Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So you do understand it but you like a poster's comment that nobody understands it. Brilliant.
OK fair enough. I just don't like being misrepresented as you have clearly done. I also think its rather hypocritical of you to claim people aren't listening to trans people and then dismiss other peoples voices by being not interested in what they have to say.
But that is exactly what ideologues pushing the Trans ideology were not doing. Its like saying that the Church which abused kids should now still be in charge and just change their position by treating kids better. Ideologues didn't treat kids on an individual basis because they assumed they were all trans and needed to be affirmed and transitioned. Even kids with autism and gay kids. Thats a form of abuse which denies gays.
The problem is the ideology has already caused a lot of damage and been exposed for what it is and it took many people objecting despite the insistence from ideologues that it was perfectly OK and even pushing to have even younger children exposed to it.
No because emotional reaction to behaviour alone can be irratic and arbitrary. The moral sense that babies and toddlers show is qualified by their innate sense about justice, fairness and kindness which are moral principles and not emotions.
Justice is a moral principle. I was using the marfia to show that they know about Justice but they warp how it should be applied. The fact they know about justice shows that even immoral people understand this though they may get it wrong.
I don't think anyone really knows what moral sense is or moral intution fior adults. Its something you can't rationalise yet it seems to be at the basis of morality. When we spontaneously react or respond to moral situations as though something is morally wrong we don't stop and analyse the situation before we react or respond. We sense something is wrong and it matters and needs attention.
Actually this is not what he's saying because he clearly says that babies and toddlers have no rational idea of why they sense moral wrongs. They are cognitively empty but their sense is strong and judgemental about moral situations. They clearly know when the bad guy is denying justice or fairness. I suspect this is because there is something in us whether thats by evolution or the hand of God that understands and relates to human pain and suffering.
I don't think thats the point. Regardless of which moral system it is any moral system has to have a starting point which already recognises moral situations and makes them matter. If there is no prior sense there is not moral system.
Yes and that is why we can't say that early sense of morality is based on rationality or teaching morality as a rational enterprise. There has to be some sense that is not determined by rationality to begin with. But even Humans idea doesn't mean that our moral sense is completely irrational. We know we are moral beings by the reality of our lived experience ie moral norms and laws, Yet we cannot completely justify a scientific rational basis for it. Yet its as real as objective reality.
You can't assign value if there is no sense of value in the first place.
Not exactly because they are qualified by moral principles and judgements. Emotions can mean anything, good bad and ugly.
Yes they are abstractions in that they cannot be objective in the physical sense. But they are non the less objective in that they have a real effect on reality. They hold objective status in that they represent truths we have come to know which are required to live together as humans. Without them we cease to live to our potential and actually end up destroying society and objective reality itself because they are tied to each other. Not justice then chaos, chaos then breakdown of society. Break down of society then who knows, the struction of the world itself.
Except its more than a preference. If it was a preference then we would see a variety of preferred outcomes including rewarding the bad guy as some prefer this. There is a moral judgement that goes with this moral sense which is strong and seems not open to preference. Its like the bad guy is wrong fullstop and the good guy is good no matter what others prefer. As adults we do the same.
Yes I think this is where morals come from, where the Golden rule comes from. Even babies can sense other babies pain so its starts from birth.
Yes I think this is the other side of feeling the pain of others in that we are also capable of inflicting pain. Feeling the pain of others would not mean anything of we didn't also have the potential to inflict pain or even indulge in misery of others. But I think if anything this is influenced by culture. The West is good at pushing this onto people and it seems its a morbid facination.
Its a principle despite context I think. We are have the right to be innocent before the law and not presumed guilty. There is no context to this. It just stands as a fundemental principles of Rule of Law. That is why these long held truths of the West are so important as they have been put in place by finding out the hard way (by denying this principle). So we have a history of real lived experience to support them.
It can't be an adhoc rationalisation because there is no rationalisation for it. Its just there to begin with. If anything we can say we just don't know why we have it.
Lol
Not when its the motivator that leads to justice. I think your confusing Justice itself with our moral sense. Our moral sense causes us to make matters of Justice matter in the first place. Without that mattering there would be no justice. But that moral sense itself cannot be rationalised. Its later that we rationalise why make justice a moral principle and therefore justify our moral sense.
I think intuition is more than emotion.
academic.oup.com
But the moral sense is there as babies before they are socialised. Plus they hold this moral sense about justice and kindness despite socialisation. If a baby is born and socialised into a moral relativist or even a moral or immoral group they will still display certain moral judgements about justice and kindness being good despite any social influence.
lol.
Yes and in some ways this supports our moral sense and intuition in that despite trying to teach kids and even young adults about atheistic and naturalistic ideas kids still believe in a creative agents and disembodied spirits. In fact it suggests that belief is a natural disposition and if theres any indoctrination going on its people trying to teach belief out of people.
I think the point is we all have some sort of belief even if thats in naturalism or science itself. We find it hard to be totally without some sort of belief as its a natural disposition. That we can't rationalise belief into being as its counterintuitive.
Well luckily as good science would have it, these findings and interpretations have been repeated independently.
I still don't know where.
As I said it's you and those that believe that nonsensical stuff who don't understand gender. It's your side that proposed something that it exists beyond the binary sex. Something that is wholly made up out of nothing by a pedophile? And you claim we are nonsensical? Wow. We have a much deeper grip and understanding of the issues surrounding the transgender person. You won't even admit it's a mental health problem.
Even single one IS addressed in an individual basis. And on an individual basis nearly 100% who take puberty blockers go on to further medical transitioning. That's not really addressing the problems. Especially when over 90% of those would have desisted.
The poll speaks for itself. It's somewhat desperate to try to claim that the people who say that they have no problems with transgender people simply don't know what they are talking about. That you have the nerve to suggest that when we have people in this very thread who don't even comprehend the concept of gender itself is incredible.
We are talking about medical advice by professionals. That is exactly what they are doing. And exactly what I said, what I have always said and what I will keep saying.
Gee, you spend an enormous amount of time arguing against something you keep saying you don't understand. I'll tell you what, Google the term and check it out from a social science perspective. Then get back to me and tell me what you don't understand. OK? And this isn't a hypothetical suggestion. I want you you to do that because I want you to tell me what about it doesn't make sense to you.
Apart from Steve who seems to be confused about it, you are the only person I know in this form (in fact the only person I know - period) who denies that gender even exists.
Are you perpetuating this falsehood again? I thought we cleared this up. Maybe you missed it or forgot. I've never denied gender exists. I've said there are two. Male and female. Gender is the same thing as sex.
That is why I keep saying your missing the point because your disagreement doesn't make sense. Its self evident and logical that we would have to have some sense that morality mattered before morality mattered. Humans think that bonding matters but thats because we have a prior instinct that bonding matters. Its in us already.
Even if its feeling we would have to have some prior reason for feeling that moral principles like justice matter. Otherwise it would just be a result of chemical reactions that don't care about morality or anything other than survival. Reasoning comes later. First we have the sense that it matters and that causes us to reason. You can reason feelings into existence. People have feelings despite rationality. Rationality comes in later to rationalise those feelings into being rational or otherwise.
Why. At the basis of all morality is how we treat others and that realtes to empathy and alturism. Name one moral situation where empathy or alturism is not related. That is why the Golden Rule is the 2nd greatest commandment that covers all the law.
No that comes later. We are not amoral creatures to begin with and someone turn ourselves in moral creatures that care by reasoning. Someone could reason that something immoral is good if we did not have a prior sense of what matters morally.
Yes its a mental disorder which is no reflection on a noraml working mind. The point is first the moral sense then its tethering to moral principles like justice and kindness. The moral sense is based on empathy which is a human capacity to put ourselves in the shoes of others and not wanting bad stuff to happen to others just as we don't want it to happen to us.
Yes we can. We rationalise math or objective science but we don't care about it morally. Our moral sense is a different system that makes us matter about others, how they are treated. You can't make something matter is its not there in the first place. It would be like trying to rationalise someone to love you. If the love was not there in the first place no amount of rationalising will change that. The same with our moral sense.
What does "sort of falls over" mean. It seems ambigious and doesn't actually explain things. I mean of course an atheist will tell you they don't believe theres a God. But how does their words prove anything. That is why the studies can help explain why atheism is a hard and against the grain position to take because its impossible in that the natural cognitive state finds it easy to believe.
In some ways yes. But I think what we will find is that its not about learning morality but discovering it, discovering what was already there. Or rediscovering what once was and that we had forgotten it or denied it. Humans are also capable of horrible behaviour so we can often deny the truth. In fact I would say of anything its rationalising and the idea that there is no moral sense that we can turn to that tells us moral truth opens the door to rationalising that truth away and justifying evil.
Who said I deny gender doesn't exist. Another misrepresentation. Gender exists but we cannot deny sex being tied to it as ideologues do. In fact it use to be only around 20 years ago that sex was a biological reality and gender was socially constructed. Now it seems according to the ideologues sex is a social construction and gender is the reality.
As I said, you seem confused about it. Why don't you read something authoratitive about it rather than assume, you think, it seems...
That's the only explanation you have for someone disagreeing with you?
How can something matter before it matters, precisely?
Steve, how much do you know about the neurobiology of our emotional states? I would put it to you that what you're arguing is a primitive sense of justice, is in fact the emotional responses linked to the brain chemistry of survival. "Justice" is far too abstract for an infant.
Yes, exactly. I had actually typed my above two sentences before reading this one, but here you see that you do actually understand something about how our very young brains work.
Why is morality more than traits like empathy or altruism? Because it has to do with concepts we can only understand with higher-order thinking, like right and wrong. Empathy does not tell you what is right.
Let me point you back over here, where the distinction is made clearly, and it's pointed out that "empathy can become a source of immoral behavior."
Yes, it comes later. Which is why infants do not have a "moral sense."
In the sense that we don't even understand concepts like right and wrong, yes we are.
I have news for you; people reason that something immoral is good all the time.
No, I'm not talking about a mental disorder. I'm talking about basically healthy people who carry a sense of guilt for situations in which they are not objectively morally culpable. Which is an extremely common problem (I see it all the time in pastoral situations).
No. You can't have a sense of right and wrong without rationality. Even being able to conceptualise "right" and "wrong" is a higher cognitive function, involving multiple areas of the brain in complex processes.
That they are cognitively incapable is exactly why I'm rejecting the claim that babies have a "moral sense."
Well, legally, we don't hold them fully accountable in the same way as adults.
In this case it means the fact that there are actual living breathing atheists disproves your claim that there are no atheists. I don't have any reason to believe they too stupid, deluded or dishonest for me to trust what they tell me about their own beliefs. I'm willing to believe that there's a fair degree of variation in our "natural" inclination to belief.
The reason I think that they want to convince kids is because if they convince kids then they convince society. As a society we look to kids as the future of what our society will be and the more kids they convince the more they create the society they want. But I also think this relates to a fundemental difference in how we see nature and reality.
