What love isn't

[Olmec Donald]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

But there are the too far lines of voting, serving in the military, and swearing allegiances.  They draw lines.  We all do.  I don’t see too much of a problem with lines usually as long as someone is willing to accept the consequences without whining about it…

I spent a couple of years in a European country where two years of military service was mandatory for young men.  Conscientious objector status was not recognized by the government, so the Jehovah's Witness young men served their two years in prison.  I may not agree with their choice but I do respect it and them.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is ironic that I talk fast and talk over other people when I start talking.

My mom offered me the excuse of being the quiet, younger child whose older siblings always talked over.  Once I started staking my territory and joining the conversation in my mid teens, I couldn’t stop.  But I think what really happened is I lost my off switch somewhere on BYU campus and there is no place to send for a replacement.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Calm

[MrShorty]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's not an argument from the margins.  It's an argument by analogy.

Perhaps, but I suspect that many who have been frustrated as I have when you refuse a discussion on grounds of "arguing from the margins" have probably wanted to retaliate that we are arguing by analogy. In a case like this, what is the difference between "arguing by analogy" and "arguing from the margins" when the analogy is, by your own admission, much more rare than the point being argued.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not really exploring pathologies. 

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not really exploring pathologies.  Not qualified.

An interesting admission, like many LGBT issues, I think a substantial part of the discussion is deciding exactly what is considered pathological. For you and me, who, by our own admissions, are not qualified to decide what is and is not pathological, perhaps we ought not try arguing analogies (that are much more universally accepted as pathology) or in other ways trying to decide what ought to be considered pathology.

Perhaps, on this point, what we need is much more careful distinction between "pathological" and "immoral" (which might be another reason to reject your wolf "analogy" because it isn't truly analogous). While I might concede that there is some correlation between "immoral" and "pathological," I think the correlation is at best imperfect. I suggest we need greater clarity on when we are arguing for/against pathology and when we are arguing for/against morality.

[kimpearson]

Seems like just another discussion justifying how we can say I love you but.  If you feel gender identity is fixed to biological sex then you are basically saying millions of people are delusional and lying about their experience and therefore you can love them (whatever that means) but fight against any effort such people might make to live the gender they identify with.   Per what I am hearing in this discussion love means you can feel good about denying people the right to live their lives in a way that brings them happiness and peace.  In your minds, you would tell such a person that it is better to be unhappy, suicidal and depressed because that shows purposeful love.  Oh and let's throw in some silly example about a man that says he is a wolf.  I didn't see the statistic for how many men are saying they are wolves.  Could you provide that?  Why didn't you use a plane or a fish or a million other things that possibly fewer than 10 people in the world believe about themselves.

Then there is the problem of all those pesky experts that support transgender people and refuse to call them crazy or delusional but do call a man thinking he is a wolf delusional.  So like I said I guess I can love a transgender person but I can also object to you doing anything to relieve the suffering you are currently in because I don't think it will make you happy, at peace and progressing in life.  It doesn't matter what you experience, it only matters what I think. 

[bsjkki]

My sister in law vehemently disagrees with the ‘just love them’ approach. She feels duty bound not to in anyway condone behavior she finds morally wrong. So, while she is giving, kind and generous, she also expresses her disapproval of all her relatives behaviors she doesn’t like. She finds the ‘you do you’ concept not okay. 
 

How close of a relationship do you think she has with her siblings, nieces and nephews?

 

 

[Chum]

What I most want to validate in others isn't some quality or facet but those experiences that bumpered them to where they are.

[Chum]

46 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

My sister in law vehemently disagrees with the ‘just love them’ approach. She feels duty bound not to in anyway condone behavior she finds morally wrong. So, while she is giving, kind and generous, she also expresses her disapproval of all her relatives behaviors she doesn’t like. She finds the ‘you do you’ concept not okay.

I've done this. The compulsion to control is ceaselessly brutal, like heavy credit card debt. At the other end of the leash I found feelings of helplessness.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

My sister in law vehemently disagrees with the ‘just love them’ approach. She feels duty bound not to in anyway condone behavior she finds morally wrong. So, while she is giving, kind and generous, she also expresses her disapproval of all her relatives behaviors she doesn’t like. She finds the ‘you do you’ concept not okay. 
 

How close of a relationship do you think she has with her siblings, nieces and nephews?

 

 

Depends on if they pass muster and usually with people looking for faults the bar gets more and more difficult to pass with time. It is not by any means universal but such people also often have skeletons of their own in their closet and family are the ones most likely to know what they are.

One of the most amusing cliches is the person trying to use an indiscretion to control someone or shame them when the other person has a worse one. I have one friend (church member) who as a teenager was dating someone their parents would not approve of at an age they did not want her dating. Her older sister tried to use it to manipulate and patronize her and when my friend called her bluff sister revealed the relationship ‘out of concern’. Problem is my friend knew her sister was sexually active and in anger at the betrayal pulled the trigger on that secret.

The old line: Never throw stones when the other side has nukes.

So many families with this kind of mindset seem to live in a perpetual state of armed neutrality. Seems exhausting to me.

[Nofear]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The assumption that someone would only lay claim to an identity to stroke their narcissistic ego says more about Jordan Peterson than anything else.

Admittedly I've only encountered a smattering of his commentary and by no means intimately familiar with his commentary. Nonetheless, your comment mischaracterizes his quote with undue generalization. He's not claiming it for every scenario.

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Admittedly I've only encountered a smattering of his commentary and by no means intimately familiar with his commentary. Nonetheless, your comment mischaracterizes his quote with undue generalization. He's not claiming it for every scenario.

Nah, he is often imputing motives in a general sense to explain why his opponents are obstinately being wrong. It is a pattern.

Oh, and in case anyone is curious feminists DO criticize Islam for its oppression of women.

That is also possibly the most creepy way I have ever heard someone insinuate the idea: “Sometimes when a woman says ‘no’ she really means ‘yes’ but doesn’t want to say it”

Most of his work is generalizations: Men are order and women are chaos and must be controlled.

Speaking of an incel mass-murderer he said: “He was angry at God because women were rejecting him. The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.” Monogamy exists to keep creepy weirdos from committing mass murder. That is a hell of a take and one hell of a generalization too. I wonder why women were rejecting him…….that is a bit of a puzzler isn’t it? Who doesn’t want to get in a relationship where fulfilling his physical desires is the only thing keeping him from violence? Why would you think he might end up being abusive? That is crazy talk.

Edited January 6, 2022 by The Nehor

[Nofear]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nah, he is often imputing motives in a general sense to explain why his opponents are obstinately being wrong. It is a pattern.

I don't particularly feel the need to defend him or every position he takes. Nonetheless, the previous comment still stands that you mischaracterized his quote. He did not say that narcissism is the only explanation or that it applies to every situation. Anecdotally, I am personally acquainted with one situation where his comment applies.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I don't particularly feel the need to defend him or every position he takes. Nonetheless, the previous comment still stands that you mischaracterized his quote. He did not say that narcissism is the only explanation or that it applies to every situation. Anecdotally, I am personally acquainted with one situation where his comment applies.

His comments were not from a one on one exchange. It was a generalized statement so it is unreasonable not to take it as a generalization.

Quote

 

If the world is required to validate your identity you are done for. And the reason for that is that every single one of you have a pathological direction in which you are likely to go. And that’s because every temperamental virtue comes with a temperamental vice. You think you’re sane. You’re not. You’re not even close. If I put you alone in a cave for two weeks you’d be done. You can’t be sane on your own.

So what happens is that your parents, if they have any sense, train you, roughly speaking, to be vaguely acceptable to other people. They keep nudging and winking at you every time you’re a moron so that you get nudged into something approximating acceptable. And you’re clued in enough to pay attention so that if someone raises an eye brown or doesn’t find your joke funny, (or something rather subtle like that), you immediately revise your identity. And we are always nudging each other and revising each other non-stop - exchanging information about how to stay sane.

And if I'm forced into a position where I have to validate your identity? What if your identity is wrong? What if it’s pathological? What if it doesn’t serve you well? And I start validating you... Do you think I'm your friend. I'm not your friend at all. I'm a mirror for your narcissism. And you will disappear and drown.

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Admittedly I've only encountered a smattering of his commentary and by no means intimately familiar with his commentary. Nonetheless, your comment mischaracterizes his quote with undue generalization. He's not claiming it for every scenario.

Can you provide further statements from Peterson that can help contextualize this quote that you feel has been mischaracterized? 

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

I spent a couple of years in a European country where two years of military service was mandatory for young men.  Conscientious objector status was not recognized by the government, so the Jehovah's Witness young men served their two years in prison.  I may not agree with their choice but I do respect it and them.  

Yesterday our house got a letter from an address that I didn't know.  It turned out to be a handwritten letter, very well thought out and seemingly to be from a teenager, written on some religious questions and some thoughts on the answers, with a JW tract folded inside of it.  It was signed by a first name and last initial.  

I was genuinely touched.  I'm assuming that they haven't been able to do their tracting with covid and so this letter is another form of outreach.  I didn't read the pamphlet but I felt loved that this girl took the time to write and that either she or their church was willing to incur the expense of mailing personal letters to my neighborhood to share their beliefs with me and try to help.  I have a lot of respect for the Jehovah's Witnesses, even if their doctrine makes no sense to me.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, bsjkki said:

My sister in law vehemently disagrees with the ‘just love them’ approach. She feels duty bound not to in anyway condone behavior she finds morally wrong. So, while she is giving, kind and generous, she also expresses her disapproval of all her relatives behaviors she doesn’t like. She finds the ‘you do you’ concept not okay. 
 

How close of a relationship do you think she has with her siblings, nieces and nephews?

 

 

I really don't understand people like this.

I would ask her, how much of an influence does she have on them for good?  I would guess none, which is kind of the "cutting off your nose to spite your face" consequence of her brand of sharing the gospel.

Edited January 6, 2022 by bluebell

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I really don't understand people like this.

I would ask her, how much of an influence does she have on them for good?  I would guess none, which is kind of the "cutting of your nose to spite your face" consequence of her brand of sharing the gospel.

“The nearer we get to our heavenly Father the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel that we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs.” - Joseph Smith

[smac97]

11 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps, but I suspect that many who have been frustrated as I have when you refuse a discussion on grounds of "arguing from the margins" have probably wanted to retaliate that we are arguing by analogy.

First, please don't personalize this thread.

Second, an argument by analogy is not per se fallacious, whereas arguing from the margins usually is.

Third, you are not addressing the substance of my post, to wit:

Quote

Is a "disconnect" between biological sex and "gender identity" materially distinguishable from a "disconnect" between biological status as a homo sapiens and "species identity"?

If I "identify" as a wolf, but am not a wolf, should I nevertheless be treated as a wolf?

If I "identify" as a female homo sapiens, but am not a female homo sapiens, should I nevertheless be treated as a female homo sapiens?

Thoughts?

11 hours ago, MrShorty said:

In a case like this, what is the difference between "arguing by analogy" and "arguing from the margins" when the analogy is, by your own admission, much more rare than the point being argued.

The two concepts are quite different.

In my view, letting someone's subjective choice to "identify" as something they are not is on its own, pretty harmless.  But we are not being asked to this "on its own."  We are being told that we need to go along with these things, submit to them, agree with them, celebrate them, and allow the natural and foreseeable consequences of them . . . sometimes.  Hence we  have biological males being transferred into women's prisons, despite the fact that "an overwhelming majority of American voters — 77% — do not want to see male-bodied persons housed in women’s prison."  And we have biological males dominating women's sports.  And so on.

I'm trying to figure out the parameters here.  The rules.  For example, if I "identify" as a six year old, are my parents obligated to provide for me?  Am I legally obligated to attend elementary school?  Will the state take away my driver's license because I am under 16 years old?  Will my marriage dissolve, as I am no longer old enough under state law to be married?  I think the answer to these questions is uniformly "no," to which I respond: Why?  If we are giving social and legal effect to how some people "identify," why not others?  What differentiates me "identifying" as a six year old child, which I am not, from a biologically male homo sapiens "identifying" as a female homo sapiens, which he is not?

11 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

I'm not really exploring pathologies.  Not qualified.

An interesting admission, like many LGBT issues, I think a substantial part of the discussion is deciding exactly what is considered pathological.

"Pathology" is "a branch of medical science primarily concerning the cause, origin, and nature of disease. It involves the examination of tissues, organs, bodily fluids, and autopsies in order to study and diagnose disease."

I am not qualified to speak competently about the "pathology" things like gender dysphoria.  I freely acknowledge that.

However, I think we can and ought to discuss the social, cultural, political and legal ramifications of going along with people who "identify" as things they are not.

11 hours ago, MrShorty said:

For you and me, who, by our own admissions, are not qualified to decide what is and is not pathological, perhaps we ought not try arguing analogies (that are much more universally accepted as pathology) or in other ways trying to decide what ought to be considered pathology.

I think we ought.  I don't presume to know the ins and outs of COVID, but we can still discuss our social, cultural, political and legal responses to it.  

The same goes, I think, with our social, cultural, political and legal responses to people who "identify" as things they are not.

11 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps, on this point, what we need is much more careful distinction between "pathological" and "immoral" (which might be another reason to reject your wolf "analogy" because it isn't truly analogous).  While I might concede that there is some correlation between "immoral" and "pathological," I think the correlation is at best imperfect. I suggest we need greater clarity on when we are arguing for/against pathology and when we are arguing for/against morality.

Have at it.  I have not addressed either pathology or morality.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

His comments were not from a one on one exchange. It was a generalized statement so it is unreasonable not to take it as a generalization.

Well, the phrase "what if" is the first clue that it is not applicable in every sense because there can be "what if not". But, I'm content to let you believe otherwise. No skin off my back.

Thank you, though, for the additional context (which I did not have -- the quote was simply from the article originally linked). The additional context, clarifies his position. Suppose, I'm a member of some fringe cult which has some very particular ideas about what it means to be Christian believing in weird things like a gold bible. I wouldn't need the rest of the world to validate my claim for it to have merit. I could still be horrendously wrong (or right). Doesn't matter. I can certainly assert my opinion/position and that would be appropriate. But, I don't need to demand that others are compelled by force (e.g. laws) to recognize or validate my claim to being a "Christian". It is sufficient that I am allowed the peaceful, free exercise of my religion.

[smac97]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

I don't think so.  If a biological male says "I believe I am a woman," to X, then X's response of "I don't believe you are a woman" seems to be a corollary statement.

It is a corollary statement, but it also does stop the discussion in its tracks. 

I don't think so.  I think it can set the stage for further discussion.  

As a litigating attorney, I regularly argue both "the facts" (what actually happened) and "the law" (what principles of law should be applied, how they should be applied, etc.).  Central to this process is ascertaining which "facts" are in dispute and which are not.  As to the facts which are not genuinely disputed, the court expects and requires acknowledgement of those.  However, as to the facts which are in dispute, the parties are expected to be clear about what their respective positions are, and the basis for those positions.

To be sure, there are a few ways we can approach the dispute about gender identity.  Calm laid out the basics (using my "wolf" comparison) : 

Quote

“I understand you are a wolf” vs “You want me to think of you as a wolf and I can’t as that isn’t true” vs “I understand you identify as a wolf, what does that mean to you and how does that appear in your life?”

We disagree a bit, I think, in the idea that only one of these approaches is valid.  

Approach A (“I understand you are a wolf”) is, in my view, both the least workable (because it is "validating" a falsehood) and the most expected (hence the "trans men are men" and "trans women are women" mantras).  

Approach B (“You want me to think of you as a wolf and I can’t as that isn’t true”) is, in my view, a reasonable way of laying out the ground rules, the basic assumptions in play.  This is particularly relevant and helpful given that the issue is disputed.

Approach C (“I understand you identify as a wolf, what does that mean to you and how does that appear in your life?”) also has some real utility, depending on the context.  For example, imagine if X sues Y about a contract dispute.  Y's attorney would, at the outset, likely say to the judge "Y denies breaching the contract" (or "there is no contract, hence nothign to breach," or "Y did breach the contract, but only after X did," etc.).  However, at some point Y's attorney would likely conduct "discovery," which could include a deposition of X wherein Y's attorney sits down with a court reporter, and with X and X's attorney, and says "I understand you believe you have a breach of contract claim against my client, tell me about it."

Both B and C are available and useful in their spheres.  

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

If your only desire was to let the person know that you disagree with them, then stopping communication after that point might serve your purpose. 

First, that's not my "only desire."

Second, my proposal is not about "stopping communication" about a disputed issue, but rather allowing both sides the opportunity to have their starting points be presented and acknowledged.

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

If your goal is to be able to discuss your views in a way that the other person is willing to listen to, then the corollary statement is going to produce a result you don't want, and probably isn't the most logical choice.  

I strongly disagree.  I think the corollary statement is just as valid as the first one.  If X has the right to express his viewpoint at the outset (which I believe he does), then Y also should have the right to, at his discretion, express his viewpoint at the outset.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

19 hours ago, Fether said:

Quote

Again, I'd like to better understand this.  If I, a human being (homo sapiens) named Spencer Macdonald, "identify" as a wolf (canis lupus), and you "validate" that identity, what would you say is my species?  Homo sapiens or canis lupus?

In my view, you "validating" my "identity" as a wolf (canis lupus) would be "validating" a falsehood.  Is it?

Perhaps it’s more along the lines of validating that you understand them. In sales, when I am talking to someone and they are sharing their feelings, whether their feelings make sense or not, I try to understand and validate that I recognize that I know what they are feeling. I ask further questions on it.

Doing so helps them feel more comfortable talking to me.

Well put.  I think we have differing, but not altogether inconsistent, perceptions of what it means to "validate" someone else's opinion.

For me, to "validate" predominantly carries connotations of ratification of and agreement with the other person's position on a given point.

