I think we all know what is 'wrong' and 'right' but our intuitions and some deliberation. Whether that applies to another is a matter of chance (sort of).
We can't "know x is right" without recourse to something. We don't have a universal something. *shrug*.

I don't quite understand why, or why the search for advice, but yeah go for it. Filling out threads can only be good - just do not have an AI argument with yourself, or any else. Just be honest.

"SRY is an intronless sex-determining gene on the Y chromosome. Mutations in this gene lead to a range of disorders of sex development" — Mijin

In differentiation, yes. I have explained that quite clearly too. Those aberrations don't change your sex. They lead to aberrant phenotype and sometimes (well, mostly) infertility. Again, you need to keep determination and differentiation separate. They aren't the same process, nor do they result in the same "facts" about the individual. I hope that with this clear, its less important to you that sex is a binary. I can't see why its important to argue otherwise for reasons both that it is quite biologically clear what's going on, and that I can't see any social/political benefit to ignoring that reality. Same with plenty of other issues like racial statistics too, but here it seems far more important given half the population is "at stake" if I want to be dramatic.

I didn't say you had, I was saying it's the obvious implication of using SRY as the determinator of gender in society. If it's the wrong implication, then please explain why so, and also answer the actual question. Instead of, frankly, using indignation as an excuse. — Mijin

I am indignant at your continued non-acceptance of facts I present, and continuously confusing concepts I've been at pains to delineate for your benefit. I am justified. If you appear to not be reading things I'm typing, I will care given we're trying to have a discussion.

I responded that way because your implication was a moral one. It isn't appropriate here. We're not discussing "what to do". That's why i asked for a good faith version of a similar consideration.

Humans are (in some studies) next-to-100% accurate in telling sex from facial features alone. What we need to do is trust that people will not lie about their sex. If that's a concern, then perhaps we do need testing. But that's not my position. My position is that we separate almost all private spaces by sex (for almost all of history). That is right. We should continue to do so. We understood there were bad actors before 2010 and almost every male weasling their way into a female space was promptly dealt with.

More males in female spaces is a bad idea. That's the headline. This isn't controversial. I don't care how people identify for this purpose. I only care how people identify when it comes to my personal interactiosn with them, and I am not obliged to affirm or participate in an identity. I don't expect that for myself.

I'm not following you. — Mijin

I know. I suggest to slow down a little and work through element-by-element - it's hard to keep hold on all the different concepts.

The transporter does not need to result in a you the way you are (relatively strictly) describing it. On a PC position, you can come out, and diverge immediately (becoming "someone else"). And this does not matter. The person, whoever it is, is continuing your psychological aspirations, desires, wants, needs and ambitions - perhaps, finishing a book you were working on.

On this account, it doesn't matter, whatsoever, that the machine failed to send "you" to Mars. The person will be you regardless (in hte sense of 'close enough'). This requires that we accept that "personal identity" does not obtain beyond numerical identity (which is logically secured). I understand from your responses, this isn't good enough. I basically agree.

If the copy is different to the original on creation, then it wasn't a successful copy, but if it diverges afterwards, that's fine; as our whole life is a kind of "divergence". — Mijin

This is more closely linked to the real issue than the previous question. I hope the above gets us somewhere close to understanding on it. I would add that if, at the moment of inception the person is not exactly the same psychologically, then continuity hasn't quite obtained. This then brings us to, as you say "how similar" one must be secure the line I've bolded above. Is this a little bit clearer?

Citations don't have a lot to do with this. For Kant's system to work (to transcend, that is) physical objects (or, a physical object) must be impressing our senses to achieve the impression of physical objects. Otherwise, its just idealism, right? That is, as best I can tell from anyone's commentary including hte several translators and other commenters like R.P Wolff, the most fundamentally implicit aspect of the CPR. Without this basis, it is not, in fact, a transcendental system.

Some commenters you could look at:

Henry Allison: Takes the dual-aspect argument on and imo compellingly.
P.F Strawson makes similar comments in Bounds of Sense
Lucy Alais doesn't commit, but is heading in this direction, from what I've read (but that could turn out to be embarrassingly unhelpful)
Schulting seems to presuppose the noumena as physical
the SEP on Qualified Phenomenalism seems to also support this, or at least run over why its reasonable.

Essentially, one of the 'limits' Kant seems to implicitly assume, and then explain, is that we must make this assumption about there being physical objects, even when we have literally no other reason to think so than appearances. They are required to ground the purpose of the entire Critique.

This could be wrong, but It seems to be entirely reasonable and a respectable, if not more compelling interpretation than one which says we must jettison the concept of the physical (required, if we reject Noumena as such - or at least, we are given no way to retain it).

Why do you assume that there is an object which engagers a person's perception. Like I said, the perception is a creation of the perceiver. Therefore the perceiver creates the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

These are two different things. I'm unsure how best to to get this across, but you cannot have a shadow without a physical object physically blocking light, even if we can never access that object. This how noumena must work for perception to do anything which gives us a physical impression. It seems a bit "edgy" to argue otherwise, to me.

This is an unjustified conclusion. A person can be wrong in what they believe they are perceiving, and this does not produce the conclusion that they are perceiving nothing. So, a person can wrongly believe that they are perceiving objects, when in fact they are not perceiving objects, and this does not produce the conclusion that they are producing nothing. They might simply be perceiving something other than objects, and falsely believe that what is perceived is objects. — Metaphysician Undercover

This doesn't make much sense. A person is not perceiving if they are imagining, which seems to be what you're talking about. If you mean to make a delineation between perception-led impressions and imagination or ideas, then sure, that's highly relevant and complicates things. But it does not give me a counterexample to what I've said, that I can see.

As explained above, what appears to be clear to you is completely illogical. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. Sorry.

it's incredibly wrong to you, because you have an illogical thinking process. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, no. Sorry. This seems a fairly standard response from people who like to argue about Kant and have rather precious interpretations. That;s not to denigrate you, or it. It is to say that I have come across this many times, and I am hearing nothing new.

Kant's COPR is fairly complex.

If you think noumena is physical though you are completely and utterly wrong. — I like sushi

1. Correct.
2. Not actually possible. If Kant is so complex, and I can find several notable and respectable writers who take the position I'm putting forward, you can't make this claim. Its exactly the same as I'm objecting to above. It is a standard response which is not actually capable of being made on the writings Kant left. The interpretive process gets us here, fairly squarely.

If you are still convinced your view is right then the onus is very much on you to reference and explain why, using his actual words; as the scholarly concensus on this is pretty much stacked completely against you. Note: When I say 'scholarly' I mean reputable scholarly work not amateur interpretations (which are rife with misrepresentation of Kant, due to his multifacted approach). — I like sushi

It seems you maybe have a twisted idea of what is going on in the work, and how people interpret it. I shall stick to reading those interpretations, thinking, and making reasonable inferences. Because this is simply not true. It is true, a consensus exists that the noumena act as a limting factor in human understanding. I've not argued this. There is a second aspect, though more fundamental to the system. I've been over this. It seems, from this, that you and others are not even understanding what's being said in my comments.

The fact is, if noumena do not represent, in an abstract phrasing, actual physical objects the system falls apart. That much is sound. I couldn't care less for quibbling over the fact there are two possible interpretations, and you think one is "flat out wrong" in the face of all I've said, and cited. I just can't take that all too seriously, though I appreciate the efforts everyone is making. You are simply not saying things that make my position incoherent, wrong on the words of Kant, or somehow way outside the reasonable interpretation window.

Is this right? — Nils Loc

I would want to ask a question: Do you not see a stark difference between a physical act, and spoken words? I am not suggesting words do not enter the ear and alter the physical system. But the subjective experience of offense is not analogous with the physical act of slapping someone resulting in a physical chain reaction.

That said, roughly speaking, yes. That's right. The pain is so much more closely linked to the act that we can't morally say this is 'true' but your description is correct. We know this because some people can train their minds not to experience pain (at least in some ways). My consideration would be that no amount of offense can lead to death, where physical pain leads to things which can, hence a moral difference.

but who is going to help them do that? — Nils Loc

This is probably my biggest (social, not philosophical) gripe with this issue: Why are you owed help in getting your emotions in check? There's a line in a Taylor Swift song "Life is emotionally abusive". This seems to be how many people think of their mental health. I suggest this is utterly absurd, counter to reality and a specific, modern reason people are suffering mentally. There is nothing about the world which makes sense of this, other than unreasonable expectation and blaming others. Something which modernity allows en masse. This is now a different sort of convo, so I'll bring it back...

