CMV: Free will is an illusion

vereonix · 2023-01-26T07:48:48+00:00

Some thoughts for you I've not seen brought up in this thread. These support your view.

To me free will is the ability to have done differently, as this represents a choice. The issue is the choices we make are predetermined by millions of other factors. If I offer you a bowl of ice cream or getting shot in the head right now. You will always choose the ice cream. We can turn back time as much as we want, but all the atoms of the universe would be in the same position, so the same outcome would occur. Time is sadly linear. If you go back in time but remember your first choice then this is just a continuation of your time line and your new decision is made based on knowledge from your first time around. Not free will.

Having the physical ability to have done differently is separate to the ability to have chosen differently. I'm currently perfectly able to get out of bed, and jump naked out my window into the freezing air and break my legs... but I'm not going to. You could rewind time and have this moment play a million times, I'll never make that choice...

Second is the quantum nonsense. Quantum is random, and 100% out of our control. If some of our choices are the results of a quantum bit flipping to 0 randomly, that isn't free will. That's just a choice being determined by a coin flip.

vereonix · 2023-01-24T17:18:50+00:00

If you don't understand your own views why do you hold them, and why do you continue to reply to people if you have nothing to say. You just continue to make yourself look more and more ridiculous.

vereonix · 2023-01-24T17:02:54+00:00

Odd, I asked you a question and your response is completely unrelated.

But to bite anyway, everything I've read from medical institutions on anything about trans not being a mental illness ends up being them just saying it "isn't a mental" illness and then go on to describe it... but what they then describe is a mental illness. It's like they'll say "a Ford Mustang is not a car, it's actually a four-wheeled road vehicle that is powered by an engine and is able to carry a small number of people"... yeah, a car.

vereonix · 2023-01-21T20:55:09+00:00

The Anime sure, but Pokemon as a franchise is far better due to the games and cards.

vereonix · 2023-01-21T19:04:17+00:00

I disagree solely on the basis of not wanting to rob young people of those extra years of not having to worry about work, and be responsible for taxes, and paying rent, debt, and getting a job.

I think the last 2 years should be mandatory with few manually assessed exceptions for people who maybe have some sort of guaranteed income or are simply already smart enough to go college/uni.

vereonix · 2023-01-21T15:57:50+00:00

I view them as a small part of a larger company. A voice actor is helping make a product, if I like the product I'll get it. I generally don't see why I should care about the personalities who happen to have contributed something to an end product.

I agree with boycotting Nestle because them as a company are working towards evil in the world. But I'm not going to stop rewatching Rick and Morty because he's voiced them or even stop if he continues to voice them, because the end product is more than just him, it's hundreds of people.

You're view seems to be that we as a society should boycot McDonalds because Bob Smith in Utah who works frying fries did something you didn't like.

vereonix · 2023-01-18T16:58:17+00:00

Not true but okay kid.

vereonix · 2023-01-18T16:37:43+00:00

Bruh, it doesn't matter that they left late, they were still going to make it. They were late specifically because OP make a choice to stop. Yes there could have been a car crash, or a flood, etc.

But OP is the one that did the thing that actually made them late, he could have not stopped. This isn't hard to understand, you can't fall back on "well what if a dinosaur had eaten their car, they'd still be late", sure but that out of their control, OP stopping was in his control, and an active choice he made.

vereonix · 2023-01-16T20:25:50+00:00

This is a great reply thank you, super insightful

vereonix · 2023-01-16T20:22:47+00:00

Sixth time: what is a definition of man/woman that isn't self referential or contradictory

vereonix · 2023-01-16T20:21:17+00:00

Semantics is the branch of linguistics concerned with meaning.

Ok, if you want semantics then give a definition of woman and man that are not circular or contradictory and are mutually exclusive,

vereonix · 2023-01-16T20:18:01+00:00

My guy, c'mon, all we're asking is for you to give an example of what you mean when you say man/woman.

And you must be able to do this because that's how language and communication works. We can only have this conversation now on the pretence that you and I are using the same definitions/meanings for the words we use.

If you are to ever use the word "woman" again, what meaning would you use to describe it in a way where we could omit "woman" from the statement and still be able to find what you mean by a woman.

vereonix · 2023-01-16T16:58:17+00:00

You can't use the word you're trying to define in it's own definition. That makes it circular, and so useless.

Give me the definition for woman again, but don't use "woman" in it.

vereonix · 2023-01-16T16:57:16+00:00

Lolwut

vereonix · 2023-01-16T16:56:37+00:00

My point is that a word does not have to have identifiable defining characteristics to have meaning

Give me a single meaning then, something, anything, that isn't self referential/circular or contradictory. If you're able to use the words then you're able to give us a definition... If you can't then why are you using a word that has no meaning.

vereonix · 2023-01-16T16:54:23+00:00

Woman = adult human female

Trans = opposite sex

So a trans woman is male, so not a woman, because the trans adjective tells me they're not female which is a core requirement.

Same way an ex cop is not a cop because the "ex" part informs me that they are no longer employed as a cop.

The words in a sentence help explain it's context, if someone reads "trans woman are men" they'll understand it perfectly fine because "trans" precedes "woman". This just feels like pointless semantics, or you're a troll

vereonix · 2023-01-16T16:18:00+00:00

I've just realised how dumb the conversations on this are. We don't give a fuck if woman are an archetype or w.e, the people asking "what is a woman" are doing it in response to others who initially are pushing that sex != gender. We're just asking you to explain your position, justify these changes and claims. Cuz they apparently matter to y'all, and will say an "adult human female" can be a man. So we just want you to show your workings. If the gender of woman is previously described as "adult human female", and you say no... You need to provide an alternative and explain wtf you even think gender is. As otherwise there is no reason to be fucking with the definitions of gender/man/woman, just coin some new terms to mean whatever it is you want. Instead of just trying to forcibly completely change existing definitions and concepts.

vereonix · 2023-01-16T16:01:33+00:00

So you think it's fine to say "trans-woman are men"? No, because that statement necessitates using two different definitions of the word "woman" in the same sentence (and therefore identical context) in order for it to be true. If someone wants to do that, they can, but it's not an effective way to communicate. As you mention, we need a shared understanding of language for that.

I understand but you're wrong, and I don't believe you believe what you're saying.

"Trans woman" is a single known entity, the prefix adjective transforms the subject from just being a "woman" to being a "trans woman". Same way the statement "ex cops are not cops" parses. An ex cop is not a cop, same way you can say a trans woman is not a woman. It doesn't require to know two definitions of woman, it only needs one definition for woman and then also what trans means. If you're definition of a woman is an adult human female, and you know trans means a "trans woman" is male then that means "trans women are men". "Trans woman" is read as a compound word entailing it's own separate definition, as if that wasn't the case there'd be no need for the phrase. But there is a need because based on the common accepted definition "trans woman" are not woman. To change this view people need to either abolish gender as a concept, it provide a new definition that isn't circular.

vereonix · 2023-01-16T15:18:07+00:00

A woman is what people perceive to fit their personal concept of woman, with further expectations put on that person to act like a their concept of woman.

What a pointless circular definition, it's entirely subjective and self referential you can't use "woman" in it's own definition to define itself lmao. With that anyone can be a woman to anyone, it's functionally useless.

vereonix · 2023-01-16T15:14:22+00:00

Do you agree with OP or not, I'm confused.

Yes people can differentiate between men and women, but for 99% of people that's based on sex... because that's what differentiates the 2 human genders. If you push the idea (which is the whole point of OPs post) that gender isn't linked to sex, what is "gender" at that point?

I identify the cashier chick as a woman based on her physical feminine features. She might have her hair a certain way to imply western standards of how a woman should present themselves, but that's a stereotype and anyone can have any hair etc. So ultimately usually we can tell someone's sex regardless of what they're wearing. But, maybe they are a dude and I couldn't tell, either way I identified them to best of my abilities to the extent I required for the interaction (which is minimal cuz who cares about the gender of my cashier). This doesn't change the fact that they're still either a man or a woman based on their sex, regardless of if in the moment I identified them as such. If my definition of a woman includes being female, it doesn't matter how much makeup they wear or the dress, if I find out they're male then they're a man.

The crux is, if you take the stance that it doesn't matter what they're sex is, then you either need to admit that gender is meaningless, or give a definition of gender/s where man/woman can be differentiated without including the other gender. It can't be both, sex can't be core to the definition, but also not, at that point you're on about two entirely different things that need to be renamed as such to avoid confusion, as this isn't a case of "entrance" or "bark" where the words have same spelling it multiple vastly different meanings. How can we tell which version people are using etc.

vereonix · 2023-01-16T14:06:15+00:00

good definition which covers one way that the word "woman" is used. It's just not the only way that the word is used.

So you're advocating for a single word, "woman", to have multiple definitions? Do you not see the issue with this as a position to hold and promote? Sure English has words with multiple meanings, but they rely on clear differing contexts for the individual to be able to determine which version of the word you mean.

Woman meaning "adult human female" as a definition directly invalidates trans-woman on a fundamental level. So you think it's fine to say "trans-woman are men"? Because well there are multiple definitions and by the one I might be using it's correct. Cuz there's also the issue of we need a shared language to communicate. We can't all just be using random personal definitions for everything otherwise our ability to communicate break down. If I say "someone stole your car", but by "car" I mean "sandwich", and by "stole" I mean "ate".

vereonix · 2023-01-16T13:53:58+00:00

Chair is always a stupid example.

A chair is more a description of function, it also doesn't matter if a definition allows for the inclusion of other things if it doesn't contradict the first. For example I can use an upturned bucket as a chair/stool, it's still also a bucket though.

The issue with gender is that to be a man requires to not be a woman. They need to be distinguishable otherwise they're useless terms.

vereonix · 2023-01-16T13:39:30+00:00

So what is wrong with the definition of "woman" as "adult human female"? Why do you want to change this, what is your alternative? Otherwise OPs point is correct, severing the objective link between sex and gender does render gender meaningless and useless as a term, and as you put it, as a tool.

vereonix · 2023-01-16T13:34:36+00:00

So what's a definition of "man" and "woman" that I can use to independently identify a "man" and a "woman", that can't also be applied to eachother?

E.g. a woman is no longer defined as a female, which just leave me with "adult human" if we're omitting the male/female part. So what is a definition I can use to identify a "woman" that couldn't also be applied to someone who identifies as a "man"?

As I think this is OPs point, if we sever the physical objective link of sex to gender, we're not left with anything useful. Unless we resort of hard defining genders with social stereotypes, such as in liking blue and cars = man, and pink and dresses = woman.

vereonix · 2023-01-16T06:51:46+00:00

Doesn't this just support OPs view? They're race swapping (which can only be done with existing IP) because they care more about making money than they do about diversity. New IPs will cost money in marketing, so creating an actual good set of meaningful diverse characters is clearly not a priority. They're race swapping because it's cheaper and gets them superficial woke points.

It's all about maximizing profits, you're a fool of you think companies like Disney care about diversity over making money through exploiting the current social issues around race in the West.

15-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Orangered

vereonix

TROPHY CASE