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 »

Belinda wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 7:04 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 3:56 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 12:30 pm RCSaunders wrote:



Evolution's meaning is gradual change over time. You probably mean evolution by natural selection not evolution by artificial selection as in the breeding of farm animals, fruit flies, or popular sorts of pet dog.

Few of us are medievals, and scientific reasoning by inductive-deductive methods reigns , so evolution by natural selection is more credible for moderns than the alternatives. Nobody with common sense let alone scientific training will believe any theory is absolutely true, but that there is always that inductive gap,
Of the 118 chemical elements described in the periodic chart of the elements, there is no doubt at all that the valences and number of electrons, protons, and neutrons of the 94 naturally occuring elements (and their isotopes) is known and absolutely true. In fact, it is not possible that the chemical description of those elements could not be true.

[I have never seen the evolutionary hypothesis in any biological or genetics book or paper described as, "gradual change over time." Today, no evolutionist means that for certain, since all genetic change requires mutation, which is never, "gradual."]
Artificial selection causes evolution of the offspring of successive generations that are artificially selected. Comparative rates of evolution vary. All else being equal geographical isolation speeds up evolution by natural selection, as does rate of reproduction.

Mutations are not gradual, however random mutations plus struggle for existence tend to cause a species to evolve. Some parents have babies faster than other parents have babies.
Since Darwinian evolution has never actually been demonstrated, why in the world would you think I'd even consider that Lamarckian nonsense.

I certainly don't care that you do, but without evidence of how any supposed evolution actually works, it's just your faith in other's guesses, unless you are an evolutionary biologist yourself.

And here's a question. If you attribute evolution to some principle like a, "struggle for existence," exactly what is that principle>? Where does it come from? I can see nothing in nature that says any existent should prefer to exist. It's that assumed teleology everyone ignores. Why should any natural thing, "struggle to survive," unless it's already endowed with some natural, "preference," for surviving? But that smacks or some kind of mystic mandate, as though something dictated, "organisms will want to survive." There is no reason there should be such a mandate.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 8:54 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 7:04 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 3:56 pm
Of the 118 chemical elements described in the periodic chart of the elements, there is no doubt at all that the valences and number of electrons, protons, and neutrons of the 94 naturally occuring elements (and their isotopes) is known and absolutely true. In fact, it is not possible that the chemical description of those elements could not be true.

[I have never seen the evolutionary hypothesis in any biological or genetics book or paper described as, "gradual change over time." Today, no evolutionist means that for certain, since all genetic change requires mutation, which is never, "gradual."]
Artificial selection causes evolution of the offspring of successive generations that are artificially selected. Comparative rates of evolution vary. All else being equal geographical isolation speeds up evolution by natural selection, as does rate of reproduction.

Mutations are not gradual, however random mutations plus struggle for existence tend to cause a species to evolve. Some parents have babies faster than other parents have babies.
Since Darwinian evolution has never actually been demonstrated, why in the world would you think I'd even consider that Lamarckian nonsense.

I certainly don't care that you do, but without evidence of how any supposed evolution actually works, it's just your faith in other's guesses, unless you are an evolutionary biologist yourself.

And here's a question. If you attribute evolution to some principle like a, "struggle for existence," exactly what is that principle>? Where does it come from? I can see nothing in nature that says any existent should prefer to exist. It's that assumed teleology everyone ignores. Why should any natural thing, "struggle to survive," unless it's already endowed with some natural, "preference," for surviving? But that smacks or some kind of mystic mandate, as though something dictated, "organisms will want to survive." There is no reason there should be such a mandate.
Lamarckian theory is that learned behaviour can be inherited by offspring. Random mutations are not learned behaviour but happen in the genetic channel for change.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8121
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Gary Childress »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 8:54 pm I can see nothing in nature that says any existent should prefer to exist. It's that assumed teleology everyone ignores. Why should any natural thing, "struggle to survive," unless it's already endowed with some natural, "preference," for surviving? But that smacks or some kind of mystic mandate, as though something dictated, "organisms will want to survive." There is no reason there should be such a mandate.
Just about anything that didn't seek to survive would probably become extinct in this world. Therefore all the successful species we see around us today are the ones that tried to survive. That would tend to explain why all existent creatures seem to strive to survive. There probably were some that didn't but they didn't last long enough to produce enough successful offspring to stay in the gene pool for us to look around and notice their tendency.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8121
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 10:45 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:03 pm Is there any evidence for Biblical creation?
I certainly see a lot.

But it's always amazing to me how some people can actually argue they see none. Having an alternate explanation for phenomena that ordinarily would powerfully suggest the attentions of a Creator can, I think, be used as a way of shutting one's eyes. Maybe that's the main function of Evolutionism: it lets one see things like design and morality, but pretend they could have "just happened" instead of being intentional productions of the Creator.

Look around you, Gary...what do you see? Do you look at this world, the complexities and beauties of nature, and at yourself -- your own mind, conscience and identity, just for a start -- and say that "accident" is the obvious explanation?
By Biblical creation, I mean the Genesis story. Is there evidence that the world is only 6000 years old, or whatever? Is there evidence that it was created in 7 days? Is there evidence that God created all species on the same 6th day? We're not talking about "gee it seems miraculous that there is anything at all." We're talking about the Genesis story. If the Genesis story is wrong, then the Bible could be arguably suspect on at least some things.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8121
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Gary Childress »

jayjacobus wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:51 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:03 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 3:22 pm

There are other accounts of Creation, of course, scattered throughout the various religious narratives of mankind. One has to select among them, of course, to find which are more or less plausible, given the evidence.
Is there any evidence for Biblical creation?
No, but there is no evidence for the Big Bang. That is only an unproven hypothesis.

When I read the Bible, I separate the wheat from the chaff. I reason that the creation story is chaff but I don't discard the wheat.
It seems to me that there is more evidence for a "big bang" than there is for Biblical creation. At least a "big bang" would be more consistent with what is currently understood about physics.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Dubious »

The General Theory of Relativity predicts the Big Bang which is how that concept came into being. It's constructed within the classical framework just like Newton's theory of gravity only more precise and much more complicated. Quantum Theory, which rules at the lowest level of our understanding of reality, does not confirm a Big Bang in the way GR does and the beginning of both time and space. There likely may have been a before aspect according to QT. The Big Bang is simply a term denoting the limits of our theoretical understanding...not a certified actual event which happened instantly as usually understood.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 1:44 am By Biblical creation, I mean the Genesis story. Is there evidence that the world is only 6000 years old, or whatever?
You're operating on bad information, Gary. I must assume you're referring to the old Bishop Usher count, that has been a dead issue, really for a century or so. The Bible neither states nor requires that the Earth must be only 6,000 years old. "Day" is an expression that sometimes means 24 hours, but in other contexts means "era." So we have to be sure which is being meant.
Is there evidence that it was created in 7 days?

Well, let's leave the "days" question loose, then. "Is there evidence that the Earth wasn't all created in one phase, but rather in distinct phases?" becomes your question. And even something like Evolutionism insists that it was.

Of course not all life appeared at the same time, because earlier things have to be in place in order to sustain later things, right?

But the question I asked you already is still unanswered: how does it look to you? Leaving aside the particulars of Genesis, Gary, for just a second, ask yourself if this world looks more designed or more accidental to you.

I'm just asking for your honest view of the thing, Gary. I'm not going to challenge you; I just want to know how it looks to you when you open your eyes to it. What's your starting intuition?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Can of worms.

Post by uwot »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:41 am
Gary Childress wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 1:44 amBy Biblical creation, I mean the Genesis story. Is there evidence that the world is only 6000 years old, or whatever?
You're operating on bad information, Gary. I must assume you're referring to the old Bishop Usher count, that has been a dead issue, really for a century or so.
No you're not, Gary. You are quite right that even today there are young earth creationists. The fact that Mr Can isn't one just shows that there is a limit to how literally he is able to take the bible.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:41 amThe Bible neither states nor requires that the Earth must be only 6,000 years old. "Day" is an expression that sometimes means 24 hours, but in other contexts means "era." So we have to be sure which is being meant.
Is there evidence that it was created in 7 days?
Well, let's leave the "days" question loose, then.
You can make it even less instructive: 7 in Hebrew numerology basically means holy or divine. So as Mr Can says:
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:41 am"Is there evidence that the Earth wasn't all created in one phase, but rather in distinct phases?" becomes your question.
If you are impressed that a book could tell you that the world didn't suddenly pop into existence fully formed, then christianity may be for you.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:41 amAnd even something like Evolutionism insists that it was.
This is yer typical Mr Can cheat; he takes a philosophical opinion or scientific hypothesis and turns it into a dogma. He will try and tell you that because you believe x, it follows that you believe y and z. He will then insult you by saying you are irrational for believing something only he thinks you believe.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:41 amOf course not all life appeared at the same time, because earlier things have to be in place in order to sustain later things, right?
That has the form of a reasonable assumption, but there is no planet on which it follows.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:41 amBut the question I asked you already is still unanswered: how does it look to you? Leaving aside the particulars of Genesis, Gary, for just a second, ask yourself if this world looks more designed or more accidental to you.
Well the particulars of Genesis are not particular, but to answer that is to give an emotional response. Nothing wrong with emotional responses, a lot of fine science is done in response to emotional responses. Johannes Kepler springs to mind. His study of the orbits of the known planets led him to believe that they could described by nesting Platonic solids. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysterium_Cosmographicum for details) It is surprisingly accurate, but deeper analysis brought Kepler to his laws of planetary motion and the original emotional response takes a back seat.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:41 amI'm just asking for your honest view of the thing, Gary. I'm not going to challenge you; I just want to know how it looks to you when you open your eyes to it. What's your starting intuition?
Not forgetting that your starting intuition will not necessarily prove to be true. You may not have to discard it, but if you follow Mr Can too closely, you will end up discarding evidence that does not support it.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8121
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:41 am
Gary Childress wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 1:44 am By Biblical creation, I mean the Genesis story. Is there evidence that the world is only 6000 years old, or whatever?
You're operating on bad information, Gary. I must assume you're referring to the old Bishop Usher count, that has been a dead issue, really for a century or so. The Bible neither states nor requires that the Earth must be only 6,000 years old. "Day" is an expression that sometimes means 24 hours, but in other contexts means "era." So we have to be sure which is being meant.
Is there evidence that it was created in 7 days?

Well, let's leave the "days" question loose, then. "Is there evidence that the Earth wasn't all created in one phase, but rather in distinct phases?" becomes your question. And even something like Evolutionism insists that it was.

Of course not all life appeared at the same time, because earlier things have to be in place in order to sustain later things, right?

But the question I asked you already is still unanswered: how does it look to you? Leaving aside the particulars of Genesis, Gary, for just a second, ask yourself if this world looks more designed or more accidental to you.

I'm just asking for your honest view of the thing, Gary. I'm not going to challenge you; I just want to know how it looks to you when you open your eyes to it. What's your starting intuition?
So you believe essentially that the account of cosmology offered by the sciences is true, except that instead of species emerging out of primordial elements or evolving out of others, species were created fully fleshed out by God at each point in history. So God created the dinosaurs millions of years before humans and then created humans, perhaps when he got tired of looking at dinosaurs for millions of years? Is that the case?

As far as how it "looks" to me, all I see is what I see today. I don't see how it looked millions or billions of years ago, I don't see it being created nor evolving I just see what is here now in its current form. therefore I just go off of what I read in books. To be honest, the world looks no more "created" to me than it looks like it evolved over time. Everything is already here. Whatever way I interpret that basically all hinges on what I read or what I am told.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:40 pm ...species were created fully fleshed out by God at each point in history....
In my earlier comments, I pointed to the fact that the theory of Evolution has bad implications for fields like Biology and Psychology, if it turns out, as Nagel says, that it's really an incorrect or incomplete paradigm imposed on science itself. It would harm our ability to investigate the world scientifically, of course. That would be bad for everyone.

But it has no implications for theology whether God used a short or a longer timespan for the creation of particular species, ("day" can mean either) so it's theologically an unimportant question. What IS theologically important is the part of the theory that deals with the alleged "ascent of man," which, if true, would undermine Biblical Theism. For the Bible describes mankind as being the product of a unique creation event, separate from the animals, and in special relation to God, including moral relationship... a thing which no animal has...and spiritual relationship...another thing which no animal has...and with obligations of stewardship, which, again, no animal has, and finally with a unique salvation history, in which animals have no active role at all.

So that's where the debate needs to begin.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:41 am I'm just asking for your honest view of the thing, Gary. I'm not going to challenge you; I just want to know how it looks to you when you open your eyes to it. What's your starting intuition?
As far as how it "looks" to me, all I see is what I see today. I don't see how it looked millions or billions of years ago, I don't see it being created nor evolving I just see what is here now in its current form. therefore I just go off of what I read in books.
Okay, that's all how most people operate, most of the time...at least, today. But not historically; for the very simple reasons that there have historically been no books to tell them, and Darwinism's only a hundred and some years old.

So I'm just asking, if you were looking at the World and its various species, including yourself, which hypothesis would first suggest itself to you? Would you be inclined to say, "What marvelous chance!" or "What created this?"
To be honest, the world looks no more "created" to me than it looks like it evolved over time.

That's what I'm looking for, Gary. Just an honest opinion. And I think it's the general opinion, if people are honest, and the preponderance of people histoically have manifestly come to the same conclusion.

In fact, even ardent Atheists (like Dawkins), when they have had an honest minute with themselves, have arrived at the same conclusion...Creation looks created.

But what makes it look created to us? There are a couple of definite factors that make our intuition very reasonable. One, we know that complex things...and especially extremely complex things, are far more likely to be the product of design than of chance. In our daily experiences, we never see chance resulting in anything but disorder; and things are very orderly here.

Secondly, things around us specify stuff. Things aren't piles of random happenenings: they form coherent entities, such as objects and species, laws and regularities, events and consequences, and all that. There is a profound rationality written into the operating and existence of all things around us, even when we admit we don't know the precise meaning of it all. It's as if we find ourselves in the middle of a cosmic story in which we've suddenly appeared as (perhaps) a minor character, and nobody's explained our role exactly, and nobody's told us where the story's going, but we sense it's going somewhere.

Thirdly, we are aware of the operating of a mind in us. This is something no Evolutionist can come close to explaining, as Nagel pointed out. They all lapse into attempted accounts (really no more than just-so stories) about the development of the physical brain, because they can't even locate the entity within the physical form. They know nothing of mind, ironically, since they pride themselves on being "intellectual." But an intellect is nothing in a strictly causal, physical world. However, you and I have minds, and we live through them every day. So that, also, is a further intimation of meaning, purpose, direction and design.

And consider your own existential longings, Gary. You're a guy who longs for fairness, for justice, for kindness, for purpose, for meaning...but why? If Evolutionism is true, there were never any such things in the universe, and never will be. The question is not why you long for them irrationally, since they cannot exist at all, but how you even formed a desire to think you wanted them in the first place. How would purely random processes produce in you a longing for these things?

So for all these reasons, and for many more as well, people naturally gravitate to the design hypothesis first. And it actually takes a process of willfully resisting the evidence to bring about the perception that maybe it's all random. No wonder it took up until Darwin to even find a rationale that made it look plausible to anyone: it's profoundly counter-intuitive. It takes a herculean act of will to convince oneself there's no evidence for design; what there is, in fact, is overwhelming prima facie evidence for it. Interestingly, Dawkins himself admits that's how it is.

Now, is that mass of suggestive evidence enough to form a firm belief on? No, of course not. The counterintuitive option could plausilby turn out to be true, despite the evidence to the contrary. But it's a starting point when one realizes that honest leads us toward design, not randomness as the right explanation. And it means that the burden of proof is on any contrary hypothesis, no on our intuition of design.

I'll pause. I'm more interested in where your mind goes from here than anything, so I'll wait for what you want to say next, okay?
Gary Childress
Posts: 8121
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:28 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:40 pm ...species were created fully fleshed out by God at each point in history....
In my earlier comments, I pointed to the fact that the theory of Evolution has bad implications for fields like Biology and Psychology, if it turns out, as Nagel says, that it's really an incorrect or incomplete paradigm imposed on science itself. It would harm our ability to investigate the world scientifically, of course. That would be bad for everyone.

But it has no implications for theology whether God used a short or a longer timespan for the creation of particular species, ("day" can mean either) so it's theologically an unimportant question. What IS theologically important is the part of the theory that deals with the alleged "ascent of man," which, if true, would undermine Biblical Theism. For the Bible describes mankind as being the product of a unique creation event, separate from the animals, and in special relation to God, including moral relationship... a thing which no animal has...and spiritual relationship...another thing which no animal has...and with obligations of stewardship, which, again, no animal has, and finally with a unique salvation history, in which animals have no active role at all.

So that's where the debate needs to begin.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:41 am I'm just asking for your honest view of the thing, Gary. I'm not going to challenge you; I just want to know how it looks to you when you open your eyes to it. What's your starting intuition?
As far as how it "looks" to me, all I see is what I see today. I don't see how it looked millions or billions of years ago, I don't see it being created nor evolving I just see what is here now in its current form. therefore I just go off of what I read in books.
Okay, that's all how most people operate, most of the time...at least, today. But not historically; for the very simple reasons that there have historically been no books to tell them, and Darwinism's only a hundred and some years old.

So I'm just asking, if you were looking at the World and its various species, including yourself, which hypothesis would first suggest itself to you? Would you be inclined to say, "What marvelous chance!" or "What created this?"
To be honest, the world looks no more "created" to me than it looks like it evolved over time.

That's what I'm looking for, Gary. Just an honest opinion. And I think it's the general opinion, if people are honest, and the preponderance of people histoically have manifestly come to the same conclusion.

In fact, even ardent Atheists (like Dawkins), when they have had an honest minute with themselves, have arrived at the same conclusion...Creation looks created.

But what makes it look created to us? There are a couple of definite factors that make our intuition very reasonable. One, we know that complex things...and especially extremely complex things, are far more likely to be the product of design than of chance. In our daily experiences, we never see chance resulting in anything but disorder; and things are very orderly here.

Secondly, things around us specify stuff. Things aren't piles of random happenenings: they form coherent entities, such as objects and species, laws and regularities, events and consequences, and all that. There is a profound rationality written into the operating and existence of all things around us, even when we admit we don't know the precise meaning of it all. It's as if we find ourselves in the middle of a cosmic story in which we've suddenly appeared as (perhaps) a minor character, and nobody's explained our role exactly, and nobody's told us where the story's going, but we sense it's going somewhere.

Thirdly, we are aware of the operating of a mind in us. This is something no Evolutionist can come close to explaining, as Nagel pointed out. They all lapse into attempted accounts (really no more than just-so stories) about the development of the physical brain, because they can't even locate the entity within the physical form. They know nothing of mind, ironically, since they pride themselves on being "intellectual." But an intellect is nothing in a strictly causal, physical world. However, you and I have minds, and we live through them every day. So that, also, is a further intimation of meaning, purpose, direction and design.

And consider your own existential longings, Gary. You're a guy who longs for fairness, for justice, for kindness, for purpose, for meaning...but why? If Evolutionism is true, there were never any such things in the universe, and never will be. The question is not why you long for them irrationally, since they cannot exist at all, but how you even formed a desire to think you wanted them in the first place. How would purely random processes produce in you a longing for these things?

So for all these reasons, and for many more as well, people naturally gravitate to the design hypothesis first. And it actually takes a process of willfully resisting the evidence to bring about the perception that maybe it's all random. No wonder it took up until Darwin to even find a rationale that made it look plausible to anyone: it's profoundly counter-intuitive. It takes a herculean act of will to convince oneself there's no evidence for design; what there is, in fact, is overwhelming prima facie evidence for it. Interestingly, Dawkins himself admits that's how it is.

Now, is that mass of suggestive evidence enough to form a firm belief on? No, of course not. The counterintuitive option could plausilby turn out to be true, despite the evidence to the contrary. But it's a starting point when one realizes that honest leads us toward design, not randomness as the right explanation. And it means that the burden of proof is on any contrary hypothesis, no on our intuition of design.

I'll pause. I'm more interested in where your mind goes from here than anything, so I'll wait for what you want to say next, okay?
Well, I think it's very fair game to believe that there is something indeed very special about human consciousness. It's hard to believe that something like this arose out of nothingness through purely chance accident.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:51 am Well, I think it's very fair game to believe that there is something indeed very special about human consciousness. It's hard to believe that something like this arose out of nothingness through purely chance accident.
I agree. Your intuition is actually telling you something there, Gary. And I think that's a good starting point: that you have a right to feel that way.

But think of how impossible that is, if "the ascent of man" story is how things actually are. If you and I are nothing but "late apes," then we're also nothing more that cosmic detritus...accidental happenings in an indifferent universe. And we aren't really "special" in any way at all. We're not enlightened, or of higher value...and we're of no more value than the dogs, the fish and the paramecia, which also have no particular value or specialness of their own. Everything in the universe is just a chance happening. And all creatures are mere accidents.

Why then is the human race justifiably expected to behave in particular ways, as opposed to others? Monkeys get to do whatever it is monkeys do. So do fish and paramecia. And they're never, never "wrong" for doing anything they do; nor are they ever "right" for doing anything.

If we're no more than part of that, then why are human beings expected to be rational, moral, logical, virtuos, or anything else like that?

But we don't feel like that's how it is, do we Gary? We KNOW, in our heart of hearts, that we are here on a different "story." Human beings ARE responsible for their actions, for the environment, and to each other. And we are better than dogs and monkeys...and far better than mosquitoes or pine trees. In fact, we are responsible for what we do. They are not.

And, Gary, I'll go with you a further step: this world is not going well.

There's no reason we should know that, of course, if the "ascent of man" story is true. LIke all other byproducts of the indifferent universe, we should be blithely unaware of the collapse of the environment, the decline of civilizations or the injustices of personal life. Any intuition to the contrary is utterly inexplicable, on those terms.

But we know things are not as they should be.

How do we know that? :shock:
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by RCSaunders »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:02 pm Just about anything that didn't seek to survive would probably become extinct in this world.
The fact that something happens does not mean there was any intention involved. The fact that all rivers run downhill does not mean that's what rivers intend or, "seek," to do. The fact a fire consumes all combustibles it can reach doe not mean it was, "seeking," to burn everything up. The fact that an organism or species survives does not mean it intended or was, "seeking," to do so. No organism acts with some objective or purpose beyond it's immediate impulses, because, without concepts it is not possible to be conscious of the future.

Obviously, the behavior of those organisms and species that do survive results in that survival, but that does not mean they engaged in that behavior because they had their survival in mind as their objective. The only objectives they have is fulfilling their immediate desires and impulses which, fortuitously, results in their survival.
Ansiktsburk
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Central Scandinavia

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Ansiktsburk »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 11:22 am
Ansiktsburk wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 6:37 am Puberty blockers - whatever rocks you boat, and does not hurt other people, except their feelings of what is Proper.
Vitruvius wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 8:38 amWho is this post for? Are you addressing this to children behind their parents backs?
Ansiktsburk wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 10:22 amSuppose so. As well as to Parents, trying to mold kids into something that isnt in their "DNA". Being a parent myself I see too much of parents seeing their children as children and not evolving individual homo sapiens with individual traits and DNA to aknowledge.
I followed Dr Marcus Evans, formerly of GIDS on twitter. He quit, as did 30+ other therapists because of the politically correct pressure to proscribe puberty blockers for what he describes - particularly in adolescents, as often a phase that passes with time. Puberty blockers, I'm led to understand, have permanent effects. What I wanted to understand is the High Court decision in this matter; whether it is to insulate the NHS from the damage already done by politically correct affirmation of an often temporary psychological disorder - or whether the court had bowed to politically correct pressure. I'm no closer to understanding that. But at least I know what you, as a parent - think!
I try to. think. Sometimes successfully. Of course its not something you take like an aspirin, and going through the process of really going into this is, even for a young person a long, deep process of going against everything the community prescribes. I am myself deeply heterosexual, and admit instinctively having a hard time seeing like homosexual people showing affections for each other. A few of our friends have "came out" as homosexuals, and a few has changed sex(pardon my poor english probably theres a word for it). I do not instinctively like it. At all. But, everyone that has done that whatever swap has really flourished, and noone have, after decades, changed their minds.

I can imagine cases where young people, in some kind of psychological or social trauma, might come up with the Idea to do such a swap erroneously, but the road to really take those blockers, I really hope, Is a long process, talks with professionals.

The bottom line is - are there a lot of cases where people who have done this that really regrets it afterwards? And do parental advice really end up being what will make the person flourish in his or her or whatever later life?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

Post by Immanuel Can »

Ansiktsburk wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 9:13 pm The bottom line is - are there a lot of cases where people who have done this that really regrets it afterwards?
Yes.

"...several studies have estimated that 60 to 90 per cent of children who identify as transgender no longer want to transition by the time they’re adults..." National Post, Dec. 14:2020.

But if they're already on puberty blockers, then it's already too late by the time they realize what's going on. They've already been damaged.
Post Reply