Bones

I think that @Bones is missing a major aspect of this by ignoring the difference between illegal and legal immigrants. Conservatives support legal immigration because there is a test which virtually guarantees immigrants support the constitution, while illegal immigrants tend to be less integrated into US culture and lean much further to the right.  

I believe Republicans will probably continue to support lower immigration levels to further their own interests as well. Even if they are becoming more Conservative overtime, over 50% are still voting democrat.

While commonsense ground on Rittenhouse should be that he shouldn’t have gone out larping

 White privilege exists

Find women, swinging dick

I want to be clear that if this isn't an intentional strawman, this is not my view at all. My view isn't that words can't change or evolve, my view is that when we do decide to change terms, we ought to do so because the new term is better, not because it makes some people happy. 

But in any case, where you use the language in a new way, someone who thinks your use is worse could muddy the water by calling your statement "false" according to their previous definition, making it appear that you are confused about the underlying reality.

Also, your position might allow for changes in definition, but it does not seem to allow for changes in syntax or grammar, since you believe that all nouns should be definable in a particular way that you prefer.

Even if their language is "meaningless" according to your standard, that doesn't necessarily make it "wrong" - just as a lot of art would also be considered meaningless in terms of a strict semantic definition of meaning as reference to an object. Yet it functions as a legitimate vehicle for self-expression.

Autonomy? Are you denying their sense of self and desired expression?

Yes.

Also again I could make a shift then to, instead of describing age, to use species as an example. 

• Gender is the way one feels in relation to their sex 
  
• Speeses is the way in which one feels in relation to their species.  
  

Ought we now take "speeses" over "species"? Under your view, it would seem so. 

I don't know why, every time I answer this you seem to just ask the same question again, or switch to another of the three examples. You haven't actually shown what is wrong with the answers I have given.

But how we use language can obfuscates and covers truth. If we I take the terms "1+1" and redefine them so that technically, what I mean when referencing "1+1" is different to you, I'm obviously muddying the waters. 

But which truths you think should be made transparent and culturally emphasized is actually an ideological position.

But it does, because the term "women" for the entirety of linguistic history, has been grounded in biology, and redefining it without a good reason (or even a definition you can provide) is counter productive. 

Notwithstanding the edge cases and wedge issues emphasized by conservatives (e.g. being "forced" to use someone's preferred pronouns)

the trans issue really is an issue of freedom of expression.

So do you ignore the Law of Non-Contradiction? The Law of Identity?  

No, not at all. I am just not slavishly blind to it that I don't see other methods of logic.  Western logic is powerful but it is not infallible.  It falls down at different levels.  A useful tool, but not the only tool in the logic bag. 

p.1 If you are saying that they are made without sin.  Yes I would agree. 

p.2 If you are saying that it makes no sense that a human could be made even more so "without sin", then I guess that makes sense. 

p.3 You need to actually justify that assertion.   I don't accept at face value that just because someone resists temptation that this makes someone morally better. It may be true or not. It may be true sometimes and sometimes not. 

Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why?

It would be because they couldn't do what a more moral man would do, that is, resist the evil. 

Are you talking about character or something else? A quality of intelligence, culture, gender etc?  Prince Andrew might never put elbows on the table, but I wouldn't want him around my kids. Hitler was very intelligent apparently as is Trump, but both of them have significant ethical compasses. 

I'm sorry what is the point of that digression? I was making a very simple point, that is, if you are unable to resist some evil, you lack some essence that someone who could resist it possess.

the point is you have not defined evil.   

If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil?

If the reason to resist evil is justified, then the act of doing it isn't evil, so it's excluded from the conversation. 

Let me think about that.  I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here - justified. If an act is justified does that mean the act is not evil? 

Give me an example of something which is morally justified but still evil.

I didn't use the word "morally", I just said justified.   but a person could justify stealing a loaf of bread to feed her children. 

People sin for all sorts of reasons.  Sometimes it is an act out of a desire. Sometimes it is an omission out of thoughtlessness.  Desire is not the common factor. 

Ok, but would you agree that the syllogism is true if I added, on balance, in front of each statement? You would agree that most evils are a result of a desire to do something? 

no I am not in agreement.  Sin for me - is both the action and the omission. I actually think most people sin more by not doing what they should be doing as opposed to committing direct sins.  For me - the 2 commands are love God and love others.   People most often fall down loving others by failing to do stuff - not by punching them in the nose.   The Failure to something is not normally desire, but opportunity, neglect, selfish behaviour, recklessness, thoughlessness. Etc. 

Putting "on balance" in the front is not going to do it. 

I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain?  Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it. 

I can't see any benefit to why God created sin, and that is precisely the problem. 

God did not create sin.  Sin is not a thing that can be created. 

It is. Sin is a result of the actualisation of some desires. Those desires were created by God. 

No - not correct.  Sin is an action or an omission.  It is a falling short of doing the right thing.   God does not create a desire to sin.   

What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever.  The point is not about us - it is about God. 

What's the point? Well literally the eradication of all sin whilst maintaining the fruits of life? We can still praise God if we're all like Jesus. 

This is why Jesus died on the cross. To eradicate sin. 

You ignored the original point. Why can't God create everyone like he created Jesus. What harm would there be? 

In the first place - Jesus is God, so it is impossible to create God. God is eternal.

I am still missing your point here.   Of all the possible worlds, that could have been made, our world at this time, in its condition - on its way to becoming a new heaven and earth is the only one God chose to make.  God ordains the ends and the means.   Knowing this does not imply that everything that happens in our world is necessarily the best possible of all outcomes.   

You literally said "Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one"

Yes, I did.  And I hold to that.  What I am saying is that this does not mean that everything is obligatory. 

p1. God is that who can actualise any possible world. (True via tautology. God is, by definition, that who can do all that is possible [omnipotence])

p2. New Heaven is a possible world (true because you said. It's literally the end goal for humanity so it must be possible)

c1. Therefore, God could have created New Heaven, without the need for preceding worlds

Ok. so where does that leave us?

No I still think it is wrong, trans women are men, under the best, most scientific and useful definition. What you have done is essentially saying "1+1 is 15 because well under my definition of the word, it's the case". You haven't proved why the term is necessary, or how it helps.  

You are basically building into your view the idea that it's never legitimate for people to use words in a new way, to use different definitions or grammatical rules.

You say you don't support age because it obfuscates the difference between biological boys and men. That's a perfectly good critique, and I'm confused as to why you don't apply it to gender.

I don't know why you keep asking this question, because I already said that it's because children lack autonomy.

The reasons on the other side is literally to make >1% percent of the society correct. Oughtn't truth prioritize such an endeavour? 

You already agreed that it isn't an issue of truth, but about how we use language.

But I know all this. I know that Bones isn't a real name, so people who argue that it is not my given legal name are correct. I don't mind that. Bones is a different label for a different purpose. Whatever my name is, whether it Bone or Bones, does not and cannot change any objective fact about me. 

The same thing applies with biological sex. Trans women are aware that their biological sex is not female, and their preferred gender pronoun implies nothing about their biology.

I've already established why this name-gender link is fraudulent - the term "man" is a noun, and you still haven't given me a cogent definition of the term and thus your entire argument is void on that ground. 

So your problem with "trans ideology" comes down to, we shouldn't be using a noun in a way that doesn't follow the usual grammatical rules for nouns? It seems like a trivial issue to me.

> The same reason why you would make laws excluding the very small percent of pedophilles we have from being within schools.

the same reason

which is presumably, BECAUSE THEY ARE CRIMINALS AND GENERALLY CONSIDERED A DANGER TO SOCIETY

The same reason why you would make laws excluding the very small percent of pedophilles we have from being within schools.

Strangely, "being trans" is not a criminal act.

i'm not sure how much sense it makes to be "proud of" something you did not accomplish

So you would also agree then, on that note, that a 40 year old who's personal preference is that they are eight should be able to go to childcare then?  

height, weight, age, skin-tone, hair and eye color are quantifiable descriptions of a citizen that do not require a microscope and or a strip-search to determine

0.5 percent of the population identify as trans.

if this number is "too small to consider" then why bother making new laws to systematically exclude these individuals from public spaces ?

But that's the same as saying "ok I'll give a new definition of species which is made up and i'll therefore say I'm not a human". It's silly. There's no point of it. You haven't achieved anything by creating a new word. That's like me saying "God as defined as that which is me" exists. You haven't done anything meaningful. You haven't argued why your definition is good, why it is necessary, or why it helps in any way. 

But at least we have established the terms of the disagreement. We seem to agree that the statement that "trans women aren't women" or that they are "delusional" is a piece of empty rhetoric, and wrong.

Then, we agree that the debate is really about whether the changes to language proposed by trans are good for society, useful, helpful, etc. Which is different from debating whether their claims are biologically incorrect or delusional.

You say that you value the biological difference between sexes, that you don't want it obscured. That is what you value, but that needs to be weighed against the reasons on the opposite side.

One reason for the new language would be that there are a large enough minority of people who simply want to identify that way, that they prefer or enjoy it.

Imagine I said "you are lying that your name is Bones, it's because you're delusional and ashamed of your real name." Obviously, I would be ignoring the distinction between your actual name and your username. It would not make sense to make the case by saying, that your name is scientifically, legally, your real name. Your username is your chosen username, and there is nothing scientific about it other than verifying what your chosen username is. Does that make your username completely meaningless, because it has no basis in scientific or legal reality?

I agree completely.

Sure, I can't say "your gender is not women"

I'm glad you have acknowledged this because that has been my main contention from the beginning.

I don't support gender because I precisely think it would obfuscate the distinction between biological men and biological women and cause much confusion. 

I understand that is your perspective, but as you acknowledged, the claim that "it is objectively false" that trans women are women is still wrong.

If you deny this, then there is simply no point with this conversation as we hold fundamentally different values. I value what is true, what can be measurable. You value satisfying people, where "truth" is a mere compliment.  

You say that you value objective truth and logic over feelings, yet it seems like when I make an argument you reject it and revert to the same perspective, because of your underlying feeling that changing the definition of gender is wrong, vacuous or repugnant.

The statement that it is "objectively false" that trans women are women is an ideological statement of preference masquerading as a statement of objective fact.

So when someone identifies as female, they do so because they want to be connotated with some of that "baggage". What is that baggage? If it's "femininity", that doesn't do it, because I can just say, "well you can be a man who is feminine without any issues".  See, any "baggage" you stipulate will not work. Let's say, they want the visual aesthetics - this won't do it, because then you can be a man with long hair, long nails etc. Furthermore, people constantly dress as things they are not (cosplay, furries) yet understand the distinction between a costume and their identity.  

They want to, e.g. have long hair and nails, and adopt the label of "female" because they want to inhabit the social role associated with that label. This is different from the definition.

Aje ideologists created the word "aje" which is the way in which one feels in relation to their age. Age is biological, it is a part of who you are. Aje is the way I feel about sex, the way I wish to be recognised. 

In what way is this false?

If you said that you are 20 but your "aje" is 50 because you feel very old, and I said "It is objectively false that your aje is 50" I would be wrong, because aje is a constructed term that you have defined as one's feeling about their age. It's not that it's false, but I don't support the use of this constructed term because it would obfuscate the distinction between biological adults and biological children.

In the case of gender, you are the one claiming that it's objectively false, and my claim is that you would need to oppose it on the grounds of its social consequences because calling it objectively false doesn't make sense.

If I told you I identify as "gluglu", and you ask what that is, and I say "what people who identify as gluglu identify as", this would be absurd, yet it's literally exactly what you are doing. 

It would be a label that people could apply to themselves. If I said "It is false that you are gluglu and you are delusional for thinking you are gluglu," that wouldn't work because by your own definition you actually are gluglu.

Well I can just use occam's razor and just say "we have this term sex which perfectly explains our biology, and thus gender is an ontological burden and unnecessary". Just like how creating the term "aje" is unnecessary because "age" is a perfectly good concept, so to is creating gender. Gender serves no explanatory power, except to post hoc aid the gender ideologist. 

It allows us to know how trans people prefer to identify themselves.

Even if the "social consequence" were that everyone were happy, this wouldn't make it right. If killing your 2nd born child guaranteed you prosperity, there may be a benefit for doing it, but that would not mean that it is good, or an ought. 

You could make that kind of moral claim too. That's still different from saying that it's "false" which muddies the water for the entire discussion.

Why bother with "internal sense" when external science can determine whether you are male or female?

That is your opinion, and I could just as easily ask why bother with external science when people can use their internal sense to decide if they are male or female.

You are not only speaking nonconformatively, but in a vacuous way.

Whether or not you consider it vacuous,

If I said, "a cat is that which is a cat", how would you respond?

You drink water, but not bleach, even though both are liquids.

We don't need to apply the same behavior to every other example that has some superficial similarity to it.

So you admit that there is baggage with the term "female". So then it's not just a pure name like label then, because names don't carry sets of necessary or even normative actions thus the constant comparison is false.

There is a difference between the definition, and all the connotations which a concept has. In any case, someone identifies as female because of some of that "baggage," but we can't pin down exactly what the criteria for that are because it might be different in each case.

Well gender is purely one's relationship to their sex, and aje is also defined as such so any problem you have is a problem with gender. The models are identical.

Two things are not identical just because they share one feature in common. I sleep on a bed, but I don't sleep on the floor, even though they are both flat surfaces. I eat chicken, but I don't each bugs and insects, even though they are both animals. We can treat gender as a self-elected label, but not age, even though they are both words.

• Aje ideologists created the word "aje" which is the way in which one feels in relation to their age. Age is biological, it is a part of who you are. Aje is the way I feel about sex, the way I wish to be recognised. 
  

Perhaps my use of the term "essense" is short sighted, but what I mean by it is what is objectively true, that is, outside of one's self perceptions, what is really the case. Using "thought" or "self identification" is quite a bad way to go about finding the objectively true - people with apotemnophilia wish to cut of their limbs, yet I think the most ethical action to take isn't to give them a saw, but rather to show them that they are wrong.

That is based on your definition of gender.

In their definition,  it is true that a trans male does identify as male. Even if you consider it "vacuous" that is also different from being false.

Even if you view the trans movement as removing all meaning from the terms "female" and "male" and using a bunch of vacuous terminology to refer to each other, there is nothing objectively false or even logically inconsistent about that.

Your objection would need to be about its social consequences, not its internal consistency or objective truth.

I'm fine with all of the definitions proposed so I'm not sure what you are talking about here. 

I was referring to 1.b: having a gender identity that is the opposite of female.

• : a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female
  

If someone speaks in a way that doesn't follow the conventional rules of grammar, to call their statement "false" on those grounds is actually itself grammatically and logically incorrect. There is a difference between a false statement and a sentence with an unconventional grammatical structure.

What male refers to is a person who identifies as male.

 It doesn't seem like just a label, it seems like there is some further model, some definition which they are attempting to be.

Yes, because whatever reason, they identify with the label "female" and also with other things associated with the label.

I also wish to ask again, can I create the term "aje" which refers to one's relation to their age and identify as it? Do you not see how the term "aje", such an obscure concept created for the benefit of those delusional, would be much better off replaced by the term "age"? Why ought we change our vocabulary for the peculiar <%1? Age works - it may not work for some certain individuals, but it works on balance. 

I don't believe such a usage would be popular

as I mentioned, because of the ethical problems with blurring the line between child and adult.

I also think age relates to personal expression and identity in a fundamentally different way from gender.

I think you've seen that there is no definition of "man" which works in your favour, so you've just said that definitions aren't necessary. Your argument can be used to justify the abolition of any objective standard which we have - I can say "well there's no definition of age so it must be like the word the". Obviously, since we do have a definition for age, just like how we have a definition for sex, why ought we not just use them instead of acting oblivious? 

The progressive side can be seen as proposing a change to our use of language - although in fact, we could say that they have already succeeded because the actual dictionaries and encyclopedias now reflect my understanding and not yours.

gender identity, an individual’s self-conception as a man or woman or as a boy or girl or as some combination of man/boy and woman/girl or as someone fluctuating between man/boy and woman/girl or as someone outside those categories altogether.

Your other objection, that it is "circular," does not invalidate the definition either, because as I have described there are many parts of language with such "circular" definitions that still function and make sense.

As for what people are identifying with when they change their gender, I would again make the comparison to names. Someone can change their name from "James" to "David" and their reason for that is whatever psychological motivation they had for doing so.

Okay so if we consider pronouns as names, this brings a whole plethora of problems. Consider the name David" - I'm sure any Davids connection with their name is one of pure nostalgia - were all the Davis in the world to have been born "Jim", they wouldn't likely be saying "Damn I wish my name was David". You may refute this by saying "well why do people change their names? What is the reason? To which I will say that one changes their name because they like the ideas that the name resonates - whether it be for the etymology or purely phonetic appeal, they change their name because they like the properties of the new name. 

I agree that there is reason behind it

As I previously mentioned, I think words like the or and are good examples, since we all agree that they are useful, yet they are incapable of the kind of definition you are talking about, the definitions provided in dictionaries are simply grammatical descriptors of their use in language; e.g. the is defined as, "denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge."

Like you say, we might choose a name because of the way that this name resonates, and this resonance may provide the meaning which causes us to choose one label over another, but this resonance does not constitute a direct definition. Therefore, if we are asking about the resonance of the term man, we are asking about its cultural instantiations, its historical meaning, its context and the connotations it has.

I agree - there is absolutely no way the law should be able to compel you to certain speech, especially if the speech is demonstrably false. 

which means you agree that nobody should be forced to call themselves "male" or "female" based on anything except their personal preference

You have distinct preference of Extraversion over Introversion (75%) You have slight preference of Intuition over Sensing (20%) You have moderate preference of Thinking over Feeling (50%) You have slight preference of Judging over Perceiving (12%)

I think Jordan Peterson said he's willing to use someone's pronoun if asked, but is heavily against the refusal to do so being lawfully made a hate crime.

Male, or man, would in this sense be a gendered term used to refer to those who choose that label. 

• A man is that who refers to that label. 
  
• The label in question is man. 
  
• A man is therefore a man. 
  

I'm sure you cannot provide a definition of "Bones" that makes it "meaningful" that I refer to you by this name. It is simply the term which you have elected and there is a given understanding that others will refer to you under this name. It is a sort of contract of understanding between the two parties to use language that way.

- An adult person who was born male and identifies as male.

- A shorthand for "trans man" - an adult person who was not born male but identifies as male.

The term "man" would now have two uses:

- An adult person who was born male and identifies as male.

- A shorthand for "trans man" - an adult person who was not born male but identifies as male.

• An adult person who was born male
  
• An adult person who was not born male (A shorthand for "trans man")
  

Now it seems like your primary issue is that this would split the term into more than one possible use, or that it is different from how the language was previously used. I don't really understand what the problem is with that. 

For example, we could construct a totally arbitrary language game in which we refer to "oranges" as "apples" and vice versa. As long as we both agree on the terminology and the reality underlying it, there is no distortion of reality involved. If you ask me to pass you the orange then I would pass you the object we would otherwise refer to as an apple. To say that we "think apples are literally oranges" would be confused, and a falsehood.

My worldview can easily define what a man is - that is, a plethora of biological complexions, however, your position would be hard pressed to form a cogent definition of a man. I throw the question to you. 

I don't view definitions as preceding the use of words in some essentialist way. A definition is simply a summary that allows us to understand how a word is used, and at times our use of words might conflict with the definitions provided by dictionaries, there is nothing inherently wrong about that.

Trans women (for example) are not claiming to "really" be "literal" women, or at least do not need to.

In fact, the conservative side is that men taking on social roles previously reserved for women, and asking for this concession in the use of language, is somehow a degenerate or anti-social behavior which should be culturally penalized and discouraged or at least marginalized through indirect means.

Bu this is only because society has not reached a point in which race, age and species are intimate aspects of self-expression. Are you suggesting that, were people to reach that stage, it would be correct to then base the identity of people purely on how they feel?  

I don't think this would be acceptable in the case of age or species because of the mentioned links they have to autonomy, e.g. the obvious ethical issues that would arise from allowing adults to identify as children or vice versa.

 The question is what you mean by "actual men" as I described the problems I have with this above. 

Arguing over whether God exists is stupid. 

People can already identify culturally with the ethnic or social aspects of another race, but it is not as directly personal to that individual as their gender is - for example, as part of language via pronouns, but also in terms of sex, relationships and so on. Race is not so much a function of one's personal expression, identity, or sexual life so much as their social surroundings, heritage and location.

Regarding sex/gender, you clearly believe that we ought identify people in regards to how they feel i.e, gender. To maintain consistency, would you apply this standard to race? Or age? Or species? It seems much more rational to simply adopt the already scientifically scrutinised and observable standard which we have, sex, instead of this “feelings” notion. 

I don't hold that we should defer to whatever arbitrary linguistic construct people propose. However, because people's gender is so intimate and individual, I deem it as a reasonable request that they can choose how they are referred to. Race, age or species are not so much intimate aspects of an individual's self-expression

Also, I would not even specify that they should need to "feel" like that gender or dress in any particular way in order to make the request, so long as their request is reasonable. For example, I don't view it as reasonable to expect everyone to put their pronouns in their bio, or for everyone to ask each other's pronouns on first meeting, because it is too much an imposition on what is already habituated. However, if someone actively makes a reasonable request, or makes it clear after being misgendered what their preferred pronoun is, then I think it is unreasonable or impolite for the other person in question to refuse the request.

As I said, the same people saying trans people get to play their gender, wouldn't let furries genuinely play out their animal persona.

I agree with you but from the opposite side; I'm actually for the freedom and fantasy as long as we admit it's a fantasy.

There is a reason race is seen differently from gender. Race has a relationship to one's genealogy, so that one's race is directly related to the race of their parents. Gender is much more related to the individual identity of that person, and gender has an intimate relationship to one's self-expression and sexual life.

how is "untruth" (aka OPINION) "your problem" ?

It's not western logic - logic is logic. Either 

• you author your actions. 
  
• you don't. 
  

There's no third option, it's a true dichotomy rendered valid by the law of excluded middle.  

Yes. Western Logic.  I am surprised you are rejecting Eastern logic.   I don't have to and I am not going to. 

I don't agree that to accept p1 you must also accept p2. 

Well I don't know how to explain it then. If something is good, suggests that being "gooder" is logically incoherent, for if something "gooder" were possible, then that "gooder" would be the standard for good. 

Use a different word then. gooder is not an English word anyway.  good better best.  something that can good but not gooder.  but it can be better. 

Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why?

It would be because they couldn't do what a more moral man would do, that is, resist the evil. 

Are you talking about character or something else? A quality of intelligence, culture, gender etc?  Prince Andrew might never put elbows on the table, but I wouldn't want him around my kids. Hitler was very intelligent apparently as is Trump, but both of them have significant ethical compasses. 

If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil?

If the reason to resist evil is justified, then the act of doing it isn't evil, so it's excluded from the conversation. 

Let me think about that.  I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here - justified. If an act is justified does that mean the act is not evil? 

God does not create sinning people. God created  people without sin.  People sinned.

p1. People sin because they possess a desire to sin. 

p2. Desires are manifested from the brain. 

p3. God created brains. 

c1. God created people's desire to sin

People sin for all sorts of reasons.  Sometimes it is an act out of a desire. Sometimes it is an omission out of thoughtlessness.  Desire is not the common factor. 

I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain?  Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it. 

I can't see any benefit to why God created sin, and that is precisely the problem. 

God did not create sin.  Sin is not a thing that can be created. 

What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever.  The point is not about us - it is about God. 

What's the point? Well literally the eradication of all sin whilst maintaining the fruits of life? We can still praise God if we're all like Jesus. 

This is why Jesus died on the cross. To eradicate sin. 

I'm sure I have answered that question.  I take the view that murder is morally unacceptable.  The 6th commandment is you shall not murder.   Hence it is neither acceptable or obligatory. 

But God created a world in which, as you stated, is the best possible world, which entails that every occurence is also the best possible of all outcomes. 

I am still missing your point here.   Of all the possible worlds, that could have been made, our world at this time, in its condition - on its way to becoming a new heaven and earth is the only one God chose to make.  God ordains the ends and the means.   Knowing this does not imply that everything that happens in our world is necessarily the best possible of all outcomes.   

would you have preferred that God simply made us robots without a free will and just to do perfect.  The problem with robots is that they can't love freely. 

There is NO WAY you're using the free will defence to defend sins. The entire point of my argument is that we can be sinless and free at the same time. You can still love freely even if you don't possess the desire to sin. 

I know what your argument is - or well I am trying to understand it. I don't agree with it so far.   The New Heaven is the only place where we will be sinless and free at the same time. \

No, simply asking them to self-identify would be polite.

Demanding an answer would be rude.

Why on earth would you care if someone said they were "black" or not ?

Experts on race relations agree that up until very recently, and to some extent even today, white America held to the “one-drop” rule: if you had one drop of black blood in you — any detectable African ancestry at all — you were black. [**]

What you hold to is a tautological impossibility. It's a dichotomy to maintain either my will is authored by myself, or a result of past causes. 

Only if I wish to maintain a distinct cultural Western view of logic.

I accept the fact that we can only know God based on insufficient reasoning. Hence why I am pleased God chose to reveal himself through the Scriptures. 

Your conclusion that god revealed himself through Scripture is based on insufficient reasoning. How do you know it's the right scripture? And even if it were right, the "rightness" would only conform to 0.05% of all possible knowledge. 

It's based on as much information as we use ordinarily for most books of history and their authencity. 

p1. Humans were made good. 

p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made any "gooder". 

p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "gooder" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 

p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)

c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "gooder" human that could exist. 

Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 

I am fine with p1.  I think that p2 is flawed since both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil existed.

It's not possible to affirm only one of p1 or p2. Being made good in this context necessarily entails that one couldn't be any better, for if it were conceivable, then the conception itself would have been what God create. Either God created ultimately moral people or he did not. 

I don't agree that to accept p1 you must also accept p2. 

Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why?

If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil?

c1 again is probably true - but not necessarily flowing out of the above conclusions. 

If he could, then what benefit does creating these sinning people.

God does not create sinning people. God created  people without sin.  People sinned.

I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain?  Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it. 

Jesus, who Christians consider a new thing - like Adam, was also tempted from without.  the devil came to him and despite the thoughts being put to him - Jesus rightly rejected them all. 

So if Jesus was a "free" man who rejected all sin, why couldn't God make people like Jesus? That would be a true utopia - free will individual who chose only to do what is good.

He did make a person like Jesus. 

My question isn't whether he made a couple people like Jesus, but rather why didn't he create the population as he did Jesus? What is the point of all these sinning people? We have established that "free will" is not a defence for sin, so what's the point?

What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever.  The point is not about us - it is about God. 

So gratuitous evils, such as animal suffering in the billions, serves some good to the future? This seems wholly implausible. 

That is not what I said. God is not utilitarian. The means and the ends matter.  The point I was making is that whatever world you can imagine, it would not be better than this one for the purposes it was made. 

If our world is the best possible world, then would you agree that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory? If we live in the best possible world, and in this world there are street mugging and whatnot, then the street muggings and whatnot must be apart of what makes this the best possible world. WIthout the muggings, it would not be as good. 

As I said above - I hold this in tension.  Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one.

So then you would affirm that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory. 

I'm sure I have answered that question.  I take the view that murder is morally unacceptable.  The 6th commandment is you shall not murder.   Hence it is neither acceptable or obligatory. 

But on the other hand - every human is entirely responsible for their actions. 

This entails free will then - people are the authors of their own actions. 

Yes. 

So why not skip our world and create New Heaven? 

Just because someone wants to skip school because it contains bullies, does not mean that school is not the best option. 

But if the option of skipping school involved you being transferred into heaven, which is supposed to have all the "goods" of this world and much more, then yes I would take that option for there would tautologically be no harm in doing so. 

God has not given us that option.   I suppose he wanted us to learn something about good from the evil we witness.

God could have instilled that wisdom into our minds, just as how he intils intuition. 

would you have preferred that God simply made us robots without a free will and just to do perfect.  The problem with robots is that they can't love freely.