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: To Immanuel Can

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:50 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:09 pm Anyone who does not agree with your mystical world view ...Well, then, I'm a troll.
No, you're a troll because there isn't anybody who doesn't know that a great deal of suffering is not a result of the sufferer's choices, and you're pretending not to know that.
Call me whatever you like. Name-calling seems fit your approach. There is a great deal of suffering in the world and no one escapes it. I never suggested that all the suffering of all people was the direct result of those individual's choices, only that ultimately, the life anyone has, is the sum consequence of all their own choices and and actions, and that most of the suffering in this world is because most individuals spend most of their lives making wrong choices. I've pointed out that almost everything you suggest are insolvable problems that make success impossible, others have overcome and succeeded spectacularly and that all the others who didn't, just failed to do what those who succeeded did.

In all the world I have seen and learned about, where there is the most suffering, disease, and poverty, the majority of the people embrace gross superstitions and make no effort to learn or improve themselves, trusting in their religious teachers and political leaders (and usually local thugs) to tell them what to think, do, and believe, yet even the most depressed of such hell-holes, there are always a few who refuse to do and believe what everyone else does and find a way to escape the ignorance, superstition, and squalor of their peers--and they are almost always hated for their, "rebellion."

You call me a, "troll," but you are the one with the agenda. I have no agenda, no program to put over, no ideology to promote. I enjoy ideas, and enjoy discovering wrong ones and what is wrong with them, but I'm not interested in changing anyone else's mind or what they choose to believe or do. But you do.

If there is a way for someone to live successfully and happily in this world, totally fulfilled and satisfied with life, you would hate it. To convince people they need to be saved from something you must first convince them they are helpless, that success and happiness are not possible, that there is nothing to look forward to but misery and suffering, and that their only hope lies in something outside themselves. For those selling some social/political ideology, of course, the agency that will provide them the success and happiness they cannot achieve on their own is some kind of government. For those selling some religion, like you, the agency that will provide them success and happiness the world and their own nature cannot provide is some God.

Now, if you convince people they cannot possibly succeed in this world, they are certainly not going to try to succeed. If you convince them to give up, they will. If you convince them they can never be happy in this world, they won't be, and of course they will suffer the consequences of those choices.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:00 am I never suggested that all the suffering of all people was the direct result of those individual's choices,
That's funny; because it's what you said.
In all the world I have seen and learned about,
That''s what I mean. If you really think that's how it works, you must surely live in an exceedingly small, first-world, protected, affluent, and very fortunate bubble. Otherwise, you'd know that life doesn't work that way.
I have no agenda, no program to put over, no ideology to promote.
Good grief, man. You self-publish little "papers" and try to make everybody read them. How much more "promotion" can one do?
...you must first convince them they are helpless, that success and happiness are not possible, that there is nothing to look forward to but misery and suffering
Utter codswallop. I've said no such thing...ever.

What you should maybe do is actualy listen to somebody else for a bit. Not me, of course, because you're clearly not doing that, but somebody. And you should try to pay attention to what they actually DO say, instead of heaping up mountains of whimsy you attribute to them against their actual words.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:10 am
...you must first convince them they are helpless, that success and happiness are not possible, that there is nothing to look forward to but misery and suffering
Utter codswallop. I've said no such thing...ever.
Of course you do not say it, "that way."

You simply teach no one can live a totally successful and a fully satisfying life in this world by their own choice and effort? It is that explanation that convinces others they are helpless and that success and happiness are not possible in this world without some outside agency to provide it.

I'm certain that's what you teach and believe. If you truly believe it, why do you keep evading what it actually means? [The question is rhetorical. You don't have to explain yourself to me or anyone else, of course.]

I neither desire nor expect your agreement. I am only interested in demonstrating what is wrong with the cynical pessimistic view of reality as some kind of corrupt existence in which true success and happiness are not possible while failure and suffering are inevitable by explaining that life in this real world has infinite potential for anyone to be all one aspires to achieve and be and is rewarding beyond measure with joy and fulfillment to those willing to do the work of achieving and having it.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:14 am Of course you do not say it, "that way."
I did not say it *at all.* :roll:

Your explanation is total fantasy.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:17 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:14 am Of course you do not say it, "that way."
I did not say it *at all.*
I could certainly be mistaken and you can correct me if you choose to, but I really do not believe you would agree that, "anyone can live a totally successful and a fully satisfying life in this world by their own choice and effort?"

I'm sure you believe all human beings are born with some kind of defect that makes it impossible for them to live totally virtuous lives and that the world also suffers from a similar defect in which total success and happiness are not possible.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:17 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:17 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:14 am Of course you do not say it, "that way."
I did not say it *at all.*
I could certainly be mistaken and you can correct me if you choose to, but I really do not believe you would agree that, "anyone can live a totally successful and a fully satisfying life in this world by their own choice and effort?"
"Anyone"? So you think the person who is born handicapped...say with spina bifida or HIV positive, or who has been born in a dictatorship or poor...say the workers being killed by the Qataris to create their football stadiums, has made some "choice and effort" to cause that? And if they hadn't made that "choice"or "effort," they would be doing great?

You're going to have to explain that logic to me.

It's one thing to say that people can "make the best of a bad situation," as when a person's in a wheelchair but keeps a good attitude and does what she can with the limitations she's got; but it's totally a different thing to say her situation itself is a product of her "choice" or "efforts." Unless she broke her own spine, you've got no case to make there.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by jayjacobus »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:18 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 7:35 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:17 pm
What are you talking about. Society is just other people and what other people think has nothing to do with genetic conditions or their consequences. This desire to turn everything into some kind of, "social issue," is a disease.

Down's syndrome hasn't changed. If it was a disability it still is. If some cases are not disabilities they never were. You are just talking about some people's opinion, not facts.

Who's, "we?" If you don't have it, it's none of your business how those who have it choose to deal with it.

Again, if they aren't your children, it's none of your business. But I suppose if you had a son who felt he was superman and wanted to jump off the roof to prove he could fly, you'd let him.

Good grief!
You are an expert in what is none of your business. Everyone's posts seem to be your business.
If you don't know the difference between analyzing a viewpoint and interfering in others lives you deserve the consequences. I am interested in all ideas, but have no interest in changing anyone else's ideas or changing what they choose to think, believe or do. It is my business to enjoy the freedom of expressing my observation that most people want to force their views and values on others, which I happen to think is wrong. I'm sorry if that offends you.
You are overly critical which means you are judgmental, disrespectful of other people's ideas and able to justify the things you post (but not to my satisfaction)
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:05 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:17 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:17 am
I did not say it *at all.*
I could certainly be mistaken and you can correct me if you choose to, but I really do not believe you would agree that, "anyone can live a totally successful and a fully satisfying life in this world by their own choice and effort?"
"Anyone"? So you think the person who is born handicapped ...
You are intentionally evading the question again. "Anyone," does not mean, "everyone." The question means: "is it possible for any individual (even if it is only one) to live a totally successful and a fully satisfying life in this world by their own choice and effort?"
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:36 pm You are intentionally evading the question again.
What "question"? :shock:

All I see is the preposterous and overweeningly self-satisifed claim that everybody's suffering must surely be their own fault, for having not made "the right choices," or for having failed to put in the putative "right effort."

And I call "hogwash."
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by RCSaunders »

jayjacobus wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:23 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:18 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 7:35 pm

You are an expert in what is none of your business. Everyone's posts seem to be your business.
If you don't know the difference between analyzing a viewpoint and interfering in others lives you deserve the consequences. I am interested in all ideas, but have no interest in changing anyone else's ideas or changing what they choose to think, believe or do. It is my business to enjoy the freedom of expressing my observation that most people want to force their views and values on others, which I happen to think is wrong. I'm sorry if that offends you.
You are overly critical which means you are judgmental, disrespectful of other people's ideas and able to justify the things you post (but not to my satisfaction)
Yeah! So? What's you point? You don't have to like my style, or me, or my opinion. If what I write offends you, don't read it. That's what freedom of expression really is. You are free to say or write anything you choose and everyone else is free to listen to, read, or ignore what you say and write. So ignore what I write.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Gary Childress »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:46 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:23 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:18 pm
If you don't know the difference between analyzing a viewpoint and interfering in others lives you deserve the consequences. I am interested in all ideas, but have no interest in changing anyone else's ideas or changing what they choose to think, believe or do. It is my business to enjoy the freedom of expressing my observation that most people want to force their views and values on others, which I happen to think is wrong. I'm sorry if that offends you.
You are overly critical which means you are judgmental, disrespectful of other people's ideas and able to justify the things you post (but not to my satisfaction)
Yeah! So? What's you point? You don't have to like my style, or me, or my opinion. If what I write offends you, don't read it. That's what freedom of expression really is. You are free to say or write anything you choose and everyone else is free to listen to, read, or ignore what you say and write. So ignore what I write.
Freedom of expression swings both ways. If you're "free" to express whatever you want, then others are too. And if others are free to ignore your stuff, then you're free to ignore what jayjacobus writes. Therefore, your statement above really serves no tactical advantage to you saying it.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by RCSaunders »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:36 am Therefore, your statement above really serves no tactical advantage to you saying it.
Some people have very odd ideas about discussions.

What, "tactical advantage?" It's a conversation, not a war. There's nothing to be won? Do you see everything as some kind of combat, test, or contest?

To me, conversation is not a contest or conflict, it is the free exchange and offer of ideas between individuals to be examined and evaluated by every individual to enjoy, accept, hate, or reject as they choose. It's why I wrote to IC:
I have no agenda, no program to put over, no ideology to promote. ... I'm not interested in changing anyone else's mind or what they choose to believe or do.
If I say or explain something someone else finds of value and enjoys good. If I say or explain something someone else finds absurd and hates, that's just as good. It's the whole purpose of conversation for me, a, "free market of ideas."

I have the impression that for most people, "conversation," is about attempting to influence and manipulate others by appealing to their feelings and emotions, not about appealing to their reason and judgement. Is that what you had in mind by the word, "tactical."
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by jayjacobus »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:46 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:23 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:18 pm
If you don't know the difference between analyzing a viewpoint and interfering in others lives you deserve the consequences. I am interested in all ideas, but have no interest in changing anyone else's ideas or changing what they choose to think, believe or do. It is my business to enjoy the freedom of expressing my observation that most people want to force their views and values on others, which I happen to think is wrong. I'm sorry if that offends you.
You are overly critical which means you are judgmental, disrespectful of other people's ideas and able to justify the things you post (but not to my satisfaction)
Yeah! So? What's you point? You don't have to like my style, or me, or my opinion. If what I write offends you, don't read it. That's what freedom of expression really is. You are free to say or write anything you choose and everyone else is free to listen to, read, or ignore what you say and write. So ignore what I write.
You seem to be suffering from attention deficit disorder. If I were your teacher, I would recommend treatment but I am not your teacher.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by RCSaunders »

jayjacobus wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:26 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:46 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:23 pm

You are overly critical which means you are judgmental, disrespectful of other people's ideas and able to justify the things you post (but not to my satisfaction)
Yeah! So? What's you point? You don't have to like my style, or me, or my opinion. If what I write offends you, don't read it. That's what freedom of expression really is. You are free to say or write anything you choose and everyone else is free to listen to, read, or ignore what you say and write. So ignore what I write.
You seem to be suffering from attention deficit disorder. If I were your teacher, I would recommend treatment but I am not your teacher.
I bet you would!
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Gary Childress »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:34 am
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:36 am Therefore, your statement above really serves no tactical advantage to you saying it.
Some people have very odd ideas about discussions.

What, "tactical advantage?" It's a conversation, not a war. There's nothing to be won? Do you see everything as some kind of combat, test, or contest?

To me, conversation is not a contest or conflict, it is the free exchange and offer of ideas between individuals to be examined and evaluated by every individual to enjoy, accept, hate, or reject as they choose. It's why I wrote to IC:
I have no agenda, no program to put over, no ideology to promote. ... I'm not interested in changing anyone else's mind or what they choose to believe or do.
If I say or explain something someone else finds of value and enjoys good. If I say or explain something someone else finds absurd and hates, that's just as good. It's the whole purpose of conversation for me, a, "free market of ideas."

I have the impression that for most people, "conversation," is about attempting to influence and manipulate others by appealing to their feelings and emotions, not about appealing to their reason and judgement. Is that what you had in mind by the word, "tactical."
From what I notice of most discussions in philosophy, they are indeed contests, contests between wills that don't agree on things.
Post Reply