Donald Trump

[accelafine]

How about y'all define a 'man' then? I'll start it off. A porn-addicted, woman-hating, perverted arsehole who thinks he knows everything and whose confidence far exceeds his abilties. He may or may not have a penis, depending on how serious he is about his Ed Gein womansuit fanstasies. He may have been castrated and instead of a penis have a revolting stinky faux-vagina or 'rot pocket' that needs to be cleaned and dilated hourly.

I was thinking of you Flashy when I wrote this. You're welcome.

[Gary Childress]

You raised the matter of nhilism not me. If you had some plan for that, make whatever your play is, but don't put words into my mouth.

Fair enough. You seemed to have some issue with Trump's answer to what a "woman" is. If you don't have an issue with it, then I don't either.

Ihave the same issue with it that FJ does, it's slovenly, moronic and inadequate. I already explained that rigid definitions are usually impossible to get right and I definitely mentioned that this is something I would expect anybody with an introductory level of education in philosophy to readily understand having addressed questions to do with other things that cannot be adequately definied such as knowledge and meanings.

How is this difficult to get? I understand the likes of DAM and Veggie and Henry and Immanuel Can having difficulty with this sort of thing because none of them has the relevant education. But you do. This should be super easy for you, if not for them.

Here's a video of the relevant interview with Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mtcwIs_KJ0&t=2s

As far as I can tell, he's not saying anything radically controversial. He says women have equality, they have intelligence (sometimes more so than some men), and "under certain circumstances" can have a baby? I mean, if someone in the audience asked you what a woman was (or, for that matter, whether milk comes from cows) what would have been your answer? Why is his answer "moronic" or "inadequate"? What's moronic or inadequate about it. Or what's a better definition of what a woman is?

[Fairy]

Fair enough. You seemed to have some issue with Trump's answer to what a "woman" is. If you don't have an issue with it, then I don't either.

Ihave the same issue with it that FJ does, it's slovenly, moronic and inadequate. I already explained that rigid definitions are usually impossible to get right and I definitely mentioned that this is something I would expect anybody with an introductory level of education in philosophy to readily understand having addressed questions to do with other things that cannot be adequately definied such as knowledge and meanings.

How is this difficult to get? I understand the likes of DAM and Veggie and Henry and Immanuel Can having difficulty with this sort of thing because none of them has the relevant education. But you do. This should be super easy for you, if not for them.

Here's a video of the relevant interview with Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mtcwIs_KJ0&t=2s

As far as I can tell, he's not saying anything radically controversial. He says women have equality, they have intelligence (sometimes more so than some men), and "under certain circumstances" can have a baby? I mean, if someone in the audience asked you what a woman was (or, for that matter, whether milk comes from cows) what would have been your answer? Why is his answer "moronic" or "inadequate"? What's moronic or inadequate about it. Or what's a better definition of what a woman is?

The problem wasn’t his comment, which was a pretty reasonable response tbh. The problem is about the addiction the forum philosophers have to bickering over petty little semantic details that serve only to hate on people they know nothing about. That’s the philosophers job. If they cannot find a point to argue the shit out of, they’ll surely invent one they can get their bloody fangs into. This forum is littered with these negatively charged vampires.

[Flannel Jesus]

Fair enough. You seemed to have some issue with Trump's answer to what a "woman" is. If you don't have an issue with it, then I don't either.

Ihave the same issue with it that FJ does, it's slovenly, moronic and inadequate. I already explained that rigid definitions are usually impossible to get right and I definitely mentioned that this is something I would expect anybody with an introductory level of education in philosophy to readily understand having addressed questions to do with other things that cannot be adequately definied such as knowledge and meanings.

How is this difficult to get? I understand the likes of DAM and Veggie and Henry and Immanuel Can having difficulty with this sort of thing because none of them has the relevant education. But you do. This should be super easy for you, if not for them.

Here's a video of the relevant interview with Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mtcwIs_KJ0&t=2s

As far as I can tell, he's not saying anything radically controversial. He says women have equality, they have intelligence (sometimes more so than some men), and "under certain circumstances" can have a baby? I mean, if someone in the audience asked you what a woman was (or, for that matter, whether milk comes from cows) what would have been your answer? Why is his answer "moronic" or "inadequate"? What's moronic or inadequate about it. Or what's a better definition of what a woman is?

There's a difference between just saying "sometimes women can have babies" and saying "the definition of a woman is someone who can have a baby". If you don't get why that's inadequate, I wonder if you've read the explanations given in this thread. Fairy considers herself a woman. She can't have a baby. If the definition of a woman is someone who can have a baby, that doesn't include Fairy, does it? It doesn't include most women over something like 65, maybe even younger.

Why would you accept a definition of "woman " that excludes older women?

[Gary Childress]

Ihave the same issue with it that FJ does, it's slovenly, moronic and inadequate. I already explained that rigid definitions are usually impossible to get right and I definitely mentioned that this is something I would expect anybody with an introductory level of education in philosophy to readily understand having addressed questions to do with other things that cannot be adequately definied such as knowledge and meanings.

How is this difficult to get? I understand the likes of DAM and Veggie and Henry and Immanuel Can having difficulty with this sort of thing because none of them has the relevant education. But you do. This should be super easy for you, if not for them.

Here's a video of the relevant interview with Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mtcwIs_KJ0&t=2s

As far as I can tell, he's not saying anything radically controversial. He says women have equality, they have intelligence (sometimes more so than some men), and "under certain circumstances" can have a baby? I mean, if someone in the audience asked you what a woman was (or, for that matter, whether milk comes from cows) what would have been your answer? Why is his answer "moronic" or "inadequate"? What's moronic or inadequate about it. Or what's a better definition of what a woman is?

There's a difference between just saying "sometimes women can have babies" and saying "the definition of a woman is someone who can have a baby". If you don't get why that's inadequate, I wonder if you've read the explanations given in this thread. Fairy considers herself a woman. She can't have a baby. If the definition of a woman is someone who can have a baby, that doesn't include Fairy, does it? It doesn't include most women over something like 65, maybe even younger.

Why would you accept a definition of "woman " that excludes older women?

I haven't read all of Fairy's comments, nor all of yours. I had thought the conversation was about Trump's response in the interview, since Trump is the title of the thread ( and that's where I picked up the conversation between the two of you). If it's not about Trump's response, then my bad or whatever.

[Fairy]

Maybe next time, the people asking Trump questions, ought to ask Trump for a philosophical answer to their questions, and that only a long winded philosophical answer will suffice…

I’m thinking of writing to the White House now. Dear Don, you fucked up again, people at the philosophy now forum are arguing over your comment about what you think defines a woman.


Jeeeeze, seriously okay we get it, no one is allowed an opinion without it being torn to shreds and put into its official proper category that everyone can agree upon and be happy about, so that nobody gets butt hurt or offended, or even have their own sanity threatened by being labelled dull uneducated and called all the shittiest names under the sun that can be invented.

[accelafine]

Ihave the same issue with it that FJ does, it's slovenly, moronic and inadequate. I already explained that rigid definitions are usually impossible to get right and I definitely mentioned that this is something I would expect anybody with an introductory level of education in philosophy to readily understand having addressed questions to do with other things that cannot be adequately definied such as knowledge and meanings.

How is this difficult to get? I understand the likes of DAM and Veggie and Henry and Immanuel Can having difficulty with this sort of thing because none of them has the relevant education. But you do. This should be super easy for you, if not for them.

Here's a video of the relevant interview with Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mtcwIs_KJ0&t=2s

As far as I can tell, he's not saying anything radically controversial. He says women have equality, they have intelligence (sometimes more so than some men), and "under certain circumstances" can have a baby? I mean, if someone in the audience asked you what a woman was (or, for that matter, whether milk comes from cows) what would have been your answer? Why is his answer "moronic" or "inadequate"? What's moronic or inadequate about it. Or what's a better definition of what a woman is?

There's a difference between just saying "sometimes women can have babies" and saying "the definition of a woman is someone who can have a baby". If you don't get why that's inadequate, I wonder if you've read the explanations given in this thread. Fairy considers herself a woman. She can't have a baby. If the definition of a woman is someone who can have a baby, that doesn't include Fairy, does it? It doesn't include most women over something like 65, maybe even younger.

Why would you accept a definition of "woman " that excludes older women?

What's your definiton of a woman then?

[accelafine]

Maybe next time, the people asking Trump questions, ought to ask Trump for a philosophical answer to their questions, and that only a long winded philosophical answer will suffice…

I’m thinking of writing to the White House now. Dear Don, you fucked up again, people at the philosophy now forum are arguing over your comment about what you think defines a woman.


Jeeeeze, seriously okay we get it, no one is allowed an opinion without it being torn to shreds and put into its official proper category that everyone can agree upon and be happy about, so that nobody gets butt hurt or offended, or even have their own sanity threatened by being labelled dull uneducated and called all the shittiest names under the sun that can be invented.

Flash just hates women. I'm not sure how he manages that because he claims to not have a clue what a woman is. It's odd, because when it comes to disliking them there's no confusion in his tiny littly mind whatsoever

[Fairy]

“Why would you accept a definition of "woman " that excludes older women?”

The comment was open to interpretation. It wasn’t about excluding those who can’t give birth.

Why is this so important ffs, Trump is just a regular human being like everyone else. No one is an expert on question answering.

This is more about the Trump haters than it is about his answer to the question.

We’re not all going to like each other are we. Let’s just be honest.

[Flannel Jesus]

Why would you accept a definition of "woman " that excludes older women?

What's your definiton of a woman then?

I have no idea, I'm not the one saying it's a simple straightforward thing to define.

[Fairy]

Why would you accept a definition of "woman " that excludes older women?

What's your definiton of a woman then?

I have no idea, I'm not the one saying it's a simple straightforward thing to define.

So that’s your argument then, Trump ought to have answered something like I have no idea?

[Fairy]

Maybe next time, the people asking Trump questions, ought to ask Trump for a philosophical answer to their questions, and that only a long winded philosophical answer will suffice…

I’m thinking of writing to the White House now. Dear Don, you fucked up again, people at the philosophy now forum are arguing over your comment about what you think defines a woman.


Jeeeeze, seriously okay we get it, no one is allowed an opinion without it being torn to shreds and put into its official proper category that everyone can agree upon and be happy about, so that nobody gets butt hurt or offended, or even have their own sanity threatened by being labelled dull uneducated and called all the shittiest names under the sun that can be invented.

Flash just hates women. I'm not sure how he manages that because he claims to not have a clue what a woman is. It's odd, because when it comes to disliking them there's no confusion in his tiny littly mind whatsoever

pure gold!

[accelafine]

Why would you accept a definition of "woman " that excludes older women?

What's your definiton of a woman then?

I have no idea, I'm not the one saying it's a simple straightforward thing to define.

Poor thing. I'll help you then. It's an adult female human. Just as a bonus a man, since you are so confused and it's 'too complicated for you', is an adult human male. You're welcome.

[accelafine]

You know, one of those baffling, scary creatures that gave birth to you.

[Flannel Jesus]

What's your definiton of a woman then?

I have no idea, I'm not the one saying it's a simple straightforward thing to define.

Poor thing. I'll help you then. It's an adult female human. Just as a bonus a man, since you are so confused and it's 'too complicated for you', is an adult human male. You're welcome.

That's fine, that has far fewer problems than trump's definition. The problems that do exist are very rare edge cases, probably not worth thinking about except for the people who are dealing with them.

How do you define female? Chromosome based or something else?