Your body

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

Did anyone BESIDES the PSU gay & lesbian support center get that the point of the rant was that gender is a social construct? That biologically, you are what you are, and the rest is a story we learn to tell ourselves?

Yeah, gender and race.  That's how I read it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The one thing that amazes me about DK is how much, and how vociferously, he writes in response to very little stimulus. Also, how often  he uses variations on the word "idiot". It's fascinating.

And thank, Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster, I am reassured that what I was going for wasn't completely incomprehensible.

[Nast]

So LLOF is a chick.  How much of this sudden onslaught of "defenders" is a case of Virgin Knights In Shining Armor rallying out from their basements to the defense of A Real Live Girl?

 

LLOF has the balls to defend herself. We're just chiming in because you're shitting all over her thread with your pretentiousness. And it's silly.

Copper Carbonate and Obecalp in particular are laughable. Really guys, how dumb are you?  You're acting like a pair of gumbies.  'He sounds like he's in high school!' and 'He just discovered Nietzsche!'  Like either of you idiots knows a thing about Nietzsche.   If you nimrods knew jack shit about philosophy you'd recognize that Nietzsche's psychological critique of Descartes fails to even address Cartesian duality, and that my comments clearly presume not a Nietzschean worldview but rather the logical positivism of Wittgenstein.  But you fuckwits probably don't know who the fuck Wittgenstein is.

NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOUR PHILOSOPHICAL "CREDENTIALS".

We could rub the two of you together and get fire faster than either of you could figure out to make it on your own.  And I'm assuming you both have lighters cause clearly you are smoking something -- my first guess is weed out of a PVC bong.

No, seriously, you idiots sound like you failed high school.  Quit while your ahead.  How about you two leave the "philosiphy" to people with IQs in the triple digit range, okay?  Okay.

OR YOUR IQ. Christ, by the sound of it, you're probably some self-diagnosed Aspie who goes around nursing your high and mighty intellect and then when you fail to deliver, say "I have trouble interacting in a social environment".

Since LLOF said that Felix spoke for her, I'll respond to his comment first:

Dude, you're totally missing it.  She never mentions dualism at all.

No, you're totally missing it.  She doesn't mention dualism specifically, but her entire essay is full of assumptions of Cartesian duality.   As I illustrated earlier,it shows up in the premise of the entire essay.  She claims that "it begins" when "you" are "dumped into" the "meatbag.'

The term meat-bag clearly refers to the body.  The way she uses "you" only makes sense if one assumes Cartesian duality.  "You" cannot be "dumped into" the body unless "you" is separate from the body.  Thus "you" must refer either to the Cartesian Mind, or to some EVEN LAMER concept of the soul.

She doesn't have to MENTION dualism, her entire essay is rife with the idea.  And it's a fucking STUPID idea.

And as proof of it's stupidity, her embrace of Cartesian dualism leads her right into the waiting arms of ego-identification, which is just so wonderfully endarkening an idea to run into on a Discordian forum.

No fucking wonder nobody listens to us.  We don't even listen to ourselves.

Your argument is pretty much bunk now that you've outed yourself as an asshat. You can continue trying to prove your point, but I'll just continue laughing.

It's GARBAGE.

Well fuck you, I liked it.

[Dead Kennedy]

I can see how you got to be the self-proclaimed smartest person on the board.  I can't wait to read your essay.  I'm sure others here can't either.

So far I have posted two entries that approach being what I would call "an essay." Both were met with wide approval and many mittens.

Would you like me to post an actual essay?  I have one I've thought about posting.  It's almost 12 years old, but it's rare that I write essays.  Most ideas are both trite and unoriginal, and that includes most of my ideas.

One of the things that makes me so much smarter than the average bear is that I can recognize that about my ideas, and thus keep them to myself.

You're right, the essay uses Cartesian dualism as a metaphor to contrast personality with physical attributes, but what you fail to recognize is that the use of that metaphor leads LLOF straight into the blunder of confusing ego and self, and ends up endorsing the entirely retarded idea of defining oneself entirely by one's egoic self-image

So when a person uses a metaphor, that person is necessarily endorsing the idea that the metaphor is literally true  

No.  Try reading it again, because that isn't remotely what I wrote.

