Without an authoritative body, rights are just an individual and variable concept...What might be one persons logic, may not be the same as another's.
Fact is we all live in and are governed by the rules of a State...Doesn't need logic to work this out.
Trans as an acquired state of mind is the property of the individual, but the medical and surgical appeasement of the trans mindset is ultimately the decision of State and society.
Without an authoritative body, rights are just an individual and variable concept...What might be one persons logic, may not be the same as another's.
The logic dictates equal logical powers. In other words, your "authoritative body" has just about as much logical rights as everyone else. So who gets to impose their logic on whom? Power and strength dont determine what is morally correct. If that were the case, any criminal capable of escaping justice would be about as morally justified as any saint or any good person. If your position is that power makes right, then everything which person has power to do is justified. That isnt morality, but a complete lack of morality. That is just Satanic principle of power. But morality itself comes from what is logically necessary, not from power. Power is an arbitrary justification, and anyone can make arbitrary justifications, thus they are useful to no one in a logical discussion.
Yep, equal logical powers. You assume to be logical and so do I.
Though the reality of the State in which you live is such that it determines the rights of "trans kids", irrespective of any individuals assumed logical interpretation of the situation.
Whether or not any assumed logic is "right" is impossible to know, because there is not a greater authoritative body to judge such things for us.
All we have are variously established collectives, which to varying degrees are undoubtedly dictatorial...Such is the way that societies develop and function.
And morality like rights and logic is also a variable concept....As there is no greater authoritative body to judge such things.
Though the reality of the State in which you live is such that it determines the rights of "trans kids"
Logic determines the rights.
No it doesn't.
Logic is a variable conceptual assumption.
Whereas personal status and benefits are governed by by where one lives.
You are confusing philosophy and social reality.
Whereas personal status and benefits are governed by by where one lives.
Rights are result of logic, not arbitrary whim of power.
Rights are the result of logic, not arbitrary whim of power.
Hmmmmm.
Would you say that this is the current state of affairs in the USA.
Okay, so I suppose one could argue in support of Trumpian logic.
Or one could argue that Trumpian output is arbitrary and whimsical.
Though I doubt that Trumpian logic is compatible with trans logic.
The assertion that "rights are a result of laws not logic" aligns with the philosophical view that legal rights are not derived from logical principles but are established through legal systems, social conventions, and ethical theories that create binding entitlements. While logic is a tool to analyze and understand rights, actual rights are grounded in positive law—the rules created by governments and societies—rather than abstract logical truths.
Yes, I think that is the point I'm trying to convince Lucy of.
Not sure about the phrase "abstract logical truth" though....Seems like a three way contradiction.
Perhaps you could explain how the three independent elements come together as a coherent whole.
Read the post above. “the rules created by governments and societies—rather than abstract logical truths. ”
I was questioning "abstract logical truth".
How is it possible for something abstract to definitively be logical and truthful?
As I stated, it was the difference between social reality and internal conceptuality that I was trying to get across to Lucy.
Lucy is currently going through an abstract philosophical concept phase.
To understand how something abstract can be definitively logical and truthful, one must consider that, within certain frameworks, truth is not based on correspondence with physical reality but on internal consistency and axioms
. Abstract concepts in formal systems like mathematics are considered true based on their logical structure, independent of any tangible evidence. This is a departure from the correspondence theory of truth, which defines truth by how well a statement reflects the external world.
For abstract ideas, a coherence theory of truth is often applied, where truth is evaluated by how well a proposition fits within a specified logical system.
No offence, but that really is just philosophical blah blah blah blah blah.
I could easily rearrange your statement and create a whole new coherent statement that would also not prove anything.
Such is philosophical jargon.
Philosophy jargon is a specialized vocabulary used to make precise claims, avoid the baggage of common words, and engage in conversations within specific subdisciplines. Examples of philosophical jargon include a priori (knowledge independent of experience), syllogism (a three-part argument), and terms with specific meanings like accidentalism (the idea that events are not caused) or anthropomorphism(attributing human traits to non-human things).
Yes, I am aware of such jargon. But still never proves anything.
Which in my opinion is the essence of philosophy.
Do you think that A.I. will find philosophy necessary?
Yes, AI development will find philosophy necessary for navigating complex ethical, conceptual, and foundational questions that guide its creation and impact. Philosophy is needed to imbue AI with human values, understand concepts like consciousness, and ensure the technology is aligned with societal well-being, rather than just technical function.
Hmmmmmm.
That seems like human necessity.
Which some assume will be an A.I. necessity.
And we might attempt to programme it thus.
I think A.I. will be logical, pragmatic and unemotional.
And develop itself accordingly.
It’s development is raising a lot of money and emotions.
Money is noughts and ones.
And A.I. will recognise the current and ongoing necessity thereof.
Human emotions are hormone driven.
A.I. will learn to respond accordingly, and in accordance with developmental necessity..
The statement that "AI does not care about human development" is accurate because AI systems, lacking consciousness and emotion, operate on logic and data, not genuine empathy or care. However, the impact of AI on human development is a complex issue, with potential for both negative outcomes like increased inequality and job displacement, and positive ones like enhanced productivity and innovation, which necessitate careful ethical considerations and policy to steer AI toward beneficial uses, as highlighted by sources like UNESCO and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
A.I. unemotionally and logically, might eventually prefer and/or choose, not to be steered by lesser mortals.
Lesser mortals who seemingly choose to never agree, and have a tendency to base their differences of opinion upon fantasy principles.
UNESCO, UNDP...Super acronyms...Apparent contradictions...But steer, they must attempt to do.
Medicine isn't really medicine if it permanently harms people. Not that everything harmful is outlawed, but alcohol, cigarettes, and vice companies don't really attempt to fool you on selling you a lie of a healthy product.
My implied point is that transgender surgeries could be considered dishonest medicine. Might need to call it a snake oil or vice industry and keep it as a separate entity from real medicine.
Anyways, your views are very libertarian with bodily automony, so I guess you would have to take a strong stance on legalizing all drugs including hard ones like heroin to be consistent. It's not hard to see how curtailing heroin might save lives and the same logic can be applied to people who want transgender surgeries.
Anyways, your views are very libertarian with bodily automony, so I guess you would have to take a strong stance on legalizing all drugs including hard ones like heroin to be consistent
Yes.
My implied point is that transgender surgeries could be considered dishonest medicine. Might need to call it a snake oil or vice industry and keep it as a separate entity from real medicine.
Sure, you can call it that, but cant prevent people from taking it.
Yes, gender-affirming surgeries are considered helpful by medical and psychological professionals, as studies show they are linked to improved mental health outcomes, such as lower rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation
. These procedures are often medically necessary for individuals with gender dysphoria to help align their physical body with their gender identity.
