why not also show skepticism of the secular?

[Gazpacho]

If we are all equal, is it alright to have a transgender president, a gay marching army, "Mister fattest man" contests

Are these really the worst implications of equality that you came up with?

we claim to have equal rights to vote, but then why do we all hate politics and the people we elect? Is it because people do not chose well who they vote for?

This is a subject that justifies objective thinking, not the old "politically correct" way of knee-jerk reacting that is so normal to us.

Don't project.

 

[Dessi]

Now you can add "United States" to that list. One more "inequality" has been erased (for the most part - their domestic partners can't come along for the ride).

Transgender people are still excluded.

A speaker for an LGBT group I attend is a transwoman and attorney. She commented that, on a regular basis, she got soldiers who were discharged from the military who struggled with their identity, two such people were paratroopers she worked with while she was in the military. Each and everytime, she'd tell them "you're **********". There's no much that can be done about that situation.

A friend of mine is a civilian contractor for a major US Air Force defense company. He works with a transwoman who was discharged from the military, its weird that this woman could not serve in the military as an officer, but serve as a civilian contractor (minus the ability to re-enlist, pension, TRICARE, and possibly other benefits).

 

[TjW]

Why I raised the issue in post #1 is that we agree people should have equal rights but disagree on what they should be. We say we should all have a right to equal education, but to what level? Does that mean the state must pay for university expenses? And should equal before the law mean that past crimes, age, sex and the insane should all get equal treatment and punishment? And we claim to have equal rights to vote, but then why do we all hate politics and the people we elect? Is it because people do not chose well who they vote for?

This is a subject that justifies objective thinking, not the old "politically correct" way of knee-jerk reacting that is so normal to us.


Peace

So what.

The subject is equality, not level of education.
No.
No.
Not all of us do, or there would be no politicians.
Generally, less than a majority of those who voted would say so.

Do you consider asking poorly-worded questions at random to be objective thinking?

 

[charles brough]

No, I just prepared some objective questions expecting specifically-worded, thoughtful and objective answers, but people are clearly too defensive and sensitive about their own ideology, even their secular one.

 

[charles brough]

Transgender people are still excluded.

A speaker for an LGBT group I attend is a transwoman and attorney. She commented that, on a regular basis, she got soldiers who were discharged from the military who struggled with their identity, two such people were paratroopers she worked with while she was in the military. Each and everytime, she'd tell them "you're **********". There's no much that can be done about that situation.

A friend of mine is a civilian contractor for a major US Air Force defense company. He works with a transwoman who was discharged from the military, its weird that this woman could not serve in the military as an officer, but serve as a civilian contractor (minus the ability to re-enlist, pension, TRICARE, and possibly other benefits).

I'm interested in your familiarity with the subject.

My understanding of the "transgender" term is that the individual wants to be of the other sex than he or she was born as. What cause could the Army have for such discrimination? Was it just that she dressed as a man or that she underwent genital surgery and with hormonal treatment changed sex while in uniform?

Also, there are people who have an abnormal reproductive system. There are generally ways to tell which has the more biological base by the size of the pelvis. It is proportionately larger in the female as needed for the delivery when pregnant.

In our large social gathering, I often see a transgender individual who dresses somewhat like a women but she is over six feet tall and muscular. She has a narrow pelvis and definite male facial features. You wonder what is going on with such a individual but reluctant so bold or rude as to intrude into a preson's sexual-personal life.

 

[charles brough]

Are these really the worst implications of equality that you came up with?

No, I could add "people who are unreliable" or how about the criminally insane?

People need to be treated differently. The mentally retarded, for example, need to be treated in a special way which includes a lot of patience and no show of anger, ever. And they need to be supported. The President, for another example, should be treated with some respect and referred to as "The President" by the media instead of "Mr. Obama" or even "Obama" as is commonly heard on both Fox and CNN.

 

[Twiler]

No, I just prepared some objective questions expecting specifically-worded, thoughtful and objective answers, but people are clearly too defensive and sensitive about their own ideology, even their secular one.

There isn't a single secular ideology, because the secular adjective indicates a lack of religion.

There's more than one ideology that isn't reliant upon religion. For example, there is fascism and there is communism.

People need to be treated differently. The mentally retarded, for example, need to be treated in a special way which includes a lot of patience and no show of anger, ever. And they need to be supported. The President, for another example, should be treated with some respect and referred to as "The President" by the media instead of "Mr. Obama" or even "Obama" as is commonly heard on both Fox and CNN.

Which specific people think that everyone should be treated in an exactly equal fashion, regardless of who they are?

 

[slingblade]

Why I raised the issue in post #1 is that we agree people should have equal rights but disagree on what they should be. We say we should all have a right to equal education, but to what level?

Hold on.

Do we say that? Do we say "people should have a right to equal education," or that "people should have an equal right to education?" There's a substantial difference there; can you see it?

Does that mean the state must pay for university expenses?

No. No more than it means that all universities and colleges must charge equal tuition.

And should equal before the law mean that past crimes, age, sex and the insane should all get equal treatment and punishment?

No more than it means apples and oranges are both citrus fruits.

And we claim to have equal rights to vote, but then why do we all hate politics and the people we elect? Is it because people do not chose well who they vote for?

What does your having an equal right to vote have to do with how you feel about politics? Or about candidate choice? You don't seem to understand the subject.

Your equal right to vote means that both men and women have this right; you cannot be denied based on gender. All races and ethnicities have this right; you cannot be denied based on that. All income levels have this right--though it's often difficult for the homeless who can't show an address, and equality may be lagging there.

This is a subject that justifies objective thinking, not the old "politically correct" way of knee-jerk reacting that is so normal to us.

Critical thought is applicable to all subjects. Not just our pet ones. Knee-jerk reactions are the epitome of the absence of critical thought. Yes, they are normal to us. Critical thought is not "normal," or rather, innate, and must be learned and constantly practiced.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

No, I could add "people who are unreliable" or how about the criminally insane?

People need to be treated differently.

You seem to be confused on what "equal rights" actually mean.
First, by definition, not all people are equal. For example, driving is a rite, however, we do not give it to children or blind people.

"Equal Rights" refer to certain basic rights. Everyone have a rite to have basic protection under the law against being killed, raped or whatever. I assume you have no problem with that.

Now if you're talking about the whole political correctness movement about trying to treat everyone exactly the same and we're all wonderful and all that crap... you'll be surprised how many skeptics reject that. Heck, P&T did several episodes on such issues. And it has nothing to do with secularism by the way...

So sure, if someone for example is blind, then it's too bad but he is not getting a driver license. If on the other hand you want to exclude an individual for no good reason, such as your silly transgender president then sorry, but no issue there what so ever.

 

[Dessi]

A friend of mine is a civilian contractor for a major US Air Force defense company. He works with a transwoman who was discharged from the military, its weird that this woman could not serve in the military as an officer, but serve as a civilian contractor (minus the ability to re-enlist, pension, TRICARE, and possibly other benefits).

My understanding of the "transgender" term is that the individual wants to be of the other sex than he or she was born as. What cause could the Army have for such discrimination? Was it just that she dressed as a man or that she underwent genital surgery and with hormonal treatment changed sex while in uniform?

I don't know a whole lot about the details, but 10 or 15 years ago, there were a few popular bars in Omaha where a lot of transgender people and crossdressers gathered. To the best of my knowledge, someone identified the woman at the bar, she did not deny it, and was promptly told to pack her things.

Also, there are people who have an abnormal reproductive system. There are generally ways to tell which has the more biological base by the size of the pelvis. It is proportionately larger in the female as needed for the delivery when pregnant.

The military discriminates based on gender identity. I don't think there is any precedent in discriminating against people who can't reproduce or have visible physical anomalies, unless they're transgender.

In our large social gathering, I often see a transgender individual who dresses somewhat like a women but she is over six feet tall and muscular. She has a narrow pelvis and definite male facial features. You wonder what is going on with such a individual but reluctant so bold or rude as to intrude into a preson's sexual-personal life.

To the statement in bold, inside her head she simply has a gender identity which doesn't match her sex assigned at birth. She may or may not consider herself as lucky as women who transition in their teens, or as fortunate as those who have enough money to transition with no financial constraint, but she does not feel any less authentically female than genetic women or transwomen who pass exceptionally well.

 

[Elizabeth I]

My understanding of the "transgender" term is that the individual wants to be of the other sex than he or she was born as. What cause could the Army have for such discrimination? Was it just that she dressed as a man or that she underwent genital surgery and with hormonal treatment changed sex while in uniform?

It's more than just "wants to be." As I understand it, it is a need. Such people are absolutely convinced that they were given the wrong bodies. Think about what a transgendered person has to go through to satisfy his/her need - I'm not sure many people would suffer that for a "want to be."

 

[Piggy]

why not also show skepticism of the secular?

For example, why not take the ideal of "equality." We are all "equal." It is the ideal, but does an ideal that is unreal and impossible to achieve be justified or of value? If we are all equal, is it alright to have a transgender president, a gay marching army, "Mister fattest man" contests, and for it to be "politically incorrect" to portray any man as masculine and woman as feminine?

Is anything really equal to anything else? And do we even have "equal rights"?

This is one big ball of non sequitur.

You seem to be equating "secular" with some sort of strawman version of PC liberalism, then using your Jumping to Conclusions Mat to bounce over to US jurisprudence.

Nothing in the text of the OP has anything to do with being "secular" (as opposed to spiritual or religious).

As for being skeptical of the secular, all you have to do is go browse the threads here regarding all sorts of non-religious woo, such as 9/11 conspiracy theories, crank physics, cryptozoology, etc. etc. etc.

But from a skeptical point of view, since all religion is based on some sort of departure from valid evidence and is therefore incompatible with skepticism and reason, nothing actually exists other than what you would call "secular".

In my opinion, there's really no need to divide the world into secular and non-secular... there is only what exists and what does not, and everything non-secular falls into the latter category.

 

[charles brough]

There isn't a single secular ideology, because the secular adjective indicates a lack of religion.

There's more than one ideology that isn't reliant upon religion. For example, there is fascism and there is communism.

And here is at the heart of the problem! Is there any difference in form between East Asian Marxism ("Communism") and Fascism or even Judaism other than that Judaism is an older ideology and has the belief in "spirits" because it is older?

It seems to me they are all ideologies, except that the "religions" are really very old. The human race has, after all, made some intellectual progress since way back in prehistory!

It also seems to me that our faith in the capitalistic system, rights, freedom, individualism, democracy, etc. is an ideology held by millions if not billions of people and that it is generally included by the individual along with his other, older ideology ("religion"). If it is not the two ideologies together that determine how everyone thinks, what does?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Transgender people are still excluded.

A speaker for an LGBT group I attend is a transwoman and attorney. She commented that, on a regular basis, she got soldiers who were discharged from the military who struggled with their identity, two such people were paratroopers she worked with while she was in the military. Each and everytime, she'd tell them "you're **********". There's no much that can be done about that situation.

A friend of mine is a civilian contractor for a major US Air Force defense company. He works with a transwoman who was discharged from the military, its weird that this woman could not serve in the military as an officer, but serve as a civilian contractor (minus the ability to re-enlist, pension, TRICARE, and possibly other benefits).

We had a thread on this recently. Sex based discrimination is too entrenched in the military at the moment to make this a clear case.

Ideally it wouldn't matter, if course there are no female paratroops.

 

[Lamuella]

And here is at the heart of the problem! Is there any difference in form between East Asian Marxism ("Communism") and Fascism or even Judaism other than that Judaism is an older ideology and has the belief in "spirits" because it is older?

It seems to me they are all ideologies, except that the "religions" are really very old. The human race has, after all, made some intellectual progress since way back in prehistory!

It also seems to me that our faith in the capitalistic system, rights, freedom, individualism, democracy, etc. is an ideology held by millions if not billions of people and that it is generally included by the individual along with his other, older ideology ("religion"). If it is not the two ideologies together that determine how everyone thinks, what does?

one of the major differences between religious faith and a political ideology (apart from the nature of the questions that each answers) is that if you change your mind about something to do with politics, less of your world comes tumbling down. It's easier to change your mind than to change your faith.

 

[charles brough]

You seem to be confused on what "equal rights" actually mean.
First, by definition, not all people are equal. For example, driving is a rite, however, we do not give it to children or blind people.

"Equal Rights" refer to certain basic rights. Everyone have a rite to have basic protection under the law against being killed, raped or whatever. I assume you have no problem with that.

Now if you're talking about the whole political correctness movement about trying to treat everyone exactly the same and we're all wonderful and all that crap... you'll be surprised how many skeptics reject that. Heck, P&T did several episodes on such issues. And it has nothing to do with secularism by the way...

So sure, if someone for example is blind, then it's too bad but he is not getting a driver license. If on the other hand you want to exclude an individual for no good reason, such as your silly transgender president then sorry, but no issue there what so ever.

You have a good list of qualifications. It even says in the Bill of Rights "certain, unalienable rights" and not to everything. What I see happening with that, though, is that people do tend to use it to change our society in ways that are always thought beneficial but only because our ideals make us think they are. Should women have the "right" to fight and die in combat? Is it that next in the "equality" and "rights" trend? Would it really be beneficial for women? Or is it the man's responsibility to protect the women and children? I say our secular ideals are leading us in directions that conflict with basic human nature.

 

[citizenzen]

Should women have the "right" to fight and die in combat? Is it that next in the "equality" and "rights" trend? Would it really be beneficial for women? Or is it the man's responsibility to protect the women and children? I say our secular ideals are leading us in directions that conflict with basic human nature.

I've always had a problem with this argument that we're going against nature.

Do you want to go back to doing it naturally?

Fine. I'll come over to your house. And if I'm big enough and strong enough I'll kick your ass, run you out of your home or maybe even kill you. Then I'll **** your wife and eat your children.

Aaah ... nature.

 

[charles brough]

. . from a skeptical point of view, since all religion is based on some sort of departure from valid evidence and is therefore incompatible with skepticism and reason, nothing actually exists other than what you would call "secular".

In my opinion, there's really no need to divide the world into secular and non-secular... there is only what exists and what does not, and everything non-secular falls into the latter category.

That is convenient. It defines secular as being "Truth". Here we depart because I don't know if our scientific understanding of ourselves and the world is the final, abstract truth. I think of the science view as only being what is more accurate than what we used to believe and especially the old religions which people cling to but are now otherwise obsolete. In other words,our secular science is the last and most accurate view of ourselves and the world but it is not abstract truth because it has to change by constantly becoming more accurate.

Science is not our secular ideology, however. Our secular ideology is the ideals and goals that grew out of the Age of Enlightenment, the French Revolution and the US Constitution.

Alsp, religions are not a departure from "truth" but merely more accurate than the ideological systems that preceeded them (such as the monotheistic ones being less INaccurate than the polytheistic faiths they replaced.

 

[Pup]

Should women have the "right" to fight and die in combat? Is it that next in the "equality" and "rights" trend? Would it really be beneficial for women? Or is it the man's responsibility to protect the women and children?

Why must the burden fall entirely on men to protect everyone else? That doesn't seem beneficial to them.

Besides, it makes men, as a group, less equal than others who are just as capable of contributing to the protection. It seems unfair for women, homosexuals, etc. as a group to enjoy the benefit of being protected without any responsibility to do their part.

 

[Hawk one]

You seem to be confused on what "equal rights" actually mean.
First, by definition, not all people are equal. For example, driving is a rite, however, we do not give it to children or blind people. [snip]

This is probably a small nitpick, but I wouldn't say that people - at least in countries like USA, UK, Sweden, etc.) have a right to drive.

What they have is a right to apply for a driver's licence. Absolutely anyone can make this application. But of course, there are rules in place that allows these applications to be denied (so while a blind person can surely apply, he will not get one), as well as demanding that you've had instructions on how to drive properly (mainly in the sense of how you work your way through traffic).

And even when you do obtain that driver's licence, you can still have it taken away, if the authorities find out you are abusing this licence on public roads, or if something happened to you (like getting blind in an accident) that makes it impossible to retain the licence.

But would I call having a driver's licence a priviledge, then? Well, there are problems with that too.

I believe that it would be better if we stopped thinking of rights vs. priviledges as two polar opposites with only a binary choice, but instead thought of it as as a sliding scale, like this:

Rights <----X---------------------Y--------------------------------> Priviledges

The X here stands for where I subjectively think that applying for a driver's licence falls on the scale, and the Y is where I (again subjectively) think where having the actual driver's licence would fall. In any case, excactly where these two points fall on the sliding scale is not as important as aknowledging that the scale exists in the first place. At least, metaphorically speaking.