Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Aris Katsaris

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: June 10, 2021, 09:18:55 AM »
Simple answer. Of course not. He may have won the election - but proving it is not going to happen soon.

Why are you hiding the "goods" (the data) that you claimed the "good guys" had gotten from military raids in Frankfurt and Spain where supposedly the American army fought against CIA mercenaries, supposedly proving the election was stolen.

You claimed the data was in the good guys' hands, but you are still not showing them to us.

What are you hiding, wmLambert? Are you perhaps part of the conspiracy to steal the elections?

Uh .... mkay there chief. But you know what you could do? You could compare the fatality rates of COVID to Flu for the age group demographics. What do you think that will say? That's kind of rhetorical, we all know what it says.   ;)

Or we could instead compare the NUMBER OF THE DEAD, you monster, as we care about saving lives, namely the thing us non-Trumpists and non-evil human beings actually cared about! Not about "fatality rates" but SAVING LIVES!

If you knew that there would be more than a half of million dead Americans, why didn't you tell us in advance, you evil human being? Why did you insist for the longest time on much smaller numbers like "60000" (and that's only after you were forced to withdraw from lesser claims that you and your evil president had previously made)?

Oh, but suddenly numbers of lives lost of course suddenly don't matter, only "fatality rates" do.

Why is every Trumpist such an utterly EVIL son of a bitch? Have you all made a pact with Satan or something, to never be honest once in your whole lives?

Aris: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

General Comments / Re: Cancelled
« on: May 13, 2021, 03:16:22 AM »
The avoidance here is palpable. Want to defend Trump versus FDR on the merits Wayward, rightleft? I expect cherry to be incapable of civil discourse, but surely you don't really want to dodge your own assertion "Trump worst president ever?"

Trump single-handedly destroyed a 230-year legacy of peaceful transition in presidential power, and argued that the current vice-president can just throw out any votes he didn't like, thus each vice-president being able to determine the next president.

I don't know of any presidential failure to support and defend the very basis of the constitution as big as that one.

Yes, presidents have violated rights of citizens in the past. But AFAIK it's Trump alone who wanted to proclaim himself dictator, by trying to have his own vice-president appoint him the rightful winner of the next elections.

Anything else is small potatoes.

General Comments / Re: Cancelled
« on: May 13, 2021, 03:08:16 AM »
It sounds like she could just as well be talking about the Russian collusion hoax.

It wasn't a hoax you fascist MONSTER! The Russian did interfere in your election, and the Trump campaign was PROPERLY investigated for their numerous meetings with the Russians.

Hoax, hoax? After four years of a Trump presidency, a Trump congress, and a Trump Supreme Court, why havent' you put in jail anyone who supposedly perpetrated this hoax?

Oh, yeah, because it WASN'T A HOAX, you fascist pig.

If Venezuela or China had done what Russia did, and if the Biden campaign had cooperated as closely with them as Trump did with Russia, then you would have called it PROOF of election fraud, you EVIL EVIL hypocrite and monster.

Go to hell, both you and the fascist pig dictator you worship. Go lick Putin's balls, like Trump did. Trump throughout his presidency, acted PRIMARILY in his own interest, secondarily in Russia's interest, and only tertially in America's interest. Whenever Russia and United States (or their allies) were in conflict, Trump made sure to take Russia's side. Repeatedly and consistently.

He knew full well who supported him to get elected, and he showed the corresponding amount of gratitude to Russia.

Aris: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

I remember guys like you salivating at the thought of over 2 million dead, tens of millions worldwide. There were supposed to be mass graves. I was actually more right than you, only people in very narrow demographics were at a elevated risk. You want to pretend otherwise, well, that’s on you.

Cool maths, bro. But you were calling it "hysteria" when people were speaking even just about thousands of deaths. Because after all only one American had died, so anyone who spoke about more deaths was supposedly being hysterical.

Then after months and months, you accepted an estimate of 60,000 deaths, called it just a flu season, and again kept insulting everyone who spoke about larger numbers, because supposedly your NEW estimate was the correct one. Even though it was disproven within a week or so.

But, sure, you were more right than us, supposedly. Because the guy who said 15 dead, and the guy who said 1 million, well they're equally correct when the total number is 560,000, right? That's math for you! It doesn't matter if you (and Trump) are off by a factor of 50,000, and the "hysterical people" are off by a factor of 0.5, the latter is supposedly more wrong than the former.

Because that's the maths of a Trumpist.

And the blood remains dripping from your hands, and the hands of your fascist leader.

Oh, it's you!

The guy who was saying that we were fearmongering when there were 2500 deaths around the world, and surprise surprise you're STILL saying we were supposedly "fearmongering" when there have been millions of deaths around the world, and 580k USA deaths, alone.

Never learned a single thing. Was the coronavirus just like the flu, as you claimed, Crunch?

Coronavirus, 20 deaths in the US, under 4,000 globally. MASS HYSTERIA. Orange man bad!  Close everything down! “But muh Trump!”, shout the NPC’s.

TDS has made way too many people completely irrational.

We were "NPCs" with our "hysteria" and our "irrationality", eh?

It seems that the people who had "TDS" were right yet again, just as they were with everything else about Trump (including his fascism btw, as proven when he tried to overthrow American democracy)! And it seems that Trump and *you* who followed his lead in downplaying and mocking the supposed "hysteria", have the blood of hundreds of thousands on your hands.

But of course you won't apologize. And therefore I will be quoting every single stupid thing about covid that you ever said in this forum, as you insulted everyone who was far FAR more correct than you and the "orange man" that you worship.

General Comments / Re: Packing the Court
« on: April 16, 2021, 05:20:32 PM »
What I'm proposing is that we just quit having people wield that level of power for 3 decades.

I see, so unelected dictators wielding an unConstitutional authority should be accepted so long as its for 2 decades (18 years) rather than 3?  Why not address that they're wielding too much power?

An 18-year term limit wouldn't be a solution to 'unelected dictators wielding an unConstitutional authority', it'd be a solution to younger people unjustly wielding more power than old people, and thus motivating presidents to indirectly exercise more power than others by appointing very young people so those people will exercise that power for longer than average.

It'd also be a solution to happenstance deciding which president gets to appoint how many Supreme Court judges -- with 18 year term limits, appointing a SC judge once every 2 years, the randomness would be abolished. Each president would appoint 2 SC judges per term in office, e.g. one in the first year of the presidential term and one in the third year of the presidential term.

Moreover, what happens when we invent a cure to aging? I'm expecting it to possibly happen within a few decades, and certainly within the century. It's a problem for people to can only vacate their positions if they die, because WHAT IF THEY NEVER DIE?

General Comments / Re: Packing the Court
« on: April 12, 2021, 12:54:06 PM »
What evil plans they have. Making sure American citizens have easy access to voting and voting representation in congress.

That's not their intent, though.

To HELL with intent. Intent doesn't *censored*ing matter. We want people to do good things for their own selfish intents. That's how incentives work. Do this good thing, because it will personally *censored*ing benefit you.

Support gay people, because you'll get gay people voting fom you.
Support black people, because you'll get black people voting for you.
Support hispanics, because you'll get hispanics voting for you.

And yet what I don't see you doing is to bash the Republicans and Trumpist who do evil things (for their own selfish intents)

Yea, I want people to be able to vote, and I want people in areas controlled by the U.S. to be able to vote.

But you don't want them bad enough, to criticize Trumpist fascists and other Republicans for disenfranchising them. I didn't see you criticize Georgia for banning even giving water to people waiting in lines to vote.

Do you think things ought to be done or not done  primarily for political reasons or primarily for "good" or "right"reasons? 

Oh, I think they should be done exactly for BAD reasons. That's how progress is made. When the people who care about doing good things for good reasons manage to find a way to convince people with bad reasons that it's also to their benefit to do good things.

You on the other hand seem to prefer people doing bad things for bad reasons, rather than good things for bad reasons.

That logic made me do a triple take.  I wouldn't be against Biden nominating justices if there were vacancies because that would be in his power to do.

Oh, suddenly you don't care about "good reasons" or "bad reasons", you wouldn't be against it because it's in his power. But you *are* against his packing the court, because that's not in his power? Oh, wait it is. And yet you are against him packing the court!

The only reason you say you wouldn't mind if there were 6 vacancies, is because you don't *censored*ing expect there to be 6 vacancies. You'd change your tune if there were any.

General Comments / Re: Packing the Court
« on: April 12, 2021, 02:56:40 AM »
There have been indications that the Democrats want to "lock it up" so to speak.  That is, guarantee Democrats stay in power for a long, long time. Some examples:
 - Changing elections rules (Mail in, late voting...all benefit Dems more than R's)
- making DC and Puerto Rico "states" with representatives (DC and Puerto Rico are very, very Blue)

Wow, Democrats want people to be able to vote!

Are you even *censored*ing pretending that the Republicans aren't evil antidemocratoc dictatorship-lovers who want to disenfranchise people?

What is even your *censored*ing excuse for not wanting Puerto Rico to become a state? That THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT POLITICAL OPINION THAN YOU? That it's "BLUE"? Why not take the vote away from blacks then? Black people also very "blue". Oh, I forgot: TRYING TO TAKE THE VOTE AWAY FROM MINORITIES IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN DOING!!

General Comments / Re: Trans Bills
« on: April 08, 2021, 11:35:43 AM »
I have a friend immersed in a particular environment where when introducing themselves, they include a preferred pronoun. He's extremely accommodating and accepting, but the time spent on this or the procedure irks him. They/them irks me, because it is a plural and it makes me cringe grammatically speaking, it introduces confusion into the equation. I liked the suggestion of ze. There have been a lot of attempts and suggestions. You can sort them all here

I find it much easier to just avoid a pronoun altogether. Aaron, whose birthname was Abby, is someone I know. His preferred pronoun is he. I sometimes use that, but I get into confusing territory because other people we know call him by "she" which this person was to them for years. I just stopped substituting. Maybe the cleanest answer would be to eliminate pronoun use, just speculating.

I was with Aaron the other day, and Aaron wanted to go fishing. We'd normally say he in the second case. But do we have to?

Now, *that's* a linguistic issue. Amusingly enough, Greek would have the opposite problem than English. When we omit names, the sentence is usually not gendered in Greek (so "She wanted to go fishing" and "He wanted to go fishing" would be written the exact same indistinguishable way "Ήθελε να ψαρέψει"). But if I do use a name, it must always also have a gendered article accompanying it (So "Kennedy wanted to go fishing" would be written differently if Kennedy was a male or female name: "Ο Κένεντι ήθελε να ψαρέψει" "Η Κένεντι ήθελε να ψαρέψει")

When some of us were fansubbing an episode of Sherlock that came up, since there was no good way of writing a sentence like "I met with Harry", while fooling the audience that Harry was male which the episode wanted us to (instead of short for Harriet, Watson's sister, which is revealed later).

Anyway, a singular gender-neutral pronoun for people is needed anyway, regardless of trans-rights issues, because we need be able to speak about an individual of indeterminate gender and constantly going "he or she", "his or hers" is annoying and frustrating. The singular they has a centuries-long history in English, it's not a new contraption.

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: April 08, 2021, 09:15:31 AM »
In the Arab spring, the only nation that managed to overthrow its dictatorship was the nation whose citizenry was the *least* armed -- Tunisia.

While brutal dictatorships, like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, had most households own a gun. And it never got overthrown in a revolution, only via an external invasion. I mean this gun ownership may have helped them fight against the American invasion, I guess, but I don't think resistance against the American-installed regime is what you're actually talking about.

Anyway, all in all, the above facts make me very dubious about the usefulness of gun possession in regards to resisting a dictatorship.

General Comments / Re: Trans Bills
« on: April 07, 2021, 01:38:06 PM »
if we're talking about the meaning of words, then yeah, we have to go back and look at how those words were used in various contexts, including feudal ones. So long as we want to know "what it means" we need that. You want to talk about what "man" and "woman" might reasonably mean, but without looking at that history, which doesn't work. Now I don't have any problem with making the case that "yeah, we know it *always* meant this, and this the meaning was self-evident, but we want to change the meaning now." Well ok, I would understand that position. Many would push back, but it would be clear. The argument that the words 'already do' mean the new thing is the only thing I'm personally pushing back against. The old meaning was very clear, not really controversial IMO, but in order to look like it was everyone else who was confused about the meaning the narrative is that this is just what the meaning is. Well that's not going to match reality in the eyes of anyone other than true believers. I can see the desire to avoid saying "we propose to change the meaning". It's because probably the general answer would be "no." So as the saying goes, if you may not like the answer then avoid asking. Strategically it seems to be a fairly effective maneuver, although it does generate more blowback than the straightforward approach would do.

More babble.

And in all that babble, both in this and the previous post, you've still not told us whether you'd refuse to call adoptive parents "parents" or not, whether parenthood is "as much of a "social construct" as anything else that is observably testable. It is literally just naming a thing we see as we see it. It's a social construct only insofar as it requires human minds to do the observing, but that's about it." (as you said about gender)

As far as I can tell, (since we're assigning motives to each other) you just don't want to say either of the following simple statements:
(a) "Yes, I acknowledge that adoptive parents are also a type of parents, even though biologically they're not"
(b) "No, adoptive 'parents' aren't parents, this goes against both science and the observed facts of nature, we shouldn't call them such. Parenthood isn't a social construct/role, it's a biological reality."

And so because you don't want to say either (a) or (b), you just babble a lot to muddle up the issue.

General Comments / Re: Trans Bills
« on: April 07, 2021, 12:45:33 PM »
The Ancient Romans very much had in their culture that any heir could be named and formally adopted, but of course they would not have pretended that this was akin to the patriarch being a "daddy" to the new heir.

One wonders then why they used the word "son" and "father".

Notably Augustus gave himself the title "Divi filius' (son of a god) after his adopted father Julius Caesar was deified.

Across other and newer cultures inheritance would still be an issue, but would come with other complications; for instance recent the Western tradition (actually law) that the eldest was the inheritor of the estate and the others had to have other roles. The various possible roles for children was dictated again by issues of money and continuity, but this time structurally peculiar to that type of society.

Yeah, let's discuss inheritance laws in feudal society, as if they have anything to do with anything. /s

Or let's not. This is what I mean when I say you ought learn to be a bit more concise.

That they are referred to by the same word is, if anything, a linguistic stumbling block.

A mere "linguistic stumbling" block affects only one language, or at most a handful related languages. A linguistic stumbling block is a thing like the word "woman" containing the syllable "man" -- it's just something that happens in one language, other languages are different.
As far as I can tell, adoptive parents are adoptive parents throughout the world. Because it's not a linguistic issue. It's about the societal construct of parenthood being widespread around the world, as it originates from the universal biological fact of parenthood. But because it originates from that fact, and yet is not *limited* to that fact, adoptive parents lay claim to the word as well.

General Comments / Re: Trans Bills
« on: April 06, 2021, 09:04:55 PM »
Is there any counterargument in regards to the adoptive/biological parenthood analogy that I brought forward?

Do you guys believe that adoptive parents are also a type of parents, or is this one of the things that biology and science in general supposedly disproves, since parenthood has a specific biological meaning?

General Comments / Re: Trans Bills
« on: April 05, 2021, 02:27:20 PM »
Fenring, the people who have a problem with people identifying with the other gender than what they were assigned at birth, usually also tend to be the same ones who have problems with people like Conchita Wurst. Who is a cis man, but is told by the same gang of transphobes that he should decide whether he's a man or a woman. He's a man, just seems to like dresses, makeup and a feminine stage persona/name.

By contrast the LGTBQ+ community would generally be supportive of the T portion in the acronum as both "Transgender" and "Transvestiste", both people who identify as the opposite gender than what they were assigned, and people who don't but grossly violate the gender norms in dress. (and also agender or genderfluid people who would like to identify as neither)

This harkens back to what I said: If it wasn't for the "social construct" part of man/woman, if it just literally meant "people who have penises/people who have vaginas" and was thus truly a pure physiological label, there'd probably be no issue be there. Same way that if "parent" only literally meant "person who's given you half of your DNA", there'd be no such thing as adoptive parents.

But society builds connotations and roles around the word. And so people who want the connotations and roles, will also assume the word.

General Comments / Re: Trans Bills
« on: April 05, 2021, 10:17:43 AM »
Now, to get back on arguing at an object level, instead of the meta level of which position is obvious and which isn't obvious, I'd like you to consider another thing which has been a biological reality for ages.


And what some people might believe to be "fake parenthood", also known as adoption.

This is why people like me insist on using terms for what they mean, not for inclusive purposes, or being nice, or for feelings, or anything else.

So, I ask you edgmatt. Do you refuse to call adoptive parents with the word "parents", because they aren't actually the biological parents of the kid?

Or do you accept that parenthood is a *social construct*, and therefore though there exist biological parents where the social role matches the underlying biological facts, there are also adoptive parents where the social role doesn't match the underlying biological truth?

Are the adoptive parents delusional for thinking themselves "parents", though the kid isn't biologically theirs? Do you insist on using terms for what they mean, not for inclusive purposes, or for being nice, or for feelings, in the case of parenthood, and thus you call them "guardians" or something such, rather than parents?

General Comments / Re: Trans Bills
« on: April 05, 2021, 10:10:37 AM »
Come on, Aris, of course edgmatt's position is clear and self-evident. It's been the standard definition for eons, and it's obvious why that definition could be said to make sense.

You come on.

Chromosomes were discovered in the 1880s. A definition that includes chromosomes has NOT been a "standard definition for eons". It's really not clear that people in past centuries would have defined e.g. Patricio Manuel as a woman either. It's just as likely that they'd have said "wow, a woman that became a man, amazing" instead.

I make no pretense that my own position is self-evident, but I'm going out of my way to explain my position.

General Comments / Re: Trans Bills
« on: April 05, 2021, 07:35:56 AM »
A transhumanist (at least in the typical definition) doesn't really care what counts as human or not, and in fact essentially tends to believe that changing away from what is traditionally called human is not only ok but desirous. From that standpoint the "started as female" argument wouldn't stand, because a pre-existing status (including being born a human in the first place) doesn't hold any weight. That humanity used to be defined as two arms, two legs, etc etc, becomes instead transmuted into "we can be anything we choose, technology allowing." That may change what sorts of arguments you think are obvious. Sorry Aris if I stated a position that isn't yours, but I think your basic worldview needs to be taken into account when edgmatt for instance is making claims that are supposedly clear.

@Fenring - noted, thank you.  That actually clears things up a bit (assuming that is Aris's position).

The position matches with mine, yes.

This sort of thing what I've been trying to say. Leaving aside for the moment any issue about gender-as-social-construct (or the belief that gender-dysphoria means that brain and body are differently gendered), if you tell me that a penis at birth is (part of) what makes male "male", then I'll inherently see acquiring a penis *after* birth as a (partial) transformation into male. You seemed to think it not just currently technologically unfeasible but inherently contradictory that someone could be born a woman and become a man, or vice versa. Which is just very weird to me.

The part where you go:
No, you're playing words games.   Having a penis (at birth and not attached later) is partly what makes the thing a boy.  If you attach a penis later (to someone that didn't have one to begin with), that will make that person 'look like a boy'.

just doesn't make sense to me. It's not a word game. Where I said "look like a boy", I could have said "has the typical phenotype of boy" or "has the bodily characteristics of a typical boy".

Why do you keep referring to extremely rare medical cases in order to define an entire potential category of human nature?

For the same reason I refer to science-fictional examples that don't exist at all in the real world at all. I think it promotes understanding to investigate extreme or hypothetical cases.

There's nothing preventing edgmatt from saying any of "It's male" "It's female" "It's neither" "It's both" "I'm uncertain" or even "That one's example is on a fuzzy line where it could be considered either, but the handful cases don't matter for the categorization of 7 billion other people"). Either answer provides a tidbit of information, which will at least help realize where the *censored* edgdmatt is coming from, because I don't really get it.

I've now gone back over the thread to see where he addressed them (I missed it initially), but as far as I can tell edgmatt still hasn't clarified whether those XY assigned-women-at-birth women are simply men who's maleness simply doesn't quite work, if they're women who's femaleness doesn't quite work, if he thinks it a fuzzy example, or if he thinks it a clear-cut example and the rest of us "playing dumb". Because he regulardly clamps down, points a finger at me, and calls me dishonest for even asking questions. I find that rather annoying. He's not explaining his position, he thinks we already know it.

No, his position isn't clear and self-evident, no matter if he wants to present it as common sense. For example it's still not me clear at all for example why a penis at birth is more important than a penis acquired after birth. Right now, I'd guess something like "he wants to use male/female to categorize an organism and their entire life-history as an organism, not just their present state", but it'd be just a guess, and I don't want to put words in his mouth either.

General Comments / Re: Trans Bills
« on: April 04, 2021, 05:15:41 PM »
Gotta read everything.  I was clear in what I said just now, you're either skipping some of the post, or deliberately playing dumb.

I didn't skip any of your post, and I'm not playing dumb.

1 - Looking like a man doesn't make you man.  "In the absence of a medical examination....".  Well yea, duh.  If you don't take off the costume, it will look like the thing you made it look like.  key word there is "look".  You didn't actually change anything other than the appearance.

2 - Yes, that is accurate.  It is accurate in that I believe that, and it is also accurate because it's true.

"Looking like a man doesn't make you man."

And yet, it's looking like a baby boy and looking like a baby girl (aka the presence of penis or vaginas) that people use to assign babies into "male" and "female" in the first place, so I I find this a bit of a contradiction in your rhetoric.

There are people born with vaginas and yet possessing XY chromosomes: See, so they look like women, were assigned female at birth, and generally consider themselves women. They don't have ovaries and can't produce eggs though.

Are these people (a) men because they have XY chromosomes, or (b) women because that's what they were assigned at birth, that's what they look like, and that's what they've always considered themselves to be?

I mean, you hopefully realize that at any point of history before the discovery of chromosomes, these people would have been identified as just women who for some mysterious reason are incapable of conceiving. It is the observable phenotype, not the non-observable genotype that always made the categorization. But I think your position is that they should be labelled men instead, and that it was a mistake that these vaginaed people were labelled women. Because of their chromosomes.

General Comments / Re: Trans Bills
« on: April 04, 2021, 04:22:36 PM »
They're not having a different perception of reality, trans men acknowledge that they have XX chromosomes, and trans women still acknowledge they have XY chromosomes.

Why did you use the term "trans-men" and "trans-women" when you wrote this sentence?

Because we're talking about trans people and whether they are delusional or not? So no, I don't understand your question.

If you used the word "female" to describe the "trans-man"  and vice-versa:   "They're not having a different perception of reality, women acknowledge that they have XX chromosomes, and men still acknowledge they have XY chromosomes."  Then the sentence no longer makes sense.

Do you get that?  (Im asking in a sincere tone, not a sarcastic, mocking one)   This is why people like me insist on using terms for what they mean, not for inclusive purposes, or being nice, or for feelings, or anything else.

No, I don't get what you mean. I did use the words for what they mean, and I don't know what you mean by "the sentence no longer makes sense".

I'll note however that though I've answered your question, you haven't answered a single one of mine. We can't have a discussion until you at least try to show reciprocity and answer some of those. Here, let me quote them again, for your convenience.

Please go and look at a photo of a trans man like e.g. Pat Manuel. Would you call Pat Manuel a woman? I mean in the absense of an actual medical examination, or him showing you what's in his pants, there's no way you'd identify him as such if you saw him.

If I get your position correctly, you believe that "men remain men" and "women remain women" even after they've done gender reassignment surgery?

As a sidenote, if you ever upload your mind to a computer, will you be objecting to still being called a "he", since you'll no longer have chromosomes?

General Comments / Re: Trans Bills
« on: April 04, 2021, 01:44:24 AM »
Male - of the two genders, the one with the potential to produce sperm.  At birth has testicles and a penis.  XY chromosome.
Female - of the two genders, the one with the potential to produce ova. At birth has a vagina.  XX chromosome.

I'll comment that the "at birth" distinction is bizarre, because you're adding something about the *history* of a creature, rather than their current state of existence, it seems. And the XY/XX chromosome is something humanity didn't know about until very recently, it's the scientific causal explanation about the difference between 'men' and 'women', but not actually something anyone really cares about.

Make the distinction between man/woman as about having testicles, penis or a vagina at the present time -- and atleast then we're getting somewhere: But then you'd have to atleast take the position of the Iranian Islamic Republic and let people reassign their genders if they do gender reassignment surgery.

If I get your position correctly, you believe that "men remain men" and "women remain women" even after they've done gender reassignment surgery?

As a sidenote, if you ever upload your mind to a computer, will you be objecting to still being called a "he", since you'll no longer have chromosomes?

Before all these comes the initial social construct which is that "people with penises belong to a category called boys/men and we assign them male name and male pronouns, people with vaginas belong to a category called girls/women and we assign them female names and female pronouns.

It's about as much of a "social construct" as anything else that is observably testable. It is literally just naming a thing we see as we see it. It's a social construct only insofar as it requires human minds to do the observing, but that's about it. To the extent that man/women is a 'construct' of social agreement, you more or less have to take the position that all observation of any kind is a social construction, meaning science is nothing more than an agreed upon opinion.

Stop talking about "science" and such, because we have already agreed that trans-rights activists agree with every single testable observable fact that science speaks about them. They're not having a different perception of reality, trans men acknowledge that they have XX chromosomes, and trans women still acknowledge they have XY chromosomes.

Your argument seems to lead directly to the elimination of all pronouns, toward perhaps a neuter pronoun for all people. Your analogies certainly don't lead in the direction of increasing the number of pronouns.

Um, yes? I never said I support an increase in pronouns. I don't.

How should one act toward women, then, other than pronoun usage and bathroom access?

Well, obviously the answer will differ if you ask a a trans-friendly male chauvinist homophobe of the Iranian Islamic Republic, but since you're asking me who am a progressive gender egalitarian: the only thing I can think of is letting them identify as women without objection.

Being trans-friendly is easy for a gender egalitarian, exactly because we treat genders equally. Hence why in the west there's only an issue in areas where we still keep segregated spaces and areas of endeavour. Restrooms and sports (and marriage for those countries that don't yet have SSM).

General Comments / Re: Trans Bills
« on: April 03, 2021, 02:16:11 PM »
We don't have a separate set of labels, pronouns, or names for people who are born blonde and people who are born black-haired.

We do, you just used them.  You called it "blonde" and "black".  Those are labels.  It's an identifier.  It's part of the language we use to effectively communicate with each other.

Those are just descriptions of what their hair looks like at the moment, not immutable categories. If a black-haired person goes grey-haired when they age, they are no longer black-haired, they're gray-haired. If they dye their hair they are no longer black-haired, they're whatever color-haired they chose.

Right, though, we don't have blonde restrooms and dark haired restrooms, because there is nothing about being blonde or black haired that is significantly different enough to warrant a separate bathroom, or anything else (except maybe shampoo).

Men and women are fundamentally different, right down to the chromosome.  And yea, a whole host of social practices have arisen, but not because society just arbitrarily decided it, but because men and women are fundamentally different and require (in a lot of cases) different sorts of things.

Hard to explain why different chromosomes would fundamentally require different pronouns, or different sets of baby names.

Again I direct you to google a photo of Pat Manuel and would ask you to tell me if you'd categorize him as a woman if you saw him on the street one day.
Unless it's explicitly about baby-making purposes, you'd have no reason to do so.

General Comments / Re: Trans Bills
« on: April 03, 2021, 01:48:00 PM »
Obvious examples of social constructs: 
- The color pink is feminine.
- unicorns and rainbows are feminine
- trucks are for boys
- dresses and long hair are for girls
- pants and shaved heads are for boys

Before all these comes the initial social construct which is that "people with penises belong to a category called boys/men and we assign them male name and male pronouns, people with vaginas belong to a category called girls/women and we assign them female names and female pronouns. Afterwards in their life, because as a society we don't allow people to display penises/vaginas in public, and yet we greatly care about WHETHER they have penises/vaginas, and we want to treat these groups of people differently, we use labels, pronouns, names, modes of dress, and secondary physical characteristics (like beards and the like) to distinguish between the two groups without them needing to show us their genitals in public all the time".

It'd be the social construct you'd have to explain to an agender alien civilization that comes down to Earth and which doesn't have any understanding why we're separating ourselves in two subgroups like that.

We don't have a separate set of labels, pronouns, or names for people who are born blonde and people who are born black-haired.
We don't have a separate set of labels, pronouns, or names for people who are born right-handed and people who are born left-handed.
But we have a separate set of labels, pronouns and names for people who are born penised and people who are born vaginaed.

Now let's leave aside for a sec the issue of whether a trans person who describes themselves as a particular gender is that gender from the start or not, and let's examine someone who's gone through treatment. Please go and look at a photo of a trans man like e.g. Pat Manuel. Would you call Pat Manuel a woman? I mean in the absense of an actual medical examination, or him showing you what's in his pants, there's no way you'd identify him as such if you saw him.

Once again you are looking at it backwards.  Being in the category doesn't make the thing, the thing being what it is puts it into a category.  Categories *are" real, once again scientific and observable.  You and I can look a fish and say "that isn't a plant, put it in the 'animal' category" and we can do the same thing with male and females.

For ANY thing and any category, when we ask "Is thing X of category Y?" what we're actually asking is "Should we treat thing X as we treat things of category Y?" It's not really some sort of ontological/epistemological question, it's a normative/utilitarian question about "how should we act towards thing X"?

In regards to trans women, we are calling them women, because we believe you should act towards them like you'd act towards women, including using female pronouns and letting them use women's bathrooms.

I strongly recommend reading the following article called "Disguised Queries". It's not ABOUT trans people specifically, it's a more general argument about categories:

General Comments / Re: Trans Bills
« on: April 03, 2021, 03:18:05 AM »
Anytime a young boy claims to be a girl, it is false. It simply isn't true. He is a boy. That is what he is. He is not a cat. He is not a tree. He is not a girl. He is a boy.

Most people in your category of "boys" acknowledge themselves a boy, so your hypothetical example already has one aspect (self-identification) which makes them different than most other members in that group.

I disbelieve in the word "is". Categories can be useful, or harmful. They can promote understanding ot hinder it. But they aren't real in a fundamental level.

Cis women and trans women have at least some characteristics in common: They call themselves women, want to be considered such, want female pronouns used when referring to them, etc.

So for social reasons, the useful categorisation is to group them together as women, because otherwise you'll use a pronoun they don't want. For medical reasons this will differ, as then chromosomes become more important.

Btw this perspective makes me sympathetic to people who argue that trans girls shouldn't be competing with cis girls. But I'd resolve the issue by simply renaming the categories as "heavy" and "light" or some such.

General Comments / Re: Trans Bills
« on: April 03, 2021, 12:13:34 AM »
Except that the most typical form of the argument is that transgenderism isn't a social construction, but rather a statement of fact about their nature. The 'category' you mention is, according to the argument, the socially constructed thing, which should bend to the reality being presented. To the extent that they are arguing a fact pattern that is supposedly beyond dispute, this is indeed an issue of a "reality", which at bottom would have to be scientific to mean anything. To the extent that the disagreement about the categories "man" and "woman" are in dispute, this is indeed a difference of opinion on whether those categories are social constructions or simple biological realities (i.e. your 'birth state'). From the perspective of someone who believes that "man" and "woman" are not social constructions, there could be no question of agreeing to 'allow' someone to change categories, any more than one could agree to 'allow' changing categories from human to minotaur. Obviously from the perspective of social construction, it is a mere matter of updating the obsolete definition of the categories.

Logically speaking it's not off the table to discuss someone being deluded about reality if one believes the reality to be essentially immutable. Functionally speaking at this point in time it is indeed off the table to discuss it. And indeed there are probably better ways to discuss it, if one were going to, than to put it that way anyhow.

That's lots of babble to just say "But some people, on both sides, think that it's about immutable fact-based categories"

Come people, learn to be concise.

General Comments / Re: Trans Bills
« on: April 02, 2021, 11:17:08 PM »
@Noblehunter -

If a person is experiencing a psychological disorder where he perceives reality different than what it is (a million examples come to mind: they believe they are in war in a battle, they don't know who their children are, they think they have money they already spent, they think the wrong house is theirs, etc etc), should the rest of us change our reality to match their perceived reality? 

Trans people don't have a false perception of reality. Trans people with penises still acknowledge they have penises, still expect that a medical examination of their chromosomes will reveal XY chromosomes. The reality they perceive is still the factual reality. (Much more so than religious people btw)

Their disagreement with you is about how society should treat the categories man and woman in regards to their person, and whether they should be allowed to join a different category than what society assigned to them at birth.

General Comments / Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« on: April 01, 2021, 03:18:07 PM »
We shouldn't be pumping our children full of chemicals that fundamentally transform the way their bodies operate. That's horrible.

As a transhumanist I'm all in favor of fundamentally transforming the way our bodies operate.

A good god could have made it so that human beings can only procreate (and only get sexual desires) after reaching adulthood, but unfortunately god doesn't exist and thusly human teenagers do both from early in their teens.

"Reduce sexual desire" is one possible path to resolve the issue, but frankly it seems way harder to do and much more prone to failure than the mere technological path of preventing pregnancy with IUDs.

General Comments / Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« on: March 30, 2021, 06:31:01 PM »
That makes sense. But are you sure it's, shall we say, legitimate to tell young people they are simply not allowed to have children? If so, what's the age cutoff?

Usually 18 is the Schelling point for when we consider people to be legal adults, so I'd just put 18 there as well. I understand that there are some bizarre deviations from that norm in USA (e.g. 21 being the legal drinking limit), but I don't really get those.

Theoretically in a super-advanced society I'd want competency and psychological tests to be passed before people are allowed to parenthood, but that's WAY too much power to give to any government in the foreseeable future. I'd have it as a feature of a post-singularity future (which however, almost by definition, is non-foreseeable).

General Comments / Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« on: March 30, 2021, 04:27:51 PM »
Only .3% of women are virgins by age 40.

An American (and also self-reported) statistic.

In Japan as a counterexample, the number of women aged 39 reporting having had no vaginal heterosexual experience is 8.9%. (

General Comments / Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« on: March 30, 2021, 03:21:36 PM »
Presumably only if these women also engaged in sex (or sex without a type of contraception that prevents conception altogether), not in general.

Pretty much any heterosexual woman of child bearing age engages in sex with men at occasionally, and there aren't any 100% effective contraceptives. 

"Pretty much any heterosexual woman of child bearing age engages in sex with men at occasionally"

That's not even true in our own world. And it would change more if they had to choose between sex and all these other things, which would by your law be made illegal for them.

That's like saying "People shouldn't drink and drive. But pretty everyone drives occassionally, so we should ban drinks for everyone, not just people who drive. And also everyone drinks occassionally, so we should ban driving for everyone." Your argument doesn't follow.

General Comments / Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« on: March 30, 2021, 02:52:11 PM »
Any medication, food, exercise, or drug or alcohol that reduced likelihood of implantation would subject the woman to manslaughter or murder charges.

So women would have to be prevented from essentially any strenous exercise or jobs,

Presumably only if these women also engaged in sex (or sex without a type of contraception that prevents conception altogether), not in general.

General Comments / Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« on: March 30, 2021, 02:46:36 PM »
Strongly encourage (certainly funding with public money, but perhaps giving additional incentives as well) the implantation of contraceptive devices on all girls from a young age. They can be removed when the girls choose to, after reaching adulthood.

Hormonal contraception can decrease likelihood of implantation (which is how the 'morning after' pill works).  So hormonal contraception would have to be outlawed.

Got confused there for a moment because you used the same word "implantation" to mean the fertilized ovum's implantation in the uterus, but I'd used the word implantation in reference to the implantation of contraceptive devices. (IUDs and the like)

General Comments / Re: Pro-life hypocrisy
« on: March 30, 2021, 01:14:08 PM »
Strongly encourage (certainly funding with public money, but perhaps giving additional incentives as well) the implantation of contraceptive devices on all girls from a young age. They can be removed when the girls choose to, after reaching adulthood.

If conception creates a new person, then the risk of such conception is a huge responsibility which only adults should be able to make an informed decision to commit to.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: March 28, 2021, 12:47:44 PM »
Got my first Moderna vaccine jab yesterday! No side effects of any significance.

Am envious. Europe has really messed up with how slow it is compared to USA and UK (let alone countries like Israel) -- to the point that my 72-year old diabetic father is scheduled to get his first jab only on April 20.

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 27, 2021, 01:19:59 PM »
@Aris: The problem with what you say is that every single statement you make is a special case. You don't have a coherent system of thought. You have a collection of disparate intuitions and some weak conclusions drawn from those intuitions.

We can see the scattershot of your views if we look back at your posts in this thread:
Quote from: Aris
* Human life is inherently valuable, because human minds can assign value to themselves. An unborn child that has not yet developed a mind has no inherent value, because it doesn't have a mind to do that.
* Abortion is a form of murder perhaps. But so is killing pigs & cows. Between the death of a fetus and the death of a cow, I don't know which is the most tragic or the worst crime.
* A person is their brain. A person who is brain dead is no longer a living person.
* We're "not free" to kill, rape, and abuse, because we (most of us) have a moral instinct.
* We can't afford to give literally brainless objects rights as if they were minded creatures.
* I'd be more likely to think a tree has personhood, than to think than a zygote has one.

Each of these statements -- and many more that I didn't include here -- are unable to stand on their own, and fare even worse as a group.

All the above seem very consistent to me, sorry.

For example, your account of the source of value of humans is incoherent. The value of human life cannot arise only from the value we assign to ourselves or the value others assign to us. We can see this in a multitude of ways. One example is that the infant's mind isn't yet capable of valuing itself, because it has no sense of self. The child's instinct to eat is not linked to some awareness of "self".

That the infant's mind has no sense of self is just an assertion you make, you give me no reason to be certain of this for sure. Perhaps it's true, perhaps it's not. Moreover, I don't think I've ever asserted whether it has such a sense of self, one way or another, so not sure what you're attempting to contradict here.

Another way we can see that it doesn't work is that you give no good account for why one should care that others value themselves. Ok, Bob values his own life, but John doesn't value Bob's life. If John can kill Bob, gain something in the action, and get away with it, why should Bob care at all that John and his loved ones don't want John to die?

It's unclear what you're asking. Morality is all about the categorization of behaviours into "right" and "wrong", and right/wrong is synonymous to what we "should" vs what we "shouldn't" do, as determined by certain abstract criteria regarding those behaviours, which serve to largely categorize behaviours into obligatory/permitted/forbidden.

When you're asking why a person "should" do X, you're asking if action/behaviour X is right or wrong, which in turn means whether this behaviour conforms to certain criteria. That's all there is to it.

In another post of yours, you can't distinguish between the killing of a pig and the killing of an unborn child. And in another post you can't distinguish between a tree and the unborn, or between an ape and a newborn.

I'd say you've been unable to distinguish between them also, in the sense that you've failed to provide a coherent reason about why the killing of a pig is morally different to the 'killing of an unborn child'.

I'll switch the question around -- you're telling me that there's no moral difference between (a) killing an ant and (b) killing a dolphin or an ape or an elephant? Simply because they're both "animals"?

There is a difference in degree, but not a categorical difference. The basic way in which we should relate to all humans is different than the basic way we should relate to all animals, which is different than the basic way we should relate to all plants, which is different than the basic way we should relate to all inanimate objects.

Well, there's your nonsense right there.

You flounder around questions like "is it different to murder a pig than an unborn child?" because you have no coherent structure to your thoughts.

You pretend to know answers, and you constantly resort to circular assertions, actually knowing nothing while pretending at knowing everything, while self-patting yourself on the back about how your ignorance gives you moral clarity. Without actually knowing anything about the workings of e.g. elephant brains, you've declared that they're in an inferior "category" than human beings (and yet somehow also the same category as ants) and that the lives of no amount of elephants will ever equal even one fertilized ovum. Why? Well, just because you say so! And, oh, if we just lobotomize ourselves, we can possess your own moral clarity, oh what joy that would be!

Sorry, mate, I won't lobotomize myself, just so that I can be sure at the false answers I'll then be providing myself.

I don't have all the answers about each animal species and their development, because I (and the human species as a whole) would need to know more about how brains and minds work than I currently do.

But you, without having any such knowledge either, you have MORAL CLARITY! Wow. How good for you. /s

Apologies if I see this certainty from insufficient data as proof of your utter self-important arrogance, and the stupidity of your ideology. While you portray my uncertainty as proof of error! LOL!

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 26, 2021, 01:13:30 PM »
Your view, expressed earlier in this thread, was that the brain was the essential feature which makes someone a person.

I brought up this analogy to a dog to show you that this certainly isn't the case.  If the threshold for personhood was just "brain is present", then you wouldn't distinguish between a dog and a newborn. Both have brains and both brains are about equally functional (maybe the dog is a bit smarter).

So there's something about the newborn that you recognize as giving it higher value than the dog, even though their brains are currently roughly similar.

You reject my account of what that thing is, OK. What is that distinguishing feature, by your account?

Each person is their mind. The processes of our mind happen in our brain.

Not all brains are equal, again the universe doesn't have an innate category for what is brain and what isn't, and needn't even have a distinct hard cut category for brains-that-can-carry-the-mind-processes-of-a-person and brains-that-cannot.

This doesn't seem to me hard to understand.

Quote from: JoshuaD
If you don't recognize the lines, you are going to go careening off a cliff of immorality, because the lines exist when it comes to living beings.

When it comes to inanimate objects and the gradients of the wavelengths of light? We agree; there is a spectrum, and the lines are not as distinct.  The line between a loveseat and a sofa is not so hard cut.  The line between a person and an animal is.

If the line between a person and an animal is hard cut, then you've failed to demonstrate why this is so, and you've certainly failed to convince me of that fact.

To argue from consequences like "If you don't believe in hard-cut category, then you'll go immoral", seems to me just as silly and nonsensical as "If you don't believe in God, then you'll start murdering and raping". Even if such was the case (which it is not), I won't brainwash myself into believing falsehoods, just because I'm afraid of the consequences on my morality if I believe the truth instead. That's like being afraid to stop believing in Santa Clause, just because you're afraid you won't have any motivation to not be naughty if you no longer have someone to punish you with coal in your stockings.

I don't need you to solve it for me, other philosophers have solved it. It's only a "hard problem" when you are trying really hard to limit knowledge to materialism.

Slapping a word like "soul" onto it and declaring it solved, doesn't actually mean solving it. In fact your conception of a soul, as something that attaches to a *physical* creature, as if they're some sort of invisible glue/wrapping/appendage, seems amazingly materialistic to me, you seem to speak as if our instruments are just not good enough to detect the arrival or departure of such a thing. Now perhaps you're just simplifying, but your focus on how the *physical* continuity of a person determines when the soul arrives, makes me think you might not.

Again, your assertion that "brain = person" is certainly not even satisfying to you. You must add something to it to distinguish the animal from the infant.

There may be an innate moral difference between an infant and e.g. a grown ape (I'd need better knowledge and understanding of the workings of brain than I currently have to do so) or then again there might not be. I'd not oppose categorizing the killings of apes, dolphins, elephants, and so forth as 'murders'.

On the other hand I certainly oppose categorizing the killing of insects as murders.

I'll switch the question around -- you're telling me that there's no moral difference between (a) killing an ant and (b) killing a dolphin or an ape or an elephant? Simply because they're both "animals"?

I'd be more likely to think a tree has personhood, than to think than a zygote has one.

That's so deeply confused, and I'm not even sure you believe it. Are you saying that you'd be more upset if someone killed a tree in your backyard rather than causing the miscarriage of a wanted child of yours? I can't imagine you would be. There is something uniquely special about an unborn child: he is already a person.

So much for your claims that you supposedly perfectly understand my position, while I'm the one who fails to understand yours, right?

When you're talking about a "wanted" child you're no longer talking about someone's innate value as a person in their own right, but you're talking about the desires of their parents. I certainly may be upset that someone lost something which was precious to *them*, but that'd be me emphathisizing with the *parents*, not with the zygote. It's not the same as being sad for the being's own sake, the way I'd empathize for a creature that lost their *own* future. I can't empathize with a zygote, because a zygote doesn't have a sense of being, identity, hopes, aspirations. It doesn't have a mind, it's not a person, and until it does, it only has the value ascribed to it by others, same as any other inanimate object.

The very distinction between "species", what is human and what isn't -- is something that humans impose on the universe, not something the universe itself considers relevant.

You can take this position if you'd like, but it is incompatible with the moral declarations you like to make. If there is no true, actual, meaningful distinction between a dog and me, or a tree and you, then you can't say anything in the realm of morality that has any meaning at all.

That's a failing of your personal morality, which you project onto all moralities. To me it sounds like a form of arithmetic that can't handle decimals; which must only deal in integers -- or like the ancient Pythagorans who couldn't handle the idea of irrational numbers. The answer is NOT to deny the existence of decimals (or of irrational numbers), it's to expand your understanding of mathematics so that you can handle such concepts. To build algebra on top of mere arithmetic, and finally calculus on top of algebra, so as to be able to handle all the cases which were previously unsolvable by mere integer arithmetic.

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 24, 2021, 05:48:59 AM »
Our moral instinct -- which is not present in all individuals, and is subject to cultural conditioning -- is much like our physical instinct. It is not the source of the law, it is an adaptation to the moral law. It is evidence that the law exists.

Moral truth exists the same way that geometrical truth exists. That a thing can be called a "square" or a "sphere" (or "morally right" or "morally wrong"), doesn't mean that the universe itself has a special place for squares or spheres (or moral rightness/wrongess), nor does it mean oppositely that spheres are a mere product of cultural conditioning with no absoluteness in them.

Our moral-instinct recognizes the shape of morality, same way that our geometrical understanding recognizes geometrical shapes. It's a thing that's simultaneously out there objectively, AND also a thing that's only relevant because our minds care about it.

Quote from: JoshuaD
I am saying that the unborn child is actually of the same nature as you and me.  The 90 year old man and the newborn look differently, act differently, and have vastly different powers and intellects, but they share in a common nature.  They are both human beings.

In the same way, despite the fact that the unborn child looks different, acts different, and has vastly different powers and intellect, it shares in the same nature as the newly born and the geriatric.

I disbelieve in the existence of what you call "nature", which seems to me to be arbitrary groupings that your own mind imposes on reality, not anything actually relevant to moral truth.

A newborn child does not have a mind like I do.  His mind is something like an animal's mind, right now. He's currently dumber than a dog. Despite that, we don't treat him like a dog, because he's not a dog. That's not his nature. He's a human. Even though his mind is not yet fully developed, his nature is to have a fully developed mind. And so we treat him differently than a dog.

Continuity of being -- essential nature -- is the thing we are seeing when we recognize that the infant is not a dog.  We see that it has continuity of being with the adult it will become -- and that all humans share in a common nature -- and so we treat it with the same dignity that would treat the adult.

We don't treat the newborn child as an adult person either. To say that we treat the newborn baby as a "human"... uh, well, I'd say we treat the newborn human child as a newborn human child, which is very different to how we treat even a non-baby child, let alone how we treat an adult.

You and I are people. There is real meaning to the word "person". If the idea is illusory, then nothing anyone says about morality has any real meaning. Either personhood has real meaning, or it's a made-up label we use for convenience and apply arbitrarily to clumps of matter.  In the latter case, the moral claims we make are necessarily illusory as well.

You want a clear-cut distinction between a person and a non-person, but the universe needn't oblige you: I recognize no such clear cut lines. And yet that does NOT mean the distinction is meaningless. Red and Green are different colors, and you can see a color that's unambiguously Red, and you can see a color that's unambiguously Green, and yet in the spectrum of colors and the list of frequencies there needn't been a clear dividing line where the Red suddenly becomes Green.

Sorry, but I can't solve the hard problem of consciousness for you. But whatever the answer is to the hard problem of consciousness (if we ever figure out an answer), it's clear that a mind is required, and it's clear that the processes of mind in human beings happen in the brain, and so an fertilized ovum which doesn't have a brain, also doesn't have a mind or consciousness, and isn't a person.

I'd be more likely to think a tree has personhood, than to think than a zygote has one.

The very distinction between "species", what is human and what isn't -- is something that humans impose on the universe, not something the universe itself considers relevant.

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 23, 2021, 12:33:57 PM »
Also, you keep saying how the embryo will develop if left to its own natural processes.  This is absolutely false.

It wouldn't matter regardless of whether it was true or false. If we weren't mammals grown in a womb but rather oviparous creatures hatched in eggs, before the creatures in the egg got a brain they still wouldn't be persons or have rights.

We can't afford to give literally brainless objects rights as if they were minded creatures.

Arguing about what "natural processes" are or aren't is the wrong hill to wage this battle on.

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 22, 2021, 05:58:10 PM »
It would help the discussion if you tried to be concise, instead of repeating the same thing over and over, in response to a dozen different quotes.

We're "not free" to kill, rape, and abuse, because we (most of us) have a moral instinct. The moral instinct is the abstract generalized respect for other people and their values. I wouldn't kill, rape, abuse other people for the same reason that I wouldn't destroy a cherished possession of theirs. Not because the cherished possession has "innate value" from the POV of the universe, but because it has the value the person assigns to it, and destroying it would hurt them.

Or in another way you could say that the POV of the universe is the collective POV of every being with the ability to have POVs.

They don't have functioning minds, just like they don't yet have functioning eyes. Their nature is to have a mind and to have eyes. Left to run their natural process, they will develop those things. They share being with the adult they will become.

I'm interested in actualities, I'm uninterested in what would happen if they're "left to run their natural process". My teeth would rot if I didn't brush them, does that mean I should let my teeth rot by letting them run their "natural process"?

Yes it is. That is the child's nature. It is an independent human being. It shares in the same nature that you and I share in. It shares a continuity of being with the adult it will become. The egg and the sperm do not. The unborn child -- the ovum -- does.

The "continuity" you speak of has no moral meaning. I call it mysticism because you ascribe moral weight to mere physical phenomena, like treating rainbows as if they were omens of divine blessing, thinking that taking a photograph would steal your soul, or that the "continuity of being with the adult" gives the fertilized ovum personhood.

Okay, it has a continuity of being. So what? It still doesn't have a mind, and thus it can't be a "rational being" or a person.

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 22, 2021, 05:27:18 PM »
I am not saying that.  You may be, but I am not.

I am not saying that we have value because we can think and assign ourselves value. I am saying that we have value because we are living, rational beings.

A fertilized ovum isn't a "rational being".

See the issue here? A fertilized ovum doesn't have a mind. It can't have "inherent" value, because it doesn't have a mind to assign value to itself.

Once it gains a mind that ascribes value to things (including itself), then it can have inherent value.

It's an issue for your conceptions about how things work. It's not an issue for mine.  I do not think our value depends on our minds. A person who is in a coma or brain dead is still a person, and they should be treated with the same respect and dignity as anyone else.

And yet, you said something about "rational beings" above. That kinda sorta implies something about minds.

A person is their brain. A person who is brain dead is no longer a living person. They're a dead person. Afford them the respect and dignity afforded to corpses, for the exact same reasons we afford such dignity to corpses.

It is because of these things that I am able to see that the fetus -- although it does not yet have hopes, aspirations, longings, and an active intellect -- is of the same nature as adults who do, and I can then see that we cannot treat the fetus like a fingernail, because he is a person.

And I say it's of a completely different nature, because it doesn't have those very important things.

If it's because of those things that a person is a person, then you saying that it's of the "same nature" though it doesn't have them, is meaningless. It seems to me you don't actually assign the importance on them that you claim you do.

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 22, 2021, 04:28:41 PM »
As Joshua is arguing, Human life has innate value.  It is valuable simply because it is Human life.

That's not an argument. That's just an assertion.

And a speciesist assertion as that. If human life is valuable because it's human life, what does that say about alien life and alien minds?

And in order to defend this assertion, you'd have to get all mystical about what it means for something to be human or 'living'.
My assertion that minds assign value to themselves is a much more unassailable statement of simple fact.

As for your analogy with slavery, it's utterly meaningless babble. You are comparing falsehoods with facts. Are you acknowleding that simple fertilized ovums don't have minds yet, yes or no?

And yet because I said "fertilized ovums don't have minds" -- you dare compare me to people who said that black people don't minds! Wow, now you convinced me. Because some *censored* idiots claimed that black people don't have minds, we must instead go the other direction and believe that ovums have minds, and bacteria have minds, and rocks have minds. Or else, if we don't believe that trees, bacteria, rocks or fertilized ovums have minds, then we're just like slavers who said the same thing about black people. /s

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 22, 2021, 03:29:23 PM »
That sounds alot like some of the arguments that were made for Slavery.

At this I will just say "LOL". Is that all you got? Put the word 'slavery' out there, and think you'll *censored*ing convince me? You're not even bothering to say where the analogy with slavery is?

Okay, then I'll say in response that if you guys ascribe the same value to a fertilized ovum as to a human MIND, then I'll similarly say that you are displaying the same moral depravity as slavery. Because you don't see people with hopes, aspirations, longings, *minds*, all the value of a human life is for you reduced to mere DNA.

There, now we BOTH have accused the other side of being equivalent to slavery-supporters, without much actual argument about why this is so (though I offered more than you did), and your own point is hence countered and nullified.

Do you have any actual argument?

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 22, 2021, 02:50:27 PM »
Human life is valuable by its nature. Its value does not depend on being noticed or having "cost".  The value of your life does not depend on economics, me, or society. It does not depend on your family or your friends. It inheres in you.

Agreed, because each person's own mind can assign value to themselves. Therefore they have inherent value, because they have self-ascribed value.

See the issue here? A fertilized ovum doesn't have a mind. It can't have "inherent" value, because it doesn't have a mind to assign value to itself.

Once it gains a mind that ascribes value to things (including itself), then it can have inherent value.

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 11, 2021, 02:59:05 PM »
I've never cared about whether the fetus is genetically same or different, so what I'm trying to understand is why *you* care. That's not a straw, that's the entire basis of your argument, which you are returning to time and again: That it's genetically different. So try to make me realize why it matters whether it's the same DNA or different.

All your facts are granted, and all your facts remain seemingly irrelevant. Telling me that it has a different DNA and making me care about that is like telling me that fetus is spelled with an F, and F means respect, so I should respect the fetus. Namely, it sounds like insane troll logic.

If we travelled back in time to a world that didn't know anything about DNA or genetics, would your argument have changed? Do two siblings in a set of triplets get to override the wishes of the third triplet? Who cares about whether it's the same DNA vs different?

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 11, 2021, 02:42:08 PM »
I think it is right now, since human cloning is not a thing that can be done right now.

It is one aspect that needs addressing.  The statements that they are just a blob of cells that the mother can do what she wants with looses some steam when the blob of cells is genetically different from her.

If a person gets an organ transplant, who does the organ belong to, the donor (whose DNA it has) or the recipient?

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 11, 2021, 01:55:52 PM »
They are human and distinct from the mother.

Do you really care about whether the DNA is the same or distinct with that of the mother? Is that your true objection? I mean if a mother was carrying a perfect DNA clone of herself inside her womb, would the fetus have less moral value then a fetus which had separate DNA? What if we implant woman A with the clone of woman B, and woman B with the clone of woman A? Then each fetus has the exact same DNA as another adult person, but not that of their mothers.

Is the uniqueness of the DNA really what's important here?

General Comments / Re: Roe might be in woe
« on: March 11, 2021, 11:04:34 AM »
There are no bright distinguishing lines between a fetus and a baby.
Then again there are no bright distinguishing lines between a human and a non-human.

Abortion is a form of murder perhaps.
But so is killing pigs & cows.

Between the death of a fetus and the death of a cow, I don't know which is the most tragic or the worst crime.

And yet I'm not a vegetarian, far from it. If I was ever to be judged for my crimes, I think my non-vegetarianism would condemn me to hell, far more than my support for abortion rights for women.

General Comments / Re: Will Trump split the party at CPAC?
« on: February 28, 2021, 04:20:12 PM »
Trump could sacrifice virgins to Satan in public, and his voter base would still find a way to argue that he's a good man and a true Christian.

General Comments / Re: impeachment defense clown car
« on: February 17, 2021, 01:42:28 PM »
At the end of the day though, he was found NOT GUILTY.


So twice now pretty much every Democrat along with some of the deep state swamp Republicans used a kangaroo court in a desperate but ultimately futile effort to railroad an innocent man.

TWICE now, some of the Republicans succeeded in exonerating a man who's *censored*ing guilty as hell, but they didn't even manage to convince their own entire party, getting rightful dissent from the most honorable among them, no matter how much these few honorable Republicans among them would get hurt because of it.

Twice now, even some of the Republicans who voted to acquit, admitted publicly that Trump was guilty as hell, but (a) either supposedly he'd learned his lesson (no he didn't) or (b) supposedly they had no jurisdiction (yes they did) -- namely being weasels that tried to have it both ways.

I agree with Chris Christie who was on the radio today that Republicans including Trump need to stop fighting amongst themselves.

Hard to do so, since it's fundamentally and absolutely *crucial* to the Trump narrative of a stolen election, that Georgian Republicans conspired with the Democrats to have the election stolen, and that everyone in Congress who voted to certify the election (including the majority of Republicans) is also a filthy traitor, including his own vice-president.

You can't *censored*ing have it both ways cherry, no matter how well-trained in doublethink you are. Either Trump is a piece of *censored* that broke his oath of office and should be impeached and convicted, or alternatively Mike Pence and the majority of the Republican Party are pieces of *censored* that broke their oaths of office and should be impeached and convicted.

*censored*ing choose, and be a man for once instead of a freaking weasel.

The Democrats stand united and that's why they are winning. Trump really threw the pooch out into into the cold in Georgia by not telling people to vote like their lives depended on it. Trump was our last best chance but if I'm honest, now it's over. With Biden flooding America with over ten million new Democrat voters there isn't a chance in the now bitter cold of Texas that Republicans will ever hold national power again.

I recommend to the Republicans that they try to be less racist next election so that they get more than 8% of the African American vote.

Biden is rigging the next election so that no matter how bad he screws up and how much worse the American standard of living gets it won't matter because the new demographics ensure Democrat power into the foreseeable future.

Be less racist, so that the "new demographics" don't hurt you, but rather work in your favour. Easy enough if you become less racist.

General Comments / Re: impeachment defense clown car
« on: February 16, 2021, 03:25:35 PM »
The amusing thing about people calling Trump a "Christian" is that he's champion supreme in pretty much all of the Seven Deadly Sins.

Literally the only one of the seven Deadly Sins I'm not certain he's particularly guilty of is "Gluttony".

But to be an epitome of at least 6 of the 7 Deadly Sins, and to be supported by Christians as a supposedly good man!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10