Should Bridget stay on the Shrine?

Yes

82 (57.3%)

No

61 (42.7%)

Total Members Voted: 37

[Grey]

*yawn*... yup...

ok, so in conclusion: when someone tries to be something they're not they either look foolish or ugly (transvestites, big girls in bikinis, etc...)

the reason we have all this suffering in the world is b/c everyone has their own set of morality... everyone makes up their own rules...

imagine trying to play soccer where everyone would have their own set of rules...
player A"well I think it's better if we allow punching..."
player B "well I think it isn't... we should allow kicks to the crotch"
player C "you're both wrong... body tackling is fine though"
 heh.. yeah... chaos, anyone?
...likewise w/ the real world.

the end.

sincerely,
Chris.

[ladyattis]

the reason we have all this suffering in the world is b/c everyone has their own set of morality... everyone makes up their own rules...

No...it's because everyone wants to push their rules onto others, ergo the suffering. You don't need a divine king or law giver to ensure happiness, you just need a sharp mind and a quick body. Your morality is based on fear, my morality is based on reason and freedom. Your morality calls for harm against those that do not adhere to it, mine calls for simple defense against harm. Your morality calls for the killing of those who are different, mine calls for the reasoning with those who are different. Your morality is based on monolithy, mine is based on plurality.

imagine trying to play soccer where everyone would have their own set of rules...
player A"well I think it's better if we allow punching..."
player B "well I think it isn't... we should allow kicks to the crotch"
player C "you're both wrong... body tackling is fine though"
 heh.. yeah... chaos, anyone?

This happens all the time between kids, do they kill each other for not agreeing on the rules? No, they argue it out, sometimes they yell, sometimes they smack each other around until they figure out how stupid it was to assert a universal ideal of the rules and that simply playing the game is far superior. Also, are there rules stopping people who are contracted together from killing each other? No, because there is no means to stop a killing except self-defense. All other actions are based on revenge.

Until then, study some Praxeology and Objectivist Ethics, you might grow a brain.

In reason and liberty, Bridget Attis Herbrechtsmeier

[Grey]

imagine trying to play soccer where everyone would have their own set of rules...
player A"well I think it's better if we allow punching..."
player B "well I think it isn't... we should allow kicks to the crotch"
player C "you're both wrong... body tackling is fine though"
 heh.. yeah... chaos, anyone?

This happens all the time between kids, do they kill each other for not agreeing on the rules? No, they argue it out, sometimes they yell, sometimes they smack each other around until they figure out how stupid it was to assert a universal ideal of the rules and that simply playing the game is far superior. Also, are there rules stopping people who are contracted together from killing each other? No, because there is no means to stop a killing except self-defense. All other actions are based on revenge.

Until then, study some Praxeology and Objectivist Ethics, you might grow a brain.

In reason and liberty, Bridget Attis Herbrechtsmeier

Guess what: They can't "simply play the game" until they ALL agree on some basic, rules, period.

Again, likewise w/ the real world.

you're right...some people want to push their morality on others...  thank you AGAIN for proving my point.  If someone forces someone else to do something they are infringing upon that person's right. (unless of course that person is stopping said person from harming another)  So what is happening?? They aren't following the idea objective law of not being personally infringed upon b/c they are forcing somonee else do their own will (ie- they haven't agreed w/ the absolute law of morality).

and again, to conclude... if you want to play soccer, read the rules - or at least, make up your own version, but make sure everyone else agrees to the rules as well - otherwise you'll end up w/ a brawl. Likewise w/ society: until we start to agree in some basic rules (morals) can we then and only then begin to have a just society.

[ladyattis]

Guess what: They can't "simply play the game" until they ALL agree on some basic, rules, period.

Not true, most children don't even agree who's turn it is, but still play. Ergo, no laws or rules involved.

you're right...some people want to push their morality on others...  thank you AGAIN for proving my point.  If someone forces someone else to do something they are infringing upon that person's right. (unless of course that person is stopping said person from harming another)  So what is happening?? They aren't following the idea objective law of not being personally infringed upon b/c they are forcing somonee else do their own will (ie- they haven't agreed w/ the absolute law of morality).

Nope, no absolute law of morality at play due to the fact that all rules are tentative, and that not everyone agrees to the same rules. That means morality is objective in that there are right and wrong attributes, but in itself not applicable to the same issues at all times.

For example, the act of force. Killing is considered wrong by most people, but why? Why isn't killing a fish to feed yourself wrong? Why isn't killing in self-defense wrong? The answer is that the wrongness of the situation is based on the idea of whether one owns one's self. Therefore killing a fish to eat isn't wrong since the fish has no rational faculties, and it's not wrong to kill in self-defense since the action is in defense of life.

Another example is fraud. Why is fraud[theft] wrong? The simple answer is that it's wrong since it deals with the issue of self-ownership. The act of self-ownership is the act of controlling one's self, thus controlling other things is another form of ownership. Therefore, stealing another's 'thing' that which s/he possesses is morally wrong since s/he owns that thing by the act of controlling it.


In each case, there is no absolute coefficient except self-ownership. Self-ownership doesn't have to be agreed upon since it is an AXIOM that all humans can understand. Moral systems not predicated on self-ownership are doomed to failure since such systems do not regard humans as sovereigns. Moral systems that don't assert a universal ideal and accepts rational axioms as such are poised to succeed since it doesn't place any more requirements other than self-ownership, which humans by default AFFIRM.

Now, show me where this is absolute and show me where being a transsexual violates any morality.

-- Bridget

[Grey]

ok, we agree morality is objective - you just think it should be applied differently at times... I disagree...there we go.  I think it's contradictory, arbitrary and thus chaotic to apply it differently at any given times. 

And wait now, did I actually say it's immoral to be a transsexual??  Remember: I did say, I don't care how someone else looks or acts, so long as it doesn't negatively affect me.

Now then, if you want to argue from a theistic POV - we have an entirely different ball of wax.... but well, considering the wide gap in our belief systems - I don't think that would be very productive.

In this world, I think it's fine and great people want to look like a man when they're really a woman or vice versa... just don't expect me to accept it as "normal".  It's not.  I won't harm you for it, but I certainly won't consider a transvestite/transgender to be anything other than what they are: someone in disguise.  No offense intended, that's just how I feel.

[ladyattis]

Nuff said.

-- Bridget

[Grey]

Indeed.

[BKO]

I second that. 

And I will only add that I personally have no problem with beating up the transexuals and humiliating them in public.

[Grey]

I second that. 

And I will only add that I personally have no problem with beating up the transexuals and humiliating them in public.

lol

hehe... ummm.... well, unless of course we're provoked (ie- hit on by said weirdos)

ahhh relax Gus, we're just poking fun. good times.

[crazy_freedom_head]

I second that. 

And I will only add that I personally have no problem with beating up the transexuals and humiliating them in public.

lol

hehe... ummm.... well, unless of course we're provoked (ie- hit on by said weirdos)

ahhh relax Gus, we're just poking fun. good times.

Uhhh ...... where to begin?

1) I appreciate Ian's candor.  Really.... the polite pronouns alone warrant kudos.

2) Fire Manwich - ok ok .... I like manwich; Just not in this matter. As for the rest of you wingnuts .....

3) Dudes.... wtf? This is not the FREE-TALK-Live board? I vote yes for Bridgett. Not for menstrual reasons; Not because I think that I'd like to see the FTL shrine girls in bikinis; 2 words -- Individual Liberty. Do you REALLY think that biology is so sufficiently explained by something as simple as a binary? Your faith in the medical and scientific community is waaaay to high. I presume you place the same blind faith in the theory of the ozone hole, or the ideology of Marx.

My impression of this program and it's listeners was that of open and free thinking people. The only 2 principled people I've really seen thus far in this thread are Ian and Bridgett (there are others, but mostly these 2). I vote YES for Bridgett. Ian, I have great respect for your program, but I am honestly surprised by what I have read so far.

Mel

"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller"

[Grey]

heh ahh noob... keep reading over this BBS my friend - before you make any rash decisions. 

Just b/c someone wants to be seen as something they're not - that doesn't mean they will be seen that way.  We're all about freedom of expression - but that doesn't equate freedom of acceptance.  You accept he's a woman, that's fine... I don't. It's quite simple.

and, welcome.

btw, nice quote - one of the more profound ones out there.

[crazy_freedom_head]

N00b ... ahh .... yes. I suppose true to this board Trust me ... i'm not a n00b .... I'm at least long enough in the tooth to comment on this thread I've been commenting on boards since it involved 300 bps modems

To be sure ... I did read MANY other threads before responding.

Thanks for the compliment on the quote. It's sort or a credoo these days.

My point is ..... to what end do you not acccept Bridgett as a female? If you were running a business, and she walked in ....would you giver here the same treatment ... or would you gladly accept her money and do business with her? This is in part my point.

Melissa

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

[Grey]

hey, I've been doing this since they ol dial up modem BBS days (10 years ago)...

annnyway... this isn't a pissing contest, so...

well, if you aren't indeed a noob, I'd strongly suggest that you not leave your quote right within the body of your text since:
A. it's already your footnoted quote
B. It takes up unnecessary space.

Anyway, great question: 
My point is that I don't accept her as a female based purely on the idea that only females should be in the Shrine.  Now I understand you didn't read all my posts in here about here, but had you - you would have seen that I don't care what he is, or who he thinks he is - he doesn't meet the very simple requirement of making the cut for the Shrine.
Are you kidding? Would I deny her business into my shop?? Hell no... I don't care what anyone looked like, believed, or whatever... so long as they aren't trying to steal my products or harm my other customers - they can be whomever they want.  Or think whatever they want .... etc...

I wasn't trying to argue he's somehow less human, I'm trying to argue he shouldn't be in the Shrine b/c he's simply not female.  That's it.

[crazy_freedom_head]

1) Got it about the quote ... Thanks.

2) So yes ... the question is fundamentally about what the shrine is. Naturally as a businessperson, you are smart enough to realize that excluding the glbt folks would be detrimental.

I'll re-read the 11 pages of posts. Just to be sure I've not missed anything here. I'm just surprised at the sophomoric direction that some of the conversation has taken ... perhaps I can write it off as a "guy" thing?

Melissa.

P.S. Thanks for playing so late ;

[Grey]

no problem...

yes, exactly... this discussion just went much deeper than what was intended...of course this is a BBS, so it's usually a question of knowing when to quit - not if they'll be enough responses to warrant any kind of decent conversation.

it's quite a silly thing - the Shrine that is... but the question was asked, so it's been answered...

well yeah, when guys are promised a multitude of female pics they're certainly not interested in seeing transgenders... ok, so yeah, a "guy" thing, I guess.

anyway, yes it is late. and I have to get up early - I am off.