Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. consistent would mean unchanging in nature. Like XY Chromosome, uterus, ovaries, vagina etc It seems those studies you linked focus more on feeling rather than biology. As stated "Transsexuals have the strong feeling" "Transsexuals experience themselves as being of the opposite sex, despite having the biological characteristics of one sex" Anyways if you agree with these studies its clear to me where you fall, You have more biological characteristic(s) of one sex, and the "feeling" of another. Biology/truth/science is consistent. Feelings are not. So there is no point in claiming to be something as the biology is set.
  3. Today
  4. Out-competing your Genitals

    During my travels I met a woman in the Pyrenees region France who was an Aerospace Engineer on contract for various companies. Anyway was highly intelligent from my perspective and most people are probably going to struggle if not, even comprehend the required maths of which I have next to no idea.I guess a lot depends obviously on what career you develop. I would also say she was kind of masculine in the sense of being high in conscientiousness and opposing order on her career, although she didn't seem particularly happy. Had lots of stuff, Vintage Valve amplifier, Egyptian Artefacts, Furniture etc Thought it was interesting that a woman could be so masculine in a way. Talked to a woman recently who's an Entrepreneur, business woman of sorts. She told me about a restaurant she opened in New York when she was younger, said she phoned a person about a lease on a building in a prime location for 6 months consistently, had a 3 minute talk with the owner of the property and got the lease. Said to her, so you are Entrepreneur then, said she never thought of herself as that. My point being that perhaps to be an entrepreneur is not to be conscious of being so. Thought it was interesting as it contrasted with a quote I'd listened to on Youtube. "A man of superior virtue is not conscious of being virtuous, hence is truly virtuous." Tao Te Ching Millennials vs Babyboomers: Totally screwed over work wise in the area I live in for entry level jobs. Literally 50% is Eastern European in the area I live in. Tons of BS propaganda and virtue signalling. I've wondered how much a person's psyche can dissolve in a group or by performing acts they find questionable at the time. Whether such a state is recoverable, perhaps the double-think phenomena is related. I don't think that Socrates sacrificed himself for moral virtue, more like giving the middle finger as he entered oblivion. My opinion would be to pump out children if you can, you'll be lonely potentially, if you don't/haven't already? Why the turkey?
  5. Let's discuss transgenderism

    Here are the two I linked earlier in the thread again for your convenience. These ones discuss the BNST. And here's another that looks at a different section of the brain, the INAH3. Neuroplasticity seems to have some clear limitations. These aspects of the brain related to sexual behavior and gender identity are set for life. Nothing but physically destroying them seems to have much impact on their development path. Of the traits you chose, what do you mean by consistent and true? No single trait has total consistency. Not one. Once you've gathered all the sexually dimorphic traits in a person, and you find that the individual has a mix of male and female traits, how are you deciding which traits have the most categorical value? Obviously you've decided that the presence or absence of a Y chromosome has the greatest value, but why exactly? Can you actually do this with the level of truth you're demanding? 1) Why is maleness defined by sperm production? With the way you're presenting it I may as well presume you're claiming it's defined that way because it's defined that way, which is obviously fallacious. The rest of your points here aren't worth discussing until we've established a working definition. Once that's done then we can happily discuss function and deformation. 2) The categorization of sexually dimorphic biology is not predicated on the existence of free will, so it really doesn't matter in this discussion whether or not we have it. Even if we remove my mind from the equation entirely, say if I were dead, my corpse will still display sexual dimorphism. 4) In today's world, doctors actually are amputating their limbs, or in some cases paralyzing them. What I'm arguing is, your and my personal disgust or revulsion to the practice isn't relevant. Whether or not this is something that should be done has an objective answer. The reason it's done is to improve well being. We can objectively measure whether well being is improved. I've seen studies claiming to demonstrate that it does improve well being, and if that's true, then my opinion doesn't matter.
  6. Let's discuss transgenderism

    How can a person have intimacy when they are biologically Male, but masquerade as biologically female, although feeling Feminin personality wise and sexually? i.e What guy is going to fuck another guy, fully conscious?
  7. Perhaps the USA state was initially just to preserve the commercial specials interests of Tobacco, Cotton, Slaves and selling land to settlers. What interests would a central government serve at the time?
  8. Ostracism is not the way to go

    I wouldn't say shame the Alpha, I tend to think of a pride of lions, the Alpha often doesn't give a shit what his subordinates and females may think(higher serotonin), but when he has to defend the pride or help out other members, presumably he's there. Yeah within a group there is the Alpha or Alpha pair, but there is always a more Omega approach to group psychology, you could look at ways of planting/incepting an idea so that the Alpha thinks they came to a particular conclusion independently or become indispensable to a group. Perhaps there are other methods? "The against me argument" used previously by Stefan. i.e You support the government and state, I don't, so do you support the use of force against me? I tried something like this in Spain where an English women was arguing that Turks should pay reparations for the Armenian Genocide, I said fair enough, but it should be those families who profited and not Turkish peasants. Anyway she didn't like this, got upset and I couldn't really careless about some persecuted Armenian peasant or any other peasant or person unless I knew them directly. Maybe Stefan read your post just watched a video he did "Millionaire reduced to under $10 by divorce" mentioned ostracism not being effective in a democracy. Makes me think of the Paul McCartney and Heather Mills divorce remember her mentioning on TV that her daughter was only going to get £60,000 per year from the divorce.
  9. Let's discuss transgenderism

    (1) Maleness biologically is the ability to produce viable sperm, which is associated with a functional Y chromosome. Anyone who can produce viable sperm is male. A person with XY chromosomes that can't produce viable sperm is a malfunctioning male. Similarly, a biological female is someone who can produce viable eggs. An inability to do this is a malfunction. Other malfunctions can include deformed or absent genitalia, absent or nonfunctioning uterus, and hormones that lead them to develop characteristics of the opposite sex. There are to my knowledge people with intersexual genetic codes, and these people may well constitute a third sex, but the natural dimorphic nature of human beings is into male and female, and these are not decided by psychology but by biology. These issues are only an issue with people who have confused psychologies and some kind of malfunction. The vast majority of people fit well within the category of maleness or femaleness biologically. (2) The brain is conditioned by hormones to think a certain way, I agree. But, what is the mind? Popular thought says the mind is an epiphenomenon on the brain, like gasoline swirling on the surface of a pond. If we believe that then we must believe that humans have no free will, since everything they do is a result of their brain and their brain is nothing but the interplay of electrochemical law. If we reject this then we allow ourselves to have free will and recognise that “the human mind is a product of the noetic process operating on the brain” (LaRouche). This process is what creates human beings, not reductionist physics or biology as such. So, when I say “metaphysics” I mean it literally, not as a poetic metaphor or something. I am male because the noosphere generated me as a male, and how that happens to look is by giving me a genetic code, a phenotype, and a psychology in accordance with that idea. (3) I've heard of the Reimer case, and I agree. (4) I like “insane” and think it's a useful catch-all term for “conditions and behaviours we shouldn't encourage.” Do you think we should encourage people with “BIID” to chop off their limbs/blind themselves/etc.? Not when the science data come in, right now, in today's world.
  10. yea I dont watch many of the newer movies as most are done by Democrats promoting leftism. Maybe we can make a list of good movies? I can start with the obvious atlas shrugged
  11. Could you link me evidence about the brain and "physical, observable female biology inside" most brain work I have seen is inconsistent which would mean invalid for truth. Also, there is neuroplasticity which means changes can naturally occur. As far as which traits I chose, whichever is consistent and true. I would be surprised If I didn't miss a lot of other true consistent biological traits. if so please share the biological traits as it will help with my main point. My main point is to point out truthful distinctions. Then one can say from looking at their biological makeup that they fall more into either male/female biology. As male and female both share some of the same biologies(like they both have arms, legs, etc) what separates us are the truthful biological distinctions.
  12. Time to watch Japanese, Korean or Russian movies. Most Hollywood movies nowadays have a shitty story and bad cinematography. Add to that ADHD cuts and you have the recipe for annoying movies.
  13. Let's discuss transgenderism

    To point #1) For a definition to be an accurate description of reality, does it not require consistency? If you look at the details, saying that humans with XY chromosomes are male just doesn't make any sense. Sometimes SRY is absent from the Y chromosome entirely. There is androgen insensitivity. If the entire meaning of the word male is going to be defined by the Y chromosome, why do we need the word male at all? We could just call ourselves double X's and Y's. I just don't see how it's reasonable to define sex as anything other than a product of our total biological makeup. Meaning, all observable aspects of sexual dimorphism in our biology, chromosomes included. 2) I'm not sure I buy this either. It seems like a fair description of what transition is, but I don't think that's a correct assessment of how that metaphysical identity manifests. I think the evidence shows that in many (but perhaps not all) cases, it isn't a product of socialization but an expression of some fundamental structure in the brain. I linked to two studies which I consider evidence in my first reply. It's also worth noting the reason they knew where to look for this sort of thing in the Zhou study was from previous experiments with mice. Researchers essentially created transgender mice by controlling the level of androgens during fetal development, noting specifically that increased or decreased androgen exposure during certain stages of brain stem development resulted in sexually dimorphic BNST's opposite of chromosomes. This results in genetically male mice exhibiting female behaviors and visa versa. Sexually dimorphic behavior is fundamentally related to the brain. The brain is just as much a biological organ as the genitals or anything else. So it doesn't make sense not to consider brain structure as an aspect of biological sex. 3) If we were all psychologically identical, stories like David Reimer's shouldn't exist. After all, if lived experience is all that shapes us, why should a boy raised from birth and accepted as a girl not be perfectly fine with that? Instead he killed himself. I don't think you'll find me disagreeing with your conclusion, but I think we may arrive there through different paths. 4) I'm aware of what you're referring to though I know it as BIID, or body integrity identity disorder. The difficulty in dealing with this comparison is that so little is known about BIID. If there is a significant difference I would assume it is in the causes, but while we have some solid insights into the causes of gender dysphoria, we have no idea why someone develops BIID. The question of whether or not it's a mental illness isn't really my concern. The term itself is a medicinal tool, and I'm happy to leave that to the actual professionals that are going to be treating it. In other words, the people writing the DSM. The word insane serves no purpose in helping us achieve any sort of understanding. The relevant question is, "does amputating a foot or a penis improve wellness or well being?" This is a question that can be objectively answered, and it seems the answer is yes, in some contexts. As for whether or not BIID is comparable to GID, I don't know. It's frustrating, but I don't think there's enough data to draw any kind of meaningful conclusion. If it turned out that someone with BIID had some fundamental brain structure identical to someone born an amputee, or some other similarity to the female BNST in transsexual women, then I would certainly need to reevaluate my position. I don't see this as being very likely, but given lack of evidence I remain open minded. I can certainly agree biological truth matters. What I don't understand is why that is an argument against my position, since my entire argument is based on this assertion. If you were to cut open my brain you'd find physical, observable female biology inside, present from before I was even born. And certainly after hormones, you'll find even more female biology all over the place. It seems as though you are assigning value to those female traits which trans people can't or don't usually possess, and ignoring the ones we do have without providing a reason for doing so. I'm not familiar with the discord group but I'd be willing to join and discuss at some point certainly, though it might be tough to find a good time.
  14. Ostracism is not the way to go

    Ostracism is the way to go. You're under the impression that Stefan's threshold of when we should ostracize someone is very low. He never once said to ostracize people because they disagree with you.
  15. Ostracism is not the way to go

    Fair statement when you say circle of trust. However, consider this. There is ALWAYS the alpha in the group and people tend to follow and believe whatever that alpha says. If you can shame the alpha then you are in the center of the circle of trust rather than a part of it. And will allow you to better control that circle of trust. I also agree as a whole we do not have the numbers in many urban area's. And I think when you don't have the numbers, then you don't have the luxury of being able to kick people out of your group. I want to repeat, that there are situations that you want to ostracize people, but it should not be your go to. Or you find yourself very lonely in this liberal world.
  16. Ostracism is not the way to go

    I love my liberal family, I love it even more when they start screaming and stomp off when they don't win their temper tantrum and we all have a laugh at it.
  17. Ostracism is not the way to go

    "A person engaged in a true argument is a interlocutor but if they respond with insults or slurs it is not an argument it is base and primal that is what ridicule will reduce your argument to." -Its about bringing the right weapon to the right fight. If the person brings an argument to the table, bring one back. If the person brings insults to the table understand it as such and use ridicule. You are in a war of idea's you want to win. " Man is a rational animal the only things keeping humans from becoming animals are his conscience (and a decent balance of rational thought with a hint of emotion) " - Don't EVER assume man is a rational animal.....EVVVEEERRRR. If man was rational we would not be in the situation we are today, and this is a discussion all of its own separate from ostracism. "In order to convince someone of something a good way (such as presenting the party switch argument) is to counter the reinvention of history they state as facts by stating that the democratic-republican party in 1829 split." - Sorry, but bring it to today and in simple context please. We are not talking about the party switch argument or talking about democrats or republicans. The topic is about ostracism, that you should only use it when someone is harassing you or harming you and how ridicule is much better weapon especially in a family or friend setting. "Present facts contrary to their beliefs, if their bias towards an argument would keep them from doing research then it's up to you if you bother to keep them or give them the boot. If they try to psycho-analyze you present Popper's argument that Psychology in itself is a pseudo-science because it does not try to prove it hypothesis incorrect but instead tries to (through it's own bias) prove itself correct. A supporting fact would be the countless overlapping diagnoses in the DSM-IV." - I'm sorry but you need to simplify your statement. I don't know what DSM-IV is. And I don't want to comment on something I don't understand. Please keep things simple, the KISS model works well for me. (Keep it simple stupid)
  18. Ostracism is not the way to go

    Oh I agree, peaceful talk should ALWAYS be first and foremost. However, from dealing with liberals they will resort to small jabs here and there. And the best way to respond with that is small jabs back with humor and facts. If they get mad and start insulting you etc the best thing you can do is smile and laugh and make fun of them more. The more ridiculous you can make them look, the less likely they are to try any of their bullshit again. I'll use the example of Milo, he gets his point through a factual argument. However when someone attempts to ridicule him he throws it back and wins and gets more popular because of it. If its a peaceful discussion AWESOME If its jab for jab, aim to make them mad and enjoy it. Make sure you get a good laugh by the end of it.
  19. Yesterday
  20. Yea I believe you should reread my original post. I stated and provided an example of how people can conceptualize and define terms. I also stated "the biological differences are what matters, rather than the conceptualizing part" "transgenderism, it doesn't exist. What actually exists is the biological differences between the sexes like as you stated XY Chromosomes. There is also the biological differences that allow pregnancy, breastfeeding, periods, genitalia" Also to take it one level deeper to provide a better understanding. It's not about biological differences, it's about truth. Its just that biological differences provide truth. and concepts/opinions/categories do not. Like people can call others a boy, a girl or transgender based on their opinions. People cant be called to have XX Chromosome, uterus, ovaries, periods or having a vagina, etc as this actually involves truth as in looking at cells, not concepts/opinions/categories I dont know much about transgenderism but I am willing to chat about it more to learn. Are you familiar with the FDR discords group? I feel instant text message would be better than waiting for post replies.
  21. Let's discuss transgenderism

    Hello. Interesting stuff, intelligently presented. I'm not your enemy. I would add the following: (1) Biologically you're male. Biology is a hard science and science is not in doubt that human beings with XY chromosomes are male by definition. Your natural phenotypal expression further confirms this. (2) Metaphysically you're female. You're responding to the feminine archetype as you see it incarnated in the society around you and you say to yourself, "That's reflecting what I am inside." Your transition is about making your phenotype match your metaphysical identity, which you have learned about by observing the heterosexual dynamic all around you. (3) You and all transsexuals are therefore defying feminist dogma that says that all human beings are psychologically identical, modified only by lived experience. If you didn't deny it, at least implicitly, then how would you know what "girl" even means, and why would "girl" have such an important meaning to you? (4) How do you feel about transableism, the psychological condition whereby someone feels the deep need to amputate their foot, for example? Would you consider such a person mentally ill? If not, what about someone intentionally blinding themselves, or killing themselves? If so, why is amputating a foot insane but amputating a penis not insane?
  22. Ostracism is not the way to go

    Kind of like the "Circle of Trust" from the movie "Meet the Parents." The ostracism thing only works in my experience along regional, tribal and cultural lines. The NAP supporters and Libertarians do not have much of a culture, the Identarians in Europe I guess have tried mostly in vain to establish/re-establish one, maybe they'll have success, but I doubt it.
  23. Ostracism is not the way to go

    Some advice on family, if they are liberal to the bone, best not to engage them. It will only cause problems.
  24. Ostracism is not the way to go

    A person engaged in a true argument is a interlocutor but if they respond with insults or slurs it is not an argument it is base and primal that is what ridicule will reduce your argument to. Man is a rational animal the only things keeping humans from becoming animals are his conscience (and a decent balance of rational thought with a hint of emotion) In order to convince someone of something a good way (such as presenting the party switch argument) is to counter the reinvention of history they state as facts by stating that the democratic-republican party in 1829 split. Democrats voted in majority against abolition, and a the end of the 19th century only one percent had really switched. Present facts contrary to their beliefs, if their bias towards an argument would keep them from doing research then it's up to you if you bother to keep them or give them the boot. If they try to psycho-analyze you present Popper's argument that Psychology in itself is a pseudo-science because it does not try to prove it hypothesis incorrect but instead tries to (through it's own bias) prove itself correct. A supporting fact would be the countless overlapping diagnoses in the DSM-IV.
  25. Ostracism is not the way to go

    in these situations, how about trying to talk peacefully, and then if the 20% don't want to talk, but rather raise their voice, slander you, get violent, threaten, etc, point out what they are doing, and then just ignore them? (Just my amateur question) I'd imagine that others and the person involved would remember how he lost control in a peaceful discussion.
  26. Let's discuss transgenderism

    In using the category in the first place, you already are one of those people considering what is female. We can and should be as objective as we're able, but a certain level of abstraction is necessary for us to function at all. The truest version of what we are in terms of our sexually dimorphic nature is something so complex that it becomes unwieldy. If you'd prefer to perceive me in the purest form of objectivity possible, then you should avoid categorizing at all, or construct a new category for every possible combination of physical traits. We don't do this because our minds have limitations in memory and processing power, and there is enough correlation to reduce the categories down to two sexes anyway, despite there being some overlap and the occasional anomaly. Like it or not, you're already at a certain level of abstraction and have already made assumptions that aren't entirely objective. There's not much you can do about it and this is true of everything to an extent. So I don't accept that you can simply define male and female as the two gamete producers and wash your hands of it. When I pointed out a basic inconsistency, you brought up a list of other traits that I assume you see as not only simply existing, but also having some categorical value. Why? And what do you do when these traits also show some inconsistency? What does it even mean to say the biological differences matter more than how those differences are conceptualized, when we must conceptualize them to even understand them enough to categorize them at all?
  27. "technically true" is what matters as if it didn't we would be wasting our time on opinions. "Some females do not produce eggs and cannot bear offspring, yet are nonetheless still considered categorically female" I do not care what people consider as a female. What is "technically true" about the female who cannot produce eggs? She has XX Chromosome? Was she born with women genitalia? Does she have a uterus/ovaries? Does she have a period? Etc These questions provide biological truths. Which is why I like to stick with them over conceptualization like the example I provided with the definition. My point is the question is he a boy or a girl is irrelevant, while questions like does he have XX or XY Chromosome? will provide truth.
  28. Let's discuss transgenderism

    I don't really mind if people use the born with a penis = male thing as a baseline for their understanding of the male category, since it usually is the case and it's easy and useful to think using these kinds of abstractions. I'm simply pointing out that despite a strong correlation, it isn't true in all circumstances. Anomalies exist, and in reality the formation of genitals isn't as straight forward a process as one might assume. The difference between your desires as a child to be a girl and mine are in the causes. You wanted to be a girl because of some perceived social advantage, whereas I want to be a girl because there is a fundamental aspect of my biology that is female (brain structure), which intuitively manifests that desire. It's a strawman to characterize my argument as claiming to be a girl because I want to be a girl. That reasoning is obviously circular and it's not at all what I'm suggesting. It isn't always easy to tell the difference between the two of us, I do admit. Which is why I would also agree (and so would both the general trans and medical communities) that therapy is the first option and most important. But through therapy the difference can be reliably diagnosed. Your claim that therapy can cure gender dysphoria is something we can measure, and the claim is false. This has been tried for decades and doesn't work, and the fact that it doesn't work is why we've switched to medical transition in the first place. There are some cases where a boy will want to be a girl due to some past unresolved trauma in their lives, and for them, transition is not the answer, and will actually be harmful to their overall well being. But in cases where a boy wants to be a girl due to lack of androgen exposure during brain development in utero, transition is necessary to improve well being. Trying to separate gender from sex entirely is silly. A person's gender, or a persons behaviors and preferences that we can describe as masculine or feminine, are strongly correlated to our biology. You could even say that gender is an expression of our sexually dimorphic, biological nature. Saying that it's irrelevant in terms of biology is absurd. I'm not here to discuss whether or not I'm feminine. If you were to meet me I'm sure that'd be self evident. I'm actually challenging your definition of sex. The human body is filled with examples of sexual dimorphism in our biology. I don't see the justification to exclude parts of the brain from sex when it is just as biological as everything else, and clearly displays dimorphism.
  1. Load more activity
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.