You know, even with my initial disappointment, it did get a lot better didn't it?

Still stepping out because this is a bit much for me right now, but you all deserve a non-privacy invasive, very tasty cookie.

I guess this is what I get for being too busy on the weekend to finish a post, suddenly there's two more pages of replies. Oh well. I like how this thread has developed, at least. Sorry for the wall of text responding to old-by-now arguments, but some of them are in desperate need of a response. Believe it or not, this is the cut-down version of this post. What that might say about my writing style or lack of other hobbies, well ... yeah. Still, I think this might be a new record, even for me. Sorry for that.

lexluthermiesterThe only thing you got wrong there is that you assume such thinking is limited to the left-wing. It is not. Otherwise spot on.

Kind of yes, kind of no. I don't doubt that the majority of people on the right want to do the right thing and make the world a better place for everyone. It's just that they follow this up by acting in ways entirely opposite of this and promoting an ideology that's ultimately harmful to the vast majority of people. Non-Keynesian economics and Neoliberalist policies are some easy examples - said to make the world freer and more fair, yet all evidence points to the opposite. Trickle-down economics is an outright lie. Neoliberalist deregulation and governmental deconstruction leads to increased economic inequality, concentration of wealth, increased corruption, increased environmental damage, and a general decline in pretty much every factor that affects health, happiness and standard of living for everyone but the wealthiest. Union-busting is a comparable problem (although I've understood that some unions in the US have historically been deeply problematic, with ties to the mob and corruption issues, that still doesn't make government- or business-led uion-busting right or okay), leading to the current ongoing decline in job security, wage stagnation (IIRC wages in the US have pretty much not moved since the 1970s?), and so on. Opposing pro-diversity policies or programs is exactly the same thing. The right (of course in varying degrees) follows an ideology that is fundamentally opposed to actually achieving any kind of equality, as it opposes any kind of intervention in order to achieve it. Leaving [society/people/whatever group] alone doesn't change anything.

lexluthermiesterThat is were you lost it again. The left-wing does just as much smearing, if not more.

I tend to disagree with that, but I guess it depends what you mean by smearing. If, say, calling out profiteering or abuse of power in harsh words is smearing to you, then sure. Calling a nazi a nazi is not smearing. Calling people out for promoting policy based on disproved/faulty science isn't smearing either. Or calling people out for promoting policies that actively harm poor or otherwise disadvantaged people, or make the wealthy and powerful even more so? If calling people doing these things immoral, corrupt, morally bankrupt, and so on is smearing, then sure. Otherwise, I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about.

Of course, this is also affected by the political discourse in our respective countries. In Norway, political discourse is largely respectful. While the US seems to be far worse from my point of view, most of what I see from left-leaning people there seems accurate, even if it's harsh from time to time. Then again, I don't have anything near a full view here.

lexluthermiesterThose in/with power want to maintain that power, regardless of political leanings.

Often, yes. Well-regulated, transparent, participatory democracy is the best known antidote to this. The right's current desire for strong-man leaders, not to mention fundamentally undemocratic practices like gerrymandering or voter suppression is... well, entirely in line with wanting to maintain power. And reprehensible. In the current era, the right is almost unique in implementing practices like this.

lexluthermiesterAnd yet those on the left want to limit personal freedoms and liberties in the name of "safety".

Sure, some. Particularly "freedoms" that are used to harm others. There's a saying that goes something along the lines of your freedoms ending once they intersect with someone else's. That's a pretty decent principle as I see it. It also means that the more power an privilege you have, the more checks on your "freedom" need to exist, as your chance of adversely affecting other people with your choices is larger, and the chance of them being able to stand up for themselves is lower. For example, owning assault weapons is not a right that anyone actually needs (unless you live in a war zone, I suppose), and it only leads to proliferation of highly lethal guns as these are inevitably sold on, stolen, and so on. And, given the inherent power in owning a gun like this, there ought to be strict controls and checks in place to ensure that a) this power isn't abused, and b) this power isn't given to someone not suited to handle it properly.

lexluthermiesterYou have spent a lot of time smearing in this thread yourself. Perhaps you might consider looking at yourself and thinking about what is actually correct and reasonable instead of lumping in with a group and championing agenda's which are illogical and flawed.

Really? Who have I smeared, and when? By calling Ford a biological determinist? 'Cause it's obvious from his arguments that he is. I can't think of any other examples, but you're welcome to point them out if you find any.

FordGT90Concepta feminist guy (how does that even work?)

Even with your belief that human behavior is largely controlled by genetics and hormones, you should be able to recognize that men can also believe in fundamental equality between all human beings. If you believe in that, and in actually fighting for it to become reality, including by equalizing discriminatory gendered power structures, then you're a feminist, regardless of gender. I've called myself a feminist for at least a decade, even if I've evolved my views significantly in later years and realized that my own approach previously was quite heavily influenced by my own privileged background - and some of my views were downright sexist. Live and learn, and all that. Listening to other people is rewarding.

hatAs I understand it, "true", or maybe it would be more correct to say "old" feminism merely calls for equality between women and men, to put it simply.

There's a lot of "new" shit floating about these days perpetrated by small groups of very loud, and very annoying people. The kind of people who would get you in trouble for simply holding a door for a woman... as if you are somehow implying that women are too weak to open doors. It's that kind of thing which I think is absolutely over-reaching and ridiculous, and it needs to stop. I also think these kinds of people are counter productive towards what should really be the goal for everybody, at least, what I think it should be, which is simply equality for everyone. I think that because these people generate a lot of hate towards themselves because what they say is perceived as ridiculous by a lot of people.

All feminism calls for that. Sure, there are a handful of extremist nut-jobs here and there who don't, but they're nowhere near representative of feminism as a movement, ideology or philosophy, and acting like they are only makes whoever does so look ill-informed and prejudiced. The kind of stuff you describe in your second paragraph is not quite as rare, but is still a tiny minority not at all representative of feminism.

FordGT90ConceptI'm just going to leave this here: Hundreds arrested in multi-day protests of Supreme Court nominee
All the interruptions and noise have zero impact on the outcome of the vote (he will be confirmed).

There's this little thing called the 19th amendment which extends the "equal protection clause" of the 14th amendment to women. In terms of legalities, the matter is settled (like Roe v. Wade).
TL;DR: "Live and let live." I have no time for people overly emotional about their own private business that doesn't (nor should) concern me.

If you share a society with someone, you concern them, and they concern you, on some level. Society is fundamentally interconnected, and this is not optional. There are of course wildly varying degrees of this, but "live and let live" must then also include actually listening - respectfully and openly - when someone tells you that their experience of your behaviour or ideology is that it's hurting them - otherwise you're not heeding your own stated principle. Compromise is a necessity. And since when did outlawing discrimination ever end it? Legality is one thing, social norms and individual behaviour something else entirely. One can be changed by a vote or a signature; the other takes decades or centuries to change.

As for this being settled in terms of legalities: the guy currently nominated for the SC calls birth control "abortion-inducing drugs", which is both scientifically false and difficult not to see as a sign of what's coming in terms of attacks on women's reproductive rights and rights to control of their own bodies. It's not like this is news from right-wing movements, after all. This isn't "people overly emotional about their own private business", it's people protesting the appointment of someone who is very likely to undermine their legal right to control their own bodies. While this might be called a "private" matter, the people making it public are republicans and conservatives, not the people protesting it. Women aren't the ones making policing of women's bodies a policy matter.

As for political activism, your definition seems far too narrow. First off, activism does not only mean protests, civil disobedience, marches and so on. Discussions and debates (like this one) are political activism. Promoting a view is political activism. You're being a political activist by taking part in this discussion like you are. You can't just define that away. And it's obviously not a one-way activity. Nor are "one-way" activities like protest marches simple and disconnected enough to be summed up with "interruptions and noise". They're all part of the larger discourse on politics both in general and on specific political matters. While I vehemently oppose any kind of violence, I wholeheartedly support civil disobedience and public rallies - they both play a crucial part in evolving our political landscape and society as a whole, as they make it difficult for those with power to ignore those without it.

StrayKATI think it is good to be friendly in general. The only case where I get actively hostile is when they encourage kids...and effectively make choices for them. Kids don't even know much, if anything, about sex, and barely care about gender either.. yet these people would make drag them down the rabbit hole and adopt a whole worldview surrounding it. Kids aren't even taught much about the world surrounding heterosexuality and oversexualized stories on that angle. So why is this given a pass?

Otherwise, work out your own issues. But if they persist in this, "mean words" are the last thing they need to worry about. They will eventually reap something far worse. The public at large just isn't aware enough yet.

Is exposing kids to the fact that there are many different kinds of people in the world - and that this is fundamentally okay - somehow bad? I'm always baffled by how some people (not necessarily you here, this is more of a general point) like to describe any kind of display of cultural inclusivity towards children as "propaganda", while simultaneously classifying conservative ideology and status-quo gender identities (and similar concepts) as somehow non-ideological, "natural" and unchangeable when their evolution over time and the massive divergence from these in the world in and of itself is proof that this is not the case. There's no such thing as a politically neutral upbringing, and there's plenty of data to show that exposure to difference is a key element in fostering empathy, understanding and happiness on all sides.

There is such a thing as a gender-neutral upbringing - or at least an attempt at it - and it's definitely not the current status quo. The key is letting children choose for themselves rather than parents forcing their beliefs on their children. Also, the idea that children encountering whatever group you want - drag queens, homosexuals, trans people, immigrants, people of different religions, whatever - is somehow going to throw them into an existential crisis due to there suddenly being too many variables for them to figure out their own identity is ... well, kind of silly. Claiming that they're "effectively mak[ing] choices for them" is downright false - when is presenting an alternative the same as making a choice? And aren't parent's making choices for their children by not exposing them to this as well? Ultimately, what harm would it do if their identities ended up as more complex and less stereotypical as is currently most common? Would that hurt anyone? I don't think so.

The whole point of exposing children to varied cultural expressions is to allow them to form their own opinions and personalities over time, by giving them the broadest possible experience and the means to process these experiences. Processing complex questions of identity is what most of our childhood and teenage years is all about (and a lot of adult life, really). The only thing this changes is the breadth and availability of experiences.

Also, saying "kids dont even know much, if anything, about sex" doesn't actually apply here. What does meeting drag queens - even if they are gay - have to do with sex? This is about encountering varied cultural expressions and identities. As for barely caring about gender - they often don't, you're right there, but their parents sure do. Particularly for boys. The amount of shaming, violence and threats of violence, and general strict policing of gender identity and expression that boys are subjected to by their parents (not just fathers) is quite extreme. This ranges from "effeminate" boys being beaten (either by family, peers or strangers) to "toughen them up" to being told to "man up" when we show emotion or that were not "man enough" if we don't adhere to a silly, unrealistic ideal of men as stoic, borderline emotionless, self-centered workhorses who don't "complain" (read: talk about our feelings or situation) as it's not "manly" enough. Heck, a lot of parents get angry or worried if a boy child wants to play with dolls! How does that make sense? Are boys somehow not allowed to care about other people? Children are exposed to extreme amounts of gender policing from a very, very early age, in ways both big and small, explicit and implicit. Children, fundamentally, do not care about gender. Parents care a lot about gender (as they've been taught to do), and in particular about imposing what they see as acceptable gender norms and identities on their children. The exact same goes for love, if not sex: children are taught to idealize a rather specific form of heterosexual marriage from a very, very young age. What's the harm in adding some nuance to this, and teaching them that there isn't such as a "right way" to love someone?

As for "trans kids" and similar expressions of identity in children - what's the harm in letting them grow up as they like? Shouldn't they be allowed to be who they want to be? In most cases, the alternative is forcing them to internalize feelings of difference and otherness, leading to self-hate, suicide, and a whole host of other maladies. While I personally hope we'll one day reach a world where the term 'trans' won't be necessary - as widening accepted gender expressions and weakening the idea of a link between what is between your legs and what you're allowed to say/do/wear/act like would make this mostly unnecessary - for now it's very real and very necessary. Forcing people to comply to the strict and narrow understandings of gender that exist in society today is inhumane, fundamentally opposed to any belief in individual freedom, and only serves to appease adults who struggle to adapt to these ideas, not the children. If the argument is that it'll protect them from bullying (which it often is), then place that blame - and the effort to change things - where it belongs: with the bullies. And if our current "normal" gender identities and roles are somehow "natural" or biologically determined, what on earth would be the harm in letting people be different? Wouldn't that then imply a biological difference in them? Regardless of ones belief in where this comes from, arguing against letting people become who they want to be doesn't make sense.

robot zombieWell... I had a point to make here but it became a total rant about attitude and personal accountability. Oh well. Stuff like this gets me down. It's not even about whatever the issue at hand is. It's the whole attitude we have towards ourselves and other people that quite frankly sucks a whole bag of dicks. I struggle to see the meaning in it all.
[snip]

While I agree with some of your sentiments initially, your post was incredibly difficult to read for me as it's based on a single, very common, very significant misunderstanding at the core of it: the creation of words to denominate and describe social structures does not create social structures. The root of the divisions you describe is not and has never been the people naming them. They are named so that we are able to discuss them, and thus ultimately change them. Without useful and functional words, there is absolutely zero we can do to change these things, as it would be impossible to discuss them in any meaningful way. As such, please stop placing the responsibility for polarization on the people naming it - the polarization already existed long before it was named (otherwise there would be no need for the words to begin with). I entirely agree that the ultimate goal is universal equality and liberty, but this is entirely impossible if we can't name and discuss the obstacles standing in the way of it.

After this, you sadly veer off into various misconceptions - from the utopian possibility of people ignoring or removing themselves from discrimination to drawing up a completely false equivalence between various kinds of disadvantages and discriminations. While some of what you say is true ("everyone is disadvantaged in one way or another"), generalizing like this is nothing more than a meaningless platitude that entirely fails to account for the simple fact that "disadvantage" can mean wildly different things. Please stop acting like all disadvantages are equal. You say that "If you dig deep enough, you will ALWAYS find someone or something that's out to get you." While that is again superficially true, there are massive differences in how deep people need to dig, and what they'll find. Some don't have to dig at all, but have it shoveled onto them by others through no fault of their own. The way you're writing, you're creating a false equivalence that quite frankly is deeply offensive - even to someone like me who's grown up in a very privileged position. Sure, I could point out ways that some people have it better than me, and have had it better than me. It's also ridiculously easy to point out far, far more ways that some people have had (and still do) it far worse than me. These things are not equal. Stop pretending that they are.

In the end, your entire rant as I read it seems to boil down to a belief that everything would be okay if people stopped complaining - I really hope you can see how silly an argument this is. The only people who gain from disadvantaged people not complaining are those who aren't disadvantaged. Shutting up doesn't make anything better, doesn't foster understanding, and doesn't fight discrimination. And a lot of people see no other option for achieving happiness than changing the world - or see that it's not really possible for them at all as the world is today, but will work so that others like them might have a better life. Isn't this a worthy goal? The ability to change the world isn't some sort of gift or talent given to only a few.

I'm not going to address every point I could in your post, as that would require a wall of text even longer than this already is. But I'll say this: everything you say speaks of you being in a relatively privileged position. You seem to have had control over your life and circumstances in a way that's entirely impossible to a lot of people - and not for a lack of them trying. Of course, this might be wrong, and you might just possess some sort of fortitude that's helped you achieve this. If so: don't expect others to match it. If not: please take some time to reflect on how others might not be able to change and control their circumstances in the way you describe. The person who "singles you out or puts you in a disadvantaged position" might be your employer in the only job you're able to get to feed yourself and your family. Or a horrible neighbor that you can't afford to move away from, and who won't leave you alone no matter what. Or nobody in particular, but society in general. The circumstances of life are, to most people, not interchangeable or optional, for myriad reasons. Don't underestimate that.

FordGT90ConceptYes. Not sample bias in my example but a control. Those conditions are known to increase criminality as they reach adulthood. Increased criminality was confirmed, at least in males. Females, as usual, mostly internalized their condition. Doesn't matter which group you look at, that behavioral difference between sexes is common and the cause is known and well documented. Interestingly, men with high testosterone also know when to be submissive to a dominant male, at least in economic situations.

Nothing in this accounts for the role of socialization on how gendered responses to these conditions actually play out. There's no evidence of a fundamental causal relationship like you describe in the studies on testosterone and violence - it's just as likely that people socialized into violent behaviour and in violent cultures adapt physically into producing more testosterone as this being the other way around. Again: correlation does not imply causality.

FordGT90ConceptActivism: a one way street. Activists attempt to change minds through disruption. It never works.

Really? What about women's voting rights? US civil rights? Environmental protection? Claiming that protests, marches, sit-ins, letter-writing campaigns and so on has had no positive effect on the development in these cases is entirely ahistorical and false.

FordGT90ConceptCase in point: segregation was ended by the Brown v. Board of Education ruling which was brought forward by 13 parents and their 20 kids. You never heard about Oliver Brown et. al. because they weren't political activists. They were people harmed by the government and went through the proper legal channels to the Supreme Court which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (a Civil War reconstruction ruling) unanimously.

People never heard of this case? Really? I live several thousand miles outside of the US, and I know of this case. Also, please stop acting like the world around this case didn't matter. As if the civil rights movement outside of this had no effect on how this ruling played out, or its acceptance into the SC at all? You're quite a bit off here.

FordGT90ConceptPray tell what "bias" that would be. Peer review studies? Facts on legal precedent? Stating the obvious?

At least this one is easy: your sample bias in the sources and research you look at, not bias in their methods - the sample bias being that you (seem to) specifically look for science discussing biological effects and little to nothing else. For example, socioeconomic background has a significant impact on a child's risk of being diagnosed with ADHD.

StrayKATAs someone who grew up mixed race myself, I'm going to say "NAH." We generally grow up juggling and struggling with identity and figuring out how to wade through the B.S. before we're 10. It's the rest that have a harder time it seems. But for some reason, all of them seem to know better.. they preach and shout about race from the rooftops. Especially all of the "woke" white millennial college kids.

While you're not wrong, internalization of institutionalized or systematic societal discrimination and hatred is both well-documented and abundant in disadvantaged demographic groups. Of course this is extremely complex, but it still can't be denied. Still, it's no surprise that a lot of/most people growing up dealing with this have far more nuanced and developed stances than "woke" people from a privileged background who have suddenly discovered [insert social malaise of your choice] - years or decades dealing with it tends to do that. Lack of humility and an excessive belief in your own righteousness and right to proclaim this is a clear and obvious sign of privilege. I'm quite guilty of this myself - I'm both loud, can come off as brash, and can get confrontational rather quickly when I feel I'm clearly right or that the other party is fundamentally wrong. I try my best to temper this, particularly by listening intently even to people I vehemently disagree with, but it's difficult to fight how I've been taught to argue. Change takes time.

StrayKATI think mostly people of a monolithic upbringing can be potentially racist, but I think being mixed race does a number on you...makes you learn about confronting multiple worlds/races early on, from a very personal standpoint. I suppose if you hated one side of your family, you could easily be racist and hate parts of yourself.. but I think that's the exception. I think the majority of kids like that want to find things in themselves they love. They experience shame sometimes from one side, but they fight to make sense of it all. Else they could never make sense of their own being. Not making sense of it is suicide really. Not an option :p

edit: Ahem! That said, I think a lot of people aren't very culturally monolithic either. So there's just less racism in general these days. A lot of us are growing up juggling multiple worlds now. Not necessarily on the level I mentioned above, but it still somewhat applies.

Thank you for concisely and coherently summing up the entire argument for exposure to diversity of any and all kinds. This is why we need people to interact, talk to each other, or more importantly: listen to each other. Exposure to different experiences fosters understanding; exposure to the complexities of society fosters complex and nuanced understandings of how these things work. This is exactly what we need. I hope you can apply the same thinking to how you see exposure to different gender expressions and sexualities too.

ValantarAlso, saying "kids dont even know much, if anything, about sex" doesn't actually apply here. What does meeting drag queens - even if they are gay - have to do with sex? This is about encountering varied cultural expressions and identities..

"Lets talk about 'Worm Loves Worm!'". This isn't about encountering other cultures. It's innuendo, and barely even clear. And if they were interested in presenting other cultures, they'd simply tell their stories. Instead of relying on cheap symbolism. It's only telling kids to like one thing.. by suggesting they like another entirely different thing.

Like I said though, I have no interest in "debating" this. All I care about is waking up the right people. There is nothing to be gained from you.

ValantarSure, some. Particularly "freedoms" that are used to harm others.

News flash for you, it is incredibly easy for one person to harm another. A hammer, kitchen knife, any number of chemicals and the list goes on. All of these things and more can be used to do harm or even kill. What are we going to do, ban everything?

ValantarIn the current era, the right is almost unique in implementing practices like this.

You really need to get out in the world more.

ValantarReally? Who have I smeared, and when? By calling Ford a biological determinist? 'Cause it's obvious from his arguments that he is. I can't think of any other examples, but you're welcome to point them out if you find any.

Is it possible that you are completely unaware of the affect of your arguments? When you "call" someone something, that can be considered direct smearing. Implication is another form smearing, one you have been doing far more of.

ValantarThank you for concisely and coherently summing up the entire argument for exposure to diversity of any and all kinds.

Right there is the flaw in your logic. It assumes that all forms of diversity are positive and healthy. They are not.

ValantarThis is exactly what we need.

No, it is exactly what we need to be careful of.

ValantarI hope you can apply the same thinking to how you see exposure to different gender expressions and sexualities too.

It is one thing for a person with those kinda of "leanings" to be such a way, it is completely another for those people, and their supporters, to attempt to force society to accept those leanings as normal. They are not. It is also unacceptable to teach children such is normal. People who have those leanings still need to be treated with respect and dignity. They do not however need to be normalized.

ValantarEven with your belief that human behavior is largely controlled by genetics and hormones, you should be able to recognize that men can also believe in fundamental equality between all human beings.

14th amendment is equal under the eyes of the law. That's not equal in broad terms. Males will never have to see a gynecologist for example. That's unequal and will always be so.

ValantarIf you believe in that, and in actually fighting for it to become reality, including by equalizing discriminatory gendered power structures, then you're a feminist, regardless of gender.

This depends on context: if discrimination is on screening resumes for a job position and the best qualified doesn't get the job because of discrimination, I have a problem with it. If you're talking in public, I don't because it falls under the category of the 1st. People discriminate all of the time naturally (e.g. picking cloths, asking a female store clerk for help instead of a male, thinking that some one on the side of the road is behaving suspiciously, etc.).

ValantarAs for this being settled in terms of legalities: the guy currently nominated for the SC calls birth control "abortion-inducing drugs", which is both scientifically false...

That's exactly what the morning after pills do (inhibits implantation of the fertilized egg into the lining of the uterus).

ValantarThis isn't "people overly emotional about their own private business", it's people protesting the appointment of someone who is very likely to undermine their legal right to control their own bodies.

This is why people need to read and understand the Roe v. Wade decision. In short, you are wrong: Roe v. Wade stipulates that farther into the pregnancy they are, the greater the need to consider the life of the unborn (the baby's right to life). Mothers that are murdered or abused which causes the unborn child to be aborted has been counted as a double homicide against the perpetrator. Likewise, a mother doing stupid things (e.g. repeatedly throwing herself down stairs, hitting her belly on a railing, or shooting up heroin) in an attempt to incite a late term abortion can also be held accountable for the homicide or manslaughter (depending on intent) of the unborn child.

ValantarWhat about women's voting rights? US civil rights? Environmental protection? Claiming that protests, marches, sit-ins, letter-writing campaigns and so on has had no positive effect on the development in these cases is entirely ahistorical and false.

Women's suffrage is an exception to the rule. SCOTUS ruled in Minor v. Happersett against women and the 19th amendment overturned the SCOTUS ruling via the amendment process.

I already covered civil rights. SCOTUS mostly judged on that matter.

Environmental protection really started with Theodore Roosevelt. Then came lead poisoning due to leading gasoline. Then came the Clean Air Act to ban production of leaded gasoline engines. These didn't really come about as political activism. The latter especially was a matter of public safety (lead poisoning was skyrocketing).

I can think of one case where protests and demonstrations had a direct and negative effect: the moratorium on nuclear power, sponsored by the coal and oil industry.

ValantarPeople never heard of this case?

Of course most people heard of Brown v. Board of Education. I was talking about the individuals involved in the case: the ones that brought the case forward which resulted in overturning precedent. They weren't political activists; they were victims of their government (a mandatory requirement of any case appearing before the court).

ValantarAt least this one is easy: your sample bias in the sources and research you look at, not bias in their methods - the sample bias being that you (seem to) specifically look for science discussing biological effects and little to nothing else. For example, socioeconomic background has a significant impact on a child's risk of being diagnosed with ADHD.

"Future Research"

Although relative effects of socioeconomic, home and family factors are likely to be small, they are important because unlike genetic predisposition or genetic risk, they can be current targets for intervention.

FordGT90ConceptThis is why people need to read and understand the Roe v. Wade decision. In short, you are wrong: Roe v. Wade stipulates that farther into the pregnancy they are, the greater the need to consider the life of the unborn (the baby's right to life). Mothers that are murdered or abused which causes the unborn child to be aborted has been counted as a double homicide against the perpetrator. Likewise, a mother doing stupid things (e.g. repeatedly throwing herself down stairs, hitting her belly on a railing, or shooting up heroin) in an attempt to incite a late term abortion can also be held accountable for the homicide or manslaughter (depending on intent) of the unborn child.

The whole "women's own bodies" defense is nonsense to begin with. You don't even have to mention late terms. It's clear that a fetus' DNA is separate from the mother. It's not her body. That's not how birth works. I think even Primitive, Neolithic people understood this much.

I never understood how this makes "me" the conservative side either. In my mind, I'm the actual "liberal", freeing one side from a person who insist they have all rights at the other's expense. This is going backwards, to feudal lords walking roughshod over lower classes "just because". It goes against the whole idea of Liberalism. Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, etc.. were all clear that "Freedom" requires a Social Contract. i.e. You're free as long as you don't encroach on others' freedom. And denying personhood as a "loophole" to get around it is no better than the "3/5ths" of a man argument that the Confederates did to retain their slaves.

Two lives involved naturally invokes society.

StrayKAT"Lets talk about 'Worm Loves Worm!'". This isn't about encountering other cultures. It's innuendo, and barely even clear. And if they were interested in presenting other cultures, they'd simply tell their stories. Instead of relying on cheap symbolism. It's only telling kids to like one thing.. by suggesting they like another entirely different thing.

Like I said though, I have no interest in "debating" this. All I care about is waking up the right people. There is nothing to be gained from you.

So ... promoting heterosexuality as "correct" (as pretty much 100% of society does, including vast swaths of popular culture including that targeting children) is somehow politically neutral, yet displaying the actual variation and diversity that exists in society is not? Yeah, that doesn't actually add up. That example isn't innuendo, it's showing how it might be just as natural for "alike" people to love each other as "different" people. If you choose to read "worm" as an innuendo, do you do the same with all children's books where the protagonist is a worm? Didn't think so.

lexluthermiesterNews flash for you, it is incredibly easy for one person to harm another. A hammer, kitchen knife, any number of chemicals and the list goes on. All of these things and more can be used to do harm or even kill. What are we going to do, ban everything?

Thanks for making this ridiculous. Have come even close to saying this? For the vast majority of things, banning using them in a harmful way (which, you know, the illegality of murder and bodily harm tends to cover) is plenty. Exceptions apply for items that are either inherently dangerous to the point of requiring a certain level of expertise to handle them safely (cars, for example) or items that are expressly designed to cause harm (guns). A kitchen knife is mainly designed to be a kitchen too; a chain saw is made to cut trees. Both can harm or kill, but neither are made expressly for this. An AR-15 is an offensive weapon, not designed for hunting or any other non-aggressive use, and as such there is zero reason for an item such as this to be deregulated and freely sold to civilians. And even for hunting rifles and sport pistols, there really ought to be rigorous background checks and a qualification system in place to minimize the risk of abuse. The degree of ease and scale of the harm possible to inflict also informs this - explosives are very useful for a multitude of tasks, yet not sold freely in the vast majority of societies.

lexluthermiesterIs it possible that you are completely unaware of the affect of your arguments? When you "call" someone something, that can be considered direct smearing. Implication is another form smearing, one you have been doing far more of.

Calling someone something that they're themselves demonstrating that they are is not smearing. The key word in the definition of smearing is that the accusation is false. As for implying things - please let me know where I've implied something falsely accusatory or hurtful of someone here without clearly outlining the reasoning behind it. If you can actually show me an example, I'd be more than happy to discuss it. I know full well that my debate style is direct, and that I analyze the arguments of my counterparts to draw out what they're actually arguing for - the latter of which is a distinct necessity in discussions like this, as you otherwise often don't get past superficial differences of opinion or different definitions of words. The value in a debate like this lies in discussing people's values and beliefs much more than the often superficial specificities of how these play out in real life.

lexluthermiesterRight there is the flaw in your logic. It assumes that all forms of diversity are positive and healthy. They are not.

No, it is exactly what we need to be careful of.

Well, I'm not going to go so far as to call that outright bigotry (though it's really not far off considering the context in which you're bringing this up), but can you show me any actual proof documenting harmful effects of individual exposure to diverse expressions of culture, gender or identity? I sincerely doubt you can. There's really only one inherently damaging form of "diversity" I can come up with: economic inequality and/or class differences. The thing is, this isn't diversity, but an effect of our very much imperfect society, and the defining aspect of which is material wealth (or the lack thereof) and the power this carries (both of which are external, and not an actual trait or characteristic of the person in question - thus not really "diversity" in this sense).

Unless you can actually bring some data to the table, you're simply assuming that exposure to diversity somehow will have various ill effects, which ... well, is nothing more than regurgitation of unfounded arguments presented by various bigoted groups throughout time.

lexluthermiesterIt is one thing for a person with those kinda of "leanings" to be such a way, it is completely another for those people, and their supporters, to attempt to force society to accept those leanings as normal. They are not. It is also unacceptable to teach children such is normal. People who have those leanings still need to be treated with respect and dignity. They do not however need to be normalized.

Ah, yes. The classic "we should treat them with respect, but not in any way actually respect that they are normal human beings" argument. Humanity is immensely diverse, and has always been so on a multitude of levels - gender and sexuality included. While (as we're discussing in this specific example) heterosexuality might be the most common form of sexuality, it is by no means the only "natural" or "normal" sexuality of a human being (or many other mammals, for that matter). Saying otherwise would equate to saying that anyone not heterosexual is "unnatural", which ... well, is quite the problematic statement. I'm sincerely hoping you're not going there. And why, exactly, is it unacceptable to teach children that it's okay for them to be whoever they are? You realize that you're actively arguing for telling non-heterosexual children that they're "not normal", right? Are you aware of what that implies?

I honestly don't know what kind of harm it is that you're seeing from people promoting the idea that human beings are inherently diverse in a multitude of ways, and that this is okay.

FordGT90ConceptThat's exactly what the morning after pills do (inhibits implantation of the fertilized egg into the lining of the uterus).

a) The page you're linking to is created by a "pro-life" group, and is as such inherently biased. They even oppose abortion when necessary to save the pregnant woman's life, which just serves to underscore how absurd the label "pro-life" is. "Anti-choice" is far more fitting, as "pro-life" would imply that they cared about the woman's life as much as the potential child's.
b) That statement is false.
c) Even if prevention of implantation hasn't been excluded as an effect of these medications, this is still only one tiny and specialized subset of contraceptives. Extrapolating from that to contraceptives in general is faulty logic at the very least.

FordGT90ConceptThis is why people need to read and understand the Roe v. Wade decision. In short, you are wrong: Roe v. Wade stipulates that farther into the pregnancy they are, the greater the need to consider the life of the unborn (the baby's right to life). Mothers that are murdered or abused which causes the unborn child to be aborted has been counted as a double homicide against the perpetrator. Likewise, a mother doing stupid things (e.g. repeatedly throwing herself down stairs, hitting her belly on a railing, or shooting up heroin) in an attempt to incite a late term abortion can also be held accountable for the homicide or manslaughter (depending on intent) of the unborn child.

I don't disagree with that, nor have I said anything to that effect. Frankly I don't know where you're getting that from. I'm not a proponent of elective late-term abortions, nor do I know many (can't think of any, really) who are - even if I'm not entirely decided that I see it as a bad thing either. The thing is, at the very least a fetus is not a person until it is viable. Arguing for anything else is the same as arguing that women during pregnancy have no rights over their own bodies and somehow owe it to the world to be baby-producing machines for this duration of time - an expressly misogynistic stance. That is nothing more than taking a social argument ("Women owe it to the world to produce babies") and dressing it up in quasi-biological clothes to strengthen the argument. And no, embryos and fetuses are not "babies". They are, at least until viable, and arguably until birth, not people. You can argue that they are potential people, but so are all the unfertilized eggs in an ovary and all sperm cells in a sperm sac.

And, in case you didn't know, pregnancy is dangerous. Very much so. In some cases, an abortion is the only means of saving someone's life. Yet a lot of (if not a majority of) "pro-life" groups prefer letting the woman die rather than save her and not the fetus. Which, frankly, is quite sick.

Still, this is missing the root of the argument, the "why" of it all. Some oppose abortion on religious grounds (or moral grounds extracted from religion). If so: religious freedom means that you don't have any right whatsoever to oppose someone else's access to anything that you might object to. Some oppose abortion because they see pregnancy as "natural" and abortion as "unnatural". The issue with that is that the vast majority of everything we humans do (except for ... breathing, eating, that kind of thing) is decidedly unnatural. This of course includes things like surgery. If this was a principled argument, one would then also refuse any kind of surgery or other life-saving intervention, as it would be equally "unnatural". The point being: arguments like these are inherently arbitrary. Some oppose abortion on the grounds of "think of the baby!". Which is both scientifically false (a fetus or embryo is not a baby until - at the very least - it's capable of surviving outside of the womb) and inherently discriminatory: it prioritizes the rights of a potential (currently non-existent) person over the rights of an actual person, to the degree that very real and actual harm can come to that person. Underlying all of this is a common tendency: the desire to police women's bodies, which cannot be removed from the implication that they're somehow unable to decide for themselves what is best for them and their potential children. Men are never, ever, policed in similar ways.

FordGT90ConceptWomen's suffrage is an exception to the rule. SCOTUS ruled in Minor v. Happersett against women and the 19th amendment overturned the SCOTUS ruling via the amendment process.

I already covered civil rights. SCOTUS mostly judged on that matter.

Environmental protection really started with Theodore Roosevelt. Then came lead poisoning due to leading gasoline. Then came the Clean Air Act to ban production of leaded gasoline engines. These didn't really come about as political activism. The latter especially was a matter of public safety (lead poisoning was skyrocketing).

Again: you're (seemingly purposefully) ignoring any and all context on these matters. How do you think these cases reached SCOTUS or congress? Sure, some cases reach SCOTUS solely through the efforts of the lawyers or prosecutors involved, but most matters of this nature don't garner enough momentum to go that high until there's enough public attention behind them to be noticed - even if they're of significant legal interest. Also, do you seriously think Roosevelt just up and discovered by himself that humans are capable of harming nature? Also: politicians are fully capable of political activism. One might say it's their job. It's no less activism if you're arguing your case in Congress (or in the offices of a representative) than if you're doing it in a town square.

FordGT90ConceptI can think of one case where protests and demonstrations had a direct and negative effect: the moratorium on nuclear power, sponsored by the coal and oil industry.

Can't say I'm familiar with this, but am I correct in understanding that you're now accepting lobbying (and its offshoot astroturfing) as a form of political activism? If so: we're getting somewhere.

FordGT90ConceptOf course most people heard of Brown v. Board of Education. I was talking about the individuals involved in the case: the ones that brought the case forward which resulted in overturning precedent. They weren't political activists; they were victims of their government (a mandatory requirement of any case appearing before the court).

...so political activism is somehow about (or related to) personal attention and fame, or establishing a personal legacy? Sorry, but whatever you're saying here, it's not making any sense. Most people haven't heard of specific suffragettes or main players in various other major political movements either. That doesn't in any way invalidate their effect on society and policy.

FordGT90Concept"Future Research"

Ah. A single sentence, without any citations, expressly minimizing this (while outright ignoring existing research on the subject). Yep, that's sufficient, sure.

StrayKATThe whole "women's own bodies" defense is nonsense to begin with. You don't even have to mention late terms. It's clear that a fetus' DNA is separate from the mother. It's not her body. That's not how birth works. I think even Primitive, Neolithic people understood this much.

I never understood how this makes "me" the conservative side either. In my mind, I'm the actual "liberal", freeing one side from a person who insist they have all rights at the other's expense. This is going backwards, to feudal lords walking roughshod over lower classes "just because". It goes against the whole idea of Liberalism. Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, etc.. were all clear that "Freedom" requires a Social Contract. i.e. You're free as long as you don't encroach on others' freedom. And denying personhood as a "loophole" to get around it is no better than the "3/5ths" of a man argument that the Confederates did to retain their slaves.

Sorry, but the idea that a fetus is a person is an outright fallacy. Sure, it's separate DNA. That doesn't make it a person - unless, that is, you redefine "person" to mean something along the line of "entity with DNA different from other entities". Which is a definition so broad as to be meaningless. Personhood is not decided by the uniqueness of your DNA, but a far more complex combination of factors (which might absolutely include DNA). Reducing it down to this single, arbitrary one is just silly.

Saying that arguing for women's control of their bodies is "nonsense" just goes to show that you have zero understanding of the effects or circumstances surrounding pregnancy, nor of how the potential for pregnancy shapes one's freedom to live the life of one's choosing.[/QUOTE]

DeathtoGnomesI thought non-binary meant transgendered here.

No, non-binary is "neither simply man or woman", only some of the transgender would be non-binary.

PS
I can't believe this kind of bloody discussions hit A TECH forum.
WTF...

ValantarAh, yes. The classic "we should treat them with respect, but not in any way actually respect that they are normal human beings" argument.

All you did with that statement was attempt to selectively marginalize a valid ideal.

ValantarAnd why, exactly, is it unacceptable to teach children that it's okay for them to be whoever they are?

Clearly you don't "get it".

ValantarYou realize that you're actively arguing for telling non-heterosexual children that they're "not normal", right?

Yes and for a simple reason, because they are not.

ValantarAre you aware of what that implies?

Yes, except I'm not implying anything, I'm directly stating that they need to accept they have challenges in life just like anyone else with a dysfunction or disorder. When someone has a crippling physical deformity or a mental dysfunction, no one goes around telling them they are normal. They are told the truth. Then they are shown how to adapt to life with that problem either with hardware that helps them get around, medical procedures which completely or partially correct the problem, medications or psychological treatments. But for some reason society has developed a problem looking at sexual dysfunctions that same way. The LGBTQP+ community seems to think they are a special case scenario somehow immune to the way medical science has addressed problems like those and immune to the scientific method. Hmm.. For anyone else in the world, if a problem is discovered, we all say; "Hey let's get that problem treated!" or "Let's investigate and find a treatment for this problem.". But for the LGBTQP+ community we have stopped looking at them that way and for no other reason than because it's become "taboo". There is no logic or valid reason for such. Sexual dysfunctions are not different than any other physical, mental or psychological dysfunction. They need investigation and treatment, not normalization acceptance. However, as was stated above, everyone, regardless of dysfunction or disability, needs to be treated with respect and dignity. They do not need to be lied to and told they are something they clearly are not, normal.

medi01PS
I can't believe this kind of bloody discussions hit A TECH forum.
WTF...

Right? It started out tech related..

Valantara) The page you're linking to is created by a "pro-life" group, and is as such inherently biased. They even oppose abortion when necessary to save the pregnant woman's life, which just serves to underscore how absurd the label "pro-life" is. "Anti-choice" is far more fitting, as "pro-life" would imply that they cared about the woman's life as much as the potential child's.
b) That statement is false.
c) Even if prevention of implantation hasn't been excluded as an effect of these medications, this is still only one tiny and specialized subset of contraceptives. Extrapolating from that to contraceptives in general is faulty logic at the very least.

Yes there is debate about that but, my bad; I was aiming for mifepristone (can terminate a pregnancy up to 70 days since last ovulation).

ValantarI don't disagree with that, nor have I said anything to that effect. Frankly I don't know where you're getting that from. I'm not a proponent of elective late-term abortions, nor do I know many (can't think of any, really) who are - even if I'm not entirely decided that I see it as a bad thing either. The thing is, at the very least a fetus is not a person until it is viable. Arguing for anything else is the same as arguing that women during pregnancy have no rights over their own bodies and somehow owe it to the world to be baby-producing machines for this duration of time - an expressly misogynistic stance. That is nothing more than taking a social argument ("Women owe it to the world to produce babies") and dressing it up in quasi-biological clothes to strengthen the argument. And no, embryos and fetuses are not "babies". They are, at least until viable, and arguably until birth, not people. You can argue that they are potential people, but so are all the unfertilized eggs in an ovary and all sperm cells in a sperm sac.

And, in case you didn't know, pregnancy is dangerous. Very much so. In some cases, an abortion is the only means of saving someone's life. Yet a lot of (if not a majority of) "pro-life" groups prefer letting the woman die rather than save her and not the fetus. Which, frankly, is quite sick.

Still, this is missing the root of the argument, the "why" of it all. Some oppose abortion on religious grounds (or moral grounds extracted from religion). If so: religious freedom means that you don't have any right whatsoever to oppose someone else's access to anything that you might object to. Some oppose abortion because they see pregnancy as "natural" and abortion as "unnatural". The issue with that is that the vast majority of everything we humans do (except for ... breathing, eating, that kind of thing) is decidedly unnatural. This of course includes things like surgery. If this was a principled argument, one would then also refuse any kind of surgery or other life-saving intervention, as it would be equally "unnatural". The point being: arguments like these are inherently arbitrary. Some oppose abortion on the grounds of "think of the baby!". Which is both scientifically false (a fetus or embryo is not a baby until - at the very least - it's capable of surviving outside of the womb) and inherently discriminatory: it prioritizes the rights of a potential (currently non-existent) person over the rights of an actual person, to the degree that very real and actual harm can come to that person. Underlying all of this is a common tendency: the desire to police women's bodies, which cannot be removed from the implication that they're somehow unable to decide for themselves what is best for them and their potential children. Men are never, ever, policed in similar ways.

Roe v. Wade accounts for all of that. Off topic so I'll say no more.

ValantarAh. A single sentence, without any citations, expressly minimizing this (while outright ignoring existing research on the subject). Yep, that's sufficient, sure.

It was a citation from your link. Look at what is directly under "Future Research" again. "Future Research" was the header in the article the quote was from.

OK, I'm going to state a few things to start this post of mine off. First, I'm a practicing Catholic meaning I go to Sunday Mass every week and I receive the sacraments as I should. Second, I'm as straight as an arrow. Does that make me a perfect Catholic? Hell to the no. Trust me, I've sinned as much as the next person; I'm no perfect person over here.

Humanity isn't the only species to have homosexuality in the ranks. There have been confirmed cases of this found in the wild among other species of animals on this planet. As for why this is, we don't know. As for why homosexuality is seen in such a bad light, we can look to the church for this. The church, and by that I mean Christianity, sees homosexuality as an abomination. With that being said, it is the belief of every Christian that we are all made in God's image; we are all loved by God. Who are we, the... shall we say sexually normal, to say that someone is wrong for being gay? That would be like saying that God was wrong in making that person and who are we to pass judgement down upon that person for being different? We really have no right to pass judgement and besides, the teachings of the church say that we should all love one another regardless of who or what they are.

With all of that said, do I agree with homosexuality? No, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to persecute someone for being gay. As a practicing Catholic and one that believes in the teachings of the Catholic church, specifically the "Love one another as I have loved you" I'm not going to pass judgement upon that person because that directly goes against every bit of the teachings of the church in the most raw form.

Sorry about bringing religion into all of this, I'm going to stop my preaching now.

trparkyThe church, and by that I mean Christianity, sees homosexuality as an abomination.

Generally, most religions frown on such, not just Christianity. Islam is much more harsh about it all. However..

Let's keep religion out of this discussion.

Yeah but just imagine what kind of world this would be if we just were more kind to one another. I can only imagine that it would be a hell of a lot more peaceful than it is today, that's for damn sure.

trparkyYeah but just imagine what kind of world this would be if we just were more kind to one another. I can only imagine that it would be a hell of a lot more peaceful than it is today, that's for damn sure.

True.

lexluthermiesterAll you did with that statement was attempt to selectively marginalize a valid ideal.

Claiming to treat and view people with respect while simultaneously painting them as "wrong" is not an ideal. It's discriminatory, not to mention a logical impossibility (as the core belief is itself disrespectful).

lexluthermiesterClearly you don't "get it".

You're very welcome to enlighten me, then. How is exposing people (who might not be heterosexual, or might like to express their gender beyond the confines of our narrowly defined cultural gender norms, as a significant percentage of the population are/do) to various expressions and identities harmful? Isn't it just saying "whatever and whoever you are, it's okay to be like that"?

lexluthermiesterYes and for a simple reason, because they are not.

What, then, is "normal" for a human? Can you give me a full definition, and one that's not contingent upon and defined within a homophobic society?

lexluthermiesterYes, except I'm not implying anything, I'm directly stating that they need to accept they have challenges in life just like anyone else with a dysfunction or disorder. When someone has a crippling physical deformity or a mental dysfunction, no one goes around telling them they are normal. They are told the truth. Then they are shown how to adapt to life with that problem either with hardware that helps them get around, medical procedures which completely or partially correct the problem, medications or psychological treatments. But for some reason society has developed a problem looking at sexual dysfunctions that same way. The LGBTQP+ community seems to think they are a special case scenario somehow immune to the way medical science has addressed problems like those and immune to the scientific method. Hmm.. For anyone else in the world, if a problem is discovered, we all say; "Hey let's get that problem treated!" or "Let's investigate and find a treatment for this problem.". But for the LGBTQP+ community we have stopped looking at them that way and for no other reason than because it's become "taboo". There is no logic or valid reason for such. Sexual dysfunctions are not different than any other physical, mental or psychological dysfunction. They need investigation and treatment, not normalization acceptance. However, as was stated above, everyone, regardless of dysfunction or disability, needs to be treated with respect and dignity. They do not need to be lied to and told they are something they clearly are not, normal.

Well, at least I'm happy it comes out at last. Not being heterosexual, or identifying as something other than the narrow confines of our current binary gender roles, is neither a dysfunction or disability. It's within the natural variance of being human. You say everyone should be treated with respect, yet calling this a "dysfunction" is in and of itself disrespectful, and as such your stance is fundamentally incompatible with your stated goal. Suggesting that non-heterosexuals need to "adapt to life with that problem" or have procedures or take medication to "treat" them is ... well, downright messed-up. Yes, I know you didn't say that outright about non-heterosexuals specifically, but in the context you presented it there's no other way of understanding that. If you can't see that, that's your problem, not mine.

My question to you: what, exactly, is your problem with people being different from you? Why do you need to call them "dysfunctional" and thus somehow less than fully realized humans? If you're not like that, why not just accept that some people are different and move on with your life? Why does the multiplicity of humanity somehow offend you?

FordGT90ConceptYes there is debate about that but, my bad; I was aiming for mifepristone (can terminate a pregnancy up to 70 days since last ovulation).

That is not a contraception drug. It's an abortion-inducing drug. Those are not the same thing. Can you show me if it's ever been prescribed as a contraceptive, even an emergency contraceptive? My understanding is that this is not the case, and definitely not what medications like this are made for.

FordGT90ConceptIt was a citation from your link. Look at what is directly under "Future Research" again. "Future Research" was the header in the article the quote was from.

I suppose I should have actually checked that, sorry about that - I assumed it was from the article you posted that I was responding to, which is a rather silly assumption in hindsight. Still, for me the following sentence after your quoted one is at least as important:

The results also underline that the notion of ADHD as an entirely fixed underlying biological entity requires qualification, as noted elsewhere

In other words: while the roots of the disorder might be genetic, there is nowhere near a 1:1 ratio between genetic predisposition and genetic expression, let alone between genetic predisposition and actual symptoms/pathology. You're arguing that ADHD is entirely genetic, or at least close to it. This clearly state that this is not the case. I'm not arguing (nor have I ever been) that genetics doesn't play a role. I'm arguing that it's not the determining factor in its own realization.