Transgender Problem

[dust]

It impinges no ones freedom if someone discriminates against you in thought or deed. You are making it about race and minorities, but it's about people.

 

I'm not making it about anything, only using examples of how discrimination can obviously be violent in itself.

 

 

All you are saying is that one person should be forced to accept another.

 

No. I am saying that people should not be forced away because of the unconsidered opinions of others. If you own a restaurant and don't want me in there, that's fine. But if you let me in and say I must sit with my "own kind", is that fine?

 

 

Someone in that situation is not being granted their freedom. Then you add a straw man 'burned at the crucifix' which is a violation of right to life.

 

Not a straw man, an extreme example of discrimination in deed. In this instance the discrimination and act of murder are inseparable.

 

If I accidentally shoot you dead, I have violated your "right to life".

If I purposefully shoot you dead because you are transgender or black or Muslim or whatever, I have equally violated this "right to life".

The difference is intent.

 

 

In no way have I suggested or implied this is acceptable. What you are saying is that racism is acceptable as long is it is the minority who is being racist.

 

Nothing to do with minorities or majorities. Groups against groups, people against people, no matter how large or small in number.

[Karl]

You are using the modern sense of discrimination, I am using it in the epistemological sense.

 

I object to racism not discrimination. One is a brute violent manifestation of collectivist tribalism, the other is a necessity for survival.

 

This illustrates the gulf of understanding between us and why it feels I'm living on the planet of the apes. This is why the philosophy must be changed as discrimination is now conflated with racism. This is irrational barbarism.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Karl

[Aetherous]

Great minds discuss ideas, not people. Great minds certainly don't try to manipulate or control people's thoughts.

It's said that hate-filled messages are bad...but isn't it hateful to call people bigots, say that they are discriminators, etc? You may counter by saying that's just calling it like it is, and is an attempt to preserve the peace...but the way I see it, it's just thought policing, when nothing bad has actually been said in this thread.

It's said that accepting people is good, and that not accepting people is very hurtful to the unaccepted...yet, we can't accept people with differing viewpoints than our own? And have to call them names, and defame them in an attempt to silence their opinions?

Imagine what the world would look like if we got our misguided way, and all people with views other than our own were silenced or gone. There would be nothing more to discuss, nothing else to fight against...what would we do? Would it actually be peaceful?

When fighting monsters, do not become one. If hate is bad and acceptance is good, perhaps we should accept the fact that not everyone is of like mind. There are different opinions out there, and people are entitled to have them. That trying to change those people, especially by being manipulative and insinuating that they're akin to hate groups and bigots, is what's truly hateful.

[liminal_luke]

 

It's said that accepting people is good, and that not accepting people is very hurtful to the unaccepted...yet, we can't accept people with differing viewpoints than our own? And have to call them names, and defame them in an attempt to silence their opinions?

 

 

You needn´t worry on my account Aetherous.  If I´ve attempted to silence Karl, I´ve failed miserably.

[ralis]

You are using the modern sense of discrimination, I am using it in the epistemological sense.

 

I object to racism not discrimination. One is a brute violent manifestation of collectivist tribalism, the other is a necessity for survival.

 

This illustrates the gulf of understanding between us and why it feels I'm living on the planet of the apes. This is why the philosophy must be changed as discrimination is now conflated with racism. This is irrational barbarism.

 

Everyone else is an ape and you are not? Further, there are instances in Indiana where religious pizza makers will not cater a same sex marriage. Also, there are bakeries that have refused on religious grounds to serve same sex couples, both instances are violations of business license laws.

[ralis]

You needn´t worry on my account Aetherous.  If I´ve attempted to silence Karl, I´ve failed miserably.

 

Karl is channeling Ayn Rand and is possessed by her.

[Karl]

Everyone else is an ape and you are not? Further, there are instances in Indiana where religious pizza makers will not cater a same sex marriage. Also, there are bakeries that have refused on religious grounds to serve same sex couples, both instances are violations of business license laws.

 

Not everyone.

It seems to me that the words and definitions have been changed in order to dehumanise men. It is not possible to discriminate-a necessity-without being racist. I hadn't noticed until I looked up the definition. At one time 'discrimination' was considered important.

 

It's the laws which are racist in your example.

[ralis]

Not everyone. It seems to me that the words and definitions have been changed in order to dehumanise men. It is not possible to discriminate-a necessity-without being racist. I hadn't noticed until I looked up the definition. At one time 'discrimination' was considered important. It's the laws which are racist in your example.

 

In your view it is always the fault of the government and if laws only protected Karl's castle and his stuff, then the world would be peaches and cream. Enjoy your illusions.

[liminal_luke]

Karl is channeling Ayn Rand and is possessed by her.

 

I only got through the first few pages of The Fountainhead, so I wouldn´t really know, though this explanation seems as good as any other.  In case I sound like a spiteful free-speech killing politically-correct dolt, let me just say that I don´t think Karl is hateful.  He´s just a champion of hater rights.

Edited May 7, 2016 by liminal_luke

[C T]

Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Holy Wars, The Middle Ages and the Nazi SS basing much of their beliefs on religion. I guess you have not read any history.

Actually your reply indicates the typical mentality of most people who are ignorant of historical facts. If you care enough to read for example the Encyclopaedia of Wars, it clearly indicates that religion accounted for less than 7% (precisely 6.977%, or 123) of the documented list of 1763 wars in history. 

 

This however does not mean i read history. What it means is that I instinctually knew your claim was inaccurate, and that prompted me to do some light research, something you ought to have done prior to issuing your typical off-the-cuff responses instead of having wasted my time. 

[ralis]

Actually your reply indicates the typical mentality of most people who are ignorant of historical facts. If you care enough to read for example the Encyclopaedia of Wars, it clearly indicates that religion accounted for less than 7% (precisely 6.977%, or 123) of the documented list of 1763 wars in history. 

 

This however does not mean i read history. What it means is that I instinctually knew your claim was inaccurate, and that prompted me to do some light research, something you ought to have done prior to issuing your typical off-the-cuff responses instead of having wasted my time. 

 

Their scholarship is in question and it is difficult to ascertain exact figures. Axelrod has advanced degrees in English and none are in history. Charles Phillips bio is nowhere to be found.

 

To just pull something off the web without a little vetting will not find my approval.

[C T]

Their scholarship is in question and it is difficult to ascertain exact figures. Axelrod has advanced degrees in English and none are in history. Charles Phillips bio is nowhere to be found.

 

To just pull something off the web without a little vetting will not find my approval.

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but your approval means nothing. What is more important is to back up your statements with facts, something that you vehemently urge others to do, no? 

[C T]

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but your approval means nothing. What is more important is to back up your statements with facts, something that you vehemently urge others to do, no? 

Moreover, i can detail much more facts and figures based on the little digging done, but its totally not related to this topic. 

 

The point has been made. 

[dust]

You are using the modern sense of discrimination, I am using it in the epistemological sense.

 

I object to racism not discrimination. One is a brute violent manifestation of collectivist tribalism, the other is a necessity for survival.

 

I hope we can try to worry less over precise definitions and get to what's really concerning us. The meanings, rather than the words themselves.

 

You object to racism. Cool, me too.

 

You have already said that a person should be free to send another person out of his place of business if he so chooses; that if we force people to accept everyone, not allowing them to choose who they allow in their shop, we are impinging on their liberty, right?

 

How do you reconcile these things?

 

If a black man sends a white man out of his shop based on the fact that he is white, do you object?

 

And if a 'Christian' man sends a transgender man out based on the fact that he is transgender, do you object?

 

I, for one, if I owned a shop, would like the legal right to be able to throw anyone out I so chose. If I decided that I hated brown people, or women, or carpenters, or simply didn't like the look of a particular individual, I would want the legal right to be able to say "Get out, you are not welcome."

 

But I would not expect this right. I do not expect that anyone be thrown out of a place of business, or anywhere else that is open to the public, on the whim of the owner, unless that person can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be a threat.

 

If the owner decides he doesn't want someone in there, there must be a reason. Unless he knows the other person, the reason is generally going to be based on some exterior marker. If it is 'race', we object. If it is transgenderism, why do we not object?

Edited May 7, 2016 by dustybeijing

[ralis]

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but your approval means nothing. What is more important is to back up your statements with facts, something that you vehemently urge others to do, no? 

 

I was making a generalization, but I stand behind the historical records of religion being one cause of hatred and violence. In this topic of discussion, discrimination based on religious ideology/demagoguery is the issue at hand.

[C T]

I was making a generalization, but I stand behind the historical records of religion being one cause of hatred and violence. In this topic of discussion, discrimination based on religious ideology/demagoguery is the issue at hand.

Its good to state clearly that you were generalizing then. 

[Junko]

Why do you stack?

History is all over.

[liminal_luke]

CT,

 

I don´t know the exact percentage of violence that´s committed with religious justification, but it seems to me there is a lot of that going around.  Hasidic Jews throwing rocks at sabbath-defaming Saturday morning car-drivers in Mea Sharim, an ultra-orthodox neighborhood in Jerusalem.  Christians burning crosses in black people´s front yards. (Not so much these days, but historically.)  Moslems wearing suicide vests and thinking of heavenly virgins.

 

These are just references I´ve picked up from popular culture and casual reading.  I haven´t done extensive research, and I´m sure a great deal of violent perpetrators don´t feel the need to pick up a Bible or any other such text.  Just the same though, I´m confident that lots of violent people use religious belief to justify their violent acts and encourage violence in others.

 

You disagree?

Edited May 7, 2016 by liminal_luke

[C T]

CT,

 

I don´t know the exact percentage of violence that´s committed with religious justification, but it seems to me there is a lot of that going around.  Hasidic Jews throwing rocks at sabbath-defaming Saturday morning car-drivers in Mea Sharim, an ultra-orthodox neighborhood in Jerusalem.  Christians burning crosses in black people´s front yards. (Not so much these days, but historically.)  Moslems wearing suicide vests and thinking of heavenly virgins.

 

These are just references I´ve picked up from popular culture and casual reading.  I haven´t done extensive research, and I´m sure a great deal of violent perpetrators don´t feel the need to pick up a Bible or any other such text.  Just the same though, I´m confident that lots of violent people use religious believe to justify their violent acts and encourage violence in others.

 

You disagree?

Hi Liminal Luke,

 

Its clear countless acts of violence have been and still are ignorantly carried out in the name of religious defence, when ironically its actually offence that are being propagated. The issue i had with Ralis' statement is only a minor point, one which is not even directly related to this topic, but relevant enough so that anyone reading this who have the same mindset as his can do some research to understand that while religious wars have been rife in history, it is far less significant in terms of kill numbers compared to wars fought under other banners, for example, extreme greed, extreme imbalance of power, causeless hatred, and misplaced utopian ideals. While religion may have some complex bearing in the bigger picture, it is not accurate to say it accounts for the majority of causes of all the wars that was ever fought in history. 

[Old River]

I'd say the problem lies with absolutism, which can take religious forms (the Spanish Inquisition, modern day Jihadism) or secular forms (Communism, fascism).  But religion has a sort of ready-made package-- and metaphysical absolutism has a greater appeal (and a longer track record).  But absolutism, in whatever form it takes, is always about power, putting people in "their place" (whatever that might mean in whatever context)-- the rest, as far as their fanatical followers go, is rhetoric.

 

This isn't to deny that religion is blameless, but that the relationship between religion and violence is a bit more complex -- otherwise people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, and MLK wouldn't exist.

[ralis]

Hi Liminal Luke,

 

Its clear countless acts of violence have been and still are ignorantly carried out in the name of religious defence, when ironically its actually offence that are being propagated. The issue i had with Ralis' statement is only a minor point, one which is not even directly related to this topic, but relevant enough so that anyone reading this who have the same mindset as his can do some research to understand that while religious wars have been rife in history, it is far less significant in terms of kill numbers compared to wars fought under other banners, for example, extreme greed, extreme imbalance of power, causeless hatred, and misplaced utopian ideals. While religion may have some complex bearing in the bigger picture, it is not accurate to say it accounts for the majority of causes of all the wars that was ever fought in history. 

 

Even though I made a generalization, the basis of religious ideology as a contributing cause is a complex subject, which requires extensive research as opposed to relying on one set of books. I never rely on one document.

[C T]

Even though I made a generalization, the basis of religious ideology as a contributing cause is a complex subject, which requires extensive research as opposed to relying on one set of books. I never rely on one document.

It was an example of one little internet search that was done. You were not asked to rely on that, but simply and to the point, to be more responsible with your statements. Anyway, this exchange which is off-topic has gone far enough. 

 

You're welcome to start a new topic on it though. 

[ralis]

It was an example of one little internet search that was done. You were not asked to rely on that, but simply and to the point, to be more responsible with your statements. Anyway, this exchange which is off-topic has gone far enough. 

 

You're welcome to start a new topic on it though. 

 

What I stated is related to the OP which in and of itself, religious discrimination of LGBT persons can and does lead lead to violence.

[cold]

Who's transgender problem?

 

Where do I stand when first they come for the  ______________, and I wasn't _________________ so I do / did nothing?

 

Everything deserves respect.

 

One can't or won't love some body / thing they don't / won't respect.

[ralis]

Who's transgender problem?

 

Where do I stand when first they come for the  ______________, and I wasn't _________________ so I do / did nothing?

 

Everything deserves respect.

 

One can't or won't love some body / thing they don't / won't respect.

 

Everything? Meaning in your narrative that one must respect persons advocating discrimination? Hate speech? If so, I can hardly agree.

Edited May 7, 2016 by ralis