↪baker So that is what you think trans folk are like? That is what you would base your opinion on?

Is yours an argument to refuse to acknowledge the existence of trans people, or for improvements in the prison system? — Banno

One against political correctness.

The "fault" is with folk such as you who are overly concerned with the contents of other people's underpants. You are the reason nearly half of transexual children have attempted suicide. Your attitude is the reason for the abominable statistics on the treatment of trans folk.

So for you, society and social norms exist and must be obeyed when it pleases you, and should be regarded as non-existent and discarded when it doesn't please you, eh?

You are the reason nearly half of transexual children have attempted suicide. Your attitude is the reason for the abominable statistics on the treatment of trans folk.

No, yours is, your bad faith, and your ascribing to people stances they don't hold. Fuck you for this.

I think this is what annoys me; the irony of a sort of fundamentalist proselytizing against the Christian myth. — Noble Dust

Fire is fought with fire.

lenty of men tried to teach me to throw like a guy. I spent hours trying to teach myself. I was desperate to get rid of such ‘feminine’ traits but it worked out about as well as that John Wayne scene from La Cage Aux Folles. — Joshs

I don't see that as "feminine", but as physically clumsy, perhaps even a neurological problem or otherwise poor eye-body coordination. A problem that is not limited to either sex.

Also, in my native language, an idiomatic phrase like "you throw like a girl" doesn't exist.

So where does trans fit in here? I think the idea that one must change one’s body to fit one’s psychological gender is only necessary in a culture which
believes that behavior should match genitalia according to rigid norms. — Joshs

Then the fault is with the trans people.

In a society which has no such belief , one is free to recognize that body sex and psychological gender are inextricably intertwined such that it becomes incoherent to claim that one was born in the wrong body.

Many people are simply spoiled and want to be speshal, want to be adored. Just before, I saw a feature about a Spanish (?) singer, currently still a biological male who dresses as a woman and who will have his Adam's apple removed next month. Why? He says it's to have a more feminine voice, and then with the hormone therapy, to have long hair, etc.
This is simply vanity and having too much money.

That's why Hitler can come into rule.

If she believes all the surgeries she's been through are worth it and she's happier as the result, why should your concerns be her concerns? — Hanover

There is no society. There are only individuals.
There are no social norms.

What do you suppose “choose reality”’ refers to? Just the issues that are highlighted of aggression toward women by men deliberately masquerading as females? Or do you suppose this includes a denial of the idea that psychological gender doesn’t necessarily match biological sex? — Joshs

You'd have to ask the makers of that poster.

Or do you suppose this includes a denial of the idea that psychological gender doesn’t necessarily match biological sex?

Psychological gender is a cluster of traits, but which traits in particular those are for which gender varies from culture to culture, from setting to setting. The same trait can sometimes be considered male, other times, female, or childish.

My point here is that all the concerns for safety and whatever other issues you wish to throw out seem pretextual, meaning I really don't think you have these concerns as much as you have a desire not to accommodate people who you believe are irrational and cuckoo. — Hanover

Your bad faith is duly noted, as usual.

But they go to such great lengths in their efforts to make of Christianity what they want it to be, what they find to be intellectually acceptable, that Jesus, as portrayed in Scripture, seems less and less recognizable. — Ciceronianus

It's their religion, they can do with it whatever they want.

A part of it to me is that I don't think how you perform sex acts or who you perform them with is so integral to the person that it ought be who we think that person is. Unless I'm going to be having sex that person, it seems pretty irrelevant whether the person is gay, straight, or anywhere else on the spectrum. — Hanover

For you as a man it probably matters little whether you share a hospital room with a man or a woman. Or whether the person in the dressing booth next to yours is a man or a woman.
Perhaps you also wouldn't mind peeing while standing next to a woman, the way you don't mind peeing while standing next to a man?

Clearly categorizable gender/sexual identity (ie. a person is either male or female) provides a modicum of shared privacy in public spaces occupied by more people. Arguably, this shared privacy is important to many people for a general sense of safety.

Still overly concerned as to the contents of other folk's underwear, I see. — Banno

One of the functions of gender/sexual identity is that categorizing people based on it should provide a modicum of safety in certain settings where people are highly vulnerable, such as schools, hospitals, prisons.

How do I know that I can't comprehend God? — Zebeden

Other people tell you so, and you're supposed to believe them.

Because they are Christians. There is no Christianity without Jesus _Christ_.
— baker

One would think so. And the answer may be that they're "stuck" with him if they want to be known as Christians. But I think that the Jesus of the Gospels is largely ignored by them (just as the God of the Old Testament, that fractious fellow, is ignored). They just don't fit in the theology they construct, or if they fit do so awkwardly. They're embarrassing, in fact, if Scripture is is to be believed as it is written. — Ciceronianus

They were first and foremost, Christians, and then they began concerning themselves with doctrinal issues, if at all.

First comes a generalized religious/spiritual identity, and then, if at all, a look at the doctrinal tenets of said religion/spirituality.

So always telling the truth to the point you're avoiding white lies, makes for a better person. — Benkei

That depends on what those truths are in particular.
If one is creative enough, one can always say things that are both true and harmless (and on topic, at that).

Ok. That shit wasn’t the question, though. Read the last part which contains a question. — Cobra

Same reply: Normal people figure this out by kindergarten.
The topic of truthtelling is one that becomes progressively elusive the more one tries to pin it down analytically. So the optimal way to handle it is the intuitive one.

Most people can't handle the truth, so they do not want to hear it. — Cobra

No. That's just a reference to a punchline from a film, nothing more.

Saying ugly things harms the relationship between the people involved. People typically want to retain their relationships or don't want them to worsen (insofar they think they are good).

By saying something ugly (even if it's true), you don't hurt the other person's feelings per se, you hurt their feelings for you. Or even hurt their feelings for humanity.

Of course, perhaps this is what you wanted to begin with.

For starters, perhaps something like this, from the film The Martian:

I've been thinking about laws on Mars. There's an international treaty saying that no country can lay claim to anything that's not on Earth. By another treaty if you're not in any country's territory, maritime law aplies. So Mars is international waters. Now, NASA is an American non-military organization, it owns the Hab. But the second I walk outside I'm in international waters. So Here's the cool part. I'm about to leave for the Schiaparelli Crater where I'm going to commandeer the Ares IV lander. Nobody explicitly gave me permission to do this, and they can't until I'm on board the Ares IV. So I'm going to be taking a craft over in international waters without permission, which by definition... makes me a pirate. Mark Watney: Space Pirate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law

And again from the same film:

They say once you grow crops somewhere, you have officially “colonized” it. So technically, I colonized Mars.

I don't see overpopulation as a problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

Death by exposure would become fashionable again.

As if there were a single uniform interpretation of the Christian gospel. History says otherwise. — Wayfarer

One has to maintain that there is a single uniform interpretation of this or that in religion/spirituality, otherwise one couldn't accuse others of having a "religious complex".
You yourself don't embrace the relativism that you espouse.

The Jesus of the Gospels seems disposable. Why do they bother with Jesus? This is my question. — Ciceronianus

Because they are Christians. There is no Christianity without Jesus _Christ_.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

And I think this brings us to the crux of the matter, because a lot of your statements seem to suggest that you haven’t yet decided in favor of truth and that despite your apparent disclaimers you are speaking from the perspective of someone who is at least in part psychologically committed to Buddhism as a belief system or religion. — Apollodorus

*tsk tsk*

Again, one could argue that only Buddhists are capable of attaining the highest possible experience. But this hasn’t been demonstrated to be the case. So, the way I see it, it boils down to personal (and unproven) belief, i.e., exactly what Socrates and Plato (and, apparently, Buddha himself) are warning against.

Blimey, religious/spiritual people competing as to who is most exalted!! How ordinary.

And to achieve that, one need not be a Buddhist or follow any particular religious system .... — Apollodorus

To _deliberately_ achieve anything, one needs to follow a system. To follow a religious system, one has to become a member of a religion.

Riiight. Let's go to a slaughterhouse or an abortion clinic where we can observe the "the miraculous nature of everyday reality".
— baker

I eat meat, and I respect a woman's right to choose - if and when she commits to the economic life changing, body morphic trauma that is bringing another life into the world. — karl stone

I'm not talking about the politically correct "woman's right to choose". I'm talking about the supposed "miraculous nature" of living a lifestyle in which having to have an abortion is always in sight.
What is so "miraculous" in damaging one's health with hormonal contraceptives, and, if they fail, with abortions?
You think it's "miraculous" to TOLO, like a robot?

I've worked in a slaughterhouse - chickens, but still, I eat chicken. There's nothing like hot chicken breast on brown bread with mayo. It produces a transcendent, almost orgasmic pleasure in me.

I wonder what you have to say about people who don't feel that way about food, animal or plant based.

I think one has to respect a woman's right to choose, precisely because we are the only animals who cook, rather than simply eat. An animal killed in nature suffers a worse death by far than humane slaughter at the hands of humans; and there's a parallel to a child brought into the world unwanted - in that, your bleeding heart humanity would be the cause of greater suffering of which you'd wash your vegan pro-life hands.

You missed the forest, not just the tree to bark at.

And it has to be said that no one does Christianity the kind of disservice that Christianity has done to itself, with its emphasis on shallow-faith literalism and punishment. — Tom Storm

I find their non-communication and hostility are what tends to put people off.

Again:

The only evidence we could ever have for someone's "enlightenment" would be behavior that indicates a disposition of predominant concern for others.
— Janus

Why? — baker

Whence the idea that enlightenment would have something to do with a disposition of predominant concern for others?

Even if you define enlightenment in terms of "overcoming one's ego" or similarly, this doesn't yet entail that the thusly enlightened person will be concerned with others.

In fact, someone who has overcome egoic thinking as such will have no regard for other people's egos as well, and will thus exhibit behavior that is usually considered rude, a callous disregard for others.

I also want to stress that I am not closed-minded to the idea of being convinced by intellectual intuitions of metaphysical ideas for the individual, but I have never seen any convincing argument that such intuitions could ever form the basis of any open and unbiased inter-subjective discourse. — Janus

"Unbiased" discourse? What is that??

I only question baker's smug arrogance in feeling contempt for those who don't share his level of involvement with music. — T Clark

Oh, my virtual balls!

I think that the distiller and the shopkeeper are still happy that the person bought the expensive bottle. But ....I get your point. Still, even if the consumerist doesn't or cannot appreciate the fine touches, at least he or she gets hopefully something out of it that is positive. And that counts. — ssu

Seems likely that music evolved as a participatory activity. — T Clark

Classical music still is participatory, the mode of participation is specific. Ideally, one should be able to play the music piece on an instrument or sing it oneself, play or sing variations of the themes in the piece, analyze it, discuss it intelligently and critically with others.

we should assess when and how to tell the truth, instead of telling it indiscriminately. — Cobra

Normal people figure this out by kindergarten ...

If the CIA wants to create public opinion then it ought to be active on TikTok and TPF. — magritte

I was once discussing some religious topics with someone over email. We noticed there were peculiar delays in emails containing the words "Islam" and "Muslim" while our other emails got through on time. Ha!

I do try.

What is the primary reason the murder rate in the United States is almost 5 times that of the United Kingdom? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Because the US is a democracy, duh.

I think you have it right. Wanting life after death is motivated by a sense of unfairness or disappointment of our limitations, and I'm sure other emotions. To me, those emotions are not meant to be buried with the "liquor of immortality", but should be used to motivate and direct us to go past our limitations, and work on fixing the world's unfairness. — Philosophim

But this is a Sisyphean task.
It's not possible to motivate oneself consciously for such a task.

Heck, I've never known anyone who has evinced the belief that when they die, they will go to heaven. — Wayfarer

Everyone I know who claims to believe in an afterlife believes that they will either go to heaven or be reborn as some fancy, exalted being.

In fact, in an argument with a Catholic lady, I once actually said, "Yeah, but for you, everything's easy, because you'll go to heaven and be happy forever", to which she smiled in a matter-of-factly manner, "We'll all go to heaven". And she's a Catholic!! What she said was heresy!

It seems to be an essential part of religious/spiritual life to have the confidence that God/karma is on one's side.

Poor horses!

Is "no reason" ever an acceptable answer?

Depends on the relationship between the person asking the question and the person replying "No reason".

The subordinate person can get into trouble if they ever answer "No reason", but the one in position of power can say so as they please.

What's wrong with "naive, ad hoc, unsystematic, uneducated" listening to music? How many know how to play an electronic guitar? How many know the history of pop-music or rock?

How are those people who don't know all that about pop or rock music so different in their liking of the music from those who do? — ssu

To name just a few:
They get bored more easily by the music.
They miss out on important artistic elements.
They contribute to the culture of shallowness and the general decline of civilization into mere consumerism.
They don't meaningfully contribute to the artists who produced the art work.

And I don't mean to be offensive.

Sorry, but it's really not a relevant difference. Yeah, if you know how to play the guitar, you might really appreciate more some virtuoso, yet is that really relevant?

Relevant to whom?
To the guitar virtuoso -- probably not.
I think that a person who is approaching art in a consumerist, easy fashion is not making the best use of their time and resources. It's a bit like insisting on eating cold pizza.

I think more relevant is the hostility we take towards some music that isn't "for us". Hostility to classical music is actually quite similar to the hostility towards country music or the music "ordinary people" listen to. The music that the peasant, the redneck, the yokel, listens to in their shabby bars and gatherings. Why is that music so bad?

Take away the social or class construct around it, a lot of music is quite interesting to listen to.

Provided one has the time and resources to do so.

Are your friends all of one gender, ethnicity, religion and country of origin? — Joshs

Ideally, yes.

And yet you have transcended enough gaps in understanding to embrace them as friends.

No. Over time, those differences drifted us apart.

There is apolitically correct notion that one should be able to be friends with pretty much just anyone. But my experience is that while this may make for politically correct, fashionable relationships, it also makes them shallow and unreliable. With people who are too different from oneself, one may be on "friendly terms", but this is not to be confused for friendship.

Recently Whoopi said the Holocaust wasn't about race, it was about man's inhumanity towards man. — Ree Zen

Hm. A black American celebrity making remarks about race. Tricky. If a white American celebrity were to say the same things, it might have come across very differently.


Moreover, saying that the holocaust wasn't about race, but about man's inhumanity to man is 1. downplaying the holocaust into, basically, yet another horrible thing people do to eachother, and as such it 2. hits home with everyone.

As long as the holocaust is neatly tucked into the category of "racism", it's yet another "Oh, this doesn't concern me, because I'm not a racist". But framing it in more general terms, like "inhumanity" it suddenly becomes something that everyone 1. knows, 2. can do, or 3. can be subject to. And that's why framing it like this is inexcusably rude.

I think American employees should have some protection on how easily their employers can fire them. — ssu

Ah, the heavenly realms of capitalism!

But what you're putting forth so far excuses, for example, the way the Nazis treated the Jews during WWII. "The attributes that are to be valued in the Jews were invisible to the Nazis. The Nazis acted ethically, in accordance with their insight into the Jews."
— baker

That’s exactly right. Ethical intent was not the issue. Lack of insight was. The Jew for centuries represented the alien interloper in European thought. The intent wasn’t to see them as alien and thus morally suspect. Antisemitism was and still is the product of a failure to transcend the gap between cultures. — Joshs

At this point, with this all-too-relevant example, we'd have to venture onto some very delicate territory.

But all the other examples in which your reasoning applies also end up being problematic (in that we'd have to dismantle some taboos).

Antisemitism was and still is the product of a failure to transcend the gap between cultures.

To the best of my knowledge, transcending the gap between cultures has never actually been a value. Sure, some people talk about it a lot. But in order for there to be different cultures at all, there must be gaps between them, otherwise, they would all be one.

*sigh*

Presumably our aim in ethics/morality is that people would coexist in relative harmony. But this relative harmony can be brought about in many ways (such as fear of God, obedience of rules, "good boy/good girl" mentality, following the GR), and following the GR is just one of them. Since you are a proponent of the GR, it's on you to show how it is better than those other ways.