#I feel like there should be a logical fallacy for when people argue that something is bad because ''you won't propagate your genes!!''

[celaenaeiln]

Thank you so much for debunking the whole "Dick was a super angry child" thing the fandom has been pressing hard for the last few years it's one of my pet peeve characterization for him. (The other him being a Playboy) Does he get angry of course he does he's only human but he's usually very level head and even if he was the "Angry Robin" when he first started he was 8 years old and just lost his parents! I feel like anyone especially a child would be hurt and angry then but he didn't want revenge he wanted justice. He was a sweet child who just wanted to make his parents proud.

og post in question

Yes!!

Actually another anon asked me about this too a while ago - that I'll be getting back to soon - and I began writing right away but then I just couldn't. I had to put it on hold because I was overwhelmed by the sheer amount of evidence that Dick was a happy robin. Not A happy robin, THE happy robin. I was exhausted because I didn't know where to begin, there was just too much evidence. I needed to create a separate post first.

It makes me so mad when i see Angry Dick Grayson posts because it's not even an interpretation of events. There's nothing to debate, there's no doubt, there's no question, there's no confusion, there's nothing to contest - HE WASN'T AN ANGRY ROBIN.

Jason says it himself! And unlike people in the fandom who've never read a comic in their life but like running their mouth off, he would actually know because he studied Dick. He watched all of Dick's videos when he was Robin. 11 years worth of videos. And this is what he says about Dick's robin:

Suicide Squad: Get Joker Issue #1

Jason straight up says that Dick was the happy robin. And that's just Jason. There's still Tim, Damian, Bruce, Alfred, Clark, the Justice League, and the Titans who talk about it.

Frankly it boggles my mind when I hear people who write takes say that Dick was an angry robin because even if they've never read any of the robin comics, they should at least know what he was like from what the adult characters say right? Did they really never stop and wonder why Jason keeps talking about not being Dick when he argues with Bruce? Or why Tim was so obsessed with Dick aside from knowing him from the circus? Or why Bruce writes entire monologues about how Dick saved him? Or why Alfred goes on massive rants about how Dick was the best thing ever to happen to Bruce and him or why he started crying and mourning when Dick merely left as Robin? Did no one stop to consider when they started going around saying he wasn't happy?

Honestly Angry Robin Dick Grayson characterization is a black hole of logic and intelligence.

The reason it became so popular is because it's a logical fallacy and logical fallacies sound convincing. This particular argument is the hasty generalization logical fallacy. Hasty generalization is when a statement is made after one or two examples rather than relying on extensive research to back up a claim.

For example: I got sick after eating pizza from Aleano's. Therefore, I must be allergic to pizza.

Proponents of angry robin dick characterization choose one example from decades of writing to claim that he was angry after his parents died which-seriously? Besides you'll start to notice that people who write those takes will never provide evidence because it's near possible to find something that doesn't exist. Sure one or two out of context photos might be provided but that's the best they can do to support that type of characterization. As much as we wish we were magicians from Hogwarts, no amount of wishing is going to transfigure the hundreds of comics filled with happy robin to him being an angry monster.

Also it's ridiculous that type of character because they're saying that if he's upset that his parents died, then he's an angry character. But if the Joker's happy that random people died, then he's a psycho. What do they want?! And that's not even the whole truth of it either. Dick was massively sad more than he was angry. He was taken away from his circus family and is left alone like all the time now. His life changed in a second - he's depressed. But he was able to work through it and that's how Robin was created.

Dick was not Robin when he went after Tony Zucco. The reason Bruce made him Robin was specifically because he admitted he didn't want Tony Zucco dead.

The problem is people sometimes hyperfocus so much on one detail that they forget the big picture. They centered 11 years of Robin characterization around one moment.

Let's get the facts straight. Robin is a success story. The greatness of Dick wasn't just that he was the smart, the best of the ages, and the greatest athelete - no. His greatness is that he is able to move. ON. He can do what Bruce never could. He could move on and take his parents death and turn it into something positive. He was able to overcome grief and not dwell in the past.

That's why he was able to be happy. That's why Bruce couldn't. And that's why Bruce needed Dick because Dick made him happy.

Alfred says this about Dick as Robin -

Robin: Year One Issue #1

"The addition of Dick Grayson into the Master's crusade has made a difference in him." "I do believe I saw him smile. There have been occasions in the pantry when I could just discern the muffled sounds of laughter echoeing up from that dreadful cavern beneath the manor."

People don't seem to understand. Alfred never approved Bruce's tenure as Batman. He loathed it so much he punched Bruce for it. It was Dick's light and goodness that changed Bruce's mind because he saw how happy Dick made him and how happy of a child he himself was.

And Dick? He never changed his personality in or out of costume.

Robin: Year One Issue #2

"He doesn't seem to struggle to lead a normal adolescence." "He's had no need to develop the masquerade that Master Bruce felt necessary." "His personality remains the same with or without the mask and boots. "

He's not the troubled kid some people seem to think he is. He wasn't mean or selfish or cast aside or raging moodily in a corner. Actually in the Batman (1940) and Detective Comics, he was seen as a role model for how helpful and kind he was. He was actually the one who went out of his way to help troubled kids because of his kindness, goodness, and empathy.

Checkmate (2006) Issue #14

Checkmate is a member of Task Force X under Amanda Waller and an ally of Batman's. She knows him. She knows what Dick was to him and Dick even mourns about the time when Bruce used to be happy. It was his joy and personality that did that.

Of course my argument isn't to be taken one sidedly saying he was constantly happy 24/7, all the time, in every occasion - no. Emotions are a spectrum and no one feels one emotion all the time. Thats silly. But, your personality outlook is based on what you feel most of the time. Dick sometimes got angry, sometimes got sad, etc. But in a dichotomy between happy and angry there is no doubt, no question, that he was overwhelmingly on the happy side.

There's a reason why everyone calls him happy. It's because for an overwhelming majority of the time, he was the happy robin.

52 Issue #25

Way back in the Batman (1940) comic Dick says, "I became Robin, history's first sidekick. And there I was, the laughing boy daredevil--"

Batman and Robin (2009) Issue #9

You can call him crazy, excitable, feral, overexcellent, etc. But never forget that Bruce once went insane after locking himself in a simulator that emulated Robin Dick Grayson's joy.

The incontestable truth - Dick was a happy robin.

[mywitchyblog]

I love the dedication for explaining the most basic stuff for some of these shifters because some of them lacks common knowledge everyone is so attach with the past they always talks about you can't do this because this and that it happened to me happened to them acting like our cr is the only one who has a past in every reality there's a different race who experienced discrimination like all the stuffs that people reason on why people shouldn't race change but they forgot that in every reality every race, age, gender has a different past some realities gender is equal no one fights about whose gender are more important. In another reality it's the opposite of race who experienced discrimination. People like to create discourse because they are so attach with the cr all they talk about is cr. these people won't shift with this mindset it's very limiting they always let the past affects their journey they are the same people who affirm about not being in the past and that they don't live in the old story but still continue to get mad when someone want to change their form in order to experience infinite possiblities. What shifters need to learn is that if they always talk about being in the 4d and that they live in the imagination they should start observing 3d and view their cr life as someone's old story a character who will end their roles to start a new and better one never let the past affects you. Focus on your own journey your own story NEVER LET PEOPLE'S OPINION ON TUMBLR AFFECTS YOU block them and move on don't interact live your life you wanted it to be stop being miserable stop complaining stop starting a discourse but instead educate yourself read a book find a hobby that helps with your shifting journey stop complaining about peopel having different opinion as you those are just people on the screen on your phone don't let their energy touches you and ruin your day. YOU WON'T GET ANYTHING FROM ARGUING PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT VIEWS OF YOU FROM TUMBLR. ALWAYS LIVE IN THE PRESENT DONT FORGET ABOUT THE PAST ONLY OBSERVE IT. If you're aware that you are a consciousness nothing can hurt you only your cr self gets hurt but you are a consciousness you're just observing your cr self just like your dr self your cr self get hurt because it has a senses, feelings and emotions it has a story a past but you already live now in your dr. In death only the body dies. Life does not, consciousness does not,reality does not as someone who died multiple times in every reality you're CR life is never that serious the Cr character dies we moved on and live for the next adventure we were never born never dies we just exist as consciousness moving to different forms bodies appearancess. The real power is not the method it's the awareness knowing that I'm Aware that every method works for me or im aware that i can go to my desired life just by living in the imagination and not relying on my limited senses.

Thanks for the compliment! It’s wild how many people need the basics explained over and over because they’re so stuck in this reality (CR) like it’s the only one with a history. They think if something happened here, it must be the same everywhere. Spoiler alert: different realities have different histories, and just because one group faced discrimination here doesn’t mean it’s the same in every reality. In some realities, gender might be totally equal, and in others, it’s flipped, with totally different groups facing discrimination. Reality’s a mixed bag, babe, but some people just can’t handle that.

What really grinds my gears is the fake moral superiority they try to flex just because they don’t race change or age down, as if they’re not out there aging up whenever they feel like it. Babe, this reality isn’t some golden blueprint—there’s no “original reality” that’s the end-all, be-all. That idea? Complete illusion.

And when they try to argue? It’s always the same old trio of logical fallacies: ad hominem attacks, straw man nonsense, and hasty generalizations. I’m just waiting for a solid argument against age or race changing that doesn’t rely on flimsy fallacies. Surprise, surprise—they can’t. There’s no ultimate right or wrong here—no supreme law governing what’s okay across all realities. It’s laughable, really.

People clinging to CR norms like their lives depend on it are either going to struggle to shift or not shift at all. Shifting is as simple as plugging into a different outlet—your awareness is the plug, and each reality is a different socket. Unplug from one, connect to another. Meanwhile, I’m basing my views on logical observations, and they’re acting like their opinions are rock-solid, when really, they’re about as stable as quicksand.

And it’s funny how people forget the total subjectivity of shifting before they jump on their soapbox. It’s always “um, excuse me, but you’re doing it wrong because I said so” (cue fallacies or their utter lack of shifting knowledge). Arguing with keyboard warriors? Beyond pointless. Block, move on, and don’t waste a second on that nonsense. I’m here for real debates, not this mess.

They’re obsessed with CR and all its baggage but claim they’re “moving on” or “not living in the old story.” Yet the second someone ages down or changes race, they lose their minds. Shifting is all about infinite possibilities, but they’re too busy being mad over CR norms to see it. It’s beyond limiting, and if they keep letting CR baggage control them, they’re going to miss out on everything shifting has to offer.

If they’re so into talking about the 4D and living in their imagination, they should start seeing CR as just an old story that they can move beyond. They need to stop letting random opinions on Tumblr—or anywhere—control them. Block, focus on your journey, and stop wasting energy on what others think. All this complaining? It’s useless. Shifters who are busy policing others are missing what really matters—their own dreams and their own lives. Educate yourself, pick up a book, find something meaningful for your shifting journey, and stop letting some random on the internet ruin your day.

At the end of the day, live in the present. Observe the past, but don’t let it control you. If you’re aware of yourself as consciousness, nothing can truly hurt you—not people, not opinions, not CR drama. Your CR self might feel the sting, but you? You’re a consciousness, moving beyond bodies and histories. Life, consciousness, and reality never end. When you shift, your CR self wraps up one story and moves on to the next adventure.

In the end, it’s not about any one method being the answer. It’s about awareness and knowing every method has potential. I can live in my Desired Reality just by embracing my imagination and moving past limited senses. Thanks for recognizing that—here’s hoping more people catch on soon. It’s time to stop treating CR like it’s the center of the universe and start seeing the limitless possibilities of shifting.

[sugarstarlights]

What's the hardest thing you've learned over the last year?

Really the hardest part of this question is narrowing down my long-term memory to the past year, ha. Hm..now that I think about it, it's really been uncomfortably sinking in for a while how much some of my 'coping mechanisms' were just doing what my god wanted and hollowing me out. The logic I had behind all of them made sense at the time and felt like my own, but it all came back around to what they intentionally conditioned into me. Doing shit like punishing myself for having feelings and turning off when nobody needed me was just forcing myself through lessons they didn't even have to pull strings to inflict and making things worse exactly the way they wanted even though they can no longer so much as look at me.

They didn't /make/ me do those things or even directly suggest them, though, I came up with, enacted, and clung to these horrible habits myself. It's. Really, really hard to understand that what I did to myself was an enormous mistake I can never take back, fully my responsibility, and every argument for what I was doing something to regret, without deeply hurting and hating myself for what I've done. I've been working for a while not to hate myself but it's a struggle to consolidate that with this. ..All the spite in the multiverse won't fix what happened. I tried self-spite, and suffering, to fix things, for way too long, it obviously didn't work, that was hard to grasp too, sunk cost fallacy. I want to tell myself it was all still correct, somehow, in some way, to feel better about being so stubborn, but I can't argue with the people who care about me anymore. But I feel like such an idiot for defending it in retrospect. Even as I'm learning to love my present self and having an easier and well-supported time with /not/ doing this stupid self-destructive bullshit it's a struggle to convince myself that despite those mistakes being my own faulty, ignorant choices, I can't. Blame myself for it like I feel such a strong need to. Spite won't fix what happened, and I can't punish myself anymore. It hurts a lot more than it should to live with my mistakes.

So..I guess the answer, more succinctly, is that the hardest thing I've learned in the past year is learning and consolidating that. I made extended, terrible mistakes of my own choosing that furthered my god's agenda, hurt me and the people around me more than anyone deserved. With the idea of being allowed to forgive myself, move on, and be happy. Which is hard enough already, for everything I /originally/ believed I'd done to deserve it all. I have to learn from the mistakes that led to my pain but not blame myself. It doesn't sound like it should be difficult but the clear line between the me who did these things and the me who knows better doesn't help. ..I have to forgive myself for more than I thought I did. I'm still learning how, but I think I'm almost there. I hope I am, at least.

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Accused of Arrogance

I enjoy intellectual conversations and socratic-esque discussions so much more than small talk and aimless conversations. Despite my preference, I am capable of small talk— I just slowly die inside. Yet I am cursed with being called arrogant. No matter what intricate string of words I craft, no matter how docile my question sounds, the moment I critically challenge someone is the same moment a logical conversation becomes personal? Good heavens isn't this a special kind of hell.

I am, once again, gracing my grievances with a post full of complaints.

People find me arrogant. I can be proven wrong; I can make mistakes; and I can recognize this margin of error. If anything, I seek to make it as small as possible. This is why I always seek that challenge that sharpens my thinking and points out things I failed to see or establish.

People always argue that I need to know when I should criticize and when I shouldn't. I also learned from my rookie mistakes that being the first shot doesn't guarantee the blow. If anything, it is an announcement— a blowhorn of your own progress. Among other things, this is why I keep to myself.

Hence, when people start asking for me to speak only to be on the receiving end of an accusation less based on reality and appropriate context, I am absolutely and utterly pissed about it. As much as I am pissed with yes-men and sorry-men.

Do not apologize for learning when someone critiques you with something you can work on. Do not just agree and say yes to every information. Moreover, do not use your feelings and personal matter as a shield for everything— even deflecting the good things.

But let me define arrogance as I have defined humility. Arrogance is dominating over someone else with non-substantial or fabricated claims or putting one's self-importance and impact above others by means of overestimation.

I am the person who tends to be precise to a fault. Even my goals, my present moment skills, and the orchestration of my forward life plan are precise in respect of what I want to be and what I am now. So when I am called arrogant and I, like any accused, would ask for evidence only to find irrelevant emotions.

I acknowledge the chances of people losing their cool and/or having an off-day. I understand this, and I also have such chances. If anything, those are what I usually apologize for. Forcing myself when I am not in a good state of mind; letting my restraint loose; all of which, I would understand.

However, in the interest of my complaints, I highlight the people those individuals that have the gall— the audacity— to call me arrogant for giving constructive criticism, for answeing their question, and for defending someone who is unjustly accused.

That is the aggravating part. If you are butthurt for being proven wrong, if you had no clapback after a retaliation to your challenge, do not start appealing to pity. It's not going to work on me, and I have been used to social exile because of my coldness and cruelty. I keep my principles, I will not fall for an informal fallacy, nor will I fall for weaponization of emotions.

I can apologize for maybe losing my cool and having raised my voice, but I will not apologize because I made someone cry. Truth hurts, I cry about it too, but I am not so shameless to solicit pity, so my mistake would be excused. Like everyone, I seek to be understood; but unlike everyone, I only seek to be understood by those who want to do so.

[thepowerisyouth]

Hot take: if a person agrees that logic is a generally correct problem solving methodology, and yet fails to deny any of these postulates as true, then they will have to accept capitalism is inherently 'evil', and that a collectivism is the only way to not literally all die in the anthropocene.

Yes, that statement implies I am attempting to write a mathematical/scientific proof which can undeniably be used to deconstruct every capitalist argument. Deal with it. Still a draft, but I'm posting because its already long. Feel free to give suggestions. No, please give me suggestions

I actually believe this might work, because convincing irrational people that their arguments are fallacies is bascially what cognitive behavioral therapy is all about

Content included in discussion: death, sustainability, good, evil, (more to come)

1. All life is precious.

-Precious can be defined different ways but its important to use this term, and I think to me what it means is that we must grieve any loss of life. Grief is not easily defined, but this is an absolute rule to follow.

Precisely defining grieve as the philosophy sees it is on my to-write list

-Its still not clear what life is either, so when doubt exists we should assume something is alive. This is because I really believe it's a fallacy, a punch to the face, to deny public discourse its chance to run its course if there is any shadow of a doubt. Science believes all answers must be sought out over a period of time, and to never stop questioning

------------

2. All 'non-life' is precious too

-because every resource is, in fact, finite in the universe. And we want to keep sustaining the entire universe as long as possible so we should assume every resource is absolutely finite in case there is any shadow of a doubt of a resource being 'infinite'.

-this argument, for purposes of this argument, is not seeking to define life. Atoms seem to me like they are also alive, okay? I think its more about using what most people can commonly understand as life, and reinforcing that both are precious. Its just easier for people to agree that 'life' is precious first, than use that first assumption to prove this second one

-we can prove that 'non-life', as might be commonly defined, is inherently essential to our survival. Best evidence is global warming, so a million things to go on there.

I believe these arguments prove we can apply our argument of things being 'precious' to 'non-life', using our 1st postulate and knowledge of the universe, as well as effects of global warming, to prove the 2nd postulate is true too

------------------

If all life is precious, and we grieve, it really starts to raise some 'why' questions, doesnt it?

------------------

3. Homo sapien sapiens are inherently empathetic creatures, and so are other animals that exhibit provable signs of empathy

-Defining empathy is hard. What's hard is that we all know what it feels like to 'experience' empathy, but feelings are hard to communicate. Will come back to this

- It is possible, although not proven, that because of genetic mutations a person might possibly be born without actual empathy.

-Christians call this type of person the anti-christ, a literal spawn of satan. Does the literal spawn of satan exist on earth? We don't know, we haven't proven it yet.

-Ive thought a lot about if my 3rd postulate should be thrown out by basis of example of people being, well. Fucking 'evil' with their actions. People make me sick sometimes.

-But I think it's important to at least acknowledge for arguments sake that a baby cannot be evil. That would be a scary goddamn baby. Humans are not, by 'nature', an 'evil creature'

In case some weirdo says a baby is evil-- It is a fallacy to believe a baby is born evil, because if all 'evil' people should be 'locked up' as I think most people would agree, than believing a baby is evil would make a person argue for locking babies up.

That notion sounds fucking evil to me dude idk about you

--------------

So-- why do humans act evil if they are not born evil? (Such as my hypothetically baby-locking-up person)

--------------

4. Homo sapien sapien's are capable of learning to be 'evil' as basically any point from birth until death, but at varying speeds of learning of course

-I have to define evil now. That's hard. What's even harder is that we all know what evil feels like. I think theres probably a million evil things in the world I can point out. All of those things would be evidence that there is evil in the world, however it would not give us a framework for determining evil

- I'm actually going to come back to this one. I think I'm satisfied, for now, in saying that most people who read this will know, intuitively, what evil feels like

-I guess I should double back and reinforce that my #4 postulate is true by example. Humans are not born evil, but we do see evil humans in the world, therefore, it follows that humans must learn at some point in their life to be evil

‐----------

5. Humans can learn to be 'good'

-Same issue with defining 'good' as with 'evil'. Yatta yatta, we all know what good feels like, I'll finish defining the framework later in the argument & fix this quick explanation later

-If someone doesnt support this notion, than they must also support the notion that 'therapy doesnt work', or more specifically, that there is such thing as a person who is 'untreatable' by therapy

-I do not believe the above is true, that a person 'cant change', and trust me when I say I am soooo confident about this. My proof is by example: "have you ever met a person ever, who didnt change in any way"?

-Because if you have not ever met such a person, as in a person who has never, ever changed their belief once, than there is no evidence by example that any person 'cant change'.

Every person you have ever met, that has changed at least once, is a key bit of evidence in support of postulate #5. Without evidence of people who have never changed, it becomes clear where the majority of evidence lies.

--------------

6. Being efficient is better for society than being non efficient

-i felt weird just writing that down and thinking someone would disagree-- but here we are in the year-of-our-lord-arguing-2024

- I dont feel like justifying this postulate now, but I need to soon because it's one of the pieces of my proof

-evidence by example is the way to go here. If you pick the right examples, it would be really hard for a person to obviously, sensibly tell you that 'more waste' is better than 'less waste'.

‐-----------

7. Collective intelligence is greater than individual intelligence

-mountains of evidence-- democracy being everyone's easiest to think about, if they dont already agree

-heres my thought-experiment evidence:

-"Is it possible, that if we sent a human baby out in space, never to interact with us again, that it would figure out all of scientific thought? Every single advancement in science would be re-created by this baby in a spaceship?"

-"no, that is probably impossible. It is almost certain that baby would die within its first week, and definitely unimaginable to assume this baby would figure out its way back to earth and be the greatest thinker to ever exist"

-I argue that if you believe that an individual always knows better than a collective, you must also support my idea of an evil-genius-spaceship-baby

-that should clear up most dissent to this 7th postulate

---------

---------

Time to get even wilder. I was raised Christian. I am not anymore. Please forgive me for using only Christian terms I'm familiar with for this next discussion. I'm trying to reconcile the ideals of Christians with the ideals of socialism.

I do think most of the Christian ideals are logical, and common sense. That is to say that these ideals reconcile with my overall framework here.

I also think theres a few really toxic parts of Christianity that can be scrutinized, and logically thrown out from our philosophical framework under false assumptions or something else. Lets give it a shot

8. No one, single mortal man is 'God' on Earth

-I define God as any being which is 'absolutely omnipotent, all powerful, and of probably infinite lifespan'

-the idea of jesus doesnt break this argument because, as I believe, the ideology goes that Jesus was not 'God' while on Earth, but merely a mortal man who wanted to join God up above. So if anything, believing in Jesus supports this idea because even that fucker wasnt God either while walking the Earth

-For all of us that, like me, arent Christian, let me explain why I believe this argument is still very true to us

-let me say first that I only became comfortable, personally, with a lot of the reasons for why the bible says what it says about God, only when I thought of it this way

-God isnt real. As in, there is not a literal, physical magical wizard flying in space who can wave a wand and make shit happen.

-God is, in fact, a theoretical ideal of what human enlightenment looks like which was thought up several millenia ago, and has since throughout history been misinterpreted (probably from lack of available evidence), and blended with the ideals of 'Satan', or 'Evil'. And I really think, the more I look at it this way, that the more things make sense.

-When you think of God as being the exact same thing as enlightenment idealogy, it helps our postulate by fitting it with the saying "no one is free until we are all free".

------------

-which is to say, no one mortal man is God on earth until we all can become 'Gods' on earth, i.e. fully, absolutely enlightened

-god how well this framework, just, well... works

- Heaven: conceptual place where enlightened society can exist

- Hell: conceptual place where the anti-thesis to enlightened society exists

-Earth: conceptual place where humans learn to become enlightened

Guys lemme just say now-- its becoming clearer and clearer to me that we can actually disprove all non-enlightment ideals as literally "Satanist", and then argue for our point better than most Christians--because it makes logical sense given the additional information, the collective evidence of science & history, which society holds today

-Most 'bad ideals' that christians have make more sense if you think of the fact that every christian institution has been led by a 'prophet', who nobody can actually prove if they are acting in their own self interest, or 'God's'

-time for another postulate number I think

---------

9. It is impossible to prove that such a person exists on Earth who is acting as a 'sole communicator for God', i.e. a prophet

-people say they are prophets all the time. People lie

-actually, you know who lies best? Satan. Satan lies really really well, according to the Bible.

-theres more here to write about. I think I want to expand on the idea that you can prove that the behaviors of a prophet better aligns with Satanist ideals, than Godly ones, because of the withholding of information that is provable among prophets throughout history

-if a prophet does not provide its collective society with all possible information, than it is a fallacy to accept both the principles of an informed democracy, and also that a prophet for 'God' can exist on Earth

-it is NOT a fallacy to support the ideals of democracy and also that a prophet for 'Satan' does exist and it lies to people and says its supporting 'Godly' notion

-it is also NOT a fallacy to support the notion of a facist dictatorship, and also the idea of a prophet for God existing. Important point here that someone can easily hold these two beliefs and they dont contradict each other, unlike with democracy ideals

-guys I just now understood the holy trinity: God (collective intelligence, logic, absolute truth); Holy Spirit (our very valid feelings about our beliefs); Jesus (individuals more enlightened than us, who teach & bring us closer to God)

-however, as I should point out. I am firmly not a christian. I am ex-mormon. I am trying to reconcile the beliefs of a Christian with my own, by dismissing certain beliefs as fallacy, and redefining what I need to, until it works out

-the way I see it, Ive pretty firmly solidified my own notion, that Chrisitan beliefs are firmly socialist. I read the top of my post and realize I still need to finish all the way back up to Capitalism

---------

END OF FIRST POSTULATE SET

Time for supporting evidence of the 'master postulates' of this theorum. I should point out that these bits of evidence are also, in fact, postulates which much be scrutinized under the same framework. However, I am drawing a line as I think the ones about here are more umbrella postulates, while I'm starting to get more specific

6. Global warming is a urgent, life threatening issue to humans

-I mentioned global warming above, so I realized that yes, a person does need to believe in this idea, as its the biggest supporting evidence of postulate #2, which is a key part of my overall argument

-however, a person does not need to say they agree to global warming 'at first glace'. They only need to agree with global warming when its under the definition I use below

-I define global warming, for the sake of this argument, as "human worsened climate". I really think thats a more accurate framing of the issue at hand with global warming.

-So for my argument I only need someone who can agree both that humans are not optimally living in our environment, as in we are 'harming' our environment, and they agree that this is an issue which is starting to affect us every day (natural disasters from weakening jet stream)

-once all of these

Climate is complex, and no one issues creates everything is does, but it is undeniable to me

[scienter]

I got something for you, so I'm sure you're aware that one of the arguments KCers used was Klaus "picked" Caroline first. I remember back in S7 there was an itw with JP and she was talking about Caroline and the pilot and said something like "We've set her up that in a way she'll get picked first in the end" which was true, Stefan walked away from Damon. There was a KCer who commented and said "She was already picked first by Klaus but you never did anything with it." Even though Caroline grew way beyond that insecure girl we first saw, since the pilot was referenced KCers always left out one key component of that. Caroline said "How come the guys that I want never want me?" It wasn't about her just being "picked first", it was about her being picked first by the guy that she wants, there's a big difference.

I mean let's flip this around on someone else. We all know Katherine loved both brothers but when it came down to it her choice was Stefan, like she said "It was always Stefan." However, never did I hear anyone say Stefan should be with Katherine because he was her "first choice." I'm sorry but don't both Stefan and Caroline get a say in their love lives and who they want to be with? Why was it ok for Stefan to choose not to be with Katherine but it wasn't ok for Caroline to choose not to be with Klaus? Like seriously, how does that work? Like out here in the real world, there's people that I liked who didn't like me back and vice versa, that's life, it's about finding the person where you're right for each other. AKA Steroline!

Omg. I remember that argument. It was such a weak argument (there's a logical fallacy in there somewhere). "Caroline should be with Klaus because she was his first choice." Um . . . okay except Caroline's character growth is about not needing outside validation to feel good about herself. Caroline's character arc on the show is learning to feel confident and secure in her own worth. And by the time Klaus arrived in Mystic Falls, she was. She wasn't looking to be anyone's first choice because she wasn't insecure anymore. Season 4 Caroline is a different character than season 1 Caroline.

And your Klaroline/Stefarine comparison is a good one. I've always thought that the Klaus & Katherine parallels were deliberate, including their attraction (both romantic and platonic) to Stefan and Caroline. Yet, I don't ever recall anyone arguing that Stefarine should be together because Stefan was Katherine's first choice.

I don't begrudge anyone shipping Klaus and Caroline. To each their own, you know. But if someone is going to make an argument for a ship (and flood my inbox with it as many of them did when TVD aired) then at least pay attention to character development.

[train-wreck-of-thought]

Somebody posted something dumb on Twitter, so I wrote a short essay about it.

Last week, a right-wing Twitter user recounted the visceral disgust they felt on discovering a former partner’s “body count.” He pointed to that disgust as proof that “body count standards run deeper than ‘social conditioning.’” Many users understood him to be arguing his disgust for women who’ve had “too many” sexual partners is natural and, by extension, morally justified. I think this illustrates a few common themes in right-wing moralism. There’s a term for the Twitter user’s line of reasoning — the Wisdom of Repugnance. Defined as “the belief that an intuitive (or ‘deep-seated’) negative response to some thing, idea, or practice should be interpreted as evidence for the intrinsically harmful or evil character of that thing,” Wikipedia explains that the idea “has been criticized, both as an example of a fallacious appeal to emotion and for an underlying premise which seems to reject rationalism.” The article further explains that, “although mainstream science concedes that a sense of disgust most likely evolved as a useful defense mechanism . . . social psychologists question whether the instinct can serve any moral or logical value when removed from the context in which it was originally acquired.” The idea (at least, as argued by the Twitter user) fits into the broader field of prescriptive evolutionary ethics. A normative ethical theory, it attempts to discern moral truths (that is, how people ought to behave) based on evolutionary biology. The Twitter user’s line of reasoning shares this field with Social Darwinism, the theory that communities are and/or should be subject to natural selection. The theory has no shortage of criticisms, but of particular relevance is that it’s an appeal to nature. I believe this criticism applies to many if not all theories of prescriptive evolutionary ethics — including, in particular, the Twitter user’s. In saying his reaction is moral because it’s natural, the Twitter user begs the question — why should we equate “natural” and “good”? I suffer from bipolar disorder. As such, I’m “naturally” prone to mood swings. However, my psychiatrist and I agree that this isn’t “good,” so I take mood stabilizers. Further, depending on how “natural” is defined, the argument may prove too much. If poorly defined, an appeal to nature may carry absurd implications, such as that diseases, for being “natural,” are “good” or that their treatments, for being “unnatural,” are “bad.” However, I think this case is interesting in the nature of its unwitting implication. The Twitter user argued that his condemnation for his former partner (presumably, along with the general stigmatization of women who’ve had “too many partners”) is morally justified because it’s in line with a supposedly natural feeling of disgust. However, humans “naturally” enjoy sex. As such, one could argue the “body count” of the Twitter user’s former partner is just as in line with nature as his condemnation therefor. In this case, the inadvertent implication isn’t absurd; it’s contradictory to the point being argued. The Twitter user’s line of reasoning parallels another right wing line of reasoning — right down to the self-defeating implication. Many on the right describe homosexuality as “disgusting.” Some among them consider this indicative of its immorality. When questioned, many will argue prescriptive evolutionary ethics — carrying with it the underlying appeal to nature and the self-defeating implication that homosexuality, for occurring in nature, is moral. I believe this is a meaningful coincidence. Disgust sensitivity is associated with conservatism. In line with this, the Wisdom of Repugnance is commonly used to argue right wing morals. However, being a theory of prescriptive evolutionary ethics, the argument makes an implicit appeal to nature — and with it, absurd or self-defeating implications.

[humansanimalsplants]

Week 2: Biocentrism

Biocentrism is the doctrine that views all life as deserving of equal ethical and moral standing, this is due to the inherent value that all living things possess independently of their function or utility to others. According to this point of view, nature is as deserving to be considered and respected as human beings are. It directly opposes anthropocentric views which view humans as separate and superior beings. 

Unfortunately, biocentrism is not the view that most people have held up in recent times. According to Cronon, the attribute of nature that makes it “natural” and “wild” is just a romantic illusion constructed by humans. What we still believe to be an unscathed and untouched environment is fantasy that we have created by ourselves to believe that there is still a part of the planet out there where the problems of modern society have not been able to infiltrate yet. We do not attribute value to nature because of its intrinsic properties, but rather on the account of the services that nature provides to us. This is because while we do seek nature as a refuge from our daily lives, we also see it as something far away from us, alienated. Something that does not concern ourselves and it’s why it is so easy to make it our place of escape. According to Cronon, both the natural and social worlds we live in should feel like home, we should find a way for these two realms to coexist within ourselves since they are actually intertwined and are already both part of our reality.

While Cronon offers a more theoretical framework of what our attitude towards nature should be or aspire to be, Paul Taylor starts from a philosophical level and descends into a more empirical perspective. According to Taylor the only ethical system that can be deemed complete is one that encompasses “respect for nature.” He argues that living things “are now viewed as the appropriate objects of the attitude of respect and are accordingly regarded as entities possessing inherent worth.” As composed of living things, nature therefore is invested of this value and is deserving of the protection and promotion of their good that comes with it. Taylor bases his point in Kant’s logic but adopts a little twist to it. According to Kant, people need to be treated as ends and not means, this means that they can’t just be used for personal benefit but are worthy of moral respect as rational beings that are recognized as such. In Kant’s view, rationality and morality stand on the same plane and can be considered synonyms, and this is the part that Taylor interpreted differently. Taylor takes the rationality of the equation and advocates for an “adoption of perspective,” he argues that Kant’s notion should be expanded to all living things, and that we can do so by trying to understand what’s good for other species’ survival and flourishing. After all, they also strive for something. This should be the ultimate purpose of humans when trying to develop a new ethical system and set of moral rules that will embrace all the inhabitants of this Earth. 

Personally, I believe that I am also at fault for furthering this notion of humans being at the top of the pyramid with all other living beings located at the bottom. Even if not actively trying to harm other beings, I have never reflected much on what inherent worth other beings such as animals and plants should be deserving of since I have mostly been thinking of the natural world as a set of commodities, which is a fallacy in itself considering how much we rely from resources produced by nature for our survival. To better understand where biocentrism is coming from I bought a plant that I could keep in my room every day, and I tended for it for a couple of weeks before realizing that I grew attached to it, I wanted this plant to grow and thrive every day, and not because it was useful to me in any practical way but because I cared for it and I thought it as having a conscience of its own. Feeling aside, how is my plant different from any other plant growing on our planet? Simple, it is not. So if my plant is deserving of my respect, then perhaps it’s time to grant it to other forms of life too. 

[starberrywander]

Logic should absolutely be a required subject in all schools. And I don't mean it in a "dear god humanity is stupid and no one has common sense anymore" way. I mean it in a "we are in a misinformation crisis because very few people are equipped with the necessary skills to responsibly navigate the content made available by the internet" way. Not only should it be a required class, but it should be designed to require that students be able to apply the information they learn, not just to memorize facts and definitions that they're gonna forget as soon as they leave the class. Like, everyone who graduates school in the modern day should have the ability to accurately and consistently identify logical fallacies and manipulation tactics. Students should be able to recognize logical fallacies, describe why they are invalid logically, and identify how they can be used manipulatively. Rhetoric should get more than just a handful of surface level lessons and small projects in English class. Students should have to study rhetoric and rhetorical devices in depth, not just presented as a way to make a compelling argument but also as something to recognize so you are aware of what speeches are trying to make you feel and think about the topic at hand. Rhetoric is always taught as, "here's how you write a compelling speech and effectively argue your point!" very rarely is it acknowledged that rhetoric appeals to your feelings to try to make you believe a certain thing. It is a tool of manipulation, plain and simple. Even when it isn't being used maliciously, people should be aware of its intention to evoke specific feelings and shape perceptions. The tactics used by manipulators should be discussed thoroughly. Not just so that students can recognize abusive individuals in their life, but also so they can recognize abusive and manipulative groups in the public space. Even if it takes multiple classes. A full semester of study on each area of the topic. This needs to be taught in modern schools. There is no way around the fact that people can now freely share all their thoughts with the whole world in just a few seconds. We can't change that fact so we have to adapt to it. We cannot have an honest or peaceful world if we do not teach everyone how to recognize manipulation before they fall victim to it.

[jzhwritingaboutlove]

Love is Deception (Week 3)

Love is deception’s child but is more real than anything. Two strangers, two faces, two lonely souls cross paths by chance on one occasion and decide to become closer. If love at first sight is indeed true, then love is concentrated and the most intense in that one moment, one second, one exchange of the eyes. When Alice meets Dan on that busy and crowded street of London, love and passion sprout. But this sentiment faints inevitably throughout time, reducing love to a lie when the relationship perseveres, not because love is inherently deception but because people change and differ from who they are in that one exact moment when love happens. 

​​Matthews presents many historical arguments around the nature of love at first sight and its reliability. In the early 19th century, scholars like Hazlitt argue that love at first sight is a powerful erotic reality but unreliable for perception and evaluation of another’s character (Matthews 433). Although Hazlitt also concedes that people often have an intuitive second sight where we can “discern the lurking indications of temper and habit a long while before their palpable effects appear,” love at first sight, from his perspective, seems to be less about a genuine connection but an erotic intoxication where people can later on confirm their previously held fantasies (Matthews 433). Hazlitt’s stance is met with much defense from other scholars. Hunt argues that love at first sight is “not simply a license for promiscuity, but conducive to proper selection of a partner” (Matthews 436). This derives from Eldred’s contention that love at first sight is the “discovery of a woman who sufficiently corresponds to an internal male fantasy” while this young desire is a natural detector of female goodness (Matthews 437). These other scholars thus create a new erotic epistemology where desire from love at first sight contains not just superficial ornamentation but also a sense of moral beauty where it is the traits that “ensure the applause of the world” that spark desire between the sexes (Matthews 439). Love at first sight hence even can be argued to be the “cure to the ails of modern civilization”, the way to find the most compatible pairings where both parties can see the “goodness” in each other (Matthews 439). The continuous discussion of different scholars shapes love at first sight from something of a selfish endeavor to a passion that progresses civilization, something bigger than the individual.

Despite such rigorous debate across history, I find such arguments around love at first sight filled with logical fallacies that can be challenged. First, if love at first sight is about fulfilling a preexisting fantasy and men have a natural detector for this fantasy and “goodness,” what is this fantasy exactly built on when people grow up without direct experiences of romance? If it is not built on direct engagement and interaction, how can we be sure that a fantasy built on personal imagination actually consists of the “cure” to civilization? Such fantasies likely can be impractical or filled with the male gaze and their objectification of what women should be like. Therefore, to say that love at first sight is the fulfillment of a personal fantasy actually means that it is nothing but selfish. It is to find someone that fits your particular mold of novelty and satisfaction, just like how someone finds an ideal car or a dream house- the fantasy is rather one-sided and self-serving. The argument around finding a compatible pairing and serving the greater society thus does not seem logically valid. So, what does love at first sight really mean to love?

Closer suggests that relationships built on love at first sight are hard to last because people who believe in love at first sight often do not feel an emotional attachment to one particular individual but to the concept and feeling of falling in love at first sight, making that love easily transferrable. A relationship, different from an exciting first encounter, requires effort to maintain. Yet, when the basis of a relationship is nothing but an initial spark, this preservation would be challenging and arduous. From the film, I see two ways of preservation. The first is to do anything to preserve the initial spark, to pretend that the spark is still present even though it is only true to that particular moment. We see Alice creating a fake persona, yet she still appears to be the most sincere because she only deceives wishing to maintain the love she initially feels, to maintain that fulfillment of her female fantasy.  The second way is subscribing to the assumption that this pairing is compatible no matter what. It is another type of deception, a way to convince oneself that the nature of this relationship is not impulsive and possibly hormonal attraction but rather mutual appreciation and admiration of character and traits. We see this in Larry and Anna, where Anna, possibly due to her identity as a photographer, tends to present herself differently from her mind. Used to capturing and presenting lies in a picture frame, she habitually hides or denies her actual feelings towards Larry and attempts to reach a level of sincerity and loyalty, ironically through self-deception. She approaches her relationship with guilt and self-criticism. The second way seems more common in marriages because marriage seems more binding and demanding. Larry is filled with bodily lust; Anna is troubled by guilt; Dan seems childish and fickle and chases novelty. What keeps these three people to their respective relationships is all not a genuine and deep attraction to their partners but something external. They all enjoy a rendezvous, an adrenaline rush with someone that meets their desires, but that is possibly all they want. Alice, though deceptive, is the most loyal to her feelings and love itself. She deceives because she firmly believes in love, in what she felt when she first met Dan and wants to preserve that. 

Therefore, it seems to me that love at first sight might possibly be real love but it is only the most real and true to itself in that fleeting moment of spark and does not necessarily lead to a conducive and compatible pairing for society as the scholars argue. The idea of the excitement felt from love at first sight exceeds the love for the other person and thus the maintenance of love at first sight almost inevitably involves some level of deception. 

[punkkeeblerelf]

I don't really have time to waste yelling at people online anymore, but I will say thia

1) I never implied you were crazy. I implied you are deluded and self centered, yes, but not crazy. We are all deluded and self centered at times. Stop letting it cloud your judgement.

2) I'm sorry that happened to you, but I'm glad you can acknowledge why you made the choices you did. However, I must ask that you stop projecting your own experience onto other people and other situations. Rich coming from the person who compared your behavior to mine, I know, but I feel like we can at least acknowledge a difference between consciously comparing distinct behavior/actions and projecting broad identities/behavior patterns

3) people respond like that because it's so so complicated and frustrating and tiring trying to explain things to people who are so far down the opposite thought path. Imagine if you will, a full blown adult man running up to you and saying the world is flat. You try your hardest to explain it to him, but every time you start trying you get confused. Because most people aren't geologists or physicist or whatever the hell the name is. Most people, most leymen, have a very basic understanding of why the world is round. They know it's the truth, and they understand it, but they can't quite explain it. Because to teach something, you need a far better understanding of it than most people have. Or, you need high articulation. And, most people here it seems are trans. It gets REALLY tiring arguing your validity and right to exist to people. You should understand if you're the feminist you claim to be. Do you have time to explain to every foolish man who makes a rude comment at you that women are deserving of rights and respect? No, I didn't think so. And call me a crazy woke leftnut or whatever, but I don't think people should *have* to do that. Especially since, in every single post I've found, you are arguing in extremely bad faith. You rely mostly on logical fallacies and clever "gotcha" moments that aren't really that clever when you get down to it. You strawman arguments like "sex and gender are different" to "sex isn't real", you ask loaded questions that rely on semantics for YOUR answer but will not engage with any opposing semantics or philosophy, deciding on your own that this is a scientific/biological debate despite it being cut and dry social psychology, and not to make this too much of a run on sentence but you also have a tendency to jump to conclusions, use red herrings/anecdotal incidents to falsely imply there's some kind of correlation or broad social plague, use the "appeal to nature fallacy" like it's running out of stock, and just...... So so many other things

So let me be clear. I cannot, and will not, invalidate your own personal lived experience. I can however tell you, that what you're saying and doing right now is wrong. No matter what you've gone through, it is wrong. You are not being scholarly about it, you're weaponizing these things to suit your agenda. And it's just....... yah, idk. Not good. Were you simply someone concerned, someone who wants to genuinely hear both sides and then come to a conclusion, that's one thing. But you're not.

I'm not going to sit here and debate with you. Everything you've said, right down to WHY you say it, I used to believe, and I was wrong. I was wrong about bathrooms, I was wrong about sports, I was wrong about feminism. I can't say that you are the same way at all, because I don't know you, but I can for sure tell you that you're using incorrect data and misinterpreting things in that regard. And that's not subjective or anything either, that is a very objective statement. You continually take data and infer your own meaning, you use sources that are at best sketchy and at worst full blown propaganda. Knock it off. Get better media literacy and people will respect you more.

now that keffals is scrubbing diyhrt I'll just upload these here

[tuber-culosis]

I've been reading through a lot of radfem blogs and posts lately. and gotta say, i'm leaning a lot towards radical feminism. And im definitely gender critical.

but one topic I want to talk about in particular is the criticism of Islam.

Which I feel is totally valid considering the current state of mainstream islam and Muslims.

Mainstream Islam (is what you see on all social media, seemingly practised by a lot of Muslims) IS sexist. And homophobic. There's no use denying it, neither do I think I'm a bad Muslim for not supposedly defending my own religion. You have to recognise the flaws in your own system to improve and progress.

Then arises the question why am I still Muslim then/ why do I still practise Islam? If I recognise the way it is practised is sexist and homophobic, which are things I'm against?

The difference lies in my belief that "mainstream Islam" is much different from the root of Islam.

Many (read: a LOT, not all) modern Muslims have been influenced by ultra conservative movements that want to return Islam to the way they believe was practised during the time of the Prophet (pbuh), ie; some centuries back. This is propagated by the ideas of Salafism and Wahhabism that frankly, prevent progress, reform or any sort of growth in Muslim communities.

I personally have witnessed this in my own country, India, where women are increasingly wearing the hijab and even full body covering purdahs, not talking to the opposite gender, men not looking a woman other than their wives in the eye, etc compared to when my mother was a child, when almost all Muslim women dressed in normal comfortable clothes and there were no much gender segregations. (Gender segregation still existed to a certain degree due to conservative Indian culture ofc)

This radicalisation led to the development of ultra conservative Muslims who enforce sexist, homophobic and separatist policies in the name of God.

They claim to want to return to "true Islam" but they add so many unnecessary rules and regulations you have to follow in order to be a "true Muslim" that are almost so impossible to follow I can vouch I have unconciously broken like 50 of them in one day maybe. These "laws" are derived from:

1. The hadith

2. Arab culture

3. Poor translation of the Quran to fit these radical ideals.

Explaining each of these in a little more detail,

1. A lot of practising Muslims might come at me for this one, but I feel that considering the hadith to be a holy source of guidance and believing everything in the Hadith when there are so many contradictions and logical fallacies, is foolish.

For those who have no clue what the hadith is, Islam basically has the Qur'an, which is, as we believe, a holy book revealed by God to the Prophet (pbuh), which acts as divine guidance on how to live life as a good person. It has rules, suggestions, and guidance to take desicions on a lot of everyday matters we face. It was a godsend (hehe pun fully intended) to women, who weren't even allowed to own property back then. Muslims believe that the Quran is guaranteed againt corruption by God, as revealed in one of the verses. Therefore, to a believer, it is THE book to consult, and the verses will never change, no matter how many years pass. There's actually a really interesting way the Quran is coded, so people can know if it has been tampered with or not, if anyone is interested. But the bottom line is, for a Muslim, the verses of Quran cannot be challenged. There are various INTERPRETATIONS of said verses, but the core Arabic text is the same.

Now there is a secondary source of guidance in the form of Hadith, which is literature that claims to record things the Prophet (pbuh) has said in his lifetime. The problem I find, along with other hadith critics, is that it was compiled much later after the death of the Prophet. Muslims argue that these hadiths were passed down in a proper recorded chain of transmitters that can assure the message hasn't been altered or tampered with. The problem is, that the standard used then was just how reliable was a person's memory and how trustworthy they were, and they did not actually judge the actual content of the hadith. So even if a hadith hypothetically said "Kill all the disbelievers", (which, fyi, it does NOT) and it had a reliable chain of recorders, it would be accepted as "sahih" (trustworthy) hadith, even though it clearly goes against the guidelines of the Quran, where it says there shall be no compulsion in religion (which implies you cannot just murder anyone who refuses to believe/ believes another religion). If one actually examined the content of this imaginary hadith, it would be easy to see it's tampered with by people with or without malicious intent (for eg, it might've actually been "You can kill the disbelievers ONLY if they attack you and will not leave you and your family alone") or some may not even remotely be the words of the Prophet, as he only followed the Quran.

Also, the integrity of the Hadith isn't guaranteed by God anywhere in the Quran. To know more about this, I suggest you read this link , and this one.

So yeah, I take hadith with a (large) grain of salt. So I will not be including them in my discussion obviously.

Now a lot of these hadith have been fabricated, as established, or reflect something that was applicable specifically in that time and setting, seeing that the Prophet was an ordinary man who couldn't predict the future or know about all the different cultures of the world.

So even if the headscarf was a part of Arabian attire, that doesn't mean it has to be assimilated into our cultures now. Just because prostitutes used to pluck all their eyebrows out to signify that they are prostitutes (sex work is forbidden in Islam, because of the negative impact on women and society), doesn't mean that women are not allowed to pluck their eyebrows now.

Following these hadith blindly without considering for a moment that hey, these might be outdated, seeing it isn't meant for all time periods like the Quran, and half of these contradict themselves, maybe we shouldn't consider this as an authority on rules in Islam. Personally, I don't believe anything is forbidden that is mentioned as such solely in the Hadith, and not in the Quran.

But the staunch belief in all of these Hadith leads to micromanaging of women, and literally everyone else. Few ridiculous examples include:

women can't pluck their eyebrows

men can't wear silk or gold, and they need to grow beards

music and dance is forbidden (seriously???)

the Prophet married a literal child of nine years (no do not try to justify it as "it was acceptable back then". According to the Qur'an it wasn't. Girls had to be mature enough to reject or agree to marriages and literal children can't do that. There is plenty of research to prove that Aisha (ra), his wife, was at the very least 19 or 20. Again a case of unreliable and maybe purposefully manipulated Hadith. Scholars and people who uphold the theory that Aisha was 9, and hence, child marriage is legal are pedophiles through and through)

I feel that if anything, hadith should be considered with the authority of historical commentary, giving us more context to the times, and should never be blindly trusted just because a lot of scholars say it is a "sahih" (trusted) hadith.

Also a main feature of Islam is that you don't need an extra priest (no offence to religions who have priests) or a scholar to tell you things and intervene with God for you. You have a holy book, your own common sense and humanity, and you pray to establish a connection with God. Scholars are secondary OPINIONS who can provide insight from their knowledge and research to people who want it, but by no means any authority on things, just like hadith.

2. Arab culture and society, especially back the times that radicals want to emulate, was heavily patriarchal. Islam gave women rights and protection, but they were still limited by the cultural norms of that era.

What these people actually want is to return society to Arabic culture in that time period. (Exhibit A: the abaya/purdah for women and khandoorah for men. exhibit B: sex-segregated spaces)

Back then, women were expected to be caretakers and mothers, and men were expected to be the strong masculine protector.

Enforcing said cultural norms into modern day Islam is ridiculous. Saying that women rarely left the house back then, hence women shouldn't leave their houses now is the same as saying there weren't phones back then, so I shouldn't use one now. Would you ever give up your phones? So how about we do the same to women's autonomy and freedom? Adapt to modern times like regular humans?

If women were meant to stay at home, and meant to just rear children, and never meant to be seen in public, and never meant to be seen by the opposite sex, as extremists say "is God's will", then why is none of this found in the Quran? Do you seriously believe that God, describe multiple times as All-forgiving and generous and kind, would ever persecute women to such a fate? If you do believe that, then maybe you need to re-examine in the nature of God that you believe in. Also if you tell me the "it's for their safety" gimmick, I will flip out. It has been proved multiple times that a woman's dressing has nothing whatsoever to do with why men rape.

Sure, Islam advocates for modesty in dressing, for both sexes. Both are called to not stare rudely (many Muslim men seem to forget that part of the verse, strangely), both are advised to dress in modest, comfortable, clean and practical attire. Never once is anything remotely like "YOU'LL GO TO HELL IF YOU EXPOSE YOUR ELBOW, WOMAN". But the way modern Muslims enforce the dress code (some even going to the lengths of saying women shouldn't wear BRIGHT COLOURED CLOTHES, so as to not attract attention!!! I'm looking at you, Mufti Menk), you'd think that God says something much worse than that. Infact God pulls out Uno reverse, and encourages us to dress as beautifully as we want, especially when visiting the mosque.

3. A lot of English translations of the Quran come from Saudi Arabia. A country famous for its conservative practise of Islam. While the original Arabic text cannot be changed, a lot of these translations include information in parantheses that add "rules" based on the above mentioned factors, that a casual reader or a new Muslim who doesn't know Arabic will consider to be authentic rules of the Quran, extrapolated from the verse, and not extra additions that are often derived from hadith. A very good example of this is the headcover verse, which you can see in this link.

Even all the hostility surrounding homosexual people has been derived from cultural influences and one set of verses. From around 6000 verses, just a single set passingly mention homosexuality. Don't you think that if it truly were such a great sin, God would have explicitly forbidden it? Also why would he create such a natural variation in sexuality and then forbid it? Why isn't it forbidden for animals then? Is all-loving God that cruel to create this natural and healthy attraction in them and then explicitly forbid it when straight people get to marry and live life in bliss? (Please don't say that "God also created pedophilia, and that's natural, so by this logic shouldn't we allow that too?" because pedophilia IS NOT HEALTHY, AT ALL. IT'S IS A DISORDER. Unlike homosexuality) I'm also not picking and choosing things to fit my lifestyle, as some might say, as I am straight, and the only reason I support the LGBT community because I have basic humanity?? And they're humans who deserve rights and joy and freedom and acceptance just like the rest of us.

There have been reformed translations of Quran which examine the verse without prior bias against LGBT people, and they have presented an alternate translation, that the verse condemns sexual assault, which happened to be homosexual in the particular story. Check out this link too, which explains how closely examining the words used could change the meaning from one thing to another.

What I attempted to prove in this extremely long post is that the practise of a religion isn't necessarily the reflection of its true nature.

There are progressive open-minded people who believe in Islam because it gives them hope and solace. People who believe because core beliefs of Islam aligned with their own views and simple logic.

NOT to say there aren't religious bigots who will totally use religion to manipulate people into oppressing themselves or other people. There are, there are a LOT of people like that who call themselves "scholars". And there are a lot of people who follow these extremely harmful regressive version of Islam without critically thinking about what they are following.

I've seen a post discussing the meaning of the word Islam, which means submission to God. It said that it implies total submission, without questioning what we believe.

That is an argument used by both religious extremists to further their beliefs, and by the opposite side, who say the religion is oppressive.

I wish to present a view that Islam itself tells us to think critically, to use our brains to question everything and anything we believe. And then to arrive at our own conclusions. And if you're a decent, kind human, those beliefs maybe align with Islam (not saying that if you're not Muslim, you're horrible, that is not what I meant at all). And if the opinion between people differs, there's always logic and reasoning behind every rule that is presented in the Quran. Don't believe me? Here's the verse that tells people not to blindly follow their parents' religion. And here's a list of verses about critical thinking.

The reason we (atleast reformist Muslims) submit to God is because we questioned it, we came to the conclusion that Hey! This is right. I can submit to my Creator by, who is basically the consciousness that created everything and is the source of all goodness, love and strength, because the rules mentioned here make sense and they privde a moral framework for me to base important desicions on. They feel right. And there is logic behind everything written in this.

I don't mean to present Islam as an all-perfect amazing religion everyone should believe and that I'm right, everyone else, especially those liberal atheists who criticise my religion are wrong and WILL BURN IN HELL. I consider Islam a perfect moral framework, and that's my business only. Anyone can follow what they want and it's none of my business. In fact there is no compulsion in religion at all, and people who say Muslim or go to hell are wrong imo.

What I intended was to paint a picture of reformist Muslims who are still out there, who follow the religion because they questioned it. And not the religion as this stringent rule book we all have to follow down to a t, micromanaging every aspect of our lives and living in perpetual fear of hell, but rather this basic moral guide that teaches us tact, compassion and justice, to bring us closer to God spiritually. I wanted to show that the majority isn't always reflective of what I think is the true core of Islam.

I feel that many practises in the name of Islam are highly questionable and should be criticized, but I also want people to know that the people who seemingly represent the religion, are not representative of the entire mass of believers. That sometimes the practises you might criticize might have nothing to do with the actual religion, atleast according to some of us. It was also for fellow Muslims who might be in the same place I was a few years ago, questioning everything I had learnt was part of my religion.

This is also NOT to undermine struggles of people forced to follow Islam and its seeming requirements like hijab. This is not to claim that nope, every Muslim is fine and ok, and we're all peaceful progressive people. In fact I wish to do the exact opposite, to show that people who enforce oppressive policies in the name of Islam aren't actually backed by the religion and neither should they be backed by other Muslims. I'm also not trying to say no one should criticize Islam. Criticism helps us grow. Criticism is necessary to uncover oppression and eradicate it. So by all means, criticize.

I'm so glad I found the subreddit r/progressive_Islam when I did because it helped me a lot, and opened me to other like-minded progressive Muslims, who actively hope to counter the negative effects of Salafism and conservatism that is overtaking Islam.

So yeah, I think I covered almost everything I wanted to talk about and here's a final link that pretty much just states my position on things.

PS idk why this thingy is in different colours it just seemed cooler and less boring to read

[coldgoldlazarus]

May i ask for some more tea about that Magical Girl campaign? I hope its not rude, but you can't say "Magical Girls GTA" without some anectodotes about their shenanigans.

Alright ^^;

So for a bit of context, the setting is this tropical island in the Pacific, that was first discovered (uninhabited) under some weird circumstances in 2027. The campaign takes place in 2072, after the island has been built on and commercialized; the north half is mostly protected nature reserves and smaller towns, but the southern half is almost all city and suburbs and whatnot.

And like, there's some weird conspiracy stuff going on on the down-low, but as far as the general public is concerned it's all peaceful and happy, with the tourists being the worst thing they have to deal with lol. There are some sketchier neighborhoods where people aren't as well-off, and there are some rich assholes who have seasonal getaway homes with private beaches in other spots, but for the most part, very nice and chill.

Anyway, so recently the group found this old underground trainyard, a failed project from the early years of settling the island, and decided to use it as a base. (since up until this point they'd been meeting in one of the characters' college dorm, not the most ideal arrangement.) Problem is, being an old abandoned underground trainyard, it's not the most comfy and livable of places, and they're all broke college students.

So one of them came up with a plan to rob somewhere, and then use the money from that to buy furniture from the local IKEA. Initially it sounded like they were going to go after one of the rich neighborhoods, but then realized that might wind up being more of an issue long-term than they'd like; better to go after somewhere where the police wouldn't care about at all. (Unfortunately the island does still have police. They're not US police, but still.)

So naturally the most logical conclusion was... A strip club.

Honestly I should have put the kibosh on this right then and there, probably? But I wanted to let this filler stuff go on a bit longer so I can get something ready for main plot events, and despite my misgivings I was willing to go along with this and see what would happen. Plus as I said before, I don't wanna be too controlling as a DM, and there was something of a sunk-cost fallacy as they'd spent all of the previous session arguing over specific plans and disguises and which club they'd be hitting; and I didn't want to put all that to waste. For better or worse.

(I did feel kinda weird about how even this concept kinda intensified the sketchy side of the island compared to how I'd envisioned, but alas.)

So, place they decided on was this really crappy place in the sketchy part of town, with an abusive boss and very very little clientele traffic. Low risk, low reward. Except three-quarters of the players were also evidently expecting some high-stakes hostage situation, when I was expecting them to go for a stealthier, talkier approach.

Thankfully, the one they sent in to do "initial reconnaissance" was the fourth party member, who in-character was the least fond of the plan, having a red-light-district background herself and being much more sympathetic about the potential collateral damage, and out of character had forgotten what the agreed-upon plan was and decided to just do their own thing.

So she goes in and tries to wreak havoc but subtly; clogs a toilet to distract one of the bouncers, starts arguments among the handful of clientele, giving a deeply lost tourist directions so he'd leave, and generally just trying to get people out of the way out of their own volition as much as possible.

Meanwhile, two of the other party members break into the back door and knock out the women back there instead of like, actually talking to them and maybe getting their help.

Long story short, the fourth one sets off a fire alarm to get everyone to evacuate while the others brutalize the sexually abusive manager, and after a hilariously one-sided scuffle with the remaining bouncer, the party has the run of the place until the firemen arrive, but are left disappointed by the lack of action. Safes and ATMs are demolished for money, the bar area is set on fire, and the manager tortured and then straight-up thrown into said fire, before they finally are satisfied enough to leave with their ill-gotten earnings. The fourth gal frames one of the earlier patrons, an incel-type dude, for the arson and murder by disguising herself as him and letting herself be seen leaving with the manager's wallet and jacket, before dumping them off somewhere and regrouping with the party.

(It then turned into an in-character debate over the ethics of framing the dude versus the original plan involving holding hostages, that took up the last forty or so minutes of the session before we called it quits, but that's a whole other thing.)

But yeah, all that is why I'm starting to feel like the party are turning more into a minor villain squad than the heroes of this story. (And for better or worse, it lends credence to some later antagonists' conceptions of the conflict.)

So like, on the whole I have kinda mixed feelings on the whole incident. On one hand it's kinda hilarious how just... Simultaneously uneventful and yet excessive this wound up being. Those that wanted a full-on Payday-type heist are a bit disappointed, the one who wanted to be more civil and subtle about this was let down, and I'm back to on some level bemoaning how off-kilter this has wound up being from the sparkly tropical vibes I had built the setting for.

Either way, it's also definitely a sign, as I said in the prior post about this, that there may be some conflicting expectations between myself and some of the players about like, the overall vibe and whatnot. It seems most of them are seeing this as something a lot more gritty and adult than it was supposed to be, and there's probably going to have to be some work done to like, find a proper compromise between that and what I've been going for, so that everyone's satisfied. But I feel like finally committing to getting the main plot rolling might help with that, hopefully, regardless of whether I'm fully ready in time or not ^^;

[uncloseted]

there's a part of me that still thinksa bortion is murder. i act like i support it to fit in but deep down i dont. please just listen. i think forcing someone to go through a pregnagncy they don't want is inhuman but it also feels inhuman to kill a baby and i dont like thsi idea that if youre 4 weeks pregnant and you want it its a baby but if youre 4 week pregnant and dont want it then its just a clump of cells thats just not how scence works. so theres this woman who was forced to get an .

Anonymous asked:

abortion and she was 6 months pregnant and apparently th baby waws born alive but it died shortly after from ashpyxia and i just dont know what to think. i know forcing smeone to get an abortion is just as bad as forcing them to give birth and that theres no such thing as a six month abortion and at least wher e i live abortions are only available until week 14 but like wwhat if someone is 15 or 16 weeks or 7 months, do they not have a choice anymore? please dont think im a bigot im not im so

Anonymous asked:

sorry i just dont want to be brainwashed by ANYONE, pro life or pro choice and im just so easily influenceable i just want to support whats right you know

No worries at all! I don't think you're a bigot and I'm glad that you want to engage with this issue critically. I'm happy to give you the facts as they stand and offer you my perspective on the issue. Apologies in advance that this is a bit long, but please try to stick with me until the end! All of this is important in understanding the different sides of this discussion.

There are a few main categories I want to talk about in this answer: legal, science, politics, and culture. For now, I'm going to avoid delving into any religious or metaphysical questions about what is and isn't considered "a person", since while those conversations are interesting, I don't think they're particularly useful in the context of discussions about abortion. As Harry Blackmun wrote in the court opinion for Roe v. Wade, "we need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate."

Legality

Starting with legal issues, there are a few points I think it's important to make in order to get a sense of how we relate to abortion. Abortions are legal in 98% of countries. 34% of countries, including the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand most European countries, and China, allow abortions on the basis of a the pregnant person's request, without needing to prove that there is risk to life, risk to health, risk to the fetus, economic or social reasons that abortion is a necessity, or extenuating circumstances (such as the pregnancy being a product of rape or incest). The vast majority (93%) of countries with highly restrictive abortion laws, such as outlawing abortion except in cases where the pregnant person is endangered, are in developing regions. There are five countries that completely outlaw abortion. These are: Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Malta, Nicaragua, and the Vatican City, all countries where the Catholic church has significant influence.

Of the countries that do allow abortion, there is always a limit on how far into a pregnancy a person can be when they choose to terminate. Beyond that limit, the person doesn't have a choice anymore, and must carry the pregnancy to term (except in extenuating circumstances). The most common limit is 12 weeks (3 months), although some countries allow abortion up to the point of "viability", where the fetus can live outside the mother's womb with artificial aid. Typically, the point of viability is around 24 weeks (6 months). In the US, 87% of abortions are performed before 12 weeks, and 92.2% were performed at 13 weeks or fewer. For reference, pregnancies are typically around 40 weeks long.

Forced abortion is illegal in almost every country, including the US and the UK, and it is considered an act of violence against women. It is just as bad as forcing someone to give birth, which is why all countries do their best to prevent it from happening. While forced abortions can and do happen, particularly to victims of sex trafficking, I think the solution to this issue is to put policies into place that protect vulnerable women, instead of trying to ban abortion entirely.

Science

So, most countries allow abortions up to 12 weeks. What does that actually look like in terms of the fetus? Here's a timeline of fetal stages of growth:

Weeks 1-4: at this stage, the "baby" is actually an embryo. It starts out as just a fertilized egg. The amniotic sac forms around it, and the placenta develops. The eyes, mouth, lower jaw, and throat are in very early development. Blood cells are taking shape. By the end of week 4, the embryo is smaller than a grain of rice. It is very literally "just a clump of cells" at this point.

Weeks 5-9: the "baby" is still an embryo. Its facial features begin to develop, folds of skin that will eventually become ears grow, tiny buds that will eventually grow into arms and legs form, the neural tube, digestive tract, and sensory organs all begin to develop. Bone starts to replace cartilage. At about 6 weeks, a heart beat can be detected. After week 8, the baby is considered a fetus instead of an embryo, at which point the fetus is about one inch long.

Weeks 9-12: the fetus' arms, hands, fingers, feet, and toes are fully formed. It may be able to open and close its fists and mouth. Ears are formed, and its reproductive organs begin to develop. By the end of week 12, the fetus has all of their organs and limbs, and their circulatory and urinary systems are working, but everything needs to continue to develop in order to become functional. At the end of week 12, the fetus is about 4 inches long.

It is important to know that the miscarriage rate is highest in the first trimester (before week 12). Among women who know they're pregnant (typically further along than 6 or 7 weeks), 10-20% will miscarry. 30%-50% of all fertilized eggs miscarry.

Other important developmental markers include:

During month 4 (weeks 16-20), you can see the sex of the fetus.

During month 5 (weeks 20-24), the fetus starts moving around.

Between week 22 and week 24, brain waves appear in the cerebral cortex.

At week 24, the fetus may be able to survive if it is born prematurely, provided it has intensive care.

Somewhere between week 26 and week 30, the fetus may be able to feel pain, although we don't know that for sure.

A fetus is not capable of thinking, communicating, reasoning, self-motivation, feeling emotions, or consciousness. They don't have a concept of the self, and they don't know that they exist. They are essentially sedated for the entirety of the pregnancy. Since we use "brain death" as the primary criteria for death, it makes sense to me that we might consider "brain life" (the point where a fetus exhibits brain activity) as the point at which a fetus becomes a person.

While some people will refer to an embryo as a "baby" from the time they discover they're pregnant, scientifically, it is a clump of cells, whether that clump is allowed to continue to grow or not. It's not something we would recognize as a baby, or be able to interact with as if it were a baby. An embryo is a precursor to a baby, kind of like how a seed is a precursor to a plant.

Some other arguments

I want to quickly touch on some other arguments for abortion rights that people make. I'm not going to delve deeply into them, but it didn't feel right to leave them out entirely. These are arguments that don't depend on whether or not a fetus can be considered a person.

Bodily Rights

There are many situations in which we prioritize individual bodily rights over the right of someone else to live. For example, we don't force people to donate organs to people who are dying, even though a donated organ would save their life. Advocates for abortion rights argue that those same bodily rights should be extended to a pregnant person.

Deprivation

This argument usually looks something like, "but what if that fetus was going to cure cancer when it grew up!" Basically, it's saying that abortion is morally wrong because it deprives the fetus (and the world) of a valuable future. To me, this completely ignores the deprivation that already exists by forcing a person to carry and birth a baby they don't want, and potentially the deprivation that comes with raising that child. People who make this argument never seem to ask, "what if the pregnant person was going to cure cancer?"

Slippery Slope

Some people argue that normalizing and legalizing abortion may lead to people also accepting euthanasia. I am unconvinced by this for two reasons. 1. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy and 2. I absolutely do think we should legalize euthanasia for certain situations.

Religion

I don't want to dig too far into this one, but what I will say is that the US is a country that (at least nominally) has a separation of church and state, and the religious beliefs that other people hold should not infringe on a person's rights to make choices about their own life.

History and Politics

The practice of abortion itself is incredibly old. The Sanskrit epic Ramayana, which dates to the 7th century BCE, describes abortion being practiced by surgeons and barbers. In the Assyrian Code of Assura, circa 1075 BCE, a woman is allowed to procure an abortion except when it's against her husband's wishes. The first recorded evidence of induced abortion is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BCE. Japanese documents show records of induced abortion from as early as the 12th century, and it became more prevalent during the Edo period. It is considered to be unlikely that abortion was punished in Ancient Greece or ancient Rome. All major Jewish religious movements allow abortion in order to save the life or health of a pregnant woman, and often support abortion for other reasons as well. Christianity has a more complicated relationship to abortion, for reasons that I'll go into in a bit, but for now let's just note that there very much were ancient Christians who believed abortion was morally permissible at least some of the time. Before the 19th century CE, first-trimester abortion was widely practiced and was legal under common law throughout the English speaking world, including the US and UK.

The reason I bring all of this up is because the political debate over abortion isn't really that old, and the debate tends not to actually be about the morality of abortion as an act so much as it is a proxy for other issues. The first backlash against abortion in the English Speaking world was in the 19th century, and was a direct reaction to the women's rights movement, which was starting during that time. In the US, anti-abortion laws began to appear as early as the 1820s, but picked up in earnest by the late 1860s. These laws were introduced for many reasons, including the fact that abortions were being provided by untrained people who were not members of medical societies and concerns about the safety of abortifacients. By 1900, abortion was a felony in every US state, but they continued to become increasingly available. By the 1930s, licensed physicians performed an estimated 800,000 abortions a year.

Jumping forward a little bit, let's talk about the history of abortion in the US just before Roe v. Wade. It's estimated that in the 50s and 60s, between 200,000 to 1.2 million abortions were being performed per year, even though they were illegal. Throughout that same time, the second wave feminist movement was growing, and was increasingly advocating for birth control and liberalized abortion laws. As a reaction to second wave feminism, a number of anti-abortion organizations, primarily led by Catholic institutions, cropped up to mobilize against the legalization of abortion. It should be noted that, at the time, abortion was not an issue for evangelical Christian groups. In the 1960s, 17 states legalized abortion for a variety of different circumstances. Then in 1973, Roe v. Wade happens, ruling that a pregnant woman has the right to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. The ruling was 7-2 in favor of legalizing abortion. Even after Roe v. Wade, Christian Evangelicals were neutral to positive on the ruling. It's only after 1980 that Evangelical Christians started to organize around abortion as a political issue and joined the Catholics to form what we now think of as the Christian Right. There's a lot to say about that and why that switch happened, but for the sake of brevity, just know that the evangelical backlash against legalized abortion in the US started not as a moral crusade, but as a way of convincing people to vote for Ronald Regan instead of Jimmy Carter (who wanted to de-segregate schools). No political debate happens in a vacuum, and it's important to understand what other factors might have been at play when looking at where these debates come from and how the sides formed.

Culture

Lastly, let's talk a little bit about the cultural impacts of banning or legalizing abortion. The right to have or not have a child is necessary in order for women to achieve equality with men. Countries with high gender equality, such as Iceland, Finland, Norway, New Zealand, and Sweden, also have easily accessible abortion options. Criminalization of abortion disproportionately impacts poor women and women of color, and does nothing to address the systemic issues that may cause them to require abortions in the first place.

Researchers from the WHO and University of Massachusetts found that banning abortion is an inefficient way to reduce abortion rates; in countries where abortions were restricted, the number of unintended pregnancies actually increased, and the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion also increased. When abortion is banned, women aren't not having abortions; they're having illegal abortions that are done unsafely.

There is also some evidence to suggest that legalized abortion actually decreases crime rates. 20 years after the legalization of abortion in the US, there was an unprecedented nationwide decline of the crime rate (including murders, incidentally). The drop in crime is thought by some to be a result of the fact that individuals who had a higher statistical probability of committing crimes (people who grew up as unwanted children in poverty) were not being born.

Which brings me to my next point- the majority of people who are "pro-life" (at least in the US) aren't really pro-life. They're pro-birth. If they were truly pro-life, they would be interested in making sure that all of those babies had their needs met after they're born. They would be interested in making sure those babies can lead long, healthy, safe, and productive lives. They would be for universal healthcare, expanded social safety nets, parental leave from jobs, universal basic income, raising the minimum wage, mandated vacation time, increasing funding for public schools, decriminalizing drugs, abolishing prisons or at least reforming the police. They would be against the death penalty (ironically, some of them are actually for the death penalty for women who have had abortions), and for increased access to birth control, comprehensive sex-ed in schools, increased gun legislation, against war and nuclear weapons, for enforced mask wearing to prevent people from needlessly dying from a global pandemic... but those issues don't factor into their "pro-life" stance. They're for "the baby gets born and then has to pull itself up by its bootstraps like the rest of us."

Closing Thoughts

Look. I'm not super jazzed about abortions. I understand how they can feel like an ethical issue. I think we should do what we can to reduce the number of abortions that are performed- teaching comprehensive sex-ed in schools, making birth control and emergency contraceptive options widely accessible, letting men know that reversible vasectomies are an option. I think we should make abortion easier to access, so those who do need it can make the decision early in the pregnancy. But I also think that it's a very personal decision, one that's irreversibly life altering, and the person who's going to experience the life altering event should be the one who decides what happens. 65 year old conservative, Christian white men who will never be pregnant (and frequently don't really know how the female body works) shouldn't get to make that decision for them. As someone for whom pregnancy would be life threatening, I want to know that I have options should that situation present itself someday.

[whattheheehaw]

Hey I hope ur okay, all the mess that went down on twitter must've overwhelmed you. I hope you are doing well

Oof I haven’t checked Tumblr until now, but thanks for checking in on me! I’m doing well! :D

For people who don’t know what happened yesterday on Twitter, I got ratio’d/cancelled because I made a tweet about the popular trend of saying “I hate hets”. If you look for it, you can probably find a screenshot of my tweet, but basically I was stating how that joke has spiralled out of control to the point at which it’s socially acceptable to hate and harass a group of people based on their sexuality. And my conclusion to that thought was that people shouldn’t be subjected to hate and harassment based on their sexuality. I notice that a lot of people on the internet advocate for equality, but also turn around and invalidate the opinions of heterosexuals solely based on the fact that they are heterosexuals. And this raised the question: Why is it socially acceptable for me to say “I hate heterosexuals” but not “I hate homosexuals”? Where do POC, people with disabilities, and members of the trans community that are heterosexual fall upon the spectrum of “I hate hets” and “if you’re het, you’re invalid”?

In hindsight, I recognize that my tweet wasn’t worded in the best way, considering that most people interpreted it as me saying that heterosexuals are oppressed and heterophobia exists which is not true. At all. And I think a large part of that is due to the fact that tweets are limited to 280 characters and it’s difficult to bring nuance into a conversation with such a small character limit.

That being said, I think the community on Twitter is very close-minded because anything that someone says that is remotely different from the status quo is immediately shot down and clowned upon. I feel like Twitter users rely solely on their first reaction/instinct when seeing an opinion that differs from theirs, and that usually manifests in quote retweets that say “pee pee poo poo” with a little fancam attached or “you should be embarrassed”. From my short time on Twitter, the best way that I can describe it is “how can I make the snappiest comment in the shortest amount of time so the person that I’m arguing with doesn’t have a chance to make a comeback?” And for someone like me who is not succinct in her replys, this is not an ideal situation.

Looking through all of the quote retweets on my tweet, I realized that nobody had brought up a valid rebuttal of my statement. The closest comment to a valid rebuttal that I received was “you’re cishet”, which isn’t even a true statement. I dislike how Twitter uses race and sexuality as a way to discredit someone’s argument, seeing as that is a textbook example of a logical fallacy. I’ve tried to avoid talking about my sexuality online, mainly because I’m scared of someone I know finding my fandom account and outing me, but seeing as a lot of people were calling me cishet, I didn’t feel like I had any other choice than to come out on the internet as queer. I’m bisexual, and it kind of sucks how this drama was what caused me to share this information.

I think the funniest part about this Twitter drama is that people started going through my profile and looking through my tweets and retweets. Somebody found my retweet of a statement about proshipping, screenshotted it, and used that to discredit my arguments. I fail to see how proshipping is relevant to the “I hate hets” joke but I guess that’s how Twitter works. 

I still stand by my stance on proshipping, which is that people shouldn’t harass others over what someone ships. I know that there are people that ship incest and pedophilia, and as much as I hate that it happens, I acknowledge that whatever I say or do will NOT stop someone from shipping what they ship. I know some people use shipping as a coping mechanism for their trauma, and it’s not my place to decide whether or not shipping something that I find distasteful is a healthy coping mechanism for them. I just have to hope that whatever they ship doesn’t manifest into their real, personal lives. And I advocate for curating your fandom experience so you avoid seeing stuff that you don’t want to see. The block button exists for a reason, and I choose to use it liberally.

As for the weirdest part of this Twitter drama, I’d have to say that I found it odd that 20 year olds were clowning on a post made by me, a minor. This isn’t the first time that adults have taken issue with what I’ve said and put words in my mouth, telling me that I support something that I don’t. This was just the first time that it happened in the ZK fandom. And I guess this experience was a learning curve for me. I’m not going to agree with everyone in my own fandom and I should expect people to say negative things about me when they disagree with my opinions. And when this happens, I shouldn’t expect a nuanced and informed debate to occur; I should expect a quick snide remark and then a reaction image as the end of the conversation.

Frankly, I don’t care whether or not these people on Twitter hate me or talk badly about me. I’m the only person who can determine my own self worth, and I’m not about to let some anonymous people on the internet impact the way I see myself. I’m not close with these people and I don’t hold them in high esteem, considering the way they present themselves online. If these people want to spend their time “shaming” a minor and making callout posts, I’m not going to stop them. They can stay mad.

[ill-be-istj-if-no-one-else-is]

Peace! It's nice to meet you, fellow mbti person! I'm so glad to have stumbled upon an ISTJ who is into typology! I have a request. I typed Elsa from Frozen in a post (I'll tag you) and I argued that she is not an ISTJ. I wanted to know what you thought, particularly if I made any mistakes in understanding the ISTJ personality type. Thank you so much in advance! I hope it's not too much of a bother. I'm an INTP btw.

Hi,

I want to start out with the following: for anyone reading, do not make a habit of having me analyze your posts about fictional characters. I am happy to help you type yourself, or answer questions about MBTI. However, in case it was not clear from the fact that I have only typed fictional characters in response to direct questions, that my answers have typically been very brief, and that I’ve repeatedly directed people to blogs that specifically focus on character typing, I’m not really interested. I should note: I had fun because I love picking up my metaphorical red pen and writing “wrong” over every other sentence, but it did also take me like an hour and a half and it’s over 3 pages long, and I don’t have time to do that regularly.

With all that said, the post had sufficient issues with both basic logical argument structure (I would very strongly recommend you revisit that INTP typing of yourself and look at something with high Fe instead) as well as understanding of MBTI that, because you asked directly, I will go through said issues. I want to make it very clear: this is going to be harsh. For both that and for the length I’m putting it below a read-more such that if you were looking for a brief thumbs up or down and not for extensive criticism, you are welcome to ignore it, block me, or whatever is best for you.

Basic argument structure: you open repeatedly with the most subjective arguments - that she gives off Fi and Ni vibes and you don’t see the Si in her. This will convince no one but yourself.

This argument is also mostly focused on “other people think this, but I don’t” which I find is only useful in a process of elimination argument. We’ll get to the final typing eventually but it is generally stronger to argue in favor of what you believe and then address potential disagreement rather than the reverse; by the time you get to ISFP I’ve read so many incorrect assumptions and subjective asides that I’ve long since stopped valuing the analysis of the work.

Issues with the ISTJ argument

(note: I have, and continue to type Elsa as an ISTJ so this will be the longest section in that I’m both pointing out flaws and arguing in favor of ISTJ; the rest will be solely focused on MBTI misconceptions or logical fallacy).

While it’s true people often mistake trauma for Si, this argument seems to equate trauma with being stuck in the past (people can just be stuck in the past without trauma for whatever other reason - it’s not healthy but it does not necessarily indicate literal trauma). There is also a false opposition here: It’s absolutely valid to argue that Elsa is traumatized, but that does not preclude her having Si, merely removes one argument in favor of Si.

You define Si (gathering concrete details to understand what to expect) but don’t actually argue why Elsa doesn’t do this. I’d argue, in opposition to the statement later in this paragraph, that she does. She is aware from the past that her abilities can harm her sister. She is aware from her past that when she avoided Anna, Anna was safe. She hasn’t been happy with the “conceal don’t feel” line, but it has achieved her goals and her expectation is that she’ll hurt someone if she stops following it.

If you’re referring to an Si-Fi loop (wallowing in self-pity), it doesn’t use Te since that’s how loops work. You don’t explicitly say this is in the context of looping although you introduce looping in the second sentence, but if you are referring to a loop this is incorrect. It’s true that ISTJs are often likely to use Si (preference for familiar/existing structures) and an Fi understanding of morality to direct their energies when they wish to change something (ie, they will change things through existing channels) but the focus on speaking out about injustice here is much more in line with enneagram 1 - a very common enneatype for ISTJs and an enneatype that’s rare for any non-TJ types, but not the enneatype I’d give Elsa nor an inherent ISTJ trait itself.

The part about self-discipline is mixed - a lot of ISTJs are very disciplined in certain areas (particularly professional/familial) but can neglect the self (not getting enough exercise/not eating well, not addressing burnout or more emotional issues) and I’d argue again, Elsa shows this: she’s not addressing the fact that she’s lonely and miserable, but she’s highly disciplined with regards to concealing her abilities and avoiding Anna even though it’s the very thing making her lonely and miserable.

I don’t necessarily think Let It Go is indicative of an Ne grip, but one can make changes outside of a grip, so this isn’t a useful argument, as it argues why an Ne grip is wrong, not why ISTJ is wrong - I would merely argue she’s not gripping at that time. Which is a general issue here: the argument you provide in this paragraph isn’t arguing against ISTJ, it’s arguing against other people’s arguments for ISTJ, which is an important distinction.

The final paragraph of the ISTJ section has numerous issues: ISTJs are not rebellious. They are not as resistant to change as stereotypes indicate, but even a healthier version of ISTJ Elsa would be unlikely to rebel and rather try to understand her parents’ argument, research other options, or look for a way to gain control over her powers while still working within the normal hierarchy. I addressed self-discipline (I should add: I don’t think a child/young woman having difficulty controlling magical powers with no training is an argument against self-discipline; my argument for self-discipline is that she stays in her room and away from her sister despite clearly hating it). It is also, to be blunt, mind-boggling that you (correctly) argue that trauma responses are not inherently Si but then refer to obsessive-compulsive behaviors as Si when that’s also a medical disorder completely divorced from the MBTI framework. Finally, her continuing to follow an order from her parents after they die is first, quite literally the definition of self-discipline (she’s the queen; no one else is going to discipline her for it, after all) and second, entirely in line with Si (this is what she has always done and it’s not great but it works) and is, arguably, if not medically obsessive-compulsive, an obsessive need to follow a compulsion. To be clear: this isn’t healthy ISTJ behavior, but since you’ve acknowledged grips and loops here I think an unhealthy interpretation of the type is very much on the table. You say her behavior is more in line with F types; it’s not and you don’t explain why.

If I may it seems as though, much in line with the argument here being against other arguments but ultimately not debunking the typing, your arguments against MBTI stereotypes focus on what’s incorrect but they tend to merely swing the pendulum to the opposite side (eg, that ISTJs are likely to rebel, in opposition to the stereotype that they’d mindlessly follow orders) rather than find the more nuanced middle ground of how people of a type or with a certain function behave.

Issues with the INFJ and INFP sections:

Ne users can and frequently do go out into the world; simply because Ne can be engaged without external physical stimulation doesn’t mean it never is. I’m also not really a fan of reading being classified as a strictly introverted pursuit; that’s falling into a pretty significant stereotype trap. Going out and exploring is a thing anyone can do but if anything I’d either associate that more strongly with high sensing (either Si or Se) or with extroversion. 

My biggest issue here is the implication that searching for a meaning for existence or a purpose is in itself an indicator of Ni. This is just the human condition. If you’re going to argue that Si users are driven to rebel against injustice I don’t see how you can miss that that might in turn be driven by a belief that this is their purpose. Perhaps Si-Ne users aren’t as invested in having a single purpose, but wondering why you are on this earth and what it is you are here to do is just being a person, and to be blunter than I have been, I am struggling to understand how there has been so much effort made earlier to push away from stereotypes to the point of overcompensation in the opposite direction and then when it comes to the idea that only Ni users have a desire for meaning in life you just accept it without question.

Issues with the ISFP section:

At this point I’ve probably covered most of them though I’d like to point out that I don’t think there was an argument ever made explicitly for introversion; while the structure of the earlier arguments and focus on debunking was, as stated, flawed, I would at least round it out by eliminating ESFP as an option.

The argument here rests heavily on Let it Go, which is interesting because most of the terrible arguments for Elsa being an intuitive also rested squarely on that same brief if admittedly pivotal section of a full movie; in attempting to differentiate itself from those arguments it has in fact replicated the most significant flaws. Anyway, I’ve addressed that I don’t personally think Let it Go being indicative of a grip is how I’d argue for ISTJ, so that becomes invalid; I’ve tried to focus more on issues with logic MBTI than the contents of the movie but I’d add that “she was happy” is open to interpretation and her emotional state was probably fairly complicated. Relieved, sure, but she’s still ultimately isolated. (Also while mentally singing Let it Go, I realized that here’s that rebellion you were asking for in the ISTJ section).

You also outright say that when Elsa tries to reassert control it’s through Te. Yeah. That’s what a high Te user does. An ISTJ in a grip would indeed use Ne, but in quite literally any other circumstance (looping or just existing as an ISTJ not in a grip or loop) would reassert control via Te, so again, your argument does not sufficiently eliminate that Elsa is an ISTJ, just that she’s not a gripping ISTJ, which I’d agree with. 

“She acts out when she is stressed and makes bad decisions” is also the human condition (and why I’ve frequently on my blog argued very strongly against typing via stress behaviors, because in the end most people...act out and make bad decisions when stressed), so this isn’t useful as an argument for anything.

In conclusion: multiple misconceptions about Ni and Si; no argument that I could find presented for high Fi, just Fi in general; inconsistency regarding whether or not Elsa rebels, and an overall reliance not on making a new argument but on arguing why other arguments were wrong. Given the title of the post you asked me to analyze I have to (admittedly this is extremely cynical of me) wonder if there was an underlying goal to come up with a typing that was different from commonly accepted arguments, rather than to simply type for its own sake.