Why would you even care about the distinction between bi and straight? It's not like it's going to matter at all, at least in a monogamous relationship. Do you demand to know the number of previous partners they've had too? Or what those partners were like?
I care because I do not enter into a relationship with a body, but a person. I am not merely attracted to a body, but to a person. I would not "demand" to know anything, but there is some information that I would share with my prospective partners, and I sort of expect them to do the same. This not out of obligation or social pressure, but out of respect and common courtesy.
No they wouldn't be in the right. Not any more than if, say, a man who really wanted children never bothered to bring up the issue with a cis partner and it turned out she was infertile.
I don't know what "cis" means but I'll assume it means normal. It isn't a valid analogy because infertility generally isn't a quality that makes someone less desirable as a partner. If you do not wish to have a relationship with someone who is infertile, you have aberrant standards, so it is on you to inform the other.
I'm probably more serious about my relationships than you think, and ultimately it extends to the fact that you should be able to trust that your partner isn't trying to deceive or otherwise hurt you by withholding something they don't feel like sharing.
Yes, I should be. I should also be able to trust that they won't withhold something they don't feel like sharing if it would in fact hurt me, regardless of whether they want it to or believe it should.
Even if a partner of mine was trans and I didn't know for a while (although why this situation would ever actually occur is beyond me), I'd rather they came out when they felt ready rather than having it pried out of them due to insecurity, which is all this "I have the right to demand my partners share every detail about their lives I deem relevant" thing is about.
I do not demand anything. I do not pry anything. I just believe it is good form to share certain things about your life to your (prospective) partner, and I believe this is one of them.
Well, no, it's actually a very good comparison. Even after anti-miscegenation laws were struck down, racism was still rampant, and a white person might not appreciate knowing that their partner has black ancestry. They might have argued that learning such a thing would be somehow damaging to them. In a lot of circles, it was considered taboo even to express serious attraction towards black people. A lot of these patterns persist today with trans people—it can get your marriage and all associated legal benefits invalidated (look up... I think the name was Nikki Araguz for an example of this), it can result in social ostracism or even violence if you reveal any attraction to trans people, and all kinds of other nastiness.
I really don't want to open another can of worms here, but black people didn't choose to be black.
Except that the whole "don't kill people" thing is an actively-enforced law and the trans disclosure thing is just a bit of social convention cis people try to force on trans people.
And enforcement matters as far as moral imperative is concerned... why exactly? The second part of your sentence makes even less sense to me. It's like saying "Honesty is just a bit of social convention truthful people try to force onto liars." Once you accept moral relativism, "but that's just a social convention!" stops being a valid argument.
Ultimately, if someone's so insecure that they feel entitled to know things about their partner without being able to trust that they had a good reason for not revealing it, then that's their business and I probably can't change them, but I'm also not going to condone it any more than I would the kind of person who'd demand to know if their partner had black ancestry even if I would rather they just confronted their own insecurities and moved past them.
So basically you are not going to respect people holding views on what constitutes a good partner for them that you don't agree with, gotcha!
I will just agree to disagree. I have shown in other posts like this its not the act of the death penalty that is costly but the litigation behind trying to stop it. The practice is not wrong, what is screwed up is the process. When we could save BILLIONS nation wide by eleimating those who have decided to disreguard other peoples rights, it does have to do with 'needs'. We need to eliminate those people from society, not just tuck them away in a corner and believe we have taken care of the problem.
Well, I disagree on the point of the practice not being wrong, but that doesn't really matter. I also think there is no process which both guarantees to a satisfactory degree that a convict is guilty and is cheap enough to satisfy you. But most of all, I feel as though the judicial system in many states as it stands is nowhere near competent enough to use the death penalty. Mistakes are made too often, and I think you'll agree that innocent women and men being sentenced to death is not acceptable.
This country was based on the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The more we slide to the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many we go down hill. Our forefathers would be rolling over in their graves at the state of politics in this country. This is just another example of power corupting someone to the point they ignore what the masses want. Sad actually. He should be recalled as soon as possible to right the situation.
This is not a question of "needs" at all. In more than 99% of the cases, an issue like the death penalty will not have any direct consequences for a persons quality of life at all. There are some decisions that should not be put to a majority vote. If there weren't, why use the model of representational democracy at all?
This governor is an elected official exercising his power in a legitimate way. If you disagree with him, vote against him next time around.
I want a recall vote on this guy now. ****ing douchey portland politician that doesnt represent 90% of the state.
The "state" didnt elect him. The liberal morons in portland have enough votes to quiet the rest of the state where voting turnout is amazingly low.
If people don't vote, apparently they don't care enough about how their state is governed. In my eyes, if you don't vote, your interests on matters of opinion or moral imperative need not be considered.
I appear to be in complete agreement with everyone except the OP. It isn't abuse of power to do what your authority allows you to do. You might argue that this is "not the way clemency was intended", but it is not without precedent nor without merit. This doesn't seem to me as a traditional "loophole" that would fall under traditional criteria of bad governance. For one, loopholes should be closed, and clemency is a fairly obvious necessity in the US.
It's basically an issue of ignorance. If someone's identity is "disturbed" because they were intimate with someone who used to have a specific set of parts, then that's a problem with the way trans women are seen.
You could say that a man's identity could be "disturbed" by, for instance, being with a bisexual woman, because he submits to some ignorant and chauvinistic belief that he's not "man enough" and that she's liable to run off with a woman at any point (I once knew a guy who reacted to learning his girlfriend was bisexual basically that way), but that's not really an indication that such a person would have to come out about their sexuality in a monogamous relationship. Same principle here.
I would also appreciate my partners to share if they are bisexual before anything happens, and I can assure you it is not out of some male chauvinistic belief.
I was actually going to say that you can't catch trans through intercourse, but even regardless, if someone's that disgusted by the idea of sex with a trans woman, then they need to reevaluate their notions of male and female.
I'd personally disclose somewhere around the second or third date. But that doesn't mean I won't defend someone's right to make choices contrary to what I myself would do.
I don't disagree with the fact they have the right to withhold it, just as everyone has the right to lie. I'm just saying it's morally wrong. If their partner later found out, got pissed of and dumped them, they would IMO be completely in the right.
Again, where's the line drawn for feeling entitled to your partner's entire medical history? Just for things society might deem important? Or does it extend to things like having a cleft palate?
No
Being a cancer survivor?
Yes
Having an artificial hip?
No, though it might be practically expedient to share.
Having once been treated for a mental disorder such as major depression?
Yes
This is a horribly subjective, not to mention invasive, thing you're arguing.
Invasive? I don't know how serious you are about your relationships, but it doesn't feel very invasive to me if my significant other expects me to share intimate details about my life. For all the above examples, there are certainly nuances and they all have different points in a relationship where they should be disclosed, but that doesn't make it any less clear-cut to me which ones should be disclosed and which shouldn't.
It'd be like going back to a time where interracial relationships were seen as taboo and saying that someone should have to disclose if they're 1/4 black or something for all kinds of ludicrous reasons (such as the other person mentioning that learning a secret you don't like could disturb one's identity).
I could expound on how you subtly try to ridicule my position here by using a false analogy, but I'd rather just roll my eyes.
You can't make social progress without acknowledging that the implicit shaming inherent in "you must disclose" is a problem that needs to be addressed, and that that "must" is in reality more of a "specific social groups would rather you did this."
I agree that "must" equates with "specific social groups would rather you did this.", but how is that an argument against disclosure? "You must not kill." also equates "Specific social groups would rather you did not kill.", the specific social groups in this case comprising the majority of the population. The groups that would have you disclose as far as I know comprise a fairly large part of the population
It's more likely that it'd come up as a generalized "I want to have kids, it's the most important part of this relationship for me" -> "I'm sorry, I'm infertile" thing, but in cases where that isn't the case, it's still your problem, and thus still your responsibility to check. People check to make sure all kinds of unlikely, undesired things aren't going to happen. If you don't want to ask a huge long list of questions, then don't complain when something doesn't turn out the way you expected.
Oh wow this is infuriating. Do you understand what the words lying by omission mean?
Basically you don't care if you disturb the integrity of the sexual identity someone has chosen for themselves because you consider that identity to be predicated on an error. However, your response to someone questioning the logic behind your sexual identity would most likely be as irate as that of most transsexuals I've had the displeasure of arguing with. It doesn't even matter if you're right in assuming that a post-op transsexual is for all intents and purposes that gender/sex (don't know the difference, don't care), it is not your call to make for another person.
I am seriously not kidding that I consider the norms for disclosure of being transsexual to be the same as those of having a venereal disease. "Well, they didn't ask me if I had syphilis!" is not a valid excuse. You will probably say that in the latter case you are actually hurting someone by having sex with them, but you can just as easily cause mental distress in someone by withholding from them that you are actually not of the opposite sex.
It's interesting how Fish is quite selective in his example and general in his conclusions. What I mean by this is that he generalizes from a single discipline to the entirety of philosophy, which is of course patently wrong. Now, I may have misread that article, in which case I am making a fool of myself now, but it seems Fish is speaking about all of philosophy.
Yes, second order moral views need not have any impact whatsoever on first order views and vice-versa, but why exclude first order views from philosophy? Surely, when we depart the realm of meta-ethics ample examples can be found of philosophy changing lives. Peter Singer, who gives a large percentage of his income to charity and doesn't eat meat. A deontologist and a utilitarian would differ in their actions at least some of the time. Outside the realm of ethics completely: has someone truly understood existentialism if it does not change their life?
I don't know Stanley Fish at all, so I'm in no position to judge if he is ignorant of the examples that disprove his claim, if he just purposely chooses to ignore them, or if he believes there is no philosophy except meta-ethics. I am not a disinterested party either, but this seems to be a case where he is just demonstrably wrong.
Just needed to get that off my chest, I will respond to the relativistic question sometime in the future.
I admit I did a casual search of pubmed on the topic. The potential side effects were cited in a handful of cases; not single case study. Many of them were did also state that they were in the minority of cases. If the benefit is pure enjoyment and the risk is medical harm, I can't help but wonder about its use. Then again we do allow people to sky dive albeit in controlled situations with persons informed about the risks.
I will not argue against the fact that these substances can cause anxiety, because that is undeniably true in some cases. However, this is not physiological harm caused by the mushrooms.
Further, encephalopathy is only discussed in the one case report. Renal failure is discussed in the very same case report, 2 studies about mushrooms in general - neither of them in connection with psilocybe mushrooms -, and 2 case reports of people mistaking poisonous mushrooms for magic mushrooms.
Please do not make factual claims based on nothing. Not everyone has the patience to double-check, and you might be the inception of a cascade of misinformation. You are doing everyone who reads your post a disservice if your claims go unverified and make yourself look silly otherwise.
I think culturally the United States can not handle legalization of these substances. It works fine in other countries, but considering the overall lack of self control in the United States, I rather avoid the subject.
The problem with this is that it was basically the US that coerced the rest of the world into outlawing these substances in the first place. I understand that US culture makes this issue difficult but if the US do not change their policy, this will be a significant obstacle to other countries doing it instead. Also, there are very little countries (most of them "joke countries", like tiny islands in the pacific) where even something like psilocybes is legal.
I am personally against the casual use of hallucinogens, but that does not exclude they may have therapeutic uses if tempered properly. For example, Cluster headaches can be highly debilitating and LSD has been shown to have some use in relief of these cluster headaches. Giving them LSD is rather questionable; however, the development of 2-bromo-LSD has shown to bring relief to these patients and has little to no hallucinogenic effects. I am on board for more research into 2-bromo-LSD.
Might I inform you that there are also non-recreational, non-therapeutic reasons to use these sorts of substances? The search for insight into oneself and spiritual experiences to name the two big ones.
I'm curious as to why you are opposed to even the casual use, and what this opposition exactly entails. Does that mean you support its prohibition?
I just want to point out that it sickens me how institutions pose these questions pretty much under false pretenses. It's posed as an inquiry into your opinion and an exhortation towards research, but is really more akin to a test question where there is a right and wrong answer. But I guess that's what you get for joining the boy scouts.
Remember when it comes to legalization, it isn't always about just a simple majority. If 51% of the population take a substance and have a great time and 49% of people will have a harmful event, it will never get legalized.
You need an overwhelmingly huge majority for it to be legal.
I'm not really sure why but you fail to make a clear distinction between "simple majority", a term with strong connotations towards voting and opinion-polling, and the effects on people expressed in percentages. Perhaps you can make clearer what you mean.
On a somewhat related note, I don't think the harmfulness of a substance to an individual should be a very strong indicator of whether or not it should be legal, without regard for the fact that mushrooms are not really too dangerous at all. It's a legal question, which to me makes it a moral question, which in turn makes it a question of autonomy. I see no legitimate moral grounds to forbid people from engaging in activities that might be harmful to them but not their environment. Thus, all drugs should be legalized with provisions that ensure their use does not harm others and the users are informed.
Magic mushrooms have potential issues like inducing large panic attacks, renal failure, and acute encephalopathy.
I always suggest using Pubmed for studies over wikis, personal websites, or even most mainstream media when concerning scientific or medical issues.
Were you banking on the idea that nobody would double check this on Pubmed or on the idea that nobody would call your conclusion into question because it is based on a single case study?
I guess cockatrice for bulk testing and magic-league (with MWS) for hands-on competitive experience. Both are free and accessible to anyone with internets. Cockatrice is good enough if you have someone good to test with, but I'd think it definitely helps to play in actual tournaments as well.
What? Do you mean to say that gays/homosexuals are on average more likely to be a good person than people who aren't? How do you know that?
I care because I do not enter into a relationship with a body, but a person. I am not merely attracted to a body, but to a person. I would not "demand" to know anything, but there is some information that I would share with my prospective partners, and I sort of expect them to do the same. This not out of obligation or social pressure, but out of respect and common courtesy.
I don't know what "cis" means but I'll assume it means normal. It isn't a valid analogy because infertility generally isn't a quality that makes someone less desirable as a partner. If you do not wish to have a relationship with someone who is infertile, you have aberrant standards, so it is on you to inform the other.
Yes, I should be. I should also be able to trust that they won't withhold something they don't feel like sharing if it would in fact hurt me, regardless of whether they want it to or believe it should.
I do not demand anything. I do not pry anything. I just believe it is good form to share certain things about your life to your (prospective) partner, and I believe this is one of them.
I really don't want to open another can of worms here, but black people didn't choose to be black.
And enforcement matters as far as moral imperative is concerned... why exactly? The second part of your sentence makes even less sense to me. It's like saying "Honesty is just a bit of social convention truthful people try to force onto liars." Once you accept moral relativism, "but that's just a social convention!" stops being a valid argument.
So basically you are not going to respect people holding views on what constitutes a good partner for them that you don't agree with, gotcha!
Well, I disagree on the point of the practice not being wrong, but that doesn't really matter. I also think there is no process which both guarantees to a satisfactory degree that a convict is guilty and is cheap enough to satisfy you. But most of all, I feel as though the judicial system in many states as it stands is nowhere near competent enough to use the death penalty. Mistakes are made too often, and I think you'll agree that innocent women and men being sentenced to death is not acceptable.
This is not a question of "needs" at all. In more than 99% of the cases, an issue like the death penalty will not have any direct consequences for a persons quality of life at all. There are some decisions that should not be put to a majority vote. If there weren't, why use the model of representational democracy at all?
This governor is an elected official exercising his power in a legitimate way. If you disagree with him, vote against him next time around.
If people don't vote, apparently they don't care enough about how their state is governed. In my eyes, if you don't vote, your interests on matters of opinion or moral imperative need not be considered.
I would also appreciate my partners to share if they are bisexual before anything happens, and I can assure you it is not out of some male chauvinistic belief.
I don't disagree with the fact they have the right to withhold it, just as everyone has the right to lie. I'm just saying it's morally wrong. If their partner later found out, got pissed of and dumped them, they would IMO be completely in the right.
No
YesNo, though it might be practically expedient to share. Yes
Invasive? I don't know how serious you are about your relationships, but it doesn't feel very invasive to me if my significant other expects me to share intimate details about my life. For all the above examples, there are certainly nuances and they all have different points in a relationship where they should be disclosed, but that doesn't make it any less clear-cut to me which ones should be disclosed and which shouldn't.
I could expound on how you subtly try to ridicule my position here by using a false analogy, but I'd rather just roll my eyes.
I agree that "must" equates with "specific social groups would rather you did this.", but how is that an argument against disclosure? "You must not kill." also equates "Specific social groups would rather you did not kill.", the specific social groups in this case comprising the majority of the population. The groups that would have you disclose as far as I know comprise a fairly large part of the population
Oh wow this is infuriating. Do you understand what the words lying by omission mean?
Basically you don't care if you disturb the integrity of the sexual identity someone has chosen for themselves because you consider that identity to be predicated on an error. However, your response to someone questioning the logic behind your sexual identity would most likely be as irate as that of most transsexuals I've had the displeasure of arguing with. It doesn't even matter if you're right in assuming that a post-op transsexual is for all intents and purposes that gender/sex (don't know the difference, don't care), it is not your call to make for another person.
I am seriously not kidding that I consider the norms for disclosure of being transsexual to be the same as those of having a venereal disease. "Well, they didn't ask me if I had syphilis!" is not a valid excuse. You will probably say that in the latter case you are actually hurting someone by having sex with them, but you can just as easily cause mental distress in someone by withholding from them that you are actually not of the opposite sex.
Parmenides, Jesus, Nietzsche.
Just to settle all my spiritual quandaries. The setting would be a solitary hut on a high mountain, overlooking a waterfall.
Also, this really isn't any of my business but you guys generally have terrible taste in living people :/
Yes, second order moral views need not have any impact whatsoever on first order views and vice-versa, but why exclude first order views from philosophy? Surely, when we depart the realm of meta-ethics ample examples can be found of philosophy changing lives. Peter Singer, who gives a large percentage of his income to charity and doesn't eat meat. A deontologist and a utilitarian would differ in their actions at least some of the time. Outside the realm of ethics completely: has someone truly understood existentialism if it does not change their life?
I don't know Stanley Fish at all, so I'm in no position to judge if he is ignorant of the examples that disprove his claim, if he just purposely chooses to ignore them, or if he believes there is no philosophy except meta-ethics. I am not a disinterested party either, but this seems to be a case where he is just demonstrably wrong.
Just needed to get that off my chest, I will respond to the relativistic question sometime in the future.
I will not argue against the fact that these substances can cause anxiety, because that is undeniably true in some cases. However, this is not physiological harm caused by the mushrooms.
Further, encephalopathy is only discussed in the one case report. Renal failure is discussed in the very same case report, 2 studies about mushrooms in general - neither of them in connection with psilocybe mushrooms -, and 2 case reports of people mistaking poisonous mushrooms for magic mushrooms.
Please do not make factual claims based on nothing. Not everyone has the patience to double-check, and you might be the inception of a cascade of misinformation. You are doing everyone who reads your post a disservice if your claims go unverified and make yourself look silly otherwise.
The problem with this is that it was basically the US that coerced the rest of the world into outlawing these substances in the first place. I understand that US culture makes this issue difficult but if the US do not change their policy, this will be a significant obstacle to other countries doing it instead. Also, there are very little countries (most of them "joke countries", like tiny islands in the pacific) where even something like psilocybes is legal.
Might I inform you that there are also non-recreational, non-therapeutic reasons to use these sorts of substances? The search for insight into oneself and spiritual experiences to name the two big ones.
I'm curious as to why you are opposed to even the casual use, and what this opposition exactly entails. Does that mean you support its prohibition?
WW humor thread
I'm not really sure why but you fail to make a clear distinction between "simple majority", a term with strong connotations towards voting and opinion-polling, and the effects on people expressed in percentages. Perhaps you can make clearer what you mean.
On a somewhat related note, I don't think the harmfulness of a substance to an individual should be a very strong indicator of whether or not it should be legal, without regard for the fact that mushrooms are not really too dangerous at all. It's a legal question, which to me makes it a moral question, which in turn makes it a question of autonomy. I see no legitimate moral grounds to forbid people from engaging in activities that might be harmful to them but not their environment. Thus, all drugs should be legalized with provisions that ensure their use does not harm others and the users are informed.
Were you banking on the idea that nobody would double check this on Pubmed or on the idea that nobody would call your conclusion into question because it is based on a single case study?
Zephyr Falcon would be too good though, if they don't have a blocker or destruction you can just attack them to death on turn 3.