Moral discourse is predictable to some degree. That is why you can always find some kind of "obviously wrong" thing to throw in the face of a relativist - to shut them up — Dawnstorm

Unfortunately, I think a required clarification, will defeat this in a significant way:

What relativist are you talking to? If you're talking to a 'standard' Western relativist, yes. It's usually difficult to get answers like in Sam Harris' oft-cited example challenging someone to accept as moral the idea that some foreign culture has a scripture which commands that ever third child is purposefully blinded in service of the faith.
Apparently, his interlocutor said "Then we could never say it was wrong". I am not as incredulous as Harris was, it seems. I understand this to be true, given that those people are not Western. It is wrong to us.

I'm an emotivist so I have to just observe these things - my moral thinking doesn't generally extend beyond my own mind and behaviour (Leon might have something to say here lol). But it seems to me that even being able to ask the question "What kind of relativist?" Or "where from?" defeats hte idea that there's a universal category of wrongs that ca be brought up to one in order to have them eat their hat, so to speak.

What do you have *ahem* in mind? — Patterner

hehehe. Good.

Consciousness informs, it is informational, not physical. And so to understand it, it must be understood as informational. Only then can we understand how the brain implements it. — hypericin

I'm unsure this is true but I like it. Consciousness may only appear that way the experiencer, so in some sense yeah that's right - but it might just be the limiting factor to us ever understanding it rather than a accurate take on it.

ou have to actually address the argument, and claim that a premise or inference is incorrect. — Leontiskos

I quite literally did. Focusing on my use of the word 'simply' is .... weird.

Then you disagree with your own definition, but I already pointed out what you are saying and you denied it: — Leontiskos

What are you talking about? It's not 'my own' definition, I don't disagree with it and it is not incompatible with what I've said. What is going on with you lol..

and now you're back to saying that 'special' is an arbitrary concept, — Leontiskos

No, I am not, and I never was. I do not know how many times I can be bothered correcting your misreadings. Actually address what I've said - you continually do not. You're so stuck on semantics you're not even seeing that there is knocks downs aplenty on this page alone. I shall avoid this discussion if the next response doesn't significantly improve.

Death is literally momentary.

It's an extremely tired question, but I would need to know what a 'woman' or 'man' is before the discussion goes too far.

I do not think this can be answered by the gender-is-not-sex crowd. What is it then? Stereotypes. Identity isn't inherent.

Yeah, it's not as if I don't understand what's being said here. There are plenty of things about humans that are unique - but that goes for all species (well, almost all. Some are of a close kind i guess). We share most traits with primates at some level. The things you mention are certainly unique, but it is not unusual for animals to have novel or unique aspects. This is why i say it can only really be a contingent type of special - rejecting a metaphysical claim only.

For human minds, humans are ipso facto special as the one species who is itself (from their perspective). Thats fine.

The above probably half-answers this post, but yeah I don't deny the premises of what you're saying, i just deny entirely that it gives us any metaphysical comments to make. It's true that for a human, other humans are special by being either of a kind with the entity observing them, or by having hte same unique traits (consciousness etc..). These are all contingent. Something metaphysically special would be, for instance claiming that Earth is special because we are unaware of any other life in the entire universe. That's a better argument to my mind.

I think human worth is infinite, regardless of the utility of the human, as a matter of belief. — Hanover

So this makes sense and seems to confirm roughly what I saw behind your comments. That's not in any way meant to be a negative. It means you're being coherent and true to your beliefs.

Yeah, I mean just then he claimed a 'blatant lie' and then confirmed what I said lmao.

I simply disagree. Language is not specific to humans. The others work, and I may need to think on them - But i still can't see how that makes us special.

Pretty sneaky Edit: Please read my responses below. They pertain directly to this and clarify.

We also don't lick our own arses(cats), live in trees(Howlers), see in the dark(Owls), breathe underwater(Sharks) etc.. etc.. Picking out hte species we are simply because it is the species we are is... hehe...specious. Using this definition, literally any species could be called special. That is precisely how that word loses meaning.

I do thank you immensely for tying me down and crystalizing all ofthis.

There we are again. You are not a good faith interlocutor and I shall now avoid you.

Both of these require quite short answers/

1. The analogy does not fail. You've simply changed the basis of the analogy. The entire point is that a child/pet/person is not a book. Ownership of a Pet does not entail you can do those things. Ownership of a book does - ownership is legal status, so we are specifically talking about that. I think that's all that needs to be said there.

2. I should have said deplete the funds, not bankrupt. That was entirely wrong and your objection works. But reduce it depleting funds and making yourself illiquid and my point goes through against that objection.

"special" is arbitrary — Leontiskos

That's not quite it. Special does mean something and we've been given that definition in this thread, and applying the label can be accurate or inaccurate. I just happen to think its inaccurate here.

More to your point, picking out the species that we are to claim that species is special seems a bit misguided to me. IT doesn't touch on whether or not the criteria are met, it just is given as an axiom. I wanted a reason. If the answer is "Well, there isn't. We simply are humans and that's special because its 1 out of x species that we get to be" Cool, but that's not for me. (that's Han's position, as I take it).

Yours just rests on us not seeing eye to eye on humans as a basic entity in the world, I think.

Okay, but I think you need to actually revise your rhetoric — Leontiskos

Well, I get you but disagree. I told you what you needed to know upfront. I am not obliged to come across particularly personable. I would say, particularly here. But I hear you, generally. It's better to get on. Personally, I'd have just read that and moved on with it in mind. Takes all kind

So are you saying that when you were sociopathic you helped people without thinking that helping people was right, and now you help people because you think helping people is right? It's the "because it is right" that changed, and made the non-moral act a moral act. Is that right? — Leontiskos

I would say yes (phrased this way because I can't view myself from the outside with my own set of beliefs etc..). I can recall a couple of occasions on which I went to help someone, mucked it because I didn't know what I was doing and walked away laughing because it entertained me as best I could be entertained. One of these occasions was to leave a child without a parent at an event at which they were bound to get lost and likely hurt. I am not proud of this period of my life in any way, to be clear.

If you really think what you are saying is obvious, then it should be easy to express clearly and lucidly. — Leontiskos

As far as I'm concerned, I have. Thanks for cleaning up the grammar (i type quickly at work because of short windows for thinking about other things. I should probably use Drafts, but I'd probably never end up posting them). If you feel otherwise, that's cool and I respect you on that. The sentence you laid out seems clear as day to me in what it means (curse of knowledge perhaps).

I still don't understand what you are saying. So in your example of helping someone put a box together, you say that your decision to help them is the moral element. Or else "that I act" is the moral element. But those are two different things. Is it the decision or is it the "that I act," and what does "that I act" mean? Everything we do can be construed as an act. A decision is an act. Box-building is an act. Helping is a form of acting. So "that I act" is very vague given how broad the term 'act' is. — Leontiskos

Okay, I'll try to clarify. This response tells me it's probably semantics and not concepts, which is encouraging. Up top, I would say that I hear you on "all agential events are acts". Seems reasonable and like you say, it's hard to distinguish these things. But it seems clear to me that a thought, or a decision to cross the road is not an act in, at the very least, the same sense as crossing the road. Could that be agreed? Our language may be different, but we're talking about materially and morally different things imo.
They (tend to)follow one another and are of different kinds "That I have decided to act" is probably better put for this discussion, but I see a clear and meaningful distinction between "acting or not acting" on the one hand, and what the act is on the other. An example might be the trolley problem. Doing nothing gives us one impression - and either of the choices gives us a separate, slightly askance impression. Dovetailing, to be sure and so I was wrong to be quite so stark about and thank you for that. Is "killing a child" immoral? Well, imo yes. Is "deciding to kill a child" immoral? Well, also probably yes but if then you are prevented from doing so, we're talking about different things as the 'act' (in my use) hasn't actually occurred.

If you "didn't care a lick" then you wouldn't have tried to help in the first place. — Leontiskos

You are confusing whether i care to help, or whether i care to succeed. Remember, my form of morality is essentially narcissistic. I care that I tried. I don't care much about the success. I understand and don't fault you for not believing this. But I can tell you it's true as many times as you like.

If you speak to someone then you already desire that they listen. If you have no desire that they listen to your words, then you will not speak. — Leontiskos

As with above, no, I care that I spoke. It's pretty self-interested. That's, as I see it, the discomfort with emotivist. It is by definition self-interested and not concerned much with outcomes other than insofar as they make one feel a type of way. I understand why people don't like it.

Okay, and I am glad to see that you're acknowledging that you have an internal spectrum of right and wrong, that you engage in moral activities and decisions, etc. That is different from conversations we have had in the past. — Leontiskos

Is it? I don't quite think so. If that's what you've gotten, I have far more work to do about the semantic issue To me, I obviously carry out moral evaluations and act on the result of that evaluation. If that hasn't come across, I apologise as you might be running along tracks I can't quite get on for a discussion. That'll be my bad. (I guess the novel aspect of my position is that once I've begun to act, the morality isn't involved until something changes in the context (noted with the ulterior motive comment in previous post)).

But I think you do care what effect it has on the other person. The whole concept of "violating another's rights" has this built-in. Someone who cares about violating another's rights eo ipso cares about the effects of their actions on other people. It is not possible to recognize another's rights without caring about the effects of one's actions on others. — Leontiskos

Ah. It seems you've again confused law with morality. Some rights I couldn't give a flying F about. I would violate them all day long, because I don't care about the effect that has on someone else. I, personally, have deemed that right lacking/wanting/wrong or whatever on my internal moral compass and therefore do not act as if its a moral obligation. And, despite working in law, I often violate it for what I deem worthy outcomes. This rests on my rejection of rights as anything but legal positions. I do not think rights arise from anything but legal authority (or something analogous like religious authority).

So I can recognise that someone has right x, understand they enjoy that right at Law, and still not give a shit. Thought, I may enforce it for the moral reason of social cohesion, as earlier noted, because that overarching consideration may trump the fact that in case A I couldn't care less.

I certainly disagree, and yet it's not even clear that what you say here is coherent. "The law is not a moral institution; it is a practical guide to adjudicating disputes of morality." Does that make any sense? I think it makes more sense to say that an institution that adjudicates disputes of morality is necessarily a moral institution. I'm not sure how one would adjudicate moral disputes while remaining non-moral. — Leontiskos

That's totally fair, and this is an issue I would far, far, far prefer to say out loud rather than sit rewriting sentences about until I find exactly what hits hte nail. I shall have a go..

Moral systems have, over the centuries, existed and exerted certain power over people. Those systems are essentially incompatible (Catholic, Islamic, Secular, NAP, what have you..). So a system must be put in place to adjudicate between them. I do not think it a moral exercise to essentially mathematically work out (although, this is a little bit misleading, I do think it amounts to a calculation-over-centuries) what the most people would assent to and agree with. Given huge numbers of people disagree with laws and in fact, often violate them for specifically moral reasons, tells me that laws are not moral creatures (again, exceptions exist but they appear to operate different from lets say tax law and it feels like a bad move to me overall). Essentially, what I think is that a law of the land operates as a neutral arbiter between competing social interests. We do not cut off the hands of thieves in the west, but a small number of people in the west would love that to be the case. So law just goes "Well, mathematically, that's a small group so we wont take that into account - we've observed that most people prefer x outcome" not "cutting of hands of thieves is wrong, so we wont take that into account". And, you'll also note that as societies values change, the law catches up eventually on sort of critical mass basis, not on a response to moral argument basis.

Now, I may be overselling this - I can see good arguments for your point of view - they don't move me much as laws are not there for the purpose of making people feel good. They're there to maintain a mathematically(non-moral) deduced middle ground that most people will be ok with (moral). It is a very, very fine line and it's possible I am incapable of wording things correctly 'on paper'. I cop to that. The people are moral, the law is not. As I see it.

...But we don't need to get too deep into the nature of law, as it might make the conversation too long and unwieldy. — Leontiskos

Fuck. I should have read this first.. .LOL. Thanks man. Enjoying this one a lot.

This searches for a metaphysical distinction that can't be spoken, yet usage clearly dictates you're in error. — Hanover

Usage does not dictate reality. "literally" used figuratively shows that semantics cannot resolve this issue. Why are humans special? Because other humans care about them? If so, this is contingent on a human making hte statement (assuming i grant hte premise). I don't think I need to explain the lack there of any metaphysical implication?
If it can't be spoken, and is contingent on a shoddy perspectival context (note: I don't agree with you, and I am human) the i suggest it's essentially nonsense (though, when I say that I do not mean "meaningless". I mean it lacks a sense in which it could be considered metaphysical, or 'factual' let's say). This should make it clear I have taken account of 'usage'.

What do propose could be referred to prove the specialness exists outside our use of the term? If there is nothing that can be pointed to, then you're not saying humans are not special, but that "special" has no meaning. — Hanover

This seems to dance around the point - perhaps purposefully. In turn:

1. That humans adhere to the definition we have for 'specialness' (or a similar word - I could take a semantically analogous word, and if it fit there I would resile. But this word specifically wont do on it's face);
2. Well that would run up against 1. Special has a meaning that doesn't apply to humans.

It's possible that you're describing the special reaction humans have to other humans. That's fine. We mostly feel that. However, when i was sociopathic I couldn't care less. Makes you wonder whether you're operating on a generalization that wont hold, evne if it's reasonable (which it is. Not denying that).

That means that my statement that people are special in a metaphysical way isn't vacuous, but that it exists yet can't be referenced. — Hanover

This is an obviously theological bent to the argument, though, even if that's not your basis for reasoning. "It's there, but you don't get if you don't get it" is the same thing "grace" amounts to in most theologists thinking. If the suggestion is that it cannot be referenced, but is somehow true, that is vacuous in my view. I didn't think that was quite what you were trying to say though, so I apologise if previous comments weren't taking you correctly.

It looks like you are saying something like, "Humans are special, and we can know this by the way that they are treated, and yet there is no reason why they are special." — Leontiskos

Fwiw, This is also roughly what I got from you. I've not canvassed further comments in that chain yet.

You seem to be saying that humans don't need to meet the criteria to be considered 'special' and Leon seems to be saying that actually they me the criteria. Neither seems realistic to me. Maybe we just odn't have more to say to each other on it.

And there we are.

I do not think so. In another thread I pointed out that 180s suggesting that there are in-built moral ground rules is not tenable. That is simply not what we see when we look around the world.

Of course, you can make the argument that religion did this. I think that's reductive and probably not very well supported.

Athena, you have given a link to a Google search that links Christendom and Fascism. Facsim rises the state above all else, including religion and uses religion as an instrument, not a motivating factor. Fascists tend to be non-religious with a rather sociopathic ability to wield religion.

This is not to suggest I do not understand the concept of Christofascism. But uhh... that Google search being your 'source' for a claim which it does not support (and is a bloody Google search) is leaving me quite wanting, and futher assured of my views on your discussion inabilities.

Further, Bush and Cheney could have levelled the middle east. It is not credible to say they were not restrained. And believe me, I was extremely anti-Iraq and Bush in general. I burst into tears at work when Obama was elected. I just happen to not let my reason be driven by my hatred of those I disagree with.

You can go back to ignoring me. I speak for myself, not because I think you'll say something interesting.

That's a distinction without a difference. Case in point: James Woods literally crying on national television to give Reiner his flowers. And Woods is a pretty heavy Trumper from what I know. Trump was not elected because of a Tweet at Rob Reiner (again, for the record, and so you don't drop the ball, Trumps reaction was terrible - particularly for a President. That's not in issue here)

You can distance yourself from your side's foibles all you want, but you cannot do that and then also pretend any one who is right of center must also share Trump's views. I suggest its highly unlikely most voters share the personal views of their chosen leaders. I mean, Biden literally, more than one, suggested he would try to physically assault Trump if given the chance, and not a President.

The fact that leaders are dickheads is not an argument. They almost all, almost always are.

The fact is and has always been that the vast majority of both sides are normal people. That you seem to want that to not be the case on the right, but be the case on the left is exactly illustrative of the type of bias that makes these things so difficult to talk about. "right" does not mean "stupid", it does not mean "bigoted", it does not mean "uncompassionate". These are horrible myths that perpetuate the exact kind of division that keeps getting people like Trump elected (and Biden for that matter, but the comparison is obviously not one of parity. Trump is a far worse person., Biden was a worse President.. and they overlap). I challenge you to go to some 'right leaning' places (bars, clubs, whatever.. ) and actually talk to some real human beings. I can guarantee you'll be surprised as long as you don't actively look for MAGA merch or whatever.

Both of those quotes from you seem to imply that humans are special. — Leontiskos

They pretty obviously do not. If that was your interpretation, I am telling you: No. That is not what I said, intimated or meant. I was clearly making a quip about your incorrect use of 'special'. This is made explicitly clear by my actually giving the definition of the word 'special' and noting it does not, in any way, apply to humans or babies. I reiterated that multiple times. I am having a hard time now wanting to continue because it seems as if you're not clearly reading.

Not only do humans adhere to the definition you have provided — Leontiskos

They do not, in any way, adhere to that definition. If this is the basis for your argument, it is wholly rejected on first principle grounds. I cannot see how you have overcome this clear error. I suggest it is your theological bent that has you thinking this. If I am wrong, then I simply think you're making up a benchmark for the definition that doesn't make any sense. That is a disagreement, not something that can be resolved by 'reason'.

but you simply ignored the fact that I gave reasons why humans are different from every other species (and therefore we simply can't "call any species special" in the way I called humans special - humans are especially special). So yeah, I don't get the sense that you're trying very hard in this thread. — Leontiskos

If you could perhaps restate them - I have been pretty clear that no reasons have emerged from your posts. If you think they have, explicitly state them. It appears that your only argument is 'they are human' .which is an obvious tautology.

You've not acknowledge any of the clear mistakes you've made or any anything else of substance, yet you're claim is i'm not 'trying very hard'?? Good lord - If anything, you're not doing any work to have me understand you here mate. Its becoming tedious again.

You seem to be going on the assumption that society acts in perfectly rational ways and so why aren't they making the perfectly rational designation to devalue childbirth for the good of the greater society. — unimportant

Forgive me, because I get this will be annoying - i have no idea where this has come from. Nothing I said seems to indicate anything about my thinking on 'society' behaving rationally?

Your comments on teh UK are unfounded as best I can tell - I am British by birth (Worcester.. which you know is true because I spelled it right), Irish by blood and I take myself to be culturally British and stay quite purposefully abreast of almost all British politics as it is my wife and I's plan to eventually live in the UK for a period. Starmer, Reeves, Lammy and umpteen others are not only ignorant, they are incapable of reasonable discussions about their policies. They ignore reality and pretend that for some reason, anyone who goes against their party line is immoral. Lammy's famous 'rights hoarders' horsecrap is a prime example.

I imagine being currently in the UK, with a particular bent, makes it largely untenable to expect a balanced view on things which is not in any way a disparagement of you - Nigel Garage has said plenty of batshit stuff over the years (as has Rees-Mog, Braverman, Mordaunt and the rest). You're not being unreasonable, and that is not what I'm trying to say. But why not acknowledge that you, and others on the other side are in bubbles? Plenty of conservatives are too. Wouldn't deny that for a moment. If you could just be honest about the reality that you live in a bubble, and so do many others, you could get out of it and have a worthwhile discussion. I had to do this at great psychology pain about 10 years ago due to the abject racism, sexism and in-group shaming that goes on on the left. Which I am still on.

I don't think massive numbers of people agree with the specific claim of this thread, but go ahead and cite me wrong: I'm happy to hear it.

If you instead simply mean that lots of people are anti-trans — Mijin

I can taste the bad faith - I am quite sure now that it is not unintentional. I will not engage. We;ve been here. I think it was correct for Wayf to suggest not to get into these threads. Not because they aren't meaningful (they are meaningful and obviously important), but because they just end up like this. A shame. There's lots to be said, if one will get out of their bubble. This has become two people with fingers in their ears ignoring everything else. Its funny that in dealing with the Bubble issue its "I know you are but what am i?" type of thing while trying to shame one into not discussing something they feel is important - as you did explicitly here. A shame.

if you're wondering why few people agree with your conclusion, that putting gender over sex is sexism — Mijin

I think it is the case that massive numbers of people agree with this sentiment. You may just have a bubble into which outside voices are refused entry. Most do. Those of us who actively go out of their way to avoid this understand that its basically 50/50 on these types of claims.

To be clear, you are insinuating that good-faith discussions about LGBTQ+ that are central to politics are ‘low quality for this forum’. — Bob Ross

Yes. That is the tactic to get you to shut up. It begs the question why he bothered to come in to say that. Trying to shame people away from important conversations is how backsliding occurs.

Please don't gaslight me. You made a presumption about something I said or did. — Questioner

What you quoted was a criticism of T Clark. If your response to is to deny the facts of the matter, I can't help you. You are wrong. Point blank period. It would be far more becoming to just say "Ah crap, read that wrong - sorry."

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. — Questioner

It does, though. So... okay. Stalemate.

When terming "difference" as "wrong" - judgement comes into the equation. — Questioner

This is a neat trick, but is absolutely inapt for what we're talking about. If you are supposed to have an aligned body and brain, and you do not, then something has gone 'wrong'. Nothing interesting or controversial there. If you're building a pyramid and fuck up by an inch at the bottom, the alignment at the top will be wrong for a Pyramid (well, that's hyperbole.. you'd need to be out by more than that to make it not a pyramid, but you get me i'm sure).

The "obligations of society" to accommodate difference should not be the sticking point. — Questioner

Can you clarify why you've said this? If this weren't the case we wouldn't be having any discussion whatseover. The entire issue is that society has been made to accommodate this identity claim (no comment on reality, just illustrating why this is in fact the sticking point). If people just kept to themsves and did what they wanted for themselves, we'd have no issue - but once you expect other's to participate (pronouns, going into locker rooms, being "judged" as your preferred gender) then it becomes what matters.

You are talking about changes in outlook, not identity. — Questioner

This tells me you are not up on the problem of Identity. I am exactly talking about identity. If you do not get this, read some more about it particlarly Reasons and Persons by Derek Parfit. Generally considered the best work on the topic in a generation.

I'm going to pause here to address something you intimated to Phil: That there are no detransitioners who claim to have had their identity wrong. That is definitely 100% not true. Chloe Cole, Helena Kershner, Keira Bell, Ky Schevers, Elisa Shupe and honestly the list goes on. I just want to make you well aware that you are clearly not getting the full picture here - largely because almost all research in this area is activist driven and therefore liable to be incomplete and biased. Not all, but largely.

But there are some parts of it that are fixed, determined by the basic structure of the brain. — Questioner

This does not seem true. People are become convinced they are not human, for instance. We call this mental illness. I get the feeling we're just getting dangerously close to areas you're not comfortable with.

I'm wondering why we don't do that? — Questioner

For every reason that's been put forward. It seems like you're actively trying to ignore most substantive responses. I don't even tihnk 'trans' is something one can objectively claim (obviously) so why would i simply "believe" the claim, which I don't think is coherent? I also don't believe when someone tells me they're clairvoyant or a light worker or whatever. But that's their identity. They believe it.

That a newborn is born with some identity I think is a reasonable claim to make. — Questioner

Not unreasonable, but i can't conceive of what a being which has no self-awareness could hold as an identity. Seems totally wrong to me.

Identity does not only exist when it is being expressed, but when you are all alone with nothing but your thoughts. Otherwise, it would be like saying the Sun only exists when you see it. — Questioner

It wouldn't be like that. But to respond to the substance, you're right, identity doesn't only exist at those times. But thats what gender boils down to, so I can't really see this going further. We may simply need to leave off. There's enough here that makes me think you're not adequately engaging, and i'm sure you think the same. I like you, so I don't want this to get bad.

You concede that humans are special — Leontiskos

I did no such thing, And i outright reject the notion that humans are special. I asked you for your evaluation with reasons. You have not done so.

By the way, the reason I didn't respond to your more recent reply is precisely because it was not substantial, and did not address the issues that were being raised. — Leontiskos

Then you are clearly not reading anything that might act as an objection, becfause you are ignoring the three key points:

1. You are explicitly wrong about what "special" means despite initially relying on it - you have ignored this.
2. You have given no non-circular reason for applying that word to babies (they are human? Great. Humans arent special in any sense of the word on paper -hence asking you to actually support your contention. You have not. And you have ignored this and simply repeated yourself.
3.

Again, you're denying final causality. Human babies are special because they naturally grow into human adults, and we both agree that human adults are special. — Leontiskos

You are continually being dishonest (it seems) about my position and what I've said. I have not said this, or assented to it at all and do not think it's true. If this is simply that you have misunderstood me, then I'm not sure what to say. Upon review, you must be extremely confused to have gotten that out of my responses. There's nothing I can see that could have been reasonably construed this way given i've said the opposite and then asked for your evaluation of why you take another view.

You might try re-reading my post, noting that your use of 'special' runs against its intension , that you do not have a reason which isn't circular (babies are human) and you are not accurately representing my posts at all.

Even though all presidents besides Truman have shown extreme restraint relative to their power and influence.

We also saw swathes of people celebrating Charlie Kirk's death on the day, and continually for weeks after including hoping more conservatives are killed.

Yet, this is not the party line. Individuals will always be individuals. And that was a shitty response from trump to say the least. But that is not the party line. He is just incapable of acting like a President.

On all levels — baker

Rejected. Perhaps we have no more to discuss...

Can you explain? — baker

I.,..did? If it wasn't moving for you, that's fine.

If other people want you dead, should you not kill yourself?
By staying alive, you are offending them! — baker

As noted, and supporting my slightly quippy response above, their beliefs, utterances and desires are irrelevant. The idea this hinges on is that i want to die.

Can we unpack this? Because other people's desires that someone should die or not exist certainly play a part in how worthy of life someone deems themselves. — baker

Well, they can. But quite often do not.

Hey man, great set of questions/objections etc.. I have to prime you that I'm blunt in a few of these responses. Its not personal, or meant to indicate a shortness with you.

Well this whole threa — Leontiskos

So you don't grok the difference? Or what? It's somewhat hard to get more than "you're a little offtopic" here. Which seems totally true, tbf lol.

This seems to indicate that when you are merely trying to get people to act or not act (regardless of any intention), you have your own goals primarily in mind rather than their own. — Leontiskos

I have explicitly, and in detail addressed this. You are wrong. I probably shouldn't be required to go over it again at this stage. Suffice to say my goal is to do what I think is right. Their goal is whatever it is. They are not interdependent. The moral reasoning is inside my head and has no part in the discussion with old mate.

ut are you saying that your decision to help people towards their goals is moral, or not? — Leontiskos

You could just read the quote you quoted. There are two activities. One is moral. One is not. This isn't rocket science my guy - its really, really hard to see how you're not getting this.
My decision: Moral.
What I say to old mate: practical.

Nothing unusual or inconsistent here.

Isn't that a contradiction? — Leontiskos

Clearly not. It seems you're about to address this (which is odd as these prior responses act as if you're not going to.. just as an explainer for why it might seem weird that I either repeat myself within this reply, or ignore some things within it).

Your behavior in cases such as these is moral in nature, or in your words, it requires "making a moral call." — Leontiskos

Yes. It is specifically morality that would prevent me from, for instance, instructing someone on how best to harm a child.

Is the idea that helping others is moral, but the thing that the other person is being helped to do need not be moral? — Leontiskos

Roughly, yes. I think difference cases would be phrased slightly differently, but that's the delineation I am illustrating. It's 'good' in my view to help my younger son build legos. Building legos has absolutely no moral valence at all (to me. Maybe someone finds morality in building legos, I don't know. That's kind of the point).

It seems to me then that in the interaction you would be acting morally throughout (insofar as you are helping), and the person would be achieving some practical end with your aid. — Leontiskos

Now this is totally reasonable, but I think it's simply a requirement you need to maintain your position and no one whcih can be illustrated. Explaining how to put together a packing box for groceries isn't moral. That I am helping someone is moral. You may disagree, but you've asked for why my position is what it is - and this is it. They are different things. When i was sociopathic I often "helped" other people. Largely out of boredom. There was no moral decision. At all. The difference is my internal intention (I think we've been here and you disagree - i'm just trying to answer the objections).

Thus from the perspective of the person being helped, you are acting morally insofar as you are helping them, but you are only acting practically insofar as the means-end intelligibility is being discovered. Is that right? — Leontiskos

If I getting this right, from you, then yeah pretty much. I guess it would be cleaner to say that i act is morally, but what my action is is not, in this case. Contrasted with perhaps dragging a struggling kid from a pool - I'm not going to check if the kid wants to drown or not. My morality tells to do a moral act, in that case and the moral act is the entire act in that case. In our example here (helping someone put a box together lets say) only the decision to act, or more closely, that I act is the moral element. The actual instruction could've just been handing a sheet of paper over and walking away in disgust at how inept old mate is.

helping them act and think and understand — Leontiskos

Well, maybe, but you've got this the wrong way around: that is a result, not an act on my part. I don't actually care whether the person listens to me to be honest. My decision was simply to help. If that's rejected or misunderstood, I don't care a lick. It would certain be better for their goal if they listened, though. But it doesn't move me because (i presume) its their morality or intention creating that fact rather than mine.

But why is your unspecified decision to help someone moral, as you earlier said it was? — Leontiskos

Because in making the decision, i am weighing explicitly where it sits ion my internal spectrum of right ad wrong. Once i've made the decision, the moral lens is put down (unless something further comes up that requires a moral decision - like finding out they have an ulterior motive or whatever that I do have a moral issue with).

A simple case is your point about how you respect others' rights, and that this respect is moral in nature. If you were a subjectivist or an emotivist I'm not sure how that would work. — Leontiskos

I don't see an issue, other than from the perspective of someone who requires an outside arbiter of their morality. Violating others rights (although, that then begs the question of what rights I consider moral and not... that notwithstanding...) makes me feel shit. So I do my best not to. It doesn't actually matter too much what effect it has on the other person unless I've done it unintentionally. Then, their reaction is what makes me feel shit because it was unintended. If i intended to do something I knew would violate a right that i feel is immoral, why would I care about them being hurt? Thanks for the link - i've been following some of it.

But how does the subjectivist claim that the law is right or wrong? — Leontiskos

I don't. I wont speak for others. I'll say it works for the most part. I then have personal views on particular aspects that tend not to come into a legal discussion for me. The only times I make moral claims about legal issues is such as above. But if i were to take the view that what I personally considerally morally this or that should be reflected in law, I would be a nation of one fightining against my brothers (metaphorically) to enforce a set of feelings I think are essentially unhelpful in the wider world (i.e outside of regulating my own behaviour and choices).

This is utterly strange to me. — Leontiskos

Yah. I've picked up on that :P This seems to be the boilerplate for the disagreement, as I see it. And that's all good - it seems to support my view (tongue-in-cheek).

If you really think a law is wrong, then by definition it would seem that you want it to be changed. — Leontiskos

No. The law is not a moral institution. It may appear that way, because collective moralities over time have shaped it - but in a pluralistic society it is a practical guide to disputes of morality in most cases. This is why there are courts that allow what we in the West would call murder - because those cultures have hammered out law with a different moral lens to the majority of the West. This is something like a smoking gun against the Alvaro-type moral thinkers. There is no universal sense of morality (running against 180s claim in the thread you linked, for instance).

If you have no desire that it be changed, then I'm not sure you can say that it is wrong. And if you are a subjectivist then I think that would be consistent. Yet you say it is wrong. — Leontiskos

This seems to be cause you conflate law and morality. The law lives outside my head. It cannot be part of my morality. I can react to it morally, and that's all.

A committment to free speech would have us accepting plenty of 'immoral' things said by others, while not ever trying to have the law prevent them from saying it (or more recently, the reverse of this lol. Trying to instantiate tolerance for views I find immoral in pursuit of free speech).

Perhaps there's a theological bent to you thinking, as noted: laws are moral laws in religion (almost always). They aren't so in the secular land. Or at least, this is my view on the Law vs morality in the west. Law emerges from morality, as such, but is not itself a moral arbiter. It's just as best we can get to a "middle way" to decide issues for which people have strong moral beliefs. Probably good to understand that when I saw "that law is wrong" i mean "i would rather not". Not that there's some benchmark I can take you to to understand why it's wrong. You're just going to get my opinion if you ask.

I do note here that I hve given an example which is specifically a 'moral duty' but this is a specific beast within Law which is not representative of how Law works - its a bespoke family law issue. I think Family law should operate like all law, but it doesn't and that seems to work.

Not in the developed world. NZ is an awful place to live if you anything close to ambition. Or, any political savvy at all. Its like a sandbox with kids playing with toys. Totally unserious.

That said, Australia is trying to paint far-right extremism as a looming issue, in the face of deadly islamic terrorism. Wild. We don't do that.

Fwiw, no, and I think this response is just in line with what i've described.

Sure thing! I can have a reasonable conversation about this, so thanks for that (merely in service of us continuing a decent adversarial relationship on this here forum :P ). What do you require for a 'full transition' as such?

This is not true, I had the last word about male vs female brains, in a reply to you, citing more accurate and recent research, that sex differences in brains can be read with fMRI — Questioner

I reject this entirely. Our conversation resulted in my presenting multiple, corroborative pieces of evidence and you presenting potshots that don't quite get you to your conclusion either way. I am happy to leave it where it is, but it should at least be clear my perception (upon review, also) of this is not what you're saying. We need not litigate it again. It was a circle of frustration (for both., i'm sure).

This is your interpretation of my motivations for posting what I did, and it is wrong. — Questioner

Mate, you haven't even read the sentence you've quoted correctly. This is why it's so intensely difficult to think you're doing this in good faith. The sentence you have quoted is a criticism of T Clark. Not you. You stand on your own merits, and I respect that.

Well, I wouldn't use the words "right" and "wrong" - just different. — Questioner

Then that puts paid to the entire mental experiment. Either there are brains and bodies which are typically aligned(right), and can be misaligned (wrong) or there is a failure in one or other of those elements, to be objectively anything. This would mean gender isn't real, and sex is meaningless in some significant way. I don't think either of us are driving down that road.
What I would say is that if you have a male body and female brain something has gone wrong. They are not aligned, and, on the vision needed for your side of the argument, cause you immense distress to the point that society is obligated to affirm you and adjust itself to your self-perception (which, in this case, is biologically seated and so cannot be overcome). I simply think this is bollocks and there is no science anywhere that backs it up. We disagree there, so there may be no more to say. Onward...

I'm going to ask you to put on your thinking hat - and ask yourself - where is the seat of my perception of myself? Is it in the brain? — Questioner

This is, unfortunately, a metaphysical question and not one apt to resolve our dispute. I'll try to answer anyway, which should illustrate this:

We don't have a fixed identity. No one does. Our 'self' obtains in a set of dispositions, feelings and reactive faculties which are different moment-to-moment. The 'seat' of our self-perception is reflexivity observation of the world around us (one reason why, if gender is a social construct, you don't get to choose your own!). It is simply reading the room and understanding what it says about your mishmash of "selfhood". Perhaps my rejection of fixed identity also means there's not much more to say.

... that there are two parts of the prefrontal cortex used for processing information salient to the human identity—the medial prefrontal cortex, or mpfc (BA10) and the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex, or dmpfc (BA9) (Lieberman 2018). ...This is a reflection of the dynamic and co-optive nature of identity. — Questioner

This is slightly misleading (but don't worry, it will be addressed because my 'corrective' isn't major) as there is strong overlap between these faculties, so the line saying "we literally..." is just blog-speak for those out there unable to process the nuance of neuroscience, the lack of replication etc...

That said, it is largely true, so what do I make of this? Well, given that these are networks in neural pathways, they are subject to change through out ones life and thinking can quite literally change one's neural situation significantly. Is the idea here that one can be trans at t1 and not at t2, or vice verse, swings and roundabouts? That's not meant to be reductive - it seems required to put too much into this piece of neural data. I would add to this a bit of a can of worms, in that psychedelic psychotherapy seems to intensely change how we process both types of information (disclosure: friends of mine do this work and I used to have a hand in designing similar studies locally).

I'm unsure what we're using this data to say about the present conversation. I take it that the idea is that Gender is biologically driven (rejected, but we can ignore for my purpose here) and so is not sexist.

and then how they are analyzed, processed, and responded to are determined by our brains. — Questioner

So this seems a little bit of a hide-the-ball. They are somewhat determined by our brains, but our brain's behaviour and it's influence on further thought rests on current thought (and habit, more importantly). There is every reason to believe this is ephemeral in some significant sense and cannot 'determine' anything about us. I accept that there is a feedback loop when it comes to identity, so I'm not denying your premise - but I think you have the cart before the horse. We gain identity, at all, from how we are treated as babies and young children. We don't get active in creating an identity for some years which should give you pause. """

You keep talking about "expectations" and "acting" - as if you have no notion of the identity that exists in one's head - the brain's activity that produces one's unique sense of self. — Questioner

I am failing entirely to see how the latter retorts the former. Brain activity also produces immense and transient anger of the littlest, stupidest things and often we have no control over this (in the moment). That doesn't make it an identity or something unchanging. Detransition, that is happens at all, seems to speak to this. If you're identity exists in your head, you act it out as an expected set of behaviours so others around you see you as your internal identity. So, whether or not identity is a fixed internal property, your behaviour (gender) is not at all that. You act and meet expectations to be seen. We all do this. Trans people are just more complicated (bear in mind this says nothing about hte legitimacy of the internal identity aspect. That could be 100% inarguable and this point would stand i think).

but you seem genuinely pleasant to converse with. If you find this an intrusion into other's discussions, please feel free to tell me and I will not do it again. — Philosophim

For my part: I agree Questioner is great, and have no problem with you butting in a bit. I do it. It seems a decent way to engage in good conversations you're not part of

You can be white and like rap. — Philosophim

I was a battle rapper for some years. I had a totally different identity then. Similarly when I was a stand up comedian. Similarly when I was a fairly robust figure in the psychedelic space. Similarly when I was a depressed, teenage rocker. These things all change throughout life and hte idea that there is a fixed identity when it comes to gendered behaviours (i.e claiming 'a gender') seems erroneous. I've spent long periods wearing make up and womens clothes and behaving as they say, as a soy boy. I was not trans.

P-Zombies. It's often held out as a gotcha for those who think consciousness could be separate from brain activity (or at least emergent from it, rather than synonymous).

Run the same argument with a pet and you get my position, legally.

If I may not kill the child whose life I "own", it's not clear why "owning" my "own" life as an adult would mean I may kill myself. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Because one is you, and one is not. By analogy. when you hold funds in trust, you cannot bankrupt the trust. You can bankrupt yourself at leisure.

While I take it you're supportive of the idea that pathologizing homosexuality is unhelpful, if not bad and immoral, I can't quite understand the rest of this. Manhood or 'manliness' isn't an object.

I don't understand the term 'true progress' either. What's false progress in contrast?

I have presented him with ample evidence that the male/female brain claim is a myth, for example - which got ignored. You can probably use the search function if interested. Its in the Transwomen are women thread. — AmadeusD

Because you aren't even clearly reading my responses to you. See below. I am not trying to be purposefully rude - this is just extremely hard to be polite about. You are ignoring the key aspects of arguments against you (including sources), while presenting none of your own and riding coattails (in this specific thread, only). It doesn't really call for civility. It calls for ignoring you, for the most part. I'm trying to do neither.

have presented him with ample evidence that the male/female brain claim is a myth, for example - which got ignored. You can probably use the search function if interested. Its in the Transwomen are women thread. — AmadeusD

Sorry if you looked before I fixed the quote.

Afaik, well-substantiated in that most "trans" children are simply gay children being pulled about by ideologues.

I bite that bullet.

woooooooooooosh.

That's no solution at all and I would posit the extremely well educated theologists among us (the world, not the forum) would find your position insulting to their intelligence, and you'd be in no real position to counter that, given their level of education and understand trumping yours by some magnitude.

We share the belief that religion tends to beget bigotry. We've seen this in the last two days. We don't share the belief that 'thinking' is a solution. Courage is what's needed to trump easy thoughts, and this cannot be bumper-stickered. Something much more interesting needs to be happening than thinking.

I can't see what relevance this has here? Other people's utterances or desires aren't relevant here until we talk about the desire to not have your friend/family member die. But that's not what's in your response. Hmm.

But, to respond: Yeah, obviously. Its not a serious claim. Its edge-lord nonsense. I can see why a particularly vulnerable person would be harmed by those words. But the idea that it would lead to actual suicide is extreme. Yep, it happens, but then the desire was not that of the actor.

Is that what you're getting at? I think that's prima facie a totally different conversation.

But my friend was bipolar - his life was objectively not all 'scalding misery'. — Jeremy Murray

Difficult. The mania of bi-polar can be super distressing. The manic periods are disordered, almost inhuman. The depressive episodes are almost the worst mental prison one can be in. It's hard to say there's any objectivity to it not being that bad.

That said, it's up the actor to decide this - not others (saving for true perspectival mental illness).

He didn’t just make a claim. Unlike you and Philosophim, he provided references to evidence. If you want to question his evidence, that would make sense, but all you do is wave your arms. — T Clark

You seem to have ignored (again, and along with with Questioner) have obviously, and unfortunately obviously on purpose, ignore the several sources (and quotes there from, along with explanations of how they link with the context we're talking in) I have provided. I sent you to them. You have not bothered to look.

That means I don't need to care. Questioner has not provided any support that trumps several metastudies for any points hes made. The only one you seem to want to point to is the brain one. That is a myth. For which I have provided ample evidence. You not looking at it shouldn't become my problem.

Well, I certainly have never told you not to talk about this. I think it’s fine. And I don’t understand why you would say I’m not arguing in good faith. — T Clark

Because of the objective reality of the above lack in your engagement. You've literally responded to nothing except to stand behind Questioner going "yeah, get 'em!". Its not fun to see. You're usually good at this. Iin this case, you've not engaged with any argument whatsoever and just leaped straight to ad hominem.

In any case, that position betrays the claim. If brains are sexed, then that's sex. Not gender.

The claim that one can be born in the wrong body then looms large. Are we claiming that? I don't think so. That tells me there's no consistency here.

They lack social acceptability.

"We have the right not to be reminded of the ugly sides of life" is the usually unspoken stance underlying this topic. — baker

Right, ok, I get that. I suggest this isn't a disability and should never be considered one. Social acceptability hinges on essentially infinite different factors and often has nothing whatsoever to do with actual ability - its just a feelies thing. That's not to dismiss isolation and ostracization. I've experienced enough. But its like calling harsh words "violence". It just violates the intension of the word.

Hmm. I was being quite careful there - interferring with the desire wouldn't be convincing her away from using (i presume?) MAID. It would have been attempting to adjust her worldview to not want to die.

That said, I am incredibly sorry for your loss and respect your journey there immensely. Thank you for sharing.

Lacking what is my point? Its not ability-driven. It would be a purely social lack (i.e lack of social inclusion) which we don't consider a disability, even in the most staunchy leftist, rights-based thinking i know of.