[W:592] How is being kind and inclusive a bad thing? Aren't those things objectively good?

[The Brad Dad]

What I am saying is that no matter what he does physically to himself, he is still a man to me and always will be.

Who cares? It's just not important what you think of other people and how they live their lives. As an adult you should internalize that.

 

[LongIslandGirl]

Who cares? It's just not important what you think of other people and how they live their lives. As an adult you should internalize that.

I am internalizing it. This is just my opinion, and nobody has to care what I think. But if the state of New York forces to me pretend that a man becomes a women by changing his name, wearing a dress, and cutting something off then that's all I'd be doing, pretending, and the person that believes they transitioned by doing those things would also still just be pretending, in my opinion but now with the state also lying to him, or her. A person can do whatever they choose to do with their appearance and declare whatever they feel in their mind as being real, and I respect that freedom as long as it's not forced onto others, but a rational person still knows it's not real. If you are a woman and you want to be a man and so you change your legal name to Brad, then I will call you Brad since it's your legal name, but if you were born a woman, you'd still be a woman to me, just named Brad. You can then live however you want to live, but I just won't go along with it personally, and you would also have to be ok with that.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Uh huh - and who determines that?

Government and society.

I find it entertaining you don't see the connection between that and :


So yes, you are happy to do what you accuse others of doing, and excluded those who violate your moral values, particularly your values about what constitutes "harm".

What do YOU think constitutes harm?

It was the point that the right currently interjection more diverse than the left.

Meaning what, you tolerate the intolerant?

You don't have a theory of mind for people who aren't like you. You (apparently) don't understand that others have different moral values, and this includes differing definitions of what constitutes "harm".

Right, I don't exist in the same moral universe of people who think that starving babies to death in a concentration camp is some kind of justifiable self-defense.

It is not innate to most species, nor is the notion that the weak should be protected by the strong (instead of being dominated by them) universal.

If it was not innate to most species, they wouldn't have evolved to their current state. Infants across all species are protected, for example. The vulnerability of that state is a defense mechanism that is acknowledged by the species.

You are - ironically - imposing Western values on others.

No, I'm imposing shared moral values that are consistent across all societies.

And in many cultures that's because the rules ARE different for them, and that is an accepted moral norm.

For example:

in Afghanistan, raping young boys is a social norm, and can even be a marker of status.

I'm not going to look that up, but this the strong and affluent preying upon the weak. Just like in any society. If it's a function of society, it's because those that lead society are corrupt and have allowed such things to permeate throughout society. Again, it's a function of concentrations of political power, not egalitarianism.

And, again, you seem blind to the fact that others are gong to have very different ways of defining all of that than you do.

Not at all. I'm well aware that morality is subjective, not objective. Shared moral standards create a system under which society can operate, and in a democracy, the government is a reflection of those standards. The degree to which government reflects society is an indication of the degree to which political power is shared among the population. Afghanistan is run by religious fundamentalists. Political power is invested with them, not the people, and society reflects that.

 

[The Brad Dad]

You can then live however you want to live, but I just won't go along with it personally, and you would also have to be ok with that.

People are oaky with it, they would have no way of knowing you feel that way unless you made it a point to tell them. And if you're in a professional environment, like an office, you'll just have to keep those opinions to yourself.

Sounds to me like this works out for everyone.

 

[LongIslandGirl]

People are oaky with it, they would have no way of knowing you feel that way unless you made it a point to tell them. And if you're in a professional environment, like an office, you'll just have to keep those opinions to yourself.

Sounds to me like this works out for everyone.

I will say that this is where we probably agree. I would never be intentionally cruel or harassing or mocking to someone in that type of situation. If there were a transgender person in my office, I would be professional and respectful to them. However, if they asked me if I believe that they are what they say they are, I wouldn't lie.

 

[The Brad Dad]

I will say that this is where we probably agree. I would never be intentionally cruel or harassing or mocking to someone in that type of situation. If there were a transgender person in my office, I would be professional and respectful to them. However, if they asked me if I believe that they are what they say they are, I wouldn't lie.

I'm sure they wouldn't care enough to even ask.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Who cares? It's just not important what you think of other people and how they live their lives. As an adult you should internalize that.

I think the LGBTQ and liberal left very much care - they can't stand when people disagree with them and eventually it goes beyond "how they live their lives"

example -public schools and telling young kids in school a man can become a woman. Liberal left believe that, conservative Right does not

 

[Master Debator]

Perhaps, but I can't speak for unknown people that may think I'm cruel for making judgements, however, I would argue that I'm not making judgements about them nor speaking from a place of ignorance.

You do but like most bigots you're just incredibly frail about it.

I'm simply being honest to myself about what my beliefs are versus what someone else seemingly wants to make me believe about them.

Your feelings don't trump science.

I'm not going to be outwardly or verbally cruel to someone because they have a lifestyle that I disagree with or that have mental health concerns that I can't empathize with, but I'm also not going to lie to them or to myself. I don't view that as being kind either.

The person you're lying to is yourself about your intent and level of education and understanding.

For me, I am a biological woman, and I know that no matter what I hypothetically could have cut off of me to look more like a man, no matter what type of clothes I can change into to make me look more masculine, no matter what I change my first name to in order to sound more like man's name, and no matter what I tell others around me to believe about my change and to call me, I still know at the end of the day that I am still a woman pretending to be man in that hypothetical. I acknowledge that as the reality and I would be naturally skeptical of anyone that truly believes otherwise when they stand in front of a mirror after doing those hypothetical things.

Trans people aren't pretending to be anything. This is what I mean about the ignorance. That's not what the science says.

I know this is a touchy subject though and I am saying these things just from my own personal beliefs and thoughts.

But again, your personal feelings don't shape scientific reality. It should be the other way around.

 

[Master Debator]

And we have the constructs of culture, such as language, to bridge those gaps between our separation due to not sharing the same hive-mind.

That still doesn't change the biological reality of your feelings and entries being separate from mine, or Gunns or anyone else's.

Thus I don't have to accept your hyper-emotional interpretations of everything because I can show that your vaunted dependence on what you believe to be objective reduces down to your subjective illusion.

I never said my feelings on the movie where objective, in fact thats what you're doing.... What I questioned was the objective nature of proper word use and whether Gunn was lying to you because of how you felt about the movie. Funny how you seem to understand the subjective nature of feelings when it comes time for you to strawman about what my argument is.

I showed that "tyranny" is an inadequate term for the more sensible general term of "evil."

You showed that with your feelings did you? Good for you. I made an objective case for slavers as tyrants. In this case tyranny is an action (the act of forcing your will on to others) that can be observed. What even is evil?

I continue to critique the way you falsely wave the objectivity flag as a rhetorical device to conceal your subjective wants.

Im not shy about sharing any of my subjective feelings, I just don't confuse them for objective facts like you do with your notions of proper words or artwork lying to you.

That remains one of my critiques of all your posts. And since you haven't refuted any of my arguments, that means that they're actually strong and yours are weak-ass.

"Frail" is a good start. It really doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

It means whatever I want it to mean. Thats how words work.

I love that you are still defending a guy doing publicity for a Hollywood movie as the fount of veracity.

Im laughing at you for continuing to confuse your feelings for facts.

If you believed virtue to be a matter of conflicting opinions then you would not have wasted your time claiming that "evil" must be some metaphysical thing you had to make a fuss about. If anything the etymological roots for the Latin "virtu" are more expressly metaphysical in nature.

I explained the difference I see in the word evil which tends to be a statement about something else (such and such is evil) rather than a statement about how you feel and all I said about evil is that I dont use it in my arguments. Does that hurt you? Emotionally?

another deflection from the critique that you validate only your own subjective opinions by resorting to blather about objective facts.

No, I just operate based on my subjective whims which is why I don't use evil in my arguments. You feel free to.

See above.

Since you failed to challenge my arguments before, why would I repeat them for you? Bark away, though.

"another deflection from the critique that you validate only your own subjective opinions by resorting to blather about objective facts."-- you make it so easy.

Says the guy who feels there are real proper and improper words to use.

There's no "we" involved; Mad Libs are losing ground as their numbers decline and their opinions about "healthcare" will soon be gone with the wind.

Note: fixed your incorrect word for you.

I'm not worried, I can do basic math.

C''mon, you can be funnier than that. That's the level of post I've come to accept from Snowflake.

There there.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm sure they wouldn't care enough to even ask.

Not true in the least. The entire history of trans activism has been one of provoking others into taking a side one way or the other. I assume you will default to the fantasy that Conservatives made up the issue of trans activism just to have a new target, so let's take that as a given, shall we? See if you can say something original next.

 

[Ouroboros]

That still doesn't change the biological reality of your feelings and entries being separate from mine, or Gunns or anyone else's.

The cultural reality of language means that you and James Gunn can't immunize yourselves from the expectations of consistent reasoning.

I never said my feelings on the movie where objective, in fact thats what you're doing.... What I questioned was the objective nature of proper word use and whether Gunn was lying to you because of how you felt about the movie. Funny how you seem to understand the subjective nature of feelings when it comes time for you to strawman about what my argument is.

And I maintain that you made a botched attempt to assault my interpretation of the movie with a flawed argument based in reason. As soon as you said, "the movie takes a stand against rendition," that wasn't just your subjective liking for the movie, The fact that you can't distinguish between an argument from reason and one from emotion proves that you're the one defending your weak-ass feelings.

You showed that with your feelings did you? Good for you. I made an objective case for slavers as tyrants. In this case tyranny is an action (the act of forcing your will on to others) that can be observed. What even is evil?

And I reiterate that your "objectivity" is undermined by the fact that you can't extend your ad hoc definition to anything beyond your comfort zone. By what you have just written, the Southern States were forced to rejoin the Union against their wills, so the Union was tyrannical toward the Southern States. The only wiggle room you might have, in some alternate universe, would be if the Union conquered the South so as to end the South's tyranny toward slaves. But in the real world, there is no objective evidence of that position. You cannot extend your shallow definition to the South because of your weak-ass feelings.

Im not shy about sharing any of my subjective feelings, I just don't confuse them for objective facts like you do with your notions of proper words or artwork lying to you.

See above for an objective statement you will not make, based on your weak subjective feelings.

It means whatever I want it to mean. Thats how words work.

Only in your world.

Im laughing at you for continuing to confuse your feelings for facts.

Dodge, dodge, dodge, you're a dodgin' machine.

I explained the difference I see in the word evil which tends to be a statement about something else (such and such is evil) rather than a statement about how you feel and all I said about evil is that I dont use it in my arguments. Does that hurt you? Emotionally?

Right, you take a supposedly "objective" definition for an action like "tyranny," but it only applies to things you don't subjectively like. Your emotional pain would bleed onto this page if it wasn't the Internets.

No, I just operate based on my subjective whims which is why I don't use evil in my arguments. You feel free to.

Your whims include defending a Hollywood writer as a fount of veracity.

Says the guy who feels there are real proper and improper words to use.

Still a cultural matrix, not my personal views. The illogical Doublethink Definition of "frail" has not taken hold in culture and never will. In contrast, the phrase "politically correct" started as a mild reprimand from Libs about the excesses of the Mad Lib culture. But Mad Libs doubled down on nonsense like "math is racist," and so the Con definition became the proper definition.

I'm not worried, I can do basic math.

You haven't been able to follow through on any reasoned discourse, so why would I believe you could do math?

There there.

That's objectively a weak-ass comeback.

 

[CLAX1911]

The act of being kind is a good thing I'm not so sure about inclusive. That's inclusive mean without standards if that's the case it's anti-kind.

But I digress being kind and saying you should be kind or two different things one's just saying nice words and the others actually doing something.

 

[Master Debator]

The cultural reality of language means that you and James Gunn can't immunize yourselves from the expectations of consistent reasoning.

No one is trying to stop you from voicing your feelings. I'm just pointing out to you that your feelings arent facts.

And I maintain that you made a botched attempt to assault my interpretation of the movie with a flawed argument based in reason. As soon as you said, "the movie takes a stand against rendition," that wasn't just your subjective liking for the movie, The fact that you can't distinguish between an argument from reason and one from emotion proves that you're the one defending your weak-ass feelings.

No, that was a fact about something that happened in the movie. The hero got renditioned and other heroes broke them out. How you feel about that fact is for you to say.

And I reiterate that your "objectivity" is undermined by the fact that you can't extend your ad hoc definition to anything beyond your comfort zone. By what you have just written, the Southern States were forced to rejoin the Union against their wills, so the Union was tyrannical toward the Southern States.

That's your imagination talking. If you had bothered to ask instead of fan fictioning I would of agreed that the union forcefully imposing its will on the South and dragging them back into the Union was an example of tyranny. I just don't care about force being used on slavers. Couldn't happen to better people as far as my feelings are concerned.

The only wiggle room you might have, in some alternate universe, would be if the Union conquered the South so as to end the South's tyranny toward slaves. But in the real world, there is no objective evidence of that position. You cannot extend your shallow definition to the South because of your weak-ass feelings.

Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean I can't do it. Your feelings aren't facts.

See above for an objective statement you will not make, based on your weak subjective feelings.

See above for the hilarious fan fiction you confuse for rational debate.

Only in your world.

Dodge, dodge, dodge, you're a dodgin' machine.

Right, you take a supposedly "objective" definition for an action like "tyranny," but it only applies to things you don't subjectively like. Your emotional pain would bleed onto this page if it wasn't the Internets.

Now you're just projecting.

Your whims include defending a Hollywood writer as a fount of veracity.

For his own words and meaning, yes. I trust authors to tell me what they mean over randos with opinions about it. Thats only rational.


**** me, half the time I think you have got to be putting me on. In what world do you really think you get to decide what other people mean when they communicate their message?

Still a cultural matrix, not my personal views. The illogical Doublethink Definition of "frail" has not taken hold in culture and never will. In contrast, the phrase "politically correct" started as a mild reprimand from Libs about the excesses of the Mad Lib culture. But Mad Libs doubled down on nonsense like "math is racist," and so the Con definition became the proper definition.

What? That's a whole lot of nothing not explaining why you think "math is racist" has anything to do with me.

You haven't been able to follow through on any reasoned discourse, so why would I believe you could do math?

That's objectively a weak-ass comeback.

You fan fictioning my arguments before I have a chance to make them isn't reason.

 

[The Brad Dad]

The entire history of trans activism has been one of provoking others into taking a side one way or the other.

No, they haven't. That you think there are two sides to the issue shows youre the one angry and hostile about it.

 

[Ouroboros]

I am internalizing it. This is just my opinion, and nobody has to care what I think. But if the state of New York forces to me pretend that a man becomes a women by changing his name, wearing a dress, and cutting something off then that's all I'd be doing, pretending, and the person that believes they transitioned by doing those things would also still just be pretending, in my opinion but now with the state also lying to him, or her. A person can do whatever they choose to do with their appearance and declare whatever they feel in their mind as being real, and I respect that freedom as long as it's not forced onto others, but a rational person still knows it's not real. If you are a woman and you want to be a man and so you change your legal name to Brad, then I will call you Brad since it's your legal name, but if you were born a woman, you'd still be a woman to me, just named Brad. You can then live however you want to live, but I just won't go along with it personally, and you would also have to be ok with that.

This may be a can of worms you're not interested in opening, but since you mentioned being "forced to pretend" that a man becomes a woman by simple declaration, let's try a thought experiment:

First, some real-world stats thanks to Axios trying to lure in subscribers:

Beyond just letting folks use the bathroom of their choice, 63% of companies in the Human Rights Campaign corporate equality index have listed workplace policies such as trans-inclusive restrooms and gender neutral dress codes for employees, per HRC's most recent report.

OK, now the imaginary part: you LongIslandGirl work for one of the companies that insist on trans inclusive restrooms. Maybe the company didn't have such restrooms when you first became employed there, but it becomes the company norm and so you have to accept the specious trans identity or find work elsewhere. Let's further assume you stay and tacitly agree that you will share the company ladies' bathroom with any trans employees. So, according to BradDad, no trans is ever going to bother asking your opinion of the arrangement, and therefore everything will be hunky-dory as long as you keep your opinion to yourself, as you have clearly stated you would do.

The flaw in the BradDad rhetoric is that he assumes that every marginalized individua will be content to take the win and not to "take a mile" when given an inch. But this has not been the current history of the trans movement, except in the deluded minds of Mad Libs. They do indeed take a mile when given an inch, and this is not unique to their subgroup. I'm aware of an anecdote in which the head of a shipping department was called on the carpet for using the Southern expression "you all." The Mad Libs here will discredit this, but there are hundreds of similar news stories in which some employee gets called on the carpet for "micro-aggression." You try to keep your opinion to yourself in the imaginary situation, but does the trans employee let you? Is there any remark that he/she won't jump on to force you to accede to total capitulation? Of course not; tolerant trans people exist only in BradDad's imagination. And thus the thought experiment shows that Mad Libs never think seriously about anything except what serves their purposes.

 

[The Brad Dad]

This may be a can of worms you're not interested in opening, but since you mentioned being "forced to pretend" that a man becomes a woman by simple declaration, let's try a thought experiment:

First, some real-world stats thanks to Axios trying to lure in subscribers:



OK, now the imaginary part: you LongIslandGirl work for one of the companies that insist on trans inclusive restrooms. Maybe the company didn't have such restrooms when you first became employed there, but it becomes the company norm and so you have to accept the specious trans identity or find work elsewhere. Let's further assume you stay and tacitly agree that you will share the company ladies' bathroom with any trans employees. So, according to BradDad, no trans is ever going to bother asking your opinion of the arrangement, and therefore everything will be hunky-dory as long as you keep your opinion to yourself, as you have clearly stated you would do so.

The flaw in the BradDad

Your scenario still requires an adult to make an adult decision, I e. to say something or not. It's work. Where you make a living. Politics comes up a lot in my line and I participate in *zero* of it. Nada.

Was my factoring being an adult the fatal flaw? lol

Also the way you phrase this, as though trans folks aren't the tiniest community with the least amount of power, with a regime in charge that has literally made it open season on them.

 

[Ouroboros]

Your scenario still requires an adult to make an adult decision, I e. to say something or not. It's work. Where you make a living. Politics comes up a lot in my line and I participate in *zero* of it. Nada.

Was my factoring being an adult the fatal flaw? lol

Also the way you phrase this, as though trans folks aren't the tiniest community with the least amount of power, with a regime in charge that has literally made it open season on them.

The cutoff should have clued you to the possibility that I had computer issues and that my post had not been completed. The fact that you could not wait to reply without reading my whole argument proves my final point: you don't care about misuse of power by the people you seek to empower. You just want to "win."

 

[Master Debator]

This may be a can of worms you're not interested in opening, but since you mentioned being "forced to pretend" that a man becomes a woman by simple declaration, let's try a thought experiment:

First, some real-world stats thanks to Axios trying to lure in subscribers:



OK, now the imaginary part: you LongIslandGirl work for one of the companies that insist on trans inclusive restrooms. Maybe the company didn't have such restrooms when you first became employed there, but it becomes the company norm and so you have to accept the specious trans identity or find work elsewhere. Let's further assume you stay and tacitly agree that you will share the company ladies' bathroom with any trans employees. So, according to BradDad, no trans is ever going to bother asking your opinion of the arrangement, and therefore everything will be hunky-dory as long as you keep your opinion to yourself, as you have clearly stated you would do.

The flaw in the BradDad rhetoric is that he assumes that every marginalized individua will be content to take the win and not to "take a mile" when given an inch. But this has not been the current history of the trans movement, except in the deluded minds of Mad Libs. They do indeed take a mile when given an inch, and this is not unique to their subgroup. I'm aware of an anecdote in which the head of a shipping department was called on the carpet for using the Southern expression "you all." The Mad Libs here will discredit this, but there are hundreds of similar news stories in which some employee gets called on the carpet for "micro-aggression." You try to keep your opinion to yourself in the imaginary situation, but does the trans employee let you? Is there any remark that he/she won't jump on to force you to accede to total capitulation? Of course not; tolerant trans people exist only in BradDad's imagination. And thus the thought experiment shows that Mad Libs never think seriously about anything except what serves their purposes.

The flaw in your understanding of human biology is that you seem to expect everyone else to be satisfied when you are.

 

[BrotherFease]

But the interview wasn't. It's even more safe to assume that we were going to get the same old woke nonsense when it was shot in 2024 before Trump won.

And nothing in the interview, suggests that he's attacking Trump or conflating illegal with legal immigration.

It's literally a social experiment. There weren't actively trans people in the military before recently, and there was no idea what opening the military to trans would do to morale or social cohesion.

Transgender people have been able to serve openly under Obama and Biden. No major issues have arose. These people have served honorably and haven't caused any problems.

There was also no understanding of how a transitioned person would hold up in the field, far from medical attention.

Yet we have evidence they do.

Opening up the military with all of those unknowns is experimentation.

We used these arguments against racial integration, sex integration, and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly.

Nobody uses the word "experiment" other than MAGA and those who want to discriminate against someone for their sex and gender expectations.

That's pretty much how the military operates. Discipline and obedience are primary.

That is the problem with the military. They rely on stereotyping and discrimination principles, not facts, logic, or anything you learn in business school.

 

[Ouroboros]

The flaw in your understanding of human biology is that you seem to expect everyone else to be satisfied when you are.

Biology as such is not germane to evaluating whether or not human group takes advantage of another. Now you're just recycling arguments from other topics.

 

[Ouroboros]

Your scenario still requires an adult to make an adult decision, I e. to say something or not. It's work. Where you make a living. Politics comes up a lot in my line and I participate in *zero* of it. Nada.

Was my factoring being an adult the fatal flaw? lol

Also the way you phrase this, as though trans folks aren't the tiniest community with the least amount of power, with a regime in charge that has literally made it open season on them.

I thought you might have something to add once you read the full post but if you're happy with that nonsense, so be it.

 

[jmotivator]

And nothing in the interview, suggests that he's attacking Trump or conflating illegal with legal immigration.

LOL. Yeah, it does. You haven't read the article.

Transgender people have been able to serve openly under Obama and Biden. No major issues have arose. These people have served honorably and haven't caused any problems.

"No major issues have arose" is the kind of thing you can only say when you don't pay attention. The military during those years paid for gender reassignment surgery for many of their transgender troops, costing millions of dollars and long term medical cost.

In no other case does the military allow someone to enlist knowing that they will need extensive medical and/or psychological treatment after enlistment.

Yet we have evidence they do.

Not really. You've already tried to argue that they could be placed in non-combat roles anyway. Deep down I think you understand the problems with military deployment.

Phalloplasty complication rates are as high as 76%! Vaginoplasty runs as high as 25%. Most need long term specific care to avoid complications long after surgery, as well. So should we just ban surgery and only allow trans people who don't want surgery? What if they change their mind? We've been told that denying such care leads increases rates of suicide.

In the end, instead of spending millions on accommodation for transgender in the military, it should just be treated the same as any other medical condition that will severely limit service. I was blocked form enlisting in all 4 branches in my late 20s because they had a ban of anyone with surgical reconstruction. While I have severely broken my arm in high school and had numerous surgeries to rebuild it, I was running 6 miles a day and benching 300 lbs. at the time of my rejection. Rules are rules.

We used these arguments against racial integration, sex integration, and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly.

Nope. Last I checked, gays and lesbians don't generally seek sexual reassignment surgeries or demand to use opposite sex facilities and and fitness standards.

Nobody uses the word "experiment" other than MAGA and those who want to discriminate against someone for their sex and gender expectations.

It is experimentation, regardless of who says it. If we took away all of the things that a Trans person would demand in (surgeries, use of other sex facilities) then there is no real reason to declare you are trans during your service.

Accommodating Trans in the military is no less experimental that a decision to make show and bathroom facilities unisex, something the military is also not willing to experiment with.

That is the problem with the military. They rely on stereotyping and discrimination principles, not facts, logic, or anything you learn in business school.

You aren't relying on facts and logic in your arguments, so it seems you just can't see it when it's being employed.

 

[Master Debator]

Biology as such is not germane to evaluating whether or not human group takes advantage of another. Now you're just recycling arguments from other topics.

Of course it is. Where do you think your feelings come from if not your biological processes?

 

[Master Debator]

This may be a can of worms you're not interested in opening, but since you mentioned being "forced to pretend" that a man becomes a woman by simple declaration, let's try a thought experiment:

No one is forcing you or @LongIslandGirl to pretend like you understand science but we do get the benefit of watching you dress up and perform anyway.

 

[Ouroboros]

No one is forcing you or @LongIslandGirl to pretend like you understand science but we do get the benefit of watching you dress up and perform anyway.

I throw pearls before swine often, but I'm under no delusion that they're anything but swine.