Donald Trump

[Age]

Imagine this, imagine accelefine had some terrible autoimmune condition meaning that her body would reject, within a month, any baby she might be pregnant with.

Well, if "can give birth" is a requirement for being a woman, does that mean you want to force accelefine to pee in the men's toilets?

You say it's not difficult, but it seems like it's difficult to me. It seems difficult to me to say to someone like accelefine, sorry babe, due to your condition you're not really a woman, you're going to have to stand up to pee like the rest of the boys.

Women who can't give birth have "disorders". "Disorders" don't make people less human. However, they aren't considered as "healthy".

Dude, I thought you said you went to university to study philosophy? Did you not do the simple definition problems like justified true belief and so on? Surely even in America they cover the difficulty of adequately defining things in year one?

ONLY 'those' who have difficulty adequately defining 'things' would SAY and/or TEACH that there is an ACTUAL 'difficulty' of adequately defining 'things'.

ONLY 'those' who can NOT 'adequately define things' would BELIEVE and/or SAY that there IS 'the difficulty of adequately defining things'.

Adequately defining 'things', in a way that could be in AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE WITH and BY ALL, REALLY, is NOT that difficult NOR complex AT ALL. Getting you human beings together to DISCUSS, peacefully, what 'it' is, EXACTLY, which you ALL could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT is somewhat harder though.

[Age]

Imagine this, imagine accelefine had some terrible autoimmune condition meaning that her body would reject, within a month, any baby she might be pregnant with.

Well, if "can give birth" is a requirement for being a woman, does that mean you want to force accelefine to pee in the men's toilets?

You say it's not difficult, but it seems like it's difficult to me. It seems difficult to me to say to someone like accelefine, sorry babe, due to your condition you're not really a woman, you're going to have to stand up to pee like the rest of the boys.

You are missing the point.

Nature made two humans, one female the other one male.

Nature did not make half male half female bodies.

Have you ever known a baby to be born with a womb and a penis? I really don’t think nature works like that do you?

You're missing the point.

There are perfectly womanly women out there who can't give birth. Women who EVERYONE would agree is a woman. So therefore, "I define a woman as a person who can give birth" is obviously not going to cut it. It's not good enough.

ONCE AGAIN, there is NO one, here, besides you of course, who has EVER SAID, 'a woman is a person who can give birth'. So, if 'those words' are not going to so-call 'cut it', then STOP USING 'those words'. NO one ELSE has USED 'those words', here, nor in ANY video, here.

When are you GOING TO COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND 'this IRREFUTABLE Fact'?

[Fairy]

If you want to hold that your definition is exclusively true, then it has to be better than this utter garbage you idiots are throwing around.

That should be obvious.

Well some of us are idiots and lack a basic education according to your exclusively true definition. What more would you expect?


You are an idiot every day of the week... why couldn't you have just taken one day off?

[Age]

Imagine this, imagine accelefine had some terrible autoimmune condition meaning that her body would reject, within a month, any baby she might be pregnant with.

Well, if "can give birth" is a requirement for being a woman, does that mean you want to force accelefine to pee in the men's toilets?

You say it's not difficult, but it seems like it's difficult to me. It seems difficult to me to say to someone like accelefine, sorry babe, due to your condition you're not really a woman, you're going to have to stand up to pee like the rest of the boys.

The question wasn’t about what requirement was needed to be a woman.

Obviously if a woman can’t give birth for whatever reason, that doesn’t take away the fact that she’s still a woman.

Why do you keep changing the narrative?

I don't understand why you think I'm "changing the narrative". Someone gave a definition of a woman. A definition is 100% about requirements to be a woman.

If one WANTS TO GET TO the ACTUAL Truth of things, then they NEED TO START FROM, and REMAIN WITH, the ACTUAL Truth of things.

The 'definition' of a 'woman', which you keep SAYING and WRITING, here, WAS CHANGED FROM the 'original narrative'.

If you can NOT even COPY the 'original', Correctly, then you are LOST FROM the outset.

If the definition of a woman is "a person who can give birth", then people who can't give birth aren't women, by defintion. Right? That's what a definition... is...

But, the definition of a 'woman' IS NOT 'the narrative' that you are SAYING and CLAIMING, here.

Now, 'this', here, is A PRIME example of WHY 'these people', back then when this was being written, WERE SO LOST and REMAINED STUCK SO LOST and CONFUSED.

They continuously could NOT even just get the most SMALLEST of sentences Right, and Correct.

That's not me changing the narrative, that's the narrative.

LOL ONCE AGAIN, for the VERY SLOW OF LEARNERS, here, 'that' was NOT 'the narrative' AT ALL.

'These people' could NOT even just get the ACTUAL 'narrative' Right, even though 'the narrative' IS RECORDED FOR ALL TO LOOK AT, and SEE, let alone MOVING ON and JUST GETTING PAST the 'narrative'.

AGAIN, there is NO WONDER WHY 'these ones' were SO SLOW TO CATCH UP.

[Age]

You are missing the point.

Nature made two humans, one female the other one male.

Nature did not make half male half female bodies.

Have you ever known a baby to be born with a womb and a penis? I really don’t think nature works like that do you?

You're missing the point.

There are perfectly womanly women out there who can't give birth. Women who EVERYONE would agree is a woman. So therefore, "I define a woman as a person who can give birth" is obviously not going to cut it. It's not good enough.

It’s good enough. The chromosomes say so.

The argument for and against what is a woman is just a stupid game of unreasonable irrational mental semantics.

LOL Even just the VERY SIMPLE and EASY 'act' of just 'defining' and/or just 'reaching agreement of A definition' BECOME an ARGUMENT FOR or AGAINST ...

Typical of male behaviour and is why women will always be smarter than the male.

LOL 'They' could NOT even AGREE UPON JUST A 'definition' for A 'male' NOR A 'female', but YET 'they' STILL BELIEVED that there were DIFFERENCES between BEING A 'man' FROM BEING A 'woman', and that there were DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT 'male behavior' FROM 'female behavior'.

But, and AGAIN, NONE OF 'them' could TELL and EXPLAIN what the ACTUAL DIFFERENCES were, EXACTLY.

[Age]

The question wasn’t about what requirement was needed to be a woman.

Obviously if a woman can’t give birth for whatever reason, that doesn’t take away the fact that she’s still a woman.

Why do you keep changing the narrative?

I don't understand why you think I'm "changing the narrative". Someone gave a definition of a woman. A definition is 100% about requirements to be a woman. If the definition of a woman is "a person who can give birth", then people who can't give birth aren't women, by defintion. Right? That's what a definition... is...

That's not me changing the narrative, that's the narrative.

It was just one on the fly definition of a woman, which was anatomically correct. This question wasn’t supposed to evoke a Spanish Inquisition kind of scenario.

What you were 'trying to' do, here, WAS OBVIOUS, but some are NOT ABLE TO SEE and RECOGNIZE 'this'. Thus, what you call the 'spanish inquisition', here, FROM 'them'. And, also NOTICE that it CAME FROM 'those' who did NOT even ATTEMPT TO define ANY thing, here, "themselves". 'They' PREFER to JUST RIDICULE and HUMILIATE 'those' who TRY and/or DO.

Also, and by the way, I suggest NEVER SAYING NOR CLAIMING ABSOLUTELY ANY thing UNLESS you ALREADY HAVE the PROOF and/or Facts, which would and could back up and support your WORDS and/or CLAIMS, IRREFUTABLY, FIRST.

[Age]

It’s good enough. The chromosomes say so.

The argument for and against what is a woman is just a stupid game of unreasonable irrational mental semantics. Typical of male behaviour and is why women will always be smarter than the male.

So why did trump bother trying to define it then?

This is actually a relatively important problem for anyone who wants to take a strong stance on the culture war of gender.

WHAT so-called 'culture war of gender'?

LOL 'These people', back then would START WARS ON JUST ABOUT ANY thing.

People on the right make fun of people on the left because they "can't define woman". Which honestly makes sense, I think it's funny too.

LOL 'These people' even MADE UP A 'left' AND A 'right' just so there can be 'them' on "one side" and 'us' on "this or our side". AGAIN, just so 'they' can START WARS.

LOL 'They', STILL, have NOT YET REALIZED that their so-called "leaders" MAKE UP False "sides", and "us" VERSUS "them" scenarios so that the so-called "leaders" could and DID HAVE MORE CONTROL OVER 'these people'.

And, 'these people', here, BEING FOOLED BY the BIGGEST FOOLS, "themselves". LOL One only just have to LOOK AT 'their' so-called "leaders" to SEE HOW ABSOLUTELY FOOLISH JUST ABOUT EVERY thing IS, here.

But if those same people themselves can't define woman, it's... obviously hypocritical.

The ONLY people, here, who can NOT just define the word, 'woman', or 'man', here, are 'those' who ARE ABSOLUTELY AFRAID and SCARED OF what 'they' GIVE OUT, which is JUST RIDICULE and HUMILIATION, here.

Trump defined woman here, but he defined it in a way that nobody is clearly prepared to stand by.

LOL 'you' "flannel jesus", STILL, have NOT YET even BEEN ABLE TO GET the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE 'definition', itself, Correct. As, AGAIN, you CHANGED the NARRATIVE here.

Because of course they can't stand by it, because of course not all women can give birth.

Here, is ANOTHER PRIME example of HOW one's INTERPRETATION can and does False and Wrong CHANGE the WHOLE STORY, and/or the WHOLE INTENDED MEANING.

Does 'this one' REALLY ACTUALLY BELIEVE that its OWN INTERPRETATION IS the ONLY INTENDED MEANING, BY and FROM 'the one' WHO SAID what 'they' ACTUALLY DID?

Is it POSSIBLE TO 'this one' that what it INTERPRETS AS being what was MEANT, IN what was another SAID, COULD BE False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect? Or, is 'this' NOT even A POSSIBILITY IN 'this one's' OWN 'little world''?

You're the one who linked to the video of a man defining "woman", but you're talking about the conversations about the definition as if it's entirely unreasonable. Nobody made you link that video. You chose to do that, and that choice now means that the conversation about the definition of a woman is on the table.

AND, ONE DAY, "flannel jesus" MIGHT ACTUALLY GET 'the ACTUAL definition', which was PROVIDED, Correct.

So did he define "woman" correctly or not?

LOL
LOL
LOL

you, "flannel jesus" could NOT even just COPY 'the words in the definition' Correctly.

And, the Fact that you, STILL, have NOT YET Corrected your MISTAKE and/or your Wrong and False CLAIM is A SIGN that you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that you have NOT GOTTEN 'the definition' Wrong.

[Age]

I don't understand why you think I'm "changing the narrative". Someone gave a definition of a woman. A definition is 100% about requirements to be a woman. If the definition of a woman is "a person who can give birth", then people who can't give birth aren't women, by defintion. Right? That's what a definition... is...

That's not me changing the narrative, that's the narrative.

A woman who can't give birth isn't a male. She's a woman who can't give birth. What's next, war is peace, freedom is slavery?

You're telling the wrong person brother. Tell that to all the people in this thread who agree with trump's definition, particularly Fairy.

LOL AGAIN, 'trump's definition'.

you have NOT EVEN GOT 'the ACTUAL WORDS of the definition' Right AND Correct, let alone being ABLE TO MOVE ON TO FINDING OUT if your OWN INTERPRETATION OF what was ACTUALLY MEANT is Right AND Correct.

I don't define a woman as "a person who can give birth" so I'm okay on that front.

YET you are the ONLY person, here, in this forum, or in that video, who IS USING 'those words'.

Maybe if you get the ACTUAL DEFINITION Right, Accurate, AND Correct, then 'we' WILL MOVE ALONG, here.

'We' WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT, TO SEE.

[Age]

This is a philosophy forum honey. Expect people to investigate your claims. If you give a definition of a woman, and people aren't trying to dissect whether or not it holds... you're not on a philosophy forum.

'I' GAVE A DEFINITION OF A 'woman'.
'you' people are NOT trying to dissect whether or not it holds.
Therefore, well according to 'your logic' anyway, this MEANS that 'I" am NOT on A 'philosophy forum', right?

[Fairy]

Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error. As usual, there is a great woman behind every idiot. There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

[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?

It's rambling pile of bullshit spouted by a moron. I got bored and stopped when he said "it's about a 94% issue".... what the fuck is that supposed to mean?

This guy, and DAM and Veggie are trying to lay exclusive claim to this. None of you pissants is saying that people who hold other views to yours are equally valid. If you want to hold that your definition is exclusively true, then it has to be better than this utter garbage you idiots are throwing around.

That should be obvious.

JFC you are thick.

[Age]

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.

What you ACTUALLY IMPLIED what there IS AN ACTUAL 'difficulty of adequately defining things', as though this is some 'FORGONE CONCLUSION'. Which MEANS that you were OBVIOUS TAUGHT TO BELIEVE some thing, which is NOT NECESSARILY True AT ALL.

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.

LOL 'This one' SAYS and CLAIMS 'this' AS IF 'education' TEACHES ONLY what IS Right, True, Accurate, and Correct.

LOL ONCE MORE, what 'we' have, here, is MORE PRIME example of HOW one's OWN BELIEFS can and DO LEAD 'them' COMPLETELY and UTTERLY ASTRAY.

LOL 'This one' 'LEARNED' some thing, in some school. Therefore, what it LEARNED MUST BE ABSOLUTELY TRUE, RIGHT, ACCURATE, AND CORRECT.

'This one' OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT YET HAVE the ABILITY TO DISCUSS, nor TO CONSIDER, its OWN BELIEF and VIEW, here, so it WILL just CARRY ON as though its BELIEF is ABSOLUTE TRUE AND RIGHT.

[Age]

Women who don't or can't give life to babies are not women, you heard it here first. Thanks fairy.

You don’t need to put words in my mouth, I didn’t say that. You did.

Look, if you don’t agree that the definition was accurate and enough then fine, I don’t actually give a fuck.

This thread is about Trump’s opinions, no one is being forced to agree with him.

Who is talking about 'forced to agree'? Why did you bring that up? Seems completely out of left field.

Of course we aren't forced to agree. And it's a good thing, because the definition is terrible.

INSTEAD OF CONTINUALLY HARPING ON ABOUT HOW it IS TERRIBLE, you MAKE it Right, Accurate, AND Correct, and then JUST MOVE ON?

Or, are you NOT YET CAPABLE OF JUST DOING 'this'?

If you KNOW some thing IS TERRIBLE, then JUST FIX it.

It doesn't include anybody with serious fertility issues. They're all not women according to Trump's definition, and by extension your definition.

1. you, STILL, have NOT YET even got THE WORDS IN "donald trump's" ACTUAL definition Correct.

2. you, STILL, appear to have NOT YET REALIZED that it could be your OWN personal INTERPRETATION OF what WAS MEANT, which IS what IS ACTUALLY Wrong.

[Age]

Okay you’ve made your point. Now what ?

Well ideally now you say "yes, i realize that not all women can give birth, and so realize that defining a woman as someone with the ability to give birth excludes those women, when it shouldn't".

BUT, ONCE MORE, 'that' is NOT "donald trump's" ACTUAL definition for what A 'woman' is.

WHEN are you EVER going to just get 'this' Right, AND Accurate, AND Correct?

[Age]

A man can’t give birth biologically, women can through their vagaina.

But you can't.

HOW do you, supposedly, KNOW, EXACTLY?

Are you SURE that you have THOUGHT THROUGH EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO, here?