Total posts: 1,720
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
It is not biologically possible for a human to have male DNA or chromosomes, and also have the ability to reproduce.
Not to be pedantic, but reproduction requires male and female gametes. I think maybe you mean the ability to bear children? If so, an individual with Swyer Syndrome can bear children. They just can't get pregnant the old fashioned way. Plus, its possible to have female DNA and not have the ability to reproduce. The 'ability to reproduce' is important for life, but not important for someone to be male/female, masculine/feminine.
If you ever meet the less than 1% of the population that is born this way, then that is an exception.
Again, this is equivalent to the amount of people who have red hair. It's not a small amount.
But a deformity does not support biological born men with male DNA, transitioning into women.
That's your professional opinion, eh? If anything, we've established sex isn't binary. Ive provided only one way chromosomes and genitalia can run contrary. I havent gone into the numerous other ways biology can make a mockery of binary conceptions of sex. Suffice to say, the argument for wedging everyone into a binary system that doesn't properly describe humanity is self-defeating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
This is not possible for a man to have reproductive properties but it is possible for them to be born with the genitalia of a woman.
Okay. I'm more confused as to how you determine sex. Is it chromosomes, genitalia, or something else?
So, in your mind, an individual that looks female, has functional female genitalia, a uterus, fallopian tubes, and... XY chromosomes is male? [...]
If I met this person on the street, chances are I'm not going to know their genitalia or their chromosomes. I will take cues from them as to what labels are appropriate. That's all we can do unless we are going to be super inappropriate or invasive. What's the problem with that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If experts in the appropriate fields determined less than 4 limbs makes person with BIID 'whole' (and that is what the patient wants), I would trust their judgement. That would ultimately be between the patient and their doctor.Well if this sentence doesn't prove a point about left-tribe authority based epistemology nothing will.
It proves nothing other than I personally defer to expertise rather than allow my views to be informed by ignorance. No shame here.
Everything is optional except for the consequences.rofl, ok well then the so called "obsession" with fake genitals, education, pronouns of the right-tribe are the "consequences".
Im not sure what that is supposed to mean. I'm simply pointing out being a dick has negative consequences.
What a mundane dodge. Analogies aren't strawmen.
Non-analogous analogies are strawmen. Defecating in the street?! Seriously. Gtfo here with that BS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
We would certainly need legislation if a group of surgeons were performing amputations as "acts of mercy".
If experts in the appropriate fields determined less than 4 limbs makes person with BIID 'whole' (and that is what the patient wants), I would trust their judgement. That would ultimately be between the patient and their doctor.
It's all about the notion that the 99% are obligated to change language, customs, education, and even dating habits to cater not to people with a natural deformity but to those who choose to deform themselves (or merely wish to).
First off, gender dysphoria is natural. Education about it is appropriate. As for the rest, no one is obligated. Everything is optional except for the consequences.
If amputees insisted that they had different pronouns, were a new species, had a right to defecate on the street, asked children if they would be happier with fewer limbs
What a spectacular strawman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So, in your mind, an individual that looks female, has functional female genitalia, a uterus, fallopian tubes, and... XY chromosomes is male? [...]Yep. [...]
By that reasoning, a male (your label) can become pregnant. I think your label is not reasonable, but I thank you for the clarification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Sex is not a social construct and even it doesn't fit into nice neat binary categories. That's the point.It fits as well as anything non-abstract can. When we say humans are tetrapods we don't mean every human has four limbs or even was born with four limbs.
True. We also don't have legislation specifically targeting folks with less than 4 limbs. On the other hand, not fitting into the sex/gender binary is controversial (to say the least).
I agree. Any number of boys having their genitals mutilated (aka circumcized) without their consent is abhorrent.Somehow I doubt you believe that.
It is not I who is being duplicitous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Scale is hardly relevant. If it's only one, but a right the laws are wrong. If it's a hundred thousand but abuse, the laws are right.
I agree. Any number of boys having their genitals mutilated (aka circumcized) without their consent is abhorrent.
If chromosomes are absolute...how do you think intersex people exist?Why pretend this matters when the trans cult won't accept any biological standard whatsoever? It's a "social construct" [...] when it needs to be.
Sex is not a social construct and even it doesn't fit into nice neat binary categories. That's the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Just let me try to understand what you're saying...a clitoris (which everyone who has ever existed has possessed) isn't female genitalia? This has become absurd. I encourage you to take a step back and re-evaluate your position.Nope, you are misunderstanding what I am saying.
This is your opportunity to explain.
If chromosomes are absolute...how do you think intersex people exist?Intersex people are born with different organs, not chromosomes.
So, in your mind, an individual that looks female, has functional female genitalia, a uterus, fallopian tubes, and... XY chromosomes is male? I'm sure people with Swyer syndrome would disagree with that assessment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Except when we all had female genitalia. This is a clear cut case of special pleading on your part.No biological man ever had female genitalia, the only sign of that is our nipples.
Just let me try to understand what you're saying...a clitoris (which everyone who has ever existed has possessed) isn't female genitalia? This has become absurd. I encourage you to take a step back and re-evaluate your position.
No, I made exceptions for the genitalia part. Not the chromosome part. Every human is born with either male or female chromosomes. No exceptions.
If chromosomes are absolute...how do you think intersex people exist?
Except where it doesn't. You are discounting a group of people (intersex people) that are as numerous as people with red hair. There are more things in reality than are dreamt of in your worldview.Cannibalism is wrong yes?Most societies' throughout history would agree.A small percentage would disagree.Does the small percentage that disagree make cannibalisms ok or right?
This response has no discernable relevance to intersex or red-headed people. Being intersex and/or red-headed is not a moral question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Why would the Jefferson Bible method, not be workable?
Because that is not a matter of trying to understand, but of quite literally changing the story. If the book were a message from God, then humans shouldn't need to be editors...nor would they be qualified. It would be pretty damn arrogant to think we with our finite wisdom could improve upon the words of an omniscient being, don't ya think?!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No, I am saying that male DNA or chromosomes makes you male, and female DNA or chromosomes makes you female.
Except where it isn't - which you've already acknowledged.
I am saying that genitalia is most of the time a clear sign of what sex you are.
Except when we all had female genitalia. This is a clear cut case of special pleading on your part.
It doesn't. It has to do with your view that chromosomes are the absolute end-all-be-all of sex determination. They're not.Yes they are.
Again, you've already acknowledged exceptions.
Well all of human reproduction and history agrees with me.
Except where it doesn't. You are discounting a group of people that are as numerous as people with red hair. There are more things in reality than are dreamt of in your worldview.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Porn demand would hardly be a good excuse for performing mutilations on children in any case.
You misspelled religion.
Gender affirming medical treatment on minors is rare. From 2019 - 2021, less than 60 genital surgeries were performed. On the other hand, it is estimated 64% (notice that is 64 percent, not just 64 individuals) of American boys are circumcized.
There is a much much more common form of (non-consensual) mutilation happening and it has nothing to do with gender affirming care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Sure, everyone starts with labia and a clitoris. You can try to argue this isn't female I suppose, but you do so at the expense of being taken seriously.How so?
You're saying male genitalia makes someone male while simultaneously saying female genitalia doesn't make someone female. You undermine your own position.
What does this have to do with everyone being female first?
It doesn't. It has to do with your view that chromosomes are the absolute end-all-be-all of sex determination. They're not.
In short, your black and white understanding of gender and sex doesn't match the real world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I'm interested in what is actually trueI am interested in God and that which is good.
Yes, your point is clear: you don't believe truth is important. It is your right to be deluded, but this disallows any common ground for debate between us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If the truth was that God doesnt exist, then I would stop believing in truth and continue believing in God.
Unlike you, I'm interested in what is actually true rather than what I want to be true. If it isn't true or can't be shown true, I don't want to think otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
my point... christianity is a compelling religion. why does the bible need to be true for the religion to be true?
The Bible necessarily needs to be true (or not false) for Christianity to be true. Christianity is built on the Bible being the word of the Christian deity. If any part of it is wrong, then the god either doesn't care enough to prevent tampering, is malicious, isn't powerful enough to prevent human edits, or doesn't exist. Any one of these options being true runs contrary to the typical Christian theology.
I question if any significant group of Christians think the Bible is wrong. What a Biblical literalist or a liberal believer think is the correct understanding of the Bible aren't necessarily right. I imagine the liberal believer doesn't think the Bible is false so much as they don't accept the literal interpretation like the conservative (and vice versa). One christian (or group of Christians) saying a hermeneutic is wrong doesn't make it so.
That being said, I'm no longer a believer. My perspective from the outside is that Christians with different views appeal to the same authority and this is a problem. It's pretty clear one all-powerful, omnibenevolent, omniscient source wouldn't endorse all views. Someone (if not everyone) is most certainly wrong about "God" and what it wants. As I have no dog in that fight, I humbly submit my observations for your consideration. I'd be interested to know if this is the conversation you were looking for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
They start development from the same starting point, but their predetermined sex is different at conception (aka) chromosomes.
Sure, everyone starts with labia and a clitoris. You can try to argue this isn't female I suppose, but you do so at the expense of being taken seriously.
FYI, individuals can be born with genitalia that doesn't match their chromosomes. Suffice to say, there's a lot that you don't know about human biology. I say that as someone who recognizes I still have a lot to learn about it as well, so don't take that as an insult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
All human individuals—whether they have an XX, an XY, or an atypical sex chromosome combination—begin development from the same starting point. During early development the gonads of the fetus remain undifferentiated; that is, all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I'm happy to give those subject to pregnancy a priority regarding abortion. However, abortion isn't just a female issue as it, at its core, is a discussion over the right to bodily autonomy and self-ownership. Everyone has a vested interest in the outcome of this debate.
As for your trans distinctions, everyone starts out as female in the womb. Some of those females transition to male. Soooo, everyone is either female or used to be. This means every male on the planet is trans. What are you doing wearing those nipples, bro?!
As for your trans distinctions, everyone starts out as female in the womb. Some of those females transition to male. Soooo, everyone is either female or used to be. This means every male on the planet is trans. What are you doing wearing those nipples, bro?!
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Would you like to debate Christianity?
ME...ME...PICK ME!!!
Created:
-->
@Tejretics
Hello. My name is SkepticalOne and I used to be a fan of Ted Cruz. I'm feeling much better now.
I used to be for minimal government intervention in business and in the lives of the governed. Somewhere in the back of my head I thought capitalism was the solution to any problem. I used to be for civil unions, school vouchers and against abortions. Now, I think regulation is crucial and not done enough. Capitalism isn't appropriate for some things like healthcare, prisons, education, etc. if it is appropriate for anything at all. We should take cues from some of those 'evil' socialists countries. I'm for marriage equality, public schools, and reproductive freedom.
I think you get the idea: Fuck Ted Cruz.
Created:
Posted in:
I asked if the action of terminating a child in the womb is morally wrong (no other factors involved)
My first response to your question:
Given that the question is absent nuance, my answer will match: no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I've answered the question 3 times now. If you disagree, tell me why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I am not talking about the "right to your body argument" right now.
I don't think the question of abortion can be separated from bodily autonomy/integrity.
My only question is do you think it is morally acceptable to kill a child in the womb, and why?
As stated previously, we get to choose who/what interacts with our bodies because we own ourselves. Is it immoral to NOT donate organs, blood, or be a human incubator? No. That's how self-ownership works.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I listen to briefings from NPR, BBC, and CNN in the mornings and supplement with New York times. Sometimes I watch the local evening news.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I've already answered that question and explained my reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
As owners we have a broad right to do with our bodies what we want and maintain our bodily integrity as we see fit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Given that the question is absent nuance, my answer will match: no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
This is an argument from ignorance. You're not providing evidence for how existence began but appealing to our (humanity's) ignorance as some type of explanation.
Besides that, it is not uncommon for atheists to simply acknowledge ignorance regarding the origins of the universe ("I don't know"). To 'prove atheists wrong', something more than ignorance is needed. You ain't got it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Anyone who thinks compromises should be made regarding rights doesn't understand rights. Rights are immutable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I would recommend reading the Bible from start to finish keeping in mind it is supposedly 'the inspired word' of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent being. If you start at "In the beginning", it won't take too long to realize that's bullshit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
No deal. You can't trade rights for rights. Rights are not privileges, my man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
If you find yourself lacking an opponent, I would be interested in the 'Bible is True'.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
What kind of life are we talking?The human life.
Perhaps you would define "human life". Is it cells with human DNA? I hope you have something more discerning and considered in mind.
There is no "my view of morality". It is God's will. You either value life above all else, either you dont. If you dont, you burn in hell. Simple.
It has already been shown in this thread you're not advocating 'God's will's' as laid out by the Bible. Even assuming the existence of your deity, "Your morality" is still accurate.
No, the believers in God do not kill children.
That would be a no true Scotsman fallacy. Believers have abortions.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
@b9_ntt
@Best.Korea
@TWS1405_2
the morality of life.
This phrase is either nonsensical or incomplete. What kind of life are we talking? Cancerous morality, zygotic morality, bacterial morality...? I think it is safe to safe these types of life and many others are amoral.
If anything, you have proven that atheism has no morality or intelligence
We have shown we do not accept your view of morality or intelligence. I don't see that as a bad thing.
Let us pray for all the deluded atheists who killed billions of children proving that their atheism doesnt work and is an abomination.
If I had to hazard a guess, it is believers who are getting the majority of abortions. (No judgement from me) If you must pray, make sure to base it on reality. An omniscient being would presumably know the truth.
Created:
-->
@b9_ntt
How dare you quote the Bible and show OP's position is based on personal preference rather than the God of the Bible. HOW DARE YOU, SIR!
😏
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
No refutation provided. I accept your concession.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Do you believe a zygote is a human being? If not, then why would you care what the abortion rate is?
No. The abortion rate includes more than just zygotes.
Also, abortions can be hard on women. Reducing the abortion rate helps individuals who are undeniably persons.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Abortion covers developmental stages beyond zygote, some of which personhood could be argued. Concern for the more mature unborn and women's rights aren't not mutually exclusive.
Plus, abortion isnt necessarily something celebrated, but something tolerated out of necessity.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Neither SO nor myself backed down let alone conceded.Is a false statement. When you failed to provide a counter argument, you conceded.
I provided a novel argument not found elsewhere in the thread. You claimed my argument was refuted by argumentation not in the thread. I pointed this out. You doubled and tripled down on a hand with no cards.
Your strategy is effectively 'nu uh' and gaslighting. Failing to provide a counter argument, per your own reasoning, is a concession. You are conceding.
I'd be happy to debate if you care to engage:
There is no justification for abortionSure there is: Rape, incest, fetal death, fetal inviability, ectopic pregnancy, pregnancy causing threat to mother's life, and, last but not least, personal decision not to be/remain pregnant.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
After being presented with logical arguments, you and ScepticalOne both backed down and conceded, both being unable to refute my arguments.
I was presented with rumors of logical arguments. Nice try though.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I'm not worried about eternal torment in an afterlife. I'm am not a Christian. 😉
A person who accepts the extreme views you represent here is an exponentially greater threat than any Biblical damnation.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
All of those were refuted above. Please read the post before commenting.
I've read the thread and have not seen the refutation you mentioned. I have seen insanely ignorant or intentionally absurd positions though. Either way, further engagement would be a waste of my time. Have a nice day.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I can't tell if you're being serious or trolling.
There is no justification for abortion
Sure there is: Rape, incest, fetal death, fetal inviability, ectopic pregnancy, pregnancy causing threat to mother's life, and, last but not least, personal decision not to be/remain pregnant.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ok, so?How does this disprove God?
Not trying to convert you, just enlightening you on what it means to be a Christian from this apostate.
Some might of been lying, have you ever thought of that?Some might have just been very prideful, and didn't want to let the others think they were wrong, thus using God as an excuse.
It is interesting your first reaction is to doubt the morality of Christians...
Deception or malicious intent aren't likely, imo. It was simply well-meaning people looking for magical answers (me included). I happen to think people are prone to misinterpret their personal desires with the 'will of god'. This explains why there are so many denominations and god-concepts. People aren't lying - they are misinformed.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
It's not contradictory.
Again, I don't think you read the post you were replying to. My anecdote referenced contradictory "answers from God". Some church members felt the school should go. Some felt the school should stay. Both sides felt God was guiding them.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Sadly this is the case with many Ex-Christians. They don't see Gods full plan, because they don't have the faith to trust him.
I get the feeling you didn't read the entire post because "God's full plan" shouldn't include giving contradictory answers.
Created: