Octavia is talking in circles, may I take over for a bit to keep them on topic?

@Moti In what manner is transgender identity socially negative?

And do you support banning of facial tattoos, another socially negative thing

No Octavia believes she's consistent

I'd like to get to the core here though

And? What of it?

Should people be disallowed from believing lies?

Hold up Lizard, I'm getting somewhere

Why

And this is bad why?

Utilitarianism can be summed up as "happiness good" so if you are making the argument that it makes them happy, you're making a utilitarian argument.

And if they are mentally incapable of this due to an incurable mental illness should they suffer?

Because it makes them happy, and there is no other option, yes.

Do people not deserve to be happy?

It makes the child unhappy. So no.

If it makes them happy, and they are able to give informed consent, yes.

By my standards, your system is unethical, so like this is just shit slinging.

@Moti Did answer your question, if it makes them happy and they can give informed consent then they can what whatever they want to their genitalia

Since everything is downstream of moral utility, what is morally permissable is what increases experienced moral utility. I'm a rule utilitarian, and as such am aware the way systems and normalization of situationally utile outcomes can decrease overall utility.

Pretty straightforward

I mean sure, if you're not a utilitarian. As a utilitarian the only thing I care about is experienced utility so

What do you mean by this?

We've been through this and Octavia just wants people to follow what she perceives as their true selves, and doesn't really care about the happiness of the trans individuals.

Abortion is not in agreement in utilitarians. The future utility of the yet to be born child is something worth considering. Also, utility is more than just happiness. If people do not WANT to take the happy drug then it violates their utility, by definition.

Source? Plenty of trans women like having a dick actually

It's cool that you think that

This is a misunderstanding of transgender people

Utility is best described as fulfilling want systems. For example, if undergoing pain to make someone else happy is something I want to do, then it brings me utility. Allowing me to do so maximizes my utility, even if it causes me pain.

In this sense, if people do not want the happy drug, then it brings them disutility to take it. This would not maximize utility.

Srs reduces suicidality, and you can't cure dysphoria outside of changing your body to match it

Do the people who the psychopaths are murdering want to get murdered?

You can't change your biological sex, and nobody is claiming you can.

It's a misnomer

Then if they want to die, and it is not reasonable that they would change their mind at a later date (most do), I don't see why they can't be allowed to do so.

They don't **have** to. They **choose** to. They are dying for their own needs.

People should be allowed to die for their own needs. If they want to, and it's not feasible that they'll change their mind (most do, so as a rule we assume they will) then it would be moral to let them die. Because they want to, and will always want to in this hypothetical. The opinion of the psychopath is irrelevant here.

Idealism is cringe

People, their ideas, the decisions they make are informed by the culture and society around them. If you wish to meaningfully predict and understand the actions of people, why systems behave the way they do, why good men do evil things and evil men do good things, you MUST analyze the material world around them. The economic and social realities they exist within.

Feudalism was no fluke, liberalism was no fluke

They were pushed by economic and social realities that we can see and measure

Well this is what Reagan was rejecting, historical materialism.

Reagan was not a determinist, was he?

Moreover, isn't idealism incompatible with determinism?

Pretty sure Churchill's statement is anti-materialist

And therefore anti-determinist

Oh wait misread.

This is literally just a statement on determinism not materialism

At any rate, on determinism

Quantum mechanics suggest otherwise. That reality is a set of likely outcomes via mathematical probably

And although this SEEMS be behave in deterministic chaos on the large scale, this is not true on the fundamental scale, and we have no clue what tiny randomness would change

Quantum physics operates within random probably, quantum physics is the fundamental nature of the universe, and these small things make the big.

We would need to presuppose a system of order that we cannot see, which is fallacious

Have watched a few vids, not really interested

Lotsa cringe in that boy

Like I said, don't really watch

By American standards

I'd like to think there's hope

Doomerism just isn't productive

Just like

Don't have states?

Monopolies on coercion are bad?

Wait

If you want a state you're a liberal?

This is the purpose of the state in liberalism too

Well market liberalism anyway

Ye

Not anarchism

Libertarianism is a socialist thing though, originally

Capitalist Libertarians are pretty unique to English actually

No like libertarianism the label started off as a socialist label

Individualism can be leftist as well, I'm an individualist

"Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists,[6] especially social anarchists,[7] but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists.[8][9] These libertarians seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects to usufruct property norms, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.[10][11][12][13]"

Sorry about the bad format

But yeah it's from leftist anarchism

I'm a classical libertarian

It was adopted by capitalists later

Still used by socialists mostly in non-english countries

Libertarianism as capitalism is unique to English speakers

Because the social construct of ownership is inherently coercive

It's true

Example:

You wash up on an island, the island is full of berry bushes

These berry bushes are owned by someone, but if you do not eat them you will die

From starvation

In this way, you are forced to die to respect their property

Exactly, you only own what you can defend through coercive violence.

Stealing presupposes property

If it is this or die, then you are coerced into action.

The God is being coercive and unjust. If God were moral they would rectify. Failing that, we should rectify it.

Or abolish the social construct of property, share resources as needed to make the best possible society. No need to presuppose ownership.

Forcing someone to experience constant pain and struggle against their will is immoral full stop. God is no exception.

Ownership is enforced through coercion though. If we must use coercion once to fix the system rather than always use coercion to enforce a bad system I will choose the latter.

Ownership is a social construct, homosexuality is not

It can be, yes

I don't think the law as outlined in the Bible is perfect. I think this law is unjust.

Personal property I'm not against y'know. *Possession* is fine. Systemic ownership of necessities* is not.

Says who? God? Who gave them the moral authority?

No, lol.

Rather than give necessities to those who need them, yes.

Quite a few, I mean the first commandment alone is p cringe ngl.