he’s at least a good guy. — Wayfarer

LOL. oh yep.

Seems to me there is no tension: If the candidates have been assessed on a "set of standards" which literally reflect the will of the people, there are two possible voting outcomes:

1. votes reflect the will of people in regard to those standards (expected); or
2. people vote against their own interest due to things like idol worship and single-issue blinders at voting time.

There is a third(possible) issue: Those standards and the 'will' is an illusion. People are not honest when they want to give an impression of their intentions and 'will'. This one seems to transpire in the world. People answer surveys and polls differently than they actually vote.

Perhaps this means there's a conflict. I don't think so. It just is how voting works. The Electoral college is an issue, but a different one.

I have to say, I can't quite understand what you're actually trying to say.
The concept of gender refers to behaviour and presentation. These are, obviously not 'sexed'. They vary with sex, in most cases. So to me, there's no issue with people claiming whatever gender ID they want whenever they want, along any lines they want. It has to be related to actual gender presentational norms, though (but note: norms. These are not benchmarks, or objectively assessable criteria which leads to...)

The problem, as I see it, is that no one else has to give two squirts of piss about your identity, if it isn't somehow legally understood tout court (i.e sex, ethnicity, religious affiliation etc..) and gender should not be, in any way, a legal concept. It is utterly absurd that there are laws that describe gender as a factor in anything. its so ambiguous as to be essentially unenforceable, other than to assent to screeching children complaining that the world doesn't conform to their wishes.

There's nothing wrong with lamenting the world and your place in it - thinking anyone else needs to do anything about it is a mistake, and in the West, we have (although this seems to have curtailed recently) moved towards policies which enforce some kind of collective assent to people's identities. Ridiculous, and clearly (i.e in action, right now, all around us) a totally failed project.

Sure, but there is no law against lying. — Harry Hindu

This might be unneeded, but there are plenty of laws against lying. They are just context-specific.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/three-virginia-high-school-students-seeking-10m-in-lawsuit-over-principal-s-accusation-of-racist-harassment/ar-AA1GwJLl?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=6849dd2cbebb4d53bbcda000889c872e&ei=8

An oddly on-point example that just came across my headline widget. This could do well in the Myopia of Liberalism thread too..

The example was (roughly, and I've perhaps streamlined it here) that I am in a cab, having told the driver where I'm going and to wake me up when we arrive.

There was then a question about being conscious. I do not think merely being conscious changes anything (just to cover that, quickly). I cannot remember Leon's take, but he wants to say all mental activity is judgement, from what I understand. That's fine - just not a framework I recognise either in practice, or the definitions given.

To be brutally clear: In my example, I may be woken up, get out of the car, have the cabbie drive away - and then start judging things. Relates similarly to the maps thing, but that wasn't the greatest version of the TE.

I think the way we think about sex is inherently gendered; male/female are both sex categories and gender categories, but they are sex categories in part because they were gender categories first. — Dawnstorm

This seems quite clearly wrong, unless what you mean by gender is "immature and potentially misinformed prior concepts of sex" which is what I think actually is the case. If so, then yeah. But I can't see that complicating hte current picture.
Sex is sex.
Gender is gender.
They rarely vary independently, but they do in an incredible minority of cases (exception for rule, i suggest).
I agree with Malcolm that this is not in any way complicated. The only complicating factor is people not liking things about themselves, so refusing to wear empirically accurate labels (which is fair, to some degree - but the activism behind it is pernicious, violent and often terroristic).

Abandoning the male-female binary while researching the trans-issue may be useful; that doesn't imply also abandonding the male-female binary while researching reproduction. — Dawnstorm

I can't quite disagree, but I cannot see an avenue to assent to this. Male and female are categories that are not violated. They are useful inherently. I cannot understand a discussion about "trans" that doesn't include the grounding what you're on the "other side" of. That would be sex, no? Genders aren't inherent so you can't actually be "on the other side" of anything. You're just the gender you are.

But then, that's a direct contradiction as to the theory behind being trans: it is a subversive transition from "your gender" to "your chosen gender" or some similarly opaque and unhelpful line. So here's an example of "weirdo" thinking. People can't bear being scrutinized when they run this argument - and you're a bigot for even asking about it. Irrational crap.

But the trans-issue is not primarily related to reproduction (as a gender issue). — Dawnstorm

Now, that's correct - and socially speaking, the comments i've made above this don't apply. Just be good to people. But when we have males claiming they're going to be getting pregnant, have better vaginas then women, are better women than women and all the rest - you can fuck off, quite frankly. That's delusional, dangerous and insanely misogynistic.

and inconclusive — Dawnstorm

It may be the case that you're reading bollocks (i.e your distrust is well-founded. Almost all philosophical writing on the topic, for instance, is utterly incomprehensible babble, and the science writing is out-right dishonest in most cases). Sex determination is insanely simple - sex differentiation is more complicated, and does not affect which sex an organism is. It relates to only presentational aspects of the organisms body.

middle-of-the-road researches — Dawnstorm

Hard to know - it's not possible to publish this type of thing without some ridiculous fanfare and pushback (Tuvel rears her head). There is no middle of the road, as I see it. Either you think people change sex, or you don't. The thing is that it isn't possible for humans to do so. I think you'd be better placed to read basic biology about sex determination, unrelated to this issue. It answers everything, and everyone ignores it.

without much of an gender identity — Dawnstorm

I would probably agree with this (I have a bit stronger of a gender identity, i'd say). My current lecturer would eat this up. His position is that if we were to abolish gender (insane) cis people (i hate that term, btw. Just people) would lose so much of what they are unaware constitutes their identity with the loss of words like 'man' and 'woman'. Just a side note, realy.

There are also times I got in trouble for being gender insensitive - that is not being able to see myself as a man and thus making (mostly) women uncomfortable with my presence, or something I said — Dawnstorm

My take: this is their problem. It is not for you to police yourself, unless you can ascertain a wrong. It doesn't sound like there was a wrong here, and instead, you have woman around you prone to misreading things along gender lines. Not unreasonable, but not your problem. I deal with this is largely-female spaces too, but not in mixed spaces. I do not alter my behaviour between those contexts. It seems to be informed by some misguided solidarity and empowerment concept. Can of worms.. feel free to ignore, i guess as its not on-point to the thread.

So I do think there are people who are wrong about being women — Dawnstorm

This implies there is an objective standard to being a woman/man. If "adult human female" isn't it, the entire conversation collapses in on itself. Another weirdo type line, imo. Fwiw, "adult human X" is perfectly sufficient, conceptually. I have a hard time siding with an extreme minority which can totally reasonably be characterized as mentally aberrant, on issues that, for the majority, amount to safety issues (i have provided ample evidence for this throughout the thread). Even if this breaks down into half of females being fine with transwomen among them, and half not - the half who aren't take priority imo. Inviting males into female spaces is not something that would be standard, and so requires assent of at least 50% of females on a level that covers the specific area in which is a policy is to be implemented (i.e within a specific sport club, within a specific lets say night life precinct, within a specific campus etc.. etc.. etc..). I do not think large-scale policy can address this issue unless woman means something objectively determinable(I think the UK have done the 'right' thing, regardless of a moral valence there. It is what works for policy-writing).

secondary to them being wrong about being trans. — Dawnstorm

Is it posssible you could elaborate here? I get the intuition i would agree, if I understood.

I'm unsure there's such thing as being 'wrong' about being trans, unless there's an objective metric by which a third party could make that call.

people whose minds are not even fully developed have a tendency to mis-diagnose themselves if ever given the opportunity to do so as opposed to a thorough multi-session exam by a licensed medical professional — Outlander

Medical professionals are incentivized to do this, via "moral righteousness" and potential kickbacks(which have been widely reported - Jack Turban being a ridiculously obvious shilling example).

But, yes, there is a social contagion aspect here. A psychologist friend of mine who is intensely left wing had to come to me, somewhat hat-in-hand saying "no, you were right. They are collecting diagnoses". It is literally 'cool' to be disordered, and that's been the case since I was a teen.

justify beliefs using reason, but we form them based on our affective relationships with the world. — Tom Storm

I think this is the correct framework. What to do with the words is another issue.
Explicit acceptance of X seems to be a fine way to characterize belief. I don't find much here to suggest otherwise. That said, it does seem weird not to mention the pre-and-post cognitive states as directly related to the belief, so definitely more to be said. Very interesting thread.

On the contrary, your input seems like it might be helpful in making progress. — Leontiskos

No.

I know that I could misunderstand the direction and go astray and end up lost and not at my destination. — Fire Ologist

That's not a judgment.

“Is the last step completed yet? Can I move on to the next step? Is where I am driving what is meant by this next step? Is Google still correct of should I switch to Apple Maps? — Fire Ologist

I have already conditioned these out of my example.

So I think you have done the same mis-understanding as Leon has. There is no room for judgment in my examples, unless the definition is highly irregular. I designed them that way to pick up whether Leon wanted "judgement' to mean something other than deliberation. I don't think it does. Leon seems to (but wont quite say that).

This should actually clear up any answers to Leon's last reply too.

I thought I’ve addressed most if not all of the arguments — NOS4A2

It's hard to understand this take - you have been consistently told you have not addressed them. You don't really get to claim the opposite to the people who are giving you these arguments. You've not even touched the neuroscientific basis for words causing action. It flies in the face of your entire premise (empirically) and you have failed in any wya to address why you think several extremely harmful crimes should be fully legal, due to not restricting speech.

THose are two you have not touched in any meaningful way. You may think so - you haven't. Onward...

someone’s speech, which I stated was “harmless and relatively innocuous behavior required to live and survive with others”. — NOS4A2

Those forms of speech are crimes (currently). You are not in touch with the issue, it seems. You are wilfully not answering to these charges... Why you do think those things should be allowable? Lets hope theres more further on..

Your equivalence is utter nonsense. — NOS4A2

This is just you pretending that harmful activities can't be carried out by speech. They can, and I've presented several (which are crimes). You seem to want to ignore this to support a principled approach to something which has empirical import.

So criminalizing speech—any speech—is to sacrifice another's right to live and survive with others.” — NOS4A2

But this is absolute bullshit, isn't it? As it seems you might have to address in your next reply... Onward.

The problem is you’re equivocating between illegal, regulated, and acceptable behavior in a dramatic display of complete casuistry. I say none of it should be criminalized so you repeat the question, moving the goalposts, to where you are now asking if they I think they should be regulated — NOS4A2

I am sorry, but this is perhaps the most awful, dishonest crap you have ever posted on this forum.
You want to - not criminalize harmful speech - but regulate it. Explain yourself, while maintaining an 'absolute' free speech position? You'll note this isn't possible.

Why ask if you can’t handle the answer? — NOS4A2

You're a child, it seems, who cannot have a conversation about their clearly contradictory views. That is not an issue for me. I am handling you with aplomb.

Your final two lines are pure irony. You aren't capable of a rational discussion, and I no longer have time for children pretending to speak to adults.

Fair enough - for full disclosure, I think this is a little underhanded but I appreciate the cordiality nonetheless :) Rare in these discussions.

@Moliere
@Leontiskos

I decided, at the time I commented, to wait for another opportunity. It's all good :) I fucked up and missed out on submitting.

Totally fair. Fwiw, by 'weirdos' I mean people who willingly try to convince others to enjoy their cognitive dissonance and accept clearly contradictory positions (either this, or people who do not think there are reasonable structures to be found in the world whcih we can describe. I find both weird and unhelpful. I avoid both kinds of people whenever I can).

To be even clearer: Most right-wing activists are 'weirdos', as are most TRAs.

No, it isn't. So, I wont expand on that.

The universe is expanding exponentially. You're welcome.

But that simply kicks the can back into a situation we were already in. Without sufficiently defining Sex, there is no disambiguation (but, in reality, we all know the difference, so this is just window dressing and convincing people like Michael to stop fucking around).

There are males and females, based on SRY activation and this is the earliest, most obvious determinant. It is also what is taught to biologists as best I can tell. Other forms of 'sex' are specified where 'the sex of the organism' is an absolute categorical 1 or 0. This also applies to all 'intersex' individuals.

This means that everything in those responses makes sense, and isn't unreasonable. What is unreasonable is to simply defer to 'grey area' instead of figuring out the best uses of words for our purposes. So, disambiguating gender has been done extremely well, by almost everyone but weirdos.
Defining sex is actually just as simple. As is determination. There's no ambiguity, if you use the fundamental, non-ambiguous "classification". The only other one which would make sense is whether or not the organism produces gametes (and which ones) but we see hte flaws there, i assume.

Missed the cut off, but i've got 2800/3000 words down.

Is there another one for later in the year?

If "objective racism" means "espouses/acts on consciously held racist views," then I might estimate this to be true of 50% of US people. — J

That is honestly, in my view, utterly bananas my guy. This makes me think perhaps you have never left your house. Obviously not, but having been around the States and understand how to look at sample sizing etc... this claim is one for which I would want to prevent you from holding office its so absurd. This purely to illustrate how flabbergastingly made-up this appears to someone looking in.

But systemic racism is where the "racist assumptions" really play out, and here it would be difficult to find anyone, myself included, who is immune. — J

Is this one of those "everyone's racist" arguments? Cause if so, this isn't even worthy of discussion. If everyone has it, why are we talking about it like its a bad thing? Its human nature if so.
If that's not the argument, I would suggest you're reading 'lines' and just eating them up. Its hard to even understand what's being brought forward in those sorts of tests. "implicit bias" means almost nothing. Humans discriminate. That's about 99% of our mental activity. There's also a bit of a bugaboo here: Racism against the majority is rife. I do actually care whether that ruffles feathers - it is. Karmelo Anthony is a PERFECT example of some rather extreme black privilege (until he was charged, I should add. It looks to have stopped).

But more generally, the US is constantly finding surrogates for explicitly racist policies, most recently the moves against immigrants. — J

That may be your view, and why you think 50% of the US is racist. I think its utterly preposterous. There is an argument here, though, that I think gets ignored: Non-racist policies carried out by racist people give a certain flavour. I'll say no more than to add that there are plenty of explicitly racist policies: they aren't aimed at black and brown people.

The racist assumption here would be that, somehow or other, there is a racially neutral explanation of this. — J

Your position is that a racially neutral explanation for any racial disparity would be, fundamentally, racist? Are you hearing yourself? Or am I not getting it?

Whichever answer, this doesn't apply to the actual commission of violent crime. What's the 'racist' explanation there? Particularly given its mainly intra-racial?

Why would this disclosure automatically lead to civil war? — schopenhauer1

I said likely. I am open to you re-stating your question.

For example, the Cold War has ended, the public may be more accepting, and there has already been a slow rollout of disclosure over time. — schopenhauer1

This last part flies in the face of the example and what was asked. Well done.

My comment is reasons for the "No". Quite hard to know what you want here, particularly given the mischaracterizations.

Nowhere in that definition is the claim that every mental act counts as a judgment. I noted that you are free to offer a different definition of judgment. — Leontiskos

This absolutely ignores what I've said. You haven't addressed it. I can wait, but its also not entirely needed - your definitions are your definitions. They don't matter much to the discussion. I made a point about your definition which has been glossed over. That's fine. But not my problem.

I think we're circling back to this and the conversation that followe — Leontiskos

I'm going to ignore this section - it is absolutely pointless. I told you my view was otherwise, and explained something from that view point. We disagree about there being a judgement at that precise moment. This is not interesting.

How did you recognize that if not by judging that the Google Maps voice told you that you arrived? — Leontiskos

By recognizing it and making no judgement. If all that happened was a green light lit up on a HUD, all i've done is seen something and exited the car. You'll not get me to say this is a judgement. This is what I wanted to avoid - I thikn your definition sucks, you probably think so about mine.

Do you have an alternative definition? — Leontiskos

I gave you several. I also gave my own. This particular response of yours is uncharacteristically ignorant and uninteresting.

In the Google Maps scenario you must judge that you have arrived — Leontiskos

Nope. We've had that game. Moving on..

you should wake up — Leontiskos

This isn't in any way relevant to judging to go under the knife, which was in question. No sure where this came from. Uncharacteristic.

But both are judgments given the definition I have provided. — Leontiskos

Yep. Its a shit definition, in my view, and I proceeded on that basis. I've been explicitly clear and you're running over dead horses ad infinitum.

When philosophers talk about judgment this is what they are talking about. — Leontiskos

You really, truly need to re-read everything I've said because this aint it chief.

It seems like you are saying that you might get in a crash and regret the crash, and then when someone asks you why you got in a crash, you could reasonably answer, "Oh, I didn't know I wasn't supposed to crash when driving. I make no attempts to avoiding crashing." That seems patently unreasonable, no? — Leontiskos

I do not have the patience to correct this utterly insane take.

It seems pretty straightforward that when carrying out instructions one is engaged in judgments, even if they are subordinated to a proximate end and infused with an intention of trust. — Leontiskos

Ok. Disagreed.

It's logical that improvement is only possible where something is not good enough. — Quk

It's not. The females made wild assumptions (based on what we've been told above). The males did not - if anything, there seems a bit of pronoia going on in the males, but it seems more likely that is what the speakers tone intimated. I also notice the same disparity when speaking with colleagues/subordinates.

For my own tastes it's because of principle. — NOS4A2

I have read the entire response and will make further comments. But I am telling you mate, this is the only reasonable answer you have given. That's fine, but it does absolutely nothing for the arguments you've been presented with, regardless of you either not getting htem, or pretending they aren't there.

I do not think any person nor group of people should have the power to pick and choose what the rest of us can say, write, and think — NOS4A2

Not entirely unreasonable, but doesn't quite get to what I asked you. My assumption (which was founded) being you'll get deeper as you go...

So criminalizing speech—any speech—is to sacrifice another's right to live and survive with others. — NOS4A2

This is equivalent to saying "Preventing crime is violating people's rights to eat fresh Apples from the corner near my house". Utterly preposterous and non sequitur. There is absolutely no connection between criminalizing speech and the (obviously nonsensical, in context) "sacrifice" or "another's" right to "live and survive with others". These are non-arguments.

But worse, the reason's stated as to why a censor might criminalize speech are entirely superstitious. In fact I would argue that the censor's superstitions are the most prevalent, ancient, and at the same time, most disastrous of superstitions of the entirety of human existence. — NOS4A2

You've made this claim. It is ridiculous, on it's face, and empirically unsupportable. You've done nothing to support it, or massage it into appearing more reasonable. There is no argument to contend with here.

They must be figurative because they cannot explain how it actually occurs — NOS4A2

We've already done this for you within this thread. If you do not understand defamation and its follow-ons, you need to just bow the heck out of this before you're left at the gates of an actual conversation.

that symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols — NOS4A2

They literally do. I've explained this in hte response you have quoted from me. Granted I didn't ask you to address that - you have gone and done so, further showing that you:

A. Do no understand the position you're arguing against;
B. You do not understand hte physics of speech and hearing;
C. You do not understand your own point of view adequately to defend it (plenty can. you're floundering).

I would suggest you have a deep, hard, logical think about what you're doing here. We can all see hte problem here. It's not one of opinion. You have no arguments. You have failures of understanding (or, complete lack of knowledge about a relevant field).

So in my view, to choose to censor is to tacitly believe in superstition and sorcery. — NOS4A2

You may want to turn this around - your positions are so abjectly stupid and ignorant of that which you pretend to rail against that you aren't off the ground yet. Sorcery would be required for your positions to obtain, particularly because you are yelling at a ghost (it seems other commenters have already pointed this out to you).

Far better to let the chips fall as they may. — NOS4A2

You have entirely refused to address the issues I put to you.

Tell me why defamation is acceptable? Repudiating contract? Misleading commercial dealings? Politicians lying about their policies? Police lying on their reports? Judges lying about evidence in their command? Perjury? Trademark violations? You truly think these should not be regulated?
If so, you want communism. Plain and simple.

It’s magical thinking to believe I cause you to respond. — NOS4A2

This is so fundamentally wrong, It is extremely hard to know how to approach this to get you off such a hollow point.

If we couldn't respond to you, that would be true. We can, therefore, your speech causes a response. "If but for" your comment, there would be no response. These aren't legal arguments, to be sure - that's something quite different - but all the legal arguments fall under these heads and are discussed at some fair length.

Your point is we chose to respond. Okay. In most cases, yes, that'll be true. But even reading words can literally cause irresistible chemical urges in the brain and these are known mental conditions. They are simply normal mechanisms gone awry. Because speech can cause action. I have provided several sources and we have, collectively, explained this to you plenty of times.

At this stage, your ignorance can be your own. You have failed to make an argument.

Yes, and you really can't overestimate the degree to which the US is plagued by racist and classist assumptions. — J

It seems patently obvious that you can, and that this is the standard driven by media/social media. The vast majority of the US is objectively not racist. Classist? A better argument can be made.

Verbal violence, no destruction. — Lionino

This is nonsense, as far as I'm concerned. What do you think "verbal violence" consists in?

The director Nicholas Winding Refn has made a career trying to use violence as part of his art. But I'm still thinking violence itself just becomes the means to tell something, rather than embodying the art itself. Violence itself becomes an aesthetic, a paint stroke of craft rather than the artwork itself. You cannot have violence as art, but violence is a part of the paintbrush just like love or compassion is not art, but part of the paintbrush. — Christoffer

Bang on, imo.

I have APSD, or psychopathy — Wolfy48

Thank you for the honesty. This does explain a fair bit. I was sociopathic for several years due to trauma, so I may have reasonable responses to such a view. Let's see...

Essentially, economic freedom up to a certain point where the government has to step in to check an individual's power. — Wolfy48

I think this is a grand vision, but It's not practical. I presume (though, my detailed knowledge of economic history is scanty at best) this has been tried on several occasions. I would need to do research I have no interest in to back this up though..

making it possible but normally not worth it to go over the limit — Wolfy48

My take is this would simply incentivize lying and corruption. I do think that's roughly capitalisms largest problem, currently (there are ceilings, even currently, to greed-driven gains - particularly if you're outside government).

The geographical regions will be assigned a council made up of 2 branches. — Wolfy48

I like this concept but runs the same risks as above. Sheep in wolves clothes.

I mean to say that the government should make slander or criticizing the government openly and publicly illegal. — Wolfy48

This seems antithetical to everyone we would want to avoid - that lack of criticism would mean there is no recourse or reflexive mechanism. I understand the point of such a restriction, but the government requires criticism from without to remain functional. If you mean to restrict this type of criticism to academic work, that's another thing - which I would still reject, but have far less issue with.

but it is not recommended as that will severely drop public opinion and support for the government. — Wolfy48

This may be one of the reasons why - your proposed structure bakes-in the ability to make these criticisms. Secret, private rejection of the government would be ridiculous without any ability to publicly state it and find out how many people agree.

You don't need a good reason to go to war with a Nation, you just need to decide whether or not you want to. — Wolfy48

I actually agree with this one. I just cannot imagine anything but invasion that would support such a 'want'. Particularly given you'll need to convinced the military.

What the government can't see, the government can't prepare for or stop in time. — Wolfy48

They also can't interfere, usurp or retain. These are finely balanced, because your point isn't lost. But I think it clearly the case that my point outweighs yours.

One way to assuage the concerns is to use AI to monitor homes and bathrooms (and everything else), and only bring the recordings to human eyes if it flags something dangerous — Wolfy48

That wouldn't solve it until we have self-generating, independently intelligent AI which does not require human input. At that point, you're fucked anyway so a bit redundant.

Your legislation section is insufficiently clear or specific for me to say a lot. I would say the basic premise of "big tings, top shelf, small things, lower shelf/ves" is a good one. Roughly, that's what happens. I just take it you want less on the top shelf. Fair.

I recommend a system where repeat offenders are exiled or executed, while 1 or 2-time offenders will be allowed to stay. — Wolfy48

Offenders against what laws? Murder? Child rape? Ok. I'd still sit short of execution, but okay. Petty theft? Can't quite see where you're going on that one...

As for punishments themselves, that is again up to the discretion of the ruling government. — Wolfy48

The punishment will be decided by the jury — Wolfy48

I thnk its possible you need to think a bit longer about most of these ideas. Maybe run some of this through an AI looking for contradictions or logical inconsistency.

Volunteer militaries tend to have higher morale and better fighting spirit, so I recommend not drafting anyone unless your state is in terminal danger or you're completely failing the propaganda game. — Wolfy48

This is very good. I think the precursors impractical though.

so there is no reason for not letting someone in — Wolfy48

There's a little too much to unpack here, but this is plainly, obviously, patently, comically untrue. Your internal security cannot deal with a dishonest actor prima facie. Inviting corruption isn't a good idea, which this system would do. It would also attract the unproductive and culturally isolated. Not good for cohesion or productivity.

sometimes it is necessary to source resources from another power. — Wolfy48

Sometimes is key. This means your conclusions aren't following your reasoning. I'll say no more, but that I disagree with this entire section.

Basic life needs, such as water, shelter, food, electricity, and healthcare should be subsidized by the state, though it should be the bare minimum, as to keep the poorer folk healthy while also being uncomfortable, driving them to work harder and gain more benefits and comfort. — Wolfy48

This seems the case in semi-socialized nations like the Commonwealth nations. It seems to work, but there is definitely a issue with the bolded - this does not seem to motivate people to do better. On it's face, I intuitively really like this position, though. I do not think your assumptions follow from your premises though - I don't think this will cause people to work for more comfort. People just get comfortable with less.

The government will not pay an individual to not work, — Wolfy48

For the old, you are paying them a stipend for having worked for, say, 50 years.

The first option is to find someone else who is capable of contributing to help them, most likely family, friends, or charity. The second option is to kick them out of the country. — Wolfy48

I think this is incredibly naiive. The first puts a burden on the society which, on your conception, seems would render it dysfunctional. It would disincentivize anyone around the disabled to do anything but care for their loved ones who cannot be productive - therefore, further reducing productivity. The second option - you're right, it's immoral. But there's also a question of how you could enforce that, if not an island nation. However, if we're talking about babies I have slightly more sympathy. I still couldn't condone it.

a stable and infallible government — Wolfy48

I think you have failed to outline this, by quite some margin to put it mildly.

My goal would be to equalize and unite all of the cultures of the world — Wolfy48

Why?

I would seek to eliminate them — Wolfy48

I think you would run hard, face first, into reality. Gender roles, for instance, are inherent. They are not something we 'made up'. They are malleable, to be sure, but they are not reducible to 'ideas' we can just change.

the harsh hand of nature, which I seek to remove from humanities affairs — Wolfy48

This may be the delusional aspect leading to some of the earlier issues. This is not possible. We are natural, and that is the only environment we can access.

I have no qualms about using lies or propaganda to influence the masses, just as I have no qualms about killing a few to ensure the good of the whole — Wolfy48

Then you have doomed yourself to be ousted by revolution. So be it.

I will not — Wolfy48

The chances of this are closer to zero than one.

antagonistic to my goals, I will allow things I do not agree with, so long as they do not hinderhumanity's growth — Wolfy48

Contradictory.

It is designed to be a flexible, unbreakable, strong government that can enforce any ideals — Wolfy48

Why? What makes this even a fundamentally good thing to pursue, in the absence of those other goals?

I believe that there are not many — Wolfy48

There are massive, massive flaws in this system at every level I can grok. And I'm pretty shit at this type of analysis. I do think a lot of it is that you've gotten ahead of yourself, and not compared section A to section X to check for consistency. The other issue is your incredibly sanguine assumptions about human behaviour - I think you are referring to automatons in your system - if not, you have not account for 90% of what will matter: humans behaving like humans.

it's sole purpose is to convey my ideas in the simplest way possible — Wolfy48

You have done this well.

They simply need to be true. — Wolfy48

This is not something open to type of the things you are saying, so I don't think you could get off the ground. I also think it is somewhat incoherent. Take that as you will.

Still, at the end of your journey you still have to judge that the app or cab driver is telling you that you have arrived (even though you are trusting them at the same time) — Leontiskos

This flows back to whether or not you require every mental action to be a judgement. I do not - so, on my view this is a recognition only. I have simply taken what I've been told "We're here!" and run with it. I've not assessed it in any way (other than to pick up which words were aimed at me... is that hte judgement you mean? That's what Im calling recognition, to be clear).

A case where no subordinated judgment occurs would be when you go under general anesthesia for surgery, simply trusting that you will wake up on the other side. — Leontiskos

This is analogous: I judged my condition, the surgeon and medical advice, and the prognosis to go under the knife (or, anaethesia as you note). In the former, I could literally be unconscious, and be schluffed out of the car, and I'd still be wherever I actually was, regardless of whether it was 'correct'. Is it just that I am conscious you're wanting to hang something on, in that example?

If we want watertight reasoning then we must abandon vague definitions. — Leontiskos

I don't quite think this is available to us, so I'm happy with that. Although, I think the problem is actually that people have different ideas of what's captured by the concept (even on the definitions given by x or y source).

generally always trying not to crash when you are driving somewhere. — Leontiskos

Correct. But I've designed a scenario where I am not engaged in the prior activity, in terms of judgement. I can judge that hte crash fucking sucked, but I made no attempts to divert, or incur a crash.

That the computer is causally influencing you to look at it, to read, to type, to understand what you’re typing? — NOS4A2

Not necessarily the computer, but yes. The external world triggers processes within the body (given adequate proximity). One example, Michael is explaining (hearing). But this 'effect' extends to behaviour, rather than simply apprehending a noise, as such. Noises cause things in our brains to happen. Speech is a noise. I do not seen it as different to any other noises, in respect of its potential effect. Granted, I understand that this is hard to grok because not only is it intangible, even where it can be demonstrated it's somewhat esoteric, but is simply is the case given human biology and psychology.

In any case, I am more interested in your defense of not making things like contractual lies, slander/defamation, trademark violation, perjury etc... illegal rather than 'private speech' as it were (bad wording, but hopefully says what I want). Is there something for you to say here? Why would we want to allow the chips to fall where they may in these areas?

Hmm. I think some of the responses sort of miss the point I'm getting from this TE.

if these things are the case (person on the trolley track, brain in vat etc...) the reason doesn't seem to matter to the question at hand. The teletransporter is a great example. The context is irrelevant - is it you on the other side?

The trolley problem - the person is innocent. We know they are. Would you kill them to save five? That's all it asks.

In the present thread, we have sufficient information to answer the specific question, I think. The 'powers that be' are as-described. So I can attempt an answer without what I see as prevarication in much of the above responses: No, an all-at-once revelation would be disastrous. The fear, loss of frame and cosmic uncertainty would likely lead to intra-human civil wars along lines like "That's our God" or "You caused this" and what not..

That said, It seems to fly in the face of the reasons given for the initial preclusion. So, I think its incoherent that this would happen anyway. They wanted to avoid ontological shock... why would that suddenly not be the case?

Get rid of all religion, I guarantee you, harm by humans skyrockets. — Fire Ologist

Immediately? Yep. That's an utterly ridiculous response though. And you know it.

further social engineering is required. — substantivalism

required? That's .... not a good position.

most bodies want gay and black people to be classified as biologically, or at least socially or morally, atypical not to mention inferior — T Clark

This seems patently untrue... Struck me as fully bizarre and almost made-up.

Otherwise, I agree with that comment entirely.

Might have been simpler if folk just butted out of other people's business, don't you think? — Banno

They don't. So we don't. Quite literally, in a physical sense. That, perhaps, you've not seen or experienced this is no argument.

This thread is no longer interesting.

Edit: Ah, just saw that substativisms thread was merged here. I'll take another look.

One difference is that human computation involves judgment whereas machine computation does not. — Leontiskos

Yes, nice. So far, so good.

But I think the act of recognition involves judgment too. "This is 22nd street," or, "This is not 22nd street," are both acts of recognition and also judgments. — Leontiskos

In this case, it seems one of my later comments will come in handy.. Let's see...

Good, and this is perhaps one of the more foundational places where we may be disagreeing — Leontiskos

b-b-b-b-bingo. Nice. Always good to find the niggle.

In either case it would seem that you must decide whether you have arrived at the destination, no? — Leontiskos

No. I decided to trust the app. It tells me - I obey the relayed information. Note that I could be in Guam. But i judged the app to get me to wherever you live.

To decide to obey (Google Maps) is a judgment. — Leontiskos

Yep, as above. That I have arrived is no longer up to me. I don't have the ability to judge it otherwise on the assumption I will hold to the jdugement about Google maps.

I think auditory directions involve judgment just as visual directions involve judgment. — Leontiskos

Yes, I can see why too. But I think jdugement should be a little more circumscribed to capture how it is used.

To decide when to turn your steering wheel with your eyes closed in relation to the instructions you are hearing is a judgment — Leontiskos

Nah, that's input-> output in this scenario. If I crash, I crash.

You are uncharacteristically missing the point in a way that feels like it must be on purpose:

Religious fervour is the chief cause of global harm.
Humans carry out the religious fevour.

Thus, removing the religious fervour reduces the harm for which humans are culpable. It's irrelevant because "Not all men, but always men" is a totally reasonable refrain. Not all religions/religious people - but always fucking religion.

As if those previous class based reasons didn't still matter as to the judgement in enacting whatever we were going to do policy wise. — substantivalism

From what I can glean here, I would say that those reasons can't be instantiated in law. They are social conditions. The entire point of policy is to be as neutral as possible. Whether you're in poverty or not, don't fucking kill people.

Then sky is the limit then. — substantivalism

Not sure what you're getting at - but yeah, policies should do their best to reduce harm to zero as balanced against rights to Freedom (which is an entirely different discussion. These are just formal observations, not details).

Then we should be fine to state it loud and proud no skirting around it. Agreed. — substantivalism

I still, as I intimated by asking for clarification, don't know what you're getting at or whether this is sarcastic even.

Yes, except — substantivalism

There is no 'except' in that further comment. I agree, it's something that needs discussing (and is regularly discussed ad infinitum (good!)). But the policies around bathrooms and policies around in-home reduction of harm do not meet. The public sphere is a totally different beast, policy-wise and day-to-day interaction-wise (lmao... fuck that phrase).

I can't quite grasp the overall nature of hte rest of your post. I'll try make some comments..

That leaves stronger segregation practices, exclusive spaces, and social outreach. — substantivalism

Stronger than...? They have been strict across most of history. Only recently has that back-slid to a point we may need to implement more. It's the over-relaxing of those segregative policies that has caused the issues. Harm abounds - but those relaxations have increased as against "traditional" policy (notice that this doesn't touch the in-home abuse which is obviously rife. It's a different beast).

The more its left alone to its own devices the more such and such statistics remain as they were. — substantivalism

That doesn't seem true, but I have not a lot else to add.

Personally I wouldn't ever commit myself to such 'strong-handed' approaches — substantivalism

Let me in on a couple-a things:

1. What, in your own words, is the exact problem that is in question?; and
2. What, in your own words, is the exact solution to it? (this one i realise probably wont be exact - I just want to avoid prevarication).

There are lots of traditional religious groups (not open to updating) which nevertheless do not engage in the sorts of things you pointed to. — Leontiskos

The majority do. And in any case, they are the ones we are worried about - and so condemn. That some people can wield a knife while in a schizophrenic rage and not try to murder anyone doesn't mean we shouldn't be on guard for schizophrenics with knives in a rage.

the West's compassionate attitude towards out-groups comes precisely from Judaism and Christianity. — Leontiskos

This is wholly irrelevant. Religion/religious fervour is the chief source of global harm.

I think when the restriction is "the ones unopen to update" its not a tough one. But in any case, its a formal claim, not an empirical one.
Beliefs, more than other forms of cognition, drive behaviour. If your beliefs are religiously-derived, they are, without some rather spectacular intercession, inarguable. That isn't a safe situation when most religions instill beliefs about out-groups.

They do have consequences. What you choose to do and not to do. — substantivalism

Your thread/questions are about policy.

The question is one of how much percentage in inter-group conflict are you willing to stomach before you go in and manually separate them out. — substantivalism

Zero, if deaths or grievous harm are involved (or, more properly 1 - instance, per-cent, whatever you like. 1 is enough).

Whether we enforce it vocally and explicitly? — substantivalism

Plenty of groups do this. Can you clarify the question?

In fact, getting rid of them would seem more amenable besides just adding new exclusive woman's spaces. — substantivalism

Fwiw, my solution is "neutral" and "female". Sounds like it's not far off something you'd be ok with?

Those are merely the ones nationally reported. — substantivalism

This response makes my point with much more vigour than I put into it. Was that the intent?

It was. Your response tells us all we need. All good.

. . . and? Are we supposed to ignore the decrease in certain social roles with complete ambivalence? — substantivalism

I'm not entirely sure what the question is - what decrease are you talking about? In any case, 'roles' are not what policy aims to talk about. The 'roles' we play are identities and generally not subject to policy. The harms that might result tend to be. Which doesn't butter much bread for you, I can see, but it at least separates the two questions about "what's happening with identity and gender roles" and then what's going on with sex, and how this does not change.

if they are inherently unequal and distinct what exactly is meant to motivate us to have laws/policies/social policing that is intended to be neutral on those aspects? — substantivalism

.......please, PLEASE do not be this obtuse. The harm. The fucking HARM from the inequity.

I took that to be a bit of hyperbole, but in many cases, yes. The point of hte murder is to pay homage to the prophet as he commanded spread of the word by the sword - so not a sacrifice in Greek terms, still a sacrifice nonetheless. In any case, that it is a 'sacrifice' doesn't seem all that relevant. These are violent crimes/murders/rapes stemming from religious doctrine.
October 7 rears its head...

o strranger in the midst of an Abrahamic community need worry about their kinfolk being burned to the gods — Hanover

No stranger? That is clearly untrue: https://www.barnabasaid.org/nz/news/at-least-89-christians-killed-by-islamists-in-north-eastern-d-r-congo/
https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/nigeria-s-silent-slaughter-62-000-christians-murdered-since-2000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_by_the_Islamic_State
https://www.assistnews.net/hundreds-of-churches-burned-in-europe/

It is the religion that causes the situation. It's not ancillary to it. Even in Western countries it seems we'd want to be cautious. In the UK, it appears the majority of violent crime is carried out by Muslim populations (though, finding direct statistics is hard because search engines prefer to show hate crimes against Muslims despite the disparity.

Religious doesn't make one bad, but it makes one do bad, by most lights. At least, the ones unopen to update.

Yes, barely. Not in a way that I am even sure she would recognise me now.

Though, I have interacted with her plenty over the internet (well, prior to about June 2023) and she might recognise my profiles in that capacity but I doubt it.