Donald Trump

[Age]

So you used to be a woman, but now you're not. So you're... trans?

Are you a woman? I am.

Not according to your definition. According to your definition of women, we are both not women. See you in the boy's room bucko.

WHY do you KEEP JUMPING DIRECTLY TO the CONCLUSION that if you are NOT A 'woman', then you MUST BE A 'man', or 'now' 'boy'?

Have you EVER CONSIDERED that if you, STILL, can NOT define what the 'woman' word MEANS NOR is REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, then you ALSO can NOT DO it with the 'man' word. Therefore, 'you' are ALSO NOT A 'man'. So, does this AUTOMATICALLY MAKE 'you' A 'woman', in which case the 'woman' WILL SEE 'you' IN the 'woman's' room.

OR, does 'this' work ONE WAY, ONLY?

[FlashDangerpants]

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?

If your complaint is that I have called you an idiot, you should try to write a less stupid rant in reply.

[Flannel Jesus]

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

No, Trump should have probably answered with something that doesn't say Old women like Fairy aren't really women.

I don't recall seeing anything in the Trump interview where he says old women aren't really women or anything to suggest that line of thinking.

Women are purple who can give birth. That means people who can't give birth aren't women, no? If that's the definition of a woman, then someone who doesn't meet that definition isn't a woman.

[Age]

We need send somebody round to measure his/her moustache before a final verdict can be rendered.

Nah, we’re just on different valve lengths when it comes to understanding lexicon differences.

Trump is simple minded, like me. I prefer simplicity, it’s my vibe.

I like how Trump answers difficult complex questions with pure child like simplicity.

You aren't keeping it simple, you are just pig-headed in the face of your own failure.

If you REALLY WANT TO CLAIM that if one does NOT so-call 'adequately define' some thing IS A 'FAILURE', then you WILL ALSO HAVE TO ADMIT that your OBVIOUS INABILITY AT 'adequately defining' 'things' MAKES you AN ABSOLUTE FAILURE, AS WELL.

Are you ABLE TO, and READY TO, ADMIT 'this'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

What is 'it', EXACTLY, which you REALLY ARE AFRAID OF and SCARED OF?

Keeping it simple is what US SC Justice Potter Stuart did in a famous obscenity trial in the 60s where he wrote:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

You cold easily have adopted a similar approach, it just comes at the cost of not being in a position to tell other people they are wrong.

YET, here, you ARE CONTINUALLY TELLING 'another person' that they ARE NOT JUST WRONG, but ALSO A FAILURE, AS WELL.

Instead, you have blundered around like a blind walrus, first basing your "definition" on a function that the object in question can perform (birthing and suckling). When that let you down, you moved onto a component bodily organ (stupidly choosing one that you yourself no longer possess because you are an absolute self-basting fuckwit).

Have you PRESENTED ANY ACTUAL 'thing', in this forum, which HAS ENLIGHTENED ANY, let alone MANY or ALL, of the people, here? In fact have you 'adequately defined' ANY thing, here?

If no, for both of these CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, then 'you' ALSO have BLUNDERED around like A CLOSED and BLIND one.

Just RIDICULING and HUMILIATING others, and/or just CALLING others FAILURES, and/or SELF-BASTING FUCKWITS, is REALLY NOTHING MORE than JUST BLUNDERING ALONG and AROUND like a Truly STUPID or BLIND person WOULD.

If you were either smart, or if you had the ability to actually keep things simple, you would realise you were in over your head ages ago and would either conclude that you had failed in the task of definition becasue you are such a simple creature, or that you had failed because it might be a more difficult task than you originally supposed.

1. It IS A VERY SIMPLE and EASY TASK.

2. CRITICIZING, RIDICULING, HUMILIATING, and/or NAME CALLING some one for just NOT DOING what you CLAIM and BELIEVE can NOT even be DONE, ANYWAY, seems rather HYPOCRITICAL.

[Flannel Jesus]

But I am a woman.

And Trump would probably agree if we were to meet up in real-time, maybe hang out awhile drinking coffee at costa.

Of course he would agree, because he doesn't even believe his own definition, because he didn't really think about it before he spoke. You don't believe it either, despite wasting so many words arguing for it. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Why would he even need to think about it? The word woman is enough. It's self-defining.

I don't know why you're saying these words to me. I didn't ask him to define it. The request wasn't up to me, and his fucked up retarded definition wasn't up to me either. I'm fine using the word "woman" without a precise definition, so I agree with you there.

[Flannel Jesus]

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.

Nobody cares what you have to say. People don't even read your posts because of how you write.

[FlashDangerpants]

You guys are all making the same error over and over again, it's not my fault and it's not FJ's fault that you don't learn from your mistakes.

Try to think of something less controversial so that you can calm down and stop annoying me. Define a car. You all know what a car is, and you all know that it isn't a wheelbarrow or a jet plane. If you define a car simply as a box with at least one wheel, you haven't ruled out a wheelbarrow. Get it? This isn't complicated. Just try and construct a perfect definition of a car that includes everything a car does and nothing a car doesn't do, or everything that a car could be and nothing that a non-car would ever be.

Then try to do a similar definition for religion. If you get this far and think you have been doing great, you are an unsalvageable idiot.

After those basic exercises that all philosophy students ever have been through in year one, you should have an understanding of why it is a mistake to try and define womanhood by the baby making, or the vagina possession, or the chromosomes or any other feature, component or activity.

This is an exercise that Gary definitely ought to recognise from his college days unless he was at the worst possible school.

[Age]

But I’m not understanding whatever it is you’re saying to me.

It really wasn't complicated, you must be very dull.

Yeah I’m very dull, in your opinion, not mine. But yeah…if you want to turn this into a competitive game of who is bright and who is dull then go ahead. I couldn’t care less. I just agree with Trump’s opinion that’s all, it’s really that simple.

AND, just like you WANT TO AGREE WITH it, because in it is said, a woman is much smarter than a man, and, that women have been treated very badly, which you INTERPRETED IN your OWN 'personal way', people like "flashdangerpants" AND "flannel jesus" WANT TO DISAGREE WITH it, because they either HATE "donald trump", and/or because in it it said, some particular things, which they INTERPRETED IN their OWN 'personal way', AS WELL.

Absolutely NONE of you posters, here, have just STOPPED TO CONSIDER that ACTUALLY of what was ACTUALLY SAID, and ACTUALLY MEANT, even ALIGNS WITH what you have INTERPETED, and WRITTEN, here, NOR that ACTUALLY SOME of what was ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT, ALIGNS WITH SOME OF 'my OWN VIEWS' and SOME of what was ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT, DOES NOT. INSTEAD you posters, here, GO ON as though ALL OF 'it' WAS EITHER RIGHT, OR NOT RIGHT.

LOL A LOT MORE was ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT, than just that LITTLE SNIPPET, which "flannel Jesus" has OBVIOUSLY GOT Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect FROM the OUTSET, here.

You all want to question whether his opinion is valid or if he’s acting like an expert on the matter, then fine, but just leave me out of it, and talk among yourselves.

OBVIOUSLY, PROVIDING your OWN DIFFERENT definitions and OWN DIFFERENT interpretations FROM others, here, IS GOING TO EVOKE SOME SORT OF RESPONSE, and REPLY.

You’ve already thrown me under the bus, so I’m out now…but do carry on, this is very entertaining.

[Age]

It really wasn't complicated, you must be very dull.

Yeah I’m very dull, in your opinion, not mine.

You just failed basic comprehension of a not at all difficult post, you are a demonstrated windowlicking moron.

LOL Just 'words on a screen' DEMONSTRATES, well TO 'this one' anyway, that another IS A 'window licker'.

Which just goes to SHOW, and PROOF, the ACTUAL POWER OF BELIEF, and just HOW NARROWED, CLOSED, and/or STUPID BELIEFS can and DO make 'people'.

Your opinion on the matter counts for nothing at all.

BUT, your OWN person OPINION, on 'the matter', counts FOR HOW MUCH, EXACTLY, "flashdangerpants"?

[Age]

So you used to be a woman, but now you're not. So you're... trans?

We need send somebody round to measure his/her moustache before a final verdict can be rendered.

She said only a woman can have a hysterectomy, which is a fact.

BUT 'the other' COULD NOT SEE 'this'. AGAIN, BECAUSE 'the other's' BELIEF/S were STOPPING and PREVENTING it FROM SEEING the ACTUAL Truth of things, ONCE AGAIN.

[Age]

How about y'all define a 'man' then? I'll start it off.

But 'I' ALREADY HAVE.

[Age]

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?

HOW ABOUT INSTEAD OF SAYING and WRITING your OWN personal INTERPRETATION, which could ALWAYS be fully or somewhat False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, and 'TRYING TO' PASS it OFF as what "he", "donald trump" said, you, INSTEAD, JUST WRITE DOWN the EXACT WORDS that "donald trump" SAID, and then 'that way' you can NEVER EVER BE Wrong, EXACTLY LIKE WHAT I ACTUALLY DID?

Would DOING 'this' CAUSE ANY HARM or Wrong DOING, here?

It is WRITTEN, and SAID, 'Honesty is the BEST POLICY', FOR A VERY GOOD REASON, or TWO.

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?

The EXACT SAME ONE. AS THE ONE ABOVE THREAD, here. (BUT, OBVIOUSLY, NOT IN REGARDS TO 'milk').

Why is his answer "moronic" or "inadequate"?

FOR SOME, because of their PRE-EXISTING HATRED FOR "domald trump" and/or 'that party'. FOR OTHERS it is because of their INTERPRETATION, RIGHTLY, or WRONGLY. FOR OTHERS, because it JUST IS, well according TO 'them' anyway. And, FOR OTHERS it is because of a MIXTURE of the UNDERLYING ISSUES.

What's moronic or inadequate about it.

Or what's a better definition of what a woman is?

The ONE I PROVIDED, UP THREAD, here.

[Age]

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.

HATING (on) people, ANYWHERE IS Truly UNNECESSARY.

However, you are IN A 'philosophy forum', so EXPECT 'your WORDS' TO BE critiqued, criticized logically and fairly, questioned, and/or challenged OVER 'your WORDS'.

AGAIN, if ANY one can NOT back up and support their WORDS, FULLY or WHOLLY, BEFORE they UTTER 'them', here, then I suggest NOT PRESENTING 'them', here. There are, literally, countless OTHER forums, where one is NOT EXPECTING TO HAVE 'their WORDS' THOROUGHLY LOOKED OVER and CRITIQUED.

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.

[accelafine]

You guys are all making the same error over and over again, it's not my fault and it's not FJ's fault that you don't learn from your mistakes.

Try to think of something less controversial so that you can calm down and stop annoying me. Define a car. You all know what a car is, and you all know that it isn't a wheelbarrow or a jet plane. If you define a car simply as a box with at least one wheel, you haven't ruled out a wheelbarrow. Get it? This isn't complicated. Just try and construct a perfect definition of a car that includes everything a car does and nothing a car doesn't do, or everything that a car could be and nothing that a non-car would ever be.

Then try to do a similar definition for religion. If you get this far and think you have been doing great, you are an unsalvageable idiot.

After those basic exercises that all philosophy students ever have been through in year one, you should have an understanding of why it is a mistake to try and define womanhood by the baby making, or the vagina possession, or the chromosomes or any other feature, component or activity.

This is an exercise that Gary definitely ought to recognise from his college days unless he was at the worst possible school.

Awww. Woman being an adult human female i.e. a WOMAN, is too 'controversial' for you? Poor dear. You seem as if you need a lie down and a good foot massage by a 6 foot 4 muscle bound female prostitute with a large penis. I'm sorry. Is that too arousing for you?

[Age]

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".

OF COURSE there IS A DIFFERENCE. BUT, consider the Fact that "donald trump" SAID NEITHER OF 'these two', bringing 'these two' UP, here, is VERY, VERY MISLEADING.

Which some might 'now' BE WONDERING, 'WHY does 'this one' WANT TO BE SO MISLEADING, here, FOR, EXACTLY?'

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?

But, THE 'definition' IS NOT 'this'. So, the REASON FOR INTRODUCING 'this' is WHY, EXACTLY, "flannel jesus"?

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?

But, ONCE MORE, you, STILL, have NOT YET PROVIDED the ACTUAL 'definition'. In Fact you have NOT REALLY even BEEN CLOSE, here.

Like someone ELSE POINTED OUT, you KEEP CHANGING THE 'narrative', here.