It depend on what you mean by spaceship. Is not earth a spaceship? I have been on earth, and able to deduce by the movement of the planets — counterpunch

I guess you got me there. My argument really only works for theories you haven't confirmed for yourself, but instead put faith in, simply for its name in science. People do not have the time or capacity to be able to prove all scientific "truths" for themselves, but in practice have to put faith in scientists conducting the research and critically reviewing them: an act that, if time were to permit, should be done by each of us, to our satisfaction.

Yet I imagine, you - as a committed leftie anti-science bigot, think that's somehow significant when talking about the death of black people as a proportion of arrests, yet cite the same number as something that would otherwise go unnoticed [...] I should apoologise, for responding whilst drunk, but ... I'm drunk! — counterpunch

Understandable. I have an alcoholic side myself, however I would put aside your assumptions for my political leaning. In the same discussion I think I have someone accusing me of being a pro-Trump or pro Q-anon or something of the sort.

"don't take life too seriously." — TheMadFool

That is an intriguing idea. I have a hard time thinking of anything that is worth taking more seriously than life. If we don't take life seriously, can we take anything seriously? Conversely, if we can't take anything more seriously than life, can we take life any less seriously?

So I guess my question is, what do you mean "don't take life seriously?" Should I be considering suicide more (joking)?

Actually, my brother's Trump supporting South Carolinian parents in law are the most conservative when everyone is there. At our last reunion, someone allowed my outspoken liberal sister and daughter to sit next to them. It was painful and inconsiderate. My sister often doesn't think before she speaks. Actually, she does. That's probably the problem. — T Clark

I'm curious. Did your sister and your South Carolinian parents hate the experience? or was everyone else who had to deal with it the most hateful of the situation? I know when I had political conversation in my circle, while it may not have been explosive, I feel like my friends were those most distraught by it, with the mere thought of politics determining if the night was a failure or not.

Is it a theory that the earth orbits the sun? Or is that the truth? — counterpunch

Yes it is a theory, but perhaps I should change the framing of my argument. Have you ever been in a spaceship, and watched the sun, moon and earth move in relationship of each other, until you learned that it was in orbit? No? but you believe in the words of the scientists who calculated that you should? Obviously the concept of orbit is not just a result of basement dwelling scientists, but my point is, you have faith in the words of the literature those scientists produced, even though you have no experience to support that belief.

So, in my eyes you have faith, much like a Christian has faith in their God. Your faith may be placed into something more concrete than God in your eyes, but in the end you have faith in your own God nonetheless.

If you think there's a better word than truth that I can use, please - suggest it. We both know that science does not claim absolute truth [...] But are you saying then, that science has got nothing right? — counterpunch

I said that the "truth" should be called reliable ideas, if not just scientific theories, however, in practice, they can be close to "truths." There's little reason to think about events that only happen .001% of the time in real life after all. Claiming that science is too humble to boast about absolute truth though, is very different from saying that it is worthless.

My family is terrible. We all agree on everything. Our arguments are all about who can be more liberal. I tend to be the most conservative person in the room. I'll say something conciliatory about supporters of President Trump and I get beaten to a figurative pulp. — T Clark

I find that to be very funny, not to make fun of you, but it reminds me of my childhood. My family was Christian, and our family would have songs, bible lectures and prayers twice a week. The songs were fun enough, but the other two bored me out of my mind because I either couldn't understand it or I frankly disagreed with it. I was jealous of people who could be more zealous than me, because they spent their time in lecture and prayer in an almost orgasmic joy.

I'm not completely sure what made me think back to this from what you mentioned. Maybe it's the pain that we want to be blissfully unaware of the criticisms of our beliefs, but something inside us doesn't allow that. I know that whenever I chose to disagree, they would beat me down with "Christ's love."

Better to learn how to argue than to learn how to shut up. — Bitter Crank

You compare having opinions to claiming stakes over a territory. Do you believe that learning how to argue, even if it might cross another's territory is more worthwhile than to just learning how to shut up?

In other words, what do you think is the final destination for peoples with differing opinions?

My point in bringing up Q-anon is to contrast myself with Trump supporters because you kept claiming I might be ignorant about Q-anon being wrong — RogueAI

I don't understand. I don't think I even came close to comparing you to Trump supporters, nor did I claim you might be ignorant of Q-anon. If I said anything close to comparing you to Trump supporters, it was when I mentioned a self destructive quote from Joe Biden. However I find it hard to believe that it's disagreeable.

To me, this seems similar to saying something like, "Those [insert race] is so stupid. They are all the same and wrong about everything." — FlaccidDoor

Perhaps this is what you're talking about, when I accused you of being the equivalent of a racist. I meant this to say that you are generalizing a large demographic to fit a narrow narrative for you to feel superior, like a bigoted racist might (understand that I believe race is a genetic factor too broad and too minor to affect any intellectual debate)

I have no clue where you might've thought that I was criticizing your knowledge about "Q-anon." I sincerely don't care and I thought it was a meme, much less anything of value.

So, to sum up, no, I'm not wrong about any of the above, it's all bullshit, and I don't want to have anything to do with the people who are stupid/crazy enough to believe that stuff. — RogueAI

So this is the thing. You haven't said anything that "sums up" to showing that you are not wrong about any of the above. You never actually talked about the contents of the topics you mentioned. You've only talked about what you imagined your political opponents thought of it.

Perhaps this is the very rage bait I was talking about. I will refrain from responding if I feel that we are making no progress about this topic.

So, you're an American and you started a politics thread, and you're saying you don't know about Q-anon? — RogueAI

I've heard of them, but I don't know enough to speak anything of them. This discussion is about why people are increasingly losing their ability to converse about politics, not about the right or wrong about any specific issues per se. Why do you imply that I'm not allowed to start this political thread, and why is Q-anon that important?

I don't think it was a smart idea that the doubt cast for the election results by millions of people was ignored. Not because the election was fraudulent, but because it leaves the doubt stay on the people's minds.

I will be back again in a few hours.

Yes?

Do you actually think Q-anon might be right? — RogueAI

I don't know even who Q-anon is. I was just saying that you don't seem to have the proper reasons to be able to say that, what you listed previously was objectively true.

Though rather than your reason to believe you are "objectively" true being that Trump supporters has to always be wrong, now changed to be that Q-anon has to always be wrong here.

Calling another side wrong does not move you any closer to the truth.

I apologize for the lack of engagement. Was a rather busy day on my end. I will have a bit more time to respond in a few hours and tomorrow.

is that we didn't switch out those presumed truths, when actual truths emerged. — counterpunch

Well the thing is that science does not purport to speak any truths. I'm assuming by "actual truths" you meant scientific theories. I define scientific theories to be explanations for phenomenons based off of observational evidence. These theories, might as well be true in the practical sense, because if you see the same thing happen 1000 times, there's no reason to assume that it will be different the 1001st time either.

However science, is always open to its theories to be disproved and replaced by a new, better fitting one. It facilitates the natural selection of ideas, so the ideas that are left are very reliable. But a reliable theory, is not the equivalent to the "actual truth." It is on the presumption that a larger amount of evidence equals a more reliable conclusion.

But I am optimistic. I see these as the growing pains of an ever-expanding freedom in speech and thought. People now have access to information unlike any time in history, and also many means by which to express their views. If we can come to grips with this, perhaps after a generation or two, we’ll have both the freedom and the thick skin required to handle it. — NOS4A2

Do you believe that freedom of speech and thought is increasing? I feel that many, at least in the US would disagree. Perhaps you meant in accordance with our ability to distribute information. Like our freedom of speech increases with more methods of transferring information.

So you believe that the perceived polarization of people in politics is a result of this sudden and drastic increase in our freedom of speech? We are hurt more easily because of the sheer amount of things that can hurt us we are exposed to has increased and we just have to hold out until we are used to the barrage again?

Mea culpas is not in order. You've started a good thread and you are tending to it. Looking forward to more good topics from you. — Bitter Crank

Thank you. It's really fun talking to competent thinkers from a wide variety of perspectives. I've only joined 2 days ago and I've had a blast so far.

I'm a philosopher of science, and view religion from the outside as the philosophy and politics of primitive people. — counterpunch

I'm actually a big fan of Jordan Peterson as well. I grew up in a rather religious family, and he helped me bridge the gap I held between the world of the sciences and religion. I view them to be one in the same thing now, so what you said confuses me a bit.

What is science if not a religion that follows a bible written by countless scientists and praises a God that is the progression of knowledge?

I guess where I mainly disagree is the part where you say you "view religion from the outside," but I think that's impossible because you cannot not be religious.

My experience with Trump supporters has been: they can't do nuance, they think they're bigger victims than minorities, they believe ridiculous things, and they don't like "demographic change", and when you drill down on that, "demographic change"="country getting browner", and they're a lot more racist than the population at large. — RogueAI

Ok so your basis to call your knowledge "objective" seems to only be that Trump supporters are inherently wrong. I apologize in advance if I'm wrong because we're going a bit rough here, but when you say "The election was not stolen, climate change is not a hoax, Q-anon is a bunch of nonsense, Sandy Hook really happened, Hillary Clinton is not a murderer, etc" the only apparent reason I understand, for you to believe you are right, is that you believe that the other side is just wrong. In other words, you don't actually have the expertise on these topics to be able to draw out the validity of said claims, but rather you're just content to call the other side wrong and convince yourself right.

Again, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you haven't given me much to work off of to conclude differently. However if my assertions have any truth in them, I want to ask: did you learn anything new from what I described about climate change, Joe Biden speaking or the Clinton body count?

If I said I was a Trump supporter will that change how you receive what I said? Will that change your conclusion about Trump supporters? What if I said I was a Joe Biden supporter who actually just wanted to test you? Will that change how you receive what I said? Are you really as objective as you say you are?

My gripe is that you claim to be smarter than 74 million people (the amount of people who voted Trump in 2020) on multiple topics which is a big claim. Those are 74 million people of differing backgrounds and experiences. To me, this seems similar to saying something like, "Those [insert race] is so stupid. They are all the same and wrong about everything."

I was referencing "people in general", not you in particular. For "people in general" acting as if they were deliberating is a strategy, because most people's thinking (maybe everyone's) is, to a significant extent, shaped by their biases and steered by their emotions. — Bitter Crank

I feel like I understood what you meant. I am strategically acting in a way to lead this discussion to conclude "people can be civil about these contentious topics" because that is my bias, my goal. My intention was to demonstrate that a position that is not inherently hostile to yours exists in these contentious topics. Yes I am self centered, but that doesn't necessarily mean I am trying to belittle your position or even trying to prove you wrong in the topic, but merely trying to convince you that conversation isn't futile.

"Yes, Donald Trump did call climate change a Chinese hoax" — RogueAI

I thought we were addressing Trump supporters. Whether Trump said that or not our presidents say a lot of things that aren't representational of their voter base. I'm going to assume you're a Biden supporter so I might as well use him as an example.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-voter-fraud-organization-video-gaffe (there's a video)
When Biden explicitly says that there is a large voter fraud organization for both his and Obama's administration, I think it shows some merit to be dubious about how true the words these people speak, especially if we're going to let one like this slide.

The Clinton body count is an interesting one. I haven't looked too deep into it, but I haven't heard the deaths mentioned in the memes yet to be untrue. It's just a list of a bunch of weird ways people died and/or abnormally how the deaths were handled during the Clinton administration. Couple that with a statistic (that I'm not sure is correct) that the Clinton administration had an abnormally high amount of deaths relating to important figures, I can understand how it seems suspicious.

Anyway, I still don't understand where your confidence is coming from about so many different topics. Are you just confident that you are smarter than the "Trump supporters?"

The problem for Trump supporters is on their end, not mine, and this is objectively true. — RogueAI

What's the reason you are able to be so confident in your knowledge?

At least for the climate change argument, I think very few people argue this as it is. The problem arises though, when climate change is used synonymously with global warming. I remember a statistic that I believe Bill Nye talked about, which stated that 99% or something of climate change experts believe in global warming and climate change. This text is misleading, as climate change can mean more than just global warming. Scientists who believe in global cooling, warming and cooling, or just isn't sure other than that climate changes is also included.

It's fairly easy to find research papers that suggests the possibility of global cooling, although they are met with swift academic opposition from what I've seen. The main argument centered the unreliability of data that considers less than 2 or 3 decades of data. Not too much, but I think global temperatures started to be recorded from about the 1950s. So the most comprehensive study would have at most around 70 years of data. Better but not significant enough to be able to disprove the 2 or 3 decades based research mentioned earlier by itself.

So climate change experts are still plenty busy arguing about it. What makes your knowledge objective?

Maybe a good place to start is, political correctness. You said it was postmodernistic and neo-marxian, but is also comparable to my appeal for the scope of this discussion. I don't like political correctness either, and I'm curious if you thought I was postmodernistic or neomarxian, and if so, why?

Do you think this acts as a catalyst for the polarization of people, and people would be more inclined to talk with each other otherwise?

I don't accept I have an obligation to colour within the lines you draw - unless you think your comprehension is so definitive, no-one could possibly have anything to add. I read your post, and I'm responding to it in the only way I can. — counterpunch

I don't think you understand what I meant. I said go ahead. I am offended if you're comparing my suggestion for the direction of this discussion with political correctness. If you want to take this discussion in that direction, that's fine.

With that said, you're bringing up too many differing points at once to address meaningfully.

given its postmodern rejection of values, and a neo marxian preoccupation with power for power's sake — counterpunch

What is postmodernism in the context that you're using? Why is it bad? What makes neo-marx ideas particularly bad and why does this have anything to do in relation to this discussion as a whole?

It's wrongheaded in a dozen different ways; and leads people - for instance, to ignore the Covid lockdown to protest against the mere fact this woman - Sarah Everard, was killed. — counterpunch

I'm assuming you're speaking hyperbolically, but name the 12 reasons if I'm incorrect. I don't even know who Sarah Everard is. Even if I did, I think I would appreciate a brief explanation as to what it is and why I should care about her death in particular.

Such behaviour is a direct consequence of the unreasonableness of the overall politically correct narrative. Same with black lies matter. They think their politically correct righteousness is license to dismiss all other concerns! This kind of behaviour is in my view, symptomatic of the obsessive/compulsive psychology fostered by politically correct ideology - and it should be treated as a mental health issue. — counterpunch

Again, too much to address. It gives me the impression that you are rage baiting and don't want to actually have a discussion about your views.

The truth is that most of us have already chosen sides. Pretending that we have not, that we are weighing the two sides on a sensitive scale, is a strategy more than a fact. We choose sides before we know it, given the heavy wash of social engagement. — Bitter Crank

That's true in a sense. I already have a predetermined conclusion I want to reach, which is: I think that we can be better than to allow ourselves to fight endlessly on these contentious issues. However I don't think that's what you meant by choosing sides.

If you think I'm using a "strategy," let me go back to the abortion issue as an example. To start, I'm a libertarian male. I don't feel any moral need to back either side, because it's women's rights. I'm not saying it's irrelevant to me but it's not my most pressing concern either. Additionally, I think what differentiates humans from animals is our ability to reason and choose choices what our instinct cannot. Thus, I don't think people are 'human' until they have the ability to understand and exercise their will. Some adults, much less fetuses fit this description for me, and murdering them is not far removed from slaughtering livestock.

In conclusion, I don't care about which side ends up making the policies. However I don't think it's fun that these debates are starting and ending with just emotions and assumptions of self righteousness.

I'm going to completely ignore your appeal against taking sides; and acknowledge from the outset that I am vehemently opposed to political correctness. — counterpunch

As long as you believe that what you are saying is worth ignoring what I asked I personally don't mind. I think everyone here is aware enough to refrain from rage baiting and getting baited. However I do think getting too lopsided in the analysis of contentious events is counterproductive towards what I made this discussion for.

However like I said the emotive argument of murder is disconnected from the complex and broader issue that is meant to be discussed (abortion). — Experi

I wouldn't say the emotive argument is completely disconnected from the rational deconstruction of the problem. As you said, at minimum it's usually a signpost but continuing off the abortion debate I would argue that it is intertwined much more deeply.

So it's women's right Vs murder. One side is acting off the emotive argument that women's rights should not be trampled (not this specific right, but in general). The other is acting off the emotive argument of murder (in general) is wrong. Neither side disagrees with the other's emotive argument by itself. Neither side believes that a mother's convenience is a priority over a new life or women should not have rights (or at least not a significant enough number of them do). What I'm trying to get at, I think, is that they are trying to rationalize their emotive arguments, using their emotive arguments as base, if that makes any sense.

Say I'm a proabortion person
Let's further assume that my emotive argument is: trampling women's rights is bad (so expanding it must be good)
That as a starting point, we attempt to rationalize it like:
Expanding women's rights is good, so fighting for this is a good thing
It's not a life until it's first heart beat/birth/etc.
You can't kill what isn't a life
etc. etc.
Thus I'm right

Politics needs to be returned to the secular realm and away from groups who believe that their way has been handed down from (not God) but from the gods of moral superiority.

If you believe that your way is The Way, you're wrong. Each situation requires careful consideration — synthesis

So you see zeal as the main proponent to why conversation between the two sides seems to be degenerating. I agree that dogmatism is the wrong creed to standby. How do you think people even got religious about it? Perhaps our schools, in an attempt stay away from religion just ended up becoming a new one? Can we prevent it? Maybe by exclusively having the political elites have the discussion.

If the catastrophe unfolding at our southern boarder portends coming events, people are going to beg for balance in politics once again. — synthesis

Or do we have to bite the bullet and wait until something terribly bad happens to wake ourselves up every time?

I guess we live in different countries and this is why we have different perception of politicians. At least in my homeland they don't anything properly to do but divide the society and being corrupts.
You say how we can know we are not the puppet ones. Easy. When you are not the politician. Every politician is somehow a puppet. — javi2541997

I live in the US and politics here can be summed up as everyone saying, "my politicians are the heroes and yours are the supervillains."

I see what you mean about politicians being puppets. There are a lot of rules, codes and people you need to abide by in order to stay in your position. Perhaps you see them kind of like parasites in a way, where they harm the system they attach to, but they need to do so in order to survive.

I'm curious then how you characterize the "ignorant people with low paid jobs" you mentioned. You talk about them rather harshly but what differentiates you and other enlightened people from them?

Basically people aren't just discussing an opinion they thought out in a cold rational way, but rather theyre discussing (in often a very covert way) their past experiences, associations they've made through these past experiences, their emotions towards a subject, and the emotive arguments they've heard from other around them throughout life. — Experi

I believe it was Jordan Peterson who I heard describe emotions as a low resolution "conclusion" to what should be done for situation where rational thought is inadept. For example, if you see someone destroying your property for a reason unrevealed to you or can't comprehend, rational thought isn't useful in this situation. Rather you would probably work off of an emotion of anger and which tells you to remove that person making you mad.

I can see what you are trying to say with the emotive arguments. I wonder if those can be thought of as a low resolution words, describing too little in reality for what they're meant to convey. So when they are used, we feel like we should be understood but when we inevitably aren't, we get upset.

Perhaps for some reason then, people are more likely to use emotive arguments than before causing the perceived increase in radicalization. My first guess to the reason why is the increased participation of politics in general (at least in the US), so people who aren't used to debating are joining for the first time in record numbers.

Sometimes, though, I've found that sincere interest in another's way of seeing things will open up a conversation, even if it's with someone I have strong, important disagreements with — T Clark

I suppose a part of radicalization is just that. A loss of interest in the other side's way of seeing things. That seems pretty bad though, since that would make radicalization a positive feedback loop.

It's that discussion of politics reveals the irreconcilable differences that are there between the people — baker

Interesting! So the shock of realizing the differences in our opinions are what tears people apart. That seems similar to what was mentioned previously about the paranoid schizoid position. The person that was "good" now is revealed to be partly "bad" through an irreconcilable difference in opinion.

However the philosophy forum is filled with people with just that, but even seem to be happy to continue butting heads for exactly that reason. If a community exists with only irreconcilable differences in opinion to bring them together, I don't see how they can't be accepted by friends or family.

Perhaps they are like differences in physical characteristics like race or gender. Nonnegotiable, but can be looked past or accepted to still be friends.

Inside this situation there is a lot of toxicity and cheats. All of those who don’t want bear this situation end up leaving or criticising the system. — javi2541997

Do you believe that these toxicity and cheats you mention, are enough to deter any honest or good-willed person trying to get into office? I want to believe that there are strong and good-willed people who are determined enough to go through despite the hardships.

They are only know how to use emotions because there are lot of ignorant people with low paid jobs who are really easy to persuade them. If I say “Foreigners are taking your jobs” I am obviously lying. But somehow this argument gives hope to all of those rubbish citizens who never made something interest in their lives but watching junk TV. They feel better and “different” when their politicians tell them despite they are trash somehow are “better” than immigrants — javi2541997

So I'm not really sure, other than that you seem to have a much more pessimistic view of society than I do. Am I right to say that you see politicians and the "ignorant people" as a puppeteer/puppet relationship? Politicians pull on the 'strings' of pathos to control the puppet that is those people. How do you prevent yourself from being one of the puppets, or know you aren't one?

Politics and politicians do not have empathy. — javi2541997

I agree that politics doesn't have empathy, but politicians are still people. They have their own ideology they work off, which isn't to say it can't be a corrupt one. You can run for office too if you wanted to try to change things with your own hands, for example. I bet you might face a lot of temptations and hardships, but I doubt you would say you had no empathy then.

Politicians only use emotion not knowledge. So I guess this is why a lot of people is faced because of them — javi2541997

Maybe you have a good point there, in that politicians may have an incentive to keep the conversation about emotion rather than anything else, although naming all politicians is probably too broad of a stroke. Is this radicalization that we see in our friends, families, and beyond something that was deliberately sought after? Maybe I'm getting too conspiratorial, but perhaps there is a force in politics that seek radicalization.

Liberals tend to occupy urban areas, conservatives tend to occupy suburban and rural areas.

Whether people moved to be with people whose thinking was congruent, or whether after moving their thinking changed to become congruent with their neighbors, I don't know. — Bitter Crank

I lean slightly conservative as a libertarian and I personally might prefer a slightly rural environment, not because the people who live there might think the same way I do. Rather because I'm a bit of an introvert, and I feel like I would appreciate the quiet atmosphere away from the busy cities. Perhaps the more you lean conservative, the more you tend to feel that way.

So, it's no surprise that family members shift to opposite sides of the debate table, depending on their circumstances. All of my conservative family members are rural. They are politically, religiously, and socially conservative. — Bitter Crank

Do you believe that your family members' conservative views are due to their environmental upbringing? Do you think these environments create echo chambers where people radicalize?

Given the OP is about family members I’m assuming these people know each other well enough to be reasonable. — I like sushi

The family and friends was a contrast I wanted to make to enemies of war. It would make much more sense to hate enemies of war, and less scuffles with family and friends But here it seems like much more that the opposite is true. But I wouldn't mind exploring this topic beyond just family and friends either.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try another approach. — I like sushi

I guess that's fair enough. We get hot headed but a bit of time to cool off can change the result the next time you engage in a conversation

They each tried to voice the other’s position as clearly and precisely as possible and then tried to correct each other. — I like sushi

I assume those two had different enough views on a contentious issue to warrant such care in their discussion. Ideally we would all do that in every conversation as time permits.

Some people get so riled up they only ever hear exactly what they expect to hear regardless of what is being said to them. If that happens it is usually best to ‘bail’ as stated by someone else above. — I like sushi

Is this something we just have to give up and leave for? Is there no other choice but to let someone like that to polarize further? What is it that makes talking to them so futile?

The list of tips is very cool. Yeah I think we may forget that a conversation gone wrong is just as much our fault as the other as any conversation is like a dance with the other.

I don't think I was that competitive per se although I understand it. I was interested in how I could be wrong and there is big satisfaction in not being wrong. I was known to be a provocateur around the 2016 election in my circle because there were many topics in which I was curious about how my friends can believe what I thought was indubitably wrong. So my conversations centered around trying to pry into the inner workings of the other, which while not quite explosive, may have been just as uncomfortable.

Perhaps the divide we feel in politics is just a lack of manners we have as a whole in a conversation and debate. So that brings up another question: Are we losing our ability to be civil?

Melanie Klein spoke of two stages of development in infancy, in the child's relationship with the mother and the anxieties relating to her. — Jack Cummins

I'm not too familiar with these concepts. If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that the reason for the polarization might be like a baby that is stuck in the paranoid schizoid position, where the "bad" other group and the "good" current group is split? So we might be missing something we need to go into the depressive position?


My experience has been generally mild, although sometimes it definitely gets passionate. I think the more explosive instances is when my partner and I would have an argument, Maybe we got on each other's nerves and decided to confront the other about it.

However I haven't had nearly as much for political topics, funnily enough. I don't support vituperation, because a defensive person is not an informative person. If you aren't trying to learn about the other person, I see no reason to talk about such topics.

How about you?

So what you are saying is that in a group setting, there is an effect like a paranoid schizoid would have, where we make delusions about the other side?

I personally do not agree with supporting the transgender agenda. I'm not an expert but it is my understanding that near 100% of gender dysphoria cases disappear when the gender dysphoria is not upheld by their surroundings. If they are, their suicide rates are significantly higher than the average population. I believe that going through therapy and surgery increases their suicide rates even higher but I'm not as confident in that statistic as compared to the previous ones.

Additionally many of the hormone therapy treatments, if not all of them, supposedly does not have the amount of research that it should have before it is used on humans. Lastly, gender dysphoria was regarded medically as a mental disorder (I'm not sure now). So in conclusion, being pro-transgender may be akin to pushing the mentally sick into having a terrible life (judging from the suicide rates) and with permanent consequences.

I have yet to hear positive data about it.

I asked if people having gender reassignment was an almost religious activity and drew on how I see souls in a Platonic way. — Gregory

I see now. I think it may not be far from one, because you need a certain set of beliefs to conduct it and it is ritualistic in many respects. A rite of passage in a way for the gender dysphoric.

You can't get away with putting that interesting bait out there and then covering it up! — Bitter Crank

Fair enough! I think the reason it's bombastic is because a significant portion of society do not believe trans people exist, as defined by pro-transgender groups. For example, to define a transgender person, as in a person who transferred genders, one must first agree that a process to "transfer" them is valid. The current means used are hormone therapy and gender surgeries. While these words might describe a path for gender correction to one side, these, to someone who does not consider them valid, might be synonymous with chemical misuse and genital mutilation, respectively. This fundamental difference in the definitions of the words that are used by the opposing sides are not only insulting, but acts as a catalyst for misunderstanding.

Additionally there are cases in which children, without the consent of their parents, was allowed to be given hormone therapy and such. The presence of children creates a heavier moral weight for both sides and adds to the powder keg that is this topic.

I think the main reason that this topic became explosive is because of the mention of trans people. I still don't completely understand the connection you were trying to make when you mentioned trans people (If the body being "alone" or I assume you meant "being different", in attributes that the soul has and vice versa is weird to you, how can they be different? Are they born the same? Do they discover that their soul and body is mismatched? Does the body/soul change as time flow to become different?)

The transgender topic is one of those things you would call "rage baits." I think many people here, because you were also trying to explain something very abstract at the same time, thought you were mal-intentioned. I think why people find this topic so engaging in a bombastic way is worth a discussion on it's own but I'll leave it alone for this thread.