Daniel

Excellent! You've got a head start. I'm on my phone. Typing is awkward, let's reconvene Sunday? You and I seem to be online at approximately the same times daily. Best wishes,

Good question. I don't know.

.... Too many jokes ... ... Mind is overflowing ...

It can be, but, rigorous language, as usual prevents ambiguity. The switch on the wall is either on or off, not both, not neither. Law of the excluded middle. That's the foundation.

You're very welcome. Sadly no. I'm not an expert. The only aspect of modal logic that is employed here is a loosening of the restrictions that the phenomena exist here and now. Modal logic permits consideration of what is possible. The universal qualifier "in any possible world" signals modal logic. Wikipedia has a decent article on it, if I recall tho.

I think that's different. Devil's advocate is role-play in the form of: "... for the sake of argument let's say I disagree with you ... " In this case it's first expressing "I am absolutely certain", then later, "well,... my personal over arching philosophy moderates my certainty."

Finding a counter-example is often easiest by looking for the undisclosed assumptions. These assumptions possess possibilities which were not included when producing the assertion. In this case the assertion was simple subject ---> predicate. I introduced a "black-box" in-between the subject and the predicate then I considered what could be in this black-box? Is there anything I can add to the sequence of events which would possibly produce the outcome which is being denied. See here: " ... The ability to bring back extinct animals ... " https://www.mybiosource.com/learn/future-of-cloning/ The same can be accomplished with a mango seed in order to produce an apple tree. MangoSeed ---> AppleTree = FALSE if there is nothing else occurring other than putting it in the ground. That's an assumption. Looking for the counter-example, I introduce a "black-box" in between the subject and the predicate. Then I postulate what could be in that black box which produces the desired outcome. In my mind it looks like this: MangoSeed ----> [ _______________ ] ---------> AppleTree = True ??? I solved it by introducing DNA manipulation into the "black-box" in a future possible world. MangoSeed ---> DNAManipulation ---> AppleTree = True.

It is.

I have nothing more to add. Thank you for explaining.

Agreed. And that is the tenor of the comments you had posted in this thread. Those assertions directed at an individual's choices and identity can be rather hurtful. I can imagine a world where it could happen. It's modal logic.

@NaturaNaturans, Do you want to discuss this?

Noted. You didn't say what you meant. Always doesn't mean always. Never doesn't mean never. Only doesn't mean only. If this is your point of view, and the overarching intention which is governing your posts here, I do not see how anyone would be able to discern that. And this ignores the inherent paradox in what you wrote. If what you're written is true: "I would say every statement can be true from one perceptive and false from another perspective at the same time." Then your own statement about this simultaneous truth and falsehood is false. I don't see how someone can acknowledge that their own words "could be false" from a certain perspective and yet still include the word "every" in their universal declaration. If you know that your statements are false, depending on the perspective, then, using words like "every", "none", "always", "only" are all meaningless. Dude, there cannot be any discussion if you don't say what you mean. Besides it only takes one counter-example to defeat a universal assertion. You really don't seem to have thought through what you're saying. I didn't expect you to be so ... rude. Yes. It disturbs me when good people, smart people, say stupid things, hurtful things and seem completely unapologetic. You disappointed me. I thought more of you.

Here you go. Zachar, male. Nekevah, female. Androgynos, having both male and female characteristics. Tumtum, lacking sexual characteristics. Aylonit hamah, identified female at birth but later naturally developing male characteristics. Aylonit adam, identified female at birth but later developing male characteristics through human intervention. Saris hamah, identified male at birth but later naturally developing female characteristics. Saris adam, identified male at birth and later developing female characteristics through human intervention. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-eight-genders-in-the-talmud/ Rav Ammi suggests, drawing on a pair of verses from Isaish 51, that Avraham and Sarah were in fact tumtumim, and Rabbi Nachman further imagines that Sarah was an aylonit. https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/263046?lang=bi

Little known fact, there are something like 8 genders in Judaism...

OK. This will be my last gripe. There's nothing that is not acceptable? Rape? Bro.... listen to yourself.

Well... that joke bombed. Please disregard... Sorry

Bro, your unqualified assertions, Always, Only, Never... those are very unlikely to be true. They're not universal truth. Where are you getting this stuff from, seriously?

Good grief. That's not true. Awe is spiritual, not ego, and it is a triggered response. All reactions are "triggered". The alternative is stasis. And spirit is not static.

Do you?

OK, ok... Low voice = spiritual. Clearly then Clapton is not God. Not anymore. Thanks for clearing this up. God is either James Earl Jones or that Chicca-Chicca guy. ( chicca-chicca song is below )

The spiritual realms do not have "before". Time is one of the fundamental aspects of the material world. Everything is concurrent in spirit. Any transition that happens in time in the material realm is eternal in the spirit realm. It's always happening. For example: I myself had a birthmark removed from my left thigh as a child. That event, the body modification, is eternal. It's always and forever a part of my identity. Nothing changes that. If a person transitions, they have always and forever transitioned. It's inherently part of who they are, always and forever.

Have you heard of GenderF___ ? I suspect it's more common here in Portland, OR. We keep it weird, here... much weirder than Austin. Anyway, this movement? Aesthetic? whatever it is? intentionally messes with people and incites the sort of strong feelings you're talking about. "SacredClown" sort of behavior, if you've ever heard of that. It really only takes one person. As they used to say: "You never get a second chance to make a first impression" Anyway, there's people out there, in the trans community stirring up trouble for all of us, CIS and Trans alike. It's part of making progress, I'm not blaming, or judging. Just mentioning it in case it's helpful.

Is there a trans community in your area? Do you feel like "the only one"?

I understand that there's an online trans community. Forums, FB groups, etc... Is that true? Are you connected with this online community? I've heard that they can be rather forceful in their advocacy and encouragement of folks to transition lacking responsible vetting. Can you comment on this?

OK Good. That's maybe a good example.