The new defintion of courage

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

I have pretty much ignored the whole Bruce Jenner freak show aside from the unavoidable. I keep hearing how courageous he is. Really? all I see is a sad, pathetic and lost individual who even now is trying to get people to look at him by choosing to be radically altered. You have a lot of choice in your life, but you do not choose what you are, some things are givens, and you work from there. Because you choose to deny gravity doesn't mean you can float. Sure, you can pretend to, use artificial means to lift you off the ground, but in the end the reality still applies and you are who you were born as.

What is kind of sad that someone who was so driven to be the best athlete in the world in his day, surrounded himself with people who indulged an illness instead of sought help for him. I am not seeing a lot of courage in that, nor in his announcement, which is nothing more than looking for approval. I'm sure there are lot of people who think that's some sort of bigotry, but its not, I don't care what he does or thinks, its when people insist I believe what they do is where I draw a line. He will always be Bruce Jenner to me, no matter how much mutilation and delusion is indulged.

[HiTemp]

Well I'm not surprised by it at all except to say I find it hard to believe it took this long for someone of prominence - that is, well known - to decide they are what they ain't... or ain't what they are.

I've written on here and elsewhere many times about the effect on society when they abandon truth as a standard and replace it with relativism. This is just one of those. It's no foul if Jenner wants to go around wearing dresses but it's when society tries to force that abnormal (and anyone disliking that term can refer to Webster's) behavior as "just another kind of normal." Well that's logically no different than saying one's belief that the earth is flat is "just another geology" or that there can be different versions of truth, each veridical and each selectable merely by personal choice or the latest pop-culture fad.

Whatever one believes is "their truth."

Well that's nonsense! If I believe - truly believe - the moon is only 12,843 miles from Earth, is it? Of what value is "my truth" as to lunar distance aside from a personal delusion, perhaps extending to a cultural delusion if I can get many others to accept "my truth" as "their truth?"

You know, if these wishful thinkers really want to impress, why stop at gender swapping? Become a tree, a nice redwood, something really big. Or maybe become a Brooklyn Bridge, a Grand Canyon, a whole new planet. They are, in essence but in much smaller scale, becoming their own universe with it's own laws. How can science or philosophy work there, given that both are founded on two metaphysical presumptions; that what is unknown is knowable, and that experiment (empirical or thought) can methodically determine the truth of something.

Scientifically, is Jenner a male? How would one test? DNA would reveal he's an XY not a double X. Normal body resting hormonal levels would also indicate a male and would only differ if tampered with. Were Jenner's body found by anthropologists a thousand years from now, he would be a male for some reason wearing female clothing, and that based on biological clues of his skeletal structure, particularly the pelvis and bone thickness. So how can one - truthfully - get a female out of all this?

The only way is to blur the line between truth and fantasy. In order to not subject Jenner's behavior to stigmitization or even mere criticism, they are making the leap from scientific, biological definitions to an altered sociological term - person. They are saying Jenner has a RIGHT to be a female PERSON if he so chooses, and in order to complete that transmutation, no one may fairly call him bizarre because to do so would be to infringe on his rights as a person.

This is the same logical thinking that gave way to the biggest human rights offenders on the planet being welcomed to the table of the UN Human Rights Council. It just wouldn't be fair NOT to.

Jenner is man with emotional issues, and nothing else. This gender-altering thing seems to be the in-vogue method of allowing one to deal with that, avoiding of course any kind of label as "abnormal" or "illness" or deficiency. That because those terms are cemented in place and really cannot be changed for the other connected terms to have any value. If Jenner is defective when they don't wish him to be and that is dismissed, then the bipolor disorder, another form of defective, is rendered inoperable in terms of value because it would would simply be one more defective subject to whim. It's okay to be psychotic in this or that circumstance. In any freshman logic class that would be considered reductio ad absurdum, a sure-fire way of determining something ISN'T true dating as far back as the days of Aristotelian schools of rhetoric.

In my view, you can't have it both ways. Either something in reality is true or it is not true. Jenner is female in desire and perhaps confused psychological makeup only. Otherwise, he is male. Nancy Grace had some CNN expert on her show and kept grilling the guy on whether or not Jenner had gender altering surgery - as though that mattered in the determination of what or who he is. That doesn't matter either, in my opinion, because if it did all any man would have to do in order to become a horse is have a tail and a couple extra legs attached. No, he couldn't run a quarter mile in 24 seconds like American Pharaoh, but hey, he believes he's a horse so what's it matter if he's a stallion or a gelding?

Those who accept this nonsense would never accept this put into practice anywhere else. They would not forgive the US Post Office if, mid-route, the mailman suddenly declared himself a Domino's Pizza delivery guy and decided to forego further mail delivery in favor of heading back to the shop for a pepperoni with extra cheese. They would not accept their homeowner's underwriter suddenly denying a claim and declaring themselves in the publishing business. It would not matter how many presses or how much ink and paper they bought.

The makeup of a person is more than what that person wants or thinks about themselves. I'm sure Charles Manson thinks he's okay, but is he? Most politicians think they're the greatest gift to Wash. DC since Lincoln, but are they? Who actually does judge a person in terms of who they are or even what they are? Is it not the eye of the beholder that determines beauty? Does my spare bedroom painting of mountains in Utah become the Mona Lisa because I think it is, or must that determination be made by others who view my work with a critical eye toward things like subject, lighting, technique, style, execution, and - of course - art?

The Jenner thing - honestly, I can't stand watching it and I turn the channel or close a web page as soon as I see a story or even an ad in the sidebar having anything to do with it. I don't accept it, and that's MY truth because I believe it follows closely to THE truth based on evidence cited above. I think anyone who believes a person can simply change sex with a declaration is delusional. They're kidding themselves. I sure hope Bruce's little "pin-up" pose doesn't become some kind of iconic Farrah Fawcett poster of the new generation. If so, they're hopeless, all of 'em.

[HiTemp]

Just as I was signing off, I had some further thoughts on the issue so I thought I'm come back and puke 'em out.

What about the issue of gender identity? Is Jenner a gay man? Or was he a gay man? If so, and he's now redefined as "a women," does his gender ID get reset from gay to straight as long as he sexually desires men? Or, was he a straight man who became a women and in so doing became a lesbian by... what, magnetism I suppose? Maybe he was a straight man who became a straight women directly without ever spending a minute in gay identity? Sort of going from one closet to another without ever coming out of either?

How does one determine that? WHO determines that? What would the judging criteria be?

What if Bruce sees it one way but other/society/the media/the culture sees it another way? Who or which of them would cast the deciding vote?

See why truth is important and that it must stand as the prime standard against which all other claims must rise or fall?

Without it, Bruce can be male, or female, or both, even simultaneously. His gender ID can likewise follow his gender as a windsock follows the wind OR it is free to swing about like a kite with no tail. Either situation and both situations are equally useless descriptors in terms of another apart from one's own feeling. It's not useful at all as a descriptor; it's like someone selling a car "in excellent condition" with only a few minor dings and only needing brakes, a new front tire, a transmission flush and a new headlight bezel. HUH???

Jenner might be female, but only a female unicorn. His "femaleness" doesn't exist in reality, no matter how much he searches for it with a surgical spaceship.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

I agree. You are what you are, what you do is completely subjective and arbitrary, but you will always be what you were born as, no matter how much mutilation or dress up you do. This whole LGBT thing is trying to and succeeding at blurring the line between reality and desire. A person has a right to do or think whatever they want, so long as it does not infringe on someone else. But its to the point they are infringing on others now, and it seems they are being empowered to do so by the state.

I read that Limbaugh the other day said they are redefining normal, and in doing so are redefining what is abnormal as well, which would be what most people are in this country. Seems to be true.

[HiTemp]

If a person desires to grow 50 ft tall tomato plants they only have a couple options:

1. Actually grow them and allow others to measure/inspect them to verify the fact of it
2. Don't grow them but claim you did, then ostracize anyone who would attempt to measure them for verification.

Either option produces a 50ft tall tomato plant.

Because the lines of truth are so blurred, it's easy to claim swapping gender is no different than using hair dye to change physical appearance. But there is a limit; it's always still hair and always grows in the original color, just that the appearance is disguised. I suspect it's no different for Bruce. Real lemonade isn't very sweet, you have to add sugar to alter its taste from the original. Because you achieve a palatable batch of lemon water doesn't mean you've altered the lemon itself.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Is the next step this? and are we going to haveto treat him as normal too?

dailysanctuary.com/r-medical-rel/2/?utm_source=rev_medical_cond&utm_medium=medical_cond&utm_term=DS&utm_content=viralnova.com&utm_campaign=rev_medical_cond





I find it kind of ironic they throw out the phrase at people not loving them for who they are, and yet they do everything imaginable to change the nature of who they are to start with.

[HiTemp]

Well that's the very core of the issue; who ARE they? The largest mouths in the verbal arena never seem to be the subjects themselves but other casual bystanders who seem to want to empathize with whatever internal struggle these individuals may face (if there is indeed any struggle at all). Those who are coerced or leaned on to accept these aberrations of nature are almost universally preached to along the lines of fairness, equality, or blaming someone for something they can't control.

Well, sorry, but I don't buy that for a second. You mean to tell me some gender-confused guy CAN'T control his urge to wear women's clothing? B.S. Why is it they never seem to show up for job interviews wearing what they can't control? Why is it they always get excepted for what they appear to be and only then the Jekyl-Hyde switch is activated? That is too much coincidence for me to accept it as something beyond control.

In the referenced link, does "puppy man" go job seeking dressed like that, I wonder? Probably not. Could be he doesn't go at all, I mean why bother since no one is looking for a 9-5 puppy.

All this boils down to the same thing. It's people desiring to have the freedom to do whatever they want without fear of ridicule or scorn. Even if what they do is harmful. Is there ANY professional employment coach out there advising a client to cross dress for the interview? Wear their best dog collar? NO. And for good reason. Because most people find it not only offensive but walking way out on the bridge of bizarre, and someone that far out is not a good risk for any employer for anything. It's far easier to go with the fellow who dressed appropriately, has the right demeanor, and won't be demanding a water bowl for his desk next week.

The only way to transform bizarre into "a different branch of normal" is to destroy the categories that have worked since the dawn of man. That is, right or wrong. Good or bad. Normal or abnormal. Common or unusual. Comforting or frightening. Blur them, ban them, or simply make a person feel guilty about using them and the goal is accomplished like the fellow believing he has 50 ft tomato plants.

I've always taken issue with the folks who ran around preaching "don't judge" as though it's the only moral direction in the Bible. In fact, in at least 21 other locations in scripture, people are COMMANDED to judge, but admonished that they must judge fairly. How can that be done if judging itself is somehow banned?

Moses, one of the most highly respected figures in Hebrew history, is said to have spent some twenty odd years judging the Jews who accompanied him in the Exodus. It didn't mean he hated them and it didn't mean he must have had some inborn sense of bias or injustice in his dealings. It merely meant he, like a judge in any court, was charged with the responsibility to decide whether an act was in keeping with God's law - which was their civil law also - or it wasn't. Truth HAD to be involved, as such a system could not have possibly functioned as justice were there no standard at all.

Our system today is not that far removed from the same system of justice those early Jews had. We have rules and laws, so did they. We have authorities we elect to decide the questions of righteousness in actions or those we elect appoint the ones who do. When they decide, we must accept how they decide whether we personally agree or we don't.

When you blur the lines of truth, you create a different reality than actually exists, a false reality. It's like changing the color blue to the color red effective midnight tonight. The sky tomorrow will be red (in the false reality), but exists in reality as the same blue it's always been. Thus you have something that exists that isn't acknowledged - like a male Jenner, yet you operate and interact with the redefined reality that doesn't exist, like the female Jenner or the red sky.

I wonder if NASA will simply alter the orbit of Mars because it's so hard to get there. Just launch at where you wish it would be and see how well that works out.

All of this is so much hogwash. It's just people trying to drive the nail of PC into the forehead of another in hopes they will be stalled from dealing with it as they otherwise normally would when such a situation presents itself.


Puppy man. Geeze, there are some things you just wish you never saw.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

I think that's just it, so many of the people, and not even to the extent of puppy man, but have hardware all over, tattoos clearly visible, and gauged ears that look like they should be chained to something are not functioning members of society for the most part. No one hires them as a public face of company, and there is just not that many tattoo shops or telemarketer jobs around if they could even get hired there.

And just how much are we supposed to tolerate much less call normal? Because these people are screaming look at me, if you make that normal they go further to be abnormal, and then claim thre is a bias and disapproval of them. Well duh.

But the thing you said about being judged reminds me of an old joke.

Jesus stood in front of the crowd who were going to stone to death a prostitute, he picks up a stone and said "let those without sin cast the 1st stone". No one moved for a moment, and then an elderly lady pushed her way to front and picked a rock and hurling at the woman knocking her out cold. Jesus looks at the older woman and says, "You know Ma, some days you really piss me off"

[HiTemp]

Well I know what joke I'm telling next Sunday during coffee and donuts after the mass.

That's an often-cited piece of scripture by those who don't want anyone judging them, but that was never its intent. The setting was a Sabbath day with its many strict Mosaic law limitations on what could/couldn't be done. The gist of it was that religious authorities were using their knowledge of those laws and the circumstances to squeeze out of Jesus an answer where either way he answered would invite criticism. In the modern day, its a journalist holding up a bible and asking a Republican candidate if they believe everything in it is true... if they say yes, why this guy believes in talking snakes and whales swallowing people only to spit them out alive days later. If they say no, this guy doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure or that Caesar was ruler of the Roman empire. It's a lose-lose no matter how they answer it, and that's just what bringing the prostitute to Jesus was supposed to accomplish. Putting the decision back on them and tying it to their own personal impeccability forced the question of righteousness back upon the questioners, and the result was they went away.

It's not a call to never judge, it's a call to never be so caught up in legalism that we lose sight of mercy. To remind ourselves by looking in the mirror that people are not perfect, and that transgressions can be worked out in ways short of deprivation of life itself. Why, I like to remind those who try to use this as a free ticket to non-criticism, did Jesus say to the woman, "Go, and sin no more?" Why would He say that if 1)the was no sin involved and 2)there was no need or imperative to turn away from the behavior? If the behavior was just fine, why say anything at all? He did judge, just that He was trying to drive home the point that religious authorities are not above transgression themselves even while parading around as examples for everyone else. That they should use their own failings as a reminder to administer justice tempered with mercy as they themselves would hope for were they held to account for their own transgressions.

That doesn't exclude criticism of the bizarre or making a judgment of the soundness of an individual's behavior. If anything it establishes it.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

I never really thought it was a condemnation of judgment, but of punishment at the hands of hypocrites. And did he not also tell her to go and sin no more after stopping the punishment on her? Not to just go and keep sinning since everyone else is and and you won't be judged for it.

That is kind of what we were. We did at one time persecute and do harm to deviants, then we simply ostracized them as pariahs, now we at lrage are punished for even judging.