Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 2:10 pm
Have you EVER OFFERED so-called 'friendly feedback'?

A couple of times, when I saw an obvious way to make the dress look better of the guy wearing it - and I did not offer it to complete strangers out of the blue.

Normally, I will only offer provide feedback when asked.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 1:12 pm

carlafeit wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2025 4:12 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2025 12:11 am What are 'girly clothes'?

You mean you don't know?

It was JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION posed, and JUST ASKED TO you.

you are IN a 'philosophy forum' and made A CLAIM. So, what are 'girly' clothes, EXACTLY?

Why exactly do you overuse the word 'exactly' and capitalize it so much?

Girly clothes - dresses, clothing with lots of pink in it, frilly stuff, that sort of thing.

carlafeit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 4:31 pm Girly clothes - dresses, clothing with lots of pink in it, frilly stuff, that sort of thing.

This is stereotyping, of course. But then, people turn around and say, "It's wrong to stereotype." It's also essentialism, and people will say, "Essentialism is wrong."

In these discussions, these incompatible claims are always involved: 1) men have a right to act "like a girl," and also 2) there's no such thing as "like a girl."

How can somebody "have a right" to "become" something that has no essence, no genetic basis, no stereotype, and no particular characteristics? But if "girl" has a specific essence, stereotype and characteristics, then how can somebody who is, by essence, genetic basis, sex identity, stereotype and particular characteristics, NOT a "girl" (i.e. a "man") then "become a girl"?

There is simply no way to make gender ideology coherent, and no possibility of attributing any particular right-to-switch to somebody who wishes to cross that line. Either they cannot (because "girl" is a real, definite thing) or they don't need to (because "girl" doesn't mean any definite thing, so there's nothing to cross TO).

I have never yet seen somebody able to solve this problem.

carlafeit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 4:13 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:47 pm Good points. Transvestites are only interested in mocking, parodying and 'superseding' women. They have no interest in wearing kilts--a very male garment.
Carlafeit is known in the industry as a handmaiden. A female who feels that it's more important to pander to the demands of entitled male perverts than it is to stand up for her own rights as a woman.

Is that what the famous Canadian fentanyl does to the brain?

Or just regular all-American glue?

Does the job of handmaiden for huge thunking men in frocks and bad wigs leave you to exhausted too muster even the flimsiest argument that doesn't consist entirely of an absurdly off-the-mark 'insult'?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 11:26 am $99.99 is not unreasonable. And $29.99 a month for a year is not an excessive burden. Some would say “It’s a deal!” It would please me were you to put aside your stinginess.

'TRYING TO' DEFLECT is just ANOTHER SIGN that you can NOT AT ALL back up and support your CLAIM.

ALSO NOTE HOW MUCH money REALLY WAS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO these human beings, back in the days when this was being written.

“Back in the days when …” simply does not interest me. I am future-focused!

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:08 pm

carlafeit wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 6:55 pm So I am a girl and I have a number three brush cut and dress like a guy. This sometimes confuses people who are not sure if I am a guy or a girl, and sometimes they act weird about it, and say I would like a lot prettier with longer hair and so forth.

But guys who have long hair and dress like girls get serious hate - i.e. the kind of hate that can get your face stomped on late at night (or even not so late) if you are not careful.

Why is this?

Well, I have always understood, that if I want to know what a tree thinks, I ask a particular tree. Or, if I want to know what a particular rock thinks, I ask a rock.

How come to NEVER came to UNDERSTAND that 'these things' did NOT and could NOT ANSWER, back?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:08 pm Now, these are inanimate objects, just as much as a general category is actually inanimate simply because one can never get a particular answer from something that is not alive. Generalization always removes the concept of life when not used correctly.

It could also be SAID and CLAIMED that just about ANY thing when NOT used Correctly removes the 'concept of life's, but, then again, this would also depends on what the 'concept of life's even is, EXACTLY. See, for all 'we' know 'you' could be using the 'concept of life's Incorrectly from the outset, "phil8659".

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:08 pm Personally, never thought of dressing like a girl.

What does 'dressing like a girl' even MEAN, and LOOK like, EXACTLY?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:08 pm I look at people as what they are, a mind.

BUT, 'people' are NOT 'a mind'. The word 'people' is REFERRING TO the 'thoughts and emotions', INSTEAD.

The One and ONLY Mind is some thing DIFFERENT.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:08 pm Now, I have never had any problem getting laid, so why should I imagine that what is important about women is how the do their hair or cloths, or any decorative work on their body, I take exception to tatoos on anybody, regardless of gender; it is so disrespectful of the body.

LOL 'This one' does NOT MISS an 'opportunity' is 'SLIP IN' just HOW GOOD and GREAT it BELIEVES it IS.

LOL 'I have NEVER had ANY 'problem' getting ANY 'woman' to have sex with me'. Besides the OBVIOUS Fact that 'this' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ABSOLUTELY ANY thing AT ALL, here, you, STILL, thought it was APPROPRIATE TO EXPRESS AN OBVIOUS ABSOLUTE LIE.

AND, WHO CARES, ONE IOTA, what your VIEW ON tattoos IS? Does absolutely ANY one, here?

you, STILL, have NOT YET talked ABOUT what you quoted above, here.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:08 pm So, to make a long story short, How in the hell can anyone actually answer your question, much less honestly?

IN the EXACT WAY that I DID. Which, by the way, was ALSO Honestly.

By the way you ONLY MADE A Truly UNNECESSARY 'long story' , here, BECAUSE you started talking ABOUT 'you' AGAIN, and ABOUT how GREAT and SUPERIOR TO others you BELIEVE you are.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:08 pm Relation to self is inadmissible. It is not the body which changes because of our literacy or illiteracy. People lie when they say that we have a life choice, when factually we are born as potentially the most powerful life support system possible.

LOL 'This one' is, STILL, BELIEVING that it IS some sort of 'life support system' FOR some UNEXPLAINED thing.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:08 pm Personally, a woman who dresses for work, is one of the most beautiful of women.

ONCE MORE 'this one' A 'grammatically Incorrect', and NONSENSICAL sentence.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:08 pm So, tell us, are you saying that you have a mental problem like male cross dressers, or do you dress because we are born to work?
Male cross dressers are simply an insult to women.

It is not so much what someone does, one must enquire why they do it. Why do people dress this way or that, for example, I imagine that the Kilt, a man's dress, is fashionable because it was designed for the battlefield, I mean, after all, the purpose of battle is to fuck the hell out of the enemy, and a kilt makes that easier.

If this' is REALLY what you BELIEVE, then 'this' EXPLAINS A LOT ABOUT WHY you SPEAK and WRITE 'the way' that you DO.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:08 pm So, do you dress because of your own behavior, or do you dress to incite a behavior in others? And if it is to incite behavior from others, you have no cause to bitch that it was not a behavior you wanted.

Talk about MISSING or MISUNDERSTANDING the whole point of the opening post and/or TURNING it AROUND TO AN ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION and one's OWN ALREADY VERY DISTORTED BELIEFS.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:47 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:08 pm

carlafeit wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 6:55 pm So I am a girl and I have a number three brush cut and dress like a guy. This sometimes confuses people who are not sure if I am a guy or a girl, and sometimes they act weird about it, and say I would like a lot prettier with longer hair and so forth.

But guys who have long hair and dress like girls get serious hate - i.e. the kind of hate that can get your face stomped on late at night (or even not so late) if you are not careful.

Why is this?

Well, I have always understood, that if I want to know what a tree thinks, I ask a particular tree. Or, if I want to know what a particular rock thinks, I ask a rock. Now, these are inanimate objects, just as much as a general category is actually inanimate simply because one can never get a particular answer from something that is not alive. Generalization always removes the concept of life when not used correctly.

Personally, never thought of dressing like a girl. I look at people as what they are, a mind. Now, I have never had any problem getting laid, so why should I imagine that what is important about women is how the do their hair or cloths, or any decorative work on their body, I take exception to tatoos on anybody, regardless of gender; it is so disrespectful of the body.

So, to make a long story short, How in the hell can anyone actually answer your question, much less honestly?

Relation to self is inadmissible. It is not the body which changes because of our literacy or illiteracy. People lie when they say that we have a life choice, when factually we are born as potentially the most powerful life support system possible.

Personally, a woman who dresses for work, is one of the most beautiful of women.

So, tell us, are you saying that you have a mental problem like male cross dressers, or do you dress because we are born to work?
Male cross dressers are simply an insult to women.

It is not so much what someone does, one must enquire why they do it. Why do people dress this way or that, for example, I imagine that the Kilt, a man's dress, is fashionable because it was designed for the battlefield, I mean, after all, the purpose of battle is to fuck the hell out of the enemy, and a kilt makes that easier.

Good points. Transvestites are only interested in mocking, parodying and 'superseding' women.

LOL There is NO surprise that it was some thing like 'this' ONLY what 'this one' ONLY 'saw' and ONLY 'picked up on', in 'that post'.

Also, LOL 'only'. Because of 'this ones' OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY NARROWED and CLOSED VIEWS, here, it ONLY 'sees' that 'those human beings' are interested in doing what they do for the ONE ONLY reason given, here.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 4:47 pm They have no interest in wearing kilts--a very male garment.
Carlafeit is known in the industry as a handmaiden. A female who feels that it's more important to pander to the demands of entitled male perverts than it is to stand up for her own rights as a woman.

'This one' is SO CLOSED that it, literally, can NOT SEE what the VERY WORDS WRITTEN, here, were talking ABOUT, and SAYING and MEANING.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 5:00 pm Imagine being on this site and expecting a sane and reasonable response.

Does 'this' apply to EVERY one, but 'you'? Or, to 'you' AS WELL?

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 5:00 pm You are going to be sorely disappointed every time. A flicker of light will be extinguished immediately after it appears. Hope becomes resignation in the blink of an eye. Sigh.

AGAIN, I WONDER if 'this one' has considered if EVERY one ELSE is expecting a sane and reasonable response from 'this one' "itself", or not?

Or, does it ONLY 'see' and 'look at' things FROM its OWN perspective, ONLY?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 5:08 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 5:00 pm Imagine being on this site and expecting a sane and reasonable response. You are going to be sorely disappointed every time. A flicker of light will be extinguished immediately after it appears. Hope becomes resignation in the blink of an eye. Sigh.

I am now 75 years old. Humans have always disappointed me when I expect more than what I get,

Is ANY one NOT 'disappointed' when they do NOT get what they 'expected'?

If no, then there was absolutely NO USE informing 'us' of what HAPPENS and OCCURS TO EVERY human being, ANYWAY.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 5:08 pm
but the same is living with children, you don't give up trying to raise them.

ONCE AGAIN you bring TOGETHER two or more ideas or views which have NO RELATION AT TO each other. By the way, you DO 'this' QUITE OFTEN, here.

your age, what ALWAYS disappoints you, and NOT giving up so-called 'trying to' raise children, here, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL in common, here.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 31, 2025 5:08 pm For example, take our Constitution, by the people and for the people.
What it means is that no government law, by any official, can divide the meaning of the word person, yet they do it anyway.
every amendment to the constitution has, by definition, been an act of treason.

AGAIN, two or more ideas, which are NOT LINKED IN ANY WAY AT ALL.

carlafeit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 4:26 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 2:16 pm Why did you use the 'unsolicited' word, here?

It could come across as you were not open to the 'friendly feedback' from others.

What would be an appropriate word?

WHATEVER word that IS USED IS 'appropriate' to 'the one' who USED it.

I was just ALLUDING TO how what you find 'unsolicted', or 'not asked for', from your perspective, could just be 'friendly feedback', only, from another's perspective. I was just pointing this out because of your remark about others 'not wanting' or 'not asking for', your 'friendly feedback', which you wanted to 'give others'.

carlafeit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 4:26 pm I am open to some feedback, from some people, some of the time - which is true of just about anyone.

Yes, which was my point ABOUT how much, from who, and when NO one KNOWS, from 'another's perspective'.

carlafeit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 4:26 pm Strange men telling me that if dressed more feminine and grew out my hair I would look very pretty - not really open to that very much.

Okay, but now it sounds like you are open to 'that' from so-called 'strange women'. And, if you do NOT have a 'sign' taped to the forehead, then HOW is ANY one TO KNOW what you are 'really open to', 'somewhat open to', and/or 'not open to', 'at all', 'very much', 'not that much', or 'not at all', EXACTLY?

carlafeit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 4:26 pm If I am work I will maintain a professional demeanor and try to redirect the conversation towards them buying a circular saw or something.

Okay.

1. All sorts of people WILL DO ALL SORTS OF 'things', FOR money. And,

2. I suggest that instead of 'trying to' redirect the conversation towards them BUYING some thing, that you, INSTEAD, JUST FIND OUT what 'it' is, EXACTLY, that they want, and then JUST direct them to, and/or help them, with what 'it' is that 'they' WANT, EXACTLY.

carlafeit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 4:29 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 2:10 pm
Have you EVER OFFERED so-called 'friendly feedback'?

A couple of times, when I saw an obvious way to make the dress look better of the guy wearing it - and I did not offer it to complete strangers out of the blue.

Normally, I will only offer provide feedback when asked.

When you say, 'normally, here, does this imply and/or mean that 'at times' you do, actually, 'provide feedback' when not asked?

What I am essentially getting at, here, is that NONE of 'us' KNOW when is the 'right time' to 'offer' or 'provide' so-called 'feedback' nor even what is the 'appropriate feedback' to give or offer. For just the 'mood' one is in 'now', which could be DIFFERENT FROM the 'mood' one was in an hour, half an hour, ten minutes, five minutes, or even just a minute prior can EFFECT whether one is RESPONSIVE or NOT to so-called 'feedback'. In other words NO one REALLY KNOWS WHEN nor WHAT TO SAY and OFFER in regards to 'providing' feedback. And, 'this' is without even delving into how what is 'appropriate' to one is NOT to another, and vice-versa. See, what you consider and call 'feedback' another might just be calling 'a compliment', ONLY. And then 'we' move onto the Fact that some people LOVE and WANT 'compliments', even when the 'compliment' is an ABSOLUTE LIE, while others absolutely HATE and DETEST ANY 'compliment', even if and when the 'compliment' is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

So, WHEN and WHAT TO SAY, and/or WRITE, can ALWAYS be 'appropriate' TO and FOR some, while being 'inappropriate' TO and FOR others. And, WITHOUT EVERY SEEKING OUT and OBTAINING CLARIFICATION, and thus CLARIFY, FIRST, NO one WILL REALLY KNOW what IS or IS NOT 'appropriate' or 'inappropriate' TO another.

carlafeit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 4:26 pm Strange men telling me that if dressed more feminine and grew out my hair I would look very pretty — not really open to that very much. If I am work I will maintain a professional demeanor and try to redirect the conversation towards them buying a circular saw or something.

And there are some good ones on the market though I think that generally the quality is dropping.

What do you think? Skil? Makita? Dewalt?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 5:20 pm There is simply no way to make gender ideology coherent, and no possibility of attributing any particular right-to-switch to somebody who wishes to cross that line. Either they cannot (because "girl" is a real, definite thing) or they don't need to (because "girl" doesn't mean any definite thing, so there's nothing to cross TO).

Curiously, the “gender wars” (or whatever it should be called and whatever, indeed, it is all about) is not designed to be coherent. It is when looked at from some distance incoherent. Why? I guess because it is not really an idea and very much more something involving feelings. Something submerged in the person’s sentiments or psyche.

However, those who get very involved in the rhetoric and politics of gender can go on & on & on about it.

As such “gender identity” is handled very differently than for example some structured idea-based ideology.

carlafeit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 4:31 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 1:12 pm

carlafeit wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2025 4:12 am

You mean you don't know?

It was JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION posed, and JUST ASKED TO you.

you are IN a 'philosophy forum' and made A CLAIM. So, what are 'girly' clothes, EXACTLY?

Why exactly do you overuse the word 'exactly' and capitalize it so much?

What you class and call 'overuse' I just class and call 'use'. And, WHY, exactly, I USE the 'exact' word, more often than most people, here, is because I like to POINT OUT that, ACTUALLY, you people who MAKE CLAIMS can NOT ACTUALLY back up and support 'your CLAIMS' anywhere AS OFTEN as you were subconsciously BELIEVING, or THOUGHT, you could.

I capitalize some words, like the 'exactly' word, 'so much' from 'your perspective', to just highlight some particular words, for later use. See, when people will say things like, 'Why did you just not say that before', then I will be able to direct them BACK to WHERE I have had not just actually WRITTEN 'that before', but that I had ACTUALLY ALSO highlighted 'those very words' in and with capital letters.

carlafeit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 4:31 pm Girly clothes - dresses, clothing with lots of pink in it, frilly stuff, that sort of thing.

Thank you, 'we' finally got, here.

Now, would ANY one, here, be brave enough to go to say the islands in the south pacific ocean and tell 'those men' there, who wear 'dresses', 'you are wearing girly clothes'?

'Those men' are some of the 'biggest and strongest' 'men' in the world. So, is ANY one, here, brave enough to TELL 'those men' that 'they are being girly' and/or 'are wearing girly clothes'?

Now, besides 'this', the VERY POINT, here, IS, that just because one is 'born into' and/or 'brought up' A PARTICULAR 'cult/ure' NEVER EVER means that what APPEARS to be 'right', 'good', nor 'correct' in that 'one cult/ure' is what is ULTIMATELY 'Right', 'good', nor 'Correct', in Life, 'the world', or the Universe, Itself.

So, what 'you people' in 'your cult/ures', here, call 'girls' or 'boys' clothes are NOT necessarily 'boys' NOR 'girls' clothes, AT ALL.

And, by the way, ONCE AGAIN, for absolutely ANY one WITH ANY CURIOSITY and ANY INTEREST, AT ALL, HOW TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN what IS ACTUALLY and ULTIMATELY IRREFUTABLY 'good', True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, in Life, FROM what IS just what APPEARS TO BE 'good', true, right, accurate, and correct, to some, is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, INDEED.