Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:52 pm And who wouldn't become violent when their home is being destroyed around them? Human interference with the rest of the animal kingdom is the kiss of death.
I asked my kitties their opinion and they both agree that's BS. No cat in it's right, "mind," would settle for a home nature provided when they can have servants, comfort, no danger and regular meals. They can even be nice to humans, if its necessary to have it.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:03 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:52 pm And who wouldn't become violent when their home is being destroyed around them? Human interference with the rest of the animal kingdom is the kiss of death.
I asked my kitties their opinion and they both agree that's BS. No cat in it's right, "mind," would settle for a home nature provided when they can have servants, comfort, no danger and regular meals. They can even be nice to humans, if its necessary to have it.
Anyone in their right ''mind'' would know I wasn't referring to domesticated family pets. That's one of your stupider comments. Habitat destruction is real.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:10 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:03 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:52 pm And who wouldn't become violent when their home is being destroyed around them? Human interference with the rest of the animal kingdom is the kiss of death.
I asked my kitties their opinion and they both agree that's BS. No cat in it's right, "mind," would settle for a home nature provided when they can have servants, comfort, no danger and regular meals. They can even be nice to humans, if its necessary to have it.
Anyone in their right ''mind'' would know I wasn't referring to domesticated family pets. That's one of your stupider comments. Habitat destruction is real.
It makes it even more fun that you took it seriously. Lighten up, you'll live longer.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:01 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:10 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:03 pm
I asked my kitties their opinion and they both agree that's BS. No cat in it's right, "mind," would settle for a home nature provided when they can have servants, comfort, no danger and regular meals. They can even be nice to humans, if its necessary to have it.
Anyone in their right ''mind'' would know I wasn't referring to domesticated family pets. That's one of your stupider comments. Habitat destruction is real.
It makes it even more fun that you took it seriously. Lighten up, you'll live longer.
Oh. You mean 'chill out'. Hilarious. Not interested in manipulators. What makes you think I want to 'live longer'? And be an annoying old fart? No thanks.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:31 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:01 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:10 pm

Anyone in their right ''mind'' would know I wasn't referring to domesticated family pets. That's one of your stupider comments. Habitat destruction is real.
It makes it even more fun that you took it seriously. Lighten up, you'll live longer.
Oh. You mean 'chill out'. Hilarious. Not interested in manipulators. What makes you think I want to 'live longer'? And be an annoying old fart? No thanks.
We don't agree about animals, but I could see not good reason to antagonize you with my actual thoughts on the subject. I was actually attempting to evade. "manipulation." Oh well, I failed.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:10 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:31 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:01 pm
It makes it even more fun that you took it seriously. Lighten up, you'll live longer.
Oh. You mean 'chill out'. Hilarious. Not interested in manipulators. What makes you think I want to 'live longer'? And be an annoying old fart? No thanks.
We don't agree about animals, but I could see not good reason to antagonize you with my actual thoughts on the subject. I was actually attempting to evade. "manipulation." Oh well, I failed.
Define 'animal'. What are we disagreeing about? I totallly agree that animals (including humans) prefer to be safe and comfortable. Why would other animals be different in that way? That's why I have nothing against modern, well run zoos that pay careful attention to the needs of their residents.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:27 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:10 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:31 pm

Oh. You mean 'chill out'. Hilarious. Not interested in manipulators. What makes you think I want to 'live longer'? And be an annoying old fart? No thanks.
We don't agree about animals, but I could see not good reason to antagonize you with my actual thoughts on the subject. I was actually attempting to evade. "manipulation." Oh well, I failed.
Define 'animal'. What are we disagreeing about? I totallly agree that animals (including humans) prefer to be safe and comfortable. Why would other animals be different in that way? That's why I have nothing against modern, well run zoos that pay careful attention to the needs of their residents.
We're not disagreeing. I think what you said about chimps is quite true and that no, "morality," is involved in any animal behavior and certainly no moral responsibility. I think attempting to understand human volitional behavior in terms of animal instinctive behavior, except as an analogy, is a mistake, but don't think you were doing that. My comment really was not serious.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Vitruvius »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:27 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:10 am
We don't agree about animals, but I could see not good reason to antagonize you with my actual thoughts on the subject. I was actually attempting to evade. "manipulation." Oh well, I failed.
Define 'animal'. What are we disagreeing about? I totallly agree that animals (including humans) prefer to be safe and comfortable. Why would other animals be different in that way? That's why I have nothing against modern, well run zoos that pay careful attention to the needs of their residents.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:45 amWe're not disagreeing. I think what you said about chimps is quite true and that no, "morality," is involved in any animal behavior and certainly no moral responsibility. I think attempting to understand human volitional behavior in terms of animal instinctive behavior, except as an analogy, is a mistake, but don't think you were doing that. My comment really was not serious.
Then how does this monkey know it's being cheated?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... e=emb_logo
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Belinda »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:48 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:25 am Vitruvius wrote:
It's not unrelenting hostility, it's more subtle than that. It's Cartesian subjectivism through to Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, casting science as heretical, even as it was used to drive the industrial revolution. Even today, every movie you see, it's always a mad scientist trying to destroy the world, defeated by some flag waving, God loving hero. When you see what I'm talking about, you'll see anti-science propaganda everywhere. Indeed, that explains about two thirds of western philosophy - not least, post modernism.
Your interpretation of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is that of sensationalist horror films that miss the most interesting thing about the scientist who created the monster and who was inconsiderate of the poor monster's feelings and made no provision for them. Cartesian dualism claims a man is a mind plus a body. Frankenstein the scientist made a monster who was precisely not a body that lacked a mind but was a complete man, a body/mind. The story illustrates how industrialisation with its concomitant urbanisation had alienated minds from bodies. Science and technology are given facts in a developing society ;where the human is relegated to machine is where a developing society falls off the arse end of the horse.

British society is post-industrial. The former working class which still trails sad remnants of deprivation, notably in the north-west of England, Tyneside, south Wales and the Scottish central lowlands , suffers from anomie . The Conservatives who naturally want to safeguard their money make promises to the former working class, well they would wouldn't they?

Schools and teachers in deprived areas find it hard to teach children who have no quiet space to do homework, no books in the house, bad diet, insufficient sleep , insufficient play space, and lack safeguarding against poisonous media.
If you're suggesting that my philosophy is intellectually equivalent to pop culture, then may I suggest you go flog yourself. I've read the book, and read a lot more books than most people. I'm not getting inside the narrative here - I'm pointing to Frankenstein as an example of religious and philosophical themes prevalent at the time, that are still relevant today. Frankenstein is an example of anti-science propaganda that follows from the Church's mistake re: Galileo. Shelley created the mad scientist archetype that's endlessly repeated in film - even today!

If you want to discuss the themes and meanings of the text - that's a different discussion altogether.

Problem is, you have no conception of what science should be. You've taken in the anti-science propaganda without even noticing, and nothing you say is posed next to the ideal of science as truth. You, and Shelly both speak to science as an amoral tool; which is what the Church's mistake left us with; and that is a horror story. But it's a mistake. Science is so much more than that.
Your problem is not your science nor your awareness of climate urgency. Your problem is
.I'm not getting inside the narrative
. Your idea of literary theme is puerile.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Vitruvius »

Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:48 pm
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:48 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:25 am Vitruvius wrote:



Your interpretation of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is that of sensationalist horror films that miss the most interesting thing about the scientist who created the monster and who was inconsiderate of the poor monster's feelings and made no provision for them. Cartesian dualism claims a man is a mind plus a body. Frankenstein the scientist made a monster who was precisely not a body that lacked a mind but was a complete man, a body/mind. The story illustrates how industrialisation with its concomitant urbanisation had alienated minds from bodies. Science and technology are given facts in a developing society ;where the human is relegated to machine is where a developing society falls off the arse end of the horse.

British society is post-industrial. The former working class which still trails sad remnants of deprivation, notably in the north-west of England, Tyneside, south Wales and the Scottish central lowlands , suffers from anomie . The Conservatives who naturally want to safeguard their money make promises to the former working class, well they would wouldn't they?

Schools and teachers in deprived areas find it hard to teach children who have no quiet space to do homework, no books in the house, bad diet, insufficient sleep , insufficient play space, and lack safeguarding against poisonous media.
If you're suggesting that my philosophy is intellectually equivalent to pop culture, then may I suggest you go flog yourself. I've read the book, and read a lot more books than most people. I'm not getting inside the narrative here - I'm pointing to Frankenstein as an example of religious and philosophical themes prevalent at the time, that are still relevant today. Frankenstein is an example of anti-science propaganda that follows from the Church's mistake re: Galileo. Shelley created the mad scientist archetype that's endlessly repeated in film - even today!

If you want to discuss the themes and meanings of the text - that's a different discussion altogether.

Problem is, you have no conception of what science should be. You've taken in the anti-science propaganda without even noticing, and nothing you say is posed next to the ideal of science as truth. You, and Shelly both speak to science as an amoral tool; which is what the Church's mistake left us with; and that is a horror story. But it's a mistake. Science is so much more than that.
Your problem is not your science nor your awareness of climate urgency. Your problem is
.I'm not getting inside the narrative
. Your idea of literary theme is puerile.
Odd thing for a subjectivist to claim; that there's only one right interpretation! For me, this is an example of anti-science propaganda; science as an abomination unto God. If you claim that isn't a theme of Frankenstein, I think you're wrong - and we can say that. You can't!
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Belinda »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:22 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:48 pm
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:48 am

If you're suggesting that my philosophy is intellectually equivalent to pop culture, then may I suggest you go flog yourself. I've read the book, and read a lot more books than most people. I'm not getting inside the narrative here - I'm pointing to Frankenstein as an example of religious and philosophical themes prevalent at the time, that are still relevant today. Frankenstein is an example of anti-science propaganda that follows from the Church's mistake re: Galileo. Shelley created the mad scientist archetype that's endlessly repeated in film - even today!

If you want to discuss the themes and meanings of the text - that's a different discussion altogether.

Problem is, you have no conception of what science should be. You've taken in the anti-science propaganda without even noticing, and nothing you say is posed next to the ideal of science as truth. You, and Shelly both speak to science as an amoral tool; which is what the Church's mistake left us with; and that is a horror story. But it's a mistake. Science is so much more than that.
Your problem is not your science nor your awareness of climate urgency. Your problem is
.I'm not getting inside the narrative
. Your idea of literary theme is puerile.
Odd thing for a subjectivist to claim; that there's only one right interpretation! For me, this is an example of anti-science propaganda; science as an abomination unto God. If you claim that isn't a theme of Frankenstein, I think you're wrong - and we can say that. You can't!
But all interpretations are right including your own more superficial interpretation. The more layers of interpretation you can mine the happier you will be with the piece.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Vitruvius »

Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 6:46 pmYour problem is not your science nor your awareness of climate urgency. Your problem is. Your idea of literary theme is puerile.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:22 pmOdd thing for a subjectivist to claim; that there's only one right interpretation! For me, this is an example of anti-science propaganda; science as an abomination unto God. If you claim that isn't a theme of Frankenstein, I think you're wrong - and we can say that. You can't!
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:48 pmBut all interpretations are right including your own more superficial interpretation. The more layers of interpretation you can mine the happier you will be with the piece.
So you're saying it's wrong to say I'm wrong? And if I say you're wrong, that's right?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Belinda »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:24 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 6:46 pmYour problem is not your science nor your awareness of climate urgency. Your problem is. Your idea of literary theme is puerile.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:22 pmOdd thing for a subjectivist to claim; that there's only one right interpretation! For me, this is an example of anti-science propaganda; science as an abomination unto God. If you claim that isn't a theme of Frankenstein, I think you're wrong - and we can say that. You can't!
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:48 pmBut all interpretations are right including your own more superficial interpretation. The more layers of interpretation you can mine the happier you will be with the piece.
So you're saying it's wrong to say I'm wrong? And if I say you're wrong, that's right?
We are both right. I am just saying I am happier since I learned to see layers of meaning.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:24 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 6:46 pmYour problem is not your science nor your awareness of climate urgency. Your problem is. Your idea of literary theme is puerile.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:22 pmOdd thing for a subjectivist to claim; that there's only one right interpretation! For me, this is an example of anti-science propaganda; science as an abomination unto God. If you claim that isn't a theme of Frankenstein, I think you're wrong - and we can say that. You can't!
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:48 pmBut all interpretations are right including your own more superficial interpretation. The more layers of interpretation you can mine the happier you will be with the piece.
So you're saying it's wrong to say I'm wrong? And if I say you're wrong, that's right?
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:49 pmWe are both right. I am just saying I am happier since I learned to see layers of meaning.
No, you're wrong. Is that not so?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Immanuel Can »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:56 pm "Immanuel Can"
When you have to cut out all the salient points from my post to make your arguments stick, you're cheating!
Errr... :?

Okay, I shall have to address that accusation. Just remember: you made me say it.

I try not to reproduce people's posts in totality for two reasons: one practical, and the other personal.

The practical concern is that reproducing the entire message every time makes every response of double length. It seems to me a kindness to try to get to the important points instead.

The personal concern is this: that sometimes, in their messages, people say things they don't mean or shouldn't say. They misspeak, or say things that read as silly, or even make points they may believe, but which answering would subject them to embarassment and exposure. That would then make them angry at being shown to have said something foolish, and the conversation then tends to turn bitter and hostile -- not in anyone's interest. Sometimes they even throw in spiteful little commments that, in their better moments, they perhaps would not. There's something about the nature of electronic communication that seems to raise the incidence of these; perhaps it is the impulsive, impersonal nature of the medium, but I can't say that for sure.

However, it's a reality: people mess up online. So charitability entails that a respondent should ignore any churlishness, such as ad hominem cracks, or any obvious irrelevant comments, or anything that the respondent realizes immediately would be embarassing to his interlocutor to address. An honest respondent can still hit the main points: there is no necessity for exposing his interlocutor to ridicule. That's not kind. Charity dictates that he should draw out the best of his interlocutor's points, and give him the benefit of the doubt as to the rest.

At the same time, the interlocutor, if he is dedicated to a point that may be obviously foolish or factually off-topic, will likely repeat it in his next message -- at which point, it is no longer impolite to respond to it in the way it calls for, even if the consequence is embarassment to the speaker. After all, he's kind of asking for it, isn't he? If he insists, he's really asking his point to be highlighted; and he can't blame the respondent if the results are unhappy for him.

I'll say this: there is no point you have made that I feel unwilling to address.

Anything I have not yet addressed by you feel is salient, you may insist upon, and I will respond. But perhaps you'll forgive me if I do not address anything rhetorical or anything that doesn't seem the sort of point that an intelligent person like yourself would rest any weight on, at least the first time you say it. Or else, I guess I can speak to every line you say, if you prefer. But I think you would probably rather that I don't nit-pick if you misspeak, editorialize, or offer something obviously not well-thought-out, right?

So let's be polite, and not accuse each other of mendacity when mendacity is not in play.
Post Reply