Total posts: 399
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And the first six words of your initial statement asked a question which wasn't relevant to the discussion.....Odd.
It is relevant, just not in the way you were framing it.
Almost all discussion on causal finitism within academia is made around the question "did the universe have a beginning?"
The reason is because if causal finitism is true then the universe necessarily had a beginning.
If causal finitism is false then it allows for (but does not necessitate) the universe to have an infinite past.
However, causal finitism has potential impacts outside of just whether or not the past is finite or not.
As such, the nature of the past does not impact causal finitism in any way but dedicating the first few words of the OP to that idea (which is what is done with this concept in academia) is not misplaced in the least.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What is the past?
That is a different, yet also interesting, discussion topic that is not as relevant to the discussion. Causal finitism can impact the nature of the past (is it eternal or not) but the nature of the past has much less to do with the nature of causal finitism.
Which objects, what objects?....Why the necessity for objects?
Any and all in the loosest definition of the term object. Really shouldn't be hard to understand that, and it would take minimal effort to figure that out.
And if Pruss, Koon and Lindford get paid for churning out pointless guff,
I see, you are ignorant on philosophy, don't care about philosophy, and yet decide to make comments on the philosophy forum. Has anyone ever told you that if you don't have anything worthwhile to say that you do not, in fact, need to say anything at all? It is a strange concept, I know, but maybe one you should look into.
Created:
Posted in:
Is the past finite or infinite? Can objects have infinite causal histories? The Grim Reaper paradox sets out to show that this cannot be the case, and others have since added onto the discussion. I will start by presenting three formulations of the Grim Reaper paradox, the Pruss and Koon's Grim Reaper formulation, Koons Paper Passer version, and Daniel Linford's version.
Pruss and Koons Grim Reaper Paradox - text from WLC (www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/grim-reaper-paradox#_edn1)
Imagine that there are denumerably infinitely many Grim Reapers.
You are alive at midnight.
Grim Reaper #1 will strike you dead at 1:00 a.m. if you are still alive at that time.
Grim Reaper #2 will strike you dead at 12:30 a.m. if you are still alive then.
Grim Reaper #3 will strike you dead at 12:15 a.m., and so on.
Such a situation seems clearly conceivable—given the possibility of an actually infinite number of things—but leads to an impossibility:
You cannot survive past midnight, and yet you cannot be killed by any Grim Reaper at any time.
You cannot point to any particular Grim Reaper as the one that killed you as there will always have been a different Grim Reaper that should have done the job, yet you also must be dead.
Paper Passer Version - text from Trent Horne (https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/debate-gods-existence-trent-horn-vs-alex-oconnor)
Imagined beings called paper passers who exist at every January 1st in the past.
So there’s one at January 1st, 2020, one at January 1st, 2019, and so on into an infinite past.
Their job is to receive a piece of paper from the passer who held it during the year before them and to see if it’s blank.
If the paper is blank, then they write a unique number assigned to them on it.
If the paper they receive already has a number on it, however, then they just pass the paper along to the next paper passer at the end of the year.
Now here’s the question, what number is written on the paper given to the paper passer at January 1st, 2020?
There has to be some number written on it because if it were blank then the 2020 paper passer would write his number on it.
But it can’t be blank because if it were, the 2019 paper passer would have written his number on it.
But the 2019 paper passer could not have written his number on it because if the paper were blank when he got it, the 2018 paper passer would have written his number on it.
If there are an infinite number of paper passers, then we have a paradox.
If there are an infinite number of paper passers, then we have a paradox.
Daniel Linford's Version - text (https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2020/01/05/the-grim-reaper-paradox-and-the-original-solution-part-1/)
This one isn't so much a formulation of the Paradox to show the problem but to raise issue with a potential solution.
Malpass tries to formulate Hawthorne's objection to work against the Pruss and Koons formulation of the Grim Reaper Paradox.
Essentially, the objection is that while we might not know where the first moment the person is dead at we can say that we know where the last moment they are alive is at.
To quote from Malpass's blog,
"Hawthorne first considers the case of a ball rolling towards an open-infinite Zeno-sequence of walls. 2 miles away there is a wall; 1 and 1/2 miles away is another wall; 1 and 1/4 miles away is another wall; 1 and 1/8 miles away there is another wall, etc. Thus, there is an infinite sequence of walls, ever closer to the point that is exactly one mile away. There is no wall which is the ‘closest’ to the one mile point (which makes it an open sequence). Suppose the walls are impenetrable and cannot be knocked over (etc). The ball is rolled towards the walls. What happens as it arrives at the one mile mark? Hawthorne’s answer is as follows:
“The ball does not proceed beyond a mile and it does not hit a wall.” (p. 625)"
So, the solution proposed is that despite no Reapers actually doing to killing that the person still dies.
Daniel Linford responds by proposing the following,
Let’s suppose that an infinitude of guns is pointed at Fred and an infinitude of guns is pointed at Sue.
Let’s assume that if a gun fires at Fred, then Fred is killed, and if a gun fires at Sue, then Sue is killed.
After one minute has elapsed, if no gun has yet fired at Fred, then gun 1 will fire at Fred.
After half a minute has elapsed, if no gun has yet fired at Fred, then gun 2 will fire at Fred.
And so on — after 1/n of a minute, if no gun has yet fired at Fred, then gun n will fire at Fred.
No guns ever fire at Sue.
After the time interval, Fred has been killed yet — if the Hawthorne solution is to be believed — no bullets struck Fred and no guns were ever fired.
After the time interval, Fred has been killed yet — if the Hawthorne solution is to be believed — no bullets struck Fred and no guns were ever fired.
Fred and Sue are in the same situation because while an infinitude of guns were pointed at both of them, no gun was ever fired.
What explains the difference between Fred and Sue?
This is, I believe, a powerful objection. Neither Fred nor Sue were fired at. If they were they would die, yet by Hawthorne's solution Fred is dead anyways despite the same course of events happening to him as happened to Sue. How is this justified?
The answer tends to be, as argued by philosophers like Craig, Koons, Pruss, etc. that there simply cannot be an infinite causal past. There must always be some sort of first cause, as otherwise a paradox arises. This is a view I am very sympathetic to, and so I want to ask what your thoughts are on this topic. Do you think there can be an infinite causal past? What is your solution to the Grim Reaper Paradox if you wish to preserve an infinite causal past?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
And transitioning was not as common back then, but you have to realize that the move to pro-affirmation was already decently prominent within the academic field at the time and as such people would still be recommended such treatments. There were less that went along with it as the social pressures were different. You keep trying to look at things in such a narrow lens.
Created:
Posted in:
I am a centrist (center right at the moment, but I fluctuate between left and right) but will answer with my thoughts. I do want to start by asking where you get the idea that people on the right are opposed to food banks though (as I have not heard of that accusation).
I'm not against charities that deal with food and water. I think that some level of government welfare can also be a good thing, but only on local levels.
Have it so that the taxes are collected and then awarded to charities in the local area based on how good of a job the charity did in the last year. If a charity does a great job they are given a better portion of the welfare money, if they do a poor job they are given a smaller portion.
By keeping it so the taxes are collected, controlled, and distributed on a more local level it allows it so that it is easier for voters to see how things are working and thus they can make more informed votes.
If money isn't being handled properly then the people will know exactly who is to blame and some of them may very well know said person on a personal level.
If there is welfare money going directly to the people at all then there needs to be strict monitoring on who is getting this money, how long they are on welfare, etc. There also needs to be a clearly defined cut-off point and loopholes and welfare abuse must be accounted for. This is easier to fix if things are more local as well. An example of this is that there is a charity around where I live that helps families get welfare they are entitled to. There is a family I know where a woman took maternity leave and, a result of this (due to socioeconomic status) was that she would get a certain amount of welfare. She desired to eventually go back to work but the charity in question tried to push her to instead have another child as how the welfare was set up it would be more economically viable for her to have one more child and remain unemployed than to go back to work and take care of her family and contribute to the economy. These types of situations should not be possible. Getting a job should always be the better option and the system should be set up for people to get off welfare, not stay on it.
I also think that fixing the foster home situation in the country is tied to this, but that is a different topic (that is much more controversial) for a different day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
People with bulimia nine times out of 10 are not happy with themselves they want to stop that behavior. Most trans people are not going in to see the doctor to stop wanting to feel like they want to transition they're going in to go through the transition.
Why do you think there is a difference in what they seek? Why do you think bulimics seeks help to stop their behavior while people with gender dysphoria seek some sort of affirmation?
It is because of societal pressures and expectations. Society recognizes that you don't affirm the bulimic's self-image, and so when bulimics realize they need help and seek it they will do so with that in mind. Gender dysphoria is different because society tells us that if you have such thoughts that you really are in the wrong body, and so they will seek help with that in mind.
So appealing to this as the argument as to how they are different is absolutely fallacious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If you wanted to know why I say they are different all you had to do is keep reading.
I did keep reading, all you did was outline why bulimia had physical health issues and then claimed that gender dysphoria isn't like that (when you have no reason to think so).
The same way we determine whether anything negatively impacts someone else.
I asked because I want to know your standards, not so you can make a meaningless reply.
When a person is making a decision of sound mind and it does not harm anyone else, that’s when I affirm.
Okay, how do you determine if someone is of sound mind?
There are people that have a mental health disorder where they feel like they need to amputate an arm, or a finger. These people are determined to not be of sound mind and so they are given non-affirming therapies instead.
Same with many other disorders.
So, how do you determine this? Is someone that was born a man and desperately wants to be considered a woman of sound mind?
Did you read anything I wrote? I already explained this.
Yes, I read what you wrote, but you are inconsistent.
