Federal court rules against trans student's right to use the correct bathroom
By: Greg Owen (LGBTQ Nation)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Photo: Lambda Legal
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Florida has reversed a lower court ruling that granted access to boys' restrooms for a trans student in the state. The 7-4 decision said the student's civil rights were not violated under either the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
The vote was split for and against between Republican and Democratic appointees.
The Eleventh Circuit's decision is a break with the Fourth and Seventh Circuit Courts, which found in favor of trans students in similar cases presenting the same issues.
The news you care about, reported on by the people who care about you.
In 2017, Drew Adams, a trans student at Nease High School in St. Johns County, Florida sued the state for access to bathrooms that conform to his gender identity. The state claimed Adams had to use a restroom that aligns with his "biological sex." Adams was born female.
The story made headlines as one of the first test cases for transgender rights in Florida and sparked a far-right backlash exploited by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in his push for the Parental Rights in Education Act, also known as the Don't Say Gay law.
At trial in December 2017, the court heard testimony that Adams identified as male from a young age and used the boys' restrooms in St. Johns' schools without incident. When he started high school, Adams continued the practice, without issue from fellow male classmates. Girls at the school, however, complained to school administrators.
While the school district had established rules that honored trans students' desired names and pronouns, they refused to let trans students use single-sex facilities, insisting students would be treated according to the sex on their birth certificate.
By the time Adams was at trial, his transition was well underway with gender-affirming hormone therapy, a legal name change, and a new birth certificate identifying him as male. The school district, however, maintained that Adams' sex was fixed at the time of enrollment.
In 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Corrigan, a George W. Bush appointee, found for Adams, saying the school district's policy violated both his equal protection and Title IX rights. In particular, the school district's admission that Adams would be allowed to use boys' restrooms had he enrolled with his current birth certificate undermined their argument that the district had an "important governmental interest" in protecting the privacy of cisgender boys in those facilities.
Two three-judge 11th Circuit Court panels agreed before the full court reversed those decisions on December 30.
In her opinion for the majority, Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Trump appointee, avoided identifying Adams by he/him pronouns, instead using only his surname repeatedly. She also wrote a separate, concurring opinion detailing why a ruling in Adams' favor would dismantle girls' school sports, an issue not relevant to the appeal.
Tags
Who is online
709 visitors
So he had no problem all along. Even the other boys never seemed to have a problem with it.
It was the girls that complained? SMH
I guess they want him in their bathroom....
She should use women's bathrooms.
Let's stop being crazy.
don't bathroom stalls have doors? never been to europe? who fucking cares?
Could you imagine some people seeing those squat toilets...
Some people are too busy peeking under the stall doors and need to mind their own goddamned business
those most offended need to feel secure that they're spanking it to the correct underage gender.
If nobody cares, she can just use the ladies room.
If the boys had no problem with it, what is the problem?
You want teenage boys setting the rules? Lol
Their school. They are the ones growing up with the person and they don't seem to have a problem with it. Not to sound too crass yet you have never known or seen a very masculine woman?
I know it is not the same yet these boys probably grew up treating him like one of the boys.
Why should one person be given special privilege, while making many others uncomfortable with their presence ?
It's not going harm a trans person to use the facilities that correspond to their birth gender.
According to the article, the boys have had no problem with it.
have you ever seen a female try to use a urinal? don't toilet stalls have doors? bfd, who cares.
I don't know why anyone would want to use a boys' bathroom but be my guest.
What were the girls bitching about?
That is what I was curious about. How they could have a complaint anyway. It's not their bathroom.
I am just getting sick of people kinda being prudes about everything.
tell me about it. I used to have to clean the bathrooms when I was a stockboy at the mall in high school.
I staggered into a women's restroom very tired at a rest area in texas last summer after driving for 12 hours. it didn't dawn on me until I was walking out and a woman passed me on the way in. her husband seemed a bit surprised as I glanced back to see if I missed the sign on the door. I did. oops. meh, I could've taken that sorry assed looking old goober if he'd said something to me. fucking texas rest stops with urinals and shitters in separate areas. wtf?
One time I took my mother to a drag show at this small bar. She had to go and these bathrooms were small. One of the performers was getting ready in the woman's room. Dear ol Mom asked the person to leave. The performer told her, just go, I don't care. I need to finish getting ready.
Was putting on makeup or something.
Anyway she almost got into a fight about it, with one of the performers...
I was a little embarrassed.
Seriously, who actually gives a fuck.
Hell I have been part of a human shield to where several woman could take a leak...
Legally, this is probably valid. These kind of issues are generally considered not covered by those laws. So, about half the states allow discrimination of LGBTQ people in housing, education, and employment.
On what possible basis? That makes no sense. Are the little tramps mad that they don’t get to go into the boys bathroom, too? Fortunately, this is not mentioned again. There’s no way the girls of the school would have standing to sue.
Again, on what basis? It’s hard to believe there would be a law or rule that specific.
Now I know they’re full of shit. There’s no such thing as privacy in a boys bathroom. The very design of urinals makes that impossible. And if you use a stall, you have as much privacy as anyone. Although, incredibly, some schools take the doors off the stalls because it’s more important to make sure boys are behaving themselves and fuck privacy.
So the school is making her use the girls room. Yep, sounds like something liberals can get behind complaining about.
I'm sure applications for genitalia inspectors are available at school office's in the bible belt...
Sounds like you have personal experience with them to know they have them.
I find your attempted insult comical because I'm not a xtian conservative and I don't live in the bible belt, so I don't have an unnatural obsession with others constitutional and free individual sexual choices or preferences. I get the thumper's involuntary reflex to drop to their knees whenever they get confused, but where is there too much individual freedom when it's considered within the law?
when they start removing all the locks/doors on public restroom stalls, ask me again...
This is a simple issue and the reason why this sort of thing is important. We need to decide as a society whether we are going to be grounded in reality or fantasy. That's what it comes down to. It isn't rights or whatever, unless the right being discussed is the non-existent right to discard reality for fantasy and force everyone else to do so as well. It's as simple as that.
Your drag queen aviator doesn’t fit with the rest of the meme.
The meme doesn't fit with the article or discussion- so what the hell else is new?
Is anyone pretending child abuse is okay? Are priests suing for the right to molest children? If not, what relevance do you think your meme has to the subject?
Chess. Pigeon. Etc.
Yep. That about nails it.
Just because you may not believe in some people's reality, doesn't mean it isn't there.
If everyone gets their own reality than what is real?
If everyone gets to live their lives they way they want, what is the big deal?
That's what I want to know. I think the ones that insist that we all conform to our birth assigned gender can't stand for anyone to march out of lock step, think for themselves, or be an individual.
We must all be the same! You know who else thought that way? Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Big Brother
That really didn't answer my question but I will respond hoping you eventually will. Everyone can live the way they want until their "reality" encroaches on what is factually real or in theory encroaches on someone elses' "reality".
