= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek comments on Neo-reactionaries, why are you neo-reactionary? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (616)
I'll point out, again, that no one is making traditional child rearing arrangements unavailable, so it is not so much a change to "the" system as allowing other systems to operate.
That's independent of the question of whether this the non-traditional arrangements are better or even workable.
Also, I'd be much more willing to tolerate them if there were schools I could send my children to where they weren't encouraged to "find of if they're gay" or "find out if they're trans".
Also if progressives are so in favor of "allowing other systems to operate", why to they freak out whenever some hamlet in the Bible Belt decides to teach creationism?
If non traditional arrangements are unworkable then they die out,. Why be afraid of things you think are doomed to fail? Why oppose things that work?
Why? Because it's all imprinting? Heterosexuality is right because it is an inherent default, yet, so un-inherent that the rumour of an alternative will convert people?
There's a difference between teaching creationism and teaching only creationism.
The question is what they'll take out with them when they do fail.
Not all imprinting but there's certainly some of that.
No, heterosexuality (and monogamy) is right because it is an effective system for raising children.
It will convert some people and cause others to mess up their lives. Also what these "find out if you're gay" programs are doing is much more than "a rumour of an alternative".
Also note how you've shifted from "please allow these other systems to operate" to "let us expose all children to these other systems".
Well even the former causes progressives to totally freak out.
[Edit: fixed, thanks OtherDavid].
Indeed. So provide some evidence they'll take anything out.
There's no logical connection between "X is effective at Y" and "X is mandatory on everybody".
The existence of celibate priests , spinsters and other non breeders has not historically destroyed any societies.
Evidence...evidence...and evidence?
(And notice how anomalous your claims are. In every other case, everybody, including conservatives, can understand the difference between teaching-about and teaching-to. Nobody thinks telling kids about Henry VIII will turn them into wife murderers)
Nothing has changed.
Um actually we do, the issue is that progressives what to do the latter.
Depends on how it's taught. If the teachers emphasized Henry VIII's behavior as a positive example, they would turn some kids into wife murderers.
Frankly even teaching about will some kids into wife murderers, but the number of such kids is so small that its not worth worrying about (compared with the positive effect of giving the kids a more accurate map of reality.)
Evidence?
Evidence?
I think you meant "even the former."
That is, I think the way the argument you're making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to traditional lifestyles and belief systems that we are not even willing to allow them even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
Am I mistaken?
(To be clear: I am not interested in debating the merits of teaching creationism, teaching only creationism, encouraging heterosexuality, encouraging non-heterosexuality, etc. But if I've misunderstood you and you actually meant what you said in that last sentence, I'm intrigued.)
Yes, sorry typo fixed.
I assume you meant to put "creationism" for "traditional lifestyles" in that sentence.
I didn't, actually. But if the argument you're making applies only to creationism and not to traditional lifestyles more generally, I'll be interested to learn that as well.
In that I case have no idea what you're talking about in the grandparent.
Some examples:
I think the way the argument you're making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to creationism that we are not even willing to allow it even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
I think the way the argument you're making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to treating one-man-one-woman families as a particularly valuable sort of family unit that we are not even willing to allow it even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
I think the way the argument you're making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to treating heterosexuality as intrinsically superior to homosexuality that we are not even willing to allow it even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
I think the way the argument you're making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to assigning social roles based on gender that we are not even willing to allow it even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
And so forth.
If I'm still unintelligible, I apologize for my lack of clarity and am happy to tap out here.
This was the argument I was making in the relevant paragraph.
When I went to school (not that long ago) there was no mention of homosexuality in school sex education by law, and there was homophobic bullying. Even the most liberal teacher said "if two pupils were in a gay relationship, we'd cross that bridge when we came to it". Despite this, some of my school friends were gay, and plenty of people of my age are gay.
Do you have a link to back up this claim of schools teaching children to "find out if they're trans"? There's a difference between preaching tolerance and preaching advocacy.
Depends on where I went to school in a liberal state and what I describe was definitely going on.
Do you mean that at your school people were teaching children to "find out if they're trans"? If so, then please do describe what was going on.
Sexual diversity is real; creation science is not. Schools must teach what is true.
In what sense? It's real in the sense that there are people who engage in gay sex and people who claim to be "really" the opposite gender. There are also people who rape, people who believe in creationism and people who believe themselves to be "spiritually" some animal.
That doesn't mean we should endorse their behaviors or take their claims at face value.
People who sleep with their same sex do not necessarily identify as homosexuals, and definitely not all homosexuals identify as transgender. They are not the same phenomenon, they must not be confused, and the fact that you confuse them reveals a lot about your suitability to have this discussion.
No valid argument exists to equal homosexuality per se with, respectively, violating others' autonomy, being ridiculously misinformed, or having a psychiatric disorder.
Sorry if my wording wasn't clear.
I don't see what argument you can possible make for why say transsexuality shouldn't be considered a psychiatric disorder but being an "other kin" should. Today people who call transsexuality a psychiatric disorder are labeled "evil trasphobes", the way progressivism is going in a couple decades people, like yourself, who call other-kinness a psychiatric disorder will be labeled "evil other-kinphobes".
Again, you are confusing homosexuality and transgenderism.
Same-sex attraction is not classified as a mental disorder and does not require any medical intervention.
On the other hand, gender dysphoria is classified as a mental disorder in the DSM, and the treatment is helping your body match your brain, not the other way around. "There is also evidence that transsexuals have parts of their brain structure that is typical of the opposite birth-assigned gender." That's why in another comment I said it's firmware: your gender identity cannot be 'repaired' because it's wired in your brain, and that's why the treatment is modifying your netherparts instead.
The problem with otherkin is that they deny their own humanity, which is in a completely different category than denying one's femaleness. (However, if future surgical advances allow anyone who wants to get functional hooves and wings implanted, I say let them be happy.)
Um, you do realize the DSM's contents is massively influenced by politics?
It's also listed in the WHO's ICD, if you prefer that source.
I'm not as familiar with WHO's ICD; however, I'd expect the process that produces its contents to be similar to the one for the DSM.
Neither Bryan Caplan's post at the other end of that link, nor the Wired article he in turn links to, appears to me to be saying that the contents of the DSM are "massively influenced by politics".
[EDITED to add:] For the avoidance of doubt, I agree that both make a lot of criticisms of the DSM. I just don't see that "massively influenced by politics" is what they're complaining about.
How about the fact that everything we know about ontogeny suggests that gender of a child of human parents should be more fluid than its species, since the determination and development of gender-typical physiology in utero is complex and multivocal? There are ontogenetic factors (insufficient uptake of testosterone, for instance) that might lead to a child with male-typical sexual organs but more female-typical neurological features. There aren't any analogously complex species-determining processes involved in the development of a child.
Why would this effect the neurological and only the neurological features? On the other hand the example of other-kin shows that it's possible for a human brain to identify as something it isn't.
Just noticed this clause. Then which of the two is the thing that is supposedly 100% innate?
Nothing prevents a straight man from having a night of experimentation, and he may or may not end up liking what he finds.
I couldn't care less whether sexual orientation is innate or a choice. If it's innate, the debate is over. If it's a choice, you're free. In both cases, nothing wrong has happened.
s/homosexuality/other-kinness in that paragraph. Do you still agree with it? If not, what's the difference?
EDITED: It took me several minutes to guess what the s/ syntax probably meant.
Otherkin (or transgenderism, as discussed in previous posts) is an identity. It refers to who you are. Homosexuality is an orientation. It refers to whom you desire. They are different categories, but they can and do intersect (for example, if a person was born with lady parts, and only finds feminine people attractive, and identifies as male, that person is a transman, and not homosexual).
Can you taboo those italicised phrases? Or to put that differently, write it in E-Prime?
And this distinction is relevant because?