So it is natural then you would say. A child’s reaction is natural, I would say.
The child’s reaction is innocent. I would say. That is what makes it so easy to groom them.
1 Like
Just like how churchgoers groom kids into bullshit and PTSD?
Or schools with the propoganda bullshite?
Or would you say those are more of a brute force thing, like circumcision… less of a grooming? As grooming implies something subtle and non-violent.
Well, I would need to know what sort of propaganda and bullshit you’re referring to. Predators will find their way into good situations and turn them bad—it doesn’t mean those situations started out bad, or can’t go back to good.
You can get PTSD from grooming once you realize you were the victim of it. As you (most predators, for that matter…) appear to have been.
Just remember, before conversion, Saul/Paul started out holding the coats at the stoning of Stephen, and before becoming an abolitionist, the dude who wrote Amazing Grace (John Newton) started out a slave trader who would rape the female slaves on the ship. We all have our origin story.
Forgive the interruption, but the real problem is between prima faciae and role differentiation. In classical times with well established roles, sexuality could remain more or less objectless, and the vanity of modeling have not surpassed the differentiated vanity, that Schopenhauer speaks of existence.
When the objective appeared gender specific, woman were thought to have remained in that undifferentiated state, without the need for morally justified implications.
The element of control became a tool of signifying normalcy , where the two became only implicit and generated myths around it.
()
Aside from the biblical genesis, the glossed over question asked, why the Germans in a different context , perhaps that both empresses, the pivotal movers , Maria Theresa and Katherine the Great were both Germanic rulers, coming through the enlightenment, alongside Goethe and Rousseau.
There’s no problem.
To stop cattle that only look like humans from breeding, you have to change their sexual orientation.
Where’s the problem?
An animal is not able to understand not only that it is an animal, but also why it is being cheated on, its sexual orientation, too.
Is that supposed to be an explanation (main thrust) behind the pushing of such propaganda?
We have it in us to overcome/diverge, and if we reject what we’re supposed to overcome/diverge into (life that never passes), because we are too attached to what does pass (ultimately… what dies), we can overcome/diverge into nothingness. Not all overcoming/diverging is progress.
I think agree, but would you agree it’s a difference in degree and not in kind? If you check your hair before leaving the house, it’s taking care of yourself; if you sit in front of the mirror for two hours tweezing every hair into place it’s vanity; if you do something in between it’s on a spectrum between the two.
But why isn’t this true for the boy with boobs? We could treat that condition with therapy too. For that matter, we could treat feeling unattractive with therapy instead of makeup.
Again, this seems like a matter of degree, and to say that one of these things is best treated with therapy and the others aren’t is question-begging.
‘Functional’ towards what function?
[quote=“Ichthus77 (formerly She™), post:57, topic:81576, username:Ichthus77”]requiring the healthcare of the opposite sex.
[/quote]
I don’t think this is the paradigm case. My impression is that trans people understand that their medical needs are different from cis people’s, and they understand that their transitions are incomplete, and will remain incomplete (at least until technology improves).
I think a fundamental disagreement between us is that you see wanting to live as another gender as a question of delusion, and I see it as a question of agency.
You think that people who want to live as a different gender as fundamentally confused, like they could only feel that way if they don’t understand that they were actually born as a particular biological sex. I don’t think that’s well supported: transwomen typically understand that they don’t have wombs, periods, etc.
I think that people get to the last word on questions about themselves. It’s fine to think they should get therapy instead of surgery, but ultimately they know themselves better than we know them. So when they say that living as the other gender, and getting surgery and hormones to support that change, are the only thing that will stop them from feeling constant suicidal depression, I take them at their word.
Therapy’s great, we should all get a little therapy, but ultimately people get to make decisions about their own bodies.
(clipped to avoid a digression) I don’t think making these kinds of distinctions is foul play in philosophy. Recognizing that a word points to a compound concept and talking about how to label its parts is a huge part of exploring ideas. And sometimes when you do that, you’ll notice that one person is using the original word to point to one part of the concept and another person is using it to point to the other of the concept – that’s not “redefin[ing]”.
Similarly here: trans issues conflate two questions: 1) what should a person do, and 2) who gets to decide what a person should do? Maybe we are answering different questions.
It is useless to tell animals that they are animals. They will still keep mooing, bleating or barking about their own things. It is useless to rub their nose in their lack of choice. Unconventional orientation is a mistake. For animals, it’s just a mistake. But for humans who are like animals, it is a mistake caused by the influence of authority. We have imposed priorities aimed at reducing the population. Power can call for one thing and impose another. The authorities can talk about intolerance to pornography, but at the same time finance the pornography industry. The authorities can ban gay parades, but at the same time be gay themselves. We need to understand the goal of those in power: population control, and when puppets (saboteurs) are in power, we can already talk about genocide. What is the problem here? Is it that people, who have sunk to the level of beasts, obey bandits, criminals, thieves and saboteurs? Or is it that scoundrels in power say one thing and do the opposite? Where, in fact, are the problems?
So if you’re defending someone’s life, and as a result, the attacker dies unavoidably, is that a difference in degree, or a difference in kind from genocide?
A boy thinks he should start his period and be able to get pregnant because he identifies as a girl. Who taught him to do that? How is that evidence-based? Who taught him not to be satisfied with the fact that he’s a boy?
Okay, so now you’re admitting that only primates demonstrate acts of sodomy and specifically “However, the practice might have been a consequence of homosexual rearing, as the male orangutan in this dyad had had extensive same–sex experience.” as per your article! So fag primates are primarily the result of pedophilic grooming!!
Nice position, Carleas and Maxx!.. 
So human males lactate and breastfeed… and this is the position you and Maxx are digging trenches for?? Got it…
So homosexuality is “not disgusting” to you… okay then, Maxx, care to explain this?!?
Are you sure he hasn’t researched it? Are you sure you’re aware of his position, or mine, compared to your own? What does “Nature” then presume about Homosexuality, given these recent arguments?
Not “all” the evil, but many types of evil. One side doesn’t have a monopoly of Evil over the other, but rather one side is in power, for a time, before the pendulum swings. That is my belief.
So if homosexual behavior is specifically observed in Primate species, and correlates directly to ‘grooming’, of adult males sodomizing pubescent males, then what does that explicitly state about Hominid homosexual behaviors? And what does that imply about those who promote and defend Homosexuality or sexual “Liberty” in general??
Perhaps excessively, given this argumentation… 
What is “controversial” now, though? Being heterosexual or being homosexual? Being sexually conservative, or being sexually liberal?
Insanity… “Normal” sex means Heterosexuality in all Mammalian species. That is its “Nature”. For you to argue that Homosexuality is “Equal”, is abnormal.
Yes yes, I’ve heard the argument countless times: Oh you’re European?! Did you know that all your heroes and great thinkers, great leaders, artists, were a bunch of faggots?? Yeah, so being gay is completely normal and a mark of your heritage! Also, Hitler was Jewish too!
It’s called Demoralization. It’s doubtful, given how much revisionism occurs, that world’s historical leaders “were all a bunch of homos”. This is not to therein claim that homosexuality did not occur in the Past, but to imply that “societal norms” have changed, is ridiculous. It was likely the same arguments 2000 years ago, as it is today. And THAT is what I’ve gleaned from reading the historical works, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes.
Greeks, specifically, had negative opinions about “Men” giving into lust, emotionalism, and generally ‘womanly’ behavior (including homosexuality). In fact, Greeks have different words for “Love”, not ‘Just One’ definition and term.
What is ingrained… that people don’t like having objects shoved up their asses?? WOW, big observation Maxx!!!
…surely you can do better than this performance. I expect more from you.
You mean, the normalcy of Heterosexuality??? I agree, thanks for taking my side of the argument Maxx, I knew you’d come around… 
You have to have two things to talk about a difference. You’ve described one scenario, there has to be some second thing to compare it to to even talk about a difference. Is it different from what?
Defending someone’s life from an attacker does not constitute genocide, but now you will argue “Then why bother asking about degree versus kind?” Just replay it.
Difference in kind, that seems like an easy question. I don’t really follow how this analogy relates.
The vast majority of transwomen do not think this way. Again, you assume that they are deeply deluded, and you should question that assumption.
Are primates “animals in Nature”?
I also pointed you to “one animal specie [sic] … where males breastfeed.”
Did you update your beliefs? Do these updates change your beliefs about the topic of this thread, or were they never really part of the basis of your beliefs about the topic of this thread?
Human males sometimes grow boobs and sometimes lactate. I do not think they typically breastfeed --my understanding is that ‘lactation’ unrelated to birth (in both men and women) is not true breast milk.
Do you find homosexuality in women as disgusting as you find it in men? If not, I would offer that what’s disgusting to you is just that you aren’t attracted to men, so it’s the idea of being attracted to men, and not homosexuality per se, that disgusts you.
1 Like
It is true breast milk. https://www.goodrx.com/health-topic/mens-health/men-lactate-prolactin
1 Like
about 20 posts ago… I retraced steps back to…
Evidence-based medicine works with your actual biology rather than transforming it (which is what profit-driven vanity medicine does) which causes more health problems than it solves.
Again, an added Tod bit, in the apex of the Ottoman Empire, Suleiman the Magnificent kept a harem of beautiful boys gathered from all parts of the empire, who were raised and tutored to be in the service of the Sultan. Thousands were recruited but only one among them became the companion of the absolute monarch.
There was intrigue among the others and Enoch’s kept vigilant eyes on them, The pressures and paranoias were incredible, and the young boy had to survive the competitiveness of belonging to a culturally embraced institutional process, that was respected throughout the empire, and by the Sultan’s wife, his children and yje leading veneers and pashas.
The boy then, if he was successful in becoming this chosen one , had to carefully navigate around the precariousness of the Sultan’s unpredictable emotions, as well as the treachery of the court, who looked at the boy with utter humility and awe, for the boy had power second to bone other than the Sultam.
One little mistake, one allowed political stumble, or, one sign the boy began to have facial hair, and the decline was unavoidable , sometimes dramatic.
A few survived splendidly, and the state utilized the fruits that his education had produced, some kept their astounding wealth gained by tributes from all over the empire.
A similar process occurred in Rome, however different , perhaps with more humane methods exercised.
I bring this up in conjunction to Vanity being not merely a matter of cosmetic indulgence, but the political-religious vanity among all classes, that advanced an imperial manifestation of power and privilege. The.occidental vanity parallels this , but seemingly not as overtly, conformed to Jude’s-Christian motifs, and beautified accordingly as to reflect the artistic narratives which embellished such now become stylistic matters of signs of power and will throughout the Holy Roman Empire.
My mistake, thank you for the correction (as a wise man once said, “google your beliefs some time”).
But again, you seem to have no problem with transforming some peoples actual biology, with literally the same procedures we use in gender transition, e.g. mastectomies and hormone therapy.
Transforming biology isn’t the problem, it’s something else.
I don’t think that’s so – this one I googled, and consensus seems to be that 1) the quality of evidence is low, but 2) most literature reviews conclude that outcomes are significantly positive for hormonal and surgical intervention as a treatment for gender dysphoria (e.g. [1],[2],[3]).