Author Topic: New trans laws  (Read 38259 times)

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #300 on: January 21, 2022, 06:57:18 PM »
EM: You defined yourself to be in a little world
No I did not. I advocated pruning off the people who have beliefs that ultimately end up with pedophilia being accepted. I am NOT calling anyone transgender a pedophile. What I am saying instead is that TWAW goes in a direction that pedophiles, the predators, want.

Fundamentalist Christianity, OTOH, goes in a direction that pedophiles do NOT want.

Fundamentalist Christianity goes in a direction of a theological caste system, because any sexual relationships outside of a church marriage are shamed.

Fundamentalist Christianity opens the door to colonizing the universe.

That is NOT a "little world" at all.

It's just evolution. Either Charlotte Clymer and those like her are treated by historians as Nazis, or JK Rowling and those like her are treated by historians as the Nazis of this age. The only other alternative are eternal conflict, or a cultural divorce: Clymer's ilk gets half of the states, and those who want Fundamentalist Christianity get the other half.

Broad is the way to destruction according to God Himself. So, I seek the narrow path that leads to life instead. That path severely restricts condoned sexual relationships.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #301 on: January 21, 2022, 07:01:53 PM »
A world of fundamentalist Christians, if that's how you'd like it defined is indeed miniscule. And shrinking daily, thanks be to science.

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #302 on: January 21, 2022, 07:17:34 PM »
A world of fundamentalist Christians, if that's how you'd like it defined is indeed miniscule. And shrinking daily, thanks be to science.
Not in my lived experience.

This is something that cannot be accurately studied by an atheist. Too much skin in the game.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #303 on: January 21, 2022, 08:46:07 PM »
That path severely restricts condoned sexual relationships.
Ya, you and the TERFs ain't gonna get on too well on that one.  They're worrying trans men might actually be non-gender-role-conformant lesbians being unduly socially pressured out of that identity.  You'd evidently like to persecute them on all fronts.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #304 on: January 21, 2022, 08:51:25 PM »
ATTACK THE ARGUMENT, not me
I did; read it again until understanding ensues.  Or if you fail at that -- or decline to try -- why trouble to respond, just to say you're not gonna respond?  My comment wasn't even a direct reply to you, so why feel the need to chime in?  Unless you're an aspirant mini-mod, or simply incredibly sensitive.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #305 on: January 22, 2022, 07:17:43 AM »
Pascal's Wager and the most optimistic version of the Simulation Argument, where God does exist, and is sifting the wheat (those who get literal eternal joy) from the chaff (example: TWAW belief, perhaps)
"Pascal's Wager" doesn't work for a multitude of reasons, including that cognitively honest people don't choose their honestly held beliefs based on what rewards they'll get for so believing.

Also pretty sure an omnipotent omnibenevolent God wouldn't have needed to create people with gender dysphoria in the first place.

Most likely probability: your God doesn't exist. There also exists a possibility of course (though a tiny one) that he created the trans people you find so appalling to test you (yes, you personally) about how you'll treat them, and you're currently treating them appallingly, with sneering contempt, in which case he'll condemn you to hell or something.

I oppose you being condemned to hell, btw. That's also morally appalling.

Quote
edit: whoops, I misread, but no, I have the *ability*, but I do not gawk, I'm not gay, I'm disgusted by other men's penii.
Quote
not at all, let's create a third transwomens' shower room, and a fourth one for the transmen, why not?

hurt feelings? too expensive?

Yeah, see, I'm more generally appalled by all the American scenes in American shows/films where people seemingly have to shower communally or whatever. In my country, even when I was in the army for my 1-year mandatory conscription, there were separate cubicles in the showers. You didn't have to get completely naked in anyone else's presence.

Your fear "oh no trans people can gawk other people in the showers" is to me *weird* -- it implies that it's somehow okay for ANY people to gawk ANY other people in the showers, as long as they're the same gender.

Make individual cubicles in your showers. And then you won't have to look at either people's vaginas or penises, regardless of whether they're cis or trans.

Or go the other direction and just decide that nudity isn't a taboo anymore. Creating separate rooms for more categories doesn't work. Trying to fit everyone into *two* categories doesn't work. There'll be eventually people with multiple penis, vaginas and tentacles.

Quote
what the mentally ill want doesn't matter: TRUTH is not necessarily KIND, ask Plato about that
So close to the truth and so far away. It's exactly because TRUTH and GOODNESS are two separate things, that the mere facts of the universe (there's XX chromosome, there's XY chromosome, there are people born with vaginas, there are people born with penises) don't need constrain how we choose to deal with other people.

People who say "Trans women are women" don't disagree with you on the facts about whether these people have XX or XY chromosomes -- they're instead saying you should treat trans women like you should treat non-trans women. (I hate the stupid confusion between IS and SHOULD. I try to avoid the IS word because it leads to so much confusion, when people mean SHOULD. But that's a LINGUISTIC issue caused by people who don't communicate clearly)

ALL categories, ALL words, including words like "man" and "woman" are social categories.
You are correct that there are facts of the matter: That person has a penis, that person has a vagina, that person has XX chromosomes, that person has XY chromosomes. What categories human society derives from them however, and how human society deal with those categories in separate situations is a human society concern, not a Truth of the universe.

You can for example make it a rule to have a shower for people who phenotypically look male, and a shower for phenotypically look female. That would means that trans men & trans women will be joining those showers only after they've done surgery/been in hormones/etc.

If you say something that everyone with XY chromosomes is a man -- then well, I've heard the rumor that Jamie Lee Curtis actually has an XY chromosome though she's externally looking like a woman and been considered a woman all her life because of a medical condition.

In that case would you force Jamie Lee Curties to shower with the men, just because she has an XY chromosome?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #306 on: January 22, 2022, 10:21:05 AM »
"Pascal's Wager" doesn't work for a multitude of reasons, including that cognitively honest people don't choose their honestly held beliefs based on what rewards they'll get for so believing.

This may sound like a truism to you, but in fact I do not think it's the case that people choose their honestly held beliefs in the first place, let alone for the reasons you believe they do. You are ignoring the place genetics has in placing people on the political spectrum in the first place, which I believe it does. And further, your notion that 'honest' people don't have their perceptions shaped by the environment and its reward system is highly questionable. It's almost as if you don't think most people base their entire life plan on the options available in the economic system they inhabit.

Quote
Most likely probability: your God doesn't exist.

You don't have the capacity to compute probabilities on this topic :)

Quote
Quote
what the mentally ill want doesn't matter: TRUTH is not necessarily KIND, ask Plato about that
So close to the truth and so far away. It's exactly because TRUTH and GOODNESS are two separate things, that the mere facts of the universe (there's XX chromosome, there's XY chromosome, there are people born with vaginas, there are people born with penises) don't need constrain how we choose to deal with other people.

He didn't say truth and goodness, he said truth and kindness. The difference between his version and yours is miles away. He's separating truth and goodness because (he is saying) truth involves sometimes telling people things they don't want to hear and which will be uncomfortable for them. Kindness in this context appears to mean 'making them feel good'. However goodness is an overarching term meaning doing the best thing for someone (or for everyone), which according to Ephrem's argument is probably similar or the same thing to truth. So within the confines of this sub-discussion truth and goodness are not two separate things. And certainly within the Christian tradition they are in fact identical, and you could toss "love" into the mix and say they are all interchangeable terms referring to the innate property of the creator.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #307 on: January 22, 2022, 11:17:32 AM »
"Pascal's Wager" doesn't work for a multitude of reasons, including that cognitively honest people don't choose their honestly held beliefs based on what rewards they'll get for so believing.

This may sound like a truism to you, but in fact I do not think it's the case that people choose their honestly held beliefs in the first place, let alone for the reasons you believe they do.

I said "cognitively honest people don't choose their honestly held beliefs based on what rewards they'll get for so believing."

You somehow made up in your mind that I said people do choose them, and that I gave you which reasons they have. When I clearly said that they DON'T.

So I don't know what you're talking about.

Quote
You are ignoring the place genetics has in placing people on the political spectrum in the first place, which I believe it does. And further, your notion that 'honest' people don't have their perceptions shaped by the environment and its reward system is highly questionable. It's almost as if you don't think most people base their entire life plan on the options available in the economic system they inhabit.

Nothing you are saying relates at all to anything I said.

I neither ignored the role of genetics in determining politics, nor the role of "the enviroment and its reward system" in shaping perceptions.

I don't know how you make up these things about what I supposedly said or what I supposedly think.

Quote
You don't have the capacity to compute probabilities on this topic :)

Well, I think you'd compute the probabilities for the god Poseidon to exist to be under 50%, no? Probably you'd even say they are under 10%. Am I wrong in this?

I similarly compute probabilities for the christian god Ephrem seems to believe in.

Quote
He didn't say truth and goodness, he said truth and kindness. The difference between his version and yours is miles away. He's separating truth and goodness because (he is saying) truth involves sometimes telling people things they don't want to hear and which will be uncomfortable for them.

Yes, that's understandable, the way I'm saying that God doesn't exist, which you people might not want to hear, might be uncomfortable for you, but ultimately I consider it good for you to hear, since it's true.

Quote
Kindness in this context appears to mean 'making them feel good'. However goodness is an overarching term meaning doing the best thing for someone (or for everyone), which according to Ephrem's argument is probably similar or the same thing to truth. So within the confines of this sub-discussion truth and goodness are not two separate things. And certainly within the Christian tradition they are in fact identical, and you could toss "love" into the mix and say they are all interchangeable terms referring to the innate property of the creator.

When a nazi officer tries to come find the Jews you have hidden in the attic, is it good to tell him the truth of the matter? If not, it seems that truth and goodness seem two different things in at least this one matter.

Let's speak about a less extreme example which doesn't even involve any genocide: You see a fat woman in the street. Is it Good to go and tell her "You are fat. You disgust me with how fat you are. If I had to rate you 0 to 10 on an attractiveness scale, you'd get a 0." Is that a Good thing to do, even if it's True?"

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #308 on: January 22, 2022, 03:05:20 PM »
I did; read it again until understanding ensues.  Or if you fail at that -- or decline to try -- why trouble to respond, just to say you're not gonna respond?  My comment wasn't even a direct reply to you, so why feel the need to chime in?  Unless you're an aspirant mini-mod, or simply incredibly sensitive.
I'm an aspirant mod, no mini about it.

How do I apply?

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #309 on: January 25, 2022, 04:30:30 PM »

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #310 on: January 25, 2022, 05:15:31 PM »
TERFs hahahahaha I told you so

You realize just how transparently obvious it is that if trans people instantly disappeared from the planet -- or your therapist successfully carried out some sort of successful conversion therapy on you specific to your transphobia, as opposed to your other issues -- you'd be equally enraged at this person for their "sexist" leftist progressive (cis-)male-exclusion?

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #311 on: January 25, 2022, 07:34:45 PM »
you'd be equally enraged at this person for their "sexist" leftist progressive (cis-)male-exclusion?
nice try at mind-reading but you're wrong

I don't mind cis-male exclusion

have at it, cis-females

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #312 on: January 25, 2022, 08:22:07 PM »
Maybe they'll make a RadFem out of you yet.  (Or make fascists out of themselves, one does occasionally wonder.)

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #313 on: January 26, 2022, 12:24:27 PM »
labels are stupid THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY they lead to misunderstandings

the solution is clarification from the abstract label to concrete situations in reality

like the Trolley Problem. I don't do anything in that case. Is that murder?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #314 on: January 26, 2022, 12:47:22 PM »
labels are stupid THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY they lead to misunderstandings

the solution is clarification from the abstract label to concrete situations in reality

like the Trolley Problem. I don't do anything in that case. Is that murder?

What are labels if not words... Clarification after clarification and still we mistake the words as the thing itself thus the absurdity that is language.

Like the Trolley Problem. I don't do anything in that case. Is that murder? 14 words to describe what is a very complex moment in time and question. Is that enough clarification to answer it?

In a world with a 280 character limit attention span world is enough to react to a moment in time...

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #315 on: January 26, 2022, 03:38:59 PM »
Some labels, words, and indeed entire sentences and paragraphs are definitely stupider than others, however.

I dunno quite how we got onto the Trolley Problem-- OK, yes I do.  The Brownian motion of EM's random darting from point to unrelated point to no purpose whatsoever.  But if we could get him to talk even about that for three posts running, we might be able to measure the exact size of his omission/commission cognitive bias.  Or high-minded deontological principles, as he might prefer to "stupidly label" those.

Insofar as it's diagnostic of anything, I've heard it said the only red flag is people that are a little too quick to answer, and untroubled by the dilemma if asked.  So what it says if one volunteers an opinion without being asked...

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #316 on: January 26, 2022, 03:51:41 PM »
TRAs don't like this new news I don't wonder why

https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1486428631593369606?s=20

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #317 on: January 27, 2022, 12:25:02 PM »
How do I tell the difference between a “real trans” and a porn sick man who identifies as “trans-gender” in order to get a sexual thrill from being in women only spaces?

https://twitter.com/angijones/status/1486633304082116608?s=20

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #318 on: January 27, 2022, 12:50:31 PM »
How do I tell the difference between a “real trans” and a porn sick man who identifies as “trans-gender” in order to get a sexual thrill from being in women only spaces?

https://twitter.com/angijones/status/1486633304082116608?s=20

Why do you care. How many encounters have you had with someone that needed you to understand the difference?
How many people in real life meetings, out of the blue start telling thier story about how they identify? What sexual position they like...
Why do we care so much about who someone is attracted to, who they preferer to hang out with,  how someone sees themselves, what they do in bed.

In the first half of life I defined myself, my sense of identify to what I did, my job, who I hung out with, groups I affiliated with... I am this, I am that...
And in the second half spending a lot of time detaching myself from those 'identities' - I have a job I am not my job, I have a sexual preference I am not my sexual preference, I have a gender, I am not my gender... Only to be told now that to be woke I must identify with of all things pronouns. WTF I am not a pronoun!

All this stress we create for one another when the answer is to treat everyone as we would like to be treated and or treat ourselves.


Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #319 on: January 27, 2022, 05:32:41 PM »
Why do you care.
Because I don't want my daughter to have the possibility of encountering male anatomy in the showers at the 24 Hour Fitness she goes to.

Also, I don't want for male heterosexual predators have novel ways of abusing women in pretending to be a "transgender butch lesbian". So ban all of the transwomen from female-only spaces, that's all. That's obviously important in women's prisons, if you care at all about preventing rape in such prisons.


rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #320 on: January 27, 2022, 05:51:40 PM »
Why do you care.
Because I don't want my daughter to have the possibility of encountering male anatomy in the showers at the 24 Hour Fitness she goes to.

Also, I don't want for male heterosexual predators have novel ways of abusing women in pretending to be a "transgender butch lesbian". So ban all of the transwomen from female-only spaces, that's all. That's obviously important in women's prisons, if you care at all about preventing rape in such prisons.

I play because I'm board even knowing others on this site have better countered your reasoning

There world is not the same as when I was young and a flash of tit or penis shocked the world or we pretended it did. Today my nephews and nieces don't pretend to shock and the world will be theirs in time if it isn't already. That is as it should be, we had our time and the pretending took so much energy.

Yes rape in prison I'll pretend you and I really care enough to do more then shake our heads solemn sadness that such things happen in prison...
Perhaps we should neuter everyone who goes to prison that might solve the problem or rape - but of course its only the trans that rape in prison, so maybe only them, unless such surgery transformation is what they wish for.

 

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #321 on: January 27, 2022, 06:13:19 PM »
I play because I'm board even knowing others on this site have better countered your reasoning

There world is not the same as when I was young and a flash of tit or penis shocked the world or we pretended it did. Today my nephews and nieces don't pretend to shock and the world will be theirs in time if it isn't already. That is as it should be, we had our time and the pretending took so much energy.

Yes rape in prison I'll pretend you and I really care enough to do more then shake our heads solemn sadness that such things happen in prison...
Perhaps we should neuter everyone who goes to prison that might solve the problem or rape - but of course its only the trans that rape in prison, so maybe only them, unless such surgery transformation is what they wish for.
believe what you want Plato's Allegory of the Cave applies

will historians consider you and your kind the Nazis of this era, or will it be me and JK Rowling and Richard Dawkins and John Cleese and Dave Chappelle and Mark Hamill and Patton Oswalt and people who agree with this:

https://twitter.com/mbmpolicy/status/1486696658045919234?s=20&t=ihS3yvRuPnPrz2AvDO_pLA

we shall see

the "winners" get access to the quote-unquote "high value" women and the Nazis get canceled out of existence (which I personally wouldn't mind; the Internet is written in ink after all and I've doxxed myself everywhere).

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #322 on: January 27, 2022, 06:42:03 PM »
note: the EHRC, I'm told, is responsible for regulating the 2010 Equality Act in the UK

you TRAs have lost in the UK

hahahahahahaha

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #323 on: January 27, 2022, 10:51:15 PM »
note: the EHRC, I'm told, is responsible for regulating the 2010 Equality Act in the UK
And earlier equality legislation.  I assume you were against them, before you were fore them.  And until you're against them.

you TRAs have lost in the UK
I have no idea what your standard for "winning" and "losing" might be, here.  Come back and crow when the UK legislates in favour of your "forcible conversion therapy all round" position.  Or anywhere else indeed, depending on how you feel about associating with them by way of your approval.

Why do you care.
Seems to be his USP.  As gay people are to Westboro, the trans are to EM's fundy-poiy-fascist-not-nazi church of one.  Even though it requires the most amazingly clumsy calumniation by cases.  Hates trans being for not being on cross-sex hormones...  or for being on them.  Slurs them for getting surgical procedures, and for not.

Haters, as they say, gonna hate.

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #324 on: January 28, 2022, 11:38:16 AM »
"...it's a way of marginalizing a normal person"
- Norm MacDonald (on the term "cismale")

I measure "winning" by finding new TERFy stuff like that

https://twitter.com/SwerfingtheUSA/status/1483808042315563008?s=20&t=xCSZ9ZYljd9MlBR9n4D4qQ

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #325 on: January 28, 2022, 11:58:29 AM »
See, if transwomen are not women, then that opens the door to gay marriage is not marriage.

And that opens the door to "hey, how come the fundamentalist (read: unchanging for ~1600 years) Christians were always right about those issues?

And then, perhaps, a theocratic fascist government, which is what I unapologetically want.

And that's why the polarization is so, well, polarized, more & more every day.

Those who took anti-fundamentalist-Christian positions for years or decades can't back down now without losing major, major, major face.

Surely you all see that?

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #326 on: January 28, 2022, 12:00:07 PM »
Quote
And that opens the door to "hey, how come the fundamentalist (read: unchanging for ~1600 years) Christians were always right about those issues?

You really shouldn't believe the lies people tell about themselves.

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #327 on: January 28, 2022, 12:05:50 PM »
Quote
And that opens the door to "hey, how come the fundamentalist (read: unchanging for ~1600 years) Christians were always right about those issues?

You really shouldn't believe the lies people tell about themselves.
Don't you get normative with me. I'll believe what I choose to believe thank you very much.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #328 on: January 28, 2022, 01:42:44 PM »
Quote
And that opens the door to "hey, how come the fundamentalist (read: unchanging for ~1600 years) Christians were always right about those issues?

You really shouldn't believe the lies people tell about themselves.
Don't you get normative with me. I'll believe what I choose to believe thank you very much.

Taken literally - Don't believe the lies people tell - Don't tell me what I choose to believe  - I read as I believe what I choose to believe in lies or not.... thank you very much. Which I know is not what you meant but makes a kind of sense with regards to many of the arguments you make with such certainty...

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #329 on: January 28, 2022, 05:10:32 PM »
Which I know is not what you meant but makes a kind of sense with regards to many of the arguments you make with such certainty...
It's a brave person that says anything definitive about what EM does or doesn't mean.  In another thread he appears to be trying to argue that it doesn't matter if he's wrong about everything (which is handy, as he is!) because in the future the theocrats will build us all Cylon heavens, and most especially Cylon hells, liberally apply spackle (as Bill Byson tells me is the correct local idiom), and "make good".  But the error bars on that estimates are larger than the estimated probability, so yours is as good as mine, or indeed better.

I'd certainly not rule out the "lying for a good cause (or at least in line with my own prejudices)" interpretation, even self-consciously.

See, if transwomen are not women, then that opens the door to gay marriage is not marriage.
*cocks ear to the back of the room*  Oops, think you're losing the TERF crowd!

Quote
And that opens the door to "hey, how come the fundamentalist (read: unchanging for ~1600 years) Christians were always right about those issues?
Read:  blundering around in the dark for so long they don't even begin to understand their own history.  (And no, it does not.  Because of hilariously discontiguous syllogisms, and basic errors of fact.)

Quote
Surely you all see that?
Surely we all see through you.

"...it's a way of marginalizing a normal person"
- Norm MacDonald (on the term "cismale")
Poor Norm, practically still warm in his grave, and being approvingly quoted by fascists.  And I thought Orwell had it tough on this forum.  Cis, also an adjective.  Also a very straightforward concept.  But I'll stipulate that you should be marginalised (if not that you're a normal person).

Quote
I measure "winning" by finding new TERFy stuff like that
Tee-hee, that idiolect of yours again!  Very much in line with the "did my own research" trope.  Scroll internet.  Find things that agree with feels.  Feel affirmed.  Repeat.

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #330 on: January 28, 2022, 05:51:10 PM »
Which I know is not what you meant but makes a kind of sense with regards to many of the arguments you make with such certainty...
What did I mean?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #331 on: January 28, 2022, 06:01:32 PM »

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #332 on: January 29, 2022, 12:01:07 PM »
Bueller? Bueller?

Okay. I suspect that I'm the one who knows what I meant.

I meant: don't tell me what I "should" or "should not" believe.

That won't work. I will be believing what some refer to as "lies" if those "lies" maximize my own personal happiness. What some think is a "lie" I refer to as a "truth".

Like, for example, it is a fact that "God is love" in my reality.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #333 on: January 29, 2022, 12:43:53 PM »
Bueller? Bueller?

Okay. I suspect that I'm the one who knows what I meant.

I meant: don't tell me what I "should" or "should not" believe.

That won't work. I will be believing what some refer to as "lies" if those "lies" maximize my own personal happiness. What some think is a "lie" I refer to as a "truth".

Like, for example, it is a fact that "God is love" in my reality.

Ok, you've made that clear enough by now -- but I'll say this definitely sounds more like make-believe rather than actual belief. I *think* that i you actually believed in those things, you'd not be self-aware you believe them because of ulterior motives like your happiness -- instead you'd think such things to be true.

That you recognize you have certain beliefs because of different reasons (they promote your happiness), just seems to me to mean that you don't actually have those beliefs. There's probably a big dinstinction in your mind between thoughts like "God is love" and "This table exists.", and I'd argue the second one is true belief and the first one... well, as I said, it sounds more like make-believe the way you describe it.

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #334 on: January 29, 2022, 01:57:35 PM »
I believe God exists. Why? Because it's a reasonable possibility from the Simulation Argument. There is no reason to expect that such a God would choose to reveal Himself to today's atheists or agnostics.

I believe that God is love. Why? Because I am doomed otherwise, as I choose to define the concept of love; that concept has to do with how Jesus Christ loved everyone, even the hypocrites and the money-changers.

That's a house of cards that leads me to conclude that sexuality is solely meant for procreation. I admit that.

I am not the only one who holds those beliefs.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #335 on: January 29, 2022, 01:59:31 PM »
I am not the only one who holds those beliefs.

I bet you are! If you do at all. Personally I find it almost inconceivable that because of the simulation argument you believe in God.

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #336 on: January 29, 2022, 09:13:22 PM »
I bet you are! If you do at all. Personally I find it almost inconceivable that because of the simulation argument you believe in God.
do you believe that atheists have decided to be agnostic solely due to the Simulation Argument?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #337 on: January 29, 2022, 09:56:20 PM »
do you believe that atheists have decided to be agnostic solely due to the Simulation Argument?

No, I think the simulation argument is mostly useless.

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #338 on: January 29, 2022, 11:37:33 PM »
No, I think the simulation argument is mostly useless.
Then as soon as I can purchase VR hardware to convincingly put your brain in a vat, I am going to kidnap you and you'll find yourself with a personal relationship with "God".

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #339 on: January 29, 2022, 11:45:55 PM »
Then as soon as I can purchase VR hardware to convincingly put your brain in a vat, I am going to kidnap you and you'll find yourself with a personal relationship with "God".

What would that matter if my brain is already in a vat?

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #340 on: January 30, 2022, 11:22:02 AM »
What would that matter if my brain is already in a vat?
Well, I'm not certain.

Are you already in Hell?

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #341 on: January 30, 2022, 11:53:06 AM »
There's probably a big dinstinction in your mind between thoughts like "God is love" and "This table exists.", and I'd argue the second one is true belief and the first one... well, as I said, it sounds more like make-believe the way you describe it.
There is not and you don't understand how deeply confirmation bias and the brain post-processing perceptions can affect beliefs.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #342 on: January 30, 2022, 02:18:52 PM »
Quote
There is not and you don't understand how deeply confirmation bias and the brain post-processing perceptions can affect beliefs.

I do believe I understand all that.

What I don't understand is how you can *recognize* that your belief is simply a result of confirmation bias, a result of it simply making you happy to so believe, and still consider it your belief on the same level as your belief in, e.g. the blueness of the sky, or the existence of tables.

But hey, I don't think I care enough to probe further. Frankly you seem to me even more insane and more double-thinky than usual for theists, but I just don't care that much.

edgmatt

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #343 on: January 30, 2022, 09:00:17 PM »
You care enough to post some insults, so, I'd say you care at least a little.   :P

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #344 on: January 31, 2022, 11:07:58 AM »
I do believe I understand all that.

What I don't understand is how you can *recognize* that your belief is simply a result of confirmation bias, a result of it simply making you happy to so believe, and still consider it your belief on the same level as your belief in, e.g. the blueness of the sky, or the existence of tables.

But hey, I don't think I care enough to probe further. Frankly you seem to me even more insane and more double-thinky than usual for theists, but I just don't care that much.
If I'm wrong, I don't wanna be right. It's more fun to believe that I'll live forever in eternal joy. I really do believe that I will live forever in eternal joy. And I'm not the only one. I bet OSC does, too. I bet tons of Christians really, really, REALLY, do, just like me.

And, it's possible, and that is an inarguable fact. No one can calculate the probability, of course, but it's non-zero.

I just love non-zero probabilities coupled with eternal optimism, that's all.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #345 on: January 31, 2022, 11:47:07 AM »
Quote
I really do believe that I will live forever in eternal joy. And I'm not the only one. I bet OSC does, too. I bet tons of Christians really, really, REALLY, do, just like me.

I respect people like C.S. Lewis who believed in Christianity, because they thought that the reason to believe in Christianity is because it was true.

From The Screwtape Letters, as spoken by the demon Screwtape, advising his demon nephew:
Quote
On the other hand we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything — even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist's shop. Fortunately it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner. Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that “only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations”. You see the little rift? “Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.” That's the game,

Your affectionate uncle. SCREWTAPE.

Like the demon Screwtape suggests, you seem to be believing in Christianity, not because it's true, but for some other reason - because it makes you happy to believe it.

You aren't trying to convince people Christianity is true, you're (at best) trying to convince them that it has a non-zero probability of being true. Well yes, nearly everything have a non-zero probability, if you want to be strictly technical about it, but frankly, and to the extent that it even makes sense to try to compare infinitesmall probabilities -- I think I'd probably consider the existence of a Santa Claus working to make toys in North Pole accompanied by elves more likely than the existence of Christianity's God.

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #346 on: January 31, 2022, 12:02:40 PM »
sigh semantics arguments bore me I'm only trying to speak in your language please realize that that can make me hard to understand

Christianity *is* TRUE, but, it's based on unprovable personal experiences

wait:

I'm currently in an inpatient psych ward, three days ago I asked everyone in my church to pray that I found an outpatient bed, and I will let your imagination figure out why tomorrow is my last day here

(I did read Screwtape 20 years ago; great book)

I AM NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYONE THAT CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE

instead

I AM CONVINCING MYSELF because I have Borderline Personality Disorder and I always seem to doubt God. Four years ago I had an "awakening" where I went from 0.01% convinced to, say, 51% all in one day.

(boy was that a wonderful day)

Before I started posting here, I was at 99.99% convinced

today I am 99.99999% convinced

see?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #347 on: January 31, 2022, 12:06:39 PM »
Good post, Aris. I'll throw in a quibble, take it as you like: it's a bit of a false binary to say that a thing is either seen as true, or else merely as a means to an end and therefore not true in itself. In the Lewis quote it seems like he's highlighting a binary like this. But if we were sidestepping Christianity for a moment and talking straight metaphysics, it could indeed be possible, er, depending on how the universe is constructed, for a thing to be actually true (i.e. real) if and only if you believe in it, and false if not. You could call that objective subjectivity. And actually I think Christianity has a little of this going on. Not about whether God exists pe se, but about whether certain things in fact work how people say they do.

That being said, I'm not even sure Lewis is talking about the true vs means to an end binary as a binary. I think his point is about people placing values higher than God and trying to use religion merely as a means to get the thing they want. I don't think it's about the ontology of it. It's more like how people can become idolaters even while thinking of themselves as devoutly religious.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #348 on: January 31, 2022, 12:44:59 PM »
Quote
it's possible, and that is an inarguable fact.

That something is possible is the fact.

Its possible that I'm so good looking all woman desire me... that possibility is a inarguable fact.  Weather the reality of that statement is a fact hasn't been confirmed as fact no matter how much I believe it or want it to be true.

You seem to be jumping the shark. 

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: New trans laws
« Reply #349 on: January 31, 2022, 02:18:05 PM »
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said something like, you don't want religion to be false because then crazy people will murder you if (1) they are convinced that they can get away with it and (2) they're pissed off at you.