Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
If you are referring to transgender people, "changing your gender" is disingenuous. As I have explained, there is no "changing of gender" which occurs, they do not suddenly "become" the gender they identify as. They discover that they are indeed that gender, now, you might make an argument about changing one's phenotypical sexual features or "sex" but that is entirely different and does not correlate with this situation.
The proper time to come out as trans is whenever you genuinely discover your gender identity. Sometimes you aren't right, most times people are, and I'm not willing to let all of the people who could be helped by pro-trans legislation get hurt because of the extreme extreme outlier. While it needs to be addressed, taking it away is not proper (this is not me saying you have said that I don't recall, this is me stating my position).
Created:
Posted in:
"Dudes chopping off their dicks"
Is so unqualified and exaggerated that I have a hard time taking you seriously XD
Also -do you think that trans people don't exist outside of America????
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
interesting
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Have to hard disagree with you about Zed, they aren't the best with a good number of categories
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Probably the things which are dependent on something else making and programming them - I mean, depending on how technology advances (we've seen drastic rebounds before), it could totally humans. But also, lmao, that's not what I was referring to -you said "opinions and ideas" about my evidence, which is false, its evidence of a proposition.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
.... you are factually incorrect, lmao
"Linguists rely on systematic sound changes to establish the relationships between languages. The basic idea is that when a change occurs within a speech community, it gets diffused across the entire community of speakers of the language. If, however, the communities have split and are no longer in contact, a change that happens in one community does not get diffused to the other community. Thus a change that happened between early and late Latin would show up in all the 'daughter' languages of Latin, but once the late Latin speakers of the Iberian peninsula were no longer in regular contact with other late Latin speakers, a change that happened there would not spread to the other communities. Languages that share innovations are considered to have shared a common history apart from other languages, and are put on the same branch of the language family tree."
From the Linguist Society of America:
"Yes, and so is every other human language! Language is always changing, evolving, and adapting to the needs of its users. This isn't a bad thing; if English hadn't changed since, say, 1950, we wouldn't have words to refer to modems, fax machines, or cable TV. As long as the needs of language users continue to change, so will the language. The change is so slow that from year to year we hardly notice it, except to grumble every so often about the ‘poor English’ being used by the younger generation! However, reading Shakespeare's writings from the sixteenth century can be difficult. If you go back a couple more centuries, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales are very tough sledding, and if you went back another 500 years to try to read Beowulf, it would be like reading a different language."
You have anything else dear?
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Actually that's false, Gender Dysphoria is defined as:
"psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity. "
Its the stress that comes as a result of gender noncomformity. Again, I beg of you to do your research, if you aren't going to engage with my argument - then I see no reason to do that to yours. You've utterly dropped your other argument about other animals -most likely because you realize its absurdity- and moved on to something else entirely. But psychology and science in general don't agree with you, have fun with that ignorance boner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
You can think that, but you'd be wrong, a principal tenet of anarchism is to avoid hierarchies unless it is both necessary and justified - the composition of the structure is vitally important to the actual content of it, and typically a confederate democracy isn't considered one - because its built from the bottom up - again this is a very basic part of anarchism, interesting that you've "studied it for many years".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
A circular argument is self-fulfilling....
"the arguer illicitly uses the conclusion itself (or a closely related proposition) as a crucial piece of support, instead of justifying the conclusion on the basis of agreed-upon facts and reasonable inferences."
So here - the conclusion - "the state has the authority to do x" is justified by the State using its authority. Something which axiomatic can be, and often is, circular.
Furthermore, you are distinguishing between "pseudo" and "concrete" yet you haven't actually established that difference. How is one system "psudeo" and another "concrete"? The presence of a prison system? A government run from the top bottom? It seems that any definition that would give an state power over an anarchic society are begging the question.
And as for your last lil' bit - that's cuz' its absurd - most anarchy based societies that i've read about use contracts in order to negotiate such things, like defense forces that have strict standards - this sort of thing is considered a justified and necessary hierarchy or use of force in most anarchacic circles - because it is necessary that people who are absolutely violent would need to be restrained, however... well - the actual frequency of such occurences? Inequality -just how the world works.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well no - these are facts - demonstrated by evidence. You have no basis to make that claim buddy.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Animals like hogs and such have no higher cognitive function, your comparison would be equivalent to arguing that humans couldn't fly a plane because a dog couldn't - you realize how patently absurd your argument put that way is right? And you wanna' know how we tell? Same way we tell when someone is bisexual whenever their in a "hetereo" relationship - because they *identify* that way. The evidence points to the fact that this is more reliable amoung transgender individuals than the assigned sex given to them, as I presented in my last response. Again, do some basic research - and more importantly - thinking.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
No, empirically speaking sex is a specturm, and we have evidence of gender identity - because the differenciation in the brain lines up most accurately with what people admit. Again, check out my debate, I have listed the evidence.
"The empirical basis for hypothesising that gonadal hormones influence gender identity and sexual orientation is based on animal experiments involving manipulations of hormones during prenatal and early neonatal development. It is accepted dogma that testes develop from the embryonic gonad under the influence of a cascade of genes that begins with the expression of the sex-determining gene SRY on the Y chromosome.4,5 Before this time, the embryonic gonad is “indifferent”, meaning that it has the potential to develop into either a testis or an ovary. Likewise, the early embryo has 2 systems of ducts associated with urogenital differentiation, Wolffian and Müllerian ducts, which are capable of developing into the male and female tubular reproductive tracts, respectively. Once the testes develop, they begin producing 2 hormones, testosterone and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). In rats, this occurs around day 16–17 of gestation, whereas, in humans, it occurs at about 7–8 weeks of gestation.6 Testosterone and one of its derivatives, dihydrotestosterone, induce the differentiation of other organs in the male reproductive system, whereas AMH causes the degeneration of the Müllerian ducts. Female ovaries develop under the influence of a competing set of genes that are influenced by expression of DAX1 on the X chromosome and act antagonistically to SRY. The female reproductive tract in the embryo develops in the absence of androgens and later matures under the influence hormones produced by the ovary, in particular oestradiol.
Analogous processes occur during early development for sexual differentiation of the mammalian brain and behaviour. According to the classical or organisational theory,7,8 prenatal and neonatal exposure to testosterone causes male-typical development (masculinisation), whereas female-typical development (feminisation) occurs in the relative absence of testosterone. Masculinisation involves permanent neural changes induced by steroid hormones and differs from the more transient activational effects observed after puberty. These effects typically occur during a brief critical period in development when the brain is most sensitive to testosterone or its metabolite oestradiol. In rats, the formation of oestradiol in the brain by aromatisation of circulating testosterone is the most important mechanism for the masculinisation of the brain;9 however, as shown below, testosterone probably acts directly without conversion to oestradiol to influence human gender identity and sexual orientation. The times when testosterone triggers brain sexual differentiation in different species correspond to periods when testosterone is most elevated in males compared to females. In rodents and other altricial species, this occurs largely during the first 5 days after birth, whereas, in humans, the elevation in testosterone occurs between months 2 and 6 of pregnancy and then again from 1 to 3 months postnatally.6 During these times, testosterone levels in the circulation are much higher in males than in females. These foetal and neonatal peaks of testosterone, together with functional steroid receptor activity, are considered to program the male brain both phenotypically and neurologically. In animal models, programming or organising actions are linked to direct effects on the various aspects of neural development that influence cell survival, neuronal connectivity and neurochemical specification.10 Many of these effects occur well after the initial hormone exposure and have recently been linked to epigenetic mechanisms.11
The regional brain differences that result from the interaction between hormones and developing brain cells are assumed to be the major basis of sex differences in a wide spectrum of adult behaviours, such as sexual behaviour, aggression and cognition, as well as gender identity and sexual orientation. Factors that interfere with the interactions between hormones and the developing brain systems during gestation may permanently influence later behaviour. Studies in sheep and primates have clearly demonstrated that sexual differentiation of the genitals takes places earlier in development and is separate from sexual differentiation of the brain and behaviour.12,13 In humans, the genitals differentiate in the first trimester of pregnancy, whereas brain differentiation is considered to start in the second trimester. Usually, the processes are coordinated and the sex of the genitals and brain correspond. However, it is hypothetically possible that, in rare cases, these events could be influenced independently of each other and result in people who identify with a gender different from their physical sex. A similar reasoning has been invoked to explain the role of prenatal hormones on sexual orientation.
And, these sources go into sex as a spectrum:
Etc, etc, no, these aren't my "opinions" get your head out of your ass and at least do some research.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
you have literally no idea what you're talking about, let me reframe what you just said:
A state has legitmacy because that state made laws.... You are trying to justify authority by stating that that authority does something, whether that's good or bad, you realize your argument is circular right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well first of all - a confederate democracy could accomplish that just like a more state-government, same for a judiciary system, I'm curious what you've studied because these are very common rebuttals to your point, I kinda' doubt you've looked into it all that deeply if you aren't aware of these very basic counters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
... you fundamentally don't understand anarchism, anarchism is an opposition to unjust hierarchies and illegimate goverence, with a focus on equality - you see this in it's abundant support of the ANTIFA protesters, Feminist protesting, etc, etc - most civil rights campaigns in the 19/20th century have either been led by anarchists, or supported by them... at least in the US.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I disagree fundamentally on two fronts: an army is very possible in an anarchist society - and the fact that they are overrun doesn't actually tell you that the philosophy itself is bad. Consider this: if the US had lost the American Revolution (which was definitely a possibility at a lot of points) would that mean that their proposed system of government was impossible? It's like saying Poland failed as a nation because Germany overturned it, fundamentally speaking, military failure does not at all equate to a problem with the philosophy. And the judicial system part, should there *be* a judicial system? That's a more fundamental claim, asssuming it is, why aren't local councils having a meeting to review evidence and all that satisifactory?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Lord of Flies, blah blah blah, we are all monsters beneath the skin - undemonstratable - humans are typically empathetic as a part of biological evolution and as a social species in whole. While they do, at times, take advantage of others and ignore suffering for profit - most people get mad at that - because most humans, don't like that.
And no - not quite - there has actually been quite a few anarchistic societies which didn't go like that, a lot of times they're overrun by other nations...at least, bigger one's are
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Interesting, and it seems your still at it, eh?
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Yes, Scientific information, and if a scientific source has told you that there are a specific "number" of genders, that source probably isn't accurate. Because according to what we know, Gender is a spectrum. Think about it like; ethnicity (in terms of "spectrum" not identity, whole seperate things), would you argue: "Science says there's 54 ethnicities pshaw!" No, of course not, you'd say - "People can be "between" black or white, but not colloquially considered either" This is how that works. If you were to draw a line, and at one end write "female" and at the other write "male", everything in the middle could be considered diffferent genders. It's not any fixed number, its experiential. And I know what you wanna' say, "But we know what determines that! It ain't experience! It's yer' chromosomes!" This is an interesting argument, considering the existence XX male syndrome and XY female syndrome (or Swayer Snydrome), which shows that while chromosomes do indeed have a part in determining your phenotypical expression, it is not all there is. I'm not trying to say that this by itself, demonstrates anything about the whole experience of gender, I'm trying to get across that "chromosomes = sex" is an extremely simplistic understanding of the actual science. There are other genes in your body which can also determine your physical and experiential identity. Further, if you've read my debates on the topic (which are admittedly out of date, even evidencially), you'd know my argument for the acceptance of gender identity as a measurement of gender. Which is, when considering the differenciation in the brain via sexual phenotypes, we see that those who claim to have a, for example, male identity who was assigned female, matches more closely, from a standpoint of differenciation in the brain remember, to cis-males than cis-females.
Now, you can argue that I lost that debate where I showed that the best; however, the voter who ended it actually said they were convinced on the science, and that it was just my lazy defence of the other bit that made me lose. Take all of this as you will but at least have more than an impositional position.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
That's.... utterly unrelated to almost any point I've made, I would never claim that "all" teachers are anything aside from teachers. I'd argue that *most* are underpaid, etc, etc - but I'm also utterly unconvinced by a single, unproven example.
I suppose you are trying to argue that parents are a better source for this sort of thing? Why? What, to you, distinguishes what a parent should teach and what a teacher should teach? Is your position fundamentally anti-public education? I can sympathize with you, but the fact of the matter is that too many parents are bigoted against LGBTQIA+ people to properly teach it - as in - according to the science. While this isn't unique to parents, teachers can be regulated and told to not teach stuff that isn't true (which, is also a problem, but that's a whole other thing).
One more question, before I go, if you decide what each category of person should teach (teachers and parents), what is your proof that this should be the case? And don't use another anecdote which we can't verify, please present some sort of empirical basis for your claim, or an argument which philosophically demands that to be the case (for example: If P, then Q - > P -> Therefore Q).
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Look buddy - I'm gonna assume your being serious and are actually confused - so I am - what the fuck are you talking about?
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Political and social indoctrination huh?
looks at economic theory taught in HS
I suppose I can agree in some regards, in others, no - LGBTQIA+ education is just scientific information unavailable to a large portion of the population because dipshits don't read and decide it's "indoctrination" to acknowledge that being gay or trans is perfectly fine. shrug
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I would actually agree that that is one of the weaker parts of anarchism - this is why most anarchists acknowledge that its a future utopia, like communism was written as by Marx. At least the ones I've talked to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
You've utterly missed the point - saying "you don't have to live in a house" ignores the fact that you will die eventually if you continually sleep outside with no access to shelter - much quicker without water - you are politically forced to pay rent and water bills - because without it you would - reasonably speaking - fucking die. Don't be semantic about this- it encompasses more than your belief structure, it has to do with actual human lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
mm yeah that's probably it- here - you can find all of those sorts of people, on most of my other forums, they are pretty rare- the ones who scream libtard and all that - most of them are the ones who actually have valid argumentation and all that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
It depends, I think this excerpt explains the nuance quite well:
"A small group of entrenched armed robbery offenders, the motivation to commit armed robbery appears to be more about earning a regular (illicit) income; a means to pay bills and support a family (that is, more like a regular job). Table 1 summarises a selection of published data on this issue. In particular, it shows that between about one-fifth and one-third of offenders in the selected studies cite 'money for drugs' as a prime motivating factor for committing armed robbery."
And hello.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You've made a tad bit of a fallacy there - I'm not an anarcho-communist right now, just sympathetic to their cause, and currently doin' research deeper into it. At this point I've heard your objection a million times, I'll address it purely out of annoyance of its repeated measure. First of all, nobody is there to protect me when someone smashes down my door - in fact - nobodies there whenever they do it again. They get there after the fact most times. Second of all, most causes of crime are poverty, lack of education, etc etc - which would all be addressed under this sort of system. Finally - I don't think you get what "exiled" means in the form that most anarcho-communists mean. Look that up, then I'll get back to you.
Created:
Posted in:
Fascinating, utterly brain-denying, the positive effect on my mental health leaving the sight has given me. This isn't to say that the people here are intrinsically bad, or even that the art of constant debate and being intellectually challenged is unhealthy - no in fact I participate in forums where even more of my fundamental beliefs are challenged, fun. I think the reason why it can get a bit "eh" here is because it's quite toxic. But enough about that rant that was meant as a clever hook that turned into an actual tangent.
Hello there, again, I don't even know if anybody will read this or care to read this - frankly I doubt people will - but if you do care, yes I am alive. This year I'm taking four college classes, so essentially, I'm doin the college thing but around people who don't care - so, ya know, more fun. Needless to say, it takes more time, and my free time isn't something I want to give... to here. Maybe in the future I'll return more permanently for arguments and stuff I dunno. I suppose I should go into how I've changed over the months since I've gone away.
I've turned my back on all the leftist, marxist, atheistic propaganda I used to spew!
Lmao, no, I've turned more in.
I'm actually pretty close to communist now, and even closer to anarchy - one might say - anarcho-communism. But regardless, I think that marxist have a pretty good point that hiring someone to do labor for you, then taking the profit for that labor and giving them a fraction of that while the profit increases, kinda sucks. Not to go on another rant. Another thing, I've kinda been swayed on - guys - governments are bad. Oh my god, so original, right? Right. So, beyond this barely-coherent tangent of things that make people enraged and annoy others, I'm back kinda-not really.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Um.. how does this relate to my argument? I think you've lost the string - we were talking about informed consent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I think your claim that you believe in a logical world is baseless.
Furthermore, there are *much* more absurd concidences that have happened. For example - the number of films Nicholas Cage plays in correlates with the number of people who have drowned by falling in a pool. There's an entire website which is dedicated to showing how random correlations can be, because if you have a big enough data set there are statistically BOUND to be weird correlations. Its a basic fact of statistics, please logically examine your arguments next time :|
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I mean.. literally the only reasonable explanation is "concidence". Unless you can demonstrate some other cause I don't see how it can be anything else, unless your thinking of it caused you to affect that person - maybe you called them or contacted them - and that somehow led to their deaths. However, that is extremely unlikely, the most reasonable explanation is.. well, a concidence.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
What are you talking about?? Again, I repeat, informed consent when it comes to these sorts of things are not something one can give until they have a minimum biological and psychological maturity - I am not saying they happen at the same time - I am saying that both are a preresiquite to get there in cases of sexual action.
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
That CEOS aren't the ones benefiting directly that they are "vampires" at the top. In your critique you completely ignore that I was talking about directly taxing the rich, of course they can hide their wealth, that's called tax fraud - its a crime - my point is that that is an obvious point and people will be prosecuted for if it is found out. But the apparent wealth that CEO's do in fact possess being taxed is not something you have really commented on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Except for gender there is an alternate explanation - hormonal differences caused by a small gene set - which has been demonstrated. Can you demonstrate that black people have a similar genetic exception? No- you can't. Because if you could do that, you would have already done that, but you can't because your a racist conspiracist theoriest with no handle on logic.
You have failed to acknowledge my rebuttal - and repeated your argument again. You are an obtuse intellectually bankrupt fraud who loves to be racist without saying - you've proven to me that you don't care about intellectual honesty by refusing to actually engage with my argument, merely repeating your tired old assertion. Good bye
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Economics are social issues dude - anything effecting the population's lives in such a significant way is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
All of them. Cool - done being an intellectually bankrupt fraud and an asshole?
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Do you have any proof for a single claim you just made? Or is this all conspiracy nonsense? I'm leaning towards the latter
Created:
-->
@949havoc
What are you talking about?? I'm talking about a biological level of maturity which informs one's psychological ability to give consent in a way that isn't subconsiously coerced or pressured. I am not talking about a legal issue, I'm talking about the lack of capability of a population of individuals.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
Le sigh - you tagged me to this post:
"banning abortions doesnt help at all in fact when abortion is legal abortion goes down!!???"
Created:
So you say without giving me the oppurtunity to actually reply to you as you still have me blocked.... and, since there's a chance you might respond - it's kinda weird that you'll appeal to me for a presidency as you have me blocked.
Its not even like I was being much of an asshole at the time - you were just being deliberately obtuse. If I recall - "You won't even acknowledge that males and females are different? blocked." Not word for word of course, that's just the main idea there. But uh... no, that wasn't my point, and even if it was, instead of actually engaging in the ideas you merely blocked me out of... frustration for not being able to rebuke it? idk. I'm not voting you for president, I don't think you'd be good at it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
In most instances I'd define it as putting the means of production in the hands of the workers, abolishing private ownership of the means of production (not all private property like some people like to scaremonger), and a criticism of capitalism and it's flaws - its both a constructive economic ideology and a moral critique of capitalism if that makes sense.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
Dude - I'm pro choice and pro abortion, I actually am kinda "meh" on more or less abortion, I don't think there's ANYTHING morally wrong with abortion. So.. yeah, vet your audience a bit more my dude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
You have LITERALLY not engaged my point AT ALL.
On a lot of levels humans and chimpanzes ARE the same - they are eukaryotes, they are vertebrates, they are primates! There is a DISTINCT genome which is UNIQUE to humans - within that UNIQUE genome or genetic code for humans - we know that there is MORE difference between black people as a population than between white and black people.
YOU are attempting to say, "Well if the measure of difference in the genetics between two populations means that they aren't different, then your saying apes and humans aren't different!"
INCORRECT - you are misconstruing the REASON I brought up this difference. You claim that there is a genetic difference which gives black and white people different performances in various fields, HOWEVER, the only way you could substantiate that and prove that those differences in performance aren't merely social differences would be to locate the SPECIFIC difference in genetics that Black people have from White people. HOWEVER, my point was to debunk that argument before you made it - AS if people performed differently BECAUSE of genetics, then CATEGORICALLY the two groups which are being compared HAVE to be different on that genetic level. SO the fact that the populations are actually more different against themselves means that the difference in performence CANNOT BE GENETIC.
You have ignored, strawmanned, and continously been obtuse so as to avoid actually discussing my points. This will be my last explanation for you UNLESS you can actually adress my point in its completetion and not merely repeated yourself. Good luck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
What no - all you've pointed out is that on the whole chimpanzees and humans are pretty similar - cool - i've already acknowledge that. by RAWLY looking at the difference between humans we can come to conclusions that are specific to HUMANS. You have not actually acknowledge my point.
And yes actually - Chimpanzes and Humans are Eukaryotes, Vertibrates, and decended from Great Apes - so yes - we are pretty similar. We are different by that remaining 4%, similarly we can do the same for humans with the remaining uniquely human genetics, you have not actually addressed my point, your being repetetive.
Created:
Yay - such a circlejerking of illogical thinkers - how fun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
No... I responded more specifically by saying "we can isolate the comparisons to HUMAN differences and similarities, which we as humans are more than capable of" you're literally ignoring the biggest point I made, AGAIN.
Because you don't actually care about the truth, your just a racist bullshitter who gets off on being racist, and whenever people actually rebuke your arguments you freak out and ignore the actual argument, repeating the same tired claim over and over.
Created: