"interesting arguments, but a lot of what you said just didnt resonate with me personally. "
>> My reply was to Bones, not you. So, I do not care what does or doesn't resonate with you, personally (subjective).
"Just because the 14th amendment says something doesn't make it logically more consistent, appeal to authority."
>> Stating a fact doesn't = an appeal to authority. Hard fail on your part.
"Your argument against bones between the difference of a fetus and a baby felt like a strawman to me. He's well aware the same applies to babies outside of the womb, so if we see it as bad to kill babies outside the womb it should for babies inside the womb, right? he could just turn that argument back on you."
>> What you think, feel, or believe is of no consequence. The only thing that matters is what you can prove. Period.
Nothing applies to an actual baby outside the womb to that which is prior to birth. Fact. There are no babies in the womb when 94% of ALL abortions are BEFORE 14 weeks gestation, the majority of those before 6 weeks. He cannot turn the argument back on me. No one can. Science is clear. You all are in denial of those fact based truths.
"Environment
The geographic location of an individual surely has nothing to do with their moral worth. Just as moving from the garage to the bedroom does not affect one's moral worth, moving from inside the womb onto the delivery room table shouldn’t either. "
>> A "pregnancy" is NOT [an] individual.
There is a stark distinction between pregnancy and birth. Just as much as there is a stark distinction between potentiality and actuality. It is not a matter of "geographic location," which means "a position [on] the Earth." It is a physical point ON Earth. A pregnancy is NOT on Earth. A pregnancy is WITHIN a human being, a female human being, obviously. Since only females (girls/women) can get pregnant.
"Degree of dependency
It is often opined that "as a fetus is reliant on a separate entity, it has no serious right to life”. This argumentation can be applied to all human beings."
>> No, it cannot. A pregnancy is NOT [a] human being. There is a difference between gestational development and biological development post birth. They are mutually exclusive levels of human maturation.
>> Your arguments are so common, commonly debunked that is. Your legal analysis is lacking the requisite academic and/or professional experience in same.
I will just cut to the chase here (I am going to be blunt):
"Another document that ought be (sic) referred to is the principle of legal certainty, which stipulates
• The legal system needs to permit those subject to the law to regulate their conduct with certainty and to protect those subject to the law from arbitrary use of state power."
>> This alone proves the RIGHT of women to have access to the safe and available medical procedure of an abortion. As such, you contradict your own position.
"The differences between a fetus and a born baby is three fold. (sic)
• Level of development
• Environment
• Degree of dependency
I assert that these differences are insignificant in determining the moral agency of an individual. "
>> You clearly do not understand the meaning of the term, moral agency let alone individual. A zygote, blastocyst, embryo, unviable fetus and even a viable fetus has absolutely NO "moral agency" as "an individual." Neither possesses the ability to make ethical decisions based on what is right or wrong. Even a born baby fails to meet this criterion as well. So, this is an irrelevant argument since it can never be actualized on any level by either developmental level.
"Level of development"
>> *sigh* Your continued use of the term child, children, baby, etc. are all implicit [misnomers] in this debate. A zygote is NOT a baby/child. Neither is a blastocyst, embryo or unviable fetus. Nor is an unborn viable fetus.
The 14th Amendment makes it clear that the law, equal protection of the law, and all the rights and privileges thereto are NOT bestowed upon the pregnancy UNTIL that pregnancy is actualized through BIRTH. This is common knowledge not only in law, but also socially, culturally, and psychologically. In other words, social-psychology and cultural anthropology.
Moreover, gestational development isn't the same as physiological development. Cellular life (potentiality) does not equal personhood (actuality). Never has. Never will
>> ROTFLMAO!! Thanks for proving you cannot refute anything I have put forth with actual emotional and intellectual intelligence. Since you are so fond of Merriam-Webster: "TROLL: to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content." NOTHING I have written in response to your leftist fantasy garbage was "inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive," but your entire argument and rebuttals meet that definition to the proverbial "T".
"I proved beyond any reasonable doubt ... "
>> Delusions of grandeur. You're a legend in your own mind, pal.
"Your refusal to accept basic semantic change in terms of "gender" or "woman" ..."
>> Thanks for affirming your denialism.
"Please be a troll on someone else's debate. There is no way you can be serious with arguments this terrible..."
>> You failed to disprove anything I've rebutted against you with. Your delusions of grandeur, fantasy island definitions, and psychological projection does not arise to evidence in support of your tripe.
"For one, abortion is immoral and shouldn't be done and you could argue that once it was legal but now it's illegal you can't and shouldn't try to justify baby murder."
>> Uh, abortion is not illegal. All SCOTUS did was reverse R v W and returned the matter to each state to decide on their own. Some states are outlawing it, most are not. So, your blanket statement is patently fallacious.
Morality is purely subjective and unless you are personally going to take up the mantel of responsibility and accountability for each child born to a girl or woman that they did not want, could not afford...then you have absolutely no say in making her your personal incubator.
"...and shouldn't try to justify baby murder."
*facepalm*
>> First and foremost, abortion is a safe medical procedure. Murder is a crime. Abortion does NOT = Murder. Period. Fact. Period.
Secondly, 94% of ALL abortions take place BEFORE 14 weeks gestation, the majority of those are before 6 weeks gestation. NO "baby" involved. Period. Fact. Period. The use of the term "baby" = appeal to emotion, and it is an implicit misnomer.
Third, less than 1.2% of all abortions are after 22-24 weeks (point of viability) and are done for medical necessity only. Even then, it is still not "murder." Murder only applies to one human being (already born, obviously) taking the life of another human being (already born, obviously) without just cause and done so with malicious intent and premeditation.
Well, I would argue that abortion should NOT be illegal. It is a medical procedure, and a safe one at that. What it is not, is an illegal heinous criminal act.
Fine. I stand corrected. I misspoke. What I meant to say, or thought was as written in my last comment. That it [is] used to promote terrorism, not that in and of itself Islam promotes terrorism. Apologies for not being clear.
Still not going to accept the challenge the way you are wording it. Nowhere did I say or infer Islam promotes terrorism. It doesn't and that isn't even the issue. The issue is the "extremists" that abuse Islam to suite their agenda, no differently than in any other religion. There will always be groups that pervert a religion in order to justify their violence in the name of their personified God. But that doesn't change the fact that terrorism does happen in predominately Muslim States.
Until you can properly present a well-worded title with a cogent description on a topic you believe I would disagree with you on, I am declining your latest challenge as there is nothing to debate. I agree. Islam doesn't "promote" terrorism, but it is used to effectuate it.
Not even going to repeat myself debunking your regurgitated fallacious arguments in that third response of yours. My 3-part reply to you stands as written. Nothing you have retorted with has discredited anything I've written. As far as I am concerned, this debate/discussion with you is over. Between your tunnel vision, lack of reading comprehension skills, continuous use of the strawman fallacy (among numerous others), and obvious penchant for the exhibited Dunning Kruger Effect establishes the fact that any further effort on my part would be a waste of my time and any measure of patience I have left beating a dead horse. It just won't get up.
Good day.
>> Nope. They do not magically appear in the dictionary or any other source. Applications are submitted. Those submissions are peer reviewed. Processes are followed. Rejections heard. Once finalized, then it happens. Nothing is instantaneous when it comes to the written word and their meanings. Change takes time.
"You literally just made up the idea that semantic changes need to happen gradually over time. There is literally no rule that states this."
>> Strawman. I never said those changes "[needs to happen]," and it is true.
-"The nature of semantic change
It is important to remember that semantic change is a gradual process. The meaning of a word doesn't just change in an instant, it can take many years."
//https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations/english/lexis-and-semantics/semantic-change/
"Also, just because a small population are trans, doesn't mean that only a small population agrees with the definition change of gender. In fact, their are more non-trans supporters of this change than there are non-trans detractors on the right. This is just an ad populum fallacy on your behalf anyway."
>> Still using terms you do not fully comprehend, thereby using them incorrectly via a strawman. I made no such fallacy, and you completely misconstrued what I wrote. You Sir (or Madam) are a dishonest person.
"Your argument is fallacious as you assume one has to be trans in order to agree with this semantic change. That does not follow."
>> I made no such argument or assumption. I leave the [ass]umptions to you and those like-minded as you.
"In conclusion? Both Webster and Oxford make it clear that gender can be referred to in terms of a social construct and psychology and don't have to by synonymous with biological sex. WM even has a definition of "woman" that says "a distinctly feminine nature", which one can have without being a biological female."
>> you're not comprehending what you're reading and misconstruing the definitions to fit your agenda.
"Thus, "trans women are women" is a valid claim in terms of gender and the resolution has been established."
>> Not only are you lacking in reading comprehension skills, but you also lack in debating skills. That is not an ad hominem, that is a fact-based observation. Conversing with you is like beating a dead horse. Just one strawman fallacy after another with cherry picked aspects of your opponent's comment(s) that you "think" you can easily rebut.
"I specifically cited one of Webster's dictionary definitions of "Woman" ("a distinctly feminine nature"). So to say I "did not" is just a blatant lie on your behalf. One word can have more than one meaning as WM clearly shows. Even if "an adult human female being" is completely valid in terms of biology in sex, it wasn't the only definition given in terms of psychology and gender."
>> In your initial reply to me you did NOT cite any such definition; and in your subsequent reply you cited it incorrectly. I am looking at MW (not WM) right now on the other monitor...and it clearly denotes that quoted phrase as being directly associated to "womanliness." What does that mean? Hmmm... qualities or state of being traditionally associated with [a] woman. It circles back to the term woman; and [the] definition of a woman is "an adult female person." All you are doing, have been doing, is making a fallacious semantics argument. That dog don't hunt. So again, you did not cite/use it correctly, you just made BS up to fit your agenda. Only one lying here is you, lying to yourself and everyone else you are engaging on this topic. And I already said, which is common knowledge, what a word means depends on the context in which it is used. You do not get to cherry pick a subsection and claim it as a catch all for your backwards agenda.
"Also, in the real world, you keep committing the Appeal To Tradition fallacy. This is a basic logical error. Maybe it isn't in fantasy land, but it is in reality."
>> No, I do not and no matter how many times you claim it will not make it any truer.
"It doesn't matter if sex and gender "have been" synonymous with each other, they are not now in 2022."
>> Yes, they still are. Just because liberals and the other loons have bastardized the definition doesn't make it fact-based reality. I bet you are a proponent of decriminalizing pedophilia and redefining it too, like many on the left have been moving towards bringing that slippery slope to fruition.
"Webster defines gender as "“the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex”. So if an adult biological male has psychological states typically associated with a female, then a woman would be their gender, just not their sex. It also doesn't matter if it is not THE main definition, as long as it is A definition then what I'm saying still holds."
>> I already debunked this. Not wasting my time repeating myself.
"MAIN doesn't mean ONLY."
>> I never said or implied that it did mean "ONLY."
"Oxford makes it clear that the term gender should be “considered with reference to social and cultural differences, NOT differences in biology” in their MAIN definition."
>> Should does not = must. There is nothing objective about their "suggestion," it's purely subjective in order to pander to others "feelings." Facts do NOT care about your feelings. Period.
"All you have done is just say "nuh uh your argument is fallacious" without actually explaining why it is fallacious besides crying "false equivalency" improperly on several occasions. Your argument contradicts basic dictionary definitions.""
Strawman fallacy. I have explained and in great detail. You just glanced over it and cherry-picked parts you thought you could rebut, but you failed. Epically.
My observation of your false equivalency fallacy is apropos, and your inference of me "crying" about it is rather sophomoric.
And the post I made with the debunking of the claims addresses the fact women typically tend to work in jobs that pay less, and why; thus, debunking the wage gap.
"Stop committing the Appeal To Tradition fallacy, and maybe we can get somewhere."
>> Stop making unsubstantiated allegations and false equivalency fallacies and yes, maybe we can get somewhere.
"Now, Webster defines gender as: "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"
>> *sigh* That is the subsection (b) of sub listing number 2. That is not [the] commonly understood meaning of the term. Subsection (a) defines it as "Sex sense 1a // the feminine gender" Hmmm... looks like gender is being associated to sex. Same as definition (2)(b) does too.
"So if an adult human biological male has the "typical psychological traits typically associated" with adult human biological females, then this person's gender would be woman BY DEFINITION, even if they are *NOT* a "woman" in terms of biological sex."
>> Wrong. While MW made a grammatical error in (2)(b) - "... associated with one (sic) sex," it is clear what was meant is "...one's sex." As such, anything "behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits" that are typically accepted as male are associated with the male sex, and same goes for female. Period.
"I'm sorry you are stuck in your outdated views, but in 2022 the term gender mostly refers to a social construct based on psychology."
>> And I am sorry you lack reading comprehension skills to properly understand that which you are reading and citing as evidence of your argument, albeit incorrectly (as in, it does not support your argument because you are not applying it correctly on any level). And no, the term gender does not "mostly refers (sic) to a social construct based on psychology." Not even in the slightest.
"No trans woman thinks they are biologically female. When they say they are a "woman", they mean psychologically in terms of gender and not sex."
>> LOL! If that were true, then there would be no need for them to enter spaces, sports, etc. specifically designed for biological females. And yet they invade all those spaces under the claim that they are just as much a woman as the rest of them (i.e., they are biologically a woman).
"In conclusion, since trans women are women psychologically in terms of gender, then they are woman in at least one sense of the term. This holds true even if they are not biologically women in terms of sex. Both meanings of the term "woman" are valid in their respective contexts."
>> In conclusion, your conclusion is patently fallacious since it was based on an equally patently fallacious premise.
"Therefore, I have self-evidently established the resolution. "Trans women are women" is valid claim in at least one sense (the sense in terms of psychology and gender). They just are not woman in terms of biology and sex."
>> You've established no such thing. What you have established is your penchant for the Dunning Kruger Effect.
"Oh and there is no wishful thinking argument on my behalf that is a straw-man fallacy committed by you."
>> It remains wishful thinking, and no strawman fallacy was committed. Try again.
>> "I am simply going off basic definitions ***given by the dictionary*** itself. It is no more wishful thinking than to define a "road" as "an open way for vehicles, persons, and animals especially"."
You incorrectly used the dictionary, more than once, and it remains wishful thinking, and you're grasping for straws and coming up short.
"Semantic changes are common in the English language, and you are committing the basic Appeal To Tradition fallacy by stating that because something has historically been a certain way, then that is the way it should remain. That is a basic logical error on your behalf. Slavery was common place for hundreds of years, should we have kept it? Just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it is the right way."
Yes, semantic changes do happen, but they occur gradually over time not in an instant. That is what the left and transgenders are trying to do, change meaning of words in an instant. That's not how it works. And society on the whole (i.e., the vast majority vs their 0.6-7% of the population) simply does not agree with their new fictional definition of a term solidified in history as meaning what it means. I am sure you are familiar with the saying that if we do not learn from our mistakes, we are doomed to repeat history again. Do you comprehend the meaning of that statement? Here is another one for you, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Both are rooted in what we learn and understand from history. So, if historically it has worked and there is nothing objective to contradict it, then it should remain intact as it is and commonly understood to be as. So no, I did not commit the fallacy you allege. Lastly, your comparison to slavery is an implicit false equivalency fallacy. We are discussing the meaning of [a] term (woman), not institutions like slavery. *facepalm*
"I gave a definition from the Webster dictionary that defines "woman" in terms of feminine characteristics and I expanded on it, and this definition had nothing to do with the person being biologically female."
>> Uh, no you did not. You did not cite it nor directly state you were using such a source for your given definition, which was obviously your personified version of it. Now you want to backpedal to the MW definition and claim you were using it? *facepalm* It's also clear you did not even look at the defined term MW provides for "woman." MW does NOT define woman "in terms of feminine characteristics," so you had nothing to expand on other than your obviously personified version of the actual definition given by MW. MW gives 6 meanings of the term depending on the context in which it is used, but [the] main definition is direct and clearly understandable (i.e. it is common knowledge): "an adult female person." That's it. No feminine characteristics.
"As far as the term "gender" goes, is not synonymous with "sex" or completely determined by sex in today's world."
>> In today's world? There is only one world today, yesterday, and tomorrow: the real world. Not Fantasy Island. And had you referred to MW on this term too, you would have seen a little history about gender and sex at the bottom that most certainly demonstrates how they have been synonymous with each other. I mean really, in order to know/understand what one's gender role(s) are in the real world, one must look at their sex to identify those roles.
"In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender). " - MW
>> Are the terms masculine/masculinity related to the sex female? Are the terms woman/girl related to the sex male? No, they are not. Not in the real world. Maybe on Fantasy Island, but not the real world.
"My argument is not that the "gender identity" paradigm has always existed, but that it is a linguistic innovation or paradigm which is internally consistent and which as its merits for the communities that adopt it."
>>Define 'internally' within the context you are using it here. My interpretation is the inference to internalizing is in direct relation to those within the "communities" (LGBTQ+). This presents the obvious dilemma remains...what's being internalized by the individual to mean whatever they desire it to mean whether or not it conforms with reality. And I would hardly call the fictional stuff coming from the T community linguistically innovative.
"The understanding in terms of chromosomes is of course historically recent, and so overall my argument is that the main function of identity categories such as gender is to organize people into social roles. In a context of increased access to abortion, increased participation from women in the workforce, and the changing nature of work due to communication technologies, the "social roles" are changing, and in my view this is the cause of the new paradigms for identity."
>>Ah yeah, I do not believe "increased access to abortion, increased participation from women in the workforce, and the changing nature of work due to communication technologies," has anything to do with the mental illness of gender dysphoria and the "we ought to define female in terms of sex as opposed to gender."
"It is a concept of identity in which people actively construct fluid social roles over time, just as they are e.g. able to change their job role much more commonly in the modern economy, and the two things are actually connected. There is no such strict division, for example, between the household and the workplace."
No, identity is not based on social roles over time or at any time. Identity is an internal thing inherent to the individual and their personal experiences in life. Identity is a component of psychology, not economics and professionalism. Also, please augment your claim that there is no such struct division between the household and the workplace. I do not want to guess what you're trying to say here.
OMG! Cherry picking one term in dismissing the entirety of my comment is absolutely ridiculous. Remove the why and the statement and that which follows is directly applicable to the debate. Also, if it does (or doesn't), the why (substantiating the burden of proof) comes into play you clown.
Intelligence_06, your reply is nothing short of sophomoric.
Men are far more likely to choose careers that are more dangerous, so they naturally pay more. Top 10 most dangerous jobs (from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics): Fishers, loggers, aircraft pilots, farmers and ranchers, roofers, iron and steel workers, refuse and recyclable material collectors, industrial machinery installation and repair, truck drivers, construction laborers. They're all male-dominated jobs.
Men are far more likely to work in higher-paying fields and occupations (by choice). According to the White House report, "In 2009, only 7 percent of female professionals were employed in the relatively high paying computer and engineering fields, compared with 38 percent of male professionals." Professional women, on the other hand, are far more prevalent "in the relatively low-paying education and health care occupations."
Men are far more likely to take work in uncomfortable, isolated, and undesirable locations that pay more.Men work longer hours than women do. The average fulltime working man works 6 hours per week or 15 percent longer than the average fulltime working woman.
Men are more likely to take jobs that require work on weekends and evenings and therefore pay more.
Even within the same career category, men are more likely to pursue high-stress and higher-paid areas of specialization. For example, within the medical profession, men gravitate to relatively high-stress and high-paying areas of specialization, like surgery, while women are more likely to pursue relatively lower-paid areas of specialization like pediatrician or dentist.
Despite all of the above, unmarried women who've never had a child actually earn more than unmarried men, according to Nemko and data compiled from the Census Bureau.
Women business owners make less than half of what male business owners make, which, since they have no boss, means it's independent of discrimination. The reason for the disparity, according to a Rochester Institute of Technology study, is that money is the primary motivator for 76% of men versus only 29% of women. Women place a higher premium on shorter work weeks, proximity to home, fulfillment, autonomy, and safety, according to Nemko.
It's hard to argue with Nemko's position which, simply put, is this: When women make the same career choices as men, they earn the same amount as men. As far as I'm concerned, this is one myth that has been officially and completely busted. Maybe you should celebrate International Women's Day 2011 by empowering women with the truth instead of treating them like victims ... which they're not.
Update 3/18/11: A reader was kind enought to send me a link to "An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women" prepared, under contract, for the U.S. Department of Labor in 1/09: "This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."
Forbes article on a wage gap case thrown out: https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/06/06/dispelling-myths-about-the-gender-pay-gap/?sh=51fada0046fa
"One term can have multiple meanings (this is called a homonym), thus there is no issue with biological males being women if by the term “women” we mean “women” *psychologically* and not *biologically*."
>> There is no un-liberalized (i.e. un-bastardized) term on earth that defines just "psychologically" for the meaning of what a woman is. Having said that, you are stating the obvious that words have multiple meanings, but those meanings are predicated on the context in which they are used and not how they are alike in spelling and pronunciation. So, no. You're wrong on this matter of linguistics.
"The resolution was trivially easy to establish, as it is self-evidently true in terms of gender (just not in terms of sex)."
>> Uh, no. It is not self-evidently true in terms of gender, or any made up perverted term for that matter.
