Total posts: 224
-->
@Public-Choice
@Sir.Lancelot
I am as responsible for derailing this thread as anyone else. While I in many ways feel almost obligated to respond to claims about trans people that I believe are harmful and untrue (being trans myself and seeing as, if I do not, those claims may be allowed to fester). I almost see it as a responsibility to engage with these claims as to avoid anyone perceiving them as unassailable fact. If I do not provide an alternative viewpoint, I fear this site just becomes an anti-transgenderism echo-chamber. I do not want to seem avoidant or scared to debate any specific thing or else people will assume I cannot defend my beliefs.
I do not mean for this post to sound melodramatic or as if I'm apologizing for some big mistake or something (because this really is not a big deal), but I do apologize to Public and the soon-to-be judges for having this be dragged out by trying to argue with things irrelevant to the topic at hand. It was my belief I could simultaneously have separate discussions while also continuing with the debate setup, but it clearly detracted focus from it significantly.
I thank Lance for pointing out the very obvious personal attacks that have happened throughout this thread. I've gotten used to it (this is the norm for RMM anyways), and I am fully capable of withstanding any dogpiling, but it's still ~a little shitty~ that this is something I must withstand at all.
I do not want my choice to ignore someone to be misconstrued as me being unable to defend my identity. Getting over that concern is a skill I should have by now nonetheless.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I'm pretty sure we have. We already agreed on the definitions and resolution earlier iirc.
We agree on a list of judges as well (I think).
Again: it is my preference to let Public make the debate as that just makes more sense to me, but it really doesn't matter.
I'm good to go whenever you are, homie.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
@Public-Choice
Excellent!
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I agree. The source is just an appeal to authority. I'm not trying to scientifically prove that non-dysphoric trans people exist because they literally do exist. I'm one of them. Not all trans people are unhappy that they present as the gender they were born as. Some trans people just feel happier presenting as a gender other than that which they were born as. That is the difference between gender dysphoria and gender euphoria.
Trying to argue that non-dysphoric trans people just ~don't exist~ is certainly an interesting argument. I don't know what you expect me to say.
Created:
Posted in:
The fact there ever was an antisemitic shtick that needs to be retired is more than enough grounds to be barred from being able to run anything.
The way Wylted has behaved recently means he should lose his position. This is not a problem of having an adequate justification, it is a problem that the actions happened at all. Irrespective of reasoning, his actions show he's not fit to be president. The fact Wylted was ever given any modicum of power, respect, or status is insanity.
If DART ever wants to be taken seriously, Wylted can't serve any serious role. He has no desire to use the position to do anything of use.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
@Public-Choice
@Sir.Lancelot
@WeaverofFate
I've never been particularly concerned when it comes to revealing my arguments before the debate (assuming you mean that doing so is a disadvantage for me). If my arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny even when my opponent has all the time in the world to prepare against exactly what I will say before I've even presented it, then I didn't deserve to win anyways. If my position is truly logically-sound, it will be able to weather any disadvantage.
I have, for the most part, expressed (or intended to express) apathy when it comes to the judges selected. I have, however, been unwilling to have certain judges because I do not trust them to be reliable and unbiased, but I'm not particularly stingy.
Out of courtesy, I do not want to include people who haven't already expressed interest. Here's the list of people who have expressed interest who aren't hopelessly unobjective/unbiased:
- Sir.Lancelot
- Savant
- Slainte
This is the list that was initially proposed anyways.
I have tagged whiteflame and Weaver. If either of them are interested, they can join the list (I doubt public-choice would disagree with their objectivity, but we don't need extra judges anyways, so one or both of them can be excluded from the list if it's really a problem), but truthfully it is fine the way it is. I do not wish to spend much time playing "If you add this judge then I need to add this judge to keep it balanced."
I will let public-choice make the debate as they created this thread, so it feels more correct to me to do it that way (there's no deeper reasoning to this, I just feel like it makes more sense).
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I thank you for keeping it civil. I try to avoid being condescending or rude (though that can be hard when on a website literally dedicated to arguing), and I try to recognize when I have been unduly uncivil and apologize, so I'm glad you seem to do so as well. I also apologize if I've been rude.
However, if you truly believe that many fact-checkers are being systematically bribed to push certain ideologies, I have no desire to continue this discussion. We are already at the point of conspiratorial beliefs. I have no problem believing that certain people and organizations have biases or make mistakes or occasionally dismiss certain things without giving them due consideration, but that's not what we're talking about here.
However, if you truly believe that many fact-checkers are being systematically bribed to push certain ideologies, I have no desire to continue this discussion. We are already at the point of conspiratorial beliefs. I have no problem believing that certain people and organizations have biases or make mistakes or occasionally dismiss certain things without giving them due consideration, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
"Not all transgender people suffer from gender dysphoria and that distinction is important to keep in mind."
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
We are already at an impasse. I cannot argue with someone who wants to argue that official sources and science itself are wrong.
The fact checkers are biased.
The data is cherry-picked.
Contrary sources don't matter.
I'd love to see where the '55+ studies cited' are, because I read both of your sources and I didn't see a single study cited. You send a link where they are discussing a single retracted paper and then use that to talk about 55 other studies as if I'm supposed to analyze evidence I haven't been presented.
It's great that the AAP treats everyone equally regardless of sexual orientation. I mean, I find that hard to believe when half the paragraph demonstrating their 'support' for queer people is spent talking about how mother-father families are ideal and should always be preferred. Doesn't change literally anything that I said. Sexual orientation and gender identity aren't the same thing. You can support one and not the other.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You asked a genuine question and I gave you a genuine reply. You can take it however you want.
Not all trans people have dysphoria. That isn't, like, an opinion or a lie I'm telling you. That's... literally just a fact?
I do not particularly care if dysphoria is the reason gender-affirming care was legalized.
If you somehow can convince yourself that I'm spending the time and effort deliberately lying to you, a person on the internet whose opinion I really don't care about, you're welcome to believe that.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Even if I accept that's true, which I don't, surveys for US presidential elections predicted winners by margins up to ~5%. They didn't predict that over 90% of people were gonna vote for Hillary and then Trump still won anyways. These comparisons aren't just not in the same ballpark, they're not even on the same planet. If 90%+ of respondents show gender affirming care has improved their life and lowered their mental-health risk, to say there's some hidden 40%+ that we're just not getting to is ridiculous.
The key difference here is that surveys failed to predict who would be elected president of the United States because it failed to find respondents that were representative of the overall populous.
If we're asking the question of 'does gender-affirming care work' and the survey is done by an institution that provides that care who gets respondents by asking the people they treated, there's not somebody you can miss. There's no secret, significant group of people who we're failing to capture. This is again operating on the assumption that hundreds of surveys and case reports can be so consistently wrong by margins of 40% or greater.
We aren't just going around calling random numbers or going to random areas like pollsters were. Of course that strategy is going to lead to you not getting responses from rural voters who are predominantly Republican. These are just objectively not comparable situations.
You provided a source to say that gender affirming care does not work. The group your source originates from is rated as 'low' in terms of factual reporting and 'far-right' in terms of media bias. Your source is meaningless.
Even if I look past your source's complete and utter untrustworthiness, you call retracting a single study to be a plurality? A single survey retracted because a reanalysis shows no difference in the mental health of those who accessed gender affirming care and those who didn't proves nothing amidst hundreds of surveys that show there is a positive difference. Your source isn't a review of studies, it's the equivalent of a Tumblr post about a single study that was retracted.
Your second source is from the exact same group. I'd also like to point out this group has failed multiple fact checks and has pushed anti-vaccine misinformation (analysis/bias section). The source doesn't even review any studies at all.
Your second source makes a whole lot of claims and doesn't list a source for one of them. I thought 'expert opinion' was the lowest form of evidence?
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I'm fine with Lancelot, Slainte, and Savant (and whoever else we already agreed upon who wants to). It really doesn't matter to me as long as they are people I can trust to vote (mostly) objectively.
I do not particularly want to spend much time curating a list of judges. I think what we have is fine. If you think anyone I've suggested would make it unbalanced, I have no problem with not having them as a judge.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Many are surveys, yes, but that doesn't mean you can simply waive away the results. Is an expert's opinion the lowest level of evidence? Sure, but I'm still inclined to listen to what my doctor has to say. Does surveys tend to have problems with data collection? Sure, but if many surveys overwhelmingly support a particular conclusion, in spite of them all being performed by different groups with different methodologies, I'm inclined to give it some weight.
If you have a treasure trove of studies that are higher levels of evidence with no conflicts of interest nor blatantly obvious problems with their methodology, then I'm more than happy to see them.
Moreover, these most certainly aren't all just surveys or expert opinions. A review of 55 peer-reviewed studies from a range of 26 years done by Cornell, of which almost all find transition improves mental health and none find it harms mental health. A review of 38 studies that shows trans people are at greater risk for mental health problems, but the risk is diminished by transitioning. Even if we can completely disregard all surveys or case reports, which I do not for a moment agree that we can, my case still stands. I'm more than happy to find more systematic reviews at a time when I'm not running off of very little sleep lmao.
It should go without saying how making a study with two groups of people where one is allowed to transition and the other isn't and then checking to see how many mental health problems the group who didn't transition has is... a little ~unethical~.
You cannot seriously believe that dozens if not hundreds of reports and studies all have some unidentified problem with their methodology that render their conclusions unusable.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Will do. Thanks for your support
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Regarding if transitioning improves mental health outcomes and if conversion therapy doesn't work, the debate is effectively a truism. There is no way to argue against it without disagreeing with science.
1. "Patients Report High Satisfaction with Sex-Reassignment Surgery" https://www.issm.info/news/sex-health-headlines/patients-report-high-satisfaction-with-sex-reassignment-surgery/
2. "Trends in suicide death risk in transgender people: results from the Amsterdam Cohort of Gender Dysphoria study (1972–2017)" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317390/
3. "Psychosocial Adjustment to Sex Reassignment Surgery: A Qualitative Examination and Personal Experiences of Six Transsexual Persons in Croatia" https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/960745/
4. "Long-Term Follow-Up of Adults with Gender Identity Disorder" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-014-0453-5
5. "Long-term Assessment of the Physical, Mental, and Sexual Health among Transsexual Women" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23553588_Long-term_Assessment_of_the_Physical_Mental_and_Sexual_Health_among_Transsexual_Women
6. "What does the scholarly research say about the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being? " https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/
7. "Fact check: study shows transition makes trans people suicidal" https://www.transadvocate.com/fact-check-study-shows-transition-makes-trans-people-suicidal_n_15483.htm
8. "Mental health and gender dysphoria: A review of the literature" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26835611/
9. "Sex-reassignment surgery yields long-term mental health benefits, study finds" https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/sex-reassignment-surgery-yields-long-term-mental-health-benefits-study-n1079911
10. "Transgender surgery can improve life for most, study confirms" https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321258
11. "Conversion therapy, suicidality, and running away: an analysis of transgender youth in the U.S." https://scholarship.libraries.rutgers.edu/esploro/outputs/workingPaper/Conversion-therapy-suicidality-and-running-away/991031790600904646
12. "LGBT conversion therapy ineffective and harmful, critics say" https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/lgbt-conversion-therapy-ineffective-and-harmful-critics-say-1.3101838
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
To be blunt, I trust neither of these people to vote objectively.
I would much rather remove a judge that is favourable to my position.
Also, I never mentioned Bones, though I would be fine with having them as a judge.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Per your request to avoid 'derailing analogies', I will try to be as literal as possible.
I'm responding in good faith. I do not intend to be condescending, nor do I intend to lecture you. This is my opinion and it is an opinion I can back up with facts and examples when needed. I am responding to you and I am paying no mind to what other people may have to say about anything included in this response. I do not care what TWS or Novice or anyone else might have to say.
I say all of this because I don't want this genuine answer to be riddled with personal vendettas or disagreements.
If gender is truly unrelated to sex and it is gender, not sex, being transitioned, then surely the physically sex characteristics like hormones and genital appearances wouldn't be of the slightest importance to need to artificially alter to transition gender. Yet... this is how they say is the 'truly freeing' transition, apparently. Why is that so?
Some trans people experience gender dysphoria (distress at the fact one's physical appearance does not align with the gender they identify as). Not all trans people do. Some trans people only experience gender euphoria (happiness at the fact one's physical appearance now aligns with the gender they identify as when it previously did not).
