Why alienate countries that had good relations with you? It's all just the US shooting itself in the foot, which is hugely benefitting Russia and China. — ssu

Because from an America first perspective, these are untenable bases for making geopolitical decisions. I can't really say much more than that. It's an observation. I wouldn't get into bed with those I don't want to get into bed with. That's kind of where that reasoning ends.

You think that changing tariffs less than in one year is rational? — ssu

I don't quite understand the question. It's not a matter of rationality. They are instrumental tariffs, not aimed at normalizing trade relations in the normal sense. They have largely achieved what Trump wanted (and that may be irrational!).

then you simply avoid doing anything and stay on the sidelines. — ssu

I understand the problem, but Trump has brought in billions of investment since this term started. Not the $21 trillion claimed, obviously, and that's at Trump's feet for being a buffoon publicly. I just think you're looking at goals that administration is not. It's hard to "come to terms" in that way. Its all theater to me.

Is he really dominating the international landscape? — ssu

I don't think this is a serious question. There may be too much daylight in how we're seeing things (or, what information we have access to day-to-day) to come to terms, as above. Trump is obviously dominating the geopolitical landscape. You call it a spotlight and that's fair - but his movements are hte talk of the globe, in most facets of geopolitical life. People are having to do what he wants, or do something relatively radical to not do what he wants. That is dominance to me. That doesn't mean its good.

Just look at how gold is doing. — ssu

Given the tariff situation, that's probably good in the short term. But its definitely not good across 24 months or more. It indicates a collapse is coming. But Trump, being hte mover he is, is probably aware of this.

Is the suggestion that whatever the case, countries need to stick to their agreements? I understand i need to divest of talking about Trump here, but it almost seems liek you're saying we must remain party to agreements which don't benefit us. I don't really see that working.

I was watching some panels from the current WEF session early today (its about 2pm here). The tact that America takes there, compared with say Rachel Reeves contributions, seems common-sense national security considerations.

You're right, though. If Trump is (I can't quite see what you're seeing, but that's not surprising to me) renegging on several agreements, particularly on trade, then yeah thats bollocks and geopolitically unstable.

If, however, he's doing it as leverage to dominate the international landscape with a view to securing American interests - i don't quite know what I think anymore.

It’s not inconsistent because the rest of the world is full of mediums through which to view, hear, and smell distant objects. Dealing with those mediums counts as direct perception of the world because our senses are in direct contact with those mediums — NOS4A2

Just a clarifying point: Are you saying that the astronomer looking through a scope (or, lets go further: having generated an image from mathematical data) is in direct contact with the objects lets say lightyears away? Can you explain that? It seems to be the key example of indirect contact to me (and so dovetails into a perceptual account more generally). Just want to be sure that's what you're saying..

Hmm. A couple of things to sort out there...The first seems the strongest to me, but is also, you should note, a clarification on the example - not really an argument against you.

A shadow is arguably not a physical object ( i would say it isn't, but a realise that's not all there is to say). In either case, this leapfrogs the crux of the issue. I may be seeing something different to the object which stimulated my sense organs. I'm not claiming that's the case, but it is absolutely open.

Yes, you can launch an investigation into the cause. But that is because (you do go into this, so bear with me teaching you suck eggs) we are already aware that the cause (to the best of our knowledge) must be restricted to something we can access through our senses. That's fine. The example was one where we have no hope of finding the cause - it's an analogy only.

I think the God one is a bad example (despite my agreeing with you!!) because plenty of people claim to have sensory perception of God constantly. That, in fact, seems to be the basis for on-a-dime conversions. Suffice to say I reject those claims :P

When I ask "what is the ship" my very point was to avoid the conversation you just had about how metaphyics gets us no where. — Hanover

Which, as should have been clear, doesn't seem to me to be a move open to anyone playing this game. It's a form of setting aside the issue. Which i'm not saying is necessarily hte wrong approach, but it quite clearly (to me) just ignores the issue - you use the term avoid, which is fine.

I am saying that we don't have to reach any metaphysical conclusion as to whether Banno's wife's voice is the vibration in her larynx, the sound waves as they leave her mouth, the electronic goings on in the phone, the vibration of the ear drum, the nerves doing whatever they do in the brain, or the magical presentation of phenomenal state. It's all good stuff, but it has nothing to do with what "voice" means. — Hanover

I know. IT should be clear I think this is giving up and retreating into Banno's world. It isn't one i, or many, recognize. It is setting aside the problem.

There are things we do, and then there are the actual things. Calling the voice on the phone "my wife's voice" is what's known as an **idealization (ironically). You are hearing something different to your wife's voice. You can just shift this to be listening to a recording of your wife's voice. There isn't even a tenuous connection, at the time, to your wife uttering anything. Your wife's voice is the vibrations in the surrounding air upon her larynx engaging and producing sounds.

The recording cannot be your wife's voice. It can be a recording of it. But that's unweildy, so we idealize to get through conversations more efficiently.

This is why philosophers routinely use different meanings for words - to make them more consistent and accurate. You don't have to accept my position, I'm just explaining why the move to forego sorting this out isn't attractive to me.

** it is possible heuristic, in an awkward use, fits slightly better.

No, i mean quite explicitly falsities.

I understand the pull to dress the past up with a bit more aplomb than it actually contained - ancient people's believed ridiculous shit. And fair enough. But they wrote this down as if it were the case. That is false.

I understand the same stories to be taken as fictional now though - and in that, i agree! Stories are a great way to press on important thoughts. But it is highly, highly unlikely we're getting anything particularly historically interesting, other than the (incredibly important) aspect of discussing why/how/when those thoughts were held to be true.

Yes quite true. These are just particularly both pernicious and unreasonable.

Oh, I agree. The concept of mass delusion was just a point in space. It's not hte crux. The point was just that these believers will understand a concept which makes it highly unlikely their beliefs are sound (we can think here of the many episodes of mass delusion the Catholic church harps on about) and sitll refuse to apply it to their belief about Christ. It's bizarre.

I treat the beliefs with disdain, not the people. They are ridiculous, culturally destructive and intellectually antithetical to truth, progress and reason. Anyone who actively choose to reject those notions probably wont be someone I could be friends with.

NB: The only other comic geniuses who get me as high as Richard Pryor does are (middle) George Carlin and (early) Dave Chappelle. — 180 Proof

My man.

Dick Gregory is another great name, doing similar things at the time.

Currently listening to so much Country stuff. Sad bois talking about trauma, really. It's good stuff, particularly in a milieu that tends to be thought of as overly masculine and restrictive. This number is particularly poignant, imo. It's a story about two sisters coming face-to-face after years of estrangement due to their family farm being sold in a pinch after their grandfather died.



"Sarah quoted some scripture. She said "the prophet is the only way
To find peace in this life - put a knife in the strife. Cause anything else, will lead you astray
I know you never liked it; doing what you're told"
Denise snapped back at Sarah "when did you get so damn old??
I'm all about some Jesus, but he died on the cross
And I need someone who's living to help me cope
With what I've lost"

Good. Fucking. God.

is the testimonial evidence strong enough to justify belief in a bodily resurrection as knowledge, rather than as conviction? — Sam26

No. Not even close to being in the realm of the same vicinity as being strong enough. William Lane Craig is probably the best example for why: It rests on incredulity about people's reportage which is, itself, derived from a bare acceptance of hte testimonies, despite their contradictions, time-lapses and what not.

I don't even think it rises to the level of a serious claim, let alone supporting supernatural side-lines.

It is bewildering to me that anyone who can understand, for instance, mass delusion, could neverhteless rest their entire cosmic, moral and practical life on such utterly thin and empty reasoning. I have no problem coming across harsh and judgmental. I have absolutely no respect for these positions (religious ones, generally, in lieu of anything sensible in support)

Things in themselves sounds like contradiction. If we don't anything about it, we couldn't even name it or talk about it. — Corvus

At risk of us running into a circular arena again, that does seem to be the case. We don't. And we can't (on that view, anyway. I'm at least partially skeptical, but lean toward it being unavoidable) talk about objects beyond our sensory perception. I don't think anything is missing from that account - but as with a situation where you see a shadow, but have no access to its causal object, we can say not much. Perhaps speculation is allowable as a matter of curiosity..

Good post.
I think one slight spanner here is that not only do governments change (thinking long term) somewhat radically (in context - not radical in its normal use) this seems to be due to changing times- i.e the voter base also goes through similar (although, not necessarily aligned) changes. This seems to me a quite clear long-term aspect of the US which will (and seems to have, as you and ssu note) continue to cause those in power to adjust - cynically, i would think.

So, applying this reasoning, the sensory data of the shipis the ship and what we see is just our interpretation, modified in various ways to make it perceivable by us. — Hanover

That doesn't follow. The sensory data of the ship is (repeat oneself). Entering a new form into a straight descriptor doesn't really work. If you're talking about the sensory data derived from "an object, we know not what, but call a ship" then that's what you're talking about. Not the ship. This is the key problem for any version of this game which supposes we have access to the ship itself. We simply label our representations. This doesn't seem amenable to disagreement, really. The disagreement comes in when you try to get around this by just shifting the epistemic benchmark. I'd prefer not to. The assumption is there's an actual object out there. Our perceptual system surely puts us in direct contact with the objects in order to derive stimulus (and, I take it, to avoid Idealism) - but that does not carry through to the images we receive. Nor could it. Banno makes this mistake talking about his wife on the phone.
That you hear your wife through the phone (and are directly in touch with that voice you know to be your wife's voice) does not mean that hte audible sensation you receive is her voice. Nor could it.

I'm saying that some of our words (e.g. "red") are referring to phenomenal states and some of our words (e.g. "bird") are referring to the mind-independent object that is causally responsible for phenomenal states. — Michael

Exactly this is in play.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. Would probably still reject that.

Yes ma'am; I studied this in Cambridge AS English in like 2007 lmao.

Man, dude had a harsh life. He also had a second son (also named after himself) die several years after the first son died. Rough.

That's lovely - truly whimsical. Very much a Celtic vibe going on there.

I'll post my all-time favourite poem, which comes somewhat out of left field. It is Jim Morrison, essentiall eulogizing Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones, who drowned in 1969.

An Ode to LA, while thinking of Brian Jones; Deceased
I’m a resident of a city
They’ve just picked me to play
the Prince of Denmark

Poor Ophelia

All those ghosts he never saw
Floating to doom
On an iron candle

Come back, brave warrior
Do the dive
On another channel

Hot buttered pool
Where’s Marrakesh
Under the falls
the wild storm
where savages fell out
in late afternoon
monsters of rhythm

You’ve left your
Nothing
to compete w/
Silence

I hope you went out
Smiling
Like a child
Into the cool remnant
of a dream

The angel man
w/ Serpents competing
for his palms
& fingers
Finally claimed
This benevolent
Soul

Ophelia

Leaves, sodden
in silk

Chlorine
dream
mad stifled
Witness

The diving board, the plunge
The pool

You were a fighter
a damask musky muse

You were the bleached
Sun
for TV afternoon

horned-toads
maverick of a yellow spot

Look now to where it’s got
You

in meat heaven
w/ the cannibals
& jews

The gardener
Found
The body, rampant, Floating

Lucky Stiff
What is this green pale stuff
You’re made of

Poke holes in the goddess
Skin

Will he Stink
Carried heavenward
Thru the halls
of music

No Chance.

Requiem for a heavy
That smile
That porky satyr’s
leer
has leaped upward

into the loam

I've been reading this poem a few times a year since I was 17. I still don't grasp all of its depth and complexity. Particularly, as at the time, I was going through a sort of existential cycle of understanding Morrison's place in music and what his untimely death meant for not only those around him, but the wider culture. It hits me like a Mack truck every time.

'The shout of triumph after victory,
Praise after wages,
A lady's invitation to her pillow.' — Questioner

THis is incredibly masculine - unsurprising, but an interestingly direct illustration.

"Man" is used here as a catch all - woman also contains it. Thanks for te clarification, either wya.

That's semi-fair, but I don't think that's a particularly rational way of approaching history. Not to say there's nothing in it - but it does, in this way, get extremely close to the bad parts of Peterson's thinking :P

What did they tell stories about? What was important to them.

Like we still do now. — Questioner

I don't think this is fair, in any aspect. They told what they thought were truths, borne of falsities. We try our best not to, or at least say when that's happening. That' said, plenty of people think myths are serious re-tellings. Fairly religious thinking.

Fair enough man - it's all super interesting stuff regardless of veracity (well, at least accuracy - obviously these are real myths!).

To continue my trend:

On my First Son by Ben Johnson, 1616

Farewell, thou child of my right hand, and joy;
My sin was too much hope of thee, lov'd boy.
Seven years tho' wert lent to me, and I thee pay,
Exacted by thy fate, on the just day.
O, could I lose all father now! For why
Will man lament the state he should envy?
To have so soon 'scap'd world's and flesh's rage,
And if no other misery, yet age?
Rest in soft peace, and, ask'd, say, "Here doth lie
Ben Jonson his best piece of poetry."
For whose sake henceforth all his vows be such,
As what he loves may never like too much.

Go over to Questioner's Poetry thread then (apologies if you;'re already there)

Didn't give one. It would be helpful if you didn't make things up as you go :) You've fallen into this habit recently - jaded, maybe? It doesn't matter. Its making for tortured reading, I can say that.

Nice - it is an extremely beautiful country with a rich history.

Unfortunately, I've seen some decent criticism of Cahill which turned me off him. He seems to derive a lot of motivation from theologico-historical commitment. You may not be aware, but Medh (or, Méabh) is not considered an historical figure, but a mythical one. Cahill simply interpolates things like Táin Bó Cúailnge and then goes forth. Likewise... Blackie I, personally, think isn't worth her paper. "mystic" is generally not going to be up my alley. I prefer historical accounts, myself.

You simply cannot make a deal with Trump. And that's why everybody is rapidly making deals with other (Canada with China, EU with Mercosur) because of Trump. — ssu

Unless i'm missing something big in what you're suggesting...

U.S.–China Trade and Economic Deal (general trade framework with commitments on market access, export controls, and agricultural/industrial terms)
Reciprocal Tariff Frameworks with Japan
Reciprocal Tariff Framework with the European Union (baseline 15% tariff and investment/purchase commitments)
Trade Framework with the United Kingdom
Trade Agreements / Reciprocal Tariff Reductions with South Korea
Trade Agreements with Malaysia
Trade Agreements with Cambodia
Reciprocal Trade Frameworks with Thailand
Reciprocal Trade Frameworks with Vietnam
United States–Pakistan Trade Deal
Trade Deals with Argentina
Trade Deals with Ecuador
Trade Deal with Guatemala
Trade Deals with El Salvador
U.S.–Switzerland and United States–Liechtenstein Trade Deal Frameworks

I'm unsure this is either accurate or even a meaningful comment.

The situation is that you've made a claim that makes extremely little sense and has rejected on those grounds. That has been gone over plenty of times, and your resistance boils down to this:

in a sense the same — Banno

This is imprecise, somewhat deceptive and does absolutely nothing for sorting these things out. This is the standard approach from that side of things. It's a shame really. "in a sense" is a weasels hole to slip out through. It is bunk.

It's up to you if you want to think otherwise and go on that way.

Suffice to say you're not even close to being in touch with what's going on there. As you were.

This tracks with your penchant for simply bashing anything you dislike. It is not surprising, given your stated worldviews rest on the assumption that everyone is wrong about everything you like.

I take a very pragmatic approach--knowledge is meant to be used to decide how to act. Both your understanding and mine focus on what it means to justify potential knowledge. For me, the requirement is adequately justified belief. I define "adequate" as providing enough certainty about outcome for us to make a responsible decision. — T Clark

INteresting - divorced from this wider thread's discussion (i guess) this seems a bit odd for me. If the purpose of calling something "knowledge" is to simply ascertain what best guides action (on this view, I don't think certainty is in play) then that fundamentally changes what we consider action-guiding information and the traditional concept of knowledge is lost. I have no intuitive problem with this, but it seems, like many problems, an attempt to semantically reduce an intractable..

Also, Trump is clearly a liar, a con man and a rapist (or, at least, a sexual predator). But how does one "stand against" that. He's already been tried and found guilty (in civil court) and fined hundreds of millions of dollars (for both the fraud and the sexual predation), which he hasn't paid. What else can we do?

My personal animosity toward Trump is based on his personality and his extra-Presidential behavior. I also despise his policies -- but I'm not sure they are more immoral than Obama's drone assassinations. Bill Clinton was also a sexual predator. Should we really let our political biases rule our hearts, as well as our minds? Clinton certainly had more charm than Trump (from my perspective). Perhaps our "love" and "hate" are (and should be) subjective. — Ecurb

The struck out is extremely important, imo. But besides this, well done. You seem to be letting your brain stay in your head :)
I also think anyone who thinks his civil conviction is worth the paper its printed on is lying to themselves. But there we go - different strokes :)

You seem to be intent on dismissing the idea that Indigenous peoples could come up with heart-driven philosophies on their own. I'm not sure why. — Questioner

No. I am not. You are not reading me clearly, at all. I don't wish to continue this.

At 346 pages, it is a detailed look. It was written by Rev. John Heckewelder, a Christian missionary who learned their language and lived among them for many years — Questioner

Celtic is definitely up there for me - being a Celt lmao. I should say, I don't think any prior society really gets in here. They all failed to take account of anything but their in-built belief systems and so we're restricted from true progress. I think that may be why most ended up conquered.

Other than Celtic, I think Rosicrucian society was pretty damn cool: invisible fraternity, scientific enquiry (albeit, hampered by Christian mysticism) - essentially a Christian-flavoured Enlightenment. Unfortunately, it is debated whether or not it existed hahaha.

Further, the Cathars: pushes toward vegetarianism, pretty much Gender equal, still mystic.

I would also say, if we can pinpoint certain groups which were not overtly patriarchal or war-like, some of hte Native American groups were extremely well-suited to their time and place and i imagine had things fairly right, in that context.

Honestly mate, at this stage "No". is sufficient to refute this flailing.

Take care.

My claim is narrower: that the epistemic primacy of experience is itself a substantive theoretical commitment, not a neutral starting point. — Esse Quam Videri

Ok, cool. Much more direct in terms of what to discuss. That's fair. I'm unsure its a theoretical commitment more than a (admittedly, semi-folk) default position of epistemic presentation, rather than something derived from theory. But I do see:

but about whether experience must be treated as epistemically primary in the first place. — Esse Quam Videri

as totally valid, and probably not amendable to true litigation. For me, experience is primary. It is the only (i.e the singular, only, there are no other) avenue to gain data from the world. I cannot understand where else we could place the priority, epistemically, unless we're giving up on human faculties as inefficient or inaccurate or something else. There's a tension here, but hte IRist has to accept the latter is trivially true - but I think the DRist does too, so you're right - there's no deal breaker. Thanks very much for this exchange my man - really, really fun.

I think it's a matter of good faith negotiation. We already knew each other from talking about music in the halls etc... and when I took his class he took me aside prior to the first lesson and just explained "Listen, we're studying Mozart's 41st this term. It's going to be really weird, and I'm uncomfortable, calling you Amadeus. Is that okay?"

"Oh, yeah, sure. Thanks for explaining".
Not

"I wont do what you're asking, and I wont explain without venom".

I did not read anything in the book that suggested this. — Questioner

This account does. I understand you don't see that, but it was a pretty common trope. James Mooney is a really, really good example of this with the Kiowa and other tribes. This isn't even to say there's nothing in what you're saying, but it is certainly not as simple as this would suggest (though, I take it you understand that anyway).

Overtly? — Questioner

Yes, sorry. Yeah, I am well aware - but a Christian missionary reporting this is extremely suspect given:

"Jeremiah 31:33 (Old Testament – “New Covenant”)
This is the foundational text:

“I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

"Romans 2:14–15 (Paul, New Testament)
Paul extends the idea beyond Israel:

“They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness…”

2 Corinthians 3:3
Paul explicitly contrasts stone tablets with the human heart:

“You are a letter from Christ… written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.”

There's a rather direct and unavoidable intimation in this specific case, that perhaps a Christian Missionary would using overly (to them) Christian language to subvert the existing prejudices among other whites. This also happened in Ireland, with, as mentioned, Paul Mooney and many others across time. The syncretisation of South American is one of the biggest and tragic abject moral failures the western world ever undertook and it was almost explicitly for this purpose. Just giving context for why my suggestion is not wild, and may be supported. Many of your examples fail the directness test. Particularly the Egyptian one, as it doesn't even say the same thing. The concept of a Soul isn't quite as specific and direct as that which we are discussing, but you're not wrong either - its a common theme among all thinkers. Even in the modern, secular world many claims to morality rest on this assumption that, without any explanation, humans are inherently given moral precepts.

No, the "noble savage" concept is a European creation that reduces and simplifies the sophisticated societies the Indigenous peoples developed before the settlers got here. — Questioner

If you'd put "Yes, " at the start, this would be a totally sound response.

That's fair - I fundamentally disagree, though. I have understood (as may be clear in that previous substantive reply) that the main gripe between the two camps is one wants to lead with "be kind..." and one wants to lead with "be accurate..." (or, at the least, clear and actionable) "...in your speech". I can 100% accept that as someone from the former camp there's nothing wrong with that position morally.

Though, there's some truck to what Phil's saying there - people expecting, nay, commanding, me to participate in their chosen language game isn't kind at all. I don't want to (this isn't quite true, i'm just making a point). Making me is rude. My wee anecdote should cover whether this also applies to me - it does. In infact, a further anecdote appended to that one is that my music teacher in high school refused to call me Amadeus because it made him uncomfortable. Okay. No worries. We are still friends 17 years later.

What I've found is a strong tendency to comprehend Islam only by analogy to the same aforementioned WASP Evangelical demographic. — BenMcLean

I'm not entirely sure what you mean? Perhaps ignorance on my part. Help!

That's a lie and has always been a lie. — BenMcLean

It's an absolute fact, and the etymology commits one to this. It is the rejection of theism. Nothing more.
strong atheist" has been conceptualised and active belief in an absence. Atheist, proper, is not. I will not be further arguing this, because its a dead argument not worthy of time or effort beyond letting you know. In any case whatsoever this is what I am telling you i mean when using it. End.

Except they don't run popular culture. We've only recently seen some penetration into the mainstream beginning to happen with Angel Studios and a few others. For the most part, Christian media has been siloed off in its own niche subculture with little mainstream impact. — BenMcLean

Also, false as far as I can tell. I am unsure why you do not think outlets like Fox, Prager and the influence of Christian universities has somehow been sideline in a country which is mainly Christian. You're allowed, i suppose.

This contradicts my direct observations. That happens all the time. — BenMcLean

I would like to see that, rather than treating a fetus the same as a clump of cells which I suggest you're referring to. Also, ridiculous we we'd agree on that.

Such a thing would probably need its own thread. — BenMcLean

I recommend against it. There are no good arguments, and several extremely recondite posters here who will make it quite hard for you to continue that thread. This isn't a thread - it is simply saying don't waste your (valuable) time. I don't think this is somewhere you will get much from it.

In America, we're dealing with a zero-compromise demand for total absolute abortion on demand at any stage for any reason and that is the mainstream secular viewpoint. — BenMcLean

This is entirely false in a way that makes me think you are genuinely trolling. If not, your lack of understanding of hte opposing views and realities makes my above recommendation lean toward it being your problem, not ours.

America is so much more panicky about everything than in Europe — BenMcLean

Chechnya is in Europe. Russia (partly) is in Europe. Belarus is in Europe. Poland is in Europe. Latvia is in Europe. You are simply uninformed.

18th century New York (then a province, and not yet a state) and did extensive reading about the Haudenosaunee as well as the Lenape of Pennsylvania — Questioner

Nice, thanks for that.

At 346 pages, it is a detailed look. It was written by Rev. John Heckewelder, a Christian missionary who learned their language and lived among them for many years. — Questioner

This is quite the context. Are you sure this is the best source for what you're talking about? A Christian missionary trying to reduce harm to the indigenous would certainly try to align their beliefs with Christian beliefs (that quote "written on our hearts" is overly Christian). In any case, and interesting society to be sure - roughly speaking, the same sort of splits as the "noble savage" myth has us peddling. Hmm, perhaps that's just how it was. Cool!

Isolated example though, nonetheless. Plenty of Western societies has similar ways of doing things (Rosicrucians for example, wiped out by the Albigensian crusade).

They sound entirely correct, and infact, are correct. That is what coroners, expert witnesses, doctors and lab staff call dead bodies and dead biological material. It's in the name "biological material". If you don't like it, that's another thing.

You are simply ignoring reality in lieu of your personal views, and then running htem together. Suffice to say the world doesn't act the way you want it to. Nor should it. But I do understand the distinction you wish was imported to the words we use. It just isn't there.

Bodies are biological, living or not. Nothing interesting going on there. Your claim about "logic" appears to be just using words you don't understand to get points here. Also, uninteresting.

1. Yes, its an interesting theory but I don't thikn its realistic. Its the type of thing that lead to newagers claiming hte Native American's literally couldn't see boats on the horizon because they didn't have a word for a sea-faring boat. I can't really get on board with that - though, I get that there's some truck to it.

Perhaps trans women and men want to be seen as the gender with which they identify. — Ecurb

It seems fairly squarely the case. The question is to what degree they have the 'right' (iffy word here) to ensure others engage in that "want". I think you have the choice to edit your own life in such a way as to support your self-image and desires, short of harming others. I'm unsure why there is even a discussion about involuntarily ceding ground in the same way. I think if some conservative guy refuses to use your "preferred pronouns" (metaphorically)fuck that guy and move on. Edit. Ruthlessly. Most of us do this, I think, without much problem.

Since names often indicate gender, if a trans person changes her (OK, the pronoun is controversial) name from "Al" to "Alice" would those objecting to the pronoun preferred by the individual insist on continuing to call her "Al"? — Ecurb

Names are different to indicators. But plenty would refuse the 'new' name. In fact, I'll give you a little anecdote: Amadeus is, on my birth certificate, my middle name. My first name sucks, don't ask.
In any case, around 13-14 I "transitioned" entirely to using Amadeus. It is what the government know me as, what employers know me as, what school knows me as and almost ever single person I interact with calls me Amadeus.

One person doesn't. My mother. She absolutely refuses, through pure stubbornness, to adjust to my preferred name. I don't care. She's not abusing me. She's not 'dead-naming' me (despite me being highly uncomfortable with my first name, and the period of my life to which it refers, in my mind). She is just calling me a different thing, which I understand she uses to refer to me. It simply does not matter. I can handle being called a name which isn't mind. Hell, call me Jennifer - as long as I know you're tlaking to me, who cares.

Not everyone shares this. C'est la vie.

It needs to adapt, become more intelligent, and start thinking about how it can work with the general populace instead of against it before its too late. — Philosophim

I am reticent to immediately say "yes" because it feels like a form of "white savior" type of thing, but my intuition is simply that its right. Ahh..

Good manners suggest that we should refer to people by the name they request us to use. — Ecurb

I fully agree. "morally" I think "we probably should" is the better position ,because it also leaves room to not engage with bad, or aggressive actors.

You're backtracking — Ecurb

I don't think that's fair, but you elucidate well what's in contention. The issue is that legally changing one's sex can objectively be considered false, whereas a name change cannot, at all, be considered 'false'. "male" and "female" are non-arbitrary whereas (at least first names) are entirely arbitrary. I'm unsure this moves anything - neither gives us a moral motivating for either case. I'm just clarifying what I think its a difference worth noting.

Why should it be one and not the others? — Ecurb

Clarity, and avoiding the utterly shitshow the last eight years has brought us with regard sex and gender. This seems to me a case of "you're lying to yourself", regardless of your position, if it's in your mind that less-clear, less direct abd less stable language is a better model for both social cohesion, interpersonal communication and policy. I cannot see any way that could be true, and that's based on the empirical results we see in the world, not some intuition or personal claim. It is not a response to say "well, those resistant should just be giving up and we'd be fine". That's essentially a fascist way of approaching the issue and not one I think either side should take seriously. This isn't to say you are wrong but it is to say that I thikn this clears up several open, but imo, stupid, rhetorical devices at play. It is interesting that the arguments to do with either asserting a clearly erroneous current meaning, or arguing for why its "right" that the meaning change for x reasons always come back to vague, amorphous rhetoric like "being kind". They do not seem serious.

I'm unsure this is in response to anyone but something has become clear to me from speaking with my wife over the weekend, as regards the OP and what's being sorted out: Gender must have a sexual component. There is no such thing as 'objective gender' and no one has ever, other that a 1:1 match with sex argued that there is as far as I know. Nothing but bundles of behaviour or disposition can be called "gender" if we're separating from sex. Ok, so far, so good and i'm unsure anyone but hte two extremes would have an issue.
But then the problem arises: What do those bundles indicate, in order to have them be categories, given that "gender" is not a set of categories, but a set of bundles. Its sex. The typical, perhaps historically manipulated, set of expectations for the underlying basis for the bundle: the sex from which it is expected. I fear this is simply restating something Phil has said several times. But this seemed clearer to me than anything i'd read through the two threads ongoing.

That's fair - but as I say, my overriding motivation to see it happening is that its cool or exciting. I don't/can't stand particularly strongly behind this, just explaining myself.

*sigh* a technology would. But this would require the body to be in some kind of suspension anyway, to then be able to be "encased" or whatever would be required. I am giving you speculative, sci-fi type stabs. They're are being taken far too seriously.

world government?? Let's perhaps not.

I know plenty, and it's clearly an issue in the younger generation. I have two (politically opposed) psychologist friends who routinely decry the fact that they have to hand-hold people between 12-25 through letting go of their erroneous self-diagnoses. It's a problem, collecting "conditions". My wife was caught it in for a bit actually (years ago, prior to my meeting her).

You may. They describe realities. I am extremely reluctant to alter veridicality for purposes of feelings. I am short. That's not a disability. But my friend who is missing his shins (roughly speaking - its not quite that simple) is disabled. No controversy there and a model which seeks to remove that distinction is bunk.

As long as it is believable, or the public can be persuaded that it is. — Punshhh

This is essentially hte basis (and sometimes goes awry) for defamation proceedings in most jurisdictions - truly held belief is one of hte only get-out-of-it cards and that wont be available here, so you're probbaly right that this would cover the same sorts of behaviours in regard to currenty generative AI.

This can increase the impact and where it is used maliciously to blackmail, or abuse a vulnerable person, it is a serious issue. — Punshhh

Yep, 100%

here have been reports in the U.K. of a rapid increase in the amount of pedophilia related material. Where the line between real images and AI generated images is becoming blurred. I heard reports that the photo’s of Renee Good were micro bikinied and spread in social media within hours of her murder last week.
Then there are people in the public eye being depicted with bruising, smeared in blood, or with tattoos. Where defamation may be involved. — Punshhh

Yeah, this gets interesting (although, it's morbid and tragic for some - I don't mean to be entirely detached). I don't necessarily think that Goode situation is something worthy of legal ramification, but I do think, Like with many other types of images, the family should have the right to at least enforce take-down orders even if actual criminal prosecution isn't really on the cards.

The latter is definitely an issue - although I, and I presume many on this forum, can either spot, or intuit through context, a fake image in most cases. It seems a bit odd to cater to the less-discerning in that sense - but that's because I'm not in that group and I know many friends who've fallen for these things. So i think your caution is totally warranted.