Originally posted by dadudemon
8. Disagree, there are factually two sexes but more than one gender (don't be pedants).
How many genders would you say there are then?
Lol I'm just messing with you, there is literally no right answer here, because the list of genders gets longer everyday. You could say 50 and by the time you're done saying the word fifty there would be 10 new genders.
Originally posted by Surtur
How many genders would you say there are then?Lol I'm just messing with you, there is literally no right answer here, because the list of genders gets longer everyday. You could say 50 and by the time you're done saying the word fifty there would be 10 new genders.
That's not up to me and I don't really care how many genders there are.
Originally posted by Pessimystic
^ Genuine question; Would you honestly be ok with laws prohibiting you from not calling someone by their made-up gender pronoun?
No and we've covered this before.
I'm all about maximum freedom for all individuals as long as that freedom does not result in physical or direct financial harm (you lost your job because you got depressed because people called you names: not gonna fly- that's why I use the word "direct" which implies theft or burglery).
That means a person can choose to identify as 14 different simultaneous genders while I have the right to call them a complete f*cking moron and all of our freedom to do so is protected by the state.
As for trying to play gotcha games and word games to flesh out the nuance of this position: f*ck off. I don't want to play those games. Figure out the nuance on your own. (I would be more polite but you're clearly a troll with ill intentions so you don't deserve my love)
Re: Twelve Statements - Agree or Disagree?
Originally posted by lazybones
Just twelve random statements. How far do you agree with each of them?1. 'There are some groups in society that are inherently more privileged than others, and policies such as Affirmative Action are needed to bridge the gaps.
Disagree.
'
2. 'Western countries have a duty to repay disadvantaged peoples for the crimes of colonialism and slavery.'Disagree.
3. 'There very well could be other reasons for poverty and homelessness, but chief among the reasons must be laziness.'
Disagree.
4. 'Meat-eating is wrong, and an anachronistic practice that should be challenged'
Disagree.
5. 'It's all well and good for countries to be independent, but there are some that would benefit from vassalization.'
Disagree.
6. 'Climate change driven by human action is happening, and requires government intervention in the form of regulation and taxes to remedy.'
Disagree.
7. 'It is appropriate to criminalise the presence of a wage gap between men and women in companies.'
Depends. All things being equal, agree.
8. 'There are only two genders.'
Disagree.
9. 'Those who are unemployed for prolonged periods should be conscripted into community service.'
If they're paid, why not?
10. 'The media and academic elite are virulently hostile to white people.'
Eh.. Plenty of whites on the left. Poor white conservatives, maybe.
Disagree.
11. 'Black Americans were better off during Jim Crow than they are now, all things considered'
Bullshit, disagree.
12. 'Healthcare should be government subsidised, so that all can afford it.'
Unsure.
Originally posted by Bentley10/10 well thought out criticism. Totally not a vague gripe that is not at all constructive.
These statements are cringe on and by themselves,
but the fact that some of them are about st0opid 'murican crapNewsflash: The vast majority of people on these boards are Americans. It would be stupid not to include some American-themed statements with this in mind.
and they are side by side some of the biggest ethical challenges that have been faced by humankind makes it even more cringe.Yes, because the statements were chosen at random, which means they will naturally vary wildly in terms of topic and importance.
I'm weighting whether it is worth it to actually reply to your observations. I guess it makes more sense to elaborate on my criticism.
My gripe with mass media is that they control the flow of information and the topics that get discussed disregarding their importance and limiting the scope of answers that can be given to each topic. In my humble opinion, these statements are an excellent example of everything I find lacking in mass media and my expectation when discussing in a forum where actual people share information is not to fall into those holes.
Is it wrong for me to expect better? Probably. If my original reply came out as offensive it's because of this. I did not intend it to be a personal attack against you.
Re: Twelve Statements - Agree or Disagree?
1) Agree, though AF is better in theory than in practice, it has problems itself
2) Agree, though there these need to be sensible
3) Disagree
4) Somewhat agree
5) Disagree
6) Agreed, though the use of "taxes to remedy" can be troublesome
7) Agreed, but it should be fines
8) Disagree
9) Agreed, but it has to be if they're capable. eg You're unemployed because you're a lazy stoner leeching off the system and living off his brother's kindness, sure. You're unemployed because you lost both arms and legs, you get a pass
10) Disagree
11) Disagree
12) Overall agree
Re: Re: Twelve Statements - Agree or Disagree?
Originally posted by Robtard
9) Agreed, but it has to be if they're capable. eg You're unemployed because you're a lazy stoner leeching off the system and living off his brother's kindness, sure. You're unemployed because you lost both arms and legs, you get a pass
Originally posted by BentleyOkay, that all seems reasonable. Although I should say that there is nothing stopping anyone here from adding additional depth to their answers, broadening the discussion, or challenging the premises of these statements if they deem it necessary. I understand your concerns about mass media, but this is an open forum and not really a comparable environment at all. No flow of information is being restricted here. If you do have something to say, then you can say it freely without censorship. And if you think the discourse is too narrow, then you can add your own opinion and change that.
I'm weighting whether it is worth it to actually reply to your observations. I guess it makes more sense to elaborate on my criticism.My gripe with mass media is that they control the flow of information and the topics that get discussed disregarding their importance and limiting the scope of answers that can be given to each topic. In my humble opinion, these statements are an excellent example of everything I find lacking in mass media and my expectation when discussing in a forum where actual people share information is not to fall into those holes.
Is it wrong for me to expect better? Probably. If my original reply came out as offensive it's because of this. I did not intend it to be a personal attack against you.
Re: Twelve Statements - Agree or Disagree?
Originally posted by lazybones
1. 'There are some groups in society that are inherently more privileged than others,
Agree to some extent.
and policies such as Affirmative Action are needed to bridge the gaps.'
Mostly disagree. I would agree to some mild affirmative action if carefully calibrated, but do not trust institutions to calibrate it properly.
2. 'Western countries have a duty to repay disadvantaged peoples for the crimes of colonialism and slavery.'
Disagree if you're referring to reparations, though obviously efforts should be made to ensure any past unethical activity doesn't continue to the present. I am OK with reparations for more recent activities, e.g. for Japanese Americans who were in internment camps.
3. 'There very well could be other reasons for poverty and homelessness, but chief among the reasons must be laziness.'
Agree as a general trend.
4. 'Meat-eating is wrong, and an anachronistic practice that should be challenged'
Disagree, but factory farming is morally problematic.
5. 'It's all well and good for countries to be independent, but there are some that would benefit from vassalization.'
"Some"? Sure.
6. 'Climate change driven by human action is happening, and requires government intervention in the form of regulation and taxes to remedy.'
Agree, though expanded nuclear energy could have done a lot for us.
7. 'It is appropriate to criminalise the presence of a wage gap between men and women in companies.'
Only if it's actually the result of gender discrimination, and the government is horrible at determining this.
8. 'There are only two genders.'
Not sure.
9. 'Those who are unemployed for prolonged periods should be conscripted into community service.'
Disagree, but making it a condition for welfare is OK.
10. 'The media and academic elite are virulently hostile to white people.'
I mean probably by some margin.
11. 'Black Americans were better off during Jim Crow than they are now, all things considered'
Disagree.
12. 'Healthcare should be government subsidised, so that all can afford it.'
Not sure.
Originally posted by Bentley
I'm weighting whether it is worth it to actually reply to your observations. I guess it makes more sense to elaborate on my criticism.My gripe with mass media is that they control the flow of information and the topics that get discussed disregarding their importance and limiting the scope of answers that can be given to each topic. In my humble opinion, these statements are an excellent example of everything I find lacking in mass media and my expectation when discussing in a forum where actual people share information is not to fall into those holes.
Is it wrong for me to expect better? Probably. If my original reply came out as offensive it's because of this. I did not intend it to be a personal attack against you.
I agree with your gripe about mass media, and share your reservations.
But my real disappointment is with social activists limited vision and scope.
For example, if I was a promoter of civil rights, I certainly wouldn't feel an obligation to actively work towards the rights of Native Americans. But I WOULD live under an assumption that many of the people I'm reaching out to are not African American, and thus would be very sensitive to condescendtion of "the other", as I myself am an "other" to those I plead my case for.
It would be hypocritical of me to turn an "other" who happens to not be my "other" into a doormat or a joke.
Yet, that's exactly what activists do. Feminists have no problem looking down their noses at skinny people, while defending obese people. Liberals have no problem mocking someone on grounds other then the very narrow, specific groups they protect.
And I realize many on the left believe in relative terms.. If the media helps us with Nixon, they are our friend. If they are smearing us, they are our enemy. If you punch down at victims, it's bad. If you punch up at privileged, it's fine.
All just a way to rationalize anything that is good or bad for us, on a personal level. Without standards, standards are whatever happens to annoy you in the moment.
That's the ethics of a child, not an adult with a very real concern for other adults.. (Or who plead for other adults to have concern for them and theirs..)
Originally posted by Robtard
1) Agree, though AF is better in theory than in practice, it has problems itself
2) Agree, though there these need to be sensible
3) Disagree
4) Somewhat agree
5) Disagree
6) Agreed, though the use of "taxes to remedy" can be troublesome
7) Agreed, but it should be fines
8) Disagree
9) Agreed, but it has to be if they're capable. eg You're unemployed because you're a lazy stoner leeching off the system and living off his brother's kindness, sure. You're unemployed because you lost both arms and legs, you get a pass
10) Disagree
11) Disagree
12) Overall agree