Can a man really turn into a woman?

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply

Can a man really turn into a woman?

Gender is fluid, mutable, interchangeable, just a social construct (yes).
2
22%
Gender is fixed, immutable, not subject to change, sumthin' concretely intrinsic to the person (no).
7
78%
 
Total votes: 9

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9346
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Mannie

Post by henry quirk »

I can't help but follow the conversation: he's in my penalty box, but you quote him.

Boils down to this: he sez up is down, black is white, in is out, man is woman, good is bad, left is right, and so forth, cuz he sez so. He admits no error cuz he simply redefines error.

It's peacockery, jackassery, and nutjobjobbery wrapped up tight in a tiny, impenetrable ball.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9583
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Mannie

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:55 am It's peacockery, jackassery, and nutjobjobbery wrapped up tight in a tiny, impenetrable ball.
Okay, on the upside, you just expanded my vocabulary by three really great nouns.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9346
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Mannie

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:36 am
henry quirk wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:55 am It's peacockery, jackassery, and nutjobjobbery wrapped up tight in a tiny, impenetrable ball.
Okay, on the upside, you just expanded my vocabulary by three really great nouns.
:thumbsup:

minor correction: it should be nutjobbery not nutjobjobbery, though that works too
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9583
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Mannie

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:43 am minor correction: it should be nutjobbery not nutjobjobbery, though that works too
I figured.
Skepdick
Posts: 5236
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm I see.

So logical arguments will never impress you.
Why do you always reduce everything to black-and-white? Never/always. Where is your "sometimes"? Where is the nuance in your thought?

It's not that logical arguments "never" impress me. It's that ALL logical arguments are equal. I am equally impressed, or equally unimpressed - because they are logical, and therefore - the same.

By what objective mechanism or quality would I prefer/choose (value?) one logical argument over another? It's Buridan's ass applied to arguments, with the mild difference that I can choose not to choose (an argument) without dying.

What would impress me more than logical arguments is a non-contingent philosophy.

But that's impossible since its all Philosophy is contingent on humans inventing it ;)
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm No, the methods aren't: but the input is. The rules of logic are actually quite well defined.
Defined BY HUMANS and therefore contingent.

The methods are a consequence of the rules.
When you re-defined the rules - the methods change.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm Yes, but the fault there is in the axioms, not the method.
Is that so? How do you decide which axioms are 'better' without objective pragma?

What objective method did you use to determine objective pragma?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm Logic has its own rules. They're not defined by individuals in an ad hoc way.
Yes they are. That is why we have more than one logic.

Because different rules (logics!) were defined by different humans in ad hoc ways.

A "logic" is a consequence of its rules.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm Yes, that would be the problem. If you don't recognize that logic is better than illogic or ad hoc rationalizing, then
False dichotomy.

It's not logic or illogic. It's "Which logic? There are so many Logics to choose from! Like Truths". Like Religions.

Here's a short list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Much like the favourite Atheist question is "How do you know that your Religion is the correct one?"
My favourite question is "How do you know that your Logic is the correct one?"
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm it would be impossible to persuade of you of anything. Fair enough.
t is impossible for YOU to persuade me of anything - you aren't selling anything I am buying.
It is not impossible for me to persuade myself.

But it only begs the questions:
1. Why do you want to persuade me of anything?
2. What would persuade you that it's in your own, best interest to not try and persuade me of anything?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm Then perhaps you're not quite clear on the difference between "logic" and "narrative." That seems evident now.
There is no difference! You are the one insisting on the distinction between logic and language. Presumably because you think one is prescriptive and one isn't.

In the absence of prescriptive rules, the only difference between logic and language is that formal systems of logic force more rigour, rigidity, reduced vocabularies etc.

It's just formalisms. Platonic forms.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm That's the function logic would serve for us in this discussion...if you believed in it. But since you say you don't, I think it's not "shared pragma" we lack, but shared confidence in logic.
Q.E.D you are subservient to logic.

Appeal to authority.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm Same problem: "not work" for what purpose? What establishes that that purpose is legitimate, or even in your real interest, whatever you happen to think?
I establish it. To the best of my self-knowledge, other-people-knowledge and understanding of individual and collective interests.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm Oh. You mean "free will" is "choose your own purpose"?
It's at least one aspect of it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm Well, since you didn't make yourself exist, you can't say for what purpose you exist.
Now that I am autonomous - I get to decide.

I get to continue with the original purpose proposed for me, or rebel against it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm You might have some idea of a contingent "purpose" you are choosing to pursue, but that won't automatically connect you to any ultimate purpose at all.
I don't believe in Ultimate anything. Because all "Ultimates" are contingent. Even God.

God is contingent on me inventing hm.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm How so? "Anomie" just means "lawlessness," or better, "the absence of any rule or guideline in a given situation." The is-ought gap has to do with morality, not teleology.
Morality (values) is the narrow interpretation of the is-ought gap.
The broad interpretation is the present-future gap.

You can't arrive at a future "ought" from a present "is". It boils down to two question: What should we change? What can we change?

Paris is the capital of France, but we ought to change that.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm To "invent" a purpose for your existence, where no such thing actually exists, is simply to self-deceive. One can do that.
You can interpret it that way - sure. It can't possibly be deception when I am fully aware of the choice.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm I did not say you were. I said that Postmodernists are. Do you regard yourself among them?
Whether I regard myself as a Postmodernist is immaterial - I regard myself as a hypocrite.

Not by choice, mind you. It's for the lack of a better alternative (having found no Philosophy which fails to live up to any of its principles).
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm It's not so easy as that.
Nobody says it is, but If you have better mechanisms - share them with us.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm For example, I would say that subjecting children to Postmodern indoctrination is "harm."
I would say that subjecting children to any indoctrination is harm.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm You might say it's "teaching them how it is.". You might say that teaching about God is harm. I might say that failure to teach them about God is harm.
I might say - it's giving them perspectives. If my children want to be Christians - I'll join them in church.

It's how tolerance works.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm A racist would say that miscegenation is harm. A multiculturalist would say that being a racist is harm. A eugenicist would argue that letting certain people procreate is harm, and sane people would say that practicing eugenics is harm...

It's not so clear a concept as you suggest. Not nearly.
I never suggested it's clear or trivial - you are the one who wants it to be that way. It's ludicrously hard, non-trivial and not always perfect.

It's the least worst option of all the alternatives.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm Then I'm afraid you would simply be intolerant, full stop.
To somebody who only knows how to think in black-and-white - that would be true. And yet I tolerate Christians ;)
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm Because nobody ever "tolerates" things they like.
Ohhh, how cute! You are trying to appropriate the excluded middle to make your argument ;)

You are going to turn the like-indifferent-dislike continuum into a like-dislike false dichotomy.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm Oh, so when you said you had knowledge of this through "objective, scientific recognition of reality" you were kidding.
I found no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis. If you have evidence - produce it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm Please...go ahead. I'd like to know.
You can't know. You are just going to have to accept to deal with this uncertainty ;)
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm I have to wonder why you're here, then. You seem to spend a great deal of time on something you say "sucks."
I am empirically testing my hypothesis THAT all philosophies suck.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Computer languages aren't "languages." They're mathematical and symbolic sequences used to prompt mere machines to produce outcomes.
You mean like you use English symbols to prompt people to change their minds?
No, because there's no "mind" in a computer. That's the point. It's capable, if sophisticated enough, in replicating the appearance of those operations, but never in genuinely doing the operations. Computers, as you know, are just machines. So they have no mind to change.
[/quote]
But there is mind in the humans whose minds you are trying to change.

You can use language to alter people's behaviour.
You can use language to alter a computer's behaviour.

For all practical purpose - we can say that the computer has a 'mind' - even if it's a primitive mind.
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Nov 21, 2019 11:49 am, edited 22 times in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 5236
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Mannie

Post by Skepdick »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:55 am Boils down to this: he sez up is down, black is white, in is out, man is woman, good is bad, left is right, and so forth, cuz he sez so. He admits no error cuz he simply redefines error.
Congratulations, Henry. You have figured out how philosophy works - or rather, why it doesn't.

Define "error". Objectively and Universally, such that nobody could possibly disagree with your definition.

The definition of "error" is literally SOMEBODY sez so.
The definition of "white" is literally SOMEBODY sez so.
The definition of "woman" is literally SOMEBODY sez so.
The definition of "left" is literally SOMEBODY sez so.

If I told you that your linguistic choices are an "error" you'd tell me to fuck off, yet by the same token - you don't like being told to fuck off.

The only thing worse than a hypocrite (such as myself) is a hypocrite in denial (such as yourself). Self-awareness is my redeeming quality. How can you Freely Choose to minimise any negative side-effects of your own hypocrisy when you don't even recognise yourself as a hypocrite?

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one --Romans 3:10

Philosophy (language) has no error-detection mechanisms - no negative feedback loops to signal 'error'. Touching hot stoves does. Lip service devoid of follow-up action doesn't.
henry quirk wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:55 am wrapped up tight in a tiny, impenetrable ball.
Isn't Truth supposed to be EXACTLY like that? Unchanging, impenetrable and unmovable despite anybody's opinion. Eureka! I found it!

Wasn't I supposed to?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9583
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:26 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm I see.

So logical arguments will never impress you.
Why do you always reduce everything to black-and-white? Never/always. Where is your "sometimes"? Where is the nuance in your thought?
Hey, it was you who said logic was not reliable. I assume that if something is unreliable, then you can't be expected to believe it. Any sensible person does not believe things that are known to deceive, and to seek confirmation on another basis. So to say that you won't be convinced by logic is perfectly fair, given your own claim...unless you want me to believe you willingly deceive yourself.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm No, the methods aren't: but the input is. The rules of logic are actually quite well defined.
Defined BY HUMANS and therefore contingent.
No. Mathematics is also something humans have created. But nobody says it's merely "contingent." In fact, mathematical concepts are a sort of paradigm of the reliable and, many would say, of necessary truths.
objective pragma?
"Objective" pragma? Pragma are merely instrumental, not objective.
That is why we have more than one logic.
I'm speaking of Formal Logic. Propositional logic.
It is impossible for YOU to persuade me of anything - you aren't selling anything I am buying.
When I made this claim above, you accused me of black-and-white thinking. Now you make it yourself?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm Then perhaps you're not quite clear on the difference between "logic" and "narrative." That seems evident now.
There is no difference! [/quote]
Yes, as I said: you have just said that you don't see any difference. Why is that a contentious claim for you? You say it yourself.
Appeal to authority.
Two problems with this: first, it's not. I was not appealing to any "authority," since no "authority" was invoked there; rather, I was referring to logic. So it's a misnomer. Secondly, "appeal to authority" is what's called an "informal fallacy," and is only wrong in inductive logic...which you have already claimed you think is unreliable. So in your view, I didn't do anything wrong, even if I HAD appealed to authority. Nothing is left to make that wrong.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm Well, since you didn't make yourself exist, you can't say for what purpose you exist.
Now that I am autonomous - I get to decide.
I guess we'll get to see how that determination stands up. The contingent being who did not create himself claims to define his own significance in life. That will be interesting.
Because all "Ultimates" are contingent.
That's just a contradiction. What you must mean is "there are no ultimates." You can't have a "contingent ultimate" anymore than you can have a square circle.
Paris is the capital of France, but we ought to change that.
This says nothing about the term "anomie," and doesn't tie it to is-ought, so I can't get your point there.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm To "invent" a purpose for your existence, where no such thing actually exists, is simply to self-deceive. One can do that.
You can interpret it that way - sure. It can't possibly be deception when I am fully aware of the choice.
Oh, sure it can. People do that all the time.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm Because nobody ever "tolerates" things they like.
You are trying to appropriate the excluded middle to make your argument.
Not at all. I'm simply defining. Nobody ever has to "put up with" anything they happen also to like. That's analytic in the term.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:56 pm Oh, so when you said you had knowledge of this through "objective, scientific recognition of reality" you were kidding.
I found no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis.
Okay. So just talking, then? You weren't sincere?

I think I understand your situation now. It seems you're more interested in a kind of gratuitous skepticism, as your pseudonym suggests, than following though by logic or truth, which you think are unreliable or don't exist. However, I have no better means to explain or persuade. So I don't quite know what the next step in the conversation would be.

Thanks for the chat.
Skepdick
Posts: 5236
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm Hey, it was you who said logic was not reliable. I assume that if something is unreliable, then you can't be expected to believe it.
Spoken like a man who knows not how to make any trade-offs between imperfect options.

Public transport is less reliable than owning your own vehicle. Do you believe in public transport?

I would use unreliable public transport if my extremely reliable car happens to break down.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm Any sensible person does not believe things that are known to deceive
Why do you conflate unreliability with deception? The weather man is unreliable - is the weather man deceitful?

A sensible person knows what model-error is and how to navigate around the uncertainties of all human knowledge/predictions.

A person like you seems to throw away the baby out with the bathwater. That doesn't strike me as sensible - it strikes me as a "perfectionism-or-nothing" attitude.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm , and to seek confirmation on another basis.
You are encouraging confirmation bias? Why?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm No. Mathematics is also something humans have created. But nobody says it's merely "contingent." In fact, mathematical concepts are a sort of paradigm of the reliable and, many would say, of necessary truths.
All of Mathematics is contingent upon its chosen axioms. One of the foundational axioms is literally called the axiom of CHOICE. If you make a different choice you end up with different Mathematics.

That's why Reverse mathematics (having chosen different axioms) is a paradigm of sufficient truths, not necessary ones.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm "Objective" pragma? Pragma are merely instrumental, not objective.
Objective telos.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm I'm speaking of Formal Logic. Propositional logic.
All Logics are Formal. Propositional logic is but one example of a Formal Logic. Why have you chosen that particular Formal Logic?

All this stuff is covered under formal language theory you know.

On a similar note: have you actually considered the possibility that your adherence to Predicate logic (which is a two-value/Boolean in nature) is the very source of your black-and-white thinking?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm When I made this claim above, you accused me of black-and-white thinking. Now you make it yourself?
It's not black and white thinking. The question is open-ended: Why do you want to persuade me of anything ?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm Two problems with this: first, it's not. I was not appealing to any "authority," since no "authority" was invoked there; rather, I was referring to logic.
Exactly. You are invoking Logic as an arbiter, thereby you are granting it authority.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm So it's a misnomer. Secondly, "appeal to authority" is what's called an "informal fallacy,"
It doesn't matter what you call it - what matters is what you are doing in practice.

You are imparting legitimacy on an inanimate entity (a rule-based system) to decide things on our collective behalf, when we arrive at an impasse.
It's just not obvious to me that I ever agreed that we ought to use your logic to decide such matters, and not my logic.

Because I have this nagging feeling that my logic agrees with me, and your logic agrees with you.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm and is only wrong in inductive logic...which you have already claimed you think is unreliable.
It's a fallacy in every context where you abdicate your free will.

You are literally saying "You and I can't decide, but the thing we invented can decide for us"

Now, I am perfectly happy for pragmatic solutions to help us arrive at consensus, but only a system you and I agree upon.

So, propose a system - maybe I'll like it. Maybe I won't.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm So in your view, I didn't do anything wrong, even if I HAD appealed to authority. Nothing is left to make that wrong.
The abandonment of free will is sufficient to make it wrong in my view.
The selective adherence to your own rules is sufficient to make it wrong in yours.

In your view Appeals to authority are fallacious, but Logic is exempt from this rule (somehow).
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm That's just a contradiction.
That's only a problem in the Logic you've chosen for yourself. It's not a problem in mine.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm What you must mean is "there are no ultimates."
I thought you said God is Ultimate.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm You can't have a "contingent ultimate" anymore than you can have a square circle.
But you can have a square circle in the very system you claim contains NECESSARY Truths. Mathematics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry#Circles

And so The Ultimate God is contingent upon the species who invented him.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm This says nothing about the term "anomie," and doesn't tie it to is-ought, so I can't get your point there.
You brought the term "anomie" to the table - not me. Why are you expecting me to speak about your terminology?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm Oh, sure it can. People do that all the time.
OK. Then I am consciously deceiving myself. Sounds a lot like what you are doing with your God.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm Not at all. I'm simply defining. Nobody ever has to "put up with" anything they happen also to like. That's analytic in the term.
Oh OK. In which case - I am indifferent to your definition. And for the record - Analyticity is circular (so says Quine).
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm Okay. So just talking, then? You weren't sincere?
Isn't that a loaded question?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm I think I understand your situation now. It seems you're more interested in a kind of gratuitous skepticism, as your pseudonym suggests, than following though by logic or truth, which you think are unreliable or don't exist.
I think I understand your situation now. You are engaging in intentional self-deception, because I am deconstructing the very foundation of your own belief-system.

You are still refusing to answer my question: How do you know that the Logic you have chosen to pursue is the correct one?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm However, I have no better means to explain or persuade. So I don't quite know what the next step in the conversation would be.
I told you what the next step of the process would be. An honest answer to the question: What is your telos in trying to persuade me of anything? Why do you think I am incapable of independent thought?

And for the real kicker: What argument would persuade you that arguing is an ineffective mode of persuasion?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9583
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:31 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:38 pm Hey, it was you who said logic was not reliable. I assume that if something is unreliable, then you can't be expected to believe it.
Spoken like a man who knows not how to make any trade-offs between imperfect options.
It's way more straightforward than that, and way more common-sensical.

If you're going to shoot hoops, somebody's got to keep score. And that has to be somebody impartial. If you're going to play football, everybody has to agree on the rule book, or there's no game. If you're going to play chess, one side doesn't suddenly get to decide a knight moves like a king, and the other can't suddenly make a rook into a bishop. If they do that, the whole point is already defeated.

If you're going to have a discussion, you need a basis of arbitration, so somebody can prove to the other that it's worth believing differently than he already does. Otherwise, there's just two sides making noise. Absent any means of settling conflicting claims, progress simply becomes impossible. Neither side has reason to change anything.

Now, I understand that's what Postmodernism claims our situation always is. That's why, despite all its pretentiousness, Postmodernism is actually the least progressive, least actually intellectual, and least useful epistemological position to hold. It posits a field of interminably conflicting ideas, with no means of arbitration. That's a world of interminable, bitter hostility, not of progress or reconciliation.

There is, then, no next step. Postmodern Relativism denies that such can exist.
Skepdick
Posts: 5236
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:43 pm It's way more straightforward than that, and way more common-sensical.
You don't strike me as a man with much common sense.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:43 pm If you're going to shoot hoops, somebody's got to keep score.
I am in luck! I am somebody and I can count!
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:43 pm And that has to be somebody impartial.
Why? As a general rule of thumb, impartiality is a moral hazard.

If you make an error in counting - you are cheating me.
If I make an error in counting - I am cheating myself.

You have no vested interest in my success - I do!
You suffer no consequences for making an error - I do!

And I am not even going to unpack the causal disconnect between "keeping accurate score" and "becoming better at X".
Keeping score is only instrumental for tracking/measuring progress, not achieving progress.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:43 pm everybody has to agree on the rule book, or there's no game.
EXCTLY! I disagree with the rules of your logic - so there is no game.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:43 pm If you're going to play chess, one side doesn't suddenly get to decide a knight moves like a king, and the other can't suddenly make a rook into a bishop. If they do that, the whole point is already defeated.
OK. Lets go with your metaphor - what are the rules of the game of Life?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:43 pm If you're going to have a discussion, you need a basis of arbitration, so somebody can prove to the other that it's worth believing differently than he already does.
And that would be the case if you were talking about any particular belief in context of any particular issue.

But you aren't talking about that - you are talking about agreement on arbitrary, hypothetical and abstract ideas upon which no agreement or arbitration is possible.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:43 pm Otherwise, there's just two sides making noise. Absent any means of settling conflicting claims, progress simply becomes impossible. Neither side has reason to change anything.
That's the exact problem I am pointing out with Philosophy - it's always about narratives that never make any contact with the ground.

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:43 pm Now, I understand that's what Postmodernism claims our situation always is. That's why, despite all its pretentiousness, Postmodernism is actually the least progressive, least actually intellectual, and least useful epistemological position to hold. It posits a field of interminably conflating ideas, with no means of arbitration.
Don't be so quick to accuse Postmodernism of a problem that no Philosophy has ever solved. It's the very problem of distributed consensus in computer science.

The problem has no universal solution - it only has acceptable trade-offs. Compromise is the name of the game.

It is what human societies have been doing for thousands of years. With or without the help of Philosophy or Philosophers.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:43 pm That's a world of interminable, bitter hostility, not of progress or reconciliation.
The progress of mankind throughout history stands in the face of your cynicism.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:43 pm There is, then, no next step. Postmodern Relativism denies that such can exist.
So how did we get to 2019?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9583
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:17 pm The progress of mankind throughout history stands in the face of your cynicism.
In the last century, we killed more human beings than at all times previously, combined. We discovered how to wipe all life off the face of the earth with the push of a button. And we learned how to pollute on a global scale, and destroy the very location of all life.

"Progress"? Certainly not moral progress.

The new century's young. We will see what we do next.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:43 pm So how did we get to 2019?
Not by being Postmodernists, that's for certain.
Skepdick
Posts: 5236
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:34 pm In the last century, we killed more human beings than at all times previously, combined.
Ohhhhhh, you are that kind of ignoramus - you can't see the forest for the trees. You are more concerned with murder than premature death.

The Black Plague in the 14th century killed more people than both World Wars in the 20th. As of 2019 - the 9 of the Top 10 killers of mankind are diseases, not other humans.

Humans aren't the greatest threat to Humanity - Nature is. That's why Postmodernism roots for Solidarity - Human solidarity.

Either way, the numbers game doesn't play out well for Christianity if we count all the souls burning in Hell.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:34 pm We discovered how to wipe all life off the face of the earth with the push of a button. And we learned how to pollute on a global scale, and destroy the very __cpLocation of all life.

"Progress"? Certainly not moral progress.

The new century's young. We will see what we do next.
We aren't extinct. We are living longer. We are much more educated. And much wealthier. Lowest levels of crime/violence in stable societies.

Tell me again in which year in human history would you like us to teleport you back to so you can enjoy your intellectual utopia? The time when Jesus roamed the Earth maybe?

The bright side of this cynicism of yours is that when you die (which would've been much sooner if it wasn't for science and medicine) - nobody would have to waste any energy convincing you to stop being so damn alarmist.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:43 pm Not by being Postmodernists, that's for certain.
Not by being Philosophers - even more certain.

Your argument seems to boil down to "The world doesn't share my values anymore, WHAAAAAAA!"
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9583
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:58 pm Humans aren't the greatest threat to Humanity - Nature is.
Not any more.
That's why Postmodernism roots for Solidarity - Human solidarity.
Well, the Marxists killed over 100,000,000 in the last century alone. They believed in solidarity too. I wonder how the Neo-Marxists will do...God help us, if we find out.
Tell me again in which year in human history would you like us to teleport you back to so you can enjoy your intellectual utopia?

I don't believe in utopias. Mankind's not capable of being trusted with that kind of project, apparently. Every time they try it, they kill people.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:43 pm Not by being Postmodernists, that's for certain.
Not by being Philosophers - even more certain.
I quite agree.
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Dachshund »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:58 pm

Humans aren't the greatest threat to Humanity - Nature is. That's why Postmodernism roots for Solidarity - Human solidarity.


"
Twenty one years before you were born ,Skeptic, on 27th of October ,1962, a Russian submarine Captain ordered a 10 Megton (same destructive power as the the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW II) nuclear warhead to attached to a torpedo on his Sub. He has decided that he was going to fire it at a US aircraft carrier on the surface, the USS "Randolph." He had the authority to do this without Moscow's approval, (in any case, his sub's radio communications systems were down and he could not contact his superiors in Russia).



Fortunately, the captain of this sub was persuasded not to fire the nuclear warhead after a heated and desperate hour-long argument with another Soviet Submarine Officer, Vasil Arkipov, who happened to be on board. Arkipov had no official power to veto the captain's final decision; so had he failed to convince the captain not to fire the warhead, then it would have been fired.



Had the captain fired his sub's nuclear torpedo that day, there is no doubt, WHATSOEVER, the action would have immediately triggered a global thermonuclear war. According to the experts, It is unlikely that ALL of humanity would have been wiped out, though whether one would have wished to still be alive in what remained is an open question.



So there's real hero for you, Skepdick, one you can cut out and paste on your bedroom wall (instead of Miley Cyrus) - Vasil Arkipov . Most Westerners have never heard of him, but he was literally, "The Man Who Saved the World."



PS: When I tell people this story today, their attitude is typically polite, but very condescending, such as: "Gee Whizz, that was a close shave, Johnno, what !" or "That's a ripping yarn, John, very entertaining, I must say!" In other words, stop boring us with your BS, history lesson about the "Big, Bad, Reds" trying to blow up the world in 1962; in any case it was all a giant "fizzer" in the end, wasn't it (?) - a big "damp squibb" !. (And) I think to myself, how could you be so f**king cavalier and obtuse. I'm sure they would find the trivial fact that "The Beatles" released their first hit ("Love Me Do") at the same time (October, 1962) far more interesting and relevant. For God's sake, I think to myself, do you not find the fact that a situation arose where the fate of the entire world was placed in the hands of two very stressed-out men- no one else- just two exhausted and jittery men alone in a cabin - something terrifying in itself? (And) doesn't it at least give you a moment's pause for thought how one of these men wanted to launch a nuclear weapon against a US aircraft carrier, but the other man said "No, please don't do this, because..." And for an hour, they argued their respective cases; while they did, NO ONE on the planet realised that they might well be literally 30 minutes (the time it would take to arm a torpedo with the nuclear warhead and have it ready for launching) away from being "toasted" in a thermonuclear Armageddon. Doesn't it scare the shit out of you, the mere fact that this ACTUALLY happened, even if it was in 1962? Do you not understand the implications ??




When I read the detailed, authenticated history of this incident - and I've pretty much read it all (except for the stuff that's not been translated into English) - I often feel quite "faint" - a liitle dizzy/ light-headed. I think it's because I simply cannot rationally process the enormity of what I am reading in a cool, analytical manner. I guess this is due gusts of to emotions like fear and dread derailing my higher cognitive processes. For years , when I was in my 20's and 30's I rode big, high-powered motorcycles, because I was addicted to the existential thrill of "raw" speed. My greatest fear about riding bikes was not being hit by feckless car drivers, but rather "mechanical failure": a snapped drive- chain; a failed front brake; a seized piston; a tyre blow -out. You cannot predict mechanical failure, it can happen anytime, and it can happen even if you keep your bike scrupulously maintained. It's a worry because it can kill you very quickly. For example, if you are riding fast on a busy Motorway (like the M-25 outside London) and your drive -chain, say, snaps, entangles itself in the back wheel then locks-up the wheel; the bike might very well spit you off onto the tarmac and into the path of oncoming traffic. Then, 3 seconds later, when a large truck runs over you - it's goodnight Vienna (as they say in the football) - coz you're dead, mate (RIP). I mentioned this because, the same principle applies with nuclear weapons systems. No matter how many safety systems, security protocols, operational procedures, expert military/private sector scientific (etc.) personnel supervising a nation's nuclear arsenal, it is impossible to eliminate human errors or mechanical failure from any of these arrangements. Like the poet, Robert Burns, observed: "The best laid plans of mice and men will often go awry." How very true !


Finally...


I'm not a pacifist, but I am one of those people who think that all nuclear weapons on the planet right now should be dismantled and deactivated and thrown in the "trash can". No country ought be allowed to possess any nuclear arms of any kind. Unfortunately I cannot see this ever happening, because no one could ever trust an Islamic nation like Iran (or Iraq, for example) to do the right thing. Muslims simply cannot be trusted, FULL STOP.(Lying, deceit, duplicity and subterfuge are very literally sanctioned in their sacred scriptures, as is violent, expansionist warfare -"jihad") The day that a hypothetical UN treaty was signed which saw all nations of the world sincerely agree never to develop any nuclear arms at any time in the future, and for those countries that did have existing nuclear weapons, to destroy them immediately, would be the VERY same day that the Islamic states of the world redoubled their efforts to manufacture nuclear weapons.


Regards



Dachshund
Skepdick
Posts: 5236
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Skepdick »

Dachshund wrote: Fri Nov 22, 2019 7:44 am
Skepdick wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:58 pm

Humans aren't the greatest threat to Humanity - Nature is. That's why Postmodernism roots for Solidarity - Human solidarity.


"
Twenty one years before you were born ,Skeptic, on 27th of October ,1962, a Russian submarine Captain ordered a 10 Megton (same destructive power as the the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW II) nuclear warhead to attached to a torpedo on his Sub. He has decided that he was going to fire it at a US aircraft carrier on the surface, the USS "Randolph." He had the authority to do this without Moscow's approval, (in any case, his sub's radio communications systems were down and he could not contact his superiors in Russia).



Fortunately, the captain of this sub was persuasded not to fire the nuclear warhead after a heated and desperate hour-long argument with another Soviet Submarine Officer, Vasil Arkipov, who happened to be on board. Arkipov had no official power to veto the captain's final decision; so had he failed to convince the captain not to fire the warhead, then it would have been fired.



Had the captain fired his sub's nuclear torpedo that day, there is no doubt, WHATSOEVER, the action would have immediately triggered a global thermonuclear war. According to the experts, It is unlikely that ALL of humanity would have been wiped out, though whether one would have wished to still be alive in what remained is an open question.



So there's real hero for you, Skepdick, one you can cut out and paste on your bedroom wall (instead of Miley Cyrus) - Vasil Arkipov . Most Westerners have never heard of him, but he was literally, "The Man Who Saved the World."



PS: When I tell people this story today, their attitude is typically polite, but very condescending, such as: "Gee Whizz, that was a close shave, Johnno, what !" or "That's a ripping yarn, John, very entertaining, I must say!" In other words, stop boring us with your BS, history lesson about the "Big, Bad, Reds" trying to blow up the world in 1962; in any case it was all a giant "fizzer" in the end, wasn't it (?) - a big "damp squibb" !. (And) I think to myself, how could you be so f**king cavalier and obtuse. I'm sure they would find the trivial fact that "The Beatles" released their first hit ("Love Me Do") at the same time (October, 1962) far more interesting and relevant. For God's sake, I think to myself, do you not find the fact that a situation arose where the fate of the entire world was placed in the hands of two very stressed-out men- no one else- just two exhausted and jittery men alone in a cabin - something terrifying in itself? (And) doesn't it at least give you a moment's pause for thought how one of these men wanted to launch a nuclear weapon against a US aircraft carrier, but the other man said "No, please don't do this, because..." And for an hour, they argued their respective cases; while they did, NO ONE on the planet realised that they might well be literally 30 minutes (the time it would take to arm a torpedo with the nuclear warhead and have it ready for launching) away from being "toasted" in a thermonuclear Armageddon. Doesn't it scare the shit out of you, the mere fact that this ACTUALLY happened, even if it was in 1962? Do you not understand the implications ??




When I read the detailed, authenticated history of this incident - and I've pretty much read it all (except for the stuff that's not been translated into English) - I often feel quite "faint" - a liitle dizzy/ light-headed. I think it's because I simply cannot rationally process the enormity of what I am reading in a cool, analytical manner. I guess this is due gusts of to emotions like fear and dread derailing my higher cognitive processes. For years , when I was in my 20's and 30's I rode big, high-powered motorcycles, because I was addicted to the existential thrill of "raw" speed. My greatest fear about riding bikes was not being hit by feckless car drivers, but rather "mechanical failure": a snapped drive- chain; a failed front brake; a seized piston; a tyre blow -out. You cannot predict mechanical failure, it can happen anytime, and it can happen even if you keep your bike scrupulously maintained. It's a worry because it can kill you very quickly. For example, if you are riding fast on a busy Motorway (like the M-25 outside London) and your drive -chain, say, snaps, entangles itself in the back wheel then locks-up the wheel; the bike might very well spit you off onto the tarmac and into the path of oncoming traffic. Then, 3 seconds later, when a large truck runs over you - it's goodnight Vienna (as they say in the football) - coz you're dead, mate (RIP). I mentioned this because, the same principle applies with nuclear weapons systems. No matter how many safety systems, security protocols, operational procedures, expert military/private sector scientific (etc.) personnel supervising a nation's nuclear arsenal, it is impossible to eliminate human errors or mechanical failure from any of these arrangements. Like the poet, Robert Burns, observed: "The best laid plans of mice and men will often go awry." How very true !


Finally...


I'm not a pacifist, but I am one of those people who think that all nuclear weapons on the planet right now should be dismantled and deactivated and thrown in the "trash can". No country ought be allowed to possess any nuclear arms of any kind. Unfortunately I cannot see this ever happening, because no one could ever trust an Islamic nation like Iran (or Iraq, for example) to do the right thing. Muslims simply cannot be trusted, FULL STOP.(Lying, deceit, duplicity and subterfuge are very literally sanctioned in their sacred scriptures, as is violent, expansionist warfare -"jihad") The day that a hypothetical UN treaty was signed which saw all nations of the world sincerely agree never to develop any nuclear arms at any time in the future, and for those countries that did have existing nuclear weapons, to destroy them immediately, would be the VERY same day that the Islamic states of the world redoubled their efforts to manufacture nuclear weapons.


Regards



Dachshund
That's a beautiful sob story. Not sure what it has to do with the price of eggs in China, but it's beautiful anyway.

What's even more beautiful is that you decided to preach Russian history to a Russian.

Good thing Vasili was able to persuade his commanding officer to stop, because he would've hat to shoot him otherwise.
The man who "Saved the World" demonstrated that society has sufficient safety mechanisms against human idiocy.

What was the safety mechanism against the Black Death? Idiot :)
Post Reply