Trans Discussion Thread: Catgirls Don't Need Litterboxes

[Moroniland]

meh, go join the Waziris or the Amish.

I'm going to pretend this was an actually constructive suggestion, like, "Why don't you have each sect form their own intentional community such as the Amish have?"

This is something Christians (both Catholic and Protestant but especially the Catholics) discuss a great deal as a completely serious option (called "The Benedict Option" by some) because it is increasingly looking like some kind of total withdrawal from mainstream society along these lines is going to become necessary. The Amish receive special immunity from numerous U.S. laws simply because it is easier to allow them to continue their way of life than it is for the government to forcibly break up their communities. We might have to start forming much, much larger intentional communities similar to theirs.

The trouble is that the way the laws are currently written doesn't allow any new religions to start which can get the same deal as the Amish: you're only allowed that option if your religious community is older than the laws. And I seriously doubt very much that your tyrannical regime is going to open the gates for any intentional communities to legally form specifically for the purpose of keeping their children away from the indoctrination of your regime. That would defeat the whole purpose of your policy of controlling the whole country's public educational doctrines from Washington D.C.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

you're literally saying you want to force your moral beliefs on other people

That's what laws are. The only people who don't want that are anarchists.

how is that not a violation of freedom of religion?

Oh, it may very well be. But why is it wrong?

nobody is stopping you from practicing your religion.

Actually, you are. You see, a "religion" is different from a mere spirituality. It's possible to have spirituality without religion and even to have religion without spirituality. While no one infringes on my sense of spirituality, my ability to maintain a religion actually is seriously imperiled by my religious community's inability to indoctrinate their children to continue to support the religious community so that the the religious community will continue to survive. By making the public schools secular, you have effectively made the public schools atheist. So the religious community just to survive is now forced to pay taxes for atheist schools they don't use and then to pay for private schools on top of that. This financial burden, combined with the total domination of your belief system over mainstream popular culture, really is killing our ability to maintain a religion, because that requires maintaining a community.

You see, we've realized that we're losing. We can't stay with the liberal status quo because we are not surviving under it. We have to change or die and it is not going to be a change further in the same direction that's been killing us.

And by "my religious community" here I mean Christians in the Untied States generally, not my specific sect. And I mean actual Christians, not the fully infiltrated left wing mainline Protestant social clubs calling themselves Christians.

because it's wrong to force people to change their practices because you read a book about a magic guy who says that only certain types of arbitrary social constructs are okay and the rest will get you sent to magic bad place. you don't support islamic theocracy, do you?

so you would prefer children be taught your specific religious beliefs? why? what's so special about them that they must be taught to other people's children? if you don't want your children "taught atheism", why would atheist parents want their children taught your religion? schools don't make people atheist. if anything, they teach them how the universe works, which understandably makes them doubt religion. just send them to church or something, I don't care.

also, "I mean christians, not my sect. but only people who share my beliefs are christians" lol

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

dont care dont live in the hellscape that is america

[Moroniland]

That you think Christopher Columbus was a "scientific explorer" is a more damning indictment of your understanding of science than anything I could come up with. Oh, and no, accidentally finding something is not a scientific process, nor did Columbus personally further the field of science.

Dude discovered America. That's more significant than discovering a new planet because we can actually go there.

Do you think looking at Mars through a telescope is scientific but actually landing on Mars wouldn't be!?

It's really not.

It really is. You are loading a ton of controversial assumptions in metaphysics regarding existence, identity, anthropology and the free will vs determinism question into your statement, "LGBTQ+ people exist" Burying these assumptions with rhetoric doesn't actually take them away. I could manipulate terms to load in all kinds of assumptions like that into seemingly innocuous statements.

You can dislike the book all you want, but Atwood is a literary giant, and Oryx and Crake was extremely well received, both by critics and the public. It absolutely qualifies as great science fiction.

So was Ender's Game but you don't like talking about that one.

[Moroniland]

because it's wrong to force people to change their practices because you read a book about a magic guy who says that only certain types of arbitrary social constructs are okay and the rest will get you sent to magic bad place.

How many of the things you listed are essential properties and how many are accidental? Are there any things in this statement which you could drop to make it more general and still have it be true?

It just seems like a lot of angry rhetoric going on there which needs to be toned down before it can come out as a rational thought.

you don't support islamic theocracy, do you?

I support leaving the Islamic theocracies alone to be Islamic theocracies in their own lands as long as they don't invade our Christian lands.

so you would prefer children be taught your specific religious beliefs?

Everyone from a viable culture or civilization says yes to that. Any cultures or civilizations which say no to that don't survive. I mean that right there is just natural selection talking.

why?

Besides just being common sense for any culture or civilization that wants to not die, the specific command to train children is itself one of the beliefs in question. Proverbs says, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it"

You believe in education and that the education should reflect all your values the exact same way.

what's so special about them that they must be taught to other people's children?

Well first of all, they're true. People wouldn't believe things if they didn't think the things were true, would they.

Second, they're ours. You absolutely indoctrinate other people's children every chance you get so you have no moral high grounds from which to complain about this.

if you don't want your children "taught atheism", why would atheist parents want their children taught your religion?

There is an actual reason why atheist parents would want their children taught in religious schools and actually many atheist parents have done this. First, because private schools are able to maintain a higher-discipline environment and therefore higher academic standards. Second, because the atheist parents want their children to learn how to be able to thrive within a Christian community even if they personally aren't believers. And if we're going to be really honest, the third reason is because atheists are kind of stupid about how life in general works, especially when it comes to raising children.

schools don't make people atheist. if anything, they teach them how the universe works, which understandably makes them doubt religion.

You just contradicted yourself. Make up your mind.

also, "I mean christians, not my sect. but only people who share my beliefs are christians" lol

I recognize Christianity as being larger than my own sect but to exclude self-described "Christians" who promote sodomy and abortion because they are clearly infiltrators.

[Necroghastia]

That you think Christopher Columbus was a "scientific explorer" is a more damning indictment of your understanding of science than anything I could come up with. Oh, and no, accidentally finding something is not a scientific process, nor did Columbus personally further the field of science.

Dude discovered America.

No he didn't.

[Actually, you are. You see, a "religion" is different from a mere spirituality. It's possible to have spirituality without religion and even to have religion without spirituality. While no one infringes on my sense of spirituality, my ability to maintain a religion actually is seriously imperiled by my religious community's inability to indoctrinate their children to continue to support the religious community so that the the religious community will continue to survive. By making the public schools secular, you have effectively made the public schools atheist. So the religious community just to survive is now forced to pay taxes for atheist schools they don't use and then to pay for private schools on top of that. This financial burden, combined with the total domination of your belief system over mainstream popular culture, really is killing our ability to maintain a religion, because that requires maintaining a community.

if you have to "indoctrinate" children to maintain your religion then perhaps it shouldn't survive tbh
like you're basically admitting that your religion has no merits of its own here, you know?

[Moroniland]

if you have to "indoctrinate" children to maintain your religion then perhaps it shouldn't survive tbh

No. Education and indoctrination are synonyms. Education is indoctrination. Indoctrination is education. You get up in the morning, take the bus to school, doctrines get put in and then you take the bus home. That's what school is.

like you're basically admitting that your religion has no merits of its own here, you know?

No, I'm not saying that. I am merely saying that my own culture is not immune from the universal human requirement to educate/indoctrinate children.

[Necroghastia]

if you have to "indoctrinate" children to maintain your religion then perhaps it shouldn't survive tbh

No. Education and indoctrination are synonyms. Education is indoctrination. Indoctrination is education. You get up in the morning, take the bus to school, doctrines get put in and then you take the bus home. That's what school is.

This is so wrong that it's hard to come up with a response that isn't just "no." It's like claiming gravity works because it is powered by the collective spirits of the dinosaurs. It's just wrong.

like you're basically admitting that your religion has no merits of its own here, you know?

No, I'm not saying that. I am merely saying that my own culture is not immune from the universal human requirement to educate/indoctrinate children.

If you require indoctrinating children to survive then that means that your religion cannot survive because people find it to have merits of its own. You need people to not be exposed to other ideas so they only have yours to choose from. You are quite literally saying no adult person could look at your religion and think it has anything to offer unless they have been brainwashed from childhood into said religion.

Also, this is straying far from the thread topic.

[Moroniland]

If children can consent to gender reassignment surgery or hormone blockers for the purpose of transition then what else can children consent to?

[Moroniland]

This is so wrong that it's hard to come up with a response that isn't just "no." It's like claiming gravity works because it is powered by the collective spirits of the dinosaurs. It's just wrong.

I know you like to pretend that your culture's particular indoctrination is somehow inherently special and different from all the others but in reality, it isn't.

If you require indoctrinating children to survive then that means that your religion cannot survive because people find it to have merits of its own.

No culture does that: especially not modern science. This is a fantasy.

You need people to not be exposed to other ideas so they only have yours to choose from.

Right back at ya. For example, you don't want schools to present some kind of open debate about Creation vs Evolution and then have the students make up their own minds. You want the schools to teach evolution on the grounds that (you believe) evolution is true. Period.

You are quite literally saying no adult person could look at your religion and think it has anything to offer unless they have been brainwashed from childhood into said religion.

No, I'm saying that of course Christian parents should raise their children to be Christian. You don't believe in any free and open marketplace of ideas for children and it's dishonest to pretend that you do.

Also, this is straying far from the thread topic.

No, it really isn't. This is the topic. The disagreement about metaphysics and practical effects of our policy on this matter on the education of children are where the controversy lies.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You can teach "creationism" for all I care, just make sure to wall yourself in before you unleash a bacteria resistant to all known antibiotics because you thought evolution was fake news.

[Moroniland]

Maybe I should have instead said, "Indoctrination is education, except bad."

Education is when teacher says something you agree with. Indoctrination is when teacher says something you disagree with.

[Moroniland]

You can teach "creationism" for all I care, just make sure to wall yourself in before you unleash a bacteria resistant to all known antibiotics because you thought evolution was fake news.

I was real interested in the Creation vs Evolution debate when I was eight to twelve years old. I mean like in the actual science of it. But the more I actually looked into it, the more I began to realize that neither side was reasoning from the evidence. They both said they were, but in reality, they both preloaded a set of dogmas which guaranteed that they would interpret the evidence in such a way as to support their aims (which were ultimately political) no matter what scientific data was discovered. This was one of the things which led me on to study philosophy rather than natural science. The real root of the disagreement was always philosophy, not about ape skeletons or DNA.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You can teach "creationism" for all I care, just make sure to wall yourself in before you unleash a bacteria resistant to all known antibiotics because you thought evolution was fake news.

I was real interested in the Creation vs Evolution debate when I was eight to twelve years old. I mean like in the actual science of it. But the more I actually looked into it, the more I began to realize that neither side was reasoning from the evidence. They both said they were, but in reality, they both preloaded a set of dogmas which guaranteed that they would interpret the evidence in such a way as to support their aims (which were ultimately political) no matter what scientific data was discovered. This was one of the things which led me on to study philosophy rather than natural science. The real root of the disagreement was always philosophy, not about ape skeletons or DNA.

The more you post the more I sigh about the state of american education.

[Necroghastia]

I was real interested in the Creation vs Evolution debate when I was eight to twelve years old. I mean like in the actual science of it. But the more I actually looked into it, the more I began to realize that neither side was reasoning from the evidence. They both said they were, but in reality, they both preloaded a set of dogmas which guaranteed that they would interpret the evidence in such a way as to support their aims (which were ultimately political) no matter what scientific data was discovered. This was one of the things which led me on to study philosophy rather than natural science. The real root of the disagreement was always philosophy, not about ape skeletons or DNA.

The more you post the more I sigh about the state of american education.

There's only so much that can be done about those that refuse to listen, tbf.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

because it's wrong to force people to change their practices because you read a book about a magic guy who says that only certain types of arbitrary social constructs are okay and the rest will get you sent to magic bad place.

How many of the things you listed are essential properties and how many are accidental? Are there any things in this statement which you could drop to make it more general and still have it be true?

