Don't worry, Coal won't hurt you!

Oh my god, I love Scotty so much! He's never done anything! I mean it, he hasn't actually done anything- positive at least.

So this is specifically about those "people who claim to be in support of the LGBTQIA+", but who don't get the pronouns right? — baker

I think I have simply mis phrased this section of my op, when I awaken I shall edit it to be more reflective of both the discussion and of my original intention.

Yes, but, to be fair, you dropped responding to the points raised in your misgendering thread and opened a new one instead trying to name the fallacy you perceived as being in use there. It's not exactly leading by example is it? — Isaac

I disagree, I think I responded to a huge amount of comments in my other thread, and tried to ensure that I hadn't missed any. But I also have school and chess study to do. I didn't make this post to focus simply on the use of this fallacy with the specific context of a specific thread.

If one sees an issue in society they should raise it, and particularly in the field of philosophy, we should raise any logical contradictions in the reasoning of society. I'm not sure on how my other thread is relevant to this discussion, other then perhaps providing examples of the fallacy on this context.

As to your point on leading by example, you assume my intentions incorrectly. At this point in time, I'm not here to be a leader. I'm here to be a thinker, and a questioner. Should we not be constantly aiming to advance the field of philosophy? To deepen our understanding?

I'm here to ask questions, to create discussions, discourse, to question the things that others don't question, and to answer the things that others can't answer. Isn't this why we are all here? If not, then why are we here discussing these things?

We achieve our best when we are challenged, and I want others to bring out the best in me, and me them. If I see an issue, I am not going to merely be silence about it, I'm going to ask, and question that issue. I'm going to ask why and seek to understand, this is in my nature, it's how I am. I'm going to challenge, after all there is no progression without challenge, for without challenge there is no reason for change.

I believe everything should be questioned, so I questioned it. It is leading by the example I want to set. That all issues should be questioned, and that all flaws in logical and society that should cause society to become illogical should be challenged.

Since the timeliness of my replies is in question. I shall be replying to any new comments on my thread at approx 5:00 am AEST tomorrow, during the day I will not be replying as it is the athletics carnival at school. I will attempt to reply to all comments I believe require a response from me, and it is to my apologies if I cannot reply within a certain timeframe.

I definitely think that comparing pronoun misuse to genocide is like comparing an asteroid to the sun, both cause fire, but one burns a lot longer and a lot stronger.

Edit: For clarification I mean this metaphorically.

I wouldn't. I would say they are different predicates of the form: x is infinite & Rx. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Ah Thank you!

Actually, this a non sequitur. I think you can find it. Technically 2 of them. — Cheshire

It was a poor worded analogy aha, I think I should've worded it better as 'about world war 2, instead of just knowledge in general.

If an omniscience child were to suddenly appear in the world, would that child's view be rejected simply because they are a child.
— Bradaction
Yes. — Cheshire

Do you believe they should? If so, why? Also, why do you believe they would be by society? Wouldn't such a child have the experiences of every age group though? And every age, and generational group that could ever exist?

If at fifteen he's trying seriously to persuade his parents to buy a keg of beer for him and his junior high school buddies at a party, then his reasoning doesn't matter. — tim wood

I disagree, reasoning is the very basis of human function, reasoning does matter. Obviously, there are reasons why particular arguments may be declined.

In the case of the beer, instead of simply declining, the parents could explain why they are declining the request.

Simply saying 'because i said so' does not foster good relationships between people, and is fallacious.

It's an appeal to authority, the conclusion may be correct, being '15 years old shouldn't have beer', but 'because i said so,' is no better then 15 shouldn't have beer because an authority figure said so, rather then it being 'dangerous'.

It's much simpler and would help foster better relationships in family and greater critical thinking skills.

Age isn't a literal position, but rather a statement regarding the amount of information — Cheshire

But I would disagree with the sentiment that age = amount of information. A person that died in 1856 have no knowledge of how WWII ended, yet a 10 year old that has watched or been taught anything about WWII would. Thus in this case the child has a larger amount of information then someone that is several centuries older.

Developing this point further:

If an omniscience child were to suddenly appear in the world, would that child's view be rejected simply because they are a child.

If the question is information instead of age, then the statement should be, 'you lack the information to understand,' instead of 'you're too young to understand.' Unless of course the actual premise of an argument requires an assumption of youth, for example, 'they are young, therefore they are old.' In all cases other, it promotes an idea that the older one is, the more information they hold, and this is false.

This is a little like the argument that all babies are atheists at birth, because they haven't experienced religion yet. Likewise, they haven't experienced racism at this point.

[

Would a genderqueer person be diagnosed with gender dysphoria? It seems to me they wouldn't. — T Clark

I believe the understanding adopted by sociologist is that a person whom identifies as genderqueer may or may not suffer from gender dysphoria

Also, in the 'about' section the person is saying that they are 17 years old, and if this is true, then it may be an extremely difficult time. Of course, this is a philosophy forum and not a psychology self-help resource, but at the same time, I think that some sensitivity is important — Jack Cummins

I disagree. Candour is an important part of philosophy, people's true beliefs and feeling should not be suppressed or diminished simply due to having to remain sensitive. Subjectively, philosophy is the search for truth, in a world filled with lies. As such, offence is to be expected, much in the way theists are to be offended by atheists. What I believe is subjective to me, likewise with all others. Debate is the way in which we collectively pool our ideas with the intention to create a better world.

Debate should not be positive, nor negative, it should be conducted with the neutral aim of providing a greater understanding of the world around us.

In short, adult reasoning works for a child when tailored/translated for a child and not otherwise. — tim wood

I understand this, but what about circumstances when the reasoning is denied simply because the creator is a child, regardless of how logical said reasoning is?

Perhaps over time it will come to be accepted. You're really young. Perhaps if you had a better understanding of what gay people have had to go through to get where they are today, it would give you a better perspective. — T Clark

I think I understand your argument here a lot better given your further explanation in the other thread. but I'll ask to make doubly sure.

Is this argument stating that I believe something should just 'happen', without much of a fight, and that acceptance should be inherent, unlike what gay people had to go through to get their rights recognised?

If so, here is my response.

I truly believe the opposite of this, as nice as it would be for it to just 'happen', and for 'acceptance' to be automatic, I know that this is absurd and impossible. The previous experiences of the Gay and Lesbian communities showcase this beyond a doubt, respect is not inherent, and respect of ideas, even less so. It needs to be earned and fought for.

I believe this, more then anything (that's an exaggeration). So I don't expect, nor desire this to happen overnight, overweek, overyear, overdecade. This post was to gauge and ask for explanation, as to why the world is the way it is. If we don't question then how can we possibly seek to change the social norms?

I understand the Civil Rights movement, and how long it took and how much effort it took and how much muching it took. I willing to do the same for this movement. And besides, the past is also the past, it may influence the future but it does not always become the future, and history doesn't always repeat. Or maybe it does.

As one of the people who made this kind of statement to you, I'll respond. To be clear, I gave specific reasons for my disagreements with you about gender orientation which did not include any reference to anything personal about you. It's true, I did make this statement:

You're really young. Perhaps if you had a better understanding of what gay people have had to go through to get where they are today, it would give you a better perspective.

I'll stand behind this statement. The things you wrote in that discussion showed a lack of perspective. — T Clark

It retrospect at the intended meaning of your statement perhaps I misinterpreted what you had written, as I had interpreted the 'you're really young' as an added phrase and not as a premise, and I am going to go back and re-discover my new position on your comment.

I initially interpreted your position as

- You are really young.
- Therefore you do not understand.

For example 'you are young, therefore you are not old,' is clearly not a fallacy, according to ad aetatem because that makes sense.

Of course, I still believe there are circumstances in which argument to age is still a fallacy, and still a large problem.

In conclusion, if a fallacy is distracting from the merits of an argument, then it should be called out. But if calling out a fallacy itself creates a distraction, then calling it out is no better than the fallacy. — James Riley

I couldn't agree more, and this is the doctrine I try to live by when debating.

I think your concerns are genuine, but oft times people like to impress us with their knowledge of Latin. I'm not even sure if there is a name for this fallacy, but I'd call it "argumentum-ad-you-should-be-intimidated-by-my-genius-and-if-you-aren't-other-readers-might-think-I'm-pretty-wise-and-I'll-play-to-them-and-win-that-way." — James Riley

I mean I have no knowledge of Latin, I put it into google translate. It sounds and functions consistently to most other forms of fallacy when regarding to their titling. Furthermore, the actual name of the fallacy doesn't even matter, I just have a need to identify things when writing about them.

When you're older you'll realise that naming fallacies is just a lazy way of avoiding having to counter difficult arguments.

If "you're too young to understand" is a poor argument in the context then counter it by explaining why, don't reach for the list of accepted fallacies. That would be an argumentum ad verecundiam. — Isaac

I do realise that naming fallacies can be lazy way of avoiding having to counter arguments, this is why I still suggest explaining why a particular argument is fallacious, because just because an argument contains a fallacy doesn't mean it's wrong, which I have outlined above.

Furthermore, 'naming' fallacies, can be done for many reasons, like to identify the process by which we reason, and to keep the rules of logic consistent. In this context I refer literally to the 'naming and titling' of fallacies, in case that's what you were referring to.

It would also be argumentum ad logicam (argument from fallacy), not argumentum ad verecundiam (argument from authority).

Is it an imposition to correct someone who would rather not comply? — Lil

I think in an instance when someone chooses not to comply it's more likely that any reasonable discourse between the two figures would break down. This argument could also be extended to someone who is racist, or sexist though.

Usually there's a reason someone says one pronoun or another. Usually that's based on certain aesthetics. — Lil

I would say that the willingness to use a certain term after being corrected would then make this fine. It's easy to make a mistake of fact. as long as the mistake is corrected when informed of their incorrect usage.

Where does personal identity end and imposition on others begin? — Lil

I believe that using the correct pronouns is not an imposition but a social norm, or at least when referring to all other members of society.

How do you know what adults know? — Gregory

I do not. But I do know that Adults are not all knowing (unless this entire website is a sham meant to deceive me until I reach adulthood), And I do know that no one possesses intelligence simply due to reaching a certain age- Ideas should be debated on due to their merit as an idea, not as the age of their creators.

If I was a 70 year old person, would you still say that my arguments are flawed due to my age? What if I was 40? 18? I'm 18 in 5 months, do my views suddenly become reasonable?

Just because there are different ways the male and female form can be does not mean that there is not truly two forms and it certainly doesn't there are more then two gender identities — Gregory

Where is your argument for this conclusion. This is circular reasoning.

• I believe there are only two genders
• This is because I believe there are only two genders
  
  
  Your argument doesn't prove anything, and isn't actually relevant to the original questions.

Adults know certain things instinctively. Philosophy is about debating higher opaque questions that people have long pondered about — Gregory

This is fundamentally not true. Adults do not know certain things instinctively, and age does not define how much someone knows.

For example, in 5 months time i shall turn 18 and become an adult. Does this mean that when I turn 18 I shall suddenly rejected everything that I've said in this thread? No!

Finally, I have to stress this again, age does not mean that someone can't hold an opinion, belief, or opinion that is correct. Adulthood does not imply an all-knowing understanding of the world, or philosophy wouldn't exist.

What if I sleep with a 14 year old and tell the police "my ID says I'm 35 but I identity as a 14 year old so I did nothing wrong". People need to contemplate where their ideas lead to — Gregory

Again this is a false equivalence, age is deterministic, and is based solely on your date of birth. Age is not a social construct, it is factual and provable. Gender is a social construct.

i dont identify as a human

im god

call me god from now on — MikeListeral

This is a false equivalence. One cannot identify as God, because God is a defined term that does not exist on a spectrum. God is the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. You are neither of these things, and it can be proven that you are neither of these things, because it is a fixed, set definition, Gender is know to exist on a spectrum, or even a plane, this means that there are many different gender stances and identities that could be taken.

The new generation doesn't like rules. That what complete existentialism where they can decide what they are in nature and decide for themselves what is true or false. It's just immaturity — Gregory

Except for the fact that this is the basis of philosophy? To question the 'facts' and 'truths' around us. Philosophy is the interpretation of the rules of nature.

Furthermore, this is extremely patronising, the fact that someone belongs to a generation that holds different beliefs does not justify your beliefs nor mean that theirs are wrong. It opens a door for debate, which again is the point of philosophy. Bringing up the age of someone you debate against is a fallacy on principle.

Truth doesn't care about what you feel. I know that I am male because my soul is male. A person either has a male soul or a female soul. That is reality and no construction can make it otherwise — Gregory

I agree that truth doesn't care what you feel. But I know I am neither male nor female because I don't have an either male nor female soul. Furthermore, this is not even reality.

Where is your evidence that a person either has a male soul or a female? Where are your evidence that there are different types of souls? What defines a soul? What suggests that there is a strictly female or male soul? What about societies in Africa where they traditionally believe in a third gender? How do we even know that souls exist?

Most importantly where is your evidence for these assertations. You cannot claim that something is reality, without providing any evidence as to why that is reality, especially if that belief is contested, and would defeat the entire purpose of reality in general.

You may believe that there is only a male or female soul, but you cannot prove this, thus you cannot claim it to be the unquestionable reality.

Souls cannot be proven to exist, and even they could, it would be impossible to define whether souls are female or male, just as a person's eye colour can't tell you how many crimes they have committed.

'is infinte' can be qualified any way you can come up with a definition of your qualifier.

is countably infinite

is uncountaby infinite

is infinte in correspondence with the y axis

is infinite in correspondence with the x axis — TonesInDeepFreeze

Should we then refer to these terms as different types of infinite?

I am currently obsessed with futurism but I am terrified I will run out of novums to contemplate about. A novum is an idea like “FTL travel” or “Gene splicing”. I was wondering if their is any proof that their is an unlimited amount of ideas that humans can come up with. My uncle was reading Bernard Stiegler before he died and Stiegler said that technology is a law of nature and it is always progressing. I didn’t 100% buy that and I was wondering if anyone could direct me to a source that could help convince me that technological progress and ideas are unlimited. — Maximum7

While I can't find a source to help, I would believe that the existence of infinity as a concept would support the case that their would unlimited ideas. For example, outside of the observable universe, there is a potentially infinite number of unknown obstacles and uses for objects that we may discover, also thus, there is always the potential for us to find a problem that we don not currently have a solution to.

is an infinitely expanding ocean fundamentally the same as an infinite ocean?
— Bradaction
Yes, except that it is expanding. — Banno

Perhaps then the question can be asked, are vertical infinity, horizontal infinity and infinity, all potentially different terms that could be given to different types of infinity?

My reaction was the same. Not sure how I might have responded if I was encouraged to take a moment and think about it, and if I could, please call you "they," that it would mean much to you, but would be understandable if I wasn't there just yet or if my old habits just weren't to be broken. — Hanover

This is very true. I guess I have a very serious flaw where my philosophical pursuits comes from attempting to understand the world around me, and I often forget that it is also the job of the philosopher to try and find a way forward. Perhaps this is an area of my thinking that I need to fix, and remember that understanding is just as important as the future.

I'm disappointed that I did not have the foresight to put such a question into my original post, and I admire you for allowing me to opening my mind and change my way of thinking permanently about philosophy.

I guess I just also considered understanding the most important part of philosophy, and forgot as to why we want to understand.

Besides, if you do not identify as "she" are you saying there is something wrong with being a she? Are you misogynistic? — James Riley

Not at all, only that you don't identify with the gender. It would be like me saying that I'm not an Australian National Party Supporter, this doesn't mean I hate Australian National Party Supporters, merely that I don't identify with the group

How, therefore, is it insulting to you if I call you “he”or “she” when talking to others? Is it because those others might relate that back to you? — Leghorn

Because it denies the existence of my gender identity, and questions the validity of my identity.

It would be like me calling you an alien to your friends.

If someone can decide for themselves if their essence is male or female or a combination, why can't they decide their own age?

Just saying — Gregory

Because age is fact, and gender is a social construct.

Furthermore, people don't 'choose' their gender identity. Do you choose to be whatever gender you are? No, you believe you are born like that. Many non-binary people feel the same.

It sounds cold, but unless I want something from you, I'd just avoid you. The burden is upon me if it is me seeking to engage. Otherwise, you can leave, or I'll send your saddle home. — James Riley

Isn't that the ideology of most people, most people don't seek others out without wanting something from them, even if that something is something they don't 'want', it's still something they may have to do, such as receiving a punishment. People seek out people for reasons, and there is never no reason to seek someone out, regardless of how small that reason is.

Hell, I didn't know I could use "they." I thought I might get strung up for using "they" if "they" wanted to be called "she" or "it" or "he" or L or G or B or T or Q or whatever. I use "they" all the time. And "you" and "people." But I can get in trouble for saying "you people." In boot camp I got in trouble for saying "you". "Private calling me 'ewe'? Do I look like a female sheep, Private?" — James Riley

A lot of people would not take any offence to be called they or them, in fact most people will politely correct someone when they are mis gendered. There is no need to call someone who goes by 'they' as 'she', at it's best its just disrespectful. It's simple to ask, and even if you get it wrong, most people won't be too frustrated by this as long as you show a willingness to be open to change, and attempt it. That's all that's being asked.

In order to be completely gender-neutral, the use of pronouns should be discontinued. Just stop using pronouns. For example, instead of "Do you want some coffee?" simply say "Coffee, yes or no?" Instead of "I disagree with you" simply say "Disagree." Hand gestures may come in handy (get?) as well.

Think so, or don't think so? — Ciceronianus the White

I don't think so. Pronouns are not simply gendered, pronouns such as, I, we, they, them, provide no information to the person of gender, as these pronouns do not inherently possess a gender. On contrary, he, she, her do possess an inherent gendered description. As such, removing gender-neutral terms in a gender-neutral society seems like it would only increase the difficulty of communication, without any seeming benefit to the idea of a gender neutral society.

Gender-Neutrality is the lack of gendered terms, and given that these terms aren't gendered they would not need to be removed.

Additionally, if we can make it a norm through social action to e.g. yell at people who misgender others, I believe we can bring about meaningful change especially if we organize. — K Turner

I agree, things could easily become social norms, if we gave enough effort to arguing the morality of using the correct pronouns.

If you're a guy who likes guys, or gal who likes gals, or either who likes both, good for you. Why should the rest of us have to acknowledge that in your title, your pronoun? — tim wood

This is an irrelevant conclusion, Gender Identity is not Sexual Orientation, and I don't know any person who asks for different pronouns based on Sexual Orientation. Instead differing pronouns are asked for because, of someone identifying as neither female or male.

but it's another entirely to treat those still trying to catch up with very fast moving changes as if they were the enemy — Isaac

There would be a clear difference between a legitimate effort to use the correct pronouns, and someone who simply doesn't care. Someone who doesn't care, and continually makes the mistake is an issue. Someone who continually makes a mistake, while legitimately trying is not.

There is always the issue of intention, and I believe that intention is paramount to the discussion.