a defense of drag show/drag queens..

[Flannel Jesus]

Iambiguous, bless your heart, I just can’t deal with your style. So there is no exchange possible. Note: Satyr’s assessments of you are as close to precise and extremely well thought-out. If you posted them to indicate how misunderstood you are it rather worked against you.

Absolutely shameless.

Well, among other things.

You don't feel like the unanimity of agreement with the assessment might indicate something?

[iambiguous]

Satyr's schema for Iambiguous here...
viewtopic.php?p=633368#p633368

Addendum:
'serious philosophers' - a kind of faux superiority from below posing. It means that you said something that seems to fit his image of what a philosopher might say, so it is wrong and too abstract. When he is abstract and uses terms like dasein, that's not being the negative version of a serious philosopher, that's being, metaphorically, a working class hero bringing heart and manual tools to help a fellow traveller.

I use "serious philosopher" as a caricature for those in philosophy forums that, in my own rooted existentially in dasein personal opinion, encompass their own "moral philosophy" largely up in the "ethical theory" clouds. It's a judgment call on my part.

But, again, we would need to focus in on an exchange relating to a particular set of circumstances to differentiate the distinctions I and others make.

'intellectual contraption' - a sentence with abstractions or generalities used by someone other than iambiguous. It's a bad thing to write one of these as a non-Iambiguous person.

Same thing. Choose a context and a moral philosophy and note yourself when definitions and deductions revolve more around other definitions and deductions rather than actual behaviors in conflict regarding value judgments.

'objectivist' - officially, this means anyone thinking they've got an objective answer to how to live, morally or even practically. In practice, anyone who doesn't join him in the precise despairs he has. Or anyone not adding enough disclaimers when they express their values or opinions (see objectivism above for the related noun)

Over and over and over again, I note what objectivism has [subjectively] come to mean to me: someone convinced they are in sync with their "true self" in sync further with "the right thing to do" morally and politically. Then coming into a venue such as this and arguing as though anyone who does not share their own point of view is simply wrong.

"Precise despairs"?!!

Again, being as "drawn and quartered" as "I" am regarding value judgments can certainly create a glum frame of mind at times. On the other hand, it expands your options considerably because you are not ever and always anchored to "the right thing to do". Also, politically it is more in sync with moderation, negotiation and compromise...democracy and the rule of laws.

As opposed to those who embrace one or another religion or deontological philosophy or political ideology or a "my way or the highway" -- my way or else -- assessment of nature pertaining to things like race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality and the like.

'shameless' - an appeal to seeing someone as objectively bad made by a nihilist moral anti-realist.

Whatever that means. Again, choose a context and we can discuss points that we construe to be shameless. I mostly use it, however, when embodying my "polemicist persona" here.

'fractured and fragmented' - annoyed at not getting 100% certainty so he can make a choice. Entails others have the responsibility to lift him up in a very Eric Berne-like game.

That's not the point. Quite the opposite. Being fractured and fragmented revolves not around needing either side of a moral conflagration to be 100% right, but noting how both sides are able to make points that are reasonable...points that the other side can't just make go away. Thus, with issues like abortion, it's not unreasonable to argue that a fetus is a human being with the right to life. And it's not unreasonable to argue that forcing women to give birth would deny them true equality with men who can never become pregnant.

Same with all the other issues. Just go to the Pro/Con website and pick a conflagration. You won't find one where one side is 100% right and the other side 100% wrong. Instead, you'll find that with all of them both sides are able to make rational arguments.

Then the reality of the sociopaths among us. What is the philosophical argument in a No God world that unequivocally defeats their own "me, myself and I" frame of mind?

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous, bless your heart, I just can’t deal with your style. So there is no exchange possible. Note: Satyr’s assessments of you are as close to precise and extremely well thought-out. If you posted them to indicate how misunderstood you are it rather worked against you.

Absolutely shameless.

Well, among other things.

You don't feel like the unanimity of agreement with the assessment might indicate something?

If that's how some feel about me, let them simply move on to others they respect more.

That works for me.

But with AJ and iwannaplato, at least they were willing to respond more at length from time to time with actual substantive points. Whereas [to me] you and phyllo in Stooge mode barely respond to my points at all.

Look, AJ was wondering above about me not responding to his latest "wall of words" post to me. So, I did. And what do I get from him?

This:

"OK you daft nutjob! You had your chance. I'm done with you from here on out . . .

[Flannel Jesus]

Look, AJ was wondering above about me not responding to his latest "wall of words" post to me. So, I did. And what do I get from him?

This:

"OK you daft nutjob! You had your chance. I'm done with you from here on out . . .

But your reply was entirely full of your canned habitual things you say all the time that Satyr catalogued. That post itself that you're talking about is exemplary of how formulaic your responses are. You're stuck saying the same things in the same ways over and over again, across various forums and to various people and in various contexts. You have a little box you allow yourself to think in, which is why it's so easy for satyr to succinctly catalogue your writings.

[Gary Childress]

Maybe America is a very different place from where I live, but... does any of this actually affect you? When's the last time you actually saw a transgender or cross dressing person and even noticed? Your concern here can't be because this is actually affecting your life in meaningful ways, can it?

It doesn't have affect him directly for him to have an opinion and to take a stand.

It's often better to act before a situation goes too far.

He's talking about it like it affects him personally, like he sees these people all over the place.

Consider this quote:

> I wanted better for myself too, because nothing was good enough for me when I could have taken what was around me at the time. Well, men dressing up like women doesn't sound like "better" to me.

Why do people dressing in confusing clothing have anything to do with him having a better life? Especially if he doesn't ever see them.

If you're fine with all the lies and deception going on in the social sphere concerning people's overt expression of sex and gender, then that's on you. Have at it. I'm old enough that it's probably not going to affect me as directly anymore. Though, I will say, if I had a kid and the kid wanted a sex change, then I wouldn't allow it until he or she turned old enough to make better choices concerning things that will significantly affect his or her future among his or her peers. If s/he wants to do it then, then fine. I won't intervene.

No one should have to physically verify if their girlfriend may or may not have a penis tucked away under "her" skirt. If that's the kind of life you want to indulge in, then there are currently parts of town you can go to and indulge to your heart's desire. Bringing deviance into the mainstream isn't going to make the world any better for anyone. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the violence against transgender people didn't begin to manifest itself until transgenders or their advocates started wanting to be "accepted" by EVERYONE.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't think drag is a massive deviance tbh. Check this out:

https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasf ... _troop_us/

Drag is a form of comedy. Men have performed in women's clothes for as long as men have performed. Shakespeare had men playing his female characters. I wouldn't be surprised to find the majority of Greek plays had men play women's parts. (Edit: I did in fact confirm this after posting this. Greeks did do this)

It's really not as much of a deviance as it's being made out to be.

[phyllo]

This isn't a play.

[Flannel Jesus]

You're right, this is a philosophy forum.

[Gary Childress]

I don't think drag is a massive deviance tbh. Check this out:

https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasf ... _troop_us/

Drag is a form of comedy. Men have performed in women's clothes for as long as men have performed. Shakespeare had men playing his female characters. I wouldn't be surprised to find the majority of Greek plays had men play women's parts. (Edit: I did in fact confirm this after posting this. Greeks did do this)

It's really not as much of a deviance as it's being made out to be.

If someone wants to do, theater satire or comedy while dressing in clothing of the opposite sex, that's one thing. Right now what's conspicuously on the table seems to be whether or not kids should be allowed to change gender at an early age. I don't recall there being many issues with that sort of stuff until some sought to normalize it and bring it into schools. So now people are talking about real cross-dressers (people who routinely engage in the activity for sexual reasons) being allowed into the schools. To me, that's not so different from saying, let's allow strippers to come to school to give rated PG presentations or demonstrations of what they do. If someone wants to be a sex worker, then that's up to them. There are parts of town where that can be done. Those parts of town are usually relatively segregated from school zones for largely sensible reasons as far as I'm concerned.

[Flannel Jesus]

So people are talking about real cross-dressers (people who routinely engage in the activity for sexual reasons) being allowed into the schools.

Who? I have no idea what this is about.

[Gary Childress]

So people are talking about real cross-dressers (people who routinely engage in the activity for sexual reasons) being allowed into the schools.

Who? I have no idea what this is about.

Then you need to perk up and start paying attention.

[Flannel Jesus]

That's it? No link or anything? Okay mate.

In other news, here's a drag queen with a kid :

jne2o22u46sa1.jpg

[Gary Childress]

That's it? No link or anything? Okay mate.

In other news, here's a drag queen with a kid :

jne2o22u46sa1.jpg

Judging from the fact that the young guy to the left appears to be drinking a beer, I'll venture a guess it's at a nightclub and not in a school--at least not early schooling. As I say, there are places for that activity and the young will eventually be able to go to those places and decide for themselves when they reach age, whether or not they want to start wearing the clothing typically expressive of the opposite sex as a routine social activity. In the meantime, any kid is free to wear whatever he or she wants to wear in the classroom, and every other kid in that classroom is free to say whatever they want about that kid, even if it's ridicule. There's no reason for adults to try to normalize kids to that kind of behavior. Let the kids sort it out for themselves.

[iambiguous]

Look, AJ was wondering above about me not responding to his latest "wall of words" post to me. So, I did. And what do I get from him?

This:

"OK you daft nutjob! You had your chance. I'm done with you from here on out . . .

But your reply was entirely full of your canned habitual things you say all the time that Satyr catalogued. That post itself that you're talking about is exemplary of how formulaic your responses are. You're stuck saying the same things in the same ways over and over again, across various forums and to various people and in various contexts. You have a little box you allow yourself to think in, which is why it's so easy for satyr to succinctly catalogue your writings.

Okay, okay, my Four Stooges.

Now, as with AJ, by all means, put me on ignore.

[Iwannaplato]

Why do we have to be mindless zombies who approve of everything?

Why do we have to be labeled as fearful if we don't want something to be happening?

I would ask why PK immediatley moved the debate to psychology. He could focus on rights and consequences, for example. He could argue there is no harm. There are a variety of ways to frame the debate. But immediately in his first post on the topic he mindreads those he disagrees with. An implicit ad hom. But also it is as if we he cannot demonstrate that drag queens doing library reading and state funds going to this is a good or neutral thing on ethical grounds or practical grounds. He needs to immediately reduce those he disagrees with. So, you are in a position to defend or deflect this second topic. A topic that is not the topic in the OP title. Its not a defense of drag queen readings, it's a hypothesis about the psychology of other people.

Of course people on all sides of various issues do this kind of thing and generally they hate it when the other team aims this at them. But today it seems accepted as fair game.