↪Questioner It's moral if the individual is competent, free from external coercion and dealing with permanent agony/suffering. — LuckyR

Agreed.

We have a poster with a little over 100 posts. They come in, they're polite. They post great arguments and points. They cite papers. They run absolute intellectual and moral circles around you. A fantastic human being. — Philosophim

You know I can read this, right?

For example, I can have a personal identity that I am a doctor. — Philosophim

I'm sorry, but to use the example of calling yourself what you do for a living is to indicate to me that you have not processed a single word I have said.

Gender is specifically an expected set of behaviors — Philosophim

This contravenes my earlier posts, and I am not inclined to repeat them. But I will say it is not about the kind of hats you wear.

What then is a gender identity? First, you have to have a gendered view. You believe "Women/men should do X." "Women/Men should not do Y." — Philosophim

Not quite. it is not only about what you do, but what you are.

Gender is a part of you "being."

"Even though I am sex A, if I follow my expectations of how sex A should act, I really feel like acting like sex B" Basically, "I'm a man, I feel like acting the way I think a man should act." Or "I'm a man, I feel like acting the way a woman should act." — Philosophim

You keep talking about "expectations" and "acting" - as if you have no notion of the identity that exists in one's head - the brain's activity that produces one's unique sense of self.

Your identity is not defined by others, but by yourself.

The way I think a man/woman should act makes a person a man/woman" is the point that you enter into sexism, or elevate gender over a person's sex. — Philosophim

Honestly, this is a bit of a convoluted sentence, and strikes me as faulty reasoning. I'm not sure what expectations have to do with a person's claimed identity.

Haecceity — Banno

I love learning new words and had to look that one up.

"a non-qualitative property responsible for a substance’s individuation and identity."

Of the three words associated with it - "thisness" - "suchness" - whatness" - I would say humans, in their individuality, comes most closely to "suchness."

The doctrine of forgiveness of sin provides a method to avoid responsibility. Why be virtuous when you can always be absolved on request? — Ciceronianus

Hmmm ... I think all religious people are looking to religion for something divine beyond this trying world, and religion provides them with that. All of the major religions promise something greater beyond this mortal existence, whether it is salvation and eternal life, or enlightenment and liberation from suffering, or bodily resurrection and purification, or escape from the cycle of rebirth ... and always some sort of unification with the their God.

Suppose you have a man who identifies as a woman walking around in the women's locker room at 24 Hour Fitness with their junk hanging out? — RogueAI

No, I would say that only transgender women who have completed their transition should be allowed in female changing rooms.

People who judge that suicide is wrong are judging a kind of act. They are not necessarily judging any *person*. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Good point - separating the person from the behavior

"They" may be the most moral person you ever knew *except* (possibly) in the matter of suicide. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

And this begs another question - in what circumstances is suicide moral?

I few posts upthread I shared my personal experience with my spouse, and I am very satisfied with the morality of his decision to use MAID

How does this apply to, say, women's sports? — RogueAI

Good question. Since sports involve physical attributes, rather than mental, I think it's pretty apparent that transgender women should not be allowed in female sports, since with their male bodies they would have an unfair advantage.

The claim that one can be born in the wrong body then looms large. — AmadeusD

Well, I wouldn't use the words "right" and "wrong" - just different.

I'm going to ask you to put on your thinking hat - and ask yourself - where is the seat of my perception of myself? Is it in the brain? Does your perception of yourself - which is constructed by putting together all your thought processes - tell you that you are one particular gender rather than another?

I think we really need to get a firm understanding of what identity is, and accept that gender, in most cases, is part of that identity. Yes, outside perceptions may influence our identity - but they trigger an internal dialogue - and then how they are analyzed, processed, and responded to are determined by our brains.

Here's a quote from The Neuroscience of Identity -

... that there are two parts of the prefrontal cortex used for processing information salient to the human identity—the medial prefrontal cortex, or mpfc (BA10) and the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex, or dmpfc (BA9) (Lieberman 2018). The mpfc is active during our default mode, or when we are not focused on the external environment, and biases us to shift our thinking to become egocentric, while the dmpfc is active when processing salient social information pertinent to one’s position in groups as well as the perspective of others. We quite literally process thoughts about ourselves and thoughts about others in different parts of the brain. This is a reflection of the dynamic and co-optive nature of identity.

https://creatingwe.com/news-blogs/articles-blogs/psychology-today/the-neuroscience-of-identity

nd along with with Questioner) have obviously, and unfortunately obviously on purpose, ignore the several sources (and quotes there from, along with explanations of how they link with the context we're talking in) I have provided. — AmadeusD

This is not true, I had the last word about male vs female brains, in a reply to you, citing more accurate and recent research, that sex differences in brains can be read with fMRI

Questioner going "yeah, get 'em!" — AmadeusD

This is your interpretation of my motivations for posting what I did, and it is wrong.

What a disappointment that one of my favorite posters isn't any better than some fresh face single digit poster. — Philosophim

If you mean me:

I have 168 posts (169 with this one) and my face is not as fresh as it used to be.

If you don't mean me, sorry for the misunderstanding.

that gender is a subjective opinion of how a sex should act in society — Philosophim

But I have presented you with a compelling argument and much evidence that it is not. What you may be defining is cultural mores, or accepted practices, but gender is part of a person's identity, and an identity is an internal feature of who we are. It is one's mental construct of themself.

"lived role" - Socially constructed expectation of behavior — Philosophim

I read this differently, since we live inside our heads

psychological factors — Philosophim

one's own psychological factors, not the factors of others

a person’s biological constitution — Philosophim

The brain is part of your biology

Is that all? Do you have anything more to say to my last response? — Philosophim

Much of your argument depends on one's identity being something produced outside of them, and I cannot accept that presumption.

The definition of gender is how one or more people believe a sex should behave socially. — Philosophim

No, that is your definition, and it goes against commonly accepted research.

"Sex" is how you're built. "Gender" is a part of who you are.

According to the American College of Pediatricians:

Although often used interchangeably, the terms sex and gender are not synonyms. According to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), gender is defined as the “lived role” of male or female, resulting from the interaction of cultural and psychological factors with a person’s biological constitution.

I was being quite careful there - interferring with the desire wouldn't be convincing her away from using (i presume?) MAID. It would have been attempting to adjust her worldview to not want to die. — AmadeusD

I tried. "We have to look for ways for you to live, not to die."

But they were quite set on it. Never a second thought. No fear of death. Once I said, "Look, we have to prepare to live for the next thirty years like this."

They got quite upset. "Don't tell me I have to live like this for thirty years!"

I want to emphasize that they were very at peace with their decision. They were filled with gratitude for the good years they had, but could no longer live in a body that had already left.

That said, I am incredibly sorry for your loss and respect your journey there immensely. Thank you for sharing. — AmadeusD

You're welcome.

Yes, interfering with someone's desire to kill themselves is sound, imo. — AmadeusD

Again ... it depends ...

My spouse, once very active, was made severely disabled by MS. Once they made their decision to use medically-assisted death, it took months to convince me of it. But finally, due to my deep respect for this person, I came to accept their decision.

that X is suffering, therefore X must end life. — Corvus

No, I wouldn't advance this position. There is no "must" about it.

But if a person believes they have no quality of life and cannot live their life the only way that life would be acceptable to them, does it not become their decision?

Boy, this is a great post. Really interesting. — T Clark

Thank you so much!

Or maybe I’ll just plagiarize — T Clark

Be my guest!

The elevation of gender over sex is social prejudice at best, social sexism at worst. — Philosophim

Well, this is an original idea to forward an anti-transgender argument, but this theory has several holes, beginning with the idea that gender is something artificially “elevated”

Gender is one aspect of identity, and it’s our identity, produced by a brain, that determines how we perceive and react to the world. It’s all we got to go on. To suggest that some part of my body, rather than my brain, should determine who I am, is absurd.

Gender: The non-biological expectations that one or more people have about how a sex should express themselves in public. For example, "Men are expected to wear top hats, women are not." — Philosophim

No, gender is not determined by external expectations, but by biological factors - how the brain functions:

… the existence of brain phenotypes in line with the idea of a brain sexual differentiation seems to be confirmed by the … reported studies, including both cisgender and transgender individuals.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7139786/

Perhaps it is simplistic to say a male transgender person has a male brain, or a female transgender brain has a female brain – but the evidence that transgender brain structure and function are different from their biological (physical) sex is there if you care to investigate it.

From one study:

The observed shift away from a male-typical brain anatomy towards a female-typical one in people who identify as transgender women suggests a possible underlying neuroanatomical correlate for a female gender identity.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8955456/

From another:

… results, published in 2013, showed that even before treatment the brain structures of the trans people were more similar in some respects to the brains of their experienced gender than those of their natal gender.

From a study that focused on brain function:

… used functional MRI to examine how 39 prepubertal and 41 adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria responded to androstadienone, an odorous steroid with pheromonelike properties that is known to cause a different response in the hypothalamus of men versus women. They found that the adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria responded much like peers of their experienced gender.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

The question is about primacy of importance in regards to law and culture. Rationally, which is more important to consider? A person's sex, or their gender? — Philosophim

Gender is part of cognitive identity, so definitely gender. Why should “law and culture” force people to be something they are not? In what situations is this justified?

Gender claims are subjective beliefs, not objective facts. — Philosophim

Of course, identity is subjective – it is produced in the brain of the subject. But subjectivity does not mean identity should be disregarded. Indeed, it should prevail. It is one’s lived experience – not an “opinion” - not a "belief" - but a reality.

Looking at gender, gender is a social belief that a sex should express itself a particular way. — Philosophim

No, gender is not a social belief. It is a state produced by a functioning brain, encompassing differences in cognition among individuals, which lead to differences in behavior. Here is one well-researched area that would produce different experiences of reality (and thus different reactions to it):

“You see sex differences in spatial-visualization ability in 2- and 3-month-old infants,” Halpern says. Infant girls respond more readily to faces and begin talking earlier. Boys react earlier in infancy to experimentally induced perceptual discrepancies in their visual environment. In adulthood, women remain more oriented to faces, men to things.

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different/

Because gender is subjective and subject to the whims of an individual or group, — Philosophim

No, gender is not based on a “whim.”

I just can't see any good reason to consider gender as anything more than a prejudiced and sexist social pressure. — Philosophim

But to not recognize the gender that one claims for themselves would be a prejudiced position, and put sexist social pressure on them.

We should seek to minimize gender as anything more than an ignorant and potentially bigoted human opinion about people based on their sex. — Philosophim

Or – we can just accept one’s lived experience that they claim for themselves. Believe them.

In summary, gender/identity should take precedence over the physical attributes of the body. External pressures to be something you are not (which are often based in ignorance) should be discouraged.

I think of Saint Francis, who also preached the value and dignity of the poor, although about 1000 years after Saint Patrick. I always got the impression that his beliefs were considered very close to heresy. — T Clark

I think it is really important to distinguish those who embrace Christianity in a true following of Jesus and those who would use it for political gains.

This question comes to my mind during the Christmas season. I'm inclined to attribute it several factors, which I'll summarize.

First, its thorough assimilation of pagan religious beliefs, especially those of the various pagan mystery cults involving rebirth, salvation and life after death (it also assimilated a great deal of pagan philosophy as well, but though this was useful in providing, awkwardly I think, intellectual support for Christianity I doubt it contributed much to its spread). Christmas itself is evidence of this assimilation, as its celebration consists in great part of the customs of the Roman Saturnalia and the northern European Yule. The date chosen for the celebration of Jesus' birth, of course, is the traditional date of the birth of Sol Invictus and other gods associated with the Winter Solstice

Second, its ruthless and relentless suppression of all other religious beliefs after Christians acquired control of the Roman imperial government, including suppression of Christian variants deemed heretical once orthodoxy was established (I mean those popular before the Reformation). In short, it profited from its intolerance.

Third, zealous commitment to its spread among non-Christians (the missionary impulse), sometimes by force of arms.

Fourth, the appeal of a religion which promised forgiveness of sins, thus providing hope that salvation was possible regardless of wrongs committed during life.

Which tells us something about successful institutional religion and ourselves, I think; none of it inspiring or attractive. — Ciceronianus

I think this might be a cynical point-of-view, as far as the early spread of Christianity is concerned. I think the gospel of Jesus was embraced because it was the first egalitarian philosophy to reach the ears of the oppressed. Jesus was the first egalitarian, elevating the poor to an equal status with the upper levels. The promises were great, as can be seen by the 5th century poem, St. Patrick's Breastplate:

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
of the Creator of creation.
I arise today
Through the strength of Christ's birth with His baptism,
Through the strength of His crucifixion with His burial,
Through the strength of His resurrection with His ascension,
Through the strength of His descent for the judgment of doom.
I arise today
Through the strength of the love of cherubim,
In the obedience of angels,
In the service of archangels,
In the hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In the prayers of patriarchs,
In the predictions of prophets,
In the preaching of apostles,
In the faith of confessors,
In the innocence of holy virgins,
In the deeds of righteous men.
I arise today, through
The strength of heaven,
The light of the sun,
The radiance of the moon,
The splendor of fire,
The speed of lightning,
The swiftness of wind,
The depth of the sea,
The stability of the earth,
The firmness of rock.
I arise today, through
God's strength to pilot me,
God's might to uphold me,
God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me,
God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me,
God's hand to guard me,
God's shield to protect me,
God's host to save me
From snares of devils,
From temptation of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
afar and near.
I summon today
All these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel and merciless power
that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom,
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul;
Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me an abundance of reward.
Christ with me,
Christ before me,
Christ behind me,
Christ in me,
Christ beneath me,
Christ above me,
Christ on my right,
Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down,
Christ when I sit down,
Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.
I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
of the Creator of creation.

If this is to respond to my (admittedly dismissive) comment, this doesn't change what I'm seeing. Bringing this up isn't good faith, in context. Although, I recognize that bad faith is active - i doubt that's what's happening here. I just think you're choosing to debate in a way that we regularly see on talk shows. As I say, its probably better we just don't discuss these things. No harm, no foul. Its tricky. — AmadeusD

What an odd response to being corrected.

I have made multiple attempts on my life — AmadeusD

Okay, so we both seem to be coming at this from subjective angles, through the lens of our personal experiences. I wonder if we can step back and examine it from a philosophical angle.

Some questions that are raised:

Who owns a life?

Do obligations to others supersede that ownership?

Is interference in one's desire to kill themselves morally sound?

I realize a lot of answers will begin with "it depends" - so please take the conditional statements wherever they lead you.

There were no such words as "transmale" or "transfemale" in ancient times. But in modern times there are people who changed their gender, and the word was invented to represent them. — Corvus

Of course there were transgenders in ancient time. (They actually called them more poetic names) People living in the opposite gender of the sex that they were born into have existed as long as we have been keeping records. They have discovered 5,000-year old graves containing biologically male skeletons in female dress and female grave goods.

Ever heard of the transgender priestesses of ancient Rome called the Gallae?

Also - you have a profound misconception about the nature of transgenderism. Transgender persons who transition do not "change their gender." They are born with a gender that does not match the body they were born into. They change the body to match the gender.

And if this is being recognized now - why does this disturb you?

how misunderstanding and misusing language can lead you to come to total misrepresentation of the objects in the real world. — Corvus

There is no misunderstanding or misuse of the word transgender (except maybe on your behalf.)

By "misrepresentation of objects" - theses objects you speak of - do you mean transgender persons?

"Transgender identity" is vastly overwhelming accepted by the medical community.

You need to transcend the linguistic prison at times, — Corvus

I have no idea what this means.

if you want to understand the world correctly. — Corvus

Oh, this gives us a hint. Funny, but I have always thought of language as a pretty good means of expressing meaning. And - "correctly" according to whom?

ou must first understand the objects, and then analyse the meaning of the words put onto them, not the other way around. — Corvus

The people who best understand transgender persons call them transgender.

We want to apply philosophical analysis, not internet dictionary here. — Corvus

I'm not sure, possibly you can clarify, but do you have a problem with the world "transgender?"

Here’s one example:

Kevin Patrick Smith left dozens of threatening voice messages for US Senator Jon Tester (Montana – Democrat) — Questioner

You misunderstood.

I quoted that to mean not that Smith was doing the inciting, but that Trump supporters had been incited by Trump.

Your view effectively resolves the problem of evil by denying that benevolence is a property of reality at all. But that is not a defense of omnibenevolent theism - it is a rejection of it. — Truth Seeker

I suppose it is, but I did say I was approaching the question from a materialist, pantheistic point-of-view.

I do not believe in the existence of "evil" as its own entity. There is no force that we can say is the source of evil. "Evil" is a man-made construct. Now, we might say that we can use "evil" as an adjective rather than a noun - that human behavior might be termed "evil" if it harms others. But this is a result of a very strong instinct to survive combined with a brain that developed with the capacity to do evil acts.

As to the question of benevolence - again - of course humans may do benevolent things. But it is not because of some external force that has entered into them, something detached from who they are, but rather humans evolved to guard and maintain the group. We are first and foremost social creatures. This necessitates the evolution of things like empathy.

agency, intentionality, and moral relevance — Truth Seeker

The only thing in existence that we know of that has these qualities is the human species. They are all products of our evolution.

not a morally accountable God. — Truth Seeker

Taking this from the pantheistic point-of-view - no, Nature is not morally accountable to us.

Once benevolence is dismissed as anthropomorphic, suffering no longer requires justification - but neither does reality deserve moral trust, worship, or praise. — Truth Seeker

I disagree. I think an inherent sense of awe and wonder at all of creation leads us to not only treat it morally, but to also respect and revere it, while at the same time valuing reason and science.

At that point, “God” becomes a poetic synonym for nature, not a being to whom moral predicates meaningfully apply. — Truth Seeker

Our morality is a product of our evolution.

the argument is not answered — Truth Seeker

Yes, I see, rather a new one was made.

The word "Trans" represents that whatever follows after it, is not real. — Corvus

transcription
transpositional
transnational
transatlantic
transportation
transplant
transfusion
transaction

And I am sure that are at least a hundred more.

But if someone in that situation makes a choice, it seems to me to be straightforwardly cruel to try to prevent them achieving their goal. Loved ones may grieve, but active prevention would not be an act of love, but of selfishness. — Ludwig V

Thank you for that.

Act of suicide is an immoral thing to do, because it kills life. Even if it is one's own life. It is still killing which is the most evil act to commit.

It is also an evil act in the sense that committing suicide is not just killing one's own life, but also it destroys the world the one has lived in. The moment one kills oneself, the world one belonged to also evaporates with all the people in it and all the memories, and relations one has built in it.

Therefore all life on earth has a moral duty to carry on until the old age and inevitable natural deaths. — Corvus

A moral duty? Why?

This is spoken like someone who has never talked to someone who has chosen doctor-assisted death. How dare you judge them. I know someone who chose MAID (medical assistance in death) and they were the most moral person I ever knew.

A few weeks before his death, he told me, "I am excited about it, the way you get excited when you are going camping. You know that excited feeling you get planning a camping trip. That is how I feel."

Can you imaging a suffering so great in this life that you want to give this life up?

This is an interesting discussion. Beauty surely is subjective – “in the eye of the beholder.”

For example, for me, “truth” is always beautiful, even if it is an ugly truth. Seeing how things really are is always beautiful. As Keats said, "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Anyway, this thread reminded me of something Edgar Allen Poe wrote in The Philosophy of Composition: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/55749/pg55749-images.html

Now I designate Beauty as the province of the poem.

For Poe, beauty is the one true function of poetry, since it is the genre most able to inspire “intense and pure elevation of the soul.”

So – if it “elevates your soul” – it is beautiful. (Even if you take the idea of the “soul” as a metaphor for your deepest feelings.)

Good poetry does that for me, especially when it reveals a universal truth. Consider the poetry in The Tao Teh King https://www.gutenberg.org/files/216/216-h/216-h.htm – its beauty amplified by the fact that it was written thousands of years ago by someone whose experience of life was very different than mine – yet expresses a truth relevant today:

Or fame or life,
Which do you hold more dear?
Or life or wealth,
To which would you adhere?
Keep life and lose those other things;
Keep them and lose your life:—which brings
Sorrow and pain more near?

Thus we may see,
Who cleaves to fame
Rejects what is more great;
Who loves large stores
Gives up the richer state.

Who is content
Needs fear no shame.
Who knows to stop
Incurs no blame.
From danger free
Long live shall he.

The Equal Omniscience and Omnipotence Argument — Truth Seeker

If I may, I'd like to look at this through the lens of a materialistic, and pantheistic, point-of-view. Consider that all that exists contains all the knowledge and all the power needed to keep the universe going.

I do notice that you mention "beings" and "sentient beings" in your OP - but must omniscience and omnipotence be restricted to them?

I think it might be rightly concluded that all that exists is omniscient and omnipotent.

Now to the question of benevolence - I think this is a man-made concept, rather anthropomorphic, and not an accurate reflection of reality. Reality doesn't operate according to better or worse, but just what is. Same holds true for nature, for example with the theory of evolution - which has no end goals, but is a progression of complex chemistry to produce the best suited to live in a particular environment.

And so, in a pantheistic worldview - "God" (i.e. all of creation) would be omniscient and omnipotent, but the notions of good and evil do not enter into the equation. All is merely what it is.

you have already have made assumptions about me — MrLiminal

I never mentioned you, but I invite you to review the things you have said about me.

I am sorry you could not discuss the issues with me instead of getting defensive.

Do you think the bloodlust from either side would be as bad if leadership from both actually tried to stop it? — MrLiminal

I haven't seen any bloodlust from Democratic leadership. I have seen them calling Trump out on the many ways he is poisoning politics in the US.

I would argue largely due to the left catastrophizing Trump from a bad President to an almost supernaturally evil one. — MrLiminal

This betrays a reluctance to accept any criticism of Trump at all. Something I have noticed, is that, MAGA takes any criticism of Trump as criticism of them - as if they have melded their identifies with his.

For all the talk about how much the right hated Obama like the anti-Christ, he never came nearly as close to assassination as Trump has. — MrLiminal

There were many, many plots made against Obama, and a lot of racist hate spewed his way.

I remain unmoved. I used to be incredibly anti-Trump and still largely disagree with him, but I have seen too many examples of actual bloodlust from friends and family further left than me to believe this isn't a politically neutral problem. What's more, the right has *always* been fine with being seen as the heartless party, so it's much more jarring to see the supposedly soft-hearted and empathetic democrats sink to their level. — MrLiminal

Sorry, you have ignored the main point of my post - what is the role of leadership in all this?

Kathy Griffin started this Trump's first term with the severed head thing and it has only continued since. People openly wish for Trump's violent death in some parts of both the real world and internet — MrLiminal

The thing Griffin did was horrible. I certainly wouldn’t condone that sort of thing.

But, as I mentioned before, for every leftist extremist, there's two (or more) that belong to the right.

For example, I subscribe to the website MAGA Report that monitors MAGA online forums and reports on them. With the news that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was to be released, posters to one particular forum suggested extrajudicial violence as the solution to immigration

Here are the copied comments:

***

• We should have killed this guy months ago. It would have saved us a lot of time and hassle while taking a violent criminal off the streets.
Why is it that we can blow up foreign criminals/terrorists in international waters and abroad, but the moment they set foot on US soil, they’re entitled to an attorney, a trial, an appeals process, etc?
o It baffles me how a criminal alien, involved in human trafficking, and open gang member doesn’t get the rope.
 Why not have the cameras malfunction for a few minutes while he “hangs himself” like Jeffery Epstein did?
 Criminal aliens charged with felonies should be under military court jurisdiction and justice.
 You might run into some issues with that due to ex parte Milligan.
Which is why I’d prefer to deny them a trial outright
 Just a hundred years ago, regular people like you and me would have already hanged him from a tree...
 60 years ago.
20 years ago no judge would dare do this.
We’ve been conquered. There hypothetically and unfortunately needs to be a civil war to end this.
 Revolution, not civil war.
There’s a huge difference

***

What is the source of this hate?

Indeed, much of the research suggests that compared to left-wing extremists, right-wing extremists may be more likely to engage in politically motivated violence.

And -

“Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives…”

“In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.”

The Trump DOJ quietly removed the results of this study from its webpage in September. Why? What false narrative is it trying to advance?

When Trump tells the base that all Somalians are “garbage” – and even specifically calls Rep. Ilhan Omar the same epithet - when he constantly dehumanizes and hammers home that any political opposition are “enemies that must be destroyed” – he is radicalizing a good portion of his base.

My point is this – Leadership must be held accountable. They set the tone.

The assassination attempts on Trump were sickening, and they were soundly denounced by Democrat leadership.

But Trump says things like this: “We pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections … The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave that the threat from within. Our threat is from within.”

Death threats to lawmakers have doubled during the Trump years.

Here’s one example:

Kevin Patrick Smith left dozens of threatening voice messages for US Senator Jon Tester (Montana – Democrat)

“You stand toe to toe with me, I rip your head off. You die.”

FBI agents issued Smith a warning, but he didn’t stop, and ramped up his messages, alluding to guns.
His accusations were vague – “you’re pedophiles and you’re criminals”

When they arrested Smith, they confiscated four shotguns, five rifles, eight pistols, a homemade silencer and nearly 1,200 rounds of ammunition. Smith pleaded guilty to threatening to injure and murder a US Senator and was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison.

So these questions remain –

What incited Smith and made him so angry? Who creates the political environment? What role does leadership play? Can leadership be held accountable for incitement? What limits should be put on political rhetoric? Are politicians role models?

The rest of this is pretty much just you throwing things at a wall while not listening. — AmadeusD

Our conversation will go a lot more smoothly if you refrain from making unfair and inaccurate accusations against me.

You seem to think incitement is something other than what it is, for instance. — AmadeusD

Well, then, let's have an examination of incitement. I guess we could begin with "what is the power of words?"

I like oranges, but the colour is odd. — AmadeusD

Well, I guess the word "but" has other uses, but in your case it went like this:

I don't defend Trump, but here are the reasons I defend him

This is clearly unhinged political emotionalism. Given the other clearly bad-faith responses — AmadeusD

Truth is important to us philosophers. I am confused, though, why the truth should be called "unhinged" and "emotional" and in "bad-faith" - Here's the truth -

There has been an onslaught of death threats against Mark Kelly because Trump posted that Kelly should be put on trial for “seditious behavior.” “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” he wrote on Truth Social.

Did Trump put a target on Biden when he posted an image of Biden kidnapped and hogtied in the back of a pick-up truck, on his social media?

Or how about when he doxed Letitia James? – he shared a link with her home address, accusing her of a “miscarriage of justice” - raging against her, including calling her a “lunatic” who had “defrauded the public with this trial.” Yes, she received death threats.

Trump also incited death threats against Mark Milley - Trump (posting on social media) accused him of committing “an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH.”

And on January 6, Trump knew that windows at the Capitol were being kicked in, that the riot was underway, and that rioters were chanting, “Hang Mike Pence.” So, he tweets the green light to his supporters: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.”

The violence – especially directed at police - at the Capitol escalated quickly after that tweet. (Some White House officials describe that tweet as their breaking point that prompted them to resign).

I recently read an article that said the reason so many Republican lawmakers toe the Trump line is because they fear the death threats that come from going against Trump.

So please do not dismiss Trump’s rhetoric as harmless bluster.

Something work examining. There are great philosophical lessons in politics.

This is why the rest of my comment mattters:

I don't defend most of the utterances we could at least reliably ascribe to Trump — AmadeusD

That wasn't the rest of your comment. Indeed, you followed that with a "but" - and this being a philosophical forum - we perhaps should turn to the philosophical use of "but" - which is used to show that the second clause is in opposition to the first