ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

[Immanuel Can]

The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights applies to all human beings

No, it doesn't, actually.

If Hume is right, then the best we can say about it is that it's an arbitrary declaration so weak that the UN (which doesn't have any army or police force) can't even enforce it in areas as small as the Palestinian Territories, where they most certainly do not agree with it. Then we can more easily list off the countries that DON'T recognize that declaration in practice than we can list those that do. Human rights, as an idea, is an anomaly worldwide.

So there is no imposition on anyone because everyone has those rights

They don't, according to Humean logic.

There's no way, as per Hume, to show that they do. They don't have those rights in practice, and they don't have them in the theory of the lands in question. So in what sense do they "have" them, then?

[Skepdick]

It's not a matter of "self-identification." If I identified as a Christian and wasn't, I'd expect to be challenged on that. Indeed, I would hope that anybody's claim to be a Christian would be challenged to the degree that they are not following Christ. I wish we'd all do that.

Self-identification? That's trivial.

I challenged you on your rationality, logic and consistency. Because you are neither of those three things.

You still continue to self-identify/self-define that way. We let you, out of dignity. Even though it's not your essence.

[FlashDangerpants]

When you cut that one sentence out of the context...

Let's not, then. Here is everything you gave me in that paragraph:

"And where does ths just any man stuff keep coming from? The average man is not going to cut off his junk and become a woman under any circumstance, it sounds like it would make your eyes water. Gender dysmorphic men are not just any man, they are very committed and endure a lot specifically because of this."

So again, those are your exact words, copied and unreacted, and now in their context complete.

I ask again, if you didn't mean to argue anything on the basis of the "commitment" and "endurance" of dysmorphic men, why did you even mention those attributes in the first place?

Do you know what. Now I can see the context I recognise that I overreacted this time. Now I can see that the surrounding words were not clear enough and the punctuation choices I made probably are too vague, such that one could interpret 'they are very committed' either left or rightwards. I should have added some clarity at the time. My apologies.

See how much easier it is for everyone to stay on the same page when we don't have to scroll all over the place looking for what the other guy has omitted this time?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you know what. Now I can see the context I recognise that I overreacted this time. Now I can see that the surrounding words were not clear enough and the punctuation choices I made probably are too vague, such that one could interpret 'they are very committed' either left or rightwards. I should have added some clarity at the time. My apologies.

All is well. No problem. I'm happy for you to set the record straight, and I don't hold you to something you feel you maybe didn't put as well as you intended to.

[henry quirk]

Self identification is the moral right of all free thinking adult human beings of sound mind

Joe, a big strappin' guy with a full beard, sez, I'm a woman.

Am I obligated to call him her?

I don't dispute that Joe can self-define as woman or penguin or houseplant.

I dispute my havin' an obligation to refer to him, or treat him, as a woman or a penguin or a houseplant.

[Immanuel Can]

Self identification is the moral right of all free thinking adult human beings of sound mind

Joe, a big strappin' guy with a full beard, sez, I'm a woman.

Am I obligated to call him her?

I don't dispute that Joe can self-define as woman or penguin or houseplant.

I dispute my havin' an obligation to refer to him, or treat him, as a woman or a penguin or a houseplant.

That's the "compelled speech" issue...and it's a huge one, Henry. It's much more than a limitation on "hate speech." "Hate speech" nonsense just limits what you can say. Compelled speech legislation tells you that you MUST parrot certain prepared words, regardless of whether or not you believe them.

So it raises this issue: Can a government, or a group of activists, legitimately "compel" somebody to say words that are put in his or her mouth by the government?

[FlashDangerpants]

All of your carping about the is/ought problem is pointless. If you can defeat Hume then do so.

I can. But perhaps you cannot, given your suppositions. We'll see.

In order for Hume to be right, he'd have to first be right about there being nothing but "is's" from which to deduce "oughts." That's a controversial premise, and not one he can take for a given. Some people will think he may be right, but others will certainly assert it's wrong. A Theist, for example, will say that morality is revealed by the Creator. And if they're right, then Hume's dead wrong.

In other words, if Theism is right, then Hume's Guillotine is just not any kind of problem at all.

However, even if Hume is right, his perspective is desolate, devoid of moral content, and ultimately Nihilistic, if followed through. This is the fact that has disturbed not the Theistic philosophers but the secular ones. Nietzsche saw it first, perhaps; but other secular philosophers who have followed Hume have all been bamboozled by it. Nowadays, Hume's Guillotine is generally recognized as the pre-eminent problem in secular moral philosophy. And so far, no secular ethicist has an answer to it.

So at present, you're quite correct -- there is no secular solution to the is-ought, because the fault was in Hume's a priori suppositions, not in his subsequent deductions from those mistaken suppositions.

This is why secular society presently has no legitimative grounds for morality. They can thank Hume for that.

So ... unless we invoke God then the best we have is that there IS no is/ough problem because there OUGHT to be none.

So where does this leave us? Now we have to prove there is a God, then set him on ghost of David Hume, so that you can have essentialism, for the ultimate purpose of being mean to trannies for their own good? This seems like a case of misplaced priorities doesn't it?

[Immanuel Can]

So ... unless we invoke God then the best we have is that there IS no is/ough problem because there OUGHT to be none.

No. There is no problem, because one has an ultimate basis for morality...one not dependent on things like situation, popularity, social whim, and other contingent facts.

The contingency of the facts was one of Hume's problems. Base your moral values on something that transcends the "is," and one can rationally ground an "ought." But try to base it on a mere "is," and there's no logical compulsion for any "ought" at all.

But if one presumes that the "is's" are all there is, then there's no basis for any "ought."

Nietzsche saw the same. No God, no moral "oughts." That's why he said the human race would have to move "beyond good and evil." He did not think they could create their own, because all of them would just be fakes. Henceforth, the human race would have to live without it. That's why he also gets accused of counselling Nihilism. Effectively, he was.

[FlashDangerpants]

And? Now do we need ten pages of biblical stuff telling me I am an imoral ghost for not believing in Santa? Or do we look at this essentialism problem?

[Skepdick]

Base your moral values on something that transcends the "is," and one can rationally ground an "ought."

Is that the same transcendence as genders transcendence, or a different kind?

[henry quirk]

Self identification is the moral right of all free thinking adult human beings of sound mind

Joe, a big strappin' guy with a full beard, sez, I'm a woman.

Am I obligated to call him her?

I don't dispute that Joe can self-define as woman or penguin or houseplant.

I dispute my havin' an obligation to refer to him, or treat him, as a woman or a penguin or a houseplant.

That's the "compelled speech" issue...and it's a huge one, Henry. It's much more than a limitation on "hate speech." "Hate speech" nonsense just limits what you can say. Compelled speech legislation tells you that you MUST parrot certain prepared words, regardless of whether or not you believe them.

So it raises this issue: Can a government, or a group of activists, legitimately "compel" somebody to say words that are put in his or her mouth by the government?

it's 1 + 1 = 3

it's fire is cold

it's a man can become a woman

bad enough when nutjobs foist up crap as truth but when then Big Stick Wielders enforce it, it's time to say no, through the ballot box (to begin with)

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Self identification is the moral right of all free thinking adult human beings of sound mind

Joe, a big strappin' guy with a full beard, sez, I'm a woman.

Am I obligated to call him her?

I don't dispute that Joe can self-define as woman or penguin or houseplant.

I dispute my havin' an obligation to refer to him, or treat him, as a woman or a penguin or a houseplant.

That's the "compelled speech" issue...and it's a huge one, Henry. It's much more than a limitation on "hate speech." "Hate speech" nonsense just limits what you can say. Compelled speech legislation tells you that you MUST parrot certain prepared words, regardless of whether or not you believe them.

So it raises this issue: Can a government, or a group of activists, legitimately "compel" somebody to say words that are put in his or her mouth by the government?

it's 1 + 1 = 3

it's fire is cold

it's a man can become a woman

bad enough when nutjobs foist up crap as truth but when then Big Stick Wielders enforce it, it's time to say no, through the ballot box (to begin with)

Kate Scottow was arrested for 'hate speech' for saying 'transwomen' are not women and for 'repeatedly using the wrong pronoun'. 'Stephanie Hayden' is a misogynistic male lawyer who exploits so-called 'hate-speech' laws to have women silenced and arrested for saying things he doesn't like.

Unfortunately the PC will win, because they know the law and they know exactly how to exploit it. They are also masters of intimidation.

This woman has also been arrested on multiple occasions. What better way to silence opposition?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt8j1Ixme1M&t=1641s

It's impossible to have free speech while 'hate speech' laws exist. The two cannot co-exist.

[Immanuel Can]

It's impossible to have free speech while 'hate speech' laws exist. The two cannot co-exist.

Yep. And it prevents the kind of dialogue that's necessary in order to work out differences of opinion, by preventing any contrary opinions ever from speaking.

[Skepdick]

So there's a choice to be made (surprised?).

On the one hand you don't want to compromise with Steve-Suzan and recognize her womanhood. Because you are being "compelled"
On the other hand you don't want to live in a society with compelled speech laws. Because you are being "compelled at gunpoint".

And you don't to acknowledge/recognize that the latter happens because you refuse to do the former.

That is the price you pay for naive realism and essentialism. You want Truth? The cost of that pursuit is loss of freedom. And not just your freedom - you are costing everybody their freedom.

[Skepdick]

It's impossible to have free speech while 'hate speech' laws exist. The two cannot co-exist.

Free speech absolutism is a pipe dream.

The hate speech laws exist in response to people insisting that their 'free speech' is absolute. You want to be the voice of dissent? You want to stand your ground? For every action there is an over-reaction...

The laws didn't come first - the 'hate speech' did. While you were 'speaking freely' - people were politicising to stop you from doing it. And you did nothing to stop them from politicising.

If you don't want to measure your free speech - it will be measured for you. And then you die. And the next generation repeats the process.