Yes. It's an unfortunate fact that few transwomen go undetected. It's usually pretty obvious. — frank

Removing commentary from your post, I'd replace "unfortunate" with "evolutionary."

It's the biological definition being strictly applied which is novel. — Moliere

That's just not true. What's recent is the general acceptance of socially recognized female traits to biological males in Western society. That's what this change is about.

On the issue of slavery, American democracy failed. — frank

I think the rejection of slavery was evidence of a great democratic uprising and the existence of it was through great democratic suppression

For many transgender people their appear is who they are. — Tom Storm

I'd submit that gender dysphoria is exactly the opposite of the way you characterize it here. The person believes their appearance is not who they are and they try to alter their appearance to match their internal view of who they are. They did start being transsexual when they began altering their appearance anymore than did I start being heterosexual when I had my first romantic moment with a person of the opposite sex.

You can be a practicing heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual or not. The act is a manifestation of the internal state. If you want to say the act is the transsexualism, then we can wipe out a good amount of transsexualism with some makeup remover.

Slavery was made in illegal in the US by a presidential proclamation — frank

No, actually it wasn't. The Proclamation states:

"Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons."

Only the areas of the South that were in rebellion had their slaves freed, which means that in the Union states where there were slaves and in the captured areas of the South, the slaves remained slaves. So, the slaves were freed in the areas where Lincoln did not control and in the areas he did contol they were left enslaved.

Curious.

One should read this history. The basis for the Proclamation was to recast the Civil War as one over slavery as opposed to simply keeping the Union intact, so as to remove any willingness of England or France to diplomatically intervene and give credence to the Confederacy as a sovereign nation.

So obvious was Lincoln's intent that he withheld the Proclamation for some time until he he could show he was not losing the war and trying to use it just to derail the South's best strategy. He waited until he defended the southern attack directly against the Army of the Potomac just outside the nation's capital in the battle of Antietam before he issued the Proclamation, presenting it on the heels of a victory, although it wasn't quite as decisive as he had wanted.

This is to say the Proclamation was a strategic manuever.

The 13th Amendment illegalized slavery, not the declaration of a single man over a territory in rebellion that he did not control.

A transgender female will likely dress as a woman because that helps to make the transition psychologically effective for them. Should they 'choose' to dress as a male instead? It seems we're back to the word choice being used here in a slightly shady way. — Tom Storm

What I said was:

The correlation between appearance and gender identity is a choice, not a requirement. — Hanover

There's nothing shady at all going on here. A heterosexual will likely choose a member of the opposite sex to have sex with, a dog lover will likely choose a dog over a cat, and a baseball player will likely play baseball than football. By the same token, a MtF will likely choose to present as a woman. If he doesn't, he's still a MtF, just lilke I didn't become straight suddenly when I stole that first kiss.

All I've said is that actions are choices and preferences are not. What you want can't be controlled. What you do can be. If you can't understand that to be an innocuous statement, there's nothing more that I can do.

Somewhere you've read into this that because presenting as a woman is a choice that I think it's subject to moral criticism and that I'm somehow condemning it. My personal view is that I do not think the choice to present one's self as the opposite sex is immoral. I couldn't care any less about that. But, if you're sure I all I say is a ruse and that I really do care what people do with their intimate body parts, then think that and be wrong.

Don't think for one second your reputation for depravity can be restored that easily. — Srap Tasmaner

Thank you for this. @unenlightened's comments sort of rattled me a bit, having in a single sentence dismantled my life's work.

The women in Thailand don't seem to be bothered and certainly not all women are bothered. — Baden

I do think Thai culture is very different in this regard, or at least that's how it's portrayed to me from 1000s of miles away.

I'm talking primarily about MtF access to bathrooms here. I might move on to locker rooms later but the fact that in the latter case or in a case where a woman walks into a male bathroom, opposite genitalia may be exposed creates an issue of modesty and embarrassment that isn't relevant to just washing your hands next to someone in front of a mirror or having them in the next cubicle. — Baden

I had a conversation with a woman at work once regarding the use of urinals by women, and she told me that she would likely back up to the urinal as opposed to straddling it, which is something I never thought of, but maybe that makes more sense. She also asked me if guys pissed in the shower because she thought we were sort of like wild animals. I told her I didn't, but I really didn't know what others did. My guess is that there is a healthy mix of behavior in that regard.

The point here is that this separation of genders into separate facilities has left us ignorant as to what the others are doing. If we do finally shed the remnants of sexual separation, think of all that we'll learn about one another. Based upon many of the five minute documentaries I have seen on this subject, there is a tremendous amount of woman on woman sex in the showers.

But I digress.

I think this is the crux of the matter. If I claim that transwomen aren't women, you'd think I'm transphobic? — frank

I think this goes directly to my OP, which is the attempt at the disambiguation of the term "woman." There are XX women and XY women, both rightfully called "women," but two different groups. Claiming that XX individuals are not women because they don't gender identify as women seems as dogmatic as claiming that XY individuals who gender identify as women are not women.

An entire political debate centers around an equivocation fallacy where we then impose ontological status to all women regardless of whether they're XX or XY because we assume "woman" always has the same referent. From there all women play sports together because they are, afterall, all "women." Except they aren't the same type of women.

Should someone who has physically transitioned use the bathroom associated with their sex chromosomes? — Michael

Not if it's unsafe, nor should they use the opposite bathroom if it's unsafe or causes discomfort among the others in that bathroom. If there were someone who transitioned so completely that it was unknown by the others that the person was of the opposite sex, then it wouldn't matter because no one would know.

That XY who looked XX got away with the crime of using the XX bathroom I guess. It's sort of like when the kid eats at the 12 and under price but he's 13 even though he eats like a 12 year old anyway.

Not a great example, but an example nonetheless.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. — Tom Storm

You indicated that I took the position that transsexualism was a matter of personal choice. I denied that. You then provided a quote you felt contradicted my denial. I pointed out that the quote you provided didn't indicate a prior statement by me that transsexualism was a matter of choice, but that behavior was a matter of choice.

I then offered an explanation for that, describing how my heterosexuality, for instance, was not a matter of choice, but my decision who to have sex with, if anyone, was a matter of choice. That logic applies to homosexuals as well in terms of who they choose to have sex with and transsexuals in terms of how they wish to present themselves to the general public.

What we each prefer is not a matter of choice. What we each do is a matter of choice.

The threat of sexual deviance is a threat to the deepest fabric of society, the basis of property and privilege, and heritage itself, including nationality ethnicity etc. The male fear is that another man might have sex with my woman and my child not be mine. Even the women's toilets are not safe, and we must patrol them! — unenlightened

How would sexual deviance threaten to cause my wife to be impregnated by another? She'd be just as likely to get preggers whether the sex was vanilla or a total freak show.

And why am I now being accused of not being a sexual deviant? Have you not read the shit I've posted in the Shoutbox? Ten years of trying to establish a reputation down the drain with this thread I guess.

Let's take it step by step. We presumably agree that if there is no evidence trans women are more of a danger then cis women in bathrooms then excluding them on that basis is irrational. What is the next consideration for excluding them then and we can discuss that. — Baden

Assuming the only basis for gender seperation is safety and that it has nothing to do with discomfort related to sexual tension, attraction, or just a desire not to unclothe in the presence of the opposite sex (which is why I'd prefer not to use the women's locker room even if invited, despite me being in no fear of assault)

I recognize that MtF transsexuals are at higher risk in male restrooms than they'd be in female restrooms, but I've not suggested (and have stated my opposition to this) that MtFs be forced into mens locker rooms. Allowing them access to a seperate facility seems fine by me, but I don't think that equates to permitting them into the women's restroom. That is, we can protect their safety without subjecting them onto the unwilling woman population simply because women aren't as violent as men and will tolerate the transsexuals without presenting safety issues, although I would expect many to speak out.

I would assume that if I walked into the women's gym locker and began disrobing, I would face hostility from the women, even those not in fear of assualt, but just pissed off that I invaded their space and exposed myself to them.

This seems like a non-sequitur. The purpose of the comparison was simply to make the point that both in a transphobic and racist society, false justifications relating to public health and safely will be used to maintain the status quo. — Baden

I was actually reciting the way American jurisprudence treats this topic.

For example, and this references @Michael's comments:

If I pass a law that regulates the speed limit on Hwy 10 at 60 mph, but it can be shown that certain stretches are safe at 70 mph, that certain cars are safe at 75 mph, that older drivers are safe only at 50 mph, that on certain curves it is safe only at 55 mph, that at night it's safe at 57 mph, at low traffic times it's safe at 80 mph, etc, then you might have an argument that my general safety justification isn't valid in every instance. The reason this law would pass muster is that all I need to do is provide any rational justification for it and I wouldn't need to strictly scrutinize the rule because the class affected (i.e. motorists) isn't one that is particularly worrisome in terms of being discriminated against.

On the other hand, if I pass a law that seems to disproportionately affect blacks, then that law will face an entirely different type of analysis, where it will be subjected to very strict scrutiny, looking at whether there is any better way to acheive my objectives instead of attacking this historically discriminated against class.

That is why I asked whether we should treat transsexuals as more akin to blacks or to motorists. If the latter, then we are well within our rights to do what we want without paying special attention not to impact that group. I do think we've taken an overly expansive view of affording rights to more and more classes of individuals, and I'm not sure I'm prepared to add transsexuals to that mix. I can see why some might take a different stance though or to at least offer a heightened level of scrutiny to laws affecting transsexuals even if not as heightened as to other minorities.

Women are not permitted in men's restrooms even should they feel safe being there. The regulation isn't entirely safety related.

The comparison to African Americans would elevate the scrutiny under which a law is evaluated, but by making that turn, you now have to explain why you've elevated that class of people over others.

African Americans are afforded special status (as are others) due to specific laws and court decisions based upon historical discrimination. You must now explain how the transsexual experience is sufficiently similar to blacks should you want both to be subject to the same sorts of protection.

Those arguments have been made, with some positive and negative responses, some of the negative coming from the African American community, but it certainly was not a unified position.

not sure why this point was made then. Whatbehaviour are you referring to in relation to trans? — Tom Storm

A transexual and CIS woman both choose daily whether to wear male or female clothing for example.

A heterosexual and homosexual both choose who to have sex with.

The word "prefer" doesn't appear in these statements, meaning what they prefer is set, what they do is a choice.

What about those who’ve physically transitioned? Should an XX person with an artificial penis and testicles use the XX locker room? Should an XY person with artificial breasts and vulva use the XY locker room? How would a third party using the locker room even know that they’re artificial? — Michael

To abstract it:

You have an X and you want to know how it might be used. You establish that it can be used only if A, B, and C occur. An objection is raised that B is not rationally related to the objective of the rule. What then follows is whether it's rationally related.

There will obviously be disagreement, but we can only make rules as best we can.

More concretely:

We distinguish on the basis of "men" and "women" In a variety of contexts: locker rooms, bathrooms, sports teams, individual dating decisions, social presentations, and I'm sure others could be identified.

Some of those distinctions are arguably worth preserving, like perhaps the locker room or sports teams examples. Assuming that, which @Banno challenges, and which I disagree, we have to now define the signs above the door, meaning what are "men" and "women."

I do believe that in many of these instances XX and XY accurately describe what the speaker meant when he hung the sign, not what the word eventually evolved into and what it was meant to protect.

If the rational basis for maintaining the historic distinction is comfort or perceived safety of the vast majority of users, that seems sufficient to me unless you wish to override the majority with a declaration of special minority rights that hasn't previously been declared. That is, unless the regulation of a transsexual from certain restrooms is a violation of human civil rights guaranteed under some special rule, the majority has the right to enforce their rule, even if it does not precisely and exactly achieve its every goal under every hypothetical.

Sounds like a pretty weak argument - the church used to say to gay people (and still does), 'It's ok to be gay, just choose not to love another man or have sex with one." — Tom Storm

That may be a weak argument, but it's not one I made. I never suggested transsexuals shouldn't express themselves. I'm not real sure what you're responding to.

What I said is that sexual expression is a choice. That one chooses to have sex with men, women, as a man, as a woman, or however is not of concern to me as long as it's consensual, meaning by choice.

You're reading things in my posts that aren't there and then telling me you disagree with what I didn't say.

I wish Christie had a chance, but I don't expect him to last. He's a solid opposition voice, although that seems to be more the result of Trump shunning him by not rewarding him for his support following Trump's (actual) presidential win. Who knows. If Trump had embraced him early on, maybe he'd be another Rudy Giuliani clown show by now.

Trump's father Fred lived to 93, so it looks like maybe Donald will actually live through all these trials.

But then one might ask, are F to M transsexuals at risk of attack while using men's toilets? I suppose it would depend on the toilet. A F to M could safely urinate in the toilets of the Campaign of Human Rights, but maybe the toilet at Tea Party HQ, or a really rough biker bar would not be a good place to test things out. Is anyone safe in a Tea Party toilet — BC

Since you point to this, I'll better respond.

I didn't focus on the safety issue as the basis for my bathroom signs, although I can see that as being an issue more a concern for CIS women than CIS men because CIS women are genetically physically weaker than CIS men and are statistically far greater at risk of assault than a CIS man is, so the FtM issue would be less an area of safety to consider.

But in any event, our dearth of women in this thread deprives us of the first hand account of whether they would feel threatened by a FtM in their gym locker.

One of the criticisms we can make of the Cis understanding of the issue is that we often seem to think trans, or being gay for that matter, is a lifestyle choice and people can stop 'doing it' just like they should say 'no' to drugs, etc, etc. — Tom Storm

I've not suggested one can choose not to be gay, straight, CIS, or trans. I said one can choose one's behavior, which is true.

I can choose to not have sex with women despite being straight. Such is a prerequisite for consent, without which one can't legally have any sex.

As Judith Butler said in that video, the important thing now is to nurture a climate where trans people aren't subject to violence. Over zealousness doesn't deescalate tension.

What do you think? — frank

Safety first, yes. Should violence occur, I would blame the actor, to a much less extent someone specifically inciting it, to no extent someone who just has a different point of view, even if they hold it passionately.

Hmmm. A choice for whom? — Tom Storm

Whether to present as a man or woman is a choice to the person doing it. Do you suggest otherwise?

Or is "modesty" a proxy for some other problem, unaddressed? — Banno

You have no idea about the darkness that lies within.

Where the community is generally opposed to it, they'll act accordingly. — frank

I'd argue that democracy doesn't work that way, as if a vote occurs and the lovers take their lumps and the winner gets his way. The losers protest and continue to push back. I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing, but democracy doesn't equal harmony.

Republican politicians find that they stand out when they approach the edge of decency — frank

I suspect they think themselves decent.

And what do you think is the issue here? What's the problem that results from folk wandering around naked? Fill it out. — Banno

The concept of modesty may seem quaint to you, but it is an area of concern for most cultures, and asking that it not be respected across gender lines is certainly as culturally insensitive as forcing a transsexual into a locker room opposite their gender.

This is to say, I think a CIS woman is within her rights not to be expected to shower with the men today due to her locker room being full.

But you tell me, why don't you show up tomorrow at work just in your shirt like Winnie the Pooh?

But this was addressed in the OP. I didn't suggest an XY transsexual be forced into an XY bathroom specifically for the reasons you're identifying.

Should a MtF preop be permitted to walk about in the women's locker room fully naked?

Should the MtF play on the CIS women's soccer team?

That is, is there an instance where you would permit desparate treatment of XX and XY persons who both identify as women?

If the answer is no, then that speaks to an unrealistic understatement of the impact of genetic composition on behavior.

think bathrooms should be unisex, like all of mine have been at work for the past 35 years. — Tom Storm

The broader question is whether it's appropriate to designate XX women as such when that designation matters. To assert it doesn't matter in the bathroom scenario simply avoids the question momentarily until the scenario meets your approval to then have to consider unless you take the approach it per se cannot matter.

So, substitute for bathroom, gym locker room, which does in fact have fully naked people walking about.

This question is usually a surrogate for: 'Is transgender identity legitimate?' — Tom Storm

That's not what this thread is about. I made that clear.

It's interesting that no one ever raises the issue of female to trans-male. No one seems to care and perhaps this says something about attitudes to women more generally. — Tom Storm

Either that, or I didn't think it mattered, so I chose MtF.

Do we want to create a separate category of female that forces all trans people to out themselves as trans? — Tom Storm

When it matters we do. If it's an XX sports team, then XYs shouldn't be on it. Keep in mind, even if we're creating a sport team based on gender identification, we are going to require the person out themselves if they identify as a woman but appear entirely as a man.

The correlation between appearance and gender identity is a choice, not a requirement.

The double standard argument

It strikes me that responses to the indictment being made by Trump supporters and Republicans, which seem mostly based on tu quoque arguments, — Ciceronianus

The equal protection clause, or at the least the general principle underlying it, does give certain power to the tu quoque argument. The requirement is that you treat similarly situated people similarly, and it would be problematic to basic notions of fairness if it could be shown that a Democratic leaning DOJ was prosecuting only Republicans but allowing Democrats to do as they wish for similar conduct. One's political affiliation shouldn't dictate how they're treated.

I don't think there is any moral or legal equivalence between Biden's misplacement of confidential documents and Trump's intentional concealment of documents, but I can see the hypocrisy argument being advanced, considering they have little else to go on.

That doesn't make sense to me. First of all, demand is driven mostly by consumer society "the rich North", which are countries that have managed to align on a lot of policies already. If we change what we allow to be imported, we can effectively change policy abroad without getting those countries explicitly on board. — Benkei

You're suggesting an alignment by the rich north to impose economic sanctions on China and Russia in the hopes of altering their behavior and bringing them in compliance with Western economic policy. Seems like a hostile approach that might result in worse immediate outcomes than the long range consequences of global warming.

Looking at this the other way, would the US alter its policies based upon Chinese tariffs, or would it double down on the idea of achieving economic independence? I tend to think the latter, which just means that I don't think we can expect to force our opposition to our way of thinking by withholding some of the things they want.

Second, even if that doesn't work, our behaviour will change the speed at which the climate crisis unfolds, giving ourselves for time to adapt. — Benkei

This accepts my premise, which is that we're on an inevitable collision course. If that is the case, maybe focus all our attention right now on finding methods to adapt and allowing climate change to continue occurring at its current pace.

For example, if the water is spilling over the dam, we could throw bags on there to give us ten years (instead of five) to figure out how to protect the village below before the dam fully collapses or we could just start figuring out how to protect the village right now in anticipation of the dam fully collapsing in five years. That is, do I want 10 years of expensive, futile labor or 5 years of status quo, followed by the same outcome that I more quickly prepared for.

We could argue over which idea is best, but they are both reasonable alternatives.

Third, a lot of adaptation will already be in place of we start now instead of later, making it cheaper, more manageable and less disruptive. — Benkei

I think we should start now. That's what I was saying. Chop chop.

Fourth, I don't believe where there's an issue that affects us all we cannot find common ground. — Benkei

That's just unfortunately not the case. It's why there is war all over the world. I'd like to think we could sit down with Russia, China, North Korea and whoever else and work through all this. If we could do that, then we'd resolve issues far more pressing than climate change as well.

We are not having to do it without China. At the moment, we are having to do it without you. — unenlightened

:rofl:

I suppose I could better cooperate from time to time.

The truth is though that my carbon footprint isn't part of the real problem. I'm just a rank and file citizen, limited to purchasing whatever might be in the marketplace, which means I can't buy a toilet that uses the amount of water I had when I was younger and I can't fill my car with fully leaded gasoline. I'm doing my share willfully or not, but it's all doubtfully doing a whole lot of anything.

Then I suggest learning more about the topic. This is pure ignorance. — Mikie

I cited my source for the proposition that climate change policies that are not adhered to by major climate change contributors will not be effective.

Additionally, I presented a judgment, which addresses what I wish to achieve, so it's not a dispute over what the science shows, but what my goals are.

What I want is to maintain economic and political superiority over other nations and my current standard of living. This, along with the fact that great sacrifice in this area by me will be greatly diminished by non-compliance of other nations, and those nations will gain a competitive advantage, I choose to focus on responding to climate change as opposed to stopping it.

To the extent there are token measures that I can engage in to appease my opponents so that they will have less political influence over me, I will do that. That is, I'll drive an electric car and pretend it matters, if that means I can avoid more restrictive efforts.

This isn't ignorance at all. It's an evil to a competing worldview I don't share. I see capitalism as a force of good and the planet as a morally neutral entity. My effort is to maximize productivity because with that comes greater personal freedom and a higher standard of living. This view predominates, even if it is very counter to your own view, which is why a good part of the world is doing as it's doing.

If the goal is in reducing the environmental impact of humanity in the planet, my focus is terribly flawed. If it's the other goals I've pointed out, it's not.

Since this is all scifi wild horseshit speculation, why don't we just suppose the aliens live on clouds, cloaking themselves in watery costumes, coming down on raindrops and returning for supper in a mist of evaporation, riding the watercycle on a waterhorse named Potatochip?

It just seems like if your concept of UFOs requires you to work through various physics with space travel priblems and whatnot , then your creative writing isn't creative enough.

I'm not a climate change denier. I'm a climate change regulation denier. I believe the best scientific evidence shows that without global cooperation, our efforts at climate change will be futile. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3219914/we-cant-solve-climate-crisis-without-china-head-german-environment-body-says

I do not believe any regulatory system that depends upon universal harmony and peaceful cooperation is worth taking seriously. If we do achieve that utopian state, let's first get Russia out of Ukraine. That seems more pressing than the smoke in New England.

I also think climate change policies will weaken those nations that adopt them economically and politically. We live in a politically hostile world and that weakening will cause more immediate dangers to safety and well being than rising tides.

That is, I'll concede man-made climate change, but still contend maintaining the status quo is the best solution and dealing with the climate change as it comes is the best course.

The judge convicts the defendant for the reason that the judge deems the defendant to have been under a social obligation to determine his actions in accordance with the law; and, the defendant, from the judge's viewpoint, did not determine to negatively do a requisite inaction. — quintillus

What the judge did was that he listened to the evidence, did his best to figure our what happened, then looked to see if the facts as he believed them to be violated the law, and then entered his ruling.

If that's what you meant, then I agree. If not, I don't.

But let's say we had a jury and not a judge in your example. If the jury were instructed by reading them what you just said, who knows what they'd do. They'd probably send back a question asking for an actual instruction of what they were supposed to do.

When I first encountered these radically unusual constructs, I was exceeding at sea; — quintillus

This is a good example of a meaningless metaphor about an ocean. Try this instead, "when I first came across this idea that I've convinced myself is too complex for the common man, I was in over my head. Fortunately, I came up with an obscure language to describe it. That way, people won't really know what I'm talking about, and I can hide behind the confusion I create. And, if they call me on it, I'll just tell them to work harder like I had to before it all came together."

My guess is you'll get a lot of folks not to play along.

action...but the convicting judge thinks the law determines him, and, that it must necessarily determine, by its stolid requirement, the other fellow too... — quintillus

The only reason a judge might care what motivated the criminal to act is if the application of the law would change based upon the motivation. For example, hate crimes require a certain motivation, and perhaps if one were acting in the defense of others, that motivation might mitigate things.

But, to your point that the judge thinks the law must determine folks' behavior, I doubt the judge is so naive. He probably thinks people steal, for example, because they wanted something for free and didn't care about the law.

I continually work to enunciate existential ontological precepts in the plainest possible language. — quintillus

Despite your best efforts, you do a terrible job of it.

What exactly would a modern ‘Luddite’ aim to destroy? — I like sushi

They typically look for the greatest source of knowledge and progress so as to assure themselves a meaningful future where they can still compete.

Yes, you've probably figured it out. I'm referring to the very Shoutbox itself.

<shudders>

I remain saddened that neither man could understand that their motivation/drive to try to improve the lives of their fellows, was fully credited to themselves and not a god. — universeness

The question dealt with what harm there was from the good acts that resulted from the belief in god, and your response here is that it makes you sad. Other than that consequence, you need to describe the negative impact of their religious motivation. If there isn't one, then you have a pragmatic justification for a belief in God. It's entirely irrelevant whether one could have done the same thing without such a belief. What is relevant is that in those instances, that was that motivation.

If people do right for what you designate as the wrong reason, you are left with an absolutist definition of wrong, which suggests consequences are irrelevant, but that there is a over-riding principle that determines what is a right reason. This over-riding principle has already been identified in other posts, and it is what we are referencing as "atheistic dogma." That dogma holds that any belief not empirically justifiable is to be discarded, regardless of the utility it might have in bringing about good to the world or to the individual believer.

If you don't feel you must give justification for this principle I have just identified, then that is the very definition of dogma.

If you suggest that any use of non-empirically based justifications for beliefs will necessarily result in some negative consequence, you will have to show empirically what that it is. If you can't, you will be in violation of your own principle, and you will actually be invoking faith as your basis. That is, if you are sure that at some level the acceptance of belief without empirical proof will lead to negative consequences somewhere down the road, and you have no empirical basis for that belief, you are simply bowing down to your principle as infallible without proof.

Satisfied swine rather than sad Socratics? — 180 Proof

And so that's your dogma, which is a corruption of the Mill quote. Mill didn't suggest the swine were those who willed to believe a particular way to advance their happiness, but the swine were the ones who chose a hedonistic path of physical pleasure as opposed to the intellectual path of Socrates.

You metaphor is Biblical by the way, with the unkosher being the pig. Socrates is what in this metaphor, pure intelligence, God himself, your ideal?

This is just to say that choosing a worldview that leads to a more meaningful life need not be represented by swine. That is just your dogmatic bias.

I think religion will fall away when and if people no longer need it. — Janus

So will science, but neither will happen.

What about 'magical thinking' 'delusion' and 'willful ignorance' – you don't think they are "major contributors to the array of problems humanity faces"? — 180 Proof

As William James says, "The ultimate test for us of what a truth means is the conduct it dictates or inspires."

This I would apply to the moral more than the mundane. I realize a bridge can be built only a certain way.

So even should a belief in God be entirely delusional, if it should lead to greater happiness, and should its disbelief lead to misery, you'd be hard pressed to explain why we should accept the cold hard scientific misery unless you hold that adherence to empirically motivated beliefs is always righteous. Such would be a basic tenant of your dogma.

And should you suggest that the acceptance of the scientifically unprovable as fact will necessarily lead to misery, then you again are only asserting dogma.

Belief is a choice and a choice is a judgment and judgments are based upon criteria. If your sole dogmatic criterion for choice of what to believe is whether the fact is empirically justified, then such is your dogma.

Explain why the person who lives a fulfilled life, positively contributing in every way to society, and who does that as the consequence of his deluded belief in the most basic anthropomorphic God and simplest literal interpretation of scripture, is worse than the strict scientific empiricist who suffers terribly from the hard knowledge that life is devoid of purpose.