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

KMP, In addressing SB, you are dealing with someone with advanced formal education in both philosophy and communication [as well as being a very well catechised Catholic], whose deep wisdom has been demonstrated many times over the years here at UD and elsewhere. He is not on trial. I suggest to you that your reaction to him strongly suggests that you are in the grip of the problem of the crooked yardstick. If you make a crooked yardstick your standard, one thing that is guaranteed is that what is actually accurate and true (in the sense of straight) will never fit with it, as it already conforms to reality. This is why it is doubly important for us to look to plumbline independent truths that we can use to test our frameworks and yardsticks. This is the context in which the challenge of grounding a world in which we exist as responsibly and rationally free, morally governed creatures, is on the table. As you will have just seen with JDK, things that undermine that, lead straight to absurdity. So, I suggest you ponder the ghost of a very real eight year old victim of kidnapping, binding, sexual assault and murder, then ask how do we know this is evil, and what happens when for argument's sake, we suggest that it is not. When you can ground the moral judgement that this is evil, then we are in a position to make some progress. KF PS: Cicero's thoughts as were already cited, will also be highly instructive. We are here dealing with the roots of Law and justice, so this is not a mere empty academic exercise. Indeed this has a lot to do with the sad pass our civilisation has got itself into.kairosfocus_{June 18, 2017
June
06
Jun
18
18
2017
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

kwimpuddle
Did you ever consider that the reason people do not respond to your questions is because they are so glaringly and patently stupid?
No. The reason you (and jdk) do not answer my questions is twofold: [a] You are afraid to come to terms with the implications of your irrational moral philosophy, and [b] You believe that you should be able to scrutinize the opinions of others without having your own ideas scrutinized.
Nothing constructive or informative ever comes out of responding to such questions.
So says the one who is afraid to address them.StephenB_{June 18, 2017
June
06
Jun
18
18
2017
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

JDK, the direct implication is as SB outlined, which I cited with approval. If there is no law of our nature beyond a delusion we call conscience (Cf Ruse & Wilson et al) then there is nothing -- non-being -- there. So, there is nothing more substantial behind ought than a delusion. Amorality in short. Of course, it does not stop there, part of what conscience does is it regulates rationality through duties of known care to truth, right, etc; or -- per what we are addressing -- creates the delkusion of such obligation. In short, down that road lies the collapse of not only morality but responsible, rational freedom. Which, we need to have a real argument. In short, we here see self-referential absurdity. Time to back away from a self-falsifying view that lands us in the morass of general delusion. KFkairosfocus_{June 18, 2017
June
06
Jun
18
18
2017
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

SB:
That is why you refused to answer the original question, which was this: Do you know that murder (or bestiality, for that matter) is wrong? If you say no, you lose credibility; if you say yes, I will ask you HOW YOU KNOW. Either way, you are refuted.
Did you ever consider that the reason people do not respond to your questions is because they are so glaringly and patently stupid? Nothing constructive or informative ever comes out of responding to such questions. Actually, I take it back. The question does provide us information about the person asking the question. Now, if you want to actually address the issues of homosexuality, SSM, the existance of traditional marriage, whether the government has the authority to define what a marriage is, and transgender in an evidence based fashion, I am sure that JDK and I would we be willing to discuss the issues with you.kmidpuddle_{June 18, 2017
June
06
Jun
18
18
2017
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

jdk
It does not address at all the argument that there are other grounds from which human moral judgments are made.
Sorry, but that will not work. You have changed the subject from how you know right from wrong to the act of "making moral judgments," which does not address the issue. Predictably, you fail to make your own claim specific. So I will ask you to do that now. How else can you know that murder is wrong except by apprehending the natural moral law. Specify those "other grounds." You cannot because they do not exist. That is why you refused to answer the original question, which was this: Do you know that murder (or bestiality, for that matter) is wrong? If you say no, you lose credibility; if you say yes, I will ask you HOW YOU KNOW. Either way, you are refuted.StephenB_{June 18, 2017
June
06
Jun
18
18
2017
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

kf writes,
Some of us argue that homosexual acts ... are wrong because they violate the natural moral law. But for you, there is no natural moral law, so it follows that, for you, no sexual act, including bestiality, could violate it.
This is a tautology from which no further conclusions can be drawn. It does not address at all the argument that there are other grounds from which human moral judgments are made.jdk_{June 18, 2017
June
06
Jun
18
18
2017
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

SB (attn KMP & JDK):
Obviously, you missed the point of J-Mac’s exercise. Some of us argue that homosexual acts
[--> note, ACTS, as opposed to having a morally laced struggle with same-sex attraction, to be overcome through suitable worldview reflection, sound psychological counsel and pastorally supported spiritual disciplines that tap the liberating power of God along the lines of something like the well-known 12-step recovery process. After all, many inherently disordered, morally dubious practices are habituating, addictive or otherwise enslaving . . . one of the red-flag indicators that something is seriously wrong. In this case, evidence points to a 20-year reduction in lifespan (even with incidence of HIV/AIDS adjusted for).]
. . . are wrong because they violate the natural moral law. But for you, there is no natural moral law, so it follows that, for you, no sexual act, including bestiality, could violate it. It makes perfect sense, then, for J-Mac to ask you if you find bestiality objectionable, thus putting you in a dilemma: If you say no, you lose all credibility; if you say yes, you admit that there is a natural moral law. So, you refuse to answer the question and pretend to be outraged.
This goes to the heart of the issues, including the other cases of studious evasions you highlighted:
To KMP: >>It reminds me of our exchange @ 129 Kwimpuddle I never denied the existence of right and wrong. Just that right and wrong can change over time and may not be the same for everyone. and responded, So you believe that it could be wrong to discriminate against homosexuals in 2017 and right to discriminate against homosexuals in 2018? Further, you believe that it could be wrong for me to discriminate against homosexuals but right for someone else. Is that right? You evaded those questions as well.>> To JDK: >>jdk This is a false dichotomy. No. It is a dilemma. If it was a false dichotomy, kwimpuddle would have answered that question. But he knows that he dare not address it—even after I explain the dilemma to him. So it is with you. I asked, “Do you know that murder is wrong?” You wouldn’t answer because a no is not credible and a yes means that you have access to the same natural moral law that you have been denying.>>
Of course, part of the answer to all of this lies in Cicero in De Legibus, which KMP, JDK et al have been even more studiously evading . . . one suspects, in a context of the demonstration from a foundational, pre-Christian legal thinker in our civilisation, that this is not right-wing, Bible-thumping Fundy Christofascism (or whatever stigmatising ad hominem laced fashionable dismissive stereotype is being used to lock out the heritage of Christendom just now):
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC]: . . . the subject of our present discussion . . . comprehends the universal principles of equity and law. In such a discussion therefore on the great moral law of nature, the practice of the civil law can occupy but an insignificant and subordinate station. For according to our idea, we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man. We shall have to examine those principles of legislation by which all political states should be governed. And last of all, shall we have to speak of those laws and customs which are framed for the use and convenience of particular peoples, which regulate the civic and municipal affairs of the citizens, and which are known by the title of civil laws. Quintus. —You take a noble view of the subject, my brother, and go to the fountain–head of moral truth, in order to throw light on the whole science of jurisprudence: while those who confine their legal studies to the civil law too often grow less familiar with the arts of justice than with those of litigation. Marcus. —Your observation, my Quintus, is not quite correct. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it, (potius ignoratio juris litigiosa est quam scientia) . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions. They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones. They think, too, that the Greek name for law (NOMOS), which is derived from NEMO, to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. [--> this implies a definition of justice as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities] For my part, I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
The point is, even just to have a real discussion, we must be responsibly and rationally free and morally governed. This means, we are looking at needing to ground our world at root level in a necessary being entity capable of bearing the weight of moral government. Hence, my discussion yesterday (which of course was studiously ignored). After centuries of debate, the only serious world-root candidate -- flying spaghetti monsters and other such rhetorical stunts need not apply -- capable of doing that is: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. Ethical theism as number one serious worldview option. Where of course, speaking to our evident nature then highlights that we have a nature as morally governed, responsibly and rationally significantly free creatures. We have consciences that may err on points or may be dulled and benumbed through the habits of folly and the addictions of sin, but we cannot coherently deny the reality of that voice that we are under the law of our nature, implying a purpose, an end, a proper fulfillment. Thus, when we see that evils are by almost self evident definition -- this is a corollary to having a morally guided nature as free, rational, responsible, en-conscienced creatures -- the perversion, diversion, frustration or privation away from that proper end, we then can see a way to guide ethical thinking. For instance, we are by design, found in two complementary sexes, and require stable nurturing environments for the better part of a generation to become well-formed adults. That points to the proper context of sexuality and its normal, wholesome expression and reinforcement in the act of marital union. Marriage is, logically, the covenantal context that allows such expression and sets a context for sound child nurture. Anything that falls short of this is just that. Infertile couples (too many women postpone child-bearing today) are a challenge. But to struggle to bear children is not a moral but rather a medical challenge. Some, face serious genetic and/or psycho-social challenges that seem to warp natural desires and perhaps sense of identity. That may lead to struggles, but is not in itself wrong-doing. That threshold is crossed by way of thoughts, words, deeds and habits that run counter to the fulfillment of the evident purpose of human sexuality. Some of these take the natural desire of men for women and the converse out of proper context and lead to well-known problems that start with adultery and fornication. Others, warp the natural desires into inherently disordered, often insanitary and downright disease-spreading behaviours of various kinds. Such may then be entangled with twisted senses of identity, and may even become ideologies and socio-cultural agendas seeking dominance under false colour of law. That is where our civilisation is today, and such points to a march of folly to ruin. I have serious doubts that we are going to turn back before the cliff-edge collapses underfoot. But, the warning must be sounded. KFkairosfocus_{June 18, 2017
June
06
Jun
18
18
2017
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

