You don't love a person because you love his body; you only start to love his body after you start to love his person. — Kaveski

The love I might have for someone can be dependent upon the love I have for her body. Romantic love and physical attraction are related.

Accent, word choice, grammar, speed of conversation, sentence structure, tone, and all sorts of things convey information far greater than the simple defined literal message. Conclusions are drawn even from my written message here, even though you don't hear my watered down southern US accent. You assume a certain educational background, perhaps economic status, regional bias, etc. just from how I write.

We're complex beings us humans, and the stereotypes we rely upon instinctively occur instantaneously. Those instincts may well be used unfairly to judge you, but what instincts one has say a tremendous amount about the person who has them as well.

That I hear your accent and believe you are X means I am Y probably more than that you are actually X.

But let us also not assume my instincts are necessarily incorrect because region, culture, and education all do correlate with certain attitudes and opinions, and these things also correlate with certain accents and manner of communication which are often accurately detected.

I've suggested end of July and New Year for this in the mod forum. As long as there are no objections, expect an official thread in the lounge soon. — Baden

OBJECTION!

I never waive an objection.

If meaningful interpersonal connections are the only meaning of life, then a life without any interpersonal connections is totally meaningless. — Kaveski

This isn't really an observation., it's a tautology.

If green beans are the only meaning of life, then a life without green beans is totally meaningless, right?

I know plenty of Christians that go to mixed spa's. — Benkei

Mixed spas are a European thing. We're much more uptight over here. It's a thing.

The study cited in the aforementioned thread had not been replicated but was published academically . I also mentioned the replication crisis in science in that thread. — Andrew4Handel

I did qualify my comment by saying that studies that don't strictly follow accepted methodology are less reliable, but I wouldn't say worthless. For that reason the replication crisis is significant because ideally there would be duplication of results, but realistically that can't be done given the resources, so we go with what we have.

am just attacking the notion that only science is a reliable source of evidence or that evidence has to be couched in scientific jargon citing p-values etc. — Andrew4Handel

I take as "evidence" anything tending to prove something occurred, not just the broad based claims of science. The generalizations we draw from repeated observations are not scientific until validated, but I agree we live our lives making best guesses and responding through trial and error.

From a previous discussion it seems to be that the only relevant evidence has to be a scientific study (peer reviewed?) (that study doesn't even need to be replicated or involve many participants — Andrew4Handel

Not sure what this means. For a study to be scientific, it would need to follow accepted scientific methodology which would include peer review and duplication. To the extent it didn't follow established methodology, it would be less reliable.

Anecdotes are not generalisable but can be qualitatively powerful. Trends on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter etc are a source of data most people can access. — Andrew4Handel

Isolated anecdotes are distinguished from trends in that the latter are associated with higher frequency of occurrence and predictability. . A study of trends is scientific if it follows established statistical methodology.

Quantative research can be of value, but unless you quantify the responses by categorization, it's going to be impossible to statistically present your findings in a meaningfully scientific way.

Our relationship with living creatures is inconsistent all over the place. We kill rats with a passion if infesting our house, but bury our dead gerbils. I had chicken for dinner, but feel bad for my chicken that got taken from the coop by a predator. A bug flies in my house, and I can't sleep but I can sleep outside with bugs flying all around. Pragmatics outweigh principles I guess.

All these distinctions can be sorted out, but I'm not really buying into all these hyper-technical definitions of terms, as if they are specialized terms of art with consistent usages within particular fields. It sounds like different people use the terms differently and some insist that their usage is more correct than others. You then end up with people correcting you while you're speaking by telling you that you speak imprecisely and that you offensively use terms with negative connotations. And there's the frustration.

While the distinctions might be important, the word play diverts the conversation from how we ought to treat people as opposed to what we ought to call people. My concern over insulting a transsexual person (if that's even the proper term nowadays) isn't because I have any concern I'll do anything malicious, but it arises over whether I might call them the right thing, and honestly, I don't even have reason to believe transsexuals are a hyper-sensitive bunch and would terribly care much. My suspicion is that much of this technical political jargon debate arose in academia and not among the most affected, but I could be wrong.

Transsexualism isn't really used anymore, because the feeling of gender dysphoria has little to do with (biological) sex according to her. — Benkei

That's a confusing statement. Gender dysphoria means that your internal gender identification is opposite from your physical gender. You're saying that has little to do with biological sex, but I can't see how we can subtract out the biological sex element from the gender dysphoria equation, considering having a mental state inconsistent with biological sex defines dysphoria.

Strictly speaking within the current professional vocabulary (as part of psychology and in the Netherlands at least) you can be pro-transgender and against transitioning. Pro-transsexuality is specifically about changing sex. — Benkei

I think a "not" is missing in this post, right?

At any rate, that's a confusing stance because there are many transsexuals who choose not to have surgery to their sexual organs but in all other regards live as the opposite sex. It also overly emphasizes the significance of the sexual organ as identifying the gender.

And decency. And history. Historically we have rejected men dictating womanhood to women, white women dictating womanhood to non-white women, middle class women dictating womanhood to working class women... It's not rocket science to need a better reason to dictate womanhood to trans women than the above had to assert their definitions. — Kenosha Kid

This is certainly the moralistic approach, which can blind someone from appreciating critical distinctions between past struggles, and it can cause someone to overlook the limitations available through medical science. That is, I think any fair minded person would agree with you that ostracism, bullying, and moralizing against transsexuals is an evil to be avoided, but it does not follow that the medical response helps reduce the suffering of those who are suffering. You can be pro-transsexual in every way possible and still be against transition surgeries.

What I do object to is argument that persons can change their sex. They cannot. No matter how any hormones and surgical procedures are employed, one remains XX or XY -- like it or not. — Bitter Crank

If the argument remains in the abstract, as just a debate over word usage, then it seems an unimportant diversion. We can all agree that there is a difference between XX and XY and then we can disagree and debate whether sometimes XX can be called "man' and whether XY be called "woman." The answer to that debate comes down to word usage and social constructs, that I'm sure might make an important difference to someone in a gender studies class or maybe in a philosophy forum, but probably in few other places. I really doubt that most trans people are heavily invested in the outcome of that tangential debate. From what I read, you'd think the battleground is over pronoun use, but I just can't see that's really where the trans person faces their daily struggle.

The question it seems to me is whether transgenderism is real, meaning are there actually people who identify more as their opposite sex, and, if so, what we ought do about it. If surgeries and clothing are cathartic, curative, or even mildly therapeutic, they should be available to those who choose them, with very limited input from me. Or, more simply, if a man wants to live as a woman, and that makes him happy, why the hell am I going to weigh in?

I think you can take one of three approaches here: (1) pragmatic, (2) metaphysical, or (3) ethical. Mine above is the pragmatic response, and I think that's how most medical decisions are made, where there is informed consent and a final decision made by the patient. I don't see why transition surgery should be different.

Your argument smacks of metaphysics, suggesting that it's folly to call a transitioned man a woman because he still is in essence a man because his DNA hasn't been altered. Those who bristle at such claims point out that meaning is use and considerations of essence usually break down as unsustainable. All of this is to say, unless I'm focused on the metaphysics of this, I don't care what the DNA shows.

And then finally there is the ethical, and both sides of the spectrum are guilty of this, where the left claims civil rights violations for standing in the way of trans rights and the right claims the whole thing is an unholy enterprise. And what makes the ethical folks the most difficult is their often failure to admit their approach is ethically motivated. The left insists they are basing their claims on science, yet those claims as to what science says are often inflated. The right also claims their claims are based upon science, yet with a little prodding, there is often more than a hint of confirmation bias, searching for those studies that offer support for the status quo because the time honored tradition just must be right, it just must be.

The specific causes of gender dysphoria remain unknown, and treatments targeting the etiology or pathogenesis of gender dysphoria do not exist" — Andrew4Handel

What they're saying is gender dysphoria (a mental state) is either genetic or environmental or a combination of both. That is, they don't anything about its rooot cause. It also says they can't target the cause because they don't know it, which means there's no specific medical treatment or societal change to administer to resolve that mental state. Those who have it must therefore live with it without any expectation it will subside due to a particularized response.

Based upon that, surgical modification seems reasonable. If we can't fix the underlying mental state, we can alter the body. We do, after all, know what causes a man to look like a man and we can change that. Wiki tells us the mental state is beyond our treatment.

As someone with long term mental health problems I have always believed my problems have been caused by family and society, religion et — Andrew4Handel

Yeah, but who cares what you think? You've already demanded that this discussion be scientific. You've got your anecdotes and I've got mine, but that's not science. It's just blather.

But I have been on medication for ages but this benefits the big pharmaceuticals and it and a lot of therapies blame the individual or his or her brain and not society and family.
So what is being medicalised is dysfunction and the dysfunction is not going away but being multiplied. But the "cures" are highly profitable and do not require anyone else or society to change. — Andrew4Handel

Stay on point and stop telling me about your bumpy life.
We just established from the first quote of yours above that we don't know the etiology of gender dysphoria. Why are you suggesting we require anyone else or society to change to remedy it? Your proposed solutions indicate that you have established gender dysphoria is caused by either (1) choice or (2) environment. Why? It could be genetic but you've arbitrarily dispensed with it and offered up two new therapies ignoring that it could be genetic. Your two propsex solutions are: (1) change your mind therapy or (2) change society therapy.

Assuming these new therapies are in order here (which we've extrapolated as necessary based upon the Wiki article that gender dysphoria is of unknown etiology), how do I go about changing a transsexual's mind or how do I dismantle societal influences?

In surfing around in this forum, I don’t much see jamalrob, its putative owner, but I often see you. The most conspicuous members of an oligarchy, v — Todd Martin

@Bannos not a mod. If you'd like to speak to @jamalrob, he's too important, working at the international TPF headquarters in Kennebunkport, but @Baden is his manservant and will be happy to assist you with whatever you need.

Reclining at Passover was compulsory but Jews were reclining at other meals like everybody else, not only at Passover. — Apollodorus

OK, but as to the question, why was Jesus reclining at the Last Supper, the answer is because he was required to.

Mathew 26:17 to 26:20 very specifically describes him reclining at the Passover Seder. It is not coincidental that is the ancient custom of his people. Where else in the NT does it speak of his reclining on days other than Passover?

I do think we agree though that the custom of Jews reclining while eating as symbolic of their freedom arose from the Greek tradition you describe.

There is no evidence that he reclined exclusively at Passover. — Apollodorus

Strange double negative. We have no evidence he didn't recline on only Passover. Do you have evidence he did recline on a date other than Passover? Seems if you don't, your only evidence is that he reclined only on Passover.

Well, from a Christian viewpoint Jesus was the son of God so it would be difficult to establish to what extent, if any, he was Jewish. — Apollodorus

It is generally accepted he lived as a Jew. https://dioceseofjoliet.org/discover/content1.php?secid=5 . He would have reclined on Passover. It's a basic rule of the Seder.

I don't doubt that reclining by royalty or even the aristocracy was a custom of other cultures, but any portrait of a Jew reclining at the Passover Seder can't be understood as anything other than the performance of a biblical commandment.

And, of course, that was exactly how Greek and Roman philosophers reclined during a symposium. — Apollodorus

The last supper was on Passover. Jewish law requires that you recline when eating on Passover to celebrate their freedom from slavery from Egypt. Only royalty would recline in those days, and reclining is an act of freedom.https://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/1707/jewish/Reclining.htm

Jesus was Jewish. He reclined as a Jew. .

So where do you think Jesus fits in here? — Fooloso4

He's a necessary remedy for the inherited sin brought from Adam's original sin. He suffered and absorbs our sins as long as we accept him on faith as our savior. It is through this ultimate grace of God that he gave his only son to die for our eternal salvation.

Or so the story goes.

To what extent are human beings hopeless and beyond redemption.I — Jack Cummins

That is an idiosyncratic Christian question. It's not a question in Judaism. In fact, such talk, even if aimed at yourself would seem possubly forbidden as evil speech (lashon hara). http://www.myrtlerising.com/blog/insights-into-lashon-hara-about-yourself

That is, what right does one have to criticize God's creation, regardless of whether it is your own self's creation you criticize?

This meekness, self depreciation, unworthiness, bowing before the Lord as a hopeless sinner is not a universal suffering, but a symptom of a very specific belief system.

I disagree, but appreciate why this view is (still) dominant. Ethics in the West, I think, developed in contrast to, or despite, Biblical theology (theo-idiocy). — 180 Proof

The "Christ Cult", canonized and creedally begat down massacred & martyred millennia, is a burned witches' brew of dogmatic

• inherited guilt
• vicarious redemption via (symbolically reenacted) human sacrifice
• self-abnegating masochistic "worship" of misery-torture-execution porn
• "blood libel" anti-semitism
• ritual (symbolic) cannibalism & vampirism
• child abuse by "Vicars of Christ" with threats of "hellfire" for little ones, their pets & parents if they resist ecclesiastical "grooming" for molestation, rape or other forms of sacramental sadism
• missionary demonization of non-christian "heathen savages" ...
— 180 Proof
If anything, by this list of particulars, the Christian Bible maldeveloped ethics in Western societies for at least the first millennium of Christendom. — 180 Proof

The first quote claims ethics did not develop as the result of Biblical theology, but the second criticizes (actually condemns) Christianity specifically, so I'm not sure if this is an attack on Judaic ethics as well (as it is a biblically based theology), Christianity specifically as it is set forth in the NT, or Christianity as it has been developed by the church.

I do think it's often overlooked that Judaic ethics are considerably different from Christian ones on a foundational level, despite the self-contradicting term "Judeo-Christian ethics " and both having a root source in the OT.

Judaism does not believe people are born in sin or that they are in need of salvation. People are born in God's image, with a divine soul, perfect creations of God. To the extent someone sins, he gains forgiveness not just by asking God, but by also asking the person who he has sinned against for forgiveness. The person is purged of all sin each Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) assuming he has followed the process (teshuva, the act of repentance, literally meaning returning to God) . Human sacrifice for the absolution of sin (ala Jesus) is antithetical to Judaism (recall Isaac not being slaughtered). To the extent there is a "hell," it is a place where a person is purged of his sin through forgiveness posthumously, for a period not exceeding one year (odd, I know). The point being, there is no eternal damnation.

The self-loathing, the meekness, the belief we are all wretched creatures in need of some savior is not something in the Judaic tradition. In fact, the messianic beliefs in Judaism refer to humanity reaching a perfected state without suffering, either gradually or suddenly, not through some cataclysmic war, but through the good and kind acts of humanity.

All of this can be taken very literally or entirely figuratively, but none of it can be taken to be akin to Christianity. Just thought I'd point this out, considering the comments that ethics do not derive from the Bible or that Christianity is the only way one can evaluate a biblically based ethical system.

Without valleys there would be no mountains. — frank

My head just literally exploded.

I take the position that holes do not exist. There is no difference between the Grand Canyon and the Great Plains other than location, although I am not committed to location existing because, while we all talk about it, no one can tell me where it is.

In your case, let's make it zero. — Baden

Is that double spaced or single?

I feel fairly confident I can write the most fucked up story, so I am up for it. My expectation is that the @Baden character will rarely fare well in the stories.

How many pages is a short story? I

Why would an OT ethic be the thing it replaced? — Kenosha Kid

You identified the New Testament as providing a revolutionary new ethic. In order for it to have been revolutionary, it would have had to overthrow the prevailing ethic of the time, whatever that might be. The OT ethic was at least one of those ethics pre-existing the NT ethic, so I asked what distinguished the NT ethic from the OT one that it would have had to replace following this revolution in ethics.

By having more correlates in modern ethics than others. — Kenosha Kid

I'd need a definition of "modern ethics" then to understand this comment because many of the ethical systems practiced currently originated long ago, some prior to Christianity. My question then would be whether the ethical system of Orthodox Judaism (for example) is a modern ethic, considering it is currently still being practiced, or do you mean by "modern ethics" recent religious doctrines (like Mormonism) or secular doctrines like Utilitarianism or Kantianism.

It seemed from your initial post that you were giving the nod to Christianity as having uncovered some previously unrecognized ethical truths that have proved themselves correct through some type of external evaluation. I'm just asking what that is more because I'm curious than trying to be critical of what you're saying.

Or put another way, what is it about Christian ethics that makes a true follower of it more ethical than one who does not? I'm not suggesting that you've argued that no one is ethical other than Christians, but I'm trying to uncover what special element Christianity contains that makes it of special value.

You know it's almost 2000 years old, right? — Kenosha Kid

I don't follow how this is responsive to my comment. You indicated that the New Testament was a good first stab at an ethical theory, and I pointed out that it couldn't have been the first stab if it was newer than a prior ethical theory.

Here I guess you're pointing out that 2000 years isn't "new" because 2000 years is a pretty long time when it comes to the age of human literature, but that has nothing to do with my comment that the NT cannot have been the first stab if the OT predated it and took a stab at it before.

To an extent, the New Testament is a foundational moral theory, completely revolutionary, that has mostly stood the test of time. — Kenosha Kid

What is that ethic and how was it revolutionary when compared against the OT ethic that predated it? How has its ethic better stood the test of time in comparison to other ethical theories?

It's sort of the Newtonian mechanics of morality: yes, we've moved on (or at least the secular world has), but what a first stab! — Kenosha Kid

I don't follow this comment. If the New Testament was a first stab, why is it called "new" (as that would imply an old stab that it replaced) and it contradicts your prior statement where you called it revolutionary (as that would require a revolution from an old system).

My argument is that the flood was about 30 feet high according to Genesis and the ark 600 ft long. And this ark lands on a mountain. Something doesn't add up if you want to take this literally. — Gregory

I don't see that in the story. The flood was 15 feet above the mountains at Genesis 7:20. I don't see a problem with a 600 foot boat landing on a mountain.

I find the Bible completely ridiculous — Gregory

I don't. I see it at least 4 different books pulled together into one, and, if used to provide guidance and wisdom can have some purpose, but I don't see how it can be taken literally in a serious way.

I don't believe believing in God makes someone wise — Gregory

Not sure that was ever argued here.

I don't see your three examples as contradictions. — Gregory

Genesis 7:17: " And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth."
Genesis 7:24: "The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days."

Genesis 6:19: "You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.
Genesis 7:12: "Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,

You can reads the text as saying God formed every beast of the field every fowl of the air in anticipation of what Adam would need. After all, it is talking about the mind of God in the second account, not the literal series of creation as to the first. The two sections have different intents theologically — Gregory

If you begin with the position that the document was written by God, then you are forced to make sense out of it, even if it's jumbled nonsense.

Let's look at the flood story, for instance. It lasted 40 days at Genesis 7:17, but 150 at Genesis 7:24. Noah took aboard one pair of each animal at Genesis 6:19, but at 7:2, he was said to have taken one pair of the clean animals and 7 pairs of the clean.

Genesis contains two creation accounts written at different times and later edited together. The accounts are not entirely consistent with each other. https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

That is, no, the creation story is not internally consistent, regardless of whether it can be interpreted as being consistent with evolution.

It's really not all that hard not to get banned under the current system.

The Debate was closed (I guess it's because I won :razz: ), so I thought I would pick up where 180 and I left off. — 3017amen

We don't need to guess because I was the one who closed it. It was closed due to your failure to provide an argument to support your proposition that atheism is illogical despite the insistence of the person you were debating. I closed it when you finally stopped responding to his requests.

I also don't understand why this thread was needed to pick up where you and 180 left off, considering I left the thread open for two additional days (at 180's request actually) for you to respond and you didn't. As it appears, you were given the floor, with all others specifically excluded, to make your case, but when directly challenged, you quit speaking, had the lights turned off and the thread closed, and then opened up another thread in which to hold court.

I say this with some annoyance because I do have other things to do than accommodate requests from posters and have my time wasted. I'm sure many others would have taken the special consideration they were provided more conscientiously, as opposed to your flippant response and now this thread.

In any event, you, more than any one else, has been afforded adequate opportunity to state all that you wished to state on this subject, so you should have no objection to it being closed.

The noun "God", or whatever name it is given, has yet to be shown to refer to anything in the universe. — NOS4A2

For any entity X, evidence for its support can either be direct or circumstantial. Direct would refer to a direct perception of it. If referring to God, if someone claimed to have seen, heard, touched, smelled, or felt God, then there would be direct evidence of his existence. Whether you find these accounts credible is another matter, but if someone says they felt the presence of God, they have defeated your argument that God references nothing in the universe and is a created fiction.

And then there's circumstantial evidence, which is just as valid as direct evidence, and which we commonly use to prove all sorts of things. I can be fairly certain a deer walked across my yard if I see deer prints, see deer droppings, and see trampled flower beds. By the same token, if his DNA is on her, we conclude he was with her. And so goes the teleological argument, where we see design and infer a designer. There are always other explanations of course for what we see after the fact. but as long as we apply the same epistemological standards to proving God than what we use to prove deer, we haven't violated our standards.

The debate is over and the only ongoing discussion appears to be with a now banned member, so I am closing this thread.

As do others who try to dictate to me that a male who - feels - he is a woman does feel what I do — Iris0

You'd have a similar right to take the same offense if a woman told you she knows how you feel just because she too is a woman.

That you limit your offense to only when transsexuals say it is your right as well.

None of this is terribly rational or significant to this discussion, but I suppose you have the right to be you.

You're welcome to live in the past if you want, but it seems strange to fight against the evolution of language. Why are you so opposed to us using the term "woman" to refer to people other than those with XX chromosomes and born with a womb, a vagina, ovaries, etc.? — Michael

The opposition is because it normalizes what he believes to be deviant behavior. Women are naturally occurring, whereas trans people are modified freakaoids according to that view.

Your desire to change the usage of the word is due to your desire to eliminate prejudices. There is an obvious difference between a biological female and a transsexual, but you wish to call them both women because those differences are irrelevant to you day to day (but not if you were a gynecologist or surfing a dating app for example).

Language does evolve, but different populations use words differently, and opposing groups don't have the right to prescribe word usage to the other. If I live among those who think transsexuals are deviants, I suppose correct word usage in my group would not allow them to be called women (because women are natural and normal).

None of this suggests calling trans people freaks is moral or to be encouraged, just as it would be similarly offensive to use racial slurs within a group so as to clarify your belief in their inferiority, but that sub-group would be linguistically correct in their word usage.

Of course how you speak and what you highlight with your word usage shows the sort of culture you have and what values you hold. So to those who insist a fully trans woman be called "he," I think it says only something of the speaker, but not of the woman he mocks, but I don't think the speaker has violated a language rule. He's just a dick.

What I find problematic is the desire that everyone pretends that a male is a female (or vice versa) and even actually believes they have become a female/male because of self identity. — Andrew4Handel

Do you really think a biologically born female and a trans female lack recognition of their historical and current differences and that hey live in a delusional state, or do you think maybe they see as clearly as you do, but it's really a civil rights issue and a desire not to be treated like a freak?

If you think you're enlightening anyone with your clarity, you're not. You're just demanding a rigid classification system that will do nothing more than further ostracize, attack, and bully an already oppressed and vilified super minority. You bring no light to this issue in any sense.

Since I assume you don't live with the delusion that you will effectively scold the ttans community into submission to your will, can you at least acknowledge their existence is not being made more HEALTHY by your and your ilk's berating?

think that cosmetic surgery which is self harm in many cases is a concern because it is self harm. I am not pro suicide or pro self harm. — Andrew4Handel

If a trans person is happy with the results, it isn't harm.

moral principle based on self indulgence (that is how it is nowadays) is narcissism and solipsism writ large and does not promote anyone's welfare other than ones own self ID. It is not a foundation for community/society. — Andrew4Handel

Again, you've not shown why sexual issues should be treated differently than other forms of self-indulgence, like buying a sports car, getting a face lift, buying designer clothes.

Why do trans people so offend you and epitomize for you self indulgence when their brand of self expression is so relatively rare but others so common?

Can you give me one HEALTHY reason for rejecting ones biological sex? — Andrew4Handel

Since it's in all caps, I suppose it's your critical term. What does it mean and is adherence to it universally decreed or just when it involves sexual issues?