If I'm wrong, just explain why you think that. — karl stone

Sure, maybe the current government or social zeitgeist is completely overlooking the true concept behind what environmentalism purports to look out for, as, people being people, modern governments being "of the people and (allegedly) for the people" might have completely hijacked or otherwise actively mislead and misrepresent such words and concepts to the highest degree. But that's not the point. The definition of the word and origin of the concept has nothing to do with politics or modern terms as the former predates the latter. Point blank. There's no argument of the contrary to be had. Respectfully.

If I'm wrong, just explain why you think that. — karl stone

Your changing the topic that I was referring to.

My topic, based on your sentence of:

Environmentalism has a basis in Marxism and anti-capitalist degrowth — karl stone

In reality, caring for one's farmland and the land around them has been a concept that predates any of the terms you mention. That's a fact. So, I'm correct and you're not. I hate being that simple about things but yes, that's those are the relevant facts of this interaction and situation at hand as they stand and so happen to be.

So you are saying Limits to Growth is true? — karl stone

I'm informing you (to no avail, no doubt, so mostly other interlocutors) the sentence of yours I quoted is inaccurate and nothing more.

Environmentalism has a basis in Marxism and anti-capitalist degrowth — karl stone

Uh, no. It has a basis in realizing that the physical world is finite and if you rob it beyond it's ability to regenerate itself you'll stave not only yourself but those around you and plunge whatever society into darkness, chaos, unrest, and eventual non-existence. See Easter Island. It's basic mathematics and mainstream science.

So right off the bat, no, that's just not correct. Please refine your topic and discussion to something remotely legible to sane people. Thank you. Just one TPF member's opinion, of course. No holds barred seeing you are of posting seniority (somewhat) and are no stranger to this forum.

Would you rather make mistakes and learn? Or be told what to do and learn nothing? — frank

Well since no one has welcomed @panwei to the forum yet. As if it weren't obvious why. :smirk:

I shall do so. No, no, not in the form of vainglorious and empty pleasantry or ADD-ridden emojis, no, something much more cognoscente of his innate human dignity. A friendly counter-argument, just a little token or trinket of good will, on his behalf. :grin:

Is the paired inquiry in your post above not a false dilemma? Surely there are more than two possibilities when it comes to something so wide, vast, and ever-reaching as the human experience itself? Isn't there? :confused:

Furthermore, one might argue: There is no shame in sub-ordinance or perhaps even servitude to a master one respects and believes as, not only knowledgeable, but virtuous, in the face of all life has to offer, thus offering more than one has themself to all of society. Not only a form of "vicarious-living" which it can be, but simple acknowledgement of the virtues of many philosophies and disciplines, not the least of which is humility. Which while can be abused and misused all day, and often is, nevertheless reflects an ingrained truth all wise men come to realize, one day or another. That truth being: there's always someone wiser than you. Failure to realize this is what births not only tyrants but unhappy citizens and as a direct result, unhappy peoples, nations, and civilizations.

What do you say to that? :chin:

There are sex differences in psychology. — Michael

These majority of those listed seem largely circumstantial for reasons I'll soon explain.

Basically, it's a list of common stereotypes. Listed as follows:

Women: More inclined to be afraid. More inclined to be passive or submissive. More emotional (positively, along the lines of empathy, understanding, or nurturing).

Men: (obviously the opposite of the above). More assertive or aggressive. More emotional (negatively, along the lines of anger, frustration, and pride).

So, let's analyze these traits in the context of modern and semi-modern societies, shall we?

So, everybody knows a father looks at his daughter unlike the way he looks at a son. While specifics may vary there is generally one common theme and that's that the daughter is "a precious little angel that has to be protected at all cost" whereas the male is a "little me who's going to have to fight and struggle to make his way in the world." So, throughout one's entire upbringing, specifically the first 5 years of life (crucial development period) this is instilled consciously and directly as well as subconsciously and by various indirect means.

This effectively explains the majority of the psychological and behavior differences, in one swing.

But I'll do one better. Even the minor "behavioral" quirks or mannerisms people don't tend to focus on much but do generally recognize as either "feminine" or "masculine." Say, putting one's hands on one's hips in frustration, for example. Women generally have larger, wider hips than men. Therefore, it's becomes a "natural" biological inclination.

Same thing for increased muscle tone for males on average. Where the insult "limp-wristed (what have you)" comes in. A man's arm is generally more large and muscular and the male wrist is generally more self-supportive than that of their female counterpart.

These both are minor, incredibly minor in their insignificance, in and of themselves, that is. Yet they seem to be, if not main, secondary biological factors (circumstantial, mind you) that determine many behaviors or inclinations toward behaviors over others.

Without getting carried away, simply put, I'm suggesting the possibility that the majority of the differences between sexes found in the article you linked are cultural, social, and otherwise "learned." I.E. they don't really mean anything other than that's how people raise their kids so that's how they turn out. If they raised them the opposite, than they would turn out the opposite, thus meaning those differences are not really scientific or intrinsic to any sex and are simply "traditions" passed on from one generation or society to the next. Not including the mannerisms or "convenience tendencies" that conform to the actual physical differences between the sexes (ie. daintiness in one's gait, hands on one's hips, etc.).

And that's even before testosterone and estrogen come into play. Some ethnotypes (races) have generally lower or higher testosterone and estrogen than others. This is due to evolutionary factors generally linked to the terrain and climate from where they "come from." If everything is nice and peaceful, it's a calm flat verdant meadow with everything "just right there", the need for testosterone was probably lower than say, a hot jungle, or rugged mountainous terrain that required constant toil each day. Should that mean certain races are more "masculine" or "famine" than others? It certainly shouldn't. But if you base everything based on those two chemicals well, to that person, it does.

„Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.“ — MorningStar

To what though? :eyes:

They're men pretending to be women. — RogueAI

Or. they might actually think that. Still, I can think I'm a disabled person but if my legs work absolutely fine and I cut off an actual paraplegic and park at their one reserved handicapped spot, depending on the society, I might soon be needing that spot legitimately.

"Pretending", per se, requires conscious and willfully intended imagination that still cognitively understands the underlying nature of what is real and what is not and chooses to temporarily embrace the latter.

So. As it is, your critique could use a bit of, refinement, shall we say, before it becomes as accurate as it could be.

assumptions of human nature — NOS4A2

5,000 years of recorded human history where wars are waged and the stronger or larger force takes and destroys from the weaker or smaller force is an "assumption?"

Like, it's just something I randomly made up one day? Are you serious? :rofl:

Bruh. Nah. Just nah. Come on, you're not that dense. :lol:

because they believe humans require authority and absolutism to keep their wildest impulses in check — NOS4A2

All you know is the life you've experienced in however many years you've been alive, a life, mind you, given exclusively to you by a strict and ordered society. With all due respect, you are ignorant of anything else as far as first hand experience. And that is a fact.

Not read anything like what you say there in the readings I have done on anarchy so far. — unimportant

Of course not! Because they've all been burned and their purveyors executed, by sheer public outcry and will of the people, mind you.

I'm not saying the descriptions I've laid out are what people interested in the purported mainstream texts desire, I'm saying that's what always, always, inevitably happens and how it works out.

If you think I'm wrong and full of it, that's fine. Sorry to interject and disrupt your discussion. I'll say this. You know what's on paper, and I know what happens when those words on paper become reality and rubber meets the road, per se, given time. If you disagree, that's fine, and we'll leave it there. Welcome to the forum. Great topic BTW. :smile:

Can you answer the question I posed earlier, how do anarchists propose to manage things like law enforcement, healthcare and the like if there is no government or is there government just only local government so it would be just all grass roots, cottage industry type of companies locally for all human public services? — unimportant

They don't. They want to undo thousands of years of human social progress simply because their lives didn't turn out as they desired them to be, in spite of the clear and blatant reality that their lives are actually much, much better than they would be without and infinitely better than they deserve.

They want blood in the streets, people who are born larger to control and enslave those born smaller (the so-called weak in their eyes, despite it clearly being them who are the weak ones morally and intellectually, the only things that matter and differentiate men from animal). They'll see woman taken advantage of as property to be raped and abused and killed on a whim, children abused and enslaved wholesale if not killed off entirely because "my group is bigger than yours so your resources belong to us."

They want to remove the single thing that every single great civilization and society, through unfathomable amounts of suffering and constant vigilance and toil, has been able to exclusively offer its citizenry that mankind has never been able to achieve since the beginning of time. Would you like to know what that thing is? Consistency. Stability. Predictability of what to expect from one day to the next. The very culmination of every single earnest and noble human effort, every single good man who died for a better future of not just his own but for all of humanity since the beginning of time. Gone. Why? For no other reason than "because."

They want to (or at the very least, will, if not stopped) take us back to a dark time of entire families and ethnic groups, men, women, and children slaughtered en masse. Entire villages and towns. A time where the darkest desires of humanity run rampant, unrestricted, and unabated with nowhere for good men who desire peace to lay their head. They have no understanding of human nature and what it inevitably results in absent of structure. Or at the very least, they don't care. Many, and you can ask them — they'll tell you flat out and point blank — if it's not tattooed on their flesh already, want to, and I quote: "Watch the world burn." That's not a political or lifestyle alignment or choice. It's clinical psychopathy and nothing more. These people are a danger to children and should not be allowed around them or be allowed to have them in any capacity.

These people are very, very dangerous and while they live, breath, and die in a state of constant hypocrisy without ever realizing it, or perhaps ignoring it as that is what shameless hypocrites do, taking everything from those who believe in order and law (modern society, infrastructure, technology, education, convenience, etc.) they nevertheless belong somewhere far, far away where their psychotic ideals will never reach another eye or ear drum forevermore. For the good of humanity. There is literally no discernible difference from a so-called anarchist and a foreign agent sent to topple and destroy a nation as quickly and efficiently as possible so an invading army can usurp it, perhaps even by willing vote of the people themselves. None whatsoever. And governments have known this for a long, long time.

Edit: Don't confuse true, actual anarchists with simple "regime changists." Some even confuse or convince themselves as such when fed the right intellectual kitsch (ie. lipstick on a pig).

The disagreement stems over whether or not "women" and "biological women" always mean the same thing. — Michael

I think eventually it becomes a basic rudimentary argument absent of any other potentially bias-inducing circumstance. I.E. Yes, I'm a human being, some human beings are born male, female, smart, incredibly strong, or yes even disabled. Just because one person (or perhaps many) were born almost frighteningly gifted (Nikola Tesla, Nietzsche, Socrates, etc.) doesn't mean you can just "identify" as what some people are for no other reason than because you feel like doing so. Can you? :chin: It's a fair question. Nothing to do with biases or scientific knowledge at all, just as a general concept.

If there is a "sense" of recollection — J

If? Memory is real, hence your reference to it and the fact this entire thread is devoted to it, so, that's already been laid out. That is, essentially, if not word for word, the definition of what the majority of persons (and the entirety of professionals, I believe) would say defines "memory."

What is it? — J

Well, as stated, I would argue (or rather numerous scientific texts would argue for me):

[a] series of neural synapses making connections that invoke a sense of recollection in intelligent beings which benefits the organism due to utility of avoiding danger and/or finding safety, shelter, or other tangible resource. — Outlander

What does this actually mean, experientially? — J

Naturally, each man's experience is uniquely his own. So, that would be up to the "experiencer." Part of the joy and mystery of life, I guess. :smile:

Unfortunately, I doubt there's a whole heck of a lot of philosophy involved in such; more of series of neural synapses making connections that invoke a sense of recollection in intelligent beings which benefits the organism due to utility of avoiding danger and/or finding safety, shelter, or other tangible resource. But who knows. :confused:

And let's consider some hypothetical 46,XX/46,XY person with an equal number of XX cells and XY cells, ambiguous genitalia, and either bilateral oviotestis or streak gonads. Are they male or female? — Michael

I suppose the rational counterargument would be: ridiculously rare genetic abnormalities aside, how does that change a thing? I'm sympathetic to any person who exists and agree people who commit violence for any reason don't qualify as human and therefore aren't subject to human rights (ie. therefore, effectively, I am against people who commit violence against LGBT persons), which as a strict matter of fact happens to make me an ally of yours. That aside. What of the argument made before, that, just because, in rare occasions, humans may be born with less or more than 2 arms, therefore, because of that, humans should be medically and scientifically defined as "organisms that have anywhere from 1 - 3 arms."

Sure, the few hundred people out of billions and billions who meet that exceedingly strange criteria, may qualify as intersex and have a right to identify as the gender they choose, whereas anyone else is basically committing the highly offensive social offense of "stolen valor" and belittling the suffering and plight of said few individuals. No different than an able-bodied person parking in a handicap spot thus depriving the few who do suffer from such their rights, dignity, and above all quality of life. Can we agree on that?

Gender is not only about organs, but also about how you express and present yourself to others. — Wolfy48

Welcome to the forum. This is something I would like to question you about. What, or rather who, dictates that how one expresses themself or presents themselves to others must be contingent or follow some formulae or set of expectations? Where is this "grand consortium of social interaction" I can visit to better understand how I can better be a male (or female)?

I suppose, specifically, what are the list of "traits", characteristics, or "mannerisms" that "encapsulate" or otherwise define "male expression" and "female expression", respectively. Do you agree with the traditional or stereotypical assortment (ie. male: brashness, boldness. aggression/dominance?; female: whimsy, "daintiness", passivity/submission?) or something else?

Who's to say in some fictional village the female inhabitants just so happened to have evolved larger and more "aggressive" than the male inhabitants who together in turn resemble a living antithesis of modern gender norms (ie. the females are larger, louder, more violent, let's say and the males are smaller, quiter, and more obedient or otherwise on average are submissive to the females). What about that sort of scenario?

Point being, it seems like you're referring to social constructs (that sure, obviously are derived from *circumstantial* biological norms) that still, can vary or change wildly depending on many circumstances. Meaning, just because things happen to be a certain way for most people in most situations, that's just how evolution (or whatever else you believe) happened to have turned out on this one planet this one time. Is that really reliable simply because it's all we know? Ignorance is not knowledge, now is it?

(no pressure. seriously welcome to the forum, this is just, as you can imagine, a highly impassioned, and at times, personal debate for many. Remember: In philosophy we savagely attack ideas, not the persons who hold them. Though sometimes, as you might tell, the lines can get a bit fuzzy during certain types of subject matter. :razz: )

So you're saying it's a human right, not yet a civil right. — frank

Well, depending on what school of thought you choose to subscribe to (which is a civil right in and of itself, right to choose how one governs one's life choices ie. religion) "rights" are merely social constructs. Basically, as much as I would wish otherwise, no divine power is going to incinerate you if you intentionally violate another person's sense of well-being, safety, or dignity. Society has mechanisms (law enforcement, court systems, etc.) that do their best to do so (proactively via enforcement and retroactively via pressing charges), and little else. That's all we really have to work with here.

Bearing that in mind, we have social expectations, norms, and ideals. More pertinently, codified laws that the public largely agrees with as either necessary or that are socially advantageous in nature.

Harassment is a good example. You have a right to insult someone and degrade them with your words and (legal) actions. But in focused continuity, day in and day out, that amounts to the charge of stalking, defamation, slander, etc. There's a reason for these things, and I'm sure you understand what those are.

Legally, I can walk around an entire city all day everyday saying "You're going to die!" to every person I meet. I can do so without technically and legally committing any crime. After all, biology states, yes, all human persons will die at some point. That's not a threat. It's a fact. But there's a reason we discourage people from doing that and perhaps punish those who do. Because it's just not right. Yet, ironically, it is their right to do so if they wish.

To circle back, it's a social expectation, no different than the idea that a child should be able to safely reach adulthood where they can make their own choices before being put into unsafe, dangerous, or cruel situations. Or that a man has a right to work so as to feed himself without undue burden or hazard.

Legally, I can walk up to a small child with his family and say something like "I could kill you, your dad, and your mom in one punch each and there wouldn't be a thing you could do to stop me" and laugh in all their faces as the kid cries and whoever they're with considers committing a violent crime against me that in return I would be able to lethally defend myself against and walk out of court scot-free after doing so. Technically, I didn't commit a crime. Did I? I spoke a true fact (hypothetically, in this situation) and it was my "right" to do so. Point being, not all laws have to be intrinsically derived of some "universal human right" to be necessary and desired.

No, like Sir Baden said, apparently (and in my opinion unfortunately) gender-separated places of defecation and the like are not "biologically natural", or whatever he said. I would like him to cite that as well but moving on. As society progresses, so should our laws and understanding of what makes society a place people would willingly defend with their life and blood vs. that which isn't and perhaps we would fight against to destroy so a better one can take root. We either go backwards or we go forwards, and without rules and standards, the direction is quite clear. It's very simple.

Are you saying that women have a right to use the bathroom without biological men in the room? — frank

While I can't and won't answer for the particular gentleman, I feel it a point of basic decency to remind you of, and of course introduce into the discussion, the history of women's rights (or rather, more importantly, the lack thereof ie. the entirety of human existence up until recently) and the very real phenomenon of urinary retention from stress as well as the solid scientific documentation of it.

Rights or not, a place that cannot be properly utilized is a waste of not only money and space but purpose. And that, is unacceptable, even to those who find things the average person would have difficulty stomaching as casual and normal.

In the context of this particular argument, if you're not a woman, you simply are biologically incapable of understanding, at least in the way a woman would, and are pretty much just talking to move the air around. Men can relieve themselves standing, and most often do. Women cannot. Therefore, for a female, even the slightest feeling of "having to pee" introduces strong elements and notions of vulnerability into the current mindset. This happens several times a day. It's just not something a male will understand or relate to. As a female, at the slightest notion of having to pee, you will have to: disrobe your lower clothing to beyond the knee (essentially restraining primary mobility/handicapping one's self, albeit temporarily), kneel or squat (a scientifically-documented social and biological position of submission), remain completely focused on urination or the like, while maintaining social awareness of the surrounding environment so as not to fall victim to predators all while in a full state of maximum vulnerability, etc. This is absolutely and unequivocally mandatory at the slightest inkling of feeling the need to relieve oneself, if female.

Meanwhile, a dude literally just unzips his fly and goes wherever he wants and in a few moments is on his way. There is a huge physical, social, and most prudently, psychological difference between male and female alleviation of bodily waste.

The slightest feeling of having to use the restroom in a female subconsciously invokes a need for secure privacy away from predators for a prolonged and unknown period of time. For a male, it just makes you want to pee on a tree or something. There is absolutely no comparison and men should be completely removed from the debate itself as they simply aren't biologically equipped to understand (and therefore participate in) said debate.

(a bit beyond the point but just to quell what I foresee as a likely ancillary counter-argument: yes biological male pheromones have an effect on biological females and probably aren't helpful to have around when a female is doing their business in a place intended to place one at ease and be relaxing for one whilst in a state of forced vulnerability.)

How would one know what was played (or not played) and how, prior to the invention of recorded audio? At the very least the modern (surviving, therefore decipherable) form of notated musical record (ie. sheet music)? :chin:

A few days ago I was placing a fast food order at an AI-operated drive-thru. After concluding my order I said "Thanks", perhaps by force of habit, then proceeded to feel like a jackass immediately after. True story.

Lol, the hallmark of all religions is the expulsion of dissonant voices. — praxis

Well, perhaps, but there's two sides to every story. What you consider as a "hallmark" is merely a natural consequential side effect of ensuring truth is all that the vulnerable can be exposed to. This is a staple of what human societies consider a non-negotiable right as far as raising children or taking care of those who are (perhaps yet) unable to care for themselves. So, one might argue, it depends on what you wish to focus on and what you want to believe is the cause vs. the effect. Specifically, one would argue, what one wishes to hang themselves up on and ignore the full chain of purpose, intent, and final outcome.

I would agree, that is certainly a hallmark. But a larger more prominent and universal theme, that would perhaps be considered by those religious or not to be "the" hallmark, is the idea that there is more to one's existence than what is confined between one's first and last breath in one's physical form. That, my strategic and skillful friend, is the "point", per se.

You still owe me a rematch one of these days, by the way. :grin:

Our system is built on the illusion of pressure, control, and rush. — Martijn

Surely one can note the similarity of such even if one was suddenly hurled into any other physical world, one devoid of any other intelligent or equal being. You'd starve. That's the pressure, first mentally, soon physically. That's the control. And the rush.

Let's not pretend there's some sort of orchestrated plot or cabal of nefarious actors involved (or at least required per necessity) for the basic fundamental realities of the world we live in. Truth may hurt or at the very least be uncomfortable, but, you've yet to explain how food will be plopped into your mouth, drink on your lips, shade upon your head, and so on and so on for all the various needs and desires belonging to even the simplest of humans without some sort of inorganic and therefore fragile framework that requires constant effort and vigilance for it to exist in any shape or form.

As long as man exists, and expects something out of life. There will be a system to ensure, at least in his own mind, said something is most reasonably and efficiently reached. That is to say, that one day will be reasonably similar in positive expectation to the one that follows. We might use whatever word best fits to describe it, be it "philosophy", "religion", or simply "reality". But it's all the same in essence. Without stability, no man lives comfortably. And comfort, at least at face value, is proof of the "worthwhileness" of one's efforts. Sure, a robber may live his or her entire life in a state of wellness, but others may soon object to this. And if they grow in sufficient number, might spell an end to such livelihood. This is why society has progressed into what it is today.

Utopia looks good on paper. But effectively and in practice, doesn't seem to last for very long. But who knows. Perhaps you have the solution that has yet to be implemented. Surely you'd understand why many have their doubts.

Why on earth does anyone have a toilet located anywhere near where they clean themselves? — I like sushi

It's humbling. Pride causes war and is essentially the root cause of all human suffering, when you really think about it.

It's almost like you seem to be forgetting just how innovative and marvelous modern plumbing is. It wasn't that long ago, you had to wash yourself in a river. An unfortunate commonplace display even today. Right now. If you were dropped on a desert island, rich in every mineral imaginable to create modern infrastructure. Could you really reproduce it right then and there by yourself with no aide or alien (foreign) knowledge or assistance? I'd humbly rest in the position that you perhaps could not.

If you say both yes and no about the same subject you are contradicting yourself. — Janus

That. Or being polite about an interlocutor's ignorance and unrefined level of understanding about a topic in a way that won't offend fragile sensibilities.

ie. "Is the Grand Canyon just a big hole?" ... "Well, actually no, it's an amazing example of nature's beauty, power, and mastery that makes us all realize just how vast this world is and as a result the knowledge yet to be known, thus empowering each day with a sense of eternal motivation and wonder" ... "So. It's a hole, though. Right?" ... "Well, yes..." ... "And it's big?" ... "Of course." ... "So it's a big hole?" ... "Right, but that's not the..." .... "Anyway, it's just a big hole". (see both people are right, but how shall we say, one is more right than the other :smile: )

True. But men are more likely to engage in coercive control and stalking. Men are more likely to engage in sexual violence. — frank

While this is basically a fact of reality only a fool would dispute, one could, hypothetically, argue that "engaging" and "attempting" vs. being able to successfully fulfill said attempts fully and powerfully to the fullest degree of intent, are the true differences to distinguish.

I worked front line as a progressive teacher for two decades. the sort of teacher kids came out to. — Jeremy Murray

Bruh. I mean, all that aside. Scientific fact states the human mind isn't done developing until the age of 25. Beyond that, actually. If children could be trusted to make lifelong decisions whose consequences would be with them until the day they die, the legal age of adulthood wouldn't be all the way up to age 18. People make mistakes when young. They're simply wrong. Often. That's why insurance rates go down after 25. Trust me, when it comes to this world and money, those types of people are never going to be wrong.

Unless you think children are much more equipped to make lifelong decisions and the age of legal adulthood and fornication with persons much older than them should be much lower? Do you? Please reveal yourself as such if so. And yes, a non-answer happens to be just as damning (or rather, the equivalent of one) in this particular corner you've painted, by the way.

I understand what you mean when you describe a sunset and how it makes you feel, but I'm also making a lot of assumptions to derive meaning from what you say — RogueAI

Is this sort of like when someone watching the same sunset next to you says it makes them feel "happy" and "at peace", despite the two concepts being universally known and recognizable, there may still be intricacies and subtleties that can vary greatly to the point of changing one's definition or idea of either quite significantly? For some, "at peace" may mean one feel's content in life and the world around them and thus fosters a strong urge to face tomorrow. For others, at peace" may mean one is comfortably resigned to the idea of one's own mortality and wouldn't mind (or perhaps even would wish) that particular day to be their last. Or something else altogether?

While few things are truly equal and relatable, what about say (and forgive me in advance for being unpleasantly or unnecessarily graphic, it's simply the most straightforward example that comes to mind) two people being burned alive? Surely there can't be much difference in what the two experience, at least in the physical and most prevalent sense? Sorry if that's a bit of a derail or shimmying from your point or line of argument altogether, I've just always been curious and frankly a bit fuzzy on the whole qualia/"is my red your red" debate and would appreciate your remarks if you have the time.

It is for society to work out how to protect trans women. — Malcolm Parry

Indeed it is. And in fact has been done long ago, irrespective of such terminology, condition, or circumstance. It's called The Law or "the Constitution". Perhaps you've heard of it? It doesn't matter what I am or think I am, if you harass me, that's a crime, and if I can document it, you'll be cited and you'll see your day in court. If you assault or batter me, you'll be arrested and thrown into a nice cage while you await your trial. And if you resist? Oh boy... don't get me started if you resist -- it doesn't take much "searching" to see that you will be shot by multiple police officers in defense of their life. No one will complain. A few people unfortunate enough to have been close to you may cry, then move on, while the rest of society cheers. That. My friend. Is how we protect the weak, vulnerable, or marginalized. By law, order, and if you choose to rebel, a volley and barrage of bullets. That's... literally all that is humanly possible to perform. I mean, seriously, if you violently resist a law enforcement officer, odds are you will be shot to death. Killed. Do you understand how permanent and effective that is for mortal beings? What more could possible be done as far as protecting the good/innocent/vulnerable from the bad/guilty/criminal offender? Can you really think of anything? Death is the end. And that's what people who commit crimes against ANY citizen risks. There's really nothing else that can be done. That's the highest order of protection available. There's simply nothing else further that exists in fiction or non-fiction alike. I mean, short of some magical barrier that deflects bullets (and insults) around one's person... and I wouldn't hold out for that. Not in this world, no.

unisex toilets — Michael

What would your response be to women and parents of young women who object to the idea of a male (biological or not who otherwise possesses a male sex organ) regularly being a few inches away from said woman or young woman while their pants are down (ie. vulnerable)? Surely you're aware most rapes are performed by individuals with penises. So it's natural to want to separate the two. At least in places people don't "choose" (per se) to be at or utilize per necessary human function and existence (ie. the restroom). You can live 1,000 lifetimes fulfilled without ever having to pick up a basketball or a tennis racket or a weight set. The same is not true of having to use the restroom. If you don't use the restroom, your organs would rupture and you'd literally die (you'd likely involuntarily relieve yourself long before then, but that's not the point). That reason alone is enough to separate the two into distinct lines of thought and discussion that should exclude using "restrooms" and "sports teams" in the same sentence, as if they were somehow equal in requirement to human life.

Moreover, as far as prisons, do you think "identifying as a female" by one's own statement is enough or does one have to have physically undergone surgery or otherwise have been diagnosed by a medical professional (ie. isn't just inaccurately self-diagnosing and therefore increasing/belittling the plight of truly and accurately medically diagnosed individuals -- like If I just happened to feel odd one day and say "oh i have cancer" and start taking up all cancer wards and equipment available for no reason when I don't really need it leaving those who actually do without recourse, of course not, that would be absurd, any doctor who permitted that ruse to go on would irrevocably lose his license)? I mean, honestly, at least when I was younger and I got into a small legal affair, I was thinking, "Damn, so if I just say I'm a chick they'll put me in a women's prison? I mean shoot... sign me up and call me Sally." :lol:

Beyond that, do you think a biological female identifying as male (presumably possessing the "organs", or perhaps not, actually especially not) wouldn't be singled out in prison anymore so than anyone else? To the point of it being cruel and unusual punishment? What about the opposite where a biological male identifying as a woman (perhaps not possessing the organs) ends up impregnating female inmates if placed in a woman's prison? (It's likely a fair few miss "male companionship", shall we say, or are otherwise aware that being pregnant in prison entails certain rights and privileges, codified as well as de facto, and might consider such to be in their best interest for the longevity of their stay?)

The real question is: are people who claim to be something, especially young people, actually that something just because either A.) they've convinced themselves they are B.) others have convinced them they are [particularly authority figures who may not have the best interest of another life's future best interest in mind, despite being a parent or legal guardian of said person] C.) everyone says they are,

I'm sure most people like to believe they're good people. That number may fluctuate if a ruling government authority declares goodness to be the necessity for not being executed, for example. Or, in lighter terms, if it just becomes the "cool" and "trendy" thing to do or be.

Is that a "Yes" or a "No"? As far as the question of: "Do advertisements work or are near trillions of dollars a year and unfathomable levels of resource both intellectual and physical being wasted?"

It's not always as simple as "Oh look a nose hair trimmer for $10. Honey, it's been years since we replaced our old one. Let's order now!" It's often a tangential concept, need, or desire that is aroused, reminded, or otherwise placed in one's head as the result of an advertisement. You might see an advertisement for Pizza Hut, feel hungry, and end up going to a Subway or an Applebee's instead, for example. Or, you might see an ad for a pet supply company, end up missing your deceased dog and go out and buy a cat or a tank full of fish. Or perhaps even be angered at the fact your dog perished at the hand's of a neighbors dog and go out and buy a gun or hire a fencing company. Or something. Point being, most all advertisements invoke a sense of primal necessity (food, drink, shelter) or desire (love, companionship, convenience, etc.). More so than not. And these things are what drive just about every action man has ever committed or performed.

While I await your answer I will refer you to (or rather introduce into the general debate) another more concrete, actually legally codified set of examples for your consideration. Police entrapment laws. I.E. an undercover detective outside a "bait house" (run down, broken window but actually covertly monitored and set up for the illusion) who comes up to you and is like, "Hey man, these guys have been out of town for weeks, they got all kinds of jewelry in there. I need a car to unload it all, and we'll split 50/50. Meet me here tomorrow at 8." ... or something more realistic... what's the classic example... asking a person who doesn't buy drugs to buy drugs for say three times the value, knowing they need the money, then arresting them as a result, where the otherwise non-criminal who if the person did not use their free speech to entice them to perform an illegal act would otherwise have not.

So riddle me that. If people can't be coerced into doing things they otherwise wouldn't by free speech alone, why is police entrapment against the law in all 50 states? Just another needless ordinance, I suppose? Speaking of entrapment. Gotcha. :wink:

That's fine if you're "Mr. All That", of his own mind and will, unbreakable all time eternal. But not everybody is. Some people are less intelligent (perhaps more susceptible?), some people have moderate to severe disabilities that result in much of the same, some are just young, naive, and inexperienced, some people are just struggling from drug and alcohol addiction and have weaker wills as a result. While I'm sure your response will be along the lines of "well that's their fault" or "that's not my problem", your particular view and circumstance does not dictate the will of society. We look out for those who are otherwise unable or at a lessened capacity to do so themselves. If that's not an important concept for you, that's fine. But if that be the case you ought know your place as a social outlier and eternal subordinate to the greater will of human compassion.

If you wouldn’t mind demonstrating your ability to incite someone to do something else, it would be appreciated. I will be your willing subject if you wish. — NOS4A2

See, now this is a fair counter-argument or reasonable challenge in support of your point. More or less. Most would find it hard to even fathom an example of such actions described occurring.

But here's one (and while it's not a clear-cut, open and shut "see you're wrong" example, it's certainly relevant and shows that we can be influenced to do things in even the subtlest of ways): Advertising is one of the largest if not the largest industries in the world due to several factors including: the "mere-exposure effect", "illusory truth effect", thought-action correlation or "thought action fusion". Now this in and of itself is more forming the grounds for an argument as opposed to an argument itself. But answer me this honestly after reading the fact below:

"Globally, advertising spending is estimated to have reached around $917 billion in 2024, with a projected rise to $1.17 trillion by 2028. In the United States, total ad spending is estimated to be $389.49 billion for 2025."

Do you really think some of the most educated people in the world with hundreds of think tanks, scientists, studies, financial experts, psychologists, and so many others are really just wasting all that time and money? Really? These are people much smarter than you or I (or at least with advisors who are) and as a result much more efficient and likely much more greedy. To me, as well as to most rational people, that would be doubtful. In short, they know a thing or two when it comes to money and what works and what doesn't.

See, now the burden of proof is on you. How do you respond? :grin:

Where do you get that from what I wrote? Odd. — NOS4A2

Eh, perhaps that was a bit of a reach on my part. But nonetheless, simply because "[one's] word against [yours]" happens to stand and seems to be of utmost permanence, or at least, prominence, is unique to your specific situation. What if your word (reputation) is no longer of such standing, does that change anything as far as the nature of truth and accuracy of either you or the other party's claim? It shouldn't. Yet, it does. That's the point I believed you to have overlooked.

Basically saying "well it's my word against yours and I don't think people would believe you", even if true in most situations, isn't really grounds for any sort of factual basis now is it (Edit: At least, not in and of itself)? :chin:

I’m sure you could come up with some terrible stuff and wouldn’t miss a wink of sleep. But it’s your word against mine, and I don’t think you’d be that convincing. — NOS4A2

So, you're simply unable to imagine any sort of reality or situation where all of a sudden you're not in the position you have become accustomed to? Not even a little bit? No empathy or ability to sympathize with other people who aren't like yourself? Mate... that's not just illogical. It's inhuman.

First of all, you should always trust your own instinct and accept the consequences of your own actions. — Martijn

See, the thing is, I can tell you're smart. Well-educated. And I'd argue you should be grateful for such good fortune. Likely a combination of caring people, a well-led society, and (perhaps above all, the all encompassing fact that you have) fortunate circumstances. Not everyone has that. So what is for you a simple almost brainlessly obvious act of "trusting one's own instinct" is for another person blindly following the lowest level of primal impulse. You must realize that and the disconnect between the haves and the have-nots, per se. To put it in common terms.

As far as the consequences of one's actions, that is generally true. However, if a stoplight is supposed to be red but fails to turn red and remains green and I continue driving, that's not something that can be placed on the individual. That, at least the concept of such, is my point.

Would you really blindly walk a potentially dangerous path, just because a stranger told you it was safe? — Martijn

Again, it's all about context. In the given example, one simply doesn't have a choice but to keep walking at such a point. So it's not a simple matter of "oh should I do this", it's quite literally: "Option A" or Option B." More with the context, he's not a stranger in this situation, I mean, he is, but he's from what any rational person would consider as "qualified" being a local resident. Sure, perhaps he could be lying. But if he seems to be hanging out in a relatively isolated area with all the creature comforts (perhaps literally at his house) then yes, one would assume he is qualified to give knowledge as he would reasonably know what is around, what's dangerous, and what isn't. Sure, it's not a great example as far as legally damning actions or statements that a court would pursue as manslaughter culpable negligence, but it touches on a fundamental point and the very concepts, events, and actions that are.

Second, in your example regarding cooperation, this has to be a matter of trust. Any profession or task that requires a team to complete succesfully requires some level of trust and interdependence. If we would only sabotage each other, or get each other killed for no reason, the human species would not have survived for long. Cooperation is written in us genetically. — Martijn

All of that's fine, but nowhere in the above snippet I quoted is there anything that suggests his use of free speech that resulted in a death was anything but criminal, and should be and remain criminal in any land, time, realm, or culture.

And third, there should be obvious exceptions — Martijn

Exactly. That's all I was trying to make you realize or admit: that no rational person is an absolutist as far as free speech.

I care about autonomy and freedom more than about being 'nice' or 'safe'. — Martijn

Do you not think that something that is wholly and fundamentally "unsafe" (dangerous to the very people who proliferate, support, defend, or otherwise live under it) is not a threat to its own existence?

I get the point you can't legislate morality or make people be nice to one another. That's unrealistic. But if something is fundamentally dangerous, isn't that a threat to itself? People voluntarily live in, support, and defend a society (often at slight expense of one's true, unrefined free will and desire) because it provides something a "free-for-all wasteland" does not: consistency. A reasonable expectation of what to expect and not to expect from one day to the next.

At the end of the day, freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms we have, as authoritarianism and other evils can only begin to rise when we give up this crucial freedom. — Martijn

Again, for the most part I agree. Most all people, average, intelligent, decent, whatever they may be plan things and expect laws that accommodate themselves. It's the very small few who are either so deviously crafty, immoral, or whatever your choice of terms are, that can exploit things in ways the average person would never imagine. So, yeah, spot on.

(P.S.: I notice you're somewhat new here so just wanted to make it a point to inform you I'm not against anything you say personally, just as this is an intellectual debate forum, it's fairly standard to have one's views and opinions scrutinized as if the other's life depended on it. I don't like claiming to be "playing devil's advocate" as that might create the idea in one's mind I'm not genuinely wishing to express my arguments and hear your counter-arguments in return. Which I certainly am. :smile: )

Sure. But riddle me this. Say people doing a dangerous job in a dangerous environment say with electricity are communicating to one another. "Is the voltage on?" "No" (when he either knowingly is aware it is or is otherwise unaware) sends an innocent family man to his death. That is, in most all legal systems, punishable in some way. So the same thing can apply to more casual and common situations. "Is that path safe?" asks a traveler new to an area. "Sure" says a resident who doesn't like unfamiliar people when the person knows it to be quite dangerous. These things count and actual real laws that respect this are in place, for very good reason. It's nice you've never been a victim or known someone you care about who has been a victim of a fatal lie, but you should be fully aware that makes your view one of conditional and circumstantial ignorance rather than one of true human liberty, one I have no doubt you would reverse if such things were to become true.

Another, common problem, is that some people, especially the most loud, annoying, and unintelligent, actually have no desire to speak or communicate anything, simply to disrupt for the sake of disruption. If I just enter a library or school or emergency city council meeting regarding an important social issue with real lives and livelihoods at stake and just start screaming "AHHHHHH, I FEEL GOOD!" over and over at the top of my lungs disrupting a public institution or service, I would likely be removed, and for good reason. It's just an annoying paradox that the people who talk the loudest and the most actually have the least valuable of things to contribute, which does weigh down an entire society. Which is fine, if that's allowed. But any rational person would agree there are situations where saying the wrong things could result in death or dismemberment that should be avoided.

What about, say, a grown man entering an elementary school or hanging out by the fence at the playground during recess and reciting graphic descriptions of his genitals (or something like that)? Is that what you'd shed your blood to protect? Really now, actually. Not just in the context of a random reply online, I mean, truly, putting yourself and all that you value on the line. Is it really?

However, the legal or moral repercussions should be based on actions (and evidence), not on words. — Martijn

As they are in the above examples. The man electrocuted because his buddy decided to speak a lie (or ignorant statement) as opposed to the (verifiable) truth. The innocent traveler led towards a wild oblivion to be killed or stranded because the local resident had no human decency or respect for human life. The person shutting down a taxpayer funded city council meeting because he just wanted to yell and perhaps was politically or personally motivated and actually had nothing he truly desired to communicate. The man traumatizing a group of school children because he "has a right to." All these things happen and cause real detriment and discourse in society. Do you not acknowledge that and remain unaware or do you simply not care? That is to say, do you believe that is the lesser of the two evils?

Let speech be free absolutely.

There is no point in censorship and it is a double violation of rights. It denies the speaker his fundamental right to open his mouth and speak, and it denies the rest of us our right to listen to it. I can’t think of one person, alive or dead, who ought to have the power to tell us what we can or cannot say. — NOS4A2

Some lies are criminal ie. slander, defamation, inciting a riot. If I point at you and say "he stole my wallet" or "he just touched me/my child" and you get hurt or killed, that's an example of blood libel where I would be liable to be charged with a crime. It doesn't matter if you can defend yourself because in some contexts and scenarios you will be outnumbered and no amount of truth or innocence will save you from a bloody end, hence, the minority's plight (specifically if animosity and bias exists against you or your group already).

So first off this is just a beautiful post. For me personally, it's the genuine nature of it as if we were having an in-person conversation coupled with the almost fatherly level of insight.

The most obvious one being that states are flawed institutions that simply aren't able to provide the solutions they promise. — Tzeentch

Not to derail, but what, if there is such a thing, is an example of a perfect institution? Who is it instituted by? Who or what ensures its perfection? Are they truly not able or is there rational, moral, and legal aspects that contribute to it's inherently or otherwise unavoidably flawed nature?

If you force people to do 'the right thing', then they no longer get to choose out of their own volition and thus the moral act is devalued if there is any moral act left to speak of at all. — Tzeentch

Take safety for example. As a shopkeeper, I don't have to ensure there's a wet floor sign present after an employee has recently mopped the floor leaving it ready for an unsuspecting person to slip and fall. Now, in most countries this would open myself up to lawsuits so of course I would act to avoid such possibility. But that aside, sometimes "forcing someone to do the right thing" is a matter of social survival. Not a great point or angle but expanding some, many places do have laws that somewhat "force people to do the right thing" not for "rightness" sake but because without it, problems would occur, be they financial, emotional, moral, etc. This is probably a bit aside from your point but, sure you can't force someone who is wealthy who walks by a beggar who would, for all you know, might possibly die if you don't give him a bit of your change, change that as a wealthy man is beyond superfluous. But, we have social... shall we say "laws that aren't laws" norms, which would encourage you to do so. Perhaps a less fortunate person who witnesses you walk by without even a passing glance and verbally condemning you as "cheap" or "heartless". It's not that serious, but it does exist. And many people do abide. No one's forced, per se, at the barrel of a gun or end of a sword, but in a way, it's certainly coerced in some sense, is it not? :smile:

Peter Singer famously argues for infanticide up to a certain point. He claims that: "human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee." — Count Timothy von Icarus

"Famously?" No wonder I've never heard of the guy. The underlined random assertion simply doesn't logically follow the preceding factual statement. It doesn't even seem to attempt to. So, at least for me, it doesn't ever actually reach the threshold of what constitutes "an argument". Basically, there is no "therefore" as the logic falls apart at that point so anything that comes after and is based on that non-logical assertion is akin to opinionated rambling. Yet, you seem to entertain it, which suggests perhaps I'm simply missing something. A baby does in fact have the status of personhood, legally, and socially. It's a baby person. Any disagreement of that is like saying a different ethnicity of humanity isn't a person because "I say so", at least to me. It's just another opinion. Do you disagree?

I'm reminded of an argument @Hanover once made, saying an unconscious or sleeping person is still a person, and their rights don't suddenly vanish. That was a response to some argument about mental invalids or some other business he responded to. Maybe it was an abortion debate. That was probably it. Just seems relevant to me. Basically stating just because, at a particular time (be it a newborn or a sleeping adult) that human being is not processing, communicating, and interacting with the world, doesn't mean they're not (or all of a sudden no longer) a human being. So, by that premise, to accept this man's claim is to also accept the claim that killing an entire city of people who happen to be asleep at the time of their death is technically not killing anyone. Which is comically absurd.

Seems like a fair counterargument to me, at least. Albeit likening the development of a newborn into a child is not quite the same as an adult waking up from a state of sleep. Yet, there are notable parallels, I'm sure many would agree.

Personally, I think such an argument makes him out to be little more than just another Jonathon Swift wannabe. You can tell he's quite proud of it. :lol:

The intellectual version of a cookie-cutter shock jock. Can't be insightful? Be controversial. The average person today is, after all, intellectually, and to an extent (likely as a result), morally, low-hanging fruit. Cheap taste and short memories. Easy to control. Thankfully.

The young revolutionary is still in there, but he has to contend with the older person who realized that calling for a revolution is calling for a huge amount of suffering, which is diabolical. So now you have an internal conversation about justice and acceptance. — frank

Oh please. Don't sugarcoat the lowest form of thought as if it was something even possible to dress up as or purport as anything but exactly what it is: childish illusion and ignorance. "Everything isn't perfect so let's destroy everything that stands in our (my little) way until it is." Insolence. Myopia. Nothing more. That should be put down for the good of society as quickly as possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_grass_is_always_greener_on_the_other_side

(Ironically you are met with the prompt: "Wikipedia does not have an article on "the grass is always greener on the other side", but its sister project Wiktionary does." Which I refuse to believe is some sort of purposely-laid hint of rationale that the idea is not as sound as most would tend to believe...)