OK, so i really need to preface this with the fact that this is a genuine question, my knowledge of political ideologies and their naming schemes is basically āthings i heard in passing on the internetā.
Also apologies if itās a joke that iāve /whooshed on.
What is the difference between the type of democratic socialist you are and a social democrat.
The reason i ask is that the only other social democrat (or democratic socialist, assuming there isnāt a difference) political ideology Iāve heard of was the precursor to the naziās.
Itās really not a dig, iām interested in the answer.
See: Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez(AOC), or other progressive democrats or independents.
That video isnāt loading for me.
As far as I know, yes they are similar. (social democrat to democratic socialist)
I guess the difference is inclusivity. And if weāre talking a Party or ideology(capitalization matters, like Iām a democrat, but not a Democrat.)
Unlike Nazis, Iām for inclusivity. Come as you are, all faiths welcome.
But I also personally detest body mutilation. Even when they want it. Yea, all forms. So tattoos, piercings, gauges, split tongues, etc. but to be clear: I donāt think it should be illegal for adults to āmutilate themselvesā, voluntarily. Itās just not for me. Itās a gut feeling kind of thing.
I think maybe, psychologically, itās because it is seeking external validation. To āpassā as the kids say. I donāt think people should need to āpassāā¦ Youāre good as your are. I donāt think youāre going to improve on Godās design.
See: Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez(AOC), or other progressive democrats or independents.
As far as I know, yes they are similar. (social democrat to democratic socialist)
I guess the difference is inclusivity. And if weāre talking a Party or ideology(capitalization matters, like Iām a democrat, but not a Democrat.)
Unlike Nazis, Iām for inclusivity. Come as you are, all faiths welcome.
Useful and mostly answers my question, thanks.
But I also personally detest body mutilation. Even when they want it. Yea, all forms. So tattoos, piercings, gauges, split tongues, etc. but to be clear: I donāt think it should be illegal for adults to āmutilate themselvesā, voluntarily. Itās just not for me. Itās a gut feeling kind of thing.
Fair enough.
I think maybe, psychologically, itās because it is seeking external validation. To āpassā as the kids say. I donāt think people should need to āpassāā¦ Youāre good as your are.
You lost me at this bit though, by that rationale anything external that isnāt strictly functional would fall under this category.
Coloured clothes, haircuts that arenāt just to keep the hair out of your eyes, any accessories of any kind ?
It also feels like a big leap to claim external validation as the only reason for personal expression.
That being said, as long as you arenāt forcing it on other people, you do you, personal choice is important.
I donāt think youāre going to improve on Godās design.
Iām going to be honest, I donāt like this way of thinking, at all.
Iām all for personal faith, but the problems with that statement arenāt theistic in nature, theyāre logical.
The only way that statement works is if itās absolute. If Godās design is perfect it has to be āperfectā.
If any part of the design is questionable then itās all questionable.
I take that back, you could argue that we canāt improve upon gods design in just the areas we are talking about (body mods) but then iād follow up: with why can we not improve upon body-mod related areas, but we can on something like vision for instance?
Easy go-to examples are everywhere
Spectacles being a prime example.
Wheelchairs, or any mobility aid really.
Hearing aids, inhalers.
The most contextually relevant example i can think of is a cleft lip, something that you could live a full life with but would be significantly better off without.
I believe youāre responding to an argument I didnāt quite make.
I wasnāt saying āany external change = validation.ā I was talking specifically about physiological body modification done to fit in or āpassā ā¦ thatās a much narrower category than general self-expression viaā¦
Clothes, hairstyles, accessories, etc. arenāt comparable. Those are temporary, low-stakes, and reversible. Iām talking about chronic physical changes to the body.
And even then, I didnāt claim external validation is the only reason, but just that itās a common psychological driver in some cases.
So no, the logic doesnāt expand to āeverything non-functional.ā Thatās a mischaracterization.
On the āGodās designā point, youāre also stretching it into areas I wasnāt talking about. Medical interventions like glasses, mobility aids, or corrective surgery (like cleft lip repair) are about restoring function or alleviating harm.
My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. Thatās insane, IMO. Thatās jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.
If you want to challenge the position, thatās fine, but it should be the position I actually stated, not a broader version of it.
I believe youāre responding to an argument I didnāt quite make.
I wasnāt saying āany external change = validation.ā I was talking specifically about physiological body modification done to fit in or āpassā ā¦ thatās a much narrower category than general self-expression viaā¦
Ah, thatās my bad, i read it as all body mods are external validation driven.
Clothes, hairstyles, accessories, etc. arenāt comparable. Those are temporary, low-stakes, and reversible. Iām talking about chronic physical changes to the body.
Stakes are relative in this case, just because you care about the permanence or reversibility of a modification doesnāt mean others do.
but yeah, itās not an exact match.
And even then, I didnāt claim external validation is the only reason, but just that itās a common psychological driver in some cases. So no, the logic doesnāt expand to āeverything non-functional.ā Thatās a mischaracterization.
see above
On the āGodās designā point, youāre also stretching it into areas I wasnāt talking about. Medical interventions like glasses, mobility aids, or corrective surgery (like cleft lip repair) are about restoring function or alleviating harm.
This weāll have to disagree on, unless you have a convincing way of explaining why we canāt improve on gods design with stylistic choices, but medical intervention is ok.
I realise how that sounds (to me at least) but your phrasing didnāt leave any leeway in that it didnāt really specify what about gods design could possibly be improved upon.
It also gets into conversation about what exactly constitutes harm, psychological harm exists and can be just as devastating as physical harm.
Not to mention that psychological harm can cause physical harm, i donāt mean self-harm (though thatās a thing also) i mean detrimental physiological changes brought about by negative psychological pressure.
My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. Thatās insane, IMO. Thatās jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.
My answer to this would be contingent upon your answer to āwhat about godās design is possible for us to improve upon?ā.
If you want to challenge the position, thatās fine, but it should be the position I actually stated, not a broader version of it.
Thatās fair, though as i said your position was unclear in that the statement seems to be an absolute with no specification as to boundaries.
I did go back and adjust my statement to ask a question around boundaries in the original reply, Iām not sure if you replied before or after this.
If you donāt mind giving me some clarification on where those boundaries exist i can be more specific.
The āGodās designā line wasnāt meant as a literal argument! Lol. It was more rhetorical shorthand, and yeah, a bit tongue-in-cheek(Iām atheist).
The actual point I care about isnāt at all theological, itās about where we draw the line between restoring function and altering a healthy body for social or aesthetic reasons.
The āGodās designā line wasnāt meant as a literal argument! Lol.
Thatās a very poor choice of phrase for a conversation with no cues outside of text.
And youāve managed to go through my entire previous reply without mentioning that you didnāt actually mean it, which is additionally confusing.
So iāll assume function restoration and harm reduction are the line for you, now i can answer the statement i skipped.
My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. Thatās insane, IMO. Thatās jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.
I wasnāt comparing cleft lip restoration to tattoos, piercings or split tongues because thatās a terrible comparison, one is functionally restorative and the others are aesthetic aside from the split tongue which is also functionally additive.
I was using it as an example as to why āgodās designā is a poor argument.
As it seems āgodās designā wasnāt an actual argument you were making, this is less relevant.
I would point you back to my arguments about psychological harm reduction in itās many forms, some of which are societal in nature (fitting in, for example).
Iām not advocating for caving to peer pressure against someoneās will, Iām saying that voluntary personal choices that include societal considerations can contribute to a foundation of long term psychological harm reduction.
In simpler terms, finding your people and fitting in can help you feel better both mentally and physically.
As youāve stated youāre not forcing your opinion on others, we can agree to disagree on where the lines are with no real consequences.
Might be worth considering that not all harm is physical or immediate, when assessing what constitutes harm reduction.
It just wasnāt meant literally. Again, itās rhetorical. Thatās still an argumentā¦
Itās not a great argument if taken literally but thatās also why it was chosen, the ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. Indeed, there are endless gods, and which one I may have been referring to absolutely isnāt relevant(Iām not making a theological argument.) When you understand that, it becomes a stronger argument.
Iām essentially arguing that people should embrace their nature rather than deny it or subvert it.
Replace god with nature, basically.
If you need to pave paradise and put up a parking lot to fit in, I guess youāll have your reward? But itāll also be your undoing.
It just wasnāt meant literally. Again, itās rhetorical. Thatās still an argumentā¦
Not a good one, but sure, technically.
Itās not a great argument if taken literally but thatās also why it was chosen, the ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. Indeed, there are endless gods, and which one I may have been referring to absolutely isnāt relevant(Iām not making a theological argument.) When you understand that, it becomes a stronger argument.
It does not, ambiguity over an already unclear position does not make for a strong argument.
It took us 3 back and forths for you to actually explain what you meant.
You used a small phrase with no supporting context to imply it wasnāt meant to be taken literally.
Iām essentially arguing that people should embrace their nature rather than deny it or subvert it.
Thatās also a poor argument in itās ambiguity , āembrace their natureā is almost as hand-wavy as āgods designā, though it falls down for a different reason.
Replace god with nature, basically.
Youād have to work hard to pick a more subjective benchmark than ānatureā, there are tribes and cultures who think/thought foot binding was natural, human sacrifice, tribal marking, scarification, FGM, MGM (circumcision), head binding and basically any other cultural practice youād care to mention.
If you need to pave paradise and put up a parking lot to fit in, I guess youāll have your reward? But itāll also be your undoing.
That makes even less sense than ānaturalā.
It also addresses none of the points raised.
Honestly i think this is on me at this point, you did say right at the beginning you worked from a āgut feelingā itās my bad for trying to get you to formalise that.
You have your boundaries, they seem arbitrary and nonsensical to me, but they donāt have to make sense to me because Iām not using them.
OK, so i really need to preface this with the fact that this is a genuine question, my knowledge of political ideologies and their naming schemes is basically āthings i heard in passing on the internetā.
Also apologies if itās a joke that iāve /whooshed on.
What is the difference between the type of democratic socialist you are and a social democrat.
Is it a Peoples Front Of Judea type of thing ? or is there a legitimate difference?
The reason i ask is that the only other social democrat (or democratic socialist, assuming there isnāt a difference) political ideology Iāve heard of was the precursor to the naziās.
Itās really not a dig, iām interested in the answer.
See: Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez(AOC), or other progressive democrats or independents.
That video isnāt loading for me.
As far as I know, yes they are similar. (social democrat to democratic socialist)
I guess the difference is inclusivity. And if weāre talking a Party or ideology(capitalization matters, like Iām a democrat, but not a Democrat.)
Unlike Nazis, Iām for inclusivity. Come as you are, all faiths welcome.
But I also personally detest body mutilation. Even when they want it. Yea, all forms. So tattoos, piercings, gauges, split tongues, etc. but to be clear: I donāt think it should be illegal for adults to āmutilate themselvesā, voluntarily. Itās just not for me. Itās a gut feeling kind of thing.
I think maybe, psychologically, itās because it is seeking external validation. To āpassā as the kids say. I donāt think people should need to āpassāā¦ Youāre good as your are. I donāt think youāre going to improve on Godās design.
Useful and mostly answers my question, thanks.
Fair enough.
You lost me at this bit though, by that rationale anything external that isnāt strictly functional would fall under this category.
Coloured clothes, haircuts that arenāt just to keep the hair out of your eyes, any accessories of any kind ?
It also feels like a big leap to claim external validation as the only reason for personal expression.
That being said, as long as you arenāt forcing it on other people, you do you, personal choice is important.
Iām going to be honest, I donāt like this way of thinking, at all.
Iām all for personal faith, but the problems with that statement arenāt theistic in nature, theyāre logical.
The only way that statement works is if itās absolute. If Godās design is perfect it has to be āperfectā.If any part of the design is questionable then itās all questionable.I take that back, you could argue that we canāt improve upon gods design in just the areas we are talking about (body mods) but then iād follow up: with why can we not improve upon body-mod related areas, but we can on something like vision for instance?
Easy go-to examples are everywhere
The most contextually relevant example i can think of is a cleft lip, something that you could live a full life with but would be significantly better off without.
I believe youāre responding to an argument I didnāt quite make.
I wasnāt saying āany external change = validation.ā I was talking specifically about physiological body modification done to fit in or āpassā ā¦ thatās a much narrower category than general self-expression viaā¦
Clothes, hairstyles, accessories, etc. arenāt comparable. Those are temporary, low-stakes, and reversible. Iām talking about chronic physical changes to the body.
And even then, I didnāt claim external validation is the only reason, but just that itās a common psychological driver in some cases. So no, the logic doesnāt expand to āeverything non-functional.ā Thatās a mischaracterization.
On the āGodās designā point, youāre also stretching it into areas I wasnāt talking about. Medical interventions like glasses, mobility aids, or corrective surgery (like cleft lip repair) are about restoring function or alleviating harm.
My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. Thatās insane, IMO. Thatās jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.
If you want to challenge the position, thatās fine, but it should be the position I actually stated, not a broader version of it.
Ah, thatās my bad, i read it as all body mods are external validation driven.
Stakes are relative in this case, just because you care about the permanence or reversibility of a modification doesnāt mean others do.
but yeah, itās not an exact match.
see above
This weāll have to disagree on, unless you have a convincing way of explaining why we canāt improve on gods design with stylistic choices, but medical intervention is ok.
I realise how that sounds (to me at least) but your phrasing didnāt leave any leeway in that it didnāt really specify what about gods design could possibly be improved upon.
It also gets into conversation about what exactly constitutes harm, psychological harm exists and can be just as devastating as physical harm.
Not to mention that psychological harm can cause physical harm, i donāt mean self-harm (though thatās a thing also) i mean detrimental physiological changes brought about by negative psychological pressure.
My answer to this would be contingent upon your answer to āwhat about godās design is possible for us to improve upon?ā.
Thatās fair, though as i said your position was unclear in that the statement seems to be an absolute with no specification as to boundaries.
I did go back and adjust my statement to ask a question around boundaries in the original reply, Iām not sure if you replied before or after this.
If you donāt mind giving me some clarification on where those boundaries exist i can be more specific.
The āGodās designā line wasnāt meant as a literal argument! Lol. It was more rhetorical shorthand, and yeah, a bit tongue-in-cheek(Iām atheist). The actual point I care about isnāt at all theological, itās about where we draw the line between restoring function and altering a healthy body for social or aesthetic reasons.
Thatās my boundary.
Thatās a very poor choice of phrase for a conversation with no cues outside of text.
And youāve managed to go through my entire previous reply without mentioning that you didnāt actually mean it, which is additionally confusing.
So iāll assume function restoration and harm reduction are the line for you, now i can answer the statement i skipped.
I wasnāt comparing cleft lip restoration to tattoos, piercings or split tongues because thatās a terrible comparison, one is functionally restorative and the others are aesthetic aside from the split tongue which is also functionally additive.
I was using it as an example as to why āgodās designā is a poor argument.
As it seems āgodās designā wasnāt an actual argument you were making, this is less relevant.
I would point you back to my arguments about psychological harm reduction in itās many forms, some of which are societal in nature (fitting in, for example).
Iām not advocating for caving to peer pressure against someoneās will, Iām saying that voluntary personal choices that include societal considerations can contribute to a foundation of long term psychological harm reduction.
In simpler terms, finding your people and fitting in can help you feel better both mentally and physically.
As youāve stated youāre not forcing your opinion on others, we can agree to disagree on where the lines are with no real consequences.
Might be worth considering that not all harm is physical or immediate, when assessing what constitutes harm reduction.
It just wasnāt meant literally. Again, itās rhetorical. Thatās still an argumentā¦
Itās not a great argument if taken literally but thatās also why it was chosen, the ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. Indeed, there are endless gods, and which one I may have been referring to absolutely isnāt relevant(Iām not making a theological argument.) When you understand that, it becomes a stronger argument.
Iām essentially arguing that people should embrace their nature rather than deny it or subvert it.
Replace god with nature, basically.
If you need to pave paradise and put up a parking lot to fit in, I guess youāll have your reward? But itāll also be your undoing.
Not a good one, but sure, technically.
It does not, ambiguity over an already unclear position does not make for a strong argument.
It took us 3 back and forths for you to actually explain what you meant.
You used a small phrase with no supporting context to imply it wasnāt meant to be taken literally.
Thatās also a poor argument in itās ambiguity , āembrace their natureā is almost as hand-wavy as āgods designā, though it falls down for a different reason.
Youād have to work hard to pick a more subjective benchmark than ānatureā, there are tribes and cultures who think/thought foot binding was natural, human sacrifice, tribal marking, scarification, FGM, MGM (circumcision), head binding and basically any other cultural practice youād care to mention.
That makes even less sense than ānaturalā.
It also addresses none of the points raised.
Honestly i think this is on me at this point, you did say right at the beginning you worked from a āgut feelingā itās my bad for trying to get you to formalise that.
You have your boundaries, they seem arbitrary and nonsensical to me, but they donāt have to make sense to me because Iām not using them.
Thanks for the back and forth anyway.