Bias Against Transgenders

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 6810
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Walker » Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:21 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:07 am
Walker can you explain to me why conservatism in defense of liberty is so violently condemned. Is it because of its Judeo-Christian values or something else I am underestimating? Of course valuing gender differences is an important conservative concept. Would people prefer statist slavery to freedom to satisfy this obsession to deny essential gender differences?

People only begin to value freedom once they have lost it. Then they will have the nerve to curse out their slavery which they fought so hard to adopt.
No, and I’ll do you the favour of telling you why, which may be the actual answer *. Pointing to the silly Left will only increase the expulsion of bile all over your nice threads and prompt the relevance inspectors to shout, shout, let it all out, these are the things we can do without. Come on. To answer to the world of Leftist fears is to detour into a world of unreasoned and unsupported conclusions born of their frustrations.


* viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25921&p=394354#p394354

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4753
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"can you explain to me why conservatism in defense of liberty is so violently condemned(?)"

Post by henry quirk » Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:38 pm

Frankly, I don't think it has anything to do with 'conservatism' and everything to do with the 'defense of liberty''.

Whole whack of folks out there who don't want people self-directing (cuz those folks wanna be the directors).

Take *Libertarianism (please!): even more than the Conservative, the Libertarian was the defender of Individual Liberty, and -- even more than the Conservative -- the Libertarian (and his party) has been co-opted by a subtle strain of communitarianism, so much so that the average Libertarian sees nuthin' wrong with 'guaranteed/universal income' (the height [or depth] of commie bullshit).

Fundamentally: if you move in the world as self-directing and -responsible, you're an ill-fitting piece, and it doesn't much matter to the politburo 'why' you fit poorly.









*there's Libertarianism, with its party and politics, and there's libertarianism, with no party or politics...the two are not synonymous

Nick_A
Posts: 4150
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Nick_A » Mon Feb 04, 2019 8:01 pm

Walker
No, and I’ll do you the favour of telling you why, which may be the actual answer *. Pointing to the silly Left will only increase the expulsion of bile all over your nice threads and prompt the relevance inspectors to shout, shout, let it all out, these are the things we can do without. Come on. To answer to the world of Leftist fears is to detour into a world of unreasoned and unsupported conclusions born of their frustrations.
At one time the creation of a socratic dialogue was considered attractive. Now it just gets in the way of intimidation aimed at furthering a secular agenda. It is dominant in universities and even on some philosophy sites. It has become so intense in universities that it creates "snowflakes."

It is hard keeping the great ideas alive in these times when our species has lost its way and will gleefully fall victim to self deception and impossible promises but it has to be done. The young who are still alive on the inside need to know that the great awakening ideas revealing the path to objective human meaning and purpose they are attracted to have always existed. They are a part of a necessary minority that has always been in the world but not part of it..

Walker
Posts: 6810
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Walker » Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:50 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 8:01 pm
Walker
No, and I’ll do you the favour of telling you why, which may be the actual answer *. Pointing to the silly Left will only increase the expulsion of bile all over your nice threads and prompt the relevance inspectors to shout, shout, let it all out, these are the things we can do without. Come on. To answer to the world of Leftist fears is to detour into a world of unreasoned and unsupported conclusions born of their frustrations.
At one time the creation of a socratic dialogue was considered attractive. Now it just gets in the way of intimidation aimed at furthering a secular agenda. It is dominant in universities and even on some philosophy sites. It has become so intense in universities that it creates "snowflakes."

It is hard keeping the great ideas alive in these times when our species has lost its way and will gleefully fall victim to self deception and impossible promises but it has to be done. The young who are still alive on the inside need to know that the great awakening ideas revealing the path to objective human meaning and purpose they are attracted to have always existed. They are a part of a necessary minority that has always been in the world but not part of it..
"It is hard keeping the great ideas alive in these times ..."

This is quite the paradox given the ease of today's communications.

This means that conditions other than lack of ability to communicate are involved with any difficulty in keeping great ideas alive.

Perhaps the difficulty is that communication passed the point of, enough.

(Government surely passed that point.)

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Greta » Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:19 am

Judaka wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:19 am
Greta wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:22 am
Judaka, you had nothing to say about the mobbing and stereotyping of the weak but spoke up strongly against the stereotyping of conservatives.

// mirror
Mobbing and stereotyping of the weak? Nick_A seems more concerned with the actual OP, Walker is indeed being ridiculous and I've said as much and the other posters here are all on your side. What mobbing is taking place? I don't care who is weak and who is strong either. Individuals are strong and weak, groups are just comprised of individuals with various levels of competences, resources and strengths.

I saw the opportunity to make a constructive point that is close to my heart and I did it. I could argue with Walker alongside you, maybe if this thread continues, exactly that will happen but mostly his points are so stupid that I don't know whether there's a meaning or not to me debating him.

It makes me sad that I need to prove my moral virtuousness to have the right to speak to you but it doesn't appear as though you're interested in discussing this regardless so I'll just let it alone.
I could not give a rat's posterior about your virtue. Probably best to deal with what I actually said than imaginings.

My point was that you ignored Nick's continued attacks against a disempowered group that went far beyond the issue of fairness raised in the OP. Then you worry about a broad brush description of conservatives while ignoring Nick's actual and nonstop stereotyping of "secularists". That's not defending a principle, it's defending a tribe.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Logik » Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:25 am

Greta wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:19 am
.... That's not defending a principle, it's defending a tribe.
Potato potatoh. Every principle has its antithesis and a corresponding tribe. That is what politics is all about.

Occam’s razor has the tribe we call “scientists”.
Hickam’s Dictum has the tribe called “doctors”.

The 'left' is the tribe of egalitarianism.
The 'right' is the tribe of individual freedom.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Judaka » Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:22 pm

I could not give a rat's posterior about your virtue. Probably best to deal with what I actually said than imaginings.

My point was that you ignored Nick's continued attacks against a disempowered group that went far beyond the issue of fairness raised in the OP. Then you worry about a broad brush description of conservatives while ignoring Nick's actual and nonstop stereotyping of "secularists". That's not defending a principle, it's defending a tribe.
You didn't say much you said //mirror, I may have interpreted what you meant incorrectly.

I haven't seen Nick's continued attacks against transgender people, I mean, I have no idea what he's talking about with "secularists" and it's probably just as egregious as your views about conservatism but I never really considered that the main issue you would take with what I said is that I didn't say the same thing to the other side. In hindsight, I can appreciate that I should have done that.

Though I don't think it justifies anything you've done, Nick_A and Walker have pretty much done exactly the same things and whether it's worse that secularists, conservatives, women or transgender people are being targeted, is irrelevant to me, I don't think in those terms. This isn't about the victim of the hostile and absurd generalisations it's about the perpetrators.

I am actually defending the principles of treating people as individuals and I'm really not trying to take a side in this debate. I mean I'm not saying I have no opinions about it but I'm just not interested right now because nobody was even talking about OP by the time I read the thread. I am actually an athiest so I suppose Nick_A is describing me when he's talking about secularists, not sure. Most Christians are also secularists so I am really puzzled what Nick_A believes with regards to secularism but I am technically the one being wronged in this example.

It's certainly not the case that I intentionally picked out your example alone because I am in agreement with Walker's views, Nick's views or conservatism in general, I'm not even American.

Walker
Posts: 6810
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Walker » Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:16 pm

Judaka wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 3:22 pm

I haven't seen Nick's continued attacks against transgender people, ...
Funny thing, neither have I.

Don't expect that to cause actual evidence to appear, although it may spark a tired litany of belief and delusion, and the usual virtue signaling.

Nick_A
Posts: 4150
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Nick_A » Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:04 pm

Judaka and Walker

A secularist is concerned with life in the world and Man as the ulitmate expression of living importance. Politics and secularized religion is concerned with what Man does and practices indoctrination.

In contrast a universalist appreciates the earth as a level of reality within the vertical great scale of being that comprises our universe. Imagine a vertical eight toned musical scale and each note is a level of reality. Man on earth exists on the level of one of these notes with the potential to consciously evolve to a higher level of reality or return to its source.

Where secularism is concerned with what Man DOES, Universalism is concerned with what man IS: its quality of being in the context of the Great Chain of Being.

I can define secularism but a secularist limited to a secular perspective cannot define Christianity in terms of levels of reality and just continue to argue expressions of Christendom or man made Christianity. Kierkegaard understood the difference between Christianity and Christendom.
People who perhaps never once enter a church, never think about God, never mention his name except in oaths! People upon whom it has never dawned that they might have any obligation to God, people who either regard it as a maximum to be guiltless of transgressing criminal law, or do not count even this quite necessary! Yet all these people, even those who assert that no God exists, are all of them Christians, call themselves Christians, are recognized as Christians by the State, are buried as Christians by the Church, are certified as Christians for eternity.

(quoted in Protestant Thought in the 19th Century by Claude Welch p.294)

Christendom has done away with Christianity, without being quite aware of it. The consequence is that, if anything is to be done, one must try again to introduce Christianity into Christendom.

ibid p.295
Those like Greta attack what they don't understand. They have been indoctrinated to do so.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Judaka » Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:37 am

Nick_A

I still don't really understand, what is universalism? You are saying that secularists are concerned with what a man does but don't you also consider yourself a pragmatist?

My understanding of a secularist is someone who believes in the separation of church and state but let's forget that, according to your definition, how much of the West's population can be described as a secularist in your view? 99.99%?

Nick_A
Posts: 4150
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Nick_A » Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:10 am

Judaka wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:37 am
Nick_A

I still don't really understand, what is universalism? You are saying that secularists are concerned with what a man does but don't you also consider yourself a pragmatist?

My understanding of a secularist is someone who believes in the separation of church and state but let's forget that, according to your definition, how much of the West's population can be described as a secularist in your view? 99.99%?
You are referring to political secularism and I am referring to psychological secularism which I tried to explain. Psychological secularism only accepts earthly influences and the mechanical evolution of animal Man. A universal perspective asserts that a human being has the potential to receive a from above and give to below which is nonsense for the secularist since there is no "above" or "below." Existence takes place on one level of reality

A person can open to experience a universal perspective but the world struggles against it. I'm not asking you to believe what Simone wrote but only if you have the humility to be open to an insulting possibility that enables a person to experience a universal perspective.
Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417
Secularism invites superficial disputes such as the question this thread. Universalism understands the human condition so seeks a quality of perspective which can reconcile the madness so a person can begin to experience objective human meaning and purpose beyond the dualistic confines of Plato's Cave

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Judaka » Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:56 am

Nick_A
I tried googling psychological secularism, is it your own personal term? Couldn't find anything.

However, I will say that I only accept earthly influences and the mechanics of the human mind and the various structures which operate within our society like capitalism, democracy and so on. I don't believe in God or anything supernatural. I don't have much to say as religion as a source of consolation being a hindrance to true faith because I don't know what true faith is or what it's good for.

I'm a moral relativist who doesn't believe that the concepts of objective meaning, morality or purpose can possibly exist. I think those things are inherently subjective and can only be subjective.

Now, we disagree on this and that's fair but we've mostly been allies on the issues of the human condition and on the purpose and value of self-awareness. I know you like to use quotes from Jacob Needleman, Simone Weil and the bible and I understand these people and the writers of the bible are deovut Christians but I haven't read a quote from you that hasn't been brilliant. Although I am not a Christian, I believe there's a lot of crossover between their beliefs and my understanding.

You didn't answer what percentage of the West's population you would think are psychological secularists but given your explanation, I'd think it's a fairly high number.

In essence, you are talking about hundreds of millions of people and the only thing they have in common is an interpretation of the world where nothing supernatural is going on if I'm correct?

Don't you think it's unreasonable to lump all of those people together and describe what they do and don't do? When you could be talking about all of these immensely different, interesting and sensible people? What indoctrination do you think I've been subjected to and how do you think it impacts me and do you intend to use the theory that I've been indoctrinated to rob me of my agency (what I believe came from me) and my personal perspectives? These are all concerns when generalisations begin to become more important than seeing groups as comprising of individuals.

Nick_A
Posts: 4150
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Nick_A » Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:21 pm

Judaka
I tried googling psychological secularism, is it your own personal term? Couldn't find anything.

However, I will say that I only accept earthly influences and the mechanics of the human mind and the various structures which operate within our society like capitalism, democracy and so on. I don't believe in God or anything supernatural. I don't have much to say as religion as a source of consolation being a hindrance to true faith because I don't know what true faith is or what it's good for.
Yes I made up that term since the more common term of being “third force blind” is hard to understand at first. It has to do with the "Law of Three Forces”

http://bepresentfirst.com/law-of-three/

There are ideas which could stop all quarrels; such an idea is the law of three. ~ P. D. Ouspensky

The fact that it is relatively unknown in secular society limited to the two forces of affirmation and denial we can be assured that everything will continue within the same level of understanding.
In a nutshell what the law of three means is that every action requires three forces. When three forces are present, things happen, actions are actualized. But without three forces—with one or two forces—nothing happens. There are different names for each force. The first force is called the active or positive or motivating force. The second force is called the negative or passive or denying force. The third force is called the neutralizing or facilitating or invisible force.
All esoteric laws, like the law of three, work both on the scale of our inner world and on the scale of the world around us, but it is often true that a law will be easier to observe in one or the other. I have personally found that the law of three is easiest to observe in my interactions with other people, so that’s what I’ll talk about here.............................
Life in Plato’s cave continues as it does since it is third force blind. It is closed to experience the vertical third force of reconciliation. Political secularism is by definition third force blind

Now this is a deep idea and takes a while to become familiar with but read how Simone Weil describes how algebra affects our awareness of the third force or the third dimension of thought: “meaning. The two forces of affirmation and denial that produce scientific discovery do not require the third force revealing “meaning” When the scientist becomes aware of the third dimension of meaning thet can acquire real intelligence or the unification of facts and the quality of “being.” Brainpickings by the way is an exceptional site featuring articles on many great ideas

https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/06/2 ... ve-of-god/
After a swift primer on the evolution of science from Galileo and Newton to Einstein and Planck, Weil turns to the key culprit in this major rift between classical and contemporary science — our increasing and, she admonishes, increasingly dangerous reliance on mathematical expression as the most accurate expression of reality, flattening and making artificially linear the dimensional and messy relationships of which reality itself is woven:

What makes the abyss between twentieth-century science and that of previous centuries is the different role of algebra. In physics algebra was at first simply a process for summarizing the relations, established by reasoning based on experiment, between the ideas of physics; an extremely convenient process for the numerical calculations necessary for their verification and application. But its role has continually increased in importance until finally, whereas algebra was once the auxiliary language and words the essential one, it is now exactly the other way round. There are even some physicists who tend to make algebra the sole language, or almost, so that in the end, an unattainable end of course, there would be nothing except figures derived form experimental measurements, and letters, combined in formulae. Now, ordinary language and algebraic language are not subject to the same logical requirement; relations between ideas are not fully represented by relations between letters; and, in particular, incompatible assertions may have equational equivalents which are by no means incompatible. When some relations between ideas have been translated into algebra and the formulae have been manipulated solely according to the numerical data of the experiment and the laws proper to algebra, results may be obtained which, when retranslated into spoken language, are a violent contradiction of common sense.

Weil argues that this creates an incomplete and, in its incompleteness, illusory representation of reality — even when it bisects the planes of mathematical data and common sense, such science leaves out the unquantifiable layer of meaning:

If the algebra of physicists gives the impression of profundity it is because it is entirely flat; the third dimension of thought is missing.

That third dimension is that of meaning — one concerned with notions like “the human soul, freedom, consciousness, the reality of the external world.” (Three decades later, Hannah Arendt — another of the twentieth century’s most piercing and significant minds — would memorably contemplate the crucial difference between truth and meaning, the former being the material of science and the latter of philosophy.)

Can you see why your discussion with Logik is meaningless. It lacks third force awareness so just endlessly repeats. I read of science but communication requires the communication of meaning as well as facts. As Simone explained the fact that A+b=C may reveal a fact but without the third dimension of thought within which facts can be included it may only produce a distortion of meaning..
Simone Weil has observed: "There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God."
- William Robert Miller (ed.), The New Christianity (New York: Delacorte Press 1967) p 267; in Paul Schilling,
God in an age of atheism (Abingdon: Nashville 1969) p 17
Perhaps you can be an atheist who can contribute to the purification of the notion of God.

Nick_A
Posts: 4150
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Nick_A » Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:43 pm

Judaka
In essence, you are talking about hundreds of millions of people and the only thing they have in common is an interpretation of the world where nothing supernatural is going on if I'm correct?

Don't you think it's unreasonable to lump all of those people together and describe what they do and don't do? When you could be talking about all of these immensely different, interesting and sensible people? What indoctrination do you think I've been subjected to and how do you think it impacts me and do you intend to use the theory that I've been indoctrinated to rob me of my agency (what I believe came from me) and my personal perspectives? These are all concerns when generalisations begin to become more important than seeing groups as comprising of individuals.
As I see it until we become aware of the third dimension of thought we are just creatures of reaction reacting to external and cosmic influences just as life in the jungle does. There is nothing conscious in it. What we witness in the world is just a collection of lawful reactions to external influences some of which we define as good and the others as bad. However there have been and still are individuals who seek to be more than a creature of reaction with a will to power. They wish "to be." Then they consciously struggle to awaken to the reality of their lives in Plato's cave and the potential to leave its psychological control by first inwardly turning towards the light.

Do you really think any person feeling their slavery to the human condition and their need for inner freedom will be concerned with and caught up in condemning some people while favoring others? As the same goes "only fools fight in a burning house." Well as we've witnessed, there are a lot of fools.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Judaka » Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:39 am

Nick_A
I don't think I would be able to satisfy Jacob Needleman's challenge of being able to explain your ideas back to you in a way that you'd be able to think are correct.

I am not averse to talking about this topic with you but ultimately I am set against your ways of talking about the "society of secularists" and treating them as though you knew everyone you're talking about well enough to satisfies you to set yourself against all of them. At the end of this road, what awaits me? If I don't say the right words, will I be tossed into the term of "psychological secularist" which you've been happy to label so many other people you don't know very well and lose my ability to argue, see and think in your eyes?

There are plenty of concepts I don't agree with, plenty of people I don't like but still, I can't agree with taking an unimaginable large number of people and pretending as if I know them because of a label.

I don't believe my views can be contended with by giving me a label, I don't think your views can be contended with by giving you a label. It would be easy for someone else to come into this thread and write you off as an indoctrinated religious fool and read all words to the contrary as denial or proof of your indoctrination, surely we can agree that would be a poor attitude to have and I know after talking to you for a while that you have a lot of great opinions and a deep understanding of many things. So they would be wrong to write you off without knowing you just because there are some assumptions being made.

I only request that you lessen your rhetoric about secularists and what they do or what has happened to them to talking about the concept of psychological secularism and giving those who you think the term might apply, the opportunity to show they are or are not as you think.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest