Total posts: 5,653
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
When did I say "gender" and "gene" have the same root?
You have linked gender and genetics:
Thereafter, in the 1960s, among sociologists and psychiatrists, ‘gender’ began to slide from its genetic reference
I am asking you to support that link since the word "gender" came about centuries before genetics was a thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Must I do all your research for you? Can't do a little inquiry of your own? What am I; a paid tutor? No.
This is your thread, your post, your argument. I expect you to do your research. You've made an implicit claim that is not supported by the existing, providing information.
According to the OED:gender, n3. a. gen. Males or females viewed as a group; = sex n.1 1. Also: the property or fact of belonging to one of these groups. Originally extended from the grammatical use at sense 1c1390 (▸?c1350) St. Theodora l. 110 in C. Horstmann Sammlung Altengl. Legenden (1878) 36 (MED) Hire name, þat was femynyn Of gendre, heo turned in to masculyn.1474 in C. L. Kingsford Stonor Lett. & Papers (1919) I. 142 (MED) His heyres of the masculine gender of his body lawfully begoten.a1500 (▸a1460) Towneley Plays (1994) I. xxx. 408 Has thou oght writen there Of the femynyn gendere?sex, n1.a. Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions; (hence) the members of these categories viewed as a group; the males or females of a particular species, esp. the human race, considered collectively.▸ a1382 Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.) (Bodl. 959) (1959) Gen. vi. 19 Of all þingez hauyng soule of eny flesch: two þou schalt brynge in to þe ark, þat male sex [L. sexus] & female: lyuen with þe.Do I need to translate lexographic syntax for you? That will cost extra.
Neither of these reference genes. You haven't explained at what point gender became rooted in genetics (if it did so at all). It cannot have been when the term was coined (as you implied) because there was no conception of genetics in the 15th century.
If you are unwilling to expand and support your argument, you can save time and just say that it is unsupported bollocks and we can all move on our way. Otherwise I will task you to actually - you know - support your claims. It is not my job to support the claims you are making.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Gender’ in the biological sense defining biological, or genetic female and male began as an English word a century later; the 15thcentury. The word ‘gender’ continued its uninterrupted biological definition until the early 20thcentury, when ‘sex’ [which had its own origin in English in the 13th century], and which, until the early 1900s, shared a common definition with gender, began to slide into reference to the sexual act, i.e., intercourse, or coitus.Thereafter, in the 1960s, among sociologists and psychiatrists, ‘gender’ began to slide from its genetic reference [female and male] to a distinction of social reference as separate behaviors between females and males, and then, including behaviors, slid further in the 1980s to suggest multiple genders as a matter of personal and social choice, regardless of the genetic indicators at birth.
Can you explain your implied assertion that gender (originating in the 15th century) was rooted in a "genetic reference" when genes weren't discovered until the 19th century, 400 years later?
Created:
Posted in:
Any color is merely an artificial label assigned to some range of wavelengths of light (or combination therein). Light does not divide itself into colors. So the rainbow has exactly as many colors as we want it to have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
You say "helping the taxpayer or are good for America" but then when people start providing policies to change it to "ability to engage in the free market system and earn money" or "putting food on the table".
So, pick a criteria and stick with it. Stop being so dishonest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Maybe people would be more amenable to answer if you weren't changing goalposts faster than Trump changes staff members.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
P1. There is no possible world where the truthfulness of universals are falsified (i.e. no state of affairs where 2 plus 2 equals 9, or triangles have four sides)
A wordy way of saying that tautologies are necessary true. Which itself is a tautology.
P2. If universals are true across all possible worlds, they are not dependent on human cognition.
Ok, sure.
P3. If they are not dependent on human cognition, they are dependent on another cognition. Namely a universal cognition.
False. They are not dependent on any form of cognition.
P4. A universal cognition that apprehends the truth value of all necessary propositions (universals) can apprehend the truth value of all particular and contigent propositions.
Not necessarily true.
P5. Any mind that apprehends the truth value of all propositions is omniscient.
Sure.
P6. An omniscient mind exists.
Since some of your premises fail, this does not follow. But even if we grant your premises, this does not follow. From P3 we can only deduce that, for any universal truth, it is dependent on some non-human cognition. You have not shown that all universal (or their contingent consequences) must be dependent on the same, singular cognition. Maybe they, collectively, are dependent on 2 non-human cognitions. Or 5, Or 326,875,923,465 cognitions. Collectively, they are omniscient, but individually they are not.
P7. Therefore God exists.
God has additional properties other than omniscience, so positing the existence of an omniscient being does not necessarily lead to God existing.
