Is it right or wrong for a person to change the gender they are born with?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Ego. And would you stop putting red circles in my notifications? It's bloody annoying, just like you.

[Skepdick]

Ego. And would you stop putting red circles in my notifications? It's bloody annoying, just like you.

That's a non-answer...

Even 5 year old kids have figured out that when you arrive at an impasse you just play rock, paper, scissors or something to break the deadlock. But not philosophers...

[Trajk Logik]

So Skepdick's traits are not located on Skepdick ?!? My penis-trait is located on me, but my "Professional Poster of Dick Pics" trait is not located on me?!?!

You are so fucking confused!

Wrong again, Mr. Dick.

You keep making that distinction between your physiology and what you can do with it and the effects in the world as a result of those actions. The posts are the effects of your actions, which are part of you. After all, if you didn't post them, then who did?

You're the one compartmentalizing yourself as if you are separate from nature and what you do has no effect on the world. You're the one imposing illogical restrictions on your identity as if your identity has no effect on the world, and the way others perceived you.

It's a consensus amongst the field of computer science and AI research that Searle has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

No shit, Sherlock!

It was you that was saying that you just "use words", and didn't not clarify when prompted just what it was you were using them for, kind of like what the man in the Chinese Room would do.

The problem with Searle's thought experiment is that 1) the instructions in the room the man has to follow are written in a language he does understand, so Searle undercuts his argument that the man does not understand a language right off the bat, kind of the same way you've been undercutting your own arguments with your inability to use words correctly, and 2) the rules in the room are not the same rules that Chinese-speakers use to learn their language, so it is preposterous to think that the man could understand Chinese the same way native speakers understand if they are different rules.

If you don't understand what a definition is, then try (using your own terminology) justify that your pictures inform anyone about what a penis is. If a picture is not a penis, then how does a picture convey to anyone what a penis is? Maybe then you might get close to what a definition is. After all, doesn't a picture tell a 1000 words?

[Skepdick]

You keep making that distinction between your physiology and what you can do with it and the effects in the world as a result of those actions. The posts are the effects of your actions, which are part of you. After all, if you didn't post them, then who did?

And you keep conflating the consequences of my actions with my identity.

Just because I post on a forum doesn't make me a forum poster. I reject your criterion for what determines identity!

You're the one compartmentalizing yourself as if you are separate from nature and what you do has no effect on the world. You're the one imposing illogical restrictions on your identity as if your identity has no effect on the world, and the way others perceived you.

That's a strawman. I am one with nature. But you aren't talking about me - you are talking about my identity.

And in particular - we are disagreeing about what and who determines my identity.

It was you that was saying that you just "use words", and didn't not clarify when prompted just what it was you were using them for, kind of like what the man in the Chinese Room would do.

You conversationally incompetent moron.

You asked me to clarify HOW I am using my words.
You didn't ask me to clarify WHAT I am using my words for.

Obviously I am using my words for whatever purpose I am using them. That's precisely what determines HOW I am using them.

The problem with Searle's thought experiment is that 1) the instructions in the room the man has to follow are written in a language he does understand, so Searle undercuts his argument that the man does not understand a language right off the bat, kind of the same way you've been undercutting your own arguments with your inability to use words correctly

There is such a thing as using words.
There's no such a thing as using words "correctly" or "incorrectly"

Wittgenstein covered this already. No course of action can be determined by a rule because any course of action can be made to accord with the rule.

, and 2) the rules in the room are not the same rules that Chinese-speakers use to learn their language, so it is preposterous to think that the man could understand Chinese the same way native speakers understand if they are different rules.

Preposterous how? AI language translators are written in programming languages yet translate just fine between natural languages.

Clearly a large portion of understanding and translating language while retaining large chunks of its original meaning is purely mechanical.

If you don't understand what a definition is, then try (using your own terminology) justify that your pictures inform anyone about what a penis is. If a picture is not a penis, then how does a picture convey to anyone what a penis is? Maybe then you might get close to what a definition is. After all, doesn't a picture tell a 1000 words?

Which part of me showing you a vagina (NOT a penis) did you miss? Do you want another photo?

[Harbal]

Just because I post on a forum doesn't make me a forum poster.

But it's certainly an obstacle to not being a forum poster.

[Skepdick]

But it's certainly an obstacle to not being a forum poster.

Not at all!

I am not a forum poster. I am me.

Posting on forums is what I do, not who I am.

[Harbal]

But it's certainly an obstacle to not being a forum poster.

Not at all!

I am not a forum poster. I am me.

So what do you do about people who do consider you to be a forum poster?

Posting on forums is what I do, not who I am.

It isn't who you are, but how is it not what you are?

[Skepdick]

So what do you do about people who do consider you to be a forum poster?

They are welcome to do that, but they don't get to define my identity.

It isn't who you are, but how is it not what you are?

The answer to "Who am I?" and "What am I?" (or any other questions pertaining to my identity) is exactly the same "I am me."

Call it "identity holism"; or refusing to reduce a lifetime of experiences to a handful of words.

[Harbal]

They are welcome to do that, but they don't get to define my identity.

How do you prevent them?

The answer to "Who am I?" and "What am I?" is exactly the same "I am me."

Yes, and you post on forums. There's no shame in it, all forum posters do it.

[Skepdick]

How do you prevent them?

I don't. I simply ignore questions which pre-suppose and project an identity onto me.

Yes, and you post on forums. There's no shame in it, all forum posters do it.

Both forum posters and non-forum-posters can post on forums.

An identity doesn't determine what you do. You determine what you do.

[Harbal]

I don't. I simply ignore questions which pre-suppose and project an identity onto me.

So you are very sensitive about what people think of you?

Both forum posters and non-forum-posters can post on forums.

Yes, they can, but non-forum posters tend not to, for fear of becoming forum posters.

An identity doesn't determine what you do. You determine what you do.

But what you do is part of your identity, isn't it?

[Skepdick]

I don't. I simply ignore questions which pre-suppose and project an identity onto me.

So you are very sensitive about what people think of you?

Not in the slightest. If I cared what people think of me - I would let them determine my identity. That's what call "reputation", right?

I am very sensitive to what I think of me - that's why I engineer my identity to be as vacuous as possible. So as to not think much about me.

Yes, they can, but non-forum posters tend not to, for fear of becoming forum posters.

How can you fear something that can never happen?

But what you do is part of your identity, isn't it?

Is it? You build a thousand bridges and fuck one goat - are you a bridge-builder or a goat-fucker?

Do we even have such thing as "identity"; or is it just another confused pop-culture social norm we can do without?

[Harbal]

If I cared what people think of me - I would let them determine my identity. That's what call "reputation", right?

So if you cared what people thought of you, you would be happy to be thought of as anything they chose to think of you as?

I am very sensitive to what I think of me - that's why I engineer my identity to be as vacuous as possible.

Then I must congratulate you on your engineering skills.

But what you do is part of your identity, isn't it?

Is it?

Would it be the case that someone who earns his living by playing a musical instrument would not regard musician to be part of his identity, do you think?

[Trajk Logik]

You keep making that distinction between your physiology and what you can do with it and the effects in the world as a result of those actions. The posts are the effects of your actions, which are part of you. After all, if you didn't post them, then who did?

And you keep conflating the consequences of my actions with my identity.

Just because I post on a forum doesn't make me a forum poster. I reject your criterion for what determines identity!

Reality doesn't give a fuck about what you reject or accept. If you murder people, you're a murderer. If you rape people, you're a rapist. It doesn't matter what you think about yourself, or if you are ever caught and convicted. If you engage in these actions, you are these things.

Your actions label you as a blithering idiot.

You're the one compartmentalizing yourself as if you are separate from nature and what you do has no effect on the world. You're the one imposing illogical restrictions on your identity as if your identity has no effect on the world, and the way others perceived you.

That's a strawman. I am one with nature. But you aren't talking about me - you are talking about my identity.

And in particular - we are disagreeing about what and who determines my identity.

We are not disagreeing. You just aren't comprehending.

It was you that was saying that you just "use words", and didn't not clarify when prompted just what it was you were using them for, kind of like what the man in the Chinese Room would do.

You conversationally incompetent moron.

You asked me to clarify HOW I am using my words.
You didn't ask me to clarify WHAT I am using my words for.

Obviously I am using my words for whatever purpose I am using them. That's precisely what determines HOW I am using them.

There is such a thing as using words.
There's no such a thing as using words "correctly" or "incorrectly"

Wittgenstein covered this already. No course of action can be determined by a rule because any course of action can be made to accord with the rule.

If you didn't accomplish what you use the words for, did you use words correctly? To use anything, you must have a goal. What was your goal in using words? If no one understands you, did you use words correctly?

Witt was a whack. Can worms fly under their own power? Nature has a way of imposing its own rules that prevent certain actions from being taken based on one's physiology.

, and 2) the rules in the room are not the same rules that Chinese-speakers use to learn their language, so it is preposterous to think that the man could understand Chinese the same way native speakers understand if they are different rules.

Preposterous how? AI language translators are written in programming languages yet translate just fine between natural languages.

Clearly a large portion of understanding and translating language while retaining large chunks of its original meaning is purely mechanical.

You must know the rules of two languages to then come up with rules to translate them.

If you don't understand what a definition is, then try (using your own terminology) justify that your pictures inform anyone about what a penis is. If a picture is not a penis, then how does a picture convey to anyone what a penis is? Maybe then you might get close to what a definition is. After all, doesn't a picture tell a 1000 words?

Which part of me showing you a vagina (NOT a penis) did you miss? Do you want another photo?

Which part of "If a picture is not a penis, then how does a picture convey to anyone what a penis is?" did you miss?

I don't expect you to answer the question because you are incapable of being intellectually honest. I'm bored with your childish antics.

[henry quirk]

Is it right or wrong for a person to change the gender they are born with?

It does not seem to me to be a moral issue. A guy pretends, or believes, he's a gal. He expends his resources to give himself the appearance of womanhood, mebbe goin' as far as havin' himself surgically mutillated.

He's nuts, beyond a shadow of doubt.

Where it mebbe becomes a moral issue: when he demands other folks participate in, or validate, his delusion.

Joe has his tallywhacker hacked off; shoves tomato paste up his crude, artificial, vagina (a hole his has to, for the rest of his life, exercise, to keep from healing and closing up) to simulate menstruation; has regular injections of estrogen to diminish his natural masculine features; wears a dress and calls himself Josephine: well, alright...have at it Joe. Ain't none of that any of my business.

However, Joe's demand that I accept his delusion as reality: that there is my business. he's a guy and I won't see or treat him as sumthin' other than a guy (a crazy, horrifically mutilated, guy).