trans people [Archive] - Virtual Teen Forums

Judean Zealot

July 28th, 2015, 06:35 AM

Also, why exactly do you find trans people immoral? Because public indulgence of fetishes and sexual license, both of which are at the heart of the LGBT movement, are destructive both to the individual and to the society that condones it. I don't want to live in a hedonistic society, nor do I wish for my children to.

Is it any of your business? Are they personally hurting you? Well, yes, by feeding into a licentious society they are in fact hurting me and those dear to me.

But let's say that they weren't hurting me. What then? Did Bernie Madoff personally hurt you? Does that prevent you from forming a moral judgement of him?

Or did you know that you could get on with your entire life without ever having to have a second thought about them because it is none of your damn business what they think or feel, they are not doing anything illegal, they are not hurting anyone, they're just trying to live their lives as happy individuals who can be finally comfortable with a label that fits them.

Nope. Living in a human society comes with it's responsibilities, among which lies the obligation to try and improve society, and at the very least to try and prevent it's degeneration. I would say that the duties motivating me are akin to those of a normal person lobbying for trans-rights.

Abhorrence

July 28th, 2015, 06:36 AM

Judean Zealot

July 28th, 2015, 06:46 AM

Then don't live in this society, problem solved. Go live in Russia. And get off the Internet, because you know the open mindedness may kill you.

I don't. I live in Israel. But running away from a responsibility in any event only makes you a coward.

Open-minded doesn't have to mean 'accepting whatever deviant behavior is currently trending on twitter'. That's just brainless. Open minded means considering other viewpoints on their merits and flaws, and then accepting or rejecting them accordingly. I fail to see which part of my post indicates that I failed to do so.

Abhorrence

July 28th, 2015, 06:51 AM

I don't. I live in Israel. But running away from a responsibility in any event only makes you a coward.

Open-minded doesn't have to mean 'accepting whatever deviant behavior is currently trending on twitter'. That's just brainless. Open minded means considering other viewpoints on their merits and flaws, and then accepting or rejecting them accordingly. I fail to see which part of my post indicates that I failed to do so.
I'd say it's just general human kindness to accept people for being who they are. If they believe that they are a different gender to their biological sex then let them, it honestly does not affect you in anyway and if it does then aw poor you. Must be really difficult to live in a world where there are people who are different than yourself. :(

Judean Zealot

July 28th, 2015, 06:56 AM

I'd say it's just general human kindness to accept people for being who they are. How they choose to act is not 'who they are'.

If they believe that they are a different gender to their biological sex then let them, No. Go see a doctor. If someone hallucinates, you give him medical treatment. Same here.

it honestly does not affect you in anyway and if it does then aw poor you. Must be really difficult to live in a world where there are people who are different than yourself. :(

Nothing wrong with differences. Your sex or color makes no difference to me. Your morals do.

Abhorrence

July 28th, 2015, 07:02 AM

How they choose to act is not 'who they are'.

No. Go see a doctor. If someone hallucinates, you give him medical treatment. Same here.

Nothing wrong with differences. Your sex or color makes no difference to me. Your morals do.
Pretty sure your acts do kind of define who you are though. Also, people often do go to doctors for their gender identity feelings because it can be confusing as hell but it doesn't make them feel any different. I'd understand the whole morals thing, if it wasn't so pointless.

Judean Zealot

July 28th, 2015, 07:20 AM

Pretty sure your acts do kind of define who you are though.
But not in such an intrinsic manner as to deserve "acceptance" regardless of what that behavior actually is.
For example, we don't say of a thief that he deserves to be accepted as such because "that's who he is".
Also, people often do go to doctors for their gender identity feelings because it can be confusing as hell but it doesn't make them feel any different.
I'm sorry, I didn't make my point clear. Regardless of whether there is or isn't a cure for any particular delusion, that doesn't mean that everybody has to accept the delusion as truth. If I wake up tomorrow and decide I'm the queen of England, regardless of how personally liberating it might feel to my mind I cannot rightfully insist that from here on in everyone start calling me 'her majesty'.
I'd understand the whole morals thing, if it wasn't so pointless.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I'll give you my most charitable reading.

The actual matter of a person thinking that they are a gender that they aren't is a rather trivial concern, and doesn't bother me nearly as much as the fact that everybody is supposed to applaud this unfortunate delusion as "courage", and be supportive of self emasculation done by a delusional person, and from then on play along with this madness with the equivalent of addressing me as 'your highness'.

Abhorrence

July 28th, 2015, 07:30 AM

But not in such an intrinsic manner as to deserve "acceptance" regardless of what that behavior actually is.
For example, we don't say of a thief that he deserves to be accepted as such because "that's who he is".

I'm sorry, I didn't make my point clear. Regardless of whether there is or isn't a cure for any particular delusion, that doesn't mean that everybody has to accept the delusion as truth. If I wake up tomorrow and decide I'm the queen of England, regardless of how personally liberating it might feel to my mind I cannot rightfully insist that from here on in everyone start calling me 'her majesty'.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I'll give you my most charitable reading.

The actual matter of a person thinking that they are a gender that they aren't is a rather trivial concern, and doesn't bother me nearly as much as the fact that everybody is supposed to applaud this unfortunate delusion as "courage", and be supportive of self emasculation done by a delusional person, and from then on play along with this madness with the equivalent of addressing me as 'your highness'.

Okay you're starting to make more sense now, if you don't see someone as courageous then don't. You don't have to view them in that way. That is a personal opinion and I respect that. Deeming them delusional is whatever, you obviously wouldn't understand their feelings. But I'm pretty sure it does not take away too much of your lifespan by addressing someone as a fucking different pronoun. Like your argument is that they're thinking they're monarchs?? Pretty sure they don't hahahaha

Judean Zealot

July 28th, 2015, 07:36 AM

Okay you're starting to make more sense now, if you don't see someone as courageous then don't. You don't have to view them in that way. That is a personal opinion and I respect that. Deeming them delusional is whatever, you obviously wouldn't understand their feelings. But I'm pretty sure it does not take away too much of your lifespan by addressing someone as a fucking different pronoun. Like your argument is that they're thinking they're monarchs?? Pretty sure they don't hahahaha

If the issue wasn't so intimately tied to the other 'LGB' then I wouldn't care as much about their delusions. Hell, what do I care, so long as the government takes steps to ensure that they don't emasculate themselves.

But the whole issue is tied too deeply into the larger homosexual sex issue, which I vehemently oppose on the grounds of, as I said earlier, a sexual licentiousness that has been snowballing for the past fifty years, which I consider eminently dangerous to any society.

Abhorrence

July 28th, 2015, 07:37 AM

If the issue wasn't so intimately tied to the other 'LGB' then I wouldn't care as much about their delusions. Hell, what do I care, so long as the government takes steps to ensure that they don't emasculate themselves.

But the whole issue is tied too deeply into the larger homosexual sex issue, which I vehemently oppose on the grounds of, as I said earlier, a sexual licentiousness that has been snowballing for the past fifty years, which I consider eminently dangerous to any society.
Why's it dangerous? :lol3:

Judean Zealot

July 28th, 2015, 07:43 AM

Why's it dangerous? :lol3:

*Dangerous to the moral character.

But we also find that the fall of every great empire of history begins with the population sinking into sloth and hedonism.

Abhorrence

July 28th, 2015, 07:44 AM

*Dangerous to the moral character.

But we also find that the fall of every great empire of history begins with the population sinking into sloth and hedonism.
Well damn, good thing you're not part of the fall of an empire, ay? :)

phuckphace

July 28th, 2015, 07:45 AM

I'd say it's just general human kindness to accept people for being who they are.

the point you seem to be missing is that transsexualism is a mental disorder that ideologues are attempting to redefine into an "identity" or "lifestyle" when it clearly is not. we don't think of schizophrenia or Down syndrome as "identities" for a good reason - your average normal, healthy, well-adjusted person simply doesn't hear auditory hallucinations anymore than they ever feel the desire to cut off their genitalia and wear drag (i.e. never).

If they believe that they are a different gender to their biological sex then let them, it honestly does not affect you in anyway and if it does then aw poor you.

http://i.imgur.com/Ci6vdDb.png

this is probably the worst effect of living in Calhoun's rat pen - we're now so atomized and alienated from one another that we can no longer care or question what anyone does, no matter how obviously destructive and fucked up it may be. IF IT FEELS GOOD WHAT'S THE PROBLEM, BIGOT?!

Must be really difficult to live in a world where there are people who are different than yourself. :(

http://i.imgur.com/Ci6vdDb.png

mutilating yourself because you believe you're a woman in a man's body is good, but incest is bad (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3177404&postcount=61). alrighty then

Abhorrence

July 28th, 2015, 07:47 AM

the point you seem to be missing is that transsexualism is a mental disorder that ideologues are attempting to redefine into an "identity" or "lifestyle" when it clearly is not. we don't think of schizophrenia or Down syndrome as "identities" for a good reason - your average normal, healthy, well-adjusted person simply doesn't hear auditory hallucinations anymore than they ever feel the desire to cut off their genitalia and wear drag (i.e. never).

image (http://i.imgur.com/Ci6vdDb.png)

this is probably the worst effect of living in Calhoun's rat pen - we're now so atomized and alienated from one another that we can no longer care or question what anyone does. IF IT FEELS GOOD WHAT'S THE PROBLEM, BIGOT?!

image (http://i.imgur.com/Ci6vdDb.png)

mutilating yourself because you believe you're a woman in a man's body is good, but incest is bad (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3177404&postcount=61). gotcha
"mutilating" yourself, yes sure. It's yourself. Is that involving anybody else? I don't think it is. :)

Judean Zealot

July 28th, 2015, 07:49 AM

Well damn, good thing you're not part of the fall of an empire, ay? :)

Well the west (America and Europe) is undoubtedly declining. Which, trust me, I'm perfectly fine with. It brings us here in Israel closer to a proper theocracy. The main issue that bothers me is the moral.

phuckphace

July 28th, 2015, 07:58 AM

"mutilating" yourself, yes sure. It's yourself. Is that involving anybody else? I don't think it is. :)

this is how millennials think about everything :lol3: muh individualism

Abhorrence

July 28th, 2015, 07:59 AM

this is how millennials think about everything [emoji38]3: muh individualism
That's cool lol

ndrwmxwll

July 28th, 2015, 08:34 AM

i believe homosexuality, asexuality, bisexuality, etc. are all natural but i dont think anyone is a different gender than that of which they r born... i dont have anything against trans people but i just... idk

yaaa its actually not all that uncommon for Liberals~/"progressives" and so on to leave the T out of "lgbt" so be rest assured if you hold such ideology you are in good company :rolleyes: (...or are at least not alone)

DriveAlive

July 28th, 2015, 09:27 AM

my problem with the trans movement is that it insists on bringing back all of the gender stereotypes and restrictions about women and men that people have worked to tear down. I think we are finally getting to a point as a society where women are starting to be seen as equals. Instead of seeing gender, people are starting to just see people. This is the way it should be. But the trans community wants everyone to stop this and start treating them differently than everyone else because they are now a 'woman'. Why can't people just beb treated as people? Why do I now have to once again start treating the genders differently?

phuckphace

July 28th, 2015, 09:51 AM

I think it's funny that SJWs used to freak out whenever somebody said the brains of men and women are fundamentally different, and doing so made you a sexist patriarchal male pig. But then last Thursday Brucey went under the knife while mansplaining to us that although he possessed what society considers a male body, his brain is actually female. what a bigot

Vlerchan

July 28th, 2015, 11:42 AM

Lol. This thread.

Microcosm

July 28th, 2015, 01:21 PM

Judean Zealot,

I think it would be better, theoretically, for society to be more... Modest, like you said.

But... Society is changing so much. Things you speak of such as a religious theocracy seem like they wouldn't be as inviting anymore because people don't always agree with it(and the point of having a unified society would seem to be to make the most people happy or at least give them the tools and protection they need to have a chance at being happy).

Perhaps it's time to embrace these societal changes and leave the old world behind?

Note: Modesty should totally be promoted, though don't get me wrong. I just think the problem you appear to be suggesting doesn't associate with all trans people, but rather it only associates with the immodest trans people.

Sir Suomi

July 28th, 2015, 02:02 PM

This has always been a tough issue for me to decide on.

On one hand, while by no means do I hate those who classify themselves as trans, I think the whole ideology that you can simply change your gender based on "how you feel" is absolutely absurd. It's alright to act feminine as a man and it's alright to act masculine as a woman. However this does not mean you can claim that you are another gender, or even "agender" as I think the term goes. I think for the most part the mainstream LGBT movement is corrupting our morality as a whole in our Western world and it's something I'd rather go away.

However on another hand I support the right for those who wish to identify themselves as whatever in the hell they want as long as they keep it to themselves and not cause issues with others.

But hey, who ever listens to my opinion?

Judean Zealot

July 28th, 2015, 02:03 PM

Society is changing so much. Things you speak of such as a religious theocracy seem like they wouldn't be as inviting anymore because people don't always agree with it(and the point of having a unified society would seem to be to make the most people happy or at least give them the tools and protection they need to have a chance at being happy).
The mere fact that people don't agree or like something doesn't really mean that it isn't better for them. Take Plato, for example. In his Apology he has Socrates tell the elders of Athens that it is only natural that they should prefer more permissive ideologies and suppress his own, just as the child prefers the candy-maker who plies him with sweets over the physician who gives him bitter medicine. Yet surely it is the parents duty to ensure that the child drinks the medicine, no?

Perhaps it's time to embrace these societal changes and leave the old world behind?

I don't believe we have the moral authority to change that which is moral based on popular sentiment. The American constitution is a brilliant document, yet I consider it a major flaw that the people can literally vote God in and out of existence.

Note: Modesty should totally be promoted, though don't get me wrong. I just think the problem you appear to be suggesting doesn't associate with all trans people, but rather it only associates with the immodest trans people.

Modesty (or to be more precise, chastity) is less of an issue in regards to transsexuality than the rest of the LGB spectrum. I pity those suffering from this delusion more than condemn them. I think they need some sort of help, not public encouragement of their delusions.

In general, though, the "LGBT rights" movement is a continuation of the sexual revolution of the sixties, and contributes even further to the societal degeneration the west is undergoing.

Karkat

July 28th, 2015, 03:03 PM

Because public indulgence of fetishes and sexual license, both of which are at the heart of the LGBT movement, are destructive both to the individual and to the society that condones it. I don't want to live in a hedonistic society, nor do I wish for my children to.

Well, yes, by feeding into a licentious society they are in fact hurting me and those dear to me.

But let's say that they weren't hurting me. What then? Did Bernie Madoff personally hurt you? Does that prevent you from forming a moral judgement of him?

Nope. Living in a human society comes with it's responsibilities, among which lies the obligation to try and improve society, and at the very least to try and prevent it's degeneration. I would say that the duties motivating me are akin to those of a normal person lobbying for trans-rights.

I consider most religious, left-wing, right-wing, communist, anarchist, and pseudo-activist groups to be degenerate to society, but you don't see me going around trying to end them because it's not my business. You can have an opinion all you want, but it's dust in the wind- you as an individual are not powerful, significant, or meaningful enough in the scheme of things for it to matter.

Trans people do not kill anyone. EVERY group mentioned above has a significant number who have hateful or murderous intentions, or wish to limit the lives of others due to their own selfish agenda- who's the real degenerate here? A Jew, a Catholic, a rioter, an anarchist, a sjw, or an innocent person who feels as they are meant to be the opposite (or any other) gender will never affect the mortality of anyone but themselves.

Judean Zealot

July 28th, 2015, 03:08 PM

I consider most religious, left-wing, right-wing, communist, anarchist, and pseudo-activist groups to be degenerate to society, but you don't see me going around trying to end them because it's not my business. You can have an opinion all you want, but it's dust in the wind- you as an individual are not powerful, significant, or meaningful enough in the scheme of things for it to matter.

Trans people do not kill anyone. EVERY group mentioned above has a significant number who have hateful or murderous intentions, or wish to limit the lives of others due to their own selfish agenda- who's the real degenerate here? A Jew, a Catholic, a rioter, an anarchist, a sjw, or an innocent person who feels as they are meant to be the opposite (or any other) gender will never affect the mortality of anyone but themselves.

Hmm. So you don't believe in societal responsibilities?

Karkat

July 28th, 2015, 03:14 PM

Hmm. So you don't believe in societal responsibilities?

I believe that threat of death is an unnecessary measure to reinforce societal responsibilities. I do not follow the law because I'm afraid of getting caught, burning in hell, or being subjected to torture, I follow it because it's a fucking good idea. Anyone who needs threat of hellfire to keep them in line clearly does not have the critical thinking power to live a productive life, nor do they have the creativity to live a satisfactory one.

Shorthand: if you need a gun in your face to motivate you to not be an asshole you are the problem, not the guy next door who doesn't have a gun in his face.

Judean Zealot

July 28th, 2015, 03:17 PM

I believe that threat of death is an unnecessary measure to reinforce societal responsibilities. I do not follow the law because I'm afraid of getting caught, burning in hell, or being subjected to torture, I follow it because it's a fucking good idea. Anyone who needs threat of hellfire to keep them in line clearly does not have the critical thinking power to live a productive life, nor do they have the creativity to live a satisfactory one.

Shorthand: if you need a gun in your face to motivate you to not be an asshole you are the problem, not the guy next door who doesn't have a gun in his face.

Now enlighten me. What is your point vis a vis this discussion? Should we abolish laws? That's the only point that coherently emerges from this post.

Karkat

July 28th, 2015, 03:24 PM

Now enlighten me. What is your point vis a vis this discussion? Should we abolish laws? That's the only point that coherently emerges from this post.

No, people don't come out of the womb automatically knowing that certain things are a dumb fucking idea.

But some people just get raised right, and don't become problematic to society. How about enforcing violence, division, and resentment, we enforce... I don't know, logic?

Teach the people, don't beat the people. Laws are there as guidelines and boundaries, not snipers in towers waiting for you to cross the line so they can add to their body count.

People just love they violence and aggression too much, and basically we'll never become a truly evolved, enlightened society without getting rid of that inane bullshit.

Judean Zealot

July 28th, 2015, 03:29 PM

No, people don't come out of the womb automatically knowing that certain things are a dumb fucking idea.

But some people just get raised right, and don't become problematic to society. How about enforcing violence, division, and resentment, we enforce... I don't know, logic?

Teach the people, don't beat the people. Laws are there as guidelines and boundaries, not snipers in towers waiting for you to cross the line so they can add to their body count.

People just love they violence and aggression too much, and basically we'll never become a truly evolved, enlightened society without getting rid of that inane bullshit.

But wtf does this have anything to do with the topic here?

Karkat

July 28th, 2015, 03:48 PM

But wtf does this have anything to do with the topic here?

It's simple.

Laws are not the problem. Stupid people are. Stupid people are the reason for 'societal decline' or whatever, not people who are different from you.

Do I need to spell it out more? If you need threat of violence or death to keep you in line, YOU ARE A DUMBFUCK.

And I do not mean people who are not book smart.
I do not mean mentally handicapped people.
They are not 'stupid'.

I mean idiots. Assholes. Capiche? You're bringing the roof down on yourself if you are 'degenerate'.

This isn't a matter of some people's lifestyles affecting society's integrity, it's a matter of people's malicious choices to harm others affecting society's integrity. If they were taught to be smart instead of hit with the butt of a gun and whacked over their bare ass with the American flag, maybe they wouldn't be so STUPID.

And before you get offended, no, this was not aimed towards you, merely answering your question- but if the shoe fits, by all means.

Your gender doesn't define how you follow the law, your intelligence does. Intelligence defined here by common sense and ability to think critically and know what would actually benefit yourself and others.

Arguably, by your definition, Americans, men, people with dark skin, and people with blue eyes could all be degenerate and should be stopped. Or anyone who likes rock music, who enjoys hot weather, who likes sweets better than savory foods, or who is taller than 5'7 could be degenerate and need to be stopped.

What do these have in common? What do they have in common with being transgender or LGBT?

They're all arbitrary reasons you can fallaciously attach to the erosion of societal integrity.

The actual reason? People who erode it. Simple.

I don't see why someone who says all religion should be abolished is any different from you.

Judean Zealot

July 28th, 2015, 03:57 PM

It's simple.

Laws are not the problem. Stupid people are. Stupid people are the reason for 'societal decline' or whatever, not people who are different from you.

Do I need to spell it out more? If you need threat of violence or death to keep you in line, YOU ARE A DUMBFUCK.

And I do not mean people who are not book smart.
I do not mean mentally handicapped people.
They are not 'stupid'.

I mean idiots. Assholes. Capiche? You're bringing the roof down on yourself if you are 'degenerate'.

This isn't a matter of some people's lifestyles affecting society's integrity, it's a matter of people's malicious choices to harm others affecting society's integrity. If they were taught to be smart instead of hit with the butt of a gun and whacked over their bare ass with the American flag, maybe they wouldn't be so STUPID.

And before you get offended, no, this was not aimed towards you, merely answering your question- but if the shoe fits, by all means.

Your gender doesn't define how you follow the law, your intelligence does. Intelligence defined here by common sense and ability to think critically and know what would actually benefit yourself and others.

Arguably, by your definition, Americans, men, people with dark skin, and people with blue eyes could all be degenerate and should be stopped. Or anyone who likes rock music, who enjoys hot weather, who likes sweets better than savory foods, or who is taller than 5'7 could be degenerate and need to be stopped.

What do these have in common? What do they have in common with being transgender or LGBT?

They're all arbitrary reasons you can fallaciously attach to the erosion of societal integrity.

The actual reason? People who erode it. Simple.

I don't see why someone who says all religion should be abolished is any different from you.

So tell me if I'm understanding you right, because I'm having a difficult time extracting your actual points from the mountains of shitty rhetoric you're posting.

You're saying that sexual hedonism is no more damaging to society than say, being tall or having blue eyes, as they're all random and arbitrary distinctions?

Karkat

July 28th, 2015, 04:00 PM

So tell me if I'm understanding you right, because I'm having a difficult time extracting your actual points from the mountains of shitty rhetoric you're posting.

You're saying that sexual hedonism is no more damaging to society than say, being tall or having blue eyes, as they're all random and arbitrary distinctions?

I'm saying it's no more harmful of a choice than being religious, political, outspoken, or hateful- or should we ban those too?

Edit: And yes, I do believe it's arbitrary. I believe religious views and political views are as well. I may not AGREE with them, but I don't think I'm so high and mighty that I should have a say how people live their lives.

And the opposing political and religious views of others actually affect me, whereas their sex lives don't.

Judean Zealot

July 28th, 2015, 04:10 PM

I'm saying it's no more harmful of a choice than being religious, political, outspoken, or hateful- or should we ban those too?

Edit: And yes, I do believe it's arbitrary. I believe religious views and political views are as well. I may not AGREE with them, but I don't think I'm so high and mighty that I should have a say how people live their lives.

And the opposing political and religious views of others actually affect me, whereas their sex lives don't.

Well, first of all, the distinction between hedonism and religion or philosophy is that one is necessary (or at the very least complimentary or ambiguous) for a society based on virtue (rather than lust and passions), while hedonism is eminently antithetical to such a society.

Now, you might choose to contest the inclusion of deviant sexual behavior in the class of hedonism, or (less likely), you may deny the utility of a virtuous society, but at the very least I have demonstrated on my own value system that there is a fundamental distinction between hedonism and religion; one is detrimental and one is not.

Karkat

July 28th, 2015, 04:13 PM

Well, first of all, the distinction between hedonism and religion or philosophy is that one is necessary (or at the very least complimentary or ambiguous) for a society based on virtue (rather than lust and passions), while hedonism is eminently antithetical to such a society.

Now, you might choose to contest the inclusion of deviant sexual behavior in the class of hedonism, or (less likely), you may deny the utility of a virtuous society, but at the very least I have demonstrated on my own value system that there is a fundamental distinction between hedonism and religion; one is detrimental and one is not.

The irony

Tell me how many wars sexual deviancy has started, and MAYBE I'll take your argument seriously.

Judean Zealot

July 28th, 2015, 04:24 PM

The irony

Tell me how many wars sexual deviancy has started, and MAYBE I'll take your argument seriously.

Well, I would go about responding from three different angles.

1. I would argue that any unjust war caused by religion is in fact caused by a perversion of the true form of religion, and the perverse form ought to be purged out as well.

2. Again, religion is variable, and can assume both proper and improper form. Whereas hedonism is definitionally antithetical to proper moral development, and can assume no form compatible with self perfection.

3. Even if you were right (which you aren't) that religion is essentially corrosive, you still wouldn't help yourself, as I would merely insist that both religion and hedonism ought to be repressed, as the basic moral structure I maintain is primarily Platonic, and does not require any form of revealed religion. So essentially your inclusion of religion into this debate is nothing more than a red herring designed to shift the discussion away from hedonism.

Karkat

July 28th, 2015, 04:45 PM

Well, I would go about responding from three different angles.

1. I would argue that any unjust war caused by religion is in fact caused by a perversion of the true form of religion, and the perverse form ought to be purged out as well.

2. Again, religion is variable, and can assume both proper and improper form. Whereas hedonism is definitionally antithetical to proper moral development, and can assume no form compatible with self perfection.

3. Even if you were right (which you aren't) that religion is essentially corrosive, you still wouldn't help yourself, as I would merely insist that both religion and hedonism ought to be repressed, as the basic moral structure I maintain is primarily Platonic, and does not require any form of revealed religion. So essentially your inclusion of religion into this debate is nothing more than a red herring designed to shift the discussion away from hedonism.

Give me one non-fallacious example of true religion and maybe I will believe that.

And I am right- religion can be detrimental, and is probably more so than sexual freedom.

Also- self-perfection? Not a thing outside of narcissism and egoism. Self-development, maybe, but I have never heard an instance where sexual repression has improved someone's character or contribution to society. Remember, correlation=/=causation.

Unless you're a masochist- which is also a form of both sexual 'deviation' AND hedonism.

Aside from that, you're skewing my argument, so I can't take you seriously.

Also, I am right. Because I don't have a completely cut and dry opinion; I merely said that sexual freedom- 'hedonism' if you must call it that, is no more detrimental than political activism or religious zeal- both of which give a person a sense of integrity, and therefore are no less hedonistic than sexual pleasure.

Everything is its own form of hedonism. Everything is self-indulgent.

Your arrogance is a form of hedonism itself, and by ironic conclusion, you become the very degenerate you preach against.

Unless, of course, you gain no pleasure in being right and do not care whether or not you're right or wrong- in which case you wouldn't be here.
We are all hedonists here. Some people get off on sexual activity, others feeling self-righteous, others by feeling, incorrectly, like they have won an argument.

Oh look, I'm not drawing attention away from hedonism.

TL;DR: People do things because it feels good. Our brains are, quite literally, hardwired to react to pleasure as a motivation. There isn't a 'moral integrity' center that we respond to because that's still the pleasure center.

If it keeps us alive and fulfills instinct and/or makes us feel good, we do it.

Judean Zealot

July 28th, 2015, 05:06 PM

Give me one non-fallacious example of true religion and maybe I will believe that.

And I am right- religion can be detrimental, and is probably more so than sexual freedom.

Also- self-perfection? Not a thing outside of narcissism and egoism. Self-development, maybe, but I have never heard an instance where sexual repression has improved someone's character or contribution to society. Remember, correlation=/=causation.

Unless you're a masochist- which is also a form of both sexual 'deviation' AND hedonism.

Aside from that, you're skewing my argument, so I can't take you seriously.

Also, I am right. Because I don't have a completely cut and dry opinion; I merely said that sexual freedom- 'hedonism' if you must call it that, is no more detrimental than political activism or religious zeal- both of which give a person a sense of integrity, and therefore are no less hedonistic than sexual pleasure.

Everything is its own form of hedonism. Everything is self-indulgent.

Your arrogance is a form of hedonism itself, and by ironic conclusion, you become the very degenerate you preach against.

Unless, of course, you gain no pleasure in being right and do not care whether or not you're right or wrong- in which case you wouldn't be here.
We are all hedonists here. Some people get off on sexual activity, others feeling self-righteous, others by feeling, incorrectly, like they have won an argument.

Oh look, I'm not drawing attention away from hedonism.

TL;DR: People do things because it feels good. Our brains are, quite literally, hardwired to react to pleasure as a motivation. There isn't a 'moral integrity' center that we respond to because that's still the pleasure center.

If it keeps us alive and fulfills instinct and/or makes us feel good, we do it.

You literally haven't properly addressed a single one of my points, just spewed out a shitload of vaguely related ontological revisionism. But I will address a few of the tangents you went on.

A) It doesn't matter whether a true form of religion exists in a quantifiable manner. That's not the point. The point is that the religious person can point himself to a theoretical form and strive towards it, and he can claim that the form to which he works does not condone injustice.

B) Hedonism is opposed to any form of virtue beyond the physical pleasuring of the body. I don't see how pointing out that the virtuous man takes pleasure in his virtue makes him a proponent of endless physical pleasuring. Also, I don't think it is deniable that empty bodily pleasure weakens a persons commitment to virtue in the event that virtue runs counter to said persons pleasure.

C) Pleasure in virtue is virtue itself, while pleasure in it's opposite is vice.

-------------

I'm finding it extremely difficult to engage you because of your poor syntax and constant digressions. Either directly engage my points in an orderly fashion or just stop.

Microcosm

July 28th, 2015, 05:27 PM

Judean Zealot,

I have a question.

You've said that hedonism harms a society, but how exactly does it harm it in practice?

The United States is pretty hedonistic in many areas of its culture, but at what point has that made us a worse society as a whole?

Is it morally? Because I just don't think that any one person could really dictate what the right moral stance on this would be and it would appear to be subjective.

If anything, the citizens in our society appear to be happier than those from the time when our society wasn't quite as characterized by hedonistic values.

Vlerchan

July 28th, 2015, 05:30 PM

How many times do I have to make the same post VT?

Now, I'm not trying to make a point that deluding yourself about your identity is an evil equivalent to rape.
Unless we can establish that men should be masculine and woman should be feminine then there's no actual basis to refer to transgender people as being delusional.

Because public indulgence of fetishes and sexual license, both of which are at the heart of the LGBT movement, are destructive both to the individual and to the society that condones it.
I'd also like to see support for the idea that being Transgeder is a fetish or otherwise.

Feel free to provide support for the idea of this being applicable to LGBT people as a whole whilst you're at it.

I'd also appreciate if the harm was quantified and transmission mechanism identified when you get the chance.

Nope. Living in a human society comes with it's responsibilities, among which lies the obligation to try and improve society, and at the very least to try and prevent it's degeneration. I would say that the duties motivating me are akin to those of a normal person lobbying for trans-rights.
I don't disagree with this statement at all as a note.

Nothing wrong with differences. Your sex or color makes no difference to me. Your morals do.
Tangential to the above, I would appreciate if it was demonstrated that this is down to difference in morals.

If I wake up tomorrow and decide I'm the queen of England, regardless of how personally liberating it might feel to my mind I cannot rightfully insist that from here on in everyone start calling me 'her majesty'.
I see this as a false equivalence. It doesn't make sense unless we consider an intrinsic link between gender and sex.

This still has to be demonstrated.

*Dangerous to the moral character.
This is something Traditionalists like to throw around. It sounds nice but doesn't have a lot of substance.

In what manner does it affect the material conditions in which we live.

I don't care if it hurts me on some spiritual level whilst we're on the topic.

But we also find that the fall of every great empire of history begins with the population sinking into sloth and hedonism.
Feel free to demonstrate this with empirical evidence.

If things might be quantified in the process that would also be great.

I don't believe we have the moral authority to change that which is moral based on popular sentiment.
This statement seems strange considered alongside how I define the term 'moral'.

When we vote on something that changes the law and not morals: the law an arguable reflection of what's considered moral within a group. [Though I disagree with this - I think the law is a reflection of the will of a hegamon - but that's an irrelevant distinction for now.]

---

the point you seem to be missing is that transsexualism is a mental disorder that ideologues are attempting to redefine into an "identity" or "lifestyle" when it clearly is not.
Just like we 'redefined' homosexuality as not a mental disorder?

Sure. We can call it that. I actually don't care.

I think it's funny that SJWs used to freak out whenever somebody said the brains of men and women are fundamentally different, and doing so made you a sexist patriarchal male pig. But then last Thursday Brucey went under the knife while mansplaining to us that although he possessed what society considers a male body, his brain is actually female. what a bigot
It's more that he identified with the feminine social role.

Though I share the concern about the argumentative implications of sex-reassignment surgery.

---

my problem with the trans movement is that it insists on bringing back all of the gender stereotypes and restrictions about women and men that people have worked to tear down.
No it doesn't. What we worked to tear down was the association of sex and gender. This is just another step in the process.

I think we are finally getting to a point as a society where women are starting to be seen as equals. Instead of seeing gender, people are starting to just see people. This is the way it should be. But the trans community wants everyone to stop this and start treating them differently than everyone else because they are now a 'woman'. Why can't people just beb treated as people? Why do I now have to once again start treating the genders differently?
I've touched on the point of sex-reassignment being a product of our patriarchal conditions and otherwise undermining the feminist agenda. I don't think this is what you're getting at though. What you're getting at seems to be based around a misunderstanding of a distinction between sex and gender.

However this does not mean you can claim that you are another gender, or even "agender" as I think the term goes.
Because I said so?

I think this is another post built on failing to understand the distinction between sex and gender though.

Karkat

July 28th, 2015, 05:37 PM

You literally haven't properly addressed a single one of my points, just spewed out a shitload of vaguely related ontological revisionism. But I will address a few of the tangents you went on.

A) It doesn't matter whether a true form of religion exists in a quantifiable manner. That's not the point. The point is that the religious person can point himself to a theoretical form and strive towards it, and he can claim that the form to which he works does not condone injustice.

B) Hedonism is opposed to any form of virtue beyond the physical pleasuring of the body. I don't see how pointing out that the virtuous man takes pleasure in his virtue makes him a proponent of endless physical pleasuring. Also, I don't think it is deniable that empty bodily pleasure weakens a persons commitment to virtue in the event that virtue runs counter to said persons pleasure.

C) Pleasure in virtue is virtue itself, while pleasure in it's opposite is vice.

-------------

I'm finding it extremely difficult to engage you because of your poor syntax and constant digressions. Either directly engage my points in an orderly fashion or just stop.

A) But is the opinion of the individual always constructive to society? You can say you've found god all you want, but this can neither make it pure nor evil inherently.

Shortform: What's your point? Who's to say it's pure, or not pure?

B) Actually,

Full Definition of HEDONISM
1
: the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life
2
: a way of life based on or suggesting the principles of hedonism

Not so. Try again.

C)

Full Definition of VICE
1
a : moral depravity or corruption : wickedness
b : a moral fault or failing
c : a habitual and usually trivial defect or shortcoming : foible <suffered from the vice of curiosity>
2
: blemish, defect
3
: a physical imperfection, deformity, or taint
4
a often capitalized : a character representing one of the vices in an English morality play
b : buffoon, jester
5
: an abnormal behavior pattern in a domestic animal detrimental to its health or usefulness
6
: sexual immorality; especially : prostitution

Well, let's see.

1
a : moral depravity or corruption : wickedness
b : a moral fault or failing
c : a habitual and usually trivial defect or shortcoming : foible <suffered from the vice of curiosity>

If hedonism is wickedness or morally corrupt, so is happiness and the pursuit of it.

2
: blemish, defect

Pursuing happiness? Something's wrong with you.

3
: a physical imperfection, deformity, or taint

No logic here.

4
a often capitalized : a character representing one of the vices in an English morality play
b : buffoon, jester

Also irrelevant.

5
: an abnormal behavior pattern in a domestic animal detrimental to its health or usefulness

Irrelevant once more.

6
: sexual immorality; especially : prostitution

So being sexually satisfied makes one happy. Good to know.

Choose your line of reasoning.

Full Definition of VIRTUE
1
a : conformity to a standard of right : morality
b : a particular moral excellence
2
plural : an order of angels — see celestial hierarchy
3
: a beneficial quality or power of a thing
4
: manly strength or courage : valor
5
: a commendable quality or trait : merit
6
: a capacity to act : potency
7
: chastity especially in a woman

1
a : conformity to a standard of right : morality
b : a particular moral excellence

So immorality =/= morality. Got it.

Which also means happiness =/= morality. Hmm.

2
plural : an order of angels — see celestial hierarchy

I don't believe this is relevant.

3
: a beneficial quality or power of a thing

Happiness= not beneficial.

...Even though we are hardwired to receive benefit from pleasure/happiness.

4
: manly strength or courage : valor

Happiness: neither manly, stronk, nor courageous. Got it.

5
: a commendable quality or trait : merit

Happiness= not commendable. Interesting.

6
: a capacity to act : potency

Happiness is also apparently weak.

7
: chastity especially in a woman

Happiness= not chaste. Ok.

...Your ideas of what should be are starting to sound a lot like the laws in a dystopian book.

Judean Zealot

July 28th, 2015, 05:58 PM

Judean Zealot,

I have a question.

You've said that hedonism harms a society, but how exactly does it harm it in practice?
The physical harm it causes is secondary in my opinion, but it definitely exists.

1) The public ceases to concern itself with long term stability and instead gravitates to the fastest fix. On a governmental level, I think this is reflected best in irresponsible borrowing/spending practices. On the individual level hedonism's expression is far more acute. The drugs issues, for example, are a prime example of instant gratification trumping responsible behavior. Another example would be the absolute disintegration of the family unit (what with the divorce rate above 50%), which, again, is the result of people desiring quick physical pleasure above sober dedication.

The United States is pretty hedonistic in many areas of its culture, but at what point has that made us a worse society as a whole?
I will address the happiness issue below. But think about it. Do you think America would have the stomach for a protracted conflict should it prove necessary? Every war you've fought since Vietnam suggests otherwise. Let's face it, America is rotting at the core. Eventually you will lose your tremendous international leverage to more local actors and more disciplined and industrious competition, and then will hemorrhage to pieces internally.

Is it morally? Because I just don't think that any one person could really dictate what the right moral stance on this would be and it would appear to be subjective.

I would disagree and say that there is a fundamental morality which is objective, but that is unnecessary. All that is necessary is for me to point out that the people are/will be living immorally by general standards, i.e. abandoning dependants such as spouses and children, failing to contribute to the state which feeds them (how many volunteer for the army or community service?), and we already have enough cause to protest.

If anything, the citizens in our society appear to be happier than those from the time when our society wasn't quite as characterized by hedonistic values.
Do you really think America is happier than say, the fifties (shout out to phuckphace)?
I see a tremendous spike in depression, self harm, and suicide.
I see a society so unable to cope with itself that it invariably resorts to drugs for relief, whether medicated or otherwise.
I see so many youth feeling alienated and useless because they just have nowhere they belong, nor anything to give their existence meaning.
I see many disturbed youths rampaging about shooting up schools, churches, and movie theaters. Surely this didn't happen in the fifties?
I see more broken homes than ever before.

...and so on. All of these are directly traceable to the hedonism of America.

A) But is the opinion of the individual always constructive to society? You can say you've found god all you want, but this can neither make it pure nor evil inherently.

Shortform: What's your point? Who's to say it's pure, or not pure? Me? You? Anybody?

What difference does it make to me whether others agree or not?

B) Actually,

Not so. Try again.

You're translating 'pleasure' too broadly. The Greek ἡδονή from which hedonism derives refers specifically to physical pleasure.

If hedonism is wickedness or morally corrupt, so is happiness and the pursuit of it.

Yes, pursuit of physical pleasure for it's own sake is immoral. Nice try.

-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

Karkat

July 28th, 2015, 06:30 PM

Me? You? Anybody?

What difference does it make to me whether others agree or not?

You're translating 'pleasure' too broadly. The Greek ἡδονή from which hedonism derives refers specifically to physical pleasure.

Yes, pursuit of physical pleasure for it's own sake is immoral. Nice try.

1. I fail to see why you even brought it up then.

2. That's odd, because I just provided a credible definition of it in English. So go take that up with Merriam Webster- I didn't write the dictionary.

3. I never said it wasn't. I said that was kind of a dark, disgusting, counterintuitive way to live. If we're going on morality as being a good thing, but also on evolution and science as being valid, morality goes against evolution and science because we are wired to seek pleasure.

In other words, your "morality" is actually what's detrimental here. Animals don't have an inherent desire to reproduce, they gain pleasure from sexual activity because their body tells them to.

Sex is supposed to feel good. Regardless of its intent. And it is not only useful to reproduction, but to bonding with your partner, as well as producing endorphins, and making certain changes in the body chemically to promote general wellbeing.

So by your logic everything is basically immoral.

-Can't be healthy
-Can't be happy
-Can't form bonds
-Can't feel good

-Can only be productive to society in some unspecified way that cannot be of any benefit to us, and by extension, others. Because...

-Can't be healthy
-Can't be happy
-Can't form bonds
-Can't feel good

Well then what the fuck is supposed to happen?

This is my problem with the concept of 'morality'- no one seems to agree on what it is, prove how or why it's progressive, or really give any reason as to why it shouldn't evolve WITH society.

Like fuck, I can believe it's immoral to infringe on the rights of others, but that doesn't stop so called 'righteous' people from infringing on the rights of others because their rights affect their morality.

...?

Unless you agree that everyone should either have their own moral code to follow to some extent, or that moral code is a principle rather than a rule, it makes literally no fucking sense.

Judean Zealot

July 28th, 2015, 06:39 PM

Unless we can establish that men should be masculine and woman should be feminine then there's no actual basis to refer to transgender people as being delusional.
Allow me to clarify. While the distinction between gender role and sex is undisputable, I completely deny any sort of meaning to 'gender identity'. It simply does not exist independent of the biological sex.

I'd also like to see support for the idea that being Transgeder is a fetish or otherwise.
...
Feel free to provide support for the idea of this being applicable to LGBT people as a whole whilst you're at it.
So I checked up the definition of fetish and this is what I got:
Sexual fetishism or erotic fetishism is a sexual focus on a nonliving object or nongenital body part.
So I stand corrected. Change fetish to 'sexual kink'.

And in regards to homosexuality, you're forgetting the words 'sexual license'.

I'd also appreciate if the harm was quantified and transmission mechanism identified when you get the chance. I believe I addressed that in response to somebody above.

Edit: it was microcosm.

I see this as a false equivalence. It doesn't make sense unless we consider an intrinsic link between gender and sex.

This still has to be demonstrated.

No, the existence of a meaningful gender identity outside of sex is what has to be demonstrated. It's an absurd gerrymandering of hormonal activity.

In what manner does it affect the material conditions in which we live.
Addressed above.
I don't care if it hurts me on some spiritual level whilst we're on the topic.
1) But I do care if it hurts the society my family and I live in on a spiritual level.

2) I can argue that I have the responsibility to prevent you from harming yourself whether you realize it or not, just as we protect children from harmful activities, at times even against their wishes.

Feel free to demonstrate this with empirical evidence.

If things might be quantified in the process that would also be great.
I'm going with a Gibbons account of history, which to the best of my knowledge is pretty much supported by general consensus, for whatever that's worth.

When we vote on something that changes the law and not morals: the law an arguable reflection of what's considered moral within a group.

And yet the individual is considered morally bound by Jeffersonian thinking to the shifting majority decision. Obviously the bit about God was a rhetorical license.

1. I fail to see why you even brought it up then. Why I brought up what? That I have the moral responsibility to try to influence society in accordance with my understanding of morality?

2. That's odd, because I just provided a credible definition of it in English. So go take that up with Merriam Webster- I didn't write the dictionary.
Well, since your playing the dictionary game I guess I have to as well. The dictionary defined hedonism as seeking 'pleasure'. Here are the definitions of pleasure:

1 :desire, inclination <wait upon his pleasure — Shakespeare>
2 :a state of gratification

3 a :sensual gratification
b :frivolous amusement
4 :a source of delight or joy
I am saying that based on the words etymology, the word 'pleasure' as it appears under hedonism is not the broad #2 or 4, but rather the more specific 3a.

P.S. These "gotcha" methods of yours are contemptible and do not reflect on you favorably.

3. I never said it wasn't. I said that was kind of a dark, disgusting, counterintuitive way to live. If we're going on morality as being a good thing, but also on evolution and science as being valid, morality goes against evolution and science because we are wired to seek pleasure.
We are not merely wired to sensory pleasure. We are wired with two conflicting desires, that of the body and that of the soul (mind, or spirit if you will) and one must overpower the other.

In other words, your "morality" is actually what's detrimental here. Animals don't have an inherent desire to reproduce, they gain pleasure from sexual activity because their body tells them to.
The distinction is clear. Animals do not have the intellect necessary to control their lesser desires, and as such have no potential to rise above their earthiness.

Sex is supposed to feel good. Regardless of its intent. And it is not only useful to reproduction, but to bonding with your partner, as well as producing endorphins, and making certain changes in the body chemically to promote general wellbeing.

So by your logic everything is basically immoral.

-Can't be healthy
-Can't be happy
-Can't form bonds
-Can't feel good

-Can only be productive to society in some unspecified way that cannot be of any benefit to us, and by extension, others. Because...

-Can't be healthy
-Can't be happy
-Can't form bonds
-Can't feel good
Pleasure, when moderated and dictated by the spirit can be a tremendously useful stimulant, it is when it comes to be regarded as an end in itself that it becomes problematic.

This is my problem with the concept of 'morality'- no one seems to agree on what it is, prove how or why it's progressive, or really give any reason as to why it shouldn't evolve WITH society.

Like fuck, I can believe it's immoral to infringe on the rights of others, but that doesn't stop so called 'righteous' people from infringing on the rights of others because their rights affect their morality.

...?

Unless you agree that everyone should either have their own moral code to follow to some extent, or that moral code is a principle rather than a rule, it makes literally no fucking sense.

If the ideas you arrive at are truly the result of honest searching, without any admixture of passion, lust, or desire, then even if the idea is ultimately false I would say that you are acting morally, albeit in error.

-merged double post. Please use the "Edit" or "Multi-quote" button. -Emerald Dream

Miserabilia

July 28th, 2015, 07:29 PM

Well kind of late and not up to date with the whole side discussion going on here but I wouldn't call trans unnatural just like I wouldn't call homosexuality unnatural. I do think that modern day left thinkint is actualy making too strict labels and thinking; you're trans, you're cis, gay straight, and a gazilion specific terms for very specific in-between things, but never a connection between the different ones.
For example kids that grow up dressing and associating more with the opposite gender often turn out homosexual but not neccecairly trans or even androgynous later in life.
I think we need to be able to talk openly about these things and not be terrified to mention someone as former man or former woman, but be able to discuss why trans people are the way they are. Because honestly, we still don't even really know what homosexuality is.

Vlerchan

July 30th, 2015, 04:34 PM

While the distinction between gender role and sex is undisputable, I completely deny any sort of meaning to 'gender identity'. It simply does not exist independent of the biological sex.
Someone's 'gender identity' is their chosen association [identification] with a certain 'gender role'.

If we can agree that gender roles are distinct ideas from someone's biological sex then supporting the idea that gender identification exists shouldn't be much of a stretch. Unless we see gender roles as distinct from biological sex but steeped in biological sex all the same - in which case I'll repeat the request for empirical evidence.

So I stand corrected. Change fetish to 'sexual kink'.

And in regards to homosexuality, you're forgetting the words 'sexual license'.
Please present verifiable evidence support the idea that Transgender people are acting on a sexual kink. Thank you. (I'll add that there are Transgender people who are also asexual.)

With regards to LGB-people I though 'sexual licence' was just rhetorical flair but I'll add now that I don't care if LGB-people are allowed to sleep with the people LGB-people want to. Just like straight people. I'm not seeing the corrupting influence at all.

No, the existence of a meaningful gender identity outside of sex is what has to be demonstrated. It's an absurd gerrymandering of hormonal activity.
The problem here is that when I point to Transgender people you'll claim it isn't 'meaningful'.

This is also a dodge regardless. Please demonstrate that there's a biological imperative in the sex's to associate with a certain gender role.

1) But I do care if it hurts the society my family and I live in on a spiritual level.

2) I can argue that I have the responsibility to prevent you from harming yourself whether you realize it or not, just as we protect children from harmful activities, at times even against their wishes.
That's fine. You can feel free to carry on protecting me.

I just mentioned that because I wanted to make it clear I wasn't going to debate spiritual aspects because it seems irrelevant to me.

I'm going with a Gibbons account of history, which to the best of my knowledge is pretty much supported by general consensus, for whatever that's worth.
You might need to get more specific about the text.

I'm aware of one Gibbons wrote about Rome, just Rome, and his claim was based around it becoming effeminate. In part, because of the embrace of Christianity and its values, if I remember correct.

And yet the individual is considered morally bound by Jeffersonian thinking to the shifting majority decision. Obviously the bit about God was a rhetorical license.
I'm a legal positivist.

In general, if Classical Liberals said it, I probably think it's ridiculous.

I believe I addressed that in response to somebody above.

Edit: it was microcosm.
You criticised hedonism, but didn't explain how it encompass being transgender.

I'll address the points made about hedonism if a connection can be made.

Judean Zealot

August 1st, 2015, 02:59 PM

Someone's 'gender identity' is their chosen association [identification] with a certain 'gender role'.

If we can agree that gender roles are distinct ideas from someone's biological sex then supporting the idea that gender identification exists shouldn't be much of a stretch. Unless we see gender roles as distinct from biological sex but steeped in biological sex all the same - in which case I'll repeat the request for empirical evidence. The latter. I don't think that I can philosophically demonstrate QED the necessity our particular gender roles have, but I think the correlation between classic gender roles and biological sex is blatantly clear to any unbiased observer.

If we can agree that women are generally more frail anatomically and more hormonally unstable than men, then I don't see any grounds to deny that the basis of the "patriarchal" dynamic is grounded in their relative weakness. Now, I think that the patriarchy should not take an oppressive stance as opposed to a protective stance (e.g 'women and children in the lifeboats first'), but it is most definitely grounded in the biological differences.

Please present verifiable evidence support the idea that Transgender people are acting on a sexual kink. Thank you. (I'll add that there are Transgender people who are also asexual.)
Again, as I've clarified in an earlier post, a person who identifies as transgender in a non sexual context is only of minor annoyance to me, and that only on the basis of how one is immediately expected to accept all sorts of bizarre "re-identifications" on pain of being vilified as a bigot.

I'm going to add here, for lack of a better location, that even in a non sexual trans scenario I would be opposed to a sex change for the purpose of (say) cosmetics, as I do not believe that our bodies are 'ours' to do as we please. I would maintain that the body is a sacred trust that must be zealously maintained. I am therefore opposed to self harm or mutilation, tattoos, and unhealthy lifestyle. As such, I would still oppose sex change on that account.
I don't care if LGB-people are allowed to sleep with the people LGB-people want to. Just like straight people. I'm not seeing the corrupting influence at all.
Straight people cannot either sleep with whomever they wish. Fornication is equally evil, and ought to be equally repressed.
You might need to get more specific about the text.

I'm aware of one Gibbons wrote about Rome, just Rome, and his claim was based around it becoming effeminate. In part, because of the embrace of Christianity and its values, if I remember correct.
Gibbons does mention that the reasons of Rome's decline are equally applicable to other cultures as well (I'm sorry, I cannot remember precisely where at the moment).

The 'effeminate' reason is synonymous with what I am saying now- they became too steeped in their own luxury and indolence to maintain the state.

And in regards to Christianity, perhaps he is right as well. Machiavelli shares this opinion in his Discourses on Titus Livy. Although if there is intended some kind of implicit jab at the Judaic values I would enshrine in the state I can offer a defense.
You criticised hedonism, but didn't explain how it encompass being transgender.

As I've agreed earlier, at times it does not, and at times it does. However, at this point in time it has become so intertwined with the other LGB, which are the epitome of hedonism (sexual activity directed at no end beyond the sensual) to warrant my distaste.

This week I will be going away, and will not be back for a number of weeks. At best I will have very erratic access. So I will respond when I get back (if the mods let me bump :P).

Jean Poutine

August 1st, 2015, 08:55 PM

Transsexualism is just among the first and most widespread in a long line of fucked up identity policies.

People who think they are animals, mythical beings, historical people, weather events, things in the cosmos like galaxies or nebulae or even completely fictional characters drawn from movies or books that just happen to be trapped in a mundane human body are not delusional anymore. They're otherkin, this is viewed as a perfectly valid identity and we don't have the right to tell them how crazy they are. Careful not to step on your neighbourhood wolf otherkin's tail!

People who hear voices or shift between identities no longer have schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder. They have headmates and it's a fucking blast having all these friends in your head! Suggesting that they get treatment for that is offensive and ableist, don't you know?

People with autistic spectrum disorders no longer suffer from a grave and heartbreaking mental illness; they are merely neuroatypical and possibly much superior to you neurotypical dumbasses. You want a cure for autism? You madman! You stupid fucking curebie! It is you we should cure of your absolutely insane neurotypical ways! You don't even have special, obsessive interests and you walk on the small cracks between pieces of ceramic flooring.

The problem with this shit is not vice or hedonism or what have you. If that's what you advance then you are playing in their hands because you are shifting the discussion away from the real issue. They want to turn the discussion away from cures and therapy and legitimizes crippling mental disorders as a form of identity. It turns mental well-being into politics and transforms mental illness into a form of self-expression. That's fucking insane.

Gender dysphoria, delusions, schizophrenia, MPD, autism are all dangerous and heart-breaking mental illnesses. They often lead to death via suicide and overall shitty lives. However, instead of encouraging people to enter therapy and alleviate the symptoms or promoting efforts to find cures, some disgusting ideologues pretend that it's all fun and games and that its society's fault if people suffering from these have hard lives, it's not because they're ill and in need of help, it's because you are not fucking tolerant enough, you ableist phobic cis piece of shit.

Society needs to become less tolerant, not more. However, less tolerant doesn't mean uncaring or evil. There's no excuse to give mentally ill people a hard time, but there's also no excuse that justifies putting our heads in the sand and pretending that these are well-adjusted people that can do whatever the Hell they want. This promotes division within society and a divided society is a weak society, 9 times out of 10, and eventually crumbles into dust.

It's not about hedonism or vice. It's about conformity. Like it or not, human beings work best when the people they live with are essentially similar. If we want Western society to stop declining and remain strong, the worst thing to do is to separate the citizenry into a thousand different identity groups, each fighting for their part of the cake. The dynamic isn't essentially cis white males shitting on everyone else as if often heard : it's everyone shitting on everyone else. When your cogs shit on each other all the time, how is the machine going to work at all? The solution is therapy, cures, to allow people deviating from the norm through no fault of their own to rejoin it.

phuckphace

August 4th, 2015, 10:05 PM

People with autistic spectrum disorders no longer suffer from a grave and heartbreaking mental illness; they are merely neuroatypical and possibly much superior to you neurotypical dumbasses. You want a cure for autism? You madman! You stupid fucking curebie! It is you we should cure of your absolutely insane neurotypical ways! You don't even have special, obsessive interests and you walk on the small cracks between pieces of ceramic flooring.

thank you

veneration of autism-spectrum disorders bugs the shit out of me. although people with the 'tism like to talk about their superior quantum brains & their ability to calculate the first 10^36 digits of pi from memory, anyone who has had to work with someone suffering from the 'tism irl knows firsthand how miserable and debilitating it is. I notice that despite their claims of someday becoming the next distinguished mathematician or Nobel Prize-winning economist, in practice all they really do is post on internet forums and play RTS vidya for 11+ hours daily and generally have an extremely poor quality of life.

but of course, today's world and the internet especially are potent incubators of mental illness. there's no doubt in my mind that people with the 'tism or Asperger's suffered far less back when society was simpler, more cohesive and not about to go tits up. I suspect that being surrounded by atomizing technology (vidyagames and other novel, high-tech ways of being a comatose Calhoun rat) reinforces and exacerbates the condition, on top of the boost it already gets from SJW autism veneration.

we need to be finding a cure for this shit.

Microcosm

August 6th, 2015, 02:48 PM

Jean Poutine,

Autism is actually a disorder that inhibits mental processes. Gender dysphoria doesn't inhibit any mental processes(except for the process of common gender identification, but that being changed doesn't actually harm anyone).

Also, as Vlerchan has said to me previously, the only problems that trans people have are brought about by those who are against trans people. This is why trans people are likely to lead shitty lives, experience depression, or even commit suicide. It's the people that are against it for no good reason that cause it to be so.

If we don't treat them like a disease and just embrace them, then the problem is solved.

Syzygy

August 6th, 2015, 03:16 PM

"mutilating" yourself, yes sure. It's yourself. Is that involving anybody else? I don't think it is. :)

true..
I don't care about acceptance for any group
but I think your body, your face, your gender whatever should be yours to choose. have the freedom to paint yourself new regardless of if its accepted or viewed as mutilation by others

tonymontana99

August 7th, 2015, 02:52 PM

Microcosm

August 7th, 2015, 05:41 PM

I think people who suffer from gender dysphoria are being exploited by the media. These are people that suffer from a mental illness, it's not something that should be discussed in public, even less be glorified on television (Bruce Jenner, Jazz Jennings). And it's kinda intimidating how the media are trying to shove this down our throats as being something perfectly normal and something people should celebrate. I've read in some websites of transgender folks who completely detest the way they are being portrayed on television.

Having that said, it's completely ridiculous how the social justice warriors and liberals are brainwashing young kids on telling them there are other genders other than Male or Female. What's next? Transpecies, transracial? The slippery slope is real.

Well there are biological deformities that cause people to have mixed genders. Chromosomes or some shit I learned in 9th grade biology class.

I don't really see why it's such a big deal, though. I mean I change stances on shit sporadically. Just a week or two ago I would've totally agreed with you.

The truth of the matter is that people aren't just going to all be transgender because of this. As for those who want to be transgender, it doesn't actually harm anyone else when they identify as that. You could claim that it somehow harms the homogenity of a society, but there's no solid evidence to back that up.

tonymontana99

August 7th, 2015, 10:10 PM

Well there are biological deformities that cause people to have mixed genders. Chromosomes or some shit I learned in 9th grade biology class.

I don't really see why it's such a big deal, though. I mean I change stances on shit sporadically. Just a week or two ago I would've totally agreed with you.

The truth of the matter is that people aren't just going to all be transgender because of this. As for those who want to be transgender, it doesn't actually harm anyone else when they identify as that. You could claim that it somehow harms the homogenity of a society, but there's no solid evidence to back that up.

I have no problem with them doing it, but I don't like the way they are being glorified on TV. What if some depressed kids end up getting a sex change because they or their crazy parents thought it would be better for them. Having a trans child will be hip and cool. Not to mention the suicide statistics. If Hillary wins...

Microcosm

August 8th, 2015, 04:30 PM

I have no problem with them doing it, but I don't like the way they are being glorified on TV. What if some depressed kids end up getting a sex change because they or their crazy parents thought it would be better for them. Having a trans child will be hip and cool. Not to mention the suicide statistics. If Hillary wins...

:lol:

Please, do your research on this. If you research it, only about .3-5% of the population identify as transgender(depending on the source). At most, only like 7 or 8 percent would be transgender.

It's not like twenty or thirty percent would be trans. That's not a good reason to be against it.

Also, I'm not for Clinton either, but just because she thinks being trans is okay doesn't mean tons of people will be transgender. That's nonsense.

tonymontana99

August 8th, 2015, 05:03 PM

:lol:

Please, do your research on this. If you research it, only about .3-5% of the population identify as transgender(depending on the source). At most, only like 7 or 8 percent would be transgender.

It's not like twenty or thirty percent would be trans. That's not a good reason to be against it.

Also, I'm not for Clinton either, but just because she thinks being trans is okay doesn't mean tons of people will be transgender. That's nonsense.

It still is daunting the fact that we are pushing this thing into mainstream and are indulging in these people's deranged fantasies and glorifying them on TV instead of sending them to mental institutions.

Stronk Serb

August 8th, 2015, 05:57 PM

This makes as much sense to me as one guy I heard on youtube. So you say it's normal that someone has a chromosome disorder causing him to be born male, but inside his/her head he/she is a female? If that is acceptable by society as normal and not mentally unhealth that this is supposed to be normal too:

"I sexually identify as an attack helicopter. Since I was a little boy, I dreamed of soaring over the oil fields, dropping loads on disgusting foreigners. People told me that I was insane and fucked up. No I am not. I will have a surgeon install rotary blades on my back, a 30mm cannon and Hellfire missile pods. You will call me "Apache" and I must be allowed to kill needlessly and excessively and if you do not agree, you are a heliphobe and need to check your vehicle privileges. Thank you for accepting me"

phuckphace

August 8th, 2015, 06:24 PM

I have no problem with them doing it, but I don't like the way they are being glorified on TV. What if some depressed kids end up getting a sex change because they or their crazy parents thought it would be better for them. Having a trans child will be hip and cool. Not to mention the suicide statistics. If Hillary wins...

I agree with you that transgenderism is a disorder and shouldn't be normalized, but it makes no sense to claim Hillary becoming president will have any effect on the numbers. our society is well past the "point of no return" already, and this normalization will be successful regardless of who's in the White House

Microcosm

August 9th, 2015, 12:57 AM

It still is daunting the fact that we are pushing this thing into mainstream and are indulging in these people's deranged fantasies and glorifying them on TV instead of sending them to mental institutions.

Yes, they are technically mental disorders.

It doesn't really effect you, though. The world isn't ending and this stuff has been glorified for quite a while.

Also, they don't need to be sent to mental institutions or even treated for it. I have a hard time finding any reasonable explanation as to what exactly you think is wrong with them.

Is it just that it annoys you? Is it somehow inferior behavior? Do you have any other reasoning that isn't just biased personal opinion?

tonymontana99

August 9th, 2015, 06:59 PM

I agree with you that transgenderism is a disorder and shouldn't be normalized, but it makes no sense to claim Hillary becoming president will have any effect on the numbers. our society is well past the "point of no return" already, and this normalization will be successful regardless of who's in the White House

What do you mean by "point of no return"?

Yes, they are technically mental disorders.

It doesn't really effect you, though. The world isn't ending and this stuff has been glorified for quite a while.

Also, they don't need to be sent to mental institutions or even treated for it. I have a hard time finding any reasonable explanation as to what exactly you think is wrong with them.

Is it just that it annoys you? Is it somehow inferior behavior? Do you have any other reasoning that isn't just biased personal opinion?

What I think is wrong with them? The fact that they are delusional enough to think they are the opposite gender and that the "progressive" (read: degenerate) liberals are trying to suck them into their army of belief and acceptance for terms like "genderless," "genderqueer," "otherkin," "cis," and any other term that slightly hints the existence of a gender other than Male or Female, not to mention the fact that these people get offended when you call them by the "wrong" pronoun and demand that you accept them for who they are instead of trying to reason with them and calling out on their bullshit excuses and logic. And we're not even taking into consideration that more and more colleges and personal info sheets (I believe this website has them too) actually have in their forms an area for you to select which gender you "identify" with, which pronouns you would like to be called by and the fact that most colleges are reeking of feminist liberals who constantly ask you to "check your privilege" and actually trying to make people buy the excuse that gender is a social construct.

Microcosm

August 9th, 2015, 09:17 PM

What I think is wrong with them? The fact that they are delusional enough to think they are the opposite gender and that the "progressive" (read: degenerate) liberals are trying to suck them into their army of belief and acceptance for terms like "genderless," "genderqueer," "otherkin," "cis," and any other term that slightly hints the existence of a gender other than Male or Female, not to mention the fact that these people get offended when you call them by the "wrong" pronoun and demand that you accept them for who they are instead of trying to reason with them and calling out on their bullshit excuses and logic. And we're not even taking into consideration that more and more colleges and personal info sheets (I believe this website has them too) actually have in their forms an area for you to select which gender you "identify" with, which pronouns you would like to be called by and the fact that most colleges are reeking of feminist liberals who constantly ask you to "check your privilege" and actually trying to make people buy the excuse that gender is a social construct.

Many trans people attend college and don't make the fact that they are trans the focus of their life. This would indicate that they're not incompetent or delusional.

It's abnormal, yes, but you can test the average transgender to see if they are delusional and you'll find that they are perfectly competent.

There's still no real reason why it's wrong.

tonymontana99

August 10th, 2015, 01:20 PM

Many trans people attend college and don't make the fact that they are trans the focus of their life. This would indicate that they're not incompetent or delusional.

It's abnormal, yes, but you can test the average transgender to see if they are delusional and you'll find that they are perfectly competent.

There's still no real reason why it's wrong.

Yes, I know that. But some groups of liberals constantly victimize themselves and draw everyone who isn't a straight white male into their pot and try to brainwash people into thinking they are being oppressed by everyone, that patriarchy is destroying everything, that white people should feel guilty and that they should die. And when they see someone who should be a victim, like the educated black man who calls out on cultural marxism, the homossexual who is ashamed of how others behave in pride parades, the transgender who admits they have a mental illness, or the female of sees the wrong in feminism, they chimp out and wreck havoc. Take those Black Lives Matter activists who just completely destroyed the election for Bernie Sanders and said we were all white supremacists and should die as an example of how this progressive liberal movement is going to turn America into 1990s LA. Full on race war when?

Jean Poutine

August 19th, 2015, 06:23 PM

Jean Poutine,

Autism is actually a disorder that inhibits mental processes. Gender dysphoria doesn't inhibit any mental processes(except for the process of common gender identification, but that being changed doesn't actually harm anyone).

1. You don't have to tell me what autism is. I know full well because I'm on the spectrum.

2. Ugh I hate this ultra-individualistic bullshit. The truth is saying "why not allow it? It doesn't harm anyone" legitimizes tons of other things. They say the slippery slope is just a fallacy but I think we've all seen numerous examples IRL of people being given an inch and taking a mile. If transsexualism is okay then why not transracism? Rachel Dolezal got pilloried for identifying as black, what's the difference between her case and a guy who identifies as a woman? Oh, what about otherkin, what's so bad with that? One day we might even have enough technology to allow people to turn into dragons or whatever. Incest doesn't harm anyone either. Nor does bestiality.

It harms social cohesion. That's not a person but it's as important. What do we do about MtFs who want to compete in sports in women's divisions? Men are better in most physical activities than girls, that's a fact of life and there's nothing that can change it. So let's say we have Miss MtF in the UFC wanting to fight women. She, he, whatever, is faster, stronger and has quicker reflexes than women in the same weight class. Is that fair for the actual biological women?

Currently, in certain countries and other jurisdictions, the law allows trans to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of their identified sex, even if they aren't operated, or on hormones, and 100% look like men in dresses. That means a little girl might be exposed to a guy's pecker. Call me a prude but I wouldn't want my daughter to be exposed to dicks in what is a fundamentally female space.

As always, the onus is on society at large to change and accommodate yet another group of special wallflowers. Here's my #1 rule on society : conform or get out. The only way societies are successful at length is when they are culturally and ethnically homogeneous. This means that special wallflowers should conform to the norm, and not the norm to the wallflowers. One way promotes diversity and the other doesn't. Diversity is bad, not good.

I myself am a special wallflower, yet you don't see me bitch and moan (anymore) about how hard life is for me and how terrible it is to not be accepted in the mainstream and how I can't hold a student job because they almost all require interaction with the public and whenever I try I get fired within a month because some privileged ableist fucks whine about me to my boss. I could be on lonely planet right now whining about how tough I have it. But no, it's up to me to adapt, because the norm won't. They're the norm, they don't have to do shit.

Also, as Vlerchan has said to me previously, the only problems that trans people have are brought about by those who are against trans people. This is why trans people are likely to lead shitty lives, experience depression, or even commit suicide. It's the people that are against it for no good reason that cause it to be so.

This seems like quite a black and white statement. What was it, something like 60% of transsexuals who also have other co-occurring mental illnesses? And you're telling me all of this is caused by us peons making their lives hard?

If we don't treat them like a disease and just embrace them, then the problem is solved.

No, if we do that, then the problem is simply shoved forward. The only way to solve this problem is with research, therapy and medication, the same as with any other mental illness.

Microcosm

August 20th, 2015, 04:41 PM

Jean Poutine,

You seem to assume in your response that I consider you a "peon" or a "bigot." So, for starters, this isn't true. I'm only trying to understand how this justifies the hatred against trans people.

"Social Cohesion" - The world doesn't fall apart when different kinds of people come together. This really justifies nothing.

60% of trans people having mental illnesses - perhaps it's because the people who reject them throughout their whole lives make them feel like shit for trying to be what seems right to them? This is a common cause for severe depression.

Grey

August 22nd, 2015, 04:51 AM

I have no opinion of transsexual people in general, I don't particularly care if they want to be a different gender to their biological sex but I will in no way say that I understand it in the slightest. The only thing I particularly despise about most trans folk is that they change their name and pronouns and within a day of doing that they expect every single person without fail to bow to calling them exactly what they want. This is absolutely moronic, in my opinion. I will absolutely call you whatever you want me to call you but do not expect anyone to get used to the fact that you have changed gender and name within a day or a week. It takes time to adjust to changes and getting aggressive over the fact that someone has misgendered you or said your old name is just idiotic. I speak from personal experience on this one, if you couldn't tell.

Miserabilia

August 28th, 2015, 04:43 PM

Jean Poutine

August 29th, 2015, 02:16 PM

Jean Poutine,
"Social Cohesion" - The world doesn't fall apart when different kinds of people come together. This really justifies nothing.

Look around you and tell me that again. If you can't see that something is very wrong with people down to their core then I don't know what to tell you.

Tolerating and trying to accept everything implies that everything, every condition is normal and deserves accommodation by society at large. The legitimization of mental illness has a long history. Autism has long suffered from the representation of Aspie fucks who think they talk for everyone when they say they don't want a cure because they are improved versions of humankind, even their low-functioning cousins. Mental illnesses must be treated lest we become a bunch of non-functional crazies, they cannot be normalized as just "personal quirks :^)".

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

60% of trans people having mental illnesses - perhaps it's because the people who reject them throughout their whole lives make them feel like shit for trying to be what seems right to them? This is a common cause for severe depression.

Are we talking about only depression here?

As I remember it, the list of comorbid mental disorders goes much farther than simple depression (even with the toned down connotations of the word; real depression really is a biological phenomenon).