ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

[henry quirk]

...is the full version of the Serenity Prayer, the full version that gives context to what skep cites...

God, give us grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.

Living one day at a time,
Enjoying one moment at a time,
Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace,
Taking, as Jesus did,
This sinful world as it is,
Not as I would have it,
Trusting that You will make all things right,
If I surrender to Your will,
So that I may be reasonably happy in this life,
And supremely happy with You forever in the next.

Amen.

There: pulled us all back on to dry land...again.

[Skepdick]

Unicorns aren't real.

Our thoughts of them are real, our pictures of them are real, our stories about them are real,

That's what I said Harry.

Reality is real, Harry - and everything in it.

Which includes all your thoughts, feelings and emotions. There is nothing in reality that's not real.

but unicorns are not real (just like men becoming women is not real)

Mutability Harry! Mutability!

You are claiming that a Unicorn's classification can't be changed from "not real" to "real".

But it can be changed. if you were to actually observe a Unicorn tomorrow you will have to concede that it's not that "unicorns aren't real", you had just never seen one until now.

It's how discovery works, Harry. We learn new things all the time.

This is called a... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[Skepdick]

...is the full version of the Serenity Prayer, the full version that gives context to what skep cites...

God, give us grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.

Living one day at a time,
Enjoying one moment at a time,
Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace,
Taking, as Jesus did,
This sinful world as it is,
Not as I would have it,
Trusting that You will make all things right,
If I surrender to Your will,
So that I may be reasonably happy in this life,
And supremely happy with You forever in the next.

Amen.

There: pulled us all back on to dry land...again.

The entire first paragraph is about mutability.

[henry quirk]

You are claiming that a Unicorn's classification can't be changed from "not real" to "real"

Yep, show me one, or, mebbe, just show me a man who has actually become a woman.

I ain't holdin' my breath for either.

[henry quirk]

...is the full version of the Serenity Prayer, the full version that gives context to what skep cites...

God, give us grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.

Living one day at a time,
Enjoying one moment at a time,
Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace,
Taking, as Jesus did,
This sinful world as it is,
Not as I would have it,
Trusting that You will make all things right,
If I surrender to Your will,
So that I may be reasonably happy in this life,
And supremely happy with You forever in the next.

Amen.

There: pulled us all back on to dry land...again.

The entire first paragraph is about mutability.

Nope, not in context of the full prayer.

[Skepdick]

Yep, show me one, or, mebbe, just show me a man who has actually become a woman.

OK, so at least it's conceding that it's possible. So what evidence would convince you that Steve is Suzan now?

What set of measurement/observation would settle the matter for you?

[Skepdick]

Nope, not in context of the full prayer.

So in the context of the full prayer the first paragraph is not about change?

Thats some mental gymnastic there, Harry!

Enjoy your swamp. I gotta sleep.

[henry quirk]

Yep, show me one, or, mebbe, just show me a man who has actually become a woman.

OK, so at least it's conceding that it's possible. So what evidence would convince you that Steve is Suzan now?

What set of measurement/observation would settle the matter for you?

I'd have to confirm that Steve had been reengineered from the interior of his cells on up.

As I say elsewhere, several times, the only way man turns into woman is through a complete reconstruction from the grnetic level on up.

Till that's possible: Steve is Steve, no matter how much he wishes otherwise.

Show me the nanobots.

[Skepdick]

I'd have to confirm that Steve had been reengineered from the interior of his cells on up.

As I say elsewhere, several times, the only way man turns into woman is through a complete reconstruction from the grnetic level on up.

Till that's possible: Steve is Steve, no matter how much he wishes otherwise.

Show me the nanobots.

Henry, I am calling bullshit.

If the "essence" (and criterion) by which you categorize somebody as a being a man or a woman is their DNA, when was the last time you took a DNA sample from anybody?

How did we classify men and women before DNA was discovered in the 1950s?

[henry quirk]

Nope, not in context of the full prayer.

So in the context of the full prayer the first paragraph is not about change?

Thats some mental gymnastic there, Harry!

Enjoy your swamp. I gotta sleep.

Not about the change your talkin' about (unless you're includin' spirit in your calculations).

In other words: it ain't about gender mutability, or the mutability of Reality.

Of course, as you wanna interpret that's up to you. But you really can't use it as a bullet point in your anti-realist arguments.

[henry quirk]

I'd have to confirm that Steve had been reengineered from the interior of his cells on up.

As I say elsewhere, several times, the only way man turns into woman is through a complete reconstruction from the grnetic level on up.

Till that's possible: Steve is Steve, no matter how much he wishes otherwise.

Show me the nanobots.

Henry, I am calling bullshit.

If the "essence" (and criterion) by which you categorize somebody as a being a man or a woman is their DNA, when was the last time you took a DNA sample from anybody?

How did we classify men and women before DNA was discovered in the 1950s?

You need to reread what I wrote. I said a total reconstruction, not just rejigger DNA.

As for classification: we didn't need a cellular profile to recognize a man and observe how -- physically, psychologically -- he differed from a woman. And, of course, these physical and psych differences are rooted in the very things we couldn't even know to identify in 1950. What's interesting is when we did begin cellular analysis we found the coherent, consistent source of fixed gender/sex differences.

Funny how what we recognized and categorized through gross observation turned out to be real.

[Skepdick]

As for classification: we didn't need a cellular profile to recognize a man and observe how -- physically, psychologically -- he differed from a woman.

Henry,

For the purposes of classification I don't need a DNA profile to recognize that you are different from me.
And I don't need a DNA profile to determine that your psychological profile is different to mine.
Nor do I need need a physical profile to tell that your physiology is different to mine.

So given ALL of our differences, I want you to point out the EXACT thing the exact similarity between you and me that puts us both in the category that you call "men".

The thing, that if it were to be mutated, we would STOP being men (even if that doesn't mean we have become women).

I want you to point out the necessary epistemic criteria for "manhood".

Funny how what we recognized and categorized through gross observation turned out to be real.

I guess men and women weren't real before 1950....

[henry quirk]

"So given ALL of our differences, I want you to point out the EXACT thing the exact similarity between you and me that puts us both in the category that you call "men"."

There's not an exact thing, but a complex of things. As I say up-thread maleness is broad, encompassing a range of characteristics. And, no, I ain't gonna list 'em. I'm workin' about as hard as I want to in this discussion (which is to say not very) and your mind is as made up as mine, so my workin' hard in this thread nets me nuthin'.

But, if I were to start that list, the first item would be XY.

#

"I guess men and women weren't real before 1950...."

Of course we were, we just didn't know the root of sex differences.

Sayin' otherwise is like sayin' the sun wasn't real till we understood fusion.

All we had then, and before then, were our gross observations (which included the sciences of the time). What we discovered was our gross observations of maleness and femaleness matched up with our new subtle observations.

[Immanuel Can]

Things that do not change are not "mutable things," and things that do change are.

That's a great classification rule!

You said it could not be done. Now you say it's "great."

[surreptitious57]

Because surely one has as a matter principle the moral option to reject any definitions that they fundamentally disagree with

What is the moral principle based on which you reject definitions

The freedom to think independently of others and not be forced against ones will to think as they do
To have free will and to exercise it in thought and speech limited only by conscience and imagination

Now if a biological man wishes to call himself a woman he is perfectly entitled to do so
But if I disagree with this definition of woman then I should equally be entitled to do so

The simple expression of an alternative view - whatever the subject matter - should not be denied - regardless of whatever it is
No one has a monopoly on wisdom and no one has the moral right to deny the self expression of anyone - other than themselves