You don't think he knows that? Trust me, it's all by dasein.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:40 pmThat statement and all it ramifies is of course your consolation — according to your own doctrines.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:26 pm It's not what AJ believes about human sexuality so much as that it comforts and consoles him to believe it. He gets it and if you refuse to share his own dogma, you don't.
Have you yet realized that you have just one essential idea and one essential post, endlessly repeatable?
Might Dasein mate with something and multiply fruitfully?
a defense of drag show/drag queens..
-
- Posts: 2581
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm
Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7228
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..
Come on, AJ, how can someone "fractured and fragmented" regarding his moral and political value judgments given an essentially meaningless and purposeless human existence and [eventually] tumbling over into oblivion be consoled?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:40 pmThat statement and all it ramifies is of course your consolation — according to your own doctrines.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:26 pm Again, there are those like the scholarly AJ here and those like the ranting Satyr there.
But the part revolving around the "psychology of objectivism" is no less applicable in my view.
It's not what AJ believes about human sexuality so much as that it comforts and consoles him to believe it. He gets it and if you refuse to share his own dogma, you don't.
Same with those on the other end of the political spectrum.
What, in my opinion, becomes most crucial for the objectivists among us is this: that they are able to resist the arguments I make regarding moral and political value judgments being rooted existentially in dasein.
No "fractured and fragmented" moral philosophy for them!
And, sure, more power to them if they are able to sustain this "one of us the good, the smart guys" frame of mind to the grave. After all, admittedly, what I wouldn't do if one of them could bring me back into the objectivist fold.
God or No God.
Have you yet realized that you have just one essential idea and one essential post, endlessly repeatable?
Might Dasein mate with something and multiply fruitfully?
I mean actually think about it.
You have your own "my way or the highway" authoritarian assessment regarding human sexuality and race and Jews and everything else revolving around conflicting goods.
Just as the folks here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
...do.
And like them you are able to convince yourself that, yes, your own dogmatic political agenda here really, really is the One True Path.
But the last thing that you will consider are the arguments that I make. It is in being anchored to the One True Path that sustains you psychologically. My guess is that, for you, all the way to the grave.
You just go about confronting those who don't agree with you here considerably less shrilly than the declamatory Satyrs do there.
- Alexis Jacobi
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am
Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..
You are repeating your *essential idea* yet again. What you are saying, what you always say, is that everything is up in the air and it depends on ::: dasein ::: how one comes to conclude anything. And all conclusions, when seen from the angle or stance you inhabit, have no or little solidity. Could be this way, could be the other.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 8:12 pmYou have your own "my way or the highway" authoritarian assessment regarding human sexuality and race and Jews and everything else revolving around conflicting goods.
And there you are stuck. Or, I might say you are exactly where you want to be.
Each topic that you mention is a topic that can, and should, be conversed carefully & intelligently. I find that you-plural do not do that.
Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..
The first thing you suggested when defending him was that grooming was preparation for sexual abuse.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 1:24 pmWhy do you say it is a wacky meaning?
The term 'grooming' has come to be broadly applied.
So for example it has been applied to teachers, who may be sexually progressive, who present information to young students (be it in kindergarten or in any of the early grades) about 'sexual identity', about 'homosexuality', and then school libraries (another example) which stock books of explicitly sexual themes for very young children -- these have been described negatively as 'child grooming'.
Here is just one site offering a definition that comes up at the top of a Google search.
To get clear about what we are talking about here we have to have some commonsense definitions. Is the introduction of sexually explicit themes and reading material in preschool and grade school a form of 'grooming'? If that term is too strong what other term should replace it?
I don't think that drag queens, gays or trans are doing that. It's not something we have to worry about.
He was using an extremely negative term and associating it with cross dressing. Thereby tarnishing those groups.
I can't be sure if it was "shrill and emotional" or "cynical and calculating" or maybe simply ignorant.
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7228
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..
That's ridiculous. If John is a drag queen and likes being one or Bill likes going to drag shows, we can explore their lives and note the personal experiences and relationships they had that allows us to understand why that was the case. But the actual facts here about John and Bill don't change just because someone refuses to accept them.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:19 pmYou are repeating your *essential idea* yet again. What you are saying, what you always say, is that everything is up in the air and it depends on ::: dasein ::: how one comes to conclude anything. And all conclusions, when seen from the angle or stance you inhabit, have no or little solidity. Could be this way, could be the other.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 8:12 pm Come on, AJ, how can someone "fractured and fragmented" regarding his moral and political value judgments given an essentially meaningless and purposeless human existence and [eventually] tumbling over into oblivion be consoled?
I mean actually think about it.
You have your own "my way or the highway" authoritarian assessment regarding human sexuality and race and Jews and everything else revolving around conflicting goods.
Just as the folks here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
...do.
And like them you are able to convince yourself that, yes, your own dogmatic political agenda here really, really is the One True Path.
But the last thing that you will consider are the arguments that I make. It is in being anchored to the One True Path that sustains you psychologically. My guess is that, for you, all the way to the grave.
And there you are stuck. Or, I might say you are exactly where you want to be.
Each topic that you mention is a topic that can, and should, be conversed carefully & intelligently. I find that you-plural do not do that.
On the other hand, how others react to John being a drag queen or Bill enjoying drag shows can range from great enthusiasm to utter disgust. And, similarly, we can explore their lives and note the parts where their moral and political value judgments here were shaped existentially, subjectively. Given their upbringing as children or the communities they were raised in or the personal experiences they had as adults.
My point then revolves around how our individual reactions here are often predicated on the lives that we lived and on the influences that we encountered. But that in a No God world there does not appear to be a moral argument that can be made by philosophers or ethicists or scientists establishing that drag queens and drag shows are essentially, necessarily, objectively either moral or immoral.
Instead, that appears more rooted in dasein as I examine it here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
And that, in regard to the objectivists among us, the "psychology of objectivism" -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296 -- is often on display in our exchanges here.
It's just that some come off as you do in being the more "serious philosopher"...while others go off the deep end and rant and rave as Satyr is more inclined to on his "Desperate Degenerate" thread.
- Alexis Jacobi
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am
Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..
Exposing children to books with very explicit sexual content (homosexual in the case I examined), and bringing up the topic in a classroom and in this way introducing children to odd sexual practices, could fairly be described in the terms of ‘grooming’. But this specific term, like many such terms, is an abbreviation or a generalization for that which parents are (justifiably) concerned about. In brief: they do not want their children exposed or indoctrinated in this way.
If you choose to hold to a very strict definition of grooming then a) semi-pornographic or ‘educational’ books on gay sex, presented to school age children, or b) open broaching of sexual topics in a classroom, may not meet the standard of prepping for sexual abuse. But stretch the general definition a bit and you will see why parents are (justifiably) concerned. I share that concern and with almost no qualifications.
You are 100% entitled to your view that through these introductions no specific person is then poised to sexually abuse them. Yet in my view they are being ‘primed’.
You can argue for or against. My vote goes ‘against’.
However, I also know that the general cultural trend will not abate. So I foresee a breaking point and simply more civil conflict with ugly, divisive consequences.
- Alexis Jacobi
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am
Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..
You repeat the same thing, indeed you copy & paste the same post, time after time after time.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:59 pm My point then revolves around how our individual reactions here are often predicated on the lives that we lived and on the influences that we encountered. But that in a No God world there does not appear to be a moral argument that can be made by philosophers or ethicists or scientists establishing that drag queens and drag shows are essentially, necessarily, objectively either moral or immoral.
You are not seeing the larger picture (that is playing out in our culture and society) and I definitely do not have the energy to present it to you.
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7228
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..
Right, the "larger picture". Like those at the other end of the political spectrum don't have their own rendition of that.Mr. Snippet wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:40 pmYou repeat the same thing, indeed you copy & paste the same post, time after time after time.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:59 pm That's ridiculous. If John is a drag queen and likes being one or Bill likes going to drag shows, we can explore their lives and note the personal experiences and relationships they had that allows us to understand why that was the case. But the actual facts here about John and Bill don't change just because someone refuses to accept them.
On the other hand, how others react to John being a drag queen or Bill enjoying drag shows can range from great enthusiasm to utter disgust. And, similarly, we can explore their lives and note the parts where their moral and political value judgments here were shaped existentially, subjectively. Given their upbringing as children or the communities they were raised in or the personal experiences they had as adults.
My point then revolves around how our individual reactions here are often predicated on the lives that we lived and on the influences that we encountered. But that in a No God world there does not appear to be a moral argument that can be made by philosophers or ethicists or scientists establishing that drag queens and drag shows are essentially, necessarily, objectively either moral or immoral.
Instead, that appears more rooted in dasein as I examine it here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
And that, in regard to the objectivists among us, the "psychology of objectivism" -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296 -- is often on display in our exchanges here.
It's just that some come off as you do in being the more "serious philosopher"...while others go off the deep end and rant and rave as Satyr is more inclined to on his "Desperate Degenerate" thread.
You are not seeing the larger picture (that is playing out in our culture and society) and I definitely do not have the energy to present it to you.
And the parts I copy and paste are the parts/points that, in my opinion, you simply refuse to address.
- Alexis Jacobi
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am
Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..
Yes, the larger picture. I repeat the larger picture. Think things through.iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 1:33 amRight, the "larger picture". Like those at the other end of the political spectrum don't have their own rendition of that.
And the parts I copy and paste are the parts/points that, in my opinion, you simply refuse to address.
Please, again, paste me some more Dasein diversion.
You are stuck in a loop. I prefer not to get stuck in your debilitating mental loop.
- iambiguous
- Posts: 7228
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..
How then are the points I raise here...Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:11 amYes, the larger picture. I repeat the larger picture. Think things through.iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 1:33 amRight, the "larger picture". Like those at the other end of the political spectrum don't have their own rendition of that.
And the parts I copy and paste are the parts/points that, in my opinion, you simply refuse to address.
Please, again, paste me some more Dasein diversion.
You are stuck in a loop. I prefer not to get stuck in your debilitating mental loop.
...not applicable you?If John is a drag queen and likes being one or Bill likes going to drag shows, we can explore their lives and note the personal experiences and relationships they had that allows us to understand why that was the case. But the actual facts here about John and Bill don't change just because someone refuses to accept them.
On the other hand, how others react to John being a drag queen or Bill enjoying drag shows can range from great enthusiasm to utter disgust. And, similarly, we can explore their lives and note the parts where their moral and political value judgments here were shaped existentially, subjectively. Given their upbringing as children or the communities they were raised in or the personal experiences they had as adults.
How is your [and her] "larger picture" able to be demonstrated as in fact the One True Path to grasping drag queens and drag shows and transgender individuals? And not, instead, one of the dozens and dozens of other ideological dogmas out there?
Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..
This argument is extremely unphilosophical, in that first you overlook entirely, the difference between sex and gender. Sex is defined by one's chromosome configuration and genitalia, whereas gender is a construct based on social norms which dictate what has been historically perceived as acceptable attire or presentation, behavior etc. You are attempting to argue that drag is impermissible on the grounds that it goes against the truth of things, which is a bold claim to make. It seems you are uncomfortable not knowing the genitalia a person possesses which is strange and arbitrary, especially in recognizing that there are plenty of biologically intersex individuals all around you. Are they too, somehow comparable to criminals and abusers? What does knowing the sex of an individual offer you? And why doesn't a person have the right to exercise their own autonomy and personhood by identifying in whatever way feels most authentic to themselves, so long as it is generally reasonable?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:54 pmIt seems that there is a level of either dishonesty or delusion at work if a person wishes to present themselves as the opposite sex by wearing what is traditionally worn by the opposite sex. It's tolerable to a point, in a comedy show for example, but I for one don't want to wander through society trying to figure out who is male or female and who isn't. It's traditional for men and women to distinguish their sex when they're out and about. Like wedding rings are traditional to show someone that the person they're hitting on is already spoken for. Truth in advertising.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:32 pmMakeup was invented for men. The government dictating what it means to "act like a man" or "act like a woman" seems as absurd as the government deciding that some clothes are men's clothes and some clothes are women's clothes. I don't see any angle of it that isn't inherently absurd.
What behaviours should the government classify as "female" behaviours that men cannot legally do?
I mean, incest is illegal. Raping an underage child is illegal. Should the government stand clear of those affairs too? So far your argument seems to be that government shouldn't tell us what to do. That in itself is not a reason alone. Just because it's a written law doesn't mean it is a bad law. Just because "big government" is telling you not to do something doesn't necessarily mean it's perfectly fine to do it. Yelling fire in a movie theater is against the law. If a man is trying very hard to present himself as a woman, then if someone asks him if he's male or female and he demands that we address him as female also, then that's dishonest and probably a bit counter-productive in some social settings. A salesman rolling the mileage back on a car you're about to purchase and telling you it has fewer miles than it does is counter-productive to you acting in your own best interest. There's no law against people lying to each other in casual situations, however, it's not exaclty encouraged. A teacher teaching children should try to tell the truth as much as possible for the benefit of the kids.
Drag and queer identity are not dishonesty. Gender is a delusion in itself, being a made up means to demonstrate ideals of "femininity" and "masculinity". Drag is an artful expression of gender - and the fact that it challenges your worldview and ideal understanding of gender, does not make it comparable to incest or rape. To conflate a performative act which simply mocks the status quo and serves as a creative act, is not equivalent to inflicting harm upon an innocent person. And to be a trans or non-binary or queer person, does not impose any sort of harm on children. A child is not "harmed" by witnessing such things. A child is, however, harmed by existing in a world filled with blatant hatred and homophobic/transphobic/dragphobic individuals who perpetuate polarizing and hurtful behavior by portraying drag artists as some sort of hideous criminals.
Your repugnance and evident dislike for individuals who choose to present in gender non-confonforming fashion, is not philosophical. "I don't like it" is not an argument. A teacher telling the truth should explain to children that gender roles are mere construct. They are not moral guides, they are not accurate depictions of the vast depth of human experience and they water human beings down to some simulacra, some projection of what a man or a woman or a person "should look like and behave like" etc...
Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..
The option of not introducing sexual content at all seems to be off the table, given that sexual pictures, videos and live streams are easily accessible to anyone with a phone or computer. Google "fat naked lesbians" and jump into the rabbit hole.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:34 pmExposing children to books with very explicit sexual content (homosexual in the case I examined), and bringing up the topic in a classroom and in this way introducing children to odd sexual practices, could fairly be described in the terms of ‘grooming’. But this specific term, like many such terms, is an abbreviation or a generalization for that which parents are (justifiably) concerned about. In brief: they do not want their children exposed or indoctrinated in this way.
If you choose to hold to a very strict definition of grooming then a) semi-pornographic or ‘educational’ books on gay sex, presented to school age children, or b) open broaching of sexual topics in a classroom, may not meet the standard of prepping for sexual abuse. But stretch the general definition a bit and you will see why parents are (justifiably) concerned. I share that concern and with almost no qualifications.
You are 100% entitled to your view that through these introductions no specific person is then poised to sexually abuse them. Yet in my view they are being ‘primed’.
You can argue for or against. My vote goes ‘against’.
However, I also know that the general cultural trend will not abate. So I foresee a breaking point and simply more civil conflict with ugly, divisive consequences.
Sure, parents are concerned. They have to proceed rationally and realistically.
Some questions need to be answered and there have to be some policies set in place :
When should sexual content be introduced to children?
How explicit should it be?
How much of it should be homosexual as opposed to entirely heterosexual?
A lot of the answers proposed are at the extremes ... ban all explicit content or allow all explicit content ... which are not effective and not in the best interest of the children.
- Alexis Jacobi
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am
Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..
I recommend to you that you spend some minutes listening to what she is saying. The transvestite show is only a smaller manifestation of a much larger phenomenoniambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 4:01 am How is your [and her] "larger picture" able to be demonstrated as in fact the One True Path to grasping drag queens and drag shows and transgender individuals? And not, instead, one of the dozens and dozens of other ideological dogmas out there?
In order to understand my perspective, and that of those who will resist these manipulations of their children, you are going to have to do some good-faith work.
If I were aware of a written exposition I’d have included it. As it is the video will suffice.
Question: Is any part of what she talks about sufficient in your view for ‘genuine concern’?
- Alexis Jacobi
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am
Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..
But this is a philosophy forum, and we should have the capability and the interest to examine the heart or the core of the issue. We are not going to be given the task of writing social policy. Our intellectual effort should be understanding not activism.
As I recommended to Iambiguous: listen to the woman’s discourse. It shows two principle things: 1) that the present madness (her words) indicates an extremism that alienates a person located on the traditional progressive-left. 2) that the phenomena of cross-dressing, drag, sex change, drug therapies and surgery, the social engineering in pedagogy, is part of a top-down movement, not a simple and harmless sexy show arising spontaneously in culture.
It connects to many other things.
The question “What is in the best interest of children?” is a profound philosophical, cultural, social and even a metaphysical problem.
Re: a defense of drag show/drag queens..
I have looked at the transcript.As I recommended to Iambiguous: listen to the woman’s discourse. It shows two principle things: 1) that the present madness (her words) indicates an extremism that alienates a person located on the traditional progressive-left. 2) that the phenomena of cross-dressing, drag, sex change, drug therapies and surgery, the social engineering in pedagogy, is part of a top-down movement, not a simple and harmless sexy show.
Transhumanism? Technological religious cult? Nah, I don't think she presents an understanding of the issue.
Sure, there is currently a technological obsession. The tech messiah seen as a replacement for God, Jesus and any other messiahs.
But tech just facilitates through meds and surgeries something that originates elsewhere. And I don't mean some sort of corporate or elite agenda. It's something that has always been there. It's a disconnect and alienation from reality.