Total posts: 76
1. No
2. Yes
Created:
-->
@oromagi
define CORRECT CROWD
Intellectually oriented.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
A separate CONSPIRACY THEORIES topic encourages discussion under that topic, inspires new posts, and spreads out traffic out to improve front page visibility.
That is not a good thing. Advertising is good, but you want to advertise to the correct crowd.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Probably so but the same could be said of existing topics
This is true, but I was just pointing out that it is already possible to discuss conspiracy theories so the status quo solves.
I'm guessing you're new here
Your point? I think you are trying to challenge the inherency of it because there are already some here, but it could still get much worse.
Created:
There is no such thing as a conspiracy in a vaccum. I feel like any conspiracy you could think of would already be covered by another topic. Also, if there were to be an explicit conspiracy theory section, I doubt this would attract debate about legitimate or plausible conspiricies, and is more likely to attract the tin foil hat nut-bars that are unlikely to add any value to the site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
when society is dictating that even passports and official IDs need to use the term gender when meaning sex and then conform M or F (not M vs W for adults or B vs G for underage) then we really are in an age of bullshit.
Right on
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The health concerns are false. In order for a religious concern to be valid, one needs to cite where their holy book says to refuse vaccinations. If this happens, I would support a vaccine opt out for such a person.
It is impossible to say the health concerns are false for all vaccines? I disagree that people need to cite a 'holy' book. In Christianity for example, the bible is just a set of inspired texts written by human, but there are most certainly other inspired texts and thoughts.
That’s what the CDC does.
Which is a serious problem. Anthony Fauci should not be the most powerful politician in the country because he is an unelected bureaucrat who has proven willing to lie to the public. For example, there is proof that he intentionally lied about the efficacy of masks.
I’m fine with vaccine mandates being up to the county. But if you end up hospitalized due to COVID and you aren’t vaccinated, no treatment for you; that would be socialism.
Why should we deny treatment to anyone based on vaccine status? Doctors are not even allowed to do this for several reasons, including the hippocratic oath. How is that socialism? Socialism is an economic system that is completely unrelated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Black beans have plenty of protein.
Yes, I was wrong about the protein claim specifically:
I was wrong about the protein deficiency because apparently beans do have enough protein, but it still isn't a good idea for many other reasons.
Consider the following scanareao: Let’s say a parent wanted to feed their child hydrogen peroxide. They claimed it was their kid, their choice. Would we let them? No; children need to be protected and the right of one parent to feed their child something poisonous is smaller than the right of the child to live. Children need protection, and that includes with vaccine mandates. It’s just precedent to vaccinate kids against disease.
The difference is between actively "protecting" someone and actively harming them. Ovbiously we should not allow anyone to poison anyone else, but other concerns can arise when talking about vaccines. There may be health or religious concerns. Furthermore, the government has no right to define the truth and as such should not be allowed to say that a vaccine "protects" someone when that is not the consensus among the people. Even if a decent majority suport something that does not mean that the government should pass a law on it either because the federal government should try to protect the rights of the minority (this is why federalism exists, so laws can be passed locally with out infringing on the minority of those who do not like something) With poison 99.9% of people would be in favor of banning parents from killing their kids, but this is simply not the case for a vaccine. Maybe there is an argument for local mandates, but a federal mandate on vaccines of any kind is tyranny. My body, my choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I was wrong about the protein deficiency because apparently beans do have enough protein, but it still isn't a good idea for many other reasons.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
other religions have been scientifically disproven, while others hold many harmful views.please elaborate
Sure, for example as I have pointed out the Aztecs had harmful views of sacrifice. Some estimates say over 50,000 were sacrificed in the most brutal ways you could think of some of which I have listed such as heart extraction. This religion has also been disproven overtime as its predictions have not come to pass.
With other religions it is more about evaluation of values, for example I think that Islam tends to encourage many poor values.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
More non-Christians than Christians on earth...but that doesn't answer the question. How did you become a Christian?
Reading the bible introduced me to Christianity, and also the fact that I live in a western country means that I was exposed to it from early on. After evaluating religion, that is where I landed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Rice and beans are healthier than beef burgers.
Disagree, protein deficiency is very serious.
People that can pay their own way shouldn’t be told what to do by the government unless they intend to harm others. But people that cannot pay their own way need to be regulated to make their lives cheaper to fund. You can opt out of regulations if you agree to not get a government subsidy for your existence.
This was about children, not about freeloaders.
Your not going to discourage a lot of people from joining the military. The military obeys orders and Soliders aren’t ideologue. They do what they are told. It’s like saying we aren’t going to mandate push-ups for the military because it would discourage people from joining.
People will not join the military if they think they are going to be injected with a drug they have moral objection too. I think that around 5% of the Marine Corps refused the Covid shot, but this does not even take into account those who decided not to join. It is a lot easier to simply not join and go and do something else than to quit your job.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Rice and beans are cheap.
Then it is unhealthier.
Old people can usually make their own decisions unless they have alztimers.
Many in the government do, but my point was more just that we should not trust the government to make good choices.
What’s the difference? Soliders being vaccinated against every disease that has a vaccination is precedent.
Some are more controversial, and also protect against less serious diseases. We do not want to discourage people from participation in the military.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Okay, you've come totally unraveled and I don't think you're very serious about this topic. Everything else past this point is frothing at the mouth and nonsense in the real world.
Martin Luther invented our modern day education systemto train children for factories. In this day and age nothing good has come of elementary school. It teaches children to listen to authority without any question, and it deprives children of actualy learning. Furthermore, the idea that the government should be in charge of teaching children is what is actually insane. Again it is a circular power structure.
Can you tell me how you came by your religion?
First off, in the modern day it is clear that Christianity is the most realistic religion that adheres to the best set of values. Many other religions have been scientifically disprooven, while others hold many harmful views. Beyond this, I think that the historical evidence is very supportive of Christianity.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
are you aware that the KKK are devout christians ?
Yes. Have you ever heard of the social gospel movement?
It is more about determining the truth,which is a pretty strange position when you're trying to defend a religion that categorically excludes all other religions
How so? One relgion has to be true.
the aztec's were very religious
Yes, this was my point. It is important to look at the values/truth of different religions, and they can not all be grouped together.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Should elementary school children have learning materials that demonstrate acceptance of transgender people as just people, free from stigma?
Elementary school should not exist in the first place. It is beyond cruel to force little children to sit and listen to the hegemon at the front of the classroom all day. In reality, elementary school is a corrupt wing of the government to serve as an indoctrination camp. School teaches conformity above all else, so does it really matter if they are teaching transgenderism. The government has no place to weigh in on politics because this creates a circular power structure,
Public elementary schools should not teach transgenderism, or the acceptence of transgenderism. If it is a private school they can do whatever they want, but they should not teach acceptance of transgenderism beucase this is essentially child abuse as it has largely been prooven that transgenderism spreads as a social contagion, so it is very likely that many of those children will end up mutilating themselves or getting cancer from hormones later on in life. This is not fair to children who are not wise enough to understand gender yet, and who will likely go along with anything they are told.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
This isn't about logical validity, it's about respecting fellow human beings as human beings and allowing them to live a dignified life.To that end, it's not for society to tell them what genders they get to choose from, it's about them telling us about their struggles and how they identify as a result. For the rest of us, our only part is deciding whether to respect it or not.
Well, in that case I choose not to respect the new identity because I belive the claim is illogical because if gender is a social construct, it follows that the only valid genders are those which have been socially constructed.
Also, I think that according to mainstream gender ideology it is most certainly society that determines gender as I point out. I could not just say I was a women because I am a man and nobody would take me seriously becasue of societal standards.
This isn't about logical validity, it's about respecting fellow human beings as human beings and allowing them to live a dignified life.
I do not think that letting someone live in a delusion is dignified. If transgenderism is valid then there is no problem, but if it is invalid wouldn't it be cruel to encourage people to live and even mutliate themselves in pursuit of obtaining a gender that does not even exist.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
1. Violence rates in countris by religion
I do not think that this really proves anything because religion is individual. In terms of violence, this can vary based on many factors including the different religion that some countries may tend to adhere to. In general with all things being equal, individual people who are religious tend to be less violent.
2. What does transgenderism matter to someone who is not
This has nothing to do with theocracy or laws, and I have not advocated for the creation of any laws on this. It is more about determining the truth, and determining what society should value.
3. Aztec sacrifices were bad
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I think that view is at least logically consistent, and is in fact the solution to the social construct issue. Really that only leaves the question if there should be sex based roles rather than whatever "gender based roles" are. This is a much harder question because you can not simply change you sex, so we either have to accept that people should be able to act however they would like, or we have to come to accept some level of societal conformity based on sex (which is essentially just gender that can not be changed I suppose).
I believe that legally people should be able to do whatever they would like, however I am not sure that getting rid of all societal sex-based roles is a great idea on a cultural level. The family is the most basic unit of society, and is responsible for creating and raising children. Other systems that have attempted this have failed. Without any concept of gender I do not see how a family is really possible in the traditional sense, and I think this could lead to devastating consequences.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
1. Contradiction
A 6’ 2” guy with a mustache and giant muscles is not a woman according to the left not because of his physical (biological) attributes, but because of his cultural presentation. Women do not grow a mustache. The gender identification itself is not based on biological traits, but the perception of a person including their biological traits.
2. Spectrum
Even if the social construct argument were true, I do not think that the spectrum argument makes very much sense. The spectrum argument assumes that gender is based on masculinity/femininity. The problem with this is that there are very masculine woman, and feminine men that obviously would not qualify as trans. Take a tomboy for example.
Gender is also not a numerical concept where someone is a percent of a certain gender. You have a gender. Either male, female, or possibly non-binary. Each of these are distinct things, and assuming non-binary is a valid gender, a non-binary person would be no more a woman than a man.
Created:
citation please
If you are not religious what does it matter if someone belives in relgion to you.If you are not LGBTQ+ what does it matter if someone believes in LGBTQ+ to you.
Well I am religious. But that is probably the short and easy answer.
Religion is an essential part of society, not that there have never been any harms, but overally relgion tends to increase societal cohesion and decrease crime. Transgenderism is an individual phenomenon where people tend to actively harm themselves. It is also probably not fair to say all religions are important to society and any more valid than transgederism.
For example in ancient aztec civilization sacrifice was a common problem. Humans were put to death not only by excision of the heart followed by decapitation) but also by decapitation ( followed by heart extraction), having the throat cut, being thrown into fire followed by heart extraction), being scratched, followed by heart extraction and flaying being shot with arrows followed by heart extraction), drowning. being buried alive, and being hurled down from the top of a pole or a pyramid. bludgeon strokes, stoning, impaling, tearing out the entrails, having the roof of a house falling down on victims, and squeezing them in a net.
I would not be in favor of the Aztec religion in the same way that I am not in favor of transgenderism because of the practices and values that it condones. I would not be in favor of Christian practices that do similar things to the Aztec festivals or to modern day trans-gender ideology, but I do support it becuase Christianity has different core values and practices.
a pronoun is a placeholder for YOUR NAMEthey are the same thing
Yes, and it is a place holder for your name no matter what your name is. It is possible to have a name that is inherently wrong as well. For example, a woman named James. This is because even though the name itself is abitrary, there are 3 sets of names which are not arbitrary. Male, Female, and neutral names.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If the government is paying for your health insurance I’d mandate veganism.
That would be way too expensive.
2)Children; it is precedent and children don’t have agency.
Children absolutely have agency. They have a functioning cortex, and they are human. 18 is a completely arbitrary number, why should the government be able to force the vaccine on a 16 or 17 year old, but not a 20 year old?
If a child is so young and stupid that they can not make desicions for themselves, we should just let those in the government who are so old that they are also so stupid they cannot make decisions for themselves, make desiscions for the children? It is not the role of the government to parent a child, it is the role of parents.
1)Soliders. Soliders have to be in good health. I would equate this with a mandate to do 50 push-ups a day.
This seems unfair to those who are already serving the country, and realisticly this would just drive down military participation. I understand the argument if it is a smallpox vaccine in war time, but if it is a flu shot in peace time it seems like a very bad idea.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
are you suggesting that "moon-beam" is a ridiculous sounding legal name because it is (somehow) "inherently wrong" ?
No, that is something that is etymologically wrong. I am not sure what your point is here, it is entirely possible to change your name and it always has been because your name is completly abitrary (other the limits of any given language).
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
The vast majority of gender identity either stem from abuse or the new culture of 'acceptance'.Is there data backing up this claim? Also, 'acceptance' is what freedom requires.
Yes, the dsm gives an estimate around 0.005% I belive to gender dysphoria. I am not entirely sure what you mean by "acceptance is what freedom requires". It seems like freedom would allow me to disapprove of whatever I like.
Can you explain why they are whatever gender they were born with to, let's say, a 9 year old boy who feels more like his feminine classmates than his masculine ones? "You are not what you claim to be, rather you are a member of the male gender BECAUSE _______."
"You are not what you claim to be, rather you are a member of the male gender BECAUSE you are a biological male. Gender has nothing to do with how masculine or feminine you are. There are masculine woman, and feminine men. This does not mean that your gender has changed."
3. Transgenderism has always been there and we just see it now because of greater acceptance.
I seriously doubt this claim becuase "transphobia" has not always been a thing. Fifteen years agon 99% of the population would not have even known what transgenderism was, and as such there was no movement against it. Yet, fifteen years ago nobodty was coming out as transgender. Furthermore, multiple studies have shown that transgenderism primarly spreads as a social contagion (which would of course be true if it were true that gender was just a social construct as well). Here is one: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202330
How does it affect YOU, the person who doesn't want to use the pronouns, though? I mean besides you're worried someone thinks you're a dick for not doing something so simple (aka backlash).
Yes the backlash is a concern as I do not want to be percieved as "a dick for not doing something so simple," but I also want to maintain credibility with the non-woke crowd plus I would rather not be cancled for speaking the truth. Beyond this, my main concern is not about myself, but about the rest of society and the future generations that will be more affected.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
ok, so no more images of movie stars with fake bodies [**]
Ovbiously this is less harmful than actual mutliation, but it is certainly unhealthy and I do not think that we should encourage cosmetic body modification either.'
there are a few that strongly encourage circumcision
First, circumcision is ritualistic and as such has an actual pourpose. Beyond this, it has many scientific benefits as well.
um, have you looked at crime rates for populations of "religious people" versus "non-religious people" ?and how exactly do you expect to determine the "truth value" of unfalsifiable claims ?
I have, and from the rates I have seen relgious people tend to be less violent than non-religious people.
As for the truth value, this really only matters if you are relgious yourself. If you are not religious what does it matter if someone belives in relgion to you. It is not like they are being drawn away from some other god that does not exist according to those who do not belive in religion.
I would also contest that relgions are unfalsifiable. Look at greek, roman, or egyption mythology all religions that at one point were taken seriously but were prooven to be impossible. Christianity also makes many claims, and yet it has not been prooven false. For example, Christianity makes many historical claims about Jesus that could be disprooven quite easily if they were untrue, but the bible is regarded as the most historically acurate book by most historians.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I don't think "inherently wrong" is the same as "make you sound ridiculous." What happens, effectively, if you use one of these pronouns at someone's request? What's the public reaction if you did it in a Starbucks, for example? I guess I don't understand what the 'backlash' for using them is. Can you explain further, with like specific examples?
The reason that it makes you sound ridiculous is because it is inherently wrong. The vast majority in most areas do not buy into this ideology, and they will not take you seriously if you use zee as a pronoun. There is backlash either way, if you use them people will not take you seriously, but if you do not the woke will call you a bigot.
What about the people who genuinely want to pursue their happiness without conforming to birth gender, who then live in the shadows, hide those instincts, then end up in years of therapy, on all sorts of pharmaceuticals, etc., plus all the other effects on lives like depression, suicides, families estranging their own, etc.?
This really depends on how we define gender. With the identify as whatever you would like argument, your physical biology should not even matter in the first place as long as you call yourself whatever gender you want to be. With the physical sex argument, you can not actually change your gender at all. With the social construct argument, you do not pick your own gender and their is no point in trying to influence your own gender beyond convicing others that you are part of that gender which does not solve the mental health concerns because it relies on the rest of society buying in to the new identity which in many cases does not even exist as a social concept. Any way you cut it, mutliation is not the answer.
The vast majority of gender identity either stem from abuse or the new culture of 'acceptance'. The former can ussually be solved through therapy and addressing the root cause of the trauma, but simply endulging the new identity is not healthy because it traps the victim with their coping mechanism. As for the latter, it is usually solved very quickly by contradicting the person and explaining why they are whatever gender they were born with.
Actual gender dysphoria is extremely rare, but can be solved with psychiatric treatments. This is similar to xenomelia (wanting to cut ones own limbs off). We should not simply go along with xenomelia, and cut off arms and legs whenever someone would like. It is more important to tell that person the truth that it is wrong to cut off your own legs and arms.
I still don't see how it affects anyone but the person who's using the pronouns.
Ovbiously it does affect the person using the pronouns, but it is not healthy to use the pronouns for them either. It 'affirms' their identity and prevents actual care that would help them, but it changes the entire culture as well. This is why the predominance of transgenderism has increased 100 fold in the 21st century, especially in young children.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
are you in favor of restricting all elective body-modifications ?
I am not in favor of restricting any body modifications, but I do not think we should be encouraging it. If some random guy wants to inject himself with CRISPR, that is probably not a good thing. If some guy wants to cut off his organs I can't stop him, but I also would not encourage it. Doctors also take the hippocratic oath meaning they are not supposed to hurt people, so they probably should not preform a transgender surgery either.
are these pronouns more dangerous than teaching children religion ?
It depends on the religion. Is the religion true, does it have good values, or does it teach children to mutilate themselves?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I think there are several reasons that it is important.
It is inherently wrong to use pronouns like zee, ziz, tee, and ter. These make you sound ridiculous, and saying words like that will actually discredit you in the public. You most certainly should not be forced to use improper pronouns that you and others think are wrong simply because of fear from backlash.
Etymology and rhetoric are also important. The words we use have effects on our beliefs. More importantly, they have an effect on the beliefs of little children and ultimately the new generation. This say it even though you don't believe it thing might work for those born before gender ideology took hold, but by the time those who grew up with it will actually buy into it. The effect of it is having more people who are trans, and as such more people who are going on hormones and even mutilating themselves. This is not good for them, but by using the wrong pronouns it affirms and encourages it.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
How do you explain Robert Crimo III ?
Sorry, I am not sure what this is reffering to. Who is Robert Crimo?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am not sure looks are to do with gender at all and resent the hormones and genital disfigurement going on. I completely support crossdressing and being true to who one is deep down, whether their masculinity or femininity matches their sex's norm.
I agree with you that looks have nothing to do with gender, and here I was just trying to examine the logical conclusion of the social construct theory. My beleif is similar to yours in the sense that I do not belive you can change your sex, but that it is possible to become more feminine/masculine.
