.jpg.f65f380b41223f3ab79ccf5b1b97e87e.jpg)
Hmmm lies
-
Posts
919 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
News
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by Hmmm lies
-
I got mine through an informed consent clinic, so I didn't need an assessment. Basically, I took a blood test to see what my dosage should be and make sure it would be fine, me and my mom signed this form that basically was us agreeing that we were aware of all of the effects and side effects, and then we were able to get a prescription. I don't know where you live, but I think most provinces of Canada have that as an option.
-
Huh, this somehow became the post popular post on this thread. Maybe I should try putting things in lettered lists more. If we accept that A. Animals have souls Then it stems to reason that B. It is the brain which denotes a soul And since C. Brains are used for logical processing D. B and C implies that anything that can logically process something has a soul E. D implies that a computer would have a soul F. D doesn't necessarily have any lower bounds on the logic necessary for something to have a soul G. F implies that anything that receives input and produces output has a soul H. F implies that, for example, uranium atoms have a soul, as well as nearly every construct in the universe. Maybe that's confusing, and yeah maybe that's not perfect, but what I'm trying to ask is, if animals have souls, because they think, what exactly is "thinking", and what necessarily makes something qualify as 'alive'?
-
Ugh, that sucks. One thing I would try is to try and remember when I felt euphoric. To try and remember the optimism and happiness I felt. And like otherwise trying to redirect my emotions. It's tricky though, and I'll admit, I just kinda suffered through it a lot. Also, something that's slightly inconvenient is that it's been so long since I went through a lot of this stuff that I don't remember it as well anymore.
-
Ok, awesome! I'll let you know if I think anything should be added, but I think it looks good for now!
-
Yeah, I'll remind you if you haven't already done it.
-
Oh hey by the way @Theory, I think maybe you should change the name of this thread to something like "Trans hangout thread" or something like that, if we're making this the new standard thread for trans people. Also maybe edit the first post to explain that while this was originally made as a space for transfems, it quickly became for all trans people.
-
"Just now. I'm surprised to see you here already." Emma looks a little more feminine than the day before. Seems like her transitioning is faster than average. "I'm thinking we wait for Isabel to get up. She's a high priest, and it seems like she talks to a lot of people. Probably our best option for collecting information. What've you been doing?"
-
Well, in my situation, I only asked them to like a few months after I came out, but it wasn't because I was scared, but because I wasn't yet out to my siblings. But your situation seems tricky... I don't think any harm could come from asking, at least that way, you could figure out what their arguments are, and find a way to refute them. But convincing them could be another issue. The only thing I can think of is somehow getting them to understand how misgendering hurts you.
-
Haha, I still cringe to this day about how I did it. (Let's just say I made too much of a spectacle) But what I do advise is making a script for yourself, so you know what to say in the moment. Also tell them you have something important to tell them in advance, so it's harder to back out.
-
I mean, one would hope not, but even if so, it'll go away. It took a little while before my family stopped accidentally misgendering me, but now it hasn't happened in like a year. In other words, they'll get used to it. And if they prompted this, I think you're fine.
-
A good idea, if others feel left out. I'll focus my gay endeavors here, with more trans stuff on the other thread.
-
Well, since I've been out for a while, yeah. At first it felt amazing. Now, it's natural, because well, that's my name. Naturally I'll be called that. @certifiedcranedriver I forget, have you told your family your chosen name yet?
-
Uh yeah pretty much
-
I got like the left half of the front of my hair dyed pink
-
I've dyed my hair and it's so peak
-
[Ok, let's continue this I guess. Lemme know if you object to how I'm continuing] Emma, in the morning, gets out of bed, ready to work with the others to find answers.
-
I noticed your first paragraph, I didn't notice the other two. This kind of fits in with my biggest problem with WaT. (If you disagree, please don't let me know, I've heard every reason to dislike WaT, and I agree with some of them, and disagree with a lot of them.) (spoilers for WaT just in case) Basically, I don't take offense with any of the characters actions or anything, but I dislike elements of the narrative. El just so happens to be one of those problems.
-
I'm being a bit metaphorical and melodramatic I suppose, but like, life felt more like a movie than an experience, in that I felt like I wasn't really a part of my own life. I also didn't have as much of a sense of self really, I didn't really know who I was then.
-
This is a question that I myself have struggled with for a long time. A good argument, for sure. I genuinely don't have an answer. One part of my mind says yes. It's mathematically the most optimal thing for humanities existence. Another says no, but despite that, it can't seem to come up with any objective reasons as to wrong. The best it can come up with is 'it feels wrong'. The fact that I feel that way, however, implies that there might be something wrong about that. Another, 'middle ground' part of my mind takes another stance. For example, it puts forward that while this might be better in the short-term, it would be better to increase the lifespan of humans so they could experience more. It also would say that this future would be completely infeasible, and it would be better to look toward more reasonable progress. It's a question that I'm still trying to find the answer to, one way or another. I disagree on this notion, and put forward that it would be impossible. I think of brains like hyperadvanced computers. They take sensory input, and give output in the form of actions. For your argument I would argue that, depending on your definition of reacting versus taking action, either: Real human beings don't 'take action for themselves' because they will always act based on their sensory input or Our zombie could take action for itself, because it would have a 'simulation' of thoughts and emotions, even if it's not truly experiencing them.
-
Uh yeah I felt a lot less emotional as an egg. Like stuff didn't 'really' matter to me. I was less of a real person, it felt like. Weird and hard to describe I guess.
-
I kinda felt like this as an egg, I don't remember too much of how that particular part felt tho
-
I've heard some atheists use 'soul' to mean 'consciousness' or 'sentience'. In other words, the difference between being a bunch of molecules and energy and being a person. I don't use it like that, as I feel that even if there was some sort of explanation for sentience, I wouldn't be calling it a soul. I've heard of that, actually, but I've never liked it. I feel like there's just far far too much nuance for every situation for a set of rules to work. Perhaps it works well for a lack of doubt in one's actions, if one always follows one's rules, then one doesn't have to worry that one made the wrong choice. However (I did a bit more research) I do like the idea that intent, not consequences determine the morality of an action. It's like I said, one can never know all the consequences. Often, when I learn about philosophies, even if I disagree, I end up finding that at least part of it has value or seems good.
-
Ok yeah, I wouldn't pressure anything, but it's still possible.
-
...sounds a little eggy to me (i basically had this same thought)
-
Ooh, philosophy, fun. So, for I while, I considered myself a utilitarian. The idea of maximizing the total amount of happiness/good in the world. And uh, I don't exactly think it's wrong per say anymore, but I realize that it's impossible. One can't know what the consequences of one's actions necessarily are. I like it on small ways, but not in huge ways. (Take Taravangian. (Stormlight spoilers)) But like, I think the morally correct choice in the trolley problem is to pull the lever, for example. Anyway, that's not what my philosophy is anymore. What I have now is anti-nihilism. It's not the inverse of nihilism like the name would suggest. Basically, I think that the world has no inherent purpose or meaning, but that we can make our own purposes. Just because I don't think there's a reason for anything doesn't mean I can't find the world beautiful. I know it's because of signals in my brain, but why should that be any less real? Morality? I think it's relative, but real. Humanity, with or without religion, comes up with it. Again, signals in the brain, but they're still real. Maybe there's a lot of difficult edge cases about what's right, but I don't think any philosophy is going to perfectly resolve all of them. I don't think it's necessary. We live because of natural selection, if we didn't live, we wouldn't exist. We want to be good people because it's more viable for humans to work together rather than to compete with each other. We want to continue living because humans are naturally averse to dying, because if we weren't, we wouldn't exist. I don't have the answer to everything, but I don't think anyone does. One thing that still stumps me is consciousness. In other words, why are we observers of the universe? Many theists have put forth that it necessarily means the existence of a god or soul. I think they might be right, but it has no more credence than any other ideas, and it doesn't necessarily have to be their religion. And, I put forward a philosophy question. Let's say you had one person who was only a series of chemical reactions and substances, but had no soul/consciousness. They would act completely like a human, except they aren't actually experiencing anything. Would there be any way to tell this 'philosophy-zombie' apart from someone with a consciousness?
.thumb.jpg.cff62451be9f37e3a143100242fb10d8.jpg)