Life Advice - Don't Easily Dismiss or Lose Respect for People

[SiliconWizard]

Many companies were also convinced it was financially postive to public promote this kind of agenda,

This was mainly due to this ESG scoring crap: https://www.esgthereport.com/what-is-an-esg-score/

but this year though I have seen huge signs of all this house of cards cracking. Even large woke companies like Netflix are backpeddling for example. There is hope.

Yep. Well. The ESG thing is working between companies, scoring agencies and investors/shareholders. Although it's supposed to promote "values" that the general public is supposed to like, there is no direct link with customers - the ones, who, erm... actually pay. So yes, it's bound to collapse. Businesses ignoring their customers? Well, even though that seems kinda popular these days, I don't think that can work for very long.

[BikerMark]

I'm new in this forum and hanging around a bit to see what's in it.
This thread drew my attention.

Even here I see the division that is growing worldwide. Didn 't expect that.
Two sides again arguing that the other side is wrong. Or dumb. Or dangerous.

This is how the Nazis in Germany started up, don't we remember? It was not 'just' the Jews at first.
It started by blaming others. Blaming people who had freed their minds from the existing esttablishment. Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassily_Kandinsky. He was blamed for making 'Entartete Kunst' ('Art that has lost its heart'). And the groundbreaking pioneering architecture of Bauhaus was banned from Nazi Germany.

Then, in 1933 science was slowly seized by political points of view. https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.6.4.20180926a/full/. It ended up by scientific focus on most effective poison for useage in their campd and rigid calculations of how many dead bodies could be handled by prisoners still alive.

And how's that?
What would you say when some political clown nowadys says: "Ohm's Law is forbidden from now on. He was wrong. Anybody warshipping it will be banned." Or "scientificic proof my butt. I have another opinion."

I'm affraid we're heading that way, and too many people seem to be willing to stand behind 'their leader', just because he teases 'the other side'. Non importance the rubbish he spits.

Please keep in mind: Science and rationality are not opinions. Let others have their opinions and their freedom of being. Even if they are more succesfull than you are. Or less.

[Refrigerator]

I think i'll chime in, even if i haven't read through the entire thread in detail, only lightly skimmed through.

I've noticed that finding out one thing or another that i don't like about a content creator makes me avoid the content from that creator, even if the content itself is good.
But eventually i return to the content and put my disagreements away, because they don't make for a productive lifestyle.
In that sense i do agree with Dave's OP.

Over time i've unsubscribed from content creators but not because of some disagreement in opinion, rather i find that i don't feel like their content interests me so i unsub to keep my sub feed cleaner. I sub and unsub freely, it's not marriage.

I still remember the dark ages when Thunderf00t got into making political videos and as a result his entire community started complaining.
I was among the complainers as well because i really liked his science oriented videos but his political videos were (i'll be honest here) garbage.
There are also moments when he makes an obvious mistake and does not correct it, perhaps he doesn't care enough.
Like in that one video about storing hydrogen in thin film coatings, where he wrongly assumed that what looked (very onviously IMO) like an 8-track casette, was in fact a flat disc.
Because of that his estimation that the device only stores "a single baloon of hydrogen" was orders of magnitude out but he kept repeating the "stores one baloon of hydrogen" line over and over and over again making the video painful to watch.

Generally i don't really care what a content creator is like personally, because i tend to watch videos for their content, so if they say something i consider smart or helpful i watch their videos.
I don't subscribe to any political, motivational or "opinion" youtubers as i find their content mostly irrelevant to me.

[Zero999]

Yes, like the women who believe gender is a social construct. Well that's nice until you're in hospital being raped by a 6' 6" man who was placed on a female ward because he identifies a woman.

You're talking about two mutually exclusive subjects here. Whether or not you believe in the complexities of gender identity or not is neither here nor there. Rape is rape, regardless of the gender of the victim or the accused.

No, because rape as stated by UK law, can only be committed by a man. Women can commit other serious sexual assaults, but not rape. They don't have the equipment to do so.

This is covered by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and it doesn't say what seems to be being implied about the law. Rape, as a technical term, can only be committed with a penis, "[sexual] assault by penetration" can be done with any object or anatomy and carries the same penalties as rape. Both can be done to a male or a female. Colloquially one would call either rape so quibbling over the technical term that someone would be charged with seems a highly disingenuous way of avoiding the "Rape is rape, regardless of the gender of the victim or the accused" point that was made.

I was talking about a specific incident. Yes, a women could shove a dildo up your bum, but it's very different. I was simply referring to a woman being raped by a man, who was only given the opportunity to do so, because he professed to be transgender. It should be obvious by my other comments, I know most transgender people wouldn't do such a thing, but there are definitely more bad men who are willing to pretend to be trans in order to get access to women, than there are true trans people. Heck I wouldn't do anything bad to a woman, but if I had the misfortune to end up in prison, I would certainly consider transitioning, so I could get into a female prison, because the chances of being assaulted are much lower.

I'm new in this forum and hanging around a bit to see what's in it.
This thread drew my attention.

Even here I see the division that is growing worldwide. Didn 't expect that.
Two sides again arguing that the other side is wrong. Or dumb. Or dangerous.

This is how the Nazis in Germany started up, don't we remember? It was not 'just' the Jews at first.
It started by blaming others. Blaming people who had freed their minds from the existing esttablishment. Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassily_Kandinsky. He was blamed for making 'Entartete Kunst' ('Art that has lost its heart'). And the groundbreaking pioneering architecture of Bauhaus was banned from Nazi Germany.

Then, in 1933 science was slowly seized by political points of view. https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.6.4.20180926a/full/. It ended up by scientific focus on most effective poison for useage in their campd and rigid calculations of how many dead bodies could be handled by prisoners still alive.

And how's that?
What would you say when some political clown nowadys says: "Ohm's Law is forbidden from now on. He was wrong. Anybody warshipping it will be banned." Or "scientificic proof my butt. I have another opinion."

I'm affraid we're heading that way, and too many people seem to be willing to stand behind 'their leader', just because he teases 'the other side'. Non importance the rubbish he spits.

Please keep in mind: Science and rationality are not opinions. Let others have their opinions and their freedom of being. Even if they are more succesfull than you are. Or less.

Wow, there are some worrying parallels there. A lot of it starts with good intentions. The current thinking that race is a social construct was created as the antitheses to the Nazi and colonialists who used flawed science to deem blacks and Jews to be inferior so can be treated badly. The problem is, it isn't true. We can all identify someone who's ancestry is from a different part of the world to ours, just by looking at them and some racial groups are more prone to certain diseases purely due to genetics. The fact that it's true there's more genetic variation within the same racial group than between two different ones and the lines between one race and another are often blurry are used to justify the social construct theory, but it clearly isn't true, otherwise there wouldn't be any visible differences.

[Cerebus]

..., but there are definitely more bad men who are willing to pretend to be trans in order to get access to women, than there are true trans people.

That definitely earns a [citation required]. The fact is that most women (5 in every 6) who are raped are raped by someone they know, so getting access to women isn't a problem for people with ill intent towards them. The narrative that there are a significant number of people who "pretend to be trans in order to get access to women" is clearly fallacious. Estimates are there are 300,000 trans people in the UK (GRIES 2008 via ONS) or 1 in 200 which fits my experience of knowing two people personally that I know for a fact are post-op male->female trans. Thus claiming that there are >>300,000 people wondering around pretending "to be trans in order to get access to women" is clearly a ludicrous claim.

[pcprogrammer]

Even here I see the division that is growing worldwide. Didn 't expect that.
Two sides again arguing that the other side is wrong. Or dumb. Or dangerous.

Why is it so "not to be expected" that on this forum there would not be what you see every where in this world. Nothing wrong with arguing, and as such is always about multiple points of view. Granted when it gets out of hand it is not good, but have not seen that here yet, and if it does it is dealt with by the moderators.

This is how the Nazis in Germany started up, don't we remember? It was not 'just' the Jews at first.
It started by blaming others. Blaming people who had freed their minds from the existing esttablishment. Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassily_Kandinsky. He was blamed for making 'Entartete Kunst' ('Art that has lost its heart'). And the groundbreaking pioneering architecture of Bauhaus was banned from Nazi Germany.

Then, in 1933 science was slowly seized by political points of view. https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.6.4.20180926a/full/. It ended up by scientific focus on most effective poison for useage in their campd and rigid calculations of how many dead bodies could be handled by prisoners still alive.

Here you point out a very human quality, that certainly is not good, but very easy. "Blame others never yourself"
And yes there are always people who don't want to remember. If we did there would not be any war, because it brings nothing but pain and misery. There are no winners, apart form the people gaining lots of money from it, who mostly stand besides the conflict cheering to make more money.

And how's that?
What would you say when some political clown nowadys says: "Ohm's Law is forbidden from now on. He was wrong. Anybody warshipping it will be banned." Or "scientificic proof my butt. I have another opinion."

I'm affraid we're heading that way, and too many people seem to be willing to stand behind 'their leader', just because he teases 'the other side'. Non importance the rubbish he spits.

I'm afraid things like that are already happening. Not with something so obvious as Ohm's law. Look back on what happened in the US during the latest presidential elections.

Please keep in mind: Science and rationality are not opinions. Let others have their opinions and their freedom of being. Even if they are more succesfull than you are. Or less.

I beg to differ, since it is all man made. Science is a concept and every discovery is basically someones opinion and maybe at some point it is accepted as proven and true.

Edit: To elaborate here. Take a look at astrophysics, there is talk about black holes and what they are how they work. The findings are all assumptions backed by man made mathematics. There is, for now, no way of actually proofing all these assumptions. Physics on earth can be proven to some extent because it is tangible, but still all the concepts are man made.

But I agree, it is wise to respect someones opinions and freedom of being, but you don't have to agree with them.

[Nominal Animal]

Please keep in mind: Science and rationality are not opinions. Let others have their opinions and their freedom of being. Even if they are more succesfull than you are. Or less.

I beg to differ, since it is all man made. Science is a concept and every discovery is basically someones opinion and maybe at some point it is accepted as proven and true.

Oh no! Science is a method, an attitude, an approach.  What a lot of people consider science, is actually just the result of science.

The result, the work product of science, is not facts, but measurements, models, and theories that seem to fit best; with (scientific) peer review hopefully judging that as correctly as human beings can.  (I personally consider falsifiability an essential tool here.)

Take a look at astrophysics, there is talk about black holes and what they are how they work. The findings are all assumptions backed by man made mathematics. There is, for now, no way of actually proofing all these assumptions. Physics on earth can be proven to some extent because it is tangible, but still all the concepts are man made.

There is no way of actually proofing you exist, either: it could all be just your senses being controlled by someone else, á la Matrix.

Astrophysicists do a lot of work observing various phenomena, especially using radio telescopes to find out high-energy phenomena (like stars colliding).  The spectra tells about a lot of stuff, including relative motion.  They construct models, and compare these to real-world measurements.  Many of the interesting phenomena, like black holes, have been predicted by such theories before they could be observed.  So, while there is no absolute way to verify them, the models are continuously being tested against new (and old!) observations, and the non-working ones weeded out and discarded.  It's not a discussion of opinions; it is putting those opinions through a wringer, everyone competing with everyone, critically examining their properties, behaviour, predictions and such.  Those that fail, are discarded.

That kind of putting an opinion against opinion, without putting person against person, i.e. proper honest debate, is something I enjoy, because I always learn something.
It seems that in this age of social media, people have difficulty separating opinion from a person.
(I don't mean pcprogrammer; I mean in the context of this topic: that because someone has a silly opinion, many people consider them to be a silly person.  That is not necessarily so, because a single opinion does not reveal much about a person.  In real life, a handful of silly opinions is perfectly acceptable in an otherwise good person.  Say, someone who treats others well, goes to the doctor regularly, but also believes in healing crystals or something.)

[pcprogrammer]

Thanks for emphasizing and further explain my point.

Edit:

There is no way of actually proofing you exist, either: it could all be just your senses being controlled by someone else, á la Matrix.

That is true, and with that we enter a slippery field where there is no end.

I' have seen some bits of video where Elon Musk, together with others was interviewed and he was stating we could be in a simulation of some super computer of some other intelligence just as an experiment. But then you can also go beyond that and think that this other intelligence is in a simulation of some more super computer of some even higher intelligence, and so on

[Mechatrommer]

Thats why the most sensible rule is forbid transgender in the first place.. hormon teraphy to get back to original gender. not just the above mentioned issue. Imagine you fall in love with a Girl later on bed you realize she got a dick, vice versa whats its going to happen later? Thats why i feel fun when soemone said human can sort out to better solution, yeah right you all can debate all decades long...in the end you'll know whose teaching is true but only if you can live long enough... we use imagination to extrapolate and mental logic.

[Zero999]

Thats why the most sensible rule is forbid transgender in the first place.. hormon teraphy to get back to original gender. not just the above mentioned issue. Imagine you fall in love with a Girl later on bed you realize she got a dick, vice versa whats its going to happen later? Thats why i feel fun when soemone said human can sort out to better solution, yeah right you all can debate all decades long...in the end you'll know whose teaching is true but only if you can live long enough... we use imagination to extrapolate and mental logic.

As a libertarian, I'd argue you can do what you want with your own body. On the other hand, there's an argument for prohibiting medical treatments which haven't been proven to be beneficial to the patient.

Of course people should be honest about who they really are, especially when it comes to sex.

..., but there are definitely more bad men who are willing to pretend to be trans in order to get access to women, than there are true trans people.

That definitely earns a [citation required]. The fact is that most women (5 in every 6) who are raped are raped by someone they know, so getting access to women isn't a problem for people with ill intent towards them. The narrative that there are a significant number of people who "pretend to be trans in order to get access to women" is clearly fallacious. Estimates are there are 300,000 trans people in the UK (GRIES 2008 via ONS) or 1 in 200 which fits my experience of knowing two people personally that I know for a fact are post-op male->female trans. Thus claiming that there are >>300,000 people wondering around pretending "to be trans in order to get access to women" is clearly a ludicrous claim.

Fair point, it's true records aren't kept, but we don't know of the number of genuine cases either: the figures you gave are estimates. This is complicated by the fact that not all cases of transgenderism are the same psychological phenomenon. Gender dysphoria is cited as the most common reason, but for many male to female transitions it's autogynephilia. Hallmarks of this are transitioning to female, yet identifying as lesbian and gender euphoria, i.e. being turned on at the thought of expressing female characteristics.

Anyway, I know for sure that as soon as the door is opened to anyone who identifies as woman is allowed into a female prison, the number of men who transition to do so will exceed those who genuinely are trans in prison. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if we're nearly there already in some jurisdictions with that policy. Don't forget I'm talking about the criminal element of society here, not honest people.

Thanks for emphasizing and further explain my point.

Edit:

There is no way of actually proofing you exist, either: it could all be just your senses being controlled by someone else, á la Matrix.

That is true, and with that we enter a slippery field where there is no end.

I' have seen some bits of video where Elon Musk, together with others was interviewed and he was stating we could be in a simulation of some super computer of some other intelligence just as an experiment. But then you can also go beyond that and think that this other intelligence is in a simulation of some more super computer of some even higher intelligence, and so on

There's the scientific method and consensus. The latter can be corrupted by political and financial interests. If the authorities put a certain policy in place, justified by their team of scientists, anyone who contradicts it can face repercussions. We've seen this over the last couple of years, in response to the pandemic. The fact doctors and scientists got in trouble for disagreeing with the authorities' response is very worrying. It does call into question other areas where there's a scientific consensus.

[Nominal Animal]

There's the scientific method and consensus. The latter can be corrupted by political and financial interests. If the authorities put a certain policy in place, justified by their team of scientists, anyone who contradicts it can face repercussions. We've seen this over the last couple of years, in response to the pandemic. The fact doctors and scientists got in trouble for disagreeing with the authorities' response is very worrying. It does call into question other areas where there's a scientific consensus.

Agreed.

To me (who self-identifies as a scientist), "scientific consensus" is the continuous work product, status quo, with literally the meaning "okay, so this is our current best understanding, but it may/could/should change as we obtain more results", and nothing more.  It is not a 'fact' –– even 'scientific fact' just means "we cannot find anything to contradict this, and we tried, hard".  However, non-scientific and non-engineering types tend to think about things from a less rigorously defined viewpoints, and they really do not understand the enormous amount of work that has gone into it, so sometimes linguistic shortcuts have to be taken to make sure the listeners get the correct intuitive picture.

Similarly, 'scientific opinion' is a summary of that consensus, or work product of own professional knowledge if asked to provide one on the spot.  (When you ask a real scientist, they will/should describe not only what they themselves believe to be the most likely explanation, but also any contending models/theories, if there are any.)

It would utterly demolish the scientific community if scientists were to reject co-operation with those that have differing opinions.  The quality of the work product would crash, and not be worth it to anyone anymore.  I do not see how any society in general can survive that, either.

[Mechatrommer]

Of course people should be honest about who they really are, especially when it comes to sex.

they should be honest with their appearance too, because it will deceive others.. thou shall not looks like woman...

[pcprogrammer]

Of course people should be honest about who they really are, especially when it comes to sex.

they should be honest with their appearance too, because it will deceive others.. thou shall not looks like woman...

And there you go again, the circle is closed.

The whole argument is to let people be free in what they think or feel, within limits of some common sense. Religion, laws and politics should take this into account, but here common sense seems often missing.

Treatment for an "disorder" you are born with won't work. If transgender feelings are not present at birth (simplistically spoken) and caused by a trauma, like Zero999 pointed out, then treatment is maybe possible, but still up to the "patient" to decide what needs to be done. That is the problem with society we are so focused on controlling others and seem to have lost the ability to think for ourselves.

The same discussion can be held on euthanasia and abortion. In these area's, for me, is should be a personal decision, not hindered by a bunch of people who are afraid of death. Trust me, making such a decision for your self is hard enough. Both my parents made the decision it was time. My mother had suffered a stroke 8 years ago and never recovered from it. Things only got worse. It took 3 years to get things arranged, partially due to corona, but also due to regulations. 3 years of suffering and agony, which was also hard on my dad. He would have liked to end it at the same time, but that was not possible due to regulations. Took over 6 months before he was found ill enough to also qualify for euthanasia.

I was present at both their goodby's and it was humane. It was not a decision taken lightly.


And yes it would be nice if every body was honest, but I'm afraid that is never going to happen.

[AndyBeez]

In support of the OP, an applcable quote from the daily dairy of quotes: "Being good at what you do comes a far second to being good with the people you do it with."

Ergo, you maybe a brilliant engineer, but if you're a shite people person, then no matter how many dismissive and patronising tantrums you throw at the 'idiots surrounding you', you will never have anyone's respect to be lost. Just possibly your own office with a door kept shut.

Ergo-ergo, which is why the real idiots become our respected team, business, political and opinion leaders.

[Mechatrommer]

Treatment for an "disorder" you are born with won't work.

or simply is it just a desire? at later point in life, because there are many trans around and they are cool!? the disorder should be strictly diagnosed imho, if it cant be fixed, then so be it, a special ID card for disability (or special ability) is given or something like that, recommended to undergone a counseling or something on how to go around society and how not to harm/deceive others. the same thing to normal people, they should be educated to respect them as well, like how we respect disabled people.

The same discussion can be held on euthanasia and abortion.

the idea is to consider all aspect to reduce harm or pain to everybody, to the body's owner, and to others around them as well.. we choose the lesser of evil. btw now i dont understand how this "you ignore people just because you dont like his belief and you missed the good stuffs" thread went into politics and trans discussion, but i'm sure this is the job for politicians, or people who enforced regulations to think of, but it looks like they are crippled as well as us, so everybody is trying to be clever here

[Zero999]

or simply is it just a desire? at later point in life, because there are many trans around and they are cool!? the disorder should be strictly diagnosed imho, if it cant be fixed, then so be it, a special ID card for disability (or special ability) is given or something like that, recommended to undergone a counseling or something on how to go around society and how not to harm/deceive others. the same thing to normal people, they should be educated to respect them as well, like how we respect disabled people.

Autogynephilia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology#Autogynephilia

Of course people should be honest about who they really are, especially when it comes to sex.

they should be honest with their appearance too, because it will deceive others.. thou shall not looks like woman...

Interestingly there's a taboo in most western countries against pretending to be someone from a minority racial group i.e. a person with light skin wearing dark makeup, yet it's perfectly fine for a man to pretend he's a woman, even if this is in a sexist manner. I find this quite strange.

And there you go again, the circle is closed.

The whole argument is to let people be free in what they think or feel, within limits of some common sense. Religion, laws and politics should take this into account, but here common sense seems often missing.

Treatment for an "disorder" you are born with won't work. If transgender feelings are not present at birth (simplistically spoken) and caused by a trauma, like Zero999 pointed out, then treatment is maybe possible, but still up to the "patient" to decide what needs to be done. That is the problem with society we are so focused on controlling others and seem to have lost the ability to think for ourselves.

The treatment may differ depending on whether it's a innate or caused by trauma, but that doesn't meant that if someone is born with something it's untreatable. It's weird how clinicians generally disapprove of treatments such as surgery and drugs which physically change the body (psychiatric drugs are another story) for other psychological problems. If someone wants to have a health limb amputated, because they feel repulsed by it, clinicians generally discourage is and want to try everything else first. This doesn't seem to be the case with the transgender business.

The same discussion can be held on euthanasia and abortion. In these area's, for me, is should be a personal decision, not hindered by a bunch of people who are afraid of death. Trust me, making such a decision for your self is hard enough. Both my parents made the decision it was time. My mother had suffered a stroke 8 years ago and never recovered from it. Things only got worse. It took 3 years to get things arranged, partially due to corona, but also due to regulations. 3 years of suffering and agony, which was also hard on my dad. He would have liked to end it at the same time, but that was not possible due to regulations. Took over 6 months before he was found ill enough to also qualify for euthanasia.

I was present at both their goodby's and it was humane. It was not a decision taken lightly.

And yes it would be nice if every body was honest, but I'm afraid that is never going to happen.

Sorry about your mum. That must've have been an easy decision for her. I've lost members of my family to stroke. It's genetic. None of them were obese or lead an unhealthy lifestyle. My mum has had two strokes, which she fortunately recovered from, so I can sympathise.

I feel conflicted about things which affect others and could be the result of society. Abortion does affect an embryo, fetus or child, depending on the stage, yet on the other hand there's the rights of the woman. I think it should be permitted in the early stages of pregnancy, yet forbidden at the latter stages, when if it were born, it would be an otherwise healthy child. I think there should be more consideration to alternatives such as adoption and more maternal support as well as contraception. There are exceptions for this, such as when he baby will die anyway, when it's born and it should be removed to protect the woman's life. Euthanasia is another one: does the person only want to die because they can't get treatment or support for a medical or psychological condition? If it's too permissive then I can see people killing themselves when it's easily preventable and they could have many years of happy life left.

[Mechatrommer]

Interestingly there's a taboo in most western countries against pretending to be someone from a minority racial group i.e. a person with light skin wearing dark makeup, yet it's perfectly fine for a man to pretend he's a woman, even if this is in a sexist manner. I find this quite strange.

if you are in my shoes, its not strange at all, those are very well embedded in us if not educated properly... racism/tribalism and lust/desire... one man tries to be wise at deciding what to do, but at the same time affected by those negative influenses in him, resulting bad decisions. what i find strange is many people dont realize this einstein said we cant solve the problem with the same kind of thinking that created it..

just an example.. abortion, why it happened? unmarried sex or nobody want to be responsible to take care of the child usually due to... unmarried sex! what kind of married man to not want be responsible right? (exception if there is complications risking mothers life) solution... married first before sex, but... marriage event is not trivial, you need to spend thousands of dollars or probably lots of legal papers. now there's a chain of problems making to solve the root problem impossible... solution? use condom and unmarried sex is still legal, thats how human solve it (remember the lust/desire influence above? sex is good! bearing a child is not) now you may try, condom has been around for so long, abortion is same... now how actually to solve abortion? well you dont have to because society want to shot their own feet in the first place because it feels good, bearing a child is not, prevention means they will not feel good, so they try to cure the problem they created. so women and daughters got discriminated, for as long as there's sun and moon shining...

[pcprogrammer]

The treatment may differ depending on whether it's a innate or caused by trauma, but that doesn't meant that if someone is born with something it's untreatable. It's weird how clinicians generally disapprove of treatments such as surgery and drugs which physically change the body (psychiatric drugs are another story) for other psychological problems. If someone wants to have a health limb amputated, because they feel repulsed by it, clinicians generally discourage is and want to try everything else first. This doesn't seem to be the case with the transgender business.

I was only talking about gender and sexual attraction related "disorders" since that was the topic at hand. Sure there are birth defects that can be treated. In the case of amputating a healthy limb I can certainly understand that it is discouraged because living without an arm or leg is more difficult, where as living without a penis is less so. But mental problems are very difficult. Hard to say what goes on in someones mind.

With my mother there was quite a change in personality after the stroke. It did not affect her memory, but things like emotions were enhanced, ability to tell time was destroyed, etc. Very hard to see someone deteriorate from being fairly active and independent to just a lump of meat in a chair being in agony. Seeing a psychologist did not help her.

Sorry about your mum. That must've have been an easy decision for her. I've lost members of my family to stroke. It's genetic. None of them were obese or lead an unhealthy lifestyle. My mum has had two strokes, which she fortunately recovered from, so I can sympathise.

Thanks, and right back at you. Hope she is still doing well.

Not sure if it is really genetic. My mother had clogged arteries from the good life and needed an operation for it. The operation was a success, but after it a blood clot blocked an artery in her brain. She was still in hospital, but a lot of damage was done before the staff could react.

I feel conflicted about things which affect others and could be the result of society. Abortion does affect an embryo, fetus or child, depending on the stage, yet on the other hand there's the rights of the woman. I think it should be permitted in the early stages of pregnancy, yet forbidden at the latter stages, when if it were born, it would be an otherwise healthy child. I think there should be more consideration to alternatives such as adoption and more maternal support as well as contraception. There are exceptions for this, such as when he baby will die anyway, when it's born and it should be removed to protect the woman's life. Euthanasia is another one: does the person only want to die because they can't get treatment or support for a medical or psychological condition? If it's too permissive then I can see people killing themselves when it's easily preventable and they could have many years of happy life left.

To some extend I can agree with you about actions that affect others. I'm not sure about what it is in the Netherlands for abortion, but I believe up to three months into the pregnancy. But where abortion is concerned I still think it is something between the two people who are involved. I'm not saying just go a head and do it. There has to be guidance, but remove the guilt trip surrounding it.

Similar for euthanasia. I agree that if it is to liberal it might go wrong, but is it not better that someone who want's to end their life, can go to a place where they can do it in a humane way and not burden, for instance, a train driver by jumping in front of a train. Again there can be guidance and help with finding a solution, but there are many people who just want to die, and who are we as a society to forbid them from doing so.

I know a lot of problems here come forth from emotion, egoism and fear. Family members that can not stand the though of loosing someone, but sometimes you have to look beyond your own needs.

[pcprogrammer]

Interestingly there's a taboo in most western countries against pretending to be someone from a minority racial group i.e. a person with light skin wearing dark makeup, yet it's perfectly fine for a man to pretend he's a woman, even if this is in a sexist manner. I find this quite strange.

if you are in my shoes, its not strange at all, those are very well embedded in us if not educated properly... racism/tribalism and lust/desire... one man tries to be wise at deciding what to do, but at the same time affected by those negative influenses in him, resulting bad decisions. what i find strange is many people dont realize this einstein said we cant solve the problem with the same kind of thinking that created it..

just an example.. abortion, why it happened? unmarried sex or nobody want to be responsible to take care of the child usually due to... unmarried sex! what kind of married man to not want be responsible right? (exception if there is complications risking mothers life) solution... married first before sex, but... marriage event is not trivial, you need to spend thousands of dollars or probably lots of legal papers. now there's a chain of problems making to solve the root problem impossible... solution? use condom and unmarried sex is still legal, thats how human solve it (remember the lust/desire influence above? sex is good! bearing a child is not) now you may try, condom has been around for so long, abortion is same... now how actually to solve abortion? well you dont have to because society want to shot their own feet in the first place because it feels good, bearing a child is not, prevention means they will not feel good, so they try to cure the problem they created. so women and daughters got discriminated, for as long as there's sun and moon shining...

You don't want to feed the man who won't take responsibility for their actions. It will leave you broke

Don't see what marriage has to do with it. And condoms are not 100% reliable so not a solution. And then there is also rape. A woman can get pregnant from it.

For the rest I can't make out what your point is.

[T3sl4co1l]

or simply is it just a desire? at later point in life, because there are many trans around and they are cool!?

Is heterosexuality simply because there are so many straight people around?

What makes a person straight?  Childhood trauma?  Lifestyle choice?  Do you simply choose to be straight?

...

And anyway, even if it were just a lifestyle choice -- what the fuck gives us any reason to dictate that to others?  Some people rip their arms off doing stupid stunts; surely we should prevent them from doing so as they are a hazard to themselves, potentially others, and a burden on our healthcare system!

And yet we don't.  Yet we [those who do, to various degrees in various countries] see fit to dictate these things to LGBTs, to women, to minorities.

Is it *really* done based on a coherent, rational argument, for society's sake, or the affected individuals'?  Or is it actually one group asserting dominance over the other, in whatever arbitrary, and usually abusive, way they can?

But you can't reason someone out of an idea they didn't reason into.  Someone hostile to rational ideas, will not be sensitive to them; indeed, not for lack of functional rationality, as they will gladly pull together any and all facts, applicable or not, in a pseudo-rational attempt to destroy the argument; for the rational statement is necessarily both secured by, and vulnerable to, rational argument.  All that is needed is for one such case to slip through, and they've won.

Even the sheer weight of doubt being cast (no matter how illegitimate), will serve its rhetorical purpose to the uncritical listener.  Which is the bread and butter of conservative, gish gallop speakers like Ben Shapiro.

Tim

[Zero999]

Interestingly there's a taboo in most western countries against pretending to be someone from a minority racial group i.e. a person with light skin wearing dark makeup, yet it's perfectly fine for a man to pretend he's a woman, even if this is in a sexist manner. I find this quite strange.

if you are in my shoes, its not strange at all, those are very well embedded in us if not educated properly... racism/tribalism and lust/desire... one man tries to be wise at deciding what to do, but at the same time affected by those negative influenses in him, resulting bad decisions. what i find strange is many people dont realize this einstein said we cant solve the problem with the same kind of thinking that created it..

just an example.. abortion, why it happened? unmarried sex or nobody want to be responsible to take care of the child usually due to... unmarried sex! what kind of married man to not want be responsible right? (exception if there is complications risking mothers life) solution... married first before sex, but... marriage event is not trivial, you need to spend thousands of dollars or probably lots of legal papers. now there's a chain of problems making to solve the root problem impossible... solution? use condom and unmarried sex is still legal, thats how human solve it (remember the lust/desire influence above? sex is good! bearing a child is not) now you may try, condom has been around for so long, abortion is same... now how actually to solve abortion? well you dont have to because society want to shot their own feet in the first place because it feels good, bearing a child is not, prevention means they will not feel good, so they try to cure the problem they created. so women and daughters got discriminated, for as long as there's sun and moon shining...

You don't want to feed the man who won't take responsibility for their actions. It will leave you broke

Don't see what marriage has to do with it. And condoms are not 100% reliable so not a solution. And then there is also rape. A woman can get pregnant from it.

For the rest I can't make out what your point is.

or simply is it just a desire? at later point in life, because there are many trans around and they are cool!?

Is heterosexuality simply because there are so many straight people around?

What makes a person straight?  Childhood trauma?  Lifestyle choice?  Do you simply choose to be straight?

...

And anyway, even if it were just a lifestyle choice -- what the fuck gives us any reason to dictate that to others?  Some people rip their arms off doing stupid stunts; surely we should prevent them from doing so as they are a hazard to themselves, potentially others, and a burden on our healthcare system!

And yet we don't.  Yet we [those who do, to various degrees in various countries] see fit to dictate these things to LGBTs, to women, to minorities.

Is it *really* done based on a coherent, rational argument, for society's sake, or the affected individuals'?  Or is it actually one group asserting dominance over the other, in whatever arbitrary, and usually abusive, way they can?

But you can't reason someone out of an idea they didn't reason into.  Someone hostile to rational ideas, will not be sensitive to them; indeed, not for lack of functional rationality, as they will gladly pull together any and all facts, applicable or not, in a pseudo-rational attempt to destroy the argument; for the rational statement is necessarily both secured by, and vulnerable to, rational argument.  All that is needed is for one such case to slip through, and they've won.

Even the sheer weight of doubt being cast (no matter how illegitimate), will serve its rhetorical purpose to the uncritical listener.  Which is the bread and butter of conservative, gish gallop speakers like Ben Shapiro.

Tim

Before you two get too upset. Look at his flag. He's from a very socially conservative country, so his views are going to reflect such a culture.

It's funny how the idea of cultural relativism has gained popularity in the west: all cultures are equal, yet different, but this is clearly flawed. I'm sure you'd rather live somewhere with a culture of law and order, rather than one of lynchings.

Anyway, there are positives of conservative cultures. I'm conservative in some respects, just as much as libertarian, which does create some internal conflict on some issues and I think that is a good thing.

[T3sl4co1l]

I feel conflicted about things which affect others and could be the result of society. Abortion does affect an embryo, fetus or child, depending on the stage, yet on the other hand there's the rights of the woman. I think it should be permitted in the early stages of pregnancy, yet forbidden at the latter stages, when if it were born, it would be an otherwise healthy child. I think there should be more consideration to alternatives such as adoption and more maternal support as well as contraception. There are exceptions for this, such as when he baby will die anyway, when it's born and it should be removed to protect the woman's life.

There are other cases where we risk the life of one to save another.

Is it right to take a blood transfusion from one person, if it means saving another?
Is it right to take an organ transplant from one person, if it means saving another?
Is it right to use the uterus in one person, if it means saving another?

All are cases strictly trading bodily autonomy of one, for survival of another.

Note that the first is almost never fatal to the donor, and the second can have either a small quality-of-life cost (e.g. one kidney, liver section), or is performed after the donor ceases to exist (any other organ donation).

In 2/3 cases, we rule unanimously in favor of the donor: it must be voluntary, and well informed.

And yet we* rule differently in the last case.  Why?  A fetus is important, sure, but it's no thriving 8-year-old child.  Or 25-year-old adult earning income.  Or any other stage of life we might value, for whatever reasons, emotional or economic.

*Again, in the sense of those that do, and where they do.

Yet there is a group which professes an outsized, indeed fetishized I would say, fervor for the unborn.  Why?  Well, you can't understand it on a rational basis, that's for sure.  And they sure as hell aren't going to be kicked out of that mindset with a rational argument.  It's a peer belief: a shibboleth.  It doesn't need any particular meaning, just that it remains something polarizing to maintain the group dynamic.

And taking something manifestly irrational and making a shibboleth out of it, ensures no one leaves by rational argument -- they already rejected reason on it, when they accepted the group.  Easy.

Indeed, it is by design.

No one in that group thought particularly much of the idea before it was introduced, yet treat it as so obvious as to need no explanation now.  American Catholics and evangelicals are a prime example: largely being the same population before and after the anti-abortion movement occurred, and not being particularly against it beforehand.

The question remains, whose design is it?

Indeed, there are direct historical sources which answer this question (for this particular group), but I'll leave it hanging for now.

Tim

[T3sl4co1l]

Before you two get too upset. Look at his flag. He's from a very socially conservative country, so his views are going to reflect such a culture.

It's funny how the idea of cultural relativism has gained popularity in the west: all cultures are equal, yet different, but this is clearly flawed. I'm sure you'd rather live somewhere with a culture of law and order, rather than one of lynchings.

Relativism isn't an issue here -- we aren't on a Malaysian forum, but an English (read: commonwealth) forum.  Indeed it goes the other way, they are expected to follow our norms here.

Anyway, I already know from past experience, not to much much weight/trust in @Mechatrommer's arguments/statements/penchant for borderline trolling (or, I forget if they've received any disciplinary action?, in which case not just borderline).  Appreciate the reality check though.

Tim

[pcprogrammer]

Is heterosexuality simply because there are so many straight people around?

What makes a person straight?  Childhood trauma?  Lifestyle choice?  Do you simply choose to be straight?

Good one, that can bring up nurture versus nature.

A big worry in society, a homosexual couple having a child. Will it also become homosexual.

But aside from that, in "normal" families this is also a question in what determines your chances in life. When you are born dumb can you still succeed when properly nurtured? Or are we all born equal as a blank slate and is it nurture what makes that we become intelligent?

[Mechatrommer]

You don't want to feed the man who won't take responsibility for their actions. It will leave you broke

but everybody is doing just that! the problem is not in the feed them or not, its in the education.. once the scheme got wrong boom, you are producing just that!

Don't see what marriage has to do with it.

first we need to know the right definition of it, and then recognizing threats or bad outcomes (as we usually seen) if we are not adhering to that definition... long story...

And condoms are not 100% reliable so not a solution.

i dont say it is, but how many just forgot or dont want to wear it?

And then there is also rape. A woman can get pregnant from it.

thats another exception, but major rape cases only took place for few minutes or hours, we have 1-3 days emergency pills for that.

For the rest I can't make out what your point is.

sure enough, we have different path of education from ground up, its another long story... or simply, we maybe missing alot of good stuffs cheers.

or simply is it just a desire? at later point in life, because there are many trans around and they are cool!?

Is heterosexuality simply because there are so many straight people around?
What makes a person straight?  Childhood trauma?  Lifestyle choice?  Do you simply choose to be straight?

2 types of heterosexual, one is straight and one is trans. we are discussing about trans because straight is what considered normal and free way from "nature" for procreation. the other types are counterproductive and produce other problems that we are trying to solve or find hacks to them. i was talking about those who "choose" to change their natural/physical gender, not including natural disorder.

Is it *really* done based on a coherent, rational argument, for society's sake, or the affected individuals'?  Or is it actually one group asserting dominance over the other, in whatever arbitrary, and usually abusive, way they can?

not abusive, we can only advice. when problem occured, the best i can hint them politely... see? i've told you! you were just asking for it, you just werent aware of it yet

But you can't reason someone out of an idea they didn't reason into.  Someone hostile to rational ideas, will not be sensitive to them; indeed, not for lack of functional rationality, as they will gladly pull together any and all facts, applicable or not, in a pseudo-rational attempt to destroy the argument; for the rational statement is necessarily both secured by, and vulnerable to, rational argument.  All that is needed is for one such case to slip through, and they've won.

ditto! difference in education, awareness and definitions of things also play the role... personal interests, agenda and hypocrites are another matter that is quite impossible to prove from within oneself.