Yes, and as I said, poorly.

Gender isn't a psychological "state.' it's an identity of each person they have 24/7 unless it changes. That's like saying being Gay or Straight are psychological states. They're not.
— John Harris

Yes, they're not just psychological states. As I said, they're both psychological and physiological. That's one you read poorly.

No, since few culturally pressured into being Straight. But Straight, Gay, and bisexual are all sexualities that can be left for another, and some can even go back. So. If gender is a psychological state because it can change, then Gay and Straight would be psychological states as well. Of course, none of them are. — John Harris

Again, not just psychological states. As I said, they're both. That's two you read poorly.

Sorry, you're the one who argued the distinction by erroneously claiming Gay and Straight are psychological, not me. So, you're the one who needs to explain that distinction, not me.
— John Harris

And that's the third you read poorly. You really don't get the difference between a psychological state and a psychological and physiological state, do you?

No, I don't, since I made it clear that I see it as both, not just psychological like Unenlightened. You really read my posts poorly.

You obviously don't know since you keep showing you can't say what you mean or say why being Gay or Straight is psychological.

Anyone who doesn't say both has an uphill argument ahead of them.

in a bracketed sense, yes, but that doesn't exclude the majority of states that are both. And I was addressing unenlighhteneds particular claim, so you're muddying the waters.

So you have no idea what you mean when you say being Gay or Straight is psychological. At least you're getting somewhere.

Sorry, you're the one who argued the distinction by erroneously claiming Gay and Straight are psychological, not me. So, you're the one who needs to explain that distinction, not me.

I see that you do get that about the "public alert,' and I missed that. However, your belief the GCHQ alert was the beginning still continues the mistake of not leaving open the distinct possibility the Deep State originated this on their own or in collaboration with the DNC/Hillary camp, with or without any evidence supporting it.
— John Harris

I see you're pushing a "Hillary and the DNC are the Illuminati" conspiracy theory here.

I did no such thing; and the only one pushing conspiracies is you. And since that both strawmanned my argument and personally and erroneously insulted me, I didn't and won't read the rest of your post or your future comments on this thread.

Have a good day.

Of course it's a physiological state; it's deeply tied to one's body and physical brain.
— John Harris

Once you add body to brain, every state is physiological, and the distinction between physiological and psychological collapses. Which makes both your question and your answer meaningless.

No, your answer was meaningless and nonsensical, since you can't establish being Gay or Straight doesnt' come from one's body, so either has to be physiological. My adding the brain, part of the body, to that doesnt' change that, even in the traditionally physiological sense.

Even if Mother Jones wasn't a biased publication, they could have no idea the CIA, FBI, or NSA didn't actually kick the whole thing off, not the Steele dossier. I'm surprised you don't get that.
— John Harris

I do get that. I even provided an article on GCHQ having alerted the U.S. intelligence agencies of such suspicions in 2015. I was specifically referring to the public accusations (as I explicitly said in that very quote).

I see that you do get that about the "public alert,' and I missed that. However, your belief the GCHQ alert was the beginning still continues the mistake of not leaving open the distinct possibility the Deep State originated this on their own or in collaboration with the DNC/Hillary camp, with or without any evidence supporting it.

And regardless, whether or not accusations--even from a sketchy guy like Michael Steele--preceded the election, that doesn't mean the enterprise to push the Russia conspiracy theory didn't arise to influence the election and/or cover up for Hillary's awful campaign and embarrassing loss.

I don't even know what you mean by this. The accusations, investigations, and media reporting preceded the election, coming from sources that weren't Hillary's camp.

I don't even know what you mean by this. You have no idea the accusations weren't coming from Hillary's camp. And what I said was clear; you have no reason to not "know what I meant by it," particularly since I never said the Russia conspiracy theory had to come from Hillary's camp or Hillary's camp alone.

No, nobody knows the accusations originated from the Steele dossier (which is not evidence in itself)
— John Harris

I'm pretty sure it was Mother Jones and BuzzFeed reporting on and publishing the Steele dossier that kicked the whole thing off (publicly, at least).

Even if Mother Jones wasn't a biased publication, they could have no idea the CIA, FBI, or NSA-- not the Steele dossier--didn't actually kick the whole thing off. I'm surprised you don't get that.

And regardless, whether or not accusations--even from a sketchy guy like Michael Steele--preceded the election, that doesn't mean the enterprise to push the Russia conspiracy theory didn't arise to influence the election and/or cover up for Hillary's awful campaign and embarrassing loss.

actually don't believe the Russian conspiracy theory and think it comes from Hillarys camps inability to accept they lost because of a bad candidate and a bad campaign
— John Harris

Except the accusations came from the Steele Dossier which began to be investigated in June '16, with the FBI paying Steele to continue his work in October.

No, nobody knows the accusations originated from the Steele dossier (which is Christopher Steele' claims, not evidence in itself), especially since the deceitful deep stated is and has been involved, as well as the Clinton campaign and DNC's still questionable claim their servers were hacked. They still haven't let the FBI examine them.

John Harris ↪prothero

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that John Harris thinks of psychological states as things like being happy or sad or excited, whereas prothero thinks of psychological states as including things like being an introvert or a fan of football

You're wrong. Prothero also erroneously thinks of physiological states, such as gender, as psychological states.

Do you think being Gay or Straight is a psychological state?
— John Harris

Well it isn't a physiological state, so I suppose it must be a psychological state.

Of course it's a physiological state; it's deeply tied to one's body and physical brain.

Which is par for the course, particularly when an all male discussion is happening. And that is because the male identity is so closely bound up with a strong concern about what one does and wishes to do with one's sexual organs

I never limited it to this once.

So much so, that it is still somewhat controversial to claim that gay men are real men. And the controversy illuminates the difference between sex and gender, which is roughly that one is physiological condition, and the other is a role, associated with that condition.

No, there is no controversy. Gay men are real men; only deluded and/or hateful homophobes think otherwise.

Few do anymore...:)

No, since few culturally pressured into being Straight. But Straight, Gay, and bisexual are all sexualities that can be left for another, and some can even go back. So. If gender is a psychological state because it can change, then Gay and Straight would be psychological states as well. Of course, none of them are.

I actually don't believe the Russian conspiracy theory and think it comes from Hillarys camps inability to accept they lost because of a bad candidate and a bad campaign, and the DNC doesn't want to admit progressivism, not centrism, has to be the future of the party. So, if evidence shows Russia interfered with the election and/or Russia helped, we should deal with it sternly then. But until then, it is only a distraction from glaring issues and fixing the broken Democratic Party.

But I'll be your devils advocate anyway...:)

Sorry, then if Gay and Straight aren't psychological states, then there's no way gender can be, since all of those can change.

And stop with the ad hominem attacks; they're very childish.

I appreciate that, Creative. I actually enjoy our engagements as well, and appreciate your passion.

Excellent way to show you have no counter, Hillary's finger puppet.

First of all, you need to provide a link proving Manafort "signed a contract in which he promised to make the world match words clearly expressed within the aforementioned Russian operative objective"...because we don't all know that.

I do not need to provide a link in order for that to have happened. It did. Your belief isn't necessary.

Of course you do, since you're so amazingly biased in all this, nobody has a reason to believe you without one. Thanks for showing you were being mendacious.

Secondly, even if Manafort did agree to do that, that's not proof he actually did so. And nobody had provided proof of that.

His actions prove he did so. Your belief isn't necessary.

You claim his actions prove he did so without providing a shred of evidence backing up your clearly biased canard. Again, you've shown your mendacity.

Um, that's an obvious tautology. And the Russians and Americans have been trying to influence each other's elections, and have actually influenced countries elections, for years. That itself proves nothing.

Tautologies are imperative in this case. Being a tautology isn't inherently negative.

No, tautologies are pointless and prove nothing; they only repeat the original claim.

To quite the contrary, I'm arguing that a Russian operative named Paul Manafort was hired by the Trump campaign, and the proof of that is how the Russian government defines the objective in addition to having Manafort sign a contract that clearly expresses the exact same objective.

Yes, you're arguing it with no evidence whatsoever, and we know how much you want the Russia story to be true. So, again, your outlandish claim has no credibility.

Regarding the bold assertion that Paul Manafort satisfied Russia's own objective and did so after having signed a contract that clearly included standard...

No evidence has been given proving that.

I've not brought forth evidence proving that. Evidence has been provided, just not to you evidently.

Evidence clearly hasn't been provided since you can't even bring it up to back up your outlandish claim, And your trustworthiness declines with every unsupported way-out claim.

I wrote:

Remember the change in the republican platform?

Manafort kept his promise. Manafort made the world match his words.

What change in the platform? You need to provide a link to that--and proof Manafort changed it--or you're just hypothesizing.

I'm lazy. Look it up yourself. It was the only change in that platform.

You may be lazy, but you also clearly can't provide a link supporting your outlandish claim about Manafort and the platform. Thanks for showing you can't. You must expect people to believe everything you say...pretty delusional.

Proof that Manafort changed it? That's too rich. He quit and/or was dismissed immediately after the republican national convention. He was already known to be acting as a Russian operative. Despite posing numerous questions to the campaign and different people within it - about the change - no clear answer was forthcoming.

No, your outlandish claim Manafort changed it is too rich, and you clearly lied again since you can't provide any proof whatsoever. And you also haven't shown in any way Manafort was a Russian operative...except in your fantasy.

Whoever changed it satisfied the exact same objective as any and all other Russian operatives we've known about in the past twenty or so years. Manafort had already given his word to do things just like that.

So, now you don't even know who changed it, and you can't even show it was changed. That's really rich. And you've shown no proof Manafort gave his word to do it. Another fantastical imagining.

So, since you have provided no evidence or proof of any of your erroneous claims, it's clear they are only your wondrous fantasies.

The only one is making it difficult is you. Do you or do you not think being Gay or being Straight is a psychological State. A simple yes or no question. If you can't answer that, what you said about gender being a "psychological state" becomes inevitably wrong.

And that's the last post of yours I read, Mr. Argumentative.

And I was talking about all people, not just you, and that was what you addressed. Don't let your pride and obtuseness keep you from seeing that.

I don't have to expound or elaborate on anything. Do you think being Gay or Straight is a psychological state?

Go away. I don't talk to people who don't debate/discuss in good faith.

Gender isn't a psychological "state.' it's an identity of each person they have 24/7 unless it changes.
— John Harris

But let's say, "I'm straight" that's not something that's gonna change, I'm either straight or I'm not. So I don't understand why it would change. Is it based on the weather?

Don't lie. Above you are clearly criticizing my claim that if gender is a psychological state, being Gay and Straight are, too....and not just you. Because I certainly wasn't just talking about you.

John Harris I just meant for me personally
Of course it can change. Many Gay people thought they were Straight for a long time and even married and had children before they realized they were Gay and became actively Gay.
— John Harris

But we weren't just talking about you personally, so you were wrong to correct me.

People's sexual identity can vary over time, so I think gender not only is not binary but it also represents a psychological state, you are free to disagree.

Then you must think your being Straight or Gay is a psychological state, since that could change over time, too. So, you are misusing the term "psychological state."

But let's say, "I'm straight" that's not something that's gonna change, I'm either straight or I'm not

Of course it can change. Many Gay people thought they were Straight for a long time and even married and had children before they realized they were Gay and became actively Gay.

If you are saying something else please elaborate otherwise I find these proclamations, although orthodox, also dogmatic.

You've just shown you read my posts poorly, so what you find is irrelevant and doesnt' matter to me.

You seem to be saying God must be omnipotent and omniscient and that any other conception is not God. You seem to be saying also that Jesus is God in the flesh and omnipotent and that other conceptions have to be in error

I never said either of those things and you haven't shown I have. Try to stop straw-manning me and read my posts better.

Gender could be taken to be a psychological state whereas sex could be taken to be the physical features but I don't think these terms are understood or used exclusively in that sense.

Gender isn't a psychological "state.' it's an identity of each person they have 24/7 unless it changes. That's like saying being Gay or Straight are psychological states. They're not.

Loosely, sex refers to the person's biological sex organs and gender refers to how the person sexually identifies themselves.

I would say general definitions include the possibility of omnipotence, but it's clearly not a requirement.

We know - verbatim - the Russian operative objective. We know that as a direct result from past investigations(some decades old) that were not focused upon the Trump campaign. We know that Manafort voluntarily signed a contract in which he promised to make the world match words clearly expressed within the aforementioned Russian operative objective. The matching could be no more precise.

First of all, you need to provide a link proving Manafort "signed a contract in which he promised to make the world match words clearly expressed within the aforementioned Russian operative objective"...because we don't all know that.

Secondly, even if Manafort did agree to do that, that's not proof he actually did so. And nobody had provided proof of that.

When one aims to infiltrate America with the clearly expressed written objective to influence and/or effect the American political system in ways that are the most favorable to Russia and her interests, s/he is a Russian operative.

Um, that's an obvious tautology. And the Russians and Americans have been trying to influence each other's elections, and have actually influenced countries elections, for years. That itself proves nothing.

Paul Manafort is one such person.

No evidence has been given proving that.

Remember the change in the republican platform?

Manafort kept his promise. Manafort made the world match his words.

What change in the platform? You need to provide a link to that--and proof Manafort changed it--or you're just hypothesizing.

Damning stuff on Hillary was promised.]

The only damning stuff on Hillary and (mostly) the DNC came from WikiLeaks, not Manafort. And all that stuff was true things Hillary said and the DNC did, as in shamefully rigging the primary for Hillary.

Trump, openly - brazenly - called out to Russia on public airwaves asking them - publicly and unapologetically - to release Hillary's emails if they had 'em...

I remember him calling on WikiLeaks to do that, so you need to provide a link for that. And even if he did, that's not collusion.

The distinction I'm making is a semantic one, and is accurate.
— Michael

You have a point. Consider this though. How can a being be most powerful without being all powerful? The domain of discussion is ALL.

Easy....have all other beings be less powerful; it's purely comparative.

Secondly, no definition of god I've ever heard includes omnipotence.

The Godhead, Christ, and the Holy Spirit all share their omnipotence in their trinity, although that even befuddled Aquinas. Allah and Yahweh are omnipotent.

Why not?
— lambda

If there are 2 omnipotent beings, say x and y, then x should be able to do something which y doesn't want AND y should be able to block y from doing it. Thus rendering both non-omnipotent.

This doesn't work. Omnipotence means only one. 2 beings cannot be all-powerful, and if the other one has any power, neither are omnipotent.

No, it's not dogmatic; its just a specific theistic belief. Polytheism can be dogmatic, and you're making it such by attacking my monotheistic argument.

And we weren't even discussing how one should lead their life. So, that was irrelevant.