Either these people's self-image should be affirmed or it shouldn't be. You keep saying that not affirming is wrong and then go on to justify non-affirmation in some instances. Whatever harm that you think comes about from non-affirmation will, thus, be present already when they try to live in society. If someone going through affirmation therapy is harmed by non-affirmation then this means that they will always be harmed if you don't change all of society to capitulate.
The point is, ultimately, that if you try to justify non-affirming attitudes in some areas while trying to argue that affirming attitudes should be adopted in others that you are creating a harmful environment, and thus we end up at a point where non-affirming therapies are better (as there won't be a harmful environment).
I am merely arguing that your inconsistent attitude does not work with your preferred therapy for gender dysphoria.
You’re using the absence of evidence as evidence. That’s nonsense.
Not really, have you ever heard of a modus tollens? If X then Y, not Y therefore not X? It is proper logic. Sometimes an absence of evidence can be evidence of absence.
With how many studies and with over how long they have been conducted it is reasonable to expect that if there was no difference that we should find studies that lack methodological issues that conclude such. We don't see such studies and, in fact, can find studies that suggest that it is worse (even if those studies are limited in scope, they don't have the methodological issues). So it is reasonable to conclude that the idea that there is no difference is false until given reason to think otherwise.
The default position is that any couple is capable of raising a loving family until we have reason to believe otherwise.
I'm sorry, why should that be the default? You can't just assert it to be the default and make it so.
That’s nonsense because there’s no indication of causation.
You do realize that there is almost never proof of causation in these types of studies, right? There are certain fields of study, topics, etc. that we can only study correlations of and must infer causal elements from. This is one of them.
if the anxiety issues were increased after the surgery that could be easily explainable by the way society (lead by folks like yourself) treat the trans community.
And why would we not expect to see a rise in the control group? In the study in question study they are still trans, they are likely presenting as the opposite gender. Why wouldn't we expect to see a rise in anxiety among them based on how society is treating them?
It seems more like you have your pet conclusion and are trying your hardest to interpret everything to support it. I am very doubtful that you actually are open to being wrong at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Because the two are nothing alike.
As in one is bad for physical health and the other potentially bad for mental health?
Ya, they have differences, but that doesn't mean the similarities should be dismissed.
So when I or anyone else talks about treating others as they want to be treated we do so as long as it doesn’t negatively impact anyone else.
And what do you use to determine if it negatively impacts anyone else?
When mental health issues are in play, how do you determine which ones you decide to affirm and which ones you don't?
And for the record, I am generally against anyone born a man competing in women’s sports.
Then they already are not being treated the way they want to be treated, so what is the issue? How do you justify one and not the other?
If there is nothing conclusive on same sex homes then why does the question “need to be asked” with regards to trans parents?
I mean, the source I used concludes that it seems as if there are negative long-term effects but that more research is need. The only reason I included the "nothing conclusive" line is because of other studies that have concluded otherwise (though those studies tended to have methodological issues that the one I linked didn't).
The point is that I think that if there really was no difference when it comes to same-sex couples that there would have been very conclusive findings that did not have methodological issues by now, but that just is not the case. It raises legitimate concerns, and we already have significant data that single parent households are not as good for children as two-parent households.
So a legitimate question needs to be asked, is the traditional mother-father household the best? Is a same-sex household better than a household with a trans parent? Etc.
This is because, unlike with same-sex couples, unlike with single parent households, etc. there are working therapies that deal with gender dysphoria in a non-affirming manner. Which therapies should be pushed for is dependent upon multiple factors, and this is one of them. If the two therapy styles (affirming and non-affirming) are not equal then it changes how things should be addressed.
Of course, but as your own source stated; there isn’t enough data to conclude the impacts of these treatments.
Which source are you referring to (I have linked a few)? If you mean the reassignment surgery one then it is important to note that on correction it was pointed out that there are zero benefits and that the author also had to, in the 3rd source listed, acknowledge that the data does indicate increased anxiety issues (but didn't acknowledge the other issues were worse even when that was also a legitimate conclusion you could draw).
That isn't just "not enough data to conclude anything", it is "enough data to conclude one thing is worse while more research is needed on the other factors". When you also consider the numbers in question, that is a very different thing entirely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Not the point being made, the point being made is that not only does it seem unhealthy for their mental health but that it might also be impactful on future generations.
If you have two options, one of which is worse for your mental health and the mental health of your children and the other is better then why should anyone capitulate to the former? We are a social species and as such looking out for the social group (especially the next generations of said group) is a moral imperative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I take issue with people arguing that the way to help these people is to deny them a dignified existence by treating them how they want to be treated
But this is my issue here.
We don't treat people with bulimia the way they want to be treated, in regards to their body image, because we know that it is better for them (physically).
Why, then, should we treat trans people the way they want to be treated, in regards to their body image, if we feel as if doing so is worse for them (mentally)?
And it also goes back to another point I had made, reality denial.
Let's say that we treat someone that is MtF the way they want to be treated. If they want to play competitive sports do we let them? Are we forced to deny the reality of sexual dimorphism in order to allow them to compete? If not, then we already aren't treating them the way they want to be treated.
Then it comes to question how well the mental health of children raised by trans parents will be in the long run. I am bi myself and am fully willing to admit that there are enough studies to raise doubts on if children raised in same sex homes have the same outcome as traditional homes (nothing is yet conclusive).
Now a question needs to be asked about the same in regards to trans parents, and this is especially important because there exists both affirming and non-affirming therapies that work in regards to gender dysphoria (while sexual orientation is not malleable). This could raise even further issues, but there is a legitimate concern on if those studies would actually be unbiased. Too many studies around gender dysphoria already have crap methodology and often the conclusions drawn are pro-affirmation when the data says otherwise (see one of my earlier comments), who knows what would happen if this topic was studied.
I am fully willing to change my mind on if affirmation is a workable treatment, are you willing to change your mind that it isn't?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The first sentence of your post proves there was no delusion to accuse me of.
Either the point is irrelevant, as it could be Trump spending time with someone he didn't know much about (but had a lot of connections and so it seemed a good idea to get to know him) or you brought it up because you want the connection to be something inherently negative about Trump (which, as the rest of the comment pointed out, is a delusional talking point).
So, either you knowingly made an irrelevant talking point or you made a delusional one. Neither looks good.
Is a man who does the things I described in my post who you feel most suitable person of all citizens in the US to lead the nation?
Not at all. I even said in that exact comment, "There are legitimate things to criticize Trump for, he is not a good person."
It is like you think anyone that calls you out on this must be one of Trump's loyal fans. Well, that does not apply to me. Tulsi Gabbard was the person I supported and it is clear that the DNC did her dirty (just like they did Bernie Sanders dirty the previous election).
None of this is 'deflecting', the fact that you jump straight to that and act like I must be a loyal Trump supporting Republican is a joke. I actually am very center (so much so that every few years I shift a bit between if I am center right or center left, depending on what the big issues are at the moment).
Maybe you need to stop and do some self-reflection if this is how you deal with political issues. Really seems unhealthy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
If being human is being moral (correct me if I am misrepresenting the concept)
It isn't that being human is being moral, it is adhering to human telos.
A knife that cannot cut anything is still a knife, it just isn't a good one (in fact, it is objectively bad).
then were people 2000,
Fun fact, the telos model of morality/virtue ethics (which is currently the most accepted model by ethicists) ultimately is derived from Aristotle's morality (it is neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics).
4000...10,000 years ago bad humans because they didn't share all of our moral precepts?
Not at all. People still tried to be virtuous back then, and moral progress is possible. Nothing about moral realism prevents moral progress from also being a thing. The issue is that we have limited knowledge, and as such the further back in time we go the less advanced the knowledge we can expect to see.
We don't look at today's knowledge about gravity and then say Newton was bad at science because he was wrong.
So to with moral advances. Yes, we know that what they conceived of as being moral was inaccurate, but within the framework of what knowledge they had access to there were many moral people.
They weren't bad, they were mistaken.
Just as we advance in other fields with increased epistemic access, we progress morally as well.
It should also be unsurprising if we find out that the people today that we find to be the most moral would be looked back upon in a thousand years of holding immoral beliefs of doing immoral actions, but that isn't a slight against the people today. We must act based on our current knowledge.
EDIT:
I don't understand the 'telos model'.
I do apologize if I am not explaining it well enough. As I said earlier, I am still not too well read in this field. I have dedicated some time to it, but have a lot left to do before I would even be confident enough to do a debate on ethics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I think the issue is that you think we have a 'moral telos' when that isn't the case. We, like everything, have a telos. You wouldn't say that it is moral for a knife to be able to cut well but yet it is a fact that a good knife is one that cuts well, as that is adhering to the telos of the knife. It is the same in regards to a good human. Morality is just what we call that same thing when applied to humans.
If humans evolved a telos of being extremely individual and very selfish rather than in the social direction we did then what would be good would be different. Charity, for example, would no longer be considered good. This also means that judging another species based on what is good for humans would be misplaced, as they have a different telos.
What our particular telos is came about due to evolution, but that doesn't mean that we evolved to be moral. That is a type of statement that confuses the metaethical systems and tries to apply a different concept of ethics onto the telos model.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
True, but he also deported more people than Trump.
So did Obama, are you going to call Obama right-wing now as well?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Dr. Alistar MacIntryre denies that the is-ought gap is a problem under the telos model.
The argument is, essentially,
P1) If there exists a human telos, then a good human can exist
P2) There exists a human telos.
C) A good human can exist.
The goodness is measured against the telos, and so just like we can know based on the telos of a knife that a good knife needs to be able to cut well (measuring the state of something against its telos) so to can we know that a human is good based on measuring against the human telos.
In this, we have an understanding of what makes one good or not and don't ever have to introduce a single 'ought' into the equation, everything is just based on what is. But now that we have what is "good" that means that normative facts exist (due to the existence of the "good" and normative ethics), and the is-ought problem does not apply to normative facts. It also leads to doing the good being inherently rational, and thus if one chooses to do things contrary to the good they are being irrational in doing so.
But, full disclosure, I am not as well read on this part of metaethics. I have a few books on my list to buy at the next convenient moment in order to gain a better understanding, but as it is at the moment I wouldn't be able to go into too much detail. Most of my knowledge comes from lectures, sci-hub, and talking with PhD ethicists and grad students.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Yes, rapid onset gender dysphoria. It is especially bad because when people go through the gender affirming therapies today they almost never desist (in comparison to the vast majority that desist otherwise, as shown in older studies).
So, not only are more people starting to call themselves trans (which I think is due not to legitimate mental health distress), but they are now less likely than ever to doubt that they are trans and will try to live a 'gender-affirming' life.
It’s just sick, and I don’t see how anyone can see surgical interventions on teenagers and blocking puberty and everything as not a problem
Not just on teenagers but in general (look at my comment #52), but it becomes even worse when teens are involved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Not at all. Just because our telos was brought about by evolution does not mean evolution holds any sort of special place (it gets close to a genetic fallacy if this point is pushed).
As I pointed out earlier, it seems to be that the four main parts of our telos are:
- Survival of self
- Survival of species (usually through reproduction)
- Characteristic and Systematic Enjoyment & Freedom from Pain
- The Good Functioning of the Social Group
Antibiotics help with all four of these points, and as such are a great moral good.
Just because our telos comes about due to evolution does not mean evolution itself is a good thing
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I think that non-affirming therapies work (did for me). They are used for every non-gender related body dysphoria because they work, and so why think they wouldn't work for gender dysphoria?
I don't think that affirming therapies work, and in the comment before my previous one (combined with points made in other comments of mine) I outline where my skepticism comes from.
As such, I hold that affirmation leads to worse mental health outcomes, and thus we should not affirm. The more society changes to pro-affirmation the more that people will go through affirmation therapies instead (or it could lead to what some trans-rights activists want, for bans on non-affirming therapies), and this will be worse for people.
As such we need to push back on the pro-affirmation view.
I also think that a lot around the pro-affirmation view involves denial of reality (again, the sports debate), and I think that promotion of any view that includes reality denial on any level is inherently dangerous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
it doesn't make sense that it would act in opposition to it.
Can you expand on what you mean by this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Well if not affirming them leads to them not cutting off their dick and becoming comfortable in their body you are doing them a kindness actually.
Exactly this. You don't affirm people's desires to get as fat as possible because you know that there are serious physical health issues with that, so why should we affirm someone's self-image if there are serious mental health issues to consider?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Whether a fat person, or any person meets the qualifications of being unhealthy is a matter of empirical verifiable fact, so this analogy is useless.
And you are treating being physically unhealthy as being unhealthy while not doing the same in regards to mental health. This is what is absurd. We know that many studies in regards to affirmation therapies and treatments are flawed because they lack proper control groups, and we see when control groups are offered that they aren't working.
Let's go to reassignment surgeries as a quick example (as I have that information more readily available).
Not long ago there was a large Swedish study on the mental health benefits of getting surgery, one of the largest out there. You probably heard news reporting on it as it went viral claiming that surgeries were beneficial... the correction to that study was basically not picked up by the media at all.
It was called out and a correction had to be offered.
Why? Because it didn't bother to use its readily available control group.
Turns out that those that didn't get surgery had the same exact trend, which caused them to have to say in the correction that there was no advantage of getting surgery.
It actually gets worse, however. Let's look at more data that only came out once the author was called out (that they themselves then published),
Who had signs of any sort of mood disorder?
Those that had surgery: 98
Those without: 88
Who had signs of any sort of anxiety disorder?
Those that had surgery: 85
Those without: 62
Who was on antidepressant treatment of some kind?
Those that had surgery: 301
Those without: 292
Who was on anxiety treatment of some kind?
Those that had surgery: 215
Those without: 149
Who was hospitalized following a suicide attempt?
Those that had surgery: 13
Those without: 7
So, not only did they have to come out with a correction that surgery doesn't give an advantage, they had to also come out and say that it gave rise to greater anxiety.
They also said that the other categories have numbers too close to tell for sure, but I think it is important to note that in every one of those "too close to tell" categories that the surgery category is worse. What that indicates is that either there is only negligible difference in those categories (and that coincidentally the surgery category was all on one side) or that surgery also makes it worse (like with anxiety).
So, world famous study that went viral in the news and was used by trans-right activists turns out to have had such a bad methodology that after being called out and corrected shows the exact opposite. This is what happens when you use control groups with these types of studies. Makes you wonder why it is that pretty much every single study around gender-affirmation lacks proper control groups and what the result would be if these studies were actually done properly (especially when every other dysphoria doesn't default to taking the affirming route).
So, if we can see the general trend that doing something will worsen your mental health, why shouldn't we call it out in the same way as things that will worsen your physical health?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
“if you are at all confused by your body/gender (and who doesn’t experience an iota of such confusion) going trans may be preferable. Look at all the positive attention, the accolades, the automatic respect we confer on such a choice.”
It is very much this.
We know from older studies that the majority of children that thought they were trans would desist, they would 'grow out of it' and go on to live happy lives (often times they ended up actually just being gay).
We also know from recent studies that children that are pushed into going through affirmative-therapies almost never desist. This indicates a real problem. Children are confused and that confusion is being taken advantage of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Again why do you feel like you have to tell anybody your opinion on their life. They don't give a f*** what you think for a reason.
We exist as a society and looking out for the well being of the members of society is a good thing, thus challenging people when they make bad decisions is not wrong. Sure, they have the right to live that way if they want, but that is on them.
The main issue is that it doesn't end there. The trans right movement is trying to change reality to fit their desires, from changing language to denial of sexual dimorphism (trans women is sports), etc. They also constantly argue that children should be educated based on their bad ideas, that anything non-affirming is bigoted (even saying non-affirming therapies should be banned), etc.
I don't often push back on people that choose to be fat as those issues don't exist on any prominent level when it comes to fat people (though, it is a growing movement to try and do much the same thing), but when it comes to trans issues those are impossible to avoid at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
The origin of human telos would be evolution, not the human mind. This is where the knife analogy breaks down. Everything has a telos, even things that existed before we were around, and that telos is part of what that thing is. Knives are a type of thing created by people, and thus the telos of a knife is created by people (but once said telos exists, what makes a knife a good knife is an objective fact). Humans, on the other hand, are the product of evolution and thus our telos comes about through natural evolution, thus what the telos of a human is exists independently of our thoughts on the matter. We might have to study in order to learn the details of what, precisely, our telos is, but it is still entirely natural.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
the fact that people like yourself keep pretending as if they don’t
Nice try, but I actually have gender dysphoria. I know exactly how they feel. The solution isn't to tell people their self-perception is valid, it is to do what I did, go through non-affirming therapies (which, guess what, essentially every other body dysphoria does just that).
The demonstration of your lack of empathy is that you can’t even get the basic facts right regarding we’re talking about.
Greyparrot is right on this, it isn't unempathetic to tell fat people they aren't healthy, so to should it not be the case to not indulge in this gender-affirming ideology.
I think, however, that this discussion with you is a waste of time. You got so emotional so fast that it is clear already you won't be addressing this discussion rationally but instead by overly emotional in it. It isn't worth my time to argue with someone I know is too emotional about an issue to ever change their minds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Again, like talking to a brick wall. Maybe you should actually read a book on the topic sometime.. or you can win the Dunning-Kruger Award if you want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
A pairing knife must be sharp but a putty knife must be dull
I didn't say sharp or dull for that reason, I said that it needs to cut well (as that is part of what a knife is). Just because there are different ways a knife can be a good knife does not discount that there are still objective facts one can make about it based on its telos. Furthermore, I would argue that a pairing knife and putty knife, while sharing aspects of telos (needing the ability to cut), also have aspects of their telos that is different from each other. That doesn't make anything subjective, it is still entirely objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CoolApe
I think you make a good point, but I would also add that just because something is good or bad from a human perspective does not mean that the same moral judgements can be said of non-humans. Moral naturalism is one of the most popular metaethical theories and is based on one's telos, but non-humans would have a different telos than humans, so how could we make such statements that they are or are not being moral based on what human morality looks like.
Of course, I don't think that this necessarily solves the POE, but it seems like an angle one might try and tackle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
The glaring problem is that you deny this concept, this code of morality constitutes a concept of morality. This merely creates an incoherent, semantics wild goose chase in a forum intended to be about philosophy.
That is one of the angles I was considering tackling but figured that others would get to it. I find it odd how much this has had to be repeated when it seems quite clear cut.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then please demonstrate the natural fact of what is good with the kind of objective evidence that you have for the shape of the earth.
It would be more alike the facts a biologist or zoologist can derive about various species, but it boils down to human telos. Just as a good knife is a knife that cuts well (as that is related to the telos of a knife), so to would a good human be that which coheres to its telos (won't go into too much detail here as I really am skeptical on if it is worth the effort). The telos is a natural fact about us and can, thus, be studied. The more we study it the more we can understand what, precisely, it is and how one best coheres to it.
Dr. Hursthouse's conclusion, based on the research into the human nature he read when writing his book, came to view that there are four main parts of the human telos:
- Survival of self
- Survival of species (usually through reproduction)
- Characteristic and Systematic Enjoyment & Freedom from Pain
- The Good Functioning of the Social Group
As such, any action that coheres to human telos (like charity, which coheres to #4) is objectively good while any action that goes against human telos (like murder, which goes against #2 and #4, or self-harm, which goes against #3 and to an extent #1) would be objectively bad.
