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="takethepoints" data-source="post: 303926" data-attributes="member: 265"><p><em>"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."</em></p><p></p><p>I kept this short in the interest of saving time. Let's see what trans people are giving up: their station in life (careers often have to start over), their place in a society that structures virtually all its informal and most of its formal activities on gendered differences and, in addition, choosing the gender that usually gets the short end of the stick, most of their old friends and acquaintances, and, in many instances, their families and relationships. That's in addition to what I said before. The procedures also require literally years of hormone replacement and more surgeries then reassignment. And, again, after all this you demand more evidence of commitment to their gender identity? Yep, you <em>are</em> grasping at straws here.</p><p></p><p><em>"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."</em></p><p></p><p>Well, I do want to have to quit writing posts to what seems a candidate to rival the Dennis Robertson thread, but, no, I'm not aggravated. What you saw was my true reaction to your post; I literally couldn't believe what you wrote. Should have included the rest to make that evident.</p><p></p><p><em>"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."</em></p><p></p><p>Do you or anyone else want to live in a society where there is open, lawless killing as in Nazi Germany? Do you have to consult a faith of any sort to reach that conclusion? I sure hope not. You would be concerned for your own skin instead. That, again, was why classic and modern liberals turn to self-interest as the justification for limits on governments and individuals. And, yes, the standard for that is utilitarian. We work from our experience to determine what our rights should be. What other standard works, unless you foist the whole business off on God? Problem = a lot of people either don't believe in Him or have different ideas of what He wants. Most of us - the nut jobs don't count - have a pretty good idea of what kinds of limits we want on our fellows and our governments, however. Means are another story, but the basics aren't in much dispute.</p><p></p><p><em>"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."</em></p><p></p><p>I'm answering the first part of the question since I can't make any sense out of the last part.</p><p>.</p><p>Rationality isn't subjective. It is dependent on empirical test and to democratic decision-making. Admittedly, when we say we are being rational we often aren't; we act in our own self-interest. That's why classic and modern liberals are democrats. How do we know that our decisions are rational? We subject them to scientific or logical tests in open debate. We subject them to the body politic for approval. The process does mean that we often screw up; the barriers to rational thinking are well understood, but not commonly recognized or acted on by mass publics. But there's where the essentially evolutionary nature of policy comes in. We can see the results of what we have done and recognize them, especially over time. Example: there wasn't much public discussion of economic inequality until recently. Why now? Because Thomas Piketty wrote a massively influential book on the subject based on equally massive datasets that showed how it develops over time and why capitalist societies can be subject to it to their detriment unless they're careful. This has been followed up by even more research showing the effects of the development of economic inequality since 1980 (yep) on a wide variety of topics: rural employment, education, career opportunities … the list is almost endless. And now there's considerable discussion - in both parties, I might add - about what needs to be done.</p><p>That's what I (should have said we; this is mainstream analysis) mean when I say rationality. Piet Hein put it best:</p><p></p><p>The road to wisdom? … Well, it's plain</p><p>And simple to express:</p><p>Err</p><p>And err</p><p>And err again</p><p>But less</p><p>And less</p><p>And less</p><p></p><p>Yep. That's it. It's uncertain and takes time and effort. It's also "The road to wisdom". Too bad we don't follow it more often.</p><p></p><p>Btw, if you want to read a good book on this try: Duncan Watts. 2011. <em>Everything Is Obvious: How Common Sense Fails Us</em>. New York: Crown Business. Everybody should read this one. Twice.</p><p></p><p><em>"For fair discourse to take place, both sides must be willing to admit their presuppositions. I'm willing to admit mine. Are you?"</em></p><p></p><p>See the above.</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><em>I'm very intrigued by this statement, but I don't think I understand it. If you care to elaborate, I'd be appreciative."</em></p><p></p><p>Again, see above. On religious justifications for breaking commandments, look at the wikipedia entry for "just war theory", then recall the 5th (or 6th; your choice) commandment.</p><p></p><p><em>"'Now, can we leave this alone and get back to football?'</em></p><p><em>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."</em></p><p></p><p>Good. Let's do what I said. This really is my last word.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="takethepoints, post: 303926, member: 265"] [I]"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."[/I] I kept this short in the interest of saving time. Let's see what trans people are giving up: their station in life (careers often have to start over), their place in a society that structures virtually all its informal and most of its formal activities on gendered differences and, in addition, choosing the gender that usually gets the short end of the stick, most of their old friends and acquaintances, and, in many instances, their families and relationships. That's in addition to what I said before. The procedures also require literally years of hormone replacement and more surgeries then reassignment. And, again, after all this you demand more evidence of commitment to their gender identity? Yep, you [I]are[/I] grasping at straws here. [I]"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] Well, I do want to have to quit writing posts to what seems a candidate to rival the Dennis Robertson thread, but, no, I'm not aggravated. What you saw was my true reaction to your post; I literally couldn't believe what you wrote. Should have included the rest to make that evident. [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."[/I] Do you or anyone else want to live in a society where there is open, lawless killing as in Nazi Germany? Do you have to consult a faith of any sort to reach that conclusion? I sure hope not. You would be concerned for your own skin instead. That, again, was why classic and modern liberals turn to self-interest as the justification for limits on governments and individuals. And, yes, the standard for that is utilitarian. We work from our experience to determine what our rights should be. What other standard works, unless you foist the whole business off on God? Problem = a lot of people either don't believe in Him or have different ideas of what He wants. Most of us - the nut jobs don't count - have a pretty good idea of what kinds of limits we want on our fellows and our governments, however. Means are another story, but the basics aren't in much dispute. [I]"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."[/I] I'm answering the first part of the question since I can't make any sense out of the last part. . Rationality isn't subjective. It is dependent on empirical test and to democratic decision-making. Admittedly, when we say we are being rational we often aren't; we act in our own self-interest. That's why classic and modern liberals are democrats. How do we know that our decisions are rational? We subject them to scientific or logical tests in open debate. We subject them to the body politic for approval. The process does mean that we often screw up; the barriers to rational thinking are well understood, but not commonly recognized or acted on by mass publics. But there's where the essentially evolutionary nature of policy comes in. We can see the results of what we have done and recognize them, especially over time. Example: there wasn't much public discussion of economic inequality until recently. Why now? Because Thomas Piketty wrote a massively influential book on the subject based on equally massive datasets that showed how it develops over time and why capitalist societies can be subject to it to their detriment unless they're careful. This has been followed up by even more research showing the effects of the development of economic inequality since 1980 (yep) on a wide variety of topics: rural employment, education, career opportunities … the list is almost endless. And now there's considerable discussion - in both parties, I might add - about what needs to be done. That's what I (should have said we; this is mainstream analysis) mean when I say rationality. Piet Hein put it best: The road to wisdom? … Well, it's plain And simple to express: Err And err And err again But less And less And less Yep. That's it. It's uncertain and takes time and effort. It's also "The road to wisdom". Too bad we don't follow it more often. Btw, if you want to read a good book on this try: Duncan Watts. 2011. [I]Everything Is Obvious: How Common Sense Fails Us[/I]. New York: Crown Business. Everybody should read this one. Twice. [I]"For fair discourse to take place, both sides must be willing to admit their presuppositions. I'm willing to admit mine. Are you?"[/I] See the above. [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'm very intrigued by this statement, but I don't think I understand it. If you care to elaborate, I'd be appreciative."[/I] Again, see above. On religious justifications for breaking commandments, look at the wikipedia entry for "just war theory", then recall the 5th (or 6th; your choice) commandment. [I]"'Now, can we leave this alone and get back to football?' 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."[/I] Good. Let's do what I said. This really is my last word. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who was Georgia Tech's starting QB in 2023?
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