labmath2

That is interesting. How precise and honest does your attempt have to be. Why is Manson not exonerated since he was also a blabbering madmen who managed to convince others to commit murder. What i am trying to ascertain is at what point would you have said "now you are immoral." I will give a range to get an idea. 1. I don't like that guy someone should kill him 2. That guy is responsible for all your personal shortcomings and unless you kill him i do not think you will find a solution. 3. Here is some money for whoever kills this guy. 4. We cannot be together if you do not kill my significant other. 5. Here are good reasons why the world will be better with this person dead.

I leave the details open to your imagination to see what clever ways people can come up with. Adding more details can also over-complicate it. get the sense people assume there are only two states for the window, closed or opened. That is certainly one way to think of it. Sure you can think people can leave, but it defeats the point of finding a resolution. There is no reason to assume the people only have one preference or that their preferences are immutable. I am just giving a starting point to work with. So far the answers have been both interesting and funny.

You have to realize many of us, including you, grew up in a community where there were already laws, property owners, and cultural practices before we were born. These customs are not arbitrary, they are the result of a system put in place by a group of people at some point defining its members and each member's obligation. So, what is the contract? Citizenship and the constitution outlines the process. The outcome is unfortunately what we end up with. If you disagree, there are ways in which to modify the process already outlined in the process itself. The alternative, overthrow the current system, then replace it with your own (revolutionary war).

Can you elaborate on your position? You just stated that they are both guilty of a crime (immoral). Let us weigh their actions independent of the person who murdered someone else. If they performed the same actions, but there was no murder, would you still think they are immoral?

There are ten people in a room and there is one window in this room. Everyone prefers the window in a configuration and at least one person most prefers the window completely closed and at least one person most prefers the window completely opened. Without knowing the preference of others, come up with a process to determine the state the window should be kept in based on everyone's preference. Test your process by assigning everyone preferences and seeing if your process works and if you are happy with the outcome.

Here are your answers. Contemplate them before responding. 1. No, You can not delegate to someone else something which you do not have a moral right to do. 2. No, those who wield political power do not have the moral right to do things which most people do not have a moral right to do. 3. No, there is not process by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act without changing the act itself. 4. Yes, lawmakers and enforcers bear the same responsibility for their actions, when they use coercion and force, that anyone else would who did the same thing on their own. 5. When there is a conflict between an individuals's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, then the individual must choose which of his obligations is superior. His contract by birth and citizenship to a society or his obligation to himself in violation of that contract.

Now you are taking this conversation to its next level. It has both philosophic and economic consequences. Does why matter? Historically speaking, i think it does. There is nothing to be learned from an event without a cause and effect. I am not so sure this is true philosophically. The case of the mentally ill certainly seems ti siggest that it does, but with much emphasis on personal responsibility, how seems to matter more. In economics, i don't think aystrians care at all.

While i have let go of the transgender debate, i do think this post is a gem in the backdrop of a rather unpleasant debate.

Also being gay is about preference, not identity. It only became defined as an identity by the attempt to get others to accept it. Of course your preferences are a part of who you are, but they are not who you are.

Again you just claim there is feminine brain and maeculine brain, when the science is not yet conclusive. You also reject race brain when there has been little research on this. How can you be so certain?

Why is that? The idea is that your identity is in your mind or brain and people should respect your "truth." Why do transgenders get to monopolize this? So far i am not aware of any research that has looked into the differences between those who identify as one race, and those born into it. The research on transgender brain is not conclusive either, the sample size is too small, and other effects cannot be ruled out. Then there is the problem of those others whose brain are different and result in mental disorders. Can they also claim their condition is an identity? The most important concern of course is still the objective standard.

The problem many if us are having i think has to do with culture vs biology. The distinction is the difference between "i like" and "i am." Transgenders want us to believe the latter, but we are still stuck on the former. The difference between i like the idea of being a woman and i am a woman has to do with objective standards. As far as i know, there is no way to measure the latter other than by looking at their psysiology.

Can you please elaborate on this. I get the sense that you preferred "female centric" things and interpreted it as female identity. I really want to get a sense of what it feels like to know you are female. If you know anyone else who was born female, but identify as male, i would also like to know what it feels like for them. To give you context, i am a male and if you asked me what it feels like to be male, i couldn't tell you.

After reading the last few posts, i think i am officially on the side of "voting is for statists and let us keep it that way." People have made arguments about how voting helped get rid of trolls. I am sure some people have come on this forum to troll, but by using voting to moderate we take away both dissent of opinions and others capacity to judge for themselves what is valid. While this community is filled with quite intelligent rational people, i do not think we are immuned to groupthink. I think voting will increase the likelyhood of groupthink creeping up slowly into the community.

Alice if i may ask, what does it feel like to be a man or woman? I have been a man for all my life, yet if you asked me what it feels like to be a man, i could not answer that question. I have only felt what it is like to be me. My concern is that feeking like you are not yourself is a big part of being transgender, more so than feeling like you are the opposite gender.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

At least she still acknowledges that she is black, but prefers to look white.

I think the more appropriate question goes something like this, in the absence of coercion, under what circumstances can you be held accountable for the actions of others? I can think of at least three ways to influence the actions of others: money, argument or persuasion, and suggestions or brainwash. Are you culpable in all three?

Nathan, it seems we are talking past each other here, so it will probably not do much good to continue the discussion.

I am sorry if my views appear to be erroneous, i am trying to discuss this the best way i know how, i am sorry if i sound very naive. I have tried looking up transgenderism, but the things i found were very different from the things you are now proposing, so maybe i did not do a very good job since i did what i was supposed to be looking for. Now on to the discussion. I I am calling it a movement out of convenience. It does not denote all persons involved are the same. I am merely pointing out they have a common goal defined by the "movement." When i talk about getting others to accept a different version of reality, its the part where the transgender individual rejects their biological sex. If gender is cultural, then there is no reason to attempt to change your biological sex. My confusion stems from the fact that gender is supposed to be cultural, but transgenders are actually trying to change their biology. If their problem is cultural, then there is no reason to change themselves. The moment you attempt to change your biology in an attempt to convince people that you really are the opposite gender, then are attempting to change reality. Even though you claim scientific evidence is showing that gender identity and biological sex are separate phenomenons, the very act of taking hormones and having sex change reassignment flies in the face of that. Let me restate my position, I have never thought people should be one thing because they were born into certain biological identities (color, sex, e.t.c), but i do think anyone who denies the fact that they are born into those identities, when evidence of the senses clearly contradicts what they feel, should be examined for psychological problems. We have never lived in an age where people are more free to express their identities how they want. They can love who they want, dress how they want, engage with who they want, even cross dress if they want. As for the gender pronoun, most third person singular are gender/sex specific. What happens when males can be called she/her and females he/him, then they stop telling u the sex of the person, which defeats the gender specificity. Feel free to call me dogbiscuit69, i don't mind, but it will get confusing. The ladies are in fact a freak of nature (not in a derogatory way, but in a wow science way). I cannot presume to know what you mean by treat these ladies with respect, but treating them with respect does not mean pretending they are not particularly unique. I can be respectful while still maintaining its not a normal circumstance. In fact, to pretend they are normal should be an insult to them, since they know i can see them and they know they are far from normal. Just because they are not normal does not mean they should be harassed or bullied. Quick question, if they are playing a team game, should they count as two people or one? (anyways, i digress). Gender is just one of the many things that affect how you treat someone. I am not sure what you mean by gender here, but i am going with male or female. Even if you are metrosexual, being male still affects most aspects of your life. If i am interacting with an attractive female, my brain thinks good eggs. No matter how attractive a male is, my brain just thinks he looks really good, i should try to look more like him. I imagine gender is an even bigger part of a transgenders life, so you can imagine it will affect how you treat them. The red part is why people think its a mental condition and why i think it is a denial of reality. Instead of acknowledging that you are uncomfortable with your biological identity, you construct a narrative where your bodies are wrong/accidents and hence needs to be corrected. This is not about culture, but a rejection of ones body. To reiterate, saying i like to look more like the opposite sex is very different from saying i was born into the wrong body. One is an odd preference, the other is simply untrue. To define the right body as the one you are comfortable in neglects the fact that your brain is as much a part of your body as everything else is. As for your last question, to be honest, i do not know how i would feel. I am not comfortable with everything about myself now, but i understand that i will not solve those problems by making external change since those problems are internal. I imagine it will feel the same way, except i would know its an external problem since i know i am taking hormones and had sex reassignment surgery. I was circumcised as a baby, and even thought i know a part of me was cut away, i have no great desire to get it back, and its not particularly uncomfortable for me so i imagine it will eventually feel like that.

From reading the articles, i am a bit confused as to what the gender spectrum is referring to and what transgender is all about. If gender is about what you look like and how you act, people already can act anyway they want and look anyway they want. If it were simply about social aspect, then i don't really see the big deal. However, that is not my understanding of the movement. If Bruce wants to change how he looks and change his name, no problem. If the movement is about stopping people from initiating force against such individuals, then i am all for it. To my knowledge, transgederism is about actually getting others to accept a different version of reality. He should not expect people to start saying he is female or using she. If people get to pick the pronoun they are called, then those pronouns lose their value, we might as well use one pronoun for all humans. If its about wanting people to treat you differently (since you now look more like the opposite sex), that is simply trying to manage people's perception of you. If this is what you mean by gender being a social construct, then the argument should be that people should not act differently to someone based on their gender. I am going to ask a few questions to try and clarify your position. Is the movement about removing what cultural expectations are associated with particular gender? Is it about getting someone born into one gender to be perceived as the other? If it is neither, how would you describe it in a clear and concise manner?

This comment.

Nathan can you please respond to my second comment? I would like to think i did not put effort in just to be ignored.

In my opinion, hitting is a smaller aspect of bad parenting. I dont know the data, but i imagine based on personal experience that spanking happens a lot less often than non-physical forms of abuse. I have mey many parents who hit thier kids maybe once a week, but debase them every chance they get.

I disagree with the idea that you are assigned sex at birth. It is not assigned, but uncovered. It was already assigned the minute you developed a penis or vagina. Just because i am resistant to the transgender narative does not mean i think all sexual deviations from norm are equally suspicious. The nain poibt here to note is that due to something in the person's brain, they believe something that isn't. Now i dont deny that they truly believe their gender is wrong. What i take issue with is the narrative they truly are the opposite gender. This is tantamount to denying evidence of their senses, which is the essence of mental illness. We can correct thay anomaly by creating the narrative where we all play along, or we can try to help them cope. This is very different from having cancer or facial deformity which the individuals do not deny, but express a desire to get rid of. They can also express the desire to look like the opposite sex, but that is very diferent from believing they are the opposite sex. One is odd, the other is simply untrue.