Unwarn me, I was falsely warned for no reason.

Yes.

One can develop many different maths depending on which axioms are used. Which math is applicable in a particular situation is disputable. We commonly use Euclidean geometry although the universe is non-Euclidean. Some maths do not reflect the physical world.

Humans use multi-valued logic. It would be impossible to function in the real world of ambiguity, uncertainly and error if we adopted the two-valued logic of the Greeks. The results of infinite-valued logic depend on degrees of truth.

Sure, it’s possible to have errors in an opinion. Opinions are not automatically right.

Yes.

You are talking about having options, not opinions.

But it would not seem to be just an opinion that biologically those creatures that we call “men” have penises and those creatures we call “women” have vaginas. Or “hermaphrodites” for those born with both.

And, sure, operations are now available to change all of that.

Sort of.

But only women are able to become pregnant.

Given that:

…if there is a fully functioning uterus and ovaries, then it’s theoretically possible to get pregnant and have a baby. However, most if not all true hermaphrodites have incomplete reproductive organs and a pregnancy would be extremely rare.

And yet, who knows, maybe someday medical science will have discovered a way in which men can become impregnated.

But there will still be things that can be established as facts. Things that either are or are not true. But, in my view, the political prejudices embraced by those at both ends of the theological/ideological/deontological spectrum regarding what it means to be a “man” or a “woman” [naturally or otherwise], still seem to be hopelessly entangled in both genes and memes. Particularly when the discussion shifts to what a “real man” or a “real woman” ought to think or feel or do.

Again, we can start here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(hum … gorization

But you tell me: where does race derived from genetic distinctions end and race as a “social construct” begin?

And can the discussion be sustained here without devolving into objectivists taunts, declamatory huffing and puffing and personal attacks?

As a polemicist, I can go both ways. But, when it is understood by both parties that polemics are being exchanged, that is very different from the sort of specious bullshit [dripping with contemptuous ad homs] we get from some of the objectivists here.

Me, I’m more intent on exploring the extent to which the definitions used in any particular arguments are effectively integrated into actual existential contexts that many of us will be familiar with.

We think things. We feel things. We do things.

Okay, but what in particular? And, in particular, when conflicts occur because the meaning that we give to words like race and gender must be integrated into our actual social, political and economic interactions with others.

Exactly! There so many different contexts [and points of view] in which human sexuality can be described and/or engaged in and/or grappled with morally and politically. Either here with others or out in the world with others. It is only the objectivists, however, who insist that you can either be “one of us” and share our values or “one of them” and reject them. But we all know what being “one of them” entails for those who are “one of us”.

It’s just that some will even take this as far as the Holocaust.

So you are saying that these are words which are dependent on the meaning of other words which are dependent on the meaning of still more words which …

One of the standard objections you pull out in a discussion, can be used here as well. :smiley:

It’s still a matter of opinion whether male, female or other are meaningful, legitimate or useful categories. Imagine a world without gender distinctions … I wonder if you can.

If you accept/adopt a conceptual framework, then you can say things are true or false within the framework.

Unfortunately, one forgets that he is using a framework and he comes to believe that there is only one possible way to see things.

In this case, you think there is a division between what is fact and what is not fact.

A few posts ago, you were saying that it was a fact that someone is black. Have you changed your mind?

A few posts ago, you were saying that it was a fact that someone is gay. Have you changed your mind?

One can look at it in a number of ways. One way is that the Holocaust does not exist in the present. It doesn’t matter who died or even if they did die. Nobody is being brought back to life. If you dwell on it or seek revenge or seek justice or use it in any way, then you are applying a particular point of view to the present. It is a matter of opinion how the Holocaust ought to be “used”.

One can cling to the past or let go of it.

Phyllo, when you first posted that Marcus Aurelius quote, I scoffed to myself, “Postmodern nonsense!” But here, I think you make some good points, and I reluctantly acknowledge that my position has shifted to scoffing, “Postmodern … maybesense.”

I think you’re right that there’s some degree of opinion about whether categories are “meaningful” or “legitimate”, but “useful” seems objectively bound. To anticipate an objection, my uses and yours might differ, but whether and how well x achieves y is empirically verifiable.

