When two worldviews collide.

[stevevw]

Don't be silly. Third person pronouns are there for a reason. You either use them or you don't. Refusing to do so on the basis that it somehow harms you is a nonsensical position.

Why didn't you answer the questions. They are important as to the reasons. Surely this is an important determination before people just simply go along because they are told to go along. Remember people are being asked to do something they disagree with. You have to have some explanation why they should do this because its asking a lot of people. Its asking them to go against their belief for one. Its making them do something they disagree with for two.

Simply saying "Refusing to do so on the basis that it somehow harms you is a nonsensical position" is not how you should respond to someone who has a different belief or view on this. Your just dismissing different views. I thought the idea was to be inclusive of different ideas. You are askinging someone to not only accept a different idea to their own but to go along with it. Yet you are not willing to even consider that persons different idea. That seems to be asking "do as I say but not as I do".

I am asking why someone wants to make another use their words in place of the words they would usually use and believe are the right words that represent the situation. So its on the person doing the asking or enforcing to justify this. That is why I asked the questions as this will help everyone understand what is going on when this happens and what is actually at stake.

It seems like a situation of high stakes because both parties seem to want to stick to their positions. It certainly doesn't seem trivial and therefore deserves further investiagtion because people on both sides are acting like there a lot at stake here. So just saying to people shut up and go along is not going to work. They want to be convinced its not going to cause harm to themselves and the greater society.

 

[Bradskii]

No I agree, I think its wrong. But the point is the culture doing it doesn't think its wrong from their relative position. Who are you to say they are wrong if morals are relative.

It's wrong because it causes harm. I can't understand why this basic concept seems to be beyond you.

 

[Bradskii]

Your just dismissing different views. I thought the idea was to be inclusive of different ideas. You are askinging someone to not only accept a different idea to their own but to go along with it. Yet you are not willing to even consider that persons different idea.

I'll accept what they believe. But I won't accept that calling someone a pronoun that they say doesn't match their biological sex is somehow harming them. It's nonsensical.

They want to be convinced its not going to cause harm to themselves...

It's an absurd position to take. 'I don't like it' does not equate to being harmed. Whether you use the pronouns or not is up to the individual. And they will be judged on it.

 

[dwb001]

It's wrong because it causes harm. I can't understand why this basic concept seems to be beyond you.

Maybe it is good when things cause 'harm'.
Like a surgeon who must "do harm' before the healing can happen.
I have had medical procedures that hurt a lot... but help much more.
I have been emotionally hurt... and healed much stronger and better.
I can't understand why this basic concept seems to be beyond you.

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe it is good when things cause 'harm'.
Like a surgeon who must "do harm' before the healing can happen.
I have had medical procedures that hurt a lot... but help much more.
I have been emotionally hurt... and healed much stronger and better.
I can't understand why this basic concept seems to be beyond you.

Well, thanks for pointing that out. I'm sure there could be someone, somewhere at some point who might in some bizarre way have been under the impression that medical procedures and the like were actually immoral. Because, you know, it's kinda like being harmed in a way.

Glad that was cleared up!

 

[dwb001]

Well, thanks for pointing that out. I'm sure there could be someone, somewhere at some point who might in some bizarre way have been under the impression that medical procedures and the like were actually immoral. Because, you know, it's kinda like being harmed in a way.

Glad that was cleared up!

And if you can not see the parallel then that is you being pig headed.
Or childlike in your delusions.

Either way you are not being genuine in your conversation.

 

[Bradskii]

And if you can not see the parallel then that is you being pig headed.
Or childlike in your delusions.

Either way you are not being genuine in your conversation.

No, I'm glad you are here to clarify matters. We don't want people thinking that getting your tonsils out is immoral.

 

[dwb001]

No, I'm glad you are here to clarify matters. We don't want people thinking that getting your tonsils out is immoral.

Glad you can accept correction. Keep it up.

 

[Dan1988]

I disagree with much of what you said here. For example, I don't think western society has based on a Christian worldview. I think it's more likely that Christianity adopted a worldview that was shared by many in society and presented itself as the source of that worldview, even though you can find proponents of such a worldview around long before Christianity.

But to answer what seems to be the main point of your post, I think it's more the fact that people are seeing that there are many different people with many different cultures and there is not necessarily any one right way to live a life. People are seeing that there are many different ways to be Human, and someone is not necessarily wrong just because they live differently to you. For example, we are moving away from a Christian-centric culture because we see that not everyone is a Christian and that it's harmful to exclude people based on their faith (as it only serves to promote an "us vs. them" attitude).

And remember, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from being a Christian. We are just learning that it is wrong to force others to be a Christian if they don't wish to be a Christian.

I'm not sure if your aware of the influence Christianity had on the western societies. Before Christianity came to Europe, it was just like the rest of the world. The whole world was lawless, uncivilized, barbaric and people were like animals. The law of the jungle was the only law.

The reason everyone wants to live in Christian countries today is the same. People are willing to risk drowning at sea to get away from oppressive dictatorships like we see in Islamic, Hindu, African tribal dictatorships etc.

Western laws and constitutions are all written using the Holy bible as a foundation. We in the west enjoy peace and prosperity, thanks to our Bible based rule of law. Christianity is responsible for inventing Schools, Universities, Hospitals, personal freedom and liberty, Social Welfare to make sure nobody needs to live hungry or sick.

We could sum up Christianity's influence on the world as, bringing everything that's good into a dark and barbaric world.

The Christian west enjoys the highest standard of living in all of mankind's history, so we owe everything to Christian heritage.

 

[comana]

I'm not sure if your aware of the influence Christianity had on the western societies. Before Christianity came to Europe, it was just like the rest of the world. The whole world was lawless, uncivilized, barbaric and people were like animals. The law of the jungle was the only law.

The reason everyone wants to live in Christian countries today is the same. People are willing to risk drowning at sea to get away from oppressive dictatorships like we see in Islamic, Hindu, African tribal dictatorships etc.

Western laws and constitutions are all written using the Holy bible as a foundation. We in the west enjoy peace and prosperity, thanks to our Bible based rule of law. Christianity is responsible for inventing Schools, Universities, Hospitals, personal freedom and liberty, Social Welfare to make sure nobody needs to live hungry or sick.

We could sum up Christianity's influence on the world as, bringing everything that's good into a dark and barbaric world.

The Christian west enjoys the highest standard of living in all of mankind's history, so we owe everything to Christian heritage.

Those claims are going to need some citations to hold as credible.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Those claims are going to need some citations to hold as credible.

Lots and lots of American history to study here:

WallBuilders Home Page

border_position="все"] border_position="все"] From our Library WallBuilders News TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE WallBuilders Live Today! Keeping up with WallBuilders WALLBUILDERS LIVE RADIO TODAY!

wvw.wallbuilders.com

 

[stevevw]

It's wrong because it causes harm. I can't understand why this basic concept seems to be beyond you.

Its not beyond me. But you are talking to someone within your culture that agrees. Someone within a culture that thinks genital circumcision is good will disagree. My point is under relative morality no culture can say that another culture is wrong beyond their own culture because each culture has a different set of morals that they believe to be true and theres no objective way to determine moral truth.

The Western morality stops at the borders of other nations with different cultures. To cross them is cultural imperialism. Its enforcing a morality that the culture doesn't believe and making them do something against their conscience. Even if the West thinks its wrong.

If relativism is true, then it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that some obviously wrong behaviors are actually morally acceptable simply because some cultures practice them. Most people today think that it is really morally wrong to burn widows on funeral pyres even though it was practiced by a large group of people at one point.

The relativist’s position, however, commits her to conceding that even practices like suttee, female genital mutilation, infanticide, and slavery are morally acceptable to the cultures that do not see them as immoral. And because the relativist denies that there are objective morals or values that hold universally, then there is no independent standard by which to evaluate behaviors and ethical codes.
Aren’t Right and Wrong Just Matters of Opinion? On Moral Relativism and Subjectivism – Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics

If you do want to force your morals on other cultures then you are a moral objectivist or absolutionist and don't actually think morals are based on subjective feelings or preferences.

 

[stevevw]

I'll accept what they believe. But I won't accept that calling someone a pronoun that they say doesn't match their biological sex is somehow harming them. It's nonsensical.

But the same logic of having to use peoples pronouns because its harmful should apply to those who are forced to use pronouns they disagree with because then they are forced to abandon their own pronouns for that situation. You are making them use a pronoun they don't believe in thus causing harm.

You still didn't answer the questions I asked previously. The reason being is that by investigating what using pronouns represent as a society rather than individual situation may reveal that they do cause harm. For example Do you think using pronouns reinforces the idea that a male can be a women or that there is no biological sex.

Or what about being forced to use pronouns when someone disagrees does harm in violating a persons right to free speech, belief and conscience. Thus also threatening the principle of freedom within an entire society when everyone has to go along like in the case of Canada..

It's an absurd position to take. 'I don't like it' does not equate to being harmed. Whether you use the pronouns or not is up to the individual. And they will be judged on it.

Doesn't the Trans ideology call biological men and women Cis instead of man and women or he and she. Isn't that not using their pronouns.

You actually qualified how this whole thing is about feelings and not reality when you said 'I don't like it'. Not liking something doesn't mean its an objective fact.

But if you want to use not liking something as the measure of morality then to be fair and consistent you must also treat people who disagree because they don't like it as having a valid objection, just as valid as your feelings. If you just dismiss them then your being hypocritical in treating your feelings as being more relevant and true as to what is morally wrong than other peoples feelings.

See how feelings cannot tell us what is moral or not.

Tell me do you think pronouns should be forced or freely used and up to the individual.

 

[Bradskii]

Its not beyond me. But you are talking to someone within your culture that agrees. Someone within a culture that thinks genital circumcision is good will disagree.

No, they know it's harmful. It's obviously harmful. You'd have to be brain dead to deny it. Other people think that the harm is justified for cultural reasons. It isn't.

 

[Bradskii]

If you do want to force your morals on other cultures then you are a moral objectivist or absolutionist and don't actually think morals are based on subjective feelings or preferences.

I want to stop harm. Period. I'm not interested in what other cultures think in this regard. If you are doing something harmful then stop doing it. I mean...who on earth could argue against that?

 

[Bradskii]

Tell me do you think pronouns should be forced or freely used and up to the individual.

You can't force someone to use them. But the vast majority of people (and I've given you the facts as that relates to Australia) have no problem with using them and no doubt would consider it common courtesy. In that case then being discourteous in a work environment would be frowned on. In any social situation you will be judged as to how you treat others and will be treated yourself accordingly.

 

[Aaron112]

I want to stop harm. Period. I'm not interested in what other cultures think in this regard. If you are doing something harmful then stop doing it. I mean...who on earth could argue against that?

Just guessing - (ran across this question not looking for anything like it) -

who on earth could/and does or would/ argue against that ?
I'd guess 75% do or would. (in usa anyway, more or less perhaps in other countries)

 

[Bradskii]

Just guessing - (ran across this question not looking for anything like it) -

who on earth could/and does or would/ argue against that ?
I'd guess 75% do or would. (in usa anyway, more or less perhaps in other countries)

What? Are you suggesting that if there was a question: 'Do you think people should do things that cause harm' then 75% of people would say yes?

Colour me confused.

 

[Aaron112]

What? Are you suggesting that if there was a question: 'Do you think people should do things that cause harm' then 75% of people would say yes?

Colour me confused.

Me too. I don't remember that being your question.

 

[Bradskii]

Me too. I don't remember that being your question.

You don't remember the question? You actually quoted it:
'If you are doing something harmful then stop doing it. I mean...who on earth could argue against that?'