Created:
The main claim put forth by those in favor of accepting an infinite amount of genders is that gender is simply a social construct, so therefore there are an infinite amount of genders. This claim seems illogical because if gender is a social construct, it follows that the only valid genders are those which have been socially constructed.
The only genders which seem to be accepted by society are men and women, and at this point it might also be correct to include non-binary in that list. By this logic, the only pronouns that are valid are: he/she/they.
Furthermore, if gender is a social contract this means that you do not simply get to pick and choose your own gender. Society deems what gender you are because gender is a social construct in the first place. I do not think many would admit this, but I think that this is how most people who accept trans-genderism as a concept actually operate. Trans-people who look like the gender they claim to be are believed by many to be that gender, but no one believes a 6’ 2” guy with a mustache and giant muscles is actually a woman even if he says he is.
This is also proven by the fact that to be accepted as trans by even the left wing, people must first change the way they dress, go on to hormones, and are even encouraged to get a “gender affirming” surgery when gender apparently has nothing to do with physical attributes, but it clearly does because the social construct of gender draws from customs and physical sex. With the understanding that gender is a social construct, a man must be masculine, a woman must be feminine, and if non-binary is a socially acceptable identity they must have a certain level of androgynity to be non-binary.
This is what the social construct argument actually says, but it seems like many on the left have drawn conclusions from this argument that are illogical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
You think there will be a french style revolution if progressives win at the voting booth?
No, but new systems will replace old systems. It is like how the 1619 project tried to replace the narrative of the founding for example.
That’s true, but not when Democrats gain power.
It is absolutely true when democrats gain power. Their legislative agendas are far more effective than Republicans.
The confederate flag is the more telling part where many Americans stand on issues. And they’ll vote on them.
I do not agree that the confederate flag is used to stand for racism. I would not fly it my south, but I do legitimately belive that most simply fly it due to tradition.
It’s more effective than being taught abstinence-only.
I disagree. It cannot be more effective in the long term. After just 3 years of use there is a 50/50 chance.
Of the people who listen to abstinence only, they are not going to have sex.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
1. I agree, it is just more likely that you will convince people in the crowd.
2. Mexican's Voting
It will be overhauled in the same way that any system is overhauled. Progressives replace it with an alternative, before preceding to tear the alternative down and so on...
This happened in the french revolution for example.
Didn’t you say the left are defined as progressive? Just call them Democrats.
The left-wing is naturally progressive as it is in opposition to the conservative right.
I do not actually think that video shows racism, at least not in a serious capacity. It honestly looked like the guy just did not want to answer what he saw as a bait question. Even if that one person is racist, he does not constitute a serious threat. I mean, he is not even willing to say it if he is a racist because he knows how unpopular that would be.
3. Commonalities
Abstinence education surely works on some, and birth control is not effective in the long term. This is because it has a failure rate of around 5%. Those are pretty bad odds if someone is regularly having sex.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
1. I think we generally agree here. I am just saying the point in public debates is to proove that you are correct and convince others more than your opponenet.
2. Mexican’s Voting
I do not think the Conservatism that I am describing is dead in any sense. It is not that nothing can never change, but that our core systems and culture should be preserved rather than overhauled. This is a belief shared by the vast majority of Americans.
Federal legislative power is exclusively controlled by the left currently. It is true that at the state level the GOP has power in red states.
Division exists, but I think that very little or no racial division exists. There are quite frankly not enough racists in America to make this a serious problem, and people are starting to loose interest. I am sure that there is still a fair amount of alleged racism, but most of this is simply not racism. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who openly admitted they hated black people, or any other race for that matter. I am not sure what bigotry you are reffering to.
3. Commonalities
I agree that there should be more research, but my point was more just that logically abstinence has to be taught because birth control is not very effective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
1.
Obviously, you do not want to revert to ad hominem attacks, but publicly winning an argument (or “destroying” your opponent) is not harmful. Ideally, when you win an argument, it can convert more people to your side. It really depends on what is meant by destroying an opponent. If it simply means that you clearly won, or if it means you acted in poor conduct.
Obviously, you do not want to revert to ad hominem attacks, but publicly winning an argument (or “destroying” your opponent) is not harmful. Ideally, when you win an argument, it can convert more people to your side. It really depends on what is meant by destroying an opponent. If it simply means that you clearly won, or if it means you acted in poor conduct.
2. Mexican’s Voting
By nature, the left is the greatest threat to conservatism (cultural stability), because by definition a leftist is progressive. Which simply means they want to tear down the systems which they consider being oppressive. Leftists want change, right-wingers want to keep core systems in place.
Republicans do not hold all the political power. First, political power does not simply refer to the government. Politics encompasses anything that is of interest to the public. This includes institutions such as schools, hospitals, or university. The right does not control a single one of these to my knowledge. Especially educational institutions which shape the future generations.
