Your body

[P3nT4gR4m]

Dude. Two sentences does not constitute a paragraph and treating it as such as mechanical stupidity.

A paragraph is a distinct portion of written or printed matter dealing with a particular idea, usually beginning with an indentation on a new line.  That's from the dictionary.  One word constitutes a paragraph if it begins on a new line.

Dumbass.

The point of it was to showcase the absurdity of the strict male-female gender structure.

Yes, but it failed.  It only showcased the weakness of the argument.

Also, no. The standard form for an essay is not strongest-weakest. In fact, that's actually a really bad idea. The second strongest should go near the end with the weaker ones in the middle.

I'm not an English major, so I'm going to cite an external authority, The Guide to Grammar and Writing from Capital Community College Foundation:

The second paragraph of the body should contain the second strongest argument, second most significant example, second cleverest illustration, or an obvious follow up the first paragraph in the body....The third paragraph of the body should contain the weakest argument, weakest example, weakest illustration, or an obvious follow up to the second paragraph in the body.

After looking at a dozen other sites, I can't find anything the specifically contradicts that.  Do you have any citations to back up your argument?

No?

You're not talking out of your ass, are you?

I think maybe you are.

Human memory tends to work that way.

Look, it's not like any of this is really relevant.  This is quibbling over bullshit.

The point is that the essay is a bunch of Cartesian bullshit.  Despite what a lot of people in this thread have expended a lot of hot air denying, the entire essay is founded on the assumption that there is a ghost in the machine, a driver in vehicle. She even uses that second metaphor, calls the body a machine, and claims the mind exist independent of the body.

I find such ideas boring and wanky.  I said so.   Everybody is fucking falling over themselves to defend it. I have no idea why.

FAIL! Poster shows inability to present basic forum quote/response structure in a clearly legible manner. 

[Dead Kennedy]

Cartesian duality is a model, true in some sense false in some sense meaningless in some seance etc etc (you  should know the rest).

Yes.  It is true in a mythopoetic sense, false in a factual sense.  It's metaphysical wank.  Makes people happy, isn't true by the standard definition of truth.  It's religion.

so what if Nigel used that model?

It's boring and wanky and I can give it no mittens.  It's a chintzy argument to support a forgone conclusion, and I happen to think that forgone conclusion is idiotic.

the point of the piece is don't take social conventions regarding gender and other aspects of identity too seriously, perhaps the same point can be made using the model of emergence from neurology, perhaps even better but that's not the model she chose to use to get the point across (successfully to all but you) and successful transmission of an idea she had about social conventions was her goal and the map she chose worked to that end...

God that is one hell of a runaway sentence.  It appears to amount to "Who cares if the argument is crap, I agree with the conclusion."

Have you considered the possibility that Nigel's point is wrong?

i don't know what her religious metaphysical or philosophical beliefs are and i don't care.. i also don't assume because she used this model in this instance she wouldn't use a different model in a different circumstance.

That's nice?  How is that relevant?

tear up her use of that model because of your dislike for Cartesian duality all you want, it doesn't change the fact that her rant was a success

A success by what standard of measure?

[fomenter]

Cartesian duality is a model, true in some sense false in some sense meaningless in some seance etc etc (you  should know the rest).

Yes.  It is true in a mythopoetic sense, false in a factual sense.  It's metaphysical wank.  Makes people happy, isn't true by the standard definition of truth.  It's religion.

the mythopoetic sense has its place, wolves don't talk to little girls in red capes but the story has a point that contains information and conveys a meaning to its readers (the same can be said of goddesses that chuck golden apples at other gods parties), most of religion is a metaphisical wank that makes people happy, which i feel free to use or not use depending on the situation, provability in a scientific proof of truth way is irrelevant, transmitting useful information is the measure of its success

so what if Nigel used that model?

It's boring and wanky and I can give it no mittens.  It's a chintzy argument to support a forgone conclusion, and I happen to think that forgone conclusion is idiotic.

your critique has been boring and wanky a chintzy argument to support a foregone conclusion i think is idiotic, we are both free to have our opinions ...

the point of the piece is don't take social conventions regarding gender and other aspects of identity too seriously, perhaps the same point can be made using the model of emergence from neurology, perhaps even better but that's not the model she chose to use to get the point across (successfully to all but you) and successful transmission of an idea she had about social conventions was her goal and the map she chose worked to that end...

God that is one hell of a runaway sentence.  It appears to amount to "Who cares if the argument is crap, I agree with the conclusion."

Have you considered the possibility that Nigel's point is wrong?

the argument is a device the device worked (see last answer)the point that some people should be less hung up on identity based on social convention is wrong? nope i don't think she is wrong.

i don't know what her religious metaphysical or philosophical beliefs are and i don't care.. i also don't assume because she used this model in this instance she wouldn't use a different model in a different circumstance.

That's nice?  How is that relevant?

your the one accusing her of having erroneous metaphysical beliefs based on one rant,  i am not coming to that conclusion from reading the same rant.

tear up her use of that model because of your dislike for Cartesian duality all you want, it doesn't change the fact that her rant was a success

A success by what standard of measure?

the standard that all of her audience except you got it...

[Dead Kennedy]

the mythopoetic sense has its place, wolves don't talk to little girls in red capes but the story has a point that contains information and conveys a meaning to its readers (the same can be said of goddesses that chuck golden apples at other gods parties), most of religion is a metaphisical wank that makes people happy, which i feel free to use or not use depending on the situation, provability in a scientific proof of truth way is irrelevant, transmitting useful information is the measure of its success

There was no useful information in Nigel's post.

your critique has been boring and wanky a chintzy argument to support a foregone conclusion i think is idiotic, we are both free to have our opinions ...

We are both free to have our opinions, but your opinions are uninformed, irrational and stupid.

the argument is a device the device worked (see last answer)the point that some people should be less hung up on identity based on social convention is wrong? nope i don't think she is wrong.

No, the argument didn't work. You just happen to agree with the conclusion, so you think the argument was a success.

That doesn't require any intelligence or thought at all.   That makes you no different than any other moron on this planet who believes nonsensical arguments because they support the conclusions they want to be true.

your the one accusing her of having erroneous metaphysical beliefs based on one rant,  i am not coming to that conclusion from reading the same rant.

No dumbass, I'm accusing this one rant of being based on meaningless metaphysical premises.

A success by what standard of measure?

the standard that all of her audience except you got it...

That's not a measure of success.  All of Rush Limbaugh's fans delude themselves into thinking that Rush Limbaugh presents successful arguments because they want to agree with his conclusions.

You are no different than those dittoheads.  You're just a domesticated primate who isn't thinking.  You're just groupthinking.   Agreeing to belong.

Even in this exchange, your argument is "It doesn't matter what she said, I agree with the point, so that makes her argument successful."

But why do you agree with the point?   You don't know.  You can't explain.  You just have faith that it is true, and will agree with any argument, no matter how stupid, as long as it concludes by stating something you already agree with.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Holy shit, bitch... are you still seriously awake? Goddamn, try some sleep or something. I watched a couple of movies with some guy but I wish I'd gone to bed earlier. Try it, it's more fun than this bullshit. Night!

[Kai]

*shrug* I'm basically done at this point.

Its all just slinging insults over an argument from someone who fails so hard at getting it. Of course, she barged in here not knowing the context of this rant (which is very different than an essay)  whatsoever. I can take shit out of context and make it mean whatever I want too. Are we amazed yet? No. That's not likely to change either.

[Kai]

So what is it Kai? Are you retarded, or a fuckwit?  I'm leaning towards retarded fuckwit.
...
There's no agenda.  There's no plan.  I'm just an argumentative asshole opportunist.

I'm neither a retard nor a fuckwit. Everyone else here is very aware I am an intelligent person who adds to discussion and says interesting things. I don't have to prove myself, in fact, I've gotten to the point where people like having me around, and will defend me given the occasion I am not able to defend myself. Its called community, and you are an outsider. I don't have to prove myself, but you do. And you are doing very poorly at the moment.

Since you don't plan on contributing anything and are going to continue being an argumentative asshole opportunist in a completely nonconstructive way, I think its time to ignore you.

[LMNO]

Good morning, DK.

I'd just like to point something out: the duality issue you keep focusing on is actually irrelevant to the piece.

Of course, perhaps you will say: "No, it's not."  But consider...

By all accounts, Nigel's included, the general tenor of the piece is about gender roles and identification.  You must agree that the author would be one of the better sources of information about what the piece deals with.

So, what happens if we completely strip the piece of dualism? 

