"There are no Truths, just different views."

But an aggregate of different views can be more accurate than a single one, which once again throws us back at the idea of an at least theoritically obtainable truth.

Truth, facts, untrue statements are only the most immediate components of a popular epistemology everyone uses to establish the framework of everyday intersubjectivity. As a whole, this epistemology offers us a pragmatic but highly problematic model which in turn allows us to simply state things and examine the things stated.

The tension you describe is inevitable, it only shows that philosophy, as a somewhat-historical entity, has finally begun the audacious work of truly making a critique of rationality. This will uncover more than a few paradoxical aspects of our relation to reality, including that the popular epistemology is both absolutely indispensible and phenomenologically erroneous.

And since I usually poke Apokrisis for his vague walls of text, I have to say, Bravo. Two brilliant posts under 5000 characters. Sorry I was mean. :heart:

I have always been of the opinion that personhood, as a concept, is almost entirely vacuous once it is removed from the legal domain.

In legal ontology, personhood is a sort of mark of nobility, which sets apart certain entities from the rest. It's a bit like the object/subject distinction : a useful fiction. It doesn't matter if we colour a bit out of the lines with it... And it is a selective quality : a child is not a person re liability under US law, but is a person re protection under the law from the moment he is born viably.

But yes, personhood relates to the physical existence of the individual being in question, as well as their thoughts, which are just physical processes themselves. There is no disconnect.

Should he be allowed in the women's bathrooms or the women's changing rooms? I'll slap the shit out of him if he dared to do so — Terran Imperium

And you would be charged with assault. So much for being tolerant.

- In which Akanthinos shows a rare moment of lucidity, calling himself and all French inherently arrogants, only to then commit French exceptionnalism.

:halo:

Language is a tool of communication as well as a mean of culture-building/identity-building. Yes, its integrity relates to its ability to maintain meaning fixed across time, but it also relates to the individuality that we wish to communicate. The medium is the message, after all, and we all wish to put ourselves in our communications. Every single sentences we produces are signed, so to speak, both at the direct level of the expressions used betraying ourselves and our intentions, and at the meta level of the relation we have toward the linguistic code we are using. The way we speak the language, the language itself, shows a character. Its why we French always sound arrogant : because French is arrogant.

But language is a character performance, really. We show who we want to show, in the end. If I'm at a stripper bar in Montreal I stop using my French accent and switch to my French-Canadian backwater town lexicon. Its just safer. We all perform the language. If its too hard for you to change your performance slightly to help someone who has or has had issues that you are lucky to never have, then I dont recognize in you the same great culture that has fostered tolerance and defended human rights.

Also, this 'what would an indefinite pronoun even looks like in French?' Really? I mean, you have spent how many years in existence speaking a language without realizing that the singular masculine of the third person is the default 'lets do nothing to show its conjunction' pronoun?

Honestly, that Google translation is really good. It cut out 'tongue' from Voltaire's tongue, which makes it silly, but still, its not like you wouldnt understand 'speaking in Voltaire' as meaning french, just like youd understand 'speaking in Shakespear' as meaning english...

As for not understanding my mother tongue, which is kinda fucking funny when you think that I'm a francophone living in a english country only because the French decided to hightail it after a single battle lost, really, what the hell is so precious about the current gender assignation of nouns, that you cant even wrap your head around switching them around? The noun of a dolphin is masculine, that of a table is feminine, whoops suddenly its reversed. Okay it'll sound bad to the ear for a while, but otherwise nothing is lost. Gender is already such an abstract, the Immortals had no problems turning it into a simple linguistic exercise. Its about nouns, not reality. If someone asks you to name them something outrageous, then you get to tell them that. But if 'outrageous' to you is simply accomodating someone because he felt his/her sexual identity wasnt conform to binary norms, then that makes you even worse then a bully. At least the bully knows he's going out of his way to be a pain in the ass of his victims. Bigots do it as easily by simply formulating an opinion.

Yes, God forbids one shows the decency of calling people by their prefered method. I mean, where does it ends?* Will I have to call my bratty pink haired tripled nose peirced agendered cousin 'my lady' just cause zxche'll sue me if I dont?

* A fine exemple of a slippery-slope fallacy.

Et bordel de merde, si tes capable de comprendre qu'une table est au feminin en langue de Voltaire, tu devrais pas avoir trop de misere avec l'idee d'appeler un mec 'elle'.

For those cursed with a lack of frogspeak, this translate to 'and bordello of crap, if you can learn to use the feminine for a table, in french, you should be able to wrap your head around the idea of calling a man 'she' '.

I wouldnt worry too much about the lack of academically oriented threads. It is the summer, after all. I would expect there to be a lull outside of the regular university semesters. I know that, for me, a lot of my posting here is motivated by discussion with a teacher.

Lacking a better mentor, Trump will have to teach us all until september.

Well, it wasn't, 70 years later. And at that point it was advantaging investments outside the US, specifically giving the London market a huge advantage.

Although, in hindsight, and probably also in foresight, a simple and full repeal probably wasn't a bright idea. In fact, the complete opposite, such as a tightening of regulations allowing for US banks to create UK filials purely to avoids Glass-Steagall would have been a better way to go.

More Trump stupidity ;


-Trump links Canadian lumber imports to deadly California wildfires

"During a cabinet meeting, Trump and other officials downplayed the role of climate change on wildfires, while discussing the abundance of fallen trees creating a natural accelerant.

“It’s not a global warming thing, it’s a management situation,” said Trump. “And one of the elements that he talked about was the fact that we have fallen trees, and instead of removing those fallen trees, which get to be extremely combustible, instead of removing them, gently removing them, beautifully removing them, we leave them to burn.” "

https://globalnews.ca/news/4392206/trump-canadian-lumber-imports-california-wildfires/amp/

If anyone has made their feelings clear about all that, it's me. — Baden

I appreciate that. Just wondering why he isn't following his Huckabee cues and screaming about how Brennan is a traitor. Talking about GW and Obama's economy is just so day 100 of Trump's presidency.

Those are what you call an exception. People with DSD or hermaphrodite persons does not constitute a third sex. You do not use exceptions as a generalization. It's a genetical deficiency, you do not use an illness as a general truth. — Terran Imperium

That something is a statistical anomaly (or seems to be) has not bearing on wether or not its relevant to the subject at hand. If there is a third, fourth and fifth gender, and that each totals only 0.0001% of the living population, you don't get to erase them from existence simply because you dislike SJWs on the internet.

That you describe intersex people as "ill" or "deficient" is pretty telling. Your lack of empathy and sophistication should in itself be considered a deficiency and an illness.

Look, you can't. It's a biological reality. There aren't 17 genders, It's a fact that you can't change, it's how humanity is built and more than a few species actually. — Terran Imperium

Bloody christ you are arguing from ignorance. Intersex and androginy are real things.

That is obviously not possible. You are either female or male. You can't be something in between or a third weird gender, especially as we humans are a mammalian species. There are only two genders. Its a fact that cannot change. — Terran Imperium

That reveals a rather striking lack of imagination. You could have 17 genders if all of them had a different historical basic function toward reproduction and gestation. There is absolutely nothing which demands that it gender be binary, other then the convenience and usefulness of it being so.

It is a problem from my point of view but I won't go whining about it nor crying out in the roof of my house like they do. There is a common rule among doctors is that you can't force a treatment down a patient's throat. The patient has the right to refuse to be treated and so are the transgender people and the feminists. There is a reason they are around on the news everywhere. Because they can't stop making a problem out of everything and it's annoying the hell out of me and everyone generally. — Terran Imperium

Speak for yourself. The vast majority of people I know get a lot more annoyed by ignorant bigots like you who like to pretend to have a psychology degree, just so they can display your dislike.

So, y'all decided to just go hook line and sinker on Hanover's deflection from "yeah, he's a racist, but how much of a racist is he"?

:brow:

So subjectivity suddenly becomes universal simply because it is shared by two actors? Is intersubjectivity some transcendantal gateway?

I think at this point its fair to assume that we resides in different realities. Crap, does that also mean modal logic actually has some use? :groan:

Most banking transactions take places over a transatlantic fiberoptic link that goes directly up to Wall Street. A lot of large scale transations would place nationwide economies at risk if they were transmitted though the air. A simple receiver set up at the local source would allow for the worst type of insider trading practices, but on a worlwide scale.

The reason why prostitution may be exploitative is not found in the nature of sexuality itself, but in the specific relation established between the actors. As such, prostitution may be exactly as exploitative as a sexual relation within the context of a longterm relationship.

Exploitation is but another aspect of an event seen as part of a beings umwelt. As such, what may seem exploitative on one side for you might not be for the actor you feel is being exploited. Thats why universal subjectivity is but a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing. I have often bitched at Wittgenstein's 'even if lion could talk, we would not understand them' on this site in the past, but comparatively to your position, he is much closer to the truth.

"Immediate sexual gratification does not count as immediate satisfaction. True satisfaction is gained by means of satisfying a fixed desire i.e,. hunger."

Satisfaction is satisfaction is .... If it wasn't true satisfication, it wouldn't satisfy.

"The abundance of what is resourceful in nature, must follow a naturalistic faculty. This means that an object can only be resourceful if it contains within itself a rationally natural purpose to it."

This is were I must disagree completely. Natural objects do not have a purpose, they have a history, or a trajectory, but certainly not a purpose. Something is a resource for someone in that this someone's umwelt and ontic constitution allows for that thing to gain value. Folic acid is an important resource to a tick, it has value for it, because half of a tick's umwelt is about using folic acid to represent the world. Folic acid barely has a value for me, except as a marker of effort and bad hygiene.

But folic acid has no purpose in itself. Just a list of observed characteristics and interactions with other chemicals.

Please explain how this argument is arbitrary. — Noah33

Immediate sexual gratification does not count as immediate satisfaction. True satisfaction is gained by means of satisfying a fixed desire i.e,. hunger. — Noah33

This categorization is purely arbitrary.

Resourcefulness and value are distinct because of their nature. Resourcefulness is defined as supply. Value, is defined as the supplier. — Noah33

You could hardly be more arbitrary.

The hell is the difference between "resourcefullness" and "value"? If something is a resource for someone, that thing has value for him.

Money is by no means something that bears with it immediate satisfaction. — Noah33

Clearly you never dated a stripper.

However the wealthy class sees the impoverished class with the exact same view. What both of these representative classes do not see, is the fact that money is merely a false material representation of value. — Noah33

Ok. Can I have all your moneyz?

:smirk:

However the entitlement to a minute on the clock to have to meet is absurdly assumptive and from my perspective a total turn off.

But please, by all means, keep that stop watch in your bedside pleasure chest. :up: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I wasn't implying that it would be necessary or even fun to use a stopwatch. The point of the "30 minutes straight" is simply that too many people stops after a few minutes. Bringing your partner and yourself to the peak of the mountain isn't a 2 minutes walk in the park, that's all.

If "I" could mean a larger quantity of people than one, then the sentence could be parsed and be found to be both valid and true.

Since the normal usage of "I" never refers to a multitude of people, semantically, it doesnt work.

Hum, plenty of people on all sides of the gender wheel enjoys giving oral. And also enjoys having their partner voice their desires.

If you cant ask your partner for a specific thing, out of shame, then you arent really partners.

In regards to your murderer analogy ;

The suspect claims it was accidental, the evidence at least dont contradict his account, and many who have interacted with him have testified that he has showed terrible regrets at the whole event.

Theres at least no reason yet to assume the guy likes to make skin suit out of people.

Do you think it will ever cross Giulianni's mind to do the liberal pundit run and apologize for his many mistakes? No, these guys dont care.

Comey did. He clearly wanted people to stop thinking he had reopened the case for optics only.

In the very vast majority of cases, when a prosecutor receives material which would warrant the reopening of a case, we would want them to act on it rather than not. In this case it was not possible to act without influencing the elections. In a way, thats not so much on Comey as it is on the American political circus which allows both of the runners to campaign while being under federal investigation.

Comey did a lot of mea culpa, mea maxima culpa since he resigned. He explained it, from a prosecutor point of view, since new facts were available which would have mattered in an investigation closed only shortly before, for him, not reopening the case would be against the spirit of his profession.

The one thing that I think strikes out against his regrets is how goddamn identical each of his interviews are on the subject. He seems to have memorized a line from a crisis consultant or something... But that only speaks to his character, not his implication in a conspiracy...

However, he did not need to be part of the conspiracy to be a pawn of it. With a bit of character study, one could supposed it was predictable that he would reopen a case in the event that new relevant information would surface shortly after it was closed. Yes, perhaps the agency's normal policy of leaving the Legislative branch alone might prevail, but on the other hand, that line had already been crossed on both sides. So perhaps all that it took to steal the Presidency was to release part of the hacked data later to be caught only after the first investigation was close, coupled with some bad but predictable choices on Comey's part.

No, of course not, but really, 'intoxication' is such a dirty word.

I dont think it has to be so controversial that certain particular states are easier to acheive through mind alterating substances. And, in my personal experience, both for me and for my partners, the state in which the mix of marijuana and red wine puts us seems very conducive to a .... relaxed hornyness?

Its just a good sense trick, like eating pasta and drinking lots of fluid the night before an orgy. That doesnt have to mean Im advocating turning into wino potheads for the sake of pleasure.


But Im not NOT advocating that, too. :naughty:

Yo, two glasses of red, a joint, and then ask your partner to give you oral for 30 minutes straigth.

It has never not worked, regardless of gender.

And this should be mandatory study material for any young women or men.

To my knowledge, Agustino has never stepped foot in America, and yet he thinks it's a bacchanalian cesspool of sex and left-wing demagoguery. — Maw

A (supposedly) Frenchman bitching that America is (allegedly) getting more than him?

:smirk:

So people 2000 years ago didn't have sound moral judgement? — Agustino

A quick glance at ancient history should show that, no, they didn't.

Individuals with the intellectual and emotional maturity of anything more than an angsty 15 years old were the exception, not the rule.

That is pure awesomness. I will read it avidly!

Fate manifest.

You know what to do. Fly to New York, kill Loren Goldner, make a skinsuit of his remains and use it to impersonate him. Its the only way.