Senal comments on Thoughts?

Thoughts? (media.piefed.social)

submitted 7 months ago by Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social to c/controversial@sh.itjust.works

146 comments fedilink hide all child comments

👏 1

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Senal@programming.dev 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (22 children)

See: Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez(AOC), or other progressive democrats or independents.

As far as I know, yes they are similar. (social democrat to democratic socialist)

I guess the difference is inclusivity. And if we’re talking a Party or ideology(capitalization matters, like I’m a democrat, but not a Democrat.)

Unlike Nazis, I’m for inclusivity. Come as you are, all faiths welcome.

Useful and mostly answers my question, thanks.

But I also personally detest body mutilation. Even when they want it. Yea, all forms. So tattoos, piercings, gauges, split tongues, etc. but to be clear: I don’t think it should be illegal for adults to ‘mutilate themselves’, voluntarily. It’s just not for me. It’s a gut feeling kind of thing.

Fair enough.

I think maybe, psychologically, it’s because it is seeking external validation. To “pass” as the kids say. I don’t think people should need to “pass”… You’re good as your are.

You lost me at this bit though, by that rationale anything external that isn't strictly functional would fall under this category.

Coloured clothes, haircuts that aren't just to keep the hair out of your eyes, any accessories of any kind ?

It also feels like a big leap to claim external validation as the only reason for personal expression.

That being said, as long as you aren't forcing it on other people, you do you, personal choice is important.

I don’t think you’re going to improve on God’s design.

I'm going to be honest, I don't like this way of thinking, at all.

I'm all for personal faith, but the problems with that statement aren't theistic in nature, they're logical.

~~The only way that statement works is if it's absolute. If God's design is perfect it has to be "perfect".~~

~~If any part of the design is questionable then it's all questionable.~~

I take that back, you could argue that we can't improve upon gods design in just the areas we are talking about (body mods) but then i'd follow up: with why can we not improve upon body-mod related areas, but we can on something like vision for instance?

Easy go-to examples are everywhere

Spectacles being a prime example.
Wheelchairs, or any mobility aid really.
Hearing aids, inhalers.

The most contextually relevant example i can think of is a cleft lip, something that you could live a full life with but would be significantly better off without.

parent

hideshow 22 child comments

[–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (21 children)

I believe you’re responding to an argument I didn’t quite make.

I wasn’t saying “any external change = validation.” I was talking specifically about physiological body modification done to fit in or ‘pass’ ... that’s a much narrower category than general self-expression via....

Clothes, hairstyles, accessories, etc. aren’t comparable. Those are temporary, low-stakes, and reversible. I’m talking about chronic physical changes to the body.

And even then, I didn’t claim external validation is the only reason, but just that it’s a common psychological driver in some cases. So no, the logic doesn’t expand to “everything non-functional.” That’s a mischaracterization.

On the “God’s design” point, you’re also stretching it into areas I wasn’t talking about. Medical interventions like glasses, mobility aids, or corrective surgery (like cleft lip repair) are about restoring function or alleviating harm.

My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. That's insane, IMO. That's jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.

If you want to challenge the position, that’s fine, but it should be the position I actually stated, not a broader version of it.

parent

hideshow 21 child comments

[–] Senal@programming.dev 2 points 7 months ago (20 children)

I believe you’re responding to an argument I didn’t quite make.

I wasn’t saying “any external change = validation.” I was talking specifically about physiological body modification done to fit in or ‘pass’ … that’s a much narrower category than general self-expression via…

Ah, that's my bad, i read it as all body mods are external validation driven.

Clothes, hairstyles, accessories, etc. aren’t comparable. Those are temporary, low-stakes, and reversible. I’m talking about chronic physical changes to the body.

Stakes are relative in this case, just because you care about the permanence or reversibility of a modification doesn't mean others do.

but yeah, it's not an exact match.

And even then, I didn’t claim external validation is the only reason, but just that it’s a common psychological driver in some cases. So no, the logic doesn’t expand to “everything non-functional.” That’s a mischaracterization.

see above

On the “God’s design” point, you’re also stretching it into areas I wasn’t talking about. Medical interventions like glasses, mobility aids, or corrective surgery (like cleft lip repair) are about restoring function or alleviating harm.

