Total posts: 1,971
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Thanks so much for your detailed answers to questions nobody asked…
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Yes I am talking about the inflation rate. It goes up and down in every country on earth. Now it is going in the down direction
Or, in other words, prices continue to increase albeit at a diminishing rate of increase from an alarmingly high rate of increase.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Eggs are a unique product because of an avian flu shock.
You are cherry picking here.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Inflation is falling. That is a fact. It goes up and down but currently it is falling
The way you talk about inflation, you make it sound equivalent to prices, as though costs go up and down. Inflation is a rate of increase. Even if the rate of increase is dropping, prices are still increasing. Even if prices are not increasing quickly or increasing at all, they can still be painfully high.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Also, schizophrenia is characterized by delusions, hallucinations, and a disordered view of reality rather than multiple personalities (called multiple personality disorder) which has been a common misconception. The movie “A Beautiful Mind” does a brilliant job of showing the viewer what this illness does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Here's a great quote from Jordan Peterson:"If you're a man born in a woman's body, that's biologically determined, but if you're a woman born in a woman's body, that's socially constructed?"
His question is on point. Chalk another one up for the incoherency argument. In addition, because gender labels are becoming so convoluted now, one must add qualifiers to clarify these terms. For example: “a man born in a cisgender woman’s body.” Otherwise, who can say what distinguishes a woman’s body from a man’s? Some men can produce eggs and get pregnant. Some circles have corners.
Here’s a really good discussion on this subject involving Jordan Peterson if you haven’t already seen it:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
The idea that the gun violence problem in Australia is a product of cultural issues mirrors exactly what I was saying about how gang culture in the US is responsible for so many of our gun deaths.
Yes, I heard a podcaster make the interesting (and sad) observation that gangs exist in order to protect kids from what gangs themselves cause… because gangs often require that a murder must be performed to be initiated into the gang… for protection. It’s vicious.
Our publicized mass shootings are a big impetus for less gun availability and “assault weapons” bans because it is often a person with a clean record and no criminal underworld ties who commits them. But the most commonly used weapon in mass shootings statistically is the semi auto pistol, which happens to be very popular for self defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No one is claiming feelings determine fact,
Trans activists claim: Identifying as (ie feeling just as though you are) a woman = you are, in fact, a woman
The er… fact that this is being disputed is itself evidence of the incoherence in the ideology.
Most transgender activists aren’t asking you to change how you define gender, they’re asking for you to respect theirs. That’s really it, this isn’t complicated.
It wouldn’t be that complicated, if it were that simple… and that true…
Fact is, redefining the historic meaning of gender is exactly what many activists have done and are doing. They are also demanding (not asking for) respect for incoherent gender identities found in the nearly infinite points along the gender spectrum. No single individual can identify all the genders… not even remotely. Could two, three, four experts list them all? Such ideology adds needless complexity, which isn’t a logical goal.
When you look at other people every day, you make a determination as to what gender you classify them as. I’m pretty sure you’ve never walked around pulling up girls skirts or scanning people with some sort of chromosome detector before using the term “he” or “she”. So this claim that gender must be based on biology is complete nonsense. You’ve never based it on biology before, you’ve always based it on your plain observations.
I’m afraid you, yet again, aren’t making a coherent point here. Biological attributes are often visible. If I see someone who could be described as voluptuous, it’s not as if people are thinking, I shouldn’t assume anything here. There could still be a penis!!
Yet there’s nothing stopping a voluptuous female from identifying as a man, so society should still ask the person before making any assumptions.
See, you are conflating society as it has been— one can most often discern gender without ordering for a doctor— with society as activists wish it to be, where one must ask “what’s your gender identity?” or check documents before determining gender.
So when a transperson, especially one who has fully transitioned and appears to be of the sex they identify as, asks you to identify them as the sex they appear… it’s absurd for you to claim that’s somehow incoherent on the basis of a lack of something you never examined in another person before committing to a gender classification, ever.