[deleted]
Who's reality is being encroached on, yours? Is it because you see things differently than other people that makes you think your reality is the only one?
Any more right wing talking points to throw in there?
He's on ignore so I can't see what he just said. I'm going to assume it's something moronic
About Biden and twitter cancelling people....
As always
“…the woke students…”
And just how do you quantify that population, much less justify the incredibly ignorant posit?
oh fer gawd's sakes can;t these people ever stay the FUCK on topic????
I get so tired of assholes and their stupid comments even when I can't read them
What kind of moron says 'if everyone gets their own reality then what is real'?
I mean seriously, everyone 'gets their own reality' - isn't that what life is supposed to be like?
How does someone else's reality encroach on yours? IT DOESN'T
Funny how that question is NEVER, EVER answered EVER
Plus how does this factually effect/affect anyone? Genetics/science/life evolves - is not black and white - changes as we learn
My reality is my reality, yours is yours, and everyone has their own reality. I don't believe in the gods they do, worship mammon like they do, or vote the way they do. That's my reality. As an American I'm free to walk the way I want. I'm not hurting anybody by being a non-conformist, and neither are transgender people.
They just can't stand that people want to be different. It's like that kid that wants to use the magenta crayon when the teacher insists on the brown crayon. Let the kid color the way he wants to
BINGO
ALSO, A
BANGO AND A
BONGO
FOR BEING SO REALISTIC
lol
Seems the people that brought it up might feel it.
You seem to have a better handle on right wing talking points than I do
People feel and bring up a lot of things.
Personally, I am sick of people trying to throw their morality on everyone else.
It is easy, open your eyes. What is a posit and why do you feel anyone would have to justify it to you?
I agree. Just because someone's morality allows a girl to use a men's room it should not be forced on anyone else.
Yep. Nothing like being a prude and throwing a fit over it.
Throwing a tantrum has become a national pastime.
I've been watching a national tantrum play out for 3 days on Cspan...
20 wack jobs that want to tell the other 200+ what to do. how do you like those teabag retreads on the seditious freedom caucus now?
Sounds like a pretty boring 3 days. I am reading a david Baldacci book instead.
Some are idiots, . Right up there with the squad.
You are talking to youself.
So, you choose a society based on fantasy. Kinda knew that already, but thanks.
Nope. I tend not to judge.
I also tend to know this issue has been blown way out of proportion by the likes of the same people that would faint at the sight of someone's naked ass.
Stop being the moral police of the world.
It is not wanted or welcomed.
oh, the irony...
Ah! More fantasy. Nice. And a really good one, too. In this one the protagonist (that would be you) takes issue with people who take issue with a tiny fraction of society trying to alter everyone else's reality to suit theirs and then blames those objectors for being the moral police. What other fantasies do you have for us?
oh, even more irony...
If someone else's reality doesn't encroach on yours, what are you doing in here and what is it that you are complaining about?
religious based opinions belong on church and private property.
Are you ever going to say something relevant?
What's wrong with what he said? I happen to agree with him
Nothing is wrong with it. It simply isn't relevant concerning what I've said, since nothing I've said is from a religious argument. This, apparently, disappoints him so he introduced the religious angle himself, which is an example of real irony.
So much for "following the science".
Not to mention they judge you as they tell you they tend not to judge. You can't make this stuff up.
I know, right???
Yes, for republicans/the gqp
I'm not the one complaining and whining and pissing and moaning and having a tantrum over something that doesn't encroach on me or YOU OR ANYONE
What the fuck do you mean anyway? This is what happens on a site such as this. People make comments, have discussions, point out when folks are acting like assholes
Are you?
Everybody knows your world view. Your opinions on this matter come from a strictly biblical view. Deny it all you want but we all know. So his comment is relevant
Um, no but nice try
Are you?
How did you get to be the spokesperson for everyone and the judge of what is relevant? Do people sign up and get turns or is there a vote?
Fantasy my ass.
It is so easy for people like you to just shut up and not say a word.
Yet no, have to open mouth an insult, put down, denigrate.
Yep, them grand ol republican values. Do keep it up though, seems to bring in those red waves of voters...s/
She is absolutely correct. By the way, where did you study what center mass is, because you are really listing to one side.
He still doesn't get that I can't read his comments. I see he replied to me again. Is he a special kind of stupid?
I appreciate that people like Drakk have their own worldview but their view is not the end all and be all of what is right or wrong. People have a right to their opinions but they can't expect to be able to shove it down our throats without some push back. The day of the weak liberal who sits and keeps her mouth shut are long over
Well, good. Then you don't need me to be involved in whatever discussion you want to imagine. If, however, you want to talk about the issue on the basis of objective reality, I'm your guy.
I'd rather not discuss anything with you. You always end up getting preachy and long winded
I know, right? I mean, what's wrong with people like me, anyway? Why can't we just realize that we don't get a say in this society? How hard is it for us to understand our opinions don't count unless they happen to align and support yours? I mean, it's obvious to anyone with a brain that you guys know what's best for the rest of us and, so far, what's worked for thousands of years just isn't cutting it, am I right? Science, for instance. Dinosaurs and regressives such as myself thinks old thoughts like science determines objective fact, while guys like yourself, guys who are getting things done and making things better, know we have to change the meaning of words until the science says what we want it to say. I mean, that's what's best, right? Because the paramount thing is that, whatever we feel or desire, is what's important. What's best. Forget those old ideas like truth, fact or reality. We'll just call those things "socially constructed entities" that are outmoded and no longer useful.
Yep. Just wish I knew what was wrong with people like me. Just can't seem to get it.
If you say so.
No idea what this has to do with anything, especially since I'm not a Republican. They're just as bad as the Dems.
Then you should probably stop replying to me then, huh?
No matter what you say, my stance is not at the expenses of another. Yours is.
Well, who can argue with that?
Not you obviously.
What a great idea!
Thank you. Would you like to hear some of my other ones?
Do you know anyone who could argue with someone who says they don't care what they say?
So now you are the self appointed judge of who is correct. Congratulations
[deleted]
You have admitted before your stance is rooted in religious principal.
You call some people mentally impaired because of how they feel or act.
There are some people that say people that believe completely in religion are mentally impaired.
Not exactly. My stance that a person can't change the gender they were born with is based on science. The morality of trying to do so anyway is based on religious principle. You probably don't see a difference, though, or won't, as it would be too hard to engage me on the science.
Can you quote me or is this your interpretation of what I've said?
And?
All you ever do is claim the science (a one trick pony) yet fail to recognize that brain activity is involved as well.
Does brain activity cause people to be gay? Or do you think it is a choice.
So you can choose to be gay if you want. Good to know, I guess....
'If everyone gets to live their lives they way they want, what is the big deal?"
Because, in the real world, you can't always get what you want.
Especially if it tramples on other peoples rights and feelings.
This isn't tramping on anyone's rights/feelings
Um, yes, you fail as usual
This thing you're developing where you discount math or science whenever they disagree with how you want to feel is disappointing to watch.
There are some people I expect that from, and some others who very obviously don't know any math or science... but I never saw you as one of those.
When did you choose to allegedly be hetero?
What exactly am I ignoring? That people can be wired a certain way?
It appears you are trying to state in a round about way that you believe sexual orientation is NOT a choice.
That homosexuals, heterosexuals and all the various flavors in-between are a result of biology (how we are wired) and not a choice (as in: I now choose to be attracted to men instead of women).
Is that your position?
Well, a couple of days ago you were ignoring all the math on food banks being overrun because you don't happen to have seen it.
Now, somebody who believes in science is a "one trick pony"? What?
Yeah, people are 'wired' a certain way. They have chromosomes and skeletal structure and neurological systems and musculature and all sorts of other empirical, measurable, characteristics that no amount or intensity of emotions will change.
Ok....I even told you on that thread I took your numbers....
He believes in science? I have been reading his posts for years. I know where his science lies.
I am not the one denying science, like it is some choice people all the sudden make.
Some people being trans is like being gay. Not a choice they may make or want.
Are you another one that can change their sexuality at will?
Nope. Try again. Better yet don't bother
Make up your mind. You reference my religious views as my basis and now claim "all you ever do" is reference science. More, after stating that nothing I say matters to this "discussion", you want to continue this argument as if I am not supposed to reciprocate. You probably don't see this as being intellectually dishonest, do you?
So, let's recap. I began this thread stating what I think is the real issue at stake. It isn't whether some confused girl can use the bathroom of her choice but, rather, whether our society is going to be based on reality and provable fact or simply on what we want to be true to satisfy our desires.
Did this result in a discussion? No. It resulted in personal attacks against myself. How frustratingly boring! Rather than an interesting discussion on an important subject that impacts our society I get stupid tactics based on shame/honor thinking designed to absorb me into groupthink. Your entire argument reduces down to "you're a terrible person if you don't think the way we do."
So, let's look at what you've said here in light of that, shall we?
Since you yourself claim that, to some extent, my religious views inform my opinion, this is obviously false. You have to know this, yet you say this nonsense anyway. Perhaps you should ask yourself why.
Further, calling science "a one trick pony" indicates that science, aka, fact, isn't the most relevant consideration concerning the issue in your opinion. At least, I can't think of what else you could possibly mean by including the phrase, and I have been considering what other possible meanings you may have intended. But if I'm correct in your meaning, you offer another consideration that isn't logical in light of the first portion of your statement.
Aside from the fact that I don't think it is a matter of brain activity, you do. That isn't a logical counter to the science since the only method of understanding brain activity is through science, something you seem to have discounted in the first portion of your statement.
But in a sense, you are correct. I don't recognize that 'brain activity' is involved. But this is because I don't think the desires of the human heart are the result of 'brain activity.' That is, I don't believe that human consciousness is the result of electrochemical processes within the brain as there is no science that supports the claim.
The sense that you are wrong is that, apart from the science, I understand full well that regardless of what the science says, people want what they want. Such things aren't based on science. It is at that point in which my religious views become relevant. Until then, science defines what is male and what is female. It's that simple.
tell that to the fucking bible thumpers...
On this topic...
Despite all your perceived persecution, the brain itself is part of anatomy and a large part of the picture.
Which has been my point all along. You want to stick to one aspect and act like it is gospel while completely ignoring any 'science' of the brain.
That was a lot of words just for you to say the same things several people before you have. That you think these things are a choice.
Consciousness is indeed not well understood by science. But science continues to hypothesize (quite reasonably) that the brain is the biochemical engine / host that enables consciousness. Accordingly, research continues to investigate the brain in search of answers.
The gap in scientific knowledge does enable one to hypothesize another host for consciousness. But is that reasonable? Is it based on persuasive evidence? If not the brain, what do you consider the more likely host for consciousness? If you say the soul then I will naturally ask to see your evidence that 'a soul' exists and how a soul has an affinity to an individual consciousness. In comparison, science can show evidence that brains exist and have an affinity to consciousness.
In short, what is most likely to a reasonable, critical thinker?:
Screw your persecution crap. I couldn't care less about what you think of me or my beliefs. The frustration I feel has nothing to do with persecution and everything to do with people who can't think or argue critically.
Okay, then prove it. Fact is, consciousness isn't proven to be a function of brain activity. In fact, evidence tends towards the opposite.
Concerning what constitutes a male and a female, that is simply science. Belief in anything isn't a factor. If I take a Lamborghini body and put it on a Volkswagen frame I don't now have an actual Lamborghini. I have a Volkswagen that looks like a Lamborghini.
Concerning the 'science' of the brain or even genetic coding for a person's proclivities, there is zero objective evidence. Contrast that with something like having blue eyes. Look that up and you will find information about what specific genes are responsible, how it is inherited and so on. There's no vague terms such as "suggests" or "points to" involved like there is when one tries to establish the same thing for homosexuality or transsexuality.
Interesting, since nothing I've said so far indicates that what a person desires is simply a choice on their part. This seems to be you projecting. My position on such things is that whether or not these things are a choice is probably irrelevant. What matters is that they have them. I'm not an exception. I have desires in my nature I wish I did not have, yet no amount of wishing or willpower eliminates them.
Concerning choice, my view is that it doesn't have much to do with how one feels or what their proclivities are but, rather, what they choose to with those things. The idea that because you feel a certain way therefore justifies what you feel is stupidly insane. I cannot imagine that anyone would willfully choose to be sexually attracted to a seven-year-old child, yet such people exist. If you're going to use the idea that "they didn't choose to be this way" as a justification for homosexuality or being trans is justified because they didn't "choose" it then you can't credibly selectively apply it to your favored groups. Logically, it has to apply to everyone. That means the pedophile, those prone to violent behavior since birth, anti-social behavior and all the rest must be afforded the same reasoning.
If consciousness isn't a function of brain activity then how else do you attribute it?
(Non-local consciousness —which is pure speculation— is a very appealing idea for those who think in religious terms.)
In other words, it is Pure Grade D Bullshit!
I still want to hear Drac explain how consciousness exists outside of individual brain activity!
The only thing I can say is you proved my point that you base science on your religion.
The Ancible.
Same here.
I'm confident Drac wasn't speaking of AI.
Was the Ancible all AI? Haha
Okay. Sticking with the fantasy theme. If it works for you, that's great. Have at it.
Yes, it is. In the same way that consciousness based on a physical brain is pure speculation and very appealing to think in materialistic terms.
I am sorry if that offends you. Even though I really don't see how if you were really religious that it would.
We all have our bias.
Consciousness based on the physical brain is not pure speculation. The brain is the base for all sorts of human thinking / perception / action. It is very logical to hold consciousness as the highest level of cognition (i.e. the most abstract) and expect that science will eventually work its way to a theory of consciousness as an emergent property of the brain.
That does not mean science WILL eventually hit that point. It is possible that non-local consciousness exists. But even so, do you not see how it is more likely to be the physical brain interacting with the environment rather than consciousness being entirely independent of the brain?
Follow the evidence. Right now the evidence is pointing quite strongly at the brain.
That is why zombies want them. They are lacking in that department...
Are zombies conscious? Do they think?
Opinions vary...
I was thinking and kinda missing the sexy curves thing I heard earlier. You dirty dog. Haha
Just kidding.
Answering what? Was there a question?
I am at a complete loss as to how to process this. Offend me? Do you think I'm saying what I am saying because it somehow has something to do with me? My self-image or something? That it bothers me that you dare to disagree with me? Because, to my mind, taking offense has to do with such things. If there is a sense that I am offended, it is that you apparently think I'm speaking to you on such a juvenile level.
Well, my guess would be that, whatever it is you're thinking about my position, it is based on your assumptions rather than what I actually believe about it. So, let's examine what you said.
This was in response to a post I made with not a shred of religion in it. If you disagree, provide a quote. Since you won't be able to I'll just proceed as if the point is already proven.
Do you understand this definition? Do you understand its limitations? Do you understand that I and the staunchest atheist could be in complete agreement concerning why mass attracts mass on a scientific basis but be completely at odds as to why such a system exists?
As far as I can tell from your statement, you seem to think that the extent of my 'science' is simpley "God" and nothing else. While I do believe God created all that exists and defined its behavior, that doesn't mean I can't understand math or the scientific method.
In short, I do not need to invoke God in order to constitute what is male and female.
Really? According to what? Remove the materialist assumption and the evidence isn't there.
Eh, ya lost me bud. I just read a lot of not a lot of substance.
That could have all been summed up in one sentence.
Ps. Length does not necessarily mean strength.
Disappointing, but hardly unexpected.
(sigh)
Well, I guess I have only myself to blame. You outright said up front that nothing I said would make any difference. I guess attempting to do so anyway makes me the bigger fool.
No, I don't see that. But what I do see is you trying to subtly change what is being talked about. The question is, is consciousness an emergent property of the brain, not whether consciousness can exist in this iteration of existence without the brain.
For example, programs are not emergent properties of the machines upon which they are run. Quite the opposite, really. Although machines are necessary for the running of programs, the machines are not responsible for the existence of the program. Rather. the machine is more properly an emergent property of the program.
While I'm sure this has some sort of meaning to you, whatever it may as it relates to the subject escapes me. This leaves me no recourse but to assume your argument continues to be based simply on emotion rather than reason or fact. But if it makes you happy...
The evidence, Drakk, is that up to now all verified forms of mental activity from low level motor control, primal reactions (e.g. fear/flee reactions), up to cognition have been found in the brain (more accurately, our brain coupled with our nervous system).
There is no assumption in this, it is factual based on empirical science (biology up to neurology).
Thus, as I noted @6.2.102:
Adding to this, it is clear from quantum research that reality per our intuition is inaccurate (over simplified). The quantum world has shown behaviors that cannot be explained, and defy physics as we perceive it at the macro scale, but are demonstrably true. What this means is that the notion of non-locality is not something that should be rejected as ridiculous. But it should be recognized by you and others who desire this to be true that your desires are NOT facts and are, at this point, speculation.
So follow the evidence. Right now the evidence points to the brain, but that does not mean that will always be the case. In contrast, don't try to equate the speculation of non-locality with the hard science of neurology.
We started with a binary: consciousness fully in the brain vs. consciousness fully independent of the brain. I then introduced the idea that consciousness might also be a combination and you complain that I am trying to change the subject???
Not sure where you are getting your information on this but it is confused.
What I would suggest is that automated behaviors are the emergent properties of computers (which are an integration of hardware, firmware and software). An example of an automated behavior, by the way, is that ability to translate sound waves into semantically parsed language.
Similarly, consciousness (high cognition) is likely an emergent property of our brains (include the nervous system).
Not according to the evidence I have seen. Low level control, sure, like the boot process in a computer. High level functions such as consciousness? Not so much.
I didn't say it was pure speculation. I understand why the materialist holds the brain to be the source of consciousness.
This question is deceptive as it misrepresents my position and, further, what I believe to be the case concerning consciousness. Whatever consciousness is, it is clear that the brain is necessary for it to function in the reality of this existence. That, however, doesn't mean that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain any more than programs are an emergent property of the hardware upon which it runs.
Scientifically speaking, of course. But the exact same thing holds true for the materialist's desire that consciousness is an emergent property of a physical process.
I am. As far as I can see, the evidence suggests that consciousness is not an emergent property of a physical process and that the brain is simply the hardware upon which it runs.
No, we didn't. You did. My first comment on the subject was a rejection of your materialistic view of the subject, which your binary represents.
No, actually, you didn't. What you said was:
This isn't the same as saying consciousness might be a combination. Rather, it is more akin to saying what we experience as reality and sense of self may actually turn out to be simply a computer simulation on some advanced alien computer and can't be ruled out but isn't likely.
My information comes from programming and understanding what a computer is and does. Oddly, you say this is 'confused' and, presumably, your following paragraph explains why but only serves to prove my point.
Suggest away, but you would be wrong. Inarguably so. To argue that automated behaviors are emergent properties of computers would necessarily mean that someone just randomly assembled material things together and such things simply emerged. I think Atanasoff and Berry would tell you that you are insane.
Incorrect. If this were true, anything anyone said in any language would not need translation. The portion that is automated is the reception of sound waves converted into electrical signals which makes a consciousness aware that something has taken place. Nothing beyond that is automated.
I disagree, which is why I use computers as an analogy. In that analogy, the program is consciousness and the computer is simply the platform on which the program expresses itself. In other words, the hardware doesn't produce the software. Rather, hardware is more properly an emergent property of the software.
I stated high level cognition ... not consciousness. My point is that scientific research continues to learn of the brain and its role in our behavior.
And I did not claim it was by my statement. I was offering to you a plausible scenario where we find part of consciousness actually existing outside of the brain. Why you object to that is strange.
Let's stick with me. I do not have a desire for consciousness to be strictly an emergent property of the brain. I expect that to be the case, but it is not my desire. My desire is to know the truth.
Show me that evidence. The reality as I understand it is that consciousness is yet to be explained. That is very different from having evidence that it is not an emergent property of a physical brain.
You left off the important part (shown in blue):
Why did you omit the part in blue? The brain interacting with the environment is a combination of local (brain) and non-local (environment). It is between the two extremes of strictly local and strictly non-local.
Where did you get the idea that a program (an encoded algorithm) has been posited as an emergent property of the computer hardware? That makes no sense. And your view that a machine (that typically means hardware+firmware+operating system level software) is an emergent property of the programs also makes no sense given that programs typically refer to 'apps'. Your view would make sense if you stated that computers are an emergent property of hardware, firmware, and software but even then that is not really what is meant by 'emergent property' and simply describes an integration of components. Programs are encoded algorithms which enable computer hardware to perform new functions. It is the abstract functionality as perceived by the user that would be the emergent property.
(By the way, your focus on emergent properties is a deflection from the question of non-locality) Where do you get the idea that emergent properties are necessarily the result of randomness (chaos)?? An emergent property is a new behavior or capability resulting from the interaction of a complex system.
What on Earth are you talking about? You deny that the automated translation of sound waves into semantic structures exists??
Yikes, program = consciousness? That is ridiculous. A program is literally an encoded algorithm. It is a set of instructions that ultimately manifest as register and storage operations on hardware. Machine consciousness would be an emergent property resulting from the integration of algorithms (as programs), data, interfaces to the environment, and hardware. It would be a perceived behavior that exists because of a complex interaction of the above and not limited to, for example, programs alone.
Now, back to the actual point, current scientific research has identified myriad behaviors from low level to high level cognition resulting from the local brain. It notes that factors such as genetics and external factors such as chemicals that have made it into the bloodstream affect cognition (e.g. alcohol, drugs, viruses, ...). But it has yet to identify any level of cognition that is non-local. That does not mean that all levels of cognition are necessarily local. But non-local cognition has zero supporting evidence and is purely speculation.
There is no comparing the level of evidence-based knowledge regarding cognition of the brain with the speculative non-local source of cognition.
Again, that does not mean we will not find a non-local source as we continue to research. Personally, I would find a non-local source to be extremely interesting. But my priority is to know what is actually going on rather than attempt to merely justify my desires.
(sigh) look up the definition of 'cognition.'
Apparently, you don't understand your own comments or you are intentionally being deceptive. What I was responding to was:
But the full comment was:
First, you do not offer a plausible scenario where consciousness exists outside the brain. You simply acknowledge it as a possibility although, in my opinion, in the same manner that one might say it's possible the Loch Ness Monster might actually exist. That is, as something unlikely. This is evidenced by the prhase "But even so, do you not see...".
Apparently, you think that simply saying "it is possible" somehow excuses you from defending your position, which is quite obviously that consciousness is an emergent property of a material brain. So, grow a set and own it. Otherwise I don't have the time to waste.
I didn't.
Next.
From your comment.
And, predictably, you attempt to cover your error by making it seem as if my point was yours to begin with.
While I didn't state this explicitly, it should have been assumed by a critical thinker, as computers or the programs that run on them, regardless of level, could have no other source. The idea that automated behaviors are the emergent properties of computers is easily dismissed by the fact that, to my knowledge, no one turns on their computers and discovers a heretofore program or function not created by human consciousness.
In the materialistic view, where did that complex system originate? Regardless of the answer, what I was referring to was your claim that:
A computer is a complex system. Yet, by itself, doesn't create new behaviors through interaction in any sense. It is no different than a hammer. It will just sit there doing nothing at all unless something outside of itself instructs it to do something.
Yes, I do. Remember what it was that I was replying to?
According to the literal meaning of what you've said here, I should be able to translate someone speaking to me in Portuguese into semantically parsed language that is comprehensible to me. This is not the case. The only part that is automated is the ability to recognize soundwaves produced by a person speaking in Portuguese as language. There is no automated process that produces the soundwaves into semantically parsed language.
I suggest that you research the meaning of "analogy."
Why do you do this, Drakk? Why turn to insults?
Yes I acknowledged the possibility that consciousness could exist locally AND non-locally where the non-local portion would be in the environment. The environment basically means that which is outside of the individual. If there was evidence of a specific way in which this might be accomplished then I could be more specific.
I grant the possibility of non-locality and of a mix of non-local and local and you object to this. Looks to me as though you are intentionally being unreasonable.
WTF is your problem, Drakk? I have stated and defended my position multiple times. And my position is NOT that consciousness IS an emergent property of the brain but that it is likely to be found to be that based on the findings of neuroscience thus far. Pay attention to what I write and less time intentionally being obnoxious (e.g. "grow a set and own it.").
In the meantime, I have yet to see you provide any empirical evidence supporting a non-local consciousness.
Deliver the evidence that consciousness is non-local to the brain.
What error?
You stated that the machine (computer) is an emergent property of the program. That is silly. I stated that behaviors (as perceived by the end user) are emergent properties of computers. Entirely different. I have never stated that programs are emergent properties of the machine; that makes no sense.
Your problem is that you continue to equate behavior with program or function. I have stated clearly that this is not the case; cannot be any clearer. Behavior, again, is an abstract phenomena perceived by the end user. The behavior which maps arbitrary sound waves (i.e. spoken language by any articulate individual) into a semantic structure is the result of pattern recognition ... aka learning. It is not a program (an encoded algorithm). The behavior is a manifestation of running programs on computers but the behavior itself is NOT a program.
Irrelevant but also wrong. Take the AlphaZero system which learned how to play chess (and beat all other automation and, of course, all human beings) by discovering and encoding patterns in a complex neural network. This behavior is studied by human chess grandmasters since AlphaZero produces advanced strategies (patterns) in Chess that are new even at the grandmaster level.
We are in an age now where we will continue to see behaviors of computers that manifest as a result of complex systems processing vast amounts of data in a complex reality. Unlike the early days of computers where a programmer can trace through code to find why the system behaved in a certain way, this will become increasingly difficult (if not impossible) to do. These are abstract behaviors which emerge out of complexity and that is precisely what an emergent property is. After all Drakk, ant colonies are a prime example of an emergent property. Their behavior (as seen by us ... the observer) seems to be intelligent and orderly yet there are no ant generals directing operations. The behavior is emergent. Similarly, the behavior which enables AlphaZero to play consistent (100%) winning strategies was not programmed by genius programmers whose chess skills are better than any living grandmaster.
Do you think the developers of AlphaZero have a clue as to how AlphaZero derived these strategies?
Drakk, have you ever heard of Siri, Amazon Echo (Alexa) or Google Assistant? What do you think they are based on? Underneath these products engineers have tapped into behaviors resulting from other systems that have learned via very complex pattern recognition how to map sound waves (from an arbitrary human being) into semantic structures and then semantic structures into native languages (and back to sound waves).
The analogy of program with consciousness is ridiculous.
By the way, I have continued to entertain your deflection since the topic is interesting to me. But it remains that you have yet to provide a shred of evidence that consciousness is non-local to the brain.
Deliver the evidence that consciousness is non-local to the brain.
Reality is not subjective. Reality is very objective. This person was born female and she continues to be female no matter how many hormones she takes or surgeries she has or what she does to her birth certificate. That is reality
I wouldn't holdy breath for that to happen if I were you.
You do realize that you are severely listing to one side also right?!
Sounds like an excellent way to know who is. What way would you suggest we determine their mental state I not by how they feel or act?
My problem, as you define it, is that neuroscience suggests no such thing, yet you keep speaking as if it does without providing evidence.
I don't need to because you can't reciprocate. Do you not get that? You can't objectively demonstrate that consciousness is a product of the mind. Why, then, do you think it is incumbent upon me to prove that it isn't?
You should try NOT changing my claim.
Neuroscience is the study of the brain (and nervous system). It has mountains of evidence showing the relationship of cognition at different levels to the physical brain. That evidence suggests that it is quite sensible to investigate consciousness (the highest, most abstract level of cognition) as an emergent property of the brain. This is what I have stated from the beginning.
I have NOT stated that consciousness IS an emergent property of the brain but that based on the evidence it is likely (and sensible) that it will be found as such. If we continue to better understand the various levels of cognition and they continue to manifest in the brain, the logical expectation is that consciousness manifests from the brain as well.
In contrast, you have offered absolutely NOTHING in terms of evidence for non-local consciousness.
Good grief, how pathetic.
Never denied it or called myself center....
The reality is you all will never accept anyone different than you. You all can try to make it about science, about religion, about morals, about children.....
The truth of it all that you all will just not accept someone that doesn't fit your mold.
Keep on saying other things, we all know the truth.
Seriously? Show me a dead person's conscious or thoughts...
If we go by feel or act I would say republicans and their die hard never waiver followers that follow lock step into a single ideology are a far worse threat than a trans kid using a bathroom.
it wasn't an insult. That you think so is your issue, not mine. I asked you to look up the definition because, within the context of this discussion, there is no discernable difference between cognition and consciousness.
Yes, I know. You keep stating this as if it has some relevance to your actual view, which is that science will eventually prove that consciousness will be proven to be an emergent artifact of the brain. That you admit that it might not be means about as much to me as admitting there might actually be a Loch Ness Monster. I really don't care. What I care about is what you think is the likely reality. In my view, the reason you keep harping on about what you consider a remote possibility is simply you avoiding the burden of proof for your actual position on this subject.
Stated? Yes. Defended? No. You haven't provided one shred of evidence that supports your claim that the science supports your position. Nothing. Nada. You simply state that it does.
fuck off
This is why trying to argue with you is pointless. Your view is obviously that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but you think because you don't explicitly state it as such I'm the one in error holding you to it. This happens every single time I try to engage you. Not worth my time.
Good luck.
[deleted]
Think this through. If you think cognition ≡ consciousness then by your thinking neuroscience has already established that 'consciousness' manifests in the brain. That is not true. What IS true is that neuroscience has established the brain as that which manifests known cognitive functions such as sensory processing, fear response, logic, etc. The highest level of cognition (consciousness) remains to be discovered. In fact, it remains to be adequately defined.
My position is that it is likely that consciousness will be found to be local to the brain. That is because all evidence thus far has shown cognitive functions emanating from the brain. Until we have evidence of a non-local source, I will continue to find the brain as the most likely source. On what grounds would you think otherwise?
My position is that all understood cognitive functions to date have been found to emanate from the brain; thus I expect consciousness itself to be found to emanate from the brain. You need me to provide evidence that the field of neurology has tied understood cognitive functions to the brain??? If so, you are being ridiculous.
Your position is that consciousness is non-local. Where is the evidence of a non-local source and how would that work?
I have repeatedly stated my position and you still come back with this nonsense that I have claimed as a position that consciousness IS an emergent property of the brain.
If my position was that consciousness IS an emergent property of the brain I would state it and defend it. But that is not my position. It is my (stated) expectation, but it is not my position. And if the evidence leads us to a non-local source I would find that to be intriguing (because it would be quite a surprise).
You engage in slimy tactics such as misrepresenting my position no matter how many times I state it to you, and then go one step further and project your crappy tactics onto me.
When you do not have the goods to make a persuasive argument, try not responding. Engaging me with dishonesty does no good for anyone.
As it stands, you have offered readers nothing whatsoever to encourage them that consciousness is non-local to the brain.
Says the one that actually hasn't made a single point.
No thanks, but thanks for the offer.
And you have provided evidence to the contrary? You simply don't get it, do you? Anyone with a working brain knows that your position is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, even though you perform semantic tricks to distance yourself from such a claim. You think that because you can't prove at this moment that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain it somehow means that isn't what you believe to be true.
Contrast that with my claim. I believe that the brain is nothing more or less than the hardware necessary to operate consciousness in this plane of existence and is not an emergent property of the brain. I'm not going to hide behind the fact that I can't prove this is true. What is the difference between us? You get to ask questions and proceed with the discussion based on a firm declaration on my part concerning the issue, while I have to constantly deal with the variable that represents your position that changes according to your needs of the moment.
[deleted]
be civil or be gone...
No, I have never claimed that non-locality is not possible. Why would I provide evidence showing it is not possible when I stated upfront that it remains possible?
It is you, Drakk, who cannot control his emotions enough to honestly deal with what I write. Read carefully below:
I have stated that my expectation is that science will eventually understand consciousness and will be an emergent property of the brain.
I have also stated that my position (and my claim) is that science thus far has uncovered all sorts of answers to cognition at various levels and thus far they are all explained by the brain (and the nervous system). We have yet to encounter any evidence of non-localized cognition, much less the most abstract/highest form which we call consciousness.
What I believe is what has been sufficiently evidenced. Expectation is not the same as belief. Not sure why this confuses you.
Okay, your belief is noted. You used the word claim and then described your belief. Do you think claim and belief have the same meaning? Well, they do not. If you make a claim you can legitimately be called on to defend your claim with evidence. If you claim consciousness is non-local then deliver the evidence. If this is simply a belief of yours then I would like to hear your explanation. I suspect you have none other than how nicely this fits with your religious beliefs.
If you cannot evidence a claim, then do not make it. That is how I operate. I am very careful to NOT make a claim if I have not thought it through enough to respond to a challenge. To wit, I try to claim only that which I am convinced is very likely to be true based on real factors that can be discussed. You do not seem to get that. You keep trying to change my claim into "consciousness IS an emergent property of the brain" even though I have stated myriad times now that this is NOT my claim.
The problem here is that, for whatever reason, you simply do not realize that you are the variable, not me. My position, my claim, has been consistent from the very beginning (see 6.2.102 for example). You cannot argue with my claim so you slightly modify it to that which you could argue. You create, of course, a strawman. I find it hard to imagine that you are completely unaware of what you have been doing given the number of times I have pointed this out.
Summary
My claim is NOT that consciousness IS an emergent property of the brain; that is my expectation, not my claim. My claim is that thus far the various levels of cognition (or cognitive functions) that science holds to understand all manifest from the brain. It is therefore likely, in my estimation, that this process will continue to the point where the highest level of cognition is also an emergent property of the brain. I see no evidence that suggests it would be more likely that consciousness is non-local to the brain.
If non-localized cognition (if not consciousness itself) is eventually evidenced then I would find that to be exciting and intriguing. I would not reject it (as you reject/downplay facts that conflict with your religious beliefs). My world view is not upset if new, counter-intuitive, or even undesirable facts of reality emerge. I am not upset by quantum superposition. I would not be upset by a non-local consciousness sourced outside of the brain interacting with the brain to provide consciousness to what otherwise is a biological machine. I would find that utterly fascinating. Just as I would be fascinated and awed by real evidence that a divine creator actually exists.
See, Drakk, I think you just cannot comprehend someone whose worldview is not predefined to the point where reality must be made to conform to said view. I do not suffer from cognitive dissonance. I have sufficient humility to deem reality far more complex than I will ever understand and thus expect to be surprised and expect to have lifelong intuitions shattered. I do not cling to a belief system that must be true or my world is shattered.
Thus, I do not think you can comprehend a person like me who absolutely wants to follow the evidence to wherever it leads. I care to know what is true. I do not have a specific reality that I seek but rather am on an adventure to discover what really is. I think that notion is beyond your comprehension and that is why we constantly get into these pointless impasses.
your persistence is admirable, but you might as well be explaining winter to an eggplant.
There isn't any confusion in the least. None. Zero. What there is a lack of is what you keep referring to as "sufficiently evidenced." If such existed there wouldn't be the controversy over this subject that there is. So, what we get is you not having the balls to stand by what you obviously think. That is, you believe consciousness is an emergent property of the brain but you hide behind words like "expectation'. That way no one can hold you to what you say. Your stance is just a plastic bag swirling around in the wind, changing constantly as necessary.
So, fine. Let's play this game on your terms. My expectation is that consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain. My claim is that " thus far the various levels of cognition (or cognitive functions) that science holds to understand [do not} manifest from the brain." My evidence for saying such is the same as yours. That is, I simply declare it as being so.
Clearly no matter how many times I correct you, you are going to keep stubbornly (desperately) insisting that I have claimed "consciousness IS an emergent property of the brain". My claim is that all understood (recognized) cognitive functions have been found to manifest from the brain. Thus it is more likely that the most abstract function (consciousness) will also be an emergent property of the brain rather than some non-local source. My expectation is thus that consciousness will be found to be local. However, as also noted upfront, I do not reject the possibility of non-local consciousness. If you want to persuade me (and readers) that non-locality is more likely then put forth your evidence.
Thus far, you have shown no evidence. You clearly have none.
No, unlike you, I do not operate on mere belief. I will believe (hold as truth) consciousness is exclusively local if we have a clear understanding of consciousness and can explain it in terms of the brain. We are nowhere near that. Thus, there is no truth to hold. I expect that consciousness will be local. And I claim that cognitive functions that are currently understood have ALL been found to be sourced in the brain (nervous system in general). And the evidence for that is in abundance under the field known as neuroscience.
I would imagine anyone reading this would be laughing at you. You are frustrated. In response you resort (again) to dishonesty and now (atypically) you have resorted to childish taunting.
That has been clear. I think it is extremely likely that this is not only your expectation but your deep desire.
I would expect a stupid answer like this from most anyone else but you. By dismissing my evidence as 'mere declaration' you categorically dismiss the findings of neuroscience as a whole.
Do a little research, Drakk. Gain an understanding of the cognitive functions that have been recognized by science from the primitive functions of the medulla, through primal functions of the amygdala up to the frontal cortex. See if any recognized (i.e. understood) cognitive function manifests from something other than the brain (nervous system in general).
We have an entire field of science (neuroscience) devoted to identifying and understanding cognitive functions and that field has always found same to manifest in the brain (nervous system).
What you will find is that ALL such functions are emergent properties of the brain (nervous system). And then remember my claim: that the recognized cognitive functions of science to date all, per neuroscience, manifest in the brain.
My claim is easy to understand. The evidence supporting it is overwhelming. Denying it is profoundly stupid.
Well, you're consistent, I'll give you that. Making statements you claim do not represent your position. No matter how hard I try to pin you down to what you say, you say it isn't your position.
Gosh! You're completely right. I haven't and I don't. Not in comparison with the copious amount of evidence you've provided... uh, wait.
In case the scathing sarcasm of that escapes you, something I find likely, let me spell it out for you. How in the hell could you possibly make such an accusation knowing you yourself haven't provided a single solitary shred of evidence, true or false, for your own position? Seriously, the cringe factor of your accusation makes me feel humiliated on your behalf, and it wasn't even my statement.
Um... yeah...
Apparently it escapes you that the whole point of what I said was to highlight the distinct lack of evidence you claim to have provided.
Um....yeah....
Pin me down? I have been crystal clear. I have repeatedly stated my position. I have stated my claim, explained the abundance of (obvious) evidence supporting it, stated my expectation and illustrated to you the difference between a claim and an expectation.
Your frustration is that I will not allow you to "pin me down" to something that I DID NOT CLAIM. That is, I have never claimed that consciousness IS an emergent property of the brain. I have stated that I expect that it will be found to be such. It is impossible for me or anyone to claim that consciousness is definitively an emergent property of the brain because science does not yet understand consciousness sufficiently to even put forth a hard definition. Ergo my statement of expectation, not a claim.
What do you need Drakk? Do you need links from neuroscience for each part of the brain and the cognitive functions attributed by neuroscience to those parts? My claim is that neuroscience has exclusively found cognitive functions thus far to manifest from the nervous system. The findings of neuroscience are my evidence. I have stated this to you repeatedly. Do you deny the cognitive functions identified for the frontal lobe, the amygdala, etc.?
You expect that consciousness will be non-local (manifest outside of the brain). Fine. Why do you think that? What evidence indicates that this would be true? Given all other cognitive functions understood thus far manifest in the nervous system, why do you think consciousness is such an exception?
I think you are operating purely from an emotional/religious desire. All other cognitive functions manifest in the nervous system but you, for a reason you refuse to offer, think consciousness is non-local.
State, in clear English, what you think I have claimed. You are either being absurdly dishonest or you have a mental block and have failed to comprehend my repeated explanation to you.
What do you think I have claimed? Let's hear it.
I already told you. Why do you think doing so again would make any difference? If there were an option for writing it in crayon I would do so. So, here's the next best thing.
Clearly you are trolling. There is no other explanation for such obnoxious (and now childish) behavior.
The cognitive functions thus far recognized by neuroscience are ALL found to manifest in the nervous system (simply stated: 'the brain')
The field of neuroscience has mountains of evidence for its findings which map ALL recognized/understood cognitive functions to areas of the brain. The entire field, its body of evidence, supports my claim. You will be hard pressed (you will fail) to find neuroscience identifying a recognized/understood cognitive function with a non-local source.
Given ALL recognized cognitive functions thus far have been found in the nervous system, I expect that the highest level of cognition (consciousness) will ALSO be found in the nervous system.
I have stated that non-locality remains a possibility but at this point it is pure speculation. (Because it is currently pure speculation.) I have also stated that non-locality, if it were true, would be fascinating to explore. It would —as was true with quantum physics findings such as superposition and entanglement— shatter our intuition and force us to rethink our assumptions. That is a good thing; that is how we learn. But thus far, the trend has been that cognitive functions manifest from the nervous system and are thus exclusively local. Given the trend, I see it more likely that continued research will discover a local, vs a non-local source for consciousness.
You, however, believe that consciousness is exclusively non-local to the nervous system. That is, it is sourced outside of the human body.
Why? You will not say. Instead you engage in dishonest, slimy tactics (and apparently think this will accomplish something of value).
My guess is that you believe in non-locality because it is your deep religious desire for non-local consciousness to be true.
Belief is not truth. Belief is not information-bearing. Belief does not help identify truth.
At this point, I now agree with your assessment.
Perhaps he's trying to say that consciousness must be separate from brain function because of the existence of gnostic theists who lack any logical rational brain function but have overly active imaginations and an unwarranted sense of self entitlement.
hard to believe for the last 2 millennium that religious extremists have ended up as kindling, yard art, cat food, and compost... /s
I'm trying to decide if responding to something this stupid is worth the effort. At this moment, I don't think it is, but I will think about it.
I easily see why Drakk would prefer non-local consciousness since that works so nicely with the concept of a soul. And it is obvious that nobody can offer evidence to support this belief. So of course he has nothing to offer.
It is amazing that we see such over the top bad behavior given I stated upfront that non-locality remains a possibility. That is, I could understand his cry for evidence if I had made the claim that non-locality is impossible. But I stated upfront that it remains a possibility and repeated same throughout.
I find the idea of non-local consciousness to be fascinating, as is superposition. But until we have something that suggests it is plausible, my expectation is that consciousness will be found to be an emergent property of the brain.
I am still trying to wrap my head around how any of this makes a difference.
It is almost like someone is saying that being gay or trans is a choice because all of our consciousness floats around in a bubble in the ether...
If consciousness was non-local then that strengthens the religious concept of a soul.
Believing in non-locality without any supporting evidence is wishful thinking. Holding it as a possibility is being honest and objective.
I think, based on neuroscience thus far, that we are more likely to discover consciousness as an emergent property of the brain than as a non-local phenomenon that uses the brain as an interface.
If that changes, I would be intrigued. In contrast, if consciousness turns out to be local, Drakk would be bummed. I have no desired end, but Drakk clearly does and it shapes (and this time distorts) his thinking.
here, let me help you visualize the concept of religious logic and reason...
... or this one, that seems oddly appropriate ...
Let's try something different.
If we were to (persuasively) discover that consciousness is non-local and that one's 'self' might actually be an eternal soul that periodically reifies in human form, do you think I would run in horror or find it to be the opening of an entirely new reality full of opportunities?
That is, do you think agnostic atheists WANT death to be the finality of our 'self'?
Do you ever think about that?
Who doesn't want something more...
I suspect quite a few theists think that 'atheists' have some desire for there to NOT be a benevolent creator and the promise of something beyond our earthly mortality.
They do not seem able to comprehend that challenges to mere beliefs are not due to wanting the very comforting beliefs to be NOT true but rather because the beliefs simply do not hold water (and thus do not deserve to be taken as truth).
In general, it is better to NOT hold as true that which is merely declared by ancient human beings (and their modern counterparts).
I'm pretty sure I (my soul) am a citizen of eternity.
if I'm required to share the afterlife with a bunch of bible thumpers, count me out...
[deleted]
you're right, what was I thinking. there won't be any hypocritical xtian nationalists there...
[deleted]
march march march
in lockstep
don;t think outside the box
don't think for yourself
[Deleted]
hallelujah, save me geezus.
If I had been thinking I would have written a haiku
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's as simple as that.
Tell that to a hermaphrodite.
... thumpers are here to fix all of god's mistakes for us. /s
Do you know any? Records show that there have only been about 500 ever recorded.
An example of why this isn't about the law, or about rights, but about a perceived moral objective not based in law or logic.
I noticed that. She was basically making up scenarios to justify her decision.
She would be in good company here. The conservatives love to make shit up even if it's not grounded in reality
I'm curious as to how this would dismantle girls' sports. He's only asking to use the bathroom not play girls' volleyball.
"He's only asking to use the bathroom not play girls' volleyball."
So it's OK if HE uses the girls bathroom?? No wonder the girls are upset.
Greg the he the seed is talking about us in reality a SHE.
tsk, tsk, tsk, it's all so very confusing to republicans...
Tell me you didn't read the decision without telling me you didn't read the decision.
One can only wonder why the seeded article didn't link to the actual decision. But I guess you have to get your news from actual news sources to do that.
Here's the actual opinion. and if you read it, and more importantly understand it, you'd see how laughable these ignorant objections are to what she wrote. It's obvious very few of the people objecting to this have any clue what's in the actual decision besides the fragments summed up in the partisan summary above.
First, I urge you and everyone else to not support this ridiculous turn of phrase that is already more annoying than clever. But I digress . . .
It’s not really fair to expect commenters to do research beyond the seed. If they do, great. But why give them grief for responding to what was seeded?
I'll give your complaint all the weight it deserves.
ut why give them grief for responding to what was seeded?
Wouldn't it be fairly obvious that something called LBTQ Nation probably isn't going to provide a balanced summary of a matter they are invested in?
Maybe it's me. But if Unlimited Gun Rights Magazine summarizes a Court Case about gun rights without any link to the source or even excepts from the actual decision, alarm bells would go off and I wouldn't just assume the summary, such that is, is an honest depiction of the Judge's ruling. Nor would I use such a cursory summary as a basis to make wide ranging denunciations about the contents of the decision, speculate about the judges motives and attack liberals in general because of how I imagine a judge acted.
But that's me.
So are you saying it is not the decision that matters but how she arrived at her decision?
Just trying to be clear.
Where is the piece wrong in your opinion?
I understand these people are bigots and cherry pick an incorrectly interpreted ancient passage to base their moral outrage on.
I'll sign that petition.