Morality Is Often Harmful

[bigfield]

I'm not an American, and the Cold War ended before I learned how to tie my shoes, so I don't understand what you think it is that communists do. It would help if you could be more specific about what tactics you're talking about.

You've said that the excuse for C-16 is to "include transgendered people into society". How does their real motive differ from this?

One of the tactics that communists and others like them love to use is to make things up and lie, be very loud about it, and be very disruptive about it, and sometimes use violence and destroy property about it. Keep doing it until the powers that be pass legislation, which then begins to erode rights and liberty.

And another is to turn the country's disenfranchised and minority groups against the majority groups.

If you want a book on those tactics, one such book is Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinski.

The real motive to is to install some sort of tyranny with them in control, using transgendered people is this smokescreen, in my own personal opinion.

And as far as not discriminating against, them,why must their own pronouns be used if you won't use the words of non transgendered people, father, mother, he or she. That is not ending discrimination, that is a special privilege.

Thanks for the clarification.

Here's how I understand your position on Bill C-16: The supporters of Bill C-16 are lying when they say that they want to include transgendered people into society, but their real motive is to turn Canada into a communist state.

If I accept your conspiracy theory for the sake of the discussion, then it's clear that morality is not the problem. Rather, the problem, as with the Cherokee example, is that people lie about their motives in order to gain support for their actions.

At the outset of this thread it was unclear what you were getting at because you present a reactionary interpretation of modern social reforms.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The examples you've provided are fairly illustrative of your position.

However I want to understand your position with respect to some of the "modern" examples.

You cited Canada's Bill C-16 as an example of harm.



Who is being harmed by this bill?

What "excuse" is being given, and by whom?

What is their real motive, in your opinion?

It fines and imprisons people for speaking out against transgendered. How is that not harm? How does it not harm the society? It is a double standard as it protects one group of people over another. Why should one group of people be specially protected over another?

The excuse is that it is to include transgendered people into society. But is there any real truth to that claim? The underlying assumption is that transgendered people have been ostracized from society and need this bill.

And maybe, transgendered people don't want to be part of that society? Wouldn't this bill force them to be part of something they don't want and remove their choice? And would that not count as doing them harm in the name of doing good?

I don't know much about Canada, so I have no real answers for these. I am going by America values of constitutional rights and liberties, which is why I oppose it. Canada doesn't seem to have those same values, at least as far as I know.

Who is this bill really benefiting?

How does this really benefit society in the long run? When you unfairly target people and attempt to displace them, it can only go on for so long until those who are displaced wills tart to fight back.

It is my own personal opinion that this is actually communism. These are the same tactics that communists love to use.

I see far more of this crap from the far right demonizing gays and caging black voters etc. Not from communists. I do note that way back when the US was segregated, that fighting racism was something the communists did (along with blacks and liberals). Does communist support for civil rights make civil rights wrong?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I have come to personally hate morality.

It is often used to hurt people.

It often goes like this:

You did something that makes me feel bad in some way so now I get to hurt you to correct your behavior to help myself feel better.

When atrocities and crimes against humanity are committed, the person who is committing them thinks they are doing a good thing. At the risk of a Godwin, Hitler wrote in his book Mein Kampf making many allusions that killing Jews are a good thing, and Stalin did think so too. Che Guerva, Pol Pot, all dictators like them believe they are doing a good thing.

The Antifa people and other Trump opposers are eroding our Constitutional rights and liberties (as in manspreading and personal pronouns in NTC here in America and in Canada bills C16 and the Anti-Blasphemy bill are prime examples. They think they are doing.

To take away a successful person's money and give it to somebody "less fortunate" are good and moral things. To some people.

Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church sheer utter crap about hating Homosexuals is another example. Christians who hate atheists and discriminates against them to no end do it in the name of their own morality

There are many examples that can be used to show just how much crap Morality actually is, because a lot of it is just an excuse to hurt people.

And I despise this excuse to no end.

You're talking about norms, or legal sanctions. Morality doesn't deal with how we figure out who is guilty.

Morality only deals with what is right or wrong. It doesn't, at all, deal with what we should do if people break them.

 

[Rayschism]

One of the tactics that communists and others like them love to use is to make things up and lie, be very loud about it, and be very disruptive about it, and sometimes use violence and destroy property about it. Keep doing it until the powers that be pass legislation, which then begins to erode rights and liberty.

And another is to turn the country's disenfranchised and minority groups against the majority groups.

If you want a book on those tactics, one such book is Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinski.

The real motive to is to install some sort of tyranny with them in control, using transgendered people is this smokescreen, in my own personal opinion.

And as far as not discriminating against, them,why must their own pronouns be used if you won't use the words of non transgendered people, father, mother, he or she. That is not ending discrimination, that is a special privilege.

Thanks for the clarification.

Here's how I understand your position on Bill C-16: The supporters of Bill C-16 are lying when they say that they want to include transgendered people into society, but their real motive is to turn Canada into a communist state.

If I accept your conspiracy theory for the sake of the discussion, then it's clear that morality is not the problem. Rather, the problem, as with the Cherokee example, is that people lie about their motives in order to gain support for their actions.

At the outset of this thread it was unclear what you were getting at because you present a reactionary interpretation of modern social reforms.

Except that my thread wasn't about that, those were just examples because you guys asked me to clarify my position. I could have presented some personal stories, but personal stories are considered anecdotal and never accepted as proof.

Thanks for the post.

 

[Rayschism]

It fines and imprisons people for speaking out against transgendered. How is that not harm? How does it not harm the society? It is a double standard as it protects one group of people over another. Why should one group of people be specially protected over another?

The excuse is that it is to include transgendered people into society. But is there any real truth to that claim? The underlying assumption is that transgendered people have been ostracized from society and need this bill.

And maybe, transgendered people don't want to be part of that society? Wouldn't this bill force them to be part of something they don't want and remove their choice? And would that not count as doing them harm in the name of doing good?

I don't know much about Canada, so I have no real answers for these. I am going by America values of constitutional rights and liberties, which is why I oppose it. Canada doesn't seem to have those same values, at least as far as I know.

Who is this bill really benefiting?

How does this really benefit society in the long run? When you unfairly target people and attempt to displace them, it can only go on for so long until those who are displaced wills tart to fight back.

It is my own personal opinion that this is actually communism. These are the same tactics that communists love to use.

I see far more of this crap from the far right demonizing gays and caging black voters etc. Not from communists. I do note that way back when the US was segregated, that fighting racism was something the communists did (along with blacks and liberals). Does communist support for civil rights make civil rights wrong?

That would be your own bias.

And if it is real civil rights, than why would only a specific group of people have them and not another?

That's not really civil rights.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I see far more of this crap from the far right demonizing gays and caging black voters etc. Not from communists. I do note that way back when the US was segregated, that fighting racism was something the communists did (along with blacks and liberals). Does communist support for civil rights make civil rights wrong?

That would be your own bias.

And if it is real civil rights, than why would only a specific group of people have them and not another?

That's not really civil rights.

Jim Crow, segregation, lack of full civil rights for black Americans is not morally correct. It's not a bias only, but based on common sense.

Civil rights was something that had to be fought for against cultural bigotry. Yes, it really is civil rights to oppose segrgation and Jim Crow. And bad cultural habits.

 

[Rayschism]

That would be your own bias.

And if it is real civil rights, than why would only a specific group of people have them and not another?

That's not really civil rights.

Jim Crow, segregation, lack of full civil rights for black Americans is not morally correct. It's not a bias only, but based on common sense.

Civil rights was something that had to be fought for against cultural bigotry. Yes, it really is civil rights to oppose segrgation and Jim Crow. And bad cultural habits.

How is it common sense to segregate people on skin color alone?

Also, as a tangent, some southerners I've talked to have told me that those were not based on common sense, but rather taking their anger out on african americans because they hated losing the American Civil War.

I still don't know if that is true or not.

 

[WAB]

I'm not an American, and the Cold War ended before I learned how to tie my shoes, so I don't understand what you think it is that communists do. It would help if you could be more specific about what tactics you're talking about.

You've said that the excuse for C-16 is to "include transgendered people into society". How does their real motive differ from this?

One of the tactics that communists and others like them love to use is to make things up and lie, be very loud about it, and be very disruptive about it, and sometimes use violence and destroy property about it. Keep doing it until the powers that be pass legislation, which then begins to erode rights and liberty.

And another is to turn the country's disenfranchised and minority groups against the majority groups.

If you want a book on those tactics, one such book is Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinski.

The real motive to is to install some sort of tyranny with them in control, using transgendered people is this smokescreen, in my own personal opinion.

And as far as not discriminating against, them,why must their own pronouns be used if you won't use the words of non transgendered people, father, mother, he or she. That is not ending discrimination, that is a special privilege.

I agree wholeheartedly. These people aren't fighting discrimination, they are fighting for special privilege, like you said.

I have used a female avatar, here and elsewhere, for many years, and I identify with my feminine side something fierce. In fact, I think I might even qualify for this "transgender" label-thingy, since I tell everybody now that, while I'm happy with my junk, I'd be just as happy as a woman. I even used a female moniker here for a while, Loretta J. Hyde.

But since I have a penis, I use the men's bathroom; and since I have a slight mustache and beard, I expect to be referred to as he, him, or that guy over there, or that man, there, yeah, that dude.

Since I have a penis, and not a vagina, the one place I most certainly do NOT belong is in the ladies' bathroom.

This is really easy stuff here. Nothing complicated.

 

[bilby]

One of the tactics that communists and others like them love to use is to make things up and lie, be very loud about it, and be very disruptive about it, and sometimes use violence and destroy property about it. Keep doing it until the powers that be pass legislation, which then begins to erode rights and liberty.

And another is to turn the country's disenfranchised and minority groups against the majority groups.

If you want a book on those tactics, one such book is Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinski.

The real motive to is to install some sort of tyranny with them in control, using transgendered people is this smokescreen, in my own personal opinion.

And as far as not discriminating against, them,why must their own pronouns be used if you won't use the words of non transgendered people, father, mother, he or she. That is not ending discrimination, that is a special privilege.

I agree wholeheartedly. These people aren't fighting discrimination, they are fighting for special privilege, like you said.

I have used a female avatar, here and elsewhere, for many years, and I identify with my feminine side something fierce. In fact, I think I might even qualify for this "transgender" label-thingy, since I tell everybody now that, while I'm happy with my junk, I'd be just as happy as a woman. I even used a female moniker here for a while, Loretta J. Hyde.

But since I have a penis, I use the men's bathroom; and since I have a slight mustache and beard, I expect to be referred to as he, him, or that guy over there, or that man, there, yeah, that dude.

Since I have a penis, and not a vagina, the one place I most certainly do NOT belong is in the ladies' bathroom.

This is really easy stuff here. Nothing complicated.

And if it's not complicated for YOU, it therefore cannot be complicated for ANYONE, right?

Or is that logic deeply flawed and total nonsense?

For fuck's sake, your personal experience is not a guide to the remaining 7+ billion living humans; If it was, all of them would have penises and not vaginas, which even you should be aware from observation is a flawed hypothesis.

You are less likely to know that not all humans have one and only one item from the set {penis, vagina}; some have both, some have none, some have other permutations. This is a fact that you are likely living in ignorance of; But it remains a fact, and ignorance - even widespread ignorance - is a poor basis for policymaking.

If you think that genitals fall neatly into two, and only two, morphologies, then you are simply wrong. Reality is more complicated, and this remains true whether or not you know it; whether or not you like it; and whether or not your ill-informed opinion is elegant in its lack of complexity.

If you think that genital morphology is the final (or even major) arbiter of gender (which is a psychological phenomenon, that is loosely correlated to various physiological characteristics that constitute sex), then you are even more wrong.

Reality is under no obligation to be easy for you to comprehend. Your personal situation is no guide to the personal situation of all humanity.

 

[WAB]

I forgot what a charming puppy dog you were, bilby.



Edited for clarity: If you have a penis, stay the fuck out of the ladies' bathroom.

^

The above is not directed at those rare individuals you mentioned, bilby, but for the vast number of garden-variety 'normal' male CDs and sissies who will use this transgender trend as a means of getting their rocks off.

 

[bilby]

I forgot what a charming puppy dog you were, bilby.



Edited for clarity: If you have a penis, stay the fuck out of the ladies' bathroom.

^

The above is not directed at those rare individuals you mentioned, bilby, but for the vast number of garden-variety 'normal' male CDs and sissies who will use this transgender trend as a means of getting their rocks off.

That 'vast number' approximates to zero. Despite your rather disgusting fantasies.

Almost nobody gets their rocks off looking at other people in public bathrooms. Largely because there's really not a lot to be seen.

 

[bigfield]

I have used a female avatar, here and elsewhere, for many years, and I identify with my feminine side something fierce. In fact, I think I might even qualify for this "transgender" label-thingy, since I tell everybody now that, while I'm happy with my junk, I'd be just as happy as a woman. I even used a female moniker here for a while, Loretta J. Hyde.

But since I have a penis, I use the men's bathroom; and since I have a slight mustache and beard, I expect to be referred to as he, him, or that guy over there, or that man, there, yeah, that dude.

Since I have a penis, and not a vagina, the one place I most certainly do NOT belong is in the ladies' bathroom.

This is really easy stuff here. Nothing complicated.

Suppose you were a pre-op trans woman. You have a penis but nobody else could tell this by looking at you because you present as a woman. Which toilet does common sense suggest you use?

Suppose you are intersex but were raised as a girl. Which toilet should you use?

 

[bigfield]

The above is not directed at those rare individuals you mentioned, bilby, but for the vast number of garden-variety 'normal' male CDs and sissies who will use this transgender trend as a means of getting their rocks off.

In that case, we'd better ban poofters from the men's room so that they can't get a look at your shrivelled little willy while you're peeing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why do we have ladies and men's toilets at all? There's no logic here? Why is it not ok for a man to use the ladies? Or vice versa.

Why not just call them toilets? And let whoever is in need use them?

It's one thing if we're talking about the toilet in a night club, where bathrooms have a variety of functions other than just peeing or pooping. But apart from that, I don't get it?

 

[bigfield]

Sex segregated bathrooms make about as much sense as racially segregated bathrooms, and many places have unisex bathrooms, anyway.

It just seems like segregation for the sake of segregation.

 

[DBT]

Why do we have ladies and men's toilets at all? There's no logic here? Why is it not ok for a man to use the ladies? Or vice versa.

Why not just call them toilets? And let whoever is in need use them?

It's one thing if we're talking about the toilet in a night club, where bathrooms have a variety of functions other than just peeing or pooping. But apart from that, I don't get it?

Security and/or modesty issues associated with body functions. Young females could feel vulnerable, for example, with male presence next to their cubicle or near their door. There may be voyeurs or perverts who take advantage of unisex toilets, etc.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why do we have ladies and men's toilets at all? There's no logic here? Why is it not ok for a man to use the ladies? Or vice versa.

Why not just call them toilets? And let whoever is in need use them?

It's one thing if we're talking about the toilet in a night club, where bathrooms have a variety of functions other than just peeing or pooping. But apart from that, I don't get it?

Security and/or modesty issues associated with body functions. Young females could feel vulnerable, for example, with male presence next to their cubicle or near their door. There may be voyeurs or perverts who take advantage of unisex toilets, etc.

Oh, come off it. Loads of places have unisex toilets. They're not having any of these problems. Until you can show this is an issue where we do have unisex toilets, I'm calling bullshit.

And "modesty associated with body functions"... Ayatollah Khamenei... is it you?

 

[Tigers!]

And "modesty associated with body functions"... Ayatollah Khamenei... is it you?

Ah yes the very old Í don't have that problem therefore no-one does too'.

 

[Bronzeage]

Why do we have ladies and men's toilets at all? There's no logic here? Why is it not ok for a man to use the ladies? Or vice versa.

Why not just call them toilets? And let whoever is in need use them?

It's one thing if we're talking about the toilet in a night club, where bathrooms have a variety of functions other than just peeing or pooping. But apart from that, I don't get it?

This has been a problem for human kind since we started wearing close fitted clothing. That which is hidden is always intriguing and some people are uncomfortable when others show interest in their hidden stuff.

A little sensitivity to other people's feelings is never a bad thing. I know quite a few people, men and women, who will not sit on a toilet if there is someone in the next stall. That is why restrooms and toilet stalls have doors, even if the walls don't go from ceiling to floor.

 

[Wiploc]

If you are going to trash other people's morality, you should present your own, if for no other reason than to set a good example.

You made that up

No, I think it follows.

The complaint was that people do hurtful things because of morality, and therefore morality is bad. But, if morality is bad, then there's nothing wrong with doing hurtful things. If morality is bad, then maybe one should do hurtful immoral things in order to avoid being moral.

The way out of that contradiction would be to offer up a moral system that doesn't allow for doing hurtful things.

Or maybe the right move would be to focus our ire on hypocrisy rather than on morality itself.