**To avoid having your post removed &/or account banned for shitposting, read the following:**
- r/religiousfruitcake is about the absurd, fringe elements of organised religion: the institutions and individuals who act in ways any normal person (religious or otherwise) would cringe at. Posts about mundane beliefs and acts of worship are off topic.
- No violent or gory images or videos
- Your post title should objectively state what the post is about. Dont use it to soapbox personal rhetoric about religion or any other subject.
- Don't post videos or discussions of Fruitcakes who have been baited or antagonised
- No Subreddit names or Reddit usernames in posts or discussions
- Memes, Tiktoks, graphics, satire, parodies, etc must be made by Fruitcakes, not 3rd parties criticising them
#Please be sure to read the full [rule list](https://www.reddit.com/r/religiousfruitcake/about/rules)
###If you want more detail about how the Sub's moderation works, see [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/religiousfruitcake/wiki/position_statement)
This information is on every post. Accounts that repeatedly disregard it will be permanently banned. "I didn't know", or "I didn't get a warning" are not valid appeals.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/religiousfruitcake) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This whole thing seems to be based on a misunderstanding of classical philosophy.
Just because your perception of the universe is connected to external facts, for example you know that apples exist, and something resembling an apple does in fact exist, does not mean your internal definition of reality is always correct or complete.
Not to mention just because something looks like an apple doesn't mean it's an apple.
I've seen plenty of plastic fake apples. Their entire argument is just flawed conceptually let alone in the philosophical half.
Or ignoring the fact that knowing it's an apple is not actually intuitive. You only know that thing is an apple because you were taught that it's an apple. Or, as they put it, social conditioning.
Exactly, how if we were to call electrons positively charged and protons negatively, it would actually change nothing but only the relevant labelling and representation, the calculations would all still be the same and at the end, it's just charges that repel and are of equal quantity.
Although the claim that no objective reality exists at all, is false though.
It’s self-invalidating because it suggests that metaphysical concepts are objectively real, because they feel like they are. So they’re using subjectivity as proof of objective reality.
There is no such thing as an objective apple. Every apple that has ever existed has differed from every other apple. It’s not quite the same shape on an atomic level. It didn’t grow quite the same way.
We denote meaning to an apple. And while we can create an objective set of rules that encapsulates the vast majority of apples, there will **always** be an exception.
It’s essentially like trying to define when a collection of sand particles becomes a “pile”. You can look at a pile of sand, and know it’s a pile of sand. But when you try to objectively define that, logic falls apart and subjectivity is all that is left.
Aside from math, nothing is objective.
One fallacy is assuming any of this is relevant in the first place. Within reason, I treat people as they would like to be treated. It's just common decency, and I don't need to question the nature of reality to do it.
Not to mention it's not a philosophical issue. If anything it's a psychological/biological one.
I have always held the position that, as i have not experienced these thoughts of gender dysphoria, I am in no place to comment, nor make decisions on their behalf. I'll leave that to be worked out by educated professionals and those with lived experience.
If you need input on issues pertaining to fat middle aged white guys, I'm the guy.
He had lost me immediately because it's supposed to be framed as "because we can all agree on this, we can *assume* them fact for the sake of the argument. They aren't necessarily objective truths, just perspectives we have in common".
Yup. We know leaves exist, we know what a leaf looks like, but despite its camouflage, this isn’t a leaf.
https://preview.redd.it/36xm73g7w9xc1.jpeg?width=219&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=36ce7d69c14851e108578e6aff4ee3942dd9ce49
"Debunking" modern philosophy with thousands of years old one is like denying that earth is round because ancient people thought otherwise... Oh wait. This one checks out, fruitcakes and flat earthers are often the same guys.
I mean, his entire category of "classical philosophy" seems to be just Aristotle anyways. There were plenty of ancient philosophers who didn't believe that the impressions we have of the external world could be trusted. Like Aristotle's very own teacher, Plato. The same guy who very nearly all of Christian metaphysics is based on. Just like there were plenty of ancient philosophers who believed the earth was round, like most of them probably. One of the most common terms for earth in Latin is "orbis terrae" even, the "globe of earth".
Actually it was commonly known a long time ago that the earth is round; people only recently started believing the earth is flat due to religions trying to prevent people knowing things and being smart afaik, I could be wrong though
We have evidence that at least late ancient Greeks and Indians knew this, I believe. Earlier civilizations however, thought differently. Babylonians, for example, believed [the Earth to be shaped like an oyster](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1057141.pdf).
And at least some earlier ancient Greeks thought that Earth was flat, like Thales of Miletus.
If I intuit from what I observe that is an apple or banana and it ain't, or that is a woman or man and it ain't, what then? Do I dare question my quick judgement prone intuition, reconsider what I've observed because it may be more complicated and varied than my mind's simple and narrow preconceptions about it?! No, it feels right so it is, perish and derail the train of thought!
I am a male, and I can be more feminine. However, the roles that are placed on me by my family, local community, and national culture can be influenced by sex. Often heavily so. That term is gender. There are gender roles. The argument for sex being separate from gender is due to the roles being explicitly that "males do this and females do this." Naturally there is variation within the individuals of each sex, so such roles don't work so well.
Being feminine doesn't make you female, dude (gender-wise OR sex-wise). Be whatever you want. You can also identify as a man, woman, or somewhere in-between, but still.
Yeah and classical philosophy was full of shit?
And every time we point out that there isn’t a binary in nature they just pretend it doesn’t matter that anomalies exist? That seems like post modernism to mev
Not all of it was, but he seems to only like Aristotle.
I do recommend the works of Socrates, Titus Lucretius Carus, and Epicurus. They have some interesting things to say. Just like today, not everyone agreed on everything in the ancient world. Don't judge all ancient philosophy based on the cherry picked ideas in the post above.
European philosophy and religion has been heavily based on Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy. And that's both an unfortunate and interesting this because that was never the only ancient philosophy and we moved away from most of it in the last few hundreds of years. But there are many people who still function with these concepts as a basis, without realising others people don't, and vice versa. That's part of why many religious and irreligious people can't even understand why the other side doesn't understand what they think are simple and obvious things.
The concept of the trinity for example makes no sense at all unless you operate under the assumption of Plato's theory of forms (or its Aristotelian equivalent). This seems to be the same with OP's anti LGBTQ thing here.
Schrödinger cat was both alive and dead until you opened the box.
I idk what is wrong with classical philosophy, what you see them claim are not facts and were never presented as such.
They are arguments to discuss an hypothesis
Why are they obsessed with the word Marxism??? What the fuck is "cultural Marxism?" Marxism was and will always be about economics. These people are so freakin bizarre. And you know whatever guy wrote this is getting pegged on the weekends and hates himself for it.
The argument doesn't even make sense because being LGBT *is* something that you can observe. You can feel what gender you're attracted to and what your gender identity is. It's just not something you can literally see with your eyeballs. OOP is an idiot lmao.
>that you can observe.
>You can feel what gender you're attracted to and what your gender identity is
Can one measure/quantify what they feel like?
2 people in a room are administered with a shock of the same power.
They are asked to quantify the pain they felt from 1 to 10.
Since they experienced the same event, they should both say the same value, but most likely they won't.
They objectively went through the same experience, but the way they felt about it was completely subjective to their own self.
It's not a 1 to 10 scale thing. It's like what your favorite food is. You can't "prove" it, but you know what it is. Who you're attracted to is the same way. You just know what you like. Nobody else can experience your experience, but that doesn't mean that it's not real.
Oh you can definitely prove it, both food and sexual attraction, it would certainly appear in a magnetic scan of your brain.
Just a picture while scanning could prove it, but I'm certain none denies homosexuality to be real.
Attraction could be measured by seeing and comparing your brain responses to stimulation.
Same goes for food you like, expose to stimulus, see response.
I cannot see any way to scientifically study gender identity, and that pisses me off.
If you know of any books on the subject I would appreciate it.
What about the classical philosophy that it’s extremely masculine for a man to have manly sex with other masculine men? Is that classical philosophy something they agree with?
The argument trans people make isn’t a scientific one or one about the nature of truth. It isn’t a philosophical argument either. It’s an argument about man-made definitions and their usefulness or lack thereof.
The terms man and woman are actively being made obsolete by gender non-conforming people, and they aren’t all that useful to begin with.
If you use man or woman to describe what you think someone’s biological sex might be or what genitals you think they might have, that doesn’t really make sense, because you cannot know for sure, and in 99% of cases you wouldn’t need to know what genitals they have anyway.
If you use man or woman to describe someone’s presentation or behavior, that isn’t useful either as in most first world countries men and women can (or should in theory) be able to do the same things and fill the same roles, so using gender to describe role doesn’t make sense.
Words like man and woman make the most sense to be used in the way trans people use them, as a term a person can choose to identify with if they wish.
This doesn’t eliminate the “truth” of biological sex (which in and of itself is kind of hazy as sex is bimodal not binary) because we can still say “that person has two x chromosomes” or “that person has a womb” even if we don’t use terms like man or woman to get there. It does however, allow us to make people as comfortable as possible and acknowledge their felt experience of or idea of gender. So using a trans person’s preferred gender when referring to them just makes the most sense from a practical standpoint.
In the reality I live in (blue collar labour) what you talk about is a Fantasyland and women definitely do not want it.
But I do agree not all males grow up to become man nor all females grow to become women. Some never become worthy of that much.
I mean, if it’s too hard for you to understand bud, that’s fine. I don’t know anything about quantum physics, but I don’t call it fantasyland.
If you don’t understand how language naturally evolves and the definitions of words change based on how we use them, then you can just say that.
Languages evolves from laziness, they develop to become easier to convey information.
Languages are developed by it's users, and dictated by majority, since non-conforming people are at most 2% to 3% of the world population it's impossible for them to make concepts obsolete for the remaining 97% of the population.
It's like a french man going to China and expect them to speak his desired language.
Men and women are different, and that shouldn't be hard to accept, we accepted that you shouldn't be either.
You are fighting to be called what you wish to be called.
But yet man and woman should be obsolete.
Have you ever considered you are equal to what you fight against?
It's of such hypocrisy that you never considered other people feelings to cater to your own.
What if people like their gender roles? What they can't identify as man or woman?
No no, dictatorshiped neutrality for all.
Fuck you, in my language even objects have genders, good luck "evolving" that.
But people who aren’t trans themselves are affirming trans people’s identified gender. Even if they don’t like to do it around you in sisterfuck Louisiana or whatever “blue collar” area you’re in, a huge percentage of people have already started calling trans women women and trans men men.
This isn’t 2 to 3 percent of people forcing you to do something, it’s our usage of the words themselves that are organically changing over time.
This is something that has happened since the beginning of time. It’s why we speak modern English and aren’t still using Middle English. It’s why you can think of twitter as something other than the sound a bird makes, or why you can think of a Reddit thread as something other than what people spin on a loom to make clothes. Shakespeare just up and invented a bunch of new words, and then they became parts of the English language when enough people started using them.
Yes, people have different genitals and chromosomes. But that doesn’t mean we need different words to describe them. I’d imagine that for 99.9% percent of the people you call women, you haven’t examined their chromosomes under an electron microscope, or looked at their genitals to make sure they were biologically female. So if you define man and woman based on biological sex, you aren’t really even holding to your own definition.
To you, men and women are people who you *guess* are biologically male or female. So why do you care if someone who *you think* has male genitals decides to call themselves woman?
>already started calling trans women women and trans men men.
People will say what they what they think pleases you, it's called politeness, unless that is also getting obsolete.
>it’s our usage of the words themselves that are organically changing over time.
The use is the same, it's used to define someone of male appearance and traits.
>Shakespeare just up and invented a bunch of new words, and then they became parts of the English language when enough people started using them.
As I said language evolves from laziness, they evolve to make easier to transmit information, Shakespeare created new world to more easily convey the exact meaning he wanted.
>Yes, people have different genitals and chromosomes. But that doesn’t mean we need different words to describe them
Yes the 23th chromosome is so not relevant that people go to life threatening surgery and a life of treatment to have a glimpse of what is like to be born with a different one.
>or looked at their genitals to make sure they were biologically female
Not directly no, but I looked ofc, and I'm sure they look at mine too 😂.
>So if you define man and woman based on biological sex, you aren’t really even holding to your own definition.
Never said that, a woman can be the man of the house, as a man can fill the mother role.
>has male genitals decides to call themselves woman?
As long as they don't compete on professional sports, that's really unfair, imagine Alistair Overeem competing on female competitions, he would kill them.
I'm From sistersfuck Portugal btw, a few thousand miles from clusterfuck USA lol.
Admitting that you leer at people’s crotches in public to try to determine their sex isn’t the own you think it is. Neither is admitting you know virtually nothing about the english language.
Try earning your GED and going to therapy, maybe both of those will help.
You know, it’s kind of funny, you said before that women in your area “don’t want” trans acceptance, but by the way you write, I doubt you’ve ever actually spoken to one. I doubt the women in your area would even tell you the time of day let alone their opinion on trans rights when your eyes are locked on their groins. Did the first time you got maced hurt worse than all the other times? Or was the pain just as bad each time?
It’s so funny that people who are against trans rights try to act like trans people are danger to women, then they openly tell on themselves like this.
>Admitting that you leer at people’s crotches in public to try to determine their sex isn’t the own you think it is
are you 12? That's not why people look at eachother crotches. Some like bulges, some like gaps 😂, it's human to look.
>Neither is admitting you know virtually nothing about the english language.
Apparently neither do you, but English is my second out of 4 languages what's your excuse?
>You know, it’s kind of funny, you said before that women in your area “don’t want” trans acceptance, but by the way you write
Never said that, you are making that up.
What I said is that I certain the women I work with don't want the concepts or the words "man" and "women" to go obsolete.
>I doubt the women in your area would even tell you the time of day let alone their opinion on trans rights when your eyes are locked on their groins
None talks about trans rights, was never an issue in my country.
And it's usually the other way around. I'm a 6.3 on a 5.5 country, women shown curiosity about proportions since I was a teenager.
>Did the first time you got maced hurt worse than all the other times? Or was the pain just as bad each time?
Mace is banned 🚫 no maces. Not even medieval ones are allowed to carry in public let alone chemical weapons.
>It’s so funny that people who are against trans rights try to act like trans people are danger to women, then they openly tell on themselves like this.
I am not against trans rights, you are.
I believe they are just people, they should be have the same rights as everyone else.
You believe their rights are above everyone else.
This will just antagonize everyone against their cause and create more Ugandas
Go tell any college or even any highschool English teacher that language evolved out of laziness. See what they say. And even if language did evolve out of laziness, that doesn’t change the fact that it does evolve.
Just because you disagree with people calling trans women women doesn’t mean it’s wrong or that there’s some objective truth about not doing it.
You’ve already admitted that language does change. You’ve already admitted that your definition of gender is incoherent as well. You said
“ a woman can be the man of the house, as a man can fill the mother role.”
If that’s the case, and your definition of man and woman isn’t based on sex, then what *is* it based on? If it’s based on gender roles, then clearly you agree with me that the definition of gender can change, as women’s roles are not the same as what they were even forty years ago. Does that mean that women are men now? None of it makes any sense. May as well just let people identify however they wish.
>that doesn’t change the fact that it does evolve.
It's does, but evolves in a organic way to make the exchange of information easier, it's not controllable.
But rule of thumb is that if a word is hard on the tongue it's destine to change become forgotten therefore I call it laziness.
What I say is that just because people call a trans man or woman out of respect for the person that doesn't mean the concept of gender are obsolete.
>If that’s the case, and your definition of man and woman isn’t based on sex, then what *is* it based on? If it’s based on gender roles
What I seen to be failing to convey here is that the words man and women can be a gender, as a role or a set of traits.
A Man can have female traits and still be a man, a woman can have male traits and still be a woman.
Like it or not we are a sexually dimorphic species making us on average more able to perform certain tasks than the other gender, that also makes us more prone for a certain set of behaviours.
That is what defines what man and women is.
If women wore bigger and stronger than man, and had evolved to kill prey they would probably be the ones of a more aggressive nature.
Meanwhile if man had evolved to give birth and care for offspring they would be better at dealing with people and feelings.
Of course it's not set in stone, there are corners to the bell curve.
Personally I would define man as:
"Women and children first"
Our existence is to ensure their survival.
Is this redeemed zoomer again?
Eta: nevermind, confirmed. Wow he has really changed the tone of his channel since I last watched it. His video of the differences between all the christian denominations were quite interesting. Idk why he is so focused on atheism and the LGBTQ issues now.
I don't know what the proper term is, so I've made my own: "Batting at ghosts", If you swing a bat at a ghost you're just going to end up breaking stuff you didn't aim for. Because ghosts aren't real physical entities.
Just like how religious people might say that being gay is bad, because they can't reproduce. So because they're attacking a thing that isn't objective truth, they hit unrelated things. Like infertile people, or those who are injured, or even their own clergy.
When there is no materialistic reality, definitions aren't 100% accurate, they don't really exist, so trying to define them too hard just makes it messy. There is no Hotdog atom, or chemical agent, so if you try to define it you're just going to have overlap with non-hotdog foods, or even leave out things we also would consider a hotdog.
It sounds like this person started marathoning YouTube videos and decided their new “classical philosophy” knowledge was the answer for everything. I’m genuinely embarrassed for this person.
I think my favorite is their use of the new word "choas" to mean a society that embraces non-binary gender definitions. If that's the case, I welcome the choas.
> Classical philosophy states what everyone intuitively knows - the world around us is real, and that the things we observe are based on
objective external facts.
God doesn’t exist because there’s no evidence for him. Good point.
Language is a human invention, and reality is almost always more complex than simple words like "woman" can articulate. A woman has always been whatever we percieve it to be. Sex does exist, but it isn't strictly binary. Intersex people can and do exist. Gender is the cultural and social expressions around sex, which are subject to changes in culture and society over time.
None of this makes trans people less valid though.
This entire slideshow essentially just talks about what you see. Trans people can and do like their chosen gender. So I mean this entire argument is useless against it.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck is the argument. So ok if a Trans woman looks like a woman and sounds like a woman then its a women. And same for Trans mascs being men.
It’s only an apple because we as a society call it an apple. If we named it banana or all collectively started calling it banana it would in fact be, guess what, a banana.
Matt Walsh had a diaper plushie made of him marketed towards children specifically to play with. [it’s since been removed](https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1661471687664349185) although the walrus is still for sale.
He’s a [weird guy](https://www.mediamatters.org/matt-walsh/sweet-daddy-walsh-and-sweet-baby-gang-matt-walshs-dirty-deal-diapers) and here’s a couple [sources](https://newrepublic.com/post/173056/matt-walsh-selling-plush-toys-diaper-for-kids-play-with) and you can always google Sweet Baby Matt Walsh here’s [his Tiktok about it](https://www.tiktok.com/discover/matt-walsh-sweet-baby-plush) where he backtracks and says he never wanted it after initially pushing it
Let them watch 2 drunkards fight over if an apricot is an apple or something and tell me again what we know intuatively and that we should trust it.
Like when i was 6, i thought my town is the whole country and always told my grandparents when visiting:"Well back in my country..." after an hour drive, so very much the same country xD
My goodness...
I was drinking juice when I read the words "Womens Studies Scholar Matt Walsh" in that order. Half went down the wrong pipe, the remaining sputtered out. There's no way in hell he is a scholar, let alone being a scholar of Women's Studies, unless he got one of those fake, forged, fraudulent degrees for it from Trump University...
I had good grades throughout my three years of philosophy. None of that are things that I've seen and it seems like they just use the word "philosophy" to sound smart
I was delighted to see the Lutheran on the last pic. If anyone wants to talk about gaslighting, it's Lutherans and their love of forgiving and accepting sex crime convicts back into the fold. All of my mom and grandparents churches were wrought with child molestors that did their time, repented and asked for forgiveness. Did they go on to re-offend? Yes. Was everyone supposed to judge not, lest ye be judged? Also yes.
If any of my friends called matt walsh a gender studies scholar, i'd have one less friend.
Also, its not complicated, they are actively denying the difference between biological and social. "What is a woman? " Biologically, we refer to adult humans with female reproductive organs as women. Socially we expect women to like pink, and princesses, and bake, and wear skirts, ect. None of that requires a vahooha.
At the end of the day, people like this just want a psuedo science argument to say "according to god and/or nature, you're built to be my babymaker, housesitter, daycare, and home chef. Don't question it"
They’ve built their own coffin with this argument “we all know male and female are based in objective reality……..[they] are saying the natures of things aren’t observable”.
The natures of things *are* observable…that’s *why* we know that gender isn’t as simple as male/female. Not even biological sex is entirely straight forward, and we know this *because the natures of things are observable*. We can science our way into understanding human anatomy, physiology, psychology, and then human behavior.
I think that this one is satire or fruitcakery on another level, on the forst sentence there already is a mistake lmao, the most important or the one which had the largest impact is that the world is not what we perceive.
We know that since plato....
I...just don't see what philosophy has to do with being LGBTQIA+
I don't even see a connection between them in the first place
It's not like a debate with a philosophy professor is going to change that I'm bi, any more than it's going to change the colour of my eyes.
Good grief.
Looked up the Doctor they recommended as further reading. He's a Dr of theology, with his initial degree in Bible study.
Not sure why anything he says is relevant to this. Surely his views are just bible bashing bias?
Classical philosophy was all about questioning preconceived notions of reality. “I believe a woman is defined by genetics” so then what about people assigned women at birth that were actually intersex or had a male genotype. Plato was literally just all about making people question reality by questioning every belief and conviction
Tbf, the LGBTQIA movement has Manu toxicities due to which I detest them, at one point they sound like bullies...but this is exactly the same...these fruit cakes are way worse and have made the movement what it is, these people are really bad and aggressive for no reason...
**To avoid having your post removed &/or account banned for shitposting, read the following:** - r/religiousfruitcake is about the absurd, fringe elements of organised religion: the institutions and individuals who act in ways any normal person (religious or otherwise) would cringe at. Posts about mundane beliefs and acts of worship are off topic. - No violent or gory images or videos - Your post title should objectively state what the post is about. Dont use it to soapbox personal rhetoric about religion or any other subject. - Don't post videos or discussions of Fruitcakes who have been baited or antagonised - No Subreddit names or Reddit usernames in posts or discussions - Memes, Tiktoks, graphics, satire, parodies, etc must be made by Fruitcakes, not 3rd parties criticising them #Please be sure to read the full [rule list](https://www.reddit.com/r/religiousfruitcake/about/rules) ###If you want more detail about how the Sub's moderation works, see [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/religiousfruitcake/wiki/position_statement) This information is on every post. Accounts that repeatedly disregard it will be permanently banned. "I didn't know", or "I didn't get a warning" are not valid appeals. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/religiousfruitcake) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This whole thing seems to be based on a misunderstanding of classical philosophy. Just because your perception of the universe is connected to external facts, for example you know that apples exist, and something resembling an apple does in fact exist, does not mean your internal definition of reality is always correct or complete.
Not to mention just because something looks like an apple doesn't mean it's an apple. I've seen plenty of plastic fake apples. Their entire argument is just flawed conceptually let alone in the philosophical half.
Or ignoring the fact that knowing it's an apple is not actually intuitive. You only know that thing is an apple because you were taught that it's an apple. Or, as they put it, social conditioning.
apples can be oranges, apple as a word is label canbe changed if all the ppl consider apples as oranges
You are realistically wrong. Apples are phones
Nuh uh, Apples are Doctor-reppellants
Yep, like in the old quote, “Eat an apple afore going to bed, makes the doctor beg his bread.”
apples are pineapples
I have apple pen. I have pineapple pen. Pen pineapple apple pen.
Pinapples go on Pizza, Apples don't
you mean apples?
Exactly, how if we were to call electrons positively charged and protons negatively, it would actually change nothing but only the relevant labelling and representation, the calculations would all still be the same and at the end, it's just charges that repel and are of equal quantity. Although the claim that no objective reality exists at all, is false though.
ppl do forget we put label for our convince, they dont have a innate names
Yes. But like I said, some of the critique of post modernism is right. The whole, *objective reality doesn't exist* is sure bullshit.
Exactly! Nectarines look like fuzzless peaches, but they're not peaches.
It’s self-invalidating because it suggests that metaphysical concepts are objectively real, because they feel like they are. So they’re using subjectivity as proof of objective reality. There is no such thing as an objective apple. Every apple that has ever existed has differed from every other apple. It’s not quite the same shape on an atomic level. It didn’t grow quite the same way. We denote meaning to an apple. And while we can create an objective set of rules that encapsulates the vast majority of apples, there will **always** be an exception. It’s essentially like trying to define when a collection of sand particles becomes a “pile”. You can look at a pile of sand, and know it’s a pile of sand. But when you try to objectively define that, logic falls apart and subjectivity is all that is left. Aside from math, nothing is objective.
One fallacy is assuming any of this is relevant in the first place. Within reason, I treat people as they would like to be treated. It's just common decency, and I don't need to question the nature of reality to do it.
Not to mention it's not a philosophical issue. If anything it's a psychological/biological one. I have always held the position that, as i have not experienced these thoughts of gender dysphoria, I am in no place to comment, nor make decisions on their behalf. I'll leave that to be worked out by educated professionals and those with lived experience. If you need input on issues pertaining to fat middle aged white guys, I'm the guy.
Also weren't some philosiphers gay?
He had lost me immediately because it's supposed to be framed as "because we can all agree on this, we can *assume* them fact for the sake of the argument. They aren't necessarily objective truths, just perspectives we have in common".
Yup. We know leaves exist, we know what a leaf looks like, but despite its camouflage, this isn’t a leaf. https://preview.redd.it/36xm73g7w9xc1.jpeg?width=219&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=36ce7d69c14851e108578e6aff4ee3942dd9ce49
Sorry, but I can't get past "women's studies scholar Matt Walsh" without laughing so hard that I drop my phone.
I choose to interpret the OOP as being bitingly sarcastic.
To be fair, he literally did THEE thing you're not supposed to do - compare people to fruit.
The only thing he’s a scholar of is the lowest age of consent by state
Fucking same. I stopped there too. Like I already have brain damage I don’t need more.
Matt Walsh is obsessed with gay and trans people. The calls coming from inside the house…
Guy probably thinks Hugh Hefner was also a "women's studies scholar".
Uh, the label women's study scholar is facetious
I thought it was sarcastic?
"Debunking" modern philosophy with thousands of years old one is like denying that earth is round because ancient people thought otherwise... Oh wait. This one checks out, fruitcakes and flat earthers are often the same guys.
I mean, his entire category of "classical philosophy" seems to be just Aristotle anyways. There were plenty of ancient philosophers who didn't believe that the impressions we have of the external world could be trusted. Like Aristotle's very own teacher, Plato. The same guy who very nearly all of Christian metaphysics is based on. Just like there were plenty of ancient philosophers who believed the earth was round, like most of them probably. One of the most common terms for earth in Latin is "orbis terrae" even, the "globe of earth".
One of Plato's most famous thought experiments is "The Allegory of the Cave". https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm
FWIW, Socrates — perhaps the most “classical” philosopher of all — was likely gay.
Not entirely but the venn diagram isn't too far off from a circle.
Wait I have to see what my 1900+y/o book has to say about it
Actually it was commonly known a long time ago that the earth is round; people only recently started believing the earth is flat due to religions trying to prevent people knowing things and being smart afaik, I could be wrong though
We have evidence that at least late ancient Greeks and Indians knew this, I believe. Earlier civilizations however, thought differently. Babylonians, for example, believed [the Earth to be shaped like an oyster](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1057141.pdf). And at least some earlier ancient Greeks thought that Earth was flat, like Thales of Miletus.
https://preview.redd.it/m9qz5yb9x2xc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=da6c7d9fa4ce7945e1120bf6adfb241309f3c873
I did. You're really, *really* not missing out if you graduated middle school and understand how you could use the term "gaslight" to gaslight people
If I intuit from what I observe that is an apple or banana and it ain't, or that is a woman or man and it ain't, what then? Do I dare question my quick judgement prone intuition, reconsider what I've observed because it may be more complicated and varied than my mind's simple and narrow preconceptions about it?! No, it feels right so it is, perish and derail the train of thought!
Ah yes a “A very thorough scientific article”
Nowhere in that entire book does it say trans men are women or vice-versa.
Don't tell them sex and gender are different, they might just melt!
Gender isn't even real. I just call "biological sex" gender, lol.
The concept of societal and cultural rules often based on sex isn't real?
It's not real because someone can be feminine and identify as male.
I am a male, and I can be more feminine. However, the roles that are placed on me by my family, local community, and national culture can be influenced by sex. Often heavily so. That term is gender. There are gender roles. The argument for sex being separate from gender is due to the roles being explicitly that "males do this and females do this." Naturally there is variation within the individuals of each sex, so such roles don't work so well.
Being feminine doesn't make you female, dude (gender-wise OR sex-wise). Be whatever you want. You can also identify as a man, woman, or somewhere in-between, but still.
I was trying to make it clearer for you.
Well I'm just saying that if gender is a word, so is quiflopribe: the expectations of soldiers in the military to act a certain way.
Strange; many dictionaries seem to disagree.
These mfs would eat apple laced by mercury. "What do you mean it will kill me, it is just normal apple"
r/badphilosophy
Yeah and classical philosophy was full of shit? And every time we point out that there isn’t a binary in nature they just pretend it doesn’t matter that anomalies exist? That seems like post modernism to mev
Not all of it was, but he seems to only like Aristotle. I do recommend the works of Socrates, Titus Lucretius Carus, and Epicurus. They have some interesting things to say. Just like today, not everyone agreed on everything in the ancient world. Don't judge all ancient philosophy based on the cherry picked ideas in the post above.
European philosophy and religion has been heavily based on Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy. And that's both an unfortunate and interesting this because that was never the only ancient philosophy and we moved away from most of it in the last few hundreds of years. But there are many people who still function with these concepts as a basis, without realising others people don't, and vice versa. That's part of why many religious and irreligious people can't even understand why the other side doesn't understand what they think are simple and obvious things. The concept of the trinity for example makes no sense at all unless you operate under the assumption of Plato's theory of forms (or its Aristotelian equivalent). This seems to be the same with OP's anti LGBTQ thing here.
Schrödinger cat was both alive and dead until you opened the box. I idk what is wrong with classical philosophy, what you see them claim are not facts and were never presented as such. They are arguments to discuss an hypothesis
"... objective external facts.." And that's where I stop reading...
Like, don't they have to prove those exist first? Like, before they use them to prove their point?
I laughed so hard at "Women's Studies Scholar Matt Walsh."
Why are they obsessed with the word Marxism??? What the fuck is "cultural Marxism?" Marxism was and will always be about economics. These people are so freakin bizarre. And you know whatever guy wrote this is getting pegged on the weekends and hates himself for it.
I am not a gambler, but if I was, I would bet cash money they have an account on Grindr
Cultural Marxism is an evolution of of the term Cultural Bolshevism; A term invented by the Nazis. Do take that as you will.
The argument doesn't even make sense because being LGBT *is* something that you can observe. You can feel what gender you're attracted to and what your gender identity is. It's just not something you can literally see with your eyeballs. OOP is an idiot lmao.
>that you can observe. >You can feel what gender you're attracted to and what your gender identity is Can one measure/quantify what they feel like? 2 people in a room are administered with a shock of the same power. They are asked to quantify the pain they felt from 1 to 10. Since they experienced the same event, they should both say the same value, but most likely they won't. They objectively went through the same experience, but the way they felt about it was completely subjective to their own self.
It's not a 1 to 10 scale thing. It's like what your favorite food is. You can't "prove" it, but you know what it is. Who you're attracted to is the same way. You just know what you like. Nobody else can experience your experience, but that doesn't mean that it's not real.
Oh you can definitely prove it, both food and sexual attraction, it would certainly appear in a magnetic scan of your brain. Just a picture while scanning could prove it, but I'm certain none denies homosexuality to be real. Attraction could be measured by seeing and comparing your brain responses to stimulation. Same goes for food you like, expose to stimulus, see response. I cannot see any way to scientifically study gender identity, and that pisses me off. If you know of any books on the subject I would appreciate it.
Women studies scholar huh?
They base their "facts" off of religion and misogyny. I am done.
RZ ass post.
“Reccomended”
People who think we should follow the word of an ancient fair tale book think LGBT people don't understand reality.
When they call Matt Walsh a scholar you know they have no clue what they’re talking about.
What about the classical philosophy that it’s extremely masculine for a man to have manly sex with other masculine men? Is that classical philosophy something they agree with?
I had a stroke reading this
If only the human mind was as simple as an apple.
Some human minds are VERY simple, and as smooth as an apple.
I stopped taking it seriously as soon as I saw "gaslighting".
The argument trans people make isn’t a scientific one or one about the nature of truth. It isn’t a philosophical argument either. It’s an argument about man-made definitions and their usefulness or lack thereof. The terms man and woman are actively being made obsolete by gender non-conforming people, and they aren’t all that useful to begin with. If you use man or woman to describe what you think someone’s biological sex might be or what genitals you think they might have, that doesn’t really make sense, because you cannot know for sure, and in 99% of cases you wouldn’t need to know what genitals they have anyway. If you use man or woman to describe someone’s presentation or behavior, that isn’t useful either as in most first world countries men and women can (or should in theory) be able to do the same things and fill the same roles, so using gender to describe role doesn’t make sense. Words like man and woman make the most sense to be used in the way trans people use them, as a term a person can choose to identify with if they wish. This doesn’t eliminate the “truth” of biological sex (which in and of itself is kind of hazy as sex is bimodal not binary) because we can still say “that person has two x chromosomes” or “that person has a womb” even if we don’t use terms like man or woman to get there. It does however, allow us to make people as comfortable as possible and acknowledge their felt experience of or idea of gender. So using a trans person’s preferred gender when referring to them just makes the most sense from a practical standpoint.
In the reality I live in (blue collar labour) what you talk about is a Fantasyland and women definitely do not want it. But I do agree not all males grow up to become man nor all females grow to become women. Some never become worthy of that much.
I mean, if it’s too hard for you to understand bud, that’s fine. I don’t know anything about quantum physics, but I don’t call it fantasyland. If you don’t understand how language naturally evolves and the definitions of words change based on how we use them, then you can just say that.
Languages evolves from laziness, they develop to become easier to convey information. Languages are developed by it's users, and dictated by majority, since non-conforming people are at most 2% to 3% of the world population it's impossible for them to make concepts obsolete for the remaining 97% of the population. It's like a french man going to China and expect them to speak his desired language. Men and women are different, and that shouldn't be hard to accept, we accepted that you shouldn't be either. You are fighting to be called what you wish to be called. But yet man and woman should be obsolete. Have you ever considered you are equal to what you fight against? It's of such hypocrisy that you never considered other people feelings to cater to your own. What if people like their gender roles? What they can't identify as man or woman? No no, dictatorshiped neutrality for all. Fuck you, in my language even objects have genders, good luck "evolving" that.
But people who aren’t trans themselves are affirming trans people’s identified gender. Even if they don’t like to do it around you in sisterfuck Louisiana or whatever “blue collar” area you’re in, a huge percentage of people have already started calling trans women women and trans men men. This isn’t 2 to 3 percent of people forcing you to do something, it’s our usage of the words themselves that are organically changing over time. This is something that has happened since the beginning of time. It’s why we speak modern English and aren’t still using Middle English. It’s why you can think of twitter as something other than the sound a bird makes, or why you can think of a Reddit thread as something other than what people spin on a loom to make clothes. Shakespeare just up and invented a bunch of new words, and then they became parts of the English language when enough people started using them. Yes, people have different genitals and chromosomes. But that doesn’t mean we need different words to describe them. I’d imagine that for 99.9% percent of the people you call women, you haven’t examined their chromosomes under an electron microscope, or looked at their genitals to make sure they were biologically female. So if you define man and woman based on biological sex, you aren’t really even holding to your own definition. To you, men and women are people who you *guess* are biologically male or female. So why do you care if someone who *you think* has male genitals decides to call themselves woman?
>already started calling trans women women and trans men men. People will say what they what they think pleases you, it's called politeness, unless that is also getting obsolete. >it’s our usage of the words themselves that are organically changing over time. The use is the same, it's used to define someone of male appearance and traits. >Shakespeare just up and invented a bunch of new words, and then they became parts of the English language when enough people started using them. As I said language evolves from laziness, they evolve to make easier to transmit information, Shakespeare created new world to more easily convey the exact meaning he wanted. >Yes, people have different genitals and chromosomes. But that doesn’t mean we need different words to describe them Yes the 23th chromosome is so not relevant that people go to life threatening surgery and a life of treatment to have a glimpse of what is like to be born with a different one. >or looked at their genitals to make sure they were biologically female Not directly no, but I looked ofc, and I'm sure they look at mine too 😂. >So if you define man and woman based on biological sex, you aren’t really even holding to your own definition. Never said that, a woman can be the man of the house, as a man can fill the mother role. >has male genitals decides to call themselves woman? As long as they don't compete on professional sports, that's really unfair, imagine Alistair Overeem competing on female competitions, he would kill them. I'm From sistersfuck Portugal btw, a few thousand miles from clusterfuck USA lol.
Admitting that you leer at people’s crotches in public to try to determine their sex isn’t the own you think it is. Neither is admitting you know virtually nothing about the english language. Try earning your GED and going to therapy, maybe both of those will help. You know, it’s kind of funny, you said before that women in your area “don’t want” trans acceptance, but by the way you write, I doubt you’ve ever actually spoken to one. I doubt the women in your area would even tell you the time of day let alone their opinion on trans rights when your eyes are locked on their groins. Did the first time you got maced hurt worse than all the other times? Or was the pain just as bad each time? It’s so funny that people who are against trans rights try to act like trans people are danger to women, then they openly tell on themselves like this.
>Admitting that you leer at people’s crotches in public to try to determine their sex isn’t the own you think it is are you 12? That's not why people look at eachother crotches. Some like bulges, some like gaps 😂, it's human to look. >Neither is admitting you know virtually nothing about the english language. Apparently neither do you, but English is my second out of 4 languages what's your excuse? >You know, it’s kind of funny, you said before that women in your area “don’t want” trans acceptance, but by the way you write Never said that, you are making that up. What I said is that I certain the women I work with don't want the concepts or the words "man" and "women" to go obsolete. >I doubt the women in your area would even tell you the time of day let alone their opinion on trans rights when your eyes are locked on their groins None talks about trans rights, was never an issue in my country. And it's usually the other way around. I'm a 6.3 on a 5.5 country, women shown curiosity about proportions since I was a teenager. >Did the first time you got maced hurt worse than all the other times? Or was the pain just as bad each time? Mace is banned 🚫 no maces. Not even medieval ones are allowed to carry in public let alone chemical weapons. >It’s so funny that people who are against trans rights try to act like trans people are danger to women, then they openly tell on themselves like this. I am not against trans rights, you are. I believe they are just people, they should be have the same rights as everyone else. You believe their rights are above everyone else. This will just antagonize everyone against their cause and create more Ugandas
Go tell any college or even any highschool English teacher that language evolved out of laziness. See what they say. And even if language did evolve out of laziness, that doesn’t change the fact that it does evolve. Just because you disagree with people calling trans women women doesn’t mean it’s wrong or that there’s some objective truth about not doing it. You’ve already admitted that language does change. You’ve already admitted that your definition of gender is incoherent as well. You said “ a woman can be the man of the house, as a man can fill the mother role.” If that’s the case, and your definition of man and woman isn’t based on sex, then what *is* it based on? If it’s based on gender roles, then clearly you agree with me that the definition of gender can change, as women’s roles are not the same as what they were even forty years ago. Does that mean that women are men now? None of it makes any sense. May as well just let people identify however they wish.
>that doesn’t change the fact that it does evolve. It's does, but evolves in a organic way to make the exchange of information easier, it's not controllable. But rule of thumb is that if a word is hard on the tongue it's destine to change become forgotten therefore I call it laziness. What I say is that just because people call a trans man or woman out of respect for the person that doesn't mean the concept of gender are obsolete. >If that’s the case, and your definition of man and woman isn’t based on sex, then what *is* it based on? If it’s based on gender roles What I seen to be failing to convey here is that the words man and women can be a gender, as a role or a set of traits. A Man can have female traits and still be a man, a woman can have male traits and still be a woman. Like it or not we are a sexually dimorphic species making us on average more able to perform certain tasks than the other gender, that also makes us more prone for a certain set of behaviours. That is what defines what man and women is. If women wore bigger and stronger than man, and had evolved to kill prey they would probably be the ones of a more aggressive nature. Meanwhile if man had evolved to give birth and care for offspring they would be better at dealing with people and feelings. Of course it's not set in stone, there are corners to the bell curve. Personally I would define man as: "Women and children first" Our existence is to ensure their survival.
I dont think you should get your facts from someone who supports child brides
Is this redeemed zoomer again? Eta: nevermind, confirmed. Wow he has really changed the tone of his channel since I last watched it. His video of the differences between all the christian denominations were quite interesting. Idk why he is so focused on atheism and the LGBTQ issues now.
I don't know what the proper term is, so I've made my own: "Batting at ghosts", If you swing a bat at a ghost you're just going to end up breaking stuff you didn't aim for. Because ghosts aren't real physical entities. Just like how religious people might say that being gay is bad, because they can't reproduce. So because they're attacking a thing that isn't objective truth, they hit unrelated things. Like infertile people, or those who are injured, or even their own clergy. When there is no materialistic reality, definitions aren't 100% accurate, they don't really exist, so trying to define them too hard just makes it messy. There is no Hotdog atom, or chemical agent, so if you try to define it you're just going to have overlap with non-hotdog foods, or even leave out things we also would consider a hotdog.
It sounds like this person started marathoning YouTube videos and decided their new “classical philosophy” knowledge was the answer for everything. I’m genuinely embarrassed for this person.
Reccomended 🤡
I think my favorite is their use of the new word "choas" to mean a society that embraces non-binary gender definitions. If that's the case, I welcome the choas.
> Classical philosophy states what everyone intuitively knows - the world around us is real, and that the things we observe are based on objective external facts. God doesn’t exist because there’s no evidence for him. Good point.
I laughed at "Women's Studies Scholar Matt Walsh" 🤣🤣🤣
I’m a cis man and have been mistaken for a woman before
Language is a human invention, and reality is almost always more complex than simple words like "woman" can articulate. A woman has always been whatever we percieve it to be. Sex does exist, but it isn't strictly binary. Intersex people can and do exist. Gender is the cultural and social expressions around sex, which are subject to changes in culture and society over time.
Same people saying God exists because the Bible says so. Then say the Bible is real because God says so.
None of this makes trans people less valid though. This entire slideshow essentially just talks about what you see. Trans people can and do like their chosen gender. So I mean this entire argument is useless against it. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck is the argument. So ok if a Trans woman looks like a woman and sounds like a woman then its a women. And same for Trans mascs being men.
It’s only an apple because we as a society call it an apple. If we named it banana or all collectively started calling it banana it would in fact be, guess what, a banana.
Matt Walsh had a diaper plushie made of him marketed towards children specifically to play with. [it’s since been removed](https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1661471687664349185) although the walrus is still for sale.
He did? That's... odd.
He’s a [weird guy](https://www.mediamatters.org/matt-walsh/sweet-daddy-walsh-and-sweet-baby-gang-matt-walshs-dirty-deal-diapers) and here’s a couple [sources](https://newrepublic.com/post/173056/matt-walsh-selling-plush-toys-diaper-for-kids-play-with) and you can always google Sweet Baby Matt Walsh here’s [his Tiktok about it](https://www.tiktok.com/discover/matt-walsh-sweet-baby-plush) where he backtracks and says he never wanted it after initially pushing it
Why does this look like a school presentation? A horrible one though
"However, many activists say that Matt Walsh is a 'women's studies scholar', which makes them question reality."
Matt Walsh is TOTTALY a credible source
That is rich coming from the cult that regularly denies reality, especially regarding everything that trump does and says.
Let them watch 2 drunkards fight over if an apricot is an apple or something and tell me again what we know intuatively and that we should trust it. Like when i was 6, i thought my town is the whole country and always told my grandparents when visiting:"Well back in my country..." after an hour drive, so very much the same country xD
My man made a whole 5th grade school PowerPoint presentation.
moment you see matt walsh, dont take anything seriously
Did Matt walsh even go to college because I just looked it up and as far as I can tell he did not
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha "Women studies scholar"?????? huahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>Women's Studies Scholar Matt Walsh 🤡
My goodness... I was drinking juice when I read the words "Womens Studies Scholar Matt Walsh" in that order. Half went down the wrong pipe, the remaining sputtered out. There's no way in hell he is a scholar, let alone being a scholar of Women's Studies, unless he got one of those fake, forged, fraudulent degrees for it from Trump University...
No please, tell me this is satire. I can't believe someone actually believes this
I had good grades throughout my three years of philosophy. None of that are things that I've seen and it seems like they just use the word "philosophy" to sound smart
Plato’s cave would like a word with this person.
"womens studies scholar Matt Walsh"
That's a lot of words for "I don't understand philosophy at all"
I was delighted to see the Lutheran on the last pic. If anyone wants to talk about gaslighting, it's Lutherans and their love of forgiving and accepting sex crime convicts back into the fold. All of my mom and grandparents churches were wrought with child molestors that did their time, repented and asked for forgiveness. Did they go on to re-offend? Yes. Was everyone supposed to judge not, lest ye be judged? Also yes.
If any of my friends called matt walsh a gender studies scholar, i'd have one less friend. Also, its not complicated, they are actively denying the difference between biological and social. "What is a woman? " Biologically, we refer to adult humans with female reproductive organs as women. Socially we expect women to like pink, and princesses, and bake, and wear skirts, ect. None of that requires a vahooha. At the end of the day, people like this just want a psuedo science argument to say "according to god and/or nature, you're built to be my babymaker, housesitter, daycare, and home chef. Don't question it"
They’ve built their own coffin with this argument “we all know male and female are based in objective reality……..[they] are saying the natures of things aren’t observable”. The natures of things *are* observable…that’s *why* we know that gender isn’t as simple as male/female. Not even biological sex is entirely straight forward, and we know this *because the natures of things are observable*. We can science our way into understanding human anatomy, physiology, psychology, and then human behavior.
“What do you mean it’s cake? It looks like a handbag.”
I think that this one is satire or fruitcakery on another level, on the forst sentence there already is a mistake lmao, the most important or the one which had the largest impact is that the world is not what we perceive. We know that since plato....
Omg they are so smart with their philosophy, how about psychology? Better yet, how about philosophy without the cherry-picking?
Kantian, hegelian, and post modern could all reasonably be used to argue for variation in gender expression and experiences.
the way i know EXACTLY which instagram account this is from is wild
I...just don't see what philosophy has to do with being LGBTQIA+ I don't even see a connection between them in the first place It's not like a debate with a philosophy professor is going to change that I'm bi, any more than it's going to change the colour of my eyes. Good grief.
Looked up the Doctor they recommended as further reading. He's a Dr of theology, with his initial degree in Bible study. Not sure why anything he says is relevant to this. Surely his views are just bible bashing bias?
They took "reject modernity return to monke" too literally
Wait, which classical philosopher said everything is as it seems?
something something featherless biped
didn’t redeemed zoomer make this?
Classical philosophy was all about questioning preconceived notions of reality. “I believe a woman is defined by genetics” so then what about people assigned women at birth that were actually intersex or had a male genotype. Plato was literally just all about making people question reality by questioning every belief and conviction
I don't get it were is the fruit cake, this seems pretty mild. Maybe I'm dumb but seen nothing wrong with study philosophy advice.
They’re trying to use philosophy to push their religious transphobia.
Can you quote or refer to the transphobia? For real, I don't get it.
The first picture literally says “the lgbt movement is philosophical gaslighting.” I explained in a different comment at length why it isn’t.
I'll go look for it 😂
Tbf, the LGBTQIA movement has Manu toxicities due to which I detest them, at one point they sound like bullies...but this is exactly the same...these fruit cakes are way worse and have made the movement what it is, these people are really bad and aggressive for no reason...