Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 6 of 9
 [ 173 posts ] 
Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion
Author Message
MatthewLeePosts: 65Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

HWIN Commented:

“MatthewLee wrote:
If we compare Loving V Virginia and Obergefell V Hodges your comparison holds in terms of both being decided by the courts. Here is a better elucidation of why I believe this was wrong on both counts. Morally, both decisions were correct from a political standpoint... pragmatically both lead to disaster. This is an opinion and I reserve the right to be proven wrong so let me lay out the best argument I can with respect to all involved...
Morally good, but pragmatically bad. I wonder how that can be since you already agree that government should be restrained from meddling in our lives.”
MatthewLee wrote:
Before Loving V Virginia most states were already having their racism based laws repealed by court action and government involvement. Only the southern states were left as holdouts at the end. If you look at a map of the states which had their laws repealed...
https://www.aclu.org/other/map-leadup-loving
If that is the trend that it was going, is it not a good thing that something came along and made it that way across the country? That way people in the remaining states did not have to live under the tyranny of the state telling them what they can do.”


The states were not the tyrannical organizations by simple math. The majority was in agreement. The Federal government was the tyrant. I specified that the courts and the federal government dealt with these laws. The people of the states voted for and largely wanted these laws. The interference of the government didn’t allow them time to change their minds. They didn’t get to choose, the choice was made for them and therefore their prejudices become even more entrenched and their distrust of the government became genuine animosity. It was counterproductive.

The following is a rough, analogous example of what I mean so don’t read too much into it. I don’t want to start a debate about the right or wrong of faith and whether it is good or evil rather to use it as an example. I’m not claiming I want to convert anyone or saying anyone is going to Hell in this example… I’m just using it as an example of something some people consider a moral truth that can be imposed on with the justification that it’s for ‘their own good’.

Let’s say that I believe that the only path to the next life is faith in Jesus Christ. By extension that means that I believe that anyone who rejects this is actually courting eternal damnation. Let’s say I managed to use the courts to make it Constitutional for mandatory faith education to be instituted into public schools and for it to be illegal to question faith in public. Any speech that questions faith is considered hate speech in the public space.
If I tried to force my beliefs on you because I know it’s the greater good and an absolute moral imperative to save your life from your own unwillingness to see what I know is the only right answer would that change your opinion or make you fight? If I used the government to force this opinion on you because I was absolutely certain it was self-evident that this is right… the government and I would become evil by extension because we would be imposing tyranny on you. It would make most people who don’t want faith forced upon them enemies of the government. Resistance to faith would go underground.

Instead… it is better to try and reason.. to debate… to share ideas and to make arguments and some may come around… and some will not because of their own reasons. Those reasons may even seem evil to me because my conviction is built on something I consider an absolutely objective moral basis but that doesn’t make forcing it right. People will make their own choices and if the argument is sound enough, eventually society will see the right of it and come along to the light of a good idea. Otherwise it is the minority of intelligentsia forcing their ideals on the public who obviously can’t be trusted to think for themselves. That’s how tyranny starts and democracy dies.

“MatthewLee wrote:
Sure, they have legal protections and that is great in the abstract but it means that prejudice didn't go away... it went into hiding. And now the incarceration rates of African Americans are staggering. The prison population has boomed and despite being less than 15% of the population...

HWIN responded:
It is not the governments job to get rid of prejudice, but it is governments job to treat everyone equally. Beyond that, I am failing to see the link between interracial marriage being legal across the country and incarceration rates for blacks. Want to string this red herring into something logical?”


I agree that it is not the governments job to eliminate prejudice. That’s society’s job. The government can only treat people equally universally if the people in the government universally agree with the laws they are tasked to enforce. Governments are made of people.
Because we have failed to convince people of the right of this argument and instead just made it illegal to act in a racist way in any government enforced capacity or to get caught doing it… people have learned how to do it without getting caught.

First off… If we agree that the data indicates that incarceration rates for blacks are incredibly, inexplicably high that leads me to one of three possible logical conclusions about them… if there are others I would be willing to discuss them on their merits but the only ones I see are as follows…
1. They are intrinsically predisposed to criminal behavior.
This is racism and obviously isn’t true. It is an unsupportable conclusion and offensive.
2. It’s just an incredible coincidence.
It would seem the probability against this is quite high. There are many fewer of them than there are other races so it would seem that if all races were equal then the tendency for criminality would show an equal distribution making prison population racial demographics roughly model societal racial demographics.
3. Some external force is acting upon them which makes it more likely for them to end up in the criminal justice system.

What external force could result in African Americans being unfairly targeted by criminal prosecution, arrest, and profiling other than racism?
It is widely accepted that OJ Simpson killed Nicole Brown Simpson. A court found him innocent not because of the strength of the exculpating evidence but the suspicious nature of the evidence for the state’s case. There was copious evidence that he was guilty but the evidence was mishandled in ways that are inexcusable. For example: legally mandated chains of custody were wholly disregarded… some of the police who gathered the evidence and testified were known white supremacist sympathizers… and evidence was proven to have been planted. It was eventually discovered by the investigations created by this trial that the LAPD routinely achieved convictions by planting evidence on African American’s because they assumed they were guilty. The way they handled the OJ case’s evidence was common protocol, but they did it in secret because yes… it was illegal… but they were prejudiced and the law doesn’t change that. It just makes it go into hiding where it can do real harm.
Democracy only works if you let it and you let the people learn what the right choice is and make it. Otherwise you are legislating morality and that cannot ever work.

The same people who are tasked with enforcing the new laws are the ones the laws were made to protect you from. Some of those that work forces.. are the same the burn crosses.

Remember and I can’t repeat this enough, slavery never went away. It only became legal to keep criminals as slaves.
13th Amendment to the US Constitution:
“Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
There are almost more African American’s legally eligible to be considered in a state of involuntary servitude by the Thirteenth amendment in US prisons right now then were in a state of slavery in the US in 1810. There are almost as many people legally eligible to be considered in a state of bondage in the US right now as there were right before the civil war.

http://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/statis ... lavery.htm

The solution didn’t fix the problem but made it worse like a coat of paint on a house with termites.

“MatthewLee wrote:
Hidden prejudice is far more dangerous than displayed ignorance because at least one you can fight in the open.

HWIN wrote:
We can fight both in the open, because in the open is when it is affecting others. Someone can be at their house talking about how they want to burn faggots, string up niggers and shoot spics, but if they never act on it, they are free to live that way. However, the government cannot create laws restricting the voting rights of blacks or disallowing gays to live near schools. It honestly appears like you are advocating for thought policing.”

The government can’t create laws to do these things… but they can still be done…

“From the 1890s to the 1960s, many state governments in the Southern United States administered literacy tests to prospective voters purportedly to test their literacy in order to vote. In practice, these tests were intended to disenfranchise racial minorities. Southern state legislatures employed literacy tests as part of the voter registration process starting in the late 19th century. Literacy tests, along with poll taxes, residency and property restrictions and extra-legal activities (violence, intimidation)[2] were all used to deny suffrage to African Americans.”

“In Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections (1959), the U.S. Supreme Court held that literacy tests were not necessarily violations of Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment nor of the Fifteenth Amendment.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

It’s not about thought policing. It’s about doing the actual work necessary to convince people of the correct truth which usually becomes self-evident after enough effort to spread it. It’s hard work and it requires education, usually at the primary level to start. It has to be done with the emphasis on letting the person make the right decision internally based on good and unbiased information. You can’t tell someone… it is wrong to do X. You have to teach them about people who did X and what the consequences of X actually were and let their conscience do the work. Socrates didn’t just spit truth at you. He asked you questions which made you figure out through logic on your own. That’s why lawyers are still taught with the Socratic method to this day.

“MatthewLee wrote:I believe that Americans also didn't want same sex marriage equality as a majority.

HWIN wrote:
Well, you are just wrong on that belief. “


It’s not a belief. The numbers tell the tale. The courts overruled votes. Votes can be said to represent opinions. Look at the graphic I posted again and really check out the details. Click on it state by state. Laws and Amendments which defined marriage largely were voted into reality. They were mostly overturned by judges, courts, and the Supreme Court. A minority of states voted it into law on their own. Nothing has significantly happened since then to change their opinions one way or the other except for the case of a Christian who is in the Supreme Court right now fighting for his business. Whether he was right or wrong is not what I am saying here.. how the public perceives it is what’s really important. If he wins it could set back LGBT goals and if he loses it will turn public opinion even farther the other way.

This has to be taken out of the courts and has to be done at the ground level or terrible things are going to happen. The civil war teaches us this, in my opinion.

People’s opinions have not changed from what they were in 2000 when same sex marriage wasn’t even conceived of being something you needed to legislate against because society tabooed it. They haven’t changed from when most of the ‘flyover states’ voted to define marriage as a man and a woman and they didn’t change because of Obergefell. They can only be changed by educated, informed people in open discourse.
The media might have you believe otherwise but I believe that the tendency to constantly ignore the warning signs is dangerous. People in a corner fight dirty. Sun Tzu said, “When on desperate ground, fight.”

MatthewLee wrote:
The civil war started over similar debates about states rights and the rights of people to vote their conscience... even if they were wrong... you have to change the minds of people before you try and force laws on them or you are just imposing your views... right or wrong... through tyranny. One type of tyranny is not better than another.

HWIN wrote:
Let us not sugar coat it, the South wanted the right to own other people. Again, just because something is popular and you can get a lot of people to vote for it, does not make it okay. I honestly do not care if the minds of the southerners were changed or not, slavery is disgusting and a black mark on the history of my Country. For a country to have a founding document that states "all men are created equal" to have slavery for any stretch of time is shameful. Beyond that, I am not sure one can actually call freeing slaves as an act of tyranny.
However, this does bring up a perplexing issue. Earlier you said Loving and Obergefell were morally good, but pragmatically bad. Are you now saying the same for slavery? It seems that way, or why else bring it up?”


Remember that the man who wrote that “all men are created equal” owned slaves, impregnated one of his slaves and died in debt so bad they auctioned his possessions, I believe this may have included his slaves as well… including the one who bore his children who he said he loved.
The act that started the civil war was not the freeing of slaves. It was the election of a man who the South believed would abolish slavery. It was also a long progression of abuses of the rights of the South through legislation by the largely northern leaning Federal Government. The South saw the north just like the colonies saw England. A tyrannical and distant organization who didn’t care about them and would oppress them for profit. Freeing slaves wasn’t just a moral argument then. They didn't keep slaves because it was popular.. their entire economy was based on agrarianism and slavery made it possible. It's not so simple as they just liked it. The debate over the Missouri compromise really illustrates this well.

The economy of the south was a massive and productive force in the world economy. They supplied tobacco and cotton on a massive scale to the rest of the world. If you took away their property (as they saw it as evidence by the link I shared on the Mississippi causes for secession which numbered their holding alone at 4 billion in 1860 dollars) you didn’t just deprive them of an unthinkably large investment. Their entire economy would have collapsed and they would have been reduced to stunning poverty and starvation almost instantly... and they would have been at the mercy of a massive population of now liberated slaves. It would have been a human disaster on an unimaginable scale. The north wasn’t just telling them, hey you’re wrong. In the eyes of the south… they were making war on them and willing to deprive them of life, liberty and property without due process in a way that would have utterly destroyed them and their cherished way of life. The emancipation proclamation wasn’t until 1863. Lincoln said as much in the letter I quoted him in. The north didn’t care about slavery so much… they didn’t want the south to have an unfair labor advantage. The thirteenth amendment wasn’t even passed until after the war.

Attitudes can change about such things but because they didn’t wait for time and history to take it’s course… hundreds of thousands died or were mutilated and a wound was made in the nation that never actually healed. The Southerners still resent the Northerners for something that happened in 1860. We have done the same thing to them many times since. It’s amazing they haven’t tried to secede again already…
Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:25 am
SparhafocPosts: 1838Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

MatthewLee wrote:The economy of the south was a massive and productive force in the world economy. They supplied tobacco and cotton on a massive scale to the rest of the world. If you took away their property (as they saw it as evidence by the link I shared on the Mississippi causes for secession which numbered their holding alone at 4 billion in 1860 dollars) you didn’t just deprive them of an unthinkably large investment. Their entire economy would have collapsed and they would have been reduced to stunning poverty and starvation almost instantly... and they would have been at the mercy of a massive population of now liberated slaves. It would have been a human disaster on an unimaginable scale. The north wasn’t just telling them, hey you’re wrong. In the eyes of the south… they were making war on them and willing to deprive them of life, liberty and property without due process in a way that would have utterly destroyed them and their cherished way of life. The emancipation proclamation wasn’t until 1863. Lincoln said as much in the letter I quoted him in. The north didn’t care about slavery so much… they didn’t want the south to have an unfair labor advantage. The thirteenth amendment wasn’t even passed until after the war.

Attitudes can change about such things but because they didn’t wait for time and history to take it’s course… hundreds of thousands died or were mutilated and a wound was made in the nation that never actually healed. The Southerners still resent the Northerners for something that happened in 1860. We have done the same thing to them many times since. It’s amazing they haven’t tried to secede again already…



Ill-gotten gains lost... this may explain why assholes acted as assholes, but it's still not the obligation of other entities to help maintain their assholery.

An economy built on the backs of slave labour is not an economy that is desirable regardless of how profitable it is. I mean, of course it's profitable to not pay a person for their labours.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:23 am
SparhafocPosts: 1838Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Attitudes can change about such things but because they didn’t wait for time and history to take it’s course… hundreds of thousands died or were mutilated and a wound was made in the nation that never actually healed. The Southerners still resent the Northerners for something that happened in 1860. We have done the same thing to them many times since. It’s amazing they haven’t tried to secede again already…


Honestly, I often wonder whether it would be healthier for everyone should this occur.

I had a tutor who was, in most ways, a remarkably perspicacious chap but who would, over a pint of beer, say that he thought the next World War would start in the USA as a civil war.

I don't think this is likely to occur, but there is such a deep divide (made wider year by year) between the values and beliefs of the binarized partisan factions. Personally, while I hear a lot from both ardent partisan sides, I don't really know whether there's a largely silent or under-reported majority which provides the glue betwixt these extremes.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:28 am
MatthewLeePosts: 65Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Sparhafoc wrote:
Attitudes can change about such things but because they didn’t wait for time and history to take it’s course… hundreds of thousands died or were mutilated and a wound was made in the nation that never actually healed. The Southerners still resent the Northerners for something that happened in 1860. We have done the same thing to them many times since. It’s amazing they haven’t tried to secede again already…


Honestly, I often wonder whether it would be healthier for everyone should this occur.

I had a tutor who was, in most ways, a remarkably perspicacious chap but who would, over a pint of beer, say that he thought the next World War would start in the USA as a civil war.

I don't think this is likely to occur, but there is such a deep divide (made wider year by year) between the values and beliefs of the binarized partisan factions. Personally, while I hear a lot from both ardent partisan sides, I don't really know whether there's a largely silent or under-reported majority which provides the glue betwixt these extremes.


The people who were the majority you speak of are disappearing. The truth is I often am afraid your tutor is right. If they come for the guns and try to restrict gun rights... that’s the flashpoint no one want to talk about but it’s real enough that Militias are already forming. Traditionally the 2nd Amendment is not interpreted that citizens get to own guns because they are afraid of an invader. The second amendment is to protect us from the government. It’s ponntless now... it doesn’t give us the right to own tanks or attack helicopters but the symbolic value is enough I suppose.
Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:27 pm
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2963Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Sparhafoc wrote:I don't think this is likely to occur, but there is such a deep divide (made wider year by year) between the values and beliefs of the binarized partisan factions. Personally, while I hear a lot from both ardent partisan sides, I don't really know whether there's a largely silent or under-reported majority which provides the glue betwixt these extremes.


I've thought about this a lot lately. I think a huge issue is that being conservative is, in many people's eyes, tantamount to being a morally bad person. Of course that is going to make it alluring to some, and to make others more strident. There really needs to be more tolerance from the left towards the right. There needs to be more tolerance on all sides (excuse me for sounding Trumpish there, it wasn't in the least bit intentional), however the intolerance to the right is generally not even considered to be a bad thing. I could declare Tories to be scum on my Facebook profile and people would more than likely cheer in support rather than tell me that its a bit derogatory and judgemental.

Another issue is that elements on the left are intent upon throwing allies under the bus. Take Brett Weinstein for instance. Everything the man says and does supports the fact that he is not consciously and intentionally a racist man, yet he has been branded as such for suggesting that people of colour absenting themselves from campus for a day to prove a point conveys a different message to people of colour trying to force white people not to come to campus. Maybe he is wrong, but he's not a racist man. He actually supported Bernie Sanders. His voice would have been useful in the fight against nationalism and far right ideologies, but the only outlets that he is given a platform on are those favoured by what is termed the 'alt-right'. His having absurd accusations levelled at him has given weight to the right's arguments.

The radical left need to stop looking for any reason to ostracize people who are not the real enemy. People can be wrong, people sometimes have biases, sometimes people are a bit prejudiced unconsciously or accidentally. When rational people are pushed away by the left the right lap it up. Its doing them a favour.

The left really need to change their tactics as it is harming their cause. Obviously the right aren't saints either, but they live with that label anyway. The left do all this shit thinking themselves morally superior.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a lefty myself, but I like to think I can talk to conservatives or other lefties who think slightly differently without treating them as though they are evil for having a different opinion.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:58 pm
TreePosts: 189Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

How about stop beating around the bush and actually provide this example of a "third sex" that is supposedly neither male nor female and isn't the result of a birth defect either.

The second amendment is to protect us from the government. It’s ponntless now... it doesn’t give us the right to own tanks or attack helicopters but the symbolic value is enough I suppose.


It's not pointless, it does make a major difference to go from nothing but bare hands to some form of firearm.

And the population has one major advantage: the numbers.

Who's to say they can't zerg a base and capture their own tanks? Insurgents have done that before in other places.
Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:40 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1838Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Tree wrote:How about stop beating around the bush and actually provide this example of a "third sex" that is supposedly neither male nor female and isn't the result of a birth defect either.


You realize that everyone reading this thread saw me link to several articles explaining this to you already, and now they see you pretending that I haven't done so?

So do you think you're going to fool everyone in to believing it's me who hasn't engaged in honest discourse? Or do you think there's a tiny little chance that they'll see this as yet another iteration of Tree doing all he can to avoid reality so he can maintain his vacuous little prejudices?




Tree wrote:
The second amendment is to protect us from the government. It’s ponntless now... it doesn’t give us the right to own tanks or attack helicopters but the symbolic value is enough I suppose.


It's not pointless, it does make a major difference to go from nothing but bare hands to some form of firearm.


Crackpot alert. In reality, the only way to overthrow a Western government would be peacefully.


Tree wrote:And the population has one major advantage: the numbers.


Mmm fantasy scenarios. Sweet.


Tree wrote:Who's to say they can't zerg a base and capture their own tanks? Insurgents have done that before in other places.


Image
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Last edited by Sparhafoc on Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:20 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1838Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

MatthewLee wrote:The people who were the majority you speak of are disappearing. The truth is I often am afraid your tutor is right. If they come for the guns and try to restrict gun rights... that’s the flashpoint no one want to talk about but it’s real enough that Militias are already forming.


I think you've got that completely the wrong way round and upside down.

The threat is not remotely real and never has been in the USA's history, but crackpots are going to crack pots, therefore all these self-styled freedom militias. That they tend to also have anti-government leanings, as well as often being barely discernible from the KKK makes for a very worrying scenario. Some people in the USA don't seem aware that this is not the Wild West anymore.


MatthewLee wrote: Traditionally the 2nd Amendment is not interpreted that citizens get to own guns because they are afraid of an invader.


I have literally never heard it phrased as such - it's always about contesting a tyrannical government. Definitely plausible in a contest with matchlocks and muskets, not so much when the government possesses stealth bombers, attack helicopters, and a vast array of missiles. My suggestion to any would-be 2nd amendment revolutionary would be to try the political route, because the military one is doomed to be a laughable footnote in the history of weaponry.


MatthewLee wrote: The second amendment is to protect us from the government. It’s ponntless now... it doesn’t give us the right to own tanks or attack helicopters but the symbolic value is enough I suppose.


Yes, sadly some people are still deluded into thinking that owning more guns will protect them against politics they don't agree with.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:26 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1838Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Laurens wrote:I've thought about this a lot lately. I think a huge issue is that being conservative is, in many people's eyes, tantamount to being a morally bad person. Of course that is going to make it alluring to some, and to make others more strident.


Sure, but it's the same the other way, which is exactly why it's such a dangerous divide. Few of these hyper-partisans actually want to converse - they just want to paint the other side as monsters.


Laurens wrote:There really needs to be more tolerance from the left towards the right. There needs to be more tolerance on all sides (excuse me for sounding Trumpish there, it wasn't in the least bit intentional), however the intolerance to the right is generally not even considered to be a bad thing. I could declare Tories to be scum on my Facebook profile and people would more than likely cheer in support rather than tell me that its a bit derogatory and judgemental.


Presumably that says more about your circle of friends than anything because the Tories won by a (slim) majority. I've got some ardent Conservative friends - for me, at least, I rarely have acrimonious political debate with anyone in the UK.


Laurens wrote:Another issue is that elements on the left are intent upon throwing allies under the bus. Take Brett Weinstein for instance. Everything the man says and does supports the fact that he is not consciously and intentionally a racist man, yet he has been branded as such for suggesting that people of colour absenting themselves from campus for a day to prove a point conveys a different message to people of colour trying to force white people not to come to campus. Maybe he is wrong, but he's not a racist man. He actually supported Bernie Sanders. His voice would have been useful in the fight against nationalism and far right ideologies, but the only outlets that he is given a platform on are those favoured by what is termed the 'alt-right'. His having absurd accusations levelled at him has given weight to the right's arguments.


Sorry, I don't know who this is or anything about it.


Laurens wrote:The radical left need to stop looking for any reason to ostracize people who are not the real enemy. People can be wrong, people sometimes have biases, sometimes people are a bit prejudiced unconsciously or accidentally. When rational people are pushed away by the left the right lap it up. Its doing them a favour.


Agreed wholeheartedly.


Laurens wrote:The left really need to change their tactics as it is harming their cause. Obviously the right aren't saints either, but they live with that label anyway. The left do all this shit thinking themselves morally superior.


I expect the left feels much the same way about the regressive left as most Conservatives feel about fascists: they don't represent 'us' and 'our' values.


Laurens wrote:Don't get me wrong, I'm a lefty myself, but I like to think I can talk to conservatives or other lefties who think slightly differently without treating them as though they are evil for having a different opinion.


I'm a centrist, and while I can talk to people about anything political (not being hyper-political myself) there are certain members of both sides of the spectrum who are slavishly devoted to their ideals and cannot fathom the notion of questioning them, evaluating them, or rationally approaching a dialogue about them.

That's what I think we need to fix.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:32 pm
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2963Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Sparhafoc wrote:Sure, but it's the same the other way, which is exactly why it's such a dangerous divide. Few of these hyper-partisans actually want to converse - they just want to paint the other side as monsters.


This is also grounds for some slim hope. Maybe the non-hyper partisans on both sides can start talking about what they can do to move political debate beyond the current level of discourse.

Presumably that says more about your circle of friends than anything because the Tories won by a (slim) majority. I've got some ardent Conservative friends - for me, at least, I rarely have acrimonious political debate with anyone in the UK.


I think I probably have more left-leaning friends and acquaintances than some people my age. But I think it is a generational divide more than anything. Among people my age it seems okay to have a strong prejudice against conservatives. I think there is a blind spot. It's the same with the whole punch a Nazi thing. I've heard people arguing that this is totally okay. I say it isn't. It lowers your credibility when you use your fists to make a point. Also who is the arbitrator of who is and who is not a Nazi? The radical left are quick to throw that term around, it doesn't necessarily mean the person being labelled actually holds those views.

Sorry, I don't know who this is or anything about it.


I apologise for not linking anything. If you have the time here is the story: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opin ... s-own.html

I expect the left feels much the same way about the regressive left as most Conservatives feel about fascists: they don't represent 'us' and 'our' values.


I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'left', and 'regressive left' here. I'd assume one side would level the term at the other and vice versa. But speaking personally I would say that yes there is a big faction of the left that I do not feel represents what I'm about.


I'm a centrist, and while I can talk to people about anything political (not being hyper-political myself) there are certain members of both sides of the spectrum who are slavishly devoted to their ideals and cannot fathom the notion of questioning them, evaluating them, or rationally approaching a dialogue about them.

That's what I think we need to fix.


I agree. Its very difficult though when there is such savage venom in the political discourse. You and I probably disagree on some things, but I imagine we can talk them through and understand each other, even if we never agree we might become friends or just understand each other more. How do we get others to see that this is the way forward, and to stop engaging in pointless power games?

Mods, I am ever so sorry for taking this off on a tangent, please split this off or slap my wrist if needs be!

Regards

Laurens
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:01 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1838Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Laurens wrote:I apologise for not linking anything. If you have the time here is the story: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opin ... s-own.html


Cheers.


Laurens wrote:I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'left', and 'regressive left' here. I'd assume one side would level the term at the other and vice versa. But speaking personally I would say that yes there is a big faction of the left that I do not feel represents what I'm about.


In this case, I mean traditional left of center comparative to a faction of the left that has grown in volume in recent years which seems to be very authoritarian and aggressive. Similar, I assume, to your example of punch-a-Nazi.


Laurens wrote:I agree. Its very difficult though when there is such savage venom in the political discourse. You and I probably disagree on some things, but I imagine we can talk them through and understand each other, even if we never agree we might become friends or just understand each other more. How do we get others to see that this is the way forward, and to stop engaging in pointless power games?


By and large I can talk civilly to anyone about anything, and in most cases I value disagreement more than I value consensus.


Laurens wrote:Mods, I am ever so sorry for taking this off on a tangent, please split this off or slap my wrist if needs be!


I wouldn't worry too much - this thread is split from another thread which is just as full of random asides - basically, if one chap wants to express his prejudices in public, he comes to this thread to rehearse! ;)
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:08 pm
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2963Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Sparhafoc wrote:
Cheers.


Not a problem. Perhaps I am failing in that I based a lot of my argument on what happened to this guy, but I don't feel like his case is unique. I imagine this kind of thing happens all the time at various universities. This was the biggest example I could find of progressives throwing progressives under the bus, or rather into the open arms of the alt-right.

In this case, I mean traditional left of center comparative to a faction of the left that has grown in volume in recent years which seems to be very authoritarian and aggressive. Similar, I assume, to your example of punch-a-Nazi.


I agree that these guys are regressive. Perhaps though we are engaging in the problematic level of discourse we speak of, if we refer to them as such. Radical left, is a kinder term in the interests of restoring a more civil and charitable discourse.

How do we engage these people, or do we just give em enough rope and watch them eat each other?

By and large I can talk civilly to anyone about anything, and in most cases I value disagreement more than I value consensus.


I disagree :lol: Just kidding, I agree wholeheartedly. If everyone agreed on everything, how boring would conversation be!?


I wouldn't worry too much - this thread is split from another thread which is just as full of random asides - basically, if one chap wants to express his prejudices in public, he comes to this thread to rehearse! ;)


Ah well I guess it's all about safe spaces and such ;)

I would be interested in a discussion about how we can tackle the 'discourse issue' in society. How can the centre ground on both sides remove the toxicity from this heavily divided and uncharitable level of discourse that we have currently. I feel perhaps bringing that up here in this thread might be a waste, but it would be a very interesting and fruitful discussion. Maybe we need to start the discussions we want to see in the world here, on this very forum.

Regards,

Laurens
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:08 pm
MatthewLeePosts: 65Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Laurens wrote:
"I would be interested in a discussion about how we can tackle the 'discourse issue' in society. How can the centre ground on both sides remove the toxicity from this heavily divided and uncharitable level of discourse that we have currently. I feel perhaps bringing that up here in this thread might be a waste, but it would be a very interesting and fruitful discussion. Maybe we need to start the discussions we want to see in the world here, on this very forum."


I have read your discussion with Sparhafoc with increasing respect. I don't have time for a proper post but I concur with this statement to the utmost. I would be very interested in discussing this in the future should you create such a thread. Not only to learn how to be more civil and respectful myself... because I can tend to be a little UnChristian at times and I am ashamed of that when it happens... but also to perhaps discuss the genus of the animosity. I am all ears...
Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:35 am
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 858Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

I have been somewhat short on time during these past few weeks and I was surprised to see that a couple of threads received a lot of activity since my last visit, this thread in particular. So I am unfortunately jumping in a debate that has already had a couple of pages of comments.

But if I understood the positions correctly from simply the first page of comments, we basically have a "for" and an "against" position?

With MatthewLee "for" bakers who sell custom-created wedding cakes to be able to selectively refuse to any couples for religiously motivated reason?

That this applies to homosexual couples certainly but to jewish couples, african-american couples, liberal couples, etc?

While the "against" position, being that bakers should not be able to selectively refuse to sell a wedding cake is held by a few?

Would that be an accurate description?
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:32 am
MatthewLeePosts: 65Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

MarsCydonia wrote:I have been somewhat short on time during these past few weeks and I was surprised to see that a couple of threads received a lot of activity since my last visit, this thread in particular. So I am unfortunately jumping in a debate that has already had a couple of pages of comments.

But if I understood the positions correctly from simply the first page of comments, we basically have a "for" and an "against" position?

With MatthewLee "for" bakers who sell custom-created wedding cakes to be able to selectively refuse to any couples for religiously motivated reason?

That this applies to homosexual couples certainly but to jewish couples, african-american couples, liberal couples, etc?

While the "against" position, being that bakers should not be able to selectively refuse to sell a wedding cake is held by a few?

Would that be an accurate description?


Greetings! My position is actually against against compelled speech. This is what the case is about. I look forward to having the time to pursue this soon!
Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:38 am
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 858Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

MatthewLee wrote:Greetings! My position is actually against against compelled speech. This is what the case is about. I look forward to having the time to pursue this soon!

Was speech defined somewhere? I understand there is currently a case before the supreme court where the argument is that making a cake is some form of speech but was a case made here that cakes, sandwiches, etc. qualify as speech?
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:45 am
TreePosts: 189Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Sparhafoc wrote:You realize that everyone reading this thread saw me link to several articles explaining this to you already, and now they see you pretending that I haven't done so?

So do you think you're going to fool everyone in to believing it's me who hasn't engaged in honest discourse? Or do you think there's a tiny little chance that they'll see this as yet another iteration of Tree doing all he can to avoid reality so he can maintain his vacuous little prejudices?


Your linked articles provide no actual example of a "third sex" just various abnormal intermediaries between male and female.

One article flat out denies your assertion by stating: "That the two sexes" implying there are only two.

You personally describe it as a "tug of war" which in case you didn't realize is BINARY.

The articles state things like:

"Intersex conditions are sometimes also referred to as disorders of sexual development (DSDs)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders ... evelopment

If you want to call the World Health Organization and mainstream medical journals "creationists" you're a joke. The only creationists are the butthurt far leftists who think doctors should reclassify intersex as NOT having any disorder because their feeeeeelings are hurt. Well cry me a river, you don't get to redefine medical science because you're offended.

Crackpot alert. In reality, the only way to overthrow a Western government would be peacefully.


Peacefully sure... It only took Eastern European countries 45 years to get rid of communism "peacefully" and Belarus is still communist. That is the price you pay for not having an eeevil gun culture. It only took 70+ years for Russia to become not-communist and it's still not quite free.

North Korea - still communist with no end in sight as the population isn't even well fed enough to have the strength to mount a resistance
Cuba - still communist

Don't mistake your ignorance of warfare tactics for an actual argument. This is just an argument from incredulity.

In reality, if the the US federal government turned tyrannical and the people revolted, there's absolutely no guarantee the government would win. Several things to consider:

1. The governors of each state would have to go along with the plan in order for this to work. If the states refuse to cooperate, the tyrant fails since he can't implement his agenda.
2. Many parts of the US army would likely defect to the rebellion as well and refuse to follow unlawful immoral orders. Other than that, no matter how well trained you are, you just can't handle being outnumbered at some point.
3. Policing an armed population that has absolutely no intention to submit to your rule is not cost-effective because you'll need more than just regular a police force to do every day law enforcement.

If there's one thing you'll need as a dictator is the ability to eliminate people who criticize you as well as the ability to easily confiscate property. You don't get absolute power until you get power over the lives and resources of the people.

How you plan to do that when even a simple arrest warrant has the potential to turn into a large scale shootout between the police on one side and the neighborhood of the person you're trying to arrest, no idea.

You'll basically need to either flatten entire areas into parking lots in which case you won't have much of a country to rule over. That or you'll need soldiers loyal to you on every street corner. Good luck doing that in a country with 300 million people.


Also ask Assad how well he's doing to get a grip on Syria. He basically lost half the country due to armed rebels and that's not even a gun culture. The US itself has trouble reigning in areas with armed rebels. I'm not defending those particular rebels, they are scum for the most part, no better than Assad or Saddam and in many ways worse, but the idea that guns make no difference is fantasy.
Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:05 am
MatthewLeePosts: 65Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

MarsCydonia wrote:
MatthewLee wrote:Greetings! My position is actually against against compelled speech. This is what the case is about. I look forward to having the time to pursue this soon!

Was speech defined somewhere? I understand there is currently a case before the supreme court where the argument is that making a cake is some form of speech but was a case made here that cakes, sandwiches, etc. qualify as speech?


https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argum ... 1_f314.pdf

Here’s the opening oral arguments. That is precisely what they argue. The oral arguments are fascinating!

Here is an interesting primer on legal definitions of speech...

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Speech.aspx
Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:17 am
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 858Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

MatthewLee wrote:https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf

Here’s the opening oral arguments. That is precisely what they argue. The oral arguments are fascinating!

Here is an interesting primer on legal definitions of speech...

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Speech.aspx

The opening arguments are quite lenghty, is reading all this truly necessary to define what speech is? Usually, definitions are short sentences or a few paragraphs, not pages upon pages of text.

But as for Duhaime's Law Dictionary, it is much more short and concise.

So I'm somewhat at a loss here. I though this thread was opened mainly to discuss same-sex marriage and it's impact on the marketplace, wether businesses can discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, religion, etc.

I certainly must have missed the part where food became speech:
For ... conduct to be considered protected speech the actor must have the intent to convey a particularized message in circumstances where it is likely that the message would be understood
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:36 am
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 858Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Yet if food is speech, then I would still like to make sure I grasp the positions (with a slight rewarding of them):
MarsCydonia wrote:But if I understood the positions correctly from simply the first page of comments, we basically have a "for" and an "against" position?

With MatthewLee "for" bakers who sell custom-created wedding cakes wedding speeches to be able to selectively refuse to any couples for religiously motivated reason?

That this applies to homosexual couples certainly but to jewish couples, african-american couples, liberal couples, etc?

While the "against" position, being that bakers should not be able to selectively refuse to sell a wedding cake wedding speech is held by a few?

Would that be an accurate description?
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:45 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 6 of 9
 [ 173 posts ] 
Return to Politics & Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests