I don’t see that as the truth. I don’t believe that there is a god, but I don’t know that there isn’t a god.
I can explain why a god is not necessary to explain the universe around us, but I cannot prove that there isn’t one.
Bit far ranging for this thread, but I do think that there is a fairly important significance there.
Anyway, do you find that in your conversations with religious people, they go well, and there is a respectful exchange of ideas? Do you think they may go better if you don’t simply assert your conclusion?
I should probably clarify that when I said “badly”, I mean “unskillfully”. Ideally one would connect their rebuttals with what they’re rebutting, but, well, that’s hard and stuff.
I find that in my conversations with religious people, they are far more worried about rebutting and rejecting everything I say than in considering exchanging ideas. But that’s really a different subject from how Amazon is being so so mean in making business decisions about their catalog, presuming the decision was anything more than “we have a supply problem; automatically disable sales until fixed”.
The two positions aren’t contradictory. Supporting an open and tolerant society where multiple viewpoints are valued does not mean supporting the position that anybody must always be able to say whatever they want in any circumstances at any time with no repercussions of any kind.
Just pause for two seconds to think of, for example, some of the things that you would not wish somebody to be able to say to or about your toddler daughter in some circumstances with no repercussions of any kind, and you’ll see what I mean.
That’s fair, and as I said, we are ranging wide afield.
But, it is analogous. Would you say that you are looking to have a fair exchange of ideas, or do you not respect their beliefs enough to do so?
I’m not judging you here, I actually mostly agree, and is one of the reasons that I don’t like to engage with religious people, as I have a hard time not insulting them. I actually have a hard time not calling them “Sky fairy worshippers”.
I’m just pointing out that, similarly, if someone makes the assertion that “Transwomen aren’t women”, then they are not willing to take the other side seriously, and don’t care that they are being insulting.
I think the problem is that we are currently rather far away from that open and tolerant society, and there is a minority (or two opposing minorities) who want to eliminate every idea but their own. Worse, they pride themselves on it.
They can decide to not sell an item to everyone. They can’t decide to sell an item only to specific people except if the law doesn’t allow it (such as prohibiting selling alcohol to a minor).
But that isn’t true. In this thread I’ve been called a transphobe for saying the equivalent of ‘I don’t believe in god’. I believe in Christians (Muslims, Jews, etc) and I believe in transgender people. I think they are mostly sincere in what they believe. I just don’t think they are correct.
I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean. Who is this, and what is the only idea that they allow?
If you mean that there are people who don’t appreciate it when you insult and denigrate and dehumanize them, and wish that you wouldn’t, then that’s a pretty silly thing to be prideful of fighting for.
They don’t even stop you from doing so, they just judge you poorly if you do.
If I insult someone, are they supposed to just thank me and ask for another? That seems to be the only idea that you will allow.
I long ago gave up having a fair exchange of ideas with religious people about religion. They are not interested in exchanging; they are interested in selling. And they are not interested in understanding my positions - if they understood them their faith might get shaken or something. So instead it’s all hasty rebuttals. It’s tiring and pointless - especially since they’ll never change my mind if they never first understand my mind. I did come to my conclusions based on reasons, after all.
Also, and this is going to sound terrible, but I’m not terribly troubled by the notion that a person might be insulted by the fact I don’t believe in their sky fairy. That may make me a sociopath, but if you’re insulted by the sky being blue, you’re going to have to force your way through that if you’re going to even try to understand why I think the way I think, much less present me with cogent counterargments.
Yes, I’m aware that there are troubling implications of this for transwomen trying to redefine themselves in the public perception.
I may just be less of an optimist than you, but I think that no matter how open and tolerant a society gets, it will never be realistically feasible to support the position that anybody must always be able to say whatever they want in any circumstances at any time with no repercussions of any kind. That just seems ridiculously absolutist to me.
Nah, that’s not terrible. It just means that you don’t mind insulting them over their beliefs.
If someone asks you to go to their church, and you say, “I don’t want to because there is no god and I don’t believe in your sky fairy.” then that’s fine.
If you walk into a church and assert that, you’re being an ass and a troll. If you start a conversation that way with someone you know is religious, then you are being insulting.
If you were looking to have an exchange of ideas, then you would probably not do so.
And that’s kinda my point. @DemonTree claims to be looking for a free exchange of ideas, but does so in a way that we both agree are dismissive and insulting to those who hold those ideas.
If @DemonTree says that they actually have no interest in a reasonable discussion, and admits that they are not troubled by the notion that they are being insulting, then I will agree that her approach is the correct way to go about achieving the objective of displaying her intolerance.
I believe it’s none of my fucking business. And out respect for humanity, I address them with whatever pronoun they prefer just like I call them by the name they prefer. And I expect to be considered an asshole if I did otherwise.
I feel I should mention here that even if transwomen ARE wrong about their self-classification (or however you want to put it), Amazon should still have full discretion over they want to sell books saying that.
Amazon should be able to reject an author’s request to have a book sold on their platform for any reason except if their reason is that the author is in a legally protected class.