Gay activist calls for teen's parents to be prosecuted

[rexlunae]

Body mutilation is not effective, it is insane.

Now you're just failing to confront the question before you, which isn't surprising given how you've backed yourself into such a corner.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Now you're just failing to confront the question before you

The question asked was why we shouldn't continue to mutilate people that are under a severe delusion that they are not the same gender as their own bodies.

You are apparently under the worse delusion that mutilation is helpful.

 

[PureX]

No, I'm not interested in sensationalism. Many are drawn to these stories because they are trying to understand.

No they aren't, they just want to wallow in blame and outrage. Such righteous indignation is like a drug to a lot of people. A drug that puffs up their egos by making them feel superior to others while simultaneously relieving them of any responsibility for anything. Not only are they not trying to understand, but they're trying NOT to understand. Because if they were to really understand these things they would have to take some responsibility for their own part in them. And then they might see that they are not as innocent as they want to imagine themselves to be.

It's because righteous indignation has such a powerful allure to people that the phony news media digs up and presents these phony news stories, one after the other. They know a certain percentage of people will always pay attention to them. And so do their advertisers. And that's all they care about - getting eyeballs on the ads.

And you fall for their ploy over and over and over again. Then you regurgitate their nonsense news stories, here. And the self-righteous indignation-fest continues.

 

[resodko]

In his mind, the fact that the teen was not accepted as a self-identifying female is tantamount to murder.

And it is the mind-set now of quite a few activists: Transgender rights are the new big thing (Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are now accepting their 8 year old daughter - a female in every sense - is really a "son".)

when i was a kid, i had a friend who thought he was a firetruck :idunno:

but his parents put oatmeal in his mouth instead of diesel

 

[GFR7]

No they aren't, they just want to wallow in blame and outrage. Such righteous indignation is like a drug to a lot of people. A drug that puffs up their egos by making them feel superior to others while simultaneously relieving them of any responsibility for anything. Not only are they not trying to understand, but they're trying NOT to understand. Because if they were to really understand these things they would have to take some responsibility for their own part in them. And then they might see that they are not as innocent as they want to imagine themselves to be.

It's because righteous indignation has such a powerful allure to people that the phony news media digs up and presents these phony news stories, one after the other. They know a certain percentage of people will always pay attention to them. And so do their advertisers. And that's all they care about - getting eyeballs on the ads.

And you fall for their ploy over and over and over again. Then you regurgitate their nonsense news stories, here. And the self-righteous indignation-fest continues.

Are you telling me that UK Pink News, a British pro-gay paper, runs pro-gay stories for mere sensationalism and to make people angry at gays? That is absurd. :wave2: I know for a fact that their staff consider themselves serious journalists and gay advocates.

By the way, I don't find these stories sensational, nor do they make me feel superior in any way.

 

[PureX]

Are you telling me that UK Pink News, a British pro-gay paper, runs pro-gay stories for mere sensationalism and to make people angry at gays? That is absurd. :wave2: I know for a fact that their staff consider themselves serious journalists and gay advocates.

You can't be a "serious journalist and a gay advocate".

They post this crap to promote their own form of righteous indignation, because it sells their agenda. Just like you post this crap to promote your form of righteous indignation, to sell your agenda.

None of this has anything to do with journalism, or legitimate news. It's sensationalism masquerading as phony "news", being used as a propaganda tool.

 

[GFR7]

You can't be a "serious journalist and a gay advocate".

They post this crap to promote their own form of righteous indignation, because it sells their agenda. Just like you post this crap to promote your form of righteous indignation, to sell your agenda.

None of this has anything to do with journalism, or legitimate news.

I think they probably do care a great deal about this whole transgender thing, and I think their concern is genuine, if misguided. I am not indignant, I am simply pointing out where their concern goes wrong.

 

[PureX]

I think they probably do care a great deal about this whole transgender thing, and I think their concern is genuine, if misguided. I am not indignant, I am simply pointing out where their concern goes wrong.

And yours, too. Because you're doing pretty much the exact same thing they're doing, and basically for the same reason.

 

[GFR7]

And yours, too. Because you're doing pretty much the exact same thing they're doing, and basically for the same reason.

I don't believe so. I simply don't think it's good for the culture to tell young people that they can "self-identify" as a different gender. You would think we'd be beyond this whole gender thing, anyway. Persons come first, with gender secondary.

 

[PureX]

I don't believe so. I simply don't think it's good for the culture to tell young people that they can "self-identify" as a different gender.

So what?

I mean so what if you think it's wrong? Why do you feel they you need to promote your opinions to the rest of us by posting these phony "news" stories designed to get people wallowing in their righteous indignation and ignorance?

Why don't you simply post your opinions if you think we need to know them? And maybe post WHY you hold such opinions, and see if anyone wants to discuss or debate your reasons?

You would think we'd be beyond this whole gender thing, anyway. Persons come first, with gender secondary.

I would think people ought to mind their own sexual issues, instead of passing judgment on everyone else's. But those days seem to have long passed. The media has put everyone in everyone else's fish bowl. And we just can't seem to resist watching and judging and telling ourselves how much better we are than those stupid people over there.

 

[GFR7]

So what?

I mean so what if you think it's wrong? Why do you feel they you need to promote your opinions to the rest of us by posting these phony "news" stories designed to get people wallowing in their righteous indignation and ignorance?

Why don't you simply post your opinions if you think we need to know them? And maybe post WHY you hold such opinions, and see if anyone wants to discuss or debate your reasons?
I would think people ought to mind their own sexual issues, instead of passing judgment on everyone else's. But those days seem to have long passed. The media has put everyone in everyone else's fish bowl. And we just can't seem to resist watching and judging and telling ourselves how much better we are than those stupid people over there.

The proper way to post on a political forum is to post a current events item, remark on it, and begin commentary and debate.

Well, this has to do with their lobbies pushing a lot of legislation, so I do think it's the public's business.

I'm not watching and judging; I'm facilitating debate on political agendas and legislation.

 

[PureX]

The proper way to post on a political forum is to post a current events item, remark on it, and begin commentary and debate.

You're not posting current events. You're posting phony "news" that's only intended to stir up ignorance and indignation to promote some agenda.

Well, this has to do with their lobbies pushing a lot of legislation, so I do think it's the public's business.

It has nothing whatever to do with lobbies or legislative agendas.

I'm not watching and judging; I'm facilitating debate on political agendas and legislation.

You're just regurgitating the stupidity because you can't see it for what it is.

 

[GFR7]

You're not posting current events. You're posting phony "news" that's only intended to stir up ignorance and indignation to promote some agenda.
It has nothing whatever to do with lobbies or legislative agendas.
You're just regurgitating the stupidity because you can't see it for what it is.

Quit trolling me. This teen's suicide, and the ensuing debate, are actual news. I think I have the intelligence to see what it is.

 

[Granite]

Quit trolling me. This teen's suicide, and the ensuing debate, are actual news. I think I have the intelligence to see what it is.

She was what she wanted, not what you say so.

Funny how strict you libertarians get.

 

[GFR7]

She was what she wanted, not what you say so.

Funny how strict you libertarians get.

If she was what she wanted, then there was no need to commit suicide.

 

[Granite]

If she was what she wanted, then there was no need to commit suicide.

Which of course means those who commit suicide never have a "real" reason.:nono:

You are so numb.

 

[GFR7]

Which of course means those who commit suicide never have a "real" reason.:nono:

You are so numb.

I am NOT. You are. :AMR1:

 

[Traditio]

Which is probably why Whitehead wrote multiple works, not just a sentece.

So what do those words mean?

Who are the moderns you are talking about? The man in the street and the occasional scientists that doesn't do much philosophical thinking?

Generally speaking.

Sure, just like the average guy in the street usually is, at least implicitly, a dualist.

When I say "Cartesian," I'm not referring to his dualism. I'm referring to his understanding of matter and efficient causality, which has been carried on by his modern sucessors (through and including Hume and beyond). Everything's just lego blocks and billiard balls.

Assuming that all other alternatives are wrong. Is that a conclusion you have drawn based on knowing those alternatives?

It's a necessity of reason. There are only three alternatives:

1. There's just lego blocks (materialism).
2. There's lego blocks + the wholes of which those lego blocks are the parts (hylomorphism).
3. There are wholes, but no lego blocks (Berkleyean immaterialism).

If you can, in plain English, give me a viable alternative, then I'm, metaphorically speaking, "all ears."

You cannot separate that question from what I just wrote.

Yes, I can, for the reasons I'll give below.

No, not if you mean that there is such a thing as "horseness" that exists as some objective reality in which all particular horses participate.

You're not describing the Aristotelian or Thomistic position. Depending on what you mean, what you are describing is a Platonism so crude that not even Plato held it. There is some reality F, and x, y and z "participate in" or imitate F as sharing in its exact essential definition. Aristotle ascribes this doctrine to Plato in the Metaphysics and attacks it. [In fact, it's not Plato's position. Aristotle gets Plato wrong on this point.]

But perhaps what you mean is that there is some reality F which is "part of" x, y and z, and while that sounds like the Aristotelian position, that's not the Aristotelian position (and even if it were, it's not the Thomistic position).

The Aristotelian/Thomistic position is that there are individuals x, y and z. Each individual actually is what it is. We may resolve each of these individuals (each of which is a substance or a naturally self-subsisting entity) into act and potency, form and matter, substance and accidents.

Take a horse. It's one "thing" for it to be a horse, another "thing" for it to have this flesh and these bones. Again, it's one "thing" for it to be this horse, another "thing" for it to be running or to have brown hair.

The actuality in virtue of which this horse is the substance that it is, and has the actuality that it has as a horse, is called its substantial form. Note that the same horse persists from the moment it is conceived until the moment that it dies. It undergoes all kinds of accidental and material changes, but nonetheless, it remains what it is: this individual horse. It doesn't cease to be what it is until it dies.

It is the notion of substantial form, not the universal, which is essential to my argument. If you consider the individual horse, from the moment it is conceived up until its prime, it has a natural tendency to grow and mature into a fully perfect horse. There is an end or a goal at which its process of maturity is directed.

I don't need some fancy doctrine of universals to know that this little baby horse is undergoing all sorts of changes for a reason: it's growing up into maturity. What explains the fact that it's growing up and undergoing all of these changes? The substantial form. Because it is what it is, it is undergoing all of these changes in order to achieve perfection and maturity.

The universal comes later. The universal is based on the recognition that different individuals really are alike each other, independently of our cognition. Note, this is not the same as saying that x, y and z really share in some F. No, I don't think that. That's one of the big points about St. Thomas' doctrine of the analogy of being. Every instance of being is unique. The horseness of this horse is the horseness of this horse. It's not "shared in common," as a reality, with any other horse. This is why your objections really don't affect my position. I was already presupposing that each horse is unique. As St. Thomas says in the De Ente et Essentia (On Being and Essence), "there is nothing common in Socrates. Everything in him is individual."

Nonetheless, if you take x, y and z (each of which is a horse), even though each horse is unique, it is true that each really is like the other. Like in what way? In that each is a horse. True, there is no real "horseness" apart from each individual horse, and each individual horse is unique. Nonetheless, each horse really is like each other in virtue of their being horses.

And you can, of course, deny this all day long with your lips, but you don't actually believe anything else. You presuppose this very doctrine every time you use any common name at all. The laws presuppose it (all men are held to be alike each other insofar as they are men, for example; thus, "equality under the law"). Christianity presupposes it (men are like each other, but are not like the brute beasts). When you go to the grocery store, you probably don't insist on the utter uniqueness and incommensurability of every single apple. No, you get a bag full of them and pay the same price for each.

And when you hear that any animal is pregnant, you don't even have to ask "with what?" You already know the answer. Horses beget horses. Men beget men. Spiders beget spiders.

Furthermore, if you reject the doctrine that I'm explaining, then good luck trying to explain the transmission of original sin, Christ's human nature, or the atonment...just to name a few things.

The problem is that you define good health as natural and placing it in opposition to cancer as unnatural. Cancer is every bit as natural, it arises from the same natural processes that are necessary for that animal to exist.

Once again, this is an equivocation. Consider again the case of our baby horse growing up into maturity. The goal at which all of its growth is directed is the perfection of its form as a horse. It's growing to achieve full, perfect maturity as a horse. That is what is natural for the horse, namely, the goal at which its growth and development is aimed. Cancer may arise from "natural processes," but it's not "natural" or part of the natural perfection of a horse to be cancerous.

But again, you don't really believe what you're saying. I'm pretty sure that you think that doctors and veterinarians exist for a reason. And if you think so, then you presuppose everything that I'm saying.

The chance to develop cancer is a side-effect of a process that is necessary for the animal to be at all. We try to disrupt the natural process of cancerous cell growth based on our desire, and our wise conclusion, that death is not desireable.

Death is not desireable because it's a natural evil. It's a privation of nature.

So you are using subjective value judgments when you condemn one disruption of natural processes in the case of gender confusion disorders, but condone it in the case of chemotherapy.

Let us take our gender confused girl (let us assuming she's actually a girl and was born that way). Let her mature and grow into maturity. What will the natural result be? If she ends up looking like a fully mature woman, would you say that something has gone wrong? That she's unhealthy? That she's deformed? That she needs medicine to correct her condition?

What if she gets cancer?

 

[Traditio]

Furthermore, Selaphiel, Genesis 1 agrees with me "...and God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done" (Genesis 1:24).

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I noticed that you didn't even acknowledge my link about the XY woman. I can understand, given how forcefully you insist on a genetic definition of gender, why you purged it from your awareness, but you can't abolish it from reality just by ignoring it.

What would you call a person who is born with female genetalia, who was previously unaware of any difference between herself and any other woman, who menstruates, who successfully gives birth to a biological daughter, and who is genetically XY? A man?

There is necessarily a distinction between genetics and gender. If you fail to make it, pretty much everything you say about gender will be wrong.

Genetically XY women don't menstruate, nor do they give birth, as they have no uterus or ovaries.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome