When two worldviews collide.

[stevil]

This entire post is about moral relativism and creating laws to uphold moral values. It's just that you want laws created uphold YOUR moral values. Anti bullying laws are a complete moral value as is hate speech because harm is subjective.

No, it's not.
If you ask me, I might consider cheating on your spouse to be immoral. I might consider prostitution to be immoral.
But I have no interest in making these things illegal.

I want a safe society and a thriving society, not a moral one.
Anyone in such a society, wants a safe society, We don't want people killing us or our loved ones, we don't want to be stuck at home guarding our stuff, we don't want groups of people within society warring against each other because that makes society unsafe.
If we stand by and watch a group such as Christianity attack a minor group such as gays, and just let this happen, then what do we do next when a group attacks us, can we try to get others in society to help us stand up for a bigger group when we ourselves just stood by and watched Christians attack gays?

 

[AACJ]

This is exactly the attitude I'm arguing against. Our mission is not to dominate all levels of society with a Christian worldview. That is not the purpose for which God sends us. And in fact, when we do try to do that, we undermine our actual mission, since we cannot dominate others, and then expect them to believe that our domination is in some sense, good news!

You are conflating issues and catagories. Worldviews are no more persons than persons are worldviews. Thus to advocate for the dominanc of a particular worldview in a given society, namely the Christian worldview, is not to advocate for the dominance of one or more persons over other persons. There is no such thing as productive society without the imposition of laws, codes, and even traditions on persons. Such laws and codes necessarily have a moral component, and such morality is necessarily rooted in worldview. Thus, worldview imposition in society is largley the byproduct of the imposition of the rule of law, and it is critical that the right worlvew prevail or dominate. Also, there is no such thing, and never has been and never will be, harmony among the major competing worldivews because thier core principles are in apposition. All of the competing worldviews are competing for dominance. For example, the imposition of the teaching of Dawinian evolution alone in the universites and schools. God desires that all be Christians; thus, He also desires that the Christian worldview dominate or prevail. If all are Christians, then the Christian worldview will dominate or prevail in society--obviously. The only nation to have produced anything close to true peace, liberty, and prosperity, was early America. Biblical princples dominated nearly every level of society in early America. That is an argument from end results and/or history and clearly demonstrates that the Christian worldview must dominate or prevail in order to have a desirable society and nation. Laws, codes, and traditions are not seperate from the dominating or prevailing worldview of a nation.

 

[AACJ]

And even there we have different visions of what a Christian worldview is. I am so glad you make mention "the love of Christ" because that, service and care for the vulnerable seem to me to be the foundation of a Christian worldview.

Hi, Akita.

The concept of "worldview," in its broadest sense, is the filter through which one interprets all the data of reality available to human biengs. By extension, worldview guides one in how to apply such data pertaining to belief and practice, which in turn encompasses the formation and maintainence of civil government. Also, according to that authority above all authority (Scripture) Jesus, and by extension, Scipture itself is the foudation of the Christian worldview, not one's view and treatment of "the vunerable," although of course one's view and treatment of the vunerable would or should be guided by one's worldview.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, it's not.
If you ask me, I might consider cheating on your spouse to be immoral. I might consider prostitution to be immoral.
But I have no interest in making these things illegal.

I want a safe society and a thriving society, not a moral one.
Anyone in such a society, wants a safe society, We don't want people killing us or our loved ones, we don't want to be stuck at home guarding our stuff, we don't want groups of people within society warring against each other because that makes society unsafe.
If we stand by and watch a group such as Christianity attack a minor group such as gays, and just let this happen, then what do we do next when a group attacks us, can we try to get others in society to help us stand up for a bigger group when we ourselves just stood by and watched Christians attack gays?

