Anti COVID Vaccine and Passport Mandate March

[odeon]

But this is a great example of the kind of objections you raise - so pedantic that they're not worth fighting.

This far you've not said anything worth more than a short dismissal.

Your dismissals have been based on where I'm agreeing with you. Pedantry and nit-picking far from my argument.

You've entirely ignored the point - which are the relative costs.

You really need to work on both your reading and writing skills, then.

[odeon]

What does everybody think of pro choice abortion rights AND pro vaccine mandates? Personally I think anyone who believes in both is hypocritical.

How are the two even remotely comparable?

[odeon]

What does everybody think of pro choice abortion rights AND pro vaccine mandates? Personally I think anyone who believes in both is hypocritical.

If a woman gets an abortion it only effects her.  Not getting a vaccine has an incrementally bad effect on society in general.  Apples and Oranges.

Have you forgotten about the baby?

No baby involved.

[FourAceDeal]

It's not like people are being forced to at the detriment of their health or lives.

But Nicki Manoj's cousin's friend's testicles?

[odeon]

It's not like people are being forced to at the detriment of their health or lives.

But Nicki Manoj's cousin's friend's testicles?

[Calandale]

What does everybody think of pro choice abortion rights AND pro vaccine mandates? Personally I think anyone who believes in both is hypocritical.

Iffy on vax mandate, but only because the political cost is too high for the effect.

Opposed to choice in abortion. It should largely be mandatory. Something like the one-child policy only stronger.

[Calandale]

Have you forgotten about the baby?

From a genetic evolutionary point of view, every combination/life has some value to the survival of a species.
Humans increase this value because of societal contributions which allow fringe functionality to potentially provide values which are not merely about the survival of an individual. It is because of this that wealthier societies are able to afford to protect weaker and less useful members - keeping the aged around and giving up on actual infanticide (previously a fairly common practice). This can have some deleterious effects on short-term survival and per-capita welfare, but could also result in unforeseen advantages. We call this feature compassion, and it gets baked into societal mores and religious beliefs.

Unfortunately, that 'compassion' towards a potential person is in direct conflict with the needs of a functioning one in our modern society. There are strong pressures to not spawn (and good reason for those pressures). A breeding female is giving up significant opportunities to produce, as well as risking their own health, with each spawn. The society is no longer agricultural and there are no longer the close clan ties which make overbreeding a valuable trait. Just as hunter-gatherer (and Sparta too!) infanticide outlived its use, so too has the moral stance to try and create as many little humans as we can; better health care alone has driven this - though other factors in our richer society move us in this direction, as well.

Add to this the greatest human-induced threat - climate change which is directly linked to excessive population - and we should be doing whatever we can to reduce those numbers within our naturally evolving societal mores. We certainly should NOT be trying to force people who do not want to grow another human inside them to do so, at a cost to their own productiveness and health. Instead, we should be doing everything possible to discourage breeding - since it is essentially hard-wired in and very difficult to change physically. Nature and society are driving us in this direction; let's not oppose what is for our species' survival, by looking back toward medieval solutions to the high mortality rates. Let the modern compassion replace the antiquated version.

[Fun With Matches]

I'm actually pro-choice, FTR. I was playing Devil's advocate, I do that sometimes in debates to see what the other person is actually thinking (And to ensure some people do not automatically try to agree with me, because we're friends or whatever).

I think you need more babies in an aging population, like Italy.

Would you really force an abortion on a woman? (Not a "person who has babies").

[Calandale]

I think you need more babies in an aging population, like Italy.

Would you really force an abortion on a woman? (Not a "person who has babies").

From a consumerist stance, you absolutely do want to keep flooding the population, to keep the economy (at least) stable.
But, we have too many people. We either need one hell of a technological miracle, or population will be decreased in far more painful ways.


I don't know if my personal ethics are up to the task of what is right for humanity. I also don't know if I'm in favor of humanity, so I probably wouldn't force an abortion on a female spawner. I sure the hell wouldn't incentivize procreation though. Indeed, probably the opposite.

Speaking of 'woman', I'm willing to accept that is a gender role rather than one intrinsically linked to age and sex.
It seems to fit me well to allow for this kind of identification - because I really don't think of myself as a 'man'.
I'm attracted to female humans, but often find myself completely repulsed by what I see as gender differentiations.
They seem...fake to me. Like identifying as a team fan in sports, and making your whole existence about that.

Anyhow, whatever the term, there are definitely gender based roles and behaviors. And I don't really care where the terms land.

So long as people ain't making themselves plural. That's an abomination.

[Fun With Matches]

Making themselves plural? You mean being both genders or being say two women in one body? The latter would be more of a personality disorder, right?

Being a woman, biologically, is an identity too, a massive one. (Most) Young girls automatically want to wear make-up and play with dolls, a lot of the time. I wasn't into dolls and make-up, more toy trains and stuffed animal toys, but I appreciate that A LOT of young girls typically fit their biological sex in terms of behaviour, without any pushing from their parents. Same with boys. There are definite differences.

Going a couple of posts back, I'm not sure if climate change is a real situation. Why did they introduce the concept of global cooling I think in the 70s...then global warming...then a more general "climate change"? How do we know we aren't being distracted?

[Dirty Big Yoke]

Pretty sure gender is a social construct that is different to biological sex.

Also, what sex you are doesn't really define what behaviours you exhibit. Girls wanting to do makeup is due to being brought up in that specific gender role, there is no biological basis to it. Parents don't consciously push it upon them, but society's expectations of adhering to traditional gender roles definitely does play a huge factor.

Nature vs. nurture and all that.

[Dirty Big Yoke]

As for you not being into typical "girl" stuff, I think a large factor in that is growing up with being on the spectrum. A lot of people on the spectrum already feel different to the "norm", so they're more likely to be atypical when it comes to gendered stuff.

I'm the same - I'm fine being a man and all that, but I don't really adhere to typical male gender roles. It's not some natural biological thing, it's just that my childhood was different to others and that played a large role in what I am today.

[Fun With Matches]

Also, what sex you are doesn't really define what behaviours you exhibit. Girls wanting to do makeup is due to being brought up in that specific gender role, there is no biological basis to it. Parents don't consciously push it upon them, but society's expectations of adhering to traditional gender roles definitely does play a huge factor.

Nature vs. nurture and all that.

One of those arguments we're never going to agree on, I'm afraid. Testosterone for instance very noticeably affects a persons' behaviour, even transgender people will admit to that. Men naturally have more testosterone than women.

Kids very noticeably rebel when they're made to do something they don't like. Most kids aren't forced into traditional roles, they crave it. My niece craves make-up and dolls, she adores that stuff. She lights up when she plays with those things. My nephew craves trains and loves the family dog. My sister may be lots of things, but she couldn't change her kids' interests if she tried.

As for me being on the spectrum - what I experience is just my experience. I can see my experience, i.e. being non-binary, doesn't apply to most people. You can see it in their body language, tone of voice etc. how they actually feel. I feel that a lot of non-binary people project their views onto most people and make massive assumptions that they know the way they think, based only on the way the NB think, which is an extremely limited set of possibilities. As limited a view as when an NT makes ginormous assumptions about the way autistic people think. It's not a valid way of determining how anyone thinks - it's pure guesswork, mass agreement and then popular opinion.

[Dirty Big Yoke]

Also, what sex you are doesn't really define what behaviours you exhibit. Girls wanting to do makeup is due to being brought up in that specific gender role, there is no biological basis to it. Parents don't consciously push it upon them, but society's expectations of adhering to traditional gender roles definitely does play a huge factor.

Nature vs. nurture and all that.

One of those arguments we're never going to agree on, I'm afraid. Testosterone for instance very noticeably affects a persons' behaviour, even transgender people will admit to that. Men naturally have more testosterone than women.

Kids very noticeably rebel when they're made to do something they don't like. Most kids aren't forced into traditional roles, they crave it. My niece craves make-up and dolls, she adores that stuff. She lights up when she plays with those things. My nephew craves trains and loves the family dog. My sister may be lots of things, but she couldn't change her kids' interests if she tried.

As for me being on the spectrum - what I experience is just my experience. I can see my experience, i.e. being non-binary, doesn't apply to most people. You can see it in their body language, tone of voice etc. how they actually feel. I feel that a lot of non-binary people project their views onto most people and make massive assumptions that they know the way they think, based only on the way the NB think, which is an extremely limited set of possibilities. As limited a view as when an NT makes ginormous assumptions about the way autistic people think. It's not a valid way of determining how anyone thinks - it's pure guesswork, mass agreement and then popular opinion.

Testosterone can do a lot of things, but it can't influence someone's interests. There is no natural basis for how much testosterone or estrogen relates to how they're into dolls and makeup. How you're raised by your parents and what society expects of you can really shape who you are as a person.

I have VERY high testosterone levels. My unusually hairy body proves this. And yet, I'm non-violent, not afraid to do "non male" things etc. I was never naturally inclined to do just "men stuff".

As for trans women - they take estrogen for very obvious reasons for you know, transitioning. The estrogen they take is even jokingly referred to as "titty skittles"

[Calandale]

Making themselves plural? You mean being both genders or being say two women in one body? The latter would be more of a personality disorder, right?

No. A grammatical one.

Being a woman, biologically, is an identity too, a massive one. (Most) Young girls automatically want to wear make-up and play with dolls, a lot of the time. I wasn't into dolls and make-up, more toy trains and stuffed animal toys, but I appreciate that A LOT of young girls typically fit their biological sex in terms of behaviour, without any pushing from their parents. Same with boys. There are definite differences.

Does 'woman' relate to gender or sex? If gender, then there is no biological reality. If sex, then societal expectations (like what toys to play with) don't apply.

Going a couple of posts back, I'm not sure if climate change is a real situation. Why did they introduce the concept of global cooling I think in the 70s...then global warming...then a more general "climate change"? How do we know we aren't being distracted?

There is STILL fear of a snapback causing an ice age. But, that's not what was happening in the 70's.
That was based more upon geological models, and you'll still see the defenders of these as climate change deniers.
It's like trying to defend copernican thought in the light of modern astrophysics - there are contradictory facts that show it doesn't apply.
 
The fact is that the scientific method has to be capable of changing predictions based upon new factors.
COULD it be all wrong? Yes, obviously. Just like the bus you see on the street might not be solid.
But you goes with the best information you have - and what we have now is pretty strong.