MMX2010

MMD and JamesP explained their reasoning very well on pages two and three of this thread. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39518-the-forum-a-couple-grievences-i-have/?hl=reputation JamesP's last post reads: " I will probably write this up in a README for general reference. The problem people have is not with the reputation system. I know this because I have heard the same complaints about the forum software and the admins for years now. This is not a problem we can solve. If it were, then people would be satisfied with our explanations, or demonstrate some level of understanding why we have chosen to not implement their suggestions. Or, at the very least, their complaints would have changed in some fundamental way. What it's about is that people want to be able to avoid consequences for their behavior. They want to be able to unload on a forum without being told that their behavior is unacceptable. They want to have that "out" for themselves, because they do it to themselves and in the rest of their lives without being called out on it. And, they want to do that on this forum, in particular, because we claim to have standards. We claim to have external standards of behavior which everybody agrees to. When they come here, and they see those standards, and they are negatively impacted by those standards, they don't stop to ask if their behavior is at fault. They latch on to whatever is most visible and start attacking that. With the last board software, it was the admins. With the current board, it's the reputation system. If we implemented some other system, it would be that. Take some responsibility for yourself. Quit blaming others for the negative consequences on the board. Look at your own behavior."

This is why you're not considering other people's counter-arguments. It's also why you're being downvoted. And it's also why you're complaining about the reputation system, rather than asking yourself, "Is it anything but ridiculous to attempt a non-moral, non-emotional, non-ethical, strictly-intellectual discussion about violence, particularly violence against children?"

I started a topic on this recently: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40399-why-do-the-terms-cisgender-and-transgender-exist/?hl=transgender I thought this video was very interesting: But what's most interesting is: (1) If the first six weeks of pregnancy are sufficient to produce a powerful sense of gender on a fetus, then (2) abortion is murder. This illogical disconnect makes me think that transgender exists only because the culture believes in it, and not because there's an inherently natural (a.k.a. "real") phenomenon called being transgendered.

Because the purpose of philosophy is not to gather "simple truths" in order to "discuss them" to achieve "accuracy" and "intellectual honesty"; the purpose of philosophy is to acquire moral excellence in yourself so that you can spread that moral excellence to others.

So what? Once a parent says, "I love my children, and I want what's best for them, and I spank my children out of love.", they're implying that spanking produces obedience (which is good for children to be) better than all other forms of obedience-producing behavior. Saying "Violence can be used to get children to obey." is a refusal to compare spanking's (supposed) obedience-inducing effectiveness to all other forms of obedience-inducing behaviors. As such, it's a strong suggestion that there's a disconnect between what that parent says and does.

You're assuming that your reputation is suffering because of the existence of the reputation system, and because of "the incentive to conform, agree, confirm, and supplicate to positions that one thinks the community will like". But you're not considering that your reputation is suffering because you're a presumptive poster who doesn't adequately respond to / consider counter-arguments. But that's what's most important. What IS most important is that there exists a "search box" at the upper right forum of every page. Typing in "reputation" into the search bar yields multiple topics about the reputation system. You could have researched those topics to develop a criticism of the reputation system that is NOT a practically word-for-word repetition of other peoples' complaints, but you chose not to. Meanwhile, you're claiming that you're "only here to learn" - even though it takes oh-so-little effort for you to use the search bar.

And that, precisely, is why you don't understand the counter-arguments against your ideas. You're not out-in-the-world trying to save more children from being spanked, using your methodology; you're, instead, arguing with people on this message board regarding an ideology that you fail to implement. You can't win this debate by appealing to "intellectual honesty" because it's intellectually dishonest to say that there may be a few parents who argue on an intellectual level that spanking works. You, instead, have to demonstrate that such people exist, and in large numbers, and that your new and improved concession to the supposed "effectiveness of violence" works on them. Appealing to "may"s is non-argument. Worst of all, every parent who you claim defends spanking intellectually can easily be asked three questions: (1) Do you love your children? (2) Do you want what's best for them? (3) Do you spank your children out of love? Once a parents answers "Yes, Yes, and Yes" they're defending spanking emotionally and morally, not intellectually. (And I assert that every spanking parent will say Yes, Yes, and Yes.)

Stefan's approach is not an intellectual exercise, but an emotional one that forces parents to see the disconnect between their claims, (such as, "I love my children, and want what's best for them."), and their actions, (such as spanking them). You can neither understand Stefan's message by having intellectual disagreements over definitions, nor by addressing the posters in this thread (i.e. - me) in an intellectual / non-emotional way, nor by dismissing our emotional reactions as "over the top". Intellectually, you can imagine robotic-parents who make no claims of "loving their children", "wanting what's best for them", "caring about their children's needs". (So can I.) But practically, you cannot find 100 parents in America who think this way. And so your objections hat reduce to, "This approach won't work on robotic-parents...." is rejected because of the wide-spread non-existence of such robotic-parents!

The only thing worse than a bad argument is a non-argument, and "X produces short term results." is a non-argument, because everything produces short-term results. Picking up a two ounce rock, and replacing it after four seconds, "produces short term results". Thinking about yelling for two seconds, then deciding not to yell, "produces short term results". Sitting around and doing nothing for two hours also "produces short term results". So first you have to define what those short-term results are, then you have to scientifically prove that spanking produces those specific short-term results. Strangely enough, you've already attempted this. But all we're left with is, "Spanking works by relieving parental anxiety but always by inflicting negative short-term and long-term results on children." Tellingly, no spanker has ever admitted this either directly or indirectly. (An indirect admission would be something like, "I don't really think about my children's needs when I spank them. I just know it makes me feel better, somehow, and I'm proud of this." or "I don't know whether spanking is good for my children, but I know it's good for me.") You're missing the essential phrase "compared to what". Spanking doesn't create obedience in children compared to the heightened obedience parents get through non-violence. Violence doesn't make slaves work compared to the heightened worker productivity that results through non-slavery. Torture doesn't make prisoners talk (i.e. - tell useful, truthful information) compared to the heightened "talking" that results through non-torture. ----------------------------- Worse, I think you're missing the importance of "compared to what", because you-yourself have little, if any, experience getting parents to stop spanking their children. You only have disagreements with the FDR community with regard to its anti-spanking message. But you can't (or won't) compare your (perceived to be) improved anti-spanking message to FDR's anti-spanking message.

Disagree with you completely. The most common defenses of spanking are: (1) "Spanking works because it creates obedient children." (Not true.) (2) "Spanking works because it creates compliant children." (True, but this is only a half-explanation. And the full explanation is, "Spanking works because it creates compliant children without creating long-term negative consequences." The full explanation is not true.) (3) "Spanking works because it teaches children to respect authority." (Not true, because spanking teaches children to disrespect authority (especially scientific, non-forceful authority) in favor of respecting force/domination/violence.) In other words, the only way you can say, "I'm using the word 'works' correctly." is to ignore what spankers actually mean when they use the word "works".

I think I can summarize your argument as follows: (1) Because most people suffer from "ignorance and social conditioning", the FDR community cannot expect to either use scientific arguments or moral appeals to non-coercion to make spankers stop. (2) Because most people don't respond to scientific arguments or moral appeals to non-coercion, Wiltin suggests that we "admit that spanking 'works'" in order to gain "credibility" with spankers. (3) Curiously, science can easily evaluate whether Wiltin's methods are truly better than FDR's methods. But I doubt that science has compared the two methods. (4) Worse, we have testimony that FDR's method does work! How often do Stef and MMD mention, "Just got an email from a listener, 'Thanks, Stef, for all you do; as a result of your videos, I'm no longer spanking my children.'"? Wiltin, is my summary accurate? I've never met a parent who said, "Spanking works because it gives me what I want." It's always been, "Spanking works because it gives my child something he/she needs."

I liked all of your post, but wanted to piggy-back on this last point. If there ever were a world-wide catastrophic shortage of arable land and/or drinkable water, a corresponding percentage of the human population would die. By dying this perception of a "catastrophic shortage" would be altered to "plenty of land and water for everyone". In other words, I didn't like the usage of "carrying capacity", because it only appears when too many people exist. It does not appear when fewer than that unknown number of people exists.

Just wanted to say that I enjoy this conversation very much. I've nothing to add to it, but both the give-and-take and multiplicity of inputs make me happy to be part of FDR.

If it was, start with the podcast "No Thanks For Your Service".

Because sperm is male and eggs are female. Asexually reproducing species are the earliest forms of life: they clone themselves by splitting into two halves. But asexual reproduction has a very serious danger: the genetic-identicalness of the entire species leaves it vulnerable to extinction via one horrible disease. The solution is sexual reproduction, in which each offspring derives half of its genetic material from each of two parents via specialized reproductive cells. Historically, there have always been two ways to make these reproductive cells: (1) Make a lot of them, which are very small in size, to create maximum possible genetic variety in all offspring. (2) Make a few of them, which are very large in size, to enhance the long term survival of the fertilized egg. The first way is called "male"; the second way is called "female"; and there's no such thing as either "a third way" or "a sexually reproducing species which doesn't follow this model".

My two personal favorites are below. Feel free to add others. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ9hrc6DiXo

I had an odd "YesNo" reaction to your question, where it felt like the word "Yes" and "No" both entered my brain at the exact same time. Then I realized I've a skeptical reaction to the verb "need". If I re-phrased your question as, "Is it inaccurate or unsympathetic to treat undergoing a sex change operation as a tragedy?", I would immediately answer, "No" - because undergoing such a procedure is highly uncomfortable and exposes people to bigotry and shame. But if I kept your question as, "Is it inaccurate or unsympathetic to treat needing a sex change operation as a tragedy?", I would immediately answer, "Yes" - because I'm not sure how many cases involve "genuine need" versus "socially-induced need". (For example, I think it's never accurate to say that a man "needs to confess his sins to Jesus", because I know that Jesus doesn't exist. Whereas, I'm not sure what percentage of people who "need" sex change operations actually need them.)

That's not what the video said. The video said that we are all conceived as females. For the first five-six weeks of our embryonic development, we express female physical traits, regardless of whether we have XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes. That correction is important because: (1) A six week old embryo isn't called a "body"; if it were, abortion would be murder. (2) A six week old embryo is incapable of surviving outside the womb; hence it isn't a viable human being; hence it has no body. (3) Therefore, there's no such thing as "an individual who began with a female body that was converted to a male body via testosterone". There is only "an individual who was conceived as a female, whose body was converted to male by testosterone". ------------------------- Now let's consider organ transplants. A female recipient can receive male organs without fearing, "Zomg, I'm going to wake up feeling gender-confused after the transplant, because I'll have a male body part trapped inside my female body!" So what body parts are transplantable? According to the Wikipedia page on organ transplantation, almost all organs are transplantable! Some of the more "colorful", or "I didn't know we could do that" organs include hands, feet, legs, face (still experimental), penis, and ovary. Off the top of my head, the only body parts that are not transplantable are the brain and spinal cord. (You can imagine how impossible it would be to "re-wire" one person's brain / spinal cord to both a recipient's brain and other body parts....) So I assert: (1) The body itself is neither male nor female, only the sex cells (sperm and egg) are either male or female. (2) There is no such thing as a "male brain", "female brain", "male body", or "female body". (3) Therefore, there is no such thing as "a male brain trapped inside of a female body"; hence, there's no such thing as an objectively existing transgendered person. (There are, however, many people who have the subjective feeling that they're transgendered, which I assert is the same thing as "having the subjective feeling that you're one-with-god" or "having the subjective feeling that certain races are inferior to others".)

Right. But if you study a large sum of unconnected people who have a similar way of describing the same experience, you can also (quite easily) get: (1) Racists and (2) Christians. I think our confusion is as follows: "Sex isn't at all the same thing as sexuality." Sex is a biological reality, sexuality is just an opinion.

Absolutely. But what's most frustrating is that I can detect the UPB-violation quite easily. (Warning: I haven't actually read UPB, just listened to all of the podcasts on it.) If "transgender" is to be considered a "real term", then it must only be because a lot of people feel (despite the lack of any objective evidence) that "transgender" is to be considered a "real term". And no one is allowed to judge this conclusion negatively, nor discriminate, in any way, against such feelings. Fine, I say, reluctantly. No one is allowed judge these feelings-based conclusions negatively, nor discriminate in any way against such feelings. Universal moral rule; got it. But when a transgendered person says, "You're discriminating against me, because I'm transgender.", I can easily reply, "Not at all. I'm merely feeling extraordinarily creeped out by your presence. And, no, I don't need to provide objective evidence that my feelings are logical, because you established earlier that 'No one is allowed to judge these feelings-based conclusions negatively, nor discriminate, in any way, against such feelings.' So, I don't like you because you creep me out, and you're not allowed to say it's 'discrimination because you're transgendered.'" Has it been proven through science though? And is there a mathematical formula for semi-accurately predicting the percentage of infants born this way?

I'll add some of my own opinions / insights. In modern societies, there have been only two ways in which women have been granted sexual freedom: (1) through voluntarily copulating with violent, protective men, and (2) through using the state/police to keep violent men in check. The first strategy has a much longer history than the second, which is so new that it could be called "anomalous". But the strangeness of the second type of society has not rid women of their need to feel "protected" and "safe". More interesting, in the first society (which was described so beautifully in the essay), a woman can just look at a man to determine whether he's alpha: she sees how he carries himself, and (most important!) how many men he commands. But in the second society, it's impossible for her to "just look at" a man to determine his alpha status. So, instead, she has to test him. And it is her need to test him that leads to the phenomenon called "game" - the special series of skills by which men learn to mimic alpha status in order to make her feel "safe" and "protected".

I was going to post my own take on this, but I think this essay is highly relevant and interesting. (Read all of its parts, not just part one.) http://therawness.com/the-myth-of-the-middle-class-alpha-male-part-1/

I'm frustrated with the terms cisgender and transgender because I feel that they don't describe anything real, and should therefore not exist. A metaphor. I was born atheist (because we all are), was introduced to Born Again Christianity from a very young age, believed in it rather deeply throughout my childhood, and stopped believing at age 17 or so. Now I'm told that Jesus is fundamentally a spiritual being, and so I can describe my life-path (if I wanted to) as: born cishuman, became transhuman, and reverted to being cishuman. (Or: born transpiritual, became cisspiritual, reverted to being transpiritual.) But that would be stupid because there exists no objective evidence to support the existence of "spiritual beings", so I could only have been human the entire time. And because using terms like "cisspiritual" gives credence to the existence of "spiritual beings", which I find annoying. I also believe that "gender" is identical to "spiritual being" in that there's no objective evidence to support the existence of "gender". But it's even more annoying, because I despise people who haven't studied evolutionary biology, and yet comment on "gender issues": they're trying to use anti-knowledge (gender-related studies) to overpower knowledge (biologically-related studies of sex). So, why do the terms "cisgender" and "transgender" exist? And do they have any philosophical value?

I stopped listening when Murphy announced, "I'm not going to go into a point-by-point analysis of Stef-said-this followed by here's-why-I-think-it's-wrong." To me that sounded like, "I'm not actually going to address Stef's argument, nor am I going to participate in a call-in show to see where I might have erred. But I'm going to say something anyway."

Have you considered feeling honored that you got to attend, got to screw it up so badly, and get to attend another meeting all the same? (I know that you can't force yourself to feel a certain way, and I'm not asking you to do so. But I wonder whether you've considered that emotion.)