FFT: Gender as a social construct — what is the vid below telling us on where our intellectual culture has now reached?

_{kairosfocus
June 10, 2017

Academic Freedom, Evolutionary Incoherence, Logic and Reason, rhetoric, worldview

1}_{Categories
Academic Freedom
Evolutionary Incoherence
Logic and Reason
rhetoric
worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Someone gave the link, I think we need to watch a comparison of real vs fake papers on gender:

I ask us to ponder:

Where have we now reached, why? END

Comments

SB and KF, why not just answer Kmidpuuddle's question? Are you scared? I will answer it. Or course religious beliefs should not entitle one to avoid legal responsibility whether the beliefs are Christian or Muslim based. You both of course think the opposite. So if you don't accept that the Muslim person should have the same right to avoid legal responsibility as the Christian person then you are hypocrites. But then I already knew that.Pindi_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

SB, it is quite evident that we are dealing with a refusal to attend to inconvenient facts, issues, test cases, concerns and arguments etc. This thread itself is in major part a distraction from the OP core issue on how we got to a situation where gender bending games and patently absurd assertions have become entrenched in institutions of learning. That dynamic drives the distortion of understanding individuality, sexuality, marriage and family, community life and governance, leading to a morass of confusion. In that confusion crooked yardsticks have been substituted for sound ones, creating the manipulator's utopia where what is sound or sensible is automatically rejected as it does not accord with the new, politically correct standards. Those who stand up and blow a whistle, trying to put up plumbline cases, facts and the like are then scapegoated, targetted, denigrated and dismissed. In that context, it is utterly unsurprising to see that in a march of civilisation-level insane folly, those who stand up like Paul at Fair Havens will be dismissed. But, there is a Euroaquilo coming, and our civilisation is going to need good men and good women in the face of a terrible storm. The real issue is, how much loss will we have to suffer before sanity can be restored. In Paul's case it took a fortnight-long early winter storm that reduced a ship carrying 276 souls to instant sinking condition and a desperate fight to keep off the deadly sandbars of the Libyan coast. I suspect, we have become so infused with hostility to "religion" that many will not heed this lesson from a microcosm on how democracy, bought-and-paid-for technicos and manipulative financially powerful interests can all fail if we the citizens do not stand up unwaveringly for truth, soundness, justice and prudence. As a civilisation, we are weighed in the balance and found sadly wanting -- and, again, I bet that many cannot get this classic Sunday School lesson right either, even as the handwriting is there on the wall for us to see. KFkairosfocus_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT}

KMP, at this stage, your assurances are worth about as much as a cynical politician's promises. Remember, you are on explicit record as dismissing the reality of evil, so we have every right to view you as an amoral nihilist here only to cause chaos and confusion. KFkairosfocus_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

JuW, sadly, you can take a horse to the trough [again and again], but you cannot force it to drink. Yes, we do need to go to world roots and linked issues to found a sound understanding of our nature, why we are morally governed, and how this leads to enduring principles of justice termed the natural law, but as that runs counter to dominant manipulative agendas, every effort is made to distract from and dismiss such. KFkairosfocus_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT}

KMP, has it dawned on you that the comparison you try to make is an outrage, based on highly dubious projections of immoral equivalency? And, has SB's comment at 287 escaped your attention? It will help you begin to understand part of why I just wrote that. KFkairosfocus_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

Pindi, has it struck you that given the requisites of reproduction and sound child nurture, society has a significant interest in fostering sound frameworks in law and policy that help to create long-term sustainability? Are you aware that say, prospective spouses have an interest in your sexual behaviour long before you even meet them? That prospective grand parents who may be stuck with the tab after some dog of a man has had his fun and/or has driven out their daughter with blows have an interest also? That, society -- and even, in many respects, an employer -- has an interest in the credibility of paternity and in enforcing/supporting duties of fatherhood? That alienation of affection and/or cultivation of a string of outside lovers -- concubines, courtesans or catamites makes no difference -- is utterly corrosive to family stability? That history has long shown the destructive effects of running a harem? That inability to manage sexual appetites and linked passions is corrosive to productivity? That there are patterns of unhealthy sexual habits and behaviours that are associated with the spreading of now dozens of destructive diseases, creating a public health hazard? That, some of those habits, unnatural acts and behaviours are associated with loss of decades of life expectancy? That society as a whole has a major interest in not undermining economic productivity and in not being saddled with the chaos and huge charge on the public purse resulting from widespread disintegration of sound family life patterns? And more? In such a context, it is a terrible sign that the fast-fading remnants of sexual sanity are now so confined to despised, marginalised groups that sanity can be dismissed by labelling it as silly notions of targetted scapegoat groups, collectively termed the religious right. I hope you can begin to understand the crumbling cliff's edge our civilisation is now treading. KF PS: I again point participants to JCW's sobering remarks.kairosfocus_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT}

J, I assure you that this isn't a "trap" or "gotcha" question. These two examples are real life examples. The first one happened in 1977 in Toronto. The second in 2016 in Ottawa.kmidpuddle_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

SB, getting there. KFkairosfocus_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

KMP, there 'ent no such thing as same sex MARRIAGE, and no amout of rhetoric, academic puffery, or legislative or judicial hocus pocus can poof such into being by the magic of manipulative words. It is a form of words manifesting a fundamentally unjust and destructive decree imposed under colour of law through lawfare and decades of agit prop, sure. That does not mean it has the essential characteristics of marriage [which are rooted in our quite evident morally governed nature and need for stable, wholesome frameworks for reproduction and child nurture], it is a case of at root cynical manipulation and usurpation in pursuit of a fundamentally destructive design that if unchecked will ruin our civilisation (and, BTW, damn our souls thus turning us into demonic monsters by eating out the moral core that makes a reasonable, responsible significantly free and wholesome society possible). KFkairosfocus_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, did you notice how quickly kwimmuddle and jdk changed the subject after I presented the facts about the the negative effects of SSM @287.StephenB_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT}

JDK, I am asking you to consider what you are enabling by the implications and associations of your advocacy; and that is a long-term issue. Note particularly your studious silence in the face of a sobering test case. This takes on a particularly, sadly significant tone given your statement of approval in 276 to KMP's assertion in 275 that boils down to asserting that appeal to a law of our nature that can be understood, discerned and discussed is in effect (by implication) religious imposition and closed-mindedness. The onward discussion brings out the underlying thought behind such assertions and implications. KFkairosfocus_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

Kmid, Let me take a stab concerning the blind lady and the dog. People of goodwill are constantly battling what is legally allowed for religious considerations and what is not. And the answer constantly shifts. I think someone quipped earlier "is it OK to accommodate gay marriage in 2017 but then not accommodate it in 2018 if opinions change?" All these things we are arguing about are the result of the majority (or maybe a few blacked-robed justices) changing their opinions over time. And you seem to think this method works (the method that the majority mostly gets it right over time). But your objectors do not. And the position one takes depends on your worldview. If your worldview is "man is the measure of all things", then you see things one way. If you think man is NOT the measure of all things, you will see things differently. I like how you are arguing by analogy with the blind lady/dog scenario. It is very powerful, but it can't always lead us to make the right decision. I think we have to use other methods/sources, like conscience, natural law, and revelation. Ok, back to the question "was she right to sue". In your view, "right" changes with time and opinions. So I don't think any answer would be correct or satisfy you unless it happens to agree with your opinion. And your opinion is influenced by the culture and time you are raised in. Kmid, the problem is that people with two fundamentally different worldviews usually just talk past each other. We just "tick" differently. So instead of asking all these kind of "gotcha" or "trap-like" questions, we really would be better off spending our time talking about the basic worldview differences. My 2 cents. juwilkerjuwilker_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

JDK:
This is a good question, although no one here may weigh in on it.
You think?kmidpuddle_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

This is a good question, although no one here may weigh in on it.jdk_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

JDK:
I think in both cases the refusal was against the law, as I believe the law requires guide dogs for the blind to be accommodated.
True. But the question is whether the people here who object to requiring a Christian clerk to issue a marriage licence for a same sex marriage (a legal requirement of the job) would support a muslim taxi driver who refuses to pick up a blind woman in the middle of the night because she has a dog with her. In both cases, the arguments are based on freedom of religion.kmidpuddle_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

I think in both cases the refusal was against the law, as I believe the law requires guide dogs for the blind to be accommodated.jdk_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

We seem to be getting nowhere with whether or not discriminatory business practices can be justified on the grounds of religious freedom. Maybe a couple real life experiences by a good friend of mine may help this discussion. My friend is blind and uses a guide dog. Several years ago she entered a restaurant owned by a Muslim man. She was told to leave because of the dog. She sued him as refusing entry was against the law. The owner's defence was the freedom of religion defence as he was Sunni and they consider the dog to be "ritually unclean". These are the questions for the people here. 1) was she right to sue the owner? 2) how should the court have ruled? More recently, she was leaving the hospital emergency room after stitching up a minor cut. She called for a cab, the only transit available at that time of night, and when it arrived the driver told her that he couldn't take her because of the dog and then took off. A bystander got the number of the taxi for her and when she followed up with the cab company she was told that the driver was Muslim and the company did not require its Muslim drivers to pick up people with dogs for religious accommodation reasons. Again, she sued the cab company. And, again, 1) was she right to sue? 2) what should the outcome have been?kmidpuddle_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

The religious right's obsession with homosexuality and other people's sex lives never ceases to amaze me.Pindi_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

Eugen:
OOPs sorry I left some spelling mistakes in haste. Sometimes spellchecker selects for me and I just keep going.
Not to worry. I am a terrible speller to start with. Spell checker helps but it can result in some pretty strange combinations of words if I don't catch it.kmidpuddle_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

"London, 2 March 2013: The experience of legalising marriage for same-sex couples in Europe and North America shows that such legalisation has negative effects for real marriage and for families, shows latest evidence. The evidence was presented to the House of Commons committee examining the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, in a written submission by Dr Patricia Morgan, the British family policy researcher, on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC). (A *partial* list of the negative effects) Based on research and data from Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Canada and the US, Dr Morgan concluded that: --As marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, this reinforces the idea that marriage is irrelevant to parenthood --Same-sex marriage leads to the casualisation of heterosexual unions and separation of marriage and parenthood --Spain saw a pronounced acceleration in the decline of marriage following the introduction of same-sex marriage (same-sex marriage was introduced at the same time as the ‘express divorce bill’) --In the move to same-sex marriage, opposite-sex relationships have to conform to gay norms rather than vice-versa --Same-sex marriage may be the end-game of long-running anti-marriage, anti-family policy typified by Sweden" (This last point is understated. The gay lobby has already acknowledged that its purpose all along has been to destroy the family and all Christian values. They don't want freedom for themselves; they want to take away the freedom of others)StephenB_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

kpuddle and others OOPs sorry I left some spelling mistakes in haste. Sometimes spellchecker selects for me and I just keep going.Eugen_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Eugen:
Every wise civilization in the past treated traditional family as the most important, basic unit of society.
The "traditional" qualifier is certainly debatable, but I do not disagree with the fundamental statement. But how does SSM change this? If homosexuals are limited to opposite sex marriage, they will simply not marry. How does allowing them to marry change the fundamental fact that families raising children is required for society? And how does it reduce the occurrence of this?
Marriage puts long term obligation on male and female and by that encourages the union to last longer for the purpose of reproducing and raising the next generation.
Obviously reproduction and the raising of children is not a requirement of marriage. Otherwise we would not allow sterile couples to marry. Or elderly couples. Or couples who have no intention of having children.
Homosexual union is nonsensical in this regard because couple cannot reproduce and if they decide to adopt (rare) or lab produce(very rare) a child they cannot provide complete role modelling which puts child in sub optimal condition. I pity those kids.
It has already been shown that we do not require the ability to reproduce before allowing a couple to marry. And there are many conditions other than the sex of the couple involved that result in conditions that are sub-optimal for the raising of a child. Up until not too long ago, and some would argue that it is true today, raising a child in an inter-racial marriage was not optimal. As is also the case for couples who do not have a reasonable prospect for financial stability. Or for couples who smoke and/or drink heavily. Or for couples who have a history of certain genetic diseases that result in an early death. We do not even prevent known drug addicts from marrying. All of these are sub-optimal conditions for raising children, but I don't hear anyone arguing for limiting marriage on any of these grounds.
Therefore this type of union is inferior and not important for long term continuation or well being of the human race.
Whether or not it is inferior is opinion, and one that you are certainly entitled to have. But who has claimed that allowing them to marry is important for long term continuation of the human race? Should that be how we decide who is allowed to get married? I would certainly hope not. That is a little too Orwellian for my liking.
Wise leaders in the past were perfectly aware of this so they didn’t seriously consider this type of union.
The same wise leaders considered it important to persecute and prosecute homosexuals in the past. Often for the very same reasons; words written down several thousand years ago in a book. There is no argument that religion has had some very good influences on society. But it is equally true that it has had some very bad influences. Wise leaders, not always successfully, attempt to distinguish between them and not blindly accept the literal translation of the bible.kmidpuddle_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

kf, your comments don't apply to me: I've said nothing about evil or bestiality.jdk_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

KMP and JDK, I will comment to you jointly. I have already pointed to JCW's discussion, which would well repay a sober reading, one that will strip away ever so many of the fond excuses of our time in regards to sexual morality in general. When it comes to evil, in fact evil is not an invention of religion -- obviously, here used as a dirty word implying stupidity, insanity, ignorance, superstition or worse. That is, in so objecting to evil, one of you implicitly appealed to the concept. I again point you both to the case I have pointed to so many times and which you have so studiously avoided, of the kidnapped, bound, sexually assaulted, murdered child -- exploited and reduced to a corpse to satiate some man's pleasure for the moment, leaving a grieving family that still felt the loss many years later as of my last conversation with the bereft father. If one of you refuses to acknowledge that as evil [which is so by direct implication of a dismissive comment], that speaks saddening volumes. Where, evil has a meaning, the frustration, privation or wrenching of something out of its proper end and fulfillment; here robbing a child of innocence and of life, depriving a family of its posterity that a mother risked her life to bring into the world . . . there are no risk-free pregnancies. Where, that purpose is often evident from the nature of a thing, or relevant circumstances. And, one of you, by implication of onward remarks, fails the test of even so extreme and blatant a case of perversion [likely pointing to some form of insanity in my view] as bestiality. In short, we here look at nihilism and likely, seriously benumbed conscience. I think some re-thinking is in order. KF PS: All of us are finite, fallible, struggling towards responsible reasoned thought, helping us towards truth and right. Thus, a proper end of discussion is to clarify and resolve such matters, including where we may fall into the case of setting up a crooked yardstick.kairosfocus_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Phinehas@277:
Oh, I don’t know. Perhaps you shouldn’t judge yourself so quickly. You appear to be the only person here making that equation. No one else is.
If you notice my comment at 275 you will note that I admit that I may have jumped to a conclusion on this.kmidpuddle_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

KMP:
When the discussions are about homosexuality, SSM and transgendered, and someone asks me if I think that bestiality is wrong, it is either because the person equates them in some bizarre way, or it is an attempt to distract and deviate from the actual discussion.
False dichotomy. The third, pertinent reason has already been clearly elucidated, and just as clearly ignored. As you continue to do so, you are only exposing yourself as a troll, not interested in reasoned debate.Phinehas_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

kwimpuddle
By definition, if you claim that something follows the “natural moral law” you are claiming that anyone who disagrees with you does not have the sense of reason. Thus ending any debate because, after all, what is the point in debating anyone who does not have the sense of reason?
The point of debating people who have no sense of reason is to expose that fact to the reading audience.StephenB_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

kwimpuddle
When the discussions are about homosexuality, SSM and transgendered, and someone asks me if I think that bestiality is wrong, it is either because the person equates them in some bizarre way, or it is an attempt to distract and deviate from the actual discussion. I guessed at the former.
No, the reason he asked the question was to find out if you thought bestiality is objectively wrong and universally unacceptable. If you had provided an honest yes or no, he would have followed up by asking you why you think it is. Naturally, you evaded the quest for the same reason you evade my questions.
Evil is a religious invention. It doesn’t exist. As such, it would be pointless for me to get in a discussion about it.
There you go. For you, the evil of bestiality and murder are labeled as such only because religion invented the idea of evil. For you, there is no such thing as an objectively evil act. If bestiality is not an evil act, then it obviously cannot be more evil than homosexuality. Natural law says that bestiality is more evil than homosexuality, but YOU say that it is not. Remarkable.StephenB_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

kpuddle "...Nobody here has provided a coherent argument as to why homosexuality, SSM or transgender is in any way harmful to a stable and healthy society...." Every wise civilization in the past treated traditional family as the most important, basic unit of society. Marriage puts long term obligation on male and female and by that encourages the union to last longer for the purpose of reproducing and raising the next generation. These are the optimal conditions for humans and this helps continuation of healthy society. Homosexual union is nonsensical in this regard because couple cannot reproduce and if they decide to adopt (rare) or lab produce(very rare) a child they cannot provide complete role modelling which puts child in sub optimal condition. I pity those kids. Therefore this type of union is inferior and not important for long term continuation or well being of the human race. Wise leaders in the past were perfectly aware of this so they didn't seriously consider this type of union. How is this not clear to liberals/ leftists/ communists? Modern liberal leaders who prefer to wear pink, female reproductive organ shaped hats, who are still crying about Hilary's loss aren't concerned about wise, logical and reasonable approach to issues. They rather think they can solve any problem with emotions, hugs and solar power. I would like to see our opponents write a simple, practical assessment instead of evading questions or getting upset and touchy feely.Eugen_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

KMP:
But, then again, I am not the one stupid enough to equate homosexuality with beastiality.
Oh, I don't know. Perhaps you shouldn't judge yourself so quickly. You appear to be the only person here making that equation. No one else is. If you don't recognize this, then this says very little for your reading comprehension. And if you do, that says very little for your interest in reasoned debate.Phinehas_{June 19, 2017
June
06
Jun
19
19
2017
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 20 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply