Right. As far as I can tell it's not a matter of rights. It's just up to the community's sentiments.
— frank
Do we have a right to feel safe? Does our need to feel safe override other people's rights to do other things? — Harry Hindu

Are you saying that women have a right to use the bathroom without biological men in the room?

Right. As far as I can tell it's not a matter of rights. It's just up to the community's sentiments.

When did humans first ask about what's real? It requires the idea of falseness, the ability to totalize, and some cultural conflict to insert as the choices.

I don't think it existed in Bronze Age cultures. It may have to do with early free markets where fraud was rampant. Trade was crippled by people who put the peanuts on the top of the caravan and gravel at the bottom. So could falseness be tied to valuelessness?

You're trying to sign your own death warrant. :confused:

Why were these woke films so bad? Well, the wokeness wasn't only limited to the storyline, but starting from the director and the people writing the stuff was made with woke choices. So you had to have female directors, female writers and representation all along. And in the end you got movies and series where basically the people making the whole thing weren't at all in their ballpark. — ssu

Hollywood has gone to crap.

Seems a reasonable request — Malcolm Parry

That doesn't cash out as a right, though.

What they cannot do is infringe the rights of women. — Malcolm Parry

The right to pee without any biological males around?

What about trans men (esp. after hormones and surgery)? Ought they use women's changing rooms because they're biological women? — Michael

Do they have a right to use the women's changing rooms?

Whites only — Michael

Civil rights.

I finished ND with a newfound appreciation for Adorno. I really like this guy on a personal level, and I think his philosophy addressed issues that his community was struggling with. I don't see my community as struggling with those same issues, but still, good stuff.

Hope you guys enjoy the rest of your reading. Peace out!

One could also argue that whoever owns the toilet should decide. If it's a public toilet, it belongs to the tax payers, so let them vote and decide how it should be used.

If you decide not to do it that way, the question would be: why not? On what basis do we reject the public will? Is it because the public is danger of violating someone's rights?

You'd need to spend some time contemplating the actual reading if you're going to criticize an interpretation of it. — Jamal

What we were discussing is basic Hegel.

You'd need to spend some time contemplating Hegel. Do thought experiments where you delete (from existence) one pole of an opposition. Notice what happens to the meaning of the pole that's left. Think of the yin-yang symbol.

Being and nothing are only made to be two sides of the same coin, by doing violence to the concept. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is incorrect, but I'm not interested in debating it.

I figure what he is saying is that the concept ("Being" in the example) must be abused (defined in a way which is inconsistent with what it really means to us) in order to produce the identity relationship required by the thesis/antithesis opposition. In other words, the proposed antithesis is the antithesis of an artificially manipulated concept, designed for that antithesis. Then it turns out that all that the synthesis is, is an attempt to rectify the damage caused by that abuse. And, depending on the skill of the dialectician, this may just as likely be a step backward for the concept, as it is likely to be a step forward. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. This is just dialectics. Being and Nothing are two sides of the same coin, which Hegel identifies as Becoming. Being and Nothing seem to disappear into Becoming. That's the violence he's talking about.

Hegel's teleology has deep roots in Indo-european culture. Christianity has threads of it running through its whole history. Unrevised Marxism is basically these same psychological forces shed of Christian paraphernalia. Adorno witnessed firsthand the powerful effects of these forces, but somehow remained immune to them. This allowed him to become a bridge out of the lunacy.

The Grand Canyon is cool. Very touristy though.

You do put an awful lot of people behind bars — Malcolm Parry

We're crazy as fuck.

Huh. We're more woke than you guys, and I'm in a red state. Although, I have a feeling our medium and max security prisons are more violent than yours.

Im not concerned in the slightest. — Malcolm Parry

I'm not either. I'm glad they have an interdisciplinary team to make the decisions instead of the local mob.

Why not? They are at risk — Malcolm Parry

You can contact your state legislature if you're concerned.

Ok :up:

All child abusers are less likely to be killed in a women’s prison. Do you put them all there? — Malcolm Parry

No.

Why? — fdrake

Because in Godzilla vs. Tokyo, Godzilla doesn't have a scratch on him when the coercive control, rape, and severe physical abuse started.

In my state each trans criminal is evaluated by an interdisciplinary team which decides housing based on safety and "other concerns." A trans-woman child abuser is likely to be murdered in a men's medium security prison. That's less likely in a women's prison. I think the community at large would be fairly ambivalent about where that person is sent.

IE that IPV is usually reciprocal. Having experienced it does not mean "he starts it", nor does it mean whenever "she does it", that it's defense. — fdrake

True. But men are more likely to engage in coercive control and stalking. Men are more likely to engage in sexual violence. Women sustain more injuries and more severe injuries than men. These facts are not consistent with a narrative where it's unclear who "started it."

It's really not a good metric. If the majority of relationships that have IPV have two way IPV, "defensive violence" as a concept comes down to "who started it". — fdrake

True. The evidence in the article I cited shows that men usually start it.

Yes. The idea of defensive domestic abuse. — fdrake

In my community, it can't be both. Defensive violence is not abuse.

women’s violence usually occurs in the context of violence against them by their male partner — here

You're saying he was an ontological anti-realist. Did he see understanding as a continuously evolving thing that swings between oppositions?

Yes. My point was that rare cases of ambiguity don't render the whole topic of biological sex ambiguous. It usually isn't difficult to determine.

Have you ever seen a newborn where the legs are fused and there's no genitalia (and only a bit of kidney)? I guess we'd have to do genetic tests to determine sex in those kinds of cases.

The middle work reveals problems with this form of idealism, such as what we know as "the interaction problem — Metaphysician Undercover

Adorno was preoccupied with the 'thing-in-itself' problem via Kant. I think that's similar to the interaction problem?

He thought the problem originated in various abstractions taking root in the human psyche.

Throughout, Plato's belief in idealism is strengthened, but the prevailing idealism is rejected by what we can call his "negative dialectics". This is his critical analysis of the conventional idealism. It does not refute idealism, but exposes problems, and produces the need to revamp outdated principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

So what was Plato's ontology then? Could you explain?

What we commonly know as Platonism is better named as "Pythagorean idealism". — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn't realize that. Thanks.

Because of this, I view "Platonism" as a misnomer, because Plato was actually not Platonist. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree. :up:

Good for you. Retired Ob/GYN here. — LuckyR

:up:

That sounds reasonable.

Idealism itself only becomes problematic when ideas are objectified, reified, as I explained is the case with common Platonism. — Metaphysician Undercover

But we know Plato grooved on the dialectics, so would he have really gotten mired in what Adorno calls idealism?

Because it doesn't tell us what we want to know (in the infinitesimal cases it cannot be understood immediately on-sight. Rare indeed). This doesn't even require that I have a position on it, either. It is simply not helpful. Susan Boyle might be caught up by that. Jeffery Starr would likely be (on converse sides to "sex") where there isn't an ambiguity for the person involved. Seems that this would lead to the exact problems the objections of the kind "What, you're going to check genitals at the door?" seem to point out (and reasonably) — AmadeusD

True. What's your opinion on pronouns? Do you know anyone who goes by "they"?

Because it leads to ambiguity, and some people find ambiguity intolerable. Fear of coming on to a ladyboy, perhaps? — unenlightened

I know you're tri-sexual. You'll try anything. :grin:

using visually-represented phenotype to determine sex is bonkers. — AmadeusD

Why is it bonkers?

What do you think happens at delivery? — LuckyR

I work in an emergency department, so I'm present at deliveries. :grin: