Ben Shapiro vs Neil deGrasse Tyson: The WAR Over Transgender Issues

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm guessing that TWM saw an opportunity to claim he was being unfairly persecuted and leaped at the chance.

Cuz he's woke woke woke. Said he kicked the virus. Looks like a long case from here to me.

[Ferrocyanide]

This seems an absurd position to me, it was of course the argument Shapiro tried to peddle with NdGT, and he gave it the contempt it deserved. Just because one sets a bar for credulity that requires beliefs be supported by sufficient objective evidence, does not mean one can't have a favourite colour based on an entirely subjective view, and the same for moral judgements. I can abhor actions like rape and murder that cause harm to others unnecessarily, but this does not mean I delude myself that it is objectively true that harming others is wrong. 

Just another disingenuous objection used as cover by a religious nut.  It follows pretty cleanly from the notions that there is objective evidence for the existence of trans people and objective evidence that harming people is wrong...that harming trans people would be wrong.  They don't give a shit about that, though.  Their god has an opinion.  Their culture has a position.

Well, morality can be objective.
If harm is detectable by anyone, then it is objective. For example, it is pretty much generally accepted that we don't want to be punched in the face because it hurts, we don't want our stuff stolen from us. <====That is pretty universal and so, it goes into the objective box.

Other decisions, such as deciding that a 16 y old (and less) can't get married since he has not reach the age of consent and so it is immoral, that goes into the subjective box.

[Silver]

Clearly, protecting women means falsely accusing women due to a conservative bias.

[Sheldon]

Just another disingenuous objection used as cover by a religious nut.  It follows pretty cleanly from the notions that there is objective evidence for the existence of trans people and objective evidence that harming people is wrong...that harming trans people would be wrong.  They don't give a shit about that, though.  Their god has an opinion.  Their culture has a position.

Well, morality can be objective.
If harm is detectable by anyone, then it is objective. For example, it is pretty much generally accepted that we don't want to be punched in the face because it hurts, we don't want our stuff stolen from us. <====That is pretty universal and so, it goes into the objective box.

Other decisions, such as deciding that a 16 y old (and less) can't get married since he has not reach the age of consent and so it is immoral, that goes into the subjective box.

Whilst I'd agree that it is immoral to cause unnecessary harm, this is a subjective claim, it is not objectively true that causing unnecessary harm is immoral, obviously. That there is a broad consensus on any moral assertion, or even were it a universal consensus, doesn't make that moral assertion objectively true. 

Ultimately all moral assertions rest on subjective claims, though once we agree on a moral assertion, we can of course make objectively true claims about how to best avoid those immoral acts, or achieve moral ones. For example if we agree it is immoral to cause (I would add the word unnecessary here) harm, then it is objectively true that punching someone for no good reason is immoral, but the moral assertion that causing (unnecessary) harm is immoral is still a subjective one.

[The Grand Nudger]

In a metaethical sense of the term our not wanting this or that is not objective. It's subjective (or noncognitive). Similarly, if the age of consent were subjective it would be based on the specific child in question (or their legal guardian) wanting to be married and believing they were mature enough to make that decision. What we do when it comes to legality is more often relativist than objectivist or subjectivist - as the law does not care if the child in question feels mature enough, actually is, wants to be married, or does not (in the case of arranged child brides, for example).

The point is not to argue whether or not this or that is objective or subjective..though. The point is that nuts like to mount these kinds of arguments as diversionary tactics and rhetorical traps. They don't believe a word of what they say to people they're trying to trigger.

[Silver]

Age of consent is subjective when compared to the objectivity of puberty.

The issue with consent is connected to mental maturity, and not everyone mentally matures at the same rate.

[Angrboda]

In a metaethical sense of the term our not wanting this or that is not objective.  It's subjective (or noncognitive).  Similarly, if the age of consent were subjective it would be based on the specific child in question (or their legal guardian) wanting to be married and believing they were mature enough to make that decision.  What we do when it comes to legality is more often relativist than objectivist or subjectivist - as the law does not care if the child in question feels mature enough, actually is, wants to be married, or does not (in the case of arranged child brides, for example).  

The point is not to argue whether or not this or that is objective or subjective..though.  The point is that nuts like to mount these kinds of arguments as diversionary tactics and rhetorical traps.  They don't believe a word of what they say to people they're trying to trigger.

This is nothing but an appeal to consequences. Hard to sympathize with your complaint about nutters when you're acting like a nutter yourself.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not making an appeal from or to any consequences of any thing in any word of that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Age of consent is subjective when compared to the objectivity of puberty.

The issue with consent is connected to mental maturity, and not everyone mentally matures at the same rate.

Relative in the metaethical sense (here, ofc).  If it were subjective then courts would defer to the reporting subject.  They do not.  Our legal system sets a number which is not a fact of the matter because there is none - as you note we do not all mature at the same rates....nor necessarily referent to a fact of the reporting subject, as we are not beholden to defer to a particularly mature subject or on a case by case basis.

[Silver]

Indeed, because someone on their eighteenth birthday is not magically more mature than they were a single day ago.

I know I wasn't particularly mature in the way of the world even at twenty-one.