Philosophy

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Wizard22
Posts: 2845
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:16 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Wizard22 »

Belinda wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:29 am Wizard22 wrote:
A scientist can look at your chromosomes and determine your sex and gender.
A scientist or a midwife or any layman determines your sex according to certain criteria which may or may not include chromosomes, and may include only external genitalia.

Gender is a role you play. Most people are subtly taught their gender during very early childhood and some are subtly taught that they may change their gender role at will. Gender is not biologically attached to chromosomes or genitalia.
You're wrong. Gender/Sex, both are your biology and anatomy.

A male cannot "pretend" to be a female, or inverse, biologically and anatomically.

You can lie about it, certainly, as you just did. But a lie is simple. Even children can understand the difference.
Wizard22
Posts: 2845
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:16 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Wizard22 »

That was off-topic, so let's keep this thread about Meaning of Life.

To revert to the topic, how does the Meaning of Life differ between biological and anatomical men and women?


Or, what's the Meaning of Life to a Transexual, who pretends to be the opposite gender??
Wizard22
Posts: 2845
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:16 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Wizard22 »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:32 amShe doesn't do it to justify anything, she just does it to introduce confusion into a topic where she's lost her way. It's her Uno Reverso card.
I'm beginning to see your point...seeing how she just lied that men are women, and women are men.

Maybe she doesn't know her own gender...oh well, such has become a common occurrence during the recent decades.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Philosophy

Post by Sculptor »

Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:14 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 3:05 pmAll minds have the capacity for independence.
Then why are there so few individuals in Nature?
All are individuals; without exception.

A child is Dependent on parents and adults, to survive. Why does human child weaning take several years compared to other mammals that are born already able to walk?

Surely you don't believe that independence is "Equal", correct?

Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 3:05 pmNormal is relative and arbitrary.
It's not arbitrary, as-if different species have equal capacity.

Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 3:05 pmTry and think for yourself.
Am I not? Are you thinking for me?
On the one hand you claim there is no independence :lol: ; on the other you don't know if you are thinking for yourself, or I ma doing all your thinking for you.
Even you can work out what is really going on surely?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Age »

Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:52 pmName one thing that "science" has supposedly studied and recorded the 'meaning of', exactly?
Biology literally means the "Study of Life".
And, 'psychology' literally means the 'study of the psyche' but so what?

My question is, obviously, asking for some thing ELSE, for clarification.

The studying of 'life', itself, does NOT mean that "science" is studying the 'meaning of life'.

Also, the branch of science known as 'biology' does NOT study ALL of 'Life' NOR ALL 'life'. The field of 'biology' only studies a part of 'Life', ONLY.
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:52 pmWhat you wrote here is nonsense, and because you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that what you said is like what I said, then OBVIOUSLY you would claim what I said is nonsense.

But if you KNEW what I actually meant, then you would think differently.

And, it would only take one worded added into your nonsensical sentence to make it absolute and purely perfect sense.
It's your job to mean what you say, not mine.
Yes, VERY True, and is not your job to seek clarification and/or understanding when you do not understand some thing?

See, I MEANT what I SAID, but you just ASSUMED I SAID and/or MEANT some thing ELSE here.

Also, a writer CHOOSES their audience, and as I have said numerous times ALREADY the "posters" here are NOT necessarily MY AUDIENCE.

And, I will repeat this AGAIN, 'I' am using 'you', posters, here to POINT OUT and SHOW just how often 'you' would just make ASSUMPTIONS, without EVER seeking CLARIFICATION FIRST.
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:52 pmHallelujah. FINALLY.
Wizard22 wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 10:03 am I prefer the adults, myself.
i have NOTICED. And this is the VERY REASON WHY 'you' have become so CLOSED, TWISTED, and DISTORTED.
If you want a 5-year-old to teach you Algebra, then by all means, do so.
LOL

ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of just how much these adult human beings would MAKE ASSUMPTIONS, and BELIEVE them to be true, BEFORE they would even just BEGIN TO SEEK OUT CLARIFICATION and True and FULL UNDERSTANDING.
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am Is that foolish, or wise, though?
What you are ASSUMING here is VERY FOOLISH. And, what is even MORE FOOLISH was ASSUMING I was SAYING or MEANING absolutely some thing like this here. Especially considering the Fact that I NEVER even thought absolutely ANY thing like this, let alone mentioned or SAID it.

What you ASSUMED, and are STILL ASSUMING, could not be ANY FURTHER from what I ACTUALLY MEANT, and STILL are MEANING.

And, if you had just sought out CLARIFICATION, BEFORE JUMPING straight into ASSUMING and CONCLUDING, then you would NOT be SO FAR AWAY from what is ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct here.
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:52 pmDid ANY body say ANY thing about ANY one mentioning abusing children?
You mentioned it, own it.
I HAVE ALREADY OWNED 'it'. But you appear to be completely and utterly BLIND to what the question is asking for, EXACTLY.

Are you NOT ABLE TO READ and SEE what this ACTUAL QUESTION is ASKING?
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:52 pmLOL Who is a so-called "Winner in survival? And,

LOL Who is a so-called "Loser in survival"?
The winners are the survivors; the losers are the casualties. To win is to live, to lose is to die, in Nature.
So, EVERY one of 'you', human beings, are eventually ALL LOSERS, right?
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am Is this not common sense?
Did you NOT KNOW that what you are saying here makes 'you'' ALL, so-called "LOSERS"?
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am How have you not learned this already in your life?
What you are essentially saying here to all the human beings with terminal cancers, " You are ALL "losers" ".

You are also saying, " Look at me, I'm a "winner" ". While it could be presumed while you are smiling and smirking at them, you are also grinning and laughing at them on the inside.
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am Or are you putting on a show, pretending to be ignorant?
In case you have NOT YET NOTICED, 'I' am just asking 'you' questions for CLARITY, and the answers you provide are REVEALING "your" true 'self' "wizard22".
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:52 pmDo you REALLY BELIEVE that 'a lion' and 'a gazelle' are the SAME 'life'?
In the most abstract, absolute, and Universalist perspective, yes...hypothetically if "All Life is One".

But pragmatically, each manifestation of Life is not the same. The difference is its Speciation. Life struggles to survive, and in so doing, separates from itself, into new shapes and forms. This is Evolution.
But 'Life', Itself, does NOT 'struggle' AT ALL, and in Fact IS ETERNAL. So, the word 'survival' does NOT even relate to 'Life', Itself.

However, 'life' is a completely different and other matter, which will be just as obvious and KNOWN to those who are Truly interested.
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:52 pmSo, if 'you' deem 'your life', "wizard22", to "yourself" and to "others" to be important, significant, and meaning, then that is 'The value of life', correct?

What happens if one who uses drugs deems to "themself" and to "others" that 'their life' is far more important, far more significant, and far more meaningful than "wizard22's" 'worthless and useless life', then does this mean that this one has far more of 'The value of life'?

By the way, can you REALLY NOT YET RECOGNIZE and SEE just how TOTALLY RIDICULOUS, ABSURD, and NONSENSICAL your attempts at just clarifying my questions posed to you LOOK here?
As I stated earlier, these things cannot be boiled-down or attributed to mere opinion. It cannot be my opinion, nor yours, nor a third-party, nor a group of people. There has to be a deeper, much more significant and 'objective' method of identifying any potential Meaning of Life.
But when I asked you to CLARIFY this earlier, you stated:

The value of life is the importance, significance, and meaning that an organism deems to itself, and to others.


So, some times you SAY, 'the value of life', can NOT be boiled-down to 'mere opinion', but at other times you SAY, 'the value of life', comes down to how an organism 'deems itself'. Which, to me, is just about the same as 'mere opinion'. So, will you now CLARIFY what is the ACTUAL difference between how one 'deems itself' to 'mere opinion of oneself'?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:52 pmBut the EXACT reason WHY 'you', human beings, commit suicide is for a far more fundamental reason.

As there are a countless number of 'you'', human beings who see absolutely NO meaning in their lives, and they do NOT commit suicide, NOR even have suicidal impulses, what you said and claimed here does NOT follow.

Also, according to your so-called "logic" above, ALL 'life' that is NOT a 'human being life' would have NO 'value' and NO 'meaning' and absolutely NONE of them have suicidal impulses, which you just CLAIMED would manifest as a suicidal impulse.

I have also NEVER observed the life of young child, which OBVIOUSLY has NO sense of ANY value nor of ANY meaning, manifesting into a suicidal impulse.
You keep saying "you humans" as-if you yourself are not human. Why are you against your own Nature?
But I am NOT against my own nature. WHY are you DEFLECTING, as well as ASSUMING the most ABSURD and NONSENSICAL 'things' as 'this'?
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am And I agree, it's an important observation to note and admit here, that children are not Suicidal or generally depressed to the degree of hopelessness.

Therefore, how does this connect with the Meaning of Life?
It does NOT.
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am How is it fundamentally different between child and adult?
It is NOT.

Do you even KNOW what 'the meaning of Life' IS, to me?
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:52 pmTHANK YOU. It is VERY, VERY RARE for someone here, in this forum, to continue seeking clarity, or answers.

ALL children are blameless because only SOME human beings are responsible for what happens in Life. And, only adults, or human beings from a certain age, are meant to be responsible for their behaviors.
I asked you, "WHY"? Your answer "some human beings are responsible" does not suffice.
You asked: *WHY* are children blameless??? (With three question marks.)

I answered: BECAUSE ONLY SOME HUMAN BEINGS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENS IN Life. AND, ONLY ADULTS, or human beings from a certain age, ARE MEANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR BEHAVIORS.

Can you REALLY NOT YET SEE just HOW this answer SUFFICES?

The reason WHY 'children' ARE BLAMELESS is BECAUSE they are NOT YET 'responsible' for what they do.

Could you REALLY NOT SEE this, in MY ANSWER?
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am Explain to me, to yourself, to others here, WHY children are blameless....
BECAUSE they are NOT YET responsible for their actions.

Oh hang on, are you one of these adult human beings who MAKES children RESPONSIBLE for what they do, and so PUNISHES them for when they do what you call "wrong"?
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am I'm not going to ask a third time.
You ONLY had to ask the FIRST time. BECAUSE what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that that is WHEN I answered YOUR QUESTION, ALREADY.

If you want to 'try' and CLAIM that children ARE RESPONSIBLE for their behaviors, actions, and/or for what they do, then PLEASE go ahead and CLAIM this here.

We would ALL LOVE to SEE this PRESENTED.
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:52 pmBut I care for EVERY one EQUALLY.

WHY do you ASSUME I do NOT?
Because it's physically impossible, as I already demonstrated to you. If you feed one child, but not another, then that is UNEQUAL.
In whose eyes?
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am You should admit this to yourself.
What happens if I CHANGED the so-called 'world' so that ALL children do eventually get fed EQUALLY, then HOW EXACTLY is that UNEQUAL?
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:52 pmAh okay. So, you only LIE to those who you do NOT care about, correct?

Also, is there a human being who you have NOT LIED to?

If yes, then WHO was that, EXACTLY?

In fact, have you EVER LIED to "yourself"?

If yes, then are you SAYING that 'you' do NOT care about 'you', NOR "yourself"?

Or, do 'you' ACTUALLY BELIEVE that 'you' have NOT LIED to, and thus NOT DECEIVED, "yourself" NOR some "others"?

By the way, BECAUSE 'I' can CLEARLY SEE that 'you' are LYING here, does this mean that 'you' do NOT care for 'I'?
That's the rub, isn't it?
What does this EVEN MEAN, EXACTLY?
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am A person has to be most honest with him or herself. I didn't claim to be perfect, so don't imply that I did.
I NEVER implied that you claimed to be perfect. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True here in my writings.

I just asked you a series of questions, posed and asked, for CLARIFICATION.

Remember it was 'you' who made the CLAIM:

I think lying is a form of NOT caring. If you care about somebody, then you tell them the Truth.

But now you are implying that you do NOT tell "others" NOR even "yourself" the Truth (capital T), which therefore, according to your OWN "logic" here, MEANS that you do NOT care of "others" NOR even "yourself".
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:52 pmOkay.

So, absolutely ANY one can MISTREAT 'you', ANY way they like, just like 'you' can MISTREAT absolutely ANY one, ANY way 'you' like, correct?

After all, 'life' is UNEQUAL.
Yes, and because life is Unequal, mistreating others has consequences. It is only under your presumed "Equality" that mistreating a person has NO CONSEQUENCE.
Well this is one Truly WEIRD and ABSURD ASSUMPTION. Besides being absolutely Wrong and Incorrect, it is just down right and out right PURE NONSENSE.
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am Isn't that interesting??
Let us NOT FORGET that 'that' was your OWN ASSUMPTION, and CONCLUSION here.

And, let us ALSO NOT FORGET that you just AGREED that it is CORRECT that 'you' can MISTREAT absolutely ANY one, ANY way 'you' like, just because 'you' BELIEVE that they are NOT EQUAL to 'you', and so, to 'you', there some people who are LESS than 'you' are.

Also, what are the consequences of MISTREATING people who are LESS THAN 'you'?

What were the 'consequences' to "slave" OWNERS, besides having FREE LABOR?

Or, what were the 'consequences' to those who STOLE land from "others", who were considered LESS THAN?

If, and WHEN, one BELIEVES that "others" are LESS THAN that one, and that one BELIEVES that they can MISTREAT "others" in ANY way they like, BECAUSE the "others" are LESS THAN that one, then, SERIOUSLY, what 'consequences' could or would exist?
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:52 pmOF COURSE NOT.

BUT xy does NOT necessarily mean male. Which is what we WERE talking about BEFORE.

Chromosomes do not necessarily PROVE one from the other.
Incorrect, Chromosomes do prove gender and sex.
Is this an IRREFUTABLE Fact?
Yes, scientifically, it is irrefutable. A scientist can look at your chromosomes and determine your sex and gender.
Have you ACTUALLY RESEARCHED this, LATELY, relative to when this is being written, or are you just going on PAST experiences, and ASSUMPTIONS?

See, what I FOUND is VERY DIFFERENT from YOUR IRREFUTABLE response here.

Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am People can lie about it. A young boy or teenage male can "transition", castrate himself, and pretend to be female or a woman.

But it's only Pretense; it's only a Lie. It's a deception.

Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:52 pmYou are SO USELESS at this.

So, what, now, does 'over-indulge' mean or refer to, EXACTLY?

Look, you can NOT take back what you previously WROTE and SAID, and if you do NOT want ADMIT just how Wrong or STUPID it REALLY WAS, then so be it. But the WAY you WRITE and TALK is HERE for ALL to LOOK AT, SEE, and HEAR.

SO, I suggest you think MORE about what you are GOING TO WRITE, BEFORE you put it down here for ALL to be ABLE TO LOOK AT and SEE.
This is common sense.

If a man has a few beers in a month, then he is not an Alcoholic. So over-indulgence is the definition of addiction and abuse.
If we take the 'indulge' word to refer to 'partake', then what does the 'over' word refer to, EXACTLY?

What is the VERY 'thing', which the 'over' word is in relation to, EXACTLY?

Is having, or partaking in, a few beers a week, mean that that one IS an "alcoholic"?

If yes, then WHY, EXACTLY?

But if no, then WHY NOT, EXACTLY?

And remember what I SAID:

I suggest you think MORE about what you are GOING TO WRITE, BEFORE you put it down here for ALL to be ABLE TO LOOK AT and SEE.
Don't blame me for your own misunderstandings.

A pint of beer has a different effect on a 100 lb. woman than a 250 lb. man.

Again, there's no "equality". Some people have lower and higher tolerance to drug-effects. Some are more prone to Addiction and Abuse, than others.
WHY DEFLECT here?

It was 'you' who SAID and STATED, VERY CLEARLY:

So, over-indulgence is the definition of addiction and abuse

Therefore, HOW MANY drinks can a man and/or a woman have BEFORE they so-call "over indulge"?

If you 'try to' DEFLECT, AGAIN, here, then what you REALLY KNOW, and REALLY DO NOT KNOW, becomes MORE OBVIOUS.

I ALREADY KNOW what the ANSWER here IS, but more and more are starting to CLEARLY SEE, and thus KNOW, ALSO.

Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:52 pmI NEVER said NOR implied that you SAID nor IMPLIED that you KNOW what absolute Truth is. In fact it is VERY OBVIOUS that you do NOT know what 'absolutely Truth is', And, it is JUST AS OBVIOUS that you do NOT know what 'the absolute Truth IS' here.

Anyway, by CLAIMING that 'Life is NOT equal', this is INSISTING that you KNOW what the absolute Truth IS here.
No, because you cannot prove a Negative claim.
But there is NO so-called "negative claim"

You CLAIM that 'Life is NOT equal'. Thus, you are CLAIMING that the absolute Truth here IS: 'Life is NOT equal'.

And, I just PROVED this to be ABSOLUTELY True.

And, you WILL ALSO PROVE this to be ABSOLUTELY True, WHEN you are Honest and ADMIT that you BELIEVE absolutely and wholeheartedly that there is NO possibility that Life could be EQUAL, AT ALL, correct?
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am You're the one claiming Equality; I'm the one doubting it. Your claim is Positive, mine is Negative.
WHY would one be so-called "positive" and the other be so-called "negative"?

If one is True and the other is NOT, then that is what IS True, ONLY. "positive" NOR "negative" to NOT REALLY come into the picture here.

Also, you do NOT 'doubt' that Life is EQUAL. You BELIEVE absolutely and wholeheartedly that Life could NEVER be EQUAL. You BELIEVE absolutely and wholeheartedly that Life is UNEQUAL, correct?

Or, are you going to now say otherwise?
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am Show and prove your so-called "Equality". Tell me how a 5' woman is "equal" to a 6' man. Go ahead.
But I have NEVER suggested that those two 'things' ARE EQUAL.

Have you NOT been READING the ACTUAL WORDS I have USED and WRITTEN here?

Have you NOT been LISTENING to what I have ACTUALLY BEEN SAYING, and MEANING here?
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:52 pmWell if 'you', adult human beings, STOPPED LYING TO, DECEIVING, AND BETRAYING children, then they would NEED to LEARN when they are being DUPED, LIED TO, DECEIVED, OR BETRAYED, by 'you', adult human beings.

SIMPLE. REALLY.
Are you implying that children don't lie???

Lol
NO, NEVER HAVE and NEVER WOULD.

WHY? Were you ASSUMING otherwise?
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:52 pmLOL WHY do 'you', human beings, ADD the 'philosophical' word into places where it REALLY is NOT necessary?

And, WHY PRESUME that MOST people are lying, from the VERY start?

This is a CLEAR SIGN of just how MUCH DAMAGE has been done to you ALREADY.

Furthermore, WHO are in the 'MOST' group? And, how do you DISTINGUISH them apart, from the VERY start?
You implied that gender or sex cannot be deciphered from chromosomes.
I NEVER even thought 'that', let alone implied 'that' absolutely ANYWHERE here. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True here above.
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am So this validates my presumption that people do tend to lie from the start.
But 'that' is ALL in your OWN IMAGINATION.
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am If you cannot distinguish man from woman, then what Authority do you really have in life?
You are just going FURTHER and FURTHER off track and afield now.
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am Why should anybody listen to your philosophical interests or opinions, if you don't know common sense?
This could be some 'thing' that you asked "your" OWN 'self' here.
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am
Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 2:52 pmDo 'you' LIE about 'your gender'?

If no, then HOW do you KNOW?

Have you gone and got 'your chromosomes' CHECKED?

If no, then HOW can 'you' be SO SURE of what 'your gender' IS, EXACTLY?
Because I'm certain about myself.
AND, who and what is 'that', EXACTLY?

Surely, if 'you' are CERTAIN 'about' "yourself", then it would be EXTREMELY VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to just answer my question posed to 'you' here for CLARIFICATION, correct?
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:10 am Why would a man pretend to be a woman, or a woman pretend to be a man? Explain that.
Because they WANT TO.

Oh, and by the way, what is a 'man' AND a 'woman' to 'you', EXACTLY?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Age »

Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:17 am
Age wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 3:20 pmOF COURSE they do. But this is ONLY because 'you', adult human beings, TAUGHT them TO BULLY.

And, 'you' do this because 'you' have some sort of DISTORTED VERSION of what 'normal' IS, EXACTLY?

YET if one was to ASK ANY 'child' or ANY of 'you', adult human beings, 'What is 'normal', EXACTLY? Then 'you' can NOT provide ANY accurate True answer, well not in the days when this was being written anyway.

ALL of 'you', adults and older children alike, will ACT in certain ways, which are PERCEIVED to be 'normal', but when QUESTIONED ALL of 'you' can NOT tell 'me' what 'normal' IS, EXACTLY.

And, especially 'you', "wizard22", as you are SHOWING and PROVING absolutely True here.
If you don't know that children bully each other, without being "taught", then you are truly deluding yourself.
Are you absolutely SURE you have thought this through FULLY?
Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:17 am In Nature, newborn animals regularly kill their siblings. They are not "taught" to do so. How do you explain that??
How I explain non human animals killing their siblings is by just saying, sometimes non human animals kill their siblings.

But you are REALLY NOT 'trying to' relate the killing of non human animals by their siblings as being 'bullying' are you?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Philosophy

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:37 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:32 amShe doesn't do it to justify anything, she just does it to introduce confusion into a topic where she's lost her way. It's her Uno Reverso card.
I'm beginning to see your point...seeing how she just lied that men are women, and women are men.

Maybe she doesn't know her own gender...oh well, such has become a common occurrence during the recent decades.
Belinda doesn't put together cohesive arguments for things as a rule in my experience. But if she's arguing that there's no logical requirement for two biological sexes to map directly into to two social genders, then she's got a good enough conclusion with or without a strong a supporting argument.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Philosophy

Post by henry quirk »

two biological sexes...two social genders
Wait, two biological sexes (male & female) and about 347 (and countin') social genders is more like it.

Me: I'll stick with boy & girl, man & woman.

So: when Joe, a man, pretends to be, or, sadly, actually believes he's a gal (or rutabaga-fluid or some other nonsense) I know he's a guy and will treat him as such.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Philosophy

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:13 pm
two biological sexes...two social genders
Wait, two biological sexes (male & female) and about 347 (and countin') social genders is more like it.

Me: I'll stick with boy & girl, man & woman.

So: when Joe, a man, pretends to be, or, sadly, actually believes he's a gal (or rutabaga-fluid or some other nonsense) I know he's a guy and will treat him as such.
You are a Conservative expressing a preference for custom, which isn't that unusual

However, there is no logical requirement for two biological sexes to map directly into to two social genders.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Philosophy

Post by henry quirk »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:28 pm
henry quirk wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:13 pm
two biological sexes...two social genders
Wait, two biological sexes (male & female) and about 347 (and countin') social genders is more like it.

Me: I'll stick with boy & girl, man & woman.

So: when Joe, a man, pretends to be, or, sadly, actually believes he's a gal (or rutabaga-fluid or some other nonsense) I know he's a guy and will treat him as such.
You are a Conservative expressing a preference for custom, which isn't that unusual

However, there is no logical requirement for two biological sexes to map directly into to two social genders.
If a biological man adopts the role of biological woman, well, that's illogical (cuz he's a guy).

BTW: biggy wants to interrogate you about all the times I've been wrong, in-forum, on BIG STUFF, and have admitted to bein' wrong. Just a heads up.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Philosophy

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:44 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:28 pm
henry quirk wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:13 pm

Wait, two biological sexes (male & female) and about 347 (and countin') social genders is more like it.

Me: I'll stick with boy & girl, man & woman.

So: when Joe, a man, pretends to be, or, sadly, actually believes he's a gal (or rutabaga-fluid or some other nonsense) I know he's a guy and will treat him as such.
You are a Conservative expressing a preference for custom, which isn't that unusual

However, there is no logical requirement for two biological sexes to map directly into to two social genders.
If a biological man adopts the role of biological woman, well, that's illogical (cuz he's a guy).
I'm afraid that's the colloquial edition of 'illogical', sufficient for the man on the Clapham omnibus (no idea what the American equivalent of that is), but not the same rigour as a strict logical requirement.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:44 pm BTW: biggy wants to interrogate you about all the times I've been wrong, in-forum, on BIG STUFF, and have admitted to bein' wrong. Just a heads up.
Uhm ok. I can confirm you have a unique talent in such matters.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Philosophy

Post by henry quirk »

I'm afraid that's the colloquial edition of 'illogical', sufficient for the man on the Clapham omnibus (no idea what the American equivalent of that is), but not the same rigour as a strict logical requirement.
I don't know what all that means.

I do know: a biological man cannot be a biological woman.

And -- it seems to me -- social gender only has grounding if it actually aligns with sumthin'.

I'm a trans-penguin is nonsense, crazy-talk: there's no connection between that placeholder and reality.
I can confirm you have a unique talent in such matters.
Yeah, he has his heart set on turnin' me into a desperate obese agoraphobic like himself and he's fishin' around for chinks in my armor.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Philosophy

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 2:52 pm
I'm afraid that's the colloquial edition of 'illogical', sufficient for the man on the Clapham omnibus (no idea what the American equivalent of that is), but not the same rigour as a strict logical requirement.
I don't know what all that means.

I do know: a biological man cannot be a biological woman.

And -- it seems to me -- social gender only has grounding if it actually aligns with sumthin'.

I'm a trans-penguin is nonsense, crazy-talk: there's no connection between that placeholder and reality.
That's fun. But it may seem to you that gender needs to match something, but it seeming that way to you isn't in itself very important.
So far it's nothing but customary expectation, the way it has always been therefore the way it must always be (aka, an ought from an is).

henry quirk wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 2:52 pm
I can confirm you have a unique talent in such matters.
Yeah, he has his heart set on turnin' me into a desperate obese agoraphobic like himself and he's fishin' around for chinks in my armor.
I am not an expert on his work, but that's the guy who goes on about dasein, right?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Philosophy

Post by henry quirk »

but it seeming that way to you isn't in itself very important.
Oh, I agree. If Morris likes to pretend he's a penguin, or that he actually believes he's a penguin, it makes me no never mind.

But: I'll never treat Morris as a penguin (cuz he's not) and feed him fish by hand, and that seems to be a problem for him.

*
that's the guy who goes on about dasein, right?
Yep.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Philosophy

Post by Belinda »

Wizard22 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 10:35 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 9:29 am Wizard22 wrote:
A scientist can look at your chromosomes and determine your sex and gender.
A scientist or a midwife or any layman determines your sex according to certain criteria which may or may not include chromosomes, and may include only external genitalia.

Gender is a role you play. Most people are subtly taught their gender during very early childhood and some are subtly taught that they may change their gender role at will. Gender is not biologically attached to chromosomes or genitalia.
You're wrong. Gender/Sex, both are your biology and anatomy.

A male cannot "pretend" to be a female, or inverse, biologically and anatomically.

You can lie about it, certainly, as you just did. But a lie is simple. Even children can understand the difference.
You could be right but I still think gender is a social role. Secondary sex characteristics don't include voluntary behaviours.
Post Reply