But our current age of society is based upon morals and legalities, so in what way is this concept of trans ageism palpable to the common person in a way that allows it to not conflict with the previous sets of morals defined by society as a no go level. When we discuss policies and laws that go into effect at a governmental level, we deny one group the right to have said morals and encourage others to push for their advocation of their morals. But one thing in a group setting that worked is the majority ruled based on group opinion, backed up by reason and evidence. But is feelings enough evidence to overturn a society's way of behaving socially? Is it the individual that gets to decide that or the group? The problem like I said earlier is that our government coins what is reasonable and that is also pushed by objective bias, which isnt a negative thing but isnt the entire goal perceived by us. When we as a society determine something as a group to hold true and then upend it based upon individual opinions then we allow for others to do the same thing. The problem isnt with the previous statement more of the state of the current society which is unstable socially. Where we need rules or guidelines for what is morally correct we often get the opposite with people trying to test other boundaries.

@Existence is identity

@SantaSoc I have the answers

I have the pizza

id argue people dont have morals

I am of the perception morals are instilled upon us by the person who surround is in our formative years, mist likely our parents.

It isnt 4 am sir

@SantaSoc define morals

of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior :ETHICAL

: expressing or teaching a conception of right behaviora moral poem

conforming to a standard of right behavior took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination

: sanctioned by or operativeon one's conscience or ethical judgmenta moral obligation

: capable of right and wrong action

@SantaSoc altruisms morals is determined by the group

Basically conforming to a standard of right or wrong, which is the societal level of morality.

yeah that should be switched to a individual level predicated on objectivism

My gosh, it's been ages since I've heard someone defend an objective standard of morality.

Music to my ears.

What

@Bookworm lol

@Bookworm do you read any philosophers?

My philosophical background is largely Thomist Aristotelean with some Stoicism.

Marcus Aurelius and the Enchiridion, mostly.

Incoming philosophy class with the nerd

@Bookworm Thomist? as in Thomas Aquinas?

Yes.

The figurative dwarf on the giant's shoulder.

@Bookworm oh ive read a bit of Aristotle a bit of Plato and mostly Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand and Aristotle was the only one gave a objective morality

from what I believe

also Aquinas tied reason to Christianity which is good and is why we they arent like the muslims

I have some more Rand and Aristotle on my reading list and book that sums up greek philosophers points

I will eventually read them all individually atleast once

@Bookworm so you havent read Rand?

No, but I'm vaguely familiar with her philosophical work.

It's not bad, or critically flawed, but if I went over it I'd probably have nitpicks.

you should Ill send you a 120 page book that gives you the basics

you should also read the fountainhead and atlas shrugged but those books are both over 500 pages

@Bookworm

What is His flesh?
His Flesh is the Word;
His Blood is the Breath;
Whoever welcomes the Word and the Breath,
They truly received a food, a drink, and a garment.
I pity those who say there is no resurrection.
The flesh does not resurrect,
But what is it that can resurrect,
So that we may revere it?
The Breath animates the flesh;
There is also a light in the flesh: the Logos.
What you say, you say through a body;
You can say nothing outside this body.
You must awaken while in this body,
For existence is done through it:
Resurrect in this life.
-Gospel of Philip

So, as we move away from identity politics and the courts examine what rights come with religious liberty, it begs the question. When is faith-based prejudice permissable? If we permit people the liberty to be themselves but also say we won't protect it, we essentially say it's okay for private individuals to discriminate. How does a country look when we permit restaurants to deny black people service? For hotels to deny two guys to reserve a honeymoon suite? For private hospitals to deny service to a transwoman? For a gym to deny service to a Muslim hijabi?

Do we permit discrimination for non-essential services only? Or can the hospital deny service that conflicts with thier faith based (ie Catholic) charter?

What about government officials? Can they discriminate based thier faith?

How about a small town with one grocer. Can she discriminate and deny service to the known Jew, denying her food? Or can they only discriminate with creative things like cakes but not "off the shelf" things?