When two worldviews collide.

[Bradskii]

I am not sure if this was a edeiscussion you wanted or just an opportunity to create a giant logical fallacy.

I'm not sure you can claim a logical fallacy simply because you were wrong. It doesn't work like that. Less than 1 in 5 Aussies have a problem with pronouns. That's a small minority. Not a majority.

 

[Paidiske]

No I am not saying there is not a clear destinction and that is why some Christians can be more supceptible to falling for ideologies that insist its all about social constructions.

Tell me something, steve. Are human rights a social construction?

Yes if all things were equal and they treated transwomen like real women and preferred not to date that particular women then they have the right.

They have the right regardless.

The idea that humans need sex to fullfill themselves is a Postmodernist idea in that the individual and their identity is the utmost important thing and therefore fullfillment and expression and protection of individual identity.

I'm not sure I agree. I think there's a very long history of people thinking that sex - or at least, reproduction, to which it is intrinsically linked - is necessary to human fulfilment. I think of Isaiah promising a "name" to faithful eunuchs who might otherwise feel that their life was meaningless, for example.

All this is the culimination of a progression of belief and progressive thinking and what we have ended up with today where now sex is arranged and paid for by the State. Thats how far the State has now entered our lives having control over our private lives and dictating what is moral or not.

Hmm. If the state refused to allow supports for a person with a disability to access a sex worker, would that not be the state having control over our private lives and dictating what is moral? It seems to me that allowing the person to choose whether or not to access such services is the opposite of dictating.

Why, its the same thing.

No. Someone might have the right to contract for the services of a sex worker. If the sex worker refuses their services, or no sex worker can be found for them, they don't have a "right to sex" regardless. What they have is the right to participate in the economy in the same way that any non-disabled person might have, but that doesn't override anyone else's consent to participate with them.

But that is what we have been reduced to that sex is seperated from all that and has become a commodity of human fullfillment to be happy and satified.

As I said, I loathe prostitution, but there's really nothing new about it.

Your not understanding the category destinction.

No, steve, I understand it perfectly well. But it doesn't matter; because everyone is free to choose their own partner for whatever reasons they choose.

Thats like saying a person deletes blacks out of the potential individual in your dating pool because you don't believe blacks are real for the category in your dating pool.

Which, as I said above, you are perfectly free to do. It may or may not make you a very nice person, but you are free to discount particular races as potential partners if you so choose.

 

[Paidiske]

You're not choosing to support a child?

Supporting a child isn't the issue (you can do that while working). But gestating and birthing one is.

It's not the pregnancy, it's the benefits.

Without some accommodations around pregnancy, it would make it much more difficult for women to participate in the workforce.

The CEO of a massive Christian-owned craft store had a surprising response when asked about maternity leave

Last month, David Green, the CEO of the craft retailer Hobby Lobby, came to Business Insider’s...

www.google.com

That's talking about paid leave, not unpaid leave.

Ok, let's go back to the hypothetical where the woman hired as gm for the hotel and assume she and her replacement both have the same amount of experience at the start of working gm for the hotel. She works for 3 months and goes on 52 weeks of maternity leave, which her replacement works

Which of these two employees has more experience by the time her consequence free benefits expire? Her replacement, right?

So despite her having less experience than her replacement, she gets her job back, consequence free, and her more experienced replacement is fired.

And in your wild imagination, this is somehow a barrier for women and not anyone else.

It's a barrier for women when this completely hypothetical scenario is used to justify not hiring us in the first place.

meanwhile, trans people are complaining about pronoun usage, which is entirely based upon perception according to them, somehow constitutes harassment although both you and I can't even conceive of how that would realistically work in any sort of workplace setting ...

I can conceive of how consistently misgendering someone could be one aspect of harassment and bullying, for sure. Deliberately referring to someone in a way they find distressing is not that hard to imagine.

Bullying in the workplace isn't a non-problem. It's rife and it's deeply harmful. I'm quite happy to see a strong stand taken against it.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not sure you can claim a logical fallacy simply because you were wrong. It doesn't work like that. Less than 1 in 5 Aussies have a problem with pronouns. That's a small minority. Not a majority.