Truthfully, it doesn't matter all that much if a trans person experiences dysphoria, euphoria, both, or neither. I find myself more towards the euphoria side. All that matters is that a trans person has an innate sense of gender identity that does not align with the sex they were assigned at birth.
We have previously discussed at length if transitioning is good for mental health or if a trans person should transition or not (here). I have already shown you all of the necessary studies to show that conversion therapy doesn't work and transitioning greatly improves mental health outcomes.
Your responses indicated that you personally believe(d) that there isn't any studies that had certain factors/methodology ("I am not saying this to demean you but it is so obvious that barely any source has even mentioned or investigated it."), but that if there were studies that followed such a methodology, it would prove that mental health is worse in those who transition. That's fine. I cannot debate you on evidence that doesn't exist.
If your beliefs are based off of the assumption that studies that haven't been done yet would support your world view if they were done, then we are already at an impasse. We are functionally already at the point of "The science is wrong."
Your question is only about why transitioning to have different sex characteristics is necessary if gender is unrelated to sex. To put it concisely: when you truly with all of your being know that you are something (in this case, a gender [if this is a 'delusion' is another question entirely]) and identify as such, if you look in the mirror and see something that does not align with that identity, that's going to cause some distress for a lot of people.
You can be something without looking like it. You can also be confused/distressed if your appearance does not align with your inner self even though your appearance does not determine your inner self. These are not contradictory statements. If you looked in the mirror and saw a completely different person, you'd probably be pretty distressed to say the least. Now scale that back to the person in the mirror being 'you', but something about it is fundamentally wrong in a way you struggle to describe. If that can cause even one tenth of the distress that looking in the mirror and seeing a totally different person can cause, that more than explains why someone would want to change their appearance to align with their gender identity.
If this is a 'delusion' or whatever you want to call it isn't what I'm trying to answer. You could make the same argument that an anorexic looks in the mirror and sees something fundamentally wrong with what they see as well. I believe (and have previously talked about why I believe) that these are different things, but all I'm doing is answering why.
This is a satisfactory answer to what causes anorexics to feel distress as well, though obviously you don't humour an anorexic when they want to starve themselves to death. Again: it's another question entirely as to why we should humour trans people and not anorexics. It's a question I'm happy to discuss, but I'm not trying to get off track. We've already discussed it before as well.
Is it possible for the gender dysphoric patient to coherently explain why if they are allied to the queer community, they deny that no matter how masculine a woman acts and feels, she is a woman and society is wring to taunt her and bully her and go 'why do you look like a man?' and vice versa with a guy (let's be real this is dine worse to guys who act femme, way worse)??
A cis woman is no less of a woman for having masculine features. A cis man is no less of a man for having feminine features. I'd like to think we can both agree on this.
If a cis woman's appearance aligns with her identity, it doesn't matter if her appearance is 'masculine'. The same can be said for men with feminine appearances. Trans people operate on this same logic.
I know trans women who want to keep their male genitalia or have facial hair or describe themselves as a 'tomboy' or a 'butch' or whatever. Their appearance doesn't have anything to do with their gender. They are changing their appearance not because they feel they feel they must in order to be a woman, but because they want their appearance to align with their identity.
There are cis girls who hate having long hair or wearing traditionally feminine clothing. They might feel distressed if they are forced to have long hair or wear dresses. They are more than able to cut their hair or wear androgynous/masculine clothing if they so please. They aren't doing this because they aren't women. They're just cis women who want their appearance to match their authentic 'self', whatever that may be.
There are trans women who might hate having short hair or being forced to wear masculine clothing. The same can be said of some cis men. Both these cis men and these trans women might be distressed if they're forced to get their hair cut or wear masculine clothing. Both groups are more than free to grow their hair out or wear skirts or whatever if that aligns with their sense of self and desired appearance/identity. A man who chooses to wear a skirt because he thinks it's the best way to express his identity can do so without his identity or gender changing. Trans women are no different.
There are some women who think think they look too androgynous/not feminine enough for their liking.
There are some women who think they look too feminine/not androgynous enough for their liking.
These facts can both exist without saying anything about the identity of either.
People want to look like what they want to look like. For some people, they want to look like the other gender (this doesn't even mean that they identify as the other gender [femboys and tomboys exist]). You can want to look like whatever you want and you are more than welcome to change your appearance to match that desire so long as it doesn't hurt themself or anyone else. This doesn't need to have any relation to gender identity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Slainte
I thought the Canadian trucker convoy (the one from a few years ago that occupied Ottawa) was complete bollocks and that the government was correct in the measures it took to shut down the protest.
While the convoy and those who believe in its message/goals are complete nutjobs (it would take denial of science to think otherwise), I have come to see that the measures used to take down a protest I fundamentally disagree with could (and very well may be) used on protests I agree with. I no longer support the government's actions in that regard.
Right of demonstration cannot be awarded solely to those you agree with.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
In formal debate, you argue the best you can not because you want to convince the other side that they're wrong, but to try and convince a judge that the arguments and information you presented is more convincing than your opponents. It is not to judge what is true--that is the purpose of science and facts. Where science is unable to give us a clear answer, people who are good at convincing others are not the people who are going to get us any closer to finding truth.
If you truly believe that science is even capable of 'bending over backwards' for an ideology so much so that you can comfortably disregard scientific consensus as a way of protecting your beliefs by rejecting all studies that show the contrary, I would not expect you to understand that.
You sound no different than an anti-vaxxer.
Created:
Also, link to another debate I did on a similar topic with Bones (which sadly only had a single vote, so I can't really say that was much of a consensus): https://www.debateart.com/debates/3507-thbt-we-ought-to-use-the-definition-of-female-which-prohibits-non-biological-females-from-being-female
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
You do want 25k and 1 month? We don't have to if you'd like less characters + shorter debate time.
Doesn't particularly matter to me as long as it's at least 15k and 1 week. Just asking.
Also add Slainte to the list of judges. They said they were interested.
Would be down to see if Barney is interested so we have an odd number.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
man on the internet doesn't think I'm a woman :( what will I do now
Debate's not designed to convince me or Public-Choice of anything. It's to have a debate.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I am a pretty terrible man tbh. I'm also a pretty terrible astronaut and neurosurgeon.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Lead a gay to the sewers and get confused when they suddenly aren't thirsty anymore
silly lgbtq's not being grateful
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
bro you gotta avoid the bobs your uncle fallacy
never be caught dead committing the bobs your uncle fallacy
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Not all context is necessary, but I'll try to avoid the 'quoting out of context fallacy' next time around.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
"Quoting out of context fallacy"? You can't just add fallacy onto anything lmao
What I quoted of yours was an afterthought, yeah... It's the afterthought that led to my initial response to you and thus the subsequent messages? I don't know what else you expect when trying to clarify for RMM what has led to our chain of responses.
I'll be sure to include all 15 paragraphs next time.
Are we debating or not?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
In hindsight, I am probably being unreasonably aggressive towards you (whether or not your comment regarding nastiness is referring to me or others [Don't know if it is. Doesn't matter either way]).
When people are being aggressive to you, you have to show a certain amount of aggression back (even if that just be defending your positions) if you're going to respond at all. If that happens frequently, it's easy to then fall into a groove of being aggressive in all of your responses to anyone.
I should be more mindful about being courteous even if I find someone to be disagreeable.
A site like this is going to skew towards the aggression and toxicity of its worst users. I struggle to see how any site like this could avoid that pitfall.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I thank you for the offer! I'll keep it in mind.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Wylted said:
Somebody that strives to save up money to cut off their dick is saying I make poor decisions. Wow
TWS follows up with:
And have you seen the debate with him and another on the whole gender vs sex argument? Wow! Just wow! The level of delusional rationalization put forth in order to justify transgenderism is just dumbfounding.
That is why the topic of if trans women are women came up.
You'd be better than Wylted because anyone would be better than Wylted.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I agree with you. Debating a definition is an exercise in futility. Language is based agreement that a certain word means a certain thing, so there is no way to have an objectively correct answer.
Nonetheless, some definitions are more reasonable/useful than others in the context of how they are typically used and in relation to other words (or the lack thereof in cases where it might be the only word that can aptly describe something).
In any case where somebody sees something I say as being ' a bs rationalization(s)', I'd like to see them show me in a formal debate exactly where I went wrong. Not that I'd expect to win any debate where I'm arguing for trans people given the bias of the website.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Trans women being 'real' women is not necessary to 'rationalize transgender ideology'. I'm more than satisfied being a 'fake' woman. I'm trans either way.
Again, if you'd like to do a debate on if trans women are women, I'd welcome the opportunity.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Debate's not about my transness. Being a 'real woman' doesn't concern me.
I'd more than welcome taking you on in a similar debate. If not, I look forward to seeing your vote.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Aintnoway the antisemite wants to talk about Nazi Germany.
Is it Satan or the Nazis? Your conspiracies should at least show some consistency.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
The government will be covering the cost of my dick guillotine, actually 👍
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Sorry you didn't like my gender vs sex debate. Should I have added more cucumbers to keep you interested?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The kind of person fit to run/moderate a debate website, the nature of said website will unavoidably attract mostly self-righteous, narcissistic userbase, is not the kind of person that would be elected by said userbase.
Having an election for president was a mistake. Giving Wylted, a notoriously (formerly?) antisemitic person who has never shown any significant degree of consistency in terms of activity on this website, the opportunity to have any power was never going to end well.
While I'm sure anyone would be a better pick, I would not be perfect. I probably wouldn't even be that good. You wouldn't be either.
Given Wylted and his recent behaviour, I'm glad he's inactive because it at least limits the amount of time he can spend making poor choices.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I would like to challenge best korea for the presidency on the grounds that I am epic and cool
please call for elections immediately
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Fair enough. I can respect that.
Created:
-->
@AustinL0926
Wylted is the last person I would trust to make a DART 'university'.
I like the concept, but it'd need to be some sort of a collaborative effort.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Dude couldn't wait longer than the fifth sentence to call all LGBTQ+ people pedophiles omegalul
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I have my beliefs, but I have surrendered any notions of certainty when it comes to what happens after we die. Any evidence that exists to prove any viewpoint can (and more than likely will) be disproven in the future. To think that after thousands of years of getting it wrong that whatever science we know now is finally the 'correct' answer is presumptuous at best.
I don't believe death is the end (though what happens in particular is not something I have strong thoughts on), but I have made my peace with the fact eternal oblivion may be what faces me and that there is very little I can do about that if that is the case.
I think the naturalistic proposals for consciousness continuing/restarting after death are also very interesting! But if eternal life could exist on this mortal plane (which wouldn't be very mortal anymore), I can't think of a better way of going about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Rather than answering your question of "How am I me without my memories?" Perhaps it's more valuable to frame my stance differently.
If given eternal life as a human without any concern for death, boredom is inevitable. There are only so many unique experiences and there's only so much growing to do.
If given eternal life as a human without any concern for death, boredom is inevitable. There are only so many unique experiences and there's only so much growing to do.
I do not value experiences solely for the memories they create (though that is a plus), but for the experiences themselves. I can grow and find meaning in life whether my life be limited due to death or because I choose to erase the life I lived and begin anew again. I find beauty in the experience of growth as well as in the growth itself.
If I were asked to choose between an eternity of boredom or an eternity of cyclical life, I would choose the later.
I suppose the answer to your question is that I wouldn't be 'me' in the same way. So long as I got to continue enjoying life (lives?) and my consciousness continued on, however, I doubt I'd mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
pls forgive me mr. tomas
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@linate
In a hypothetical scenario where I could exist on Earth in its current state in my body's current state for all of eternity (and assuming there is some mechanism by which I can erase all my memories), I absolutely would.
Every one to three hundred years, wipe your memories and take it around again.
It's like asking if I'd like to play my favourite game as if it were the first time I had played it, but I got to feel that way every time I booted it up: of course I would. I'd see a cyclical life as no different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I definitely think that a discrepancy in the amount of kindness a debater gives to their opponent's arguments and the kindness a voter gives to said opponent's arguments can be among the easiest ways for a voter to begin to start questioning if you are truly taking your opponent's arguments in good faith/at face value, so I agree with you fully.
Thank you as well! I appreciate your good wishes. See you soon, homie.
Created: