|
Post by Chris Hobbs on Feb 2, 2007 18:03:19 GMT -5
From www.faithalone.org/news/y1997/97sept2.html : It is important to recognize that Jesus doesn't say that whoever says "You fool!" will be cast into hell fire. Instead He says that he will be in danger of that. There is a big difference in those statements! This verse shows that not all anger is sin. It is sin when you are angry with someone "without a cause." It is also sin when you are angry, with or without a cause, and, in a fit of anger, you curse someone. The term "weirdo" when used the other day was not out of anger. Nor was it a curse on the 12-year-old. It was simply used as a descriptive word and opinion. Therefore, this verse doesn't apply here. Next verse! (Same as the first)
|
|
Kat
Apprentice Cog
Birth. Life. Death. Repeat.
Posts: 143
|
Post by Kat on Feb 2, 2007 19:13:57 GMT -5
Labels are part of life and the kid who gets a sex change at 12 better get use to that. You can not protect everyone from life. I wish this little weirdo the best but I imagine he is going to have a rough life. And he better be ready for more than words when first boy this "girl" fools finds out what this "weirdo" is about. Shame on his parents... weirdos. The 14year old has not had the full sex-change operation, but has had hormone treatment. There will be no surgery until after the age of 18. According to the reports (BBC news) I've read, this particular 14 year old has expressed feminine traits/behaviour/identification since the age of 2. I'm not sure why the parents should be shamed; they are trying to help their child who seems to have been born this way. You might could say it's weird because it is outside of your personal experience. But other than that, I don't see/have a problem with it.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 2, 2007 19:46:14 GMT -5
Does he have normal boy parts or not? If he is an aphrodite then I can understand and would agree that surgery should wait until the child's actual sex is determined before any surgery is done. I have stated this from the get go. However, if the child has full sexual organs of a male and it's only the child's "mental" sex that's in question, then I think it would be the wrong thing to do. This would be like having gay kids have sex change operations and as far as I know, most gay men want to keep their bodies physcially a male. The same for the lesbians....it's only a small fraction of that group that HAVE full sexual organs, that want to physically be the opposite sex. The kid hasn't even reached puberty yet, so who knows what would happen when the male hormones kick in. (He started taking hormone therapy at 12) Edit: or possibly 16. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=U10LR1GPKEFOJQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/01/31/wkim31.xml
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 2, 2007 19:58:25 GMT -5
i doubt very much he is a mythical goddess!
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 2, 2007 20:00:13 GMT -5
Your right, I was thinking of Hermaphrodite. This subject doesn't come up often in my conversations....
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 2, 2007 20:19:54 GMT -5
tragic- You >DO< know what a "neocon" is, right? Honestly? Probably not. I tend to lump "neocon" in with Religious Right, Fundamentalist, and so on. One of my favorite made-up words is "FundieCon," someone who insists the state support all of their Fundamentalist mores. Pizza- Thank you for not taking my message as being confrontational. After I posted it, I was a bit afraid that it'd be taken that way when it was not intended to be. Sayeth Wikipedia: So one school of thought says that neo-cons are basically former liberals who have "seen the light" and become new (neo-) conservatives. If they differ from "paleo-cons" (traditional conservatives), it would seem to be at least in part because they accept the role of government in our daily lives, albeit grudgingly, to a greater degree than traditional conservatives do. Some conservatives think of government almost as the enemy (and with some reason); neo-cons don't go quite that far. You've fallen into a trap set by the Left in which they have sought to redefine what a 'neo-con' is and to equate it with the most radical- I should probably say "fundamental", as the opposite of radical is more properly fundamental- elements of the movement. You're much more accurate when you say that "fundie-cons" are the bane of the LGBT (oh...add in "confused", as that's any additional segment of that movement now) movement.
|
|
Kat
Apprentice Cog
Birth. Life. Death. Repeat.
Posts: 143
|
Post by Kat on Feb 2, 2007 21:56:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 2, 2007 23:13:01 GMT -5
If your motive for this education is to make people think it is not weird then it's a waste of time. Why spend time trying to convince people that the sky is not blue. We can sympathize and maybe one or two on the forum could empathize but to try to convince people that it's something normal is not going to occur with people that think.
People born without arms and legs is not normal. Do I consider them weird? No, because they have no desire to be armless or legless. If you present a group of people, which there are, that wants to cut off their arms or legs, which they have, then I would call them weird. I am not denying that they mentally think this, but that in itself doesn't make something abnormal, normal.
|
|
Kat
Apprentice Cog
Birth. Life. Death. Repeat.
Posts: 143
|
Post by Kat on Feb 3, 2007 11:44:30 GMT -5
If your motive for this education is to make people think it is not weird then it's a waste of time. Why spend time trying to convince people that the sky is not blue. We can sympathize and maybe one or two on the forum could empathize but to try to convince people that it's something normal is not going to occur with people that think. I don't care if anyone thinks it's weird, just want to give them a chance to read up on the topic so they can make informed statements.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 3, 2007 12:28:46 GMT -5
You either have common sense or you don't. You think people are making uniformed statements but the real problem is.....
"You might could say it's weird because it is outside of your personal experience."
You espouse the view of a relativist. You think there can be no abnormal because in your mind, it depends on one's perspective. Your same ideology dictates there can be no right or wrong as well.
The will for a person of one physical sex to want to be the opposite is not normal and like 2 +2 = 4, it is objectively true whether anyone thinks so or not.
Ethical and moral relativists are a big problem with our society and now we can add another new relativist to the ranks, one that has a common core with the other two but adds nature to the mix. It has already taken effect with the movement of changing the names of people born abnormally with handicaps to somehow remove the abnormal from it. Pretty soon there will be people saying, "Oh, it's normal to be born with 9 fingers or three arms."
Deal with reality but don't piss on people below a balcony and try to convince them it's raining.
|
|
Kat
Apprentice Cog
Birth. Life. Death. Repeat.
Posts: 143
|
Post by Kat on Feb 3, 2007 12:42:36 GMT -5
You either have common sense or you don't. You think people are making uniformed statements but the real problem is..... "You might could say it's weird because it is outside of your personal experience."You espouse the view of a relativist. You think there can be no abnormal because in your mind, it depends on one's perspective. Your same ideology dictates there can be no right or wrong as well. That's almost funny (the last sentence quoted), since I was told years ago that I had a highly developed sense of right & wrong. But I tend to see actions and behaviours as right & wrong, not people. And, yes, perception is everything, because your perception and my perception cannot be the same (since we are both individuals), but the truth will always lie somewhere in the middle. More Links: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/28/wkim28.xmlwww.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,462516,00.html And to clarify an earlier statement: I thought I had read about this originally on the BBC news site, but it was another British paper's site. My apologies for forgetting where I read something.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 3, 2007 12:57:17 GMT -5
That's almost funny (the last sentence quoted), since I was told years ago that I had a highly developed sense of right & wrong. But I tend to see actions and behaviours as right & wrong, not people. And, yes, perception is everything, because your perception and my perception cannot be the same (since we are both individuals), but the truth will always lie somewhere in the middle. I will for the time being reserve my opinion of what where or whom I think is weird. It is more important to dispel this persistent idea that "perception is reality." That someone tells you that you have a highly developed since of right and wrong does not make it so. A truth exist that is not dependent on mathematical deduction of what is in the middle of two perceptions. Perception is not reality but rather the imperfect approximation of it. If perceiving the very same objective truth then approximations should at least be similar, but then some people aren't very good at perceiving reality.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 3, 2007 13:06:47 GMT -5
"because your perception and my perception cannot be the same (since we are both individuals), but the truth will always lie somewhere in the middle."
I will have to continue to disagree with this thought. I could be stating 100% truth and you could be 100% wrong. There is no law of nature that dictates an equal or commensurate measure of correctness based on perception.
Edit: Excuse me if I more or less repeated what MG just said but in a different way.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 3, 2007 16:11:27 GMT -5
Perhaps saying that, for the intellectually incurious, "perception is reality' IS reality.
I and some others got into a rather heated difference of opinion- respectful, but still rather heated- regarding the Libertarian Party.
It is my belief, supported by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, that the perception of the Libertarian Party boils down to essentially one issue: making all drugs legal. Ask 100 random people what they know about Libertarians and the most often heard response will be "Who?", followed somewhat distantly by "oh...you mean the folks that want to make pot (or whatever) legal?".
Now anyone who has done any digging at all into what Libertarians believe knows that, while drug legalization is a plank in their platform, it is hardly the only one....just the most controversial one and we all know that controversy is the mother's milk of news reporting. While they don't know it as such, people are conflusing "libertarian" with "libertine"- or even making the assumption that libertarianism is only a slight step above anarchy. Because most people have neither the time nor, even a sadder commentary, the inclination to find out more about what Libertarianism really is, their views are shaped entirely by their (flawed) perception of the concept, ergo their perception is their reality.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 3, 2007 18:49:35 GMT -5
womi,
I disagree. It's their perception of reality...not reality itself. Isn't reality, truth? Reality doesn't lie, it just isn't something people see clearly or can comprehend in it's totality sometimes.
Maybe you can give an example of relativic reality that is 100% correct while being contrary to objective reality that is 100% correct.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 3, 2007 22:52:55 GMT -5
phin-
I think I agree with you and maybe just didn't say it clearly enough.
You and I do believe in absolutes, particularly in right and wrong, so, in that sense, those that I term "intellectually incurious" are indeed perveiving their own flawed reality, though I doubt they'd agree that's the case.
What's interesting is that Libertarians, by the nature of their rejection of at least some traditional mores (as lawman pointed out correctly), probably would say that any given individual's perception of reality is as good as any other person's and so, logically, they should not get up in arms when someone has misconceptions about their ideology.
Moral relativism strikes again!
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 4, 2007 0:16:35 GMT -5
womi - agreed, sometimes your over my head.
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 4, 2007 0:30:28 GMT -5
womi
Or perhaps you do not understand the absolute reasons for allowing persons to experience reality. Mistakes made by consenting adults, which have effects that are limited to those same adults, are still mistakes. Such mistakes, being so limited in effect, should never be made illegal. The advocacy of decriminalization of distasteful or destructive behaviors, that can be shown to effect adversely only voluntary members of the act, does not equal the wholesale rejection of traditional mores.
But then you are supposing to answer for Libertarians what they might say about libertarian ideology. That is flawed not only because of your assumption of what they may say, but that you also assume that someone who now identifies as a Libertarian would know anything about libertarian ideals.
No libertarian that believes in objective truth would espouse the relativism that you suppose, but it is rather easy to find libertine fascists that identify themselves as Libertarian.
|
|
|
Post by galaxygoddess on Feb 4, 2007 10:40:05 GMT -5
OK!!!! Seriously here... "stupid" , if weirdo is the WORST word this person could possibly be called, then this world is DRASTICALLY different than I thought it was. I mean seriously, I LIKE being called weird!!! I STRIVE for it Although, I never had a sex change, never will (although I would like a breast reduction, medical issues and personal issues), WHO IS NORMAL? Bah, you are an idiot. If you don't think this kid is a weirdo, then that's your problem not the hosts.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Feb 4, 2007 11:32:51 GMT -5
"Maybe you can give an example of relativic reality that is 100% correct while being contrary to objective reality that is 100% correct."
i CAN
a person with a fever, they either feel very cold or very hot, while the room they are in may be just right for most people.
when feverish the reality is you feel either cold or hot out of proportion to your actual surroundings!
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 4, 2007 14:43:05 GMT -5
The objective reality of the person's internal temperature is not contrary to that person's relativic reality. In other words, their perceived internal temperature is not contradicted by their actual internal temperature. Your example is not valid.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 4, 2007 22:53:21 GMT -5
Maccus-
But then you are presupposing that ALL Libertarians believe in objective reality. I'm not so sure that they agree, nor should they necessarily. I look at the lockstep fashion in which the Democrat Party operates- deviate from the official dicta and risk punishment (remember the Steny Hoyer incident!)- and I can quickly come to the determination that groupthink is potentially dangerous.
As for not criminalizing 'mistakes' made by consenting adults. I'd ask you to give an example or two before I offer a rebuttal.
I will go out on a narrow limb and assume that you might be referring to homosexual conduct as an example of "distasteful or destructive behaviors". If that be the case, I agree.
Where I differ, though, is in your assertion that this behavior doesn't affect people outside those directly involved. I hate to be non-PC (actually, no, I don't) but homosexuals have a higher rate of specific STDs that are more difficult and expensive to treat than heterosexuals do. If the gays have insurance, said insurance company will have to pay out HUGE bucks should one or both of them come down with AIDS. While an insurance company can perhaps hold down premiums by spreading the risk among both low- and high-risk clients, enough people who engage in high risk behaviors WILL, inevitably, cause rates to increase for everyone. Same for smokers, the obese, skydivers, etc. but, if you accept the notion that people are born gay (and I do), then, of my example groups, only the gays are compelled to engage in high-risk activities, where skydivers can stop, the obese diet and smokers quit.
Now I will concede your very valid point about my assumption that I might have an inkling as to how a Libertarian might feel about moral certainty versus moral relativism. Guilty as charged.
However, in my defense, I'd venture to say that more than a few coverts to Libertarianism do so not because they necessarily agree with the Libertarian position on the issues but more out of frustration/disdain for the two major partys. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a high percentage of 'converts' probably do not know, nor would they care if they did know, the official Libertarian position on gambling, prostitution, drugs, isolationism, etc. They only know that being a Libertarian absolves you of the blame for the damage done by Demopublicans and Republicrats.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Feb 5, 2007 10:28:59 GMT -5
I do not understand why it is wrong to say this kid and his family are weird. Should I have said, "I have no opinion on this." No, of course not. But saying "I think that family is weird," and calling someone a derogatory name, "weirdo," are two different things. The first is a personal judgment based on your own values, the latter is a kind of curse. It really is a very simple concept to grasp.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Feb 5, 2007 10:34:09 GMT -5
OK!!!! Seriously here... "stupid" , if weirdo is the WORST word this person could possibly be called, then this world is DRASTICALLY different than I thought it was. I mean seriously, I LIKE being called weird!!! I STRIVE for it Although, I never had a sex change, never will (although I would like a breast reduction, medical issues and personal issues), WHO IS NORMAL? Bah, you are an idiot. If you don't think this kid is a weirdo, then that's your problem not the hosts. I'd put my IQ up against yours anytime. It would be weird for you to have breast implants put in, wouldn't it? Does that mean it's weird if anyone had implants put in? Same principle.
|
|
|
Post by galaxygoddess on Feb 5, 2007 10:36:29 GMT -5
IQ test mean piddly, give the fact the last one I took ranked me at 198 *shrugs* My point still stands. If weird is the worst this thing will be called our world is in a way better place than i ever thought it would be.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Feb 5, 2007 11:40:25 GMT -5
Again, "weird" is a situation, "weirdo" is a personal attack.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 12:44:08 GMT -5
Like I said before, that frame of thought would then dictate that a person could not call one that murders a murderer because it would be considered a personal attack or calling people names. You do something weird and at least under that context, you're a weirdo. You get drunk all the time makes you a drunk.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Feb 5, 2007 12:52:36 GMT -5
You're insisting, phinehas, that I take apples and make it mean oranges.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 5, 2007 13:10:56 GMT -5
ok, If that's what you think. I gave examples to back up my point. Just making a statement, such as you did, that I am wrong, doesn't carry much weight.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Feb 5, 2007 13:27:00 GMT -5
Well, I explained myself already, phin. Saying "I think that is weird" is worlds apart from saying "you are weird."
|
|