Biologists may disagree.There is no statutory definition of biological sex in the US nor universally.
IS and OUGHT
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: IS and OUGHT
Re: IS and OUGHT
You know me, henry, I don't like to outstay my welcome.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:05 pm
He was in & out so fast, I don't recall what his position was.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: IS and OUGHT
If you are a man, I'll be happy to. If you're a woman, I won't.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:14 pm Henry, if you call me "it" that would be like you misspelling Belinda. It would be a typo error, as you know I am a person not a thing. Things don't express feelings . You attribute "bleeding heart " to me therefore you believe I'm a person not a thing. You can call me "he" if you like and I would not mind.
Your ease with anything has no bearin'.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: IS and OUGHT
Hey, what is your position on the matter of rights?Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:18 pmYou know me, henry, I don't like to outstay my welcome.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:05 pm
He was in & out so fast, I don't recall what his position was.
Re: IS and OUGHT
They don't define biological sex. Biologists think biological sex is a spectrum.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:15 pmBiologists may disagree.There is no statutory definition of biological sex in the US nor universally.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: IS and OUGHT
*Among humans? Citation please.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:22 pmThey don't define biological sex. *Biologists think biological sex is a spectrum.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:15 pmBiologists may disagree.There is no statutory definition of biological sex in the US nor universally.
Re: IS and OUGHT
That must be annoying for you but I am content as long as you keep posting stuff that is not merely abusive.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:18 pmIf you are a man, I'll be happy to. If you're a woman, I won't.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:14 pm Henry, if you call me "it" that would be like you misspelling Belinda. It would be a typo error, as you know I am a person not a thing. Things don't express feelings . You attribute "bleeding heart " to me therefore you believe I'm a person not a thing. You can call me "he" if you like and I would not mind.
Your ease with anything has no bearin'.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: IS and OUGHT
Okay, I gotta go work to pay for this electricity and net access: back later.
Re: IS and OUGHT
You can do your own googling. I am not writing an academic dissertation here.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:24 pm*Among humans? Citation please.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: IS and OUGHT
I haven't been abusive, B: you've been thin-skinned.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:25 pmThat must be annoying for you but I am content as long as you keep posting stuff that is not merely abusive.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:18 pmIf you are a man, I'll be happy to. If you're a woman, I won't.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:14 pm Henry, if you call me "it" that would be like you misspelling Belinda. It would be a typo error, as you know I am a person not a thing. Things don't express feelings . You attribute "bleeding heart " to me therefore you believe I'm a person not a thing. You can call me "he" if you like and I would not mind.
Your ease with anything has no bearin'.
Anyway: goin' make money now.
Re: IS and OUGHT
I think rights are a good thing in general, and they tend to come with responsibilities.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6334
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: IS and OUGHT
What is the bit I highlighted there supposed to mean?henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:05 pmNo, what you're gettin' is: I can't give you what you want. I can ask, and have asked, is there anyone here who objects to the idea that he is a free man with a right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property? and I can point to an ethical system based on each of us bein' free men, each with a right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property, as bein' better (how can it not be?). But I can't, to the amoralist, show this as moral fact.I'm asking you what makes this principle that you do like so much better than principles that other people like? And I'm mainly getting sulky attitude in return.
Are you blaming me for not agreeing with your argument?
Some majoritarian realist would agree with what you wrote there, but I am not a realist so describing my position with the language of realism won't work. As if you cared.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:05 pmOh, from your perspective as someone with no claim to yourself, the majority wins...not becuz the majority is right but simply becuz they are the majority.But if somebody else cooks up a set of rights including not to die of poverty and shit, then everyone agrees that this supersedes your right to not pay any taxes, you can whitter about every inconvenience you ever experience being slavery as much as you like, it's just a case of your prefererred right being overriden for a purpose in accordance with other rights. I know what your opinion agianst that is, but I don't see anything that makes one particular opinion special against all the others out there.
That's all very ought to is. I have tried to explain this for you in the past, but you have your head so far up your own ass you never pay any attention. I say, and I believe Harbal says something similar, that we as a society, have endless debates about this stuff and over time they move back and forth. Your petulant little strawman dramas aren't accurate.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:05 pm And you, with no claim to anything (other than what's allowed by the majority), well, you may not like what the majority demands of you, or restricts you to or from, but -- if you're gonna be consistent (and, of course, you don't have to be) -- you have no foundation to resist. If your government, backed by the will of the people, decides trannies are a menace that must be contained or eliminated, well, them's the breaks. You certainly can't argue (well, you can, but who'd take you seriously?) the trans-person has any rights. you could argue they have privileges, sure, but that's all (understandin', of course, that what the people give, the people can take away).
Yeah. That sort of sounds like Democracy really.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:05 pm Taxes: now, you, as you have no claim to diddly (beyond what is granted you by the majority) you'll pay, you have no reason not to other than I don't like it. Doesn't matter if it's feeding the poor or buildin' bombs. You have no real objection to offer. Certainly, you can't claim anyone has a right to food or no right to bombs (well, you can but it has no backin').
You never stop to find out what the other person actually believes Henry, it's really never been your thing. You always go stright into the simple country hyper-chicken routine of "seems to me.." without really finding out what anything is about to anyone who isn't you.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:05 pmHe was in & out so fast, I don't recall what his position was.So there's nothing wrong with Harbal's position on the matter of rights.
Re: IS and OUGHT
[quote=Sculptor post_id=588826 time=1660039891 user_id=17400]
[quote=Advocate post_id=588814 time=1660033029 user_id=15238]
IS is a prerequisite for all versions of OUGHT.
[/quote]
But it is not a precursor.
[/quote]
It is also that. All OUGHT statements are conditional on desiring a given outcome. IF you want X, THEN Y is the best choice.
[quote=Advocate post_id=588814 time=1660033029 user_id=15238]
IS is a prerequisite for all versions of OUGHT.
[/quote]
But it is not a precursor.
[/quote]
It is also that. All OUGHT statements are conditional on desiring a given outcome. IF you want X, THEN Y is the best choice.
Re: IS and OUGHT
For goodness sake! I did not say you had. As a matter of fact you have not.I'm sorry Henry, I did not phrase very well what I meant to say. Please continue to post your ideas.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:27 pmI haven't been abusive, B: you've been thin-skinned.Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:25 pmThat must be annoying for you but I am content as long as you keep posting stuff that is not merely abusive.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:18 pm
If you are a man, I'll be happy to. If you're a woman, I won't.
Your ease with anything has no bearin'.
Anyway: goin' make money now.
Re: IS and OUGHT
Damn it Henry, sometimes I just want the song to be about me. Jeeze!henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:41 amIt wasn't. My original thought was 4798 was a philosopher. But most of those are already whores of one kind or another. Also, the night of the Great Leveling woulda had most of 'em dead or in low level flunky jobs like Supervising Unit 1.if this pastiche is targeted at my position
Lol