Born the wrong species

[chipwitch]

Hands and feet inside, ladies and gentlemen! No spitting while the ride is in motion.

 

[buckshot24]

Certainly NOT. Just because I indicated violence as part of a multiple choice question, doesn't mean I condone violence. I abhor violence. That doesn't mean that I think all people think like I do, though. Just trying to ascertain how you'd react. A lot of fathers I've known would choose c). I also, know some that would choose a) and b).

But is it wrong?!

I'll put you in the a) category then.

You can put me wherever you want, you have shown over and over again you have no regard for reality and accuse people of being mean and hate filled who do.

 

[Sulaco]

So chipwitch, who were you before you were banned/created an alt?

 

[chipwitch]

So chipwitch, who were you before you were banned/created an alt?

Is anyone with a dissenting opinion banned here? I have been completely respectful of everyone here. I've even apologized if I said anything that was misconstrued. I only joined because I needed some help with a PSU that blew out all my drives, saw this thread and it piqued my curiosity. If the threshold for being banned is that low, this is a group I'd rather not be a part of and will gladly close my account voluntarily. I've not flamed, trolled or engaged in ad hom attacks. I feel sorry for anyone threatened by anything I've said. Shall I withdraw my membership? Say the word.

 

[buckshot24]

Is anyone with a dissenting opinion banned here? I have been completely respectful of everyone here. I've even apologized if I said anything that was misconstrued. I only joined because I needed some help with a PSU that blew out all my drives, saw this thread and it piqued my curiosity. If the threshold for being banned is that low, this is a group I'd rather not be a part of and will gladly close my account voluntarily. I've not flamed, trolled or engaged in ad hom attacks. I feel sorry for anyone threatened by anything I've said. Shall I withdraw my membership? Say the word.

Nobody is offended by anything you've said and you've done nothing ban worthy either.

 

[fskimospy]

Is anyone with a dissenting opinion banned here? I have been completely respectful of everyone here. I've even apologized if I said anything that was misconstrued. I only joined because I needed some help with a PSU that blew out all my drives, saw this thread and it piqued my curiosity. If the threshold for being banned is that low, this is a group I'd rather not be a part of and will gladly close my account voluntarily. I've not flamed, trolled or engaged in ad hom attacks. I feel sorry for anyone threatened by anything I've said. Shall I withdraw my membership? Say the word.

Trust me, the line for being banned is very, very high. Hence buckshot.

 

[chipwitch]

Nobody is offended by anything you've said and you've done nothing ban worthy either.

I didn't think so. Thank you buckshot.

 

[chipwitch]

But is it wrong?!

Is it wrong? Violence? I don't think you'll understand my response (no condescension intended), but I'll try. I've already told you that I don't condone violence. That may be interpreted that I think it's wrong. Most individuals would, I guess. I don't believe in "universal morality." So, its complicated. I don't see the world in absolutes... black and white. I don't like labeling things right or wrong because it's all relative to ones culture or sub-culture. To ISIS fighters what they do isn't wrong, it's righteous. Same with the US military... drones streaking across the sky blowing people up simply because they fit a profile? Things aren't right or wrong... they just are. It's always been that way.

I recognize that every individual has a unique morality... something inside them that tells them the difference between right and wrong, before ever being taught it. Teaching a commonly accepted morality in a church for example, does give one a sense that there is a universal morality. But, with every church, people will disagree on some things as to what is right and what is wrong.

One thing is for sure... beating the shit out of someone for any reason other than self-defense is illegal regardless of whether the assaulter believes it's wrong. The consequence is he/she will go to prison. There are no rights and wrongs, only consequences.

You can put me wherever you want, you have shown over and over again you have no regard for reality and accuse people of being mean and hate filled who do.

I have more regard for reality than anyone I've ever met. God is not a reality. I don't believe in things that have no evidence. That alone puts me way out front of the majority of the planet with regards to reality. But, then again, I at least acknowledge perhaps others can perceive things I can't, however unlikely that may be. Can you say the same? Perhaps my most lifelong endeavor has been to perceive reality accurately. As a result, I rarely think in absolute certainties.

 

[buckshot24]

I don't see the world in absolutes... black and white. I don't like labeling things right or wrong because it's all relative to ones culture or sub-culture. To ISIS fighters what they do isn't wrong, it's righteous.

What should our response be to ISIS? Should we try and force our morality on them? If so, why? Should we affirm how they feel? Or would it be hateful to do so?

Things aren't right or wrong... they just are.

If a person came to you with this defense after murdering your entire family while you watched, would you accept it? Why should you be able to force your view on the murderer? Or would you affirm how they feel?

I recognize that every individual has a unique morality... something inside them that tells them the difference between right and wrong, before ever being taught it. Teaching a commonly accepted morality in a church for example, does give one a sense that there is a universal morality. But, with every church, people will disagree on some things as to what is right and what is wrong.

You don't need universal agreement for there to be universal morality.

I have more regard for reality than anyone I've ever met.

Except you can't say Bruce is a man. You've argued with me and called me a hater for saying this. You don't care about reality.

God is not a reality.

Prove that.

I don't believe in things that have no evidence.

Hogwash!

That alone puts me way out front of the majority of the planet with regards to reality.

Prove this reality then.

But, then again, I at least acknowledge perhaps others can perceive things I can't, however unlikely that may be. Can you say the same? Perhaps my most lifelong endeavor has been to perceive reality accurately. As a result, I rarely think in absolute certainties.

Bruce Jenner is a man. That is reality. Say it with me or admit you don't care about reality, once and for all.

 

[Exophase]

Why do you keep using the name Bruce?

Completely aside from the trans-gender issue is the right of a person to dictate the name by which they will be known.

Whether you believe Caitlyn is a man or a woman, that is his/her legal name. I consider it highly disrespectful to continue to use a name that a person has chosen to rid themselves of.

Self determination and whatnot...

This is such a straightforward argument I've also said several times and it totally amazes me how many people I see opposing it. While I don't think I've ever seen someone claim that name changing in general shouldn't be a legal right.

 

[MrPickins]

Is anyone with a dissenting opinion banned here? I have been completely respectful of everyone here. I've even apologized if I said anything that was misconstrued. I only joined because I needed some help with a PSU that blew out all my drives, saw this thread and it piqued my curiosity. If the threshold for being banned is that low, this is a group I'd rather not be a part of and will gladly close my account voluntarily. I've not flamed, trolled or engaged in ad hom attacks. I feel sorry for anyone threatened by anything I've said. Shall I withdraw my membership? Say the word.

The question was likely posed because few new users choose to jump into the deep end in the P&N forum. This place can be a bit unforgiving.

 

[chipwitch]

The question was likely posed because few new users choose to jump into the deep end in the P&N forum. This place can be a bit unforgiving.

Ah! That's a reasonable assumption, incorrect, however. I'm just an opinionated passionate tolerant liberal bitch. Nothing here I haven't seen or heard before.

 

[buckshot24]

Ah! That's a reasonable assumption, incorrect, however. I'm just an opinionated passionate tolerant liberal bitch. Nothing here I haven't seen or heard before.

You haven't been very tolerant of me.

 

[chipwitch]

What should our response be to ISIS?

Kill 'em. They kill innocent people for their own ideals and morality. They'll kill me and the people I love if given a chance. Don't kill 'em. I'll be dead before they ever get to me.

Should we try and force our morality on them?

You aren't paying attention. Who's morality? Mine? Yours? Our governments (LOL)? There is NO OUR morality.

If so, why? Should we affirm how they feel? Or would it be hateful to do so?

I see where you're going. You really don't get it. Isis kills anyone who doesn't agree with them. You're RUDE to anyone who doesn't agree with you, by calling Katelyn by a name she does not wish to be called, as has been correctly pointed out. Katelyn would not need to ask, demand or expect you to do anything... not even "appease" her "delusion", for you to simply call her by the name she prefers to be called. She has not in any way asked you to agree with her (unless she's a personal friend). Nor has she exacted any kind of punishment, penalty or incivility on you because you DON'T agree with her. I'm guessing even with that explanation, you can't see who's forcing whose morality? Being civil to one another, calling people by the name they request you to use and not harming them physically, or anyone they love, is the unspoken rule that every human being on the planet has a right to expect from everyone else. It's the golden rule and you can't so much as do that.

Back to the question of hate. I don't hate ISIS. They hate the west. They kill westerners. They disrespect westerners. I'm a westerner. If their deaths are the only assurance I can live... then the one who wins is the one who is first to kill. People who hate other people who've never brought them harm should just mind their own damn business.

If a person came to you with this defense after murdering your entire family while you watched, would you accept it?

What defense? Besides, you don't know my family

Why should you be able to force your view on the murderer? Or would you affirm how they feel?

You're conflating morality with consequences. I'm not forcing my morality on someone by killing them. I really don't care if they agree with my morality or not. The rule of the land is, you murder someone, you die (varies by state). It's a consequence for their action. Did they have some moral purpose? Who knows? It's irrelevant. A guy kills an abortion doctor for their differences in morality. It's different than a guy killing another guy because he wanted to see what it was like. Either case, they answer to the law, the consequences. Laws are not based on morality, that's where religion comes in. Law is about keeping an ordered society by penalizing.

You don't need universal agreement for there to be universal morality.

wtf is that supposed to mean. Universal morality by definition MUST be that all feel the same. If we travel to another planet and find another civilization, do you think they'd have the same morals as you? That's the zenith of arrogance!

Except you can't say Bruce is a man.

I could, I just choose not to. I don't need to. It doesn't make me less of a human being if I don't. It doesn't make me delusional if I don't. And it doesn't make me have "no regard for reality" if I don't. It's an unnecessary act with no other purpose than to incite hurt.

Prove that.

Prove that, "God is not a reality?" Okay here goes. Like I said, I don't think in absolutes. Unfortunately, language does not lend itself easily to anything BUT absolute statements. Also, like I said, I acknowledge the possibility that there may be some people who perceive things that I can't. In which case, I leave room for mistakes.

What is reality? Well, like all words, they have multiple meanings. To me, it means that which is real, certain, absolute. Those things are real whether or not we perceive them. I don't doubt that those things exist, I just doubt people being able to perceive things accurately.

I know that if I have 4 apples and I give you 2, I'll have 2 left over. We can all agree on that, within reason. My level of certainty? 100%. Shall we call that real? I know the moon is not made of cheese. 95%. I didn't perceive it myself, but the people who did, under peer review, have assured us it isn't cheese and they brought back rocks. Everything in the natural world corroborates their findings. Things are made of atoms, atoms have sub atomic particles. Again. Peer review. All natural science supports it. Evidence I can perceive if I choose. 99.99% God, ghosts, leprechauns, Santa Clause, genies and all other imagined "things." No evidence exists. No natural science supports it. It is NOT perceivable by me. It is NOT peer reviewable. Even people claiming to believe in the same thing, within the same church can't even agree on much of the claims. 1x10^(insert really large negative number here)%.

So, if I'm to believe someone's claim that god exists, I would have to trust that they perceive something that I am completely unable to perceive, verify, support with natural science or find any evidence whatsoever to support that claim?. Is that correct? Is that your definition of reality? That as long as someone perceives a thing is real, whether I do or not, then it is real?

If that's your definition, then god is just as real as Katelyn soul is that of a woman. It's hypocrisy to accept one and not the other. If one is reality, then they both are.

For me, my definition is it's only "real" if it can be observed and verified. Period. Therefore, "God is not reality." Show me some evidence, and I'll gladly do his bidding. Until then, god is only as real as leprechauns. Since proving a negative such as that is impossible, the burden of proof lies firmly upon those claiming his existence.

Hogwash!

Hogwash? To me saying, "I don't believe in anything without evidence?" (I really wish the quote button would nest the convo). Now THAT is delusional... you can read my mind? You presume to know what I think? If not delusion, it's arrogant. Even the omnipotent, all-powerful Jesus was humble. To your chagrin, however, it is completely true. Garbage in, garbage out. If it can't be proven, it ain't going into this brain!

For someone who's never met me, you sure seem to think you know an awful lot about me, to complain I know nothing about you. I only claim to know about you what you tell me.

Prove this reality then.
Bruce Jenner is a man. That is reality. Say it with me or admit you don't care about reality, once and for all.

As I've said, I choose not to. It's about treating people with kindness and love. I wouldn't walk up to someone physically challenged and call them cripple or handicapped. I wouldn't walk up to someone with down's syndrome and tell them they have the mind of a six year old. I could, but wouldn't. There's no need. And even the possibility it might hurt them in some way, makes me hurt. I may be an atheist, but I at least learned that much from Jesus' teachings when I was little. Judgement is for god... our job is to love our neighbor.

 

[chipwitch]

You haven't been very tolerant of me.

The fact I'm still here discoursing with you is evidence to the contrary.

 

[buckshot24]

]I see where you're going. You really don't get it. Isis kills anyone who doesn't agree with them. You're RUDE to anyone who doesn't agree with you, by calling Katelyn by a name she does not wish to be called, as has been correctly pointed out.

You're RUDE to anyone who doesn't agree with you by calling their beliefs a delusion. What hypocrisy.

Katelyn would not need to ask, demand or expect you to do anything... not even "appease" her "delusion", for you to simply call her by the name she prefers to be called.

Is it wrong for me to call Bruce, Bruce? The moral outrage you're displaying here is hilarious. I'm just using my own feelings to guide me and you're not respecting them.

She has not in any way asked you to agree with her (unless she's a personal friend). Nor has she exacted any kind of punishment, penalty or incivility on you because you DON'T agree with her.

Very disrespectful of my feelings here.

I'm guessing even with that explanation, you can't see who's forcing whose morality? Being civil to one another, calling people by the name they request you to use and not harming them physically, or anyone they love, is the unspoken rule that every human being on the planet has a right to expect from everyone else. It's the golden rule and you can't so much as do that.

You believe people are animals, meat machines animated to propagate DNA, where do these "rights" come from?

Back to the question of hate. I don't hate ISIS. They hate the west. They kill westerners. They disrespect westerners. I'm a westerner.

So they aren't wrong, its just a matter of perspective then?

If their deaths are the only assurance I can live... then the one who wins is the one who is first to kill.

Very selfish. What about their feelings? It's ok for you to disrespect their feelings but if I call Bruce, Bruce that is beyond the pale. You disrespect the feelings of people you disagree with because of reasons, and you blast me for doing the exact same thing! Hypocrisy.

People who hate other people who've never brought them harm should just mind their own damn business.

Is that a universal moral code or something? Or like, just your opinion man?

What defense? Besides, you don't know my family

I don't need to know your family. Would you allow them to use the defense that to them killing your family made them feel good? Would you disrespect their feelings like that?

You're conflating morality with consequences.

No, you are. You wouldn't think, "oh well, they killed my entire family and since we live in this society the consequences for that action are that they have to go to prison". Utter nonsense. You would be morally outraged and want justice and rightfully so.

wtf is that supposed to mean. Universal morality by definition MUST be that all feel the same. If we travel to another planet and find another civilization, do you think they'd have the same morals as you? That's the zenith of arrogance!

Not at all. A universal morality does not require universal agreement. Does 2+2=4 become universal only when everybody agrees that it is? No.

I could, I just choose not to. I don't need to. It doesn't make me less of a human being if I don't. It doesn't make me delusional if I don't. And it doesn't make me have "no regard for reality" if I don't. It's an unnecessary act with no other purpose than to incite hurt.

I'd like you to prove that this is my only purpose in calling Bruce, Bruce.

Prove that, "God is not a reality?" Okay here goes. Like I said, I don't think in absolutes. Unfortunately, language does not lend itself easily to anything BUT absolute statements. Also, like I said, I acknowledge the possibility that there may be some people who perceive things that I can't. In which case, I leave room for mistakes.

Ok, so this is a belief?

So, if I'm to believe someone's claim that god exists, I would have to trust that they perceive something that I am completely unable to perceive, verify, support with natural science or find any evidence whatsoever to support that claim?. Is that correct? Is that your definition of reality? That as long as someone perceives a thing is real, whether I do or not, then it is real?

Did you verify with natural science that this was the proper way to judge reality?

But you agree with me that Bruce isn't really a woman, he's just dressing up like one? Any natural science test you conduct on Bruce will show that he's really a man.

If that's your definition, then god is just as real as Katelyn soul is that of a woman. It's hypocrisy to accept one and not the other. If one is reality, then they both are.

It isn't.

For me, my definition is it's only "real" if it can be observed and verified.

Does this mean things aren't "real" until you can verify them?

Therefore, "God is not reality." Show me some evidence, and I'll gladly do his bidding. Until then, god is only as real as leprechauns. Since proving a negative such as that is impossible, the burden of proof lies firmly upon those claiming his existence.

Whether or not God exists doesn't depend on me or anybody else convincing you. Things don't become real when you realize that they are real.

Hogwash? To me saying, "I don't believe in anything without evidence?"

You did express the belief that "God isn't reality" (which was very inconsiderate of my feelings, by the way). Yet, you have produced no evidence in favor of that belief. Maybe you have the evidence, maybe not. If not then you believe things without evidence.

(I really wish the quote button would nest the convo). Now THAT is delusional... you can read my mind? You presume to know what I think? If not delusion, it's arrogant. Even the omnipotent, all-powerful Jesus was humble. To your chagrin, however, it is completely true. Garbage in, garbage out. If it can't be proven, it ain't going into this brain!

Then you should abandon the belief that "God isn't reality" immediately. And what evidence do you have for the belief that natural sciences the proper way to view what is really real?

For someone who's never met me, you sure seem to think you know an awful lot about me, to complain I know nothing about you. I only claim to know about you what you tell me.

I know people and you have many many beliefs that you hold without evidence, just like the rest of us.

I wouldn't walk up to someone physically challenged and call them cripple or handicapped. I wouldn't walk up to someone with down's syndrome and tell them they have the mind of a six year old.

Nor would I. I see you have no problem talking behind their backs though. More hypocrisy? You see, there is nothing wrong with telling the truth quit blasting me, while doing the exact same thing.

I could, but wouldn't. There's no need.

I completely agree with you.

And even the possibility it might hurt them in some way, makes me hurt. I may be an atheist, but I at least learned that much from Jesus' teachings when I was little. Judgement is for god... our job is to love our neighbor.

I haven't judged Bruce, I've expressed the reality that he is a man. You're the one making moral judgments on me.

 

[buckshot24]

The fact I'm still here discoursing with you is evidence to the contrary.

You're very intolerant of my feelings.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You're very intolerant of my feelings.

You get what you give. You are literally being treated the way that you treat others. You do understand that the Golden Rule works both ways don't you, numbnuts?

Of course you don't understand the Golden Rule -- you're a Christian. How silly of me. A right sorry lot you've become, too.

 

[mikeymikec]

You haven't been very tolerant of me.

The fact I'm still here discoursing with you is evidence to the contrary.

You're very intolerant of my feelings.

Can someone reboot buckshot please?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Can someone reboot buckshot please?

Pretty sure your going to have to reformat

 

[chipwitch]

You're RUDE to anyone who doesn't agree,with you by calling their beliefs a delusion. What hypocrisy.

And this is what you people can't see... I am merely pointing out the fallacy of some of the things you believe in. And yes, I am pointing out that the belief in something that is not real, is defined as a delusion. You, and people like you, act as if we've called you a name. It's not a personal attack. I would never call you anything but "buckshot" as that is what you've asked us to call you. To do anything less would be rude and disrespectful. Sound familiar?

Is it wrong for me to call Bruce, Bruce?

Not "wrong". Certainly RUDE and DISRESPECTFUL.

Very disrespectful of my feelings here.

You elected to debate me on an issue. I obliged to respond. While you have strongly disagreed with me, MY feelings aren't hurt. Why are yours? I've engaged in no personal attacks. I don't really know WHAT your beliefs are, beyond you don't believe Katelyn is a woman. Hardly seems like that should effect your feelings.

You believe people are animals, meat machines animated to propagate DNA, where do these "rights" come from?

Who told you that? LOL. People are just people. No more, no less. "Animated?"

Where does the golden rule come from? It's also called reciprocity. "I won't kill you, if you don't kill me." Wherever two or more people are gathered, norms develop and evolve. It predates Judaism and Adam and Eve. Where's the mystery? One doesn't need to create gods and idols to explain it.

So they aren't wrong, its just a matter of perspective then?

You're really hung up the need to label things right or wrong, aren't you? There is no right or wrong. So, no they aren't "wrong". That doesn't mean I condone it. Is it wrong for the cheetah to kill a hare? No. The consequence is the cheetah will either live, or not live depending on its choice.

To be clear, I said, If their deaths are the only assurance I can live... then the one who wins is the one who is first to kill.

Very selfish.

That's your opinion. I can live with that. I don't need a deity to justify it.

What about their feelings? It's ok for you to disrespect their feelings but if I call Bruce, Bruce that is beyond the pale.

**********************
IF YOU GET NOTHING ELSE OUT OF THIS EXCHANGE, PLEASE GET THIS!

**********************
Katelyn does not want to kill you and your family. ISIS does. Can you not see ANYTHING IN BETWEEN? If ISIS succeeds in their goal, this philosophical debate is rendered moot you and I will be DEAD. I have no moral restriction against that. They forfeit their feelings as they don't care about mine. Reciprocity, if you're reading.

Here's the thing. Your feelings are apparently SOOOO sensitive to hurt that they would be hurt by a man walking down a public street wearing a fedora within view of you, provided you believe wearing hats is wrong.
CONTRAST WITH:
You walk up to the man and knock the hat off his head, tell him it's wrong.

This is what people do to Katelyn. Somehow, they seem to think that she is "treating" them somehow. (Remember the golden rule? "Treat others as you wish them to treat you?"). Somehow, they imagine Katelyn is violating the golden rule. Now, if she were to force you to wear a dress, then she is "treating" you somehow and I'd be on your side of this insane argument.

People who put ideals before people cannot separate those ideals from their person. To criticize one is to criticize the other. I can see how frail that makes a person. I would find it untenable.

Is that a universal moral code or something? Or like, just your opinion man?

Cute. It isn't technically universal, but history has shown most people (like 99.99%) of people gravitate toward it within a group of some particular size. I won't go into it here. It is a whole field of study, sociology and anthropologists, in particular, should you choose to review it.

I don't need to know your family. Would you allow them to use the defense that to them killing your family made them feel good? Would you disrespect their feelings like that?

Also see, reductio ad absurdum, and straw man.

No, you are.

Nu-uh, YOU are. Seriously?

You wouldn't think, "oh well, they killed my entire family and since we live in this society the consequences for that action are that they have to go to prison". Utter nonsense.

You think? People are murdered every day. The families rarely DON'T accept the justice handed out by the courts. I didn't say I'd be happy about it, but I wouldn't hunt them down and kill them. Society, that thing you claim to hold in such high esteem, is based on agreeing to certain rules. One is that we consent to the courts to administer justice. Whether or not we agree with the outcome.

You would be morally outraged

You don't know what I'd be. You don't even know that it has or hasn't already happened to me. What you are doing is projecting yourself onto me. I'll admit I'd be angry and want to hurt them. Has nothing to do with any perception of "morality." Sorry. Not everyone thinks like you do. Brains all work differently.

Not at all. A universal morality does not require universal agreement. Does 2+2=4 become universal only when everybody agrees that it is?

I misspoke. I apologize. Universal morality would require some authority in a position to establish it. Since there is no evidence of a higher authority that would leave the collective of human beings to establish it... which CAN'T HAPPEN. Thus, there is no such thing as universal morality. Just because 4 people get together and all have the same feeling that it's "wrong" to wear a fedora, doesn't make it universal.

But, even if I go there and acknowledge that a universal morality exists (and I'm NOT), I'd argue you have no more knowledge of it than I do.

I'd like you to prove that this is my only purpose in calling Bruce, Bruce.
Ok, so this is a belief?

It's merely my perception based on what you've written. If you'd like to correct me, by all means, I'm willing to accept new perceptions into my world view.
Besides, I'd like you to respect people by calling them the name they ask you to. You don't seem willing, though.

Did you verify with natural science that this was the proper way to judge reality?

As a matter of fact I did.

But you agree with me that Bruce isn't really a woman, he's just dressing up like one? Any natural science test you conduct on Bruce will show that he's really a man.

We've already covered this ad nauseum.

Does this mean things aren't "real" until you can verify them?

Things must be verifiable to be real, in my opinion. Read into that what you will. Otherwise, one risks garbage in, remember? If this is about god? The evidence of the existence of god is EXACTLY equal to the evidence of the existence of Zeus. Do you believe in Zeus as a diety? What makes you think one deserves more credibility than the other.

Whether or not God exists doesn't depend on me or anybody else convincing you. Things don't become real when you realize that they are real.

I agree. But am I expected to live my life according to the way "your god" "wants" me to live merely because YOU perceive it. You wouldn't extend that same respect to me. I'd call you MAD if you did.

You did express the belief that "God isn't reality" (which was very inconsiderate of my feelings, by the way). Yet, you have produced no evidence in favor of that belief. Maybe you have the evidence, maybe not. If not then you believe things without evidence.

I also don't have evidence leprechauns don't exist. The difference between us is that I don't believe things until they're proven. You (apparently) think it correct to believe in ALL things until proven they don't exist! Maybe it's just a matter of from which end of a poached egg one chooses to eat. But, I doubt it.

And what evidence do you have for the belief that natural sciences the proper way to view what is really real?

I love how you want to defend reality, then imply proven verifiable facts about said reality are to be doubted. Okay... I'll play. You're obviously NOT a scientist if you believe that. Natural science is the study of the natural universe. It is subject to peer review. Peer review is a method of verification of claims made. While some claims prove false through peer review and are consequently ejected from the minds of scientists as "bunk," other facts are irrefutable. The world isn't flat is it? The difference is that science is evidence based. When contrary evidence is presented, incorrect previous understanding is replaced. It's a system of continuous learning and observation. Religion... does the opposite. In the face of contrary facts, it becomes even more "virtuous" to have "faith" in that which is increasingly unlikely to exist. I'll take my chances with science.

You're grasping for increasingly smaller straws. If your recent arguments aren't solipsistic, I'm guessing they're just around the corner. I know you don't believe in solipsism, so it's a little intellectually dishonest relying upon it for your arguments.

I know people and you have many many beliefs that you hold without evidence, just like the rest of us.

Wow, you KNOW? Holy shit! What am I thinking right now? Hold a second while I get the defense department on the phone. They could use your power!

Nor would I. I see you have no problem talking behind their backs though. More hypocrisy?

Okay, if that's where you want to set the bar, then fine... you should really see an optometrist about removing that beam.

I completely agree with you.

You agree it's rude to go up to Katelyn and tell her she's a man? Well okay then. Why've we been arguing then?

I haven't judged Bruce, I've expressed the reality that he is a man. You're the one making moral judgments on me.

Okay. I'm not judging you. I'm merely expressing the reality that you're insensitive to the feeling of others and should be treated the way you treat others. You continuously use the name "Bruce". It is not her name. THAT is the reality. To me, it appears you think reality is whatever the fuck you decide it to be based on the ethereal. Saying you deserve to be punished would be judging. You do that to Katelyn. Her name is not Bruce. Stop being so childish.

 

[zinfamous]

Already have a couple of dogs I picked up off the side of the road.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2372178

what ever happened to your chickens?

 

[zinfamous]

chipwitch, I see you are new around here. Engaging in "discussion" with buckshot is like yelling at a cloud.

He will never honestly debate with you, for what it's worth.

 

[zinfamous]

Why do you keep using the name Bruce?

Completely aside from the trans-gender issue is the right of a person to dictate the name by which they will be known.

Whether you believe Caitlyn is a man or a woman, that is his/her legal name. I consider it highly disrespectful to continue to use a name that a person has chosen to rid themselves of.

Self determination and whatnot...

Exactly. conservative like buckshot don't care about self determination, though, if your self-determination is "intolerant of their feelings."

I do not go by my first name. I have always gone by a nickname derived from my middle name, which is essentially how I was raised (parents always called me that, so that was always my first name). Never really liked my first name, anyway, but I always use it as a screener for people that call me whom I don't need to be speaking to.

Some years ago in college, some random dude in one of my classes learned my first name, and insisted on calling me by that. I had no real opinion of the dude before that, but i suddenly hated him for this insistence. Never could understand his problem here (I suspect that he had a crush on me or something and just wanted attention? certainly the wrong way to go about it).

Anyone has a right to the name that they choose to be called. buckshot and other big government-loving, self-centered entitled evangelicals would rather an individual's freedoms be determined by a hand-picked cabal of the most unenlightened degressive monks assembled.

 

[zinfamous]

Yeah, but a litter box trained cat doesn't care where the litter box is. A cat has no shame. So this person might want one right next to their desk at work. I'm assuming she has a job of course, I think people who believe they are cats are in high demand. Anyway, one short step and she can squat and take a dump. A little action with her paw whether effective or not in an attempt to cover it up and back to the grind. Later, when the mood strikes her, she can lick her ass to spiff up a bit.

She's mentally ill and needs intervention. Her actions due to her mental illness should not be encouraged.

Are you nuts?

She's in Norway. She doesn't have a job.