Messages

The OP is mired in post-Greenspan objectivism and therefore ... sorry, j/k.  I think that was an accurate poetic summary of current events.

*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 

And just for fun...

ZOMG! cARTESIAN dUALITY!!11!!sHIFT+oNE!!
\

[seem]

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.

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

That's all true, but none of that is relevant.  She didn't post it as a formal logical proof.  It was just a rant.

Of course, if one has a penis then one is biologically male, if one has a vagina then one is biologically female, and if one has ambiguous genitalia then one is biologically hermaphroditic.  However, having a vagina doesn't mean one has to shop and primp and gossip and giggle, and having a penis doesn't mean one has to grunt and cuss and fight and spit.  The point I got from the OP is that you can choose to act however you want, regardless of what kind of body you have.

I know Cartesian duality isn't true.  However it feels true, it's easy to see to the world that way, and language that suggests Cartesian duality is easy to slip into.

I don't think anyone here is anti-intellectual, but I get the feeling that most folks here won't stand for intellectual bullying, which is what you are doing.

I bet you were the guy in the theater watching "Freaky Friday" who threw his drink and the screen and stormed out screaming about how the move was promoting Cartesian duality.

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>

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.

[your]

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.

The term meat-bag clearly refers to the body.

You had to read that far?  I got it from the thread title.

You're right, the essay uses Cartesian dualism as a metaphor to contrast personality with physical attributes, but what you failto 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  

You must be WAY smarter than me because I am completely unable to follow your logic.

NT: Racism and its affect on how people vote and how they treat grocers of different races because of what they were taught when they were younger and what society has told them is acceptable. 

Blacks vote Democrat
Bag those groceries, sambo
Just like Pappy said

NT: how Skieth tried to ruin this thread 

I most certainly have critiqued your essay.  My critique can be summed up in single sentence:  Your essay is mired in Cartesian duality and ego-identification.

No, it isn't.  The essay merely uses it as a metaphor to contrast personality with physical attributes, and the point of it was not to let what you look like define who you are. 

You read the first sentence and hit pressed a few of your buttons, so you went on to "critique" what you imagined the essay to be about.

LLOF had it exactly right when she said

Looks like you have some pretty major religious hang-ups, and you're VERY busy projecting them.

Here is a full fascimile of the First edition, in PDF: http://darwin-online.org.uk/pdf/1859_Origin_F373.pdf

Thanks for that.  I hadn't read it yet.  I have read Dawkins' The Anscestors' Tale and thought it was well written, engaging, and easy to understand.

Evolution is such a beautiful feature of life, making use of the very forces that are trying to wring it's neck.

Giving ol' entropy the finger like that... pure awesomeness.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that energy transfers can't be 100% efficient.  Entropy is the loss from those transfers.  It explains why perpetual motion machines are impossible, but what's this got to do with evolution?

So you believe that you exist and the universe exists. That's a lot of very unfounded faith right there. I don't think I can really be 100% sure that either exists until I get some cold hard evidence.

Heh.  I believe that it's beyond reasonable doubt that I exist and the universe exists, but I'm aware that isn't foolproof.

At any rate, it seems that things usually go better for me if I behave as if the objects and people around me are real and that my actions have consequences.  Whether the barstool is real or not is moot -- I just don't want to be hit over the head with it.

I'm not sure how credible I find either of those arguments. Either may be possible, but both require a lot of 'human reasoning' which I don't trust for shit.

Me neither.  I don't consider either to be particularly compelling.  I was speaking of their credibility relative to each other, in my own judgment.  I don't need either to be true or false, and if I were to become convinced that Deism is true, I don't think it would really make a difference as to how I live my life.

If, on the other hand, I were to become convinced that one of the more vengeful gods were actually behind it, then I probably would change my life to avoid his or her wrath, because I'm a pussy like that.

PMZ,
is praying it's not Cthulhu.

I put atheist, even though that label says nothing about what I believe.  That label only tells you that there's at least one thing I don't believe.

While I don't pretend to know why there's a universe with us in it, instead of no universe and/or no us, I think that invoking the concept of god to explain it raises more questions than it answers.  I find the spontaneous existence of an unintelligent and purposeless universe much more credible than I find the spontaneous existence of a being capable of purposefully designing and creating a universe.

can you cook things in the sun with tinfoil? what the the limitions

Yes, you can.  I made a box style cooker and it got hot enough to boil water.  I cooked a quart jar full of rice and lentils in an afternoon.  Unfortunately, I used crappy materials and half-assed workmanship so it only lasted for one use, but at least I proved the concept to myself.

potato batteries, how and how many would you need to have radio output

A simple hand crank radio would be much more efficient.  They are getting pretty cheap too. You can find one with AM/FM/Weather Band plus a flashlight for under $50.

I have one of those and mine sucks.  The WHIRR-WHIRR-WHIRR of the crank is louder than the radio.

Personally, I'm really only worried about a future where basic goods become more expensive and harder to come by, where the ridiculously high standard of living we currently enjoy is brought more in line with what most of the world lives with every day.  I know people who throw food away because they're "full".  That level of wealth is unimaginable for most people.

NT: Victory over communism

the cold war is over
we kicked your commie butts
three cheers for Reagan

NT: Scientology