Oh, I know. I used it like throwing matches at gasoline.
No, there are differences between beliefs. Religious faith is an irrational belief and has as much validity, or lack of validity, as any other irrational belief. A man believing he is a woman is stranger than believing in a virgin birth? Transubstantiation? Noahās Ark?
I would argue that the government should encourage behaviors that benefit and strengthen the nation. We give businesses tax breaks because they are supposed to benefit the public so why shouldnāt individuals get the same considerations?
Is a valid belief a belief that is believed or a belief that is true, or has enough evidence behind it to make it reasonable to be considered true?
In my opinion, which is not shared by 99% of people. The government should do neither of those things.
Iād say it is one that is believed. True, false, able to be proven are secondary to its existence.
The only thing that would make a belief invalid is if no one had it. If someone else believes that other people have an idea or belief that they donāt have, it would still be the one the person who has it has.
But we do do one of those things.
Also, one can eat like a pig, become morbidly obese and go on disability. He is rewarded, so to speak, for poor behaviors. It would seem to me that those of us who make healthier life style choices should also get rewarded since we are going to be less of a burden on society and contribute more. So why not get a tax break for not smoking or for not being fat?
I donāt think that is what the other poster meant. I think validity in his case meant less crazy or more reasonable.
I understand what you mean by a belief being valid by virtue of existing. But I donāt think validity, in that sense, makes a belief reasonable, let alone true. The other poster said equal validity but existence is not measured by degrees. Something exists or doesnāt exist.
Neither do I, but how does one validate something that is independent of evidence, and can even change the way a person interprets concrete objects or actions?
Hence, irrational belief.
Sure, but belief none the less.
A belief that is lesser.
How so?
Billions of people navigate life with beliefs that are irrational, and do pretty well with them.
Or in spite of them.
Anyway, the point is that someone calls transexuals lunatics who should be locked up. Is what they believe somehow more irrational and crazy than religious beliefs? Do transexual beliefs have more influence on society than religious beliefs? Let he who is without loony beliefs cast the first stone.
1 Like
Thatās why Iām a live and let live kind of guy. In the grand scheme, Iāve been outlived (materially among other measures) by plenty of people that believe in sky monkeys that bring rain and eleven armed blue demon godesses, and more recently by people with girly dicks.
1 Like
are you saying eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a person youāve never seen who has superhero powers is irrational? Makes perfect sense.
Donāt take your eyes off the ball, two girls loving each other now thatās insane!
Of course it did. If one canāt understand why the state would actually have a interest in modeling orderly heterosexual coupling vs homosexual coupling, one will more likely struggle with keeping track of what gender has what.
I mean if we can pretend homosexual marriage even fractionally serves the same critical function for society, and even the species as a whole, we can play along with āwoman penis,ā right?
You mean the exact same critical function, of equal rights?
Or do you mean gays should have been 2nd class citizens because they couldnāt have too many kids for the state to support?
No, I donāt believe in pretending unequal things are equal.
Homosexuality disappears tomorrow, curious news story.
Heterosexuality disappears tomorrow, species wide disaster.
Heck, if ALL men merely went from female sex partner to female sex partner with zero obligation from now on, society wide chaos.
Heterosexuality, and how it manifests, inarguably has society wide function and impact. Species wide, even.
Peta called out Google for having the audacity to remember Steve Irwin. A) Irwin has done more for conservation than Peta ever will and B) Peta actually kills animals on purpose, unlike Irwin.
I have no idea where your weird statement about electing the lion king of the jungle came from.