Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:37 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:22 pm All he needs is a bullet to the head.

That's why they give them new identities and keep it quiet when they get let out--to protect the poor things from 'bullets to the head'.

Wait, where you are, child rapists get state protection?

Are you shittin' me?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 12:03 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:37 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:22 pm All he needs is a bullet to the head.

That's why they give them new identities and keep it quiet when they get let out--to protect the poor things from 'bullets to the head'.

Wait, where you are, child rapists get state protection?

Are you shittin' me?

I'm not kidding. You could be living next door to a notorious released child-killer and you would never know it.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 12:35 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 12:03 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:37 pm
That's why they give them new identities and keep it quiet when they get let out--to protect the poor things from 'bullets to the head'.

Wait, where you are, child rapists get state protection?

Are you shittin' me?

I'm not kidding. You could be living next door to a notorious released child-killer and you would never know it.

Unbelievable. Here, when Chester the child molester leaves prison, he has to register as a sex offender with the law enforcement of the community he's gonna live in and, at his own expense, he has to put notices in the local papers declaring his status, his name, and his address.

Now, if Chester is a garden-variety murderer, he don't have to do squat (unless it was a kid killed).

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:08 pm 'Compassion' has nothing to do with it.

Well, we can't judge what motives, but we can judge actions.

We don't know what motives various therapists, counsellors and psychologists may have, or generalize as if they all had the same motive. Some will be bad people, and some will be good people, and some will be a mix. But what we can know is that mentally ill people need help, and leaving them helpless, we can decisively say, is not compassionate.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:55 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:08 pm 'Compassion' has nothing to do with it.

Well, we can't judge what motives, but we can judge actions.

We don't know what motives various therapists, counsellors and psychologists may have, or generalize as if they all had the same motive. Some will be bad people, and some will be good people, and some will be a mix. But what we can know is that mentally ill people need help, and leaving them helpless, we can decisively say, is not compassionate.

You don't seem to have read a word I wrote. I assume you are in that industry. You don't strike me as a compassionate or empathetic person, so I'm probably right.
The genuinely mentally ill go to psychiatrists to get doped up.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:48 am You don't seem to have read a word I wrote. I assume you are in that industry. You don't strike me as a compassionate or empathetic person, so I'm probably right.
The genuinely mentally ill go to psychiatrists to get doped up.

Well, I guess that's the end of that discussion. Be well.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 5:38 am

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:18 am I do not care about the transgender thing.

Fair enough. But I think we can have some compassion for the people who suffer from dysmorphic disorder, and try to help them. Theirs is a miserable lot in life, if left to themselves.

yes of course, i just have little interest in the "culture wars" - nor do i care much about abortion (SC rules - viability is mine) - and guns (reasonable boring middle of the road handguns and rifles - think AR-15's and machine guns should not be legal).

so i'm both a boring middle of the roader moderate, and generally dissinterested in all the 4-6 "read meat" topics. always have been.

but mention fringe topics like Jury Pardon/Nullification, and my interest peaks and rankles go up!!!!!

lol.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:08 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:46 pm So it is metaphysically possible to change from man to woman (an admission that in iteslf disproves your own argument),

That it is "theoretically possible" for God to do something says nothing about whether it's humanly possible, and far less suggests the case is any more than speculative, which it is, obviously. You're really out on an illogical limb there.

Now, maybe you can get back to me when you have an answer to what "differences" you think exist between men and women, okay? You left that one hanging, but I can clear up your confusions very easily once you take a position.

But it's not theoretically possible for God to change a Man into a Woman. To do do would render the categories of man and woman meaningless.As per your own words here....

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:48 pm But if he thinks he can, then if he had any logic in his head he would have to realize that there would be no such thing as a "woman" anyway. Gender would then be an illusion only and if his male-genderedness is an illusion, so is his potential "womanness." There would be no such thing as either.

But it's not theoretically possible for God to change a Man into a Woman. To do do would render the categories of man and woman meaningless.As per your own words here....

If you can design, build, and sustain a universe, then -- yeah -- I'm thinkin' you could rejigger it as you like, and reorder or obliterate categories as you see fit.

The real question: havin' set up Reality in a certain way, why would God, midstream, start futzin' around with things?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 1:57 am

But it's not theoretically possible for God to change a Man into a Woman. To do do would render the categories of man and woman meaningless.As per your own words here....

If you can design, build, and sustain a universe, then -- yeah -- I'm thinkin' you could rejigger it as you like, and reorder or obliterate categories as you see fit.

The real question: havin' set up Reality in a certain way, why would God, midstream, start futzin' around with things?

There are things which God cannot do, these things are logically impossible, drawing a 4 sided triangle or cooking up a Thursday flavoured pie for instance. The universe of sentences with meanings does not allow these things to be done by any force, even God. Mannie's argument was that the whole meaning of man and woman disappears if one object switches between those categories, in other words that it is logically impossible, and therefore that God can't do it either.

Now of course God could have fixed that issue by creating a universe where an object can stop belonging to some category and start belonging to another by a process of transformation. Sane people would argue that he did. But that fucks Mannie's mean spirited little tranny argument up, which is the only reason I bothered to mention it.

"There are things which God cannot do, these things are logically impossible, drawing a 4 sided triangle or cooking up a Thursday flavoured pie for instance. The universe of sentences with meanings does not allow these things to be done by any force, even God."

Seems to me: the novelist (God) can write (create) in any language he likes, including one he makes up where triangles have four sides and Thursday is a spice.

#

"Mannie's argument was that the whole meaning of man and woman disappears if one object switches between those categories, in other words that it is logically impossible, and therefore that God can't do it either."

Seems to me Mannie's position is just a more erudite version of my own. Simply: Gender is fixed, immutable, not subject to change, sumthin' concretely intrinsic to the person. Man and woman are placeholders for this fixed, immutable, not subject to change, sumthin' concretely intrinsic quality. Mannie's point, and mine, is you can change the placeholders up all you like but what the placeholders place hold remains unchanged. Joe, a guy, calls himself a girl, dresses like a girl, acts like a girl, goes so far as to hormonally and surgically mutilate himself to appear as girl, but he's still a guy.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:26 am "There are things which God cannot do, these things are logically impossible, drawing a 4 sided triangle or cooking up a Thursday flavoured pie for instance. The universe of sentences with meanings does not allow these things to be done by any force, even God."

Seems to me: the novelist (God) can write (create) in any language he likes, including one he makes up where triangles have four sides and Thursday is a spice.

I doubt Mannie would go along with that though, and he's my target here.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:26 am "Mannie's argument was that the whole meaning of man and woman disappears if one object switches between those categories, in other words that it is logically impossible, and therefore that God can't do it either."

Seems to me Mannie's position is just a more erudite version of my own. Simply: Gender is fixed, immutable, not subject to change, sumthin' concretely intrinsic to the person. Man and woman are placeholders for this fixed, immutable, not subject to change, sumthin' concretely intrinsic quality. Mannie's point, and mine, is you can change the placeholders up all you like but what the placeholders place hold remains unchanged. Joe, a guy, calls himself a girl, dresses like a girl, acts like a girl, goes so far as to hormonally and surgically mutilate himself to appear as girl, but he's still a guy.

Mannie's argument was very much more ambitious than that though. It had a whole thing with essences and tried to arrange for the same conclusion to be true because of those essences whether those essences exist or don't. And he did a couple of pages of teaser action for exactly that stuff which you are leaving out... he did callouts, he did a hype routine for it, he made a whole broadway production out of people being to afraid to discuss it. That's not a more erudite restatement of your thing in any way, it was a foolish overreach by a truly shit philosopher.

"I doubt Mannie would go along with that though, and he's my target here."

Probably not. Target?

#

"Mannie's argument was very much more ambitious than that though. It had a whole thing with essences and tried to arrange for the same conclusion to be true because of those essences whether those essences exist or don't. And he did a couple of pages of teaser action for exactly that stuff which you are leaving out... he did callouts, he did a hype routine for it, he made a whole broadway production out of people being to afraid to discuss it. That's not a more erudite restatement of your thing in any way, it was a foolish overreach by a truly shit philosopher."

I see his fixation on essence as just a hoity-toity way of talkin' about that immutable quality that is gender. His notion: if this immutable quality exists then joe can pretend to be josephine but can never actually be josephine, so all the folderol about transgenderism is melodramatic nonsense cuz reality is reality and doesn't give a flip what anyone feels. On the other hand, Mannie sez, if this immutable quality doesn't exist then all the rigamarole about transgenderism is melodramatic nonsense cuz social constructs are fictions we adhere to, not realities we recognize, so joe isn't actually anything to be begin with.

As for Mannie"s showmanship: it doesn't bother me (though it sure does seems to grind gears for others).

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:08 pm Now, maybe you can get back to me when you have an answer to what "differences" you think exist between men and women, okay? You left that one hanging, but I can clear up your confusions very easily once you take a position.

But it's not theoretically possible...etc.

You dodged again. What's so hard -- or is it fear-inspiring -- about answering such a simple, clear question?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 5:02 am dodged

You presented a defined argument. It has flaws. You have dodged all questions on that by blatantly trying to make your flawed reasoning my problem.