My brother in Christ, there was no such thing.

Here is the bill from Ohio

>(C) If a participant's sex is disputed, the participant shall establish the participant's sex by presenting a signed physician's statement indicating the participant's sex based upon only the following: >(1) The participant's internal and external reproductive anatomy; > (2) The participant's normal endogenously produced levels of testosterone; >(3) An analysis of the participant's genetic makeup.

In other words. The doctor's physical that they had to do to play in school sports in the first place would have confirmed their physical sex.

https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch-prod.lis.state.oh.us%2Fsolarapi%2Fv1%2Fgeneral_assembly_134%2Fbills%2Fhb151%2FPH%2F02%2Fhb151_02_PH%3Fformat%3Dpdf&data=05%7C01%7CDarcie.Loreno%40fox8.com%7C6f4ca795a5394e33303f08da4a61672c%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637904079443584385%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3LZyUmOqpHSA1qbfqS4ZS33H%2Fnz%2Bs33Wgd0smlcngYo%3D&reserved=0

When’s the last time “us people” tried to make it illegal to discuss how black people are treated differently, all while simultaneously arguing about “first amendment rights” to say the N word?

When’s the last time anyone on the left made such a huge deal about targeting trans people? The republicans have made dozens of bills targeting trans kids and adults, even trying to rope drag queens in just to get an extra stab at queer people. You can’t even tell people you’re gay in Florida without risking your job, especially if you’re a teacher. What kind of “liberty” is that?

When’s the last time the left tried to overthrow the government and install an authoritarian fascist leader who immediately planned to implement martial law? how many politicians have they tried to kidnap? I know you’ll probably make some racist comment about BLM - no, that absolutely isn’t the same thing and you know it.

The left isn’t making their entire game “fuck these people, those people, and those other people.” That’s the republicans/right wingers/conservatives. Their only platform is hate and grift. You literally can’t name a policy they have that would help America, because they haven’t got one - they’re a bunch of fascists supported by foreign interests, and if you support them then you’re just as bad as they are.

Why is it relevant, whether or not elephants share cognitive abilities with humans such as self-awareness, empathy, awareness of death, and learning?

Being a smart elephant doesn't make an elephant human, it's still a smart elephant?

“Nobody was ever suggesting”

Ok dude, yes. They explicitly were. Ohio tried to pass it, several other states were too. They said it was about “fairness in sports” and the rule would be that if your kid wanted to play sports, your kid would have to be “digitally examined” (as in finger not computer) by a “doctor” selected by the coaches.

This is where the republicans are at today.

Nothing I said was hyperbole.

I’m not the right person to explain it, but this author doesn’t have an even basic grasp of how modern physics views time. It’s certainly a prickly topic given that we can’t really discuss it without invoking the linguistic shorthand already associated with our pretty ancient views of it, but his “insights” are basically what physicists have been trying to communicate to the public for a century; namely that time isn’t universal and that the flexible definition of the present does centre around the observer or more precisely reference frames. Again, I’m not the right person to describe this, but I don’t think this word salad gets you any closer to comprehension for what is a very deep and fascinating subject.

Edit: typo

>be subject to mandatory molestation to “make sure they’re not trans”?

Ok dude. I was with you up until that point. Nobody was ever suggesting what you are accusing them of. When that was being discussed, all that would have happened or been needed was to check their physical that they had to turn in from the doctor, which would have already had their sex on it. There was not going to be lockerroom examinations.

See the difference between tolerance and acceptance.

Moral reasonings are but a rationalisation of our gut feelings, which evolved through organic, evolutionary processes. Thus we evolved to cooperate, but not all ethical standards or moral choices, are interpersonal.

I think time was one of the worst human inventions, we were better off without it.

No, intolerance is a refusal to tolerate something. It is not the same as disapproving of something. For instance, my vegetarian boyfriend disapproves of people eating meat, but he tolerates people who do, including me. If he refused to keep anyone in his life who ate meat, that would make him personally intolerant of meat-eaters. If he argued in favor of commiting violence against meat-eaters to try to rid the world of such vermin, that would make him politically intolerant of meat-eaters. It is that last sort of intolerance that Popper claims we shouldn't tolerate, and even then he adds a bunch of caveats limiting when it would be acceptable to suppress such speech.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Expressing the disdain for the perceived sinful/immoral whatever is intolerance, what are you talking about?

Expressing it is literally the line where it goes from being in your head to being intolerance.

But I’m not always against people expressing it. As it is a good tool to identify the intolerant individuals in society, and publicly shame/mock them. Which is essential for any society hoping to progress.

Thanks for the feedback, and I definitely see your point. I was about to bring up how I meant characteristics that one isn't born with, but then that wouldn't address religious bigotry. I do remember how I originally saw the phrase as "intolerant to hateful ideologies toward traits that people don't have ANY control over," which may work better, but still may be ambiguous when we'd get to the topic of how much growing up and being nurtured in an echo chamber could impact our nature.

Thanks for the clarification :)

I fully agree with the subjectivity of evaluating the worth of living. Which is why I used the word “perhaps”. In fact in everything I wrote I was explicitly not expressing any personal beliefs or values. I was just offering some hypotheticals that could possibly invalidate/weaken the original argument (“procreation is immoral”)

Sorry I got the impression you were an Atheist--are you actually making those claims about God? Or are you claiming other people make those claims?

Paradox should be the word we're focusing on, not the Paradox of Tolerance, but the Paradox of a liberal democracy in general. It's a middle ground between mob rule and autocracy. People with too much power will become corrupt and the masses are short-sighted. It's a middling between two potentially horrible ideologies. We all fall one way or the other. The idea is that we counteract one another. But some sense of respect, civility, and ultimately humility is required.

Antifa. It’s been going on for a while, most recently three days ago when their rioted in Atlanta and built a little compound in the woods

It’s been going on since the summer of 2020. Most recently this past weekend in Atlanta silly goose

>What I said was: perhaps having a bad life is better than never living at all.

I am not the person you are responding to, but I think value judgments like this are entirely subjective. In this sense, OP can judge that a life is not worth living within her perspective, and you can judge that a life is worth living within your own. The person whose life is miserable can also judge whether his/her life is worth living or not. All of you can be correct in this manner.

It is important to me that people are also able to weave this subjectivism into their discourse. To recognize other people's values and desires as valid expressions, and not shut them down as unreasonable and wrong.

As before, this approach requires recognizing subjectivism with regard to reasons and values. I am rather extreme as I would be considered amoral to some (which is my own preference), and a moral relativist to others. My objective is to remove any unnecessary middlemen/intermediaries (e.g. moral obligations and experiences of external values) to expressing our cares and concerns.

JS Mill makes a similar argument in On Liberty. You're free to do something and I'm free to say you're a shithead for doing it (not exactly the terms he used).

[deleted]

Where were we talking about killing people? You've read something into my comment that was not there.

It always amuses me how much you people resemble what you claim to despise. The lack of self-awareness is astounding.