Introspection on the decline of morality.

Faithfulservant said:
Really? I felt like she was trying to fully identify as a woman with women and physiologically she can't.
Click to expand...
Could be. Or she's alluding to some subjective experiences she is having from the hormones that she equates with what she has heard natal women (cisgender women) say about their hormonal experiences. Without seeing it, I don't know.
 
juantoo3 said:
And for a naturally occurring situation, G!d help the poor soul. But it seems to me something is fueling the explosion, like a fad or something, like it is suddenly cool to want to see what the other side is like. And there are a lot of vampires waiting in the wings only too willing to profit from all of this. And it isn't something you can do one day and undue a year from now...it is an all or nothing situation. And those that travel that route are in for a lifetime of very expensive and mandatory medications...and big pharma is thinking "cha-ching!" I can't help but feel there is something, some entity or business, that is promoting this, and when it reaches into elementary schools and even jr high, I don't agree with that, at all.

Those children truly and legitimately facing challenges right need assistance. But as with ADHD drugs and such, once that door is opened all manner of abuses will occur.

Childhood, especially going into the teenage years, are always filled with angst and trepidation. Kids mostly will work it out for themselves if they are left alone to do so. Guide of course, be a shoulder to lean on if needed, but otherwise leave them alone. The exceptions should be rare.
Click to expand...
Transgenderism itself was once understood to be a rare exception.

I don't know what's happened, there are some hypotheses out there about chemicals in the environment affecting fetal brain development.

I think that the loosening of evaluation standards, getting rid of the "gatekeeping" as it were, opened a pandora's box down a road of sloppily managed medical care.

I think even back when we were still sort-of "gatekeeping" (that is, patients had to have letters signed by a mental health professional) there was a problem having master's level clinicians do this, and having only one clinician letter be enough.

I think it made more sense in the day when two psychiatrists had to sign off on the letters (I am pretty sure that was the old standard of care)

ESPECIALLY since the letter had to declare, in so many words "I declare this treatment is medically necessary"

I think it was absurd to have social workers and mental health counselors say that and sign it.

I hated that in my "training" Of course, no one would listen.

I think transgenderism is real, like a birth defect, and probably not as common as it now suddenly seems. Maybe it is becoming more common for real, i don't know. But I do think there needs to be more medical evaluations, such as neurological and hormonal along with psychiatric, get the master's level clinicians out of of or ONLY as collateral information. The evaluation needs to get more grounded in research and some objective standards.
 
juantoo3 said:
When biological males get rights won by females, what purpose does Women's Rights serve?

Why else would a nominee to the Supreme Court decline to answer the question "define what a woman is?"

Since men can now have babies, I now have a say in the abortion discussion. Before I stayed out of it because, well, men can't have babies. But since now men can have babies, my opinion on the subject matters as much as anybody else's.
Click to expand...
The most offensive documentary in the United States is basically Matt Walsh going around the world asking people what a woman is. Never thought I'd see the day that so many people were offended by such a basic question.
 
Snoopy said:
From this side of the pond it very much looks like the anti-science crowd are decidedly the republicans. Zygotes are human beings anyone?
Click to expand...
Being constantly told not to question the science? I can't think of anything more anti-science. That is what has happened in the US when it comes to any "science" pushed by the Democrat party. I believe that politics of any kind mixed with science is probably going to end up with bad science, Republican or Democrat. But seeing Dr. Fauci state "I represent science"? I did nazi that mentality coming on so strong. Liberal-owned companies like Twitter (until Musk purchased it), Google, Youtube, and Facebook often won't let you share anything that goes against the liberal "science" narrative. Any scientific studies that cast a shadow of doubt on their narrative was not allowed on any of these platforms and to a degree still isn't. So when, in hindsight, we found out that masks, lockdowns, and vaccines weren't really stopping the spread of Covid? No apologies.

I also didn't think I'd see the day that Bill Maher would be considered a moderate liberal. He has criticized the Democrat party for censoring any study that goes against their narrative. CNN hired Bill Maher to host his own show and hopefully draw in conservative viewers. Bill Maher, the guy who is on the board for PETA, to bring in conservative viewers. I don't even recognize the Democrat party anymore.
 
TheLightWithin said:
Not at all?
What did stop it, or slow it, based on what you know?
Click to expand...
In my experience? Staying home if you feel ill. I do not have studies to prove it, just my experience. My job excused any employee who called in sick simply because they didn't want Covid to spread. Our company had 400 employees. 7 had Covid in the first year. I left that job a year ago, but we never had more than 30 Covid cases. I was one of them, but I was on family leave and got Covid from a funeral. Two people were sick with a "cold". I told them not to go to the funeral. Their "cold" infected over half of us at the funeral. One person died. Five were hospitalized.... all because two people wouldn't stay home or even get tested for Covid (which it was definitely Covid19).

Those two people worked at a job that would discipline you if you called in sick without a positive Covid test. That company had 200 employees. At the time of the funeral over 100 already had Covid (while my workplace was at 7 cases). I was told that over 180 employees tested positive at that company by the end of that year.

This is just one example, and obviously not a big enough sample to be considered science. But it was my experience.
 
moralorel said:
In my experience? Staying home if you feel ill. I do not have studies to prove it, just my experience. My job excused any employee who called in sick simply because they didn't want Covid to spread. Our company had 400 employees. 7 had Covid in the first year. I left that job a year ago, but we never had more than 30 Covid cases. I was one of them, but I was on family leave and got Covid from a funeral. Two people were sick with a "cold". I told them not to go to the funeral. Their "cold" infected over half of us at the funeral. One person died. Five were hospitalized.... all because two people wouldn't stay home or even get tested for Covid (which it was definitely Covid19).

Those two people worked at a job that would discipline you if you called in sick without a positive Covid test. That company had 200 employees. At the time of the funeral over 100 already had Covid (while my workplace was at 7 cases). I was told that over 180 employees tested positive at that company by the end of that year.

This is just one example, and obviously not a big enough sample to be considered science. But it was my experience.
Click to expand...
It does sound like quarantining helped out.
 
moralorel said:
Being constantly told not to question the science? I can't think of anything more anti-science.
Click to expand...
moralorel said:
we found out that masks, lockdowns, and vaccines weren't really stopping the spread of Covid?
Click to expand...
Scientists question science. That's part of the scientific process. The important point here is when there is a consensus of scientific opinion.

As to covid measures, thanks for confirming my point about who the anti-science folk often are.
 
juantoo3 said:
If I recall, you are Buddhist, no?

Would you mind explaining the 3rd precept?

You know, the one about sexual misconduct?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic in hand, but anyhoo:


"3. NOT MISUSING SEX.​

Most modern Buddhists would tell you that this isn’t about who you can and can’t have sex with, but about how you relate to them. Clearly, a lack of consent or regard for your partner’s feelings constitutes misuse."

- 3rd Buddhist precept
 
Snoopy said:
Scientists question science. That's part of the scientific process. The important point here is when there is a consensus of scientific opinion.

As to covid measures, thanks for confirming my point about who the anti-science folk often are.
Click to expand...
Your point wasn't confirmed in the slightest. There was a consensus of one group, a group that did what they could to control their narrative. Anyone who questioned their narrative was ridiculed and censored. Besides, throughout history we have had a scientific consensus on a matter only to find out that the consensus was wrong.

You have been referring to Republicans and "anti-science". I'm not a Republican. Never been one.

As for science, see below.


www.vox.com

The new scientific review on masks and Covid isn’t what you think

A meta-analysis seeks to be the last word on the effectiveness of masks, but finding answers in science isn’t that easy.
www.vox.com www.vox.com
 
moralorel said:
Your point wasn't confirmed in the slightest. There was a consensus of one group, a group that did what they could to control their narrative. Anyone who questioned their narrative was ridiculed and censored. Besides, throughout history we have had a scientific consensus on a matter only to find out that the consensus was wrong.

You have been referring to Republicans and "anti-science". I'm not a Republican. Never been one.

As for science, see below.


www.vox.com

The new scientific review on masks and Covid isn’t what you think

A meta-analysis seeks to be the last word on the effectiveness of masks, but finding answers in science isn’t that easy.
www.vox.com www.vox.com
Click to expand...
I'll stick with the overall global consensus thanks. Your hysterical idea of Nazism does at least suggest you are an American?
 
Last edited:
Snoopy said:
I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic in hand, but anyhoo:


"3. NOT MISUSING SEX.​

Most modern Buddhists would tell you that this isn’t about who you can and can’t have sex with, but about how you relate to them. Clearly, a lack of consent or regard for your partner’s feelings constitutes misuse."

- 3rd Buddhist precept
Click to expand...
Interesting...but then the Buddhist precepts are more like suggestions, not at all like Judeo/Christian Commandments

Just because it is written, doesn't mean you have to observe, right?

Funny, or maybe odd, because as I was trying to remember this precept, I did a simple search, and the very first link that popped up included this:

The third of the five precepts—Buddhist guidelines for an ethical life—is to refrain from sexual misconduct. Lay Buddhists are not expected to be celibate like most Buddhist monastics, so the third precept is not a total ban on sex. It does, however, explicitly forbid adultery, rape, or sex with someone who is engaged to another, imprisoned, or ordained. But in many instances that are important to us today but would be unrecognizable to the historical Buddha, such as workplace harassment, relational power dynamics, and even dating apps, early Buddhist texts do not provide specific guidance beyond what we can extrapolate from the traditional restrictions.

For this reason, and because the Buddha generally advised his followers to abide by their society’s laws, how the third precept is understood changes from country to country and culture to culture.

Some later Buddhist texts outlined with precision several activities that constitute sexual misconduct, including having anal or oral sex and exceeding the maximum number of orgasms allowed per night (five). In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition in particular, the understanding of homosexual sex as a violation has caused friction with Western practitioners who take issue with this view. In recent years, Buddhist teachers have generally tended to understand such strictures as cultural more than canonical.
Click to expand...

The Third Precept: Refrain from Sexual Misconduct

The third precept of the five precepts—Buddhist guidelines for an ethical life—is to refrain from sexual misconduct.
tricycle.org

There is a basic fundamental law of the universe that libbies tend to forget...I have the RIGHT to say "no." No civil or cultural law, no condescending pressure, no religion, nothing manmade can take that right away from me. Saying "no" is an essential part of guiding my ethical life.

You live your life, I live my life. You don't get to tell me how to live my life. I don't care how you live your life, as long as you stay out of my face with it demanding that I approve.
 
Last edited:
juantoo3 said:
Interesting...but then the Buddhist precepts are more like suggestions, not at all like Judeo/Christian Commandments

Just because it is written, doesn't mean you have to observe, right?

Funny, or maybe odd, because as I was trying to remember this precept, I did a simple search, and the very first link that popped up included this:



The Third Precept: Refrain from Sexual Misconduct

The third precept of the five precepts—Buddhist guidelines for an ethical life—is to refrain from sexual misconduct.
tricycle.org

There is a basic fundamental law of the universe that libbies tend to forget...I have the RIGHT to say "no." No civil or cultural law, no condescending pressure, no religion, nothing manmade can take that right away from me. Saying "no" is an essential part of guiding my ethical life.

You live your life, I live my life. You don't get to tell me how to live my life. I don't care how you live your life, as long as you stay out of my face with it demanding that I approve.
Click to expand...
As you suggest, the precepts are aspirations, not commandments. Furthermore, Buddhism is not a monolithic religion, nor has it been frozen in time for two thousand years.

There are no "universal" social laws, they are all human constructs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top