Like my dick! — bert1

I laughed at this more than I should have. Really out of the blue lol

I think it's fair to say that the Trump response does not express compassion and that the Biden response does. — praxis

Pretty clear to anyone without an agenda. Trump really has no compassion or empathy, but that’s been known for decades. Whether that extends to his followers— Yes, of course it does. What percentage? Who knows.

Anyway, this thread is Twitter-like nonsense anyway, so I’ll leave it there.

Trump saved the economy, which is the greatest economy in history now. It’s so obvious that he needed to rant about it for 20 minutes on national television.

But at least the speech was full of facts.

My reaction to this entire thread. Especially the comments about Marx. Good god.

Interesting watch. 16 minutes. Talks about science generally but climate science plays a big part.

Other examples are Seconds from 1966 (recommended), The Adjustment Bureau, and maybe The Substance fits too — Jamal

I haven’t seen any on those yet. I’ll give them a watch if I can find them on one of these damn streaming services. You may be on to something.

Thin Red Line" — ssu

Still a good movie. Used to like it a lot more as a kid, but still better than the crappy Saving Private Ryan, which was and is one of the most overrated, cringey movies ever — with the exception of parts of the D-day sequence.

“The Game,” with Michael Douglas. An underrated David Fincher movie. They currently have it free on YouTube.

If not, I guess the letter A

Scandalous?

S

Thanks! Once I read through the thread and saw your clues, that was a big help.

Clearheaded?

Oh wait nevermind.

A?

Freewheeler?

Seemed more than straightforward to me. I can’t believe this is “controversial” enough to fill a couple pages.

.

I'm wondering what you are yet to see a convincing argument for. — Janus

The title of the thread. I’d say false. Using “trans” preceding man and woman makes sense, but you cannot change your sex. But it has already been mentioned that “woman” is being used in the same way as gender. Fine. I wouldn’t define it that way myself, but with that meaning in mind then there’s really no issue.

It is the later. The OP essentially notes that 'woman' without adjectives or modifiers normatively means "Adult human female". "Trans" adjusts woman to mean, "A person who takes on the non-biological gendered behaviors that society expects an adult human female to exhibit". — Philosophim

Cool, then in that case I agree. If that’s truly what’s being argued for, then I have no objection.

Philosophy is employed here for thinking about a topic that confuses many people. — Philosophim

Who’s confused? I didn’t see much “confusion” about sex until recently. Ditto for many issues which are motivated not by science or philosophy, but by cultural and political agendas. So in the same way that there’s “confusion” about vaccines, I suppose you’re right. But the point stands.

If people adhering to different definitions of the terms 'woman' or 'man' believe there is but one correct definition, and that it is the one they hold, as though there could be some determinable fact of the matter, then they are arguing with closed minds and will inevitably talk past one another. — Janus

We can define things any way we like. There is not one “true” definition of anything, except maybe in mathematics. But in everyday life, will my response to your saying “It’s a beautiful day out today” ever be “well there’s not a true definition of ‘day,’ and your standard of beauty is subjective”? Not unless I’m insane, despite there being perhaps some merit to what I’ve said “philosophically.”

I’ll call anyone what they wish to be called. I’ll call you Janus the Great if you prefer— but before I actually believe it, I’d need to see some evidence or a convincing argument. In a trans case, I’ve yet to see such an argument.

I think this is a topic where philosophy (if we can call it that) is employed for an agenda and begins to look absurd.

Gender is one thing, sex is another. Sex is obvious and always has been. There are always exceptions, but they are very rare indeed, and one need not bend over backwards to change perfectly good language because of them.

What is being presupposed by the word “trans” anyway? From what to what? One sex to another, or one gender to another, presumably. I still hold that the latter is absolutely possible — the former isn’t.

What I think is sad is that so many bigoted people use what I’ve said above to justify the mistreatment of trans people, and it’s this use that the community and its allies are truly fighting against when they argue that sex is a “concept” or that “woman” is undefined. But it’s a fool’s errand and a political trap, and in my view has set back the movement by a decade at least.

Assuming you're talking about Trumps plan, it would be better than more war in my opinion.

Odds of it being accepted as it is by Russia is basically zero, but likely Trump has a "start high and settle lower" mentality. — boethius

I tend to agree.

He may be crazy enough to cut off all funding. But even then I can’t see Ukraine agreeing to this plan as it’s written.

Now I’m curious. I searched for his name and there’s several. Was his name just Marco? Seems like that guy is still a member.

Heideggar himself seems to be a pretty pivotal figure in modern philosophy. I'll definitely consider "introduction to metaphysics" as a companion to aristotle's work, because i'm currently determined to read as much about ancient philosophy as I can. — ProtagoranSocratist

Sounds good. It’s actually not a long read, and isn’t as difficult as Being and Time. The last section is especially clear (“the restriction of being”). I think pairing this with Aristotle can be helpful, but isn’t completely necessary in my view.

Still, one can’t go wrong reading more Aristotle.

And yeah I don't really care that Heideggar fell for Nazi ideology and promoted it a little bit as a professor, what matters to me more is the actual content that someone wrote, not their political identity. — ProtagoranSocratist

I don’t care either.

P.S., don’t listen to what anyone tells you about what Heidegger meant or who offers simple explanations. Most are so radically wrong it’s cringe-inducing. Just read it.

Putting aside hostility on this issue for a moment, I’m curious as to what everyone thinks of this plan, and what they put the odds of it being accepted?

I'd like to see the return of Streetlight to be honest.

Seriously, I think we gave banned members a second chance when we moved in 2015, and one or two members were reincarnated. — Jamal

Oh no kidding? Cool.

And yes, I think we should probably open up the new site, to allow anyone to sign up, though with admin approval to activate accounts. — Jamal

Will all the previously banned members get a second chance? Lol

But seriously - Sounds like a decent amount of work. Look forward to seeing how it turns out. :up:

Do you disagree with my characterization of that class? Or are we in agreement there? — Moliere

So I clearly had to think on that a bit. Namely, for the last 4 years. Now I’m ready to respond.

Just kidding. I was re-reading this (still interesting) thread and realized it left off rather abruptly. Not sure why.

Yes, I do agree. Looking back, I’m not sure where the disagreement really arose from. I still remain firm: remove the capitalists, you remove capitalism. It’s true that private property, profit, and markets still remain — but they all predated capitalism in the sense I mean anyway, and are upstream from it.

Btw, this video is what led me to remember this thread:

Say what you will about Mamdani. but he must a world class ass kisser. — Wayfarer

Why? Nearly everyone Trump talks to face to face he changes his tune about, even after long online tirades.

My guess here is that you’re one of those who think Mamdani is too “far left” and a gift to the Republicans and can’t possibly accomplish any of his proposals, etc., and that’s skewing your perception.

Otherwise, I don’t see anything out of the ordinary. I’m sure he was respectful, and in return so was Trump.

I recommend “Introduction to Metaphysics,” by Heidegger. Don’t let his reputation dissuade you; it’s worth the read.

We aren't helping the world by creating crap threads full of personal attacks and insults. We're just making ourselves look foolish. — frank

Says the guy who consistently makes both the climate change thread, and others, crappy.

You have, countless times over the years, been called out on your posts regarding climate change. Yet you repeat the same lines over and over. About China and coal plants, for example. When confronted about this— with evidence — you ignore it and continue posting it anyway, then complain about how mean everyone is.

This thread, and this very post I’m responding to, is nothing but sanctimonious posturing. It’s also pure hypocrisy, given your track record.

You want to improve the climate change thread? Stop posting in it. Ditto for the forum generally, in my view.

If my posts are considered “flaming,” I gladly apologize— if they also apologize for posting misinformation on an important topic.

I’m sure there’s nothing but noble reasons to cry about this either.

“He’s picking on me Jamal, move it to the lounge!”

How about: don’t like the thread? Don’t post in it and stop reading it. Simply mind your business. There’s an entire other boring page created by you on the subject.

Tattle tailing, feigning grievance, these are a childs way. — DingoJones

Agreed. But considering this is someone who has LONG held a grudge against me, mostly for pointing how inane his posts are, it’s not a surprise. How he’s even still here given his thousands of Twitter-like quality posts is a wonder.

Or let’s put it this way: I’ll agree to be nicer if you agree not to spam a thread about climate science with denialist talking points. Deal?

Perhaps if those of you so sensitive to snarky replies cared more about not spreading misinformation instead…

I also notice no engagement with the arguments. Rather the replies are cherry-picked for their sarcasm or frustration at having to debunk long-refuted claims over and over again, only to have them reappear.

50 year old climate model remarkably accurate, disproving claims about older models being wrong.

Common climate denial arguments: “models are unreliable.”

Climate science, like other sciences, really separate out — very quickly — those who have done their homework and those who haven’t. You just can’t bullshit your way through physics like you can freshman philosophy. Likewise, going with one’s feelings about climate models, climate impacts, the causes of global warming, etc., just doesn’t cut it. There actually are right answers to these questions.

It's not hyperbole, but a possibility... I don't know what the chances are, but the speed at which we are changing the climate, together with other factors of course (like just taking over ecosystems for ourselves), could result in the kind of mass-extinction that would take millions of years to recover from. — ChatteringMonkey

You’re absolutely right.

A ten second Google search:

Biodiversity loss and climate change are critically serious, interconnected crises that are worsening each other and threatening human health, well-being, and the planet's stability. Both have catastrophic potential: global animal populations have declined by 69% since 1970, and species are disappearing at rates 10 to 100 times faster than the natural background rate. Climate change exacerbates this loss through extreme weather, habitat destruction, and ocean warming, while biodiversity loss weakens ecosystems' ability to regulate the climate and provide essential services.

What we’re doing to insects in particular is striking. It’s not all due to climate change, of course — but it’s a very serious issue that is exacerbated by it.

But it’s best to listen to Internet trolls when they tell you not to worry. Their vibes have never been wrong.

The only serious threat from climate change--and it is serious--is unpredictable weather cycles that disrupt farming. — I like sushi

No. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

There are several “serious threats” which, if you cared to learn about, you would understand. The loss of biodiversity is serious, hardly “hyperbole” (as if you’re an authority on that), and has been extensively researched and documented. Among many others.

Why people continue to make such ignorant comments is beyond me. I doubt you’d see it in a physics or chemistry thread. Yet here we are.

What will happen? Nothing. People will flail, and that’s it. It’ll make the year-end news summaries as a blip. The media will talk about it for a bit, until the next shiny object appears. I give it two weeks, if that. — Mikie

Well it’s been exactly two months. Prediction was accurate. The news cycle has long moved on, and nothing has changed.