Dawkins is written out of humanist studies.

[cpwill]

Ummmmm to the effect and implying do not require ESP anymore than establishing intent

So, again, to confirm, you have no evidence whatsoever to support your repeated accusation that I called them liars, but do not wish to admit this.

 

[bomberfox]

So, again, to confirm, you have no evidence whatsoever to support your repeated accusation that I called them liars?

Just like you have nothing to confirm trans people are delusional. Thanks for playing .

“you know there is a god but hide it in unrighteousness. Im not calling you a liar!”

 

[cpwill]

Just like you have nothing to confirm trans people are delusional.

Except that their perceptions do not conform to reality, as with the man who believes the illuminati are out to get him, and the man who believes himself to be a ninja turtle.

But at least you admit you have no evidence supporting your accusation that I call trans people liars.

“you know there is a god but hide it in unrighteousness. Im not calling you a liar!”

OTC, I believe there is a God not least (though also not most) because of my own unrighteousness. However, I'm not certain that original sin plays much a role here, except in that it points out that humans are broken (Also, doctrinally, I'm not a presuppositionalist, though presuppositions can indeed control logical flow. As Detrich Boenhoffer pointed out: when the atheist claims to not believe in God, we must take him at his word).

 

[bomberfox]

Besides CP unable to defend calling trans people delusional because medical scientists, gender specialists, psychologists, etc. disagree with research spanning back to the 30s that not even the fascists could completely destroy im surprised a biologist like Dawkins keeps defending such a sophomoric understanding of gender and sex.

 

[bomberfox]

Except that their perceptions do not conform to reality, as with the man who believes the illuminati are out to get him, and the man who believes himself to be a ninja turtle.



OTC, I believe there is a God not least (though also not most) because of my own unrighteousness. However, I'm not certain that original sin plays much a role here, except in that it points out that humans are broken (Also, doctrinally, I'm not a presuppositionalist, though presuppositions can indeed control logical flow. As Detrich Boenhoffer said: when the atheist claims to not believe in God, we must take him at his word).

Would you like me to present the actual research that defies the bio 101 understanding of gender and sex? You have presented none so far to back up your argument.

(i was quoting a presuppositionalist argument often used against atheists to call them liars without saying the word)

 

[cpwill]

Would you like me to present the actual research that defies the bio 101 understanding of gender and sex? You have presented none so far to back up your argument.

I'm certain there are plenty of people willing to bend the language of science to serve the purposes of modern sexual politics, just as there were plenty willing to bend it to serve eugenics.

If a person is genotype and phenotype female, what gender is that person?

 

[bomberfox]

If a person is genotype and phenotype female, what gender is that person?

Gender is socially constructed. . Its different from sex. Care to bring out studies to argue?

 

[cpwill]

Gender is socially constructed. . Its different from sex.

Nope. You are conflating gender roles (which are generally social constructs informed by sexual dimorphism) with whether or not someone is a male or female.

If someone is genotype and phenotype female, what gender is that person?

Care to bring out studies to argue

as I said; I'm positive plenty of people are willing to bend the language of science in defense of current sexual politics, just as they were willing to do for eugenics. Woke and Cancel culture has thoroughly taken over especially the publications.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

And yet atheists find each other and flock together, nod along with leaders speaking on the stage, and now apparently *checks notes* excommunicates heretics.

Sounds like a church to me.

The article is about secular humanists which is neither atheism nor a church. Try again.

 

[Schism]

The article is about secular humanists which is neither atheism nor a church. Try again.

One of the many sects that fall under or splintered off from the greater Church of the God-Haters.

And according to the article, just excommunicated a heretic from among the upper ranks.

Yep, it's a church alright.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

One of the many sects that fall under or splintered off from the greater Church of the God-Haters.

And according to the article, just excommunicated a heretic from among the upper ranks.

Yep, it's a church alright.

If that makes you feel better about the dumbass shit you believe, you can tell yourself whatever you want. The secular humanist society is not "atheism" and they don't hold weekly meetings. By your logic the Boy Scouts are also a church.

 

[bomberfox]

Nope. You are conflating gender roles (which are generally social constructs informed by sexual dimorphism) with whether or not someone is a male or female.

If someone is genotype and phenotype female, what gender is that person?



as I said; I'm positive plenty of people are willing to bend the language of science in defense of current sexual politics, just as they were willing to do for eugenics. Woke and Cancel culture has thoroughly taken over especially the publications.

Gender has always been a social construct by definition and is different from sex. These gender roles are informed by society as these roles are not uniform across the human species. The definition of boy and girl has changed overtime even in english speaking countries. You have not presented evidence of this boogeyman and there is nothing in common between eugenics and transgender.

i will post more when i have the time as last i was posting was at midnight.

 

[AmNat]

Perfectly throughout its entire history? Nope.

Of course, no human thing is ever perfect, and letting the perfect be the enemy of the better is foolish and destructive (as more than a few human societies have learned to their great sorrow).

If a system must consistently violate its foundational principles whenever any matter of importance comes up (and such exceptions have occurred regularly since the very beginning), one might question whether it is in fact wiser and better.

Except that to give the government the power to force people to not advocate pederasty would be to give it the power to also force people to not advocate laws against pederasty. To give the government power to tramp down heresy is to give it the power to tramp down on true doctrine, as well.

The government already has the power to silence people, by definition. The question isn't whether the government can do a bad thing, but whether it's likely to. I'd wager that a government that suppressed pederasty advocates would be less likely to suppress pederasty opponents.

The problem with political arms control (such as the 1A) is the same as with military arms control. Everyone has an incentive to break the agreement in as dishonest a manner as they can, which gives an advantage to the most unscrupulous actors.

It goes back to the same problem that we found we had with Enlightened Despotism - humans aren't capable of providing or securing a reliable supply of Enlightened Despots, only Despots.

Are there any successful businesses not run on the autocratic model?

 

[Schism]

If that makes you feel better about the dumbass shit you believe, you can tell yourself whatever you want. The secular humanist society is not "atheism" and they don't hold weekly meetings. By your logic the Boy Scouts are also a church.

You're obviously upset that the High Priests of your religion have expelled Preacher Dawkins from the Divine Church of the God-Haters.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

You're obviously upset that the High Priests of your religion have expelled Preacher Dawkins from the Divine Church of the God-Haters.

What is my religion? Be specific and tell me all about it. What is my holy book? What do I believe? Where do I go to meet with others of this religion.

 

[Schism]

What is my religion? Be specific and tell me all about it. What is my holy book? What do I believe? Where do I go to meet with others of this religion.

You're obviously upset. Were you a fan of Preacher Dawkins teachings or were you on the side of the High Priests who expelled him from The Church?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

You're obviously upset. Were you a fan of Preacher Dawkins teachings or were you on the side of the High Priests who expelled him from The Church?

I'm not upset, I'm confused. You said I'm part of a religion so I want you to tell me what religion I subscribe to and what it is I believe.

 

[Schism]

I'm not upset, I'm confused.

No, you're obviously upset....

If that makes you feel better about the dumbass shit you believe, you can tell yourself whatever you want.

Sounds upset to me. and angry.

You said I'm part of a religion so I want you to tell me what religion I subscribe to and what it is I believe.

How would I know? That's why I asked you the question in #66.

 

[cpwill]

Gender has always been a social construct by definition and is different from sex.

Gender roles are indeed social in origin, though informed by biology (there are few historical examples of societies, for example - certainly few successful ones - that prize men who take care of small infants and women who march off to war to do hand-to-hand combat with other tribes).

That, however, does not mean that by cutting off your nuts, you become a girl, any more than you can become a lizard by surgically forking your tongue and getting scales tatooed on your body. It merely leaves you maimed.

So. If an individual is a genotype female and phenotype female, what gender is that individual?

 

[cpwill]

If a system must consistently violate its foundational principles whenever any matter of importance comes up (and such exceptions have occurred regularly since the very beginning), one might question whether it is in fact wiser and better.

Not really. Our (wise and correct) injunctions against murder don't keep people from murdering, nor do our injunctions against corruption keep people from being corrupt.

You are pointing back to one of the exact foundational arguments of Liberalism: that humans are flawed, and cannot be trusted.

The government already has the power to silence people, by definition.

Depends. Some governments do - typically when power is unified in a single decision-making authority. It's getting harder and requires a large investment of resources. Other governments - typically when power is divided across multiple Loci and set to contesting against itself - do not.

The question isn't whether the government can do a bad thing, but whether it's likely to. I'd wager that a government that suppressed pederasty advocates would be less likely to suppress pederasty opponents.

If you think that the case, then I think you should spend more time considering the change over the past few decades in how government in this country treated homosexuality.

The problem with political arms control (such as the 1A) is the same as with military arms control. Everyone has an incentive to break the agreement in as dishonest a manner as they can, which gives an advantage to the most unscrupulous actors.

Are there any successful businesses not run on the autocratic model?

I know of a couple - but, then, it's not entirely relevant, since Governments are not run like businesses, because they aren't businesses.

 

[AmNat]

Not really. Our (wise and correct) injunctions against murder don't keep people from murdering, nor do our injunctions against corruption keep people from being corrupt.

You are pointing back to one of the exact foundational arguments of Liberalism: that humans are flawed, and cannot be trusted.

And you are ignoring one of the foundational ideas of conservatism, that if something has always been done a certain way and the opposite has never been successfully implemented, there is likely a good reason for it. If even the greatest liberal statesmen have consistently resorted to illiberal measures when necessary, it is foolish to dismiss it as human weakness.

As for the trustworthiness of man, it's moot point. Some human beings are going to hold power, whether you trust them or not.

Depends. Some governments do - typically when power is unified in a single decision-making authority. It's getting harder and requires a large investment of resources. Other governments - typically when power is divided across multiple Loci and set to contesting against itself - do not.

An oligarchic government may be set up to keep the different power centers at each other's throat, but it rarely remains that way. With a system of limited government (such as we once had), the potential scope of government is quite large, and the different nodes of the oligarchy figure out that they can get more power by working together to expand the scope of government. Power centers not amenable to the program get subdued, and the remaining ones end up filled with those who know how to make friends and influence people.

If you think that the case, then I think you should spend more time considering the change over the past few decades in how government in this country treated homosexuality.

The government went from repressing homosexuality to tolerating it to repressing its opponents. The liberal phase was, of course, a transition period. I'm not sure how this contradicts what I said.

I know of a couple - but, then, it's not entirely relevant, since Governments are not run like businesses, because they aren't businesses.

What is a government? What is its purpose?

(Note these are is rather than ought questions)

 

[Jredbaron96]

What is a government? What is its purpose?

To govern. The clue is in the name.

 

[cpwill]

And you are ignoring one of the foundational ideas of conservatism, that if something has always been done a certain way and the opposite has never been successfully implemented, there is likely a good reason for it.

I am not. Three points:

1. Likely =/= Certainly In All Cases. See for example: Chesterton's Fence.

2. In this country, we are conserving Liberal ideals enshrined in our Constitution which has lasted us longer than any written constitution in any country on the planet, which include individual freedom of expression.

3. One of the oldest, original, greatest of Conservative Truths is Original Sin. All categories of humans are broken and, over long periods of time, untrustworthy. That is why any autocratic system which hands over power over thought, over belief, over Truth and What Is Good to government staffed and led by humans will inevitably be bent towards evil purpose.

If even the greatest liberal statesmen have consistently resorted to illiberal measures when necessary, it is foolish to dismiss it as human weakness.

In terms of allowing freedom of thought, not really - any more than claiming that, because relatively good people have sinned, morals are foolish.

As for the trustworthiness of man, it's moot point. Some human beings are going to hold power, whether you trust them or not.

It's not moot because the nature and scope of that power will be determined not least by whether or not we trust men to wield it well. If we buy into the progressive notion of the perfectability of man - of the ultimate perfection of the Government Planner - then we will want to give them control over the economic interactions of hundreds of millions of their fellow citizens. If we buy into the notion of the moral perfectability of man - of the ultimate perfection of the priest or (more likely, now) the Woke Twitter Blue Check Personality - then we will want to give them control over how we think and speak.

If we do not trust the government planner and the Woke Twitterati to control either our economic or inner lives, however, then we will not want them granted the power to do so.

 

[cpwill]

An oligarchic government may be set up to keep the different power centers at each other's throat, but it rarely remains that way.

Ultimately all things by man will fall to dust. That being said, if you want it to last longer, structure it so that it's in the selfish interest of each power loci to deny the others power over it, and reinforce the (Liberal) structure, norms, and assumptions that we inherited from our ancestors.

With a system of limited government (such as we once had)

Still have, though I agree it's much less limited than it should be, or was before.

, the potential scope of government is quite large, and the different nodes of the oligarchy figure out that they can get more power by working together to expand the scope of government.

Power tends to be zero sum. If anything, the major flaw in our structure is that it does not incentivize the legislature to jealously guard its prerogatives enough, but allows its members to seek to deny responsibility.

Though, to be fair, our Constitution was written for a moral and religious people. We are losing that, and seeing the consequences therein as people turn to the New Gods of Political Tribalism.

Power centers not amenable to the program get subdued,

Or, if granted the ability, check the others. If President Biden and a majority of both houses of Congress both want to mandate (for example) that Churches hire transvestite prostitutes to lead their worship bands (a power you seem to wish to grant them), that will quickly become moot upon the opinion of a mere 5 Judges on SCOTUS.

The government went from repressing homosexuality to tolerating it to repressing its opponents.

And, if you think that official repression of the idea that we should open up pederasty cannot become official repression of the idea that we should not open up pederasty, I would encourage you to reflect not only on how that happened, but on how quickly it happened.

What is a government? What is its purpose?

Properly, to defend and thereby give the greatest level of assurance to the individual liberties and rights of men as can be granted on this earth.

(Note these are is rather than ought questions)

Then you have a problem in that you are treating government as a unitary entity. In terms of is, government has a variety of purposes, dependent on the level, function, and structure.

 

[AmNat]

I am not. Three points:

1. Likely =/= Certainly In All Cases. See for example: Chesterton's Fence.

Okay. For what purpose was the power of censorship first exercised, and why is it no longer applicable?

2. In this country, we are conserving Liberal ideals enshrined in our Constitution which has lasted us longer than any written constitution in any country on the planet, which include individual freedom of expression.

That (mainstream) conservatives have set themselves to preserving the priors of the other side is a big part of why they never accomplish anything. As for the Constitution, it has not been in any meaningful sense the governing law of this country in nearly a century.

3. One of the oldest, original, greatest of Conservative Truths is Original Sin. All categories of humans are broken and, over long periods of time, untrustworthy. That is why any autocratic system which hands over power over thought, over belief, over Truth and What Is Good to government staffed and led by humans will inevitably be bent towards evil purpose.



In terms of allowing freedom of thought, not really - any more than claiming that, because relatively good people have sinned, morals are foolish.



It's not moot because the nature and scope of that power will be determined not least by whether or not we trust men to wield it well. If we buy into the progressive notion of the perfectability of man - of the ultimate perfection of the Government Planner - then we will want to give them control over the economic interactions of hundreds of millions of their fellow citizens. If we buy into the notion of the moral perfectability of man - of the ultimate perfection of the priest or (more likely, now) the Woke Twitter Blue Check Personality - then we will want to give them control over how we think and speak.

If we do not trust the government planner and the Woke Twitterati to control either our economic or inner lives, however, then we will not want them granted the power to do so.

So if one believes in original sin, does not trust man, etc., one builds a system that can only work with "a moral and religious people"?