Politics

[Whiskeyjack]

edit: Cack's post got me thinking. You (whiskey) seem to be presenting liberalism as a complete philosophical rejection of traditional Catholic values. I disagree. I see it as an expansion and a refocusing, just like I see the New Testament as an expansion and refocusing of Old Testament values. I'm all about philosophy with a sledge hammer, but I think that there are some idols that can take the blow. You believe that gay marriage undermines the concept of family. I believe gay marriage expands the concept of family. I think the traditional focus on the anatomy of the relationship was wrong and weird, but I think that the underlying concepts of love and commitment remain valuable.

Glad you brought this up. Wish I had time to respond to it now. Will address it later.

 

[Cackalacky]

There are moral dimensions to every human activity. Killing an animal for sport is less morally defensible than killing an animal for survival; killing an ape is less morally defensible than killing an ant; etc. Unless one is a hardcore materialist, in which case "morality" is just an illusion. But it still gets back to metaphysics.



These are all great questions, which just goes to prove there is no getting away from metaphysics. Humans are inherently religious creatures

.

Outside of the unanswerable origins of life issues, I think there is a viable argument to be made for morality that doesn't require metaphysics or renders metaphysics unnecessary at least, and in fact it is the result of evolutionary adaptations and that humans aren't really inherently religious creatures but inherently societal ones with religion, culture and morality being a result, and therefore an advantage for survival.

 

[Cackalacky]

Here are a series of videos I think accentuate my alternative:

Dr. Marc Hauser -Evolutionary Biologist Dept. Pychology Harvard: MORALITY WITHOUT RELIGION

The link is for video 3 of 3 though it will make more sense if you watch 1 and 2 first.

Evolved Morality

Homonid Evolution and How It Has Shaped Human Behavior, Ethics, and Morality
Absolutely Fantastic Lecture. 55 minutes. Totally Worth it.

 

[Cackalacky]

Metaphysics

Metaphysics

I am not sure if anyone watched the videos above but this is a followup

Evolution and metaphysics
Science and metaphysics

Philosophers of science mostly conclude that science is metaphysics neutral, following the Catholic physicist Pierre Duhem (1914). Science functions the same way for Hindus as for Catholics, for Frenchmen as for Americans, for communists as for democrats, allowing for localised variations that are ironed out after a while. However, science does indeed rule out various religious etiological myths (origin stories), and often forces the revision of historical and medical stories used in the mythology of a religion. And when cosmologies are given in ancient scriptures that involve solid heavens, elephants and scarab beetles, science shows them to be unqualifiedly false as descriptions of the physical world as it is observed.

Science can rule out a metaphysical claim, then. Is evolutionary science therefore a metaphysical Weltanschauung (a nice pretentious German word meaning world-view)? I don't think so. Many things claimed by metaphysical views such as fundamentalist Christian biblical literalism are not themselves metaphysical claims. For example, the claim that the world is flat (if made by a religious text) is a matter of experiment and research, not first principles and revelation. If "by their fruits shall ye know them", false factual claims are evidence of bad science, not good religion.

Many of those who do hold religious views take the approach that they get their religion from their scriptures and their science from the scientific literature and community. They therefore treat the factual claims made in those scriptures the same way they treat the metaphysical views of scientists: as not germane to the function of that source of knowledge (Berry 1988). Does the fact that Stephen Jay Gould admits to learning Marxism at his father's knee or Richard Dawkins to being an atheist mean that evolution is either Marxist or atheistic (as so many immediately and fallaciously conclude)? No, of course not. If it were the case that these views defined the results of scientific work, then the broad range of metaphysical views of practising scientists would mean that -- at the same time -- science was Christian, Hindu, Marxist and probably even animist, as well as agnostic or atheist. While some extreme cultural relativists do try to claim that science is no more than the sum of its cultural environments, this view fails to explain how it is that science gets such consistent results and acquires such broad agreement on matters of fact. Nevertheless, this does not stop idealists from sometimes disingenuously claiming that science is what you want (or "will") to make of it.

[Note in passing, that Gould is not a Marxist, although there are a number of prominent evolutionary biologists who make no secret of being so. Also note that there are many liberal and conservative evolutionary biologists. Political affiliation does not specify what sorts of theoretical views one must have. Darwin was a Whig (middle-class liberal) while Huxley and Wallace were radicals. Spencer and Haeckel could only be called conservatives, and a number of Haeckel's views were influential in the rise of fascism. Yet these political views did not determine agreement on matters of theoretical biology. See below, "Evolution outside biology".]

Is Metaphysics Possible?Stanford Philosophy Encyclopaedia
It may also be that there is no internal unity to metaphysics. More strongly, perhaps there is no such thing as metaphysics—or at least nothing that deserves to be called a science or a study or a discipline. Perhaps, as some philosophers have proposed, no metaphysical statement or theory is either true or false. Or perhaps, as others have proposed, metaphysical theories have truth-values, but it is impossible to find out what they are. At least since the time of Hume, there have been philosophers who have proposed that metaphysics is “impossible”—either because its questions are meaningless or because they are impossible to answer. The remainder of this entry will be a discussion of some recent arguments for the impossibility of metaphysics.

Let us suppose that we are confident that we are able to identify every statement as either “a metaphysical statement” or “not a metaphysical statement”. (We need not suppose that this ability is grounded in some non-trivial definition or account of metaphysics.) Let us call the thesis that all metaphysical statements are meaningless “the strong form” of the thesis that metaphysics is impossible. (At one time, an enemy of metaphysics might have been content to say that all metaphysical statements were false. But this is obviously not a possible thesis if the denial of a metaphysical statement must itself be a metaphysical statement) And let us call the following statement the “weak form” of the thesis that metaphysics is impossible: metaphysical statements are meaningful, but human beings can never discover whether any metaphysical statement is true or false (or probable or improbable or warranted or unwarranted).

Let us briefly examine an example of the strong form of the thesis that metaphysics is impossible. The logical positivists maintained that the meaning of a (non-analytic) statement consisted entirely in the predictions it made about possible experience. They maintained, further, that metaphysical statements (which were obviously not put forward as analytic truths) made no predictions about experience. Therefore, they concluded, metaphysical statements are meaningless—or, better, the “statements” we classify as metaphysical are not really statements at all: they are things that look like statements but aren't, rather as mannequins are things that look like human beings but aren't.

But (many philosophers asked) how does the logical positivist's central thesis

The meaning of a statement consists entirely in the predictions it makes about possible experience
fare by its own standards? Does this thesis make any predictions about possible experiences? Could some observation show that it was true? Could some experiment show that it was false? It would seem not. It would seem that everything in the world would look the same—like this—whether this thesis was true or false. (Will the positivist reply that the offset sentence is analytic? This reply is problematic in that it implies that the multitude of native speakers of English who reject the logical positivists' account of meaning somehow cannot see that that sentence is true in virtue of the meaning of the word “meaning”—which is no technical term but a word of ordinary English.) And, therefore, if the statement is true it is meaningless; or, what is the same thing, if it is meaningful, it is false. Logical positivism would therefore seem to say of itself that it is false or meaningless; it would be seem to be, to use a currently fashionable phrase, “self-referentially incoherent”.

Current advocates of ‘metaphysical anti-realism’ also advocate a strong form of the thesis that metaphysics is impossible. Insofar as it is possible to find a coherent line of argument in the writings of any anti-realist, it is hard to see why they, like the logical positivists, are not open to a charge of self-referential incoherency. Indeed, there is much to be said for the conclusion that all forms of the strong thesis fall prey to self-referential incoherency. Put very abstractly, the case against proponents of the strong thesis may be put like this. Dr. McZed, a “strong anti-metaphysician”, contends that any piece of text that does not pass some test she specifies is meaningless (if she is typical of strong anti-metaphysicians, she will say that any text that fails the test represents an attempt to use language in a way in which language cannot be used). And she contends further that any piece of text that can plausibly be identified as “metaphysical” must fail this test. But it invariably turns out that various sentences that are essential components of McZed's case against metaphysics themselves fail to pass her test. A test-case for this very schematic and abstract refutation of all refutations of metaphysics is the very sophisticated and subtle critique of metaphysics (it purports to apply only to the kind of metaphysics exemplified by the seventeenth-century rationalists and current analytical metaphysics) presented in van Fraassen 2002. It is a defensible position that van Fraassen's case against metaphysics depends essentially on certain theses that, although they are not themselves metaphysical theses, are nevertheless open to many of the criticisms he brings against metaphysical theses.

The weak form of the thesis that metaphysics is impossible is this: there is something about the human mind (perhaps even the minds of all rational agents or all finite rational agents) that unfits it for reaching metaphysical conclusions in any reliable way. This idea is at least as old as Kant, but a version of it that is much more modest than Kant's (and much easier to understand) has been carefully presented in McGinn 1993. McGinn's argument for the conclusion that the human mind is (as a matter of evolutionary contingency, and not simply because it is “a mind”) incapable of a satisfactory treatment of a large range of philosophical questions (a range that includes all metaphysical questions), however, depends on speculative factual theses about human cognitive capacities that are in principle subject to empirical refutation and which are at present without significant empirical support. For a different defense of the weak thesis, see Thomasson 2009.

I believe I have posted this earlier but Bertrand Russell basically states that when a question has sufficient data to be answered it falls into the realm of science while the unanswered or unanswerable questions remain philosophical.

 

[pkt77242]

Carson defends his research on aborted fetuses - CNNPolitics.com

 

[phgreek]

Carson defends his research on aborted fetuses - CNNPolitics.com

...so in order to have used fetuses in research, you must be FOR abortion or there is hypocrisy? Really? Fetuses aren't available any other way? Typical.

 

[ACamp1900]

At least he isn't having sex with a chicken....

 

[GoIrish41]

...so in order to have used fetuses in research, you must be FOR abortion or there is hypocrisy? Really? Fetuses aren't available any other way? Typical.

Had he come out against stem cell research in the past? I don't know, but that would be a more logical accusation. Welcome to silly season. Pull up a stool in the Benghazi Bar and Grill and enjoy the show. This is just the beginning.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Oops. I mis-read the title of the web page. Nothing to see here yet. I'll keep looking.

 

[pkt77242]

...so in order to have used fetuses in research, you must be FOR abortion or there is hypocrisy? Really? Fetuses aren't available any other way? Typical.

What? I never said he had to be for abortion (and neither does the article).
1. He has previously said that he is against using fetal tissue from abortions
2. He has done research using fetal tissue from abortions
3. Fetal tissue is being used for many good purposes (vaccine for EBOLA, and is currently being used in potential cures for other diseases/health problems)
4. From where else do you think the fetal tissue is coming?
5. He doesn't have to be pro-abortion to believe that using fetal tissue from abortions is ok. For example if someone is killed in senseless violence (say a man is shot and killed for no apparent reason), if he was an organ donor, should we not use his organs (well as long as they aren't damaged)? If you use those organs for research or to transplant to another individual does that mean that you are pro-senseless violence?


Also why is it typical? Your answer seems weird in that it doesn't really address the article at all. No one is upset that he is pro-choice, they are upset that he is anti-fetal tissue research. Two very different things.

From the article

"As a neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson knows full well that fetal tissue is essential for medical research," wrote Gunter, author of "The Preemie Primer," a guide for parents of premature babies.

"His discipline would have a hard time being where it is today without that kind of work. What is even more egregious than dismissing the multitude of researchers whose work allowed him to become a neurosurgeon is the hypocrisy of actually having done that research himself while spouting off about its supposed worthlessness."

 

[wizards8507]

Yes, Target, I Do Want My Daughter To Conform To Her Gender | TheBlaze.com

We attack the gender norms merely because they’re norms, but nobody ever explains what’s actually wrong with them. Yes, when you’re dealing with such a broad subject, you can always find examples that truly are, as the feminists might say, problematic. But our culture has waged an assault on norms universally, and attempted to throw them all down the garbage disposal as punishment for existing in the first place. Yet, as liberalism conjures up its various gender theories, I still see, like so many billions of parents before me, a natural protectiveness and strength in my son, and gentleness and nurturing in my daughter. I’m told so often that boys and girls yearn for ambiguity, but here are my children, barely two years old, already reinforcing gender norms like a couple of right wing extremists.

 

[RDU Irish]

I don't like Carson's mannerisms, seems like he is thinking through things for the first time half the time he is speaking. I guess some like the less canned response/talking point quality but I see it as unprepared and too slow of a delivery.

That being said - I agree with him completely that IF we have the tissue it is irresponsible NOT to use it for research. Fantastic, but he will be lambasted by most people who are completely incapable of sorting out the nuance of that logical argument (who will be egged on by those who purposefully twist his comments).

 

[RDU Irish]

Like Trump, Carson is going to get eaten alive by constantly needing to defend themselves. "That is not what I said" eventually leads to people giving up on trying to understand and just thinking they are flip-flopping liars. If you want to win you have to pivot every discussion to platitudes and non-committal statements with enough charisma that the unwashed masses like you. Be likeable and say nothing that works against people's predisposition to liking you.

Thousand points of light, wouldn't be prudent at this juncture. Hope and Change.

 

[pkt77242]

I don't like Carson's mannerisms, seems like he is thinking through things for the first time half the time he is speaking. I guess some like the less canned response/talking point quality but I see it as unprepared and too slow of a delivery.

That being said - I agree with him completely that IF we have the tissue it is irresponsible NOT to use it for research. Fantastic, but he will be lambasted by most people who are completely incapable of sorting out the nuance of that logical argument (who will be egged on by those who purposefully twist his comments).

He should defend his research on the fetal tissue. The problem is that when he attacked Planned Parenthood (which is fine) he then also made comments that fetal tissue wasn't necessary and basically that we should stop doing it. That is what caused the initial outrage. He should be taken to task for that comment (not for his previous research).

 

[pkt77242]

Yes, Target, I Do Want My Daughter To Conform To Her Gender | TheBlaze.com

Well she can still conform to her gender. I don't understand the outrage over this. Let kids pick what they like. One of my boys loves football, planes, star wars etc. My other son likes star wars, cooking, vacuums, and Frozen. Nothing wrong with it. No one is forcing a parent to buy their children toys that are for the opposite sex. I think it is crazy that Target has a "girls" Lego aisle, and a "boys" Lego aisle. Why can't they be in the same aisle? It doesn't force you to buy your daughter "boy" Legos.

As far as her statement, maybe they are that way because the parents force it upon them or that is the parents expectations. Maybe she sees kids that way because she expects to see them that way. Nothing that Target is doing is forcing a parent to change what they buy their child.

 

[IrishLax]

My parents say that when I was 5 all I wanted for Christmas was a Salad Shooter. Where does that fit into gender roles?

This is all much ado about nothing, as the author does admit. Labeling isles isn't the end of the world, nor is your kid thinking they're a dinosaur, nor is a kid liking a tiara, and so on and so forth.

I do appreciate his point thought that gender roles aren't just random... they tend to exist in mankind for a reason, and guiding your kid to be a masculine male or feminine female is not a bad thing.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I'm still not over the fact that I never got that easy bake oven I wanted.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[IrishinSyria]

I do appreciate his point thought that gender roles aren't just random... they tend to exist in mankind for a reason, and guiding your kid to be a masculine male or feminine female is not a bad thing.

The best quote I've seen about the target thing is that getting rid of the gendered aisles is about getting kids ready for a world in which men can be chefs and women can be engineers.

 

[Cackalacky]

Well she can still conform to her gender. I don't understand the outrage over this. Let kids pick what they like. One of my boys loves football, planes, star wars etc. My other son likes star wars, cooking, vacuums, and Frozen. Nothing wrong with it. No one is forcing a parent to buy their children toys that are for the opposite sex. I think it is crazy that Target has a "girls" Lego aisle, and a "boys" Lego aisle. Why can't they be in the same aisle? It doesn't force you to buy your daughter "boy" Legos.

As far as her statement, maybe they are that way because the parents force it upon them or that is the parents expectations. Maybe she sees kids that way because she expects to see them that way. Nothing that Target is doing is forcing a parent to change what they buy their child.

Agreed. Who cares if Target made this change? Who cares that Target listened to a few (or many) people that felt a certain way. If Target chooses to do something with their store, business operations, or marketing strategy, why is this a big deal? Its their stuff and they are choosing to do something that does not require anyone's approval except Target and its shareholders. Am I rite?

God...Libertarian philosophy is so incoherent. They want everything to be free and about them until they don't....

 

[wizards8507]

My parents say that when I was 5 all I wanted for Christmas was a Salad Shooter. Where does that fit into gender roles?

This is all much ado about nothing, as the author does admit. Labeling isles isn't the end of the world, nor is your kid thinking they're a dinosaur, nor is a kid liking a tiara, and so on and so forth.

I do appreciate his point thought that gender roles aren't just random... they tend to exist in mankind for a reason, and guiding your kid to be a masculine male or feminine female is not a bad thing.

First, thank you for being the one person who appears to have actually read the article rather than commenting with a generic response based on what you think it probably said.

Second, the bolded is the crux of the issue. A two year old thinking he's a dinosaur is fine. But an eight year old thinking he's a dinosaur is a problem that needs to be corrected.

Agreed. Who cares if Target made this change? Who cares that Target listened to a few (or many) people that felt a certain way. If Target chooses to do something with their store, business operations, or marketing strategy, why is this a big deal? Its their stuff and they are choosing to do something that does not require anyone's approval except Target and its shareholders. Am I rite?

Nobody cares about Target's decision. It's the modern-era feminist argument that led to the change that's the problem; namely, that there's no fundamental difference between men and women. There absolutely is a difference, and denying that fact is dangerous to those whom feminists purport to protect; the children themselves.

God...Libertarian philosophy is so incoherent. They want everything to be free and about them until they don't....

It's incoherent because you don't understand it. Everything absolutely should be free. You're free to do heroin if you want. I'll still try to convince you it's a bad idea, but I won't pass a law to arrest you if you chose to ignore me. Libertarianism is not about what you should and shouldn't do, it's about what should and shouldn't be legal.

 

[Cackalacky]

First, thank you for being the one person who appears to have actually read the article rather than commenting with a generic response based on what you think it probably said.

Second, the bolded is the crux of the issue. A two year old thinking he's a dinosaur is fine. But an eight year old thinking he's a dinosaur is a problem that needs to be corrected.


Nobody cares about Target's decision. It's the modern-era feminist argument that led to the change that's the problem; namely, that there's no fundamental difference between men and women. There absolutely is a difference, and denying that fact is dangerous to those whom feminists purport to protect; the children themselves.


It's incoherent because you don't understand it. Everything absolutely should be free. You're free to do heroin if you want. I'll still try to convince you it's a bad idea, but I won't pass a law to arrest you if you chose to ignore me. Libertarianism is not about what you should and shouldn't do, it's about what should and shouldn't be legal.

I'ma get to this a bit later......

 

[woolybug25]

I'm still not over the fact that I never got that easy bake oven I wanted.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

I feel you, brother...

 

[zelezo vlk]

I feel you, brother...

I never knew what was so wrong about wanting to bake my own brownies etc

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[ACamp1900]

I'm still not over the fact that I never got that easy bake oven I wanted.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

I feel you, brother...

I never knew what was so wrong about wanting to bake my own brownies etc

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Should I not have taken those dance classes???

 

[Cackalacky]

A two year old thinking he's a dinosaur is fine. But an eight year old thinking he's a dinosaur is a problem that needs to be corrected.

Why is it a problem? What is it to you or anyone else thinks he is a dinosaur? Is it illegal to be an 8-year old who thinks he is a dinosaur? You claim below its about what should and should not be legal? Its not illegal for him to think that. Its actually his personal freedom to do so. Obviously if an 8-year old believes he is a dinosaur he may have mental problems but that is a healthcare issue not a legal one. Are you really claiming Target has the ability to erase your child's gender role? LOL. My kid knows exactly what aisle the toys are on and he doesn't even look twice.

Nobody cares about Target's decision. It's the modern-era feminist argument that led to the change that's the problem; namely, that there's no fundamental difference between men and women. There absolutely is a difference, and denying that fact is dangerous to those whom feminists purport to protect; the children themselves.

Well obviously the author cares about it since the article is about what Target did. But now it snot about personal freedom anymore according to this statement. You are now on a moral high horse claiming a lack of gender role knowledge is dangerous. Can you provide a credible source that can support in today's modern world that it is actually "DANGEROUS" for a boy to not associated pink with girls and girls to not associate blue with boys? Or cooking is for women and engineering is for men? The are differences between men and women, I doubt anyone will argue there are not, but the differences you are purporting are more physical while mentally both genders are roughly equal to each other. Women are high functioning in some aspects of our MODERN culture and men are also higher functioning in others but that does not mean a boy can't be as highly functioning as a girl in those areas and vice versa. Lets just admit what you are doing here and go ahead and acknowledge you are trying to apply your own brand of traditional moral expectations to an otherwise amoral business decision.

It's incoherent because you don't understand it. Everything absolutely should be free. You're free to do heroin if you want. I'll still try to convince you it's a bad idea, but I won't pass a law to arrest you if you chose to ignore me. Libertarianism is not about what you should and shouldn't do, it's about what should and shouldn't be legal.

This is it in a nutshell and why its dumb.... everything is free and should be? Apparently that lasts as far as I can throw a mountain. Libertarian "freedom" exists as long as there is no conflict and in conflict resolution there has to be an entity or authority to resolve the conflicts. The mythical land of no conflict and personal freedom has never existed anywhere on the planet. I challenge you to name one society that has actually deployed this philosophy as you purport it to be. Please include the other version of Libertarianism as I understand there are non-propertarians and propertarians both? Yeah thats not confusing or coherent.

Apparently, in your mythical land of unbridled freedom and free markets, that freedom extends as far as feminists relaying to an amoral business some of their concerns. Apparently you mythical land of unbridled freedom extends on so far as Target's business decision causes you turmoil and you have some misplaced idea that some how traditional gender roles are being eroded. Target is not in your house telling your son to dress up in girls clothes. And Target should not have listened to them? Should they not have acted in their best interests? You are still free to go to Target or not now that they are obviously a pro-feminist gender-role slaying company.

If you want strong gender roles for your kids then do so as the parent. Its your personal freedom and your duty as a parent to ensure that happens right? Not Target's and its not the feminists. The feminist's are acting on their own self interests. Becasue they are perfectly free to do whats in their best interest as well even if you tell them its not right and they don't listen....LOL
pfft....

The problem with Libertarians is they can't even see past their own decisions.

 

[connor_in]

I love you like a brother ACAMP, but I am fighting myself right now not to neg rep you on that last post.


My eyes are burning

 

[woolybug25]

Should I not have taken those dance classes???

The struggle is real.

 

[NDohio]

Why is it a problem? What is it to you or anyone else thinks he is a dinosaur? Is it illegal to be an 8-year old who thinks he is a dinosaur? You claim below its about what should and should not be legal? Its not illegal for him to think that. Its actually his personal freedom to do so. Obviously if an 8-year old believes he is a dinosaur he may have mental problems but that is a healthcare issue not a legal one. Are you really claiming Target has the ability to erase your child's gender role? LOL. My kid knows exactly what aisle the toys are on and he doesn't even look twice.



Well obviously the author cares about it since the article is about what Target did. But now it snot about personal freedom anymore according to this statement. You are now on a moral high horse claiming a lack of gender role knowledge is dangerous. Can you provide a credible source that can support in today's modern world that it is actually "DANGEROUS" for a boy to not associated pink with girls and girls to not associate blue with boys? Or cooking is for women and engineering is for men? The are differences between men and women, I doubt anyone will argue there are not, but the differences you are purporting are more physical while mentally both genders are roughly equal to each other. Women are high functioning in some aspects of our MODERN culture and men are also higher functioning in others but that does not mean a boy can't be as highly functioning as a girl in those areas and vice versa. Lets just admit what you are doing here and go ahead and acknowledge you are trying to apply your own brand of traditional moral expectations to an otherwise amoral business decision.



This is it in a nutshell and why its dumb.... everything is free and should be? Apparently that lasts as far as I can throw a mountain. Libertarian "freedom" exists as long as there is no conflict and in conflict resolution there has to be an entity or authority to resolve the conflicts. The mythical land of no conflict and personal freedom has never existed anywhere on the planet. I challenge you to name one society that has actually deployed this philosophy as you purport it to be. Please include the other version of Libertarianism as I understand there are non-propertarians and propertarians both? Yeah thats not confusing or coherent.

Apparently, in your mythical land of unbridled freedom and free markets, that freedom extends as far as feminists relaying to an amoral business some of their concerns. Apparently you mythical land of unbridled freedom extends on so far as Target's business decision causes you turmoil and you have some misplaced idea that some how traditional gender roles are being eroded. Target is not in your house telling your son to dress up in girls clothes. And Target should not have listened to them? Should they not have acted in their best interests? You are still free to go to Target or not now that they are obviously a pro-feminist gender-role slaying company.

If you want strong gender roles for your kids then do so as the parent. Its your personal freedom and your duty as a parent to ensure that happens right? Not Target's and its not the feminists. The feminist's are acting on their own self interests. Becasue they are perfectly free to do whats in their best interest as well even if you tell them its not right and they don't listen....LOL
pfft....

The problem with Libertarians is they can't even see past their own decisions.

I am an advocate of traditional male/female roles, but this paragraph is also how I approach it. Well stated.

 

[Cackalacky]

 

[wizards8507]

Why is it a problem? What is it to you or anyone else thinks he is a dinosaur? Is it illegal to be an 8-year old who thinks he is a dinosaur? You claim below its about what should and should not be legal? Its not illegal for him to think that. Its actually his personal freedom to do so. Obviously if an 8-year old believes he is a dinosaur he may have mental problems but that is a healthcare issue not a legal one.

I never said it was a legal issue. There are lots of things that are "problems" that aren't legal issues. Being an alcoholic is a problem but it's not illegal. Weighing 600 pounds is a problem but it's not illegal. I believe it is a serious mental health problem for an eight year old boy to think he's a dinosaur just like I believe it is a serious mental health problem for an eight year old boy to think he's an eight year old girl. But that belief is independent of my libertarianism. Not every belief a libertarian holds is a direct result of being a libertarian. I love the Red Sox, but that has nothing to do with me being a Catholic. I prefer autumn to summer, but not because I'm an alumnus of the University of Notre Dame. Get it? I can have different sets of opinions of things that are consistent with the libertarian philosophy without them being a product of it.

Well obviously the author cares about it since the article is about what Target did.

No, that's not what the article is about. It's certain inspired by Target's decision because that's what's in the news today, and it absolutely discusses Target's decison, but the points the author makes are much broader and speak to the ideological movement behind the decision. It's like an article about race relations in America that also happens to touch on the situation in Ferguson.

But now it snot about personal freedom anymore according to this statement. You are now on a moral high horse claiming a lack of gender role knowledge is dangerous. Can you provide a credible source that can support in today's modern world that it is actually "DANGEROUS" for a boy to not associated pink with girls and girls to not associate blue with boys? Or cooking is for women and engineering is for men?

First, it's not that girls MUST prefer pink and that boys MUST prefer blue, it's that they generally do, all on their own. And that's because it's in their nature, not because society forces them that way.

Second, sex reassignment surgery is dangerous. It's genital mutilation disguised as healthcare. You said yourself in the first chunk that I quoted, a kid who think's he's a dinosaur is mentally ill. So is a boy who thinks he's a girl. That hypothetical kid needs mental help, not genital mutilation. Whiskeyjack has argued this particular point much better than I can, so hopefully he chimes in.

The are differences between men and women, I doubt anyone will argue there are not, but the differences you are purporting are more physical while mentally both genders are roughly equal to each other.

That's EXACTLY what modern-era feminism argues. Not only is Bruce Jenner, a male, exactly the same as a female, they argue that he IS, in fact, female.

Women are high functioning in some aspects of our MODERN culture and men are also higher functioning in others but that does not mean a boy can't be as highly functioning as a girl in those areas and vice versa.

It's not about mental capacity so much as disposition. Yes, men and women can both be mathematicians, engineers, or CPAs. They both have the brain power and natural ability to succeed in any intellectual endeavor as well as the other. The difference in nature of the sexes is that men are generally more aggressive and protective while women are generally more nurturing and caring. Those are facts that modern-era feminism seeks to deny.

Lets just admit what you are doing here and go ahead and acknowledge you are trying to apply your own brand of traditional moral expectations to an otherwise amoral business decision.

I told you, I don't give a flying fuck about Target's decision. I care that there are lunatics (i.e. the base of the Democrat Party) that were offended by gender-based toy separation in the first place. It wasn't me who threw a tantrum about the toys being put together, it was they who threw the tantrum that they were separate to begin with.

This is it in a nutshell and why its dumb.... everything is free and should be? Apparently that lasts as far as I can throw a mountain. Libertarian "freedom" exists as long as there is no conflict and in conflict resolution there has to be an entity or authority to resolve the conflicts. The mythical land of no conflict and personal freedom has never existed anywhere on the planet.

Libertarians are not anarchists. My right to swing my arm ends where your face begins. "Step one" of any hypothetical libertarian society is to create courts of law to enforce disputes where one individual infringes on the rights of another. Libertarian structures have police, judges, and juries.

I challenge you to name one society that has actually deployed this philosophy as you purport it to be.

So your argument in defense of tyranny is that every regime in history has been tyrannical, so let's just roll with it? Slavery has existed in every society ever too, that doesn't mean it's an awesome fucking idea.

Apparently, in your mythical land of unbridled freedom and free markets, that freedom extends as far as feminists relaying to an amoral business some of their concerns. Apparently you mythical land of unbridled freedom extends on so far as Target's business decision causes you turmoil and you have some misplaced idea that some how traditional gender roles are being eroded. Target is not in your house telling your son to dress up in girls clothes. And Target should not have listened to them? Should they not have acted in their best interests? You are still free to go to Target or not now that they are obviously a pro-feminist gender-role slaying company.

I agree with all of this. The feminists were, are, and should be free to petition. Target was, is, and should be free to respond in their best interests. All I did was post an article. You're the one who brought libertarianism into it. I don't object to a single thing that happened on the grounds that "someone-did-something-they-shouldn't-be-allowed-to-do." I think ESPN made a poor decision to give the Arthur Ashe award to Bruce Jenner, but they were free to do so, and I'm free to disagree that they should have. Saying "you shouldn't do that" is not the same as saying "you shouldn't be allowed to do that." Anyone is free to say the former, whether I agree with them or not. It's the latter that I have a problem with as a libertarian. But again, that doesn't play into the Target situation at all. I think modern era feminism is bad for the country, but they're free to pursue their agenda 'til the cows come home.

If you want strong gender roles for your kids then do so as the parent. Its your personal freedom and your duty as a parent to ensure that happens right? Not Target's and its not the feminists. The feminist's are acting on their own self interests. Becasue they are perfectly free to do whats in their best interest as well even if you tell them its not right and they don't listen....LOL
pfft....

The problem with Libertarians is they can't even see past their own decisions.

The problem with you is that you're putting words in my mouth. I never said Target or the feminists should have been prohibited from doing what they did.

ETA: Regarding those ridiculous memes you posted, I'll reiterate: libertarianism is not anarchy. There's a legitimate role for law enforcement, road maintenance, public services, etc. It's just that those things are best handled at the state and local level.

Regarding the quote from Noam Chomsky, the "private tyrannies" he fears so much can only exist when they collude with the state. Without the federal leviathan concentrating so much power in Washington, there would be no way for the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, or George Soros to exercise power over the rest of us. The State is not a defender of the peple against the rich and powerful, it's the weapon that the rich and powerful wield against the people.