Audie
Veteran Member
CAN only
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is a female??
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Canadian?
I happen to be able to speak that too....eh.
Not fluentely though?
Fluently enuf to fix your attempt at it, yeah, no, for sure, eh.
Don't burn her.
Just microwave her for 30 seconds.
What's cooking with you?
Audie
Veteran Member
Even a canuk aint that dense
Shrimp tacos.
Don't underestimate'm.
Interesting points. However the topic at hand is not about morality, good or bad; it's about what constitutes normal vs abnormal.But that is not a purpose, because that is a subjective evaluation. There is in the objective sense no purpose to the natural world. It is natural processes happening. What you call good and bad as for your examples are in effect both processes, it is just you assigning good and bad to them.
So while you can objectively describe processes, it is false that they are good or bad as processes, because good and bad are in you as they have no objective referent.
If you want to use evidence, then you have to learn when evidence doesn't apply, otherwise you are doing garbage in garbage out and that is irrelevant as to religion or not.
Learn that to describe the world is not the same as how we ought to live in it.
And for humans you can't just describe humans with evidence, because we are also in a limited sense subjective and evidence doesn't apply to that.
That is the first step. As for how we then ought to live, you can then learn to subjectively compare different assumptions about that. But you can't do it with evidence.
You have to learn however you claim useful and good, that is without evidence. Or that if you in effect claim objective good and bad, then it is false.
Audie
Veteran Member
You just said that coz of being
a closet canukian
I almost became one back in the 70s.
But Nixon cancelled the draft in the nick of time.
Good thing! I'd have been there at the border to beat you back!
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah and that is a variant of the same problem.
Now we will do even deeper to the general concepts of positive and negative.
You know what a gate/door is for open and closed. But that is not a property of a gate/door in itself, because you can't see that. Rather it is a consequence for how we interact with one. It is open what we can go trough it and closed when we can't.
In general for all positives and negatives is that you can't use the 5 external senses on them to observe those 2. They are in your mind/brain.
That is the same with normal and abnormal and indeed what makes a female a female or not for biological and/or social and/or subjective/mental characteristics.
Again, you have to learn when you state facts versus when you assign cognitive constructs.
So you are now looking at what you call a human and you have to decide if you use sub-categories based on objective, social and/or subjective/mental characteristics, but you have to be aware that you decide how you do that.
I am not your teacher, but in another thread you used the standard of true and false. And I am holding you to that one, because you used that standard.
All I'd have to do is play some show tunes,Good thing! I'd have been there at the border to beat you back!
& you'd be all sing'n & dance'n.
Young people need a social issue to fight in order to buck the system. Years ago there was the Vietnam war, leaders getting assassinated, civil rights issues, women’s rights issues, real issues that needed to be addressed. Today most of those battles have been won; we don’t even have a war to worry about. With nothing real to fight over, they make stuff up; hence much of the confusion we have today.
Because back then, for most of us, the only possibility of having any kind of decent life at all meant the absolute need to hide who you were and who you loved.
But there were a few -- maybe you just never met them -- who were already so disaffected and disconnected with their own society and family that they didn't hide. You can find them in the history books *, and if you ask enough people, you'll find someone who knew one. (Perhaps you were just too sheltered?)
By the way, I was always one of those who didn't hide, growing up as I did first recovering from terrible childhood abuse and then living my whole life with absolutely zero family and, after 17 years old, zero support except myself. Now, I'm only gay, not transgender, so my way through has always been easier, and I have little to complain about. But I knew some of the others -- a friend named Leonard who eventually became Lynn and lived only until mid-twenties before taking her own life in the early 1970s.
So, one of the reasons that we see more today is because the world has opened up enough that many people no longer feel the need to hide in desperate, lonely misery. (I had one friend, already a business success with a good living, for whom just being gay, with a family who couldn't accept it, was enough to lead him to walk out into Lake Ontario in 1975 and drown himself.}
*
Transgender history - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Not all.
There are disorders & even normal conditions that prevent it.
This is why I oppose simplistic definitions of male & female.
There'll always be admitted exceptions...many of'm.
Sex should be based upon a preponderance of factors.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Like most words, contextual.
What would be your single definition of the word "car" for example?