Night FM

This is still linking opposition to immigration to racism. Simply because racists will oppose immigration from "brown" countries simply because they're "brown" doesn't negate arguments about immigration, especially from countries which are ranked low on human rights indexes. The US already arguably has liberal immigration policies compared to many European countries, such as guaranteed citizenship upon birth.

I'm aware that they may not always be aligned, such as in intersex individuals. However, we can't verify what a person claims their internal gender to be other than their subjective judgment, and, especially when dealing with children who aren't fully-developed in their identity or understandings of the world, their judgment may not be reliable. Especially if their definitions of man are woman aren't based on biological sex. So how would you assume a person has an internal sense of being human as opposed to another animal, such as a horse? I'll presume that any internal sense a person has of being anything comes from the mind, which biologically is rooted in the brain. And I'm not sure how that could be empirically verified, since biology can only verify things rooted in the physical body, rather than purely psychological things such as one's thoughts or feelings. Though, if a person claims they think or feel they are a certain thing to begin with, it would have to be rooted in some definition of what that thing is, and most definitions of man or woman would therefore fall back on biology.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender : sex sense 1a --- I'm assuming that you're simply arguing that sex and gender are not the same thing. I'm aware of that, however my argument is simply that most people will have the "internal sense" of being male or female which matches their biological sex (just as how one's "internal sense" of "being human" is related to their biology and not something arbitrary). Therefore, if one has an internal sense of being the gender which does not match their biological sex, the burden would be on others to prove that this is due to something that they are born with (e.x. I do acknowledge that people can be born with atypical biology, but this isn't necessarily the case for everyone who identifies as transgender). Otherwise, it is possible that this inconsistency is due to other non-biological factors, such as the ones I mentioned above, or due to an absurd logical association (e.x. assuming that wearing a dress makes a person a woman, which would be like assuming that eating a banana makes a person a chimpanzee). And that it could be made to be in line with their biological sex rather than requiring them to use drugs or have irreversible surgery.

Everyone's welcome to their opinion. I'm not convinced that rhetoric against immigration is necessarily racist. This sounds like a "guilt by association" and an attempt to link the GOP to racist regimes (e.x. Nazi Germany) who may have used similar rhetoric, or the fact that racist groups (e.x. Neo-Nazis) may support Trump due to being enamored with such rhetoric. Regardless, the GOP has minorities and women in positions of power, and I'm not necessarily convinced by the fearmongering that Trump's presidency will pave the way for fascism.

Off the top of my head, here are some arguments: 1. Scientific evidence shows that sex and gender are rooted in genetics. While there are some outdated, "blank slate" theories of mind, these don't seem compatible with modern biology. People may be assigned one sex or the other based on their genitals, however the development of male or female genitals and other physiological differences between male and female is genetic. 2. While it is possible that some individuals are born with a desire to change their sex, meaning it may be related to their biology, this isn't necessarily the case with everyone who wants to do so, and each individual case likely differs. 3. Allowing transgender therapy for minors allows the potential for parents or providers to coax them into it for selfish personal reasons even if they do not need it. (e.x. Such as if providers earn money for prescribing related drugs.) 4. There is evidence showing that symptoms of gender dysphoria can be related to psychological conditions such as autism-spectrum disorders and borderline personality disorder, and that confusion in one's identity is a "normal" part of adolescence, meaning these symptoms can be "grown out" of without the need for non-reversible procedures. 5. There are statistics showing that groups of people are identifying as transgender at rates that exceed the actual statistical occurrences. Some statistics have stated that the actual occurrences of transgender people are less than 1% of the population, while some statistical examples of people identifying as transgender may be higher. 6. Per the above, this implies that people are being influenced by external sources into identifying as transgender, such as media or social media which promotes transgender as an identity. And there is more than enough evidence showing that media can influence people's behavior, especially in an echo chamber-like environment. 7. Some advocates of transgender identity themselves have claimed that transgender is not related to biology or something one is born with, but is essentially just a form of individual expression. As an example, some of these arguments reference the gender schema theory. If so, then this would strongly imply that, while consenting adults can legally do as they please, allowing this type of expression for minors, especially if it involves the use or drugs or surgery is potentially harmful. --- In summary, I would argue that, if transgender care is available for minors, it should only be allowed if evidence exists that it is due to unusual biological circumstances, meaning it would have to be diagnosed on a case-by-case basis rather than on a blind assumption that everyone who self-identifies as transgender is actually born the way they are.

I stand by that. My perception is that there was far too much rhetoric directed against Trump himself, such as rhetoric related to his personal life, and not enough which focused on why his actions while in office were flawed. As an example, I've seen intelligent criticism of the border wall and how it did not live up to what most people expected, but that was lost in much of the rhetoric, such as rhetoric merely trying to associate the border wall proposal with "racism". I'm assuming you're saying that Trump did the same thing. That's totally possible, but I haven't perceived the same level of incendiary rhetoric leveled against any particular Democratic candidate, especially that which involves fearmongering about fascism. I recall some extreme rhetoric against Hillary, but it was on the outlier side of things (e.x. Alex Jones). To me, it seems like half of America thinks Trump is a fascist, and that this line of rhetoric has been popular in more mainstream media outlets since 2016. He could be a fascist. I'm not denying that fascist regimes do come into power, but I don't trust the rhetoric and I'll wait until more measurable actions happen before coming to such a conclusion.

If you say so. Regardless, my point stands. I'd argue the Democrats need a candidate who can galvanize followers on social media.

Basically, it's easily-consumable rhetoric to level allegations of racism, sexism, and so on toward your opponents, regardless of whether or not it happens to be the GOP. Which is why I, naturally, don't buy into such simplistic rhetoric and prefer to look at actual issues.

I'd go off on a limb and assume that this is a viable option. There are more than enough good reasons to prevent this from being done to minors on a national level. What adults do when they are old enough to consent to it is less of an issue.

Kamala didn't have the popularity on social media that Trump did. Hillary won the popular vote, so I'd use that to argue that America doesn't have a fear of a female president. People simply aren't considering the factors that lead to Trump winning 2 elections.

Honestly, all of the incendiary rhetoric against Trump himself rather than actual issues and policies likely didn't help the Democratic party in the long run.

We don't want a pure democracy. It would be a tyranny of stupidity. Basically, the film Idiocracy. Pure democracy is said to be the worst type of government alongside tyranny. The 2020 capital riot is an example of what "pure democracy" would look like in action. So is the French Reign of Terror. There seems to be a tendency for people to argue in favor of the popular vote deciding the President coincidentally when it would lead to their preferred party winning the election, and I have a feeling that if the case was the opposite, people would suddenly be less in favor of it.

That type of rhetoric is by no means exclusive to one party. Much of the same type of rhetoric was directed towards individuals such as Sarah Palin, for example.

I think it's readily obvious that some people shouldn't have children (e.x. severe cases of child abuse and neglect). Likewise, I think we can agree that society needs some amount of people willing to have children at any given time (e.x. if no one had children, humanity would cease to exist), but obviously that doesn't mean that society needs everyone who is currently having children to be doing so. Regarding "how many children" society needs people having, this is a tricker question. Theoretically humanity could "survive" even if only a small amount of people were having children (just as how humans existed for most of history as hunter-gatherers, and larger populations presumably didn't come about until the advent of agriculture and civilization). How many would be a "good number" therefore would have to be relative to the resources needed to sustain them and provide them with quality of life, however this matter is rather subjective. Just as how some may argue that children are needed to sustain what currently exists, though in reality not everything that currently exists necessarily needs to be sustained, and some things might be better off not being sustained.

I'm curious what your opinion is on the best ways to prevent domestic violence. My understanding is that most resources dedicated to preventing domestic violence are either legal resources, or private sector resources (e.x. websites which host escape plans, battered women's shelters, and so on, though I'm aware that men can also be victims of domestic violence). My assumption is that the biggest barrier to preventing domestic violence is if it is an ongoing thing which the victim enables by returning to the abuser. Obviously this would fall outside of the realm of the law, since the law can only arrest the perpetrator once an incident occurs or issue a protective order which can't be enforced if the victim doesn't enforce it. If the victim continuously returns to the abuser and doesn't enforce their rights, then it's a situation which can perpetuate itself outside of the eyes of the law or wider society. Therefore, I'm curious what changes are possible to make to existing resources for preventing domestic violence, assuming people believe they aren't sufficient, and to what extent domestic violence can realistically be prevented by legal and social resources (e.x. even assuming that everything being done right, there would likely still be instances of domestic violence which are impossible to prevent).

Basically, I believe that if all laws and social institutions disappeared, that people would potentially behave in much more barbaric ways than they do in everyday life. Not necessarily everyone, but many would, and there is ample evidence that "ordinary" people can act in uncivilized ways under specific circumstances. This is why I don't totally buy into atheist arguments that, unlike theists, they don't do "good out of fear", because the reality is that many secular institutions, such as the laws of one's nation or state, play a role in how they behave, even if they take it for granted. If there was no perceived consequence for murder, people would be more likely to murder than they currently are, whether the social rules against murder come from the law or from the Bible. This isn't even a line of thought that comes specifically from "religion" as often claimed, and can be sourced to thinkers such as Freud, who posited that the invention of civilization "sublimated" our more primal impulses.

Basically, I believe that if all religions disappeared, people would arrive at the conclusion that there is one God. The debate would be over "which one", or rather what the specific characteristics of God are. Even "belief in science" is essentially appealing to a higher cosmic principle than oneself, and fills the void.

If we're using the Bible as a source, it specifically says this: 10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Timothy 6%3A10&version=KJV

Regardless, people frequently use the categorizations of humans as "animals" and "apes" in a reductive way, to imply that humans are purely materialistic or hedonistic (based on the assumption that animals are purely materialistic, which may not even be the case).

This could be used to argue that animals have a sense of the sacred: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mysterious-chimpanzee-behavior-may-be-evidence-of-sacred-rituals/ Even more intriguing than this, maybe we found the first evidence of chimpanzees creating a kind of shrine that could indicate sacred trees. Indigenous West African people have stone collections at “sacred” trees and such man-made stone collections are commonly observed across the world and look eerily similar to what we have discovered here.

I'm not suggesting that, I'm just curious what's stopping technological progress from being used toward destructive ends, such as the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Was being able to travel to the moon worth the invention of nuclear weapons? What checks are there on scientific and technological advancement leading to dangerous scenarios.

Human's aren't animals unless people decide to apply that arbitrary category to them. Having biological similarities to other living things doesn't automatically make the categorization valid. I'd argue that humans are defined far more by what they create than merely by their biology.

My arguments stand. We don't believe it's acceptable to murder people. If we believed that humans weren't special in some way that other animals aren't, we would likely have less problem with killing a person than killing a gorilla, since humans aren't an endangered species. I'd argue, if anything, there is a hierarchy of complexity to nature, and humans happen to be on the top of it. This is why we find it more acceptable to kill a mammal than a human, and more acceptable to kill an insect than a mammal, and so on.

Given that there are multiple groups that call themselves "Satanists", and some of them don't believe in a literal Satan, or engage in practices associated with Satanism (e.x. human or animal sacrifice), can there be said to be one cohesive definition of Satanism. I'd personally argue that "true" Satanists would be cults or sects that practice human sacrifice, black magic, and so forth (e.x. ONA), and that atheistic sects such as the LaVeyan Church of Satan are "pseudo-Satanists". I've also heard of individuals who promote immoral behaviors (e.x. the Marquis de Sade) described as Satanists, despite being nominally atheist. But since these are just my opinions, and Satanism doesn't seem like a particularly well-recognized form of "religion", it's hard to say.