When two worldviews collide.

[Confused-by-christianity]

What's the difference between a free will moral decision and one based on nature or instinct?

More importantly - how do you tell the difference?

OB

You could define humans as less subject to their nature. So, say their natural fear response tell them to turn over an innocent person to secret police, but their morality tells them that is wrong. They can choose their moral framework above their instinctual framework.

Lets try that answer

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think the concept of “Latinx” is an example of how social damage is created, resisted, or established as another alleged social need that must be addressed thanks to many psychological arsonists who spread it around.

Latinx - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Are you talking about the word "Latinx" as a substitute for Latino/a, or the idea that people can be categorized as Latino?

 

[Robban]

You could define humans as less subject to their nature. So, say their natural fear response tell them to turn over an innocent person to secret police, but their morality tells them that is wrong. They can choose their moral framework above their instinctual framework.

Lets try that answer

I think I smell somthing fishy golng on.

At some point you are going to try and shoehorn JC into the conversation.

 

[Bradskii]

You could define humans as less subject to their nature. So, say their natural fear response tell them to turn over an innocent person to secret police, but their morality tells them that is wrong. They can choose their moral framework above their instinctual framework.

Lets try that answer

Why isn't not turning them in a natural reaction?

 

[rjs330]

Your claim you need a mental health specialist for a mental health diagnosis is demonstrably false. You didn't make any specifications about particular conditions. The wider point, in that particular matter, was that the relevant factor in diagnosing gender dysphoria is the expertise of the HCP.

So not all mental health conditions can be diagnosed by a GP. Who exactly makes the decisions on Gender Dysphoria being diagnosed by a GP? Something that is that life altering and includes transitional surgeries has no business in the hands of a GP. Especially with the derth of research showing it's necessary. There are a lot of mental health diseases that shouldn't be diagnosed by a GP and it obvious this shouldn't be one of them because they can authorize blockers and hormones and get a child on the pathway on the trans train.

 

[Bradskii]

I think the concept of “Latinx” is an example of how social damage is created, resisted, or established as another alleged social need that must be addressed thanks to many psychological arsonists who spread it around.

Latinx - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Latino refers to a male from Latin America.
Latina refers to a female.

If you are referring to both of them, then the plural is Latinos. It encompasses both male and female. Unless you are referring to both in a general sense, in which case it's Latinos y Latinas.

Same with hermano and hermana for brother and sister. If you refer to them both, it's hermanos. Are we to use hermanx now? Or if perro and perra means dog and a female dog, do we now use perrx?

The reverse often happens, so we have poeta meaning a male or female poet. And poetas for both. Try pronouncing poetx...

 

[rjs330]

Puberty blockers used for a brief period aren't the same as blocking puberty for years.

Yes which is more evidence they are being rushed into this, because I haven't seen any evidence that they are waiting for years to go from blockers to hormones. Or even what the typical rate is. We do know from the UK research that almost 100% of kids put on blockers go to hormones. Which puts the lie to the statement that's it just a pause to see.

 

[Occams Barber]

You could define humans as less subject to their nature. So, say their natural fear response tell them to turn over an innocent person to secret police, but their morality tells them that is wrong. They can choose their moral framework above their instinctual framework.

Lets try that answer

I don't think it's that simple.

Take the concept of sharing for instance (chimps share).

If I keep something all to myself (like food), you could argue that I'm acting instinctively if I eat all the food.

However, if I share, I may be also following an instinctive reaction as a social animal. As a social animal, being supported by the group contributes to my survival therefore sharing may be in my long -term self-interest.

All acts are done for reasons of self. Acting against your own (apparent) self-interest is a selfless act in normal parlance however we do it because it somehow makes us feel better - therefore it is ultimately selfish.

OB

 

[Bradskii]

I don't think it's that simple.

Take the concept of sharing for instance (chimps share).

And with chimps, it's literally 'scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'.

 

[Robban]

What seperates us from the animals??
I'm going to go with "we make moral decisions".

See if that stands up to a little discussion haha

Throughout the books man, men and even nations are likened to animals,

not for their looks but for their ways, both positive and negative.

Though I have not noticed anyone being likened to monkies, not in the books.

 

[Paidiske]

I pulled the criteria for diagnosis right from the DSM....sorry. If you want to claim it's something else, it's on you to prove it.

Yes, and I posted links to resources on how those criteria are established. It's not a 15-minute chat.

If it's the cross sex hormones that make you infertile.....why not require the discussion of infertility for them? Why bring up infertility before starting a treatment that doesn't make anyone infertile? You don't need to be some sort of genius to figure this out.

It goes like this. Some people, after taking puberty blockers (which don't cause infertility), may go on to cross-sex hormones (which can cause infertility) so you start the conversation before the puberty blockers so that people understand their options, pathways, and potential consequences.

BTW, how many boosters have you gotten?

Not that I see that it's relevant, but I think I'm up to four shots now.

Ahhh....ok...why didn't I guess? Your church has it right, all others have it wrong. How typically Christian of you.

Surely the fact that Christians disagree on lots of things is not news to you?

How about leaving the kids alone, address the underlying mental health issues if there are any and see if they grow out of it.

And in the meanwhile, they suffer. And their long term outcomes are worse. Is that really ethical?

Why do you persist on offering things that the prevailing wisdom is moving away from?

All I am doing is responding to false claims. And the reason I'm doing that, is that I think people making false claims are demonstrably not in a position to be making clinical decisions on behalf of others.

I am not pushing a preferred approach, I'm arguing that none of us should be.

"should"

Oddly, they aren't required even if they should happen.

But claiming that no doctor ever does anything that isn't absolutely required (but only recommended) is also misrepresenting the situation. Most doctors will want to engage in best practice.

That would require the ability to determine someone isn't trans. That's not possible under this model.

It's possible to determine that someone isn't experiencing gender dysphoria to the clinical criteria. As I posted upthread, about one third of people referred for such assessment are found not to meet the criteria.

In what way are those things "leaving them alone"?

They are in fact the opposite....heaping attention upon a child for reasons no one will when they are an adult.

Medically speaking, it's leaving them alone. But what do you want instead? To leave kids to suffer with no support? Is that the society we want to build?

At no point is any possibility of a difference of opinion on gender allowed.

That's not what I see in the literature. If this were true, there'd be no point to any assessment, diagnostic criteria, or the like.

We aren't actually. Gender is an entirely debatable concept.

Well, if you don't accept the possibility that someone can truly be transgendered, then again, there's probably no point to further discussion. As far as I'm concerned, at that point, that's just denial of reality.

You've already seen the requirements for diagnosis. Flimsy at best. High possibility of misdiagnosis.

You have experience with the clinical application of those criteria, to make that call?

I sure hope your joking and not dismissing my point.

I was dismissing your point in a humorous way. I think the idea that people can "make" kids claim to be experiencing gender dysphoria is pretty ridiculous.

That's fine but it sounds like we've kind of moved in from that and so in THIS case it's certainly not only a Christian/conservative view vs everyone else.

It may be an unhelpful choice of topic for this thread, then.

It was public pressure that aided the ending of the procedure.

Actually, it was largely the development of antipsychotic medications, which provided an alternative, less invasive treatment. Psychosurgeries of various types are still performed for conditions where other treatments have failed.

Meanwhile how many kids are harmed during the process of working it out?

Since refusing treatment also involves harm, finding the path of least harm is not as simple as refusing all treatment.

I think neurotic guilt is more about mental illness like anxiety and depression.

By "neurotic guilt" I meant the state of feeling guilty when one is not actually morally culpable. For example, blaming oneself for something that was outside one's control, or feeling guilty when there was nothing wrong with one's actions. It's not about mental illness.

But besides mental illness I think there are basic moral truths we all know even though we can rationalise and justify them away.

I'm not so sure about that. It's true that most ethical systems converge on similar answers, but even so, there's pretty fundamental disagreement about what we might see as "basic" moral truths.

But I agree there are truth claims that people can be fooled by and I think thats why we need to use all our facalties to determine the Truth including science, experience and reason.

And yet so often the Christian/conservative/traditional position rejects sources of knowledge such as science, experience and reason.

The West became the worlds moral conscience for a long time and I think we have let that go to our heads and our behaviour and actions at times are seen as hypocritical and oppressive.

Not just "seen as," but objectively so.

It seems to me that the gradual process of taking God out of the West has culminated to what we have today which is the State taking over all aspects of our lives and now enforcing a new State sanctioned religion on everyone which includes Woke and Trans ideology, Critcal race Theory, Cultural Marxism with some Postmodernism, Materialism and Humanism and the like.

All aspects of our lives? Really? You're not free to worship, work, marry, engage socially with like-minded people, as you wish? This description does not match my experience at all. (I'm also pretty dubious that some of these terms refer accurately to particular movements, their ideas and aims).

I don't think Gods Laws and Truths are flawed.

I think human apprehensions and applications of them can be deeply flawed, though.

I agree and I am not saying we should enforce Christian rule. .... But do you think a society can exist without some ethical standard being enforced for the betterment of all. We make our arguements, present the evdience and if all is fair we should go with that which upholds the truth. Modern secular society is full of rules and regulations.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here, steve. I am not saying we should enforce Christian rule... but we need an enforced ethical standard...and modern society should (amongst its rules) enshrine these Christian ones!

FWIW, yes, I think a society can exist with relatively minimal enforcing of ethical standards. Some agreed basic social parameters, and leave the rest as open as possible. I think that is actually healthier than trying to engage in ever more finely-detailed moral micro-management.

The Truth should align with all aspects of life, make sense, be reasoned, have evdience and align with reality and our lived experience as a culture.

Well, I'm afraid I couldn't describe many Christian/conservative/traditionalist contested positions in this way, at all.

 

[stevil]

The secular worldview divides society into identity groups which goes against Gods Truth that the individual is utmost. I don't think modern secular society is achieving inclusion and equality but promoting the opposite by being consumed by pointing out differences.

The secular worldview promotes tolerance of the diversity found in society.
The secular worldview is inclusive, it is not an exclusive club like Christianity is.
For the secular there is not an us vs them thing. There is the tolerance and inclusion of all people regardless of believes, and culture.

But for Christianity, there is this unrelenting will to assimilate others into their way of thinking, their beliefs. They want everyone to be Christian, everyone to live by Christian values. For many Christians, they see the world of people as either Christians or not Christians.
For many secular people they see the world of people as a great diversity of interacting and intermingling people. Diversity is great. Homogeneity and assimilation is something to be avoided.

 

[rjs330]

mean at the time Christianity was emerging was in a world that had many human made gods and beliefs and Christianity challenged them and gradually became the dominant belief. Much of those values formed the basis for society such as Human Rights. Without Christ and Christianity I am not sure what sort of world we would have ended up with. Maybe one like in Noahs time.

Well at least much earlier. Noah's time is coming as Christ predicted. But we don't know when exactly that is. But it is coming.

 

[rjs330]

And in the meanwhile, they suffer. And their long term outcomes are worse. Is that really ethical?

That hasn't been proven to be true. And I have whole heartedly supported non-affirming psych therapy to help the accept themselves and accept living in their current bodies as supported by Genspect. Doing that will eliminate the long term harm caused by transitioning when they didn't need to. Working through the short term eliminates the long term harm. It's a much better way. No bone loss, no heart issues, no fertility problems, no irreversible conditions and no regrets. Sounds like a much better way.

 

[rjs330]

All I am doing is responding to false claims. And the reason I'm doing that, is that I think people making false claims are demonstrably not in a position to be making clinical decisions on behalf of others.

I am not pushing a preferred approach, I'm arguing that none of us should be.

There are no false claims being made. Except from the Wpath side with their faulty research and unfalsifiable claims. If you would just broaden your horizons you would find that we are correct. With affirmative care there is no pathway towards non-affirming methods and a only a pathway for affirmation that is patient driven.

Affirmative practice is an approach to health and behavioral health care that validates and supports the identities stated or expressed by those served. Affirmative care requires the practitioner to actively honor and celebrate identity while at the same time validating the oppression felt by individuals seeking services. Validation and empathy fundamentally result from increased understanding of individuals’ history, cultural context, and lived experiences.
Fundamentally, affirmative practice is both active celebration and activist in its manifestation. It requires practitioners to actively affirm and honor identity while at the same time validating the oppression felt by the individual seeking services. Offering further clarification (in the context of transgender care), Austin and Craig (7) asserted that affirmative clinical practice must acknowledge and counter the oppressive contexts in which clients experience care. Understanding and empathizing with the felt discrimination, otherness, microaggressions, and victimization experienced by individual clients is critical to the role of the affirmative practitioner. In sum, affirmative application includes contextualizing identity and developing safe, supportive, and identity-affirming networks (7).

To be clear, affirmative practice is not merely learning more about the identities of patients or clients served. Affirmative practice is activist in nature, meaning there is an inherent appreciation of the power structures that prejudge, oppress, and stigmatize. It is not enough to acknowledge a patient’s or client’s cultural experience. Practitioners are called on to affirm patient experiences through validation, including the active involvement of forces outside the individual to play a role in the care of the individual (e.g., family members, traditional healing practices). They are called on to culturally celebrate (e.g., with art) in the physical plant of the health or behavioral health care setting. They are called on to make use of narrative therapy to help patients author or reauthor identity.

https://focus.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.focus.20190030

By arguing against the approaches we've mentioned you are indeed pushing a preferred approach. You are making claims that the current methods are fine. You are pushing a certain approach. The affirmative therapy which only leads one way. Affirmation and celebration of the person's chosen identity. Which for children leads to medical interventions which all have terrible life long affects upon the child. All this with no real evidence that it is necessary to do.

 

[rjs330]

was dismissing your point in a humorous way. I think the idea that people can "make" kids claim to be experiencing gender dysphoria is pretty ridiculous.

When you say make I think of force. Teens are easily influenced into thinking particular ways. This is a well researched and observed phenomenon.

The Teen Brain

Why young brains are especially vulnerable to social media

The Perils of Adolescence

In detransition studies we are finding that the influence of others had an affect on transitioning. We have seen an explosion of teen girls doing it and many friend groups doing it together.
So it's not as ridiculous as you think.

 

[stevevw]

The secular worldview promotes tolerance of the diversity found in society.
The secular worldview is inclusive, it is not an exclusive club like Christianity is.
For the secular there is not an us vs them thing. There is the tolerance and inclusion of all people regardless of believes, and culture.

But for Christianity, there is this unrelenting will to assimilate others into their way of thinking, their beliefs. They want everyone to be Christian, everyone to live by Christian values. For many Christians, they see the world of people as either Christians or not Christians.
For many secular people they see the world of people as a great diversity of interacting and intermingling people. Diversity is great. Homogeneity and assimilation is something to be avoided.

This goes to the heart of this thread I think. We have two main conflicting worldviews which contain beliefs and idelogies about how society and the world should be ordered. I think the idea that a society can be completely neutral, all inclusive and tolerent at the same time is impossible in reality. Everyone including the State reps hold a philosophical belief basis about what society should look like and then want to impose that on society.

Hense the conflicts and divisions in modern western society with the Left/Progressive/liberal which happens to align with Woke as opposed to the Right/Conservative/Traditional which happens to align more with Christianity.

So the Church once dominated societies beliefs and values but I think that was mostly by consensus through Western history by the fact we had around 90% belief. But the State gradually took control and Christianity conflicts with secular beliefs and ideas such as Humanism, Atheism and Materialism which has increased and Christianities influence has deminished and relegated to the sidelines and even seen as a threat.

But because no society can exist without a belief basis secular society (the State) has replaced Christianity with a new religious belief in Wokism which is just as intolerant of all other beliefs and views as the Church is claimed to be. We can see this in how language and belief that opposes the States religion is being policed, how deiscenters are being condemned and vilified. The new religion is no religion but thats still a belief.

No society can be completely neutral so there is going to be some sort of belief and ideology imposed that doesn't tolerate any belief that opposes it. Look at Western nations and how they spread their ideology of Colonialism throughout the world. Any discenting beliefs including Indigenous cultures was not tolerated. This wasn't just the Church, this was also the State.

 

[stevevw]

Well at least much earlier. Noah's time is coming as Christ predicted. But we don't know when exactly that is. But it is coming.

But we sort of know as when that is coming by how the season changes. Whether we are taking steps towards that end or not. Certainly the West and the world has moved away from God and are moving towards a time when there will be more unbelievers than believers and defying God which is one sign of the end times.

This is what interests me with this thread aned whether what we are going through in modern society is a sign of getting closer to this time. I say this because things seems to have moved towards not just accepting and tolerating Christianity but are actively persecuting it which is another sign. Who knows, we'll just have to watch this space lol.

 

[rjs330]

Further evidence that we have been doing the transgender thing wrong with kids and America hasn't caught up yet. It seems like we conservatives have been on the right side of this for some time now.

U.S. Becomes Transgender-Care Outlier as More in Europe Urge Caution

Republicans seize on European doubts over medical interventions to call for restrictions.

www.wsj.com

 

[rjs330]

Here are more stories that put the lie to the kids getting lots of deep diving into their mental health issues and thoughtful analysis before being given blockers, hormones etc.