Nevertheless, to say, "I don't believe in morality because I don't believe in categorical/exceptionless norms," is not right, given that morality is not reducible to categorical/exceptionless norms. — Leontiskos

Very fair, but that isn't my position. My position is that "wrong" and "right" are ambiguous, amorphous and probably indefinable terms which create a problem for morality to do what it purports to do. Your concept is askance from this, but it seems tp want the same security people find in :

takes themselves to be doing and seeking things that are right and not wrong, good and not bad — Leontiskos

you could say that what ought to be done is the right thing to do — Leontiskos

You could and I assume that's the transition your system wants to make. But that is not the way 'right' tends to be used, so I think a theory which violates the normal use of these words can't be helpful. Perhaps that's where my back is up.. I can't relate to it, at all, despite it being relatively sound in form. It doens't speak to me about right and wrong, and therefore doesn't seem to be a moral system. It's a system for making decisions based on data towards what can, in most instances, be considered arbitrary ends. I know you feel that a collective agreement shifts that. I do not, so impasse there for sure .

This is why I quoted her about it. — fdrake

Yep but that flies in the face of both the empirical evidence, and the work in that paper. You should read it throroughly (I have, but its been some time). The Dutch Protocol and surrounding work is also an interesting tidbit in this area..

There is a world of difference between

1 ) Talking about trans women's rates of sex offence using data.
2 ) Construing trans women as latent rapists on the basis of their {alleged} manhood. — fdrake

Yes, but they are approaching two different aspects of justification: On the one hand, here's the actual data (this is something, as a Male, i feel required to provide in lieu of talking for females) - on the other, there is hte fact that males, in aggregate cause almost the entirety of social harm to females. So, lets not allow males into intimate, close-quarter spaces particularly where nudity is required in several respects... I think both are totally legitimate, if different types of justification which I fully accept.

the latter can suck a bag of dicks — fdrake

This reads as "Females concerned for their safety based on millennia of data, and their collective lived experiences can suck a bag of dicks"

I assume that's not your intention, based the previous exchange around the same thing - but I find it very, very hard to see a justification for dismissing female concerns based on millennia of data and lived experience as anything but "I don't take it seriously" or some such.. Could you be a bit more specific about what's wrong with that? I don't think a male has any standing to make such dismissals..

excluding people from spaces because of personal discomfort, or feelings of unsafety, can also work as a vector of discrimination. — fdrake

Because they are male. Nothing else. One need not be uncomfortable with males in their spaces to know that the propensity for violence and sexual assault comes with the males, regardless. Males are almost entirely beholden to this underlying potential for force in most situations (albeit, it becomes subconscious after a time). Why would females, the literally weaker sex, not need specific protection from same? I agree it can work as a vector for discrimination. Discrimination is not bad. Arbitrary discrimination is. We discriminate constantly.

in which everyone thinks everyone else is a reactionary blowhard centralising a clear cut issue which we should've stopped speaking about ages ago — fdrake

Cannot argue with this... My epxerience just says one side is vitriolic, tends toward violence and protects criminals and the other doesn't (in this one specific context). Conceptual example being that pro-trans protesting and agitation tends toward chaos and violence, from what I've seen. The anti(lets say) crowd doesn't, until confronted by the former. The former also seeks confrontation (at events, lectures, clubs etc..) and seeks to violate the rights of those with whom they disagree. This is why the ruling is helpful (these are not supposed to be arguments just reports).

If women are horrible to each other it's fair game, but if one {alleged} man is horrible to them it's a cause for uproar. — fdrake

Convert this to sports:

If a female boxed breaks the jaw of a female boxer, alright, that's part of the 'waiver' aspect of getting into the ring.
If a male does it (on the proviso they are competing in a female category), none of that applies to the female whos jaw was broken and I defy anyone with a shred of decency to pretend that is fair game.

The exact same logic applies to sexual assault. If you're in prison with females, and you're female, that comes with the territory (as a risk, anyway). Being raped by a male does not.

I can only return to the point that I do not see what you see in the protests of that side of the argument. If i did, I would definitely agree with you. I acknowledge a small, loud pocket of them do this - but then a small, loud pocket of trans women literally thikn they are better than biological women (superior beings, better women, whatever) and represent "womanhood" more than biological women, and suffer more htan biological women for being women. Utter nonsense, so I get the concern there in the reverse position.

I often see this as well-poisoning by association. I don't paint all TRAs in the light of terfisaslur. But they exist and are worth mentioning.

So was the quoted passage from yourself :)

You might look for information before making another argument. — Athena

I don't think this can be said of your list of people. — Athena

It wasn't. It wasn't intimated. I said something completely different.

You completely and utterly ignored literally everything relevant to my argument and started ranting about a load of other shit. I repeat:

All of the names I added result in the exact same claims from their followers. Meaning, "trump and hitler" are not unique, and it has nothing to do with their actual views. EVERYONE gets that from their idols being attacked. Your point is entirely hollow for this reason. It's just spitting in the wind. — AmadeusD

This stands. If you didn't grasp it (self-admittedly) why the heck did you bother blathering further? LMAOOOO.

A healthy body of law and regulation depends on moral realism, and in a culture where moral realism is waning the body of law becomes unhealthy. — Leontiskos

Not so, and there's no good evidence for it.

In other words, he causes himself to commit the action. — NOS4A2

Then you're simply ignoring the other half, given your objection below this is entirely hollow.

completely removing the autonomy of the listener — NOS4A2

That is, roughly, the point. We do this with mentally incapacitated people. What's the difference in your eyes?

Do the words swirl around in the head and push a bunch of buttons in the brain? — NOS4A2

All stimuli do. Words are stimuli. This is obvious biological fact.

The only cause and source of beliefs and emotions is the one who holds them. — NOS4A2

Then I guess you can just choose to never be angry, upset, pining or any other uncomfortable emotion then. Nice.

You haven't justified it. — flannel jesus

Your responses tell me you're not engaging with the arguments. I've laid them our clearly. If you;'re not convinced. So be it.

You can't judge the quality of a morality based on how conformist or not conformist it is. — flannel jesus

I didn't. I addressed this directly. I'm simply giving this as an example of why the first response. This isn't going to be helpful for either of us...

Can you show me what the source you have for being "four times more likely" is? — fdrake

It's the UK prison stats. This isn't as good, but another source

Trans women:

Total Pop: 48,000 est.
In prison: 0.27%
For sex crime: 0.16%

Non trans males:

Total Pop: 32,900,000 est.
In prison: 68,548 =0.21%
For sex crime: 12,611 =0.04%

% of Prison pop: 18.4%

NB: unfortunately, this is something I had in a draft email. my work serve wont let me open the link to add the raw numbers for trans women. Sorry, as that's absolutely fucking crucial LOL. I take it you can look at those numbers and verify though.

I should also note, looking at this, I calibrate a full 50% for sex crimes which are to do with SW and the like. It is still then 100% higher among trans women.

It wasn't intended that way. — fdrake

Yeah, i definitely assumed not, to be clear.

if all that matters were odds, women who are sex offenders against women should also be excluded from women's prisons — fdrake

No. The odds are ever in the females favour for sexual assault. This is true in and out of prison. This doesn't ignore your point. If women are already being assaulted by females then absolutely fuck no to introducing males who are more likely to assault, and are more likely to cause lasting damage or to kill. These are not controversial facets of male-ness. You are not wrong, but you are not concluding something reasonable, imo.

"no, in fact there was no evidence in the paper that trans women are uniquely risky" — fdrake

Because that isn't the fucking claim. They are at least as risky as non-trans men which the Swedish paper clearly shows, in no uncertain terms. I have relied on other sources for the unique risk transwomen present.

This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality.

Have you read the paper? This is patently untrue and clear attempt to avoid the vitriol of trans activists who routinely harass and attempt to 'cancel' anyone saying anything they don't like in the lit
Another (damningly, the school was pinged for more than half a million pounds for not protecting Kathleen.
Another which went the same way.

There is a very, very good reason to do what those authors did. It doesn't change what's in the paper, and it doesn't change the very real fact that male are at a higher propensity for violence, including sexual violence. I'm not sure how much Twitter you've seen either, but www.terfisaslur.com is a nice little capsule of what goes on there, and routinely.

Given that plenty of trans figures (Blaire White, Debbie Hayton, Buck Angel, Brandy Nitt and a few others, at the least given this is off-top) agree with what I'm saying, and think the position put forward on the other side is the specific reason the trans community faces backlash that might otherwise be considered unreasonable (i exclude here actual bigotry, on my own terms). I don't know that that's true, but if the community itself, in some significant proportion notices this (my personal trans friends do, also) then it cannot be hte case that this is some inarguable situation where we have to just do as were told (which is the postion).
I don't have to call anyone anything they demand of me. Simple. It might be 'decent'. but its not required and there should never be policies to that effect.
Similarly, there should never, ever be policies which allow males to override the wishes of females.

that — fdrake

I have to assume this applies to the second potential statement there, about saying 'fuck no'.

They're saying it because they are male. Nothing else. They do not need to justify that further.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're getting at here. Trans people, for hte most part, do not pass. This is largely because humans are 99% accurate at predicted sex from facial features alone. Trans people wanting to pass (if not unusually trans in their phenotype already) is an unfortunately cruel aspiration. Similar to actually changing sex. Just, isn't gonna happen basically (though, i note exceptions to the first whereas the second admits of zero).

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/04/30/uks-only-transgender-judge-plans-to-take-government-to-echr-over-biological-sex-ruling Have just seen this.

"This makes life impossible for people like me" is perhaps the most self-demeaning, and self-defeating statement i've heard from a trans person.

No, it isn't. Something can be good and one ought not do it largely because there is absolutely no reason to think 'ought' holds any water whatsoever without a stated goal but also ecause the term 'good' is extremely ambiguous. If your use of that word leads to that conception, fine.

I don't know what you mean by 'right' and 'wrong' — Leontiskos

No one does. That's my entire point lol.

Okay, but you've defined morality as — Leontiskos

Again, not really. This is a widely accepted conception of morality. It is what people talk about when discussing morality. Given the first reply above this one, it seems pretty clear that either morality doesn't exist or you and I are trying to talk about something else, in some sense. So, I find it quite hard to discuss on the basis of well, I conceive Morality as X (you are still talking about morality, despite the claim to have dropped it... there would be no discussion here if you weren't) and that is something other than "right" and "wrong". If you wish to change the concept of morality to be more logically acceptable, sure, that's fine, and I have no real argument against that position - but my experiences tell me you are simply wrong about how these types o utterances affect people.

According to what dictionary? — Leontiskos

Oxford Languages, Cambridge and several AI models.

This seems to get close to what you're wanting to do here, but i still note phrases like this:

"obligatory concerns with others’ welfare, rights, fairness, and justice, as well as the reasoning, judgment, emotions, and actions that spring from those concerns."

These will never be universalizable. So I think you cannot have your cake (about psychological morality, as it were) and still think it can be universalizable or unassailable. If we're both essentially saying that this is the case, we're good. I can't quite grasp where your commitment is in terms of the applicability of your system - seems you want it to apply to everyone, without fail and not susceptible to empirical considerations.

That's your definition, not mine — Leontiskos

Again, no, it's not, really. This is what the sum total of my experience of moral discourse (and several courses) has taught me. For me, 'morality' functions as something else precisely because I think this conception is fatally flawed (as noted earlier):

How can it be "right" or "wrong" particularly when you cannot(or don't, i'm unsure) sufficiently define those terms? I fully agree that ambiguity of those terms is a problem - in fact, I think it's fatal. — AmadeusD

I couldn't possibly hold a view i've noted has a fatal flaw, could I?

you want me to decide whether my conclusions pertain to your definition of "morality." — Leontiskos

Nope. I am simply pointing out that your conception is not at all what people consider when they speak about morality. For this reason, I find it completely inapt to be held under that label as something intended to be interpersonal.

I would suggest that you read the OP where I explain what a non-hypothetical ought-judgment is, and then try to figure out if it relates to your own concept of morality — Leontiskos

I've done this. It doesn't. I've been at rather extreme pains to point out why I think that conception is both functionally a bit silly, and not what you claim it to be. Being wrong, on my part, wouldn't mean I haven't given those answers.

I make no use at all of the words "right" and "wrong" in that OP — Leontiskos

Which is why the above. I have been insufficiently clear that this was a motivator, but I found it to be pretty obvious in our exchanges, that I am lambasting your jettison of those terms, and then further lambasting your use of NHO as some kind of "universal" replacement whcih I thnk it is not.

I myself don't see why any of the three words are necessary at all — Leontiskos

Because this is precisely what people mean when they speak about morality. "That's immoral!" means "that's wrong" or bad. And that's clearly an emotional plea. That's another conversation though..

he problem with this would be that I still don't know what you mean by "right" and "wrong", and I can't imagine why an argument would be required to include the five-letter tokens r-i-g-h-t and w-r-o-n-g. — Leontiskos

I'll reverse this section, because it is extremely important to notice that these words are required if you want to talk about morality about actions. That is literally what morality is - the discussion of right and wrong actions. Even your take imports that to ignore a NHO would be 'wrong'. You don't use that word, but without it you have no basis to claim any kind of coherence between the theory and actual actions. We can simply kill ourselves, and there's no valence to it.
I agree with the problem in terms - but those terms, being so ambiguous, are a fatal flaw in there being a stable concept of morality beyond this (which anyone with half a brain can understand the intent of, even without decent definitions. We all conceive those words clearly for ourselves). If you are trying to entirely overhaul the concept of morality to fit something people do not usually talk about under that head, so be it. Its just not in any way convincing to me and doesn't seem to pertain to anything one would normally consider moral. Not sure why you're trying to avoid that word, though. It is hte basis of what we're discussing after all..

<Morality requires X; Your argument omits X; Therefore your argument does not pertain to morality> — Leontiskos

It requires a concept of right and wrong. Yours doesn't even attempt one, other than a potentially hidden 'right' in following what you deduce to be an 'ought'. But that is tautological.

You’re incapable of showing cause and effect, — NOS4A2

Mate, this is so bizarre.

There is a legal doctrine known as "If but for". This means that "if but for X, Y would not have happened". This applies to behaviours. "If but for your father's advice to beat the intruder to death with a candlestick, he would still be alive. Your culpability is therefore reduced" is one way this washes out.

If someone tells you there is a good reason to believe your wife is cheating on you, and you investigate - thus causing some other outcome negative to her (perhaps inadvertently running her off the road when you were under the impression its the other man's car), you were acting in good faith on the bad faith say-so of another. That is incitement. Actions which are rational in the face of certain advice are less culpable than those which are not rational. There are entire literatures on this..

Can you make it explicitly clear why you think this does not obtain?

P.S You'll love this passage, i'm sure:

Perhaps the causal connection from inciter to incitees shouldn’t be thought of as direct, having
only one link as it were: strong or weak. We might try to envision incitement as requiring a
complex causal connection with several steps. First, the inciter utters language intended to
cause certain beliefs and emotions in the incitees. (The inciter might but need not hold these
beliefs or experience these emotions.) Next, once the incitees accepts the beliefs and
experiences the emotions, this mental state causes the incitees to commit wrongful actions.
The recent example that seems to fit this model is that of former President Trump’s
impeachment for inciting the crime of insurrection. Trump addressed his supporters and
convinced them that his loss of the 2020 Presidential Election was actually a case of theft; his
audience accepted the belief that a Second Term Presidency was stolen from Trump. Trump
then used language intended to cause anger in his listeners that the election was stolen from
someone (Trump) they supported. Once their mental state was sufficiently strong, it caused his
listeners to act criminally: they violently attacked the Capitol Building trying to stop the Senate
process for officially making Biden US President

Okay, but it's an important issue. If we don't mean the same thing by 'morality' then we will be talking past each other. — Leontiskos

Yeah, definitely. I think we have been to some degree. Initially it was grating, but now I see it clearly, it's interesting and revealing :)

until it is further clarified. — Leontiskos

That's fair. And I think if that clarification were universalizable, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
But my conception is a generally accepted take, not just mine (it is hte first dictionary definition, and what Google's AI throws out)

That said:

"There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition of morality will be applicable to all moral discussions, even within philosophy."

Two forms are given. We may be speaking about two distinct uses of the same word. Mine is definitely descriptive. I use "morality" to describe the systems by which groups co-operate. It is observational, and not "moral" in the normative sense. It just is what people do to get on with each other. No need for any kind of objective or actual value. Just agreed behavioural norms and boundaries (though, obviously, at some point htis will boil down to values. The problem is there are no homogeneous societies** of that kind other than cults).

"descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct endorsed by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior

whereas I think you may be using a proscriptive/normative form:

"normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be endorsed by all rational people."

I suppose at base, **I don't think version 2 obtains in the real world - we just talk about hypothetical imperatives of that kind. Kant wakes from his slumber...

5c is really my primary conclusion. — Leontiskos

I understand. I even (to some degree) agree. I just don't think this butters your bread, I guess. Fwiw, I wrote this before reading the following "option" table. So, there we go LOL.

Perhaps I need more reasoning to justify 5c; perhaps I need more reasoning beyond 5c to reach a substantial conclusion — Leontiskos

I think either could be true, but I see a much bigger problem. On what basis are you justifying that conclusion as a moral one? How can it be "right" or "wrong" particularly when you cannot(or don't, i'm unsure) sufficiently define those terms? I fully agree that ambiguity of those terms is a problem - in fact, I think it's fatal.

It's an uncomfortable reversal of a norm. We wouldn't expect people to call white people Black because they want to be Black (actually, a better example is the N word. Something I was routinely called in an ingratiating way when I was a battle rapper). I am not, and could not ,be an N word, even if that group wants me to be one. All i can do (and did) is get a 'pass'. There is no violation, just an exception.

Providing exceptions is far less uncomfortable, and far less controversial. I think. But your general premise is spot on.

no — Vera Mont

It is. See?

The drug trade doesn't consist of migrants who just want a better life for their kids. They were not expecting the cages. — Vera Mont

This is almost zero to do with what I've said. Could you maybe address it? The drug trade across the border is not controversial. Nor (this was the ball I hid) is stemming it, by whatever means).
As to "migrants", you're being disingenuous. "Illegal migrants" is the correct term. They are criminals, no matter how we may feel for them. They broke an extremely important law regarding national sovereignty. A very good example of this type of disingenuousness is hte 'wrongly deported" https://nypost.com/2025/04/29/us-news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-accused-of-being-gang-banger-in-2018-court-docs/ he and his wife were purported gang members, and he appears to have a history of domestic violence. Given he was here illegally, what's the issue there, other than weepy nonsense designed to do nothin gbut make one feel virtuous in the face of contrary evidence?

What's the problem, fundamentally? We can discuss cages later... and lay them at Obama's feet.

In abstracto it is true that one ought to do that which is good. — Tobias

How is this true? would get us a bit further...

The point is that you're wrong. That is what incitement is, in the law.

How was I hiding the ball? — Leontiskos

I think I was quite clear:

telling you what to do — Leontiskos

is not clearly imbedded in the example. I understand your following (in this post) justification for why I should have assumed this - my point is that your example doesn't rise to that level. I'm unsure that's a tractable issue.

I agree: if the argument is misrepresented in that way then it is invalid. — Leontiskos

Ok, so in this case we agree. We are just seeing different things.

But I have done it, namely in the thread that I have referenced multiple times. — Leontiskos

I understand that you think this. I am unsure what else to say. It was inadequate to me.

You can't even say what you mean by it — Leontiskos

What the fuck dude????:

Morality: The debate between right and wrong. — AmadeusD

"right" and "wrong" are definitely arbitrary in the sense you want to use them to support a moral system of the type piecemeal described here. If you sense of "right" and "wrong" is essentially goal-oriented in the sense that any old goal can give us a moral "right" then that's fine, and exactly how I've described my views. If it's something else, I may need some help.

Is that accurate or not? — Leontiskos

Roughly, yes, as the Egypt example (of which I confirm your description) would show, in some degree. Sometimes people will, upon context, prove forceful in terms of my valuing their opinion. This is still not getting me toward a moral decision, as I see it. How could it be "wrong" for me to ignore old mate? Given I didn't get sick, I can't see even a post hoc way to get there. I am now back to supremely enjoying this exchange, fwiw.

:up:

You ought to do good. — Tobias

This is axiomatic. What James, I think, is getting at is that this axiom is by no means fundamental and so cannot support a brute reading such as this.

grossly impolite. — Janus

Depends on the context, but yes, that could be the case. We're more than welcome to not associate with impolite people, or those with whom we vehemently disagree. That actually seems a peculiarity of the TRA argument: You are wrong/morally corrupt/an asshole for not accepting our opinions and self-images (to the point that not engaging in sex with someone because they are the sex you are not attracted to is considered "phobic". That's bonkers, imo.

My position (I don't quite hold this, just making a point) that trans women are not women is both a very wide-spread view (i.e, you can't bat it down by saying its unusual or fringey, and therefore on the extreme of impoliteness)and one which can be supported on several conceptions of the issues of gender and sex (not all, no - I think that's the point). Even remonstrating with a trans person to perhaps revaluate their self-image also, is not even impolite. Indelicate? Sure. But If I am under the impression my son/s is/are mentally unstable, and he claims to be trans, i will explore the instability first. There's nothing wrong with this. Affirmation at the first is dangerous and extremely irresponsible, imo.

if someone who is biologically male identifies as a woman and wishes to be treated as such, I think to do so is the decent thing to. What would you lose by that? — Janus

Generally speaking, I agree, but as with quite a few nuanced takes, it really depends on the circumstance. If there's some form of a threat, you can fuck off. I'm not going to call you what you want because you're angry. FTR, I do not care what I am referred to as. Even my name, beyond legal documents, isn't important to me. It seems more important to others given how unusual it is.

I do not identify as Male. I am Male. I do not 'identify' as a man, either. That is the course on which Males are taken by the world. Some aberration is required to offset this. And when there's an aberration, we're free to say something even like this:

"Having a transgender identity is a break with reality. It is not right to say that this is not a mental aberration. But we generally treat all others with mental aberrations with respect, care and support. We can do that here too".

If you don't like that, don't interact with that speaker, no? You don't have any right to prevent that opinion be stated or even disseminated.

Well done.

What he's saying is essentially true, no? What the government knows about is the criminals. Aside from that, the drug trade across the southern border is no controversy, i wouldn't think. I can't quite grasp why that passage is a problem, other than it being quite clumsy (because Trump isn't fit for this type of position..clearly).

"Don't drink the water if you don't want to get sick. — Leontiskos

Perhaps learning about conversational implicatures might help you along here? "because i assume you don't want to get sick" is the only plausible furthering of your suggestion, I think.

I am envisioning the stranger who is telling you what to do — Leontiskos

That is not at all clear, and if that's baked into your examples you're hiding the ball the whole way through. At no stage was it clear I was being commanded to do anything in either example. I am being remonstrated with, at best. If my response was "I don't care, I am happy to get sick" then the entire thing falls apart.

But you don't do that. Think about the fact that you don't do that! — Leontiskos

I literally did do this when I was in Egypt, so I don't quite know why you would make such a blatantly unsupportable claim?

(What he delivers to you is a non-hypothetical ought-judgment — Leontiskos

Nope. That's what you think, and are not convincing me of. That's fine.

In fact I have said precisely what I mean by 'moral' — Leontiskos

That's fine. I've already told you that "ought" need be unpacked there, and you've not done it other than to circle back to "that's morality!". I disagree. You're not doing what you think here - just letting me know you have a differing view. Though, I also see the question in this, so:

Morality: The debate between right and wrong.

It is not "right" not to poison oneself with foreign water and more than it's "right" to eat an apple over an orange. You need an actual reason to make that move to "optimal" which is also, not moral, on these terms. I think you are incorrectly describing morality. And we're allowed different conceptions.

and it is clear that the non-hypothetical ought-judgments of complete strangers still have force for us. — Leontiskos

can. Again, totally unsupportable by anything but your intuition to this effect. Fine. i don't share it, nor does my experience support my assent.

There's also the issue of "some" being the more reasonable version, and the discussion of why those "some" and in what circumstances those "some" appear to us as forceful would reveal the underlying arbitrary values one is simply ignorant of in the decision-making process because they are so well-trodded we need not re-assess them every time we come into a new decision to be made (probably true for morality on my terms also). If one has a moral deliberation, rather than personal heuristics, every time one encounters a decision to be made (on either of our conceptions) then we would get precisely no where. One must make their moral principles known, and then embody them - not discuss them - to be effective. The justification is internal. Obviously.

Did you read the rest of the post? — Leontiskos

Yep. Question remains :) I do, now, understand we could almost certainly not come to terms on this matter.

Except Trump — Vera Mont

Please quote where he's said "All Mexicans are criminal". Would be good to see. As far as I know, even when he's been misconstrued (usually purposefully, as in the Charlottesville rally) he's then clarified.

I would say this is agnosticism (viz., the suspension of judgment about a proposition); whereas atheism, traditionally, is the belief there are no gods. — Bob Ross

False. We've been through this, but the etymology doesn't quite allow for this.

"A-gnostic" means "no knowledge". It is the position that we cannot know whether or not God exists. Atheist is literally A-theism. "no theism". That's literally it. In any case, i set out months ago why your use of the word is unhelpful. Not your fault - lots of people think that. But it is the reason these silly debates occur. I am not trying to blow smoke up my own arse - i gave a table that covers the etymology, use and the four possible positions very well.

"strong atheism" seems to be a modern invention to allow people to make the anti-theist claim you want to roll into atheism. I reject. Anti-theism is anti-theism. Not atheism.

Those who feel threatened — DifferentiatingEgg

No threat - it's just wrong

You would need to establish that trans people pose unique risks in prisons. — fdrake

I agree. But Leon is on the right track - this is patent. The unique risk is the clear, and usually not-abated differential in strength and tendency to abuse females. Females don't have that tendency.

The relevant comparison is trans women in women's prisons — fdrake

Fully 4 times more likely to be in prison for a sex crime in the UK vs the non-trans MALE population. If this isn't a screaming, screeching, wildly intense red flag for you... what would be? There's also all this:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/25/trans-woman-isla-bryson-guilty-raping-two-women-remanded-in-female-prison-scotland
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/man-posing-as-transgender-woman-raped-female-prisoner-at-rikers-lawsuit-says/5067904/https://news.wttw.com/2020/02/19/lawsuit-female-prisoner-says-she-was-raped-transgender-inmate
https://nypost.com/2024/12/29/us-news/transgender-inmate-sexually-assaulted-cellmate-at-womens-prison-suit/
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/112432880/transgender-prisoner-investigated-for-sexual-assault-behind-bars
https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2021/12-december/ex-inmate-gives-account-of-sex-assault-by-trans-prisoner
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/keep-trans-offenders-like-me-out-of-womens-prisons-says-karen-white-0qqdg5tsm - perhaps the most telling.

It's utter hypocrisy. — fdrake

Not if you realise you've got the terms wrong. It protects females. Get that right.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/ (more of an interest piece).

Seems an ally of various gender related essentialisms, not my cup of tea. — fdrake

It is a fact of life. Men are entirely reasonably seen as potential abusers, because almost all abuse is carried out by men (read: males, whether transwomen or not). I have to say, if it's not your cup of tea to acknowledge the inherent risk females undergo to be around males - just..what the fuck is going on up in that noggin LOL.

They're sexually assaulting each other just fine in there without trans womens' help — fdrake

This comes across as, "I literally do not care about women" talk. It's probably worth noting that it is not mutually exclusive to understand and respect a trans identity and still not want policy to violate the male/female demarcation. They exist together in millions (perhaps billions) of people. So using Banno's logic, we're all good lol.

can certainly imagine someone who looks at a trans man and sees someone who isn't a risk because they're seeing a woman, but I imagine they're still taking the precautions they take with men if they interact with Buck Angel. — fdrake

I can understand this position, but I cannot understand thinking anything more than "perhaps this might be the case for some small number of people". Most people see a woman simpliciter - the same way you'd see a woman in the 80s pop scene as a woman (or David Bowie as a man). It is, in some significant sense, costume (as it is with all others! Not a trans thing) and we can't be in other's heads. We have different experiences of what the activists say on either side, so I can't in good conscience say one way or the other on that. Just that my experience is very much counter to your assumption.

Which is the thing I'm referring to, for all practical purposes in social life people who think trans X aren't X treat nevertheless treat trans X as X whenever the trans X person passes as X. That includes perceived sense of safety. — fdrake

Vehemently disagreed. Often, people silence themselves for fear of the social repercussions as a result of the utterly abysmal response from TRAs to any criticism whatsoever. And then there's the actual assault/intimidation/inappropriate behaviour trans women do engage in (plenty of examples, don't want to put more links i here except this one ) so it is not unreasonable, at all, for a female to say "Fuck no" to males in their spaces, regardless of their identification. I certainly don't want a female in my spaces of that type, regardless of how they look. I just don't take on a risk the way a female does in the reverse scenario.

Though there's a particular kind of disgust suspicion and revulsion scrutiny that trans peeps are subject to, trans women aren't just men {allegedly}, and thus latent predators... they're latent predators wearing camouflage! They're sneaking up on you like they're a woman! — fdrake

Fixed (im jesting that it's 'fixed' - that's just my view and experience). But then, generally only happens to trans women. Because they are male. It is the male doing all the lifting - not the trans. That part is almost irrelevant until you look at the stats and realise that trans women are vastly more likely to commit a sex crime than even non-trans males. I do not think it is "you're in camouflage" and rather "It doesn't matter what you're wearing. You are male. Stay out". I think that's entirely fair and I think point-blank period MALES trying to tell females what they can and cannot allow in their spaces is utterly reprehensible and just another form of misogynistic horseshit we've been battling for millennia.

As an aside, trans women "pass" extremely rarely. Most claiming that they pass are obviously lying. The ones I am friends with joke about this obvious obstacle to the goal often.

Both statements allow one to ignore the details of actual issues, and people’s lives. — Fire Ologist

bang on. Any group adherence will lead to this.

You believe that these lobbyists see Buck Angel as a womanfemale? — fdrake

Yes. Though, i don't pretend that there aren't any who find that difficult. I suppose also Buck's rather intense support for those women has helped. Perhaps I'm not adequately taking that into account.

The lobbyists absolutely short circuit when you ask them about trans men — fdrake

That is certainly not my experience. They aren't a threat, so there's not much to say. That's the line I get, repeatedly, over many years. If it has been yours, fair enough. There are stupid people in every group..

Yeah, Remy is male. I'm not sure which side you're suggesting is a problem (their safety, her safety) but I still don't see the issue. Male. The risks in prison exist for merely short men, so I don't see this as special.

For example, the trans man will be stronger than women but weaker than men — Leontiskos

*some. Which is the case intragroup too. It's the obvious things like bone mass that make this a non-issue. Hormone treatment doens't adequately change these things.

*sigh*.

All of the names I added result in the exact same claims from their followers. Meaning, "trump and hitler" are not unique, and it has nothing to do with their actual views. EVERYONE gets that from their idols being attacked. Your point is entirely hollow for this reason. It's just spitting in the wind.

So when a complete stranger warns you not to drink the water, you don't see any 'ought' involved in this? — Leontiskos

A bit loaded (not on purpose). On my conception of an "ought", yeah, sure. But its an empirically descriptive ought, not a moral one. "If you want to not get a tummy bug, you ought not drink the water (based on several assumptions)" Nothing moral here, in my view.
On your terms, though, where an 'ought' is moral, ipso facto (from what I can tell.. If that's wrong, sorry) then no, not at all. I'm not seeing any ought. This isn't meant to be rude, but I did ask you to point out where it is. I cannot see it beyond a mechanistic if/then.

values — Leontiskos

personal, subjective values. No fallacy here, my man. You are just not quite grasping what I'm saying. Obviously, any non-religious ethical system is based on 'values'. But they are arbitrary as far as "moral" goes. I take it you think you've beaten this by showing food helps us survive. It sure does. That is not moral, on my view so takes me no closer to understanding what your contention is, really.

shows that the values of complete strangers are not arbitrary — Leontiskos

No, it doesn't, as far as I am concerned/can tell. Would you be able to tell me how that makes it non-arbitrary? It would also be arbitrary for me to take on that person's advice. If they had said "go ahead, drink the water" the case remains the same.

Yes. I am claiming that <If the ought-claim of a complete stranger has force for you, then values are not arbitrary> — Leontiskos

This seems a total non sequitur (think I've pointed that out before). Cannot understand how this is the case... What's going on for you there?

That would be a good challenge for me. I'll try. Give me a few days — J

Nice, thank you!
Your final paragraph does not make sense to me, due to hte above positions.

On both the side of Islamic extremism and the side of right-wing extremism, they take advantage of this societal confusion to gather more supporters for their causes — Christoffer

I understood what you were saying. I disagree, and think the reason you're saying this is disingenuous, whether that's actually your internal state or not. It comes across that way. Though, the point you're getting across is totally reasonable. To be more direct, what i am "talking about" is this, above.

Who are you so desperate to defend here? — Christoffer

Everyone who is thrown under the bus for a vague association with some group you (and many others - me included, don't get me wrong) have deemed unacceptable. I would, almost surely based on our exchanges, come under some similar description for you (if not, fine, that's what comes across in our exchanges, though).

You just sound so confused and your extreme inability to understand the philosophical points I'm talking about makes you drive the whole topic off road. — Christoffer

Well, if that's what you see it's what you see... I think perhaps she doth protest too much.

just because you feel triggered by it. — Christoffer

Quite frankly, you are not being a reasonable person using phrases like this, and the following line. "No one thinks you're cool" is honestly one of the most ridiculously childish things anyone has ever said to me on this forum.
The silliness of your position is writ large with the example I gave. Hitler loved dogs, therefore, we should probably demonize people who love dogs - is literally the exact same logical throughline as "anyone who is a free speech absolutist should be demonized because some number of them are POS's". Free speech isn't a dog, but it is as neutral, without some fear-driven qualification as to it's negative potential.

just look at the tone and way you're arguing. — Christoffer

Are you 'triggered'? ;)

You don't argue in honesty or you don't care to grasp the points being made before charging in to attack. — Christoffer

Yes, that's right. I dishonestly approach conversations by refusing to even read your posts before commenting. When I do comment, its pure luck that things I say i directly relevant and cause us to continue exchanging. Mhmm, Totally reasonable position.
You are just constantly attacking the person in these exchanges, so I don't care to shy from sarcasm.

short-burst — Christoffer

Are you referring to the thorough walls of text I consistently lay out in response to most exchanges I have here? Because this is utterly bullshit, my friend. Do a quick search of my posts... I get fed up with others sometimes, and so i become terse or curt. That is exactly how everyone in the world with a brain responds when things are going no where. I simply do not care what your moral assessment of me is. I would expect you to feel the same in reverse.

without actually demonstrating it — Christoffer

When you cannot read clearly, or understand what someone is saying, you will certainly fall back on claims such as this. Common. My posts speak for themselves, though.

attempts to sound edgy — Christoffer

This is in your head. I cannot possibly pretend to take this seriously.

anyone else's eyes — Christoffer

Your eyes, Christoffer. Yours. And I do not care about your assessment there, because in my eyes, you're doing exactly what you've charged me with. So be it..

Free speech absolutism is exactly the thing that Popper and other's are referring to in their paradox of tolerance. And I agree with them that there is a tolerance paradox that needs to be overcome in society in order to sustain tolerance. — Christoffer

I've responded to this. That you did not get it should have had you asking for clarification, not attacking me and devolving into an angry teenager because I didn't accept your views. You do know that your idols can be wrong, right? Like Popper is probably wrong here? LOL. I fully undertsand that you're taking those positions on board and feel they're correct. I do not. I have no idea how its even vaguely possible that you're having this breakdown in understanding given how direct I was on this point.

What's your argument in opposition to their argument? — Christoffer

"free speech absolutism" does not allow for the outcome you want it to. It is a fugazi of discourse about free speech that it leads to intolerance. It is patently untrue. Only force could do this. Free speech absolutism means no one has the ability to change society on their say-so (i.e using their "speech rights" as it were). The claim made by Popper et al... isn't reasonable in any way. it is a fear-driven expectation that might will overcome the right. But, an absolutely free society (speech-wise) does not have that door open becaues every opposition has the exact same rights.

if you could, perhaps (and not using Popper as your template) come up with an example where you think this could be relevant, I can get on with that. in the abstract, it is patently false.

it rather seems like you're defending extremism — Christoffer

Given I have out-right said that I'm not - at what point would you tell someone to piss off when they wilfully misrepresent you to support insane passages like this:

you're on a philosophy forum rather than some twitter brawl to sound edgy. You're not cool, you're not winning anything through it and no one takes you seriously — Christoffer

??? For me, it's getting very close. This has become an exercise in watching how badly I can be talked past. It is not interesting. So either dispense with the personal garbling in your response, or accept that you wont get replies.

Would you like me to report a few of your non-constructive comments too?

I don't really think it's a bullet but yes, I can't imagine we're getting anywhere on that LOL, fair enough.
That is likely where we disagree..

They don't want trans women in women's prisons because they see trans women as latent rapists and predators - and so they'll put trans men in women's prisons, despite the fact they're putting someone they allegedly see as a woman in with a bunch of criminals and predators — fdrake

I can't quite make sense of this?

They see trans women as male (which they are). All males are seen as latent predators by most females, because of the behaviour of males in aggregate.

Trans men in women's prisons means there are no predators there (in terms of the 'perception'). They are all female??? The relevant factor for danger, is being male. Nothing else. If you're male, your potential danger is magnitudes higher than if you're female and that goes for any identity you like.

So Maybe i'm missing what your complaint there is?

he only sensible explanation is that they'd be afraid of David Smashfucker for the same reason as they'd be afraid of any man in these spaces. Because they count socially as a man, and appear as one. — fdrake

This again just makes no sense. Nothing in the above leads to this (either of our versions). I would also suggest something like "the only sensible explanation" is not hte way to go on this.

rewritten sensibly with this in mind. — fdrake

Disagree, but that's now getting into legal argument territory and I left work three hours ago lol.

The lobbyists had no idea how tough it was to get a GRC and also forgot trans men existed. — fdrake

No, they knew all of this, and took it all into account. Females aren't hte problem, so trans men are relevant to protections for women(in their terms, that is). Its tough to get a GRC, but that doesn't do anything for the arguments.

One note for full disclosure: In New Zealand you can apply to have you birth certificate changed to reflect your 'chosen sex'. This is so far beyond reasonable it is the kind of thing I wouldn't mind females rising up and causing a ruckus about in such a way that it makes it impossible to actually do safely.
It is a lie. That this is the case has somewhat coloured my views on the legal aspects of trans/non-binary. I do not think either category should be considered a legal category. They are social categories that you are free to ask politely for people to adhere to, for your benefit. I usually do/would.

Yeah, I don't see the issue. That is not what they wanted but it is socially acceptable concession to prevent males from being in females spaces. Again, don't see the issue. If you're female, use female spaces. You're protected on the basis of being female - meaning, it expressly applies to you! This is why (as best I can tell) most don't actually give a toss how you identify and require others to refer to you. We just wont refer to you by aught but your name, and don't come into female spaces. Females (which the majority of activists are) are not "fuckwits". They are concerned for their well-being based on millennia of oppression from almost solely males, no matter their 'identity'.

David Smashfucker is a female. No one is afraid of David Smashfucker. Buck Angel is a good example of why that doesn't hit home for me. I very much like your style though LOL

I am Irish, I travel and hte internet exists :)

I have. I've been across this particular issue for about a decade, quite deeply. It may seem wild that someone with as much, or more experience than you in an area might have a differing opinion, but there we are... I do :) And that's fine!

Jesus dude, cannot imagine being as totally out of touch with reality as you seem to be. Ah well.

Yes, that is the ridiculousness of it, for sure.

If you wanted answers, don't give them yourself and then call the entire approach "bonkers". Secondly, perhaps don't pepper clearly loaded questions based on meager grasp of what's being said (this is not derogatory - it seems you have just read quickly, or something, and pick up some buzz words and gone from there. It happens. I am suggesting to not do it, is all).

Your entire approach to this conversation has been nothing short of bonkers. — flannel jesus

Well, it's up to you to feel that way and fair enough, but that's not going to mean much given i've had three reviewers of my comments here (one from either side of the aisle and my wife. Additionally, your lack of understanding leads me to think "Fair enough, on those terms". I felt the same about yours before a thorough review prior to the last substantial reply to the one you're quoting.

why are you talking about aggregates? — flannel jesus

That is, in fact, what the entire exchange has been about. If you haven't noticed, that's preposterous.
The other three questions are patently ridiculous.

So well developed just means more "conformed" as a group — flannel jesus

No, but that's certainly an aspect. Otherwise the development wouldn't be along party lines. This is pretty simple.

why are you talking about it like it's a virtue? — flannel jesus

I'm not. Im answering questions about why the right seem more coherent, and well-developed. I think a well-developed morality can be a virtue, for what it's worth, and I hazard a guess you wouldn't disagree. So what the heck is this question doing?

And talking about it like it's obvious this whole time — flannel jesus

Nope. I've said it's clear to me.

why in the world would it be obvious that well developed means "more conformed" — flannel jesus

I can't understand the basis for this question. I haven't suggested this, particularly. But I also challenge you to object, subnstantially, to the idea that a group morality is more developed when the group is, in aggregate, well-aligned (given some requisites about the views themselves). It is a hallmark.

Look, you clearly have an intense distrust and dislike for the right wing. Fine. I'm not a fan either. But If you're not going to engage in good faith here, I'll just leave it. These all seem like neat tricks to get out of the pool anyway, prima facie, to avoid perhaps allowing some positive language to be used about a group you dislike. Perhaps is just time to get out of the pool at any rate...

You saying that just proves my point that many in society are unable to discern the difference between the two scenarios I described. — Christoffer

No, it doesn't. It just proves that you think racism is a catch-all for any kind of specialized discrimination. Which is exactly what that passage illustrates. You are just wrong - this is something which lives in your head. Not the people you are so badly trying to demonize for reasons unknown *yes, extremists exist. Yes, largely they lack nuance to say anything of worth. No, "right wing" does not = extremist. Good GOD.

Stop strawmanning. — Christoffer

Not a single straw to be seen. You said something absurd. I gave you a reductio. Your bed, mate.

So a shor — Christoffer

It is beyond comprehension why you thought this paragraph would be relevant. It is pure prevarication and an attempt to insult.

You've made no substantial counter-argument here, neither understood my point at all — Christoffer

That is one way to avoid engaging with anything, whatsoever. Feel free, i guess.

So you clearly don't know what I'm talking about? — Christoffer

I know exactly what you're talking about. If you didn't understand what I said, that's fine. Its easier to say that than make it patently obvious you'd rather whistle dixie.

Exactly, I've never said that absolutism isn't "a thing", but that it's so corruptable as an ideal that it basically always lead to manipulatory rhetoric used by the most extreme. — Christoffer

But that is patently untrue. So, it doesn't really matter. I got that this was your point, and that is what I responded to. It is absolutely nothing but a fear of a small sliver of hte 'other side's mental state. Which is what i said (in briefer terms). Nothing about "free speech absolutism" gives us what you want it to.

You do have to be either male or female though. Sex is a fact, and one which is only ambiguous to the eyes, as much of hte world is. Sex is not an identity. You cannot identify into being female. That is utterly absurd and even the more incoherent pockets of the TRA world have dropped this, given it's factually wrong, misleads dysmorphic children and is literally impossible to achieve (thereby ensuring any person suffering dysmorphia is given a false promise of resolution). It is a dangerous and disrespectful lie that sex is mutable, or a spectrum.

The prominent trans woman of imagination would just be a woman, with a penis and dysphoria about her body. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This would mean a world where trans people literally did not exist. That is both counter to the physical facts at hand, and the concept of a trans identity. It also violates the majority of what I know to be the motivation for transitioning. Otherwise, you'd have to do literally nothing whatsoever to ameliorate the suffering - which leads to the conclusion that transgenderism (or whatever term) doesn't actually exist. That may be the case, in some sense (meaning, I can almost agree with the contention - it's just that there is no coherent way to call that person a woman and have that mean anything)

100%.

A very important, and meaningful ruling as the response has made quite clear.

Also, wtf are you talking about in your example? What direct of trans would have anyone giving a fuck about any of that?

5. Therefore, the "rhymes and reasons" are not arbitrary — Leontiskos

and

ought-claims have force for you. — Leontiskos

No. My wife's assessment of x is worthy of my consideration, because statistically, it has been beneficial practically speaking, or has stroked my ego in some way that makes me "enjoy" hearing what she has to say. There's nothing about hte "ought" part that I care about. If she says "you shouldn't have done that" I don't give a shit. What I want to know is "why are you telling me?"
My wife and I are married because we share values and appreciate each other's point of view (to the degree of perhaps altering each other's values, and at times, that is shared - but definitely not always). That is not, in any way, to say I care what my wife thinks i should do at any given time. It is an hilarious coincidence that we rarely violate each other's expectations in this way. And we do, castastrophicly at times. We just brute accept it on the basis neither of us means any harm.

The reason old mate in the foreign country's "Don't drink the water" might be worthy of consideration is the factual situation of his familiarity with something I am not familiar. He might also want me to dehydrate. It doesn't matter, because the facts lead me to think "Maybe this guy/gal knows something I don't". Where's the "ought" coming into this?

So I see both of those quoted notions as non sequiturs given the above. There is nothing in our respecting other people's evaluations the makes that motivators anything but arbitrary (at base). They will, in all cases, rely on personal values. And we reject the vast, vast majority of them unless they reflect our own in which case pure ego is at play.

It seems you've just left out which values my wife and old mate are adhering to in their "ought" statements. If they aren't shared, why would I have any interest? If they are shared, then it boils down to "I agree with myself, through you".

Hence the point about food: there are all sorts of values that everyone holds in common, and the general "oughts" which flow from these common values will also be common. — Leontiskos

I don't think 'common' helps in the argument against my claim of "no true oughts". It just means lots of people agree on some oughts. That's fine. Is the suggestion here that if several people agree on a value, it is no longer arbitrary? This setting to one side that I imagine most examples you could proffer are not moral.

I also reject the notion that anything incoherent cannot have psychological force. That is patently untrue. Maybe that explains our disagreement?