Specifically, looking at the government also shows great power in the hands of the left. Democrats control the Presidency, Senate, and House. Liberals have power that goes almost completely unchecked in liberal states like California and New York.
I agree that race has nothing to do with the levels of division in the country, as there will always be something new to create division over. Racial division in America is dead, and we have moved over to other identities included within the LGB+ group.
By nature, the left is the greatest threat to conservatism (cultural stability), because by definition a leftist is progressive. Which simply means they want to tear down the systems which they consider being oppressive. Leftists want change, right-wingers want to keep core systems in place.
Republicans do not hold all the political power. First, political power does not simply refer to the government. Politics encompasses anything that is of interest to the public. This includes institutions such as schools, hospitals, or university. The right does not control a single one of these to my knowledge. Especially educational institutions which shape the future generations.
Specifically, looking at the government also shows great power in the hands of the left. Democrats control the Presidency, Senate, and House. Liberals have power that goes almost completely unchecked in liberal states like California and New York.
I agree that race has nothing to do with the levels of division in the country, as there will always be something new to create division over. Racial division in America is dead, and we have moved over to other identities included within the LGB+ group.
4. Commonalities
I agree that transgenderism and drag are two separate categories, but there are trans children and also children who go to drag shows.
Abstinence education works. The problem with other forms of education is that they just end up having sex in any ways which kind of negates the entire purpose. Sure, for the first few times, you will probably get lucky using ‘safe’ methods. But these methods only work around 95% of the time, so in the long run it only makes so much of a difference. But I agree with you that no education is bad because they need to know they should avoid sex in the first place, and otherwise they will end up just doing it with no second thought or any form of protection.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/02/abstinenceonly_education_works.html#:~:text=Two%20years%20after%20completing%20the,only%20programs%20are%20not%20effective.
I agree that transgenderism and drag are two separate categories, but there are trans children and also children who go to drag shows.
Abstinence education works. The problem with other forms of education is that they just end up having sex in any ways which kind of negates the entire purpose. Sure, for the first few times, you will probably get lucky using ‘safe’ methods. But these methods only work around 95% of the time, so in the long run it only makes so much of a difference. But I agree with you that no education is bad because they need to know they should avoid sex in the first place, and otherwise they will end up just doing it with no second thought or any form of protection.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/02/abstinenceonly_education_works.html#:~:text=Two%20years%20after%20completing%20the,only%20programs%20are%20not%20effective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Yes, I agree that Republicans would encourage higher levels of legal immigration. But the key here is that legal immigration entails integration into the conservative culture. I suppose Conservatives could come to support illegal immigrants as well, however I belive that these two groups are natural political adversaries simply by nature of the fact large number of illegal immigrants will always change the culture.
I agree with you that legal immigrants tend to share more values with Conservatives, but I think it is the nationalism that they do not like. Even legal immigrants likely have family who immigrated illegally. Furthermore, they tend to be of a lower income bracket and tend to support wellfare. This is certainly not always the case, and it could change in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
1. Discourse
Trying to convince others can be the primary objective both publicly and privately. Compromising should be secondary. Approaching from a level-headed perspective tends to be preferable in both instances, if the goal is to pull people over.
Trying to convice others always is the objective, the only question is who you are convincing. In private you are convincing the person you are talking to. In public you try to convice the observers. I agree that compromising is secondary, however the participants in a debate are more likely to comprimise in a private debate. This is because people try to destroy their opponents in public debates, or even just try to win rather than develop their own ideas. Both models of debate are good and necessary.
2. Mexican’s Voting
It is not so much that all immigration negatively impacts culture, and more that mass illegal immigration negatively impacts culture. This is because America has a very specific culture based on it's history, and this is why we value things like freedom of speech and the right to bear arms more than in many other countries. With a large influx of immigrants who are not yet familiar with this context, it can create pockets in America that are not integrated into the common culture. This is not the only way we move away from conservatism of course, and the greatest threat to it is probably left-wingers born within the country.
I should not that I do not always agree with the general Conservative analysis of this issue, as in the long term the demographics is destiny argument does not hold up. If anything cultural/family values that are preserved within the immigrant population may do more to counter leftism in the long run. In fact, while a lot of immigrants do lean left politically they almost all lean right culturally.
3. Vaccine
I am not sure if it has grown or shrink, I know nationally that 70% of Americans are opposed. I do suspect this number has probably shrunk because of the "listen to the science" narrative put forth by the left in response to Covid.
4. Commonalities
For sure, and I think the reason that these posistions are advocated by anyone is simply because of the urge to disagree. With the sex education example you brought up, Republicans have become opposed to it on the grounds that it is transing the kids, which is only true in the first place because the GOP accuses the left of being in favor of transing children which eventually actually lead to the defense of transing the kids. Ovbiously with this issue, there is the religious element, but even in the past kids recieved "the talk" which was primarily about abstinence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
1. Totalitiarianism
The key with totalitarianism in the past has been that it has later been replaced by other systems. Enabled by globalism and emerging tech, there is no guarantee that this will not become permanent. This is not extistential because of extinction, but more because totalitarianism prevents development.
An existential risk is one that threatens the premature extinction of Earth-originating intelligent life or the permanent and drastic destruction of its potential for desirable future development (Bostrom, 2002).
4. Governments
I may have been slightly confused about this point, but I do not think that we can rely on cooperation from the government. Governments are far more likely to be the cause then the solution.
5. Climate change
You are correct that in the long term climate could be an issue, but if it is not an issue by 2100 it will most likely be because we are able to control it. With enough warning time we should be able to prepare, and it is unlikely this would lead to premature extinction or anything of the sort. It is a risk, but it is very down low on the list.
2.1 spiritual revolution
There have been spirutual revolutions in the past such as the great awakening, however these have never been universal or accepted by an entire population. I do not think human nature would allow this to occur, and cultural differences would most certainly prevent it. Furthermore, many people will resist to converting becasue of other spiritual beleifs, and the vast majority of the world is relgious.
2.2 forced enlightenment
This is possible, but there is an extreme risk as I have pointed out with totalitarianism.
2.3 governance
I disagre that all government has to work towards a common goal. Hegemony has already solved this. In a polar world one countries goals are prioritized by them and their allies, and these goals can not be stopped. Many argue that a multi-polor world is even more stable because competing interests tend to balance out, and compromises occur without either side explicitly working towards a common goal.
As I point out, I think many of the potential solutions that people present have the possiblity to do far more harm than good. This is why I belive it is best to generally stick to the status quo. Regulatory agencies put a check on capatalism, current emerging tech has the potential to drastically reduce transportational and agricultural emmissions, and we are probably not heading towards a cataclysmic event.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
1. Fails because totalitiarianism is in and of itself an extistential risk. Bryan Caplan writes about this exstensively in the last chapter of Global Catastrophic Risks.
2. Probably fails as well. Poorly developed AI ranks under only deliberate misuse of nanotech, nuclear holocoaust, or that we are living in simulation and it gets shut down.
3. While capatalism sees a long term profit from survival, it is almost always more profitible in the short term to exploit. This is why a 'greed is good' form of capatalism has largely evolved.
4. The risks seem self explanatory.
As for the fifth option that may actually save us, I would suggest the status quo. Outcomes under current models do not lead to any mass extinction, and in fact by 2100 the highest estimates only show a maximum of around 83 million people being put at risk due to resource depletion. This however does not take into account many other factors. Many of theese deaths are in sub-saharran Africa, and are caused by poverty. This regions annual growth rate is around 4%, which is probably enough to save the vast majority of lives.
There are also many efforts to curb climate change and ghg emmisions. The EV market is starting to emerge in to the mainstream public, alternative energy has made strides, and changes to make agriculture more efficient all have the potential to drastically slow down climate change.
Here is a good summary of why we are not going to wipe our selves out due to climate anytime soon.
Created:
Posted in:
It was illegitimate. There was no defense. The legislature should not conduct show trials.
There was no threat to democracy. Some people tresspassed. No one died except a tresspasser.
I still see no evidence that Trump caused this. The capitol police caused this when they opened the doors, and the rioters who broke down windows.
Who saved us from this supposed overthrowing of democracy? Mike Pence, the far left activist.
Nobody gives a bleep (according to congress), and people are more concerned about gas prices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
@Bones
1. People engage in discourse to further their own agenda
This is true, but only of public discourse, where convincing others is the primary objective. In private conversations, I believe people are much more willing to compromise.
This is true, but only of public discourse, where convincing others is the primary objective. In private conversations, I believe people are much more willing to compromise.
2. Mexican’s Voting
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.
Both parties will always keep their current stances because no matter what, having a higher ration of legal immigration to illegal immigration will be good for republicans, and vice versa.
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. I think there is a natural alignment between conservative values and low immigration. Immigrants will naturally change the culture which conservatives try to conserve at high levels.
3. Vaccine
Generally I agree, however I do not believe that there is a world where the vaccine would be embraced quickly by the right. Republicans have a fear of big government, and anything that sounds like it could implement a totalitarian regime. Trump created the vaccine, and he continued to push it even after leaving office. I doubt the response would have been much different even if he had been in office from the Republican side.
@Reece101 brings up a good point that the left trusts health professionals, however Fauci would have been FIRED if Trump stayed in office much longer, and the messaging may have been different. Still provaccine, but probably less vocal. I bet many of those who gave into the social pressure would have held off for longer. Remember, this is the bunch that is terrified of eating non-organic food and GMOs despite what the scientists say.
4. Commonalities
This is very true, even with very far out there things that everyone should be able to agree on. For example, take the two issues of pedophiles and women. Republicans have now accuse the left of being pro-pedophile, and have cited the fact some of them have adopted the term MAP (minor attracted person) to refer to pedophiles, and have made the assertion that this is the direction that the mainstream left is heading; drag babies to drag shows, indoctrinate their children into trans-gender ideology, and read their toddlers sex education books with graphic depictions of sex. Meanwhile, Leftists believe that Republican’s are trying to carry out an all out assault on women’s rights, and truly believe that within a couple of years the US could be indistinguishable from the handmaids tale... a book that Conservatives also claim is left-wing satanic propaganda. In fact, abortion advocates on the left say we already live in this world because women no longer have a constitutional right to an abortion, so they are cursed by pregnancy, and the patriarchy forces them out of the workforce and society as a whole .
5.
All this, when we can probably all agree that pedophiles are bad and women deserve rights. Unfortunately, it has created a bit of a reverse self-fulfilling prophecy. Parents on the far left read their children wildly inappropriate books, and take them to drag shows. The only reason this happens is because parents feel politically motivated to go against bigotry and create what they see as an open-minded child, and this would not occur in the first place if we did not make unfounded accusations which would later come to pass. Let’s just hope that the same thing does not happen with women’s rights.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The only salvation is that Trump was so unlikeable to immigrants, that literally saved Dems in 2020 due to the single issue of immigration and attitudes to foreigners.
This is wrong, Trump was of course unpopular to the majority of immigrants who are Democrat because he was a Republican. That being said, for a Republican he got a far greater than expected turn out.
While immigrants may have been responsible for some seats in the south, they had relatively less blue impact than they would have had without Trump.
What saved the Dems in 2020 was not immigration or immigration policy. It was Covid and Trump himself. The Biden campaign (and the rest of the media for that matter) blamed the situation entirely on Trump. Trump's personality compounded this, and it created that classic Trump derangement syndrome in many people both on the left and moderate right. Trump probably would have won if he stopped tweeting, or without the pandemic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Asking people to agree on epistemological limits is hard because that is asking everyone to agree on the limits of knowledge. Many philosophers will say that the limit is I think therefore I am, and that there is nothing else that is truly knowable. Many others have other ideas of the limit of knowledge itself. When you ask people to agree on basic reality you are essentially saying that we should agree on what we can all observe, ignoring the theoretical epistemological limits.
And no, I don't see why we can't keep men out of the woman's bathroom and vice versa, we have done it for as long as we have had bathrooms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I know, it is insane and mind boggling how it quantum physics works. Especially the back propagation of reality caused by observation. The wave form potential is still a thing with or without us, even if it collapses into a single state when we observe it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That was very interesting. I think the part where I most differ in opinion is that quantum physics somehow debunks materialism because whether it is a wave function, or a particle that thing is still real with or without us. The observer effect is honestly just mind blowing because it certainly does show that consciousness directly affects the universe which has many implications I'm sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ideally everyone can agree on basic reality.ideally everyone can agree on epistemological limits
I think that asking people to agree on epistemological limits is quite different than basic reality. We can all observe the same reality, but epistemology is a complex field that will always spark debate. While epistemological limits raise skepticism in some areas related to reality, there is no epistemological limit that prevents us observing basic reality itself.
"Willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns."
I agree that it should be abolished, and while this law does not restrict my personal behavior as I am not responsible for any residents, it does restrict the free speech of many Americans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Sure they might 'like to have a new uterus', but in reality almolst no one would actually go through with the transplant because of the other factors. It would be far easier to just adopt a child rather than risking your life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A Uterus is no more or less a transferrable item.
I disagree for a few reasons.
1. Bioethically it is a hard sell because you would have to be on rejection meds for the rest of your life, and it would probably be quite dangerous to preform just like any organ transplant. Because of this most doctors would not preform it if they believe the cons outweigh the pros, and additionally there will never be enough effort or money put into research and development.
2. There is physically not enough space. Women have room for a uterus, men have less space.
3. The different structure also makes it difficult to connect uterus to a blood supply.
4. What happens when a pregnant man starts rejecting his uterus, I don't think that will be good for the baby. There would just be a lot more risks like this that make a successful pregnancy much harder.
5. Even if it is successful, men do not produce the correct hormones to sustain a pregnancy which means that they would need hormone injections theoretically. This is certainly dangerous for the man, and probably for the baby as well. Also men do not produce eggs, so you would need to get that from a biological women for IVF.
6. I do not think there is actually that much demand. Not that many people even opt to go for the transition surgery, but this would be a far more intensive procedure, and for what? So you don't have do adopt a baby? Some people might do it to prove a point I guess, but other than this I do not see why anyone would actually decide to go through with it.
Created: