Your body

[Cain]

Oh man, if I only I had read philosophy for the past 6 years.  Then I would be able to keep up with this conversation.  I don't even know who this Nietzsche fella is.  Name sounds kinda familiar...did he make those garlic sausages that are so popular in parts of Bavaria?

[Dead Kennedy]

What damage specifically has been caused by this war on gender?

I attribute the hyper-gendered behavior that has followed in the wake of feminist attempts to dismantle gender roles to that attempt to dismantle gender roles.

Essentially my theory is that feminist attacked traditional gender roles and made them appear to be "oppressive to women,"  so feminists abandoned them for the male gender role.  They were highly successful in this reframing of traditional roles as "oppressive of women," and most of society agreed in principle.

But as it turns out, this is an unworkable scenario, and creates society wide confusion about what people are supposed to do.  People are, of course, domesticated primates.  They expect society to tell them what to do.  How to think, how to behave, how to be.  Without marching orders they get confused and scared.

The human mind wants to have a box called gender to put things in, so that everyone knows who to fight and who to fuck.  We know on an instinctual level whether we are male or female, and we seek out memes to reinforce that, to make it clear.  We build the box so that we know who to fuck, and how to judge who we fuck.   Domesticated primates want to be able to look at another domesticated primate and know whether that primate is good for fucking.

That's what gender is.  It's how domesticated primates recognize who to fuck, when to fuck, how to fuck. This is why guys who skew towards the masculine ideal-average -- men who fit easily and comfortably into the man box -- get laid more easily and more often than guys who skew towards the feminine ideal.  Meet women's expectations of what a man should be, and you're already halfway there. Fail to meet those expectations, and you'll end up in the "Not For Fucking" box.  And of course, the reverse is true.

When you attempt to prevent people from forming boxes, you end up with people going neurotic.  That's the damage.  

Establish the causal connection of feminism to exaggerated gender roles.

No, because that's not a reasonable request.  I'm talking about social trends, no one has ever successfully proven a causal connection between two social trends.  I can only point to the development of feminist ideas about gender, their exposure to the mainstream, and what the mainstream did afterwards.

If biology determines gender than how do you account for people who are intersex?

I don't. There are only two genders because there are only two sexes.  Intersexed is a big catchall category for a wide range of birth defects. The idea that the intersexed are a "third gender" is just the ideological dogma of the gender warriors.  You'll notice that traditional gender schemes generally do not account for the intersexed.  When they do -- some Southeast Asian cultures, most pre-Christian societies -- the intersexed are generally regarded in religious terms, and seen as specially touched by the gods.  Importantly this role places them outside the pair-bonding/parenting concepts of their society.

Put bluntly, the intersexed are failures of biology.  They are not "supposed" to be, anymore than people born without eyes, or with no legs, are "supposed" to be.    Intersexed people arise due to the imperfect mechanism of DNA and environmental factors that damage the developing fetus.  They have bad coding.  From a strictly biological perspective they are evolutionary dead-ends, mutants who aren't supposed to exist.

Our inherent sexualizing instincts -- the need in humans to have gender roles so that mating can occur -- don't account for the intersexed, because the intersexed are not a reliable part of human society, because they're not a real category.  They don't occur frequently enough to influence the evolutionary development of the mind.

Should we just put them in the ovens?

Whut?

[P3nT4gR4m]

If I hear "cartesian duality" one more time I'm going to assrape a puppy

Here's the deal DK - Mind is an emergent property of biology. Congratulations - you got that bit.

Emergent does not mean "FUCKING COMPOSED OF" This is where you're tripping up.

Yes, some mouldy old philosophy dudes refuted some even mouldier, older philosophy dudes positions on the concept of "soul" but, back then they didn't get the concept of emergence.

Fast forward to 2009 and we DO (all except you who seem to think emergence == composed of)

Best way I can describe emergence for the slow reader is using the old faithful - "made out of" expression. Pay particular attention to the "out" part of that, it'll come in handy later on.

Mind, as a property of flesh is about as useful a notion as flesh as a property of molecules. It's a ridiculously limiting model and fails to appreciate the totality and potential of the emergent phenomenon. For that to happen we have to apply duality and seperate the emergent phenomenon from the structure. We take it "OUT".

What the OP did, with the first line was applied a comedic juxtaposition to stick the mind back "in" the "meatbag" (ironically the argument you seem to be making with your "cartesian" gobshite) but, unlike you with your robotic insistence on adherence to canonical Wittgenstein, she did it with a modicum of style.

Unfortunately you saw "carteshun dooality" and immediately thought religion was on the table and then started bitching and whining about the soul. If you knew us, you'd know that very few people (if any) on this board would entertain such a notion in any context but satirical. But, of course, you don't know us. You prefer to make half assed assumptions based on how smart you think you are.

Newsflash - you're not the smartest person on this board (Cain is)

You're probably not even the second smartest. Given that any statement you've made and the citations that follow could have been lifted off wikipedia or a second year philosophy textbook I can only judge you on your interpersonal and communications skills which, to be perfectly honest, would rank you somewhere in the bottom percentile (alongside Payne and Cramulus) 

[Dead Kennedy]

Emergent does not mean "FUCKING COMPOSED OF" This is where you're tripping up.

I sense a straw man coming.

Fast forward to 2009 and we DO (all except you who seem to think emergence == composed of)

It may be true that I seem to think that from your perspective, but I myself am quite aware of the difference between "emergent" and "composed of."  Any argument based on the premise that I think "emergent" mean "composed of" will necessarily be a straw man argument.

Best way I can describe emergence for the slow reader is using the old faithful - "made out of" expression. Pay particular attention to the "out" part of that, it'll come in handy later on.

Mind, as a property of flesh is about as useful a notion as flesh as a property of molecules. It's a ridiculously limiting model and fails to appreciate the totality and potential of the emergent phenomenon. For that to happen we have to apply duality and seperate the emergent phenomenon from the structure. We take it "OUT".

Yes, and when you do that you have failed to understand what emergent means, and you have engaged in the flaw of Cartesian dualism.  Go rape a puppy.  You cannot take an emergent property "out" of the events from which it emerges.

Emergent properties are properties that emerge ("rise up from") from the complex interaction of dynamic systems.  They are never separate from the system from which they emerge. As soon as you separate the emergent property from its system, it ceases to function.

Think of a car.  Speed is the car's emergent property.  It moves.  Movement is not "composed of" the car, it is an emergent property of the functioning of the car.  You cannot take the movement "out" of the car, because without the car the movement is meaningless.

See,it is in fact YOU that is using the flawed model.  Your model separates mind and body and because you artificially limit your understanding of mind, "you fail to appreciate the totality and potential of the emergent phenomenon."

What the OP did, with the first line was applied a comedic juxtaposition to stick the mind back "in" the "meatbag" (ironically the argument you seem to be making with your "cartesian" gobshite) but, unlike you with your robotic insistence on adherence to canonical Wittgenstein, she did it with a modicum of style.

Wow dude, spew some more nonsense.

The line "robotic insistence on adherence to canonical Wittgenstein" is priceless.  I bet you don't even know what you just said.  I bet you are actually, in fact, so fucking stupid that you have no clue what you just said.

Canonical Wittgenstein?  So what would that be?  Books by Wittgenstein that are actually by Wittgenstein?   What a fucking dumbass you are, trying to sound like you know something about something.

I would bet real money that you couldn't explain what you said in any meaningful way.  I'll bet everything you know about Wittgenstein comes from what I've told you, and that you are making a Hail Mary Bluff Pass.  You're a total fake, a sham, a charlatan. You're some ignorant fucking high school twat who hasn't learned a thing yet.  You have no idea what you're saying.

Sorry dude, won't fool me.  Pulling tricks like that only clues me in that I'm dealing with a preening pseudointellectual asswipe.  You want to go head-to-head with me, you're going to have to actually go READ A FUCKING BOOK FIRST. You can't bluff your way through this.  That might fool your dumbass stoner friends back at your high school, but I'm not going to fall for it,because unlike your idiot friends, I actually do have a real education.

Also the statement "ironically the argument you seem to be making with your "cartesian" gobshite" is a big red flag that say "I was incapable of following the argument."  And putting the word Cartesian in scare quotes only illustrates that you're fucking ignorant. It's a real word.  It means of or relating to the French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes.  That's the guy who said "cogito, ergo sum." 

But you're a fucking piece of shit, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to your dumb ass.  Throw yourself a party.

Unfortunately you saw "carteshun dooality" and immediately thought religion was on the table and then started bitching and whining about the soul. If you knew us, you'd know that very few people (if any) on this board would entertain such a notion in any context but satirical. But, of course, you don't know us. You prefer to make half assed assumptions based on how smart you think you are.

No, I made fully justifiable assumptions based on what I read.

I'll bet you think you wouldn't entertain superstitious notions , just like I'll bet you lack the intellectual discipline to actually do it.

Newsflash - you're not the smartest person on this board (Cain is)

Well, he's at the very least smart enough to not make an ass out of himself by trying to talk tough on subjects he clearly doesn't understand.

You should borrow a page.

You're probably not even the second smartest. Given that any statement you've made and the citations that follow could have been lifted off wikipedia or a second year philosophy textbook I can only judge you on your interpersonal and communications skills which, to be perfectly honest, would rank you somewhere in the bottom percentile (alongside Payne and Cramulus) 

Yes, I have "bad interpersonal skills" because I don't bend over and kiss the ass of jackasses such as yourself, and instead mock you for the fools you are.  I've heard it on every forum I've ever been, and it's always the idiots saying it. 

SO. DON'T. CARE.

Also, accusing me of plagiarizing ideas without any evidence?

You know how fucking CHINTZY that is?  Accusing me of copying from Wikipedia when you have no evidence, just because you're too fucking stupid to make or follow an argument?   That's low.   That's no different than lying through your teeth.

You're a fucking coward, and you only say craven shit like that because you're too slow-witted and stupid to present or follow a serious discussion.   Don't fucking call me a thief just because you're too fucking dim to think for yourself, okay maggot?

[P3nT4gR4m]

At which point did I accuse you of plagiarising? Unoriginal =/= copying. What I was implying is that your premise was the kind of shit that a million and one people can be heard espousing.

Whether or not they copied it or came up with it themselves is neither here nor there, the fact that it's shit is what I object to.

Don't even get me started on "cogito, ergo sum." that shit is three and a half centuries out of date "regurgitatum, ad nauseum" You want to talk geometry then yeah, he did some interesting shit but philosophically he was a fucking primate. Get over it.

Here's where I'm coming from with the seperation aspect. I'm a software engineer (congrats your estimation was about 20-odd years off) I deal with software which is an emergent property of complex semiconductor arrays. My programs use abstracted data modelling techniques which, although entirely dependent on the hardware, have, to all intents and purposes, nothing to do with it in either form, function or design.

To put it another way - DaVinci's Mona Lisa - work of art or a bunch of lightwaves scattering off some dried up organic compounds?

I'm getting kinda bored with you now. You seemed interesting to begin with but really, for someone who portrays themselves as a mastermind intellect you really do seem to have fuck all much to say, aside from regurgitating past its sell by date medieval literature.

Hint: we get pissed off when people regurgitate 60's counterculture literature round these parts. You are a fucking historical pinealist.

Anyway, I'm done with you. Troll away...

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

It may be true that I seem to think that from your perspective, but I myself am quite aware of the difference between "emergent" and "composed of."

Maybe you should learn to say what you mean?

No, because that's not a reasonable request.  I'm talking about social trends, no one has ever successfully proven a causal connection between two social trends.  I can only point to the development of feminist ideas about gender, their exposure to the mainstream, and what the mainstream did afterwards.

After this, therefore because of this.

[mcjof]

I do not believe i am a meat Bag i believe my body has more of a meaning than this, i belive my body has some other use to the univerise, it is not just meant to sit about all day like a meat bag would, i believe i have a purpose...

you may not believe this, and they may think i am just some dumb religous guy and i should really go fuck myself, but this is my opion and please respect it     

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

[Cainad (dec.)]

DK, it hurts my feelings that you didn't address this post of mine, several pages back.

DK: MIssing the point, but in a hilarious way. 

I didn't miss the point.   I don't care what the point is.  The author is an idiot, and points raised by idiots are....idiotic!  There's no ideas in LLOF's essay worth considering, as any point s/he derives from such obviously flawed premises must also be flawed.

You can make a statue out of dog shit, but it's still a pile of shit.

If you don't care what the point is, then your critique is irrelevant.

----

And I see LLOF can't defend his/her position, and is falling back on the time tested defense of jerkass idiots worldwide: snark.

Oooh, I'm sooooooo impressed.

Your sarcasm is very inelegant.

[Raphaella]

I just read this whole thread in one go.   

I liked the rant, I also kinda liked this thread. It gave me much more to ponder than the rant alone did in the first place.

DK I watched the trailer you linked to. I think that it brings up some really interesting points regarding gender. I don't believe that this over masculine guise is a product of feminism though.

Something I did notice ITT aside from all the pomp and snark is that every so often there is a Cain reference that is comparable to the ??sanjay?? references in the Safari thread we started in the Mad Philosophers board. I don't know where I was going with this observation, I just thought I would point it out for the lulz I guess.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Something I did notice ITT aside from all the pomp and snark is that every so often there is a Cain reference that is comparable to the ??sanjay?? references in the Safari thread we started in the Mad Philosophers board. I don't know where I was going with this observation, I just thought I would point it out for the lulz I guess.

I totally forgot about that. Do you suppose sanjay was their sole intelligent member?

[Raphaella]

I don't know. Did sanjay ever actually post in the Safari thread?

[Cainad (dec.)]

That's why I'm wondering. Never saw hide nor hair of that one, but they kept talking about her.

[Cain]

Sorry guys, you're on your own for this one.  I decided that someone who thinks throwing around Wittgenstein and logical positivism references is a sign of intelligence (because like, thats not something every first year philosophy undergrad studies)  should be pitied, rather than made fun of.  And then I did something more productive with my time than poking someone whose interpersonal skills are roughly on the level of an aspie, and sat on my hand until it was numb, then jacked off.

Besides, as you all know, I think there are several members of this board at least as intelligent as myself.  LMNO, TOG, GA, Richter, Cram etc  I just have the time to hang around and read the books, inbetween plotting the inevitable downfall of my enemies.  Speaking of which, back to my plotting book.

[Raphaella]

Sorry guys, you're on your own for this one.  I decided that someone who thinks throwing around Wittgenstein and logical positivism references is a sign of intelligence (because like, thats not something every first year philosophy undergrad studies)  should be pitied, rather than made fun of.  And then I did something more productive with my time than poking someone whose interpersonal skills are roughly on the level of an aspie, and sat on my hand until it was numb, then jacked off.

Besides, as you all know, I think there are several members of this board at least as intelligent as myself.  LMNO, TOG, GA, Richter, Cram etc  I just have the time to hang around and read the books, inbetween plotting the inevitable downfall of my enemies.  Speaking of which, back to my plotting book.

ZOMG!! HE HAS POSTED!! (I came.) 

why is this always about YOUUUUUUUUUUU!

so Sanjay is a she hummm, I did not get to poke around over there too much and now their server is down.

Edit, cause I said so.