Then give me a "right" that you believe you have, but one that does not implicate a "responsibility."
Let's see what you're thinking of.
Yesterday's Dr. Phil show was just such a 'debate'. The topic was about a confusion between gender identity versus sex. What you are dictating is that one MUST behave according to some specific standard of 'gender' as being identical to one's 'sex'.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 3:34 pmThe word "traditional" was never used. We were speaking of the "nuclear family," meaning two parents of opposite sex, plus kids.
And the very simple point is that that is the only structure that produces children. Biologically, like all mammals, human beings are male-female. mono-sexual, multi-sperm, or asexual arrangements produce no offspring.
That point isn't even possible to debate. It's obvious.
And we were also just ANIMALS before the concept of 'governments' existed. And if governments collapsed, we would still be ANIMALS. "Social Services" are ALL that governments serve. What you mean is that social services that aide the poor were non-existent and that you ONLY approve of a government run BY the wealthy that serves ONLY FOR the wealthy. What would a government be if it lacked such serves? It would be a PRIVILEGED PRIVATE GOVERNMENT owned and operated by ONLY those who have a coincidence of POWER. It would 'govern' the poor BY the 'wealth' and thus act as a TAX against the poor ONLY! ["Tax" is a burden only to those who are expected to contribute without a choice. When you disempower the poor by burdening them to DO MORE in order to exist than some SPECIAL SUPERIOR class of people require, you 'free' those who are already 'free' but dictate against the 'freedoms' of those who do not have the fortune.Everyone favors 'family'. How can government 'favor' them
Who needs the government to "favour" anything? The government does very few things adequately, and almost nothing well. In most matters, the less of them we have, the better.
There were families long before there was any government, let alone any "social services." And if the latter collapse, there will still be families.
I don't "dictate" anything. Reality does. And I don't say people are not allowed to be deluded if they want to be; they can. But they can't ask me to participate with them in their delusions.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:08 pm What you are dictating is that one MUST behave according to some specific standard of 'gender' as being identical to one's 'sex'.
I already take the view that 'gender' identities are personal psychological interpretations of one's behaviors BASED upon traditional views of 'sex'.
Not for some things. But "tradition" has no importance here. It's basic biology that matters.I don't know what you disapprove of the term, "tradition",
And we were also just ANIMALS before the concept of 'governments' existed.
What you mean is that social services that aide the poor were non-existent and that you ONLY approve of a government run BY the wealthy that serves ONLY FOR the wealthy.
You mean Trudeau? Yes, he's all of that. I'm no fan of his.It would be a PRIVILEGED PRIVATE GOVERNMENT owned and operated by ONLY those who have a coincidence of POWER.
I didn't say they shouldn't. They need to do prisons, borders, policing, roads... But government functions should be as few and modest as possible, because government does nothing well.So if you think that governments should NOT have social services,
If you actually believe in what you say, prove that YOU can exist independently among the bears in the wild.
Hi Belinda, One's identity is presumably the individuals's identity. When we come into this world we have no identity, we are simply a constitution either hardy or frail. It is the life journey of that constitution through the context of its world experience that gives said individual their self-identity. As a word within a sentence, a sentence in a paragraph context defines.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:27 pmHow one identifies oneself is not the same as how the same individual is identified by others.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:12 pm Context always bestows one's identity upon one, even where one strives to escape one's context, it then becomes your storyline context identity, the life as lived. Identity is the clothing the constitution wears in public.
I agree personal identity is learned not inherited.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:13 amHi Belinda, One's identity is presumably the individuals's identity. When we come into this world we have no identity, we are simply a constitution either hardy or frail. It is the life journey of that constitution through the context of its world experience that gives said individual their self-identity. As a word within a sentence, a sentence in a paragraph context defines.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:27 pmHow one identifies oneself is not the same as how the same individual is identified by others.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:12 pm Context always bestows one's identity upon one, even where one strives to escape one's context, it then becomes your storyline context identity, the life as lived. Identity is the clothing the constitution wears in public.
Belinda,popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:42 am [quote=Belinda post_id=556312 time=1642760249 user_id=1
I agree personal identity is learned not inherited.
Nonetheless the Christian idea that God knows when the sparrow falls is a poetic rendering of deterministic necessity. New Age has the same idea: " You are a child of the universe".
It's not, actually.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:42 am ...the Christian idea that God knows when the sparrow falls is a poetic rendering of deterministic necessity.
Well, I might know, and know accurately, that my message was going to be responded to by somebody. Did that mean I made you respond? Of course not. You have your own will. We both know that.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:43 pm God knows when the sparrow falls is a poetic rendering of deterministic necessity.
as I reckon it: God may well know how, why, and when the sparrow falls, as long as man isn't involved
man, as a free will, is a wild card, the wild card: why and when Joe shoots the sparrow is as much a mystery to Him as it is to you and me
I hear what you're saying, Henry...and I know it's a brain-bender. But even accuracy is actually just an irrelevant variable. One can be accurate or inaccurate in a case of foreknowledge; but neither creates a causal relation. Causality is a different dynamic than knowledge.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 5:00 pm Mannie,
we're not talkin' about one human, by way of experience and reason, accurately predictin' an event, action, or behavior
we're talkin' about God, knowin' in advance, perfectly, what a man will do, say, and think
the first isn't knowing: it's accurate prediction
It doesn't, actually. And again, that's simply because knowledge doesn't make things happen.His perfect knowledge means Joe is gonna off that bird, is gonna for a specific reason, and is gonna in a specific way
No, Joe's still an agent, because knowing is a passive thing, and doing is an active one. Joe is the agent; he still does what Joe wants to do. Joe may also do what God does not want him to do, but foreknows he will do. That doesn't make Joe's misdeeds God's fault.Joe is an event, not an agent, in such a set up
Actually, He can. He's not time-bound, as we are. But knowing does not make things happen.no, if God prizes free will, then He can't know what Joe will do
That has other unpalatable consequences.mebbe one of His reasons for creatin' man is to experience surprise
The fact that we have free will does indeed mark our being "in His image." But He is not "in our image." What we have to keep straight is which is the prototype and which is the antitype; He's the original, and we are the pallid little copy. He does not resemble us, except to the extent and in the ways that He has allowed that we shall resemble Him.I don't find the notion demeaning of Him, or limiting on Him: I see it as indicative of His personhood; it adds dimension to created in His image
Ultimate universal determinism, or ' necessity' to give it another name, is an insight into the metaphysical insight of the One and the many. Necessity pertains to the One, and individuals pertain to the many.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:13 pm Belinda,
If there is something to the term deterministic, it is infinite, thus for the purpose of our understanding it is quite useless.
Determinism is more that causal chains that necessitate one event preceding or succeeding another event. Determinism is also all events past and future are necessary events that can't be otherwise than they are, were, or will be.Belinda,
Could you elaborate, I am afraid I don't understand.
If that's how things are, then doing anything at all is not wrong. That includes marginalizing, suppressing or harming women. All those actions were also "determined" to happen, and the perps who did them "couldn't be otherwise than they were," and "couldn't do otherwise than they actually did."