Born the wrong species

[chipwitch]

It's really less about morals and more about domination through denigration. It's how their world view is structured, it's how they themselves operate. Not that there aren't examples everywhere, but look at Trump's political rise for a very thorough one. It's also why they react so viscerally to "political correctness." A world of tolerance, where denigrating others costs you more than it gains you, is literally an existential threat to them.

Oh yeah... I get that and agree with you whole-heartedly. It takes courage to have ones view of the world challenged and not feel threatened. Instead of that tack, I thought it more rational to actually try to sway opinion and on that front, moral relativism is the approach children can generally even understand. "Johnny, punching Tommy because he has green eyes is wrong. What if he punched you because you have brown eyes. Would you like that?"

I would disagree with one point... I think generally denigrating others usually cost the "others" far more than the meager gains one might feel from being the denigrater.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Oh yeah... I get that and agree with you whole-heartedly. It takes courage to have ones view of the world challenged and not feel threatened. Instead of that tack, I thought it more rational to actually try to sway opinion and on that front, moral relativism is the approach children can generally even understand. "Johnny, punching Tommy because he has green eyes is wrong. What if he punched you because you have brown eyes. Would you like that?"

I would disagree with one point... I think generally denigrating others usually cost the "others" far more than the meager gains one might feel from being the denigrater.

Well you're new here, you'll soon learn better.

 

[chipwitch]

Well you're new here, you'll soon learn better.

LOL. What can I say? I'm old enough to still remember when people weren't so firmly entrenched in bad ideas that a good argument wouldn't result in BOTH sides tweaking their world view a bit. <sigh>

 

[chipwitch]

Well you're new here, you'll soon learn better.

Wait. Were you disagreeing with my disagreeing? I thought you were poking me for the notion ones opinion could be changed.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Wait. Were you disagreeing with my disagreeing? I thought you were poking me for the notion ones opinion could be changed.

Just the part on swaying opinion. I don't necessarily disagree about who wins/loses from the denigration on a personal level, I just see a some pretty clear indications to the contrary for much of the rest of the world (again, see example Trump).

 

[Exophase]

So what is the question of "tolerance" exactly? Of course if she's not hurting anyone no one should be trying to do anything to stop her. I doubt that's what Texashiker was really asking though, what he probably wants to know is if we should all agree with her that she's actually a cat, where the answer is probably no. And of course we all know the follow up is that we shouldn't agree that trans women aren't women.

But this (obviously implied) comparison between someone like this and trans folks doesn't really work. It's a lot like nehalem's old argument about letting people marry their toasters.

There are plausible physiological explanations for why a person of given physical sexual characteristics would have developed internal traits normally associated with the opposite sex, or how their brain could be incorrectly "mapped" to their body resulting in dysphoria. This elevates the condition beyond necessarily being psychosomatic. It's a condition which occurs naturally in fairly large numbers throughout all societies and without a clear link to environmental influences, and it's something that has been studied in depth with treatments like HRT and SRS showing widespread positive effect.

This woman's condition, on the other hand, is not something you could plausibly explain as physiological, humans and house cats are way too genetically distinct for such a thing to happen. Maybe someone could be born with traits more like a distant genetic ancestor's but house cats don't fulfill that role either. So the individual's claim that it's a genetic defect is almost certainly wrong and probably not sincerely supported by any professional. Her various claims about incredible hearing and night vision are also probably false and can be empirically demonstrated if someone cares to. She says can catch mice but even admits she hasn't actually been able to. So there isn't really any ambiguity about things she's wrong about; her claims would be more comparable with a trans woman believing that she can get pregnant, which is not a delusion anyone says needs to be entertained (but good luck finding someone who thinks that to begin with)

With transgenderism one can transition in function in full capacity under their gender identity, in some cases such that people who see them don't even have any idea they're trans. The same can't be said for a transition for her, where there's no way she could function in either human or feline "society" after any kind of "transition" she might undertake. The truth is, it's obvious that she's only made the tiniest efforts in trying to live as a cat.

So it's really clear that she's under a lot of delusion here, probably impacted by some deeper underlying psychological issue, while it is not at all clear that this is universally the case for trans people (although it probably is the case for some of them). The question is exactly how she should be treated. Her therapists/psychiatrists/etc may think that there's beneficial value in humoring her delusion to an extent, or they may feel it's better to try to talk her out of this. They'd be in a better place to decide treatment than any of us could be.

 

[Shaun_Brannen]

LOL. What can I say? I'm old enough to still remember when people weren't so firmly entrenched in bad ideas that a good argument wouldn't result in BOTH sides tweaking their world view a bit. <sigh>

Wait, that's not occurring today? I mean, Europe's going Neo-Nazi crazy right now.

 

[TheGardener]

I didn't think that the OP's reason for posting this had to do with psychiatry. He was questioning whether society was obligated to make her happy by providing operations and available technology to achieve the desired cat transformation. Naturally the answer is a big yes! And the entire cost of all procedures should be born by those who buy medical insurance. It is a crime against humanity to charge her with a deductible. It's only fair.

 

[Shaun_Brannen]

I didn't think that the OP's reason for posting this had to do with psychiatry.

OP was basically making fun of liberals. That's really all it was.

Unfortunately, only someone that's really been sucked down into a right-wing echo chamber would find it humorous...

 

[chipwitch]

Wait, that's not occurring today? I mean, Europe's going Neo-Nazi crazy right now.

Meh... not yet... but, xenophobia is probably greater now in Europe than it's been SINCE Hitler. I hear your sarcasm. Even in America. I know, right? Who'd a thunk it? Every outsider is the enemy plays on every fear of the weak minded who don't realize the real enemy. Money is purposefully being funneled from the people who can least spare it so the pockets of those who need it least (and generally provide the least service to society) are lined beyond vulgar... Just like Hitler, those who are willing will always use fear targeted towards outsiders to rally support.

BUT, I wasn't talking about that... what I was talking about was how discourse between those with opposing views has become completely non-existent. The divide between those calling themselves liberal and those calling themselves conservative has never been worse in MY lifetime. WWII may have been an evil point in history, but mortal enemies were allied (USSR/the West), albeit out of a common enemy. Japan and the US didn't just negotiate a peace treaty, they became quick friends. Conservatives refuse to negotiate with liberals and liberals have largely given up that it's even possible. It is well known that 200 plus years, congress largely were friends, across the aisles. No longer. Where members of both parties often socialized, now they are total strangers. People of an opinion hold to it... unwaveringly today. Look around. It's not just the US.

 

[TheGardener]

OP was basically making fun of liberals. That's really all it was.

Unfortunately, only someone that's really been sucked down into a right-wing echo chamber would find it humorous...

And you think that I am not???

 

[flexy]

You can only "tolerate" something if this something is in some way affecting you. If it doesn't affect you (such as 99,99% of things conservatives think they have to "tolerate"), then the word "tolerance" doesn't even make sense.

**

Some say the OP is trolling or it's a fun post. Maybe.

But when I read between the lines, when he's saying "If someone can be whatever race and gender they want"...I get the gist that this is something he is not comfortable with. The question is WHY?

As for myself, I tolerate it since I think a society where everyone could be what they want is a better society than a society where folks can't - even if whatever the subject (people think they're cats, etc) doesn't affect me in any way.

 

[Shaun_Brannen]

And you think that I am not???

No, I got your message loud and clear.

It's an inevitable consequence of the continued application of computers and robots that we'll be able to play all day and turn ourselves into cats, though.

 

[Texashiker]

mmmm, dinner.

Hell no.

Do as you will as long as it harms no one else, the single Pagan Golden Rule but more specific then the Christian , "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."and more free the the thousand other religions' religious laws.

And when it comes to hiring quotas?

Want diversity, pick between the black person and the person who thinks they are black.

 

[shira]

Is that an apology?

Mods:

Here's a forum member, Buckshot24, who unambiguously wrote that "Tolerence is great and all but some things you shouldn't tolerate."

When asked who decides what shouldn't be tolerated, and what it would mean to "not tolerate" someone, Buckshot24 refused to tell us and tried to change the subject. Cerpin Text asked Buckshot24 what "not tolerating" someone would entail; Buckshot24 did not respond. I again asked Buckshot24 this question, and he again refused to tell us and is again trying to change the subject.

I think this provocative and evasive behavior is trolling, and should be grounds for a short-term ban. But I'll give Buckshot24 one more chance:

For the fourth time we ask you: Who determines what "shouldn't be tolerated; and what are you advocating should be done when society is confronted by someone who is doing "some things you shouldn't tolerate?"

 

[Vic]

Meh... not yet... but, xenophobia is probably greater now in Europe than it's been SINCE Hitler. I hear your sarcasm. Even in America. I know, right? Who'd a thunk it? Every outsider is the enemy plays on every fear of the weak minded who don't realize the real enemy. Money is purposefully being funneled from the people who can least spare it so the pockets of those who need it least (and generally provide the least service to society) are lined beyond vulgar... Just like Hitler, those who are willing will always use fear targeted towards outsiders to rally support.

BUT, I wasn't talking about that... what I was talking about was how discourse between those with opposing views has become completely non-existent. The divide between those calling themselves liberal and those calling themselves conservative has never been worse in MY lifetime. WWII may have been an evil point in history, but mortal enemies were allied (USSR/the West), albeit out of a common enemy. Japan and the US didn't just negotiate a peace treaty, they became quick friends. Conservatives refuse to negotiate with liberals and liberals have largely given up that it's even possible. It is well known that 200 plus years, congress largely were friends, across the aisles. No longer. Where members of both parties often socialized, now they are total strangers. People of an opinion hold to it... unwaveringly today. Look around. It's not just the US.

You're new here but I like you. Your blinders are off.

 

[shira]

Hell no.




And when it comes to hiring quotas?

Want diversity, pick between the black person and the person who thinks they are black.

Is this imaginary dilemma really a dilemma for you? Are you losing sleep over it?

Given a company which is hiring to satisfy a quota for minorities, and which is faced with the choice of hiring a qualified minority and a qualified non-minority person who thinks they're a member of a minority group, the company would undoubtedly hire the minority person, at least until such time as the law states that hiring a non-minority person who thinks they're a minority person "counts" toward the quota just the same as hiring a minority person.

So you can go to bed without having to worry about this particular issue. You must be so relieved.

 

[1prophet]

I'm still trying to square the phrase "tolerant liberals" as if tolerance is a bad thing. The alternative is in-tolerance. If we're choosing up sides, count me among the tolerant. Not everyone can tolerate. It takes a strength of character some people just don't have, sadly.

Because it is a bullshit phrase, defending someones rights to their beliefs is not tolerating their views or beliefs.

I don't tolerate neo-nazis or the KKK but I recognize their rights under the first amendment to exist, assemble and voice their beliefs as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on others, and in turn under the first amendment I have the right to criticize their beliefs without the fear of government censorship or the police coming to my place of work telling me I am responsible somehow for any rioting that they use to respond to my criticisms.

If a person wants to believe they are a cat as long as they are not forcing their views on others it is their right just like if a male wants to wear a dress, high heels, and lipstick and pretend they are a girl,

A problem arises, for example, when those that believe they are cats start demanding cat litter boxes be installed in restrooms that are considered public accommodations in order to profess their irrational beliefs.

 

[boomerang]

A problem arises, for example, when those that believe they are cats start demanding cat litter boxes be installed in restrooms that are considered public accommodations in order to profess their irrational beliefs.

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.

 

[Iron Woode]

Mods:

Here's a forum member, Buckshot24, who unambiguously wrote that "Tolerence is great and all but some things you shouldn't tolerate."

When asked who decides what shouldn't be tolerated, and what it would mean to "not tolerate" someone, Buckshot24 refused to tell us and tried to change the subject. Cerpin Text asked Buckshot24 what "not tolerating" someone would entail; Buckshot24 did not respond. I again asked Buckshot24 this question, and he again refused to tell us and is again trying to change the subject.

I think this provocative and evasive behavior is trolling, and should be grounds for a short-term ban. But I'll give Buckshot24 one more chance:

For the fourth time we ask you: Who determines what "shouldn't be tolerated; and what are you advocating should be done when society is confronted by someone who is doing "some things you shouldn't tolerate?"

wait, someone makes a post and then doesn't bother replying to a post made by you and now you want that user banned?

how intolerant of you.

see what I did there? :awe:

 

[chipwitch]

Because it is a bullshit phrase, defending someones rights to their beliefs is not tolerating their views or beliefs.

I don't tolerate neo-nazis or the KKK but I recognize their rights under the first amendment to exist, assemble and voice their beliefs as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on others, and in turn under the first amendment I have the right to criticize their beliefs without the fear of government censorship or the police coming to my place of work telling me I am responsible somehow for any rioting that they use to respond to my criticisms.

If a person wants to believe they are a cat as long as they are not forcing their views on others it is their right just like if a male wants to wear a dress, high heels, and lipstick and pretend they are a girl,

A problem arises, for example, when those that believe they are cats start demanding cat litter boxes be installed in restrooms that are considered public accommodations in order to profess their irrational beliefs.

Conflating Neo-Nazis and KKK with a person who believes they're a cat are two COMPLETELY different things. One of that dichotomy is comprised of people who hate other people and wish them harm. Do I need to point it out? It's okay to find some things intolerant, but the list should include the exceptions, not every nuanced variation that crosses our minds or our paths. And, yes though intolerable, I also support 1st amendment rights of Nazis. I would however, draw the line and hatemongers disrupting funerals of soldiers, protesting homosexuality.

As the licking of ass and litter boxes... this is a straw man argument. So, if you're going to call bullshit, so will I. It has no place in this discussion pertaining to the OP. No one is arguing for desk-side litter and public sanction for licking ones own ass (though I might personally overlook that one just one time out of curiosity for oddity). Your argument is tantamount to outlawing cars because someday people are going to want to drive them at a 1000 miles per hour.

If a person wants to be respected (I'd consider ridicule disrespectful) then we should extend it until it is no longer deserved (when they cease to respect those around them). Though for some, their mere existence, in another town, in another state even, is too much to handle. Regulation, and laws protect the reasonable rights of others. And licking ones ass in front of the children in the village square is NOT reasonable. Respecting ones right to pursue happiness IS.

It's all a matter of respect. The liberals (Abe Lincoln btw) wanted to free slaves, to give black men the right to pursue happiness. That was just. Only, the slave OWNERS, conservatives by definition, felt it UN-just. What about their rights to OWN slaves?

I see no difference today. These people who balk at and ridicule people for believing differently than they do is the exact opposite of RESPECT. There is only respect for others in this world any more, if for "others like me." The one thing about liberals is they've figured out that there IS NO ONE "like me". That we are ALL different. It's only the illusion, experienced by some, that there are lots of people just like them in the world, that serve to segregate and divide us all. The rest of us have learned tolerance.

 

[chipwitch]

You're new here but I like you. Your blinders are off.

Much to my dismay. Ignorance is bliss.

<edit: The blinders, I mean>

 

[brycejones]

Mods:

Here's a forum member, Buckshot24, who unambiguously wrote that "Tolerence is great and all but some things you shouldn't tolerate."

When asked who decides what shouldn't be tolerated, and what it would mean to "not tolerate" someone, Buckshot24 refused to tell us and tried to change the subject. Cerpin Text asked Buckshot24 what "not tolerating" someone would entail; Buckshot24 did not respond. I again asked Buckshot24 this question, and he again refused to tell us and is again trying to change the subject.

I think this provocative and evasive behavior is trolling, and should be grounds for a short-term ban. But I'll give Buckshot24 one more chance:

For the fourth time we ask you: Who determines what "shouldn't be tolerated; and what are you advocating should be done when society is confronted by someone who is doing "some things you shouldn't tolerate?"

Careful you'll end up on "The List".

Overall this thread just sucks. Some lame ass attempt by the OP to say something about "liberals". 1 out of 10.

Congrats to Herr Kutz who had the intellectually honesty to show their true colors instead of dancing around it like buckshot24 and the OP.

 

[chipwitch]

You can only "tolerate" something if this something is in some way affecting you.

Anyone having to reconcile two seemingly contradictory ideas must expend energy and thought to do so. While some people are comfortable with that activity, others find it anxiety-inducing. Some people can spend hours, days, weeks, more even, rolling around and around in their brains, poking and prodding the sexual activities of others, let's say, and still never reconcile the contradiction, unwilling to change their previous view of the world. It becomes an obsession. So, for someone to dare be different is an affront to those kinds of people. I truly feel badly for them. It's like being unable to fart. The pressure just keeps building and building, but never any relief.

You may see homosexuality, for example, as not affecting YOU, but now, I hope you can see that for some, unable to relieve the strain caused by conflicting world views, very MUCH affects THEM!

 

[chipwitch]

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

It's good that you and she both recognize that as she did state she sees a psychologist. I don't see the delusion. She feels like she has heightened senses and communicate with a friend in meow speak. What she didn't say is that she was born a kitten... her mom was a Siamese and her dad an Alley cat... She knows who she is and what she is. If a little fantasy, which happens to give someone a little comfort without harming others, is cause for "intervention" then every man I've ever met qualifies!

Conflating this with transgendered people is quite a stretch.