As the telos is an objective fact of reality, and certain actions would objectively differ or cohere from human telos, this means certain actions are objectively moral or immoral. As human telos is a natural thing that means such facts are natural facts, and what constitutes a human telos can be studied scientifically (as all 4 points above were derived from various scientific works).
If you want more details there are numerous books you can read (and books I still need to read. As I said earlier, I am weaker in regards to ethics than other philosophical topics).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because Americans overestimate just how left Europe is just because the US is further right than most of Europe. Seriously, the specifics around abortion, voter ID, universal healthcare, etc. that Democrats in the US advocate for is found almost nowhere in Europe. Sure, the Democrats aren't as far to the left in some issues, but they are significantly further in others but don't admit it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
right-wing are more regressive/reactionary
This part here, combined with statements I have seen you make elsewhere, really makes me question how objective you are when it comes to anything politically related.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Disagreeing with someone about the moral implications of homosexuality (if there even are any) for example is not the same as disagreement about the shape of the earth. One is measurable and observable. The other you must either decide for yourself or take the word of some humans.
Which goes straight back to what I brought up yesterday, the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Both what is good and the shape of the earth are natural facts of reality. To assert, without anything to back it up, that they are inherently different in nature is to make an unsupported claim, yet you keep thinking you are making logical points. If you are this ignorant on the field of metaethics and yet this confident in your assertions, then what else might this apply to?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Crypto currencies are very much up in the air on if they will last or not and so I am not confident in them. I am also a bit lazy and so tend to not look at the market as in depth as many others. I found that investing in stocks related to alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, etc. tend to be safe bets as people, even in though times, don't want to give these up (and even will increase consumption in tough times).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Them wanting to alter their hormones in their body to suit the gender they feel they are doesn't hurt anybody else.
But the question is if it hurts themselves, like how people with bulimia hurt themselves. Sure, bulimia might have obvious physical side effects, but gender dysphoria has very real psychological ones, enough so that the suicide rate is staggering. It is also questionable on if affirming therapies are even helpful, as the overwhelming majority lack control groups and those that do have even an attempt at one shows affirming care/treatments are not necessarily effecting (I readily have available for discussion reassignment surgeries for discussion as I had that debate the other day on a different website).
Created:
-->
@Stephen
John was dead before Jesus was alleged to have resurrected from being stone cold biologically dead
That is actually the interesting debate. Sure, the Gospel accounts hold that the order is that John died first, but this might not actually be the case. Historians mostly view Jesus to have died in the year 33CE while Josephus makes it very clear that John's death was in the year 36CE. Sure, some historians do view that Jesus also died in the year 36CE (which is the absolute latest possible year it could have been), but that is not, as far as I am aware, the consensus at the moment. As such, the Gospel accounts very well could have mistakenly gotten the order of events confused.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Disagreement over facts does not rationally translate to morals are subjective. If this was the case then I doubt that moral relativist philosophers would admit that moral realism is the default position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
But is the empathetic thing to do to participate in one's self-perception in such a manner? Do we tell the schizophrenic person that there really are voices or do we show empathy by understanding the struggle and yet still not participating in it? We aren't being unempathetic to tell them that "No, you aren't a man/woman" just as we aren't being unempathetic when we say "No, you aren't fat" to someone suffering from bulimia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I mean, I think it is moreso what social media and the mainstream media does. One poll showed that upwards of 10% of the people that voted for Biden would not have done so if they were aware of the Hunter Laptop story (just one poll, so I doubt it would actually have been that substantial a swing). If you remember, mainstream media refused to cover the story before the elections and social media made sure that story stayed buried.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I really don't understand how some people can't see just how unfavorable the Democrats look right now. When the economy is bad the average voter votes Republican. People remember how cheap gas got under Trump, it was reminiscent of the early 2000's again. Almost 2 decades of gas prices going up and then people saw it get really cheap. Now gas is at a substantial high, people will remember this difference. Already there is a historic trend of people voting Republican when the economy is the primary concern, and it will be hard to get the average voter to not think of the economy at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
Is everyone on this site a moral relativist? What arguments have made it so popular here or is it just coincidence?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I mean, the source even says that "Due to the sheer number of possibilities in Go, traditional “brute-force” search trees which run through all legal variations are not only highly inefficient, but also implausible to implement in a time-constrained scenario."
Seems to me like it is saying that even without as strict of time-constraints that its effectiveness would be difficult if it relied solely on a brute-force method. [EDIT: I also would say that the time-constraints are a part of the game and as such the fact that brute-force methods are inefficient due to said time constraint does indicate the issue as well.] It also doesn't need to rely so heavy on its own capacity for abstract thinking when it relies on looking at numerous games people have played. Compare this with many types of chess AI where they can create professional level AI without having it need to refer to records of human-played games.
I'm not saying that the AI hasn't been able to overcome large hurdles, but I think that it is undeniable that the approach to building the AI shows how different the thinking required is for Go in comparison to games like chess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
he's partied with Epstein
In the early days, yes. No one will deny that, but there is a question on how much he knew about Epstein at the time.
He kicked Epstein out and barred him from his establishment(s) for his sexual harassment (and then seemed to entirely break his connection with him), a lawyer that worked against Epstein is on record saying that Trump is essentially the only one that gave him the time of day when he was making calls, interviews with various girls abused by Epstein confirm that he never touched anyone, etc.
Compare this to many other people... like Bill Clinton or Prince Andrew.
Seriously, I don't understand this obsession people have. There are legitimate things to criticize Trump for, he is not a good person, but so many people have such a delusional level of hate that they will spout off anything in order to try and make sure Trump is seen as the worst. All it does is makes it so when someone actually sees that these delusional talking points are BS that they will start questioning if all these criticisms are. Focus on the legitimate issues with the man, of which there are plenty, and not these delusional ass-pulled ones.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Go relies heavily on abstract thinking and using it to recognize patterns that might or might not even exist. Lack of abstract thinking is easily punishable which causes it to be harder to 'brute force' your way to victory. This made it significantly harder to develop an AI that could play at world-champ level in comparison to games like Chess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I don't think the average people on either side are that tunnel visioned. The problem is the loudest talkers distort it.
I actually agree with this to an extent, but also feel like the mainstream media is constantly getting further and further away from the center. As most people I feel don't take much time to think deeply about politics and rely on the mainstream media, this drift will, I fear, lead more people to also shift towards the extremes. I don't think we are at the point where each side is too polarized yet, but I do think that if nothing happens that it seems like an inevitability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Very religious and right-wung states consist of people with lower average IQ.
It is more that Southern states tend to have an issue in both categories. North Dakota and South Dakota, until recently, were usually found to be almost as religious as the Southern states but have also consistently scored well in IQ, education, etc. They also don't have poverty issues like the Southern states in question. In fact, North Dakota has consistently been one of the highest scorers in the country when it comes to education and IQ and has only recently been in decline in religiosity.
Created:
Posted in:
as well as a community that helps its most vulnerable rather than saying they are lazy/trouble and deserve their agony.
I have never heard of that as part of one's EQ.
The first half was good, and I would also point out that rural populations not only test with higher altruism and empathy but also report higher average happiness, as can be seen here:
To quote, "This latter finding, which was suggested by the
earlier maps, shows that life is significantly less happy in urban areas"
As well as, at least according to the following study, better mental health:
To quote, "Pooled total prevalence rates for psychiatric disorders were found to be significantly higher in urban
areas compared with rural areas. Specific pooled rates for mood disorders and anxiety disorders were
also significantly higher in urban areas, while rates for substance use disorders did not show a
difference."
Higher altruism, empathy, and happiness are much more consistent across various studies while I will admit that there are other studies that suggest the opposite in regards to the issue of mental health (though which is to be trusted more I am not sure).
Even if we add some element of community help (something I was never taught was inherently connected to EQ like you seem to be suggesting), there is even better volunteering data associated with rural residents than urban ones,
To quote, "The survey
reveals that both rural and urban residents share similar percentages of voting, volunteering, and
charitable contributions. However, over “50% of rural residents reported volunteering in the past
year and rural volunteers are more likely than urban or suburban residents to commit to
volunteering on a regular basis.”"
Again, these studies are moreso about rural vs urban, but I think they are still relevant.
There, in fact, is absolutely no way for a LGBT phobic society to have higher average EQ than a significantly LGBT phobic society, simply by nature of how EQ works.
I'm going to need a source on your understanding of EQ if you are claiming this, as it is very different than what I learned.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I think the manga/anime Hikaru no Go is how pretty much everyone in the west that knows about the game knows about it. It is a little disappointing as the game is not only the oldest continually played game in history but also the last board game that an AI was able to be built that could play on a professional level (and even then it only won 4-1). Such a fascinating game that is difficult to get used to but also really forces you to think.
Sadly, haven't played it in just over a month as I have been too busy, and even then I had only started relearning the game last November.
Created:
Playing 'Go' again after a few years away, mostly against either an AI or my brother (that also only recently started playing). If anyone wants to play a match I would be down (probably only would have time for 9x9 or 13x13 though).
I would be doing it through https://www.funnode.com/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Have to say that I feel like you are going to be incorrect to include California in that as the average IQ of California is lower than the average IQ of Texas and Tennessee:
Also, while I am unaware of a similar study in regards to EQ by state, I am aware of this which shows higher empathy and altruism is found in those from rural places:
"The results were that there were more rural adolescents with a high level of
altruism and most of adolescents in urban communities are at moderate level of altruism.
Overall, the results demonstrated that rural adolescents had a significantly better altruistic score
than the urban adolescents."
I wouldn't think it a stretch to assume that New Jersey and California, states with large urban centers, would likely have lower average altruism and empathy scores than states with more rural areas.
So I am sorry, but I have to disagree with your conclusion unless you have a good argument or source to back it up.
Created: