vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:50 pm
It's impossible to have free speech while 'hate speech' laws exist. The two cannot co-exist.
Free speech absolutism is a pipe dream.
The hate speech laws exist in response to people insisting that their 'free speech' is absolute. You want to be the voice of dissent? You want to stand your ground? For every action there is an over-reaction...
The laws didn't come first - the 'hate speech' did. While you were 'speaking freely' - people were politicising to stop you from doing it. And you did nothing to stop them from politicising.
If you don't want to measure your free speech - it will be measured for you. And then you die. And the next generation repeats the process.
Utter bullshit. 'Hate speech' laws were brought in to control the population and destroy free speech. It's dangerous because it's utterly meaningless and wide open to exploitation as I have shown in earlier posts.
You are in good company (I think--your waffle makes very little sense)--Stalin was a huge fan of 'hate speech' laws.
you don't want to compromise with Steve-Suzan and recognize her womanhood.
Steve is a guy. I won't say otherwise.
#
you don't want to live in a society with compelled speech laws.
Nope. If I'm not slanderin', what comes out of my mouth is my business.
#
That is the price you pay for naive realism and essentialism. You want Truth? The cost of that pursuit is loss of freedom. And not just your freedom - you are costing everybody their freedom.
The cost for bein' a realist is goin' toe to toe with anti-realists. A small price to be right. Truth (what is true) and freedom (self-directin') are part & parcel (not at odds).
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:03 pm
...do we look at this essentialism problem?
We don't need to; because with essentialism or without, trans-wanting is irrational.
If essentialism is true, then the trans-wanter can legitimately want to be female, but can't actually do it, because there's no real, essential femaleness for them to become.
If essentialism is not true, then the trans-wanter has nothing legitimate to want, because gender isn't even a real, objective, stable thing.
They need essentialism for their wanting, but non-essentialism for their transitioning. They can't do with just one, so they're rationally inconsistent in their very request. Nothing can be said except that their desire fails to bear relationship to reality, and they need mental help.
And that's pretty much all there is to the story, rationally speaking.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:03 pm
...do we look at this essentialism problem?
We don't need to; because with essentialism or without, trans-wanting is irrational.
If essentialism is true, then the trans-wanter can legitimately want to be female, but can't actually do it, because there's no real, essential femaleness for them to become.
If essentialism is not true, then the trans-wanter has nothing legitimate to want, because gender isn't even a real, objective, stable thing.
They need essentialism for their wanting, but non-essentialism for their transitioning. They can't do with just one, so they're rationally inconsistent in their very request. Nothing can be said except that their desire fails to bear relationship to reality, and they need mental help.
And that's pretty much all there is to the story, rationally speaking.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:53 pm
clue me in: what's the essentialism problem?
It's not really a "problem," Henry. It's just a controversy.
Some people want to think there's no "essential" reality to a given thing...that all things are merely "social constructs," or ideas made up by society. So philosophers argue over questions of what "essentially" makes a thing what-it-is, as opposed to something-it-isn't. That's basically it.
In the present context, we are applying that to maleness and femaleness among humans. Non-essentialists believe that there is no essential feature that makes a woman a woman and a man a man. Essentialist believe there is, though they still debate the question of exactly what feature or cluster of features we should pick out as "essential".
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:53 pm
clue me in: what's the essentialism problem?
It's not really a "problem," Henry. It's just a controversy.
Some people want to think there's no "essential" reality to a given thing...that all things are merely "social constructs," or ideas made up by society. So philosophers argue over questions of what "essentially" makes a thing what-it-is, as opposed to something-it-isn't. That's basically it.
In the present context, we are applying that to maleness and femaleness among humans. Non-essentialists believe that there is no essential feature that makes a woman a woman and a man a man. Essentialist believe there is, though they still debate the question of exactly what feature or cluster of features we should pick out as "essential".
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:03 pm
...do we look at this essentialism problem?
We don't need to; because with essentialism or without, trans-wanting is irrational.
If essentialism is true, then the trans-wanter can legitimately want to be female, but can't actually do it, because there's no real, essential femaleness for them to become.
If essentialism is not true, then the trans-wanter has nothing legitimate to want, because gender isn't even a real, objective, stable thing.
They need essentialism for their wanting, but non-essentialism for their transitioning. They can't do with just one, so they're rationally inconsistent in their very request. Nothing can be said except that their desire fails to bear relationship to reality, and they need mental help.
And that's pretty much all there is to the story, rationally speaking.
So if essentialism is correct then no transitions because essences.
But if essentialism is not correct, then no transitions because without essences there can be no categories.
Your first obviously depends on how you can answer questions about your essentialism - which you have completely refused to do so far.
Your second depends on essentialist assumptions about categorisation even in the posited circumstance that those do not hold.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:53 pm
clue me in: what's the essentialism problem?
It's not really a "problem," Henry. It's just a controversy.
Some people want to think there's no "essential" reality to a given thing...that all things are merely "social constructs," or ideas made up by society. So philosophers argue over questions of what "essentially" makes a thing what-it-is, as opposed to something-it-isn't. That's basically it.
In the present context, we are applying that to maleness and femaleness among humans. Non-essentialists believe that there is no essential feature that makes a woman a woman and a man a man. Essentialist believe there is, though they still debate the question of exactly what feature or cluster of features we should pick out as "essential".
oh, it's just the same shit we've been debatin'
I thought sumthin' new had mebbe been introduced
Can you show me a single answer Mannie has provided to any question related to essences? He has not, he even had you interfering on his behalf to help him get out of it by constantly demanding changes of subject away from that.
The sheer nerve of you two telling me this has been debated is off the fucking chart.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:26 pm
So if essentialism is correct then no transitions because essences.
But if essentialism is not correct, then no transitions because without essences there can be no categories.
Now you've got it.
Your first obviously depends on how you can answer questions about your essentialism
Not at all. Because if you take the second, the opposite, instead, you get exactly the same rational outcome.
It doesn't matter a hoot what you believe about essentialism. Trans-wanting is irrational, either way. That's the point.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:26 pm
So if essentialism is correct then no transitions because essences.
But if essentialism is not correct, then no transitions because without essences there can be no categories.
Now you've got it.
Your first obviously depends on how you can answer questions about your essentialism
Not at all. Because if you take the second, the opposite, instead, you get exactly the same rational outcome.
It doesn't matter a hoot what you believe about essentialism. Trans-wanting is irrational, either way. That's the point.
You forgot one for some reason.
Your second depends on essentialist assumptions about categorisation even in the posited circumstance that those do not hold.
Apparently forgetting to answer questions, or promising to answer them only when random alternative questions have been "sufficiently" answered is how debate works with some people.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:26 pm
So if essentialism is correct then no transitions because essences.
But if essentialism is not correct, then no transitions because without essences there can be no categories.
Now you've got it.
Your first obviously depends on how you can answer questions about your essentialism
Not at all. Because if you take the second, the opposite, instead, you get exactly the same rational outcome.
It doesn't matter a hoot what you believe about essentialism. Trans-wanting is irrational, either way. That's the point.
You forgot one for some reason.
Your second depends on essentialist assumptions about categorisation even in the posited circumstance that those do not hold.
I can't make sense out of it. Who are your "those"? The pronoun has no specific referent.
You might mean trans-wanters. But that can't be right, because they all believe fervently in the reality and "essentialness" of the gender at which they aim. I really can't imagine what you mean, actually.
Okay. This argument of yours that if were to assume essentialism is incorrect, then the category of female would not exist at all. That second thing assumes that only essentialism can make categories valid in any way., which renders it invalid if essentialism is actually wrong.
if...essentialism is incorrect, then the category of female would not exist at all
yep
categories are only valid if there's sumthin' to categorize
that's what captain dunsel and me went round & round about
if womanhood is a fiction then the category woman is a fiction too, and if the category is a fiction then what the hell are all those guys who claim to be women kvetchin' about?
go, get a dress, find a fella, settle down, make babies, and shut the hell up