I notice a pattern with your replies. You stay quiet and stay out until you spot something you can jump in with and say got ya. That somehow negates all else. But I suspect the reason you stay out of the rest is because you don't se too much wrong with my arguement. Put it this way we have an active live survey on this thread and it seems your in the minority.

 

[Bradskii]

I notice a pattern with your replies. You stay quiet and stay out until you spot something you can jump in with and say got ya. That somehow negates all else. But I suspect the reason you stay out of the rest is because you don't se too much wrong with my arguement. Put it this way we have an active live survey on this thread and it seems your in the minority.

I stay out because firstly I hate the type of discussions whereby you throw out umpteen different opinions (rarely with any evidential backup) and then either ignore the responses, rephrase them or draw illogical conclusions from them. And I've lost count of the number of questions I have asked you which have been completely ignored.

Secondly because @Paidiske certainly doesn't need any help in comprehensively dismantling your arguments. Class me as an interested bystander at this stage.

And this is another question that will likely be ignored, but where did you get the (incorrect info) that a majority of Australians have a problem with pronouns? You linked to the ABC web page but obviously didn't read it.

 

[stevevw]

Tell me something, steve. Are human rights a social construction?

The core Human Rights established earlier this century were based on the Truth principles we had already formulated and were better defined after the horrors of the 2nd WW. But unforntuanetly even the UN is not immune to ideological thinking and some recent changes reflect this. Human Rights should not be based on politics but the UN has become political, a political tool of ideology.

They have the right regardless.

They don't have the Right to delete transwomen from the category women.

I'm not sure I agree. I think there's a very long history of people thinking that sex - or at least, reproduction, to which it is intrinsically linked - is necessary to human fulfilment. I think of Isaiah promising a "name" to faithful eunuchs who might otherwise feel that their life was meaningless, for example.

Yes but we are not talking about the Right to reproduction. Accordeing to progressive thinking sex is seperated from procreation and sex itself is the Right. This was highlighted in the SSM debate where couples marry for self fullfillment not the greater meaning of procreation.

The Right to sexual autonomy, not to be bound by responsibilities of procreation but to be free to choose whoever and whenever they wish to have sex. Sex is regarded as one of the pleasures in life that humans can experience and therefore is part of human fullfillment.

Hmm. If the state refused to allow supports for a person with a disability to access a sex worker, would that not be the state having control over our private lives and dictating what is moral? It seems to me that allowing the person to choose whether or not to access such services is the opposite of dictating.

The State should not be involving itself either way. The State getting involved doesn't have to be about restrictions. It can be about actively supporting and promoting a particular moral stand on sex. In this case its supporting sex as a commodity that people should have a right to. In that sense its dictating social norms that are then pushed in society. I should say they are reflecting a moral position that society had already thought was OK.

No. Someone might have the right to contract for the services of a sex worker. If the sex worker refuses their services, or no sex worker can be found for them, they don't have a "right to sex" regardless. What they have is the right to participate in the economy in the same way that any non-disabled person might have, but that doesn't override anyone else's consent to participate with them.

But if no sex worker is found on that occassion it doesn't negate their Right later on. They don't just say none available tonight so theres none available for ever. The individual sex worker can say no like any job but thats got nothing to do with the disabled persons Right to sex. The individual no is not 'No' to the whole idea of him being supplied sex as a right.

But you didn't respond to the post which I explained the difference between individuals having the Right to say no and Lesbians rejecting an entire identity being transwomen. Possible because you know I am right.

No, steve, I understand it perfectly well. But it doesn't matter; because everyone is free to choose their own partner for whatever reasons they choose.

So are you saying that lesbians are not descrminating against transwomen when they don't recognise them as women.

Which, as I said above, you are perfectly free to do. It may or may not make you a very nice person, but you are free to discount particular races as potential partners if you so choose.

So people are free to descriminate against blacks by deleting them out of the male gender based on them not being real men.

 

[stevevw]

I stay out because firstly I hate the type of discussions whereby you throw out umpteen different opinions (rarely with any evidential backup) and then either ignore the responses, rephrase them or draw illogical conclusions from them. And I've lost count of the number of questions I have asked you which have been completely ignored.

I cannot remember any questions asked. What I am saying is also being said more or less word for word by other posters so I am not saying anything that different that most other people who think like me are saying. You keep saying I am ignoring things but I have been constantly addressing things.

If you think its ignoring then I can't help that. Most of what I say has evidence I just don't bother posting it as people ignore it anyway. But I at least give reasoning behind what I say. Maybe its just too much info for you to process. I have spent a lot of years researching this. Some of what I have said is quite well known and doesn't need evedience but to those who don't know it may seem like unfounded claims.

Secondly because @Paidiske certainly doesn't need any help in comprehensively dismantling your arguments. Class me as an interested bystander at this stage.

Can you show me something where Paidiske has completely dismantled my arguement. If that is the case then everyones arguement has been dismantled because they all say more or less the same thing. All you have done is step in to make logical fallacies like an appeal to someone elses arguements and how its dismantled mine without any arguement from yourself.

Besides I think your reading a lot more into the discussion between Paidiske and myself. Its not about dismant;ing each other. We are having a good discussion/arguement which will consist of claims and counter claims and then working through those, clarifying points ect. Its not a competition. Even if it was why should I take your observations as you are obviously going to be biased against me lol.

And this is another question that will likely be ignored, but where did you get the (incorrect info) that a majority of Australians have a problem with pronouns? You linked to the ABC web page but obviously didn't read it.

First if you go back to my post I actually said "Forced pronouns comes from the same ideology as identity politics, political correctness and cancel culture". So I was not not referring to pronouns directly but rather identity politics, political correctness and cancel culture for which the majority disagree (I can provide evdience).

The reason being is that most people don't understand what forced pronouns represents as far as the ideological thinking goes. But they do understand cancel culture, political correctness and identity politics from where forced pronouns come.

All these ideas are about policing words/language in the case of cancel culture cancelling certain language by no platforming or deleting it altogether. In the case of identity politics moralizing certain identity narratives over others where minority words hold more value.

Forced pronouns comes from the same mold but is the reverse of canceling words. Rather its replacing words and forcing others to use certain language. If some language is canncelled because its offensive and a threat to identities then it logically follows that certain language will affirm identities and should replace this. Thus because identities are a protected species they must be forced.

By the way the courts have deemed forced pronouns (compelled speech) as a breach of the First Amendment Rights to Free speech and freedom of religion.

The Dangers of Compelled Speech
Compelled speech requires someone to say something that they do not want to say. Not only is this a violation of an individual’s right to free speech; it is also a violation of their right to act according to their own conscience.

The Dangers of Compelled Speech

What is compelled speech? What has the Supreme Court said about it? And how does it affect me?

adflegal.org

 

[Kale100]

This is quite the active topic, but it seems like almost exclusively headbutting. I'd be interested in hearing from partakers in this discussion...
What have you learned in this discussion that you can apply to better yourself as a person?

 

[stevevw]

This is quite the active topic, but it seems like almost exclusively headbutting. I'd be interested in hearing from partakers in this discussion...
What have you learned in this discussion that you can apply to better yourself as a person?

Thats because I think its such a wide reaching topic. I prefer to dicuss the overall idea about why the two worldviews clash rather than individual examples. We all know that there is disagreement, that each side see things fundementally different to the point that each side believes they are correct and truely believe what they believe. That interests me more as to how can this be. How can people see things so differently yet want the same thing.

Who is correct, is there a correct answer. How does this relate to secular worldviews and Christian ones. Is society moving away from God and thus away from some of the long held truths we have come to know as a Christian culture. Is there a new religious belief evolving in a modern Godless society and if so is it any better than what we had. Is there a need for religious belief at all so perhaps God, religion and the Bible should be discarded and pushed to the fringes or even banned in the public sphere.

From a Christian perspective is what we are seeing today where society is becoming Godless part of what the Bible tells us in the end times. Is this a step closer to this prophesy being fullfilled.

 

[Kale100]

Sounds like you have a lot of questions, have you gotten any answers?

 

[Bradskii]

First if you go back to my post I actually said "Forced pronouns comes from the same ideology as identity politics, political correctness and cancel culture". So I was not not referring to pronouns directly but rather identity politics, political correctness and cancel culture for which the majority disagree (I can provide evdience).

You did. The ABC. It didn't say what you said it did.

'Forced pronouns comes from the same ideology as identity politics, political correctness and cancel culture. I think you will find the majority are sick of these things and disagree.

This disapproval of political correctness is a majority view across all age groups, according to the nationally-representative Australia Talks National Survey.'

That only discussed pronouns. And it's nowhere near a majority view. It's a small minority. Maybe you found something I didn't or you made a mistake. Can you let us know which one it was? If you're basing any argument on incorrect information, then you need to know.

 

[Bradskii]

Who is correct, is there a correct answer.

I think that people have begun to realise that you, meaning religious people who hold some fundamentalist beliefs about what is right and wrong, don't have the answer. And not only that, but what you put forward, far from making the world a better place in which to live, actually makes it worse.

We have people in threads like this refusing to act with common decency towards people who are transgender. We have people who actually refuse to accept the concept of gender. We have people who want to deny basic rights to gay people. We have people quoting Romans, saying that homosexuals deserve death. We have people saying that gay teachers must be sacked. We have people calling the gay friends and family that most of us have obscene and degenerate. We have people assuming that gay people are paedophiles. We have people pointing out a genuine problem, but then extrapolating it to include whole groups of people.

I could go on. And on. Because threads like this are rife with such examples. Heaven only knows what any gay member of this forum thinks about some of the comments that are made. God help any young gay person or someone confused about their gender coming here for some Christian help, looking for a kind word and some understanding.

But hey, love the sinner though. That's the get-out-jail card that's always used. Together with 'Oh, but I'm a sinner as well' which some think gives them the right to say anything at all and denigrate any group of people.

End times you say? Yeah, I'd agree. Those who identify with any given religion are getting less and less. The numbers are shrinking. Call up any poll that gives the numbers and you'll see the graph is heading in one direction. I know why that's happening. And I know as sure as God made little green apples, the people making the comments as I noted will deny any responsibility.

 

[Paidiske]

The core Human Rights established earlier this century were based on the Truth principles we had already formulated and were better defined after the horrors of the 2nd WW.

I'll take that as a yes, human rights are a social construction. In which case, lumping all social constructions automatically in the "bad" side of a rigid binary would be a problem, no?

They don't have the Right to delete transwomen from the category women.

But they do have the right to delete transwomen from the category "people I am open to dating."

Yes but we are not talking about the Right to reproduction. Accordeing to progressive thinking sex is seperated from procreation and sex itself is the Right.

For a lot of people, I don't know that it's quite that neat a separation. All I was pointing out, though, was that the idea that humans "need" sex and what comes with it is not exactly a new development.

The State should not be involving itself either way.

That's a bit of a problem when the state provides (or funds) disability support services, isn't it? Because whether they allow or deny a particular service is being involved either way.

But if no sex worker is found on that occassion it doesn't negate their Right later on. They don't just say none available tonight so theres none available for ever. The individual sex worker can say no like any job but thats got nothing to do with the disabled persons Right to sex. The individual no is not 'No' to the whole idea of him being supplied sex as a right.

My point was, that having the right to engage (or attempt to engage) a sex worker, is not the same as a right to sex. Nobody has an unqualified right to sex, because there's always another person involved who has a right to not participate.

But you didn't respond to the post which I explained the difference between individuals having the Right to say no and Lesbians rejecting an entire identity being transwomen.

I think there's no meaningful difference. Our right to withhold consent to sex doesn't change depending on who it is we're withholding that consent from.

So are you saying that lesbians are not descrminating against transwomen when they don't recognise them as women.

I'm saying that if lesbians discriminate against transwomen as potential romantic or sexual partners, that is perfectly within their rights, and something transwomen are going to have to cope with.

So people are free to descriminate against blacks by deleting them out of the male gender based on them not being real men.

As I said, it may not make you a very nice person, but yes, you can take this approach to making your dating decisions if you wish.

I'd be interested in hearing from partakers in this discussion...
What have you learned in this discussion that you can apply to better yourself as a person?

I think the thing this discussion highlights for me is just how huge our blind spots can be, and in particular how blind to power dynamics which benefit us we can be. It reminds me that in real life, deliberately setting aside power and relinquishing control, being willing to listen and learn and adapt, is more important than ever.

@Bradskii hit the nail on the head in his post above. And he didn't even mention the sexism and misogyny!

 

[Bradskii]

And he didn't even mention the sexism and misogyny!

I'm doing my best to stay out of the conversation. That last post was just me letting off some steam. And I don't think you need me barging around waving blunt instruments. I haven't your patience.

 

[Runningman]

In discussing some of the moral issues facing society such as gender, sex, race, Rights, identity politics ect relating to how we as a society should structure ourselves I have found that a polarisation is happening between two broad worldviews. On the one side the Left which I think is more likely to be athiest or more pluralistic about belief and on the other is the Right which are more conservative and traditional and more likely to be Christain. Though I think there is degrees of variance where some will also be open to opposing views to some degree.

But it seems things have become more polarised is recent times deue to society moving away from a Christain worldview to a secular one. In the past there was more middle ground and basically people I think were more traditional had belief and progressives were seen as out of step. I think today the Left has gained a lot of ground mainly due to a reaction to percieved past injustices by traditionalist or Christains and being more open to alternative ideas.

In the past Western societies were based on Christain values but in the last few decades God and Christainity has been rejected and in its place the State has become the arbitor of societal morals and infringed more on peoples private lives. Of course a lot has happened in that time with social media which I think has had a profound impact on thinking undermining truth and has given individuals and groups much power to push their views and influence governments and society.

But the result of all this is that there is a growing division between the Christian Worldview and the Secular Worldview to the point that they clash even violently like people want to destroy Christains aned opposing views and it seems the State is actively siding with the a secular position with the help of certain lobbyist. They have been actively dismantaling Christainity and taking God completely out of the picture in our institutions and public life generally, I should say its not always just Christains but also traditionalist and others who believe in the Truths that the West was built upon such as Enlightement and Democracy. Many on the Left also seem to support some sort of Marxism so this polarisation seems to be political and religious.

I guess our present situation is also the result of Postmodernism the idea of tearing down the old truths and archetypes of the West and society has become more individualistic and relative. Its a complex combination of factors but the thing that stands out for me is that there seems to be a showdown brewing between Christain and traditionalist and the Secularist and the Left and I think the Left is winning at the moment. I can see this continuing where Christainity is pushed to the fringes.

So we are at a point for the first time in a long time in our history where societies efforts to rid themselves of God and Christainity will see secularist and non believers outnumbering Christains and completely rejecting God from society.

But is this new World completely devoid of belief or is society replacing God and Christainity with some new religion, a secular religion which has been able to grow disguised as something else like some new utopia that promises to do away with injustice and inequality and bring people true happiness. I think so as it seems that peoples reaction to Christainity and God today isn't just about a new way but is tied to their identity and debates are often full of feelings even to the point of wanting to destroy others who disagree,

So I think this is a fight for Truth and there can only be one Truth. But today truth has lost all meaning and personal truth has become the only truth. But I think the Truth as in the one Truth we all know is real will shine through in the end, but its going to be a fight in the meantime where many false ideas will seem to win out and may fool many.

Sure, there is certainly a left versus right dichotomy with short term and long term goals. The strategy is for each side to oppose each other, at least publicly, on just about every issue.

There’s a lot of manipulation, psychology, and propaganda involved but the main idea is to change society by changing what people believe. Beliefs ultimately effect attitudes about everything.

There will be winners and losers on certain issues, but it isn't as clear cut as there being one side victorious over the other ideologically, it will ultimately boil down to which side is in control of the power, money, resources, and how long they can hold onto this power before they can effectively witch hunt the other side.

History shows that victors will usually try to stamp out their opposition rather than peacefully coexist with them. Usually not immediately, but if they have majority support it's bound to happen. Occasionally we witness this on a relatively small scale even in the USA.

 

[Bradskii]

There will be winners and losers on certain issues, but it isn't as clear cut as there being one side victorious over the other ideologically, it will ultimately boil down to which side is in control of the power, money, resources, and how long they can hold onto this power before they can effectively witch hunt the other side.

Why is it always framed as an ideological struggle? Isn't it, when we get down to basics, people arguing about what they think is the right course of action in any given situation?

 

[Kale100]

But they do have the right to delete transwomen from the category "people I am open to dating."

What other types of relationships, besides dating, do people have this right? Are there some types of relationships in which they don't have this right and why?

 

[stevevw]

Sure, there is certainly a left versus right dichotomy with short term and long term goals. The strategy is for each side to oppose each other, at least publicly, on just about every issue.

There’s a lot of manipulation, psychology, and propaganda involved but the main idea is to change society by changing what people believe. Beliefs ultimately effect attitudes about everything.

There will be winners and losers on certain issues, but it isn't as clear cut as there being one side victorious over the other ideologically, it will ultimately boil down to which side is in control of the power, money, resources, and how long they can hold onto this power before they can effectively witch hunt the other side.

History shows that victors will usually try to stamp out their opposition rather than peacefully coexist with them. Usually not immediately, but if they have majority support it's bound to happen. Occasionally we witness this on a relatively small scale even in the USA.

 

[Bradskii]

History shows that victors will usually try to stamp out their opposition rather than peacefully coexist with them.

Sounds like a plot line from a B grade sci fi film rather than a discussion on morality.

 

[stevevw]

I'll take that as a yes, human rights are a social construction. In which case, lumping all social constructions automatically in the "bad" side of a rigid binary would be a problem, no?

No primarily human Rights are based on Ttuth principles that are inalienable and universal meaning they are not subject to social constructions. In other words no human, society or government can take them away or change them. If they are universal that means they apply regardless of societal of cultural constructions. In other words they remain the same for all societies and cultures.

But they do have the right to delete transwomen from the category "people I am open to dating."

Not if their dating group are women. If they delete transwomen from their usual dating group of women because they don't believe they are women then thats descrimination. Its a category destinction not a personal preference. It says something about the identity category rather than personal preference. Its rejecting that identity category and not affirming them as a real identity in the world.

That's a bit of a problem when the state provides (or funds) disability support services, isn't it? Because whether they allow or deny a particular service is being involved either way.

Thats different because its a practical basic need. If a person cannot say feed themselves they will suffer and be at risk. If they cannot even have access to the same Rights we have ie education, health then they need help regardless of political or religious views.

My point was, that having the right to engage (or attempt to engage) a sex worker, is not the same as a right to sex. Nobody has an unqualified right to sex, because there's always another person involved who has a right to not participate.

Thats why sex workers are used. Sex becomes a commodity and like all commodities you just can't decide to deny services to some and not others unless there is some health and safety issue or the client is being abusive ect. It would be like someone at the checkout being denied service while everyone else is allowed.

I think there's no meaningful difference. Our right to withhold consent to sex doesn't change depending on who it is we're withholding that consent from.

Your not seeing the forest through the trees. Its the principle of rejecting an entire idenity thats the problem. We don't have the Right to delete an entire identity group from society.

Lesbians reject trans women because they are males and not females. In other words they are saying they don't believe transwomen are real women. Thats the issue. They are not affirming trans women as being a real identity. If a polititian stood up and said black males are not real males the Woke would have a fit.

I'm saying that if lesbians discriminate against transwomen as potential romantic or sexual partners, that is perfectly within their rights, and something transwomen are going to have to cope with.

Indiv idually yes but not as an identity group. The destinction is that Lesbians are not rejecting transwomen based on personal preferences for individuals but rejection all transwomen because they don't think they are real women. If as you say affirmation of identity disadvantage is a right then lesbians are denying affirmation that transwomen are a real identity thus not affirming them.

As I said, it may not make you a very nice person, but yes, you can take this approach to making your dating decisions if you wish.

But isn't that not affirming an identity which is descrimination. I thought the new identity descrimination included affirmation of identity, recognition that these identities are real and have the right to be real identities living in society.