I'm wondering what you are yet to see a convincing argument for. — Janus

The title of the thread. I’d say false. Using “trans” preceding man and woman makes sense, but you cannot change your sex. But it has already been mentioned that “woman” is being used in the same way as gender. Fine. I wouldn’t define it that way myself, but with that meaning in mind then there’s really no issue.

It is the later. The OP essentially notes that 'woman' without adjectives or modifiers normatively means "Adult human female". "Trans" adjusts woman to mean, "A person who takes on the non-biological gendered behaviors that society expects an adult human female to exhibit". — Philosophim

Cool, then in that case I agree. If that’s truly what’s being argued for, then I have no objection.

Philosophy is employed here for thinking about a topic that confuses many people. — Philosophim

Who’s confused? I didn’t see much “confusion” about sex until recently. Ditto for many issues which are motivated not by science or philosophy, but by cultural and political agendas. So in the same way that there’s “confusion” about vaccines, I suppose you’re right. But the point stands.

If people adhering to different definitions of the terms 'woman' or 'man' believe there is but one correct definition, and that it is the one they hold, as though there could be some determinable fact of the matter, then they are arguing with closed minds and will inevitably talk past one another. — Janus

We can define things any way we like. There is not one “true” definition of anything, except maybe in mathematics. But in everyday life, will my response to your saying “It’s a beautiful day out today” ever be “well there’s not a true definition of ‘day,’ and your standard of beauty is subjective”? Not unless I’m insane, despite there being perhaps some merit to what I’ve said “philosophically.”

I’ll call anyone what they wish to be called. I’ll call you Janus the Great if you prefer— but before I actually believe it, I’d need to see some evidence or a convincing argument. In a trans case, I’ve yet to see such an argument.

I think this is a topic where philosophy (if we can call it that) is employed for an agenda and begins to look absurd.

Gender is one thing, sex is another. Sex is obvious and always has been. There are always exceptions, but they are very rare indeed, and one need not bend over backwards to change perfectly good language because of them.

What is being presupposed by the word “trans” anyway? From what to what? One sex to another, or one gender to another, presumably. I still hold that the latter is absolutely possible — the former isn’t.

What I think is sad is that so many bigoted people use what I’ve said above to justify the mistreatment of trans people, and it’s this use that the community and its allies are truly fighting against when they argue that sex is a “concept” or that “woman” is undefined. But it’s a fool’s errand and a political trap, and in my view has set back the movement by a decade at least.

Assuming you're talking about Trumps plan, it would be better than more war in my opinion.

Odds of it being accepted as it is by Russia is basically zero, but likely Trump has a "start high and settle lower" mentality. — boethius

I tend to agree.

He may be crazy enough to cut off all funding. But even then I can’t see Ukraine agreeing to this plan as it’s written.

Now I’m curious. I searched for his name and there’s several. Was his name just Marco? Seems like that guy is still a member.

Heideggar himself seems to be a pretty pivotal figure in modern philosophy. I'll definitely consider "introduction to metaphysics" as a companion to aristotle's work, because i'm currently determined to read as much about ancient philosophy as I can. — ProtagoranSocratist

Sounds good. It’s actually not a long read, and isn’t as difficult as Being and Time. The last section is especially clear (“the restriction of being”). I think pairing this with Aristotle can be helpful, but isn’t completely necessary in my view.

Still, one can’t go wrong reading more Aristotle.

And yeah I don't really care that Heideggar fell for Nazi ideology and promoted it a little bit as a professor, what matters to me more is the actual content that someone wrote, not their political identity. — ProtagoranSocratist

I don’t care either.

P.S., don’t listen to what anyone tells you about what Heidegger meant or who offers simple explanations. Most are so radically wrong it’s cringe-inducing. Just read it.

Putting aside hostility on this issue for a moment, I’m curious as to what everyone thinks of this plan, and what they put the odds of it being accepted?

I'd like to see the return of Streetlight to be honest.

Seriously, I think we gave banned members a second chance when we moved in 2015, and one or two members were reincarnated. — Jamal

Oh no kidding? Cool.

And yes, I think we should probably open up the new site, to allow anyone to sign up, though with admin approval to activate accounts. — Jamal

Will all the previously banned members get a second chance? Lol

But seriously - Sounds like a decent amount of work. Look forward to seeing how it turns out. :up:

Do you disagree with my characterization of that class? Or are we in agreement there? — Moliere

So I clearly had to think on that a bit. Namely, for the last 4 years. Now I’m ready to respond.

Just kidding. I was re-reading this (still interesting) thread and realized it left off rather abruptly. Not sure why.

Yes, I do agree. Looking back, I’m not sure where the disagreement really arose from. I still remain firm: remove the capitalists, you remove capitalism. It’s true that private property, profit, and markets still remain — but they all predated capitalism in the sense I mean anyway, and are upstream from it.

Btw, this video is what led me to remember this thread:

Say what you will about Mamdani. but he must a world class ass kisser. — Wayfarer

Why? Nearly everyone Trump talks to face to face he changes his tune about, even after long online tirades.

My guess here is that you’re one of those who think Mamdani is too “far left” and a gift to the Republicans and can’t possibly accomplish any of his proposals, etc., and that’s skewing your perception.

Otherwise, I don’t see anything out of the ordinary. I’m sure he was respectful, and in return so was Trump.

I recommend “Introduction to Metaphysics,” by Heidegger. Don’t let his reputation dissuade you; it’s worth the read.

We aren't helping the world by creating crap threads full of personal attacks and insults. We're just making ourselves look foolish. — frank

Says the guy who consistently makes both the climate change thread, and others, crappy.

You have, countless times over the years, been called out on your posts regarding climate change. Yet you repeat the same lines over and over. About China and coal plants, for example. When confronted about this— with evidence — you ignore it and continue posting it anyway, then complain about how mean everyone is.

This thread, and this very post I’m responding to, is nothing but sanctimonious posturing. It’s also pure hypocrisy, given your track record.

You want to improve the climate change thread? Stop posting in it. Ditto for the forum generally, in my view.

If my posts are considered “flaming,” I gladly apologize— if they also apologize for posting misinformation on an important topic.

I’m sure there’s nothing but noble reasons to cry about this either.

“He’s picking on me Jamal, move it to the lounge!”

How about: don’t like the thread? Don’t post in it and stop reading it. Simply mind your business. There’s an entire other boring page created by you on the subject.

Tattle tailing, feigning grievance, these are a childs way. — DingoJones

Agreed. But considering this is someone who has LONG held a grudge against me, mostly for pointing how inane his posts are, it’s not a surprise. How he’s even still here given his thousands of Twitter-like quality posts is a wonder.

Or let’s put it this way: I’ll agree to be nicer if you agree not to spam a thread about climate science with denialist talking points. Deal?

Perhaps if those of you so sensitive to snarky replies cared more about not spreading misinformation instead…

I also notice no engagement with the arguments. Rather the replies are cherry-picked for their sarcasm or frustration at having to debunk long-refuted claims over and over again, only to have them reappear.

50 year old climate model remarkably accurate, disproving claims about older models being wrong.

Common climate denial arguments: “models are unreliable.”

Climate science, like other sciences, really separate out — very quickly — those who have done their homework and those who haven’t. You just can’t bullshit your way through physics like you can freshman philosophy. Likewise, going with one’s feelings about climate models, climate impacts, the causes of global warming, etc., just doesn’t cut it. There actually are right answers to these questions.

It's not hyperbole, but a possibility... I don't know what the chances are, but the speed at which we are changing the climate, together with other factors of course (like just taking over ecosystems for ourselves), could result in the kind of mass-extinction that would take millions of years to recover from. — ChatteringMonkey

You’re absolutely right.

A ten second Google search:

Biodiversity loss and climate change are critically serious, interconnected crises that are worsening each other and threatening human health, well-being, and the planet's stability. Both have catastrophic potential: global animal populations have declined by 69% since 1970, and species are disappearing at rates 10 to 100 times faster than the natural background rate. Climate change exacerbates this loss through extreme weather, habitat destruction, and ocean warming, while biodiversity loss weakens ecosystems' ability to regulate the climate and provide essential services.

What we’re doing to insects in particular is striking. It’s not all due to climate change, of course — but it’s a very serious issue that is exacerbated by it.

But it’s best to listen to Internet trolls when they tell you not to worry. Their vibes have never been wrong.

The only serious threat from climate change--and it is serious--is unpredictable weather cycles that disrupt farming. — I like sushi

No. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

There are several “serious threats” which, if you cared to learn about, you would understand. The loss of biodiversity is serious, hardly “hyperbole” (as if you’re an authority on that), and has been extensively researched and documented. Among many others.

Why people continue to make such ignorant comments is beyond me. I doubt you’d see it in a physics or chemistry thread. Yet here we are.

What will happen? Nothing. People will flail, and that’s it. It’ll make the year-end news summaries as a blip. The media will talk about it for a bit, until the next shiny object appears. I give it two weeks, if that. — Mikie

Well it’s been exactly two months. Prediction was accurate. The news cycle has long moved on, and nothing has changed.

Amazing that they survived the storm so well. — unenlightened

I think it’s incredible. Apparently if your roof survives, and they’re built to code, then they’ll likely survive as well. Some people even remove them before a big storm and then put them back, which is also cool.

This is actually an interesting idea. Seems impractical, of course, but it makes sense. We need scholars. We need people out there simply thinking about things. It leads to a better world, but in ways we can’t predict.

I think a more practical approach is making education free, so at least those that do dedicate thelmselves to study aren’t turned into debt slaves.

On the other hand, there should be some requirements — not all areas of study are equal. Attached should be some pro bono work, whether in your area of expertise (teaching or tutoring, using skills in specific domains to help build or fix things) or in an unrelated area with pressing needs (if the neighborhood is full of trash, volunteer to clean it up; if the local library or food bank needs help, dedicate some time there).

This is interesting as well (apropos of the above):

Jamaicans Have Been Turning to Solar Power. It Paid Off After the Storm (gift article)

Solar panels remain beyond the reach of many Jamaicans, but prices are falling rapidly as Chinese gear floods into the market. In recent years the Jamaican government has also started providing a solar income-tax credit, and banks have begun to offer more financing. Jamaica’s electric utility also now compensates solar households for excess electricity they put back into the grid.

That’s helping Jamaica make progress toward its goal of generating 50 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030.

A natural progression. China exporting cheap solar panels to an island that wants to ween itself off of imported, polluting fossil fuels. Panels have not only been resilient to extreme weather, but those who have them get their power back much quicker— which, as noted, benefits the entire neighborhood.

Progress these last few years has been encouraging:

Rooftop solar has grown significantly in Jamaica over the past decade, from less than 1.4 megawatts in 2015 to nearly 65 megawatts in 2023, a significant amount for a small island, experts say. Overall, solar and other forms of renewable energy made up about 10 percent of Jamaica’s power generation in 2023.

Still too slow — this would have been nice to hear in 1995 — but it seems inevitable.

Fair enough — but it’s really quite something. China’s actions are having global effects. EVs, Solar, wind, nuclear— being rolled out at incredible speed and being exported to other countries while bringing down costs. Renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels. That’s remarkable.

With the dopey US abdicating, China will now pull way ahead. Biden’s inflation reduction act wasn’t going to get us ahead, but now with that repealed there’s no chance of catching them. This has consequences beyond climate change — it has enormous political consequences too. When they say China is the engine, they’re right.

You just answered some of my above questions. — baker

Oh? Please elaborate. Which one?

How many people actually want mankind to survive?
How many people actually want all the currently living people to die of natural causes?
Is mere survival even a universally desirable goal? Does everyone want it?
How many people are even willing to survive even if that meant a significant lowering of their quality of life? — baker

So what answer did I provide to those questions in my asking about discussing China’s role in tackling climate change? Like the fact that they’re building as many nuclear reactors as the rest of the world combined, and now sell half of all cars as EVs?

I can’t wait for your usual on-topic, detailed reasoning. Because there’s no way you just wanted to bring the discussion into the realm of naval-gazing bullshit so as to have some shot at participation, knowing next to nothing about the topic as you do, and being unwilling to read or learn and all. I know it couldn’t be that, given your sterling reputation.

And you wonder why people aren't eager to combat the deterioration of climate! — baker

Yes, it must be because of unfriendly responses to silly comments on an online forum. Nailed it.

This is supposedly a philosophy forum — baker

And there’s all kinds of threads to naval gaze on. This one happens to be about climate change and its consequences. But I personally don’t care if you raise these questions — it’s just that it’s laughable in its childishness.

I just posted an article on China— care to discuss that? Or is that too hard?

I think that for successfully taking action against climate deterioration, the above questions, and then some, would need to be openly discussed. — baker

This level of naval-gazing approaches satire.

“Before we turn on the air conditioner, certain fundamental questions must be addressed— like whether we all really want to not be sweltering, and if we want to even go on living.”

Good thing you’re not in charge of anything.

The issue I see is that even if the west were to get its act together and transition off of fossil fuel, China will be off doing their own thing. — frank

Actually, China is in many ways leading the way. Which you would know if you bothered to read anything. But please go on with your outdated slogans.

I don't get why China is accelerating coal use now. They could go nuclear instead. — frank

They are. They’re building more reactors than the rest of the world combined. Which you would know if you bothered to read anything.

How China Raced Ahead of the US on Nuclear Power

Is this supposed to be encouraging? — RogueAI

Yes. Remember, that’s with rapidly increasing demand. The fact that it decreased at all is significant, and the impact it’s having elsewhere is likewise significant. I think the article outlines China’s influence on the rest of the world pretty well.

Catastrophic warming is already baked in. — RogueAI

True, but every tenth of a degree matters.

Yes.

Worth looking at this piece:

‘China’s the Engine’ Driving Nations Away From Fossil Fuels, Report Says

I gifted as a free article for anyone wanting to understand just how significant China’s actions are.

When the world’s fossil fuel use will peak also comes down to the pace of that change in China itself.

China still burns more coal than the rest of the world combined and emits more climate pollution than the United States and Europe together. The country has not yet seen a decline in coal usage overall, though its total greenhouse gas emissions have reached what looks like a plateau.

But last year, China met 84 percent of its electricity demand growth with solar and wind power, according to the report. That meant it was able to cut fossil fuel use by 2 percent, despite a growing demand for power.

Mr. Black said that decline in fossil fuel use was largely due to burning less coal to produce electricity. He pointed to a number of recent policy directives that have reallocated subsidies and production incentives away from coal and toward solar and wind.

China is still building dozens of new coal-burning power plants, he said, but instead of running constantly like many existing ones, they might be at full capacity only during peaks in energy demand. Meanwhile, the contribution of wind and solar to the grid was quickly growing, he said.

“Coal is increasingly acting like training wheels,” said Yuan Jiahai, a professor at North China Electric Power University. “It provides balance and backup while the clean electricity system gains strength and confidence.”

Been digging the Gould version of Bach’s Goldberg variations.

Kirk publicly stated—to cheering audiences no less—that people he doesn’t even know are abominations. — praxis

But he didn’t say that verbatim, therefore he isn’t really a bigoted culture warrior who made millions off of “gotcha” clips debating college kids.

To wave all this off with “too hot? Try more air conditioners” is something I felt compelled to call out. — Mikie

Saying something like “maybe we need more air conditioners” in relation to climate change is a dismissive, ignorant statement. And I’m sure you know it. So why say it?

Yes, there are trade offs to building things. The externalities involved in fossil fuel infrastructure, extraction, and use are enormous and destructive, and have existed for decades. The damage to the ecosystem, apart from the floods, droughts, wildfires, and agricultural destruction is beyond comprehension.

To wave all this off with “too hot? Try more air conditioners” is something I felt compelled to call out.

If it gets too hot, maybe we need more air conditioners. — Hanover

This is the kind of analysis I would expect from Karoline Leavitt.

So the genocide temporarily ends, now that Gaza has been long bombed into rubble and tens of thousands of children killed.

Israel has done itself irreparable harm. But glad to see them doing the bare minimum.

:rofl: Good one, “risible” guy.