Ohio Transwoman killed, called "Satan"

[United Marxist Nations]

Science cannot inform morality. Morality can only come (I think) from religion. Irreligious people can act morally, but they would be doing so by pure accident.

Science can however serve to temper morality, by showing when morality is flawed, and where morality causes harm and detriment to people in society, as well as show when the 'moral' way is ineffective at producing a mutually desired result.

Also, to be honest, morality can exist without theology. Social conventions and traditions can exist independent of religion.

You are mistaking what I am saying. I am saying that there is no such thing as good or bad without a supreme being or force in the universe. Anything else would be purely arbitrary and nonsensical. Science could only show that morality is flawed if it was capable of observing morality, which it is absolutely not able to.

[Noraika]

Science can however serve to temper morality, by showing when morality is flawed, and where morality causes harm and detriment to people in society, as well as show when the 'moral' way is ineffective at producing a mutually desired result.

Also, to be honest, morality can exist without theology. Social conventions and traditions can exist independent of religion.

You are mistaking what I am saying. I am saying that there is no such thing as good or bad without a supreme being or force in the universe. Anything else would be purely arbitrary and nonsensical. Science could only show that morality is flawed if it was capable of observing morality, which it is absolutely not able to.

Actually it can. We actually do it quite often. Its not difficult. Morality may be metaphysical in nature, but its practice and effects are observable factors.

For example, if a morally-based practice is having effects upon people in society, which creates a variety of clearly observable and objectively damaging results, or which said results can be directly connected to, than it can be observed scientifically that said aspect or practice of the morality is causing harm and detriment to people in society.

In addition, comparison of method can show observation as to when the 'moral' way is ineffective at producing a mutually desired result.

[United Marxist Nations]

You are mistaking what I am saying. I am saying that there is no such thing as good or bad without a supreme being or force in the universe. Anything else would be purely arbitrary and nonsensical. Science could only show that morality is flawed if it was capable of observing morality, which it is absolutely not able to.

Actually it can. We actually do it quite often. Its not difficult. Morality may be metaphysical in nature, but its practice and effects are observable factors.

For example, if a morally-based practice is having effects upon people in society, which creates a variety of clearly observable and objectively damaging results, or which said results can be directly connected to, than it can be observed scientifically that said aspect or practice of the morality is causing harm and detriment to people in society.

In addition, comparison of method can show observation as to when the 'moral' way is ineffective at producing a mutually desired result.

That requires the assumption that causing harm or detriment is bad. Which is an independent moral assertion.

[Sanctissima]

Science can however serve to temper morality, by showing when morality is flawed, and where morality causes harm and detriment to people in society, as well as show when the 'moral' way is ineffective at producing a mutually desired result.

Also, to be honest, morality can exist without theology. Social conventions and traditions can exist independent of religion.

You are mistaking what I am saying. I am saying that there is no such thing as good or bad without a supreme being or force in the universe. Anything else would be purely arbitrary and nonsensical. Science could only show that morality is flawed if it was capable of observing morality, which it is absolutely not able to.

Yeah... no. I realize you're Orthodox, but you're basically using Aquinas' Argument from Degree to explain why morality can't exist without God. That's complete BS. A person develops a set of morals through experience, knowledge and thought. A deity is by no means required for morality to exist.

[Noraika]

Actually it can. We actually do it quite often. Its not difficult. Morality may be metaphysical in nature, but its practice and effects are observable factors.

For example, if a morally-based practice is having effects upon people in society, which creates a variety of clearly observable and objectively damaging results, or which said results can be directly connected to, than it can be observed scientifically that said aspect or practice of the morality is causing harm and detriment to people in society.

In addition, comparison of method can show observation as to when the 'moral' way is ineffective at producing a mutually desired result.

That requires the assumption that causing harm or detriment is bad. Which is an independent moral assertion.

Not especially. We can interpret the results as bad, but scientifically all the findings refer to in the end is 'what is the result, if any, of this practice?' or 'what effects, if any, can be tied to this belief?' The method implied only states what is the case without, as much as possible, delving into any moral or assumptive qualities.

It is only after these studies are made, and after they are published, that we then move on to ask 'in light of these findings, what should be our response, if any?'. Some are very and especially challenging, difficult and controversial, but others are rather simple, and based in secular and religious morality shared universally among modern people.

[United Marxist Nations]

That requires the assumption that causing harm or detriment is bad. Which is an independent moral assertion.

Not especially. We can interpret the results as bad, but scientifically all the findings refer to in the end is 'what is the result, if any, of this practice?' or 'what effects, if any, can be tied to this belief?' The method implied only states what is the case without, as much as possible, delving into any moral or assumptive qualities.

It is only after these studies are made, and after they are published, that we then move on to ask 'in light of these findings, what should be our response, if any'. Some are very and especially challenging, difficult and controversial, but others are rather simple, and based in secular and religious morality shared universally among modern people.

Then we have gotten nowhere. We've talked in circles for nothing.

You are mistaking what I am saying. I am saying that there is no such thing as good or bad without a supreme being or force in the universe. Anything else would be purely arbitrary and nonsensical. Science could only show that morality is flawed if it was capable of observing morality, which it is absolutely not able to.

Yeah... no. I realize you're Orthodox, but you're basically using Aquinas' Argument from Degree to explain why morality can't exist without God. That's complete BS. A person develops a set of morals through experience, knowledge and thought. A deity is by no means required for morality to exist.

So, then, aren't all people's morality equally valid?

[Sanctissima]

Yeah... no. I realize you're Orthodox, but you're basically using Aquinas' Argument from Degree to explain why morality can't exist without God. That's complete BS. A person develops a set of morals through experience, knowledge and thought. A deity is by no means required for morality to exist.

So, then, aren't all people's morality equally valid?

No, not in the slightest. It may all be subjective, but that doesn't make them all equally valid, whether they come from personal experience or a holy book.

[Noraika]

Not especially. We can interpret the results as bad, but scientifically all the findings refer to in the end is 'what is the result, if any, of this practice?' or 'what effects, if any, can be tied to this belief?' The method implied only states what is the case without, as much as possible, delving into any moral or assumptive qualities.

It is only after these studies are made, and after they are published, that we then move on to ask 'in light of these findings, what should be our response, if any'. Some are very and especially challenging, difficult and controversial, but others are rather simple, and based in secular and religious morality shared universally among modern people.

Then we have gotten nowhere. We've talked in circles for nothing.

Perhaps, but allow me to return to the original question, which is closer to our topic. Casting aside the questions of whether science can or cannot evaluate morality.

When morality results in measurably negative and damaging qualities and results within society, which are very clearly able to be interpreted as detrimental to society and the people within it, in that they cause objectively observable damage to people, or negatively impacts their health or well-being, does morality still stand on top irregardless of its damaging effects, in this instance?

[United Marxist Nations]

So, then, aren't all people's morality equally valid?

No, not in the slightest. It may all be subjective, but that doesn't make them all equally valid, whether they come from personal experience or a holy book.

How can they not all be equally valid if it is subjective? If they are not equally valid, then there must be an objectively correct option, which means it is not subjective.

[Vassenor]

Question: what makes your morality objectively superior to any other? Aside from whwt you claim as provenance.

[United Marxist Nations]

Then we have gotten nowhere. We've talked in circles for nothing.

Perhaps, but allow me to return to the original question, which is closer to our topic. Casting aside the questions of whether science can or cannot evaluate morality.

When morality results in measurably negative and damaging qualities and results within society, which are very clearly able to be interpreted as detrimental to society and the people within it, in that they cause objectively observable damage to people, or negatively impacts their health or well-being, does morality still stand on top irregardless of its damaging effects, in this instance?

Yes, absolutely.

[United Marxist Nations]

Question: what makes your morality objectively superior to any other? Aside from whwt you claim as provenance.

I have already said, there is no other way that there can be morality, so either it is true, another system is true, or no system is true (the latter option meaning my morality, while not being correct, is by no means bad).

[Noraika]

Perhaps, but allow me to return to the original question, which is closer to our topic. Casting aside the questions of whether science can or cannot evaluate morality.

When morality results in measurably negative and damaging qualities and results within society, which are very clearly able to be interpreted as detrimental to society and the people within it, in that they cause objectively observable damage to people, or negatively impacts their health or well-being, does morality still stand on top irregardless of its damaging effects, in this instance?

Yes, absolutely.

Even if it possibly could lead to, or be directly linked to, the death of an individual, or severe damage to a person's mental well-being?

[United Marxist Nations]

Yes, absolutely.

Even if it possibly could lead to, or be directly linked to, the death of an individual, or severe damage to a person's mental well-being?

Yes. Though suicide is also, in this view, immoral as a separate act.

[Noraika]

Even if it possibly could lead to, or be directly linked to, the death of an individual, or severe damage to a person's mental well-being?

Yes. Though suicide is also, in this view, immoral as a separate act.

Allow me to say I appreciate your honesty. That's not an easy thing to admit to.

So when your morality could very easily lead to something which is immoral, or directly cause it, how do you cope with that, or rationalize it? Legitimate curiosity on my part here.

[Husseinarti]

Source

Columbus, Ohio police are investigating the death of 28-year-old Rae'Lynn Thomas, who was shot and killed by her mother's ex-boyfriend, who lived with her family at the time, according to WBNS.

Thomas' mother, Renee Thomas, shared her daughter's final words with local news:

"Mom, please please don't leave me. Mom, I'm dying," she said. "Mom, I love you. Tell my sisters and my brother I love them. Tell my family I love them. Mom, I'm dying, I'm dying, please don't leave me."

Renee Thomas said her daughter transitioned 10 years ago. Rae'Lynn's aunt, Shannon Thomas, said Rae'Lynn was a performer who was dedicated to fashion.

According to Renee Thomas, her ex James Allen Byrd was transphobic and often called Rae'Lynn "the devil." Renee Thomas says Byrd repeated the word before shooting Rae'Lynn in their Columbus home.

"He was in the bedroom and he just came around the corner and shot my [daughter]," she said. After two shots, Byrd grabbed Rae'Lynn and began beating her.

[continued in article]

This is yet another murder of a transperson in the United States, making it nearly 20 in 2016 alone. Anyone who says transpeople just want attention, don't need equality, can wait, or that identity politics is the greatest ebul ever....rethink your positions. It ignores things like this.

Thoughts NSG?

I mean no. I'm going to think that its a mental disorder and said people need to seek help in assistance in transitioning and general mental therapy to assist in accepting who they are. Its not a bad thing, having a disorder isn't bad, and vilifying calling it a disorder only discriminates against others who have disorders and live with that.

Of the 700,000~ ish people who are transgender (The number is probably higher), 20 were killed. Are these people who were killed outright for being transgender or murdered in general? I'll give you being killed for being transgender. That gives a transgender person roughly a 1:35,000 chance of being killed in the United States.

There are roughly 37,000,000 blacks living in the United States. In 2011, round 2,900 to 3,000 blacks were killed (Of which, nearly 2,500 were in cases of black-on-black). You know what that gives us? A rate of a bit over 1:13,500~ change of being killed as a black man. You have a 1:63,000 chance of being murdered as a white person (White privilege!) in the United States. The only other better racial group to be is probably Asian-Americans, who have a much, much lower crime rate in general which can take thanks from the US immigration policies.

You have a better chance of getting murdered as an African American (By your own race) in the US than being murdered for being transgender.

Is it bad that this person was murdered? The fuck yes it is. I can't conceive why someone could ever taking another life over something some retarded as "Hey mentally I believe I am a woman/man inside a man's/woman's body, help." is any justification for a murder. However spotlighting this stuff and going on about how "Deadly it is to be a transgender in the Islamist States of Allah-merica" because it'll only deter people from coming out and seeking help as they'll fear physical oppression or it will remove the legitimacy of the overall transgender movement.

I'm of the opinion that Transgenderism is a mental illness, but these people didn't choose to be born that way. Even if it was something people did for attention, they don't deserve death.

I'm of the opinion that you don't know what mental illness is.

I'm of the opinion you don't know what anything you talk about is. Sorry that facts make you feel bad. Why is why Is Transgender an identity thats supposed to be considered normalized but Anorexia a disorder?

[Sanctissima]

No, not in the slightest. It may all be subjective, but that doesn't make them all equally valid, whether they come from personal experience or a holy book.

How can they not all be equally valid if it is subjective? If they are not equally valid, then there must be an objectively correct option, which means it is not subjective.

Subjectivity simply means that a moral value is not necessarily objective. That is to say, it doesn't necessarily have to have a utilitarian purpose. A moral being subjective does not by any means determine whether it is right or wrong.

Sure, the decision process determining whether something is right or wrong usually comes down to personal opinion, but then again, some peoples' opinions are better informed and wiser than others. For example, one might have the morally subjective opinion that ritual human sacrifice must be performed every month to please the gods. One would therefore be an idiot.

[Vassenor]

Source



This is yet another murder of a transperson in the United States, making it nearly 20 in 2016 alone. Anyone who says transpeople just want attention, don't need equality, can wait, or that identity politics is the greatest ebul ever....rethink your positions. It ignores things like this.

Thoughts NSG?

I mean no. I'm going to think that its a mental disorder and said people need to seek help in assistance in transitioning and general mental therapy to assist in accepting who they are. Its not a bad thing, having a disorder isn't bad, and vilifying calling it a disorder only discriminates against others who have disorders and live with that.

Of the 700,000~ ish people who are transgender (The number is probably higher), 20 were killed. Are these people who were killed outright for being transgender or murdered in general? I'll give you being killed for being transgender. That gives a transgender person roughly a 1:35,000 chance of being killed in the United States.

There are roughly 37,000,000 blacks living in the United States. In 2011, round 2,900 to 3,000 blacks were killed (Of which, nearly 2,500 were in cases of black-on-black). You know what that gives us? A rate of a bit over 1:13,500~ change of being killed as a black man. You have a 1:63,000 chance of being murdered as a white person (White privilege!) in the United States. The only other better racial group to be is probably Asian-Americans, who have a much, much lower crime rate in general which can take thanks from the US immigration policies.

You have a better chance of getting murdered as an African American (By your own race) in the US than being murdered for being transgender.

Is it bad that this person was murdered? The fuck yes it is. I can't conceive why someone could ever taking another life over something some retarded as "Hey mentally I believe I am a woman/man inside a man's/woman's body, help." is any justification for a murder. However spotlighting this stuff and going on about how "Deadly it is to be a transgender in the Islamist States of Allah-merica" because it'll only deter people from coming out and seeking help as they'll fear physical oppression or it will remove the legitimacy of the overall transgender movement.

I'm of the opinion that you don't know what mental illness is.

I'm of the opinion you don't know what anything you talk about is. Sorry that facts make you feel bad. Why is why Is Transgender an identity thats supposed to be considered normalized but Anorexia a disorder?

We're doing the whataboutism again?

[United Marxist Nations]

Yes. Though suicide is also, in this view, immoral as a separate act.

Allow me to say I appreciate your honesty. That's not an easy thing to admit to.

So when your morality could very easily lead to something which is immoral, or directly cause it, how do you cope with that, or rationalize it? Legitimate curiosity on my part here.

Some people can crack under pressure. We are flawed beings. I can't lie and say I am pure. Hell, I've attempted suicide before.

Keeping that in-mind, I would prefer if someone committed a sin they could take back, rather than one they don't have the chance to (of which suicide is one).

[United Marxist Nations]

How can they not all be equally valid if it is subjective? If they are not equally valid, then there must be an objectively correct option, which means it is not subjective.

Subjectivity simply means that a moral value is not necessarily objective. That is to say, it doesn't necessarily have to have a utilitarian purpose. A moral being subjective does not by any means determine whether it is right or wrong.

Sure, the decision process determining whether something is right or wrong usually comes down to personal opinion, but then again, some peoples' opinions are better informed and wiser than others. For example, one might have the morally subjective opinion that ritual human sacrifice must be performed every month to please the gods. One would therefore be an idiot.

Or, they would think that you're an idiot for disapproving of human sacrifice. Can you give a reason why human sacrifice is wrong?

[Sanctissima]

Subjectivity simply means that a moral value is not necessarily objective. That is to say, it doesn't necessarily have to have a utilitarian purpose. A moral being subjective does not by any means determine whether it is right or wrong.

Sure, the decision process determining whether something is right or wrong usually comes down to personal opinion, but then again, some peoples' opinions are better informed and wiser than others. For example, one might have the morally subjective opinion that ritual human sacrifice must be performed every month to please the gods. One would therefore be an idiot.

Or, they would think that you're an idiot for disapproving of human sacrifice. Can you give a reason why human sacrifice is wrong?

Indeed they would, but they'd be wrong.

Even if there were bloodthirsty gods and monthly human sacrifice was necessary to avoid the fiery wrath of Quetzalcoatl, it would still be morally wrong, since doing so would be killing innocent people in a very barbaric fashion. Even if it were necessary to avoid the apocalypse, it would still be morally wrong.

Either way, as it turns out, there are no bloodthirsty gods, so it's all an effort in futility.

[Noraika]

I mean no. I'm going to think that its a mental disorder and said people need to seek help in assistance in transitioning and general mental therapy to assist in accepting who they are. Its not a bad thing, having a disorder isn't bad, and vilifying calling it a disorder only discriminates against others who have disorders and live with that.

Of the 700,000~ ish people who are transgender (The number is probably higher), 20 were killed. Are these people who were killed outright for being transgender or murdered in general? I'll give you being killed for being transgender. That gives a transgender person roughly a 1:35,000 chance of being killed in the United States.

There are roughly 37,000,000 blacks living in the United States. In 2011, round 2,900 to 3,000 blacks were killed (Of which, nearly 2,500 were in cases of black-on-black). You know what that gives us? A rate of a bit over 1:13,500~ change of being killed as a black man. You have a 1:63,000 chance of being murdered as a white person (White privilege!) in the United States. The only other better racial group to be is probably Asian-Americans, who have a much, much lower crime rate in general which can take thanks from the US immigration policies.

You have a better chance of getting murdered as an African American (By your own race) in the US than being murdered for being transgender.

Is it bad that this person was murdered? The fuck yes it is. I can't conceive why someone could ever taking another life over something some retarded as "Hey mentally I believe I am a woman/man inside a man's/woman's body, help." is any justification for a murder. However spotlighting this stuff and going on about how "Deadly it is to be a transgender in the Islamist States of Allah-merica" because it'll only deter people from coming out and seeking help as they'll fear physical oppression or it will remove the legitimacy of the overall transgender movement.

I'm of the opinion that you don't know what mental illness is.

I'm of the opinion you don't know what anything you talk about is. Sorry that facts make you feel bad. Why is why Is Transgender an identity thats supposed to be considered normalized but Anorexia a disorder?

Unfortunately your premise is misinformed. The main reason is that, while Gender Dysphoria may, having a transgender gender identity is not cause enough, nor does it fulfill the requirements of, a mental illness or disorder, as most people do not find their gender identity itself to be a problem, but rather the incogruence between gender identity and sex when it exists. I know that sounds nit-picky, but medicine is very nit-picky, and there is a difference in medicine and treatment depending on what is considered to be disorderly (the in-congruence vs the identity itself).

Gender Dysphoria is not a mental disorder. The overwhelming majority of transgender people seek mental health treatment first, in fact its usually required before transitioning, and not only are practices aimed at 'accepting who they are' (which is counter-productive because they are the gender they identify as, so it would actually do the opposite) are not only considered medically unethical due to their negative results and effects, but also completely and utterly ineffective.

Murder is only a single aspect of it all, and points to a much broader issue. The rate of (verbal, physical, and sexual) harassment, rape, assault, discrimination (employment, housing, medical care), abuse, lack of access to facilities, et cetera, is extremely high in the transgender population in comparison to the general population. Also it isn't immune to the factor of race either. If you're a coloured transgender person you're also going to face a disproportionate amount of violence even in comparison to transgender people in general (so its exhorbitantly high).

Note: the current estimate is around 1% of the population is TGNC (Transgender Non-Conforming)

[United Marxist Nations]

Or, they would think that you're an idiot for disapproving of human sacrifice. Can you give a reason why human sacrifice is wrong?

Indeed they would, but they'd be wrong.

Even if there were bloodthirsty gods and monthly human sacrifice was necessary to avoid the fiery wrath of Quetzalcoatl, it would still be morally wrong, since doing so would be killing innocent people in a very barbaric fashion. Even if it were necessary to avoid the apocalypse, it would still be morally wrong.

Either way, as it turns out, there are no bloodthirsty gods, so it's all an effort in futility.

Why would it be morally wrong?

[Noraika]

Allow me to say I appreciate your honesty. That's not an easy thing to admit to.

So when your morality could very easily lead to something which is immoral, or directly cause it, how do you cope with that, or rationalize it? Legitimate curiosity on my part here.

Some people can crack under pressure. We are flawed beings. I can't lie and say I am pure. Hell, I've attempted suicide before.

Keeping that in-mind, I would prefer if someone committed a sin they could take back, rather than one they don't have the chance to (of which suicide is one).

Still...what of when your morality is directly connected to why a person commits suicide, or what if it is a major contributing factor? If your morality plays a direct role in why a person commits an immoral action, or is severely damaged in their emotional and mental well-being, and morality is the reason behind immorality, how is that something you rationalize?

[Sanctissima]

Indeed they would, but they'd be wrong.

Even if there were bloodthirsty gods and monthly human sacrifice was necessary to avoid the fiery wrath of Quetzalcoatl, it would still be morally wrong, since doing so would be killing innocent people in a very barbaric fashion. Even if it were necessary to avoid the apocalypse, it would still be morally wrong.

Either way, as it turns out, there are no bloodthirsty gods, so it's all an effort in futility.

Why would it be morally wrong?

Both because it is an effort in futility and causes unnecessary suffering. And, even with the mindset in mind, it equates to worshiping gods who do not deserve to be worshiped.