Peterkin

I have looked at them.

Now I understand the source of misunderstanding! We have been watching different videos.

Can you bring about understanding through rejection? If you want to know what a word means, ask the person who requests that you use that word, or find out from other sources. If it's not important to do that, you can accept the word and use it, without fully understanding its intricacies. You don't need to know what it means, unless you are seeking an intimate relationship with that person. You don't refuse to call a person by the name Changying, until you have verified that it's Chinese for 'flourishing and lustrous'. The validity of anyone's claim to their own identity - whatever identity - is not for you to assess. It's that simple.

Nope: I'm commenting on the tenor of our times. Indeed. Assuming a bunch of givens about both participants. Where did you get this? Not from me. Not from anyone in this discussion, other than your own preconceptions. What about it? That still only leaves two probable reasons for baring his chest in public. The first - cooling - might be achieved though other means: thermostat, damp towel, open window, fan, stepping outside, taking a cold drink.... Which is probably what most white-collar workers would do at their place of work, while some manual workers would be free to strip of their shirts and uniformed personnel would not. The second - display - cannot be achieved without the removal of covering. In Victorian times, such display was strictly forbidden, and even for cooling, he could do that only in a sporting venue, or at some plebian work places, but not anywhere ladies might be present. Whether it's appropriate and socially acceptable for him to bare his chest in public is a matter of social convention, in either case. Whether he's offended about being looked at, and why he's being looked at, doesn't depend on his reaction to the weather; it depends on the current social climate. Speculation about another's sincerity and motives is never more or less valid - it's never anything more than speculation. Can you explain what is meant by ? Start with a definition of 'body image', if you please. Then explain what its "issues" might be and how a fictional character can have a real and a fake body image.

Hyperbole. (We have to phrase everything in the crudest possible terms now, to get any attention on social media.) It used to be called "undressing with the eyes" - welcomed from some suitors, unwelcome from others. I very much doubt that's true. Much depends on the nature of the stare, the cause of the stare* and the power of the starer to do damage to the staree. What doesn't? The only connection i can see here to attire is that your guy in the example unbuttoned his shirt, voluntarily and for some reason - unless he's in the middle of a hasty costume-change, the only one that comes to mind is baring his chest. There are only two probable reasons for that: relief from heat and display. If he was doing it for the heat, odds are, nobody else in the room is wearing more than they have to and they're all sweaty and wilted, which is not particularly alluring, even if they had the energy to waste on libido. If he's doing it for display*, he hopes a person of the appropriate gender will pay attention. In either case, he could not do it at all if clothing didn't exist, and he wouldn't think of doing it if clothing were not significant in his culture. A woman, on the other hand, could not do it in polite western society without drawing down on herself legal, or at the very least social retribution.... unless, of course, she were doing it professionally in a designated commercial venue, for the purpose of titillating male customers. Because, in their culture female chests are considered sexual objects while male chests are not; the uncovering of genitalia is acceptable in some contexts unrelated to love and procreation and forbidden in others. We're a species very, very conflicted about reproduction, mating, carnal relations and sexual attraction. Our attitude to clothing reflects that conflict.

je. tois. il. nous. elles. mimi. wewe. yeye. wao. ты. вы. онá. они. ego. ea. nos. ei. הוּא. תָּה. אָנֹכִי Can you scientifically defend that any of these pronouns are valid ? They're words, not chemical formulas! All words are made up. Words have meaning by convention and usage. If people use them, words become meaningful. Some people refuse to use them. What motivates their attempt to blackball a few words is the central focus of this investigation. Just what's so scary about those syllables? We're giving the benefit of a doubt to those who may be delusional, and validating the right to self-designation of those who are not.

Besides their lives? But why do you think that's relevant anyway? Why do you think those risks made any more difference to their behaviour than to that of all non-human species? Death from disease and birthing was as much part of life for apes as for every other animal, as it is for all humans with no access to modern health care. Clothes - except for that one little raincoat - make zero difference to the transmission of AIDS or perinatal complications. Of course. Once clothing was invented and generally adopted, it could be designed for all kinds of different functions, from battle gear to beach-wear, from bridal train to safety boot, from evening gown to hijab, from papal vestments to the exotic dancer's feather boa. That's not down to the wearing or not-wearing of clothes, but to the conventions of society, what function is associated with what attire. All of them. Fashion is never all of a logical piece; isn't just about body parts hidden or revealed - it's an aspect of culture. None to hand, sorry. It may be incorrect. IIRC, the DNA of both are very close to a 99% match with humans. The kinship of human to chimpanzee is suggested by their size (bigger than bonobo) and prehistoric range (wide overlap with early hominids). But of course, we're all descended from the same common ancestor(s), so if you think bonobos are most like humans and I think chips are, I guess it's because we reference different human interactions. None of which has any bearing whatsoever on the effect of clothing on human behaviour. No other species has invented clothing or anatomical taboos or schools and churches where sexual mores and taboos are impressed upon the young.

I don't see how there can be a concept of 'nakedness' without a corresponding concept of 'clothedness'. That's the whole point of the Eden story: as long as they were innocent, they didn't know they were naked. None of our ancestors did, and it simply wasn't an issue. When they ventured far enough north to need covering against the cold, clothing stopped being optional - eventually stopped being seasonal or protective. Only after that did they begin to make a fetish of dress; use it to display social rank and affluence, to denote tribal identity, to enhance their appearance and attract mates. On the contrary, types of clothing, the selective covering and uncovering of body parts etc. are specifically designed to elicit sexual response. And we didn't descend from the bonobo branch of the family, but from the chimpanzees, who are far more prone to sexual aggression, and whose behaviour is not modified by the clothes we put on them sometimes - but is substantially modified by the training to which we subject some of them.

I just didn't know that bonobos had ever worn clothes to begin with, or that covering whatever skin was not already covered by fur had ever been a concept known to their culture. Nor was I aware of a close biological or psychological connection between bonobo and H. sapiens. Still, if having more consensual sex served to blunt some of our more destructive aggression, then by all means, Make Love, Not War.

That's not about principles of education or the administration of educational facilities; teenage psychology is about cultural norms, stages in social maturation, mating rituals and sexual taboos. The co-educational public school has a whole lot more to its social dynamics, as well as its standard of pedagogy, than what students are wearing. So do segregated, parochial, vocational and specialized schools. What??? Please vet your source for that.

It's partly a question of POV. When everyone is wearing a swimsuit, or nothing, no big deal. If everyone is weirdly or partly clad, it's just another Saturday night in la-La land - but not appropriate for work or school. If everyone is naked or nearly so, while you alone are fully dressed, you're a pasha - and that should feel wrong. If everyone else is fully dressed while you alone are naked, you're in a nightmare or on display - if that doesn't feel terribly wrong, seek help asap. Whatever people get used and accept as normal soon becomes unremarkable. I'm told it takes no more than a couple of hours for someone (with a reasonably healthy self-image) who always wears clothes in ordinary life to get accustomed to a nudist colony. What a young man most fears before entering is his response to naked women; in fact, the biggest obstacle is self-consciousness about his own nakedness. (That of course, is because he's seen lots of female bodies exposed in glossy magazines, on screen and probably on a live stage, where they were on display, but this is his first experience of being himself publicly exposed.) But it's mostly a question of norms. What is the current generally accepted standard of decency? The limits can be poked, bent, stretched, challenged and changed - but there is an unavoidable process and an unpredictable price.

Yes, loose light-coloured cotton garments are best for heat. Far better than bare skin because of the UV's. I don't think anyone moves to Canada for the weather. Why would anyone need to argue that? Most uniforms already come in summer in winter variants; most indoor workplaces are heated and cooled artificially. Because they mistakenly believe that two arguments are stronger than one. Is this the psychological component of your topic? Or is this: The first one is debatable; the second is not. There can't be any right or wrong in the matter of clothing. There are social rules, norms, conventions and expectation; there is challenge and change to those rules; there is scientific evidence for the health and safety benefits/detriments of specific items of apparel; there is institutional and religious stricture; there is fashion and individual proclivity. Each of those frames of reference can provide a standard of rightness or wrongness - in any given debate over clothing, you have to chose one frame - if you ever want a resolution. As for what students wear in school, that's up to the school. Their house, their rules. Maybe segregated high schools were not such a bad idea. Maybe school uniforms were not such a bad idea. I'm up for discussing the merits of different approaches to education - but not in psychology. In any case, I don't think a discussion of who wears what where why can productively include a response to sexual assault.

What has anyone's mental health got to do with a law protecting minority rights?

Then you need to change "the standard definition". To withhold belief from a concept does, indeed make one an a- or non- ist. An ism requires commitment to a belief or system of thought. A theist subscribes to the cult of deity, just as relativists, socialists, pragmatists, hedonists etc. subscribe to a set of philosophical principles. Yes. Is that the only possible way to phrase the question? What do you mean by a capitalized God? Why are you asking whether an undefined entity exists? Nobody could answer such a question intelligibly. A strong theist would likely say "Yes, He does exist." A weak theist might hedge and say "Yes, I believe he exists". Whereupon you would either have to proceed on the assumption that both interlocutors are referring to same undefined entity (in which case you will have lost all claim to a philosophical exchange and moved on to a theological one between coreligionists) or ask "Which God?" , which could get complicated. Even if you managed to sort out the divine identity in question, you would then still have to face the questions "How do you know?" and "Why do you think your sources of information are reliable?" And at the end of all that, you still only got as far as "I believe a god of some kind exists." Now, why would a philosopher open that can in the first place, when they had the option of defining their terms and delimiting the scope of their inquiry before phrasing the first question? Maybe. But you can't ever be sure what an atheist will answer. I, for instance, usually say "I haven't bought that insurance policy." Asking a question does not oblige your respondent to choose one of your two answers. It very often is. That option is also included. There goes that 'standard definition' again! I thought we'd established that it's useless.

Would you settle for categories? Then, there is the Dawkins scale... (he can be a off-putting, too, which doesn't mean he's right and doesn't prove he's wrong) Here is some interesting commentary and more scales - Agnostic Universe (anonymous blog) Having indulged in all that sorting, rating and decimal counting, I have to wonder: How important is it to identify one's exact shade of unbelief? They're certainly more precise from the other perspective, which is far more important to some people: the types and degrees of deviation from a doctrine considered as the norm or standard - nonconformist, reformer, misbeliever, schismatic, skeptic, recusant, dissenter, apostate, heretic, iconoclast, infidel....

I'm not sure what a serious atheist is. Hitchens? Okay, he was a bit smug and off-putting, poor guy. Russell and Huxley, I found quite engaging. Maybe it's the advantage of having a very class English at the tip of their pens. There are several types - flavours? yes - of Western atheism in the early 21st century, but the major challenge to all of them is the aggressive resurgence of state religion. If atheists are too loud and shrill, it's because they're shouting back at a hurricane.

What purpose would it serve in modern philosophy? If it didn't appear 12th - 19th century European philosophy, that may have been because the Christian god was taken for granted - indeed, had to be taken for granted, because questioning his existence was subject to punishment ranging from social disapprobation to public execution. In the definition you cite, there is a nod to other religions (gods) that would not have occurred to a European philosopher in the 1700's - they were all more theologians than philosophers: their categorization of thought-systems was quite different from those of the ancient Greeks, their Asians counterparts and modern ethicists. The god(s) thing is an afterthought; none besides Jehovah and his two alter egos is seriously considered as objects of faith between 400AD and 1900AD. How do you know this? And why is it relevant? Is this accurate? I don't think philosophical reference books do stop at that skimpy definition. For instance, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy: It goes on to explore seven main aspects of the question in detail. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy has a short entry (by William Clifford) that reads, in part: So he's expressly putting atheism in opposition to one other belief, and not in any larger context. If theism is referred-to as a 'positive state', that reveals a fundamental bias - one that was prevalent in Eurocentric philosophy of the 19th and early 20th century. It places one single belief at the center of a world-view which is not further elaborated. But the seeds of dissent were present in the late 19th, and non-, as well as anti-religious thought surged in the second half of the 20th century. Euro-phil is liberated from the Christian doctrine by Bertrand Russell and his cohort, c 1930. One idea does not make a philosophy. A belief in gods, ghosts, Manifest Destiny, Justice, Fate, the Unity of all Things, dark matter or the Rules of Acquisition, is but one aspect of a world view, a basis for one's attitude to life, other life forms, the physical world, moral standards, social organization and the drafting of laws. A conscientious philosopher would not regard either the lack of belief or the denial - even the vehement denial - of a single proposition as an end in itself, but proceed to explore the conceptual worlds to which that proposition logically gives rise. Of course, in the past century and a half, quite a few philosophers have done so. Do most of the people you know, in cyberspace or walking life, describe their own conviction about anything in academic terms? I suspect your internet atheists describe themselves that way, because they have, at some point, broken with a religious dogma, but not troubled to build an entire philosophy of their own, and the 'activists' are referring to a particular political issue, rather than a fully formed world-view. They're limiting their definition to a specific issue or context.

You have probably been in buses and airplanes, able to move from one part of the vehicle to another, without once getting plastered to the rear wall. You are moving at the same speed and direction as the vehicle, relative to the ground, but a different speed and direction relative to the interior of the vehicle.

No need for shame! I'm not discommoded in the least.

So, we're still at 0 prosecutions and 0 firings for refusing to use the preferred pronoun. OK. Well, at least you've had a little tempest over a rude comedian.

Is that an example of legal or job-related repercussions of pronoun usage? And you've fact-checked it? And you found that it fits the criteria of establishment persecution of non-conformity? What percent of the LGBTQ community - assuming such a community can be counted accurately - has done what, precisely, to force Netflix to cancel a show? Have they called the police? Launched a lawsuit? Have they succeeded? If so, how many people were fired by Netflix for using the wrong pronoun? "Somebody somewhere is unhappy about something" is not proof of government persecution.

Can you cite those examples, please? I must have missed them.

Yes, I believe some folk do feel that way. Others, however are clinging onto that assertion, not because they believe it, but because they don't. Buying into the "they're just delusional" and "it's just their affectation" stance allows the people who are uneasy with the subject of non-binary gender to avoid thinking about, learning about, questioning, reflecting on and finally understanding "it". This happens with every subject that can't be answered with two unambiguous tick-boxes - Y/N; F/M; B/W; G/E; C/A - some people will always be uncomfortable with complexity and uncertainty, and some people always express discomfort as anger. Making the one who introduced uncertainty into their life, their culture, their world-view or self-perception out to be the oppressor and themselves to be the freedom-fighter means they don't have to deal with the actual issue. (Also, of course, nobody likes to be disapproved of. So, when they disparage other people's convictions and opinions and modes of speech, they're just exercising their right. When other people disparage their public remarks, they are being oppressed, censored and shut-down.)

^^ Exactly! According to Major Winchester: "Do one thing at a time, do it very well, then move on." The very difficult trick is to decide when a task is finished. Like the artist who is dabbing on just one more touch of blue even as the painting is being hung in the gallery. How to make that end-point a little easier is to post the next item on the agenda well ahead of time. Giving yourself a new project really helps in letting go.

It doesn't go anywhere near there. Some people say things that sound silly to other people, even though it may make sense to the person who says it, and the person who thinks it's silly does nothing about it. Lots of people say lots of things that other people disapprove of, get angry about, are hurt by, and they sometimes respond, using words the other people get angry about and feel hurt by, etc. And --- nothing happens. Just like nothing happens to society when someone writes an op-ed piece against the latest fad, or somebody complains about sex in the movies, or somebody proposes a new national holiday to commemorate Michael Jackson. What Peterson falsely claims is that the government is policing his speech and forcing him to pronounce a few syllables that he doesn't think should enter the language. He seems to want - demand - what all the anti-PC protests seem to be on about: "Respect my disrespect of others." We have the same right to disrespect him as he has to disrespect us - genius or not.