The issue that I have with the argument that "gender is a social construct" is that it is usually being presented as completely independent of biology. — Roxanne Kelly

Who presents it that way? The social construct gender is no more independent of biology than the social construct of "President" is. In the sense that both need bodies to function. In neither case though is the required biology determinative of the construct (though obviously gender is more likely to map).

I think that gender is derived from both biology and society. In genetics we have the concept of a genotype and a phenotype. The genotype is the DNA sequence and the phenotype is the expression of that DNA. I might have a DNA sequence that codes for blue eyes. The blueness of my eyes is the phenotype. I think sex and gender work the same way. My sex is female, my gender is female. — Roxanne Kelly

This is based on a confusion. Presidents are also derived from both biology and society. But there is no phenotype "President" nor is there a phenotype "gender". The phenotype of sex chromosomes is their physical expression, i.e. our respective junk.

(Another way this cashes out is simply that there is no physical experiment you can carry out to determine gender but there is to determine sex.)

OK.

modern liberals excised that very principle. — NOS4A2

This is where we disagree. But for another thread. Will just leave this here.

"...what is now called ‘liberalism’ in American politics [combines] a strong endorsement of civil and personal liberties* with indifference or even hostility to private ownership**.

*liberal and libertarian
**liberal only

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#NewLib

So, now they are different (if obviously related historically) schools of thought? A second ago you were saying they weren't. That was the point at issue, remember?

But this is a rather off-topic pushback against the typical libertarian idea that you are the only ones who care about freedom etc. So, I am going to drop it. Carry on.

Yes, that's why there are two entries and they have different names. Like when you have two of anything that are closely related and very similar in some respects (including origin).

But its guiding principle—liberty ... That principle is largely absent from other schools of thought. — NOS4A2

More bunk.


"Liberals have typically maintained that humans are naturally in “a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions…as they think fit…without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man” (Locke, 1960 [1689]: 287).Mill too argued that “the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition…. The a priori assumption is in favour of freedom…” (1963, vol. 21: 262). Recent liberal thinkers such as as Joel Feinberg (1984: 9), Stanley Benn (1988: 87) and John Rawls (2001: 44, 112) agree. This might be called the Fundamental Liberal Principle (Gaus, 1996: 162–166): freedom is normatively basic, and so the onus of justification is on those who would use coercion to limit freedom. It follows from this that political authority and law must be justified, as they limit the liberty of citizens."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#DebAboLib

sounds like you believe that there are such things as races — dazed

Biological race doesn't exist, but race as a social construct does. The distinction makes a difference.

:up: Medicare must be ageist because it takes account of age. Ban medicare!

Great stuff. :cheer:

This gives rise to commodity fetishism; the social relations between people become material relations between things — fdrake

And of course, he goes further as you mentioned earlier in the discussion, characterising the transference of social relations between people into not just material but also social relations between commodities.

Whence, then, arises the enigmatical character of the product of labour, so soon as it assumes the form of commodities? Clearly from this form itself. The equality of all sorts of human labour is expressed objectively by their products all being equally values; the measure of the expenditure of labour power by the duration of that expenditure, takes the form of the quantity of value of the products of labour; and finally the mutual relations of the producers, within which the social character of their labour affirms itself, take the form of a social relation between the products.
.
... with commodities ... the existence of the things quâ commodities, and the value relation between the products of labour which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no connection with their physical properties and with the material relations arising therefrom. There it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist­ enveloped regions of the religious world. In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities — Marx

https://web.stanford.edu/~davies/Symbsys100-Spring0708/Marx-Commodity-Fetishism.pdf

This outsourcing of social relations to the material and absorption of material relations into the social is for me the most interesting and significant idea in the first chapter.

Hey, welcome along. :clap:

:yawn:

There is zero reporting on him — NOS4A2

Yes, just these 1.1 million results.



Maybe who you should and shouldn't be listening to is becoming clear now, @Roke.

The Dems are immediately abusing the impeachment process for the purposes of influencing the 2020 election and to cover up Biden’s corruption — NOS4A2

:rofl:

Nah.

A definite possibility.

Right, well, went a bit off-topic there. I'll leave this open for the usual period for anyone else who has something to say.

A cemetery — Wallows

And this is the obituary pages?

I'm not sure about that one. Although it would be more practical than some of the other suggestions. You could always post it here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/30/feature-requests

Oh, right. I suppose closing vs deleting discussions can help with explanations though it does cause more clutter. No easy answers.

We do close discussions. That's a separate issue though. As in we're not going to close a discussion just because one participant is being disruptive.

This had been brought up before and we get the rationale, but the current software doesn't facilitate doing it automatically, and doing it manually isn't really practical.

The posts were suggesting I was a troll as was the PM.

How often does that happen? — DingoJones

Rarely. Only those two in the past year that I remember anyway.

Sure, of course. He repeatedly reposted deleted posts and responded to a ban warning for doing so with an insult.

Mm. He did seem very irritated at other posters lately. Almost like our speech acts were in a causal relationship with his behaviour... :chin:

Banned @Terrapin Station for refusing moderation. He was warned.

Sure. Cheers.

Thanks. I'll invite him. In the meantime, keep up with the suggestions as these guys tend to be busy so it's likely we'll need to do a few invites before we get someone to accept.

Nothing special about my qualifications regarding this, but alright, maybe you can PM me his contact details and your name, so I can mention you as the person who suggested him.

Jamalrob, gave me the go-ahead, so everything is nominal. — Wallows

Great.

Baden, do you want to take over the reins here? As a teacher, you seem more competent on the issue of etiquette and stuff like that. — Wallows

You mean you want me to invite him? I was already going to do the rest.

Stop trolling.

Unfortunately, chrome ignore doesn't work on mobile, so I saw your pointless comment. I'll leave it to you to work out why tagging a moderator in order that they may sooner be aware of a query relevant to them could be of utility to the one making the query. Take your time.

A Guest Speaker category, I guess, where we can stick questions in the form of discussions.

For more detail >> jamalrob.

what are your thoughts so far ? — Amity

I'm amenable. The idea expressed by some that there aren't posters here capable of engaging with a "real" philosopher is piteous. Philosophers are people with ideas who put more work than most into expressing them. That's it. They're not all superhumans that exist on some level of thought inaccessible to the rest of us. If you can read a book on philosophy and understand it, you can engage in dialogue with the author. And both parties might potentially learn something.

So, the process:

1: Get @jamalrob to agree to the invite.
2: The invite is successful.
3. We finalize a date.
3: We set up a space for the interaction.
4. We invite those willing and able to ask a few questions.
5. We do it and it'll be great.

From what I can see in the changelog, @jamalrob deleted it, presumably for low quality.

:up:

Just clear it with @jamalrob first. I'd be happy to set things up if he agrees and Massimo accepts.

Shall the set philosopher evacuate his bowels on the roof? I must.

Your argument can only ever be as strong as your claim allows anyhow. But depending on how you go about defending your claim, it could be a lot weaker. That's the perspective I take. If you're sure your claim is on solid ground then give it the best support you can.

If you're unsure of your claim then you're more in discussion territory and your commitment is tentative. The point is whether or not you commit fully should depend on your assessment of the strength of your claim. And the dichotomy I'd put forward is argument vs discussion with a formal debate just being a type of argument you've fully committed to defending over the course of the debate regardless of what transpires therein.



Yes, I'd thought of the deductive, inductive, abductive stuff. Could easily be another article.

Thanks for starting this. Happy to take suggestions and invite on that basis provided @jamalrob agrees.