gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Nov 28, 2020 7:57:55 GMT
My bad. It's late at night here. Women can ogle a man and if they're strong then they can get away with it, especially if it's just one or two men. That's what I should have said. Women's restrooms have the privacy of stalls, though it's a different story if there's showers. I think that there's a better case for using regular restrooms than showers for that reason. Me personally, anyone can use the bathroom I'm in if they want. I hope all of this works out in a way that will be satisfactory for the majority and in a way where everyone will feels safe and un-threatened. I don't see that happening anytime soon though. I am basically just an observer, but I sympathize with both sides on certain issues. I don't sympathize with anyone who wants to remove the basic rights of transgender adults though. Alright. Fair enough. I don't have all the answers either, obviously. I suppose that if reality always worked out perfectly then there would wouldn't be very many possible worlds to live in.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 28, 2020 8:01:34 GMT
Me personally, anyone can use the bathroom I'm in if they want. I hope all of this works out in a way that will be satisfactory for the majority and in a way where everyone will feels safe and un-threatened. I don't see that happening anytime soon though. I am basically just an observer, but I sympathize with both sides on certain issues. I don't sympathize with anyone who wants to remove the basic rights of transgender adults though. Alright. Fair enough. I don't have all the answers either, obviously. I suppose that if reality always worked out perfectly then there would wouldn't be very many possible worlds to live in. I assume you mean social worlds and not literal worlds.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 28, 2020 8:10:02 GMT
That isn't what I am talking about. Any adult person can do whatever they want to their body. Are you on the Asperger's scale? I am.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 28, 2020 8:27:58 GMT
That isn't what I am talking about. Any adult person can do whatever they want to their body. Are you on the Asperger's scale? What gave me away? Assuming you haven't seen me blatantly pointing it out and explaining Asperger's in great detail in other threads.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Nov 28, 2020 8:32:27 GMT
Alright. Fair enough. I don't have all the answers either, obviously. I suppose that if reality always worked out perfectly then there would wouldn't be very many possible worlds to live in. I assume you mean social worlds and not literal worlds. I meant 'worlds as in worlds as they exist and as they develop over time' like real universes, the place of beings within them and how most worlds wouldn't exist if perfection were the goal. What I should have said was this: If the world were in perfect harmony then there would be no point in living in it because imperfection provides meaning to choice and if there were a perfect way to live then we wouldn't have that choice as things would have to work in an ideal way and thus rob us of all the possibilities that only living the imperfect majority of lives would entail. The only reason we need exist is that so we can decide between multiple imperfect situations to paint an unideal picture in order to provide one of many situations that must exist simply to add one more less than ideal addition to the total spectrum of possibilities. If everything worked out perfectly, then the majority of worlds would not exist. If there were a convenient solution to most of our problems then there would be no need for our reality to play them out and give the paths we take in this universe direction. I don't know if I stated that as well as I could have, and the idea is harder to explain than I realized but to bottom line it: Most possible universes are bad to varying degrees and our choice between imperfect situations gives our lives a sort of purpose that a perfect universe with choices that worked well for everybody wouldn't have.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 28, 2020 8:35:11 GMT
I assume you mean social worlds and not literal worlds. I meant 'worlds as in worlds as they exist and as they develop over time' like real universes, the place of beings within them and how most worlds wouldn't exist if perfection were the goal. What I should have said was this: If the world were in perfect harmony then there would be no point in living in it because imperfection provides meaning to choice and if there were a perfect way to live then we wouldn't have that choice as things would have to work in an ideal way and thus rob us of all the possibilities that only living the imperfect majority of lives would entail. The only reason we need exist is that so we can decide between multiple imperfect situations to paint an unideal picture in order to provide one of many situations that must exist simply to add one more less than ideal addition to the total spectrum of possibilities. If everything worked out perfectly, then the majority of worlds would not exist. If there were a convenient solution to most of our problems then there would be no need for our reality to play them out and give the paths we take in this universe direction. I don't know if I stated that as well as I could have, and the idea is harder to explain than I realized but to bottom line it: Most possible universes are bad to varying degrees and our choice between imperfect situations gives our lives a sort of purpose that a perfect universe with choices that worked well for everybody wouldn't have. I don't know what to make of any of that. Reads like a lot of word salad to me. I am only aware of one world.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 28, 2020 8:39:04 GMT
I assume you mean social worlds and not literal worlds. I meant 'worlds as in worlds as they exist and as they develop over time' like real universes, the place of beings within them and how most worlds wouldn't exist if perfection were the goal. What I should have said was this: If the world were in perfect harmony then there would be no point in living in it because imperfection provides meaning to choice and if there were a perfect way to live then we wouldn't have that choice as things would have to work in an ideal way and thus rob us of all the possibilities that only living the imperfect majority of lives would entail. The only reason we need exist is that so we can decide between multiple imperfect situations to paint an unideal picture in order to provide one of many situations that must exist simply to add one more less than ideal addition to the total spectrum of possibilities. If everything worked out perfectly, then the majority of worlds would not exist. If there were a convenient solution to most of our problems then there would be no need for our reality to play them out and give the paths we take in this universe direction. I don't know if I stated that as well as I could have, and the idea is harder to explain than I realized but to bottom line it: Most possible universes are bad to varying degrees and our choice between imperfect situations gives our lives a sort of purpose that a perfect universe with choices that worked well for everybody wouldn't have. Pick one section and then I can address one thing at a time.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 28, 2020 8:51:15 GMT
What gave me away? Assuming you haven't seen me blatantly pointing it out and explaining Asperger's in great detail in other threads. The way you phrase your answers. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 28, 2020 9:44:40 GMT
This is how delusional wing-nut preacher, evangelical activist, and former Colorado state legislator Gordon Klingenschmitt described some big changes coming to the military under the incoming presidency of Joe Biden. According to Klingenschmitt, female solders and students will be “forced to share common showers and rooms with cross-dressing men or boys with male anatomy, within hours of Biden’s inauguration.” Within hours, mind. He goes on, “Christian troops who object to sharing co-ed showers and bunks with opposite gender anatomy will be vilified as ‘discriminators’ and punished, demoted, discharged or court-martialed. Mark my words. The devil wants an atheist army for the Antichrist, soon.”Where do we sign up? I remember those co-ed showers in "Starship Troopers." Looked good to me. What exactly are you intending to do in the shower? If you have a penis, why can't you take a shower in the stall for people with penises? If you don't why can't you take a shower in the stall for people who don't? It seems to me you need to realize that taking a shower involves no sexual activity. The Biden victory by no means indicates that "transgender" is a meaningful term. The proper term is "delusional." In the shower it really doesn't matter what your delusions are, providing do not stand too close. The Democratic Party has a long history of helping the different and underprivileged and perhaps even transgressors avoid mistreatment. It is a tragic mistake for them to believe that means the rest of the world is going to have to play along with the sexual delusions of others. Your ignorance of all science including psychology is going to be reviewed, that's all. Some of your findings will have to be overturned.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Nov 29, 2020 0:11:05 GMT
I meant 'worlds as in worlds as they exist and as they develop over time' like real universes, the place of beings within them and how most worlds wouldn't exist if perfection were the goal. What I should have said was this: If the world were in perfect harmony then there would be no point in living in it because imperfection provides meaning to choice and if there were a perfect way to live then we wouldn't have that choice as things would have to work in an ideal way and thus rob us of all the possibilities that only living the imperfect majority of lives would entail. The only reason we need exist is that so we can decide between multiple imperfect situations to paint an unideal picture in order to provide one of many situations that must exist simply to add one more less than ideal addition to the total spectrum of possibilities. If everything worked out perfectly, then the majority of worlds would not exist. If there were a convenient solution to most of our problems then there would be no need for our reality to play them out and give the paths we take in this universe direction. I don't know if I stated that as well as I could have, and the idea is harder to explain than I realized but to bottom line it: Most possible universes are bad to varying degrees and our choice between imperfect situations gives our lives a sort of purpose that a perfect universe with choices that worked well for everybody wouldn't have. Pick one section and then I can address one thing at a time. Our choices are made purposeful through the imperfections of our reality where many decisions have consequences where each choice is less than ideal. If our choices had no imperfect consequences then why make them at all? You could just decide everything through the flip of a coin and there would be no need to weigh pros and cons in a decision making process. Start there.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 29, 2020 19:16:15 GMT
It's not a scientific idea as much as an existential one. One can make a scientific argument for it but it really depends how you define gender in the first place which is obviously beyond the purview of science. Is gender just a matter of chromosomes? Well then you can't change gender. But if you define gender more broadly to include appearance, genitalia, clothing, behaviours etc then all these things can indeed be changed and there are strong reasons for preferring that definition of gender (we can't tell someone's chromosomes by looking at them). There's also scientific analysis to suggest transgender people exhibit brain patterns more typical of the gender they claim to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2020 19:39:18 GMT
That's an interesting point that women who might not feel safe might have the last word. But what if the transgender person is used to going into their preferred restroom, having done so for years and feels uncomfortable going into the other one? While there is the fear of a person with male genitalia interacting with a woman against their will, the truth is that a cisgender man can attack a man in a men's restroom or a cisgender woman attack a woman in a women's restroom, or a particularly strong transman could assault a cisgender man in a men's restroom. You get the picture. In spite of all that, nobody objects that a particularly strong person uses the restroom at the same time as somebody physically weaker, you see what I mean? I am talking about men who can now pretend just to use the women's shower and bathroom. That can't be done with the normal way things are. Do I think this is likely? Not very, but it is cause for some concern imo. I am not talking about attacks, I am talking about creepsters who just want to watch women undress and naked and if they can just say they are trans then it would be very easy. So basically I think the rule should be that only someone with full surgery should be able to take a shower with women. As a man I don't care who uses the men's bathroom. I don't see an issue with gays or trans in any military. Gays have been in the military in different countries for centuries. Alexander the Great was gay.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 29, 2020 20:17:59 GMT
I am talking about men who can now pretend just to use the women's shower and bathroom. That can't be done with the normal way things are. Do I think this is likely? Not very, but it is cause for some concern imo. I am not talking about attacks, I am talking about creepsters who just want to watch women undress and naked and if they can just say they are trans then it would be very easy. So basically I think the rule should be that only someone with full surgery should be able to take a shower with women. As a man I don't care who uses the men's bathroom. I don't see an issue with gays or trans in any military. Gays have been in the military in different countries for centuries. Alexander the Great was gay. Are you paying attention here? Keep up. I didn't say I have a problem with trans people in the military.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2020 21:32:10 GMT
I don't see an issue with gays or trans in any military. Gays have been in the military in different countries for centuries. Alexander the Great was gay. Are you paying attention here? Keep up. I didn't say I have a problem with trans people in the military. I know that. I am 100% agreeing with you.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 29, 2020 21:52:57 GMT
Are you paying attention here? Keep up. I didn't say I have a problem with trans people in the military. I know that. I am 100% agreeing with you. I apologize. I did the thing I thought you were doing. I misread your comment as taking what I said and coming to the wrong conclusion that I don't support trans people in the military. In fact, here is an open invitation for anybody to give a legit and well warranted reason as to why trans people shouldn't be able to serve in the military. The shower concern is relatively minor and I feel is something that can be easily dealt with. I am very glad that you came back with a nicer response than I gave.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Nov 29, 2020 22:04:48 GMT
It's not a scientific idea as much as an existential one. One can make a scientific argument for it but it really depends how you define gender in the first place which is obviously beyond the purview of science. Is gender just a matter of chromosomes? Well then you can't change gender. But if you define gender more broadly to include appearance, genitalia, clothing, behaviours etc then all these things can indeed be changed and there are strong reasons for preferring that definition of gender (we can't tell someone's chromosomes by looking at them). There's also scientific analysis to suggest transgender people exhibit brain patterns more typical of the gender they claim to be. Well if scientists can determine that someone with Klinefelter's syndrome is a male then why can't they define what gender is? I heard but forgot about the brain patterns being different in at least some of the cases. According to a Scientific American article there are different studies with different conclusions on transgender people's brains. One said that they're more like the brain of the cisgendered brains of their decided gender, one says that they're in between, and one says that there's unique brain characteristics shared by transgender people. My view was based off of chromosomes and the ability to procreate. I hadn't taken into account the prenatal development and how it shapes individuals closer towards one sex's characteristics and the other. I think that the author of the article has too many preconceptions when they say "Simply put, the idea of a sexual binary isn't scientifically useful and nowhere is this more obvious than in the brain." There may be many characteristics that can be shared between males and females but they still have different chromosomes and different gonads and reproductive roles. I think that if they made a distinction between procreation roles and resemblance to others in hormones and the like, there may be a case but I still think that we should distinguish between their brain and body's behavior and their sexual capabilities.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 29, 2020 22:14:25 GMT
Pick one section and then I can address one thing at a time. Our choices are made purposeful through the imperfections of our reality where many decisions have consequences where each choice is less than ideal. If our choices had no imperfect consequences then why make them at all? You could just decide everything through the flip of a coin and there would be no need to weigh pros and cons in a decision making process. Start there. The world is what it is and we can only act according to the facts of reality. You were talking about "other worlds" or something and that is where I get lost. I would argue that many of our "choices" aren't actually choices, but are pre-determined. My view is that you are trying to make this sound more deep than it actually is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2020 22:18:10 GMT
I know that. I am 100% agreeing with you. I apologize. I did the thing I thought you were doing. I misread your comment as taking what I said and coming to the wrong conclusion that I don't support trans people in the military. In fact, here is an open invitation for anybody to give a legit and well warranted reason as to why trans people shouldn't be able to serve in the military. The shower concern is relatively minor and I feel is something that can be easily dealt with. I am very glad that you came back with a nicer response than I gave. All good.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Nov 30, 2020 0:12:49 GMT
Our choices are made purposeful through the imperfections of our reality where many decisions have consequences where each choice is less than ideal. If our choices had no imperfect consequences then why make them at all? You could just decide everything through the flip of a coin and there would be no need to weigh pros and cons in a decision making process. Start there. The world is what it is and we can only act according to the facts of reality. You were talking about "other worlds" or something and that is where I get lost. I would argue that many of our "choices" aren't actually choices, but are pre-determined. My view is that you are trying to make this sound more deep than it actually is. It's a little bit complicated. Freedom of choice is real in a way because you can clearly steer yourself to do something new even if it is all predetermined. There are, of course, choices that we make without deliberating very much but I'm thinking more of the ones where we do. I didn't mean to make it sound deep but I have a very formal way of talking. My idea is basically the philosophical equivalent of a goldilocks zone. The first thing I meant was that if it were necessary to always have a perfect choice then our reality wouldn't exist. The reason I was referring to the 'material' reality and not the 'social' one is that all of our social predicaments are a reflection of the underlying material reality. If you want to see where I'm coming from when I say that if it weren't for imperfect choices then our reality wouldn't exist, read Stanislaw Lem's Golem XIV story. Our whole human and animal existence is a chemical response to the overabundance of oxygen created as waste by photosynthesizing bacteria. if we lived in a more just ecosystem we would get our energy from the sun and our bodies would be made from minerals gotten directly from the soil. Our whole existence is a result of life evolving to adapt to the limitations set by previous life on Earth which evolved without the intellect to shape the earth's ecosystem on the whole . I don't know if there is another actual reality where things work out easier than ours but I need to make a comparison to something. All I wanted to say is that IF there is a more orderly existence without tough choices like between preserving wildlife's habitat or mining metals from a mountain, that we would either be forced to choose only an ideal choice or we would choose between equally fine choices such as picking between life on one of two different identical star systems which have different geographies but both support life and no matter which place you chose to live you'd be happy all the time and live an equally long time. Can I say for certain that such a thing is somehow 'wrong'? No, only that from a perspective of choice that it seems rather boring because there's either a right way to do something and thus an ideal state of being that one can only disobey or there's no significant choices to be made at all and thus that our reality being so non-ideal makes it more appealing to live in in a certain dis-attached ironic way because it gives our life a character that only imperfection can. There was something else I wanted to say but it slipped my mind and this seems to cover it about as well as I can manage. When I said "many possible worlds to live in" take it like this: There would only be a universe where everything worked out fine and we wouldn't exist, and just about everything we know wouldn't either.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 30, 2020 0:16:04 GMT
The world is what it is and we can only act according to the facts of reality. You were talking about "other worlds" or something and that is where I get lost. I would argue that many of our "choices" aren't actually choices, but are pre-determined. My view is that you are trying to make this sound more deep than it actually is. It's a little bit complicated. Freedom of choice is real in a way because you can clearly steer yourself to do something new even if it is all predetermined. There are, of course, choices that we make without deliberating very much but I'm thinking more of the ones where we do. I didn't mean to make it sound deep but I have a very formal way of talking. My idea is basically the philosophical equivalent of a goldilocks zone. The first thing I meant was that if it were necessary to always have a perfect choice then our reality wouldn't exist. The reason I was referring to the 'material' reality and not the 'social' one is that all of our social predicaments are a reflection of the underlying material reality. If you want to see where I'm coming from when I say that if it weren't for imperfect choices then our reality wouldn't exist, read Stanislaw Lem's Golem XIV story. Our whole human and animal existence is a chemical response to the overabundance of oxygen created as waste by photosynthesizing bacteria. if we lived in a more just ecosystem we would get our energy from the sun and our bodies would be made from minerals gotten directly from the soil. Our whole existence is a result of life evolving to adapt to the limitations set by previous life on Earth which evolved without the intellect to shape the earth's ecosystem on the whole . I don't know if there is another actual reality where things work out easier than ours but I need to make a comparison to something. All I wanted to say is that IF there is a more orderly existence without tough choices like between preserving wildlife's habitat or mining metals from a mountain, that we would either be forced to choose only an ideal choice or we would choose between equally fine choices such as picking between life on one of two different identical star systems which have different geographies but both support life and no matter which place you chose to live you'd be happy all the time and live an equally long time. Can I say for certain that such a thing is somehow 'wrong'? No, only that from a perspective of choice that it seems rather boring because there's either a right way to do something and thus an ideal state of being that one can only disobey or there's no significant choices to be made at all and thus that our reality being so non-ideal makes it more appealing to live in in a certain dis-attached ironic way because it gives our life a character that only imperfection can. There was something else I wanted to say but it slipped my mind and this seems to cover it about as well as I can manage. When I said "many possible worlds to live in" take it like this: There would only be a universe where everything worked out fine and we wouldn't exist, and just about everything we know wouldn't either. This is over my head to the point where it has my eyes glazing over. More to the point, it goes past my interest level. You did explain it more directly this time though. I appreciate the effort you put in above.
|
|