Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
College & Pro Sports
BREAKING: NCAA says state of North Carolina will again be considered for championship hosting....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="vamosjackets" data-source="post: 303798" data-attributes="member: 216"><p><em>"Jeez Louise, you are really fixated on this. I'm at a lose to to see how keeping your sex organs shows a "lack of commitment" in this case. What, taking female hormones until you are pretty much completely transformed both physically and mentally to the gender identity you were - usually - born with isn't commitment enough for you? I think you are grasping at straws here."</em></p><p>If I were Louise, then I'd probably be on your side ... unless I was French - but then I'd probably still be on your side. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p>You really seem to be condescending here. You condemn me for being "fixated on it". I thought I was discussing it with you who is also discussing it with the same amount of convincedness. So, are you also "fixated on this"? Maybe you're just tired of spending time on it, which is understandable. If so, just say so and we'll just drop it. But, as long as you are going to come at it with such gusto, I may also feel inclined to respond. You asked a question: "What, taking female hormones until you are 'pretty much' completely transformed both physically and mentally to the gender identity you were - usually - born with isn't commitment enough for you?" No, it's not, and you were honest enough to state the reason in your question: "'pretty much' transformed". Which brings me back to the question I posed for you, which you didn't answer. If they are truly female, then why are they keeping their male parts? I'm not grasping at straws, I'm grasping at something else, which is ironically similarly shaped whose definition is: the male reproductive organ.</p><p>It seems like you just want this to go away, for people to just get out of the way who don't agree with you, and you are aggravated about engaging with hard questions for your side.</p><p></p><p></p><p><em>"Nope. Human rights are justified on the basis of human rationality. Everything you say about the "state of nature" is true. That's why, as the classic liberal thinkers pointed out, it makes sense for us to set up governments to place limits on our behavior that we call human rights. It doesn't have anything to do with faith at all. It's a simple matter of self-interest. And a classic liberal would say - I would, for instance - that the "remnants of Biblical Christianity" are a simpler age's attempt to justify what most of us think are bad things that governments should protect us from - robbery, murder, perjury, ect. No need to bring God into this at all to make it work. Besides, I doubt He's too impressed with our attempts to find religious justifications for breaking the Commandments right and left in His name."</em></p><p>This sounds a whole lot like an assertion rather than a justification ... it's a faith position. And, worse than that, it's a wholly subjective set of morals. So, killing people is not wrong. It really isn't. What Hitler did is not evil nor even wrong. It's just pragmatically disadvantageous. It's pragmatic ... until it isn't. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where killing someone else would work to your own advantage (for survival, security, or comfort) and being the most pragmatic thing to do, especially if you can get away with it. It's not hard to imagine.</p><p></p><p>Also, you want to justify human rights on human rationality. It seems that our own conversation would point to human rationality being totally subjective. Whose rationality wins? Which one is truly rational? How do you even explain the existence of rationality, and on what objective basis do you measure it? How do you explain human rationality without human rationality? You're going to get into a viciously circular argument which will again humble you to a position of faith. You can't account for anything your saying without human rationality which is something you must presuppose without the ability to account for it. The least you can do is recognize that.</p><p></p><p>For fair discourse to take place, both sides must be willing to admit their presuppositions. I'm willing to admit mine. Are you?</p><p></p><p></p><p><em>"No need to bring God into this at all to make it work. Besides, I doubt He's too impressed with our attempts to find religious justifications for breaking the Commandments right and left in His name."</em></p><p>I'm very intrigued by this statement, but I don't think I understand it. If you care to elaborate, I'd be appreciative.</p><p></p><p></p><p><em>"Now, can we leave this alone and get back to football?"</em></p><p>If that's what you want to do, I understand, and will be willing to oblige. Time is valuable. I'm appreciative of your engagement so far.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vamosjackets, post: 303798, member: 216"] [I]"Jeez Louise, you are really fixated on this. I'm at a lose to to see how keeping your sex organs shows a "lack of commitment" in this case. What, taking female hormones until you are pretty much completely transformed both physically and mentally to the gender identity you were - usually - born with isn't commitment enough for you? I think you are grasping at straws here."[/I] If I were Louise, then I'd probably be on your side ... unless I was French - but then I'd probably still be on your side. :) You really seem to be condescending here. You condemn me for being "fixated on it". I thought I was discussing it with you who is also discussing it with the same amount of convincedness. So, are you also "fixated on this"? Maybe you're just tired of spending time on it, which is understandable. If so, just say so and we'll just drop it. But, as long as you are going to come at it with such gusto, I may also feel inclined to respond. You asked a question: "What, taking female hormones until you are 'pretty much' completely transformed both physically and mentally to the gender identity you were - usually - born with isn't commitment enough for you?" No, it's not, and you were honest enough to state the reason in your question: "'pretty much' transformed". Which brings me back to the question I posed for you, which you didn't answer. If they are truly female, then why are they keeping their male parts? I'm not grasping at straws, I'm grasping at something else, which is ironically similarly shaped whose definition is: the male reproductive organ. It seems like you just want this to go away, for people to just get out of the way who don't agree with you, and you are aggravated about engaging with hard questions for your side. [I]"Nope. Human rights are justified on the basis of human rationality. Everything you say about the "state of nature" is true. That's why, as the classic liberal thinkers pointed out, it makes sense for us to set up governments to place limits on our behavior that we call human rights. It doesn't have anything to do with faith at all. It's a simple matter of self-interest. And a classic liberal would say - I would, for instance - that the "remnants of Biblical Christianity" are a simpler age's attempt to justify what most of us think are bad things that governments should protect us from - robbery, murder, perjury, ect. No need to bring God into this at all to make it work. Besides, I doubt He's too impressed with our attempts to find religious justifications for breaking the Commandments right and left in His name."[/I] This sounds a whole lot like an assertion rather than a justification ... it's a faith position. And, worse than that, it's a wholly subjective set of morals. So, killing people is not wrong. It really isn't. What Hitler did is not evil nor even wrong. It's just pragmatically disadvantageous. It's pragmatic ... until it isn't. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where killing someone else would work to your own advantage (for survival, security, or comfort) and being the most pragmatic thing to do, especially if you can get away with it. It's not hard to imagine. Also, you want to justify human rights on human rationality. It seems that our own conversation would point to human rationality being totally subjective. Whose rationality wins? Which one is truly rational? How do you even explain the existence of rationality, and on what objective basis do you measure it? How do you explain human rationality without human rationality? You're going to get into a viciously circular argument which will again humble you to a position of faith. You can't account for anything your saying without human rationality which is something you must presuppose without the ability to account for it. The least you can do is recognize that. For fair discourse to take place, both sides must be willing to admit their presuppositions. I'm willing to admit mine. Are you? [I]"No need to bring God into this at all to make it work. Besides, I doubt He's too impressed with our attempts to find religious justifications for breaking the Commandments right and left in His name."[/I] I'm very intrigued by this statement, but I don't think I understand it. If you care to elaborate, I'd be appreciative. [I]"Now, can we leave this alone and get back to football?"[/I] If that's what you want to do, I understand, and will be willing to oblige. Time is valuable. I'm appreciative of your engagement so far. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who won the ACC Coach of the Year Award in 2014?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
College & Pro Sports
BREAKING: NCAA says state of North Carolina will again be considered for championship hosting....
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top