Philosophical Scenario: A Future of Diverse Reproductive Mechanisms and Sexual Orientations

[The Hammer]

With the changes I think mating like squid, shooting both egg and sperm into a common area makes more sense. What would make even more sense is asexual reproduction given the insanity of it all.

And 2 Spirit as a third gender just means gay indian. It isn't really a gender, just a select personality distribution in some gays who want to feel special. That's not anymore a gender than a military badge of supposed honor. I'm of the age where gay wasn't considered a gender.... you had men or women and some with a messed up physical biology like a hermaphrodite (be nice to them). Being gay didn't change your gender. It's a purely made up recent thing, and likely won't last more than a few generations until the concept loses steam. But I suppose science could generate different sexes. But seems pointless, unless there be a caste system of sexes doing a singular type of hereditary labor. I don't like that idea either.

Two spirit absolutely did not mean "gay", where are you getting this?

"Traditionally, Native American two-spirit people were male, female, and sometimes intersexed individuals who combined activities of both men and women with traits unique to their status as two-spirit people. In most tribes, they were considered neither men nor women; they occupied a distinct, alternative gender status.

 

[Onasander]

Had a debate on a different forum on this. 2 Spirit is just Gay Indian. I don't mean that as a insult to gays, just the need to make the LGBT crowd turn into a endless alphabet.

I can see gay people. I can see lesbians even though lesbians as a category are reducable to just being gay.... but yeah.... I see all female gays so can tolerate lesbian. I can see transsexuals and knew two philosophers who were trannies. I personally think they are just gay and multilateral themselves and take the opposite sex's hormones as injections.... but I can see them. Sometimes there is no debate, definitely a tyranny before me.

It gets weird once you hit Queer. Never saw a good definition of it. I've even debated if it actually exists, used to just be a term for Gay.

2 Spirit isn't anything. I can't see that. All I see is a gay indian. You can mime gay and people get it, but you can't mime 2 Spirit or do a pictionary without everyone getting stuck on Gay Indian.

This is a side effect not merely of Gender Dysporia, but of magical thinking by "artists" (look up 2 Spirit on wiki, they have a list, mostly entertainers such as musicians) who have a need to feel special and have personality flair. It doesn't actually exist. There is no 2 Spirit chemical in balance to be found, no 2 Spirit gene, no 2 Spirit embryonic development issue that results in a inevitable 2 Spirit person arising. Science will not be able to be able to detect it arising in advance because it is NOT REAL. It is a fantasy forced upon others. All the science is gonna find is a Indian who is gay. With a psychological need to feel special and roleplay. Nothing anatomical about it. You are not born 2 Spirit. It's pure choice.

If you disbelieve me, why haven't scientists detected 2 Spirit Lambs in New Zealand? Homosexuality is rife in that breed. Why none in dogs? Or Cats? In South American Indians? In Siberian natives? Russians? Hungarians? Europeans? Africans? It is purely a b***s*** hoax. I'm not playing along. If I don't get recognized as Batman, they don't get recognized as 2 Spirit.

 

[dybmh]

Now you're just ignoring everything I've been trying to say in a rather deliberate seeming way.

Not true. I am not ignoring anything. It's the opposite. If there is a fault, it's that I am being too critical and not letting anything you say "slide".

My religion is not the way you're thinking it is, in the sense that you're assuming the word religion means something it actually doesn't. The word religion means something vague, not something specific like you're thinking it does. You're assuming not having free will means something it actually doesn't, you're assuming that I need to explain why a pig could give consent in a reasonable way in order for me to prove my point when I don't. You've been trying to find every way you can to prove me wrong instead of thinking about how I could be right, that's a bias, and clearly a waste of my time.

No, you're being over sensitive and over-reacting. Listen, most people are going to object to what you're saying. I'm trying to help.

If you're saying religion is a vague term, then, you need to define it, since you brought up that this is part of your "religion". And since you said you were "encouraging" it in your "religion", you would be advocating for the "pros" that means there's issues with that regarding persuasion and promises being made in exchange for sex.

There is a stigma associated with new "religions" where the founder promotes increased "openess" regarding sex and intimacy. I am aware of the stigma and avoiding it. But, almost anyone you talk to is going be weirded out by this stuff, for lack of better words. You've seen it in this thread. I'm trying to help you.

If you don't want the debate or discussion, you've heard my objection. Just like in the past, you can ignore it.

1. I think consent and coercion are an issue. It's plain as day you have not considered it properly because you don't think you need to. I think that's a HUGE mistake.
2. I think you would benefit from considering your proposals here and in the future in terms of "in general" and also in terms of "in particular". They are not the same.
3. I would also avoid animal analogies unless you are prepared to talk about consent, because that's the issue with bestiality.

 

[Echogem222]

Not true. I am not ignoring anything. It's the opposite. If there is a fault, it's that I am being too critical and not letting anything you say "slide".



No, you're being over sensitive and over-reacting. Listen, most people are going to object to what you're saying. I'm trying to help.

If you're saying religion is a vague term, then, you need to define it, since you brought up that this is part of your "religion". And since you said you were "encouraging" it in your "religion", you would be advocating for the "pros" that means there's issues with that regarding persuasion and promises being made in exchange for sex.

There is a stigma associated with new "religions" where the founder promotes increased "openess" regarding sex and intimacy. I am aware of the stigma and avoiding it. But, almost anyone you talk to is going be weirded out by this stuff, for lack of better words. You've seen it in this thread. I'm trying to help you.

If you don't want the debate or discussion, you've heard my objection. Just like in the past, you can ignore it.

1. I think consent and coercion are an issue. It's plain as day you have not considered it properly because you don't think you need to. I think that's a HUGE mistake.
2. I think you would benefit from considering your proposals here and in the future in terms of "in general" and also in terms of "in particular". They are not the same.
3. I would also avoid animal analogies unless you are prepared to talk about consent, because that's the issue with bestiality.

I see, you want to know what a religion is, well look no further than this video, which explains the academic definition of religion that I use:

 

[dybmh]

I see, you want to know what a religion is, well look no further than this video, which explains the academic definition of religion that I use:

No thank you. If you understand it, you should be able to explain it.

1 hour 36 minutes? No.

And you're claiming this is "academic"? I also know of this so-called "scholar". They are actually a Preacher with a degree. They made some BIG mistakes in the last video I watched by them. This video is a Church presentation.

If you actually know what's in the video, a bullet list of the significant contents will move the debate forward. Reluctance or denial to do so demonstrates the weakness of your position.

 

[The Hammer]

Had a debate on a different forum on this. 2 Spirit is just Gay Indian. I don't mean that as a insult to gays, just the need to make the LGBT crowd turn into a endless alphabet.

I can see gay people. I can see lesbians even though lesbians as a category are reducable to just being gay.... but yeah.... I see all female gays so can tolerate lesbian. I can see transsexuals and knew two philosophers who were trannies. I personally think they are just gay and multilateral themselves and take the opposite sex's hormones as injections.... but I can see them. Sometimes there is no debate, definitely a tyranny before me.

It gets weird once you hit Queer. Never saw a good definition of it. I've even debated if it actually exists, used to just be a term for Gay.

2 Spirit isn't anything. I can't see that. All I see is a gay indian. You can mime gay and people get it, but you can't mime 2 Spirit or do a pictionary without everyone getting stuck on Gay Indian.

This is a side effect not merely of Gender Dysporia, but of magical thinking by "artists" (look up 2 Spirit on wiki, they have a list, mostly entertainers such as musicians) who have a need to feel special and have personality flair. It doesn't actually exist. There is no 2 Spirit chemical in balance to be found, no 2 Spirit gene, no 2 Spirit embryonic development issue that results in a inevitable 2 Spirit person arising. Science will not be able to be able to detect it arising in advance because it is NOT REAL. It is a fantasy forced upon others. All the science is gonna find is a Indian who is gay. With a psychological need to feel special and roleplay. Nothing anatomical about it. You are not born 2 Spirit. It's pure choice.

If you disbelieve me, why haven't scientists detected 2 Spirit Lambs in New Zealand? Homosexuality is rife in that breed. Why none in dogs? Or Cats? In South American Indians? In Siberian natives? Russians? Hungarians? Europeans? Africans? It is purely a b***s*** hoax. I'm not playing along. If I don't get recognized as Batman, they don't get recognized as 2 Spirit.

At least you're sincere in your convictions.

Still wrong.

Source: I've worked with multiple native American tribes.

 

[Alien826]

Given my record, I'd still be masturbating no matter how many variations there were.

 

[Echogem222]

No thank you. If you understand it, you should be able to explain it.

View attachment 83190





1 hour 36 minutes? No.

And you're claiming this is "academic"? I also know of this so-called "scholar". They are actually a Preacher with a degree. They made some BIG mistakes in the last video I watched by them. This video is a Church presentation.

If you actually know what's in the video, a bullet list of the significant contents will move the debate forward. Reluctance or denial to do so demonstrates the weakness of your position.

This is always a running excuse with you. Because you just don't want to read or watch something, you decide to then instead assume you know what's in it. Yes, I don't agree with everything that YouTube Channel gives out, but I have watched the video, so I know exactly what it's about, and I do agree with what is said. But of course, you'll just give some type of excuse why you won't watch it, but STILL insist you know what you're talking about. At this point, I'm just going to consider you to be a troll and stop replying to you.

 

[The Hammer]

This is always a running excuse with you. Because you just don't want to read or watch something, you decide to then instead assume you know what's in it. Yes, I don't agree with everything that YouTube Channel gives out, but I have watched the video, so I know exactly what it's about, and I do agree with what is said. But of course, you'll just give some type of excuse why you won't watch it, but STILL insist you know what you're talking about. At this point, I'm just going to consider you to be a troll and stop replying to you.

Most of us here don't have the time to watch an hour and a half video. Shoot even twenty minutes is too long. We didn't grow up on YouTube and tiktok watching videos to explain things to people.

We read books, articles and research papers.

 

[Echogem222]

Most of us here don't have the time to watch an hour and a half video. Shoot even twenty minutes is too long. We didn't grow up on YouTube and tiktok watching videos to explain things to people.

We read books, articles and research papers.

No, with them it's even more ridiculous, there have been many times when it's just a short read about something I'll make a post about, but because they think I'm wrong already, they'll just refuse to read it. I'm sick of putting up with their attitude about it. The word religion is actually a very complicated topic, which is why that video is so long. But even if it were shorter, like 10 minutes long, I'm 100% sure they'd still make up an excuse why they don't want to watch it. In fact, they'd probably just say this part, "You're claiming this is "academic"? I also know of this so-called "scholar". They are actually a Preacher with a degree. They made some BIG mistakes in the last video I watched by them. This video is a Church presentation.
If you actually know what's in the video, a bullet list of the significant contents will move the debate forward. Reluctance or denial to do so demonstrates the weakness of your position."

If I did just make a bullet point list of the significant contents, they'd try to use my vagueness as an excuse to explain why they think I'm wrong, as they have many times before, taking what I'm saying out of context because of how vague it needs to be for them to even listen to me. If you're going to defend them despite what I've said by ignoring what I've said, I'm not going to respond to you.

 

[dybmh]

This is always a running excuse with you.

not true.

Because you just don't want to read or watch something, you decide to then instead assume you know what's in it.

No. I simply know this speaker. They are not academic, as you claim. It's too long to ask me to watch it, especially if you are not motivated to type out the key-points.

I am not assuming I know what's in it. I know the speaker's work, and this is a chruch presentation. I do not find them credible.

And, most important, if you know the content, you should be able to prove it.

Those are 2 solid reasons to put your money where your mouth is.

Yes, I don't agree with everything that YouTube Channel gives out, but I have watched the video

So you ackowledge they are not a reliable source. Why did you choose it? Why are you pushing back on this?

Just type out the points you agree with, that are important for your own defintion of "religion". It's that simple. You used the word, you claim, I don't understand it, so ... you should define it. Super-simple.

, so I know exactly what it's about, and I do agree with what is said

just type it out them...

. But of course, you'll just give some type of excuse why you won't watch it,

if you type it out, I won't need to watch it. you used a term "religion" and are you actually telling me it takes 1.5 hours to define that one word?

but STILL insist you know what you're talking about.

I siimply want your defintion of "religion". You're telling me I have the wrong one. How can I possibly adjust my point of view if you won't share your defintion. Do I really need to spend 1.5 hours of my time to get a defintion that should be able to typed and read in less than 10 minutes, both of us combined?

At this point, I'm just going to consider you to be a troll and stop replying to you.

LOL. You don't seem to know what that means. Under scrutiny, you're playing the victim. No one is going to watch 1.5 hours of YouTube in order to gather a defintion for one word which their conversation partner has been using repeatedly. Just type it out, if you actually have a defintion of your own. Type it out if you understand it. Please.

 

[Echogem222]

not true.



No. I simply know this speaker. They are not academic, as you claim. It's too long to ask me to watch it, especially if you are not motivated to type out the key-points.

I am not assuming I know what's in it. I know the speaker's work, and this is a chruch presentation. I do not find them credible.

And, most important, if you know the content, you should be able to prove it.

Those are 2 solid reasons to put your money where your mouth is.



So you ackowledge they are not a reliable source. Why did you choose it? Why are you pushing back on this?

Just type out the points you agree with, that are important for your own defintion of "religion". It's that simple. You used the word, you claim, I don't understand it, so ... you should define it. Super-simple.



just type it out them...



if you type it out, I won't need to watch it. you used a term "religion" and are you actually telling me it takes 1.5 hours to define that one word?



I siimply want your defintion of "religion". You're telling me I have the wrong one. How can I possibly adjust my point of view if you won't share your defintion. Do I really need to spend 1.5 hours of my time to get a defintion that should be able to typed and read in less than 10 minutes, both of us combined?



LOL. You don't seem to know what that means. Under scrutiny, you're playing the victim. No one is going to watch 1.5 hours of YouTube in order to gather a defintion for one word which their conversation partner has been using repeatedly. Just type it out, if you actually have a defintion of your own. Type it out if you understand it. Please.

I'm blocking you

 

[dybmh]

I'm blocking you

Totally understandable, not warranted but understandable.

You made these claims, cannot define your own terms, and when challenged you play the victim, and cannot tolerate being exposed to your own fallacious reasoning. This is stereotypical for those who want to be leaders and gurus of new religious movements. They think they have it all figured out and desire disciples to follow but not question.

It's also somewhat stereotypical for these gurus to become sexual predators.

I'll still be replying to your posts, but since I know you won't be reading them it will be simply for the purposes of pointing out the faults for other readers, lacking any attempt to facilitate strengthening your arguments.

In other words, no more helping. I offered you assistance, but, you can't seem to tolerate constructive criticism:

What you're saying needs some work.