It's a dilemma based on a false dichotomy.:-)jdk_{June 17, 2017
June
06
Jun
17
17
2017
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

jdk
This is a false dichotomy.
No. It is a dilemma. If it was a false dichotomy, kwimpuddle would have answered that question. But he knows that he dare not address it---even after I explain the dilemma to him. So it is with you. I asked, "Do you know that murder is wrong?" You wouldn't answer because a no is not credible and a yes means that you have access to the same natural moral law that you have been denying.StephenB_{June 17, 2017
June
06
Jun
17
17
2017
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

It makes perfect sense, then, for J-Mac to ask you if you find bestiality objectionable, thus putting you in a dilemma: If you say no, you lose all credibility; if you say yes, you admit that there is a natural moral law.
This is a false dichotomy.jdk_{June 17, 2017
June
06
Jun
17
17
2017
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

kwimmuddle
We were discussing transgender, homosexuality and same sex marriage. And then some moronic troll asks me if I object to beastiality. Forgive me if I refuse to engage in a discussion with any moronic troll who thinks that homosexuality and transgender are equivalent to beastiality.
Obviously, you missed the point of J-Mac's exercise. Some of us argue that homosexual acts are wrong because they violate the natural moral law. But for you, there is no natural moral law, so it follows that, for you, no sexual act, including bestiality, could violate it. It makes perfect sense, then, for J-Mac to ask you if you find bestiality objectionable, thus putting you in a dilemma: If you say no, you lose all credibility; if you say yes, you admit that there is a natural moral law. So, you refuse to answer the question and pretend to be outraged. It reminds me of our exchange @129 Kwimpuddle
I never denied the existence of right and wrong. Just that right and wrong can change over time and may not be the same for everyone.
and responded,
So you believe that it could be wrong to discriminate against homosexuals in 2017 and right to discriminate against homosexuals in 2018? Further, you believe that it could be wrong for me to discriminate against homosexuals but right for someone else. Is that right?
You evaded those questions as well.StephenB_{June 17, 2017
June
06
Jun
17
17
2017
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

KF:
In that context the sort of smug, snidely evasive dismissiveness regarding a highly relevant issue, you just tried is not good enough. KF, thread owner.
We were discussing transgender, homosexuality and same sex marriage. And then some moronic troll asks me if I object to beastiality. Forgive me if I refuse to engage in a discussion with any moronic troll who thinks that homosexuality and transgender are equivalent to beastiality.kmidpuddle_{June 17, 2017
June
06
Jun
17
17
2017
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

F/N: Let us go back to a plumbline test case of self-evident moral truth (one which, sadly, is not hypothetical:
ASSERTION: it is self-evidently wrong, bad and evil to kidnap, torture, sexually violate and murder a young child for one's sick pleasure. Likewise, by corollary: if we come across such a case in progress, it is our duty to try to intervene to save the child from such a murderous, demonically predatory monster.
Almost all people will agree that such a case is horrible, and to be deplored. So also, they will agree that a duty of rescue obtains, or at least of succor for someone left half dead. But characteristically, those who wish to get away from objectivity of core morality will be loathe to address why they know such is wrong, what is its basis, even while they do not want to say no, this is just a matter of arbitrary preference backed up by willingness to use force. So this poses a dilemma: acknowledge that we can know that some things are evil and wrong, or else lose credibility, as SB pointed out for the end-point, the murder. That is a real dilemma and easily explains the studious evasiveness above. Ironically, objectors like we are dealing with routinely imply and confidently appeal to the strong sense that we are bound by duties of care to truth and right, so as we are wrong we should change our views to get in line with subjectivism and relativism. Again, the incoherence jumps out, once one notices. Notwithstanding, in the view of too many today, we are left to feelings of revulsion and the community consensus (however constituted -- and the same often love to trot out cases such as racism, segregation and alleged oppression of fashionable or favoured groups to discredit majority views they do not like . . .). A consensus, backed up by police and courts on this. Not so. Compare a fish, that we lure to bite on a hook, then land, kill and eat for lunch without compunction. And even for those who object, they will do so by extension of the protective sense we have about say the young child -- not the other way around. But, unless there is a material difference between a young child and a fish, that sense of wrong is frankly delusional, it is just a disguised preference, one that we are simply willing to back up with force. Where, the young child has no eloquence to persuade the monster and no strength to resist or escape. There may be no neighbour to hear cries for help -- and there are such things as gags . . . which then can have the convenient effect of suffocating the victim silently. So much for might and manipulation make right. Indeed, it is notorious that monsters often manipulate their victims to lure them to where they can trap, bind, gag, abuse, destroy. Oh, I have some nice comic books in my van or my house or whatever. This just underscores how when something boils down to substituting might and manipulation for moral reasoning and principles, it is absurd. Nor is it at once evident that all morality ends in such absurdity up to and including, God commands the good. (And no this is not, the caricatured circularity of the gostak distims the doshes; see below.) So, what is driving the force of the self-evidence? Why is it so patently absurd to deny this test case as a knowable moral truth? Conscience. A key mental faculty, one that pervades our thinking, deciding, speaking and doing. For, it is the voice that urges us to truth, soundness, prudence and the right. An inner voice that can be benumbed or can err, but cannot be dismissed as wholly unreliable, on pain of reducing mindedness to grand delusion. We cannot saw off the branch on which we all must necessarily sit. That, too is absurd. So, already, we see that once we let radical relativism and subjectivism loose, we are looking at the absurdity and chaos of the nihilist abyss, might (and manipulation) makes for 'right.' Sawing off the branch on which even rationality itself must sit, plunging us to ruin. Oops. However, at the pivot of the skeptical objections to objective moral truth, notwithstanding persistent reduction to absurdity, is the pose that since we may err and since famously there are disagreements on morality, we can always reduce moral feelings to subjective perceptions tastes and preferences, dismissing any and all claims of objectivity much less self evidence. Deconstructed and dismissed. So, the objector triumphantly announces: there is an unbridgeable IS-OUGHT gap, game over. Not so fast. Again, if we put up a mirror to the objector, we instantly see a familiar result. S/he is implicitly, unavoidably appealing to what his position would trash and discard. Zip, zip, zip, again -- sawing off the branch on which we are all sitting. Zip, zip, zip, CRAACK . . scree . . . Crash-splat. Self-referential absurdity is a very good test of what is self-falsifying. Instead, let us start from the self-evident truth that we are self-evidently reasonably, responsibly free but error-prone creatures, who are morally governed. Indeed, that is pretty much where that right-wing fundy, Bible-thumping nut Cicero -- NOT! -- started from, 2100 years ago. (Notice, who it is keeps on scorning dusty books as though we cannot find relevant wisdom in the classics of the ages? And, who keep on pointing out classic insights?) Maybe the objectors might now take pause to hear him at age 21 or so, in De Legibus:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC]: . . . the subject of our present discussion . . . comprehends the universal principles of equity and law. In such a discussion therefore on the great moral law of nature, the practice of the civil law can occupy but an insignificant and subordinate station. For according to our idea, we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man. We shall have to examine those principles of legislation by which all political states should be governed. And last of all, shall we have to speak of those laws and customs which are framed for the use and convenience of particular peoples, which regulate the civic and municipal affairs of the citizens, and which are known by the title of civil laws. Quintus. —You take a noble view of the subject, my brother, and go to the fountain–head of moral truth, in order to throw light on the whole science of jurisprudence: while those who confine their legal studies to the civil law too often grow less familiar with the arts of justice than with those of litigation. Marcus. —Your observation, my Quintus, is not quite correct. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it, (potius ignoratio juris litigiosa est quam scientia) . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions. They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones. They think, too, that the Greek name for law (NOMOS), which is derived from NEMO, to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. [--> this implies a definition of justice as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities] For my part, I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
If you will not learn from the Hebrews and the Christians, at least, listen to the best of the pagans. For shame. So, we see a framework for morality passed down to us by the ghost of an eight year old victim of a monster. Self-evident first moral principles keyed to our evident nature, serving as plumblines of justice, sound reason and good governance. Let me lay out where I think this heads (and gender-bender ideologues, I am looking straight at you). We may elaborate on Paul, Jesus, Moshe, Locke, Hooker, Cicero, Aristotle and many others, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles; for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions. So also, it is not only possible to
(a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law.
For instance: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.) 2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. (That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity.) 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. If a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT -- so that IS and OUGHT are inextricably fused at that level, it fails decisively. This, I will follow up.) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan -- found in the Gospels, for those who view that Book with irrational fear and even hate. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare; usurping the sword of justice to impose a ruthless policy agenda in fundamental breach of that civil peace which must ever pivot on manifest justice. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. (In Aristotle's terms as cited by Hooker: "because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like .") Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly. (NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.) 12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. So, is this sort of reasoning absurd, a reduction under Right Wing Christo-fascist tyranny to be resisted with all might? Nonsense, divisive agit prop. Assess on the merits. And if you reject, make sure your own scheme can adequately ground responsible, rationally free, error prone, morally strugling, morally governed creatures. Every tub must stand on its own bottom. No more riding piggyback on the heritage of the Christendom that you so patently despise. And oh, yes, let's pause to deal with gender-bender games. After I put up this thread, I put up a second one that lays out choice clips from the gender studies agenda. No-one stood up to defend stuff that actually comes from the professional literature, two days in and counting. And, the satirical hoax fits right in. No, we need to recognise the force of what Paglia recently said (thanks Reader X):
Asked by Jonathan Last why there has not been an open confrontation between feminism and transgenderism, Paglia responded that there has already been such a confrontation in the United Kingdom, citing the transgender community’s attacks on iconic feminist Germaine Greer and radical Australian feminist Sheila Jeffreys, the author of Gender Hurts. Paglia noted, “Jeffreys identifies transsexualism with misogyny and describes it as a form of ‘mutilation.’ She and her feminist allies encountered prolonged difficulties in securing a London speaking venue because of threats and agitation by transgender activists.” She continued: I am highly skeptical about the current transgender wave, which I think has been produced by far more complicated psychological and sociological factors than current gender discourse allows. Furthermore, I condemn the escalating prescription of puberty blockers (whose long-term effects are unknown) for children. I regard this practice as a criminal violation of human rights. It is certainly ironic how liberals who posture as defenders of science when it comes to global warming (a sentimental myth unsupported by evidence) flee all reference to biology when it comes to gender. Then, the shot straight from the hip: “The cold biological truth is that sex changes are impossible. Every single cell of the human body remains coded with one's birth gender for life. Intersex ambiguities can occur, but they are developmental anomalies that represent a tiny proportion of all human births.” Paglia added, “Like Germaine Greer and Sheila Jeffreys, I reject state-sponsored coercion to call someone a ‘woman’ or a ‘man’ simply on the basis of his or her subjective feeling about it.”
Food for thought. On the is-ought gap, let me note:
After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity.
KFkairosfocus_{June 17, 2017
June
06
Jun
17
17
2017
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

J-mac: Do you find bestiality objectionable? Ah, the slippery slope argument. Get back to me when you are serious about having a discussion. KMP, we have patently been sliding down just such a slope. The underlying point is, whether there are such things as moral limits above and beyond the next item on the agenda for those who by a long chain of abuses and usurpations have shows a clear design to reduce us under the nihilism of might and manipulation under false colour of law and of manufactured rights that duck the issue that to demand duties of others you must first manifestly be in the right, while undermining the premise of justice and rights: objective moral government manifested in our being and rooted in the source of reality. In that context the sort of smug, snidely evasive dismissiveness regarding a highly relevant issue, you just tried is not good enough. KF, thread owner.kmidpuddle_{June 17, 2017
June
06
Jun
17
17
2017
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

SB (attn KMP), "lag time." Recall the cartoons with Wile E Coyote running off the cliff and hanging in open air? Then he looks down and, scree-splat. A lesson. Most caught up in marches of folly (we and our leaders know better than you dumb fundies etc) do not realise the building up cumulative impact of unwise changes, until they hit critical mass and an avalanche is triggered. A key symptom is the refusal to pay attention to truly fundamental matters. For example, the article KMP pointed to simply used that weird-sounding word, metaphysics simply to dismiss and get on with the agenda. Only, metaphysics is about the study of what is real, what is its nature, how does it have being, how does it go with other things to make up a world. In which context truth is accurate description of reality and real knowledge is sound understanding thereof. Including the reality of rationally and responsibly free, morally governed creatures that come in two sexes and need stable families and communities that soundly manage self, sex, nurture etc in order to thrive. In really hard times (such as we likely will increasingly face), to survive. We need to go to the foundations and challenge any worldview or ideological agenda: how do you coherently ground rationally and responsibly free, morally governed creatures in a sound, sustainable community. When I hear nonsense like traditional marriage does not or did not exist and imagining that the state can arbitrarily define and redefine pivotal covenants such as marriage [and presumably enforce its definition by force backed up by colour of law], I know I am dealing with someone who has lost contact with reality. Bud, FYI, I come from a family descended from ex slaves (and their masters, going further back), with some indentured labourers from India tossed in for good measure. Marital stability across my extended kinfolks goes back to at least the 1850's to 70's, and it has been pivotal for the advancement of my family, up to and including a former US Secretary of State and a national hero of my homeland. Don't even try statistical tricks or the like to make it seem that that family history isn't real, when I can see the devastating impact of family breakdown on the sad history of my homeland. Our civilisation is stubbornly, foolishly playing with fire and will get badly burned, period. KFkairosfocus_{June 17, 2017
June
06
Jun
17
17
2017
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

kmidpuddle! Do you find bestiality objectionable?J-Mac_{June 16, 2017
June
06
Jun
16
16
2017
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

Phinehas, "Wouldn’t that depend on whether such a person viewed themselves as a woman rather than an atypical man?" Yes and that is just the point. If you are anatomically a man and view yourself as a man, typical or atypical, you are not transgender (at least in the sense of "female brained"). Regarding Deut. 22:5, it is not all as straight forward as it might seem. See http://www.beki.org/dvartorah/crossdressing/ where it shows those attuned to the Hebrew struggle with its meaning. Beyond that, do you feel you need to strictly adhere to every other proscription in the Deuteronomical laws? As for the case of the teenager identifying as a baby, I haven't a clue as to what is going on. It is not likely anyone will truly get to the root of it. In the case of transgenders, at a rate of about one per hundred persons, we are only beginning to understand some of the psychology and physiology.SteRusJon_{June 16, 2017
June
06
Jun
16
16
2017
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

Eugen:
All this was forced and bullied upon people of Canada.
Not exactly true. Abortion on demand was the result of government charges being laid against an abortion doctor who was openly performing illegal abortions. In spite of openly admitting that he was conducting abortions, a crime at the time, a jury refused to find him guilty. Twice. Prior to the last election, the liberals barely had enough seats to keep their official party status. Their new leader would not sign any nomination papers for anyone who was not pro choice. And he made it very clear that if elected his government would always be pro choice. And he won a majority. There is nothing stopping any polition or government running with pro life as a platform. Or anti SSM. But they don'. I wonder why that is.kmidpuddle_{June 16, 2017
June
06
Jun
16
16
2017
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Folks, notice how the grounding of responsible, rational, morally governed freedom continues to be ducked? That is pivotal, especially in a generation utterly warped by involvement with or enabling of the worst holocaust in history. The nihilism of might and manipulation is no substitute. And our civilisation is on track to pay a terrible price. KF PS: Notice, how no one is willing to defend the gender bending games that come out of the same nihilism? That should give us a few clues.kairosfocus_{June 16, 2017
June
06
Jun
16
16
2017
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

kwimmuddle, It’s called “lag time.” Sometimes, it takes a while for a cause to produce its effect. At the moment, Canadians are living off the benefits provided by their past allegiance to God and the hard work of earlier generations. But that is coming to an end. As traditional morality began to fade, homosexuality became normalized. Families are now shrinking and marriage is in decline, but drug use is up. Most importantly, Canada is dying. It cannot maintain its birth rate. The United States is headed in the same direction. It is a simple matter of consulting the cultural indicators.StephenB_{June 16, 2017
June
06
Jun
16
16
2017
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Kpuddle You won in a sense that you managed to drag everyone into your mud puddle. Again. "Canada allows abortion on demand (paid for by the state). Allows same sex marriage...." Bla bla bla All this was forced and bullied upon people of Canada. We were never asked to vote in referendum about issues. Parliament is not allowed free vote, basically laws are passed by decree.... With all these new liberal laws you think we would be paradise and yet Canada's natality is below replacement which makes us dying nation. Why this paradox?Eugen_{June 16, 2017
June
06
Jun
16
16
2017
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

KMP:
If transgendered (and homosexuals) did not have to deal with the social stigma associated with their “condition”, would the desperate desire to change still exist? I suspect not.
Again, you implicitly assume God doesn't exist, He hasn't proscribed certain behaviors according to His design, there is no one out there who desires to live according to His design apart from social stigma, and that God's design cannot possibly be better for individuals and the society they live in. And, again, these assumptions are unwarranted.Phinehas_{June 16, 2017
June
06
Jun
16
16
2017
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Since we have been talking about transgender issues, I thought that some here might be interested to know that Canada just passed a bill adding transgender to our charter of rights. This makes it against the law to discriminate against the transgendered. My prediction is that none of those dire predictions made by those opposed to the bill will come to pass. Canada allows abortion on demand (paid for by the state). Allows same sex marriage and adoption. Requires businesses to provide their services to homosexuals and transgendered, regardless of their religious beliefs. Allows doctor assisted suicide. Provides mandatory comprehensive sex education at an early age. THIs includes teaching about homosexuality and transgendered and madturbation. Provides unrestricted access to contraceptives without parental permission or notification. Will be legalizing recreational marijuana, possibly sold by the government. Has legal limitations on free speech. Has very strict gun laws. And yet, Canada is still ranked, year after year, as one of the best places in the world to live. Given what I have read here, how is that possible?kmidpuddle_{June 16, 2017
June
06
Jun
16
16
2017
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

kmidpuddle
I know several same sex couples. Not a single one of them has any desire to negatively affect opposite sex marriages or families.
By definition, a same-sex "couple" is anti-nuclear family. A pro-family homosexual would not participate in the redefinition of marriage. It is an implicit claim that children do not deserve a man and a woman as parents. Very few homosexuals would be open-minded enough to challenge the gay lobby and side with the traditional family. On the other hand, there are plenty of revolutionary heterosexuals who are happy to join hands with the gay lobby to destabilize the social order.
What traditional values are these?
Children deserve a man and a woman as parents. They deserve moral instruction about when and where sexual activity should take place. They deserve to know that babies should not be murdered in the womb. The deserve to know that the Founding fathers of our country supported the traditional definition of marriage as an institution that fosters the rule of law and preserves freedom against the tyrannical impulses of the government.
Traditions change all of the time.
A tradition that changes into something else is no longer that same tradition. (Law of non-contradiction). What you mean to say is that some traditions are replaced by new norms. That doesn't mean that the new norms are an improvement on the old ones.StephenB_{June 16, 2017
June
06
Jun
16
16
2017
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
More to the point, the gay lobby, and its sympathetic forces in government do not want to co-exist with the nuclear family. They seek to destroy it. They are on record of saying so.
You are applying the desires of the few to generalize about an entire group. There are plenty of heterosexuals who oppose marriage. Based on this should we make all marriage illegal? I know several same sex couples. Not a single one of them has any desire to negatively affect opposite sex marriages or families.
On the other hand, the family simply wanted to influence government in the direction of traditional values.
What traditional values are these? The traditional value of husbands being allowed to physically discipline their wives? The tradition of the wive having to vow to obey her husband? The tradition of removing teenage girls from school if they become pregnant? The tradition of men being allowed to marry girls as young as 12 years old? Traditions change all of the time. Some survive for quite a long time, others for only a few generations.kmidpuddle_{June 16, 2017
June
06
Jun
16
16
2017
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Phinehas and SRJ, it seems to me that the discomfort that both of you have mentioned about your bodies is more about body image than it is about gender identity. Where the distinction comes is that your body image is as compared to other men whereas SRJ's body image is as compared to other women.
As one who has struggled with an addiction, I know what it is like to be powerless to change something you desperately want changed.
I guess the question that must be asked is whether you desperately wanted to change because of the negative affects that your addictions had on your health and your family. Or if you desperately wanted to change because of the judgement and shaming of others. Obviously, addictions such as smoking, drinking, drugs, gambling, etc. have a direct negative impact on you and your family both in regards to health and financial. This is not the same for transgendered, or at least not in the same way. I would think that most of the desire to change from a transgender perspective is the result of family and peer pressure, social stigma, possibly religious indoctrination (indoctrination is the wrong word, but teachings does not reflect the strength that these beliefs can have). These can certainly have a physical affect on a person, specifically psychological, but they are an indirect effect of being transgender as opposed to the direct health affects of things like smoking, drinking and drugs. If transgendered (and homosexuals) did not have to deal with the social stigma associated with their "condition", would the desperate desire to change still exist? I suspect not.kmidpuddle_{June 16, 2017
June
06
Jun
16
16
2017
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

seversky @214, Why would you doubt that gay marriage weakens marriage the family when it was designed to do that very thing? The gay movement did not “emerge” from the bottom up; it was introduced and forced fed from the top down. Books have been written about this subject and no one who is acquainted with the facts will deny it. Either the institution marriage gets to define itself and the way children should be raised or else the government will make that call. By definition, they cannot co-exist as the primary influence for family values, life issues, cultural norms, and sexual morality. As one grows, the other diminishes. More to the point, the gay lobby, and its sympathetic forces in government do not want to co-exist with the nuclear family. They seek to destroy it. They are on record of saying so. On the other hand, the family simply wanted to influence government in the direction of traditional values. That is what the founders decided should be the correct role of the family. The government was supposed to honor those values, and once did. Insofar as the government, in concert with the gay lobby, defines the rules, the institution of marriage is made weaker. There is no question about it.StephenB_{June 16, 2017
June
06
Jun
16
16
2017
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

SRJ:

“I definitely have a degree of discomfort about my body and its softer/squishier nature compared to a lot of men.”
This is the opposite of what a male-to-female transgender experiences. Such person would likely state, “I definitely have a degree of discomfort about my body and its lack of a softer/squishier nature compared to a lot of women.” Is this statement in any way more accurate as a description of your state of mind?
Wouldn't that depend on whether such a person viewed themselves as a woman rather than an atypical man? If I view myself as a man, I compare myself to other men and see that I am atypical. Can this not be a choice? Or cannot other choices be made to reinforce viewing oneself as an atypical man instead of as a woman? Again, what is the advantage in denying the reality of my biology in order to view myself as a woman rather than an atypical man? As I mentioned to another poster, I know a Christian family where a child was adopted as a toddler. That child is now a teenager and the parents have been struggling to deal with the teen's apparent attraction to identifying as a baby, including wearing diapers. As you can imagine, this has caused quite a bit of concern for the loving parents. They are distraught. They want to do what they can to love and accept their son, but does this mean it is healthy for the son to identify as a baby or for them to reinforce such a delusion? As one who has struggled with an addiction, I know what it is like to be powerless to change something you desperately want changed. As one who has been in recovery for many years, I also know what it is like to go through a process of surrender that ultimately brings me to a place where God's power changes what I could not. I confess that I don't know where transgender issues fit into the spectrum of biological reality, psychological delusion, and addictive behaviors with which I am personally familiar. I know that I am extremely wary regarding the trite kind of tolerance that the left uses to give themselves license and browbeat others. But I don't want to be too reactionary either. So I'm trying to sift my way through the issue to understand as much as I can. So far, I don't know that I've heard anything that would move me off what has traditionally been thought of as the Biblical view as expressed in Deut 22:5: A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. I imagine the transgender response to this verse is that it is what a person feels they are on the inside that makes them a man or woman, but I don't know that I find that convincing. I've felt things on the inside that were deeply moving and motivating, but were ultimately not healthy for me. And I've seen God change those feelings when I've surrendered to His plan for doing so.Phinehas_{June 16, 2017
June
06
Jun
16
16
2017
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

KF:
Now, the best definition of truth I ever found, is that — as Aristotle pointed out in Metaphysics 1011b [yup, that context is itself a hint] — truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not.
You will get no argument from me. So let's talk about what IS. 1) Marriage IS a man made institution that has changed significantly over the centuries. 2) Marriage IS a legal contract between two people. 3) Marriage IS a promise made between two people in front of witnesses. 4) Homosexuality IS found throughout the animal kingdom, and is found within humanity. 5) The love that two homosexuals feel towards each other IS the same as that felt between a man and a woman. 6) The government IS within its authority to define marriage however they see fit. 7) Democracy IS better than theocracy. 8) the religious/conscience argument used to oppose SSM IS the same as those that were used to oppose desegregation, inter-racial marriage and the handicapped act. Now, let's list what IS NOT: 1) Marriage IS NOT exclusively a religious institution. 2) Traditional marriage IS NOT a real thing. 3) Homosexuality IS NOT a sin, regardless of what a dusty old book says. 4) Same sex marriage IS NOT a risk to "traditional" marriage. 5) Homosexuality IS NOT a choice in the way that you chose a flavour of ice cream. 6) Freedom of Religion IS NOT a universal right. 7) Freedom of Religion IS NOT a licence to discriminate against other people. 8) Homosexuality IS NOT a disease or a disorder. 9) Homosexuality IS NOT harmful to other people or to society.kmidpuddle_{June 16, 2017
June
06
Jun
16
16
2017
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

KMP: Note this argument early in your linked paper:
Methodologically speaking, I find the "metaphysics first" approach to public policy rather bizarre. For example, when instituting an intellectual property regime, the core question is not "what is intellectual property?" (as if there were some pre-legal fact of the matter), but something more like, what values are at stake here and what policies/laws would best serve these values? The authors argue that revisionists must accept the primacy of their metaphysical question, for "[o]therwise, how could the law get marriage wrong?" (p.250) The obvious answer is that some legal regimes may be better or worse at realizing relevant values. But anyway, putting the word 'marriage' aside, we can interpret the first part of the paper as arguing that there's something distinctively valuable about the kind of relationship described by the Conjugal View (a value not shared by any other kind of relationship). So let's consider that claim.
In short the underlying presuppositions in the critique are that there is no core human nature joined to requisites of family soundness pivoting on stability of the heterosexual bond. As a result, play gender bender games, do a bit of lawfare, seize control of dominant institutions and might and manipulation have made a new 'right' and 'truth,' a radical purported redefinition of marriage. In that context when someone comes along and points out that a few nature of human reality questions are being begged, with serious implications, that is then simply dismissed. Perhaps, it will help to realise what a reasonable definition of metaphysics (the core of first philosophy) is, courtesy Merriam-Webster:
metaphysics 1 a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology metaphysics … analyzes the generic traits manifested by existences of any kind — J. H. Randall
Now, the best definition of truth I ever found, is that -- as Aristotle pointed out in Metaphysics 1011b [yup, that context is itself a hint] -- truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. So, the rhetorical game in the review you pointed to is the substitution of a crooked yardstick, which then puts us in the place where what is actually true and sound cannot ever pass the test, as it cannot conform with crookedness if it is already aligned with fundamental reality. That is why plumbline truth tests are important, and these start at the basic level of what truth, right, rights, responsible rational freedom and the like are. Precisely the issues that are repeatedly dodged in the thread above by those only too eager to enable the gender bender impositions. And that is why we need to go back to first philosophy, not brush it aside as those you promoted by way of a link did. No, what is marriage is indeed the first question, as it is well known that folly, confusion and even injustice can be instituted under false colour of law. As has patently happened with the gender bender counterfeit of marriage. KFkairosfocus_{June 16, 2017
June
06
Jun
16
16
2017
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 20 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply