Well then, Mr. 'nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair', by all means produce your semantic border around the concept of "chair"
For what contextual application of "chair"?
I personally don't think there's much in the way of semantic completion available for "chair" in the first place, except in certain inapplicable context.
If we want to discuss what is a chair, we have to define a context for the conversation in the first place.
I.e., you don't want to admit
I admit a vast variety of flaws of mine. If there's something I don't want to admit, I usually push myself to blurt it out, in fact. Mostly this keeps me from doing things I wouldn't want to admit.
Assuming it's the sort of thing people have a right or a reasonable to admission of.
you learned how to tell whether something is a chair by observing what things other people used the word to refer to and applying the evolved talents of the language center of your brain
When I was a child I thought as a child. When I became more, I learned how to put away such childish things.
Definitions derived from such are cluster concepts.
Cluster concepts don't actually serve exclusion to any level of completion.
As an adult, I know well enough to ask, or have sorted it out explicitly, or to only operate exclusion on such terms when there are no edge cases nearby.
, and what you learned was sufficient for you to recognize that a horse is not a chair,
Not really. Even after I typed it, there occurred to me a few contexts where "horse" is chair. That said, the prediction of someone else's desire to exclude it from the context of request is fairly clear: you wouldn't generally capture horse in chair, and there are few cases where horse is "on the edge" except for really sloppy heuristics presented hastily by idiots.
The point still stands that according to that broken definition's context, a horse is a chair.
even though whatever necessary and sufficient conditions for chairhood your language community applies
You realize I'm autistic right? I don't give a fuck what my "language community" wants to do with language, I'll apply it the way it
analytically makes sense, recovering actual representation from whatever manglings other folks make of it.
which you reconstructed when you learned to use the word are too complicated for you to explain
I don't accept that any usage of any word is too complicated to explain. By not accepting this silly proposition, I have in fact learned to explain the usages of words I use to a completion, at least the ones that are not sloppy, and so often called out in my posts, such as "men" and "women", which are themselves generally references to other people's vague cluster concepts and what I expect their heuristic to be, and why it just does not apply in the edge we are referencing.
, because they are too complicated for you to understand analytically
Too complicated for you to understand analytically, maybe. Please quit accusing me in your mirror. See above.
, but this inability on your part
See above.
in no way implies that saying horses aren't chairs is a "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
In fact it does depending on the context.
If I say "can you go get me a chair", and chair in this usage means "something I can sit on", and you brought me a horse, I would accept this result, and you would have satisfied chair.
Again, it depends on whether the definition behind the meaning is one made of a complicated training set presented to a naive system, or the result of such presented to analysis until it yields an underlying semantic system that selects well for corners and edges.
In other words, as things go, horses make better chairs than flamingos.
Meanings of words have pretty much the same relation to definitions of words as riding a bike has to explaining how you keep your balance on a bike and get it to go where you want.
Not when one accepts that meaning has an actual structure behind it, and that structure while often not brought out to a semantic sensible result, if there is real structure there necessarily may be.
Ask 99% of cyclists how they manage not to fall off their bikes and their explanations will be as laughably inadequate as Mr. Linehan's definition of "chair".
Ask me how I manage to not fall off a bike and I could talk your ear off for three days about momentum, gyroscopic force, centripetal force, center of gravity, the effects of weight distribution on bone structure, and the effects on the mechanical structure caused by differential placement of the center of gravity, and layerings of control loops involving proportional and integral fractions.
If you pressed me further, I could describe the general process of training neurons, and how to operate that process on oneself to produce mastery over the above, and the common initial configuration of the human mind which tends to offer subconscious movement in the direction one points their view.
There is a way, it is defined by physics, and math and graph theory, and leveraged through psychology, to learn how to ride a bike. All of it has a describable structure to it.
Consequentially, I've taught a couple folks how to ride a bike.
If you built a robot and programmed it to do what the cyclists tell you they do, the robot would fall off its bike in about two seconds.
Maybe if
you did. You don't know what questions to ask, or how to program the robot in such a way to learn the way they do, from the things they tell you.
I'm not sure I would have the same problem, but then I'm a cyclist and I wouldn't have to ask.
To jump from the fact that "woman" has an ostensive definition to the conclusion that those who exclude somebody from the category are committing a "No true Scotsman" fallacy is the same error as inferring that all those cyclists don't know how to stay up on a bike. They quite evidently do know how.
Evidently not. They can, but they don't know how. Some other part of them that they prod knows how, and they just kind of go with it.
Excluding someone from a category in such a way is a No-True-Scotsman.
It's something a lot of people do, and I generally tolerate it, but not anywhere near
edge cases to a context.
Most people, when presented an edge case to a context that runs afoul of child-minded cluster-concepts, they just kind of "nope" away, knowing that their level of understanding is insufficient to de-obfuscate that edge... or they take the time to actually figure out a more nuanced understanding of that edge.
You treat several oft comorbid objects as a single category when they are not.
This is why I point out that the naive concept of man/woman is in fact a collection of individual highly (but not absolutely) comorbid factors that must each be evaluated and considered individually as to whether it is applicable to a context.
They don't
each have to be evaluated -- there are too many.
No, they each have to be evaluated. And there aren't very many at all really:
Can they make someone pregnant (and is this a concern in the context of use at all?)
Can they become pregnant (and is this a concern in the context at all)?
Are they affected by anabolic steroids (and is this a concern in the context of use at all)?
If so, with steroids, which ones and for how long, and how long ago (if steroidal affect is a concern)?
What have they told you about who they are (and is this a concern in the context of use at all)?
We evaluate some and the results tell us case-by-case whether we need to evaluate others.
And as such you admit you don't actually have such a heuristic beyond arbitrary bullshit.
In other words it's "whatever you need to pull out your ass to claim the scotsman isn't true".
If two children invent entirely different algorithms for recognizing chairs in their process of reconstructing their language community's chairhood function, and a given comorbid factor appears as a diagnostic in one algorithm but not in the other, that doesn't imply one child learned the word incorrectly,
No, it implies there is no one "correct" interpretation of chairhood except in terms of the context of use and intent.
You can take your attempt to hide your massively circular "language community" and shove it.
Most people are mostly right most of the time which of course means that everyone tends to use many words, if not most words, and occasionally all words at least a little "incorrectly" compared to everyone else.
Comorbid factors are in fact at the heart of cluster concepts and again are only hints, not answers, to the thing actually being asked of in the moment.
nor that she's computing a different function
They are literally computing a different function. It is the function specifically of their neural network, with its initial configuration, presented against a training set in childhood. It is a rough approximation in this way of what may actually be a semantically complete idea, or a set of related but ultimately different ideas.
nor that she has different criteria from her language community's
The language community has no shared criterion except those derived from analytics that expose the underlying relationships which drive what is only approximately handled by the concept of the majority.
It misses edge cases in a variety of contexts.
nor that chairhood lacks boundaries.
But it does lack boundaries. For all the above reasons.
Indeed, what is necessary for boundaries is context, and those boundaries must service from said context.
In the first place, I don't know what "pregnancy theoretics" is supposed to mean but just from the name it cannot possibly be a correct label for my position.
Which is why your position is incorrect: you lack the semantic ability to actually address the
individual factors of sex differentiation and isolate which of them are pertinent to a concern, because you have no real semantic structure undergirding your concepts of sex differentiation.
Wait, my position is incorrect because
it isn't "pregnancy theoretics"?
No, I'm saying it's incorrect because the contexts you bring up various things in (the shape of a person's genitals, especially for someone who is taking progesterone and estrogen and suppressing testosterone production), just isn't contextual.
Are you saying "pregnancy theoretics" is the correct position? Earlier you appeared to be speaking disparagingly of "pregnancy theoretics".
I'm pointing out that the one dimension on which it might be appropriate to say to people who wish to enter some private space is "we do not allow patrons who can get people pregnant in the time they are here". Or "we don't allow people who can become pregnant while they are here."
I personally don't consider that to be sex discrimination but pregnancy theoretic discrimination, and it is a valid concern for a number of communities and situations.
It does not get you so far as ejecting a eunuch from a prison full of other folks who happen to lack testicles, no matter how big their member is.
Or do you mean my position is incorrect because "pregnancy theoretics" is my position and I'm just too ignorant to realize it?
Getting warmer: it's the valid position hiding just past your invalid one, which you have specifically pointed to as being based on a cluster concept rather than any kind of solid game theoretic concern.
Your position, which you did not reason your way into but rather found yourself repeating as the catechism of your "community language" religion, doesn't afford the power to actually disparage 'trans folks' but to disparage attempts to invade spaces made to be safe specifically from the risks and concerns associated with
reproduction.
I personally take a dim view of people who walk around all their lives capable of shooting sperms at an egg on short notice, and without personal investment.
If that's what you're getting at, you are assuming your conclusion as a premise.
Nope. My conclusion was always "bomb is wrong because they don't understand their position well enough to lay it out in clear language OR their position is repugnant and based on judging individuals from communities on things that vary between groups inevitably less than they vary even within the group, which is to say unethical prejudice."
You do not know what my position is or what my concepts of sex differentiation are
Whose fault is that? You could just keep digging at your principles to find out if they make sense or whether they are based on religion-level circularity rather than primitive concepts that create foundations of knowledge and understanding, but I have yet to see you do more than wave your hands and pretend that what is apparent to me (that there are various applicable dimensions of discrimination in various contexts but none of them are the 'shape of the genital') should instead be replaced by what is apparent to you (the messy and circular heuristic of the catechisms of "community language", a sea of just-so stories and exposures based on a massive
argument from tradition).
; and you have been systematically misrepresenting my positions pretty much as long as we've interacted in this forum
Clearly not doing that here. You admit outright that your arguments as to what men and women are are based on a naive religion of "community language", such that you think that your attempts at description are prescriptive. They're not.
apparently because you find making up positions for opponents
It's funny. You saying I am making up a position here, or implying it, is in fact you making a position up for me, committing a straw-man argument. Several, in fact, but I'm not exactly counting.
to be more satisfying or more rhetorically advantageous than paying attention to what they say, or maybe just less effort.
Ironic, to say the least.
So how about you explain what position "pregnancy theoretics" is, and I'll tell you what I disagree with in it.
The forum has a search function. I recommend you use it.
