All @hypericin is doing is ad hoc defining and redefining bigotry because they want it to be bigoted because they view the position that transgenderism is a mental illness as too extreme. I have no problem with people continually refurbishing their definitions (as that's part of the refinement process); but this is just bad faith to me on their part.

Thanks, I will take a look.

All hypericin is doing is ad hoc defining and redefining bigotry because they want it to be bigoted because they view the position that transgenderism is a mental illness as too extreme. — Bob Ross

I think that's right. The label "bigot" is being used as a means to the end of a particular form of censorship, without any regard for whether the labeling is true or false. Whether or not it is true that you are a bigot, it's expedient to say that you are.

That said, @hypericin is at least willing to consider his own view and attempt to provide reasons for that view. That's to his credit, and it is something that few others in this thread have managed.

I'm curious where this leaves cross-dressing in your view. Clothes/makeup/jewelry are surely nothing more than symbolic expressions of gender. And so choosing one set of symbols over another cannot be "gravitational", and so can only be a morally neutral expression of personality. Do you agree?

I don’t think attire and aesthetic accessories are purely social (viz., purely how we symbolize gender). For example, makeup is closely connected to women making themselves beautified as a part of their role as the object of sex (which is not to be confused with saying that women should be objectified in the colloquial sense of the term).

A lot of the ways we traditional or even liberally dress are related to masculine vs feminine traits. For example, a traditional dress covers the legs and butt to express female modesty.

To be fair to your point, I don’t know exactly how much of our clothing choices is truly gendered vs. socially constructed; and there definitely are socially constructed aspects to clothing choices.

And so, what to make of male nurses, female engineers, females who gravitate towards being providers and protectors? Insane? Immoral?

A person that exhibits sufficiently the oppose gender of no fault of their own is not doing anything immoral but it is bad. A tomboy girl is a masculine girl, which is bad even if they have done nothing immoral. Ideally, all men would be masculine to a perfect degree and same for women with femininity.

A person that purposefully mimicks the opposite gender is doing something immoral by trying to will what is bad for them; but this isn’t too say that it is a sin like murder.

Wow!!! You will have to cite me some sources on that one. By that last sentence, do you mean, you can't take a shit after???

That can happen too, but that’s a temporary inhibition. The long-term effect is that it loosens the anus which makes it have a hard time keeping poop in.

To be a mountain biker is to sustain injuries, many of which can entail significant impairment later in life. It goes with the territory

Not necessarily, unless you are doing stunts or something. One can safely bike through mountain bike trails without hurting themselves; and just because doing something opens up one to the risk of injury does not mean that it is immoral to do. If that were true, then everything we do would be immoral basically. There has to be a sufficient probability that an act is going to go contrary to the natural ends of the body for it to be unwise and immoral.

Every day of our lives would be thereby be swimming in immorality, and the concept would dissolve into meaninglessness.

We are swimming in immorality. We have no disagreement there.

Ok, but what is a ‘nature’ then? — Bob Ross

For Epicurus the human nature is more fixed (though fixed by atomic combinations so the possibilities for what a human can be is pretty large). I'd rather say that "Human nature is a tendency" while noting the useage I mean is with respect to the locution "human nature"; it's the sort of thing we mean by what something is, as you note. I just don't believe that there's exactly a set of necessary/sufficient conditions or secured by the essence of its type. Rather we have to come to some sort of understanding between ourselves in a particular conversation with respect to a question to contextualize our interests instead of thinking about human nature qua human nature.

What concepts are we considering with respect to human nature? What environment do we find these humans in already? If we're to speak biologically then we'd be talking in terms of natural selection, but in terms of our history we'd be reflecting on a different body of texts, and a different body of evidence that displays what human beings do.

For the purpose of Epicurus human nature is our tendency to get wrapped up in our desires to the extent that we are the cause of our own suffering.

"Tendency" since there are no necessary/sufficient conditions to include a member in the set "humans". That does not thereby mean that the human is not a natural human: they could participate in other tendencies. And, really, descriptively speaking, because we treat someone as a human basically everything they do is an example of human nature in some circumstance or other: the outliers are just as much evidence for our nature as the ones which follow norms as they are a possible tendency.

But that's because we treat them as such, not because they are such-and-such a thing.

No, I have not given an account of why someone should accept realism: I was noting that you are a nominalist and you are an epicurean that accepts eudaimonia which requires realism. You are holding two incompatible views. — Bob Ross

Why does it require realism?

I'd say it just requires wanting a tranquil life. For Epicurus he went out and actively recruited people due to his realist commitment, but I don't think we have to be realists to utilize an ethic. We could just want what the ethic wants.

Let me reword it in a way that you might be on board with: the anus’ natural functions are such that it secretes and holds in poop. That’s what it does for the body. You may divorce the functionality from teleology, but let’s start there. — Bob Ross

"Natural function" is the same as teleology. It'd be the sort of thing I'd deny as knowledge. Instead I think we can use our body however we see fit within its capacities: Rather than purposes there are things we have the power to do and the will to control these powers. The purpose a body has is the purpose towards which I put it, not the purpose which a theoretical device can define.

Basically the same response in noting how teleology is used in biology: Sure it is! And it's just a way of organizing our thoughts rather than the ontology of speciation. We're the ones who think in terms of form-function and that's how we make sense of the world. There's a sense in which a teleology arises but they also fall in the same sense so it's not like there's an actual proper function -- extinction is as much a part of evolution as birth, and that's when all the functions stop.

Nominalism is the view that essences are not real: you are denying realism about essences, so you are a nominalist. Semantics aside, you are still affirming realism about natures in a way that doesn’t seem coherent; but I’ll wait to elaborate on that until you give me your account of what a nature is. — Bob Ross

I associate more with nominalism than the belief "Essences are not real", so that's why I protested. If they are one and the same then no problem. (for instance I can make sense of "wholes" without "essences", which would count me out as a nominalist in some uses of that word)

How can it though if you are claiming that Epicureanism is Aristotelianism without the social obligations derivable from one’s nature? — Bob Ross

I don't agree with your characterization there -- rather there are different social obligations in different social worlds -- but in terms of hedonism it's because people want to do these things. Sometimes Fathers actually like their kids and so want to sacrifice themselves for them out of a sense of love and care. The pain isn't so bad in light of this pleasure.

BTW, in attempts to better clean up the issue of “more normal for Nature” not being equivalent to “more natural for Nature”:

Language can at times have a way of befuddling philosophic issues via metaphor and the like.

“Normal” stems from “according to rules”. Nature, the natural world, has its rules (natural laws as prime examples). The supernatural can be in certain perspectives deemed to not adhere to the rules of the natural world (or, at the very least, certainly not to the rules of the physical natural world); such that the paranatural (synonym for the supernatural) thereby gains the synonym of “the paranormal”. Example: Marian apparitions (here assuming that they might in fact occur for some, rather than all of them being outright lies) are outside the sphere of the natural world, the natural world then being the normal state of affairs as regards human experiences (this only where one allows for the possibility of veritable, extra-natural experiences)

In such means alone, an association is then made between what is natural and what is normal, namely: the natural state of the world/cosmos is the then the normal state of the world/cosmos, this in terms of human experiences.

Then, there’s a a slippery slope that gets slipped on whereby the two terms “the normal” and “the natural” become interpreted by some to have one and the same semantics: because the natural world is the normal state of affairs, this as previously outlined, that which is normal (i.e., ordinary, common, etc.) gets interpreted to therefore be that which is natural.

And it is exactly in this that the irrational bias of equating “normality” to “naturalness” becomes established in far too many. Redheads do not have the normal hair color of our human species, nor do gray eye-colored humans have normal eye-colors (one of my grandfathers had gray eyes), nor do AB negative blood type humans (1% of the human populous) have normal human blood types (most normal being O positive and A positive) … but all this has absolutely nothing to do with the naturalness of being a red-haired human, or gray eyed, or AB negative, and so forth. — javra

But this is how YOU used the phrase. I already understand the difference between "normal" and "natural", which is why I offered to use the term, "common" rather than "normal".

Everything is natural, including the mutations that occur when copying genes. In fact, it is those very mutations that are "filtered" by nature - leaving behind more stable or adaptive variations over time. But that does not mean that vestigial traits are not natural. It means they are not common (the norm) or adaptive.

The distinction of what I am getting at becomes clear when you ask yourself, "would you classify intersex an adaptation?" The same can be asked about being born with a tail, missing a finger or toe, or being born with cancer. Are those adaptations, or mutations that are typically filtered by natural selection if humans did not build such strong social bonds that allow those born with these conditions to continue to live and even have children if possible.

As a quick divergence from the thread's topic to address one of the points of your post, I would even go as far as claiming that even the supernatural is part of the natural. After all, what does the supernatural mean outside the light of the natural? If the supernatural exists and has a causal effect on the natural world (god created the world) and the events in the natural world have a causal effect on the supernatural (doing good on Earth gets me into Heaven), then we are talking about these two things being part of the same reality. Maybe we are simply talking about different dimensions (what if god was merely an extradimensional alien?)

To cut to the chase: Do we then agree that the issues at hand have nothing to do with either “normality” or with “naturalness”?

If so, as currently appears to be the case, I’ll then assume that what’s instead being implicitly addressed is the issue of dysfunctionality.

This issue of dysfunctionality, of itself, is an extremely complex issue. For one example: You at some point mentioned schizophrenia as a mental illness and compare it to sex and gender issues. Not only are the causes to schizophrenia still unknown, but, as I previously mentioned, there would be no reason to presume that the Biblical Moses and modern-day psychics, as just two readily known examples, are not all cases of schizophrenia (they all claim to see/hear/etc. things that normal people don’t) were it not for the fact that they all are/were fully functional human beings. With some being far more mentally healthy than the average Joe. The point to this being that the seeing/hearing of things that are not physically there is an extremely complex issue, one that is in no way cut and dry, and it does not of itself signify mental insanity (as per the examples just provided).

That said, when it comes to being intersexed, intersexed people, as a general rule, are fully functional. As is the case for homosexuals. As is also the case for transgender people. This save for the pushback against their very being in society which many a “normal person” engages in. Again, these diverse expressions of the human, though functional, are nevertheless all different from the norm … with many in society treating that which deviates from the norm as “unnatural”—with this very proclamation being that which many of my posts in this thread have been ridiculing.

I get that they might not be “perfectly” functional, but then who the hell is?

And yes, things such as mental insanity is indeed dysfunctional. To not get into the more extreme cases of conjoined twins and such.

But I don’t here want to start on the issue of “what ought to be done about the dysfunctional folk” in society … were there to be significant debate on this matter, it would too easily bring to mind the extermination camps of the Nazis who, after all, were in pursuit of a future heaven on earth (this, obviously, via quite authoritarian means—and there’s plenty right about the dictum, “the means do not justify the ends”) where all human souls get birthed into a human-envisioned “ideal human nature” … reputedly, to include the ideal human nature of everyone being blue-eyed blonds world over.

This issue of dysfunctionality, of itself, is an extremely complex issue. For one example: You at some point mentioned schizophrenia as a mental illness and compare it to sex and gender issues. Not only are the causes to schizophrenia still unknown, but, as I previously mentioned, there would be no reason to presume that the Biblical Moses and modern-day psychics, as just two readily known examples, are not all cases of schizophrenia (they all claim to see/hear/etc. things that normal people don’t) were it not for the fact that they all are/were perfectly functional human beings. With some being far more mentally healthy than the average Joe. The point to this being that the seeing/hearing of things that are not physically there is an extremely complex issue, one that is in no way cut and dry, and it does not of itself signify mental insanity (as per the examples just provided). — javra

Sure. They could have been high on hallucinogens. Religions might have been founded on the ideas of insane or high people.

That said, when it comes to being intersexed, intersexed people, as a general rule, are fully functional. As is the case for homosexuals. As is also the case for transgender people. — javra

I didn't use the word, "functional". I used the word, "adaptive".

Define functional here. Sure intersexed people, homosexuals and trans are functional as human beings - they can live their own lives without the help of others, but what they cannot do is have children without the help of others. That is my point. You could make the point that trans that are gay would fit into this but a trans-woman and a trans-man can have children without help precisely because they are heterosexuals (and this is probably an extremely rare case as most trans are gay). You could also argue that intersexed and homosexuals still play a role in raising the next generation, as they can provide healthy and stable homes as any heterosexual couple can, and you could even say that they (as well as any straight couple that are incapable of having their own children) are doing society a great service, as functioning parents, by adopting.

I get that they might not be “perfectly” functional, but then who the hell is? — javra

Again, it depends on how one is defining, "functional".

But I don’t here want to start on the issue of “what ought to be done about the dysfunctional folk” in society … where there to be significant debate on this matter, it would too easily bring to mind the extermination camps of the Nazis... — javra

Oh, come on. Don't start conflating my points as fascist. I am not saying that people with schizophrenia, or who are born with disabilities deserve less than anyone else. I am fine with supporting a safety net for the disabled, but at the same time would agree with society's goal in promoting research in trying to eliminate these disabilities from occurring in the future (no I'm not equating sexual preferences as a disability. I'm talking about physiological disabilities, like intersex). Would you tell a woman she does not have a choice to terminate their pregnancy if test indicate a high probability that the child will be disabled? When we tell an anorexic that their body image is not true, we are not attempting to single them out for a "shower". We are merely trying to get them the help they need.

Sure. They could have been high on hallucinogens. Religions might have been founded on the ideas of insane or high people. — Harry Hindu

Or, there might indeed be spiritual dimensions to reality. Take your pick. But don't presume to have definitively evidenced it. That is, not unless you can, philosophically speaking.

Define functional here. Sure intersexed people, homosexuals and trans are functional as human beings - they can live their own lives without the help of others, but what they cannot do is have children without the help of others. That is my point. — Harry Hindu

So ascetics world over, who cannot have children due to their own hardcore physiological imperatives, are to then to be deemed in terms of functionality/adaptiveness ... what exactly? Notice that such an ascetic has zero fitness biologically speaking. All due to "mental" reasons and choices.

As to definitions, this link gives what I intend by "functional". You'll note that is can well be a rough synonym for "adaptive"

Oh, come on. Don't start conflating my points as fascist. I am not saying that people with schizophrenia, or who are born with disabilities deserve less than anyone else. I am fine with supporting a safety net for the disabled, but at the same time would agree with society's goal with trying to eliminate these disabilities from occurring in the future. When we tell an anorexic that their body image is not true, we are not attempting to single them out for a "shower". We are merely trying to get them the help they need. — Harry Hindu

I am not conflating your points as fascist. It's the notion of X, Y, and Z, not fitting a human-envisioned "ideal human nature" that we ought to actualize which gives me the heebie-jeebies. This for reasons aforementioned. As to the rest of this paragraph, I'm glad to hear - but, again, I don't find rational grounds for the intersexed, or homosexuality, or the transgendered to be "disabled" or else mentally insane. So why then "try to eliminate" these expressions of being human? And then, if an alternative rational reason is provided, "eliminate" them how?

So why then "try to eliminate" these expressions of being human? And then, if an alternative rational reason is provided, "eliminate" them how? — javra

Consider X and Y. If they are equal, then neither one is preferable. If X is better than Y, then X is preferable. If X is better according to some criterion, then X is preferable according to that criterion. If the proportion of X-outcomes and Y-outcomes is beyond our control, then it is pointless to prefer one to another even if it is better.

Is any of that objectionable?

So now let X = heterosexuality and Y = homosexuality. Does everything I just said about X and Y still hold good?

As soon as we accept the premise that X-outcomes and Y-outcomes are not beyond our control, and that X is better than Y, we have logically excluded the position which says that we cannot prefer X to Y (or that it is pointless to prefer X to Y).

So for example, if we accept that there are bisexual people who can choose between a heterosexual monogamous relationship and a homosexual monogamous relationship, then we must recognize that it is eminently rational for such people to discern whether X and Y are equal or unequal. Similarly, if we recognize that LGBT-identification has risen substantially in line with changing social norms, then it becomes very hard to claim that the proportion of X-outcomes and Y-outcomes is altogether beyond our control.

At this point, if we accept that there are bisexual people who can choose, and that social norms have a strong effect on how much sexual orientation identification occurs within the society, doesn't it follow that we would be interested in objectively assessing the relative value of homosexual and heterosexual arrangements? If we are interested in the health and happiness of the society itself, would we not be interested in such a thing?

Thanks for clarifying. I thought I had another question after those, but I'm finding it really hard to put into words.

A tomboy girl is a masculine girl, which is bad even if they have done nothing immoral. — Bob Ross

Jamal is being charitable. I would have banned you by now.

I've already answered this <here>, namely the definitional/tautological notion. — Leontiskos

And I responded. Words change all the time, that's what language does. This does not make a definition a substantive claim. Definitions are claims about words, not claims about the world.

Here's the problem: How can a claim which depends on a substantive claim be non-substantive? For example:

1...
2... — Leontiskos

You are mistaking a definition for a logical argument. That isn't remotely how words work.

Okay, well that's a new claim on your part. Why is it noxious? — Leontiskos

Not a new claim, it is the thrust of my calling it bigoted. You said that my calling Bob's claim bigoted was begging the question of its truth or falsity. The idea is not exactly that it is false, but that it falls into to a conceptual pattern of harmful, prejudicial, demeaning claims, which are additionally seldom (if ever) true. That bigotry is noxious should be well evident from its history.

I would suggest looking into what you mean by "definitional" (as I think it is nothing more than that which represents the widespread view). — Leontiskos

It is a widespread view of how a word is used. One can believe that schizophrenia is psychological in origin while still using the word correctly. Just like one can believe that serotonergic, not dopaminergic neurotransmission is the neurotransmitter at fault. But to use the word without knowing that it is a mental illness is to use it incompetently. Just like using the word "house" without knowing that houses house people.

Do you think "Houses house people" is a substantive claim? If so, is everything that isn't a pure tautology substantive to you?

A tomboy girl is a masculine girl, which is bad even if they have done nothing immoral.
— Bob Ross

Jamal is being charitable. I would have banned you by now. — RogueAI

Because Bob has an opinion that's relevant to the context of the discussion? I want to be clear, I don't hold Bob's opinion. But I don't hold many people's opinions. If I disagree with their outlook in a discussion, I'll present to them reasons why I think they're wrong. You don't ban people because you dislike what they're saying. You ban people for unnecessary language, calls to violence, and behavior that isn't about the discussion. Bob has plenty to say and will gladly read and respond to your point politely if you are polite to him first. Bob is using a Neo-Aristotelian perspective. If you disagree that this leads to a 'masculine girl' not being good, then demonstrate why. Comments like yours which contribute nothing to the discussion but threats and intent of dislike, are what we all should be avoiding.

There are some opinions that will get you banned, and for good reason. We don't tolerate Holocaust denialism, for example. This whole thread is an embarrassing display of homo and transphobia.

CC: @Philosophim, @Leontiskos, @Jamal, @Wayfarer

@ProtagoranSocratist, this is what I was referring to as the hatred, anti-free-speech, and lack of good faith by my opponents. I have been a member on here for over four years and never have ever had any issues with anyone: I try to be as charitable as I can be to other people's positions and learn something from them (although I fall short sometimes). Simply for providing a robust and sophisticated (albeit not necessarily true) position contrary to modern gender theory and sexuality ethics I have been dubbed a bigot, neo-Nazi, homophobe, prejudiced interlocutor, and widely considered banworthy.

Even @Jamal has expressed in many times, including in the bannings thread, that they consider me lucky that they did not ban me for having an opinion on gender theory and the ethics of sexuality.

The liberal establishment in this forum has exposed its anti free speech sentiments. I wish we all could have productive conversations, in good faith, about important topics like gender theory. All of these insults, ad hominems, threats of banishment, etc. on their part is unnecessarily and does not further the discussion.

The ethics of sexuality and gender theory appear to be irrationally off limits on this forum, even if it is a good faith intellectual and philosophical discussion grounded in widely prominent theories (such as Aristotelianism). Ironically, I've made a thread about defending, to some extent, Imperialism, which is still up, and I was not threatened with banishment nor hated on like I am now. These threats seem politically motivated to me.

To @Jamals credit, they haven't banned me nor censored the thread; and I do respect that.

Consider X and Y. If they are equal, then neither one is preferable. If X is better than Y, then X is preferable. If X is better according to some criterion, then X is preferable according to that criterion. If the proportion of X-outcomes and Y-outcomes is beyond our control, then it is pointless to prefer one to another even if it is better.

Is any of that objectionable? — Leontiskos

No, so long as it’s taken to be an oversimplification of real-world applications, where the criteria that determines better or worse is context-dependent and often multidimensional: Take intelligence for example. Einstein’s intelligence is not Darwin’s intelligence, such that each is far better than the other’s in the relevant context addressed. Neither are these two intelligences equal nor is one intelligence better than the other in any objective sense. Then there’s the artistic intelligence of, say, Michelangelo. The architectural intelligence of Gaudi. That of Kafka’s. And so forth.

At this point, if we accept that there are bisexual people who can choose, and that social norms have a strong effect on how much sexual orientation identification occurs within the society, doesn't it follow that we would be interested in objectively assessing the relative value of homosexual and heterosexual arrangements? If we are interested in the health and happiness of the society itself, would we not be interested in such a thing? — Leontiskos

There are, lets say, pure heterosexuals and pure homosexuals that are in no way bisexual. As I’ve previously expressed in a previous post, from what I learned in human sexuality courses while at the university: with each likely constituting roughly 1/5th of the population. This such that only 3/5ths of the population are in some means bisexual, and with only 1/5th of the population being true bisexuals, such that they in deed hold no preference whatsoever when it comes to sexual orientation.

But even when assuming that 100% of the human population is in fact bisexual and can thereby be swayed into either heterosexual or homosexual relations (which, I hope, is readily understood to be utterly false), given that homosexuality is neither a disability nor a mental insanity, your post neither addresses why homosexuality ought to be exterminated from the population nor the how this ought to then be done.

As to relative values, they again can well be context-dependent and multidimensional.

As to the health and happiness of society at large, by what criteria is the typical Ancient Greek citizen concluded to be less healthy and happy that the typical modern citizen? … and this not due to improved medicine or technology but strictly on account of the Ancient Greek most likely having engaged in homosexual activities.

Alexander of Macedonia comes to mind as one well-known example, and he appears to have been a pure homosexual: quite healthy and happy for span of his life, despite his homosexual activities.

ProtagoranSocratist, this is what I was referring to as the hatred, anti-free-speech, and lack of good faith by my opponents. I have been a member on here for over four years and never have ever had any issues with anyone: I try to be as charitable as I can be to other people's positions and learn something from them (although I fall short sometimes). Simply for providing a robust and sophisticated (albeit not necessarily true) position contrary to modern gender theory and sexuality ethics I have been dubbed a bigot, neo-Nazi, homophobe, prejudiced interlocutor, and widely considered banworthy. — Bob Ross

But Bob, the issue is that what you were expressing in this thread was in fact transphobic: you expressed interest in banning drag shows. So if what you are arguing is in fact bigoted, then why are you complaining about it when people point it out? This is something I see with a lot of modern day conservatism: you complain when people see your logic for what it is. So what exactly are you trying to accomplish with this performative whining? Are you trolling? Are you trying to guilt people into changing their minds and embracing your ideology? You've done this more than once.

I personally did not directly hurl insults at you (homophobe, transphobe, bigot, Nazi, etc.) because I do not like to argue like that, it doesn't bring light to a discussion. However, I don't sympathize with people who want to express bigotry but not be criticized for it. Believe it or not, I don't like it when leftists whine about "privileged white men", because it's hypocritical...wanting to express bigotry without being criticized for it is totally hypocritical. Remember how Jesus in the Gospels feels about hypocrites? He doesn't express positive sentiments about hypocrites...

We are all prejudiced, we can't help but be prejudiced because this is how the survival mechanisms in our brain have been wired overtime, for lack of a better explanation...but there are sayings that are both true:

What comes around, goes around.

You get what you give

If you don't like being called a bigot, then do not express dislike towards transgendered people. I also think it's totally ridiculous that you are still complaining even though you have not been banned. Clearly the moderators are letting you get away with a lot of stuff that's frowned upon within a modern progressive/liberal mindset. You've even clearly broken one of the rules, more than once, about evangelizing a particular point of view. From the rules:

Types of posters who are not welcome here:

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

There are a lot of places online where you can get away with expressing bigoted sentiments with impunity. For example, there's this one music service I was using that had a chat room. There was absolutely no moderation. As a result, there's some dude who has been living on there for years who almost constantly spews hatred towards jews.

I get that you are mad about the clear left/liberal bias of a lot of online places, but every single place you discuss everything online has a bias. The mods choose the left/liberal bias so that transgender people can post on here.

↪Philosophim There are some opinions that will get you banned, and for good reason. We don't tolerate Holocaust denialism, for example. This whole thread is an embarrassing display of homo and transphobia. — RogueAI

I agree that active hatred or statements that are not open to debate and discussion are preachy and don't belong. Your specific example within the context of this discussion did not seem to fit that. Bob is making claims according to a Neo-Aristotelian perspective. If he's wrong, it should be easy to point out. Bigotry rarely has anything behind it than its own bias, so it should be simple to demonstrate that either Bob is flawed in his assessment of his Neo-Aristotelian approach, or that it is simple bias.

Bob is a reasonable person. He's already gone back to his OP and made adjustments. That means this is a person thinking about what's being said and working through ideas. Talk with him, not at him. Stick to the OP and ask if this is a proper use of a Neo-Aristotelian viewpoint necessarily leads to these conclusions. If you're not interested in that, just avoid the discussion.

If he's wrong, it should be easy to point out. Bigotry rarely has anything behind it than its own bias, so it should be simple to demonstrate that either Bob is flawed in his assessment of his Neo-Aristotelian approach, or that it is simple bias. — Philosophim

I'm beginning to feel like Sisyphus trying to argue with all these clearly delusional talking points people make on here...

This is a clear practice in reductionism: you're making all these judgments about complex phenomena, and trying to bend it to suit some sort of a simple narrative.

First of all, in absolute terms, there is no "right and wrong". It's imagination only. You can't convince me otherwise. It's an attempt to universalize subjective "good and bad". Good and bad are also imaginary, but I find them much more relatable. I also find "correct and incorrect" to be more relatable, but when the subject matter veers into sheer nonsense and insanity (as in my opinion, this thread does) those become fully irrelevant.

Second of all, if bigotry rarely has anything behind it besides a "simple bias", then people would have stopped talking about the Nazis a long time ago, because the race hate, antisemitism, and nationalism would have been simple biases corrected by rationalists, and nobody would have died as a result.

Third of all, the assessments of his Neo-Aristotle approach have already came and went, but for whatever reason Bob Ross keeps complaining about the reception that his posts are getting. So no...there's a whole lot more going on here than "a simple bias". Bob Ross has also expressed associations between his Neo-Aristotle perspective and his Christianity, and Aristotle was not a Christian...people tend to associate Christianity with Plato's idealism due to the structure of his ideas alone, but both of these greek philosophers predated Christianity by a considerable degree. Aristotle was more of a humanist, because he put the rationality and reasoning above everything else in his worldview.

Perhaps this quote most perfectly describes the situation:

“Insanity — a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.”

All of these insults, ad hominems, threats of banishment, etc. on their part is unnecessarily and does not further the discussion. — Bob Ross

Yes, and it also happens to be unjust.

Bob is a reasonable person. He's already gone back to his OP and made adjustments. That means this is a person thinking about what's being said and working through ideas. Talk with him, not at him. — Philosophim

:up:

clarified the TPF policy. One is not allowed to call gay people immoral or degenerate (and presumably this applies to all classes of people, not just gay people).

I think this exchange is instructive:

A tomboy girl is a masculine girl, which is bad even if they have done nothing immoral.
— Bob Ross

Jamal is being charitable. I would have banned you by now. — RogueAI

In Thomistic thought there is a distinction between something's being immoral and its being bad or evil. Everything that is immoral is bad/evil, but not everything that is bad/evil is immoral. So murder is immoral and bad/evil, but a deadly tsunami is bad/evil but not immoral. Similarly, schizophrenia—to take the common example being used within this thread—is bad/evil but it is not immoral.

I haven't read all of Bob's posts, but it seems to me that he has consistently maintained that the homosexual person is not per se immoral, but that their condition is bad (and he likens that condition to a mental illness like schizophrenia).

On the one hand Bob has tended to use "bad" rather than "evil," which in English have somewhat different connotations. That is good, and it helps avoid misunderstandings.

But the deeper issue here is that @Jamal's policy remains ambiguous. For example, consider my . If I were to argue that X is better than Y, and that the person who has X and Y both within their grasp should therefore prefer X, my utterance could be technically construed as a bannable utterance. This is because "should" is conceivably construable as a moral claim, and the logic of my claim could therefore be construed as entailing the proposition, "Bisexuals who choose to be gay are immoral" (because according to some given reasoning they should prefer to be straight).

Part of the difficulty here is the ambiguity between "should not" and "immoral," which has been the topic of hundreds of conversations on TPF. But if someone like @Jamal wants to around a central value of respecting homosexuals, then he might reasonably interpret, "The perfect bisexual should prefer a heterosexual coupling," as, "Perfect bisexuals who choose homosexuality are immoral," and ban the person in question, even if the proposition is a conclusion and not a presupposition.

This is actually why I tend to never broach these topics on TPF. Or if I do, I speak extremely precisely and carefully. There is a longstanding bias that will tend to interpret my utterances in the worst possible light, and I don't generally like to "skate uphill" to that extent while doing philosophy. The longstanding policies chill speech in this area, presumably intentionally.

To be honest, there is no obvious solution to these sorts of problems. Free speech absolutism comes with its own batch of difficulties, and I don't see @Jamal as wrong for refusing that route. As I've argued elsewhere, I think TPF just has to be transparent about its own dogmas, for that seems to be what they are. TPF is a quasi-sectarian philosophy forum, much like a <sectarian university>. It has rules that are substantive and not merely procedural. Although this is hard for secular people to accept, I think it has to be acknowledged. On a Christian forum one might be disallowed from "promoting" abortion, which means that one cannot argue in favor of abortion, either in moral or non-moral terms. On TPF one seems to be disallowed (or at least very strongly discouraged) from "promoting" traditional sexual ethics, which means that one cannot argue in favor of traditional sexual ethics, either in moral or non-moral terms.

I grant that @Jamal is attempting to avoid a sectarian forum by claiming that one can argue against Western European sexual ethics but they cannot call gay people "immoral." "Traditionalists" would agree that gay people are not necessarily immoral, but they would not agree that no homosexual person is immoral in virtue of their homosexuality.* I'm guessing that this is not a distinction that @Jamal wants to make. If he doesn't want to make that distinction, then perhaps he can see how difficult it would be for a "traditionalist" to argue that homosexuality (for example) is bad but not necessarily immoral (even despite the fact that this position relies on an extremely common distinction in moral philosophy, namely the distinction between a free act and an unfree disposition).

I want to emphasize that these are not easy things for someone like @Jamal to navigate. I don't even know what I would do if I held to Western European sexual ethics and I were in his shoes. The answer is in no way obvious, and I don't want to pretend to oversimplify the issue. In any case, I think that folks like @Bob Ross should try to understand how difficult it is for Western Europeans to countenance traditional sexual ethics, and the Western Europeans (and those who agree with them) should try hard to entertain the possibility that some people who hold to traditional sexual ethics really are acting in good faith, and are not bigots. (But in my personal opinion, I think Western Europeans need to be more open to debating their sexual ethics given the fact that their sexual ethics are geographically and historically idiosyncratic.)


* In Christian and especially Catholic moral teaching, someone cannot be held responsible or immoral for what is beyond their control. Such moral teaching therefore makes a distinction between free acts and inherited dispositions, including with respect to homosexuality. This means that (traditional) Christians do tend to see homosexuality in much the same way that they see alcoholism, and this understanding is in no way limited to Christianity. Is the alcoholic "immoral"? The answer is never "necessarily yes" or "necessarily no." This is why traditional sexual morality is effectively disallowed on TPF, for TPF effectively disallows everyone from disagreeing with the substantive position which says, "necessarily no."

should try hard to entertain the possibility that some people who hold to traditional sexual ethics really are acting in good faith, and are not bigots. — Leontiskos

This has been my approach all along.

I am also strongly stating that these sorts of questions aren't really up for debate here -- but am hoping to do so in a philosophical manner. Insofar that a sexual ethic thinks that homosexuals or transexuals are immoral that is something not really worthy of debate as much as persuading someone who is reflective that they are in error.

Wonder away: But I'll insist that you're wrong factually and ethically.

I am also strongly stating that these sorts of questions aren't really up for debate here -- but am hoping to do so in a philosophical manner. — Moliere

But that's the question, isn't it? Can excluding certain debates ever be done in a philosophical manner? Especially when the position being excluded is extremely common both historically and geographically, and is being held by people of good faith? (See also regarding @Mikie's attempt to exclude climate change denialism)

That's why, " TPF just has to be transparent about its own dogmas." Some will bristle at the word "dogma," but when you have a single position that is privileged above all others, and debating that position is disallowed, how can it be denied that what is at stake is a dogma? Dogma basically means, "You aren't allowed to argue about this position."

If TPF wants to take a non-dogmatic approach to the topic then I think that would be wonderful. I think that is what is being attempted. But if at the end of the day the policy amounts to, "You aren't allowed to argue with this substantive position," then I think a self-consciously dogmatic policy is preferable (because self-conscious policy is better than subconscious policy).

Dogma basically means, "You aren't allowed to argue about this position."

If TPF wants to take a non-dogmatic approach to the topic then I think that would be wonderful. — Leontiskos

Would you affirm the same of positions such as that of Holocaust denial, the somewhat different belief that the white race is superior to all others due to divine commandment from God and thereby has an inherent right to subjugate or else exterminate all other races on Earth, how about the belief that there is rational justifications for the goodness of an adult having consensual sex with preadolescents? And far more taboo positions could be additionally proposed.

If you do, then is there no limit to this bottomless pit of deprivation? Or does deprivation, which in this context can only be harmful to the eudemonia of both individuals and society at large, not exist?

If you don’t, then on what grounds separate justifications for ever-expanding homophobia (which this thread’s theme maybe only too unintentionally seeks to provide and solidify) from, say, justifications for there not having ever been any intentional executions of homosexuals in the gas-chambers of WWII?

(I ask this as someone who respects the dignity of life, and sees no reason to deprive others who are for most part fully ethical humans of this very dignity.)

But that's the question, isn't it? Can excluding certain debates ever be done in a philosophical manner? — Leontiskos

I'm not sure. That's what I'm attempting at the moment, though.

There's a sense in which, sure, if I follow along with the thoughts of my own heritage, I understand the lines of thought which note differences between various sexual acts, feelings, and so forth.

I think they're all mistaken, though. Were I still religious I'd consider them abominations which desecrate the texts -- human beings being what they are, fallen, of course they'd write scripture which supports bigotry against sexual minorities.

As it is I'm of the opinion that it's the religions which need to come to terms with the world we are in, if they be peaceful. If not then I suppose we get to be on different sides of a divide in spite of both wanting peace.

With all due respect, your response is full of ad hominems. I don’t think you are doing it unintentionally, as I think you are a good faith interlocutor (and I commend you for that) that simply hasn’t read the thread and is basing their interpretation heavily (inadvertently) on what other people have claimed about me (instead of what I claimed myself).

To be clear, you have now taken the position, by your own words, that I am expressing bigotry, transphobic, hypocritical, and an evangelist. Let’s break all of these down in hopes that we can have a substantive discussion about it.

1. Bigotry. In order for a claim to be bigoted, it has to be something claimed in an obstinate way; and not merely claiming something that is niche, false, delusional, or considered gravely immoral (by the recipient). I would challenge you to demonstrate, through citation, where I have been being stubbornly attached to my position—where I adamantly refuse to consider reasonable critiques—to the point of dying on the hill. I submit to you that, on the contrary, in this thread I have been nothing but charitable to everyone’s critiques (including those that are irrelevant and ad hominems): I have openly stated that I will concede points where I find reasonable evidence to support it. If this is true, then, even if you believe what I hold to be true is widely immoral, my views on sexuality cannot be bigoted by definition.

2. Transphobia. I would define this term as “to be hateful towards transgender people in virtue of their transgenderism” but I concede this is not the standard definition; so let me also address the basic one on google that says it is the “dislike or prejudice against transgender people”. Firstly, as it relates to my definition, I am loving transgender people by acknowledging that they have a mental illness, wanting to cure them, and helping them in whatever way I can to get rid of their body dysphoria; and this is because, in Aristo-Thomistic thought, love is to will the good of a thing for its own sake and goodness is the equality of a thing’s essence and existence. The problem here, is that you, being submerged so thoroughly in liberal thought, can rightly rebuttle that, under your view, to love a person is to will their (hedonic) happiness; and, consequently, it would be, since hate is the parasitic opposite to love, hateful to prevent, e.g., a transgender person from having a drag show or getting surgery if they thought, or perhaps knew, that it would give them relief from their gender dysphoria. Given the definition I gave of love and transphobia, it cannot be true that I am transphobic for wanting to help cure their illness nor because I want to prevent the incorrect exaltation of sex in drag shows. Secondly, the colloquial definition from google requires one of two things to be true: either (1) one dislikes or (2) has a prejudice against transgender people. I would challenge you to cite anywhere where I expressed dislike or prejudice for the transgender person themselves and I will concede. On the contrary, I have openly advocated to love transgender people (which doesn’t mean you affirm their own mental illness as if it is normal), to treat them with respect, and to help them kindly as much as possible. There is a difference, crucially, between hating badness and immorality vs. hating people. I do not hate, dislike, nor have a prejudice against a schizophrenic because they have this bad illness; and likewise the same is true for transgender people. I love the person, hate the evil (viz., badness or immorality).

3. Hypocrisy. A hypocrite is a person who special pleads—that is, they hold some proposition true but not for such-and-such without any reasonable reason for any sort of symmetry breaker. I am not sure why you think I am being hypocritical; but I understand you think that I am blind to the hatred that you seem to think I ‘had it coming’. I would like to stress that even if you are right that I provoked hatred, it would not follow that you should condone the hatred provoked nor blame me for it. The one hating is doing something immoral, not the person being hated.

4. Evangelism. I never once have done anything evangelist on here; and I would challenge you to come up with one example. Evangelism is different than forwarding a position: everyone forwards a position when they are conversing on a topic. Evangelists are actively trying to convert you to a religion. I have not been open about my Christian faith on here; nor have I tried to convert anyone.

transphobic: you expressed interest in banning drag shows

So if I express interest in banning Christian parades, then I am a Christianophobe? What you are doing is defining anything against the predominant view of how we should treat transgenderism as transphobic: this is oddly convenient. What if a transgender advocate group decides to push that murdering cisgenders is perfectly permissible—am I transphobic for opposing that? Where do you draw the line? What definition are you using?

So what exactly are you trying to accomplish with this performative whining? Are you trolling? Are you trying to guilt people into changing their minds and embracing your ideology? You've done this more than once.

I @ you because we had a discussion about this where you denied any of this was happening—including that people were trying to get me banned. I am showing you that the people on here are demonstrating their hatred in an attempt to avoid hatred: it’s an interesting paradox.

I personally did not directly hurl insults at you (homophobe, transphobe, bigot, Nazi, etc.) because I do not like to argue like that, it doesn't bring light to a discussion.

I appreciate that, and I do commend your good faith discussion: I am not meaning to lump you into that crowd.

We are all prejudiced, we can't help but be prejudiced because this is how the survival mechanisms in our brain have been wired overtime, for lack of a better explanation.

Do you believe, then, that everyone is a bigot too? Clearly, when these people are calling me a bigot or prejudiced they are not intending to convey that everyone is one.

If you don't like being called a bigot, then do not express dislike towards transgendered people

I don’t dislike transgender people. Again, you are confusing dislike for the modern-day ideology (that teaches it’s totally normal and tries to affirm their dysphoria) with dislike for the transgender person. Think of it this way, imagine you had a bad case of schizophrenia—lots of unwanted hallucinations causing you to develop depersonalization, derealization, and delusion—and you went to a friend and told them about. Imagine that friend told you that there’s nothing bad happening to you: you don’t have a mental illness. Imagine they proceed to affirm every delusion you have—which is caused by your inability to discern reality from your hallucinations of no fault of your own—to help you be happy. Are they doing you a service? Are they really loving you properly, ProtagoranSocratist? No. Are they necessarily doing it out of malice, spite, or some other immorality? Not necessarily: maybe they don’t understand what schizophrenia really is—maybe they think you really don’t have a problem.

The mods choose the left/liberal bias so that transgender people can post on here.

Look—believe it or not my friend, @Banno, @Jamal, and @RogueAI—I have discussions with transgender people and I do not dislike them nor are we disrespectful to each other. One time I had an long conversation about sexuality ethics and gender theory, in much more political detail than in here, with a transgender person that transitioned to avoid suicide; and we had a respectful, nuanced, thought-provoking, and productive conversation that left me with nothing but sympathy for their condition. It is truly tragic and horrible the suffering many of these people have to go through and overcome. Is that bigoted of me to say too? What makes you think if a transgender read my OP or discussed sexuality ethics with me that they would be disrespected, demeaned, hated, or attacked by me? You are twisting my view that transgenderism is bad into some sort of hatred of transgender people that is completely unsubstantiated. I challenge any of you to cite where I have suggested or demonstrated that I would insult, abuse, demean, disrespect, or attack a transgender person if I were to talk to one on this forum.

You've even clearly broken one of the rules, more than once, about evangelizing a particular point of view

I’ve never once tried to convert anyone to Christianity: I am not sure why you believe that I’ve committed evangelism.

For example, there's this one music service I was using that had a chat room. There was absolutely no moderation. As a result, there's some dude who has been living on there for years who almost constantly spews hatred towards jews.

My friend, with love and respect, the fact that you consider my comments in this thread on par with anti-semitism tells me you have not looked at really anything I claimed in here.

:fire:

Would you affirm the same of positions such as that of Holocaust denial — javra

Check out the link I gave in that post, where I answer this sort of question.

I'm not sure. That's what I'm attempting at the moment, though. — Moliere

Philosophy operates through persuasion; dogma operates through force; therefore dogma is incompatible with philosophy. That's why I don't think you can shut down debate "philosophically."

But a philosophy forum could be sectarian, and this could occur for understandable reasons. It might have dogmas for non-philosophical or indirectly philosophical reasons.

Note that a dogma excludes a position that is live within the Overton window. There would be no need to erect a dogma for a position that is not of this kind. (cc: @javra)

:heart:

No worries, my friend! If you ever think of them, then please feel free to let me know and we can discuss.