BinaryHobo
hauling up the data on the Xerox line
No bio...
User ID: 1535
BinaryHobo
hauling up the data on the Xerox line
10mo ago
Is an orange apple any part orange? There are many subcategories of orange, but is an apple which has been colored orange in any of them?
I was referring to orange the color alone, not the fruit. Insisting it's an orange would, in fact, be linguistic trickery.
But that's not the part of your comment I disagree with. I disagree with your assertion that the category of "trans women" implies a particular belief of the user of that term. Especially the one you've put forward. I think it's a bad argument.
I don't have a particular problem with your further arguments. They're much better than your original one, you should have lead with them. In fact, I vehemently agree with this part:
Changing the words does not change the underlying reality of what they're describing
BinaryHobo
hauling up the data on the Xerox line
10mo ago
You're just continuing down the linguistic treadmill.
No, I'm positing that the category {adjective}-{noun}, does not automatically imply zero overlap with category {noun}.
We could call it an "orange apple", but tit's still just an apple which is orange.
Correct, it still belongs to the super category. That's why I think your argument is so dumb. Your argument is because people have categorized something into a subcategory, they no longer believe it's part of the super category.
Specifically this part:
well no they aren't because you already gave them a category called "trans women" which you can obviously identify
Your argument, translated into your apple example, involves accusing people of thinking it's no longer an apple because they called it "orange apple". Apple's right there in the name, it's unlikely any human being means that.
BinaryHobo
hauling up the data on the Xerox line
11mo ago
That does not follow. We have tons of sub-categories that are labelled {adjective}-{super category}. As an example "green-apples". They're still apples, but the category of green apples is useful for certain reasons.
This, of course, doesn't mean you're wrong (or right either), but you argument isn't good and it isn't helpful.
The ultimate argument is that the categories of human gender gets weird near the edges, are the parts near the edges part of the super category, part of the other super category, or something else entirely.
BinaryHobo
hauling up the data on the Xerox line
11mo ago
The entire law itself, or are we trying to throw out the precedent that was set with the clever argument? I suppose that's a little more important in common law countries.
BinaryHobo
hauling up the data on the Xerox line
11mo ago
Almost all regulatory complexity is the result of closing loopholes lawyers found in earlier, simpler regulation. Congratulations to them, because all the legal specialists in each regulatory area will be poring over any new, ‘simplified’ regulation with the religious fervour of a leading Talmudic scholar to find out exactly what is implicitly allowed until enough bad news comes out that the current regime is restored.
I feel like we need something roughly equivalent to a doctrine of "oh come on". I realize I'm only gesturing vaguely towards a large area of idea-space, but it seems plain at this point that humans will game any system made of rules made of words until it's completely corrupted.
I'm not a believer in the ability to computerize law, so the only way forward seems to be to rely on the restraint of lawyers...
...ok, well that's obviously not going to work. We need to give them some sort of skin in the game. Something to lose when it goes wrong. As such, I propose, roughly, the following system:
Whenever an argument is deemed "clever", either by a judge or a panel that reviews cases, it goes in front of a jury of 10 randomly selected people from the voting public. If less than 50% of them respond with "oh come on", nothing happens. If more than 50% of them say "oh come on", the lawyer making this argument is shot. Less than 70%, they're shot in the foot. Less than 90%, they're shot in the chest. If it's unanimous, they're shot in the head.
I think that was during the ISIS saga, and it was that the Army and Air Force backed different militias materially
More options
Context Copy link