Wow, that’s 2nd grade biology?
You do know that you’re not fooling anyone, right? We all know you’re talking about transpeople but you’re too much of a chicken shit to actually argue your position.
Calm down… breathe… we may have just lost DrDeth. Can’t lose you too.
I’m talking about anyone that thinks the calculations of a brain determines the universe and not the converse. I can’t help that not all 2nd grades are equitable.
What do you mean by “a deterministic universe”? AIUI, physicists consider it highly unlikely (at the very least) that the physical universe is 100% deterministic.
And while all material objects are indeed subject to physical law, how is that relevant to issues like gender identity and other perceptual/cognitive states? Does “physical law” determine whether or not you love your wife, for example? If so, through exactly what specific physical mechanism is that determination operating?
If you can’t explain that, then you really have no grounds for suggesting that gender identity is determined by “physical law”.
Your cryptobabble sounds like an attempt to insinuate (without coming right out and saying) that transgender identity isn’t real because gender identity is nothing but anatomical sex and anatomical sex is strictly binary. Well, you can believe those grossly misrepresentative oversimplifications if you want to, but you shouldn’t try to pretend that they’re supported by actual science.
Do they now? Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia
That’s because it is exactly what he wants to say but is afraid of getting banned for saying it.
Was your “Do they now?” question intended to be a (timidly cryptic-sounding, in the hope of possibly remaining deniable) rhetorical rebuttal to my observation about physicists considering it highly unlikely that the universe is 100% deterministic?
If so, the answer to “Do they now?” is yes, physicists do consider it highly unlikely (at the very least, as I noted) that the universe is 100% deterministic. And nothing in your cited Wikipedia article about the philosophical hypothesis of ontological eternalism in any way contradicts what I said.
You know, octopus, trying to insinuate objectively scientifically wrong claims with unclear cryptic snippets of suggestion doesn’t actually make you look any less ignorant than coming right out and asserting objectively scientifically wrong claims. It merely makes you look intimidated and defensive as well as ignorant.
Hence the “intimidated and defensive” look.
I can’t help that you don’t understand basic physics. And it’s laughable you consider any one person’s beliefs to be objective science.
Wait! THAT’S NOT INK!!!
A few things.
- I’m not American, and am not “Conservative” in the American sense of the word.
- My point, which you deliberately appear to be missing, is that whether I consider someone to be an SJW on issues like this is based on their reasoning.
Thus: “Waaah, Imperialism is automatically bad in and of itself” = Woke SJW viewpoint
“Annexing the entire country would lead to a perpetual insurgency” - NOT woke SJW viewpoint, even if the person espousing it is otherwise a leftist.
There’s a difference between a woke SJW and someone on the left. Believe it or not, I’m on the left for a number of pretty significant social issues, including universal healthacare, universal basic income, same-sex marriage, drug legalisation and refugee support. The difference is, I don’t hate people who don’t support those things, I don’t think they’re horrible people, and I don’t go around banging on constantly about how everyone needs to get on board with the stuff I mentioned before.
You haven’t shown any evidence that I don’t understand basic physics. Nor does anything in the (single) cite you provided in any way imply that I don’t understand basic physics. All you’ve got is a feeble “Nuh-uh!”.
I’m not claiming that “any one person’s beliefs” constitute objective science. I’m saying that when you try to claim, or insinuate, that your misleadingly oversimplified beliefs about gender identity and physics are supported by science, you are objectively wrong.
Personal opinions and beliefs don’t necessarily have objective truth values. But claims about whether existing scientific evidence supports one’s opinions or beliefs do. And your claims about having science on your side for your personal beliefs on this subject are, yes, objectively scientifically wrong.
Me too, but I suspect for different reasons given I’m a libertarian.
Don’t get angry; get educated. Then you won’t be angry anymore. You will be enlightened, and you will find peace.
shut up
If you were any where near objective reality with your belief system you wouldn’t have to rely on force to defend it.
Oh, and why would I do that, considering how accurate I’ve been in predicting the path we are on? No, I will not shut up. Just the opposite: I demand your silence.
Ah the censorious left in all it’s undisguised glory.
Well… Scientific determinists will point out that Schrödinger’s equation for the wave function is deterministic, and the entire universe is one giant wave function, so the universe is by definition deterministic. The many-worlds theorists will modify that to say that when the wave function collapses the collapse is deterministic when you look at the complete multiverse, but stochastic in terms of your own universe, or something like that.
I keep an open mind on the issue, because there is just so much we don’t know, and even more we don’t know that we don’t know.
Huh? Belief systems that are totally consistent with objective reality require force to defend them all the goddamn time.
For example, in several places in the 1960s, the belief that it was unnecessary and unfair to require children to attend different schools based on their racial identity required so much force to defend it that the National Guard had to get involved.
Likewise in later decades for the belief that the government had no compelling reason to prevent two consenting single adults of the same sex from entering a legal marriage contract.
If you imagine that the reality or validity of a position is measured by whether or not it can be legally implemented without requiring force to get some people to comply with it, you’re living in a fool’s paradise.
That’s because moral systems are not objective. They are based on axiomatic sets. You write well but have large gaps in your education.