"water"
you're making me think of the english word"water"
you're making me think of the english word The safer women feel the worse things will get
the PHD was trying to be slimy and tricky and draw confusion between "clear splashy stuff has always been mostly h2o even before we know what h2o was" and ""water" has always meant clear splashy stuff", which are actually two totally separate things
sliver's reply: https://discord.com/channels/343851086026637313/1120775647015477369/1120912451026833428 The PhD is not talking about the reference to the word water, he is talking about water itself. He does not mean water, the reference, he meant the ontology of water itself. This is clearly established as use-mentioned distinctions. For example when I refer to honey, I mean the sweet stuff that bees make. So when I say honey I am not talking about the word or the pixels you see on the screen right now, I am referring to the sweet stuff bees make. If I showed you a photograph of a trans flag and I asked you: "What is does this photo show?" And your reply is "It is a Transgender Flag" and my response is, "No its a piece of cloth with different colors." Vaush probably disagrees that the use of the word 'Women' equates to the nature of womanhood; but to argue about the use of the word water as it relates to the ontology of water is just wrong. While yes the word water is socially constructed, it is a reference to mean the nature of water itself. Vaush sees this as a threat and argues against this point because he does not want him make the comparison with womanhood. But not only does Vaush fail make his point he looks stupid in the process because he is now arguing about water instead of the nature of womenhood. Also he says water in spanish is "Aqua" and not "Agua" which is just dumb.
the problem here silver is that you keep repeating the exact same things without taking into account my responses. it's like arguing with a brick wall. you've said nothing new here. but since it seems like you REALLY tried, mulled it over for hours, etc, i will reply yet again even though this is nothing new.
here's what the phd guy said https://discord.com/channels/343851086026637313/861294233897402418/1106426862072246322
you gave the example, one of your arguments against the biological definition of woman is that we didn't know about chromosomes many years ago. first of all, i don't think biological sex is defined in terms of chromosomes. but let's just use the example of water. maybe we can agree that water is h2o. that was true, even before we knew about chemistry. that was the definition of water before anyone knew anything about chemistry, before we knew about h2o, back when aristotle thought water was just an element, nevertheless.
that's the main part of what matters but the rest of the clip was this isn't true
that water has not always been h2o?
yeah all you have to do is cross the mexican border and over there it's "aqua", that's h2o, not "water"
"aqua" means "water", "aqua" is "water"
here's the problem: i have explained to you exactly what's going on in the conversation between vaush and the phd, and you actually said that that can't be what's happening beacuse it's too stupid and the phd guy has a phd BrotherEyes — 05/12/2023 12:32 PM The non vaush dude is a PhD it literally would be such an idiot move to say water is h20 therefore women are double X chromosomes
. so you don't agree on the basic facts of the conversation between vaush and the phd, so we can't really have a reasonable discussion when you're denying literal things he said. BrotherEyes — 05/12/2023 12:53 PM He doesn’t compare h2o to womenhood
one of your arguments against the biological definition of woman is that we didn't know about chromosomes many years ago
vaush has indeed argued several times that the social category of "woman" has existed for literally forever, but we only learned about chromosomes recently. this is a rhetorically simple way to make fun of the idea that chromosomes define womanhood. but the crucial point here is that the phd is bringing it up as a point of disagreement. phd qualifies it by saying "i don't think biological sex is defined in terms of chromosomes", but he's still working towards his argument that biological sex defines womanhood, in disagreement with vaush, just that it is not strictly literally just whether your chromosomes are "XX" (biological sex is more complicated than that, as he admits). he's bringing up a comparison to water to stupidly try and attack vaush's point about the social category of womanhood. CSS was always DHMO even before we realized it, but that doesn't mean that "w a t e r" the english word must objectively strictly mean DHMO. those are two unrelated things that phd is trying to blur together. by phd's argument, we should drink DHMO (or, we shouldn't treat normal water (with minerals) as water) because we discovered after the fact that our social category (CSS) is actually 99%+ accurately described by DHMO, but that's stupid and we'd die since CSS isn't strictly entirely DHMO, they are just mostly similar, and CSS is the actual thing that we (socially) care about, not DHMO. conversely, by phd's argument, trans women aren't women (or, shouldn't be treated as women) because we discovered after the fact that our social category (woman) is actually 99%+ accurately described by biologically female sex (mostly as determined by karyotype of chromosomes), but that's stupid since womanhood isn't strictly entirely genes, they are just mostly similar, and womanhood is the actual thing that we (socially) care about, not genetics.BrotherEyes — 05/12/2023 12:53 PM He doesn’t compare h2o to womenhood
and BrotherEyes — 05/12/2023 12:32 PM The non vaush dude is a PhD it literally would be such an idiot move to say water is h20 therefore women are double X chromosomes
lmfao. you do realize that in the broader context this multi hour long debate the phd guy IS going for a biological essentialism argument that the english word "w o m a n" is biologically defined and not socially defined? even though phd doesn't think it's literally "just" chromosomes he still thinks it's biological sex as defined in DNA. silver you yourself agree that words are socially constructed so it's BAFFLING that you're taking the phd's side.
vaush has indeed argued several times that the social category of "woman" has existed for literally forever, but we only learned about chromosomes recently. this is a rhetorically simple way to make fun of the idea that chromosomes define womanhood.
one of your arguments against the biological definition of woman is that we didn't know about chromosomes many years ago
vaush has indeed argued several times that the social category of "woman" has existed for literally forever, but we only learned about chromosomes recently. this is a rhetorically simple way to make fun of the idea that chromosomes define womanhood. but the crucial point here is that the phd is bringing it up as a point of disagreement. phd qualifies it by saying "i don't think biological sex is defined in terms of chromosomes", but he's still working towards his argument that biological sex defines womanhood, in disagreement with vaush, just that it is not strictly literally just whether your chromosomes are "XX" (biological sex is more complicated than that, as he admits). he's bringing up a comparison to water to stupidly try and attack vaush's point about the social category of womanhood. CSS was always DHMO even before we realized it, but that doesn't mean that "w a t e r" the english word must objectively strictly mean DHMO. those are two unrelated things that phd is trying to blur together. by phd's argument, we should drink DHMO (or, we shouldn't treat normal water (with minerals) as water) because we discovered after the fact that our social category (CSS) is actually 99%+ accurately described by DHMO, but that's stupid and we'd die since CSS isn't strictly entirely DHMO, they are just mostly similar, and CSS is the actual thing that we (socially) care about, not DHMO. conversely, by phd's argument, trans women aren't women (or, shouldn't be treated as women) because we discovered after the fact that our social category (woman) is actually 99%+ accurately described by biologically female sex (mostly as determined by karyotype of chromosomes), but that's stupid since womanhood isn't strictly entirely genes, they are just mostly similar, and womanhood is the actual thing that we (socially) care about, not genetics. invented by humans
. silver thinks categories and definitions were discovered by humans
which is a totally different thingdidnt read
BrotherEyes — 05/12/2023 12:32 PM The non vaush dude is a PhD it literally would be such an idiot move to say water is h20 therefore women are double X chromosomes.
and BrotherEyes — 05/12/2023 12:53 PM He doesn’t compare h2o to womanhood.
He is not comparing H20 to women he is comparing that the are STRICT definitions of both USES not their MENTIONS. He is arguing that what humans do socially, does not have an effect. Furthermore leijurv still does not understand what I meant and he writes:the phd's comparison implies that since the definition of the word "water" has something to do with chemistry, therefore the definition of "woman" should have something to do with biology.
It can be assumed he is trying to make such a comparison but not about the ACTUAL WORDS THEMSELVES. you already admitted that the actual words themselves have no bearing. I think your inference is a safe one to make but in no way is it "slimy" to be comparing the two because anyone with a brain could simply just respond when he finishes his point about water that does not apply to women. I think Vaush is doing this deliberately so he does not have to argue about what makes up the nature of womanhood. He is clearly using the comparison to serve that there are objective facts like water is h20.
and your main point is very bad
that uses cannot have definitions
how am i supposed to read this other than "you're wrong leijurv, uses CAN have definitions"He is not comparing H20 to women he is comparing that the are STRICT definitions of both USES not their MENTIONS.
what is the "STRICT definition of USE" for 'water' and 'woman'He is not comparing H20 to women he is comparing that the are STRICT definitions of both USES not their MENTIONS.
what is the "STRICT definition of USE" for 'water' and 'woman' He is not comparing H20 to women he is comparing that the are STRICT definitions of both USES not their MENTIONS.
in a way that makes senseI disagree that he is comparing the MENTIONS of the word "water" and "women" I AGREE that he is comparing the both have ONTOLOGOICAL natures which cannot be changed.
they don't. "woman" and "water", as categorizations of reality, are human inventions, not human discoveriesHe would not be able to draw a strict definition of what water is nor would he be able to for women.
Why would the PhD argue that the mention of the word water has a strict definition in which anyone with a sane brain knows otherwise?
yeah exactly, the phd's entire argument in this multi hour debate is DUMB AS FUCK, he's trying to argue trans woman aren't woman (a semantic claim!) because of biologyIt can be assumed he is trying to make such a comparison but not about the ACTUAL WORDS THEMSELVES.
oh really lmao, what thena colorless, transparent, odorless liquid that forms the seas, lakes, rivers, and rain and is the basis of the fluids of living organisms.
except for some very specific / constructed concepts in mathematics and particle physics
except for some very specific / constructed concepts in mathematics and particle physics
words are invented
He is not comparing H20 to women he is comparing that the are STRICT definitions of both USES not their MENTIONS.
honestly, once you move beyond like, math, and some basic particle physics, theres essentially nothing in this universe that has an ontologically precise definition
in my INITIAL REPLY LAST MONTH TO THE VAUSH VIDEOUndergraduates were recruited for a study, ostensibly consisting of a series of unrelated measures, in exchange for $25. Participants were pre-screened by telephone for history of neurological disorders and other contraindications to TMS, as well as for political orientation, ethnicity and US citizenship. As has been done in similar ways in prior studies employing this measure of intergroup bias ( McGregor et al. , 1998 ; Greenberg et al. , 2001 ; Navarrete et al. , 2004 ; Holbrook et al. , 2011 ), to ensure that participants would respond aversively to a Latino immigrant’s criticisms of the USA, those who identified as ‘extremely liberal’ or as non-US citizens were excluded from participating, and four individuals who self-identified as ‘Hispanic/Latino’ after participating were dropped prior to analysis. 2 The final sample consisted of 38 participants (58% female, Mage = 20.9 years, s.d. = 2.67). About 36.8% of the participants identified as White, 36.8% as East Asian, 13.2% as South Asian, 7.9% as Middle Eastern and 5.3% as Other. As intended, the sample was politically moderate ( M = 4.68, s.d. = 1.51; 1 = ‘Extremely Liberal’; 5 = ‘Moderate’; 9 = ‘Extremely Conservative’).
“And for what? You really think that you’re changing the environment with these eight or nine pizza ovens?!” the restaurateur added.
based angry nyc manBrother leijurv — Today at 10:46 AM
hello how are you doing
Clyde
AI
— Today at 10:47 AM
Entropy: Meow, hello there, Brother leijurv! Mommy Entropy is doing just purrfectly fine, thank you for asking. How about you, my dear kitten? Is there anything I can help you with today? Meow!
Brother leijurv — Today at 10:46 AM
hello how are you doing
Clyde
AI
— Today at 10:47 AM
Entropy: Meow, hello there, Brother leijurv! Mommy Entropy is doing just purrfectly fine, thank you for asking. How about you, my dear kitten? Is there anything I can help you with today? Meow!
the likely side-effect of the 2020 regulations to cut air pollution from shipping is to increase global temperatures by around 0.05C by 2050. This is equivalent to approximately two additional years of emissions.
Drivers of climate change from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019. There was no significant contribution from internal variability or solar and volcanic drivers.