Unity.

[Hammster]

Yeah anyone can say whatever they want.

But is it defensible in the context of American Politics?

Or is this just a pointless nonsense exercise?

It’s defensible.

 

[durangodawood]

How do you determine what those values are?

How do we know what humans value? Seriously?

Well, ok. We can observe them. And we can read and hear what they tell us. Do we see them seeking comfort and liberty? Or do they like misery and slavery?

 

[SimplyMe]

Like boys are boy, girls are girls, and masks don’t work?

I'm curious, in your opinion, how does "facts and science" determine a girl or a boy?

The debate on masks reminds me of the debate on seat belts back in the 70s -- all the way down to "the do more harm than good." Just like I'm sure you would give some studies on issues masks cause and how many people contracted COVID while wearing masks, those against seat belts talked about studies that showed injuries caused by seat belts, people who were "saved" because they weren't wearing a seat belt, how people still died (or had major injuries) wearing seat belts, etc.

I've likely seen most of the links you'll provide. Many use the arguments I list above -- they can cause other diseases, people still contract the Coronavirus while wearing masks, etc. Yet, again like seat belts, when you look at all the evidence, the fact that they aren't 100% perfect, masks still are found to cause more benefit, particularly when used properly (and many don't, as we often see, again much like seat belts), than when they are not used.

If you want to talk about the type of masks we should be using -- that we need to have standards about the type of material masks are made of, the absorption properties; the size of the holes in the "mesh;" frequency masks are changed, washed, disinfected, and discarded, etc. -- that could be a worthwhile discussion on a nationwide basis.

And this is what compromise and "unity" should be about. Yes, the scientific "consensus" (realizing there is a percentage of doctors who disagree about mask effectiveness) is that masks are useful in slowing -- though not completely stopping -- the spread of the Coronavirus. Scientists agree we need other things, like "social distancing" to help stop the spread. But there are clearly discussions that can be made, and compromises to be made, in what types of masks will be more effective and, in combination with the masks, what kind of efforts need to be made in terms of social distancing, protecting vulnerable members of society, etc.

 

[super animator]

My is the revealed word of God in scripture. I don’t avoid the questions.

See? This is exactly what I meant by asserting without justifying.

 

[super animator]

I'm curious, in your opinion, how does "facts and science" determine a girl or a boy?

This guy no doubt still thinks that sex is the same thing as gender, despite been falsified already.

 

[SimplyMe]

This guy no doubt still thinks that sex is the same thing as gender, despite been falsified already.

I'm not even wanting to go that far yet. My point is, it is very hard to create a single, concise definition of what makes a boy and what makes a girl.

If you go by "sex organs", then what about a hermaphrodite? Do you say if the organs resemble male more than female (51% male) then the person is a boy? Yes, there are few "true hermaphrodites" where it is that close a call, but they do exist. Additionally, if you solely use this definition, doesn't that mean, with surgery, someone should be able to change gender.

Of course, then you get "it isn't that simple" argument -- and they start to go to internal sexual organs. And, granted, this can be helpful when determining what to do with a child that doesn't have clearly defined outer sex characteristics. For example, I know a girl who was born with no vagina, though she does have ovaries and a (misshapen) uterus, so she has a surgically created vagina today (just like a transsexual) -- which if for no other reason was needed for menstruation. But, if you use this definition, does that mean that people who have hysterectomies or other types of (accidental or intentional) castration no longer have a sex? Or, again, what about children born without working sex organs (no working ovary or testicles) -- or in cases where both seem to exist (either functional or non-functional). Also, does the brain count as a sexual organ (since there are noted differences between brains of the average male and female)?

And, of course, most will claim that "science" would claim sex is what DNA states that it is. The issue here, we then have (from birth) people who have XY chromosomes and female sex organs, or people with XX chromosomes that have male sex organs. And that doesn't get into X0 (only one sex chromosome), XY, XXY, XYY, XXYY, etc.

My point is that "male" and "female" is not as easy as most people try to claim it is, particuarly if you are going to claim "science."

 

[Hammster]

How do we know what humans value? Seriously?

Well, ok. We can observe them. And we can read and hear what they tell us. Do we see them seeking comfort and liberty? Or do they like misery and slavery?

It seems that you are saying that what humans value determines what’s good.

 

[Hammster]

I'm curious, in your opinion, how does "facts and science" determine a girl or a boy?

Is that honestly a serious question?

 

[Hammster]

See? This is exactly what I meant by asserting without justifying.

What would count as justification in your worldview?

 

[SimplyMe]

Is that honestly a serious question?

Why wouldn't it be? I already explained the issue, that science does not provide a simple explanation of what makes one male and what makes on female.

 

[durangodawood]

It seems that you are saying that what humans value determines what’s good.

The "good" is what satisfies our enduring values.

Obviously we have fleeting transient values which sometime conflict with the enduring ones. Wisdom is knowing the difference.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

A member sent this to me. “This is a time when the USA needs to be striving for unity, not divisiveness.”

Biden has called for unity. What are we to unify around, and why?

A unified response to Covid -19 would be low hanging fruit.

 

[Hammster]

Why wouldn't it be? I already explained the issue, that science does not provide a simple explanation of what makes one male and what makes on female.

The Bible does.

 

[Hammster]

The "good" is what satisfies our enduring values.

Obviously we have fleeting transient values which sometime conflict with the enduring ones. Wisdom is knowing the difference.

How do you define enduring values?

 

[durangodawood]

How do you define enduring values?

The ones we observe humans to have which dont vary among time, place, culture.

 

[super animator]

What would count as justification in your worldview?

Justification has nothing to do with one's worldview.

 

[Hammster]

The ones we observe humans to have which dont vary among time, place, culture.

Like not killing the unborn?

 

[super animator]

I'm not even wanting to go that far yet. My point is, it is very hard to create a single, concise definition of what makes a boy and what makes a girl.

If you go by "sex organs", then what about a hermaphrodite? Do you say if the organs resemble male more than female (51% male) then the person is a boy? Yes, there are few "true hermaphrodites" where it is that close a call, but they do exist. Additionally, if you solely use this definition, doesn't that mean, with surgery, someone should be able to change gender.

Of course, then you get "it isn't that simple" argument -- and they start to go to internal sexual organs. And, granted, this can be helpful when determining what to do with a child that doesn't have clearly defined outer sex characteristics. For example, I know a girl who was born with no vagina, though she does have ovaries and a (misshapen) uterus, so she has a surgically created vagina today (just like a transsexual) -- which if for no other reason was needed for menstruation. But, if you use this definition, does that mean that people who have hysterectomies or other types of (accidental or intentional) castration no longer have a sex? Or, again, what about children born without working sex organs (no working ovary or testicles) -- or in cases where both seem to exist (either functional or non-functional). Also, does the brain count as a sexual organ (since there are noted differences between brains of the average male and female)?

And, of course, most will claim that "science" would claim sex is what DNA states that it is. The issue here, we then have (from birth) people who have XY chromosomes and female sex organs, or people with XX chromosomes that have male sex organs. And that doesn't get into X0 (only one sex chromosome), XY, XXY, XYY, XXYY, etc.

My point is that "male" and "female" is not as easy as most people try to claim it is, particularly if you are going to claim "science."

The issue that I take with this line of reasoning is that you are letting perfection be the enemy of good when it comes the definitions of "boy" and "girl". If the definition covers say 99.9% cases then I would say that is a solid useful definition. When it comes to outliers it needs it own scientific theory to explain the outliers.
A prime example of this is "Classical mechanics" vs "Relative mechanics".

 

[Hammster]

Justification has nothing to do with one's worldview.

See? This is exactly what I meant by asserting without justifying.

What would you consider to be justifying?

 

[super animator]

What would you consider to be justifying?

You are clearly behaving in bad faith, by arguing semantics here.