@Philosophim

When I posted my contribution on page 2, the exchange between us got heated and I stepped back. But since you seem to me now to be motivated by some idea of philosophical clarity and rigour rather than by prejudice, I think it's worth my explaining more carefully what I meant, because it's directly relevant to how the discussion is unfolding now.

This was my earlier post:

Obviously if "man" is only about sex, trans men are not men. But this "if" is what is being debated, so you're just begging the question.

The debate has been going on for years, and you have made no attempt to research it or address the arguments that defend the notion that trans women are women etc., i.e., the arguments that try to show that the terms "man" and "woman" are more complex than your snappy definition allows.

See for example the idea that "man" and "woman" are cluster concepts:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/ — Jamal

There are two points here. I’ll start with the first: the accusation that your argument begs the question. Your OP seems reducible to this syllogism:

1. A man is an adult human male.
2. A trans man is not an adult human male.
3. Therefore a trans man is not a man.

(The same pattern for “woman”; and “male” understood biologically.)

In isolation, this does not technically beg the question, because the conclusion isn't present in the premises. But it does beg the question in the context of the debate, because the very meaning of "man" and "woman" is exactly what is disputed—and you stipulate one of the contested meanings as a premise.

And in your concluding paragraph you say this:

So are transwomen women? Are transwomen men? No. The terms man and woman indicate a person's age and sex, not gender. — Philosophim

So your OP effectively does this:

1. Assume the contested definition.
2. Derive a conclusion that follows only under that definition.
3. Present the conclusion as if it supports the definition.

This is classic begging the question.

But you deny it:

I'm not begging the question at all. Clearly defining terms then thinking if claims using those terms lead to logical outcomes is a normal discussion. You are very free to define 'man' in another way, you'll just need to argue why it is and if that definition makes sense in normal language use. If you want to argue a specific counter to the point I've made, feel free. — Philosophim

But in the OP (and in many of your later posts) you avoid doing precisely this. You insist on one definition but don’t properly engage with the arguments that challenge it. And that brings me to the second point.

As @Michael and @Banno have been getting at, there are serious philosophical arguments—cluster-concept analyses, social-kind analyses, externalist semantic approaches, etc.—that claim "man" and "woman" do not have the fixed boundaries your definition tries to impose. Pointing this out is not an ad hominem, contrary to what you said here:

Now this is a proper logical fallacy called Ad Hominem. You're attacking assumptions and qualifications about my character instead of addressing the points. — Philosophim

I wasn’t attacking your character. I was criticising your assumptions—specifically that you presuppose a contested definition and ignore the relevant existing counterarguments. That is a critique of reasoning, not of person.

This is where the two points connect. Saying "you haven't addressed X" is not personal; it is a point about dialectical completeness. My claim is that your argument stipulates the very definition of "man" and "woman" that's being disputed, and therefore does not engage with those philosophical analyses which define those terms differently.

That your syllogism is valid is trivial. The entire debate is about one of the premises. Everyone already agrees that if "man" is necessarily biologically male, then trans men are not men. To repeat, the dispute is over the "if".

NOTE: I haven't closely followed the discussion so if you have developed your argument to support the definition, I'd like to see it. But Banno seems to be mounting a strong challenge.

I haven't read them all but I get the impression that all his lectures from the late 50s through to the late 60s set the stage to varying degrees, allowing him to rehearse the ideas that found full theoretical articulation in ND.

I think this is the full list of his lecture courses published in English (though it includes other stuff too):

https://www.politybooks.com/author-books?author_slug=theodor-w-adorno

Fascinating stuff, thanks. I'll have to read it.

Not sure when I'll get back to ND. Soon I hope.

Videos like that are part of the problem, in my opinion. Even aside from the surface-level analysis, notice the constant background music, a distinctive feature of the products of the attention-economy. The point of background music is (a) to smooth everything out into an easily digestible paste, like baby food, (b) to give you a dramatic or portentous or serious or peaceful atmosphere in place of analysis and argument. The result is featureless and frictionless, lacking any ability to make you think again.

I'm lucky in finding constant background music almost unbearable.

What I find striking is that Thrasymachus just kind of rage-quits, yet his position wasn’t truly defeated; he simply abandoned the conversation. It makes you wonder whether "might makes right" rests on firmer ground than it first appears in the book. And of course, for Plato, someone who takes such a point of view had to appear as driven more by anger than by reason. — Zebeden

That's right. But Thrasymachus's psychological withdrawal sets the scene for the rest of the book, which is meant to defeat cynical nihilism philosophically, in a different way from that attempted in Book I—since direct refutation according to Thrasymachus's terms is shown not to be conclusive or persuasive.

You're not the sole vanguard of intellectual spaces online, need I remind you. — Outlander

I'm working on it.

I can browse most popular websites easily and with full functionality: Facebook, Twitter (X). Amazon, Google, banking websites, etc. Discourse is literally the only site I can recall that gives me the "your browser is out of date" spiel (along with reduced functionality) I have ever seen on this PC I've had for 5 years now. — Outlander

Those websites you mention are traditional multi-page applications, whereas Discourse is an SPA. That's the difference. I recall you and @Michael and I were talking about SPAs vs MPAs a couple of years ago.

And now, your worst fears have come true and TPF is becoming an SPA.

I am (now) on the most up to date version of Firefox: 115.30.0esr. That's the acronym of "Extended Support Release" I had posted prior, yes. The result is the same. Which again is no concern of mine. I don't think the presence or absence of the occasional emoticon or having to right-click on an image to view it's full link is anything worth giving a second thought about. If it were a more widespread issue, that might actually result in more than one or two disengagements or disinclination to participate, then yes. But if the statistics you read are accurate, no such concerns are present.

It's fairly interesting how, despite every single other site I browse being basically normal with full features (banking, eCommerce, social media, etc.) this one platform decides to be like "ok let's turn his experience into something from the 1990s" for seemingly no reason at all. But again, perhaps motives I've yet to understand are justified. — Outlander

Do you have JavaScript turned off? Discourse is basically a JavaScript application.

In any case I think you might have more trouble than you think, I'm sorry to tell you. It won't just be a matter of visual style, emojis and so on.

I have a feeling that the last time I used Windows it was Windows 7, and that feels like a whole lifetime ago: before I joined PF, before I got married, before I went housesitting around France, and before I had grey patches in my beard.

So, your image troubled me, because I do want to be inclusive. But there's a limit: according to StatsCounter, Windows 7 is 2.5% of the worldwide market share: 2.36% in the US, 1.9% in Europe, 0.28% in Asia, 2.56% in Africa, less than 1% down under. In my opinion that's not enough to demand we abandon Discourse.

Unfortunately this means you'll have trouble using the new forum unless you just use your phone, or—and you should sit down before you read this suggestion—update your operating system.

Actually you can apparently use Firefox ESR on Windows 7, but that's just what ChatGPT told me.

https://gs.statcounter.com/windows-version-market-share/desktop/worldwide

I found the relevant passage. It's a good one; I hadn't read it before.

As rococo horticulture arose from the feeling 'nature is ugly, savage, boring - come! let us beautify it! ' (embellir la nature) - so there again and again arises from the feeling ' science is ugly, dry, cheerless, difficult, laborious - come! let us beautify it!' something that calls itself philosophy. It wants, as all art and poetry want - above all to entertain: but, in accordance with its inherited pride, it wants to do this in a more sublime and exalted fashion and before a select audience. To create for these a horticulture whose principal charm is, as with the ' more common' kind, a deception of the eyes (with temples, di stant prospects, grottos, mazes, waterfalls, to speak in metaphors), to present science in extract and with all kinds of strange and unexpected illuminations and to involve it in so m uch indefiniteness, irrationality and reverie that one can wander in it ' as in wild nature' and yet without effort or boredom - that is no small ambition: he who has this ambition even dreams of thereby making superfluous religion, which with earlier mankind constituted the highest species of the art of entertainment. — Daybreak

I see this as a genealogical critique, an account of how philosophy came to be such a disappointment: the desire to entertain the elite.

But I don't think Nietzsche actually says or implies that the purpose of philosophy is entertainment. From what I have read (three to four of his books), he believes that philosophy at its best, i.e., genuine philosophy, is Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, the gay science: a joyous, playful, life-affirming creative activity.

Where he implies that philosophy is mere amusement, he is criticizing philosophers for their vanity, shallowness, habitual thinking, and so on.

And he is much closer to Plato than you might think—in some ways. He does, I think, believe that philosophy is a search for truth. It's just that their conceptions of the truth look very different.

EDIT: Incidentally, Adorno inherits this attitude of Nietzsche's in his negative dialectics, where philosophy is simultaneously (a) a playful and creative endeavour, and (b) a serious search for truth.

And what do you think of what they said?

One of the things I really like about PlushForums is that when I click on a discussion it takes me to the last comment I viewed, and not just the first/last page.

Does Discourse do that? — Michael

Yes.

Yeah, just had a look. Works quite nicely on the phone. That timeline thing sticks to the right of the posts on a pc, rather than floating.

Ah. Windows 7 is old so you can't run up-to-date browsers. ChatGPT told me "Use Firefox ESR. It’s the last modern browser that still supports Windows 7."

So I'm responsible for mental illness now? :wink:

Is there simply no pagination at all? — Outlander

I think that's right, yes.

I'm curious how that would work with a long discussion with say several hundred posts. Presumably you'd click a new topic and end up at the first post. There's surely some "jump to most recent post" or effective pagination link, yes? — Outlander

There's lots of in-discussion navigation conveniences, and you're taken to the last post you read, just like here. But why don't you go and have a look? Here's the meta.discourse.org topics ordered by number of replies descending:

https://meta.discourse.org/latest?ascending=false&order=posts

Now don't judge it too quickly. It'll take some getting used to for an old codger like you.

I think there's a confusion in many of the criticisms of Discourse. The software itself actually isn't resource-intensive for the client, i.e., in the browser when visiting, navigating within and using a Discourse forum (all else being equal); what is more challenging is hosting it properly, because it needs a lot of memory. If people have had the experience of slow Discourse forums this is often a server issue. That won't be an issue for a site hosted on discourse.org, so TPF will run well.

EDIT: But the first load can be slow, I grant you. It's always fast after that.

Discourse takes like 20+ seconds for me to load a page — unimportant

So when you went to that link I sent you, it took 20 seconds? I find that hard to believe. If so, I think your experience is unusual.

I don't care what people say about infinite scroll, won't change my mind. — unimportant

I see.

EDIT: Ok I did read the thread. I see a message claims that 'posts are loaded in and out while scrolling just the same as with pagination'.

Maybe true but I just prefer the old style even if performance is 1:1 the same, just because that is what I first learned and liked. — unimportant

Ok.

Let us move onto greener pastures, shall we? :smile: — Outlander

Let's hope that the admin at the new site doesn't somehow forget to approve his registration. :wink:

Read this discussion about infinite scroll:

https://meta.discourse.org/t/infinite-scrolling-is-a-total-pain/225532

A small minority of loudly opinionated people love to hate it but their reasoning rarely withstands scrutiny.

We'll be proven right to the world someday. Someday... :starstruck: — Outlander

Don't stop believing Outlander :strong:

Modern forums are great, and command line tools are great. Just yesterday I installed a dictionary and thesaurus on my computer which I can look up in the terminal. For example...

Actually though, it's not in fact a matter of "each to their own", since the old design is objectively bad, with overly long column widths for text being one of the worst aspects.

EDIT: I mean line lengths

Each to their own. I have always detested the old bulletin board design.

Can I ask why you have gone the subscription and premium forum software route rather than free and open source? — unimportant

Discourse is 100% free and open source. I'm just using it in the incarnation hosted by Discourse themselves. By paying them we keep a high quality open source project going. Plus I can move the site to my own server any time I want without even telling them (I just take a backup, available in admin).

So basically we're paying for top-class hosting and maintenance, and we get to take the software and data away with us any time we want.

I opted to do it this way for the reasons I explained. High performance and reliability without any server maintenance or performance enhancement responsibilities.

You could change technology, comply with the laws, without making a business and creating any of these client-service litigation risks. — boethius

You keep repeating the falsehood that operating as a company creates new risks. TPF is already a service, and I'm already a UK citizen. Creating the company will make no difference to risks or user rights. The only thing it will do is protect me personally (and make it a little bit more convenient to operate in some other ways).

I was serious when I said we've had enough of your posts in this discussion. You've had your say, I've taken your objections seriously, now stop.

Thanks, Leon, I appreciate the vote of confidence.

Questions and objections are very welcome—they help me publicly explain, for the benefit of other members who might be wondering the same things, what's been going on and the reasoning behind it.

But if @boethius was, as @Outlander said, "just trying to look out for the best interest of Jamal, and as a result, all of us," you have to wonder why he responded to every correction with an evasion such as "Well the main point is that..." Perhaps he got carried away. In the process he has damaged the thread and forced me to spend 7 or 8 hours researching and writing about the law, all to satisfy what appears to be idle fear-mongering from a single outlandishly prolific member. This is destructive, not constructive.

But I don't want to attack anyone; I just want to make it clear that this thread is not a platform for anyone to come along and flood it with runaway speculation. I want to keep space for genuine questions from everyone else.

So please, @boethius, no more. You've had your say, to put it mildly.

Pure fantasy.

What I've pointed out is that limited liability is not a guarantee, it's a privilege that can be challenged, so something Jamal must take into consideration. One classic way to find out you have no liability protections is if the plaintiff can demonstrate you created the business primarily to escape liability. — boethius

To escape an existing legal liability! Like I’m already facing a fine or a lawsuit and I form a company to escape the consequences. So you've misunderstood. It would not apply to TPF.

Yeah, good point! How did I get dragged into talking about private lawsuits?

However, can you be sued right now in London for something you say on philosophy forum?

Or northern Scotland or anywhere in the UK if someone feels you've harmed them directly or indirectly through this philosophy forum? — boethius

Yep!

Again, most regular people don't go cause harm far from where they live.

So a private individual who says something online in Northern Scotland, that someone in London takes issue with, will need to appear in London court?

The offence has occurred in Northern Scotland or in London? — boethius

As I said, the offence happens where the harm is suffered. So yes, the case can be brought in London because that's where the harm occurred, but in reality the defendant would usually appear remotely by video.

Right now philosophy forum is your private property that you don't provide a service through. So it's like inviting us to your private house: you can invite us to come in and you can tell us to go.

Once you're a company, you are by definition providing a service. — boethius

No, legally I'm already providing a service. Users already have the same rights they'll have when a company operates it. OSA, GDPR, and probably other laws apply because it's open to the public.

What I'm providing is a framework to analyze liability and business decisions. — boethius

Thank you for your efforts and for your interesting contributions, but I remain confident in the path I have mapped out.

My recommendation would be to aim to make a structure that is financially sustainable and can handle all the kinds of events that are likely to happen — boethius

:up:

You're saying you could live in Norther Scotland and be forced to appear in a London court by a plaintiff without the case having any connection to London (except maybe the plaintiff lives there)? — boethius

The plaintiff's location is the connection. It's about where the harm has occurred. The upshot is if the alleged harm happened in London, a plaintiff will/can sue in London, even if the defendant lives in Scotland. Apparently that's normal procedure for online publication and is not considered unusual.

You have more experience with all the people you've banned than I do, are you confident none of them would bring you to court when they suddenly have consumer rights vis-a-vis The Philosophy Forum Ldt.? — boethius

Why do you think consumer rights magically appear just because a company exists? They don't. Anyone who could hypothetically sue The Philosophy Forum Ltd could already do the same against me personally today. The company just limits my personal exposure if someone ever did try something.

Are you confident no one participating or reading the forum would ever interpret anything on the forum as something from the naughty list of no-no's, and be motivated to have their day in court about that? — boethius

The actual legal risk is the same whether I operate TPF as a company or as a sole trader, and we're addressing it through clear policies, risk assessment, etc. etc. etc, as described above.

Are you confident the UK government will never take particular interest in what's said here on their own account for whatever reason? — boethius

Same answer really. The government doesn't care if I'm just me or a company. Anyway, TPF is a super-low-risk service from the OSA's point of view.

Again, I have no idea what is going on in your legal system but in UK law, pretty much everything you say in that post is false, and perhaps based on some very peculiar circumstances that you know about from your own life.

In particular I want to shut down this particular untruth:

To sue someone personally you need to go to the district where they live, so the issue of physically getting to court is at least solved. — boethius

This is simply not true in UK law.

I mean it's probably safer in the US, but not worth the hassle for that added safety. It strikes me as overkill to make us bulletproof. It feels like you might be catastrophizing and overburdening.

In other words, if we do our best to be above board, we'll be fine in the UK. — Hanover

:up:

But the basic gist of what I'm trying to say is that "following the rules" is not anyways a way to avoid court and the expenses of even going to court.

Someone can just say you're breaking the law, take things out of context, even fabricate evidence that never happened or make wild claims about what did happen. Who's to say you're in the right and did nothing wrong?

A lengthy and expensive court process. — boethius

Rather than an argument against forming a UK company, this seems to be an argument against existing at all.

Such an actor could make a company to make a company to make a company to, all in different countries, just to sue Jamal. — boethius

Remind me again why you think it's better if I get sued personally rather than The Philosophy Forum Ltd.

:up: