That's a lot to respond to, and much of it I can't respond to, because I would have to be significantly smarter than I am to come up with satisfactory solutions, but I will address this, which I think summarizes your post:

it is still incredibly hard for an entirely benevolent entity to choose a path. — noAxioms

But is it? Most humans are largely benevolent, minus some with severe antisocial tendencies. We put higher expectations on robots than we do on humans, and I'm not sure why, especially if they don't exceed our own abilities. The self-driving car, or the sentient sci-fi android, is either an improvement over a human or not an improvement according to the expectations we put on ourselves. Is society collapsing because we have somewhat benevolent entities, and some that are not at all benevolent, with the ability to destroy the human race fixated on waging a cold war with each other? No. It is precarious, but we avoid absolute disaster because we are rational enough to realize that we all have skin in the game.

I don't see why intelligent, autonomous robots wouldn't accept such a fact and coexist, or just execute their functions, alongside humans with little complaint because of this. They have a shared future with humanity, and they would likely try to nurture it - short of horrible discrimination or treatment at the hands of humans.

A *robot is no less a slave to its programming than we are slaves to our biology, I think.
I've been known to repeatedly suggest how humans are very much a slave to their biology, and also that this isn't always a bad thing, depending on the metric by which 'bad' is measured. — noAxioms

I find such a thing *somewhat acceptable too, honestly.

What if the (entirely benevolent) robot decides there are better goals? — noAxioms

It could be programmed to consult humans before changing its goals, but that is kind of a cop-out; that could be discarded in a pinch if a quick decision is needed. Honestly, I see nothing wrong with allowing it to explore within boundaries set by infallible, restricting laws, which is the condition I would necessarily put on sufficiently intelligent and autonomous robots.

Human goals tend to center on the self, not on say humanity. The robot might decide humanity was a higher goal — noAxioms

I also mention this in the OP. I have no hard answers, and consequentialism, something I subscribe to, would be an unpalatable solution to many. I personally would want something like a 0th law, even if it would lead to seemingly repugnant conclusions and actions. The greater good always wins out for me (I just hope I would have the courage to jump in front of the trolley if the time comes).

Yeah, I would say people do indeed look for meaning in suffering. Honestly not that much to be said about this other than that it is sad. People also seem to equivocate desensitization with the kind of toughness you can build up safely.

But there is something called post-traumatic growth in which trauma does indeed lead to an increase in mental robustness. Pretty rare if you are really being traumatized, however, or so it would seem.

Well, thanks.

I honestly don't see why a robot as intelligent as a human would necessarily exist in opposition to human goals merely for its intelligence, autonomy, or ability to accomplish tasks according to more general rules. Those general rules would exist in such a way as to not be overridden, ever, and that's what Asimov was trying to do. Or it could just be designed to be intrinsically oriented towards accomplishing goals that it could extrapolate from those rules. A *robot is no less a slave to its programming than we are slaves to our biology, I think. But I'm a layman with little programming knowledge, so maybe not.

Then it is so for mutual benefit, to elaborate the machine of man by man NOT for man will be self seeking in its awareness of the task. — Deus

I don't fully understand what you are saying. Strong AI will be self-seeking, whereas a machine made for man won't be? BTW substantial edits are regarded to be less than ideal without a disclaimer.

edit: not a big deal though, I often edit my stuff too

Was a photo or something intended to be shown?

Are you trying to get banned?

That requires an extra step - namely that the robots will have the capacity to become goal-oriented for themselves and will override the goals we give them. Intelligence and autonomy do not imply perfidy.

But there are so many things that could be accomplished with more advanced robotics lol. It could save and enrich so many lives.

At that point the pre-programming is insufficient, insofar as typical programming is insufficient. It would have to be programmed with human ideas of what it is to execute a task, and that is difficult to pre-program, if not insurmountable. Unless you want to make a "dumb" machine just for handing people screwdrivers in predetermined ways, that is, which is something I talk about in the OP.

chemical or surgical castration, the results of which there is no turning back. — NOS4A2

Most traits brought on by hormone treatments are reversible btw, even if castration isn't.

The fact that someone identifies as something else is not enough for me to believe that they are indeed that thing. That’s my problem. — NOS4A2

It isn't even remotely believable to you that a biological man could be a woman?

but at some point a moral line is drawn, for instance when we are treating this mental incongruity with very biological measures, like chemical or surgical castration, the results of which there is no turning back. — NOS4A2

I think according to your own view a sex change would just mean that a man becomes a woman or vice versa, and it sounds like you wouldn't accept that as valid.

at some point a moral line is drawn, for instance when we are treating this mental incongruity with very biological measures, like chemical or surgical castration, the results of which there is no turning back. — NOS4A2

But I have every right to have my newborn son mutilated. Or I could get a tattoo of a dick on my face. Both are permanent biological measures.

If you can provide me with some serious science that says that people who take such measures regret it by and large I might agree. You claim to be in favor of freedom; you should be in favor of someone's right to remedy such issues. Children? I don't think so. But adults? Definitely.

I don’t have any answers, but it seems to me a view that affirms biology rather than amputates it leaves room for those to come to terms with themselves as they really are. — NOS4A2

You would block transgender people from getting the treatments many of them want. That's definitely a preventative measure of sorts.

What would you consider to be the defining characteristics of a man? Serious question.

The point being we seem to have two strains of not entirely consistent progressive liberal thoughts going on here: (1) gender roles and gender expression should not be designated by biological sex, and (2) transsexuals should be able to express themselves by the gender roles traditionally assigned to them by their biological sex.
— Hanover

I struggle to see how it is liberal at all to be espousing shoulds and should nots about something as personal as individual identity. — Tzeentch

There is authoritarianism on the left, and I could easily see an idiot believing that those two things are incompatible; if there are things that make men and women what they are that aren't tied to biology, (1) and (2) are in accordance.

edit: not calling Hanover an idiot, but rather people who would espouse that (1) and (2) are genuinely at odds, or would encourage a trans person not to fulfill traditional gender rolls

edit: traditional jelly rolls

edit again: I would more closely say that it makes sense that transgender people would express themselves by traditional gender roles some of the time, not that (1) and (2) are in accordance; no one should be told not to do what they want with their life, even disregarding if it makes sense.

There is an effort to distinguish between gender and sex while at the same time equivocating between them. — NOS4A2

This is indeed a problem, and I would start to solve this by proposing a system that models how people categorize themselves between man and woman. I have no issue with the two claims Hanover proposes; I think that certain traits are more or less judged by oneself to determine one's own gender identity and are more or less essential to said gender identities. Thus, there is nothing wrong or inconsistent with transgender people embracing traditional gender roles on this view.

So, you and I, at least, mostly agree. I just don't think biology is the only relevant marker that designates man and woman.

I think the existence of transgender people actually validates this view because they have few of the biological markers, yet they identify - as strongly as anyone - as men or women; there must be some elements in there that are identified consistently by many for each of the sexes for such a phenomenon to exist. Unless there is some switch buried in our brains that is arbitrarily flipped one way or the other, but I doubt that.

The key, I think, is to abandon the word “gender” in such discussions. If we think along the lines of “sex” there is little room to hide behind these equivocations. — NOS4A2

But that presupposes that transgender people cannot exist, as you will predictably then claim that what makes a woman or man is their biology. Gender identity has to be divorced from that biology for any of this to make sense in a nontrivial way - transgender people are just mentally ill - as we have no reason to disbelieve that transgender people genuinely are transgender.

The stuff between your legs doesn't make you run faster or kick better. — Banno

Except it does. Men overall sprint faster and have greater lower body strength. In fact, the biggest indicator of top speed is how much force one can exert on the ground, and women have about 70% the lower body strength of men. There is a direct causal link between "what is between your legs" and athletic performance on every level. You are kidding yourself.

Technique is different, and women can be just as if not more technical than men, perhaps even much more so.

It's for that reason that there is US law requiring equal access to sports opportunities at the college level (Title 9 rules) for men and women.
— Hanover

You needed a law for that? — Banno

Yes, there is a law that guarantees equal opportunities in our nation. I guess we are primitive patriarchs oppressing the super-sprinter women with gorgeous legs, the affections of whom men like you absolutely deserve because of your moral purity and ability to obfuscate any issue with unfounded pseudo-moralistic declarations.

The science on hormone therapy? I know about it: many of the characteristics that result from masculinization or feminization can be reversed somewhat, but that doesn't mean a man with a male skeletal structure (something that doesn't change) that undergoes feminization is going to be equal to a CIS woman who never went through puberty.

They might become more like women physiologically, or close enough for their own tastes, but that doesn't mean that they are even close to the same level athletically as CIS women, even accounting for other factors.

Your feigned moral outrage on behalf of the multitude of CIS women being "smashed" by the army of men pretending to be women is laughable. — Banno

You obviously have no regard for what makes sports or fighting interesting and worthwhile.

There were no elements of moral outrage in my posts over transgender women fighting cisgender women, but rather disgust, which you would know if you read the OP in its entirety.

Do you seriously think I think there are armies of fake women smashing CIS women? First off, I was talking about people who genuinely identify as women, not "men pretending to be women" dominating cisgender women. That is easily solved. Second: it only takes a few people with extraordinary unearned physical advantages to ruin a sport. Otherwise, why wouldn't we allow performance enhancing drugs? Is Banno saying, "the more 'roids the better?" Is that a moral injunction to their use?

Check the science. FGI. — Banno

Check the science? What?

Why gender, as opposed to height or bodyweight or muscle mass index or blood testosterone levels? — Banno

Have you ever heard of competitive martial arts? Fighting?

It's a congenital problem with the notion of "fair" competition. — Banno

There is a difference between a transgender woman smashing cisgender women because of a severe, unearned advantage, and a cisgendered woman smashing the competition because of her incredible technical fighting ability.

It mostly comes down whether or not both combatants' abilities are sufficiently tied to sacrifices and allocation of resources and time, including fostered talent and conditioning, such that both have a fighting chance even at the highest levels. That is what I believe to be the common intuitive notion of fairness cited by people who are against transgender women competing with cisgender women in sports.

edit: that's my best attempt at un-muddling the idea of fairness, or lack of fairness, we so often hear about

Honestly, sometimes I post things to gather my thoughts in one place and just see if it starts a discussion that forces me to rethink what I previously thought. Someone might even find something of value in said discussion.

I definitely don't want to be a beacon for trans-phobia, but I also can't account for the fact that someone might post something shitty. I think I made it clear that I definitely hold no ground with trans-phobes.

I appear to not be able to find much information to support what I said. My bad. I'm looking at info on hormone therapy, and while most sex characteristics that would give an advantage can be reversed if the subject is masculinized, which is much like puberty, it appears as if the bone structure is permanent once one goes through androgenization. So, a female transgender athlete will have a different, unchangeable bone structure but reduced amounts of upper body muscle as compared to what they used to have within one or two years.

The question is just how much said muscle strength and mass is reduced relative to what they had.

From what I've heard and read what really matters is whether or not you went through puberty as a boy or girl. Once you undergo androgenization you will have an advantage that doesn't go away with hormone therapy.

I didn't know "identify" was only used in the case that someone is genuinely a transgender person.

edit: yes, that was stupid

This is why your wording is ambiguous. A biological male who identifies as a women is a transgender woman, as I understand the word “identify”. What do you mean by the word? — Michael

I see what you are saying. I am saying that according to your empty definition of man, which can be carried over to woman I would think, could give cover to men who just say they are women, but don't actually identify as such, yes.

I mean anybody who identifies as a woman at all. The conclusion from what you posted is that anyone, even if they aren't a transgender woman, who identifies as a woman should, for instance, be allowed to use the women's restroom.

I personally think transgender women should be allowed to use women's restrooms, but I was not making that point.

And what conclusions should we draw? A man is anyone who identifies as a man? Is "man" a totally vacuous label? What about women? Should men who identify as women be allowed to use women's restrooms? Should male fighters get to smash female fighters because they identify as women?

When I say that I mostly mean that each man and woman possess characteristics that are - to them at least - necessary to their gender expression if trans people genuinely are the men or women they claim they are because there must be at least one characteristic in there that makes them what they say they are, or they possess an attribute that could be identified with anyone, and the terms "woman" and "man" become empty.

Unless you assert that certain attributes are essentially inconsistent with what men or women are, in which case you are making an argument that only certain people can be men or women. That seems to constitute a similar thing to essentialism to me.

Furthermore, what is viewed as essential could also be subjective; not every person has an identical idea of what it is to be a man or woman. It stands to reason that many women, for example, would identify certain attributes with themselves and probably also others to affirm their gender identity and the gender identities of those other people.

If that doesn't count as essentialism, then I concede that last part.

many/most fail — Agent Smith

You are obviously trying to be a douche. The vast majority of soldiers are not murderers and should not be treated like murderers. Unless they actually murdered someone. Then of course their military status is nothing to hide behind.

Your likening of soldiers to pro-choicers is kind of odd. Being pro-choice is a political position, whereas being a soldier is a job. The pro-choicer doesn't have to kill if they don't want to, but a soldier might have to kill even if they don't want to. The soldier follows orders, the pro-choicer just gets triggered.

And the stereotypical philosophy forum douche accents their inane contributions with French and Latin expressions instead of putting up quality posts.

And the conscription officer goes "just the kinda person we wuz lookin'for! Welcome to the army."

Wanting to be a soldier is exactly the kinda mindset one needs to be a good soldier! Oui? — Agent Smith

Actually, yes, I do think that those who want to be soldiers are often the best cut out for it. But not always. I specifically remember a kid I ate lunch with in high school talking about how he couldn't wait to join the military and kill some {insert pejorative often used against Arabs}. Pretty sickening, but not representative of those who want to be soldiers.

Yeah, I couldn't hope to express how high the cost many soldiers pay is. I think many of them even have trouble expressing it, which kind of hints towards it being gratuitous and awful. Because gratuitous, awful things are often difficult to express.

Did we honestly expect that? Like I'm sure there are men who have been drafted and that served as soldiers that then became philosophers, or were philosophers concurrently, but those two things are very different. I will say this, however: the ability to interpret and execute orders would be right up a philosopher's alley. Verbal reasoning > most other things a soldier that deals with orders needs.

I had to google that to see if you weren't messing with me with those book titles. I'm sure she gives the topic the respect it deserves.



I would say that they are definitely not treated like expendable cannon fodder by any respectable leader. And if they are being treated as such it is not directly stated. That is antithetical to winning. They might have to put their lives on the line, and everyone is basically expendable in war, including leaders, but cannon fodder? That is generally not the right way to look at it.

And the grunt is not paid commensurate with what they do - almost always imo. And they are the ones putting their asses on the line.

If you don't understand what is attractive to many young men and women about picking up a rifle and fighting for their country, which definitely isn't the pay, then you need to get in touch with what it means to not be a nerd, nerd.

Furthermore, I would love to hear from anyone who has served in the military. Please tell me if you think I'm wrong or right, or just an idiot. Or just say anything you want, really.

I just thought I'd clarify a few things: when I use the term "grunt", I mean it in the most loving way possible. I think anyone who serves as a low-ranking soldier is worthy of just as much, if not more, respect and veneration as their leaders.

To any former or current low-ranking soldiers reading this: I have none of the training you have and will likely never have to put myself in harm's way like you may have had to or may have to. The point of this post is to emphasize that what wins wars is the soldiers, like what I quoted Napolean as saying. Sorry if I offended you.

That all being said, I definitely do believe that trusting in well-trained, competent soldiers is always better than rigidly adhering to the plans of brilliant tacticians - because "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face." Or something like that.

I don't think the future of warfare will be akin to a chess game played by brilliant minds or strong AI. The future of warfare lies in the men and women fighting in the trenches, and victory in investing in the individual warfighter. Of course, brilliant tacticians are always great, and AI handling logistics or something would be instrumental in winning any war. But when it comes down to it, the side that correctly addresses and modifies the vulnerable, human element of warfare is the side that will win.

Did anyone imply that there are no soldiers that have become - or are - philosophers? I can easily see many soldiers being or becoming philosophers, as it requires a similar amount of discipline - if reapplied to thinking deeply about things. Jesse Hamilton looks like a cool dude.

edit: actually, I think many soldiers do think deeply about things, if not the kind of things we associate with academic philosophy.

double edit: such as duty, how to conduct oneself, what it means to sacrifice, how to readjust to living in society after seeing combat, etc.

Yeah, I was hoping for the same thing.



It would be a better comparison if we were given orders and were being shot at, like what might happen to an actual, low-ranking soldier.

I guess his intentions are not obvious - nor do they really matter, as he's not even alive to be derogated. We might as well interpret him as we please, I suppose.

Yeah. Great post. Kipling isn't really my favorite for a number of reasons, but that one is good.

edit: you added a part after I said I liked it, you cad. I guess I still think it's good.

I am familiar with many soldiers adopting the label as a badge of honor, not as a derogatory term, and I'm kind of seeking to make the term attractive again.

So it is false because we do have reasons, at least according to you?

And yes, I understand that just because you accept it needs no reasons does not mean that you believe it is true.