Inspired by Diogenes?

1984 (or anything by Orwell)

I wouldn’t recommend any work of philosophy as a ‘must read’ tbh. If I had to pick one I’d go for The Republic.

If we are talking purely about philosophy then I think anyone serious about the subject should tackle Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason

Does anti-facist mean ‘critical of fascism’?

Look, I stated I was hasty so saying such does nothing. ‘Anti’ is not the same as ‘critical of’ AND I clearly stated that I am ‘anti-theistic’ in SOME areas yet don’t see my singular view on how education works as bigoted.

Maybe it is possible to get you to admit that someone can be bigoted towards theists. If you can then it is just a question of where the lone is drawn.

I certainly do not regard ‘criticism’ as ‘opposed’/‘against’ anything. Criticism is just criticism, and it can be both positive and negative - hopefully both! That is usually how I spot bigotry. If someone cannot offer a positive and negative aspect then they may well be bigoted.

Ontology and epistemology are not ‘exact sciences’ (so to speak).

To suggest there should be some underlying objective foundation for reality that we can access and create a universal ethic from seems naive at best.

All ‘objectivity’ in day-to-day life is just a matter of intersubjectivity. ‘Pure objectivity’ is achieved only in abstracted demarcations (ie. Mathematical Arithmetic where there is no ‘opinion’ over 1+1=2).

The OP seems muddled btw. It seems like you are equating ‘subjectivity’ with ‘post modernism’? In reality experiences (that we have) are subjective, so to claim there is an ‘objective reality’ is not the same as offering complete truth. Science doesn’t deal with ‘truth’ in this way. Evidence is laid out and experimentation sheds light on phenomenon that allows us to navigate through life.

We don’t have any idea about any ‘physical objective truths’ of our world. We have however managed to peel back some layers that have allowed us a better understanding (predictive models) of the world we live in. Whether the layers ever end or we are capable of getting to the core is a matter of speculation.

One thing seems pretty clear though. Acting like there is an underlying mechanism to reality has helped us understand and expand more and more … but more answers have led to more questions too.

It is pretty amazing :)

It is not massively complicated.

Trans women are trans women. Women are women. Referring to a trans woman as a woman is just a way of accepting someone as they wish to be seen.

In terms of close relationships, medical reasons and physically competitive sports trans women are trans women. Outside of those areas trans women are women.

It is just a case of common sense and politeness. Most people who see someone dressed as a woman will call them a woman. Maybe there are a few scarce situations where it is not clear but that can be overcome quite easily with a simple exchange.

It follows if you are completely against any theistic believes. I admitted it is a matter of drawing the line somewhere.

Upon further consideration I clearly stated that not all people calling themselves ‘anti-theistic’ are necessarily against theists (in every aspect). There is certainly a fine line between claiming you are against someone’s beliefs and claiming you are against someone.

As I said before, in terms of education, I am ‘anti-theist’ I suppose. That is a very specific area though and one which prompted a whole movement in the US under the guise of ‘atheism’.

I am against religious ideals imposing on my, and other people’s, choices. Other than that people can do as they please and believe what they want.

If you replace the above with Nazis and Nazism, you might see what I meant more clearly? It would be silly to state that I am against Nazism but not Nazis. The difference (I admit again) is that ‘theist’ is much more broader than ‘nazi’ (which is more or less like a particular set of ideas/beliefs), and although more dubious political movements/ideologies have a lot in common with religious traditions they are not the same animal.

If you in direct opposition to theism then it follows that you are pretty much opposed to theists, right?

I guess there is a middle ground though. Maybe I jumped the gun. Staunch anti-theists are probably more what bother me and it is those who are bigoted.

Being an atheist and and partly anti-theistic is not the same as being a bigot. My mistake. In terms of education I am very much opposed to religious teaching in schools that undermine and contradict science; within reason. Example like the age of the Earth and such.

A reasonable discussion can be had within the context of religious texts. I see no real problem in debating such and think it is probably one of the best ways to open more severe religious types to a new set of tools with which to question and explore their beliefs.

Preachers here will be banned I expect as well as those unwilling/unable to know who and how to respond enter discourse with. If two people are having a good discussion about the morality of certain religious texts based on the premise that god is all knowing and right, then it is pretty obnoxious if someone else jumps in to throw insults and sully the discussion being had.

I have had discussions about definitions of god in the hundreds, online and off, because it is a personal interest of mine. The majority of religious folk I have engaged with are more than reasonable. There are some that simply don’t know how to listen though.

On this forum a think a cool off period would be better than an outright permanent ban (in most cases). That is for owner of the forum to decide though. I have only ever seen a handful of long term posters deserving of a permanent ban. Others just need a breather for a couple of weeks.

I have no problem with people being racist or bigots. The issue is when they act out such attitudes.

If you openly admit you are hostile to a whole group of people merely because they are theists I think you have issues.

Bigotry isn’t a great look.

There is a BIG difference between antitheist and atheist. Maybe you read atheist by mistake :)

‘Preaching’ is not ‘theology’ though. It seems like the boundary you are looking for is more about that?

Preaching should be banned (but a warning doesn’t hurt). I used to see that on another forum I was on. They were asked to stop or leave. Some stopped and got into discussions, others left and some kept on preaching resulting in a ban.

@Banno My general view is if they are here for theology only then they may find other parts of the forum interesting.

Exposure to different views/ideas is a tricky and messy business, but overall the benefits for some are worth the annoyance others feel imo.

@Banno I understand what you mean.

I think it should be taken as a case by case issue not an outright ban.

People do actually change, and some people are quite capable of discussing in what you frame as a theological sense and what you frame as a philosophy of religion sense too. The main issue is others judging them and not letting go of the fact that someone believes something and making that the whole reason to attack/besmirch them.

Many people here ‘blather’ all kind of nonsense that has nothing to do with religion and they are not banned. Some have even been mods!

Ontology is a whole branch of philosophical enquiry that has a long held tradition in theological circles. Should we ban ontology too?

@Banno How about banning antitheists?

Claiming that ‘god’ is the answer is not really theology.

Possibly … belief in god is not essential for theological discussion

Only if they act with hostility towards others who disagree. I would also say that many not believing in scriptures and such shouldn’t mock.

I think people people can act in bad faith on many issues not just religious ones - I’ve seen it often enough on this forum.

Theology is an area that can, but does not always, assume the existence of a deity or some overarching dimension to reality. This, for those who don’t believe, can be approached by understanding the premise is not something you hold but your comrade in discussion/debate does BUT this premise in and of itself is not under scrutiny (yet your partner in discussion may be willing to go off topic).

If your interest lies in Philosophy of Religion then you must interact with theological believers.

Like everywhere in life not everyone is worth talking to, but it is worth giving everyone a chance to express their thoughts and perhaps find something to build on immediately or in future discussions.

His point was that IQ does not, on its own, a determine ‘success’ in life. There are some physiological parallels with g and physical markers like reaction time and general health.

Psychometrics are not exactly precise and only have any means across large samples and only take into account the average differences. Someone with an extremely high IQ could find it difficult to achieve anything in life simply because they have no one on their level to bounce off so they may be more likely to be lonely. But the g factor is just ONE part of a human. Having a high IQ does not mean you will find it hard to find stimulation or meaningful relationships as other parts of your personality can compensate.

How numerous are these studies? I know that for personality tests and IQ they are decent markers because lots of data has been collected over century or more. For ‘humour’ tests I have no idea about the sample size?

Yes. And it is a good thing people question the validity of certain terms and rehash more archaic terms too.

It is simply down to everyone else to assess their points carefully, clinically and as honestly as possible. If you think it looks wrong, sounds wrong and/or you have evidence to show/infer otherwise then you should speak up or we will all have ti suffer the consequences down the line.

As for Reps and Dems … I’m not American. As for a black woman getting a job she is capable of doing, great! Maybe no one will bat an eyelid about such a thing in a decade or two, just like people don’t make a deal about black actors or scientists being black.

Here is a very basic breakdown: https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/sexual-reproduction#Sexual_Reproduction_Definition

And to repeat, if we were to define a human scientific by visual prompts alone we would not say they have 0-12 fingers because there is a degree of normative classification within biology. It is not physics.

Sex, as a reproductive act, requires (for humans) two sex cells. This is a fact. To my recollection there are no instances of an immaculate birth that have been scientifically verified for humans? As for non-functioning body parts we may as well do away with the classification of males and just call them females with non-functioning nipples?

The constant hairsplitting is a very big problem and seems to give people a reason to interpret the more nebulous science of biology as a form of social science. No, no, no. Not having it. True enough there are grey areas everywhere but they are not vast areas and to declare that there are more than two biological human sexes is disingenuous and, in some circumstances a purposefully attempt, to use colloquial wordplay alongside different scientific contexts to spout nonsense.

Defects are not the norm. We do not go around humans don’t have ten fingers simply because a tiny minority have twelve.

There are TWO sexes. There are males and females. There are exceptional cases where the lines are not so distinct (due to various defects).

Gender, like sexuality, is more flexible. But again, a women and men are generally the default across all cultures, but there is certainly more room for different terms there as the minority size is far, far larger than for sex distinctions. And the default for sexuality is extremely diverse and always has been - although shunned in most cultures at some point historically.

In terms of men and women, I think it is fine to go with trans men and trans women as well. I would certainly not simply except (scientifically) calling a trans woman a woman because it could cause problems medically and in some competitive sporting environments.

It is not massively complicated but some people wish to make it so and others wish to oversimplify it due to prejudices and hang-ups inherited from their personal experiences (or rather lack of them).

I am well aware of cases where males (in terms of chromosomes) have lived as females most of their lives whilst completely oblivious to the fact they are ‘male’ (in terms of chromosomes). I see no reason not to accept people in such cases as whatever they wish to be called (legally too). BUT these cases are nowhere near as common as people who are trans (different distinction completely as it is heavily focused on gender).

I don’t care about Blackburn’s question (and have no idea what it was). I saw you say there are more than two sexes - that is wrong. End of story.

The phenomenologist doesn’t care

It is not something that everyone has an easy time grasping and I’m only giving you a rather stunted version. I only read more about it via studies in the cognitive neurosciences. That is how I found Husserl.

I only care about the ridiculous claim that there is a reasonable claim of being more than two sexes when there aren’t.

In terms of sex (for humans) it is simply a matter of male and female.

I am curious about measurements of humour. That is where my skepticism lies mainly. I know that other traits have been studied for extended periods of time and so there is significant amounts of data AND that can only give a rough outline because psychology is quite a soft science.

You might find this one interesting: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/humor-2021-0054/html?lang=en

Cool! Look for studies against it now. I have never really looked into humour as a trait before tbh.

Except, they have studied both. Humor is more correlated — hypericin

Fair enough. Show me.

Humor correlates with spatial, verbal, and logical intelligences — hypericin

Show me please. Thanks.

So why not admit you’re being dishonest? Did you think the sex of fish were under scrutiny here just because there was talk about a trans swimmer.

Humans have two sexes and ten fingers.

As sexy as it can feel to 'know' it - I know you know this is unknown. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I know I exist.

I am sure there are plenty of other people who can do her job and I bet there are plenty of black people among them too.

I understand why it is a little weird though. It was probably a case of ‘this woman is really good’ and then they find out she is black and the politicians start thinking the usual nonsense. I think the Canadian Prime Minister did a far worse thing by appointing equal ratio of women to men when statistically it makes little sense as there are far more men than women in politics.

To be fair, I understand the argument that having more women represented at the top level will inspire other women to follow and believe they can do it. But that does seem both a little patronising and I think a small increase and active encouragement to het more women into politics would have been a better way to go. I could be wrong though, but no one has convinced me otherwise yet.

Actually it people like me who studied biology long before this became a hot button issue. People like me who do question those claims and are aware that things are not always binary — Fooloso4

Not always … be honest and give hard data. It is a minuscule number. It is like saying humans don’t always have five fingers, but we all know that people don’t tend to have more than five fingers on each hand. In all my life I have never met anyone with more than ten fingers.

Other than male and female can you name another sex that is prominent enough to get near 1% of the global population. Show me the scientific literature too please if you hunk you can do this.

The term gender has often been used synonymously with sex in colloquial speech, but technically ‘gender’ is more or less used something like how we now use ‘race’.

No. If you read a bit about it somewhere you will come across the term ‘bracketing’. This is something like not denying that something exists or not, it is about ‘bracketing out’ any idea of something existing.

It is a little like solipsism yet completely NOT that :D You just put things like that aside and notice objects of experience whilst not looking at them as necessarily there or not but investigating the experience.

He refers to ‘parts’ and ‘moments’. For example removing a leg from a table still leaves it as a ‘table,’ but to remove the mass of the table is simply not something comprehend. Or to think of a sound with no timbre … we cannot. Other views are to notice that things are what Husserl likes to call ‘pregnant’. Meaning when you see the table you understand it as having only a partial view of it yet you experience it as a whole object with inside bits and bits at the back.

Phenomenology lacks empirical measures. But phenomenology is a method of approach rather than a universal view. Its aim is endless.

Correlation is not causation would have been a better way of putting it. Creativity has a tenuous relation to intelligence. So, my concern would be that it is the creative element in better humour rather than some underlying ‘sense of humour’.

Plus if some people have a bad sense of humour they still find each other funny and mate just as much.

Not to mention that ‘emotional/social intelligence’ is not actually ‘intelligence’ (as in the ‘g’ factor).