The overview had no mention of a lack of support for “not transitioning” it’s certainly possible I’m missing it or it’s in the full report (which I’ll read when I get a few minutes).
One mention of the need for corresponding levels of support for de-transitioning and some mentions of increased support for other issues alongside the gender based ones.
It sounds like OP had a specific section/sections in mind, if this is indeed the report they were referencing I’d appreciate some indication to which part they were referencing specifically.
“The overview didn’t mention it, but its somewhere in this 232 page report” isn’t the most useful when trying to understand where someone is coming from.
Labels aside, the only thing that post contains is a personal opinion, a personal anecdote and then an unspecific reference to something that may or may not exist.
Calling that an argument is a very generous interpretation.
So you’d be good with phrases such as “God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time” to be considered factually incorrect, as god(s) is/are a social construct?
Just to pre-empt, yes, money and borders are also social constructs but they also have physical manifestations, national identities are similar but not quite the same and all, including classification systems, have agency/effects through people’s shared belief in them.
Shared belief in god can have effects, but those effects wouldn’t make statements about a singular manifestation having independent agency to do something a correct statement.
“God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”
vs
“Peoples belief in God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”
Nope. I’d declare said statement propandistic shite unless they can prove they are privy to what God does or does not allow.
Most communication is propaganda to some degree, you’ll need to be more specific in the particular viewpoint you have here if you want a useful response.
Prove that god exists and i’ll immediately get on to finding out what they do or do not allow.
Just so we’re clear, faith isn’t proof, in fact its definition is almost universally “belief, in the absence of proof”
Lots of people believing also doesn’t equal more factually correct, it just means more people believe.
What do you think churches, mosques and temples are? “Non-physical”? Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.”
Correct, you have accurately described physical objects, not a single one of which i have denied the existence of.
If you could point out which one of those is the physical manifestation of a being that “would or would not allow” something then we can get on to the conversation part.
Just in case there’s any confusion, i’m all aboard the " organised religion is mostly bullshit people doing horrific things on a large scale over even longer time frames" train.
Note the “organised”, it’s important.
Also the “religions are just socially acceptable cults” train.
It might seem like I’m on two trains but in reality it’s a venn diagram in the shape of a train and it’s basically a complete overlap.
See the above.
The above wasn’t addressing any of the points so I’m not sure how it relates to this one either, but feel free to let me know.
I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. I don’t see how ascribing magical powers to religious people changes the fundamental idiocy of the quote you used.
I genuinely think you are misunderstanding what was being said here, intentionally or otherwise.
Just in case it’s unintentional, I’ll try again, but with more describing.
The vs statement was used as an illustration of the difference between the description of a tangible manifestation of a being vs the description of actions of a groups of people with “belief” in a being.
One of those things is a “being”/manifestation performing an action, the other is a group performing actions due to a shared belief or “construct”.
Also the first “quote i used” was from the original post, the second was a comparative example, neither of which i was stating as fact, purely as a demonstrative example.
Probably a troll, possibly just confused, either way uninteresting
See the end of the post for a reply bingo card.
Nope. The onus is not on me to prove that God exists as I’m not the one using God to substantiate claims. I hope this is not difficult to understand.
The difficult to understand part is where you are referencing things that didn’t happen.
Perhaps i’m misunderstanding though, so if you point out where i was using god as justification that should clear it up nicely.
No, you claimed that religion is, as social constructs go, somehow less real than all the other social constructs that are equally observable around us - do you need me to remind you?
Again, point at where this happened, if you keep referencing things without related references it’s going to seem like you are making things up.
At least here you provided a quote, though unrelated. it’s a step in the right direction.
Just in case you meant to use that quote, nothing in the “Just to pre-empt…” quote mentions relative "real"ness.
Atheists are always the first to purport themselves as (pardon the pun) God’s gift to “rational thinking”… yet their (supposed) “rational thinking” falls apart rather quickly under investigation.
No claim to more rationality than you, no claim to atheism either, citation please.
Not big on history, are you?
Vague and fallacious. especially given i was responding to this passage of yours :
Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.
You really are obsessed with God’s existence (or lack thereoff), aren’t you? I guess I had a hard time following because it’s not something I care about in any way whatsoever. It seems that this differentiates me from atheists, doesn’t it?
Again, no assertion of atheism on my part, feel free to quote the part where i did.
The only reference to the existence/non existence of a god is in relation to the original post i responded to , it’s not a point i added to the conversation.
But i suspect you know this.
This is my reply bingo card ( if you so choose to make one )
Bad faith arguments
References to things that didn’t happen, with either no actual reference or one that doesn’t relate to the “argument” being made
Fallacies in place of actual points
Personal attacks
Claims of my devout atheism, again with no references or proof
Complaints that i’m pointing out any of the above, but without substantive refutations
Equivalent of "I’m not arguing with someone who clearly doesn’t understand <Pseudo-point with no coherent supporting argument>"
I don’t know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.
Think headphones jacks don’t cause suffering at some point in the chain?
Not that I’m disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.
Does it assume that it’s generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don’t claim otherwise, it’s cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.
Like “Horrendously harmful Apple” or “Mildly harmful Colgate”
A bit hyperbolic perhaps.
Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I’ve occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.
Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of “The good place”
Are you genuinely struggling to understand why people who think he’s actively saying hateful shit about trans people wouldn’t necessarily want to increase his presence in the general Zeitgeist?
Or did you just want to slip in the “stereotypical white guy” dog whistle?
If you are actually struggling, i can probably help.
imagine a person saying horrible shit about you, specifically.
Now imagine they have a platform where they say this hateful shit to lots of people, enough that you sometimes run across these people and they also say hateful shit to you, perhaps worse.
Now imagine an unrelated meme is made with this persons face on it and you see it 5,10,15 times a week.
Now imagine that the comments on most of these memes feature a whole bunch of people defending this person and agreeing with the hateful shit they said about you.
I’d imagine that’s why some people care.
Genuine question though, what would be the right thing to give the energy/importance to in this scenario?
if someone pointing out that you are saying “fact” but aren’t meeting any of the definitions of a fact seems like an attack to you i suspect you’re probably having a bad time on the internet. Again you dodge most of the actual points of the conversation, probably intentionally.
Also i’m pretty sure “Fucking lmfao.” has a redundant “Fucking” in it , but I’m not holding my breath on you caring about that given how this has gone so far.
Doesn’t seem like this is going to go anywhere interesting, so I’ll just add you to the blocklist and be happy nothing of value(to me) was lost.
Schools won't be allowed to teach children that they can change their gender ID, reports say (news.sky.com)
Cats suffer H5N1 brain infections, blindness, death after drinking raw milk (arstechnica.com)
YouTube’s ad blocker crackdown now includes third-party apps (www.theverge.com)
Sounds like trouble for Newpipe, Sponsorblock, etc…
Excluding the Horror genre and individual movies in a series, what movie story ends with evil winning?
Self Hosted SCM & CI/CD Chicken and Egg
cross-posted from: programming.dev/post/12701628...
The French aristocrat who understood evolution 100 years before Darwin – and even worried about climate change (www.theguardian.com)
Fairphone Fairbuds launch with replaceable batteries, titanium drivers and ANC (www.notebookcheck.net)
I hate that guy (lemmy.ohaa.xyz)
Source: sunny.garden/
A Nigerian woman reviewed some tomato puree online. Now she faces jail (www.cnn.com)