- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
"If a man pretends to be his twin brother in order to trick his brothers girlfriend into sex, you wouldn’t support legal recourse for her?"
I would, because they lied about who they are, not about their features. Individual A pretended to be individual B in order to con individual B's girlfriend. If a woman only sleeps with rich men, and a poor courtier purposefully gives several signals that he is wealthy (or even outright lies) in order to sleep with them, is this rape?
"You acknowledge that gender identity is of paramount importance to a relationship, why not important in the short run as well?"
I view one night stands as people simply using each other as masturbatory devices. The male is effectively an animate dildo and the female is effectively a living flesh-light. As such, it's only really important if the person finds out. This isn't to say I condone such deceptive behavior because I don't and as aforementioned the consequences for both parties if the truth emerges are likely to be major. The straight person is likely to be mentally scarred and the trans person is likely to be physically scarred.
"Why is the sexual orientation of the misled person less important than the gender identity of the misleader?"
I don't view the gender identity of the misleader as more important than the sexual orientation of the misled. Nice use of the Socratic method by the way.
"do you think there is a moral duty; or is it simply a safety issue?"
I don't think it's morally right to not let your partner know about something so important to your relationship.
"If lesbian believes she is having sexual relations with another woman who she then finds out was born a man, did the lesbian consent?"
Yes, people lie to each other all the time, especially when courting for the purpose of one night stands. If consensual sex can be turned into rape by the omission of any information that, if known, would have prevented the sex act from taking place then we're opening Pandora's box.
Gender generally isn't referring to biological sex, it's the social and cultural differences associated with the biological sexes (masculinity and femininity). As such, yes a transgender person can be the gender they say they are but they of course cannot change their biological sex.
I believe it is indeed possible to morally commit evil acts in service of a good aim. For example, if killing a single innocent would save the lives of a million, the choice is obvious. The problem with this worldview is that things are never so simple. One might kill the single innocent and find they were misinformed, for example.
When one commits evil in service of good, usually the actor is almost-certain that the evil act will indeed have a good result. Given the fact that even our senses and perceptions are flawed certainty is impossible to achieve, however. As such, proper analysis of the relative probabilities of success and failure is necessary. Many people who adhere to consequential morality greatly overestimate their understanding of the situation and the relative probabilities of success and failure. This often leads to evil acts being committed in service of a benevolent goal without the benevolent goal ever being achieved.
"You don't have to taste Brussel Sprouts to like the taste of chocolate."
Indeed, yet if all things tasted equally nice then taste would be meaningless.
"And also, if heaven is where only nice things are, then it would have to be terribly boring, according to your statement."
It's possible, and I'm not a Christian, however I can also explain how this might work in reference to a Christian worldview. The suffering of life provides a contrast with the pleasure of heaven, much like the well earned rest sleep grants at the end of a hard day. This holds especially true if heaven is timeless. It's also possible that the whole notion of heaven is allegorical and that heaven is what earth would be like if everyone was righteous. Another possibility is that suffering exists in heaven but in infinitesimal doses relative to the positive experiences. Finally, it's possible that heaven is so different from our reality that it doesn't require suffering. Remember that in the Christian worldview the suffering of life is supposed to be a trial to determine the righteous.
"Movies do need conflict, and I guess life does too. But immorality and misfortune are still bad experiences. No matter how good what comes after is, you would still wish it didn't happen."
Negative experiences are the price to pay for a life that has both positive experiences and significance.
"Love making wouldn't be worth shit unless you also get raped"
Life's downswings serve to punctuate life's upswings, rape does not serve a similar purpose relative to sex.
"Also Stephen Hawking may as well have never lived or bothered to do any scientific work if it wasn't for his life shattering immobilizing disease."
If you say so.
"And also the beauty of nature means nothing until you pollute it, it's the pollution that really makes it special."
Beauty would be meaningless if everything was equally beautiful is analogous to my point, not a proposition that we should mar beauty wherever it exists.
Evil, immorality and misfortune are all necessary phenomena. Since what makes these phenomena negative in valence is suffering I shall address suffering directly. Without suffering pleasure would have no significance. In other words if one only ever had positive experiences then positive experience would cease to have meaning and life would be boring. The contrast between the negative experiences and the positive ones is what makes life a thrilling roller-coaster ride. Think about movies and TV-shows. There is always some conflict, some problem to overcome, even in happy comedies. If there was no problem and no conflict it wouldn't be entertaining. The same is true for life: problems and conflict are necessary to make life engaging and exciting. In addition, one can give their life meaning by alleviating their own suffering and the suffering of others and replacing it with positive experience.
I would focus more on teaching people how to think critically rather than teaching them what to think. There is also a ton of incredibly useful knowledge that one generally doesn't learn at school, such as basic psychology, social skills, power dynamics, economics, debate, abstract problem solving etc. etc.
I've never seen the A.D.L. use threats and violence but sure, it's wrong when they attempt to shut down free speech too. Hell, the completely out of touch A.D.L. even branded the Pepe frog meme a hate symbol simply because some white nationalists used the meme.
The politically correct hold the idea that one should force others to not use words or spread ideas that might offend members of certain groups. These people attempt to shut down the free speech of others (often not even particularly objectionable speech!) by pressuring platforms and governments and/or through threats and violence.
An interesting part of political correctness is the "euphemism treadmill" whereby the euphemisms themselves become offensive and thus euphemisms for euphemisms must be constantly invented. One example of this is found in the word "retarded" which means "slowed" or "delayed". "Retardation" was a medical euphemism for moron, imbecile, idiot, cretin and other conditions (yes these were once medical terms) which had become commonly used as insults. Now we use "retard" as an insult and have replaced it as a medical term with "mentally handicapped" but interestingly I have already seen this term used to derogate others intelligence. In a number of years we will have to replace this term too.
Another example of the euphemism treadmill is the term "colored" which changed to "black" then "African American" and has recently come full circle with the present acceptable version "people of color". Note also that "people of color" is practically identical to the starting term "colored".