Dawkins is written out of humanist studies.

[AmNat]

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.



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

This theory would be plausible had it not been so thoroughly discredited by actual history.

History is replete with examples of autocratic governments whose practical scope (i.e. the extent to which they micromanaged their subjects' lives) remained stable over the course of centuries. Meanwhile our oligarchic system began expanding not long after its inception.

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.

If power is zero sum, then it is incoherent to speak of increasing or reducing a government's (total) power.

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.

Lol. The Supreme Court has jealously guarded its prerogatives by never straying too far from the current zeitgeist. When the time comes for transvestites' human right to lead churches to be recognized, the Supreme Court will offer no more than trivial resistance (depending on who dies when, they may even be leading the charge).

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.

It certainly can happen. That seems to me a great reason to try and stop it.

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.



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.

The specifics will depend on which department you ask, but all the different answers can be summarized in a single way: the purpose (in reality not ideality) of a government department is to make its employees feel important by wielding power over others (several transparent euphemisms are often used, such as "making a difference", "having an impact", "changing the world", etc.).

Thus the purpose of a social services agency is to make its employees believe that they're bettering the lives of their clients. The purpose of the FDA is to make its employees believe that they're protecting the public from quack medicine. The purpose of the State Department is to make its employees believe that they're preventing tyranny and misgovernment abroad. In all such cases, their power can only be maintained by active use (if any of these entities suspended operations for ten years, they'd return to a world with far less need of them). Which is why such agencies are always eager to expand the scope of their authority.

The one type of authority that can be maintained without continuous exercise is that of plenary command, the power to issue orders of any type without any special mandate. There's a reason why this model is used in every organization that's required to be efficient.

 

[bomberfox]

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?

Gender is not sex. Dunno how many times i gotta tell you that lol. Your question is malformed. Gender encompasses identity and societal labelling. Girl changed meaning many times in the english speaking world. That indeed shows that gender is socially constructed. A castrated man can still be a man if he identifies as such.
“If an individual is a genotype female and phenotype female, what gender is that individual?”

this is describing sex, not gender. Many societies had third genders and androgynous labels.

 

[cpwill]

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

You are mistaken - in this country, the fence in place is the 1st Amendment, and the Liberal ideal of individual liberty in thought that it represents. That, after all, is why I began this by referencing the reason we put that fence up - namely, the incredible horror and death western society went through the last time it assumed that the government should enforce belief.

As for why censorship has been exercised, usually it has been because people in power do not like to be criticized, or recognize systems that do not reinforce their power.

That (mainstream) conservatives have set themselves to preserving the priors of the other side is a big part of why they never accomplish anything.

It's not the other side - this is our side. It is not "Conservative" to argue against our system, norms, and hard-won lessons in this country, but radical, which is why so many of the quote-unquote "alt right" sound like early 20th Century Progressives.

As for the Constitution, it has not been in any meaningful sense the governing law of this country in nearly a century.

I'm as upset about Wickard v Filburn as the next guy, but, no.

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"?

As Federalist 51 put it, first you have to give government the power to control the governed, and then oblige it to control itself. If one believes in original sin, and recognizes that man is deeply broken, flawed, and cannot be trusted, then yes, one absolutely builds a system that splits power into different loci and sets it against each other. That, however, is not going to be exercised independent of culture.

 

[cpwill]

This theory would be plausible had it not been so thoroughly discredited by actual history.

Oh, I dunno

The U.S. Constitution was signed in 1787, and we've lived under it since that time. We could compare that time period to the autocratic but western states of Prussia, Austria, Spain, Italy, France, Belgium, etc., to see how well they've done. How's the Russian Czar's family doing these days? The Hapsburgs?Say, those Bourbon fellows in France - now that was a centralized autocratic system under Louis the 14th - how's that going?

The only such entities out there I'm tracking that has done almost as well is Great Britain and her Dominion, which also held not only to a notion of individual liberty, but had separated loci of power.

History is replete with examples of autocratic governments whose practical scope (i.e. the extent to which they micromanaged their subjects' lives) remained stable over the course of centuries. Meanwhile our oligarchic system began expanding not long after its inception.

No, history records a very few exceptions of autocratic and centralized governments that proved stable over long periods of time. Powerful Monarchies tended to be magnets for horrific civil wars, as the value of the prize meant any cost was worth paying.

If power is zero sum, then it is incoherent to speak of increasing or reducing a government's (total) power.

Apologies for the lack of clarity - I was referring to power within the system, not power of the system. Mea Culpa on the confusion.

Lol. The Supreme Court has jealously guarded its prerogatives by never straying too far from the current zeitgeist. When the time comes for transvestites' human right to lead churches to be recognized, the Supreme Court will offer no more than trivial resistance (depending on who dies when, they may even be leading the charge).

Perhaps ultimately so. No system designed by humans will resist a tide over time that captures all loci of power, and, shouldn't be designed to do so. Ultimately the people can change the Constitution if they want to. But put me down in favor of the least awful option that creates a variety of roadblocks, and is least likely to give us the more horrific results. That is a classic Liberal system in which power is diffused across multiple loci and forced to contest against itself.

It certainly can happen. That seems to me a great reason to try and stop it.

By creating the danger in the first place? No thanks.

If I may steal from Lenin - the old goat - for a second; you are talking about making and then handing over the rope that they will use to hang you.

The one type of authority that can be maintained without continuous exercise is that of plenary command, the power to issue orders of any type without any special mandate. There's a reason why this model is used in every organization that's required to be efficient.

While being efficient is also not Government's purpose, may I suggest a book? You might be surprised.

 

[cpwill]

The specifics will depend on which department you ask, but all the different answers can be summarized in a single way: the purpose (in reality not ideality) of a government department is to make its employees feel important by wielding power over others (several transparent euphemisms are often used, such as "making a difference", "having an impact", "changing the world", etc.).

I don't think I would agree with that (descriptions of the day to day actions of some members of an institution is not that institutions purpose, nor are all federal employees power-driven, even as you have loosely described the term), but, to be clear, you believe it, and you believe that we should dramatically increase their ability to feel important by wielding power over others.

Very well. As a federal employee (and in the military, no less) I hereby direct you to cease your current political advocacy, and instead espouse only classic Liberal ideals as enshrined in our Constitution. I look forward to your compliance with the system you prefer.... in which I get to tell you to do that .

Thus the purpose of a social services agency is to make its employees believe that they're bettering the lives of their clients. The purpose of the FDA is to make its employees believe that they're protecting the public from quack medicine. The purpose of the State Department is to make its employees believe that they're preventing tyranny and misgovernment abroad.

No. The purpose of a social services agency is to provide services. People sometimes go to work there on an individual basis in order to better the lives of others, but they also sometimes go to work there because it's a stable job, sometimes go to work there because they got a useless degree and don't know what else to do with themselves, sometimes go to work there because their friend or neighbor or family member works there and says it's a good gig and they can point you to an opening, etc. et al. in ad infinitum.

The purpose of the State Department is to conduct diplomacy on behalf of the United States. People sometimes go to work at the Statement Department because they think they can help prevent tyranny or misgovernment, but, people also sometimes go to work at the State Department because it looks really good on a resume later when they move on to a different profession, or because they like living abroad, or because they want to pair their occupation in another country with a secondary effort (such as additional research and education), or because they just got out of the Peace Corps and that's kind of a natural funnel, or because being Ambassador To Jamaica is a sweet gig and their buddy the President offered it to them in return for those sweet campaign contributions, or because they think they can help secure American interests, or because they think it's high profile and seek that status, or because a professor or other figure pushed them to do so.....

etc. et al. in ad infinitum. I know a man who works for an intelligence organization because it allows him to fund his ministry, a man who works for the State Department because his parents pushed him into it, a man who works for the Army because his parents wanted him to be a lawyer instead, a woman who works for the State Department because her husband does and that allows them to move together, people who work for the military in civilian capacities because they did time active duty, and that was the easiest and most obvious career field when they got out......

But the State Department's purpose is not to let married people cohabitate more easily and the Army's purpose is not to let people avoid feeling pushed into careers in law. I'm as much a fan of Public Choice Theory as the next fella, but you are confusing the myriad and temporary (because they will change over time) motivations of individual government workers with the reasons for which we establish governing institutions.

 

[AmNat]

You are mistaken - in this country, the fence in place is the 1st Amendment, and the Liberal ideal of individual liberty in thought that it represents. That, after all, is why I began this by referencing the reason we put that fence up - namely, the incredible horror and death western society went through the last time it assumed that the government should enforce belief.

As for why censorship has been exercised, usually it has been because people in power do not like to be criticized, or recognize systems that do not reinforce their power.

The 1A is not an example of Chesterton's fence, because I can identify the reasons for it and evaluate them on their own merits. It was passed because they believed that a free marketplace of ideas was the most effective way for people to collectively discover the truth. After two centuries of increasing detachment from reality this theory should be considered disproven.

Censorship itself is an example of Chesterton's fence, as it has existed from time immemorial. It existed well before the Wars of Religion, whose immediate cause was the failure of censorship to prevent heretical ideas from capturing societies (you may think those ideas were true ones and their spread therefore a good thing, but that doesn't change the causality). The millions killed by Marxists in the 20th century (far dwarfing those killed in the Wars of Religion) can thank the liberalism of the 19th century for allowing Marxist ideas to thrive.

It's not the other side - this is our side.

When liberals were implementing all the liberal innovations that you defend, they were strenuously opposed by their conservative contemporaries. Nothing particularly unique happened at whatever point in history when liberals (meaning real life liberals not liberalism as an abstract philosophy) went from being right in your eyes to being wrong.

It is not "Conservative" to argue against our system, norms, and hard-won lessons in this country, but radical, which is why so many of the quote-unquote "alt right" sound like early 20th Century Progressives.

Dissident conservatives often sound like early 20th century progressives because the average progressive at that time was more right-wing than almost anyone alive today. Mainstream conservatives, meanwhile, sound like mid-century progressives on a good day (when they're not busy accusing liberals of being the real transphobes).

As Federalist 51 put it, first you have to give government the power to control the governed, and then oblige it to control itself. If one believes in original sin, and recognizes that man is deeply broken, flawed, and cannot be trusted, then yes, one absolutely builds a system that splits power into different loci and sets it against each other. That, however, is not going to be exercised independent of culture.

Perhaps ultimately so. No system designed by humans will resist a tide over time that captures all loci of power, and, shouldn't be designed to do so. Ultimately the people can change the Constitution if they want to. But put me down in favor of the least awful option that creates a variety of roadblocks, and is least likely to give us the more horrific results. That is a classic Liberal system in which power is diffused across multiple loci and forced to contest against itself.

Power (by definition) cannot be obliged or forced to do anything. While specific individuals can be unpredictable, in the long run power centers will act according to their incentives.

 

[AmNat]

Oh, I dunno

The U.S. Constitution was signed in 1787, and we've lived under it since that time. We could compare that time period to the autocratic but western states of Prussia, Austria, Spain, Italy, France, Belgium, etc., to see how well they've done. How's the Russian Czar's family doing these days? The Hapsburgs?Say, those Bourbon fellows in France - now that was a centralized autocratic system under Louis the 14th - how's that going?

The only such entities out there I'm tracking that has done almost as well is Great Britain and her Dominion, which also held not only to a notion of individual liberty, but had separated loci of power.




No, history records a very few exceptions of autocratic and centralized governments that proved stable over long periods of time. Powerful Monarchies tended to be magnets for horrific civil wars, as the value of the prize meant any cost was worth paying.

The Hapsburgs ruled Austria for the better part of a millennium. The Bourbons and the Romanovs also lasted centuries. And they weren't unusual.

In any case, I was commenting on the scope of government. None of those centralized autocracies interfered in their citizens' lives to near the extent that our government does. If your goal is "limited government", hereditary monarchy has a much better track record than setting oligarchs against each other.

Apologies for the lack of clarity - I was referring to power within the system, not power of the system. Mea Culpa on the confusion.

Then my point stands. Different nodes of the oligarchy can increase their power much more effectively by expanding the total power of the system (in respect of which they're all natural allies) than by taking power away from other nodes (which is why it's so rare for that to happen).

By creating the danger in the first place? No thanks.

If I may steal from Lenin - the old goat - for a second; you are talking about making and then handing over the rope that they will use to hang you.

The danger exists whether one chooses to ignore it or not.

While being efficient is also not Government's purpose, may I suggest a book? You might be surprised.

All of the organizations mentioned in the description have dictators, save USG and Wikipedia.

I don't think I would agree with that (descriptions of the day to day actions of some members of an institution is not that institutions purpose, nor are all federal employees power-driven, even as you have loosely described the term), but, to be clear, you believe it, and you believe that we should dramatically increase their ability to feel important by wielding power over others.

Not at all. The only proposal I have for USG's current bureaucracies is that they be disbanded and replaced with systems run on the command principle. I don't have any plan for making the existing bureaucracies function in a conservative way.

 

[AmNat]

No. The purpose of a social services agency is to provide services. People sometimes go to work there on an individual basis in order to better the lives of others, but they also sometimes go to work there because it's a stable job, sometimes go to work there because they got a useless degree and don't know what else to do with themselves, sometimes go to work there because their friend or neighbor or family member works there and says it's a good gig and they can point you to an opening, etc. et al. in ad infinitum.

The purpose of the State Department is to conduct diplomacy on behalf of the United States. People sometimes go to work at the Statement Department because they think they can help prevent tyranny or misgovernment, but, people also sometimes go to work at the State Department because it looks really good on a resume later when they move on to a different profession, or because they like living abroad, or because they want to pair their occupation in another country with a secondary effort (such as additional research and education), or because they just got out of the Peace Corps and that's kind of a natural funnel, or because being Ambassador To Jamaica is a sweet gig and their buddy the President offered it to them in return for those sweet campaign contributions, or because they think they can help secure American interests, or because they think it's high profile and seek that status, or because a professor or other figure pushed them to do so.....

etc. et al. in ad infinitum. I know a man who works for an intelligence organization because it allows him to fund his ministry, a man who works for the State Department because his parents pushed him into it, a man who works for the Army because his parents wanted him to be a lawyer instead, a woman who works for the State Department because her husband does and that allows them to move together, people who work for the military in civilian capacities because they did time active duty, and that was the easiest and most obvious career field when they got out......

But the State Department's purpose is not to let married people cohabitate more easily and the Army's purpose is not to let people avoid feeling pushed into careers in law. I'm as much a fan of Public Choice Theory as the next fella, but you are confusing the myriad and temporary (because they will change over time) motivations of individual government workers with the reasons for which we establish governing institutions.

By "purpose" I was referring to the (de facto) goals that motivate the organization to act, which are distinct both from its nominal mission and the particular historical reasons why any given individual works for it.

The point is that bureaucracies will always seek to expand their scope, regardless of their putative mission.

 

[The Baron]

Greetings to all.
The leader of the atheist movement, biologist Dawkins was selected for the award "Humanist of the Year", issued by the American Humanist Association in 1996.

The reason is "Using the semblance of scientific discourse to attack marginalized groups." This is a quote from the association's statement. That is, a world-class biologist is now relegated to a pseudo-scientist, and if science has facts that marginalized groups don't like, so much the worse for science.

The reason was Dawkins ' tweet about Rachel Dolezal, who was white, but asked to consider herself black, and everyone condemned her (it was 2015).
Now, Richard wrote, we condemn those who refuse to recognize men as women (or vice versa) if they simply identify themselves that way.

And Dawkins simply invited the audience to discuss the topic. He didn't even say what he was for or against. But the trans community, as in the Rowling story, declared jihad against the biologist.

It is clear that this is another demonstrative flogging, which should demonstrate to scientists, and especially to biologists, where their place should be in the discussion with ideologists.

If that's the way it is with Dawkins, it's even more so with you.
Be quiet, remember the correct pronouns.

American Humanist Association Board Statement Withdrawing Honor from Richard Dawkins - American Humanist Association

The AHA Board votes to withdraw Dawkins' Humanist of the Year award.

americanhumanist.org

Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Dawkins is an ass-clown who has made millions off of demonizing Christians and has, over the years, become the darling of the media for doing so. He's hardly a "world-class biologist". He is a world-class self-promoter.

Having said that, his statement..

"In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss,"

...is not wrong. Far from it!

Just take a look at some of the threads at this site that deal with transgenders as evidence to support his claim. Disagree with it and prepare to the crucified by many of the members here as being all kinds of vile things.

 

[notquiteright]

Greetings to all.
The leader of the atheist movement, biologist Dawkins was selected for the award "Humanist of the Year", issued by the American Humanist Association in 1996.

The reason is "Using the semblance of scientific discourse to attack marginalized groups." This is a quote from the association's statement. That is, a world-class biologist is now relegated to a pseudo-scientist, and if science has facts that marginalized groups don't like, so much the worse for science.

The reason was Dawkins ' tweet about Rachel Dolezal, who was white, but asked to consider herself black, and everyone condemned her (it was 2015).
Now, Richard wrote, we condemn those who refuse to recognize men as women (or vice versa) if they simply identify themselves that way.

And Dawkins simply invited the audience to discuss the topic. He didn't even say what he was for or against. But the trans community, as in the Rowling story, declared jihad against the biologist.

It is clear that this is another demonstrative flogging, which should demonstrate to scientists, and especially to biologists, where their place should be in the discussion with ideologists.

If that's the way it is with Dawkins, it's even more so with you.
Be quiet, remember the correct pronouns.

American Humanist Association Board Statement Withdrawing Honor from Richard Dawkins - American Humanist Association

The AHA Board votes to withdraw Dawkins' Humanist of the Year award.

americanhumanist.org

Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A group with 34.000 members withdrawals an honorary award. No need to rend garments over it. Dr. Dawkins has a crap ton of fame and recognition. One, one way or another, it doesn't matter. I did think it odd Ms. Dolezal wanted to change races, but nothing to tear my T-shirt over....

If this cascades into a laundry list of withdrawn honors ya might have something but right now it's a shrug and let's move along...

 

[swing_voter]

So the atheist prophet has been defeated by cancel culture?

lol

Dawkins made millions writing books for atheists and giving talks to atheists.






.

 

[RAMOSS]

So the atheist prophet has been defeated by cancel culture?

lol

Dawkins made millions writing books for atheists and giving talks to atheists.






.

And he's been married to some famous people himself

 

[ashurbanipal]

Dawkins made a shit ton of money writing books that pandered to atheists.

And to anyone very thoughtful, they were obviously poorly argued books. Alvin Plantinga takes him down pretty handily in Where the Conflict Really Lies. (Disclaimer: I don't agree with everything Plantinga says therein. But he's spot-on in his assessment of Dawkins' arguments).

 

[ataraxia]

Oh yeah - Christians have absolutely punished people for believing something we didn't agree with before. Liberalism, and the importance of tolerance, grew out of that experience, out of the wars of religion. It is unfortunate that so many in our culture today are forgetting that lesson, as evidenced in this thread by the reaction to Hawkins

Yes, very true. Here, here.

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries...Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?"
-James Madison

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution...In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.”
-James Madison

"It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom.... We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Gov. "
-James Madison,

"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity."
-James Madison

"Mingling religion with politics may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America...All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish (Muslim), appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-Thomas Payne

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"They [the Christian clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

 

[MamboDervish]

Yes, very true. Here, here.

"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity."
-James Madison

"Mingling religion with politics may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America...All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish (Muslim), appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-Thomas Payne

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"They [the Christian clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

Yeah - but what did they know?



/begin rant
All of which can't help but remind me of an old pet peeve of mine. There's no bigger intrusion between church and state than the fact that churches are entitled to all of the infrastructure provided to everyone else without having to pay a penny for it. When is the American electorate finally going to tax churches and church holdings? For the right-wing-nuts that are constantly bitching about entitlements, when will they back off their ****ing hypocrisy and address the entitlements we give to religion?

In fact, in my neighborhood, they have even more entitlements, because every single building calling itself a "church" gets a dedicated parking space out in front - 24/7/365 - which my neighbors could get a summons for parking in at 2AM on a Wednesday night. If churches paid the same property taxes that everyone else pays for their land and structures, we'd probably add several hundred billion dollar$ to the tax coffers.
/end of rant

There - I feel better.

 

[Ouroboros]

The problem with Dolezal is she lied, repeatedly, fabricated a black family, called a black adopted brother her son, and a black friend her dad. Her life story was a lie, dishonest. That's why she was vilified. If she'd been honest about only 'identifying' as black, that's a different story, and a likely different outcome.

Dawkins could invite a discussion about how it was perhaps wrong to vilify Dolezal and how he believes she was unfairly ostracized given she was in his opinion, perhaps, operating from a position of genuine desire to help the black community, whatever. He didn't need to bring up trans people at all, whose situation is really nothing like hers. By comparing them to her, he was calling their lives as much a lie as hers, as dishonest, as fake. If he believes that, he should say it, own the position, and not hide behind an apples and dump trucks comparison to make the point, then act all surprised when his bullshit is called out. He knew what he was doing, or should have, because he's not an idiot.

Maybe not all trans people lie about their nature, but swimmer Lia Thomas certainly lies when she claims that she can nullify her genetic advantages with a year of testosterone suppression.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm never sure how to respond to claims about the mythical "they" with claims you have made up but not attributed to anyone so we can see the actual words someone identifiable has said. So I'll pass except to say the claim generally is NOT that a person born e.g. male IS female, but that they identify as female, despite being born male. There's a reason some trans undergo conversion surgery and all that entails....

The parallel is terrible because a trans person doesn't fabricate a false history of their family. Dolezal did do that. She didn't claim to be transracial - she claimed to have a black daddy. Etc...................... I don't see how you don't get the problem. Seems simple enough to me.

The rough equivalent might be something like Caitlyn Jenner posting images of a girl in HS playing soccer and claiming that person is she. Then showing more pictures of a little girl playing with dolls, and claiming that's Caitlyn. And then someone says, hey, weren't you born Bruce Jenner, and didn't you compete in the olympics? And Caitlyn says, who me? No, that's not me, see that little girl playing soccer (who isn't me), I'll claim it is by fabricating a different life!!

Gosh, you think that kind of fabrication of her history might get some pushback that Caitlyn Jenner isn't getting by being HONEST about her past life as Bruce Jenner, that olympic gold medalist? Every single person you know is trans is honest about how they were born, and what they identify as today - it's definitional. To claim to be trans means to acknowledge your biological gender, and that you now identify as another. Every one, 100%. That's FAR more honesty than Dolezal ever showed before being outed.

Jenner, incidentally, opposes trans females competing in women’s sports.

 

[MamboDervish]

Maybe not all trans people lie about their nature, but swimmer Lia Thomas certainly lies when she claims that she can nullify her genetic advantages with a year of testosterone suppression.

Is it a lie? It would seem to be a well known scientific truth. The Olympics, just as an example, started testing for any chemical enhancements way back in 1967. It became obvious when East German, and other Eastern bloc SSRs, started sending gender bending enhanced females into international competition. Steroids, hormones, and other performance enhancing drugs are tested for regularly, and have been for generations. As far as athletic competition goes, things like hormone levels do define gender scientifically. If she believes it, and science confirms it, then it isn't lying.

 

[JasperL]

Jenner, incidentally, opposes trans females competing in women’s sports.

I don't know why you're telling me this. None of my comments on this thread have anything to do with this topic. I don't care what Jenner opposes. I don't look to Jenner for my opinions on anything, but thanks for letting me know this irrelevant to my argument fact!

 

[JasperL]

Maybe not all trans people lie about their nature, but swimmer Lia Thomas certainly lies when she claims that she can nullify her genetic advantages with a year of testosterone suppression.

You necro this thread to attack a straw man..... If I'd noticed before my reply above I'd have just ignored it, but I have no idea what purpose you think this kind of bullcrap serves. If you want to address an argument I've actually made, and none of them are related to sports, do that.

 

[Ouroboros]

Is it a lie? It would seem to be a well known scientific truth. The Olympics, just as an example, started testing for any chemical enhancements way back in 1967. It became obvious when East German, and other Eastern bloc SSRs, started sending gender bending enhanced females into international competition. Steroids, hormones, and other performance enhancing drugs are tested for regularly, and have been for generations. As far as athletic competition goes, things like hormone levels do define gender scientifically. If she believes it, and science confirms it, then it isn't lying.

The effects of Thomas’s hormones during development have already made her a genetic man, so a little temporary suppression won’t reverse that. Just because the Olympics committees capitulated to the lie makes it no less a lie.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't know why you're telling me this. None of my comments on this thread have anything to do with this topic. I don't care what Jenner opposes. I don't look to Jenner for my opinions on anything, but thanks for letting me know this irrelevant to my argument fact!

You stated that Jenner was honest about her trans nature, and I agreed, while using her as a contrast to those who are dishonest.

 

[Ouroboros]

You necro this thread to attack a straw man..... If I'd noticed before my reply above I'd have just ignored it, but I have no idea what purpose you think this kind of bullcrap serves. If you want to address an argument I've actually made, and none of them are related to sports, do that.

You said that Dawkins was making a false equivalence between Dolazael and the whole of the trans community. I pointed out that some trans people lie as egregiously as Dolazael. It’s called disproving a generalization with a contrasting specific example.

 

[Allan]

Atheism isn't a movement. There's no dogma, rules, central tenets, holy books, club meetings or leaders.

Also no stupid hats.

 

[MamboDervish]

The effects of Thomas’s hormones during development have already made her a genetic man, so a little temporary suppression won’t reverse that.

That's a lie. If it were true than male hormones wouldn't make a woman more of a man for competition. It's hormones that makes the man - or the woman. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Just because the Olympics committees capitulated to the lie makes it no less a lie.

And the lie continues. Olympics committees make their policies based on scientific data going back more than 50 years. If the high and low parameters of various performance enhancing hormones and natural steroid levels have to be narrowed to account for sex change, that can be accomplished easily enough, too. The comprehensive drug tests needed to level the playing field are readily available.