Transphobia

[mikkel_the_dane]

You said you never saw evidence of a person being right or wrong. The first time my brother took the engine apart on his car then put it back together again; he had a bunch of parts left over and needless to say, the motor did not work. Why? Because he put it together wrong. Anyone witnessing a kid doing a math quiz or spelling bee will see a bunch of right answers and wrong answers. I could mention more, but I think you get the point.

Yeah, that doesn't make him wrong as he doesn't have the property of being wrong. It is a speech convention and nothing else in the end.
If he was wrong as wrong, you could explain using one or more of the 5 external senses how you experiencing him to be wrong.
Your argument is this as an invalid deduction and unsound conclusion.
Premise as true: He did something that didn't work.
Conclusion: Therefore he is wrong.

And no, you are not right or wrong. You just think and feeling differently than me in some cases.

Do you use the term phobic as a means of garnering hatred against those who disagree with you on specific political issues?

No, I don't use it, but I do note if something using emotions that qualify as phobic for its definitions and I do differentiate for its different meanings.

In general I just note if there is a lack of evidence as above for the case of being wrong.

 

[Kfox]

Yeah, that doesn't make him wrong as he doesn't have the property of being wrong.

A property of wrong is not required in order to do something wrong.

It is a speech convention and nothing else in the end.

What is a speech convention?

If he was wrong as wrong, you could explain using one or more of the 5 external senses how you experiencing him to be wrong.

His work was wrong.

Your argument is this as an invalid deduction and unsound conclusion.
Premise as true: He did something that didn't work.
Conclusion: Therefore he is wrong.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying as a person he was wrong; (I don’t think such a thing is possible because a standard is required for that which is right vs wrong) I’m saying what we do can be right or wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

....
Just to be clear, I’m not saying as a person he was wrong; (I don’t think such a thing is possible because a standard is required for that which is right vs wrong) I’m saying what we do can be right or wrong.

Yeah, but that is subjective and changes depending on contexts for objective as independent of brains, formal abstract, social, individual and what everything is.
Now as abnormal for my actual behavior I am in effect most of the time social wrong to other humans, but not really wrong. I am just different.
As I am older and lucky enough to have learned it is rare these days that I am wrong as harming myself. And the few times I have harmed someone else outside of the authority granted to me as having such a job, I have learned how I were wrong and learned from that.

So right and wrong have 5 versions at least and some people do those differently that me in some cases.

As for: What is a speech convention? How we generally use language culturally.

 

[Kfox]

Yeah, but that is subjective and changes depending on contexts for objective as independent of brains, formal abstract, social, individual and what everything is.
Now as abnormal for my actual behavior I am in effect most of the time social wrong to other humans, but not really wrong. I am just different.
As I am older and lucky enough to have learned it is rare these days that I am wrong as harming myself. And the few times I have harmed someone else outside of the authority granted to me as having such a job, I have learned how I were wrong and learned from that.

So right and wrong have 5 versions at least and some people do those differently that me in some cases.

As for: What is a speech convention? How we generally use language culturally.

Do you agree what we DO can be wrong? Example; when my brother attempted to put the motor back together the way he took it apart, he did not put it together correctly; do you agree the reason the engine didn't work is because it was put together wrong?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you agree what we DO can be wrong? Example; when my brother attempted to put the motor back together the way he took it apart, he did not put it together correctly; do you agree the reason the engine didn't work is because it was put together wrong?

Yes, but that is objective. It changes for the social and individual.

 

[Audie]

Others here might not be familiar with the culinary art of skimming grease of off sewage.

Prolly not

 

[Audie]

It's almost like of all the conversations we've had, you still have no clue of what I've been telling you. Like Jordan Peterson said; you are not only wrong, but anti-right!

Winner frubal with chocolate

 

[Kfox]

Yes, but that is objective. It changes for the social and individual.

Yes. Right/wrong can be subjective, or objective.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

IMO the problem with using “phobia” this way, it’s used as a weapon.

So someone called you "-phobic" and you felt hurt by it?

There are 2 ways phobia is used; the first (and original) way was to describe something meant to garner sympathy, the other is used to garner hatred. Nobody is going to criticize someone for being afraid of heights, or closed spaces; someone claustrophobic will not be criticized for being afraid of closed spaces, but the person accused of being homo, trans, islamic, xenophobic, this type of phobia is used as a weapon, a cudgel, a pejorative against the person accused of it, and as you pointed out; this accusation is completely subjective.

Right: being claustrophobic does not suggest a flaw in someone's character; being, say, homophobic does.

My problem is also the term is not used consistently; it’s like the powers that be select which people it can be used against, and which ones it cannot. An example is religion. Islam and Christianity are both religions, yet Islamophobia is a term used among by activists, media, academia, basically the powers that be to garner hatred against those critical of islam, but you will never hear christian phobia used this way against those critical of Christianity, even though there are plenty of people critical of Christianity.

Again: this gets back to whether the fear or hatred is rational.

In English-speaking countries, Christianity and Islam have very different attributes and impacts. In a society where Islam is a minority, it has very little power to inflict itself on non-Muslims. OTOH, Christians have proven themselves not only able but willing to inflict themselves on society as a whole in all sorts of ways. Fear of Christianity and hatred of what it's doing can be quite rational in a way that fear and hatred of western Muslims is not.

And I say this as an Atheist who doesn’t even have a dog in the fight concerning religious issues; I just notice the different in how one is treated by the powers that be compared to the other.

Again: because they're different. Different in power and influence, different in impact.

Muslims aren't the ones picketing my local hospital or taking taxpayer money for their religious schools; Christians are the ones doing that.

Unfortunately this is a very effective weapon of garnering hatred because many people for fear of being labeled this type of phobia will cower and silence their critical viewpoints because they don't want that phobic club used against them.

People who proclaim offensive views are going to get a negative reaction. I don't think the semantics of the word "phobia" are the issue here.

But still there are others who will fight the accusation hence the debates like this one.

No, your debate is kinda unique.

It's pretty common to see people respond to, say, accusations of homophobia by arguing (correctly or not) that their behaviour and attitudes actually respect gay people.

It's rare for people to take your approach: concede the point that the behaviour is crappy, but argue based on sketchy etymology that crappy behaviour shouldn't count as a "phobia."

 

[Kfox]

So someone called you "-phobic" and you felt hurt by it?

Nobody has ever called me any type of phobic; but I’ve seen that word thrown at others hence my point.

Right: being claustrophobic does not suggest a flaw in someone's character; being, say, homophobic does.

But the people who use the “phobic” pejorative are very selective on which character flaw garners the phobia label. If phobic is used to denote character flaws, then use it for all character flaws; not just the ones that get the blessing of the powers that be.

Again: this gets back to whether the fear or hatred is rational.

No; they are both irrational

In English-speaking countries, Christianity and Islam have very different attributes and impacts. In a society where Islam is a minority, it has very little power to inflict itself on non-Muslims.

What about where they DO have power? Are you suggesting that because they can’t hurt ME, I shouldn’t criticize them when they hurt others?

OTOH, Christians have proven themselves not only able but willing to inflict themselves on society as a whole in all sorts of ways. Fear of Christianity and hatred of what it's doing can be quite rational in a way that fear and hatred of western Muslims is not.

I disagree. If you are doing wrong, if you are hurting the weak, if you are killing the innocent, it would be wrong for me to ignore and look the other way because you are unable to hurt me.

People who proclaim offensive views are going to get a negative reaction.

If that were true, Christian phobia would be as common of a term as Islam phobia; but it’s not, is it.

I don't think the semantics of the word "phobia" are the issue here.

Umm…. Yeah it is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Like Jordan Peterson said;

Bringing up the man who told Sam Harris to his face "you live your life as though you believe god is real," thanks. I'll be laughing for the rest od the day that anyone manages to still take him and his lobsters seriously.

 

[Kfox]

Bringing up the man who told Sam Harris to his face "you live your life as though you believe god is real," thanks. I'll be laughing for the rest od the day that anyone manages to still take him and his lobsters seriously.

You aren't one of those type who think; because someone is wrong on one issue, they must be wrong on all issues; or because someone were right on one issue, they must be right on all issues..... are you?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You aren't one of those type who think; because someone is wrong on one issue, they must be wrong on all issues; or because someone were right on one issue, they must be right on all issues..... are you?

I've seen where Peterson has been wrong many times. I just usually point that one out since it is so ridiculously absurd and thoroughly wrong and inaccurate--and even disrespectful as we all know the man is an atheist--you can't even consider it rude when Harris laughed as he called out that statement.

 

[Kfox]

I've seen where Peterson has been wrong many times. I just usually point that one out since it is so ridiculously absurd and thoroughly wrong and inaccurate--and even disrespectful as we all know the man is an atheist--you can't even consider it rude when Harris laughed as he called out that statement.

If Peterson were atheist, I doubt he would say Harris lives as if God is real. However; what does any of this have to do with what I said?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. Right/wrong can be subjective, or objective.

Okay, now how to treat another human is subjective in the following sense. If you have 2 or more ways to act in regards to another human, which one you choose, is subjective. But so it is the response if there is a choice.

So there is no right way like how to make a engine work. How that engine works, is not dependent on how you think/feel. But how you act towards another human if there is choice involved, depends on how you think/feel. Or so for any other human.
Do we agree so far?

 

[Kfox]

Okay, now how to treat another human is subjective in the following sense. If you have 2 or more ways to act in regards to another human, which one you choose, is subjective. But so it is the response if there is a choice.

I agree.

So there is no right way like how to make a engine work.

I disagree. If the goal is to have the engine run, there is a right way to do it; you can’t just do it any ole way.

How that engine works, is not dependent on how you think/feel. But how you act towards another human if there is choice involved, depends on how you think/feel. Or so for any other human.
Do we agree so far?

I’m a bit confused on how you got from how an engine works to how we treat people; all in the same sentence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree.

I disagree. If the goal is to have the engine run, there is a right way to do it; you can’t just do it any ole way.

I’m a bit confused on how you got from how an engine works to how we treat people; all in the same sentence.

Sorry. I will try any again. There is only one right way to get an engine running and that can't be change based on how you think/feel. That is the objective way.
But how to treat another human depends on how you think/feel. That is subjective.

 

[Kfox]

Sorry. I will try any again. There is only one right way to get an engine running and that can't be change based on how you think/feel. That is the objective way.
But how to treat another human depends on how you think/feel. That is subjective.

I agree!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree!

Next step and now it gets weird.
Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

Easy, right. If I choose to describe something without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations, I am objective. That is the other version of objective. It is different from the example with the engine, because, that one doesn't dependent on how I think/feel. But here it depends on how I choose to act. If I choose not to use feelings but just describe what is going on, I am objective, thought it depends on that I choose to do so.

But it gets even weirder if we look closer on how brains work. Some of the processes are not choices. They are automated responses in the brain.
Now to understand that we have look as cause and effect. A choice is 2 different causations that lead to 2 different effect, for which I can't do both. I have to do the one or the other. As above I can choose to describe it objectively, but that is also subjective as I have a choice; or I choice to use my personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
But there are experiences in a brain, where there are no choices involved. There is no voluntary action possible for the experience itself. It simply comes to the person to their attention in their mind as a raw experience; i.e. this is how I feel in effect.

Any questions or objections?

 

[Kfox]

Next step and now it gets weird.
Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

Easy, right. If I choose to describe something without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations, I am objective. That is the other version of objective. It is different from the example with the engine, because, that one doesn't dependent on how I think/feel. But here it depends on how I choose to act. If I choose not to use feelings but just describe what is going on, I am objective, thought it depends on that I choose to do so.

But it gets even weirder if we look closer on how brains work. Some of the processes are not choices. They are automated responses in the brain.
Now to understand that we have look as cause and effect. A choice is 2 different causations that lead to 2 different effect, for which I can't do both. I have to do the one or the other. As above I can choose to describe it objectively, but that is also subjective as I have a choice; or I choice to use my personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
But there are experiences in a brain, where there are no choices involved. There is no voluntary action possible for the experience itself. It simply comes to the person to their attention in their mind as a raw experience; i.e. this is how I feel in effect.

Any questions or objections?

I can agree with that.