5 ms·

I think he's criticizing your idea that: >There's no more room for debate on such issues. There is always room for debate on any issue. It might be a one-side

by zaccus 11y ago

I think he's criticizing your idea that: >There's no more room for debate on such issues. There is always room for debate on any issue. It might be a one-sided debate, but you're clearly implying that the debate should be suppressed, which is absurd.

norea-armozel 11y ago
So, human rights should be debated as to warrant their existence? I don't think so. If that makes me a the "big meany weany" for folks like him then good. I don't have time for it. Being transgender myself and having to deal with all the issues that it comes with on a personal level makes less empathetic towards non-transgender people's concerns. Simply put, if he and others thinks my life should be contingent on his feelings then I'm just not going to discuss the matter with him. I'll just cut them out of the conversation entirely. Nor do I owe them or other people with similar sentiments a say in my life. If I pay my way (which I do) then you get zero authority over my life: fact. I've heard for years that being transgender is bad, evil, and all other kinds of undesirable adjectives without a hint as to how or why. And when something that resembles a coherent argument is made, I often find it's dependent on an irrational belief that's easily dispelled. Even when the arguments are dispelled the opponents refuse to acknowledge it and move on. They just double down on the vitriol and expand their program to deny rights to even access opportunities in the marketplace, be it healthcare or employment opportunities. When it becomes a choice between living in the closet (probably killing yourself in said closet) or living outside the closet and getting abused for being transgender (physically, economically, psychologically, and so forth) then enough is enough. There's literally zero excuses to be made. And many like myself now have a zero tolerance policy in debating the matter. Either you're on board for civil rights or you're not. There's no nuance from the opposition. The opposition made their argument and it was lacking. Deal with it. /rant
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  > So, human rights should be debated as to warrant their existence? Yes. Everything can be debated. If you are unable to defend your preferred position in a debate, maybe it isn't as perfect and obvious as you thought it was. > And many like myself now have a zero tolerance policy in debating the matter. Great! It's a free country. You don't have to participate in any debate you don't want to. But if, rather than just bowing out of debates, you start to demand that everyone else just step in line with your position, and threaten and mob them if they don't... well. Then I'm afraid we have a problem.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Yes. Everything can be debated. Fundamental moral axioms cannot really be debated (in the sense of rational argument based on logic and evidence); they can only be accepted or rejected. Furthermore, if you can't agree on them, nothing that rests on them (that is, any question of should rather than is) can be debated either.
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      Let's say that you're right about that. What's the consequence, then? War of all against all, as the Yale students seem to want? Or we learn to coexist with people who have different fundamental moral axioms from us? I vote for option B.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        The answer, of course, will depend on your moral axioms (and, for most real sets of moral axioms people adhere to, the exact nature of the conflict between moral axioms. Its very hard to find a way to "peacefully coexist" with someone for whom actions which are a direct and immediate threat to your own highest values are morally obligatory.) Do I think the students that are the focus here are out of line? Sure. I think there is a real lack of balance, perspective, and proportion in their revealed values. OTOH, I think that finding a loud minority of university students behaving in a sophomoric manner to be decidedly unsurprising.
      - norea-armozel 11y ago
        If you want people to peacefully coexist then you have to establish civil rights. No one's existence should be contingent upon personal sentiments or arbitrary morals. Either, we all have the same rights or we have none. There should be no debate as to who should have these rights as they benefit all.
        JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        But rights depend upon 'personal sentiment or arbitrary morals' all the time. Who I rent out my upstairs room to - I'll decide. Which clubs I join; what movie theatres I frequent. And these things have economic/social impact beyond me - the theatre will close if it doesn't show movies acceptable to a large enough population etc. So we argue about 'privilege' like that can make a difference. Its at root, the majority vs minorities. The game will always be slanted toward the majority, because free market etc. I'm in favor of peaceful coexistence, and treating everyone fairly. But I'm only one. The market (there are markets even in non-commercial/social transactions) will dominate the game. I'd be more interested in following the dialog, if there was one. We have folks making up rules on every side; inventing new words and theories and constructs. And shouting down folks from other viewpoints. Its all designed to impede real dialog.

by zaccus 11y ago

norea-armozel 11y ago

So, human rights should be debated as to warrant their existence? I don't think so. If that makes me a the "big meany weany" for folks like him then good. I don't have time for it. Being transgender myself and having to deal with all the issues that it comes with on a personal level makes less empathetic towards non-transgender people's concerns. Simply put, if he and others thinks my life should be contingent on his feelings then I'm just not going to discuss the matter with him. I'll just cut them out of the conversation entirely. Nor do I owe them or other people with similar sentiments a say in my life. If I pay my way (which I do) then you get zero authority over my life: fact. I've heard for years that being transgender is bad, evil, and all other kinds of undesirable adjectives without a hint as to how or why. And when something that resembles a coherent argument is made, I often find it's dependent on an irrational belief that's easily dispelled. Even when the arguments are dispelled the opponents refuse to acknowledge it and move on. They just double down on the vitriol and expand their program to deny rights to even access opportunities in the marketplace, be it healthcare or employment opportunities. When it becomes a choice between living in the closet (probably killing yourself in said closet) or living outside the closet and getting abused for being transgender (physically, economically, psychologically, and so forth) then enough is enough. There's literally zero excuses to be made. And many like myself now have a zero tolerance policy in debating the matter. Either you're on board for civil rights or you're not. There's no nuance from the opposition. The opposition made their argument and it was lacking. Deal with it. /rant

13thLetter 11y ago
> So, human rights should be debated as to warrant their existence? Yes. Everything can be debated. If you are unable to defend your preferred position in a debate, maybe it isn't as perfect and obvious as you thought it was. > And many like myself now have a zero tolerance policy in debating the matter. Great! It's a free country. You don't have to participate in any debate you don't want to. But if, rather than just bowing out of debates, you start to demand that everyone else just step in line with your position, and threaten and mob them if they don't... well. Then I'm afraid we have a problem.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Yes. Everything can be debated. Fundamental moral axioms cannot really be debated (in the sense of rational argument based on logic and evidence); they can only be accepted or rejected. Furthermore, if you can't agree on them, nothing that rests on them (that is, any question of should rather than is) can be debated either.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    Let's say that you're right about that. What's the consequence, then? War of all against all, as the Yale students seem to want? Or we learn to coexist with people who have different fundamental moral axioms from us? I vote for option B.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      The answer, of course, will depend on your moral axioms (and, for most real sets of moral axioms people adhere to, the exact nature of the conflict between moral axioms. Its very hard to find a way to "peacefully coexist" with someone for whom actions which are a direct and immediate threat to your own highest values are morally obligatory.) Do I think the students that are the focus here are out of line? Sure. I think there is a real lack of balance, perspective, and proportion in their revealed values. OTOH, I think that finding a loud minority of university students behaving in a sophomoric manner to be decidedly unsurprising.
    - norea-armozel 11y ago
      If you want people to peacefully coexist then you have to establish civil rights. No one's existence should be contingent upon personal sentiments or arbitrary morals. Either, we all have the same rights or we have none. There should be no debate as to who should have these rights as they benefit all.
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        But rights depend upon 'personal sentiment or arbitrary morals' all the time. Who I rent out my upstairs room to - I'll decide. Which clubs I join; what movie theatres I frequent. And these things have economic/social impact beyond me - the theatre will close if it doesn't show movies acceptable to a large enough population etc. So we argue about 'privilege' like that can make a difference. Its at root, the majority vs minorities. The game will always be slanted toward the majority, because free market etc. I'm in favor of peaceful coexistence, and treating everyone fairly. But I'm only one. The market (there are markets even in non-commercial/social transactions) will dominate the game. I'd be more interested in following the dialog, if there was one. We have folks making up rules on every side; inventing new words and theories and constructs. And shouting down folks from other viewpoints. Its all designed to impede real dialog.