kurt vonnegut said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Two primary problems.

You want to avoid objective truth as a concept. We as a society cannot operate in that way. If we cannot objectively agree that a man cannot become a woman, then there's no middle ground. Objective standards matter. You seemingly realize this is a problem so you immediately went to the "I don't presume to know x or y" because you know when objective standards are applied, there's truly a right and wrong.

But further, your analogies to medical stuff have both been insufficient and wrong.

First, lets talk removing a mole. We can gladly concede that there could be subjectivity around removing a mole. Maybe a doctor things it's cancerous, and maybe another says it's not. What removing the mole does not do is lead to the conclusion that with the removal of the mole, you're suddenly a different person.

Which leads to the second issue above. The proper analogy would be for someone to go to a doctor and say their arm, that is attached to their body, isn't meant to be attached to their body. We of course diagnose this the same way we used to diagnose gender dysmorphia as an illness.

So for your analogy to work with transgenderism, you need to say that a person goes to 5 doctors and says, this is not my arm. Objectively they can all agree that is your arm. It's attached naturally, blood flows, etc. Then you have another doctor come up and say "well if he says that's not his arm, we should probably remove it because he says that's not his arm."

Even then though, it doesn't work. Yes he's an amputee now by definition, but that's a description of his physical characteristic.

So are you claiming that to be a woman is simply to have physical characteristics? I hope not. Being a woman or man, is so much more than an outward physical traits. A woman, can be an amputee or not, same for a man. That doesn't change who they are.

So what your arguments boil down to is that we can through surgery and pills, under change the physical appearance of a person and thereby change their gender. It's about as shallow and egotistical as we can get. To think we can play God, because that's all it is in the end. Thinking we have total control over ourselves.

---

I'm avoiding objective truth in the context of some universal or God-given concept because I don't think its verifiable. You are correct that societies need objective standards to operate, but in all cases, those standards are set up by people.

These man made objective standards can be useful. For example, as a society we set objective 'rights' and 'wrongs' around behavior where it concerns safety for people and property. But, there are other instances where our society does not establish objective standards. As a society, have we decided that eating pork is objectively wrong? No, of course not. Some individuals may hold that belief while others do not, but there is no established and enforced objective societal standard about the rightness or wrongness of eating pork. It is permissible to either eat pork or abstain from it. This is sorta a 'middle ground' where people agree to disagree and respect each other's decision to eat or not eat pork.

I went with the severed arm analogy because that was what Bob used. If you think its an insufficient analogy, thats between you two.

If a better analogy is one where a person wishes to remove their own arm, then we can go with that. In the case of a person who feels that they have been wrongly armed and wish to remove an arm, why would you oppose permitting them to go through with that procedure? (For the record, I'm not saying we should remove their arm - but, I want to understand your reasoning).

No, I haven't supported the position that being a woman is simply a matter of physical characteristics. Nor have I taken the position that we can, with surgery and pills, change a persons' appearance and gender. Rather, I've taken the position that this issue (to some extent) can fall under the category of not needing defined societal 'right' and 'wrong'.

I say 'to some extent', because I think there are places where standards are needed. For example, I don't think a trans woman should be permitted to compete in women's sports. I think doing so fundamentally undermines the reason why men's and women's sports are separated. But, as it relates to how someone thinks of themselves or whether they want to change how they look, I still say its not my business.

I understand why you might think of someone affirming their gender dysphoria as 'playing God' and why you see that as arrogant. But, I would say that to presume that one speaks for God and that it is their place to inflict God's will onto others is far more arrogant.

If God doesn't want people to take hormone pills and get surgeries, then maybe He should say something. I'll listen to God.

---

Manmade objective standards is an incoherent statement on its face.

For example, we don't say gravity exists because Newton dropped an apple. It exists whether man acknowledges it or not. Man can't decide there's no gravity and poof it's gone.

An objective truth is a truth regardless of whether we like it or accept it.

We say as a society it is objectively true that we should not murder others, that we shouldn't steal from others, that we shouldn't sleep with other people's spouses, etc. Those are objectively true statements whether we punish them or not.

---------------
On the person with the arm issue. Why am I opposed? Because objectively we should be able to agree that a desire to cut a body part off permanently is a disordered desire that needs to be addressed.

---------------
Finally, No I'm not speaking for God. I think it was in this thread or elsewhere that I pointed out that there's quite a bit of Scripture that we can point to that give God's objective answer.

The first mention of man in the Bible Genesis 1:26 "26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."


Or in Isaiah 29

15 Ah, you who hide deep from the Lord your counsel,
whose deeds are in the dark,
and who say, "Who sees us? Who knows us?"
16 You turn things upside down!
Shall the potter be regarded as the clay,
that the thing made should say of its maker,
"He did not make me";
or the thing formed say of him who formed it,
"He has no understanding"?

Someone saying "this isn't my arm" or "I was born the wrong gender" is saying to the God He made them wrong.

Captain Pablo said:

---

"They/them" referring to an individual isn't even friggin' English, is one problem

Also, even if it is English, the problem is punishment for not playing the COMPULSORY game of referring to someone as something they're not.

---

It is completely grammatically acceptable to refer to an individual with they / them.

Quote:

---

Manmade objective standards is an incoherent statement on its face.

For example, we don't say gravity exists because Newton dropped an apple. It exists whether man acknowledges it or not. Man can't decide there's no gravity and poof it's gone.

An objective truth is a truth regardless of whether we like it or accept it.

We say as a society it is objectively true that we should not murder others, that we shouldn't steal from others, that we shouldn't sleep with other people's spouses, etc. Those are objectively true statements whether we punish them or not.

---

This is an insane statement. Not all objective standards must correlate to cosmic universal Truths about the nature of God and existence.

We create objective standards every day. A speed limit is an objective standard. It is a specific, measurable rule set by an authority that applies universally to all drivers on that road. It applies irrespective of subjective opinion or individual preference. A manufacturing company that establishes a standard tolerance for a machined part has established an objective standard to which the part can be evaluated. These are useful objective manmade standards that need not be descriptive of God's truth. A machined part out of tolerance can be 'wrong' and not 'right' in comparison to the objective standard, but no on is going to argue that a machine tolerance of greater than .1mm on drill bit is objectively morally wrong and an affront to God.

That said, yes, there are things in our reality that can be described as objectively true or not. Physical natural laws, to borrow from you, is a fine example. Natural laws exist irrespective of our opinions and preferences.

So, if can agree that not all objective standards represent God-given objective truth, the next question is 'Are there some objective standards that do represent a God-given objective truth? Are there moral truths? For the moment, lets grant that the answer is 'yes'.

So, lets grant that there is a set of moral objective standards of right and wrong that is established by the Christian God. And now lets look at three examples of actions which we could consider objectively right or wrong. Specifically, I am interested in the relationship between an objectively right/wrong action and our set of laws.

1. Murder. Murder can be considered to be objectively morally wrong by the Christian God. We have laws in place that protect against murder and punishes those that violate that law.

2. Using birth control. Different birth control methods might be considered to be objectively morally wrong by the Christian God. Lets just use condoms as an example. It may be the case the using condoms is objectively morally wrong, but we do not have laws prohibiting their usage.

3. Worshipping False Gods. Worshipping a God that is not the Christian God can be considered objectively morally wrong by the Christian God. And not only do we not have laws prohibiting this practice, we go out of our way to protect what is an obvious violation of the objective standards of the Christian God.

So we have three different actions which are all objectively morally wrong and three very different ways that our society has decided to treat those actions. As you stated a few posts ago, these actions are either objectively right or wrong, standards matter, and there is no middle ground. Do you support the laws we have that permit people to 'sin' or should we go full theocracy?

Assuming the answer is 'no', what is the standard you use to determine what you think should be law and what should not? In other words, why should the sin of murder have laws against it while other sins have no laws or even laws making it permissible?

And my follow up question is going to be to ask you take that standard, because standards matter, and apply it to LBGTQ laws and rules.

In other words, I think you are cherry picking which sins you want to punish. And I'm asking you to develop an objective standard that can applied to all God-given moral laws to determine whether our government should have corresponding laws.

Quote:

---

On the person with the arm issue. Why am I opposed? Because objectively we should be able to agree that a desire to cut a body part off permanently is a disordered desire that needs to be addressed.

---

That is just restating the question. You haven't explained why removing the arm should be prohibited.

Quote:

---

Finally, No I'm not speaking for God. I think it was in this thread or elsewhere that I pointed out that there's quite a bit of Scripture that we can point to that give God's objective answer.

---

I believe you worship a false God and that I worship the correct God. My God says that gender affirming care is just fine. And I can point to words in a book that say so. So who is right?

Genesis and Isiah were written 2,500+ years ago by people we don't know and translated a dozen times. How can you objectively prove that this is the word and moral law from God? Your opinion and your belief have exactly zero bearing on the actual correct God-given morality (if such a thing exists) because it is an objective standard. How do we verify this standard?

I'm open to the idea of an objective moral standard from God. But the proof of such a thing MUST be more than a bunch of people saying they believe it therefore its true.

AgLiving06 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

"They/them" referring to an individual isn't even friggin' English, is one problem

Also, even if it is English, the problem is punishment for not playing the COMPULSORY game of referring to someone as something they're not.

---

It is completely grammatically acceptable to refer to an individual with they / them.

---

It's not and that we pretend it is only hurts children.

---

Try Here

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

"They/them" referring to an individual isn't even friggin' English, is one problem

Also, even if it is English, the problem is punishment for not playing the COMPULSORY game of referring to someone as something they're not.

---

It is completely grammatically acceptable to refer to an individual with they / them.

---

It's not and that we pretend it is only hurts children.

---

Try Here

---

Which does nothing to support your argument.

Google shows this:

Quote:

---

They, them, and theirs are examples of nonbinary, gender-neutral pronouns that can be used in the singular. The pronouns they, them, and theirs have two main uses in our culture when referring to people individually. When you don't know someone's pronouns, you typically refer to them as 'they/them.'

---

which is utter nonsense.

However, when you google "They" definition, you see this results:

Quote:

---

[ol]

used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified.
"the two men could get life sentences if they are convicted"

used to refer to a person of unspecified gender.
"ask someone if they could help"

[/ol]

---

Note the first definition makes it clear "they" refers to multiple people.

And the second definition also shows that "they" even in a singular context refers to a group of people that hasn't been narrowed because you don't have a specific person in mind. If there had been a specific person, we would refer to them by their specific gender.

So no, what you tried to prove is nonsense and yes, it still hurts children.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Kurt,

You have conflicted america a constitutional republic for a theocracy. A nation of christians is not a christian nation, but there are strong overlaps. You walked through a host of examples that show in the modern world that A) morality doesn't have to be law, and B) law doesn't have to reflect morality.

---

I have absolutely not conflated those two things. I am outright asking you to draw a distinction between which moral laws should translate to legal laws and which should not. In other words, explain the distinction between a 'nation of Christians' and a 'Christian nation'.

Give me the objective rule, which when applied to a moral action, determines whether the moral action should be legislated or not.

For example, why is murder illegal but worshipping Krishna is not? Note that I don't want an answer to this specific question - I'm asking you to explain why some Christian rules 'ought' to be made into laws and some 'ought' not be made into laws?

Quote:

---

In a vacuum, morality drives law creation because laws represent government interference in freedoms and they need to be just to morally justify that interference. Your answer to law moving further away from morality is that its good and okay. Christian ethics say no it is not.

---

Nope, I didn't say that.

Quote:

---

And this diatribe on speed limits is nonsense. A speed limit is a subjective standard. It is born out of safety engineers calculating risk and making subjective, binding authoritarian decrees of how fast you shall go based upon political wills. If I speed 5 over did I really commit any moral failure here? If a small town aritifically lowers their speed limit to make a speed trap, where is the share in moral failings here? Take a look at the german autobahn. If speed limits were objective, then the german system of no speed limits is a moral affront. And clearly its not. The only thing objective about it is the fact they use whole, round numbers, everything underneath the round whole numbery-ness of speed limits is subjective.

And tolerances are also subjective. I look at parts made out of tolerance all day long and the base question isn't 'is it out of tolerance' because duh it is, its can we still achieve our tool's objectives with this deviation - why was the tolerance set this tight anyway?

All of your examples are just taking numbers and measurements and declaring them objective because they are numbers and measurements.

---

This is all 100% incorrect.

Objective standards are simply rules or criteria that are independent of personal views and opinions and based on observable or measurable facts. This shouldn't be controversial. This is simply based on the dictionary definition of the term.

If a speed limit law were subjective, then the meaning and implementation of the law could be influenced by the feelings and opinions of the authority enforcing the law or by the driver driving in that zone. Imagine being pulled over by a cop going 38 in a 40 and the cop saying "well, I personally feel like the speed limit should be 20, so I'm giving you a ticket. That is what a subjective speed limit would look like.

Speed limits, as established through law, are a clearly defined and measurable standard upon which an action can be judged to be over (wrong) or under (right). Speed limit laws are intended to be uniformly enforced to all drivers. The personal opinions, beliefs, or preferences of the individual is not relevant when determining if the law was broken or not.