Does a moral obligation spring from your argument/philosophy to help others to help themselves, if there is any normative prescription that passes from it. — Nils Loc

The normative prescription ends at "It's best for you to have your emotions in check" (and this is not "objective" - I've stipulated, and it seems you've leaned into, the idea that psychological health is likely what we're aiming for). I can't see an argument against this.

I can't understand where from a moral obligation would spring that I, or anyone else, would be obligated to help anyone do this. But I think it is best that we do. The problem is plenty of people are either too stupid, stubborn or set in their beliefs to change anything. At some stage, we need to stop throwing money and accommodations at those people, I think.

Really? And you think that Jesus is made in your mind, too? — MoK

It depends exactly what you're asking - Jesus was created in someone's mind (at least, the character Jesus - I am alive to the fact that there was, most likely, an historical Jesus too - lets not split hairs. I certainly didn't know that guy). When I imagine Jesus, that is a self-created image. So, in my scenario, I have created the Jesus and more than likely created everything he utters too. Its not out of the question that my mind would import actual claimed utterances of Christ given I am 30-ish years deep into being acutely aware of those claims and claimed utterances.

Did I invent Jesus? No. Do I create an image of, and fill-in the character of Jesus whenever I personally imagine that character? Yes, definitely.

I would say that you get access to the content of the subconscious mind when you are on a drug. — MoK

That does not seem possible. The subconscious is not thought to be accessible. The pre-conscious, however, is. If that's all you meant, then I agree, but the chances that you can access anything you've not, at some stage, consciously come into contact with, is next to zero. I'm open, but no one's ever been able to show that they've gained information they couldn't have had previously on psychedelics. Despite claims of such.

Hmm, I don't think it changes anything. THe transporter need not 'work' for there to be an acceptable output. PC does that, avoiding hte problem of whether it 'works' entirely. That's why its the 'best' avenue for hte vast majority of people's intuitions.

So you're just going to double-down and say that you can analyze the data better than people who do this professionally? Better than the people who wrote the papers? — Mijin

No, i'm going to explain why this is a fallacy and that you are wrong, given that you can't present a single piece of information which goes against that which i've cited, in several places, to create a coherent narrative based on scientific information, and not my emotional response to uncomfortable realities. That you are ignoring all of htis isn't not my issue, unfortunately. I have given you the date. Not my interpretation.

In terms of using the SRY gene as the ultimate determinator, firstly your own cite indicates that that doesn't work in all cases, pointing out that mutations in that gene can lead to disorders of sex development i.e. the very thing we're talking about with intersex. — Mijin

You are clearly not reading anything I have presented. THe SRY gene determines whether you are male or female. That's the end of that part of hte discussion.

During sexual differentiation your phenotype can be aberrant. This does not, and cannot, change your sex. You are either not listening, or trolling me here. There are precisely zero humans who are not male or female. You have not even tried to claim otherwise.

Furthermore, it's just not practical; are we saying that if we find someone who looks cisfemale, and may have even lived her whole life as a woman, we must treat her as a man, insist she goes to men's toilets because of a DNA test? — Mijin

I've not said anything at all about a DNA test. If you could ask a non-loaded question on the back of a fairly confused response to some biologically crucial information, I would be happy to treat hte "what we should do" type questions in good faith.

In reality, the activities of the living being are caused by the being itself, not some external forces. Perception is an activity of living beings. Therefore, we have a very strong reason to "deny that physical objects cause perception of physical objects".

That is why your interpretation of Kant is like Sushi says, "flat out wrong". Kant proposes that the a priori intuitions of space and time are put to work by the human being, like tools in its production of the phenomenon you call "perception of physical objects", rather than perception being caused by what you call "physical objects". — Metaphysician Undercover

If you want to hold that we perceive physical objects without there actually being any objects to cause our perception to be involved in anything whatsoever, I can't understand how you aren't a full-on idealist hoping to one day become a disembodied mind. I can't get on with even the beginnings of such a clearly wrong-headed way of approaching phenomena. My response above clarifies that I don't even disagree with what you're saying, as far as it goes. But it doesn't go far enough. Below...

Your second paragraph is missing a crucial, unavoidable and clearly required aspect. That is the objects which engage our perception. Otherwise, we are perceiving nothing. That's clear. So, If the arguments are going to continue along these lines feel free to assume a W and leave me out of it. Have bene over this several times with several people and it is, to me, obviously and somewhat incredibly, wrong.

Kant is something of a cornerstone in philosophical history so it makes sense to point out mistakes when they occur -- especially when repeated by more than one person. — I like sushi

Then you would do well to actually do this; not make blanket statements not even (until after this passage) supported by even your own take on something.

This misses the mark because he does not talk of a noumenal world in any physical sense. Anything physical is phenomenonal, not merely known through out limited 'senses' as he uses the terms 'intuitions' and 'sensibility'.

You seem to be confusing the 'noumena' with 'transcendental objects'. That is my guess — I like sushi

I think you're wrong, because that is precisely what Kant does. He simply tells us we cannot assert any content to the conceptual objects logically required for the system to work. This is a distinction that it seems you're missing entirely, when thinking about 'physical'. Kant, you're quite right, never discusses noumena as physical objects. In this sense, they present a boundary case for human reasoning.

However, he is also quite clear that these objects are, in fact, required, despite holding for us absolutely no content or quality, for the system to make any sense. Noumena must be physical objects. That is what the system requires. Kant is just extremely careful not to say something he cannot support - therefore, these objects are beyond our ability to conceive. And that's fine.

LOL, you're getting much better.

I don't think I understand the anecdote. That person lacks discipline and clear understanding of what's been told to them. They are not incapable.

I can't see I see much in the second paragraph. Modern conditions are objectively better than essentially any previous period in history other than perhaps the late 90s.

Unless you're making an argument about simpler lifestyles, which is legitimate, but wholly irrelevant here. Besides, even granting what you've said my point stands fairly strongly.

That's nice dear. So have I. My description of the consensus is correct. I don't have much interesting in pissing on each other's shoes. Let's leave it..

Classic hasty generalization fallacy. — praxis

No. It is presenting a counter-example, only one of which is needed to unsecure a claim. This isn't a fallacy in any way.

If I am right, and people are capable of controlling their reactions to words, then the offense in not in the words. We're not at the whim of those speaking to us.

So a proponent of psychological continuity would typically say that there a period of time in which the consciousness truly exists in two places, but as soon as either entity receives stimuli from their new location, they've split into two entities. — Mijin

That doesn't seem entirely wrong to me, it just begs the question of how could that possibly matter, if all it obtains in is a single planck-length type moment. I realise it's not your position, I'm just kicking cans about now.

It seems there is nothing to be said here, then. But you are incorrect, my friend.

Yeah, I don't thikn you're making too much sense.

Kant, or Janus? I am addressing Kant's positions, not Janus'. If you disagree with my take, take me to task :)

The consensus is that Kant intended a "physical object" and "limiting factor" aspects to the noumenal. They couldn't do the former latter without hte former holding.

But only a one of them is having sex for money. And that is called prostitution. Not commodifying one's body. We do not call builders football players. Because they are builders. We don't call prostitutes football players. Because they are prostitutes.

That is also an extremely reductive way to describe most jobs that aren't having sex for money. A football player is commodifying their skills, not their body. Body is required, sure, but you could have hte exact same body, no skill, and no job. I don't personally care, it just seems patently wrong.

I don't think you understand what many of the phrases being used in this exchange mean.

My knowledge is based on the scientific explication of these conditions, consistent (over years) reviews of literature and plenty of rather terse challenges over that time. I am not a random person giving you my gut feeling. That is extremely disrespectful and fairly predictable in terms of a 'woke' response to facts. This is why the phrase 'facts don't care about your feelings' comes up (not a Shapiro fan particularly, i'm just noting this exact thing for the context we're in calls for it).

One does not need to be an expert to understand scientific positions and read papers. You are more than welcome to reject my positions, but I suggest if all you have is questioning me this is a form of poisoning the well, and doesn't touch the validity or accuracy of my positions.

Aside from this, humans have inbuilt expertise of certain kinds - we are more than 95% accurate in detected sex from facial features alone. Some sources show near-100% accuracy. This isn't specific to your query, but it shows that being a scientist isn't required for understanding sex and sex determination. SRY is the benchmark biologists use.

\

And from even just the Wiki page on SRY:



Or Sex Determination:



This can be hard to quite grasp - but it is obvious that SRY is hte determining factor. This is because you can have different arrays of chromosomal material, and be either male or female... depending on whether SRY was activated, present, or in some other way, aberrant to the point of non-activation in the subsequent cascade of sex differentiation.

They said somthing physical could be noumenal. This is flat out wrong. Noumenal cannot relate to physical in any other way than as a negative limiting concept. — I like sushi

Who did? Kant? Sure. There's no reason to deny that physical objects cause perception of physical objects. I think probably the distinction you want to make is far too close to a non-transcendental idealism for me.

As best I can tell, all Kant was trying to show was that the noumenal world is made up of objects which our bodies interpret through various sense organs and processes. That seems correct, on his explication of the human understanding.

Why do you posit (well, this is a negative inference, but still) that physical objects could not be noumenal? This suggests that everything we perceive is non-physical, other than in perception. To me, that is clearly and almost risibly a non-starter (with respect... It just seems ludicrous to me).

I am tolerant of commercial sexual behavior, but I don't think it is in the same category as 'normal work'. And I don't see the ardent advocates for the dignity of prostitution as a job ever being tempted to take one of those dignified sex worker jobs. — BC

Yes, good point.

there is a ready market for watching sex workers doing what it is they do — Banno

Now you're cooking.

For the exact same reason we call a burned CD pirated. Audibly indistinguishable, but one is original and one is note. These are facts that seem to matter to people, I don;t think there's any metaphysical reason for this, particularly, other than the brute fact of one be derivative of the other. We all prefer live music to recorded, for the same reasons (though, many of us don't, and wouldn't think this was an interesting point to make). Whether or not it matters is another thing, i'd say.

To be clear, I don't think 'valid' is a moral/ethical claim here as it can be elsewhere. It's just stating that one is derivative, and people would care about that. A clone of you isn't you, basically. It just might not matter that it isn't.

Right-- that's a standard argument against psychological continuity that we've discussed upthread. And we've discussed the standard response; that as long as the two entities' experiences have not diverged then they are indeed the continuation of a single consciousness. — Mijin

But at the moment immediately after B comes into existence, they have diverged. That's crucial, and being missed.

Then all physical jobs, of any kind, are prostitution. But that is obviously, and clearly ridiculous. If for no other reason than "prostitute" serves the same function as "builder" or "football player".

A prostitute is not a football player. Vice verse.

The post-cloned original isn't a descendant of anyone. They are the same person.

The clone isn't a descendant either. They are a copy. When you burn a CD it isn't a valid CD. It's a pirated CD. The pirated person isn't not a valid 'you' (as long as we know which is which at all times).

So, you are saying that you create those entities with your mind? — MoK

Yes, and that's the general consensus because we already create entities in our minds, in waking and sleeping consciousness. There is literally zero reason to think otherwise with drug use. Particularly as most of these drugs use either neurotransmitters themselves, or analogs thereof.

But the guy in the video mentioned intelligence in entities he encountered. — MoK

I could tlel you that Jesus spoke to me in a dream and told me 9/11 would happen a week before it did. Big whoopee.

I don't know about that. Do you mind elaborating? — MoK

Psychedelics reduce blood flood in many areas including the anterior cingulate cortex and hte amygdala. These have to do with emotional processing and "pre-recorded" responses. When these are dampened, we get access to thoughts we usually don't have access to, and information we usually don't want to see. This is why they are so good for exposure therapy - it helps drag up pre-conscious thoughts and ideas which, if understood, would allow us to transmute pain and trauma into better things. Note: Salvia doesn't fucking do this lmaooo. It hits an opioid receptor.

Why? — MoK

You do have answers to your questions. That's logically deducible from the facts at hand: You are the only person around. You answer your own questions. Presto!

That, again, ignores what matters here. I'm going to just leave it, because it seems like statistics aren't really working here.

Is that how human biologists define gender? Do you think that society would regard even someone capable of getting pregnant as male if they have that gene? — Mijin

They can't, as best as my knowledge goes. Any DsDs which occur after the activation of SRY result in an infertile female anatomy, if that develops. CAIS and 5a Reductase deficiency are examples. These people generally find out they are male (though, often not framed as such) when they go through puberty, or even later when they realise they have no fertility.

It is key to be clear about two things:
Sex determination
Sex differentiation

Differentiation is the non-binary aspect. We can talk about that all day long. But there is not a single human on this planet who is not male or female (though, I am aware of one published case study which was carried out in less-than-ideal circumstances and likely represents a lack of exploratory knowledge and resources as it was, i think, rural Africa - it is never cited for these reasons).

I don’t see the value as obvious — Fire Ologist

I think he's making hte point that the underlying concept of "review your structures for unfairness" is probably valuable. I think that's right, also.

Wish someone one would take up a defense of woke. Head on. What good is woke? This thread could use it. — Fire Ologist

I think Mijin is giving it a good go, to be honest. The stats are an issue, but they're trying to make points about protections where we see harms. You say the harm outweighs the benefit, but conceptually I don't think that's right. Its like religion - the priests are hte problem.

No, thanks. It's quite correct.

Words aren't abstract. They are sounds (or, written symbols). They are not like numbers. So, no, i don't mean to say that. It might be worth reducing the discussion further to "sounds", but this would just result in the second sentence I've put forth here. Words are sounds, for this purpose.

I do think that was a very much worthwhile question to ask though.

This is a normative recommendation. Your saying it ought to be the case that we treat offense as if it is solely the responsibility of the receiver. — Nils Loc

No, clearly I am not doing this. I wouldn't open a reply by telling someone what they meant to say, my dude. The chances are the rest of your post wont make sense.

What I said is what I mean: The claim is that offense is a reaction internal to the receiver of information (and sometimes, not even in receipt of information, but that's another issue). Offense does not exist in a word, or a phrase, or in saying something. It exists, solely, in the mind of hte offended person. It's not been 'taken in' from without. That's the claim, and I would appreciate treating it as such.

We'd have better control over ourselves if we could pause and not reciprocate the bait of an insult, whatever the intention behind it, and escalate a loss of self control in ourselves. — Nils Loc

This, for certain, is the normative aspect: One should note the fact outlined above (again, that's 'my claim' not something I'm willing to just say you have to accept, but on this account...) and then behave as you say. I think that's best for people's mental health and general co-operative principles. So that is a normative position, and its harder to defend if the initial 'fact' im positing isn't understood or accepted. But the two are not the same thing at all. A=Boiling water hurts. B=Therefore, don't touch it. I was claiming A, in relation to offense. But i agree with B.

Oh but they do hurt, since we are not so disciplined to be be immune to the effect they might otherwise have on us. — Nils Loc

Hmm. This is a tricky one. I can't really disagree, because that is obviously what happens - but if we focus on 'discipline' the fact I'm arguing for still obtains. The effect they 'might other have' on us seems to me to be an effect that we have re-recorded in our psyche, ready to be deployed upon receiving information of a certain kind which we have, internally, discussed with ourselves and settled on .. usually, pre-consciously, but sometimes consciously. But, equally, people are capable of jettisoning that reactive faculty almost entirely. I find it very hard to get offended by anything. I can be incensed by what I might think is unjust, or irrational or whatever but I, personally, don't tend to feel offense these days.

Ultimately, you're right that this is what happens but I don't thikn it butters bread for the arguments hereabouts.

Try to explain to your mom that she is totally responsible for her reaction when you call her an "ugly bitch". No one knows if you meant to be offensive. You gave no offense (because you can't). She took offense. It was an empirical test, which yielded some data. Now you just need to train your mom to accept that she carries the responsibility for her reactions every time you insult her. — Nils Loc

Roughly speaking, I agree with this. I just would want to have an appended conversation about the responsibility on someone for not letting their emotions get the better of them and saying something like that. I don't think they're responsible for the other person's reaction though.

I want to be really clear, also, before some edgelord tries this line or agument: Incitement and offense are totally different things. We need to read them across one another. I accept that words have power, and people have reactions to words. I simply don't lay those reactions at the feet of those saying words. Incitement is different. Incitement is hijacking the internal reasoning mechanisms of an erstwhile emotionally stable person.

Ftr, This is something I have explicitly worked on with my wife, and she is much, muuuuch happier for it. My mother, on the other hand, seems to enjoy being offended by fucking everything. We don't talk much. She's not a happy person.

But it also routinely succeeds. You suggest that all the victims of verbal abuse choose to be victims of verbal abuse. — Nils Loc

No I don't, at all. Again, please do not tell me what I'm saying. I am not suggesting it is a choice to be offended. I am suggesting it is a choice not to work on your emotional stability such that offense serves you no purpose. They are different. I have a lot of sympathy for being reasonably offended. I just also hold this position on bettering one's lot. It's a choice to view offense as someone elses fault. Its a choice to excuse your own actions due to something someone else said to you. There's umpteen videos across the internet about 'fuck around and find out'. Why not grow the fuck up?

It sounds incredibly callous — Nils Loc

To someone who cannot control their emotions, of course it would. If you feel you're being asked to do something impossible, it will sound both callous and irrational. But I have empirical evidence that this is not so... People do this all the time. That the majority of people don't is a symptom of... well, something I personally view to be a real shame. If trolls had no power, I think the world would be better off. So I agree with what you're putting forward as a normative prescription, and I enact that in my daily life wherever I can, usually to great benefit. But that isn't what I've argued for thus far. I just happen to agree with it, now that it's brought up.

I think probably we can simply state: If some people can do this, all people can do this. If all people can do this, I, at least, would want to say they should.

The bold seems to put paid to the argument I'm making, anyhow. I understand this may be rejected, but you seem to accept some people can do this, and sometimes intended offense fails. That's all we need.

second subject of experience being in a different spatial location to the original subject of experience, and hence having different experience and memories, and ipso facto not being the same person. — Down The Rabbit Hole

This is key. Even on relatively acceptable arguments about psychological continuity being what matters for continued existence, this difference will always betray the attempt to say there is no appreciable difference between the two 'people'. They are different people. The point is that it doesn't matter. Someone will continue to be 'you'.

I also suggest, it is metaphysically not possible to be two people at once. They are different people.

Oh Banno.

When you're older, you'll understand this a bit better.

The worst I've read is a piece by a philosopher unfortunately, Andrea Long Chu. I came into it in good faith. I'd been told that this writer was particularly cutting and could offer something other writers were not really doing: Critical theory as applied to itself.

It turned out none of that was present. You can get a feel for their stuff in this .

Left Is Not Woke was pretty good though (Susan Neiman).

For pop-woke, I would never stoop so low. Just as I wouldn't read a book by Charlie Kirk.

Overall, though, I think your comment is a little... one-sided. I think people have a been mor enuanced than you're saying, and that good points have been made on both sides. Obviously, I have a relatively secure position but that doesn't mean I haven't been given pause. Its been a really robust thread and I've enjoyed it. Not as predictable as you describe, I don't think.

Haha, I like you.

I'm not sure i understand hte question there. Can be a little clearer? I've never said words cannot be given between interlocutors, to my knowledge. If I have, it's definitely a mis-statement of my position.

Words physically move through the air to ear drums. Intentions do not. That's the distinction that is lost in the claim that one can in fact 'offend another' rather than cause them to become offended, in themselves.

It's like because its trite, immature and ignores the specific criteria that causes prostitution to obtain. Also, attempting to denigrate other pursuits by calling them prostitution(which is where this sort of thing comes from) both continues the negative stigmas around sex work by trying to make other pursuits look bad by association, and also illustrates that one isn't sufficiently thinking about what they're saying, to begin with.

Then again, maybe not aye :roll:

I know a few of those examples, and the two i know personally have successfully (to their knowledge) remained anonymous. Absolutely boss shit getting through school like that and hten being a truly productive member of society without debt.

False. You're reading the stat wrong. What the stat said, was that among the prison population, of the crimes that people had been convicted of, that trans people were 4 times more likely to have been convicted of a sexual-related offense. — Mijin

Unfortunately bud, this is the exact wrong reading.

I have posted the statistics in full elsewhere, because they are on my desktop computer at home, but suffice to say the conclusion goes like this

Of the TOTAL population, who is in prison for sex crimes

Of non-trans males: 0.04%
Of trans women: 0.16%.

This is of the entire population, what ratio of those groups are in for sex crime. This is nothing to do with comparing the different types of offense within hte trans prison population. I am happy to post the full breakdown when I get home this evening. However, your comments are exactly right, and had I presented the stats the way you describe, that's the right response. Good stuff (i am not being sarcastic).

Go ahead then: what's someone with XXY chromosomes and a mix of internal and external genitalia? — Mijin

Do the have an active SRY gene? You've asked the wrong question. And I've already given pieces of information that tell against it.

Find me a DsD which is not sex-specific.

That said, I have my own preference for thinking that they are actual, not ideal, existents — Janus

In good company - I agree, tentatively.

Not at all, I've explained in quite minute detail why this is hte case, on my account.

Partial survival is survival. — Mijin

This would have been a clearer way to illustrate hte point, thanks Mijin.

Run this for those who bag on Trump? Is that protesting too much?

I don't care, that just seems an odd double standard to raise.

Lula was a girl from a humble town
She had a mean drunk daddy; liked to push her around
He sold what he called 'poor man's cocaine'
But the police called it methamphetamine
One night she sunk her knife in the small of his back
Ain't no one gonna find where she buried him at
She hopped a train up the river into Omaha
Did some dirty damn things and bought a broke-down car

She'd say 'I ain't getting younger, I just wanna feel good
I ain't gonna do what you want cause you tell me I should
I'm just gonna sit right down, have a smoke
Somebody buy me a beer; somebody tell me a joke

Now people do funny things to numb their pain
And Lula drank liquor to forget her name
She used to sleep it off under an old Oak tree
In the Pontiac she bought with her money from the streets

She'd say "I ain't getting younger, I just wanna feel good
I ain't gonna do what you want cause you tell me I should
I'm just gonna sit right down; have a smoke
Somebody buy me a beer somebody tell me a joke

She was crying for a life that she never knew
What could have been, how it was and what she oughta do
She wipe the tears from her eyes and shut her mouth
When her feet hit the river all the lights went out

She'd say "I ain't getting younger, I just wanna feel good
I ain't gonna do what you want cause you tell me I should
I'm just gonna sit right down; have a smoke
Somebody buy me a beer; somebody tell me a joke
Somebody buy me a beer; somebody tell me a joke

I am currently obsessed with this guy from Nebraska, by way of Nashville named Evan Bartels. Dude has some of the most incredible songs I've heard in a decade. Absolutely hear-wrenching rural story telling mostly, but there's other stuff. My current favourite:



She used to watch him roll his cigarettes
On the front porch wearing her Sunday best
They ain't been to church in fifteen years
Miracles still happen..
They don't happen here

She had to sell her mama's ring and her piano
Cause he pissed away their mortgage on his booze
Just a shell of the man she fell in love with
She'd be damned if she'd let him drown her too

She'd say in the morning I could hit Montana
If I drive through all night
I could get lost out in them mountains
Find a spot deep in the pines

She's a mama to a son who didn't make it
She found him by his self in his room
She can still see his face in the moonlight
Eyes half open on the floor
Lips a gentle shade of blue

She blamed it on herself for years after
But there's not a goddamn thing she could have done
What's left when your soul is taken from you
There's nothing in her heart of the woman she once was

She'd say in the morning I could hit Montana
If I drive through all night
I could get lost out in them mountains
Find a spot deep in the pines
I need a place where I can wander
Question the meaning of my life
Maybe i'll find what I am after
In the land they call Big Sky