This we'll have to disagree on, unless you have a convincing way of explaining why we can't improve on gods design with stylistic choices, but medical intervention is ok.

I realise how that sounds (to me at least) but your phrasing didn't leave any leeway in that it didn't really specify what about gods design could possibly be improved upon.

It also gets into conversation about what exactly constitutes harm, psychological harm exists and can be just as devastating as physical harm.

Not to mention that psychological harm can cause physical harm, i don't mean self-harm (though that's a thing also) i mean detrimental physiological changes brought about by negative psychological pressure.

My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. That’s insane, IMO. That’s jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.

My answer to this would be contingent upon your answer to "what about god's design is possible for us to improve upon?".

If you want to challenge the position, that’s fine, but it should be the position I actually stated, not a broader version of it.

That's fair, though as i said your position was unclear in that the statement seems to be an absolute with no specification as to boundaries.

I did go back and adjust my statement to ask a question around boundaries in the original reply, I’m not sure if you replied before or after this.

If you don't mind giving me some clarification on where those boundaries exist i can be more specific.

parent

hideshow 20 child comments

[–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (19 children)

The “God’s design” line wasn’t meant as a literal argument! Lol. It was more rhetorical shorthand, and yeah, a bit tongue-in-cheek(I'm atheist). The actual point I care about isn’t at all theological, it’s about where we draw the line between restoring function and altering a healthy body for social or aesthetic reasons.

That's my boundary.

parent

hideshow 19 child comments

[–] Senal@programming.dev 2 points 7 months ago (18 children)

The “God’s design” line wasn’t meant as a literal argument! Lol.

That's a very poor choice of phrase for a conversation with no cues outside of text.

And you've managed to go through my entire previous reply without mentioning that you didn't actually mean it, which is additionally confusing.

So i'll assume function restoration and harm reduction are the line for you, now i can answer the statement i skipped.

My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. That’s insane, IMO. That’s jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.

I wasn't comparing cleft lip restoration to tattoos, piercings or split tongues because that's a terrible comparison, one is functionally restorative and the others are aesthetic aside from the split tongue which is also functionally additive.

I was using it as an example as to why "god's design" is a poor argument.

As it seems "god's design" wasn't an actual argument you were making, this is less relevant.

I would point you back to my arguments about psychological harm reduction in it's many forms, some of which are societal in nature (fitting in, for example).

I'm not advocating for caving to peer pressure against someone’s will, I’m saying that voluntary personal choices that include societal considerations can contribute to a foundation of long term psychological harm reduction.

In simpler terms, finding your people and fitting in can help you feel better both mentally and physically.

As you've stated you're not forcing your opinion on others, we can agree to disagree on where the lines are with no real consequences.

Might be worth considering that not all harm is physical or immediate, when assessing what constitutes harm reduction.

parent

hideshow 18 child comments

[–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago (17 children)

It just wasn't meant literally. Again, it's rhetorical. That's still an argument...

It's not a great argument if taken literally but that's also why it was chosen, the ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. Indeed, there are endless gods, and which one I may have been referring to absolutely isn't relevant(I'm not making a theological argument.) When you understand that, it becomes a stronger argument.

I'm essentially arguing that people should embrace their nature rather than deny it or subvert it.

Replace god with nature, basically.

If you need to pave paradise and put up a parking lot to fit in, I guess you'll have your reward? But it'll also be your undoing.

parent

hideshow 17 child comments

[–] Senal@programming.dev 2 points 7 months ago (16 children)

It just wasn’t meant literally. Again, it’s rhetorical. That’s still an argument…

Not a good one, but sure, technically.

It’s not a great argument if taken literally but that’s also why it was chosen, the ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. Indeed, there are endless gods, and which one I may have been referring to absolutely isn’t relevant(I’m not making a theological argument.) When you understand that, it becomes a stronger argument.

It does not, ambiguity over an already unclear position does not make for a strong argument.

It took us 3 back and forths for you to actually explain what you meant.

You used a small phrase with no supporting context to imply it wasn't meant to be taken literally.

I’m essentially arguing that people should embrace their nature rather than deny it or subvert it.

That's also a poor argument in it's ambiguity , "embrace their nature" is almost as hand-wavy as "gods design", though it falls down for a different reason.

Replace god with nature, basically.

You'd have to work hard to pick a more subjective benchmark than "nature", there are tribes and cultures who think/thought foot binding was natural, human sacrifice, tribal marking, scarification, FGM, MGM (circumcision), head binding and basically any other cultural practice you'd care to mention.

If you need to pave paradise and put up a parking lot to fit in, I guess you’ll have your reward? But it’ll also be your undoing.

That makes even less sense than "natural".

It also addresses none of the points raised.

Honestly i think this is on me at this point, you did say right at the beginning you worked from a "gut feeling" it's my bad for trying to get you to formalise that.

You have your boundaries, they seem arbitrary and nonsensical to me, but they don't have to make sense to me because I’m not using them.

Thanks for the back and forth anyway.

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (15 children)

Maybe read up on Spinoza and Taoism, like the Tao Te Ching. I'm a pantheist. So god=nature=universe, and we're part of it. Like an apple tree apples, this planet peoples!

By nature I don't just mean me. I mean seeing the whole world as an interconnected and interdependent organism. All is one and one is all.

I can further explain, I suppose. I don't really care for excessive vanity. People and their main character syndromes. They become so obsessed, as you say, with fitting in. Being a member to some sort of click or grasping onto things (ideologies) for the sake of identity... Which is almost always paired with some kind of intense disdain for some particular out group(like jocks v. Nerds, whites v. Immigrants, Catholic v. Protestant v. Atheist, left v right, etc). People that just constantly regurgitate sayings from pop culture (or even the Bible) are often insufferable.

Hive mind mentalities. People that aren't really finding themselves, nor their people. They're just conforming to something comfortable, I suppose. Anything preferable to loneliness?

Great examples: maralago face, most religious people, clicks, Reddit, tbf most social media, etc.

Uh. None of those rituals are natural. That shit is as natural as a clown or circus. That's mostly just animal(human) abuse... Like a Barnum & Bailey circus!

Pave Paradise is reference to a song... Originally by Joni Mitchell titled Big Yellow Taxi. Perhaps the lyrics will make my point more comprehensible? Give it a listen and tell me whatcha think. It's similar to Little Boxes by Malvina Reynolds in sentiment.

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] Senal@programming.dev 2 points 7 months ago (14 children)

I do get it, you have your opinions, i understand what you mean by them , I’m just saying they're inconsistent, arbitrary and unnecessarily rigid to me.

for example:

So god=nature=universe, and we’re part of it. Like an apple tree apples, this planet peoples!

and

Uh. None of those rituals are natural.

Are contradictory.

If we are part of nature, anything we do is natural, as reprehensible as it can be, it's still a part of nature because we are a part of nature.

To be clear I’m not stating a position on the objective morality/ethics of those rituals (i do have opinions, they just aren't part of my argument) , i was using them as an example of why the term "nature" is ambiguous and useless as a baseline because of it's subjective interpretation.

Yes, cliques and cults(religions) and subjectively malicious groups exist, but it's a false dichotomy to suggest it's either complete self sufficiency or cult membership, nuance exists.

If you don't think it's possible to have a tattoo or piercing because of a personal decision, that's your call, to me that sounds like a small distance from fundamentalism but as long as you aren’t forcing it on others , you do you.

Pave Paradise is reference to a song… Originally by Joni Mitchell titled Big Yellow Taxi. Perhaps the lyrics will make my point more comprehensible? Give it a listen and tell me whatcha think. It’s similar to Little Boxes by Malvina Reynolds in sentiment.

I understand the reference, i was saying that whole sentence didn't make any sense as an argument in this context.

You also still haven't addressed the harm reduction conversation.

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (13 children)

Sigh. From the dictionary:

based on an inherent sense of right and wrong; natural justice. 2. a : being in accordance with or determined by nature; natural impulses.3. as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical.

It's funny you claim a limited, special definition that's more semantics than substance. Yet then still claim ambiguity is an issue. And state the problem is a subjective (limited, special) interpretation.

Sounds like a merry go round.

Fundamentalism? No. Not really. I was certainly tempted to just reply with something like you're made in God's image nonsense but I genuinely don't believe that. I'm more a deist than any kind of theist.

Have you read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris? I think that's a good look into harm reduction.

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] Senal@programming.dev 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (12 children)

oh damn, we can sigh? i didn't realise that was on the table, i've been missing a trick this whole time.

ok, here i go.

based on an inherent sense of right and wrong; natural justice. 2. a : being in accordance with or determined by nature; natural impulses.3. as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical.

I'm glad you agree, none of those definitions imply an objective "natural" exists, so having them quoted helps, thanks.

It’s funny you claim a limited, special definition that’s more semantics than substance.

definition of what ? citation ?

Yet then still claim ambiguity is an issue.

Yes and i stated my reasons why.

And state the problem is a subjective (limited, special) interpretation.

I do, again, my reasons are stated.

but seeing as were are doing definitions now:

3 a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind

Fundamentalism? No. Not really. I was certainly tempted to just reply with something like you’re made in God’s image nonsense but I genuinely don’t believe that. I’m more a deist than any kind of theist.

sigh (this is fun) , so let me get this straight, you considered replying with a straight up lie ?

For any particular reason..or ?

Also i didn’t mean religious fundamentalism, though it is on me that i didn’t specify.

Thanks though, the definitions thing is super useful:

2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

Have you read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris? I think that’s a good look into harm reduction.

I will have a read, does it outright reject the idea that psychological harm exists?

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (11 children)

I don't have the energy for this cherry picking nonsense.

Are you capable of understanding paragraphs? Is your context window too narrow?

Sigh. A lie? Oh sigh. Not really a lie but you wouldn't understand why. They say the angels fly because they take themselves so lightly. What more then the father of all angels?

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] Senal@programming.dev 2 points 7 months ago (10 children)

I don’t have the energy for this cherry picking nonsense.

I have directly responded to almost all of your replies, line by line, if that's what you consider cherry-picking your standards as significantly higher than mine.

i mean, if you're going to pick a deflection to disengage because you have no responses at least pick one that isn't easily disprovable by just looking at the chain.

Or you could just say you don't want to continue, without an excuse, like an adult?

Are you capable of understanding paragraphs? Is your context window too narrow?

As with most of your responses you're going to need to be a bit more specific if you want an actual answer, the vague deflections with no specifics can only get you so far.

Sigh. A lie? Oh sigh. Not really a lie but you wouldn’t understand why. They say the angels fly because they take themselves so lightly. What more then the father of all angels?

See , now this is better, no pretence of sense to counter, just straight up, entirely absent-of-context sentences. Not much i can do with that.

I mean, you still haven't actually answered anything directly so far, but at this point It's more impressive than anything.

It's absolute garbage as rhetoric, but who says art has to conform to reason or expectations?

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago (9 children)

You're not responding to me in good faith. Are you just incapable of doing so?

I have responded in good faith to you. Your questions aren't really clear (many seem rhetorical) and you keep referencing things that you don't really seem to have brought up in any real tangible, palpable meaningful way. You just kind of glaze over them. And I'm really not sure what you're getting at. And I've told you this so much over and over again and you really don't explain yourself while I have explained myself to quite a lengthy extent which you don't really seem to appreciate and instead insult.

And again... I can explain things to you but I can't understand them for you. Real understanding takes a mutual dedication to try to alleviate ambiguities and not reinforce them and entrench inside of them.

Like, I'm pretty sure everyone reading this knows where my stance is but I have no fucking clue what yours is. Maybe just a clueless contrarian?

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (8 children)

You’re not responding to me in good faith. Are you just incapable of doing so?

If you want to make a claim , provide examples, even a single example works.

All of my replies have been in direct response to your statements, with quotations to match, if you think one of those responses was in bad faith, point it out.

You can do this in real time, instead of waiting to vaguely accuse me of something without pointing to an example.

I have responded in good faith to you. Your questions aren’t really clear (many seem rhetorical) and you keep referencing things that you don’t really seem to have brought up in any real tangible, palpable meaningful way.

You have responded..sort of, yes, good faith is debatable

My questions are clear, there are a lot of statements because I’m providing context and/or my stance something to support my claims and/or follow up questions.

Again, citation on the "reference to something not previously brought up" ?

You just kind of glaze over them. And I’m really not sure what you’re getting at.

Again, citation? literally any example you wish to point at, i will address.

I've been responding almost line by line, pick any example of when that response was vague, it's not a test, i genuinely want an example.

And I’ve told you this so much over and over again and you really don’t explain yourself while I have explained myself to quite a lengthy extent which you don’t really seem to appreciate and instead insult.

There are copious examples of me explaining myself and my positions, if you want i can provide a list, or you could...just read the history.

You have explained some things and i have responded to them, again, line by line mostly.

Most of my responses have been to try and get clarification on the apparent contradictions in your explained positions.

The only vaguely insulting thing i can from my side was the last reply in the previous response and it was in response to a literal nonsense reply from your side.

And again… I can explain things to you but I can’t understand them for you. Real understanding takes a mutual dedication to try to alleviate ambiguities and not reinforce them and entrench inside of them.

If there was something you explained and i then replied with the same question again, please point it out.

Like, I’m pretty sure everyone reading this knows where my stance is but I have no fucking clue what yours is. Maybe just a clueless contrarian?

If by contrarian you mean i disagree with many of your stances, then yes, otherwise my positions have been consistent.

I've stated why i disagree, if you wish to discuss , reference an example.

For clarification my stance is:

God's design (which you didn't mean?, so that's fine) and what is "natural" are a poor foundation for a shared framework of morals and ethics because they are subjective.
Harm reduction includes psychological harm, to exclude that is poor reasoning.
It's possible to use body modification as an expression of self without having an underlying mental illness or psychological issue.
Counting Crows big yellow taxi is superior musically but Joni Mitchell’s original is better for the feels.
Providing a whole-ass book, or series of ideologies instead of an actual position is poor conversational technique, especially if you don't even specify if it represents your position.

Your stance in general is clear, has been from the beginning, it's when I’m asking for clarification that things get contradictory or vague.

Here is a summary (of my understanding) :

You seem to have close to fundamentalist ^0^ (in my opinion) beliefs about what people should and shouldn't be doing wrt body modifications. ^1^
Your stance is that you don’t push this on others ^2^
You stated "I don’t think you’re going to improve on God’s design." with no other context clues but later ( a few replies later ) said that isn't what you meant. ^3^
You think a lot of body modifications are due to underlying mental illness or psychological issues.
Your boundary is restoring medical function/harm reduction is fine, anything else is not.
- When asked if psychological harm reduction counts, you have provided no actual position except for a reference to a book.
You have your opinions on what constitutes "natural", when asked about a contradiction in clarification your response was:
- Cite a definition with no explanation as to why it was needed
- Ignore the contradiction entirely
- Claim i was using a special definition without specifying what you thought it was.

`

^0^ See the previous reply about the definition of fundamentalism I’m using here
^1^ Note the words in bold, they are important.
^2^ I don't necessarily believe that but I’d have no way to prove anything either way, so my beliefs are irrelevant.
^3^ Same as ^2^

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago (7 children)

I don't have the interest for this.

You need a therapist. 🤔

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 point 7 months ago (6 children)

As expected

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

I really don't know how you misinterpret what I'm saying.

I use a word and then I give you numerous sentences to define exactly how I'm using that word.

Like a circus like a clown. Like a synthetic thing. Like a man-made thing. Which is the opposite of natural.

Is English not your first language?

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

As you have asked for, i have provided:

My definitive stance, in simple bullet points so you don't get confused
My understanding of your stance, in the same format
A list of direct questions (the ones with ? on the end)

Most of the questions are asking for citations from you, which has not been your strong suit so far, but I’m ready to be surprised.

Feel free to respond to them or continue deflecting, your call.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

K

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 point 7 months ago

As expected

parent

[–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

Are you some kind of weird AI?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 point 7 months ago

?

parent