Philosophy Now Forum

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 9:19 am Awww. Woman being an adult human female is too 'controversial' for you. Poor dear.

He wasn't responding to that definition though. You're just getting upset about nothing.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:21 pm “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.

WHY do 'you' BELIEVE 'this'?

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:21 pm Let’s just be honest.

NO one is STOPPING ANY of 'you'.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:22 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:13 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 7:28 pm
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, SUPPOSEDLY, you have absolutely NO IDEA of what A 'woman' IS, but you KNOW, FOR SURE, what A 'woman' IS NOT, right?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 9:22 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 9:19 am Awww. Woman being an adult human female is too 'controversial' for you. Poor dear.

He wasn't responding to that definition though. You're just getting upset about nothing.

You are clueless. I know exactly what he 'thinks'-- he's just too cowardly to spell it out because he knows it would be pulled to shreds in seconds.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:45 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:30 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:22 pm

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.

HOW would you KNOW?

you, SUPPOSEDLY, have NO IDEA, correct?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:45 pm 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?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 2:00 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:49 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:24 pm

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.

"flannel jesus" has NOT YET got ONE 'sentence' Accurate, and Correct, in regards to "donald trump's" definition.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 8:42 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 7:59 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 3:22 pm 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.

LOL LEAVING OUT what you HAVE, here, just SHOWS and PROVES HOW FEARFUL you ARE OF BEING EXPOSED FOR who and what 'you' REALLY ARE.

'your' ATTEMPT AT 'logic', here, FAILED ABSOLUTELY. As I JUST SHOWED and PROVED.

ALSO, LOL 'this one' is, AGAIN, PROVING that people like 'this one' DO NOT LISTEN TO 'others' for the MOST IRRATIONAL REASONS, like for example, of 'the way' you speak, or, of 'how' you write.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 9:37 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 8:42 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 7:59 am

'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.

LOL LEAVING OUT what you HAVE, here, just SHOWS and PROVES HOW FEARFUL you ARE OF BEING EXPOSED FOR who and what 'you' REALLY ARE.

'your' ATTEMPT AT 'logic', here, FAILED ABSOLUTELY. As I JUST SHOWED and PROVED.

ALSO, LOL 'this one' is, AGAIN, PROVING that people like 'this one' DO NOT LISTEN TO 'others' for the MOST IRRATIONAL REASONS, like for example, of 'the way' you speak, or, of 'how' you write.

I didn't read that buddy. The caps lock use is just too unappealing. If you got to the point faster people might know how you define man and woman, but you just ramble so much.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 8:45 am 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.

LOL 'you' COME, here, 'you' SAY and WRITE 'things, but 'we' ARE ANNOYING 'you'.

What does it feel like when 'you' GIVE SO MUCH CONTROL and POWER OVER 'you', TO 'others'?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 8:45 am 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?

LOL you OBVIOUSLY DO NOT GET 'it'.

But, this is JUST BECAUSE your BELIEFS are NOT ALLOWING 'you' TO COMPREHEND, SEE, NOR UNDERSTAND, here.

CONTRARY TO your BELIEF it is NOT JUST POSSIBLE BUT it IS ACTUALLY SIMPLE and EASY.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 8:45 am This isn't complicated.

But, YET FOR you to even JUST ATTEMPT TO define it IS EXTREMELY COMPLICATED, right?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 8:45 am 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.

LOL 'This one' has 'now' INTRODUCED the 'perfect' word.

As, OBVIOUSLY, its CLAIM WAS FALTERING and FAILING BY itself.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 8:45 am 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.

LOL And, TO IMAGINE that it is 'this' type of STUFF, which people like 'this one' were TAUGHT, and LEARNED, in their so-called 'schooling'.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 8:45 am 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.

BUT, ABSOLUTELY NO one, here, WAS TRYING TO define the 'womanhood', word.

ONCE AGAIN, 'this one' INTRODUCES A False thing in AN ATTEMPT TO 'TRY TO' DEFLECT AWAY FROM its OWN FAILING BELIEF and CLAIM, here.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 8:45 am This is an exercise that Gary definitely ought to recognise from his college days unless he was at the worst possible school.

So, what 'this one' PAID and/or LEARNED is that TRYING TO DEFINE the VERY WORDS human beings USE, is A COMPLETE and UTTER WASTE OF TIME.

There is NO WONDER HOW and WHY SO MANY OF 'those' who GO THROUGH what is called 'philosophy school' END UP SO DEFLATED, LACKING OF SELF-WORTH, SO NEGATIVE, and/or WITH NO GOAL NOR ORIENTATION IN Life. SO MANY OF 'them' just have the ATTITUDE OF you can NOT 'adequately define things', you can NOT 'solve things', there is NO 'meaning in Life', you can NOT 'know things', and so on and so on.

And thus WHY SO MANY TURN TO ATTEMPTS AT RIDICULE and/or HUMILIATION OF others.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 9:43 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 9:37 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 8:42 am

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

LOL LEAVING OUT what you HAVE, here, just SHOWS and PROVES HOW FEARFUL you ARE OF BEING EXPOSED FOR who and what 'you' REALLY ARE.

'your' ATTEMPT AT 'logic', here, FAILED ABSOLUTELY. As I JUST SHOWED and PROVED.

ALSO, LOL 'this one' is, AGAIN, PROVING that people like 'this one' DO NOT LISTEN TO 'others' for the MOST IRRATIONAL REASONS, like for example, of 'the way' you speak, or, of 'how' you write.

I didn't read that buddy. The caps lock use is just too unappealing.

GREAT.

I CAN KEEP POINTING OUT and SHOWING HOW you STILL HAVE NOT YET BEEN ABLE TO GET what "donald trump" ACTUALLY SAID, Right AND Correct, WITHOUT you 'TRYING TO' CLAIMING that you HAVE.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 9:43 am If you got to the point faster people might know how you define man and woman, but you just ramble so much.

IF you SAY SO. But, your CLAIM that you do NOT READ is NOT REALLY LOOKING THAT Accurate AND True.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 8:34 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 7:16 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 6:06 am
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.

But I want to be the last stupid idiot.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 10:22 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 8:34 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 7:16 am

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.

But I want to be the last stupid idiot.

Perhaps you can settle for being the most complete?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 10:30 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 10:22 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 8:34 am
If your complaint is that I have called you an idiot, you should try to write a less stupid rant in reply.

But I want to be the last stupid idiot.

Perhaps you can settle for being the most complete?

Thanks for the compliment.

I’m the most extraordinary idiot, not ordinary, but extra super extraordinary.

Now

How to define the definer, what is a definer?

Who would like to have first stab at that rather perplexing conundrum of a question?