JK Rowling vs. History

[RCSaunders]

The opposite is true.

The man who says "Everyone lies sometimes" has, for the moment, told a truth.

Being a liar does not mean never telling the truth.

Are you unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "sometimes"?

On the other hand, the man who says "I have never lied" is most probably doing it at the present moment.

Take deep breath. I said:
"a. The man who says, "everyone lies sometimes," is a liar,"
and you said,
"The opposite is true." The opposite of, "is a liar, " is, "is not a liar."

Which means you were really saying, "The man who says, "everyone lies sometimes," is not a liar.

I told you I was sure it was inadvertent. I'm sure it's not what you intended.
[/quote]

[Gary Childress]

I suppose some people perhaps could and perhaps do fake it but I've met a couple of people who stated they had gender dysphoria and the ones I've met seemed to be on the level. I mean, why would anyone put themselves through all the persecution and sour looks if they could avoid it and just be "normal"?

Well, if it's fake, we surely shouldn't "accommodate" it.

But if it's "gender dysphoria," then it's a mental illness...and we should help them get free of it.

I mean, what kind of a psycho would encourage mentally ill people...say, somebody with delusions or suicidal ideation....that what they were experiencing was "normal"?

In any case, we would need a rationale other than "gender dysphoria" to rationalize "accommodation."

So you believe that people with gender dysphoria just need to be persuaded to stop believing that they would be happier as a person of the opposite sex, I take it? What if their brain is just too chemically confused to be fixed? Should we not try to be somewhat accomodating? I mean, we have wheelchair ramps and things for people with physical disabilities, what about people with mental disabilities who just can't be cured for whatever reason? What's the significant harm if Joe wants to be called Josephine?

[Immanuel Can]

I said:
"a. The man who says, "everyone lies sometimes," is a liar,"
and you said,
"The opposite is true." The opposite of, "is a liar, " is, "is not a liar."

Well, he's certainly not lying in that utterance. So it's hard to see why it matters if you characterize him as also being a "liar." In that case, you're just being ad hominem, because in this instance, he's telling the truth.

[Gary Childress]

Being a liar does not mean never telling the truth.

Are you unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "sometimes"?

On the other hand, the man who says "I have never lied" is most probably doing it at the present moment.

Take deep breath. I said:
"a. The man who says, "everyone lies sometimes," is a liar,"
and you said,
"The opposite is true." The opposite of, "is a liar, " is, "is not a liar."

Which means you were really saying, "The man who says, "everyone lies sometimes," is not a liar.

I told you I was sure it was inadvertent. I'm sure it's not what you intended.

So if someone who admits they lie sometimes is a "liar" what does that make someone who pretends to be perfect when they're not? I mean, have you never lied to anyone ever? Would you not lie under certain circumstances? It seems to me that if someone who admits they lie sometimes is necessarily a "liar" then we're all probably "liars." I suppose it could be like calling a spade a spade but it seems harsh not to credit people at all for the times they tell the truth.

[Immanuel Can]

I suppose some people perhaps could and perhaps do fake it but I've met a couple of people who stated they had gender dysphoria and the ones I've met seemed to be on the level. I mean, why would anyone put themselves through all the persecution and sour looks if they could avoid it and just be "normal"?

Well, if it's fake, we surely shouldn't "accommodate" it.

But if it's "gender dysphoria," then it's a mental illness...and we should help them get free of it.

I mean, what kind of a psycho would encourage mentally ill people...say, somebody with delusions or suicidal ideation....that what they were experiencing was "normal"?

In any case, we would need a rationale other than "gender dysphoria" to rationalize "accommodation."

So you believe that people with gender dysphoria just need to be persuaded to stop believing that they would be happier as a person of the opposite sex, I take it?

Why would you "take" that?

That makes no sense. If somebody is a schizophrenic, would you suppose my proposed solution would be "to persuade him to stop believing" something? If somebody was a neurotic, or delusional, or compulsive, why would you suppose I would choose such a therapy?

An odd assumption, indeed.

What if their brain is just too chemically confused to be fixed?

How do we determine that they are a hopeless case? Wouldn't you rather believe that they could be helped? And even if they couldn't, would "accommodating" be a good response?

It's hard to see why it would be. If a man is an incurable pedophile or psychopath, are you now arguing that all we can do is "accommodate" him?

Should we not try to be somewhat accomodating? I mean, we have wheelchair ramps and things for people with physical disabilities, what about people with mental disabilities who just can't be cured for whatever reason? What's the significant harm if Joe wants to be called Josephine?

Well, you've now essentially condemned all body dysmorphic people as incurable, Gary, if you analogize them with, say the deaf, or blind people or paraplegics. But why should we think they're incurable? Are not many cognitive conditions curable,or manageable at least, through things like cognitive and behavioural therapy? Some don't even require that much intervention.

But even if we grant their situation to be incurable (which I think is no kindness at all to them), why would we say "accommodating" is what we need to do? As I say, we don't think it's a good idea to just go ahead and "accommodate" people who have other kinds of delusions, so why would we make a unique exception here?

And there is, of course, the separate question you raise of whether or not you have a duty to call Joe "Josephine." Why are we now saying that you have a duty to behave in a way as deluded as he is? How did this deluded person get such power? Why would we grant that?

So make the case for accommodation, if you can, Gary: how would "accommodating" make body dysmorphia better?

[RCSaunders]

I said:
"a. The man who says, "everyone lies sometimes," is a liar,"
and you said,
"The opposite is true." The opposite of, "is a liar, " is, "is not a liar."

Well, he's certainly not lying in that utterance. So it's hard to see why it matters if you characterize him as also being a "liar." In that case, you're just being ad hominem, because in this instance, he's telling the truth.

Whatever!

[Immanuel Can]

I said:
"a. The man who says, "everyone lies sometimes," is a liar,"
and you said,
"The opposite is true." The opposite of, "is a liar, " is, "is not a liar."

Well, he's certainly not lying in that utterance. So it's hard to see why it matters if you characterize him as also being a "liar." In that case, you're just being ad hominem, because in this instance, he's telling the truth.

Whatever!

Now, there's a response of real depth and insight. I can live with that.

[RCSaunders]

Are you unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "sometimes"?

On the other hand, the man who says "I have never lied" is most probably doing it at the present moment.

Take deep breath. I said:
"a. The man who says, "everyone lies sometimes," is a liar,"
and you said,
"The opposite is true." The opposite of, "is a liar, " is, "is not a liar."

Which means you were really saying, "The man who says, "everyone lies sometimes," is not a liar.

I told you I was sure it was inadvertent. I'm sure it's not what you intended.

So if someone who admits they lie sometimes is a "liar" what does that make someone who pretends to be perfect when they're not? I mean, have you never lied to anyone ever? Would you not lie under certain circumstances? It seems to me that if someone who admits they lie sometimes is necessarily a "liar" then we're all probably "liars." I suppose it could be like calling a spade a spade but it seems harsh not to credit people at all for the times they tell the truth.

Gary, my son, it's not polite to ask people personal questions when discussing ideas. This is not Twitter or Facebook where discussions are based on personalities and feelings.

What I am or what I do is totally irrelevant to the question. If an individual interviews a felony thief in prison, and that thief says, "it is wrong to steal," does the fact he was ever a thief disqualify the truth of his statement?

My point was only that those who justify anything by claiming some characteristic is universal are admitting they have that characteristic. I'm not blaming anyone for anything, they are accusing themselves.

I also see nothing wrong with lying to someone who would use the truth to do one harm. When people go on vacation and have their mail, newspapers, and other deliveries stopped or leave some lights in their home on a timer is it essentially a lie to burglars that they are home. I lie all the time to phone solicitors and census takers. Partly to protect myself and my privacy, and partly because it's fun. I regard it as a virtue.

[Immanuel Can]

My point was only that those who justify anything by claiming some characteristic is universal are admitting they have that characteristic. I'm not blaming anyone for anything, they are accusing themselves.

That depends.

It depends on whether the phrase "has told a lie" and "is a liar" have the same substance and scope.

But one is a description of an action, and the other is an indictment of a whole character. One points to a moment in time, and the other to a habitual pattern of life.

[mickthinks]

So you think Rachel Dolezal can't be black, people who "transable" themselves are ... what? Mentally ill? Or just fine? And you think you can identify as a salmon or a rhodedendron?

I'm happy to answer any of those questions if you want to raise them in other threads. This one is about JK Rowling and her row over transwomen's status and rights and I think you're veering off topic.

[mickthinks]

Bumping this:

A sad tale indeed that has almost nuthin' to do with delusional men believin' they're women. Schinegger was/is a hermaphrodite: his transition was corrective, not mutilatin'.

Are you saying that Schinegger was not delusional when he believed he was a woman, Henry? If you are then how are you deciding who is delusional and who isn't?

Because that is also what this thread is about.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There's that wokebot again...

[RCSaunders]

Beware the man who makes broad moral judgments.

a. The man who says, "everyone lies sometimes," is a liar.
b. The man who says, "everyone steals sometimes," is a thief.
c. The man who says, "everyone cheats sometimes," is a cheat.

And the man who says everyone is crazy is a nut.


Hmmm ... that looks like four ad hominem fallacies primed and loaded.

That's "ad hominem," but, "We all have psychological flaws - every single one of us," isn't?

That was my point. Duh!

[RCSaunders]

My point was only that those who justify anything by claiming some characteristic is universal are admitting they have that characteristic. I'm not blaming anyone for anything, they are accusing themselves.

That depends.

It depends on whether the phrase "has told a lie" and "is a liar" have the same substance and scope.

But one is a description of an action, and the other is an indictment of a whole character. One points to a moment in time, and the other to a habitual pattern of life.

It's not the point at all. The point is, if one accuses all human beings of a characteristic, unless they are not a human being, it must include themselves.

It was directed at the statement:

"We all have psychological flaws - every single one of us."

Whether such a statement is true or not, the one who makes the statement is claiming it is, so must not doubt it about himself, even if he's the only one with that trait. That is often the case and it is called projection. It is the ignorant assumption that what is true of oneself is true of everyone.

[Gary Childress]

Well, if it's fake, we surely shouldn't "accommodate" it.

But if it's "gender dysphoria," then it's a mental illness...and we should help them get free of it.

I mean, what kind of a psycho would encourage mentally ill people...say, somebody with delusions or suicidal ideation....that what they were experiencing was "normal"?

In any case, we would need a rationale other than "gender dysphoria" to rationalize "accommodation."

So you believe that people with gender dysphoria just need to be persuaded to stop believing that they would be happier as a person of the opposite sex, I take it?

Why would you "take" that?

That makes no sense. If somebody is a schizophrenic, would you suppose my proposed solution would be "to persuade him to stop believing" something? If somebody was a neurotic, or delusional, or compulsive, why would you suppose I would choose such a therapy?

An odd assumption, indeed.

What if their brain is just too chemically confused to be fixed?

How do we determine that they are a hopeless case? Wouldn't you rather believe that they could be helped? And even if they couldn't, would "accommodating" be a good response?

It's hard to see why it would be. If a man is an incurable pedophile or psychopath, are you now arguing that all we can do is "accommodate" him?

Should we not try to be somewhat accomodating? I mean, we have wheelchair ramps and things for people with physical disabilities, what about people with mental disabilities who just can't be cured for whatever reason? What's the significant harm if Joe wants to be called Josephine?

Well, you've now essentially condemned all body dysmorphic people as incurable, Gary, if you analogize them with, say the deaf, or blind people or paraplegics. But why should we think they're incurable? Are not many cognitive conditions curable,or manageable at least, through things like cognitive and behavioural therapy? Some don't even require that much intervention.

But even if we grant their situation to be incurable (which I think is no kindness at all to them), why would we say "accommodating" is what we need to do? As I say, we don't think it's a good idea to just go ahead and "accommodate" people who have other kinds of delusions, so why would we make a unique exception here?

And there is, of course, the separate question you raise of whether or not you have a duty to call Joe "Josephine." Why are we now saying that you have a duty to behave in a way as deluded as he is? How did this deluded person get such power? Why would we grant that?

So make the case for accommodation, if you can, Gary: how would "accommodating" make body dysmorphia better?

The same way a wheelchair ramp accommodates someone with a temporary physical disability. It creates fewer obstacles for a person to overcome all at once. It can be very alienating to have a mental health diagnosis and sometimes, in order to change, it takes a while and can't be done overnight. In the meantime, you help them feel less alienated from others so things don't feel hopeless for them.