Leo Gura

What does "pals" mean? What I see from Boghossian is him doing serious epistemic questioning. I don't really know who his "pals" are. Molyneux was banned for talking about race IQ. As a libertarian his worldview is silly, but his videos were nothing bad when I watched them on YT. I consider Ben Shapiro's network worse.

But the whole trans issue is that some people are born as legit edge-cases where their psychology does not match their biology. And your line of logic pretends like these people do not exist simply because your mind is so rigid that it cannot think beyond binaries. It's like you are saying, all ravens are black. But 1 out of 10,000 ravens is blue, and when I point this out to you you say, "Nah, that's not a real raven because everyone knows that ravens must be black." The problem is that all ravens are not black and you are pretending like they are and making appeals to "science". But the science shows that not all ravens are black. No one is making the case that you should stop calling most women, women. The case being made is that you should recognize that your category of "woman" is oversimplified and will have exceptions, and to respect those exception rather than attacking blue ravens.

I don't really want to. Sorry. People are not mature enough to handle it.

That makes it all the more interesting. However skeptical Destiny is, I promise that I am more skeptical than him.

Doesn't bother me. I have no problem talking to an intelligent conservative.

That's not clear at all. You are biasing baby-making over female psychology. There is no reason why one is above the other. In fact, most of your sense of being a man/woman is in your head, not your genitals.

@Bobby_2021 The Chinese economy is not larger than the US economy in terms of the value it produces. It makes no difference what currency you measure that value in. You could measure it in beaver pelts.

Why are you citing PPP? That is not a proper GDP measurement. It's like you go out of your way to cherrypick misinformation.

This is false.

Please keep the wacky shit to a minimum. This is not a circus.

Surmised is not direct consciousness.

Well, that is him saying something opposite. So you'll have to take that up with him. I don't answer for Wilber.

What happens if we cut off a woman's head and sow it onto a man's body? Is that a man or a woman? You see, whatever notion of man or woman you have must ultimately collapse because it never had any metaphysical grounding to begin with. There simply is no objective fact in the universe about what constitutes "a woman". But people want their to be because otherwise their worldview will implode. Here's a mindfuck question you can contemplate: Who was the first woman to ever exist? How would you identify her out of all the other hominids?

That is not solipsism and that is not what Wilber said.

Peter Boghossian has agreed to a convo with me. But it might take months to set up. But I'm excited to talk to him. He's got a great mind.

Lol. Of course. Because society is nothing but taken-for-granted constructions. Society cannot evolve without falling apart.

Cool

But we could invent a whole new chromosome, inject it into your DNA and turn you into whatever we want.

They don't. If there was agreement then why are conservatives freaking out about these queations? A construct within a construct. That's the power of the myth of "science". I only ever have sex with myself

I don't know what that means.

A crocodile doesn't know the difference between tits and nips. And where does a tit end and a nip begin?

I got nips.

Your cat has tits? By that logic a man has tits.

Think about this: How many bits of DNA would I have to change about you to turn you into the opposite sex, or a third sex? And then realize that will be an arbitrary number and could be done in many different ways and does not need to conform to any one chromosome configuration.

Worse than that, it tends to deny that it has any metaphysical assumptions by claiming that metaphysics is nonsense.