Yeah, there are a number of ways of telling someone how to shut up in French, (and Quebec does it differently than France). In France, this is one of the more aggressive / assertive / rude ways. But, the way he said it was a milder version, so it’s more a “stfu” rather than “shut the fuck up”.
There’s “tais toi” which is basically like “be quiet”. What you might say to kids being annoying. There’s “ferme ta bouche”, which is literally “shut your mouth”. Or, “ferme la”, which is basically “shut it”. He basically picked the rudest form, but said it in the mildest way.
“Ferme ta bouche” (shut your mouth) or “ferme la” (shut it) are not mild, but not as strong as “ferme ta gueule” or “ta gueule”. I don’t know if there’s a real difference between “ferme ta gueule” or “ta gueule”, it probably depends more on how it’s said than the words. Once you start using “gueule” it’s a pretty strong form.
Really the two words “ta gueule” is shorthand for effectively saying “you have the mouth of an animal (a predator?) not a human, and you should shut it”.
The closest English equivalent is “shut your hole”.
Some debates don’t even need to happen anymore. No the earth isn’t flat. No trans people aren’t monsters trying to kill Jesus. No vaccines don’t turn you gay. No the world wasn’t created 6000 years ago.
We’ve legitimized too many morons in the world. Not everything is a debate, some things are just facts that need to be thought to the ignorant.
Choosing to love Jesus makes that man happy, and that's great as long as he doesn't try to ruin other people's fun. Why is that so hard for some people to understand? Just live your own life and leave other people alone.
I was even more confused, because in German, that’s an idiom. “Jesus kann es” would mean basically “Jesus is a capable/cool guy”. I thought, he just rudely completed the sentence to shut the guy up, but people here are saying, he told the guy quite literally to shut up. 🙃
It sounds like what he actually says is ta gueule —translates to “your muzzle” in English—which seems to be one of the ruder ways to say “shut up” in French. Which, I guess, correlates well enough with the usage of the English idiom “can it.”
It is quite the funny word. Basically irregardless means regardless… so, like, what’s the “ir” for? Regardless, it is considered not appropriate for formal writing. So I think you both get to be partially right here. Everyone wins!
You can laugh if you wish, but I am just telling you what the debate is about. If you want to further division then just call the other side names, and make things worse, you have that right.
I was pointing out that your statement was a strawman. But really it’s just a false statement. A lie, if you will.
There has never been any discussion about children consenting with respect to trans rights. The parents and/or medical professionals are ALWAYS involved in the decision.
That isn’t really an ad hominem. It’s just an insult. An ad hominem would be: “What validity could that argument have when you, the person defending it, is an idiot?” Same goes for the other user’s complaint.
If the debate is about reality, it’s about time the side opposing trans rights opens a scientific journal explaining the differences in the neuroanatomy of trans people and what are empirically proven methods to heal the distress provoked by gender dysphoria. Unless you actually don’t care about any of that, and the debate isn’t really about facts, but rather that the prospect that we may decide to accept that humans are a little more complicated than you had assumed personally annoys you.
Regarding neurology, here’s a fragment of a lecture where the speaker discusses those studies: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QScpDGqwsQ It should give you a basis to find the studies, of which you’ll probably find a few more recent ones.
Regarding the latter, take a look at this post: old.reddit.com/…/a_comprehensive_defense_of_trans… I recommend checking the links and references one by one. Some link to journalistic articles or educative material, some are broken links, and some others are actually scientific articles.
Sure, sometimes it is discussed whether or not children can transition medically (p.s: it’s why they have to go through an army of doctors and psychologists), but to deny that the debate doesn’t revolve around if someone is happy or religion is ignorant.
Countless times I have seen people make the argument that transitioning has a high regret rate, countless of times I’ve seen people invoke religion and try to say being trans is a sin (what with the whole bible quote about men not wearing women clothing).
So when people debate about trans people, 90% of the time it is about someone’s happiness and getting in the way of it.
I tend to agree, but as I’ve gotten older I’ve got a bit less strict with thinking all religious people are idiots.
But I’m still pretty fervently of the mind that dogmatic monotheism is honestly one of the — if not the — worst thing that happened to humanity.
The intolerance of narrow monotheism is written in letters of blood across the history of man from the time when first the tribes of Israel burst into the land of Canaan. The worshippers of the one jealous God are egged on to aggressive wars against people of alien [beliefs and cultures]. They invoke divine sanction for the cruelties inflicted on the conquered. The spirit of old Israel is inherited by Christianity and Islam, and it might not be unreasonable to suggest that it would have been better for Western civilization if Greece had moulded it on this question rather than Palestine.
As I’ve gotten older I’ve done the opposite! If they think there are any gods at all, then they make important decisions without evidence. That always spills over into more physical concerns, like climate change.
Similar mindset for me. You can have your religion, I don’t care.
But like masturbation, keep it private or with specific loved ones, keep it out of politics, or any public sector, and DEFINITELY keep it away from kids since they can’t consent.
The silliest thing is that even YHWH was once but one of the Israelites’ many gods. He just slowly ate away at their pantheon until there was nothing left but anger and jealousy.
Maybe that is what we need to do. “Decide” on certain moral questions based on best scientific data and our values and sound arguments and then stop debating them. Unless new scientific evidence challenges those moral edicts.
Somehow we keep going round in circles as a civilization.
But srsly, the person you replied to needs to understand just how slippery of a slope his argument is. There’s no such thing as 100% objective morality.
Maybe not, maybe there is an infinity of variation of objective morality. There will always be broken people with pathologies like sociopathy or narcissism that wouldn’t agree. But the vast majority, like 95% of people would agree for example on the universal human rights - at least if they had the rights and freedoms to express themselves and the education to understand and not be brainwashed. Basically given the options of a variety of moralities and the right circumstances (safety/not in danger, modicum of prosperity, education) you would get an overwhelming consensus on a large basis of human rights or “truths”. The argument would be that just because a complex machine is forever running badly, that there still can be an inherent objective ideal of how it should run, even if perfection isn’t desirable or the machine and ideal has to be constantly improved.
There is another way to argue for a moral starting point: A civilization that is on the way to annihilate itself is “doing something wrong” - because any ideology or morality that argues for annihilation (even if that is not the intention, but the likely outcome) is at the very least nonsensical since it destroys meaning itself. You cannot argue for the elimination of meaning without using meaning itself, and after the fact it would have shown that your arguments were meaningless. So any ideology or philosophy that “accidentally” leads to extermination is nonsensical at least to a degree. There would still be an infinity of possible configurations for a civilization that “works” in that sense, but at least you can exclude another infinity of nonsense.
“Who watches the watchers” is of course the big practical problem because any system so far has always been corrupted over time - objectively perverted from the original setup and intended outcome. But that does not mean that it cannot be solved or at least improved. A basic problem is that those who desire power/money above all else and prioritize and focus solely on the maximization of those two are statistically most likely to achieve it. That is adapted or natural sociopathy. We do not really have much words or thoughts about this and completely ignore it in our systems. But you could design government systems that rely on pure random sampling of the population (a “randocracy”). This could eliminate many of the political selection filtering and biases and manipulation. But there seems very little discussion on how to improve our democracies.
Another rather hypothetical argument could come from scientific observation of other intelligent (alien) civilizations. Just like certain physical phenomena like stars, planets, organic life are naturally emergent from physical laws, philosophical and moral laws could naturally emerge from intelligent life (e.g. curiosity, education, rules to allow stability and advancement). Unfortunately it would take a million years for any scientific studies on that to conclude.
It is quite possible that it’s too late now, or practically impossible to advance our social progress because of the current overwhelming forces at work in our civilization.
Having objectivity in our system doesn’t mean our morals are based on objective things.
Is it objectively wrong to kill?
You can’t answer that with a “yes” or “no”, because it depends so much on the subjective situation.
Also, arguments which you say “like, uh, 95% of people”, by guessing kinda devalue your whole comment. You dot need to not write what you were thinking, but instead say something like “they may not be completely objective, but our subjective views are so similar that practically we do have objective morality in certain contexts”.
Which would be true.
The “95% of people believe in basic human rights” isn’t. Utterly naive.
I’m not arguing for “one single 100% objective morality”. I’m arguing for social progress - maybe towards one of an infinite number of meaningful, functioning moralities that are objectively better than what we have now. Like optimizing or approximating a function that we know has no precise solution.
And “objective” can’t mean some kind of ground truth by e.g. a divine creator. But you can have objective statistical measurements for example about happiness or suffering, or have an objective determination if something is likely to lead to extinction or not.
There will always be broken people with pathologies like sociopathy or narcissism that wouldn’t agree […]
And dismissing their way of perceiving the world is a choice which we make, not an objective mandate or imperative. We do it because the benefits to us (“normal people”) seem to outweight the loses.
[…] at least if they had the rights and freedoms to express themselves and the education to understand and not be brainwashed
And how do you determine who falls in this category? Again, by a set of parameters which we’ve chosen.
[…] nonsensical since it destroys meaning itself […]
Which is a judgement call you’ve externalized, again not an objective reality. You have chosen to believe that meaning is important, that self-destruction is bad. There’s nothing in the universe that inherently holds this as being true. Whether one person or one billion people choose to believe something as true has no bearing on whether or not it is actually true.
You cannot argue for the elimination of meaning without using meaning itself, and after the fact it would have shown that your arguments were meaningless
You needn’t argue for the elimination of meaning, because meaning isn’t a substance present in reality - it’s a value we ascribe to things and thoughts.
And how do you determine who falls in this category? Again, by a set of parameters which we’ve chosen.
Sure, that is my argument, that we choose to make social progress based on our nature and scientific understanding. I never claimed some 100% objective morality, I’m arguing that even though that does not exist, we can make progress. Basically I’m arguing against postmodernism / materialism.
For example: If we can scientifically / objectively show that some people are born in the wrong body and it’s not some mental illness, and this causes suffering that we can alleviate, then moral arguments against this become invalid. Or like the gif says “can it”.
I’m not arguing that some objective ground truth exists but that the majority of healthy human beings have certain values IF they are not tainted that if reinforced gravitate towards some sort of social progress.
You needn’t argue for the elimination of meaning, because meaning isn’t a substance present in reality - it’s a value we ascribe to things and thoughts.
Does mathematics exist? Is money real? Is love real?
If nobody is left to think about them, they do not exist. If nobody is left to think about an argument, it becomes meaningless or “nonsense”.
Add comment