Carl-Richard

@blankisomeone If you have mental health issues, be very careful with psychedelics.

The longer you live, the higher the risk for cancer. So we'd essentially need a cure for cancer as well.

Once you start wandering outside what is purely essential, you're starting to move away from health.

It's just as delusional as mystics using metaphors to describe the indescribable. Once you see that all attempts at descriptions are fundamentally on the same level playing field, you can start to appreciate the different frameworks for what they can provide. The naturalistic frameworks are concerned with accurate explanations and predictions, while the mystical ones are concerned with inducing a direct experience of the Absolute. What you're really reacting against is not naturalism, but epistemic naivety.

Both rely on threat sensitivity (actual, perceived, potential), and anxiety skews to the perceived and potential end, which is mostly mediated by neuroticism (emotional lability and negative emotion). If there is anything that lowers neuroticism while keeping "objective" threat sensitivity intact, it's meditation.

The rule for pizza is the more dough it has, the less healthy it is. It's almost pure flour (> 4x more calories than potatoes).

Good. All of his tweets were toxic as fuck.

Please be mindful of how you use charged words like "mental issues" and keep the discussion to the topic and don't make it more personal than it has to be.

I'm not telling you which definition you should adopt. I'm telling you which one I prefer to use for myself, inside my internal world. Again, that does NOT mean that I will purposely reject your preferred pronouns. If it's not a circular definition, then no. My definition is merely convenient, and I'm not pushing it on anyone. True, but don't expect me to use a circular definition. My internal definition of a word, which I don't push on anyone, and which I will easily concede in a social situation, is at the expense of human rights. Ok. You're entitled to your opinion. Just know that there are many opinions on what transphobia is, and that the self-ID definition is only one out of many, and that there exists trans inclusive philosophers who prefer the bio-essentialist definition. I think the issue here is how do we balance those views with our community's views, with the moderators' views, and with Leo's vision for the forum. On top of that, I think that completely shutting down critical discussion on a topic is unhealthy, but yes, we need nuance there as well (we can't have trolls who spam "hehehe trans women are not women, get lost losers").

@bejapuskas Ok. What do you suggest we do from here (not just in this thread, but in general)? Because I don't see it as a feasible outcome that one moderator ends up banning half of the forum (judging by the opinions in this thread alone), including most of the moderators (judging by the opinions of us here and those who responded to your old thread about this exact issue in moderator discussions). There is a definition problem here about what transphobia even is, and I think that me having to explain how a circular definition is not a definition is somehow indicative of this larger issue. As far as I'm concerned, there is one major point that we need to get straight: Should warning points for transphobia be given on par with other phobias, i.e. something analogous to a charged statement that places said group in an overtly negative light and in a non-thoughtful manner (e.g. "women are less smarter than men — end of story"), or do we need to take any specialized measures for transphobia? I've been waiting to hear your opinion on this, because again, I have not yet seen a clear counterargument being presented towards the majority view in the aforementioned thread.

Do the Mike Tyson method (just never swallow it). I don't know

Don't post while high or drunk, certainly not drive

How is your definition not doing that?

In other words, it doesn't tell you anything. "A carpenter is somebody who works as a carpenter" does not tell you what a carpenter is. All you know is that it involves working with something, and it makes no distinctions between different types of work. Likewise, "a woman is somebody who self-identifies as a woman" does not tell you what a woman is. It only tells you that it involves self-identifying as something, and it makes no distinctions between different cases where one self-identifies as something. How so?

It's easy to fall in the trap of perfectionism of trying to deduce the most accurate definition. You don't have to do much mental gymnastics to figure out which one you prefer.

It's not a definition though. It doesn't tell you what a woman is. Now, me expressing a preference for the bio-essentialist definition is not about logic per se, but the fact that it is a definition and self-ID is not has to do with logic.

I think I should've said this instead: it's a definition, and self-ID is not even a definition. Btw, you gave an essentialist definition as well earlier (only based on archetypal traits rather than biological traits), so according to some people, you're a transphobe as well

You actually don't have to be very specific at all. You just need to have a general idea. Definitions will never be perfect, but with a circular definition, you have no idea what it means. It can mean anything.

A circular definition is fundamentally inconsistent, which is what I was referring to. A circular definition is actually not a definition at all. You just want people to not use definitions?

Welcome! My prescription is daily meditation and watching some videos of somebody like Rupert Spira

Which scientists specifically? ?

That is so cool. My MD mom says me feeling good when eating a lot of veggies is probably placebo. No, mom, I'm feeding my little minions ?

Ah, I thought you meant "pre-non-logical" and "trans-non-logical", which didn't make much logical sense

Yeah, same with the logical one

I guess I forgot this category existed for a second :