I say we take all of “those” people and put them on a secluded, remote island and see if any of them magically turn asexual before they all die off due to lack of reproduction. For scientific purposes, of course…
2 Likes
I might agree if we’re talking about ‘transtrenders’, those who do it for political reasons, virtue signally, or attention seeking, but for people with real dysphoria, or those with real physiological transgender conditions, you’re talking about a very intellectually and politically diverse group of people, and I can count on both hands the number of people I know with those issues that also reject the politicisation of scientific understanding, because it’s real scientific understanding that will most help those kinds of people. The traits we are born with are not traits that should ever be held against us, in my opinion and that of those who wrote things like the Magna Carta. I wouldn’t ‘exile’ anyone, myself, because I value political discourse. My take is, let the people with bad ideas speak, because the worse the idea is, the more they make a fool of themselves.
If you think that somehow “empiricism” is your modus operandi, and that it is even possible for you to be exempt from ideology, I would advise you to go to whatever school claimed to teach you and demand for a refund, because clearly they missed some basic concepts.
Again, there are humans who are perfectly capable of finding satisfaction in life outside of biological reproduction. However, I’m not familiar enough in Ferengi psychology to make a determination in your case.
I’m not really interested in a bunch of random guys coming in to a thread about something completely different, hijacking it to put their fedora’d manhood on display, and then try to berate people for not conforming to “their” standards, as if they were somehow entitled to the conversation. I know I am a hypocrite for engaging on any level, but I will happily take the blame for my own flawed existence, especially if no one else here will. But obviously by any account I have wilfully let this thread go way beyond its purpose and it would be wrong of me not to at least attempt to steer it back.
It is though, because that’s the purpose of empiricism. That post modernist crap that you think makes all ideas ideological ones is utter rubbish. That’s the sort of crap that brings us apologia and teleology, all utter rubbish. Objective reality does exist, and it can be observed, measured, tested, and falsified. 2+2 always equals 4, a metre is a metre for everyone and not just those who use the metric system, and pi, the golden ratio, the gravitational constant and the speed of light don’t depend on a belief in anything.
I’ll address one more thing, as well. I never ever said anything about humans being required to reproduce, I stated that the definition of sex depends on the role played in reproduction. I have no children, but I’m still a male. Stop twisting my words. I’m not saying anything other than what is in the words I am using, within the context I have used them in. I suggest you actually read what I’m saying, and address what I’m saying, rather than your twisted interpretation of it, otherwise you aren’t actually addressing anything I’m saying, which makes your replies redundant strawmen at best.
I am not exempt from ideology, no. Empirical fact, on the other hand, is. Which is why, by definition, denial of empirical fact can only be done ideologically. The falsification of empirical fact, ie proving what we think we know wrong, would actually be empirical, making it empirical fact, so it would be new knowledge that WOULD in fact discredit what we thought we knew.
But I do have my ideology, as we all do, and it is one based on free thought and expression in which we all have equality under the law (note: not equity, equality) and reasonably protected rights. Rights being defined by those things we can do naturally without harming or imposing on others, such as speaking and possessing private thoughts. I believe democracy is the best system we presently have (but I’m open to new ones) which affords the most freedom to the most people while having enough restriction in place to prevent people taking excessive liberties with their freedoms that bring harm to others, or present a danger to society in general. None of these beliefs I have contradict empirical understandings in any way.
Closing this thread for the following reason:
1.Specifically restricted conduct.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to courteous when disagreeing with others.
In order to maintain an environment where everyone is welcome and discussion flows freely, certain types of conduct are prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:
Trolling
Flaming
Ranting
Personal Attacks
Harassment
Doxxing
Racism & Discrimination
Hate Speech
Sexism
Spamming
Bumping
Off-Topic Posting
Pyramid Quoting
Rumor Mongering
New Player Bashing
Impersonation
Advertising
- Post constructively.
Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online if it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.
Thank you.
7 Likes