When two worldviews collide.

[Ana the Ist]

You seem to be hostile to the LGBT community and are appropriating concern. This is called "concern trolling", for those that don't know. You simply don't have any solidarity or intimacy with that community to be speaking for them credibly.

Yeesh....your logical fallacy here is even easier to identify....

Confirmation bias.

I also saw this study when it came out.

Will Straight Men and Women Date a Trans Person?

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, and nonbinary individuals are more willing than straight people to date a trans person—with surprising caveats.

www.psychologytoday.com

I don't know why you'd dismiss it as garbage or something that need not be addressed. The dating pool of trans people is incredibly shallow. One thing left out by the article is that trans people overwhelmingly prefer to date the groups that want to date them the least. Straight men and women. It's a very real problem and if you're concerned about outcomes for trans people (as you seem to be) then there's no reason why it shouldn't be addressed.

Dooming people to a lifetime of loneliness is a tough path to put a child on against their will (since children cannot consent).

As unlikely as you may believe these dating pressures might lead to negative outcomes like trans women pressuring lesbians for sex....it makes total sense. They've got a community more accepting of their lifestyles coupled with a extreme lack of romantic partners and that's a bad mix for some pseudo-rapey situations. Lesbians have been complaining about this for years now...there's no reason to believe it's not a real phenomenon.

 

[Paidiske]

What's the difference between my hurt feelings and someone else's?

Again, psychological safety in the workplace is not just a matter of "hurt feelings." The employer has a legal obligation to provide a safe workplace for everyone, including trans people.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Again, psychological safety in the workplace is not just a matter of "hurt feelings."

I don't see you drawing any meaningful distinction between "psychological safety" and "hurt feelings".

 

[Paidiske]

I don't see you drawing any meaningful distinction between "psychological safety" and "hurt feelings".

Mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, PTSD and so on are not just a matter of hurt feelings. They are recognised medical conditions with associated symptoms. Someone might have "hurt feelings" but be perfectly robust and resilient enough to cope and function well without lasting negative impact.

 

[stevevw]

But we're not discussing political correctness. That can mean multiple things to many people. The discussion is about transgenderism. And you specifically brought up pronouns as an example of how Autralians feel about transgenderism and linked to a site that said the vast majority had no problems with it.

Now you want to slide the conversation away from what people think about transgender people and talk about political correctness in general. It's a common method you use to avoid being confronted about your claims. That's not acceptable. That's not going to happen. We'll keep the discussion on track. About transgenderism. Which the article you linked to didn't mention at all. What it did mention which one might think was in some way related is that 'freedom of speech is often used to try to justify discrimination against minority groups.' Which could certainly relate to how people refer to transgender people.

So how do we, as Australians, think about what we are discussing? Glad you asked. Because we have that info here: New research shows overwhelming support among Australians on trans equality - Equality Australia

'78% of Australians agree that trans people deserve the same rights and protections as other Australians...Only 7% of Australians actively disagree with this sentiment.'

So as you see even from the title, Aussies are overwhelmingly supportive of transgender people. That's almost exactly the percentage that said they have no problems with pronouns as well, so that confirms the figures.

Your claims are shown to be not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong.

The title of the article is Australians say 'political correctness has gone too far' — but it's complicated. It mentions nothing about pronouns. In fact the entire article doesn't even mention pronouns. Here are the headings from the article
'PC madness' has become a battle cry
Everyone, except Greens voters, thinks political correctness has gone too far
But it's not that simple
Australians' views on political correctness and freedom of speech are complicated
Enter 'the exhausted majority'
Social media amplifies extreme voices
The 'exhausted majority' are disengaging
So where to now?

The only mention of anything like pronouns in the article Ilinked is about freedom of speech. I did a word search and no word pronoun comes up. So I am wondering if you even have the right article. Are the above headings in your article. I noticed that there are more than one article on ABC Australians Talk survey from different years perhaps or completely different surveys..

 

[Ana the Ist]

Mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, PTSD and so on are not just a matter of hurt feelings.

Ok...so if my employee evaluation is negative and I get depressed, is the employer responsible?

.Or how about this...

If employer policies require me to lie against my better judgment to fellow employees, and this causes anxiety, is my employer responsible?

 

[stevevw]

It's pretty amazing how bullying is accepted and encouraged and on sees no issue with it. It's quite astonishing really.

Mary politely says to a colleague that he wants to be called a she. The colleague politely responds with, I can call you Mary. I will address you as Mary and refer to you as Mary. But I am afraid that I am unable to use the pronouns she/her. I have no problem if you wear a dress and make up. Be my guest. You Mary may dress as you please and look how you please. We are w free society. I won't force you to look like a man nor dress as a man. But I simply ask that as I respect your desire to dress and act how you please and be called by any name you desire that you in turn respect my own convictions not to use language that goes against what I believe to be true.

Mary goes in to says I do respect the fact that you will call Mary and you won't ask me not to dress as a woman or r act like one. But by golly I will not respect your desire not to use she/her no matter what you believe. What you believe doesn't matter at all. What I believe is the only thing that matters and you WILL bow to my wishes or you will pay the price of rejection. Me and my friends will make sure that you are utterly rejected from coming any where near us and we will refuse to work with you. You will be an anathema in this workplace. Because my feelings are the only thing that matters. You MUST alter you language and speak the way I demand or you will offend me. You have no personal freedom in this matter. I don't care a wit for you convictions or your beliefs. You must bow to my personal wishes and beliefs. I appreciate your willingness to call me Mary, but its not good enough. You MUST go all in. Your beliefs are totally irrelevant and if you do not bow I will make your life a living hell as much as I can.

Hey everyone Joe said he would call me Mary and fully accept my dress and actions. But he said he won't use she/her prounouns. I am so hurt by that. That he won't go all in. We are going to have to demand Joe leaves and no one here will speak to Joe ever again. And no one will work with Joe ever again. All because he won't call me a she/her.

He tried to respect me and by beliefs as much as he could and I turn asked me to respect his beliefs. I say no. I don't care what he is willing to do, it's not good enough. Go Joe. Leave us. We will have nothing to do with you ever again.

Hmmm... And you have audacity to claim that Joe isn't being bullied to change his language? That he isn't being bullied into denying a lying about truth? This IS 1984 and 2+2=5 scenario. And you have the audacity to claim it's not bullying?

Unbelievable.

Yes this is the result of identity politics. Once we use to not worry about all these things. We tolerated and acceptede difference. But one day some voices began to attack the majority with some victim mentality that somehow the majoirty were hateful and conspired to oppress people. Thats despite the same Western culture that allows for people to freely identify as anything they want.

Somehow its the majorities fault for being too gender normative, too white, too male and a list of impure identities and other moral wrongs goes on. Funny how this has all the hallmarks of religion rather than anything real. When one lot attacks another lot morally denegrating them as a person what do people expect to happen.

Now as a result rather than creating a society that is equal, united and happy we are divided and in conflict. People attacking each other, whinging and plying victims. This has only happened in the last 10 years or so and the only thing that changed was the introduction of cancel culture, PC and identity politics, identity being the Holy grail of truth and Rights even trumping objective reality.

 

[Paidiske]

Ok...so if my employee evaluation is negative and I get depressed, is the employer responsible?

If the evaluation was done in a way which didn't allow for due process, for example, the employer might be. I am not actually familiar with all the ins and outs of case law and how decisions have been made.

If employer policies require me to lie against my better judgment to fellow employees, and this causes anxiety, is my employer responsible?

In the kind of situation you're referring to, where the "lie" is basic workplace courtesy, your employer is probably not responsible.

 

[stevevw]

My assertion would be that your evidence, at best, shows that there are some very basic emotional reactions linked to survival, which appear consistently and early in our development.

And thats an unsupported assertion that has no weight against the findings of the research which is supported. You will have to provide something, anything to support what you say. Otherwise your arguement breaks down.

That is such a far cry from morality being inborn it's not funny. Empathy is not morality.
Recognising altruism is not morality.

But this core sense for empathy and alturism is the basis for morality. Without that innate core sense there is no morality. No reason to even look up and sense the injustice, unfairness, cruelty and having a willingness to put others before self. Which just happens to be the sense that aedults contimued to have as the basis for morality.

Morality involves complex higher cognitive functions, which are not developed in infants and which are something we develop and learn as we grow.

Yes but the core moral sense is not something that needs to be complicated and analysed. Its just there innate in us. The cognitive function comes later on top of this. But the motivation to work out more complex moral situations comes from the core moral sense in wanting to seek justice, fairness due to empathizing and feeling alturistic towards others. At the end of the day all morality is based on this core inner sense of morality.

Babies probably have no conscious access to moral notions, no idea why certain acts are good or bad. They respond on a gut level. Indeed, if you watch the older babies during the experiments, they don’t act like impassive judges — they tend to smile and clap during good events and frown, shake their heads and look sad during the naughty events. The babies’ experiences might be cognitively empty but emotionally intense, replete with strong feelings and strong desires. But this shouldn’t strike you as an altogether alien experience: while we adults possess the additional critical capacity of being able to consciously reason about morality, we’re not otherwise that different from babies — our moral feelings are often instinctive. Children are born believers in God, academic claims

Kohlberg's stages of moral development would be a good place to begin to consider how morality develops as we grow.

Kohlberg's theory is well outdated and in fact has been now rejected. It contains some good insights but it misses a lot that has been dicovered in the decades since about moral development like the studies I linked.

And you've never noticed that toddlers don't have the capacity to manage those situations and dilemmas?

Yes they do to a large extent. By this age they are able to actually get involved in moral actions. They will fight for the justice of others by helping the helper in studies, they will even side with the punisher of wrong even though the punisher appears by actions to be doing bad. So they understand the difference between bad actions and bad actions that involve seeking to right justice.

What’s exciting here is that these preferences are based on how one individual treated another, on whether one individual was helping another individual achieve its goals or hindering it. This is preference of a very special sort; babies were responding to behaviours that adults would describe as nice or mean. What was more interesting was what happened when they watched the bad guy being rewarded or punished. Here they chose the punisher. Despite their overall preference for good actors over bad, then, babies are drawn to bad actors when those actors are punishing bad behaviour. Regardless of how smart we are, if we didn’t start with this basic apparatus, we would be nothing more than amoral agents, ruthlessly driven to pursue our self-interest.
The Moral Life of Babies (Published 2010)

 

[Paidiske]

And thats an unsupported assertion that has no weight against the findings of the research which is supported.

The research you've provided simply doesn't stack up to the claims you're making for it.

Morality involves complex cognitive functions which have not developed yet in infants. For example, see here: The neuroscience of morality and social decision-making.

"Decades of research across multiple disciplines, including behavioral economics, developmental psychology, and social neuroscience, indicate that moral reasoning arises from complex social decision-making and involves both unconscious and deliberate processes which rely on several partially distinct dimensions, including intention understanding, harm aversion, reward and value coding, executive functioning, and rule learning."

But this core sense for empathy and alturism is the basis for morality. Without that innate core sense there is no morality.

It's an influencing factor. It's not "the basis" for morality, which is much more complex.

This is worth a read: Friends or foes: Is empathy necessary for moral behavior?.

Yes but the core moral sense is not something that needs to be complicated and analysed. Its just there innate in us.

Again, see the sources I've just linked for you. This paragraph is worth highlighting:

"In reality, empathy is not always a direct avenue to moral behavior. Indeed, at times empathy can interfere with moral decision-making by introducing partiality, for instance by favoring kin and in-group members. But empathy also provides the emotional fire and a push toward seeing a victims’ suffering end, irrespective of its group membership and social hierarchies. Empathy can prevent rationalization of moral violations. Studies in social psychology have indeed clearly shown that morality and empathy are two independent motives, each with its own unique goal. In resource-allocation situations in which these two motives conflict, empathy can become a source of immoral behavior."

I notice that you didn't answer my question about, if we're all born with an innate sense of God, how you explain atheists.

Yes they do to a large extent.

Oh nonsense. The day toddlers at playgroup don't need parents to mediate toy-sharing disputes (for example) because of their innate sense of justice and empathy, is the day pigs will fly.

 

[Bradskii]

The title of the article is Australians say 'political correctness has gone too far' — but it's complicated. It mentions nothing about pronouns. In fact the entire article doesn't even mention pronouns. Here are the headings from the article
'PC madness' has become a battle cry
Everyone, except Greens voters, thinks political correctness has gone too far
But it's not that simple
Australians' views on political correctness and freedom of speech are complicated
Enter 'the exhausted majority'
Social media amplifies extreme voices
The 'exhausted majority' are disengaging
So where to now?

The only mention of anything like pronouns in the article Ilinked is about freedom of speech. I did a word search and no word pronoun comes up. So I am wondering if you even have the right article. Are the above headings in your article. I noticed that there are more than one article on ABC Australians Talk survey from different years perhaps or completely different surveys..

This makes no sense at all. I'm the one telling you that the link you posted when you were discussing pronouns said nothing about them. How many times do I have to show you what you actually linked!

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

That survey said the exact opposite of what you said it did. The link you refer to above likewise says nothing about pronouns. Because it's a general poll on political correctness. Which is not the topic we are discussing. Political correctness can mean anything to anyone so you need to keep on track and be specific. The discussion is about transgenderism and you said that a majority of Australians have a problem with it. None of the links you have posted say anything remotely like that.

A link that does specifically mention Australian attitudes to transgenderism is the one I gave you a few posts ago. And it directly contradicts everything you have said.

 

[stevevw]

Again we come back to the question: what does it mean to be made in the image of God? Common answers over the millennia of Christian thought have included dignity, agency, free will, rationality, relationality. What Christians have not tended to see it as meaning is that we somehow arrive with a pre-programmed moral sense. Far from it; the traditions which have wrestled with this most deeply have all ended up emphasised the formation of the conscience as a critical developmental (and teaching) task.

Yes but all that is about how to apply the core moral sense we all have about justice, fairness, the Golden Rule, and alturism. In some ways that adult rationality can rationalise the moral truth away if anything rather than being something we naturally sense. It could be that rationalization could be what indoctrinates belief and this moral sense about certain moral truths out of us.

The point is if there is a Christian God and we have the spark of the divine within us then it makes sense that the same God naturally installed in us a moral sense and the need to believe in divine concepts in seeking to have relations with Him. This is regardless of the particular set of moral injunctions or religious or secular expression of belief. Rationalization may rationalise this truth away so that people find the ansers in other beliefs and sets of morals.

Really? Then how do you explain atheists?

There is no such thing as a true atheist.

Not possible. The infants had had contact with other people, which means, experience and learning from interacting with and observing them.

Theres the absolute claim again. Not possible means you believe there are absolute truths and facts about this and yet you keep claiming these issues are more neanced and complex. You can't have it both ways. How about engaging with the actual research and explain why its impossible. Even the simply logic shows you cannot be correct.

By your logic if contact with people causes babies to have this moral sense of justice, kindness and alturism then a persons influence for any number of outcomes show show up in the findings. Such as evil and atheist influences causing the opposite sense in babies. But we don't find this. We find that regardless of the type of influence babies have this moral sense and its strong and spontaneous like it comes from them their very being.

“certain moral foundations are not acquired through learning. They do not come from the mother’s knee … ”
https://fs.blog/the-origins-of-good-and-evil/

How on earth do you gauge the religiosity of pre-verbal infants?

If you don't know this then I suggest you do some more research on it. Its not really about religion as religion is just the expression of this natural inclination to believe. Its more about the idea of some entity that is naturally believed beyond the material world that has organised things ande about disembodied entities that exist beyond the material world. This is not reduced to specific religion but a human disposition that we have from birth.

Babies probably have no conscious access to moral notions, no idea why certain acts are good or bad. They respond on a gut level. Indeed, if you watch the older babies during the experiments, they don’t act like impassive judges — they tend to smile and clap during good events and frown, shake their heads and look sad during the naughty events. The babies’ experiences might be cognitively empty but emotionally intense, replete with strong feelings and strong desires. But this shouldn’t strike you as an altogether alien experience: while we adults possess the additional critical capacity of being able to consciously reason about morality, we’re not otherwise that different from babies — our moral feelings are often instinctive.
The Moral Life of Babies (Published 2010)

You might think you're refuting what I'm saying, but it is not in the slightest bit convincing. To be blunt, to me, your claims are completely unsupported, and a very ill-informed and simplistic take on history, science, and theology.

Thats ironic because because they are not my claims but research evdience as linked above and beyond and that you have not once provied any evdience for your assertions. Its easy to say "everythings too complicated so we can't determine anything". That renders everything without any way to work out what is real or not. Under any reasonable account it would seem this applies more to you than me. At least I am trying to backup what I say. which I think is the only way to sort this.

 

[stevevw]

This makes no sense at all. I'm the one telling you that the link you posted when you were discussing pronouns said nothing about them. How many times do I have to show you what you actually linked!

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

That survey said the exact opposite of what you said it did. The link you refer to above likewise says nothing about pronouns. Because it's a general poll on political correctness. Which is not the topic we are discussing. Political correctness can mean anything to anyone so you need to keep on track and be specific. The discussion is about transgenderism and you said that a majority of Australians have a problem with it. None of the links you have posted say anything remotely like that.

A link that does specifically mention Australian attitudes to transgenderism is the one I gave you a few posts ago. And it directly contradicts everything you have said.

Then why does that particular quote your using say "disapproval of political correctness is a majority view". Thats the only quote I mentioned and its not the title of the article but a quote from within the article. How can that be if you claim it said nothing about political correctness. Here is the first section under the title containing the very quote I used.

Australians say 'political correctness has gone too far' — but it's complicated

More than two-thirds of Australians believe that political correctness has "gone too far" and that their fellow citizens are too easily offended.

This disapproval of political correctness is a majority view across all age groups, according to the nationally-representative Australia Talks National Survey. It is also a majority view for all income brackets, for both men and women, across white and non-white Australians and in all states and territories.

That said, the older you are, the whiter you are, the male-r, the poorer and less educated, the more likely you are to feel strongly about this, the data shows.

Among recent immigrants, for example, frustration is only felt by a slender majority — 53 per cent — while among immigrants who arrived more than 10 years ago, it's the strongest, at 69 per cent. Among people born in this country, 68 per cent agree that political correctness has gone too far.

Has 'PC gone mad'? Australians have made a call

When it comes to questions of political correctness and freedom of speech, it seems our nation is having a bet each way, writes Annabel Crabb.

www.abc.net.au

So how would I know that exact quote if it wasn't even in the one you are talking about. You have the wrong survey.

I noticed for me anyway when I go into the link you supplied it doesn't go into anything but a page about the survey itself, how its done, how they determine questions ect. So perhaps something has gone wrong with the link defaulting to its main page about the survey itself. This is the heading I get when I click into the link you said

Australia Talks can help you understand how you compare to other Australians — here's how
Here are the headings
What is Australia Talks?
Who made Australia Talks?
How does Australia Talks determine my results?
How did the ABC decide what questions to ask?

PS I just just checked the link again after I linked it again as as suspected the link after the statement I quoted does not go into any survey results but rather how the survey is structured. You need to refer to the link at the bottom of the section I copied titled Has 'PC gone mad'? Australians have made a call

It is this one I used aned it mentions nothing about pronouns.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes but all that is about how to apply the core moral sense we all have about justice, fairness, the Golden Rule, and alturism.

No, the formation of conscience is not just about application of pre-determined principles.

This is a Catholic site and I probably don't agree with them about everything, but they do explain some of this well: What does it mean to have a well-formed conscience? - Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis

NB: "our conscience can be incorrect, that it can make a mistake about what is truly the good or the right thing to do."

Your repeated quote says that "our moral feelings are often instinctive" but morality is not a function of feeling. It's a function of reason, which may be informed by our feelings.

The point is if there is a Christian God and we have the spark of the divine within us then it makes sense that the same God naturally installed in us a moral sense and the need to believe in divine concepts in seeking to have relations with Him.

It might "make sense," but it's not borne out by the evidence.

There is no such thing as a true atheist.

What was that about denial of reality...?

Not possible means you believe there are absolute truths and facts about this and yet you keep claiming these issues are more neanced and complex.

It is an absolute fact that there are no infants being observed in studies, who have not had contact with humans which would have affected their development.

Even the simply logic shows you cannot be correct.

It's simple logic that infants who are being cared for by other people, have had their development shaped by that contact.

By your logic if contact with people causes babies to have this moral sense of justice, kindness and alturism then a persons influence for any number of outcomes show show up in the findings. Such as evil and atheist influences causing the opposite sense in babies.

How would you design a study to measure the evil nature of parents, in order to control for that in studies? I'm not aware that any such differentiation has been attempted.

If you don't know this then I suggest you do some more research on it. Its not really about religion as religion is just the expression of this natural inclination to believe. Its more about the idea of some entity that is naturally believed beyond the material world that has organised things ande about disembodied entities that exist beyond the material world. This is not reduced to specific religion but a human disposition that we have from birth.

Nonetheless, my question remains. How do you gauge the beliefs in "some entity" in pre-verbal infants?

At least I am trying to backup what I say.

Perhaps. But what you're providing doesn't establish your claims. Far from it.

 

[Bradskii]

Then why does that particular quote your using say "disapproval of political correctness is a majority view". Thats the only quote I mentioned and its not the title of the article but a quote from within the article. How can that be if you claim it said nothing about political correctness. Here is the first section under the title containing the very quote I used.

Australians say 'political correctness has gone too far' — but it's complicated

More than two-thirds of Australians believe that political correctness has "gone too far" and that their fellow citizens are too easily offended.

This disapproval of political correctness is a majority view across all age groups, according to the nationally-representative Australia Talks National Survey. It is also a majority view for all income brackets, for both men and women, across white and non-white Australians and in all states and territories.

That said, the older you are, the whiter you are, the male-r, the poorer and less educated, the more likely you are to feel strongly about this, the data shows.

Among recent immigrants, for example, frustration is only felt by a slender majority — 53 per cent — while among immigrants who arrived more than 10 years ago, it's the strongest, at 69 per cent. Among people born in this country, 68 per cent agree that political correctness has gone too far.

Has 'PC gone mad'? Australians have made a call

When it comes to questions of political correctness and freedom of speech, it seems our nation is having a bet each way, writes Annabel Crabb.

www.abc.net.au

So how would I know that exact quote if it wasn't even in the one you are talking about. You have the wrong survey.

I noticed for me anyway when I go into the link you supplied it doesn't go into anything but a page about the survey itself, how its done, how they determine questions ect. So perhaps something has gone wrong with the link defaulting to its main page about the survey itself. This is the heading I get when I click into the link you said

Australia Talks can help you understand how you compare to other Australians — here's how
Here are the headings
What is Australia Talks?
Who made Australia Talks?
How does Australia Talks determine my results?
How did the ABC decide what questions to ask?

PS I just just checked the link again after I linked it again as as suspected the link after the statement I quoted does not go into any survey results but rather how the survey is structured. You need to refer to the link at the bottom of the section I copied titled Has 'PC gone mad'? Australians have made a call

It is this one I used aned it mentions nothing about pronouns.

I think you have lost the plot...

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not sure this thread ever had a coherent plot.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not sure this thread ever had a coherent plot.

You must be doing this as some sort of penance. Why I'm still involved is something I'm trying to work out.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

@Paidiske @Bradskii
I like to just go with the basics and try to figure out what everyone thinks.

Try to understand their worldview. Like if it was my job to explain it all to an alien ...

"Well, this person thinks ... ... ... and that person thinks ... ... ..."

 

[Bradskii]

@Paidiske @Bradskii
I like to just go with the basics and try to figure out what everyone thinks.

Try to understand their worldview. Like if it was my job to explain it all to an alien ...

"Well, this person thinks ... ... ... and that person thinks ... ... ..."

We already know what people in this thread think. I've no problem at all with what believe. Unless their beliefs lead to actions that I deem are detrimental to the well being of others, especially, but not including, my family and friends.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

We already know what people in this thread think. I've no problem at all with what believe. Unless their beliefs lead to actions that I deem are detrimental to the well being of others, especially, but not including, my family and friends.

fair enough