3 ms·

"That aspect, that it was at one time, or still is, gender-specific, is what makes it inappropriate to call a person who doesn't identify with that gender." Wh

"That aspect, that it was at one time, or still is, gender-specific, is what makes it inappropriate to call a person who doesn't identify with that gender." Why do you think you can dictate what _is_ inappropriate for the rest of mankind?

peterwwillis 10y ago
Humankind. :-) And I don't get to do anything other than dictate my own behavior, and try to express an idea. Sorry if that came off as dictatorial. What I meant to say was: Anyone who would rather treat someone how they personally want them to be treated, rather than how the other person wishes to be treated, has forgotten The Golden Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule In terms of human relations in general, and in a very extreme sense, it's the social contract that allows people to co-exist without killing each other. Would you like someone to murder you because you insulted them? If not, it's best to treat people in the same way, that is, not murder them because they insult you. Or, perhaps, just not insult each other, lest you murder each other. But the point is you're caring about how the other person responds to what you do, because that may affect you at some point. On a purely empathetic level, treating someone how they wish to be treated makes them feel better. That has a lot of benefits, for you and for them. And it basically doesn't cost you anything, other than the extra second it takes to be mindful of how you're treating someone. And in general people who only think of themselves are selfish dicks. I certainly can't dictate to anyone not to be a dick. But it's in their interest not to be a dick.
- BasDirks 10y ago
  I appreciate your response. Your values are something I can get behind.
- dimino 10y ago
  The Golden Rule fails to account for masochists, or differing cultures, or basically anything that makes people different from one another. For example, by the "Golden Rule", I'd want to be called a "dude" if I were a girl, because I consider it a sign of equality. You can feel free to disagree with that, but if it's how I'd want to be treated, then by the power of the Golden Rule, I should call girls "dudes". I'd even go so far as to argue that the "Golden Rule" is doing precisely what you just said was bad -- it puts too much focus on you ("how would you want to be treated").
  - peterwwillis 10y ago
    You just used a really obvious example of circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. You are not every girl on the planet. Some girls don't like being called dude. With those particular girls, if you call them dude, you are being rude. If you want them to be rude right back to you then I guess keep doing what you're doing. The Golden Rule totally accounts for edge cases. If someone is a masochist, you ask them if they are a masochist, and then you ask them if they want to be treated a certain way. If someone is from a different culture, you can learn about different cultures to [for example] learn which hand to shake hands with, or you can ask if you aren't sure. If you want to be treated like an asshole, then be an asshole. But the rule is meant to guide you towards not being an asshole. It doesn't put too much focus on you, it puts just enough focus to hopefully prevent you from getting yourself killed by an angry woman who really doesn't like being called "dude", or getting the crap kicked out of you in a country where shaking hands with the wrong hand is a huge offense. Does this make more sense?
    - dimino 10y ago
      How is that circular reasoning? Genuine question, I've always thought the Golden Rule sucked for the reason I outlined. It says nothing about asking how people want to be treated, only that you should treat them how you want to be treated. You're saying something that isn't what's in the Golden Rule.
      - peterwwillis 10y ago
        Imagine you're traveling the desert thousands of years ago. You come upon a party of nomads. You would like water, and you would like them not to rob you, kill you, and bury you in the sand. It's very important you don't say or do anything to offend them. You want them to treat you with respect and kindness, so you have to treat them as such. But how do you do that? The rule does not cover that at all. But somehow you figure out how, and they give you water. In gratitude, as an interpretation of the rule, you give them flint to make fire. The nomads, it turns out, will use the flint to make a fire and cauterize a wound that would otherwise have gotten infected. Sometimes you will be the nomads, and sometimes the traveler. The rule is really just a reminder to think about this situation at all times; it doesn't spell it out for you. It was circular reasoning because you were saying if A is B (some girls like to be called dude), then B is A (you should call girls dude). You're using the premise to prove itself, like "I breathe air because I can breathe air". It provides no evidence of why this is so, nor account for any extra factors (if A is "some girls like being called dude", there must be a C: the rest of the girls that don't like being called dude. But C is never addressed)

peterwwillis 10y ago

Humankind. :-) And I don't get to do anything other than dictate my own behavior, and try to express an idea. Sorry if that came off as dictatorial. What I meant to say was: Anyone who would rather treat someone how they personally want them to be treated, rather than how the other person wishes to be treated, has forgotten The Golden Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule In terms of human relations in general, and in a very extreme sense, it's the social contract that allows people to co-exist without killing each other. Would you like someone to murder you because you insulted them? If not, it's best to treat people in the same way, that is, not murder them because they insult you. Or, perhaps, just not insult each other, lest you murder each other. But the point is you're caring about how the other person responds to what you do, because that may affect you at some point. On a purely empathetic level, treating someone how they wish to be treated makes them feel better. That has a lot of benefits, for you and for them. And it basically doesn't cost you anything, other than the extra second it takes to be mindful of how you're treating someone. And in general people who only think of themselves are selfish dicks. I certainly can't dictate to anyone not to be a dick. But it's in their interest not to be a dick.

BasDirks 10y ago
I appreciate your response. Your values are something I can get behind.
dimino 10y ago
The Golden Rule fails to account for masochists, or differing cultures, or basically anything that makes people different from one another. For example, by the "Golden Rule", I'd want to be called a "dude" if I were a girl, because I consider it a sign of equality. You can feel free to disagree with that, but if it's how I'd want to be treated, then by the power of the Golden Rule, I should call girls "dudes". I'd even go so far as to argue that the "Golden Rule" is doing precisely what you just said was bad -- it puts too much focus on you ("how would you want to be treated").
- peterwwillis 10y ago
  You just used a really obvious example of circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. You are not every girl on the planet. Some girls don't like being called dude. With those particular girls, if you call them dude, you are being rude. If you want them to be rude right back to you then I guess keep doing what you're doing. The Golden Rule totally accounts for edge cases. If someone is a masochist, you ask them if they are a masochist, and then you ask them if they want to be treated a certain way. If someone is from a different culture, you can learn about different cultures to [for example] learn which hand to shake hands with, or you can ask if you aren't sure. If you want to be treated like an asshole, then be an asshole. But the rule is meant to guide you towards not being an asshole. It doesn't put too much focus on you, it puts just enough focus to hopefully prevent you from getting yourself killed by an angry woman who really doesn't like being called "dude", or getting the crap kicked out of you in a country where shaking hands with the wrong hand is a huge offense. Does this make more sense?
  - dimino 10y ago
    How is that circular reasoning? Genuine question, I've always thought the Golden Rule sucked for the reason I outlined. It says nothing about asking how people want to be treated, only that you should treat them how you want to be treated. You're saying something that isn't what's in the Golden Rule.
    - peterwwillis 10y ago
      Imagine you're traveling the desert thousands of years ago. You come upon a party of nomads. You would like water, and you would like them not to rob you, kill you, and bury you in the sand. It's very important you don't say or do anything to offend them. You want them to treat you with respect and kindness, so you have to treat them as such. But how do you do that? The rule does not cover that at all. But somehow you figure out how, and they give you water. In gratitude, as an interpretation of the rule, you give them flint to make fire. The nomads, it turns out, will use the flint to make a fire and cauterize a wound that would otherwise have gotten infected. Sometimes you will be the nomads, and sometimes the traveler. The rule is really just a reminder to think about this situation at all times; it doesn't spell it out for you. It was circular reasoning because you were saying if A is B (some girls like to be called dude), then B is A (you should call girls dude). You're using the premise to prove itself, like "I breathe air because I can breathe air". It provides no evidence of why this is so, nor account for any extra factors (if A is "some girls like being called dude", there must be a C: the rest of the girls that don't like being called dude. But C is never addressed)