This should be fun...

My take is that 'transgender' needs to be read prima facie. transgender. In this way, we simply carve sex off from gender. They are related in many ways (even on relatively flimsy ideological takes) but are clearly, imo different things. Again, even on ideological grounds (one example is the scientifically inaccurate claim that there are some points other than male and female on a sex spectrum for humans that doesn't cause a link between sex and gender to emerge).

Males can never become pregnant. But females can. So if males(sex) can be women(gender), we don't run into a contradiction until we conflate sex and gender. But it would seem to me males cannot be female. So if you hold anything essentially male or female to constitute 'man' or 'woman' then that's an issue for your terminology.

There are other comments to make about merits and the continuing effects of policy, but I think this is a non-problematic way to think of it intellectually. It seems perhaps people such as Jamal are not really in a position to make comments on this subject, if unable to stray into wanton disregard for reason, civility and differing views.

She explicitly rejects biological essentialism. — praxis

On page five of her paper What Is Sexual Orientation there is evidence to the opposite.

"Sex is appropriately characterised in terms of a cluster of endogenously-produced morphological, genetic, and hormonal features. None of them are individually essential for human femaleness or maleness, though possession of some vague number of them is sufficient for it. This view accommodates the many existing disorders or differences of sexual development well, whilst remaining compatible with realism about biological Sex. Variation can be, and in fact is, endemic to biology generally, without threatening the existence of natural kinds (Dupré 1993)9."

For a few years in grade school I was a racial minority and experienced racism – physical attacks – for merely being a blonde haired, blue eyed, middle class white kid, though I was unemployed at the time. If I were woke at that time I wouldn't have experienced racism, what? — praxis

The position on the left (and posited by officials, in many cases: See Australia's Racial Discrimination minister) is that white's cannot experience racism. I'm not saying that's your position (clearly not) but it is a position taken.

wokeism is not a religion with sacred tenets carved in stone by the woke Goddess. It's not even a social movement, lacking organized leadership, structure, or unified goals — praxis

This is true. But neither is 'the far right'. It would seem naiive to pretend we cannot talk about either group, though, surely. As far as I can tell "wokeism" is a position that requires that social opinion and 'lived experience' trump logical, reasonable or factual arguments - with the result that the stick comes out before the carrot can even be sufficiently described to the opposite side. I don't see it as deeper than that, but almost all instances people call woke I've been able ot break down to this, somewhere.

What is hateful about recognizing that Kirk was heavily invested in the culture war? — praxis

While recognizing hte nature of this question: You must be hateful to posit this, the way you have (which is not exactly what you've said above. You've called him a bigoted grifter).

LOL well he's more famous. I am only famous locally, but it is directly for improving mental health initiatives in my country. I'm happy with that :)

Well from the page it seems he's using a different definition of violence — Darkneos

Yeah. The kind of definition that works for him, and makes no sense. Like the old 'words are violence' nonsense. They are categorically not violence. Neither is sex, tout court. You have to add in violence. Although, one could etymologically say that any form of sex which isn't truly consented (coercion, for instance) is violent by way of "violate" being a root.

How so? Give an argument. — Leontiskos

I don't think you're adequately understanding what is being said. You want me to make a logical argument. It is unavailable and not what is being posited. I'll make it clearer, if i can:

The way the world works is not logical. You want it to be. It isn't. The way people reason is not with truth trees. That you want this to be hte case (or at least, that you want to discuss the world in that context) is your problem in this exchange; not mine and Baker's. No one is suggesting a baseball bat is a logical tool. I've tried to make this explicitly clear.

People do use violence as a 'valid retort' to various positions. They think its justified. They think it's logical. — AmadeusD

If you are still going to go on about "valid logical argumentation" or some such, you are clearly not engaging the correct conversation. This disposes with much the rest of your reply.

So, going back to the question you've posed, with the bold above in play:

Policing. Policing is almost entirely
Police: Accusation
Person 1: argument as to why, logically, such and such couldn't have occurred (or whatever).
Police: to bad *baseball bat*

There's an example that plays out daily, in almost all parts of the world but Antarctica. Probably a better example (and timely) is violent protests. Eventually, those engaging think its 'logical and valid' to take a bat to someone for being in the wrong place, or thinking the wrong thing or whatever. This makes it sufficiently clear that discussing the real world on the terms you are is a waste of time and doesn't come close to discussing the real world. It isn't laden with truth trees and P1,P2, C thinking. Its laden with "I have no argument; baseball bat".

It will be literally impossible to have a conversation with you if all you want to do is talk about how you want the world to be. It is the way it is, and the discussion (this exact one, not the thread) is about that.

About what? Name it. Stop being intentionally ambiguous. — Leontiskos

I have very sufficiently laid this out: People are not logical. You want them to be. That is sanguine to hte point of irrelevancy for the discussion. Bleat if you'd like.

You're simply engaged in the fallacy of equivocation. "In the real world if you deny X then you will get hit with a baseball bat, therefore X is falsifiable." That's an invalid argument. We're talking about falsifiability, not the ability to coercively enforce a belief. — Leontiskos

Luckily for me, and extremely unfortunately for you, that was never said or implied. That should be sufficiently clear. I literally said:

No one is suggesting there is logic in that. — AmadeusD

You seem to want me to defend shit I've not come close to saying. Too bad brother.

That is an anti-racist claim, and we are asking whether it is falsifiable. It seems that you and baker have missed the whole point. — Leontiskos

The irony drips like a three week old corpse. I shall take my leave.

Objectively 'sex' is masturbation by means of another body — 180 Proof

This is contradictory. Masturbation can't be done with another's body. Sex is 'objectively' not masturbation in any sense.

More evidence Zizek is divorced from reality it seems here.

sex arises from a lack of control (incontinence of the void) and that he believes it can only be "honest" under such conditions of a loss of control for both parties. Consent takes on an entirely different meaning.

"what an odd thing to say".

It's weird. When people reveal that they are unable to conceptualize basic concepts like mutual consent (which requires quite distinct control for both parties) we maybe should take their opinions on consent-derived activities as less important.

It is inarguable to closed minds only. — praxis

It seems, perhaps you are not a serious person. This type of response tells me your mind is closed, and the surrounding thread makes it quite clear. Making claims in the face of opposing evidence is no reasonable, and not something that can be taken seriously on a forum like this.

It's only left to wonder how far Mill was right about social opinion being a restrictive, dictatorial aspect of group membership. The left has taken this to an extreme recently (the extreme left, obviously).

He was a culture war grifter and deliberatly cultivated social conflict for profit. — praxis

This is supported by nothing and could only make sense to someone who has only engaged with Charlie through a lens of left-wing, hateful rhetoric. Ironic, isn't it?

And of course you're persuaded by logical fallacies. — praxis

It seems you've decided to remove yourself from the adults table. That is fine by me.

I am not "charging you" with anything. I am pointing out that your own cite said there are more than two genotypes for this gene, and you think just asserting that there isn't is a refutation. — Mijin

So, that is, in fact, charging me with something (in this case, ignorance or perhaps manipulation). My own 'cite' did not say that. At all. And I have explained to you why, in detail: translocation is not a genotype. I even gave you room to say that this is not what you mean. You have not. I presume it is what you mean. Translocation is not a third genotype.

There are not three genotypes for SRY. There are not three genotypes for SRY. There are not three genotypes for SRY. Go and ask ChatGPT (I don't want to just post a quote because you'll charge me with altering it). Go and put this prompt in "are there three genotypes for SRY". I do not require an apology.

The only reason that we're discussing sex is because of the context of the gender discussion; your position seems to require asserting that the underlying sex is binary, and you're failing to find support for that assertion — Mijin

I've provided air-tight support for it. You moved back into talking about gender to get around it. We're not talking about gender. We are talking about sex. And in that context, you are point-blank wrong. Sex is a binary and is dimorphic in humans. We have two sexes and there are no exceptions. This is absolutely true, biologists agree, and you are not being serious with your responses here. I do not need you to agree - you are wrong. If you want to talk about gender we can, but this is in the context of whether it varies independently of sex (it does, so we're probably closer to the same page than you think there). Sex, though, is arguable binary. Let's go through it, based on your response here:

Cite please: an actual biologist, not your misreading of what chat gpt told you. — Mijin

*sigh* I quoted ChatGPT. And I presumed you make this bad-faith move if I were to use ChatGPT further - but apparently - lo and behold you've already made that move. That, as I'm sure you'll understand, makes it hard to take seriously.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ken-Mcelreavey/publication/311361881_Mechanism_of_Sex_Determination_in_Humans_Insights_from_Disorders_of_Sex_Development/links/5d1c9bcd299bf1547c933773/Mechanism-of-Sex-Determination-in-Humans-Insights-from-Disorders-of-Sex-Development.pdf

This one is quite hard to grab on to because the point of the paper is not to illustrate that SRY is the determining factor. It implicitly accepts that it is, the entire way through, explaining how DSDs are sex-specific. It is also kind of a boring paper.

Given that DSDs are sex-specific, they present no exception to and in fact reinforce the sex binary in humans, conceptually speaking. Even later genetic aberration cannot change one's sex - as will be apparent in this sources.

Here's another, clearer paper:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3701250/ and the most relevant section, with my commentary after:

"SRY is clearly important for the development of male sex, although in rare instances a male phenotype can develop in its absence; but what is the genetic pathway by which SRY creates hormonally competent testes? This proved to be difficult to disentangle, despite the expectation that once the Y-chromosomal male-determining gene was discovered, the elucidation of other genes following in the cascade from the bipotential gonadal rudiment to testis formation would quickly follow. Even after the discovery of further sex-determining genes, their relationship to SRY remains unknown. When a pathogenic mutation has been identified, the phenotypes can also be variable, even within the same family. It has been suggested that new genomic techniques might be required for better diagnoses of patients with disorders of sexual development. But might there be a simpler alternative pathway?"

To clarify the first italicised line, this is clearly pointing out that males can have varying phenotype. That means physical presentation. Not sex. Has nothing to do with whether one is male or female. Having a big nose is phenotypic. This is not news. This is not affecting sex determination.

The second line, then, gives us pretty robust indication that SRY is the sex-determining gene and that further genetic information is secondary, as one would expect, to the determination of sex and instead relates to the differentiation of sex.

here's some more;

https://www.nature.com/articles/348452a0?utm_ this one makes clear that SRY must be active for male sex development to begin. The abstract is enough to grok this.

https://www.nature.com/articles/346240a0?utm_ - the original paper outlining SRY. Take that as you will, as we've come along way in 35 years.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1516467/ a cute line from the abstract here

"A strategy based on determining the precise chromosomal location of this locus has been used to clone a new gene which has been called SRY in humans (Sry in mice). A variety of studies now show that this is indeed the testis-determining gene."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44162-023-00025-8?utm_ and this one, from the short conclusion:

"The peculiar translocation of the SRY gene in 46,XX males strongly supports the inclusion of cytogenetic testing for establishing diagnosis and genetic counseling for infertility and/or hormonal imbalances in individuals."

Males.

And for a bit of a slam-dunk here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22246/?utm_

"Most XX men who lack a Y chromosome do still have a copy of the SRY region on one of their X chromosomes. This copy accounts for their maleness."

All of this clearly shows a relatively stable consensus in the biological literature that SRY is the sex-determining gene and that DSDs are sex-specific. This really isn't a debate.

Just an aside, anyone calling Kathleen Stock anything but principled, forthright and courageous is looking into a void and seeing what they want to.

The claim was literally, "A blow with a baseball bat could falsify the claim in question." — Leontiskos

This is not really at all how it came across. It's hard to explain why, because your position is totally reasonable. But the way it read to me (i.e I am not even trying to say this is what baker meant - I could just be wrong) is that

The world does not work via baseball-bat falsification. — Leontiskos

It does. Whether that is a logical position is (not true) irrelevant. That is hte entire point. In the world, this distinction means absolutely fucking nothing. It's a total waste of time and butters no bread for anyone trying to understand these impulses. People do use violence as a 'valid retort' to various positions. They think its justified. They think it's logical.

No one is suggesting there is logic in that. What's being suggested is you are being sanguine to the point of irrelevancy. Ignorance of how the world actually works (i.e how people actually reason) isn't fixed by inserting a (totally reasonable, and valid) position on the logic of those impulses.

I mean, he was a Democrat most of his life? He changes his mind weekly? What political issues does he care deeply about? Dictator, sure, pass, that gets abused.

I imagine the man does care about his base. Is that political?

I think it's fair to say that he is anti-war. Otherwise, I see little deeply held belief. — Jeremy Murray

This is an odd thing to say. He wants a secure border, to deal with crime, reform spending and then yes, reduce war and war casualties. He also believes one law for all.

I don't know the guy personally, but these seem to have been threads through everything including criticisms of him. I'm unsure there's a good argument for him being a sort of hollow actor. Just a bad one.

That's funny, I just had this same discussion with my wife. She said Trump cares nothing except for furthering his own ego needs. He would be a Bernie-bro open borders socialist if he thought that would give him power and narcissistic supply. I argued he has some core beliefs. If Trump had complete power, Trumplandia would be very right-wing conservative. She said that's only because right-wing authoratarianism (sp) appeals to his ego. I still don't know if she's right. I think she might be. — RogueAI

I don't think much of that is right. He is clearly a pretty egoic person, but i also imagine your wife thinks that what was squarely left wing thinking in 2010 is now far-right. Many do, it's not your wife's issue. But that will largely skew what's being said. An example is border control: Clinton, Obama and Biden were more aggressive with illegal immigration in terms of raw numbers. But a world in which we mass-deport criminals is a right-wing fantasy these days. I think thats ridiculous, myself.

So you're choosing to say that only two genotypes "count" as genotypes and anything else is an aberration? — Mijin

No. I'll quote myself:

There is no third option. There are not three genotypes for SRY. — AmadeusD

I note you also quoted this, and then charged me with saying something very much different. Again. wiping my brow.

So how is this any different to the special pleading you're doing with all other aspects of gender? (essentially: "it's binary except for the exceptions, which don't count") — Mijin

They aren't exceptions and I've not claimed they are. Intersex is not an exception. Translocation is not an exception. I would appreciate not being charged with saying things I have never said, and can quote evidence to the opposite for.

You have also just conflated gender and sex. Unsure if you've noted that. We are talking about sex. Gender is another discussion, but if one takes hte position that gender does not vary independent of sex, then that's all that person would want to argue. I agree gender is a different thing. We're not discussing it. Please take care not to conflate, as we will be talking past each other.

The facts are that your definition of gender is not scientifically accepted and therefore is worthless.
I was also pointing out that it's completely unworkable as a definition of gender in society but if you want to put that other issue to one side, then fine. — Mijin

As above. Beginning to be fairly comfortable in assuming you're doing this on purpose due to failing entirely to refute these points.

Firstly primary determinator does not mean only, secondly, once again, there are more than two genotypes for this gene. — Mijin

1. Yes it does.
2. No there aren't. We've been over this. You flat-out rejecting that translocation is not a genotype isn't my issue anymore. You are wrong.

And finally, it's farcical; you're saying if the SRY gene is male, that overrides everything else — Mijin

No. If the SRY gene is active. Truly, are you reading these responses before flying into an ideological screed?

Secondly, it doesn't 'override' anything at all. It is the determining factor for sex in humans. There's nothing to override. It is what it is. Your response makes absolutely no sense here.

it doesn't matter if the person was assigned female at birth, has breasts, a vagina, has lived as a woman and is married to a heterosexual man...this is the level people have to go to to avoid conceding that gender is more complex than we learned in high school. — Mijin

As this illustrates: We're talking about sex. It is entirely binary and there are no exceptions to that. You have provided none, and hten resiled into talking about social gender as a way to pretend I've not acknowledged the complexities of sex-related behaviour. This has become a non-debate. You are not playing the game.

Kirk disproves this claim. Shortly before his assassination I watched several videos of him debating Cambridge students. I think he used every logical fallacy known to man. — praxis

Do you mean the Oxford debate society video where he utterly trounces everyone who speaks with him (or insults him) and has recently elected a president who celebrated the Murder? Wow. Cool.

In my opinion, what matters is how his killer became a killer and addressing that. — praxis

This is perverse.

The point of the silly example was to ask the further question: If the unconscious is real, how do we know something deeper doesn't exist? And then something even deeper than that? How do we know there aren't layers beyond the layer we assume to be the deepest if nothing other than the conscious and pre-conscious can ever be detected or otherwise observed? — Outlander

I'll in reverse. Yeah, this is a good point. I think most in the field tend to seek something indicating that there is somethign further. Although essentially debunked since, Benjamin Libet's for example gave an indication that mentation must be happening prior to conscious awareness of it. That gives a logical reason to presume some mental 'area' below the level of that which is conscious. I don't think we've seen any good reason to presume something 'below' the subconscious.

To your question: My understanding is that the reason we posit a subconscious is little, otherwise-unexplainable (this isn't airtight, just hte argument as it goes) appearances of emotions, desires and behaviours that indicate same. You might slip when greeting your crush and say something slightly more flirty, and not know why you did it. It might take you a long time to realise you are crushing on this person. And that might only happen when your pre-conscious processes a memory like that slip-up and analysses it via introspection. I suppose this could be said to be an avenue for making it 'conscious' but there's a stop-gap where no contact between sub-and-actual consciousness occurs.

Again, not an analyst myself - just an understanding I have :)

If slavery is understood as part of society’s proper organization under God’s covenant, then Kirk’s statement implies a judgment that God’s covenant itself would be “bad and evil.” — praxis

This ignores the new Testament. But I'm not particularly drawn to defending Kirk on religious grounds - that was where we parted ways. Unfortunately, that meant on most issues lmao. But his character is clearly, and inarguably, not one of malice or hatred.

I do honestly hope that one day you gain the ability to understand threads of exchange properly.

As it stands, you've simply resiled. That's fine. I did expect it.

Hmm I'm not disagreeing with you, but my comments stand. It may be that people don't 'agree' with this, but like noting the sky is blue - there are arguments, but it's blue (how and why are the arguments to be had). There are (Banno is getting toward this, although I seem to recollect he does think some form of morality can be objectified just not intrinsically) no good candidates for discussion when it comes to intrinsic moral value. All arguments fall away as soon as the human mind is removed from the picture. Some weak arguments for animals expressing moral behaviour but that doesn't seem at all deliberative or, indeed, 'moral' in the sense of some extra fact about reasoning beyond impulse and risk assessment. I do conceded i'm no animal behaviourist, but that seems to be the overall takeaway from those discussions.

My argument, in helping itself to the notion of intrinsic value, does not commit me to any particular view about those ontological commitments, I think. — Clarendon

No, I don't think it does. But as I see it, that's weakness. There's nothing to appeal to which could give an intrinsic type of quality. I think.

None of this is hard to see — Jeremy Murray

It does seem to be, though. I mean, there are millions further into the 'Huh, i dont know what you're talking about" that I am (or, semi-pretending to be). Perhaps we're just not seeing things the same way.

MAGA wanted their own George Floyd. When they got one, they acted. — Jeremy Murray

I don't think so.

Trump is not 'political' at all. He is an immoral opportunistic bully, aligned with colleagues who value his opportunism and weird charisma to empower their own opportunistic agenda. Sort of like how shitty leaders like Trudeau are the useful idiots of radical left ideologues who in no way actually represent the vast majority of people on the left.

You think the martyrdom of Kirk is somehow organic? — Jeremy Murray

That seems a little naiive to me. Trump is clearly highly political and cares deeply about political issues. He is, though, a moron with only glimpses of moral scruples. But I don't quite understand this characterisation - just as I don't when words like 'dictator' are thrown around. It's just not serious enough.

If we want to stop the spread of fascism, we have to begin with education and the manufacturers of textbooks. — Athena

The ugly irony of this is beyond my ability to correct. The ignorant required to suggest fascist tactics to combat fascism is both egregious and no longer surprising on the left. You can reject labels all you want, but if behaviours are informed by your underlying ideologies, that is hte 'evil' you aren't talking about.

Moral value isn't something that can be described as intrinsic without divine command theories. I reject those, so I reject that there could be an intelligible discussion of that position.

Neither of those things happened.

Your comprehension has definitely taken a hit.

It cannot, therefore ever, perhaps at least once (or even reliably and constantly), be triggered by a static and consistent means? — Outlander

My understanding is that it is point-blank not accessible. The pre-conscious is what you are describing. based on two Princeton MOOCs i took.



Not exhaustive, but this explains what I mean. I can't really understand the more silly aspects of this response (but I do note that was their point lol)

I think it possible my response to MU just before will do some work for me.

Essentially, I agree with you and those final couple of lines sit very well with me. This speaks to the dual aspect I've been vying with. Obviously, "noumena" is a limiting factor for human reason and in the CPR this is essentially all he does with it (though, I have provided some titilating indications otherwise). But logically, and in terms of his description of his system, it requires something beyond the understanding. "Something" to me speaks "object". I don't care what form that comes in. Denying that these "objects" obtain precludes the entire system from doing anything for us.

"Required as an assumption" implies that the assumption is a necessary aspect. That is why the sensation is commonly called a representation. It is assumed to represent something. — Metaphysician Undercover

I can't grasp what the purpose of this response is. From what I gather, this agrees with my quoted reply.

If these representations are false — Metaphysician Undercover

In the context which we are, this is not a possible situation unless idealism proper (or solipsism i guess). At any rate, it isn't in the system Kant describes.

You describe these objects as "actual, physical objects beyond the senses". — Ludwig V

I did exactly the opposite:

I'm not suggesting there are (or that we could know that there are) actual, physical objects beyond the senses) — AmadeusD

When you say that actual physical objects are an assumption or presupposition, you seem to leave open the possibility that that assumption is wrong - or at least that a different assumption or pre-supposition may also result in a not incoherent alternative conceptual structure. — Ludwig V

That's true in some sense - except that I accept this, and remove 'physical' "Some object" is good enough for me.

On the one hand, we know that they exist. On the other hand, we know, and can know, nothing whatever about them. — Ludwig V

Bang on.

This is going to be really tough for you. Prepare yourself for some blunt answers, and understand I am having to literally wipe my brow each time i need to respond to something abjectly dishonest in this post:

There are more than 2 genotypes for this gene -- it's not binary — Mijin

It is either active or inactive. There is no third option. There are not three genotypes for SRY. You're probably talking about translocation, which, if active, has happened in a male. Swyer is a female disorder and 46,xx are both male disorders of sex development. They have nothing to do with sex determination. If this isn't what you're indicating, please elaborate.

How would we know what gene someone has — Mijin

This has absolutely nothing to do with the facts. "how would we know" doesn't come close to even touching the security of the sex binary. Fwiw, as noted to you with evidence previously, we are 99%, approaching 100% accurate, in aggregate, asscertaining sex from facial features alone. So neither aspect of bringing this up seems to go anywhere.

Biologists do not define sex this way as it's completely arbitrary. I know you're happy to handwave everything that people who actually study this topic say, but it's a critical point for those of us who are not guided by conservative talking points over science.Th — Mijin

This is utterly untrue. You will quote me a couple of activists who had things published in Scientific American, probably. Biologists understand that SRY determines sex. Which is why I was able to provide a paper from a biologist explaining exactly this. A few responses from ChatGPT:

"What does SRY do?

The SRY (Sex-determining Region Y) gene is found on the Y chromosome."

"What happens without SRY?

In embryos without a functional SRY gene (typically XX), ovaries develop instead of testes.

The result is a female developmental pathway."

"Final Answer:

Yes — biologists generally agree that SRY is the primary genetic determinant of male sex in humans. It acts as the initial switch that launches male sexual differentiation, though other genes and factors are also required to complete the process."

which you will understand means that SRY is for determination, and other genes (later in the process, after determination has occurred) affect phenotype. Not sex. It is also clear from this discussion (and, I think at least, you have already understood this) that XX,XY, XXY etc.. are a red herring for this issue.

The bold above is a bold-faced attempt to poison the well despite having absolutely nothing to back up your position. "conservative talking points" is the last bastion of the leftist who cannot understand the discussion they are engaged in.

WTF? We were talking about gender being non-binary, and you brought up the SRY gene. Don't blame me if it's an indefensible position. — Mijin

Your misunderstanding/misguided level of comprehension between the three relevant responses makes me unable to actually clarify this for you.

You brought up the concept of doing X. I pointed out that I didn't. You're now having a fit over it. I don't care.

It sure feels like Republican 2025ers were waiting for the right sort of woke excess to respond to with hyperbolic opportunism.

I find both extremes of the spectrum gross. I'm not used to feeling them gross in the same fashion. — Jeremy Murray

A fair point, but I have to ask: What are you talking about? There's no comparison between the two responses. Celebrating a political assassination of a non-politician and wanting to further your non-violent political agenda aren't quite comparable. To be clear though, Project 2025 seems insane. Perhaps I'm just not across it, but I have not seen anything which would lead me to thin there was opportunism. The murder itself was expected. The right was correct to prepare for something like this - particularly after Mangione and the two attempts on Trump. I simply cannot draw the parallel you are i guess.

How do you defend that on conceptual grounds? — praxis

He was heavily religious. I should probably not need to elaborate. But if I do, the point is that if you are taught, and believe, that the Bible is the Big Man Word, then a word like 'abomination' is descriptive, not moral. I take your point, but this explication should make it quite clear what I'm trying to get across: a non-religious person using that phrase would be as you say. Charlie using it, generally, is not. There are plenty of clips of him being soft, tender and loving towards these same people. And I actually happen to agree with his overall conclusion: Being at peace in your body as it actually is in reality will be infinitely more satisfying than the alternative. We can have other discussions about how that might or might not play out, but conceptually it seems unassailable. Additionally, there are plenty of life choices and lifestyles i'd call abominable. Violent drug dealers, for instance. Charlie's values were different to mine (though, i also take it he would call those dealers abominable too).

I should also say, I didn't usually find his conceptual defenses of positions i disagreed with very moving. Banno has, for instance, made a point Charlie just seemed entirely dead to: A fetus is not morally equivalent to a living, breathing child. His conceptual arguments about it being difficult to choose when a fetus becomes unabortable are difficult for dumb people to argue against, so he often made people look bad around that. If life starts at conception, there is at least a conversation to be had. But again, his arguments were, at best, semi-worth-considering.

Yessir.

If i was less clear than this, as it seems I was, i apologise. But this, it seems, is the case.


PC explicitly states that Identity does not obtain, and it doesn't matter: what matters is PC. That's what the PC position is. I think perhaps there are plenty of misunderstandings floating about this explication...But to be intensely clear, this is why I go with PC: There is no way to get identity to work, so something has to matter and perceptions seems the only option. Person2 thinking they are you is good enough.

Does a boy really know what sexuality is? What straight is? What race or being "white" is? They do not. — Outlander

They do. My son is 8 and extremely feminine. He is acutely aware of how this will follow him through life.

He spent his life trying to prove this. He could not. Dennis (his brother - a friend of mine) has been quite clear about this since Terence died.
He was never able to procure information previously unavailable to him.

That said, I, more than anyone on this forum is seems, will be sympathetic to any Terence you bring up. He was probably hte best extemporaneous speaker i've ever seen.

Speech is not violence. That is a pretty un-crossable line in definition and usage. Trying to shoe-horn 'violence' into words is an expansion of meaning which loses meaning and creates more ambiguity than clarity. Its something we should reject entirely.

I do not thikn this is right(substantive after formal) The experiment has two prongs, so to speak:

1. You hear the story, and have an intuition about it: Survive, or not. If you choose 'survive'; then
2. You need to justify how it is that you survive, identically, in person2; or
3. Explain why identity fails.

If what you're saying is that the 'response' you're laying all this at the foot of is just 2 and 3 above, I'm unsure that you're being all that serious. That has been what I've been saying all along and is not in any way a misunderstanding.

The substantive objection I'd make is that your position in your self-quote above is (as best I can tell/as far as I know) entirely wrong. Psychological continuity is one way for 2 and 3 to go coupled with the person's explications. The way the story is usually phrased doesn't give us anything to go on, without our own intuitions. We don't 'know' anything. You're free to reject that PC continues any kind of self (which I do, personally). This has now gone in the same circle three times.

I would appreciate if you could actually clarify how any of this is being misunderstood (so far, you have not done so).

(I think) The point is that this is how the world works, so there's no use pointing it out and pretending that because its 'wrong', we don't reason that way. We do. Utopian philosophy is folly..

There’s 11 pages worth of it, in fact. Try paying attention. — Mikie

Thanks for that - if you had paid attention, you'd have known I wasn't here for quite some time. Try not to be so combative and childish constantly.

They are. — Mikie

They aren't, though. I can look through Twitter without having my own. Tweets get re-posted all over the internet. This charge is utterly asinine - and you know it.

There’s talk about revolution, about civil war, about things being “forever changed” after this, etc etc. — Mikie

From some very small number of people, sure. The vast, vast vast majority of responses are about keeping calm, honouring Charlie and (I understand this ruffles your feathers, but its not what you're claiming either..) continuing 'his work'. Feel free to disagree, but if you're looking for what you've outlined (you are, obviously) you'll find it. I personally don't care. Both sides are idiots when it gets into line-towing.

What a shocker. — Mikie

It is, given the ubiquity of the claims. There hasn't been a single (non-chopped, context-inclusive) piece of evidence presented anywhere. Feel free to have a go, if you want to. I am completely open - I wasn't a fan of his and I disagree with plenty of what he had to say given it was largely Christianity-driven. But claims require evidence, yknow?

No one is saying that. No one serious. Try getting out more. — Mikie

No one, or no one serious? This is the pipeline "No, its not happening". "Its happening, but no one important". "Ok, important people, but who cares?". I suppose the rash of people being terminated for celebrating/justifying it just doesn't exist? Kimmel, Dowd, Ilhan Omar, AOC plus several further attempts or attacks (ABC building, Fox News van, TPUSA event i think two days ago in Utah among others). It is quite hard to think you're paying much attention (particularly on Twitter) if you've not seen this - but this comes to another point: You're in an echo chamber. I don't think that's controversial at all, and it evidenced by your entirely one-sided approach to all political issues. You're allowed. I'm just pointing it out.

Then, as usual... — Mikie

It is possible your reading comprehension has taken a hit in my time away. This was aimed at you,

No, its not understandable at all.

Celebrating hte political murder of someone who defended his positions on conceptual grounds, and never expressed hatred for anyone is irrational, abominable and quite clearly dangerous. It smacks of "I have never paid any attention to this person, besides clipped bollocks my hateful friends sent me because they constantly search for shit to be outraged about instead of just letting people have different views".

That one seems an axiom of that type of leftist. Anyone paying attention(to Kirk, or the climate) would understand that.

You can’t argue with irrational disgust and hatred. — praxis

But you can argue with people who are willfully dishonest about those whom they need to justify their hate. This is a prime example. Whether they are open to accepting reality (or, more properly, their ignorance) is something we content with daily.

People say awful shit about groups of people all the fucking time. We don't shoot people over it. Even partially justifying this is tantamount to misunderstanding what has happened, at all.

(not a shot at you at all Mikie; you just happen to be the only post about this subject)

Weird that there's barely any mention of the most high-profile political assassination (though, i understand that's a weak phrase given he was not a politician) on a website which would normally have a lot to say about it.

I wonder if this is because association with the left's response is undesirable. At any rate, it is undesirable.

Now comment's on Mikie's post:

What will happen? Nothing. People will flail, and that’s it. — Mikie

It's already the case that the response has gone beyond this. Whether that is kept up remains to be seen (but i also posit the "nothing" you anticipate is the same 'nothing' we get from any other major political event... it can be applied to everything throughout the Lounge which is vaguely on topic).

world-is-ending tweets will finally be seen for what they are: the usual irrational, short term hysterics that are typical of the snowflake Right. — Mikie

It seems to me perhaps Twitter has gotten the better of you on this? The majority of responses have not been on Twitter, but even had they been (im not on it - i imagine it is rife) they are not 'the world is ending' tweets at all.

This seems to me a very similar bloviation as those who charge Kirk with what they do...racism, homophobia etc.. I didn't agree with Kirk on much but his approach - I have still yet to see anyone present anything (that isn't clipped in bad faith) that might be held up to prove his sins. Which is weird, because I can always find plenty to critique in those clips, even the good faith ones.

We're worse off without him, particularly on the right given literally no one on the left is willing to do the same. Many have taken up the job on the right. The left continues to simply pretend political violence is both inevitable and justifiable (perhaps only in this case, but that's all the most insane).
Ironic, considering a right-winger was shot to death and celebrated by the left. Even more ironic given the response to fucking Sydney Sweeney in a jeans ad was far more 'irrational' and had all hte hallmarks of 'short term hysterics' to the point that it could easily be argued that that response is exactly the type of ridiculous, divorced-from-reality thinking and posting that lead someone to think killing Kirk was justified. The ignorance continues to know no bounds..

I also note no denunciation of the murder. Just a pedastal from which you can bloviate. But, that is relatively expect. The penchant for political violence on the left is ... lets say peaking.

May 21 - Capital Jewish Museum
July 4 - Alvarado ICE facility
Sept 10 - Charlie Kirk
Sept 21 - ABC building
Sept 24 - Dallas ICE Facility
We don't even need to mention the LA bollocks or the numerous plans and plots foiled by law enforcement.
Hortmann I wont list, because its murky. Appearance is right wing, but further investigation indicates they were upset Hortmann voted against a left-wing measure. So, who knows.

Given that, Josh Shapiro's home is the only right-wing political violence we can name for the year conclusively. There's a big problem with these sorts of things though: right wing violence tends to result in more deaths. Left wing violence tends to be (quite a bit) more frequent and accetpable by more on that end of the spectrum. I suppose this concords with being more revolutionary, or whatever. But In a democratic republic, I know who I feel safer talking to.

This is also not to mention the (for practical purposes) endless social media which shows that leftists protesting or simply 'upset' will resort to violence, theft and property destruction at the drop of a hate. Toddler behaviour. Not hard to predict. But sad, nonetheless.

Perhaps I'm not grasping this, but if someone is perceiving "something" then that is "objects" broadly (and in the way i suggest it be used here - I'm not suggesting there are (or that we could know that there are) actual, physical objects beyond the senses). These could simply be that which is required as an assumption for hte perception to obtain. I content roughly that.

The problem as I see is is that objectors are trying to say religious thinking is metaphorical. It is best utilized as such but it is not, in most cases, actually how its utilized. Therefore, these criticisms are totally live.

Technically, no, because the choice was made and we're not able to ever review it in this way.

Theoretically, I think yes. But this involves agreeing that something billions of years ago would have to have happened differently.

:ok:

Again your claim is:

I've asked what suffering. You've not answered.

You receive information from my personal email account (clandestine, we assume). What have I suffered ? I shall short-cut this.

I haven't. Something more is required. Most Western Law even requires harm or damage to be established before a conviction or punishment will be metered out.
— AmadeusD

Which is simply obviously not true, and you obviously know that if I clandestinely hacked all your personal information I would be committing a crime. — boethius

It is though. You need to either answer the question, or stop pretending to have a point.

If you receive the information, and i don't know (you entered this later) what have a i suffered? Nothing. I don't even know it happened. You seem to think magic is occurring here.

This conversation is now over unless you can overturn that conclusion.

"a person may misjudge what one is perceiving, and this does not imply that the person perceives nothing."

Yes. They are perceiving something.

Good. That's all I needed.

No it isn't the end of the discussion. Your own cite's exact words are:

"SRY is an intronless sex-determining gene on the Y chromosome. Mutations in this gene lead to a range of disorders of sex development" — Mijin

Which, as I have quite clearly and distinctly laid out for you - does not have anythign to do with sex determination. Aberration doesn't change your sex. Please read this again: aberration does not change your sex. Now say it with me: aberration does not change your sex.
Either your SRY is active, or it is not. You are either male or female, and there is no in between or "not either" scenario. You could tell me, if there were, i'm sure.

I didn't say you had, I was saying it's the obvious implication of using SRY as the determinator of gender in society. If it's the wrong implication, then please explain why so, and also answer the actual question. Instead of, frankly, using indignation as an excuse. — Mijin

This is pure nonsense. You brought it up. You deal with it. I didn't suggest we do that and no where did I intimate it was reasonable to suggest so. Either work up something which indicates I might want to defend this, or put it down my guy.

I have a feeling you have both read past me, and not quite understood what you have read. Several parts of this response are quite odd..

We agree that, under PC, there is a continuation of "you" if the person at destination is the same as the person at source (was) — Mijin

Not really, no. "is the same as" is up for debate, and has been in this thread. 'success' for me does not require this. It requires only relation R (which is why, in actual fact, I don't think there can be success because personal identity does not obtain - but im trying to stick to your terms). Given that the atoms on Mars are not the atoms on Earth, i cannot grant that this is possible through the experiment we have at hand.

We agree that there are hypothetical situations where, under PC, there is no continuation of you -- e.g. Abraham Lincoln walks out at destination. Or a turtle. — Mijin

I can't quite grasp what you're asking me here. If PC is the theory we're testing, there are ways it can obtain and not obtain. I didn't think tihs was interesting. It was like saying P or not P. Tells us nothing.

If the person at destination has diverged a tiny bit, well, that's still a successful translation, the same as (1) above. — Mijin

To some degree, yes. But again, I don't think PC really can give us a 'successful' translation (as noted above) so its possible I can't answer this adequately. On it's own terms, though, I would say yes. If the idea is that at hte exact moment of the event, 'you1' dies and immediately (instantaneously even) "you2" arises with exactly the same dispositions, desires etc.. then that is as close as we could possibly get on my view, so i call it a success. But strictly speaking, I don't grant it either. Again, I may not be able to adequate engage this point for that reason.

Because, the only thing we can know for sure about PC, from the transporter problem as it is usually phrased, is that an identical copy is a continuation of the self. — Mijin

I don't think this is the case. The problem as it's usually phrase is designed to test your intuitions about what constitutes identity. Not whether one or other of those intuitions can actually withstand the experiment. This is why I ended up on PC, but rejecting identity all together. Zero of my intuitions work here, which leads me to believe no version of "identity" can be found in the experiment at "you2". I can only claim to accept that the PC argument gives us "as good as identity" because I don't think identity can be found even in "you1" in some significant sense. Any given moment might be able to be argued that way, but for the same reason this doesn't work for the transporter, it doesn't work for the original either.

Being identical and then diverging is answered with vanilla PC. Anything else is not. And that's why the distinction matters. — Mijin

I don't thikn either obtain. Perhaps I've already come the same conclusion you have and we've been working backward..

Thanks for this, but I cannot see how this is particularly relevant to the arguments, rather than a good go-over of what was put forward as commentary.

The fact remains, Kant's system *does not work* unless there is an assumption that something causes our sensations. That is all I've claimed, and it is literally required to get the system off the ground. This is not an argument from anything particular. His system quite obviously requires it. Kant knew this - which is why his later work treats the noumenon differently*. Here, we can say that Kant understood noumena to be intelligible, but not knowable. He couldn't have begun his first page without this.

You, and others, are quite right that the focus in the CPR, and one of the two fundamental aspects of the noumena is simply a limiting concept for the human understanding. I've not argued against that, either. *But it is quite clear (to me) that by the time he published the Prolegomena, he almost said outright that these 'objects' must be presupposed:

"And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in itself, though we know not this thing in its internal constitution, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something. The understanding therefore, by assuming appearances, grants the existence of things in themselves also, and so far we may say, that the representation of such things as form the basis of phenomena … is not only admissible, but unavoidable.”

"We must therefore accept an immaterial being, a world of understanding, and a Supreme Being (all mere noumena), because in them only, as things in themselves, reason finds that completion and satisfaction, which it can never hope for in the derivation of appearances from their homogeneous grounds, and because these actually have reference to something distinct from them (and totally heterogeneous), as appearances always presuppose an object in itself, and therefore suggest its existence whether we can know more of it or not.”

There are several others of varying degrees of clarity (and from other works). But in any case, this shows a contrast to how he speaks in the CPR where he's essentially saying we are all necessarily agnostic, despite any other claims, as to noumena. We can't know. But later, he's saying we must pre-suppose them (despite, not being able to know them). This is how a shadow works, so is not conceptually controversial at all. For his moral systems, this is also required (with the same necessity - albeit, one which simply follows from concept-to-built-up-concept). The bolded passages are, for me, quite good enough to essentially say "No, thank you" to the objectors so far here.

I hope this clarifies what I'm talking about. It is an extremely discreet issue which, quite frankly, doesn't need much discussion. For my personal part (which is far more open to discussion) this was obviously to me from the first 30 pages or so of the CPR. There couldn't be anything further to talk about unless these objects are pre-supposed. His inability to admit this was the right thing to do in that book (though, i contend it was left open, not denied so this could be a weaker objection than I'm giving it anyway). His later ability to admit to this was the right thing to do in those circumstances.



I suggest I've responded to anything this underhanded post could be meaning underneath, above. Suffice to say this response shows me some pretty damn bad faith. Would you like me to send you a picture of me holding my copy which has obviously been read-to-death? Good lord.

My argument is that a person may misjudge what one is perceiving, and this does not imply that the person perceives nothing. That was to counter your claim that if a person is not perceiving objects one is perceiving nothing. It may be the case that the person judges oneself to be perceiving objects, but is not perceiving objects, yet still is perceiving. — Metaphysician Undercover

This doesn't touch the claim I've made, so I have to assume i did it clumsily. The above should clarify pretty well. Insofar as this can be treated, you've not adequately understood even what you've jsut said, it seems. Let me try to make that understandable:

"a person may misjudge what one is perceiving, and this does not imply that the person perceives nothing."

Yes. They are perceiving something. Things are objects. That fact we can't know what/which (and similar questions) doesn't change that part of the position. (and, as above, Kant knows this too).

Good. That's all I needed.

does it deserve to lose its young when the wind blows? — Nils Loc

Deserve seems the wrong word. It will. That's all we can say.

who helped you to help yourself in this way? — Nils Loc

My crippling depression, drug addiction and a glimmer of light/insight which came to me while i was bleeding out on a bathroom floor. It's a bit longer of a story than that, but there were no individuals but myself involved. It gets ... cringey... when told in full, so if you want to hear I'd prefer DM.

Why aren't you a meth addict now, half dead in gutter — Nils Loc

I was (heroin, then alcohol, but same-same).

Fear is the slave driver of human kind, it has great utility as motivation, but if it's excessive and unreasonable one can easily be destroyed by it, or rendered stupid. — Nils Loc

Absolutely agree with this.

I can't see this relating to my response much at all.

The preconscious and subconscious are not hte same. The subconscious cannot be made conscious, is hte position of those in the field. That is with whom you should argue that point. The preconscious does what you're describing, as best I can tell.

But, you'll note, none of this butters bread for psychonaughts trying to claim they hav retrieved previously-unknown information.