Are you religious?

[Rev]

Rev, you are being silly now, and I hope that you understand that gender is not dictated by the possession of a certain set of genitals.

From the OED that YOU considered the final arbiter of definition.

man

Pronunciation: /man/

Translate man | into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of man
noun (plural men /mɛn/)

• 1an adult human male:
  
  So this makes us ask ...What is a male?
  
  
  OED again...
  
  male
  
  Pronunciation: /meɪl/
  
  Translate male | into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
  Definition of male
  adjective
  • of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring:
    
    
    So are you Now saying that this approach you championed is incorrect and we must disregard your previous offerings?
    
    Or are you Clarion saying Transgender men and women are being silly and are defined by the OED and majority perception of Male and Female attributes?

 

[clarion]

Did you think to look up 'gender'? Or are you intent on just being crassly transphobic?

 

[Rev]

Clarion such mis-direction and mud slinging will not wash. You claim that the OED definition was the final arbiter! I pointed out that if you follow YOUR premise and apply it to transgender then YOU must state that they are the gender of their birth not their re-alignment!
This would make YOU crassly Transphobic!
This can not make me Transphobic, crassly or otherwise as I am clearly stating that I do not agree with your premise.
So the question is ...Do you still maintain the validity of your premise and put yourself at odds with your chosen 'Friends' in the society.
Or do you accept the premise as faulty?

 

[swee'pea99]

ok so



Try this........If the overwhelming majority of people think 'Bugs Bunny' refers to a cat
, and a tiny minority think it refers to an engaging, carrot-munching cartoon rabbit, the majority is wrong. They can use Bugs Bunny to refer to engaging carrot-munching cartoon rabbits if that works for them; but if they try to insist that their view has any wider validity, they will be, literally, correct. Bugs bunny is a rabbit, not a cat. minority rule? Absolutely. It's how language works.

See how your logic does not work?
That is because you base it on a fallacy!

The fallacy works like this

Premise: Most people believe A
Conclusion: Therefore A must be true
Premise: Most people disagree with B
Conclusion: Therefore B is false

sorry

No apology required, tho' do please try to keep up.

I never said what the majority believes is necessarily true. That would be absurd. It would, eg, mean that for many hundreds of years the world was flat. What I said was that what words mean is defined by the ways they are used. By people. People generally. Not a few people, but people at large. That's what enables us, on the whole, to communicate.

So, for hundreds of years, people may have been wrong in their belief that the world was flat, but at least everyone would have known what they meant by that statement. That the world resembled, say, an ice rink rather than an orange. In the case under discussion, the word 'Christian' means people who, among other things, believe that there is such a thing as god (who, that's to say, would answer the common or garden question: 'Do you believe in God?' with the unambiguous answer: 'Yes'); and that Jesus was qualitatively different from, say, Gandhi: ie, he was not just a splendid fellow and a fine moral teacher, but - in some sense - a divine being. As in 'God the Son'.

And if you don't buy into those specific beliefs, you may be 'christian' - in that your behaviour exemplifies Christian precepts as to how one should conduct oneself - but you cannot be 'a Christian', because a Christian is, among other things, someone who believes that there is a god, and that Jesus is his only begotten son.Whether or not that's true is for theologians and bulletin board pedants to squabble over. Whether it's what the word means is - at least at this point in time - not really open to debate. Maybe that will change. Maybe in a hundred years' time the man on the Clapham omnibus will be able to say: "Well, he's a Christian but he doesn't believe in God." But right now, that's not the case. The man on the Clapham omnibus would see that as a contradiction in terms. And he'd be right.

My logic's fine, thanks.

 

[Rev]

My logic's fine, thanks.

Sorry still full of fallacies including the one pointed out last time.

 

[clarion]

Rev, you have misapplied my argument in a massive fail in which you take a perverse puerile delight.

Read again, v e r y c a r e f u l l y.

 

[Rev]

Rev, you have misapplied my argument in a massive fail in which you take a perverse puerile delight.

Read again, v e r y c a r e f u l l y.

Will do, and if I have I will apologise.
However if I have not I will illustrate such and hope for either a capitulation or apology

 

[Rev]

Oh dear
Clarion your premise was clear!
You even revelled in it somewhat here

I hope I have demonstrated that, since, for tha vast majority of Christians (and a lot of dictionary compilers) belief in God is an absolutely central tenet of faith, it would be foolish to grasp at a few outliers and pretend that redefines the understanding of billions of people worldwide.

One could as easily (and one presumes as readily were it not for your 'spiritual allegiances) have said of the Transgendered The vast majority of people of gender (and most dictioanry compilers) believe that having testes or a uterus is absolutely essential to be a man or woman, it would be foolish to grasp a few outliers and pretend that redefines the understanding of billions of people worldwide.

I rest my case.

So do you still stick with the original premise or do you recant

 

[Rev]

Don't worry about the capitulation or the apology, I require neither

 

[clarion]

Rev, you are just being needlessly provocative here, and trying to divert the thread off topic. It is clear to just about everyone (except you) what is meant by both the words 'Christian' and 'Religious'. Your failure to understand gender is sad, but irrelevant.

You may rest your case, and it's about time, because it is tired and worn out, and has been flagging rather for several pages. I feel no need to engage with your silliness any further in what I thought had the potential to be an interesting discussion about religion and spiritual experience. Your failure to understand, whether from accidental or deliberate ignorance, adds nothing whatsoever to the debate.

 

[Thomk]

Oh dear
Clarion your premise was clear!
You even revelled in it somewhat here


One could as easily (and one presumes as readily were it not for your 'spiritual allegiances) have said of the Transgendered The vast majority of people of gender (and most dictioanry compilers) believe that having testes or a uterus is absolutely essential to be a man or woman, it would be foolish to grasp a few outliers and pretend that redefines the understanding of billions of people worldwide.

I rest my case.

So do you still stick with the original premise or do you recant

No they don't. I suggest you unrest your case.

 

[clarion]

[QUOTE 2363281, member: 1314"]My surname comes from the town I was born in. Sangha.

[/quote]

I had wondered, since the word 'Sangha', from a buddhist perspective, means 'community', particularly that of the enlightened or those seeking enlightenment, and is one of the 'Three Jewels', along with Buddha and Dhamma.

 

[Rev]

Rev, you are just being needlessly provocative here, and trying to divert the thread off topic. It is clear to just about everyone (except you) what is meant by both the words 'Christian' and 'Religious'. Your failure to understand gender is sad, but irrelevant.

I was addressing your framework for defining what constitutes the meaning of a word. This is neither diversionary nor needlessly provocative.
This veiled appeal to 'everyone' is a shamelessly tired appeal to popularity and as illustrated previously fallacious!
I understand why you need to question my understanding of gender as a means to negate my arguments, however this is a little transparent as does not alleviate your inability to answer my points.

You may rest your case, and it's about time, because it is tired and worn out, and has been flagging rather for several pages

Empty rhetoric in another shamelessly transparent attempt at misdirection to allow your swift exit... from debate that you have no answers to.

I feel no need to engage with your silliness any further

What you are really saying here is that you are unable to refute my points and therefore you seek to discredit my argument!

what I thought had the potential to be an interesting discussion about religion and spiritual experience.

Again here you seek to imply that I have sought to impede the discussion thereby discrediting me again

Your failure to understand, whether from accidental or deliberate ignorance, adds nothing whatsoever to the debate.

Oh and just to show how intent you are on not refuting my points (due to inability or....who knows) you seek to discredit a last time.


So in short Clarion you are unable to maintain the premise without being discredited.
However if you recant the premise you will be admitting you were wrong.

This is called cognitive dissonance Clarion.

 

[Rev]

No they don't. I suggest you unrest your case.

Briliant... missed the point entirely and got hung up on minutiae as to testes versus produces gametes, especially spermatozoa etc

Nice one...

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Unproven, yes, certainly, but lunacy? Just out of interest, why do you regard it as lunacy?

"Lunatic" is an informal term referring to people who are considered mentally ill, dangerous, foolish or unpredictable; conditions once called lunacy. The term may be considered insulting in serious contexts, though is sometimes used in friendly jest. The word derives from lunaticus meaning "of the moon" or "moonstruck".

Foolishness is the lack or failure of wisdom and of making proper careful choices. In this sense, it differs from stupidity, which is the lack offintelligence.[1] An act of foolishness is called folly.

I thought lunacy was kinder than stupidity. Maybe I am wrong though.