Is having sex with transgender women gay?

[Master Debator]

It was not a personal pique that slaves in all societies are defined as not getting the benefits of citizenship. That's baked into the definition of slavery for all societies-- that slaves have no rights until they stop being slaves-- and yet you keep wanting to believe that they should have had those rights intrinsically. That's just your personal subjectivity talking.

No. My argument isnt about how they should have had rights intrinsically. That appears nowhere at all in anything I wrote. I don't believe in intrinsic or natural rights.

What appears in my argument is that who law makers treat as a slave and who they treat as an equal citizen is up to their personal pique. It isn't nature who made Africans slaves in this country. It wasnt the dictionary that defined them as slaves and this Founders just stumbled on to a copy of Merriam-Webster. It was people. It was the Founders. The law makers. They decided to treat some people as slaves and some people as equal citizens based on personal desire and preference.

I accept your capitulation in your not being able to cite a society that has no rape or theft laws.

Why do I need to? My argument isnt about what every society objectively needs to do. Yours is. It's on you to show how every society that ever existed had anti rape and theft laws. Are you confused about who's making what argument?

Nope, your feelings about the science have dictated your interpretation of alleged scientific fact, just as your feelings about slavery did above.

Where is the substance? Why are all your arguments about me and not the subject? What facts would you like to question?

Did women of the 19th century have the right to vote? Did they enjoy full citizenship?

They did in the 1980s. It was in the 1990s that we finally made it illegal in every State for a husband to rape their wife. But see you're revealing the subjective nature in all this. You're not objectively anti rape and theft when those laws only apply to the people you want them to.

As for what you claim the law allowed during the 20th century. your personal piques have clearly colored every interpretation you make of the law, as they have with regard to scientific beliefs.

What? What does whether or not this country allowed husbands to rape their wives up until the 1990s have to do with scientific beliefs? What the **** are you even talking about?

 

[CLAX1911]

Tell me more about this trans ideology that I have never heard of?

You're in denial.

Is trans ideology similar to the Trans agenda that only crazy conservatives also have ever heard of?

No it's the insisting that gender identity is a more important thing then sex.

What TikTok influencer told you it exists?

You did.

You and @CLAX1911 can work together to answer this question because he also listens to Tiktok nutjobs.

I don't listen to you on tiktok I hear you speak here.

Your ideology is to blur the lights between sex and gender I did it that's why you use terms for sexes to describe generated when there's already terms for that.

 

[CLAX1911]

No they do not. Some people produce no gametes and some people produce both.

That's only two gametes that's for agreeing with me.

It's not synonymous.

Opinion noted

One is used by Healthcare professionals and the other bigots.

But synonyms

Or none or both.

You're confirming that it's just two. Thank you for agreed with me that it's binary

You'd think you being objectively wrong here would make you reconsider your position....

Maybe I'm not objectively wrong.

Impact your statements have proven me right.

You care so much you'd come here and spout objectively wrong claims because reality hurts you.

Why do your posts not contradict mine

 

[Master Debator]

Not in the least. Even by the tenets of materialistic evolution, mammals didn't just evolve in their dominant form-- specifically that of bearing young alive-- for no reason at all.

What? My argument had nothing to do with evolution or why some organisms give birth to live offspring. It has to do with the subjective category of organisms we call mammals.

They evolved because live birth was advantageous in some way, and the few mammals that did not so evolve simply continued in their biological niche for reasons that can only be hypothesized about.

And?

The categories of mammalian development are not "subjectively constructed" even if this or that categorization may prove incorrect for assorted reasons.

Sure it is. Nature didn't lump organisms together in to a category called mammals, we did. That category is our creation. To be clear I'm not saying we created the physical characteristics of the organisms we observe, I'm saying we took characteristics we observed across different organisms and lump them together in a group called mammals because it provides some subjective significance to us.

That's still you defining rules by their exceptions, but by your stated reasoning, that means that if there are exceptions to any of your screeds about (say) the intersex condition, then those exceptions disprove all your supposed proofs, since you don't really believe in broad applicability.

I'm pointing out that rules created by humans are subjective and have exceptions because they are not objectively real. Objectively real things just are. They exist as is. There are organisms that give birth to live offspring. Organisms that lay eggs. Organisms that self replicate. These are all objectively true. You won't find an exception to objective reality.

 

[Ouroboros]

Tell me more about this trans ideology that I have never heard of? Is trans ideology similar to the Trans agenda that only crazy conservatives also have ever heard of? What TikTok influencer told you it exists?

You and @CLAX1911 can work together to answer this question because he also listens to Tiktok nutjobs.

Since you and MD have claimed that science backs up your dubious ideology in every way-- even though scientists often disagree on interpretations of available data, which I knew when I said there would be, even without having looked-- here's a source that problematizes the supposed objectivity of the studies that both of you believe buttress your respective ideologies. I found it and read it in about ten minutes, which was too much trouble for both of you.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10837215/

Some quotes:

In this paper, I take into account this context of the rise of essentialisms, in which trans* bodies have become a politic-epistemological battleground, where different conceptions on sex–gender identities are in contention, and argue that the idea of two brain types, the trans brain and the cis brain, is highly problematic. Moreover, I claim that the question regarding embodied trans* identities is a complex one, which cannot be reduced to neurobiological factors, nor to neurobiological causes.

Dick Swaab’s team claims to have found this hormonally induced reversal in the volume and neuron number of two sexually dimorphic subcortical brain structures in postmortem studies. Kruijver et al. (2000) and Zhou et al. (1995) find it in the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), and Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab (2008) in the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3). Regarding the first interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH1), Garcia-Falgueras et al. (2011) find an intermediate neuron number compared to that of the male and female brain. These brain reversals lead them to affirm the existence of “the transsexual hypothalamus” (Garcia-Falgueras & Swaab, 2008, p. 3143), “the transsexual brain” (Kruijver et al., 2000, p. 2034; Swaab & Bao, 2013, p. 2976), and “the transgender brain” and “the cisgender brain” (Swaab et al., 2021, p. 435).

In addition to the fact that none of these findings has been replicated (Eliot et al., 2021, p. 669; Jordan-Young, 2010, p. 105)3, twelve brains of trans* people in all were enough to build one of the most widespread theories on transsexuality so far.

To sum up, the search by Swaab’s team for a fundamental, essential brain difference in trans* people is embedded in a pathologising, dimorphic, and dichotomous framework, however much they assess “a great variability in all aspects of gender identity” (Swaab et al., 2021, p. 438).

It should be added that not only have the studies that shape the NCH not examined non binary people, but that they only analyse the brains of a subgroup of trans* people, i.e. those who desire hormone therapy and surgery, which implies the inapplicability of their conclusions to the entire spectrum of trans* people. This fact directly affects the typology of the four brain phenotypes and further compromises the idea of a “neuroanatomy of transgender identity” (Mueller et al., 2021). (CONTINUED)

 

[Ouroboros]

Concerning the brain, this theory acknowledges context dependant epigenetic changes, namely, “depending on different activities in the genome, the environment, drug exposure, or social experience”, which regulate neurogenesis, neuronal apoptosis, and synaptic plasticity (Swaab et al., 2021, p. 432). Brain is characterised as a complex self-organising system that makes each brain unique and is involved in the variation of gender identity. Nonetheless, despite this alleged acknowledgement of brain dynamism, and contrary to the idea “that brain development after birth also has an important influence on gender identity”, the NTOGD concludes that gender identity arises in the womb (Swaab et al., 2021, p. 434). Its strong adherence to the brain hardwiring paradigm gets crystallised in their wording “programmed into the hardware of our brains for the rest of our lives” (Swaab et al., 2021, p. 438).23

The issue of causation remains open for the HSRTBP. Kilpatrick et al., (2019, pp. 3276–3277) and Manzouri and Savic (2019, pp. 2096–2097) insist on the reasons to believe that their findings reflect underlying factors rather than the effects of gender dysphoria, pointing that the neuroanatomical differences found in transgender people could be due to changes or differences in cortical development, and thus linked to its cause.34 However, given brain plasticity—including Cth and neural connectivity—the studies don’t permit the conclusion of whether this neurobiological substrate is innate or acquired (Manzouri & Savic, 2019, p. 2096; Manzouri et al., 2017, p. 1008). For Moody et al. (2021) “sociological, cultural, interpersonal, and biological factors are likely contributory” to gender incongruence. Among these interpersonal factors is the view that own body perception is shaped by a reciprocal interaction between one’s perception of physical appearance, rooted in self-observation and others’ reactions, and one’s body image in the brain (Majid et al., 2020, p. 2898; Manzouri & Savic, 2019, p. 2085). The alluded brain plasticity and multidimensionality could constitute the basis of a dynamic processual entanglement framework. Yet, as they are not central elements for the HSRTBP, this hypothesis is not able to explain how functional disconnection emerges in the brain of some trans* people.

CONCLUSION:

This neurobiological inscription and rationale of trans* identities show an attempt to cling to scientific authority in the face of social changes that have begun to blur deep and rigid social hierarchies and divisions. Paraphrasing Rippon, perhaps it is time to give up the search for this kind of brain differences

 

[Master Debator]

If you didn't believe your feelings weren't objective, at least when supposedly validated by your "intellect"-- you would be able to make the statement "slaver societies are as good as non-slaver societies."

That's just me saying they both have equal objective value, which is to say none. I'm not using good there to denote some moral stance.

You invoke the input of your intellect as a means of conferring conditional objectivity upon your interpretations. That's what your entire intersex argument has been based on: the justification of your subjectivity through a supposed objective modality.

Why am I not surprised to find your argument all about me and not the actual thing we are supposedly arguing about....

It's hilarious that you would conflate the "slaver Founders," about whom you've expressed "personal" moral outrage, with the New Regime of Slavery, in which biological women are placed in greater danger by Trans Fanatics who have prison administrations under constant threat of legal action.

I advocate for safe prisons. Without all the rape and violence and Im happy to hold prison administrations accountable when they fail to do so. Now you're just throwing all your gripes at my in a incoherent mess of an argument? What do the slaver Founders have to do with whether or not we could improve safety in prison?

The prisons may be responsible for any female-female attacks that take place on their watch. But any assaults of fake females upon real females are the responsibility of Trans Fanatics and their lawyers.

So when its female on female you're okay with blaming the prison, just not when its a trans prisoner. Why exactly? Can you explain the discrepancy in a way that isn't purely emotional?

Glad to see that you contradict yourself by stumping for an oligarchy (rule by a few), while supposedly opposing the oligarchy of the plantations (yet again, not the oligarchies of the Muslim regimes who were using Africa as their slavery stop-and-shop long before they had much of a market in Christian Europe).

You see that? Where? In your frail fantasies? Quote me.

Show me the society that has no theft or rape laws while you're bloviating.

I don't know why think it's my responsibility to address your strawman.

Nope, if you cared about the assaults at all you would want to keep any of them from happening if that were possible. It may not be possible to keep all female prisoners from assaulting other female prisoners, going on your own claim that most such assaults are female-female given the smaller total number of fake women.

You're not advocating for keeping assaults from happening. Trans women in male prisons get assaulted all the time. You have no interest in those assaults though. I'm advocating for making prisons safer so no one has to worry about rape.

But it's totally possible not to recognize the claims of the fake women on the grounds that their supposed rights don't trump the rights of biological women not to be imprisoned with men. You've chosen to deflect from the real-world consequences for the sake of a fake ideal.

Rights are made up. They are whatever we make them up to be.

Mad Libs only read screeds founded in circular arguments so keep on circling your wagons.

You keep making your arguments about me because I hurt you. There there.

 

[Master Debator]

You presented nothing but your advance determination not to be swayed by anything but screeds that reflect your established opinions. Again, you gave yourself the perfect way out by claiming that all opposition must spring from small-minded bigotry, so why do you pretend to be open to opposing viewpoints?

Sure thing Mr. Mad Libs. That's a prefect reason to not even try.

But those are the only arguments you've presented every time you've stumped for defining rules by any exceptions. By all means, keep on being weak and meek, it's your true "strength;" that of Orwellian doublethink. You know you've made up your mind; again, why the pretense of being open to discussion?

You're the one trying to dismiss all my evidence that you can't address as some excuse exception that you don't need to. You're frail.

 

[Master Debator]

You have been consistently falsifying Dolazel's claims as a pretense, so you would be the Great Pretender here.

No, I've been providing context for what she means by her claims with her own words.

Her claim to being "essentially" Black, though, you reject every time you falsify her argument, so none of your repetition of her flawed arguments mean anything, except to your selective sense of outrage. Nice racism, BTW.

I don't reject it or falsify it. I put that into context with all her other quotes about how she identifies culturally with black people and wouldnt call herself African American. You're the one avoiding any attempt to give context to what that what it means to be essentially Black because you're afraid and frail.

Nope, you included her later identifications as pretense as well. If that's not the case, let's hear you state that after being exposed, she was as right to call herself Black as a trans female has the right to call himself female.

I have said repeatedly that she can identify however she wants. Did you miss that or are you just pretending not to see it?

Also I don't argue in terms of rights. They are made up. They arent real. I don't care about made up laws when arguing about objective reality. She has the ability to identify and present herself anyway she wants to same as we all do.

See above.


Exposing your selective subjective values, and it's going great.


She said her connection to African society was "essential" as I quoted, and that was the actual relevance of her claim that race was socially constructed.

Yes. You keep quoting that as if the word essential does all the work for you. You have to connect what essential means to your argument and so far you’ve been too frail to.

If she believed that race was biologically constructed as you do, she would not have cited the "social construct" justification. More selective reading by you.

I didn't say race was biologically constructed. In fact I said it was a social construct, clear enough for everyone to see. Genealogy is objectively real and being genetically connected to the continent of Africa is objectively real and the abuse that Africans endured in this country is objectively real and Rachel Dolazel doesn't have any objective connection to African genealogy and didn't objectively endure any of the misstatement. But race is a social construct. It's another one of those subjective categories. We didn't have to group people together based on arbitrary physical features. There is more genetic diversity among Africans than there is between Africans and Europeans, meaning a light skinned European could be more genetically similar to a dark skinned African than that African is to another African.

After being exposed for not being biologically African, she shifted to claiming that her identification was valid because race was a social construct.

She shifted because claiming to be genetically from Africa would of been objectively wrong.

That is entirely a conflict between her body and her brain. As twisted as her argument may be, your falsification of it is more convoluted.

There is no incongruity. She flat out says she wouldn't call herself African American. She understands the difference between objective genetic facts and subjective social constructs.

 

[Cosmo]

Again, what are you accusing them of pretending?

Being the other sex.

It seems like you're pretending to understand brain physiology without any of the education.

 

[Master Debator]

Yeah, you just "happen" to condemn only American slaver society while you're failing to define general rules by any exceptions you think you've found to those rules.

Except I don't only condemn American slaver society, I am clearly here now condemning, right now... ... again, all slaver socities. I use the example of this one because this is the society I was born into. I'm more familiar with it. And for that you decided to engage in this hilarious fantasy.

Every time you make the claim that trans assaults don't matter because there are so few of them, that's an endorsement of letting that legally spawned oligarchy have at least one shot at committing the crime before they're (theoretically) caught.

I didn't say they don't matter because they are so few of them. That's the argument you'd prefer to have to address. That's a strawman. My argument was about what matters to you and it doesnt seem to be addressing all rape in prison just trans rape. Im for addressing all rape and making prisons safer. Why is that such a hard stance for you to join me on?

Which brings up the fact that all of the trans rapists may not get caught, just as all heteronormative rapists don't, so the criterion of "only a few rotten apples" is flawed because we don't have complete oversight of the apple barrel.

My argument about how you're focused on a small portion of rapes has to do with the fact that trans people are such a small portion of the population. Maybe be concerned with all rape instead of just a small portion of it.

I didn't say I made exceptions; I said that the societies under discussion did so.

Which means they were subjective and selective with their laws.

It's still YOUR argument that no society has anything but "subjective" laws against rape if any members of those societies commit rape against non-citizens.

It is because laws are subjective in who they protect. Sometimes it protects people from rape sometimes it protects rapists.

I have stated that exceptions to the rules don't automatically disprove the objective nature of the rules, as a response to your false relativism.

Yes. You just state it because stating things is all you do. You can't actually defend the things you say from counter arguments that reference objective facts like how the rules protected rapists and thieves. Will you entertain questions about whether there even are objective rules or are you too frail for that? Because right now you look real frail.

And it's the NEED for rules of some sort that's objective, not any particular rule as such.

So now your argument seems to simply be that rules (whatever they may be, be they pro rape or anti rape or whatever) are necessary to organization? Because I made that point a while ago.

 

[Master Debator]

That's only two gametes that's for agreeing with me.

Why do the frail need to pretend agreement where there is none? What's that about?

My argument was never that there were more than two gametes. Its that sex isn't binary because the choice isn't either one or the other, but one, the other, none or both making it bimodal rather than binary.

Opinion noted

But synonyms

You're confirming that it's just two. Thank you for agreed with me that it's binary

Thank you for being frail.

Maybe I'm not objectively wrong.

Impact your statements have proven me right.

Why do your posts not contradict mine

They do contradict yours. You left off two other options for gamete production.

 

[Master Debator]

Being the other sex.

They aren't pretending anything about their biological sex. They know what their physical attributes are otherwise they wouldn't be seeking care to change it. You're the one pretending to understand how the brain works.

 

[Master Debator]

CONCLUSION:

This neurobiological inscription and rationale of trans* identities show an attempt to cling to scientific authority in the face of social changes that have begun to blur deep and rigid social hierarchies and divisions. Paraphrasing Rippon, perhaps it is time to give up the search for this kind of brain differences

Read it. This isn't a paper about how trans identities aren't real and are made up. Its about how these areas of study are limiting and possibly pathologizing what are just differences as opposed to what @CLAX1911 likes to call them, disorders. It's conclusion is that transgenderism emerges from a more complex play of genetics, hormones and social exposure than these two specific areas of study. More from the conclusion.

Regarding the origin of trans* identities, whilst the NTOGD and the NCH situate it in the neurobiological domain, embracing mostly the O/A hypothesis, the HSRTBP keeps open the question of causation, endorsing brain plasticity, although without incorporating it as a central element. Several feminist neuroscientific, philosophical, and biological analyses highlight the relevancy of multiple dimensions entangled in a life-long dynamic process when it comes to addressing brain configuration, as well as the emergence and development of sex–gender identities, including trans* identities. The profound implications of brain plasticity for this multidimensional entanglement entail that cisheteropatriarcal norms, expectations, behaviours, and experiences shape and reshape brains, as well as embodied identities. Defying the notion of an inborn identity claimed by the NTOGD and the unmodifiable character of the experienced sex–gender identity suggested by the NCH, sex–gender identities develop in a dynamic life-long process.

 

[Lisa]

Since you and MD have claimed that science backs up your dubious ideology in every way-- even though scientists often disagree on interpretations of available data, which I knew when I said there would be, even without having looked-- here's a source that problematizes the supposed objectivity of the studies that both of you believe buttress your respective ideologies. I found it and read it in about ten minutes, which was too much trouble for both of you.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10837215/

Some quotes:

In this paper, I take into account this context of the rise of essentialisms, in which trans* bodies have become a politic-epistemological battleground, where different conceptions on sex–gender identities are in contention, and argue that the idea of two brain types, the trans brain and the cis brain, is highly problematic. Moreover, I claim that the question regarding embodied trans* identities is a complex one, which cannot be reduced to neurobiological factors, nor to neurobiological causes.

Dick Swaab’s team claims to have found this hormonally induced reversal in the volume and neuron number of two sexually dimorphic subcortical brain structures in postmortem studies. Kruijver et al. (2000) and Zhou et al. (1995) find it in the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), and Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab (2008) in the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3). Regarding the first interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH1), Garcia-Falgueras et al. (2011) find an intermediate neuron number compared to that of the male and female brain. These brain reversals lead them to affirm the existence of “the transsexual hypothalamus” (Garcia-Falgueras & Swaab, 2008, p. 3143), “the transsexual brain” (Kruijver et al., 2000, p. 2034; Swaab & Bao, 2013, p. 2976), and “the transgender brain” and “the cisgender brain” (Swaab et al., 2021, p. 435).

In addition to the fact that none of these findings has been replicated (Eliot et al., 2021, p. 669; Jordan-Young, 2010, p. 105)3, twelve brains of trans* people in all were enough to build one of the most widespread theories on transsexuality so far.

To sum up, the search by Swaab’s team for a fundamental, essential brain difference in trans* people is embedded in a pathologising, dimorphic, and dichotomous framework, however much they assess “a great variability in all aspects of gender identity” (Swaab et al., 2021, p. 438).

It should be added that not only have the studies that shape the NCH not examined non binary people, but that they only analyse the brains of a subgroup of trans* people, i.e. those who desire hormone therapy and surgery, which implies the inapplicability of their conclusions to the entire spectrum of trans* people. This fact directly affects the typology of the four brain phenotypes and further compromises the idea of a “neuroanatomy of transgender identity” (Mueller et al., 2021). (CONTINUED)

I'm not seeing any ideology. I dont know what you think your source proves.

 

[CLAX1911]

I'm not seeing any ideology. I dont know what you think your source proves.

That's because you're blind to it.

 

[CLAX1911]

Why do the frail need to pretend agreement where there is none? What's that about?

Only two equals binary

My argument was never that there were more than two gametes.

So you're claim that sex is not binary is null and void thanks for playing

Bimodal requires binary.

 

[Master Debator]

Only two equals binary

Which might make human gametes binary but not humans since we all don't either produce one or the other. Some produce none and some produce both.

P
So you're claim that sex is not binary is null and void thanks for playing

Thanks for being frail and unable to count.

Bimodal requires binary.

It requires two poles and allows variation between them, thus human sex is bimodal even though our gametes only come in two versions. Binary means no variation. Just two. You're objectively wrong and you can't count.

 

[CLAX1911]

Which might make human gametes binary but not humans since we all don't either produce one or the other. Some produce none and some produce both.

Bimodal=binary

Thanks for being frail and unable to count.

It requires two poles and allows variation between them, thus human sex is bimodal even though our gametes only come in two versions. Binary means no variation. Just two. You're objectively wrong and you can't count.

 

[BabaVoss]

Is having sex with transgender women gay?​

If you are a woman, then yes, But who cares?
If you are a man, then no. But again, who cares?

 

[Master Debator]

Bimodal=binary

It does not. They are two different words with two different meanings. Apparently you can't count or read....

 

[CLAX1911]

Is having sex with transgender women gay?​

If you are a woman, then yes,

Seems like you care.

If your woman no.

But who cares?
If you are a man, then no.

If you're a man yes

But again, who cares?

Let's see who cares.

 

[Ouroboros]

No. I used slavery as evidence that societies can be pro rape and theft as well. My argument for the subjective nature of laws are that they are created by people and imposed by force and so we see laws applied selectively according to the subjective wants of the law makers. Do the laws of gravity need to be secured and protected with legislation? No, because they exist objectively. They exist no matter how we feel about them. Societal laws dont exist until someone writes them and they have no affect on anyone until they are imposed through force. The laws of gravity exist objectively and so don't require the assistance of law enforcement to impose itself on the natural world.

The existence of slavery in any society does not prove that any society is "pro rape and theft" toward its own citizens. Slaves by definition are outside the pale of citizens' rights. Because of that status, they are exceptions to the rules that apply to citizens, but they don't disprove the objective rule that every society needs rules against rape and theft. Such rules are functionally objective in the same way as gravity. One can't directly observe gravity; one can only observe its effects based on all available physical phenomena and approximate how gravity functions via mathematical calculations. The rules of human societies are the same, but mathematical calculations don't apply as evidence because social dynamics aren't gauged in the same way as physical dynamics. Law enforcement is not "imposing" rules upon members of the society; law enforcement is embodying rules agreed upon by the consent of the governed. however implicit. Some laws may be more localized than others, but that should be viewed as expressing the taste of a local society rather than as a rule that applies across the board to all societies.

Also what's supposed about it? Did slavery not happen? Was it not legal to rape and steal from slaves?

It's your use of slavery as an exception to general rules that was based in supposition.

So what are you arguing?

A moral argument about what? This isn't about me. You just keep trying to make it about me. This is about your argument that laws written by people are objective. Stop attacking me and defend your argument with more than a dodge, because calling it an exception and then using that as some excuse for why you don't have to address how it counter minds your claims is just that, a frail dodge.

Attacking your philosophical approach, that of finding exceptions to laws and deeming that those exceptions disprove the laws' functional objectivity, is still not attacking you. I don't accept your system any more than you accept mine, but my unwillingness to accept yours has nothing to do with "frailty" (a superficial and counter-intuitive ad hominem argument). Do you think Aristotle was frail because he didn't accept everything Plato said? I've been clear about my objections to your flawed philosophy and it's you who dodge via half-baked rationales.

Fail at what? Conveying my personal sentiments? I think they do that just fine.

Your moralistic sentiments re slavery fail to have any applicability to analyze societies in general.

My evidence is proof that your rule isn't objective. It's selective. It's subjective. Who can be raped and who is protected from rape is determined by who is making the law. That's what subjectivity is. Look it up.

And again I say that laws made for citizens weren't meant to apply to non-citizens. Slaves' lack of non-citizenship is not "subjective;" it's the whole point of anyone having slaves in any society.

Then I misinterpeted your argument. There's there.

So wait, are you questioning whether I believe in objective morality verses subjective wants? Why are you being frail about this?

When I said "really believed," I meant that you had not worked out your system thoroughly enough to account for the counter-example I then gave.

 

[Ouroboros]

In regards to nature and the objective world. That means neither has any more objective value than the other. They may have varying degrees of subjective value but that's not the same thing. There is no objective value to the taste of mangos for example. Some people like them, so people don't. Some people like to enslave others detest slavery. These are called feelings. They have significance to the people experiencing them but no objective value that can be discerned.

I think this might the first time I've seen the "varying degrees of subjective value" rationale from you. Regardless, what in your mind makes any "difference in degree" between one set of individual wants than another? I specify "individual" because the current argument evolved from your assertion that there was no objective value in an individual's desire to keep from being raped than in another individual's desire to rape.

No. Again, I use slavery as evidence of society being pro rape and theft. You insist these rules exist objectively and then call any question of that and evidence to the contrary, an exception to these rules whos premise we arent even allowed to question apparently. That is what I'm doing though. Anti rape and theft do not exist objectively they exist selectively based on the subjective whims of law makers, voters, dictators, monarchs or whom ever may be responsible for the crafting of your societies rules.

You've framed what you call "the premise" of the rules incorrectly. I've specified that individuals can game the system to get a desire result, but that proves nothing about the system itself, which is not random but is generated by a society's need to protect itself and to flourish, as much as an individual evolves strategies to protect him/herself and to flourish.

I don't invoke slavery for anything that has to do with me or my feelings. You make these things about me because you cant make your argument. I invoke slavery as evidence of society being pro rape and theft. Thats it.

And your idea of evidence is predicated on a false analogy to material phenomena.

My feelings on slavery, theft and rape have no bearing on the objective fact that Founder society engaged in it.

Your subjective feelings bring about the aforementioned false analogy.

 

[Ouroboros]

Why are you waiting around for some fantasy to come true rather than addressing my actual argument? I don't have to do that to prove laws are subjective. I'm not the one making claims about what all societies objectively need to do. You are. You're the one who has to prove that every society that has ever existed has been anti theft and rape. I don't have knowledge of every society that has ever existed so I would never make such a ridiculous claim. Apparently you do though. I don't even know if every society that has ever existed recognized private property as a thing to even need laws protecting it from theft.

Here's an easy breakdown of your "personal property" screed. Find me a society where the members *advocate* the bigger fellows to take food from the mouths of smaller fellows, women and children. I'm not asking for societies that *tolerate* that specific injustice. But for there to be a meaningful renunciation of the ideal of "personal property," it would have to extend to the most personal property of all: having the ability to keep yourself alive through the consumption of life-sustaining food. Is that universal enough for you; that theft of food, potentially leading to the loss of life for one or more tribe-members, gives rise to a "will of the governed" that opposes such casual theft?

Its evidence that counter minds your claims that laws against rape and theft are objectively necessary. Here we had laws that objectively protected rapists and thieves. That's not describing something that looks objectively necessary. That's describing something that looks selective and subjective.

And laws about slaves had no applicability to laws pertaining to citizens.

If these were physical laws we wouldn't need law enforcement to impose them, they would impose themselves. Gravity doesn't need the assistance of law enforcement.

As I noted earlier, law enforcement comes about as a response to the will of the governed. This can mean, "Ok, we need a strong leader for the tribe's overall protection from hostiles, so we'll let Bork the Slayer put aside rules and take any property he wants." But that would still be a response to an objective threat from outside the society, and if at some point the threat seems to be gone, then the society will have the tendency to overthrow Bork. Again, objective (in the sense of cross-cultural, if that helps you) rules spring from logical necessity.

1. As I said before husbands could legally rape their wives up until the 1990s.

I tend to doubt the veracity of your standard for the act of rape.

2. If society can be selective and subjective with who is and isn't a citizen and who it is necessary to protect from rape and theft and who it allows to rape and steal, then what you are describing is subjectivity, not objectivity.

No, it's an objective fact that if ten enemy tribesmen are taken to be slaves to members of another society, the only "selection" involved is that of the slaves. Either they elect to preserve their lives by accepting servitude-- whether permanently or with an eye to eventual escape-- or they reject the society's power to control their lives and sacrifice their lives in a pyrrhic victory. If only one slave among the ten agrees to abide by the condition of being a slave, then the other nine die (assuming no mitigating circumstances, like ransom) and the one that survives has submitted to the laws of his people's enemies. The society isn't being "subjective;" its members know that they want to be able to have non-citizens around whom they can boss, to a degree that they often cannot boss their societal equals.