When two worldviews collide.

[Confused-by-christianity]

Thats actually a good way to put it I think. That is your moral sense is the foundation and it is from this we can potentially understand more complex morality. Without this bais we cannot understand more complex morality at all because it would not matter to us.

When you say "moral sense". You could say "moral capable"??

 

[stevevw]

When you say "moral sense". You could say "moral capable"??

Morally capable. I don't think babies and toddlers are capable of understanding moral dilemmas like the Trolley problem. But when you think of dilemmas a moral sense is not really about rationalizing 'the moral sense itself' but how to apply that moral sense. The Trolley problem is still dealing with the same moral sense as babies have in that we don't want another human to get hurt or have unjusrt things done to them.

It seems our moral sense is not something that requires rationalization and babies and adults can have this sense of right and wrong regardless of our cognitive abilities.

Which makes sense because then otherwise people without much cognitive ability would be excluded from knowing morality and I don't mean cognitively impaired but just not as intelligent. It seems this moral sense just comes to us like its in our bones so to speak. Like bonding with a mother comes naturally to us or the need for human contact or something like that.

This baby moral sense is what I think adults call intutition or gut feeling. So I guess some could say that gut instinct can be wrong and I think that is where rationalisation comes in. But I don't think our moral sense is that wrong for the most part. When we respond to moral situations there is usually something wrong going on, maybe not aparent at the time. Like when someone has this gut feeling about someone they just met. It may be that later the true situation comes out and proves your instinct was right all along.

But the point is here at the time we can rationalise that moral sense away when we may have been correct. So if anything rationality is not morality itself but a mechanism that steps in and can even deny a moral truth. Thats why I think rationality itself is not a true indicator of morality itself even though it can help us justify morality. There has to be some basis to begin with, to measure thimngs from and maybe our moral sense is that.

Besides often we just don't have time to rationalise especially if its complicated. We don't stand rationalising things, we usually react or want to jump in pretty quick.

Nevertheless even if its occassionally wrong due to maybe feeling something was wrong until you inquired it was ok but its still acting on something we thought was morally wrong. So maybe that moral sense causes a default response just in case.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Morally capable. I don't think babies ... ... ... a default response just in case.

You basically think a moral programme is already installed in us at birth. Programming.

??

 

[stevevw]

You basically think a moral programme is already installed in us at birth. Programming.

??

What do you mean by programming.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

What do you mean by programming.

a "moral sense" you're born with.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If the evaluation was done in a way which didn't allow for due process, for example, the employer might be.

Due process? Like my evaluation is done by a jury of my peers and I have a defender?

I am not actually familiar with all the ins and outs of case law and how decisions have been made.

It's not legitimate. I can be fired for underperforming. If this causes depression....it's considered my fault for underperforming.

In the kind of situation you're referring to, where the "lie" is basic workplace courtesy, your employer is probably not responsible.

You don't have put lie in quotes...you know it's a lie, I know it's a lie. We both know it's a lie.

You can go on about "social categories" and "biological categories" but we both know that I could give you another 100 pages of this thread...you'll never be able to to give me a definition for the "social category" for women. It won't happen. We both know that only one definition exists and it's biological.

Since this thread has drifted a tad...let's point out the mantra of this woke ideology and where it comes from.


The woke- "nothing is my fault, and it never is."

Where does this attitude and thought process of victimhood and unaccountability come from?

In short, fake subjects in academia. How does one identify a fake subject? Students are given the conclusion they must reach in order to be considered an expert of a fake subject. For example...

No feminist studies or women's studies major will ever write a thesis that gets accepted that doesn't ultimately blame the patriarchy. No matter the problem, no matter the issue, the patriarchy will always be to blame...never women. It's ideological. It's magical thinking.

How about CRT? Always white people's fault. It doesn't matter what social issue....what problem so called research explores....it will conclude that white people are to blame. Without fail. Ideological magical thinking. Not education.

Gender studies? Same deal. Straight hetero men and women are to blame. It doesn't matter what issue....it doesn't matter what problem. The "gender spectrum" may have infinite genders but only 1 will ever be a problem....always the conclusion.


These are dogmas masquerading as education. They have no interest in truth...because truth may result in the death of the ideology (it certainly will). These are dogmas....experts of nothing.


I don't have to respect them...I don't have to obey them....their moralizing is no different from that of a priest chastising me for my moral choices.

 

[rjs330]

If it was the barbie at my house, you'd be asked to leave. Plain and simple. If you can't show common courtesy to my guest/friend/colleague/relation then you are not welcome.

And if she's in the office and you refuse, and she questions you on it, then your reason would be 'Nah, mate. You were born male so you're still a bloke. You might dress like a woman and wear make-up and be called Mary, but you're still a bloke. That's obvious. And you can wear a frock and grow your hair, but it doesn't change anything. There's nothing you can do about it. There's no such thing as gender, it's just man or woman. You can have bits cut off or bits added but it doesn't change anything. You're actually suffering from a mental illness so I want no part of it and I refuse to use 'she' or 'her' when I refer to you'.

Those are all your opinions as you've stated constantly throughout this thread. Those are the reasons you refuse. So whether you think you should be truthful or whether you might soft peddle the reasons because you think a statement like that might get a response from some of her colleagues that you wouldn't appreciate, those are indeed the reasons.

So you'd be asked to leave. I've never worked anywhere where that attitude wouldn't get you immediately escorted to the door by security. But hey, maybe it's different with whoever you hang out with. Maybe you know people like you who have these attitudes. Maybe those attitudes are acceptable where you come from. I'd stay there if I were you.

Right because your side has become the bully. Nuff said.

And I have said all those things on this forum. And they are all true and factually correct. I say them because we are discussing the subject in depth on a discussion forum.

If Mary questioned me on it my response would depend on how well I know Mary. If Mary was simply a colleague at work and I don't really know Mary and she questioned me on why I would ask Mary, "I have no problem calling you by your chosen name and will accept you as a colleague and work with you just like like I work with everyone else. You may dress any way you like and we will work together, eat together share ideas just like everyone else. Why is it so important to you that I call you she/her? Can't we work together and just accept we have differing viewpoints on that particular matter?"

 

[rjs330]

Poor threats. The time has passed and increasingly employers don't want any drama from people who make a big fuss over their pronouns, sexuality, or gender....because quite simply, they aren't as important as people want to make them.

Apparently not in Australia.

 

[rjs330]

It's internet heresay. It's not the same as actual interacting with LGBT persons from a place of respect. IT's not going the extra mile, it's more like the guy trying to take the speck out of his neighbor's eye.

I don't know about Steve but I have worked with LGBT people my entire career. We have gotten along great. They even attended my wedding. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with what's happening in schools and the transgenderism ideology and the LGBTQ ideology that's being pushed upon children and society at large. You do know there are gays that are against it too right?

 

[rjs330]

You've implied they are mentally ill and delusional. That's demeaning.

You do know that it's still in the DSM right,? They changed the name but it's still a disorder. It IS a mental health disorder. Is it demeaning to say some one with PTSD has mental health issues or someone who is bi-polar or someone who is clinically depressed etc. No it's not. This condition IS a mental health issue. Why is it that if you believe you are a tiger and have surgeries to alter your appearance and you try to live like a tiger you would consider that person to have mental health problems. But if a man believes he is a woman and he cuts off his penis and testicles, cuts his penis in half and installs a non functioning fake vagina that he constantly has to dialate because his own body considers it a wound that needs to be closed he has NO mental health problems and is not mentally ill.

Why if someone wanted to cut off their feet and sew on frog flippers and have their eyes surgically altered to bug out of their head and have their tongue elongated like a frog you would absolutely state they were mentally ill.

Why is it when a woman decides she is the opposite sex and wants her perfectly normal breasts removed and have he vagina closed and have skin removed from her body to create a non functioning fake penis not mentally ill?

You think all of that is perfectly normal and that person zero mental health issues?

I think you are in denial my friend.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't know about Steve but I have worked with LGBT people my entire career. We have gotten along great. They even attended my wedding. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with what's happening in schools and the transgenderism ideology and the LGBTQ ideology that's being pushed upon children and society at large. You do know there are gays that are against it too right?

No gays or lesbians I have known are against trans people. None.

Most LGBT persons I have known are remarkably non-ideological. This whole notion that there is a "gay agenda" or "trans ideology" is at best, a gross exaggeration, and at worst, malicious slander.

 

[rjs330]

believe it just being a decent human being and treating other people with kindness. You seem to be fixated on religious ideology. I don't believe that's decent or good. Good religion shouldn't be about trying to just score some obscure intellectual point.

I think you know this, but you can be a decent human being and treat others with kindness without agreeing with their ideology. I've done it for going on 36 years now. I've worked with LGBT people my entire career and never had a lick of problems. Not one complaint. My best friend's daughter transitioned into a boy. I went through that with him. We just went on vacation with him and his now son. Got along just fine.

I don't know who you think we are but it's apparent that you don't really know us at all.

 

[rjs330]

No gays or lesbians I have known are against trans people. None.

Most LGBT persons I have known are remarkably non-ideological. This whole notion that there is a "gay agenda" or "trans ideology" is at best, a gross exaggeration, and at worst, malicious slander.

Well I do know some. And there is a LGBT agenda. And no not all LGBT people agree with it. I'm really tired of providing the list. I've already done that in numerous threads and posts. So not going to do it again. As evidenced by you the agenda is not just pushed by the LGBT community. Their allies push just as hard. You'd by surprised but the LGBT community isn't as monolithic as you think.

 

[rjs330]

In the kind of situation you're referring to, where the "lie" is basic workplace courtesy, your employer is probably not responsible

This is an example of discrimination. When only one person's anxiety matters and the others does not. How is it you demand one person to be courteous to a fellow employees feelings but not the other. Why is one person's anxiety more important than the others? You have just elevated one person over another. You have just supported discrimination.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is an example of discrimination. When only one person's anxiety matters and the others does not. How is it you demand one person to be courteous to a fellow employees feelings but not the other. Why is one person's anxiety more important than the others? You have just elevated one person over another. You have just supported discrimination.

This wasn't some mystery. I pointed out race discrimination in a post long ago and she immediately defended it. I pointed out that a guy can get cancer and fired after 3 months....no problem with that. If a woman chooses to get pregnant though, it doesn't matter if she gets sick...can't fire her, must be accommodated.

The woke never really want equality. They want special privileges and benefits.

 

[rjs330]

Then why does that particular quote your using say "disapproval of political correctness is a majority view". Thats the only quote I mentioned and its not the title of the article but a quote from within the article. How can that be if you claim it said nothing about political correctness. Here is the first section under the title containing the very quote I used.

Australians say 'political correctness has gone too far' — but it's complicated

More than two-thirds of Australians believe that political correctness has "gone too far" and that their fellow citizens are too easily offended.

This disapproval of political correctness is a majority view across all age groups, according to the nationally-representative Australia Talks National Survey. It is also a majority view for all income brackets, for both men and women, across white and non-white Australians and in all states and territories.

That said, the older you are, the whiter you are, the male-r, the poorer and less educated, the more likely you are to feel strongly about this, the data shows.

Among recent immigrants, for example, frustration is only felt by a slender majority — 53 per cent — while among immigrants who arrived more than 10 years ago, it's the strongest, at 69 per cent. Among people born in this country, 68 per cent agree that political correctness has gone too far.

Has 'PC gone mad'? Australians have made a call

When it comes to questions of political correctness and freedom of speech, it seems our nation is having a bet each way, writes Annabel Crabb.

www.abc.net.au

So how would I know that exact quote if it wasn't even in the one you are talking about. You have the wrong survey.

I noticed for me anyway when I go into the link you supplied it doesn't go into anything but a page about the survey itself, how its done, how they determine questions ect. So perhaps something has gone wrong with the link defaulting to its main page about the survey itself. This is the heading I get when I click into the link you said

Australia Talks can help you understand how you compare to other Australians — here's how
Here are the headings
What is Australia Talks?
Who made Australia Talks?
How does Australia Talks determine my results?
How did the ABC decide what questions to ask?

PS I just just checked the link again after I linked it again as as suspected the link after the statement I quoted does not go into any survey results but rather how the survey is structured. You need to refer to the link at the bottom of the section I copied titled Has 'PC gone mad'? Australians have made a call

It is this one I used aned it mentions nothing about pronouns.

Not to mention pronoun requirements are a part of political correctness.

 

[Bradskii]

We just went on vacation with him and his now son. Got along just fine.

So did you ask your friend, referring to his son: 'Is he coming with us?' Or did you stand up for your beliefs and say 'Is she coming with us?'

 

[FireDragon76]

This notion of a "gay agenda" is no different than the blood libel accusation that superstitious Christians leveled against Jews. It's an unwarranted and unfounded conspiracy theory that gets people killed, and is therefore repugnant to actual morality. Jesus Christ, who taught us to love our enemies, to bless those who persecute us, would certainly not countenance something like that.

 

[Bradskii]

Basically - I'm hearing that you're born with morality "in potential". You subsequently may realise (make real) your potential.

The discussion is about whether the morality is real at birth or in potential at birth, ready for realisation.

????

It used to be assumed that the human mind, at the moment of birth was a tabula rasa or a blank slate. And you needed to input everything needed to obtain output. That viewpoint is gradually disappearing. And there is a greater acceptance that we have a lot of inherited abilities that were developed over evolutionary time.

Chomsky for example proposed that we all have an inbuilt Language Acquisition Device which enabled us to innately understand the rules of grammar, which are generally common in some variation in all languages. My granddaughter is 2 years old and I've been reading about this aspect of psychology for some time so I've been specifically watching her language develop over the last 24 months and I have to say that it's not credible to think that she has reached the point that she's at now without some sort of head start. So the tabula certainly ain't rasa.

The question then becomes: What is actually there when we are born?

Some things are obviously innate. We don't have to teach a child to be fearful, or to be distressed or to feel comforted. But then it gets a little messier. If we don't need to teach fear then do we need to teach courage? Is anger one of the natural consequences of distress? Is the distress a child experiences in seeing others in pain a learned reaction? If it is then is altruism a means of reducing that stress (to oneself as well as others) or does that have to be taught?

There are a lot of arguments that say that these things are characteristics and emotions that are genetically determined and hence are there at the moment of conception. Because they were beneficial to us in our deep past and were therefore selected for in the evolutionary process. They helped us survive. And they did that by prompting certain actions that helped our survival. So pride, shame, a sense of fairness, altruism and reciprocal altruism and other aspects of what we could consider requirements for a sense of morality developed as a natural process.

So is morality inbuilt? Weeeell...you might say that we have the ability to understand the grammar. But the vocabulary is socially dependent. That needs to be input.

 

[Paidiske]

Due process? Like my evaluation is done by a jury of my peers and I have a defender?

Here's an outline of what due process might look like:

"It’s important that before dismissing an employee you can show you have:

• told them the purpose of performance meetings in advance and allowed them to prepare
• told them they could have a support person present
• clearly outlined the expected level of performance and the improvement that was required
• clearly warned them that their performance needed to improve
• gave them time and support to improve their performance
• told them that they may be dismissed if their performance didn’t improve.

Before dismissing an employee, provide the employee with written reasons why you are considering dismissal and give the employee a reasonable opportunity to respond to those reasons. You must take into consideration any response the employee provides before you make a decision about dismissing the employee."

This is an example of discrimination. When only one person's anxiety matters and the others does not. How is it you demand one person to be courteous to a fellow employees feelings but not the other. Why is one person's anxiety more important than the others? You have just elevated one person over another. You have just supported discrimination.

At the end of the day, employers have an obligation to provide a safe workplace. If behaving in a way which keeps the workplace safe for everyone is so crippling to you, then what do you expect the employer to do? Allow you to behave in a disruptive and damaging way? Or does there come a point where everyone needs to acknowledge that maybe this isn't the right workplace for you?