Not true, you've been railing against the "progressives' all over the place. You scoff at the notion of a world which is run on their principles. You no less argue people ought to follow your identity than trans people or anyone supporting them. You've said people ought to live and think like you countless times on this board-- witness your exclamation of glory that people in the West were finally waking up to the scourge of "progressivism," which would end our culture obsession with permissiveness. You give bucketloads of shit to what people think. You aren't sitting back and saying: "Ehh, it's fine. People can value and think whatever suits them." — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, because these Nazis want to control what I think. I can't even think a certain way, I'm not allowed. I personally don't care that others think differently, but these progressives do care, so then the rest of us have to do something about them so that they start learning to mind their own affairs without disturbing others - like they do in the video I showed you.

I said I will fight the progressives with exactly the same weapons the progressives use - because those weapons work, the progressives have been proving it for decades! The progressives fight by attacking certain identities - thus I will fight back in the same way. Why? It works! I've analysed the progressive mind, and the reason why progressive movements have been winning is simply because they use moral blackmail of good people like me. The way the progressive mind works, is that what others think and say about you is very important - in fact it's the only thing that matters. Truth doesn't matter. Truth is simply what others think for progressives. So if I call a loose progressive woman a slut, it's a disaster for her, because all that matters for her isn't whether she is a slut or not, it's whether people think of her that way. That's why the progressives are trying to re-define what a loose woman is - she's not a slut, she's liberated, I'm supposed to admire and congratulate her now. She improved from the condition of how women had to be in the past (oppressed!), and that's laudable.

So the progressive mind mistakes other minds to be the same. They think if they call me a sexist, a xenophobe, a misogynist, and morally deformed, then I will lick up to them and start playing their game - like you have forced poor @darthbarracuda to do. He has to watch what he says, he has to beg you not to consider him a bigot, he has to bow his head and be a slave to you. He has to fight back, and show how pro-feminazi he is by struggling with convoluted explanations as to why he admires modern progressive women, so that you don't label him all those things. It's fucking outrageous! You should be ashamed of yourself Willow. The progressives have fooled us into believing we have to defend ourselves from their charges, their slander, and their labelling. They have morally blackmailed us, because they tell us - you are good people, you can't do this - so that they can then continue playing their game. But we don't have to obey. And I don't defend at all. I wear the labels with pride. Because I can wear them with pride. I know I'm not a sexist, nor a xenophobe or a misogynist or morally deformed. I know that. Doesn't matter what the progressives say. They can label me however they want, I don't care. But this doesn't hold the other way. If I tell a loose woman she's a slut, then there's no way she can think otherwise, because it's the truth. That's what actually angers progressives - the truth. They are Nietzsche's weak - they are playing a losing game, and they know it.

So remember friends - two methods the progressives use to control you. Number 1: they morally blackmail you so that you start playing their game and defending yourself "uh I'm not a bigot I'm not a bigot, look how pro-feminazi I am!". Number 2: They prevent you from striking back by appealing to your compassion and benevolence. You're a good person, you can't strike back, can you? Don't let yourselves be fooled. And many many are waking up Willow. People aren't stupid anymore. For quite some time it used to be just me and a few who dared question our progressive masters. But now just look at this thread - so many great people standing up.

Well, it's is a factor. But Emptyheaded's argument is a pretty good reflection of the problem of seeing it in terms of a "mental illness." It fools us into thinking trans identity is something we give a magic pill to cure. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes - there the appeal to compassion and benevolence continues. "You're a bad person Emptyheaded! You don't have any bit of human love for these suffering people!" People are seeing through this Willow. People aren't stupid.

That's strange, if I was in the position to speak to souls, I would have many questions to ask them I would imagine.

But this is exactly where the falsity lies. They are not one and the same table. Playing with it in this way makes it different from the other table which we play with in that way. The moment a table is "touched" by someone it becomes different from the table it was, as untouched. The idea that human beings can play with things without changing them is clearly false. And this points to the falsity of the premise of human beings as passive observers. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok, I agree, but why is my statement contradictory with the statement that human's participate in experience and thus alter it by experiencing it?

Do you know what a DSM 5 code is? Maybe you are more familiar with an ICD 9 code is?
Exactly how many Psychiatrists have you seen as a patient in your life? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yes I do know what the DSM codes are. I've seen 3 psychiatrist (and a few psychologists), and I have to say they were the most boring and hilariously stupid people. You told them what they wanted to hear, they congratulated you, bye bye! >:O (not to mention that what they understand by normality is being like your average Joe in the street - if Alexander the Great goes in there they'd tell him he's NUTS!) I haven't heard a single useful thing from psychiatrist, quite the contrary, everything they said was so general, and so inapplicable, that trying to apply it actually made your condition worse not better. It's not until I quit listening to their nonsense that I started to overcome my anxiety and become like I am today, when I rarely, if ever feel very anxious.

Hmm okay, I see. And weren't you curious to ask them about God, the spirit realm etc. when you did have the chance?

So - you can't ask souls questions?

Not until electron tunneling microscopes were invented. Atoms were purely theoretical constructs created to explain the various forms matter takes (or to be more accurate, ontological posits), and then later, various experimental results. Now that we have tools to see and manipulate atoms, they're more than just theoretical abstractions. Also, chemistry doesn't work at all without atoms. — Marchesk

No they aren't purely theoretical constructs. They are constructs that suggest such and such behaviour in such and such situations. That's what we meant by atoms - things which behave so and so in such and such. Then we do the experiment, and we notice such and such behaviour. Therefore we conclude that our conception must be correct - because our conception simply is that behaviour in that circumstance. And we don't need electron tunneling microscopes to experience atoms. Experience of atoms is experience of anything that behaves like atoms.

All that being said, atoms aren't fundamental, they're made up of subatomic particles and you have all the QM probability wave weirdness going on. Also, the particles themselves are said to be point particles, meaning they have no length or width. But more importantly, atoms, photons, electors, are abstracted away from colors, tastes, etc of everyday objects. What we know of them is physics, which is heavily based on math. Which leads to the possibility that the only real properties are mathematical properties. — Marchesk

And if they had a length, would they behave any differently than if they were point particles? The reason why we treat them as point particles is that in order to determine the size of the particles which form a certain other particle, we need to bombard it with something smaller than itself. So we bombard a gold atom with an alpha particle, and we find the size of the nucleus, as Rutherford did. Then we bombard the nucleus by electrons, and other smaller particles, and we find quarks. I don't see any of this being mysterious or pointing to something beyond experience (and by the way, we treat quarks as point particles, because we haven't found smaller particles to bombard them with and see what length they actually have). All that we're talking about is such and such behaving so and so, in this or that circumstance - and we call that an atom. That's what the atom is, everything else is empty abstraction.

Consider the table. It feels solid, looks brown and polished, sounds a certain way when you thump on it. But all of that can be explained in terms of light and sound waves, empty space with tiny atoms bound together by some magnetic force. The table of physics is very different from the table we see or hear or feel. — Marchesk

This guy does it better than you. So what? All that we mean is that the "ordinary" table behaves so and so, because we play with it in "ordinary" circumstances. The "scientific" table behaves so and so because we play with it in different circumstances. In truth they are one and the same table, and all we mean by ordinary and scientific is the different circumstances we play with it.

Material chairs are made up of physical stuff such as atoms and their bonds. Mathematical chairs only have mathematical properties. There is no physical stuff. Surely you've heard of Max Tegmark and his claim that the universe is mathematical. Instead of particles or fields or space being the ontological structure, it's numbers and their relations. — Marchesk

Ok so if I see a chair, how do I go about deciding whether it's made up of atoms or mathematical properties? What are the real differences between chairs made of mathematical properties and those made of atoms? Do they look different, smell different, behave differently? What's the difference between them?

Don't you see that these are all differences without a difference? What I call a mathematical property, say ratio, is something observable in experience right? What I call an atom is also something observable in experience. Hence all these things are defined RELATIVE to experience. What I call matter i know from my experience. A stone is matter because it's hard, I grab it in my hand. It has mass, i can weigh it. That's all that being matter means. That's what i am actually communicating when I say something is matter. There is no more mysterious matter beyond experience. All I know is all I can potentially experience.

Because it impacts on their lives. What you think defines actions and culture which has a negative impact on them. You do not respect them as people who ought to exist. Instead of being viewed as people who ought to exist, you think them an error of the world, some state which ought to be different because it defies a perfect nature (i.e. not delusional). — TheWillowOfDarkness

If they're so weak that they can't even take someone thinking differently than them, they are suffering of a mental illness. I live with many many folks in this community for example being opposed to my identity as you would say (though that's probably the wrong way to put it) and I take it. It's not that hard. People are different, they don't have to think like me, nor approve of and live like me.

You regularly scoff at the notion that anyone would make the demand that you abandon your particular identity-- "How dare the West demand people give their love of strongman leaders, traditions, etc., etc — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes but I don't scoff at the notion that other people must approve of my identity and think it's the right and only way of being. I go on being who I am and don't give a shit about what others think. They should do the same.

Dont worry, The Willow of DARKNESS will bring his shadow around soon and tell you how these transexuals you cite are more suicidal after surgery because of folks like you, who don't approve of their real identity

What does it mean chairs exist because we perceive them? Nobody ever said that. Berkeley said chairs exist because they CAN be perceived. So yes, for something to exist it must be perceiveABLE in some way, even if this is looking through a microscope or performing an experiment.

Chairs exist materially... What does that mean, and how is it any different from chairs existing mathematically? What are the real differences between those two concepts? And please don't answer that chairs are either material or mathematical in different words because im asking you precisely what information you are communicating by saying chairs are mathematical. Otherwise your statements are like me communicating to you that jealousy is pink. That's what your statements mean to me at the moment. Chairs exist materially = jealousy is pink. So Im asking you to explain to me what chairs exist materially practically and actually means. And to do that you need to list differences: for example, what's the difference between pink jealousy and non-pink jealousy? What's the difference between the material chairs and the mathematical chairs?

I can be curious about scientific or historical findings that have no impact on my daily life, so that's simply not true. Humans can be interested in all sorts of things having nothing to do with everyday life. — Marchesk

Yes yes, but those things have practical differences, that you can see in the world. The fact that dinosaurs existed or not, you can see the effects of that on the world. But what difference does it make, as Hillary Clinton would say, whether idealism or materialism is the case? Not for you, in your practical life. But for the world. What difference does it make?

You're confusing a framework, and discussion about which framework is the most elegant, the most simple, etc. with discussion about what is the case - with matters of fact. Metaphysics doesn't deal with matters of fact. When I say idealism is true, I don't mean the same thing as when I say chairs are true.

Part of the point is other ought to recognise trans identity as legitimate (i.e. someone is not delusional for being trans) and someone expressing it is no less valuable than a cisgender person. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Why are these Nazis concerned with what I think? Do they see me going around concerned what other folks think about my identity?

It matters the same reason for asking any sort of questions about existence. How do we get here, how big is the world, did it have a beginning, and so forth. Humans have this curiosity about such questions. And some of the proposed answers bother us, and are preferably avoided.

It may not affect our daily routines, but it can affect how we think or feel about the bigger picture. Anyway, metaphysics isn't ethics, and some people don't see a use for philosophy beyond ethics. That's their prerogative. — Marchesk

Because metaphysics doesn't have any direct practical import (even if the metaphysics was different - the world could be the same), you're misunderstanding what you're saying when you say you have curiosity about such questions. You can't be curious about something by considering alternatives which would change nothing if they were true. Even asking "which is the case?" doesn't make any sense.

Metaphysics are frameworks for understanding the world, which are judged by certain criteria. When the idealist critiques materialism, he's not saying that materialism as such is impossible, only that it is unwarranted - ie it makes too many assumptions, and we don't need so many gratuitous assumptions to describe reality. But for sure materialism could be the case - whatever that is supposed to mean. Materialism in itself is nothing. Absolutely nothing. Neither is idealism. These are frameworks. They are not objects. They are not things out there which can be the case or can fail to be the case. They are frameworks or lens through which you can look at the world.

1. The world is pretty much as we perceive it (naive realism, direct realism?)
2. The world is pretty much as science illuminates it. (scientific realism)
3. The world is mathematical. (Tegmark, Meillassoux)
4. The world can only be known in its relations. (object-oriented realism)
5. The world is unknowable, but it's still real. (Kantian noumenon)
6. This isn't a meaningful question. (Wittgenstein, quietism, deflationary, positivism) — Marchesk

And this matters because? Will knowing that subjective idealism is true cause us to behave any differently, or relate any differently to the world? Certainly not. All this is about is which is the simplest way of comprehending reality, which one requires the fewest assumptions. Probably this is some form of idealism.

To be sure testing the water does not actually prove there are drugs in the water. But the more tests ( preferably of different methodology) that you submitted it to, the less reason there would be to doubt that there had been drugs in the water. — John

Okay so? What does this have to do with anything? You're like Samuel Johnson disproving idealism by kicking a mental stone with a mental foot >:O

But you don't "feel funny" as you are drinking it. If you did, then the drugged water would be distinguishable from plain water. but you still could not be sure the water was drugged until you analyzed it. There could be some other explanation for your feeling funny". — John

And analyzing it isn't done experientially no? The results aren't experienced? We just gain mysterious access to them in a flash of insight...

What if the drinker injected what they thought were drugs, but which were not immediately prior to hallucinating. Then they would falsely think the hallucinations had been caused by the injected substance and would not think the water had been drugged at all, irrespective of whether or not they had been able to detect any unusual flavour in the water they had drunk. — John

Yeah sure. But that's still subjective inferences they make based on their connected experience. They inject what they expect to be drugs in their veins, and so they expect the drugged sensation to follow, and it does, so they think that what they injected were indeed drugs.

The water would have to be subjected to chemical analysis to discover whether there really were drugs present in it. — John

And what is chemical analysis? It is, say, dropping a few drops of something in the water, and seeing the water turn red, as opposed to staying transparent. The water turning red, we know through our experience, indicates the presence of drugs. It's still reasoning within experience. I don't care if you call this objective or subjective, because as far as I'm concerned, all we ever have is experience, so objective is merely a different species of subjective in my own humble fucking view.

That's why, for example, people like yourself attack trans identity, a opposed to medical procedures which carry expense an risk — TheWillowOfDarkness

No I have no problem with their identity. I have a problem with allowing my society to let them have access to barbarous means of harming their bodies. And I don't care how they live, so long as they live in a civilised fashion, like all other folks. If they start fucking around and behaving like animals, then I do mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDela4jNto

Look at these folks. These folks aren't simply some nice fellow progressives who like to live as they wish without disturbing anyone. They want to make everyone else accept and approve of their way of life, and they find their joy in disturbing and upsetting public order. Hence they deserve to be restrained, quite possibly put in jail, because they simply disturb and affect other people's lives negatively. We need to respect each other in society. These people, through such disgusting and uncivilised protests, disrespect everyone else in their society.

But the action of the drug would not be instantaneous — John

So? No experience is instantaneous, experiences last over time. For example, I put the glass to my lips, feel the cold touch of the water, then drink, feel it go down my throat (don't think anything nasty now John), and then into my stomach, and afterwards, I still feel the coldness of the drink in my throat. The experience doesn't last one second, it's always connected and always exists in time, with no crisp boundary to delimit it.

Also, there is no inconsistency in saying that the experiences of drinking the two different waters would not be the same, and yet that they could be indistinguishable, in other words, that they could be, although not the same, subjectively the same. — John

This doesn't make sense. If there is nothing at all by which they can be distinguished, how are they different? If nothing at all is different about the color of one book and the color of the other, than aren't the two colors the same - isn't that, in fact, precisely what we mean by something being the same as something else? We compare them, and upon our comparison find no differences, and hence we say "Aha! They are the same".

Not mad - I already knew you were sexist, misogynist etc — csalisbury

>:O

You're a little obsessive, man. — csalisbury

Is that supposed to be bad? I suppose that so long as you are obsessed about anti-progressive matters, then it's bad. If you are obsessed about getting naked for Clinton, then that's totally fine and admirable...

Okay I feel I should be the fuckin Queen of England. I'm in the wrong body, please get me out of here and put me into the queen's body. Where's my throne as well? You need to learn to respect the necessity of meaning you scummy bastard.

That's what a transexual sounds like to a psychologist. That's clearly the sign of mental trouble, not of physical trouble. It requires a treatment for the mind, not for the body.

Me neither. Who would? >:O Justin Bieber maybe.

I use Amy as the perfect example of what's wrong with today's progressive culture. And I just love how people get angry about it. Probably because she's a woman, and they have this belief that if you're a woman anything is permitted. And thus I am a sexist, and a misogynist, and a scum :P

No point. I was just asking you for the hell of it. Would you marry her?

What's your question?

Yes but all the idealist can acknowledge as 'real' are the experiences of drinking the water (which are, let's say for the sake of argument, subjectively indistinguishable from drinking ordinary water), of becoming high, and of making the inference "There might have been something in the water". — John

It seems to me that experiences are always subjectively distinguishable, otherwise they are simply the same experience. For example, the experience of drinking regular water is distinguished from the experience of drinking drugged water subjectively - in one case after I drink it I go like "Ahhh! That's refreshing", in the other I go like "Oh wow, whose that beauty my eyes are seeing?"

Drivel. When you get something more interesting to say, please give me a call.

Maybe the paradigms are so complex today that there is no possibility of such radical shifts as those made by Newton, Kepler or Galileo. Or perhaps the non-scientist simply could not recognize such a shift, even if it had occurred. — John

Excuses are many. It's so complex - that's why we suck. It's the social pressures - that's why I'm smoking dope.

I tell you, our culture is at fault. We're too weak today. We cry about every little thing. Transexual bathrooms! That's the big problem of the world... People have lost their minds, they have no sense of perspective or historical time at all. We don't have people harboring the unrelenting passion of a Newton today. Who would lock themselves in their house for years to work on physics problems? No one! They'd go to a big research university, where they waste time and joke around with their colleagues, get married, have a family, and so forth. No one is willing to do the work. That's the problem. Otherwise we're good chaps.

Perhaps only in science is genius adequately recognized today. — John

Alas, today we have no scientists of the rank of a Newton, or a Kepler, or a Galileo. Stephen Hawking, pff. Einstein was up there, but even he's gone now.

the standard of what constitutes artistic genius has moved on to an intellectually exalted state. — Punshhh

By this principle, you should name me the not so great artist by today's standard, whose works are the equivalent of the Mona Lisa. I'm all ears. I also want to hear why his works are not revered, and the Mona Lisa is.

That's wrong, there are large numbers of geniuses and many more who if they were put back in time to the renaissance would be equivalent to geniuses. The difference is that standards and levels of achievement as so so much higher now. Let's take the example of art. There are many thousands of artists around who are skilled enough to paint the the standard of Leonardo da Vinci. But such abilities are not regarded as genius now, because many people can do it and the standard of what constitutes artistic genius has moved on to an intellectually exalted state. — Punshhh

LOL! Why does no one paint a Mona Lisa today then? Why no one is writing Macbeth? Why are Macbeth and Mona Lisa widely admired still, and the many works of today's "genius" are forgotten the very next day?

Genius often only becomes apparent after a few centuries. Also our culture is so complex compared to Renaissance culture that the kind of universal genius of people like Leonardo and Goethe is virtually impossible today. — John

I disagree. I think universal genius is more possible today than ever. We have ample resources, everyone can learn anything by himself with just a computer and an internet connection. In Goethe's time... alas, poor Goethe. It was so hard for him to have access to great writings, and so difficult to grow his knowledge. The problem is today that they're too busy shadowing the earth as I said, than working. They smoke some dope, and they shag each other, and of course, with doing that, when's the time to be a genius left? In Heaven maybe!

The other possibility is that there are many genuises today and that you do not possess the genius necessary to recognize them. — John

Don't judge others after yourself >:)

Nah, some few people have the natural or God-given talent and most others simply don't — John

I don't buy this. Why then do we have so many geniuses during the Renaissance and so few today?

I don't think you can make yourself into a creative genius; although it is true that effort and discipline, as well as surpassing talent, is required to fulfill creative genius. — John

Sure you can... why do you think there were so many creative geniuses during the Renaissance compared to now? Because they had a good, strong and healthy culture which encouraged men to push themselves to their limits. Today we have a crooked progressive culture, which encourages people to have a high paying, and prestigious job, fuck around, and waste their time casting their shadows over the earth.

In the optimal, tailored life of your own choosing, you can to do exactly that. In the real world, plenty of people would like to become a genius, rich or famous, but for one reason or another, can't or don't. — Marchesk

No actually they wouldn't really like that. They'd like to BE a rich man, a genius or a famous person. Why? Well because they have others liking them, they have others willing to be their slaves and tolerate their eccentricities, and so forth. They don't really wanna become such a person - that's too hard for them.

But in the scenario your life is indistinguishable form your present life except that you are superlatively intelligent, a creative genius, a brilliant benefactor, as rich as you like, loved by everyone; all the things you could want. — John

Well that's no fun is it? It's not about BEING those things, it's about BECOMING those things. Being a creative genius - if someone puts me in the skin of Da Vinci now, I'd feel like a cheater. I wouldn't enjoy it. Or being a rich man. Put me in the skin of Bill Gates. I'd feel like a crook! The whole fun is making yourself into a creative genius, or into a rich man, and so forth.

No I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that their belief that it is true is based on their desire for it to be true much more than on whether it actually is true.

Would you marry her Sir? :P

Yes it is. — Michael

So if I am Floyd Money Mayweather and beat everyone without ever losing, how is it injurious to my body? Clearly it can be injurious, it doesn't necessarily have to be. Depends on how good you are.

No they shouldn't. — Michael

(To clarify, not having a tattoo/piercing but giving those in exchange for money should be illegal) — Agustino

You're taking about mental illnesses, so you should care what professional psychiatrists say. They're the ones who determine the "mental illness" classification. — Michael

I think professional psychiatrists are a bunch of cuckoos pretty much. I think the way in which they work, having multiple and different patients, and spending relatively little with the patient in actual real life circumstances makes them completely unaware of what a patient actually goes through or how to help them. The ideal is an Aristotle walking around with a young Alexander. That's what a psychiatrist ought to be, and that's the one I trust.

tattoos, piercings — Michael

Yes, they should be illegal too. (To clarify, not having a tattoo/piercing but giving those in exchange for money should be illegal)

boxing — Michael

Boxing is a sport, it's not injurious to the body anymore than football is. In both you can, however, injure your body in irreparable ways.

It isn't classified as a mental illness. DSM-5 is quite clear on that. — Michael

And I care what the DSM-5 says because? Do you see me bowing my head to that classification and worshipping it?

Because this one is likely to kill you whereas a sex change operation won't.

Always fun to have people who aren't psychologists try to dumb it down to just plain "stupid" or a mental illness.

How about all those people who don't even classify as male or female? There are a couple of more genders out there. — Benkei

Those hermaphrodites are suffering of a malformation, it's a disease, not the natural state of being. Just like some are born with no arms and no legs. Theirs is a physical disease, and there is a physical solution for it, which is similar to a sex change operation.

What's stupid about having a sex change, or choosing to wear clothing typically associated with those of the opposite biological sex? — Michael

Ehmm let's boil it down to plain stupid as Benkei likes it. We treat a disease of the body by acting on the body. We treat a disease of the mind - for example anxiety caused stomach aches - not by giving the patient pills for a physical illness, but by treating the mind. A transexual has a disease of the mind, NOT of the body. His body is what it is, but his mind is unhappy with it, and feels it should have a different body. It's in fact obsessed about this. Thus he has a mental illness. The solution is not surgery anymore than the solution for anxiety caused chronic stomach pain is investigate surgery - regardless of how much the patient insists otherwise, the doctor should refuse such treatment.

Surgery is objectively injurious to the body, and there is nothing wrong with the body in the first place, and hence surgery ain't warranted.

Can you point to God and give me the tools to verify his existence? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well certainly if you can see souls, then I'd expect you to have much greater insights than I would with regards to God no? I suppose that you can converse, and ask the souls you meet about God no? Hence if you asked this question, it would seem strange to me. It's like a man who can see, while looking out the window, asks me if there's a tree in front of him.