A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

[Sculptor]

It's more likely that the parents are the one's influencing their children in such a way because they wanted a girl but got a boy, or vice versa, or just wanting attention.

No this is not the case. Most parents find the whole thin confusing and disturbing. You are speaking from ignorance.

If parents found it so confusing and disturbing then why would they just let their kids be operated on - changing their life forever? Again, what makes sex so special that one can claim to be another sex but it they claim to be a different race or species then that is crazy? If your child claimed to be a cat would you then affirm their belief by taking them to a cosmetic surgeon to permanently implant whiskers and pointy ears?

Psychiatry informs us that those that either didn't get much attention or received to much attention during their development ends up doing extreme things for attention, or believing that everyone should give them the same undue attention when they are older.

You are now just bullshitting.

You are now speaking from ignorance. My wife is a teacher and I have coached flag football for years and I see all the time how parents lack of, or over- parenting affects their children. There are those parents who have their face in their phones while their child is playing and the child has self-esteem issues and those parents who constantly talk like their kid's shit doesn't stink and how that kid acts like his shit doesn't stink.
But if you don't believe me then read these articles that are very simple to find with a proper Google search ('cause your too lazy to do it yourself).
https://www.familyeducation.com/kids/de ... evelopment

https://www.healthline.com/health/menta ... g-behavior

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... indulgence

https://www.healthyplace.com/parenting/ ... too-little

What makes sex so special that we can accept without question that someone claims to be the opposite sex, but if someone were to claim to a different race or species, then that is crazy?

What we do is listen and accept. WHy do you think it is up to you to "question"?
WTF do you think you are?

A person with the same rights as you. You're questioning me. Why do you think it is up to you to question me? WTF do you think you are - an authoritarian that believes that they can question others but they cannot be questioned. I'm not the one telling others to not question. You are. I'm fine with people asking me questions so that I can give my answers and have them reasonably criticized. You've been criticizing me, but not reasonably.

A person with anorexia nervosa can have a distorted perception of weight. "Gender-affirming care" would be like telling an anorexic person to go on a diet - affirming their distorted perception that in unhealthy. Just like lawyers support new laws being created because it gives them more job security, doctors - especially cosmetic surgeons - will support laws which give them more clients, regardless of the mental health of the individual.

A somatic delusion is one where the person believes there is something wrong with their body. Symptoms of a delusional disorder may include:

Feelings of being exploited.
Preoccupation with the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends.
A tendency to read threatening meanings into benign remarks or events.
Persistently holding grudges.
A readiness to respond and react to perceived slights.

These behaviors are exactly what you see when someone's "gender" claims are being questioned.

If someone came along and tried to tell you, you were mad to thing yourself a boy, you would justifiably feeling exploited and paranoid.
So what is YOUR reason for holding a grudge against trans people?


You are so full of your own invention on this matter.

What are you scared of?

Right, so I identify as a Dark Sith Lord and demand that you address me as "My Master" when you reply to me. If you don't I'm going to feel exploited and paranoid.

Nothing you have linked is relevant.
You are irrelevant

[Gary Childress]

If you have qualms with both, then why is Marx "eviler?" Marx didn't kill 100 million people. Nor did he advocate it.

Hitler didn't personally round up or kill anybody either. He never personally fought in WW 2. So you're going to excuse him, for devising the National Socialism that empowered all that?

He would doubtless be horrified...

Judging by his biography, very little would "horrify" Marx, other than taking a bath or doing an honest day's work.

Stalin and Mao were little better than Marx's contemporary capitalists

They weren't contemporaries of Marx, and they were both avowed Marxists.

Marx doubtless wouldn't have done what Stalin or Mao did

You don't know what Marx "would have" done. What you know is what he did. And that's bad enough.

By all accounts we possess, Marx refused to participate in that kind of evil.

So you wouldn't fault his raging temper, his whining and bullying of his admirers, his rape of Helene Demuth, or his disowning of the child he thereby created? How about his fatally stupid political and economic theorizing, by which the deaths of over 100 million were rationalized?

Instead, he pursued life as a revolutionary journalist, advocating for people being horribly exploited.

He wasn't a journalist, anymore than he was a "scientific" mind, which he also claimed. He was a monumental fraud. And according to his biographers -- and his own mother -- the only person he really ever advocated for was himself.

I'm amused by your desire to imagine Marx as a saintly figure. It defies all the historical evidence, and even the evidence of his own writings. Here's your lovely "missionary" writing poetry:

… Worlds I would destroy forever,
Since I can create no world;
Since my call they notice never …

and:

Then I will be able to walk triumphantly,
Like a god, through the ruins of their kingdom.
Every word of mine is fire and action.
My breast is equal to that of the Creator.

and:

I shall build my throne high overhead
Cold, tremendous shall its summit be.
For its bulwark — superstitious dread
For its marshal — blackest agony.

and:

See this sword?
the prince of darkness
Sold it to me.

and:

With Satan I have struck my deal,
He chalks the signs, beats time for me
I play the death march fast and free.

and:

… I shall howl gigantic curses on mankind:
Ha! Eternity! She is an eternal grief …
Ourselves being clockwork, blindly mechanical,
Made to be the foul-calendars of Time and Space,
Having no purpose save to happen, to be ruined,
So that there shall be something to ruin …
If there is a something which devours,
I’ll leap within it, though I bring the world to ruins-
The world which bulks between me and the Abyss
I will smash to pieces with my enduring curses.
I’ll throw my arms around its harsh reality:
Embracing me, the world will dumbly pass away,
And then sink down to utter nothingness,
Perished, with no existence — that would be really living!

Lovely stuff, isn't it?

I didn't say he had any poetic talent -- just that he tried to write the stuff. Shakespeare, he wasn't.

I've stated my case (that judging Marx for what elites later did with his ideology is little fairer than judging Christ for the Inquisition, crusades, etc that followers instigated, thinking it was purging the world of "ungodly" sinners). You've largely ignored it or drawn your own conclusions that seem to rest more on relatively isolated actions ("sponging off" friends--done out of need, or sexually molesting a woman--albeit bad behavior) than overall life choices (devoting his life and work to changing the plight of oppressed people).

You also continue to liken my more realistic appraisal of Marx to my espousing him as a "saint". This is a clear strawman. I in no way liken Marx's conduct to "sainthood". He was very much human.

[Immanuel Can]

Ask IC to describe Hitler's form of 'socialism'. He won't be able to answer

It's called "National Socialism." Communism is "International Socialism." What do you think "Nazi" means?

That's not what I asked. I said describe Hitler's 'socialism'.

I can "describe" it, but you won't believe it. Nor should you, unless somebody provides proof. Here is some. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLHG4IfYE1w.

Here's more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8

[Immanuel Can]

I've stated my case (that judging Marx for what elites later did with his ideology is little fairer than judging Christ for the Inquisition, crusades, etc that followers instigated,

That's a pathetically bad case, I fear. First, the Catholics are, by their own admission, Catholics not Christians. They follow the Papacy, not the words of Christ, because their theology holds that the words of Christ are only a starting point, and subsequent "church" edicts can add to, supplant or even reverse the authority of Christ's words. Ask any knowledgeable Catholic, and you'll find it's key to their beliefs: they say "revelation is progressive, and changes over time, according to the dictates of the councils and prelates."

By the time you get to the Inquisitions, etc., Catholicism is miles away from anything Christ taught, and is, in fact, doing the opposite. He who said, "Love your enemies and do good to them that use you spitefully" would never have sanctioned any Inquisition. And historically, the greatest victims of the Inquisition were not Atheists, Islamists, Jews or other religionists: they were Christians.

So much for that.

...your own conclusions that seem to rest more on relatively isolated actions ("sponging off" friends--done out of need, or sexually molesting a woman--albeit bad behavior) than overall life choices (devoting his life and work to changing the plight of oppressed people).

Marx did absolutely nothing to help the workers. And his followers killed them in the millions. He didn't "devote his life" to anything but making himself great, bullying and extorting from his family and friends, and avoiding paying his own bills. But boy, did he ever give people like Mao and Stalin the insane ideology that let them feel justified what they did. It was "for the revolution," with an aim to "the triumph of the proletariat," just as Marx taught them. What, compared to the Great Project of History are the deaths of millions? They're just "counterrevolutionaries" who undermine the Marxist project of creating heavens on earth. Why should the individual person ever matter, when the "good" of "mankind" is at stake?

