Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Transgender forces Kentucky to conform to their values

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    I hope you’re not a gun owner Sparko. When it comes to popularity I think you might be confusing Murder with Madonna.
    Murder is just an arbitrary distinction. It is someone saying "some killing is bad - we will call that 'murder'"

    But if you are correct and the popularity of a behavior determines it's morality, then there is no such thing as a "bad" killing. As long as killing is popular it is moral. In fact the only thing keeping killing down is the law. And the law is just legislating morality, saying that "killing is bad except for certain circumstances" - if there were no law against murder, then the popularity of killing would skyrocket and become even more moral.

    Do you see the flaw in your reasoning yet, FF? If there is no objective moral standard and morals are based solely on how many people in a society think a behavior is "bad" or "good" then there is no reason why killing can't be moral.

    I think you do realize your flawed reasoning and that is why you just make snide comments instead of actually defending your initial comment.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
      That is the best answer I can give you. To give a meaningful answer, the question itself has to be rational and your question is not rational for the reason I explained. You need to take account of the difference between a useless thing that does exist and something that cannot exist.

      If you think this is a good place to stop I am fine with that because I am fairly sure that you are unable to work around that problem. Do you at least see that there is a difference?
      We both know FF that is math sums were the results of opinions (collective or personal) then mathematics as a discipline would be useless. But you contend that ethics decided by collective or personal opinion are meaningful or useful, fine you can assert that. But if you are correct there can be no objectively correct answer to any moral question. You like steak, I like lobster - there is no right answer. Just personal or collective tastes. Now to the point: time and time again I have seen you criticize people of faith for being stuck in the past, or wed to biblical ethics. That criticism is completely irrational and meaningless. There is no force in your argument for no moral opinion (no matter where one gets it) can ever be more correct or valid than its opposite.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post

        If you think this is a good place to stop I am fine with that because I am fairly sure that you are unable to work around that problem. Do you at least see that there is a difference?


        right. You know you can't defend your position so you blame Seer as being unable to understand. Hilarious!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post


          right. You know you can't defend your position so you blame Seer as being unable to understand. Hilarious!
          Well this is a first for ff.
          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            We both know FF that is math sums were the results of opinions (collective or personal) then mathematics as a discipline would be useless. But you contend that ethics decided by collective or personal opinion are meaningful or useful, fine you can assert that. But if you are correct there can be no objectively correct answer to any moral question. You like steak, I like lobster - there is no right answer. Just personal or collective tastes. Now to the point: time and time again I have seen you criticize people of faith for being stuck in the past, or wed to biblical ethics. That criticism is completely irrational and meaningless. There is no force in your argument for no moral opinion (no matter where one gets it) can ever be more correct or valid than its opposite.
            I appreciate the discussion seer and I do understand your point of view. If I find anything more interesting to say on the subject I will be sure to let you know. In the meantime I am entirely happy for you to have the last word.
            “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
            “not all there” - you know who you are

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
              Apparently there is someone who does not know what congenital abnormality means. Or their just intentionally dishonest.
              But just in case there is an actual ignorance here I'll be happy to define: Congenital anomalies are also known as birth defects, congenital disorders or congenital malformations. Congenital anomalies can be defined as structural or functional anomalies, including metabolic disorders, which are present at the time of birth.
              Since dysphoria and dysmorphic psychological issues are not actually present at birth, it stands to reason that they are not congenital.
              Gender Dyshporia that is not secondary to Chromosomal Defects Present at Birth is not congenital. Rather it is secondary to another psychological issue. You cannot lump the two together. And in a society that believes that gender is strictly learned and feelings rather than appropriate boundaries should be implemented between the sexes regardless of how a person thinks, we are going the way of a garbage can.
              Why don't you address me directly? My position is that most dysphoria has a basis in gene abnormality, which would be present at birth, and the actual dysphoria would manifest when cognitive abilities allow for it. I don't think anyone can say what about gender roles is natural vs socially assigned, but regardless people should express their gender as they feel.

              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              Since the former and not the latter is actually the supported case, you're only making my point.
              You mean delusion? How can you know that?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                Yes there is. The studies I posted earlier in the thread indicate that body dysmorphia is genetic.
                That's impossible. A Y chromosome is supposed to produce a male. If it produces a male who thinks he's a woman stuck in a man's body it's the mind that's the problem, not the body. This is regardless of whether the brain damage is the result of genetic defects or not.
                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  That's impossible. A Y chromosome is supposed to produce a male. If it produces a male who thinks he's a woman stuck in a man's body it's the mind that's the problem, not the body. This is regardless of whether the brain damage is the result of genetic defects or not.
                  A Y chromosome doesn't do anything by itself. It's characterized by its shape, and more importantly, the genes it carries. If those genes tell the body to develop as a woman, the person carrying them will develop as a woman. We see this with androgen insensitivity syndrome. Brain studies show that people who desire to be the opposite sex have the brain structure of that opposite sex. Genetic studies show that people who desire to be the opposite sex have unusual DNA. Like you suggested, people with gender dysphoria can be tested. One can look for specific genes associated with sexual determination or telltale signatures, or one can scan the brain.

                  It's really easy to go by convenient methods of sexing, like genitalia or chromosome, and depending upon your purpose, those methods are perfectly fine. If you want to be precise and scientific, you need to understand that humans are sexed through a process that involves many genes working in tandem. When those genes don't work as they usually do, those convenient methods may fail.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                    A Y chromosome doesn't do anything by itself. It's characterized by its shape, and more importantly, the genes it carries. If those genes tell the body to develop as a woman, the person carrying them will develop as a woman.We see this with androgen insensitivity syndrome. Brain studies show that people who desire to be the opposite sex have the brain structure of that opposite sex. Genetic studies show that people who desire to be the opposite sex have unusual DNA. Like you suggested, people with gender dysphoria can be tested. One can look for specific genes associated with sexual determination or telltale signatures, or one can scan the brain.

                    It's really easy to go by convenient methods of sexing, like genitalia or chromosome, and depending upon your purpose, those methods are perfectly fine. If you want to be precise and scientific, you need to understand that humans are sexed through a process that involves many genes working in tandem. When those genes don't work as they usually do, those convenient methods may fail.
                    When those genes don't work the way they usually do, they can result in mental disorders. Like gender dysphoria. The original argument was whether it's the body (or the mind) that is damaged. Since Y chromosomes normally produce male bodies, and do in fact produce male bodies in this particular case, then if someone with a Y chromosome is born thinking he's a woman in a man's body, it's the mind that is abnormal and the body that is normal. No amount of sophistry is going to change this.
                    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                      Your post suggested to me that you did not understand my argument let alone succeed in refuting it.
                      I understand it and the logic just fine FF and accusing everybody who disagrees with you of not understanding it doesn't make it go away. The problem with the whole 'morality is relative' is just that, nobody seems to really follow that rule because nothing can truly be good/evil. Merely whoever happens to be the best at enforcing their will and laws upon others is the one(s) that get to decide what is moral or immoral. Which logically leads to the idea that if the Germans would have won WWII, their attempts are cleansing the human gene pool of those they saw as 'unworthy' would truly not be seen as immoral. They were the strongest and were able to enforce their will upon others, but since they couldn't... their attempts were immoral. If this logic is incorrect, go ahead and attempt to refute it.

                      Your thinking about these matters is very black/white but the world is just not like that.
                      I'm not thinking of it in black/white at all, I'm just exposing how silly your 'morality is subjective' logic really is and how few people actually follow the logical conclusions of their own beliefs on this issue. If the above logic is wrong, go ahead and explain why it is wrong and why the idea that morality is subjective doesn't logically lead to the strongest being able to enforce their will upon others.

                      Since you seem to be interested in the Holocaust I would like to recommend this very good film about the Wannsee Conference:
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPIctGbAZEQ
                      “we control events when we control opinion”
                      And this has what to do with the price of tea in china? Do you not think I don't know how to read a history book FF?
                      "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                      GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                        I understand it and the logic just fine FF and accusing everybody who disagrees with you of not understanding it doesn't make it go away. The problem with the whole 'morality is relative' is just that, nobody seems to really follow that rule because nothing can truly be good/evil. Merely whoever happens to be the best at enforcing their will and laws upon others is the one(s) that get to decide what is moral or immoral. Which logically leads to the idea that if the Germans would have won WWII, their attempts are cleansing the human gene pool of those they saw as 'unworthy' would truly not be seen as immoral. They were the strongest and were able to enforce their will upon others, but since they couldn't... their attempts were immoral. If this logic is incorrect, go ahead and attempt to refute it.

                        I'm not thinking of it in black/white at all, I'm just exposing how silly your 'morality is subjective' logic really is and how few people actually follow the logical conclusions of their own beliefs on this issue. If the above logic is wrong, go ahead and explain why it is wrong and why the idea that morality is subjective doesn't logically lead to the strongest being able to enforce their will upon others.

                        And this has what to do with the price of tea in china? Do you not think I don't know how to read a history book FF?
                        Would you agree that: objective moral values + evil = subjective moral values?
                        “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                        “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                        “not all there” - you know who you are

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                          Would you agree that: objective moral values + evil = subjective moral values?
                          Would you like to answer what I said instead of these distraction games?
                          "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                          GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                            Would you like to answer what I said instead of these distraction games?
                            Your post is mainly commentary and it describes how the world seems to work – the strong, those with weapons, the wealthy and those that control the state do impose their will on the rest. Rulers commonly claim that what they do is moral in order to justify their actions and in some parts of the world they will put you in prison if you contradict them but the oppression and exploitation of the weak by the powerful is not caused by ethics whether objective or subjective. Ethics is a human judgement on principals of behaviour, intentions and consequences and every human being makes that judgement alone. The fact that that you are on your own with that judgement does not imply that anything goes.

                            Once again, would you agree that: objective moral values + evil = subjective moral values?
                            “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                            “not all there” - you know who you are

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                              Would you agree that: objective moral values + evil = subjective moral values?
                              No.
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              - Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                No.
                                I don't think FF knows what "subjective" and "objective" even mean.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X