Catholics make up 78% of free state population.👍👍👍

Started by T Fearon, April 06, 2017, 09:19:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Iceman

I don't see the scientific justification for it.
And I'm concerned about the implications of it.

I agree they are two separate things.
I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight

J70

Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 04:26:24 PM
I don't see the scientific justification for it.
And I'm concerned about the implications of it.

I agree they are two separate things.

But you haven't given any reason why you don't see a scientific justification.

Anatomy, gender identity, sexuality... are they NOT all controlled by our development, whether that is influenced by genetics, hormones, environment etc?

You said earlier science "comes to a screeching halt" when it comes to transgenderism. How?

The Iceman

a dude is a dude. whether he chops it off or not.

there was an episode of Special Victims Unit (SVU) one of those Law and Order shows from years ago.  This woman in her 30s identified as a 16 year old girl and continued to date 16 year old boys. Back then the show was exploring how belief  = reality in society...back then it was taboo - but now I'm not so sure....
I haven't seen any scientific evidence that a man can be changed in to a woman. He might have different parts from plastic surgery and mutilation but he's still a man?

What are your thoughts (if we keep this going) on a woman identifying as a little girl? A man identifying as a little boy? Or whatever they want to be (let's stick to the human spectrum)?
I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight

Owen Brannigan

Quote from: J70 on April 24, 2017, 04:41:29 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 04:26:24 PM
I don't see the scientific justification for it.
And I'm concerned about the implications of it.

I agree they are two separate things.

But you haven't given any reason why you don't see a scientific justification.

Anatomy, gender identity, sexuality... are they NOT all controlled by our development, whether that is influenced by genetics, hormones, environment etc?

You said earlier science "comes to a screeching halt" when it comes to transgenderism. How?

So, when the paedophile claims that he has not committed a crime because his/her development was not under his control and his/her behaviour is as natural as gender dysmorphia, homosexuality, etc that are now accepted as such and he/she is just on a spectrum, what will be your view?

J70

Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 06:09:34 PM
a dude is a dude. whether he chops it off or not.

there was an episode of Special Victims Unit (SVU) one of those Law and Order shows from years ago.  This woman in her 30s identified as a 16 year old girl and continued to date 16 year old boys. Back then the show was exploring how belief  = reality in society...back then it was taboo - but now I'm not so sure....
I haven't seen any scientific evidence that a man can be changed in to a woman. He might have different parts from plastic surgery and mutilation but he's still a man?

What are your thoughts (if we keep this going) on a woman identifying as a little girl? A man identifying as a little boy? Or whatever they want to be (let's stick to the human spectrum)?

How do you know if a "dude is a dude" just because of the equipment? Is the possession of a penis ALL that there is to being male? Is there no psychological aspect to it? Hormonal, developmental aspects?

Where does the previously mentioned hermaphrodite fit in if it is all defined by genitalia and everyone fits into one box or the other? What about the effeminate lad you knew growing up with the high pitched voice and limp-wristed mannerisms? Was he a fraud, choosing to bring the bullying and ostracism onto himself in school? Or is there variation in what constitutes a male or female in terms of behaviour? And if so, why does the anatomical prevail completely over the psychological when it comes to the categorization?

I still don't see any scientific argument against the existence of genuine transgenderism in what you are saying. And I'm not saying I have all (or any) of the answers, but I'm not the one making the definitive claim about the scientific legitimacy of it all.

As for the woman identifying as a little girl or man as a little boy, what exactly does that mean? That they're choosing to do so for whatever reason? That they are adults who legitimately feel that way? That they are developmentally stunted intellectually and emotionally? That they're a fetishist who likes to wear nappies and a pacifier on the weekend?

And what does it have to do with transgender people? I get the whole free-for-all, be-what-you-want-or-choose argument you are hinting at, but so what? They're separate issues. If someone chooses to identify as a fifteen year old so he can get himself a nice young naive piece of ass, they're still subject to the laws of the land, just like anyone who has sexual relations with a minor.

J70

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 24, 2017, 06:59:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 24, 2017, 04:41:29 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 04:26:24 PM
I don't see the scientific justification for it.
And I'm concerned about the implications of it.

I agree they are two separate things.

But you haven't given any reason why you don't see a scientific justification.

Anatomy, gender identity, sexuality... are they NOT all controlled by our development, whether that is influenced by genetics, hormones, environment etc?

You said earlier science "comes to a screeching halt" when it comes to transgenderism. How?

So, when the paedophile claims that he has not committed a crime because his/her development was not under his control and his/her behaviour is as natural as gender dysmorphia, homosexuality, etc that are now accepted as such and he/she is just on a spectrum, what will be your view?

Same as it is now: follow the laws that protect the young and vulnerable and wider society, just like the rest of us. Some lads are too ugly or idiotic to find someone to get laid with - that doesn't mean they should be allowed to force themselves on some unconsenting woman because they have an urge to satisfy.

Eamonnca1

Quote from: vallankumous on April 22, 2017, 09:12:01 AM

That's a very deliberate and offensive choice of words.
Adding a question mark is a cowardly way to try to escape that.

Your explanations are based on current theory applied to a 2000 year old event. Your explanations are at least equally open to dismissal on those grounds.
I agree with you that the bible is not an accurate historic account but there is no way I'd try to offend Christians for their faith. Nor would I argue with an atheists with deliberate attempts to offend.

Haha! You think I have nothing better to do than try to set out to offend people? My choice of words is an accurate picture of how I interpret these ancient texts. I could refer to the invisible man in the sky as "almighty holy and merciful God" but it wouldn't be an accurate description of how I view that character. If you choose to be offended by it than that's your business.

omaghjoe

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 24, 2017, 07:27:23 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on April 22, 2017, 09:12:01 AM

That's a very deliberate and offensive choice of words.
Adding a question mark is a cowardly way to try to escape that.

Your explanations are based on current theory applied to a 2000 year old event. Your explanations are at least equally open to dismissal on those grounds.
I agree with you that the bible is not an accurate historic account but there is no way I'd try to offend Christians for their faith. Nor would I argue with an atheists with deliberate attempts to offend.

Haha! You think I have nothing better to do than try to set out to offend people? My choice of words is an accurate picture of how I interpret these ancient texts. I could refer to the invisible man in the sky as "almighty holy and merciful God" but it wouldn't be an accurate description of how I view that character. If you choose to be offended by it than that's your business.

I see this nonsense phrase bouncing around a lot. I was always taught that God is within us and all around us. But I suppose its easier to try and and make believers sound stupid from within your own paradigm that actually trying to understand theirs.

omaghjoe

Quote from: J70 on April 24, 2017, 07:10:43 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on April 24, 2017, 06:59:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 24, 2017, 04:41:29 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 24, 2017, 04:26:24 PM
I don't see the scientific justification for it.
And I'm concerned about the implications of it.

I agree they are two separate things.

But you haven't given any reason why you don't see a scientific justification.

Anatomy, gender identity, sexuality... are they NOT all controlled by our development, whether that is influenced by genetics, hormones, environment etc?

You said earlier science "comes to a screeching halt" when it comes to transgenderism. How?

So, when the paedophile claims that he has not committed a crime because his/her development was not under his control and his/her behaviour is as natural as gender dysmorphia, homosexuality, etc that are now accepted as such and he/she is just on a spectrum, what will be your view?

Same as it is now: follow the laws that protect the young and vulnerable and wider society, just like the rest of us. Some lads are too ugly or idiotic to find someone to get laid with - that doesn't mean they should be allowed to force themselves on some unconsenting woman because they have an urge to satisfy.

Total thread hijack here lads. Iceman you already started a thread on this subject before. The only way I could this as relating to religion is that i heard Mr(s) Jenner refer to his soul as a woman's...

Eamonnca1

Quote from: omaghjoe on April 24, 2017, 08:40:57 PM
I see this nonsense phrase bouncing around a lot. I was always taught that God is within us and all around us. But I suppose its easier to try and and make believers sound stupid from within your own paradigm that actually trying to understand theirs.

"Try"?

omaghjoe

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 24, 2017, 08:55:23 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on April 24, 2017, 08:40:57 PM
I see this nonsense phrase bouncing around a lot. I was always taught that God is within us and all around us. But I suppose its easier to try and and make believers sound stupid from within your own paradigm that actually trying to understand theirs.

"Try"?

::)
...coming from the man who believes than consciousness is an illusion and there is no "self"

An appeal to humour is only that Eammon



seafoid

Virgin birth is a familiar religious marketing tool

Eg Buddhism

"The most popular legendary account of the birth of Buddha is in the Nidanakatha Jataka  which accounted for the lives of Buddha in previous incarnations. In this account, the "Great Being" chose the time and place of his birth, the tribe into which he would be born, and who his mother would be. In the time chosen by him, Maya, his mother, fell asleep and dreamed that four archangels carried her to the Himalayan Mountains where their queens bathed and dressed her. In her dream the Great Being soon entered her womb from her side, in the form of a white elephant. When she woke, she told her dream to the Raja, who summoned sixty-four eminent Brahmans to interpret it."
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

Eamonnca1

Quote from: seafoid on April 24, 2017, 09:42:20 PM
Virgin birth is a familiar religious marketing tool

Eg Buddhism

"The most popular legendary account of the birth of Buddha is in the Nidanakatha Jataka  which accounted for the lives of Buddha in previous incarnations. In this account, the "Great Being" chose the time and place of his birth, the tribe into which he would be born, and who his mother would be. In the time chosen by him, Maya, his mother, fell asleep and dreamed that four archangels carried her to the Himalayan Mountains where their queens bathed and dressed her. In her dream the Great Being soon entered her womb from her side, in the form of a white elephant. When she woke, she told her dream to the Raja, who summoned sixty-four eminent Brahmans to interpret it."

Yup. Most gods seem to have a hard time with the female reproductive system and the need for a man to get it working.They wish the birth canal were a one-way passage, hence the universality of the virgin birth trope. Even Star Wars has it.

J70

Quote from: omaghjoe on April 24, 2017, 08:40:57 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 24, 2017, 07:27:23 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on April 22, 2017, 09:12:01 AM

That's a very deliberate and offensive choice of words.
Adding a question mark is a cowardly way to try to escape that.

Your explanations are based on current theory applied to a 2000 year old event. Your explanations are at least equally open to dismissal on those grounds.
I agree with you that the bible is not an accurate historic account but there is no way I'd try to offend Christians for their faith. Nor would I argue with an atheists with deliberate attempts to offend.

Haha! You think I have nothing better to do than try to set out to offend people? My choice of words is an accurate picture of how I interpret these ancient texts. I could refer to the invisible man in the sky as "almighty holy and merciful God" but it wouldn't be an accurate description of how I view that character. If you choose to be offended by it than that's your business.

I see this nonsense phrase bouncing around a lot. I was always taught that God is within us and all around us. But I suppose its easier to try and and make believers sound stupid from within your own paradigm that actually trying to understand theirs.

That's not what I was taught. The big man up there creating and watching and seeing and judging everything is what it was for us. Maybe there was more than just an arbitrarily drawn border in the 40 miles between our home places! :)

omaghjoe

Quote from: J70 on April 25, 2017, 01:24:01 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on April 24, 2017, 08:40:57 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 24, 2017, 07:27:23 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on April 22, 2017, 09:12:01 AM

That's a very deliberate and offensive choice of words.
Adding a question mark is a cowardly way to try to escape that.

Your explanations are based on current theory applied to a 2000 year old event. Your explanations are at least equally open to dismissal on those grounds.
I agree with you that the bible is not an accurate historic account but there is no way I'd try to offend Christians for their faith. Nor would I argue with an atheists with deliberate attempts to offend.

Haha! You think I have nothing better to do than try to set out to offend people? My choice of words is an accurate picture of how I interpret these ancient texts. I could refer to the invisible man in the sky as "almighty holy and merciful God" but it wouldn't be an accurate description of how I view that character. If you choose to be offended by it than that's your business.

I see this nonsense phrase bouncing around a lot. I was always taught that God is within us and all around us. But I suppose its easier to try and and make believers sound stupid from within your own paradigm that actually trying to understand theirs.

That's not what I was taught. The big man up there creating and watching and seeing and judging everything is what it was for us. Maybe there was more than just an arbitrarily drawn border in the 40 miles between our home places! :)

Well you Donegal folk are renowned for your simplicity after all, and there was probably a good few years between us too J70 ;)
Yeah being honest there would have been a fair bit of that as well but its just a way for kids to understand the concept of God. The teaching and my understanding of God moved on with my age, and intellectual maturity, probably about the same time that I was able to grasp the concept that the sun doesn't go to sleep and the earth is actually spinning.