Exactly. It's absurd to say the designers of any system absolutely intended any and all outcomes of said system, in the same way It's absurd to attribute someone's intent as whatever you deem to be the outcome. To kind of bring it all around, it's absurd to say the designers of our overall system legitimately intended all the flaws that came with it. In fact, with things like the [American] Healthcare system, it wasn't really "designed" so much as it kinda happened. The heuristic to think of the system as working as intended is a great way to analyze it and all, but it's still important to keep in mind that the illuminati wasn't up there wringing their hands and cackling about how much suffering the barbaric American Healthcare System would cause.
I'm not sure why you got down-voted for this as I think you illustrate the intent of the above-mentioned heuristic quite well. The intent of the heuristic isn't to objectively define what the purpose of a system is(because, well... lol), but to change the framing of it in order to better understand it's function and how well it serves it's "purpose". People who design and implement these systems tend to become married to the idea of that system just needing a tweak here and there to finally serve it's purpose 100%, usually without considering that the system may already be working optimally.
The reason I think your example of the Healthcare System(in America to be specific) is a great example is that those who are served by said system see it's flaws first-hand versus those who design and maintain it. To the individual(s) on the receiving end, the purpose of the system is effectively something completely different than the original purpose given. To then apply the framing that the purpose of the Healthcare system is to add stress, bankrupt the sick, skyrocket costs, make people die from neglect, etc, we then see the system not as a flawed one that just needs a few tweaks, but as fundamentally missing the mark before it's epistemological foundation is even laid. We're able to get the engineers see what the maintenance crew sees, so to speak.
What the heuristic doesn't do is objectively establish the purpose of a system. That's silly, as purpose is necessarily subjective. I think our boy was trying to find a way of not only better analyzing a system, but to also help the designers of those systems see it from the perspective of those on the receiving end. What better way than to think of a system as working exactly as intended?
As for me, I think we tend to subconsciously project our intent into the world, effectively turning our framing of things we do/create as objectively inheriting the purpose we had in mind, regardless of the outcome. This can really muddy the waters with what we mean when we discuss something like purpose, which I suspect is the source of apparent confusion within this particular thread. Purpose being subjective, it will change from person to person, and purpose being subjective, it's a poor indicator of how a system functions.
As a preface, I absolutely agree that the parents here are very likely to be wrong in that it seems like they were ideologically opposed to their son's identity.
HOWEVER. I find it difficult to trust the validity and/or truth in the details given about this particular story as the article and title are both blatantly biased. On top of that, the claims made about the intentions and motivations of others are aggressively ignorant and just insanely unhelpful. You want people to double down on transphobia? Tell them they're a terrible person and they're only transphobic because _____. I get it, conservatives, Christians, etc should respect Trans people and their autonomy, but it's better for literally everyone to find the best way to reach these people in a way they'd actually be receptive to, rather than trashing and dehumanizing them as monsters. If they're conservatives, it shouldn't be surprising when they act like it. We should also recognize that they're people who are capable of learning to be better.
I used to be homophobic. I was a fairly conservative Christian back in the day and the justification came via biblical principles. I didn't learn to be better by being characterized as "he only hates gay people because he's secretly gay himself" or "he just wants to control what other people do in the bedroom", but rather by actually engaging my own rationalizations. I would have rejected the premise that I hated anyone who was homosexual, so any rhetoric that mirrors the dishonesty of this article would have been a non-starter. In fact, it would have seemed to me that there were no legitimate arguments to be made against my position, so I would have felt more justified with the given approach above. Being in a few opposing positions on the topic, I never believed that my concurrent position was morally wrong, even though I would strongly submit today that my position before as a conservative Christian absolutely was immoral and extremely uninformed. The takeaway I'm trying to emphasize is that going on the offensive for any such position is not only ridiculous, but very counterproductive.
While I understand the frustration with what this article appears to portray, the added dishonesty is harmful in that we're dehumanizing two parents who probably legitimately believe what they are doing is justified and moral. Attacking them would make them double down on their beliefs and who would directly suffer for it? Their son. So where I always found the blatant bias of articles or the always ridiculous non-argument "you just believe _____ because _____" inherently dishonest and icky, I think we should definitely take better stock of how we approach these topics for more than just the intellectual honesty, but also to recognize the second, third, and even fourth order effects our method of approach manifests. Outrage, especially about something moral, feels good, but what good is it when directed the way it is in this article? I could accuse them of being blind and only utilizing outrage as a clickbait tactic, and I have a chance of being correct, but I'm not arrogant enough to assert that I know for a fact what they believe and intend and post that on the internet.
Hey, sorry for the late reply, but like... ya know, ADHD.
Sounds to me like you already practice some Stoic principles and that's fucking fantastic! I think you might also benefit from the writings of Epictetus, specifically in his Discourses. He talks about the Dichotomy of Control, which I think is something that would be beneficial to you to study. It's certainly been a world of help for clarity of thought for me.
Damn, man. You really gotta call out my disengaged ass, don't you? I think you make an extremely important and overlooked point here. In any kind of social movement it's imperative that you gain a following for that movement. On an individual level, you do that with good reasoning and specifically not using unnecessary antagonism. It reminds me of all the leftists who were recently bemoaning all the apathy in the 2016 election for what they perceived as "I like whichever candidate, but their supporters were mean to me". I mean, they'd be correct that this is a childish reason to disengage completely, but these are the exact same people you need to join in your social movement. Too many times we get so obsessive with the academic structure of a movement that we become blind to the world that would benefit from it. We forget that we need to find a way that others would be receptive to our message in how we present it. Truth at all costs is admirable on the surface, but how admirable can it be when the cost is mass dismissal because we felt entitled to be antagonistic toward those who don't agree yet? So maybe I should put childish ways behind me and begin engaging with others in charitable and good faith.
Oh my god, that's something that gets under my skin so very quickly and it's sadly so common. It's such a specifically arrogant kind of strawmanning where you're telling someone else what they think sometimes even in direct contradiction to what they say. Like "you're just jealous" or "you just want to ____". It just reeks of anti-intellectualism and everyone is worse off with every use. We desperately need more people to learn the principles of philosophy, and maybe even more specifically of epistemology.
Civilization III Final Fantasy IX Valheim Kerbal Space Program Stellaris Empire Earth Borderlands 2 Morrowind Halo: Reach Rimworld
The must be mentioned: KOTOR Bioshock(and Infinite) Final Fantasy 4, 14, 5, 6 in that order AOE 2 Red Alert 2 Total War: Rome, Rome 2, Medieval 2, and Shogun Lords of the Realm 2 No Man's Sky Horizon series Space Empires V Battlefield 1942 Medal of Honor(the first one from the 90's, not that bullshit reboot from 2010) Smash Bros Melee, 64, Brawl in that order Crysis Warcraft II: The Tides of Darkness Theme Hospital MDK2 Chrono Trigger
It was tough leaving some of those mentioned ones out of the top ten, but the top ten belong where they are for me for how definining they were/are for me.