President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
This shit was kinda funny ~11 years ago but honestly if you're still giggling at Trump tweeting Boomerslop, you're a bit touched, as they say.
It's important for people to find humor in Trump's absurdity because you started a discussion about how Trump's absurdity is funny?
I'm no logician, but I think there might be a flaw in that reasoning.
and lol at how this "binary" discussion predictably went
nobody was arguing strict definitions. the point was that 99.98% of humans cleanly fit one of two reproductive roles and the rest are developmental anomalies
instead of engaging with that, people dodged the conversation to "binary technically means exactly two options and 0.02% don't fit, so the word is wrong." swap binary for bimodal and the claim is identical. you didn't refute anything, you corrected vocabulary
you only reach for semantics instead of engaging the substance when you've got nothing for your argument
It's important for people to find humor in Trump's absurdity because you started a discussion about how Trump's absurdity is funny?
I'm no logician, but I think there might be a flaw in that reasoning.
you mischaracterized the discussion. it wasn't about it being important for people to find humor in trump's absurdity, it was simply that the absurdity is funny.
you agreed.
bigger agreed.
srm agreed.
the only one who doesn't seem to agree there's some level of humor is trolly. perhaps he's touched.
I guess when you make a big deal about one side being corrupt and anti crypto so you soft vouch for the other side and they come in infinitely more corrupt and anti crypto you just have to find the humor in it all
nobody was arguing strict definitions. the point was that 99.98% of humans cleanly fit one of two reproductive roles and the rest are developmental anomalies
Yeah man, there aren't a lot of trans/intersex people out there, glad you've caught up with the rest of the class.
This **** was kinda funny ~11 years ago but honestly if you're still giggling at Trump tweeting Boomerslop, you're a bit touched, as they say.
THIS!!!
and lol at how this "binary" discussion predictably wentnobody was arguing strict definitions. the point was that 99.98% of humans cleanly fit one of two reproductive roles and the rest are developmental anomaliesinstead of engaging with that, people dodged the conversation to "binary technically means exactly two options and 0.02% don't fit, so the word is wrong." swap binary
.
I guess when you make a big deal about one side being corrupt and anti crypto so you soft vouch for the other side and they come in infinitely more corrupt and anti crypto you just have to find the humor in it all
.750 batting average on this post is not bad.
Sorry, are you trying to distance yourself from the fact that you're one of the millions of imbeciles who supported Trump's presidency?
you mischaracterized the discussion. it wasn't about it being important for people to find humor in trump's absurdity, it was simply that the absurdity is funny.
you agreed.
bigger agreed.
srm agreed.
the only one who doesn't seem to agree there's some level of humor is trolly. perhaps he's touched.
I mean if you think me thinking it’s funny trump thinks you win at uno by ‘holding all the cards’ means all his shitposting is funny, then, ok, I guess
Absolutely don't get the ''this is funny'' side.
I can see the absurd in it, that doesn't make it any more funny and actually it makes it very scary.
That the president of the USA is posting incoherent stuff 99% of the time is not funny at all.
This is a guy who has the nukes codes and treats his job as some kind of summer camp counselor (clown might be more accurate).
Yeah man, there aren't a lot of trans/intersex people out there, glad you've caught up with the rest of the class.
I see rick trying to reframe the discussion as if it was about reproductive roles. It wasn't. It was about biological sex. Reproductive role is only one aspect of biological sex. And even that is not a strict binary.
and lol at how this "binary" discussion predictably wentnobody was arguing strict definitions. the point was that 99.98% of humans cleanly fit one of two reproductive roles and the rest are developmental anomaliesinstead of engaging with that, people dodged the conversation to "binary technically means exactly two options and 0.02% don't fit, so the word is wrong." swap binary
When you use a slogan like “sex is binary” then you open yourself up to semantic analysis. Just like when lefties use slogans like “trans women are women” they open themselves up to semantic analysis. I don’t see why that’s not substantive when people are using slogans to leverage policy.
I see rick trying to reframe the discussion as if it was about reproductive roles. It wasn't. It was about biological sex. Reproductive role is only one aspect of biological sex. And even that is not a strict binary.
more semantics from someone who obviously has nothing to say of substance
and lol at how this "binary" discussion predictably went
nobody was arguing strict definitions. the point was that 99.98% of humans cleanly fit one of two reproductive roles and the rest are developmental anomalies
Words with specific meanings and people who can’t use them properly. Just lol.
The possibilities of tossing a fair coin are clearly not binary:
1. Could land 'heads'
2. Could land 'tails'
3. Could land on its edge.
People that are very bad at articulating their arguments tend to hide behind calling objections “semantics”. However, analytic philosophy is built on analyzing the meanings of terms, hence the modifier “analytic” which is talking about the analysis of meanings of words within in an argument. So you’re basically chastising the dominant method of philosophy since the turn of the 19th century as “nothing to say of substance”.
These examples are from papers written in the second half of Moore’s career, but his “linguistic method” can be discerned much earlier, in works dating all the way back to the late 1800s—the period of his rebellion against Idealism. Even in Moore’s first influential paper, “The Nature of Judgment” (Moore 1899), he can be found paying very close attention to propositions and their meanings. In his celebrated paper, “The Refutation of Idealism” (Moore 1903b), Moore uses linguistic analysis to argue against the Idealist’s slogan Esse est percipi (to be is to be perceived). Moore reads the slogan as a definition or, as he would later call it, an analysis: just as we say “bachelor” means “unmarried man,” so the Idealist says “to exist” means “to be cognized.” However, if these bits of language had the same meaning, Moore argues, it would be superfluous to assert that they were identical, just as it is superfluous to say “a bachelor is a bachelor.” The fact that the Idealist sees some need to assert the formula reveals that there is a difference in meanings of “to be” and “to be perceived,” and hence a difference in the corresponding phenomena as well.
Moore’s most famous meaning-centered argument is perhaps the “open question argument” of his Principia Ethica (Moore 1903a). The open question argument purports to show that it is a mistake to define “good” in terms of anything other than itself. For any definition of good—“goodness is pleasure,” say—it makes sense to ask whether goodness really is pleasure (or whatever it has been identified with); thus, every attempt at definition leaves it an open question as to what good really is. This is so because every purported definition fails to capture the meaning of “good.”
All of these cases exhibit what proved to be the most influential aspect of Moore’s philosophical work, namely his method of analysis, which many of his contemporaries took to be linguistic analysis. For instance, Norman Malcolm represents the standard view of Moore for much of the twentieth century when he says that “the essence of Moore’s technique of refuting philosophical statements consists in pointing out that these statements go against ordinary language” (Malcolm 1942, 349). In the same essay, he goes on to tie Moore’s entire philosophical legacy to his “linguistic method:”
Moore’s great historical role consists in the fact that he has been perhaps the first philosopher to sense that any philosophical statement that violates ordinary language is false, and consistently to defend ordinary language against its philosophical violators. (Malcolm 1942, 368)
Malcolm is right to note the novelty of Moore’s approach. Although previous philosophers occasionally had philosophized about language, and had, in their philosophizing, paid close attention to the way language was used, none had ever claimed that philosophizing itself was merely a matter of analyzing language. Of course, Moore did not make this claim either, but what Moore actually did as a philosopher seemed to make saying it superfluous—in practice, he seemed to be doing exactly what Malcolm said he was doing. Thus, though it took some time for the philosophical community to realize it, it eventually became clear that this new “linguistic method,” pioneered by Moore, constituted a radical break not only with the British Idealists but with the larger philosophical tradition itself. To put it generally, philosophy was traditionally understood as the practice of reasoning about the world. Its goal was to give a logos—a rationally coherent account—of the world and its parts at various levels of granularity, but ultimately as a whole and at the most general level. There were other aspects of the project, too, of course, but this was the heart of it. With Moore, however, philosophy seemed to be recast as the practice of linguistic analysis applied to isolated issues. Thus, the rise of analytic philosophy, understood as the relatively continuous growth of a new philosophical school originating in Moore’s “linguistic turn,” was eventually recognized as being not just the emergence of another philosophical school, but as constituting a “revolution in philosophy” at large. (See Ayer et al. 1963 and Tugendhat 1982.)
more word salad instead of engaging with the substance of the argument
again, no difference from arguing that someone claiming humans are born with 2 eyes is incorrect because there's a handful of genetic abnormalities
but what's a better discussion - that humans have 2 eyes or that humans have a spectrum of eyes?
Absolutely don't get the ''this is funny'' side.
I can see the absurd in it, that doesn't make it any more funny and actually it makes it very scary.
That the president of the USA is posting incoherent stuff 99% of the time is not funny at all.
This is a guy who has the nukes codes and treats his job as some kind of summer camp counselor (clown might be more accurate).
There’s absolutely nothing that trump does intentionally that should be regarded as ‘funny.’ I realize I shitpost on an Internet forum, but I also not, *checks notes* the leader of the free world
The idea that anyone would find it lololololololol that he continues the degrade the office with this infantile **** says way more about them for thinking it’s hilarious than it does about me for finding zero humor in the 78 year old 2 term president of the United States staying up all night sharing AI memeshit cuz daddy never loved him and he needs the warm embrace of Internet validation from randoms. Grow the **** up, incels. You clowns think the general public is triggered when the correct emotion is exhausted
more word salad instead of engaging with the substance of the argument[/quite]Wait you said semantic, now you are saying word salad. Rick are you actually this stupid that you don’t know that those are not equivalent terms?[quote]again, no difference from arguing that someone claiming humans are born with 2 eyes is incorrect because there's a handful of genetic abnormalitiesbut
That’s wrong. “Humans are born with 2 eyes” has an unspecified quantifier. If it means “some people are born with two eyes” that is obviously true. If it means “all humans are born with two eyes” that is obviously false.
Maybe you should stay out of philosophy conversations because you seem unequipped to engage on this front.
