Penn teammate speaks out against transgender swimmer Lia Thomas

[Emily Lake]

I in fact provide arguments all the way back to my principles and philosophical underpinnings.

Your principles and philosophical underpinnings are wrong and incoherent.

I've never even seen mention of such from Emily.

I don't need to rely on "philosophical underpinnings", as my views are based on actual science and observed fucking reality.

I have now a number of times two or greater asked Emily what it is, exactly, that she thinks I said that is beyond reason. I offered my reasons, yet I am as much deprived of her offering of whatever of her reasons as may not be founded on pure fallacy as I am deprived of her criterion of such rites of passage as might define "wizard".

No such criteria exist, because WIZARDS DO NOT EXIST.

Your deep-seated belief that you are Napoleon Bonaparte does not actually make you Napoleon Bonaparte.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's asinine for you to be arguing that any person "ought" to experience puberty based on what someone else's gonads produce in the first place!

I'm not, and to claim that I am is simply making a false statement. Please stop making false statements about me and my views.

I am arguing exactly that any person experience puberty affected by exactly the chemicals they wish, of the chemicals we know accomplish such development for humans, to include, in fact, "none".

Note that the only ought here hinges on the person's own self determination as tempered such that the child is guided to be...

open and accepting with as much of themselves as they can be, and to only seek to change that which is absolutely vital for their own happiness

People's bodies are affected by the processes of the body they have.

Indeed, and sometimes that process involves taking a needle full of testosterone, sticking it in their leg, and pushing down on the plunger once a week or so. And it may! And to pretend that it ought not is silliness and woo on your part.

I'll close with your own message:

It's not even remotely approaching coherence to think otherwise.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your principles and philosophical underpinnings are wrong and incoherent

So, show it if they are. Do the work.

Otherwise you are just saying "you're wrong *thumbs nose*" in so many words.

I don't need to rely on "philosophical underpinnings", as my views are based on actual science and observed fucking reality.

Science discusses "is". You need to reference philosophy to get to "ought" which is where you would need to be to say such a statement as you may wish of the form:

Teens ought not be allowed to modify their puberty

No such criteria exist, because WIZARDS DO NOT EXIST.

For any declaration of non-existence to be coherent, you have to actually show what it is that you think does not exist, by what criterion.

Since you declare that you have no such criterion, I can fairly well declare your position on wizards incoherent

 

[Emily Lake]

Your principles and philosophical underpinnings are wrong and incoherent

So, show it if they are. Do the work.

Otherwise you are just saying "you're wrong *thumbs nose*" in so many words.

It's not on me to show that your imagineered religion isn't real.

I don't need to rely on "philosophical underpinnings", as my views are based on actual science and observed fucking reality.

Science discusses "is". You need to reference philosophy to get to "ought" which is where you would need to be to say such a statement as you may wish of the form:

Teens ought not be allowed to modify their puberty

Again, I'm NOT the one wedging an "ought" into this. I'm not saying "teens ought not be allowed to modify their puberty". I have, rather, said that puberty is a natural process that follows a sexed pathway, and that interrupting that has deleterious consequences. That is an observation of reality, it is 100% "is". Contrary to that, you're the one arguing that teens *ought* to be allowed to interrupt that natural process at their whim, regardless of the negative effects. You are the person invoking "ought", not me.,

No such criteria exist, because WIZARDS DO NOT EXIST.

For any declaration of non-existence to be coherent, you have to actually show what it is that you think does not exist, by what criterion.

Since you declare that you have no such criterion, I can fairly well declare your position on wizards incoherent

This thing that you garnered from fiction, this thing which is a pure creation of imagination, and which has never had any basis in reality... it doesn't have a basis in reality. Stop trying to foist the burden of YOUR fantasy on me.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's not on me to show that your imagineered religion isn't real.

Actually it is entirely your responsibility to show that I have "imagineered" a "religion", if you wish to claim that I have.

