zedvictor4

@RatMan

That's the thing.

It's always been man that has made GODS in his own image..... Or Elephant images  etc.

GOD principle sound....Floaty about bloke not so.

Lust...Enjoy it whilst you can.

For sure, Donald was the more vigorous.

And for sure, armchair and slippers for Joe.....He's got that young Harris woman to do all  the running around.

Ignorance is bliss.

But I would suggest, that you actually enjoy interacting with Stephen in the way that you do.

Stephen enjoys pointing out biblical contradictions, and others enjoy refuting his claims.....All good harmless discussion.

Quite frankly...What would be the point otherwise?

Just like you prefer to argue with Stephen, and ignore common sense.

@RatMan.

"GOD" was testing us...And we failed....And then GOD gave up.

And GOD itself eventually gave in, and  f**ked an Arabian virgin. D'oh.

It's all baloney RatMan.

Exactly.

The Bible and other archaic theistic narratives are way out of date.

Until such times as a GOD sticks their head out from behind the clouds and goes BOO, then religious discussions will inevitably go around and around.

And people will variously react to the inevitable and ongoing inertia.

Nonetheless, in terms of mental stimulation and entertainment, the benefits of such discussions, are greater than that of the subject matter itself.

Though in terms of "helpful".........Where either side of the debate has a pre-conditioned and fixed database, it would be foolish to expect to change minds. 

And ignoring "twisted and nasty" is simple.....Though one wonders if not ignoring "twisted and nasty" is how some people prefer to play it.

Morality is variable and subjective, though for some (see above) morality has an inevitability.

Nonetheless, the argument has two phases of appreciation...The construction and output, and the input and assessment.

Satisfaction can be threefold......Both protagonists can be satisfied with personal output, and might also reach agreement.

Though, as is generally the case with religion forum arguments, agreement is not reached........So although both protagonists remain satisfied....The argument will never amount to a satisfactory agreement or conclusion.

So a perfectly satisfactory argument, would be one that appeased both protagonists and reached an agreeable conclusion.....No argument.

Whereas no agreement, even when both protagonists are satisfied with personal output, will inevitably  leave the question unsatisfied.

I don't hate Trump at all.

Trump was simply not cut out for the job...As you were probably well aware.

Similarly....Joe was once probably cut out for the job (irrespective of politics and policies), but unfortunately he is now clearly to old.

I don't hate Joe either.

"Hate" is a powerful, but glibly overused word.

I can't remember ever experiencing hate.

I'm not blaming.

I'm just suggesting that primary controlling influences and internal processes are more basic than we like to think they are.....Hence stereotyping.

GODS are not lies.

GODS are assumptive creation hypotheses derived from ignorance, and maintained by tradition.

Nothing to prove.

As an atheist, non-theist, realist,  rhubarb crumble and custardist....I accept the GOD principle  for what it is.......The fundamental reality of rhubarb and existence.

It's been Russia Russia Russia for the past 75 years or so....Albeit formerly the U.S.S.R. 

And Faux....What do you expect when you elect old men......Certainly not dynamism....Though Trump was dynamically inept, I suppose.

Nonetheless....People were taught that gas guzzling motors were the bees knees, and that gasoline was cheap and available, so it's fair to suggest that we might now need to teach a bit of the opposite.

People are stereotyped on the basis of perceivable difference.

Data in....Difference perceived.

We also stereotype people on the basis of ideology and status, and a raft of other factors.

Data in....Difference assumed.

In fact we generally stereotype people, as not being us.

Data in....Inherent mistrust.....Survival instinct.

Who creates legality?

I would suggest that legality was imposed by force and tenuous agreement, and is maintained by force and tenuous agreement.

Hence....."The Israeli-Arab conflict".

And all based upon tenuous and highly speculative ideology.....Good Lord!....... Humans are clever sometimes.

Nope.....Unfortunately most humans out-sheep the sheep, most of the time.

Hey....Let's fire rockets....Yeah.

Hey...... let's fire rockets back....Yeah.

Excuse me..... Why don't we all sit down and have a chat.

BAAAAAAH.

Plus.

You cannot put it in a box and take it home.

Nothing is fixed.

And biblical information was relative to accepted scholarly thought.

We have since developed new and better scholarly thoughts....And rockets....And photographic images...Etc etc.

In simple terms, a "satisfactory argument", would be no argument.

In real terms, there are no arguments that satisfy the question.

Belief is thought, and common sense might suggest that not everything is known, just because humans think.

@Theweakeredge

So we will leave it at that.

You have failed to convince me, and I have not tried to convince you of anything.....I have reasonably questioned, and received nothing new in return.....Only ongoing supposition relative to an ongoing trend.

#12

Though I would say that the U.S.A is Number 1 by Israeli demand, and Iran is inevitably going to be Number 2.....As the U.S et al, have systematically suppressed other serious opposition. 

And Semites were Semites, but ideology was divergent.....Such is humanity.

Very true.

@Theweakeredge

As I stated...Dysphoria is, and physical identity in most people is decided in the first few days after conception.   I didn't once state that dysphoria and identity were the same.

And adding gender to create a modern compound is what it is....As is the modern overuse of the word gender.

And information relating to hormone mimicking chemicals in plastics is readily available on line, as you well know...Though choosing to ignore the fact only strengthens my notion, that your personal agenda and it's justification, is actually what drives  the case in point.

And depression is depression....And though a depressive will undoubtedly be dysphoric...Nonetheless, they are not one and the same. Depression is a mental illness, whereas dysphoria is a state of mind....The opposite of euphoria....Do we use hormone therapy to alleviate  euphoria?

And more trans people being recorded now, is because for some reason more trans people are being recorded now...And I proposed reasons......Modernist necessity, and environmental.

And "vague hand waving",  just diminishes your argument and your credibility.

Because Theweakeredge says so, then it must be correct....Nope....Doesn't work like that......Expect to be challenged.

@Theweakeredge

That's what I said.

Primary drives.....Survival and procreation.....How one satisfies primary drive is largely irrelevant, as long as one does.

Primary drive is what dictates the survival of the species. 

And modern derivatives such as pansexual have become necessarily unnecessary add ons.

It's what one might refer to as the evolution of concepts.....Which is what sets the human species apart, from all others.

Good....Remember that.

Or...Good and bad are universally meaningless concepts.

So we just make it up as we go along.

Just as we make up a loads of other stuff.....Specific GODS or Cockerpoo's for instance.

So it's no wonder that Euthyphro had a dilemma. 

Ancient Greeks sure had a lot of time to sit and think....Well the idle one's, who were privileged enough.

Do philosophers actually achieve anything?.....Or does it all remain a dilemma?

Terror is.

And making distinctions also is.

Are Afghan or Iraqi kids, any more or less terrified than Old Americans?

RatMan blocks but they can't ignore.

This debate soon descended into the same old tosh.

Which only continues to prove the obvious.....People are variously conditioned....And GODS are assumptions relative to conditioning.

And is proving a GOD, a lie.....Or is it a lie to prove a GOD.

Though if one needs to prove that a GOD is a lie, then it is seemingly also necessary to prove that a GOD isn't a lie..... So conversely, no one needs to prove anything.

Hence, descent into religious Toshland.

All good communicative fun though.

@Theweakeredge

Interestingly, the word pansexual is simply defined and easily understood....I just rechecked to make sure that I'd got it correct.

You perhaps want it to mean more than it does.

In simple terms , pansexual means, getting ones rocks off.....But not limited to the missionary position with the missus though.

The old adage is very true.....Kids think that they invented sex.

Tarik's rule, that they are always correct.

The nature of philosophy is such, that correctness is usually elusive.

@Theweakeredge.

As I read it, you only really have one point....Justification.

And dysphoria is dysphoria, and the term gender dysphoria doesn't really make grammatic sense anyway.

And given the pressure to conform these days, how often does one feel truly euphoric?

And as for synthesised chemicals, the clue is in the word mimic....And gender is, though physiology may be affected by such environmental influences.

And you clearly have an agenda, that you are trying to justify, at all costs.

My attitude to sex and sexuality is very liberal.....So within the parameters set by current law, I have no concerns about who does what to whom, or how an individual might achieve their desires. Though sometimes I like to challenge P.C. non-sense, with a bit of good old common sense.

So modern people may be losing sight of reality, but it's still there lurking in their DNA.

@Theweakeredge

Nope...Pansexual is a modernism, representing today's liberal attitude towards various sexual practices.

Nothing really new.....The basics are still the same.

Pansexual, just means happy to utilise various outlets........ Or inlets maybe.

Once generally classified as perverse.....But now bang on trend.

Don't knock it......Have fun......Stay safe.

Infinitely destructible lasers...One would imagine that the Universe would eventually run out of energy....Unless the Universe was infinite of course.....And our inability to know is what  bounds realism.

Though the answer to the question remains the same.....If they could, they could and if they couldn't they couldn't.

@Theweakeredge

Nope. "Have you actually been paying attention"?..... Gender dysphoria is an acquired  post-natal condition, whereas physical identity is determined within a  few days of conception.

Therefore it's peoples minds that don't match their bodies.....So we gratify the mind with hormone therapy and even surgery.....Such is the human condition , I suppose.

And so, hormone imbalance and environmental influences....... I don't think that it's necessarily too non-PC to discuss this....So BPA, an oestrogen mimicking plastics component used in food and drink containers, water pipes etc.......Coincidence?.......Your views.

Trying to make the rules, as ever.

Pureness and contamination in this context is overthink.

The importance is the reproductive viability of the mass.

And the overall importance is the reproductive viability of the species.

And pathogenic infection is an ongoing issue (eg. Covid) and we develop coping strategies.

Thrush for example is an annoying little bastard.....Not the singing variety.....Often wondered why a fungal infection and a bird were synonymous....Must be the spots.

Nonetheless, such are the environmental impurities of any sex act, married or otherwise.

@Theweakeredge

Yes.

This was what I was questioning.

One doesn't doubt that cases as you describe do occur......But I still hold that "dysphoria" though connected, is nonetheless an acquired state of mind.

Neither does one doubt that psychological dysfunction will manifest as a result....Such is the human condition.

I also proposed the idea, that the seemingly modern proliferation of gender issues is perhaps environmentally affected..... BPA for example......Studies do suggest this.

This would also substantiate the idea, that hormonal imbalances are linked to the dietary habits of both parent and child, rather than being a natural genetic occurrence.

So my question to Theweakeredge still holds also; why do we not concentrate efforts on causes rather that effects....Is this perhaps more to do with the current politics and fascination surrounding issues of gender and sexuality?

Think is the process.

An assumption is an unsubstantiated opinion.

This kind of shit is why I don't take you seriously.

However: If interpretation is applicable, then variation is inevitable and misinterpretation is possible. Though I'm confident that I offered a reasonable interpretation.

And you interpret words accordingly, and so do I.....As far as I am concerned physical sex and physical gender are the same, and are established within the first two weeks after conception.  Modern interpretations of gender do now apply,  but to postnatal psychological conditions relative to an assumed contradictory identity.

One doesn't doubt that what influences said contradiction, might be in part due to an endocrinal irregularities. Nonetheless one cannot dismiss out of hand, the impact of social conditioning on cognitive development.

Some people assume that they are right all of the time.

A. Procreation is  instinctive, sex is a pleasurable derivative thereof.

B. Marriage and religion are latter day social and theoretical constructs.

One is not necessarily reliant upon the other.

Though various people make various assumptions, and consequently live their lives accordingly.

No one is right and no one is wrong.

I'm pretty standard......But what's the standard?

If we can not respect each others ability to reference a dictionary, then we must accept that all unreferenced narrative is hearsay.

So therefore, all that you present in this thread should be taken with a pinch of salt.....Is that what you are saying?

Just looked it up.

Threshold is synonymous with both doorstep and birth.

Now there's synonymic variety.

You are, or were once an advocate of bookish authority.

So read the book.

@Theweakeredge

1a. If a trait is inherent then it is predetermined.....I only see a semantic difference.

Physical discomfort?....Physical discomfort per se, is typically relative to physical dysfunction.....Nonetheless we will agree that Physical discomfort can also be psychologically assumed. In this instance, arising as a consequence of "gender dysphoria"......"Subjectivity" as you put it.

1b. I've never suggested that cognition and anguish are the same thing..... What I suggested was that anguish is a consequence of the cognitive process, that is to say that anguish/dysphoria is acquired postnatally, through conditioning....... How the endocrine system might affect cognitive development and conditioning is unclear, however I am an advocate for the integrity of the mass.....All affects all.....A sore tooth makes us grumpy, ("dysphoric reaction")....Nonetheless, we remedy the cause and consequently alleviate the effect.

1c. Gender identity and gender dysphoria, are two separate issues.....Dysphoria is dysphoria, a psychological reaction to a discomfort.

Gender identity has come to have two meanings. The predetermined identity of the physical mass and the psychologically assumed identity of the self. Though this only helps to substantiate my assertion that physical identity is primary and inherent, whereas gender dysphoria and it's causes, is acquired and secondary.

So my question, though unwanted was nonetheless pertinent. Why, if the root cause of dysphoria is a chemical imbalance of the physical body, do we not treat as such.

Though if "psyche" doesn't work like that bud, why are you so dismissive of Mr and Mrs P and their acquired psychological condition....Selective PC morality...That's why bud.

Just thought I'd drop that in because the comparisons are obvious. Though you will undoubtedly, never admit it (PC morality or acquired PC dysphoria).

Acquired chromosomal identity and an acquired gender identity are separate issues. One is established within the first two weeks of development, the other occurs postnatally relative to data conditioning and probably either endocrinal function or dysfunction. (Depending on outcome).

Suggesting that it is better that I realise your opinion is correct, is arrogant, but I am prepared to put that down to youthful exuberance. Nonetheless I found it interesting that you only chose to address the word "proliferation".

As you should see, as ever.... On subjects that I do not fully understand and subjects that are not actually fully understood, I do not attempt to make definitive and authoritative decisions. I only draw conclusions based upon limited knowledge....And most of what you deemed to be "out of context", I do in fact agree with....Though we do end up drawing different subjective conclusions.

Nonetheless. I have no personal axe to grind with  Mr and Miss T.....Or perhaps I should say, Persons T.

@Theweakeredge

Nope....Just reread everything, and I ask relevant questions.

You might know what you're trying to say, but your narrative is indistinct and incohesive.

Super-hypothetical.

Assuming that they could, then they could.

Assuming that they couldn't, then they couldn't

Ask RatMan....They are seemingly from another planet.

Though..... Might be a virus or bacterium, that sneaks in aboard a piece of defunct Chinese space litter.

But the magic book does.

The Dictionary.

But they are listed as synonyms in the magic book.....So who are we to disagree?

As I've stated on previous occasions, words have multiple and various definitions.

And so within the correct context, innocent and virginal are appropriately synonymous.