You can call NOS4A2 a moronic rape apologist.

So if anything it's a reductio ad absurdum against the assumption that ◇∃x□Fx is true for every logically consistent Fx. — Michael

On this point, consider this:

1. ∃xFx → ∃x∀y(Fy ↔ (x = y))
2. ◇∃x□(Fx ∧ Ax) ∴ ∃x□(Fx ∧ Ax)
3. ◇∃x□(Fx ∧ ¬Ax) ∴ ∃x□(Fx ∧ ¬Ax)

The first premise asserts that if there is an x such that Fx then there is exactly one x such that Fx. The second asserts that there is an x such that it is necessary that both Fx and Ax. The third asserts that there is an x such that it is necessary that both Fx and ¬Ax. Obviously this is a contradiction.

If we take Fx to mean something like "x is the sole creator of the world" then 1 is true, and as both 2 and 3 are valid under S5 it must be that one or both antecedents are false, and so one or both of these is true:

4. ¬◇∃x□(Fx ∧ Ax)
5. ¬◇∃x□(Fx ∧ ¬Ax)

Therefore we cannot assume that ◇∃x□Px is true for any logically consistent Px, and so cannot assume that it is possible that something necessarily created the world.

Or we have to reject S5, but if we reject S5 then the modal ontological argument is invalid as “possibly necessary” wouldn’t entail “necessary”.

Gets found liable for defamation, proceeds to defame on TV the following day.

He just invites his own problems. Either a second lawsuit or more evidence for the second trial if he gets an appeal.

The jury disagreed.

What evidence? There was no evidence of either rape or battery. But they went with one and not the other, for whatever reason. — NOS4A2

I wasn't at the trial so I don't know. You'd have to ask the jury.

Nevertheless, it might be the case that the underlying metaphysics that facilitates the argument is the correct one. It just still would have relatively little to do with a god. Or, as with other ontological arguments, you can perform the same conjuring trick where you posit an entity with G and then it suddenly exists. Like the aether example. — fdrake

I did offer a more substantial notion of God here. The argument attempts to show that there exists something which necessarily created the world.

But you are right that we can posit any entity. So if anything it's a reductio ad absurdum against the assumption that ◇∃x□Fx is true for every logically consistent Fx.

Second quibble: possibly there exists x such that Gx is unsupported. Modal logics do lots of different things. You can say that 1 is possible for 2 under the accessibility relation "less than or equal to" in the integers. Whether the relevant sense of modality in the logic models an appropriate notion of metaphysical necessity is still something that you can quibble with. Why would you need something like an equivalence accessibility relation between worlds? — fdrake

The argument does depend on S5 where the accessibility relation is universal. From my reading there are good reasons to accept S5 so it would be shortsighted to deny it simply to dismiss the modal ontological argument, and special pleading to deny it only for the modal ontological argument.

They disagreed with her rape accusation. So it’s clear they thought she was lying. — NOS4A2

Clearly they thought that either a) the evidence of what Trump did didn't satisfy the legal definition of rape or b) the evidence of rape wasn't a "preponderance" of evidence.

I’m quite aware he lost. But the fact remains there is no evidence of his supposed crimes. — NOS4A2

Clearly the jury disagreed. There was more evidence that he was guilty than there was evidence that Carroll and the others were lying.

So, Trump didn't object to an anonymous jury, didn't testify, missed the deadline for providing DNA evidence, and didn't offer his own defence witnesses.

There's no grand unjust conspiracy here @NOS4A2. He just lost.

Incidentally, https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23721313/kaplan-ruling-in-carroll-v-trump-jury.pdf

The trial of this case will begin on April 25, 2023. On March 11, 2023, the Court
directed the parties to file any objections to trying the case before an anonymous jury. Neither objected.

Yes, the sordid fears of a New York judge take precedence over an individual’s right to an impartial jury. — NOS4A2

Anonymous doesn't mean not impartial.

That seems to be why he lost, not because E. Jean Carrol established anything beyond a reasonable doubt. — NOS4A2

In a civil trial the requirement is a preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Because it was Donald Trump. — NOS4A2

Yes, the jury were especially at risk because it was Donald Trump who was being tried. If he wasn't such a twat and if his supporters weren't such psychos then the jury wouldn't have been kept anonymous.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-face-anonymous-jury-high-profile-new-york-defamation-trial-2023-03-23/

Kaplan said the need for juror anonymity reflected the "unprecedented circumstances in which this trial will take place, including the extensive pretrial publicity and a very strong risk that jurors will fear harassment, unwanted invasions of their privacy, and retaliation."

...

In his decision, Kaplan cited Trump's March 18 call for protest if he were indicted in a Manhattan's district attorney case for covering up a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

Kaplan said Trump's reaction "has been perceived by some as an incitement to violence," and said some people charged over the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol "rightly or wrongly" attributed their actions to incitement by Trump.

The judge also said Trump has "repeatedly" attacked courts, judges, law enforcement and even individual jurors.

These, the judge said, included the forepersons of the grand jury looking into whether Trump tried to sway the 2020 election results in Georgia, and the jury at longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone's 2019 obstruction trial.

"If jurors' identities were disclosed, there would be a strong likelihood of unwanted media attention to the jurors, influence attempts, and/or of harassment or worse of jurors by supporters of Mr. Trump," Kaplan wrote.

Trump only has himself to blame.

So then why was it not allowed in this case? — NOS4A2

Because it doesn't apply to States, although most States choose to follow it to some extent. In this case the judge ruled that the danger posed to the jury warranted them remaining anonymous.

Although actually, I'm not sure this response is even warranted. Even if our "ordinary" concept of God is one that isn't to be interpreted as being modally necessary, the modal ontological argument does posit such a God, and their argument should be addressed on that premise.

Does it show that a modally necessary God exists? Is ◊◻∃xGx true and does ◊◻∃xGx entail ◻∃xGx?

Then why would they have voir dire in civil cases? — NOS4A2

Because of the 7th Amendment?

Edit: Although it doesn't apply to States, but many States choose to follow it anyway.

If you are a lawyer, Hanover, what is your opinion on anonymous juries and the 6th amendment? — NOS4A2

I'm not a lawyer but the 6th Amendment applies to criminal trials, not civil.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/15/trump-e-jean-carroll-defamation-lawsuit-dna

Donald Trump missed his chance to use his DNA to try to prove he did not rape the writer E Jean Carroll, a federal judge said on Wednesday, clearing a potential roadblock to an April trial.

The judge, Lewis A Kaplan, rejected the 11th-hour offer by Trump’s legal team to provide a DNA sample to rebut claims Carroll first made publicly in a 2019 book.

Kaplan said lawyers for Trump and Carroll had more than three years to make DNA an issue in the case and both chose not to do so.

He said it would almost surely delay the trial scheduled to start on 25 April to reopen the DNA issue four months after the deadline passed to litigate concerns over trial evidence and weeks before trial.

Trump’s lawyers did not immediately comment. Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, declined to comment.

Carroll’s lawyers have sought Trump’s DNA for three years to compare it with stains found on the dress Carroll wore the day she says Trump raped her in a department store dressing room in late 1995 or early 1996. Analysis of DNA on the dress concluded it did contain traces of an unknown man’s DNA.

The scars, the medical records, the witnesses. They’re probably all there. — NOS4A2

Sure, but you were implying that her not knowing the year is evidence that she made it up. I'm simply giving you an example of how that's a non sequitur. People can forget which year traumatic events happen.

You can prove it in court. — NOS4A2

So could she, and she did, hence Trump being found liable.

Supposing there is medical malpractice, would you wait 30 years to accuse someone? — NOS4A2

Probably not, as I'd have no reason not to. But I can understand why someone wouldn't want to take someone to court for being sexually assaulted. I know a few people who have confided in being victimised in this way but who never reported it, myself included.

See also this.

Carroll replied that at the time, she was ashamed of what she alleges happened. She later added that she was mindful of Trump’s power and connections in New York and “didn’t think police would take me seriously.”

Research has repeatedly found that rapes and sexual assaults are among the types of violent crime least likely to be reported to police. An annual U.S. crime victimization survey found that less than 23% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported in 2021 and 2020, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

...

