Trans Discussion Thread: Catgirls Don't Need Litterboxes

[Moroniland]

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.

Children aren't going to be able to avoid finding out all about sodomy in a world that has Disney and Nickelodeon. But the environment in which one socializes makes a great difference in the role of schools as formative institutions to determine what kind of people they turn out at graduation.

[Malphe II]

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.

It's a pretty common tactic to throw these arguments to such silly hypothetical grounds hoping people won't bother to follow your inane ramblings the distance, that way you can feel victorious. I'm tired of humouring it, I can enjoy pointless discussions but only insofar as they're not this reductionist >.>

[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.

It's a pretty common tactic to throw these arguments to such silly hypothetical grounds hoping people won't bother to follow your inane ramblings the distance, that way you can feel victorious. I'm tired of humouring it, I can enjoy pointless discussions but only insofar as they're not this reductionist >.>

Yeah I'm tired of humoring it too but I figured I owed a decent contribution to this thread after my self-centered rambling about questioning my cis-ness a few pages back.

[The Blaatschapen]

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.

Elephantastic beasts and where to find them is unfortunately written by someone that is trans-exclusionary.

[Armeattla]

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.

I don't think you know what "secular" means. In germany we have a school system that is technically secular, but we still have religious lessons - one class for Roman Catholics, one class for Lutheran Evangelic Protestants and one class of "Werte und Normen" (ethics and norms), or Philosophy later on, for anyone who doesn't want the two former classes (we still had more religious people in said class than there were explicit atheists and agnostics).
Secular doesn't mean "Atheist" - Secular means not specifically religious, and especially not ecclesiastical. Many very religious societies still have secular institutions.

And your religion is in no danger at all. Atheists make up only 12% of the american population, which is even less than Germany's 16%. A vast majority of the US are still religious - while many are not rabidly fundamentalist as your kind, they still are religious.


Also you should probably let the "metaphysicism" spiel be.
All you are doing is the pedantic misuse of a dead philosophy which tried to do what science did, but from the comfort of a philosopher's armchair.

[Moroniland]

I don't think you know what "secular" means. In germany we have a school system that is technically secular, but we still have religious lessons - one class for Roman Catholics, one class for Lutheran Evangelic Protestants and one class of "Werte und Normen" (ethics and norms), or Philosophy later on, for anyone who doesn't want the two former classes (we still had more religious people in said class than there were explicit atheists and agnostics).
Secular doesn't mean "Atheist" - Secular means not specifically religious, and especially not ecclesiastical. Many very religious societies still have secular institutions.

Two points to make about this:
1. In the educational system of the United States, which I was addressing, secular does mean atheist. Religious teaching is not integrated into U.S. public schools in this way. If it was, then I wouldn't be justified in saying secular means atheist in this context, but it isn't, so I am.
2. In Germany, public education is compulsory because the Nazi regime passed a law against homeschooling because they feared the ability of parents to homeschool children with ideas that disagreed with the state and the anti-Nazi regime which followed kept the same law on the books for the same reason.

And your religion is in no danger at all. Atheists make up only 12% of the american population, which is even less than Germany's 16%. A vast majority of the US are still religious - while many are not rabidly fundamentalist as your kind, they still are religious.

That's changing and no, actually, the danger is real.

Also you should probably let the "metaphysicism" spiel be.
All you are doing is the pedantic misuse of a dead philosophy which tried to do what science did, but from the comfort of a philosopher's armchair.

You are here addressing a subject on which you are not reasonably informed.

[The V O I D]

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.

Congratulations, I'm sure all the scientific research that disagrees with you just spontaneously combusted and got disproven automagically.

Oh. Wait.

[Indomitable Friendship]

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.

Alright, I'm going to have to bite on this one and the notion that "gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms.

What are non-heterosexuals pretending about and how is gay marriage illegitimate to you?

[Aggicificicerous]

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!?

So first, he did not discover America. He made Europe as a whole aware of its existence. He was significant, but that doesn't make it a scientific discovery. And no, landing on Mars is not inherently scientific. Science is a method for examining the world. Even 500 years ago, people understood it was about experimentation. Columbus did nothing scientific on his own, which is why he isn't studied in science class. He's studied in history or social studies. Just a colossal, perhaps intentional, misunderstanding of science by you because you were hoping to start an argument over whether or not Columbus was a good guy.

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.

As you finish college and get into the real world, you may find people less impressed with classroom pedantry than you imagined. This is one such instance. We teach children countless things without having to get into the metaphysics of what they are. There's no difference in teaching them that straight and gay people people exist. Getting into the debate of 'how do we know if something is real' can be applied to anything, but it's only gay people that merit your feeble attempt at a metaphysical analysis. Are we also going to teach children about the metaphysics of heterosexuality? Do straight people exist? If that seems absurd, it's because it is.

Your double standard invalidates everything you've said because it's clear you're making the distinction between straight and LGBTQ+ based on ethics, not metaphysics.

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

I've never read Ender's Game, but your constant assumptions about what I like or dislike are pretty funny. I generally prefer talking about books I dislike rather than books I like because it's more interesting to go into why a book bothered or disappointed me.

[Malphe II]

Yeah I'm tired of humoring it too but I figured I owed a decent contribution to this thread after my self-centered rambling about questioning my cis-ness a few pages back.

! That's what this thread is for! Self-centred rambling is how you figure things out, there's no better purpose for this thread than accommodating people on that & there's def no shame in it.

[The V O I D]

General reply: first of all, the First Amendment explicitly forbids the establishment of any religion or religious law. It is as much a protection against religion or religious law as it is also protection for religious people against their religions being banned or whatever else.

You wanting to believe otherwise doesn't change the text, nor any SCOTUS rulings that, y'know, explicitly agree with the text. LGBTQ+ people exist, they deserve all the rights of any other individual, and if you don't like it, you can leave. No one's forcing you to stay here. No one's gonna stop you from leaving. Have a lovely time trying to impose your garbage elsewhere. Giving people equal rights and equal protections under the law does not ban your religion from existing, either.

And some of the shit you're spewing is eerily similar to the people who claimed religion says slavery ought be legal, or interracial marriage ought be illegal; fuck that noise, thank you very much, and cease perpetuating it.

But guess what? I sincerely doubt you're going to find what you're looking for anywhere else, seeing as the only theocracies in the world are Islamic in origin and pretty much every non-theocracy is secular and has secularity enshrined into their laws or Constitution to some degree or another.

One other tiny detail you might've missed: marriage law is an institution of the state. As such, it can be defined by the state, regardless of how any singular religion defines marriage. Therefore, gay marriage is as real as straight marriage, because the state recognizes it as such. You can be as pedantic as you want, does not change this essential fact. The state defines what marriage is according to its laws; religions do not own the concept, nor word, nor title, nor rights and privileges that marriage grants.

What the state can do is as follows: define what it views as marriage, what rights/privileges are ascribed to married people for being recognized as married, etc.

By the same token, your 1A also forbids the state from banning religious marriage. Oh, certainly, if the state decided to not recognize any marriages at all or ascribe any special status to them, it could. It cannot ban religious ceremonies nor people calling themselves married according to their religion. See, there's where the separation of church and state comes into play, protecting both from one another - ain't that neat?

[Armeattla]

I don't think you know what "secular" means. In germany we have a school system that is technically secular, but we still have religious lessons - one class for Roman Catholics, one class for Lutheran Evangelic Protestants and one class of "Werte und Normen" (ethics and norms), or Philosophy later on, for anyone who doesn't want the two former classes (we still had more religious people in said class than there were explicit atheists and agnostics).
Secular doesn't mean "Atheist" - Secular means not specifically religious, and especially not ecclesiastical. Many very religious societies still have secular institutions.

Two points to make about this:
1. In the educational system of the United States, which I was addressing, secular does mean atheist. Religious teaching is not integrated into U.S. public schools in this way. If it was, then I wouldn't be justified in saying secular means atheist in this context, but it isn't, so I am.
2. In Germany, public education is compulsory because the Nazi regime passed a law against homeschooling because they feared the ability of parents to homeschool children with ideas that disagreed with the state and the anti-Nazi regime which followed kept the same law on the books for the same reason.

And your religion is in no danger at all. Atheists make up only 12% of the american population, which is even less than Germany's 16%. A vast majority of the US are still religious - while many are not rabidly fundamentalist as your kind, they still are religious.

That's changing and no, actually, the danger is real.

Also you should probably let the "metaphysicism" spiel be.
All you are doing is the pedantic misuse of a dead philosophy which tried to do what science did, but from the comfort of a philosopher's armchair.

You are here addressing a subject on which you are not reasonably informed.

Even the lack of religious lessons doesn't mean that schools are atheist. They are atheist if they teach atheist contents - and if that happened the religious fundamentalists would be all over it in no time.

Homeschooling was technically turned illegal in 1919 with the introduction of the Weimarer Verfassung (Weimar constitution). It was superceded in 1938 by the Reichsschulpflichtgesetz.

The first article is about people leaving church- that doesn't mean they stopped being religious. "Dissidents" and "Unaffiliated" are still religious.

Same can frankly be said for you. Especially in this place.

[Indomitable Friendship]

General reply: first of all, the First Amendment explicitly forbids the establishment of any religion or religious law. It is as much a protection against religion or religious law as it is also protection for religious people against their religions being banned or whatever else.

You wanting to believe otherwise doesn't change the text, nor any SCOTUS rulings that, y'know, explicitly agree with the text. LGBTQ+ people exist, they deserve all the rights of any other individual, and if you don't like it, you can leave. No one's forcing you to stay here. No one's gonna stop you from leaving. Have a lovely time trying to impose your garbage elsewhere. Giving people equal rights and equal protections under the law does not ban your religion from existing, either.

And some of the shit you're spewing is eerily similar to the people who claimed religion says slavery ought be legal, or interracial marriage ought be illegal; fuck that noise, thank you very much, and cease perpetuating it.

But guess what? I sincerely doubt you're going to find what you're looking for anywhere else, seeing as the only theocracies in the world are Islamic in origin and pretty much every non-theocracy is secular and has secularity enshrined into their laws or Constitution to some degree or another.

One other tiny detail you might've missed: marriage law is an institution of the state. As such, it can be defined by the state, regardless of how any singular religion defines marriage. Therefore, gay marriage is as real as straight marriage, because the state recognizes it as such. You can be as pedantic as you want, does not change this essential fact. The state defines what marriage is according to its laws; religions do not own the concept, nor word, nor title, nor rights and privileges that marriage grants.

What the state can do is as follows: define what it views as marriage, what rights/privileges are ascribed to married people for being recognized as married, etc.

By the same token, your 1A also forbids the state from banning religious marriage. Oh, certainly, if the state decided to not recognize any marriages at all or ascribe any special status to them, it could. It cannot ban religious ceremonies nor people calling themselves married according to their religion. See, there's where the separation of church and state comes into play, protecting both from one another - ain't that neat?

Literally this, it's extremely agitating that some people think they can monopolize the concept of marriage to the exclusion of all others. Nobody has the ultimate authority on human relationships, including any particular religion.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

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.

it’s wrong because it infringes in basic rights and freedoms. it coerces people into something they don’t want to do for no good reason other than “my culture good, your culture bad”. that is bad. coercion being bad is not a controversial belief. this really isn’t hard.

“Gay marriage” is not an oxymoron, and even if it is it doesn’t matter. marriage is an arbitrary arrangement anyway, and painting marriage with one group good and the other bad for no concrete reason is dumb.

I don’t think people should be able to force their culture on other people just because there are more people in that culture. I think minority groups should be protected. you’re advocating for suppression of these minorities. you can stop people from forcing their religion on people that without stopping democracy. you can elect candidates that support policies christians like, but you can’t enforce belief in christianity.

for a christian theocracy to succeed, it would need to be totalitarian. I support having representatives of ideologies I support in the government, but I don’t think democracy should be abolished to do that.

that’s an interesting way of avoiding saying why you think you’re better than everyone else. perhaps it’s because you don’t have a good reason.

there is no solid evidence of God. there is solid evidence of gravity.

rarely.

atheist parents would rather send their students to non-christian schools that have discipline.

I’m just going to slap a big [citation needed] on the whole first part of that paragraph.
as for the second part, that’s pretty messed up.

what is so fundamentally different about a christian community that you must learn how to be in it? and why would an atheist care about learning to thrive in a christian community?

what’s stupid about that?

oh jeez, it’s one of these “atheism is a religion” arguments. no, it doesn’t say that christianity or any other religion is wrong. if teaching people known facts makes them stray from your religion, maybe you should examine why that is.

then explain all the leftist christians.

[Moroniland]

So first, he did not discover America. He made Europe as a whole aware of its existence.

That's what discovery means.

landing on Mars is not inherently scientific.

But being the first ones to do it pretty much is.

As you finish college and get into the real world, you may find people less impressed with classroom pedantry than you imagined.

I thought it was the right wing who was supposed to be anti-intellectual. Maybe I should switch sides.

There's no difference in teaching them that straight and gay people people exist.

I disagree. Accepting the existence of this distinction between people says volumes about what people are, (what it means to be a person) especially if you then go on to deny the distinction between male and female. This loads in a huge number of assumptions would have been laughed out of the room in previous ages and still are outside the American empire.

Are we also going to teach children about the metaphysics of heterosexuality?

Actually, yes. It's called free will. You do have a choice (that's metaphysics) and therefore you are responsible for your actions. (that's ethics)

Do straight people exist?

No, they do not exist. "Straight" is a ridiculous idea made up by gay activists.

Since I don't believe in the existence of sexual orientation, I of course can't believe in one sexual orientation more than another.

[The V O I D]

-snip-

Ah, so I can deny the sky is blue and call it whatever I want regardless of scientific or other observational data to the contrary, and I am just as correct as you are in this moment with every word you just said. And if I unveil this and get people to accept it, I discovered the sky was a color no one knew about.

Good to know! Thanks for clarifying this, I had no idea this is how the world worked.

[Armeattla]

Do straight people exist?

No, they do not exist. "Straight" is a ridiculous idea made up by gay activists.

Since I don't believe in the existence of sexual orientation, I of course can't believe in one sexual orientation more than another.

Which is in itself also a ridiculous and disproven claim.
Scientists have observed (and are still observing) in animals sexual behaviours which are pretty much that what we call "sexual orientation".
Including heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality...

[Czardas]

Yeah I'm tired of humoring it too but I figured I owed a decent contribution to this thread after my self-centered rambling about questioning my cis-ness a few pages back.

! That's what this thread is for! Self-centred rambling is how you figure things out, there's no better purpose for this thread than accommodating people on that & there's def no shame in it.

That actually makes more sense. I knew this site was transphobic, I just didn't expect that it would have become official site policy to have an entire thread dedicated to forcing queer and trans people to interact with people who think the concept of gender was invented by Joseph Stalin and Theodor W. Adorno in 1946 or whatever.

[Vassenor]

So first, he did not discover America. He made Europe as a whole aware of its existence.

That's what discovery means.

landing on Mars is not inherently scientific.

But being the first ones to do it pretty much is.

As you finish college and get into the real world, you may find people less impressed with classroom pedantry than you imagined.

I thought it was the right wing who was supposed to be anti-intellectual. Maybe I should switch sides.

There's no difference in teaching them that straight and gay people people exist.

I disagree. Accepting the existence of this distinction between people says volumes about what people are, (what it means to be a person) especially if you then go on to deny the distinction between male and female. This loads in a huge number of assumptions would have been laughed out of the room in previous ages and still are outside the American empire.

Are we also going to teach children about the metaphysics of heterosexuality?

Actually, yes. It's called free will. You do have a choice (that's metaphysics) and therefore you are responsible for your actions. (that's ethics)

Do straight people exist?

No, they do not exist. "Straight" is a ridiculous idea made up by gay activists.

Since I don't believe in the existence of sexual orientation, I of course can't believe in one sexual orientation more than another.

TIL "heterosexuality" is a myth.

[Adamede]

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.

Children aren't going to be able to avoid finding out all about sodomy in a world that has Disney and Nickelodeon. But the environment in which one socializes makes a great difference in the role of schools as formative institutions to determine what kind of people they turn out at graduation.

lol

What fucking planet are you on where Nickelodeon and Disney have fulfilled the roles of Pornhub?

[Armeattla]

TIL "heterosexuality" is a myth.

Freudian Binormativity.

[Auzkhia]

TIL "heterosexuality" is a myth.

Freudian Binormativity.

Alfred Kinsey has entered the chat.

Children aren't going to be able to avoid finding out all about sodomy in a world that has Disney and Nickelodeon. But the environment in which one socializes makes a great difference in the role of schools as formative institutions to determine what kind of people they turn out at graduation.

lol

What fucking planet are you on where Nickelodeon and Disney have fulfilled the roles of Pornhub?

The State of Moral Panics.

[Saiwania]

What fucking planet are you on where Nickelodeon and Disney have fulfilled the roles of Pornhub?

I've viewed what Disney is offering the little kids nowadays, and it really is full of bad/warped stuff. There are fortunately, alternatives.
This one looks promising: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jooCHar4f-I

[Ifreann]

What fucking planet are you on where Nickelodeon and Disney have fulfilled the roles of Pornhub?

I've viewed what Disney is offering the little kids nowadays, and it really is full of bad/warped stuff.

What a fascist thinks is warped is probably good and wholesome.

[Vassenor]

What fucking planet are you on where Nickelodeon and Disney have fulfilled the roles of Pornhub?

I've viewed what Disney is offering the little kids nowadays, and it really is full of bad/warped stuff. There are fortunately, alternatives.
This one looks promising: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jooCHar4f-I

Warped how to the point where PragerU Indoctrination is preferable?