MovieChat Forums > cyguration
cyguration (3894)
Posts
First Half Was Terrible, Second-Half Was Awesome; Iris Was Miscast
Let's be honest, most average women would love to be Choi's slave...
Why Was Wu Jing Depicted As Such A Beta Male In This?
Anyone feel John Cena and his subplot was more engaging than the main story?
Why Do Driving Movies Front-Load The Movie With The Best Chase Scene?
A surrealistic prequel to Falling Down....
Quintessentially 90s But Extremely Prescient
Started so strong but kind of petered out....
Fascinating film about the MPLA but it felt fractured...
Actual espionage...
View all posts >
Replies
<blockquote>But still not Christian. You asked specifically about countries that are not Christian.</blockquote>
Nope, I specifically asked for countries practicing majority non-monogamy that were as industrialised or as advanced as Judeo-Christian-based countries.
<blockquote>So you just assume that the Dead Sea Scrolls are the definitive oldest?</blockquote>
That's mostly what the carbon dating says.
<blockquote>Is this not a punishment imposed by law?</blockquote>
It's imposed to uphold productive cultural standards, no different than some punishments in various military bootcamps.
<blockquote>Should LGBT people, or people who are known to have been in a relationship with someone of the same sex, be flogged?</blockquote>
Only if they are engaging known activities or public displays that diminish the integrity of positive cultural standards.
<blockquote>Removed from a community by law?</blockquote>
Or prefects.
<blockquote>I thought you weren't in favour of imposing the state on people?</blockquote>
I said "could" and "certain". Not "all". Some rules need harsher penalties.
<blockquote> this is irrelevant if HE IS NOT A MORAL RELATIVIST. </blockquote>
Are you certain about this? Isn't this as bad as assuming his gender?
<blockquote>Turns out that there's no consensus amongst the supposed 'objective morality' audience over what constitutes good or bad regarding 'objective morality'.</blockquote>
There absolutely is.... the Ten Commandments.
<blockquote>You yourself can't even condemn the simple act of lying about other people.</blockquote>
I can only condemn what has been ascertained with irrefutable proof.
<blockquote>Although one could argue China as an example of a nation that surged in spite of it. It's never been majority Christian. Nor has most of the Middle-East, India etc.</blockquote>
Despite China not being majorly Christian, they are still extremely conservative and highly value monogamous, family-oriented cultural productivity. Even the Middle-East still focus on monogamy and polygyny, but obviously aren't nearly as industrialised as the Judeo-Christian nations. Even India frowns on anything that isn't based around non-monogamy, despite lacking a lot of basic infrastructural implementations.
<blockquote>Nowhere considers the dead sea scrolls as the definitive oldest, it seems.</blockquote>
Because they are not dated. Even your link only refers to the Sutra as the oldest "dated" book, not that it is the oldest book. There is a huge difference between the two.
<blockquote>What form would the "public shaming" take? What do you mean by "community outlawing"? A state ban?</blockquote>
Public whipping/flogging/humiliation chastisement. Outlawing in the form of banishment from the community. Municipality restrictions could be in the form of restricted access to State services or certain civil rights.
<blockquote>An individual choosing to be abusive doesn't have much to do with anything.</blockquote>
But according to moral relativism, you are choosing to see his conduct as abuse; perhaps he sees it as being inquisitive?
<blockquote>Are you proposing I support legislation that bans being rude online?</blockquote>
Absolutely not. Instead, if people supported objective moral standards, people would be taught to behave in ways that was conducive toward productivity -- or would you rather prefer people treat you in ways that you perceive to be abusive?
<blockquote>None, because of the prominence of Christianity across most of the western world.</blockquote>
There are countless cultures and tribes not associated with Christianity -- where are the modern industrialised societies built out of non-monogamous, pagan cultural trends?
<blockquote>
https://wiganlanebooks.co.uk/blog/interesting/10-of-the-oldest-known-surviving-books-in-the-world/</blockquote>
And hilariously, none of them are as old as the dead sea scrolls (the closest being the Estrucan tablets, which have nothing in them related to cultural standards or trends). Hence, the Bible is not only the oldest book out there but the only one that contains instructions for standards on life, including marriage.
<blockquote>If it doesn't carry criminal charges, then in what sense is it prohibited?</blockquote>
It can result in public shaming, community outlawing, or prohibitive access to civil municipalities.
<blockquote>And 18th century Britain did all kinds of horrible things that we'd reject now. So did early 20th century USA.</blockquote>
And that's precisely why modern society is imploding. Those "horrible things" were in place to protect the integrity of an expanding and progressive cultural society built on evolutionary productivity.
<blockquote>How can I "make peace"? I don't have to say anything to him. </blockquote>
So, what you're trying to say is that moral relativism without hard-line principles renders you susceptible to people utilising it to badger or mock or undermine your character? It's almost like if there were standards in place to enforce moral behaviours you wouldn't have that issue, no?
<blockquote>They also all have expansive LGBT rights.</blockquote>
Non-sequitur. That doesn't answer the question.
<blockquote>Why can't people doing a partnership make vows?</blockquote>
Anyone can make vows, but they don't mean anything if no one intends to maintain or uphold them.
<blockquote>No, the Bible is not the "first book ever published". Evidence please.</blockquote>
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/historical-timeline?locale=en_US
<blockquote>What's the practical difference between "outlawed" and criminalised? </blockquote>
Outlawed can mean something that is prohibited from being done but may not carry criminal charges. Fornication, non-monogamy, and hook-up culture should definitely be shamed/outlawed.
<blockquote> You're speaking, it seems about an ideal that has never really truly existed</blockquote>
I would say 18th century Britain came close, as well as 18th - early 20th century America also came close.
<blockquote>Do you think that is remotely honest, or moral conduct?</blockquote>
If you believe he is baiting you, then why not just make peace and disengage?
<blockquote>Psychosis is not a separate disease.</blockquote>
Not all forms of schizophrenia and psychosis are the same, nor do they affect people to the same degree, which is precisely why a lot of times medication is not always a good catch-all solution:
https://mentalhealth-uk.org/help-and-information/conditions/schizophrenia/types-of-schizophrenia/
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23012-psychosis
<blockquote>You can't think logically about everything else except your gender identity.</blockquote>
Correct. Most don't think logically about other things as well, which is precisely why it's an issue that needs diving deep into what led to them becoming illogical in their thinking, especially regarding their disassociation with their physiology.
<blockquote>Second, physiology does not define your gender identity. </blockquote>
Then how do you define what a woman is without referring to the terms "woman" or "female"?
<blockquote>It's called conversion therapy, has been practiced all over the world, is still actively practiced in developing countries and is harmful and ineffective.</blockquote>
HRT and mutilation surgery is physical conversion therapy, and you're right, no amount of it can change a man into a woman or a woman into a man.
<blockquote>There are other variations, actually, that demonstrate that sex and gender are more complicated than you think.</blockquote>
No, then they are simply not females. Mammalians as a species only come in two functional forms, and if the physiological requirements are not met, then they are not that form.
<blockquote>There's no reason to believe this is true</blockquote>
Which modern industralised nation has been built on a family structure that is not majority monogamous?
<blockquote>What is the difference in practice?</blockquote>
The upholding of vows.
<blockquote>I think the state should get out of marriage entirely.</blockquote>
We can both agree on this.
<blockquote>No reason to believe this whatsoever. Literal baseless unevidenced horseshit. </blockquote>
The Bible is the first book ever published, and represents the cultural cornerstone which chronicles man's guided ascent to establish the structural foundations for modern civilisation.
<blockquote>?Should I suggest that the endgame of intense Christianity are the many religious derived authoritarian dictatorships of Europe in the 20th century? </blockquote>
As you noted yourself, those were not built on the religious principles of Christianity, but the perversion of those principles specifically for authoritarian dictatorships, which actually goes against the very principles of what Jesus taught in the book they used to enact near-theocratic rule.
<blockquote>Can you tell me what "debauchery" should be criminalised? </blockquote>
Never said criminalised, but outlawed or shamed were the proper way about it in the past.
<blockquote>the population in Europe were on average more religious than they are now.</blockquote>
Yes, but the rulership(s) were still corrupt... or do you really think those autocrats ruled with religiously sound fervor (despite the attempted genocides/land grabs via war)?
<blockquote>Tell me what I've done anywhere that makes it reasonable to throw baseless accusations and suggestions at me about being a pedophile. </blockquote>
You need to find recourse in reasoning with him to understand what you did to cause such friction.
<blockquote>Did you actually click on the original thread I linked?</blockquote>
Yep, can't make heads or tails of that conversation.
<blockquote>It's either not psychosis, or the reason is not brainwashing</blockquote>
Not true at all, as your own link says, there are a multitude of variables that can lead to psychosis, just like someone with dementia will not immediately express symptoms associated with psychosis, but they can display symptoms associated both with psychosis and schizophrenia:
https://www.healthline.com/health/schizophrenia/schizophrenia-and-dementia
<blockquote>Please name symptoms of psychosis in transgender individuals.</blockquote>
* Trouble thinking clearly and logically.
<blockquote>please describe your treatment plan for transgender individuals other than the one developed by health care professionals.</blockquote>
Breaking down step-by-step the psychological pathogenesis that lead to them becoming cognitively detached from the functionality of their physiology.
<blockquote> They live as women their whole life despite being biologically male.</blockquote>
If you're talking about intersex who do not have underdeveloped or no ovaries/fallopian tubes, they are simply males. No ovaries/fallopian tubes means they are not female and cannot live as women, since they do not have female organs.
<blockquote>women in menopause with vaginal atrophy</blockquote>
Sure, but this is observed to be rare and sometimes happens because they are typically past the age of bearing children, and so their reproductive organs go into decline.
<blockquote>Which I don't regard as inherently harmful in itself.</blockquote>
Without marriage, there is no family unit, and without a family unit, you no longer have a cultural backbone for civilisation. Why do you not think that is harmful?
<blockquote>what difference does it make is an identical union just under a different name exists that gay people use?</blockquote>
Words have meanings. Without meanings the words mean nothing. Marriage is not interchangeable with civil unions, and are a holy matrimony -- civil unions are not holy. The better question is, why do you need or care about people adopting a religious matrimony if you don't think religiosity is important?
<blockquote>And the bible does not have a monopoly on the definition of marriage.</blockquote>
It does, actually. Other cultures have simply tried to adopt it.
<blockquote>I am making the point that intense christianity does not inherently, necessarily mean an anti-migration policy. </blockquote>
It's not just anti-imigration, it's also sociopolitical norms and basing state legality around religious standards. The erosion of that is what has seen so many forms of debauchery rise up in the aforementioned nations (albeit at different rates).
<blockquote>both wars that emerged in a much more highly religiously prominent environment with major states involved often having overt authoritarian religious governments.</blockquote>
There was nothing religiously motivated by the Bolsheviks nor the Czars that led to the impetus of those wars getting underway in certain regions.
<blockquote>Absolutely NOTHING I have ever done or said leads anyone to ask it reasonably. </blockquote>
That's your perspective, though.
<blockquote>Do you think it is moral to edit your post after the other user has replied to make it appear as if they are admitting to something they are not?</blockquote>
Depends on if the edit is for clarity.
<blockquote>no, brainwashing cannot lead to psychosis.</blockquote>
Yes it can:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isis-brainwashed-threeyearold-boy-kill-terror-saudi-emir-mother-a7237056.html
<blockquote>No disease can have only one symptom. Why antipsychotics don't help against psychosis?</blockquote>
If they don't think they are psychotic then then that's why anti-psychotics don't work. They need therapy.
<blockquote>neovagina is not a gaping wound.</blockquote>
That's precisely what it is, since men do not have open wounds for genitalia.
<blockquote>satisfied with hormone therapy and use of desired pronouns.</blockquote>
Then they are not changing genders, just disrupting their endocrine system and mental equilibrium.
<blockquote>in which female psychological gender is NOT defined by biological and physiological functionality</blockquote>
They still have ovaries and a uterus, but also malformed testes -- that is a small percentage that require corrective treatments for the natal organs.
<blockquote>The link says "page not found", though.</blockquote>
Try here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-02163-w#ref-CR3
<blockquote> The existence of this syndrome contradicts your previous statements</blockquote>
No, because those people aren't the ones who claim to be transgender.
<blockquote>What about cisgender women?</blockquote>
What percentage of women have to dilate?
I had rated this movie pretty high and I was shocked to find so many people did not like it. I remember when I first saw it years ago I thought it was an honest depiction of what it's like breaking up when two people actually love each other and are drawn to each other. But then again, I haven't seen this movie in decades, and maybe it doesn't actually hold up as well as I remember it. Oh well, it still gave me an interesting perspective on breaking up back during when I first watched it.
View all replies >