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
P1. A command is only intelligible if received from a higher authority. (i.e. a Private in the military commanding a General is unintelligible)
False.
P2. Human societies, generally speaking, dish out moral commands.
True.
P3. Human societies at times command morally egregious things as though they were moral (i.e the orders of Nazi Germany, etc.)
True.
P4. Therefore the innate "moralness" or "immoral-ness" of any particular moral command is not derived from strictly human authority.
Correct, because innate morality does not exist.
P5. Since this is the case all moral commands should be unintelligible
Even if we grant your premises, P5 does not follow from them. That human societies do issue unintelligible moral commands does not suggest they can't issue intelligible ones. Indeed the wording of P3 implies that human societies do, at times, issue morally intelligible commands. Also P1 only says that higher authority is necessary for intelligible commands, not that higher authorities necessarily create intelligible commands. That is, you state A -> B, but then try to use ~A -> ~B which is denying the antecedent fallacy.
P6. However there are intelligible moral commands
True.
P7. Therefore they are derived from an authority higher than human beings.
This argument contains superfluous statements. It would be sufficient to say:
P1. A command is only intelligible if received from a higher authority. (i.e. a Private in the military commanding a General is unintelligible)
P2. Intelligible moral commands exist
P3. Therefore they are derived from an authority higher than human beings.
It doesn't solve the problem of P1 being false, but it at least makes this a cleaner argument.
P8. Any issuer of moral commands must be capable of reasoning and using intellect.
False.
P9. A higher authority that issues moral commands to humans exists, and has the capacity to reason and make moral judgments. In a word, a mind.
False.
P10. This issuer of commands cannot be subject to a higher authority, if said issuer were, for all we know, that authority's commands could contradict our intelligent issuer's commands, rendering them unintelligible, leaving us back to p5. But since there are intelligible commands, the one issuing them must be the highest authority.
False.
P11. A rational mind that is not subject to a greater authority and issues moral commands exists. All men call this Mind God.
False and false.
P12. Therefore God exists
Redundant. You establish the existence of god definitionally in P11.
Created:
Posted in:
P1. If atheism is true, our sensory perception and cognitive faculties were not designed to fulfill a specific telos, namely, the acquisition of truth and discerning of reality as it actually is, but rather, evolved through processes which aimed solely at the passing on of the creature's DNA.
The user of the word "aimed" implies a specific telos. Rather if atheism is true nothing at all is designed to fulfill any specific telos. Rather we have features which promote the passing of creature's DNA because features which promote the passing of DNA are subsequently made more populous by said DNA by way of a positive feedback loop.
A minor quibble, but the point is essentially the same.
P2. The passing on of the creature's DNA does not necessarily entail truth.
What does this statement even mean?
P3. Therefore the atheist's sensory perceptions and cognitive faculties do not necessarily yield truth.
The fallibility of human sensory perceptions is pretty much a given in any worldview, even a Christian one.
P4. Therefore if atheism is true, there is no justification for believing anything to be true.
P4 does not follow from P3. Sensory perceptions and cognitive faculties do not necessarily yield truth but can possible yield truth. Now, whether justification for truth can be attained is something of an epistemological conundrum, but one that is not limited to atheism particularly.
P5. We intuit some things are in fact true, and do so with proper justification.
I would disagree that intuition alone provides sufficient justification for anything. I consider this premise as false.
P6. Therefore atheism is false.
P2 is nonsensical, P4 doesn't follow from P3, and P5 is false. Ergo the conclusion does not follow.
Created:
Posted in:
Not much to say except solid play by town. The theme was fairly simple. I predicted Magneto and Wicked Witch of the West (that was going to be my first claim).
I was waffling on keeping my role or not, but when I thought I might be the N1 lynch I thought, what the hey, might as well get the information. It was mostly redundant, though, especially given Chris' abilities. I thought oro/Johnny was the Judas at first because he was antagonist in one series but protagonist in another.
But, having given up my ability and Chris going down DP1, there wasn't much I could do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Power is back.
Oro, please stop putting out these lists unless you are going to put accurate information in them.
I agree with pressuring coal
VTL Coal
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
I tried to kill oro ut I was roll blocked. FYI I am currently without power because of the winter storm so this will be my only post for a while as I need to conserve battery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Why are you spreading so much misinformation this game?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
No? Games can be role madness and balanced
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elminster
At some point you have to stop with the reaction tests and actually try to get someone lynched for real. The more you do this the more I suspect your actual affiliation. You're all over the place. While I buy and get and agree with testing for reactions, at some point you just gotta o with someone.
Created:
Posted in:
But I'm pretty much the only person that uses my list without modification.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
The issue I ran into my sheet was that I compiled information from multiple sources. Sometimes I ran into a case where one site called one role one thing and another called that same role another or the name for that role meant something else here on DDO/DART.
What EpicMafia calls a Mimic (what Elm posted earlier) I have in my role sheet as Role Stealer instead since Mimic was already being referred to as something else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elminster
Shit, I didn't even realize he was at L-1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elminster
That's C&P from EpicMafia almost verbatim.
Created:
Posted in:
Why are people saying wf is cop both others are saying he's bomb?
Created:
Posted in:
We have to get rid of Chris because leaving him alive as possible scum is too risky given my claim.
Created:
Posted in:
Seems like both oro and Chris have "confirmable" roles, as other people will receive independent verification that they were indeed targeted (baring interference).
But I think a scum mimic is more likely than a scum motivator. Also, if scum, the mimic is more anti-town as it turns someone into a vanilla.
VTL Chris
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Assuming he isn't roleblocked or driven and assuming that a motivator can't be mafia
Created:
Posted in:
Is this the day we lynch an uncced miller? Is this the day of prophecy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
In what manner can oro confirm his affiliation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
You do it as scum, too
And don't motivate me, as I'm not sure I want to vig yet tonight and I certainly don't want to do it twice.
Created:
Posted in:
Out of everyone today, I think oro is the best to lynch. He is a clear antagonist in Karate kid, but is also the protagonist with a sort of redemption/sympathy arc in Cobra Kai. Given that oro explicitly cited both, I think we can only assume that both apply. Maybe some sort of Godfather or third party?
VTL Oro
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elminster
I like the decisiveness, but I'd also like him to expand his thinking on Chris. Chris is a fairly inactive player to begin with, but coal really doesn't know that. So does coal have a real read on him or is this just unfamiliarity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elminster
what are your thoughts on yyw?
A bit of a polarizing user sometimes, but prone to boughts of some impressive insight from time to time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elminster
It's an interesting theory. Another theory is that scum has been tossing out possible wagons to see what sticks in trying to push a potential mislynch. I mean all these wagons have done well to out all the information.
But, don't worry, you don't need to lynch me, I'm going to die anyway on N3.
I'm Roy Batty from Blade Runner. Though I'm presented as the villain, I'm just fighting for the right to survive. Because of my enhanced strength and durability, I'm vigilante and bulletproof, but since I'm programmed to die (and at the end of my life) I will die at the end of NP3. I've confirmed that I still get my action that night.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I would say he is "bad" throughout, but ends up being considered more sympathetic at the end than the beginning.
Created:
Posted in:
Unvote
All of this vote changing smells of scum flailing but I can't tell from whom yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It's what most of us have been saying all along, but I think it's more than that. Like legitimate theories about bad guys being right/justified rather than just Lunatic's musings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
Well, not much else to lose by additional info today.
Unvote. VTL Chris.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I think it's fairly easy to justify her actions in the movie. Dorothy did in fact steal her property and she was just trying to get what was rightfully hers back.
Created:
Posted in:
It's classic Supa to just blatantly make up shit not even in his PM
Created:
Posted in:
FYI if Lunatic has gone all r/ThanosDidNothingWrong I'm going to vomit.
Created:
Posted in:
For the record this is why I wasn't on board with pressuring WF. but also it's not the end of the freaking world we should expect the game is balanced.
and while I agree that Harris isn't the main villain for the universe as a whole, he's certainly the primary antagonist of the first movie.
Created:
Posted in:
I'd rather stick with Speed as he's a known quantity at this point. We can go after wf tomorrow. I honestly don't see him pushing back this hard as scum.
Created:
Posted in:
The group thing is a total non-issue. Lunatic had a "group" character in his Dark Crystal mafia. Doesn't lean one way or the other.
Created:
Posted in:
Speed's claim doesn't fit with the "bad guys where were right/justification" theme, but then again we don't know that's the actual theme, it's just what we've deduced with the available information.
That said, if anyone doesn't have a "bad guy that was right/justified" character should speak up, because it looks like Speed is an outlier.
Is he an outlier because that's not the theme or is he an outlier because it is a fake claim?
I'll note that "Speed is always scum" is due a lot of times because he skates by unpressured, though there was that whole boondoggle with him fake claiming a dog in Stand Mafia.
VTL Speed
If no one else has a role to refute the current theme assumption, I'd like Speed just as an outlier.
Created: