Philosophy Now Forum

There is no statutory definition of biological sex in the US nor universally.

Biologists may disagree.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:05 pm
He was in & out so fast, I don't recall what his position was.

You know me, henry, I don't like to outstay my welcome.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:14 pm Henry, if you call me "it" that would be like you misspelling Belinda. It would be a typo error, as you know I am a person not a thing. Things don't express feelings . You attribute "bleeding heart " to me therefore you believe I'm a person not a thing. You can call me "he" if you like and I would not mind.

If you are a man, I'll be happy to. If you're a woman, I won't.

Your ease with anything has no bearin'.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:18 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:05 pm
He was in & out so fast, I don't recall what his position was.

You know me, henry, I don't like to outstay my welcome.

Hey, what is your position on the matter of rights?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:15 pm

There is no statutory definition of biological sex in the US nor universally.

Biologists may disagree.

They don't define biological sex. Biologists think biological sex is a spectrum.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:22 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:15 pm

There is no statutory definition of biological sex in the US nor universally.

Biologists may disagree.

They don't define biological sex. *Biologists think biological sex is a spectrum.

*Among humans? Citation please.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:18 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:14 pm Henry, if you call me "it" that would be like you misspelling Belinda. It would be a typo error, as you know I am a person not a thing. Things don't express feelings . You attribute "bleeding heart " to me therefore you believe I'm a person not a thing. You can call me "he" if you like and I would not mind.

If you are a man, I'll be happy to. If you're a woman, I won't.

Your ease with anything has no bearin'.

That must be annoying for you but I am content as long as you keep posting stuff that is not merely abusive.

Okay, I gotta go work to pay for this electricity and net access: back later.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:24 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:22 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:15 pm

Biologists may disagree.

They don't define biological sex. *Biologists think biological sex is a spectrum.

*Among humans? Citation please.

You can do your own googling. I am not writing an academic dissertation here.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:25 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:18 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:14 pm Henry, if you call me "it" that would be like you misspelling Belinda. It would be a typo error, as you know I am a person not a thing. Things don't express feelings . You attribute "bleeding heart " to me therefore you believe I'm a person not a thing. You can call me "he" if you like and I would not mind.

If you are a man, I'll be happy to. If you're a woman, I won't.

Your ease with anything has no bearin'.

That must be annoying for you but I am content as long as you keep posting stuff that is not merely abusive.

I haven't been abusive, B: you've been thin-skinned.

Anyway: goin' make money now.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:20 pm
Hey, what is your position on the matter of rights?

I think rights are a good thing in general, and they tend to come with responsibilities.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:05 pm

I'm asking you what makes this principle that you do like so much better than principles that other people like? And I'm mainly getting sulky attitude in return.

No, what you're gettin' is: I can't give you what you want. I can ask, and have asked, is there anyone here who objects to the idea that he is a free man with a right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property? and I can point to an ethical system based on each of us bein' free men, each with a right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property, as bein' better (how can it not be?). But I can't, to the amoralist, show this as moral fact.

What is the bit I highlighted there supposed to mean?
Are you blaming me for not agreeing with your argument?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:05 pm

But if somebody else cooks up a set of rights including not to die of poverty and shit, then everyone agrees that this supersedes your right to not pay any taxes, you can whitter about every inconvenience you ever experience being slavery as much as you like, it's just a case of your prefererred right being overriden for a purpose in accordance with other rights. I know what your opinion agianst that is, but I don't see anything that makes one particular opinion special against all the others out there.

Oh, from your perspective as someone with no claim to yourself, the majority wins...not becuz the majority is right but simply becuz they are the majority.

Some majoritarian realist would agree with what you wrote there, but I am not a realist so describing my position with the language of realism won't work. As if you cared.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:05 pm And you, with no claim to anything (other than what's allowed by the majority), well, you may not like what the majority demands of you, or restricts you to or from, but -- if you're gonna be consistent (and, of course, you don't have to be) -- you have no foundation to resist. If your government, backed by the will of the people, decides trannies are a menace that must be contained or eliminated, well, them's the breaks. You certainly can't argue (well, you can, but who'd take you seriously?) the trans-person has any rights. you could argue they have privileges, sure, but that's all (understandin', of course, that what the people give, the people can take away).

That's all very ought to is. I have tried to explain this for you in the past, but you have your head so far up your own ass you never pay any attention. I say, and I believe Harbal says something similar, that we as a society, have endless debates about this stuff and over time they move back and forth. Your petulant little strawman dramas aren't accurate.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:05 pm Taxes: now, you, as you have no claim to diddly (beyond what is granted you by the majority) you'll pay, you have no reason not to other than I don't like it. Doesn't matter if it's feeding the poor or buildin' bombs. You have no real objection to offer. Certainly, you can't claim anyone has a right to food or no right to bombs (well, you can but it has no backin').

Yeah. That sort of sounds like Democracy really.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:05 pm

So there's nothing wrong with Harbal's position on the matter of rights.

He was in & out so fast, I don't recall what his position was.

You never stop to find out what the other person actually believes Henry, it's really never been your thing. You always go stright into the simple country hyper-chicken routine of "seems to me.." without really finding out what anything is about to anyone who isn't you.

[quote=Sculptor post_id=588826 time=1660039891 user_id=17400]
[quote=Advocate post_id=588814 time=1660033029 user_id=15238]
IS is a prerequisite for all versions of OUGHT.
[/quote]

But it is not a precursor.
[/quote]

It is also that. All OUGHT statements are conditional on desiring a given outcome. IF you want X, THEN Y is the best choice.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:27 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:25 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:18 pm

If you are a man, I'll be happy to. If you're a woman, I won't.

Your ease with anything has no bearin'.

That must be annoying for you but I am content as long as you keep posting stuff that is not merely abusive.

I haven't been abusive, B: you've been thin-skinned.

Anyway: goin' make money now.

For goodness sake! I did not say you had. As a matter of fact you have not.I'm sorry Henry, I did not phrase very well what I meant to say. Please continue to post your ideas.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:41 am

if this pastiche is targeted at my position

It wasn't. My original thought was 4798 was a philosopher. But most of those are already whores of one kind or another. Also, the night of the Great Leveling woulda had most of 'em dead or in low level flunky jobs like Supervising Unit 1.

Damn it Henry, sometimes I just want the song to be about me. Jeeze!

Lol