Gender and sex are not mutually exclusive. Gender is predicated on sex, and sex is the defining factor of gender. Historically, and I mean historically, when a child was born and their sex was clearly delineated upon birth, each already had their path of who and what they are and what they were expected to do already set out before them. This obvious direction in life was rather apparent to the Vikings, Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, Muslims, so on and so forth. Any deviation in behavior and expectations innate to each sex/gender, they were then determined to be abnormal. This was common knowledge and accepted for centuries of our meager human existence on this planet until only recently when liberalism and wokeism sank its vampiric teeth into humanity.
"I am not disputing scientific fact here, ***only adult human females can only be women biologically. No matter how much a male mutilates genitals or feels feminine this male will never be a biological woman***."
>> Stating the obvious.
"We both agree there with the above, there is no dispute there. So when you say that is an established fact I agree! If you think I would ever disagree, you obviously haven’t been paying attention."
>>Oh, I have been paying attention. But your wishful thinking fallacy on what the term woman means is invalidated.
"Now, the point is, this person can be a woman psychologically, even if this person can never be a woman biologically."
No, they cannot. They think they can, but they cannot. It is psychologically impossible for a man to be an equal to a woman on the psychological level. The male brain will never be on par with a woman's brain and their respective innate emotions, thought process, level of being an introvert or extrovert, that mother instinct, and interpersonal communication skills, among so many other innate attributes of what a woman is in existence. So, you're wrong, again.
"Both meanings of the term “woman” are equally valid in their own contexts, just like both meanings of the term “cold blooded” are equally valid in their own contexts."
>>No, they are not. Maybe in your delusional fantasy land but not in reality (i.e. the real world).
"I only had to establish that trans women are women in *one* sense of the word not *every* sense of the word. Which I did…."
There is nothing to debate in that new challenge, "Islam promotes terrorism" with you being pro for that statement...as I agree with it, Islam does promote terrorism. Declined again.
"1. Executing criminals costs more than keeping them alive."
And this is a problem, how? The government spends gross amounts of money on crap no one needs. They don't seem to care about that. Moreover, the government spends millions and billions by giving it to other lesser countries who will never ever pay us back. So, the cost of carrying out legit punishment for the most heinous of all felonious crimes is merely a drop in the bucket compared to all the other wasteful spending that the state and/or federal government tosses down the proverbial toilet.
"2. "Magic" proposes that life must be sacrificed for other life, if this is true it means that life is a means to a goal (in this case, the "justice" that Magic speaks of), but life is not it can never be a means, since the consequences of this are devastating, turning life into a means allows to end the life of others in certain circumstances and thanks to the flexibility of the law this allows the state to assassinate whoever it wishes, prisoners politicians for example."
This makes no sense. No sense at all. Can this be rephrased into something more cogent?
"3. I consider security against the state more important than against an individual, the state has more resources and power, so it is more difficult to make it pay any consequence for an unjust murder."
The individual is the state, for the state cannot exist without the individual (ie. the collective).
The last part about making "it" pay any consequence for an unjust murder makes no sense. This needs to be clarified. Unjust murder? Whose murder, and by whom, exactly? What makes such a murder, a murder and unjust?
"4. Legalizing the death penalty will result in the loss of innocent lives."
The death penalty is legal already in many states, and what loss of innocent lives do you speak of? No system on this planet is perfect, which is why the appeals process is very lengthy and costly to ensure no innocent inmate is executed. Nevertheless, there will always be an occasional unfortunate loss.
TWS: "Yes, culturally gender has been intrinsically a so-called "construct," but it does NOT negate the glaring physiological, biological and psychological FACT that men are men and women are women."
RBELVB: I have no idea what that means. How can gender be determined absolutely by biology if it is (or "has been") a cultural construct?
I seriously doubt the Vikings knew anything about social constructs, nor the Moors or even the Knights of the Templar Order. Males had their expected roles as well as women. That's just how it was and remained, men were men and women were women. Certain roles were expected: men were providers of security, shelter, so on and so forth. Women provided children, raised them, cooked, tended to the household needs. Men protected the women and children. Men protected the village, then the town, then the city and so on. No one questioned those expectations of either gender.
Honestly, I do not see gender as a social construct. It is innate. The term gender has always been intrinsically tied to biological sex. They are not mutually exclusive. Sex is the physiological and biological aspect while gender is the psychological. Mind and body are one, not separate. Sex and gender are one, not separate.
Suspension of disbelief is not different than denialism.
Potentiality does not equal actuality. Neve has. Never will.
No one knew anything about evolution, realistically, until Darwin made that discovery and addressed it.
Unknown knowledge becomes knowable. Which is precisely why much if Bible (written over thousands of years by hundreds upon hundreds of men with a scripted agenda) has been discredited.
The quotes were in direct contradiction to your proffered position. The stated argued position at hand.
I contradicted it. It is to you to retort and defend your claim(s). Ball is in your court. Do not project your inability to defend your argument upon me. I will not play that game.
"..and black and white as the ones you claim to be fools."
That makes no sense. You do not know me. You have no info to substantiate this tripe.
I am no fool. I never get into any discussion where I cannot bold my own. When people like you reply as you just did, that just demonstrates it is to you who are in over our head.
Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot. (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah'). (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers. (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan)" The Arabic for the word "fight" is from qital, meaning physical combat.
Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks." (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle). (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (4:101) - "And when you (Muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salat (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you, verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies." Mere disbelief makes one an "open" enemy of Muslims.
Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense? (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" (See also: Response to Apologists)
Yes, culturally gender has been intrinsically a so-called "construct," but it does NOT negate the glaring physiological, biological and psychological FACT that men are men and women are women.
I can no longer accept a man claiming to be a woman than I can a woman claiming to be a man. Moreover, any schizophrenic who claims to be King Arthur shall be deemed as such and given all the royalties due.
You simply cannot use a fallacious interpretation of a [concrete] term like, woman (women) that would in any way be equated to being [a] man (men) on ANY level of biology, physiology and/or psychologically. There is nothing for the contender to argue. It has been an established objective fact-based truth that women are women, and men are men (i.e., boys have a penis and women have a vagina and boobs).
The stark and intrinsic differences psychologically, physiologically, biologically and legally is paramount and cannot be simply whisked away by fancy semantics arguments that will not fly.
A biological man can never be a woman, and a biological woman can bever be a man. That is established fact-based reality on so many levels it isn't even, respectfully, funny!!!!!
"So a fetus is not a human?"
>> Strawman. Never said that. Never claimed that.
"You are objectifying a fetus like it's not human..."
>> Nope. Prove it.
"... it's a living thing like you and me..."
>> Nope. Not on the same level. You're confusing cellular life with personhood.
The rest of your retort is ignorant blather.
"interesting arguments, but a lot of what you said just didnt resonate with me personally. "
>> My reply was to Bones, not you. So, I do not care what does or doesn't resonate with you, personally (subjective).
"Just because the 14th amendment says something doesn't make it logically more consistent, appeal to authority."
>> Stating a fact doesn't = an appeal to authority. Hard fail on your part.
"Your argument against bones between the difference of a fetus and a baby felt like a strawman to me. He's well aware the same applies to babies outside of the womb, so if we see it as bad to kill babies outside the womb it should for babies inside the womb, right? he could just turn that argument back on you."
>> What you think, feel, or believe is of no consequence. The only thing that matters is what you can prove. Period.
Nothing applies to an actual baby outside the womb to that which is prior to birth. Fact. There are no babies in the womb when 94% of ALL abortions are BEFORE 14 weeks gestation, the majority of those before 6 weeks. He cannot turn the argument back on me. No one can. Science is clear. You all are in denial of those fact based truths.
"Environment
The geographic location of an individual surely has nothing to do with their moral worth. Just as moving from the garage to the bedroom does not affect one's moral worth, moving from inside the womb onto the delivery room table shouldn’t either. "
>> A "pregnancy" is NOT [an] individual.
There is a stark distinction between pregnancy and birth. Just as much as there is a stark distinction between potentiality and actuality. It is not a matter of "geographic location," which means "a position [on] the Earth." It is a physical point ON Earth. A pregnancy is NOT on Earth. A pregnancy is WITHIN a human being, a female human being, obviously. Since only females (girls/women) can get pregnant.
"Degree of dependency
It is often opined that "as a fetus is reliant on a separate entity, it has no serious right to life”. This argumentation can be applied to all human beings."
>> No, it cannot. A pregnancy is NOT [a] human being. There is a difference between gestational development and biological development post birth. They are mutually exclusive levels of human maturation.
Your argued position is inherently BUNK!
>> Your arguments are so common, commonly debunked that is. Your legal analysis is lacking the requisite academic and/or professional experience in same.
I will just cut to the chase here (I am going to be blunt):
"Another document that ought be (sic) referred to is the principle of legal certainty, which stipulates
• The legal system needs to permit those subject to the law to regulate their conduct with certainty and to protect those subject to the law from arbitrary use of state power."
>> This alone proves the RIGHT of women to have access to the safe and available medical procedure of an abortion. As such, you contradict your own position.
"The differences between a fetus and a born baby is three fold. (sic)
• Level of development
• Environment
• Degree of dependency
I assert that these differences are insignificant in determining the moral agency of an individual. "
>> You clearly do not understand the meaning of the term, moral agency let alone individual. A zygote, blastocyst, embryo, unviable fetus and even a viable fetus has absolutely NO "moral agency" as "an individual." Neither possesses the ability to make ethical decisions based on what is right or wrong. Even a born baby fails to meet this criterion as well. So, this is an irrelevant argument since it can never be actualized on any level by either developmental level.
"Level of development"
>> *sigh* Your continued use of the term child, children, baby, etc. are all implicit [misnomers] in this debate. A zygote is NOT a baby/child. Neither is a blastocyst, embryo or unviable fetus. Nor is an unborn viable fetus.
The 14th Amendment makes it clear that the law, equal protection of the law, and all the rights and privileges thereto are NOT bestowed upon the pregnancy UNTIL that pregnancy is actualized through BIRTH. This is common knowledge not only in law, but also socially, culturally, and psychologically. In other words, social-psychology and cultural anthropology.
Moreover, gestational development isn't the same as physiological development. Cellular life (potentiality) does not equal personhood (actuality). Never has. Never will
"It is clear you are just a troll."
>> ROTFLMAO!! Thanks for proving you cannot refute anything I have put forth with actual emotional and intellectual intelligence. Since you are so fond of Merriam-Webster: "TROLL: to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content." NOTHING I have written in response to your leftist fantasy garbage was "inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive," but your entire argument and rebuttals meet that definition to the proverbial "T".
"I proved beyond any reasonable doubt ... "
>> Delusions of grandeur. You're a legend in your own mind, pal.
"Your refusal to accept basic semantic change in terms of "gender" or "woman" ..."
>> Thanks for affirming your denialism.
"Please be a troll on someone else's debate. There is no way you can be serious with arguments this terrible..."
>> You failed to disprove anything I've rebutted against you with. Your delusions of grandeur, fantasy island definitions, and psychological projection does not arise to evidence in support of your tripe.
"For one, abortion is immoral and shouldn't be done and you could argue that once it was legal but now it's illegal you can't and shouldn't try to justify baby murder."
>> Uh, abortion is not illegal. All SCOTUS did was reverse R v W and returned the matter to each state to decide on their own. Some states are outlawing it, most are not. So, your blanket statement is patently fallacious.
Morality is purely subjective and unless you are personally going to take up the mantel of responsibility and accountability for each child born to a girl or woman that they did not want, could not afford...then you have absolutely no say in making her your personal incubator.
"...and shouldn't try to justify baby murder."
*facepalm*
>> First and foremost, abortion is a safe medical procedure. Murder is a crime. Abortion does NOT = Murder. Period. Fact. Period.
Secondly, 94% of ALL abortions take place BEFORE 14 weeks gestation, the majority of those are before 6 weeks gestation. NO "baby" involved. Period. Fact. Period. The use of the term "baby" = appeal to emotion, and it is an implicit misnomer.
Third, less than 1.2% of all abortions are after 22-24 weeks (point of viability) and are done for medical necessity only. Even then, it is still not "murder." Murder only applies to one human being (already born, obviously) taking the life of another human being (already born, obviously) without just cause and done so with malicious intent and premeditation.
Your position falls flat on its face. Fail.
Well, I would argue that abortion should NOT be illegal. It is a medical procedure, and a safe one at that. What it is not, is an illegal heinous criminal act.
Fine. I stand corrected. I misspoke. What I meant to say, or thought was as written in my last comment. That it [is] used to promote terrorism, not that in and of itself Islam promotes terrorism. Apologies for not being clear.
Still not going to accept the challenge the way you are wording it. Nowhere did I say or infer Islam promotes terrorism. It doesn't and that isn't even the issue. The issue is the "extremists" that abuse Islam to suite their agenda, no differently than in any other religion. There will always be groups that pervert a religion in order to justify their violence in the name of their personified God. But that doesn't change the fact that terrorism does happen in predominately Muslim States.
https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/171017_Report_Islam%20and%20the%20-War_on_Terrorism_.pdf
Until you can properly present a well-worded title with a cogent description on a topic you believe I would disagree with you on, I am declining your latest challenge as there is nothing to debate. I agree. Islam doesn't "promote" terrorism, but it is used to effectuate it.
Where do I vote for you? You are winning the debate, hands down.
Not even going to repeat myself debunking your regurgitated fallacious arguments in that third response of yours. My 3-part reply to you stands as written. Nothing you have retorted with has discredited anything I've written. As far as I am concerned, this debate/discussion with you is over. Between your tunnel vision, lack of reading comprehension skills, continuous use of the strawman fallacy (among numerous others), and obvious penchant for the exhibited Dunning Kruger Effect establishes the fact that any further effort on my part would be a waste of my time and any measure of patience I have left beating a dead horse. It just won't get up.
Good day.
"Also semantic changes have happened instantly."
>> Nope. They do not magically appear in the dictionary or any other source. Applications are submitted. Those submissions are peer reviewed. Processes are followed. Rejections heard. Once finalized, then it happens. Nothing is instantaneous when it comes to the written word and their meanings. Change takes time.
"You literally just made up the idea that semantic changes need to happen gradually over time. There is literally no rule that states this."
>> Strawman. I never said those changes "[needs to happen]," and it is true.
-"The nature of semantic change
It is important to remember that semantic change is a gradual process. The meaning of a word doesn't just change in an instant, it can take many years."
//https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations/english/lexis-and-semantics/semantic-change/
"Also, just because a small population are trans, doesn't mean that only a small population agrees with the definition change of gender. In fact, their are more non-trans supporters of this change than there are non-trans detractors on the right. This is just an ad populum fallacy on your behalf anyway."
>> Still using terms you do not fully comprehend, thereby using them incorrectly via a strawman. I made no such fallacy, and you completely misconstrued what I wrote. You Sir (or Madam) are a dishonest person.
"Your argument is fallacious as you assume one has to be trans in order to agree with this semantic change. That does not follow."
>> I made no such argument or assumption. I leave the [ass]umptions to you and those like-minded as you.
"In conclusion? Both Webster and Oxford make it clear that gender can be referred to in terms of a social construct and psychology and don't have to by synonymous with biological sex. WM even has a definition of "woman" that says "a distinctly feminine nature", which one can have without being a biological female."
>> you're not comprehending what you're reading and misconstruing the definitions to fit your agenda.
"Thus, "trans women are women" is a valid claim in terms of gender and the resolution has been established."
>> Nope. You're still living on Fantasy Island.
>> Not only are you lacking in reading comprehension skills, but you also lack in debating skills. That is not an ad hominem, that is a fact-based observation. Conversing with you is like beating a dead horse. Just one strawman fallacy after another with cherry picked aspects of your opponent's comment(s) that you "think" you can easily rebut.
"I specifically cited one of Webster's dictionary definitions of "Woman" ("a distinctly feminine nature"). So to say I "did not" is just a blatant lie on your behalf. One word can have more than one meaning as WM clearly shows. Even if "an adult human female being" is completely valid in terms of biology in sex, it wasn't the only definition given in terms of psychology and gender."
>> In your initial reply to me you did NOT cite any such definition; and in your subsequent reply you cited it incorrectly. I am looking at MW (not WM) right now on the other monitor...and it clearly denotes that quoted phrase as being directly associated to "womanliness." What does that mean? Hmmm... qualities or state of being traditionally associated with [a] woman. It circles back to the term woman; and [the] definition of a woman is "an adult female person." All you are doing, have been doing, is making a fallacious semantics argument. That dog don't hunt. So again, you did not cite/use it correctly, you just made BS up to fit your agenda. Only one lying here is you, lying to yourself and everyone else you are engaging on this topic. And I already said, which is common knowledge, what a word means depends on the context in which it is used. You do not get to cherry pick a subsection and claim it as a catch all for your backwards agenda.
"Also, in the real world, you keep committing the Appeal To Tradition fallacy. This is a basic logical error. Maybe it isn't in fantasy land, but it is in reality."
>> No, I do not and no matter how many times you claim it will not make it any truer.
"It doesn't matter if sex and gender "have been" synonymous with each other, they are not now in 2022."
>> Yes, they still are. Just because liberals and the other loons have bastardized the definition doesn't make it fact-based reality. I bet you are a proponent of decriminalizing pedophilia and redefining it too, like many on the left have been moving towards bringing that slippery slope to fruition.
"Webster defines gender as "“the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex”. So if an adult biological male has psychological states typically associated with a female, then a woman would be their gender, just not their sex. It also doesn't matter if it is not THE main definition, as long as it is A definition then what I'm saying still holds."
>> I already debunked this. Not wasting my time repeating myself.
"MAIN doesn't mean ONLY."
>> I never said or implied that it did mean "ONLY."
"Oxford makes it clear that the term gender should be “considered with reference to social and cultural differences, NOT differences in biology” in their MAIN definition."
>> Should does not = must. There is nothing objective about their "suggestion," it's purely subjective in order to pander to others "feelings." Facts do NOT care about your feelings. Period.
"All you have done is just say "nuh uh your argument is fallacious" without actually explaining why it is fallacious besides crying "false equivalency" improperly on several occasions. Your argument contradicts basic dictionary definitions.""
Strawman fallacy. I have explained and in great detail. You just glanced over it and cherry-picked parts you thought you could rebut, but you failed. Epically.
My observation of your false equivalency fallacy is apropos, and your inference of me "crying" about it is rather sophomoric.
And the post I made with the debunking of the claims addresses the fact women typically tend to work in jobs that pay less, and why; thus, debunking the wage gap.
PART III
"Stop committing the Appeal To Tradition fallacy, and maybe we can get somewhere."
>> Stop making unsubstantiated allegations and false equivalency fallacies and yes, maybe we can get somewhere.
"Now, Webster defines gender as: "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"
>> *sigh* That is the subsection (b) of sub listing number 2. That is not [the] commonly understood meaning of the term. Subsection (a) defines it as "Sex sense 1a // the feminine gender" Hmmm... looks like gender is being associated to sex. Same as definition (2)(b) does too.
"So if an adult human biological male has the "typical psychological traits typically associated" with adult human biological females, then this person's gender would be woman BY DEFINITION, even if they are *NOT* a "woman" in terms of biological sex."
>> Wrong. While MW made a grammatical error in (2)(b) - "... associated with one (sic) sex," it is clear what was meant is "...one's sex." As such, anything "behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits" that are typically accepted as male are associated with the male sex, and same goes for female. Period.
"I'm sorry you are stuck in your outdated views, but in 2022 the term gender mostly refers to a social construct based on psychology."
>> And I am sorry you lack reading comprehension skills to properly understand that which you are reading and citing as evidence of your argument, albeit incorrectly (as in, it does not support your argument because you are not applying it correctly on any level). And no, the term gender does not "mostly refers (sic) to a social construct based on psychology." Not even in the slightest.
"No trans woman thinks they are biologically female. When they say they are a "woman", they mean psychologically in terms of gender and not sex."
>> LOL! If that were true, then there would be no need for them to enter spaces, sports, etc. specifically designed for biological females. And yet they invade all those spaces under the claim that they are just as much a woman as the rest of them (i.e., they are biologically a woman).
"In conclusion, since trans women are women psychologically in terms of gender, then they are woman in at least one sense of the term. This holds true even if they are not biologically women in terms of sex. Both meanings of the term "woman" are valid in their respective contexts."
>> In conclusion, your conclusion is patently fallacious since it was based on an equally patently fallacious premise.
"Therefore, I have self-evidently established the resolution. "Trans women are women" is valid claim in at least one sense (the sense in terms of psychology and gender). They just are not woman in terms of biology and sex."
>> You've established no such thing. What you have established is your penchant for the Dunning Kruger Effect.
"Oh and there is no wishful thinking argument on my behalf that is a straw-man fallacy committed by you."
>> It remains wishful thinking, and no strawman fallacy was committed. Try again.
>> "I am simply going off basic definitions ***given by the dictionary*** itself. It is no more wishful thinking than to define a "road" as "an open way for vehicles, persons, and animals especially"."
You incorrectly used the dictionary, more than once, and it remains wishful thinking, and you're grasping for straws and coming up short.
PART II
"Semantic changes are common in the English language, and you are committing the basic Appeal To Tradition fallacy by stating that because something has historically been a certain way, then that is the way it should remain. That is a basic logical error on your behalf. Slavery was common place for hundreds of years, should we have kept it? Just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it is the right way."
Yes, semantic changes do happen, but they occur gradually over time not in an instant. That is what the left and transgenders are trying to do, change meaning of words in an instant. That's not how it works. And society on the whole (i.e., the vast majority vs their 0.6-7% of the population) simply does not agree with their new fictional definition of a term solidified in history as meaning what it means. I am sure you are familiar with the saying that if we do not learn from our mistakes, we are doomed to repeat history again. Do you comprehend the meaning of that statement? Here is another one for you, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Both are rooted in what we learn and understand from history. So, if historically it has worked and there is nothing objective to contradict it, then it should remain intact as it is and commonly understood to be as. So no, I did not commit the fallacy you allege. Lastly, your comparison to slavery is an implicit false equivalency fallacy. We are discussing the meaning of [a] term (woman), not institutions like slavery. *facepalm*
"I gave a definition from the Webster dictionary that defines "woman" in terms of feminine characteristics and I expanded on it, and this definition had nothing to do with the person being biologically female."
>> Uh, no you did not. You did not cite it nor directly state you were using such a source for your given definition, which was obviously your personified version of it. Now you want to backpedal to the MW definition and claim you were using it? *facepalm* It's also clear you did not even look at the defined term MW provides for "woman." MW does NOT define woman "in terms of feminine characteristics," so you had nothing to expand on other than your obviously personified version of the actual definition given by MW. MW gives 6 meanings of the term depending on the context in which it is used, but [the] main definition is direct and clearly understandable (i.e. it is common knowledge): "an adult female person." That's it. No feminine characteristics.
"As far as the term "gender" goes, is not synonymous with "sex" or completely determined by sex in today's world."
>> In today's world? There is only one world today, yesterday, and tomorrow: the real world. Not Fantasy Island. And had you referred to MW on this term too, you would have seen a little history about gender and sex at the bottom that most certainly demonstrates how they have been synonymous with each other. I mean really, in order to know/understand what one's gender role(s) are in the real world, one must look at their sex to identify those roles.
"In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender). " - MW
>> Are the terms masculine/masculinity related to the sex female? Are the terms woman/girl related to the sex male? No, they are not. Not in the real world. Maybe on Fantasy Island, but not the real world.
"My argument is not that the "gender identity" paradigm has always existed, but that it is a linguistic innovation or paradigm which is internally consistent and which as its merits for the communities that adopt it."
>>Define 'internally' within the context you are using it here. My interpretation is the inference to internalizing is in direct relation to those within the "communities" (LGBTQ+). This presents the obvious dilemma remains...what's being internalized by the individual to mean whatever they desire it to mean whether or not it conforms with reality. And I would hardly call the fictional stuff coming from the T community linguistically innovative.
"The understanding in terms of chromosomes is of course historically recent, and so overall my argument is that the main function of identity categories such as gender is to organize people into social roles. In a context of increased access to abortion, increased participation from women in the workforce, and the changing nature of work due to communication technologies, the "social roles" are changing, and in my view this is the cause of the new paradigms for identity."
>>Ah yeah, I do not believe "increased access to abortion, increased participation from women in the workforce, and the changing nature of work due to communication technologies," has anything to do with the mental illness of gender dysphoria and the "we ought to define female in terms of sex as opposed to gender."
"It is a concept of identity in which people actively construct fluid social roles over time, just as they are e.g. able to change their job role much more commonly in the modern economy, and the two things are actually connected. There is no such strict division, for example, between the household and the workplace."
No, identity is not based on social roles over time or at any time. Identity is an internal thing inherent to the individual and their personal experiences in life. Identity is a component of psychology, not economics and professionalism. Also, please augment your claim that there is no such struct division between the household and the workplace. I do not want to guess what you're trying to say here.
OMG! Cherry picking one term in dismissing the entirety of my comment is absolutely ridiculous. Remove the why and the statement and that which follows is directly applicable to the debate. Also, if it does (or doesn't), the why (substantiating the burden of proof) comes into play you clown.
Intelligence_06, your reply is nothing short of sophomoric.
Why the Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth
Men are far more likely to choose careers that are more dangerous, so they naturally pay more. Top 10 most dangerous jobs (from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics): Fishers, loggers, aircraft pilots, farmers and ranchers, roofers, iron and steel workers, refuse and recyclable material collectors, industrial machinery installation and repair, truck drivers, construction laborers. They're all male-dominated jobs.
Men are far more likely to work in higher-paying fields and occupations (by choice). According to the White House report, "In 2009, only 7 percent of female professionals were employed in the relatively high paying computer and engineering fields, compared with 38 percent of male professionals." Professional women, on the other hand, are far more prevalent "in the relatively low-paying education and health care occupations."
Men are far more likely to take work in uncomfortable, isolated, and undesirable locations that pay more.Men work longer hours than women do. The average fulltime working man works 6 hours per week or 15 percent longer than the average fulltime working woman.
Men are more likely to take jobs that require work on weekends and evenings and therefore pay more.
Even within the same career category, men are more likely to pursue high-stress and higher-paid areas of specialization. For example, within the medical profession, men gravitate to relatively high-stress and high-paying areas of specialization, like surgery, while women are more likely to pursue relatively lower-paid areas of specialization like pediatrician or dentist.
Despite all of the above, unmarried women who've never had a child actually earn more than unmarried men, according to Nemko and data compiled from the Census Bureau.
Women business owners make less than half of what male business owners make, which, since they have no boss, means it's independent of discrimination. The reason for the disparity, according to a Rochester Institute of Technology study, is that money is the primary motivator for 76% of men versus only 29% of women. Women place a higher premium on shorter work weeks, proximity to home, fulfillment, autonomy, and safety, according to Nemko.
It's hard to argue with Nemko's position which, simply put, is this: When women make the same career choices as men, they earn the same amount as men. As far as I'm concerned, this is one myth that has been officially and completely busted. Maybe you should celebrate International Women's Day 2011 by empowering women with the truth instead of treating them like victims ... which they're not.
Update 3/18/11: A reader was kind enought to send me a link to "An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women" prepared, under contract, for the U.S. Department of Labor in 1/09: "This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/
Forbes article on a wage gap case thrown out: https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/06/06/dispelling-myths-about-the-gender-pay-gap/?sh=51fada0046fa
Description? Need a description. A title/topic isn't enough. Amend it. Please. And I will think about it.
"One term can have multiple meanings (this is called a homonym), thus there is no issue with biological males being women if by the term “women” we mean “women” *psychologically* and not *biologically*."
>> There is no un-liberalized (i.e. un-bastardized) term on earth that defines just "psychologically" for the meaning of what a woman is. Having said that, you are stating the obvious that words have multiple meanings, but those meanings are predicated on the context in which they are used and not how they are alike in spelling and pronunciation. So, no. You're wrong on this matter of linguistics.
"The resolution was trivially easy to establish, as it is self-evidently true in terms of gender (just not in terms of sex)."
>> Uh, no. It is not self-evidently true in terms of gender, or any made up perverted term for that matter.
Gender and sex are not mutually exclusive. Gender is predicated on sex, and sex is the defining factor of gender. Historically, and I mean historically, when a child was born and their sex was clearly delineated upon birth, each already had their path of who and what they are and what they were expected to do already set out before them. This obvious direction in life was rather apparent to the Vikings, Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, Muslims, so on and so forth. Any deviation in behavior and expectations innate to each sex/gender, they were then determined to be abnormal. This was common knowledge and accepted for centuries of our meager human existence on this planet until only recently when liberalism and wokeism sank its vampiric teeth into humanity.
"I am not disputing scientific fact here, ***only adult human females can only be women biologically. No matter how much a male mutilates genitals or feels feminine this male will never be a biological woman***."
>> Stating the obvious.
"We both agree there with the above, there is no dispute there. So when you say that is an established fact I agree! If you think I would ever disagree, you obviously haven’t been paying attention."
>>Oh, I have been paying attention. But your wishful thinking fallacy on what the term woman means is invalidated.
"Now, the point is, this person can be a woman psychologically, even if this person can never be a woman biologically."
No, they cannot. They think they can, but they cannot. It is psychologically impossible for a man to be an equal to a woman on the psychological level. The male brain will never be on par with a woman's brain and their respective innate emotions, thought process, level of being an introvert or extrovert, that mother instinct, and interpersonal communication skills, among so many other innate attributes of what a woman is in existence. So, you're wrong, again.
"Both meanings of the term “woman” are equally valid in their own contexts, just like both meanings of the term “cold blooded” are equally valid in their own contexts."
>>No, they are not. Maybe in your delusional fantasy land but not in reality (i.e. the real world).
"I only had to establish that trans women are women in *one* sense of the word not *every* sense of the word. Which I did…."
>>No, you did not.
There is nothing to debate in that new challenge, "Islam promotes terrorism" with you being pro for that statement...as I agree with it, Islam does promote terrorism. Declined again.
"1. Executing criminals costs more than keeping them alive."
And this is a problem, how? The government spends gross amounts of money on crap no one needs. They don't seem to care about that. Moreover, the government spends millions and billions by giving it to other lesser countries who will never ever pay us back. So, the cost of carrying out legit punishment for the most heinous of all felonious crimes is merely a drop in the bucket compared to all the other wasteful spending that the state and/or federal government tosses down the proverbial toilet.
"2. "Magic" proposes that life must be sacrificed for other life, if this is true it means that life is a means to a goal (in this case, the "justice" that Magic speaks of), but life is not it can never be a means, since the consequences of this are devastating, turning life into a means allows to end the life of others in certain circumstances and thanks to the flexibility of the law this allows the state to assassinate whoever it wishes, prisoners politicians for example."
This makes no sense. No sense at all. Can this be rephrased into something more cogent?
"3. I consider security against the state more important than against an individual, the state has more resources and power, so it is more difficult to make it pay any consequence for an unjust murder."
The individual is the state, for the state cannot exist without the individual (ie. the collective).
The last part about making "it" pay any consequence for an unjust murder makes no sense. This needs to be clarified. Unjust murder? Whose murder, and by whom, exactly? What makes such a murder, a murder and unjust?
"4. Legalizing the death penalty will result in the loss of innocent lives."
The death penalty is legal already in many states, and what loss of innocent lives do you speak of? No system on this planet is perfect, which is why the appeals process is very lengthy and costly to ensure no innocent inmate is executed. Nevertheless, there will always be an occasional unfortunate loss.
TWS: "Yes, culturally gender has been intrinsically a so-called "construct," but it does NOT negate the glaring physiological, biological and psychological FACT that men are men and women are women."
RBELVB: I have no idea what that means. How can gender be determined absolutely by biology if it is (or "has been") a cultural construct?
I seriously doubt the Vikings knew anything about social constructs, nor the Moors or even the Knights of the Templar Order. Males had their expected roles as well as women. That's just how it was and remained, men were men and women were women. Certain roles were expected: men were providers of security, shelter, so on and so forth. Women provided children, raised them, cooked, tended to the household needs. Men protected the women and children. Men protected the village, then the town, then the city and so on. No one questioned those expectations of either gender.
Honestly, I do not see gender as a social construct. It is innate. The term gender has always been intrinsically tied to biological sex. They are not mutually exclusive. Sex is the physiological and biological aspect while gender is the psychological. Mind and body are one, not separate. Sex and gender are one, not separate.
The description of the challenge you presented was illegible. Declined.
Way to demonstrate the classic strawman fallacy.
Suspension of disbelief is not different than denialism.
Potentiality does not equal actuality. Neve has. Never will.
No one knew anything about evolution, realistically, until Darwin made that discovery and addressed it.
Unknown knowledge becomes knowable. Which is precisely why much if Bible (written over thousands of years by hundreds upon hundreds of men with a scripted agenda) has been discredited.
Try agian.
The quotes were in direct contradiction to your proffered position. The stated argued position at hand.
I contradicted it. It is to you to retort and defend your claim(s). Ball is in your court. Do not project your inability to defend your argument upon me. I will not play that game.
"..and black and white as the ones you claim to be fools."
That makes no sense. You do not know me. You have no info to substantiate this tripe.
I am no fool. I never get into any discussion where I cannot bold my own. When people like you reply as you just did, that just demonstrates it is to you who are in over our head.
#DunningKrugerEffect
The fact that you cannot prove the existence of any deity you claim to exist is all the evidence I (we) need.
It is no different than trying to prove ghosts, poltergeists, etc. exist.
You are at a loss. Period. Fact. Period
Nice #intellectualcoward retort/thinking
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx?ref=patrick.net
Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot. (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah'). (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers. (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan)" The Arabic for the word "fight" is from qital, meaning physical combat.
Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks." (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle). (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (4:101) - "And when you (Muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salat (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you, verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies." Mere disbelief makes one an "open" enemy of Muslims.
Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense? (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" (See also: Response to Apologists)
There are plenty more
There is no God. You cannot prove the unprovable.
Especially when God, the monotheism version, was created out of a perversion of many gods.
The entire concept of religion and deities is man-made. Period.
Religion is the first best example of not only mass hysteria, bit also mass psychosis.
Any fallacious belief in an unknowing so-called God is a farce.
The Bible, Old and New Testaments are replete with one contradiction after another.
This whole sex vs gender debate is antiquated.
Gender is a basic synonym for sex. Period.
Yes, culturally gender has been intrinsically a so-called "construct," but it does NOT negate the glaring physiological, biological and psychological FACT that men are men and women are women.
I can no longer accept a man claiming to be a woman than I can a woman claiming to be a man. Moreover, any schizophrenic who claims to be King Arthur shall be deemed as such and given all the royalties due.
Get my drift!?!
Losing argument. The Quran is replete with abhorrent violence, hypocrisy, and totalitarianism. You lost before you began.
You simply cannot use a fallacious interpretation of a [concrete] term like, woman (women) that would in any way be equated to being [a] man (men) on ANY level of biology, physiology and/or psychologically. There is nothing for the contender to argue. It has been an established objective fact-based truth that women are women, and men are men (i.e., boys have a penis and women have a vagina and boobs).
The stark and intrinsic differences psychologically, physiologically, biologically and legally is paramount and cannot be simply whisked away by fancy semantics arguments that will not fly.
A biological man can never be a woman, and a biological woman can bever be a man. That is established fact-based reality on so many levels it isn't even, respectfully, funny!!!!!