Re: Is transgender something to get upset about?
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:59 am
So would I.Immanuel Can wrote:I would describe my state as bemused...
Philosophy Now Forum
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Is transgender something to get upset about?
Page 25 of 34
the dreary truth
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:04 am
A proselytising christian like Mr Can, for example.henry quirk wrote:Liars who'll tell you you have a right to the other guy's time, to the fruits of the other guy's labors, to dictate the contents of the other guy's head, to dictate the other guy's actions.
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:35 pm
Mannie and me disagree on several critical points and not once has he made the attempt to lay claim to my time, to the fruits of my labors, to dictate the contents of my head, to dictate my actions, so: I gotta disagree with you, uwot.
Re: the dreary truth
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:32 pm
There is a difference between expounding what you believe, and trying to convince others that you are correct and they should believe as you do. So far it seems that IC is simply laying out his own beliefs without any expectation that others accept them, and clearing up misunderstandings is not the same as pressuring others to accept your views as correct.uwot wrote:A proselytising christian like Mr Can, for example.henry quirk wrote:Liars who'll tell you you have a right to the other guy's time, to the fruits of the other guy's labors, to dictate the contents of the other guy's head, to dictate the other guy's actions.
Re: the dreary truth
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:01 pm
I beg to differ. He is has certain demands to impose upon others, others about which he can have no experience of.thedoc wrote:There is a difference between expounding what you believe, and trying to convince others that you are correct and they should believe as you do. So far it seems that IC is simply laying out his own beliefs without any expectation that others accept them, and clearing up misunderstandings is not the same as pressuring others to accept your views as correct.uwot wrote:A proselytising christian like Mr Can, for example.henry quirk wrote:Liars who'll tell you you have a right to the other guy's time, to the fruits of the other guy's labors, to dictate the contents of the other guy's head, to dictate the other guy's actions.
It seem to me that others are challenging his preconceptions upon which those demands are made, but do not seem to be pushing a normative case.
For my money, as much as possible parents ought to be informed about the possible consequences. And for that they need information to take to their own specific cases to best judge what would be best for their child.
It's worth pointing out the legal necessity that a child cannot make an "informed choice", but there comes a time when they can. This clearly changes the parent/child relationship in a legal sense, but does not absolve them of a continued responsibility. Mr Can, cannot step into that role for them, which is what he seems to be doing.
Re: the dreary truth
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:51 pm
Thanks, thedoc. In point of fact, discussion has turned away from the OP, and I don't want to perpetuate distracting people from that. But the objection voiced by the objectors is certainly relevant to the "Richard Dawkins" strand; and I would frame it this way:thedoc wrote:There is a difference between expounding what you believe, and trying to convince others that you are correct and they should believe as you do. So far it seems that IC is simply laying out his own beliefs without any expectation that others accept them, and clearing up misunderstandings is not the same as pressuring others to accept your views as correct.
Why is it okay for Dawkins to evangelize aggressively for Atheism -- publicly defaming people's beliefs as "a delusion," for instance, (thus insulting the vast majority of the world's population and "forcing his views" on them) and why is it just fine for him to rail away against the whole nature and character of God Himself -- but somehow it suddenly becomes unbearably offensive if a Christian even speaks about an issue from his own worldview?
That's the real question that needs to be asked.
I'll be over on the Dawkins strand if anyone wants to pick it up. For there seems to be no further debate on transgenderism at the moment.
Re: the dreary truth
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:04 pm
This is a hideous travesty of misdirection.Immanuel Can wrote:
Why is it okay for Dawkins to evangelize aggressively for Atheism -- publicly defaming people's beliefs as "a delusion," for instance, (thus insulting the vast majority of the world's population and "forcing his views" on them) and why is it just fine for him to rail away against the whole nature and character of God Himself -- but somehow it suddenly becomes unbearably offensive if a Christian even speaks about an issue from his own worldview?
.
Why is is THE LAW that every school assembly must have an act of worship?
Why is it that the Church is paid for by taxation?
Why is it that the Church can promote its delusional ideology TAX FREE?
Why is it that bishops get automatic seats in the House of Lords?
Why is it the the head of state derives her position because of 'divine right'.
Why Dawkins "evangelizes"m he has to pay taxes, pay for venues.
If you think it is unbearably offensive when a Christian speaks, its probably because deep down you know damn well that it is a delusion.
Re: the dreary truth
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:21 pm
As far as I know, nobody here is responsible for what Dawkins does so if you must ask your silly little question you'd better as Dawkins.Immanuel Can wrote:
Why is it okay for Dawkins to evangelize aggressively for Atheism -- publicly defaming people's beliefs as "a delusion," for instance, (thus insulting the vast majority of the world's population and "forcing his views" on them) and why is it just fine for him to rail away against the whole nature and character of God Himself -- but somehow it suddenly becomes unbearably offensive if a Christian even speaks about an issue from his own worldview?
That's the real question that needs to be asked.
Re: the dreary truth
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:59 pm
Ah, I see...it's "misdirection" to move a topic to a strand that's ABOUT it, but "right direction" to ignore the header of the strand that IS NOT ABOUT IT?Hobbes' Choice wrote:This is a hideous travesty of misdirection.
(That's irony, by the way.)
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:08 pm
"When Dawkins "evangelizes" he has to pay taxes, pay for venues."
If Dawkins came here, to this forum, and 'preached', he'd pay exactly what Mannie does when he comes here, to this forum, and 'preaches': zilch.
If Dawkins came here, to this forum, and 'preached', he'd pay exactly what Mannie does when he comes here, to this forum, and 'preaches': zilch.
Re: the dreary truth
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:48 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:Ah, I see...it's "misdirection" to move a topic to a strand that's ABOUT it, but "right direction" to ignore the header of the strand that IS NOT ABOUT IT?Hobbes' Choice wrote:This is a hideous travesty of misdirection.
(That's irony, by the way.)
You would not know irony is someone hit you with it in the face.
When you talk BULLSHIT, I call you on it. Now run along!
Re: the dreary truth
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:05 pm
Looks like henry's taken you from behind, unexpectedly. Just close your eyes and enjoy it.Immanuel Can wrote:
Re: Immanuel's smokescreen because his one reference was shown to be biased and unrepresentative
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:35 pm
When Richard Dawkins started out, he was quite mellow. His tone changed over time thanks to the relentless Christian abuse of him for daring to question their authority. Christian stupidity, boorishness, aggressiveness, violence and even death threats created this new aggressive, snarky Dawkins. It's a shame. He has a fine wit when he's relaxed.Immanuel Can wrote:Why is it okay for Dawkins to evangelize aggressively for Atheism
One wish I share with Christians is that RD would return to evolutionary biology (although he'd have work to do re: group selection and epigenetics). Since I don't need convincing that the religions he criticises are self-serving at best and corrupt at worst, his "political" work is of little interest to me.
Re: Immanuel's smokescreen because his one reference was shown to be biased and unrepresentative
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:47 pm
You've got that mixed up with Islam, I'm afraid. Christians don't do "death threats." Mohammed said it was okay to kill people, but Christ mandated, "Love your enemies, and do good to those who treat you spitefully."Greta wrote:Christian...death threats
I doubt the existence of any such at all. But if you have them in hand, could we have the references from which you've derived your information, please? I'd be interested in seeing what sort of misguided person you're talking about.
Re: Immanuel's smokescreen because his one reference was shown to be biased and unrepresentative
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:06 pm
Not only do they do the threats, they carry them out.Immanuel Can wrote:You've got that mixed up with Islam, I'm afraid. Christians don't do "death threats."Greta wrote:Christian...death threats
http://awkwardmomentsbible.com/death-th ... hristians/
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/03/the_10_ ... m_partner/
10 worst examples of Christian or far-right terrorism
1. Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012.
2. The murder of Dr. George Tiller, May 31, 2009.
3. Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, July 27, 2008.
4. The murder of Dr. John Britton, July 29, 1994.
5. The Centennial Olympic Park bombing, July 27, 1996.
6. The murder of Barnett Slepian byJames Charles Kopp, Oct. 23, 1998.
7. Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1994.
8. Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010.
9. The murder of Alan Berg, June 18, 1984.
10. Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995.
To hear the Christian Right tell it, there is no such thing as Christian terrorism. Tell that to the victims of the Army of God, a loose network of radical Christianists with a long history of terrorist attacks on abortion providers. One Christian Right terrorist with ties to the Army of God was Paul Jennings Hill, who was executed by lethal injection on Sept. 3, 2003 for the murders of abortion doctor John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett. Hill shot both of them in cold blood and expressed no remorse whatsoever; he insisted he was doing’s God’s work and has been exalted as a martyr by the Army of God.
I doubt the existence of any such at all. But if you have them in hand, could we have the references from which you've derived your information, please? I'd be interested in seeing what sort of misguided person you're talking about.[/quote]
I found some interesting information about your one reference, John Hopkins:
http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2015 ... university
I do not study this field but to base one's views on one hospital with atypical views is clearly naive.Dr. McHugh has a lot in common with these right-wing, religiously-motivated hate groups. He is a self-described orthodox Catholic whose radical views are well documented. In his role as part of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' review board, he pushed the idea that the Catholic sex-abuse scandal was not about pedophilia but about "homosexual predation on American Catholic youth." He filed an amicus brief arguing in favor of Proposition 8 on the basis that homosexuality is a "choice." Additionally, McHugh was in favor of forcing a pregnant 10-year-old girl to carry to term even though she had been raped by an adult relative.
His words and actions toward the transgender community are the most radical and egregious, however. He has compared medical care for transgender people to “the practice of frontal lobotomy.” McHugh’s disdain for his own patients is evident, calling them “caricatures of women” and pushing the demeaning narrative that all transgender women are either self-hating gay men or perverted heterosexuals. Worse, the damage McHugh has done to transgender health care is incalculable. McHugh shut down one of the few gender clinics in the U.S. in 1979, and his lobbying in 1981 was instrumental in getting a national coverage decision forbidding the government from covering gender-affirming care. It wasn’t reversed until 2014. As a result of his outspoken desire to see transgender people shoved back into the closet, Dr. McHugh has become the go-to “expert” for right-wing organizations.
While Johns Hopkins claims “respect for patients’ backgrounds and beliefs” is vital in its Diversity and Inclusion Mission Statement, the actions of staff members and administration should make it clear that these are just words where transgender patients are concerned. When other JHU staff members have made controversial and public anti-LGB statements, the organization has been quick to put space between themselves and the positions of their staff. Dr. Ben Carson (also of JHU, also of bizarre and offensive beliefs about lesbians and gays) went a step too far by comparing same-sex marriage to bestiality and the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Johns Hopkins University publicly distanced itself from him as a result.