iNow

You responded to my request for elaboration with a question. That's a bit rude, TBH. Your question strikes me as irrelevant to the point I made, but I surely am missing something. Will you please elaborate further (about your actual point, not with some Socratic method of questioning) to help us close this gap in our mutual understanding?

The insertion of the word "perceived" struck me here. Are you able to elaborate a bit about what you mean, specifically in what relevant ways is the "perceived" identity of a trans person different or in any way "less than" the "perceived" identity of a cis person? Not attacking. Just trying to understand.

First, where’s my pony? Also, What’s on second

And I want a pony, but as The Rolling Stones taught us, you can’t. Always get. What you want.

Lol. Why do,I feel like I’m stuck in a Laurel and Hardy routine?

I see. What changed your mind?

I can explain it for you, but I can’t understand it for you (that was a zinger!) https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Yes. You said this the first time. It was wrong those times too, but not unclear. Merely repeating yourself adds nothing.

That’s a very forceful argument you’ve outlined. Please allow me additional time to consider it.

We seem to have different definitions of “a single word or supporting logic.” “Now” you’re just making stuff up.

Which is just moving the goalposts.

Of course it is. In what specific ways?

My point remains valid even when human perception is subtracted.

Some cdesign proponentsists deny evolution, but creationism itself speaks only to abiogenesis, not evolution.

GPS I see. Please tell me where exactly in our universe we can measure “now.”

Hard to believe you. You also said you weren’t making any claims. Lol

You’re confused (or trolling). Peace out.

Please elaborate. Promise you I’m not. This misunderstanding seems to have been yours since this isn’t relevant to what I said

Others right here in this very thread recognize and accept as valid this phenomenon. Your sloppy language and obstinacy aren’t helping matters. I think you do, and what you really don’t want is to have your claims challenged, criticized, or corrected in any way. This just made me laugh. Very meta.

That much is obvious. You’re wrong, not unclear about your claim.

Arguing is fine, and even encouraged. It’s arguing in bad faith or merely digging in your heels when valid counterpoints are made which grows rapidly tiring. Like this ^ Stop posting to it.

Sounds like a Weird Al parody of Dylan

The problem is the present doesn’t even exist. By the time we sense a “now,” it’s already a stale outdated shadowy construction of lots of different past stimuli and variables. Some of those inputs are 300ms old, others are 700ms old, some others still are from light that was emitted from a star 2 billions years ago… all stitched haphazardly together via a wet meat computer into a narrative we call “reality.”… but it’s not “now.” That happened at least 300-700ms ago.

This is just poor word choice. Call them mental representations or visual constructs instead. The use of “invisible” and “image” here together given their mutually exclusive definitions will only lead to further confusion. Your threshold seems unreasonably high. What specific evidence would you need to see to change your mind on this? Neither is the conclusion that you’re here arguing in good faith if you keep asserting this over and over again despite obvious refutation from others. Are you familiar with the hasty generalization fallacy? It’s too bad you came here to preach and not to learn.

Jefferson had to go and screw that up by making congress pass the 12th amendment. How dare he!