I have, rather, said that puberty is a natural process that follows a sexed pathway, and that interrupting that has deleterious consequences

I bolded the value judgement (the ought).

You can't make it go away just by shifting which word you hide it inside.

This thing that you garnered from fiction, this thing which is a pure creation of imagination.

Everything is a pure creation of imagination right up until it isn't. Oftentimes, it is the wizard who is the one who makes it so. It is in fact one of the most important of the usages of the term "magic": "magic: to summon pure creation of imagination into reality".

It is entirely reasonable to read a description which is uncontroversial: "Gandolf is a wizard of Middle Earth".

He is an imaginary wizard, but a wizard nonetheless

Then I might look at another such statement: "Ged is a wizard of Earthsea."

I might even continue in this vein.

Then I can ask another question: what is the common intersection of these? Of course mostly it is the ability to use the difficult-to-understand truths of our reality for the joy of creation and the furtherance of their society, their power to summon pure creation of imagination into reality.

And then we can make an extrapolation: "What does a 'Wizard of Earth' look like?" And even "who is the wizard this author is writing so as to speak to through this metaphor?"

Oftentimes in the first, I see exactly the folks who busy themselves etching precious metals onto formed glass, setting them with blocks of silicon also meticulously etched, waving objects to emit unseen force across over some parts, and then pouring many many lines of very meticulous text through the lot of it, and most importantly through all of this, the power to summon pure creation of imagination into reality as the subject of these discussions.

And then there is the other shoe that must drop: in all the important ways, the "creation of fiction" is based on real people who are as I am.

More than anything, I think this is what bothers you, that there is this dialogue around the power to summon pure creation of imagination into reality.

 

[Metaphor]

It's not on me to show that your imagineered religion isn't real.

Actually it is entirely your responsibility to show that I have "imagineered" a "religion", if you wish to claim that I have.

I have, rather, said that puberty is a natural process that follows a sexed pathway, and that interrupting that has deleterious consequences

I bolded the value judgement (the ought).

You can't make it go away just by shifting which word you hide it inside.

This thing that you garnered from fiction, this thing which is a pure creation of imagination.

Everything is a pure creation of imagination right up until it isn't. Oftentimes, it is the wizard who is the one who makes it so. It is in fact one of the most important of the usages of the term "magic": "magic: to summon pure creation of imagination into reality".

It is entirely reasonable to read a description which is uncontroversial: "Gandolf is a wizard of Middle Earth".

He is an imaginary wizard, but a wizard nonetheless

Then I might look at another such statement: "Ged is a wizard of Earthsea."

I might even continue in this vein.

Then I can ask another question: what is the common intersection of these? Of course mostly it is the ability to use the difficult-to-understand truths of our reality for the joy of creation and the furtherance of their society, their power to summon pure creation of imagination into reality.

And then we can make an extrapolation: "What does a 'Wizard of Earth' look like?" And even "who is the wizard this author is writing so as to speak to through this metaphor?"

Oftentimes in the first, I see exactly the folks who busy themselves etching precious metals onto formed glass, setting them with blocks of silicon also meticulously etched, waving objects to emit unseen force across over some parts, and then pouring many many lines of very meticulous text through the lot of it, and most importantly through all of this, the power to summon pure creation of imagination into reality as the subject of these discussions.

And then there is the other shoe that must drop: in all the important ways, the "creation of fiction" is based on real people who are as I am.

More than anything, I think this is what bothers you, that there is this dialogue around the power to summon pure creation of imagination into reality.

"He is a wizard at Excel" is a figurative use of language.

Your self-assessment of your technical abilities does not make you an actual wizard. It is, in fact, a narcissistic personality trait you are claiming is a 'gender'.

Your language use is not standard, and others have the moral obligation to resist your nonsense.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's not on me to show that your imagineered religion isn't real.

Actually it is entirely your responsibility to show that I have "imagineered" a "religion", if you wish to claim that I have.

I have, rather, said that puberty is a natural process that follows a sexed pathway, and that interrupting that has deleterious consequences

I bolded the value judgement (the ought).

You can't make it go away just by shifting which word you hide it inside.

This thing that you garnered from fiction, this thing which is a pure creation of imagination.

Everything is a pure creation of imagination right up until it isn't. Oftentimes, it is the wizard who is the one who makes it so. It is in fact one of the most important of the usages of the term "magic": "magic: to summon pure creation of imagination into reality".

It is entirely reasonable to read a description which is uncontroversial: "Gandolf is a wizard of Middle Earth".

He is an imaginary wizard, but a wizard nonetheless

Then I might look at another such statement: "Ged is a wizard of Earthsea."

I might even continue in this vein.

Then I can ask another question: what is the common intersection of these? Of course mostly it is the ability to use the difficult-to-understand truths of our reality for the joy of creation and the furtherance of their society, their power to summon pure creation of imagination into reality.

And then we can make an extrapolation: "What does a 'Wizard of Earth' look like?" And even "who is the wizard this author is writing so as to speak to through this metaphor?"

Oftentimes in the first, I see exactly the folks who busy themselves etching precious metals onto formed glass, setting them with blocks of silicon also meticulously etched, waving objects to emit unseen force across over some parts, and then pouring many many lines of very meticulous text through the lot of it, and most importantly through all of this, the power to summon pure creation of imagination into reality as the subject of these discussions.

And then there is the other shoe that must drop: in all the important ways, the "creation of fiction" is based on real people who are as I am.

More than anything, I think this is what bothers you, that there is this dialogue around the power to summon pure creation of imagination into reality.

"He is a wizard at Excel" is a figurative use of language.

Your self-assessment of your technical abilities does not make you an actual wizard. It is, in fact, a narcissistic personality trait you are claiming is a 'gender'.

Your language use is not standard, and others have the moral obligation to resist your nonsense.

I fully admit to my narcissistic tendencies.

It's actually a great part of the topics discussed in LeGuin's A Wizard of Earthsea.

In it, a young wizard does something stupid to rove himself and unleashes a dark thing on the world that pursues him until he finally learns how he must face it.

One of the things that I am forced to acknowledge through my life is, in fact, that circa 2006? 2007? I did in fact let myself get provoked into using the power to summon

pure creation of imagination

Into reality to summon something very ugly into reality, and have since known entirely what that whole book was about.

But it was most certainly written to me, and to everyone who is as I am. I see in my power the power to do absolutely horrible things. I see the fuse dry and ready to be lit quite often to cause chaos. Oh how fun it would be! But that's straight up "evil wizard" trope.

That's the thing about reading. There's another message in those books insofar as "evil wizards are complete pieces of shit, and are something to oppose as a whole society."

There are certainly a lot of good hate letters written by a lot of authors for "Evil Wizard, esquire."

More, in fact, than ever I read as love letters to the "good wizard" and most of those usually involve some incidents for which shame ought be carried regardless.

So I don't do those things because it would be stupid to do those things, and it always will be stupid to do those things, and I have really good reasons as to understanding why those things are stupid: not because I would be opposed but why they would oppose me.

Namely because it infringes on our mutually compatible self actualization, and that this is the common root of villainy, defined as portrayed.

And also, I don't want to be a villain, and recognize that I can be and have been.

I recognize that I'm quite lucky, and recognize that this is entirely coincidence! No woo there. In any of it. Just good, sound principles.

I recognize too that if I had thought any less about core principles, or read fewer of those books, there would be something very bad crawling across the earth.

And the word used to describe the target of maximal empathy, to describe the protagonist in fact by LeGuin, was "wizard". In many ways the title was a work of functional linguistic art: A Wizard of Earthsea. It is open in a lot of directions and by a skillful author, this is a choice. It implies that there are wizards of other places. That there are perhaps wizards elsewhere in other imaginings, and valid for being so. It was only about A Wizard of [a place]. It implies that what makes the protagonist is not the magic of Earthsea but something about who he is, and would be A Wizard wherever he found himself.

So at least she seems to be in my corner.

As to why it's my gender, well, you'll get it eventually.

This derail in fact revolves around the power to summon

pure creation of imagination

Into reality.

Thanks for that Emily. You have given me something beautiful, or well, I guess I've stolen it and made it all my own. You gave me the words somehow without even apparently first understanding them yourself!

Lucky indeed. Though purely coincidence.

Now,

others have the moral obligation to resist

This is an interesting concept.

Where do you get your ought from? Why are you more right in your use of language than me? Others have a moral obligation to resist the shifting of language?

It's certainly not an obligation I have so far derived from language used so as to actually fit usefully into a consistent framework.

I'm open to discussing that, but you just say "Yer Wrong *thumb nose*".

I can say that I have studied my whole life the concepts of language, and specifically the applications you claim, without substantive argument, to be abuse of language.

I built my career around using language precisely and powerfully and to understand the meaning of what I am looking at through all it's layers of complexity, including the physical layers.

So, is this the nonsense people have the moral obligation to resist:

to bring their child up to be open and accepting with as much of themselves as they can be, and to only seek to change that which is absolutely vital for their own happiness

???

Or is it something else I've written? Can you point to it? Have I said anything that isn't completely honest? Or that anyone didn't already know?

Or are you saying people have a moral obligation to resist my identity as "wizard"?

 

[Jarhyn]

Or are you saying people have a moral obligation to resist my identity as "wizard"?

...If they pretend to respect your fantasy... evaluation of your own personality and mental abilities, they do you a disservice and they do themselves a disservice and they set a bad example to everyone else.

So, if you can point out where any of what I have spoken is fantasy other than that that I explicitly demark as such (and I often do, and draw explicit lines around how the fantasy is in fact fantasy!), Then I am all ears.

What great power or trait do you deny of me which I have claimed? Can you point to the violation of mutually compatible self actualization created by me claiming I am a wizard?

 

[Emily Lake]

More than anything, I think this is what bothers you, that there is this dialogue around the power to summon pure creation of imagination into reality.

No, what bothers me is that you are loudly insisting that a board full of skeptics and atheists should accept your delusion that you are able to summon pure creation of imagination into reality... and you seem serious about it. That bothers me. It bothers me that you feel entitled to insist that everybody else has to accept your fantasy... even though we all know it's complete bullshit. It's a degree of self-centered, borderline-narcissistic arrogance that is truly baffling.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's not on me to show that your imagineered religion isn't real.

Actually it is entirely your responsibility to show that I have "imagineered" a "religion", if you wish to claim that I have.

I have, rather, said that puberty is a natural process that follows a sexed pathway, and that interrupting that has deleterious consequences

I bolded the value judgement (the ought).

You can't make it go away just by shifting which word you hide it inside.

This thing that you garnered from fiction, this thing which is a pure creation of imagination.

Everything is a pure creation of imagination right up until it isn't. Oftentimes, it is the wizard who is the one who makes it so. It is in fact one of the most important of the usages of the term "magic": "magic: to summon pure creation of imagination into reality".

It is entirely reasonable to read a description which is uncontroversial: "Gandolf is a wizard of Middle Earth".

He is an imaginary wizard, but a wizard nonetheless

Then I might look at another such statement: "Ged is a wizard of Earthsea."

I might even continue in this vein.

Then I can ask another question: what is the common intersection of these? Of course mostly it is the ability to use the difficult-to-understand truths of our reality for the joy of creation and the furtherance of their society, their power to summon pure creation of imagination into reality.

And then we can make an extrapolation: "What does a 'Wizard of Earth' look like?" And even "who is the wizard this author is writing so as to speak to through this metaphor?"

Oftentimes in the first, I see exactly the folks who busy themselves etching precious metals onto formed glass, setting them with blocks of silicon also meticulously etched, waving objects to emit unseen force across over some parts, and then pouring many many lines of very meticulous text through the lot of it, and most importantly through all of this, the power to summon pure creation of imagination into reality as the subject of these discussions.

And then there is the other shoe that must drop: in all the important ways, the "creation of fiction" is based on real people who are as I am.

More than anything, I think this is what bothers you, that there is this dialogue around the power to summon pure creation of imagination into reality.

"He is a wizard at Excel" is a figurative use of language.

Your self-assessment of your technical abilities does not make you an actual wizard. It is, in fact, a narcissistic personality trait you are claiming is a 'gender'.

Your language use is not standard, and others have the moral obligation to resist your nonsense.

I fully admit to my narcissistic tendencies.

It's actually a great part of the topics discussed in LeGuin's A Wizard of Earthsea.

In it, a young wizard does something stupid to rove himself and unleashes a dark thing on the world that pursues him until he finally learns how he must face it.

One of the things that I am forced to acknowledge through my life is, in fact, that circa 2006? 2007? I did in fact let myself get provoked into using the power to summon

pure creation of imagination

Into reality to summon something very ugly into reality, and have since known entirely what that whole book was about.

But it was most certainly written to me, and to everyone who is as I am. I see in my power the power to do absolutely horrible things. I see the fuse dry and ready to be lit quite often to cause chaos. Oh how fun it would be! But that's straight up "evil wizard" trope.

That's the thing about reading. There's another message in those books insofar as "evil wizards are complete pieces of shit, and are something to oppose as a whole society."

There are certainly a lot of good hate letters written by a lot of authors for "Evil Wizard, esquire."

More, in fact, than ever I read as love letters to the "good wizard" and most of those usually involve some incidents for which shame ought be carried regardless.

So I don't do those things because it would be stupid to do those things, and it always will be stupid to do those things, and I have really good reasons as to understanding why those things are stupid: not because I would be opposed but why they would oppose me.

Namely because it infringes on our mutually compatible self actualization, and that this is the common root of villainy, defined as portrayed.

And also, I don't want to be a villain, and recognize that I can be and have been.

I recognize that I'm quite lucky, and recognize that this is entirely coincidence! No woo there. In any of it. Just good, sound principles.

I recognize too that if I had thought any less about core principles, or read fewer of those books, there would be something very bad crawling across the earth.

And the word used to describe the target of maximal empathy, to describe the protagonist in fact by LeGuin, was "wizard". In many ways the title was a work of functional linguistic art: A Wizard of Earthsea. It is open in a lot of directions and by a skillful author, this is a choice. It implies that there are wizards of other places. That there are perhaps wizards elsewhere in other imaginings, and valid for being so. It was only about A Wizard of [a place]. It implies that what makes the protagonist is not the magic of Earthsea but something about who he is, and would be A Wizard wherever he found himself.

So at least she seems to be in my corner.

As to why it's my gender, well, you'll get it eventually.

This derail in fact revolves around the power to summon

pure creation of imagination

Into reality.

Thanks for that Emily. You have given me something beautiful, or well, I guess I've stolen it and made it all my own. You gave me the words somehow without even apparently first understanding them yourself!

Lucky indeed. Though purely coincidence.

Now,

others have the moral obligation to resist

This is an interesting concept.

Where do you get your ought from? Why are you more right in your use of language than me? Others have a moral obligation to resist the shifting of language?

It's certainly not an obligation I have so far derived from language used so as to actually fit usefully into a consistent framework.

I'm open to discussing that, but you just say "Yer Wrong *thumb nose*".

I can say that I have studied my whole life the concepts of language, and specifically the applications you claim, without substantive argument, to be abuse of language.

I built my career around using language precisely and powerfully and to understand the meaning of what I am looking at through all it's layers of complexity, including the physical layers.

So, is this the nonsense people have the moral obligation to resist:

to bring their child up to be open and accepting with as much of themselves as they can be, and to only seek to change that which is absolutely vital for their own happiness

???

Or is it something else I've written? Can you point to it? Have I said anything that isn't completely honest? Or that anyone didn't already know?

Or are you saying people have a moral obligation to resist my identity as "wizard"?

(Goading removed.)

 

[Jarhyn]

It's not on me to show that your imagineered religion isn't real.

Actually it is entirely your responsibility to show that I have "imagineered" a "religion", if you wish to claim that I have.

I have, rather, said that puberty is a natural process that follows a sexed pathway, and that interrupting that has deleterious consequences

I bolded the value judgement (the ought).

You can't make it go away just by shifting which word you hide it inside.

This thing that you garnered from fiction, this thing which is a pure creation of imagination.

Everything is a pure creation of imagination right up until it isn't. Oftentimes, it is the wizard who is the one who makes it so. It is in fact one of the most important of the usages of the term "magic": "magic: to summon pure creation of imagination into reality".

It is entirely reasonable to read a description which is uncontroversial: "Gandolf is a wizard of Middle Earth".

He is an imaginary wizard, but a wizard nonetheless

Then I might look at another such statement: "Ged is a wizard of Earthsea."

I might even continue in this vein.

Then I can ask another question: what is the common intersection of these? Of course mostly it is the ability to use the difficult-to-understand truths of our reality for the joy of creation and the furtherance of their society, their power to summon pure creation of imagination into reality.

And then we can make an extrapolation: "What does a 'Wizard of Earth' look like?" And even "who is the wizard this author is writing so as to speak to through this metaphor?"

Oftentimes in the first, I see exactly the folks who busy themselves etching precious metals onto formed glass, setting them with blocks of silicon also meticulously etched, waving objects to emit unseen force across over some parts, and then pouring many many lines of very meticulous text through the lot of it, and most importantly through all of this, the power to summon pure creation of imagination into reality as the subject of these discussions.

And then there is the other shoe that must drop: in all the important ways, the "creation of fiction" is based on real people who are as I am.

More than anything, I think this is what bothers you, that there is this dialogue around the power to summon pure creation of imagination into reality.

"He is a wizard at Excel" is a figurative use of language.

Your self-assessment of your technical abilities does not make you an actual wizard. It is, in fact, a narcissistic personality trait you are claiming is a 'gender'.

Your language use is not standard, and others have the moral obligation to resist your nonsense.

I fully admit to my narcissistic tendencies.

It's actually a great part of the topics discussed in LeGuin's A Wizard of Earthsea.

In it, a young wizard does something stupid to rove himself and unleashes a dark thing on the world that pursues him until he finally learns how he must face it.

One of the things that I am forced to acknowledge through my life is, in fact, that circa 2006? 2007? I did in fact let myself get provoked into using the power to summon

pure creation of imagination

Into reality to summon something very ugly into reality, and have since known entirely what that whole book was about.

But it was most certainly written to me, and to everyone who is as I am. I see in my power the power to do absolutely horrible things. I see the fuse dry and ready to be lit quite often to cause chaos. Oh how fun it would be! But that's straight up "evil wizard" trope.

That's the thing about reading. There's another message in those books insofar as "evil wizards are complete pieces of shit, and are something to oppose as a whole society."

There are certainly a lot of good hate letters written by a lot of authors for "Evil Wizard, esquire."

More, in fact, than ever I read as love letters to the "good wizard" and most of those usually involve some incidents for which shame ought be carried regardless.

So I don't do those things because it would be stupid to do those things, and it always will be stupid to do those things, and I have really good reasons as to understanding why those things are stupid: not because I would be opposed but why they would oppose me.

Namely because it infringes on our mutually compatible self actualization, and that this is the common root of villainy, defined as portrayed.

And also, I don't want to be a villain, and recognize that I can be and have been.

I recognize that I'm quite lucky, and recognize that this is entirely coincidence! No woo there. In any of it. Just good, sound principles.

I recognize too that if I had thought any less about core principles, or read fewer of those books, there would be something very bad crawling across the earth.

And the word used to describe the target of maximal empathy, to describe the protagonist in fact by LeGuin, was "wizard". In many ways the title was a work of functional linguistic art: A Wizard of Earthsea. It is open in a lot of directions and by a skillful author, this is a choice. It implies that there are wizards of other places. That there are perhaps wizards elsewhere in other imaginings, and valid for being so. It was only about A Wizard of [a place]. It implies that what makes the protagonist is not the magic of Earthsea but something about who he is, and would be A Wizard wherever he found himself.

So at least she seems to be in my corner.

As to why it's my gender, well, you'll get it eventually.

This derail in fact revolves around the power to summon

pure creation of imagination

Into reality.

Thanks for that Emily. You have given me something beautiful, or well, I guess I've stolen it and made it all my own. You gave me the words somehow without even apparently first understanding them yourself!

Lucky indeed. Though purely coincidence.

Now,

others have the moral obligation to resist

This is an interesting concept.

Where do you get your ought from? Why are you more right in your use of language than me? Others have a moral obligation to resist the shifting of language?

It's certainly not an obligation I have so far derived from language used so as to actually fit usefully into a consistent framework.

I'm open to discussing that, but you just say "Yer Wrong *thumb nose*".

I can say that I have studied my whole life the concepts of language, and specifically the applications you claim, without substantive argument, to be abuse of language.

I built my career around using language precisely and powerfully and to understand the meaning of what I am looking at through all it's layers of complexity, including the physical layers.

So, is this the nonsense people have the moral obligation to resist:

to bring their child up to be open and accepting with as much of themselves as they can be, and to only seek to change that which is absolutely vital for their own happiness

???

Or is it something else I've written? Can you point to it? Have I said anything that isn't completely honest? Or that anyone didn't already know?

Or are you saying people have a moral obligation to resist my identity as "wizard"?

[An ad-hom attack]

Please, address my argument, not my person.

You did not actually address any of my arguments though, so I can only garner that you have nothing of substance to actually bring against it.

 

[Jarhyn]

More than anything, I think this is what bothers you, that there is this dialogue around the power to summon pure creation of imagination into reality.

No, what bothers me is that you are loudly insisting that a board full of skeptics and atheists should accept your delusion that you are able to summon pure creation of imagination into reality... and you seem serious about it. That bothers me. It bothers me that you feel entitled to insist that everybody else has to accept your fantasy... even though we all know it's complete bullshit. It's a degree of self-centered, borderline-narcissistic arrogance that is truly baffling.

I can point to several examples of when I have done exactly this.

I have seen an idea entire, and spawned it into reality.

Doing so, of course, takes work, and it has never not, but then no work of fact or fiction of any merit that I pay any respect to ever claims it does not. Before lightbulbs were a thing they were merely "pure creation of imagination", too as was the ICE, as was the x86 architecture.

Same goes for transistors, and language, and even money.

People decided purely from their imagination to make some thing, and after a bunch of effort, the endeavor usually ends up passingly "successful".

Unless you wish, on this board full of skeptics and atheists, to claim that no person on their own invents or makes new things.

 

[Emily Lake]

Please, address my argument, not my person.

You did not actually address any of my arguments though, so I can only garner that you have nothing of substance to actually bring against it.

You don't have any arguments in there. You have some wild assertions and a bunch of wishes wrapped up in vague language that sounds very much like that spouted by a high school pot head.

 

[Emily Lake]

I can point to several examples of when I have done exactly this.

I have seen an idea entire, and spawned it into reality.

Doing so, of course, takes work, and it has never not, but then no work of fact or fiction of any merit that I pay any respect to ever claims it does not. Before lightbulbs were a thing they were merely "pure creation of imagination", too as was the ICE, as was the x86 architecture.

Same goes for transistors, and language, and even money.

People decided purely from their imagination to make some thing, and after a bunch of effort, the endeavor usually ends up passingly "successful".

Unless you wish, on this board full of skeptics and atheists, to claim that no person on their own invents or makes new things.

None of that is magic, and the inventors and scientists who accomplished those things were not wizards. Please stop humpty-dumptying up the board.

 

[Metaphor]

So, if you can point out where any of what I have spoken is fantasy other than that that I explicitly demark as such (and I often do, and draw explicit lines around how the fantasy is in fact fantasy!), Then I am all ears.

It's all fantasy, Jarhyn. Wizards don't exist. And your self-assessment of your cognitive abilities and personality is not something you have any right to force others to "acknowledge". You explicitly rejected the use of 'm'lord' (or something similar) as a pronoun that you would respect, because it implied fealty.

This thread however is not about you personally so this tangent is derailing it. I will leave it at this: I do not respect your 'gender' as 'wizard', your desire for others to recognise it is entirely consistent with your self-confessed narcissism and nobody should thus respect it, and--inasmuch as some people have gender dysphoria--your identification as trans because your 'gender' is 'wizard' is deeply callous and it's the kind of mockery of gender cultists I would expect from a troll.

 

[Jarhyn]

I can point to several examples of when I have done exactly this.

I have seen an idea entire, and spawned it into reality.

Doing so, of course, takes work, and it has never not, but then no work of fact or fiction of any merit that I pay any respect to ever claims it does not. Before lightbulbs were a thing they were merely "pure creation of imagination", too as was the ICE, as was the x86 architecture.

Same goes for transistors, and language, and even money.

People decided purely from their imagination to make some thing, and after a bunch of effort, the endeavor usually ends up passingly "successful".

Unless you wish, on this board full of skeptics and atheists, to claim that no person on their own invents or makes new things.

None of that is magic, and the inventors and scientists who accomplished those things were not wizards. Please stop humpty-dumptying up the board.

Your claim to which I was responding is

to summon pure creation of imagination into reality

Is

delusion

You have not defined "magic" in any coherent way other than this. I have a few operant definitions, and usually I try not to conflate my spheres as it were, but in that post at the very least I did not even use the word "magic".

I used

summon pure creation of imagination into reality

As the grounding of my claim, specifically.

You are the one loudly declaring that this is not "magic" now, despite the fact that you used that very phrase, the denial of the ability to do what it describes in plain English, and correctly, just as I used it, to describe the vital core characteristic of "a wizard".

Let me repeat (or, you, I guess):

No, what bothers me is that you are loudly insisting that a board full of skeptics and atheists should accept your delusion that you are able to summon pure creation of imagination into reality... and you seem serious about it.

Here you set the goalposts. You accepted a definition of magic and wizardry! Huzzah.

Now when I kick the ball over the post...

Before lightbulbs were a thing they were merely "pure creation of imagination", too as was the ICE, as was the x86 architecture.

You pull it away:

None of that is magic

Oh, mind reader and prognosticator of prognosticators that I may be, I don't think anyone is surprised. They're exactly as surprised when the groundhog says spring is coming on the day of the spring equinox, methinks.

You used a specific term for the "magic" which it is you expect me to be incapable of:

summon pure creation of imagination into reality

That you don't seem to like the stark and utter reality of how I accomplish that is not my problem.

 

[Emily Lake]

@Jarhyn, move past yourself, please.

 

[Jarhyn]

@Jarhyn, move past yourself, please.

After you. (Keep on moving please, and get past me).

 

[Rhea]

This thread has had a lot of very good discussion and provides a place to read various viewpoints.
Alas, the mod team has determined that it has lately devolved to repeated ad homs, goading and insults.

Users: Remember, the goal of the Internet Infidels is meaningful discussion of ideas. It is a violation of the Terms of Use to goad, insult, attack the character of other posters. And why would you? It completely detracts from and destroys your own position, replacing it with something that is unrelated to the ideas.

This thread is closed to further posts.