"Oh ho," you might say, "I have demonstrated clearly that the dualism exists implicitly throughout the piece. You cannot strip away what I have concluded is the basis of the argument."

Ah, but.  Ah, but.  What if we were not purely in the realm of logical argument?  What if we changed the game rules?  After all, this piece exists as it is, there are no tags attached to it proclaiming it to be a 5-paragraph persuasive argument; as an intelligent Discordian, I presume you are fully aware of the Law of Fives, both the written and unwritten sides; thus, I'm sure you can agree that we, as the reader, can use whatever Game Rules we choose. Therefore, I propose we put the piece into a Between realm, as such:

LET US CONSIDER THE USE OF DUALITY TO BE A POETIC METAPHOR.

So, now we can agree that while the Cartesian Duality is roundly considered to be flawed and unwieldy, we can also agree that many, many (perhaps even a wide majority; so much so that the minority may be statistically insignificant) people have felt at one time or another that their bodies sometime seem to act of it's own accord (I'm sure with your intellect and knowledge I don't have to go through the old examples and arguments).

You see, even though the duality may have been disproved, the appearance of duality does indeed exist in the experiential world.  And because of that, we can create a metaphor using it.  And because it has become a metaphor, it is no longer considered as a "premise" in this "argument".

That being said, let us look at the piece again:

Paragraph 1:
A) Humans usually come in Male and Female. 
{comment: Simple enough, I'm sure we can all agree on this.}

Paragraph 2:
A) Humans make arbitrary definitions about the aesthetic appearance of their bodies, which they then use as a factor of how the perceive themselves.
B) They also do the same with sexual behavior, and with gender roles. 
{comment: The evidence here is observational; it is clear that the author does not wish to be pedantic, nor does she wish to create a tangential aside as to the reasons why humans tend to do this, as it does not seem pertinent to the essay in the specific.}

Paragraph 3: (I do not consider the one-sentence line a paragraph; I consider it a literary device.)
A) Humans tend to forget that while the body's chemical processes occasionally affect behavior, most of the arbitrary definitions they create are indeed arbitrary.
B) If all arbitrary definitions were removed completely, humans would still exist.
{comment: Again, the evidence is observational.  True, some readers have to make more of a stretch to see this, but it does follow from the previous paragraph.}

Paragraph 4:
A) It is unwise to attach your perception of self to arbitrary concepts and categories, due to their arbitrary nature.


Well, there you go.  The intent of the essay holds, even after removing your main objection; therefore, Cartesian Dualism is not the premise of this piece.


I hope that with your keen intellect you can follow my humble offering.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Good morning, DK.

I'd just like to point something out: the duality issue you keep focusing on is actually irrelevant to the piece.

Of course, perhaps you will say: "No, it's not."  But consider...

By all accounts, Nigel's included, the general tenor of the piece is about gender roles and identification.  You must agree that the author would be one of the better sources of information about what the piece deals with.

So, what happens if we completely strip the piece of dualism? 

"Oh ho," you might say, "I have demonstrated clearly that the dualism exists implicitly throughout the piece. You cannot strip away what I have concluded is the basis of the argument."

Ah, but.  Ah, but.  What if we were not purely in the realm of logical argument?  What if we changed the game rules?  After all, this piece exists as it is, there are no tags attached to it proclaiming it to be a 5-paragraph persuasive argument; as an intelligent Discordian, I presume you are fully aware of the Law of Fives, both the written and unwritten sides; thus, I'm sure you can agree that we, as the reader, can use whatever Game Rules we choose. Therefore, I propose we put the piece into a Between realm, as such:

LET US CONSIDER THE USE OF DUALITY TO BE A POETIC METAPHOR.

So, now we can agree that while the Cartesian Duality is roundly considered to be flawed and unwieldy, we can also agree that many, many (perhaps even a wide majority; so much so that the minority may be statistically insignificant) people have felt at one time or another that their bodies sometime seem to act of it's own accord (I'm sure with your intellect and knowledge I don't have to go through the old examples and arguments).

You see, even though the duality may have been disproved, the appearance of duality does indeed exist in the experiential world.  And because of that, we can create a metaphor using it.  And because it has become a metaphor, it is no longer considered as a "premise" in this "argument".

That being said, let us look at the piece again:

Paragraph 1:
A) Humans usually come in Male and Female. 
{comment: Simple enough, I'm sure we can all agree on this.}

Paragraph 2:
A) Humans make arbitrary definitions about the aesthetic appearance of their bodies, which they then use as a factor of how the perceive themselves.
B) They also do the same with sexual behavior, and with gender roles. 
{comment: The evidence here is observational; it is clear that the author does not wish to be pedantic, nor does she wish to create a tangential aside as to the reasons why humans tend to do this, as it does not seem pertinent to the essay in the specific.}

Paragraph 3: (I do not consider the one-sentence line a paragraph; I consider it a literary device.)
A) Humans tend to forget that while the body's chemical processes occasionally affect behavior, most of the arbitrary definitions they create are indeed arbitrary.
B) If all arbitrary definitions were removed completely, humans would still exist.
{comment: Again, the evidence is observational.  True, some readers have to make more of a stretch to see this, but it does follow from the previous paragraph.}

Paragraph 4:
A) It is unwise to attach your perception of self to arbitrary concepts and categories, due to their arbitrary nature.


Well, there you go.  The intent of the essay holds, even after removing your main objection; therefore, Cartesian Dualism is not the premise of this piece.


I hope that with your keen intellect you can follow my humble offering.

Hey LMNO, I like that map you got there... 

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

*shrug* I'm basically done at this point.

Its all just slinging insults over an argument from someone who fails so hard at getting it. Of course, she barged in here not knowing the context of this rant (which is very different than an essay)  whatsoever. I can take shit out of context and make it mean whatever I want too. Are we amazed yet? No. That's not likely to change either.

I'm new here, I didn't know the context of the rant, and I still got what Nigel was going for.

I guess since DK is the self-proclaimed smartest person here, that means if he reads a post one way and everyone else reads it another, then his understanding is obviously correct and everyone else's understanding, including the author's, is mistaken.  The self-proclaimed smartest person can never be wrong, so if anyone disagrees it must be because we are too stupid to understand that he's right.  Everyone is stupid except DK.

Arguing against him is like arguing against the time cube guy.  -1 x -1 = +1 is stupid and evil.

--
@LMNO 

[Kai]

to LMNO

I think you're wasting your time though.

[zen_magick]

OK, we all know by now that DK has "MR Right" syndrome.  I can let that go but getting back to the OP could we discuss how we view our own gender/identities?  I think that would be far more fruitfull than yelling at the wall.

Personally, I'm very fluid with how I percieve myself but no matter how much I do there are the perceptions of others that come into play.  Like most of the guys that hit on me naturally assume that I must be a 'top'. 

I don't know where I was going with this, I need to get a cup of coffee, BRB.

[Kai]

ZM, I'm also gender fluid.

I liked the op because it urges me to just live my life not trying to fit myself into anyone else's identification box, and not care too much about labels.

[Cain]

*shrug* I'm basically done at this point.

Its all just slinging insults over an argument from someone who fails so hard at getting it. Of course, she barged in here not knowing the context of this rant (which is very different than an essay)  whatsoever. I can take shit out of context and make it mean whatever I want too. Are we amazed yet? No. That's not likely to change either.

I'm new here, I didn't know the context of the rant, and I still got what Nigel was going for.

I guess since DK is the self-proclaimed smartest person here, that means if he reads a post one way and everyone else reads it another, then his understanding is obviously correct and everyone else's understanding, including the author's, is mistaken.  The self-proclaimed smartest person can never be wrong, so if anyone disagrees it must be because we are too stupid to understand that he's right.  Everyone is stupid except DK.

Arguing against him is like arguing against the time cube guy.  -1 x -1 = +1 is stupid and evil.

--
@LMNO 

He has discovered the true hidden meaning of the text through semiotic engagement in its imagery and use of language, which mere peasants such as you and myself could never hope to accomplish.  Roland Barthes is quietly weeping somewhere, but his ilk will suffer the worst, when DK and his structuralist hordes overrun the halls of academia and cast out the post-structuralists from the temple.  Begone, ye defilers!  We shall have no destablization of text here.

[zen_magick]

ZM, I'm also gender fluid.

I liked the op because it urges me to just live my life not trying to fit myself into anyone else's identification box, and not care too much about labels.

Yea!!  That was my first reaction to the text.  I'm in a good mood this morning so I'm going to try not to argue today.  My point, I think, was that no matter how 'open' I am there is a certain amount of stereotyping that we all have to deal with.