This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Pendulate
91
« on: July 07, 2015, 04:42:38 AM »
Philosophy should be a core subject in primary and secondary schools.
92
« on: July 05, 2015, 10:52:54 PM »
Well, no, I don't necessarily think social climate is the cause of gender dysphoria. But I do think it's the cause of the detrimental aspects.
93
« on: July 05, 2015, 10:45:37 PM »
So you agree that it is due to the social climate?
94
« on: July 05, 2015, 10:29:47 PM »
And like I said, I'm not denying that gender identity is biologically driven. I'm saying the psychological damage people experience from it is largely, if not entirely due to social norms regarding gender roles and what is/what isn't normal.
95
« on: July 05, 2015, 10:23:50 PM »
Gender identity goes deeper than just societal expectations, I don't know how you don't understand that.
Because you haven't explained it to me.
96
« on: July 05, 2015, 10:14:24 PM »
Are you reading what I'm saying? At all? I wasn't having a discussion with you, so no. What you've essentially said is that we'll just never understand it unless it happens to us. I'm sorry, but that's not a compelling argument. I'm not sure what hormonal imbalances have to do with this, because I'm discussing the psychological damage from gender dysphoria, rather than the mere recognition that you have it. And as far as I can see, this is a consequence of socially ingrained norms and attitudes.
97
« on: July 05, 2015, 08:58:03 PM »
Come on man, that's bullshit. Dysphoria would be commonplace among transgendered people regardless of social climate.
I don't see how. There's the feeling that you've got something wrong with you, which is due to social climate; And there's the feeling that you want to be the opposite gender because of some socially ingrained ideas about gender roles. I'm open to the idea that there's more to it than that, but I'd like to know what, and I'd still say the above two are the biggest culprits for making dysphoria as psychologically damaging as it is.
98
« on: July 05, 2015, 06:20:32 PM »
The 'detrimental' aspect is entirely due to social climate.
Pure horseshit speculation. I'm pretty damn sure even without social climate that if you were born a girl but felt like you needed a penis (looool), you would still be pretty confused and probably feel a lot of undue pressure.
Then I don't know what your point is. Nobody I know has ever claimed that it is 'normal' in the sense that you're using. The point is that abnormality is associated with wrongness in our society. And telling people there's something wrong with them is far more detrimental to their wellbeing than merely telling them they're different. That has everything to do with the social climate.
99
« on: July 05, 2015, 06:03:11 PM »
You're conflating abnormality with wrongness, though. Just because something is naturally uncommon, it doesn't follow that it should be discouraged.
The 'detrimental' aspect is entirely due to social climate.
100
« on: July 05, 2015, 05:53:06 PM »
Abnormal =/= wrong.
101
« on: July 05, 2015, 01:39:42 AM »
Relatively insignificant in the way of how truly small we are compared to the universe. I don't see how the size of the universe is relevant. Would stabbing you in the foot be more significant if the universe were smaller? How? The only way we are insignificant in comparision to the universe is spatially. Saying that the universe's size has any bearing on our moral significance is a non-sequitur, because you'd be implying that the universe is significant in some way that both requires our existence yet doesn't require it at the same time. Which is impossible. What I believe you and others have proposed is that ending another organism's life is morally wrong even if for survival yet there are organisms whose sole purpose is to do just that. Are they morally wrong in living the way they live? Such as, say, a lion? Well, no, not intentionally, because they can't comprehend the weight of their actions. So it would be incorrect to call them immoral on those grounds. But their actions are inflicting suffering on their prey, so they are definitely broken (in the sense used above). The term "biological bad egg" is probably more suitable. It seems to be a totally counter intuitive idea than what most of the universe already lives by. I really don't know what this means. I think the real problem here is that you're not only saying that nature "works" -- you're saying it's infallible and shouldn't work any other way. So not only is killing for survival okay because of nature, but there's no point even trying to look at it rationally and determine whether it's justified and/or whether there are preferable alternatives. That doesn't hold up very well considering we've spent the last six thousand years or so trying to get as far away from nature as possible. In fact the only reason we are able to sit here at our computers, in a generally civilized society, and have this discussion is because our ancestors were able to move beyond their apish tendencies and behave logically and morally. So it seems like you're arbitrarily picking which of our actions should be moral and which should be "natural" based on which stand to benefit you. One last point: you seem to be under the impression that while our ancestor's choices to kill and eat animals were just "part of the natural process", our choices from here on are not, and by choosing to stop eating animals we are rebelling against the process and therefore it is wrong.* I don't know how you could logically draw a line in the sand where nature ends and rebelling against it begins. And nature never followed any preordained path; we simply evolved according to our environments and how we chose to behave in them. At no point did nature tell our ancestors "you will eat animals". They chose to do it, and evolution jumped on board. * Another non-sequitur; there is no logic explaining why rebelling against nature could be wrong, unless you want to argue that medicine is wrong, because that's exactly what most medicine does.
102
« on: July 05, 2015, 12:45:30 AM »
I guess what I'm trying to ask is "Do you think you can make the universe work "better" with your small and relatively insignificant view of how life should be?"
I don't know what you mean by "relatively insignificant view". If you mean that it isn't a view held by most people, well, that's exactly the problem. We need to speak out and challenge irrational views, not sit back and let people continue to hold them.
103
« on: July 05, 2015, 12:33:24 AM »
If the system is natural then it's really only broken to you. Maybe this is the way it's supposed to be in which case I don't see how anything could be "broken"
Basically the system will carry on with or without you. Broken =/= "doesn't work" in this context. It means "could be working a lot better".
104
« on: July 05, 2015, 12:24:45 AM »
Well we'd need a seriously good reason for it. Mere survival isn't anywhere near good enough.
I could only see it being justified if we used it as a means to do more good than harm. There's nothing ethical about killing to survive unless your survival is productive enough to make it worthwhile.
105
« on: July 02, 2015, 01:56:33 AM »
It's pretty much flawless.
106
« on: July 01, 2015, 08:42:53 AM »
Coffee, but I feel like tea has a lot to offer as well.
107
« on: June 30, 2015, 09:21:19 AM »
Glass and paper man.
108
« on: June 27, 2015, 01:07:20 AM »
What my voice sounds like in my head.
109
« on: June 26, 2015, 08:39:49 PM »
How on earth do you navigate that site? I can't tell where the questions end and the answers begin.
110
« on: June 24, 2015, 08:22:31 PM »
Currently reading If On a Winter's Night a Traveler by Italo Calvino.
After that, Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka.
I'd like to read more Dickens as well.
111
« on: June 24, 2015, 07:10:03 PM »
i know right
112
« on: June 24, 2015, 12:52:48 AM »
On the contrary, I'd say that a species capable of logic and reason is the best thing to happen since sliced bread.
Is that what you'll be saying when anarchy kicks in and people break all the laws because civilization has ended?
It's bound to happen eventually.
And your evidence for this prediction would be...?
113
« on: June 24, 2015, 12:28:09 AM »
On the contrary, I'd say that a species capable of logic and reason is the best thing to happen since sliced bread.
114
« on: June 24, 2015, 12:15:21 AM »
I was off the mark; a generation is around 25 years, apparently.
Regardless I think it's a stretch to say that anti-natalism will be at all popular in a hundred years. Maybe I'm being short-sighted, but it's just not an issue any prominent intellectual figures are attempting to tackle.
(I recall Sam Harris getting asked about Benatar's book in a twitter AMA, and his response was "you can't eat ice cream when you don't exist" or something.)
115
« on: June 23, 2015, 10:53:17 PM »
You think that many people will be anti-natalists within two generations?
"hundred or so"
So roughly two generations. I'm skeptical that it will circulate that quickly. As of now it's a movement confined to the dark recesses of the internet; it hasn't really bled into mainstream philosophy.
116
« on: June 23, 2015, 09:45:58 PM »
That Owl City song.
not fire flies
That's the one. It brings back memories of my childhood, okay
117
« on: June 23, 2015, 09:40:52 PM »
That Owl City song.
118
« on: June 23, 2015, 09:30:27 PM »
You think that many people will be anti-natalists within two generations?
119
« on: June 23, 2015, 01:56:57 AM »
Another question for Verb: if suffering is bad, but having children is also bad... is forced sterilization good?
In other words, is it ethical to kick a guy in the balls?
120
« on: June 22, 2015, 07:50:50 AM »
Not really, for the same reason that metaphysical nihilism is still a part of metaphysics or that epistemological nihilism is still part of epistemology.
The fact that they reject the very existence of ethical properties is still a meta-ethical claim.
I think that makes sense. But, in the case of moral realism, would a nihilist be rejecting the moral precepts laid out (namely, that we can derive prescriptive norms from descriptive facts about experience) or would they be rejecting the assertion that experiences have descriptive value altogether? If it's the latter, then wouldn't it be a case of conflating metaphysical value with empirical value? Because it's quite clear that experiences have values, at least in a subjective sense, in that some are more or less desirable than others. I don't know how a nihilist could dispute that without falling back on metaphysics.
|
Show Posts