Respect doesn’t come from who or what you are, it comes from how you treat others
She was definitely was not acting very womanly, so I can’t blame the guy for accidentally calling her sir a couple of times
@Siska the Khajiit, yeah he was acting psychotic and kept threatening to fight outside and kicked things over.
@Siska the Khajiit, and the Cashier was in MAXIMUM PANIC MODE
@Siska the Khajiit, So, curious, how does one "act womanly"?
@xAegis Heartx, sorry, maybe I should change it to ‘acting like a decent human being’ cause kicking stuff over, threatening to fight people and yelling at the top of their lungs definitely doesn’t fit the bill
@Siska the Khajiit, Fair enough, but decency applies to both genders.
@Siska the Khajiit, what now
@xAegis Heartx, I don't think women usually jump to trying to fist fight a clerk.
@xAegis Heartx, yes I was basing it off of the traditional and out of date word that is “womanly”
@xAegis Heartx, chill out.
@Siska the Khajiit, deeper voice than most guys i know
@xAegis Heartx, acting womanly is classically depicted as being prim, proper and polite in western cultures.
@xAegis Heartx, how does this have more downvotes than upvotes. All I see is stop booing me I’m right meme
@BigJohnson86, Because they turned it into one of those "but what about men? They do wrong too." Comments despite the fact that nothing was ever directed at women as a whole, only one "woman".
@Jaune Arc, saying decency applies to both genders after conceding your reaction probably to much shouldn’t be controversial. I should know I start arguments here all the time when I’m bored
Not a great example/representative for the trans community
@megamanx181x, that’s an oxymoron
@HammerOfHerertics, how so?
@megamanx181x, can anyone who chooses to mutilate their bodies be considered a good representative of any community?
@megamanx181x, lol good response
@HammerOfHerertics, well my area of expertise on this app is explaining simple morality to morons (what am I doing with my life) so let me take a whack at yah. first of all: mutilation is a funny word for surgery and medication, but whatever. Second: nice reduction of a pretty clearly documented psychological phenomenon into “ewww a Tran, icky”.
@liberachi , I’m not saying they don’t have a psychological condition. In fact im all onboard with that assessment. My answer though wouldn’t be to agree with their insane claim to be a different gender than they are. It would be to have them seek appropriate medical treatment which doesn’t enable their delusions, but treats them.
@HammerOfHerertics, oh ok, so you just don’t understand gender; in that case it’s fine. Please note that I said phenomena and not disorder, as there’s a very clear distinction. It’s not a delusion, as gender dysphoria (the phycological term for feelings of wanting to be the opposite gender) is not delusional according to the DSM-5 (the psychiatrist handbook as of 2013), in fact doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, and more all recognize this as not a mental illness thanks to supporting evidence in psychological studies, social studies and experiments, and other methods that all conclude that being trans is not a mental illness (I truely do not know of any medical professions that WOULD say it’s a mental illness).
there are also different presentations of dysphoria including: self image dysphoria (wanting to look or sound like the opposite gender), social dysphoria (wanting the social status of the opposite gender and to be recognized as such by others),
@HammerOfHerertics, and genital dysphoria (wanting the opposite genitals), NONE are considered by professionals as harmful, delusional, or mentally ill.
While trans science isn’t my area of expertise, I would recommend contra point’s videos on the topic for more information.
@liberachi , man I miss the days when liberal arts meant the classic/traditional philosophical tenets of western civilization and not the nonsense, pseudo scientific BS that’s sold to us at universities as “an education” nowadays. You have fun with your gibberish.
@liberachi , also, there’s nothing like claiming to be an instructor on morality and then calling someone a moron and proceeding to not discuss morality at all in any of your comments. But fear not, cause morality is something I doubt you’re an expert in.
@HammerOfHerertics, I’m going to take a guess that you’re pretty young considering the age demographics of this app, and ask you exactly what you mean “back in the day” considering you’re most likely no more than 2-3 decades old, if that. And if you truely think my writing was “gibberish” then then I would recommend getting yourself “an education” or yourself seeking a medical professional because you’re either stupid or dyslexic. On the other hand, if you’re dismissing my claims because it’s easier to dehumanize entire groups of people because you’d rather them be “sick in the head” then feel uncomfortable because there are people who do things you consider weird (even though medical science doesn’t) then that’s your problem, not theirs.
on morality , i decided to avoid the obvious fact that your a dumba$$ ignant douchenozzle in the hopes that you’d seek out or accept new information. Turns out you didn’t, so I guess there you go.
@liberachi , I’m 24. I don’t need to have experienced the entire history of western (read: Christian) philosophy to understand its beauty and correctness...at least when compared to modern relativism. That also means I understand morality far...FAR better than you do (not saying I always practice it as I should). Secondly, I’m an aerospace engineering PhD student so I like to think I’m fairly educated to spot science when it’s right and sound. Lastly, I don’t dehumanize someone by saying they’re sick in the head. There’s a difference between making an objective observation and caring for the person about whom you make the observation. One more thing, it’s clear how much you know by that list little outburst which devolved into the rambling characteristic of the perennially victimized when people disagree with them.
@HammerOfHerertics, actually funny you should bringing up western culture again, because contra points, the same person I referred you to about that “trans = mental illness” yikesmobile has a video on that to, it’s a great YouTube show, check it out.
The rest of this comment is just garbage:
“My engineering degree makes me literate in social sciences” k (because engineers are known for social skills and soft sciences prowess)
“My claims are objective observations because my opinions are facts” k
“You’re just rambling, here’s a block of text” k
“Relativism as a whole is garbage because.....full stop” k
“Christian philosophy is objectively better because...it’s...beautiful?” Again presenting opinion as objective fact and again no supporting facts but...k.
@liberachi , I’m glad you get your education from a YouTube dude. I’ll stick to books. I particularly suggest The Abolition of Man or maybe Humanae Vitae (a document, not a book). You’ll see both beauty and truth. Since they go hand in hand.
@HammerOfHerertics, I recommend YouTube videos, not because that’s my only source (cited the DSM-5 in my first comment, you know...the one you called too long) but because they’re easily digestible knowledge nuggets and easy to find and watch with virtually no effort on the part of the watcher.m
@HammerOfHerertics, and I would point out that humanae vitae (which just so you know, isn’t actually a book, it’s basically a long newspaper article, which I’ve read) is even controversial within orthodox catholic communities for its hardline stances, so I’m not sure how far you’re expecting it to fly in a mostly secular or even openly atheist circle (I.e this app).
@liberachi , first off I highly doubt you’ve read it. Secondly it is only controversial in fringe leftist catholic groups which would like all manner of sexual situations to be accepted by the church. That is a very small group btw. It is in no way controversial to mainstream Catholicism. And lastly, it’s surprisingly accurate for a 1960’s-70’s document in predicting the sexual/social disaster of the last decades. So I wouldn’t call it fringe nor controversial.
@HammerOfHerertics, oh yes, all those fringe leftist Catholics I keep hearing about.
And a catholic predicting sexual ruin in the 1960’s is not exactly shocking.
He talks about the “horror” of artificial incrimination for literal god’s sake.
@liberachi , they do exist. Idk what you want me to tell you. And the predictions weren’t very far off. Lastly, idk what you’re talking about with the last point.
@HammerOfHerertics, whoops that meant to say artificial insemination.
And again , him being “not far off” is an opinion
@liberachi , it’s not really an opinion...divorce numbers are atrocious, unmarried/young pregnancies surged (though admittedly they’re on their way down sortof), abortion a common thing throughout the world, etc. Not really much to debate there.
@HammerOfHerertics, but other predictions he made were off by a lot, for instance he also predicted the widespread use of contraception would directly lead to an epidemic of cheating husbands, and that governments would use birth control and abortions to control their people.
Plus a lot of his predictions were purposefully vague and could be better interpreted multiple ways such as how he predicted an increase in “general immorality” which, in a progressive political era like the 60’s was going to be practically garenteed to be seen by those with extreme or even moderate conservative political values.
@liberachi , k. I’m done with this pointless argument.
@liberachi , thanks bud, but I used that joke already
@HammerOfHerertics, I don't Liberachi has ever heard of eugenics
@Dephenistrator, lol he’s got his head in the black hole of fabricated offenses of the modern age as opposed to the real evils.
@HammerOfHerertics, yeah, i rarely debate Liberachi anymore because it's very far off from facts and arrogant. It's like arguing with broken record. It's kind of sad because Liberachi can be funny when not political.
@Dephenistrator, I would imagine. He’s fairly literate it seems.
@liberachi , ever get the feeling that this app is doomed?
@The Manwhore, ever get the feeling this world is doomed?
@liberachi , only every day
@Dephenistrator, honey, sweetie, baby...you don’t debate me? The last time we discussed something I stopped talking to you. But whatever keeps up your delusional bubble of comfort.
Btw if you wanted to see what a real delusion looks like hammer, look no further you circlejerking, petulant, ignorant husks of humanity.
@liberachi , your not very smart lib
@liberachi , why do you devolve so quickly into name calling man? It’s just a discussion dude. We’re having our disagreements so that makes us husks of humanity. Cool.
@liberachi , I feel like GD is a mental disorder, beings that Anxiety and Depression are mental disorders too. As for experts saying it isn't, I've heard that the scientists being refered to are far left. I dunno tho, I haven't done any research to prove or disprove that claim.
Through my experience (personal experience, and an unhealthy amount of YT Videos of trans/the left recorded in person, displaying the behavior and thought processes of people like this), I tend to take a more right stance because most of them that i have seen either do it for attention, or feel like everyone needs to bend to them and call them what they want, despite everyone else's beliefs, morals, and boundaries. It's like, they say "fvck your comfort, because my comfort is more important". I obviously know there are more exceptions than I could probably imagone, but that's the face of the LGBT community/the left. Censorship, offensiveness being a crime, misgendering being an act of violence, etc.
@Invalid User, no one is forceing anyone to call anyone anything , trans people are just trying to live their life and do their thing. Famously people called the bill in Canada that made trans people a protected class forcing speech but ultimately it did not. No one has been jailed in the year after its passing, no court cases came about it, it was just d-bags stirring s**t up. Everyone is free to call trans people whatever you want, but for the record, not calling someone by their preferred name is pretty douchey. And I would argue NOT adopting a simple behavior for someone else’s comfort isequally attention seeking and inflammatory, just in a different way
Who’s worse, the vegan, or the guy who lectures them on why being vegan is somehow offensive to him?
Would you rather be burned or drowned, the only difference is: when someoen chooses burning they actively choose to make someone else burn with them out of spite.
@Invalid User, As for the gd mental disorder thing, you literally stated that you “feel” like it’s a certain way, I mean, to borrow from a far right firebrand for a second “facts don’t care about your feelings”. Not to be rude or use that saying in a derogatory way, but just that in terms of that argument, as someone with a bachelors and soon to be masters in psych. The scientific concessius is pretty clear.
@Invalid User, If your comfort comes from denying someone else's humanity, then yeah, that person's comfort is more important than yours. That's why.
@liberachi , I don't watch a middleman tell me what people do. I watch the people. And thought those examples I gave aren't in effect, there are a lot of people who would push for them. And, it may seem like a simple behavior, but I know to some people, like me, it's not. I simply wasn't brought up that way, and I think very straightforward and logically. If I see male features, I'll say "he". I have a friend who is trans. When he came out, I tried my best to change. It was very hard, since I knew them several years beforehand. He said I could say "she" if I wanted. I still made an attempt to say "they". Later, he expressed the fact that it bothered him that "i didn't try, and didn't care". Obviously, I've gotten a little used to it, but saying "him" irl still makes me feel very awkward. I would think that being trans would be accepting the possibility that people won't call you by your prefered gender. And, in regards to your vegan example, you have to remember that the person
@liberachi , who is lecturing probably experienced those vegans that go out and tell the world about how vegan they are, and how you're a murderer if you eat meat.
@HammerOfHerertics, Aerospace Engineering
@Jdrawer, I wouldn't say using one word over another is dehumanizing. I would not go up to a trans person and believe them to be any lower than me. They're a person. Most of the problem, I think, is that we think gender plays too big of a part in day to day life. I don't go through my day constantly thinking "I'm a guy.", let alone needing that info to do my job, cook, or talk. There's a lot more to life than your gender identity, and I feel a lot of people are missing that
@Jdrawer, yup. Engineers totally don’t do science. Or employ it to make our lives easier or anything. Also you can’t deny that whether you like it or not a lot of western philosophy has been influenced by Christianity. There’s no question.
@Jdrawer, also, just a brief poke. Saying he instead of her is considered dehumanizing to you, yet laughing at someone else for something they said isnt? I understand the connection, and agree with you on the lack of correlation, but you're acting just how you claim he is. I'm not trying to pin blame on you, or anything. I just feel like discussions and thoughts would be a lot better if we kept these sorts of things in mind
@Invalid User, no one is asking for perfection (no one who isn’t just as big a douche as dephenistator anyway). I’m sure your friend, while frustrated that it takes time to unlearn those innate behaviors, also recognized and appreciated the efforts you put forward to change them, “they” isn’t “she”, but it’s a start and it does ultimately show that you cared about that person’s wellbeing.
Furthermore, its understandable to feel awkward about this sort of thing, trans exposure is still extremely new, and getting used to such a nuance for something that used to be viewed as so simple will take everyone time.
Ultimately, all anyone can really ask for is effort.
@HammerOfHerertics, They don't do science. They may employ it, but so do- well- a lot of very unscientific people.
@liberachi , that's kind of the thing. He didn't recognise any of the effort. An arguement broke out in our discord because one of his friends corrected me when I said "they". Eventually, my friend came in, defended his friend (because she another member were at each others throats), then pm'ed me saying that he "simply wish I tried...at all"
I'll admit, I have pretty negative feelings towards the trans community and ideology, but not because they're trans. I see the college campuses full of people from the left silencing others for having other opinions, and claiming equal treatment, yet demonizing white people. It's pretty messed up. And these negative feelings aren't out of malice, don't get me wrong. I'm just kind of afraid. I've seen people in the community try to, and sometimes succeed in, getting people fired from their jobs for having a differing opinion
@Invalid User, I belief in psychographics judgements over demographics judgements. You can’t say or determine anything about someone based on race, height, weight, gender/expression, sexuality, or any of that bs. But every person’s beliefs, values, words, and actions, are all fair game. If you see something say something: even if you’re the only liberal voice in a red sea of conservatives. I try to only retaliate when provoked, and inject meaningful discussion and dissent wherever possible.
@Jdrawer, alright man. They don’t call us rocket scientists for nothing ya know. Tell me exactly the difference then.
@Invalid User, It's not when someone uses the wrong pronoun that's dehumanizing, it's when you make it out to be that trans individuals are either pretending or not really trans. They're there. They exist.
Or when people try to act like they're less than human (oftentimes the whole "they're mentally ill" argument, which is not helpful whatsoever) that's problematic.
And no, laughing at someone isn't dehumanizing. Maybe embarrassing, but I'm not in any way implying he's any less human or that part of his identity is fake.
@liberachi , I do too. I never understood how so many people could fit into stereotypes, and it often confused me. I believe everyone is a decent person until proven otherwise, and am aware that the part of the left I see are very few (I hope, and my least). It still worries me that what little people are like that have a lot of power to pretty much attack white people
@Invalid User, Serious question: Is saying "they" an effort to recognize your friend's femininity? Why wouldn't you just say "she"?
@HammerOfHerertics, Because laypeople don't mystify any profession requiring mathematical literacy, huh?
@Jdrawer, a lot of people I've seen do a lot of things for attention, my cousin included. So, after years of seeing attention grabbing, I can only at least keep the possibility in mind. And mentally ill isn't really meant to be bad, per se. It can be considered a mental disorder, so as such, is a mental illness. Of course, that phrase can be used out of malicious intent, but not always
@Invalid User, it’s mostly just bloggers and attention seeking teenagers with tumblr blogs that make the rest of us lgbt look bad with their Demi-queer dragon-kin bs.
If hammer was making fun of that I’d be fine. But it’s the assertion that all trans people are mental ill that’s a problem (and not true)
@Jdrawer, it's from she to he. I didn't use she because he came out as trans, and I did my best to respect it it felt extremely awkward going straight to saying "he", so I was attempting to make a smoother transition to help make both of us comfortable
@liberachi , yeah, I can understand that. The truth is, every group, black, white, gay, trans, has its bad, loud crowd that becomes the face of the group. All it does is create hate.
@Invalid User, Hey man, I just want to say that while you're often misguided, I can tell you're making an effort, and I appreciate that. And I'm glad you're not implying mental illness means badness, as many others do to demonize trans individuals. But I can assure you nobody "goes trans" simply for attention, unless they're a habitual liar, which is a whole nother barrel of fish (and also means they're not trans).
@Jdrawer, yep. That was my cousin XD. I couldn't help but think the same for her friends, because they're queerness was all they would ever talk about
@Jdrawer, tell me when the last time a non-scientist worked on a Krypton fed ion grid engine and the hollow cathode to keep it neutralized? When did a non-scientist write a paper proposing new methods for finding exoplanets? Or when a non-scientist experimented in a vacuum chamber with hall thrusters? Cause I’ve done these things, so what does that fall into then?
@Invalid User, I just want you to know. people like you are why I still comment after all the hate. I still believe there are people willing to listen and learn, even if you have to swim the sea of trolls to reach them.
I hope you and I both grow from this as I know we can.
And seriously check out contra points she’s great.
@Invalid User, Oof; I misread. But I can tell you that your friend's transition would be more comfortable if you just used "he." Even if it feels weird at first, speaking from experience, your friend's sanity should be more important. And if you mess up, just fess up. Unless he's a dick, he'll recognize it and be cool about it.
@HammerOfHerertics, An engineer
@liberachi , How similar are her videos to Olly's?
@Jdrawer, that is probably true. And I know you were probably exaggerating for humor, but in case you werent, I don't think that someone saying the wrong gender would make you go insane. It seems like a loss of perspective, of that makes sense. Not heing called a boy/girl, vs every other aspect of life. Just seems blown out of proportion, you know?
@Jdrawer, which is someone who literally conducts science to develop technologies. Science isn’t a particular discipline. It’s a process.
@liberachi , thanks. People like you are why I try to contribute. I like having calm discussions, and often try to learn as much as I can from both sides of an arguement. I do watch Ben shapero, but I always think about both sides, no matter how crazy they may seem. I always find myself understanding a little bit where the "special snowflake stufldent", as the video title suggests, is coming from.
@Invalid User, Speaking from experience, no. I have a friend whose family refuses to recognize his transition. To be treated as if he's a liar or making everything up or as disgrace takes a serious toll on his mental health.
@Invalid User, Ben Shapiro is a jacka$$ (in my opinion) but his book, true allegiance, is hilarious and definitely worth a read if you love terrible books. If you don’t want to pay money for it I would also check out chapo trap house’s true alligenace dramatic reading.
@Jdrawer, to who’s?
@HammerOfHerertics, Engineers aren't scientists. Close, but no cigar.
@liberachi , Olly Thorne, aka PhilosophyTube.
@Jdrawer, sure, semantically. But without engineers, scientists discoveries make for good papers and that’s it.
@Jdrawer, she seems pretty similar on the surface, instacate skits and costumes and flashy dramatics and the like, but she’s also got some great well researched points too.
@HammerOfHerertics, I think what he’s trying to say is: engineering, regardless of discipline, is more of a math prossion then a hard science is it not?
@liberachi , I've always been a bit scared to check her out, as her cameos on PT led me to believe she'd be more dramatic than my tastes, especially with her long videos, but I'll check her out!
@Jdrawer, 👍 she’s definitely got a flare that I could easily see as too much, but once you get passed it it’s really fasinating
@liberachi , in what world do scientists not use math? Engineering is more focused on approximations that get the job done while science is more precise perhaps but even that’s a stretch. It just depends what the engineer does. A structural engineer building a bridge probably wouldn’t be called a scientist, but a space systems engineer designing a Mars Rover or a chemical engineer designing drug processes is 100% a scientist. But either way, engineers are more qualified to understand science than most other strictly non-science professions.
@HammerOfHerertics, whoa dude, I wasn’t trying to insult your profession. I was just trying to say that, in my own opinion, it seems like engineering is more of an applied mathematical practice rather than a science for the singular sake of furthering knowledge like botany or nuclear chemistry or some such.
And even then this still has nothing to do with the fact that gender dysphoria isn’t a mental illness. Even if engineering is a science then it still doesn’t trump the psychological community’s consensus in matters of the mind.
@liberachi , sure that’s true. It’s applied science. Not applied mathematical practice. I’m not saying you’re insulting it im saying you’re not understanding it and then accusing me of not being qualified of making judgements on science when I absolutely am, within my field.
@HammerOfHerertics, Still doesn't make you a scientist
@Jdrawer, describe engineering without the word science.
@HammerOfHerertics, Without "science"? Skillful maneuvering. Though if I were to use the word "science," it'd be "the application of knowledge of the pure sciences."
a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
the sciences concerned with the study of inanimate natural objects, including physics, chemistry, astronomy, and related subjects.
I'm pretty sure an Aerospace Engineer has expert knowledge of the Aerospace Physical Science, meaning they are indeed scientists.
