2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Since you've asked a metaphysical question: Because an elephant runs the universe. As good as any.
Now it's your turn. Define your terms without appealing to medical expertise or cross-reference, or you're simply bad-faith and I can dispense with this.
That would be part of performance, but it also wouldn’t be equal to performance either.
I think I would make a distinction between independently defined and totally independent. Math and science are independently defined but you couldn’t do much science without math.
Since you've asked a metaphysical question: Because an elephant runs the universe. As good as any.
Now it's your turn. Define your terms, or you're simply bad-faith and I can dispense with this.
It wasn't a metaphysical question. It was a demonstration that you can't explain the Earth orbiting the sun without "appealing to gravity" any more than anyone can explain something in the field of medicine "without appealing to experts", which is just code for "appealing to science". And I must say, congratulations, you exceeded all my expectations for how hilariously ridiculous your attempts would end up being.
Given your performance in this mini exercise, and I know this is going to sound far-fetched, but I'm starting to have some niggling doubts that you are quite the intellectual luminary you have been leading us to believe.
That would be part of performance, but it also wouldn’t be equal to performance either.
I think I would make a distinction between independently defined and totally independent. Math and science are independently defined but you couldn’t do much science without math.
There must be some domain where sex and gender are completely decoupled or it is logically impossible for someone to be the male sex and exhibit female outward performance (and vice versa). They could only be 'partially' exhibiting outward performance as the contrary sex. If there is no domain where they are completely decoupled, then one is logically dependent on the other (in the same way that science is ultimately dependent upon logic/math).
So, please state what aspect of the domain 'outward male performance' or 'outward female performance' is completely decoupled from sex.
Yes it was.
It was a demonstration that you can't explain the Earth orbiting the sun without "appealing to gravity" any more than anyone can explain something in the field of medicine "without appealing to experts", which is just code for "appealing to science". And I must say, congratulations, you exceeded all my expectations for how hilariously ridiculous your attempts would end up being.
Ok so you're now not only not denying that you were appealing to authority, but claiming it's impossible to do anything but! Thanks for admitting I was right, lol.
Yes it was.
Ok so you're now not only not denying that you were appealing to authority but saying it's not possible to do anything but! Thanks for admitting I was right, lol.
You don't actually understand what "appealing to authority" when used in the context of fallacious reasoning means, do you? Do you think referencing a maths texbook or algebra teacher for the quadratic formula is an "appeal to authority"?
I have to say, my estimation of your intelligence is going down with every post. I already knew you were a disingenuous little weasel, but I am now realising that you're pretty dumb to boot.
You don't actually understand what "appealing to authority" when used in the context of fallacious reasoning means, do you? Do you think referencing a maths texbook or algebra teacher for the quadratic formula is an "appeal to authority"?
If you can't explain it yourself (which you clearly can't), then it definitely is. Also, I'm almost pissing my pants in laughter at you equating maths textbooks with gender ideology. That's probably exactly what you think.
My god this is painful to watch.
Lol. No. Go look up "appeal to authority" on Wikipedia, you might learn something. The only thing worse than an arrogant prick is an arrogant prick who's wrong.
You think because some experts are right about some things in one field that you can defer to "experts" in general for any bullshit claim you read someone make in some other field? Is that really what you think??
That's even worse than a typical appeal to authority. That's more like an appeal to ignorance or personal credulity.
Are experts ever wrong? Can institutions be corrupted? Do professionals ever self-censor? Does media influence opinion? What is the expert opinion? Don't question anything... It's not hard to find experts with opposing views.
Expertise is very valuable and it's normally pretty stupid to think you know better than an expert. The far bigger problem is that the people referred to as experts are ofern either not expert or are opining on a issue in which they are not expert.
Finding and listening to the experts is very worthwhile but can be tough. One identifying feature is they rarely give unqualified answers. Unlike politicans, managers etc who commonly give very black and white answers.
You think because some experts are right about some things in one field that you can defer to experts in general for any bullshit claim you want to make in some other field? Is that really what you think? That's even worse than a typical appeal to authority. That's more like an appeal to ignorance.
What? This makes about as much logical sense as your first answer to the Earth orbiting the sun question. I'm really beginning to question your basic reasoning ability.
I'll respond to what you meant to say, rather than what you very inartfully actually said. What you meant to say was that experts should get more deference when it comes to the hard sciences like maths or physics than the soft sciences like economics and gender studies. And I agree this is true. However, that doesn't mean that I should be able to answer some question you dream up about gender studies without referencing any material at all on the subject, which you would then call an "appeal to authority". After all, every paper and textbook was written by someone. So it's basically impossible for me to answer your questions without falling into your dumb "appeal to authority" trap or just reinventing the whole field on my own from scratch (at which point I then of course become the authority who can no longer be "appealed to").
Nearly that, yes. Unless they are directly involved in the decision (the patient or the family of the patient, basically) or have a medical education, they should not have any input whatsoever on the treatment of that patient. I really don't even begin to understand how that isn't just obvious.
So, if a doctor and parent decide that it's okay to give a depressed teenager a lobotomy or shock treatment, then everyone else should just stay out of the conversation? This one of the places you lose me. How do you feel about gay conversion therapy? If a pastor and family decide it's necessary, would you tell those who oppose it to keep their opinions to themselves?
what about euthenasia?
A current real debate in the uk
There must be some domain where sex and gender are completely decoupled or it is logically impossible for someone to be the male sex and exhibit female outward performance (and vice versa). They could only be 'partially' exhibiting outward performance as the contrary sex. If there is no domain where they are completely decoupled, then one is logically dependent on the other (in the same way that science is ultimately dependent upon logic/math).
So, please state what aspect of the domain 'outward
So if science is not completely decoupled from math and logic, do you also think that science doesn’t mean anything just like you think gender doesn’t mean anything?
We’re kind of jumping ahead by discussing whether trans people can exist when we still haven’t closed the discussion on whether sex and gender are defined independently of another, which I gave my definition of how I’m parsing that out.
So, if a doctor and parent decide that it's okay to give a depressed teenager a lobotomy or shock treatment, then everyone else should just stay out of the conversation? This one of the places you lose me.
That's because you seem to think a doctor would ever decide it's ok to give a lobotomy. It's the whole reason you are getting lost. If a doctor were to recommend something so out of touch with medical consensus, they should lose their license. No one is saying there aren't terrible doctors out there. But there are systems in place to remove them from practice if they are egregiously abusing their position like that.
It's stupid.
If a pastor and family decide it's necessary, would you tell those who oppose it to keep their opinions to themselves?
Not if they were a medical expert (who would obviously oppose it), no. How is this so hard for you to understand? Maybe you thought for some reason I would recognize a pastor as a medical expert? I don't know what you are even thinking asking this.
can we get sklansky iq ranking on gorgo
To be clear, in one instance he said “only” in the other instance he said “probably”. I think most can agree that due to background knowledge, experts are in a better position to question other experts. That’s not to say that someone from the outside can’t question expert opinion, but it often really is the expert scientific opinion that intervenes into bad science.
Ok, I'll rephrase my first statement. "Challenges to experts should probably come from those sufficiently knowledgeable in the field so as to issue sensible challenges, not lay people who have no idea what they're talking about and whose only credentials are that they don't like the conclusion the expert reached". Better?
Also, cherry picking two quotes like that which are not even really in contradiction with each other (one said "probably" and one said "only" as xrdraw pointed out) and juxtaposing them stripped them of all explanatory context is not quite the mic drop moment you seem to think it is.
There seems to be some frequent confusion between the verbs "question" and "challenge." They don't mean the same thing.
What? This makes about as much logical sense as your first answer to the Earth orbiting the sun question. I'm really beginning to question your basic reasoning ability.
I'll respond to what you meant to say, rather than what you very inartfully actually said. What you meant to say was that experts should get more deference when it comes to the hard sciences like maths or physics than the soft sciences like economics and gender studies. And I agree this is true. However, that doesn't mean that I s
If you can't explain the scientific difference between gender and sex yourself, and instead defer to "expert opinion" on gender theory, then you are committing the literal definition of an appeal to authority.
a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument
You are using an "expert opinion" on a sociological concept (gender) as evidence for your argument that gender is a scientific concept. Hate to break it to ya, it ain't.
So now that we've dispensed with this nauseating display of evasion, please define the logical (or scientific) difference between sex and gender.
If you can't explain the scientific difference between gender and sex yourself, and instead defer to "expert opinion" on gender theory, then you are committing the literal definition of an appeal to authority.
You are using an "expert opinion" on a sociological concept (gender) as evidence for your argument that it is a scientifically sound concept. Hate to break it to ya, it ain't.
So now that we've dispensed with this nauseating display of evasion, please define the logical (or scientific) diffe
I can't explain it myself because I don't even know what it is, nor do I know what the expert opinion is on it. It's not something that interests me. I have never discussed transgender issues on this forum (or outside it), and don't intend to start now. So I really don't know why you're asking me, must be one of the many positions you've ascribed to me that I've never held.
I can't explain the difference between a crocodile and an alligator either, and it's not something that's ever interested me, so I'm also happy to defer to expert opinion on that. And probably about five hundred million other things that I know nothing about.
