Saying "Pro-Life" (video)

Is a thing's purpose defined by the intent with which it is used?
yes
Then things have multiple purposes.

The purpose(s) of hammers is hitting nails, and pulling out nails that have been previously hit. The purpose(s) of penises is waste elimination, pleasure and procreation - and probably a few others. The purpose(s) of cars is transportation, picking up chicks, and meal delivery. The purpose(s) of bibles is the recording of God's Word, a source for proselytization, and a drink coaster.

The purpose(s) of these forums is discussion, disagreement, evangelism, self-affirmation and entertainment.
 
Then things have multiple purposes.

The purpose(s) of hammers is hitting nails, and pulling out nails that have been previously hit. The purpose(s) of penises is waste elimination, pleasure and procreation - and probably a few others. The purpose(s) of cars is transportation, picking up chicks, and meal delivery. The purpose(s) of bibles is the recording of God's Word, a source for proselytization, and a drink coaster.

The purpose(s) of these forums is discussion, disagreement, evangelism, self-affirmation and entertainment.
So the purpose of hammers is not pleasure then?
No, pleasure is a motivation not a purpose.
 
No.

Where did I say they could?
Maybe I have you confused with another poster.

For clarification purposes: you believe gender is not fluid?

PS: A things purpose is not defined by intention but by its ends--that is--what it is ordered to. What is good for us is defined by our ends, not passions, whims, subjective intentions, etc.
 
Yes - men are XY, women are XX, and I consider gender dysphoria to be a mental illness.
I agree with you here, but for a different reason.

The problem with defining men and women by chromosomes is--what happens when you have XXY, Y, or YY or XXX, or whatever? The chromosomes do not always develop correctly. I think this is part of the argument with the gender dysphoria crowd. Though I would suggest that even if they were correct, it does not entail that gender is fluid, only that it can be difficult to determine in rare cases becasue of problems in development. In other words, we do not prove the rule based on the exception.

However, I prefer to set the definition based on the gametes. Men produce one type of gamete, females another. Thus, if you have the male gamete, you are male, the female gamete, female, regardless of the chromosomes.

And yes, I also agree that gender dysphoria is a mental illness.
 
I agree with you here, but for a different reason.

The problem with defining men and women by chromosomes is--what happens when you have XXY, Y, or YY or XXX, or whatever? The chromosomes do not always develop correctly. I think this is part of the argument with the gender dysphoria crowd. Though I would suggest that even if they were correct, it does not entail that gender is fluid, only that it can be difficult to determine in rare cases becasue of problems in development. In other words, we do not prove the rule based on the exception.

However, I prefer to set the definition based on the gametes. Men produce one type of gamete, females another. Thus, if you have the male gamete, you are male, the female gamete, female, regardless of the chromosomes.

And yes, I also agree that gender dysphoria is a mental illness.
What happens when you have XXY is you still have people defined by chromosomes. You have intersex and this is called Kleinfelters syndrome. So there is no problem with the chromosomes determining the sex.
The problem comes with people's thinking.
Someone identifying as Swyer syndrome when they arent, is lying about what they are
 
What happens when you have XXY is you still have people defined by chromosomes. You have intersex and this is called Kleinfelters syndrome. So there is no problem with the chromosomes determining the sex.
The problem comes with people's thinking.
Someone identifying as Swyer syndrome when they arent, is lying about what they are
My point is that there is no such thing as "Inter-sex" even in instances of Klinefelter's syndrome.

In in such cases, there is still male/female. My point was that the gametes determine sex. Now, if there is some kind of syndrome I am not aware of where even the gametes are affected--where it is unclear what the gametes are, or someone with Klinefelter's syndrome does not produce gametes, etc, fine. Then I concede your point.
 
My point is that there is no such thing as "Inter-sex" even in instances of Keienfelters syndrome.

In in such cases, there is still male/female. My point was that the gametes determine sex.
In your opinion. Other opinions, including medics, biologists, psychologists and most importantly those of the people directly concerned in such controversies, differ. I would suggest that your opinion is worth less, (not quite worthless) than those of people professionally qualified and directly involved.
 
My point is that there is no such thing as "Inter-sex" even in instances of Klinefelter's syndrome.

