Donnadogsoth

1.Sperm producers and egg producers form the necessary core of any fertile (i.e., evolutionary successful) group of humans. Everything else is secondary. 2.Principle of sufficient reason: everything happens for a reason and never otherwise. Minds existing like pond scum on the top of material brains lack sufficient reason to exist; if the brain is doing everything the mind can do, save a step and eliminate the mind. If we retain minds, we retain metaphysics, which means we retain Platonic forms. Ergo, male and female exist metaphysically. 3.If a depressed 13-year-old can't be reasonably assumed to be depressed forever, why should a transsexual be reasonably assumed to be depressed forever about not transitioning? 4.Is there no concept in our philosophy of bearing our crosses for the sake of others?

1.Sex was created by and for the evolutionary process. Maleness (sperm production) and femaleness (egg production) exist because biology needed a way to perpetuate the species. All other definitions of male and female are either extensions of this, or are purely arbitrary. 2.I invoke free will to defend metaphysics, which moderns attempt to do without. Materialistically there is no reason why minds should exist. Ideally (i.e., in terms of Idealism), minds do exist and therefore a metaphysical realm, from which, in terms of the evolutionary process, we derive maleness and femaleness as psychological categories. 4.(a) Do you agree people who wish to die should be put to death? A depressed 13-year-old, for example? (b) Do you think that the "well-being" of a farmer who deeply wishes he could have his body amputated below the navel, outweighs the needs of his family to have him work on the farm and thereby provide for them?

(1) Maleness biologically is the ability to produce viable sperm, which is associated with a functional Y chromosome. Anyone who can produce viable sperm is male. A person with XY chromosomes that can't produce viable sperm is a malfunctioning male. Similarly, a biological female is someone who can produce viable eggs. An inability to do this is a malfunction. Other malfunctions can include deformed or absent genitalia, absent or nonfunctioning uterus, and hormones that lead them to develop characteristics of the opposite sex. There are to my knowledge people with intersexual genetic codes, and these people may well constitute a third sex, but the natural dimorphic nature of human beings is into male and female, and these are not decided by psychology but by biology. These issues are only an issue with people who have confused psychologies and some kind of malfunction. The vast majority of people fit well within the category of maleness or femaleness biologically. (2) The brain is conditioned by hormones to think a certain way, I agree. But, what is the mind? Popular thought says the mind is an epiphenomenon on the brain, like gasoline swirling on the surface of a pond. If we believe that then we must believe that humans have no free will, since everything they do is a result of their brain and their brain is nothing but the interplay of electrochemical law. If we reject this then we allow ourselves to have free will and recognise that “the human mind is a product of the noetic process operating on the brain” (LaRouche). This process is what creates human beings, not reductionist physics or biology as such. So, when I say “metaphysics” I mean it literally, not as a poetic metaphor or something. I am male because the noosphere generated me as a male, and how that happens to look is by giving me a genetic code, a phenotype, and a psychology in accordance with that idea. (3) I've heard of the Reimer case, and I agree. (4) I like “insane” and think it's a useful catch-all term for “conditions and behaviours we shouldn't encourage.” Do you think we should encourage people with “BIID” to chop off their limbs/blind themselves/etc.? Not when the science data come in, right now, in today's world.

Hello. Interesting stuff, intelligently presented. I'm not your enemy. I would add the following: (1) Biologically you're male. Biology is a hard science and science is not in doubt that human beings with XY chromosomes are male by definition. Your natural phenotypal expression further confirms this. (2) Metaphysically you're female. You're responding to the feminine archetype as you see it incarnated in the society around you and you say to yourself, "That's reflecting what I am inside." Your transition is about making your phenotype match your metaphysical identity, which you have learned about by observing the heterosexual dynamic all around you. (3) You and all transsexuals are therefore defying feminist dogma that says that all human beings are psychologically identical, modified only by lived experience. If you didn't deny it, at least implicitly, then how would you know what "girl" even means, and why would "girl" have such an important meaning to you? (4) How do you feel about transableism, the psychological condition whereby someone feels the deep need to amputate their foot, for example? Would you consider such a person mentally ill? If not, what about someone intentionally blinding themselves, or killing themselves? If so, why is amputating a foot insane but amputating a penis not insane?

You're right, rapists shouldn't be sterilised, they should be executed. Sterilisation of idiots to prevent children being born to them is a kindness and practicality, not abuse. How fun do you think pregnancy will be for someone of IQ < 50? And who takes care of the child? Or should we prevent all people with grievous intellectual disabilities from having a sex life? Either way, we're the bad guy. The least we can do is prevent more unwanted children from coming into the world (you are in favour of that aren't you?). Whites didn't use their majority status in North America to sterilise all coloureds. Are whites nicer than coloureds?

As long as they sign the contract you've written for them, yes.

Why couldn't sterilisation be part of heinous criminals' punishment? Do you want rapists and child molesters having children? If I state clearly that anyone caught committing a crime on my property will be sterilised, why would you as a libertarian have a problem with that? If I as a parent wish to sterilise my idiot child, who's going to stop me?

Schiller said that, "A soul, says one wise man of this century, enlightened to the degree, that it has the plan of divine providence as a whole before its eyes, is the happiest of souls. An eternal, grand, and beautiful law has bound perfection to delight, discontent to imperfection. That which brings a person closer to that atonement, be it directly or indirectly, will delight him. That which brings him away from it, will grieve him, and what grieves him, he will avoid, but what delights him, for that he will strive. He will seek perfection, because imperfection causes him pain; he will seek it because it delights him himself.... Thus it is as much whether I say: the person exists to be happy; or he exists to be perfect. He is only then perfect, when he is happy. He is only then happy, when he is perfect."

How is "God let Demiurge create an evil world to imprison humans in forever" better than “God created a world that rebelled against him and required saving”?

1.After, except that it represents a personal tradition of thought that has its roots in my attempts at being an atheist. In other words, the specific formulation of proof of God's necessity were the post-conversion attempts at justifying an hypothesis in my consciousness that I had already known but lacked the philosophical adeptness to explain. 2.n/a 3.No, because the justification I am giving here is for the philosopher's God, not the Christian God. 4.(a) Consider A=A, principle, population density. We are capable of consciously reflecting the fundamental nature of existence, the fact that existence exists necessarily (A=A). We are capable of discovering other principles, as well—every principle in fact is open to being discovered by us, in principle. Only antihuman pessimism blocks us on that count. And population density demonstrates the truth of our discoveries by allowing us to rise to a 600-fold increase of population density over a hunter-gatherer economy. So, there, we have the essence of the Logos, or ability of the human reason, combined with human communication/speech to change the world for the benefit of man. That puts us on the trail of the Greek and Christian Logos, which John said was incarnated as Christ. It doesn't prove Christ was Christ per say, but it puts us thinking in that tradition. (b) When in doubt, consider the cult with the strongest connection to the original, which would be the Apostolic succession of the Catholic and to a good but lesser extent the Orthodox Church. There is where we should locate “Christianity” as a source. The Protestant sects, including Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, represent different spiritual disciplines which are disconnected from the Apostolic succession and are all premised on the failure of Christ. (c) The concept of God is already in kernal described above. It is not incompatible with deism, but I have reasons to believe that deism is wrong. (d) It is a miracle of insight, of course. I cannot claim credit for that, but would add that if such insight is given to me it behooves me to refine it and share it with others.

Have fun stroking your fallacy.

The aeternal Creator is not an assumption, it is a deduction from realising that the universe is flux, flux cannot be timeless, and therefore the universe cannot be timeless. Only something outside of the universe, namely something timeless and creative, could have generated the universe.

Stop lying. If you're going to lie and say that I believe God is "a human-shaped being with a white beard" then we're done. Presuming you've stopped lying, then no. The principled realm is aeternity and therefore God, or Truth if you prefer. You as a materialist have no choice but to locate the existence of "the universe" with the material, sensuous elements that make up the phenomenal world. And that's where I locate the universe as well as an idealist. The principles are shards of the Truth, imperfect human perspectives on Truth. We discover principles as if they are parts of the phenomenal universe, but ultimately they are facets of the divine jewel which exists timelessly.

You are confusing phenomena (temporality) with principle (aeternity). Phenomena come into existence and go out of existence. All that is constant is the existence of the principled realm. When you say "Of course, the universe has always existed" you are conflating these two realms. Of course, the phenomenal universe has NOT always existed, just as, of course, the principled realm HAS always existed.

How could something timeless have an ancestor?

No, the universe isn't a constant, the principle of change is a constant. "Creation of a timeless" contradicts. Creation is a creation of a temporal. The timeless already exists, as the Platonic ideas, principles, etc., existed in the mind of God timelessly and were only crafted into a universe during its creation.

I've already talked about the temporal lacking sufficient reason to exist, which means its existence flows from the aeternal. In other words, from an aeternal Creator. That's not an assumption, that's a deduction. A=A is a principle which does not strictly apply to God. It is not that God obeys A=A, it is that A=A expresses his nature. Consequently the universe he creates likewise conforms to his nature. That's not the last word on God and logic, or the universe and logic, but that's what's relevant here.

Comedy bronze.

The fact that the universe constantly changes is a constant that exists, like A=A, in aeternity.

No. You are falsely defining "exists" to imply "changes". The principle of A=A exists but does not change. Who says the universe will cease to change one day? But, if it did, who says God will not destroy it rather than make it timeless? That is to say, the souls of men will be made timeless but the rest of the universe does not need to be.

You're making the mistake of conceptualising God as being just another object inside space-time. He is outside of it all, existing in a single unchanging instant that acts as Prime Mover against all created things. Do not visualise God as a perfectly smooth circle against which creation impinges. Rather, view him as a jagged surface that we can wilfully change our approach to--approach one way, something bad happens, approach another, something good--sort of like with people. But the motion is ours, not God's.

You don't know that. But if it makes it easier then consider A=A, which also exists independently of particular instantiations. The other ideas of colour and banana, etc., exist in God's toolkit when creating the world.

If a man fights a woman and wins, he's a bully. If he loses, he's a pussy. And if he refuses to fight, he's a coward. Jordan Peterson - Why Men Are Bailing Out Jordan Peterson - Men Can't Control Crazy Women https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL3Hrwg3A3w

Define power. I could more precisely and more descriptively saw Natural law is the unvarying description of an effect of some affect, the arc of a motion of some mover, or the complementary tat of some tit. The problem is mentally guided action, is that it is always aimed precisely at the relief of some dissatisfaction or tic. Thus if the alleged creation of the universe was the effect of a mental act, it must be assumed that the creator is changing or mutable, and thus not timeless. Thus abducto ad absurdem. The only conclusion that makes sense the zig-zagger of the universe is not seperate from the zigs and zags. Distinct? Sort of, but not separate, and from time to time zigs into some specific form and forgets who he is in order to be surprised when the zags happens, even if only just for a little while. A mutable being cannot be timeless, and so not the Origin. It's precisely like it was before you were born. And if no substance lacks mind, what precisely is the difference? Do you remember every second of your life to date?

Interesting stuff about mirror neurons and empathy and the need to change minds through acceptance and openness. We are robotic in our brain circuit activity and need to transcend that if we are to survive. Got scared by the "one world" vibe. Sounds like a way to justify dropping our borders, which is another way of saying that the West has no right to exist, which means that I as a Westerner clinging to particular values, principles, and cultural artefacts have no right to exist at all, much less in a nurturing culture.