Because if you read Nietsche, Kant, Wittgenstein, Ayer, or any of the people she criticizes inconsistantly and self-contradictorily you'd know she didn't understand a fuckin' thing of what she read.

How do you know that Objectivism is easier? Even if it is, what difference does it make? Does difficulty automatically denote validity?

Most of the shit she says is outright wrong at best or at worst a strawman of the people she's criticizing.

That's the problem I personally have with anyone who's a **Randian**

It makes most of her reasoning invalid because it's built on a foundation of sand.

It's easier because it simply states Rand's philosophy as essentially axiomatic

And most of her arguments have no real coherent logic that you can use as a system to come to your own ends.

And it's less about the ideology itself and more about self-honesty and accuracy

She's not even "self-honest"

I don't consider Objectivism easier, because it requires effort on my part to hold myself to a certain set of ideals. Ideals that, frankly, are nigh impossible to live up to.

We can always strive to be better.

But you have a ready-made answer

So I had to build my moral code from scratch?

As a nihilist, yes

Why can't everyone just copy someone else's homework when it comes to philosophies?

Cuz that's boring and lame

Oy Legalize, are you Catholic, then?

@Legalize we've had this argument, and decided to part ways. Catholics have to go back.

Is there a branch of Christianity more heretical than the Papacy rn?

Just saying, there's a less heretical side of the schism

Fucking heretical protest-fag bootlickers, right?

I'm frustrated at having argued with an absolute retard about gender dysphoria and treatment of it

Apparently logic and reason has just gone out the fucking window

which side of the issue did you fall on?

That HRT and surgery is not the way to go and there *has* to be a better option.

But no this guy refused to budge on the physiological altering of one's body is wrong

Neither of us had any sources for our arguments but at least part of mine I had an anecdotal experience to cite.

Which pertained to having been prescribed testosterone injections to help with my mental health

Logical reasoning would have one believe that if HRT is a plausible method, why can't the opposite be true?

A supplemental hormone treatment. I do not see why that wouldn't work. Don't work against biology, work with it.

Instead of mutilation and asking if you're pretty.

Now something that's easily obvious but I've never heard bring up is the economics of it

Transitioning is costly. Who benefits financially?

Gee, no wonder it's encouraged.

I know some people that went from being absolutely crazy incoherent messes to getting their lives together once they went on Estrogen.

I don't know what to think, but I know I don't wanna pay for it 🤣

It's one of those issues where I find the "science" isn't even necessary to argue over when it comes to the jump from a mental health condition to off label drugs and permanent surgeries. Arguing over citations and studies only really distracts from the core problems

and the way some pediatricians seem to want to solve everything with medication with their patients, also makes me uncomfortable with supporting the idea that we should make the idea of giving people HRT more mainstream.

For me the "science" is the only issue

Either the treatment works or it doesn't.

To what degree is our medical practice effective and therapeutic.