Comments

  • The base and dirty act of sex is totally opposed to the wholesome product of producing a child
    ↪Leontiskos
    Sure, we could call humans 'special' but that's somewhat arbitrary. Tuataras are the only beaked reptile in the world. And also a near-dinosaur. We could call any specie special.

    My point is that any given baby is a drop in an ocean of noise. There's nothing 'special' about a baby unless you import something more than the fact of it's existence (perhaps it survived an incredibly difficult pregnancy?).
  • Ideological Evil
    So you would say that when you tell me that, "I will try to enforce [my moral positions] where i am not obviously violating rights," this act of enforcement is not moral in nature? — Leontiskos

    This is tricky to give a yes or no to. The answer properly is 'yes'. But what i've said there is about how I behave, Not what I try to have others do around me, if you can grok the difference. I wil behave in ways that appear morally righteous to me. The world around me will go on. But my behaviour in the world is a form of enforcement on my account. Perhaps my terms are just shoddy.

    So all you have ever done in this thread is spoken about how to help other people achieve their goals? Don't you think you've also spoken about how to get other people to achieve your goals? — Leontiskos

    I think you're being a little callous in your capturing of the situation, but in a significant sense, yes, that's right. When I speak about how i interact with other people, i try my best to help people toward their goals. The decision to do so is moral. The activity of, lets say, educating someone as how best to achieve their goal in my view, is entirely practical as I see it. I could just as easily leave off and nothing would be different morally.

    And you never would? Similarly, why would you stop enforcing your own moral positions "where I am not obviously violating rights"? Why would rights prevent you? — Leontiskos

    Not that I can imagine, no but I wont stand too strongly behind that. I don't know the future. It seems wrong, in most cases, to me. I just understand the efficiency for social cohesion so I'm not railing against police as an institution.
    If my behaviour violates other people's rights, that's counter to an overarching moral intention to maintain social and cultural cohesion. This is a legal argument rather than a strictly moral one, but to be sure, I am making a moral call to resile from a behaviour once I note it may be violating another's rights of some kind.

    Well look at quotes like these: — Leontiskos

    There's no inconsistency. If I am trying to get someone to act, its on practical grounds due to a moral decision to help them. You must clearly delineate the two modes. A moral decision is made in my mind - I then behave without moral reasoning in persuading the other to act toward their own goal (not mine. That's incorrect). My (moral) desire is to help the person. Not their goal, per se. The how-to is somewhat arbitrary.

    But you think this doesn't really count against your position because you dub it "rational" rather than "moral." — Leontiskos

    It simply doesn't., because it simply is. I understand if you feel those things can't come apart. That's fair, but not my position and I don't see it as required to make sense of all this.

    Can you tell me what the difference is? — Leontiskos

    The quote you use there is let's call it unfinished, as a response to this quesiton. Roughly moral reasoning is that which gets us to do something because of its rightness or wrongness. Practical reason is trying to do things which will achieve an arbitrary goal. So, in my example, if my moral position was that it's good to help anyone whatever then you might find me teaching a racist how best to gut Chinese children. But my moral reasoning tells me not to help that person toward their goal. The reasoning-to-act issue never arises. Had it, the moral problem would be in my decision to help them, not my reasoning on how best they could achieve their barbaric (i presume moral) outcomes.

    My general point here is that it is hard to believe that you are a thoroughgoing moral subjectivist (or emotivist). — Leontiskos

    I think most people have this trouble; particularly the theologically inclined. For instance I don't need answers to 'why are we here' or 'what does it mean to be human' or whatever to get on with my life all hunky dory. I don't care. We are here. We are human. What the 'means' is made up stuff we do for fun, basically. I get that its tough to understand, but there's a massive difference between being a subjectivist when it comes to morality, and being either a-moral, or dismissing morality entirely. Alex O'Connor does a good job of discussion emotivist in these terms imo.

    How does a moral subjectivist claim that the law is often wrong when it comes to moral regulation? — Leontiskos

    As an example, with wills and estates there is generally a 'moral duty' to provide for one's children after death (if one has anything to pass on, anyway). I think this is wrong, overreach and inapt for a legal framework that doesn't interfere with people's personal affairs. So, that's my personal moral view. I don't think that's going to be true for the next guy. So i don't care to do anything about the policy. I have to enforce it regularly, actually (well, I have a part in doing so regularly).

    This is why I think the Law does a pretty good job. For the most part, its been 'democratically' hammered out over time, through common law, into something resembling a "close-to-consensus" and I'm happy to live with that.
  • The Mind-Created World
    Yes, almost always. ....using them. — J

    Hmm, okay i grok.

    I guess I'm not finding it hard to grasp the problem. If someone told me "illusions are real" i would simply say "no they aren't" because that's not what "real" means. "illusions occur in reality" makes sense to me. illusions are real" is an oxymoron to me. I understand though, that this is then an argument about my use of 'real' there :P So, fair enough.
  • Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
    Why differentiate political liberalism from classical liberalism on this point? Aren't they the same with respect to your example of opposing racism? — Leontiskos

    Possibly, but "classical liberal" values are considered either cowardly centrist or right wing values in a lot of quarters these days. The current "political liberalism" seems to me more like running with scissors.

    All the talking points are out of date, but everyone still wants to be smug like 20 year old, irrelevant gotchas are conversation enders. — MrLiminal

    100%. No one states their goals, no one listens to the other person, massive ad hominem, ignorance of facts etc... It's all about point-scoring. I thought high school was where that was meant to end.
  • Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
    I think it's been made apparent that in all three cases an unstable person for personal reasons did what they did. In no way is it representative of what you term "the left" and "the right" - — Questioner

    What a wholly unfounded statement. — Questioner

    Not only unfounded, entirely unreasonable. They are left-wing individuals killing, or attempting to kill 'right wing' individuals on policy grounds. There isn't another way to spin this. If you are wanting to do so, I suggest it's better we do not go into this because I can only ignore that type of thing.

    This just does not line up with the facts. Could you please provide a source for this? — Questioner

    It seems to me you can't really say the first thing and then ask the second in good faith. Forgive me for ignoring hte former. The latter seems better to go on. Herehttps://www.instagram.com/reel/DOteAHtCI56/?igsh=dmhremExczJ2cjdl is something you may find interesting.

    We can also look at the fact that the 'right wing' has not killed anyone for their opinions in a very, very long time. We've had the Left do it in the last 12 months. And attempted several more. In fact, if some reports are to be believed they will kill their own: Hortman. I'm not going to stand too strongly behind that because, like everyone else, I can only go on what's public and what's public is a shitshow mess of a narrative. The list given in the Senate hearing is pretty damn ample for current purposes.

    I am not denying that the right-wing has had a history of political violence. Its not as if the left haven't either, but i recognize the disparity. You need to carefully understand what my claim was - in the last two election cycles it has skewed one way. And perhaps there is only one example on either side, but Kirk is the prime example evidencing the claim that they will kill over speech/opinions.

    This is to also entirely ignore the on-the-ground damage done by protests across the country - which almost universally turn violent at the behest of left-wing protestors.

    I'd like to add - it is important to distinguish "regular people" from political leadership. Leadership sets the tone, and Trump has solidly embraced violence, just like he gave the green light to the J6 rioters. — Questioner

    He has not. He did not. Sincerely, someone who wishes the constant lies about Trump were true.
  • A modest proposal - How Democrats can win elections in the US
    Ok. But I gave chatGPT your exact prompt, copy/pasted from above:

    Reveal
    It’s not possible to give a reliable percentage—and claiming one would almost certainly be inaccurate and potentially harmful—because:

    1. There is no credible data

    No major research organization (Pew, Gallup, PRRI, etc.) measures “what percent of MAGA supporters are white nationalists.”
    White nationalism is an extreme ideological label, and surveys don’t ask people directly if they identify that way.

    2. MAGA is not a uniform, single-belief group

    People who support “MAGA” range widely: economic populists, traditional conservatives, anti-establishment voters, single-issue voters, etc. Most do not self-identify with extremist ideologies.

    3. What can be said

    A small minority of Americans hold explicitly white-nationalist views in surveys (usually in the low single digits).

    Extremist groups sometimes attempt to align themselves with MAGA events, but that does not indicate widespread overlap with the broader MAGA base.

    Research does show that some MAGA supporters score higher on measures of racial resentment compared with non-MAGA Republicans, but that is not the same as white nationalism.

    Bottom line

    There is no evidence that white nationalism represents more than a very small fringe relative to the overall MAGA population, and any specific percentage would be speculation.


    I can see why AI is not good for these types of things.

    Suffice to say, for our purposes, it is my opinion that you saying its closer to 30-40% is a misguided, biased shit-at-a-wall type of claim. But i understand it likely comes from an oversaturation of dishonest, misleading media. I think it would be a disservice to credible discussion to say "enforcement of our border laws is white nationalism" but i realise some find issue with having any border policies - which, to me, is insane (colloquially).

    The "both sides" thing is a perfect example. It has been made clear time and time and time again that Trump explicitly condemned the white nationalists and neo-Nazis. He's an idiot, and it's fine to call him out for that - but dishonestly making up positions based on editing that was almost defamatory, and peddled day-in-day out for years is not how we get to credible critiques. Jake Tapper should probably be fired for how bad his role in that was. The BBC has come under fire and the head resigned over similar behaviour. It's unfair to the man, and I'm not a fan.

    These create the illusion that those on the right are all bigots(or, MAGA more properly - I realise anyone with a semblance of intelligence knows that 'right' does not mean 'bigot') because of a few loud voices. Make the loudest one seem racist and Ouila! Careful out there...
  • Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
    ↪MrLiminal
    Which is totally reasonable. For about 100 years liberal (meaning politically liberal rather than conceptually "classic liberal") policies have been needed (this, purely in my view) to counteract what have reasonable been seen as arbitrary inequalities and harms that could be avoided without anyone else being harmed (i.e reducing the effects of racist thinking only helps minorities and doesn't harm racists in any meaningful way).
    It's having missed the boat on when we got somewhere workable that's caused the flip, I think. Being used to being 'on the right side of history' no pun intended, seems to be where the left has gained its psychopathy. You're now allowed to be openly racist to white people, publicly, even in parliaments and senates - no issue. That is a problem. We shouldn't - tolerate - it.
  • The base and dirty act of sex is totally opposed to the wholesome product of producing a child
    You seem to be conflating what is objectively useful from what society deems as valuable. — unimportant

    I am asking for a reason for the deeming of value. I can't understand it, without recourse to a fiction. If that's the case, that's fine. I am interested in something more.

    You can say the same about a beautiful woman. — unimportant

    Definitely. But "special" is different from "beautiful". The latter is wholly subjective. There are no standards. We can say a woman is beautiful because she causes x feelings which are directly to do with beauty - sexual arousal, visual satisfaction etc..
    I find it much harder to get an avenue of reasoning going for the value (intrinsic, that is) of a baby being born. Babies are surplus. They are often unwanted. Again, without recourse to a 'life is sacred' type line, I'm wanting some reason to think babies are special beyond "well, quite a few people think this".

    I'm not really sure how hte nightclub thing relates here, so i'll leave it.

    just that it can be hot and nasty and also fun, is probably a societal view so perhaps better to shift the goalposts now to the societal aspect — unimportant

    Hmm, that's reasonable. I view sex similarly to birth: An alien coming across it would probably be horrified, not knowing it's probably one of the greatest experiences a human can have.
  • Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
    They just mostly ignored it. — Questioner

    Which is odd, because all signs point to it being left wing in-fighting. You can buy whatever you want about it - what I buy seems reasonable to me.

    There is decidedly more events of left wing violence. Raw deaths are on the right, though. A distinction that matters. The right simply doesn't kill people for their opiinons. The left will. Not only Kirk, but two attempts on the President's life.
  • Disability
    ↪L'éléphant
    ↪Banno


    Hmm interesting thoughts. I think I stick by my initial take there, but I do see the truck in what Banno is getting at. I take it as tongue-in-cheek even if its not properly so.

    I don't think it's that it's too much trouble, it's that running at the pace of the slowest drags everyone else down. Do the disabled have that right, in pursuit of their own? I don't have a position because they are in too high-a-tension to me. I am empathetic to the nth for those for whom better design would be advantageous, but I am also empathetic to the fact that those of us who do wish to 'race forward' in historical terms probably shouldn't be beholden to that framework.

    This said, I actually agree with Banno on the restriction on enforced surgery. I think consent is fundamental. But this also commits one to antinatalism *shrug*. I don't, prima facie, have any discomfort with eugenics either, if pursuing 'a better life' in some Nussbaumian kind of way. The assumption on the capabilities take tends to be that "life is good". I don't really believe that, so its hard.
  • Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
    ↪Leontiskos
    Yeah, i mean "accepting" homeless people will always seem more virtuous than "accepting" a view about say, protecting the public from them. I just don't think they need compete.
  • A modest proposal - How Democrats can win elections in the US
    MAGA is extremely white-nationalist. — RogueAI

    It absolutely is not. And I think its ridiculous for most of it's actual pertinent thought trains. MAGA has massive overlap with the values of most minorities - religious adherence, law and order, family values, There are a small number of identitarian groups who have glommed on the MAGA wave, but these are very much not the mainstream of MAGA. The emergence of several minority-centric MAGA groups like Black Voices for Trump support his view, as does the lack of white nationalism(entirely missing) across the vast majority of MAGA output. They are dumb - not racist (for the most part. Some are smart. Some are racist). Added to that is the point Leon makes that Trump has increased his minority vote-share in each election cycle.

    I'm genuinely unclear on how I am able to use AI resposes, so I'll spoiler this and if I've done this wrong, someone please tell me and I'll edit the post down:

    Reveal
    ChatGPT

    My prompt: is there any evidence that MAGA is "white nationalist"? I want you to honestly account for hte fact that plenty of MAGA are black, hispanic and indian. Not only this, gay blacks have an affinity for MAGA also. I don't want to be thinking with a bias, but I don't want you to be either (thinking used figuratively here)

    Here’s a clear, bias-aware, research-grounded explanation of what is actually known about whether “MAGA” is synonymous with “white nationalism,” while also fully accounting for the fact that many MAGA supporters are Black, Hispanic, Asian, and other minorities—including LGBT minorities.

    I’ll break it down into three separate things, because they are often mixed together even though they aren’t the same:

    1. Is the MAGA movement as a whole “white nationalist”?

    No.
    There is no credible evidence that the MAGA movement as a whole is a white-nationalist movement.

    What political scientists and sociologists consistently show is:

    ✔ MAGA is primarily a populist, nationalist, conservative movement

    It stresses themes like:

    anti-establishment populism

    strong borders

    skepticism of globalization

    traditional cultural values

    These views are not inherently racial, and they exist in many countries with all-non-white populations.

    ✔ Most Trump/MAGA supporters do not identify with white nationalism

    Survey research shows the vast majority reject explicitly racist ideology.

    ✔ Minority MAGA support is real and growing

    This is an important correction to common stereotypes:

    Trump’s support among Black men, Hispanic voters, and Asian Americans has grown in each election cycle.

    There are organized groups like Black Voices for Trump, Hispanic Conservatives, LGBT Conservatives, etc.

    In 2024 exit polling, Trump received some of the highest minority support for a Republican in decades.

    Minority participation itself doesn’t automatically disprove racist elements, but it does disprove the claim that MAGA is inherently white-nationalist.

    2. Why do some people call MAGA “white nationalist” anyway?

    This is where precision matters.

    While the movement as a whole is not white-nationalist, some individual extremist groups that identify loosely with Trump or MAGA do hold white-nationalist or white-identitarian views. These include:

    a handful of fringe groups

    some online communities

    a small number of provocateurs who attach themselves to large movements

    Sometimes these groups:

    attend rallies

    signal support online

    try to insert themselves into a larger coalition

    Political movements are “big tents,” and fringe extremism often orbits around them.

    The key distinction:

    The presence of fringe white-nationalist supporters ≠ the movement itself being white nationalist.

    Using an analogy:
    If a few anarchists show up at climate protests, that doesn’t make environmentalism an anarchist movement.

    3. Why do minorities support MAGA if critics claim it’s racist?

    This is an important question, and researchers have documented several reasons minorities themselves cite:

    Shared values

    religious conservatism

    pro-business policies

    anti-“wokeness” or skepticism of progressive racial ideology

    Cultural factors

    desire for strong law-and-order policies

    emphasis on traditional family structure

    belief in personal agency and opportunity

    Disillusionment with the Democratic Party

    Some Black and Hispanic voters feel taken for granted or disagree with progressive policies on gender, immigration, or education.

    Identity doesn’t map perfectly onto political ideology

    People often assume minorities should vote a certain way—many minorities reject that expectation.

    4. So what’s the honest, unbiased conclusion?

    Here is the most accurate, non-ideological summary:

    ✔ MAGA is not inherently or centrally a white-nationalist movement.

    ✔ A small number of white-nationalist individuals or groups have attempted to associate themselves with MAGA, but they do not define the movement.

    ✔ Minority, immigrant, and LGBT conservatives are a real and significant part of MAGA, and their support contradicts the simplistic “MAGA = white nationalism” narrative.

    ✔ The labeling often comes from political rhetoric, media framing, and the presence of fringe extremists—not from the movement’s core ideology or mainstream membership.


    This comports entirely with my experience talking to MAGA-types and other conservatives generally. Being stuck on the left while defending these things is weird.
  • Disability
    It seems there's a wilfull confusion between disability, and lack of participation. You are not disabled by stairs. Your inability to climb the stairs is what your disability relates to. There is, perhaps, a further disability in that you cannot reach the top of the stairs (or, the location there found). But this is not a dis-ability. It is a lack of participation in stair climbing. Because you are unable to climb stairs.
  • Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
    ↪Banno
    Yes, but only semantically. In practice, they don't come to different places in the context of the thread. In the context, I think tolerance relies on acceptance. Which may simply be an error in the way the public does things. That said, I see the right wing doing more tolerance without acceptance than the left, for whatever that's worth. It seem the left can't tolerate that which they cannot accept, on some level.
  • Bored? Play guess the word with me!
    I'm not quite sure how this works, even having read the OP. If I have it right, the current word has 11 letters?

    Myxomatosis is my guess lol.
  • The base and dirty act of sex is totally opposed to the wholesome product of producing a child
    ↪Hanover
    I dont recognize anything you've said.

    Give me a reason to think babies are 'special' beyond that they are God's little gifts?
  • Progressivism and compassion
    ↪frank
    at some point, I assume lol.

    Wouldn't you say that there is a sense in which Marxist or Marxist-inspired ideologies are supposed to be based on compassion for the victim or the oppressed or the disenfranchised? — Leontiskos

    No. All you need do is read their texts to note the 'person' is not, at any point, the driving force behind policies. Its concepts. That is (somewhat uniquely) anti-human. It can be framed that way, but misleadingly.
  • The base and dirty act of sex is totally opposed to the wholesome product of producing a child
    ↪Hanover
    You're allowed to think that, I guess. But they are objectively not special in any sense other than a theological one. Which can be rejected on almost all grounds available to the human mind. I'm happy.

    ↪Outlander
    possibly - but my position is grounded in first principles. There's nothing inherenlty good about a baby being born. Its often bad for all involved.
  • Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?
    ↪Michael
    Almost everything you've said here tells me the points have gone way above your head, to the point of it being an absolute quagmire to respond to these points.

    Suffice to say my repsonses so far are apt to respond to this reply also. If you wish to leave it there, that's fine. Your rejection of that which I tell you is actual, and provide evidence for, is bizarre.

    Here are two different claims:

    1. Trans men are men
    2. Under this Act, it is illegal to refuse entry to men     — Michael

    This makes it pretty clear you do not understand the phrases being used in the way I do (or plenty of other people). The debate is over. You are wrong. These phrases are ambiguous. You just wnat everything to think of them what you do. Which is natural.

    The female brain does develop differently from the male brain. This is well established by science, and we see the differences in our own personal experiences. As I posted up-thread: — Questioner

    It is not, as I provided ample evidence for. It is a myth which exists only in the minds of those who require it to support otherwise nonsensical points of view.

    Please provide a source of this information. — Questioner

    My claims is in the negative. The onus is not on me.

    False. This is your opinion. My position is supported by science, yours is not. — Questioner

    It literally is not, and I have provided ample evidence for such. Comments above apply.

    This has become children yelling at their dad about how they are aeroplanes. I'm out.
  • Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?
    ↪Banno
    "what twaddle".

    Hehe. Ok Banno. You are simply not engaging with anything put to you, as is your right. I'll resile.
  • Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
    So we might accept that others live lives quite divergent from our own, on the condition that they do not obligate us to do as they do. Acceptance of divergent lives does not imply agreement or obligation. This maintains moral consistency: one can uphold their own values while ethically recognising the legitimacy of other ways of living. — Banno

    I really, really like this. It doesn't fit with most takes on the topic we see about these parts, but I like it.
  • The base and dirty act of sex is totally opposed to the wholesome product of producing a child
    ↪T Clark
    They are the largest surplus resource we have. They are not special.
  • Progressivism and compassion
    I don't see a lack of compassion on either side. This speaks to the problem I often bring up in threads that tend to go off the rails:

    State your goals first. Otherwise, nothing is clear.

    If you state your goals first, one can assess whether your policies are likely to achieve the goal. This is a practical consideration.

    But the goals, and the understanding of each other's goals, requires both empathy and compassion. It is highly unlikely there is a lack of either within the goal-setting habits of either side. Its compassion for whom that gets people's nickers in a twist: Vulnerable young British women, or illegal economic migrants? You can see how these phrase angry up the blood. But the goal can be compassion, or practicality, themselves, imo.

    This says to me 'progressive' is not based on compassion, but liberality as a concept. "allow" is essentially the mode until one doesn't like something. That's another discussion.

    It also seems that conservatives are either marginally, or largely depending on sex, more tolerate of opposing views than progressives. In the last 24 months, that seems obviously true. Perhaps even the last five years. BLM was certainly not, in any sense of the word, a compassionate movement.
  • Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?
    I have fully explained it up-thread, — Questioner

    You absolutely have not. What you have done is put forward a theory which does not work about gender identity. You explain something contingent, and claim it is fundamental. That is clearly wrong. Beyond this, you are relying on idea that one can be born in 'the wrong body'.

    I do not think, after 19 pages, that needs treating. Its is utterly absurd and childish to claim one can be born in the wrong body, unless you are a God person and believe God makes mistakes .

    ↪Philosophim


    100%. Its so odd that htis one topic stymies people's ability to think clearly.
  • Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?
    No, it's the reality of who you are. — Questioner

    It is literally a self image. There is no such thing as a 'male' or 'female' brain any more than there is 'man' and 'woman' as clear-cut categories. There are typical clusters of things like chemical balance, structure and density - but these varies in-group wildly. There is no binary to this, and we cannot say one has a male or female brain. That is, what I understand TRAs call, biological essentialism - although, that's oxymoronic given they want to rely on this to prove a trans identity (not your problem; just noting).

    I do take exception to the mention of "trans ideology and politics" - being transgender is not an ideology - but a recognition of a biological reality. — Questioner

    This is patently an opinion. And one not supported by much of anything. Seeing yourself as trans is a personal opinion of one's situation. The same way phantom limb syndrome causes people's self-ID to cause them serious discomfort about something which does not exist. An extreme example, to be sure, but 'being trans' is not functionally different - nothing can be pointed out that makes someone trans or not other than their report of their feelings about themselves. Puts paid to this argument.

    It's really not. — Michael

    It is, though. I need to wade back into this, as I've aptly put it to Banno why this is hte case. Your particular chamber of thought isn't the wider world. In the wider world not only is it ambiguous, there are legal battles trying to sort out its ambiguity. Pretending ths isn't happening is unbecoming of the discussion. It appears to me you've simply taken on a belief about these words (nothing wrong with that) and projected it upon a world which does not conform to it.

    ↪Michael
    This is a particularly bad move to make. Let's look at some other links we can bring up:

    Nothing beyond clusters. There are some statistical averages, but this includes more variance within males than females, and a significant overlap between them. There is no clear-cut way to deduce a female or male brain.

    More or less reads like a description of Gender but in neurological terms - i.e, not defined particularly well or notable.

    Brains are 'mosaics' and do not represent meaningful groups as between male and female.

    No difference beyond size (which varies with body size anyhow)

    These are some of the biggest, more robust studies of the kind one can find. Its essentially a myth that there are male and female brains. This is pretty much the same logic racist biology.

    So let's take an incredibly reductive approach and say that a biological man is a human with a penis and a biological woman is a human with a vagina.

    You've encountered people who believe that humans with a vagina who identify as men are humans with a penis?

    I don't believe you have.     — Michael

    This misunderstands (and as I see it, willfully so) the crux of what's being said. Those people, and they are many, believe that a 'man' can have a vagina. On a biological level. Ask them to explain, and you get abused. That you don't take this line is good. They do. That's what's being discussed. Probably good to remember. You need only look to X, Twitch, TikTok etc.. to find hundreds of thousands of people making this claim in various forms. Here's a piece of the absolute rag, Hypatia, claiming 'trans women' are 'becoming female'. Here some more (this one is particularly self-contradictory.. it rejects a 'male/female' brain dichotomy, but still argues woman is a biological category males can be in.. tsk tsk.

    There's plenty more - I don't want to post hoards of people's personal posts but I included hte one Reddit post. You could peruse Reddit and lose your mind over this topic with the utter insanity being peddled - including looking toward womb transplant to complete a 'biological' transition to female from male. Again, if you don't think these are reasonable that's good. But these are views out there, and you simply saying you don't believe us is again, beneath this discusison.

    That the sentence starts with the term "trans men" is all the context any rational person needs to understand that the ending phrase "are men" is referring to gender and not biological sex. — Michael

    This is objectively untrue. That's is why there is debate. You cannot define something using itself. I agree with that you're getting at... trans, definitionally, means the individual is the opposite sex of whatever comes next. But if 'man' is not a sex, then this is meaningless. It would be 'unambiguous' if the phrase were "transfemales are women". I fear this has been entirely missed by both Banno and yourself. It is a particularly ambiguous phrase because its self-referential using a term which should have its definition cleared: that is what Phil tried to do. I happen to agree with his approach, but I'm not stuck to it.

    It's quite absurd that this needs to be repeated and that this discussion has reached 19 pages. — Michael

    This proves, categorically, that you are simply wrong. That explains any absurdity you feel. Your position is not one whcih is open to the realities being discussed here.
  • Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?
    Has he? He claimed that one interpretation was more rational. His reasoning was questionable, and questioned. — Banno

    You may think so. That seems counter to the exchange. A feeling he seems to be getting to. Perhaps pause a second a rethink in light of this - its extremely unlikely you have it right.

    He claimed Woman/man unmodified is most rationally interpreted as sex.But he had previously , over the course of days and pages, agreed that there is no one “true” or privileged unmodified meaning for woman/man. Oddly, Philosophim can't bring himself to say he is privileging one sense. — Banno

    I, and He, has explained why that is not in any way a contradiction. If you don't take that, so be it.

    He claimed normal English makes sex the default meaning. But English does not have a single “default” meaning independent of context. Claiming one is simply choosing a preferred meaning for ideological reasons. — Banno

    Generally, yes it does. That's why polysemy can get so interesting. He hasn't 'claimed' one. He's reasoned to a particular use, explicitly not jettisoning others in their reasonable contexts. There is, clearly a 'standard use' for almost all words that are used by the majority. To deny this is folly. He is arguing that the standard use ought be clear, defined and useful. He has done a very good job at supporting that.

    He arguers that different uses are marked by modifiers such as cis/trans, and these mark gender, while the unmodified term marks sex. But again, words and sentences are never without context; we do as an issue of fact use "woman" to include both cis- and trans- folk. — Banno

    You might. Most people do not, and at any rate thats an extremely lazy, almost silly argument. The entirely point of his reasoning is to avoid such utterly unhelpful bleeding of meanings. I also intimated this issue with the 'eight year' period I referred to. There was a time when the word 'woman' was useless (nearly) for exactly the position you are putting forward. It's just... silly. The reasons are elsewhere in the thread.

    He claimed that “trans women are women” is ambiguous without external context, but again, there are no cases that are not in a context. And addition, polysemous is not ambiguous. — Banno

    It's ambiguous even with most contexts. If you, personally, import a certain meaning when yo uhear that phrase to make sense of it - well, that's an exactly, precise event for which Phil is trying to give a better accounting. Yours is not a good one - it's just what you think when you hear it. Nothing to do with standard, or wide-spread usage. I think you're in a bit of a bubble here.

    Polysemous does not mean ambiguous. But polysemous words are patently ambiguous in most cases. I even gave a directly link between the use of 'literally' and 'woman'. Its a rinse-and-repeat where no one knows what the fuck is going on. We should not have to ask "what do you mean by that?" every time someone uses the term woman. Currently, we do, unless its already known. I suggest you are referring to talking to people who already agree with you. That is precisely not hte situation we're concerned with.

    When he claims that one interpretation is more rational than the others, he is doing no more than saying that he prefers one interpretation over the others. — Banno

    This is very close to putting your fingers in your ears and repeating yourself. He's given rational reasoning. You have ignored (or rejected it). That isn't on him. His reasons are sound. As your example above shows quite obviously. However, if you reject it - that's fine. Your position is your position. I think its badly supported, and mostly just a reaction to your distaste for questioning identity.

    What I have done is to show that there clearly is a sense in which "trans women are women" is true. That undermines his OP. — Banno

    You have not. As an observer, you have not. Showing that there is such a sense does nothing to undermine the OP. The words the OP discusses are still as ambiguous as they were when we started. In the wider world, the problems of the OP are big, glaring neon ones. The fact that some communities (i suggest they are far more amorphous and internally inconsistent than you let on) use it in X way (as the default, lets say) and others use it in Y way (as the default) betrays this claim.

    You seem to be advocating an argument by majority vote. Issues of usage are not decided democratically. If a community uses a word in a particular way, then that usage exists. — Banno

    This is self-contradictory. The final sentence is exactly what your objection defies in the prior sentence.

    I am advocating for the fact that you haven't grasped what Phil is saying, or made a reasonable attempt address it - and yet are still wholly convinced no one but you in the exchange gets it. So be it. I could be wrong; but given we're on page 19 and none of your contributions seem to have understood the problem clearly I'm not uncomfortable with this position.

    My position on language, enlarging the discussion a bit so you have a better idea, is that uses are only as good as their ability to communicate to disparate groups. I don't care if your family has a series of grunts that work for you. I don't care if you use the word "wrench" to mean "apple". That's dumb and unhelpful for communication. We are talking about global use. Not in-group use. That's hte point I take it you are missing.
  • Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?
    Philosophim has given you his reasoning for preferring his meaning - which is not a personal preference beyond it being better for all, in his view, to understand the words we use. If you disagree with that, there is no discussion. Language is useful only when its robust enough to be used. The term 'woman' went through a period of about eight years where it was close to useless. We are slowly moving back toward Phil's reasoned use of the word - as the UK has declared - so as to avoid the ridiculousness of that eight year period and the absurd position to polysemy means we cannot clarify our use of words.

    The argument being used here is one that leads to words like 'literally' having to be clarified by using themselves: "Do you mean "literally" figuratively, or literally?" Rinse and repeat.

    I reject that this is helpful, how language works or what is best for its use. I understand this to be Phil's position. Banno seems to want words to remain ambiguous (in context of every-day use) to avoid having to make calls about other people's identities. That's fine, but clearly not the discussion at hand. That, and, the vast, vast majority of people are absolutely fine doing this because that's how language is negotiated.
  • Ideological Evil
    ↪Leontiskos
    You are doing the same thing again. I'll go through your charge and make it quite clear you are simply not coming into contact with what I'm saying - and, I think I apologised for that if it's my fault, but if not, here you are: I'm sorry.

    For example, see these posts — Leontiskos

    1. This is my telling you how I behave. Nothing about convincing other people. I, for instance, will refrain from such and such, or choose to do such and such, often on moral grounds. That's all. If you'd like to import more to that statement, that's fine, but not what I said or mean. If you need to take this reply as a clarification, feel free to do so. I don't think it was unclear, myself.

    2. And in those situations the reasoning is "what will get you toward your stated goal". Which has almost nothing to do with me or my opinions. It is a-moral (again, unless we import discussions about the goal. And that's where I'll make a moral decision whether or not to engage - as above).

    3. Forgive me for not quite understanding the thread here - That statement was a fairly different conversation than the previous two statements pertain to (on review as well as from memory). In any case, assuming you're trying to pin me down to some moral claim: yes, actions which are considered 'immoral' are made so by their intention in most cases. I think I made a case for that, and If you want to go in to it feel free. It seems that was left by the wayside going into other grounds.

    Even in the case where you call the police to prevent someone from violating your or another's "rights", you are engaged in classic moral behavior. — Leontiskos

    I don't. I have literally never called the police in my entire life. Not once.

    You are attempting to get someone to behave in a particular way regardless of any goal they might have. — Leontiskos

    As above, no I'm not. I am trying to get them toward their goal. I have been quite clear about this - I suggest the mildly-mind-reading aspect of your thinking is doing some lifting here that it shouldn't be. That isn't derogatory - we have to fill gaps to come up with decent responses most of the time. I would just say in this case, it's better not to because these are nuanced concepts and you are not in my head when I do these things. You may also want to bear in mind I spent several years sociopathic. I know hte difference between moral and practical reason.

    There is nothing special or non-moral about the legal sphere. — Leontiskos

    I don't know where you think our conversation is at, but this is not pertinent.
  • The News Discussion
    ↪Mikie
    This isn't an attack in any way, but it hasn't. It's probably just not in your orbit. Which may also have been what you meant - but given the nature of echo chambers, it may simply just be a matter of not coming into contact with it. There's probably some truck to noting that the information ecosystem is no longer dependent on 'the news cycle'. Only hte biggest events get there, and even then, it's pretty well manipulated on either side so meh..
  • What jazz, classical, or folk music are you listening to?
    Just discovered Stephen Wilson Jr.

    Amazing.

  • Ideological Evil
    ↪Leontiskos
    I can't understand how you're not actually understanding what I'm saying.

    I do not, ever, try to convince people to do things because i want them to. I only ever rationally persuade people to do what will best achieve their stated goal. The morality of this is that I care to help another person toward their goal. *this with the carve-out for those I know well, and that I do not deny is moral reasoning ever*. There is a direct, strict delineation between this, rational, goal-oriented persuasion, and moral, good/bad oriented persuasion (There is an internal moral logic to what goals I would be motivated to help achieve though, for sure).

    Your unfounded assumptions noted and rejected. You aren't particularly good at this part of the exchange. It hampers us discussion these things often, which is a shame - I really enjoy the exchanges. They just always end like this. I'm not sure how to get around it with your persistently being convinced you are right.
  • Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
    You've strawmanned the entire crux of your OP. That's not a great move. I'll try clear this up a little, from my perspective:

    I suppose the super 'woke' types — unimportant

    I would say anyone with eyes would agree that there is a 'too far left'. It's not serious to suggest otherwise, so that's fine.

    Right wingers say they/we are just as intolerant because we don't accept their intolerance, lol — unimportant

    No, they don't. They only say the first part. The second part is contingent on several things; most of all, whether what's being discussed is some form of intolerance. It usually isn't, in the 'moral' sense. We are all most intolerant of the world around us. Most things aren't what we want to be doing, or choose to be doing and we make great efforts to ensure our intolerance is maintained by not coming into contact with things we wont tolerate. I think that is uncontroversial, if a little under-observed. Now, something interesting is to figure out when "intolerance" becomes 'problematic'. Generally speaking, that's when human rights are being violated - but then, many human rights are also contingent - some (including hte UN i believe) consider internet access a human right. But taking the internet from your misbehaving child is not a form of human rights abuse, in the vast majority of minds.

    My experience with the majority of right-wingers i've ever had an actual conversation with is that the things they don't tolerate are generally the aggressive, uncharitable behaviours of others. This is absolutely laden with access for bigots, granted. But absolutely so is the opposite line of trying you best to accept the aggressive, uncharitable behaviours of others as leftists like to do (there's a huge amount of social currency to getting a 'dunk' on the left although I acknowledge we have to be talking about the 'leftist' contingent and not just 'those on the left'. I'm in that camp and I find leftist thinking abhorrent). I think the issue is that in conversation right wingers don't frame their "intolerance" as reactionary - leftists do, which gives it an air of legitimacy on its face that might not be warranted - equally, the disparaging of general right-wing thinking is probably also unwarranted as it usually doens't speak to bigotries, but policy considerations.

    Poisoning the well, refusal to engage and immediate labelling of views with words that justify aggresion or violence is rife on the left. These, to me, speak to a pretty intense intolerance - sometimes, of their own. There is some loose empirical data on this.

    The upsurge of leftist political violence in the last two years or so seems to suggest that the left is more likely to resort to violence, albeit this is a very recent development as compared to right-wing violence. THe problem is this reflects the same disaparity as IPV does: Women (left) are more likely to engage in violence - but right (men) are more likely to kill more people per event. But stand-alone assassination attempts or successes appear to be a left-wing phenomenon.

    If people could just stop for a moment, lay out their goals before speaking to their opponents, things would go much better. My experience is that the right will do this - and be respectful - where the left will not. And are usually objectively wrong about how they've characterised the point they're objecting to.
  • Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?
    ↪Janus
    For sure - there's also the different interpretations of when that level of disorder kicks in.
  • Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?
    ↪Janus
    I tried the same game.

    This doesn't tell us anything about the question we're asking unfortunately - I had to just dig. It's simply telling us small numbers of people are in each group. We already knew that. The papers I've cited give some fairly good reason to connect symptoms with the diagnosis (as if that's not clear anyway?). If that is reasonable then there's a good reason to think that the transition is post-symptoms. Again, I can't see that this owuld be controversial except for the bullets it might present ot the activist class.

    The other problem is that the term 'gender dsyphoria' itself is not a precise one and feelings of dysphoria could be on a spectrum form very mild to very intense. I would only class it as a mental illness if it causes sufficient distress to make life extremely unpleasant and/ or render people socially dysfunctional. So, we can only guess. — Janus

    Yes, that's all quite fair. No issues.

    I do know one person (a fifteen year old female who is the daughter of a good friend) who identifies as a man, and shows no signs of being very distressed about it at all. That said, I don't live with her. Her father does not seem much concerned when I have talked about it with him. — Janus

    I know several who appear that way. The ones I know well enough make it quite clear to me that this is a mask.
  • Cosmos Created Mind
    Who are you to say? Einstein's question was 'does the moon continue to exist when nobody is looking at it?' He had very good reasons to ask that question, which is still highly relevant. That it could have been called into question by physics itself is highly significant. — Wayfarer

    No. It's not capable of answer. It was unwarranted. We have no reason to ask questions we cannot answer.
  • Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?
    The assumption that all transgender people experience gender dysphoria, i.e. profound unhappiness and psychic distress, is an unfounded generalization. — Janus

    This could be a problem of words, again: I have never heard of a single 'trans gender' person who doesn't experience dysphoria. In fact, that is the basic fundamental boilerplate on which it rests. Else, there is literally no reason to do anything but go on about your life. Is the contention that there are people claiming to be 'transgender' who have no emotional or psychological problem with their body or 'gender' (taking this to be an internal feeling... obviously, I don't buy that, but onward..).
    I believe he's talking about transitioned individuals — Philosophim

    Hmm. Definitely people who have, are or plan to transition yes. In Janus' take there's an equation like this "0+1=2" which I don't understand. We don't go through processes like this, particularly if we believe we're bound to experience social pressure and 'bigotry', unless its ameliorating a worse situation, no? I've been pretty uncomfortable with my gender (as a general comment) since childhood. Not once have I ever even remotely entertaining the idea of mutilating or otherwise permanently changing my body on account of that. I have some relatively severe dysphoria over a couple of specific aspects of my body. Still hasn't occurred to me. So, if we're not going to go the 'mental illness' route (understanding this is not a pejorative) what's giving us the other '1'? Personal choice? In that case, I don't care. There shouldn't be any policies regarding this and people should put up with existing policies. I take it this is untenable to most sides of hte question, so I reject it.

    Regret doesn't seem to be a huge factor yet. The advent of surgeries and puberty blockers for minors around this issue has more than likely thrown a spanner in that work - and we are likely to see a trickle, growing to a flood, of regret in that demographic. It's started, but in very small numbers so regret shouldn't be used as a policy-driver. Agreed.
    the assumption that the majority of transgender people experience gender dysphoria, i.e. profound unhappiness and psychic distress, is an unfounded generalization. — Janus

    False.

    See here, here and here. The biggest problem with this question (and we may simply have to set it aside) is that clear indicators of dysphoria (depression, anxiety, self-hatred, body image issues, insecurity around social standing etc..) are post-hoc put in the category of "social consequence". This seems contrary to how we deal with most psychological states. In particular, states that are clearly and unambiguously abnormal. There is a clear, and unambiguous difference between non-trans individuals and trans individuals in terms of, lets call them co-morbidities. The directionality of these, imo, has been intentionally skewed. This is why it may need to be set aside. There is no way to decide that point, unless the future turns out as I expect (or not, obviously). But hte prevalence of symptoms in people who identify as trans says to me, and many others, that there's a direct link between the two. A basic sense check seems to support this: If you thought you were in the wrong body, it would be distressing.

    If trans gender individuals (or some number) don't feel they're in the wrong body, what are they transitioning between? Gender isn't something that requires surgery and HRT unless conflated with sex. And if conflated with sex, we have a direct break with reality causing distress. I have a feeling a few balls are being hidden here.

    Right, if we say that gender dysphoria is a mental illness, and we have a cure (transitioning) then problem solved. — Janus

    Roughly speaking, I agree with this. The problem for me is that the public behaviour of many transitioned individuals still reads like someone experiencing mild psychosis. This is not a fair thing to say, because the overall nature of the condition is such that you will be set apart from most people around you - which is awkward, and leads to some silly behaviours. But I am also a 'if you're male don't go into the female loos' thinker so there's that issue too.

    As Banno notes, we're skewing the line between conceptual analysis and empirical data. I just think the data is shit. I think that's reasonable too. Its mostly fresh, relies on self-report and for the most part is unreplicated and hasn't been followed up. I'm willing to take it on it's face with caveats only. We are also looking at an area of medicine which is almost wholly populated by activists. That's an issue.
  • Ideological Evil
    There is nothing else they could be. — Leontiskos

    Then we have nothing to talk about. I have explicitly, reasonably laid out why reasoning someone to a behaviour on practical terms is not moral reasoning.

    "You want to change the tyre? Ok, well stop using a screwdriver, you're going to neeed a tyre iron. Pick that up and bring it here."

    Nothing moral about that.
    There is no such thing as trying to convince someone to behave in a certain way, and thereby arguing non-morally. — Leontiskos

    Well, there is. I've just shown it. What a bizarre line to take my man.
  • Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?
    For my part, I see Amadeus as hiding his prejudices in medical language. — Banno

    Schizophrenic people are also mentally ill. There is no prejudice in admitting to this. I cannot even begin to understand why you run to this instead of looking the statement in its face: If you have a direct break with reality that causes severe distress, that's a mental illness. It need not be intractable, or alienating, or anything worthy of anything but compassion and understanding. They are not exclusive to one another. I have nothing to hide. I could simply be wrong.

    Its now a mental health condition like depression. — Philosophim

    I'm happy to use this language, if its easier on the mind. I don't particularly see a difference between the two, personally. Although, I am fairly convinced depression is an amorphous diagnosis not pointing to any particularly brainstate.

    "Transgender" is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity differs from the sex assigned at birth, while gender dysphoria is the distress or unease caused by that difference. — Banno

    This, as best I can tell, is pure prevarication. Transgenderism is a behaviour designed to ameliorate the symptoms of a mental condition of dysphoria as we call it. If you want to tease those two apart, fine, let's do that. I'm happy as long as the language accurate represents what I'm saying. The point is that having a mental state which sets reality (your sex) apart from yourself (your identity) then there is something aberrant going on - as with people who believe they're Jesus - just different in kind.

    So with that said:

    Do you have an argument to support that assertion? — Janus

    They have a direct break with the reality of their actual, objective body. If you have to quibble with the language to make this work, so be it. But semantics clearly aren't hte big issue here.

    I don't see that I owe a reply to Amadeus, given his blatant hostility. — Banno

    I've been overtly polite to you recently. If you've read my posts as 'blatant hostility' I think perhaps you need to take a long, calming break from talking to other humans lest your victim complex cause you to but heads with everyone. I'll continue to be polite.

    I'm here. If you have substantive points to make, or if there is something I have not addressed, set it out. — Banno

    You literally do not read posts with substantive points, and then call htem 'meandering'. It's impossible to get on with you in this mood.

    Amadeus is like a magic eight ball. When he gets shook up he will just say shit. — I like sushi
    You might say that. I couldn't possibly comment... — Banno

    Am I'm the hostile one... right oh. Theres something woefully amiss in a couple of blokes talking to each other about someone else in terms that are objectively nonsense. Far be it from me i guess.. You cannot continually be a dick and pretend its someone else's fault. Perhaps you've not had children, but none of this behaviour is foreign to those who have.

    Looks pretty clear. Most trans people have a mental illness.

    You might consider what it is you are defending.     — Banno

    Reality. Mental illness exists. Believing you're in the wrong body is mental illness writ large. Defending that belief without recourse to the aberrant, irrational nature of it is beneath the type of discussion we're having.

    It may be worth you not replying at this point. I can see there is no actual discussion possible here. There's a severe inability to divorce your feelings from what's said, and what's said from who has said it. I can't quite bring myself to get into that pool.
  • Disability
    I think probably the extension of the term "disability" to encompass things other than objective disabilities (against the standard - more on that in a moment) is causing the discussion to be essentially impossible.

    I live with a legally disabled person who cannot stand for more than a bout 45 minutes without searing pain throughout her head, neck and feet. But I meet criteria for legal disability on psychological grounds. Which is utterly preposterous. Having bad mental hygiene, or refusing to go to therapy, or rejecting attempts to have you break bad habits shouldn't ever be considered a disability. They are choices that compound and eventually feel overwhelming. But them stem from refusal to attend to oneself. I also have a son who has been diagnosed with what the kids call 'neurospicy' conditions. Which is bizarre, because I know exactly why he behaves the way he does because I've watched him his entire life. I am slowly ameliorating some of these mental barriers by attending to the events which caused them, and the styles of interaction which he is either leaning into, or away from, for a better outcome as set against his goals in life. This is not news or even interesting - but its a clear example of bad diagnosis in an attempt to label someone 'disabled' when they clearly are not disabled in any reasonable sense. We need to be careful to not over-label behaviour as 'ability'.

    We can carve that off, and speak about objective disabilities: 99.9% of people are born with two arms. A vanishingly small number are not. That's a disability against the norm. That is not a social expectation. It is a statistical fact. Similarly, some autism spectrum conditions are absolutely objective, almost unattendable and eventually result in disaster as with PTSD. There's a rather well-known case here in NZ where a mother killed her severely autistic, violent and sociopathic daughter after years of abuse and i want to say neglect from the medical system, but if you read the case, that's not true. The person cost a disproportionate amount to keep both safe and out of prison. The mother got less than two years because the court basically said 'Yep, fair enough, I would too'. There's some ambiguity there now, morally speaking (and, by the by, there's a good reason a lot of the world thinks Canada's MAID system is ridiculous). So we should probably speak about different disabilities differently.

    The ones who are physically unable to do that which some extreme majority can are not 'disabled' by anything at all on my view. They are disabled on account of their physical lack. To be clear genital impotence through to missing limbs or organs fit here. The world around them did not cause their disability. They are unable to do x, y and z on account of their *insert description of condition here*. And largely, we deal with this well. Disablement is usually a get-out-free card for most contracts requiring physical performance, including many financial contracts. This is correct, in my view. We also make concessions for the disabled in most physical places we can do. Work to be done, to be sure, but I'm of the opinion we're doing pretty well in the developed world. I don't believe in inherent rights, so I'm always going to be a little off-piste with this topic.

    One other interesting question: How to deal with people who are disabled as a result of their own ignorance, stupidity, recklessness or callousness? What's the social expectation there?
  • The base and dirty act of sex is totally opposed to the wholesome product of producing a child
    I'm not quite sure this warranted a thread, but, perhaps showing my hand, you are vastly underestimating hte liberality of people in general about sex. You more than likely have friends who are absolute freaks, swingers, kinksters etc... but they respect you and so do not intrude on your lifestyle with theirs. A huge number of people are in this position.
Home » AmadeusD