It just seems like a lot of angry rhetoric going on there which needs to be toned down before it can come out as a rational thought.

you don't support islamic theocracy, do you?

I support leaving the Islamic theocracies alone to be Islamic theocracies in their own lands as long as they don't invade our Christian lands.

so you would prefer children be taught your specific religious beliefs?

Everyone from a viable culture or civilization says yes to that. Any cultures or civilizations which say no to that don't survive. I mean that right there is just natural selection talking.

why?

Besides just being common sense for any culture or civilization that wants to not die, the specific command to train children is itself one of the beliefs in question. Proverbs says, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it"

You believe in education and that the education should reflect all your values the exact same way.

what's so special about them that they must be taught to other people's children?

Well first of all, they're true. People wouldn't believe things if they didn't think the things were true, would they.

Second, they're ours. You absolutely indoctrinate other people's children every chance you get so you have no moral high grounds from which to complain about this.

if you don't want your children "taught atheism", why would atheist parents want their children taught your religion?

There is an actual reason why atheist parents would want their children taught in religious schools and actually many atheist parents have done this. First, because private schools are able to maintain a higher-discipline environment and therefore higher academic standards. Second, because the atheist parents want their children to learn how to be able to thrive within a Christian community even if they personally aren't believers. And if we're going to be really honest, the third reason is because atheists are kind of stupid about how life in general works, especially when it comes to raising children.

schools don't make people atheist. if anything, they teach them how the universe works, which understandably makes them doubt religion.

You just contradicted yourself. Make up your mind.

also, "I mean christians, not my sect. but only people who share my beliefs are christians" lol

I recognize Christianity as being larger than my own sect but to exclude self-described "Christians" who promote sodomy and abortion because they are clearly infiltrators.

all I needed to say was "because it's wrong to force people to change their practices because you read a book about a magic guy", but I thought I would highlight just how arbitrary supporting straight marriage but not gay marriage is. I'll tone it down whenever you stop trying to force your religious beliefs on everyone else. side note, please don't play the victim when you're advocating for your group to have total control of the government.

so why is your culture superior to any others? what about a culture necessitates its continued existence? why is your culture better than another in a concrete way?

I don't support indoctrinating anyone with anything. I support teaching people established facts and letting them come to their own conclusions. some things are established facts. God is not one of them.

there's so much nonsense in this paragraph I don't even know where to start.
atheist parents don't send their children to religious schools. that's not a thing that happens.
discipline does not only exist in christian schools.
disciplined != smart
why would an atheist care about their child understanding how to "thrive in a Christian community", whatever that means
what the hell? atheists are apparently stupid because they don't blindly except a book that says magic is real and some guy created everything for fun? what is this logic?

schooling does not directly make you atheist. schools don't teach that religion is fake and bad. schools educate you on how the world works. this education has a tendency to cause doubt in religion.

Christianity is a religion that believes in God and Christ. people don't stop being Christian because they don't share your specific beliefs.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

discipline

You mean Kadavergehorsamkeit?

[Czardas]

Education is when teacher says something you agree with. Indoctrination is when teacher says something you disagree with.

At some point in the last decade+ this apparently became a dead-serious argument on NSG rather than an amusing rhetorical device by political satirists.

[Esalia]

So if your definition of LGBTQ+ acceptance is acknowledging LGBTQ+ people exist, I would say no age limit.

Existence is a question of metaphysics and our educational system generally doesn't do metaphysics until at least freshman college level. Are you trying to change that to get metaphysical questions like existence introduced into the curriculum earlier?

You do understand that pretty much every education system makes statements on existence way before university, right?

Like, concepts like "evolution exists", "gravity exists", "particular ethnic groups exist" are taught way before university.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

So if your definition of LGBTQ+ acceptance is acknowledging LGBTQ+ people exist, I would say no age limit.

Existence is a question of metaphysics and our educational system generally doesn't do metaphysics until at least freshman college level. Are you trying to change that to get metaphysical questions like existence introduced into the curriculum earlier?

what???
“there are people who are this way” does not require any understanding of metaphysics. just like “‘A’ is the first letter” requires no understanding of metaphysics. this is possibly the most bizarre paragraph I’ve read on this thread yet.

[Page]

Just gonna point out that little children do actually engage with metaphysical thought. They learn to understand the difference between real life beings and imaginary beings, what it means to play pretend, etc.

But if you're approaching from an angle in which the existence of LGBTQ people is an open question, you're basically at the brink of doubting the existence of elephants. You're getting hella abstract.

[Ifreann]

Hilarious the excuses being reached for, just to avoid children learning simple facts about the society they live in. Very silly ideas, trying very, very hard to appear intelligent.

[Mettaton-EX]

You can teach "creationism" for all I care, just make sure to wall yourself in before you unleash a bacteria resistant to all known antibiotics because you thought evolution was fake news.

I was real interested in the Creation vs Evolution debate when I was eight to twelve years old. I mean like in the actual science of it. But the more I actually looked into it, the more I began to realize that neither side was reasoning from the evidence. They both said they were, but in reality, they both preloaded a set of dogmas which guaranteed that they would interpret the evidence in such a way as to support their aims (which were ultimately political) no matter what scientific data was discovered. This was one of the things which led me on to study philosophy rather than natural science. The real root of the disagreement was always philosophy, not about ape skeletons or DNA.

sounds like perhaps you should have continued to engage with the science at later ages instead of just sticking with a conclusion only an eight-to-twelve-year-old could draw

[Moroniland]

all I needed to say was "because it's wrong to force people to change their practices because you read a book about a magic guy"

Why is that wrong? Who says?

but I thought I would highlight just how arbitrary supporting straight marriage but not gay marriage is.

"Gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms.

I'll tone it down whenever you stop trying to force your religious beliefs on everyone else.

Most people, both historically and globally today, are religious and want their government to support their religion. So any democratic government of course immediately becomes a religious government in most places. What you're really saying here is that you're anti-democracy.

side note, please don't play the victim when you're advocating for your group to have total control of the government.

Why not? You do it all the time.

so why is your culture superior to any others?

We have no common standards of value from which to establish a common understanding on that question.

I don't support indoctrinating anyone with anything. I support teaching people established facts and letting them come to their own conclusions. some things are established facts. God is not one of them.

Liar.

atheist parents don't send their children to religious schools. that's not a thing that happens.

That is in fact a thing that happens in private schools sometimes.

discipline does not only exist in christian schools.

Sure, but how does that contradict what I said?

disciplined != smart

Sure, but the relatively higher discipline of private schools does tend to result in higher academic achievement and that includes Christian private schools. That's why rich people send their children to private schools and sometimes they choose Christian private schools just because they're the best schools nearby. And to be fair, Christian private schools are able to maintain a higher discipline environment through the threat of expulsion, which is a threat that public schools can't make or at least not as much, not necessarily through having a superior philosophy.

why would an atheist care about their child understanding how to "thrive in a Christian community", whatever that means

It means what it says.

what the hell? atheists are apparently stupid because they don't blindly [accept] a book that says magic is real and some guy created everything for fun? what is this logic?

No, atheists are stupid because (among other reasons) they believe or at least pretend to believe in a free and open marketplace of ideas for children and that's a deeply stupid idea. To be fair, it is a reasonable idea for adults, but for children, it is a deeply stupid idea and cannot be consistently maintained for even a moment of dealing with real children.

schooling does not directly make you atheist. schools don't teach that religion is fake and bad.

Well of course not. They teach that other people's religions which disagree with your religion are fake and bad.

Christianity is a religion that believes in God and Christ. people don't stop being Christian because they don't share your specific beliefs.

Leftist doctrines are anti-Christian and ultimately misanthropic.

[Moroniland]

Just gonna point out that little children do actually engage with metaphysical thought. They learn to understand the difference between real life beings and imaginary beings, what it means to play pretend, etc.

But if you're approaching from an angle in which the existence of LGBTQ people is an open question, you're basically at the brink of doubting the existence of elephants. You're getting hella abstract.

No, I'm just saying that LGBTQ+ people are playing pretend.