Not by accident, Marxism drives the CRT programs, the WEF, and the Climate Crisis panic today. Marx is still doing damage.

[Immanuel Can]

Perhaps part of Marx's texts parallels some of the ways Hitler characterizes Jews.

Very much so. The road to genocide begins with demonization. It doesn't matter if one blames the Jews or the bourgeiosie, and extols "blood and soil" or "the proletariat"; either way, one puts people in two camps, one irredeemably evil and the other bound to unimpeachable good, with History at the helm and "the future good of mankind" on the banner, and then lots of people die very badly. Stalin and Hitler were true brothers, judging by their actions. Stalin killed more, but they were all his own people. And Mao killed more than both.

But then Hitler organized the mass killing of people, intentionally giving his underlings orders and resources to carry out mass killing.

As has every Marxist leader since. That's not by chance.

Hitler consciously chose violence and organized the mass killing of his targets.

Name the Communist leader who did not.

Perhaps the way you write about Leftists will lead others one day to dehumanize them even more and kill them all in death camps.

Unlikely. It's the Leftists who are opposed to free speech, and are in favour of collectivism over the rights of the individual. For very obvious reasons, you won't find any genocides perpetrated in the name of individual autonomy, personal rights and choice.

But any form of collectivism? Yes, very easily.

Hilter combined both actions at the same time as an autocratic.

Is any part of that not true of Stalin or Mao? In fact, has any of the Marxist dictators -- of the many there have been, from Ceacescu to Tito to Mugabe to Castro to the Kim Jongs and Pol Pot -- done otherwise?

[Gary Childress]

I've stated my case (that judging Marx for what elites later did with his ideology is little fairer than judging Christ for the Inquisition, crusades, etc that followers instigated,

That's a pathetically bad case, I fear. First, the Catholics are, by their own admission, Catholics not Christians. They follow the Papacy, not the words of Christ, because their theology holds that the words of Christ are only a starting point, and subsequent "church" edicts can add to, supplant or even reverse the authority of Christ's words. Ask any knowledgeable Catholic, and you'll find it's key to their beliefs: they say "revelation is progressive, and changes over time, according to the dictates of the councils and prelates."

By the time you get to the Inquisitions, etc., Catholicism is miles away from anything Christ taught, and is, in fact, doing the opposite. He who said, "Love your enemies and do good to them that use you spitefully" would never have sanctioned any Inquisition. And historically, the greatest victims of the Inquisition were not Atheists, Islamists, Jews or other religionists: they were Christians.

So much for that.

...your own conclusions that seem to rest more on relatively isolated actions ("sponging off" friends--done out of need, or sexually molesting a woman--albeit bad behavior) than overall life choices (devoting his life and work to changing the plight of oppressed people).

Marx did absolutely nothing to help the workers. And his followers killed them in the millions. He didn't "devote his life" to anything but making himself great, bullying and extorting from his family and friends, and avoiding paying his own bills. But boy, did he ever give people like Mao and Stalin the insane ideology that let them feel justified what they did. It was "for the revolution," with an aim to "the triumph of the proletariat," just as Marx taught them. What, compared to the Great Project of History are the deaths of millions? They're just "counterrevolutionaries" who undermine the Marxist project of creating heavens on earth. Why should the individual person ever matter, when the "good" of "mankind" is at stake?

Not by accident, Marxism drives the CRT programs, the WEF, and the Climate Crisis panic today. Marx is still doing damage.

You're deaf, IC. Judge not. Isn't that something your professed hero Christ also says/said. You're a hypocrite and no more "divinely inspired" than any of the rest of us. Good luck with that.

[Immanuel Can]

Judge not.

Do you know where that comes from, and what the context of that verse is? Or are you merely hoping that it gets everybody off the hook for everything?

Are you aware that the NT contains about twice as many statements about things we are to judge as about things we are not to, and that there's a difference between the two? For instance, we are told to judge ourselves (1 Cor. 11:31), to judge the truth of claims and situations (Luke 7:43), to judge what is right (Luke 12:57), to judge righteously (John 7:24), and to judge sins (1 Cor. 5:3)...and so on. But in the verse you are citing, without knowing what it says, perhaps, it actually tells us not to preempt God by taking His role as the Judge of the eternal state of the individual.

So if we do judge, as we are instructed to do, the truth of Marx's philosophy, or judge by the "fruit" or outcome of his creed what the value of it is, which we are also instructed to do, then what is the outcome? That his philosophy is untrue (as history shows), his theories are wrong (as even the Neo-Marxists insist), and that his legacy is murder. As for his eternal state, only God can judge that. So let us not.

[Gary Childress]

Judge not.

Do you know where that comes from, and what the context of that verse is? Or are you merely hoping that it gets everybody off the hook for everything?

Are you aware that the NT contains about twice as many statements about things we are to judge as about things we are not to, and that there's a difference between the two? For instance, we are told to judge ourselves (1 Cor. 11:31), to judge the truth of claims and situations (Luke 7:43), to judge what is right (Luke 12:57), to judge righteously (John 7:24), and to judge sins (1 Cor. 5:3)...and so on. But in the verse you are citing, without knowing what it says, perhaps, it actually tells us not to preempt God by taking His role as the Judge of the eternal state of the individual.

So if we do judge, as we are instructed to do, the truth of Marx's philosophy, or judge by the "fruit" or outcome of his creed what the value of it is, which we are also instructed to do, then what is the outcome? That his philosophy is untrue (as history shows), his theories are wrong (as even the Neo-Marxists insist), and that his legacy is murder. As for his eternal state, only God can judge that. So let us not.

I'm not familiar with the holy babble. However, if God is telling us in all those instances to go around and judge others harshly for their mistakes, then I can see where the problems with Catholicism and other denominations begin.

As far as I'll opine, I imagine your god is telling you to judge your own behavior and worry about your own behavior and not so much that of others around you. And to judge for yourself whether or not someone is telling you the truth or falsity and whether or not something is the right thing for you as an individual agent of conscience to do or believe. Feel free to go back and do an honest appraisal of the Bible with that "uninformed" opinion of mine and get back to me about whether I'm right or wrong about it. To be honest, I could care less what the babble says. However, I don't go consult anyone elses unexpert advice before I do or say something. But at least I'll admit when I'm wrong if I'm shown. So far the best I can say of you is that you'll dogmatically stick to your babble no matter what. It's a good thing that book never said, "go fuck a sodomite", then you'd have to do that, wouldn't you?

[Immanuel Can]

Judge not.

Do you know where that comes from, and what the context of that verse is? Or are you merely hoping that it gets everybody off the hook for everything?

Are you aware that the NT contains about twice as many statements about things we are to judge as about things we are not to, and that there's a difference between the two? For instance, we are told to judge ourselves (1 Cor. 11:31), to judge the truth of claims and situations (Luke 7:43), to judge what is right (Luke 12:57), to judge righteously (John 7:24), and to judge sins (1 Cor. 5:3)...and so on. But in the verse you are citing, without knowing what it says, perhaps, it actually tells us not to preempt God by taking His role as the Judge of the eternal state of the individual.

So if we do judge, as we are instructed to do, the truth of Marx's philosophy, or judge by the "fruit" or outcome of his creed what the value of it is, which we are also instructed to do, then what is the outcome? That his philosophy is untrue (as history shows), his theories are wrong (as even the Neo-Marxists insist), and that his legacy is murder. As for his eternal state, only God can judge that. So let us not.

I'm not familiar with the holy babble.

Strangely, then, you wanted to quote it. It's almost like you knew it had something important to offer...but you didn't know what it was.

And would be right.

However, if God is telling us in all those instances to go around and judge others harshly for their mistakes,

There is no mention of judging "mistakes." But we kid ourselves when we tell ourselves that everything good we do is by our own merit, and everything bad we've done is just a "mistake." That's just "misjudging" ourselves; yet judging ourselves rightly is one of the things we're instructed to do. In fact, the Bible even says,(1 Corinthians 11:31) "But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged."

I imagine your god is telling you to judge your own behavior and worry about your own behavior and not so much that of others around you.

Actually, we are told to do both. Judging actions is a good thing to do, whether they're your own or just something you witness somebody else do. It's key to being a moral person, that you realize when something is good and when it's evil. That requires judgment.

.. get back to me about whether I'm right or wrong about it.

As above.

[Gary Childress]

Do you know where that comes from, and what the context of that verse is? Or are you merely hoping that it gets everybody off the hook for everything?

Are you aware that the NT contains about twice as many statements about things we are to judge as about things we are not to, and that there's a difference between the two? For instance, we are told to judge ourselves (1 Cor. 11:31), to judge the truth of claims and situations (Luke 7:43), to judge what is right (Luke 12:57), to judge righteously (John 7:24), and to judge sins (1 Cor. 5:3)...and so on. But in the verse you are citing, without knowing what it says, perhaps, it actually tells us not to preempt God by taking His role as the Judge of the eternal state of the individual.

So if we do judge, as we are instructed to do, the truth of Marx's philosophy, or judge by the "fruit" or outcome of his creed what the value of it is, which we are also instructed to do, then what is the outcome? That his philosophy is untrue (as history shows), his theories are wrong (as even the Neo-Marxists insist), and that his legacy is murder. As for his eternal state, only God can judge that. So let us not.

I'm not familiar with the holy babble.

Strangely, then, you wanted to quote it. It's almost like you knew it had something important to offer...but you didn't know what it was.

And would be right.

However, if God is telling us in all those instances to go around and judge others harshly for their mistakes,

There is no mention of judging "mistakes." But we kid ourselves when we tell ourselves that everything good we do is by our own merit, and everything bad we've done is just a "mistake." That's just "misjudging" ourselves; yet judging ourselves rightly is one of the things we're instructed to do. In fact, the Bible even says,(1 Corinthians 11:31) "But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged."

I imagine your god is telling you to judge your own behavior and worry about your own behavior and not so much that of others around you.

Actually, we are told to do both. Judging actions is a good thing to do, whether they're your own or just something you witness somebody else do. It's key to being a moral person, that you realize when something is good and when it's evil. That requires judgment.

.. get back to me about whether I'm right or wrong about it.

As above.

Fine. Then judge Marx as the "most evil" man in human history if that's what the "babble" tells you to do. Mao and Stalin were just confused and depraved "henchmen" or whatever who simply carried out what Marx told them to do.

The architects of the squalor and depravity of the industrial revolution that Marx witnessed and obviously drove him to oppose them weren't as evil or mistaken. They were apparently closer to God's "plan" than Marx was. You're the divinely inspired one between the two of us, so I'll just have to submit to your 'expert authority'. Have at it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's called "National Socialism." Communism is "International Socialism." What do you think "Nazi" means?

That's not what I asked. I said describe Hitler's 'socialism'.

I can "describe" it, but you won't believe it.

Hilarous. What a predictable pompous bore you are.

[Immanuel Can]

Fine. Then judge Marx as the "most evil" man in human history if that's what the "babble" tells you to do.

I don't have to. History judges him already.

Nobody has ever invented any creed that has come within orders of magnitude of what the Communists have done in killing people. Second place isn't even close.

[Immanuel Can]

That's not what I asked. I said describe Hitler's 'socialism'.

I can "describe" it, but you won't believe it.

Hilarous.

Ah, you excised all the proof. I knew you would. You aren't even going to want to know the truth, so you won't even look at it.

Have a nice day.

[Gary Childress]

I can "describe" it, but you won't believe it.

Hilarous.

Ah, you excised all the proof. I knew you would. You aren't even going to want to know the truth, so you won't even look at it.

Have a nice day.

Before you go, how about bestowing upon her some of your divinely inspired wisdom? Maybe a word or two about how evil not carrying through with a pregnancy on the part of a female is because a largely underdeveloped blob of neurons and probably primordial instinctive impulses can feel more pain and is more innocent than a grown adult who is murdered in a crusade or inquisition or something? VT is clearly confused. She needs a "real" man to steer her right. Someone like me could never do an adequate job.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I can "describe" it, but you won't believe it.

Hilarous.

Ah, you excised all the proof. I knew you would. You aren't even going to want to know the truth, so you won't even look at it.

Have a nice day.

'Proof' of what? Why would I bother clicking on your stupid youtube links? You are such cowardly llittle worm.