Topic's posts

Posts in total: 14
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,420
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    Click to watch 31 minutes,

    The analysis is much more rigorous than I expected, and I agree with most (but not all) of the initial presentation.

    However, one glaring omission the speaker makes is a condition called ANDROGEN INSENSITIVITY.

    ANDROGEN INSENSITIVITY is when a person has XY chromosomes (apparently the "gold standard" for "sexgender" which happens to be quite a strange "bald assertion" ontologically, specifically because chromosomes weren't even discovered until the mid 1880s, WTF).

    ANDROGEN INSENSITIVITY is when a person has XY chromosomes (this speaker might call them "male") and yet, even though they have XY chromosomes, their cells are ANDROGEN INSENSITIVE and therefore are unaffected by that specific hormone and are therefore fully female in physical appearance, bone structure, girly parts and everything else.

    In case you missed that.

    There are people alive today with XY chromosomes who are physically indistinguishable from female.

    They were literally born this way.

    Now, you might say "this is extremely rare and therefore can be dismissed out-of-hand as a statistical fluke".

    However, because we do not TEST FOR THIS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW "RARE" IT MIGHT BE.

    It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.

    And, to be generous, EVEN IFF it was found to be "extremely rare", it still proves that "sexgender" is not 100% dictated by your magical biblical chromosomes.

    AND there is absolutely no way for anyone to KNOW this without violating personal privacy.

    There are also cases where a person has what might at first glance appear to be an XY, but the **Y itself** can have a 4th stub (leg) of various lengths (imagine an X with a short leg), the shorter the stub, the more "male" they appear, and the longer the stub, the more "female" they appear.

    THE KEY TAKEAWAY FROM ALL OF THIS IS THAT IT IS A VIOLATION OF PRIVACY TO DEMAND THAT ANYONE "PROVE" THEIR GENDER.

    IT IS A MATTER OF **FUNDAMENTAL** PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

    The classical Problem of Identity is and has been and always will be a PRIVATE PERSONAL JOURNEY.

    SOCIAL NORMS ARE FLUID.

    THERE IS NO REASON TO CODIFY SOCIAL NORMS.

    WHAT WE SHOULD CODIFY IS PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

    WHAT WE SHOULD CODIFY IS PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

    This kind of RED-HERRING petty divisive bickering ("moral outrage") is EXACTLY what our OWNERS need in order to keep the working class and poor people pitted **against** each other.


    I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,

    Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime.

    Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles (creative commons zero).  In fact, I would prefer that you don't give me "credit" and simply post any choice quotes as your own (to mitigate the genetic fallacy).  Sort of a "Creative Commons (-1)".

    +proHUMAN +proFAMILY

    Your scathing critique is requested.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,354
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @3RU7AL
    There is a physiological norm, whereby under normal function A inseminates B and perpetuates the species. Physiological aberrations that do not fit this required normality are specific but also collectively more commonplace and thereby become a separate physiological norm.

    "War" is concept and product of the mind... Whether or not we can separate mind and matter is less clear.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,420
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @zedvictor4
    There is a physiological norm, whereby under normal function A inseminates B and perpetuates the species. Physiological aberrations that do not fit this required normality are specific but also collectively more commonplace and thereby become a separate physiological norm.
    Right, in other words, just because you are unwilling or uninterested or incapable of bearing (or siring) a child shouldn't strip you of any inalienable rights.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,354
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @3RU7AL
    Well, my above statement suggests that incapability is an uncommon condition or physiological aberration. 

    Otherwise, instinctive programming renders all others interested and willing.....Though alternative modus operandi are now widely accepted as a social norm.  Outcomes in these instances, currently do not produce offspring......Laboratory farming should be regarded as a separate issue.

    I would suggest that inalienable rights in terms of instinctive programming are unstrippable, whereas conceived and established behaviour is always subject to the vagaries of society.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,420
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @zedvictor4
    Most women over the age of 50 are infertile.

    This is hardly an "uncommon condition" or "psychological aberration".
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,354
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @3RU7AL
    Not sure of your point.

    A natural age related decline in fertility and libido is what it is, and is not particularly relative to socio-conceptual  diversifications of sexuality.

    People living for more than 50 years is something of a recent evolutionary achievement anyway, and perhaps a separate issue.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,420
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @zedvictor4
    Not sure of your point.
    I was referring to this,

    ...incapability is an uncommon condition or physiological aberration. [POST#4]
    I'm suggesting that "fertility" shouldn't be the core measure of "male" and or "female" individual and or social identity.

    The state has absolutely no reason to know my "sexgender".

    The state has absolutely no reason to make up laws regarding where I can and cannot go based on my "sexgender".
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,354
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @3RU7AL
    I was merely suggesting that out of a population of 7.6 billion humans, the percentage of mature individuals that are physiologically  incapable of "normal" reproduction (male sperm producing and female egg producing) is extremely low....Other than this, I agree that how  people choose to alternatively achieve sexual gratification should be a matter for mature consenting adults to decide..... Though the very nature of society and state, will always incur moral judgement.... For example the "State" judges that paedophilia is immoral.....Solely based upon the rights of the individual, would you say that this is an unreasonable moral judgement?


  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,420
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @zedvictor4
    An appeal to atrocity is undeniably atrocious.

    Each individual (including children) should be treated as SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUALS.

    It is important to draw a bright line protecting PERSONAL PRIVACY.

    Suspected atrocity should never be carte-blanche for the state to violate PERSONAL PRIVACY.

    Any crime reported by anyone (including children) should be investigated thoroughly and seriously - without violating CIVIL RIGHTS.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,354
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    Well, atrocity is a collective decision...A social or "state" judgement that takes precedence over the rights of the individual..... Which was the point I was making.

    "The state has absolutely no reason".......I would suggest that state/ society always has good reason to consider the implications of issues that may effect it.



  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,420
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @zedvictor4
    Well, atrocity is a collective decision...
    All humans have three primal moral instincts,

    (1) PROTECT YOURSELF

    (2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

    (3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

    Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,354
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @3RU7AL
    I would disagree.

    Instinctively:
    1. Fight or flight.

    2. Survival at all cost.

    3. Property is irrelevant.

    What you promote as instinct I would regard as social expectation and materialism.

    I would suggest that real instinct is anarchy, and "moral instinct" is the expectation of "THE COMMUNITY"....It's perhaps a case of the evolution of matter over mind.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,420
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @zedvictor4
    What you promote as instinct I would regard as social expectation and materialism.
    These apply to all mammals.

    (1) PROTECT YOURSELF

    Even a squirrel will turn violent when cornered.

    (2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

    Bears, apes, wolves, rabbits will all fight to defend their young, but not always "to the death" (see rule one).

    (3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

    Lions, chipmunks, dogs and cats will all fight to defend their territory, but will usually abandon their territory to defend their young (see rule two), and will often (but not always) abandon their young to defend themselves (see rule one).

    This is summarized (not countermanded) by your rule two "Survival at all cost".  Individual survival is meaningless (from an evolutionary standpoint) if your children do not reach maturity.  And survival is impossible without access to resources (property).
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,354
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    1. In a corner is in a corner.    A squirrel will always try to run and evade if threatened.

    2. Protect if possible, though when the odds are stacked against run and try again.

    3. See rule 2.

    The survival of the adult and it's breeding potential is paramount...Abandon and try again is often the only option.

    Concept over instinct is an evolved human tendency.