"lived role" - Socially constructed expectation of behavior — Philosophim

I read this differently, since we live inside our heads

psychological factors — Philosophim

one's own psychological factors, not the factors of others

a person’s biological constitution — Philosophim

The brain is part of your biology

Is that all? Do you have anything more to say to my last response? — Philosophim

Much of your argument depends on one's identity being something produced outside of them, and I cannot accept that presumption.

The definition of gender is how one or more people believe a sex should behave socially. — Philosophim

No, that is your definition, and it goes against commonly accepted research.

"Sex" is how you're built. "Gender" is a part of who you are.

According to the American College of Pediatricians:

Although often used interchangeably, the terms sex and gender are not synonyms. According to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), gender is defined as the “lived role” of male or female, resulting from the interaction of cultural and psychological factors with a person’s biological constitution.

I was being quite careful there - interferring with the desire wouldn't be convincing her away from using (i presume?) MAID. It would have been attempting to adjust her worldview to not want to die. — AmadeusD

I tried. "We have to look for ways for you to live, not to die."

But they were quite set on it. Never a second thought. No fear of death. Once I said, "Look, we have to prepare to live for the next thirty years like this."

They got quite upset. "Don't tell me I have to live like this for thirty years!"

I want to emphasize that they were very at peace with their decision. They were filled with gratitude for the good years they had, but could no longer live in a body that had already left.

That said, I am incredibly sorry for your loss and respect your journey there immensely. Thank you for sharing. — AmadeusD

You're welcome.

Yes, interfering with someone's desire to kill themselves is sound, imo. — AmadeusD

Again ... it depends ...

My spouse, once very active, was made severely disabled by MS. Once they made their decision to use medically-assisted death, it took months to convince me of it. But finally, due to my deep respect for this person, I came to accept their decision.

that X is suffering, therefore X must end life. — Corvus

No, I wouldn't advance this position. There is no "must" about it.

But if a person believes they have no quality of life and cannot live their life the only way that life would be acceptable to them, does it not become their decision?

Boy, this is a great post. Really interesting. — T Clark

Thank you so much!

Or maybe I’ll just plagiarize — T Clark

Be my guest!

The elevation of gender over sex is social prejudice at best, social sexism at worst. — Philosophim

Well, this is an original idea to forward an anti-transgender argument, but this theory has several holes, beginning with the idea that gender is something artificially “elevated”

Gender is one aspect of identity, and it’s our identity, produced by a brain, that determines how we perceive and react to the world. It’s all we got to go on. To suggest that some part of my body, rather than my brain, should determine who I am, is absurd.

Gender: The non-biological expectations that one or more people have about how a sex should express themselves in public. For example, "Men are expected to wear top hats, women are not." — Philosophim

No, gender is not determined by external expectations, but by biological factors - how the brain functions:

… the existence of brain phenotypes in line with the idea of a brain sexual differentiation seems to be confirmed by the … reported studies, including both cisgender and transgender individuals.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7139786/

Perhaps it is simplistic to say a male transgender person has a male brain, or a female transgender brain has a female brain – but the evidence that transgender brain structure and function are different from their biological (physical) sex is there if you care to investigate it.

From one study:

The observed shift away from a male-typical brain anatomy towards a female-typical one in people who identify as transgender women suggests a possible underlying neuroanatomical correlate for a female gender identity.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8955456/

From another:

… results, published in 2013, showed that even before treatment the brain structures of the trans people were more similar in some respects to the brains of their experienced gender than those of their natal gender.

From a study that focused on brain function:

… used functional MRI to examine how 39 prepubertal and 41 adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria responded to androstadienone, an odorous steroid with pheromonelike properties that is known to cause a different response in the hypothalamus of men versus women. They found that the adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria responded much like peers of their experienced gender.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

The question is about primacy of importance in regards to law and culture. Rationally, which is more important to consider? A person's sex, or their gender? — Philosophim

Gender is part of cognitive identity, so definitely gender. Why should “law and culture” force people to be something they are not? In what situations is this justified?

Gender claims are subjective beliefs, not objective facts. — Philosophim

Of course, identity is subjective – it is produced in the brain of the subject. But subjectivity does not mean identity should be disregarded. Indeed, it should prevail. It is one’s lived experience – not an “opinion” - not a "belief" - but a reality.

Looking at gender, gender is a social belief that a sex should express itself a particular way. — Philosophim

No, gender is not a social belief. It is a state produced by a functioning brain, encompassing differences in cognition among individuals, which lead to differences in behavior. Here is one well-researched area that would produce different experiences of reality (and thus different reactions to it):

“You see sex differences in spatial-visualization ability in 2- and 3-month-old infants,” Halpern says. Infant girls respond more readily to faces and begin talking earlier. Boys react earlier in infancy to experimentally induced perceptual discrepancies in their visual environment. In adulthood, women remain more oriented to faces, men to things.

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different/

Because gender is subjective and subject to the whims of an individual or group, — Philosophim

No, gender is not based on a “whim.”

I just can't see any good reason to consider gender as anything more than a prejudiced and sexist social pressure. — Philosophim

But to not recognize the gender that one claims for themselves would be a prejudiced position, and put sexist social pressure on them.

We should seek to minimize gender as anything more than an ignorant and potentially bigoted human opinion about people based on their sex. — Philosophim

Or – we can just accept one’s lived experience that they claim for themselves. Believe them.

In summary, gender/identity should take precedence over the physical attributes of the body. External pressures to be something you are not (which are often based in ignorance) should be discouraged.

I think of Saint Francis, who also preached the value and dignity of the poor, although about 1000 years after Saint Patrick. I always got the impression that his beliefs were considered very close to heresy. — T Clark

I think it is really important to distinguish those who embrace Christianity in a true following of Jesus and those who would use it for political gains.

This question comes to my mind during the Christmas season. I'm inclined to attribute it several factors, which I'll summarize.

First, its thorough assimilation of pagan religious beliefs, especially those of the various pagan mystery cults involving rebirth, salvation and life after death (it also assimilated a great deal of pagan philosophy as well, but though this was useful in providing, awkwardly I think, intellectual support for Christianity I doubt it contributed much to its spread). Christmas itself is evidence of this assimilation, as its celebration consists in great part of the customs of the Roman Saturnalia and the northern European Yule. The date chosen for the celebration of Jesus' birth, of course, is the traditional date of the birth of Sol Invictus and other gods associated with the Winter Solstice

Second, its ruthless and relentless suppression of all other religious beliefs after Christians acquired control of the Roman imperial government, including suppression of Christian variants deemed heretical once orthodoxy was established (I mean those popular before the Reformation). In short, it profited from its intolerance.

Third, zealous commitment to its spread among non-Christians (the missionary impulse), sometimes by force of arms.

Fourth, the appeal of a religion which promised forgiveness of sins, thus providing hope that salvation was possible regardless of wrongs committed during life.

Which tells us something about successful institutional religion and ourselves, I think; none of it inspiring or attractive. — Ciceronianus

I think this might be a cynical point-of-view, as far as the early spread of Christianity is concerned. I think the gospel of Jesus was embraced because it was the first egalitarian philosophy to reach the ears of the oppressed. Jesus was the first egalitarian, elevating the poor to an equal status with the upper levels. The promises were great, as can be seen by the 5th century poem, St. Patrick's Breastplate:

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
of the Creator of creation.
I arise today
Through the strength of Christ's birth with His baptism,
Through the strength of His crucifixion with His burial,
Through the strength of His resurrection with His ascension,
Through the strength of His descent for the judgment of doom.
I arise today
Through the strength of the love of cherubim,
In the obedience of angels,
In the service of archangels,
In the hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In the prayers of patriarchs,
In the predictions of prophets,
In the preaching of apostles,
In the faith of confessors,
In the innocence of holy virgins,
In the deeds of righteous men.
I arise today, through
The strength of heaven,
The light of the sun,
The radiance of the moon,
The splendor of fire,
The speed of lightning,
The swiftness of wind,
The depth of the sea,
The stability of the earth,
The firmness of rock.
I arise today, through
God's strength to pilot me,
God's might to uphold me,
God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me,
God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me,
God's hand to guard me,
God's shield to protect me,
God's host to save me
From snares of devils,
From temptation of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
afar and near.
I summon today
All these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel and merciless power
that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom,
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul;
Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me an abundance of reward.
Christ with me,
Christ before me,
Christ behind me,
Christ in me,
Christ beneath me,
Christ above me,
Christ on my right,
Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down,
Christ when I sit down,
Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.
I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
of the Creator of creation.

If this is to respond to my (admittedly dismissive) comment, this doesn't change what I'm seeing. Bringing this up isn't good faith, in context. Although, I recognize that bad faith is active - i doubt that's what's happening here. I just think you're choosing to debate in a way that we regularly see on talk shows. As I say, its probably better we just don't discuss these things. No harm, no foul. Its tricky. — AmadeusD

What an odd response to being corrected.

I have made multiple attempts on my life — AmadeusD

Okay, so we both seem to be coming at this from subjective angles, through the lens of our personal experiences. I wonder if we can step back and examine it from a philosophical angle.

Some questions that are raised:

Who owns a life?

Do obligations to others supersede that ownership?

Is interference in one's desire to kill themselves morally sound?

I realize a lot of answers will begin with "it depends" - so please take the conditional statements wherever they lead you.

There were no such words as "transmale" or "transfemale" in ancient times. But in modern times there are people who changed their gender, and the word was invented to represent them. — Corvus

Of course there were transgenders in ancient time. (They actually called them more poetic names) People living in the opposite gender of the sex that they were born into have existed as long as we have been keeping records. They have discovered 5,000-year old graves containing biologically male skeletons in female dress and female grave goods.

Ever heard of the transgender priestesses of ancient Rome called the Gallae?

Also - you have a profound misconception about the nature of transgenderism. Transgender persons who transition do not "change their gender." They are born with a gender that does not match the body they were born into. They change the body to match the gender.

And if this is being recognized now - why does this disturb you?

how misunderstanding and misusing language can lead you to come to total misrepresentation of the objects in the real world. — Corvus

There is no misunderstanding or misuse of the word transgender (except maybe on your behalf.)

By "misrepresentation of objects" - theses objects you speak of - do you mean transgender persons?

"Transgender identity" is vastly overwhelming accepted by the medical community.

You need to transcend the linguistic prison at times, — Corvus

I have no idea what this means.

if you want to understand the world correctly. — Corvus

Oh, this gives us a hint. Funny, but I have always thought of language as a pretty good means of expressing meaning. And - "correctly" according to whom?

ou must first understand the objects, and then analyse the meaning of the words put onto them, not the other way around. — Corvus

The people who best understand transgender persons call them transgender.

We want to apply philosophical analysis, not internet dictionary here. — Corvus

I'm not sure, possibly you can clarify, but do you have a problem with the world "transgender?"

Here’s one example:

Kevin Patrick Smith left dozens of threatening voice messages for US Senator Jon Tester (Montana – Democrat) — Questioner

You misunderstood.

I quoted that to mean not that Smith was doing the inciting, but that Trump supporters had been incited by Trump.

Your view effectively resolves the problem of evil by denying that benevolence is a property of reality at all. But that is not a defense of omnibenevolent theism - it is a rejection of it. — Truth Seeker

I suppose it is, but I did say I was approaching the question from a materialist, pantheistic point-of-view.

I do not believe in the existence of "evil" as its own entity. There is no force that we can say is the source of evil. "Evil" is a man-made construct. Now, we might say that we can use "evil" as an adjective rather than a noun - that human behavior might be termed "evil" if it harms others. But this is a result of a very strong instinct to survive combined with a brain that developed with the capacity to do evil acts.

As to the question of benevolence - again - of course humans may do benevolent things. But it is not because of some external force that has entered into them, something detached from who they are, but rather humans evolved to guard and maintain the group. We are first and foremost social creatures. This necessitates the evolution of things like empathy.

agency, intentionality, and moral relevance — Truth Seeker

The only thing in existence that we know of that has these qualities is the human species. They are all products of our evolution.

not a morally accountable God. — Truth Seeker

Taking this from the pantheistic point-of-view - no, Nature is not morally accountable to us.

Once benevolence is dismissed as anthropomorphic, suffering no longer requires justification - but neither does reality deserve moral trust, worship, or praise. — Truth Seeker

I disagree. I think an inherent sense of awe and wonder at all of creation leads us to not only treat it morally, but to also respect and revere it, while at the same time valuing reason and science.

At that point, “God” becomes a poetic synonym for nature, not a being to whom moral predicates meaningfully apply. — Truth Seeker

Our morality is a product of our evolution.

the argument is not answered — Truth Seeker

Yes, I see, rather a new one was made.

The word "Trans" represents that whatever follows after it, is not real. — Corvus

transcription
transpositional
transnational
transatlantic
transportation
transplant
transfusion
transaction

And I am sure that are at least a hundred more.

But if someone in that situation makes a choice, it seems to me to be straightforwardly cruel to try to prevent them achieving their goal. Loved ones may grieve, but active prevention would not be an act of love, but of selfishness. — Ludwig V

Thank you for that.

Act of suicide is an immoral thing to do, because it kills life. Even if it is one's own life. It is still killing which is the most evil act to commit.

It is also an evil act in the sense that committing suicide is not just killing one's own life, but also it destroys the world the one has lived in. The moment one kills oneself, the world one belonged to also evaporates with all the people in it and all the memories, and relations one has built in it.

Therefore all life on earth has a moral duty to carry on until the old age and inevitable natural deaths. — Corvus

A moral duty? Why?

This is spoken like someone who has never talked to someone who has chosen doctor-assisted death. How dare you judge them. I know someone who chose MAID (medical assistance in death) and they were the most moral person I ever knew.

A few weeks before his death, he told me, "I am excited about it, the way you get excited when you are going camping. You know that excited feeling you get planning a camping trip. That is how I feel."

Can you imaging a suffering so great in this life that you want to give this life up?

This is an interesting discussion. Beauty surely is subjective – “in the eye of the beholder.”

For example, for me, “truth” is always beautiful, even if it is an ugly truth. Seeing how things really are is always beautiful. As Keats said, "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Anyway, this thread reminded me of something Edgar Allen Poe wrote in The Philosophy of Composition: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/55749/pg55749-images.html

Now I designate Beauty as the province of the poem.

For Poe, beauty is the one true function of poetry, since it is the genre most able to inspire “intense and pure elevation of the soul.”

So – if it “elevates your soul” – it is beautiful. (Even if you take the idea of the “soul” as a metaphor for your deepest feelings.)

Good poetry does that for me, especially when it reveals a universal truth. Consider the poetry in The Tao Teh King https://www.gutenberg.org/files/216/216-h/216-h.htm – its beauty amplified by the fact that it was written thousands of years ago by someone whose experience of life was very different than mine – yet expresses a truth relevant today:

Or fame or life,
Which do you hold more dear?
Or life or wealth,
To which would you adhere?
Keep life and lose those other things;
Keep them and lose your life:—which brings
Sorrow and pain more near?

Thus we may see,
Who cleaves to fame
Rejects what is more great;
Who loves large stores
Gives up the richer state.

Who is content
Needs fear no shame.
Who knows to stop
Incurs no blame.
From danger free
Long live shall he.

The Equal Omniscience and Omnipotence Argument — Truth Seeker

If I may, I'd like to look at this through the lens of a materialistic, and pantheistic, point-of-view. Consider that all that exists contains all the knowledge and all the power needed to keep the universe going.

I do notice that you mention "beings" and "sentient beings" in your OP - but must omniscience and omnipotence be restricted to them?

I think it might be rightly concluded that all that exists is omniscient and omnipotent.

Now to the question of benevolence - I think this is a man-made concept, rather anthropomorphic, and not an accurate reflection of reality. Reality doesn't operate according to better or worse, but just what is. Same holds true for nature, for example with the theory of evolution - which has no end goals, but is a progression of complex chemistry to produce the best suited to live in a particular environment.

And so, in a pantheistic worldview - "God" (i.e. all of creation) would be omniscient and omnipotent, but the notions of good and evil do not enter into the equation. All is merely what it is.

you have already have made assumptions about me — MrLiminal

I never mentioned you, but I invite you to review the things you have said about me.

I am sorry you could not discuss the issues with me instead of getting defensive.

Do you think the bloodlust from either side would be as bad if leadership from both actually tried to stop it? — MrLiminal

I haven't seen any bloodlust from Democratic leadership. I have seen them calling Trump out on the many ways he is poisoning politics in the US.

I would argue largely due to the left catastrophizing Trump from a bad President to an almost supernaturally evil one. — MrLiminal

This betrays a reluctance to accept any criticism of Trump at all. Something I have noticed, is that, MAGA takes any criticism of Trump as criticism of them - as if they have melded their identifies with his.

For all the talk about how much the right hated Obama like the anti-Christ, he never came nearly as close to assassination as Trump has. — MrLiminal

There were many, many plots made against Obama, and a lot of racist hate spewed his way.

I remain unmoved. I used to be incredibly anti-Trump and still largely disagree with him, but I have seen too many examples of actual bloodlust from friends and family further left than me to believe this isn't a politically neutral problem. What's more, the right has *always* been fine with being seen as the heartless party, so it's much more jarring to see the supposedly soft-hearted and empathetic democrats sink to their level. — MrLiminal

Sorry, you have ignored the main point of my post - what is the role of leadership in all this?

Kathy Griffin started this Trump's first term with the severed head thing and it has only continued since. People openly wish for Trump's violent death in some parts of both the real world and internet — MrLiminal

The thing Griffin did was horrible. I certainly wouldn’t condone that sort of thing.

But, as I mentioned before, for every leftist extremist, there's two (or more) that belong to the right.

For example, I subscribe to the website MAGA Report that monitors MAGA online forums and reports on them. With the news that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was to be released, posters to one particular forum suggested extrajudicial violence as the solution to immigration

Here are the copied comments:

***

• We should have killed this guy months ago. It would have saved us a lot of time and hassle while taking a violent criminal off the streets.
Why is it that we can blow up foreign criminals/terrorists in international waters and abroad, but the moment they set foot on US soil, they’re entitled to an attorney, a trial, an appeals process, etc?
o It baffles me how a criminal alien, involved in human trafficking, and open gang member doesn’t get the rope.
 Why not have the cameras malfunction for a few minutes while he “hangs himself” like Jeffery Epstein did?
 Criminal aliens charged with felonies should be under military court jurisdiction and justice.
 You might run into some issues with that due to ex parte Milligan.
Which is why I’d prefer to deny them a trial outright
 Just a hundred years ago, regular people like you and me would have already hanged him from a tree...
 60 years ago.
20 years ago no judge would dare do this.
We’ve been conquered. There hypothetically and unfortunately needs to be a civil war to end this.
 Revolution, not civil war.
There’s a huge difference

***

What is the source of this hate?

Indeed, much of the research suggests that compared to left-wing extremists, right-wing extremists may be more likely to engage in politically motivated violence.

And -

“Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives…”

“In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.”

The Trump DOJ quietly removed the results of this study from its webpage in September. Why? What false narrative is it trying to advance?

When Trump tells the base that all Somalians are “garbage” – and even specifically calls Rep. Ilhan Omar the same epithet - when he constantly dehumanizes and hammers home that any political opposition are “enemies that must be destroyed” – he is radicalizing a good portion of his base.

My point is this – Leadership must be held accountable. They set the tone.

The assassination attempts on Trump were sickening, and they were soundly denounced by Democrat leadership.

But Trump says things like this: “We pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections … The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave that the threat from within. Our threat is from within.”

Death threats to lawmakers have doubled during the Trump years.

Here’s one example:

Kevin Patrick Smith left dozens of threatening voice messages for US Senator Jon Tester (Montana – Democrat)

“You stand toe to toe with me, I rip your head off. You die.”

FBI agents issued Smith a warning, but he didn’t stop, and ramped up his messages, alluding to guns.
His accusations were vague – “you’re pedophiles and you’re criminals”

When they arrested Smith, they confiscated four shotguns, five rifles, eight pistols, a homemade silencer and nearly 1,200 rounds of ammunition. Smith pleaded guilty to threatening to injure and murder a US Senator and was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison.

So these questions remain –

What incited Smith and made him so angry? Who creates the political environment? What role does leadership play? Can leadership be held accountable for incitement? What limits should be put on political rhetoric? Are politicians role models?

The rest of this is pretty much just you throwing things at a wall while not listening. — AmadeusD

Our conversation will go a lot more smoothly if you refrain from making unfair and inaccurate accusations against me.

You seem to think incitement is something other than what it is, for instance. — AmadeusD

Well, then, let's have an examination of incitement. I guess we could begin with "what is the power of words?"

I like oranges, but the colour is odd. — AmadeusD

Well, I guess the word "but" has other uses, but in your case it went like this:

I don't defend Trump, but here are the reasons I defend him

This is clearly unhinged political emotionalism. Given the other clearly bad-faith responses — AmadeusD

Truth is important to us philosophers. I am confused, though, why the truth should be called "unhinged" and "emotional" and in "bad-faith" - Here's the truth -

There has been an onslaught of death threats against Mark Kelly because Trump posted that Kelly should be put on trial for “seditious behavior.” “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” he wrote on Truth Social.

Did Trump put a target on Biden when he posted an image of Biden kidnapped and hogtied in the back of a pick-up truck, on his social media?

Or how about when he doxed Letitia James? – he shared a link with her home address, accusing her of a “miscarriage of justice” - raging against her, including calling her a “lunatic” who had “defrauded the public with this trial.” Yes, she received death threats.

Trump also incited death threats against Mark Milley - Trump (posting on social media) accused him of committing “an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH.”

And on January 6, Trump knew that windows at the Capitol were being kicked in, that the riot was underway, and that rioters were chanting, “Hang Mike Pence.” So, he tweets the green light to his supporters: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.”

The violence – especially directed at police - at the Capitol escalated quickly after that tweet. (Some White House officials describe that tweet as their breaking point that prompted them to resign).

I recently read an article that said the reason so many Republican lawmakers toe the Trump line is because they fear the death threats that come from going against Trump.

So please do not dismiss Trump’s rhetoric as harmless bluster.

Something work examining. There are great philosophical lessons in politics.

This is why the rest of my comment mattters:

I don't defend most of the utterances we could at least reliably ascribe to Trump — AmadeusD

That wasn't the rest of your comment. Indeed, you followed that with a "but" - and this being a philosophical forum - we perhaps should turn to the philosophical use of "but" - which is used to show that the second clause is in opposition to the first

You do not need to show something to be false in every case for it to be epistemically true. — I like sushi

Are you talking about subjective knowledge and subjective truth?

I would call this muddled, semi-untrue media talking points. — AmadeusD

They were Trump's words

clearly tongue-in-cheek — AmadeusD

No, they weren't. But what is interesting is your compulsion to defend such language.

be such a buffoon. — AmadeusD

If only that was all he were.

Herehttps://www.instagram.com/reel/DOteAHtCI56/?igsh=dmhremExczJ2cjdl is something you may find interesting. — AmadeusD

Using that video as your source is the equivalent of saying, "If you don't believe me, just ask me."

Trump has put a lot of targets on a lot of backs. The latest ones are the six courageous lawmakers who reminded military that they should not follow illegal orders. Trump is totally and completely intolerant of anyone who does not kiss his ring.

You say 'hes been complaining about'. I don't quite know what you're talking about yet, — AmadeusD

They may mean when Trump calls immigrants "garbage" and "vermin" and says they are "poisoning the blood of the country" and the "country is being ravaged by migrant crime" and that foreign countries are "emptying out their prisons and mental institutions" and sending all their worst people to the US. And oh yes, "They're eating the cats, they're eating the dogs."

Would you call this ideologically evil?

To describe. To give context to a description of someone's behavior, physiology, ability, or appearance. Where do these fall within the human spectrum?

To diagnose. Sometimes abnormality indicates a problem that requires correction.

To reward or praise. Where spectrums are value-laden, norms can be exceeded as well as fail to be met. — hypericin

This just sounds like judging people, and this can be fraught with potential for abuse.

It slots all humans into a hierarchy (which is then equated to worthiness) and as we all know this has not gone well in the past. We can talk about majorities, and minorities, but minorities are as normal - and natural - as the majority.

I can't think of a reason to exclude an individual from humanity.

Difference is normal.

Why does it break down? Sure they display variation, but this variation is still within pretty tight bands. Human variation is far from pure chaos. There are innumerable patterns that may be used to define normality. — hypericin

What criteria do you use to decide if they are normal or not? We're made up of a lot of different parts and behaviors.

"Normal" is a limiting term - and since we are all humans, we should all be included as full humans?

What is the purpose of being able to call someone "abnormal?" What is the application of that?

What of it? You may think this shouldn't happen; but it does. Maybe we shouldn't use the word with humans at all; but we do. — hypericin

It may lead to suppression or oppression.

There is decidedly more events of left wing violence. — AmadeusD

This just does not line up with the facts. Could you please provide a source for this?

The right simply doesn't kill people for their opiinons. The left will. — AmadeusD

What a wholly unfounded statement.

For every crazy on the left, I can find for you two crazies on the right. Here's one specific example - death threats against election workers and candidates in the 2024 election spiked to over 2,000. Fed by Trump's lies and hate, many MAGA lashed out against those Trump said were the enemy.

According to Gary M. Restaino, the U.S. attorney in Arizona, “There’s a common denominator in many of these cases: election denialists announcing an intent to violently punish those who they believe have wronged them.

He’d announced that a judge had sentenced an Ohio man, Joshua Russell, 46, to 30 months in prison for sending death threats to Katie Hobbs, then Arizona’s secretary of state, between August and November 2022.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/13/us/politics/election-workers-threats.html

Not only Kirk, but two attempts on the President's life. — AmadeusD

I think it's been made apparent that in all three cases an unstable person for personal reasons did what they did. In no way is it representative of what you term "the left" and "the right" -

-- which, lumps a whole lot of different people together. It is viewing the world through an "us vs them" lens and that leaves no room for critical thinking.

I'd like to add - it is important to distinguish "regular people" from political leadership. Leadership sets the tone, and Trump has solidly embraced violence, just like he gave the green light to the J6 rioters.

It's leadership that especially has to be held accountable.

To meet expectation is to be normal . — hypericin

This definition requires a judge of what is to be "expected." Who will judge what is to be expected? Who will decide if that fits the definition of "normal?"

In one particular individual's life, we may refer to what is normal - what is routine - in their life.

When we try to apply the concept of "normality" to all human beings - who demonstrate a great deal of variation - the concept kind of breaks down.

We may say it is normal to breathe, it is normal for a heart to beat, it is normal to like chocolate chip cookies, it is normal to love your mother, but when we try to extend the concept of "normalcy" to all characteristics of all humans, it cannot work without marginalizing people who don't fit the parameters of what others "expect."

Also, to me, natural means it happens or is made up according to the laws of the physical universe - a materialistic point of view, I suppose.

Was there widespread support for the murderer of the Hortman's from the right? — Leontiskos

They just mostly ignored it.

Heck we even had a TPF mod implicitly supporting the murder of Charlie Kirk. — Leontiskos

I don't believe this. I've seen a lot of people, though, try to remind others of what Charlie Kirk actually stood for, without justifying the violence, in the wake of the Administration making a martyr out of him for political reasons.

I wouldn't accept the ADL as a reliable source. — Leontiskos

Why not?

And if so, please provide a source that rebuts it.

What are you criteria for intolerance? — Leontiskos

I am intolerant of anyone interfering with another's right to "life, liberty, and happiness."

I am just thinking about the general quantity of lawsuits emerging from each side. — Leontiskos

Well, currently there is a right-wing president in the White House and he is the most litigious president in history.

I was referring to the example of the murder of Charlie Kirk. Another recent case was the murder of Brian Thompson. — Leontiskos

if you look at the whole picture, we should also include Melissa and Mark Hortman.

And statistics actually show the majority of politically-motivated murders have been committed by right-wing extremists. (Murder and Extremism)

Also, according to the Anti-Defamation League:

Extremist-related killings in recent years have primarily been committed by far-right extremists. Mass shootings caused a substantial portion of those deaths.

The reason the left sees themselves as more tolerant or accepting is because they are very careful about what things are under consideration when those words are used. Something as simple as litigiousness would bear out the fact that the left is less tolerant. — Leontiskos

Could it not be that the left is indeed more tolerant of difference?

Also - in what context are you using "litigiousness"?

I would say that the right is more tolerant and the left is more empathetic. — Leontiskos

I assume you are referring to the American "left" and right"?

The left is also more disagreeable (e.g. murdering people for speech with which they disagree) — Leontiskos

Can you provide examples of this? It seems an unfounded statement.

The reason the left sees themselves as more tolerant or accepting is because they are very careful about what things are under consideration when those words are used. Something as simple as litigiousness would bear out the fact that the left is less tolerant. — Leontiskos

This does beg a discussion of the parameters of tolerance. Are all things equally worthy of tolerance? Is tolerance always a virtue? Is intolerance always a vice?

Should we be tolerant of hate?

P1. Those who say that trans women are women say that because of this trans women ought be allowed to compete in women's sports
P2. Only biological women ought be allowed to compete in women's sports
C1. Therefore, those who say that trans women are women are saying that trans women are biological women — Michael

if I may, I'd like to comment on this. I am guessing that "P" stands for proposition, and "C" conclusion"?

Well, it seems P1 includes a conclusion?

I don't agree that people who say trans women are women do so because they ought to be allowed in women's sports. I am not sure that anyone has the reasoning listed?