@Jaune Arc, Aerospace isn't a physical science.
@Jdrawer, so you can’t? Thank you.
Also @Jaune Arc makes the point better than me.
@Jdrawer, Indeed it is not and I didn't realize I was reading Astronomy incorrectly. But...
the branch of science that deals with celestial objects, space, and the physical universe as a whole.
And Aerospace Engineer is described as such: Aerospace engineering is the primary field of engineering concerned with the development of aircraft and spacecraft.
Considering spacecraft must operate in space(Astronomy) then the engineers must have an expert understanding of the Space so that their spacecraft and similar structures that they must build and maintain(satellites, rockets, rovers, probes, etc.), can successfully operate. So while my initial response was incorrect due to my reading failures, my point still stands.
@liberachi , I had a terrible family member that only wanted fights on holidays, harm her kids and even stole us from our dad. Every time I called her out for being a terrible human being she bait and switched to play the victim and said we were judging her because she wasn't perfect. No we weren't, she belittled her own problems to the point where it looked petty to to her to say anything. She was crazy. I don't demand perfection from anyone at all. Likewise I don't demand hate or dehumanize trans and they can do what they want. When they have a problem with how I live my life is where I'm up in arms, as it should be. If it bothers someone so much that i am not going along with whatever pronoun they expect me to know before I meet them, then just don't hang out with me. If you hear the wrong pronoun once and throw a tantrum and try or try to move legislation then you deserve the rebuke you get. That's not civil and no one in their right mind should call ot such.
@liberachi , if that's rancid behavior to you, then you don't want me to be live peacefully with trans, you want me to bend to their emotional will and that is wrong.
@Dephenistrator, have you ever met a trans person, of any kind, ever?
@liberachi , many, i live in the seattle area so its practically mandatory, not that either answer would belittle my previous statement. There were three in my highschool alone and they hated straight people with a passion.
@Dephenistrator, so you’re basing your experience with trans people off of your high school peers? The paragons of morality and good decision making?
Also for the record, most trans people are only asking for effort, if you can’t be bothered to put the effort in of changing a three letter word for one person, even if it’s not perfect every time: you. Are. The. A$$hole. no one is forcing anything, you just can’t be bothered to put in minimal effort for something petty that bothers people; it’s not forbidden. It just makes you a genuinely bad and lazy person.
Not really sure what the anecdote with your family is for; I guess just to express your belief that all lgbt people do is play the victim. The person in the story wasn’t even identified as lgbt so I think what you were getting at is that anyone who asks you to change you behavior in literally any way is the equivalent as someone who kidnappes people and steps from their dad. Again. K. Feel free to correct me because I Hope I am.
@liberachi , i am going to correct you. I gave that anecdote because you referenced me in one of your earlier messages as attacking anyone who isn't perfect. I compared you to another person who said that to me when I didn't deserve it then either. No lgbt reference there.
Three trans in my school. One or two at every job I've had. Met one almost every time I've been in Seattle and have seen two lgbt parades, once because we just stopped to see what's going on and once because it was blocking us going to a sounders game I really didn't want to go to. (Not a sports guy)
If they look like a male or female I'll call them that. If they are short tempered and threatening (the ones I'm talking about, that I've accidentally met the hard way) then they. Are. The. Asshole.
anything else you want to distort until I look a stupid villain??? Any other way to dig bigotry out of a reasonable opinion or are you a "think like me or your a bigot" type?
@Invalid User, Theres nothing wrong with having an opinion. But my parents taught me, theres a time and place to express that opinion especially if you choose to express it in public.
I think trolls more than anything have pushed issues lately to make it seem like theres a movement to squash any idea thats leans left. And while I do recognize that the PC attitude can and is reaching a point where its becoming the very thing it is trying to fight against.
This is because the PC culture as well as the people who they attack. Have moved away from a very simple phrase and philosophy that is the only real method to bring people together.
That method is the offender saying, “I’m sorry”, follow by the offended person “accepting that apology”.
If you can’t except the apology of someone who is truly sorry. Then you are no better than that persons wrong doing. That doesn’t mean one has to keep accepting an apology if that same person doesn’t correct their actions...
@Seohn, .... That doesn’t mean one has to keep accepting an apology from a person who continues to act in a bad manner. It’s one thing for a person to make a mistake apologize for it and try not to do it again.
It’s another if someone is apologizing but is just saying it without meaning it.
Thats how PC culture has appeared to turned into as of late. A culture of people who look for people to tear down for any wrongdoings perceived or otherwise rather than accept an apology when its given and help them learn from their mistakes or lack of knowledge.
@liberachi , as a side note. I’ve often wandered if bigotry should be classified as a mental disorder or just stay as something derived of ignorance. Of course ignorance could also be because of a mental disability too so there is that.
Any smart person would know that. What someone wants you to call them has no impact on how you live your life. It plays no actual roll in your life unless you let it impact your emotions. Any smart non-hypocritical person would also know, “If you don’t like people telling you how to live your life. Then you should have no problem not telling people how to live their’s”.
Shortly after I typed the first paragraph I had a realization. If bigotry were to be considered a mental disability. Does that mean the PC culture would be picking on people with handicaps?
@Jdrawer, I understand those households exist, and how stressful it can be to live in them. I believe that if the person coming out is known for doing a lot for attention, or lies often, it would make sense to be a little doubtful. However, that would probably be focusing on the younger part of the community (middle school, highschool). I wouldn't believe that most adults past college would demonstrate the behaviors I've seen with the others.
@liberachi , I understand why anyone would think he is a jack@ss, since he kind of radiates a feeling of pride/arrogance when proving his points, however I do think he has a lot of proper stances. He's usually on the "doing the right thing" side of issues, though his viewpoint towards the trans community is very strongly against it, because he knows the value of the basic gender roles and how they affect growing children, society, etc. No matter what opinions he has, or side he takes, the amount of time, effort, and research he puts it to his side of the arguement is admirable, and I kind of wish everyone researched at least and little like he does. It would make conversations more constructive, with both sides providing hard statistics and facts to undeniably identify the problem, and both sides can work to fix it. As a sidenote, I really dislike how a lot of college campuses react to him speaking there. People yelling "bigot!" (What seems to be their go-to word for people with a
@liberachi , different opinion) and was even stopped by an officer or security guard, and told he could not enter the building during (what I think was, correct me if item wrong) a sort of debate fair kinda deal. He wanted to listen to another person talk, and was prevented from doing so, and was told the police will be called if he tried to listen to them speak. If you manage to find the video, it would explain everything much better than I just did, lol. My point is, there seems to be an issue with offending people. People associate offending with oppression, and people with different opinions are offensive, and being offensive isn't really dangerous or unacceptable (unless in more extreme cases). A lot of these colleges fight with feelings, and they don't stop to think that it's just someone's opinion, and it would be a good idea to just look at both sides, whether it's to try understanding the other side, or strengthening your own viewpoint
@HammerOfHerertics, how about you view it this way? The transition is the treatment?
Yes, I know a lot of the trans community can be... A bit stupid and kinda cruel.
But transexuals have been a thing for a long time, at least before Christianity started to prosecute people for not behaving like the gender norms.
But you'll be surprised to find a lot of the trans community is surprisingly silent. We transition in silence, and don't make a huge fuss.
However the "Popular" trans groups that get put on TV all the time obviously aren't like that...
But on a personal note, if I hadn't started to transition, I probably would have killed myself. Anti-Depressants were not working for me. And therapy was slowly making things worse. HRT was my treatment. I acknowledge that what transitioning can physically do might be viewed as bad, but it is allowing me to slowly be more comfortable with my body and not be dead.
@Taliu the Fox, you really lost credibility when you said Christianity prosecutes people. Name the last person that was prosecuted by the Church for such a thing. What does that even mean?
@liberachi , if i get botox in my lips paint myself black does that make me black? Simply put the reasons they consider themselves trans gender are really stupid and hypocritical. I am not a black man because i like rap music and grape soda thats racist. In the same token they are not women because they like to put on dresses thats sexist.
@HammerOfHerertics, not in modern times. In medieval times, Christianity demonized certain groups. A lot of mentality about those groups remained.
If you seriously think Christians never prosecuted anyone, you really need to learn some history.
@megamanx181x, and yet the most prevalent
@liberachi , hey you're right! Psychological phenomenon, one may even refer to it as an abnormality or illness
@Medic135, like everything in life always the worst is shown to represent anything
@The Manwhore, fvckin love that name and avatar, sexualobster
@Medic135, they may! If they don’t know what any of those words actually mean in a professional or even casual setting!
@liberachi , oh Libby, you and your pseudo science!
But for real I didn't bother reading how long this this comment chain was or how far it had already devolved before I got here sooo I'm gonna back out and you and I can argue pointlessly some other time... How ya been?
@Medic135, pretty great. Just started seriously working on a second degree in my “pseudo-science” field of study but I won’t take that personally. Hbu?
@liberachi , well all the best to you in that pursuit, I do honestly hope your field is something real and not (generically speaking) gender studies. Second degree as in two bachelors or going from bachelor to masters?
@Medic135, masters in psychology
@liberachi , I'm cool btw, trying to change to a different city to work in the place I am now is mostly old folks and there's a nearby city that is very sick with the opioid epidemic and I feel I could be of more use there
@Medic135, I also have my JD for law and a second bachelors in political science. (I wasted so much god d*** money it’s rediculous)
@liberachi , oh I studied psychology before I fell into my current work, good luck with it
@Medic135, you still a paramedic, med?
@liberachi , with all those degrees (and debt) I can see why someone like you leans left 😂 free college would sound great no matter what the context at that point
@liberachi , yeah paramedic/firefighter, lucky me I got grants to cover my tuition for those
@Medic135, I mean I also don’t want people going around assigning random mental illnesses to people. If just anyone can do that then why do I have all these degrees 😂😅...🙃....😢🔫
@liberachi , why the fvck do I have a wall covered in certificates if someone is going to call 911 because they coughed exactly once after eating a spoonful of salt because they for some reason thought their sodium was low 🚑⚕️🏥💉🔫🔫🔫
@HammerOfHerertics, *acts morally superior, resorts to name calling anyone who disagrees and calls them husks of humanity*
@Medic135, “my sodium is low, better eat straight up salt!” Absolutely iconic
@Taliu the Fox, we’re taking about modern times though...the supposed “demonizing mentality” remains because it is not demonizing of people it is demonizing of an evil philosophy that distorts truth. That’s why it remains. Because it’s correct. But you’re very mistaken if you think that’s a license to mistreat or “prosecute” people.
@liberachi , I can't make it up 🤷
@HammerOfHerertics, I know... But the reasons gay, gender-non-conforming, and Transexual people are marginalized stems from early Christianity. Several of the religions they replaced treated those things as normal. You can't understand modern times without really understanding why things are the way they are.
@Taliu the Fox, oh I totally agree. But it seems you didn’t read my comment. I said that those realities exist because the philosophies that these “marginalized” people ascribe to to justify their behavior is untrue, indefensible and wrong. The church has a duty to uphold truth where she sees it under assault. That doesn’t justify any acts of violence against people, but it does justify critiquing and calling out their belief system.
@HammerOfHerertics, no, I got that... But what belief system are you questioning? I don't feel like talking if this is going to be about religion only.
If this is still on the topic of the trans thing, all I have to say is this:
Right now the only cure for gender dysphoria is transitioning. All other attempts at cures this far have resulted in suicide.
@Taliu the Fox, it’s religious insofar as that informs the worldview (supported by natural and evidentiary observations) that we cannot choose our gender anymore than we can choose when or where we are born. It is a fact that we’re born into and don’t have any say in, only to accept it. And if psychological issues prevent that, then they should be treated in such a way that doesn’t deny that reality. And trans people continue to exhibit shockingly high suicide rates after “transitions” as well, so it doesn’t seem to be a very good cure.
@liberachi , you saying that explaining morality is your expertise is a laughable lie. You aren’t expert at it, and your own morality is pretty stupid. That’s why whenever you’re challenged on it you run away.
@HammerOfHerertics, I agree. The main problem is that modern media portrays the medical condition way too much and people think they are trans when they aren't. Or pretend to be...
@I Are Lebo, we are nearly 50 posts down and like 33% of theme are mine. Stay in your bubble unless you want to keep saying easily disproven crap or more unwanted opinions
@Taliu the Fox, wait what do you agree with? Cause I said some things pretty contrary to what you had been saying.
@liberachi , there we go with the personal attacks again.
@HammerOfHerertics, with the high suicide rate after transition. Anyway... I'm tired of scrolling so far down.
@Seohn, I’m sorry but the statement of bigotry being equated to mental illness is idiotic. That literally boils down to “if you disagree with me you must be crazy”. Bigotry is born of ignorance. Whether it’s ignorance of trans issues or ignorance of biology, or ignorance of racial bias.
@HammerOfHerertics, be gay in the Bible Belt and then argue than Christianity doesn’t persecute people in the modern era. Or be a woman who is forced by health concerns to get an abortion. Or any of a dozen outgroups that Christian organizations go out of their way to make life a living hell for.
@I Are Lebo, I meant mainly Catholicism. I don’t know much about Christians in the south and disagree wit them on a lot. And that probably includes the groups in your last sentence. But either way I have no sympathy for someone who thinks killing a baby is a necessary course of action. It never is.
@Taliu the Fox, this is untrue. Statistics show that the 40% suicidality rate is by and large unaffected by transitioning. I’m happy for you that transitioning helped, but I’ve done my own research. If I transitioned (like I’d love to do as I am myself trans) I’d end up MORE likely to commit suicide because I am naturally very masculine (6’3”, very broad shouldered, deep voice, etc) and the technology does not currently exist to actually make a woman out of a man.
Unless you are lucky enough to be naturally androgynous or begin transitioning before puberty, you can only go so far towards passing. The person in the video referenced in the pic looks like a man in drag, and while I have no issue with cross dressers, I’m not one. I dabbled in it when I was younger and it only made me more depressed because it’s not the clothing I care about but the body underneath. I can’t be a woman any more than I can be a cyborg. The technology simply doesn’t exist. I hope one day that changes and
we can all literally be what we want, but until that day comes, reality is what matters.
@HammerOfHerertics, Catholicism is a massive source of discrimination against homosexuals. And sometimes the aborting of a baby is necessary to save the mothers life. In which case it’s needed because the infant is going to die either way.
I’m not arguing for abortions of convenience. Only out of necessity. But I’ve seen women run out of town by ‘god fearing christians’ for less.
@I Are Lebo, you’re wrong on both counts but I’m done arguing. This thread is long enough and I’ve got work to do.
@liberachi , you have no authority over me, and your propensity to leave any discussion that isn’t going your way has lead to you not having my respect. So no, I will not “stay in my bubble”. Defend your point or don’t.
@HammerOfHerertics, Catholics are the primary sources of the pushback against equal rights for homosexuals. The Catholic Church is perhaps the largest source of religiously sanctioned evil in this world outside of Islam extremists. That isn’t negated by a “you’re wrong”. Neither is the medical fact of necessary abortions. That’s why most states that have outlawed abortions contain a clause for that scenario.
@I Are Lebo, bruh, you came in two days after the first post of this thread, if you want a defense of my points then just read my other comments
Never said I had any authority over you either I just really didn’t want to deal with your bs
@I Are Lebo, I'm sorry to hear that. I wish you luck though.
@liberachi , then don’t. No one is forcing you to reply to me. And I posted my comment after reading your so called defenses. They’re invalid, containing psychobabble and are entirely devoid of any actual ethical or moral argument.
@Taliu the Fox, likewise
@I Are Lebo, 1. “How come you stop responding to me when I’m brick walking you, virtue signal cuck beta soy boi”
2.”fine then. Don’t respond,no ones forcing you to anyway, hrumph”
3.maybe if you had bothered to Pearce or interpret the “psychobabble” (thanks for reducing my field into a deflection! My! how evenhanded and open to discussion you must be!) maybe you would understand it .maybe you’d even find an argument in there. Maybe.
@I Are Lebo, what’s wierd is that I’ve read your comments, and if what your saying is all true, it seems like your more angry at a personal hang up with me than any of my points. What did I do?
@liberachi , honestly, I’m a little salty how the last time I had a discussion with you, you took my disagreement with you as trolling and then left the discussion, rather than actually address any of my arguments. Which you do regularly. You attack the person instead of the argument or idea.
As for what I assume you meant to write as ironic, it’s not irony, it’s exasperation. If you want to address the issue, please do so. I welcome the debate. If you want to deflect by referring to either unrelated points, such as your credentials in a field that has no correlation to the discussion topic, or an ad hominem attack on your foe, I have no interest in that. It’s a waste of time.
And for the record, I do not think you’re either a cuck or a beta. Regardless of my opinions about you, you’re certainly not passive or passive aggressive. And nothing you have said would lead me to believe you’re a soyboi.
I do think you’re an asshole, but then again so am I.
@I Are Lebo, why didn’t you just say so, bud. And to be fair (I assume your referring to that chick-fil-a thing) you came in pretty late in the debate, I was talking to someone who had a history of let’s just say “troll-like tendencies” and you did what you did here where you both claimed I had no arguments and that I was someone who only used ad hominems. So I had reason to believe you were just f**king with me for fun like the other guy was.
Obviously that wasn’t the case and I know that now. I’m truely sorry. Med and I have debates all the time and we’re basically online boyfriends
@I Are Lebo, if you would like to talk about chick-fil-a and citizens united some more I would love to. It’s my favorite debate topic in the whole wide world and what got me into politics and liberalism in the first place. I could talk about that forever assuming my audience wasn’t a brick wall douchebag
@I Are Lebo, and the reason I site my credentials in this argument is because hammer citied his first sooo
@liberachi , fair enough. And I would like to have such a discussion. Even when things get heated I try to not take such things personally, but I am fallible and I do have the tendency to lose my temper just like anyone else.
It mostly bothered me because it felt like a dismissal, I don’t take offence to being disagreed with.
@HammerOfHerertics, he started out your debate calling you a moron... that's what cracked me up the most.
@Invalid User, as someone who is on the right, I’m just going to say that Ben Shapiro is hardly on the right. He’s a centrist, and I think a lot of his ideas are too libertarian. Considering Shapiro hates the far right just as much as the far left, anyone who says that “Facts don’t care about your feelings” is a far-right saying clearly is getting their info from a false source.
@I Are Lebo, hey. I agree with you that Catholicism is awful.
Protestant Christianity is actually very loving and really great. It’s literally Catholics that are responsible for the hatred people have for Christians.
But we really should distinguish the two. Catholics produce more Atheists than anyone else
@I Are Lebo, i would like to take this moment and say i don't hold any grudges over our last arguement either. Your one of my favorite debaters on funny pics even though i agree half and half with you. No hard feelings.
@Child Slapper, Catholics are worse. Protestants are still bad. All sects of Christianity have something wrong with them, and it all stems from the mentality of faith. Appeals to faith as a method of obtaining truth encourage fallacious thinking and poor reasoning skills, regardless of what unproven supernatural deity the faith is being placed in.
But I do agree that distinguishing different sects is important.
@Dephenistrator, there are no hard feelings on my part either. I enjoy debating with you. I appreciate the compliment.
@Child Slapper, While dont phrase it like that “facts don’t care about your opinions”.
I do phrase it like this. “Facts are neither good or evil they are just that, point of data.”
Which in turn makes the first phrase correct. I am not a far right person. So your assessment isn’t entirely correct. I don’t really lean left either. I try to apply logic to what I think without letting emotions dictate choice. Any suppose fact thats spoken during times of emotion should have its credibility questioned. Which is why I don’t care for Fox News. Because their most common method is to apply fear tactics to further their causes.
@I Are Lebo, the people who have told you that they believe arbitrary truth because of faith alone just aren’t intelligent enough. I don’t believe in God because of faith. I’ve read the Bible on my own to logically prove it wrong, and realized that I never had all the information. The Bible doesn’t say to have random faith in whatever I feel is right in my own thinking. It says that although life sucks and people suffer, have faith that God is loving and has a plan for all who follow him.
I understand why you hate Catholics, who condemn people to hell and believe you can pay your way to heaven.
I get even your hatred of most Baptist’s: judgmental old cooks.
But the people who actually follow the Bible are told to “Love even your enemies”. Put others needs ahead of your own. Anyone claiming God and serving themselves should be called a hypocrite.
But the actual Christians that I’ve met are selfless and just do kind acts for others.
But I used to believe in humanity just like you
@Child Slapper, you are wrong on most counts, and I say this not to insult you but to correct you.
First and foremost, I don’t hate Catholics, Baptist’s, or any other denomination of any religion. It’s the religion itself that I have contempt for. They are systems of ignorance being passed on as knowledge. There are so many horrendous things in the Bible that the sheer number of people who claim it as the ultimate source of morality should be terrifying to anyone who actually thinks about what that means. For every statement about ‘loving your enemies’, there are entire segments about slaughtering them. Most importantly, the Bible’s stance on slavery is something I have never heard an adequate explanation for.
The moral system of Christianity is one that is based on subjective interpretations of an ancient book whose words can be twisted to fit any moral agenda. Even going so far as to directly contradict the source material. Which is how you had people on both sides of the American
civil war claiming that the bible supported their stance on slavery. (Hard truth: it supported the Confederacy)
Also, for the record, I do not believe in humanity. I have become convinced that we are doomed to extinction within the next millennia at most, and it will be by our own hands.
@I Are Lebo, both sides of the Civil War claimed they followed the Bible. Obviously the Confederates were confused. The North used the Bible as reason they should end slavery. The Bible doesn’t say that slavery is good. Slavery was commonplace, and God gave laws in order to protect them. He said to treat them nicely, give them shelter and food, do not hurt them, and set them free after 7 years so they may take what you’ve taught them and live. The first half of the Bible is not the rules Christians follow. It’s merely history. The rules he gave only made sense in the Jewish sect way back then. Additionally, there is a difference between killing in war, and murdering a neighbor. That much is common sense.
The second half of the Bible is when Jesus came and said all those rules the Jews follow are no longer applicable, and we should follow his example instead. Then he did charity work all the time.
Anyone who takes subjective interpretations is wrong. It’s literal and straighforward
@Child Slapper, you do not know what you are talking about. It was only the male Hebrew slaves that were to be released after 7 years, and then if you gave them a family they remained with you for ever and could be passed down to your children as inheritance. Jesus said nothing about the old rules not being applicable, he explicitly says in the New Testament that he has come to enforce the old rules.
The bible does not ever condemn slavery, not in the Old or New Testaments. Read your bible.
@I Are Lebo, dude, I do know what I’m talking about. Jesus literally said that He was God and most rules no longer apply unless you still chose to follow Judaism. Instead He urged people to follow him because He is God. That’s why the Jews voted to kill Jesus instead of the actual criminal that was on trial.
Three types of Jewish Laws:
(1)Ceremonial: Israel specific worship that no longer applies because their purpose was to point to Jesus. All that still applies is to worship and love God.
(2)Civil Law: many particular laws that only applied to the Jewish Society of the time. Jesus gave an example of how these are only to be followed to the extent that the society would understand, like caring for those who are in need or can’t care for themselves.
(3)The Moral Law: The Ten Commandments. Jesus said they still apply forever.
@Child Slapper, did you get your knowledge of Catholicism from an old Know Nothing party pamphlet? Because not a single thing you said, either factually or subjectively, was right. But next time you read the Bible, thank the Catholic Church for keeping it safe for 1500 years before Protestants came along to tear it to shreds with thousands of erroneous interpretations.
@HammerOfHerertics, no. There are multiple sources of the translation of the Bible. The kind that was translated from the Catholics is nice, but it isn’t the one that Protestants use in today’s time. We’ve gone back to the original texts and translated the Bible separately from the Catholic Church. I’ve also studied Catholicism. I know the doctrine better than most Catholics do. The idea of transsubstantiation is just silly considering Christ said “it is finished”. And purgatory?? Don’t get me started. You can pay a priest to say a special prayer for your family member that could get them to heaven sooner? Don’t know about you, but that’s the slickest money scam I’ve ever heard of. My poor grandmother paying all that money for fake crap.
@Child Slapper, dude. Mathews 5:17. Jesus never claimed to be in opposition to the old laws, in fact quite the opposite. Nowhere in the bible is slavery EVER condemned. The closest the bible comes to that is when Paul wanted his converted slave friend to be freed so he sent the man back to his master with the plea that the master release that slave.
“Obey your masters not only when are the benevolent and kind but also when they are cruel.” That’s what Jesus had to say on the topic of slavery.
The fact that you are opposed to slavery is great. But your bible isn’t.
@I Are Lebo, so the concept of historical context is completely being ignored. Slavery was literally commonplace in every single society back then. They made rules in order to regulate slavery and make it less horrible while over time eventually removing slavery all together. They did the same exact thing in America centuries ago. No where in the Bible does it mention abortion either; because back then it made no sense to talk about since it wasn’t medically possible. Historical context. You have to understand the culture of the time.
Jesus isn’t opposition to the law; he is The Law. So what he says is truth. Because He is God. That’s why the Jews voted to kill him. They didn’t believe Him when He said the Ceremonial laws are finished with Him and the Civil Laws don’t all make sense since the Jews aren’t wandering the desert anymore.
And I don’t know about you, but Moses freeing the slaves is what God wanted. Therefore slavery=bad according to Bible.
@Child Slapper, you know what else was commonplace in every single society back then? Murder. Bible condemns that. Same thing with sodomy. Same thing with adultery. That argument carries no water because it would have been every bit as easy to say “thou shalt not own other people as property” as it was to say “thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ass”.
As for your talking about the Jews killing Christ, you can fück right off with that propaganda nonsense. Christ WAS a Jew, first and foremost, and according to your own damn book it was the Roman Catholics that killed him.
The Bible explicitly lays out how to treat your slaves, how to acquire your slaves, and which demographics can be enslaved. If you think the bible is opposed to slavery, it’s because you’ve never actually read it. Read Exodus and then try telling me that “slavery = bad” according to bible.
Because you are massively ignorant on this topic.
@Child Slapper, lol wait but who kept the original documents safe till Protestants came around. In fact who defined the books that went in it to begin with? There’s no Bible without the church or the early councils which are much more catholic in character than Protestant. And also, since you don’t understand either transubstantiation OR purgatory but you think you do, I’m not gonna make any progress by actually explaining them.
@I Are Lebo, you pretend to have so much knowledge of the Bible; why not just read it.
In the Book of John, it shows Christ being handed over to the Romans. The Roman was confused because Christ wasn’t guilty. He went out to all the Jews (Pharisees and saducees) and said, this man is not guilty. I don’t know why we would kill him. But I have a criminal here. I will leave it up to you. Do I free Jesus or Barabus? They all shouted Barabus!! Therefore Jesus had to be killed. As predicted in the Old Testament long before the New was written, the Jews will turn on their own messiah.
@HammerOfHerertics, I do understand both those concepts. Because again, I’ve studied Catholicism extensively. “I’m not going to bother explaining to you” that’s a cop out because most Catholics can barely explain those until mentioned anyways. “Keeping the books safe” that is just wrong. The Catholics had their version of the Bible, which yes, was translated. But there have been over 4000 copies of the original texts found. (Septuagint, LXX) Many have been found in ancient caves in the modern day. The Bible was re-translated from those copies, because the Catholics translated it differently to their own liking so they could insert their own rules. The Jewish who changed to Christ followers formed councils that formed the Bible from the letters that were written. Elsewhere in Italy the Catholics formed the council of Trent, and adding the books that Protestants already decided were Apocrypha. The Protestants were there at the start alongside Catholics, but Catholics murdered them.
@Child Slapper, where are you getting this information from?
@I Are Lebo, it’s in the Book of John. After Jesus gets arrested.
@Child Slapper, and you don’t recognize the problem with using the bible to verify itself?
@Child Slapper, or the problem with the blanket assumption that the translation of the bible you’re using is accurate?
@I Are Lebo, I’m not doing that. You’re telling me that the Bible says one thing, and I’m telling you that, having read it, that it says something else. Your entire spiel today was about the Bible saying things you disagree with, but you haven’t read the Bible itself. I used to have many disagreements, too I was an atheist till I was 17. Then in order to prove someone wrong I read it for myself and realized the contradictions I thought existed were wrong. I question my own faith more than anyone else questions theirs. I argue with my pastor lots over doctrine. I’ve written papers on why abortion is such a debated topic and why both sides are rational based on the Biblical text. I also read every outside source I can get my hands on. This is why I can teach Sunday school and help people. Because as Proverbs says “the way of the fool seems right in his own eyes, but I wise man listens to advice” I know that not everything I believe is correct. I listen to everyone, including you.
@Child Slapper, I’m giving you the quote where it says what I’m saying it is. Your argument is invalid.
"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." (1 Peter 2:18)
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again." (Exodus 21: 7-8)
"And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son...." (II Kings 6:28-29)
@Child Slapper, you also keep claiming that I haven’t read the Bible, except I have. I’ve read the King James version and it’s a horrible book filled with horrible things. A book that lays out how you can own slaves but condemns you to death for mixing fabrics is not a good source for morality. It’s really that simple.
@I Are Lebo, for 2 Kings 6, it is a story about evil people who resorted to cannibalism during a famine. They were evil people, the next verses show the King who heard this be regretful that such a horrible thing happened.
Exodus 21 is an entire chapter about regulations of slaves. The words say, if a father sells his daughter into slavery, and she does not “please the man” which actually translates to betrothe, then he may allow her to be redeemed, which means given back to her father. “Bought back again” isn’t in any of the versions I use. Men are set free, but if the woman slaves haven’t married their master, they go back to their father.
@I Are Lebo, on first Peter it says if you’re a slave, be good to your master. The Bible tells us to obey our government and it’s laws , whether we agree or not. Right after that passage, it says masters, treat your slaves kindly
@Child Slapper, you’ll twist things however you need to fit your views regardless of the actual source material. I’m wasting my time here.
@I Are Lebo, but I’m not. You’re literally reading one verse and saying “that sounds pretty bad” but what I just did was read the entire passage. What came before and after. I didn’t twist anything. I simply read the whole story. That’s what I’m saying is the issue here. It becomes clear what the verses say only when you understand them in context.
@I Are Lebo, the sjw crowd is trying to ban Rudolph. One of the reasons is because the bullying is wrong.
The whole point of the Rudolph story is the the bullying was messed up. But they don’t like that it was in their in the first place. Just like that King story. His decisions were poor and because of that, it led people to cannibalism. He tore his clothes in mourning and had much sorrow. At no point does it ever mention that cannibalism is right!
@Child Slapper, that’s not a good comparison, and more importantly, you’re fixating on the far less important issue. Cannibalism isn’t something I care about half as much as slavery, and your stance that the bible condemns slavery isn’t supported by any facts. The bible outright teaches that slavery is proper and moral.
@I Are Lebo, no, it teaches how to properly deal with slaves and how slaves should behave as well. You clearly looked up this topic on some website and cherry picked random verses that say what you want. How about reading the whole story? It makes sense that way. And again, the rules they had in the Old Testament don’t apply to the modern times. The New Testament makes it clear that slaves are to be treated very nicely especially since in those days it was a dwindling occurrence. Slaves, listen to your masters. Just like the common man was to follow the law of the land.
And Moses saying “Let my people go!” Is some pretty good condemnation of slavery if you ask me. Why would Moses try to free his people by God’s command if it was right?
@Child Slapper, first and foremost, that’s an absolutely idiotic notion you’re putting forward, and ironic too, because you’re purposefully ignoring the part of that quote where Jesus says to obey your masters regardless of their cruelty. So for you to criticize me for cherry picking makes you a hypocrite.
Secondly, Moses is as much a fictional character as Jesus. The story of the exodus from Egypt is fictitious and has no evidence supporting it. There is interbreeding between the Egyptians of that era and Hasidic Jews. There are zero loan words between the languages used at the supposed time, and most importantly, that story supposedly takes place generations before Christ, meaning that particular tribe being enslaved was found to be disagreeable by God, not all slavery.
And that line about following the law of the land is complete BS because it’s Christian Modus Operandi to change the law of the land by appealing to the bible. That’s why abortion and gay marriage are fought about.
@I Are Lebo, that’s not ignoring it. That’s completely true. The whole point of Jesus’ message is to be nice to others even when they’ve done wrong to you. He doesn’t say it’s good for the masters to be cruel; but obey regardless.
And we’re discussing the Bible right now, so you can call Moses fictional but the fact that he’s written in the Bible saying to free the people is proof that God condemns slavery itself according to the Bible.
And God says to obey the law of the land as long as they don’t tell you to disobey his 10 commandments. But there’s nothing wrong with trying to change the law to be less horrible. Abortion is fought about because in Christian eyes, it’s murder. I understand you don’t see it that way, but most of them do.
As far as gay marriage, that was the Catholics and Westboro Baptist Church who are super wrong and fvcked up, and other old cooks who are afraid of change. The rest of the Christians stayed out of the gay marriage issue. Do what you want.
@Child Slapper, You seem to like the “turn the other cheek” part of the New Testament, but you’re ignoring the “eye for an eye” that Christ also advocated. There’s a LOT to the message that you cast aside when it doesn’t fit your narrative, and that doesn’t cease to exist when you decide to ignore it. The bible says that it is GOOD to OWN PEOPLE. “Be a good master to your slaves” is not a good message. It’s better than “treat your slaves like crap”, but it is most certainly not “don’t own people as property”. This is all sophistry to dodge the point that the bible advocates for slavery to be a part of society. That it is beneficial and morally correct to own slaves.
On top of that, The entire basis of substitutionary atonement is immoral. There’s a good reason why substitutionary sentences are illegal in the advanced world. Even were I to accept all of your premises, which I most assuredly do not, the debt owed to Christ’s supposed sacrifice is wholly immoral. “The sins of the father
should be repaid by the sons into the seventh generation”. Does that sound morally correct to you?
@I Are Lebo, to be fair, the Bible doesn’t say Sodomy is bad directly. It just mentions sodomites in a list that makes it obvious. There is no “thou shall not commit sodomy”
“Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.” (1 Corinthians 7:21-23)
“And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell” Mark 9:47
@I Are Lebo, sins are passed down from the father. We get our sons passed down from Adam. Jesus was sinless because he was not conceived by a human father. Sad the we’re all sinful since birth in our nature, but true. Leave someone to their own devices without society, they do evil. That’s life. You think people are naturally good? No, it was the Biblical moral system that shaped the Western world today.
@Child Slapper, now I KNOW you’re full of crap. Leviticus explicitly spells out that sodomy is an abomination for which the penalty is to be stoned to death. “The Bible doesn’t say sodomy is bad directly”. Yes it does. Explicitly and repeatedly.
That Corinthians passage spells out that a pathway out of slavery is to become a devout Christian and then DIE. That’s what “being called to faith” means. It means dying. That passage is entirely irrelevant in the context of this discussion because it’s just saying that if you have faith in Jehovah (or Christ, depending on interpretation), that you won’t be a slave in the afterlife as well. That’s in no way a condemnation of the practicing of slavery.
I have no idea what point you think that Mark quote is making, but that’s a total non sequitur.
@Child Slapper, now you’re jumping from one topic to the next. The idea that we are liable for the things our ancestors did wrong is reprehensible and is meant to create an eternity of guilt. It’s manipulation, not compassion or morality. It’s not true that we are sinful from birth, that’s a horrible ideology, and it’s one made from a baseless assertion.
The ‘Biblical moral system’ that did indeed help shape the western world also included slavery. It took secular morality to abolish that, and that’s the entire basis of my point in this whole thread.
Secular humanism is an infinitely superior moral system to religious dogma, because the Christian system that’s based on the Bible (as opposed to based on personal morals with whatever justification can be twisted out of the Bible, which is most Christians), shows that the bible does not provide a moral system. Only moral pronouncements. If you think I’m wrong, answer me one question. WHY is gay sex a sin?
@I Are Lebo, secular humanism is the human attempt to be God. It is folly. Back when there was slavery the two American parties were Whig and Democrats. Christians got together and formed the Republican Party in order to fight against slavery and ran on that. The Democrats try to twist history and say the old Bible Republicans were the racists, but that’s historically immaculate. True Christians we’re responsible for abolishing slavery. Most of the most significant scientists through history like Newton were Christians and attributed everything to God.
I don’t know why gay sex is a sin. My very best friend is gay, and I love him no matter what. When I see a Christian make a face at the mention of homosexuality, I tell them to quit being judgmental, for attitudes like that cause hatred. We’re called to love and care for all. That’s what I do. The Bible says to put others’ needs ahead of your own in an act called love. Secular humanism says we are our own God and only please ourselves
@I Are Lebo, and help others when it’s convenient. I’d rather follow the loving path instead
@Child Slapper, you are as ignorant about the nature of secular humanism as you are about the contents of the bible. Educate yourself, because your posted views are invalid and based off of false information.
Secular humanism is a moral system based off of the careful consideration of the consequences of one’s actions, and an acknowledgement that we have to share space and our actions affect one another. Saying that secular humanism is the attempt to be god is like saying that Christianity is a nontheistic religion. It’s nonsensical.
As to your claim that true Christians were responsible for abolishing slavery, that is both false and fallacious. Have you never heard of the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy? Who are to you to try and determine what makes a ‘true’ Christian? On top of that, as I’ve pointed out multiple times already, and will continue regardless of how much you’d prefer I not, the bible endorses slavery and never condemns it.
Your ignorance is so extreme it must be willful.
@I Are Lebo, you endorsed the same fallacy yourself by saying that it was Christians that fought for slavery. I say Christians fought against slavery. You could read it on both sides of the war, but as someone who is a Christian, I can see that the southern democrats were delusional.
And as far as moral systems go, our conversation here proves that when one tries to depend on humanism for morality, they’re quite bad at it. For someone who claims to understand morality, you’ve been quite rude. Name calling; insulting, it’s all you know. You are so full of bitterness and anger that you lash out against others and pretend to be all rational and not hateful. You’re good at arguing, sure, but after all these years all I see is a resentful person that pretends to be decent.
The act of decency. Being kind to others though you disagree with them. Loving others, even jerks, and putting their needs first. It’s something my moral system and my personal walk with Christ teaches me well.
@Child Slapper, when did I say that it was christians that fought for slavery? I said at the beginning that Christians manipulate the words of the bible to support both sides, which is by itself evidence that the interpretations make the source material valueless if the same passages can be used to support mutually exclusive outcomes. None of which changes the FACT that the bible endorses the practice of slavery and never condemns it.
So now in addition to spreading ignorance, you’re attempting to put words in my mouth.
I’m going to be bluntly honest with you. I’ve been rude to you this whole time because I do not respect you and have contempt for the ignorance that you are peddling. Your religion has been one of the largest sources of evil in this world over the last millennia, and yet you and other Christians believe yourselves to sources of good. Your ignorance over the topics we have been attempting to debate has exceeded my patience, and so I have been increasingly rude with the
hope that it would get you to stop responding since I am altogether too aware that the chances of my breaking through the shell of wilful ignorance you have set up around your mind is precisely nil.
Your attempt at guilting me over it is also quite useless as secular humanism has exactly Jack shït to say on the subject of rudeness. Me being snippy with you over the Internet is not a moral issue.
And yes, I am bitter. I’m bitter that I live in a world full of morons who take stances based on things they don’t understand. I’m bitter that I live in a world full of people who think that believing in things without evidence is a reasonable course of action. I’m also rather exasperated and fed up with this inane and pointless discussion with an ignoramus who doesn’t understand what he is talking about.
So I genuinely wish you a pleasant day, but I’m done now.
@I Are Lebo, all things are easily manipulated to fit the mindset of those who wish to do evil. Simple people who don’t pay attention are easily manipulated. Your contempt towards me is proof of hate in your heart. I share my thoughts with you in an attempt to be nice. If I used my Christianity as an excuse for evil then there’d be a problem. But I just try to be nice. I’m sorry that some religious person was a jerk to you or something. I’m sure they will get what they deserve.
@Child Slapper, there is no such person. At every turn you fail to understand. It is YOU that I am frustrated with. I am not angry. I have simply run out of patience.
Well then she IS hideous
121 comments and it's mostly one chain.... sheesh
@Muscular Rooster, I wish we could get summaries of these. I’ve started more than one fight here and realized how many comments we ended up with the next day. 99% sure no one read it
We are truly living in a messed up time when facts are thrown out for the sake of feelings and ideologies. One can self-identify how ever one wants to, one cannot however demand the entire universe accept that identification as valid. If I consider myself to actually be a giraffe, simply born into the wrong body with the wrong physiology, it is simple tyranny to demand that everyone acknowledge me as such. The fact that is disputable is evidence that society is losing its grip on reality and nature itself. Contrary to what an existentialist would tell you, the entirety of the universe cannot be reduced to human subjectivity and human experience. There are simply things which are true and things which are not, regardless of human perceptions of them.
@Block1187, well said
@Block1187, no one is forcing you or in your words “the entire universe” to do anything. You are free to call trans people whatever you want, just as everyone else is free to call you out on what a d**k move it is to not even try to adapt.
@liberachi , except that’s not the argument. The people pushing this ideology aren’t just calling those who refuse to use their pronouns assholes, they want legislature installed to make it a hate crime. If I met the trans person referenced here and referred to that person as sir with the full knowledge of that being a trigger, even I would agree that this would be incredibly rude and cruel. It should not, however, be criminal.
The idea that dissent from an ideology is unacceptable and is equivalent to bigotry is kind of the whole basis of fascism.
@I Are Lebo, no, they don’t. You won’t find nearly any examples or actual trans people saying they want to compel speech, the idea that trans people want to jail those who disagree with them is a myth created as a scare tactic by right wing groups to justify policies like bathroom bills and discriminatory practices (most famously and recently with Jordan Peterson and bill c-17). Doing that would be a d*** move, but it’s not a crime; it just makes you an a$$hole.
Furthermore, most trans people fall pretty hard on the left, so facism or facism-esque policies isn’t really something encouraged in those spaces.
@liberachi , Jordan Peterson would skin you alive in a debate, friend. So many people attack him for this reason or that, almost no one refutes his points directly. That being said, I don’t think you can even begin to understand the philosophy of the ideology that you cling to. For starters, it’s not trans people who are doing these things or believing these things, it’s those who adhere to an ideology called post-modernism. Funny thing about post-modernists is that they don’t believe in free speech, reason being is that they believe speech is inseparable from power structures and power dynamics, therefore they believe that speech is an expression of power, and that it cannot be free in the sense of being a liberty endowed to all people. For that reason they can and do oppose speech they disagree with because they consider it to be violent, and not metaphorically, theyconsider speech they disagree with to be literally violent in the sense of being an expression of oppression from those
@liberachi , in power over those below them. So they oppose it. They believe that speech which is violent and oppressive is on the same level as angry mobs and lynchings. They believe that speech through its expression of power is an instrument of the oppressor to maintain the system of oppression. So, in short, yes, they do believe in compelled speech. The post-modernists don’t believe there is a fundamental right to free speech because speech is power and power is yielded by the oppressor, ergo speech is not free. I have legit had this conversation before with post-modernists and they have explained this very thing to me about not believing in free speech as a mater of philosophy. Does that means the trans community is evil and wants to oppress dissenters? Probably not, but the ideology of post-modernism that permeates the left doesn’t believe in free speech, and as a consequence would gladly criminalize speech that they consider violent in the same way they criminalize assault.
@Block1187, Jordan Peterson is the dr.phil of the alt-right, he’s a joke of a psychologist and the only reason people don’t want to debate him is because he rambles like a schizophrenic with a double shot of espresso.
And Do have any sources or examples for the “post modernism hates free speech” or was that just something you wanted to get of your chest?
@liberachi , yeah I’m sure that’s why people don’t want to debate with him. I can see you tow the line very clearly on this issue. Forget the fact that JP isn’t alt-right, he’s not even consecutive at all, but yeah. He disagrees with the totalitarian left so he must be alt-right. I can see you’ve been drinking the koolaid big time. As to your other point, well you could start with readings the works of the philosopher Stephen Hicks, he’s done some great stuff explaining the rise of post modernism in the mid twentieth century and it’s philosophical origins in Marxist thought, or you could actually listen to any post-modern philosopher explain the relationship between power and speech and how speech ought to be regulated for the same reason assault is regulated, because both are expressions of violence. It’s not incumbent on me to explain to you why post modernists reject free speech, there is a mountain of work explaining their reasons behind it. Thing is they don’t even deny it, they
@liberachi , defend it. You can just look at the emergence of speech codes on university campuses over the last many decades and look at the justifications for them to see the same thing, the expression of an ideology which believe speech had the potential to be violent and therefore must be regulated.
@Block1187, universities, especially private ones are free to restrict speech on their campuses just as movie theaters, and restaurants, and every other business in America. Free speech means the right to say what you think, not the freedom from criticism or freedom of platform.
I’m not going to debate Jordan Peterson’s courting of alt right influences with his books and speeches. In early 2018 the washing post, the guardian, and the Atlantic all did prices on this fact, and while he denies this, there’s no denying this statistical fact that the majority of his fans self identity with the movement.
@Block1187, sorry, I hit send early on that one
@liberachi , Yeah, different argument there about whether there is a legal right to restrict speech. That’s not what I was referring to, the point is the “why.” The kind of speech that universities ban is very different from the kind of speech that private companies ban, and so is the “why.” The point is that universities justify speech codes by citing post-modernist ideas about power dynamics. Hence why they specifically target things like “micro-aggressions” and “cultural appropriation.” Believe it or not there is an ideology behind that, and that ideology is called post-modernism.
@liberachi , sorry I didn’t read the end of it
@liberachi , I don’t really want to talk so much about Jordan Peterson. The fact that the alt-right adores him, which he himself doesn’t deny, rather he denies that he appeals to them specifically, is not in and of itself a referendum on his ideas. The philosophies he articulates are consistent and accurate in their critiques of the post-modern ideology. That is my opinion. But Jordan Peterson is his own person and I don’t agree with him on everything so I will not defend him beyond that.
@liberachi , Jordan Peterson isn’t alt right and doesn’t like them either. Peterson doesn’t like any ideologies that consume people. That includes alt right ideologies. And don’t base your opinion of him off of edited interviews. They really make him look bad. He is rather long winded but has good points for those who are willing to listen to the whole thing. Most of his lectures are about psychology and personal responsibility. It’s really impressive information.
@liberachi , I never said that trans people want others jailed. It’s the trans activists that are attempting to pass laws curtailing freedom of speech. Most actual transgendered people just want to be left alone to live their lives.
You aren’t paying attention. Not to events on campuses, nor to events in politics.
As for fascism being a right wing mindset, you’re simply wrong. Marxism is making a resurgence among millennials, and it is a left wing fascist ideology. They very much oppose ideological dissent among the more social justice minded crowds.
@liberachi , if you think Jordan Peterson is alt right you have never listened to him and probably don’t have a correct understanding of what alt right even means.
@I Are Lebo, uh huh. Lebo, an easy way to do this would be to refer to the Bible reloaded’s series on Jordan Peterson’s 12 rules for life. They do a more nuanced and detailed takedown then I ever could in a comments section: but long story short, no. He himself can claim he’s not alt right, but his ideas and his fans are: he basically believes in a theocracy run by the modern age concept of “judeo-Christian values” which is the dogwhisle way of saying white Protestant men. If you need situations for that check out hbomberguy or the conversation’s (an online admittedly left of center publication) piece literally titled “why Judeo-Christian values are a dogwhistled myth peddled by the far right”
I couldn’t have made that title up if I tried.
@I Are Lebo, Marxism is communism, not facism, thatvery thing is what makes it a fat left wing ideology . The fact that you don’t know and further equate the two suggests you don’t know what your talking about.
@liberachi , except that he doesn’t advocate for Judeo Christian values, he explains that western society is fundamentally built upon those ideals, which it is.
Actually listen to him speak before you come to a conclusion, because your conclusion is not valid. I don’t agree with the man on everything, in particular, I think his views on faith are quite ignorant. But religious dogma is not his area of expertise, social sciences are.
His views are not ethnocentric, nor is he a libertarian. He is not alt right.
@liberachi , communism is an economic system, fascism is a social construction. The two are not exclusionary.
I’m not the one here who doesn’t have a proper grasp of the subject. That’s you.
@Block1187, he doesn’t have to specially court them to peddle ideas that fall in line with their beliefs.
And as to the why referred to by your question, I’d like to point out that businesses and universities actually ARE fighting the same things, for the same reason; universities just use rhetoric that might turn people off because of their current politicization.
Just as chili’s may kick out a person ranting about how Jews and Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landing, a university may get rid of their Native American caricature mascot. Why? Because patrons, especially Jewish ones, are less likely to stick around and buy dessert; just as students, especially Native American students, may not stay at a school that, in their eyes, (unintentionally as it may or may not be) mocks their culture.
It’s not political correctness run wild, it’s just business.
@Block1187, in terms of microagressions...I can’t think of any better way to explain then with myself; so I hope you’ll endulge me this story and maybe you’ll understand why so many people get pissed off at microagressions.
Last week I (male) was at my best friends New Years party with my (also male) fiancé. Their friends elderly aunt (it was a big party just roll with it) came up to us and asked us some questions. First, she asked if we had ever tried getting “cured” (talking about our gayness), which already was a bit offensive but we tried to be polite and told her no we were happy the way we were. Then she felt it nessicarry to ask us about our sex life, which went like this:
@Block1187, her: “so is it like this
👉👌*holds up fingers like so* or like this 👉👈*holds up fingers like so* ?”
What I wanted to say was “Bi*** I’m not going to f***ing explain to you how I f**k my finances butt at this new year party in front of everybody!”
But instead I sinply kindly explained to her that it was the first thing, and ran out of that room so quick I left a liberachi shaped hole in the wall.
And the reason I didn’t snap like that, is because to her, it wasn’t a rude or embarrassing remark, she was just curious, and it would have made me seem like the lunatic if I lashed out, even though I think you’ll agree that behavior was totally out of line for someone you just met at a party.
That’s what a microagression is. That’s why they seem so important to the people they happen to, and that’s why they seem like petty garbage to those who dont. I can’t snap at my finances mother for bringing her pastor to dinner (even if it does hurt a lot a future member of her fam
@Block1187, ily) because to her, it didn’t seem like a big deal. Even though to me, it sends a signal that she doesn’t want me in her family, and won’t accept me as a part of it.
Does that justify censorship, hopefully you can see now why some misguided people say yes, even though in the grand scheme of things they are small (micro, even) they can still be hurtful (and certainly piss people off).
Theyre still a d*** if they can’t be bothered to use someone’s pronouns after repeated asks to change, but most people will settle on calling them out instead of silencing them.
@liberachi , you’re confusing a microaggression with a social faux pass. Asking someone if they plan on getting their homosexuality cured is an extremely ignorant statement, regardless of whether the intent was benevolent or malevolent. That’s a rather extreme example given some of the other things that have been labeled as microaggressions involve literally looking at someone the wrong way.
In addition, there’s a massive gulf of difference between a university ridding itself of an ethnically insensitive mascot, and things like Berkley’s Day Of Absence, where they literally segregated the school by race by demanding the absence of anyone white.
You are using strawman arguments to avoid actually addressing the problems with the ideology.
It doesn’t justify censorship in the slightest, because the metrics being used are entirely subjective. Literally anything can be found offensive, and you being offended by my opinion doesn’t mean I don’t get to voice it.
@I Are Lebo, the fact that you said I was confusing faux pass with micro agression just shows you don’t actually know what that is, and probably shut your brain off the second you read it, which is what you said you wouldn’t do earlier. A micro agression IS a form of faux pass. The difference is a micro agression is targeted (weather intentional or not) at a specific group or person based on the prejudices of their demographic group.
You also accused me of strawmaning while strawmaning yourself in the same comment. The cherry picked example of Berkeley (even though the school that did that was evergreen state but whatever) does nothing to actually further your point doesn’t even show any objective crossing of any line because you said yourself “it’s all subjective” so someone else could look at that and think they haven’t even gone far enough
@I Are Lebo, and AGAIN, freedom of speech is not freedom from critism, you can look at the trans woman in this post and think she’s a braying jacka$$, just as I can look at Ben Shapiro getting trying to get a rise out of debate opponents by misgendering them out of spite and call that out for the dismal childish underhanded behavior that it is.
Hammer can say that all trans people are sick in the head, fine. But I can say he’s a petulant child with the Morals of d*ck dastardly and a face to match (censored his name just in case the comment system gets mad) and you know what? He can’t stop me either.
If Jordan Peterson wants to teach incels the key to happiness is cleaning your room, fine. But if the university wants to fire his a$$ because his side teachings about the beauty of creationism and how all the worlds problems are secretly women’s fault, then they are ALSO free to do so.
Free speech =/= free from criticism and freedom of platform
@I Are Lebo, just because some far left wingers want to say otherwise doesn’t mean we all do, not every right winger is Mussolini, not every left winger is Stalin
@liberachi , that’s a ludicrous argument. The standard I’m using is objective, not subjective. It’s “don’t use double standards, and don’t treat groups differently based on their skin colour”. Banning whites isn’t okay based on an OBJECTIVE standard that says it’s not acceptable to do that to any other group.
The term micro aggression assumes that the offence being taken is reasonable and it assumes aggression. Neither of those are fair assumptions. A social faux pass is when you should know better, like not using the phrase “lend me a hand” to a double amputee, not implying that your lifestyle is the result of a disease like the example you brought up.
Telling someone what words they are allowed to use is not criticism. Ben Shapiro refuses to buy into the ideology that gender is subjective. He has said on multiple occasions that his public take on that is not the same as his private one. In public he cannot refer to a trans person by the pronoun they dictate because it wouldd
undermine his own positions of facts over feelings. Having said that, feel free to criticize him all you want. I (and he) welcome it.
I totally agree. Insult him all you like. For the record though, “dick” is not censored on here.
Your claim that Jordan Peterson supports Creationism is further proof you have never actually listened to the man speak on any topic. You are woefully ignorant about him and your opinions about him are therefore without value or merit.
I agree. Not every right winger is Mussolini, and not every left winger is Stalin. And not every Trump supporter is a bigot.
@I Are Lebo, did...did you literally just say your opinion was objective?
Also I’d like to point out that this rediculous example was not literally a call to segregate the school for a day, in fact it was literally meant to show how empty the campus was without white people on it. so already, just no.
@I Are Lebo, like tbh, I don’t even care about microagressions. The lady who said that to will probably be dead by next year anyway, and you getting hung up on the definition and useage of a word you could have just googled is just fustrating.
It seems we both have one understanding in common. And that is what constitutes offense for one may not for another, and the line is blurry when it comes to what to do about that.
My stance is this: “effort is all anyone can ask for, an offender, even if they don’t think the other people should be offended, should at least try to make good, like say by putting a single thought into what 2-3 letter word you use because it pisses people off. By that same token an offended person cannot expect perfection from everyone around them, and if they go apes*** and start throwing merchandise and crap, they deserve whatever comes their way when they can’t even put the effort in to understand and forgive and just move on”
@liberachi , “when effort on the part of the offender is not put forward to rectify their douchebagary, then they should expect to have their platform taken away and to be torn a new a$$hole by whoever’s within reach, when the offende can’t be bothered to put in the effort, they deserve the exact same thing.”
@liberachi , no, I didn’t say that my opinion is objective. I said that the standard I base my opinion on is objective. You don’t listen very well.
That’s a flat out lie. The goal of the day of absence was to promote awareness of various oppression narratives. It was black people wanting white people not there, not white people removing themselves. Get your facts straight.
It has nothing to do with getting hung up on the word. I am fundamentally opposed to the concept of microaggressions. It’s like implicit bias. It’s an insulting notion that you think you can discern other people’s motives without being a mind reader or it’s the even dumber notion than motive is irrelevant.
It’s not about effort, but even if it was, nobody has the right to dictate to others what they have to put effort into. That’s control, not compassion. It would be just as invasive if it wasn’t just polite to give up your seat on the bus to an elderly person but were mandated to do so.
If someone takes offence
to me refusing to call them ‘Zhi’, they can feel free to not associate with me. They don’t have to be my friend. But their feelings do not supersede mine, and their comfort doesn’t give them the right to dictate my speech. The same goes in reverse. If I am uncomfortable because they prefer to use gender neutral pronouns for everyone, that’s my problem, not theirs. I have no more right to dictate your speech than you do to me, and I have just as little authority over you as you do over me.
That’s what actual equality is.
Your last statement boils down to “if someone is offended and the person who offended them doesn’t submit to them for it, they can deprive that person of their resources and physically harm them for it and they deserve it.”
I don’t know if you maybe phrased that poorly or not, but that statement is literally what it means to be a fascist.
Facts don’t care about your feelings
@wicketman2007, the fact you got downvoted for saying that is a disturbing indication of how some people view reality.
@Block1187, it is very disturbing. Feelings change, facts are resolute.
If you act belligerently and obnoxiously, you are undeserving of respect. If you are also clearly a man in woman’s clothes, while in addition being adamant that your self identity is the responsibility of everyone around you to affirm, this is the result.
When you treat everyone around you with disrespect, don’t be shocked when they don’t respond by kowtowing to your every whim.
You don’t get to dictate how others see you, nor do you get to dictate how people refer to you. If I was there, I wouldn’t be referring to this MAN as sir. I’d be calling him “hey asshole”.
This comment section
Aerospace doesn't exactly translate to biology or psychology though
Ya know... I actually thought this community was at least a small step above the 9gag community... but after reading this comment section and seeing the support for bigotry and absolute rejection of facts... I can safely say I was wrong, and that is greatly disappointing...
@xAegis Heartx, I try not to think about it because you can't change their minds so what's the point in arguing. Any post having to do with the trans community I don't bother reading most of the comments.
@Ashoka02Tano, Honestly, I disagree with most of the negative opinions of the trans community I see, but if they want to have them, then fine. What truly bothers me is these supposed intellectuals, who profess to base their opinions and views on facts, just flat out rejecting facts that don't support their opinions. Facts should be taken as a whole and applied as such, regardless of whether the facts seem to be offensive or not in line with the popular beliefs.
@xAegis Heartx, Yeah, that irritates me as well. Sadly that applies to a lot of people who aren't open minded and those who don't bother listening to the other story.
@Ashoka02Tano, are we allowed to hear the other story and then reject it? Are we allowed to see the world through our own eyes?
@Block1187, Yes, unless there is actual data from trusted sources that prove otherwise. From then on it turns into ignorance.
@Ashoka02Tano, so what constitutes “data from trusted sources that proves otherwise?” If I hear the story of a trans person and decide to go on believing that a biological male is a biological male, what data from a trusted source could say that I am wrong and ignorant? What am I rejecting that can empirically proven to be true, exactly?
@Block1187, I tend to trust some scientific sources (because some are biased as well). But in this case, at least in my point of view, gender doesn't seem to have much scientific backing other than a lot of the LGBTQ+ have some kind of mental illness. Just out of respect we should call them by their pronouns that they align with, except when someone is acting like the asshole in the pic. Idk the full story, just that she was pulling a tantrum in that scene.
Btw, I'm genuinely curious what you think and I hope you don't think I'm mad or anything :) And you can prove me if I'm wrong, I don't know everything.
@Ashoka02Tano, I take issue with the underlying philosophy of existentialism that forms the foundation of many post-modern belief systems. The ideologies that surround transgenderism and the LGBTQ movement itself have almost nothing to do with any hard scientific evidence and everything to do with a shifting philosophical view of the nature of reality itself. Existentialism holds that there is no universe outside of human subjectivity and human perception, which when taken its necessary conclusions also holds that reality is what you see it as and nothing more or less. This gives, what is in my opinion incorrect, the philosophical conclusion that human perception is the ultimate truth of the universe. And if human perception is what is ultimately the only thing that is true (taken at both the individual and the collective levels of course) then it follows that realty can be molded to the will of the human mind. Therefore we can reduce age old ideas like gender into things which
@Ashoka02Tano, are nothing more than structures created and sustained in the human mind and validated by human perception, but subject to change because human perception itself can change. We reduce natural laws into matters of subjectivity, and therefore the truth becomes whatever I say it is. Thus we end up in a situation where society affirms an individual’s rejection of their biological reality, because human perception is absolute, therefore genitalia and DNA doesn’t determine gender, the human mind and perception does. I take issue with this philosophy right at its starting point—the existentialist belief that the universe is human perception and human subjectivity.
@Ashoka02Tano, Additionally this philosophy is inconsistent in it’s own right because in declaring the universe to be the sum of human perception and human subjectivity it allows for multiple mutually exclusive truths to be true all at once. If my perception of reality is what reality is itself then I can believe that gender is not fluid, and no one can challenge me on that because my perception is my reality.
@Block1187, Wow, yeah it makes a lot of sense to go that route but because a lot of humans tend to think they are the center of the universe (I'll admit I've done it as well), I don't see this type of society changing anytime soon. *sigh* We're so messed up...
@Ashoka02Tano, it isn’t bigotry to reject the idea that gender is purely subjective, but it IS bigotry to reject the possibility of someone disagreeing with your ideology. There aren’t any reasonable people arguing that trans people shouldn’t be able to live their lives the way they want to and identify themselves the way they want to see themselves. But the freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of another person’s nose, and absolutely no one has the right to make their identity the responsibility of those around them. I would have every bit as much contempt for a person with a PHD having a temper tantrum because the store clerk wouldn’t call them ‘doctor’ as I do for this trans individual freaking out by not being referring to as ‘ma’am’.
@I Are Lebo, I was talking about people rejecting scientific fact, not genders. Genders are...complicated, to say the least.
@Ashoka02Tano, agreed, but being male, having no genetic defects that lead to a biological divergence from male, and believing yourself female, does not make you female.
Gender roles are social constructs. The genders themselves are not.
Y’all’s transphobia is getting real old
@Beede, biological facts cannot be transphobic, friend. Buzzwords don’t mean sh!t here. Someone can identify however they want, but calling a biological male a biological male will always be factually correct, and if you have a problem with that, then what you actually have a problem with is reality and natural law, and unfortunately there’s no one who can help you with that.
@Block1187, well if you knew anything about biology you’d know transgender is a biological fact so maybe crawl back under your hateful rock and let these people live their lives
@Beede, but it’s not fact, it’s a feeling. He “feels” like a woman, or you can use whatever word you want to: associates, identifies, etc. they all translate to “feeling”
@Beede, no one is saying they cannot live their lives, hence why I said “one can identify however one wants.” Freedom is a beautiful thing in that regard. But forcing others to accept one’s self-identification is a violation of the fundamental freedom to see the world through your own eyes. That being said, the statement you made “transgender is a biological fact” is impossible. So, perhaps you’d care to clarify what you mean? It is a fact that transgender people exist. It is a fact that transgenderism is a phenomenon which affects some portion of the population. It is a fact that transgenderism is in itself a thing. But what do you mean by your assertion that it is “biological fact?”
@Beede, it is not biological it is psychological.
Women’s entitlement is hilariously stupid and embarrassing.
@GrammarNatzi, that’s not a woman