What part of this seems like an attack?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are conflating issues and catagories. Worldviews are no more persons than persons are worldviews. Thus to advocate for the dominanc of a particular worldview in a given society, namely the Christian worldview, is not to advocate for the dominance of one or more persons over other persons. There is no such thing as productive society without the imposition of laws, codes, and even traditions on persons. Such laws and codes necessarily have a moral component, and such morality is necessarily rooted in worldview. Thus, worldview imposition in society is largley the byproduct of the imposition of the rule of law, and it is critical that the right worlvew prevail or dominate. Also, there is no such thing, and never has been and never will be, harmony among the major competing worldivews because thier core principles are in apposition. All of the competing worldviews are competing for dominance. For example, the imposition of the teaching of Dawinian evolution alone in the universites and schools. God desires that all be Christians; thus, He also desires that the Christian worldview dominate or prevail. If all are Christians, then the Christian worldview will dominate or prevail in society--obviously. The only nation to have produced anything close to true peace, liberty, and prosperity, was early America. Biblical princples dominated nearly every level of society in early America. That is an argument from end results and/or history and clearly demonstrates that the Christian worldview must dominate or prevail in order to have a desirable society and nation. Laws, codes, and traditions are not seperate from the dominating or prevailing worldview of a nation.

Early American society was a mixture of different colonial nations and the US was established under the principles of liberalism.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You are conflating issues and catagories. Worldviews are no more persons than persons are worldviews. Thus to advocate for the dominanc of a particular worldview in a given society, namely the Christian worldview, is not to advocate for the dominance of one or more persons over other persons. There is no such thing as productive society without the imposition of laws, codes, and even traditions on persons. Such laws and codes necessarily have a moral component, and such morality is necessarily rooted in worldview. Thus, worldview imposition in society is largley the byproduct of the imposition of the rule of law, and it is critical that the right worlvew prevail or dominate. Also, there is no such thing, and never has been and never will be, harmony among the major competing worldivews because thier core principles are in apposition. All of the competing worldviews are competing for dominance. For example, the imposition of the teaching of Dawinian evolution alone in the universites and schools.

Darwinian evolution (a somewhat out of date term, but let's skip past that) is the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. No "worldview" is needed, nor imposed in teaching established science.

 

[Bradskii]

Hmmm..... re-read my post. Once again didn't say anything about that. Man you are really stuck on that aren't you. Well as long as you are stuck in that you don't have to actually refute any of the arguments against it. All you have to say is, "Well, you are a Christian. Nuff said."
Works for anything. I mean you can dismiss anything anyone says as long as they are a Christian.

Trouble is, it's a really poor argument. What do say to Ana? "Your an atheist. Nuff said." Oops can't to that. How about Padsaike? "Your a Christian nuff said." Except she agrees with you.

So let me get this straight. As long as a person disagrees with you and is a Christian then "Your a Christian, nuff said" is a good argument.

Hmm... I think I might start applying that to you. From now on if we disagree I'm just going to dismiss all of your arguments with "You're an atheist."

Your arguments, for what they are worth, stand or fall on their own. Why you hold to a position is another matter.

And the latter, because you refuse to acknowledge it, impacts on the former. So we are then left with someone arguing the minutiae of transgenderism when they don't even accept that the concept itself exists. We are left with someone who holds a country like Finland up as an example of what should be done and then says that they don't agree with what Finland is doing. We are left with someone who puts forward charlatans and secretarial workers as expert opinion. We are left with someone who considers right wing advocacy groups to be unbiased sources.

What we are left with are arguments based on a belief that man and woman were created and therefore nothing will be entertained that denies that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Darwinian evolution (a somewhat out of date term, but let's skip past that) is the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. No "worldview" is needed, nor imposed in teaching established science.

There are a few ideas that are prerequisite to making science even worth bothering to do...

But I don't think I'd call them a worldview unto themselves. Certainly not in the manner that is being suggested.

Your arguments, for what they are worth, stand or fall on their own. Why you hold to a position is another matter.

Is there some point in the thread where you intend to address the arguments?

And the latter, because you refuse to acknowledge it, impacts on the former.

I don't think he denies being Christian.

So we are then left with someone arguing the minutiae of transgenderism when they don't even accept that the concept itself exists.

That doesn't matter, the minutea of transgenderism is where it intersects with society.

We are left with someone who holds a country like Finland up as an example of what should be done and then says that they don't agree with what Finland is doing.

I thought you put up Finland as an example?

We are left with someone who puts forward charlatans and secretarial workers as expert opinion. We are left with someone who considers right wing advocacy groups to be unbiased sources.

Not that you're interested in highly experienced and trained experts if they disagree with you.

What we are left with are arguments based on a belief that man and woman were created and therefore nothing will be entertained that denies that.

What we are left with is the belief that a concept you didn't hear about until a few years ago is not only true, but somehow important, and despite being unable to prove this...or any problems it solves....you wish us to reorganize society around it, in order to accommodate a group of people who are in an extreme minority and don't seem at all concerned about the consequences for the larger society.

 

[Paidiske]

If that is so, then prove that. Show the research that proves all transgender people have a sexed brain that has developed to be incongruent the body. The research you linked to proves no such thing.

We did this way back in the early part of this thread. I'm not going over it again. If you want to show there are no brain differences in transgendered people, please link reputable primary sources.

And neither are the reviews in the BMJ or the reviews done by the UK, Sweden, Finland and other countries?

Here's the irony. Not that I think you've posted robust primary sources that show what you're claiming; but if in fact medical protocols are being adapted, that is a demonstration of exactly the process I am claiming should take place, without the interference of assorted Christian/traditionalist culture warriors.

But you trust the Wpath way?

Again, I am not arguing for any particular clinical protocol; I am arguing that this is not an appropriate subject for Christian/conservative/traditional people to try to impose their worldview.

What if the video references research?

Again, any twit can say anything on YouTube (and you can't even necessarily tell if what you're seeing has been edited to misrepresent what they said). So, no, videos are not reputable sources, especially when they contradict good quality sources.

The Senator in the video mentions 63 systematic reviews that effectively evaluate all the research and analyze the data.

Would you like me to find those systematic reviews?

It'd be a much better contribution to the thread, than a video. So if you have the time and inclination, by all means.

We're talking about 0.001% of the population.

A thousand children should pass through the classroom before a trans kid does.

It's not just their classrooms, though. It's their extended family, or their social groups, or their faith community, or whatever. I think we're at a point where most people know a trans person (whether they always realise it or not).

I thought we were avoiding suicide? I don't see why teaching them about trans people prevents bullying.

You don't think trans kids, or the children of trans parents, are vulnerable to bullying?

How big is your congregation?

About a hundred people or so.

How many trans people are in your congregation?

I have two (that I know of). One's very irregular, more on the fringe, the other is very involved.

Thus to advocate for the dominanc of a particular worldview in a given society, namely the Christian worldview, is not to advocate for the dominance of one or more persons over other persons.

How do you impose a worldview without the dominance of a group of people?

Thus, worldview imposition in society is largley the byproduct of the imposition of the rule of law, and it is critical that the right worlvew prevail or dominate.

Or... we could seek to minimise legal codification of matters which have their reason for laws, only in a moral code or worldview, rather than objective benefit to the society.

God desires that all be Christians; thus, He also desires that the Christian worldview dominate or prevail.

Here's the thing; the Christian worldview dominating doesn't make a single person Christian. All it does is repress or oppress people who are not Christian. (There's a great book on this called The High Price of Heaven by David Marr, who is not a Christian, but does a great job of unpacking how attempts to control non-Christians according to a Christian worldview, not only does not bring a single person to faith, but creates both suffering and resentment of Christianity by people who are so controlled).

The only nation to have produced anything close to true peace, liberty, and prosperity, was early America.

The land that gave us the Salem witch trials? You've got to be kidding.

 

[rjs330]

No, it's not.
If you ask me, I might consider cheating on your spouse to be immoral. I might consider prostitution to be immoral.
But I have no interest in making these things illegal.

Right because they don't offend your particular morality. But if it does offend your morality you do support making it illegal.

 

[rjs330]

Your arguments, for what they are worth, stand or fall on their own. Why you hold to a position is another matter.

And the latter, because you refuse to acknowledge it, impacts on the former. So we are then left with someone arguing the minutiae of transgenderism when they don't even accept that the concept itself exists. We are left with someone who holds a country like Finland up as an example of what should be done and then says that they don't agree with what Finland is doing. We are left with someone who puts forward charlatans and secretarial workers as expert opinion. We are left with someone who considers right wing advocacy groups to be unbiased sources.

What we are left with are arguments based on a belief that man and woman were created and therefore nothing will be entertained that denies that.

It seems I have struck at the heart of the matter. For I have not once used a religious argument. You cant refute the arguments so you resort to... Well, your a Christian!

It's like the old kids way of doing things when they can't refute an argument. Well..... You have a big nose!

Try to do better next time.

 

[rjs330]

thought you put up Finland as an example?

To be fair, I used all the European countries as examples of moving away from the affirmative care model and moving away from medicalizing kids. He fixated on Finland because it has instituted that a child must display a 5 year dysphoric life before being considered for medicalization. Rather than a ban for those under 18 like other countries.

 

[rjs330]

We did this way back in the early part of this thread. I'm not going over it again. If you want to show there are no brain differences in transgendered people, please link reputable primary sources.

Why? You didn't provide any that showed there was.

 

[rjs330]

Here's the irony. Not that I think you've posted robust primary sources that show what you're claiming; but if in fact medical protocols are being adapted, that is a demonstration of exactly the process I am claiming should take place, without the interference of assorted Christian/traditionalist culture warriors.

No here's the real irony. I provided legitimate resources that proved what you followed was inaccurate as and unscientific at best. Just like we have been claiming. And through this whole thread you've been still claiming the accuracy and legitimacy of WPATH and its research.

And now you want to claim it's good the countries are doing this? What countries have been doing is exactly what you have refused to do, look at the research and see if it was legitimate and conclusive. The other countries found it to be not legitimate or conclusive despite the claims to the contrary.

So are you now on board or are you going to stick with the not legitimate and inconclusive studies?

You were all for the protocols and now that the protocols have been found to be invalid and/or not substantively helpful. You were all for medicalizing kids blindly following the transactivists. Who are you following now?

Then you go on to say "Again, I am not arguing for any particular clinical protocol; I am arguing that this is not an appropriate subject for Christian/conservative/traditional people to try to impose their worldview.".

Really? You've been arguing that the affirming method was the best one cause transactivists said it was.

I see the problem here. It's the same one Bradskil has. You are so focused on opposing Christian conservatives just cause, that you are bent on believing that every single piece of evidence and evidence provided by videos of clinicians has to be Christian conservative and this worthy of dismissal.

Here's the clash of world views. Your side has been imposing their worldview on the rest of society for sometime now. Now that we are standing up and saying no more, suddenly it's us posing our worldview on you. Saying no to your imposition is not imposing upon you or others it's refusing to be imposed upon.

We have the science on our side now. We have the proof that the science has never been on the transgender or gender ideology side. Never. Including your vaunted brain studies. I believe you fully supported that there is little to no difference between the male.and female.brain. Now suddenly you whole heartedly believe there is a transgender brain where the person has a more female or male brain in the different biological body.

 

[Ana the Ist]

To be fair, I used all the European countries as examples of moving away from the affirmative care model and moving away from medicalizing kids. He fixated on Finland because it has instituted that a child must display a 5 year dysphoric life before being considered for medicalization. Rather than a ban for those under 18 like other countries.

I see...fairness is noted.

 

[Paidiske]

And now you want to claim it's good the countries are doing this?

You have, I think, completely missed my point. I have not been arguing for this or that protocol or standard of care. I have not been claiming any particular thing as the gold standard. I have been doing two things; arguing that this is a medical matter, best left to the medical experts; and along the way, providing counter-evidence to people making claims which they intend as grounds for an ideological approach.

So yes, as I have said all along, as evidence is gathered and treatment protocols are refined, that is the normal process for any medical condition. It's good. It's appropriate. When it's driven by the experts in the field, on the basis of the best possible data. Not when it's driven by internet randoms on the basis of ideological presuppositions.

Really? You've been arguing that the affirming method was the best one cause transactivists said it was.

No. I have not. If you thought that was what I was saying, you severely misunderstood my point. I have not been arguing that anything in particular was "best," except letting the medical experts work out the way forward, rather than Christian/traditionalist/conservative people wanting to impose a worldview.

You are so focused on opposing Christian conservatives just cause, that you are bent on believing that every single piece of evidence and evidence provided by videos of clinicians has to be Christian conservative and this worthy of dismissal.

No; but when I find high quality published material that's completely at odds with some random on YouTube (who may or may not be what they claim), I'm going to go with the former being more credible.

Your side has been imposing their worldview on the rest of society for sometime now.

"My side"? This ought to be fascinating. How would you define "my side"? (I'm fairly sure there are going to be some inaccurate assumptions, here).

I believe you fully supported that there is little to no difference between the male.and female.brain. Now suddenly you whole heartedly believe there is a transgender brain where the person has a more female or male brain in the different biological body.

I believe there is little difference between the (average) male brain and the (average) female brain, in any way that is meaningful to, say, arguments for rigidly codified gender roles in society. I don't buy any argument about brain sex which would see women excluded from education, employment, social invovlement, leadership, and so on.

But I also believe that sex development affects the brain, and that at least some people have a strong sense (based in the brain) of their identity as male or female; and also that some people experience sexed development of the brain which is incongruent with their bodily development. I understand that to be supported by what I've seen in the scientific literature.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You have, I think, completely missed my point. I have not been arguing for this or that protocol or standard of care. I have not been claiming any particular thing as the gold standard. I have been doing two things; arguing that this is a medical matter, best left to the medical experts; and along the way, providing counter-evidence to people making claims which they intend as grounds for an ideological approach.

I don't see why it would matter if it's internet randos if it's purely ideological. By now, I'm glad you at least noticed that....

1. There's no suicide crisis, no evidence of any significant numbers of suicides. There's no urgency, no rush, no reason this should be pushed on kids.

And you hopefully noticed...

2. You can't find any long term studies on puberty blockers. Obviously. This is because using them in this manner (which probably isn't approved by your drug safety regulators) would be wildly unethical. You cannot experiment on children with those drugs. WPATH gave no explanation for removing age restrictions and allowing puberty blockers.


WPATH is the faith based ideologues in this discussion.

So yes, as I have said all along, as evidence is gathered and treatment protocols are refined, that is the normal process for any medical condition. It's good. It's appropriate. When it's driven by the experts in the field, on the basis of the best possible data. Not when it's driven by internet randoms on the basis of ideological presuppositions.

Sure.

No. I have not. If you thought that was what I was saying, you severely misunderstood my point. I have not been arguing that anything in particular was "best," except letting the medical experts work out the way forward, rather than Christian/traditionalist/conservative people wanting to impose a worldview.

This is just another part of their activism. They want to use the same arguments that the gay activist community used to win marriage rights. It's just a cheap tactic to push ahead on their agenda.

No; but when I find high quality published material that's completely at odds with some random on YouTube (who may or may not be what they claim), I'm going to go with the former being more credible.

You would need to watch it first.

"My side"? This ought to be fascinating. How would you define "my side"? (I'm fairly sure there are going to be some inaccurate assumptions, here).

The woke. You're part of the far left woke....same as every other poster claiming to not know what woke or wokism is.

I believe there is little difference between the (average) male brain and the (average) female brain, in any way that is meaningful to, say, arguments for rigidly codified gender roles in society.

Ok.

I don't buy any argument about brain sex which would see women excluded from education, employment, social invovlement, leadership, and so on.

What if it was a good argument?

But I also believe that sex development affects the brain, and that at least some people have a strong sense (based in the brain) of their identity as male or female; and also that some people experience sexed development of the brain which is incongruent with their bodily development. I understand that to be supported by what I've seen in the scientific literature.

There's some evidence for this but it's scant and trans activists never really bring it up. They don't want to acknowledge it. The ideology they subscribe to argues that gender is infinite and only limited by imagination...because it's imaginary.

 

[Paidiske]

1. There's no suicide crisis, no evidence of any significant numbers of suicides. There's no urgency, no rush, no reason this should be pushed on kids.

I don't agree that potential suicide is the only valid reason for offering treatment, though.

2. You can't find any long term studies on puberty blockers.

How long is long enough? Is twenty years long enough? Because I can find that.

The woke. You're part of the far left woke....same as every other poster claiming to not know what woke or wokism is.

I'm not sure that's accurate, not least because "woke" in anything other than a very vague sense, is a particularly American phenomenon. And I am not American, nor particularly addressing an American context.

I'd be willing to unpack your definition of woke, though, and see how much I'd be willing to claim.

What if it was a good argument?

I haven't seen one yet. But I've seen plenty of dodgy arguments intended to limit women, and I'm not buying them.

There's some evidence for this but it's scant and trans activists never really bring it up.

And yet it's one of the fundamental reasons for me taking the position I have in this thread. I'm not a trans activist, or particularly interested in what they have to say.

 

[stevevw]

No; I am saying our consciences are not an infallible hotline to transcendant moral truth. It is a guide, but a guide which needs to be well-formed and sometimes challenged.

Yes of course we need to reflect on things using honesty and reasoning as to whether we have anything to feel guilty for. But this doesn't mean that our conscience is not a good guide to moral wrong either. Its there for a reason and destinguishes us from animals. It seems you want to make a case against our conscience rather than for it.

Just look at all the threads on this site along the lines of "I think I've committed the unpardonable sin, and am damned for eternity!" Most of the time no such thing is going on.

But that doesn't deminish the power of guilt when breaching Gods laws or any law for that matter. The guilty conscience those same people may feel when they do break the law such as treating someone descriminatry or taking their stuff is justified and a way of pointing out to the indiviual they have done something wrong. Otherwise if we didn't have this people would think its ok to treat people badly without any concern.

Given that rape in marriage wasn't even a crime across Australia until the 1980s, and there's no global consensus about what constitutes child abuse (just as two examples), I think it's pretty demonstrable that it's not that simple.

If rape in marriage in now seen as morally wrong then what did we base that on to declare its wrong. There must have been some moral Truth to determine that we recognised now but not back then that applies always even 40 or 400 years ago.

Having different opinions on when child abuse happens or not doesn't change the Truth that child abuse is morally wrong. I recken we have pretty much universal agreement of what is child abuse ie Universal Rights of Children that any disagreement that edoesn't meet these standards is wrong and the people disagreement are mistaken in their moral thinking.

Come on, Steve. Surely you're aware there's a whole pseudoscientific industry out there pandering to Christains who want to deny basic science?

Of course but its not mainstream. I assume by pseudoscientific industry you are mainly talking about Creationism. Most Christians believe in evolution I think. But even some of the so called pseudoscience is not really pseudoscience like Intelligent Design which is based on science such as Information Theory and subject to scientific falsification. People can assume things and promote false stereotypes.

How terribly convenient. Of course, those truths are actually subject to question and debate and far from universally accepted, so...

Yes those Truths are subject to debate and question and they stand up and that is why they are Truths that the West has held for a long time. I think they are mostly accepted but there is always going to be those who want to criticize things and deny the truth. But the important thing is we can reason these things out and support those truths or facts to show those who don't agree are mistaken aned wrong.

 

[Paidiske]

It seems you want to make a case against our conscience rather than for it.

I am arguing that our conscience does not function as a sort of repository of "God's law," but is an important, but imperfect, sense of right and wrong shaped by our development and personal experiences. Thus we do not always know when something is wrong.

If rape in marriage in now seen as morally wrong then what did we base that on to declare its wrong. There must have been some moral Truth to determine that we recognised now but not back then that applies always even 40 or 400 years ago.

The point is, if even our own culture hasn't been consistent about this for the last century, we can hardly argue for some sort of universal apprehension of basic moral good.

I recken we have pretty much universal agreement of what is child abuse ie Universal Rights of Children that any disagreement that edoesn't meet these standards is wrong and the people disagreement are mistaken in their moral thinking.

That's fascinating, when several articles in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child would seem to argue for providing treatment to children experiencing gender dysphoria. Do we really have universal agreement about that? We don't have it in this thread!

But even some of the so called pseudoscience is not really pseudoscience like Intelligent Design which is based on science such as Information Theory and subject to scientific falsification.

Headdesk.

People can assume things and promote false stereotypes.

I've lived all sides of that argument - in both disciplines (science and theology) - and I'm not assuming a false stereotype, when I say that the Christian/conservative/traditional position in many divisive matters, rejects sources such as science, experience or reason.

Yes those Truths are subject to debate and question and they stand up

No. Often they don't. And that's my point. You keep making claims for traditional views which actually don't stand up.