You seem to be (overly?) focusing on the <1% issue of genetic anomalies, which you're free to do, but it has essentially nothing to do with my point that frank's selection of karyotype to determine biologic sex as opposed to genital inspection is less popular (and much less practical).

Not personal. Medical personnel need to know what your sex was at birth. That's not ambiguous, unless it is

Yup, it's personal. That is your insistance on using karyotype to determine biological sex. As it happens medical personnel (unlike your personal definition) don't use karyotype to determine biologic sex at birth, they inspect the baby's genitalia.

Under your definition biologic sex was unable to be determined before 1956.

What I meant by not uncommon, but far from universal is that most folks define "biological sex" on genital appearance, not karyotype (as frank apparantly does).

The fact that "good" is subjective is well addressed. "Good" for whom? is an even larger question that demands an answer before "ought" can be brought to bear.

Trying to equate legality with morality is a fool's errand. Even a superficial observation of the capriciousness of the legal world will reveal the difference between the two. However an argument can be made to try to equate legality with ethics, depending on the definition of terms.

Basically in your personal lexicon "biological sex" is identical to karyotypic sex. That's not uncommon and perfectly fine, yet is not universal, far from it.

The Hotel Manager refutation hinges on gods being omnipotent. But there is no evidence that if there are gods, that they are necessarily omnipotent. In fact there are several logical problems with the concept of omnipotent gods, only one of which is the presence of evil. But even if one concludes that omnipotent gods are illogical, that does nothing to lower the possibility of nonomnipotent gods, thus does not further the cause of atheism.

The idea that a particular human activity (in this case speech) would be devoid of "consequence", is somewhere between absurd and naive in the extreme.

Let's give him a traumatic brain injury that reduces his intellect to that of a pig. Can we eat him now? If we end up making him identical to a pig, down to the DNA, is it now ok to eat him?

"ok"? That's just a reference to a social convention, not an inherent attribute of babies (or pigs). Thus being subjective the answer is variable depending on the observer.

While I know what you're referring to, and they are, in fact Conservative, in my opinion their conservatism isn't the reason for their whining. Rather its just another example of the observation that no one complains more than those used to an advantage, perceiving the loss of that advantage.

Yes, I understand an individual (myself, for example) choosing not to engage with a racist or even a "racialist" in mixed company (because "something bad might happen"), especially since I'm not a professional broadcaster or journalist or influencer. Yet at the same time having a robust, but private discussion with the same "racialist", since I'm certain nothing bad will happen. However, are the "rules" different for a professional journalist, whose reason for existance is the dissemination of information?

There are different legitimate (in my opinion) reasons for not entering into discussion with an individual. The first would be what you have described as "moral" disagreement (the Nazi example). However, to my mind the reason to not engage is solely to not give the individual a platform to broadcast to other third persons, I don't actually mind discussion with those with whom I disagree, even greatly disagree with. Thus it is to deprive the reprehensible ideas of "oxygen" by not engaging. However, if the discussion was not viewed by third parties, then as I mentioned, I don't mind conversing.

The second reason not to engage, is when the other party doesn't abide by logic and/or truthfulness. Since productive discussion is futile and since your opposition isn't confined to the truth, your ideas will be viewed by third parties as erroneous or incorrect inappropriately.

Forget eternal damnation, I'm not seeing the logic in gods punishing humans at all.

Yes, that's the main logical inconsistency with monotheism, just as omnipotence is the problem with polytheism.

To me the OP is a bit of a false conundrum. The idea of formally codifying the principles and issues involved in (an individual) making moral choices is reasonable and beneficial. Not because doing so leads to prospective derivation of moral decisions (which the OP criticizes and I agree with this criticism), rather that once the particular circumstances and details of a situation are known, those principles can be used to arrive at the optimal outcome.

Just like codifying to law (in general) doesn't remove the need for trials for specific cases.

Feel free to comment on the mundane.

Not a bad summary... of the very lowest hanging fruit. What of the high schooler who kills himself because his girlfriend drops him?

A thoughtful and reasonable take on a difficult topic. I agree that folks are free to make the best decision for their particular circumstances. I also agree that such an important and especially permanent decision should be made with the utmost care and consideration. The fact that most make the decision relatively spontaneously is a tragedy.

I advised folks professionally who sought to make permanent decisions in situations where experience has shown that those in their demographic who chose to proceed later expressed regret at their decision in high numbers. Obviously I had a professional obligation to point out and underscore this statistic, but ultimately as these were adults, I assisted them should they choose, in spite of this knowledge, to go ahead. I did so with a clear conscience. Though most in my profession refused.

Sounds like London-ish thing to say, I suppose

Could you go into more detail on your reference?

I'm not an expert in Muslim thought, but I'm guessing you're correct.

Well it's not the fault of the mugging victim who walks through a dangerous part of town at 3 in the morning, yet simultaneously it is a reckless thing to do.

Well the burner is definitely seeking to offend and provoke a reaction. Sometimes you receive more than you're prepared for.

Substitue American flag for Quran and Arkansas for London and post back.

I agree. How would I know with 100% certainty if they are determined or not

There are two ways, both impractical to (currently) impossible. First one could predict with 100% accuracy, outcomes from detailed knowledge of the brainstate before the "decision" was made or second, if you could set up more than one example of identical brainstates then demonstrate that they always make the same "decision".

However, in my opinion, there are too many examples of "close enough" scenarios of the second situation resulting in wildly different outcomes to personally believe in Determinism.

Good luck getting surgery from a supercomputer.

Listening for the flat earthers declaring where the edge of the flat surface is located, yet hearing silence.

In my experience, those who are interested in Philosophy are not identical in personality type to those drawn to ethics (and perhaps morality).

at what point, if at all, do you find it morally acceptable to take physical action against government/authority and what does that look like?

That's "easy". When there is more overall benefit (to society, in my way of thinking), than there is harm to society. One could, of course, concoct an implausible example to make the point (folks commonly invoke Nazi Germany), but to my estimation realistic examples of justified "physical action", in the Modern West would be exceedingly uncommon.

In the context of inner VS outer war, to my mind diplomacy (as opposed to war) is merely a non violent war, not an alternative to war. Say, the Cold War.

Conflict, due to opposing interests, is inevitable. Whether this conflict is resolved through war, espionage or diplomacy is merely a difference of style.

Not avoiding the OP. The OP makes the error of implying that death is something that individuals can opt for or against. Everyone knows death is inevitable, only the timing of it is changeable.

The reality is we're all going to spend the vast majority of eternity as not alive, the only difference is the length of the tiny fraction of eternity being alive.

As to my statistical analysis, as it happens this topic of suicide is unusual in that there is a ton of experience of prior suicidal individuals who fail at their attempt and whether their personal viewpoint at the darkest moment of their life (by definition), ended up being an accurate analysis and prediction of their personal future. This analysis is an opportunity to glimpse into the future. Ignore this opportunity at your own risk.

I've definitely increased this last 10 years compared to the previous 20. But I'm including audiobooks in my tally.

Which you're free to do. Though I'm wondering if you impose your "know nothing" logic to all facets of your decision making.

You keep making a rebuttal to an argument I'm not making. I never said anyone KNOWS a suicidal person's grief is temporary, I'm saying there is a 70% chance it won't be at a suicide inducing level in the future.

It seems to me that all of the listed "identities" are subjective, so while they exist, they're incredibly fluid.

The concept of "false" (as pertains to the "real" part of reality) only has meaning in the presence of "truth". Thus if you conclude there is no truth, reality falls apart, from your perspective.

I am not a theoretical physicist, but my understanding is that there is no "past" to travel to. That is, the concept of continuous time is an inaccurate lay person model.

The purpose of creating a model duck within the model farmyard is to analyze the interaction between the duck and other entities within the farmyard. Not to analyze the duck itself. If analysis of an individual in isolation is one's goal, you use a real duck, ie there is no role for a model.

Time travel is definitely possible, but only to the future, not the past.

"Can a..."? Sure. That's the thing with subjective descriptors, they can mean whatever an observer chooses them to mean. Someone, somewhere I'm sure believes beauty to mean any conceivable definition you could possibly come up with.

One could argue that jumping away from a lethal fire is reasonable, even desirable. The fact that the jump happens to be from a tall building, is secondary. Thus the action may not fulfill the definition (in spirit if not the letter) of "suicide", for many.