SSCReader
1yr ago
Trans people go to hell unless they repent. It’s not something in gods image but a perversion
I was a Christian however, so I have had the lessons, the Sunday School, etc., Religious education classes. And I promise you, I am engaging in good faith, I am just pointing out the even from the point of view of a Christian your argument has issues.
But again, I agree from the point of view of Christianity it makes sense to say that someone transitioning is committing a sin. Agreed. But that wasn't your claim.
But that isn't the same thing as making a mockery of God. Consider that one of the responses when a loved one is murdered or dies of cancer is that God moves in mysterious ways. Indicating that even this is part of His plan. That doesn't mean the murderer wasn't sinning within the Christian context, he certainly was. It is simply the acknowledgment that all things are part of God's plan and that our role is to surrender our faith to that plan. Even things we mortals do not comprehend like untimely deaths or your son coming out as gay or your daughter as trans are part of His plan.
That doesn't mean that your son or daughter are not sinful, but it does mean that God planned that. We don't know why, the reasons are literally ineffable, despite how many words have been written trying to understand it.
Calvin:
"Calvin did not believe God to be guilty of sin, but rather he considered God inflicting sin upon his creations to be an unfathomable mystery.[54] Though he maintained God's predestination applies to damnation as well as salvation, he taught that the damnation of the damned is caused by their sin, but that the salvation of the saved is solely caused by God"
Eastern Orthodox:
"(God's) foreknowledge is unfathomable. It is enough for us with our whole heart to believe that it never opposes God's grace and truth, and that it does not infringe man's freedom. Usually this resolves as follows: God foresees how a man will freely act and makes dispositions accordingly."
Catholicism:
"God] promised not from the power of our will but from His own predestination. For He promised what He Himself would do, not what men would do. Because, although men do those good things which pertain to God’s worship, He Himself makes them to do what He has commanded; it is not they that cause Him to do what He has promised. Otherwise the fulfilment of God’s promises would not be in the power of God, but in that of men"[61]"
Arminianism:
"This means that God does not predetermine, but instead infallibly knows who will believe and perseveringly be saved. Although God knows from the beginning of the world who will go where, the choice is still with the individual."
Middle Knowledge might be the most highbrow - a kind of multiverse:
"God knew what every existing creature capable of libertarian freedom (e.g. every individual human) would freely choose to do in all possible circumstances. It then holds that based on this information, God elected from a number of these possible worlds, the world most consistent with his ultimate will, which is the actual world that we live in."
The idea that being trans (or a murderer) is both sinful AND in line with God's plan and therefore not a mockery is entirely supported by large swathes of writings about resolving the paradox of free will and God's omniscience and (therefore pre-destination of outcome). It's the only real way to tie together the opposing issues. That God both planned for Bob to be the kind of person who would want to become Anne AND that Bob commits a sin by doing so. If you aren't a Christian that is an incoherent mess, what's the difference between perfectly foreseeing the outcome of your and other peoples actions given omnipotence and setting the "rules" and planning the same? If you are a Christian, it makes sense (or at least can make sense, I know a lot of Christians who do struggle with it, which is why there have been a lot of writings about it).
But almost all extant versions of Christianity as far as I can tell (Mormons excepted if you count them as Christian) have the same basic outcome. God did plan/foresee/deliberately put/know/ you will be in this situation with these urges AND set the rules AND if you act upon them you are committing a sin. He planned it AND it is your sin to make or not. You might have failed God when you chose to sin, but saying you are making a mockery of Him, doesn't make sense. Unless every time every Christian slips into sin, they are all making a mockery of God, which therefore makes the criticism far too broad to be useful here.
SSCReader
1yr ago
And the reason for that for those on the ground is clear as day. Women's standards have just become ridiculous. I catch a lot of flak for saying this from older/married users here but the modern Instagram/Snapchat/Tinder-injected dating scene is really something they are NOT used to.
I am both older and was dating on Tinder until 2 years ago (until I met my current girlfriend there). My experience of being a mid-fifties, pudgey, 5,11 (not even over the magical 6 foot barrier!) partially retired academic is that I was able to attract much younger, more attractive women than I would expect. Sure my British accent helps with dating in the US but I will give you an anecdote that was repeated across a large spectrum of the women I dated in that time.
Most were between 25 and 40, professional, smart and often making more money than I do. I'll call one Sandra. She was 30, a computer programmer earning 6 figures, graduated college at 18 and smart, beautiful and accomplished. On our third date I made her breakfast in the morning, and she burst into tears. It emerged that no man had EVER cooked for her. She had even lived with a serious boyfriend between 24 and 29 and he never once cooked, cleaned or did laundry. The fact I had a decorated place with a bed frame and not just a mattress on the floor was a marvel to her. The fact I could cook a few dishes (and I am far from the worlds greatest cook) was astonishing. That I could actually run my own life. I broke up with her because there were some compatibility issues, but she would be a terrific catch.
The 27 yo journalist from New York I dated had similar stories to tell. As did the 33 yo doctor and the 31 yo nurse. Their experience is that what they call high-value men are very rare. But to me what they were even looking for in high-value men is the bare minimum. So the proposition that emerges is that while women's standards may have increased, it seems equally possible that the standard of men has in fact decreased. They were clearly willing to date men who made less than they did, because I made less than virtually all of them. They were also willing to date less accomplished men from a life skills point of view because that is what they had been doing!
If you can cook at least a few basic dishes, make your home look like something livable, dress and groom yourself to a decent standard (including picking out a cologne/scent to smell good, which is in my experience really important) then you are ahead of a lot of men 25-35 in North East of the United States at least as far as I can tell. I'm a chubby, hairy man in my 50's who works part time and otherwise lives off my pension. I should not be able to compete with well put together 25-35yo men in the prime of their life for women who are significantly more attractive than I am. But there appear to be very few of those to compete with.
I courted my first wife when I was 19, 35 or so years ago, and her standards were high. Here and now, if anything women's standards on average appear to be lower as far as I can tell. Now it is quite possibly also true that there are fewer high value women as well, but it's fairly easy to filter for those you want. And at least if you work or live in a city, there are literally thousands to pick from.
SSCReader
1yr ago
I still think it is true pretty much. British politicians jumped really high when they got a lot of heat on not locking down like other countries. Politicians are really really dependent on voters. Biden only just won in 2020 and the next election can very easily go the other way.
The bigger issue is this, assuming you think Scott's Red Tribe/Blue Tribe carves reality at the joint (or even close to the joint) then Red Tribe is going to struggle to dominate those areas. Because the kind of people who want to do that are not Red Tribe and Red Tribers who do want it, may well cease to be Red Tribe - See politicians who go to DC and become "swampy".
Most Blue Tribers are never going to be farmers or truck drivers because they don't want to be, they don't value it. And likewise there is a reason that most recent conservative victories have come from dissident Blue Tribers. McConnell arguably is responsible for Republicans getting a big SCOTUS majority more than Trump given how he took the risk with Garland. Kavanaugh - Catholic - father was a lawyer from DC, went to Yale - Blue Tribe through and through. Coney Barrett - Catholic, father was an attorney, went to Rhodes and Notre Dame - Blue Tribe through and through. Gorsuch - raised Catholic - both parents were lawyers, went to Georgetown Prep, and Harvard, Blue Tribe once more. Even Tucker Carlson went to boarding school in Switzerland and Trinity College in Connecticut and was described as "an important voice of the intelligentsia" in the early 2000's. And as our esteemed ex mod might say, while they are conservative, they are conservative through a Blue lens.
The core issue then is that there aren't enough Blue Tribe conservatives or Red Tribe people who want to do it to allow the right to have domination in those spheres. Just as there aren't enough Red Tribe progressive or Blue Tribe people who want to be farmers to ever flip those percentages.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Agreed, but if being recognized as their new gender is part of treatment (as surgical transition as a treatment would imply) then we have a question of how much of a responsibility does society (and/or individuals within that society) have to go along with it.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Note they aren't saying they will kill themselves but that other non-medicated depressives will due to still being depressed.
SSCReader
1yr ago
If someone is terrified about something with no evidence, and they act based on their fear, they don't get to blame random people that they've projected their fears onto.
Is there no evidence? I would suggest that the OP and Dennis are correct. There is an implication, always. And if you are weaker than the other person then it likely behooves you to consider that at all times. They cannot know if the person will act on said implication or not, but it should be factored in to the assessment. Social behaviors are not decided on an individual basis but a group one. No point in pretending that isn't true I feel.
SSCReader
1yr ago
What would be accomplished by listing all the times and places a specific conspiracy theory was denied?
Well if you want us to talk about whether it is a conspiracy or not (as opposed to just making fun of people who think it is) then that would be helpful, no? If your post was just to make fun of those people, then what is it's value here?
If your point is
That to move past shady thinking, I think we need to stop dismissing any hypothesis just because it's a conspiracy theory.
That we might need to increase scrutiny on our institutions, because they seem the be very vulnerable to manipulation by malicious actors.
Then why not just say that specifically? Those are good points and worth discussing. But you didn't actually mention those things in your original post. Are the eunuchs malicious actors? Are they manipulating the situation? If those are your factual claims then make your point around that. But your post doesn't say that. It kind of gives a wink wink nudge nudge in that direction. Which we should avoid in my opinion here, at least.
Is your position that these people are malicious actors? If so just say so. If not, then say that instead.
SSCReader
1yr ago
I think your post would have been better if I was sure what your point was. What specifically was the conspiracy you are making fun of the deniers denying. Who denied it and when? What is the light that would come from the discussion?
SSCReader
1yr ago
Well wokeness isn't a religion. Rather the opposite a religion is just an ideology with a supernatural skin on top which is why the behaviors are so often the same. But that doesn't mean it actually IS a religion. You can after all teach trickle down theory and that socialist policies don't work.
SSCReader
2d ago
I'm a Catholic. If I were to imagine s/anti-semitism/anti-Catholicism/ for all of these things I keep hearing from official government sources, or from the news media (but I repeat myself, hey, oh!) it would just make me laugh.
And if you lived in Northern Ireland or somewhere else where Anti-Catholic sentiment resolved into both government and private action against your faith and Catholics? Or perhaps even 60 years ago in the US.
The reason it makes you laugh is because you haven't (presumably) lived somewhere where that sentiment creates action. And indeed, as part of our move away from that, we did have to say mandate a specific percentage of Catholic officers in the police, and increase funding for integrated faith schools and the like. The US is pretty well integrated when it comes to Catholics vs Protestants, but this is a fairly modern occurrence.
Just because the idea of Anti-Catholicism makes you laugh, doesn't mean that it can't be a problem if it actually occurred. Even just 20 years ago my brother marrying a Catholic was a huge scandal in my extended family. And my uncle still needles her about cannibalism, from time to time, though these days only when he is drunk, because my brother will kick him out.
Now there certainly can be an argument that the fear of anti-semitism in the US is overblown but I would caution against underestimating just how much sectarian problems Catholics can face.
SSCReader
1mo ago
That will i am sure be of comfort to the various victims of sectarian violence on both sides.
SSCReader
2mo ago
Have they won? Gay marriage in the US only holds due to a Supreme Court ruling. Which is able to be overturned much as we saw with abortion at any time. It is very precarious. As I pointed out, in the UK where gay marriage was legally put in law by a Conservative prime minister and thus is much better protected, the trans movement does in fact seem to have lost allies and steam.
If they haven't actually won then complaining they didn't sit down after winning is missing the point.
SSCReader
2mo ago
He would because Philadelphia did not stop counting over night. It had a livestream up the whole time and Republican poll watchers were present. They did file suit to say that they were being kept too far away due to Covid restrictions but nothing about the ballot center closing.
Atlanta is the only one where anything could be seen (with eyes lying or otherwise) as potentially a problem as there was indeed a time period where counting stopped overnight , and resumed and there was no Republican poll watcher present. Legally this wasn't strictly an issue because the independent poll watcher was still there, which is all Georgia law required at the time, but it is at the very least not best practice in a contentious election.
SSCReader
3mo ago
Except most of the lockdowns by governors happened while Trump was President. And was the one who signed the CARES act (2.2 trillion dollars and the largest stimulus package in US history), the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and another 900 billion in the December Appropriations act. When Biden passed his 1.9 trillion stimulus package in Feb 2021, Trump wanted bigger direct payments not smaller!
If you want to say that governors made a big difference, I would agree with you. But the actions taken by Trump and Biden were pretty similar overall. And the discussion we are having is the difference the president makes to the standard person.
SSCReader
3mo ago
Yup, and that is fine. Its the way of the world. We don't get to decide what people find offensive. And here we have to try to be as inoffensive as possible given the point we are trying to make. So we have to keep up. Thats one of the costs of trying to keep a space where even people who hate each others ideas can talk.
SSCReader
5mo ago
A Christian teacher of an atheist child whose parents refuse to let them learn about religion, and who honestly believes both that the child would be better off being taught and that it would save their immortal soul has a good argument they should instruct the child secretly.
And even I as an atheist can accept that if they are doing so out of honest belief and faith, they aren't grooming the child. If they did so, instead so they could convert the child to some Opus Dei (?) style flagellation cult so they could derive pleasure from beating the child themselves, this would be another matter. But I wouldn't consider them a groomer, if they did the former but also got fuzzy warm feelings about helping save their immortal soul. And even if their conversion caused them to go to Church and be put in contact with an abusive priest, that is so far from what was intended that it can't logically be held against them.
I do also want to point out just because something isn't grooming doesn't mean it can't be harmful. If the Christian instructing the child is right, they have saved their soul (potentially), if they are wrong they will potentially have the child making choices that are not in its best interest and may have harmed the child's future prospects and damaged their relationship with their parents for nothing, but whether it is grooming is seperate from whether it is a good idea or not. I'm not saying what you are opposed to is necessarily directionally good, I am just saying it isn't grooming without specific direct nefarious intention of the teacher in question.
A teacher who honestly believes a particular child is trans and that their parents would be abusive if they found out, and so hides this and supports the child secretly, can in fact cause great harm if they turn out to be wrong, but I wouldn't call it grooming. Whether they are correct to do so or not entirely depends on the facts of the case. If the kid was trans, and their parents WOULD have beaten them and the kid would have commited suicide, then the teacher was quite correct to put the needs of the child over the parents right to knowledge. It's not always right and it's not always wrong.
Your point also leaves open that someone teaching your child within the scope of the school and not creating a relationship outside of the school one, if it is endorsed by the school, and is part of their official duties to keep it secret from parents, then it does not meet much of your criteria. If a school makes it a policy to lie to parents (as by your own example), then it is by definition part of the teachers official duties to do so. They are NOT operating outside their defined role in a personal context, they are operating within the accountability matrix of their school. You can certainly argue there should be some oversight process to this, where it is documented and perhaps the principal has to sign off on it, but they aren't operating personally. Now, can that be taken advantage of by the nefarious? Absolutely and that should be accounted for, but the idea that all of them are groomers is just a rhetorical weapon (albeit a good one!).
To put it bluntly, our kids are not only our own. Societal indoctrination and engineering is part of the purpose of schooling, whether that is into civic nationalism, Christian nationalism, Progressive ethics or whatever else. And that means teachers have a relationship with kids where they may be teaching them things we do not agree with, and must consider the impact of what that information being disclosed to parents will mean. Whether they are correct in any given case, depends on the facts in those cases, not some blanket rule. Sometimes the right thing to do will be to disclose, sometimes the right thing to do will not. If a group of hardcore Muslim parents are complaining that their kids are being taught that it's ok to be gay in a secular school, then I consider it completely appropriate for them to be told to keep their noses out, and if necessary outright misled, if that is the civic secular position. That's how you work on their kids assimilating towards the taught culture for the next generation.
Public servants are not servants of any particular member of the public, but to society as a whole, that means they can (and arguably should) lie to and mislead some members of the public in furtherance of the needs of overall society. Police can lie to members of the public, politicians can lie, spies can lie, all in furtherance to the public good. Teachers are no exception. Whether they SHOULD lie or not is dependant on the situation. But the fact there will be some situations where they should is I think definite.
To be clear, I am not saying they should always lie either, I think hiding things from parents should be thought through carefully, and there should be specific mechanisms for that decision to be checked at the very least at a school level and it may well be true that the dangers in this scenario are overblown. But I also think the criticisms of it are also overblown. Supporting a child that you think is trans or gay, and hiding it from the parents if you think it will be harmful, particularly as part of your official school policy is not grooming. Which doesn't, to repeat myself, mean that it is good. If the teacher is wrong, their decision may well be harmful itself.
SSCReader
7mo ago
counts as punishment from God for our sins?
If God exists and that's His punishment then I can only assume He doesn't mind that much really. He has (we are told) previously flooded the earth, destroyed entire cities, cast people out of paradise, given crippling labor pains to all women for all time, incinerated people alive and entombed whole families in the earth, sent explicit plagues and death for tens of thousands, so allowing people to do perhaps unwise things to themselves is not exactly on the same level of Godly punishments we are told He previously indulged in.
It's so underwhelming as to suggest it probably isn't actually a punishment from God at all. Either because God doesn't care, or doesn't act on the mortal plane in that way anymore, or more likely because God doesn't actually exist.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Is Mulvaney a trans activist or just a trans celebrity?
If it were Caitlyn Jenner would the reaction be the same do you think?
Honest question. I have no idea clearly.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Your right to believe you're a cat ends at my right to not be forced to say "heeereee kitty, kitty, kitty!" when I see you.
I think that proves too much. If society shames you for not saying hello or being polite, or calling a married woman Mrs or a Dr, Dr, they are forcing preferences upon you. There isn't any intrinsic reason this should stop any particular place. Society forces its preferences on you all the time, individuals can choose to buck the trend and then take the social consequences but most people will go along.
My right to believe I am a cat ends where I am able to persuade society it ends. Your right not to comply then ends where you don't want to take the social consequences. That's what the whole thing is about! (And of course vice versa, if you can persuade society I am not a cat then if I choose to continue acting as one, I will take the social consequences in return).
If you were able to persuade enough Japanese people to recognize you as Japanese such that they could successfully shame other Japanese people who did not, then at a societal level you ARE Japanese. You could go into Japanese only bars and so on.
It is at once a meaningful biological group and a malleable social group and it is possible to be in one or the other, both or neither.
That isn't all or even most of what HR does however. But even so thatv is exactly what building social cohesion is like. Attending church, publicly espousing certain views, being judged for being outside those views, are all replicated inside organizations.
Social shame and social judgement is the building block of society. It's the reason we're so good at, it limits the differences accepted in a society, or in this case a company.
SSCReader
1yr ago
If you tell your kids that you'll kill yourself if they don't eat their vegetables or whatever, you'd be way over the line into abuse. If you observe to them dispassionately that you are statistically more likely to kill yourself if they don't eat their vegetables, you haven't salvaged the situation. It isn't the guilt trip that (necessarily) puts you over the line, it's threatening suicide.
Right because eating vegetables and suicide are not linked (I assume!). But depression and suicide are. If I tell them "If you don't eat your vegetables I will be disappointed you have chosen not to eat healthily" I am guilting them with a reasonable outcome on my behalf. If they were doing something that actually would increase my risk of death, then it becomes once more reasonable. Don't pretend to throw your brother off the roof, you'll give me a heart attack perhaps?
SSCReader
1yr ago
Just to point out I am describing how people act not endorsing it. That's why I said in an ideal world the persecuted group would take the high road, but my experience with people over many years has made me feel that is exceptionally unlikely. So it goes.
In my particular case, my rural neighbors think I am a Christian and I no longer vote. I have largely opted out and live my life. I just like arguing on the internet. Though given I used to work in politics (in the UK) and have certainly explicitly pandered to various persecution beliefs in the messaging for my candidates, I think it is probably fair to say that I did at one point assist this cycle. But you know, that was part of the reason I retired from politics.
Also, I am not talking literally about living and dying by persecution, more in metaphor. Those you persecute will persecute you in turn should they get the power to do so, mostly nowadays through laws and cultural changes than actual murder or burning at the stake. So yes I am prepared for my turn, in some ways I am already living it. It's very Christian where I live and the expedient thing to do was to simply go along with that. It's not a big deal day to day. If the US becomes a literal Mormon Theocracy somehow I shall diligently don my sacred undergarments and take my turn in the temple. It will be ok. Likewise if Stalin reborn creates the United Soviet State of America, I shall embrace the hammer and sickle. I expect my day to day life won't change much either way.
That seems unlikely but I suppose isn't impossible.
Why does Cthulu swim left? Because God is a progressive?
SSCReader
1yr ago
For the Dennis skit, he is relying on the woman modelling his behavior given the vulnerable position she is in. He won't do anything if she says no, but he understands that she doesn't know that and so counts on that to change her behavior. It's hard to prove as rape but it is certainly manipulative.
Now imagine Mac as FiveHourMarathon mentions below does exactly the same things as Dennis but cluelessly. Is he innocent of rape or attempting to manipulate? Absolutely. But should he have known of the implication and therefore taken steps to avoid putting the woman in that position? Maybe. It depends on whether a reasonable person should.
I think most men know that if you are sharing an empty subway station late at night with a woman, and you are the only two there, that walking up and standing right behind her, even innocently is likely to make her nervous. If you do it anyway, you're not breaking the law, you shouldn't be arrested, but you are probably being a bit of an asshole.
Learning the social conventions and being cognizant of them is a duty of members of society. For the obvious ones, failing to learn them certainly is blameworthy. It's pretty much the most important thing to learn. They are the rules of the road for society. Just as I shouldn't drive without learning the rules, and if I hit someone because I blow through a Stop sign because I didn't know what it means it is still on me.
Ah lets clarify, pursuing a longterm relationship at work has risks but probably worth it.
But pursuing multiple short term entanglements at work exponentially increases the risks of some sort of fallout. Plenty of people do it of course, but the more break ups the more times you are rolling the dice.
More options
Context Copy link