It would be closer to say that if you use a metaphor as the premise of your argument, then your argument will necessarily require that the metaphor be true.

Though, honestly, I think you are abusing the term "metaphor" here.  LLOF did not use Cartesian dualism as a metaphor -- that would require mentioning dualism -- she simply assumed Cartesian dualism without acknowledging she was doing it.

Did anyone BESIDES the PSU gay & lesbian support center get that the point of the rant was that gender is a social construct? That biologically, you are a pretty awesome piece of work, and the rest is a story we learn to tell ourselves?

No, I saw that you mentioned gender, but from the context I assumed that you simply don't understand the concept of gender at all.  I still think that.  Especially when you say silly things like "gender is a social construct."  Oh Judith Butler, what evil you have set loose on the world.

[Dead Kennedy]

LLOF has the balls to defend herself. We're just chiming in because you're shitting all over her thread with your pretentiousness. And it's silly.

LLOF does not appear to have the balls to defend herself.  She has illustrated that in this very thread by both failing to defend herself (attacking me is not defending her ideas, it's changing the subject (to me)), and by hiding behind all of the Shining Knights rushing to her defense.

Also, I posted a critique of the OP, which hardly qualifies as "shitting all over the thread."  It's all of you knuckleheads that vomitting up these idiotic and inane insults and attacks, rather than simply acknowledging that I have a point,that are threadcrapping.

If you dimwitted troglodytes insist on turning this into a thread about ME, then at least have the courtesy to not blame me for your own actions.  That's probably asking too much from idiots though.

NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOUR PHILOSOPHICAL "CREDENTIALS".

I didn't offer any credentials, you ignorant fuckstick.

OR YOUR IQ. Christ, by the sound of it, you're probably some self-diagnosed Aspie who goes around nursing your high and mighty intellect and then when you fail to deliver, say "I have trouble interacting in a social environment".

I didn't mention my IQ.  I implied that Obe and Copper have IQ's of99 or below, which would put them on the stupid side of the curve.

I'm explaining this to you because you're clearly too stupid to figure anything out on your own.  Thankfully for idiots like you the world is full of geniuses like me willing to hold your hand and lead you through it at a speed that won't overly tax your wee little mind.

Your argument is pretty much bunk now that you've outed yourself as an asshat. You can continue trying to prove your point, but I'll just continue laughing.

I imagine that sounds something like "HUR HUR HUR HUR" with alotofknee-slapping and some drooling involved.

Well fuck you, I liked it.

No accounting for the tastes of the feeble-minded.

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

The one thing that amazes me about DK is how much, and how vociferously, he writes in response to very little stimulus. Also, how often  he uses variations on the word "idiot". It's fascinating.

Yeah, he's so vehemently opposed to the idea of duality that the merest hint of it puts him in full battle mode.  Now that we know he's so easy to set off, we can have fun poking him with sticks.

And thank, Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster, I am reassured that what I was going for wasn't completely incomprehensible.

Thanks for writing it, and you can just call me PMZ so don't have to type that out cumbersome moniker.

It would be closer to say that if you use a metaphor as the premise of your argument, then your argument will necessarily require that the metaphor be true.

Really?  I would have thought that it would have only required that the metaphor be applicable.  So you are saying that a metaphor has to be literally true to be usable, not just metaphorically true?

I wish I was the self-proclaimed smartest person on the board.  Then I'd KNOW these things. <kicks self>

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I am capable of defending myself, I'm just kind of bemused by your posts and have no reply. I'm not sure what the level of engagement you're looking for here is... I sat down the other day and banged out a little rant about something that irritates me, and you want me to rise to the level of a philosophy graduate and defend it as if it were a dissertation.

Sorry, man, I'm not a philosopher. I make pretty baubles out of glass, and I'm more interested in math than philosophy.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Keep in mind that the way you embarked upon your "critique" was to be insulting:

The OP is mired in Cartesian duality and ego-identification.   I could barely keep my eyes open.
---
I don't really care.  You started off with the Cartesian flaw, you can't get anywhere once you allow that.  Once you embrace Cartesianism, you're talking about religion.  I can consult my own pineal gland, thank you very much.

So really, where is there to go with that besides "fuck off"?

[Dead Kennedy]

The one thing that amazes me about DK is how much, and how vociferously, he writes in response to very little stimulus. Also, how often  he uses variations on the word "idiot". It's fascinating.

Well, I'm a professional writer.  Words come easily to me.

And thank, Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster, I am reassured that what I was going for wasn't completely incomprehensible.

Just 95% incomprehensible and 100% pointless.

Here's what really bugs me:  You wrote that piece "Shut The Fuck Up" where you (plagiarize Douglas Adams) rant about people prattling on without any point, and then you write this essay...which is a bunch of pointless prattling.  Take your own advice:

SHUT THE FUCK UP! SHUT THE FUCK UP! SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.
What's the point of your essay again?  That gender is a social construct?

How do you prove that?  What reason do you give us to accept that idea?  OH WAIT!   It's CARTESIAN DUALISM AND EGO IDENTIFICATION!!!   You want us to accept the REALLY AND TRULY RIDICULOUS NOTION that gender is social construct, and the only way you can argue that is if you invoke a concept of a disembodied mind that inhabits the body.

BUT THAT'S WRONG.   There is no disembodied spirit inhabiting the body. You are not DUMPED into your body.  Mind is an emergent property of the body: mind is embodied.

But if mind is embodied, if our sense of self is an illusion created by biological processes, then suddenly we have to deal with a very real fact that undermines your point in a very real way:  men and women have different bodies.  Different brains, and different hormones.  And where does mind emerge from?  The complex interaction of the nervous system (BRAIN) and the endochrine system (HORMONES).

So what does that mean? Oh crap, it might very well mean that GENDER IS AN EMERGENT PROPERTY OF THE BODY.

Now, I'm not saying that gender is or is not a social construct, but if your argument is that gender is a social construct, then it's my duty to point out that you -- like pretty much everyone who believes this half-assed women's studies bullshit -- were required to begin with a quasi-religious and metaphysical premise in order to justify your point.

WEAKSAUCE.

[Nast]

NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOUR PHILOSOPHICAL "CREDENTIALS".

I didn't offer any credentials, you ignorant fuckstick.

Holding your nose in the air and going on about the wealth of knowledge you hold on the subject of philosophy that we clearly lack is giving your "credentials". Note the use of quotation marks that imply a figurative meaning.

OR YOUR IQ. Christ, by the sound of it, you're probably some self-diagnosed Aspie who goes around nursing your high and mighty intellect and then when you fail to deliver, say "I have trouble interacting in a social environment".

I didn't mention my IQ.  I implied that Obe and Copper have IQ's of99 or below, which would put them on the stupid side of the curve.

Pardon my wording. What I meant to say was that you're an arrogant prick who brings the subject of your intelligence into everything.

I'm explaining this to you because you're clearly too stupid to figure anything out on your own.  Thankfully for idiots like you the world is full of geniuses like me willing to hold your hand and lead you through it at a speed that won't overly tax your wee little mind.

PLEASE SPARE US LESSER PEONS FROM YOUR THROBBING INTELLECT!

Your argument is pretty much bunk now that you've outed yourself as an asshat. You can continue trying to prove your point, but I'll just continue laughing.

I imagine that sounds something like "HUR HUR HUR HUR" with alotofknee-slapping and some drooling involved.

It's more of a shrill giggle.

Well fuck you, I liked it.

No accounting for the tastes of the feeble-minded.

Go sit in a corner with your little MENSA friends. We're obviously not capable of interacting with such an erudite being as yourself.

[Dead Kennedy]

Yeah, he's so vehemently opposed to the idea of duality that the merest hint of it puts him in full battle mode.  Now that we know he's so easy to set off, we can have fun poking him with sticks.

I just recognize that Cartesian dualism is an unjustifiable position.  When an argument rests on a premise that assume Cartesian dualism, I know that I am being suckered with a religious argument.

It would be closer to say that if you use a metaphor as the premise of your argument, then your argument will necessarily require that the metaphor be true.

Really?  I would have thought that it would have only required that the metaphor be applicable.  So you are saying that a metaphor has to be literally true to be usable, not just metaphorically true?[/quote]

No, it requires the metaphor to be true.  Otherwise it's a bad argument.

Now notice that you are actually changing the meaning of what I said by eliminating crucial qualifiers.  A metaphor does not have to be literally true to be used for reasons other than premises for arguments. It's only

I'll explain, mostly because I LOVE explaining things:

Here's a metaphor:

My love for you is an ocean.

If I were writing a poem, I could very well use that metaphor in a poem:

My love for you is an ocean, full of waves of love and devotion
My love for you is complex, it’s not just your looks or the great sex.

That's a totally crapsack poem, but it works.  That's mostly what metaphors are for, poetic thoughts.  However, if you use a metaphor as the premise of an argument, something interesting happens:

Premise: My love for you is an ocean.
Premise: Bob enjoys sailing his boat in the ocean.
Conclusion:Bob should sail his boat in my love.

ENT!! ENT!!  WRONG!!!  SEMANTIC CONFUSION WARNING!!!

That, simplified, is what LLOF has done.

She starts with a metaphor as a premise, and then draws a logical conclusion from that premise.

Premise: The mind and the body are separate. (Cartesian duality)
Premise: You are your mind. (ego-identification)
Conclusion: Gender is socially constructed.

That conclusion is only true if the premises are true.  if they are only "metaphorically true" then the conclusion is only "metaphorically true."

If we then act on the conclusion, we are acting on "metaphorical truth" rather than factual truth.  We have substituted the map for the territory.

Thus my opinion that it's a craptacular argument with no convincing power if you recognize what's going on.  And as I've already pointed out, you don't need to know the conclusion to know that it's wrong (or at least not proved by the argument).

[Dead Kennedy]

you want me to rise to the level of a philosophy graduate and defend it as if it were a dissertation.

Sorry, man, I'm not a philosopher. I make pretty baubles out of glass, and I'm more interested in math than philosophy.

If you can't be bothered to learn philosophy, then take your own advice and SHUT THE FUCK UP.  Leave philosophical discussion to people willing to take the time to educate themselves and think seriously before presenting their ideas.

[Dead Kennedy]

Holding your nose in the air and going on about the wealth of knowledge you hold on the subject of philosophy that we clearly lack is giving your "credentials". Note the use of quotation marks that imply a figurative meaning.

Pardon my wording. What I meant to say was that you're an arrogant prick who brings the subject of your intelligence into everything.

PLEASE SPARE US LESSER PEONS FROM YOUR THROBBING INTELLECT!

It's more of a shrill giggle.

Go sit in a corner with your little MENSA friends. We're obviously not capable of interacting with such an erudite being as yourself.

I couldn't possibly do any further insult to your intelligence than you have yourself.

It actually really saddens me to see this crap on a Discordian forum.  I expect this sort of knee-jerk hatred of intellectualism from Rush Limbaugh fans and their ilk, not so much from this camp.

Seriously man, look at where pissing on anyone who dares read a fucking book has gotten the right-wing.  Is that what you want, abunch of drooling idiots sitting around jerking themselves off, terrified of the idea they might be exposed to their own ignorance, dreading that some horrible day they might actually learn something?

It makes me sad. 

[Pariah]

Nietzsche's psychological critique of Descartes fails to even address Cartesian duality, and that my comments clearly presume not a Nietzschean worldview but rather the logical positivism of Wittgenstein.  But you fuckwits probably don't know who the fuck Wittgenstein is.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

you want me to rise to the level of a philosophy graduate and defend it as if it were a dissertation.

Sorry, man, I'm not a philosopher. I make pretty baubles out of glass, and I'm more interested in math than philosophy.

If you can't be bothered to learn philosophy, then take your own advice and SHUT THE FUCK UP.  Leave philosophical discussion to people willing to take the time to educate themselves and think seriously before presenting their ideas.

So... you're suggesting that only people with philosophy degrees should write?