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.

I’ve read Ehrman, he’s great. — Noble Dust

Yes, and he's not anti-Christian. Much of what he says is consistent with what has been said here in terms of his finding value in Scripture. His atheism is based upon his inability to harmonize evil with there being a perfect creator, but he's very clear that it's not based upon the incredibility of reigious doctrine.

What's interesting about this case (at least according to this), is that he "has given Congress and the Intelligence Community Inspector General extensive classified information about deeply covert programs that he says possess retrieved intact and partially intact craft of non-human origin." — Michael

I wonder like if it has four foot pedals and a steering wheel that requires twelve hands or something like that.

I'm highly skeptical. It seems impossible for something like this to have been covered up for so long. — Michael

It is impossible that 100% of the time when a UFO crashes, the government gets to the scene first and cleans it perfectly outside the presence of any witness or video. And this happens not just in the US, but everywhere on the planet. And every government also must have a secret pact to conceal the information, working in harmony, even those countries currently at war, and they then store these alien vehicles in some warehouse, where every person involved has taken a solemn vow of secrecy that has never been violated until this lone voice.

For some reason the UFO stories started gaining popularity on FoxNews and in conservative circles. I guess it goes along with the government conspiracy theory thing.

So for me, there is justification for secular humanist education and some forms of assertive atheism. — Tom Storm

Your objection seems more pointedly towards theocracy than a literalist fundamentalism. You don't need to counter the religious efforts at political control by enforcing some sort of atheist control. I'd think disallowing either would be the goal.

How exactly does an allegory work to provide sustenance to a believer, any suggestions? — Tom Storm

Sure, I think it a fascinating story that posits that there is nothing is more condemnable than to have the power to discern good, evil, and knowledge and not know love.

Is that not the story of Jesus, whose necessity arose from the eating of that impregnated apple?

But that's not a story I focus on, but I get it. We don't need any actual apples, serpents, or crucifixions for that to have meaning.

Importantly, that story has the attention of a culture, and so it matters. That is where we look for meaning, so that's where we find it.

A quote from the Reform Jewish prayer book:

"Help us to see, wherever we gaze, that the bush burns unconsumed .
And we, clay touched by God, will reach out for holiness, and exclaim in wonder:
How filled with awe is this place, and we did not know it ."

That is, the miracle of the burning bush is all around us, but, obviously, there is no real burning bush. I don't see how literalism (as opposed to allegory) could work. Do we look for real burning bushes and actual parting seas?

Give me examples from the torah or talmud OR ANY OTHER SCRIPTURAL SOURCE, that you use to guide your own life and the life of your progeny but make sure the example is theistic in content or in 'spirit' and let it be held up to critical assessment by others. — universeness

But this just again misses the point. It's not that I'm evasive at all. You're just not following the argument or you're choosing not to. If I were to spill out massive amounts of theology (which I will for the sake of argument), am I really going to be interested in your cursory take of it, and do you not see that your take on it would be entirely irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether I subjectively find value in what I cited? That is, the question is not whether it passes muster for you, but you've got the impossible task of convincing me that it's subjectively valueless to me despite my insistence otherwise

By analogy, can you not see the folly in trying to convince me I'm not actually inspired by the sunrise? That you may just see the cycles of time and planetary movement isn't relevant to me.

But, since you asked, let's look at Leviticus 19:16. This sets off the prohibition of not being a talebearer among your people, which, at first glance appears to simply be a simple proscription against gossip. Let's turn though to the Chofetz Chaim, the seminal volume on Leviticus 19:16 and see what it has to say. But, let's jump ahead to Chapter 10 for the hell of it, and see when such speech is permissible. Sometimes it's permissible you say? Yes, read on: https://torah.org/learning/halashon-chapter10/

Take a look at that and outline it for me. Your task isn't to show me where it's not valid or where the analysis comes short, but it's to explain to me why it's of no significance in my life, even if I insist that it is.

Author's intentions are transcended. — Tom Storm

Along those lines, generally the interpretation of a poem isn't accomplished by cross examining the poet. That would imply the poem is a puzzle with a single answer for us to see if we can get it right

Didn't you? If an interpretation does not prove the existence of an interpreter then I shall consent to be called a fool. — Vera Mont

If defer to rabbinic interpretation as much as you'd defer to a literary critic.

I didn't defer to an interpreter.

Do you accept all of 'the story' as true? — universeness

Pay attention or leave the conversation. This entire conversation revolves around my position that the literal truth is irrelevant and the historicity of the account highly doubtful. You're a one trick pony with your only ability to point out that Christian fundamentalists have an unsustainable position.

How do you know which religious scripture it REALLY wants you to follow. — universeness

Pay attention. I've offered no special status to the text, nor suggested it is of any more divine origin than any other text.

I'm not going to restate it. Just scroll up and see if you can follow how I've placed the value in the interpretation. These are people looking for meaning, not inerrant gods decreeing truth and who can't be defied.

If the wisest if rabbis utters bullshit, it remains bullshit.

The book is holy, but the what the priest says, goes. — Vera Mont

I'm not sure what you're suggesting you're summarizing, my view or a simplified view of Orthodoxy? It sounds like neither.

Are the traditional Judaic scriptures any more reliable than the bible, as a guide to how a human should live their life?, in accordance with: — universeness

So the story goes, at Mt. Sinai, not only was the written law handed down (the Torah, meaning the five books of Moses), but also the oral law, which was passed down by word of mouth and eventually written down (the Talmud). They are read and interpreted together, neither having higher authority than the other.

This leaves open rabbinic interpretation as important as the text is itself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah#:~:text=According%20to%20Rabbinic%20Jewish%20tradition,threat%2C%20by%20virtue%20of%20the

It is also why criticisms related to simplistic literalism apply only to limited theological systems, like contemporary Christian fundamentalism, but really not to others.

Nevertheless, in my own experience, I can't think of anything I have gained in wisdom from a work of fiction. — Tom Storm

Since the value of the work of fiction is in its interpretation in terms of what it evokes from the reader and not as much in the literalism of the text, those works that have been most subject to interpretation and analysis would offer the greatest amount of wisdom.

While you might learn something of value from spending months dissecting the Grapes of Wrath, it would pale in comparison to other works that have been subjected to thousands of years of analysis, especially if those offering that analysis were the best and brightest of their time.

In other words, why would I ever select the Bible, with all its absurdity, contradiction, and violence as a fictional centerpiece of wisdom? I didn't. Others did and I benefit less from its black and white text as I do its interpretation. But that's somewhere where fiction has led to meaning.

Does it follow from this that the creator is created too? Anyway, as you might expect, I’d go a bit further and say that the creator is also a fiction. A meaningful one. — Jamal

I think your response to your own question was correct because your question implied a scientific response only to someone so programmed to look for one.

It’s kind of frightening that the idea of artistic truth seems so alien to people now. Worthy of a separate discussion I’d think. — Jamal

And an offshoot of theism, which is that there is an intentional creator, is that the non-fiction is as much a creation as the human fiction, allowing both the same sort of analysis. That is, read the tales of your life as you would a novel.

And we should assume in the best written of novels, no word is superfluous, but adds something to the novel. That is, every event matters and you matter., meaning the world could not exist without you.

And none of this requires some leap of faith. It's just a perspective (either culturally instilled or by personal decision) of how you look at things.

History is broken and remade by - fiction? That much is undeniable. And that is worth consideration by any philosopher. — unenlightened

The point is often missed that fiction and truth are not opposites. The point of most fiction, or at least the well written sort, is that it contains much truth.

That is where most truth, or at least the wisdom sort, is found.

And if we can glean deep meaning from the complex tales from the imaginations of great storytellers, surely we can do the same from turning that analysis onto the stories of our own lives and those around us.

This is to say, if we can find deeper truths in fiction, surely we can do the same with non-fiction. Science doesn't have a monopoly on analysis of the world, but the world is as much subject to literary analysis as are the creations of our minds.

The optimist thinks it will happen, come what may, thus nothing already experienced matters at all. In contrast, the hoper wants it to happen, despite everything. — Jamal

But who wouldn't be a hoper in your scenario? It would seem I could think the past has borne nothing of worth or value but stil hope tomorrow it will. Hoping is just wishing. I wish I would win the lottery, even though I never play it.

For hope to have any value, you must have the optimism it can happen. That is what causes you to act. The thought it can occur is what motivates you. Without it, you never ask that girl out, apply for that job, are do whatever you think is a risk taking venture that might pay dividends.

Why waste it on those who have lived in a religious environment and rejected it? Very few people have been complete strangers to religious ideas and need to be informed. Most unbelievers came to their unbelief through experience and do know exactly what they're missing - what they often feel they have escaped from. In many cases I know of, atheists had simply stopped believing over time because they found the doctrine unconvincing. None of these people will be lured back into the fold by someone saying, "But it works for me." — Vera Mont

I'm in favor of whatever reason proposed for not trying to proselytize, so if that's another reason, then that's good by me.

I've known people of all stripes: those that never considered religion, those that had it and left it, those that left it and returned, those that never left it, and those that weren't ever totally sure where they stood.

Like I said, it's really none of my concern to figure out where you are and to try to move you.

Optimism is often facile and banal. — Jamal

Yeah, well you know my views on this, which is radical optimism.

Sure, I'm an atheist and I don't have any particular need for religion, I just think a lot of people probably do. — ChatteringMonkey

I think this is fair to an extent. I would just change the need to want, meaning I could live without religion. I just don't want to.

Part of the assumption many make is that the religious irrationally rely upon the impossible in order to cope, as if they possess a fragility non-believers don't have. That's really not the case, and I think it's why some religious people try to persuade non-believers to their point of view because they feel that non-believers are missing out on something meaningful. I'm much opposed to proselytizing because I think it's annoying, condescending, and generally ineffective. I don't think people come to religion through badgering and I don't think it matches many people's personality types. If an atheist tells me they are fully happy without religion, I would have no reason to doubt that.

In other words, religion was being lost, and without anything to take its place, bad things happen. — Jamal

“God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we console our selves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and the mightiest that the world has so far possessed, has bled to death under our knife, who will wipe the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves? What purifications, what sacred games shall we have to devise? Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it? There never was a greater event and on account of it, all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history so far!”

Oh we have many many millions of years, not 5 more years (Hear D. Bowie below).
So how about a 100 year or thousand year or ...... year plan?
We just have to avoid extinction events and causing such ourselves. — universeness

The reference was to Stalin, hoping to illustrate that these attempts are not benign.

"either the ball is green, or the ball is not green" is always true, regardless of the colour of the ball.
I don't care about your concern with logical tautologies. In REAL human life, ALL totalitarian dictators past and present are god wannabees, and you holding up an irrelevant shiney from propositional logic, in a futile attempt to dilute from the observed behaviour I am referring to, is part of why I claimed earlier that your theism manifests in you at times, in rather sinister ways. — universeness

Yes, logic is just a shiney diversionary tactic. I'll try to avoid it.

The USSR, and China are just another two failed attempts to 'get it correct.' — universeness

WE MUST TRY TRY TRY and then ......... TRY AGAIN! Until we succeed, on a global scale. — universeness

Let's first focus on eliminating the ongoing repercussions of the last failed attempts before we start rolling out the next five year plan.

BUT, this is a religious position! All totalitarian, cult of personality, autocratic control level of a large mass of people, are IDENTICAL imo, to the rule of a king or a messiah who claims to have gods sanction, (the so called, divine right of kings) to BE what they/he/she/hesh wants to be, ie, YOUR GOD! — universeness

If you can't offer an example of an atheistic leader who is evil even in the hypothetical because definitionaly their exercise of power is "religious" in an essential way, this is all tautological. I'll stop offering counter examples to disprove your argument so that you can tell me there are no married bachelors.