• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

SPLIT from "What gender are you internally?"

Status
Not open for further replies.

onesteptwostep

Junior Hegelian
Local time
Today 8:31 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
4,253
-->
@Tberg because, like you've already said, people aren't by their nature virtuous, thus those organs are needed (which is what they would say).

Just to clarify something though, what do you mean when you say terrorist attacks? terrorist attacks in Saudi?

Also, just because Wahhabism rules doesn't mean its citizens are all holyholy-upright. I mean the US is 70% Protestant but there's major problems there. Indonesia is like 90% Sunni and there's problems there.
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 6:31 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
-->
Actually, I assume the opposite: that humans have inherent flaws and virtues that are accentuated by the environment.

Cenk Uyghur said there is an attack in Saudi Arabia every day now carried out by IS. That is what I am talking about when I talk about disharmony. Bin laden also had his sights upon the Monarchy.

Your concession about the impotence of religion reinforces my point. Again, it would prove the power of coercion rather than the power of spirituality to accede to your claims about harmony.
 

onesteptwostep

Junior Hegelian
Local time
Today 8:31 PM
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
4,253
-->
Religion is not spirituality, though some religions do have spiritual elements within them. It is not by the environment we come to conflict with each other.
If that were so, would you agree to a one child policy or something like it, like they have in China (though it's not really enforced)- so we would be able to sustain ourselves and the world? If it's environment that's the problem then it seems we'll have to go against each other regardless; the environment is limited.

Although I'm not well versed in the matters of Islamic world but what you seem to be doing is bundling up all the conflicts within that region and tying them together in a green ribbon which you call 'Islam'.

If you feel that religion is impotent, look at history and see all the "Golden Ages", and then look at their origins. How and why did Britain come to power? How did Germany come to power? France? Spain? Portugal? The Ottoman? Western Rome? The Byzantine? Tang? Ming? History clearly tells another story when you dig deeper into them. Perhaps it's not religion, like I've said, but rather, more of an ethnic or partisan/political problem. I'd rather start with concrete reasons rather than big abstract ones such as "religion".

You have to think the other way too. People in the Islamic world probably see the US and think of its problems as a 'Christian' problems, rather than normal secular ones that just happen, (that some people just do bad things out of error or spite) and so on. (I might be talking out of my ass here however). But the average person over there do seem to perpetuate hate/spite against "the west".

As for that TYT guy I'll have to watch the video o:
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
What a sad story. Men do apparently report domestic violence less than women. I don't know if the same is true for rape. Seems probable.



I'm going to revise what I said earlier:



to this:



The media does not seem to have any problems discussing the motives of serial killers and murderers, but doing that with rapists seems taboo. Murder is a more severe crime in the eyes of the law, yet I don't recall hearing much discussion ever on the proximal and/or ultimate causes of rape in the media. I think that's what bothers me. It doesn't seem to be reported in a balanced way. The man is always portrayed as evil, and the woman is always a helpless (innocent) victim. In murder cases though, the man's mental status is reported in detail, and journalists liberally speculate about his motives and the relationship between the man and the victim.



Less clothing does not equate to greater civil liberties. So many counter-examples can be found for this, from the caste system in India, to hunter-gatherer tribes.

Seen through the lens of western mass media and feminist doctrine, hijabs are just male tools of repression to dominate women and strip them of liberty. Unfortunately, this doesn't accord with reality:



Another way I've come up with to describe my thoughts on this is the broken-windows theory. Basically, if women dress in suggestive attire/behave in ways that invite sexual attention, they basically are more likely to be viewed as sexual objects and this invites male harassment. Might seem counter-intuitive, but when petty crime such as graffiti, fare evasion, urination, etc. were strictly enforced in NYC subways, the major crimes such as murder/rape/theft/assault also went down. The BW theory itself is not bullet-proof by any measure, but the idea that smaller crimes lead to larger crimes I think translates well to the idea of laissez faire in women's attire/behavior leads to higher incidence of rape. If the woman covers up, she's less likely to be seen as a sexual object. I fail to see how this is an example of male repression, as long as women receive equal treatment in the eyes of the law. The Qu'ran makes provisions for both men and women, and the intent behind it as far as I can see is modesty/preventing harassment from others, not oppressing women to keep them servile/domesticated, which is what feminists would argue.

*shrug* I didn't feel like arguing this back when it was posted so I delayed my response a bit.

Firstly choosing what you can wear is a civil liberty. I totally agree that wearing less clothing will make them seem like sexual objects and it will also increase chance of rape. The laws derived from the Qu'ran forces them to wear less revealing attire taking away their choice to look more beautiful which generally correlates to more sexually appealing. This is oppressing them. (The Muslim world also practises domesticating females in other ways to complement this, taking away their choice of clothing is simply the symbol used for all the oppression forced).

Would forcing strict a strict non-sexualised dress code help in preventing harassment? Yes, but it would also oppress them and take away their freedom of expression. They are the restricted party subservient to the needs of the male population(dress less revealingly for one to not have the males have to exercise restraint). This doesn't in any way justify rape, true it is a reason behind it, this reason simply doesn't justify the action. I do think the laws for what is defined as harassment are too broad and unfair towards the males but in regard actual cases of them raping females they are the guilty party. My opinion is that the females right to liberty trumps forcing the males on an obligation of exercising restraint.
 

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 7:31 AM
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
-->
*shrug* I didn't feel like arguing this back when it was posted so I delayed my response a bit.

Firstly choosing what you can wear is a civil liberty. I totally agree that wearing less clothing will make them seem like sexual objects and it will also increase chance of rape. The laws derived from the Qu'ran forces them to wear less revealing attire taking away their choice to look more beautiful which generally correlates to more sexually appealing. This is oppressing them. (The Muslim world also practises domesticating females in other ways to complement this, taking away their choice of clothing is simply the symbol used for all the oppression forced).

Would forcing strict a strict non-sexualised dress code help in preventing harassment? Yes, but it would also oppress them and take away their freedom of expression. They are the restricted party subservient to the needs of the male population(dress less revealingly for one to not have the males have to exercise restraint). This doesn't in any way justify rape, true it is a reason behind it, this reason simply doesn't justify the action. I do think the laws for what is defined as harassment are too broad and unfair towards the males but in regard actual cases of them raping females they are the guilty party. My opinion is that the females right to liberty trumps forcing the males on an obligation of exercising restraint.

All fair points. I've been trying to get some reliable rape/domestic abuse/violence statistics from Saudi Arabia but alas, no luck as of yet. I cited some stats from Interpol, and there's another study by Souryal that both show the rates of violence against women are far lower in KSA than in the west. People on here didn't seem to buy it. I don't really blame them, but my hunch is that the rates of these kinds of crimes are in fact lower. It's one of those things that's not provable either way at this point.

The whole reason that I went in this direction is that these days, it seems like when a woman gets raped, the blame for the crime in that particular situation is placed 100% on the rapist (which is just), but the larger, more global blame is also 100% placed on men as a whole. Women in the aggregate are seen as being totally without responsibility for the existence of these kinds of crimes (violence against women) in our society. I take issue with that.

If it can be conclusively shown that on the whole, violence against women is actually lower in KSA despite the oppression of women and their relative lack of civil rights (where men can seemingly get away with whatever they want), then our society will be forced to examine why this is the case, and then the argument is reframed as one of balancing liberty with security. I'm not arguing for the oppression of women, but at the same time, I do believe there should be some constraints on dress and behavior. I mentioned previously how young women dress in high school and college. I agree that personal expression is important, but if it increases violence and harassment, the latter takes precedence. I think that's what the Qu'ran aims to prevent, and it has provisions on dress for both sexes.

In the end, it's also possible the security argument will be rendered moot because the rate of all violent crime in the US has been steadily dropping for the past two decades. If it continues its decline, then I'm all for women parading around in whatever they want...But I don't think the rate (controlled for demographics) will decline much further.
 

Pyropyro

Magos Biologis
Local time
Today 7:31 PM
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
4,044
-->
Location
Philippines
All fair points. I've been trying to get some reliable rape/domestic abuse/violence statistics from Saudi Arabia but alas, no luck as of yet.

Can't find these stats either. The data that I got only narrows it down into regions rather than countries. (see page 47 of the WHO report)
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
:rolleyes:

#unwitting testimony

Really? I think it's abundantly clear that he has some conservative views, these ad hominem type attacks are not very constructive.

@inquisitor I am glad that we have been able to agree that it is a question of social liberty versus conservatism/(possibly)security. I stand firmly behind that liberty is far more important due to all the perifial consequences such decisions would bring. More thought policing, less progress and generally stifling innovation. People should firmly have the right to do what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the same right of others.(note this is in regards to social issues I am more socialistic when it comes to economics).
 
Local time
Today 11:31 AM
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
1,783
-->
Really? I think it's abundantly clear that he has some conservative views, these ad hominem type attacks are not very constructive.

i'm really not sure that he realises it though and it would be very helpful to everbody if he did. he himself has asked a number of times why his posts are subject to so much derision on this forum.

it's not the conservatism that i object to but the hints at an abhorrence for certain (all?!) women (and gay men) that i detect in most of inquisitor's posts.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
i'm really not sure that he realises it though and it would be very helpful to everbody if he did. he himself has asked a number of times why his posts are subject to so much derision on this forum.

it's not the conservatism that i object to but the hints at an abhorrence for certain (all?!) women (and gay men) that i detect in most of inquisitor's posts.

Ah right, I keep forgetting that I tend to just dismiss/ignore those kinds of hints/opinions and focus only on the arguments.
 

Minuend

pat pat
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
4,142
-->
Firstly choosing what you can wear is a civil liberty. I totally agree that wearing less clothing will make them seem like sexual objects and it will also increase chance of rape.

Does it? By how much?

I know if I were going to target someone, I'd choose the easier prey, not the one with the least clothes. Though sometimes those would be the same. Most statistics show at least 50% of rapists are acquaintances. Which makes sense, because when you are an acquaintance, you can get some readings on their personality (shy, timid) and there can be an opportunity of meeting them at their home or their own home. Which is a less risky thing than being in the open.

Though, the second option would be searching through places with drunk people or where people do drugs. Because some will pass out or be too drunk to resist properly. And the bonus is that they are less likely to believed plus you can claim you were drunk too. You could also be turned on by one woman and fantasize about her while raping another more easily accessible one.

-----

Dwelling the darker sides of internet, you do come across people who admit they have raped. One technique used is being nice to the woman after and maybe cuddle/ hug, because then she will start doubting herself. She will start wondering whether she was really clear in saying no.

Well, these are people who are able to dismiss their victims terror and pain as they lay over them, raping them. Who doesn't mind they cry or scream. Who doesn't mind the victim might tear or get scars that will always be there to remind them. It's a dangerous ability to have. Being able to utterly destroy someone for own benefit. I very much doubt it's limited to women and rape.
 
Local time
Today 11:31 AM
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
1,783
-->
Ah right, I keep forgetting that I tend to just dismiss/ignore those kinds of hints/opinions and focus only on the arguments.

not sure if this is sarcasm...

it seems to me that the distate for men or women who do not conform to his idea of how men or women should look/behave is what motivates inquisitor to put forward the arguments he does, bending reality to serve his moral disgust. it's not a minor detail.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
I am very serious with that statement, his motivations, abhorrent or not do not affect my analysis of the arguments he presents, as they aren't relevant to the actual arguments. I always try to be impartial and neutral when I analyse any argument and I don't really care why the arguments were presented(unless it is relevant to the argument).

I'd quite happily argue with the devil if he presented reasonable argumentation.
 

Ex-User (9086)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 11:31 AM
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,758
-->
I am very serious with that statement, his motivations, abhorrent or not do not affect my analysis of the arguments he presents, as they aren't relevant to the actual arguments. I always try to be impartial and neutral when I analyse any argument and I don't really care why the arguments were presented(unless it is relevant to the argument).

I'd quite happily argue with the devil if he presented reasonable argumentation.
Trying to be impartial or open to information doesn't mean the feelings are unimportant.

A user can make perfect sense and still be hurtful towards others, for example attempts at explaining gender dysphoria as a mental illness are hurtful to transgender people, even though they themselves realise they have some sort of a problem, they don't want to be told what they know and/or ostracised, because it hurts.

Another problem is that stating a fact doesn't mean it doesn't make every one around uncomfortable. One could say they accept dysphoric people but there is a degree of irrevocable repulsion contained in some perceptions that one might not admit they feel, so even though there is an illusion of acceptance and tolerance, being factual about it leads to alienation and ignoring the option that they are viable conversation partners.

Blunt facts and information don't increase the understanding of others and cohesion (there are areas of personality and establishing a relationship that are omitted on the basis that they lack factual values), it's more akin to a constant battle to prove ones worth with opponents waiting to jump in at every misstep.

Along that, if Inquisitors motivation is his hatred towards such people, or his repulsion and fear towards a different vision of a society and cherry picking data to support it, it is a big problem for everyone involved in a conversation with him in addition to causing emotional discomfort.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
Blunt facts and information don't increase the understanding of others and cohesion (there are areas of personality and establishing a relationship that are omitted on the basis that they lack factual values), it's more akin to a constant battle to prove ones worth with opponents waiting to jump in at every misstep.

sounds like you're outlining the difference between emotional rapport and having a debate.

in a debate, personal feelings are not to be considered relevant. if one is bothered by a subject, then one should avoid debating it. to come into a debate with a lot of emotional baggage and expecting that to be prioritized is what actually violates "understanding of others" in such a setting. if we understand each other in a debate, we understand that it consists in opinions pitted against each other with arguments, and that it's in the best interest of all parties that everyone is blunt and unrelenting, since it improves the intellectual yield.

you can't discuss "which is true? x or y" with someone who has a phobic reaction to y and cannot accept it as a possible outcome of the inquiry. it's their problem.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
Trying to be impartial or open to information doesn't mean the feelings are unimportant.

A user can make perfect sense and still be hurtful towards others, for example attempts at explaining gender dysphoria as a mental illness are hurtful to transgender people, even though they themselves realise they have some sort of a problem, they don't want to be told what they know and ostracised, because it hurts.

Another problem is that stating a fact doesn't mean it doesn't make every one around uncomfortable. One could say they accept dysphoric people but there is a degree of irrevocable repulsion contained in some perceptions that one might not admit they feel, so even though there is an illusion of acceptance and tolerance, being factual about it leads to alienation and ignoring the option that they are viable conversation partners.

Blunt facts and information don't increase the understanding of others and cohesion (there are areas of personality and establishing a relationship that are omitted on the basis that they lack factual values), it's more akin to a constant battle to prove ones worth with opponents waiting to jump in at every misstep.

Along that, if Inquisitors motivation is his hatred towards such people, or his repulsion and fear towards a different vision of a society and cherry picking data to support it, it is a big problem for everyone involved in a conversation with him in addition to causing emotional discomfort.

The feelings aren't unimportant, which is why I redact my protest against beasts original post regarding his motivations, but they aren't relevant to the debate I am having with him. His motivations and how moral they are is separate discussion.

Blunt facts and information increase my understanding of others particularly their motives, feelings themselves are hard to describe in a logical manner, their effects are not.

Actually my way of acting is partly feeling based, I have no interest in changing/adapting(particularly in regards to my bluntness, other areas are more open to discussion) to suit others and therefore have no interest in developing a deeper relationship with someone who cannot accept that. I simply feel that acting blunt is of particular importance.

If he is cherry picking data, force the point and point out what data he is ignoring, if he cannot answer you are in the right and that's the conclusion of that part of the discussion.

Lastly I am not seeking to induce cohesion or become liked or avoid alienation or make people comfortable I am seeking to obtain the "truth" as best I can about the situation.
 

Ex-User (9086)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 11:31 AM
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,758
-->
sounds like you're outlining the difference between emotional rapport and having a debate.

in a debate, personal feelings are not to be considered relevant. if one is bothered by a subject, then one should avoid debating it. to come into a debate with a lot of emotional baggage and expecting that to be prioritized is what actually violates "understanding of others" in such a setting. if we understand each other in a debate, we understand that it consists in opinions pitted against each other with arguments, and that it's in the best interest of all parties that everyone is blunt and unrelenting, since it improves the intellectual yield.
What is to be gained in a debate where one side wants to call the other mentally ill.

Debates are useful if there is some conclusion to be had. As it is, it just serves some pushing of agendas that lead nowhere and most people are more or less familiar with these views anyway.

Also I wouldn't dismiss the importance of the familial, friendly setting, which is being destroyed for various reasons here.

The initial pre-split OP wasn't even a debate format, it was an open discussion of personal ideas about their gender.

I understand you are right in some respect, so if others acknowledge you are right, starting debate has a goal to show they are in the wrong? Or what goal there was?
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
Debates are useful if there is some conclusion to be had.

I read the thread and based on the arguments I came to a conclusion (you can read it in the thread if you like) as such I see it as having served its purpose.
 

Ex-User (9086)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 11:31 AM
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,758
-->
Lastly I am not seeking to induce cohesion or become liked or avoid alienation or make people comfortable I am seeking to obtain the "truth" as best I can about the situation.
This is representative of a large userbase opinion here.

They don't care about being friendly to others, they just will hit hard and not relent a bit until they "win" or the others go silent.

There is obviously much truth to be gained, but I don't see it being created in a discussion, rather it's created by listening to various opinions and making conclusions from these.

I saw a part of this thread as a scuffle.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
This is representative of a large userbase opinion here.

They don't care about being friendly to others, they just will hit hard and not relent a bit until they "win" or the others go silent.

This is why I love this forum though in my case "winning" and "losing" the argument are both acceptable outcomes as long as I end up coming to a working conclusion.

Also, what difference do you see between discussion and "listening to various opinions and making conclusions from these."

Besides actually writing the conclusions to be studied analysed criticised and improved upon.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 10:31 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
-->
Location
69S 69E
Pretty weird though that all these people who are apparently all about "finding truth" neglect to ever properly educate themselves as to the scientific knowledge of the topics they're arguing about, and they evacuate threads pretty quickly or conveniently neglect to address actual hard evidence.

Anyone who's actually serious about truth would be motivated to spend their time establishing facts based on investigation of real, tangible evidence as opposed to a bunch of opinions.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
Pretty weird though that all these people who are apparently all about "finding truth" neglect to ever properly educate themselves as to the scientific knowledge of the topics they're arguing about, and they evacuate threads pretty quickly or conveniently neglect to address actual hard evidence.

Anyone who's actually serious about truth would be motivated to spend their time establishing facts based on investigation of real, tangible evidence as opposed to a bunch of opinions.

Te vs. Ti
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
Pretty weird though that all these people who are apparently all about "finding truth" neglect to ever properly educate themselves as to the scientific knowledge of the topics they're arguing about, and they evacuate threads pretty quickly or conveniently neglect to address actual hard evidence.

Anyone who's actually serious about truth would be motivated to spend their time establishing facts based on investigation of real, tangible evidence as opposed to a bunch of opinions.

Eh, I guess a better way to say it is "truth based on what I know" I prefer educating myself by debating the topic and wildly flinging theories to see which fit. And if I have nothing to say I'll just remain silent until I know enough so I have something to say (which is why I sometimes wait a few days before entering a thread as I feel I don't know enough).

Or just
Te vs. Ti
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 10:31 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
-->
Location
69S 69E
Brontosaurie said:
Te vs. Ti

Typology's irrelevant really but for a better comparison:

More like genuine curiosity vs. lazy debating.

Seteechete said:
I prefer educating myself by debating the topic and wildly flinging theories to see which fit.

Which fit with what? Obviously not reality.

In other words just like I said, you don't care about establishing any actual truth. You're not actually facilitating understanding or learning for anyone, you're just establishing who has a contradicting opinion.

That's just sport with words, done for the same reasons people pack into football stadiums - for kicks and mindless entertainment. Dressing it up as some pursuit of truth is just garbage.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
Bahaha no.

More like real, genuine curiosity in pursuit of truth vs. glorified armchair intellectualizing.
.

depends on what people your comment aimed at.

i agree some are spouting pure oblivion to basic knowledge (for example the possible/likely genetic/prenatal/hormonal/non-cultural neurological basis for transsexuality). but if you dismiss my posts too as counter-factual i'd say it's a case of Te vs. Ti. the only "fact" i contest is the commonly agreed notion and definition of mental illness.

my impression was that you're kind of pulling me under the same rug with these people. hopefully i was mistaken.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 10:31 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
-->
Location
69S 69E
depends on what people your comment aimed at.

i agree some are spouting pure oblivion to basic knowledge (for example the possible/likely genetic/prenatal/hormonal/non-cultural neurological basis for transsexuality). but if you dismiss my posts too as counter-factual i'd say it's a case of Te vs. Ti. the only "fact" i contest is the commonly agreed notion and definition of mental illness.

my impression was that you're kind of pulling me under the same rug with these people. hopefully i was mistaken.

So let me get this straight Bronto, so there's no misunderstanding.

According to research, transgender brains have been shown to actually possess a morphology that classifies them as being a brain belonging to the opposite sex. MTF transexuals have brains that are physically developed to be female, despite them being inside a "male" body.

You consider it an "objective fact" that someone who posseses a physically female brain (they are literally female) inside a physically male body, and considers themselves female - that they have a "pervasive failure of the mind" and therefore their condition is a mental illness?

You consider that objective fact?

By the way, yes all this information was posted in the thread and references were given too.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
Typology's irrelevant really but for a better comparison:

More like genuine curiosity vs. lazy debating.



Which fit with what? Obviously not reality.

In other words just like I said, you don't care about establishing any actual truth. You're not actually facilitating understanding or learning for anyone, you're just establishing who has a contradicting opinion.

That's just sport with words, done for the same reasons people pack into football stadiums - for kicks and mindless entertainment. Dressing it up as some pursuit of truth is just garbage.

Hmm well it usually starts with lazy debating but it turns into genuine curiosity as I get into the topic(unless I am already interested).

And it is based on reality as I know it(as the theories are based on my observations).

I will admit that the motive closer resembles entertainment but the goal of the entertainment is trying to acquire truth. I don't care about what the actual truth is but I do care about ascertaining it with what information I have (and changing whatever conclusion I come to as new information is found).

I care more about eliminating untruth than finding truth(by eliminating untruth. truth can often be found). As I mostly discuss philosophical/political and not scientific topics and I see philosophy as subjective I often believe truth can lie in contradicting statements. (I rarely discuss scientific topics were I have no information or logical theories/observation to share.)

I will have to disagree with it not facilitating understanding or learning, as at the very least I learn/understand better.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
So let me get this straight Bronto, so there's no misunderstanding.

According to research, transgender brains have been shown to actually possess a morphology that classifies them as being a brain belonging to the opposite sex. MTF transexuals have brains that are physically developed to be female, despite them being inside a "male" body.

You consider it an "objective fact" that someone who posseses a physically female brain (they are literally female) inside a physically male body, and considers themselves female - that they have a "pervasive failure of the mind" and therefore their condition is a mental illness?

You consider that objective fact?

By the way, yes all this information was posted in the thread and references were given too.

i don't know what makes you think i'm not taking that fact into consideration in my opinion. i even referenced the exact same fact but in less detail (the neurology parenthesis).

i'm pretty sure i didn't say "objective fact" as i tend to be very careful with that term. but i consider it a self-evident analytical truth that an organism with a mind that systematically errs is mentally ill, and this applies regardless of how authentic and fundamental the subjective contents of the error are in this case. the only conclusion your statements facilitate is that sex is a delicate issue for transsexuals, which isn't something i'm inclined to disagree with.

there is no factual ignorance here. we have the same factual basis.

a brain cannot be "literally female" since a brain cannot produce eggs. apparently our factual bases differ slightly after all. not sure it's a critical difference. might be.

it's still unclear whether i was really a target for your accusations of poor factual accuracy. simple yes/no would be helpful.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 10:31 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
-->
Location
69S 69E
Seteleechete said:
I will have to disagree with it not facilitating understanding or learning, as at the very least I learn/understand better.

Okay then, so what have you actually understood or learned better about transgenders and mental illnesses?

Judging from your last post, you're still in the exact same place you started - you haven't learnt shit.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 10:31 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
-->
Location
69S 69E
Brontosaurie said:
a brain cannot be "literally female" since a brain cannot produce eggs.

So you classify gender only on the basis of reproductive organs then?

So to be clear, someone with the the brain morphology of a female who has a penis. You consider that person to have a "pervasive failure of the mind" if they consider themselves female?

it's still unclear whether i was a target for your accusations of poor factual accuracy. simple yes/no would be helpful.

It's still unclear as to what situations of hormonal imbalances and physical brain morphology you consider to be a "pervasive failure of the mind". Simple yes/no would be helpful.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
Okay then, so what have you actually understood or learned better about transgenders and mental illnesses?

Judging from your last post, you're still in the exact same place you started - you haven't learnt shit.

I have learned that there are widely varying opinions on the topic and what some of those opinions represent. I have learned some of the political and societal applications/dilemmas of the topic. I have learned some of the potential problems with transgenderism and some counter arguments to why they aren't problems or how they could be mitigated.

I have learned that the use of "mental illness" is not necessarily as straight forward as referring to the technically correct definition. I have not yet learned if the technically correct definition of "mental illness" applies to transgenderism(and I mentioned this in my post) but that based on my incomplete observations so far it does, though I will leave my answer as "unknown" until I have enough information to determine it one way or another more accurately. I will admit that the technically correct definition does not interest me(semanticist topics like this rarely do).

I learned a lot(well, more like deepened my understanding as nothing was new), just not the answer to the original question of the thread(I never did enter the thread until the end because I never cared about the answer to this question).
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
So you classify gender only on the basis of reproductive organs then?

So to be clear, someone with the the brain morphology of a female who has a penis. You consider that person to have a "pervasive failure of the mind" if they consider themselves female?



It's still unclear as to what situations of hormonal imbalances and physical brain morphology you consider to be a "pervasive failure of the mind". Simple yes/no would be helpful.

no, i don't even consider "gender" a scientifically legitimate construct. i classify sex on the basis of reproductive function, however. having a "female brain" is a secondary sexual characteristic of being female. identifying as a female is a secondary sexual characteristic of being female. it's not prior to being female. the mind doesn't precede the body. the mind doesn't decide what the body is unless one succumbs to subjectivism.

when the result is an incorrect self-perception, it's a mental illness. (how would i go about answering that question in yes/no format? why didn't you answer mine first?)
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 10:31 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
-->
Location
69S 69E
Oh wow man, you discovered that there's wildly varying opinions on a topic and a variety of political and societal aspects to it (like every other topic ever)?

Wait...what did you actually learn about transgender again?
 
Local time
Today 11:31 AM
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
1,532
-->
Location
the Purgatory
what do you guys mean when you say you want to discuss this topic and not give regard to the emotional consequences it would generate? how can we talk about culture and not simultaneously be talking about emotions, when its the cultural script that dictates which emotions are normative?

as it is, people cannot impose their experiences on others, everyone is sort of confined to their own experience. which is why it is important to enforce affinity and correspondence between people in a community as much as possible and constantly remind them of the proximity of their experiences at a fundamental level.

the way i see it, telling a person there is something fundamentally wrong with the way their brain is wired would only create an illusion of a wider rift between the "normal" and the "transgender" social experience.
do we need that? are we truly unable to reach a better comprehension of the TG's internal turmoil unless we label them as mentally ill?
and what would happen when they finally adjust their biology to harmonize with their internal experience of gender? do we just go pat them on the back and say "you're normal now :)"?

what positive significance would any of this have on the social structure? i know you blame this on people not taking the time to study and understand mental illness.
but well, thats how it is, thats the kind of society we operate in. and the TG should not have to pay for people's lack of volition and effort to undrstand and accept him/her. a mental illness label would not have achieved anything other than facilitate and make it easier for people to actively ostracize and discriminate againt TG people, and twist and manipulate that kind of terminology to help them realise their personal agenda.

whats the point of isolating and neglecting emotional consequences when discussing topics on this one? its like cultivating ideas in a vaccuum
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
Oh wow man, you discovered that there's wildly varying opinions on a topic and a variety of political and societal aspects to it (like every other topic ever)?

Wait...what did you actually learn about transgender again?
..
:phear:*cautiously puts a foot into this thread* *looks to see if the coast is clear**Do I really dare get into this mess?*

Meh I am in 784 mood dundurudundundun:icon_pferdehaufen:

Anyway Bronto seems to be arguing that technically the term "mental illness" applies to this situation(I am undecided if this is true and I don't really care). But since a good enough counter argument hasn't been presented to this I will simply give Bronto right on this.

The other side seems to be arguing that the term shouldn't apply due to the cultural connotations behind it and the fact that it lumps transgenderism together with more severe mental illness. This since transgenderism whether technically a mental illness or not isn't an actual problem without the lumping/cultural connotations. So by not calling it mental illness it wouldn't be a problem comparative to if you did. The people that then call it a mental illness either actually believe it a problem( an opinion I disagree with) or believe in using technical correct language describing transgenderism regardless the consequences in reality(I am neutral on this matter).

Huh I actually have nothing more to say *shrug*.
Btw, did I miss anything?
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 10:31 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
-->
Location
69S 69E
no, i don't even consider "gender" a scientifically legitimate construct.

Okay, so if reproductive organs are the only legitimate indicator between male and female for you? Then how do you account for very real morphological differences between female and male brains, and how they are shown to very strongly correlate with a difference in not only behaviour between males and females but how that also corresponds with differences in gender identification in transexuals?

i classify sex on the basis of reproductive function, however. having a "female brain" is a secondary sexual characteristic of being female. identifying as a female is a secondary sexual characteristic of being female. it's not prior to being female.

the mind doesn't precede the body.

What about the physical brain? In fact, isn't the brain part of the body?

Why are you saying mind and not brain? Are you some kind of closet dualist?

the mind doesn't decide what the body is unless one succumbs to subjectivism.

What about the brain?

Could the development of white matter in the limbic system not impact what gender one's brain identifies with?

when the result is an incorrect self-perception, it's a mental illness. (how would i go about answering that question in yes/no format? why didn't you answer mine first?)

So what's the incorrect perception here?

There have been shown to be distinct differences in female and male brains in terms of white matter distribution, differences in microstructure as well as physical differences in the limbic system that contribute to gender identity (among other things).

So when a person with a penis possesses a brain that is distinctly female in terms of white matter distribution, microstructure and in the physical makeup of the limbic system, says that they "feel like a female trapped in a male body" - do you consider that a "pervasive failure of the mind" and an "incorrect self-perception"? Yes/no.

Is that person mentally ill? Yes/no.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 10:31 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
-->
Location
69S 69E

Yeah I already read your post in the other thread.

Is that supposed to be an example of learning? Skim-reading some information, missing the point people are making and glossing over actual evidence?

Seteleechete said:
Btw, did I miss anything?

Roughly everything.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain

Ex-User (9086)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 11:31 AM
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,758
-->
This is why I love this forum though in my case "winning" and "losing" the argument are both acceptable outcomes as long as I end up coming to a working conclusion.

Also, what difference do you see between discussion and "listening to various opinions and making conclusions from these."

Besides actually writing the conclusions to be studied analysed criticised and improved upon.
I didn't mean winning as in winning. I meant being on top of things, making ones view prevalent in the thread, overriding all else.
Well that I think is less subtle than winning as being recognised the winner but it doesn't matter at this point.

There are external resources for learning, I'd say nothing new that wasn't discussed outside is being produced here that could be considered "viable learning material".

If you approach a discussion with a mindset of "learning", you are going to only be exposed to a limited amount of opinions and information that will inevitably help form a skewed idea about the topic.

It's best not to engage or learn from such things if one is ignorant and can't tell what is a right direction.

This is called armchair philosophy, or armchair science, it's the way people with selective and limited familiarity with the subject attempt to present their broader conclusions or ideas leading to some kind of "truth". They feel free to engage in discussions and they think any kind of truth or information can be understood effortlessly, preferably not moving from their armchair to acquire new data.

Ugh, this whole "intp in quest for truth" is getting on my nerves, repeating mbti type descriptions won't change the fact that it's just a generalisation of preference that does more harm than good if applied incorrectly.
 

Seteleechete

Together forever
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
1,313
-->
Location
our brain
I didn't mean winning as in winning. I meant being on top of things, making ones view prevalent in the thread, overriding all else.
Well that I think is less subtle than winning as being recognised the winner but it doesn't matter at this point.

There are external resources for learning, I'd say nothing new that wasn't discussed outside is being produced here that could be considered "viable learning material".

If you approach a discussion with a mindset of "learning", you are going to only be exposed to a limited amount of opinions and information that will inevitably help form a skewed idea about the topic.

It's best not to engage or learn from such things if one is ignorant and can't tell what is a right direction.

This is called armchair philosophy, or armchair science, it's the way people with selective and limited familiarity with the subject attempt to present their broader conclusions or ideas leading to some kind of "truth". They feel free to engage in discussions and they thing any kind of truth or information can be understood effortlessly, preferably not moving from their armchair to acquire new data.

Ugh, this whole "intp in quest for truth" is getting on my nerves, repeating mbti type descriptions won't change the fact that it's just a generalisation of preference that does more harm than good if applied incorrectly.

That's why I post my conclusions as well, to shape them and hammer out the kinks. I like the term armchair philosophy/science and in the rare cases that I don't understand something I do look it up (like teleology, I had to look that up first). People tend to make things overly complicated for no real reason, most things can be broken down to simple chunks for analysis.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
Okay, so if reproductive organs are the only legitimate indicator between male and female for you? Then how do you account for very real morphological differences between female and male brains, and how they are shown to very strongly correlate with a difference in not only behaviour between males and females but how that also corresponds with differences in gender identification in transexuals?

no, there are other indicators. plenty. some stronger than others.

the very real morphological differences are not something i've questioned. they can be described in terms of secondary sexual characteristics. there is no need for including them in the essential concept of sex.

What about the physical brain? In fact, isn't the brain part of the body?

Why are you saying mind and not brain? Are you some kind of closet dualist?

yes, the brain is part of the body. have i given you any reason to believe i assume otherwise?

because the mind is the function we are talking about. the brain is the principal executive of the mind function and the words are probably interchangeable here but mind is more accurate and general.

What about the brain?

Could the development of white matter in the limbic system not impact what gender one's brain identifies with?

the brain doesn't decide what sex the organism has either.

yes, it could. of course it does. how come you ask?

So what's the incorrect perception here?

the incorrect perception of what sex the specimen itself has. there is absolutely no way you really had to ask that question.

There have been shown to be distinct differences in female and male brains in terms of white matter distribution, differences in microstructure as well as physical differences in the limbic system that contribute to gender identity (among other things).

yes.

So when a person with a penis possesses a brain that is distinctly female in terms of white matter distribution, microstructure and in the physical makeup of the limbic system, says that they "feel like a female trapped in a male body" - do you consider that a "pervasive failure of the mind" and an "incorrect self-perception"? Yes/no.

Is that person mentally ill? Yes/no.

saying it isn't a pervasive failure of the mind, no. and the observation that one has a discrepancy between perceived/identified/intuitive sex and actual anatomical sex is not an incorrect self-perception. you may want to rephrase your question to better capture what you intended to ask. it wouldn't be advantageous for me to take a guess, so i'll refrain from that.

if that person's mind receives erroneous information about that person's body and constructs an erroneous sense of what that person is, then yes that person is mentally ill.

why is it so important to you that i be wrong somehow? i'm actually not. sorry.
 

Inquisitor

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 7:31 AM
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
840
-->
i'm really not sure that he realises it though and it would be very helpful to everbody if he did. he himself has asked a number of times why his posts are subject to so much derision on this forum.

Not seen very much derision of my posts at all...Saying so is in and of itself a kind of insult because it's just not true. Your post is also condescending, though you may not realize it. You don't speak for everyone on this forum, only for yourself, yet you feel like you understand how everyone on this forum feels about me. You don't. This is a very well-known tactic to try to enlist the support of the tribe to gang up on one member. People consciously (or unconsciously in your case) only resort to that when they can't find a flaw in the actual substance of what the other person is saying. You've done this before with me.

You've made it clear what I say rubs you the wrong way, so again, I'm not surprised. I recall redbaron made fun of my Interpol stats, but that's about it. I have received several ad hominem attacks in the form of condescending remarks and/or snarkiness such as the above. I have not done the same to anyone on this forum, but it seems I've still hurt a lot of feelings along the way. I'm not sorry. I state what I believe to be true, and I invite others to refute what I have to say. If you don't like it, show me where I'm wrong with cold, hard facts. Otherwise, stop whining.

it's not the conservatism that i object to but the hints at an abhorrence for certain (all?!) women (and gay men) that i detect in most of inquisitor's posts.

I've repeatedly stated that what I take issue with is the media and its portrayal of various issues. For the record, I don't hate women, minorities, gays, or TG people. Many of my opinions are, quite frankly, anti-mainstream, so it's not surprising you might reflexively think I'm a hateful bastard, but it's just not true.

Does it? By how much?

I know if I were going to target someone, I'd choose the easier prey, not the one with the least clothes. Though sometimes those would be the same. Most statistics show at least 50% of rapists are acquaintances. Which makes sense, because when you are an acquaintance, you can get some readings on their personality (shy, timid) and there can be an opportunity of meeting them at their home or their own home. Which is a less risky thing than being in the open.

Though, the second option would be searching through places with drunk people or where people do drugs. Because some will pass out or be too drunk to resist properly. And the bonus is that they are less likely to believed plus you can claim you were drunk too. You could also be turned on by one woman and fantasize about her while raping another more easily accessible one.

-----

Dwelling the darker sides of internet, you do come across people who admit they have raped. One technique used is being nice to the woman after and maybe cuddle/ hug, because then she will start doubting herself. She will start wondering whether she was really clear in saying no.

Well, these are people who are able to dismiss their victims terror and pain as they lay over them, raping them. Who doesn't mind they cry or scream. Who doesn't mind the victim might tear or get scars that will always be there to remind them. It's a dangerous ability to have. Being able to utterly destroy someone for own benefit. I very much doubt it's limited to women and rape.

I don't disagree with anything you said. I still maintain that if women as a whole were dressed/behaved more conservatively, they would be safer. Wouldn't eliminate rape, but it would decrease it.

not sure if this is sarcasm...

it seems to me that the distate for men or women who do not conform to his idea of how men or women should look/behave is what motivates inquisitor to put forward the arguments he does, bending reality to serve his moral disgust. it's not a minor detail.

"Moral disgust" is overly strong. "Dissatisfaction" with the status quo is more accurate. Both sexes used to have much more conservative values. I sound like an old man saying that, but if something has been a certain way for thousands of years, there's probably a good reason for it. I know you'll object to that statement, but I just don't buy the idea that these conservative values were put in place only to "oppress" women and keep men in power. Too one-sided. Too simplistic. It's more complex than that.

Along that, if Inquisitors motivation is his hatred towards such people, or his repulsion and fear towards a different vision of a society and cherry picking data to support it, it is a big problem for everyone involved in a conversation with him in addition to causing emotional discomfort.
This is representative of a large userbase opinion here.

They don't care about being friendly to others, they just will hit hard and not relent a bit until they "win" or the others go silent.

There is obviously much truth to be gained, but I don't see it being created in a discussion, rather it's created by listening to various opinions and making conclusions from these.

I saw a part of this thread as a scuffle.

Blarraun, I don't care if what I have to say causes you emotional discomfort. It's a cop-out on your part to even bring this up. Nothing I have said on this forum could be construed in any way as being hateful. Even if it were true that I did hate certain sectors of society, I still don't see how that's a "big problem" :rolleyes: if I'm not actually writing hateful speech. If you don't like what I say, maybe you should ask yourself why that is? The answer will probably help you learn more about yourself. Anytime I don't like what someone else says, I do the same because I want to understand the cause of the discomfort. Once I do, I've gained a new realization, and there's nothing more satisfying than that.

Pretty weird though that all these people who are apparently all about "finding truth" neglect to ever properly educate themselves as to the scientific knowledge of the topics they're arguing about, and they evacuate threads pretty quickly or conveniently neglect to address actual hard evidence.

Anyone who's actually serious about truth would be motivated to spend their time establishing facts based on investigation of real, tangible evidence as opposed to a bunch of opinions.

Right back at ya. You mock my evidence and then fail to provide any of your own while also dishing out a bunch of opinions at the same time.

I didn't mean winning as in winning. I meant being on top of things, making ones view prevalent in the thread, overriding all else.
Well that I think is less subtle than winning as being recognised the winner but it doesn't matter at this point.

There are external resources for learning, I'd say nothing new that wasn't discussed outside is being produced here that could be considered "viable learning material".

If you approach a discussion with a mindset of "learning", you are going to only be exposed to a limited amount of opinions and information that will inevitably help form a skewed idea about the topic.

It's best not to engage or learn from such things if one is ignorant and can't tell what is a right direction.

This is called armchair philosophy, or armchair science, it's the way people with selective and limited familiarity with the subject attempt to present their broader conclusions or ideas leading to some kind of "truth". They feel free to engage in discussions and they think any kind of truth or information can be understood effortlessly, preferably not moving from their armchair to acquire new data.

Ugh, this whole "intp in quest for truth" is getting on my nerves, repeating mbti type descriptions won't change the fact that it's just a generalisation of preference that does more harm than good if applied incorrectly.

I don't see you doing much of this, just complaints about my posts.
 

Fukyo

blurb blurb
Local time
Today 12:31 PM
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
4,289
-->
Man, this tired bullshit of a discussion, and no offense to anyone doesn't need two threads. There is already a running thread on transgenderism and there's no need to discuses it between two threads. Since the general discussion in this split isn't going anywhere, seems rather stuck and is creating grudges, I see no reason to leave it open and have two concurrent splits discussing similar issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom