Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You mean like the theory of gravity? Because to me you sound a tad like a conspiracy theorist attempting to semantic your way out of that. Furthermore, it seems to me that the judges of the website like semantics, which you happen to be an expert in, but I believe to have found my way around it. You work by taking evidence and attempting to invalidate it using your own, often, faulty interpretation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kadin
Revelations 22:20 - "He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus."
Cause I think it demonstrates how bullshit the bible is all in one place. Very convenient. In all seriousness, it does seem to me that the fact that Jesus said he'd be back before the end of his apostle's lives and this verse both show that no, Jesus isn't coming back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
See- that's kinda why we don't use dictionaries you can't prove you're citing - because I have definitions which can be cited that don't always agree with you.
Theory - "If something is possible in theory, it should be possible, but often it does not happen in that way: something suggested as a reasonable explanation for facts, a condition, or an event, esp. a systematic or scientific explanation"
So you beat Undefeatable, cool, you wanna debate me on Systematic Racism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
In an effort to disway you of your misinterpreted notions I'll repeat myself - comprehensively this time.
First of all, the first line is a question addressed to you - "So what if dysphoria is developed after natal development?"
And second because this:
"..So my ongoing question,[1a] is how does the predetermined entity come to dysphoric conclusions?....As I see it, mind set,[1b] is affected by post-natal data input and management....So are you suggesting that irregular hormone signalling, can affect cognitive development?....[1c]If so, then why do we not balance hormone production in favour of physical identity. Rather than utilising hormone therapy just to alleviate dysphoria...... After all, both are interventive hormone therapies."
1a - Aside from being a leading question, I've answered it. Multiple times. One's gender identity is not "predetermined" it is merely biologically inherent - there is a difference. Furthermore, it is not as much a conclusion as it is an state of being, which is to say in extreme physical and mental anguish thanks to the discomfort. Again not all trans people deal with this, and the causes of gender dysphoria are entirely based on the individual - it comes down to a subjective reaction from the individual - how do they react to their body not matching their gender identity? That kind of stuff.
1b - This is what I mean when I say you like to take things out of context - literally, nothing I've spoken even implies that - because cognition and anguish are not the same thing, and the fact that one happens does not inhibit or prohibit the other - let me ask you a question - how do you believe general anxiety and depression to behave? Its typically through a horrible unbalanced set of chemicals in your brain, similarly, the dimorphism that develops in one's body that does not match their gender identity is a result of unbalanced chemicals, perhaps more correctly stated-misproportioned chemicals. Dysphoria is the reaction to that, not something inherent.
1c - Because even if your interpretation was correct, you'd still be off base - because gender dysphoria and gender identity are two separate things, you see - if you attempted to try to "fix their identity" then you'd get a situation similar to how we see people in conversion camps have to deal with - that is trying to "fix" your identity, psyche doesn't work like that bud - there's a reason that hormone treatments only balance chemicals, because, fundamentally, you cannot change identity of a mind - that is how you get extreme trauma - furthermore -the mere fact that both work in hormone therapy does not mean that they are equally as effective.... that is quite obvious.
"Gender identity forms before sex".....In terms of development, I would suggest that gender is a primary chromosomic identity which dictates physical development.
You could suggest that, but you'd be wrong. Sex is a chromosomal identity that typically matches gender identity - not always - -but the two are independent of one another, furthermore, much more accurately it works in concurrence with your gender identity to dictate the hormones which actually result in the dimorphism. It has very little to do with chromosomes, as we know by intersex people - it happens that they typically correlate, but that does not mean that they cause one another - correlation is not causation bud.
This last part is the only one you could say I haven't answered, but you know - I don't figure you actually care.
"And out of interest...... Do you think that environmental factors could affect hormone production/balance?.....Certainly a factor that might influence the modern proliferation of transsexualism and it's associated dysphoria."
There is no modern "proliferation" it happens that now trans people receive fewer death threats and orders to burn on a stake than they used to - same as gay people - it just happens that society is now much more open and accepting than it used to be. Your entire question is based on a praxis that isn't correct, nor is it well reasoned, certainly, there are environmental factors that affect dysphoria, but hormone levels, that is to a much lesser extent. Gender Dysphoria is not necessarily associated with "transsexualism" and the sooner you realize that the better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
That's not the point - you isolated something from my response, and framed it as if the interpretation from that byte was the intention of my entire response, completely ignoring my actual intention. Not only that, but the questions you asked were ones I quite literally answered in the response itself. So that tells me one of two things; Either A- you did read it and are purposefully misinterpreting my response, or B- you merely scanned it and came up with an uninformed interpretation.
See for once I'm giving you the charitable assumption here bud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Again - until you answer in a way that shows you actually read it - I will refrain from responding with substance. Ya see - if you don't give me the respect of responding to what I said, I won't either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Wrong - I've already answered both questions, but you took my answers out of context to make it seem as if I haven't. Present my answers in a way that lets me know you read them, until then have fun with me dismissing you.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Um... that was just a generalized rebuttal I've heard, not something I claimed.
I was using it as something to set up my argument, that's pretty much it. The point is that you have to tax poorer people less than taxes due to the way that proportionalities
work
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
So.... one version of the 10 commandments (you know, as opposed to the other two)... is a good base for legality... but you know, only if we add in a tad of caveats, remove half of the moral commandments, and also add one in. Also - no - just no - specifically to number 5:
You do realize that biblically - this leads to parents getting away with abuse? With never being questioned? Dogma and indoctrination? No - it should NEVER be any sort of legal recommendation to honour your father and your mother - also - let's interpret this charitably, what about gay couples? What about single couples? What about polyamory couples (and don't even try to argue that the bible is against polyamory, it isn't.)
So um... originally this definitely did not say murder, and it definitely was not referring to the legal definition of murder - it was referring to killing in general - but you know -as to avoid the biggest contradiction in the bible - its changed to murder. Regardless, this would disavow self-defence, and all that - which I guess already happens. Also -also - in the bible, anything which is considered a "sexual crime" is considered adultery, such as gay people being gay. So, no, neither of these things should be illegal, especially not in the context of the bible. Also... no, cheating on your partner definitely shouldn't be illegal, especially not when there are things like abusive relationships and such. Though some prenups do stuff like that, I typically disagree.
It worked for the people of ancient Israel and it would work for people living here.
Makes me want to laugh at you - I am being serious- if you are claiming that SERIOUSLY - it'd be like saying: "Women were casually raped in the past, and them being casually raped now is just fine." The fact that something happened in the past and you thought it "worked" is by no means evidence that it would work ethically today - nor do I even think it is ethical then.
To sum up my thoughts, this is stupid - we already have laws for the biggies, and the majority of the 10 commandments (that you've presented) are bullshit, so no - there is literally no reason to use the 10 commandments as a framework.
Created:
As I've discussed the idea of taxing the rich more, there has been some, well, pushback. That these people are paying more than their fair share, that they provide all of the income for the government, etc, etc. Here's the thing, the fundamental things - whenever a rich person it taxed almost any percentage of taxes, they will have more than enough income to live on, this is not always the case with poor people.
Let's take a 50% general income tax.
Furthermore, let's assume that Biden's 15 dollar an hour minimum wage passes - that's 15 dollars times an average workweek of 40 hours, multiplied by four for your gross monthly income. That's approximately $2400, so, to deduct that 50% income tax, you get 1,200 dollars. According to Statistica, in January of 2021 (the last recorded data point), that is an overall cost of $1,124... so - rent - costs nearly your entire gross monthly salary - and that's not even considering if you have kids, or any other bills you have to pay, like internet, car insurance, health insurance, utilities, etc, etc. And this is all presuming that the minimum wage is increased to 15 dollars an hour.
According to Pew. Research and Business Insider, the median interest of the group considered the "rich" is $187,872 - to be charitable, we'll round down to 185,000 dollars annually. So dividing that number in half, we get 92,500 annually, and 7,708 monthly.. which, is enough to pay what Statistica reports as the average rent for a house of more than 5 people, more than four times over - so- to say that a tax will affect each level of income earner the same is to not understand what fractions can do to different proportions. This is, fundamentally why, the rich ought to be taxed more than the poor. Not to make them also struggle, but to overcome this basic principle of proportionality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Similarly, we live in a world full of people who believe Trump to be a good president, the mere fact that people are convinced of something does not mean that it is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Right, and maybe it, because I'm viewing this as a "How, can anecdotal evidence be rationally convincing?" perspective - but whenever you have another person you identify any emotions for that person after you had already been presented the claim of their existence, that is to say - you seeing that person - but it seems most typical to me that this connection with deities is the claim of their existence - so - knowing that- I don't see how personal experience can be convincing to an individual if they were to consider the facts of the situation.
For example, parasocial relationships are built on perceptions and assumptions of some ambiguous influencer, creater, etc, but that relationship and that perception of the individual are usually in synch - therefore usually invalidating the actual existence of your perception of the individual. Essentially, whenever you cannot separate the connection from the claim of reality, how can you ever logically derive existence? I don't think you can, regardless of any foundational relationships. It seems, to me at least, to be begging the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Despite that intention, there is a difference, though perhaps unnoticeable - in one instance we are speaking of an emotional connection between two apparently living beings, in another, the connection is the claim of the being, there is a difference there.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Um, yeah, because you can oscillate the general air pressure by the percentages of air in the atmosphere, and easily replicate how that would work - I wasn't saying that it "eliminates our advantage" but it would certainly even the playing field, and you are only considering ballistic weaponry, which... isn't all you would expect whatsoever. Hence why it matters how advanced their tech is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Interesting enough - however - would you consider there to be a difference between identifying an emotion that an individual feels toward another, and the existence of an entity, most typically characterized as super-humanly powerful?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I wasn't aware that you had been banned.
Hmm, in that case - how reliable do you generally take anecdotal evidence to be?
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Mm, yup, as I said - it all depends on how far advanced their technology is - because if they have scanners that are advanced enough they could have a fairly reliable sample of our atmosphere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Uhuh- see I was actually interested in your view here, but if you're just gonna lead with the strawman I suppose I was getting my hopes up for nothing.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
It depends - how much of a headstart do they have? How much experience do they have militaristically - because you can have the technological disadvantage and still come out on top if your better at fighting wars - see the American Revolution for a good example; however, as British invading Africa shows, even having much much more skilled tropps, as many African nations had, technology that is far ENOUGH away can beat them - it was artillery fire versus... well bows and spears for several nations.
So.. yeah it depends on two things:
1) How technologically ahead of us are they
2) How much experience and skill do they have in war
Er.. I suppose a third thing too:
3) How large their army is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And I see your back to isolating sentences out of context to frame them how you like - good to see that you haven't moved past your own pseudo-intellectual ways Zed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
To be attracted to people regardless of gender. Perceived or otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
uhuh, and the fact that an author agrees with your conclusion is supposed to do what? There are books against anarchy too Athais.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Could you cite the paper instead of merely suggesting it? I'm not going to research your proof for you - I want you to present it. If I was less busy perhaps I would look into it myself, but I am, and I don't have the time to read an entire book - just give me the evidence and proof that your interpreting it right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Again - pleasure receptors and the complexes which generate are entirely separate. I suppose you could semantically claim that both of the functions originating in the brain mean that they are connected - but it would disingenuous to present it like that was the implication.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Good enough for a passive disbelief in god, I was referring to the idea that god does not exist - as an active claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Have you ever considered that the people... aren't dead? Their brain I mean - if they have an "afterlife experience" that happens to exactly correlate with their ideas of what the afterlife is like - why isn't is just more likely that they imagined something? That their brain couldn't handle not being able to function and repressed the memories of blackness - you do know that happens all the time with traumatic experiences, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And so what is dysphoria develops after natal development? Gender identity forms before Sex, as it kinda has to, that's the only way that any regulation of hormones can be released in the body. What happens is irregular and abundant hormone dumpings, causing someone with a gender identity of say, a girl, to develop male characteristics. It's quite simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
No - that's my perception of sex. Gender is the neurological connection to your conscious experience and your hormone levels. Sometimes that neurological connection doesn't match what your hormone levels are, so you correct those hormone levels. Its like when your depressed, a lot of times you just need to correct the chemicals which are inducing stress, paranoia, etc. I don't see how any of this ties into a god, I suppose if your hyperfocused on the notion of a "perfect god" but I don't think its a proposition that should even be taken seriously.
If there was a god they wouldn't be perfect - but I don't think the fact that something isn't perfect evidence that there isn't god - the little attacks you like making are misplaced. Look more into the epistemological idea of god if you truly want to dismiss the notion validly.
Created:
Posted in:
-RMM
Because that's a strawman.
Like, simple as that. Read my debate with Athais and you'll see what I mean. There IS a link to biology and gender. Its more neurological than biological in general, whenever people say: "Sex is biological" they mean that sex is chromosomal, and because people tend to believe that the mind isn't a part of your biological self. It is. I think anyways. Furthermore, no - I am saying that if you think to be trans you have to have a MENTAL ILLNESS you are transphobic, is that unreasonable? I am not saying you are a hundred percent against or for, I am saying that if you generalize trans people to such an extent you are false and causing them harm, hopefully that makes sense.
Why not just be a masculine female or feminine male or whatever your true self is? Why transition?
Because that's not what gender identity is - please - understand when I explain this - chromosomes are not what make you who you are - not by sex or gender - and to say that because you are assigned something at birth you inherently are - is to give into the exact people you are fighting against. People have an entire identity which does not conform to the entire concept of masculinity - not just roles of masculinity, but as a concept - same for femininity - there is an experience that every single individual has that marks as either male or female, and that experience is not something other people can determine for you. So there are absolutely people who are just feminine males, or masculine females - but assuming that all trans people just want to be "masculine" or "feminine" is, at its core, not understanding trans people.
TYPICALLY, the studies all agree - preventing transitioning causes massive depression, suicidal ideation, and physical harm to transgender people, To say that it causes "permanent scarring" is quoting the misses and not counting all the hits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Gender identity is inherent - so I suppose you could say that as long as their physiology and gender identity disagreed and they had gender dysphoria that could be "inherent", but it still wouldn't be a delusion on the part of having gender identity. The main point is that gender dysphoria is not caused by someone having a gender identity different from what they were assigned a birth, but from discomfort from that gender assigned at birth.
Created:
Posted in:
-RMM
So... three news sources? Not.. like the 30 or so studies that disagree with you bud? Do you have an actual study that supports your position? Also - hundreds?! Ha - there were less than 30 testimonials.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Biologically speaking - it is literally impossible, we're talking about what a *human* limitation. Not me limitation, not your limitation, a human limitation.
Created:
Posted in:
So, I'm not trying to say that 90% of people here are transphobic (because I haven't done any quantities and controllable studies into what people think of trans people), but I can say that a good deal of people exhibits implicit transphobia here. Now, I get where people are going to respond to this: "Implicit? Do you mean because we don't want people to be scarred because of 'gender-affirming treatment", or "Don't you see, I just care about these people!" and so on and so forth.
First of all - what? Transitioning harms trans people? Sure...:
"We conducted a systematic literature review of all peer-reviewed articles published in English between 1991 and June 2017 that assess the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being. We identified 55 studies that consist of primary research on this topic, of which 51 (93%) found that gender transition improves the overall well-being of transgender people, while 4 (7%) report mixed or null findings. We found no studies concluding that gender transition causes overall harm. As an added resource, we separately include 17 additional studies that consist of literature reviews and practitioner guidelines." [1]
Second of all, and to the actual point, implicitly being bigoted in any regard, is the outcome of a behavior imprinted onto you by society - for example - assuming a black person simply walking alone at night is "suspicious-looking" or supposing that women inherently "love to cook and clean", those sorts of things. Here we see another example of that, presuming that, the reason gender dysphoria is a mental illness, is because a person falsely believes that their gender isn't what they were borne with.
To equate this perception to another mental illness for clarity, people who are depressed have a false sense that they are worthless - and to the people I am referring to (implicitly transphobic people) that is the same sort of false sense that people who have gender dysphoria have, except, no - not quite. Gender dysphoria is not seen as a mental illness of "delusion", but of extreme discomfort. It is the fact that their body does not match up with their gender that causes dysphoria, not the other way around.
"Gender dysphoria is the feeling of discomfort or distress that might occur in people whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth or sex-related physical characteristics. Transgender and gender-nonconforming people might experience gender dysphoria at some point in their lives. But not everyone is affected. Some transgender and gender-nonconforming people feel at ease with their bodies, either with or without medical intervention." [2]
You see - gender dysphoria is not inherent to transgender people - the fact that they have a different gender identity is not the necessary cause of this mental illness, it is the discomfort that some feel as a result that their body doesn't match with their gender. For further evidence that the fact that you can't take a DSM to be automatically correct in some of the specifics of its diagnoses (as research is always growing) - let's all recall the DSM's view on homosexuality in edition three, shall we?
"In 1973 homosexuality per se was removed from the DSM-II classification of mental disorders and replaced by the category Sexual Orientation Disturbance. This represented a compromise between the view that preferential homosexuality is invariably a mental disorder and the view that it is merely a normal sexual variant. While the 1973 DSM-II controversy was highly public, more recently a related but less public controversy involved what became the DSM-III category of Ego-dystonic Homosexuality. The author presents the DSM-III controversy and a reformulation of the issues involved in the diagnostic status of homosexuality. He argues that what is at issue is a value judgment about heterosexuality, rather than a factual dispute about homosexuality." [3]
Please always take the time to go beyond the general description of a diagnosis, especially before applying that to your own, unprofessional, interpretation of what that means for an entire population of people who aren't even necessarily related.
SOURCES:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Um.. no. You can choose to or to not pursue a relationship with the person you love - but you do not choose who you fall in love with. I can guarantee that you did not fall in love with ANY of your partners by choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So let me get this straight "choosing" to marry someone you fall in love (not in your choice) has bad "consequences"? Because it seems to me that your implying a lot of things that aren't quite sitting well with me there bud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
so... um, what about married gay couples? Or people who don't want kids? Or people who... don't want to marry? What about them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
False - your organs which exude sexual pleasure are completely different from the biological complexes which dictate attraction. Furthermore, being gay is being attracted to the same gender - that can be romantically or sexually, same for heterosexuality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
I'll definitely be giving that paper a read, it sounds like something that could help me -though- I do feel as if something is missing. That would be: checking validity - are the arguments your opponent making sequiturs? Do they logically follow from the evidence they've presented? Stuff like that.
Created:
-->
@coal
Holy crap! That's a big thing - none of the health classes I've been in have ever even mentioned LGBT stuff - so that legitimately astounds me.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Sorry I rushed - I meant that they don't cover anything but abstinence, its overrepresented
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
typically - schools don't cover enough about abstinence, abstinence education is overrepresented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You aren't attracted to people - sex feeling good is separate from not feeling attracted
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Are you actually serious right now? Seriously - my god you can be daft -- the fact that the system itself is not CONTROLLED by the state, does not mean that the state itself IS NOT capitalistic.
It's a fairly simple principle - if a government encourages capitalism, does everything it can to protect it, and has the precise same goal as capitalism THEN THAT GOVERNMENT IS EFFECTIVELY capitalistic. Like.. its such a simple idea, and your semantics are getting rather old.
If there is no way to enforce your own will over another individual - if we are focusing on individualism - then there is literally no way to PROHIBIT anything - there are no guarantees about literally anything -by the mere definition of individualism - its kind of ironic how you fail to see that given your argument regarding capitilsim
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Um... you realize that the Union states were ALREADY SLAVE FREE? Right? You realize that slavery was abolished as a general practice informally by the Pittsburg addressed, and officially through the 13th amendment. You don't appear very well versed in history, only in misinterpreting it to agree with your biases.
And simple - because PROFIT does not care for what is ethical - it's that simple - there is no inherent framework in profit that makes any ethical declarations - and since the core goal of capitalism is profit - yeah - it follows easily. Capitalism - whose goal is profit - was the direct motivation for slavery - and yes - capitalism can and does influence and motivate governments, you claim it to be a tautology, but fail to actually explain how - only assert that it is the case.
Again - you merely stating something to be the case isn't evidence of anything.
My point is that capitalism - the only standard which one can have without the "STATE" isn't giving any ethical considerations - which is my point individualism has no standard which prohibits mass unethical practice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You do realize that the REASON for chattel slavery was the profit right? Are you that ignorant of basic history - governments are MOTIVATED by the profit of capitalism - and they take on those economic theories (ya know - because the government enforces laws regarding economic theory) - which hurts people. Your argument is wholly ignoring the actual facts: "Oh my god! The government ONCE allowed chattel slavery." That's the thing IT CHANGED and then prohibited others from doing it - which is a moral good - in contrast - the only way capitalism would change is if it was no longer profitable, there is no care more any level of ethics - if capitalism is the only standard applicable, there is no ethical standard, period.
Created:
Posted in:
I find myself at a crossroads - speaking from a libertarian framework - drafts are literally the enemy of everything one would stand for - but speaking from a collectivists framework - do drafts do enough good to counteract this freedom abuse (and I mean actual abuse of freedom - not like... forcing people to not be bigots)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Of course not - but it allows widespread correction of moral wrongs GENERALLY - so - without government - black people would still be enslaved, hispanic people would still be living in practical serfdom, etc, etc... See - you and I have very different perspectives on what propagates harm more - while the government was indeed responsible for atrocities, it was a government MOTIVATED by capitalism, so how you see government, I see capitalism.
Government changes - its values, its principles - capitalism will always be about profit, that is the bottom line.
Created: