But if the law requires that one's biological sex determines which bathroom one can use then plenty of women will be outraged by Leo Macallan in a women's bathroom. — Michael

Sure, and I wouldn't support such a law. However, I don't believe that male genitalia belongs in women's locker rooms under any circumstances.

I have heard of incidents where FtMs enter women's locker rooms, and it leads to chaos.

Trans men get erased from conversations like these because men tend not to care if trans men use their spaces. Nobody will be outraged by Leo Macallan in a men's room.

Blaire White belongs in the women's room, but not all trans women do.

One concept that needs to be addressed is that "trans woman" can mean virtually anything physically from Mike Tyson to Blaire White. As long as the Tyson-esque male espouses that he is indeed a trans woman, then to doubt him would be considered improper/out of bounds in today's discourse. Perhaps he is. Who are we to say?

We can sort trans people into those who undergo medical transition and those who don't. Still, one can be transgender and not undergo medical transition. Then there is the further distinction between trans women who have undergone bottom surgery and those who have not.

In the past, I've heard that trans women would typically wait until they "passed" (a subjective measure) or were on HRT for an extended time before using a women's bathroom, but these days, anything goes - and so the legal pushback was needed. What we're seeing now is trans backlash, brought about by the trans movement's impulse to erase the deep-rooted categorical distinctions of male and female. The movement was on its strongest ground when it aimed for integration.

Murder is a specific type of killing, one that is uniquely wrong. It involves making the innocent one's target. — BitconnectCarlos

What about Trolley Car? The innocent is the target (or, you're slapping a big target on the innocent when you throw the switch which seems like a distinction without a difference) — RogueAI

Sure, and the trolley problem is a fringe but interesting case. We can play around with the number saved. It leads us to other questions like: Is murder OK if there's a greater net benefit to the community? It's a thorny issue; no easy answers.

Popper says:

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies

So, on Popper's view, we do let the intolerant fester for a bit, as long as they can be kept in check by the public (and rationality claims Popper, but in my view, mainly just the public).

The way out is to find a value, something which distinguishes proper intolerance from improper intolerance. Popper provides that value in the second quote you give, and it is something like free speech and inquiry. That is why things like cancel culture would be abhorrent to Popper: because they are opposed to his "Rationalism." — Leontiskos

It's proper to allow free speech and inquiry, but Popper makes an interesting point when he says

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

It's really a matter of keeping them in check by public opinion, but if the number of intolerant/fanatical people/opinions starts creeping up, at what point do we take action? Presumably, the more prevalent the intolerant, the more swift and severe the response must be.

I have little faith in rational argument as a counterforce to those who are truly intolerant.

The trouble with divine commands is that they are local to a subset of people. A divine command can be used to dismiss someone who accepts the divine command, but it has no force over someone who does not accept the divine command. It does no good to tell a would-be murderer about God’s command against murder if he doesn’t believe in God. — Leontiskos

Sure, we can use other reasons to try to convince the non-believer. We could even appeal to his moral system, assuming he has one. Even in that best-case scenario (where the nonbeliever has a secular system that he follows), he might not care or have some other overriding concern that trumps the system. The question of moral motivation is a different matter from moral philosophy.

I heard a statistic yesterday that around 1 in 5 young people condone stealing from large corporations, depending on the circumstances. We can use non-religious reasons to try to deter them. For instance, we can tell them that stealing from grocery stores leads to higher prices for everyone. There will always be those who just aren't motivated, though, and for those, we unfortunately need to lay down the law and ensure this type of behavior is disincentivized.

Okay, so it sounds like you now think there is something other than divine commands which support this prohibition. — Leontiskos

I've already said that I see some merit or legitimacy in other reasons to not, e.g., commit murder, but the only one that truly gives murder the quality of moral wrong or evil is DCT - at least in my view.

That something is morally wrong does not mean no one would ever do it. — Leontiskos

Sure, but what I was getting at is that there are fringe cases (of murder, for instance) where the murder may occur outside of society, or the murderer's psyche truly wouldn't be affected by it.

...Continuing, we might say, "It functions fine as a general rule, but it's unserious when said to, e.g., Hitler preparing to exterminate the Jews." Hitler killed innocents, but it does not follow from this that it is not wrong to kill innocents. Whether or not the navy captain is right is not determined by what he does, as if the killing is made right by his doing it. — Leontiskos

The difference here is that the navy captain and bomber pilot are necessary; Hitler murdering all the Jews is not. What is necessary cannot be evil.

Anscombe does not hold that everything which is necessary for war is permissible. That is in fact her broader point regarding the nuclear bomb. — Leontiskos

I don't think she viewed the nuclear bomb as necessary for the war.

I'm fairly confident you're misreading Anscombe, as a side-effect is not intended. But Bob Ross and I beat this to death a year ago, and the topic will take us too far afield. — Leontiskos

Yes, the side effect (deaths of the innocents) is unintended; therefore, the innocents are not murdered by the bomber, but rather killed.

Okay, so then you don't think, "Do not kill the innocent," is a rational statement? There is no reason not to kill someone just because he is innocent? — Leontiskos

It functions fine as a general rule, but it's unserious when said to, e.g., a navy captain preparing to attack a port or a bomber pilot preparing for war.

Morality must be practical/doable; otherwise, it is useless, if not worse than useless.

Okay, so maybe you think the statement is rational because it harms the murderer. — Leontiskos

Sure, we could say that - it would be true as a general rule. Perhaps there are some hardened killers out there to whom one more death would mean nothing.

Nothing that one does by accident is wrong per se, and this of course includes accidentally dropping bombs on the wrong people. — Leontiskos

Even if the bomb is dropped intentionally on a legitimate target with the knowledge that innocents are inside and that death will likely result, it is permissible under double effect. It is not the same as murder.

But coming back to the point, do you think that intentionally killing the innocent can only be seen to be wrong via divine commands? Or do you think that one can understand that intentionally killing the innocent is wrong even without the help of divine commands? — Leontiskos

For me, the overriding force behind the prohibition is DCT. I agree with you that the murderer does not belong in society (so I do see merit in other reasons). Perhaps the murder occurs where there is no society, though.

All I'm saying is that if I had to pick the main reason, it would be DCT although I do see merit in others. I'm sympathetic to the idea that murder really damages the psyche or soul of the murderer. And as mentioned, I agree that the murderer is unfit for society.

I am not a divine command theorist. I think murder is wrong because it involves killing the (legally) innocent. On this view the prohibition against murder is just a particular variety of the prohibition on killing the innocent.

So with reference to the OP, we might exclude someone who kills the innocent. You yourself claimed that this is beyond the pale. We might ask the OP's question, "Why?" I gave a general answer <here>. A more fine-grained answer would delve into the notions of guilt, innocence, and desert. To kill an innocent person is to give what is not due; what is not deserved. The irrationality arises from this disproportion of desert. — Leontiskos

I think one could kill the innocent and not be wrong. Anscombe's paper on the doctrine of double effect really hammered home this point for me. She'll use an example, e.g., a bomber flying a mission against a weapons factory who incidentally ends up killing innocents.

Bombing ports or weapons factories is necessary for war, and Anscombe holds that what is necessary cannot be evil.

Murder is a specific type of killing, one that is uniquely wrong. It involves making the innocent one's target.

.

But in any case, what is at stake here is the question of whether there is a non-instrumental rationality that could ground moral claims, making them more than merely instrumental or hypothetical. — Leontiskos

If I were to ask you to give your fundamental reason why murder is wrong, what would you say? For me, it's probably because God/the Bible/the universal lawgiver says so. I'm inclined toward divine command theory, and my outlook is fundamentally biblical.

When you think about it, the murderer could have possibly done the victim a favor. Perhaps the victim gets a better afterlife because they were murdered. Or perhaps being dead is better than the pain that awaited the victim had they stayed alive. There are just so many unknowns, yet we all fervently believe that murder is wrong. We don't know the 30,000-foot view but still cling to the rule.

I rejected Kantian attempts to account for morality years ago. I suppose murder could be irrational in the sense that committing murder is often terrible for the mental health and life (soul?) of the murderer. That's fair to say.

Okay, that's fair enough as far as it goes.

At the risk of derailing my own thread, are you comfortable with the inference that anger or moral indignation is never rationally justified if there is nothing beyond instrumental rationality? — Leontiskos

In that case, at most, the moral indignation would be only instrumentally rationally justified. Of course, there's rationality beyond instrumental rationality; Logical reasoning exists.

Are you comfortable with the inference that no course of action is more or less rational than any other course of action? — Leontiskos

We need to distinguish between different types of rationality. Regarding instrumental rationality, certain decisions are definitely favored over others. Once we agree that Western civilization or our religion is worth preserving, we can talk about rationality towards that end. Rationality absent an end is a different matter...

Is that right? If so, Aquinas would find this quite amazing. — Leontiskos

I think that's right. I see fighting terrorism as instrumentally rational in that it preserves Western civilization and our religious heritage.

Aquinas is not a part of my religious tradition.

Isn't that it is recognized as a war crime enough? — ToothyMaw

The deliberate murder of innocents can sometimes be understood as a form of resistance. A popular slogan today you'll see at protests is "You don't get to choose how we resist," i.e., the oppressed ought not be bound by such restraints when throwing off their shackles. You really don't have to look far for such thinking.

I altered my post. The discussion can continue but in a different capacity. You become like a priest to them, trying to get them to see the light. It's no longer philosophy so much as moral reformation.

Okay, but why should wicked people be tuned out and ignored? Is it supposed to be self-evident, such that no real explanation is possible? — Leontiskos

You can continue; it just turns into a different type of discussion. Now, you're trying to curb them from their view rather than engaging in objective philosophical discourse.

The most interesting and prevalent case is the overtly moral case, where KK is construed as evil in one way or another. Very often we are invoking moral blame when we assess someone’s beliefs in this way, and this is a curious phenomenon. Is it rationally justifiable? Do we have to downgrade our moral dismissals to non-moral dismissals? At what point is a moral dismissal justifiable? — Leontiskos

For me, it's when certain moral lines are crossed. When one side condones or mitigates the deliberate murder of innocents, I tune out and ignore them. Civilians have always died in war, but the question is always whether they've been intentionally targeted or were collateral damage. If someone is downplaying or supporting the intentional targeting of civilians because they belong to a certain nationality, that person is wicked. I don't know how else to put it.

I don’t think Judaism itself dictates a 12-month purgatory (e.g., there are plenty of jews that believe in eternal punishment); and Islam is also an Abrahamic religion. — Bob Ross

Twelve months is the max. Not everyone stays the full term. The word here is 'Gehenna,' the same one Jesus talks about in the gospels and we would translate to hell. Jewish tradition says that Gehenna was created before the world and is much more vast.

Penance is a duty, an action in Christianity that's like prayer, alms giving, or as we can see in the very next few lines... Fasting. — DifferentiatingEgg

Ok, let's say we go with penance.

"I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance."

If penance is a duty, then sinners are still bound by duty. We can adopt a non-judgmental attitude about it, but duty hasn't vanished. If one hasn't fulfilled a duty, then one has fallen short; one has done less than what is required or expected of them. What do we call falling short of a duty, then?

That's from Douay-Rheims, which is the most accurate to the Latin Bible. — DifferentiatingEgg

Ok. So you're going Greek -> Latin -> English. Why not just do Greek -> English like most translations? The Greek is there.

The earliest Greek transcripts (150-200 CE) show this:

ἐλήλυθα καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν

Metanoia is the word in question here, which is repentance. Virtually all the Christian Bibles (NKJV, ESV, RSV, etc.) agree on this —at least the ones that translate from Greek.

I was reading Martin Buber's "Two Types of Faith" today, and he just happened to note in the chapter that I was reading that the Hebrew teshuva (repentance) is rendered metanoia by the Greek translator.

It seems like, by my lights, a just God would have to punish people finitely and proportionately for their sins; then perhaps annihilate or reunite them. — Bob Ross

This is the common Jewish view. Some souls are beyond repair; others can be purified and brought into the divine presence. The truly wicked will face justice and then go to oblivion.

Repentance and Atonement is of Judaism, and has nothing to do with Christ. — DifferentiatingEgg

"I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” - Luke 5:32

There are three broad paradigms I think one can identify here: infernalism (Hell as temporally unending punishment), annihilationism (the eventual destruction of unrepentant souls, also an "eternal punishment" in that it never ends), and universalism (the eventual reconciliation of all and total destruction of all sin) All seem to be very old and each have been advocated for by some of the universal Fathers and Doctors of the Church (the more influential saints). Notably, most ancient universalists, unlike modern ones, still think people go to Hell, just not forever. Indeed, they tend to think virtually everyone goes to Hell for purgation for some time, Mary and Christ might be the only sure exceptions (and Christ still goes for the Harrowing). And they tend to think salvation and deification come exclusively through Christ (so they would be exclusivists in modern terms). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Infernalism is absent in Jewish tradition. As I understand it, the souls of the truly wicked will be annihilated (those whose souls are beyond purification), while the run-of-the-mill sinners will undergo purification in Gehenna and then reunite with God. The truly righteous spend no time in Gehenna.

Then there's the resurrection, which is Jewish dogma according to Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith. I've heard several versions of this, depending on the text. In some, only the righteous are risen. In others, the righteous are risen to reward, while the unrighteous are risen to punishment.

The scariest accounts in the Jewish tradition enlarge the number of the unrighteous and make them non-existent. As it says in Malachi on the day of judgment:

"Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act"

I sometimes wonder what nothingness entails. All I can figure is that being is good according to the creation account.

None of this even attempted to answer the OP: what we are exploring here is whether or not it is just for an unrepentant sinner to be eternally punished for their finite sins. — Bob Ross

In eternal pain? No. In their souls being annihilated? That may very well be just. I don't see non-existence as necessarily being a punishment.

But not one that is full of the resentment of weak minded nationalist who believe that nationalism equates to self determinism. — DifferentiatingEgg

What is your idea of Zionism, then? Any ethnic group in the Middle East must be able to defend itself, and this entails statehood. Relying on Arab nations to look after their minorities has not been a winning strategy.

Accuse me of islamophobia all you want; I am not an apologist for murder. I don't care if that murder was in 1948 or 2023. You will never find me supporting the deliberate murder of innocents.

What Hamas did on 10/7 was evil in its purest form. Yet, there is a movement that sympathizes with and supports that evil. So call me stupid; at least I don't stoop to the level of sympathizing with genocidal Islamist murderers. Better stupid than wicked.

Violence is a necessity of life. And yeah, they got a right to defend their land as they see fit, especially with dumbasses like you asserting foreign Jews can take their land as they see fit. — DifferentiatingEgg

If violence is a necessity of life, then so it is for the Zionists as well.

If the Palestinians have a right to defend their land, then so does Israel when rockets are launched, and Israelis are murdered or attacked. Yet such a thing happens when Palestinians are taught from the cradle to hate their neighbor and that all that is theirs belongs to them.

I was thinking of Job's interlocutors, the Disciples' questions at the opening of John 9 as to whether a man was born blind because he sinned or his parents, etc. The idea that good fortune is a reward and bad fortune a punishment shows up in the wisdom literature and the Psalms quite a bit too.

I would agree with you that it isn't a major theme promoted by Scripture. Indeed, Scripture often seems to argue directly against this view. I am just saying that, because Scripture feels the need to address this view, it must have been at least somewhat common.

And that only makes sense, it's hardly like American Protestants invented something totally new with the prosperity gospel. The idea that people's standing depends on their goodness has been common across a lot of cultures throughout history. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. I remember in Samuel when David's infant son dies, and this is attributed to his sin with Bathsheba. I watched a lecture some time ago that claimed that these 6th-century BC works - like much of the Deuteronomistic history, which was redacted during this period - are written from the perspective that everything that happens is God's will.

Josephus in Antiquities notes the same pattern when Herod Antipas loses a battle against the Arabians. According to the Jews at the time, this is attributed to Herod Antipas's execution of John the Baptist.

I've read quite a bit of ancient Jewish lit, but I don't recall this logic ever being used to justify poverty.

I'm not too familiar with Christian theology, but it seems that while the prosperity gospel has biblical support, it is not particularly "Christian" in the sense of according to the message of the gospels.

Please do tell me more about rights. Is there a right to build terror tunnels packed with munitions all across Gaza? A right to murder one's neighbor for the crime of being Jewish or Israeli? What would Nietzsche say about that?

Ah - now I get it. I wasn't sure how to phrase this. The history of this region is immensely complicated with many different threads (as with most history) - but there was a large number of people who had deep family and cultural roots in the geographic area that was called Palestine - these roots went back many hundreds of years. These people eventually called themselves Palestinians. So what phrase do you use to call these folks? I'm up for suggestions. — EricH

It really is; I totally get it. I think the problem comes when Jews are no longer understood to be Palestinians but rather something foreign. I think if we wish to make things clearer, we would just refer to Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

Arabs were undoubtedly in the land in the 19th and 20th centuries. I would just question the "indigenous" labeling.

The irony here is that atheist, secular historians highly doubt the Jews were ever slaves. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Exodus generally has a folkloric quality about it. You'd be hard-pressed to find a biblical scholar who defends the idea of a 1.5-2 million person exodus from Egypt in the 13th century BC. Some scholars, such as Richard Friedman, make the case for a smaller exodus

IIRC, an Alexandrian Egyptian priest named Manetho in the 3rd century argued that Moses and a group of his followers were actually expelled from Egypt due to leprosy, among other reasons. I doubt we'll ever know the truth.

Canaan is not part of Arabia. Therefore, by definition, there cannot be an "indigenous Arab population" in Canaan.

There have always been non-Israelites/non-Jews in Canaan. So are the Jebusites or the Perizzites of the Bible the "Palestinians?" Do you think that they knew that? Who exactly are these "Palestinians?" and why can't Jews be Palestinians? Kinda funny how that turns out.

And if they're Arabs, then why not just call them Arabs?

Name one what? American or visaed deportee?

These people are given documents, but their rights are not equivalent to those of citizens. You seem hazy about what those rights exactly are as well. Trump is doing what is legal.

They are guests in this country. If you allowed me to sleep in your living space, would you be intolerant if you kicked me out if I tore up the furniture? Or if I openly supported those who kidnapped and killed citizens of your community? Whenever the example is personal, these things become more apparent. I'm an American. America is my home. I don't like inviting guests into my home who proceed to destroy it or advocate its destruction.

And yes, they've destroyed universities across the country. They've caused millions in property damage to buildings, screamed down speakers, and disrupted learning environments by barging into active classrooms and screaming their heads off about Palestine.

It is American to have tolerance and to be nice to guests, but it is also American to stand up for oneself when our hospitality is being taken advantage of.

*How do you know that no Americans have been deported? Did Trump tell you? — tim wood

How do we know there's no innocent men in prison right now? Guess we should abolish prisons.

We aren't deporting Americans; we are deporting guests in this country who are invited in and proceed to spit in the face of their hosts. I mean deporting the ones on visas. The ones who were graciously allowed into this country to study at top universities and utilize the resources of this country, and then end up destroying those very institutions through riots and crimes. The ones who protest in support of designated terrorist organizations that capture, torture, and kill Americans.

I'm having an alright day. Whenever @ssu posts colorful pictures and comics, my day is never really bad.

Between BLM, harassing Jewish students on campus, campus riots, and this wave of Tesla vandalism, it couldn't be more apparent to me that Democrats are the party of violence. America is taking notice, and Democrat approval ratings are at historic lows.

Anyway, on with the deportations of foreign agitators :ok:

Source? Philo, right? Show me the passage.