Your replies are useless. If you don't have anything substantive to add to support your opinion, please go elsewhere.

Except of course that's not a donut. It's a picture of a representation of one in two-dimensional space, while we know a donut is a three-dimensional object with a hole. I can draw you a two-dimensional graph with a line representing the acceleration of a donut falling to the ground. The line itself is static. What happened to the acceleration of the donut? Did it disappear thanks to my drawing?

Why is it a lie? There's "sex" what your body looks like, and "gender" what you feel and how you think about yourself and therefore "identify" as.

What part is a lie?

This is clarifying too.

Someone believing they are born in the wrong body is having their suffering caused by a delusion and it is possible to make someone think they were born in the wrong body by lying and endorsing this ideology rather than telling them no it is not possible. — Andrew4Handel

Here's some research you should read,

https://pure.knaw.nl/ws/files/2203335/Burke2016JPsychiatNeurosci.pdf

Let me know when you've figured out how these physical changes come about as a result of an underlying delusion.

I also note that the Swedish study you referenced showed female likelihood of sexual violence if proper psychological care was provided to trans women. So the converse argument is possible too, that given the fact certain groups of trans women have female levels of violence those are really women then. Or maybe it's just not a very good indicator.

I am skeptical of holes being a typographic feature, however, given the ability to represent a donut on a plane without a hole in a topologically identical manner. — Moliere

Do you have a picture of a donut without a hole for me?

Well, because we can see the hole, and the hole has properties such as depth, width, and location -- and those properties differ from the properties of the ground, since the ground spreads out, and is certainly not shaped like a hole anywhere else. Would we call Africa a hole just because this one hole exists? — Moliere

Is Africa yellow just because the sand in the Sahara is? I really have trouble finding what your argument is so far. The immediate matter surrounding a hole is clearly not a hole.

I think the question is, do properties exist? If so, then holes exist. I'm not committed one way or another because it depends on language use and definitions. Holes are a specific topographic feature such that an area without solid matter is surrounded by solid matter. If defined that way, the question arises do circles and squares exist? It's not particular to holes unless you insist holes ought to be defined by the absence of something. I don't like such a definition though, because I can't take a hole out of the context of the matter defining it because if I remove that matter I'm left with nothing. And this is the same with a square, if you take away the matter, I'm not left with a square but if I remove the square, I still have (amorphous) matter.

Well, color we could say is electromagnetic waves. — Moliere

Well, obviously different properties will be measured differently. Maybe I should've been clearer: why should we not treat the shape of an object as a property as we do for colour and texture?

And why is this any different than any property like texture or colour? It just describes the form or outer boundaries of an object.

you are drunkey? Nah, language is fine as it is.

No, rings have holes but they aren't holes. A hole isn't a thing but a property resulting from the shape of matter.

So do holes exist? As much as "being drunk" does.

That's not a hole but an indentation. A hole wouldn't be able to hold water.

From my side it's not so much restraint but a worry I'm letting personal feelings cloud my judgment. I prefer to err on the side of caution as a result.

I do think there's a "type" recently that gets banned sooner or later. It's posters who think everybody else are (is?) stupid and believe they're capable of judging discussions from an elevated, enlightened position. Invariably that's a precursor to a lack of self reflection and that translates to unexamined positions and bad argumentation.

The way of Man - Martin Buber (ended up being a self-help book for me trying to be a better person)
Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien (my first English book, so it taught me to read English and sparked my love for fantasy and sci-fi)
The Law - I try not to break it, I work with laws when monitoring compliance, for product development and writing contracts
The Republic - Plato (my first philosophical text, created a friendship with my professor and got me interested in philosophy)

I don't get why people are so concerned with "democracy" in this context and need to accuse people of harbouring tyrannical aspirations.

You're in a club owned by jamalrob and we're the bouncers.

Apologies. Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes I still miss things with English not being my native language.

sure, Nazis avant la lettre.

Probably not. I think the exercise of empathising with criminals ought to be employed at the stage of sentencing not when adjucating if a crime happened or not. So his invitation to emphatise with the Israeli narrative is as misplaced as it would be here.

The problem isn't just China. It's all those poor countries who at a terrible toll on their people and natural environment produce things that Westerners buy cheaply and treat poorly. — baker

Agreed. However, it's difficult to avoid Chinese products which is why I focus on it here. Brazilian is easy to avoid and Iran is already boycotted where I live by the government.

The upcoming Polestar 3 will be manufactured in the USA. The earlier two versions are Chinese productions. Should you consider an electric car...

Swedes aren't dumb and slow on average. Sometimes insufferable though. I used to have meetings with the Swedish riksgalden and they issued debt at the time not because they needed the money but to maintain "access to the market". The Swedish director loved rubbing that in and preferred to give an update right after Italy or Greece.

My reason was in my post. You're making a lot of stuff up that has nothing to do with that reason. But keep it up, you'll be the next person I'm going to ignore.

I wasn't telling you, I was telling Banno. Run along.

Foghorn can't read for shit. When Hanover says "none of us are interested in fishing out your genius", he quotes "none of us are interested" and changes what Hanover meant. He does this rather regularly which is why I've started ignoring him. You should do the same.

"but but but Hamas!"

uhmm... The re-education camps are intended to destroy a culture. You don't need to kill to effectively cause genocide.

Doesn't necessarily make you oppressed, now does it?

We both agree that the Germans were oppressed, i.e. were victims, which to my understanding means that they are cannot be blamed for just trying to get even according to a certain logic. — BitconnectCarlos

Go back to my previous post and read it more slowly is it's too difficult to grasp what the difference is you can ask me questions so I can explain it. But no, we're not in agreement Germans we're oppressed.

It's getting more traction because it's more in the news nowadays and I think if we could make it easier for others they will more easily be persuaded to follow suit. So maybe not that practical, but every little bit helps. Meanwhile, the less of my money goes into building "re-education centres" the better.

So are WWII & the Holocaust essentially the fault of the Allies because of the Versailles treaty? The Versailles treaty treated the Germans terribly and threw the German economy into chaos making leaders like Hitler more viable. Is every bit of Nazi racism the fault of the Allies who punished Germany too harshly while simultaneously leaving Germany intact as a state? Why give Germany free will? They were punished, they were abused after WWI. Poor little victims abused by the Western powers. — BitconnectCarlos

It's very likely Hitler wouldn't have come to power if Germany wasn't being bled dry and had land stolen from it after WWI. One of the big reasons why land grabs have become internationally illegal. Which is also why the settler colonialism of Israel is such an egregious crime.

The difference of course is that Germany had a lot of agency despite the crime that was Versailles. As such it couldn't be considered oppressed as opposed to Palestinians who are firmly kept under the heel of Israel precisely to avoid it getting agency. My judgment would be entirely different if Palestinians had agency and weren't oppressed, in which case we could place terrorism squarely at their feet. In this case, the root cause is Israeli crimes.

We have to be realistic about the logical outcome of Israel ending all it's current practices. A Palestinian state, funded and armed by Iran. That's not a recipe for peace, but for a larger conflict, with more victims. — Foghorn

Crystal ball thinking. The logical outcome is that it removes all justified reasons for Palestinians to commit acts of aggression. If they would try it then 1. Israel is still much stronger militarily speaking and 2. doesn't lose any allies by doing so and will gain more of them. The idea that Iran can somehow successfully fund a proxy war and Palestinians even being interested in it when they have the peace they want for decades now is pretty laughable and only fueled by paranoia.

I think the whole terrorism definition for criminal law purposes is bloody insane. See: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h55kWBVmoJJ-sH6SicwON7QXOObDiv0q/view?usp=drivesdk

wtf? Are they serious?

It is 2021, Zionism has already been realized. It does not matter if other thinkers had other ideas because a state has been established. Borders change and neither side needs to stop building. — BitconnectCarlos

OK, I disagree, but let's assume it is. So the illegal settler thing is the de facto view is every Jew as something that should happen? You really want to go there? Because then this

You know Israel is full of Israelis, right? Do individual Israelis have a right to be upset when their neighbors are killed? Is that okay with you? Let's talk about the people now. — BitconnectCarlos

You don't get to complain about Hamas in the midst of committing and supporting ethnic cleansing and annexing land, which according to BitconnectCarlos is the interpretation of Zionism that's the only correct one and every Jew holds.

How about the atrocity of how gays are treated in Gaza? Or the atrocity of how they treat their women? I guess the Jews really do control everything. I'm sure when Palestinian men beat their wives it is also Israel's fault. — BitconnectCarlos

Probably. We don't know what sort of society would've developed if the people weren't being oppressed. A lot of problems like this are a consequence of poverty.

Yeah, if only I had the time and financial comfort to work full time on this. But in principle it's good advice.

But if you wanted to help the people of Hong Kong you should've started 2 years ago. — Pretty Herds

I did. I've donated and wrote Dutch members of Parliament.

Look up the statistics: — Pretty Herds

I did, which is why I asked you not to share bullshit.

That's not what I'm saying at all. But to read the question is to imagine the genocide of two people as part of the four options on the table. I really have no idea because it's not a situation that can arise. I find the imagining of something impossible not very useful or informative.

Edit: I assume the question has a purpose though. Maybe you can go into that?

How is it helpful to imagine genocide?