That said, a statement about what a speed limit 'ought' to be is absolutely subjective.

Tolerances fall into the same category. What a tolerance 'should' be is subjective. But, once an acceptable tolerance is established, it is an objective standard. And the compliance or non-compliance of a machined part can be judged factually against that established standard. If a manufacturer establishes an acceptable tolerance for a part they produce, then that means that every single employee that measures that part should arrive at the same conclusion about compliance. The employee's personal beliefs about what the tolerance should be is irrelevant in determining compliance of the part against the established standard. And whether or not the part would still achieve the tool's objective is also irrelevant in determining whether the part is within or outside of tolerance.

If, in the course of your job, you get to look at a part and make the personal judgement about whether the part is acceptable or not, then that means your company has no objective standards for tolerance requirements. And if the owner of the companies comes to and says that any part that measures outside of +/- .1mm is out of tolerance, then that is an objective standard.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Kurt,

You have conflicted america a constitutional republic for a theocracy. A nation of christians is not a christian nation, but there are strong overlaps. You walked through a host of examples that show in the modern world that A) morality doesn't have to be law, and B) law doesn't have to reflect morality.

---

I have absolutely not conflated those two things. I am outright asking you to draw a distinction between which moral laws should translate to legal laws and which should not. In other words, explain the distinction between a 'nation of Christians' and a 'Christian nation'.

A 'nation of christians' commonly refers a country that has a super majority of christians, A christian nation is a theocracy where the priest class and governance one in the same, so your chief priest would be also your king. This hasn't happened in quiet some time, and Christian's aren't to call for it.

Give me the objective rule, which when applied to a moral action, determines whether the moral action should be legislated or not.

There is a general misunderstanding about objectivity as it relates to truth first, which informs rule here.

For example, why is murder illegal but worshipping Krishna is not? Note that I don't want an answer to this specific question - I'm asking you to explain why some Christian rules 'ought' to be made into laws and some 'ought' not be made into laws?


Lets take a step back here. What is the purpose of laws in the first place? Laws create and communicate a vehicle for justice and a system of order and fairness. What even is justice, order or fairness? Why do we need governmental laws? Do you derive your morality from the governments laws? Did you wake up today and not murder someone because a beaucracy has a realistic 50% chance of solving your murder and throwing you in jail for 10-40 years? If were going to describe Christian aughts from a legal perspective there's a whole host of Christian aughts from a nonlegal perspective that have to be answered first. And the role of a government anyway.

Quote:

---

In a vacuum, morality drives law creation because laws represent government interference in freedoms and they need to be just to morally justify that interference. Your answer to law moving further away from morality is that its good and okay. Christian ethics say no it is not.

---

Nope, I didn't say that.

Yes you did, you just don't realize it. Because you have no moral framework you assert. The sum total of your postings on Texags have been rejecting christian ethics on law and democracy because other religions exist and we just can't really know. Its just a steady stream of agnosticism that doesn't see Christian underpinning in basically every facet of the positives of the western world. If you fully unmoore the west from christianity, it will not remain a vacuum. It will be filled with debauchery in the short term and other religions in the long term.

Quote:

---

And this diatribe on speed limits is nonsense. A speed limit is a subjective standard. It is born out of safety engineers calculating risk and making subjective, binding authoritarian decrees of how fast you shall go based upon political wills. If I speed 5 over did I really commit any moral failure here? If a small town aritifically lowers their speed limit to make a speed trap, where is the share in moral failings here? Take a look at the german autobahn. If speed limits were objective, then the german system of no speed limits is a moral affront. And clearly its not. The only thing objective about it is the fact they use whole, round numbers, everything underneath the round whole numbery-ness of speed limits is subjective.

And tolerances are also subjective. I look at parts made out of tolerance all day long and the base question isn't 'is it out of tolerance' because duh it is, its can we still achieve our tool's objectives with this deviation - why was the tolerance set this tight anyway?

All of your examples are just taking numbers and measurements and declaring them objective because they are numbers and measurements.

---

This is all 100% incorrect.

Objective standards are simply rules or criteria that are independent of personal views and opinions and based on observable or measurable facts. This shouldn't be controversial. This is simply based on the dictionary definition of the term.

If a speed limit law were subjective, then the meaning and implementation of the law could be influenced by the feelings and opinions of the authority enforcing the law or by the driver driving in that zone. Imagine being pulled over by a cop going 38 in a 40 and the cop saying "well, I personally feel like the speed limit should be 20, so I'm giving you a ticket. That is what a subjective speed limit would look like.

Speed limits, as established through law, are a clearly defined and measurable standard upon which an action can be judged to be over (wrong) or under (right). Speed limit laws are intended to be uniformly enforced to all drivers. The personal opinions, beliefs, or preferences of the individual is not relevant when determining if the law was broken or not.

That said, a statement about what a speed limit 'ought' to be is absolutely subjective.

Tolerances fall into the same category. What a tolerance 'should' be is subjective. But, once an acceptable tolerance is established, it is an objective standard. And the compliance or non-compliance of a machined part can be judged factually against that established standard. If a manufacturer establishes an acceptable tolerance for a part they produce, then that means that every single employee that measures that part should arrive at the same conclusion about compliance. The employee's personal beliefs about what the tolerance should be is irrelevant in determining compliance of the part against the established standard. And whether or not the part would still achieve the tool's objective is also irrelevant in determining whether the part is within or outside of tolerance.

If, in the course of your job, you get to look at a part and make the personal judgement about whether the part is acceptable or not, then that means your company has no objective standards for tolerance requirements. And if the owner of the companies comes to and says that any part that measures outside of +/- .1mm is out of tolerance, then that is an objective standard.


These are all 'facts'. In a moral discussion there are four majority echelons built on top of one another. Facts, Concepts, Applications, Moral Theories. Everything we've gone back and forth about are just facts. Simple, non controversial measurable items. Weights. Speeds. Tolerances. They are innocuous on the surface, because they are undebatable. In your mind - objective. "The sign says 50", "The hole OD is 3.432". But to make any moral argument you've got to climb up through facts, into defining concepts like speeding, tolerance, risk, defects per million parts. etc. And then assert a moral conundrum - 'Did this man speed?' And then apply a moral framework, 'Yes he sped, but since it was an open road and driving alone he risked no harm but to himself and thus it was okay.'


Now of course, if this was back in my TA engineering ethics days I would jump on a student for having such a simple moral analysis here that it was okay to speed because he was by himself. Does he not owe himself a moral duty to protect his life? What about his parents? Who said it was okay? By what moral framework did they appeal to? Themselves, directly? So an opinion?

I would admonish the student, 'No no no, you have to go up through a moral framework. Kantian ethics, Virtue ethics, selfish egoism, consequentialism, Christianity, etc.' What do those frameworks have to say about speeding? Just pick one. What do they have to say about increasing the risk of an airplane crashing because this part is out of tolerance you want to accept it?'

And then we can start properly having moral analysis. You want to state mere facts as objective. I agree. But they are only just facts. Objective facts do not mean objective moral truths. This is David Hume's is/ought conjecture.

Thank you for coming to my recitation.

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

"They/them" referring to an individual isn't even friggin' English, is one problem

Also, even if it is English, the problem is punishment for not playing the COMPULSORY game of referring to someone as something they're not.

---

It is completely grammatically acceptable to refer to an individual with they / them.

---

It's not and that we pretend it is only hurts children.

---

Try Here

---

Oh horsesh**

Yeah I've seen google searches that turn up some obscure reference back to the 13 century. Whoop de do

In todays context, Merriam-Webster started using it as a gender neutral pronoun in 2019. Even making it "the word of the year". Likely in celebration of the word's relatively new use in gender ideology context

As far it's use in situations where the person's sex is known, that's relatively recent, made up, and totally contrived

And I qualified my original post when I posted. Even if it's technically grammatically acceptable now, so what. It's no less contrived, but even more important, is it's compulsory usage in work and academic settings when biological sex is KNOWN

---

For whatever it's worth, my 1967 Senior English Teacher (Mrs Wallis), definitely taught that when the sex of human was unknown that it was traditional to refer to the unknown human as a male.

A fantasy conversation:
Me: Hello: I'm new on this job.
He/She: Hi, my name is Gloria and you should refer to me as they/them.
Me: You don't look like conjoined twins, why should I refer to you as they/them?
He/She: I had a sex change operation and want the world to know.
Me: Want the world to know what?
He/She: That I'm going to sue you if you don't call me they/them.
Me: Well, I want to be polite, but you look like a man who has had surgery to try to look like a female so my first impulse is to refer to you as a male, why would you object?
He/She: I'm being quite accommodating. Rather than insisting in you calling me "her", I'm settling for just "they/them"
Me: Okay, my understanding is that the business wants us to get along, so I'll call you Queen of England if that's what you want at work. But only as long as our employer insists on it. I retain my own opinion.