Carroll has testified that she spoke out because of the #MeToo movement, which gained prominence in 2017.

So again it's a non sequitur to infer that she's a liar.

None of them can remember the year it happened. — NOS4A2

I don't remember what year I was given morphine and underwent surgery. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, because it did. I remember it vividly. I have the scar to prove it.

It does seem to trade on an ambiguous interpretation of the phrase "necessary". Modality is tricky. When I say that it is possible that it will rain tomorrow, I'm not simply saying that there is some possible world (e.g. parallel world) where it will rain tomorrow, but rather saying that the actual world might be such a world.

Is there a form of modal logic that can make this distinction?

Indeed, the modes of gender expression available within a society or social group are socially constituted, representing prevailing norms. The arbitrariness or justification of these norms can be as varied as those of other societal norms, such as laws, ethical principles, customs, and etiquette. — Pierre-Normand

That makes sense. The use of certain words such as "he", "she", "man", and "woman", as well as the types of clothes that people wear, have nothing to do with biology (except for the obvious case of bras being used to support breasts) and everything to do with social custom (even if such social customs are guided by biology).

or it represents some other, hidden biological fact, like neuroanatomy. — NOS4A2

There is some evidence of this. See Brain Sex Differences Related to Gender Identity Development: Genes or Hormones?

The aforementioned studies, although very heterogeneous, provide data supporting the biological bases of the psychosexual development. In particular, post-mortem and in vivo neuroimaging studies strongly suggest the existence of a sexual dimorphic brain, i.e., slight differences in brain anatomy and functioning between the two sexes. It is less clear how such brain structures become the substrate of sex differences in cognition and behaviour. This matter has been mainly investigated through the examination of specific populations, such as subjects with gender incongruence and intersex individuals: gender identity is one of the most sex-specific human trait, and many studies show how brain sexually dimorphic structures are often in line with gender identity rather than with sex assigned at birth. Research on this field has reported a possible organizational-activational role of sex hormones: in fact, studies on people with intersexual conditions highlight the role of prenatal and pubertal sex hormones in the determination of gender identity and other sex-specific cognitive traits.

Although as the study says, this shouldn't be misconstrued as saying that there's such a thing as a male and female brain.

In short, the dysphoria is the problem, not the sex. All medications, surgeries, and therapy ought to be used to rectify the one and not to permanently damage the other. It's a humanitarian issue, too. Should we arrive at a cure, who are we going to blame for convincing a vulnerable people to take such drastic, and physically altering measures, from which there is no return? — NOS4A2

Surgery often is the "cure" (or at least a beneficial treatment). See Association Between Gender-Affirming Surgeries and Mental Health Outcomes:

In this article, we present the largest study to our knowledge to date on associations between gender-affirming surgeries and mental health outcomes. Our results demonstrate that undergoing gender-affirming surgery is associated with improved past-month severe psychological distress, past-year smoking, and past-year suicidal ideation. Our findings offer empirical evidence to support provision of gender-affirming surgical care for TGD people who seek it. Furthermore, this study provides evidence to support policies that expand and protect access to gender-affirming surgical care for TGD communities.

And I suspect that if society were more accepting of transgender people then improvements in mental health after surgery would be even greater.

You have two choices:

1. You can accept that this is a question that will have to be answered at local levels.

2. You can work to establish that a trans person's rights are being violated if they can't use the toilet of their choice. Now you have a crime that's being committed and you can protest it, and work to get it changed. — frank

Or 3) let people use the toilets they're most comfortable using.

Then in a society that requires people who have XX chromosomes to use the women's toilet, yes he can use the women's toilet. — frank

Why are chromosomes relevant? How would we even know what someone's chromosomes are? We don't DNA test people before letting them use the toilet.

And what about people who are neither XX nor XY? Or someone with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome [NSFW], who although has XY chromosomes has external female genitalia?

In a society that doesn't allow people with XY chromosomes to use the women's toilet, yes, he'd have to pee somewhere else. :up: — frank

He has XX chromosomes. He's a trans man, i.e. born with female genitalia and transitioned to a man by taking testosterone and surgery (at least top, I don't know about bottom).

Should he use women's toilets because he's biologically female?

It's a question, not a point.

So if it's just a matter of born biology, does this trans man have to use women's toilets?

You did not preserve the substance of my post and show how women's rights and identity are not under threat. — Andrew4Handel

What does this have to do with trans people using their preferred bathrooms? Trans men want to use men's toilets, trans women want to use women's toilets. How does any of this affect the rights and identities of cis men and women? Other people using a toilet has nothing to do with you.

I really don't get this obsession with bathrooms. There's a nightclub I sometimes go to where all the toilets are unisex. It's really no issue. It's a just a room with private cubicles and shared sinks to wash hands.

I suspect that more trans women are harassed in men's bathrooms by cis men and more trans men are harassed in women's bathrooms by cis women than cis women are harassed in women's bathrooms by trans women. If you're concerned with people being harassed in bathrooms then it's better to just let trans people use their preferred bathrooms.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-survey-idUSKBN13X0BK

Almost 60 percent of transgender Americans have avoided using public restrooms for fear of confrontation, saying they have been harassed and assaulted, according to the largest survey taken of transgender people in the United States.

The survey of 27,715 respondents reached an estimated 2 percent of the adult transgender population in 2015, seeking to fill a gap in data about a severely understudied group whose experiences and challenges from medicine to law to economics and family relations are poorly understood.

The findings by the National Center for Transgender Equality on public restrooms counter the message of mainly conservative politicians and religious leaders that transgender people are the antagonists preying on others. It found that 12 percent of transgender people were verbally harassed in public restrooms within the previous year, 1 percent were physically attacked and 1 percent were sexually assaulted. Nine percent said someone denied them access to a bathroom.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/transgender-teens-restricted-bathroom-access-sexual-assault/

Transgender and gender-nonbinary teens face greater risk of sexual assault in schools that prevent them from using bathrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity, according to a recent study.

Researchers looked at data from a survey of nearly 3,700 U.S. teens aged 13-17. The study found that 36% of transgender or gender-nonbinary students with restricted bathroom or locker room access reported being sexually assaulted in the last 12 months, according to a May 6, 2019 CNN article. Of all students surveyed, 1 out of every 4, or 25.9%, reported being a victim of sexual assault in the past year.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8022685/

Also according to the declaration, the idea that protection for transgender people (including using the bathroom without constraint due to gender identity) harms the privacy and security of other users is a myth. Several critics point out that there is no evidence that non-discrimination policies or that explicitly allow transgender people to use restrooms according to their gender identities have led to an increase in the number of sexual harassment cases in bathrooms and women's locker rooms anywhere in the world (Doran, 2016; Hasenbush et al., 2019). States (19) and cities (more than 200) in the US that have passed laws against discrimination against LGBT people show that such measures have not caused any increase in incidences of crime in bathrooms (Maza and Brinker, 2014). This is not surprising, given that the approval of protections against discrimination has no impact on existing laws that criminalize violent behavior in bathrooms. In the absence of real incidents to base trans-exclusionary bathroom policies, anti-trans groups fabricate horror stories about trans-inclusive bathroom policies (Maza, 2014).

Security and privacy in the use of public restrooms are certainly important for everyone—including transgender people. Arguments that unilaterally conceive the access of transgender people to restrooms according to their gender identities as a risk factor for the safety of other people assume, even implicitly, that the transgender population does not deserve to be protected under the same standards as the cisgender population. This is particularly alarming, given that research shows precisely that young transgender people are exposed to much higher rates of violence in US schools' restrooms (middle and high school) than young cisgenders (Murchison et al., 2019).

If we accept that analytic statements are analytic on the basis of convention then we accept that they are, at the same time, not going to have anything philosophically interesting about them. — Moliere

What about maths? We might define the symbols and axioms but the results take time to discover and have practical import.

So it could be reworded to show that the statement in this case is about the word rather than about bachelors: “‘bachelor’ means ‘unmarried man’”. This is synthetic (as I’m supposing all definitions are) and it follows from it that “all bachelors are unmarried men” is analytically true. — Jamal

Is there a difference between saying that "bachelor" means "unmarried man" and saying that a bachelor is an unmarried man?

I'm what you would call 'ignorant' of the true science behind transgenderism. So are the scientists who study it. It's new. No one knows anything yet. — Outlander

It's a newish area of study, but it isn't new. See transgender history.

and their are no adequate detransition studies. — Andrew4Handel

If there are no adequate detransition studies then how can you claim that detransitioning is a significant problem?

Detransition Reddit now has 47 thousand members and many recitals of the real reasons people transition and detransition none to do with family pressure. — Andrew4Handel

So a subreddit membership count is the best evidence you have? That's more reliable than the actual studies that have been done?

I as a vulnerable gay man from a homophobic religious cult and autistic could have sterilised myself and have had my genitals severed like Ritchie Herrin and ShapeShifter gay male detransitioners. — Andrew4Handel

The fact that growing up in a homophobic, religious cult could have left you unable to recognize the difference between being a gay man and being a transgender woman isn't evidence that it is wrong to be accepting of transgenderism and medical transitioning.

This just shows that the problem is with homophobic, religious cults.

It is categorically impossible to change sex. — Andrew4Handel

What do you mean by this? Are you just saying that it's impossible to change one's DNA? Nobody is saying otherwise. You're attacking a strawman.

Yes women have been attacked in such situations so do your own research. — Andrew4Handel

Women get attacked in all sorts of situations. But you're sidestepping the question. Are you trying to say that transgender women just want to use women's bathrooms because they want to sexually assault women?

You also haven't answered my question about the person in the photo. Simply by "trusting your senses", what bathroom should that person use?

This is all a distraction from the issue of gay men having their testicles removed and penises mutilated then regretting it which really has happened and is happening. — Andrew4Handel

What does being transgender have to do with gay men?

The increasing number of people regretting irreversible bodily damage due to identifying in as trans. These people are easy to find on You Tube prominent among them is Shapeshifter and Ritchie Herrin. Both gay men who experienced internalized homophobia and have no detransitionted. There are several more you can find including Chloe Cole child transitioner.

https://www.gendergp.com/detransition-facts/

On average, 97% of people who are transgender are happy with their decision to transition. Only ~3% of trans people experience some form of regret, but may not detransition.

...

Well, why do people detransition? The main reason cited for detransition is social pressure. Recent research by Dr Jack Turban has found that around 90 per cent of people who return to their birth gender in the US don’t do so because of regret or dissatisfaction, but because of pressure from family, school, work, or society in general.

The National Center for Transgender Equality found that the most common reasons for detransitioning were lack of support at home, problems in the workplace, and harassment and discrimination.

Other reasons for detransition include exploring different gender identities, unrelated health issues, and financial complications.

Only 5% of people who detransitioned (0.4% of all trans people) did so because they felt the transition was not right for them. They have remained detransitioners.

You think the 0.4% of trans people who detransition because they made a mistake is sufficient grounds to oppose transition in the first place?

Gas lighting us that if we see a man enter a womens toilet he is actually a woman so we no longer trust our senses and protective instincts. — Andrew4Handel

What are you concerned about? Transgender women just wanting to use women’s bathrooms, or men pretending to be women as an excuse to use women’s bathrooms and sexually assault them?

Or are you suggesting that transgender women just are men pretending to be women as an excuse to use women’s bathrooms and sexually assault them?

And regarding “trusting our senses”, would you consider this person a man or a woman? Which bathroom should they use?

There are no true human hermaphrodites as far as I am aware. — Andrew4Handel

There’s 46,XX/46,XY chimerism.

Do you think letting hypersexualized cross-dressing men/women 'educate' children under the age of 10 is normal? — Tzeentch

I still don't know what you mean by "normal". Do you mean "appropriate"?

Probably not. But then I also don't think it's appropriate for someone dressed liked this to teach children under the age of 10.



Of course it's then a reach to then be opposed to topless firemen in general.

I've no problem with transgenders, but just out of curiousity, do you think this is normal? — Tzeentch

That's drag queens, not transgenderism.

And I'm not sure what you mean by normal. It's certainly not common, as drag queens are a minority.