a defense of drag show/drag queens..

[henry quirk]

Anyone who gets arrested, for anything, gets arrested for Inappropriateness.

Why is inappropriateness a crime?

[iambiguous]

Right, like this changes anything.

It does.

Basically you're saying that in regard to drag queens, you have eliminated the impossible "in your head". Then what you believe remains is the truth.

Nope.

you believe God, in creating the matter in John's brain, provided him with the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature

Nope.

Why go through all of this?

To reinforce my point.

haven't we already established that this makes it true?

Nope.

You tell me what on earth this has to do with me pointing out that henry's God created human brains and installed in them the capacity to follow the dictates of whatever henry happens to believe "here and now" is true about abortion and guns and drag queens.

As refutation: everything.

she saw the vehicle

While standing in the road.

it's all now up to us to figure out where to live on Earth...a place where there's the least likelihood of being wiped out by nature?

If that's someone's criteria, yes. It's not mine (if it were I wouldn't live in South Louisiana).

How do you make sense of it given your own belief in God?

I explained that in a previous conversation.

What(,) actual evidence that God exists?

Yep.

Actual empirical evidence

Yep.

deducing

Ain't nuthin' wrong with deduction.

And your evidence for free will is basically that God installed it in our brain matter.

Nope.

They don't call them sociopaths for nothing.

It applies to sociopaths, sure, but it describes atheism taken to its concluision.

what's the incentive if there is no Judgment Day?

Self-respect.

But for many of them they know that in fact they are not becoming women. But while in drag it allows them to feel more comfortable, more fulfilled with how they feel about themselves "in their head".

It's a fetish.

But where is your substantiated evidence that merely being in drag makes him mentally ill?

Google fetish.

conflicts are everywhere

Of course. There's always gonna be folks who willfully violate the lives, liberties, and properties of other folks.

In regard to human biology and to human social, political and economic interactions where does God end and mere mortals begin?

We're free wills, not parasites.

If God created human brains equipped to follow the dictates of Reason and Nature, is there or is there not a One True Path here or are mere mortals allowed to come up with their own ofttimes conflicting understanding of "life, liberty and the pursuit of property?"

There is no One True Path.

Please note all of the instances from your past in which this unfolded

I have, in a previous conversation, noted one: like a lead balloon, it was.

Me?

I know and I don't care.

they might not actually call it that

They don't talk about natural rights at all. Not directly, not indirectly, not thru allusion.

There are countless such conversations regarding countless conflicts in countless communities around the globe.

Yep. And -- again -- in all those conversations the individual's right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property are not included in any way, in any form, on any level. What is talked about: rationalizations for infringing on and further normalizing the infringement on an individual's life, liberty, and property.

you can go to any number of discussion forums that revolve around social, political and economic issues and find plenty of people who will insist that they are directly addressing such things as life, liberty and property.

Citation, please.

We walk around a corner and encounter a situation that we have never experienced before. It changes us dramatically.

In my 60 years I've had plenty of those: the car accident that stole my legs for a year; the year I lived alone in the desert; life with my wife; her death; my kid throughout his 16 years; the first time I was published; the deaths of close friends; finding three robbers in the house in the middle of the night; realizing my Ma has far more years behind her than in front of her; and on and on. I wasn't changed: I grew, became more complex. The mistake some frail folks make is thinkin' becuz their roots aren't deep, no one else's can be.

To paraphrase: the fault, dear Brutus, is not in us, But in you.

Thanks, but no thanks, henry. It's one thing to be entertained, but this is the philosophical equivalent of, what, the theater of the absurd?

Pick one:

1] yep
2] nope

[iambiguous]

I wanna take a small break from the back & forth and focus on this...

Yeah, I suppose if a man in drag claimed that being in drag makes him a woman, he would be off his rocker. And if in drag he walks into the ladies locker room and there are a bunch of naked women around, they'd be justified in having him arrested.

Why should he be arrested?

I'm not saying that he should be arrested in an ontological/deontological sense. As though it actually could be established philosophically that such behavior is inherently, essentially, objectively immoral. And, as well, that all immoral behavior ought to be illegal.

I'm saying that if there is in fact a law against such behavior in the jurisdiction where the ladies' locker room exists, my own personal opinion, rooted existentially in dasein "here and now", is that I believe the women would be justified in having him arrested.

Whether he was in drag or not.

On the other hand, had my life been different for any number of reasons, I might have become that man myself.

Now, given human autonomy and going back to your God, let's get back to how you actually demonstrate beyond merely believing it "in your head" that drag queens are mentally ill.

[henry quirk]

Thanks, but no thanks

As you like.

[henry quirk]

I'm saying that if there is in fact a law against such behavior in the jurisdiction where the ladies' locker room exists...I believe the women would be justified in having him arrested.

What could undergird such a law? What justifies such a law? What good is such a law meant to preserve?

[iambiguous]

ME:

I wanna take a small break from the back & forth and focus on this...

Yeah, I suppose if a man in drag claimed that being in drag makes him a woman, he would be off his rocker. And if in drag he walks into the ladies locker room and there are a bunch of naked women around, they'd be justified in having him arrested.

Why should he be arrested?

I'm not saying that he should be arrested in an ontological/deontological sense. As though it actually could be established philosophically that such behavior is inherently, essentially, objectively immoral. And, as well, that all immoral behavior ought to be illegal.

I'm saying that if there is in fact a law against such behavior in the jurisdiction where the ladies' locker room exists, my own personal opinion, rooted existentially in dasein "here and now", is that I believe the women would be justified in having him arrested.

Whether he was in drag or not.

On the other hand, had my life been different for any number of reasons, I might have become that man myself.

Now, given human autonomy and going back to your God, let's get back to how you actually demonstrate beyond merely believing it "in your head" that drag queens are mentally ill.

AND ALL THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO MUSTER:

I'm saying that if there is in fact a law against such behavior in the jurisdiction where the ladies' locker room exists...I believe the women would be justified in having him arrested.

What could undergird such a law? What justifies such a law? What good is such a law meant to preserve?

How about this...

You actually respond substantively to the points I raised above and I'll do the same with your points.

Nope? Well, in that case, "thanks, but no thanks."





Note to Pedro:

You're behind this, right? You are hell bent on turning the Philosophy Now forum into yet another rendition of The Corner.

Just out of curiosity, who are you here?

[henry quirk]

déjà vu

"thanks, but no thanks."

As you like.

[henry quirk]

The conversation (this particular leg of it) so far...

Yeah, I suppose if a man in drag claimed that being in drag makes him a woman, he would be off his rocker. And if in drag he walks into the ladies locker room and there are a bunch of naked women around, they'd be justified in having him arrested.

Why should he be arrested?

Anyone who gets arrested, for anything, gets arrested for Inappropriateness.

Why is inappropriateness a crime?

I'm saying that if there is in fact a law against such behavior in the jurisdiction where the ladies' locker room exists...I believe the women would be justified in having him arrested.

What could undergird such a law? What justifies such a law? What good is such a law meant to preserve?

Who'll further the conversation? You? It (the conversation) is young and ripe: who'll step up and have his way with it? All are welcome.

[iambiguous]

The conversation (this particular leg of it) so far...

Yeah, I suppose if a man in drag claimed that being in drag makes him a woman, he would be off his rocker. And if in drag he walks into the ladies locker room and there are a bunch of naked women around, they'd be justified in having him arrested.

Why should he be arrested?

Anyone who gets arrested, for anything, gets arrested for Inappropriateness.

Why is inappropriateness a crime?

I'm saying that if there is in fact a law against such behavior in the jurisdiction where the ladies' locker room exists...I believe the women would be justified in having him arrested.

What could undergird such a law? What justifies such a law? What good is such a law meant to preserve?

Who'll further the conversation? You? It (the conversation) is young and ripe: who'll step up and have his way with it? All are welcome.

I'm trying to henry...

I'm not saying that he should be arrested in an ontological/deontological sense. As though it actually could be established philosophically that such behavior is inherently, essentially, objectively immoral. And, as well, that all immoral behavior ought to be illegal.

I'm saying that if there is in fact a law against such behavior in the jurisdiction where the ladies' locker room exists, my own personal opinion, rooted existentially in dasein "here and now", is that I believe the women would be justified in having him arrested.

Whether he was in drag or not.

On the other hand, had my life been different for any number of reasons, I might have become that man myself.

Now, given human autonomy and going back to your God, let's get back to how you actually demonstrate beyond merely believing it "in your head" that drag queens are mentally ill.

From my frame of mind, it's not so much what undergirds, justifies or commends such laws but how, existentially, given the very different lives we lived, we came to think what we do about them. The part I root in dasein. And, given that, is there then a way for philosophers using the technical tools at their disposal, to assess, evaluate and judge such laws so as to apprise us of the most virtuous manner in which all reasonable men and women would be obligated to think about them?

Either from a God or a No God perspective.

[henry quirk]

Who'll further the conversation?

Apparently: no one.

c'est la vie

[Walker]

Who'll further the conversation?

Apparently: no one.

c'est la vie

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

“As a 3rd grade teacher, I often talk about Jesus with my students, they are so excited to hear about my faith. They point to the cross on [the] wall and ask me about the resurrection. Some have gotten baptized in the sink, as long as they don’t tell their parents. It’s our secret.” - Carpe Donktum
https://pjmedia.com/culture/robert-spen ... s-n1687817

[Walker]

Why is inappropriateness a crime?”

Inappropriate actions can be crimes and all crimes are inappropriate actions, however not all inappropropriate actions are crimes.

For example, sex in public can be a crime, because public sex is inappropriate. However, under the right conditions sex is not inappropriate.

[mickthinks]

However, under the right conditions sex is not inappropriate.

Do you think Walker knows he's lost the plot?

[Walker]

For example, mackthinks makes inappropropriate postings, however this doesn't make him a criminal. It does make him about as annoying as a gnat.

[Walker]

(continued from the last illustrated link)

“I hope this doesn’t get me fired, please don’t share this to [sic] libs,” he added, and then: “want you guys to understand something, I am NOT grooming these young apostles, THEY COME TO ME and I follow their questions back to it’s [sic] source These kids feel something is not right inside them and I help them to understand that Jesus is what they are missing in their life.”

Warming to his topic, Carpe kept going: “These kids are so excited about their new spiritual identity that they devote every moment to studying the Bible. But sometimes, they lack the focus, in those cases the school nurse prescribes distraction blockers to help complete the transformation. Don’t tell mom and dad tho.” He took the opportunity to push other Leftist buttons as well: “One of my fondest memories from last year was when Taleb made his transformation from Islam to Christ. To celebrate his new identity we had a pizza party with his new favorite topping, Canadian bacon. Sometimes, I buy him a hotdog at lunch, since he can’t have them at home.”

For those a little slow on the take, like mackthinks, this quote is sarcastic.