A? — Mikie

Yes! There are (2) occurrences of the letter "A" in the currently specified word.

_ _ E A _ _ E A _ E _

You just might have this one in the bag, "A?" :wink:

I found it disgusting and I expressed that feeling. — T Clark

Of course, because it shows what an animal who laps at the bosom of primal lust without any deep meaning really is. His is a scathing commentary on how humanity has failed to evolve. That despite all our machines and pleasantries we still value that which the animals value first and foremost, much like the same.

Some might have the self-respect and dignity to admit, yes, there are faults we have personally that should be exposed so as to result in a better society and state of mankind.

Again this bandwagoning is what I see far too much on other forums. As soon as one negative post comes, others seem to get their courage and pile on. — unimportant

To be fair mine was written well in advance. And it was funny. The classic "everything's fine" in a situation where it's clearly not. You have people in this thread who relate to you and validate your premise(s), and you have those who don't. What more do you want? :chin:

Sure, I don't actually think it's the "best thread on TPF" but the fact that some people see that remark as wry humor (that's what it is: gentle, lighthearted absurdity not vindictive mockery or belittlement) addresses a common sentiment that does no good in ignoring or acting like the people (a majority) who hold it are inherently incorrect or out of touch, no?

Though, I do see your point. I withheld that remark not because I thought it was offensive but because it was non-serious. Whereas once a serious (potentially offensive) remark was made, I offered mine so as to lighten the mood with wry humor. This should have made you feel better and more confident in the face of the other person's more serious critique.

The Lounge is supposed to be a lighthearted place. It takes two to tango when it comes to negativity. So perhaps one might ask who it really is who isn't playing fair. :wink:

I don't know. I'm out of steam. Over to someone else. — Jamal

Well, when you recover, you'll be what this word is.

e — Jamal

As usual my own generosity is my own undoing. :wink:

Yes! There is not only (1) but (3) instances of the letter "E" in the currently selected word.

_ _ E _ _ _ E _ _ E _

Don't cheat now. Use your own head and immediate memory. You're only robbing yourself and your own experience if you use AI or look it up!

Ah, it's intelligent. — Jamal

Another synonym, yet not the currently selected word. Both your full-word guesses so far are "what one could or perhaps hope to aspire to be" as a result of the word. It's somewhat of a requirement to reach any of your full-word guesses.

Why not go back to an individual letter guess? There are two pairs of commonly used letters in it.

Enlightened. — Jamal

That's an impressive guess. And possibly a synonym of the word. Arguably one must be [this word] as a prerequisite to become enlightened.

o — Jamal

The letter "O" is not present in the currently selected word, unfortunately. If it were anyone else I'd have to punch your ticket as far as consecutive guesses. :wink:

As a free hint, a person typically verbally expresses "O" when they reach this state of mind (the word).

s — Jamal

The letter "S" is not present in the currently selected word, no. However, as an additional free hint, the word (or concept) is the "s"-ense of effective philosophy. That is to say, a person would or should ideally be in this state of mind to engage effectively in not only philosophy but anything else, preferably.

The letter "P" is not present in the currently selected word, no. However, as a free hint, the word (or concept) might only be possible if someone "does not have p".

In a sentence, it's a phenomena of the mind, chiefly pattern recognition or seeing the cohesion (similarity) that all machinations of this world (biotic and abiotic) have in common, typically followed by allowing desire, ambition, and imagination (and above all, ego) to supersede logic, truth, and reality (humbleness) that somehow since we are able to see (what we assume to be all) similarities between these things, it elevates us above all that is around us, to the level of a god (or god-infused being). Ordinarily a simple, natural background process of the mind or ego that some instead choose to embrace or elevate as something above the stresses, conditions, predicaments, traumas, conniptions, and strife that are commonplace in the average daily life as it were a "higher" or "truer" reality of it's own merit. And if it works for them, why not let it.

The problem is this is based on a relative non-fixed "idea" versus a solid, absolute entity (a "god") and so is inevitably less reliable (ie. "effective") as far as mental homeostasis and the resulting peace and purpose of actual theistic religion. I've found many people who are "spiritual" without believing in any sort of higher power (theism) are usually ticking time bombs as far as implosion of self-grandeur and.delusion when rubber meets the road. A false mental sanctuary that often leads not to resolution and acceptance of issues and the ills in this world and one's life but repression of them. Which is never good. No, not for very long. For those who believe in neither and simply seek an "end result" analysis as to which is more "effective" as far as observable and measurable purpose.

At least, that's how it is for most people I've come across and especially observed for a given period who proclaim fellowship in such. And I'm a staunch theist, just for context.

I had this reply as a saved draft, but originally decided not to post it due to it seeming "spammy" or non-genuine. But in light of @T Clark's scathing analysis I now feel it slightly more appropriate:

Best thread on TPF in years, OP. :up:

Or maybe we just take things at face value. He wanted banning, he asked for banning, and he got banning. — Hanover

Right. That's not only my but the general sentiment of the active participants in this thread at this time.

We're not impossible to reach out to, so if he pleads temporary insanity and wants to return, we can consider it then. — Hanover

Mm, that's not what I've been made aware of.

See the "official rules" thread, specifically this stipulation:
"Bans are permanent and non-negotiable."

No, that’s the gambler’s fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy — Michael

If your life depended on a person flipping a coin a million times in a row. Would you rather be killed if the person ended up flipping heads or tails one time OR only if the person flipped the same result each of those millions times?

Why is that? :chin:

Would you say the same thing about the gambling addict who avoids casinos? — Leontiskos

No, because that's proof they're treating the root issue by avoiding the problem by using their own willpower. The dynamic you mentioned (or someone mentioned) was to make some other force or entity other than one's self entirely responsible for the individual avoiding something they claim to have a problem controlling or utilizing responsibly, thus removing what is the only true solution (willpower) from the equation entirely. A literal world of difference.

All this over someone who literally said, word-for-word "I want to be banned." :rofl:

What a caring community! :heart:

I have an idea—why don’t we close out this thread for now. It’s getting sort of personal. — T Clark

While that may be a good idea, it should be mentioned that bannings are inherently personal. Are they not? :smile:

Note: I didn't mean to suggest that anything in my last post applies to the recently banned user personally, it was simply a reply to the general idea of a "self-banning" as far as those with a compulsion to use, anything really, but specifically technology, irresponsibly.

Honestly, I think there needs to be a "right to self-ban" when it comes to technology, given its addictive nature. Additionally, computers, phones, and tablets should be required by law to include the ability to self-limit oneself. — Leontiskos

Metaphorical band-aid on a wound that ultimately requires something else. Couldn't hurt, sure. In fact it might even help, until people start to think such a transient and short-lived remedy solved it and so don't make any reasonable attempt to actually address the deeper, underlying root issue, of course. :brow:

I know, I'm upset too, javi. Arguably I was upset already and it had nothing to do with this banning. But the now-banned user was not only quite clear but quite insistent as well. There is little to be upset at, I fear.

I suppose there's simply not very many fresh faces around these parts lately. I admired the new energy is all, objectionable as it was, it was a challenge, I suppose. Something to correct or understand, if nothing else. And really now, would philosophy itself even exist if no such things were ever present? Riddle me that someday. :wink:

Either way I trust in every staff member's judgement. Not just by position bias but by personal immersion in the character one can reasonably derive from their input here.

I do recall personally his "please ban me" thread. I just considered that online spontaneity. A simple overreaction. Remember not everyone has been here so long as to have respect for the place as something different from opening up a random website on one's phone one day while bored. Some folk see this amazing venue, made solely possible only by the staff of course, as something rare not only in their own lives but even as far as most common "places" online. To some, this may be like an outlet, an escape, a sanctuary if you will, where, no perhaps we don't fully appreciate for what it is, but we appreciate it enough for as it is to become.. comfortable, perhaps. And in comfort we reveal our true selves, the good, the bad, and everything in between.

I have read the posts where he did request a ban, twice. Yes. However. And this is the "gotcha." No where can i recall did he request a "permanent" ban. So, he could have merely been referring to what is known here as "a suspension", which and yes, is effectively a ban for a given period, remains a unique request.

Ah well. What's the gent have to do anyway if he had a strong objection? Wait 60 days until the new forum launches? :lol:

Blamed? — Banno

Held accountable for something the individual believed they played no role in or otherwise a state of being or mind that would have been even if same "blamee" (person blamed) was never ever born. Perhaps. Is what the chap means. It's a common viewpoint, unfortunately. No reason not to try and understand the mindset of such in their own words, no?

He's an adult who told us what he wanted. — Michael

What proof do you have of any of this? Even if legal proof is available (which it's not). You would still have no idea that his understanding of the things you consider the boundaries of fact and fiction are the same as what you consider standard.

Like a ripple in a pool of dark. We splash upon what we see, never knowing what it may reach, or what affect it may truly have.

Admit it. You just wanted to blow off the steam you couldn't elsewhere. Go on, no shame.

whatever the opposite of Luddites is — Jamal

Technophile.

1, 4, 5 and 6, though? — bongo fury

(As a reminder these are the relevant items of @Jamal's stipulated usages of AI):
1. AI Summaries (Topic Summaries)
4. AI Bot
5. Post Editing Assistant
6. AI Autofill / Autocomplete

I suspect a handful of posters use these already. Perhaps to mitigate surface-level typographical errors arising from the designated language of this forum not being their first or "primary" language.

So, effectively, though it might encourage a few people who would otherwise not use AI, it likely will only be used by people who use AI anyway.

Do I think it's necessary? Of course not. Would I prefer it be turned off altogether? Maybe maybe not. I just wouldn't use it, and those who metaphorically want to ride bikes with the rest of us with their training wheels on probably shouldn't be belittled for it. Lightheartedly ribbed perhaps, but little more. After all, there is much I don't know about even basic concepts of philosophy so I may even find 1. (AI Summaries) of particular use. Who knows. Though the option to disable/hide any and all "appearances" of it personally to the individual user, is something I hope is a switchable option.

I can find it being noteworthy to point out the seemingly shifting attitude toward AI from the highest levels of TPF. Though perhaps this was in resignation and begrudging acceptance (similar to climate change) rather than an old-fashioned "change of heart." :smile:

You could (if that were the case) try a "Luddites' Corner", for people preferring specifically human to human dialectic? — bongo fury

I don't imagine @Jamal being on board with this. Despite it sounding conceptually interesting. What would it categorically represent? Wouldn't it just divide discussions away from their intended category into an effective "second Lounge?" :chin:

The majority of trans people are not victims of anything but the unfortunate situation of having a mental illness. — AmadeusD


I'd like to see a direct response to this from Philosophim, @I like sushi, @Outlander, @ProtagoranSocratist, and @Jamal as well as @Janus.

For my part, I see Amadeus as hiding his prejudices in medical language. — Banno

Since you asked. I think the following reply is quite reasonable:

This is an overreaction Banno. There is a fine line between mental illness and mental health issue. Technically gender dysphoria, which is what is what transition seeks to treat, is no longer classified under 'mental illness' in the DSM V. Its now a mental health condition like depression. We need to really be careful that we're not using 'prejudices' in a boy who cried wolf scenario or a cudgel in an attempt to silence honest discussion. — Philosophim

I mean, just look at it from a layperson's perspective. Life is hard. People are cruel. Most adults are basically just large, wrinkled children. Mentally and morally. Freedom inherently means living an unexamined life, until one chooses (and why would someone go through the effort when lowbrow primal pleasures are so easily and readily available) to. We bully people. Sometimes without any actual intention to harm, sometimes with that being the one and only purpose (sometimes for advancement of survival and gain of resources, sometimes just for sheer entertainment, which is advancement of survival per quality of life/emotional homeostasis, despite the fact it being deplorable). Historically, women are considered weaker, smaller, "fairer" now that intelligent people have managed to survive long enough amongst the presence of mindless brutes. So, it's common for a dominant gender (currently the male gender, hence the claims of patriarchy) to express that dominance in the form of bullying (whether lighthearted or truly pointed as far as harmful intention) to other people, typically weaker or smaller persons. This makes these persons who experience constant bullying (which is actually just a buzzword for what's really happening, constant prodding of the "flight or fight" response in intelligent beings, which if done without rest can cause mental re-wiring ie. detriment or "mental illness" colloquially) to question if they "belong" (see ostracization) and so naturally makes the mind consider if they are "not like others" (since it's a common verbatim to insult a person by comparing them to another gender, per systems of hierarchy, this is what is questioned and leads people victimized by ostracization to be the first thing they "re-consider" about themself).

This is all basic, codified science. Nothing new or strange here. So, that aside. Back to a simplified laypersons view. If you're born a human (no matter what sex) and you look at a dog and start thinking "oh maybe I'm a dog". That's weird. It's irrational. It's not supported by anything observable, logical, medical, or scientific. Ergo, a delusion. It's reasonably and rational perceived as a form of unwellness. Now if you happened to take a step further and say, cut the ears off a dog and staple it to your temples because you truly insist you were "supposed" to have been a dog and this is how you have to go through life. That just makes you look violent and crazy. We are physical beings who require our bodies to maintain their integrity otherwise we die. That's why horror movies are so disturbing. It's removing or altering (or destroying) the flesh we were born into. It's not fair or reasonable to act like people who find it "odd" (or outright disturbing and explicitly indicative of mental illness) are guilty of some sort intentional or specifically non-organic, non-biologically "understandable" sentiment or ideology. Can you see the validity and truth of that last sentence, at least?

There are over 6,000 species of mammals that exist or have existed. None of them are inherently intersex. It's just not a function that mammals evolved. It's an aberration. So, someone thinking they for some reason are the first mammal out of billions of others, who show NO physical signs of "being intersex", was "supposed to have been the opposite sex" is not rational. Like a child imagining themself as a dinosaur or something they admire or wish to be. It's just not supported by facts. That makes it a mental aberration. That's a fact. Whether that aberration amounts to the level of detriment severe enough to be classified as an illness is not something I feel a need to comment on.

Sure, why not? — frank

Maybe @Metaphysician Undercover's point is to understand something, real or not, you have to have an abstraction of it. The philosopher's argument being the point of their craft: "to show the person they are a fly in a bottle, without realizing the nature of their containment, they can't ever escape from it." For example.

Abstractions or concepts are required to know what it is you're interacting with. If you have no understanding of the concept of, say, a solar eclipse, and have never seen one before, you might reasonably and rationally assume the world is ending or some cataclysmic celestial event is otherwise occurring if observed for the first time. It doesn't make a thing more real or less real, it simply reasonably (but not necessarily accurately) defines and describes something that you would otherwise either not be aware of or think to be something that it's not.

Speak for yourself. I don't see why anyone would ever assume that there is someone who knows all there is to know. Since knowledge varies from one person to another, it's very counterintuitive to think that there would be one person who knows everything. Since much knowledge is context dependent wouldn't this require someone who is everywhere, all the time? — Metaphysician Undercover

All I was trying to say is, even a child can come across "true knowledge"—he or she simply might be "incapable of knowing (processing it?)" at the time (but might, given enough time, thus illustrating the concept of the unknowable becoming knowable, at least in one valid manner of thinking). Adults too. You're a mortal being, aren't you? Yes? That means time is relevant as far as how one reasonably perceives things in the world we live. Is that ice bridge solid enough to walk on? At that moment it is, so we might choose to. Do we instead go by some "set apart" (albeit deterministically equal) reality that since it will melt in, who knows, a century from now we consider it water and not able to traverse? No, it's either there or not there based on the circumstance of my present being. Let "traversable" represent "knowable."

Since knowledge is the property of knowers, are you proposing God to support the idea of knowledge which is unknowable to current human beings? — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps information or the even the general "concept of understanding" (whether ever actually attained or achieved by anyone ie. the would-be "knower") is what my statement was focused on. I'm not proposing anything only reiterating the fact that since human beings (or intelligent life itself) regularly go from periods of light and dark respectively (in terms of knowledge and understanding) there are reasonable arguments to be made in support of the idea of some "knowledge" being "unknowable". If not due to a given circumstance (observable reality) that may or may not change within the given period of a person's life (applicable period of "knowing" or "being a knower").

As far as some "unknowable knowledge" that the human mind is somehow not capable of processing (knowing), say the full digits of Pi, for example (but hypothetically might in the future, since we do not know the future). Well, that's one example it would seem. Or is it? Seems easy to get caught up in semantics with this one.

What is a true statement that's beyond our knowledge? — Metaphysician Undercover

You've never accidentally walked into a 9th grade math class (one with an equation on the board) by mistake when you were in 5th grade? :wink:

An important distinction is, much like a child, we assume either we—or someone we know—knows all there is to know (that is to say, can simply be "exposed" to such knowledge, such as walking into a room where it's written and automatically understand it in full depth and detail as others do; this is merely the ego at work, the driving force and cause of all human suffering). There, of course, per nature of the topic is the idea of an "unknowable" knowledge. But that concept rests largely on the one who perceives it. If humans evolved, we now possess knowledge those before us were incapable of knowing (ergo, the "unknowable" knowledge). Yet, it became knowable. So, one might reasonably hold the belief that unless one can predict or perceive the future, there is a concept of "unknowable knowledge" that may change and become knowable.

Not unlike how—not that long ago—only a madman would consider braving the seas in search of nourishment or freedom. Yet now even the average person does so for recreation via the form of an affordable cruise. Something to think about. Perhaps, with any hope, to calm your turbulent mind. :smile:

But first you'd have to show that languages were simpler in the past, and I don't think that's supported by historical linguistics. — Jamal

Isn't that supported by basic evolution? Even common layperson knowledge (caveman grunts, etc.)? A child can barely speak, but typically, gains the ability to as most every person can today. Isn't this a parallel to evolution of human society?

Sure, that's not to say some societies or groups happened to evolve their language skills "quicker", at least in relative comparison to others who may have existed somewhere at the time. Perhaps those in the immediate past, who were forced to suffer and toil, thus bringing about the knowledge and experience we now take for granted as "common sense", may have been more advanced and then other societies kind of, you know, "simplified things" the way a computer used to take up the entire size of a room yet can now fit on a person's wrist and perform equal and even greater function, yes.

But I don't think historical linguistics is in the region of what Hanover is really getting at — Jamal

What is your take on his intention, then? Don't worry, he likely won't be offended if you're way off course. :razz:

Could it be that times (perhaps even minds) were simpler as recent as 200 years ago before any sort of recognizable modern engine, let alone technology? Perhaps compounded by a harsher, constant "fight or die" environment before man gained mastery over said environment allowing for more time to think and "mentally evolve", per se? :chin:

Perhaps it depends on the climate of the environment as well. More time indoors versus moving around for survival (or perhaps a harsh winter climate that required long periods inside with one's community in a confined place with little to do) would probably lead to a sophistication in language. Or would it?

Ergo, language was simpler because times were simpler. There just wasn't much to talk about or perhaps even not much time to idly ponder the things the average person does today.

it is a very obvious strawman to interpret "bats are flying mammals" to mean "metal clubs are flying mammals". — Michael

Of course, "obvious" means easily or rather, expected to be perceived. Perception is a phenomenon of experience meets knowledge. We assume the average person in one's given society is supposed to know a certain word has multiple meanings. That's rational. But not guaranteed.

A person who lives in a territory where bats don't exist yet has experience with baseball as a recreational past-time sport might very well know one definition and not the other. Again, we rely on our own experience as if every person on Earth is supposed to, and those who don't, seemingly don't count. That's neither fair nor rational.

to normalize behavior no person of any sex or society should tolerate, let alone normalize — Outlander


What behaviour are you referring to here? — Jamal

Otherwise, I still have no idea what you meant by "behavior no person of any sex or society should tolerate." — Jamal

It's not really relevant in comparison to the discussion.

Other than it's an attempted (and in some societies, successful) moral hijacking of social norms and words that describe social norms to include things behaviors and attitudes that were once shamed and ridiculed. For example, when someone is hesitant to do something for clearly logical reasons, one might choose to belittle him and question his "manhood" so as to ironically make him do things at the behest of another person, which actually makes him like a "woman" according to historic and many modern standards. It's the jarring disconnect that people don't realize how responding to comments of the sort in fact make them less than men but like children following the behests of others.

It's social engineering. Effectively making any person do things they otherwise wouldn't do, generally immoral, dangerous, or destructive things by suggesting if they don't they're not "normal" or "not a man" or "not a woman" or whatever it is they're supposed to "be like" per social opinion. Peer pressure. Fall of the monarchy. Rise of the darkness that is unrefined human nature.

Specifically, I'm referring to how drastic and pronounced it's become to normalize behavior that was historically shamed and punished by simple phrases such as "be a man", thus showing how far the moral rot of many modern societies has advanced. It's a passing social commentary on the state of morality, more so than anything else. But never you mind. It's being handled.

For what it's worth, the OP's substantive claim is this:

Most of the world does not view man and woman by gender, but by sex, so the default goes to sex. — Philosophim


Most of those who disagree with the OP therefore disagree with this claim or with its significance. — Jamal

Ah, yes. Back on track. This stands to reason since, per definition of the OP, "gender" is a reference to cultural norms. How many cultures are there on Earth? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Millions, perhaps, counting sub-cultures and small civilizations, perhaps unheard of? Sure. So, one may argue it would simply be—not just difficult or inaccurate—but impossible to account for something that varies from social sphere to social sphere ("social expectation of behavior" ie. gender, if you define it as such) in favor of something absolute and constant (sex).

That much is understandable. Isn't it? :chin:

Edit: Your money is pounds. My money is dollars. I wouldn't go around to another person in another country talking about "dollars", especially if I know their money is or might be different. I would say what is constant and universal: "money." So, yes, sometimes more broader, universal terms are to be favored over what one is comfortable with and that is generally accurate (to one's particular understanding).

What behaviour are you referring to here? — Jamal

Anything that shouldn't be normalized. In a society that tolerates and encourages slavery, for example, it might be "normal gender behavior" for males to engage and casually talk about such acts in a mocking, friendly way. That would mean, at least to me, the idea of "gender" being just a word to describe "what other people of your sex expect from you" doesn't seem to be exactly a well of depth worth discussing. It's just a benchmark or expectation of a given society. Relevant only to that society as long as that particular society exists. I just don't see how that's particularly fruitful as far as philosophical debate goes. Perhaps it's just over my head. :confused:

The reason I posted was to try and understand the impasse between OP and @Banno. Both smart people, so, it just makes me wonder exactly what the other person isn't "buying" or otherwise not seeing eye to eye is. I haven't read every single post from the beginning, so I merely offered my preliminarily assessment: "Some people have looser definitions of a word than others, so perhaps that's what the current impasse is rooted in." Just wanted to get OP's opinion on my opinion, I suppose. :smile:

For the sake of advancing the discussion and ensuring no one party is hung up on something trivial, of course.

Seems like as good a time as any to reset the topic. :smile:

That is, so people can understand what the OP and the most recent poster they engaged with productively failed to instill in one another. Certainly this happened as both are intelligent people who fail to see eye to eye.

But first, this concerns me (not to say it's not accurate, hence the concern):

A few definitions first:

Sex - A species expressed reproductive role.
Gender - A cultural expectation of non-biological behavior in regards to an individual's sex — Philosophim

Commoners (those not raised with morals, intellectual rigor, and standards) consider their degeneracy "normal" male behavior. It's not. It's bestial degeneracy. An unfortunate symptom of moral rot ie. normalization of that which should be despised. That means comparing the two classes of males under this dynamic is going to give a false distinction of what "cultural expectation of [...] behavior" actually means.

I'll give you an example, a real world anecdote from my youth: I once had the displeasure of obtaining schooling in the city. Let's just say they couldn't even legally call it a school; it was an "educational center." They had more security guards than cafeteria staff. 'Nuff said. So. I'm sitting there eating lunch at a table with about half a dozen other boys. Somehow (or perhaps, as expected), the topic of masturbation comes up, to which I of course stay out of. The person closest to me blurts out some vulgar speech about female genitalia, to which I glance over to him with a scornful look of disapproval. Now, instead of apologizing or excusing himself for profane talk at a time and place of eating like a civilized child, he instead responds "Oh, sorry, I didn't know you were a girl!" As if I was somehow the one out of line as far as social etiquette. I didn't realize until several years later that, technically, being in a den of those raised with all the morals and standards of a small rodent, I was in fact the one out of line, or, "acting contrary to how the average male of our age (sadly) does."

My point is, just because a given society or even world has a "social expectation" of something (in this case, per my story, being vulgar or edgy, or perhaps in another time, accepting and supportive of slavery), doesn't mean it should be treated as if it has the same class of relevance as "sex", something that is rooted in the absolute.

Anyway, just wanted to express that. Moving on. Regardless, the current impasse seems to be an issue of the fact that different people can have different "grasps" of definitions, some looser and some stricter than others. This is a one-dimensional problem. Not that exciting, per se.

From my understanding, everyone in this thread who has participated thus far can agree on the following statement: "A transgender 'man' is an individual born as a female who either chooses to identify as the opposite gender or has obtained medical surgery to function as one in some degree." (And the opposite for the opposite sex, respectively).

So, that's not the issue. The issue is that words evolve over time and some people accept a looser definition of "man" and "woman" to include that of, again this, what I find absurd, idea of "gender" (not that I find the concept of gender absurd, but what it has been turned into to normalize behavior no person of any sex or society should tolerate, let alone normalize).

This (that is to say the current impasse) seems to be more of a social issue involving words and meaning of words. Not exactly a deep pool of philosophy, IMO. Unless I missed something? :chin:

By definition, the actual world is the one we are in. Is that what you are asking?

Or are you asking for proof that you are in the actual world? — Banno

Right now, as I post this, I am in the actual world of TPF. As are you when you are participating in it. It is very real. It psychically exists. It can be measured by both of us by observing not only our interactions but if we were to physically meet at whatever server or computer infrastructure contains our interactions. Someone who has never heard of TPF would have no knowledge or reason to believe in this "actual" world we are both present in, without visiting it themself, or visiting the underlying location this interaction is made possible by.

Now, say if me and another member were engaging in a private message. That's, in affect, it's own world. That only the two of us would know about and you would not be privy too. Naturally, you could say it's simply a function of the larger world of TPF and furthermore beyond that, a feature of the larger physical world we could both meet.

The fact remains, in each smaller world, each participant knows only what they're able to access, leaving that larger than it unknown, as if it didn't exist. Yet it does, but only those able to access it would know that.

So again, we go back to the original question. How do you know there's not a larger world than what you're able to access?

Or are you asking for proof that you are in the actual world? What could that look like? — Banno

I'm sure you and I are in the same world, as we're two entities able to communicate within it. But that doesn't mean, for certain, there's not a larger world in which only one of us may be able to access. That would, in theory, make that hypothetical larger place the "actual" world. No different than how a private message between myself and another is a "world" or "reality" that while myself and the person I'm speaking to could access, you yourself could not access. Just as this forum is a "world" that we can both "access" but someone who does not have access to a computer nor it's physical server location would not consider an "actual" location.

We are in the actual world. — Banno

What proof do you have of such that a person in a stipulated or even flat-out simulated world wouldn't be able to "show" or otherwise "point to" as well, though? This is the root of the argument that words and misplacement of words ultimately fail to address. :chin:

And now, your worst fears have come true and TPF is becoming an SPA. — Jamal

Well, shoot. I'm just one poster. See what others have to say and go from there I guess. I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right. Or no, that's not quite right. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Or something "Star Warsy" like that.

Arguably, the banking site I use is SPA. You log in and everything most people use routinely seems to be SPA. Sure there's links to terms and other features and whatnot. I consider my activity here as a hobby. Mostly for my benefit. Most people elsewhere disappoint my expectations to understand and engage with ideas I have. But it's not their fault.

And either way. You're not the sole vanguard of intellectual spaces online, need I remind you. :smile:

Do you have JavaScript turned off? Discourse is basically a JavaScript application. — Jamal

I do not. I can browse most popular websites easily and with full functionality: Facebook, Twitter (X). Amazon, Google, banking websites, etc. Discourse is literally the only site I can recall that gives me the "your browser is out of date" spiel (along with reduced functionality) I have ever seen on this PC I've had for 5 years now.

In any case I think you might have more trouble than you think, I'm sorry to tell you. It won't just be a matter of visual style, emojis and so on. — Jamal

If a topic engages me enough, I'll find a way. I again have a phone, and in fact an old tablet I can tether to the Wi-Fi, if need be.

Even if my access on PC ends up being read-only, it takes 2 seconds to pull up the thread I may desire replying to on mobile. Not an issue for me. Though others (if there are any) may object to such on ideological grounds. Not me, however. :smile:

In my opinion that's not enough to demand we abandon Discourse. — Jamal

Absolutely. No one should have any ability to make you think otherwise.

Unfortunately this means you'll have trouble using the new forum — Jamal

Not necessarily. I've come to admire the nice features and design of Plush, but it's the interaction (the words sent and received) that are the reason I frequent this forum. Nothing else. Provided I can read plain text and respond accordingly, there's no real detriment.

Actually you could apparently use Firefox ESR — Jamal

I am (now) on the most up to date version of Firefox: 115.30.0esr. That's the acronym of "Extended Support Release" I had posted prior, yes. The result is the same. Which again is no concern of mine. I don't think the presence or absence of the occasional emoticon or having to right-click on an image to view it's full link is anything worth giving a second thought about. If it were a more widespread issue, that might actually result in more than one or two disengagements or disinclination to participate, then yes. But if the statistics you read are accurate, no such concerns are present.

It's fairly interesting how, despite every single other site I browse being basically normal with full features (banking, eCommerce, social media, etc.) this one platform decides to be like "ok let's turn his experience into something from the 1990s" for seemingly no reason at all. But again, perhaps motives I've yet to understand are justified.

Nietzsche said the purpose of philosophy was entertainment — ProtagoranSocratist

What is entertainment? It must differ from liveliness and general social fraternization. Is all art and media simply expression that happens to fall under the auspices of "entertainment?" Could entertainment be... mere distraction? :chin:

Why or why not?

Perhaps to some people "truth" is merely entertainment (distraction) from an underlying reality that is devoid of such warm and splendid concepts men create for themselves to cope in an unforgiving world. That's a bit dark, however. So, perhaps, inversely, entertainment is reaching the depths of human need that mere facts and figures, despite providing access to the things we need, they themself could never fulfill?