Today consensus, tomorrows prejudice.

wakka12 · 28-05-2015 06:56PM

stefanovich wrote: »

These are interesting statistics. Please don't research murder rates and prison populations and break them down by race though.

I didn't research prison populations?Nor did I break down the info by race it was just already on the sites I researched and thought people would find it interested. And why not anyway? I think the fact that the murder rate of black trans women being so much higher than the general population is quite noteworthy tbh.

Dwarf.Shortage · 28-05-2015 06:58PM

stefanovich wrote: »

The regret part was just me supposing. The high suicide rate was something I got from Gavin McInnes, probably here:

I'd have to research it to be honest.

This Gavin McInnes? www.youtube.com/watch?t=275&v=xLc4UNt5zIg

If so I'm gonna go right ahead and call it inadmissible.

stefanovich · 28-05-2015 07:05PM

wakka12 wrote: »

I didn't research prison populations?Nor did I break down the info by race it was just already on the sites I researched and thought people would find it interested. And why not anyway? I think the fact that the murder rate of black trans women being so much higher than the general population is quite noteworthy tbh.

Read between the lines. I was inferring that there are a lot of statistics you could quote that wouldn't fit your socialist world view.

Links234 · 28-05-2015 07:19PM

stefanovich wrote: »

something I got from Gavin McInnes

Ah so you get your information from the author of the rather infamous article "Transphobia is perfectly natural" and Fox news favourite? I think we can all safely ignore your opinion.

PopePalpatine · 28-05-2015 07:21PM

Links234 wrote: »

Ah so you get your information from the author of the rather infamous article "Transphobia is perfectly natural" and Fox news favourite? I think we can all safely ignore your opinion.

Why am I being reminded of Kermit's shitposts in one of the marriage equality referendum threads right now?

stefanovich · 28-05-2015 07:33PM

Links234 wrote: »

Ah so you get your information from the author of the rather infamous article "Transphobia is perfectly natural" and Fox news favourite? I think we can all safely ignore your opinion.

Dwarf.Shortage wrote: »

This Gavin McInnes? www.youtube.com/watch?t=275&v=xLc4UNt5zIg

If so I'm gonna go right ahead and call it inadmissible.

If you watch the video I posted he basically destroys the cookie cutter feminist on every point.

I think it is refreshing to hear him speak. I'm sorry you find free speech so offensive.

PopePalpatine · 28-05-2015 07:42PM

Bullies aren't refreshing to listen to.

MrWalsh · 28-05-2015 07:46PM

stefanovich wrote: »

If you watch the video I posted he basically destroys the cookie cutter feminist on every point.

I think it is refreshing to hear him speak. I'm sorry you find free speech so offensive.

It's only refreshing if you're an idiot. Most people would be rightly appalled at his hate speech.

Links234 · 28-05-2015 07:51PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Bullies aren't refreshing to listen to.

I wouldn't even call him a bully, there's something incredibly cynical and insincere about his persona, I think he just plays up being offensive and 'un-PC' because there's still seemingly people who buy into that kind of thing. He's the journalistic equivalent of The Human Centipede 3's marketing campaign.

Dwarf.Shortage · 28-05-2015 08:32PM

stefanovich wrote: »

If you watch the video I posted he basically destroys the cookie cutter feminist on every point.

I think it is refreshing to hear him speak. I'm sorry you find free speech so offensive.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to speak unopposed nor does it mandate anyone to listen when you speak. That mans views are reprehensible and my time on this earth finite, what I've heard from him thus far in life is plenty.

Samaris · 28-05-2015 10:39PM

Not in the next twenty years, but in the farther future:

Also note, "for better or for worse", I make no value judgments unless I state them.

- Gender roles will be more or less eliminated. It will be far more common for children to be raised by a male partner as a primary caregiver than it has been today.

- Sexual partnerships will be treated as being of little interest. It will be considered somewhat rude to pry into others relationships, whether that is in terms of marriage or any other connection. With continuous normalisation of other gender and sexual identities, they may be somewhat encouraged as a mode of population control. Also, not having children will be seen as a completely valid life choice, again for the purpose of population control. We'll see if eugenics or applications to breed come in.

- Neither promiscuity nor marriage will be as important. With continuously improving contraception and a lesser consideration being given to the morality of using it, it will not be considered as risky to have sex outside marriage. Again, if gender roles are dropped, and without the risk of a potentially unsupported child being born, it will not be as damaging to a female to be known as "promiscuous" any more than it is currently for a male.

Religion will continue to die a death, probably being replaced by "spirituality".

I reckon smoking will be done with fairly soon, it's already dying out and will go the way of opium from the 19thC.

Travel will become more restricted and money will become tighter as fossil fuels continue to run down, and infrastructure needs rapid maintenance and replacement due to an increase in more ferocious storms, sea level rise, etc. Now, this isolating effect could actually slow down these sociological normalisations and even revert them. Or they might not /shrug. We may see a swing into a few decades or even centuries of relative liberalism, which then slowly goes conservative again as people just aren't exposed to as many new ideas/other cultures.

wakka12 · 28-05-2015 11:39PM

Samaris wrote: »

Not in the next twenty years, but in the farther future:

Also note, "for better or for worse", I make no value judgments unless I state them.

- Gender roles will be more or less eliminated. It will be far more common for children to be raised by a male partner as a primary caregiver than it has been today.

- Sexual partnerships will be treated as being of little interest. It will be considered somewhat rude to pry into others relationships, whether that is in terms of marriage or any other connection. With continuous normalisation of other gender and sexual identities, they may be somewhat encouraged as a mode of population control. Also, not having children will be seen as a completely valid life choice, again for the purpose of population control. We'll see if eugenics or applications to breed come in.

- Neither promiscuity nor marriage will be as important. With continuously improving contraception and a lesser consideration being given to the morality of using it, it will not be considered as risky to have sex outside marriage. Again, if gender roles are dropped, and without the risk of a potentially unsupported child being born, it will not be as damaging to a female to be known as "promiscuous" any more than it is currently for a male.

Religion will continue to die a death, probably being replaced by "spirituality".

I reckon smoking will be done with fairly soon, it's already dying out and will go the way of opium from the 19thC.

Travel will become more restricted and money will become tighter as fossil fuels continue to run down, and infrastructure needs rapid maintenance and replacement due to an increase in more ferocious storms, sea level rise, etc. Now, this isolating effect could actually slow down these sociological normalisations and even revert them. Or they might not /shrug. We may see a swing into a few decades or even centuries of relative liberalism, which then slowly goes conservative again as people just aren't exposed to as many new ideas/other cultures.

Not in europe and the west anyway. If anything it'll be the opposite, EU leaders scrambling for solutions to our astonishingly low birth rates that are going to come back to bite us very hard in the not so far future unless something is done about it . Ireland has the highest birth rate in the EU at 2.0 which isn't even enough to sustain a population without immigration. The average EU birth rate is only 1.5. We need something, and it sure as hell aint population control measures.

Kiwi in IE · 29-05-2015 11:15AM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I would honestly question your ability to preform your profession to the best of your ability with comments like that, shameful really.

Really? What precisely is the difference between a religious belief and someone having a harmless non religious delusional belief? An example that comes to mind is a person I assessed many years ago, who believed totally and completely that they could communicate with birds, their family were concerned and wanted them assessed, but treatment was not necessary because although it met the definition of a delusion, it was non distressing to the person and harmless, the person was actually distressed at the idea of loosing this delusion (obviously they did not think it was a delusion).

The only differences I can see between the above scenario and religious beliefs, is that birds actually do exist, and the belief in a god and communication with same is considered socially acceptable. I'm not talking about delusions that create a risk, which they frequently do, but many people with delusional ideation also have harmless, personal delusions that don't interfere with others or cause them distress. In these cases treatment is not considered necessary or desirable. Religion on the other hand is often allowed to interfere with others when it has influence in state institutions. Believing that you can talk to a god or some other religious persona, is no less delusional than believing that you can communicate with birds, if the 'outside of social norm' clause was taken out of the equation. And that clause was put there especially for this purpose, otherwise religion would have to be considered officially delusional.

Maximus Alexander · 29-05-2015 12:26PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

And finally, our treatment of animals. Zoos, sea world, circuses, factory farms, meat eating, scientific experimentation, etc... But I think that this one is probably the furthest away from being recognised and condemned.

On the other stuff, I see your point. But I don't think there will ever be a consensus that meat eating is a moral problem.

Reducing the amount we eat due to environmental impact, and improving the treatment of the animals during their lives are things I can imagine becoming part of the general consensus.

The majority will always want to eat meat.

PopePalpatine · 29-05-2015 03:40PM

BBC Horizon had a good look at the effect of meat-eating on climate change: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28858289

TL;DR chicken produces the least CO2 per kilo of meat, while grass-eating animals like cows and sheep were the worst offenders. Also, free range/organically-raised animals produced more CO2 per kilo of meat than animals raised indoors, as they needed more space.

MrWalsh · 29-05-2015 04:35PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

The majority will always want to eat meat.

I like to think of an enlightened future where we treat animals with respect and not as food. But I agree with you, Im probably idealising. And I do eat meat myself so its not like Im helping!

jobbridge4life · 29-05-2015 04:37PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

I like to think of an enlightened future where we treat animals with respect and not as food. But I agree with you, Im probably idealising. And I do eat meat myself so its not like Im helping!

You can easily do both.

MrWalsh · 29-05-2015 04:43PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You can easily do both.

I disagree, if we are killing animals for food then we are not respecting them. It wouldnt be acceptable to kill a human for food.

jobbridge4life · 29-05-2015 04:45PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

I disagree, if we are killing animals for food then we are not respecting them. It wouldnt be acceptable to kill a human for food.

There is a an enormous distinction between human life and animal life as there is distinctions in the animal kingdom too.

I reject the notion that eating meat equates with disrespect. The most dedicated and respectful people I have ever known to animals are farmers.

Maximus Alexander · 29-05-2015 04:50PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

I disagree, if we are killing animals for food then we are not respecting them. It wouldnt be acceptable to kill a human for food.

I don't think it's reasonable to equate humans with livestock, self awareness is a huge separator.

I wouldn't eat a dolphin, whale, or great ape either, because they appear to have a level of self-awareness that is more akin to humans than cows, for example.

wakka12 · 29-05-2015 04:54PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

There is a an enormous distinction between human life and animal life as there is distinctions in the animal kingdom too.

I reject the notion that eating meat equates with disrespect. The most dedicated and respectful people I have ever known to animals are farmers.

But we don't need to kill animals. We can get protein rich foods from them such as eggs and milk.

Samaris · 29-05-2015 04:55PM

wakka12 wrote: »

Not in europe and the west anyway. If anything it'll be the opposite, EU leaders scrambling for solutions to our astonishingly low birth rates that are going to come back to bite us very hard in the not so far future unless something is done about it . Ireland has the highest birth rate in the EU at 2.0 which isn't even enough to sustain a population without immigration. The average EU birth rate is only 1.5. We need something, and it sure as hell aint population control measures.

I'm not sure that we do. Population dynamics undergo natural transformations, and western countries are starting to hit the population decline period, "Stage IV". Japan was the first country to reach it. At this stage, birth rates are relatively low, life expectancy is longer, child mortality is low. The big issue here is the transition, where a relatively small working sector of the population will have to support a bubble of longer-lived elderly population "above" them on the pyramid, another issue currently faced by Japan. But the answer isn't to encourage repopulation, we are in no danger of dying out! We no longer NEED birthrates to not just replace, but to expand our population, as long as we don't have a major war or a plague that kills off a large portion of the young, working-age adults and/or children.

MrWalsh · 29-05-2015 04:59PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I reject the notion that eating meat equates with disrespect. The most dedicated and respectful people I have ever known to animals are farmers.

We will have to disagree so.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't think it's reasonable to equate humans with livestock, self awareness is a huge separator.

I wouldn't eat a dolphin, whale, or great ape either, because they appear to have a level of self-awareness that is more akin to humans than cows, for example.

We really dont know much about self awareness in animals. We really dont understand consciousness much at all - or in a very limited way.

We have no access to the subjective experience of others, animal or human. "What is it like to be a bat" comes to mind for me.

Im interested in Peter Singers work on animal rights and the ethics of eating meat (actually I havent read any of his work in a while but I keep meaning to get back to it).

All of the above is from a philosophical pov of course.

The main point for me it - its unnecessary, just because we can, doesnt mean we should.

I read somewhere before that growing protein is less of an overhead than using animals for protein.

jobbridge4life · 29-05-2015 05:01PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

We really dont know much about self awareness in animals. We really dont understand consciousness much at all - or in a very limited way.

We have no access to the subjective experience of others, animal or human. "What is it like to be a bat" comes to mind for me.

Im interested in Peter Singers work on animal rights and the ethics of eating meat (actually I havent read any of his work in a while but I keep meaning to get back to it).

All of the above is from a philosophical pov of course.

Peter Singer is a monster. The man believes that parents should retain the right to murder their newborns and calls for the termination of disabled foetuses.

MrWalsh · 29-05-2015 05:02PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Peter Singer is a monster. The man believes that parents should retain the right to murder their newborns and calls for the termination of disabled foetuses.

I was only referencing his ethics on animals rights. Im not really interested in his feelings on babies. Im not saying "Peter Singer is great", Im saying Im interested in some of his work.

(although I can say either thing you mentioned there make me think he is a monster - newborns and foetuses dont have consciousness).

jobbridge4life · 29-05-2015 05:08PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

I was only referencing his ethics on animals rights. Im not really interested in his feelings on babies. Im not saying "Peter Singer is great", Im saying Im interested in some of his work.

(although I can say either thing you mentioned there make me think he is a monster - newborns and foetuses dont have consciousness).

...

MrWalsh wrote: »

We really dont understand consciousness much at all - or in a very limited way.

MrWalsh · 29-05-2015 05:14PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

...

I dont really want to get into a long debate on consciousness, its far too complex for me to go into here (or at all probably, its not my area of specialisation), but we really dont understand how it arises.

We know from personal experience that foetuses and newborns dont have consciousness as we understand it as an adult - do you remember being born? Does anyone? Do you remember being in the womb? Does anyone?

I dont really want to start killing newborns myself but from a philosophical pov I can see that killing a newborn is not the same as killing an adult and maybe not as bad as killing a dolphin - in terms of consciousness.

Thats all.

Now Im off to get my axe and kill a few babies

Maximus Alexander · 29-05-2015 05:19PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

We know from personal experience that foetuses and newborns dont have consciousness as we understand it as an adult - do you remember being born? Does anyone? Do you remember being in the womb? Does anyone?

I don't think this is valid reasoning either, to be honest. I don't remember going to school on the 15th of January 2004. I don't actually remember anything I did that day, but I'm pretty confident I was both conscious and self aware.

Also, consciousness and self-awareness are different things. Animals in general are considered to be conscious, but to be self-aware is to know that you're conscious.

MrWalsh · 29-05-2015 05:24PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't think this is valid reasoning either, to be honest. I don't remember going to school on the 15th of January 2004. I don't actually remember anything I did that day, but I'm pretty confident I was both conscious and self aware.

Also, consciousness and self-awareness are different things. Animals in general are considered to be conscious, but to be self-aware is to know that you're conscious.

Yes, Im probably not expressing myself very well.

Too complex to get into here. Obviously self awareness and consciousness are two different things. Babies have neither - or at least, their consciousness is different to an adult form of consciousness.

Memory is different again, people dont remember what they were doing on specific dates from 10 years ago, not because they were unconscious or not self aware, but because its not important for them to remember it. But you likely remember flashes from "childhood" overall.

Cork boy 55 · 29-05-2015 05:25PM

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/the-smart-ballsy-guys-are-buying-up-property-right-now-26307728.html

BOC 2007

Today consensus, tomorrows prejudice.

Comments