@hanno_sauer@ProfSteveFuller Wait a minute. I love your reply to Steve Fuller's ridiculous concern here. But Boëthius used no such phrase. If there *had* been any occurrence of “vaccinatio” in antiquity, which there wasn't, it could onlyhave meant “cow-ification”, a strange thing to associate with divinity.
Not trying to be abrasive, but name a single thing the rationalists were right about
All I can think of is criticizing some excesses of the left from a slightly different left perspective, which doesn’t count as being right, just (pun not intended) less wrong.
@birchlse Meanwhile, Aristotelians: “What do you mean by 'distinct'? Conceptually distinct but coextensive, or ontologically independent and separable?”
@wil_da_beast630 One common interpretation of “to objectify” is “to treat as a means to an end”. The idea that you shouldn't treat a human being as a means to an end does have at least some compelling defense in Kantian moral philosophy. It might be wrong, but it's not prima facie wrong.
Truly Kissingerian. The problem is that that same answer answers the question “Why must America not remain on top forever?” when posed to any non-American. Some Americans in the past have therefore sought answers that appeal to univerally compelling principles. Not anymore!
Q: Why does America need to be on top, forever?
A: Because imagine Iran, Russia, China, India, or the UK being able to do to us what we are currently doing to Iran
There can be no America First without American supremacy. 🇺🇸
@juan_dla_mancha@BrandonWarmke It surely depends who's writing it. If you foreclose a priori the possibility that a negative subjective experience of a fetal ultrasound could be given an interesting treatment by the right stylist, you probably just don't have much literary imagination.
@BrandonWarmke Trying to stuff reflections that would be interesting in the hands of a Rachel Cusk or a Natalia Ginzburg into the format of abstracts and keywords and works cited and so on can only have laughable results.
I literally can't complete this questionnaire. Virtually every question triggers only a “Well, it depends” answer, but there's no option for that. How can others be so unreflective as to be satisfied by a simple dichotomous choice when facing complex issues?!
@uncle_deluge Ridiculous claim. Diacritics mark distinct letters in non-English alphabets, and what even counts as a diacritic is language-relative. From the point of view of Turkish, you could argue that an “i” is an “ı” with a diacritical dot. Would you have us eliminate dotted “i”'s?
Quite apart from the ID issue, there really is nothing that sounds more like church-lady scold mode than when the trans lobby refers to sex difference as “what's in your pants”, “what's between your legs”, etc. It's in every cell of your body!
Why do we need a sex designation on drivers licenses? I get it on birth certificates and other medical documents because treatments can differ based on sex, but if a license has your name, photo, and birthdate, how is it at all relevant what's in your pants?