Transsexual Toilet Trouble

[Beskar]

[Continued.]

So, as a teenage boy you didn't spend a lot of your time looking at teenage girls? We used to call it "bird watching" at College, and we did it pretty much every free period. We were, at that time, still technically "children". Hardly something I'm proud of, but then children tend to have poorly developed empathy - which is why they are capable of such cruelty.

Wait for it.. I got a really good reply this one after in the next quotation. [Cue suspense, wanton anticipation. A cliff-hanger.]

As for the children, I wasn't really discussing Teenagers as they are developing their earlier experiences. I am making references to Jane Elliott's famous experiment school children.
Video from 03/26/85 with original footage. (WATCH THIS - Very Good)
Here is an article on the experiment. It is a really big insight on Social Construction of identities.


On reflection, I should probably clarify my experience in Social Construction and Identity work. I have a MSc in Social Psychology with my thesis discussing 'faces' we use in personal and private realms in regards to phenomena such as Group Polarisation, with me performing an qualitative study with 4 groups, 2 topics of Morality (Heinz dilemma, War in Afghanistan), where participants adopting more extreme positions (risky-shift) within the group. I am not randomly talking out of my ass even if I am lazy in my explanations on the topic.

Really? You're the one who claims not to spend his time looking at girls - isn't that more prudish?

On the discussion where you bring up the topic of sexual orientation (as a crux against me), you failed to consider my own. Would you really accuse a gay man of being a prude for not spending his time looking at girls? [insert smiley here]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Don't worry, I don't identify as homosexual either. I am a Demisexual.
So in reply to your other comment, it isn't because I am no longer a teenage boy either. I didn't have it back then either. Oh, it is a royal a pain in the behind when it comes to relationships.

I never said that you were necessarily unable to be a good person without believing in God, I said that it was impossible to be a good person "without God" because without a Divine arbiter there's no way for Good and Evil to be distinguished.

This ties in with my disclosure 'on reflection' either where I alluded to Kohlberg's stages of moral development in the use of the Heinz Dilemma. I embrace human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism as driving forces behind morality and decision making. I find this viewpoint significantly superior and to borrow your word, sophisticated than Cloud-Guy "Making it so". You can easily see why I easily find myself identifying with the Secular Humanism movement. (even if you classify it as absurd.)

As you know, I was raised in a church environment. I used to know the bible like the back of my hand. I was very well thought of in my church community and I even keep touch with people from there still. I even got an 'adoptive' grandmother that still to this day gifts with me home-baked cookies (she is great). I have deep respect for those individuals even if we don't share beliefs.
As an intelligent child growing in their teen-age years, I asked questions and I was always left wanting, I remember my Sunday teacher once going: "That is wrong because it is wrong" Me:"But why?" Them:"You should know better than that." This grow worse as I grew older, as I found myself challenging and being challenged for views I could not support. I saw homosexuals being mistreated, people in need of help being shunned due to being 'desperate in the wrong way'. I even saw sexual abuse by 'good men', yeah, it is not just in newspaper over there in the middle of no where, it happens right under your nose.
I was even stigmatised heavily against by my devout catholic (and overall horrible person) Religious Studies teacher for being the 'wrong kind of Christian'!

It is no wonder I am an apostate, the religion is a lie. Means of control over the masses. Don't get me wrong, spirituality is an important aspect to a person, but you don't need religion to have that. You find receive it in other ways.

Right, conflating Devon and Cornwall will get you two black eyes in a rural pub in both counties. The two sides can't even agree on how to have tea and scones, and when a National Trust property posted an advert in Cornwall with it the "wrong" way they received threats of boycott and even, irrc, violence, that caused them to issue an abject grovelling apology. Now, if you don't like me telling you that I'm sorry, but I see no reason to sugarcoat it - and I see no reason not to criticise you for trying to downplay regional differences which two regions consider essential to their identity.

I have absolutely no issue with you telling me about Cornish and Devon identities. I personally find the concept to be intriguing, I am happy for you to tell me more about it and listen intently.
The problem was, I wasn't conflating those identities but you repeatedly insisted at the time that I was. This is despite my explanations that I wasn't even discussing identities.

See - this is the gap between the world you think other people want and the world other people actually want, and it's why I find your dream so objectionable. You probably think the Cornish and Devonians should "get on" right? They don't want to though, and the only way they will is if you force them, either directly or by erasing their local identities.

You can exchange "Cornish" and "Devonians" with pretty much any other identity. Though I disagree that you need to erase their local identities. Modify them? Possibly. I am not one for stagnation.

Never read that thread, in case you were wondering

Everyone wished you well, including myself. ACIN even said fondly about how his first post on the Org was in response to you (and how you trashed him in your reply after!).

my dislike of you caused me to miss the last year or so of Fragony's life. That's a sin for which I can never atone and therefore I shall have to carry to my grave.

A sin? You are definitely taking far too much responsibility upon your shoulders!

This is Fragony! Bas! He is the live life loose and fast without a care in the world. Life of the party. A good heart even if some of his views are misplaced. He would be pleasantly mocking you for making such a statement. All he would want you to do is not worry about him and live your life to the fullest.

As far as "burying the hatchet" goes, I've found that rarely works and in any case you haven't changed in any way that would make such an exercise meaningful, and nor have I.

Well, I am burying regardless. Because I am a forgiving person and I dislike disliking people.

Have you considered applying a smiley if the joke doesn't have an obvious punch line?

The definition of dry humour is that it doesn't have an obvious punch-line. I also tend to have a quality of doing it without a forced intention.

In this case though, you're mocking me, which is something you should only do with someone you know has a good opinion of you and your character

I am not mocking you. I am 'throwing a spanner in the works' of your slippery-slope with some healthy ridicule. You need tp detach yourself from your statements if you took my comment personally.

An example [only an example] of insulting you as a person would be saying if I am the Federation of Plants, you are Gilead. [Now, this is only for example purposes to demonstrate. Not intended as a personal attack.]

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[Continued.]

Wait for it.. I got a really good reply this one after in the next quotation. [Cue suspense, wanton anticipation. A cliff-hanger.]

[Philip has no useful comment here but felt that this part needed to be broken off]

As for the children, I wasn't really discussing Teenagers as they are developing their earlier experiences. I am making references to Jane Elliott's famous experiment school children. Here is an article on the experiment. It is a really big insight on Social Construction of identities.

OK, well I'm talking about my experience of being a teenager, and also my experience of having to help coral them in the ACF. They'd literally be off in the bushes up to all sorts if we were enclosed in a camp for more than three days. It's actually a miracle there weren't more sexual assaults now that I think about it.

Maybe we were just good at terrifying the boys into submission.

On reflection, I should probably clarify my experience in Social Construction and Identity work. I have a MSc in Social Psychology with my thesis discussing 'faces' we use in personal and private realms in regards to phenomena such as Group Polarisation, with me performing an qualitative study with 4 groups, 2 topics of Morality (Heinz dilemma, War in Afghanistan), where participants adopting more extreme positions (risky-shift) within the group. I am not randomly talking out of my ass even if I am lazy in my explanations on the topic.

That is easily the most interesting thing you've written on these boards in years.

On the discussion where you bring up the topic of sexual orientation (as a crux against me), you failed to consider my own. Would you really accuse a gay man of being a prude for not spending his time looking at girls? [insert smiley here]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Don't worry, I don't identify as homosexual either. I am a Demisexual.
So in reply to your other comment, it isn't because I am no longer a teenage boy either. I didn't have it back then either. Oh, it is a royal a pain in the behind when it comes to relationships. How do you convey sexual attraction to initiate a relationship without it looking forced/wrong? There aren't love movies where the protagonist is essentially "After getting to know you, I have decided you are worthy of my attention and efforts and I would like to request to take this to the next level".

Honestly, this is not a great revelation to me, I more or less figured it was something like that. The fact you don't spend your time having to remember to look every "well endowed" woman in the eyes is not something I would describe as a character flaw. It is not, however, something that is especially common.

If I might observe, though, you'd do well to be more "old fashioned" and cultivate polite but friendly relationships with multiple women. The worst that can happen is that you become sufficiently interested in someone to become attracted to her and she doesn't reciprocate - at which point you're in the same boat as every other poor bastard.

Also - the Netherlands has absolutely no gentlemen left, apparently, there are some women there who are very appreciative of men who are polite and considerate. This piece of advice is useful for all Englishmen, though, and probably Canadians too.

This ties in with my disclosure 'on reflection' either where I alluded to Kohlberg's stages of moral development in the use of the Heinz Dilemma. I embrace human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism as driving forces behind morality and decision making. I find this viewpoint significantly superior and to borrow your word, sophisticated than Cloud-Guy "Making it so". You can easily see why I easily find myself identifying with the Secular Humanism movement. (even if you classify it as absurd.)

"Man is the measure of all things, of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras, the first Sophist.

We've had the this argument before - my observation remains the same - any claim to objective truth as regards right or wrong presupposes some "higher power" whereas any appeal purely to human reason and ethics is an appeal to utility.

I reject Utilitarianism from an ideological standpoint. Where I find Secular Humanists philosophically incoherent is their rejection of any higher power whilst still using the language and logical framework of Neo-Platonic Christian morality.

As you know, I was raised in a church environment. I used to know the bible like the back of my hand. I was very well thought of in my church community and I even keep touch with people from there still. I even got an 'adoptive' grandmother that still to this day gifts with me home-baked cookies (she is great). I have deep respect for those individuals even if we don't share beliefs.
As an intelligent child growing in their teen-age years, I asked questions and I was always left wanting, I remember my Sunday teacher once going: "That is wrong because it is wrong" Me:"But why?" Them:"You should know better than that." This grow worse as I grew older, as I found myself challenging and being challenged for views I could not support. I saw homosexuals being mistreated, people in need of help being shunned due to being 'desperate in the wrong way'. I even saw sexual abuse by 'good men', yeah, it is not just in newspaper over there in the middle of no where, it happens right under your nose.
I was even stigmatised heavily against by my devout catholic (and overall horrible person) Religious Studies teacher for being the 'wrong kind of Christian'!

It is no wonder I am an apostate, the religion is a lie. Means of control over the masses. Don't get me wrong, spirituality is an important aspect to a person, but you don't need religion to have that. You find receive it in other ways.

No, it is no wonder you are an apostate. However, just because people use religion to justify or excuse terrible things does not mean there is no God. You don't need religion to cover up abuses - all the depredations practised by the Christian Churches were also practised within the BBC, that big cuddly corporation that tells us what to think from cradle to grave.

I have absolutely no issue with you telling me about Cornish and Devon identities. I personally find the concept to be intriguing, I am happy for you to tell me more about it and listen intently.
The problem was, I wasn't conflating those identities but you repeatedly insisted at the time that I was. This is despite my explanations that I wasn't even discussing identities.

You can exchange "Cornish" and "Devonians" with pretty much any other identity. Though I disagree that you need to erase their local identities. Modify them? Possibly. I am not one for stagnation.

See, this is the thing you do that's so infuriating, really, honestly makes me want to hit you sometimes.

When you tell a Cornishman his identity is "intriguing" you belittle it, it's not intriguing, it's important and if you can't see that it's not worth his time explaining his tin mines to you. It's certainly not worth his time if you think the identity might need "modifying".

Funny how Monty thinks I'm cold when you're the one who expects everyone else to be as dispassionate about their lives as you are.

Everyone wished you well, including myself. ACIN even said about how his post on the Org was in response to you (and how you trashed him in your reply after!).

Well that's sad, really, isn't it? On multiple levels.

A sin? You are definitely taking far too much responsibility upon your shoulders!

This is Fragony! Bas! He is the live life loose and fast without a care in the world. Life of the party. A good heart even if some of his views are misplaced. He would be pleasantly mocking you for making such a statement. All he would want you to do is not worry about him and live your life to the fullest.

Who should I blame for my leaving, then? You for being impossible?

Guilt is an essential part of being a good person, if I didn't feel guilty I might get infuriated and leave again, mightn't I?

Guilt is very underrated, if people spent more time feeling guilty they'd spend more time trying not to do bad things and making up for the things they did do.

Well, I am burying regardless. Because I am a forgiving person and I dislike disliking people.

Like I said, I don't hate you - I just don't want any part of the world you want to create.

The definition of dry humour is that it doesn't have an obvious punch-line. I also tend to have a quality of doing it without a forced intention.

Face to face dry humour is delivered in a deadpan or with a wry expression - hence the need for a smiley.

I am not mocking you. I am 'throwing a spanner in the works' of your slippery-slope with some healthy ridicule. You need tp detach yourself from your statements if you took my comment personally.

An example [only an example] of insulting you as a person would be saying if I am the Federation of Plants, you are Gilead. [Now, this is only for example purposes to demonstrate. Not intended as a personal attack.]

So you're ridiculing me instead of mocking me? I'm sorry Beskar, either way I'm entitled to be offended if I so choose. Ridicule is not better than mocking, it just sounds cleverer because the word has a Latin root.

[Beskar]

---

I have a tendency to go back and re-edit posts for clarity when I notice errors. I recommend going back up to see the video link for example for the experiment.

If I might observe, though, you'd do well to be more "old fashioned" and cultivate polite but friendly relationships with multiple women. The worst that can happen is that you become sufficiently interested in someone to become attracted to her and she doesn't reciprocate - at which point you're in the same boat as every other poor bastard.

I have many female friends, they are taken in that regard.
Also 'old fashioned' approach tends to lead to ghosting... the modern world we live in.

Also - the Netherlands has absolutely no gentlemen left, apparently, there are some women there who are very appreciative of men who are polite and considerate. This piece of advice is useful for all Englishmen, though, and probably Canadians too.

I love the dutch honesty.

However, just because people use religion to justify or excuse terrible things does not mean there is no God.

More to it than that (obviously). The hypocrisy is utterly disgusting though.
I don't need to say I find any culture of abuse to be abhorrent.

See, this is the thing you do that's so infuriating, really, honestly makes me want to hit you sometimes.

When you tell a Cornishman his identity is "intriguing" you belittle it, it's not intriguing, it's important and if you can't see that it's not worth his time explaining his tin mines to you.

Forgive me for flipping this to make a point. You stated that you studied pagan morality, yes?
"When you tell a Pagan that his morality is 'intriguing', you belittle it. It's not intriguing, it's important and if you can't see that it's not worth his time explaining his thunder bolts to you".

Most people actually like having an active interest being taken in them. They understand you are different, but the fact you are willing to understand them more makes them proud to show off their achievements. Intellectual curiosity is not a bad thing. People practice exchange of faiths where for example a Christian and Muslim may inform each other more about their religions to have better understanding.
In your eyes, are they belittling and insulting each-other? If not, why not, because in the why not, you will be explaining why I am not belittling being interested to learn more about Cornish identity.

As for modification.. well... if they are the violent brutes you describe them as, Cornish and Devonians face to face pitchforks to the hand. They require some mediation and peace-making. Or are you against peace-making? Are Cornish people defined by their hatred of the Devonians that if they were friendly, they would cease to exist? if so, I hope they don't make peace soon, I have a soft-spot for Cornish Ice-creams... the pastries are pretty okay too.

Well that's sad, really, isn't it? On multiple levels.

That everyone wished you well, including your 'worst enemy' ?
Honesty, maybe you should re-evaluate things and realise 'maybe they are not actually that bad'.

Who should I blame for my leaving, then? You for being impossible?
Guilt is an essential part of being a good person, if I didn't feel guilty I might get infuriated and leave again, mightn't I?

Sadly, your leaving was your own decision.
I am far from impossible. Any serious thinking about that would easily dispel that notion. I would contend it was closer to home, but I have a feeling you will take more slight from that then I ever intend.

Guilt is very underrated, if people spent more time feeling guilty they'd spend more time trying not to do bad things and making up for the things they did do.

I am my own worst critic. There is an element of guilt when it comes to some behaviours, there is also anger, there is disappointment, there is a range of various emotions.

So you're ridiculing me instead of mocking me? I'm sorry Beskar, either way I'm entitled to be offended if I so choose. Ridicule is not better than mocking, it just sounds cleverer because the word has a Latin root.

The slippery-slope example, not you.
There is a distinction there, even if you don't recognise it.

They are separate entities to yourself, even if related. If you still, I cannot help you other than point it out then hope you can tolerable it if you are unable to move from your position. I don't intend that to be rude but I cannot control your offence.

[Gilrandir]

Similar arguments are even being had over the actual process of assigning sex at birth where some queer people see this as an infringement of the child or parents' rights.

1. Sex is not assigned. It is what the person is inevitably born with. Otherwise you might as well talk of assigning lefthandiness or righthandiness.

2. Sex is neither assigned nor formed AT BIRTH. It happens during pregnancy.

[Don Corleone]

A friend of mine was talking about trans-rights. He lives in Charlotte, NC, I'm in Athens GA. We're both relatively recent transplants into what is becoming an increasingly resurgent fundamentalist Southern US...

We also live in a part of the world where the average daytime high is 93-95F (~35C) in the summertime.

He said "A trans friend of mine was asked, if it was made legal, where would you go first?"... with the expectations being locker rooms, restrooms or changing rooms being at the top of the list.

"A public swimming pool" was the answer. This whole 'love one another as I have loved you" thing... yeah, we're failing that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have a tendency to go back and re-edit posts for clarity when I notice errors. I recommend going back up to see the video link for example for the experiment.

I have many female friends, they are taken in that regard.
Also 'old fashioned' approach tends to lead to ghosting... the modern world we live in.

I love the dutch honesty.

I fear the point I was making has been lost on you.

Dutch men are unromantic, blunt, expect all Dutch women to be utterly self-reliant because these men are so woke. Shockingly, some women like Romance. I'm suggesting there may be a market there.

As to all the nice girls being taken, that's our age - I'm afraid - in a few years they'll start getting divorced though.

More to it than that (obviously). The hypocrisy is utterly disgusting though.
I don't need to say I find any culture of abuse to be abhorrent.

This is a totally separate topic for another time - I will merely note that there are hypocrites and abusive people in all cultures.

Forgive me for flipping this to make a point. You stated that you studied pagan morality, yes?
"When you tell a Pagan that his morality is 'intriguing', you belittle it. It's not intriguing, it's important and if you can't see that it's not worth his time explaining his thunder bolts to you".

See - here I could make a joke about your narrow philhellenic bias, but that might not land well, so I won't - it's only funny if you've read Cicero anyway.

To point - I never said Pagan morality was "intriguing", I said I studied it. You also forget I used to be a Pagan, but that's besides the point. Frankly, most Western philosophy is either unintelligible without Plato and Aristotle, or worthless if it ignores them.

Only idiots think they're smarter than Aristotle or Plato.

Most people actually like having an active interest being taken in them. They understand you are different, but the fact you are willing to understand them more makes them proud to show off their achievements. Intellectual curiosity is not a bad thing. People practice exchange of faiths where for example a Christian and Muslim may inform each other more about their religions to have better understanding.
In your eyes, are they belittling and insulting each-other? If not, why not, because in the why not, you will be explaining why I am not belittling being interested to learn more about Cornish identity.

As for modification.. well... if they are the violent brutes you describe them as, Cornish and Devonians face to face pitchforks to the hand. They require some mediation and peace-making. Or are you against peace-making? Are Cornish people defined by their hatred of the Devonians that if they were friendly, they would cease to exist? if so, I hope they don't make peace soon, I have a soft-spot for Cornish Ice-creams... the pastries are pretty okay too.

Pastries or Pasties? Do you mean a Cornish Pasty (side crimp) or Devon one (top crimp)?

These are all important questions to local people, the point I am making and you are deliberately ignoring is that they would not thank you for making light of this.

That everyone wished you well, including your 'worst enemy' ?
Honesty, maybe you should re-evaluate things and realise 'maybe they are not actually that bad'.

How about "It was a pointless and vain expression of my own pride, intolerance and moral weakness that I was unable to at least tolerate you."?

Sadly, your leaving was your own decision.
I am far from impossible. Any serious thinking about that would easily dispel that notion. I would contend it was closer to home, but I have a feeling you will take more slight from that then I ever intend.

Yes, we've established I feel terrible. Are you aware you are twisting the knife here? Probably not. This is an excellent example of you continuing to pursue a topic the other party clearly finds distressing and has no further desire to discuss.

The bit where you were supposed to stop is the bit where I told you I never came back and read the thread I posted when I left - i.e. - "I have no desire to revisit the past, I cannot change it and I do not wish to dwell."

Yet here we are, still, twist, twist.

I am my own worst critic. There is an element of guilt when it comes to some behaviours, there is also anger, there is disappointment, there is a range of various emotions.

You should voice more of that criticism, then.

The slippery-slope example, not you.
There is a distinction there, even if you don't recognise it.

They are separate entities to yourself, even if related. If you still, I cannot help you other than point it out then hope you can tolerable it if you are unable to move from your position. I don't intend that to be rude but I cannot control your offence.

Ah, no, there is no distinction, really.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/ridicule

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/mockery

As the OED makes clear, they mean the same thing - the origin is different, the former is from modern French, the later from Middle English via Old French.

You and I are not friends, therefore any attempt made by you to engage in which might by called "gentle mockery" will not be well received. This is because I do not consider you to be very funny, among other reasons.

I don't make jokes at your expense and expect you to laugh, do I? The fault here is your failure to modify your tone based on your audience. Such a failure implies you find my position contemptible - as does your response above "well, if you want to be offended I can't stop you". Given your over-inflated impression of my "hatred" for you I would have thought that mocking or ridicule would be something you would actively avoid if you were sincere about "burying the hatchet."

If you follow your usual pattern at this point you'll probably deploy something other than the OED or refer to a difference in an alternative meaning and try to argue I'm wrong about the two words. I'm not - and I have the pieces of parchment and the grey hairs to demonstrate I've spent years studying the development of the English language and the use of specific words in specific contexts.

In conclusion, there is no material difference between "mockery" and "ridicule" and it is rude to mock those with whom you do not share a relationship based on trust and mutual respect - we have no such relationship, as you have demonstrated.

[Gilrandir]

Frankly, most Western philosophy is either unintelligible without Plato and Aristotle, or worthless if it ignores them.

That's because the greatest minds of philosophy wrote in synthetic languages (Old Greek, German, Russian). An arbitrary claim, but ...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's because the greatest minds of philosophy wrote in synthetic languages (Old Greek, German, Russian). An arbitrary claim, but ...

No, they just wrote in Greek, sometimes Latin.

[Gilrandir]

No, they just wrote in Greek, sometimes Latin.

I mean later than Plato or Aristotle. Greek and Latin were in use in the Middle Ages, I speak of XVIII and later centuries philosophers.

[Beskar]

Yes, we've established I feel terrible. Are you aware you are twisting the knife here?

Wasn't my intent. I apologise.

You should voice more of that criticism, then.

I would contend posting my internal monologues would not satisfy. But I think evidence would be my notorious habit of constantly editing my own posts. Removing, addition, changing, removing those, etc. Apparently, I have been told that I personally make up a significant portion of the Org's edit history.

...If you follow your usual pattern at this point you'll probably...[etc]
In conclusion, there is no material difference between "mockery" and "ridicule" ...[etc]

Unfortunately, I wasn't contending the difference of words. I was contending I wasn't aiming the mockery/ridicule at your personally, but throwing it into the argument you were making. The concept being the absurd result which is provided would cause a review of the argument. I was trying different between the two (yourself, the argument). However, I failed.