Such a moron. — Michael

I agree, but I think trump would have to study intensely for at least 10 years, to reach the intellect level of a moron, But, what does that say about the people who made him president of the most powerful nation on Earth?
Why I am not hearing about the democrats trying to rush through legislation, to prevent anyone found guilty of a criminal act being barred from standing for president?
Why was this gaping hole in USA legislation not corrected, years ago?

What sex or gender a person chooses to be, worries me a lot less, (in fact it pales into insignificance in comparison)
— universeness

Is that because you are not a women in sheltered accommodation? — Andrew4Handel

No

Is that because your penis or vagina is still intact and you are not poisoning yourself with wrong sex hormones? — Andrew4Handel

No

Is that because you are not an a elite female sports woman having to share a changing room with a penis that then goes onto to beat you at your sport because he has gone through a male puberty and has bigger stronger bone structure and larger lungs and is over 6ft. — Andrew4Handel

No

Is that because you don't have MS, early on set dementia or cardiac arrest due to poisoning yourself with cross sex hormones that your body does not want or need. — Andrew4Handel

No

Or is it because you are not a gender non conforming gay child who is being told he must be born in the wrong body? — Andrew4Handel

No

Or maybe it is because you are not a member of the gay community whose reputation is being trashed? — Andrew4Handel

No

It's because a trump supporter, a religious zealot, a capitalist, a billionaire, a plutocrat, a celebrity cult, a personality cult, a narcissist, an autocrat, an aristocrat, etc, is a far greater threat to the human race, than what sexual preference or identity a person has.

This is ridiculous. It indicates you have barely read any of my posts on this topic. — Andrew4Handel

I have read your posts on this thread. I agree with others who have posted that your claims are about outliers. You don't comment on the majority of trans folks who are very happy indeed with the path they have taken. I hear them say so, on their on-line community representations.

Calling a group a minority does not make them credible or sympathetic. Terrorists, Paedophiles and murderers are minorities. — Andrew4Handel

I have no interest in invoking sympathy for any minority group. I support ensuring that any minority group has their basic human rights fully respected.

Your 11 points are just your opinions they are not facts.
Which peer reviewed study of all women on Earth are you citing that shows they think the trans community has a major detrimental effect on their rights and their 'women only' spaces?
I could write a refutation of each of your 11 points very easily.
A person can change their sex via personal psyche, hormone therapy and surgery. They currently cannot change their chromosomal sex or produce the gametes their preferred sex produces, but science will probably be able to do both at some point in the future. Changing 3 out of 5 elements aint bad at all.
What you call genital mutilation is corrective surgery for the majority of the trans folks who take that path.

One of the greatest entertainers ever, Little Richard, had an almighty battle with homosexuality. He was a homosexual then he rejected it and became a gospel singing preacher who became anti-homosexual then he became a homosexual again. So, some homosexuals have been as conflicted and confused as the outliers you mention in the trans community.
Quentin Crisp said:
The rest of the world in which I lived was still stumbling about in search of a weapon with which to exterminate this monster [homosexuality] whose shape and size were not yet known or even guessed at. It was thought to be Greek in origin, smaller than socialism but more deadly, especially to children.

Sounds rather similar to some of your current red flag danger waving, towards trans folks.

In 1977 Quentin Crisp told the Times newspaper that he would advise parents to abort a foetus, if it could be shown to be genetically predetermined to be gay: "If It (homosexuality) can be avoided, it should be"

It looks to me like the homosexual community has and had it's outliers as well.

Peter Tatchell, who is a well known gay and trans rights campaigner condemns Crisp with:
Quentin was no gay hero, jealousy made him bitter, he was no longer the only queer in town

From The Peter Tatchell foundation, we have:
For over five decades, I have argued that women’s rights are human rights and supported hundreds of women’s rights campaigns in the UK and worldwide. There can be no liberation without women’s liberation.

Equally, for the same five decades, I have supported the struggle for trans equality, respect, dignity and human rights. I see no contradiction between trans and women’s liberation. Both have my support. I echo the stance of the many pro-trans feminists.

I oppose the trans critical views of Germaine Greer, JK Rowling and others but urge an end to abuse and intimidation by some people on both sides of the argument, including the insults, threats and smears directed against trans people and trans allies like myself.

With all due respect, I value expert campaigners from the homosexual community, such as Peter Tatchell, regarding the trans community and the actual trans folks I have heard speak on line, rather than the somewhat irrational claims coming from you.

I was doing - working, helping, arguing, loving, protesting, partying, parenting, growing, making and repairing things, teaching, volunteering, writing - not calculating. — Vera Mont

I also, was, and still am, 'doing' and I also regularly review what I did, why I did it, who I was, who and what I have become and what I now want. So, I also choose to calculate

I don't believe lives or Life have a purpose. — Vera Mont

Do you know of anything other than 'life' for creating meaning, purpose and legacy?
A beaver may build a dam that lasts hundreds of years and changes the local environment for so many other species in a way that helps them thrive. Is that not an example of legacy?
Might someone read one of your books, a hundred years from now, and be inspired to start a revolution from their bed?

Being compelled is not a condition I readily accept from anyone. Besides, you've just pulled one of those shifts forum posters so often do. You asked what percent of my life was "about other people" and you've now changed it to "about something". — Vera Mont

'Other people' can surely exemplify 'something.'

Merely polite. I'm 97% sure you'll fail. — Vera Mont

I have already succeeded in many ways, so it depends what you mean.
I have failed so far, to create the human civilisation I have described to you, however,
a teacher of 30+ years, influences many lives in many ways. Some in very significant ways indeed.
Is there a teacher that had a significant affect on your life?
Carl Sagan had the biggest affect on mine, and one or two teachers, I can still name and remember what they did for me and how they altered my mindset and my goals in life.

Geez I bet that first dude has a great time at airport security. — Wayfarer

:lol: and surely they itch something awful at times!
This woman Elaine Davidson holds the world record for the most facial piercings:

No, I can't say I've counted the percentages of my life, or my life in percentages. I never even considered life to be about something - it's just a process that unfolds as it does, from a biological entity as it is and functions, in a world that operates as it does in a period of time that lasts as long as it does. I don't live for things or people; I live because i was born and have so far found the experience of existence more positive than negative. I think and feel, desire, aspire, act and respond in certain ways, according to my nature and condition. While that process does include contracts, rivalries, entanglements, debts, obligations, conflicts, gifts and charities, none of those are 'about other people'; they merely situations that involve other people, who are also living their own independent lives. (This is why "Who are you?" and "What do you want?" are really one question.) — Vera Mont

The overall imagery I get from what you typed above gives me too much of an impression that you have been a bystander in your own life. I am sure that is not the case. If I insist that you created the main purpose and meaning and legacy of your life by how you chose to manipulate the variables you had to work with. Why does that not compel you to accept that life is indeed 'about something?'

I appreciate the point, but perhaps it's because we think we can get out of the way in time, or we can stop the train from doing the amount of damage pessimists are convinced it will do,
— universeness

Yes, that's optimism. Good luck! — Vera Mont

Thanks for your statement that you hope that fortune favours my optimism, that's quite optimistic of you. :wink:

. I heard all the same shit about homosexuality back a few decades back and even now in some communities. — Tom Storm

The gay rights movement eventually improved the lives of folks like @Andrew4Handel significantly, in many countries of the world. An openly gay person can now become a political leader.
It's a pity he can't find it in himself to help achieve for another minority group what has been achieved for him, after what seems to me to have been a very very hard fought fight.
My personal acceptance of people as they want to be, when it really is no serious threat to 'human civilisation,' allows me to even have 'some understanding' towards folks who choose such as:

or

What sex or gender a person chooses to be, worries me a lot less, (in fact it pales into insignificance in comparison) compared to a person who chooses to be a trump supporter, a religious zealot, a capitalist, a billionaire, a plutocrat, a celebrity cult, a personality cult, a narcissist, an autocrat, an aristocrat, etc.

Personally, I no longer care about the 'junk in someone's trunk.'
I accept the gender and sex you tell me you are.
The rest is a matter of a case by case basis imo.
Who can go to which area and compete in which sport etc, is simply 'issues' yet to be fully ironed out.
In my youth and probably up to around my mid 30's, I was very 'anti,' towards all non-heterosexual people.
I then began to find their arguments too hard to defeat, so I dropped all of my objections.
They simply won their case imo.

It is not a choice. — Andrew4Handel

Science and technology often extends human choice.

I am an antinatalist and one of the reasons is because life is imposed on us without consent. — Andrew4Handel

I am not an antinatalist and for what it's worth, if I could have been asked for consent to be born into this world I would have said yes.

But I believe that once we come to exist people should be protected and valued and encouraging delusions and compromising women's rights by allowing men to identify as them is pure dysfunction and reality denial. — Andrew4Handel

We have already exchanged our opinions on that issue.

Gender ideology is a perversion of the truth.
Creating a world based on fictions could be described as escapism. — Andrew4Handel

Your truth in this case, is not objective truth.

I can't remember if you have already offered comment, regarding your support or lack of support of trans folks?

I had hoped the Internet and citizens around the world would take this power away from their governments, and with the power of the people they would manifest world peace. I still hold onto this hope although I don't see this happening yet. Democracy leads to peace, not religion, and not a Military-industrial complex. We need to return to family order and end this military order. The people of the world need to unite against the Beasts that feed off of us. — Athena

I broadly agree with the content of your statement above, but the term 'family order' can be problematic in the variations it can manifest.
In my world, I would not allow a single tier of government to have full control over the military or the police. I would have a second, as powerful, elected tier of stakeholder representatives. Citizens, who represented all major worker groups, age and gender based reps also, etc. This citizens house, would have to agree to any war declaration or invasion of another nation, that the government of the day proposed.
The government would have full control over all forces in the case of an outside attack on the nation.
New ways to wield political authority must be found. I would also get rid of party politics.
We must vote for people not political parties.

Yeah, I was referring to consent after birth and perhaps even after you are legally recognised as an adult.
Some consider a tattoo or a body piercing, to be mutilation, most don't.
How about any form of plastic surgery, is any such a mutilation, I think some folks do look like they have mutilated themselves via plastic surgery but all things considered, I think modify is a much better term for use in the trans community, do you agree?
Yeah, suicide is also a choice, but certainly one I would personally try to dissuade someone from doing, unless they were terminally ill and suffering badly.

d) Respecting issues of consent — Andrew4Handel

How about a man/boy who no longer consents to be a man/boy?
And of course a woman/girl who no longer consents to being one?

So... Gandhi's "way of truth and love" that invariably triumphs is a wiibbly-wobbly, truthy-lovey, sliding interpretation, like biblical text. OK — Vera Mont

Yes, because fear can defeat truth and love, inside the mind of an individual.
Abject slavery is preferred by many, to the threat of death, especially if the death threat is particularly gruesome. If comply or die, is the choice you have then I don't blame anyone for choosing either option.
I personally agree with the response to brawn of, "I will say 'no I wont' one more time than a torturer can say 'yes you will,' " but I have never been fully tested in that way. I do think that anyone can break.

You never responded to:

How much of this life I lead, should be about me? and how much of it should be about people other than me?
As a percentage, 50/50? 60/40? 90/10? 10/90, have you thought about such? — universeness

any particular reason why not?

Well... Let's say we have slightly different points of view. And I certainly wouldn't wish to disturb Mr. Pinker's peace of mind. — Vera Mont

I doubt he has such a 'peace of mind,' but I also think he could defend his position very well, if you tried.

What I do find alarming is the complacent attitude of optimists toward the express-train load of bad ship coming at them. — Vera Mont

(I assume you meant 'shit,' rather than 'ship')
:lol: I appreciate the point, but perhaps it's because we think we can get out of the way in time, or we can stop the train from doing the amount of damage pessimists are convinced it will do, or sure, we are about to be covered from head to toe in all sorts of caustic, destructive shit, BUT the fight will go on, as long as some optimists survive the train of shit assaults you envision.

Yearn, sure. The contradiction is in 'love' : — Vera Mont

I am sure that's a sliding scale from slave to slave. When you reach the point of being willing to gamble your life to achieve it, I think you don't just yearn for freedom you covet it with an intensity I would accept as 'love.'

How can you love that which you do not know? — Vera Mont

No-one has ever returned to them to tell them oblivion/death involves any suffering or awareness.
A master/slave owner is demonstrably unable to command the dead. I would say that would be a state which I would covet/desire/love, as an alternative to my day to day misery/suffering, as a slave.

It depends entire on the 'others'. These days, few others are available; not only can I not choose the right company for the right mood, I can't choose at all: they're dead or far away, all but one who knows when I need to be alone - and we both live in constant dread of losing the other. Old age sucks ostrich eggs! — Vera Mont

I have an elderly neighbour, 78, who lives alone but she is involved in so much community stuff that she is quite busy. She is also able to shut out the world, when she wants to. Neighbours and friends are always checking on her to ensure she is ok and has all she needs. She is always 'chipper,' whenever I meet her in the street and chat. She seems to be having a nice life BUT I know this may only be window dressing, I don't know for sure. My mother at 86 seems content most of the time, but certainly not all of the time.

The up-slope - 1964-1980 - were pretty good in north America. It lasted somewhat longer in Europe - minus that hicup in the UK, and I think even longer, though it may have started later in Australia. — Vera Mont

As long as the 'up-slopes' produce an overall trend of progress for the human race then my optimism is maintainable and I see no global slide, that would prove Mr Pinker's 'Enlightenment Now,' completely unfounded.

Is part of why we 'war,' to bring 'someday' nearer?
— universeness

No. Social progress takes place in prosperous, peaceful periods, when people are not frightened. — Vera Mont

We still had to war to destroy the Nazis, and the fascist Japanese and Italians, there was no alternative at the time imo. 'Someday,' would never happen if we had not.

Not really. You're not real flesh-and-blood people: of any persona on the internet i don't know how much is their true self and how much is invented. I know where the door is on my mouse; I'm never trapped in a room with a bigot, a boor or a bore. I don't take these interactions too seriously: when an exchange becomes absurd, I treat it as comedy. — Vera Mont

Fair point Vera!

Again, that's not two alternatives; that's step 1 and 2 in the same process.
The difficult, the insurmountable word in your proposition is : giving — Vera Mont

Perhaps!

I remember a flash of Kirk Douglas playing Spartacus, flashed through my mind, saying the line 'a slave does not fear death, death is the only freedom a slave knows about.'
— universeness

You told me the revolt was all about 'love of freedom'! — Vera Mont

In what way do you think the above quote from the Spartacus movie, would impact the idea that a human slave would yearn to be free and would revolt to gain such, even if death was a likely result?

In a way - but not through or because of their presence. It's really only a few other people: the ones who can invent both a concept of hell and the means of creating some facsimile of it on earth. One of those means is convincing the weak-minded of their own right to lead and decide. — Vera Mont

Which do you value most, your own company/solitude or the company of others? Do you need both? Could you live without being able to experience one or the other?
Yeah, I also see the willingness of some, to blindly follow another, a serious problem. It's in my top 5 threats. Love can cause such behaviour, do you agree?
Other people can certainly bring hell/terror/horror into our lives. Gangsters/Nazi's or even those we love can bring such into our lives, so, is it safer to avoid other people and live a life of solitude as much as possible?

That's a difficult question, what with the qualifier tacked to its tail. — Vera Mont

I agree but for me, it's almost as critical as
1. Who are you?
2. What do you want?
How much of this life I lead, should be about me? and how much of it should be about people other than me?
As a percentage, 50/50? 60/40? 90/10? 10/90, have you thought about such?

Most of us do crave the companionship of like-minded humans, and the affection of friends, family, the love and loyalty of a mate. Of course we're self-centered, but that doesn't exclude mutual help, protection and co-operation; it doesn't preclude compassion, empathy and altruism. We - as all intelligent animals - are capable of containing and balancing a large number of drives and impulses and ideas that may sometimes be in conflict, one with another. — Vera Mont

That all sounds quite reasonable and balanced, so why such a history of tribal/national/international and possibly global war? Why has your more balanced sounding approach not been more successful in the past and can it become so in the future?

I simply believe that we can do better than we ever have in the past!
— universeness

Not at this juncture in history. Maybe someday. — Vera Mont

'Someday,' is the goal that has always been with us, even in the wilds. We have always been working and fighting for 'someday.' Perhaps we have also went to war to fight and die for that 'someday.'
Is part of why we 'war,' to bring 'someday' nearer? The only thing a slave has left to gamble, is their life.
and when the nefarious place people in that position then they show how stupid they can be, because that creates more hardmen/women than any gangster/king/messiah or billionaire can handle.

We each are doing what we believe we need to, and can. (except I'm shirking again. Hell isn't other people; other people - well, them and the scrabble game - are what I seek out as a relief from proofreading hell.) — Vera Mont

But you choose to interact with other people here/online, which I am sure, is hell, sometimes.
I agree that we are each doing what we believe we need to, but we need to keep working really hard, to prevent having to go to war against those whose beliefs we consider so detrimental to us and those we care about. We have to find other ways. Maybe the only solution that will stop us warring with each other, is an even higher level of m.a.d. The only other two possible solutions seem to me, to be, giving control to AGI or becoming one species on one planet, one global civilisation with the concept of individual nations diminishing to become a complete irrelevance.

As a 20+ I remember being in a Glasgow pub with my father.
He was not a 'hardman' himself, but he knew a few.
There was a well known Glasgow gangster in the pub, holding court with other gangsters, when I overheard him say 'I'll tell yous what a hardman is, it's just some f***er with f*** all left to lose.'
I remember a flash of Kirk Douglas playing Spartacus, flashed through my mind, saying the line 'a slave does not fear death, death is the only freedom a slave knows about.'
Over time I have thought a lot about that.
What causes humans to fight and kill each other rather than work with each other in common cause?
I know each of you could give me a long list of reasons.
I think this most important of issues has yet to be fully answered.
Is 'hell' really 'other people?'
Is it true that we love and need company but we also need solipsism to be true, but not always.
You are both intelligent people. Can intelligent people make a global human civilisation that works, or is the 'hell is other people,' concept just too strong in humans?
I simply believe that we can do better than we ever have in the past!
I don't really care how we achieve it. I have already offered my own personal top 5 horrors we need to make benign. We have spent too long in tribes, city states, nations, allies and axis, etc, at war, recovering from war and preparing for the next war. We must find ways to do better. We can talk about the past and the reasons why we are where we are now, forever.
Can we not focus on how we think we can make a better world?

Some chickens have been fully cooked. We both know it's futile to try to reverse the cooking but as I have typed many times, demonstrating how deep the cooking can penetrate into some chickens, can help others get out of the ovens in time. I think this thread is dead!

Bye bye Boris, resigned as an MP, before they kicked him out, like the coward he is and always was.

Why would thinking that children should not be forced to do what they don't want to make me a fanatic? And why appeal to jamal for support? — Janus

Theists who experience your law preventing them from compelling their children to experience their gods glory by attending their church, would definitely label you a fanatic, you fanatic!
:rofl: You think my post to Mr Jamal was a request for his support!

He equated theism with fascism and sexism in the sense that what he said assumed that theism is an evil just as fascism and sexism are evils. Read it again. — Janus

I think @180 Proof is the person who best knows what he posted, it certainly is not you. I suggest you read his posts again and again and again, until the penny drops.

So, you think fascism is, only relatively speaking, an evil? I certainly wouldn't have picked you for being a relativist. — Janus

Do you actually answer questions or can you only respond by asking other questions which are just really bad attempts to twist my questions?

Be careful when dealing with many, who claim to be atheists, they often make strange bedfellows with theists.
— universeness

Is there some sort of tribal purity requirement to being an atheist? Am I at risk of losing my atheist card for being friends with theists - for considering fellow social primates to be brothers? — wonderer1

No, Mr Atwill was talking about the various clashes he has had with atheists such as Dr Richard Carrier, regarding the veracity of the content of his book.
See https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4664 from Carrier, and see Atwill's response at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140327024645/http://caesarsmessiah.com/blog/2013/12/richard-carrier-the-phd-that-drowned-at-gadara/

Carrier supported a lot of the criticisms of Atwill's book made by theists but I think the reason Carrier did that was that he was becoming a bit jealous regarding Mr Atwill's rise to prominence. Some atheists enjoy the public limelight they have built, so much, that they will become bedfellows with anyone to attack another atheist they see as a threat to their standing/status. It's just another unpalatable part of the human psyche that can arise in some folks.

I do believe I have said - up to four times each - everything I can possibly contribute here, and so it's time to retire from the field. — Vera Mont

I hope you just mean this thread and not TPF Vera! :fear:

You wouldn't know them. They live in the orange crate I use as a footstool; only I have seen or spoken to them. The upside is, we were in the same isolation bubble, safe from the antii-vaxx militant anti-maskers all through Covid. — Vera Mont

:rofl:

I know he holds strong opinions, and expresses them forcefully. I disagree with some of them to various degrees, but I respect the hell out of his consistency of conviction and his right to express them any way he wants to. — Vera Mont

Cheers Vera! :flower: :flower:
I assume you are referring to a small part of our exchange on the 'culture is critical,' thread, yes?
We had plenty of common ground in that thread. You are a very honest and honourable interlocuter.

But yeah. Anti-theists and anti-fundamentalists are good bedfellows. — fdrake

The last two words of that sentence reminded me of a very pleasant email exchange I had with Joseph Atwill, who is the author of Caesars Messiah.

In his final email he commented:
Be careful when dealing with many, who claim to be atheists, they often make strange bedfellows with theists.

Yes, that was unnecessary. i was probably just trying to wind you up. It's a Scottish tradition; you can take it. — Jamal

:up: butyerbumsootrawindae!

I don't believe any cogent or non-simplistic arguments have been presented by the person in question. — Janus

K.I.S.S (Keep it simple stupid!) :kiss:

In any case if you can't reason with someone, you can't reason with them, and it's not your fault. For example, if someone says that religion has been and still is a net negative for humanity that is just an opinion unless backed up with data from extensive case studies. If it's just an opinion, the opiniated person is entitled to it, but as I see it are not to be taken seriously if they won't or can't provide convincing argument or evidence to support their opinions. — Janus

Yeah, do your own research lazy bones/brains, as has been typed many times on TPF, we cannot spoon feed everyone, all the time. There is not enough time to do so.

Oh shit! I hate/love tests like this. I am so good/bad at them, especially when written by a wordsmith.
F*** it, I'm just gonna go for it, I say (G) alone is fully dogmatic!
:gasp: :worry: :yikes: :death: :flower:

But it could also be interpreted not as an exaggeration. What is it to “have reasons”? If it’s to have arrived at the love through ratiocination, or if it means that reasons are somehow constitutive of it, or are the motivation for it, then the statement is accurate. I don’t decide to love someone based on a deduction. — Jamal

It’s a rich insight (though hardly an original one), so try to understand before rejecting. Be curious. — Jamal

I think the content of your post that I took the above quotes from is fair enough but I think the assumptions made in your last sentence are inaccurate. You assume I don't understand before rejecting.
I disagree.

So under that interpretation, giving or thinking of reasons post hoc is not what “having reasons” means. — Jamal

My point is that identifying reasons for falling in love with someone is not post hoc. They are present in your thoughts during the very moments that the experience starts imo, the reasoning is just very fast and 'flash like'.
You, and imo, Zizek are suggesting that such as 'oh my goodness look at her over there, I think I'm in love!!' has no reasoning behind it. I think that's untrue. It's just that all the reasons are happening at top speed in your head.
It starts with.
Aesthetically stunning ....... tick
Posture alluring (sitting or walking) ...... tick
Body language ....... tick
These reasons are manifest in parallel thought.
These are enough reasons, to attempt initial contact and it can build from there or die quickly when one of her first questions is 'are you a fanatical, militant atheist?, because if you are then you can just f*** off, right now!'
Now if you still think I don't understand the Zizek quote, then I will admit to having a 'craft' (can't rationalise a f****** thing) moment and I would appreciate more assistance from TPF members in revealing to me, what it is about the Zizek quote I am still not getting! :grimace:

I already pointed out that 180s argument, by implication, equates fascism with theism, and by extension anti-fascism with anti-theism. — Janus

He did not equate them, he compared them. He simply tried to explain to you that it is not fanatical or militant and is in fact 'reasonable' to suggest that an anti-theism position such as atheism! (that you yourself claim to be!) is a more reasoned position to hold than a theistic one. Theism is a net loss, in the atheist viewpoint, as an atheist population is one that is far more able to pursue the truth, in all circumstances, as they will not accept being told to be quiet and accept the word and laws of some unproven god. The message from most religions is:
'Don't worry your pretty little human brain with trying to answer the big questions, just do as we say, believe as we tell you, hate who we tell you and you will get your reward'after you are dead!!!'
You then state;

whereas it is a given that fascism is. — Janus

How would you respond to a fascist that called you a fanatic and a militant due to your anti-fascist views.
I am sure this was quite a common occurrence between neighbours, in 1939 Germany.
It would be a BS claim against you yes? Just like your claim that I am an atheist fanatic is in fact you just throwing your toys around, because I have a high conviction level (as does many prominent atheists and scientists and more and more highly intelligent and highly qualified theologians/theistic scholars) that theism is simply based on proposals which are untrue.

I actually think it should be illegal for parents to force children to go, or not go, to church, although of course that would be a hard law to enforce adequately. — Janus

Could'nt resist this one @Jamal Do you think this statement by Janus makes him a fanatic?
A militant atheist who is a threat to innocent theists everywhere? Honest and honourable theists, who care that their children get exposed to the god inspired, support and love of their church. The intention of the parents is to morally guide the child correctly, yes, whether or not that 'religious experience' has been consented to by the child before every church attendance.
If the comply or threat, threat, threat message of the church does not get through then such children could become fanatic atheists!!!! Is that a fair concern?
Does the above statement from Janus, add to his evidence, that justifies his typing such as:

All of those I've ever encountered with your kind of anti-religious fanaticism were once devout, or at least heavily conditioned by religion when they were young, and I'm betting you fit in that category. — Janus

I have a friend who has been a friend for most of my life. He had an arranged marriage and has two sons from that marriage. Over the years he has explained to me all the different financial and 'family connections,' established as a result, that allowed various business ventures to go ahead, that resulted in more prosperity for all the family groups involved.
He has had affairs and I think he always will. My friend is not really religious, but he does what he has to do to 'fit in' with what's expected under the muslim rules. He will never leave his wife, as the consequences would be too much for him and his boys. His 5 brothers and two sisters all had arranged marriages and the family cooperations, are well engrained and very strong.
I don't know if he has ever really loved his wife. I could never be a part of such a system, but then, I was of course, not born into it.

I personally think that I could pick any city in the world at random or even most large towns and I could find a woman there that I could fall in love with, for all the usual reasons people do.
Friendship, love, loyalty, responsibility etc are all variations on a theme imo.
Love can result in some of the best moments in your life and some of the worst, but it's not anything near to the all powerful force that many claim it is, imo. It grows or arrives and it leaves and dies.
I always kinda liked the old Glasgow idiom, I used to hear all the adults say when I was young
'when trouble comes in, through yer door, love leaves the hoose, right oot the windae.'
As I already posted, the Zizek quote does not resonate with me at all, I think it's BS.

But this is boring now, I'll leave it there and stand with idiot Zizek in opposition to your reasonable love which is what we used to call 'cupboard love' - the love of personal advantage. — unenlightened

I agree, I am bored to.

But your rationalising of your response to these feelings makes no sense to me. They are your thoughts about your feelings not any reason for having them. — unenlightened

love is a very powerful/dangerous/wonderful human emotion. That's my rationale of love.
— universeness

That's not a rationale, that is a conflicted feeling about your feelings. — unenlightened

The basis of love imo, comes from the natural imperative to continue our species, nurture our children co-operate closely with others, as a motivational aid to help generate cause, purpose, and meaning in our lives — universeness

Why did you choose to ignore this part of my rationale for the emotion of human love? Is it because that part was obviously nothing to do with 'feelings about my feelings,' The quote you did use is also not feelings about my feelings, it's love as I have observed it and interpreted it, affecting others, and myself, and it is based on what others have said to me, regarding the various experiences they have had with their 'other half.'

There is no reason to care but we do, there is no reason to love, but we do. That it promotes the survival of the species is perhaps why such attitudes have evolved in us; but that could only be the cause, not a reason. — unenlightened

You are soooo far of the mark with this! If you show you care and you are capable of love then there is more chance of you receiving such in return. People in human communities who do not do so, are considered less sociable and less able to be a useful partner, such people are often ostracised and that can mean there is less chance of them surviving or reproducing.
This happens all over the animal kingdom as well.
There are very clear reasons for caring and loving for pack/social creatures such as humans, as such enhances the possibility that cooperation and collaboration between individuals, will be successful.

Having the feelings I have is no effort at all for me, I love my wife and my children unconditionally or a Zizek says, 'for no reason' - unreasonably. And when one of them screams at me and rushes off slamming the door, it hurts, and I still love them. And there is no reason why. — unenlightened

So you are able to act like most jungle based species then. Good for you. You contradict yourself. There is no reason to love but we love anyway merely means that the nurturing mother or father instinct is the 'natural' or 'normal' state in most humans. Such are reasons why you love your spouse and your offspring. The Zizek quote is nonsense imo. The difference between a reason to love and that which causes you to love is too small to be of any significance at all, imo.

If you have reasons to love someone, you don't love them — Zizek

Are you looking for the opinion of others regarding this quote, before you offer your own?
Is another way of putting this:
If you love someone then you must have no reasons to!

What do you feel? Do you feel rational? It appears you are incredulous that I even mean what I say. But perhaps you can tell me the rationale of love? I would be most interested... — unenlightened

It would be better if you attempted to answer the questions you were asked before asking your own questions. I will be more balanced, and answer your questions first, before repeating mine.
I feel a myriad of emotions, instincts, wants, needs, preferences etc. Some seem very rational at the moment I cognise them, such as 'I feel hungry, so get food!' Some feel irrational, such as, I am really attracted to that 32 year old, very pretty, rich, female pop star. I wonder if she would go on a date with me if I contacted her and asked. That is something that I would consider an irrational thought. So, I experience rational and irrational thoughts. I tend to act on the rational ones and rarely act on the irrational ones unless the circumstances involved, offers very little choice.
The basis of love imo, comes from the natural imperative to continue our species, nurture our children co-operate closely with others, as a motivational aid to help generate cause, purpose, and meaning in our lives
I don't value love above all else in any way whatsoever.
I think only species like humans, who live very short lives, could believe that love is most important of all.
I do think however that love is a very powerful/dangerous/wonderful human emotion. That's my rationale of love. Now I have answered your questions perhaps you could attempt to answer mine.

I repeat:

Do you really feel like that? — universeness

If you truly believe 'caring is not rational,' then how would you ever be capable of experiencing love? — universeness

If all you are advocating is that people become better educated, then I have no argument with that. That said, there are plenty of highly educated theists, so I don't there is much evidence that being highly educated will lead to people rejecting their religious beliefs. — Janus

More educated in how to prevent the more nasty affects religion can have on a person individually and on the society you are trying to exist within, as a whole. I have never suggested that there are no good people who are religious. I do however, believe personally, that theism produces a net loss for the human race. I want to bring the detailed evidence available for such a claim to the top 5 of the list of what global humanity is discussing.

There is an ever growing list of 'educated' theists rejecting their religious beliefs. How do you account for such current examples as Bart Ehrman and so many others. I don't want to type a long list of current names, but I will if you need me to. There is even lists on wiki, such as 'converts to non-theism.'

I think that it's valid to state that it does not definitively follow, that anti-theism is as bad as theism.
— universeness

Insofar as either stance dictates to others, or indoctrinates them, as to what they should believe, they are as bad as each other. — Janus

Imho, @180 Proof has destroyed this argument. It is very very possible that the 'anti' position can absolutely be the better position for the stakeholders involved. The examples he gave were too strong to be denied, if you are a decent human being. Being an anti-fascist is better than being a fascist. Do you agree? I assume the only people who might disagree would be fascists!
So anti-theism 'could' be a better position than theism but! Those people like me, who suggest it is, do have to convince others by empirical evidence. That is the 'fanatical,' :roll: suggestion I am trying to make, on threads and sites such as this one. I further accept that you are of the opinion that I am having very little success in my efforts against theism, religion and theosophism.
You will not be surprised that I disagree with your assessment.
Are you claiming that you never try to 'dictate' to any other human, that they have a belief, that you are convinced they need to stop believing?
What if they believe that white people are superior to black people or vice versa?

False equivalence (like anti-fascism "is as bad as" fascism ... anti-sexism "is as bad as" sexism...) :roll:
8 hours ago — 180 Proof

I know most members on this site are not too keen on cheerleading but that was a 'knock out' sentence imo. I think even William Lane Craig would have felt the pain of that one!
I think that it's valid to state that it does not definitively follow, that anti-theism is as bad as theism.

My moral position is that this is a 'good thing', because rationality becomes robotic and dehumanising, because human nature, and the nature of all living things is to care about things,and caring is not rational. — unenlightened

Whaaaaat? Do you really feel like that? Is that unenlightened or just sooooooo sad?
If you truly believe 'caring is not rational,' than how would you ever be capable of experiencing love?

To put it plainly, an anti-theocracy, as I intended the term, would be one which banned religion altogether. Would you want that? — Janus

No one on this thread, has ever suggested banning religion or theism or theosophism, that would only increase it's status and offer it an underground cool status.
I advocate for neutralising it's ability to influence people, in the same way as I advocate against people being given medication, they really don't need. Nefarious big pharma owners make so much money from doing so, that they demonstrate clearly, that they prefer profits to the well being of people.
Horrors like the Sackler family and their wonder, but in fact horror opiate drug OxyContin, would be an example, of the analogy, I would cite.

Theism/religion plays a similar role in sooooooo many peoples lives. It can help you in the short time but the side effects and long term ramifications are problematic for most, at best, and downright disastrous, when it controls the mindset of so many powerful people/politicians, in positions of authority. Even in so called secular political systems, who claim to have separated theism from politics. :roll:
A god 'fearing' politician is a danger. I would not call for a law that only allows non-believers to hold political office, because I am a socialist and that would not be acceptable. I rely on the people to become educated enough to be able to see the dangers of religious zealots, and be able to recognise them by being able to penetrate the stealth tactics and camouflage used, and not vote for them or even learn that no-one should ever ever ever, send any of their money to such nefarious characters as TV evanhellists.