It came from women athletes supportive of women's sports trying to find a compromise. I don't see a political agenda beyond trying to figure out the best thing to do. — T Clark

Trying to find a compromise IS a political agenda in this case. They are trying to defend their sports from the total compromise of fairness and integrity. If it wasn’t political then they would just keep things the way they are and trans men wouldn’t be competing with women. It’s only because they are responding to a political agenda that they need to compromise in the first place. Know what I mean? The best thing to do would be to keep trans men out, and only by indulging political pressure would you consider not doing that.
If you still have doubts and don’t have the energy for a deep dive then just look at combat sports and what’s been going on there with trans athletes. Mediocre male league fighters become champions in the women’s league. It would be a joke except it’s horrifying to watch a trans male beat the shit out of a woman like a domestic abuse victim. Like I said (not directed at you but in general btw) if you disagree that trans men have a huge physical advantage then you’ve lost your mind and need to rethink.
One day science may help change that when the natural biology can truly be be evened out with treatments but we aren’t there yet and as far as I can tell the research has more political basis than science.

“It appears that there is a possible compromise, whether or not this is exactly the one.“

I’m not so sure there is a rational compromise for the reasons stated above...what did you think of the idea of a trans league?

You have to look closer at that research. I understand they are trying to make policy but a year of hormone therapy doesn’t even the playing field by a long shot.
The data just doesn’t support that research, it’s politically driven research.
What makes sense to me would be a trans league, or an open league of some kind.

Right?! She is clueless on trans, ignorant. You just have to listen to one of the god awful interviews celebrating her to realize it’s more about celebrity, spotlight and attention seeking than anything else.

Well Caitlyn Jenner is a narcissistic meathead, not sure why anyone would want to listen to her regardless of topic. She would be an authority on winning gold medals and being a champion perhaps but trans issues? No.

I’m got a better question, why would you need to be a gold medalist in order to be an “authority” on whether or not trans men should compete in women leagues?
Anyone not blinded by ideology can see the problem. All you have to do is look at how badly women’s world records are being shattered every time a trans male competes in women’s leagues of any and all sports. All you have to do is talk to some of these women who have worked their whole lives to achieve peek performance only to have less skilled and less dedicated trans men come in and use their huge physical advantage to take a dump on the women’s sport/league and every woman in it. All you need to do is look at the numbers...mediocre competitors become champions when they switch to a woman’s league.

If a trans male actually cares about women then they should stay out of the women’s leagues. To do otherwise is an affront.
If you think biological males do not have a tremendous physical advantage that compromises a women’s sport and any integrity or honour of the women in that sport then I’m sorry to tell you that you’ve lost your fucking mind. Time to reevaluate.

Exactly. We can't exclude the possibility on logical or philosophical grounds. — Apollodorus

Yes, it would be overreaching to say it wasn’t at least possible.

I never said "always". I said "denial is often a fear reaction". That's an established psychological fact. — Apollodorus

I’m not saying you did, I intended only to clarify. I don’t know how often denial is a fear reaction compared to other sources of denial but yes I think denial and fear are psychologically linked.

We agree on these two points. I’ll wait for you to respond to the rest of what I said.

Yes, but as far as I am aware, denial is often a fear reaction. It is a function of the defense mechanism that seeks to protect the ego from things that the individual cannot cope with or thinks it cannot cope with. — Apollodorus

Denial is not always a fear reaction, so atheism is not always a fear reaction. So associating fear based denial with atheism is fallacious.

It may well be that some atheists reject the idea of God on “rational” grounds. But not all people are rational, many are emotional and react emotionally to ideas and other things. — Apollodorus

Sure, you would have to ask the person what the reasons for their atheism. If you didn’t believe them and want to deny what they say and posit fear based denial as their reason then you would have to demonstrate that to be the case. (And no, the fact that it is possible does not demonstrate this).

I understand what your personal opinion is, but is there any scientific reason to exclude the possibility of that denial being rooted in fear, anxiety, etc. when those emotions often result in denial? — Apollodorus

There is no “scientific” reason to exclude the possibility, but only the possibility. All we could say is that that is one possibility until we get more information to conclude one possibility over the others.

We are not. Fallibilism is built into the very idea and method of science. So if your thesis is that science is just like religion because both are dogmatic, then you are missing the mark. And I don't think it's fair to characterize religion as essentially dogmatic either. At least in some religious practices there is a place for searching, doubt, dispute and progress. — SophistiCat

Well said but I wondered how you are defining religion there. All religions reference a higher power, if not an outright god then at least some form of enlightenment. I would say that is essential to religion (higher beings, higher realms of existence or states of being). I think that by the nature of that belief itself there is inherent dogmatism so even if at lower tiers there is room for searching, doubt etc there is still the surrender to this higher power and its dogma.

I didn't ask you to agree with any such assumption. I posited that in a situation where this is the case, then going "this group has worse outcomes, therefore it's being discriminated against somehow" is a viable first approximation. For reference, we can assume the ethnic groups are french and germans, or New York and Chicago citizens. — Echarmion

Sorry I accidentally hit the post button, there was more to my last comment.
Anyway, worse outcomes=discrimination needs to be backed up with some evidence of discrimination. Sometimes that can be demonstrated, and other times it cannot. If it cannot, then we shouldn’t assume discrimination. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

Your point is that different outcomes mapping to, say, ethnic groups is not a sign of a problem, even if we assume there are no fundamental biological differences between the groups? — Echarmion

There are fundamental biological differences among some groups. I don’t recall agreeing to the assumption there isn’t.

My claim is that "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" describe different judgements of an outcome. You claim that they describe different methods. — Echarmion

Those are not mutually exclusive, they can describe both can’t they? Again, I don’t much care what you want to call it.

I obviously don't believe that, so I don't believe you can actually describe any method. So I expected you to not do that, and instead claim that you cannot do so in the abstract. So now I am asking you to do it in the concrete then, though I expect you cannot do that either, because that would prove me wrong, while I think I am right. — Echarmion

It’s generally a good idea to not reach conclusions to questions that haven’t been answered yet, and extra not good to draw conclusions based on questions you haven’t asked yet based on answers you don’t have yet.
Lol, ok, so a game of gotcha it was. Nice to have that confirmed, thanks.
I could use many different examples, but let’s start with something obvious. I want to hire someone to do heavy lifting. I put out the call to whoever in the land can lift the most weight to all demographics. That would be equality of opportunity, everyone gets to try out for the job. All the strongest people from all the demographics show up. If I’m hiring 10 people for the job, it’s going to be men in the top ten position from those demographics because the top ten strongest men are going to be way stronger than the top 10 women. So the demographic for whose doing my heavy lifting job is going to skew to men.
Equality of outcome would be to look at the top 10 strongest and see they are men and then replace a number of men with women so the demographics of the heavy lifting job look more like the demographics of the general population.
There are many such examples, certain demographics skew to certain jobs and career paths. Not just between men and women but between different different cultures, ethnicities, religions and race as well. The degree to which these are factors vary, but that these factors have a statistical trend based on demographics is supported by the data.

I specifically stated "if you believe there are no biological differences". Cultural differences cannot justify different outcomes as every difference can be framed as "cultural" and consequently no comparison would be possible. — Echarmion

Describe the differences in demographics however you like, makes no difference to my point.

That's exactly the answer I expected to get. Ok then, give me one specific case and sketch the different methods. — Echarmion

Why did you ask the question then? And why wouldn’t you just ask for a specific example if that’s what you wanted?
I explained the concept to you, do you not understand it and need an example or are you just asking leading questions so you can play gotcha?

Based on what though? Why would interests just happen to line up with some unrelated demographic grouping? That'd imply precisely that the demographic grouping and the interest are not independent. — Echarmion

Based on the traits of each demographic. There are general trends within demographics. (Cultural, biological etc)

Can you tell me what the methods are, then? — Echarmion

It would be specific to each case. It’s a question of what you are building the system to do (equality of outcome or equality of opportunity) and which way is better. The exact method used would be whatever is best suited to equality of opportunity

For a first approximation, that is probably a good strategy though. If, for a given field, you don't think there are any significant biological differences between the groups involved and the sample size is large enough, results should correspond to the makeup of the population in general. If they don't, something else is going on. Now something else is almost always going on, not necessarily something bad. But it's a legitimate cause for concern if the ratio is way off from what it should be given the makeup of the population. — Echarmion

I don’t think the groups will naturally corespondent to the demographics. Certain professions for example attract certain kinds of people. These professions will naturally have more people of that certain kind. Some fields or areas will not have diversity because the interest in that field or area isn’t all that diverse.

I consider the dichotomy between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity to be a false one. The terms imply two distinct methods, when in reality it's not a question of method, but of goals. — Echarmion

I think you are using those terms idiosyncratically, and that’s why you think it a false dichotomy. Those two things are indeed two methods and they are mutually exclusive.

How do we know that "equal outcome" isn't concerned with merit or qualification? Equality is a value judgement. It can and usually does include considerations for qualifications and experience. Is there any mainstream view which espouses a strict quota system based on some form of identity without consideration of merit? — Echarmion

Well in the context of race/gender etc I think the idea for some is that the proper metric for a fair group selection is diversity. That idea is about “equality of outcome”, the goal is for the group to have a proper amount of of diversity. A mainstream example would be affirmative action.

I'm very sceptical regarding this claim, as I don't see how it would be possible a priori to know whether a given system actually filters out only "undesirable traits". In my view, the only way to check is by looking at the output and comparing it with other metrics to figure out whether or not the process works. "Equality of opportunity" a judgement of an outcome, the term does not describe any specific method. — Echarmion

The specific method of “equality of opportunity” is usually about creating a system where everyone has a fair shot, an equal playing field.
I agree with your view and on looking at the output, that’s a good way to check what a systems actually doing but I was more talking about system design. Specifically, whether the idea of “equality of outcome” is better than “equality of opportunity”.

I think you're ascribing a specific goal to equality, based on a political usage of the word, which is not inherent in the term. — Echarmion

Well yes, that was what I was making a point about. The political usuals. That’s what the discussion had been about.

If you want a panel of the best doctors, then the only reasonable application of the term equality is that people on the panel should have the highest qualification possible, regardless of other factors. In other words all factors except qualification should be considered equal (you don't care about their marital status etc). — Echarmion

Yes, that was the point I was making. I think we are using terms a bit differently, I’m not sure we are in disagreement about the concepts.

What's the difference between "outcome by merit" and "equal outcome"? "Merit" is not the name of a physical law or constant. — Echarmion

The difference is that “outcome by merit” means the most qualified person gets the job (for example), based upon n the merits of their qualifications. “Equal outcome” is not concerned with merit or qualification in this context, but with making sure their is a diverse range of race/gender etc regardless of qualifications/merit.
The point being made I think is that equality of outcome is more problematic because it doesn’t filter out incompetence or any other undesirable traits, where equality of opportunity does while at the same time is an explicit effort to make sure no one is left out do to race/gender etc.
Think of selecting a panel of doctors to save a loved ones life. You want the panel to have the best doctors right? If you gathered the best and it turns out it’s majority black, white, straight, gay or whatever then equality of outcome demands that some of the best doctors be swapped out so that the panel is diverse.

Ethics/morality is more or less the study of what you should do. So, when saying “why should I be moral?”, surely that is no different to saying: Why should I do what I should do.
That seems to not make sense (maybe?), so surely asking “why should I be moral” has its answer embedded in the question itself.
I feel like there is a mistake in her somewhere, please tell me. — Georgios Bakalis

Ethics isn’t the study of what you should do its more specific that that. It would be the study of what you do according to an ethical standard. It isnt the study of what you should do to train your dog for example, right? It’s specific to a ethical standard, of which there are many different kinds.
So rephrased “why should I be moral?” is actually more like “why should I do what I should do according to so and so ethical standard”, which illustrates the two different contexts of the word “should”. It is an awkward sentence but none the less it isn’t fallacious. I think you fell into a semantic trap .

At this point, one may get the sense that everything is relative, but that can't be the case right? Surely there have to be some absolute facts about the world. — Mr Bee

Well couldn’t something be a fact and be relative? I’m not sure those two terms are mutually exclusive in the way you are using them. Time is relative according to Einstein, yet when time distorts because of gravity there is still a fact of the matter depending on the relative position.

So perhaps there are some matters that are relative and others that are absolute. There are some issues that have absolute answers (like those in philosophy) and others (like direction) that don't. But how does one go about distinguishing between the two? At least that's the issue that I've been grappling with as of late and currently I don't have much of a satisfactory answer apart from the fact that I feel like that's how things should be. — Mr Bee

I’m not sure how you are using “absolute” here...is 2+2 equals 4 absolute? What kinds of philosophical answers are absolute?
I’m confused about your treatment of “relative” being the opposite of absolute, is that how you are using the terms? Like “up” and “down”?

Of course on the other hand this may just mean that everything is either relative or absolute, but then the question becomes which one to pick. On the one hand I like to think that there is an absolute set of facts out there to uncover about the world, but at the same time I also don't like the idea that there is some sense of an "absolute left" in the world. — Mr Bee

Well there are facts out there to be discovered, but also there are facts about relative positions. “Left” is relative, but that doesn’t change the fact that something can be factually to your “left”, and factually to someone else’s “right” at the same time. Right? It’s not like the fact that the other persons position which puts the object on their “right” somehow makes the object not to your “left” anymore..it’s still absolutely to your “left”.

Ya ya, if you wanna be all reasonable and measured. Pft. :wink:
...anyway, your enlightened response to his shenanigans aside I think my point still stands. The fact people respond isn’t persuasive, I could write complete trash on here and it would get responses. I’d bet the more trashy the more attention. Would you take that bet?

Isn’t antinatalism an ideology? If not, doesn’t it become ideological if the anti-Natalist cannot let the subject go and everything they “contribute” to discussion is either the anti Natalist point or the anti natalist point disguised as something else? Plus the counter arguments not being much acknowledged as the broken record plays on. How is that not promoting an ideology?

Ya no kidding. Its nice to see him try something new to discuss. Especially such a rich question with no relation to Antinatalism whatsoever.
How it doesnt count as prosthelytising which is forbidden I cannot tell. Its the same thing over and over with the only discussion offered is a tactic so he can whine about life.

Any explanations? — Banno

Your mistake is thinking that the magical thinking of theology stays in theology. Its not physics they have trouble with, its thinking.
Also, Dunning Kruger effect. They don’t know enough physics to realise how ignorant they are about physics.

Your eyes are pieces of your brain. They did not connect with each other at some point in our evolution. The brain grows, and part of it grows into the eye sockets and becomes your eyes.

Your eye IS your brain. Human eyes literally grow out from the brain as it develops. Your eyes and brain are essentially the same organ so its not a matter of which came first.

The point you are asking about is whether money outweighs morality, right? Not whether or not 100 million dollars can do enough good to outweigh the persons life? In other words, is the scenario about measuring the moral good of the two actions or is it about pitting the selfish act (money) against the moral one (saving a life)?

I still am sure of the obvious moral answer. I asked about the other answers but you couldn't be bothered to answer.
You were specific about there being no additional information to go on so you could focus solely on the moral “dilemma” which I did, and I think I was the only person to respect the boundaries of the thought experiment. The problem I pointed out was that within the boundaries the correct moral action is to save the person.
Taking the money to save more lives is outside the boundaries you set I thought, since that would rely in more information introduced to the dilemma. (Are there other people worth saving? Are there other people in trouble? Are there other people? Is the problem im saving other people from with the money even actually solvable by money alone? Am I obligated to save the maximum amount of people etc etc )

Ok, well you are clearly not interested in discussion. You have no rational reason for your claims and have a clear bias against pot.

— NOS4A2
While many other times, it's a act of submission and letting the other person have the upper hand. And to fuck with you.
And once you make the mistake of extending that olive branch, it's too late, the power hierachy between the two of you is set for as long as you live. — baker

Google Daryl Davies. His “act of submission” has done more to cure racism than all community banishing of racists combined because banishing a racist doesnt do anything to address racism. Stopping people from saying racist words or not wearing certain things or talking about race or any if the other non-remedies “anti-racist” people go to battle over doesn’t do anything to stop racism. The sole purpose of such things is yo make people feel better about race and NOT the actual targets of racism but mostly white people who enjoy the social license to act poorly, like the witch hunters of old.

If thats your situation then I’m sorry that happened to you but it doesnt mean smoking pot is bad, it would at best mean smoking pot and driving is bad. At best, because you would have to show that the pot is what caused the accident. The data doesnt usually back that up, in all the recorded cases I’ve seen where a person was high and got into a car accident they were also drunk.

Maybe, what answers are you talking about?

Is this supposed to be a dilemma? The correct moral choice is clear, save the person on the tracks.
Are you seriously asking if people should value money over life?

What are you saying? That the driver was a poor driver anyway, and smoking weed was only the final straw in their driving ineptitude? — baker

What I meant by that was that he was driving while high, as opposed to just being high. The problem, maybe, is driving while high. The fact that people might be getting hurt by high drivers doesnt mean getting high is wrong, it would mean getting high and driving is wrong.

People who smoke pot hurt themselves, so they are the victims, so smoking pot isn't "a victimless crime". — baker

Victims of what?
Also, alcohol. Any criticisms you have about pot use also apply to alcohol, plus more since alcohol is clearly worse on every level. Do you think alcohol should be illegal?

I'm critical of all substances and activities that in any way diminish a person's ability to drive safely. — baker

You seemed to be using the supposed accidents caused by weed as a reason people shouldn't smoke it or it should be illegal, did I misunderstand you?
Also, many things diminish driving, lack of sleep, fighting with your girlfriend, fussing with the radio, yelling at some guy who cut you off etc, none of which are activities you shouldn't do, they are things you should be careful about when driving.
And that's IF you could show that weed affects driving with significant diminished safety which the data doesnt indicate.

Smoking weed is not a "victimless crime".

How do you feel about being run over by a pothead and ending up in a wheelchair for the rest of your life? — baker

Well smoking weed wouldn't be what caused the car accident and wheelchair harm. Pretty obviously it was something to do with the driving, possibly from the weed but not necessarily.
Running people over isn’t a victimless crime, but smoking pot is.
Also, people critical of smoking pot or its legalisation have to be critical of drinking alcohol or its legalisation first if they want to be taken seriously.

I think you need more parameters. Are we trying to preserve the most innocent life? What would the 100 serial killers going free have to do with the structure of the dilemma you presented?
Is our goal to get the death penalty removed? Whats the priority?

P.S. We assume it is better to have a 100 serial killers go free than to have one innocent person executed. — James Riley

Why would we assume this? In what way is that better?

Dude is mentally ill, he’s psychologically incapable of stopping. Thats my guess. Some sort of personality disorder. So its a waste of time, but whatever floats your boat, just din’t let me catch you complaining he’s still around :wink:

My mistake, apologies.

Yet still you engage. Just stop feeding him and he’ll go away.

Nothing worse than a well fed troll. I don’t understand the masochism displayed by some of our more educated members to engage. I havent seen a single productive response from him.

Whats comforting is that death isnt the end. Fear of death is at the heart of every fairy tale about an after life. The exact nature of the afterlife is irrelevant to the comfort the fairy tale provides in this regard so I think the point you were responding to still stands.
Also, both Sumerian and greek mythologies have pleasant afterlife fairy tales to accompany the harsher ones, just like christian mythology has heaven and hell.

None of those are unanswerable. The question of whether god exists is answered, its just people who believe in god and certain types of fence sitters still carry on regardless, attached for whatever reason to the indefensible believer position.
Free will is a bit trickier I’ll grant you but I feel like its mostly a problem of definition of free will. If its defined as something outside deterministic forces, cause and effect but if the definition isnt magical and accounts for deterministic forces then sure, free will exists. As Hitchens used to say, we have free will becuase we have no choice
Lastly, life after death. Like god, this has been asked and answered. No, we have no good reasons to think there is life after death.
There is certainly things beyond human understanding, but none of the things you mentioned are. All understandable, all have fairly clear answers. Whether or not those answers can overcome indoctrinated belief or strong emotional bias is another matter.

Lol, ok.