Born the wrong species

[chipwitch]

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.

Hello there, zin. I haven't had the opportunity to take out the old debating skills in quite a while. I'm a bit rusty, as you can no doubt tell. But, it's just exercise. I haven't suffered from the delusion that buckshot could actually expand his world view since about our third volley. Can't really challenge someone who refuses to challenge themselves.

I'll only continue exercising until there's no one left to debate or I become bored with the weak opposing arguments... I'm very nearly to that point.

I hope I'm not bothering anyone?

 

[chipwitch]

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).

In college you say. The only reason I haven't been using "bucksnot" in my arguments is because that kind of behavior isn't expected outside a child's playground. Even there, it's discouraged, I'd point out.

 

[zinfamous]

Hello there, zin. I haven't had the opportunity to take out the old debating skills in quite a while. I'm a bit rusty, as you can no doubt tell. But, it's just exercise. I haven't suffered from the delusion that buckshot could actually expand his world view since about our third volley. Can't really challenge someone who refuses to challenge themselves.

I'll only continue exercising until there's no one left to debate or I become bored with the weak opposing arguments... I'm very nearly to that point.

I hope I'm not bothering anyone?

No, in fact you are providing a nice beak for Cerpin Taxt, our resident idiot shepherd. He's the one that usually keeps buckshot corralled to a single thread for weeks at a time, lest he pollute the rest of the forums.

 

[sm625]

What do you tolerant liberals think about this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3419631/Woman-says-s-CAT-trapped-human-body.html

If someone can be whatever race and gender they want, why not another species?

I sense that you jest, but crap like this could very well be coming. Soon we will have to pay tax money to build at least one "litterbox toilet stall" in all the public bathrooms for all the cat people. There will be some company offering these for $7800 apiece. And we will be on the hook for millions of them. Because they will have donated $1 million to Hillary's 2020 campaign and she must keep her promises to the people that matter to her.

And what will be the result of this next chapter of absurdity? Oh, about 1500 democrats across the country will say screw this and stop voting for democrats. Of those, 500 will switch to republican. The other 70 million will just keep voting democrat.

 

[chipwitch]

No, in fact you are providing a nice beak for Cerpin Taxt, our resident idiot shepherd. He's the one that usually keeps buckshot corralled to a single thread for weeks at a time, lest he pollute the rest of the forums.

Glad to be of service, then. "Idiot shepherd," lol. I've never heard that phrase before.

 

[chipwitch]

Soon we will have to pay tax money to build at least one "litterbox toilet stall" in all the public bathrooms for all the cat people. There will be some company offering these for $7800 apiece. And we will be on the hook for millions of them.

The probability your proposal would EVER happen is astronomically infinitesimal. Better chance that no one will believe in dieties. Nice straw man though.

 

[Jaepheth]

I think what we're seeing here is a difference in focus between what is, and what should be, and the natural result of technology's blurring the two.

There's natural reality, and then there are our desires. In days past when the two ran contrary we had little choice but to accept/tolerate reality.

But now we're starting to be very proficient at using technology to bend reality to our whims.

As we advance in knowledge and ability people are going to have to see that reality is a lot less concrete than it has been in the recent past.

Language itself is a technology. If referring to someone as <preferred pronoun here> improves their experience on this mud ball, then I for one am not opposed to it. But more practically, language is a technology that exists to make social interaction easier. If referring to someone by <whatever> causes social strife then you'll eventually adapt to not use that term; the details of which will be determined by your social circles.

 

[chipwitch]

Jaepeth, your points are well stated. But if what you mean by "What we're seeing here is a difference in focus between what is, and what should be, and the natural result of technology's blurring the two," is the cause for the difference of opinion between buckshot and myself, I disagree.

I think our argument is based on a difference of opinion as to what is real and not real. It's a debate that predates Jesus' birth (assuming the account of it is accurate). Having been raised in a VERY conservative church, I have first hand knowledge of the basis for the argument for God. Buckshot has demonstrated the same line of thinking. That is, that what he/she perceives in his/her gut is a very real thing. When they "feel" it's "right" or "wrong" to do a thing, they find it mysterious where that feeling comes from. Having no other way to explain it, they grasp for the best possible explanation imaginable. God is a ready explanation.

Personally, I find that explanation specious when I have 5 other senses that tell me my "feelings" are often not an accurate gauge of reality. "I feel the very strong feeling there's a monster under my bed." Confronting that fear, summoning up the courage, I was able to utilize my 5 senses to assess there were no monsters. When mom or dad looked under there, their senses corroborated mine. That couldn't be a coincidence. If I could have every person on the planet look under my bed, of course they'd say the same thing (the vast majority in any case). Feelings, not always right. Senses, mostly right. As we grow, we learn our senses aren't always right either, so it's fair to make that comparison.

I have no problem with people who trust their gut. I do it too. I do, however, strongly disagree with people who choose to deny the obvious in lieu of their gut. "The sun rises in the east, I don't give a damn what your gut tells you." Watch, someone will now want to debate the sunrise with me.

cheers.

 

[brycejones]

I sense that you jest, but crap like this could very well be coming. Soon we will have to pay tax money to build at least one "litterbox toilet stall" in all the public bathrooms for all the cat people. There will be some company offering these for $7800 apiece. And we will be on the hook for millions of them. Because they will have donated $1 million to Hillary's 2020 campaign and she must keep her promises to the people that matter to her.

And what will be the result of this next chapter of absurdity? Oh, about 1500 democrats across the country will say screw this and stop voting for democrats. Of those, 500 will switch to republican. The other 70 million will just keep voting democrat.

Stop drinking.

 

[buckshot24]

Can someone reboot buckshot please?

Can you see chippy's hypocrisy? I'm hurtful and mean when I refer to Bruce as Bruce but he can call my beliefs delusional and he's not being hurtful and mean.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

what ever happened to your chickens?

choked to death?

 

[buckshot24]

Glad to be of service, then. "Idiot shepherd," lol. I've never heard that phrase before.

I wonder if you think zin referring to me as an idiot is any better than me referring to Bruce as Bruce? Where is your outrage?

 

[JD50]

Ugh, this thread is getting Buckshat all over too.

 

[buckshot24]

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.

Do you have a problem with others calling me buckwheat or anything else other than my screen name? You've called to me a moron and referred to me as an idiot but that is A-OK. When I call Bruce, Bruce, I'm the A-hole. Your hypocrisy is hilarious.

 

[brycejones]

I wonder if you think zin referring to me as an idiot is any better than me referring to Bruce as Bruce? Where is your outrage?

You are an idiot.

 

[Thebobo]

How far will liberal tolerance go?

you're proof they go very far.

:sneaky:

Anyway hows the Tug boating going?

 

[chipwitch]

Can you see chippy's hypocrisy? I'm hurtful and mean when I refer to Bruce as Bruce but he can call my beliefs delusional and he's not being hurtful and mean.

I didn't post the comment to which you quoted. I don't know if that matters to you. For the record, YOU brought up delusion. YOU called Katelyn delusional. The only claim she's made is that her soul is female. Yet, that's enough for your playground games calling her a name she finds offensive. I'd say, if anyone could be in the wrong there, it's you, not her. I never said your beliefs were delusional. I simply responded to your unsubstantiated claim that Katelyn was delusional. I merely pointed out that based on your arguments, then anyone who believes in a deity is likewise delusional. That is called a "conditional statement," a kind of logic. Look into it. When I first made that claim, I had no idea you believed in god.

And.... I suspect you're being disingenuous about me hurting your feelings. That's called intellectual dishonesty.

 

[buckshot24]

And this is what you people can't see... I am merely pointing out the fallacy of some of the things you believe in.

That is what I am doing! Bruce is a man, period. Yet I'm the jerk and you're just some dude telling it like it is. Complete hypocrisy on your part.

And yes, I am pointing out that the belief in something that is not real, is defined as a delusion.

Like, Bruce not being a woman? How's that cake you won't let me eat?

Not "wrong". Certainly RUDE and DISRESPECTFUL.

And why isn't what you're doing rude and disrespectful of me?

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?

Let me be clear, my feelings are not hurt I'm highlighting your hypocrisy, that's all. You have elected to debate me as well, that street needs to go both ways.

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've called me a hater and loosely compared me to Hitler.

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.

Why don't you condone it?

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.

Ok, its just practical then. Isis isn't wrong they just want to kill everybody and if they don't get stopped we're all dead so they must be stopped. Got it.

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.

I haven't said anything to Bruce nor have I done anything to Bruce. I haven't said Bruce is treating me in any way. I simply don't believe Bruce being referred to as a her is the right way to go about things. My feelings on it is that Bruce is still a man and it is disrespectful to real women to refer to him as such. Really, woman of the year? C'mon. This is like "black face". He's not a woman.

Also see, reductio ad absurdum, and straw man.

It isn't a strawman. Do you have an answer or not?

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.

People don't care about society being better off with the person who killed their family being sent to prison or executed. They know what that person did was really wrong and not just that the consequences are such that the person needs to go to prison because like the law says it man.

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.

If you're morally outraged at me referring to Bruce as Bruce then I'm pretty sure you'd be morally outraged that a man wiped out your entire family. I think that is safe to say.

I misspoke. I apologize.

No, you were just wrong. You said what you meant to say.

Universal morality would require some authority in a position to establish it.

Right.

Since there is no evidence of a higher authority that would leave the collective of human beings to establish it... which CAN'T HAPPEN.

The universal morality IS evidence for that higher authority.

Thus, there is no such thing as universal morality.

Circularity for the win!

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.

I agree but nobody is saying anything like this.

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.

Ontology is enough, I don't need every specific moral determination of it to acknowledge that it exists.

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.

You've said it, now show that this is the case or retract it.

Besides, I'd like you to respect people by calling them the name they ask you to. You don't seem willing, though.

If I was face to face with Bruce I wouldn't call him Bruce. There would be no purpose in doing so and it would needlessly create a wedge between us. I haven't been talking to Bruce in this thread.

As a matter of fact I did.

No you didn't, it is literally impossible to do so.

We've already covered this ad nauseum.

Natural science agrees with what I've been saying. Bruce is a man. Don't be a hypocrite and disregard it when you don't like it.

Things must be verifiable to be real, in my opinion.

My opinion is that chocolate chip cookies are the best flavor.

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.

That is simply false.

I believe an entity who people called Zeus existed.

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

Not at all. I haven't created this idea and it isn't because I believe it or "perceive it" that you should live accordingly.

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.

So you have no evidence that "God isn't a reality" is true. Case and point, proven and sealed and delivered. Thanks for playing.

"God isn't a reality" is not a negative belief or lack of belief. You say you don't believe in things until they are proven, to what standard must they be proven? Beyond any doubt? Beyond reasonable doubt? Personally I think there is enough evidence to believe God is real but beyond any and all doubt? Probably not.

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.

Since you didn't answer my question I'll ask again. What evidence do you have that natural science is the proper way to determine really real?

 

[chipwitch]

I wonder if you think zin referring to me as an idiot is any better than me referring to Bruce as Bruce? Where is your outrage?

Outrage? Why? You haven't earned MY outrage! You continuously disrespect Katelyn by calling her Bruce. YOU are the one in violation of the golden rule. It's only fair you get a dose of the medicine you like to force everyone else to take. Isn't that your brand of justice? Eye for an eye? So deal with it.

If you would grow the fuck up and have an adult conversation with intellectual honesty I most certainly would call foul against zin. I've seen no sign you're willing to do so, however. I don't condone zin's comments, likely wouldn't mimic him, but I understand his observation. You're rude and inconsiderate of anyone who doesn't believe the same as you. Yeah, you're on your own if you feel insulted by zin.

 

[zinfamous]

I wonder if you think zin referring to me as an idiot is any better than me referring to Bruce as Bruce? Where is your outrage?

He/she has offered plenty of evidence on top of legal procedure that his/her name is no longer Bruce. One would think that you, of all people, fully support such personal freedoms that in no way hurt or infringe upon others.

Obviously if you feel that this person's behavior hurts you in some way, then this is your problem, and no one else's.

Likewise, you have provided plenty of evidence in these forums that you are an idiot. An idiot with a solid vocabulary, sure, but an idiot nonetheless.

 

[buckshot24]

I didn't post the comment to which you quoted. I don't know if that matters to you.

I'm in this thread and Zin referred to me as an idiot. Bruce isn't in this thread and I referred to him as Bruce. You blast me for Bruce but not Zin for idiot, when I'm right here reading the comments. A complete hypocrite is what you are.

For the record, YOU brought up delusion. YOU called Katelyn delusional.

So what? How does that give you license to do the same thing to others? You brought up God as a delusion on your own. Your insensitivity and hate knows no bounds!

The only claim she's made is that her soul is female.

You don't believe she has a soul.

Yet, that's enough for your playground games calling her a name she finds offensive. I'd say, if anyone could be in the wrong there, it's you, not her.

She isn't here hypocrite, I'm here and others have referred to me as an idiot. Where is your outrage!?

I never said your beliefs were delusional.

I believe in God, you said that belief is delusional, (very insensitively I might add).

I simply responded to your unsubstantiated claim that Katelyn was delusional.

Bruce is a man, not a woman. Bruce is confused.

I merely pointed out that based on your arguments, then anyone who believes in a deity is likewise delusional. That is called a "conditional statement," a kind of logic. Look into it. When I first made that claim, I had no idea you believed in god.

Spin away, hypocrite.

And.... I suspect you're being disingenuous about me hurting your feelings. That's called intellectual dishonesty.

Just pointing out your complete hypocrisy.

 

[buckshot24]

He/she has offered plenty of evidence on top of legal procedure that his/her name is no longer Bruce. One would think that you, of all people, fully support such personal freedoms that in no way hurt or infringe upon others.

Obviously if you feel that this person's behavior hurts you in some way, then this is your problem, and no one else's.

Likewise, you have provided plenty of evidence in these forums that you are an idiot. An idiot with a solid vocabulary, sure, but an idiot nonetheless.

I'll quote this for the duplicity it demonstrates. Simply stunning, congratulations.

 

[buckshot24]

Outrage? Why? You haven't earned MY outrage! You continuously disrespect Katelyn by calling her Bruce. YOU are the one in violation of the golden rule. It's only fair you get a dose of the medicine you like to force everyone else to take. Isn't that your brand of justice? Eye for an eye? So deal with it.

If you would grow the fuck up and have an adult conversation with intellectual honesty I most certainly would call foul against zin. I've seen no sign you're willing to do so, however. I don't condone zin's comments, likely wouldn't mimic him, but I understand his observation. You're rude and inconsiderate of anyone who doesn't believe the same as you. Yeah, you're on your own if you feel insulted by zin.

Amazing! I call Bruce, Bruce and that justifies everybody else calling me whatever they want to call me. I wonder if you think rape victims deserve being raped because they were "asking for it"? Victim blaming for the win!

 

[zinfamous]

I'll quote this for the duplicity it demonstrates. Simply stunning, congratulations.

In what way does it demonstrate duplicity? Do you even know what "duplicity" means?

Here's a task for you, and should be right up your alley:

Prove that you are not an idiot.

 

[chipwitch]

That is what.....

blah

blah

blah

more words

blah

blah

... What evidence do you have that natural science is the proper way to determine really real?

You are so cute. I'm not going to respond line by line like I normally like to do out of respect. But, since you just keep regurgitating the same specious arguments over and over as if repetition makes it reality, and don't wish to engage honestly, and you choose to be uncivil to your fellow man, then I'm going to leave it here for now. Maybe we'll have another go in the future.

Cheers!