JK Rowling vs. History

[surreptitious57]

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 is 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

I am absolutely certain that all human beings have limitations and that stating this is neither projection nor ignorance
Do you have evidence that human beings do not have limitations

[Gary Childress]

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.

You seem to say that because a human being has lied even on rare occasions, that would earn them the label of a "liar." Labeling people such things for a transgression once in a while is being pretty harsh (and hypocritical if you are no better). So are you a "liar" too? "Liar" is a simplistic label and it does not fit a whole person. A person who tells a lie once in a while is no more a "liar" than they are a "truther" for speaking the truth the rest of the time.

OR

Are you saying that they are lying when they make that statement? The only way to know they are lying when they make that statement is to assume that there is at least one person out there who has NEVER once told a lie in their life. Do you know that for a fact? And if you don't, then by what criteria do you judge the statement a "lie"?

[RCSaunders]

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 is 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

I am absolutely certain that all human beings have limitations and that stating this is neither projection nor ignorance
Do you have evidence that human beings do not have limitations

If you see no difference between, "psychological flaws," and, "limitations," there is nothing to discuss. Nothing is omniscient, infallible, or has infinite ability. There is a huge difference between, "limits," and, "flaws."

To describe anything as a flaw requires an assumption of what something is supposed to be but isn't. What is it you think all human beings are supposed to be but are not?

Just because you do not like something does not make it a flaw.

[RCSaunders]

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.

You seem to say that because a human being has lied even on rare occasions, that would earn them the label of a "liar." Labeling people such things for a transgression once in a while is being pretty harsh (and hypocritical if you are no better). So are you a "liar" too? "Liar" is a simplistic label and it does not fit a whole person. A person who tells a lie once in a while is no more a "liar" than they are a "truther" for speaking the truth the rest of the time.

OR

Are you saying that they are lying when they make that statement? The only way to know they are lying when they make that statement is to assume that there is at least one person out there who has NEVER once told a lie in their life. Do you know that for a fact? And if you don't, then by what criteria do you judge the statement a "lie"?

Neither. I'm only saying when someone say, "everyone has bad breath," whether it is true or not, the statement includes the one making the statement.

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

[Gary Childress]

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.

You seem to say that because a human being has lied even on rare occasions, that would earn them the label of a "liar." Labeling people such things for a transgression once in a while is being pretty harsh (and hypocritical if you are no better). So are you a "liar" too? "Liar" is a simplistic label and it does not fit a whole person. A person who tells a lie once in a while is no more a "liar" than they are a "truther" for speaking the truth the rest of the time.

OR

Are you saying that they are lying when they make that statement? The only way to know they are lying when they make that statement is to assume that there is at least one person out there who has NEVER once told a lie in their life. Do you know that for a fact? And if you don't, then by what criteria do you judge the statement a "lie"?

Neither. I'm only saying when someone say, "everyone has bad breath," whether it is true or not, the statement includes the one making the statement.

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

"Everyone has bad breath" is not the equivalent of what you said, though. The equivalent of what you said would be something like:

"The man who says, "everyone has bad breath sometimes," is a stinker.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

That's incorrect. My point is that whatever principle we use to decide the basic "transsexual" cases will be the same principle we use for "transracial," "transabled" and "transspecies" cases, because the arguments are all the same. If we say that "sexuality" is defined purely by the imaginings of a person, and that their physiology and DNA are irrelevant, then we have to give the same respect to Rachel Dolezal, and allow that she's as black as she wants to be. But then we also have to accept that the man who believes his arm is an alien part of him has a right to demand it to be hacked off, and we also have to allow that a man who imagines himself to be a horse or a turnip is as normal as the previous cases.

So setting those cases right helps us know we're setting the Rowling controversy right as well. And failure to manage those cases is bound to reveal a deep incoherence in any proposed answer to the Rowling case. And a further problem is this: if all delusions are to be normalized, then what happens to our concept of mental illness? Is nothing and nobody any longer "mentally ill"?

So let's go ahead. What do you make of the case of transracialism? What do you do with transablism? How about transspeciesism? In other words, the fundamental question is, "How far can we condone departure from reality in any person's behaviour, before we ought to be concerned and help to deliver them if we can, instead of enabling their illness?"

[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.

It's not the point at all.

I got the point you were trying to make, RC. The question is, was it the right point to make?

I think maybe not. To characterize an entire person by one action is correct in a very limited sense, but wrong in a more profound one.

[surreptitious57]

If you see no difference between psychological flaws and limitations there is nothing to discuss

To describe anything as a flaw requires an assumption of what something is supposed to be
What is it you think all human beings are supposed to be

Just because you do not like something does not make it a flaw

Psychological flaws are a type of limitation - there are others

Human beings can improve to become better human beings over time - both psychologically and in other areas too
And this improvement comes from two places - experience which is subjective and knowledge which is objective

No mention was made of not liking anything at all

[Immanuel Can]

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.[/quote]
So transsexualism is a "temporary" condition? That's plausible. But if it is, then what sense does it make to help a delusional person maim his or her own body, when his/her feelings are only temporary, and may reverse at any time? We see nowadays many such cases: a young woman who, in her uncomfortable teen years felt odd in her body and imagined maybe she was the wrong gender, or a young woman with Asperger's Syndrome who felt more affinity with boys than her peers, and in her mid twenties realizes she's been a woman all along....but it's too late, because her body is already marred by vicious surgeries and her biology altered by years of chemicals designed to beat down her development.

Good heavens, man...can we call that compassion? We've destroyed her for life, just so we could preen as "tolerant," "open minded" and "accepting." We've butchered her for our own virtue signalling. Where's the mercy?

In the meantime, you help them feel less alienated from others so things don't feel hopeless for them.

You know what's really hopeless? Being told you were born in the wrong body, and there's no ultimate cure. That's hopeless. Let us at least explore the possibility the person's merely mentally ill and with therapy and support can be helped to adjust to reality and feel better about herself before we decide to scar her body irreparably in a vain effort to make a male one into a female one and doom her to a life of fighting her own body.

[Gary Childress]

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.

So transsexualism is a "temporary" condition? That's plausible. But if it is, then what sense does it make to help a delusional person maim his or her own body, when his/her feelings are only temporary, and may reverse at any time? We see nowadays many such cases: a young woman who, in her uncomfortable teen years felt odd in her body and imagined maybe she was the wrong gender, or a young woman with Asperger's Syndrome who felt more affinity with boys than her peers, and in her mid twenties realizes she's been a woman all along....but it's too late, because her body is already marred by vicious surgeries and her biology altered by years of chemicals designed to beat down her development.

Good heavens, man...can we call that compassion? We've destroyed her for life, just so we could preen as "tolerant," "open minded" and "accepting." We've butchered her for our own virtue signalling. Where's the mercy?

In the meantime, you help them feel less alienated from others so things don't feel hopeless for them.

You know what's really hopeless? Being told you were born in the wrong body, and there's no ultimate cure. That's hopeless. Let us at least explore the possibility the person's merely mentally ill and with therapy and support can be helped to adjust to reality and feel better about herself before we decide to scar her body irreparably in a vain effort to make a male one into a female one and doom her to a life of fighting her own body.

I don't agree with all the surgery stuff either, especially before the age of adulthood and legal consent. I'm just saying if Joe wants to be called Josephine, I'll accommodate where I can. But you are right, one can only accommodate up to a point, then it becomes counterproductive.

[RCSaunders]

You seem to say that because a human being has lied even on rare occasions, that would earn them the label of a "liar." Labeling people such things for a transgression once in a while is being pretty harsh (and hypocritical if you are no better). So are you a "liar" too? "Liar" is a simplistic label and it does not fit a whole person. A person who tells a lie once in a while is no more a "liar" than they are a "truther" for speaking the truth the rest of the time.

OR

Are you saying that they are lying when they make that statement? The only way to know they are lying when they make that statement is to assume that there is at least one person out there who has NEVER once told a lie in their life. Do you know that for a fact? And if you don't, then by what criteria do you judge the statement a "lie"?

Neither. I'm only saying when someone say, "everyone has bad breath," whether it is true or not, the statement includes the one making the statement.

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

"Everyone has bad breath" is not the equivalent of what you said, though. The equivalent of what you said would be something like:

"The man who says, "everyone has bad breath sometimes," is a stinker.

Whatever!

[RCSaunders]

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.

I got the point you were trying to make, RC. The question is, was it the right point to make?

I think maybe not. To characterize an entire person by one action is correct in a very limited sense, but wrong in a more profound one.

No you didn't get the point. I'm not characterizing anyone, but if you want to think so, dither on.

[RCSaunders]

If you see no difference between psychological flaws and limitations there is nothing to discuss

To describe anything as a flaw requires an assumption of what something is supposed to be
What is it you think all human beings are supposed to be

Just because you do not like something does not make it a flaw

Psychological flaws are a type of limitation - there are others

Human beings can improve to become better human beings over time - both psychologically and in other areas too
And this improvement comes from two places - experience which is subjective and knowledge which is objective

No mention was made of not liking anything at all

It's my fault for taking you seriously and trying to explain what to any objective individual would be obvious. I cannot deal with your intentional obfuscation. A flaw may be a limitation, but a limitation is only a flaw if the limitation is not intended. Is being a short person a, "flaw," because their reach is limited? Is being a tall person a, "flaw," because they are limited to buying more expensive (larger) clothing? Some people have photographic memories. Is not having a photographic memory, limited to a normal one, a, "flaw?" Since human nature is whatever it is, whatever it's natural abilities and limitations are, that is what they are. They are not, "flaws."

What exactly is a, "better human being?" As far as I can see, must human beings are as likely to become worse, as much as better, over time. Who decides what a, "better human being," is? Just because human beings have different abilities and characteristics which may not be what you would like them to be, or think they ought to be, does not make them flaws.

[mickthinks]

My point is that whatever principle we use to decide the basic "transsexual" cases will be the same principle we use for "transracial," "transabled" and "transspecies" cases, because the arguments are all the same.

I don't believe the arguments are the same. Gender identity is not the same as race identity. Neither has anything to do with disability or speciation.

[surreptitious57]

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 is 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

I am absolutely certain that all human beings have limitations and that stating this is neither projection nor ignorance
Do you have evidence that human beings do not have limitations

Something with limitation can be improved upon if it has the ability
Are human beings born with limitations - yes they are
Does this include ALL human beings - yes it does

Can some of those limitations be improved upon - yes they can
Are some of those limitations psychological - yes they are

Can one be a human being without limitation - no one cannot as that is not possible
The word for that being would be God [ although even it would have some limitation ]

So there is no such thing as a limitless human being - but one can become less limited over time

What does it mean to be limited in a psychological sense - to be capable of negative character traits / negative emotion
This applies to any adult human being of sound mind who is morally and legally responsible for all they think and say and do