MovieChat Forums > cyguration > Replies
cyguration's Replies
<blockquote>Can I see some sources here please?</blockquote>
I already linked it above.
<blockquote>What exactly is the legal status of a "prefect" here exactly? </blockquote>
Someone who upholds the cultural standards of the community.
<blockquote>By what authority?</blockquote>
The reinstating of theocratic principles at the parliamentary level.
<blockquote>So you are in fact in favour of persecuting LGBT people.</blockquote>
Nope. I'm in favour of persecuting uncouth behaviour. What the public doesn't know about, the public doesn't care about.
<blockquote>then you are rejecting those actions as rights. </blockquote>
Pre-marital sex isn't a right. You have the right to pursue happiness within the bounds of the law. You have civil rights for safeguarding and civic participation of upholding or maintaining cultural norms.
<blockquote>"diminishes the integrity of positive cultural standards" in respect to LGBT people?</blockquote>
Anything that goes against the biologically deterministic cultural norms.
<blockquote>Can you just answer the fucking question from your perspective?</blockquote>
My perspective is dependent on how you answer the question about whether all matters are contained within moral objectivity or if morals only matter when they affect you?
<blockquote>They don't have any relevance to behaviour. </blockquote>
They do; people idolise greed and covetedness all the time, much to their detriment, relationships, and even family. Or do you believe people like Sam Bankman-Fried are good for society?
<blockquote>There isn't consensus from wider society that the ten commandments are true, or in whole, represent good morals</blockquote>
The country you reside in was built on the principles of the Ten Commandments.
<blockquote>You would essentially destroy all of modern culture and media by force.</blockquote>
We have a modern society thanks to people employing strict moral principles by force in the past. So quite the opposite.
Progressive how?
https://www.glam.ox.ac.uk/article/carbon-dating-finds-bakhshali-manuscript-contains-oldest-recorded-origins-symbol-zero#:~:text=The%20surpri
The oldest date of that manuscript is the forth century (I'm assuming they mean BC), which is nowhere near as old as the dead sea scrolls.
<blockquote>And how is it enforced? Who enforces the flogging? What if someone says they don't want to be flogged?</blockquote>
Prefects. Otherwise, the person(s) are more than welcome to leave the community.
<blockquote>Are you calling for people who commit premarital sex to be flogged against their will?</blockquote>
Absolutely.
<blockquote>What is the authority that doles out this punishment?</blockquote>
In a sane and healthy society, a government that upholds cultural standards based on moral objectivity... sort of like how it used to be just after the age of enlightenment but before the industrial revolution.
<blockquote>You initially denied wanting the state to restrict the rights of LGBT people. </blockquote>
Rights? Who said anything about rights... we're talking about conduct. Rights do not guarantee acceptance of conduct.
<blockquote>Do you think lying about someone knowingly is a moral thing to do?</blockquote>
What does it matter what I think? I'm not the one choosing to take offence -- if you believe what he's doing is wrong, then do you hold fast that all matters of morality must be objective? Or only the ones that directly impact you?
<blockquote>The first 4 however, are all about appeasing the dear leader and have zero relevance to anything.</blockquote>
They have relevance to social cohesion, and we're seeing that when they are not upheld, society begins to breakdown, hence -- once again -- the implosion of relationships, the family unit, and by proxy, infrastructure.
<blockquote>But still not Christian. You asked specifically about countries that are not Christian.</blockquote>
Nope, I specifically asked for countries practicing majority non-monogamy that were as industrialised or as advanced as Judeo-Christian-based countries.
<blockquote>So you just assume that the Dead Sea Scrolls are the definitive oldest?</blockquote>
That's mostly what the carbon dating says.
<blockquote>Is this not a punishment imposed by law?</blockquote>
It's imposed to uphold productive cultural standards, no different than some punishments in various military bootcamps.
<blockquote>Should LGBT people, or people who are known to have been in a relationship with someone of the same sex, be flogged?</blockquote>
Only if they are engaging known activities or public displays that diminish the integrity of positive cultural standards.
<blockquote>Removed from a community by law?</blockquote>
Or prefects.
<blockquote>I thought you weren't in favour of imposing the state on people?</blockquote>
I said "could" and "certain". Not "all". Some rules need harsher penalties.
<blockquote> this is irrelevant if HE IS NOT A MORAL RELATIVIST. </blockquote>
Are you certain about this? Isn't this as bad as assuming his gender?
<blockquote>Turns out that there's no consensus amongst the supposed 'objective morality' audience over what constitutes good or bad regarding 'objective morality'.</blockquote>
There absolutely is.... the Ten Commandments.
<blockquote>You yourself can't even condemn the simple act of lying about other people.</blockquote>
I can only condemn what has been ascertained with irrefutable proof.
<blockquote>Although one could argue China as an example of a nation that surged in spite of it. It's never been majority Christian. Nor has most of the Middle-East, India etc.</blockquote>
Despite China not being majorly Christian, they are still extremely conservative and highly value monogamous, family-oriented cultural productivity. Even the Middle-East still focus on monogamy and polygyny, but obviously aren't nearly as industrialised as the Judeo-Christian nations. Even India frowns on anything that isn't based around non-monogamy, despite lacking a lot of basic infrastructural implementations.
<blockquote>Nowhere considers the dead sea scrolls as the definitive oldest, it seems.</blockquote>
Because they are not dated. Even your link only refers to the Sutra as the oldest "dated" book, not that it is the oldest book. There is a huge difference between the two.
<blockquote>What form would the "public shaming" take? What do you mean by "community outlawing"? A state ban?</blockquote>
Public whipping/flogging/humiliation chastisement. Outlawing in the form of banishment from the community. Municipality restrictions could be in the form of restricted access to State services or certain civil rights.
<blockquote>An individual choosing to be abusive doesn't have much to do with anything.</blockquote>
But according to moral relativism, you are choosing to see his conduct as abuse; perhaps he sees it as being inquisitive?
<blockquote>Are you proposing I support legislation that bans being rude online?</blockquote>
Absolutely not. Instead, if people supported objective moral standards, people would be taught to behave in ways that was conducive toward productivity -- or would you rather prefer people treat you in ways that you perceive to be abusive?
<blockquote>None, because of the prominence of Christianity across most of the western world.</blockquote>
There are countless cultures and tribes not associated with Christianity -- where are the modern industrialised societies built out of non-monogamous, pagan cultural trends?
<blockquote>
https://wiganlanebooks.co.uk/blog/interesting/10-of-the-oldest-known-surviving-books-in-the-world/</blockquote>
And hilariously, none of them are as old as the dead sea scrolls (the closest being the Estrucan tablets, which have nothing in them related to cultural standards or trends). Hence, the Bible is not only the oldest book out there but the only one that contains instructions for standards on life, including marriage.
<blockquote>If it doesn't carry criminal charges, then in what sense is it prohibited?</blockquote>
It can result in public shaming, community outlawing, or prohibitive access to civil municipalities.
<blockquote>And 18th century Britain did all kinds of horrible things that we'd reject now. So did early 20th century USA.</blockquote>
And that's precisely why modern society is imploding. Those "horrible things" were in place to protect the integrity of an expanding and progressive cultural society built on evolutionary productivity.
<blockquote>How can I "make peace"? I don't have to say anything to him. </blockquote>
So, what you're trying to say is that moral relativism without hard-line principles renders you susceptible to people utilising it to badger or mock or undermine your character? It's almost like if there were standards in place to enforce moral behaviours you wouldn't have that issue, no?
<blockquote>They also all have expansive LGBT rights.</blockquote>
Non-sequitur. That doesn't answer the question.
<blockquote>Why can't people doing a partnership make vows?</blockquote>
Anyone can make vows, but they don't mean anything if no one intends to maintain or uphold them.
<blockquote>No, the Bible is not the "first book ever published". Evidence please.</blockquote>
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/historical-timeline?locale=en_US
<blockquote>What's the practical difference between "outlawed" and criminalised? </blockquote>
Outlawed can mean something that is prohibited from being done but may not carry criminal charges. Fornication, non-monogamy, and hook-up culture should definitely be shamed/outlawed.
<blockquote> You're speaking, it seems about an ideal that has never really truly existed</blockquote>
I would say 18th century Britain came close, as well as 18th - early 20th century America also came close.
<blockquote>Do you think that is remotely honest, or moral conduct?</blockquote>
If you believe he is baiting you, then why not just make peace and disengage?
<blockquote>Psychosis is not a separate disease.</blockquote>
Not all forms of schizophrenia and psychosis are the same, nor do they affect people to the same degree, which is precisely why a lot of times medication is not always a good catch-all solution:
https://mentalhealth-uk.org/help-and-information/conditions/schizophrenia/types-of-schizophrenia/
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23012-psychosis
<blockquote>You can't think logically about everything else except your gender identity.</blockquote>
Correct. Most don't think logically about other things as well, which is precisely why it's an issue that needs diving deep into what led to them becoming illogical in their thinking, especially regarding their disassociation with their physiology.
<blockquote>Second, physiology does not define your gender identity. </blockquote>
Then how do you define what a woman is without referring to the terms "woman" or "female"?
<blockquote>It's called conversion therapy, has been practiced all over the world, is still actively practiced in developing countries and is harmful and ineffective.</blockquote>
HRT and mutilation surgery is physical conversion therapy, and you're right, no amount of it can change a man into a woman or a woman into a man.
<blockquote>There are other variations, actually, that demonstrate that sex and gender are more complicated than you think.</blockquote>
No, then they are simply not females. Mammalians as a species only come in two functional forms, and if the physiological requirements are not met, then they are not that form.
<blockquote>There's no reason to believe this is true</blockquote>
Which modern industralised nation has been built on a family structure that is not majority monogamous?
<blockquote>What is the difference in practice?</blockquote>
The upholding of vows.
<blockquote>I think the state should get out of marriage entirely.</blockquote>
We can both agree on this.
<blockquote>No reason to believe this whatsoever. Literal baseless unevidenced horseshit. </blockquote>
The Bible is the first book ever published, and represents the cultural cornerstone which chronicles man's guided ascent to establish the structural foundations for modern civilisation.
<blockquote>?Should I suggest that the endgame of intense Christianity are the many religious derived authoritarian dictatorships of Europe in the 20th century? </blockquote>
As you noted yourself, those were not built on the religious principles of Christianity, but the perversion of those principles specifically for authoritarian dictatorships, which actually goes against the very principles of what Jesus taught in the book they used to enact near-theocratic rule.
<blockquote>Can you tell me what "debauchery" should be criminalised? </blockquote>
Never said criminalised, but outlawed or shamed were the proper way about it in the past.
<blockquote>the population in Europe were on average more religious than they are now.</blockquote>
Yes, but the rulership(s) were still corrupt... or do you really think those autocrats ruled with religiously sound fervor (despite the attempted genocides/land grabs via war)?
<blockquote>Tell me what I've done anywhere that makes it reasonable to throw baseless accusations and suggestions at me about being a pedophile. </blockquote>
You need to find recourse in reasoning with him to understand what you did to cause such friction.
<blockquote>Did you actually click on the original thread I linked?</blockquote>
Yep, can't make heads or tails of that conversation.
<blockquote>It's either not psychosis, or the reason is not brainwashing</blockquote>
Not true at all, as your own link says, there are a multitude of variables that can lead to psychosis, just like someone with dementia will not immediately express symptoms associated with psychosis, but they can display symptoms associated both with psychosis and schizophrenia:
https://www.healthline.com/health/schizophrenia/schizophrenia-and-dementia
<blockquote>Please name symptoms of psychosis in transgender individuals.</blockquote>
* Trouble thinking clearly and logically.
<blockquote>please describe your treatment plan for transgender individuals other than the one developed by health care professionals.</blockquote>
Breaking down step-by-step the psychological pathogenesis that lead to them becoming cognitively detached from the functionality of their physiology.
<blockquote> They live as women their whole life despite being biologically male.</blockquote>
If you're talking about intersex who do not have underdeveloped or no ovaries/fallopian tubes, they are simply males. No ovaries/fallopian tubes means they are not female and cannot live as women, since they do not have female organs.
<blockquote>women in menopause with vaginal atrophy</blockquote>
Sure, but this is observed to be rare and sometimes happens because they are typically past the age of bearing children, and so their reproductive organs go into decline.
<blockquote>Which I don't regard as inherently harmful in itself.</blockquote>
Without marriage, there is no family unit, and without a family unit, you no longer have a cultural backbone for civilisation. Why do you not think that is harmful?
<blockquote>what difference does it make is an identical union just under a different name exists that gay people use?</blockquote>
Words have meanings. Without meanings the words mean nothing. Marriage is not interchangeable with civil unions, and are a holy matrimony -- civil unions are not holy. The better question is, why do you need or care about people adopting a religious matrimony if you don't think religiosity is important?
<blockquote>And the bible does not have a monopoly on the definition of marriage.</blockquote>
It does, actually. Other cultures have simply tried to adopt it.
<blockquote>I am making the point that intense christianity does not inherently, necessarily mean an anti-migration policy. </blockquote>
It's not just anti-imigration, it's also sociopolitical norms and basing state legality around religious standards. The erosion of that is what has seen so many forms of debauchery rise up in the aforementioned nations (albeit at different rates).
<blockquote>both wars that emerged in a much more highly religiously prominent environment with major states involved often having overt authoritarian religious governments.</blockquote>
There was nothing religiously motivated by the Bolsheviks nor the Czars that led to the impetus of those wars getting underway in certain regions.
<blockquote>Absolutely NOTHING I have ever done or said leads anyone to ask it reasonably. </blockquote>
That's your perspective, though.
<blockquote>Do you think it is moral to edit your post after the other user has replied to make it appear as if they are admitting to something they are not?</blockquote>
Depends on if the edit is for clarity.
<blockquote>no, brainwashing cannot lead to psychosis.</blockquote>
Yes it can:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isis-brainwashed-threeyearold-boy-kill-terror-saudi-emir-mother-a7237056.html
<blockquote>No disease can have only one symptom. Why antipsychotics don't help against psychosis?</blockquote>
If they don't think they are psychotic then then that's why anti-psychotics don't work. They need therapy.
<blockquote>neovagina is not a gaping wound.</blockquote>
That's precisely what it is, since men do not have open wounds for genitalia.
<blockquote>satisfied with hormone therapy and use of desired pronouns.</blockquote>
Then they are not changing genders, just disrupting their endocrine system and mental equilibrium.
<blockquote>in which female psychological gender is NOT defined by biological and physiological functionality</blockquote>
They still have ovaries and a uterus, but also malformed testes -- that is a small percentage that require corrective treatments for the natal organs.
<blockquote>The link says "page not found", though.</blockquote>
Try here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-02163-w#ref-CR3
<blockquote> The existence of this syndrome contradicts your previous statements</blockquote>
No, because those people aren't the ones who claim to be transgender.
<blockquote>What about cisgender women?</blockquote>
What percentage of women have to dilate?
I had rated this movie pretty high and I was shocked to find so many people did not like it. I remember when I first saw it years ago I thought it was an honest depiction of what it's like breaking up when two people actually love each other and are drawn to each other. But then again, I haven't seen this movie in decades, and maybe it doesn't actually hold up as well as I remember it. Oh well, it still gave me an interesting perspective on breaking up back during when I first watched it.
<blockquote>Remember?</blockquote>
Brainwashing isn't psychosis, unless it leads to psychosis. Not everyone who gets lured into the trans movement instantly becomes psychotic. Wanting to constantly mutilate yourself absolutely is a symptom of psychosis, though.
<blockquote>what about those transgender people who never undergo any surgery at all?</blockquote>
Then they aren't really transgender, since the genders are defined by their biological and physiological functionality, and if they are not replicating that functionality then they are not that gender and need serious psychological or psychiatric treatment.
<blockquote>In Russia no hormone blockers were allowed and the rules were stricter, you could do nothing before turning 18.</blockquote>
Good. Many teens have no idea who they are and should not be on any HRT; sadly HRT is still hotly contested in the legislative branch in many regions for those under 18.
<blockquote>Transgender people do not change their mind. </blockquote>
Except many do; in fact, 38% of detransitioners realised they transitioned out of unresolved trauma:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-02163
<blockquote>even the title says that the the suicide attempts happen because of discrimination.</blockquote>
Red herring; nearly half of all detransitioners fear medical complications from the process, and it turns out a large portion of them do have medical complications, not to mention having to spend the rest of their life having to dilate and keep a gaping wound open that the body is trying to close:
https://www.mtfsurgery.net/dilation.htm
Many cannot deal with that and thus, succumb to suicide.
<blockquote> The existence of androgen insensitivity syndrome prove</blockquote>
That is an extremely small subset of people suffering a genetic disorder. That is completely different from people who are not suffering from chromosomal abberrations but claim to be transgender.
<blockquote> I don't see it as inherently harmful.</blockquote>
You forgot about the marriage rates dropping by nearly double.
<blockquote>Other than them having different names?</blockquote>
Words have meanings, and the meaning of marriage is the holy matrimony of man and woman to come together under God for the purpose of creating or maintaining a blessed lineage. Civil unions are not.
<blockquote>I don't give a fuck what the bible says.</blockquote>
Right, so you don't really care about marriage then, since its purpose is defined by the Bible.
<blockquote>In Latin America, it could be liberation theology. </blockquote>
Latin America actually further proves my point about corruption and misappropriation of the intended use of theological doctrine as civil foundations leading to absolute anarchy and dissolution of social structure; Brazil, in particular.
<blockquote>That's not the same thing as saying that irreligiosity somehow caused WW3</blockquote>
It's predicated on it; proper religious leadership would have strayed from even instigating things toward WW3 based on corrupt backroom dealings (i.e., Ukraine). As a result, the family unit will be further destroyed when young men are forced away from their families to fight in a corrupt war.
<blockquote>he continues to imply I am a pedophile either by asking me again and again, or implying I am a danger to kids</blockquote>
What -- from your actions or inferences -- led him to ask those questions?
Yuck. Thanks for the warning -- premise looked interesting but even from the trailer it gave off some strong rainbow vibes, so will definitely be skipping this one.
<blockquote>I also made no observation about whether that's good or not good for society.</blockquote>
So you think people getting divorced at relatively the same rates, whilst marriages are in a double-decline for marriage-age demographics over a near 30-year period, is healthy for society?
<blockquote>or in a civil partnership </blockquote>
They can have the civil partnership without marriage, especially since you don't think marriage is important... right?
<blockquote>There is not a singular definition of marriage. </blockquote>
It was intended originally, according to the Bible, to be a holy matrimony between man and woman. Anything else is just a variation of a civil union.
<blockquote>I fail to see how 'religious principles' would be inherently anti-migration. They might not be. </blockquote>
They are, since Poland is majority Roman Catholic, and they do not favour inter-faith mingling; most migrants are Muslim.
<blockquote>You specifically spoke about the move into WW3</blockquote>
When drafts are enacted, who do you think will be called to war and how will it impact the family unit?
<blockquote>Do you think this constitutes fair-minded, moral conduct?</blockquote>
Asking questions, in good faith, is never immoral.
<blockquote>It has nothing to do with scientific approach you claim you stick to.</blockquote>
It does; anyone willfully wanting to mutilate appendages is either psychotic or delusional. No two ways around that.
<blockquote>What about those who decide to never undergo any surgeries or choose only top surgery</blockquote>
It's still a mutilation fetish; women cutting off their breasts do not get them back, especially teenage girls who later change their minds and decide they might want to have kids. Except, even if they change their minds they become permanently infertile because HRT works as chemical castration; it's still a form of self-mutilation, which is not normal nor healthy. There are no positive outcomes from permanent self-mutilation.
<blockquote> I wonder, when you see a person in a wheelchair...</blockquote>
We recognise that they were always <b>meant</b> to walk, because that's how they were designed.
<blockquote>people with androgen insensitivity syndrome do not have ovaries and a uterus but they are psychologically female.</blockquote>
No, you're talking about an extremely tiny percentage of people with a genetic endocrinological disorder. That's different from people choosing to mutilate their body.
<blockquote>says who??</blockquote>
Natural selection (and the 41% of them with a propensity for suicide): https://www.medicaldaily.com/41-transgender-people-have-attempted-suicide-how-discrimination-hits-them-all-angles-268218
<blockquote>you are dismissing the epigenetic factor in embryo development</blockquote>
It has no bearing on cognitive stimuli since hippocampal development is too nascent during the gestation period, thus lacking synaptic feedback of sensory perception. That is closer to postnatal development.
<blockquote>All you do is mock them.</blockquote>
I actually haven't mocked anyone.
<blockquote>who are you by profession?</blockquote>
Mostly under NDA, but it crosses into the medical science field.
Yeah the monster design here was something straight out of a John Carpenter film -- extremely inventive and extremely creepy.
And yeah, same here about that claw scene through the door. That was one of the creepiest and most unsettling scenes I've seen in a movie in decades. Yes, decades.
Goes to show that with a competent director and some good special effects, even a simple scene of a boy in a chair with a finger reaching through the door can be absolutely terrifying.
I thought the location was perfect -- looked post-apoc. Sure, places in Michigan like Detroit or New Orleans would have been just as good for looking like a completely rundown and tore-up cityscape, but the location they chose was pretty good nonetheless. Definitely made it feel remote and scary even if they only used a few locations.