|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 4, 2020 16:32:45 GMT
What about personal choice? Is self mutilation ever an informed choice? There are people who cut their arms when they're depressed. That's a personal choice too. I'm not saying a person cannot choose to identify with a particular gender. I'm saying when it rises beyond healthy self acceptance and becomes surgery on healthy organs, it's a problem. Lemme ask you a question, let's say the human body evolved differently and people had a third arm on their shoulder and that was considered perfectly normal, however a few individuals here and there feel it doesn't "belong" there and they want it surgically removed, would you be opposed to that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 17:04:17 GMT
No great surprise. When christians talk of religious freedom, they almost always mean their freedom to oppress others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 17:28:15 GMT
yougotastewgoinbaby I would rather be "retarded" but try to live around God's moral standards the best we can Then go and exterminate a large group of children.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 4, 2020 18:04:38 GMT
Lemme ask you a question, let's say the human body evolved differently and people had a third arm on their shoulder and that was considered perfectly normal, however a few individuals here and there feel it doesn't "belong" there and they want it surgically removed, would you be opposed to that? Evolution is natural design. If it has a purpose, and normal humans have it, then it shouldn't be removed. It should certainly not be replaced with an inferior replica of another organ. A good analogy would be people with a mental illness who want a healthy limb removed. There are such people. "Evolution is natural design" Isn't that just an appeal to nature fallacy? Tumors are "naturally designed" and we typically have those removed. "If it has a purpose, and normal humans have it, then it shouldn't be removed" By your reasoning then would you be fine with men with infertility or assexual having their penis removed?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 4, 2020 20:12:43 GMT
What about personal choice? Is self mutilation ever an informed choice? There are people who cut their arms when they're depressed. That's a personal choice too. I'm not saying a person cannot choose to identify with a particular gender. I'm saying when it rises beyond healthy self acceptance and becomes surgery on healthy organs, it's a problem. I tend to agree, however I also believe in personal bodily autonomy. Therefore I don't think that an informed adult should have anyone else saying what they can and can't do to their bodies. It is like the abortion issue for me ie no-one else's business, and even tattooing which I abominate, however it's their body!
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 8, 2020 23:05:21 GMT
"Evolution is natural design" Isn't that just an appeal to nature fallacy? Tumors are "naturally designed" and we typically have those removed. "If it has a purpose, and normal humans have it, then it shouldn't be removed" By your reasoning then would you be fine with men with infertility or assexual having their penis removed? A malignant tumor is not welcome to the "normal" function of the body, it can create physical problems, both internally and externally. They can also speed up process of death. There is a rational rhyme and reason why people have the surgery they do. When something is born of a mind disorder, it is just that, born of abstract mind and has no valid or logical reasoning as to why it needs removing.
There is really no such thing as asexual. This is largely just about people who may feel they are unattractive to many. All humans are sexual in nature. There would be an exception to the rule, but it would be a very small percentage and most of these people would be highly enlightened teachers. A malignant tumor is not welcome to the "normal" function of the body, it can create physical problems, both internally and externally. They can also speed up process of death" Well I never said "malignant", now did I? People may still have want to remove unsightly nonmalignant tumors purely for cosmetic reasons (keloid ears come to mind). Again this goes back to whole "getting rid of something that doesn't feel like it belongs there" argument. "There is really no such thing as asexual. This is largely just about people who may feel they are unattractive to many. " What are you basing that on? There's been scientifitic research done on the topic, so it does appear to be a an actual thing: www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/magnetic-partners/201406/asexualitykinseyinstitute.org/pdf/PrauseGraham-Asexuality.pdf
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 8, 2020 23:34:42 GMT
A malignant tumor is not welcome to the "normal" function of the body, it can create physical problems, both internally and externally. They can also speed up process of death" Well I never said "malignant", now did I? People may still have want to remove unsightly nonmalignant tumors purely for cosmetic reasons (keloid ears come to mind). Again this goes back to whole "getting rid of something that doesn't feel like it belongs there" argument. "There is really no such thing as asexual. This is largely just about people who may feel they are unattractive to many. " What are you basing that on? There's been scientifitic research done on the topic, so it does appear to be a an actual thing: www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/magnetic-partners/201406/asexualitykinseyinstitute.org/pdf/PrauseGraham-Asexuality.pdfTumors removed for cosmetic purposes, are an anomaly. This is a completely different dynamic for cosmetic surgery and has rational reasoning, as opposed to something that doesn't need to be removed, when it is an ordinary and natural part that comes with the human anatomy.
Not interested in reading up on the hypothetical, rhetorical, academic claptrap on Asexuality. Who gives a rats! It is not important in the wider scheme of things, just like any TG's need to feel they are opposite gender to what they were born with. "Tumors removed for cosmetic purposes, are an anomaly." Well an "anomaly" based on societal expecations/norms. We generally prefer to have benign tumors removed because society considers them unattractive. Moles on the face are often considered a "beauty mark" (Cindy Crawford comes to mind) even if they are basically the same thing as benign tumor so there's often no societal expectations to have them removed. "Not interested in reading up on the hypothetical, rhetorical, academic claptrap on Asexuality" You do realize that's the same reasoning people often write off scientific studies on homosexuality as "not being a real thing and something you can choose", right?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 8, 2020 23:57:59 GMT
"Tumors removed for cosmetic purposes, are an anomaly." Well an "anomaly" based on societal expecations/norms. We generally prefer to have benign tumors removed because society considers them unattractive. Moles on the face are often considered a "beauty mark" even if they are basically the same thing as benign tumor so there's no societal expectations to have them removed. "Not interested in reading up on the hypothetical, rhetorical, academic claptrap on Asexuality" You do realize that's the same reasoning people often write off scientific studies on homosexuality as "not being a real thing and something you can choose", right? People have these benign tumors removed because they feel more confident without them. These tumors can affect "both" genders and have nothing to do with how one feels about the their genitalia, which determines if they are born in male or female package. Anything else regarding physical revulsion for the gender they were born into operates on the psychological sphere of a mind disorder. I am not conflating why "anybody" may want a tumor removed because it looks odd and is just in a sense a kind of malformity, with wanting to change ones entire sex, which no matter what one does, will not be absolutely achieved on a physical level. The rest is all fake.
People can write off what they want, but homosexuality IS a sexuality, just as heterosexuality and even bisexulity is. These things cannot be rationally disputed or argued. The rest DO NOT belong on the sexuality spectrum, because they operate on some made up drama about abstract identity only, except perhaps for Intersex, which is still not a sexuality per se. "People have these benign tumors removed because they feel more confident without them" Yes, because of the negative societal norms of tumors. If society considered them a good thing (like they do with face moles), people would probably be less likely to have them removed. "The rest DO NOT belong on the sexuality spectrum, because they operate on some made up drama about abstract identity only, except perhaps for Intersex, which is still not a sexuality per se." So you're gonna go with the Alex Jones route of saying scientific studies on these things is just some made up conspiracy? If that's what you're gonna go with, I dunno know what else to say, you're not actually interested in addressing the scientific research on these topics and just going by "feelings".
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 9, 2020 0:22:46 GMT
"People have these benign tumors removed because they feel more confident without them" Yes, because of the negative societal norms of tumors. If society considered them a good thing (like they do with face moles), people would probably be less likely to have them removed. "The rest DO NOT belong on the sexuality spectrum, because they operate on some made up drama about abstract identity only, except perhaps for Intersex, which is still not a sexuality per se." So you're gonna go with the Alex Jones route of saying scientific studies on these things is just some made up conspiracy? If that's what you're gonna go with, I dunno know what else to say, you're not actually interested in addressing the scientific research on these topics and just going by "feelings". I think people have a pretty good and general idea of what is considered normal and abnormal regarding any physical abnormalities and this just operates from the mundane spectrum.
I am not buying into feelings, that is what the psychologist realm is doing and projecting that onto some sort of distorted care spectrum. I am looking at it objectively. I don't care about the feelings of TG, because they think they are opposite gender to what they "only" want to be. Clumping anyone who is not hetero, into its own contained convoluted compartment like LGBTQI...whatever, is twisted to say the least. Why isn't hetero a part of this when this is a sexuality too?
"I think people have a pretty good and general idea of what is considered normal" Ad populum fallacy. Gotcha. You do realize what is "normal" is pretty much just societal constructs right? For instance Chinese women binding their feet to make them smaller was not only considered "normal" but also attractive, something that most modern people would consider rather unsightly. "I am looking at it objectively." No you really aren't. Do you agree science gives us the most "objective" and empirical view of reality? If you're answer is "yes" then you would be going with the scientific research on these sorts of things. But since you're not, you're obviously not looking at this "objectively" and rather just going by your own feelings.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 9, 2020 2:28:58 GMT
"I think people have a pretty good and general idea of what is considered normal" Ad populum fallacy. Gotcha. You do realize what is "normal" is pretty much just societal constructs right? For instance Chinese women binding their feet to make them smaller was not only considered "normal" but also attractive, something that most modern people would consider rather unsightly. "I am looking at it objectively." No you really aren't. Do you agree science gives us the most "objective" and empirical view of reality? If you're answer is "yes" then you would be going with the scientific research on these sorts of things. But since you're not, you're obviously not looking at this "objectively" and rather just going by your own feelings. I don’t really know what it is you are arguing for, except your own distortion of what is abstract and what is factually objective and logical regarding the reasoning behind any cosmetic surgery anyone may have. I did mention in the mundane sense and am aware that normal is a construct. I am not referring to false equivalencies as you appear to be bring up. Binding females feet was a cruel custom to pander to societal and patriarchal ideals about what was supposed to be beautiful and attractive. FGM was\is performed to keep women down and under control. Would you regard these cosmetic customs normal or acceptable? Would you regard MGM as cosmetically normal without the consent of the person it is being performed on? I cant possibly know what others feel, as to why they choose to do whatever they want to do to themselves and I can’t, or won’t be forced into feeling something out of phony virtue. I will ascertain for myself what I feel and believe is realistically rational, without rationalising for an abstract that can’t possibly be absolute, nor relatable for most. "I don’t really know what it is you are arguing for" I'm arguing what is "normal" is a social construct and the science gives us the most "objective" view of reality. That seems quite clear. "except your own distortion of what is abstract" Societal constructs are largely abstract, do you deny that? "I did mention in the mundane sense and am aware that normal is a construct." Then what was the point in saying people have a pretty good idea of "what is normal"? You seem to at least be implying the general consensus of society gives some sort of "objective" standard of normalcy. I pointed out an example (foot binding) that was considered "normal" that we now largely consider repulsive. I'm pointing out why "society has a pretty good idea of what is normal" is not a good argument. "Would you regard these cosmetic customs normal or acceptable?" No of course not, and most modern people wouldn't either. That was my point in regarding societal constructs and normalcy. "I cant possibly know what others feel" And yet you seem do that anyways ("There's no such thing as asexuality! I don't care what science says!") "I will ascertain for myself what I feel and believe is realistically rational" Yeah, you feel your position is correct rather than looking at the science/empirical evidence as I had ascertained earlier. Thanks for admitting to that.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 9, 2020 14:56:46 GMT
"I don’t really know what it is you are arguing for" I'm arguing what is "normal" is a social construct and the science gives us the most "objective" view of reality. That seems quite clear. "except your own distortion of what is abstract" Societal constructs are largely abstract, do you deny that? "I did mention in the mundane sense and am aware that normal is a construct." Then what was the point in saying people have a pretty good idea of "what is normal"? You seem to at least be implying the general consensus of society gives some sort of "objective" standard of normalcy. I pointed out an example (foot binding) that was considered "normal" that we now largely consider repulsive. I'm pointing out why "society has a pretty good idea of what is normal" is not a good argument. "Would you regard these cosmetic customs normal or acceptable?" No of course not, and most modern people wouldn't either. That was my point in regarding societal constructs and normalcy. "I cant possibly know what others feel" And yet you seem do that anyways ("There's no such thing as asexuality! I don't care what science says!") "I will ascertain for myself what I feel and believe is realistically rational" Yeah, you feel your position is correct rather than looking at the science/empirical evidence as I had ascertained earlier. Thanks for admitting to that. Normalized reasoning, as in "common sense" is key. Gender specific issues regarding sexual re-production organs which DOES determine a persons sex and what one chooses to do for cosmetic purposes which isn't related to sexual function and is genderless has a completely different dynamic. The latter is not a social construct, but one of understandable and reasonable perception. I am not going to argue semantics regarding the use of "normal" and how it fits in with construct, nor conflate gender dysphoria with rationality.
Asexuality is lack of sexual feeling, which then in turn is apparently supposed to be a lack of sexuality. Is this then tantamount to having NO sexual feeling? If they claim they have no sexual feeling, why is feeling relevant then? It is not possible for anyone else to know about this, apart from those making the claim.
Evidence regarding psych issues are only based on experience of what the mind wants to believe, it is not the same for everyone and cannot be contained. If someone has a psychological disorder regarding their discomfort with gender, how can empirical evidence be fact? Only the witnesser can attest to their own being. It is interpretation only based on behavior.
"Normalized reasoning, as in "common sense" is key." Uh no, saying something is "common sense" is a nonargument. What is often considered "common sense" is again often just societal constructs. "Negroes are genetically inferior to whites and are better off as slaves, that's just common sense!" is the same level of argumentations you would have heard during slavery in the US. Saying "that just common sense" is just intellectual laziness and tells me you don't want to construct a real argument. "Gender specific issues regarding sexual re-production organs which DOES determine a persons sex and what one chooses to do for cosmetic purposes" Sex (biological) and gender(societal) are two different things, I know this the common bait and switch you guys like to do. I would suggest looking into getting your info on gender by someone other than Jordan Peterson or wherever you're getting your info from. "I am not going to argue semantics regarding the use of "normal" and how it fits in with construct," No it's not "semantics" you were trying argue some object standard/common sense criteria for what is "normal" and you couldn't actually do it because "normal" is largely just a societal/abstract construct and not based on some objective truth/natural order that you keep trying to hammer in. "It is not possible for anyone else to know about this" Well no actually it is, brain scans can actually point to areas of arousal and how it reacts when shown erotic pictures. Do you really think scientists/psycholigists with their years of studying and degrees just pulled "asexuality" out of their ass? Again this is Alex Jones level absurdity.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 9, 2020 20:22:46 GMT
Intersexed is a real physical condition which may require surgery. But most transgender folks are NOT intersexed. Most have normal genitals like others of their birth sex. I have a real problem with the government and the medical establishment sanctioning castration and genital mutilation. It's like we've returned to the middle ages. I have a real problem with the government and the medical establishment sanctioning castration and genital mutilation. It's like we've returned to the middle ages.Then you should have a problem with any cosmetic surgery. If a transgendered person...and not all transsexuals are gay and lesbian...chooses reassignment surgery (and not all do) then it’s to reconstruct their bodies to fit what they believe their gender is. If a trans-male wants his breasts removed to closer fit how a male chest looks, how is this mutilation? Is it mutilation when women get breast augmentation to further feminize herself? And there are males, otherwise cisgendered, who will also have breast tissue removed to further masculinize their chests. As in everything, including religion, I believe in personal choice and autonomy in these matters as long as the person is an adult ( or at least age of reason and understanding) and doesn't harm or infringe the rights of anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 10, 2020 13:58:32 GMT
"Normalized reasoning, as in "common sense" is key." Uh no, saying something is "common sense" is a nonargument. What is often considered "common sense" is again often just societal constructs. "Negroes are genetically inferior to whites and are better off as slaves, that's just common sense!" is the same level of argumentations you would have heard during slavery in the US. Saying "that just common sense" is just intellectual laziness and tells me you don't want to construct a real argument. "Gender specific issues regarding sexual re-production organs which DOES determine a persons sex and what one chooses to do for cosmetic purposes" Sex (biological) and gender(societal) are two different things, I know this the common bait and switch you guys like to do. I would suggest looking into getting your info on gender by someone other than Jordan Peterson or wherever you're getting your info from. "I am not going to argue semantics regarding the use of "normal" and how it fits in with construct," No it's not "semantics" you were trying argue some object standard/common sense criteria for what is "normal" and you couldn't actually do it because "normal" is largely just a societal/abstract construct and not based on some objective truth/natural order that you keep trying to hammer in. "It is not possible for anyone else to know about this" Well no actually it is, brain scans can actually point to areas of arousal and how it reacts when shown erotic pictures. Do you really think scientists/psycholigists with their years of studying and degrees just pulled "asexuality" out of their ass? Again this is Alex Jones level absurdity. People will identify with what is accustomed comprehension and acceptance of why someone would chose to elect a cosmetic procedure, with which you then place false equivalencies of "idealist propaganda" to make a distorted point about what the construct of societal "normalization" is supposed to represent. You are making a strawman out of your own ideal of "normal" and appear to think it all belongs within the same box, which is absurd. Gender reassignment surgery DOES NOT operate on the same sphere and what a TG experiences in life, is only a "delusion" that they can identify with. This is something that possibly cannot be expected to be recognized or grasped by the vast majority of those that DO accept their physical gender\sex identity.
It is only psychological claptrap to claim gender is fluid. Gender specific traits can be more pronounced or attributed to a certain individual, but this is just born out of manner and one will still be either the physical sex package of male or female. This will never change. The gender paradox lies within mind only and is not real, because whatever a TG may think they are today, there is always the possibility that they could always change their mind about who they are tomorrow. Research findings are just based on patterns being formed that will never be complete or an absolute. Even if TG does have similar traits observed in female patent behavior, (or male if biologically female), it does not change the "authentic" quality of the body that the brain is actually functioning. TG is still not a genuine persona of the opposite gender and never will be. It is fake.
"You are making a strawman out of your own ideal of "normal" I don't think you know what "strawman" mean (you can't strawman yourself). What you're probably thinking of is a Motte and Bailey fallacy (bait and switch) which is actually what you keep doing by conflating sex and gender. "It is only psychological claptrap to claim gender is fluid." Yeah again, you don't like the actual science/research/facts so you ignore them and go by "feelings". You're using the same reasoning Creationists use to write off paleontology and carbon dating ("It's just a bunch scientific claptrap!") "Gender specific traits can be more pronounced or attributed to a certain individual, but this is just born out of manner and one will still be either the physical sex package of male or female. This will never change." Again you are conflating sex with gender, these are two different things. I've already addressed this. Why are you being so dissinegous? "Research findings are just based on patterns being formed that will never be complete or an absolute." No, they're also based on brain scans. We can clearly see what's going on in someone's brain and how they react to stimuli. "TG is still not a genuine persona of the opposite gender and never will be. It is fake. " I'm gonna ask you again (and please actually answer) do you think all those psycoloigsts with their years of studying and fancy degrees are just puling asexuality and gender studies out of their ass and you some how have the correct answer? And if you're answer if yes, keep in mind you're essentially using the same reasoning as Creationists and climate change deniers,
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Apr 2, 2020 17:00:14 GMT
Conservative Christians are retarded.
Even if that's true, at least we don't oppose God like the godless left does. so who really wins and loses in the long term?
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Apr 2, 2020 17:06:50 GMT
This kinda makes me wonder how much longer the GOP is gonna keep pandering to evangelicals as the population keeps getting less and less religious. Hell the last election was even kind of a predictor of things to come, the GOP could have nominated religious fundamentalists like Cruz or Carson, instead they go with a guy that I doubt could even cite a single quote from the Bible and cheats on his wife with porn stars. So much for being the party of "Christian values".
Your missing the big picture... at the very least Trump does not oppose Christianity like the left does in general. hence, he's the safer choice for Christians by default. that's why Christians who take it a bit more seriously default to Republican, especially in today's world where the left is going too far left towards insanity. the left favors disorder over order.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 2, 2020 17:18:47 GMT
This kinda makes me wonder how much longer the GOP is gonna keep pandering to evangelicals as the population keeps getting less and less religious. Hell the last election was even kind of a predictor of things to come, the GOP could have nominated religious fundamentalists like Cruz or Carson, instead they go with a guy that I doubt could even cite a single quote from the Bible and cheats on his wife with porn stars. So much for being the party of "Christian values".
Your missing the big picture... at the very least Trump does not oppose Christianity like the left does in general. hence, he's the safer choice for Christians by default. that's why Christians who take it a bit more seriously default to Republican, especially in today's world where the left is going too far left towards insanity. the left favors disorder over order.
You think the Trump White House is more "orderly" than the preceeding administration? If you think that your delusion extends much further than your religious views.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 17:23:29 GMT
Conservative 'Christians' are arseholes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 17:23:55 GMT
This kinda makes me wonder how much longer the GOP is gonna keep pandering to evangelicals as the population keeps getting less and less religious. Hell the last election was even kind of a predictor of things to come, the GOP could have nominated religious fundamentalists like Cruz or Carson, instead they go with a guy that I doubt could even cite a single quote from the Bible and cheats on his wife with porn stars. So much for being the party of "Christian values".
Your missing the big picture... at the very least Trump does not oppose Christianity like the left does in general. hence, he's the safer choice for Christians by default. that's why Christians who take it a bit more seriously default to Republican, especially in today's world where the left is going too far left towards insanity. the left favors disorder over order.
STFU!
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 2, 2020 17:54:33 GMT
This kinda makes me wonder how much longer the GOP is gonna keep pandering to evangelicals as the population keeps getting less and less religious. Hell the last election was even kind of a predictor of things to come, the GOP could have nominated religious fundamentalists like Cruz or Carson, instead they go with a guy that I doubt could even cite a single quote from the Bible and cheats on his wife with porn stars. So much for being the party of "Christian values".
Your missing the big picture... at the very least Trump does not oppose Christianity like the left does in general. hence, he's the safer choice for Christians by default. that's why Christians who take it a bit more seriously default to Republican, especially in today's world where the left is going too far left towards insanity. the left favors disorder over order.
Even going by your standards of "Christianity" you do realize Trump has flip flopped on things like gay marriage and abortion over the years? Hell he waived an LGBT flag at a GOP rally. Do you actually believe in anything other than partisan hackery? "the left favors disorder over order." Name me on example
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Apr 3, 2020 0:22:37 GMT
Conservative Christians are retarded.
Even if that's true, at least we don't oppose God like the godless left does. so who really wins and loses in the long term?
Conservative Christians oppose god more than the godless left does. You’ve replaced love for life and your fellow man with hatred and fear.
|
|