What is "kino"?

>my not understanding basic lexicographic principles is the true genius
>my 3rd grade understanding of math has destroyed you all!
t.

I don't see how a recognition of an obvious truth props up troony nonsense.

A woman is an adult human female. An adult is a fully developed human. A female is a person with 2 X chromosomes. A human is a member of the homosapien family. What is a fully developed human? A human that has finished going through puberty. What are X chromosomes? Sex chromosomes with unique dna. This is not circular logic. This is not A = B, B = C. This is A = B = C = D = F and so on and so on. They are all defined by other terms which are defined by other terms and so on and so on, they are not terms defined by themselves.

Circular reasoning is A=B therefore B=A. A = a woman, B = whoever identifies as one. A woman is whoever identifies as one, whoever identifies as a woman is a woman. Faulty circular logic.

That sure is a lot of words you're using to define other words. Now you just have to use infinitely more to prove your definitions are not circular!

>my not understanding basic lexicographic principles is the true genius
>my 3rd grade understanding of math has destroyed you all!
t.

Not an argument.

No one cares. YWNBAW

>Sex chromosomes
no such thing

Now you are arguing that a specific instatiation of a general logical form may not follow a property that the general form has. This flies in the face of logic and your entire comment is really just blather.

Circular doesn't mean that eventually all words end up back at the start, in this context it refers to using a word to define itself. But you knew that. You thought you were being clever, but you weren't. Now you're so invested sixty posts in, you're desperate to get just one person to agree with you or even just laugh at your clever take so you're not the alpha raging homosexual of the thread. But you are. You have become the prolapse.

That is not what circular definitions are. Please consult any mathematician for a second opinion if you would like.

Look, I'll make it simple for you. If we went by your logic then every entry in the dictionary would simply repeat the word again because there are no "atomic words" and so dictionaries would become utterly useless, just like you

Dictionaries define words in a circular manner. It is up to you to prove your claim that defining words circularly is useless; I made no such claim.

>circular.
you're still struggling with that word's meaning, midwit

Mathlet.

language is not math, you midwit

Haha, fricked trolled you all into responding! I know math isn't language, but you still answered like twenty times! I'm the winner!

>Nobody is talking about math except you.
Yes, that's very clear from the nonsense I've been replying to.
The universe may or may not be like math n sheeit, but languages certainly are.

language is not math, you midwit

Yes they are. Just because they obey e.g. Gricean maxims instead of classical ones doesn't mean languages aren't structured objects, and Munchausen's trilemma applies to human languages all the same.

[...]
Haha, fricked trolled you all into responding! I know math isn't language, but you still answered like twenty times! I'm the winner!

Epic, my good sir!

If you want to draw a distinction between mathematics and logic, you may. All my arguments have been logical anyway.

>come back to thread
>troony still seething and trying to derail
ywnbaw

language is not math, you midwit

>

A and B are variables that can have an infinite number of values. A 'human male' and a 'human female' are not variables but constants. There's only two possible variables and not an infinite amount of options. You can't redefine reality, if you think there is an objective truth. If you don't presuppose objective truth everything is malleable.

(You)
>Now you are arguing that a specific instatiation of a general logical form may not follow a property that the general form has. This flies in the face of logic and your entire comment is really just blather.
>>A is defined in terms of B
>B is defined in terms of A

You're presupposing that biological sex can be redefined and interchanged in the first place. Superficial cosmetic mutilations do not change the underlying nature of an organism. If male = A and female = B, B can't be defined in the terms of A. I don't know what kind of logical error that is, categorical or what but it's there. You can't put MALE in a variable like you're programming with Rust and do what you want with it. There's MALE and there's FEMALE. The end.

>A mountain is a big hill
>A hill is a small mountain
This is circular.

I used this example because it was how Merriam-Webster defined the two, until they obfuscated the circularity by making it more than a 2-cycle (it is still circular because dictionaries are written in words. This should be obvious).

You could also have an infinite regress of definitions, though this is functionally impossible in English.

I just like pointing out that playing with the definitions of words doesn’t affect what the words describe.

Changing the definition of a word does in fact change what the word describes.

No, sorry, I think I interpreted you as saying "Changing the definition of a word doesn't change what the word refers to" rather than "changing the definition of a word doesn't change physical attributes of the word's former referents". Assuming you mean the latter, though, it does make me wonder why you resist the changing of the definition of "woman" so much.

You should’ve read the posts, theyre core refutations of transgenderism.

I'm arguing about linguistics, not transexuality.

>everyone who’s seen a woman knows, immediately, what a woman is,
How come transvestigators think Serena Williams or Michelle Obama or whoever is a man when other people don't? Logically, we must conclude one of these two groups has never seen a woman.

I'm gonna let you in on a secret. It's just another way to call them ugly.

Also, for Serena it's to make fun of her clear use of testosterone as a PED.

Does calling a mountain a hill change the mountain into a hill? No. Same as calling a man in a dress a woman doesn’t make him stop being a man.

Does calling the Appalachian mountain range “hills” affect them in some way?

I just like pointing out that playing with the definitions of words doesn’t affect what the words describe.

you know it when you see it like green 🙂
anything that is a woman to me is a woman

You know green when you see it based on the color, hue, shade, etc. So you know a women when you see one based on the what?

It is, it's called oxytocin moron. Don't worry, you'll never experience it.

New job with 30% raise and on track to double my prior salary, wife, first kid on the way, bout to do some nice home remodels. Yeah it's terrible

Certain wavelengths of visible light directly translate to the words (colors) we use to describe them, moron.

Just because you can turn "everything is perception" into word salad does not fool anyone into thinking you actually have a point, stupid.

>breaks out the thesaurus
>writes a bunch of metaphysical babble about how reality=my own personal perception
>act like smug homosexual
Seems how these threads usually go

You're not even saying anything anymore lmao. You're just trying to name drop as many vaguely philosophical and academic concepts as you can to fellate your own ego. It's pathetic honestly.

Keep repeating dunning Kruger, it's funny when you say.

I got a PhD in Philosophy and minored in Mathematics thank you very much, I get that it hurts your social reject ego when people know more than you, but it just makes it sweeter to trigger your insecurities since you're being so smug about your mental moronation
>concepts in your own words
Sure I could go down 3 2000 words posts explaining what a "manifold" is, or you can just google it, since the rest of that post is 100% composed of ordinary language terms

1=1 isn't an axiom, it's a theorem that follows from the axiom of reflexiveness of the equality operator.

Indeed, there are mathematicians studying model theory without equality.

I agree. Trans women are women and this doesn't discredit the definition of woman as adult human female. If pressed, people may refer to a trans woman as a "trans woman" instead of a "woman", but this doesn't discredit the definition just because a woman can be something besides an adult human female.

A trans woman is nothing more than a weird man pretending to be a woman. Stop with the nonsense.

>It's not impressive
Why would you bring this up lmfao unless you felt threatened by this somehow, it's literally the most unimpressive thing you can do, I was just contesting your claim that I just took a phil course or some shit
Why are you gays so bad at hiding your insecurities goddamn

I brought it up because in your insecurity you tried to reduce my knowledge to pseudo-knowledge of someone who just took his first philosophy course, trying to shield your hurt ego from the realization that you are really dumb in comparison to me, "nahh, he doesn't actually know what he's talking about, he can't! he mustn't!", I told you I got a PhD in Philosophy so you can't "handwave" my arguments as nonsense and maybe get you to think about what I said, because you obviously tried to deflect because you're an insecure homo
tl;dr No it was YOU who brought up the notion of credentials first, it backfired, now you're seething, you disingenuous homosexual

I studied in Europe and all in all earned 24k€ during my PhD
>hahahaha u got into debt
Again, instead of going for my arguments you try to "win" in a more global fashion, just reeking of insecurity, I don't understand why all of Cinemaphile thinks they are so good at hiding their seething and their insecurities, maybe try a smug reaction image with your next post, it might look like you're totally not rattled

I don't know what "playing a word game" even means
Your arguments have already been defeated btw, defeated harder than mine

Ok sounds like something no one has ever done and what you think people do because you don't understand how science or philosophy works, do you watch Jordan Peterson videos or something? You talk like you have Down Syndrome

Tbf, this dude is moronic but he never said he's a troony.

Another way to say “playing a word game with yourself” is “performing mental gymnastics.”

>I studied in Europe and all in all earned 24k€ during my PhD

>Again, instead of going for my arguments you try to "win" in a more global fashion, just reeking of insecurity

>thinks they are so good at hiding their seething and their insecurities

Most self aware gender theory defender

lmao you got a phd so you could beat yourself at a word game

Because you're using your little Phd to act like youre some authority and that we should be impressed. Everything you posted is a blatant attempt to show "muh intellect" and you're pissed no one is impressed because you have no actual substance

So our understanding of what a green object is changed with the development of quantum physics and the formulation of the photon as a localized excitation in the EM field, alongside the discovery and characterization of chromophores and opsins in the eye and the signalling cascades that lead to neuron firing in the brain?
Imagine what our understanding of "woman" will be like in 100 years.

The only vague concept is "manifold", a term that has been used since the 17th century commonly in mathematics, physics and philosophy, it is as "vague" as "knowledge", you could just google it and feel less moronic, but you seem to enjoy being a moron who engages in arguments he is not qualified for
>ur ego :~~*
It's not my ego, it's yours that I'm trying to talk about, why are you so Dunning-Kruger? I get the appeal of being anonymous and just talking shit, but you actually get invested in arguments you have zero knowledge about, do you have any strong opinions on the India Pakistan divide too?

Lmao you literally can't help yourself. You're not impressing anyone or helping your credibility. Just say "reality is subjective and based on certain human constructs" rather than writing like a sperg. It still doesnt make you a woman

What is a woman?

A single sofa is an arm chair. It’s a chair sometimes referred to as a couch/sofa because it’s big and upholstered like a couch. A table with nails on the top of it would still be a table, just with nails on it. You can still place something on the table, but not the nails.

Also notice how definitions can get confusing. Is this a chair now? Or a couch? Or something different? A single sofa, a new thing that has been invented that doesn’t fall into either category. But either way we still know what a couch is, a large upholstered piece of furniture for two or more. We still know what a chair is, a piece of furniture for one person, typically with a backrest. We now now what a single sofa is, a piece of upholstered furniture for one person, usually with a backrest. You can create new things, that have new definitions.

But at the end of the day they’re all defined. Now what is the definition for man and woman? You can create more genders too if you can define them. But just like how the furnitures are still clearly defined and differentiated, how do you clearly define and differentiate the genders?

If you cannot place anything on it it’s hit a table. If something is obstructing you from placing things on it, like nails, then it’s a table just with nails on it. But again, we can still identity and define a table.

So how do you define and identify a woman? Maybe that woman has a penis on it, like a table has nails on it, but it’s still a woman and table, just with a penis or nails on it. It’s still a table because the definition as a piece of furniture meant for holding something, it just has nails on it. So what is the definition for a woman? It can still be a woman if it has a penis on it, but why? What makes it a woman in the first place?

You didn’t though. Just because you place nails on a table doesn’t mean it’s not a table anymore. And if it was designed in such a way it can’t hold anything, then it never was a table in the first place.

No, it doesn’t offend my definition. The furniture has just been broken, repurposed, modified, etc. You’re transforming a piece of furniture into something else, but a table is still a table. Are you trying to claim you can transform a person into something else? Like a man can be transformed into a woman? Ok sure, I’m open to that idea. But what is a woman or man in the first place? A table is a piece of furniture meant for holding something, you add nails to it and it’s something else. But we know what a table is in the first place. A man transforms into a woman, but what is a woman in the first place? What is a man? How are you transforming it from a man to a woman?

There are no tables you cannot put things on. It either was a table at first and transformed into something else, or never was a table to start with.

I responded to the ""argument"" (lol, lmao) 5 times already, and I again, I said this 5 times already too, agree with you that there is meaning and that you can't identify as a black person, my whole point has been that for there to be meaning you don't need definitions, because definitions don't exist (in the way you think they do), which luckily is not a problem because we can still have meaningful language despite the lack (and actually BECAUSE of their lack) of ""definitions"", if you weren't such a dishonest culture wars homosexual you'd engage with the arguments in good faith, but I understand its my fault trying to have a good faith philosophy discussion on Cinemaphile lmfao, things are bad already on Cinemaphile and Cinemaphile

Table with nails or uneven surface, or my chair example made out of straws, or a chair that has nails on it, or a chair that per design has a pool of water on it, remember that I only need one (1) counter-example to discredit your absolute definitions, because you insist on definitions as delineating terms (look up the Latin etymology of "define")
You can "identify" as a black person all you want, but it would amount to nothing but societal ridicule, it would bring you nothing, no one would accept it, unless you are somewhat passing as a black person, perhaps if you're Arab or something
You CAN'T identify as a black person if that means embodying a set of necessary characteristics that make an essence out of "black person" or "blackness" or anything like that, because these sets of characteristics don't exist, there is no "metaphysics of race"
You can also "identify" as a woman, it would also bring a lot of societal ridicule, but it appears a lot of people are hoping it would bring them something
You CAN'T identify as a woman if that means embodying a set of necessary characteristics that make an essence out of "woman", there is no "metaphysics of gender"
This is my point posed in metaphysical instead of linguistic terms that "definitions" don't exist, anyone saying "I identify as X" and claims "X" to be something that has a definition is strictly speaking nonsense, the gender ideologues who believe that are speaking nonsense, Matt Walsh is doing nonsense expecting them to define woman - Note that all of this is unrelated to my core argument that definitions are fake and gay, which does not rid terms of meaning, just because there is no strict definition of a "table" does not mean my dog could be identified as a chair, because there is no pragmatics that would allow for such a speech act, the same goes for your equivocation of "race identity" with "gender identity"

>You don’t discredit the definition by modding the the name. A shitty table or broken table doesn’t discredit the definition of what a table is.
Man you are so bad faith, that is precisely my point you fricking moron, you gave the definition that a table MUST be a piece of furniture that you can place objects on, I demonstrated to you that no one would feel compelled to call a chair that has nails mounted on top of it, OR WAS ACTUALLY DESIGNED THAT WAY, or with an uneven top, "not a chair", this isn't a modification, it's a design choice that wouldn't confuse anyone, and even if it was a modification, again, fricking again, it immediately offends your definition because A) it would go against your definition and B) people would still call it a chair
It's really this simple to discredit an absolute claim, please read like 5 pages of Aristotle, one black swan discredits the claim "Swans are defined by their white feathers"

It does though, I can't believe you are actually this dumb holy shit, so again:
A) You define tables as furniture that you can place things on top of
B) No one would refuse to call a table with an uneven top that you cannot place things on top of a "table"
C) Your definition does not hold for all tables and thus is not a "definition" proper

You need to attack one of the premises you brianlet lmfao

And "modifiers" and "transformations" make no sense here, why are you invoking these notions as if they're technical terms lmfao
If I went ahead and designed a piece of furniture that looked like a chair, but had no sitting platform on it, everyone, 99.999% of all living people would immediately respond with "Chair" if I pointed at that and asked what it was, respond to my arguments you bad faith 90 IQ Black person

So you agree your definitions don't hold but you're still insisting on arguing, what kind of mental illness is this? A shitty table = a table = defies your definition of a table = your definition again doesn't work
>Give me an example of a chair with no sitting platform on it
I just did, take your chair, knock out its sitting platform, present it to people and ask them what it is, 99.99% of the time they will say "It's a chair", if you insist they're wrong I'd like to know what authority you're applying to here
The answer is of course none, because language is not an axiomatic system, you cannot reduce the meaning of chair to its constituent terms or to axioms, could you please just respond to my arguments in good faith?
Are 99.99% of all people simply wrong? Do you disagree that they would call it a "chair"? You need to actually present some arguments instead of contradicting yourself

>the table is still there
It's not a table per your definition.

I agree that the table is still there you moron, YOU disagree that the table is still there because you gave a definition that excludes it, how the frick are you all so moronic hahahahaha

>A specific table being shitty does not discredit the definition of what a table is.
Holy fricking mental gymnastics, you are defining objects and then go on to say that objects don't actually have to fall under those definitions, so why isn't a flower just a really really shitty chair? Why isn't an elephant just a really weird chair if X can still be X if it doesn't fall under the definition precisely?
You are so bad faith man, you are changing your arguments so drastically to pretend you have an argument left, you are actually know agreeing with the troony ideologues that definitions don't matter, you are allowing the claim that "Trannies are women yeah but they're just shitty women"
To repeat what you just argued for: "Trannies are women, but they are just shitty women because they don't 100% fit the definition"
My last response to you, you are so fricking moronic and bad faith

I agree. Trans women are women and this doesn't discredit the definition of woman as adult human female. If pressed, people may refer to a trans woman as a "trans woman" instead of a "woman", but this doesn't discredit the definition just because a woman can be something besides an adult human female.

You realize "physical realities" are abstract? Are you a nominalist? If not, how the frick are you trying to appeal to the objectivity of physics when it operates with abstract concepts? What is "matter"? And when you give an explanation of what matter is, what are those terms that you used to explain it? And so on, "anything can be anything" (what a dumb claim by the way) also applies to physics by the same token

Why are trans women still women. What characteristics do they share with women? A broken chair still shares characteristics with a chair, hence it’s still a chair, just a broken. So what characteristics do trans women and women share?

Ok so you don’t need definitions to have meaning? So then what is the meaning of woman or black person? Why can you identify as one but not the other. What is a woman and what is a black person?

>There are tables that you cannot put things on
Would you like to give an example?

Things don't need to be "universal" to be true, kek

>Trans women are an exception to the typical case but are still women
How? What characteristics do they share with women?

Why are they still woman? What characteristics do they share? Bean bag chairs and chairs share in common their mutual unique purpose meant for sitting. What mutual and unique characters do trans women and women share?

Kek 13 seconds apart and we get one guy saying beanbags are obviously chairs and one guy saying they are obviously not chairs. It's over for languagecels.

>trans women are women
>where is that written?
>in the name "trans women"

>100% deflects the argument and changes the subject
Lmfao, LMFAO
Embarrassing, the concept of "woman" is not confusing at all, it just isn't something that can be defined, because no linguistic concept can be defined, because language is not an axiomatic system, it's problematic not axiomatic - Read a book if your little head is starting to spin, I suggest you start with Quine

Can you read you illiterate homosexual? I precisely made the claim definitions don't exist in my original post, you are too ADHD and mentally ill to follow 2-3 posts?
Linguistic meaning exists, no one is arguing against that, but meaning is neither guaranteed by definition nor does it presuppose definition, definitions are ex post generalizations of the pragmatics of language, semantics does not come first, pragmatics does, you also didn't respond to my argument at all, I don't think you understood what I said
Your argument that "definition = meaning" hinges on a dictionary definition, presupposing your conclusion in the very argument, a classic circular argument - My point was to show that just because a dictionary definition states a constative claim does not make that claim "true" about the concept in question, if God were to be defined as the all-powerful creator of the world he does not magically become the all-powerful creator of the world, said object might not even exist - You can find "definitions" of unicorns, does not mean unicorns exist, just as "definitions" do not exist as carriers of meaning, you illiterate, 90 IQ moron
You are a dumb gorilla Black person feeling threatened by the more well read

Speak for yourself. I won't stop existing once I close the thread. You gays overdosed on leftist video essays and high school philosophy classes, all so you can pretend that a man in a dress and greasy blue hair is a woman.

>but that doesn't mean he's an intellectual titan either
Nobody claimed he was. He just made a video to expose the insanity of "subjective reality" that you're helping to enable.

>all of reality is subjective. That's established in physics

Just because you think or experience something doesn't mean it's "real". Crazy that this even needs to be said anymore.

Of course I understand. Reality goes beyond an individuals perception of the world around them, but you don't seem to agree.

I can assure you that reality will persist after you die. You will not be able to perceive it any longer, but that doesn't mean it stops existing.

science has proven that the tree does indeed still fall even if no one is around to perceive it. Sorry chud, science wins again.

>wahh I'll cry and say you're a troon just because science triggers me
I don't care. There are 2 genders. Reality is subjective. Cry to your mom about it if you want.

go publish a theorem then dummy
>all the scientists are wrong!