Your body

[Akara]

Dead kennedy:

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1829648

this video reminds me of you. alot.

P.S.
Nigel, i <3 your original rant.

[zen_magick]

Hey DK, that's a pretty sexy intellect ya got there.

Wink, Wink....

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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.

When you accused me of "lifting" my arguments from wikipedia or textbooks.

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 that shit is three and a half centuries out of date "regurgitatum, ad nauseum" You want to talk geometry then yeah, he did some interesting shit but philosophically he was a fucking primate.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.

Actually that's my point.   You seem to think that I am arguing in favor of Cartesian duality, which I can only explain by assuming you're a fucking moron who hasn't actually been reading the thread. 

'fucking moron' isn't a very useful way of communicating. In fact, one could argue that it shows a lack of intelligence, as the noise ratio is far higher than the signal in your comments due to that sort of thing. I mean, do as you will... but it might be something to consider.

[Dead Kennedy]

The most interesting thing is that because of a choice of rhetoric, you immediately conclude that the entire post is invalid.  The problem being, of course, that the original post was not a formulation of pure logic, nor of pure philosophy.

That's not really a "problem."  Labeling it a problem is a weak defense for someone who is clearly not a deep thinker.   You're right, it was not a "formulation of pure logic," but it was still an argument. It had all of the necessary elements of an argument:  A premise, an argument, a conclusion.

See, when you say "the original post was not a formulation of pure logic, nor of pure philosophy" it seems to me that what you're doing is essentially saying "This was poorly written, and the logic of the piece was haphazard and sloppy, but it's not nice to point that out."

But it doesn't matter if it was "pure logic" or half-assed wankosophy.  There was an argument made, that argument relied on ridiculous premise, and thus the conclusion drawn was absurd.

The general point made, as far as I understand it, is:

If we can agree that there is a "mind" in humans that makes arbitrary categorical distinctions, which are then applied to the "mind's" perception of itself and its subsequent behavior in the society it inhabits, then the categorical distinctions based upon physical gender seem to be just as arbitrary, and should be recognized as such.

As you can see, the issue of Cartesian duality occurred in the language of the post, and not in the underlying intention of the post.

I think you are extending the writer an unjustified courtesy in rephrasing her post that way.  I'm going to get right back to this "language vs underlying intention" nonsense in a second.

Now, forgive me if I presume too much DK, but it is beginning to appear that while your skill at reading a post and breaking down its language is very high, your ability to comprehend the intentions of the post are fairly low.  Perhaps it is a "missing the forest for the trees" phenomena; I cannot say.

It appears that you are accusing me of having read what was written, instead of reading "what was meant."  But that's a ridiculous accusation. Nigel is shitty writer, that means her ideas will tend to be shitty.  She's posting half-assed philosophy full of bad logic and unjustifiable hidden assumptions.

And you're accusing me of failing to "comprehend the intentions of the post" without acknowledging that what you expect of me requires TELEPATHY ACROSS THE INTERNET.  How can I possibly know what Nigel's intentions are unless she makes them clear in her writing?

Basically this entire post amounts to a rather feeble attempt by you, LMNO, to spin my criticism of the bad reasoning in Nigel's poorly written post into a failure on my part to know things that I cannot possibly know (i.e. you're taking me to task for responding to what Nigel did say, instead of responding to what I think she meant to say.)

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The most interesting thing is that because of a choice of rhetoric, you immediately conclude that the entire post is invalid.  The problem being, of course, that the original post was not a formulation of pure logic, nor of pure philosophy.

That's not really a "problem."  Labeling it a problem is a weak defense for someone who is clearly not a deep thinker.   You're right, it was not a "formulation of pure logic," but it was still an argument. It had all of the necessary elements of an argument:  A premise, an argument, a conclusion.

See, when you say "the original post was not a formulation of pure logic, nor of pure philosophy" it seems to me that what you're doing is essentially saying "This was poorly written, and the logic of the piece was haphazard and sloppy, but it's not nice to point that out."

But it doesn't matter if it was "pure logic" or half-assed wankosophy.  There was an argument made, that argument relied on ridiculous premise, and thus the conclusion drawn was absurd.

The general point made, as far as I understand it, is:

If we can agree that there is a "mind" in humans that makes arbitrary categorical distinctions, which are then applied to the "mind's" perception of itself and its subsequent behavior in the society it inhabits, then the categorical distinctions based upon physical gender seem to be just as arbitrary, and should be recognized as such.

As you can see, the issue of Cartesian duality occurred in the language of the post, and not in the underlying intention of the post.

I think you are extending the writer an unjustified courtesy in rephrasing her post that way.  I'm going to get right back to this "language vs underlying intention" nonsense in a second.

Now, forgive me if I presume too much DK, but it is beginning to appear that while your skill at reading a post and breaking down its language is very high, your ability to comprehend the intentions of the post are fairly low.  Perhaps it is a "missing the forest for the trees" phenomena; I cannot say.

It appears that you are accusing me of having read what was written, instead of reading "what was meant."  But that's a ridiculous accusation. Nigel is shitty writer, that means her ideas will tend to be shitty.  She's posting half-assed philosophy full of bad logic and unjustifiable hidden assumptions.

And you're accusing me of failing to "comprehend the intentions of the post" without acknowledging that what you expect of me requires TELEPATHY ACROSS THE INTERNET.  How can I possibly know what Nigel's intentions are unless she makes them clear in her writing?

Basically this entire post amounts to a rather feeble attempt by you, LMNO, to spin my criticism of the bad reasoning in Nigel's poorly written post into a failure on my part to know things that I cannot possibly know (i.e. you're taking me to task for responding to what Nigel did say, instead of responding to what I think she meant to say.)

I think you confuse the level of writing that differentiates an Internet Rant from a philosophical treatise on Existence. Please use the correct map for the territory.

[Dead Kennedy]

So according to DK all homosexuals, lesbians, bi-sexuals. are just plain neurotic.  Somehow I just can't avoid being offended by this.  Gender is a little more complex than his black and white definition and his lack of any knowledge of feminism and queer theory is more than a little apparent.

I actually minored in women's studies.  I did not offer a "black and white" definition of gender, and so far in this thread I have displayed FAR greater knowledge of feminism and queer theory that YOU HAVE.  For example, I referenced Judith Butler. You probably don't know who that is (she invented modern feminist gender theory). I also mentioned my good friend Jackson Katz.   He and I became friends after I approached him about setting up a anti-violence campaign at my college.

I also made absolutely no reference to sexuality.  The term intersexed has nothing to do with sexuality.  Homosexuals are not intersexed, they are homosexual.  

Intersexed is a broad category composed of various forms of congenital birth defects related to the development of sexual characteristics.   Intersexed is a catch-all category for things like hermaphroditism, androgen insensitivity syndrome, CAH, and other birth defects.

This would be one example of me demonstrating greater knowledge than you.  Perhaps if you bother to learn something about what you're talking about, you wouldn't find what I'm saying so offensive.

[Dead Kennedy]

Actually Z_M, he didn't even address the post. 

He decided to dismiss the post summarily due to a turn of phrase Nigel used.

Now, I'm not a master of Logical Debate as DK obviously is, but I feel this may fall under the fallacy of "Style over Substance".

DK, please correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong.  I dismissed the post because the "turn of phrase" used by Nigel was used as the premise of her argument, which lead to a nonsensical argument.

[Scribbly]

It appears that you are accusing me of having read what was written, instead of reading "what was meant."  But that's a ridiculous accusation. Nigel is shitty writer, that means her ideas will tend to be shitty.  She's posting half-assed philosophy full of bad logic and unjustifiable hidden assumptions.

1) Reading is not a passive activity. In order to engage with text, you interpret it. It is very difficult to determine what is 'good' and 'bad' writing, therefore. I found Nigel's rant enjoyable and entertaining. Therefore, Nigel is a 'good' writer. For being enjoyable and entertaining.

2) More importantly. Most academics that I have encountered, are terrible writers, when judged from the angle of 'how easy it is to engage with their writing and understand the ideas they are attempting to get across in their clumsy mix of poor language and overly technical jargon'. This does not mean that their ideas will be shitty. Literary skill has very little to do with the value of the thoughts conveyed.

I just thought I'd point that out.

Then you posted your little rant at Zen_Magick above. Are you actually going out of your way to be an abrasive, arrogant, and condescending individual, or are you trying to engage with the other posters here? Because if you aren't going out of your way to look like an asshole, I don't think Nigel is the one who can be accused of 'bad' writing here.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So according to DK all homosexuals, lesbians, bi-sexuals. are just plain neurotic.  Somehow I just can't avoid being offended by this.  Gender is a little more complex than his black and white definition and his lack of any knowledge of feminism and queer theory is more than a little apparent.

I actually minored in women's studies.  I did not offer a "black and white" definition of gender, and so far in this thread I have displayed FAR greater knowledge of feminism and queer theory that YOU HAVE.  For example, I referenced Judith Butler. You probably don't know who that is (she invented modern feminist gender theory). I also mentioned my good friend Jackson Katz.   He and I became friends after I approached him about setting up a anti-violence campaign at my college.

I also made absolutely no reference to sexuality.  The term intersexed has nothing to do with sexuality.  Homosexuals are not intersexed, they are homosexual.  

Intersexed is a broad category composed of various forms of congenital birth defects related to the development of sexual characteristics.   Intersexed is a catch-all category for things like hermaphroditism, androgen insensitivity syndrome, CAH, and other birth defects.

This would be one example of me demonstrating greater knowledge than you.  Perhaps if you bother to learn something about what you're talking about, you wouldn't find what I'm saying so offensive.

In DK's defense, this is how I read his post. I think that's only because I had recently read similar comments elsewhere and had some context. If I hadn't recent;y been poking about in the area, I would have assumed he was taking a shot at all 'queers'.

[Dead Kennedy]

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...

ok I didn't see this.
First of all, small point, but there is no such thing as a failure of biology. Success and failure are arbitrary human terms. Biology is just there. And unless you have all the complete medical development of a fetus you can not determine what the natural course of development is.

You know, I agree with you completely.  This is exactly why I put "supposed" to in scare quotes.  With people already complaining that my posts are too long and too dense, it seemed an inappropriate time to go off on a tangent about why it technically inaccurate to say that anything is "supposed" to happen.  We do all understand the concept of a birth defect,and it's easiest to understand that concept as a "failure" to develop ideally.  Gotta slay one dragon at a time.

Now my knowledge of genetics is not comfortable but there is a ongoing debate between medical researchers, who maintain that gender development is an example of dichotomy (meaning two contradictory parts) and genetic researchers who maintain gender development is and example of continuum (meaning all separate parts are arbitrary) Now I admit I  haven't read a lot on the subject, and only have vague remembrance of articles I half read. I could say the division between animal sexes can get really complicated
I would be interested in a biologists opinion...

I have never seen the continuum idea presented outside a feminist context, and I don't believe the debate is actually between medical researchers. I believe the debate is between scientists and ideologues, much like the debate over creationism.

[That One Guy]

It appears that you are accusing me of having read what was written, instead of reading "what was meant."  But that's a ridiculous accusation. Nigel is shitty writer, that means her ideas will tend to be shitty.  She's posting half-assed philosophy full of bad logic and unjustifiable hidden assumptions.

Sorry, but the bolded is just bad logic. Whether or not Nigel is a good writer has nothing to do with the quality of ideas. All it relates to is the presentation of those ideas.

If you want your criticism to be taken seriously, try using fewer logical fallacies in your posts as they tend to undermine your posturing of being a paragon of logic and philosophy.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Go to town with it.

I'm still really amused that Jefe appealed to the "internet white knight" fallacy in an attempt to discredit anyone who argued against him, when everyone knows I'm a tranny.         

I didn't know you were a tranny. Explains a lot though...

F2M all the way, baby.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

DK, I think you're a fucking twit, bottom line. You know a lot about philosophy and not a whole hell of a lot about anything else. Unfortunately, philosophy is the bottom of the barrel of academia, so I doubt anyone else thinks as highly of you as you yourself do.

[Dead Kennedy]

'fucking moron' isn't a very useful way of communicating. In fact, one could argue that it shows a lack of intelligence, as the noise ratio is far higher than the signal in your comments due to that sort of thing. I mean, do as you will... but it might be something to consider.

It's not a useful way of communicating with someone who is making an honest attempt to communicate.  The fucking moron in question dismissed everything I have said with the claim that I was "lifting" my ideas from wikipedia.

That's a clear sign that the person you are talking to is not going to give you a reasonable chance.  When you insist as part of your argument that the other person is not actually thinking,but rather plagarizing others, there is nowhere for the conversation to go but down.

Hence, "fucking moron."

[zen_magick]

It's ok, DK your still so sexy to me with that huge intellect hanging out all over the place.

(licking my lips) and by the way, name dropping, one author is no proof of anything

Leslie Feinberg
Kate Bornstein
Jonathan Dollimore

Na Na Na