Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 3,079 total)
  • Author
  • #46007


    I like that among Elon’s first moves in his “free speech absolutism” was to fire internal critics.

    Now, one might say that, duh, that might happen in any business, but most businesses aren’t being run by an avowed free speech litertarian.




    Mixed use works for small towns or small areas within towns. Converting an American city—even a small to medium sized city—won’t happen. And that’s for political reasons as well as practical ones.

    Who is going to tell Americans to spend most of their time within the distance of a 15-minute walk or even bike ride? Answer: No one who wants to be elected or re-elected. You have to agree with that.

    I’ve been to Oxford, England, the city mentioned in the article, and it’s already set up in a mixed-use way. When I visited my ex-wife’s parents in Bremen, Germany, many things were within walking distance from their apartment. Shops, restaurants, a beautiful park, and even the University of Bremen. A trolley system was nearby to take us into town. They didn’t even own a car because a car would have been an unnecessary liability and inconvenience.

    There are towns in America adaptable to the 15-minute rule. College towns like Eugene or Corvallis here in Oregon or Ann Arbor in Michigan, for example. But even there, who’s going to tell anyone they can’t use their car.

    Like the subject line says, it ain’t happening here.

    • This reply was modified 1 day ago by  Unseen.


    People argue that women sexually abuse other women in prison, which is true. However, if you bring in men who suddenly get trans religion into prison as well, you aren’t exactly making the vulnerable women more secure, are you?

    That some men are willing to do that to gain an advantage in prison life means we can’t rule it out in other areas where being treated as a woman would bring on advantages. Competitive sports is an obvious example. A six and a half foot male athlete with broad shoulders, the skeletal advantages afforded males, and ample musculature doesn’t suddenly become a five foot seven inch girl by becoming an actual transsexual through surgery and certainly not by becoming essentially simply a transvestite.

    How do we distinguish between the two types (sincere and insincere) and how do we deal with the sincere ones who bring outsized physical advantages with them, giving them in some cases a ridiculously outsized advantage over the “female at birth” competitors they have an advantage over.

    Perhaps making a drastic change like a gender change can’t be allowed to open every door, especially ones which are (or should be) largely irrelevant by comparison with the advantages hoped to be gained with the gender readjustment.



    Male prisoners changing gender under self-ID to ‘escape men’s jails and get access to women’

    Are female prisoners changing their gender in order to get into men’s prisons? Gee, I wonder why not?



    A glimpse into the debate in Scotland. (Hope you have a good ear for the Scots accent.)

    Scottish Prime Minister Nicola Sturgeon was shouted down at an event this week called Zero Tolerance. It is an event to stop male violence against women and many people came to tell Sturgeon that her gender bills will fail to create safe spaces for women.

    A note sent to attendees said that the Prime Minister’s speech was “to create a safe and supported environment for our guests and ask you to support us in this aim by refraining from discussions of the definition of a woman, and single sex spaces, in relation to the gender recognition act.”

    The Prime Minister denies having a hand in this but she was still challenged about it by attendees. Many feminists worry that Sturgeon’s gender reform bill, which has not been passed, could be used by violent men to gain access to women’s spaces including shelters and prisons. ”


    • This reply was modified 3 days, 8 hours ago by  Unseen.
    • This reply was modified 3 days, 8 hours ago by  Unseen.


    Yeah i am not feeling it. Separate but equal? One for normals and the other for coloreds? If ya can’t deal with it cuz of your delicate sensibilities or your twisted prurience then go in the bushes or wear an adult diaper.

    Are you so willing to fob off women-only shelters?



    People may have all sorts of reasons they don’t want to share space with people of different religions, ethnicities, skin colour, sexual orientation, gender identity or other (typically) protected characteristics. And the root of those fears may be something with which we can sympathize.

    Interesting  Almost unconsciously “reasons” are transformed into “fears.” Like people can’t have actual reasons just like they say. Hmmm



    Oh, so no data presented on the frequency of these crimes and abuses committed by male to female trans? Shocking. I’d take a guess that it is statistically insignificant, but Phucker (and Putin, LOL) knows his idiotic audience well. Phucker say he has “enough daughters” to be concerned about this as if just one wouldn’t be enough. What a jerk. With so many real issues facing us right now, this is the big one. Right.

    Let’s not take this discussion to Russia where, I assume, most of can see actual gay hatred and hostility to LGBTQ+ at play. Let’s stick with Scotland or the U.S., please.

    Are women who want spaces where they can be with other women* because they feel more safe and comfortable in such a space bigots?

    * When they say “women” they mean women with no invisible asterisk applying to them. No tanssexuals, crossdressers, or people of ambiguous gender (which might include, say, somewhat “butch” lesbians, I suppose).

    • This reply was modified 4 days, 8 hours ago by  Unseen.


    Unseen, you haven’t explained anything. You’ve just stated that we make decisions because we do one thing rather than another (huh?), despite the fact that we could not have done otherwise. Such a decision is empty of responsibility. Sorry you cannot see that. I don’t think we will go any further with that. If you want to eat the whole cake and yet still have left-overs, so be it. Whatever, you win.

    We do some things reflexively and involuntarily and recognize that such deeds aren’t free. There are other things where we feel free (uncompelled), but there are reasons for doing even those things and reasons have causes, and then become causes with effects of their own. Choices don’t happen ex nihilo.

    It seems to me that you need to be a dualist. At least then you could argue that the mind (spirit/soul) has a contingent relationship to the physical world which would allow for making the sort of exceptions that could be used for a theory of free will.



    So many people think “seeing (video) is believing” and it is only a matter of time when a bunch of people with mal intent get access to powerful video rendering AI. I shudder to think what will happen when deep fakes of political leaders and other celebrities permeate the web.



    I am not forcing you to accept anything. You posted a video saying she speaks for you better than you could, where she defines non-free will as the inability of an agent to do other than they have done. This by the way, does not necessarily infer predeterminism. It does exclude an agents ability to have done anything else.

    She clearly says someone can only have done A and not have done anything else. Do you not agree with how she frames free will as illusion?

    If you disagree…how? If you don’t…then explain how choice and responsibility is possible in such a universe?

    I agree, of course, that free will is ultimately an illusion, and yet we do make choices. We choose whether to have the pepperoni pizza or the veggie pizza or the Hawaiian pizza. We make those choices as is evidenced by the fact that we order one of the above.

    I’m using the same concept of responsibility the law uses, which includes responsibility without going into how choices are made. If Joe sexually abuses his nephew, and barring a small selection of excusing circumstances (e.g., he did it at gunpoint, he had a psychotic break, etc.), he’s responsible for doing it just because he did it. Doing something, in general, makes one responsible for what one does.

    And indeed, while this is the way the law uses the term, it’s also the way you and I use it in daily life.

    If free will is an illusion, it’s just one of many in the natural world.  Color is an illusion. The solidity of physical objects is illusory. Time itself isn’t exactly how we experience it. Free will is on the same list, if by free will you mean being able to make choices in spite of and in defiance of the natural goings on inside the brain and nervous system.


    I do not find us not having free will as reprehensible. Unlike you I am not certain about anything on the topic. I actually do not take a position on it. However, if I was certain that there was no free will, I would have the intellectual integrity to admit that responsibility (and therefore moral responsibility) is an illusion and would drop ethics as meaningful field of study. I would also stop telling people why it’s okay we don’t have will. Though…I wouldn’t have a choice over any of this anyways…would I?

    I have explained above how responsibility works and that putting the word “moral” in front of it adds nothing. If Mike steals from his union’s retirement fund, showing that he did it is all that’s needed to establish his responsibility, barring some hard to imagine excusing conditions. If you want to say he was wrong, fine. If that makes you happy. He’s still responsible for his deed whether you speak up or remain silent.





    Can you explain please why you’re so hung up on forcing me to accept predeterminism as a consequence of determinism?

    Let’s for a moment assume you are right and determinism actually means predeterminism, does that ipso facto rescue free will somehow? Or are you thinking it’s an idea so reprehensible that people will ignore the facts and “vote with their gut,” as it were?

    Or, if somehow predeterminism would give us free will, explain. Otherwise, it seems you are just creating a distraction.



    She specifically says that you cannot do B, C, D…Z instead of A. If A is the only possible outcome, choice, alternatives, even decisions are illusions. If free will (as she describes it) is an illusion, so are all of the above. You cannot have both. A rock isn’t responsible for falling in a particular direction, nor is a person who cannot but do A, all the time without fail, be responsible for doing A.

    Yes, from a certain set of initial conditions, and given the laws of the universe on the non-quantum level, the outcomes pursuant to it are very much predictable in principle (because doing the predictions is an impossible task). Simply because she didn’t get into the intrusion of choatic or random intrusions doesn’t mean she’s arguing against them. Duh!

    In fact, any negation of free will, negates meaningful choice which negates responsibility. If you cannot have done otherwise, how are you meaningfully responsible?

    I’m puzzled as to what you mean by “meaningfully responsible.” If you’re arguing that without free will people aren’t actually responsible for what they do, and that therefor free will must exist, that’s a fallacious argument I can parody by replacing the terms: “Without God, the wicked would go unpunished and the good unrewarded. Therefore, God must exist.” So, if free will exists, so must God.

    All of this is nonsense anyways. If we don’t have free will, I had not choice but to type out this text, and you will not be able to have done other than the text your reply with (if you do…for which you will have no choice but to do). Our entire dialogue is choiceless replies. This isn’t a reason to claim or negate free will. But it is simply another consequence of negating free will. But then, if there really is no free will, you have no choice but to take the position on free will that you have.

    We do have choices. We just have no control over what’s “under the hood.” I go into a restaurant and are faced with a dozen entree choices and I choose the Hungarian Goulash. I have no trouble making the choice other than a few moments deliberation. I make the choice. However, how that choice is made must conform to the laws governing the brain and nervous system. Mustn’t it?

    Or not?

    I’m responsible for the choice because I made it. I’m not responsible for how the choice was made. At some level deep down in my psyche and brain, the choice was made. I know not how. And I do know about as well as I know anything is that being human doesn’t make one capable of making exceptions to natural laws or the processes that follow them.

    Maybe you’re arguing against natural laws and for miracles. Are you?

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by  Unseen.


    Unseen, if i understand the lady she is arguing long chain or predeterminism. Start at about 1:30 and just listen a wee bit.

    She’s just describing plain vanilla determinism there. Yes, from a certain complete description of a circumstance and with enough computing power to follow it, you can predict on to eternity…theoretically of course. She simply doesn’t get into the circumstance where something chaotic or random changes things like on a train line where pulling a switch takes a train off the tracks to Chicago and instead sends the train to Indianapolis.

    The point is that once that happens. Once a gamma ray modifies a DNA in a viable way, for example, we are off on a new trajectory.

    Events always happen based on what happened before, even if what happened before was something exceptional.

    At any rate, it’s not like whether you accept this or not suddenly gives people free will.

    We talk about free will on the level of everyday experience as the abilit8y to intend actions and make things happen and we feel free in doing so. It’s only when you look under the hood and realize that there’s an engine of physical laws working that you realize how these decisions are made.



    What chaotic or random events do is set up a new deterministic chain.

    That can be upset by a new random event? That makes no sense at all.

    One random event/change in the deterministic series of events can’t be followed by another one. It seems to me that if such events do happen (and I’m sure they do because, for one thing, that is one way that genetic mutations occur), they can happen again and again.

    Or am I misunderstanding you somehow?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 3,079 total)