@Nikolas. It was not Socrates’ insistence that he knew nothing that was offensive to the authorities. Indeed, he used this statement as a form of false modesty—technically true, since his inquiries always led to new questions—...but everyone knew he knew much more than he led on about.

What was offensive to the authorities was exactly what was stated in the charges: that he corrupted the state religion...

...and the images on the wall, the ones we must come to see as false if we ever escape the cave, represent those gods.

Socrates corrupted the youth by teaching strange gods, not by loving boys sexually... — Todd Martin

That' strikes me as naïve. In any case, he accepted his sentence, and that is the central point: he realised that one can't be free and expect others to like it.

What you want is more than just freedom of speech. You want to speak freely AND be listened to and agreed with. But people have the freedom not to listen to your speech, and usually that's what they do.

Sure they have. And they learned from it and were wiser. But there is no fix for willing blindness except experience. Experience + Intelligence+ reflection =Wisdom.

Anyone that thinks they can pay their taxes with Google Play cards....there is just no fixing that.

@Olivier5. You said earlier, “You don’t actually have to conform to PC in real life”, but don’t you see all the public men and women who are regularly censured for violations, in speech and/or deed, of the PC standards that have been set by our society, and suffer loss of their jobs and of their public standing?

The chief prohibitions in the guidelines of this forum, the ones which condemn the transgressors of them to banishment, are exactly these same societal prohibitions, the PC ones I just referred to, namely, that one profess no idea or sentiment that is either sexist or racist or homophobic.

Now, let me ask you this; indeed, let me ask this entire forum, and I ask also that the moderators allow you, the members, to be my jurors, and not banish me without a proper trial—for I would accept the majority of you, should you condemn me, as my proper judges; nor would I wish to be a member of a club the majority of whose members does not accept me: were I to argue that homosexuality is against nature because two men or two women, by means of coitus, cannot produce offspring, and that that is the obvious teleological purpose of coitus, namely, to produce offspring, would that sentiment constitute homophobia on my part?

It is as though I hear now an uproar, and loud calls for conviction and banishment. But I beseech you to hear me out, fellow members, for I have more to say that may temper your indignation, and I hope to convince you that I am not a hater of gays or lesbians. Indeed, I have known many homosexuals throughout my too long life, and some of them have been close friends. I always treated them as human beings, just as I would treat any heterosexual... and one of them was my dearest friend.

Furthermore, I believe the evidence suggests that sexual desire for the opposite sex is inborn and perfectly natural...something which, I suspect, coming from me, is surprising to you. How then do we reconcile these disparate natures, the teleological one and the evidentiary one?...

...for now, I hold my cards close to my chest. If any of you are interested in hearing my opinion, I would be glad to express it; but, as the popular phrase goes, “let me be perfectly clear”: if rational statements against PC opinions are automatically assumed to emanate from hate, without consideration for the source or motive, then full philosophical discussion and consideration of the most important things to us is impossible, either in this forum or any other.

I made a mistake in my speech: when I said, “I believe the evidence suggests that sexual desire for the OPPOSITE sex is inborn and perfectly natural...”, I meant to say that I believe that it suggests that desire for the SAME sex is so...

My bad!...

Hope I got it right this time.

don’t you see all the public men and women who are regularly censured for violations, in speech and/or deed, of the PC standards that have been set by our society, and suffer loss of their jobs and of their public standing? — Todd Martin

I encourage you to cancel cancel culture. Simplify your life. You are free to say whatever you want, and other people are free to like or dislike it. Where's the problem?

Let me take an example. Surgery on genitals is something that makes me cringe. I find people who surgically switch sex kinda gross (cross dressing is something else, it's fine and even funny). I don't hate them, just find them crazy. Now, I'm not gonna say that to any and all gender confused people out there just for the sake of hurting them. That would be mean, and very tiring. But if one wants to know, I disapprove of changing one's biological sex via surgery. At any age. Of course now some people will call you transphobic for saying that, but they are entitled to think whatever they want about me. I don't give a flying rat's ass.

@Olivier5. Mr. Olivier, let me ask you some questions, if I may.

Would you cringe at the surgery on your genitals that would remove a malignant tumor? Even if you cringed at it, wouldn’t you approve of it? Yet you don’t approve of a similar sort of surgery whose intention is to change sex. Doesn’t this show that what you really cringe at is related to the reason for the surgery, not it’s object or location?

You describe ppl willing to undergo surgery to change their sex as “gross” and “crazy”. But if a man feels he has the soul of a woman, and wishes his body to conform to his soul, and therefore conceives of his nads as a sort of malignant tumor, why do you cringe at the notion of his having them excised? Or, though you vicariously cringe at it, why wouldn’t you empathetically approve of it, just as you would approve of having yours cut out if they were malignantly cancerous?

Finally, if you agree with the above analysis, and admit that what is cringe-worthy about sex-change is not explained by grossness or craziness, on what rational basis, other than visceral repugnance, do you base your disapproval of it? For you have stated that you disapprove of it. Come now! As a philosopher or student of her, on what rational basis do you rest your opposition to the changing of sex?

on what rational basis, other than visceral repugnance, do you base your disapproval of it? For you have stated that you disapprove of it. Come now! As a philosopher or student of her, on what rational basis do you rest your opposition to the changing of sex? — Todd Martin

None. And I said as much: I don't oppose to it on theoretical grounds; I just find it gross and repellent, emotionally. IOW I don't like it. Even circumcision is a bit untoward in my view, and I routinely advise parents against it.

@Olivier5. I must return to one of my questions that I put to you and re-ask it, for you never answered it: would you oppose or disapprove of a physician excising a malignant tumor from your testicles, even though you cringe at the thought?

Furthermore (and I am reluctant to ask this further question for fear that you focus in on it alone and thusly fail to answer the above, which I prefer you do rather than answer this one), when you say that you “routinely advise parents against” circumcision of their children, I can only assume that you hold some public position which carries the authority to give such advice; and, racking my brain, the only such office I can think of is that of physician. Are you indeed a physician?

If not a physician, perhaps someone who has partial knowledge of medicine, such as a physician’s assistant, or a nurse?

Or, since you “routinely advise parents”, are you maybe a general counselor of sorts? at a school or mental health, a children’s sports clinic or club?

No, I just mean that I have had some American friends having babies here in Europe, where doctors don't typically do circumcision. And those friends have agonized a bit on the issue because they were circumcised as most kids in the US, and raised with this idea that it's 'proper' but now they live in a different culture where the idea is frown upon. So I tell them to relax and let their kids' genitals the way nature or God made them.

I don't object to medical surgery, but I do object to genital mutilations on children.

@Olivier5. Well, I am a circumcised American, and have never felt as though I was mutilated...

...but that is immaterial to our discussion. What is more material is your confession that you advise your American friends to “let their kids’ genitals [be] the way nature or God made them.”

Now, before, you said your opposition to non-medical surgery was based on pure squeamishness, not on any theoretical grounds. But now you seem to advance a philosophic reason for that repugnance: that is against either God or nature. That is what I was trying to point out earlier, that since you were not opposed to medical surgeries, such as the removal of a tumor, your opposition to non-medical ones, like sex-change operations, must be based on something other than that you simply find them gross or cringe-worthy. Aren’t all surgeries cringe-worthy, if you think about it? Someone cutting into your body for whatever reason? To “mutilate” it, or remove a foreign, potentially harmful object or unnatural growth, etc?

In fine, Mr. Olivier, may we accept your statement that the reason you object to non-medical surgeries is that they are against God and nature? Or would you like to amend that sentiment?

You are right, I do have some reason, which I guess is that genital mutilations may permanently reduce someone's sexual pleasure.

@Olivier5. Mr. Olivier, I thank you for your willingness to debate with me on this topic, not only because it is highly entertaining to me, but because I know it has also been profitable to you; for I drew you out from the depths of squeamishness to the heights of God and nature, and now you have brought us back down to concern for sexual pleasure. This is what philosophical discussion ought to be like!: leading one back and forth between the mundane and the elevated.

As to whither we should go from here, I like the distinction you made between medical and non-medical surgeries; may we expand that to include all such procedures? In other words, a doctor might treat you for various things: he might, for example, stitch up a wide wound that nature herself is insufficient to heal because of its width, and therefore the wound would be subject to infection without human intervention. Wouldn’t we call that a medical procedure?

And if a human being suffer such severe pain that the quality of their life be diminished, wouldn’t the physician justly prescribe painkillers that correct this? And wouldn’t that be a medical-, as opposed to non-medical, procedure?

As for the latter, the non-medical ones, wouldn’t a face-lift be an appropriate example? For, as we age, the tissue of our skin weakens, and becomes therefore prone to the force of gravity; yet certain vain ppl, knowing or learning that a physician, due to his peculiar knowledge, can surgically lift the skin, contrary to nature, and make us look young again, hire him to do just that.

And they also hire him to excise the praeputium, for a different reason; not a medical one, but a religious one, and now they even want him, ppl who are not afraid of losing pleasure during sex, to mutilate their genitalia so that they become a female instead of a male, or vice versa.

But let me ask you this: the argument those in severe pain make, that they deserve to be prescribed special painkillers because their extreme pain compromises the quality of their life; how is that different from those whose quality of life is compromised because they cannot enjoy intercourse in the way their souls feel it ought to be enjoyed due to their gender-identity?

I guess my general question is, what is the difference between medical and non-medical interventions or procedures, and can we make clear definitions for each that separate them difinitively?

But let me ask you this: the argument those in severe pain make, that they deserve to be prescribed special painkillers because their extreme pain compromises the quality of their life; how is that different from those whose quality of life is compromised because they cannot enjoy intercourse in the way their souls feel it ought to be enjoyed due to their gender-identity? — Todd Martin

I would say it is very much different. A pain is an objective fact, and the relief brought by painkillers too. But ‘enjoy intercourse the way it ought to be enjoyed’ defines nothing clear. How is intercourse supposed to be enjoyed? And how the fuck will surgery help you get there?

@Olivier5. Pain is an objective fact? That it is a fact is undeniable; but that it is objective is under suspicion...

If pain is objective, then why do doctors ask us patients things like, “What is your pain-level on a scale from zero to ten, zero being no pain at all and ten being the worst pain you’ve ever experienced”? If it were objective, why would they ask this? Wouldn’t they just determine it by some test, rather than a questionnaire?

What if a radiologist brought you the x-ray images of your body he just took, and asked you, “OK, do you see anything here? Do you think the bone is fractured?” Yet, apparently, no neurologist can scan your brain and determine how much pain you are in...and indeed I’m not sure at all WE know, even in our subjective selves...

I recall a psychological study that was done, apparently of the difference in pain tolerance among groups of various religious leanings. Differing strengths of electrical shock were administered to both Catholics and Protestants, and their reports of the degree of pain they felt were recorded, but with this caveat: the Protestants were told that the Catholics reported lower levels of pain for the same amount of shock...low and behold! It turned out that the Protestants could tolerate a whole lot more pain than their Catholic brethren.

Another anecdote: my brother, a man fearful by nature and preternaturally squeamish about his health, who rushes to the doctor if he feels his heart skip a beat, was stationed as a Marine officer in Diego Garcia back in the 90s. A contest arose b/w the British and American officers about who could run a marathon the quickest, and he, being a very able distance runner, signed up. I think they had to wear their fatigues and boots and all, for, as he related to me, after he crossed the finish-line victorious (he beat the Brits), he found, after removing his boots, that he had lost every one of his toenails due to chaffing.

It seems to me that these examples, and many others that could be brought to bear, show conclusively that pain is a subjective, not an objective, affair. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would like to hear it.

If you actually care about this culture war bullshit that's entered it's sixth year in public discourse you might just be brain dead.

So you’re just another nitpicker, or is there some point to your never ending questions?

Penny-wise philosophers abound. They can get the tiny tiny details right, but the big picture will forever escape hem. They just lose the plot, like you do here, moving from cancel culture to genital mutilations to painkillers to what not, like a philosophical headless chicken running around the yard...

@Olivier5. Well, Mr. Olivier, that was an amusing simile to describe me, and if I may suggest, you seem to be like some or other sort of bird too, inasmuch as something has gotten into your craw!

I will speak again now, though I suspect you have already walked away, never to return. I beseech you: remind me of the “plot”, the “big picture”, that you obviously can see and I have lost sight of.

For if I recall correctly, this all started when I questioned your reason for disapproving of sex-change operations. First you said it was because of pure squeamishness; then you eventually conceded that it was because it is against either God or nature. But then you backed away from that, and said it was because you thought it might diminish sexual pleasure...

If I am a chicken running around with it’s head cut off, then you must be a chameleon!

But, in case I am wrong, and you are willing to pursue our discussion further, let me propose to you a definition of what a medical procedure is, as opposed to a non-medical one, for your approval or disapproval: a medical procedure is one which makes the body better, while a non-medical one is one which makes it either worse, or no better. May we agree to this?