When two worldviews collide.

[rjs330]

So there's this person called Dave. Which is a guy's name. He dresses like a man. You refer to him as a man. His father and you both refer to him as your friend's son. No doubt his father uses 'he' and 'him' in referring to him in the third person. But you refuse to do that.

I'll have a think for a few minutes to see if there's anything more nonsensical I've read in the forum this week. And gee, we get a lot of nonsense posted so it may take me a while.

Try calling Dave a man when Dave is a woman still with woman parts. Except Dave had her breasts removed to make her happy and she isn't. But you think it's wonderful.

So Dave dresses like a man. Really, have you seen what Dave dresses like? But let's say Dave does. So dress makes you a man?

The arguments you provide are about as nonsensical as it gets.

 

[Bradskii]

Try calling Dave a man when Dave is a woman still with woman parts.

You called him a boy, not a girl.

So Dave dresses like a man. Really, have you seen what Dave dresses like? But let's say Dave does. So dress makes you a man?

You don't understand gender so I'll not waste my time trying to explain it.

The arguments you provide are about as nonsensical as it gets.

I didn't make an argument. I simply pointed out the facts of the matter as you related them to me. And the tortuous language you have forced yourself to use is all too nonsensically apparent.

 

[rjs330]

Nope. You have to deal with the following (posted for the 4th time I think). I'm not playing forum hide and seek anymore or Guess-Which-Link-I'm-Quoting-This-Time for the umpteenth time.

New research shows overwhelming support among Australians on trans equality - Equality Australia​

'78% of Australians agree that trans people deserve the same rights and protections as other Australians...Only 7% of Australians actively disagree with this sentiment.' "

Steves article says this.

When asked to pick a lane — "Should people be able to say what they want, even if offends others?" — the nation couldn't make up its collective mind. Forty-five per cent think yes, 45 per cent think no, and the other 10 per cent don't know.

Your article doesn't address the speech issue at all.

I think the best either of you could say is that Aussies appear to be split on the pronoun debate regarding free speech.

 

[rjs330]

You called him a boy, not a girl.

Where?

You don't understand gender so I'll not waste my time trying to explain it.

I'm afraid you are the one that doesn't understand gender. Especially if you think what a person wears makes them a man or woman.

didn't make an argument. I simply pointed out the facts of the matter as you related them to me. And the tortuous language you have forced yourself to use is all too nonsensically apparent.

Okay then then you points or whatever you are trying to do are about as nonsensical as it gets. Especially if you think names and clothing determine men/women.

You regular arguments in relation to do called gender in a non binary sense are about as torturous as it gets. I mean a sliding scale? Yet you can't say where you have to be in that scale before you become a male or female. Also the so called scale is in the binary. The nonsense of these points is quite self evident.

 

[Bradskii]

Your article doesn't address the speech issue at all. I think the best either of you could say is that Aussies appear to be split on the pronoun debate regarding free speech.

That's incorrect. The ABC poll he linked to himself said that 80% of Australians have no problem with pronouns.

Australia Talks - Find out where you fit, and how you compare to other Australians in 2021

'Overall, women and younger people are happier to use the pronouns someone identifies with, but the majority of men and Australians in all age groups also agree with this sentiment. About 1 in 5 Australians think we should be using pronouns that match the sex we are assigned at birth.'

So now we have two links. One that says about 80% of Australians have no problem with transgender people and want them treated the same as everyone else. And one that says that 80% have no problem with pronouns.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your still missing the point of the research. There would be no moral reasoning if we did not have a moral sense to make morality matter that we should reason about it.

What do you mean by "moral sense"?

Are you talking about an emotional reaction to behavior?

Toddlers have a sense of justice and want just outcomes for others. That some situations require more complex reasoning doesn't change the fact that our basic moral sense which has to already be there causes us to seek that more complex justice. Without it there would be no justic and no morality.

I don't think morality is tied to justice. I don't think you think it's tied to justice. You cited the mafia as having a code of morality.

No complex moral situations have nothing to do with why morality matters in the first place. Basis means the moral sense.

Swapping out "basis" and "moral sense" doesn't really tell anyone what a moral sense is.

Its the reason why we are moral in the first place. Teens lack complex moral reasoning, some adults lack complex moral reasoning and some people such as with autism lack complex moral reasoning. But they still sense when somethings wrong. Complex reasoning and rationalisation may lead to deny morality. So rationality is not morality but rather an attempt to determine the facts around a moral.

I don't think you're reading your citation correctly.

I think the guy is saying that you have basic emotional reactions to behavior and then you post hoc rationalize a moral judgment onto it.

I also think he's wrong.

It is hard to conceive of a moral system that didn’t have, as a starting point, these empathetic capacities.

It's not that difficult. It's just a moral system he doesn't recognize.

As David Hume argued, mere rationality can’t be the foundation of morality, since our most basic desires are neither rational nor irrational.

No argument there.

To have a genuinely moral system, in other words, some things first have to matter, and what we see in babies is the development of mattering.
The Moral Life of Babies (Published 2010)

Or "assigning value".

The same moral 'Mattering' is found in adults.
The babies’ experiences might be cognitively empty but emotionally intense, replete with strong feelings and strong desires. But this shouldn’t strike you as an altogether alien experience: while we adults possess the additional critical capacity of being able to consciously reason about morality, we’re not otherwise that different from babies — our moral feelings are often instinctive.
The Moral Life of Babies (Published 2010)

So...moral feelings = emotions.

Yes empathy can even lead to acting immoral because its an emotion. But empathy as an emotion can also lead to being moral when it is tethered with justice, fairness, kindness, compassion and alturism which are not emotions but moral principles for which we make judgements over.

Those are all abstractions, not principles....except for compassion, that's an emotion.

A list of basic morals would include: An understanding that helping is morally good, and that harming, hindering, or otherwise thwarting the goals of another person is morally bad. A rudimentary sense of justice—an understanding that good guys should be rewarded and bad guys should be punished. An initial sense of fairness—in particular, that there should be an equal division of resources. And alongside these principles are moral emotions, including empathy, compassion, guilt, shame, and righteous anger.
The Moral Life of Babies

I can shorten this down to....

"I prefer preferred outcomes."

A worthless moral statement we can all agree to.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-moral-life-of-babies/

Yes as mentioned above empathy is not the moral but the sense of someone elses pain.

Well empathy is just trying to understand someone's feelings. It doesn't have to be pain.

That is what makes morality matter and causes us to want justice and kindness for others.

I don't really think that's the case.

People watch real murder stories, enjoy sad and terrifying movies, and watch professionals engage in physical combat for fun.

We seem to deeply enjoy awful things happening to people.

But justice for example is a moral principle for which we can make judgements about.

Justice is too abstract a concept, outside of any context, to call a principle.

That emotions that come with morality can trick us doesn't negate that it doesn't trick us when it comes to qualifying those emotions with moral principles.

There's that post hoc rationalization I mentioned.

If we are angry at someone and are unjust towards them as a result this goes against the moral principle that everyone deserves justice. That is why feelings alone cannot determine morality.

Interestingly, brain circuits that are involved in discerning another’s pain overlap brain circuits involved with moral reasoning, emotions, and decision making.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01863/full

Scientists know that certain compassionate feelings and impulses emerge early and apparently universally in human development. These are not moral concepts, exactly, but they seem closely related. One example is feeling pain at the pain of others.
The Moral Life of Babies (Published 2010)

I really enjoy imagining this guy stare at babies and saying "OK, so how does that make you feel?"

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html

You have to remember as I keep pointing out for babies, toddlers and even adults our moral sense has nothing to do with rationality as far as reasoning out the facts or truth.

That's a weird thing to say after "identifying" justice as a "moral principle". Do you think justice is irrational?

Its just there, a sense or gut feelings some call intuition.

Yeah...emotions.

Otherwise those without a mental capacity to work out complex situations could never know morality. The sense comes first and that gives us reason to reason about moral situations.

Actually, what comes first is a social group.

Sorry I was waiting for your reply before I bothered. Anyway ehere we go

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke
Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

Metaphysical thought processes are more deeply wired than hitherto suspected

www.science20.com

I knew those other atheists were faking!

In his account of atheism, Barrett argues that not believing in God presents people with a number of challenges to the natural cognitive capacities of our minds that must be deliberately overcome. The capacities that are challenged by atheistic belief are a system he calls ‘‘hypersensitive agent detection device’’ (HADD),

It's funny he says that has to be "overcome".

theory of mind, moral realism, dealing with death and overcoming native creationism. These are claimed to be intuitive cognitive systems or mechanisms which theism has no problems with but which atheism must deal with. Furthermore, atheists must stage their struggle on the basis of articulated, reflective beliefs which are much less direct and automatic than the unreflective beliefs generated by the intuitive cognitive systems (Barrett, 2004, pp. 109–112).
http://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1016/j.religion.2009.11.003?needAccess=true

This is absolutely true...and if I can't be blamed for my atheism....then certainly god won't be punishing my soul for it.

Isn't that similar to why we have law and order because adults cannot always sort out their disputes despite being adults with a more mature disposition. Just because toddlers need help with most things doesn't mean they don't have a sense of morality. Your making logical fallacies.

The fact is toddlers can make moral judgements and then intervene such as ensuring subjects in the tests are equally treated, that justice is served and even more interesting that the bad guy is punished. This may be quite rudimentary in their behaviours such as helping the helper share things, giving the helper a clap or big smile which ignoring and being upset when the bad guy gets away with it. But these same judgements and rudimemntary acts are what become the adult moral behaviour but just more sophisticated and agile.

The doc is doing a lot of creative interpretation here.

 

[Bradskii]

Where?

Do I have to quote you so that you know what you said? It's entirely automatic to use 'he' when referring to someone's son so I know you check every post to make sure one hasn't slipped in. So go check the one where you said he was a boy. Maybe that was a slip up?

Especially if you think names and clothing determine men/women.

As I said, you don't understand or accept the concept of gender so it's a waste of your time arguing about it with me.

 

[stevevw]

The vast majority of Australians have no problem with transgender people. Just accept that as per the link I gave you.

Now your changing the goal posts.

And the ABC link you gave said they have no problem with pronouns either. Whether you think you said it, didn't mean to say, were misinterpreted saying it or it's all just a fever dream imaginarium, those are the facts of the matter.

Heres the straw. You have attributed every possibility as to what and wht I said something except the truth. The ABC link I posted deeid not say anything about pronouns for the 10th time. Prove to me it did. Link the section from your link that you claim is mine with the link address. I bet you don't because you know I am right. You found another link that was not mine and are using that one.

 

[stevevw]

As I said, you don't understand or accept the concept of gender so it's a waste of your time arguing about it with me.

What is gender and how can we know its a true representation like say sex.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nope. You have to deal with the following (posted for the 4th time I think). I'm not playing forum hide and seek anymore or Guess-Which-Link-I'm-Quoting-This-Time for the umpteenth time.

New research shows overwhelming support among Australians on trans equality - Equality Australia​

'78% of Australians agree that trans people deserve the same rights and protections as other Australians...Only 7% of Australians actively disagree with this sentiment.' "

Well that settles it...

• There is also strong support for the availability of health services for transgender patients (75%), the right to feel safe no matter the gender, how people dress or their name (77%), and not allowing doctors to refuse treatment, or ridicule, a patient who is transgender (78%).

If the doctor can't refuse treatment....what's the point of the doctor? Just have vending machines with pills in em lol.

You do understand that doctors probably wanted that last question thrown in....hoping to get legislation to follow. That way....they aren't liable for anything.

 

[Bradskii]

Now your changing the goal posts.

The goalposts have always been transgenderism. Stay focussed.

The ABC link I posted deeid not say anything about pronouns for the 10th time. Prove to me it did.

The link is in post 2005 just above. You linked to it in post 1709. I've given you that information at least once before. I've linked to it at least three times myself and I've quoted from it, which I've also done at least three or four times before. I mean, what else could be expected from me....

Deal with it as you see fit.

 

[Bradskii]

What is gender and how can we know its a true representation like say sex.

Good Lord, Steve. We're 2000+ plus posts into a thread that's been discussing transgenderism almost from the get go. I think it's a little late to start asking how we determine gender. I mean, you have got to be kidding me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You called him a boy, not a girl.

Are you offended on this person's behalf?

You don't understand gender so I'll not waste my time trying to explain it.

Nobody understands gender.

And the tortuous language you have forced yourself to use is all too nonsensically apparent.

Language torture. You don't have another account on here where you use phrases like "verbal violence" do you?

 

[stevevw]

Good Lord, Steve. We're 2000+ plus posts into a thread that's been discussing transgenderism almost from the get go. I think it's a little late to start asking how we determine gender. I mean, you have got to be kidding me.

Then you should be able to easily tell me how we determine gender as something real that needs protecting. Is there a test like with sex. Can you tell me.

 

[stevevw]

What is gender and how can we know its a true representation like say sex.

double post

 

[Bradskii]

Then you should be able to easily tell me how we determine gender as something real that needs protecting. Is there a test like with sex. Can you tell me.

Nope. If you don't understand it then you have no right arguing against it. Do your homework. I'm not here to educate you.

 

[stevevw]

The goalposts have always been transgenderism. Stay focussed.
The link is in post 2005 just above. You linked to it in post 1709. I've given you that information at least once before. I've linked to it at least three times myself and I've quoted from it, which I've also done at least three or four times before. I mean, what else could be expected from me....

Deal with it as you see fit.

No they have not. You said I was only talking about trans and pronouns when you injected yourself in the discussion. If you were to have checked the same posts (1,709) and the ones leading up to post 1,709 you would have seen this was not the case and was actually about Trans and Woke ideology in general, political correctness, cancel culture and identity politics and that is what I posted a link on political correctness and identity politics. But you created a strawman by misrepresenting what I said by not reading the previous posts.

This is when I first mentioned pronouns in relation to post 1,709 which clearly shows the conext which was about ideological beliefs including identity politics, PC and cancel culture and not specifically pronouns

Post #1,672 Its not about courtesy. Pronouns represent the ideological belief.

Post #1,674 So going along with the language (pronouns, pregnant people, menstrators ect) is supporting and going along with the ideology behind it. Its also a greater matter of free speech.

I even clarified this again here in post #1,675
I used the example of pronouns and the conflict over what is a women and how each side have fundementally different beliefs on this.

and post #1,681 clearly shows I was talking about the greater issue of ideological beliefs an not the popularity of pronouns specifically.
I think this is where people conflict and perhaps shows the fundemental differences in thinking, a bit like with Affirmative action and Trans Care model. I think going along with other peoples language represents a greater issue about the ideological thinking behind it. That language and words represent the greater reality that the identity behind it is a real objective reality in the world which can be used to erase the truths and facts we have come to know including Rights associated with this.

Once again as we get closer to post 1,709 this is clarified
#1,688
What do pronouns represent. Do they represent the reality of the Trans person or the reality for everyone. The reason pronouns are used is to reflect the reality of a persons gender identity.

Once again in post #1,703
The ideologues want to make out its being nice but its more than that. Its forcing a subjective ideological belief and set of morals onto people.

Now that brings us to post 1,709 the one you jumped into. This is where after many posts talking about the ideology and reality behind pronouns and not pronouns themselves.
You are missing the point. The idea is if you identify as a women when every cell in your body is a mans which defies reality.
It is a breach of Free speech when people are shut down and cancelled. Ideologues want to cencor truth. This goes back to the Postmodernist idea that there is no truth or objective reality.
Notice how theres an increasing push to delete certain words as being threatening to certain peoples subjective sense of self.

Then I posted this link in the same post which shows I was talking about the greater ideological thinking by linking pronouns to cancel culture because its about cancelling words.
Poll: Overwhelming majority say cancel culture has gone too far
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...majority-say-cancel-culture-has-gone-too-far/

Then the very next quote from the same post 1,709 states
Forced pronouns comes from the same ideology as identity politics, political correctness and cancel culture. I think you will find the majority are sick of these things and disagree.

Something I had already mentioned in the previous posts several times and the very same post 1,709 just before the quote and link you are referring to.

This disapproval of political correctness is a majority view across all age groups, according to the nationally-representative
The title even says this
Australians say 'political correctness has gone too far' — but it's complicated

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

www.abc.net.au

So clearly I was talking about the greater ideological thinking which includes PC, CC and IP which makes sense and supports the link I posted. You need to do some research on my own posts rather than creating strawmen. Opps its that politically incorrect to use the word man in strawman. I better cencor and cancel myself lol.

 

[stevevw]

Nope. If you don't understand it then you have no right arguing against it. Do your homework. I'm not here to educate you.

I do understand it. I was seeing how you understood it. Gender identity is a subjective sense of self which may change on a weekly basis depending on how one feels at the time. Its a spectrum so it could be any number of subjective identities. I also like Anna's reply that nobody understands gender.

 

[Bradskii]

So clearly I was talking about the greater ideological thinking which includes PC, CC and IP ...

I'm not the least bit interested. The links show what Australians think of transgender people and show what they think of using pronouns. Again, deal with it as you see fit.

 

[stevevw]

Well that settles it...

• There is also strong support for the availability of health services for transgender patients (75%), the right to feel safe no matter the gender, how people dress or their name (77%), and not allowing doctors to refuse treatment, or ridicule, a patient who is transgender (78%).

If the doctor can't refuse treatment....what's the point of the doctor? Just have vending machines with pills in em lol.

You do understand that doctors probably wanted that last question thrown in....hoping to get legislation to follow. That way....they aren't liable for anything.

It also should be noted that despite the majority saying that Trans people should have access to treatment that supports their subjective gender identity that the only real opinion that counts, the proferssional health carer opinion states that Trans Affirmative and Transitioning treatment is unscientific and harmful in the long run.

This goes to show how many people just don't understand the issue and are willing to support in reality an unscientific and harmful ideology based on Trans Rights. Most people because they don't understand and because like most of us don't want to be seen denying Rights actually can cause more harm than good.