My favourite sentence of all time, a friend and I stumbled across some 12 years ago:

"Nothing means it.." in reference to... something.

Yep. In the exact context I gave.

He also, multiple times, stood up for minorities even against his own fans, spoke highly of all people as children of God. This speaks to delusion, as I'm not religious, ubt it is outright wrong to suggest that he, personally, had some moral issue with trans people tout court.

This is a genuine thing, not my suggesting something about you - if you're willing to see Charlie for what he actually was, and see his utterances in context and without specious commentary, you may find this interesting. It was one factor that made me realise my understanding of Kirk as hateful was woefully inaccurate. It is an analysis from a Christian perspective, which is important - but also from a Kirk critic (in his lifetim).

I'll number responses rather than quoting - posts are getting quite long and gummy, as I see - sorry if that makes it more difficult.

1. Ah yep; thanks. I see nothing there that doesn't anything whatsoever to challenge the existence of trans people (and the claim that they are being x'd "out of existence" is pure theater anyway).

Gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body. — Questioner

This is true, for instance. Nothing in those lines has much of anything to do with being trans other than uses of hte words 'woman' and 'man'. We can use 'transwomen' and 'transman' and do, in most cases so I'm not seeing much of anything worth noting there? Are you able to perhaps parse out what you think supports the claim? Even if its a quippy claim for effect..

2.

I think an important part of what I said is.. — Questioner

I'm fairly sure I understood the claim. It seems far more often(to me and on the interrogation I've made of self-report surveys) that trans people will divorce from those closest for reasons important to them, and then retroactively say they were rejected. That doesn't even violate the claim that social/personal pressure caused this (i don't think so, but that's not relevant). I'm just saying that it is quite rare (and i see nothing in your posts yet to support the idea) for people to entirely reject a person for being trans, rather than doing or demanding something or other that doesn't fit with that context or those people. Clearly that can cause distress, but is very different from the claim.
Suffice to say neither of us could support our contention given self-report is all either could refer to. I don't take self-report seriously for various reasons on this matter. So, that's my thoughts but I'm not banging a drum about it or anything.

3.

but the starting point has to be to believe them. — Questioner

It absolutely does not (in my view). I can understand the impetus, and I understand its follow ons. We're approaching from different angles, it seems and ethically just don't align. The psychological starting point should be "your mind tells you your body is wrong. That's divorced from reality - lets figure out whether we can ameliorate this distress in the least invasive, least dramatic way (probably therapy and appropriate support for non-conforming behaviours or desires assuming we're not talking about hte autogynephile types). Again, that's my position - not something I'm banging a drum about. We may just need to shake hands and leave these points.

4.

Why? What did they tell you? — Questioner

I've had several good trans friends over the years (50% of which have desisted :P ) and i deal with them from time to time professionally. Professionally, I have to interrogate their stories to assess how best to action their cause (bit of a banal legal pun there lol). More often, the story breaks down into "I didn't like x" or "I don't respect my parents/friends/siblings views on y" and so they left or took offense to something and went on to attempt a cause of action. I am almost always having to advise that there is no cause of action - they made personal choices to do with who they will accept in their lives and what beliefs/views they will accept into their lives. That's fine, but not in any way anyone else's fault and certainly not a legal issue. Granted, this is often a misunderstanding of what constitutes a cause of action, but that almost further illustrates the confusions I'm trying to get at. And it is fully acceptable that this is perhaps an "educated" anecdote in the sense that its corroborative across multiple domains for me.

One of the trans people I knew quite well came to me for counsel about six years ago. I heard their entire life story. I had to pinpoint the moment they psychologically painted their parents as x and that this coloured all of their further interactions, until they tried to assault their parents on the basis they were being 'emotionally abusive" for maintaining that they can't change sex (solely. They respectly pronouns). So I know tihs type of thing happens. I'm just, mostly-speculatively suggesting it is more prevalent, and results in more of the types of reports you're (i presume) referring to than is generally accepted among TRAs.

5.

It's invalid because young white men do not face the same misunderstanding, ignorance and prejudice that transgender persons do — Questioner

Well, that's a claim. One I think is entirely wrong. You still have not grasped the point of that comparison. The logic is clear. I think this response just shows me I was right about how you're applying the standards across groups. White men (and women) are routinely assaulted (sometimes killed - certainly more than trans people, but that's to be expected given pop. numbers), ostracized, marked out as somehow defective and taught that they are inherently bad and need to work, from birth, to overcome the stain of their sex and colour.

I'm sorry, but it is not credible to claim what you have in my view. Daylight looms large..

6.

"Delusion" and "affliction" are not characteristic of the transgender identity. A delusion is a break from reality, and transgender identities are real. — Questioner

Hmm. But I am claiming that they are not 'real' in any sense required to get around "affliction" so this is somewhat mooted (not uninteresting, though!!). Even if I were to take this seriously, the "affliction" is that the identify conflicts with their body (or, ought to biologically/evolutionarily speaking). That is an affliction. Plain and simple. If it wasn't, there would be nothing to do about it. But there is, regardless of either of our positions being more correct.

I'm definitely far more reticent to invoke delusion, but if you're under the impression (which plenty are) that sex is non-binary and one can simply change one's sex then you are deluded. I'm unsure that can be argued away. I also suggest that the plenty of trans people who openly acknowledge what I'm saying gives us good reason to think perhaps an absolutist take on "trans identity" as "real" is perhaps fraught.

I massively apprecaite the far more nuanced and polite tone of this exchange. Sorry for any part i've had in creating the previously tension-laded one.

I've always said that if you would have a democracy that would be the closest to libertarian values, the libertarians themselves would be the ones very disappointed with the system. But that's their problem, not mine. — ssu

LOL. Yep.

But the outliers should not decide the rule — Questioner

Definitely with you this. I do my best not to - but then, I don't see someone like Kirk as an extremist where plenty will. I thikn that's unfounded and unfortunate - again, there may just be daylight we can't cut across if so. Not an accusation on you, just talking about the wider conversation more generally.

I like that you introduced the word "worldview" - good word. Although, I am not sure what you mean by the "trans identity worldview." — Questioner

Well, there seems to me to be a stark different between trans people who essentially just see the world as it is, and accept there's an unfortunate aspect to their nature on the one hand, and trans people who make it their entire identity and everything in their life hinges on ways in which that identity can be inculcated into all those other aspects. That seems ideological. Yaniv is probably a good, while comedic (from a detached perspective anyway), example there. The way people make that joke about how a Vegan will let you know they're vegan - even if trans people weren't, in 99% of cases easily identifiable physically, the group I'm talking about will make it plenty obvious before you have a chance to assess their height and find out their surname (quip, not claim).

No, sorry, that study does not apply, since it compares stable families with families that have dissolved. Not the same thing at all as comparing cisgender parents to transgender parents. — Questioner

That wasn't specifically a question I was answering (hence, not quoting it). In a "fully trans" family, it will be a nuclear family, albeit with the sexes switched for the gendered roles. I think the logic applies.

I also don't see how that difference changes the conclusions of the study - the point is that the dissolved families are more likely to draw outside the noted framework (fwiw, I don't care and wouldn't encourage or discourage any type of family unit that isn't abusive).

But if you are adhering to it, then what is wrong with the argument I provided you? — Leontiskos

I've treated it. In response, you essentially made the claim that certain novelties of being human is what supports the label, right? If that's wrong, correct me and I'll have another go. If that's right:

We only have two options:
1. "special" is human-centric (i.e to do with only the human lens on the world, let's say). In this case, Humans are the norm. Babies are the norm. Nothing special going on; or
2. it's not human centric and choosing specifically human attributes to support use of the label reverts to a sneaky form of using 1. It also violates the definition, eventually, as if all beings (or most) beings on Earth carry with them specificities and uniqueness not shared by others, then that is normal. Nothing special about being unique.

So in any case, It doesn't seem humans are special outside of the (totally fine, reasonable and acceptable) parochial, contingent and non-metaphysical use.

It is extremely tedious having to walk through this again in the face of claims like this:

I gave you an argument showing that, according to the definition you provided, human beings are special. — Leontiskos

Because you didn't do this. You claimed it. The argument didn't work. I have "thought about it" a lot.

Right back at you. You'd have to actually explain yourself.

On your question; No. That doesn't make any sense.

Engaging with your cite (and pointing out the flaws) is not being an "honest interlocutor"?
What exactly am I allowed to post in this discussion forum? I must agree with you uncritically? — Mijin

I did not cite it - you'll note from my language that this is obvious. As I've addressed. Please read clearly and carefully before responding. I think it's pitiful to be engaging in this way.

Yes you do; that's the whole point of trying to cite something. — Mijin

As above. You do not read posts clearly before responding. It makes things very difficult.

Your argument is baseless right now — Mijin

Err, nope. You haven't even identified it, despite my pointing it out clearly and concisely. And here you go anyway. This also shows that the comments above about domestic-abuse related crimes both doesn't hold up, and doesn't make sense.

ChatGPT warns that, given the limitations in the data, arrests are likely to be higher.

There we go. Now my argument is perfectly well founded, even based on your misreadings and fallacies.

If I posted anything incorrect then please correct me. — Mijin

Fallacies are not 'incorrect'. They are bad arguments. You:

1. Poisoned the well;
2. Made statements without backing (about an identifiable person);
3. Strawmanned.

Anti-Islam isn't racist. It isn't even bigoted. It's having a preference against a religion. Antichristian themes have been well-accepted across most of society (to the point of extremely offensive provocation) for decades. Nothing wrong with it.

The majority of claims about Robinson stem from reports. Not facts. He's clearly not the greatest spokesperson for anything, but these claims are just lazy and uninteresting.

Still not actually doing anything. Cool man. Perhaps just don't post in threads you have nothing to add to.

Interesting opener.

My position has been that gender identity is something formed during fetal development, during the differentiation and organization of the brain during the third trimester of pregnancy. — Questioner

I reject this, so we're already at big odds.

But I mean being gender critical isn't an ideology either. Yet, you have people citing it to support clearly ideological nonsense, some of which is obviously dangerous. So to on the TRA side with the Zizians and plenty of small (and yes, mainly inconsequential) militias arming to the teeth and going after those they decide are wrong, or individuals like Jessica Yaniv waging legal wars against people due to her clear delusional world view.

I suggest we can bring up plenty of examples like your clip there to indicate an "ideology" behind trans activism, at least, and it does clearly seem to be a 'worldview'. So, to me, 'being trans' is clearly not an ideology, but the worldview it tends to embed within can be. There are plenty of trans people who entirely reject the worldview that tends to come along with trans identity - this is the biggest point to me in assessing the factions at play.

So "being trans" might or might not fit the bill, but I think more clearly both sides are talking about legitimately scary, dangerous factions. No problem admitting there's no parity when you have groups like the one you've posted the clip of supporting shit like that as compared to usually pretty isolated examples on the other side. The only comment I will make on the other side is that we're yet to see the psychological damage done by the trans ideologues (small as those groups might be) in convincing children they can change sex. A fair bit of the psychological distress seems to be borne from this lie.

I can retort to this by asking, what evidence do you have that any family outside the "father-mother-children" paradigm is less stable? — Questioner

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10313020/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Not conclusive, but it seems to be pretty replicable. Averages and all that as a pinch of salt. It wont work for everyone.

"exist spatially"? Then first response is right.

"exist conceptually"? Then definitely more that do not exist, in fact exist. See. Philosophy can be fun.

The main argument against an emotivist position that adherents of it tend to struggle with is precisely what you outlined. If there is no point from which two people can agree on then it is impossible to figure out a better course. — I like sushi

This isn't a struggle for an emotivist. It's just a fact of life. Co-operation operates the way it does and the a majority of people, emotivist or not, seem to understand that. We get on. It is what it is.

I think the struggle comes from others not being able to accept that position (maybe its seen as incomplete? I can't see how).

An emotional – arbitrary – "justification" for e.g. betrayal or cruelty or rape. Lazy. :mask: — 180 Proof

No, 180. What's Lazy is just repeating yourself when you've been addressed. If you're uncomfortable with it boiling down to feelings, make an argument, not an appeal to your discomfort or an ad hominem. It is not my problem if you have trouble accepting that there is no further grounding than your feelings for your moral positions. Do you consistently do things you think are morally right but make you feel bad? No? Interesting.

very well said. I shall add to this that I am not actually required to give anything more than what I've said to support my point. Being called lazy just indicates the bolded above which was entirely anticipated from 180.

Of those who do seek detransitioning - — Questioner

This is a Jack Turban paper. Here's some counterpoints to Jack Turban being much more than an activist with an agenda

https://www.theoryandsocialinquiry.org/article/18211/galley/41714/download/ An interesting paper (though not directly related to this, just thought it worth posting here. Jeremy will enjoy im sure.

Delusion as false belief doesn’t necessarily describe the schizophrenic experience either. — Joshs

No, but it does describe some schizophrenic experiences uniquely. That's all the inference there was. If we can accept that this it the case, and we accept that 'trans' experience can differ (you've been very open-minded in this way earlier in your comments) then we cannot discount these possibilities.

In any case, my point was that it is not prejudiced to note that there are delusions and afflictions exist. Trans people are obviously afflicted by something. Perhaps its the reticence to say what, but still claim the distress that makes this so fraught. I don't know the solution because they don't work together...

You guys really aren't honest interlocutors are you?? The point that matters was this, which you conveniently ignored:

Largely, it is the pattern of intimidation that people have an issue with - it's hard to put people in prison over words, like the above cases. But cases like Elizabeth Kinney illustrate extremely well how hte UK is attempting, using law enforcement, to dampen and reduce speech. — AmadeusD

I don't require those numbers to be correct for this point to stand, I didn't cite them as some authority, I didn't get them from a meme. Your continued dishonesty is continually noted.

Tommy Robinson (for non-Brits who are not familiar with him: he's someone who's been in and out of jail many times for violent offences, and is popular on the right for being an outspoken racist). — Mijin

I see you've devolved into several fallacies at once. Good job. I can see why Banno likes it.

This is not true in the US. They have been executive-ordered out of existence. — Questioner

The level of dramatics in this is alarming. Can you please clarify what you mean by "out of existence"? Last I checked, trans people still exist in the USA and, for the most part, enjoy the same freedoms everyone else enjoys.

I think this fails to understand how central gender identity is to transgender persons and that it often results in full-person rejection by those closest to them. — Questioner

It doesn't. But I can see why that is your take (not disparagement. Its reasonable). The vast majority of "rejection" trans people endure, as it were, is to do with their behaviour and this is often the result of manic issues, and so empathy is needed, but we best not lose sight of the actual reasons***. Exactly like everyone else. I don't deny that there are bigots, and particularly bigots in this arena. If we remove religion (because its another discussion about motivations and being able to parse them, or ignore them I guess) then I think you'll find the vast, vast majority of people you claim this about are actually not going through this as-stated and self-perception has coloured their take. I know this firsthand from several personal friends or acquaintances. So, that's an anecdote, but it stands to reason. I would assume your point is also anecdotal (or even inferential... do you know trans people who have been disowned?). None of this is to discount hte feelings of trans people who think tihs way. But i imagine if I started advocating for young white men who experience racism, ostracization and violence you'd probably be skeptical despite.
** this is, in some large way, based on reading case after case after case where a trans person makes a claim or accusation against another and ends up being found either in the wrong, or essentially making it up. We do not see the other way around, generally. I would need to find the statistics again, but my memory tells me I'm safe in saying that there's some Trans day of Remembrance in California to remember the like 3 trans people killed in the last three years. Its clear that mostly this isn't motivated by prejudice against trans people either, so I can't find a reason to accept the alarms about this.

An invalid "whataboutism" — Questioner

That would be fair, but that's not at all what it is. It's not "whatabout". It's "apply your same logic and see where it leads". I can see why this isn't going particularly deep. If I were saying "yeah, well look at this" you'd be right. I didn't. I gave you another vessel to pour your view into and see how it looks. I take it that it looks ugly?

Ah, but you have introduced the words "delusion" and "afflicted" - signaling a prejudice that does not accurately describe the transgender experience — Questioner

It is a fact that some people are deluded. It is also a fact that some people are afflicted by delusion. There is absolutely nothing prejudiced about observing these facts. I suggest your immediate need to frame things as somehow prejudiced (in a negative way. We are all prejudiced constantly, so I want to be clear and not leave myself some kind of out there) or somehow ignorant without explaining or supporting that contention strikes me as a bit naive.

If I can admit that there are "genuine" trans people (in my view of trans, anyway) who are genuinely going through experiences of prejudice but you cannot admit that the above is the case, we have no further to discuss because we're living in different linguistic worlds.

Your low-level posts are noted and will be dealt with if they continue.

Ah yes, poetics.

This is not philosophy mate. All good.

A decent repsonse, but I think you need to look very hard, and very close at "perceived" in most of these circumstances.

Trans people definitively do not lack institutional support and accomodations in the West. So, is it just that other people don't accept your self-image? That's true of most people. It is rare to find a group lacking resilience such that the world not conforming to their self-image is considered a 'potentially fatal' aspect of their situation. Even rarer to find the world taking that as rote. This may be the only example.

So what's left is the maladaptive aspects of the trans personality (as such. I don't take this type of framing too literally). This isn't me claiming this is the correct analysis. But I think the analysis which starts with "you are telling me x, therefore x is the case" is probably the worst approach. It will, almost definitionally, result in the group blaming others for their plight. You could apply this to young white men, who are in fact, not given support by institutions and are given the opposite.

Schizophrenics are not upset because the world wont conform to their delusion - it is the delusion which supports the upset. I am not running together being trans and being schizophrenic, though they share aspects. I am merely trying to make it clear that taking the afflicted at their world is a problem. A big problem. Particularly when one of the requirements to enter your discussion is that we do so.

The closest we can get, in my view is the empirical observation that things like murder, rape, theft, devious deception and exploitation are despised by most people across cultures — Janus

This is the 'bingo' that I think most thinkers miss.

Edit: Not worth the time. Sorry to bother you.

Your appeal to popularity here seems quite lazy. — 180 Proof

I still cannot make any sense of your overuse of formatting. It makes you harder to read than most anyone else here. So If i've misunderstood something, that might be why.

I'm not 'appealing' to authority. I'm saying this is what people in fact, do. And that's fine by me. Lazy? No. It's taken quite some time and quite some difficulty accepting this. Wrong? Could be, but that begs the question :P

this provides a truth maker for the following moral claim: 'It is right to prevent preventable harm or reduce reduceable harm, whenever possible, and wrong not to do so'. — 180 Proof

It doesn't. It just gives us an ability to coherently make that claim - not something to make the claim 'correct' in either direction. It boils down to feelings. I maintain this.

People are also, as a natural fact, liable to be taken by an illusion. That doesn't give us a truth maker for "illusions are bad".

Then humour me - are you trying to fit the term "the state of being dead" into the word "Death"?

Because I don't think anyone is going to take that seriously, in same sense no one considers "life" an extension of "birth". You are not "born" for your entire life. You are born at one moment, right? And hten your life extends beyond the moment of birth. Hence use of that term. THe same applies to Death. So what are you talking about? It would be helpful to not repeat yourself, because that has been poetics so far. But you seem hell-bent, to the point of being childish, on having this taken seriously - so help me out.

It's more telling that you just continue to make shit up and can't understand why someone might avoid that. I get that this is the lounge, but if you continue to lie about my positions (in this case, damningly) I will be making something of it with the Mods.

I understand you're trying to be poetic. I am uninterested given the context. Death is an event, it is momentary and after that time you are no longer.
That is my position and you haven't said anything that even could move this. All good.

But how do you handle the familiar objection to emotivism: that when moral disagreement arises between people who do not share the same emotional responses, the theory seems to lack the resources to adjudicate between competing moral positions?

If morality is just about how you feel, why should anyone else care about your feelings at all, and why should you care about theirs? — Tom Storm

I don't think its an objection to the position. I think its an emotional response to someone else clearly stating the facts of the matter.
Emotivism can't adjudicate between competing moral positions. No morality rightly can, because it cannot appeal to anything but itself (the theory, that is - and here, ignoring revelation-type morality as there's no mystery there). The only positions, as I see it, that can adjudicate between conflicting moral positions on a given case is are 'from without' positions such as the Law attempts to take. I still don't think there's a better backing than 'most will agree' for a moral proclamation.

On the question's face, they shouldn't, and neither should I. But harming others makes me feel shit. It seems to do the same for the majority of people. That's good enough, and the best we can wish for imo.

Relativism is a peculiar position because it is a view one cannot hold without also claiming moral truth which is the very thing it purports to deny. — L'éléphant

I'm unsure it does (but could be wrong -bear with). Banno has made a very good job of discussing with me moral positions that rest of "what people do". In this sense, he claims (if im not making a pigs ear of what he's said to me in the past) there are moral truths which are not objective. But are true.

A relativist can make this claim - but they can make the claim relative to specific sets of value which are contained with specific cultural contexts. I think Banno's tries to avoid the constraints found there and so its not relative.

I definitely see where you're coming from, but it's not cleanly divested from violent rhetoric enough for me to say "oh the uk jails anybody for saying anything non-woke". — flannel jesus

fwiw, I don't claim this. It is getting dangerously close, but that only works with my internal nuanced use of 'woke' which hasn't fit with any uses i've seen around here.

People have been temporarily jailed for tweets completely devoid of suggestions of violence, but never fully sentenced and imprisoned. Jailed is, of course, already too far, and I consider that a trampling of free speech in its own right, but of course not quite bad as sentencing and imprisoning. — flannel jesus

Definitely not as bad, but the slippery slope is almost at completion at this stage. The idea that we shouldn't be worried about it strikes me as sanguine to a fault. Most comments tend be specifically about 'illegal migrants'. A group which is not protected.

That's exactly the claim I'm testing. — QuixoticAgnostic

The next part informs this one pretty well. You cannot have an identity divorced from reality and expect others to participate. They cannot. They do not live in that world.

Is the claim "I am (physically) strong" subject to a potential conflict with "reality"? And how could we determine such a thing without establishing arbitrary hypotheticals (e.g. "You're only strong if you can lift 100lbs")? — QuixoticAgnostic

Strong is a relational/comparative claim. It's always easy to figure that out. No humans are strong along most metrics for instance. But if we restrict it to primates, we're somewhere in the middle. If we restrict it to higher primates, we're near the bottom. If we restrict it to humans, Eddie Hall wins... There's always a way.

I think anyone ought to express themselves such that someone else can understand their experience, and trans people do express their experiences such that non-trans people can understand. — QuixoticAgnostic

If that's what you think, sure. It's not what many people think. It also doesn't inform me about their identity if that identity is divorced from reality.

And before you say "adult human male/female", I will follow up to ask what is "adult", and is that necessary to the meaning you're actually trying to convey when you say "We know what men and women are"? — QuixoticAgnostic

But that is what a woman is (as best I can tell, see, understand and grok from looking at the world around me - and in fact, why there is any debate).
Adult is a well-defined term. It gets used in two ways: Fully grown (in terms of general size and strength) or of reproducing age. The latter is cleaner, the former is easier to write policy around. Both work to demarcate gender in this way.

We know what men and women are. I've just noted, though, that two views you seem to hold are this:

1. I understand women's concerns with expanding the meaning of 'woman' to include males, but I also don't care; and
2. You believe transwomen's experiences are unique in virtue of being women who cannot do what typical women do (lets use Typical to mean 'old fashioned' to not ruffle feathers for now).

The former tells me you're not open to discussing the topic, other than from a single perspective: trans women (i also note you outright said you're not interested in "anti-trans" views but do not define what they might be. The inference from your comments is anything which might want to restrict the social participation in a certain groups self-identity - which is fine, but should be clear so as not to confuse people when you don't respond to perfectly reasonable discussion). I very much hope the inference is wrong.

The latter tells me you're not adequately contacting the subject material. You have to accept "trans women are women" is always true for that question to be reasonable. Otherwise, the answer is simply "no, they have the experience of being men". While reductive, it does exactly answer the question. The question is whether or not they are women. My prior comments my position clear. I just want to point out why it's not a dead end - you just have the choice to not discuss it.

I don't think you understand what is being said: Birth is an event. So is death. Your take is a weird elongation of a concept it isn't apt for.

If you're going to just repeat yourself, that's fine but you're wrong.

Hard to figure out what you're talking about.

I gave you a fact. Suggesting we 'reconsider' our clientele is bizarre.

The link does not help, either. I am aware of those statistics (roughly). I suggest the lack of productivity around anecdotes and opinions in your approach. That's fine. But it's not my issue.

Once again, what he actually did was quote scripture and fit cross dressing into a bible outline of 'abomination'. He did not outline any personal view, or suggest that trans people are not loved by God and was always extremely clear that no matter what he thinks of people's choices and lifestyles, he loves them and wishes them the best.

I am not having a go. Being accurate is really important when making accusations about people to support vilification (particularly in light of defending the idea that his speech was hateful).

So in what sense is your "moral thinking" moral? — 180 Proof

Well, you've got to stop (not saying you do but it's common) making fun of emotivism to get an answer to this :lol: . It has to do with any behaviours of mine which will (intentionally, or at least obviously predictably) affect someone else. That is moral thinking, no? Yes, it is. I just reduce my moral lens to myself, and how things make me feel. So If i were to for instance attempt to stop someone harming my child, it's not because I think its right, its because I, personally, don't want that to happen because it'll make me feel bad.

But before that: should I even get involved? Is it any of my business? In how far can I make my moral disgust the problem of unrelated others? Am I going to have the mental and emotional fortitude to pull through? What if I change my mind but can't stop the avalanche I've started?

I consider morality an ongoing iterative process like that. — Dawnstorm

Certainly. These, I think, are just super uncomfortable to most people. Leon seems to not be able to conceptually understand that I do not think my views on morality can apply to other people unless they agree to be bound by it for some reason (my wife and I do this).

I gave you the definition. It is not mine, I did not make it up - I am adhering to the given definition.

There is no quibbling here. I have given you a very specific, substantive reason that your use of 'special' is not apt. Ironically, you have unimportant agreeing while:

That is all this is about I think for the subject matter set out in the OP. — unimportant

If you had said something like this, we would, a long time ago, have ended up with "I think you're using hte word wrong, but that makes sense in context".

You didn't do anything even remotely clear enough for this type of end to our exchange. I continued to challenge the claim i saw wanting. You continued to, apparently, try to defend it by almost solely quibbling. Cannot make this stuff up my guy.

Feel free to ignore me. I enjoy our exchanges but you routinely come to these weird dead ends that are no fun at all.

This is fairly confused. One's identity can't be divorced from reality, while that person expects other people to participate.

We know what men and women are. The idea we don't has caused the confusion and the extremely tortured, ignorant views hereabouts.

That example doesn't come close to incitement. "For all i care" makes this explicitly clear and the courts could be considered ultra vires for hte way this was argued and decided. That's why there's uproar. Luke Yarwood is an example where the law did what it was meant to do. His tweets were disgusting and clear incitement. That's why no one even knows about it, for hte most part.

More examples of extremely questionable results (from my current understanding) are found in cases for Jordan Parlour, Joseph Haythorne,

The UK is definitely sliding towards totalitarian censorship. The cases I've found are obviously stupid. Victims getting longer terms than their abusers, for saying something mean for instance.

Ridiculous imo. Mean tweets (something which might offend, is how it is worded) shouldn't ever be fodder for the Law. You do not need new rules to criminalize more speech. Many countries have done this.

Largely, it is the pattern of intimidation that people have an issue with - it's hard to put people in prison over words, like the above cases. But cases like Elizabeth Kinney illustrate extremely well how hte UK is attempting, using law enforcement, to dampen and reduce speech. It would be silly to think otherwise anymore. Arrests for Tweets by county is something like"

1. UK 12,500+
2. Belarus - 6,000+
3. Germany - 3500+
4. China 1200 +

Very weird state of affairs. Though, fwiw, I think people should be able to say anything. At all. Our laws already deal with causing harm pretty well. Hurt feelings aren't a matter for the law.

No. Death is an event. It happens once in a lifetime. Two if you're lucky. And there is no more to be said beyond that.

You may want to read my next point :) I think that's overly broad, and dumb. What Jamal laid out in full was far more to say than that would have me think.

LOL, fair enough - fwiw, I often see the same problem. I just don't have productivity as a benchmark around here :)

Not strictly, but you can be found to have violated some of our disability legislation if there's any conflict between your use and another, lets say more deserving party.

It's generally policed socially. Plenty will cause more of a legal issue pointing it out, than using htem does. My comment was about the complaints in creating the toilets - where there are already male/female stall toilets. For instance, my office has one. We have never, in over 20 years (i've not been here the entire time) required one for any disabled person. The cost was still required (and for good reason, i'm just delineating between complaining that disabled people get their own toilets or whatever and a purely economical one).

I think perhaps if the take is "its bigoted and stupid" that probably isn't the reason someone was banned. Equally, the guideline section quoted in the thread itself is... censorious, despite it's claims.

In any case, Jamal did a great job of laying this one out, and as with T Clark, it's a shame but not totally unexpected. It wasn't legitimate work here.

That definition is in quotes, indicating it is not mine. It is the definition of the word.

That is not all I said.

Your version of "what is usual" is specific to humans meaning you could just as well list stuff other animals do uniquely and run the same argument. But this would violate using hte term special. So, we're back to where I was before that reply. Not having fun in this thread, so will leave off.

If this is right, then your principle only holds in certain cases, namely the principle, "That I act is moral, but what my action is is not moral." That's not inconsistent, as you did follow it with, "...in this case — Leontiskos

I think its more than they can come together in some cases, but are not dependent on one another. I can concede this and, as i say, regret the starkness with which I had teased them apart. But they do come apart, it seems, which I guess was what I needed. I may just be a bit unique in how my brain processes those pieces of data.

Still, the problem is that if someone gives a principle and then follows it with, "...in this case," or, "...sometimes," then they have effectively nullified the principle. It is one thing to say, "Decisions to act are moral but physical action is not." — Leontiskos

Ah, fair enough. This illustrates to me a mistake in what I've said, not my concept. What I am getting at is that the act following a decision need not be in the same category of 'event'. Some acts are 100% moral acts. I think i conceded this earlier by saying that pulling the kid out the water was a moral act following a moral decision on part ,and this does happen semi-regularly (probably less than most people). As best I can tell, what I've said works for my argument, i've just been clumsy. My initial point was just that deciding to so something and the thing have different valences. I maintain that, but you're right that they coincide often. I am just saying thats not a dependence, i guess.

You're telling me that you try to do things without trying to succeed at the things you do. I'm sure you understand why I don't believe you, given how strange your claim is? — Leontiskos

You may want to re-read the quoted, highlighting to yourself narcisisstic. Its definitely strange, and as i said, I get the skepticism. But it's the case. I would say though "without trying to succeed" is a step to far, and something you've imported. I try to succeed - that's what attempting to help is. If it doesn't work, i don't care. I can't quite see why its required I care about the success through the entire act. I simply stop caring if it's not going well (and I can't see a clear path to success). Perhaps a psychological foible. I'm not bothered.

No one speaks to someone without wanting that person to listen to them. — Leontiskos

You may not. I often do. Again, perhaps a psychological foible.

The problem is that teeter-totters make no sense without a counterweight. — Leontiskos

I disagree. Your view of them and what they are intended to do is colouring something. If the intent is simply to have gotten on a teeter-totter(we call them see-saws) and done my part, that's all i care for. In my line of work this mental state is a vocational necessity because it is not in my interest or my responsibility to chase the other side of a deal for their undertakings etc. If they give htem, we proceed. If they don't, I move on to another piece of work. Rinse, repeat. But almost everyone is self-interested in this line of work, so will do their part. Generally, when they don't they get in trouble as they have harmed their client. But that has nothing to do with me and I couldn't care less. I do my part.

Well, would you agree that all along you are running the "background process" of "helping," and that this "background process" is moral? — Leontiskos

Hmmm. That's a difficult one. I can lean a millimeter that was and assent, or a millimeter the other way and reject. There's an underlying basis of the act, which is my want to help - but that want is devoid of content in a significant way. Would have to think, but it certainly could be so.

If you stopped running that "background process" then you would also stop building the box. — Leontiskos

Hmm. Once the decision is made new info is needed to change my course of action. You see this as strange. That's fine. But it's not incoherent. It's like keeping a promise you don't really want to keep, I guess, but I don't feel obliged in these circumstances, to another person - but to my prior decision. So, I don't htikn that's quite so.

And I am obviously not speaking to those. — Leontiskos

But that's key to the premise. If there are rights I don't care about, the fact there is a right to be violated is not really the crucial motivator in my resiling. It is that I personally consider that right morally correct to defend or some such.

Well you've literally claimed in this thread that there are certain rights of others that you would not transgress, so obviously there are some rights you give a shit about — Leontiskos

Yep. Not sure what you're not getting. Some rights that's going to be true about, some it isn't. Rights-violating (or defense) is something with reference to law, but resting on my moral compass.

Given that you are averse to transgressing some rights, you surely care what effect your actions have on other people (who possesses those rights). — Leontiskos

No, no. It is narcissistic: I care to not feel like i violated my own moral principle. That's it. That's where it ends. Lucky harming my child hurts me, huh? I might care about the effect on others even, but it doesn't factor into a decision as such. Whether or not i will care after the act, that I did or didn't do itis what matters to me. Recall the child I left at the festival - I still function somewhat that way, but I have an internal compass that would've still told me to get the child to safety - not to help the child, necssarily, but to satisfy my moral itch. I understand exactly how uncomfortable and offputting this is to other people. But I don't care.

If someone says, "This moral disagreement will be resolved by a majority vote," their method of adjudication is itself moral. There are other ways to resolve moral disagreements than a majority vote, or a mathematical assessment. — Leontiskos

You think? I'm not quite seeing it. Its a mathematical event, not a moral one, to me. I think i know what you're saying though, which is that someone thought that method was "right" and so we're back in moral territory. I prefer to think it was considered 'best'. Which is not, to my mind, moral. Its practical. But I can see how your view goes through, so I won't argue hard.

That's an invalid argument. "This law can be broken, therefore it is not moral." — Leontiskos

That's not the argument.

Indeed, when someone breaks a law for moral reasons they are presupposing that the law itself is immoral — Leontiskos

I don't see why this is required, but I can see why its usually going to be true. I often violate laws for moral reasons that have nothing to do with the law itself. I don't think its immoral, for instance, to prevent harm to children. I think there is a mathematically sound consensus that slapping kids is bad for them. So much is true. The law itself reflects that attitude, but its a mathematical function of the consensus - not moral claim. I have slapped kids in circumstances where it was required to protect them from fire (the classic example) and in one case water (batting them away from an edge they were already past the precipice of). I violated a law for a moral reason, but do not think that law is immoral at all. Not sure where else to take that, sorry lol.

How do you figure it's neutral? We literally argue over laws. How does the outcome of that vociferous argument become "neutral"? — Leontiskos

Neutral roughly means 'in the middle'. I understand laws to be, at least attempts at getting to the middle point of competing interests in a pluralistic society (this meaning we can ignore anything 'from on high' as it were). I think the entire function of public law is to supercede the moral function of the human heart, let's say, and force people to socially agree to tenets which they may have moral reservations about, but are mathematically the overall, averaged preference. The preference is moral, to be sure (i,e politicians and the house are places for moral debate) but the resulting laws from this process are, again, mathematically representations of an average over centuries. I have a hard time seeing that as moral - but I wont outright say you're wrong here. It's a good point.

Again, you are appealing to a kind of majoritarianism, which is clearly a moral position. "We ought to do whatever most people want," is a moral claim. — Leontiskos

Not appealing to it. Observing it. And given it's not intentional, it's just happened to be the 'working' outcome of a deliberative process, Its hard to see them in the same light.
I don't know how many judgements you've read, but they are decidedly a-moral. Judges are extremely, extremely reticent to use any moral terms. They generally use a form called ILAC.
Issues
Law
Application
Conclusion.

There is no room for moral debate, in the vast majority of cases. The law is what it is, we hold the facts up the law and existing guidance tells us what to do. Judges often opine that they'd prefer to do something else, but morality isn't hte arbiter in law. Toughie.

Classically liberal societies assume that all societies function via a "mathematical" notion of law. — Leontiskos

I'm not sure this is hte case, but I'm also unsure I'm getting you fully. My notion of Law is one which looks like it works to me. That's about it. I'd change some things if I were a King, for instance.