Don’t you agree that there is an external world that isn’t generated by my mind, and though my categorizations are somewhat subjective, isn’t there a world behind them that is not? My references may be meanings dependent on meanings dependent on meanings, etc., but isn’t there a non-opinion world to which they refer, albeit imperfectly?

[EDIT: words]

Come on, you can do better than this.

Here all we have at our disposal are words. But our words are either in sync with the world around us or they are not. Men have penises, women have vaginas. Or particular folks born as men or women choose to have sex change operations. But this is not derived from the meaning that we give to words. On the contrary, the meaning that we give to words here is derived from the empirical, biological reality.

Facts can be established. Instead, my point revolves more around how different folks react to these facts in such a manner that the either/or world and the is/ought world become virtually interchangeable. Thus, for some, if you are a man or a woman then it is said to be natural to think and to feel and to behave in a particular manner. Otherwise you are not a real man or a real woman. Then it’s just a matter of how far [re a political agenda] they take this.

And, in turn, the manner in which they react to those who do not share their own political agenda.

Clearly, there are disagreements regarding where to draw the line – establish the proper “divisions” – between an opinion and a fact. But the disagreements can become considerably more ferocious when the arguments shift from “what is a man?” to “if someone is a man how is he obligated to think and feel and behave?”

With respect to, say, guns, hunting, sex, parenting, politics, abortion…

No, I noted that “to the best of my knowledge” Joan Armatrading is gay. Based on, for example, this from the website afterellen:

Congratulations to British singer-songwriter Joan Armatrading, who is getting married to longtime partner Maggie Butler (Butler designed the artwork for Armatrading’s 1979 live album Steppin’ Out) in a civil partnership. The private ceremony will take place on May 2 in Shetland, UK.

Is she in fact still gay now? I don’t know. But most of us will concur that there are still ways to establish this.

As for whether or not she is black, again, that depends on where one draws the line between biological distinctions and social constructs. Between genes and memes.

But, for some here, she is thought to be a “nigger”, a “cunt” and a “fag”. And they will engage in mocking you disdainfully here if you don’t agree.

And – in fact? – they are the ones by and large that have been banned.

Unfortunately the changing winds of where political correctness really derives its motive, -expediency , shapes public opinion and sorrily, at times , self valuing.

But it’s really evident where reality is really shaped, as a practical matter. It is what it is.

That seems reasonable.

But do any of us really have any understanding of what that really means?

Is it what it is because God willed it to be that way? Is it is what it is because here and now that is what any particular mere mortal wills it to be? Or thinks it is. Or believes it is. Or feels it is. Is it what it is because it could never have been anything other than that?

It seems real to me that some get banned here at ILP. It seems real to others too. It seems real in turn that there are conflicting reactions to that. And it seems real [to me] that there is no frame of mind that is able to establish if this was the right thing to do.

There is only the extent to which we can point to actual rules here and argue whether or not the rules were broken.

Or argue that the rules should be changed.

That seems reasonable.

But do any of us really have any understanding of what that really means?

Is it what it is because God willed it to be that way? Is it is what it is because here and now that is what any particular mere mortal wills it to be? Or thinks it is. Or believes it is. Or feels it is. Is it what it is because it could never have been anything other than that?

It seems real to me that some get banned here at ILP. It seems real to others too. It seems real in turn that there are conflicting reactions to that. And it seems real [to me] that there is no frame of mind that is able to establish if this was the right thing to do.

There is only the extent to which we can point to actual rules here and argue whether or not the rules were broken.

Or argue that the rules should be .

There is an external world but it is wordless and conceptless. As soon as we think, then we are imposing our ideas on the external world.

That’s not a bad thing … it’s how complex organisms interact with the world. It’s useful for survival. It’s useful for living.

One just has to remember that there is not only one way to conceptualize and think about the world. Even if one way seems to be the natural or obvious way, there may be others which are more appropriate.

Ask yourself what is natural or obvious about a particular way of thinking here and now. You can probably several other ways which are … reasonable, adequate, acceptable, sane, innovative, etc.

Sure. But it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that it’s usually difficult to isolate x and y. Therefore y may be achieved because of a,b,c as well as by x (or even exclusive of x :evilfun: ). And achieving y will almost certainly have consequences i, j, k which influence how one evaluates the achievement of y.
As a result, it seems impossible to get rid of “opinion” entirely.

iambiguous, please stop polluting every board and thread with your hobby-horse abortion discussion.

