The truth, for the purposes of this conversation, is an accurate representation of the facts based on evidence.
We do not have our own versions. Even this, you’ve repeated this nonsensical claim about us both having our own truths several times, but never engaged with the criticism of it.
Now you may be right. Maybe I’m wrong and everybody has their own pocket of reality. But I disagree, and I’ve explained why I disagree. But you don’t defend the claim, you just keep on mindlessly repeating it.
“Cultural concepts like trans issues have no absolutes”
You are describing feelings and opinions here. Not truths.
For example, the chief claim among trans women is that they “feel like women.” But it is not TRUE that they are women.
And when you ask them to define what they mean by feeling like women, they fall back on cultural stereotypes like liking wearing dresses and makeup. Which many women don’t do.
So in this case, being a woman is not their “truth,” it is at best a delusion and at worst a lie. And it is impossible to build a legal framework or a civil rights movement on that.
Good god man, I literally quoted the paragraph, IN FULL, at the top of one of my earlier replies. It’s the only paragraph we’ve talked about your interpretation of.
This is why I say it’s a waste of my time and energy engaging with you. It’s like talking to a particularly argumentative and belligerent goldfish.
I spent 15 minutes trying to find the quote. The thread as so many sub-threads I can find it.
From my memory I believe it was related to "the only thing different is trans-woman being in woman's prisons". I agree that using "only thing different" here is confusing. There are allot of differences in the pre-trans debate era (I define that as when the statement trans-woman = woman statement was made) and the post-trans debate era.
But I can see that you interacting with my view that this is a very grey subject riles you. I view most of the world as grey. There is very little black and white. Even "science" admits that. Newton's law was a great example. It was a law until it wasn't. That happened when Einstein's theory of relativity was universally accepted.
Countries laws are relative to the current society morality. They nothing more than snapshots in time. Prohibition and Slavery are two great examples. Laws are all grey. We use institutions like the courts to help make them black and white. But as we have found out, what is black in one time can become white in another (e.g. abortion).
You like to site some vague concept of human rights. As I have pointed out to you (and the Human Rights Campaign) many times, please define where you get your definition of Human Rights. Because the UN definition is inherently at odds with itself. That was by design because they could never have gotten agreements from all the countries on the definition if it wasn't.
Sorry that I have a very deep knowledge of all the issues. Including the discussion with peaceful dave on the concept of the brain matures around 25 years old as relevant to the discussion.
My old daughter who is a psychologist recently told me that I have a very unique ability to listen to other people without pre-judging the morality of their perspective and perceived issues. My only goal is to understand and facilitate clarity. In the case of the conversation my goal was to clearly separate the term "trans-community" from the concepts of "malicious men posing as woman". I also want to make it clear that the debate is anything but black and white. Its the epitome of grey as determined by all the various view many well thought out people have publicly stated on the debate.
I'm wonder whether you really want me commenting on your articles. That's why I decided not to do a paid subscription anymore.
If I wanted to stop you commenting in my articles I'd have blocked you. Simple. If you remain unblocked, you are obviously welcome to continue commenting. If you choose to stop commenting or paying to subscribe, that's your choice. I've never tried to push you in either direction. Stop playing the victim.
I find you incredibly irritating to talk to for no other reason that you don't think very deeply and simultaneously aren't willing to listen. You very often have an incredibly superficial understanding of the facts, but whether it's your ego or just the Dunning-Kruger effect, you can never recognise this. So when people point out that you're wrong, you just start blathering about different "truths."
So if your goal is to "facilitate clarity," and you regularly receive the feedback (from people who aren't your daughter) that you're failing, does there ever come a point where that leads to a little bit of self examination? Do you ever, for example, ask what someone means rather than telling them what they think or what retreats they should go on?
Do you ever have one of your points refuted and think, even privately, "ah, I was wrong there, I won't repeat that same argument in the very next conversation,"?
You're very engaged on these topics. That's great. I genuinely welcome engagement and disagreement. But man, try approaching conversations as just conversations instead of as "debates" that you're trying to win. On the rare occasions when you do that, we get along fine.
But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?
Really suggest you look up epistemic humility.
Or as I have suggested in the past also, do a mankind warrior weekend.
“But what is truth?”
The truth, for the purposes of this conversation, is an accurate representation of the facts based on evidence.
We do not have our own versions. Even this, you’ve repeated this nonsensical claim about us both having our own truths several times, but never engaged with the criticism of it.
Now you may be right. Maybe I’m wrong and everybody has their own pocket of reality. But I disagree, and I’ve explained why I disagree. But you don’t defend the claim, you just keep on mindlessly repeating it.
Name a truth you believe is absolute?
Gravity maybe…
Cultural concepts like trans issues have no absolutes. They are shades of gray where the idea of what is “truth” is very tied your cultural identity.
You state that I failed to read a paragraph “correctly”. Which paragraph are you referring to?
“Cultural concepts like trans issues have no absolutes”
You are describing feelings and opinions here. Not truths.
For example, the chief claim among trans women is that they “feel like women.” But it is not TRUE that they are women.
And when you ask them to define what they mean by feeling like women, they fall back on cultural stereotypes like liking wearing dresses and makeup. Which many women don’t do.
So in this case, being a woman is not their “truth,” it is at best a delusion and at worst a lie. And it is impossible to build a legal framework or a civil rights movement on that.
Good god man, I literally quoted the paragraph, IN FULL, at the top of one of my earlier replies. It’s the only paragraph we’ve talked about your interpretation of.
This is why I say it’s a waste of my time and energy engaging with you. It’s like talking to a particularly argumentative and belligerent goldfish.
I spent 15 minutes trying to find the quote. The thread as so many sub-threads I can find it.
From my memory I believe it was related to "the only thing different is trans-woman being in woman's prisons". I agree that using "only thing different" here is confusing. There are allot of differences in the pre-trans debate era (I define that as when the statement trans-woman = woman statement was made) and the post-trans debate era.
But I can see that you interacting with my view that this is a very grey subject riles you. I view most of the world as grey. There is very little black and white. Even "science" admits that. Newton's law was a great example. It was a law until it wasn't. That happened when Einstein's theory of relativity was universally accepted.
Countries laws are relative to the current society morality. They nothing more than snapshots in time. Prohibition and Slavery are two great examples. Laws are all grey. We use institutions like the courts to help make them black and white. But as we have found out, what is black in one time can become white in another (e.g. abortion).
You like to site some vague concept of human rights. As I have pointed out to you (and the Human Rights Campaign) many times, please define where you get your definition of Human Rights. Because the UN definition is inherently at odds with itself. That was by design because they could never have gotten agreements from all the countries on the definition if it wasn't.
Sorry that I have a very deep knowledge of all the issues. Including the discussion with peaceful dave on the concept of the brain matures around 25 years old as relevant to the discussion.
My old daughter who is a psychologist recently told me that I have a very unique ability to listen to other people without pre-judging the morality of their perspective and perceived issues. My only goal is to understand and facilitate clarity. In the case of the conversation my goal was to clearly separate the term "trans-community" from the concepts of "malicious men posing as woman". I also want to make it clear that the debate is anything but black and white. Its the epitome of grey as determined by all the various view many well thought out people have publicly stated on the debate.
I'm wonder whether you really want me commenting on your articles. That's why I decided not to do a paid subscription anymore.
If I wanted to stop you commenting in my articles I'd have blocked you. Simple. If you remain unblocked, you are obviously welcome to continue commenting. If you choose to stop commenting or paying to subscribe, that's your choice. I've never tried to push you in either direction. Stop playing the victim.
I find you incredibly irritating to talk to for no other reason that you don't think very deeply and simultaneously aren't willing to listen. You very often have an incredibly superficial understanding of the facts, but whether it's your ego or just the Dunning-Kruger effect, you can never recognise this. So when people point out that you're wrong, you just start blathering about different "truths."
So if your goal is to "facilitate clarity," and you regularly receive the feedback (from people who aren't your daughter) that you're failing, does there ever come a point where that leads to a little bit of self examination? Do you ever, for example, ask what someone means rather than telling them what they think or what retreats they should go on?
Do you ever have one of your points refuted and think, even privately, "ah, I was wrong there, I won't repeat that same argument in the very next conversation,"?
You're very engaged on these topics. That's great. I genuinely welcome engagement and disagreement. But man, try approaching conversations as just conversations instead of as "debates" that you're trying to win. On the rare occasions when you do that, we get along fine.
"Sorry that I have a very deep knowledge of all the issues"
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