Tundra

Determinists believe they can change someones mind, because we know that ARGUMENTS are a type of stimuli. This notion that determinism means nothing changes is a strawman. And there is no change in outcome? is there some area of philosophy that FDR is in unanimity about? Because if not, then it seems like a mighty high bar to set, for this one topic, to expect everyone to agree.

How abusive of me to expect arguments on a philosophy board. My mistake. PS: not an argument as it turns out. I made an argument for determinism, you havn't addressed it.

I did read the thread, and you did not demonstrate how the conclusion does not follow at all. If Belief and Desire are the basis of action, and you cannot choose either belief or desire, then how is it that you can choose your actions? Also "thats not how you make a case either" Yeah, you're right. A rigorous argument that I posted is though. Nah, you're way too high up on your horse to feel foolish. Care to cite the post number? Or care to simply explain how it can be that action is based off of belief and desire, and while you cannot choose either belief or desire, you can choose your actions? Nah, probably not, you'll just say something about going in circles, maybe call me a troll (you know, despite the fact that I make arguments) and then post another reference to your psycho analysis of people who disagree with you. (not an argument as it turns out) I even made my argument really simplified, laid out nicely etc. You just have to point to one of the premises which is false, or show how the conclusion doesnt follow.

I love how you totally ignored my argument I made at the bottom of the post. Also If you couldn't tell, I was calling Kevin Beal out on strawmanning, because you're right it IS strange to bring up and mock arguments that nobody is making and act all innocent when someone points it out. You've entirely missed the point of my argument, You cannot choose your ends, and you cannot choose your beliefs, and you act based on your beliefs towards your ends, so where is the choice? The fact you cant choose your desires or beliefs is simply to demonstrate that you cannot act freely, but rather deterministically, since if you accept that we act towards ends, in ways that we believe to be appropriate to reach them, and you accept we cannot choose our ends, or our beliefs, then you must logically accept that we have no choice in our actions. These considerations ARE relevant because they are relevant to action, if you are no choosing how you act, then what choices are you making? Also I love how you didn't actually refute my argument at all, even though I laid it out in such a rigorous fashion that you could easily point out WHICH LINE of it is false, or WHICH LINE of it doesn't follow from another line. You didn't do so. My reason determines, in part, my ends. And My reason determines, in part, my beliefs. My reason therefore determines my actions. But how does this show that reason == free will? Also who are you to talk about being unproductive when you spend time in this thread making psychoanalytical non arguments, calling me a troll, and making 'none exhaustive lists' of arguments that nobody is making? Also for the record, I don't use my reason to CHOOSE, because I have no choice. Decisions are made. Decisions are deterministic. Oh, well I've shown multiple times already that you're wrong, and I will conveniently not share any of them here. (this isn't how arguments work you know...) Where is the freedom of choice? where is the ability to choose otherwise? you aren't explaining any of this. It seems like your bar for "free will" is so low that merely being conscious is having free will. Then you accuse me of misusing the term determinism.

I'm a moral nihilist, not a relativist. Also this is not how I remember it at all. You asked for an argument for moral nihilism, I tried to explain to you that it is mostly a polemic position, meaning that it argues AGAINST other positions. You then cut me off and said since I wasn't going to present an argument I wasn't worth dealing with and then ignored me. When I tried to explain that there are general arguments for moral nihilism but that a general argument is not going to crush every conception of morality that is floating around but there are counter arguments to every individual conception. I tried to make an analogy to atheism, that there are general arguments for atheism, most of the arguing is arguing against individual arguments for god. You didn't care to respond. PS: trolls? How is presenting arguments trolling? "bitchy petty and ridiculous" Are these really adjectives that describe arguments about morality, something which, as I understand it, the FDR community holds as the most important aspect of philosophy. Also Nice Kafka trap, if I DONT argue for determinism you strut around like a pigeon claiming determinists have no arguments, but if I DO argue for determinism then it's a pointless debate that leads in circles, and is some how indicative that your nonsensical psycho analytic non argument is totally true.

Yeah, I know, I hate how Metaphysical Libertarians are always like "God gave me free will! So it's literally magic!" and what not. Whats that? thats not the argument you're making. Well this wasn't supposed to be an exhaustive list, just a list of arguments you weren't making, and the most common ones! This isn't a strawman or anything silly! Anyways.... here this is. A.) when a person acts, they pursue their most highly valued ends through what they believe to be the most appropriate means. 1a.) If you were able to change your desires you could make it be that you genuinely desired to do that which you at the moment, abhor. (if for instance, you did something you abhored for the sake of proving me wrong, it just shows that you value proving me wrong more than how much you abhor the thing.) 1b.) You can not do so. Therefore 1.) you cannot change your desires. 2a.) if you were able to change your beliefs then you would be able to make it so that you genuinely believe that which you are certain is false. 3b.) You cannot make it so that you genuinely believe that which you are certain is false. 3.) you cannot change your beliefs. (this doesn't entail that your beliefs may not change, it only entails that YOU do not CHOOSE your beliefs.) Conclusion.) if 1 then you cannot choose your desired ends. If 2 you cannot choose what you believe to be the most appropriate means. Given A. then C.) you have no free will.

This is such a silly argument. Determinists would likely tell you that stimuli impacts your 'choices' (which are really decisions), deterministically, arguments are one type of stimuli. Because in our experience, talking to humans does change their behavior, but it doesnt do that to walls. I'll let you figure out why. Hmm, I wonder if the kind of people who are generally attracted to metaphysical libertarianism feel helpless / powerless, and in disowning their own helplessness try to imagine that they are more of an agent than they really are. That would explain so much! The not listening, the going in circles, the "it is because I say so" the accusations of "irrational" and being drawn to these debates which go nowhere etc. PS: not an argument. Eh, I have original arguments for determinism, I don't come to the forums much am mostly in chat, but I'll type up some of them tomorrow around this time and share them, not that it matters, you refuse to talk to me in chat, so I don't know why I think it would be different here. PS: neato strawmans dude. Oh man, you really are great at these strawmans, so good you just mix in ad homs too. Amazing. Also of course there are preferred states, because preferences are the basis for decisions (which is not the same as a choice)

Correct translation: There is no such thing as a universal preference, but if you hold the subjective preference that truth is valuable then you might want to consider holding the true belief that all preferences are subjective. No where did Mr. Max assert that anyone OUGHT to believe the truth.

This is what you said you said it involved observing his ACTIONS with other people, and I said that you can be homosexual without engaging in homosexual acts. It IS possible to pretend to be homosexual, just as it is possible to pretend to be heterosexual and many people do that it's called being in the closet. It's not impossible to pretend to be homosexual. Based on what. Saying how I've read your posts in this and the other thread isn't an attack on you, and asking you why you care about the subject isn't an attack either when I read your posts thats what came to my mind. Secondly I'm not lucas or liberalismus and I don't believe I misrepresented your points. You said you can tell if someone is homosexual by their actions with other people and I said that being homosexual doesn't have to do with actions involving other people, it's a sexuality. you can be homosexual without having sex. Just like being a virgin doesnt make straight people not straight. Okay but heres the difference between the religious people and the trans people brains. Trans people's brains fall in line with expected norms of their identified gender. So do you really believe that just by wishing you were another sex and this changes multiple areas of oyur brain to fall exactly inline with that of the other sex? Okay but the studies I linked to you had control groups and have been repeated by multiple people, you are suggesting that they fudged the number of neurons in a section of the brain or the density of neurons in that section of the brain. This just seems like grasping at straws to me. Which again makes me wonder why this subject is so important to you. except they also had multiple different controls, cismen and women, gay cismen and women, people with hormone disorders, people who for whatever reason were exposed to cross sex hormones but were not trans. So the claim that they ONLY looked at trans people is blatantly false and you would know that if you actually read even the abstracts of the studies I linked. You honestly think that people are 'culturally trained' to just 'go along with' trans people? then you are delusional, I hate to say it but you are fundamentally delusional if you think our culture is one of acceptance of trans people. Also I've explained why I don't think that 'study' is useful, just because you can FAKE an illness or disorder doesn't mean it's not real. It's absurd to say otherwise. If I get some actors to fake a disease and then get prescribed treatment does that mean the disease isn't real?

Um... except if they're in the closet, likely nobody is discriminating against them. during and after the transition is when they are likely to face discrimination. you're calling transitioning mutilation here here and many other places you assume that trans people don't have any knowledge about sex/gender. You seem to confuse SJWs/feminists with transgender people. You have made repeated claims that we are trans only because we don't understand biological sex from a scientific standpoint. and lastly, here you are comparing being trans with being racist, being a theist, being a sexist and being a sports fanatic. which seems to be echoing to a degree your above statement that trans people are delusional. So don't claim you haven't made any judgement of transpeople. Also sorry for the double post but it wouldn't let me post this all as one post.

Um... okay... first of all, being homosexual is not an action, it doesn't involve other people. To say that to be homosexual you must engage in homosexual behavior is like saying you're not straight if you're a virgin. it IS possible for you to pretend to be homosexual for an extended period of time, just like it's possible to pretend to be straight. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that it's impossible to pretend to be gay. secondly trans people HAVE submitted to scientific skepticism, earlier in the thread I linked some studies, why don't you look at them, it looks like liberalisums also posted some studies. (and again, transgender is an adjective transgendered isn't a word it's like saying blacked-people. this isn't an argument but it does kind of show your ignorance on the matter.) No offense but that is quite possibly the worst 'study' I've ever seen. That wouldn't prove anything regardless of the results For starters you're acting like being trans is about using certain language, and that you have to be educated in this to be trans. This is just blatantly false. When I sought help for the difficulties I was struggling with as a result of being trans I didn't really know anything about trans issues, the language used to talk about the subject etc. All I knew was how I felt and that I needed some help. next, being able to convincingly fake being trans does not disprove it. you can fake a lot of illnesses and disorders and trick doctors if you've done a bunch of research. especially illnesses or disorders that effect the brain. next, I have linked scientific medical studies that prove that the physical structure of the brain of trans people differs from others. So you claiming that it's just some social construct is blatantly incorrect, and even after I linked that you have the gall to claim there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that trans people are more than some social construct. And your skepticism, to me, seems like more than just skepticism, it seems like you have some serious beef with trans people, thats just what I got from reading all the posts in this thread by you and the thread you made on the subject. If I may ask, why is this subject important to you? it obviously is important to you and you obviously don't have to answer the question if you'd prefer not to. PS: here are those studies again.

full disclosure: I am a transgender person Well because talk therapy and drug based therapy have been both shown to be abysmal failures at 'treating' trans people (PS: transgender is an adjective, transgendered would be like saying... gayed or blacked when talking about a person, it's odd.) What has been shown to work is transitioning. And to directly answer your question, there are a few studies, i'll link them at the bottom of the post, that have proven that trans people's brains are structurally different. Male and female brains (note I'm using words denoting sex here not gender) are different and there are ranges that males and females typically fall into. With transwomen (that is someone who was assigned male at birth and later identifies as a woman) their brains fall into female ranges in many of the important sexed areas of the brain and transmen (that is someone who was assigned female at birth and later identifies as a man) falls into male ranges. These have been seen in transpeople who have never taken hormones too and have never undergone any treatment. since there are a few differnt studies there have been a few different control groups. including: cismen and ciswomen (that is men and women are are not trans.) gay cismen and gay ciswomen were also compared, along with some individuals who were cis but for some reasons either had no sex hormones etc. And it was found that the gender identity of the person (IE: what they FEEL like) was aligned with how their brain was structured. So sure you can look at it as a brain problem because... well it is. But there is no treatment other than transitioning. There is no magic brain surgery, there is no magic pill that can alter the physical structure of your brain in multiple places in severe and serious ways. There just isn't. So the choice isn't between treating their brain or treating their body, it's between treating their body or not treating them at all. Here are the medical studies I promised above: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16870186 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15724806 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10843193 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7477289 These four studies involve an area of the brain called the BSTc which is part of the brain that is sexually dimorphic. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18980961 This study involved a section of the brain called INAH3 and the results echoed the results of the other four studies, transsexuals' brains fall into typical ranges of the gender they identify with not the gender they were assigned. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19341803 This study used MRIs to look at the overall brain structure of transsexuals who had not yet taken hormones, and while this study shows that Transwomen's brains were more in common with men in overall structure, they lay outside the normal range of men. Well I hope that answers your question.