zedvictor4

@Theweakeredge

I responded to everything that you presented, with pertinent questions .

If I had agreed whole heartedly with you, I would have replied appropriately....However, I neither agreed nor disagreed, I simply couldn't make a great deal of sense of it.

Therefore I voiced my concerns and sought clarification from you.

Typically, you responded in an aggrieved manner....Seemingly annoyed that someone should question your opinions.....Certainly not in the spirit of debate.

You are far from being the font of all knowledge....As I am also.

It's not common for theists to say that it's possible for Pink Unicorns to exist. Even though that's an "obvious possibility".

Does this do any other than suggest an unlikely possibility?

Though, are there scales  of possibility.....Measuring from obviously possible, to not so obviously possible, all the way to obviously not possible.

Afterlife and Pink Unicorns......Though reasonably common to say.....Nonetheless, not obviously possible....Perhaps hovering somewhere between the not so obviously possible level and the obviously not possible level.

@Theweakeredge

Nope, your answers only assuaged your own conscience, and weren't at all cohesive.

In the spirit of debate, I tried to debate......You, seemingly only had a story to tell.

And if only you could dismiss me.

I see that you are back with the old synonymity tactic.

Significance, importance, and severity can have synonymity, but also difference.

A significant change is notable.

An important change needs to be addressed

And the severity of a change is variable, and should be regarded accordingly.

The multiplicity of "innocent" synonyms is amazing......From guiltless to virginal.

We cannot pass the death sentence Your Honour, because the defendant is virginal.......Nope, you can't always mix your synonyms.

@Theweakeredge.

Pertinent and reasonable questions, relevant to the timeline of physical development from gamete fusion to post natal conditioning, and also the apparent contradiction, that is transsexualism.

In short....The mass dictates, and eventually the mind disagrees....So why?

Your unwillingness to discuss and address reasonable questions, is indicative of something....But I'm no sure what......Maybe just immaturity.....But maybe something deeper than that.

And as ever, your immature jibe "pseudo-intellectual", is easily returnable.

@Theweakeredge

"And so what is dysphoria develops after natal development?".....Notwithstanding a question mark; is this a question or a statement?....Punctuation is vital.

Taken as a question;  Dysphoria is an acquired state of mind....So my ongoing question, is how does the predetermined entity come to dysphoric conclusions?....As I see it, mind set, is affected by post-natal data input  and management....So are you suggesting that irregular hormone signalling, can affect cognitive development?....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.

Mind, seemingly takes precedence over matter.

"Gender identity forms before sex".....In terms of development, I  would suggest that gender is a primary chromosomic identity which dictates physical development. 

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.

#95.

"Innocent people".

Was this a random comment, or did it have a cause and an intended effect?

I looked into it.

And significance is as significance does.

The art of philosophical rhetoric, is significant within the field of philosophical rhetoric....And oftentimes is contrived to evidence itself.

@Theweakeredge

Well, the "main point" refers to two instances that stem from a root cause.

Nonetheless this does not address the contradiction that I alluded to.

A.  Physical Gender.....Is defined during pre-natal development 

B. Dysphoria....Manifests during post natal development.

At what point does the mind choose to contradict the physical body?

And more importantly perhaps...why?

Any club, based upon whimsical assumption.

Preterism....That was a new one on me....And yep. A club based upon whimsical assumption.

And people heard tall tales and wrote them down.

Same old, same old, up a mountain stuff. Stephen.

Yep...What Trump lacked in terms of intellect and aptitude, he sure made up for in terms or orangeness and hairdo.

And let's be thankful that the "Washington Elite" were around, to sort things out for him.

Anyone for a round of golf?

#129

Don't see a lot of legal discussion going on there.

Mostly ethics.

Don't quite see how me questioning, and you imparting, views concerning innocence, is inconsistent with an ethical discussion.

Quite simply, no.

The analogy isn't appropriate, whereas current device/devices are still compliant with definition.

Best keep televisual technology remote, in my opinion...When we become hard wired, that is when we will cede control.

Not that younger people haven't already ceded a level of autonomy to their hand held's.

Choose between a face to face and a text, and the text takes precedence......Ok.... so their choice?

Loosely speaking:

One, thinks about it seriously, everyday.....And the other only casually thinks about it on a Sunday morning.

And all are conditioned with theistic data, even the most ardent atheist, the difference is in how we utilise said data and the conclusions we draw from it.

We don't pop out of the womb a fully programmed theist or atheist....We have to acquire data, and then, variously assume or believe.

Nothing accurate about any of it.....A "stupid theory" perhaps.

As far as it can be known, hallucinating is function only relative to life and  viability.

If one is able to recall and recount near death experiences, then one is clearly not dead, and the body mass has remained viable throughout.

In short.....One either dies, or one doesn't.

And  theists are pretty good at irrational nonsense themselves. (See above).

Not talking about the law dude.

Well, it should speak for itself.

Nonetheless:

Conditioning relates to the establishment of a database, and the comparison would be in the intensity of belief and importance attributed to said data.

For some people everything amounts to a GOD, whereas for most, GOD is just for Sunday mornings.

Do you mean Julian and Gregorian.

Or was that a Greek translation.

Nonetheless...A happy Orthodox Easter

And everything else that might float, like other boats.

It's a pity that there weren't any photo's taken of the flooded sphere.

Perhaps GOD has some on the wall in reception.

And a heck of a lot of water to cover everything

I wonder where he got it from.

The ice moons of Saturn and Jupiter perhaps.

And then of course it had to be returned

He must have had some very long pipes and a very powerful pump.

Philosophy

And you mentioned innocence 

And I responded, by seeking a definition of innocence.

A philosophical exchange.

Simple

And you question more that answer, so one has to make assumptions.

@Theweakeredge.

Notwithstanding uncommon physiological anomalies.

Gender is a distinction defined during foetal development, whereas dysphoria is a post natal, state of mind. 

The question is ...Are gender dysphoric sates of mind an inherited physiological contradiction, or an acquired contradiction.

@Theweakeredge

What is love?.....Other than a physiological response to a stimulus, or a word overused.

Primary drives..... Survival and procreation.....Everything stems from here.

In my opinion.

#9

I was thinking of saying something similar.

But I've found that attempts at humour are rarely appreciated.

Obviously.

Though if that is the be all and end all, then why involve yourself in what is clearly for you, only ever going to be a one sided discussion.

Other than for the purposes of preaching maybe.

Not  a particularly philosophical approach to a philosophical forum.

The other sides of the discussion are out there.

It means exactly what it says.

"Trade" being how I generally referred to the estranged Tradesecret.

Trade was/is a highly conditioned Christian theist.....And all roads tended to lead to the Christian GOD.

So science and nature, was actually a reference to alternative belief and their unerring belief in Christianity.

Yep same here.

People expect instant results, and that's never going to happen.....Republican or Democrat....Conservative or Labour.

Expectations are, and magic wands are not.

Ok.

I will watch and wait with bated breath.

And just out of interest....Where is your current legal system?

And notwithstanding that, right and wrong are only concepts, and  therefore so are all derivatives, including crime and law.

So murder is not "actually" right or wrong, and the legal consequences of murder are not actually right or wrong..... How we address the matter of murder has simply become  an established social convention.

Well;  you referred specifically to weed and cigarette issues.

Certainly in the UK.....  Neither Liberal, Moderate nor Conservative, would rely upon advocates of these causes as base support.....I would imagine that the US is the pretty similar.

I would suggest that there are bigger issues, that are more definitive of the base...... Health, welfare, housing, education etc.

And how many weed smokers are likely to turn out Republican?

I think that you misinterpret the base.

Innocence....Now there's another can of indefinite worms for you to get your teeth into, Tarik.

So....Against what, do we measure innocence?

A measure of behaviour against collective expectation perhaps.

And selective morality rears it's ugly head once more.

Trades gone.

And there is no comparison to be made between science and nature.....Other than to come to the conclusion that there is no comparison to be made.

And Trades intentions, were as ever, underwritten by conditioned theism.

Nature is more powerful..... Therefore, my particular GOD.......As it were.

Yet another futile exercise, attempting to prove the unproveable. 

@Theweakeredge.

Organs allow for the provision of musical pleasure.....Just as other organs, such as ears and penises, allow for the provision of music perhaps and procreation.....However; all pleasure is generated by the brain.

And being gay is one of several variant concepts on a theme of procreation.

And then we might "exude".

Garbage can/litterbin.......Dying concept ....The car window provides an easier alternative.

Litter picking.....If ever a job was suited to convicts.

But how inhumane....Such are signs of our times.

Like masks.

@Theweakeredge

"Marry"?

Marry provides a piece of paper that says The State and formerly The Church can have control over who or what you do from here on in.

Marry was and is an unnecessary prerequisite to procreation and the nuclear family.

Regarding marriage and LG....... Nothing more than meaningless traditionalist frippery, lining the pockets of service providers.....In my opinion.

Whatever floats ones boat though.

Nonetheless..... Evolved conceptualisms cannot be denied.....Who are we to say what is and isn't real?

I posed a consideration relative to some of your previous comments.

If you only vote, so that your friend doesn't lose.

Then what's the point in bated breath?

The brain is always

In a vat

Under a hat

And the body is 

A vehicle

Without a wheel

And the brain 

Cares not

For a robot

As telemetry becomes

Obsolete

Without feet

 

And all the rest

Like a chest

In a vest

And gnosis becomes

It self

It self

Which bit is sex?

Is it the rapture of orgasm?....Or is it the thought that goes into achieving it.

I see that you're still suffering from chernyoble.

Quayle, didn't you just love him.

Only if they're attractive women.

The recent evolution of the human race is such that everything that has occurred is no more or less a natural process....And if you pay attention, you will we see that said process is ongoing.

Keeping on about it won't change the past, and the future will develop as it will.

Though future development will perhaps be influenced by keeping on about it.

We can also apply the same logic to environmental issues.....Past events shaping the present, shaping the future.

The future is bright....The future is Chinese coloured........Only joking.

Nonetheless...If we do eventually manage to escape this solar system, it would be interesting to see how the crew is anatomically defined.

Who will be in command?......Kirk, Chekov, Sulu or perhaps Uhura.. 

 

@RatMan

I like this website too.

Being blocked by kids is part of the entertainment...... Because they find it impossible to ignore.....It's a modern technological addiction.

And do you like the Mod's or not?....As you seem uncertain.

I like the Mod's, as they do a good job, maintaining the best debating website.

@RatMan

If it falls off, the plane will inevitably crash.

The port wing, as it were.

And left wing is also a secondary concept, relative to a primary political concept....And as such is not necessarily consistent.

And if difference of correctness made by comparison, is defined by logic, then one would assume that to differ, is therefore inherently correct.

What say you Doc?......Given the nature of our Tim Scott discourse.....Brief as it was....But meaningful nonetheless.

Very true.

Corrected....... LOL was not truly representative of my level of amusement.

And I appreciate you recollections.

Did you ever read Cider with Rosie, by Laurie Lee?......One of my favourite books....One of my favourite authors. 

Perfectly captures the intensity of that first encounter.....Something that can never be surpassed....Well, in my opinion.

There was an excellent film adaptation too.

@Theweakeredge

Hmmmm.

I was actually suggesting that;  State/Society providing a means to a necessary end, might reduce the problem of rape.

All that pent up frustration (primary drive)  and nowhere to go, as it were.

Or is rape a broader psychological issue, that is not necessarily focussed on the instinctive need to procreate?

Maybe our whole historically and religiously acquired moral system, is actually, fundamentally flawed.

And inevitably it seems, "coercive little shits" is to put it politely, indicative of your age......If you thought about it dispassionately for a second, you should/would realise, that such criticisms could just as easily and justifiably be aimed at you......The overly passionate nature of your discourse, is oftentimes given without consideration for those you are interacting with......"Coercive little shits" adds nothing of quality to the discourse.

Teen-speak is for teens.....I've been there and done that.

Are you that naive Faux?

Modus operandi are wide and varied.....As they probably ever were.

And given the intensity and addictive nature of social media and devices, at what age do parents and teachers need to start intervening with sex education.

I bet that there are 7 year olds, who are more aware of sexual variety than you are Faux......LOL.

I read somewhere, that when we meet someone for the first time, it typically  takes about seven seconds to decide whether we like them or not.

First impressions that either do or do not meet very basic preconditioned requirements/standards.