But the way to say that would be, "The man who says 'Everybody sometimes lies' has also sometimes lied." It's a more modest claim, and more correct. The way you put it has two unfortunate possibilities of reading: one, that the man is a habitual liar, and two, that he is telling a lie on this particular occasion...both of which are not necessarily true at all.
mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:12 pm
Gender identity is not the same as race identity. Neither has anything to do with disability or speciation.
I'm listening.
In what way is gender identity "not the same" as racial identity, beyond the obvious fact that we use different labels. And which defenses of gender-transition are inapplicable to race transition?
RCSaunders wrote:
If you see no difference between psychological flaws and limitations there is nothing to discuss
To describe anything as a flaw requires an assumption of what something is supposed to be
What is it you think all human beings are supposed to be
Just because you do not like something does not make it a flaw
Psychological flaws are a type of limitation - there are others
Human beings can improve to become better human beings over time - both psychologically and in other areas too
And this improvement comes from two places - experience which is subjective and knowledge which is objective
No mention was made of not liking anything at all
Its my fault for taking you seriously and trying to explain what to any objective individual would be obvious . I cannot deal with your intentional obfuscation A flaw may be a limitation but a limitation is only a flaw if the limitation is not intended . Is being a short person a flaw because their reach is limited ? Is being a tall person a flaw because they are limited to buying more expensive ( larger ) clothing ? Some people have photographic memories . Is not having a photographic memory limited to a normal one a flaw ? Since human nature is whatever it is whatever its natural abilities and limitations are that is what they are . They are not flaws
What exactly is a better human being ? As far as I can see most human beings are as likely to become worse as much as better over time . Who decides what a better human being is ? Just because human beings have different abilities and characteristics which may not be what you would like them to be or think they ought to be does not make them flaws
A flaw can be a limitation if it is not intended but also a limitation one does not wish to have
I am specifically referring to psychological flaws here and nothing else
Being short / being tall / not having a photographic memory are not flaws
What exactly is a better human being - excellent question
One who improves over time through the acquisition of knowledge and experience
Whether one does actually improve over time is only something each individual can know
Once again there was no mention of liking anything - what is or is not liked is not relevant here
mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:12 pm
Gender identity is not the same as race identity. Neither has anything to do with disability or speciation.
I'm listening.
In what way is gender identity "not the same" as racial identity, beyond the obvious fact that we use different labels. And which defenses of gender-transition are inapplicable to race transition?
You should ask Mick if he's a guy.
If he sez yes, ask him why he's a guy.
If he sez no, ask him why he's not a guy.
If he answers, and you respond, be sure to quote him...he's on my ignore list, so I won't see his response otherwise.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:41 pmIn what way is gender identity "not the same" as racial identity.
In every way I can think of. Explain why you think they are the same.
I believe some argue that gender is a "social construct" and some argue that race is a "social construct" as well. Both often appear on applications and forms that we fill out designed to categorize us into groups of similar attributes for various purposes. Race is more or less based on the amount of melanin in a person's skin. Gender seems to be defined differently than sex. Sex is based on the biological attributes of a person and gender apparently refers to social roles or something like that. However, for purposes of participating in sports, and medical considerations, I would think sex (biological attributes) is a more applicable attribute to consider.
As far as using bathrooms, I suppose we could base it on some sort of classification system other than biological sex if we wanted to. Heck, we could make it coed and let everyone shower and pee together, however, I'm not sure how it would work out in a pragmatic, functional sense. I also wonder if any gain associated with changing bathroom policy is worth the discomfort and social upheaval it seems to create. It just doesn't seem all that critical to me for a relatively few who "identify" as the opposite sex to use the bathroom of the opposite sex. If it all comes down to a "social construct," then Why can't they just bite the bullet and do it as tradition dictates? Why does everyone else need to change to accommodate the few?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:45 pm
Once again there was no mention of liking anything - what is or is not liked is not relevant here
Of course it is. You view mankind as flawed with some kind of intrinsic defect. You think mankind can and ought to be improved. You would not think that if you were happy with humanity as it is, but you don't like mankind being what you think it is.
I see no intrinsic defect or flaw in human beings. Most human beings end up damaging their own minds by their own chosen beliefs and behavior, but it's not necessary or forced on them. It's not some inborn fault.
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:33 pm
I see no intrinsic defect or flaw in human beings. Most human beings end up damaging their own minds by their own chosen beliefs and behavior, but it's not necessary or forced on them. It's not some inborn fault.
Interesting that you can say something that's definitely universal cannot possibly be "inborn." I can't see a reason for you saying that.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:41 pmIn what way is gender identity "not the same" as racial identity.
In every way I can think of. Explain why you think they are the same.
I believe some argue that gender is a "social construct" and some argue that race is a "social construct" as well. Both often appear on applications and forms that we fill out designed to categorize us into groups of similar attributes for various purposes. Race is more or less based on the amount of melanin in a person's skin. Gender seems to be defined differently than sex. Sex is based on the biological attributes of a person and gender apparently refers to social roles or something like that. However, for purposes of participating in sports, and medical considerations, I would think sex (biological attributes) is a more applicable attribute to consider.
As far as using bathrooms, I suppose we could base it on some sort of classification system other than biological sex if we wanted to. Heck, we could make it coed and let everyone shower and pee together, however, I'm not sure how it would work out in a pragmatic, functional sense. I also wonder if any gain associated with changing bathroom policy is worth the discomfort and social upheaval it seems to create. It just doesn't seem all that critical to me for a relatively few who "identify" as the opposite sex to use the bathroom of the opposite sex. If it all comes down to a "social construct," then Why can't they just bite the bullet and do it as tradition dictates? Why does everyone else need to change to accommodate the few?
It's not about what you 'believe'. Gender and sex mean the same thing. To say that one is a 'social construct' is a social construct. People said 'gender' when they didn't want to say 'sex'.
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:33 pm
I see no intrinsic defect or flaw in human beings. Most human beings end up damaging their own minds by their own chosen beliefs and behavior, but it's not necessary or forced on them. It's not some inborn fault.
Interesting that you can say something that's definitely universal cannot possibly be "inborn." I can't see a reason for you saying that.
It's not universal. Only hatred of humanity could even suggest it is.
