When two worldviews collide.

[Aaron112]

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

I just looked back a little further , for no particular reason,

you touched on those who do harm when you were discussing medical.... and that is a very large group in and of itself, but very very small when compared to those who
have done harm, even death, on purpose, for religious reasons, and who thought it was actually them doing something good for <a> god ?

i.e. harm when excused is okay. jonn wane shotting people as long as they "drew first" is okay - a bad example for anyone, especially little children , youngsters or teens.

 

[Aaron112]

Maybe it is good when things cause 'harm'.
Like a surgeon who must "do harm' before the healing can happen.
I have had medical procedures that hurt a lot... but help much more.

In medical school some years ago, the students were all taught that nine out of ten medical procedures, including surgery, were un-needed, not necessary, and offered either because of the opportunity to get more money, and/or because the patient was expecting something and so the protocol was to provide them with something , even if it was not something necessary for their health at all, nor their well-being.

If you are doing something harmful then stop doing it. I mean...who on earth could argue against that?

Compare that question to the next.

'Do you think people should do things that cause harm' then 75% of people would say yes?

Notice there is someone doing something harmful in the first statement question,
then only "should"they do harm in the second quoted post.
Those who do harm, as in the first, don't care that it is causing harm if they are doing it for money, or for protocol, or for some other reason that they have instead of starting with let's do what's right for the person.

For the second , a lot of people might say YEAH! they have that right if they want to to cause harm, if not - well, if there is a good enough reason to cause harm, even to kill, then it is okay....

oy.... earthlings are not usually doing what is best for others. Causing harm is universally accepted as long as a good enough reason is given, for many if not most people.

Colour me confused.

Nah. The world is so topsy-turvy, who is there who is not either confused or unthinking/ naive ? (not innocent but not thinking things out)

 

[stevevw]

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

You miss the point. It doesn't matter what we in the West think because the idea of relative morality is that even though we know its wrong we have to tolerate other cultures moral perspective. It may be that the culture believes that the short term hurt is worth it because the long term good it does in saving that persons soul. Remembering that belief practices don't always conform to Western rationality.

Besides several nations within the West still practice circumcision including the US. So it seems hypocritical that the West can declare another nation morally wrong for doing the same thing except with females.

Just a reminder that I disagree but am making the case for relative morality. The point is even if we in the West can know its wrong and even barbaric according to relative morality it should be tolerated because there is no moral truth. The West declaring that another culture is harming people due to their moral practices is only declaring the Wests moral truth and not another cultures moral truth.

 

[stevevw]

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

I agree but that is not the point with moral relativism. What you think is harm in many situations is either not seen as harm or is an acceptable harm because it is part of their belief in a greater good.

If we look at all the things the West think is harm like say women wearing Burkas, disallowing SSM, or homosexuality, women being subserviant, harsh penalties for behaviours we would think are too severe, and other tribal practices we would consider wrong we would be then making entire cultures give up their culture. That is classed as imperialism, the same imperialism.

It may be that some cultyures think Trans care is immoral. Heck people in our own culture think Trans care model is harmful and barbaric. Who is right and who is wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

You miss the point. It doesn't matter what we in the West think because the idea of relative morality is that even though we know its wrong we have to tolerate other cultures moral perspective.

No we don't. Not if it causes harm. If a woman actually wants to wear a hajib or even a burqua then that's her right. If she wants to share her husband with other wives then that's not a problem. But if she wants her daughter's genitals sliced off with a knife then that isn't acceptable.

Arguing for the concept of a relative morality doesn't mean that you must accept anything at all. Has someone told you that it does?

 

[stevevw]

You can't force someone to use them.

If you can't force people and therefore disagreeing is a legitimate moral position then why do many attack and condemn people who disagree. Why do some lose their jobs for not using pronouns. Is attacking people for disagreeing not being Curteous.

But the vast majority of people (and I've given you the facts as that relates to Australia) have no problem with using them and no doubt would consider it common courtesy. In that case then being discourteous in a work environment would be frowned on. In any social situation you will be judged as to how you treat others and will be treated yourself accordingly.

So do you think in this case that knowing the facts about what pronouns represent is important for making an informed decision about whether it is good or not matters.

Some people think celebrating kids being drag queens is showing courtesy. But that doesn't mean its a good thing. People are often swayed in supporting something because they don't understand the deeper implications and on the surface being curteous is noble. Many people also feel something is wrong but go along for fear of being made out to be a trouble maker in these situations.

But arguements for why pronouns are actually harmful can be made and I am sure people would then disagree with pronouns.

Also if we take your logic that the majority agree with pronouns equals it being morally good this doesn't in itself make it good. The majority agreed that taking kids from their culture and placing them with white families was good and it turned out it was bad.

Also the majority of people disagree that a man can become a women and teaching this. So how does that fit with the majoirty supporting pronouns. This seems to be a contradiction. It seems to show that people are agreeing with pronouns while not connecting these two contradictory positions on the same issue.

 

[Bradskii]

If you can't force people and therefore disagreeing is a legitimate moral position then why do many attack and condemn people who disagree.

Because it's basic courtesy. If I was having a bbq and you were discourteous to a guest then I'd ask you to leave. Simple as that.

So do you think in this case that knowing the facts about what pronouns represent is important for making an informed decision about whether it is good or not matters.

It represents how someone would like to be addressed. Again, it's basic courtesy.

But arguements for why pronouns are actually harmful can be made and I am sure people would then disagree with pronouns.

You are free to attempt that.

Also if we take your logic that the majority agree with pronouns equals it being morally good this doesn't in itself make it good.

That's not my logic. That is something you've just made up. The majority of people are courteous. Because it's bad being discourteous.

Also the majority of people disagree that a man can become a women and teaching this.

That would be true unfortunately if you were a Republican. But overall, less than a third think it's a bad thing. Deep partisan divide on whether greater acceptance of transgender people is good for society

And you just told me that being in a majority doesn't make something good or bad purely on that basis. So basing a moral position by saying a majority disagree is contradicting your own position.

 

[Kylie]

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

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

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

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

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

I'm fairly certain people looked on murder as being bad long before Christianity was around.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm fairly certain people looked on murder as being bad long before Christianity was around.

In western culture, the social construction of murder has been shaped heavily by Christian anthropology. For instance, in some cultures, honor killing isn't considered murder.

 

[Bradskii]

In western culture, the social construction of murder has been shaped heavily by Christian anthropology. For instance, in some cultures, honor killing isn't considered murder.

I'm not sure that we want to talk about biblical cultures and what was acceptable then. And not just acceptable to God but actually done in His name. We have to pick a lot of cherries to get to a sense of morality that might be acceptable in these here more enlightened times.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not sure that we want to talk about biblical cultures and what was acceptable then. And not just acceptable to God but actually done in His name. We have to pick a lot of cherries to get to a sense of morality that might be acceptable in these here more enlightened times.

The Christian moral tradition is bigger than just a simple biblical fundamentalist hermeneutic.

I'm not arguing even that the Christian moral tradition should be normative or accepted uncritically. However, it's ridiculous to say that it has had no influence on peoples sense of morality.

 

[Bradskii]

The Christian moral tradition is bigger than just a simple biblical fundamentalist hermeneutic.

I'm not arguing even that the Christian moral tradition should be normative or accepted uncritically. However, it's ridiculous to say that it has had no influence on peoples sense of morality.

But I don't think that 'Do not kill' came as much of a surprise to anyone. Well, except those who were keen on stoning women and homosexuals.

 

[FireDragon76]

But I don't think that 'Do not kill' came as much of a surprise to anyone. Well, except those who were keen on stoning women and homosexuals.

Christians have never advocated stoning women or homosexuals. The death penalty for homosexual acts was rare in Christian countries until after the Protestant reformation.

 

[Bradskii]

Christians have never advocated stoning women or homosexuals. The death penalty for homosexual acts was rare in Christian countries until after the Protestant reformation.

Leviticus certainly says they should be put to death. And even the NT says they deserve death in Romans 1:32.

 

[FireDragon76]

Leviticus certainly says they should be put to death. And even the NT says they deserve death in Romans 1:32.

It's a question of hermeneutics and understanding the Bible in its historical context.

Romans 1:32 is part of a rhetorical argument by Paul and I don't see it as prescriptive.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm fairly certain people looked on murder as being bad long before Christianity was around.

What exactly is and isn't murder has varied from culture to culture.

 

[Bradskii]

It's a question of hermeneutics and understanding the Bible in its historical context.

Romans 1:32 is part of a rhetorical argument by Paul and I don't see it as prescriptive.

I'd say that everything in the bible is open to interpretation. But we both know that a lot of people take everything literally.

 

[stevevw]

Because it's basic courtesy. If I was having a bbq and you were discourteous to a guest then I'd ask you to leave. Simple as that.

But surely this issue extends beyond courtesy. People don't just go along with everything to be courteous. We have to decern whether its worthy of courtesy. Usually people hang with likeminded people so its rarely challenged. Others may keep quiet about their opinions so not to cause problems which I guess is being courteous.

But the question arises at what point do you have to surpress your views to be courteous. The very idea of free speech means sometimes being offensive. Should people have to deny their own views to the point that their views are then lost at the expense of being courteous.

What one person thinks is courteous another may think its being harmful. So surely just disagreeing is not only about being discourteous. I think theres a time and place where disagreement should be allowed. Perhaps not in a social context but certainly when discussing Trans issues on a wider social, political and moral basis.

It represents how someone would like to be addressed. Again, it's basic courtesy.

Yes maybe on a social situation. But I think if people understood the the issue then they are better informed to make decisions about whether this courtesy is actually doing more harm than good.

I mean we don't extend courtesy for every persons self felt beliefs because sometimes that is harmful and dangerous to go along with.

You are free to attempt that.

I will answer this with a seperate post as its an issue that deserves to be discussed on its own.

That's not my logic. That is something you've just made up. The majority of people are courteous. Because it's bad being discourteous.

You used a poll to prove that the majority of people support pronouns. If your arguement was that its only based on being courteous then you would not need to use a poll showing people argree.

Also if its about being courteousis disallowing people to disagree with pronouns thus denying their freedom of speech, belief and conscience being discourteous.

That would be true unfortunately if you were a Republican. But overall, less than a third think it's a bad thing. Deep partisan divide on whether greater acceptance of transgender people is good for society

Thats got nothing to do with the issue of whether a male can be a female in reality. This is an issue about objective reality. Most people disagree that a male can participate in female sports, enter womens spaces and teach children that they can change sex.

The reason I specified the issue of whether a man can become a women is because this has practical implications such as in sports and change rooms rather than ideological ones. It actually applies the reality of Trans ideology to real life situations which exposes the reality of the ideology and on this count the majority think a trans women is not a real women.

Most Americans oppose including trans athletes in sports, poll finds
Nearly 70% of U.S. adults say transgender athletes should be allowed to compete only on sports teams that correspond with the sexes they were assigned at birth, Gallup found.

Most Americans oppose including trans athletes in sports, poll finds

Nearly 70% of U.S. adults say transgender athletes should be allowed to compete only on sports teams that correspond with the sexes they were assigned at birth, Gallup found.

www.nbcnews.com

In fact your survey reveals an interesting aspect about democrates and repulicans about ideology rather than reality. A very high % of Democrates support Trans based on ideological beliefs.
By ideology, the differences are even more dramatic. Three-quarters of liberal Democrats say greater acceptance of transgender people has been good for society.

And you just told me that being in a majority doesn't make something good or bad purely on that basis. So basing a moral position by saying a majority disagree is contradicting your own position.

Agreement or disagreement on their own does equate to right or wrong. But when there is other support then its a different story. So when it comes to agreement that a male cannot become a female and this should not be taught or forced on sports and womens change room we have additional evidence to support that agreement which is from real life experience and biological scientific fact. Unlike agreement based on likes or dislikes and ideological beliefs.

 

[Kylie]

In western culture, the social construction of murder has been shaped heavily by Christian anthropology. For instance, in some cultures, honor killing isn't considered murder.

This does not address my point at all.

Can you show that no society ever though murder was bad until the advent of Christianity? Yes or no please.

 

[Kylie]

What exactly is and isn't murder has varied from culture to culture.

So you go from claiming that Christianity has created the idea that murder is wrong to now claiming that the definition of murder is so vague and nebulous that it can mean anything?

Have you ever considered a career in politics? I can see that logic there. "No, there is definitely no budget emergency. Of course, if you say 'emergency' it could mean anything, so you'd have to tell me exactly what you mean by 'budget emergency'..."