especially compared to what the others are promising (more like threatening) to do.
"and I wonder how you feel as Bernie is winning so far and his polling 35% in NV and 31% nationally?"
I don't mind it. Bernie might even have a decent chance to win the presidency, I won't lie. Although I think in terms of the general election, someone like Tulsi would've done much better against Trump. But the Democrats said "No" to Tulsi because she's not radical enough, doesn't pander to minorities, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RikuDawnHero98 It's the insinuation that what he calls "the billionaire class" (which he used to say "millionaires and billionaires" until he became a millionaire but nevermind) are somehow more "greedy" than the rest of us that promotes class warfare. And BTW, when's he going to provide his "fair share" of value (products/services) or jobs to the American people?
And yes, he tries to divide us by race. This is the same guy who said white people don't know what it's like to be poor. How very unifying!
@RikuDawnHero98 You're not responding to any of my points. You obviously don't deny the fact that he's singling out "the wealthy" (which, again, he tends to narrow that down to "the top 1%" or the billionaires in his speeches) as if they're somehow more "greedy" than the rest of us. That just is divisive; he doesn't need to say "Okay, now I am going to try to divide us up on the basis of wealth" to be doing it.
Similarly, you ignore the fact that he's said white people don't know what it's like to be poor or live in ghettos. That's also very divisive because he's flat-out saying that minorities and whites just can't relate to each other on those issues.
"Fair" is subjectively defined. Some might say that "fair" would be everyone paying the same dollar amount in taxes, seeing as how everyone will get equal benefits out of it. And you sidestepped my question about just how many products, services, and jobs Bernie has provided the American people compared to these evil, greedy billionaires. Why?
1
-
1
-
@RikuDawnHero98 IOW, the wealthy try to pay as little in taxes as possible, just like the rest of us. They're not greedy just because they want to keep as much of the money they earned as they can. If anything, you're greedy because you want to take it from them.
As for bribing politicians, the only way to put a stop to that is to remove the power we've given politicians and government officials in the first place. So long as the government has so much control over the market, the rich and well-connected will try (and often succeed) to wield it for their own self-interests.
"Though I must say your taking his race comments out of context..."
Not at all; he said absolutely nothing about it being more/less likely; he simply said that when you're white you don't know what it's like to live in a ghetto, be poor, etc. Which is both divisive and a flat-out lie.
"if you look at race it's true that if your not white in America your more likely to be poor, to live in the ghetto, and to end up in crime..."
Yeah, and a lot of that started with government intervention. The welfare programs brought in during the 60s incentivize fatherlessness in the home. The single motherhood rate in the black community skyrocketed, as did all the problems known to result from removing the father from the home. This, the minimum wage laws, affirmative action, etc. These are ideas that may (or may not) have meant well but have completely decimated the black community over these past few decades.
"our system is corrupt to the point that our goverment works against them..."
Exactly! So why think the answer is to make government more powerful?
"Even though racism is suppose to be illegal corporations find loopholes to still use it against minorities... Such as saying we only want candidates for this job who have experience in certain communities like ones that are mostly white or they say they didn't hire someone because their not skilled enough for the position even if it is actually do to them being a minority..."
And in those cases, they can be taken to court. No additional laws are going to stop that.
"Now I will say if Bernie has said it the way you typed it then he could of worded it better."
Or, he could've just not pandered to minorities with a lie in the first place. They don't need pandering; they need policies that have been proven to work.
"he was able to get corporations like Amazon and Disney to raise their minimum wage..."
Which will hurt the unemployed and/or result in fewer hours for those employed and/or the costs will be billed to the consumer. Money doesn't just magically appear just because someone complained about how much they/others were getting paid.
"Bernie hasn't offered any jobs because he is a politicans and doesn't own a business but he has done a lot to help others as I listed above!!"
And corporations typically donate tons and tons of money to charity. But you're wanting to force them to do more, whether they've done enough or not. So turnabout is fair play. If Bernie can't provide his "fair share" of products, services or jobs to the American people, then he has no business forcing others to provide their "fair share" in other ways.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bloodsheder99 Ahh so with the left-wing BLM riots, the logic is "Only a small percentage of people involved were hurt" but with the Jan. 6 incident it's somehow proof that right-wingers are evil, lol.
"Yes, you are attacking the LGBTQ community,"
Not in the slightest, no. I'm simply disagreeing with the worldview of trans people and trans advocates. And again, that's because it's wholly incoherent. It involves confusing the inclination/disinclination to adhere to gender roles and norms with gender itself, adamantly insisting that people who use the terms "man" or "woman" a certain way are wrong and yet failing to provide an objective definition for these terms, etc.
And again, I get that you're trying to make this about Ben Shapiro not being registered or expected there. But clearly, that wasn't the "problem". The "problem", as stated by the PM themselves, was that Ben's mere presence allegedly caused harm to someone.
Which is another reason, BTW, transgenderism is silly. It shouldn't cause you harm to be in the same (large) room as someone who disagrees with your lifestyle or worldview.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bloodsheder99 "Yes, cause he incite an Insurrection."
No. "Peacefully make your voices heard" is not inciting an insurrection 🙄
"Also he didn't condemn the Nazis"
Blatant lie. He literally said "And I'm not talking about the Nazis, because they should be condemned totally".
"And as for your statement about transgenderism being incoherent, that's a freaking lie."
It's a worldview requiring you to confuse gender roles and norms with gender itself, insist that other people are using terms like "man" and "woman" incorrectly while not being able to provide an objective for those terms, and sometimes equating disagreement with hate. Yeah, that's a completely incoherent worldview.
"The reasons that you gave are something that transphobic Republicans-"
We're not talking about who is/isn't evil in the fictitious drama you're authoring in your head. We're talking about transgenderism. And even if all the Republicans are just the most horrible people on the face of the planet, these arguments are either valid or invalid on their own merits.
"refuse to acknowledge that trans people are people"
Obviously no one is denying that trans people are people...
"and deserve the same rights as you and me."
Okay then, so do these "same rights" mean I can identify as whatever and you have to agree with it? No. They don't want the same rights; they want special rights.
"FYI what rights you think they should have to where it doesn't affect your "speech, business, and all of the other etc" b.s. isn't helping your point."
You're not able to show how it hurts my point, that's for sure. In the meantime, no one has the right to compel speech, and no one really has the moral right to tell someone else how to run their business either.
1
-
@bloodsheder99 No matter how many times you say "That's a fact" it doesn't make it so. Trump told people to make their voices heard peacefully; that's not inciting an insurrection. He also said the Nazis should be condemned totally; that's not calling the Nazis themselves "fine people".
"And no, transgenderism isn't an incoherent view"
Sure it is. As I said, it requires people to confuse gender roles and norms with gender itself, to insist that people who use terms like "man" or "woman" a certain way are incorrect without being able to give an objective definition for these terms themselves, and sometimes equating disagreement with hatred which is not only illogical but dangerous.
"And yes, Republicans are denying them as people. Florida's "Don't say gay bill.""
Florida's bill doesn't include anything at all about not saying "gay". And even if it did, it wouldn't be denying that gay people are people, lol.
"What "special" treatment are you speaking of?"
Trans people want special rights, in that they're the only group we're supposedly obligated to call x so long as they identify as x. If I, a white man, identify as black, you will correct me. If I identify as a 10-year old, a lawyer, the president, Neil Armstrong, a different species, etc. you will correct me. That's what makes it a special right.
As for how trans people want to affect others' speech, how they run their business, etc. it's pretty common knowledge that they accuse you of "misgendering" them if you call certain biological males men. Similarly, there's a push to allow these men into women's restrooms and so forth.
And also keep in mind the incoherence in accusing anyone of misgendering you when transgenderism can't provide an objective definition for terms like "man" and "woman" in the first place. It's logically impossible to be correct or incorrect while using terms with no objective definition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Leafsdude "I don't know. Which is a much more honest position than the one where you claim to know what everyone feels and thinks because it's what you feel."
It's ironic that you mention honesty, while straw-manning and misrepresenting my argument. I did not say that the reason this notion of "feeling like" a man/woman is incoherent was because it's how I feel.
I did point out that it's incoherent because none of us have a basis for that comparison, however. If you asked a "trans woman" if they knew what it felt like to be a man, they would likely tell you no. Or, if they told you yes, the obvious response to them would be that maybe they're men then.
The point is that, unless you claim to have been both a man and a woman at different points in your life, you can't say what each of them feel like or how they differ. And if you have allegedly had both of these feelings, then how do you know which feeling was correct?
And that of course would lead us back to how your worldview can never provide objective, workable definitions for terms like "man" or "woman".
ME: "Okay then, so no one is really a man or woman, on your worldview. They subjectively identify as a man or woman, but they're not."
YOU: "Facepalm Do you know what "subjective" means?"
I just explained to you what it means. It means that it isn't a fact that anyone is a man or woman, on your worldview.
"Just because something is subjective doesn't make it not real. It just makes it dependent on individual experience,"
That's not what subjective means at all. I've experienced tons of things in my life as an individual, which objectively happened. The subjective realm deals with feelings. And in addition to the fact that that angle is incoherent (for the reasons above), this means I can't be incorrect if a call a "trans woman" a man. If you think I can still be incorrect on that, then you don't truly believe that it's a subjective opinion.
"and not an objective testable methodology."
Well quite, which is why it's amusing to hear so many appeal to "science" as something that allegedly supports this worldview.
ME: "So in order to be a woman you have to want the expectations of the gender roles and norms applied to women?"
YOU: "It can be, sure."
So a woman (who identifies as a woman even) isn't a woman if she doesn't want to adhere to the expectations society has placed on her?
1
-
@Leafsdude "That's how language works. It's subjective."
The meaning of words may be assigned via a subjective process, if that's what you mean, but the definitions of common nouns refer to some objective reality or another. For example, "I'm a lawyer" means something like "I at very least study and probably practice law." Your worldview consistently fails to provide any sort of objective, workable definition for terms like "man", "woman", or "gender". That's part of why it's incoherent.
"Same with transgender people. Just because you define those words the way you do doesn't mean the rest of us do, and that the rest of us should."
No, but you should find a workable definition if you want to make your worldview coherent. And it would also have to be an objective definition if you wish to imply others are morally obligated to use it your way.
"Again, language changes. Languages evolve."
Sure, but they never change or "evolve" by way of making words ultimately meaningless, which is what modern gender theory has done with words like "man", "woman" and "gender".
YOU: "and not an objective testable methodology."
ME: "Well quite, which is why it's amusing to hear so many appeal to "science" as something that allegedly supports this worldview."
YOU: "No one's saying it's scientifically valid to say "I'm a man" or "I'm a woman" on subjective whims."
You're right; they usually keep pretending it's a matter of objective truth that some of these males are women and some females are men. And many of the "experts" do attempt to give objective definitions by way of confusing gender itself with gender roles and norms.
"What is supported by science is the outcomes when people are given this ability by society to take it as far as they need it."
What determines this "need"? People who will profit from facilitating this worldview to the extreme? At the end of the day, it's a worldview that can't hold up to logical scrutiny, which is why it should be prevented altogether.
"Treatments for gender dysphoria have shown significant decreases in various negative outcomes-"
Are you advocating just for the treatment of gender dysphoria, or for men to continue thinking they're women? Because we already know their dysphoria can go away without surgery, hormone blockers, etc. Most cases of gender dysphoria in children, for example, don't even continue into adulthood (Cohen-Kettenis; Drummond, Bradley, Pertson-Badali & Zucker).
"I support them because of moral principles that tell us to do the least harm"
Which would be encouraging them to reject modern gender theory altogether. As has been historically done without any evidence of it causing people in previous times to end their own lives. Even if the "experts" say they've found a way to bring their risk of suicide down to the same level as non-trans people, why not at very least discourage this worldview from the beginning? Better to not heighten their risk in the first place, even if you can reliably bring it back down.
And I should mention the trans advocates as well, in the list of causes of their suicidal ideation, because they really find it important to tell trans people that everyone hates them when we don't.
1
-
@Leafsdude "Coherent by whose standard?"
By the laws of logic. As I showed with the definition of "gender" your worldview often presents, it essentially confuses gender itself with gender roles and norms. But it's also unworkable with the rest of modern gender theory, because it would mean that someone who identifies as a woman but adheres more to the gender roles and norms expected of men, is wrong about their own gender.
"To me, the standard is simple: people's gender is whatever they tell me it is."
You want to take their word for it, I get that. But then how do they even know? We talked about the feelings angle; that didn't hold up to scrutiny. What else?
""Sure, but they never change or "evolve" by way of making words ultimately meaningless"
"Ulitmately"?"
Yes, for example, one definition given for "woman" is "someone who identifies as a woman". But this circularity leaves us with no information at all about what a woman actually is. What does the term "woman" mean in the definition? If we say it has the same exact meaning as the word to be defined, this makes the definition of "woman" "someone who identifies as someone who identifies as..." on into infinity.
What's more amusing is that, on the same worldview, "someone who identifies as someone who identifies as..." is the definition for "man" as well 😋
""Are you advocating just for the treatment of gender dysphoria, or for men to continue thinking they're women? Because we already know their dysphoria can go away without surgery, hormone blockers, etc. Most cases of gender dysphoria in children, for example, don't even continue into adulthood (Cohen-Kettenis; Drummond, Bradley, Peterson-Badali & Zucker)."
I'm guessing those are citations? Can you cite the sources more directly? Hard to find sources just with a list of lead author names."
Cohen-Kettenis, P.T. (2001). Gender identity disorder in DSM? Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(4), 391-391.
Drummond, K.D., Bradley, S.J., Peterson-Badali, M., & Zucker, K.J. (2008). A follow-up study of girls with gender identity disorder. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 34-45.
And I don't doubt that people feel better, at least for a while, when they do more of what they want to do. But to my understanding, trans people still have higher rates of suicidality than non-trans people. And it would be better for them to reject that worldview entirely, than to subscribe to it and then work toward minimizing its effects.
"Calling gender dysphoria a "worldview" instead of a mental health (eg: medical) issue,"
I didn't. I said people can overcome gender dysphoria without subscribing to the worldview of transgenderism. Being uncomfortable with your body =/= you being in the wrong body or your gender (whatever that's supposed to be) being somehow different from your sex.
"And that's before noting the "experts" part. You sound like a creationist or climate "skeptic" when you do that."
Yes, and I'll continue to dismiss these "experts", so long as they keep failing to make sense of modern gender theory while pushing it or facilitating it for profit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bverji "you just keep adding additional arguments,"
Not true. In fact, I'm usually just re-asking questions you refuse to answer or reiterating points you refuse to address. For example, you have failed to explain why we/"culture" should feel obligated to treat a man like a woman if that's what he identifies as, yet we/"culture" should not feel obligated to treat a child like an adult if that's what they identify as. Seems to me, that since "gender" can apparently be referring to just anything (even singular personality traits according to the link I posted earlier), the child can say "adult" is their gender and therefore we're obliged to play along.
You have also failed to make any sense at all of the "misgendering" conundrum. Given the fact that when I use the terms "man" and "woman" I'm referring to the person's biological sex, I'm literally not misgendering them, if your claim that "gender" and "sex" are different things is true. I'm not making any statement about their "gender", as you define the term. I'm only referencing their sex, so the entire "misgendering" allegation falls apart.
Again, I get your point about culture and how words are used, but that doesn't do anything to justify downplaying biological facts in favor of those "genders". So for example, a man can "identify" as a woman all he wants, but he will still be a man. My suggestion is only that we acknowledge that fact in the language we use.
1
-
@bverji "So this is your original argument that biological sex is the determinate of gender roles and gender norms, which I answer repeatedly this is not always true in every culture,"
Right, but then when I asked for examples of "gender roles" and "gender norms" referring to some other sort of "gender" in history, you never gave one.
"you present a list of genders and try to equate gender with personality."
No, I presented a link full of so-called "genders" which do equate gender with singular personality traits if you would bother to take a look. I then simply asked you if you agreed with that list, or if you were willing draw the line somewhere. As I recall, you neither said yes or no to that question.
"then you begin arguing that when you misgender people get mad because you are referring to biological sex.
"
Wrong. I pointed out that since I'm not referring to this concept of "gender" which you promote (I am only referring to a person's biological sex), then I'm not misgendering them. If you wish to say, that sex and gender are different things, then my reference to someone's biological sex in no way can be called "misgendering".
"I printout that being a man is a gender, it can be both a sex and a gender, that when you refer to a person as an identified that is gender."
And I corrected you. I know what I'm referring to when I identify someone as a man or woman, and it's their biological sex. I also pointed out that even if I agreed with the idea that gender and sex are different, I could still refer to someone by their biological sex and not their gender (which makes more sense practically anyway, since that is what is more apparent to others).
"You then argue how you are still a “man” no matter what gender you are."
Never said that at all. But I did say that regardless of my personality and behaviors, I'm a man. This was my original point, in fact, that we shouldn't confuse my willingness to conform to/reject gender norms and roles as my gender itself. The norms and roles are what people expect me to do/be like based on my gender.
"You then argue that your gender might influence you personality or it might not, after previously claiming they are the same thing."
I never once claimed that personality and gender are the same. I pointed out that other people think that, and I asked you what you thought.
"Then you argue that when you call someone a male that people assume what another persons genetics or genitalia"
And chromosomal makeup, yes, because that is what we're doing. Strangely, you tried to argue with me about what's going on in my head when I call someone a man or woman, but you don't have any authority on that one 😉
"Then you begin the what if’s What if someone identifies s this or that."
Right, and it's still a very important question. You have not been able to explain why we/"culture" should call a man a woman if that's what they identify as (or if that's their stated "gender"), yet we are not obligated to call a child an adult if that's what they identify as (or if "adult" is their stated "gender").
"then your argument goes to the right to confirm age and not gender
"
Well the right to use objective measures (e.g., science, observation, etc.) to determine it, yes.
So these are all important, because my original comment was about how we should speak about this. It wasn't about how this culture or that culture does it. Cultures have done all sorts of screwed up things throughout history. I want to know what you think makes sense. What do you think we should do?
1
-
1
-
@bverji Absolutely none of that addresses my questions or counterpoints. Indeed, you seem to be bound and determined to just ignore them all.
It doesn't even address the first challenge. You had claimed biological sex isn't always the determinate of "gender roles" and "gender norms". But I've asked for examples of "gender roles" and "gender norms" referring to some other sort of "gender" in history, and you clearly can't find any. I'll re-post the rest of our conversation to make keeping track of it all that much easier.
"you present a list of genders and try to equate gender with personality."
No, I presented a link full of so-called "genders" which do equate gender with singular personality traits if you would bother to take a look. I then simply asked you if you agreed with that list, or if you were willing draw the line somewhere. As I recall, you neither said yes or no to that question.
"then you begin arguing that when you misgender people get mad because you are referring to biological sex.
"
Wrong. I pointed out that since I'm not referring to this concept of "gender" which you promote (I am only referring to a person's biological sex), then I'm not misgendering them. If you wish to say, that sex and gender are different things, then my reference to someone's biological sex in no way can be called "misgendering".
"I printout that being a man is a gender, it can be both a sex and a gender, that when you refer to a person as an identified that is gender."
And I corrected you. I know what I'm referring to when I identify someone as a man or woman, and it's their biological sex. I also pointed out that even if I agreed with the idea that gender and sex are different, I could still refer to someone by their biological sex and not their gender (which makes more sense practically anyway, since that is what is more apparent to others).
"You then argue how you are still a “man” no matter what gender you are."
Never said that at all. But I did say that regardless of my personality and behaviors, I'm a man. This was my original point, in fact, that we shouldn't confuse my willingness to conform to/reject gender norms and roles as my gender itself. The norms and roles are what people expect me to do/be like based on my gender.
"You then argue that your gender might influence you personality or it might not, after previously claiming they are the same thing."
I never once claimed that personality and gender are the same. I pointed out that other people think that, and I asked you what you thought.
"Then you argue that when you call someone a male that people assume what another persons genetics or genitalia"
And chromosomal makeup, yes, because that is what we're doing. Strangely, you tried to argue with me about what's going on in my head when I call someone a man or woman, but you don't have any authority on that one 😉
"Then you begin the what if’s What if someone identifies s this or that."
Right, and it's still a very important question. You have not been able to explain why we/"culture" should call a man a woman if that's what they identify as (or if that's their stated "gender"), yet we are not obligated to call a child an adult if that's what they identify as (or if "adult" is their stated "gender").
"then your argument goes to the right to confirm age and not gender
"
Well the right to use objective measures (e.g., science, observation, etc.) to determine it, yes.
So these are all important, because my original comment was about how we should speak about this. It wasn't about how this culture or that culture does it. Cultures have done all sorts of screwed up things throughout history. I want to know what you think makes sense. What do you think we should do?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jokutällane Vaa "Learn abt the middle age cast system and you'll see what capitalism can cause."
Or, you can make your claim explicit. What did bring about the harms of the middle age caste (not cast) system?
"Basically to survive in capitalism, you have to be perfect."
Easily refuted, since no human being is perfect, yet the vast majority of human beings survive (and many thrive) under capitalism.
"Disabilities aren't allowed,"
Of course they are, and many who have disabilities (some of whom despise the term "disability", BTW) also found ways to survive and even thrive in capitalism. And I mean specifically by finding ways nevertheless to earn income. Some even run businesses of their own.
"so if you're missing an arm you're as good as take behind a barn and shoot."
Jesus, is that what your worldview thinks of people with disabilities? Because mine doesn't.
"With socialism MIXED IN you'll provide him with a prostetic arm,"
You mean I'll be forced to pay for someone else's prosthetic arm, or wheelchair, or eye surgery, or new liver, or any of countless other things we say they need to be successful (when they don't).
What you don't realize is that capitalism also brings about charity such as this. Indeed there were all sorts of nonprofit charitable organizations which sprang up back when there was no income tax, no way of getting reimbursed with (stolen) money from the government at the end of the fiscal year, etc.
The only necessary difference is how they spring up - by people voluntarily choosing to pitch in, or by the government stealing the money and (hopefully, eventually, and with varying degrees of competence and results) passing that on to those who need it.
"and he's good to go and become something."
Or, he's dependent on the unreliable government system and he and his descendants are likely to remain in the slums. Let's keep in mind the War on Poverty did nothing but slow the speed at which the poverty rate was going down.
"Example is Japan, great for the normal. But the moment you're disabled, mentally ill etc. You're thrown outside society."
Well this seems to be exploring a different question, this being "Is capitalism enough for everyone in the nation to thrive?" And I would say certainly not. You also have to share certain basic principles and assumptions regarding human decency which a cultural thing.
Now, of course, here is where I could point to various socialist countries and how people are being treated there. But honestly I think we'd be better off comparing apples with apples. Better to look at the U.S. and the effects these policies have had on it. You see, the U.S. is not an example of capitalism gone wrong, simply because we are far less capitalistic than we were a hundred or so years ago. Indeed, there are some who'd argue we're no longer a capitalist country at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thegameranch5935 On the contrary, it's a truism that even most people on your side of the debate admit (the IPCC itself, for example, AR4, 2007). In fact, the standard response is the claim that we're producing new CO2 and that the addition is what's causing the warming. But that wouldn't explain all the periods in the last 10,000 years in which it was warmer than it is now. It also doesn't take into consideration the diminishing effect of atmospheric CO2 (Archibald, 2008).
Moreover, temperatures don't seem to track very well with CO2 changes. While CO2 has steadily risen since 1960, temperatures have warmed here or there and remained flat or cooling for other multiple-year stretches (NOAA, Mauna Loa, CRU HadCRUT3, Climate4You, 2011).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seanscanlon9067 I'm not blindly defending anyone. Since the claim that Putin had put a bounty on American soldiers was never substantiated, you'd have to be a maniac to think Trump should've penalized him over it.
"Probably because he is a weak leader with no balls"
And yet he's taken a stand against every person or nation that has been verified as doing/saying something against the U.S., hmmm. Of course, then you just call him reckless because the Democratic party knows absolutely nothing about being consistent.
"...about their collusion and other crimes President Corrupt has committed."
Which amount to mere claims as well, with no proof. I'm beginning to see a pattern here: Shut down people I don't like if someone claims they did something wrong (Ignore such claims when I like the person they're targeting).
As for the rest, you've woven a mostly coherent narrative, I'll give you that. But just like with the collusion nonsense, you need more. You need actual evidence and you don't have any.
"Oh and just one more thing, I hate to burst your bubble but Joe Biden will be the next president and will be sworn in by January."
It's certainly possible. But you can't go believing everything the MSM tell you. They don't call the election and like to hide shit... a lot. Let's not forget that even after the CDC came right out and admitted the numbers concerning Covid (both pertaining to Covid deaths and diagnoses) were fake, the mainstream media, those who run social media, and Hollywood are still pretending we have the real numbers, and probably for political purposes but who's to say. They also benefit from the panic itself. The more afraid you are, the more you'll say glued to the news station that first told you you're in danger 😉
1
-
@Friendly Pup Your take on Trump and Biden is absurd. Raising the minimum wage is not a way to increase wages across the board; it's just a way to incentivize employers to lay people off and/or charge more for their products and services.
And giving Trump (well-deserved) credit for passing prison reform does not require giving Obama any less credit. But you need to be consistent; if we're going to disregard the good things Trump has done by speculating that it was "just because celebrities asked him to do it", then we should do the same for Obama, Biden, and others.
Personally, I'd prefer to look at what's been done and the effects. I don't care much about why or what the intentions were.
And yes, the deregulations were fine; it's never been the government's place to restrict the free market (no, not even "for our own good" which can and has been used to justify outright atrocities and we all know it). We've let them have way too much power already.
The 423% number is a misleading one. It's based on a 45-day period in which drone strikes were most active, rather than based on the entirety of his four-year term. On the other side of the coin, however, he's been nominated for several nobel peace prizes and is credited in large part for the peace between North and South Korea.
As for Covid, Trump acted quickly and with one of the most proven methods of safeguarding the American people - a travel ban which the Democrats criticized and even flat-out opposed. The reason the numbers are "going up" are two-fold:
1. With more testing, you find more cases.
and 2. The numbers are fake anyway, which they openly admitted to us. And that's both concerning the number of people who actually have Covid and the number of people who've actually died from it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First off, I really wish anti-theists would stop lying and misrepresenting religious beliefs/practices just to score some rhetorical points. It should be obvious why this was done originally, and if it your only remaining point is that it shouldn't be done today well congratulations you're part of the vast majority of people saying that (including theists).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah#Metzitzah_B'Peh_(oral_suction)
Secondly, it turns out that there are various health benefits and medical reasons PRO circumcision, whether we like it or not. And it's up to the parents to decide which risks they feel are worth subjecting their children to.
And of course, finally, this is not an argument against religion but against one particular practice and lack of justification for it. What you guys need to do, to justify your opposition of religion, is not point to how particular practices are harmful. Indeed, what we should seek out is whatever's true, and then deal with whatever harms may/may not come from acknowledging that truth. So not only do you fail on the level of showing that religion in and of itself is harmful, you fail on the level of establishing that we shouldn't have religious beliefs such as theism.
1
-
I'm sorry, but transgenderism is still incoherent and without any basis in reality at all.
@Robert Platt "Would it help if I pointed out that medical scans show our brains are actually wired more like the sex we identify?"
Not at all. Even assuming you mean that your brains are the size/shape of the opposite gender at birth (which you might not, Idk), it wouldn't mean that therefore you're that gender. People with conditions we'd both agree are mental disorders are sometimes diagnosed in that exact way. So there being a biological explanation for why you think you're a different gender, doesn't equal a biological confirmation that you are.
"That is, my 23 chromosome is male but my brain is wired like a normal female."
Which brings back the question I asked you in another comment section, which I don't recall you answering: What about a trans "woman" who doesn't have a similar brain to biological women, but identifies as a woman anyway? Would you tell them they're not a woman, or does the size and shape of the brain suddenly (and conveniently) not matter then?
"I literally think more like a woman than a man. I understand women better than I understand men."
Which, again, only means that you have a different personality than most men. So do lots of men, who still recognize that they're men despite that. But would you tell them they're not men either? Because they think "like a woman", which again, depending on what specifically you mean by that sounds sexist to begin with.
"Everything about my psyche says I should be a woman but my body is decidedly male."
Feelings about what "should" or "shouldn't" be are irrelevant, if only because they're so subjective. But it's just like I asked you before in that other comment section, how do you even know what it feels like to be a man vs. what it feels like to be a woman? If you're a woman and have always been a woman, you quite literally cannot know the difference (if there is a difference) between the two.
"None of this was my decision. It wasn't induced by trauma, abuse or teaching. It's quite the opposite. I was taught to be a boy. I even had special classes to help teach me.
"
Not that this matters a great deal (Again, some mental disorders "just happen" without any trauma, abuse, or teaching), but you really can't say for sure that nothing in the forgotten formative years of your childhood brought this on. It's not like people have memories of their birth and the first few years afterward.
"That was around 1975. There was no such thing as "transgender" back then just gay and transvestite. And I learned quickly both groups were hated outcasts. Why would I want to be like them?
"
I think this is a key paragraph. Not wanting to be part of these groups because they were hated doesn't address objective truth. Not saying you are just gay or transvestite, but it sounds like you haven't ruled those out properly.
"The divide between brain and body creates a strain that builds and builds until it gets so bad it destroys some part of me. You'll never see the scars because they're all on the inside. Yet they exist and they show a LOT of damage has been done.
"
I don't think anyone's denying that having such a condition would be painful and extremely difficult. But we do disagree that the best way to treat these sorts of conditions is by going along with it.
"In short, we CAN successfully change our body SHAPE and that's all we need to feel and be just as normal as everyone else.
"
I'm sure it would help you feel better, to force your body into the shape you think it should be. How could it not? But that doesn't mean you've changed what you are.
If you don't mind, I decided to tack on part of another conversation we were having, where I had asked you why a person can't also identify as another age, race or financial status. I never got a response from you, but I wanted to press the question to highlight part of why me and others find transgenderism so incoherent logically:
"Lastly, identifying as something measurable (age, race, social status) is provably true or false."
Exactly. And being a man or woman is measurable through biology. If you have zero biological evidence that you're a woman, yet you want people to treat you as one, there's nothing stopping me from applying this principle to pressure others into treating me as a different age, race, and financial status.
"In any case the most obvious difference between these identifications and gender dysphoria is that they don't cause distress."
To your knowledge. But I'm quite sure that if you give it time, people will be popping up with their stories of how "always knowing they were black" (when they're white) and having to be misraced, etc. caused them great pain and suffering. Because again, what's stopping them? Even if you say they're just faking it all, how can you prove that? You can't.
Besides which, is the level of suffering a person's going through with a "mislabeling" really a fundamental difference regarding what's true? The question, how do we determine what's correct? How can we look at someone else and tell them they're not what they feel they are, if we can't do it regarding gender?
"If someone does suffer then it's up to the individual to do something about it - just as it is with gender dysphoria."
Yeah, like coming to grips with the objective truth, and then asking why they identify as something they're not.
Just as I had suggested you ask yourself the following:
Why do you want to be a mother? What do mothers do? How do they contribute to their children/society? Isn't it entirely possible to fulfill those needs (which are indeed important) as a man?
"And if there's sufficient determination, a poor person may earn their way to a higher social class,"
No no no. Don't be a bigot. These people are already rich, and you have to treat them as such. And that will have all sorts of interesting applications when they happen to stroll into the nearest bank, wouldn't you say?
"an old person may act and think as a younger person."
Right, like a 40-year old man who identifies as a 15-year old boy can date your 15-year old daughter. What could you say against that? You don't want to be a hateful bigot, keep that in mind.
"Society accepts and encourages these people. Ever see an old man on a skateboard doing tricks and having a blast?"
That's just it, though. He can do these things because he's able to, not because he identifies as someone younger. Similarly, you can fulfill the same needs as any mother, without being a woman. And that would be OK but competing in sports against biological women is not. Just as the old man can ride skateboards in the park, but cannot date a teenage girl.
"But few will correct them if they say they feel young or rich or whatever. Yet many will correct me for saying I feel like a woman."
Partly because (so far), there isn't a movement of old people claiming they are in fact young or poor people claiming they are in fact rich. So the guard can be lowered there. Also partly because "feeling young" refers to differences in young people that most wouldn't dispute. It's almost inevitable that a young person (who is healthy) will have more energy. It is not almost inevitable that a woman will think, feel, and behave the way you are.
"So if I require a female-shaped body to function (regardless of my DNA), is it correct to deny it?"
You don't require that at all. The issue is in the mind, so that's where you should fix it.
"Living authentic is more important."
Indeed. So if you are a man who thinks, feels, and behaves in a very different way from most men, that's what you say. That's what you know about yourself, and so that's what you should tell others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matiusbond6052 "I have researched Owen's background on social media,and not just the TREE OF LOGIC videos."
And how do you draw the conclusion that because she was previously one way and now she's another, that therefore she's faking it now? Especially in light of her reasoning for the switch (things like how people overreacted to an incident she was involved in, doing research on certain topics she hadn't researched before, etc.)
"Owens is not just ignorant on climate change,she is ignorant on almost all important issues,"
So you claim.
"she is constantly shielded from debates with knowledgable people by Turning Point."
Not being ready for debate =/= being ignorant on a subject. Debates (especially somewhat informal ones like we see at Politicon) are largely battles of wits, not really an ideal forum for simply comparing arguments pro and con.
"Not long ago she had a web site which was a staunch enemy of Trump and conservatives,but switched overnight because of the financial rewards."
That's what you're claiming, but so far you haven't proven it. So I'm left with deciding between what she says about her life and what you say about it, with no reason to think you're telling the truth and she's lying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Churd84538 I don't think Trump's the one doing the dividing. The left preaches and demonstrates dividing people into groups over single aspects of their being, then passing judgment on them on that basis. "You're black. Then why are you supporting Trump, you (insert racial slur here)?" "You're a billionaire? Well that must mean you're greedy." "You're a straight white male? Well you must be highly privileged then and/or shouldn't be speaking on this topic." As I've seen it (from Trump himself, not the media), his tent is a very large one, and people are judged on the basis of their actions.
"The list you're showing isn't all due to a president."
Each of them are things that he did. Whether or not he was supported in doing or even inspired to do them by someone else is secondary.
"Trump actually thinks the steal workers union are over paying their laborores and need to cut their hourly rate to compete with Mexico and Canada. You can fact check it."
Maybe they are; Idk, I haven't looked into it. But he can have his opinions and say dumb shit, I'm looking at what he's done.
"He's all for lower wages and always has been."
Evidently not. Median household income has gone up $4,144 since he took office.
https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AZ014_Moore_16U_20190926102706.jpg
"People need to research Trump Industries. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. His past track record sucks. Bankruptcy 4 times."
A. I'm not sure what's normal in the world of business.
B. Even assuming that's a horrible track record, why not look at his more recent behavior (such as the things I listed) in the job we're actually evaluating him on?
"Guilty of tax evasion. Guilty of hiring illegal immigrant. Of all things (Look it up. Convicted)."
I just tried, couldn't find it. Would you mind posting a link?
"Triggers racism."
Bullshit. People (on both sides of the political fence, BTW) who are racists are merely using him as an excuse to act a fool. He's explicitly condemned all of that. When you have millions upon millions of supporters, it's inevitable there are going to be some crazy people in a group that large.
"Said Mexico was going to pay for "the wall"."
Yes, and while there are still ways of making them do this (if only indirectly), I'm willing to count that as a silly promise not kept... But that's why I should ignore all the good he's done?
"Worst presidential rating in history. That's not fake news. Presidential rating come from you all."
Not me, I was never polled. But again, I don't care about all these arbitrary labels and distinctions! I'm not here to argue that he's the most popular, most liked, or even the most successful. I'm just saying he's done a great job overall, far better than I would expect any of his opponents to do.
"But the fighting amongst ourselves is exactly what the Russian want and they got it."
Well then people should probably work on their emotional stability and mental health, and not hate people because they support the president or any given candidate.
"People hated this guy long before he was president."
Some, maybe. But a lot of these people didn't. And again, if someone hates, that's their problem and they need to work on that. It isn't Trump's fault, my fault, your fault (unless you are also hateful), nothing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlwonDomz Even if we say that all Trump did was keep the rate going down at about the same speed, my point was that it was expected to plateau. But it's not quite established that his policies didn't do any good. The tax cuts did increase economic growth over previous years and over the Congressional Budget Office-predicted baseline, though not quite reaching the Trump administration’s 3% annual goal. This increase in economic growth resulted in an increase in adjusted gross incomes of 5.7% in 2019 over 2018, the biggest jump in AGI in several years.
The tax cuts also succeeded in targeting benefits at the middle class. Taxpayers reporting between $40,000 and $50,000 per year had the largest percentage tax cut of any group, with a 14.5% tax cut. Overall, those who earned less than $200,000 per year saw a 10.96% tax reduction with the sharpest reductions for those who earned between $25,000 and $100,000.
In fiscal year 2019, which ended in September, corporate income taxes raised $230 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s $25 billion more than the year before and amounts to an increase of 12.4% – or roughly three times the growth rate of the overall economy.
As for what happened after Covid, how can you conclude that the tax cuts didn't contribute to more people keeping their jobs than would've otherwise?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BLTspace "Do you want to endlessly grow our police force?"
Do you really think that's a problem? Because what I see is the populations growing (everywhere!) and yet people talking about spending less money on the police, which makes zero sense.
"How many cops do you want in your city?"
Enough to keep it safe.
"It's like our military... we could cut a 100 billion right now off that budget and nobody would even know the difference."
Not immediately, no. But let's not get into pretending that we know, one way or the other, what the threat against America really entails and therefore how much money our military needs.
"There's towns in the middle of nowhere with populations of like 2 and their police force still has military grade equipment and toys... its overkill and not needed."
Perhaps, but alas the first departments being targeted are in cities that are densely populated and overrun with crime.
"More police doesn't = less crime."
Not in and of itself, but with proper training, yes. And I do recall when I was a child growing up in the ghetto, cops seemed afraid to patrol in our neighborhood and as a result crime was UP. But again, you don't have to have that shared experience; you could just look at the wonder that was CHAZ/CHOP but you refuse to do so.
"I can't stand biden this isn't a candidate issue. Whoever is president it doesn't matter... funds go everywhere but the bottom. Not better schools or social programs. Not mental health or health in general... nothing. Schooling, health, economy, community, wages... etc... every single one of these can also effect crime rates ffs."
Yes, and the work Trump has done on the economy has probably literally saved lives. But yeah, I'm not here to argue that Trump is perfect either. It's just that he's right on this issue, and several other key issues hurting America right now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What do you mean, "Candace Owens is a fabricated conservative"? She switched because liberal idiots revealed their bonkers "outrage culture" to her when she was a teenager and just kept amping up the idiocy. Anyway, your video here just seems to be sour grapes because you don't like the fact that people who disagree on so much can JOKE ABOUT IT (which is what they were doing), get along and give each other praise.
And I agree with Owens on both points in the second clip. If she hasn't seen anything (and admitted ignorance), it's fine for her to say "I haven't seen anything banworthy". Apart from that, words in general shouldn't be met with censorship, banning, feigned outrage, etc. If there is a call to action is harmful, that's one thing. But everything else is free speech and should be left alone from a legal standpoint.
Candace (rightly) supports the rights of private companies to employ as they see fit and also the right of people like Alex Jones to exercise his First Amendment rights. I don't see the issue, unless you're one of those who think we shouldn't have free speech...
And just because you don't think it's a big deal when a man can stomp a woman in a "women's fighting" championship or any other sport doesn't mean it isn't. It's a HUGE deal, in fact, when it means that if allowed to continue, pretty much every women's sport will have all the records broken by MEN.
You also need to look up what "straw-manning" is. The fact is that what they're talking about is going on, and is a big issue in and of itself. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying they were implying it might lead to something worse... when they didn't... so you straw-manned them. See how it works?
Oh, and tell someone like Jordan Peterson that people on "the left" don't want to shut down conversations about biological realities. That it's just a figment of the conservative imagination (rolling eyes).
Finally, it certainly is a free market of ideas that they're celebrating, because they are free to express their views and we are free to ignore, criticize, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's not that simple. For one thing, there are big differences between the U.S. and Sweden that keep us from comparing them directly. Population size, unhealthy lifestyles, and what most would probably agree is a more corrupt government to name a few. Secondly, what Bernie's wanting to do in the U.S. is not what Sweden is doing. He wants to ban all private health insurance, for example. Meanwhile, Scandinavia not only has private insurance but is embracing it more and more every year.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/06/13/socialist-nordic-countries-are-actually-moving-toward-private-health-care/
Besides all that, we are already in the middle of our experiment with letting government control this industry, and the results have been horrific. Indeed, our healthcare crisis began with government intervention. Prices skyrocketed in the 60s (with the advent of Medicare and Medicaid) because our government had radically increased demand while greatly hindering supply. Why would we trust this same government with even more power when they're the ones who got us in this mess in the first place?
https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
Meanwhile, Trump has made progress apply free market principles. Namely, he got more drugs approved by the FDA which has caused prescription drug prices to lower at historic levels. That's competition! Giving power back to the American people! He's also fighting for transparency in the costs of medical treatment which will help even more.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/prescription-drug-prices-falling-historic-levels-thanks-trump-administration-policies/
1
-
@lovisalunneborg8651 The only realistic way to stop all the bribery/lobbying of politicians and government officials is to remove the power government has over the market to begin with. It's no coincidence that our healthcare industry is both the most insanely expensive and the most heavily regulated.
The point about population size is that as you give a centralized power a larger jurisdiction, that power becomes more inefficient in meeting all the needs of that jurisdiction. Besides which, as I explained, we've already seen what happens in the U.S. when we let our government have too much power over an industry; the problem only gets worse. It's kind of like how the "War on Poverty" only caused the rate at which poverty was already declining to slow down.
As for Trump, I pointed out to you that (and how) he lowered prescription drug prices, and all you could do in response is insult people. But I didn't originally support Trump; I changed my mind after seeing the good he's done for America. In addition to lowering drug prices, we're talking record-low unemployment rates (especially for minorities), increased wages, prison reform, Right to Try and more. I also appreciate what he's done for the pro-life movement, but I understand that's a more controversial topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ethairnyx_books "Because gender isn't the same thing as sex."
I disagree. But what do you think gender is?
"And her pronouns are she/her."
Naturally, I disagree with that also.
"if you don't support something, why would you search up a video about it?"
To challenge people to think more critically about it. Because it is, again, incoherent and I think that's part of why it's dangerous.
"Why wouldn't you go to a video that supports your opinion?"
Because I don't believe in hiding in "safe spaces". I think we need to have these discussions so we can get to the truth.
"And honestly, you talk big about my facts, but let's see yours."
I've already given a couple. Trans people are at least 18 times more likely to commit suicide than non-trans people, even if they "transition". And the vast majority of kids who have gender dysphoria end up outgrowing it on their own.
"Tell me why you can't let a girl who knows she was a girl"
I disagree that Leelah was a girl, and I'm still waiting for an answer as to how "she" knew "she" was.
"In Leelah's case, she committed suicide because her parents didn't allow her to start T when she was 16, and she thought she'd look like a man in drag forever.
"
So now we're conveniently pushing your earlier details aside. Again, what happened in the aforementioned "faith-based therapy"? And wasn't he isolated from his parents? Suppose they had simply disagreed with Leelah but didn't send him to some weird, likely-unsafe "therapy" and/or didn't disown him? Suppose they were able to show that they still loved Leelah instead? You can't blame Leelah's suicide on people simply disagreeing with transgenderism. Or, if you can, that only proves that people with that worldview are extraordinarily fragile.
"It is hard to talk about race and identifying as such because it is a touchy subject."
Shouldn't be hard at all. If I'm obligated to call a man a woman solely on the basis of their identifying as one, then why aren't you obligated to call a white man black solely on the basis that he identifies as black?
"I do know of a person that strongly feels they are Latinx. Because race can be classified as culture, but in their case, they felt Latinex because they practiced the same culture and followed the same beliefs.
"
So you would call a white man Latino, if he identified as such?
"But if a white man is saying he's African American just so he can say the N-word, that should be disregarded."
Ah, and you feel qualified to make that distinction? How would that be different from me saying to a trans "woman" "You're saying you're a woman just so you can go into the women's locker room"?
"And what about a poor man identifying as a rich man you ask? Strange, but still plausible and not offensive. He could identify as a rich man, because maybe from where he's standing, he is rich. Maybe he is rich because of his family or loved ones, or maybe he sees people that are worse off than he. It's about how you view the world."
Suppose he's offended by that dismissal of his intended meaning of the word "rich". Suppose he tells you you're being hateful and bigoted and not accepting the reality that he is a billionaire? Remember: The only reason I'm obligated to call a man a woman is that he identifies as such. I can't point to any objective, observable facts to dispute that they're a woman. Why would it be okay for you to do so, in refuting the poor man's claim?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1