US Politics Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
mexico1970 said:
That is really what I just posted, the difference being that if someone is delusional it doesn't mean everyone else has to join in with that delusion.

Being sacked for not using a students pronouns falls under that argument doesn't it? I know it isn't common place but Kevin Lister was fired wasn't he?

www.bbc.co.uk

Wiltshire teacher fired for not using preferred pronouns, tribunal told

Kevin Lister has taken New College Swindon to an employment tribunal, claiming unfair dismissal.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

You shouldn't ignore reality by being courteous IMO.
Click to expand...

It’s not the same though. People can be delusional on things that are matters of opinion. Because you deem a person to be delusional doesn’t suddenly turn the discussion into a debate about facts - it’s still a debate about opinions. I could say that Boris Johnson is the most honest bloke I’ve ever seen. I would think that is a delusional perspective and contrary to my evidence-based interpretation, but it still sits in the arena of opinions because “honesty” is just an abstract human concept.

I’m quite happy for people to say “I think you are delusional, that is my opinion based on what I see” but people shouldn’t claim that they have “factual reality” stood behind them when they don’t. There is no objective factual reality in how we have chosen to categorise ourselves as humans, that isn’t a thing. It’s a ship of Theseus kind of argument. If we change something little by little, we’ll all have different points at which we decide to recategorise something or somebody.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
It’s not the same though. People can be delusional on things that are matters of opinion. Because you deem a person to be delusional doesn’t suddenly turn the discussion into a debate about facts - it’s still a debate about opinions. I could say that Boris Johnson is the most honest bloke I’ve ever seen. I would think that is a delusional perspective and contrary to my evidence-based interpretation, but it still sits in the arena of opinions because “honesty” is just an abstract human concept.

I’m quite happy for people to say “I think you are delusional, that is my opinion based on what I see” but people shouldn’t claim that they have “factual reality” stood behind them when they don’t. There is no objective factual reality in how we have chosen to categorise ourselves as humans, that isn’t a thing. It’s a ship of Theseus kind of argument. If we change something little by little, we’ll all have different points at which we decide to recategorise something or somebody.
Click to expand...


If you think Boris Johnson is an honest bloke I would have no problem calling you delusional as well ;-)
 
KS55 said:
Sophistry. If you say “this was said a generation ago” you can’t mean one person said it. By definition it means that many did, thus common, so don’t try to be a clever dick…..you don’t know enough about this subject, just musings. Neither do I which is why I don’t participate. Apparently I am gender critical for supporting a woman’s trade union rights in a previous post about the TUC. YCNMIU.
Click to expand...

Because in phrasing that question it could have been x number or years or X number of decades. I considered all of them and chose generation.

It doesn't really matter whether it was commonly used, and you want to come back at me with "sophistry".

How do you know what I know when much of it is based on real life experience?
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Because in phrasing that question it could have been x number or years or X number of decades. I considered all of them and chose generation.

It doesn't really matter whether it was commonly used, and you want to come back at me with "sophistry".

How do you know what I know when much of it is based on real life experience?
Click to expand...
You asked the question ‘who added common?’ now you tell me it’s not important. Jeeze, proof of you just pissing about. I’m out.
 
KS55 said:
You asked the question ‘who added common?’ now you tell me it’s not important. Jeeze, proof of you just pissing about. I’m out.
Click to expand...

It wasn't. It was your inference. You're the one that placed any importance on it. A misconception is a misconception. That fact doesn't change if it's a view held by 5000 people or 5 million.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
It wasn't. It was your inference. You're the one that placed any importance on it. A misconception is a misconception. That fact doesn't change if it's a view held by 5000 people or 5 million.
Click to expand...
Bollocks, you asked the question directly. If you are so knowledgeable and interested, who was Ian Gilmour? I’m out.
 
KS55 said:
Bollocks, you asked the question directly. If you are so knowledgeable and interested, who was Ian Gilmour? I’m out.
Click to expand...

From the perspective of someone who has met numerous trans people of various backgrounds. When did I proclaim to be an expert on gay liberation or know more than you on it? You're the only one commenting on knowledge of the other here.

Not sure why I need to be a historian on decriminalisation campaigns or legislation to comment but carry on. Ironically enough if you look up the debates in Hansard mental illness and "mental retardation" [wording of the time for other readers] are themes discussed.

Here's an article from the 1990s, what do you think of it?

WHEN GAY MEANT MAD

In the 1960s, homosexuality was a crime - and a mental illness. Gays desperate for a cure tried, or were forced into, aversion therapy. Some believe the after-effects ruined their lives; one did not survive
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
It’s not the same though. People can be delusional on things that are matters of opinion. Because you deem a person to be delusional doesn’t suddenly turn the discussion into a debate about facts - it’s still a debate about opinions. I could say that Boris Johnson is the most honest bloke I’ve ever seen. I would think that is a delusional perspective and contrary to my evidence-based interpretation, but it still sits in the arena of opinions because “honesty” is just an abstract human concept.

I’m quite happy for people to say “I think you are delusional, that is my opinion based on what I see” but people shouldn’t claim that they have “factual reality” stood behind them when they don’t. There is no objective factual reality in how we have chosen to categorise ourselves as humans, that isn’t a thing. It’s a ship of Theseus kind of argument. If we change something little by little, we’ll all have different points at which we decide to recategorise something or somebody.
Click to expand...
He and others will never understand this nuance. It’s why the debate will never resolve itself.
 
mexico1970 said:
We are talking about an exception to the rule here, even then there are only two sexes to choose from. They are not waking up one morning thinking they are something other than what they are in reality.

If you're a Glen but want to be called Glenda then that's fine, just don't expect other people to join in on your delusion.
Click to expand...

People who change their name should expect to be addressed by that name. It is common courtesy. For example, a woman changes her surname to her husbands because she wishes to be addressed as such. That is her choice and should be respected. To deliberately misname her would be rude.
 
BobKowalski said:
People who change their name should expect to be addressed by that name. It is common courtesy. For example, a woman changes her surname to her husbands because she wishes to be addressed as such. That is her choice and should be respected. To deliberately misname her would be rude.
Click to expand...

There shouldn't be a law forcing someone to call a man a woman or a he a she, it's rude expecting people to observe what is a fantasy based on someone's mental health.

If you want to do it Bob then crack on, it doesn't mean that your acquiescence is the norm.
 
Serious trouble brewing. Websites allied to Maga and other right wing causes are now calling for violence against the judge, the DA and the jury. One site has published what it thinks is the DA’s address and another the addresses purportedly of some jurors. This endangers not just those involved but completely other people whose addresses have been erroneously published.
And what are Maga politicians doing? So far, nothing. The one Republican who spoke against this has been removed as the candidate.
Republican politicians need to speak out en masse to stop this.
Incidently, it raises the chances of Trump being immediately incarcerated as a dangerous person irrespective of any appeal.
This is madness.
 
KS55 said:
Serious trouble brewing. Websites allied to Maga and other right wing causes are now calling for violence against the judge, the DA and the jury. One site has published what it thinks is the DA’s address and another the addresses purportedly of some jurors. This endangers not just those involved but completely other people whose addresses have been erroneously published.
And what are Maga politicians doing? So far, nothing. The one Republican who spoke against this has been removed as the candidate.
Republican politicians need to speak out en masse to stop this.
Incidently, it raises the chances of Trump being immediately incarcerated as a dangerous person irrespective of any appeal.
This is madness.
Click to expand...
It also will make future prosecutions much more problematic. Who’s going to volunteer to be on a jury when they may have to go into the equivalent of a witness protection programme if they find Trump guilty.
 
mexico1970 said:
There shouldn't be a law forcing someone to call a man a woman or a he a she, it's rude expecting people to observe what is a fantasy based on someone's mental health.

If you want to do it Bob then crack on, it doesn't mean that your acquiescence is the norm.
Click to expand...

I am in no position to apply snap mental health judgements on anyone, so, accepting someone’s wish to be called by a different name, or identify as a different sex is at the very least good manners. I don’t have to understand what they are experiencing to know that being a dick towards them is unwarranted.

To be honest, I think in reality you would do the same.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
It's following the same path. Moving from taboo/illegal to a medical condition, then a lifestyle choice and ultimately social acceptability.
Paedophilia is now edging towards the same route. Personally I'm hoping bestiality is next.
Click to expand...
Better not be!

It's not fun if it's made legal...
 
BobKowalski said:
I am in no position to apply snap mental health judgements on anyone, so, accepting someone’s wish to be called by a different name, or identify as a different sex is at the very least good manners. I don’t have to understand what they are experiencing to know that being a dick towards them is unwarranted.

To be honest, I think in reality you would do the same.
Click to expand...

That's probably unlikely. He denied Brianna Ghey that courtesy when her murder trial was discussed on here.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
That's probably unlikely. He denied Brianna Ghey that courtesy when her murder trial was discussed on here.
Click to expand...

You mean like this post?

mexico1970 said:
I remember the murder of Sophie Lancaster at the hands of thugs because she was a goth ( They'd have murdered anyone really), it got me thinking at the time how does evil find evil or is it in all of us?

RIP Brianna and I hope your killers rot in hell if there is one.
Click to expand...

Waste of space :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top