You think it’s absurd because you are the one creating a caricature here. The incoherence is the “non ideological” claim “trans women are women!” No, trans women are males who identify as women.
If you're going to continue pushing this incoherence argument demonstrate the logical contradiction.
I could come up with several, I believe, but here is one: the movement places great import on gender identity while simultaneously rendering the concept of gender virtually meaningless with its “non ideological” claim of gender being a non-binary spectrum with infinitely many points of identity along that spectrum.
My first post to this thread reflected this very convoluted concept. Now, here we are again, full circle. But hey, it could just be my lack of intelligence which makes it merely feel convoluted, when it is, in fact, completely cogent. Perhaps it is just me?
And I've already pointed out that when I "defined" it I put transgenderism in quotes. I'm sure you know what quotes mean even if you continue pretending you don't.
The quotes around “transgenderism” mean that you don’t believe that word is used properly by right wingers, so you merely adopt it temporarily for arguments’ sake, but you proceed to describe [what the eff ever you wanna label it] in words coinciding with the definition of “ideology,” as I have explained now for the third time.
Your refusal to yield an inch regarding your contradiction, your refusal to reconsider, to rethink your position in any way— you don’t even consider the ideology/not an ideology debate to be a big aspect(!), confirms why you are fundamentally not a serious interlocutor, despite all your pretense to the contrary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I don't define it as anything…
Perhaps you simply aren’t aware that you did give your own description, although I clearly showed how you did in post 177. To reiterate:
Post 175, your words (emphasis added by me):
“Transgenderism" isn't one person's idea, it's a collection of ideas advanced by a significant portion of our society that we are now discussing.
Compare your characterization to this definition (some holding added):
i·de·ol·o·gy
noun
noun: ideology; plural noun: ideologies
- a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy."the ideology of democracy"
QED
This is where you could say something like “Oh! Nice one. Well, perhaps the transgender movement has put forth what amounts to ideology after all. But, as I said to you initially, this isn’t the central issue for me.”
Just try it. You’ll live.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
That depends on how deeply you are defining the term. Their genitalia is what most people go by, or at the very least the intention of getting surgery. If we're speaking on a more superficial level then the way they are dressed would have more to do with it.If you really want to understand this, then think of Mrs. Doubtfire. When speaking about the character, we would refer to it as a she, even knowing that it's a man under there. We do that because when we refer to Mrs Doubtfire we're not talking about Robin Williams or even the person he was playing, we're talking about a character. Female genitalia or not, the character was a woman.The difference between that and what we're discussing here is that the person these individuals are dressing up and acting as is not a character, this is really how these people identify and how they see themselves.
Much of the problem is that you think all this “reasoning” is somehow coherent. “Genitalia is what most people go by” you say. Both people in my question have a penis, so you are not making any distinction I was asking for there. “What most people go by”? I am not asking about that; I am asking how transgender activists wish us to make these distinctions going forward. The way they are dressed? What if the effeminate man decides to put on a wig, dress, and makeup? He is, by definition, a woman now? I think he would disagree.
“… this is how these people identify and how they see themselves.” Now, you are getting to the heart of the incoherence. How one sees themself is the true distinguishing feature of gender, allegedly. Transgender activists want us not to ground gender in biology, but in “my feels.” Ergo, feelings essentially determine fact. You think this is coherent, logical, reasonable, maybe even common sense, and will not lead to problems in society, whereas I do not think any of that.
It makes me shake my head to see people such as yourself with, eh… supposedly much higher “bandwidth” than me and my pea brain, go through various contortions and mental gymnastics to force the square peg into the round hole… to try and claim things akin to “there are circles with corners, and there are squares without corners!” Right, it just involves abruptly changing some long held definitions and meanings of words… it’s just what postmodernist activists do…
Created:
In space, no one can hear you scream.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
- that is, transgender movement=transgender ideology
*sigh* No, you are simply misinterpreting the Wiktionary entry…
- I only started using the notion "transgender movement" to correct your false claim regarding what I said.
What a load of nonsense. You are merely attempting to weasel out of using a phrase you later thought to be pejorative, based on your faulty interpretation above of your dictionary overlords.
Stilll, I must concede the point…
Conceding a point which you brought up in the first place? Well, it’s good to see that your style of bullying knows some boundaries…
It is not about what I want, I am merely reporting the history of Feminist philosophy…
Oh, you’re just the unbiased messenger of facts with no opinions of your own in all this? You’ll have to excuse me when I find that hard to believe.
By the way, I am a bit curious to see you address Bones’ observation below from post 264, which I also happened to notice at the time you cited a dictionary definition of “woman”:
I agree here, with adult female human being the general term associated with being a woman - it's good to see female as being central to all the definitions. I assume you take a biological definition of female to be true? Just curious as to how identifying as the opposite sex is then possible under your position given you have conceded a biological defining of woman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
No. You falsely put the words "Transgender Movement" into my mouth. I responded then and repeat in hope of your improved comprehension:I am claiming that the transgender movement…
Can you read your own writing for goodness’ sake? You yourself just expressed the phrase “transgender movement” right after accusing me of falsely ascribing the phrase to you…
Regarding African American or Black ideology, I supply you this:
Which, of course, I expect you to reject outright at this point in our unproductive convo…
- Exactly. Feminism is also an ideology regarding Transgenderism but is distinct form "the state of being transgender."
It is a statement about gender identity, Feminism, and not a statement about gender dymorphism, Transgenderism.
I get the idea that you want to make feminism the ideology behind transgender rather than letting transgender have its own ideology. If I am wrong about that, then you REALLY are not making any sense. If I am right about that, then you are, yet again, insisting everyone gets mired down in semantics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nice find. Precisely what I was getting at when I told Oromagi:
“The “experts” are… the dictionary? Your modus operandi seems to be that we exist to obey the dictionary, not the other way around. You really should know that dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.”
This (new to me until this thread) repulsion from referring to the transgender movement as “ideology” made me think that they “protest too much.” To what end? I’m thinking it is to make it easier to smuggle the movement’s claims into lower education.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
“So far, you have claimed that the transgender movement is not an ideology but is a subset of the feminist movement, which you have acknowledged IS an ideology.”
False.
False? I am just restating what you said in your post #202:
there is nothing in what Republicans claim is called "Transgender ideology" that didn't already exist for decades as part of Feminist ideology.
Have you changed your mind or something about this since yesterday and neglected to tell me?
I am claiming that the transgender movement is a civil rights movement properly called the transgender civil rights movement and not Transgenderism or an Transgender ideology and more than you would call the civil rights movement Black ideology or Blackism.
There actually is an “ideology of blackness,” but one can be black without subscribing to the ideology. See what I’m getting at?
TRANSGENDERISM is the state of experiencing a gender identity which is different from the sex one was assigned at birth. IT is a human condition and not a human thought. To call it an ideology is to fail to recognize that transgenderism is a condition and not a thought. Autism is a condition and not an ideology. Left-handedness is a condition and not an ideology. If you started calling autism an ideology, you would be deliberately insulting the autistic. In the exact same way, to call Transgenderism an ideology is to deliberately insult trans people.
A human condition and an ideology are not mutually exclusive. Take feminism, an admitted ideology, for example:
One can be a woman yet not subscribe to feminism.
One can be not a woman yet subscribe to feminism.
One can be a woman and subscribe to feminism.
Feminism is an ideology regarding womanhood but is distinct from “the state of being a woman.”
Obviously, the writers of dictionaries have no problem distinguishing conditions from ideology.
Come on, now. Clearly, I did not refer to “a condition.” I said (what you were just responding to, no less)(emphasis added):
“What you will not find in the dictionary is how one draws a distinction between the set of claims and ambitions of the transgender movement and the dictionary definition of “ideology.””
“they insist “trans women ARE women!” or perhaps it is “trans women are WOMEN!””
That is an accurate description of the condition…
It is an ideological claim. An accurate description of the condition would be something such as “trans women feel like women.”
a transwoman stating "I am a women (sic)" is a legitimate civil rights claim to enfranchisement.
It is claiming what, exactly? It is not like the claim is “trans women are people!” or some such more agreeable slogan…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
- It is semantics because we are debating the meaning of the word transgenderism. This conversation is not worthwhile with a deep dive into semantics.
I am claiming that the claims put forth by the transgender movement comprise an ideology. So far, you have claimed that the transgender movement is not an ideology but is a subset of the feminist movement, which you have acknowledged IS an ideology.
This is what I would call “a distinction without a difference.”
Let's turn to the experts:
The “experts” are… the dictionary? Your modus operandi seems to be that we exist to obey the dictionary, not the other way around. You really should know that dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. What you will not find in the dictionary is how one draws a distinction between the set of claims and ambitions of the transgender movement and the dictionary definition of “ideology.”
I have never heard a transwoman claim "full possession and knowledge of womanhood." I have heard more than one transwoman express her deep regret that she will never enjoy that full possesson and knowledge of womanhood" because she cannot be a natural mother.
To clarify, I am not talking about every individual who happens to be transgender. I am talking about the activist, transgender “not an ideology.” One need not even be transgender to be a vocal part of the activist “not an ideology.”
So, I am saying that transgender activists make this claim when they insist “trans women ARE women!” or perhaps it is “trans women are WOMEN!”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
That's why I put transgenderism in quotes.
Weak sauce… and you leave out relevant parts of the post. I’m not talking about what you choose to call it, I’m talking about how you yourself defined it and how it coincided with the definition of ideology.
I just had a sneaking suspicion that you would refuse to own up to what is a blatant contradiction in your own claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
“If that person does not live in accordance with those traits associated with women, then that person is not a woman?
What’s the difference between an effeminate man (one who lives in accordance with traits associated with women) and a male who identifies as a woman?”
*crickets*
As you’re still here, just telling you that you have not yet begun to demonstrate the coherence of transgender movement claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
- Because there are many Feminists who embrace and promote Feminism. Nobody claims to be a proponent of Transgender Idelogy, only opponents.
- Because we don't call it "Female-ism"
- We make a distinction between what we are born with and what we believe.
- Because there is nothing in what Republicans claim is called "Transgender ideology" that didn't already exist for decades as part of Feminist ideology.
So, it is a concept under the umbrella of an ideology but decidedly not an ideology in itself? Thanks for attempting to provide an answer, but this all merely sounds like a minor point of semantics.
The irony is that I believe that one of the groups most harmed by the current trajectory with the trans movement is women. How does the notion that a male may claim full possession and knowledge of womanhood not perpetuate male dominance over women?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Man, oh, man! I always dreaded the day I ever found myself on the receiving end of one of your rhetorical ass whoopings!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
No way.
Ah well, can’t say as I’m surprised. Good thing I didn’t spend more time attempting to fulfill your request than I did!
There's no such thing as an ideology that its proponents deny believing.
That’s not what I’m talking about, though. To clarify, I am saying that activists have created what amounts to a certain ideology, they just deny that it constitutes an ideology (again, I don’t know why). I am NOT saying that they deny believing the tenets of their “not an ideology.”
Third-wave feminism regarded race, social class, and transgender rights as central issues and really the whole "gender as social construct" takes off with Riot grrrl and Anita Hill in the early 90's.
Yes, this is pretty faithful to the wiki page on it…
That is an ideology with many vocal proponents and overwhelming popular support in the US.
But this is not. What makes that an admitted ideology, and not the transgender movement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
1. If you're going to make an argument about the law of supply, you should also take into account the law of demand. Higher prices will make business profitable, and therefore more people will get in on the action, increasing the supply. According to the laws of supply and demand, when supply increases but demand remains constant, prices fall.At best the prices would only work as a deterrent temporarily, until an equilibrium is reached. While the prices will likely still be slightly higher in the end, it won't be enough to deter black market sales, not by anything significant.
Well, I was planning on citing what should have been Australia’s ever shriveling black market after their gun buyback program and found a couple of interesting articles. The older one supports my contention of rising prices, but it also acknowledges that criminals still find workarounds:
“Black market guns triple in price”
The more recent one tends to support your contention, that criminals and black markets find a way eventually:
“Research suggests it is easier than ever for criminals to get guns illegally in Australia”
So, well played…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Sorry, but it looks as though you are the one not keeping up here, yet you refuse to own up to it even after I (politely) attempted to set you straight. If you were to *ahem* follow your own advice and “thoroughly review the context of the discussion to date,” you would clearly see that I am more in agreement with you than not regarding this thread topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Living under a rock as of late?
Perhaps. All the stuff you pasted is from this thread, which is where I said I learned “Transgender as ideology” is in great dispute, so I fail to see what point or correction you are making. FYI, just because I posted an article does not mean I agree with it; it just means that the ideology denial is definitely a thing…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ever get the sneaking suspicion you are being set up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Please summarize the ideology and name three well-known proponents.
I can start on the first part, but the second part is dicey, as you are asking for proponents of a concept (ideology) that they deny is the case (again, I don’t know why). So, no, I cannot provide proponents of an ideology when the proponents deny it is an ideology. Now, you can look up transgender activists, and you will find a bunch. Good enough?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I didn’t even know the ideology categorization was under any dispute until this thread, which then led me to this article:
“THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TRANSGENDER IDEOLOGY” (sorry for the yelling)
Frankly, I’m not sure why being an ideology (such as democracy— the horror!) is considered so repellent. Too close to being a religion maybe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
“Transgenderism" isn't one person's idea, it's a collection of ideas advanced by a significant portion of our society
*scratching my head* Yet ya’ll claim it is decidedly not this:
i·de·ol·o·gy
noun
- a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy."the ideology of democracy"
… and claim that this “not an ideology!” is coherent…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It means the individual lives in accordance with the traits and characteristics we associate with those terms. We tend to think of women as feminine in the way they dress, act, look, and even think. Women tend to be more sensitive, emotional, and even submissive. And yes, we think of women as having breasts and a vagina.None of these traits alone makes the gender, it's a collection that we base our full picture on.
If that person does not live in accordance with those traits associated with women, then that person is not a woman?
What’s the difference between an effeminate man (one who lives in accordance with traits associated with women) and a male who identifies as a woman?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
“Because it is an incoherent ideology”
What is incoherent about it?
It is a good start that you recognize that it is an ideology. Coherent ideas can be coherently explained. So, I’ll begin by asking:
When a man identifies as a woman (or vice versa): what does it mean to be a man, what does it mean to be a woman, and what does it mean to identify as a woman?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
And do you think self defense is a good argument here where the US has 5 times the homicides of other developed nations?
Whereas you see it as: “With so many violent crimes committed with firearms, you guys should get rid of firearms altogether” a pro 2A American will interpret this as “With so many violent crimes committed with firearms, you should give up your own firearms.” This is a particularly tough sell when police are understaffed and demoralized as they are currently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
There would be quite a time lag before it hampered criminals. Meanwhile, law abiding citizens would have their self defense capabilities curbed and feel outgunned by criminals.
It really depends on the extent of the ban. Banning by brands and types? Criminals will use other brands and types. Ban of say, all semi auto pistols? That might not pass Constitutional muster. Hard to say. While I’m not for bans, I am for restrictions, such as waiting periods, background checks, age limits on semi auto.
The issue in this country is the deep connection 30+% of the population has with firearms. Some are single issue voters in that regard. There is a fear of what’s known as “incrementalism” where regulations get more and more restrictive over time until a certain freedom is infringed or effectively eliminated. That stands in the way of compromise more than anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
We are just about done here, I’m afraid.
You said:
Go 'perfect world' solution, doesn't have to be passable legislation, just if you could have your wish, what specifically would you change?
Yet when I respectfully humored your request, you gave this contradictory feedback:
This isn't a public policy or a law, though, you want to change or enact, and it's not really a 'solution' per se.
I’m not sure if your “speaking with forked tongue” is intentional or not, but it is hardly your first offense, expected even, and it is untenable. I’m pretty sure your smug attitude is intentional though.
Have an excellent day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
This is exactly what I'm asking. Even if I don't find the solution feasible, it would at least help me understand what it is you think needs to be addressed, then I can inquire as to the why's. It seems super difficult for people who are apparently in some way anti-transgenderism to elucidate exactly what it is that's such a huge threat about them. Go 'perfect world' solution, doesn't have to be passable legislation, just if you could have your wish, what specifically would you change?
Well, it’s not a short list of issues, and you have already admitted your lack of curiosity about one of those issues. Frankly, it seems like you want me to put maximum effort into this discussion while you glide along with minimal effort. Respectfully, be advised that I will not be putting in markedly more effort in this discussion than you are.
So, one of the many things I would change is the “Admit trans women are women or be a bad person!” mindset which offers insults and deplatforming instead of open discussion and disagreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Higher prices lower demand— this is an economic fact. To restate, bans don’t completely eliminate firearms or whatever weapon is being banned from criminal possession; they reduce the supply and therefor reduce the availability. It is very similar to the principle of scarcity of resources. Again, I’m not advocating that a ban is a good idea; it just isn’t a bad idea for the reason you stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you absolutely sure this is a feasible direction to go down?
My answer to that question is at the beginning of my first post here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
The cost of doing “business” is hardly irrelevant— ask any business owner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Is it any more or less pointless than posting here at all? I don't understand the problem, which is why I figured I'd ask for a solution, so I could work backwards and see if that helped. Otherwise we are just going to both state our positions over and over again.
Reverse engineering a solution usually means one is trying to replicate someone else’s solution to a recognized problem. Anyway, you won’t find my solution enlightening as it would involve you… and people like you recognizing the problems with the transgender movement and social contagion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Yes, then I changed my question to something more interesting to me: what's the solution.
So… now you want to know my opinion on a solution to what is a non problem not needing any solution in your opinion? Isn’t that… sort of pointless? For both of us, actually?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I really am not super interested in Canadian law…WHat actual policies are they pursuing that you consider overreach?
You admit to being incurious about my guidance yet pose a question about that very thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
The idea that someone has a right to their own self identity and the right to define their sexuality in a way that they see fit is all true.
On an individual level, sure. But the transgender movement, on a societal level, has been steadily moving their goalposts forward. The goals trend like so:
Tolerance—> Acceptance—> Celebration—> Incentivisation/expansion
I’m ok with the first goal, maybe the second, but not the third and fourth. The proliferation of people who identify as transgender has exceeded any evolutionary or biological explanation. It has reached social contagion levels. Somehow, the fourth phase is happening at the same time or perhaps even before “celebration” has taken hold.
I'm just not sure how it causes "a problem" for "society."
Because it is an incoherent ideology, and to me, embracing incoherencies is bad for society. It causes groupthink, confusion, and chaos. The movement is seeking policies which I consider an overreach and fostering confusion. If you are truly curious, look into Canada’s policies and how a professor named Jordan Peterson got on the wrong side of them. You can also read the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” which serves as a prescient metaphor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Discussing which guns are banworthy and which ones aren't is useless since criminals don't follow gun laws.
Bans might not be realistic, desirable, or legally defensible in the USA, but not for your stated reason. Correct, criminals don’t follow most laws, but they must follow the “law” of supply and demand. If the supply of certain weapons is reduced, they go up in price, even in the black market— or should I say, especially in the black market, as it certainly follows the law of supply and demand and charges a premium for especially hard to obtain weapons. The black market charges a premium just for dealing illegally, actually.
The result is that even criminals will find banned weapons more costly and difficult to obtain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
the idea that men can become women and women can become men.
If only it were this straightforward (albeit incoherent and lacking meaningful definitions even at this rudimentary level). It also posits the idea that a man or woman can be neither a man nor a woman (agender); a woman or man can be both a man and a woman (non-binary); a woman or man can be either a man or woman, both a man and a woman, or neither a man nor woman depending on mood (gender fluid), and the list goes on… longer than any single individual could explain or understand…
Created:
There’s probably a reason to boycott just about any successful company, but you cannot realistically boycott everyone. The only boycott that really works is not buying something because you don’t like or need the product, but that doesn’t really count as “boycotting.”
If a company has a uniquely good or trendy product, boycotts aren’t going to catch on. Apple and Nike come to mind. Both use underpaid foreign labor which would never be allowed in the US or other western countries, but people love their products, and the foreign labor makes them more affordable than otherwise. No boycotts to be seen with those two.
Chick Fil A was a notable boycott over the founder’s opposition to gay marriage. But their food and service is just too dang good, and the boycott went nowhere.
Coca Cola had a marketing debacle when they put out New Coke, and it was summarily rejected by customers. Again, not because of any ethical reason, just people didn’t like the product. Economics 101. Funny side note— some people imagined that New Coke was all an ingenious marketing ploy to sell more original Coke, but I digress.
Yes, Dylan what’s her face is an obnoxious attention whore, and many people don’t want to buy cans with her face emblazoned on them, but Anhauser Busch is a big company, and they have other brands than just Budweiser, such as Dos Equis, which I happen to like. So, yeah, any boycotting there is merely symbolic and maybe cathartic. Bud will survive this. Will they change strategy as a result? Hard to say…
Created:
I don’t even think it’s a matter of prediction at this point; it’s already happening, and conservatives are more sympathetic to the feminist side. I would presume this is because feminism is coherent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
All in the Family— brilliant show. The irony is that such an edgy and thought provoking sitcom couldn’t be made today because the first casualty of PC/woke ideology is humor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
The goal of forcing everyone to drive an EV isn't to save the planet, but restrict your movement on the planet. My opinion of course.
The goal of EVs is to feel as though we are doing something to fight climate change— to virtue signal, in other words. This is evidenced by these facts:
Electricity is largely generated by fossil fuels
Even with fossil fuel generation, the grid cannot currently handle everyone charging EVs overnight simultaneously
Mining, with its own set of environmental impacts, is required for the batteries
The invasive mining is being minimized in the US, so as to outsource this unPC practice to other countries
But I understand that they are low maintenance and have a lot of pickup, thereby making the virtue signaling rather enjoyable…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I like Matt Dillahunty’s take on it: the foundation of a moral code is subjective, but what proceeds from that foundation can be objective.
Created:
I’ve gone through many major changes, but in just the last 3-4 years? Mainly these items:
That climate change needs to be acknowledged and addressed in earnest by the global community. After hearing that a global shutdown from COVID barely made a dent in climate change, it made me seriously question what would mitigate it? Now, it seems as though attempts at a “cure” are as bad or worse than the disease itself. Much of the green movement seems like mere virtue signaling or a sort of secular religion or a gateway towards socialism. We humans are much better at adaptation than prevention realistically.
That the science and medical communities are above the fray of politics and avoid commingling science with political agendas. After a group of doctors announced that BLM protesters could crowd together without masks because “racism is a greater threat than COVID,” I was dispelled of that idealistic notion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Like all the equations agreeing at once Liberty minimizes conflict not because it was designed to, but because conflict comes from contradictions in values. If the only permissible values and behaviors comply with liberty their holders are by definition compatible.Liberty is the most fit of all ethics because it is logical and universal (both together mean objective).
This.
As a religious person, my moral system was relatively easy and available. After becoming an atheist, secular humanism seemed the wise foundation. After realizing the limitations and possible dangers of humanism, I was left wondering what my core principle could be, and I realized it was liberty. It was after all, liberty which allowed me to assess and change my mind on the matter in the first place.
Not something I would think would arise in this particular thread, but there it is…
Created: