I don't accept the idea you can chose what to believe. — Art48

If you deny doxastic voluntarism (the belief you can decide your beliefs) outright, then what triggers your belief other than a deterministic force, and why should I think that force has anything to do with it meeting criteria that suggests it's true? Do you reject free will outright?

Directly on this issue is William James "The Will to Believe," which agrees with you insofar as he doesn't believe you can will to believe that which you already don't believe, but to where you've not decided, you can choose to believe as a matter of preference. Such provides a basis to will to believe in a religious faith.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Believe

Social unrest is caused by economic disparity more than absolute levels of poverty. Absolute wealth today in terms of available resources is greater for those we consider in poverty than 100 years ago. That is. I have more in my home today than nobility had in years past.

I'm not opposed to providing for those without, but I have no illusions that this base level existence we're creating will become content. You still have a underclass in your envisioned society. It's just a bit higher an underclass than what currently exists

There always been tyranny from the rulers or statemen. Nevertheless, I still maintain my opinion that a public representative should behave according to righteousness. I guess this issue is not based on her parties but the fact she is the PM. If she would be a random person nobody would care at all. — javi2541997

But where do you arrive at the rule that not partying is righteous?

There's this ongoing view in this thread that says something like this "Come on, we all know that her behavior was unbecoming and ridiculous, but how much leeway are we going to give her just because she's a young woman"? The problem is I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that what she did was unbecoming. Whatever part of your moral conscience that is being shocked, just isn't happening to me. All I see is a woman dancing and singing with her friends. How is what she did bad in any way?

The problem is, it seems to me, worship – idol-making – not g/G per se. Theism is idolatry. The apophatics got it right, I think: anything said or imag(in)ed (e.g. "graven images", scriptures, theologies, sermons) about the infinite is necessarily finite and thereby false; even (especially) the belief that the infinite "exists" is idolatrous. — 180 Proof

You're late to the party.

"Maimonides held that God so far exceeds our capacity to have knowledge of the divine nature that we are severely limited in how we are able to describe or comprehend God. Even substance cannot be predicated of God in the sense with which we use the word to express knowledge of entities in the created order. In the terms of Maimonides’ negative theology, we would not describe God as the most powerful, all-knowing, incorruptible substance at the top of a hierarchy of substances. That is a positive conception."

https://iep.utm.edu/maimonid/#:~:text=Maimonides%20held%20that%20God%20so,entities%20in%20the%20created%20order.

These are the statistics of what adult Finnish people do in free time:

Reading books 56%
Walking 49%
Exercising in nature 48%
Travelling abroad 36%
Solving crosswords/sudoku 32%
Travelling within Finland 31%
Spending time at summer cottages 28%
Self-access learning 27%
Cooking as a hobby 25%
Gardening 24% — javi2541997

You left out the next entry:

Dirty dancing with the Prime Minister 23%

this method is used to evaluate intent and then morally judge any given subject, then there will be a great disparity in the effort to act morally than if intent was to be measured by other possible means. — Vishagan

We must decipher intent from behavior. That's all we can ever do. That's how criminal trials are conducted thousands of times a year.

Recall that Leibniz called our minds little gods; giving yourself a purpose is (a little) god self-assigning a task. — Agent Smith

If desires are our purposes, why confuse the issue with the pesky term "purpose" and just instead say "desire"?

I think we have the separate terms because we mean different things by it.

Your invoking little gods here begs the question of why you don't invoke the big God here. If we're going to speak of God or gods, then why not ask what your divine task is, as opposed to your personal desire?

What does it mean to give oneself purpose? — TiredThinker

It means you believe purpose is self created.

If I asked you to give yourself a cause for your existence, you'd likely tell me that whatever caused your existence existed without any effort from yourself.

I'd say the same for purpose. You have a purpose and it isn't created by you.

Does this concern my removed comment in the Climate Change thread? — Tzeentch

Nothing I said was motivated by something you said in that thread. I haven't really been following that thread, so I'm not sure what was deleted of yours from there.

I'm always curious as to what 'taking it to the team' looks like, in terms of action.
End of thread. — Amity

We've actually been talking about this post among ourselves, and we're trying to think of the best response. The delay in responding wasn't because we didn't care,; iit's more we were formulating a best response.

We very much appreciate this input.

I'll give my personal thoughts, not necessarily the final word:

I think the Ukraine thread got very out of control and we should have done better to reel it in early. It resulted in lingering bad feelings.

The question is whether we need a rule change (as you suggest) for political threads, or do we just need to acknowledge we didn't properly enforce that thread. That's the ongoing discussion.

I also agree the mods will be held to a higher standard as a role model and less tolerance of bad behavior of a mod should be expected.

I also don't have much sympathy for any bad actor who tries to justify his or her bad acts on the basis of what a moderator might do. We're all adults who know right from wrong, and the vast majority of posters are able to behave consistently without reacting to perceived hypocrisy and double standards by responding in kind. That is, levy your complaints if you think a mod is out of line. We'll deal with that. But just because Hanover might act a fool, doesn't mean you get to too.

Of course, this last paragraph was not directed to you as in you, but just to other comments in this thread.

I don't agree with this. You're not immoral just because you're factually wrong. Morality is judged largely, but not entirely, upon intent. So, if your intent is to save a child from a burning building and you throw them out the window, break all sorts of their bones, but later learn the fire didn't pose the risk you assessed, I wouldn't treat you the same as a crazed child thrower, who throws children from windows for sport.

That's not to say you get to throw children from windows as long as you have a good faith basis for doing it, but I'd expect some amount of careful deliberation, considering the consequences.

In your example of wat, which seems to be an alternative spelling of war, I would say you have a right to preemptive action if it can be rationally justified in terms of protecting against risk. You will be judged later upon what information you had, what you could still reasonably obtain, what other options there were, etc. Considering the consequences of war, morality would demand a high level of investigation and deliberation, but I can't buy into the view that if your factual assessment is imperfect, then you're per se immoral.

Correct. She can always become a background dancer for Beyonce. — Benkei

Well I can say that if asked to name another Finnish PM, or actually Finnish legislator, or actually Finnish woman, or actually Finnish person other than @ssu, I'd draw a blank. So she has done whatever is necessary to find her way to my computer screen. She needs to take advantage of this 15 minutes of fame.

Discriminating on the basis of race is a moral wrong that results in greater harm to some races more than others.

Was that so difficult to say without implying that every race suffers the same oppression and without implying that some racism is perfectly acceptable?

My point was more that a leader's chances of success relate to how they accommodate our projections of that which we are not, but aspire to, either positively or negatively. — Baden

Maybe for some I guess.

I work around enough people involved in politics that I have no greater expectations of them than anyone else, and they have no greater likelihood of being a role model than anyone else. In fact, while we're psychoanallyzing, much could be said about the curious personality drawn into politics.

At any rate, if you're looking to your politicians for moral direction, maybe it's time to rethink your religion.

My interest began and ended pretty quickly. You seem a bit more entranced. But her future life as your favourite celebrity is not what I was talking about. — Baden

As if you're not in love too.

Ergo, she's toast imo, though she'll probably limp on for a while. — Baden

As if being the PM of Finland is such a pinnacle of success that losing that position will mean ruin. She's now an international celebrity, who will no doubt figure out how to cash in on all this.

We ask what would happen if she were a middle aged man or whatever. Maybe we could muster up the same sanctimonious outrage, but there'd still be a collective yawn. No one wants to see a middle age man grind into another middle aged man. They want to see her doing all that she's been doing. That interest isn't going to end just because she might choose another track.

Of course. Maybe off topic, but if you are dealing with providing services to people with problematic substance use - people who need support - policy matters little. It's all about how to connect and engage people in new ways of living without using. That can benefit from working with people who have 'been there' too. I've seen it work powerfully in practice, but it is not the only way. If it's policy and research you want, that's all about the nerds - who can take your data and skew it nicely to demonstrate that your hypothesis is correct, regardless of what the case may really be. :razz: — Tom Storm

I know little about drug treatments, so I guess I'd do whatever it is that I do when I'm asked to do something I don't know how to do, which is fairly often, and I'd hire the guy who looked best on paper so that when he fucked everything up, I could say, "Wow, but he looked so good on paper," and then no one would think it was my fault for hiring a fuck up, but that it was just the paper was deceiving.

As a general matter, I have given opportunities to those with checkered pasts because it makes me feel non-judgmental, which I'm not, but I like to feel that way sometimes, but that hasn't always worked out as planned. They'll be super appreciative for the chance, but then they start to not show up on Mondays and they always have a sick dog or broken furnace to tend to and then I'll find out they've been hooking up with everyone in the records department.

Most jobs require conscientiousness and a little enthusiasm, with the rest not being as important. I always hire the guy that seems like they're interested in the job, which, in this market, seems like there's not a whole lot of people like that. At least when I was younger I pretended like I wanted the job. It seemed better when people pretended for some reason.

My two cents:

I think the issue here is a bit over-intellectualized. That Marin danced with her friends means nothing to me, either in terms of it proving she is somehow unprofessional or in terms of proving she has that common touch so elusive in our representatives. I would suspect that there are highnesses and majesties in the House of Windsor who let loose and dance and sing, all the while being elitist icons of a bygone era. It's sort of like seeing the Queen eat and marveling at the fact that she eats too, having convinced ourselves that these people aren't people. So, it means nothing to me she dances, sleeps, eats bonbons, or watches TikTok while she has her morning coffee.

I also don't think the idea of trying to find the Regular Joe as our politician is anything new. It's a common schtick among politicians to tell us they are from the school of hard knocks as opposed to some elitist school. How that plays depends upon who they represent.

Trump's schtick is very much to be this plain spoken self-made person who can say things like they are without fear of reprisal. That the reality behind it isn't true nothwithstanding, that's his schtick, so none of this is new. We're just talking about PR and advertising and what does and doesn't get votes. Apparently Marin is worried that the latest event will hurt her, so she took a drug test so that we would know she just likes to dance but not to fully sedate herself.

As to whether I'd rather hire a prior drug user to deal with drug policy as opposed to someone who is more data driven, I'd go with the guy who actually has a handle on policy and data. That someone has struggled with drugs in the past might give them insight into how to deal with certain issues, but it might also be evidence of an underlying personality issue that has resulted in a resort to self-medication. I'm not excluding those who have had their personal struggles, but basing hiring decisions upon the fact that I think the person "knows what it's like" might not be the best way to go about staffing my office. Again, I tend to be data driven, so if you could actually show me that choosing former drug users to assist in determining drug treatment center protocol (for example) results in better outcomes than in hiring those with advanced degrees in drug addiction and treatment, I'd reconsider, but my initial thought would be to defer to those who have actually studied the problem and not just those how have been consumed by the problem.

, did you change your job or your attitude?
Did you pick your own wars or battles?
Change. Of cages challenging — Amity

Have been thinking about this, and just now got around to answering...

I changed jobs, but it applies to everything. It's that feeling of hollow success, where you've mastered the task, gained the respect, have become the go to person, and you could coast the rest of the way in the safety of the confines of the cage, where you have the lead role. You have all the trappings of success, but a trap is the worst accomplishment of them all.

The walk on part in the war, though, there's no cage. It's the chaos and uncertainty of the moment. It's wondering if you're going to make it or if the next day will be at all like the last.

It's freedom. It's the lack of clinging to all the trappings of safety and comfort. It's pure expression, no one confining you, not trapped in by the fear you may lose. The bullets flying too fast to think about rest.

It's that manic state that knows no bounds, and it's the realization that the cage held no safety at all, but it assured a slow cutting off and a death. It's realizing if you can survive the war, you're invincible.

So yeah, that lyric means a lot to me. And that it's part of a song that wishes someone was here, who critically is gone, well that's another story, but part of what it means to be at it without much else to lose, dependant only on what you've got right then and there. Not having to cling to anything at all.

Clinging. The worst of things. Hanging tight like your life depends on it when it's letting go where life begins.

A ramble I know, but maybe that adds clarity. Or not. But that's what I heard when I heard the song.

I didn't address it because I have no idea what a trans woman, say, means when she says, "I am a woman." Literally don't know what that means. It doesn't much matter to me, so I've not read stories or talked to anyone with first-hand knowledge to try to learn what that means, for at least some people. — Srap Tasmaner

Well yeah, it would be a bit prying to ask the question, but you needn't conduct interviews to explore the question. You can just ask yourself what it means for you to be a man to answer the gender identity question we've been asking here.

My own answer is loaded with socially created stereotypes, dealing heavily with responsibility, control, strength, force, and certain virtues like honesty and reliability. Pretty much a cross between Ward Cleaver, Rambo, and a porn star.

No, it's not enough to show the video of her dancing and everyone should come to agreement this is a normal behavior of a leader having fun. — L'éléphant

No, that's exactly what I am saying. That it is screamingly obvious to you that she acted inappropriately doesn't have any persuasive power over my opinion that she acted inappropriately. Why was what she did wrong? I really don't get what you saw that I missed.

In any event, we're both in agreement that whether Trump is worse has no bearing on whether her behavior is bad, so the only objection I can decipher that you have is that object that some irrelevant comparison question was asked.

And I don't think really it was inserted for the reason you think it was. The OP wasn't suggesting iher behavior was OK because Trump has behaved worse. The OP was asking if we, as a society, give a pass for poor male behavior but then condemn perfectly normal female behavior.

I said clearly that her behavior is fine. That's what I think.

I also agree with @Benkei's comments that if you do believe her behavior is substandard, then you have to explain why you don't think men behaving worse is also substandard.

That is, if you have a double standard, you need to explain why.

As you've explained, you don't have a double standard. You condemn them all. That's fine, but now you have to explain why your standard, equally as you may apply it to all, is a standard worth having. I think it's not. Who cares if a grown woman dances?

Choose a better counter-example, not Trump, for christ's sake. — L'éléphant

That's a strawman. I didn't say she should get a pass because Trump is worse. I pretty clearly said her actions were fine under any standard.

She seems remarkably normal. That's what I saw.

The real crime is European music. It's just flashing lights and electronic beats that take place in discotheques, which is a word that hasn't been said in the US since 1975.

I disagree because I don't see anything negative about dancing and singing and I see no reason to take a drug test because I don't see anything negative about drinking or taking other drugs during your free time.

The question is purely a democratic one, which is whether that will get her or lose her votes. In itself, that wouldn't affect my vote one way or the other. That it would affect others just means some rely upon irrelevant information when choosing their candidates.

How you can diagnose a personality disorder from her acting like plenty of women her age I don't really follow.

I think that politicians should walk stiffly upright, always look serious so that we know that our troubles are always on their minds, wear clothes that drape their genitalia in such a way that we're not sure if they have any, put their hair in a tight bun so I won't think of smelling their locks, and they even should put a few pounds on their hips so that I think only motherly thoughts about them. A sagging breast wouldn't be necessary, but preferred.

The dishonor of the mating dance of that harlot should get her removed. I was shocked. How could such a whore ever govern?

There are even today people in the world who do not believe you can, whether you go to temple or not, whether you've ever even seen one. We do not want to be like them, the people who say "what you are is up to us." — Srap Tasmaner

I am aware of the peculiarities of Judaism, but I think that has more to do with prescriptive, legalistic definitions more than what we're talking about (although it might have something to do with how others in this thread are misunderstanding the conversation). That is, it is true that Orthodox Jews declare all whose mother is Jewish to be Jewish, even if that means declaring a devout Catholic a Jew. On the flip side of things, Jewish oppressors (most notably Nazis) also took a rigid view on who was a Jew for their purposes, regardless of the person's self-identification.

What you say here though doesn't address the issue of identity from a subjective perspective (which was our gender question), which is what this thread is more interested in. That is, the fact that the rabbis and my oppressors identify me as a Jew does not entail that I personally identify as a Jew. This conflict between what people want to call me versus what I see myself as is the entirety of this gender identify quandary.

Yes, but psychologically a trans person is really their psychological gender and also really their biological sex. But I, for example, can't be a trans woman no matter how artistic I feel about it because I identify as a man and that's not something I believe can be willed in and out of existence on a whim any more than sexual preference can. — Baden

So I've thought way too fucking much about this, and this is what I've landed on.

Your comments resort to a mysticism that I'm not fully able to decipher. Your man-ness under this definition is a geist, incapable of discernment. The term "transition" has alternative meaning under your analysis. At the pragmatic level of application, "transition" means certain medical procedures are performed, chemicals are prescribed, wardrobes are changed, and government documents updated. At the spiritual level, I'm not sure what it entails, but surely the concept of gender is not immutable, which means I might be a gender male when I'm a child only to undergo the mental change later in life and then to consider myself the opposite sex. This problem lays large in your analysis. As Lady Gaga wants to say "I was born this way," but that denies the possibility of transition and fluidity if how you are born is how you must be.

To the direct question, can one undergo a gender transition? (Note, I'm not asking if they can undergo a physical transition, as the answer is obviously that they can).

What I think to be the problem is that gender is both a mental property and a social property, neither of which can be fully distilled from the other. That is, to say I am a man means not just I feel myself a man in some nebulous way, but it is to ascribe the social meaning of man-ness upon me. There is no coherence to the concept of the primordial man prior to social designations upon him. You can't claim this primitive man did the primary man things, like act on every sexual urge and do battle with his competitor males like some odd upright walking primate would. He did all sorts of things humans did because he never was a simple animal, but he had the social designations of maleness that were as much a part of his man-ness as his biological characteristics. What does a biological man that doesn't have any social manifestations of man-ness act like?

And this presents the limitations of the MU analogy presented by @Michael. What could it possibly mean to be a Manchester United fan without the social designations of what that means? It must mean cheering for the team, wearing the jersey, and having friends and family who are also fans. To say otherwise presents this idea that there's this inherent identity of MU fan-ness that's just there, just part of the way he's made.

Consider another analogy. I consider myself Jewish by identity. It arises from the fact that I was born into such a family, all my early educators were Jewish, my friends and social network was Jewish, etc. If one were to speak to an Orthodox Jew, they'd even give a nod toward the mystical theory that I have the soul of a Jew that cannot be denied, regardless of how I might attempt to suppress it. That's a theory that's hard to accept, but it's not an uncommon way for a religious community to view things, and it seems oddly consistent with what is being argued for here.

It's also entirely inaccurate to say that I've always considered myself Jewish, as I have traveled through atheism and back. I'm not so ridiculous to think I embarked upon a worldly search for meaning and found that what was being thrust upon me was the truth I had been seeking, but I realize my current beliefs are heavily influenced by my social upbringing. By the same token, I am not an automaton, as I still had some choice in the matter of how I wanted to identify, and I suspect there might be some fluidity in that regard as I age, or, more likely I'll just get more stubborn and ornery.

My point here is that "woman" is a social term, a biological term, and a mental term, but there aren't boundaries around each. They correlate with and cause one another. Just as I could change my identity from being Jewish, I could change it from being a man, and that change would demand some physical act. If it did not require any physical act, then my change would be only to the ethereal ghost of identity within me, whatever that means.

think we can expect edge cases that aren't convincing. So far I've only met trans people who were clearly embracing stereotypical traits of the of their new gender. The trans man was growing facial hair. The trans women, which I saw more often, were wearing dresses and carrying purses. — Pie

The issue is complex because it both demands recognition of traditional gender roles and rejects them at the same time. A classic liberal perspective demands egalitarianism, which should result in a denial of gender roles and distinctions. Under an established egalitarian society, we should expect men and women's clothing to move toward androgeny, with equal likelihood of skirts, heels, and makeup for everyone. But to be transsexual,, you must rely upon those distinctions to express your identity, assuming the arcane conservative gender expression.

The point being we seem to have two strains of not entirely consistent progressive liberal thoughts going on here: (1) gender roles and gender expression should not be designated by biological sex, and (2) transsexuals should be able to express themselves by the gender roles traditionally assigned to them by their biological sex.

It's not like I recognized that I am English and live in England and then concluded that I therefore must already be a supporter of the English football team. — Michael

I get your carefully crafted example where you had an internal unexpressed feeling that revealed itself after the fact through behavior, with the behavior being purely epiphenomenonal of the internal state.

My point was that isn't a necessary, and I'm not even sure a common, revelation of such things. I think many people sort out their identities by self-analysis, which includes taking stock in their preferences and behaviors. It's why the road to exiting the closet is often delayed, often the person themselves last to recognize their identity.

To give a pure hypothetical, devoid of any political heat, should my genetic coding reveal I'm a Martian, that revelation would impact my self identity and result in me appreciating why my perspective on life differs from others. That is to say, it is my wearing the MU shirt that changed the mental state, which is bidirectional causation, not epiphenomenal.

this person's existence makes any of you angry, I suggest the problem is with you, not him. And you can't stop him existing or being recognized as existing. You lost the battle for social reality. That part is over. — Baden

I'm not going to argue the position I don't hold, but I think the general sentiment of the opposition isn't anger or a desire for physical interference, but it's ridicule and an eye roll.

The response then becomes increased insularity by the respective sides at what is perceived as a world gone mad.

Gender roles are stitched into the fabric of culture and have been identified in our earliest histories. It's realistic to expect the keepers of such ancient flames to categorically resist change. I only say this because I get your post, which is to shock the opposition into change by seeing what little threat is posed. Letting you know you're getting a different reaction than you might imagine, though, which isn't anger and violence but more of an "are you fucking kidding me?"

But it's a mistake to say that the cause of that self-identity is the characteristic that constitutes the self-identity. It's not like I recognized that I am English and live in England and then concluded that I therefore must be a supporter of the English football team. — Michael

What you describe as not having occurred in your particular case does happen though.

That is, I realize my emotional, spiritual, recreational, occupational, and general preferences are consistent with traditional female attributes, so I seek physical modifications to align those characteristics with other parts of my identity and that then encompasses me as a whole woman.

Being ac woman are all those things.

Otherwise you just have a person in a vacuum who claims himself a man for no reason at all.

I'm not a supporter because I wear the shirt or watch the games; rather I wear the shirt or watch the games because I'm a supporter. — Michael

I get that, but what makes you a fan?

Fanhood isn't immutable. From point A to Point B, what causes you to change into a fan?

support England when they play. I don't wear the shirt and most of the times I don't even watch the games. — Michael

And now I question whether you're actually a fan.

Something makes you a fan. Your love of the team, your undying commitment to your land, the excitement of singing stupid songs, getting drunk with hooligans, whatever, but if it's just an undefined identity, then it's meaningless

Animal examples have applicability as analogies, but not as direct examples. A male goat could act (as evaluated by humans) in a female way, resulting in an undetermination of biology to "gender" (anthropomorphicislzing the term). Such analogies are often used by those denying naturalistic arguments, disputing that traditional sexual behavior. Is dictated by nature.

Where I'm most stuck really is in the holistic definition of "man" you try to maintain, as if there is nothing about being a man that can be said other than that it is. How is being a man different than being a woman then?

Not in the sense that the appearance is what determines identity. Wearing a Manchester United shirt isn’t what it means to be a Manchester United supporter. — Michael

I get that language is an expression of intent and not an actual tangible mental state. Language is a behavioral manifestation of belief.

You tell me what doesn't count as an attribute of a MU supporter, but can't tell me what does. I don't think you can leave it at that but need something more.

My position is that wearing the shirt and attending the matches is part of what it means to be a MU fan. As with the trans issue, I similarly would expect a trans MtF to wear women's clothes. That's part of it. Saying the expression isn't part of the identity seems too brittle a distinction. The behavior isn't all you are, but is part.

I'm sure a Manchester United supporter would feel uncomfortable wearing a Manchester City shirt. It's not incoherent for them to want to change their clothes. — Michael

Then part of your identity links to your appearance. If not, why the discomfort?

The question then is why one's organs are relevant in deciding which football team one is on. — Banno

But this presumes a common objective, which as you've presented it, is the promotion of fairness. Not a bad objective, but not a necessary one.

Community Right wishes to go to the marketplace and purchase tickets to a CIS event. They don't want to watch a trans event. They then go to the supermarket and buy blueberries. They don't want strawberries.

And the psychology of gender relates primarily to the identity function, described earlier by Michael, which is also absent in animals. Only biological sex has any relevance to animals. And that's not an issue here. We all know what it is. The issue is about finding a social solution to a contradiction between psychological identity and biological identity. Your Billy goat won't help us with that. — Baden

I didn't read what @Michaelsaid that way. I read him as denying any discernable definition of gender other than generally thinking himself a man, offering no characteristic of what a man would be.

If we dissociate gender entirely from physical attributes, the concept of physical transition becomes incoherent. How can you physically transition from male to female if you are already a female and your body has nothing to do with that?

I think more thought needs to be had into the link between the anatomy and the mindset when defining gender, as opposed to your very clean bright line between the two. Otherwise, you're left wondering why all these trans folks do link gender to their own anatomy.