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

KF:
First, denying the patently manifest reality of the institution with a millennia deep history...
Slavery also has a millennia deep history. Legal spousal abuse also has a mellinia deep history. The subservience of the wife to the husband also has a millennia deep history. Are you really sure that you want to use this as an argument?kmidpuddle_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

LT, your presentation just above astonishingly makes a strawman out of what I took pains to state and explain in 265. KF PS: Here it is, again -- noting that "sex" has normally been short for "sexual intercourse," as distinguished from unnatural acts of a sexual nature [by virtue of stimulation of the genitals etc that can and do trigger an orgasmic response] -- and, for cause, not as mere prejudice . . . I again suggest you read Wright as has been linked:
265 kairosfocusJune 18, 2017 at 9:34 pm (Edit) LT, you are precisely correct. There are many acts of a sexual nature that are not properly sexual intercourse. Not so many years ago they were recognised as such and for cause were generally termed unnatural acts. KF PS: There is a reason why sexual intercourse is called the act of marital union, and such reason is closely connected to why novelties pivoting on unnatural acts and imposed by lawfare and/or manipulation influenced by the tactics and aims of cultural marxism — again, cf. Lindh (a significant author on 4th generation war, which BTW includes lawfare as a component) and as has been outlined and cited above — are not properly marital or conjugal. Same Sex Marriage and the like are forms of words, imposed now under false colour of law, but such lack sound foundation in our morally governed rational nature and the associated complementarity of the two sexes which comes to a crucial expression in the act of marital union and its natural consequences. Let me put part of it this way, there is something transcendent going on when a woman — especially a virgin woman on her wedding night — opens the gates of her womb and with that the gates of her soul, to her lover. Something, that we too often seem utterly determined not to acknowledge, to sobering cost on many levels.
kairosfocus_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

SB:
What was the author’s stated reason for the omission?
The author of the source data didn't exclude the data. It was the author of the report presented to parliament.
Can you provide a link to the methodological potion of the study? I cannot find it.
As far as I can tell, there was no methodological portion of the study reported to parliament. Just a mis-representation of the source data.
Among other things, you are expected to accept the proposition that children do not need a woman and a man as parents.
Expected and required are very different things. But the fact is that children don't need this. Extended families (grand parents, aunts, uncles, etc. ) often play extremely important roles in the raising of children.
Further, if you own an orphanage, you are expected to allow SSM partners the same access to children as heterosexual couples, and are likely to be run out of business if you resist. This is unjust.
No, what is sick is someone running an orphanage as a business. As far as I know, Canada does not have any more orphanages. One of the last ones we had was Mount Cashel orphanage that was run by the church. They were at the centre of a scandal involving the long term physical and sexual abuse of the children by the priests who were running the orphanage. I am sure that these children would have been much better off in the care of a loving same sex couple.kmidpuddle_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

KMP, I was hoping I did not need to explicitly point this out, but as you insist:
KMP, 218: "2) Traditional marriage IS NOT a real thing" (in the midst of a great many dogmatic assertions that reflect the incoherence of moral views you espouse and hostility to Judaeo-Christian theism) KMP, 292: "the question is whether the people here who object to requiring a Christian clerk to issue a marriage licence for a same sex marriage . . . "
See the problem? First, denying the patently manifest reality of the institution with a millennia deep history and deep connexions to the complementarity of the sexes, requisites of sound child nurture and sound channelling of sexual appetites and passions that can easily destroy societies. Next, enthusing over imposition of a novelty that pivots on behaviour that cannot be conjugal and so tied to the requisites of reproduction and sound nurture. That polarisation and outright hatred towards marriage is all the proof we need of the destructive nature of the agenda we are dealing with. Indeed, KMP unconsciously, chillingly echoes the sentiments of Masha Gessen in a tape from a talk in Australia, where she was applauded for calling for the ending of marriage. Gessen shared her views on the subject and very specifically stated;
“Gay marriage is a lie.” “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.” “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” (This statement is met with very loud applause.)
Gessen also talked about redefining the traditional family. This may have something to do with the fact that she has “three children with five parents”:
“I don’t see why they (her children) shouldn’t have five parents legally. I don’t see why we should choose two of those parents and make them a sanctioned couple.”
Ms Gessen is frank, and we must thank her for that. Now, we cannot say that we do not know or did not have access to knowing. Of course, attempts will be again made to suggest this is idiosyncratic, but prudence dictates that we understand that we are here dealing with cat out of the bag moments. In that context, KMP, we must reckon with your evident amorality and nihilism, hostility to the Christian faith and more. We must reckon with your denial of the reality of evil. So, we have to take very seriously that you are likely to have up your sleeve deceitful, domineering agendas similar to those we have already seen over the past 100 years. And in that regard we note your enabling of the cornering and gaoling of an official in post before an unjust decree was imposed under false colour of law, who simply asked, let my signature not be extorted in violation of conscience on a morally highly dubious matter; find others willing to do that -- and such were credibly reasonably accessible. The pattern is adding up, and the total does not look so good. Perhaps, it is time to go back to plumbline truths that can help us to sort out the mess. Okay, yet again: is it evil to kidnap, bind, sexually assault and murder a young child for one's pleasure? Why or why not. KFkairosfocus_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

And KF, I am interested in your response to jdk's question - is it wrong to masturbate (let's say "to completion")? That is, is it contrary to the natural law? No, I will not delve on this sort of gross matter, save to say those who ask have a pretty good idea of the morally sound answer. KFPindi_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

StephenB @309: so what is your answer? Is the belief that dogs are ritually unclean in accordance with the natural law? And how do you know?Pindi_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Truth @308: yes, of course.Pindi_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

kwm
There are only two reasons for removing these points. The author is either completely incompetence or intentionally manipulated the data to obtain a desired outcome.
Not necessarily. There are several other possible reasons for omitting data, among which is the attempt to isolate certain variables, or to compare apples with apples without using extraneous data. What was the author's stated reason for the omission? (Can you provide a link to the methodological potion of the study? I cannot find it.) –In the move to same-sex marriage, opposite-sex relationships have to conform to gay norms rather than vice-versa
I have been married for over 35 years and I have not had an increased desire to have anal sex with my wife or to do interior decorating. What other gay norms (stereotypes) must I as a person in a heterosexual relationship conform to?
Among other things, you are expected to accept the proposition that children do not need a woman and a man as parents. Further, if you own an orphanage, you are expected to allow SSM partners the same access to children as heterosexual couples, and are likely to be run out of business if you resist. This is unjust.StephenB_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

jdk
Just because I and virtually everyone on the planet would agree that your test case is wrong doesn’t mean that there are “natural moral laws” in the metaphysical sense.
In fact, it DOES indicate that there are "natural moral laws," if they say it is wrong. They are saying more than *to me* it is wrong (which would be subjective and personal), they are saying that it is wrong *period* -- for everybody--which is universal, objective, and metaphysical.
It does mean that people around the world have some core feelings of empathy and compassion that are common enough to be incorporated in all cultures. This is a distinction that you don’t seem to get.
The argument from the majority does not work. At one time, a majority of people was happy to tolerate slavery, and the laws of the land permitted it. By your personal creed, the majority rules and the law is the law. If your standards had been in operation, slavery would still exist. Reform came when moral people stood up and said, "it doesn't matter what the majority thinks or what the law says, because the majority is wrong and the law is unjust -- both violate the natural moral law. They were right.StephenB_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

jdk
Absolutely wrong: contrasting your notion of natural law with what you said above is a false dichotomy. We’ve had this brief discussion before: you replied that it was a dilemma and I replied it was a dilemma caused by a false dichotomy.
The inconvenient fact is that you don't have any standard for saying that homosexuals should not be persecuted, I do. My answer is that homosexuals should not be persecuted because it is unjust and evil and violates the natural law. You don't believe in any of those things, so you are reduced to saying that homosexuals should not be persecuted because you don't *want* them to be persecuted. The problem is that the persecutors use the same rationale that you do: They DO *want* to persecute homosexuals. You have no standard by which to say that your desire is right and their desire is wrong.StephenB_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

JDK@325, I would argue that how we react to different acts is the consequence of us having empathy and compassion. The empathy and compassion come first. If something is the consequence of something else, I don't see how it can be inherently good or bad (right or wrong). Or maybe I'm wrong. But I don't think so.kmidpuddle_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

Just because I and virtually everyone on the planet would agree that your test case is wrong doesn't mean that there are "natural moral laws" in the metaphysical sense. It does mean that people around the world have some core feelings of empathy and compassion that are common enough to be incorporated in all cultures. This is a distinction that you don't seem to get. Is it wrong to masturbate, kf. This is a more instructive example, because invoking "natural moral laws" here is so obviously a cultural viewpoint.jdk_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

KF @322: I just saw your comment 265. Seems like you are saying same-sex SEX is sexual (i.e., of a sexual nature), which suggests that SSS meets your definition of sex. So, to you there is such as thing as SSS yet no such thing as SSM.LarTanner_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

JDK, 313:
I don’t believe that “natural law” exists
Let's go back -- yet again -- to a key and unfortunately real life test case: is it inherently wrong to kidnap, bind, sexually assault and murder a young child for one's pleasure? If no, why? (And what does this do to law and to conscience and to mindedness?) If yes, does this not directly entail that there are laws of our nature that go beyond what courts or kings or legislatures may issue or withdraw at will? KFkairosfocus_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

LT, did you see the answer at 265 above? KFkairosfocus_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Stephen writes,
Jdk (and kwimpuddle) believe in arbitrary imposed laws in the absence of any moral justification. Any reasonable person knows that this is not a good thing.
Absolutely wrong: contrasting your notion of natural law with what you said above is a false dichotomy. We've had this brief discussion before: you replied that it was a dilemma and I replied it was a dilemma caused by a false dichotomy.jdk_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

SB:
I don’t have access to the report or I would comment. However, you seem to assume that the author omitted those data points in order to stack the deck. There may be other good reasons.
No there isn't. There were five data points before SSM was legalized, each separated by ten years. The author decided to omit the two earliest. This makes the difference between concluding that there was an accelerated decline following SSM (as stated by the author) or that the decline was a continuation of a pre-existing trend. There are only two reasons for removing these points. The author is either completely incompetence or intentionally manipulated the data to obtain a desired outcome.
In any case, we still have the following issues: –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
The trend towards common-law rather than marriage long predates SSM. The Spain data shows that this trend is simply continuing, not that it is increasing due to SSM. This is further supported by Canadian data between 1981 and 2011 (same sex marriage became legal in 2005). The R^2 of the trend line for common-law marriage increase over this time is 0.99, strongly suggesting that SSM did not have an impact on this.
–In the move to same-sex marriage, opposite-sex relationships have to conform to gay norms rather than vice-versa
I have been married for over 35 years and I have not had an increased desire to have anal sex with my wife or to do interior decorating. What other gay norms (stereotypes) must I as a person in a heterosexual relationship conform to?
–Same-sex marriage may be the end-game of long-running anti-marriage, anti-family policy typified by Sweden”
Again, going back to the source data. The marriage rate in Sweden is higher now than it was in 2000.kmidpuddle_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

kwimmuddle
the first thing that jumps out is that the author omitted the two data points prior to 1980 (7.8 and 7.3 for 1960 and 1970, respectively).
I don't have access to the methodology used in the report or I would comment. However, you seem to assume that the author omitted those data points in order to stack the deck. There may be other good reasons. In any case, we still have the following issues: –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 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

KF @298:
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.
This assertion leads to the question I asked before. If there 'ent no such thing as same-sex MARRIAGE, is there such a thing as same-sex SEX?LarTanner_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

jdk
The question Stephen can’t answer is how does one know what is in conformity with “natural law.” He claims this is discernable by reason, but in fact all he can offer is circular assertions that make it clear that natural law is basically the views of his particular cultural viewpoint, dominated by conservative Catholic dogma.
I have already explained (many times) that this is not true. The natural moral law is a part of nature, as the word "natural" implies." Nature is distinct from religion. It is very easy to show whether a civil law conforms with the natural moral law. That is how the civil rights issues of the 20th Century were settled in the United States. Jdk (and kwimpuddle) believe in arbitrary imposed laws in the absence of any moral justification. Any reasonable person knows that this is not a good thing.StephenB_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Good research, kmp.jdk_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

SB, I haven't yet read the article in full but I double checked the raw data used to come up with the following statement "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’)." The report goes further to explain: "The descent is quite precipitous, since Spanish marriage rates (per thousand population) have been reasonably steady compared to some other countries – at 5.9 in 1980: 5.7 in 1990 and 5.4 in 2000 before the plunge to 3.8 in 2009." If you plot these points the sudden drop becomes quite obvious. However, when you go back to the source data used to draw this conclusion, the first thing that jumps out is that the author omitted the two data points prior to 1980 (7.8 and 7.3 for 1960 and 1970, respectively). When these two points are added back, the R^2 of the resulting linear curve changes from 0.78 to 0.93, suggesting that the 2009 data is just a continuation of an existing trend. Given that that report was sponsored by a lobby group that is pro-life and anti-SSM, I suspected to find some bias, but to find outright data manipulation is very telling.kmidpuddle_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

kmidpuddle:
You spend an inordinate amount of time arguing over something that doesn’t exist.
Funny thing, I know of many atheists who spend plenty of time arguing over the God of Abraham. Are you not one of them? If not, would you have something to say to them about it? Of what use is your statement here?LocalMinimum_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

I don't define "natural law". Stephen does. I don't believe that "natural law" exists.jdk_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

jdk: How do define natural law? Is it dogma-free?Truth Will Set You Free_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Stephen writes,
When there is a conflict between religious faith and the civil law, the resolution should depend on whether the religious beliefs in question are reasonable and whether the civil laws in question are in conformity with the natural law.
The question Stephen can't answer is how does one know what is in conformity with "natural law." He claims this is discernable by reason, but in fact all he can offer is circular assertions that make it clear that natural law is basically the views of his particular cultural viewpoint, dominated by conservative Catholic dogma.jdk_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

KF:
KMP, there ‘ent no such thing as same sex MARRIAGE...
You spend an inordinate amount of time arguing over something that doesn't exist.kmidpuddle_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Pindi
SB and KF, why not just answer Kmidpuuddle’s question?
Pindi, I took up that issue much earlier in the tread. When there is a conflict between religious faith and the civil law, the resolution should depend on whether the religious beliefs in question are reasonable and whether the civil laws in question are in conformity with the natural law. Religious freedom, like any other freedom, is not without limits. On the other hand, not all laws are just. jdk and kwm (and you) do not understand these principles. In any case, jdk and kwm introduced the topic again in order to avoid the evidence @287, which shows that gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage. I answer all their questions and the avoid all my questions. Its on the record.StephenB_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Pindi @ 306: Of course SB and KF are hypocrites. We all are. Will you admit to being a hypocrite as well?Truth Will Set You Free_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Pindi, it seems you think everything under colour of law as imposed by progressivists is properly lawful; that is in haste to support the progressivist agenda you apparently do not recognise the possibility of unjust decrees and abuse of the power of the state to oppress -- by YOUR side. I suggest, further, that you are resorting to supporting a slanderous, ad hominem laced strawman projection. No-one here has advocated or implied a religious exemption from duties of just care to neighbour, instead the issues have pivoted on the law of our nature as responsibly and rationally free, morally governed creatures. Where, I add after a few minutes, justice is best understood as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities, this further pointing to the point that a right-to-X is a claimed binding morally rooted expectation that others have specific duties to support X; implying that to properly claim a right X one must be in the right concerning X or else one is imposing on others the claim that they should participate in or enable the wrong, X. We can have no reasonable right to demand that others do or support us in wrong. The real issue is the agit prop tactic of cornering people of conscientious convictions under false colour of law and stripping them of employment, business, reputation, life savings and more, even throwing them in gaol. All, to pursue a ruinous politically correct agenda that is manifestly undermining the foundations of sound community life -- if you disagree, I suggest you read Girgis et al and Wright as were already linked, for details. We are not simply reacting out of empty bigotry -- another all too common slanderous projection, to which I respond: there is a world of difference between commitment to principle and ill-informed prejudice. Which, you know or should know. These concerns should be manifest from the false comparison: taxi-men refusing journeys home at night in a situation of potential danger vs please, we cannot in good conscience support a morally dubious distortion of marriage and politely suggest that you use another -- readily available -- provider. This last is in no wise reasonably comparable to refusing water or food where there is no other reasonable option within reasonable access; it imposes no undue hardship or danger, only, it reminds that there are significant numbers out there who -- for cause -- do not go along with whatever is the latest hot button item on the agenda of sexual anarchy and nihilism. And, yes, that is what this manifestly is. I suggest you need to re-examine the underlying agendas you are enabling. KFkairosfocus_{June 20, 2017
June
06
Jun
20
20
2017
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 20 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply