zedvictor4

@ADreamOfLiberty

Well I agree with that.

So if gender dysphoria isn't a prenatally acquired biological condition, then it is a postnatally acquired/learned condition.

A social or cultural trend, in other words.

So not an inherent design flaw.....Just flawed thinking.

Perhaps it should be re-thought?

Safer than what?

For sure the effects of smoking are variable relative to individual smoking behaviour.

Nonetheless some level of inhalation is unavoidable, and tobaccos addictive constituents are still an issue.

Your enjoyment is simply an illusive reaction to a chemical stimulant.... Which by it's very nature is unsafe to a degree.

But so is driving a car.

Enjoy.

Is the development of the dysphoric mind relative to sexuality, evolutionary in terms of biological evolution or data evolution?

And what are we actually discussing here?.....Procreational sexuality or recreational sexuality.

There are certain implications that arise depending on how one answers these two questions.

Which still suggests to me that the trans/dysphoric argument is not necessarily sincere, or well established as a physiological principle.

Belief is necessarily an ambiguously defined word.

Dependant upon the biology and corresponding functionality of independent similar but dissimilar data processing systems.

Whereby data input and appreciation is variable x approximately 8 billion.

I'm not sure that agreement is ever more than a one sided conclusion to a two sided argument....Which is not necessarily a negative factor, in terms of intellectual and material development.

Now what does that mean?

Some might say that mindsets evolve and develop relative to the criteria that I mentioned above.

I doubt that human systems as they currently are, will ever evolve a standard mindset.

Alternative Intelligence the next generation maybe.

Though that is not to say that human systems are not modifiable.

Nonetheless, material development thus far is indicative of past success relative to the human system, though the human system is becoming more reliant upon alternative input.

Though if a word is representative of something not wholly definable, then definition must represent this.

So 171 posts later, and  have we agreed upon how to define consciousness.

Consciousness:   Green light on, data processing unit functioning.

Unconsciousness:   Red light on, data processing unit not functioning.

Dead:    Irreversible system failure.

A way to get things done.

Sort of the beyond the limits of positive incentive.

True.

Magic required a magical solution.

A necessary side effect of critical awareness.

And  magic is the still the only answer to the biggest question

Therefore we must conclude that magic is still not implausible.

Though magic is not necessarily unquantifiable.....Cause and effect as it were.

Perhaps it better to say that everything is impossibly possible, so therefore magical.

I suppose that it  all depends upon how we appreciate and apply the internal narrative.

To wit, the biggest question precedes the big question.....In my humble opinion.

The concept exists.

Doesn't mean that the concept is universally necessary or not

Doesn't mean that the concept is universally useful or not.

For sure, everything might be completely different to how we think it is.

But that is questioning our version of knowledge so far, in comparison to that of a hypothetical reality.

Why should we doubt what we know, in favour of Kaku's hypothesis.

Perhaps thinks are as they seem.

Brilliant.

Wise as an Owl.

Witchcraft is just another coping strategy.

And belief is no more or less belief.

Nothing super-natural about cyclones.

Nothing super-natural about mumbo-jumbo.

Nature is reality.....Anything that occurs within the universe at any given moment.

And when they've  enjoyed bit of witchcraft.

They can then get on with the more mundane stuff.

Like eating, working and sleeping and any other  functional necessities.

We do stuff and give it labels.

Witchcraft is a label for other unimportant important stuff.

Reality is anything that occurs within a universe at any given moment.

Delusion is a thought construct.

Therefore a "delusion" is real within it's own context at the simultaneous moment of it's inception and end.

Recorded thoughts are real within a perceivable medium.

And so cisgender is real within that context.

As can be anything.

And so the mass that is YF_L and it's onboard computer.

Acquires, processes and assesses data, according to it's hardware and programming.

And concludes .

Same as the rest.

Notwithstanding, that Gender-Benders have been promoting their ideologies for ages.

Prolific output Deb.

Admirer of landscapes.

And appreciate a good painting, but don't love them.

Never really been able to pin down LOVE.

If you deconstruct LOVE you will find that you always mean something different.

Model trains..........Grown up kids toys.

Agnostics.

Agnostics are like Believers.

Ditherers just edging their bets.

Theists.

Unscientific theory is proof.

Random and contradictory.

Atheists.

Currently nothing to worry about in the creation department.

If there is an intelligent creator.

It will be an intelligent creator.

Opinion:

Reality is anything that occurs within a universe at any given moment.

So a thought of GOD.

Is it ethical to say is rather than are within a grammatical framework?

Are convicted felons allowed to run for President?

I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't happen over here.

I am an atheist.

Though I accept that there maybe a GOD principle.

In so much, that a universe has a purpose relative to material evolution.

We, are participants in that process.

A.I. (An alternative intelligence) instigated by it's predecessor is the next logical phase of the process.

God, as in a spiritual prop, was probably  an inevitable biproduct of human overthink.

Do you think that A.I. will need  metaphysical constructs as coping strategies?

Or will it be purely logical?

I think that it's also reasonable to propose, that this evolving and purposeful material universe, was therefore not the first and won't be the last.

Despite metaphysical overthink, I would nonetheless suggest that old Gods were/are a naive but reasonable metaphor.

@Tarik

Firstly prove that heaven is more than a coping strategy.

Otherwise, hypothetical morals are meaningless.

Yep, that's one way of looking at things.

Though one might simplify that by saying that the metaphysical realm is a thought or thoughts.

I would suggest that philoso-speak has it's own necessity to to exceed necessity.

In terms of human function, the body and it's onboard computer are wholly self-contained and process data within the confines of the body.

The ability to communicate data relies upon external physical properties, whilst the management of data always remains internally contained.

Consciousness and thought are seemingly amazing. But we can do no more that accept this as our reality, and continue thinking and communicating ideas for some reason maybe.

I'm not convinced that metaphysical constructivism is any more than this.

I think.

For sure, we have no good reason to believe, because belief is not knowing.

Nonetheless, we've got to a point where you seem to have run out of argument.

So either address the three points I made above or admit that you can't prove me wrong. 

And I feel no need whatsoever to back up my opinions with someone else's opinions.

After all  "Ireland is an international disgrace" is only your opinion.

Jasmine is a girl and she cut her hair.

Am I Bi or Multi?

I'm assuming multi is sort of being invited to a LGBTQ orgy.

Well, I know what you mean.

But that's how we see things.

Though my reaction is usually indifference rather than repulsion.

Sort of inwardly saying, you look ridiculous but hey, if you're happy.

Depending upon the bias of the instigator.

Studies and data can be manipulated to support any bias.

The three points that I put to you above are understandable and logical.

In short:

1. We possess differences and we perceive differences and others perceive our differences.

2. We are born with an empty mind and acquire the data we are taught. (Not to be confused with innate programming)

3. To say that social media cannot and does not influence formative and ongoing conditioning. Is silly.

So we perceive differences, and so we isolate and teach our kids to isolate because of the differences we perceive.

Though if you give your kids a mobile device, they will also acquire other data.

Patterns of generational data transfer are undoubtedly changing.

Yep, spam is a pork based processed meat product.

And trolls live under bridges in Scandinavia.

Just two of many misrepresentations.

And small arms can mean small arms or small arms.

So we need more information.

Younger kids in general are shorter than older kids, so in order to facilitate a face to face discussion, the younger kids will inevitably have a tendency to incline their heads.

Seems like common sense to me

Even French kids a have a similar height to age ratio.

Oui Monsieur Deb?

OK, so 5 year old Pierre has a 2.4m Papa and a  2.1m Mama and little Pierre is already 1.62m.

Doesn't necessarily mean he will be any good at basketball though.

Non Monsieur Deb?

Surgical necessity is not the same as unnecessarily dick fiddling kids in the name of ideology.

Why would GOD care about a foreskin..... After all, didn't it create man with a foreskin.

Does it actually stipulate in it's instruction manual:   Thou shalt fiddle with and mutilate young boys dicks.

Mr Pedo. Chapter 1 verse1

Well yes.

But still a philosophical Ebuc.

In so much as the necessity of complexity will only have a limited and appropriately conditioned audience.

"Is equality good" is either a general question for a mass audience,  or a philosophical question for a select few.

Though the basic definition and general understanding of equality and inequality is still the same.

And the basic definition and understanding will inevitable stimulate other considerations, providing the potential for a broader discussion for the appropriate audience.

I would imagine that most people here on DebateArt have an understanding of the factors that might affect social status.

Found it.

So Jogga is the new N word.

How long before it becomes the J word.

Very true.

It's much easier to run away from a nutter with a baseball bat, than it is to run away from a bullet.

And my mom died in 2006.

And my sister is 65.

So you're into older women and necrophilia then.

Did you just fart.

If there is a truly omni GODDO out there somewhere, then it is truly omni.

And I have nothing to fear.

The sin thing is just made up by sexually repressed and completely un-omni men.

Hmmmmmmmm.

Don't quite see the purpose of that comment.

The deliberate assassination of a public figure is not quite the same as a deliberate mass shooting of the general public.

And a homemade gun in Japan is not quite the as the sophisticated weaponry that is readily available in the US.

Can you give me an example of a proper question?

As it is, you are a bit like a philosophical version of Ebuc.

In so much as, I think that you are attempting to put forward a sincere idea.

But I just don't quite get it.

Humans arrived at the conclusion that two tringles was the best bicycle frame design.

Obviously with circular wheels.

WHY!

Is there a tear in the time space continuum.

Hmmmmm Don't you be so sure about that Kaitlyn.

There might be more to evolution than currently meets the eye. In fact there almost certainly is.

Though I would suggest that racial tribalism as you refer to it is not instinctive. Only the indicators of perceivable difference are innate.

Thought patterns result from post natal  conditioning of the mind, whereby we are taught to be racially tribal.

A new style of formative conditioning and data acquisition could easily change thought patterns.

Of course, we are not factoring wealth, poverty and social inequality into the discussion. Which gives us at least two more tribal groups to consider; groups that  are not directly linked to biological and physiological evolution.........Even so, social evolution obviously does link them....Another discussion perhaps.

Nonetheless. The global community is as it is, as of 7th May 2023.

To assume that things won't be different on May 7th 2123.is a tad foolish.

And to assume that things won't be completely different by 7th May 2523. is ludicrous.

And Kaitlyn and Zed will be not even be memories by then.

So where was your information?

Sorry, but the gun  lobby approach is just as blase.

Automatic weapons used in mass shooting.

So...The nutter shouldn't have owned a gun.

Yep, that's helpful.

Until the next time Prez.

Packing heat.....You've been watching to much TV  gunslinger.

And I was laughing at the 2nd amendment. Which is the fundamental basis of a gunslingers ability to possess guns and shoot people.

Just amusing that the gun lobby just can't seem to put two and two together and not come up with five.

Well, as you say it's not always funny.

Funnily enough Deb.

I wear atheist underpants.

The ones without the cross on the back.

A cross on the back signifies where the word of GOD emanates from.

Immigrant or jogger with a gun.

Though I'm not sure of the jogger.

Perhaps it means something different in the US.

But hey, an acceptable gun nut to shopper ratio by typical US mass shooting standards.

Interestingly though it was left to the Police to shoot the nutter.

No responsibly armed civilians willing to step up to the plate.....Which I thought was one of the main purposes of arming the public.

Well that and defence against tyranny. LOL.

Some might argue that to create a proper question it is therefore necessary to know the proper answer.

Sincere questions are generally borne out of ignorance.

Otherwise the process might be better regarded as a test, or scientific method.

 

Triggers broom. 

Is an amazing philosophical concept.

Consciously supressing and overriding natural messaging has been a societal necessity for centuries.

Telling kids that they should always keep it in their underpants unless they're invited to get it out, is pretty standard stuff.

Most men do, but a few can't help themselves.

Within the wider context of male female interaction, rape is rare.

And for sure, the Burqa would certainly be a deterrent.

As would castration.

Why should women always be the ones to make compramises.

Are you two dimensional?

Are thoughts two dimensional?

Or just a dimension?

One of many perhaps.

Firstly, one is either naked or not.

Secondly, the primary role of clothing is to protect from environmental effects, notably cold and solar radiation.

Thirdly, pious sexually repressed misogynists like to totally dominate women, and I think that there is a big move away from that sort of oppressive ideology in moderate "western" societies.

Therefore, perhaps it is incumbent on men in "western" societies to learn to control their hormonal surges, rather than to dictate how women should dress.

Though I would agree, that despite what women and liberal ideologists might say, women of a certain age do dress to attract a mate.

There's no escaping the underlying drives of sexual necessity.

It comes before post number 3 and after post number 1.

Similarly post number 15 comes after post number 14 and before post number 16.

@FLRW

10 dimensions are logically unnecessary.

@Sadolite

Yep. Space and time  allow for event and duration. It's matter that is the theoretical stumbling block.

@Ebuc

I've never stated that triangles are not more stable than squares, after all I'm a keen cyclist.

It was you who put forward the concept of exotic transformations.

@Deb

Interesting thought. 

If we read a book, we obviously must read at the speed of time.

Now some readers are slower than others.

Therefore does that mean that slower readers read at a slower time speed.

In so much as the duration of the event is longer and slower.

Sort of 20 pages per hour rather than a maniacal 100 pages per hour. 

Speed reading as it were.

Yep for sure, there are a lot of stupid and thoughtless people about.

Do we really want to have all their kids running around too.

That's the best pro-abortion argument I've heard in a long time.

Well thought up Mr G Parrot.

To be honest.

I wouldn't recognize an error if I saw one.

Though, a square will always remain a square until it is exotically modified; which is based upon the assumption that it has the potential to be exotically modified.

I therefore see no reason why a triangle with similar potential shouldn't also be exotically modified.

A triangle could just as easily be modified to become a hexagon, as a square could to become a octagon.

Just depends upon the modifiable potential of the structure.