For you and Bluebell, to "validate" predominatnly carries connotations of understanding and respecting the other person's position on a given point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I strongly disagree.  I think the corollary statement is just as valid as the first one.  If X has the right to express his viewpoint at the outset (which I believe he does), then Y also should have the right to, at his discretion, express his viewpoint at the outset.

Alas, the current societal climate very much is asymmetric.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Campus-Expression-Survey-Report-2020.pdf

[smac97]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

Quote

I think there is a difference between "conflating" and "not completely differentiating."  Quite a bit, actually.  If "gender" is something that someone can "identify" under, then my point remains.  I can't "identify" my way into becoming the son of Martin Luther King, Jr., either genetically, or legally, or sociologically.  As much as I may want to "identify" as his son, I'm . . . not.  But Lia Thomas, a male homo sapiens, "identifies" as a female homo sapiens , and is participating in sports designated for female homo sapiens.  UPenn seems to be "conflating" sex and gender.

How you identify (MLK, Jr's son, a monkey, male, female) doesn't define your biological taxonomy, etc. 

I agree.  But how Lia Thomas "identifies" sure seems to be defining his/her "biological taxonomy."  He "identifies" as a female homo sapiens, and is therefore being treated as if he is a female homo sapiens.  

How is that distinguishable, then, from me "identifying" as being a wolf?

Is it factually correct to say that "I am as much a canis lupus as Lia Thomas is a female homo sapiens"?  If not, why not?

17 hours ago, pogi said:

Those things are not malleable by psychology and social constructs. You gender cannot alter what is unalterable. Because gender is a social construct, it very well may affect socially malleable things, like sports, etc.

I don't understand.  Lia Thomas is being socially and legally designated as a female homo sapiens.  So can I be socially and legally designated as a wolf?  If not, why not?

I think that one's subjective perception cannot alter what is unalterable.  Lia Thomas is not a female homo sapiens.  Neither is Caitlyn Jenner.  Neither is Zoey Tur.  Neither is Kristin Beck.  But the narrative is nevertheless that "trans women are women."

17 hours ago, pogi said:

Social constructs like sports, bathrooms, etc. very well may change.   They are just as fluid as gender.   If these social constructs were once "designated" by sex, there is no biological, legal, or absolute eternal law that suggests that they must always be designated by sex, rather than gender.

I think they ought to be.  

17 hours ago, pogi said:

You seem to be treating the rules of sports and bathrooms like absolute and unmalleable eternal truths. 

I am not.

17 hours ago, pogi said:

They are just social constructs like gender, and unlike sex, species, and age etc.  See the difference? 

Not quite sure what you mean.  Lia Thomas, a biological male, is competing in a sport designated for biological females.  The division between men's and women's sports has been, until very recently, based on biology, not "gender identity."  Now the two are being conflated.

Again, the narrative is that "trans women are women."  This presupposes a complete severance of "gender" from "sex."  Does that work?  Are words like "woman" and "female" utterly devoid of biological and scientific meaning?

17 hours ago, pogi said:

I get that socially, some people may not like the social changes that are coming in the wind and perceive them as unfair.  Maybe they are.  But life is unfair and sports rules are not as important as eternal laws.  How society deals with these things is up to society, but we should stop pretending like absolute truths are being violated because a biological male can swim on a female sports team because that is how she identifies.  

I'm not saying that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Alas, the current societal climate very much is asymmetric.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Campus-Expression-Survey-Report-2020.pdf

Yep.  And this environment of intimitation and threats, of coercion and fear, is not a healthy thing.

It is also, I think, something of an indictment of the narrative being presented regarding "gender identity."  It is being foisted on us via threats and coercion and bullying, not by persuasion and evidence and reasoning.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  And this environment of intimitation and threats, of coercion and fear, is not a healthy thing.

It is also, I think, something of an indictment of the narrative being presented regarding "gender identity."  It is being foisted on us via threats and coercion and bullying, not by persuasion and evidence and reasoning.

Thanks,

-Smac

Once again you are the true victim here.

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the corollary statement is just as valid as the first one.  If X has the right to express his viewpoint at the outset (which I believe he does), then Y also should have the right to, at his discretion, express his viewpoint at the outset.

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course he does.  If all Y wants to accomplish is to express his view, then the statement you wrote accomplishes that goal. 

If Y hopes to be persuasive in his arguments--and if he's not in a court of law where there is a judge who determines who "wins" and where he has a captive audience that has to let him talk--then "expressing a view" might not be the wisest way to go, from a pragmatic perspective.