Total posts: 399
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Oh yes, the almighty chromosomes! We must discuss them and how they relate to the sex-binary despite the fact that I never used them to establish such a view! Oh, almighty chromosomes, I must prostrate myself before thee for forgetting that you are what matters in this discussion! How dare I establish a sex binary based around gametes, the same exact way it is done in biology for every species that has male and female species members, and not around you! Forgive me of my sins!
(in case you missed my comment in the other thread, which you did respond to, "If anyone is interested in a genuine discussion then message me")
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Oh yes, I am just oh so full of hatred! Your non-sequiturs really helped me see the truth of the matter!
Me being pro-life has nothing to do with the reality that the fetus is a life, no. That biological fact is, in fact, wrong! It is merely a "potential life" and my position is woman hatred! It has nothing to do with the idea of extending the same reasoning used to justify neglect laws to the unborn, it is woman hate!
Me thinking that we shouldn't encourage gender-affirming care is not due to the fact that the studies I have seen that actually have proper control groups bring rise to doubts on the efficacy of such therapies, that no other dysphoria uses affirmation, etc. It is that I hate women, that is why I also don't want women to become men, because I hate women so much! Such a non-sequitur in thinking must be the truth!
Your braindead logic must be the truth! Oh, how blind I must have been for not having been able to see that all I needed to do was abandon rational thinking in order to see that it is obviously the case that I must hate women! Just because there is no rational justification to reach that conclusion it must be true, after all, you have asserted it as such! Thank you for opening my eyes oh braindead one!
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Oh, yes, you have seen through me! It isn't that I think that life is important, it isn't that I think that abortion is the unjustified killing of a life, etc., it must only be that I hate women.
Are you actually this braindead or do you just make braindead takes because you are too lazy to make any sort of real argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No, it doesn't. It simply shows there are people that don't agree with reality. As I said, this conversation has become boring and utterly pointless. Now, either say something actually intelligent or don't bother saying anything at all... or do what you likely will and keep acting like you have something intelligent to say when you don't. As I said in a different thread, I really don't care about this place much anymore. It is clear that talking to you about this topic is a waste of time as you are so utterly convinced that you are correct and it is clear that discussions with you on the topic are as productive as talking with a brick wall.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I can link meaningless YouTube videos as well if you want, but we all know how utterly pointless it is already.
Created:
The number of people that think that bodily autonomy is some right that is inviolable is astonishing. There are numerous ways that that exact right is already limited by other factors in the US that are never challenged, but as soon as the discussion becomes one of abortion it is "but muh bodily autonomy!" without ever making even an attempt at a half-decent argument.
I really miss the DDO of 2012-2015. Sure, there were the smooth brained commenters there, but I remember seeing genuine discussion with actual attempts at argumentation in the forums. I remember people actually admitting their position was not as strong as they thought (even if they almost never fully change their views). Here? On DART? That seems like a pipedream.
I came to DART in hopes of actually finding that type of discussion because it has been missing from common discourse for years now, but it seems this place has grown to be home of as meaningless debate and discussion as everywhere else. The funny thing is how many people take this place seriously while it is such a joke. I'm done trying to put in effort here. If anyone is interested in a genuine discussion then message me, if I think you are genuine then I will engage. Otherwise, I feel like it is a wasted effort at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I am pro-binary and don't view them as too few to consider since they literally all actually fall within the binary already anyways, but whatever. This discussion honestly is boring at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That would then be a question on how their internals developed. Seriously, this isn't even a difficult point and you could easily bring up actual intersex conditions, but instead you are trying to make vague statements to prove your point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sui_generis
This is where the Paper Passer Paradox comes into play. It shows that the timescale being finite or infinite is not the issue (as while the Grim Reaper is over a finite period the Paper Passer is over an infinite one). That paradox holds regardless on if it is over a finite period of time or an infinite one. The issue is the existence of infinite causal histories in general.
If there is an infinite past there would be an infinite causal history, and thus debates on casual finitism still hold relevancy when it comes to the talk about if the past is infinite or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Exactly. Deviation from typical traits does not make you no longer of a particular kind of thing. This is well known and established within the philosophy of science, yet it is ignoring this very understanding that leads to attempts to call sex bimodal instead of binary.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Except that we know from previous actual handshakes of Biden's, look up his handshake with Putin from Geneva last year, that it isn't uncommon for him to have his hand angled in that direction on some level when he first offers to shake hands with people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I agree, and young boys can also be impacted in this way (and worse by puberty blockers), but the reason I focused on the points I did is because I know these people and was using their examples. There is an increase in destruction of familial relations due to this that impacts both young boys and young girls, but by observing the group most impacted by social contagions we become more able to see what, precisely, the problems might be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Not only that, but a lot of people coming out now are teenage girls, the group of people most impacted by social contagions. Furthermore, I have seen many young girls that have destroyed their relationships with their families because their online group that is super affirmative has convinced them that their family members are toxic if they don't show approval or, for one girl I know, destroy her family relationship because her parents refused to put her on hormone blockers (because her online, pro-affirming friends basically convinced her that this meant her family was toxic).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
gender, not sex, is the society's 'split'.
I disagree because for any society to work it needs to have the ability to continue in a positive direction. This requires reproduction and for there to be some level of hierarchical structure behind what is perceived as a better 'mate' (a more desirable man, more desirable woman). This necessitates that society have some structure around sex categories and have enough emphasis on these categories as to allow such hierarchical structures of desirability to form coherently. Any society that fails to do this will end up in a situation where each successive generation becomes less and less likely to keep the society stable and less and less likely to advance society in a direction deemed positive by said society (thus it leads to chaos and the collapse of the society).
If gender is truly separate from sex then a working society cannot be split based on gender instead of based on sex, as otherwise it is a society doomed to collapse. Furthermore, what constitutes the understanding of gender and of sex makes it so that a society cannot appeal to them on an equal level, one must be prioritized. With how similar a role they function in most scenarios this would lead to one, the dominant, absorbing the role of the other and lead to a society where there is no split based on one of those categories. This means that if gender is the preferred one that it will inevitably lead to the split based on sex disappearing, which will lead to societal collapse.
I support the conservative-hated idea of reducing barriers and trends that separate what a man or woman can do in a socially acceptable way that the other cannot do in a socially acceptable way.
I do as well, but that does not impact if you are a man or woman. This goes back to a NYTimes story I linked to in another thread about how a woman has a tomboy daughter. Her daughter very much is a she (the mother is a progressive and is open about her daughter being trans, but the daughter isn't). People around her cannot seem to comprehend that the daughter is not trans. The reason why is because a lot of what determines if one is trans in a child is gender role conformity, but this is exactly what second-wave feminists marched against. There are multiple ways you can be a man, there are multiple ways you can be a woman. The moment this is acknowledged and properly accepted it gets rid of a lot around the whole idea of 'gender fluid' and 'genderqueer'. These are not identities reflective of reality unless you pigeonhole people by stereotypical gender roles. It also would lead to, I believe, significantly less people being falsely identified as being trans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
We would never entertain a young-looking, botox-filled, plastic-surgeoned 76 year old claim to be 30 in any official sense. Why do we allow males to claim to be females and vice versa for extremely similar body modification levels?There is not one genuine reply that you can give me which disagrees that doesn't commit a logical fallacy, try it.Quoting myself from another thread.
The standard argument I have seen is to try and act like sex and gender are entirely different categories (which they are not and this distinction's origin is not unbiased in this discussion) and then pretend that society is based around gender categories instead of sex categories (when that is literally not the case as societies that aren't based around biological sex, on some level, do not work).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Depends on what you mean by "functioning penis".
Do you mean that said person has a penis for pissing but has ova and their plumbing is mostly built around that? Then they are a woman with a penis.
If they somehow have testes and the plumbing for such despite having no Y-Chromosome (something impossible iirc), then they would be a man.
Chromosomes are some of the most reliable indicators but they aren't infallible.
Just like there are conditions where a woman is born with an X and a Y Chromosome but develops entirely female is a woman.
Created:
Posted in:
Discussed this exact thing in a different thread not that long ago, but to summarize:
Men are members of a species who are built around the production of small gametes, women are members of a species who are built around the production of large gametes.
Certain other traits are typically associated with men and with women.
With a proper understanding of a kind from the Philosophy of Science there is a proper understanding that deviation from typical traits does not necessitate that you aren't a part of said kind, and this concept can be applied to men and women as well.
Thus, sex is binary.
All known intersex conditions still fall under this binary understanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It is stories like that that make me sympathetic to the contagion hypothesis, but social contagion does not have academic backing. Stories like that, however, has made it so I would be more surprised if academia concludes there is no social contagion. We don't know if those types of stories are a very extreme minority or whether they are more representative of the norm (or where the fall between those two points)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No, there isn't.
There is no proper control group in so many studies around gender dysphoria and reassignment surgeries. One of the largest studies around reassignment, for example, initially posted that it was helpful but had to be corrected and say that it didn't help at all (and admit that there was increase in anxiety in the surgery group). The reason for the initial mistake was that they didn't use a control group and the moment they did the opposite conclusion was reached. This is the norm when it comes to studies involving gender dysphoria, reassignment surgeries, etc., not the exception.
Studies either have too small of a sample size or no proper control groups and yet they make giant announcements about how the pro-affirmation side of things works.
Created:
Posted in:
Being transgender cannot be marketed to anyone effectively
I mean, that is debatable.
Social contagion is a thing and as the trans-rights movement has grown there has been a sharp increase in teenage girls coming out as trans (the same demographic most susceptible to social contagion).
There isn't much study on the topic in relation to gender dysphoria yet, and, as I have pointed out in another thread, methodological issues are commonplace in studies related to gender dysphoria, so it could be quite some time before any sort of actual reliable study comes out.
But to say definitively that there isn't an aspect of social contagion is quite the leap (I would say the same to those arguing the other way as well).
We just do not know yet, but there is reason enough to have it be a point of interest to study.
Created:
Posted in:
even while opposing surgery it would be best to remember that it is none of your buisness because it is not your body.
I mean, as a society I think it is appropriate to care about how people are treated. This is why we don't use the "not your body" argument against people that try and stop suicidal people from committing suicide.
But, let's grant this for a moment.
Do I now have to change how I speak? Do businesses have to now let biological men into women's changing rooms? What about sports?
Seems like affirmation is more than just this one person making a change to their body, it also is about society playing along as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
I'd challenge you to give a better treatment for gender dysphoria that doesn't amount to conversion therapy, since we already know that doesn't work.
And once again we see non-affirming therapies for gender dysphoria compared to conversion therapies for sexual orientation when that is one of the clearest false analogies in existence. Why does the pro-affirmation crowd insist on making this comparison when it is so clearly false? My guess is because it makes it easier to criticize non-affirming therapies when they have no actual evidence to support their BS views.
You don't compare a body dysphoria to a sexual orientation, you compare it to other body dysphorias. When you do that... oh, wow, would you look at that. In other body dysphorias non-affirmation is the norm? Who would have guessed! So, when you actually compare it to something appropriate the opposite conclusion is reached? Really makes me feel more strongly that the reason it constantly gets compared to sexual orientation is done for dishonest reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
They should love their sex, be as a feminine a male and as masculine a female as they naturally are.
Exactly, though I would caution against necessarily calling it being a feminine male or masculine female. A lot of this revolves around modern gender stereotypes and trying to pigeonhole people into one set category.
Treat people that don't like their bodies/feel uncomfortable in them to accept their bodies (which is how every other body dysphoria is treated), then teach people that there is no one way to be a man/woman and that certain actions/behaviors are not actually masculine/feminine and engaging in them does not impact you as a man/woman (essentially what second-wave feminists marched for).
Have to say, I am shocked to see us agreeing on this point considering how much we disagree on so many other things. Nice to find common ground with others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
There is a question in philosophy, can something (like, for example, the universe) have an infinite causal history? Is that even a possibility?
The paradoxes serve to show that our common ideas of how things should operate break down if there is such a possibility and, thus, Koons, Pruss, etc. argue that the rational choice is to dismiss the possibility of things having an infinite causal history (thus the necessity of a 'first').
Malpass, and others, disagree. They think that we have no need for a 'first', that things can have an infinite causal history.
The paradox is interesting because, as it is a conceivable and valid paradox (from a metaphysical perspective), it forces you to have to address certain ideas of how the world operates if you wish to preserve the ability for things to have an infinite causal history, which is where Malpass's argument, which makes use of Hawthorn's argument, from the OP come into play (as well as Linford's response to it).
Within philosophy the discussion and creation of paradoxes is a methodology of testing various ideas and concepts. To dismiss it as mere word games is to dismiss an important aspect of philosophy that has existed for centuries, and (unless you can present a good reason for such dismissal) would indicate to me that discussion would be a waste of time as it would indicate that, despite your claims to the contrary, you don't really care about philosophy.
Now, are you actually going to engage with the conversation or keep flapping your lips?
My doctor has just told me I likely have cancer and am not going to waste any time in my life in a pointless discussion with you if you aren't going to take this seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Exactly. I linked in a different thread a NYTimes story where a mother was constantly questioned about if her tomboy daughter was trans or not. Second-wave feminists wanted us to realize that there was not just one way to be a woman/man. Trans-rights activists want us to view any deviation from the stereotype in children as a sign that they are trans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Male pronouns.
Part of non-affirming therapy is to accept both who you are and what reality is, not to let your self-image dictate it.
Pronouns are not these subjective things that can mean whatever you want them to, and so as I was born male that means I am male and thus use male pronouns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Your non-affirming therapy includes not to label typical behaviours associated with femininity and masculinity? Based.
For the most part, yes.
If you personally struggle to separate certain behaviors then it is recommended (at least, early on in therapy) that you do not engage in them as it can cause your dysphoria to become more prominent, leading to increase in depression and anxiety, but you ultimately have to come to terms that many of the things society labels as masculine or feminine aren't actually masculine or feminine.
There is a lot of looking throughout history to see certain traits that society today considers feminine were prominent in men throughout history in order to help dispel the idea that said actions are actually feminine, and there is some look at the argumentation from second-wave feminists and mirroring it for the male perspective. There are other aspects as well that focus more on how you view your body and how you relate to it, but I really don't want to get too into it here.
This doesn't mean there aren't still some actions, behaviors, etc. that you will view as feminine or masculine, but there will be much less. Once you have been in therapy long enough to get comfortable (enough) with your body's sex and have understood that many of these traits that are seen as feminine or masculine aren't gendered at all you hopefully learn that no one's behavior falls strictly into the stereotype and thus it becomes easier for you to do things you still perceive as 'feminine' or 'masculine' without it causing you to think you are any more/less a man/woman for such behaviors.
I mean, I am trying to summarize a long process of therapy into just a couple paragraphs, but I hope the point is gotten across.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
It must be hard to fight against it.
It was when I first started therapy, but it isn't that difficult anymore. I have pretty much learned to live with it. Just as the second-wave feminists pushed the idea that there were multiple ways one can choose to live as a woman and still be equally valid as a woman, so to are there multiple ways to one can live as a man. Sure, some of my behaviors might more seen as more 'effeminate', but those actions are, in reality, not feminine or masculine and to label them as such would require some level of sexist attitude.
Do you find any behaviours slipping through?
Depends on what you mean by 'behaviors'.
This is, as I have grown to learn, very sexist thinking. It is predicated on the idea that to be a man or to be a woman means you must fall under a particular stereotype of what is meant to be a man or woman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Could you explain your gender dysphoria?
What's to explain, its gender dysphoria.
I feel like I was born in the wrong body with a strong desire to be a woman.
When I imagine my ideal self it is always female.
Etc.
Is it beyond just crossdressing?
I have stated I do non-affirming therapy, why would I crossdress?
Created:
Posted in:
I will tell you this straight up, the trans-rights community has shown me nothing but disdain in most forums because I promote non-affirming therapies while having gender dysphoria myself. People that DE-transition or seek non-affirming therapies get talked down to, ridiculed, etc. in a lot of these forums. As such, it is clear that, based on the terms set by this movement, if you oppose transgenderism as a solution you are transphobic. Honestly, I feel like the term has lost all meaning based on how it is used.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If you are done with discussing the topic then don't come back and comment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I suppose one could argue either side for dwarf women having beards,
I think that while one could try the argument that one side is stronger.
In the works published while he was alive there is only one reference one way or the other in The Return of the King where it says they do.
To go to the sources you are talking about
When we go to his posthumous works we have The War of the Jewels which states that they both men and women have beards since birth and one is only ever seen without a beard if it was shaven in mockery.
Then we have The Nature of Middle-earth, another posthumous work of his, which does not say that Dwarf women are without beards but only says "All male dwarves had [beards]." which some try to use as implying that not all Dwarf women do, and this is where the debate occurs.
However, it is important to note that The War of the Jewels was edited together by Christopher Tolkien while The Nature of Middle-earth was edited together by Carl F. Hostetter.
When accounting for all of that I think that it gives much more weight to the interpretation that Dwarf women were meant to have beards. It might have been something Tolkien was considering changing his mind on, sure, but it does seem to me like the safe bet would always be to take the view of bearded dwarven ladies.
There 'were various races of men in the movies, and books I think.So it's not a stretch to imagine various races of dwarves or elves,Certainly were a number of different 'groups of elves in the Silmarillion.
I have no problem if they think they can fit it into the lore, but I just do not see how they would (not that they couldn't).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
For me, I figured when Amazon got it that there would inevitably be woke politics influencing the decisions and I thought "Well, stories around the Blue Wizards would allow for that without breaking lore as so much is a mystery!" and had hopes they would do that as the focus in order to be able to inject their political ideas while not explicitly messing with the world Tolkien established... then they decided to explicitly mess with the world Tolkien established.
Created:
-->
@coal
Ya, I stopped trusting these "fact checkers" years ago. It became painfully obvious that they weren't interested in facts but in agendas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Why are all the caucasian-type races good guys except Saruman.
They aren't. Agmar was a place of evil. A lot of people's in the west had been evil.
Hell, Gondor had a civil strife that caused a bunch of people to flee and join with the Corsairs of Umbar (which this conflict was over the Gondor royal family mixing blood with the long living Numenoreans).
If you actually read Tolkien's works you will find numerous villains among the "Caucasian races" just as you will find heroes and good guys among the "non-Caucasian races".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The Elves were drawn from Germanic myths.
The Hobbits represented the people of the English countryside (at a time where that would have basically meant only English people).
You are trying to find something to reach for in order to make it so that Tolkien is racist even when he isn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh, it's about the Disney thing? Then I would say the OP is deceptive. Disney has had a special privilege for years now that is being taken from it. It isn't a punishment to take away a special privilege. If it was raising taxes above the norm due to speech then that would be a violation of free speech, but to take away a privilege due to feeling like the cooperation is no longer serving the best interest of the state is no any sort of violation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
That's because it is. I feel like if he had evidence that pre-Tolkien orcs were supposed to appear handsome in a rugged way that he would have actually provided evidence of such by now instead of appealing to modern depictions that have been influenced by the evolution of the fantasy genre.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Ogres and orc-like versions of Ogres existed long before Tolkein.
Ya, I even said as such.
He twisted them into hideous disfigured creatures for no reason at all
You will need to provide some good evidence of that, as so far you only seem to be appealing to the depiction of Orcs from after Tolkien and not the orcs of myth and folklore that Tolkien drew inspiration from.
It genuinely seems like you are just agenda pushing at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I don't get the Grim Reaper example,
It asks the question, did you die? If so, who killed you?
It, like with Zeno's paradox, uses halfway points as spacing, but it isn't quite the same.
If you are alive at 1am then Grim Reaper 1 will kill you, but you cannot be alive at such a time as Grim Reaper 2 should have already killed you.
So, if you were alive at 12:30 Grim Reaper 2 will kill you, but you cannot be alive at such a time as Grim Reaper 3 should have already killed you.
So on and so forth.
It ends with a paradox of you must die by the hands of a Grim Reaper but no Grim Reaper can actually be responsible for your death (so why are you dead?).
The Paper Passer uses the same logic but extends it to infinite time and, instead of death, it is a unique number on a piece of paper. It was created in response to some of the attempts to solve the paradox without giving up causal infinitism.
Paper passer one makes more sense,It basically sounds like old argument of who created the creator, who created the creator who created the creator, who c- so on.
It can be formulated as such, yes. It shows that if you try and do infinite regress that it creates logical issues, thus there must be a first.
There are various attempts at allowing infinite causal histories, like Malpass and Hawthorn's that I mentioned, but I don't think they work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Took the words out of my mouth, again.
It was primarily that argument that made me feel the need to include that first line in my comment. I genuinely don't know anyone who could make this as an argument without being either wholly ignorant or intellectually dishonest (or they are a troll).
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I already do and yes I still would.
Same.
I mean, I don't necessarily think there are any infinitely powerful gods (I have grown agnostic on the point after a few conversations with a Platonist I know), but I do think that certain gods are dicks and some are less so.
I don't worship or work with YWHY, Zeus, etc. because of my thoughts on them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
(I genuinely cannot tell if you are being serious or not, and so constructed to following as if you were being serious.)
So, you are unaware that there were people of ethnic minorities in the southern and eastern lands, lands conquered by Sauron, and that they were now all evil. In fact, the Blue Wizards (and Saruman early on) went to those lands to give aide (while Gandalf, Radagast, and Saruman later on dealt with the west). In fact, while it is said that the Blue Wizards did ultimately fail (only Gandalf succeeded) they actually managed to do enough to help weaken Sauron's forces, which ultimately lead to the victory over him.
So, we just didn't get these stories in detail, but it is clear that "ethnic=evil" is not true in the least.
Furthermore, the Elves are meant to be flawed on some level, and so pointing out how they have imperfections in how they act misses the point.
Furthermore, you seem to only have a very passing understanding of the history of Elves and Dwarves that leads you to not understand their relationship in the least.
You also criticize Tolkien's depiction of Orcs in comparison to the depiction in other fantasy settings when it is Tolkien that brought to orcs into the fantasy genre to begin with. He brought Orcs out of Beowulf, where they were a tribe of evil elves condemned by God, and brought them into the fantasy genre. His depiction is pretty well in-line with the mythology he drew from, so this criticism is also bs.
I can also go into detail about the Elves, but it would be a similar point.
At the end of the day, these lines of arguments you have made (which are, sadly, quite common) can only be made by someone with very little actual knowledge on Tolkien or his works. He did not center the stories he did write around the peoples in the south or east because he was trying to create a mythology for the English people, but he made sure not to act like they didn't exist or as if they were all evil either. His work defined the genre and brought new ideas and concepts to it. These criticisms that are popping up now that Amazon is trying to make a series in Tolkien's world are absolutely ignorant on reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Notwithstanding that you've changed your mind again, and blamed me for doing so.
Except I haven't.
In the OP, "Is the past finite or infinite?"
In my first reply to you, "Causal finitism can impact the nature of the past (is it eternal or not) but the nature of the past has much less to do with the nature of causal finitism."
In my second reply to you, "As such, the nature of the past does not impact causal finitism in any way but dedicating the first few words of the OP to that idea (which is what is done with this concept in academia) is not misplaced in the least."
None of this is inconsistent with each other. None of it is "me changing my mind".
Are you interested in discussion or just flapping your mouth about? Because it really seems like the latter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
My guess is that they are making the leap from gender dysphoria to being trans, treating them as the same thing when they are not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
All I can say at this point is read a book. You have no idea what you are talking about in regards to metaethics and yet act like you have all the answers. It is more productive to talk to a brick wall at this point, and so I see no reason to continue the discussion here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Out of the loop, which bills are you talking about at the moment? I have been trying to juggle too much stuff lately and must have either missed the news on said bills or it must be something I cannot recall at the moment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm sorry, but I don't see what principle(s) precisely you are holding to that guides your decision. You seem to have restated your position without going into the details of which principle(s) guide them.
Also, do you think that the volunteers in your area are mostly left-leaning due to location? I remember in a different thread just the other day I gave a link that showed that people in rural areas were more likely and consistently do volunteer work than people in urban areas. Combine that with studies that show that the most charitable people tend to be Republicans and it seems more like you are drawing a faulty conclusion due to your limited perspective.
https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/resource/statistics-on-u-s-generosity/ (older study, I know, but still accurate from what I have seen)
"Republicans, in comparison, had comparatively few skinflints, and numerous serious donors—31 percent sharing at least $1,000 with charity, versus 17 percent among Democrats, and 20 percent among Independents."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The left wing would prefer the former.
Can you explain your reasoning why?
What ethics/principles are behind the decision that in an ideal society the money for food banks would come from taxing the rich rather than through charitable donations?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The second option would be ideal. Ideally, we shouldn't need almost any taxes for things, leaving it up to volunteerism and charities. One of the reasons I am centrist is because I don't hold to a strict ideal (which is why, as you will note, in my preferred system for the real world there are taxes for welfare).
I am still curious where you got the idea that the right was opposed to food banks though.
Created: