Messages

Getting a little cynical in here.
I'm pretty sure I knew *my* own gender by age 7. Didn't you? The trouble starts when your parents start telling you you're wrong.

These are just parents who didn't presume that there was no way their kid could be trans. Perhaps they were aware of how often childhood discouragement fucks up transgendered people later on.
Transitioning is difficult enough as is, and it starts much younger than most parents are comfortable with, if they're comfortable with it at all. Why draw it out? Why force her to rack up the same laundry list of issues that so many transgendered people deal with in their adolescences?

It's very complicated: What if he (she?) is NOT pretty sure about his (her?) own gender, but his (her?) parents are just trying to help the best way they can do, even if they are not really helping?

It's wrong or not? Where's the line?

I'm afraid there are no "good" answers just right now....

Avatar?

Is there something like a "sure thing" in this kind of situation?

I think that a kid with 7 years is way to young to take such important decision, but, how can someone be sure about the consequences of whatever the parents allow or not?

Noctambulo, your ignorant, cheap attacks won't get you anywhere.

And you are a superior kind of moron.

How do you like that?

But don't worry: I'll assume that you are not really mean, only an ignorant (as all fanatics)

From now on, I'll just ignore you (as I had to do when you started claiming your "superiority")

Monkey, the thing is that there is a lot of people who lack the capacity of dealing with the unknown, and they have to fill in the blanks with what they believe, even when they contradict themselves.

That's why the fundamentalists (theists and atheists alike) are so desperate  to show how "superior" they are, because they KNOW "the truth", and if you don't think as them, you're either a "servant of Satan" or a "useless no brainer". And that makes them very dangerous...

Snow White... and the two boobies?

[only]

False. You're not just suggesting, but explicitly stating, that a specific mental distinction is impossible to reach only if the person in question holds specific opinions. That's completely ludicrous to say the least. The human mind is one of the least rational things one could possibly hope to find. It doesn't matter if two thoughts/ideas/feelings/opinions/etc. are directly and absolutely contradictory, someone, somewhere will believe it, and not only believe in it, but find absolute and irrefutable evidence about its truth that they will be completely incapable of producing on demand.

For that reason it's completely absurd that any person should take for granted anything that any other person says, or even proves. Unless I've tested and seen the evidence myself, then it's completely irrational for me to believe that anything is true, or false. Regardless of how many other people may have tested it, no matter how many times it may have been "proven", even under laboratory conditions, it's irrational for me to believe what you're telling me...at least until I've tested it myself.

Well, that means that you're a real -very real- skeptic

Yes, we have to test all we can by ourselves, but, we are very limited on time and resources to do it.

The vast majority of our knowledge comes from people we assume are telling us the truth (parents, teachers, books, tv, movies, etc, etc), and we "choose" what to believe or not, and that become our personal dogmas.

[Savage]

As a bad film veteran, that is clearly Olivier Gruner, who has made so many sci-fi flops that I couldn't count them on five hands.


It could be Mercenary, it could even be Automatic....but I'm going to go with Savage.

In a very.... very....... veeeeeeety odd way, you're like, my hero 

How do you stand all those movies???

You arguey motherfuckers...

Yeah, I missed it when we were exchanging ghostly experiences

Sorry about that...

But if you consider the event dispassionately, you must see it's more likely that you were wrong in thinking you were alone. Or wrong about your ability to distinguish those sounds.

I'm don't mean to be patronising. I'm sure I could make the same mistake.

I consider the event dispassionately (as I said, I never felt afraid, but curious). I'm 100% sure I was alone. My house is not made by wood, but concrete. The pipes are PVC...

It's not that I am ignoring anything. I just dont believe that for which I have no evidence. Thats pretty much as simply as I can put it. There's nothing dogmatic about it.

Your dogma is: If I have no evidence (or it's something I don't already believe in), it's false.

I don't know why, but 1492 and Christopher Columbus are coming to my mind right now...

I can't really see how my position is biased unless you're saying its biased against things without evidence.. which is fine by me.

I don't necessarily believe others are wrong. You may very well be correct that you experienced a ghost.

Can you please tell me where I said that a ghost was implied in my experience? No?

You simply assumed that me asking for an explanation was like I was calling the Ghostbusters

No wonder you "can't really see how your position is biased".

I have no evidence for or against that but I will assume that you didn't because if I assumed that ghosts are real without evidence then I would also have to assume that everything else i dismissed without evidence is real and I would rather not be a crazy person.

That's a sophism.

I'm not saying you *have* to produce evidence, I'm simply saying that I wont believe you without it. That's also not to say that you are lying. I have no doubt that you experienced what you say you did but as discussed earlier, the human mind is weird and adrenaline is one hell of a drug.

You're implying that if I don't produce evidence, is because I'm lying or delusional.

No, you're not biased at alla nor a fundamentalist 

...because they're witches and goblins and shit..

Cool 

Maybe it wasn't even the door, but a branch or something hitting the window - sound has a funny habit of appearing to come from the wrong direction.

There's no branch that could hit the window.  

Maybe it was something falling on the floor from another room.  It's a lot of maybes, I know.

Nope. That was the first thing I looked out for, both times.

Or maybe there actually is a person hiding in your house... in fact... he could be standing behind you right now..... RUN!!!!

Damn!! Now I'm afraid to turn back... And I'm too lazy to run xDD

There's a major difference though. Believing in a specific set of supernatural "facts" without evidence is a completely different thing from dismissing a proposition due to absence of evidence.
You're basically saying that it is wrong to dismiss the existence of Santa Claus as long as there is a teeny-tiny bit of unexplained circumstance anywhere regarding the delivery of all the worlds presents.

That's not the same, and you know it (or should know it).

What I can say is there is a rational explanation about the presents under the tree: The parents are who buy the gifts. As a parent, I do that.

I'm sorry, that's textbook religious apologetics.

I'm sorry, that was a ATHEIST who said that

Absence of evidence IS INDEED evidence of absence, IF existence is expected to produce evidence.
If person A claims they own a cat and person B, standing in their house, can't see the cat anywhere, there's really not much that can be said or done. Unless of course there's also no cat food, no cat toys, no cat hair, no scratching post, no litter box and not any other sign of there ever living a cat in the house.
In that case, person B is entirely justified to dismiss person A's claim about owning a cat, UNTIL proven otherwise.

"Absence of evidence" is NOT "evidence of absence".

I don't have evidence that you're human. Maybe you're an IA, so, it's entirely justified to dissmis your existence UNTIL proven otherwise?

There is no evidence of a life outside of Earth, so, it's entirely justified to dissmis that UNTIL proven otherwise?

Etc, etc...

If you don't accept that, well, then there's really no way to move forward.

Exactly what I'm thinking about you

Just be clear that calling "hardcore" skeptics as irrational as fundamentalists will draw their ire simply because they didn't arrive at their position by not thinking.

Are you sure? I don't really see the diference.

By the way, a fundamentalist would be claiming that the people who don't share his belief are "not thinking."

Fundamentalists are the same, no matter if they are theists or atheists

From a socratic perspective my belief is the more rational. If you'd like to abandon socratic reasoning then feel free to do so but you'll end up in a funny place with unicorns and magic tricks.

Again, the dogmatic view... YOU are the only one who know the facts, right? 

PS: Is "Socrates" your real name? Because Socrates (the greek philosopher) DID NOT assume what he ignored was non existent. But keep trying

I am of the opinion (and theists especially dislike this) that the null position is one of disbelief. When considering any proposition I start out with the belief that it is not true. This protects me from wishful thinking and personal bias. If someone tells me they saw a ghost I say fine, show me some credible evidence. If they cannot do so then I dismiss their claim. This is of variable effect of course. The more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence would have to be. I would not require evidence if someone told me they had eaten a nice sandwich.

I don't care if the atheists or the theists dislike this or not. And there is nothing that can "protect you from wishful thinking and personal bias", as you're already showing your own.

By the way: You must know that you're not in the "null position" because you believe that the "others" are wrong. That's a very strong belief.

If someone cannot present evidence it does not mean their claim false (absence of evidence) but I will work on the assumption that it is. Otherwise I'm just guessing.

I'm curious: What "credible evidence" could YOU show if what happened to me happens to you?

If you take the alternative approach and decide that you believe everything by default until shown otherwise then you automatically live in a world with astrology, tarot cards, witches, elves (which are totally real) and goblins which is, of course, absurd.

"of course, absurd"... Why?

The thing is that I am really in what you call "null position": I don't assume as a fact your belief. Maybe you're right, but I know that it would be intelectually dishonest (to me) to discard right away other explanations.

Finally, just because I can't explain your experience doesnt mean i ascribe it to the supernatural. I can't explain any number of Penn & Teller or Derren Brown tricks but I dont assume them to be supernatural just because I personally cannot explain them.

I'm just asking for a possible explanation. I'm not telling you to be theist or atheist.

The only belief i have about the supernatural is that it doesnt exist. This is not because I know either way but simply because there is no credible evidence to the contrary.

THAT is YOUR belief. You don't have evidence that proves YOUR point

Remember: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

You can't beat a good ghost story, but I'm firmly with the rationalists.

We don't need to come up with a conclusive explanation for the knocks you heard to demonstrate that it's unlikely to be a ghost. The supernatural explanation presupposes the existence of a soul and afterlife of sorts for which we have no other evidence. That makes it very unlikely.

It's much more likely someone was knocking as a joke, wood was creaking because of contraction, pipes were rattling, or you were just wrong.

Again: I was ALONE in the house, And I'm pretty sure to be capable to notice the difference between wood cracking, pipes rattling and knocking a door -twice-.

By the way, I consider myself a rationalist. In fact, to me the religious fanatics and the "hardcore skeptics" are the same: People who assume their beliefs about the "supernatural" are facts.

The problem with the supernatural is that it is, by definition, always the least likely explination. That is the nature of the *super*natural.

If I were sat on my sofa drinking a jack and coke and the {Lord Almighty,Slimer from Ghostbusters,The Grey Lady} themself walked through the door and said hi I *still* wouldnt believe because schizeophrenia or an anyeruism or being punk'd is infinitely more likely.

In terms of the evidence record, the supernatural has a pretty piss poor record.

In other words: People who don't think like you -about an experience you HAVE NOT lived-, are either a mental case or sick... Right?

"The Conga Line"

I'm with the hardcore skeptics. It's all just about suggestable minds.

Ok. Pretty fair. But...how would you explain my experience?

My story is pretty simple: I was alone at my house, like 7 - 8 pm, watching TV -a comedy, by the way- when I heard someone (a leprechaun, Spummy?) knocking at the door of my room. I turned off the tv, open the door, searched the house, but nothing. I returned to my room, closed the door, and about 10 mins later, it happened again. And the TV was off this time.

I didn't get scared at all, but it intrigued me. In fact, still does, as I can't see any "normal" explanation to it.

Flesh Gordon?

Ding ding ding! Well done, Armageddon. You really know your old porno! Your turn, sir. 

Errr... Kinda wrong hint... "Flash Gordon" is not the same that "Flash" 

Sir, I'll have you know Flesh Gordon is one of the greatest movies ever made. A true masterpiece!  8)

I'll have to trust you on that... I don't even know what kind of movies are those you call (how it was?) Oh, right, "porno"  :