Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

2046

Regulars
  • Content count

    1994
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    48

2046 last won the day on November 28

2046 had the most liked content!

7 Followers

About 2046

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

6668 profile views
  1. Correcting the nonaggression "principle"

    This seems like a giant non sequitur. Loosely summed up, you argue for the basic necessity of government as organized defense against endemic violence. A rational person will choose to organize government and thus acting against the government is acting against the needs of a rational man. Okay, very well. But then you deduce that this includes "withholding information the government needs." Well, that just plain doesn't follow. You can say that your argument deduces that you shouldn't act against a government, but that would only apply to a government objectively prosecuting its protective function, not just any old thing the government does or claims to be doing. Which then leads us to ask is the government allowed to do any old thing, including coercing information out of people, in pursuit of this function? I would say no. You then insert the phrase "metaphysical necessasities of government," but this is an empty phrase, the meaning anyone could only fill in with whatever they wanted. Shoes are a metaphysical necessity of government, the government should produce shoes. Food is a metaphysical necessity of government, what quality of food and shoes, well ham sandwiches and nikes, etc etc. you get the picture. In other words, you can't just throw "metaphysical necessity!" onto the end of a non sequitur and make it not a non sequitur. If it's "endemic violence" were concerned about, the word "endemic" means regularly and systemically occurring, makes no sense to then enshrine endemic initiating of violence.
  2. The Royal Family of Nominalism

    Silly scientists! Doing all their research and examining actual people and brains and stuff. Don't they know Mr Swig has it all figured out? Just tell someone that was born with, say, congenital adrenal hyperplasia* to stop being a nominalist, you silly goose! There, confusion ended, duh! *cogenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) a condition where the genetic condition results in the fetus being exposed to unusually high testosterone levels, which, in girls results with them being born with male genital virilisation.
  3. The Royal Family of Nominalism

    There is no such thing as a "male brain" or "female brain," the amount of people pontificating on neuroscience and psychology without the most basic understanding of facts, making one unsupported assertion after another, strikes me as plainly anti-science. Your supposition about a five year old unaware about genitals is just odd, children are continuously influenced by cultural assumptions about gender, this is exactly the point, so the ability to "encounter genitalia" isn't relevant or helpful.
  4. The Royal Family of Nominalism

    1. The concept of gender dysphoria is a scientifically documented and researched phenomenon. It is not a concept to be investigated by armchair reasoning. Whether genetics might or might not influence it, whether pre or post natal hormone levels might influence it, whether environmental factors might influence it, whether brain structure might influence it or whether it might be formed entriely on a cognitive basis, or some mix of things, is a scientific question. Nobody, that is literally nobody in the scientific community says, "this is a feeling formed by genes and some other means than perception." This is just lazy straw manning. It is like Galileo's accusers refusing to look through his telescope because they have already proved a priori what they believe. 2. Man made concepts are arbitrary? That is quite a curious assertion, but I doubt this is plausible.
  5. The Law of Identity

    There is nothing in this statement that ties and necessitates these two propositions. Pure argument by assertion.
  6. The Royal Family of Nominalism

    I may suggest broadening your studies before positing assertions about what trans people must necessarily think.
  7. The Royal Family of Nominalism

    You must be mistaking Rand's theory of universals for realism, for objectivism does not post that universals exist as a concrete thing in entities. Furthermore, concepts involving societies, that is, groups of men acting in given patterns, such as "culture," "status," "role" are not any less a part of reality. That seems a quite implausible assertion.
  8. The Royal Family of Nominalism

    You have not demonstrated any necessary connection between these two things.
  9. The Speech Police in Canada

    Jeez could this guy get any more obnoxious? Say "problematic" one more time... At the end he goes ahead and demand she submit her lesson plans to him for review prior to class. Yes, make sure the censors approve of your work before you teach. This should serve as a great example to others, always record your interactions with the thought controllers to protect yourself.
  10. The Law of Identity

    Really?? The seed maker, nice one. There's a lot of nice poetic language in there, but nothing which seems to tell me that someone born with any given genitalia must necessarily act and be a certain way.
  11. The Law of Identity

    So things like common cultural value judgments are "imaginary," but now we apparently believe in biologically innate preferences. Interesting.
  12. The Law of Identity

    Social constructs are concepts just arise from two or more people acting. Concepts like "culture," is a social construct, as an example. This is entirely common sensical. Are we to believe you think "culture" is imaginary because you performed a google search and your thought process ended there? Interesting.
  13. The Law of Identity

    But social constructs are not imaginary things. There are tons of things that are social constructs. Culture, language, institutions, none of these things are imaginary or nonobjective. Race and gender identity are just part of those things. What you appear to think is "innately" a part of gender identity (genitals) and race (presumably color, body structure, hair type, etc.) aren't non existent, they're just not significant or essential to these psychological and social concepts as you seem to want them to be. Wheb someone says "I identify as" a man, woman, trans, black, white, whatever, they aren't saying the identify in those ways which are biological only. That would be subject to your criticism. But rather, they are saying they identify in those ways which are not regarding biological sex, or race or whatever, those ways to which they are perfectly entitled to claim, those ways in which gender roles are conventional practices or accepted cultural values and norms. And regarding things like acting appropriate for an objectivist... an argument from intimidation isn't becoming of an objectivist either, nor is knee jerk reactions against perceived heretical opinions. Let us avoid ignorant kneejerkism and dogmatic pronouncements on what an objectivist should act like.
  14. The Law of Identity

    Well certainly, there is the science of the issue, and then there is the free speech issue. From an objectivist viewpoint, the free speech rights of anyone to disagree with anything is unassailable. But let us not confuse opposing incursions on free speech with the facts of the issue. Of course it is incumbent upon scientists to make a case by presenting data. But once such data is presented, the naysayers have a responsibility to address it, and not prattle about as if it were self-evident that the law of identity means there are only two possible gender identity types that must needs coincide with genital referencing. Now certainly you can say something like "well I'm not talking about mixed genders, or personalites, or cultural ideas about gender, just genitals!" But precisely! This is defining yourself into victory. The XY system, (which has more than just two options anyway!) is but one dimension regarding gender identity. There is much more that has little to do with this one aspect. There is psychological states, that is, ones own experience of ones gender, that don't line up to just two options, and done necessarily align with ones genitals. And indeed, who aligns genitals with gender roles anyway, for genitals are just fleshy appendages? It is the social aspect too, that of cultural practices, rituals, widely accepted values, assignments of roles, duties, prescriptions, and institutions, rights, and choices, all that have no necessary intrinsic tie to fleshy appendages. We know some of these things are metaphysical, some are man made, and some are a combination. An example would be pre-and post natal hormone levels, we think, can influence ones psychological states. Other research shows that certain environmental factors can influence brain structure and cause a tendency to shift away from birth assigned gender to a preferred one, which may be more like a continuum of gender than a binary. Whats clear is that all of this is okay. Just like we don't fully know what makes one homosexual, we think it's a combination of nature and nurture, of biology and environment and psychology and various associations formed early in life. But it's okay to be gay, and it's okay to be trans. There's literally nothing in the world wrong with it. What is clear is that, just like the free speech issue, there's also the issue of trans folks being discrimated against, feared, or hated as being some kind of abberation, or outright laws passed to violate their individual rights. Just like we oppose cultural Marxist incursions against free speech, we also oppose transphobic conservative attempts at denying the humanity and rights of trans folks. We are individualists (yes it must be explained.)
×