Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 5:33 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:20 am Of course the nutjobs can surgically mutilate themselves!

However: all the mutilations under the sun won't turn a guy into a girl, and if Joe, in the guise of Josephine, sez otherwise, I'll call HIM a damned fool, liar, and loon to HIS face.

Can we agree to disagree NOW?

Can't people just be themselves without some SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE REACTIONARY imposing their opinions on them. Why attack someone you don't know and know nothing about? Why poke your interfering conservative reactionary nose into their business?

Some libertarian. Your take on liberty means crapping on the weak because you can. That's not liberty, it's tribal social conservatism.

You just don't get it. No one's 'attacking' anyone (except perhaps the wankers who come up with this crap).

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 5:48 am

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 5:33 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:20 am Of course the nutjobs can surgically mutilate themselves!

However: all the mutilations under the sun won't turn a guy into a girl, and if Joe, in the guise of Josephine, sez otherwise, I'll call HIM a damned fool, liar, and loon to HIS face.

Can we agree to disagree NOW?

Can't people just be themselves without some SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE REACTIONARY imposing their opinions on them. Why attack someone you don't know and know nothing about? Why poke your interfering conservative reactionary nose into their business?

Some libertarian. Your take on liberty means crapping on the weak because you can. That's not liberty, it's tribal social conservatism.

You just don't get it. No one's 'attacking' anyone (except perhaps the wankers who come up with this crap).

I'm not the one decades behind.

I was responding to Henry's post, which was exactly about verbally attacking a stranger for simply being who they are.

It's none of anyone's business.

Re: the professor in the OP. If someone who seems like an obvious guy is in your class and asks for feminine pronouns why deliberately cause a hassle and challenge it? What if a bloke wants to be called Sue even if his birth certificate says Fred? What if Jenny prefers being called Paul? Do you, as a professor responsible for helping your class get educated, still call them by their formal name against their wishes? It would definitely upset others in the class who felt for them, and quite possibly it would create divisions where people start taking sides.

So much for the course they were supposed to be doing. Terrible, terrible teaching. A major blunder, where he impeded his class's education that they pay far too much for already for the sake of his self indulgent grandstanding.

People can believe what they like but when it interferes with the provision of services in this way, that's just self indulgence and deserves a kick in the pants IMO.

Its rather ironic. A bunch of people on this thread have absolutely no understanding about the fundamental principles of ethics.

* The Principle of Respect for autonomy
* The Principle of Beneficence
* The Principle of nonmaleficence
* The Principle of justice

It's pretty funny that on one thread they would argue that 'murder is wrong' while on the next they would argue that there is no 'objective morality'.

Objective morality is built ON respect for autonomy!

'Murder is wrong' not because you say so, but because I am violating your autonomy.

And so, if you care even one bit about autonomy AND logical consistency, you would show people the respect they ask of you.

Why? Because they ASKED YOU TO. That is enough of a reason.

"Can't people just be themselves without some SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE REACTIONARY imposing their opinions on them."

So...

If Jack, a black man, sez he's a white woman, and demands folks agree with his self-assessment, it's SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE REACTIONARYISM to disagree.

I thought it was just asserting 'fact' (that Jack is black and a man).

#

"Why attack someone you don't know and know nothing about? Why poke your interfering conservative reactionary nose into their business?"

Again: I don't care if Jack bleaches his skin and surgically mutilates himself. That's his business. He makes it my business when he demands I accept his self-assessment. I won't say fire freezes (cuz it doesn't) and I won't say Jack is a white woman (cuz he's a black man).

"If someone who seems like an obvious guy is in your class and asks for feminine pronouns why deliberately cause a hassle and challenge it?

Cuz the guy is a guy, not a girl..

"if you care even one bit about autonomy AND logical consistency, you would show people the respect they ask of you."

Even if this means agreeing with, sanctioning, lies or insanity, yeah?

Not enough, I guess, to let them 'do' what they like, I have to 'agree' with what they do too.

* The Principle of Respect for autonomy: leavin' people be to do as they choose...check.

* The Principle of Beneficence: leavin' people be to do as they choose...check.

* The Principle of nonmaleficence: leavin' people be to do as they choose...check.

* The Principle of justice: leavin' people be to do as they choose...check.

Nuthin' in any of that sez a body has to agree with lies or sanction insanity.

One could argue that one who demands another accept and sanction a lie or insanity is controlling, stingy, maleficent, and unjust.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:32 pm One could argue that one who demands another accept and sanction a lie or insanity is controlling, stingy, maleficent, and unjust.

Another could argue that those who adhere to logocentrism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism ) are rather rigid in their thinking and make life shit for those who don't fit neatly into the boxes logocentrists have chosen on behalf of; and for everyone.

Doesn't matter how logo-fixated a person is if he leaves the other guy alone, yeah?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:59 pm Doesn't matter how logo-fixated a person is if he leaves the other guy alone, yeah?

Naturally, but I am having a hard time imagining a conversation where the interlocutors don't speak to or at each other.

During these times when political correctness is dominant, you must remember that we are what we think we are. For example if a man from a protected collective measures 5'2" but insists he measures 6'2" it would be insulting and politically incorrect to doubt him. We are what we think we are when part of a protected collective. Why would anyone openly deny societal progress?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 5:23 pm During these times when political correctness is dominant, you must remember that we are what we think we are. For example if a man from a protected collective measures 5'2" but insists he measures 6'2" it would be insulting and politically incorrect to doubt him. We are what we think we are when part of a protected collective. Why would anyone openly deny societal progress?

Is 'gender' a recognised/standardised/widely adopted measurement unit like distance?

Nop. Don't see it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... d_prefixes

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 5:25 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 5:23 pm During these times when political correctness is dominant, you must remember that we are what we think we are. For example if a man from a protected collective measures 5'2" but insists he measures 6'2" it would be insulting and politically incorrect to doubt him. We are what we think we are when part of a protected collective. Why would anyone openly deny societal progress?

Is 'gender' a recognised/standardised/widely adopted measurement unit like distance?

Nop. Don't see it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... d_prefixes

Gender recognition is defined by the sex organs one is born with and has at the time. It is the only objective standard we can go by. Anything else is just creating your own reality.

"Naturally, but I am having a hard time imagining a conversation where the interlocutors don't speak to or at each other."

If Jack the black man (who has bleached his skin and claims to be a woman) doesn't bring up his 'circumstance', sure as shit I won't either.

#

"it would be insulting and politically incorrect to doubt him."

If shorty brings it up: I'll do more than 'doubt'.

#

"Is 'gender' a recognised/standardised/widely adopted measurement unit like distance?"

Define gender. I'm thinkin' we may have differin' views on it.

#

"Gender recognition is defined by the sex organs one is born with and has at the time."

Yes, and even more defining: gender is that which naturally and normally unfolds from XX and XY.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 5:31 pm Gender recognition is defined by the sex organs one is born with and has at the time.

1. Defined by whom?
2. What is the purpose of this distinction/recognition?