Note to others:

Where did this come from?

K: I must say, this really came out of left field… polluting every board and thread… really?

on another note, I actually think abortion is a good place to think about idea’s
and what you really think…it isn’t a straight, clear cut issue… it has
nuances that often confuse people…it is really a Rorschach test that forces one
to think about idea’s…

Kropotkin

I’ve tried to explain my admitted “obsession” with this issue.

My “thing” here at ILP is in exploring the existential relationship between identity, value judgments and political economy.

Thus this “groot” pops up frequently:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

In other words, this particular “conflicting good” played a crucial role in the actual transformation of my thinking from objectivism to moral nihilism.

On the other hand, on my mundane babble, philosophy in music and philosophy in film threads, I have contributed literally thousands of posts here at ILP over the years. And, to the best of my recollection, abortion hardly ever comes up in them.

one of the issues of our day, and of ILP, is observational bias…
in which we observe things, idea’s, events though our biases

each of us, to one extent or another do this…
the question becomes, how do we reduce our observation bias enough
to allow us the engage and understand the world…

you see the world through the lens of your biases and I see
the world through my biases and for example, James see the world through his biases…

and those biases determine what kind of world we see… I see
a far different world then someone like, fixed cross… and it is our biases
that decide that vision of the world we see…

the point of science is to view the world without biases and yet,
even science has its biases, if you see the world as mathematical,
then the world appears mathematical… and science sees/has a bias
that the world is mathematical…

perhaps, perhaps the point of our existence is to attempt to see the world
with as little biases as we can… we can never eliminate bias but we can reduce
it…understanding then becomes a case of understanding your biases, not
understanding the world… enlightenment is really just a question of
understanding one’s biases and then and only then trying to understand
or view the world… it becomes a question of, how am I biased?
not what do I need to know or what should I do or how should I act?
but how am I biased?

Kropotkin

The point being, this is the Meta board, and the thread is no longer on topic.

Please continue your conversation on the more suitable Philosophy forums: Phil, SG&E, ST&M or R&S, depending on the angle you wish to take on it.

Point taken.

On the other hand:

1] the overwhelming preponderance of my posts on this thread [over a dozen] relate to the manner in which folks are warned and banned here at ILP
2] I brought up abortion in responding to Phyllo’s point about AutSider’s “trajectory”. AutSider having been banned for precisely the reasons that I noted in my posts on this thread
3] If I had a dollar for every time a thread at ILP has gone off-topic, I’d be richer than Don Trump thinks he is

Also, if you might be willing, I would certainly be interested in starting a new thread in which we discuss that which constitutes a “hobby-horse abortion discussion”. What exactly is that?

:astonished: :laughing:

(I notice you’ve been here seven years, congratulations!)

You’re welcome to start whichever threads you like, but I’m merely referring to your standard belly-of-the-beast conflicting-goods post about abortion. In the last 6 months:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=193115&p=2675646#p2675646
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193205&p=2675904#p2675904
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193244&p=2676473#p2676473
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193244&p=2677323#p2677323
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929&p=2677671#p2677671
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929&p=2677930#p2677930
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193244&p=2679039#p2679039
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193464&p=2683162#p2683162
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193475&p=2684674#p2684674

So that’s what it is.

You began this — whatever this is – by, well, retorting:

To which I responded:

1] the overwhelming preponderance of my posts on this thread [over a dozen] relate to the manner in which folks are warned and banned here at ILP
2] I brought up abortion in responding to Phyllo’s point about AutSider’s “trajectory”. AutSider having been banned for precisely the reasons that I noted in my posts on this thread
3] If I had a dollar for every time a thread at ILP has gone off-topic, I’d be richer than Don Trump thinks he is

I’ve also acknowledged to K. above why I tend to focus the beam on abortion.

Let’s take this to a new thread. Otherwise, we are continuing an exchange here that is clearly off topic.

There you can elaborate on both my “hobby-horse abortion discussion” and my “standard belly-of-the-beast conflicting-goods post about abortion”.

What in particular makes you react to them as you do? How are your own arguments regarding abortion not embedded in a particular existential trajectory?