@thatoneguyDiscrimination is not a big factor in suicide.
Itâs not? Not even in some cases? Why not tell that to young Black and Native American people who want to die because of racism? For some people, discrimination is a big factor as to why they want to kill themselves or do kill themselves. You canât just look at a set of stats and say, âOh wow! White people have a high rate of suicide, therefore discrimination isnât a factor.â You have to look at the individual groups too, not just all the various groups together. For a multiracial or multi- sexual orientation or whatever multi- study may that is true, but for various groups, you have to look at the individual groups. Thatâs like saying discrimination isnât a factor for Native Americans on a Rez high rate of alcoholism because there is also a high rate of alcoholism among white people. You canât do that and say itâs accurate to say that just because Natives are on a Rez and discriminated against, itâs not part of their alcoholism. Theyâre just fine on a Rez. That is really stupid.
High suicide rates on reservations probably have numerous causes but discrimination is unlikely since reservations arenât diverse places. The same goes for alcoholism.
For example, their dating options are extremely limited because nobody besides other trans will date them. And the surgeries and hormone therapies require a lifetime of medication.
Thatâs not true either. My brother-in-law is married to one and heâs not trans.
Youâre right. I forgot some gays go for trannies.
Since oneguy is either obstinate and ignorant or a troll, this is more for my own benefit (mrm has the short version in post 340185):Basic statistics tells you that taking a factor like skin color does not tell you if discrimination is a factor in suicide. Controlling for a variable - Wikipedia
If t you believe he cause is âdistressâ with physical vs feelings, then what is the cause of how we identify people physically? It wasnât that long ago men in high society wore makeup and frilly clothing. The âperfect figureâ for a woman has changed just in my lifetime as well as over the centuries. You almost never acknowledge culture as a factor in this or any conversation @thatoneguy, you use words like ânormalâ as if normal was created 6,000 years ago and never changed.
Judging people physically is something we evolved to do; probably because it works and itâs easy. Fashion is another story. It emphasizes immutable characteristics like male and female bodies. Upper class men used to wear frilly clothes as a form of peacocking, which is attractive to women. It still happens, just the clothing is different. As for womenâs figures, science shows the âhourglass figureâ is universally considered the most attractive by men just like always. That hasnât changed much, though pop culture might make it seem otherwise.
The new normal is science. Racism and other forms of discrimination are being eliminating because of the human genome project. The root of the word has been redefined and the culture is still catching up with that. âGenderâ is also getting updated based on evidence and reason. You are being left behind because you canât accept that.That's a nice fantasy, but remember, your extreme open-mindedness is very rare worldwide.
udging people physically is something we evolved to do; probably because it works and itâs easy. -- oneguyevolution has gifted us with imperfection. You're idea of what "works" is based mostly on how easy and comfortable you are personally. But your lifestyle does not "work" for billions of others. My "fantasy" of open-mindedness is why there is no religious authority watching your every move right now, like they did for thousands of years. Once we evolved to have larger brains, we used them to overcome brute force, but it took a while. Tribalism and "might makes right" still survive.
Racism and other forms of discrimination are being eliminating because of the human genome project. The root of the word has been redefined and the culture is still catching up with that. âGenderâ is also getting updated based on evidence and reason.I agree on one point about racism. We are all one race so racism really cannot be about race. What I see is that what we call racism is actually discrimination based on culture and, more particularly, based on assumptions about culture. People have learned that most of the time "what you see is what you get". The way one presents his/her self is the cover of the book. What someone shows us on their "outside" is what we expect to find on the inside. The "birds of a feather" saying is not just about our feathered friends. If one wishes to be accepted into a culture he/she will not get acceptance by being too different.
I doubt that even half of the people in the USA know what the human genome project is or that there is one. I would not expect it to have a significant impact on our cultural relations. Laws regarding overt discrimination and demands for us to be politically correct do nothing to change minds and hearts; indeed they may harden attitudes. People donât like being told what to think.
The evidence I have seen touted here and elsewhere for the determination of gender may be of use for those at the fringes but for those of us within two standard deviations of the norm it has not much application. For example, if that determination gives one an advantage in sports the majority will not accept it. If one is not accepted as an âequalâ a victory mean cannot mean very much.
We may have adopted politically correct alternatives for various words that some deem pejorative, but an alternative for either âmaleâ or âfemaleâ is unlikely. Of course we know to never say never; if we evolve our way of reproduction we may need different terms.
So, no, I donât consider Jesus my moral authority. I donât think there was even a person that fits the gospel narrative.Many Jews agree with you. Even Muslims acknowledge Jesus as a person.
But many of the ideas are valid.So, it seems you pick and choose what you determine to be "correct". "Lean not to your own understanding" does not seem to be one you choose to follow.
Your words indicate that you, like many others, have chosen to be your own moral authority. I choose to not do that. I recognize that I am fallible and any âmoralâ ideas I may have are subject to change depending on circumstances and thus must be considered arbitrary.
But this is way off topic.
I think it is very telling that all here focus on the restroom issue and not on the sports problem. I donât care much about girlsâ or womenâs sports but many do, especially those who participate in them. All those involved in womenâs sports who I have heard speak on the issue say allowing males to compete against females will kill womenâs and girlsâ sports.6 years ago when I would get heated arguments with the other members in regards to the issues that would come up if just anyone can make the claim that their sex does not represent their gender. Of course, the knee jerk responses came in with people trying to get me banned for hate speech because I wasn't conforming to their opinions. Modern day liberalism has gone wacko. What had once been a group of people open to having a dialogue with those who disagree, had now become so radicalized that anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda has to fear being beat down.
Discrimination is not a big factor in suicide. If it was Whites wouldnât have the high suicide rates they have despite rarely experiencing discrimination, whereas Black and Hispanics have low rates of suicide. Trans suicide is most likely caused by the distress of their physical identity not matching the way they feel. The constant alienation takes a toll. Thatâs another problem â even if trans go through with a sex change they are still trans and canât really have a decent life. For example, their dating options are extremely limited because nobody besides other trans will date them. And the surgeries and hormone therapies require a lifetime of medication.
You just have everything sorted out in your sordid little mind to meet your sorry little narrative, donât you. You know how everybody thinks and what everybody does and how everybody feels.
This goes both ways. You canât make the assertion that the higher suicide rates amongst transgender is due to discrimination any more than you can assert that it doesnât.
Of course, the knee jerk responses came in with people trying to get me banned for hate speech because I wasnât conforming to their opinions. -- MitchThere is no standardized opinion against which the mods compare your statements when deciding when to ban. If you think there is, please point it out and I will do my best to respond.
Modern day liberalism has gone wacko. -- MitchNow this, your very next sentence is what gets you banned. "wacko" is mild, and you've been around for a while, so, no foul. Generalizing on "liberals", is not forwarding the conversation. Simple name calling, completely worthless. If you do too much of these, and not enough substantive, data driven, grounded in some philosophy, thoughtful, at least a personal experience, type of posting, YEAH, you'll get banned.
Your words indicate that you, like many others, have chosen to be your own moral authority. I choose to not do that. I recognize that I am fallible and any âmoralâ ideas I may have are subject to change depending on circumstances and thus must be considered arbitrary.But this is way off topic. @ibelieveinlogic
Yeah, off topic, although staying on topic isnât always the goal, is it? My words do not indicate that I have chosen my own moral authority. If I had, you should be able to demonstrate how my morals do not conform to any standard, to any tradition, to any culture. That would be ridiculous, I would be in an asylum or prison. But you should be able to at least point out some deviation. Your problem right now is, you are basing âmoralâ on a standard that isnât the current norm. You arenât sure why that is, maybe 5 centuries ago was better than now, but how can you make the case? How can you decide who is right? Me or Pope Adrian VI?
I can defend my morals, the basis for them, and argue for how they are better than the people who burned people at the stake who did not conform to their gender norms.
My words do not indicate that I have chosen my own moral authority.Your words "But many of the ideas are valid." indicate that you have indeed chosen to be your own moral authority; you have examined the ideas and judged them on the basis of your acceptance of what you consider to be "the current norm".
I can defend my morals, the basis for them, and argue for how they are better than the people who burned people at the stake ...I suggest that morals and people, and people's actions, are not the same things. We all fall short. True morals are universal and unchanging.
For example, I have seen that almost everyone who rejects Christianity actually only rejects the claim of divine authority in favor of their own authority while mostly adhering to the rest of the âshall and shall notâ. This rejection of a superior authority is necessary if one needs or wants to justify occasionally departing from those standards. Adjusting oneâs âmoralsâ to oneâs current situation makes those âmoralsâ arbitrary and thus not morals at all.
IBL, Have you thought much about this stuff before? These are pretty standard comments on the basis for morality. I could just go straight to the so-called authority you are pointing to and show how your posts are not informative. Go read the story of Moses coming down with the Ten Commandments, then keep reading, to the part where they kill 3,000 people. Itâs just a page or two on.
You are saying something about a âsuperiorâ authority, but where is it? How do we ask it for clarification? How do we choose this book of authority over that one? How do we know we havenât chosen the Devilâs authority, cleverly disguised as Godâs?
The answer is something like âfree willâ, but what does that entail? Itâs not just an arbitrary choice like you are making it out to be. I donât have that much freedom. My thoughts are shaped by millions of years of evolution, of tribal strategies for survival, natural selection of brains and brawn. Then there is my own reasoning, which is the same for everyone, you canât choose not to reason because you have to have reasons for not choosing it, which is still reasoning.
Try this way of looking at this; you say you have evaluated why people reject Christianity, but have you asked yourself, why did you reject Islam?
We have adopted a higher authority in order to receive forgiveness for our trespasses, because âForgiving Yourself Is the Hardest Kind of Forgivenessâ
Not sure how this drifted from Gender to Morality, but if I can add my $0.02 âŚCompletely anecdotal, of course.
Short story:
I say I was âraisedâ Protestant. Because though I went through the motions, the doubt was there. Yet I didnât disagree with the message. Just the delivery.
Spin ahead a few decades. I send my child to Catholic PSR - so he can âget the messageâ ⌠as soon as he started questioning the delivery - and we told him truths - I let him bail. But he got the message.
So we are a family of âChristianâ values ⌠yet dodge the âreligiousâ stuff.
So to wrap it back, Iâd say our moral authority is ourselves, with input from others. If you want to spin it in a negative way, you can say we âCherry Pickedâ ⌠so be it.
Â
Of course, the knee jerk responses came in with people trying to get me banned for hate speech because I wasnât conforming to their opinions. â Mitch There is no standardized opinion against which the mods compare your statements when deciding when to ban. If you think there is, please point it out and I will do my best to respond.This happened years ago when Doug ran the forum and I have to really give Doug the credit for remaining neutral. DarronS was on a warpath against me because of the arguments I made in regards to the transgender community. I didn't degrade the tg's in any way but I what I did do was argue against their narratives. Repeatedly I had people argue on why I was being so closed minded and why I don't just leave them alone since it doesn't affect my life personally. It's a hypocritical argument that can easily be made at its own accuser. If you accept this line of thinking then you have to run it across the board. No one can voice an opinion on any issue unless it directly or indirectly affects you. (i.e. If you personally have never been raped in your life, then you have no right to voice your opinion on ANY issues regarding rape.)
Iâm assuming that you have the access to look up any posts that have been deleted. If so, you can find one from DarronS on this very topic where the very guy who tried to get me banned for my arguments on transgenderism, was now 7 years later was now bringing up the problems with tgâs being allowed in sports. When he saw my post behind his about how someone tried to get me banned for even arguing such points, he immediately deleted his post. I personally found it rather funny.
Modern day liberalism has gone wacko. â Mitch Now this, your very next sentence is what gets you banned. âwackoâ is mild, and youâve been around for a while, so, no foul. Generalizing on âliberalsâ, is not forwarding the conversation. Simple name calling, completely worthless. If you do too much of these, and not enough substantive, data driven, grounded in some philosophy, thoughtful, at least a personal experience, type of posting, YEAH, youâll get banned.It's a great way to make this a thought ending forum.
âDonât say anything offensive to anyone in any way because thatâs hurtful and will get you banned.â
It optimizes everything wrong with the way the western world has been heading. You donât break the molds of bad ideas if everyone gets to have their own super safe space where nobody feels marginalized or insulted. You make positive changes by challenging these idea and accepting not just that others opinion can differ than yours, but that they might just be right where you were wrong.
Youâre putting up a BIG emphasis on
- substantive (Most of what I see on this board has more to do with opinions coming from both sides of the arguments made rather than having any hard evidence.)
- data driven (I don't see much of this going on other than people posting studies created by fringe groups)
- grounded in some philosophy (Does this mean that I have to root my arguments based on the philosophy of others before me?)
- thoughtful (i.e. circle jerking, safe space, conformity)
- at least a personal experience (Well here you'll find more violators to deal with than you could ever possibly handle. If the LEAST requirement of all arguments has to be that of ones own personal experience then you cannot argue FOR or AGAINST issues such as whether you believe tg's should be allowed in any womens sports. If your not a tg or a woman actively playing in sports then you have no right to post any argument. )
Your words indicate that you, like many others, have chosen to be your own moral authority. I choose to not do that. I recognize that I am fallible and any âmoralâ ideas I may have are subject to change depending on circumstances and thus must be considered arbitrary.But this is way off topic. @ibelieveinlogic
Yeah, off topic, although staying on topic isnât always the goal, is it? My words do not indicate that I have chosen my own moral authority. If I had, you should be able to demonstrate how my morals do not conform to any standard, to any tradition, to any culture. That would be ridiculous, I would be in an asylum or prison. But you should be able to at least point out some deviation. Your problem right now is, you are basing âmoralâ on a standard that isnât the current norm. You arenât sure why that is, maybe 5 centuries ago was better than now, but how can you make the case? How can you decide who is right? Me or Pope Adrian VI?I can defend my morals, the basis for them, and argue for how they are better than the people who burned people at the stake who did not conform to their gender norms.
Youâre being completely hyperbolic here by making such an absurd comparison. Just because people makes arguments against the TG narrative, doesnât mean theyâre chasing them with pitchforks and burning them alive at the stake. In fact, itâs more the other way around. Anyone who doesnât agree with the narrative easily finds themselves the target of hate groups that want to destroy their careers. This canât be more clearly shown than what happens to celebrities who donât conform to these narratives.
"We have adopted a higher authority in order to receive forgiveness for our trespasses, because âForgiving Yourself Is the Hardest Kind of ForgivenessâThe only way to adopt a higher authority is to realize that we've all made bad decisions that have hurt or affected others in negative ways. You'll never become a better person if you adopt the mindset that your feelings of guilt stem from the fact that YOU ultimately have been the victim.
The only way to adopt a higher authority is to realize that weâve all made bad decisions that have hurt or affected others in negative ways. Youâll never become a better person if you adopt the mindset that your feelings of guilt stem from the fact that YOU ultimately have been the victim.That makes no sense whatever. Seems to me the exact opposite. Ultimately, YOU are the assailant and if you are honest that will make YOU feel guilty, which is as it should be. Adopting a higher authority who forgives you is the easy way out. 15 hail Mary's is not going to absolve you from your sin.
That is the difference between theists and atheists. An atheist has to work it all out by him/herself, no easy outs.
The only way to adopt a higher authority is to realize that weâve all made bad decisions that have hurt or affected others in negative ways. Youâll never become a better person if you adopt the mindset that your feelings of guilt stem from the fact that YOU ultimately have been the victim. That makes no sense whatever. Seems to me the exact opposite. Ultimately, YOU are the assailant and if you are honest that will make YOU feel guilty, which is as it should be. Adopting a higher authority who forgives you is the easy way out. 15 hail Maryâs is not going to absolve you from your sin.That is the difference between theists and atheists. An atheist has to work it all out by him/herself, no easy outs.
My bad. I think weâre both on the same page here.
I read this
âSo youâve done something wrong.â
and thought it had been an article that pandered to the perpetrator as though they had somehow been a victim all this time. You donât become a better person by having someone âWASHâ away your sins (i.e. guilt) at the end of the day just so you can feel fuzzy enough to recommit them the next day. Iâm an Atheist too and hold on to my guilt so that I donât make the same mistakes again.
âDonât say anything offensive to anyone in any way because thatâs hurtful and will get you banned.â -- MitchI'm not going to adjudicate a discussion from years ago. I hear your story but there's not much I can do about it. I'm mostly interested in your current participation, although I do take past performance into consideration. This straw man quote above does not relate to anything I think or use in making moderation decisions. You can find those guidelines in the rules.
This one from you shows how far apart our thinking is:
Youâre being completely hyperbolic here by making such an absurd comparison. Just because people makes arguments against the TG narrative, doesnât mean theyâre chasing them with pitchforks and burning them alive at the stake.You call me hyperbolic then make a hyperbolic comment. I've had too many of these "yeah well, that's how you are, but you are saying I'm like that" conversations. I can't find a way to bridge them without some live moderation/mediation and strict ground rules.