We should get @Tobias in here as well. :smile:

I'm not convinced I'm arguing for higher laws or principles and I'm not sure what I said that makes you interpret what I said this way. Pacta sunt servanda is a rule of customary international law and not a higher principle. I'll try to describe how I get to that rule by first discussing contracts and then apply that to treaties.

In my view, there are rules implied in performative acts. Let's imagine a society without any courts, means of enforcement or existing rules to regulate our behaviour. When we enter into a contract, doing so implies rules that arise from that act itself for that act to make sense. Let's say I'll wash your clothes in return for a meal.

You say "I promise if you wash my clothes I'll cook you a meal" and I say "If you are going to cook me a meal I'll wash your clothes". Implied here is that if I don't do anything, you'll never cook me a meal. We don't need enforcement or courts to "sanction" my non-performance.

Now, I do my part of the bargain but you don't. You broke your promise. But you promised this in the first place because you knew you would otherwise have to wash your own clothes. That is then the second implied rule, if one party performs their side of a bargain, the other party must do so too. Or to put it differently, I have a right to your performance. Why is this the case? Because otherwise you could've demanded or forced my performance and avoided making a promise but you had to give a promise because those options were not available to you for whatever reason. And not keeping your promise is sanctioned as well but less directly: I'll never enter into a bargain with you under these sort of circumstances again and if other people are aware, they will avoid bargaining with you as well, worried they'll be abused.

Now, of course, if you have a resource that everybody wants, you start to get a power imbalance. For instance, if you have all the food people will still need to bargain with you and accept the risk of abuse. That doesn't, however, negate the implicit rules established above with regard to promises. People will still expect you to keep the promise and this would become apparent when you would want to barter about other things than your monopolised resource. Chances are, in fact, that you'd get less favourable conditions as a result.*

The entering into a contract creates expectations between us about the nature of promises and rights and it also creates expectations in a wider community if they are aware of the promises we made. As a result, we've established rules intended to regulate behaviour through performative acts (two promises). It's these expectations and the underlying intent that is aimed at creating such expectations that, in my view, create law.

I don't think this is fundamentally different where it concerns treaty obligations. The system of national laws sets out that any treaty signed and ratified is accepted as binding and that national laws will be set aside in favour of the treaty rules. If this is not the case, then why bother including a supremacy clause and go through the public spectacle of voting on it (performative acts)? These are promises too and the direct sanction is that if you break treaties other signatories are not required to uphold their part of the bargain and the indirect sanction is waning of "soft power".

This is why I don't think enforcement is necessary for a rule to be law, because I think it's about intent and expectations; or, the meaning that arises from the promises made.

I hope that made sense and I wonder how much of this difference in views is the result of growing up in different legal traditions...

*This is precisely why I believe multilateralism is beneficial to everyone involved in the long run. But different discussion.

I don't know. I think a law without a remedy is only a recommendation. It reminds me of the exclusionary rule declared by the US Supreme Court for unreasonable searches and seizures. The Constitution doesn't say illegally seized evidence is to be excluded, but without fashioning that remedy, it's not much of a law. — Hanover

I think there's a fundamental difference then, which was exactly the reason I raised the example of inability to enforce first. A more extreme example, to tease out what you really mean then. Most extreme: it ain't a crime if you don't get caught.

But I suspect that's not your position. What about murder in far of places where there's no police to investigate? I don't think "don't murder" only becomes a recommendation as a result but is still the law. If for whatever reason 10 years from now there's plenty of police to investigate, all the murders committed during those 10 years would result in charges and possible convictions without the necessity to pass any "law" to do so. As you can see, I have trouble understanding exactly what such a rule would still mean to you.

I'm describing reality, not what ought to be. — Hanover

All laws describe what ought to be; they're normative after all.

What you're describing is what ought to be. If the House of Hanover passes a law that it never follows and it never enforces and no one gives a shit about it, I wouldn't call it a law. Its something, not sure what, but not much of a law. — Hanover

Why would the house of Hanover bother to do this? Obviously we pass laws, enter into treaties and contracts with the intent that the rules are followed, promises are kept and that counterparts have a reasonable expectation about what will happen. That some countries can decide to break those promises without signficant repercussions does not diminish that. I assume the US law system recognises the enforceability of treaty rules as law after signature and ratification?

At least that's how I understand the supremacy clause:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. — Constitution

I thought vaccination did lower spread as well, since not everybody gets sick and asymptomatic infection happens but also at a lower rate than symptomatic?

There's a difference between an inept police force and an intentional decision not to enforce the law. There's a significant difference, for example, in California now that they've legalized pot and the feds have indicated they won't enforce the federal law than there was 20 years ago when the law was laxly enforced.

If the US doesn't view the UN resolutions as truly binding and there's no way to get them to obey them, then in what meaningful way are they "law."?

You guys need to put GPS finders on your bikes. Just an idea. — Hanover

Of course there's a difference. I was responding to the idea that enforcement is a criteria between whether something is the law or isn't. I guess we agree then it's not enforceability per se?

Based on your comment then if the US promises to do something and puts that in writing then that promise doesn't bind it because there's no court to enforce it? Seems an interesting take on treaties, to say the least. Governments make all sorts of promises to each other that aren't enforceable but they tend to keep those promises for good reason. That's why pacta sunt servanda is considered customary law. The argument that the US can afford to break the law without repercussions is not an argument against the law in my view (especially when whenever they do it, they appeal to the rules they signed up to). It becomes an issue of politics and not law.

I know this but that doesn't mean it wasn't illegal by international law standards, which, by the way, the US tried to underline again by pretending SC 1441 gave implicit permission. The lack of an enforcement mechanism isn't an argument that something isn't part of the legal order. That would mean that bike theft would be legal in the Netherlands because 99% of them are not followed up and remain unresolved.

said the #£@@&# who won almost all of them in the past! :rage:

I think it's perfectly fine to come to that decision by yourself for yourself. What I reject is judging others for making different decisions in such situations. Here's the alternative view : I think you're weak that you're letting sentiment withhold you from making the decision that saves the most lives.

Both judgments are inappropriate in my view.

As an analogy, if there are 100 dishes and I offer you a choice between beef tacos and veal tacos and you choose beef, who decided what we had for dinner?

What was Arendt's argument that such a person has moral agency? Because I don't see it. You take someone's freedom, then you give him two shitty choices and we are to condemn one of them because...?

And when they don't we can blame the Democrats!

This in no way is a reply to what I wrote. It's a confusing mess actually. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037.amp

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/31/1001936433/who-the-uyghurs-are-and-why-china-is-targeting-them?t=1625078923562

https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/ook-in-nederland-worden-oeigoeren-onderdrukt-door-de-chinese-overheid~bef14078/

Then the problem is Judeo-Christian morality, but good luck convincing America of that. What is the replacement value system here, by the way? Do we know of an alternative framework we should be shifting to here? — BitconnectCarlos

I know plenty of Christians that go to mixed spa's. So it's not just religion. But in any case, I think expectation management goes a long way and think it's perfectly fine to decide one way or another. I think it's both reasonable to say that you should change in the locker room coinciding with your primary genitalia (penises or vaginas), so sex based, or based on gender identity. I think it shouldn't be an issue either way as long as the rules are clear. Or have cubicles, or have everything mixed from the get go etc. There's plenty of pragmatic solutions possible.

I don't agree in this case. Those who deny gender as something separate do so for specific reasons. The distinction clearly matters and makes all the difference between those considering gender separate from sex a delusion and those accepting it as a natural occurring phenomena and the latter is only possible if they are indeed different things.

^A real life situation where a black woman along with other women encounter a transwoman with a penis in a spa changing room and start complaining to management.

I feel really bad for that receptionist because you know it's not her who makes the rules here. In any case, the moment you pull the "we're protecting little girls" line it's no longer an argument, it's an order. Can anyone honestly watch that video and tell me that they'd do any better than the white man who tries to confront the anti-trans black woman? The message is clear: Some portion of women want trans women out of their intimate spaces, and we need to balance acceptance for trans folk against concerns like the one made in the video.

I can't help but think that as a man I'm entitled to less of an opinion on this issue than a woman.

Can anyone tell me the correct philosophical response to: "You're traumatizing my little girls." — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sure this is an issue. If the spa had been clear (or maybe even was clear?) on how it deals with transgenders then it's just whatever the house rules are.

And if little girls and boys can get traumatised from just seeing genitalia maybe people need to reconsider what they are teaching kids about sex in the first place. Especially in a spa, which tend to be mixed in the Netherlands anyways, nakedness isn't sexual. I suppose if you're an upstuck Jesus freak this sort of thing will scar you for life but we can squarely blame the parents for that.

Not at all. I am not living in Xinjiang. Of course, I don't a lot about Xinjiang. Especially for made up events. I am living in the US. Hence I know a lot about the US. — ltlee1

So, you're denying that Uighurs are being sent off to concentration camps, oh sorry "vocational training camps", in a concerted effort to commit cultural genocide? Or that the Chinese government is harassing Uighurs abroad because they are trying to tell the world about it when they managed to escape that atrocity?

I'm more concerned with the issue if a patent that can contribute to greater efficiency in the economy or as you say, a social and environmental benefit, is bought out by a firm to prevent losses to their company, and if that were true then should the government intervene?

What do you think? — Shawn

Well, should in my book yes, but then I think we should dispense with patents and copyright all together. So I'm the wrong guy to ask. There are grounds of course but be prepared for lengthy court cases:

Compulsory licensing of a patent is provided for under Article 5 of the Paris Convention to prevent patent abuse.[7] Article 5, section A(2) provides that ‘[e]ach country of the Union shall have the right to take legislative measures providing for the grant of compulsory licenses to prevent the abuses which might result from the exercise of the exclusive rights conferred by the patent, for example, failure to work.’ Section 4 provides that the compulsory licence may not be applied until after ‘the expiration of a period of four years from the date of filing of the patent application or three years from the date of the grant of the patent, whichever period expires last.’ The patentee can avoid the compulsory licence if he ‘justifies his inaction by legitimate reasons.’ The licence is non-exclusive and non-transferable. — International bar association

That's a confusing statement. Gender dysphoria means that your internal gender identification is opposite from your physical gender anatomical/biological sex. You're saying that has little to do with biological sex, but I can't see how we can subtract out the biological sex element from the gender dysphoria equation, considering having a mental state inconsistent with biological sex defines dysphoria. — Hanover

What you say makes sense, I'm just repeating what she said. One way that could work is if gender identity is independent from biological sex. If that's how it works then it's only after that identity is established/expressed that dysphoria may arise but not necessarily.

I think we can recognise that if there's gender identity on the one hand and biological sex on the other then transsexualism relates to changing biological sex and transgenderism is about changing gender identity of which changing biological sex can be a part but not necessarily so.

Democracy is first and foremost about the freedom to make and repeal laws or to elect representatives to do that for you. But even "representatives" can be suppressed for "improper behaviour" and their voting power in the assembly taken away.

Even more so, for such a process to even start to become remotely feasible you need to be able to:

1. assemble in groups
2. access to information
3. freedom of speech

None of these are available.

1. Free assembly? Not allowed; see HK, Tibet, Uighurs, only one political party. A state-mandated union (eg. a union dress-up). State owned media. etc. etc.
2. Access to information. State-controlled.
3. ...

Is it true that Pareto optimal outcomes in economics lead to greater efficiency for all consumers and producers alike? — Shawn

This is almost 30 years ago for me. Pareto optimalisation is about multi-objective optimisation and results from the calculation of two optimum points (or more) of different objectives. These points do not coincide and the pareto optimal outcome is any point on the line between the two optimal points of these differing objectives. If consumer and producer efficiency are not aligned then the optimal point of one objective is not optimal for the other. So from the perspective of a consumer a certain point on that line can be less efficient than another and the same is true for the producer. Holistically, when taking both objectives into account Pareto optimal outcomes are presumably the most efficient points possible.

I specify this by stating that if a good, like a patent or intellectual property, achieves pareto optimality, then does this mean that it increases efficiency in the economy by making supply meet demand at a point where a firm or company wouldn't have to invest more money to meet rising demand? — Shawn

I would say that this depends on which multiobjective issues you're trying to resolve.

Yet, as normal patents are made with perfect knowledge for producers to invest in, pareto optimality often doesn't occur, as firms with more money to invest in patents will find and simply buy out the patent that either increases or harms their profits. — Shawn

I don't understand what you mean with "perfect knowledge" here.

What should one do about such a tendency in the patent realm? If gas company buys out my patent that normally entering the economy would produce an increase in efficiency for X Kwh of energy rather than Y Kwh from gas or oil, then shouldn't there be a law prohibiting such anticompetitive measures against a net increase in overall GDP from a more efficient use of a patent? Hence, shouldn't these pareto optimal outcomes be propped or even protected by the government to increase the net GDP and efficiency of a economy? — Shawn

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are worried that a patent that will have a social and environmental benefit is potentially suppressed if it is bought by a certain company. If this is about your own patents, the solution is obvious: don't sell.

There are rules surrounding compulsory licenses and statutory licenses that can force a patent holder to provide a license at a specific rate (statutory) or a negotiated rate (compulsory). See for instance: http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/8509F913B768D063C1258382004FC677/$File/compulsory_licensing_in_europe_en.pdf

I don't think pareto optimization is a consideration for such types of licenses from a statutory perspective but it could be part of argumentation in specific court cases but I'm not active in this field to know for certain.

The reason nobody reacts to the idiocy of describing the Chinese system as democratic is precisely because it's so obviously false it doesn't require a counter argument.

Claiming China is democratic when it so obviously isn't, is laughable. — Banno

Let's repeat that again.

China is a tyranny and it ought to be boycotted for its human rights abuses against Tibet and Uighurs, the treatment of democratic leaders in HK, the silencing of critical media, sham court proceedings, disappearances of citizens and threats to the sovereign nations of India and Taiwan etc. I can go on but the crimes are numerous.

No, I double checked and what I wrote is what I meant. I only learned this last week when I contacted a leading Dutch researcher on this.

Transsexualism isn't really used anymore, because the feeling of gender dysphoria has little to do with (biological) sex according to her. Even though transsexualism was the term we were using 20 years ago.

You can be pro-transsexual in every way possible and still be against transition surgeries. — Hanover

Strictly speaking within the current professional vocabulary (as part of psychology and in the Netherlands at least) you can be pro-transgender and against transitioning. Pro-transsexuality is specifically about changing sex.

Cool. And here I was still thinking about European examples and this is just further circumstantial proof that transgenderism is not only sociological or political. Of course, social and political situation have a lot of effect on if and how it can be expressed and I think that's why we're seeing such an "increase" today. Transgenders are starting to feel safe to admit to their feelings and thoughts and express them. This can only be a good thing.

oh dear. I need to not talk about math any more. :lol: Points on a line it is. I only remembered "points" for some reason and got confused.

Yes, I think the primary concept of a hole is that of a gap, an absence in the middle of something. As such, we can very well think of holes in 2D or 1D. When we think of real, three-dimensional things, like a pair of pants or a fence for example, we can conceptualize them geometrically as surfaces or lines, wherein a hole will also assume an idealized 2D or 1D form in our mind. — SophistiCat

How can you express a hole in 1D? I would think a hole appears as part of a relationship with other things so 2D is the lowest you can go?

Gender isn't just a grammatical term and the difference between biological and psychological sexuality has been around for over 60 years. It was first a term of art in psychology, it has made it's way into mainstream vocabulary.

This happens all the time. Take the word "relativity" which has taken on quite a different meaning since Einstein and it took almost 50 years before it became a word laymen would use.

Your personal anecdote that you've been living under a rock and wasn't aware of this meaning until apparently very recently (and apparently didn't pay attention during psychology classes when this definitely came up) is not proof of what gender means.

Transgenderism has historically existed before modern times as well. Just because we didn't have a term before it at that time, doesn't mean it didn't exist. If you studied French, you know what it means when something can be defined a certain way avant la lettre. Which is how I can accurately state my great-grandmother was a feminist.

So it is that parents bring forward 3 and 4 year olds who have decided they want to be girls instating of the boys they are, or visa versa, and demanding treatment. Delusion. — Bitter Crank

The delusion is in trying to establish that at that age. It's too early to tell, doesn't mean the parents are wrong in recognising what their children want to be. My son is 3 and he's very boyish in a lot of respects but sometimes he makes me wonder when he gets angry when we applaud him with "well done, big boy!" and he yells "NO, BIG GIRL!". He probably just wants to be like his big sister for now. But I don't "identify" my kids, that's not my role. I do need to create a safe space where they can freely identify as they wish when they are ready. I don't care whether that's transgender, straight or gay/lesbian. So I purposefully don't (and won't) argue his insistence of being a girl because of it.

What I do object to is argument that persons can change their sex. They cannot. No matter how any hormones and surgical procedures are employed, one remains XX or XY -- like it or not. — Bitter Crank

I agree. Nevertheless, gender affirming plastic surgery, which colloquially is know as a "sex change operation", is an option for people to further fulfil and support their transition to another gender. As I've stated before, transsexuality is not a requirement for transgenderism, it's optional.

In fact, I just remembered (it was over 20 years ago) I had a roommate for half a year that was an exchange student who was transgender. He was sexually a woman and had no inclination to change his sex and I think I'd describe his gender expression as unisex (what you see on the outside). He had a boyfriend. A lot of people make a big deal out of it and people who are transgender have a hard time admitting to their feelings and ideas as a result. I've always been "meh". I really dont care. You want me to call you a "she"? Fine. Or "xe"? No problem. It's a small effort to make someone comfortable and that holds true irrespective of the etyology of gender dysphoria.

What people do to their bodies when they grow up? None of my business and that's irrespective of the etyology of gender dysphoria. Or we need to start rethinking women's right to breast reductions and enlargements, or people's rights to liposuction, lengthening operations for hypochondriaplasia or anochondroplasia etc.

Why would it be delusional if I thought I was a cat but not if I thought I was a woman? — Andrew4Handel

This again comes down to you not understanding the difference between sex and gender. There's examples abound in nature of animals mimicking other animals. Ducks acting like cats, wanting to be treated like cats. Cats barking like dogs. etc. It's not about physical appearance.

Gender dysphoria is not about people thinking they are women or men while having the opposed sex; it's about identifying with the opposite gender than their sex. And this can cause all sorts of mental problems. It would indeed be delusional to think your sex is male when in fact you have a vagina and breasts but that's not what's going on here.

Trans "women" exhibit male patterned criminal behaviour. — Andrew4Handel

This again. As I already pointed out:

I also note that the Swedish study you referenced showed female likelihood of sexual violence if proper psychological care was provided to trans women. So the converse argument is possible too, that given the fact certain groups of trans women have female levels of violence those are really women then. Or maybe it's just not a very good indicator. — me

You're equating sex with gender and that results in a lot of confusion for you apparently.

Oh right, so when you use the word "delusional" it doesn't have a psychological meaning even when you're trying to prove it by referring to psychological research. That makes no sense whatsoever, especially when admitting the etyology of gender dysphoria isn't established (but with strong indications its accompanied by physical changes in the brain).

So when people are diagnosed with gender dysphoria you nevertheless maintain both the psychologist and the patient have a false belief based on what? False information? No proof offered so far. The status of research at this point is the best information we have to go on. Dogma? No proof of that either and the fact it exists across time and across cultures definitely suggests otherwise. Illusion? About what exactly?

I said that I know 4 trans people and someone who refused to read most of my posts asked me if I knew any trans people.

Just get an eye test and read and respond to my actual posts or continue to be a burden on humanity. — Andrew4Handel

I don't give a shit about anecdotal evidence. I've had several trans colleagues over the years. They're perfectly happy with their choices. Maybe the fact you're surrounded by people with issues have to do with a) your personal interests or b) the type of person you are yourself and the people you therefore attract or c) a combination of both. Not interesting that you know them and not interesting why either.

You haven't provided evidence. You've asserted that certain people suffer from a delusion without the evidence necessary to make such a claim. That makes you unqualified as a psychologist. That you don't understand why psychologists ought to refrain from diagnosing mental illness without actually doing either the research or having treated people, is worrisome.

You also don't know what an ad hom is. Read the ad hominem, schlominem thread. Zero points.

I can't tell on both counts.

You do realise not every member of a reddit has to be trans right, despite its name? Just how you're not a philosopher but you're still here?

You have a degree in psychology, haven't submitted anything but two studies that don't support the point that gender dysphoria is a delusion and yet insists calling gender dysphoria a "delusion" even when confronted with a study that suggest it's not? I maintain that that's inappropriate especially for a psychologist. The best you can say is that the etiology is unclear (which the researchers would confirm because they only say it "suggests" something or other).

If Unicorns have horns, where are they? — Moliere

On the top of their head. Here's a picture:

So Biden suggests the extra money is to make community policing possible and does think police should reform. Some things he mentioned was having health care workers to be first responders together with police. They could go hand in hand with an increase... I take it you don't trust it will happen. I'm... skeptical too but one can hope, I guess.

Dude, you admitted to the analytical truth when you had to turn to 2 dimensional representations of donuts, which aren't donuts, to pretend a donut without a hole exists . So you have not demonstrated it is false at all, you've merely said "the two dimensional representation is a donut doesn't have a hole". Well duh, but that wasn't the claim now was it?

The simple fact remains that, like the definition and understanding of bachelor, a donut always has a hole - a hole is a necessary condition for something to be a donut. You like to pretend it's my definition but like the bachelor definition, I didn't make it up, it's a definition I learned and which is the agreed mathematical meaning. It's not that I'm forcing a boundary on meaning here, I'm insisting you use words with their proper meaning instead of making shit up because it's convenient for your argument. You want to reject donuts have holes but there are no definitions of donuts without holes because it's a necessary topological feature for a shape to be a donut.

And since you're the one invoking a logical fallacy, it's on you to demonstrate where I commit a fallacy. All you have is "I don't like the definition of donut because it results in conclusions I don't want to commit to". Well tough fucking luck really.

The hole in Kimberley is 0.17 km2
Kimberley is 164.3 km2

Both denoted entities have different predicates, so they are distinct from one another. And the hole has true predicates, so we are justified in inferring that the hole exists. — Moliere

No you can't. Unicorns have horns is true but I can't infer they exist from that fact.

Interestingly enough, the criticisms is western democracies are the only thing accurate about that article.

Yeah, that's not how logic works.

Yeah, nice cop out. I'll leave you with an opportunity to learn something about logic.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

https://www.logicalfallacies.info/begging-the-question-2/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2021/jun/25/derek-chauvin-sentencing-biden-harris-trump-us-politics-live

22.5 years. Will it be a turning point in the USA? No more Rodney Kings and Breonna Taylor? Or when they happen that they won't get away with it?