“Don’t say anything offensive to anyone in any way because that’s hurtful and will get you banned.” — Mitch
I’m not going to adjudicate a discussion from years ago.
As head moderator this is exactly what you should do be doing. What you believe to be offensive or harmful will be subjective by you in whether it's a justifiable reason for banning a person or not, but you also have to be the one to judge the rationale of the person claiming to being hurt. If someone for example corrects my replies due to the lack of my grammatical skills, I can report to you the abusive insultes of someone who takes pleasure in humiliating my credibility on the forum for all to see. If this had been a topic that you were personally triggered by, then you'd ban that person on the principles you believed in. The mere topic of discussion in regards to the transgenders could easily be your trigger, and anything that falls outside of the narrative of that belief can also be one that people find to be offensive and hurtful. It's a sticky road you're dealing with here because we live in a time where people seem to be more inclined to be offended about what someone is saying rather than understanding their point-of-view. I've seen this now more than ever as so many people today want to play the victim card. Their either cry babies who find offense in everything so that they can get the attention to feed their narcissism, or you have legitimate cases of people being emotionally abused by a narcissist who takes pleasure in degrading others just so they can feel better about themselves.
"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."
I don't really know what you mean by hearing my story and you not being able to do much about it much that you can do about it. It almost sounds as though your saying that you want to ban me but have no power to do so. I don't think that's what you were saying but it came off that way.
The quote I made was not about you in any way. I’m arguing that anyone can find offense in any other persons argument. My dad use to frequent this forum and was the one who got me to this place. He told me once of a cardinal who made the statement (paraphrased) “Give my any 6 words a person says, and I’ll make them out to be a criminal.” It’s been years since, but it really stuck with me.
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.
I could have easily misread this one from you because it seemed as though you were making the comparison of transgenders treatment of today the same as those women of who were burned at the stake for being accused of witches. Honestly, I've tried reading this post and I don't really know what you're saying here. (and no I'm not just dumping on you here.)
I don’t really know what you mean by hearing my story and you not being able to do much about it much that you can do about it. -- Mitch
First, I'd prefer you start a thread in the Issues and Complaints section. Others may want to refer to it someday and would never find it in a thread named "Gender". I can move posts, so I'll let you know if I do that.
The “not being able to do much” is about things that happened years ago. The people you are talking about don’t even post here lately, who would I ban or warn? And sure, I could dig into archives, but I don’t see how that would serve any purpose. My personal goal is to increase participation and my agreement with CFI is to meet their standards. That’s it.
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. -- Lausten
I could have easily misread this one from you because it seemed as though you were making the comparison of transgenders treatment of today the same as those women of who were burned at the stake for being accused of witches. Honestly, I’ve tried reading this post and I don’t really know what you’re saying here. (and no I’m not just dumping on you here.) --Mitch
It’s a fair question. It is a pretty harsh comparison, but I stand by it just the same. To save people from searching back, I was responding to ibelieveinlogic who said I was choosing to be my own moral authority. I was trying to say that no one does that, we all inherit tendencies plus culture and use our brains to create a code. I think religious people do that too, even if they say they get their code from God.
I think it’s more important to be able to defend your morals with your own words. I’ve never heard a good defense for why it’s okay to not give a transgender person a job, all other factors being equal, or why it’s okay to comment on their looks but not okay to comment on the looks of someone who has a skin condition or something.
The “burn at the stake” thing is about how it used to be that it wasn’t just making jokes about them, it was the official position of church and state that they could be killed. It was an easy comparison, that I hope anyone alive today would agree with.
... have you asked yourself, why did you reject Islam?
When I read what were presented as factual accounts of the life of Muhammad and what was presented as the best translation of the Quran I came to the conclusion that he was a false prophet. While I am not a biblical scholar I recognize that his book is mostly a re-hash of the Bible and a version of the book of Revelation in which the Arab peoples win.
Two things stand out above all the others. First, he specifically denies the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. That sets Islam irreconcilably against both Christianity and Judaism. Second, he tells his followers to offer the religion and to kill any who do not accept it. The idea of accepting as opposed to believing is a sure sign that what one is asked to accept is wrong.
... why it’s okay to not give a transgender person a job, all other factors being equal, ...
I believe that this sort of discrimination is the same as all other discrimination. It is really rejection of a different culture or what one sees as a different culture. And that includes a recognition that "all other factors" are not equal and never will be. The idea that diversity is a good thing may be true in some circumstances, but it is far from being true universally; one-size-fits-all never fits all.
The answer is something like “free will”, but what does that entail? It’s not just an arbitrary choice like you are making it out to be. I don’t 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 can’t choose not to reason because you have to have reasons for not choosing it, which is still reasoning.
I would never challenge another's morals. What I presented is a brief indication of my own thought process on how I came to be on where I am. I recognize my actions do not always reflect what I believe. As St. Paul said there are none who have not sinned.
And that includes a recognition that “all other factors” are not equal and never will be. The idea that diversity is a good thing may be true in some circumstances, but it is far from being true universally; one-size-fits-all never fits all. -- IBL
My study of Haidt's work leaves me open to the idea that diversity is not good in all circumstances. But, it's important to identify and discuss what those circumstances are. Haidt leaves much of that work for another generation. For too long, the idea of "separate but equal" has been the policy mantra, even when the words changed, the policies remained. However, it was never meant to be one-size-fits-all, another mantra that dominates the conversation and prevents more reasoned arguments from being heard. These catch phrases gloss over the data on inequality in housing, banking, and education, the things that create unequal results. When the results are shown, the next layer of obfuscation is to claim we shouldn't be attempting to achieve equal results.
“all other factors” is simply an application of how to compare complex situations. In sociology you try to account for factors but you know there always might be something you are not accounting. It wasn’t my intention to over simplify.
Question: Does gender indicate a difference in intelligence? If not what business does anyone have questioning gender as if it is a disqualifying property?
Only slightly in some areas – women seem to have more verbal intelligence and men seem to have better mathematical intelligence. There is a higher amount of intelligence variation in men i.e., most very high and very low intelligence is in males, while women stay closer to average. However, intelligence is only one aspect of what makes a person suitable for a position.
... data on inequality in housing, banking, and education, the things that create unequal results.
If we are to talk about inequality in these areas we need to be sure we recognize that we are talking about poverty as the primary factor in creating unequal results and not opportunity. The root of poverty is in the culture of the poor and that applies to people of all skin colors and ethnicity.
Among the many cultural factors most commonly identified are the lack of the nuclear family, out-of-wedlock-pregnancy, drug use, little appreciation of or desire for education, unwillingness and inability to be mobile and criminal activity. I have no answer to the question of how we resolve those issues but I do not believe that making people wards of the state or simply throwing money at the problems will do it.
We tried nation building in other lands and it didn’t work. People are seen to escape poverty when they value a different life enough to overcome their culture. I don’t know how we go about nation building here. I don’t believe dividing the people into have not victims versus the have wasps will help. If there is any agency in the country that can change people’s values it is probably religion. Destroying religion in favor of a central government seems counter-productive.
I am willing to listen to anyone’s ideas on how we eliminate the culture of poverty.
When the results are shown, the next layer of obfuscation is to claim we shouldn’t be attempting to achieve equal results.
"We" can't achieve results for others. Success cannot be given. We can help; we can provide opportunity. In order to succeed the individual must achieve for him/her self.
Again, this is off topic. But maybe it is necessary.
The root of poverty is in the culture of the poor and that applies to people of all skin colors and ethnicity. -- IBL
The depths of your lack of understanding leads me to despair. It's worse because I know there are millions of people like you. Enough to keep Senators in power that will support a person like Trump.
Rather than try to untwist your reasoning, I’ll go straight to the root of it. Never, in the history of ever, has anyone made a case for their being some sort of mindset of the poor that leads to poverty. The fact that someone can get out is evidence against that. It’s evidence against a genetic connection. It’s evidence for the fact that people who live in an impoverished areas are taught good values. If you don’t believe me, just ask someone who was born underprivileged and is now successful. They will tell what they learned and from whom they learned it. Also they will tell you the barriers, most of which are kept in place by rich and powerful people and supported by people like you.
“We can help; we can provide opportunity. In order to succeed the individual must achieve for him/her self.”
This is exactly the goal of every social program. There is a very small amount of government aid that goes to people who can’t help themselves, like a child who was born with brain damage and poor parents, or someone who’s spouse was their source of income then died suddenly. The rest is tied to achievement and results. Except in rare cases, this does not need to be forced on people. Very few people want something for nothing.
Never, in the history of ever, has anyone made a case for their being some sort of mindset of the poor that leads to poverty.
Well, let's see if we can correct that omission. But, let's be clear that such a mindset is not a " mindset of the poor" as you said, but a mindset that anyone may have that may lead to poverty.
Here is a test:
Are you “shacked up” with someone and not married to them?
Do you have children you gave birth to or fathered out of wedlock?
Do you use illegal drugs?
Have you failed to complete the education necessary for applying for a good job?
Are you unwilling to move a significant distance away in order to get a job or a better one?
Are you now or are you likely to get in trouble with the law?
