Total posts: 1,732
-->
@ILikePie5
You clearly didn’t read about my position then.
I read a simplistic framing of a complex and often tragic scenario. Your position appears to be one low on context.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Do we really want people who strive to maintain control of their own bodies...yes, absolutely, we do want people like this in a *healthy* society.By killing babies up to the moment of birth? Wow.
What we could use less of is the pretentious 'save the babies' self righteous virtue signaling. It is telling that 'pro-life' advocates are so rarely advocating for programs and policies that would support young mothers or their children. This Pastor Barnhart accurately describes it:
"The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."
- Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Whether you are a person or not, you don't get to control/use my body without consent. Personhood is completely irrelevant to the question of abortion.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Such mothers are likely to drink and do things that harm the baby. Currently unless the baby inside thmk literally dies, they cannot benprosecuted fornthebharm towards it as far as I am aware.And you don’t think that’s evil as well? Do you really want someone like that in society? I’d argue, absolutely not.
Do we really want people who strive to maintain control of their own bodies...yes, absolutely, we do want people like this in a *healthy* society.
Created:
-->
@Novice
- I have yet to find a situation where a woman is allowed to kill the person that assaulted her afterwards.
Is a woman allowed to defend herself with lethal force during an assualt? Yes, of course she is. If we assume rapists and the unborn are both people (which isn't necessarily the case) an apples to apples comparison would be *during an assault* and *during an unwanted pregnancy*.
Therefore, why would I conclude that the woman can kill a baby who lacks any form of guilt in this situation?
You're suggesting a woman can't control her own body. Is there any scenario when your father, brother, or son shouldn't be able to control their own bodies? If not, then you should ask yourself why, in your mind, women are not worthy of the same.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
@SirAnonymous
Even then, the Republican party is not deliberately seceding with the known certainty of starting a civil war.
Not yet. The writing is on the wall though. Here in Texas it is not unusual to to see t-shirts with "Succede", and conservatives have been known to suggest a civil war would favor them because they naively believe 'they have all the guns'.
If your position is that 'they haven't started a civil war so they are less extreme' ... you may be premature in your assessment.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
If a teleporter malfunctioned,And I was half transported into your body, that we share it,It doesn't feel quite fair to me, that you should be able to kill me for that.'Especially when in time, we can be separated.
Well, first there is no such thing as a transporter so this scenario is implausible. Secondly, this wouldn't be analogous. It would be more like I disallowed you the benefit of my body. Whether you think that is fair or not doesn't really matter - you have no right to use my body.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Many Pro Life think it's a life,Many Pro Choice think it's no life at all.
It doesn't matter either way. I think we can agree I have life and I am a person...does that mean I get to use your body for my purposes? Nope. Life/not life, person/not person - these are nothing but a distraction to the core issue: self ownership.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Elon Musk kicking someone off Twitter because they criticize him is a violation of the principle of free speech, it just isn’t a violation of the first amendment or the law.
It is worrying when folks appeal to this noble ideal that humans should be able to express themselves freely while oblivious to the fact that 'I don't want to prop up your BS in my space" is also a form of expression. Government 'protection' of this obliviousness would certainly have first amendment implications...and not in a good way.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
see my last post. you guys are guilty of the straw man fallacy. attacking arguments i didn't make.[...] you can't claim to be a big free speech proponent, if you only care about it when the government is involved.
"Free speech" is literally about speech with relation to government. If someone (other than the government) wants to prevent me from preaching in their yard or on their social media site, my "free speech" hasn't been affected.
do you think it's virtuous for facebook to ban trump? even if i agreed he should be censored sometimes, that doesn't mean an outright ban.
Absolutely. He used social media to incite insurrection and keep pressure on Mike Pence while the Capitol was besieged (among other numerous lesser offences). I personally think Twitter/Facebook gave Trump far too much latitude for far too long.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
"Government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech".
Government forcing individuals to broadcast the views of other would be an abridgment of their own speech, would it not?
I think it is a common mistake to think we have the right to say whatever we want wherever we want and the government should be involved in protecting this conception of 'free speech' . I think it is also a false equivalence to compare individuals disallowing certain expression in their domains with individuals using government to restrict expression. Only the latter is potentially an infringement of free speech.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Your report comes from MRC. Their about page screams bias. It makes me question the impartiality of their survey.
Learn a little more about who we are.The MRC’s commitment to neutralizing leftist bias in the news media and popular culture has had a critical impact on the way Americans view the liberal media.The MRC is able to effectively educate the public about left-wing media bias by integrating cutting-edge news monitoring capabilities with a sophisticated marketing operation.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Social media (not government) bans POTUS.
Politicians use government to ban books.
Only one of the scenarios provided runs against the 1st A.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You do realize the main reason Biden is in office is because of the censorship of the Hunter laptop, right?
Laptop schmaptop.
The main reason was abuse of the power of his office and his poor handling (and comprehension) of covid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You equate being rich to expression and taxation as retaliation for this 'speech'.Every rich person purchases lobbyists.
No, every rich person doesn't purchase lobbyists, and the ones that do can be of any political affiliation. Are Democrats 'retaliating' against rich Democrats?!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Democrats threaten to tax the rich millions of times every campaign cycle. (and sometimes they do it)And yet, where are the retaliation lawsuits of the rich vs the government? Nonexistent largely.
You equate being rich to expression and taxation as retaliation for this 'speech'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you think your suggestion that every government seizure infringes speech stands if not disproven? That's not how the burden of proof works anywhere.
I simply want you to explain what you mean and how you figure if you're willing and able.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Pretty sure every government seizure affects a person with a form of speech.
Are you saying government siezures infringe on speech? If so, "Every" seems a gross overestimate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If the government is taking away a privilege you have as a direct response to your criticisms of them then that is by definition, retaliation, which is by definition, a violation of your free speech.
I take issue with this privilege existing, but that is a different debate. To the OP, I don't disagree this is retaliatory, and, yes, it is concerning.
Created:
Posted in:
Really curious to know what all of the free speech advocates here think about Florida using the power of big government to crack down on private companies for saying what they believe.
Honestly, I don't think Florida has actually considered the impact this decision will have. If not Disney, Orange county will be responsible for providing police, fire, and medical. The county will need to begin maintaining 175 miles of roads and 67 miles of waterways. The county will need to start providing electricity, trash removal, and sewage treatment. Several billion in bond debt will be transfered to the county. Plus, there is also the question of compensation for the infrastructure Disney has built.
I don't really think Florida has thought this through...
That being said, it doesnt seem like Florida is violating any laws... there is no right to a self-governing status for businesses. Basically, Florida has removed a privileged status from Disney. Disney can still voice their opinion though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Exactly. Deviation from typical traits does not make you no longer of a particular kind of thing.
Sounds like arguments I've seen from YECers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Without a doubt, I don't understand the 'telos model'. If being human is being moral (correct me if I am misrepresenting the concept), then were people 2000, 4000...10,000 years ago bad humans because they didn't share all of our moral precepts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If I understand it correctly, MacIntryre is saying a 'natural ought' exists and we can draw moral conclusions from it. It's not clear to me how that works. Is he making an ought into an is to get contigent oughts?
I also am having trouble with the notion that evolution provides us with a moral telos. Morality is not required for the individual or species to survive. Neither is freedom from pain. Morality is required for cooperative groups to exist, but nothing in evolution requires groups be all members of a species. Too much tribalism is not a good thing... if it is a good thing at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Let's look at this from a different perspective. How does the fact of evolution lead us to moral conclusions? (Non-sequitor) How are you getting around the is/ought problem?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Yes. If morality came directly from evolution, wouldn't things like antibiotics (which shield individuals from natural selection) be immoral?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If the telos of morality comes directly from evolution, it doesn't make sense that it would act in opposition to it. I think, at best, you could say evolution gave us a proto-morality, and human minds have expanded it beyond paths evolution could/would have selected for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Just because there are different ways a knife can be a good knife does not discount that there are still objective facts one can make about it based on its telos.
The ultimate purpose of a knife is ultimately based on the human mind, and philosophically, that would make the telos subjective, yes?
If the telos of a knife is subjective, how is the telos of morality any different?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
In that case, we are are the same page.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't understand something as "morality" if its not built on human well-being. That's all I'm saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't give a fig about morality. I only want to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health. In any case where morality does not support these two considerations I do not support morality and in any case where morality is in opposition to these two considerations I oppose morality.
Where does morality run contrary to human well-being or public health?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Maybe the 5th time will be the charm, but I doubt it. ;-)
This discussion lost its direction when you stubbornly refused to acknowledge schools teach facts and your beliefs aren't accepted as facts. You are simply trying to kick the can down the road looking for the 'real' goalposts in an effort to save face. It could be academia ends up accepting your beliefs as facts, but they don't right now and that is where your argument dies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It doesn't mean you should accept them either without skepticism.
You're not accepting it at all if I understand your view correctly. If so, you're not in the realm of skepticism, friend.
There was a time where unskeptical people accepted schools teaching that Jews were subhuman as established fact.
Godwin's law in action. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Post #4 of you asserting your position is a “fact” while ignoring an argument to the contraryI didn’t consider this conversation to be a waste of time until you stopped engaging and started trolling.
This discussion lost its direction when you stubbornly refused to acknowledge schools teach facts and your beliefs aren't accepted as facts. You are simply trying to kick the can down the road looking for the 'real' goalposts in an effort to save face. It could be academia ends up accepting your beliefs as facts, but they don't right now and that is where your argument dies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
science is provisional.Thanks for exposing your hypocrisy.
Not at all. Just because science is provisional doesn't mean we should reject where all current evidence leads us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Um...okay. @sciencedenialism... Did I win?!
Seriously, science is provisional. If you think a scientific conclusion is wrong, get to work! ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
We have had serious engagement about why schools should not be banned. Your main objection seems to be a failure of public schools is that they teach facts (you dont agree with). A functionally equivalent position would be 'a failure of schools is that they teach about the big bang/heliocentrism/evolution'. Reasons why fact X shouldn’t be a fact is a completely different argument that needs to be resolved before it carries any weight for the original argument. Basically, your argument relies on the results of another argument that cannot be resolved by the two of us.
This addresses the state of our discussion fairly well. You rejecting accepted fact does not change accepted fact. Schools teach facts. If you don't like the facts, that's a 'you problem', not a school issue.
For what its worth, I'm not sure why you need me to accept your beliefs. If you are so sure about your position why are you wasting time with a random dude on the internet? Get out of this dark corner of the web and let the experts know you are their superior! ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
[SkepticalOne] I have no burden to uphold the status quo. It is the status quo because that burden has already been met. If you want to challenge it, you have your burden in front of you and your audience should be the scientific community.This is false
No. The present accepted understanding of gender has not occurred without substantiation. Ie. The burden has been met.
If there is no proof (or support) it should be treated as false even if there is no proof it is false.
If there is no proof for a position, it's truth is dubious - not false. A claim of "False" comes with its own burden. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."-HitchensThis includes the justifications of the status quo.
The scientific status quo is not asserted without evidence. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
If you ever want to have a serious engagement with the other side, feel free to respond to my post whenever. I don't think "my position is justified and yours isn't, and no I won't say why or justify my position because I assert that mine is the status quo and the status quo is always right!" is a serious response, particularly not from a self described skeptic
We have had serious engagement about why schools should not be banned. Your main objection seems to be a failure of public schools is that they teach facts (you dont agree with). A functionally equivalent position would be 'a failure of schools is that they teach about the big bang/heliocentrism/evolution'. Reasons why fact X shouldn’t be a fact is a completely different argument that needs to be resolved before it carries any weight for the original argument. Basically, your argument relies on the results of another argument that cannot be resolved by the two of us.
As for the attempted barb - I am a skeptic, not a cynic. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
If you don't think conversing with me further on this subject is beneficial to you, just say so.People have deeply held beliefs. Many of those peoples deeply held beliefs are different than yours, but we all have to live together. Forcing your deeply held beliefs on peoples children is playing with fire, particularly when the consequences of those deeply held beliefs if applied to other peoples children = those children are sterilized or mutilated.
Yea, I don't think continuing this conversation would be beneficial to either of us. You want your position to be as justified as gender fluidity but it isn't, and I dont have to treat it as such.
This conversation isn't a competition, maybe 5 or 6 people are even reading it. It's not going to move the needle in either direction, there's no "winning" or "losing."
I agree, it isn't a competition and I have no problem with conversation (we gone on for quite a while here). Unfortunately for our conversation, I've reached my limit of absurdity. Equating discussions of gender fluidity to 'teaching anal sex' or 'sterilized or mutilated children' has sabotaged a sincere conversation between us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
You should be able to justify your positions on their own merits instead of simply claiming that the "experts" are on your side.
I have no burden to uphold the status quo. It is the status quo because that burden has already been met. If you want to challenge it, you have your burden in front of you and your audience should be the scientific community.
That is why saying, "Well I don't believe that. I shouldn't have it forced upon me" is such a ridiculous position.
Then try to imagine how you'd feel if the public schools had a system whereby they could be confirmed in the Catholic Church, take communion, and change their names to a Saints name without your knowledge.
Not the same at all. If the positions of the Catholic Church could be substantiated, then your scenario would be analogous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
But a lot of people, myself included, don't think that gender is fluid.
This is where our reasoning diverges. Your (or my) opinion is not equivalent to that of experts informed by evidence. I'll trust their conclusions.
And we control more states than you do,
..still don't care. I am a slave to the evidence. Political clout is not part of that.
Pretty arrogant to insist that this is "reality" without even addressing the opposing argument.
I intend to look at his post later. I see no reason to address what was linked. Would you accept a link in response? (I should hope not.)
How do you know that?
I can't with absolute certainty, but the odds are strongly against indoctrination. Is this where you tell me my nephew has been indoctrinated because I won't claim 100% certainty against it? ;-)
2.1% of Gen Z adults identify as trans, double that of millennials, quadruple that of Gen X and twenty times that of previous generations.
And? Diagnosis of autism increased after we realized it was a thing too. It is hardly a surprising observation.
make your own
Are you suggesting I should make my own kids? We've done that, although, they can't really be considered kids anymore!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I take it you're accepting kindergartners being taught anal sex is not something based in fact? If so, good. I just want to make it clear this isn't something that happens as it seemed you suggested earlier.
Keep in mind how dumb as shit little kids are.
I'm going to take this out of order before I respond to your question. Little kids have processing power. What they severely lack is knowledge. I personally believe the potential of children is limited mostly by underestimation.
what do you think is age appropriate for grade schoolers?
I am fine with the framework as you quoted above. I think where everyone freaks out is that they view these discussions as some type of invitation or proselytizing (Do you accept transgenderism into your heart as your lord and savior?), but that is not how I understand this conversation. It is simply making children aware gender and orientation is fluid. This is information that is good for them in that it gives insights into other people and maybe themselves too.
What right have you to decide for me what my children are taught on this subject, and how can you expect there not to be a response that potentially threatens the public school system?
I didn't decide reality. It is how it is, and that is what we teach. Another appeal to consequences.... I don't think education should stop including the world as it is just because some don't understand and/or don't want to understand it.
Just leave the kids alone and we wouldn't have this problem. Is talking about transgenderism to elementary schoolers so important? why? Cant we just focus on reading and writing...
So you know where I am coming from: My sister's family is conservative. Her husband is military and comes from a military family. My and my sister's parents are conservative. My brother in law's family is conservative. They live in a military town in Oklahoma...a conservative town in a conservative state. My nephew is trans. There was no indoctrination into transgenderism. It is simply who he is. The point being, 'Leaving kids alone' doesn't prevent transgenderism, but it does hobble insight and support for transgender kids. Education is supposed to be for the benefit of society, and Trans folks are part of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I found this within 30 seconds
What you found doesn't support the objection/fear 'kindergartners are being taught about anal sex'. Kindergartners are not being taught anal sex.
Gender identity is not an appropriate conversation for six year olds.
These conversations already happen all the time. Every time we describe a child as "boy" or "girl" and what traits a boy or girl are 'supposed' to have.
For example Florida banned talking about sex for K-3 and people got extremely angry about it. Do you disagree with banning sex talk for kindergartners?
Describing gender identity/sexual orientation as "sex talk" is silly. Both stand apart from sexual intercourse. If you mean to say discussions of anatomy are 'sex talk' then potty training will inevitably involve 'sex talk'...and so will diaper rash. What is this world coming to?! ;-)
This means that childhood sexual trauma can impact your sexuality and people have all kinds of weird fetishes from the first sexual thing their mind fixates on.
Do you find discussions of human gender and orientation traumatic?
Is it really so implausible to you that in the current zeitgeist of identity politics some teachers are more likely now than in the past to try and have inappropriate conversations with their students, or think that getting them to question their gender (something I, and many other parents, would strongly oppose for our kids) is a moral imperative?
I don't think malicious people are more likely to be malicious now than at any time in the past, and they wouldn't need this subject to cause harm. Your fear of this subject (with all due respect) doesn't make other people more or less dangerous.
But we probably have a different view of what the school system should be for.
Yes, we most certainly do.
Also how is that a false impression? The country definitely hasn’t gotten more racist since the civil war. Unless youre saying there was a nadir of race relations after reconstruction and into the 1920s in which case you’d be right
You nailed it. African Americans had more rights after being freed than they had in the 20's. The progression has been anything but smooth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
It’s not an absurd objection because I’ve seen videos of teachers talking about how they discuss homosexuality, gender identity etc with their very young students. I
It absolutely is an absurd and baseless objection. If anal sex were being taught to kindergartners it shouldn't be too difficult produce the offending curriculum or offending teachers. I doubt there is any curriculum or anyone who can still call themselves a teacher doing what you suggest.
I saw an email from a teacher boasting that after teaching her 4th graders about gay and trans issues 20 of the 30 “came out” to her as some kind of LGBT
Well, first, a story about an email isn't substantiation. Secondly, discussing LGBTQ does not require discussing anal sex. This is nothing but an attempt to poison the well either by you or by whoever you got the story from.
As for the highlighted bit, it’s a free country and they can be uncomfortable with it if they want to. It goes back to my original point, you need to be very careful with how hard you want to push because conservatives control more states than you do and that’s only going to accelerate in the next few years.
Which political party is in power has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of gender and sexual orientation. This is not an argument against the position, but a fallacious appeal to consequences.
Is teaching fifth graders about gay sex really an important issue?
Whenever sex ed is taught it should include all aspects of human sexuality. I don't know when sex ed is age-appropriate exactly, but it should occur before the students have first-hand experience. This is an important issue because sexual ignorance leads to societal problems.
Welcome to history sadly. It’s virtually impossible to teach history without pushing some kind of agenda even if it’s just picking the topics you teach or leave out. Could you be more specific? What do you think needs to be taught that right wingers want to get rid of?
There are fairly major historical events which have been left out of the history text books (eg. Tulsa race massacre) and the events that are covered can be heavily ethnocentric (eg. Thanksgiving) or leading to generally false impressions (eg. steady progress for the equality of African Americans since Reconstruction). The criticism is not about preventing current material from being banned, but of the current material being inadequate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Parents aren’t objecting to LGBT kids existing, they’re objecting to stuff like teachers wanting to teach kindergarteners about anal sex.
This is an absurd objection since educators in general (if not across the board) aren't teaching kindergartners about anal sex or advocating for such a curriculum. The younger generations now have a much broader and fluid understanding of gender and sexuality. I think it is fair to say some parts of our society are uncomfortable with this and seek regressive legislation to prevent this from being true of future generations.
What is it that you want schools to teach that you think they aren’t, or that you think (and have evidence that) right wingers want to ban?
As an example, I am certain parts of my historical education were distortions of what actually happened. An accurate account of our history, warts and all, would serve us better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I wonder if this 'abolition of public schools' conversation truly began when the 'social' issue of equality was implemented throug desegregation? Or maybe it was an earlier controversy or has been a constant companion of public schools since their inception? I suspect the latter and imagine the conversation is a little more firey than usually considering the highly charged political climate.
Either way, allowing LGBTQ students to be marginalized by pretending they don't exist or to withhold accurate historical information is not an option. Education is about telling the whole story as best we know it. Historical accuracy and most especially the recognition of a broader understanding of humanity should not be equated to a mere social or political issue. It is the denial of LGBTQ and historical accuracy that is the political touchstone which has no place in public schools.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The state has no buisiness whatsoever indoctrinating our kids [...]
Looks like an assumption to me. Plus, is it really any different if parents indoctrinate their children under the guise of education? The goal should be to prevent indoctrination rather than move to a system with less oversight and regulation where it is easier and more common.
Let parents install their own values in their own kids.
Absolutely, but ignorance isn't a value. The Earth is round, the earth is billions of years old, and the spectrum of gender/sexual orientation isn't something that can be disregarded because they are difficult to process under certain worldviews. Facts are not optional.
The typical kid is in the 80th percentile by the standards of public school.
And? This doesn't address the reasons why homeschooling is not feasible for every family. It also assumes a perfect world where every student is on even ground and capable of focusing on academics rather than difficulties created by their life circumstances. For example, doing well on a test isnt all that important if you're not sure where your next meal will come from.
Just another example of the government screwing up.
Government certainly isn't perfect, but in this case government is dealing with a much broader set of issues than your typical homeschooling teacher.
Created: