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.
When combined with genetics?
I'm guessing about 100%.
Well, I could just refer to them by their name only. However, if they insisted that I use their preferred pronouns, then I would explain that I'm not going to comply. That doesn't mean that I'm trying to appear rude. But now let me ask you a question. If I were to use traditional pronouns about a trans person, deliberately, then are you saying that I should be fired from my workplace over that?So if you knew a person was trans, you would deliberately use the wrong pronouns?
Someone who tells you they are transexual, and they are not lying, in the context that you did not know, does so because they want you to know.I dunno. How do you decide that someone is a trans woman?
Thinking this over, I’m not entirely sure what is meant by this sentence in the book: “God would not have allowed Christians to remain ignorant of unknown lands for so long.”Thanks for pointing that out. However, I was just pointing out that smart as St. Augustine was, he couldn’t conceive of the possibility of people inhabiting a yet to be discovered continent across the sea. He assumed that it couldn’t be because they would almost all be ignorant of any preaching of the gospel, and that for a long time.
Someone told me. If someone approached me talking about someone else's penis, I would call them to get away from me because the conversation is completely inappropriate, and would dismiss everything they've said.I dunno. How do you decide that someone is a trans woman?
Thinking this over, I’m not entirely sure what is meant by this sentence in the book: “God would not have allowed Christians to remain ignorant of unknown lands for so long.”
Elsewhere in the book, on page 23: “In The City of God Augustine distinguishes clearly between antipodes and sphericity. It seems that the earth is round, he says, but even if there is land on the opposite side, no one could ever have crossed the huge expanse of ocean to settle it.”
Note: Augustine, City of God, 16:9.
St. Augustine was well educated, but I guess in his time, no one knew that the tip of Russia and Alaska formed an ice bridge long ago. In the same way I’m being dogmatic about the issue of transgenderism, maybe I could be overlooking something here. What I claim is that people are either male or female. But as far as anomalies go, how marred can humans become by the curse of the fall? I’m supposing that there are limits, in that a male cannot have a female brain. There can only be deficiencies, but I don’t believe the male can have his brain mapped out just as a female.
@MehGuy @RDKirk
If someone told me there was some old guy who lives beyond the clouds looking over everyone’s shoulders keepin’ score, as a skeptic I would find such a claim absurd, and would likely call it so; but a theist who believes the idea might find the claim perfectly reasonable, and accuse me of being adverse thus accuse me of poisoning the well."Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say." SOURCE
Did you present adverse information about a target in order to discredit it or ridicule it?
Yes, when you said "this type of absurdity is a game I do not wish to play." You said it was absurd, and you said it was nothing more than a game.
So yeah, you were poisoning the well.
I guess some things are a struggle to understand when it comes to what early church figures thought in detail. It seems evident that Augustine believed in the sphericity of earth. He didn't believe there was a landmass inhabited by people on the other side of earth, as he called antipodeans, for he reasoned that they couldn't have descended from Adam. As far as the statement I found about Christians not being able to get there and God not allowing them to be ignorant of it for so long, I haven't read into that to know about in more detail.Remember that until Columbus, nobody knew that there were other continents not connected to the Eurasia/Africa land mass. Augustine was making a Christian argument against that proposition, because people on such a landmass would not be reachable by missionaries.
The actual contention with Columbus is that he believed the sphere was actually much smaller in circumference than the ancient Greeks had calculated, and that the expanse of ocean could be crossed by three ships with skeleton crews and loaded with supplies. The ancient Greek calculations were actually correct (within 90%), however...if the American continents had not existed, nobody would have heard of Columbus again.
I was listening to an episode of Answers News (07/20/22) where one host Bryan Osborne had this to say:Did you just cite a dictionary definition at me as though it is authoritative? You realize that humans literally just made up language, right?
Words are useful if they convey the meaning you want to get across. When I say "Dave told me that he is going on vacation next week" the only meaning I want to get across is that "he" refers back to "Dave". I'm not trying to convey "Dave who has a penis". So who cares if we always used to think of sex and gender as being inextricably intertwined? They aren't. Big whup. Once you separate the ideas you can enjoy a nuanced position like I do.
That's true, which is fine because there aren't distinct gender roles. We've been realizing that since before the trans debate became a thing, though. Since myself and Ana do not believe there is a god(s), you're going to have to offer some sort of reasoning other than "God said so" to convince us otherwise. And if there aren't distinct gender roles, then the rest of the reasoning from that fella's Slippery Slope Fallacy simply doesn't follow.By redefining gender is saying there’s no distinct gender roles
In some sense you could be right. I shouldn't start the debate with transgenderism. It really started with a debate about redefining marriage; trans rights comes downstream from that. The focus should really be about arguing for the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage.That's true, which is fine because there aren't distinct gender roles. We've been realizing that since before the trans debate became a thing, though. Since myself and Ana do not believe there is a god(s), you're going to have to offer some sort of reasoning other than "God said so" to convince us otherwise. And if there aren't distinct gender roles, then the rest of the reasoning from that fella's Slippery Slope Fallacy simply doesn't follow.
No, not when combined with genetics.
Honestly, I don't get how you figured that's what I was asking.
It's like I was asking, "How much of what people drink is something other than water?" And you answered, "When we combine the non-water with the water, it makes up 100% of what people drink."
You actually need to hop in the Way-Back-Machine and start by arguing that males ought to go to jobs and females ought to stay home and cook and clean, which we started realizing wasn't necessary way before gay marriage. Nothing about LGBTQ is inherent in debates about gender roles.In some sense you could be right. I shouldn't start the debate with transgenderism. It really started with a debate about redefining marriage; trans rights comes downstream from that. The focus should really be about arguing for the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage.
That's true, which is fine because there aren't distinct gender roles. We've been realizing that since before the trans debate became a thing, though. Since myself and Ana do not believe there is a god(s), you're going to have to offer some sort of reasoning other than "God said so" to convince us otherwise. And if there aren't distinct gender roles, then the rest of the reasoning from that fella's Slippery Slope Fallacy simply doesn't follow.
If I could ask your opinion, when do you think our culture started questioning gender roles? The post-war era?You actually need to hop in the Way-Back-Machine and start by arguing that males ought to go to jobs and females ought to stay home and cook and clean, which we started realizing wasn't necessary way before gay marriage. Nothing about LGBTQ is inherent in debates about gender roles.
Well, I could just refer to them by their name only. However, if they insisted that I use their preferred pronouns, then I would explain that I'm not going to comply. That doesn't mean that I'm trying to appear rude. But now let me ask you a question. If I were to use traditional pronouns about a trans person, deliberately, then are you saying that I should be fired from my workplace over that?
Someone who tells you they are transexual, and they are not lying, in the context that you did not know, does so because they want you to know.
Right....well honestly, when my previous post mentioned "stimulus" (environmental factors that affect our genetics) "response" (genetic reaction to stimuli) and "sentience" (ability to think about such things and to what degree we can consider them).....
And you're asking "what else makes up an identity?"
I had to think pretty hard to come up with the genetics which aren't affected by environmental stimuli.
I can't really think of anything else.
IThere is a huge amount of evidence to show that a person's identity is separate to the structures they have in their pants.
But it's still biological, right?
We aren't talking about souls here....are we?
I wouldn't say "soul" but rather "mind." Is a person's mind purely biological? I don't know.
Yeah the evidence is pretty strong there. We can erase who you are by destroying your frontal lobe. It's called a lobotomy.
But still biological if it's real.
True, but how much of our mind is formed from our experiences, not just the genetics?
Your experiences are a result of stimulus and response and sentience....so I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here....
Could you rephrase the question?
I'm asking how much of who we are is a result of that "stimulus and response and sentience."
When combined with genetics?
I'm guessing about 100%.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?