Answering “yes” to two or more of these questions indicates that you likely have a mindset that will, or already has, led you into poverty. The more questions you say “yes” to, the more likely it is that you are crippled by that mindset. If you are already poor it is most likely that you will never escape poverty unless you do whatever it takes to be able to answer “no” to all of these questions.
People don’t start doing the things described above because they are poor; people who start doing those things become and continue to be poor.
Have you failed to complete the education necessary for applying for a good job? -- Bob
Conservatives and Liberals are so close to being on common ground, except for the centuries of baggage behind a word like "failed". I would take at it's most basic, that an attempt was made but the mark was missed. I'm pretty sure you are adding a ton of weight to the individual's own internal mechanisms.
Take myself as an example. I went to an elementary school that was within walking distance of the one Mitt Romney went to. We would literally walk over there to see their planetarium. I didn’t have anything to do with that and neither did Mitt. Our parents sent us there. I suppose I could have been so bad as to refuse to go or never do my homework, those are extremes, and even behavior like that is not something an 8 year old chooses as if they are a fully informed adult making life choices.
I can’t figure out what you envision going on in the mind of someone before they are 18 and it doesn’t seem you appreciate how the opportunities in their 20’s are a result of decisions made before they knew what they were doing or were made for them by people they had no control over. This includes things that happened before they were even born.
I put this Springsteen quote in a blog entry:
Bruce Springsteen put it more poetically. As Bruce was about to become a father, his own father visited him and made a sort of apology for the father that he had been. It was more than that. It was a warning of the mistakes he had made. Telling his son not to make them with his own children. In Bruce's words, "To release them of the chains of our sins, my father's and mine and our father's before. That they may be free to make their own choices and to live their own lives. We are ghosts or we are ancestors in our children's lives. We either lay our mistakes, our burdens upon them and we haunt them. Or we assist them laying those old burdens down and we free them from the chain of our own flawed behavior. And as ancestors we walk alongside of them, and we assist them in finding their own way and some transcendence."
I can’t figure out what you envision going on in the mind of someone before they are 18 ...
Like most children, I didn't realize my family was poor until I grew up and could look back on our life then. There are no poor children, only poor parents. We do not allow children to be, nor do we hold them, accountable.
it doesn’t seem you appreciate how the opportunities in their 20’s are a result of decisions made before they knew what they were doing or were made for them by people they had no control over.
"Opportunities" in their 20's? Surely you mean "consequences" of decisions made ...
Actions have consequences. Actions are the manifestations of thoughts. One’s mindset determines in large part what one will consider and thus how he/she will act upon those considerations.
The lack of the nuclear family is the main reason children do not acquire the resources needed to make good decisions.
We do not allow children to be, nor do we hold them, accountable. -- IBL
And yet, that's exactly what you are doing. Not sure how to get you to see that.
You say there are only poor parents. Where do those come from? Show me the people who are irresponsible, not doing their homework, coming in to work drunk, but were raised middle class that then move from a first ring suburb into a red-lined neighborhood when they get pregnant? Or are their uncles finding jobs for them? Are people with their same skin color hiring them to entry level positions? Are they getting car loans with no money down and a mere paycheck to show they are credit worthy?
Of course values are passed down through generations. Everybody knows that. That’s why Nixon threw black men in prison for minor drug offenses, he knew that would harm black children and their children’s children. That’s why they only changed the red-lining laws, they didn’t fix the neighborhoods, they didn’t improve education in those areas.
I agree, a nuclear family is the design we use to support our communities. Rich and powerful people know that too, and they know how to make it work for the people they want it to and to not work for others. It’s how they stay rich and powerful. They need that pool of cheap labor. It doesn’t need to be everybody, just big enough so they can show a guy like you that it’s there and frighten you into believing that you either do what the rich guy says, or you’ll end up like them.
No, I hold no one accountable until he/she reaches what we call legal age.
You're trying to have it both ways. You're saying people are responsible for their own education, children don't build or fund the schools or pay the taxes or teach themselves study skills. You're holding them accountable for things they can't control.
If by "both ways" you mean children are not held legally accountable for their actions but they, and others, must accept that their actions will have consequences, then yes we as a nation do hold that to be true.
You’re saying people are responsible for their own education ...
You know that adults are required by law to send their children to school. Children may refuse to participate, but attendance is required. We can and do provide opportunity for education at all levels. The decision to take advantage of education opportunities is the person's, at any age. So, yes, people are responsible for their decisions about their own education.
Government cannot replace the nuclear family. Values are developed primarily at home and are learned more by what parents do rather than what they say. What have young people learned from having seen the so-called adults in this country engage in hate politics over the last four years? That alone should tell us that we can never allow children to be taught values by government agencies of any kind, including schools.