Ah, so that would be the "only if she takes the path less traveled all the way to blasphemy" option
No,
No? So you'd eject any academic who tries to get from an "is" to an "ought", even if she doesn't gore one of your sacred cows, as long as her contention is poorly argued?
and yet again you fail to see that so far, people have been swinging at that attempt here for over a decade, and coming up short to bridge that gap.
If someone could actually bridge that gap, I'd pay it mind. But so far there have been zero successes in doing so, and it's not for a lack of trying.
If you would like to take a swing at bridging the gap, as I said, you are free to do so. I will laugh as you fall down the chasm to scramble back up the side from which you came.
Why do you keep challenging
me to do that?
I'm not the one who derived an "ought" from an "is". That appears to be you. Aren't you the one whose argument amounted to "The student's gender identity
is female. Therefore the professor
ought to refer to the student with feminine pronouns."?
In fact, aren't we only talking about pronouns in a DeSantis thread in the first place because progressives keep preaching progressive religious beliefs like "Transwomen are women" in colleges, and they keep deriving "ought"s from all those unproven "is"s, and DeSantis thinks colleges keep discriminating against professors and students who have contrary opinions, and you think DeSantis ought to butt out and leave the progressives in academia to keep deriving those "ought"s from those "is"s in peace?
You are the side in this trying to establish the ought, though, that we ought treat people differently on the specific basis of what their genitals looked like when they were born.
Why did you write that? Was it
(a) because you can quote me trying to establish that we ought to do that? Or was it
(b) because you are in it to win it and you don't give a rat's ass whether the claims you fabricate about political opponents are true as long as you think they'll give you a rhetorical edge? Or was it
(c) because you're an obsessed ideological bigot who sincerely believes that his ingroup may well all be individuals but his outgroup are all interchangeable parts and when one of them argues for X that proves a different outgroup member is also trying to establish X?
My position on "oughts" concerning which pronouns we refer to one another with is not something you need to consult your mystical inner vision or your feelings of malice towards me to discern. It's stated to the left of all my posts, between "Location:" and "Basic Beliefs:".
So as I said, put up or shut up.
Quote me or quit making trumped-up accusations.
I'm not the one arguing relevant difference unto a set of moral rules.
No? You appear to be arguing that a conservative professor ought to pretend to agree with a progressive religious belief. Is there some comparable conservative religious belief that you argue a progressive professor ought to pretend to agree with?
Or, if you prefer to frame the issue another way, you appear to be arguing that a professor ought to pretend to agree with a student's unevidenced claim when failing to pretend to agree would hurt the student's feelings. Does the professor make some comparable unevidenced claim that you argue the student ought to pretend to agree with when failing to do so would hurt the professor's feelings?
Because if there isn't one or the other of those that you argue for, then you very much appear to be the one arguing relevant difference unto a set of moral rules. And the difference you find relevant very much appears to be who outranks whom on the progressive stack.
I'll note the point is to eject the prostylatization of poorly argued positions in general.
Oh for the love of god! The point of academia was supposed to be to
refute the proselytization of poorly argued positions, not to
eject it. Ejecting doesn't determine who's
right, only who's
left.
Conservatives have a wealth of such, where progressives... Well, we tend to want to progress past poorly argued positions
Well, since we're playing the "Gross overgeneralizations about our political opponents" game...
No you don't. Progressives have a wealth of such too, and most of you show zero interest in progressing past them. The difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives have unenlightened principles while liberals have enlightened principles. The difference between conservatives and progressives is that conservatives have principles while progressives have a stack.