In in such cases, there is still male/female. My point was that the gametes determine sex. Now, if there is some kind of syndrome I am not aware of where even the gametes are affected--where it is unclear what the gametes are, or someone with Klinefelter's syndrome does not produce gametes, etc, fine. Then I concede your point.
Well the term is inter-sex although you are right to say its still male and female, just that it is a combination

Again you are kind of right about gametes, though you are splitting hairs
 
In your opinion.
Not at all, its observable.

Other opinions, including medics, biologists, psychologists and most importantly those of the people directly concerned in such controversies, differ.
Maybe a couple of them, but you would have to cite them. Do so, though it makes no difference to the scientific consensus... just a couple of other people in a imaginary woke delusion
 
In your opinion.
Sir, that is not "my opinion" anymore than it is my "opinion" that what goes up, must come down in the absence of something to hold it up. This is due to the law of gravity.

There are two sexes, male and female. Period. Sex cannot be changed. The most a person can do is have an operation so that a female--now has masculine attributes, or a male now has female attributes. A "transgendered" man is still a woman. It is just a woman who has male attributes. The same with a "transgendered female," It is just a male with female attributes. This is fact, not opinion.
Other opinions, including medics, biologists, psychologists and most importantly those of the people directly concerned in such controversies, differ.
Of course they do--due to the political pressure on them to conform "Science" to people's subjective opinions, rather than people conforming their subjective opinions to "Science."

My point? Sir, if you think "Science" is "a-political" and just based on cold hard "facts" you would be sorely mistaken. "Science" is just as political as anything else. You think scientists who want funding for their work--are going to go against the grain and come up with results that people will not accept? Not that all scientists are like this. All I am saying is that science is often not as "objective" and "based on cold hard facts" and "Hey man, I am just going where the research leads" as people like to think.

See, sir, unlike other people, I do not just accept what the supposed "experts" tell me. If something seems irrational or illogical, I do not just accept what the experts tell me, simply becasue "Well, they are the experts--and a lot of important, powerful people agree with them, as well as a bunch of rich, elitel, popular, A-list Hollywood celebrities, so I guess they must be right." I do not throw critical thinking out the window just becasue the people claiming something are experts--and what they claim is popular with all the cool kids.

In any case, there are "experts" who disagree with "experts" on this subject. This issue is far from settled, even in "Science" (capital S)
I would suggest that your opinion is worth less, (not quite worthless) than those of people professionally qualified and directly involved.
Sir, Hell is the impossibility of reason. When something is irrational, it is irrational. It doesn't matter whether the person claiming it is an "expert."
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Sir, that is not "my opinion" anymore than it is my "opinion" that what goes up, must come down in the absence of something to hold it up. This is due to the law of gravity.

There are two sexes, male and female. Period. Sex cannot be changed. The most a person can do is have an operation so that a female--now has masculine attributes, or a male now has female attributes. A "transgendered" man is still a woman. It is just a woman who has male attributes. The same with a "transgendered female," It is just a male with female attributes. This is fact, not opinion.
Except that it isn't fact. You are not qualified ( nor am I) to determine facts about biology, which it turns out, just like physics, is not always common sense or easily understood by lay people. You have an uninformed opinion, which those who are informed, disagree with. Your opinion is fine for every day interactions but is dangerously wrong when you inter the realm of intersec, transgender and related issues.
Of course they do--due to the political pressure on them to conform "Science" to people's subjective opinions, rather than people conforming their subjective opinions to "Science."
. What utter nonsense. You claim that your subjective and uninformed opinion is not backed by science because science is influenced by other people's informed opinions. Well duh! Politics and religion have no place in biology. They do hay a place in dealing with the consequences of biology, in caring for those affected and dealing with the prejudices of the uninformed such as yourself

My point? Sir, if you think "Science" is "a-political" and just based on cold hard "facts" you would be sorely mistaken. "Science" is just as political as anything else. You think scientists who want funding for their work--are going to go against the grain and come up with results that people will not accept? Not that all scientists are like this. All I am saying is that science is often not as "objective" and "based on cold hard facts" and "Hey man, I am just going where the research leads" as people like to think.
More garbage. Science is cutthroat competitive. Every scientist wants to break the consensus and overturn the status quo. Any scientist falsifying results for financial gain would lose all credibility. As would any scientist pandering to the political needs of the uninformed, such as yourself.

See, sir, unlike other people, I do not just accept what the supposed "experts" tell me.
Of course not. If it goes against what you believe is common sense, you reject it in the belief that your uninformed opinion is more reliable than the informed opinions of experts. You trumpet this arrogant lunacy as if it was a virtue.
something seems irrational or illogical, I do not just accept what the experts tell me, simply becasue "Well, they are the experts--and a lot of important, powerful people agree with them, as well as a bunch of rich, elitel, popular, A-list Hollywood celebrities, so I guess they must be right." I do not throw critical thinking out the window just becasue the people claiming something are experts--and what they claim is popular with all the cool kids.
"I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like." is the cliche phrase of an arrogant philistine. What makes you think that " I don't know anything about science, but I know what is true." is any less pathetic?
In any case, there are "experts" who disagree with "experts" on this subject. This issue is far from settled, even in "Science" (capital S)
Who said it was settled,? I just say that your personal opinion is uninformed, and consequently worth less than the opinions of those who are better qualified than you.
Sir, Hell is the impossibility of reason. When something is irrational, it is irrational. It doesn't matter whether the person claiming it is an "expert."
You should know. You are being irrational.
 
Except that it isn't fact. You are not qualified ( nor am I) to determine facts about biology, which it turns out, just like physics, is not always common sense or easily understood by lay people.
Seriously dude? Now really--I mean SERIOUSLY DUDE?

Let me get this straight: I need to be a biologist to know the difference between a male and a female? I need to be some kind of expert either in medical science or biology, or both, to know the difference. You know what it is interesting? The common, uneducated, uncool, unhip, unenlightened masses for 2000 years have been able to tell the difference without this new fangled "Science" of yours. Now you want to suggest that I need to be a biologist or have a PhD in medical science to know the difference between a male and a female. Outside of that, I offer nothing but "opinion." Sir, there is male and there is female. This is NOT "opinion" this is FACT. Just becasue a bunch of experts and all the cool kids have been fooled into believing differently, does not change anything.

I am sure why you can understand----I am not buying what you are selling.
You have an uninformed opinion, which those who are informed, disagree with.
Yeah--"uninformed." I need to be a biologist or a medical doctor to know what male and female is. Outside of that, I just have an "opinion."

Sir, just so you know--this is why there are people who are "anti-science." When scientists try to fool people--and when they do not buy what they are selling---attempt to insult them as being too stupid to understand--that is why some are anti-science. I am actually pro-science, but I do not believing in using it as a weapon to deny reality.
Your opinion is fine for every day interactions but is dangerously wrong when you inter the realm of intersec, transgender and related issues.
For heaven's sake, sir. I do not need to be an expert in biology or medical science to know that there are two sexes and only two sexes. I do not care how the experts want to bully me. 10 PhD's in biology cannot change the truth sir.
What utter nonsense. You claim that your subjective and uninformed opinion is not backed by science because science is influenced by other people's informed opinions. Well duh! Politics and religion have no place in biology. They do hay a place in dealing with the consequences of biology, in caring for those affected and dealing with the prejudices of the uninformed such as yourself
The problem, sir, is that just like us superstitious, uneducated, uncool, unhip, superstitious religious cannot separate out politics and religion, scientists can't do it either.
More garbage. Science is cutthroat competitive. Every scientist wants to break the consensus and overturn the status quo.
Sure they do--but not on controversial issues.
Any scientist falsifying results for financial gain would lose all credibility. As would any scientist pandering to the political needs of the uninformed, such as yourself.
Sir, you do not have to "falsify results" in order to give people the results they want. You can make the data say whatever you want.
Of course not. If it goes against what you believe is common sense, you reject it in the belief that your uninformed opinion is more reliable than the informed opinions of experts. You trumpet this arrogant lunacy as if it was a virtue.
It is not arrogant to say "There are two sexes and only two sexes" sir. That is fact, not opinion.
"I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like." is the cliche phrase of an arrogant philistine. What makes you think that " I don't know anything about science, but I know what is true." is any less pathetic?
But I am not arguing that.
Who said it was settled?
Um, that would be reality.
 
Back
Top