actually, you are the meatbag, we are meatbags. You can't really separate the biology from the psychology, and the personhood comes from that emergence.
Still, basically all the same meatbags with different minor details. :mittens:
As long as your meat-bag continues to function, you continue to exist, and you are you.
actually, you are the meatbag, we are meatbags. You can't really separate the biology from the psychology, and the personhood comes from that emergence.
Still, basically all the same meatbags with different minor details. :mittens:
nice, nigel!
because he's been in my current spectrum of awareness lately, im reminded of a quote by alan watts:
Things are as they are. Looking out into it the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.
Alan Watts
However you want to view it, it's still a fucking meat-bag. Or a skin-sack full of meat, whatever.
Here's the thing. One can choose to view life from any angle, I choose to view life from a different angle than you.
Here's the thing. One can choose to view life from any angle, I choose to view life from a different angle than you.
Spoken like a true meatbag.
Here's the thing. One can choose to view life from any angle, I choose to view life from a different angle than you.
Here's the thing. One can choose to view life from any angle, I choose to view life from a different angle than you.
How is it different?
I deliberately left out the spiritual aspect, because I felt that it was irrelevant to my point.
Here's the thing. One can choose to view life from any angle, I choose to view life from a different angle than you.
How is it different?
I deliberately left out the spiritual aspect, because I felt that it was irrelevant to my point.
By the idea that I am a spiritual being having a human experience rather than the other way around.
Here's the thing. One can choose to view life from any angle, I choose to view life from a different angle than you.
How is it different?
I deliberately left out the spiritual aspect, because I felt that it was irrelevant to my point.
By the idea that I am a spiritual being having a human experience rather than the other way around.
You argue against it that way, Kai argued against it the other way. If you read it again, you'll perhaps notice that it is open to either interpretation. That was deliberate. It is ONLY about the meat-bag experience, while you are in the meat-bag. It is not about how or why you got here.
Simple. I existed prior to this human experience and I will continue to exist after this human experience.
Simple. I existed prior to this human experience and I will continue to exist after this human experience.
:cn:
Religion is, by nature, exempt from the citation rule.
Sweet, someone just asked me permission to let the PSU Queer Resource Center send it to students who might be interested. :)
QuoteReligion is, by nature, exempt from the citation rule.
Tell that to the Talmudic Jews.
QuoteReligion is, by nature, exempt from the citation rule.
Tell that to the Talmudic Jews.
Here's the thing. One can choose to view life from any angle, I choose to view life from a different angle than you.
How is it different?
I deliberately left out the spiritual aspect, because I felt that it was irrelevant to my point.
By the idea that I am a spiritual being having a human experience rather than the other way around.
So the deal is, the first thing that happens when you arrive is you get dumped into a yellowish or brownish meat-bag filled with red and white.
Sweet, someone just asked me permission to let the PSU Queer Resource Center send it to students who might be interested. :)
The OP is mired in Cartesian duality and ego-identification. :boring: I could barely keep my eyes open.
Look at the assumptions in the premise:QuoteSo the deal is, the first thing that happens when you arrive is you get dumped into a yellowish or brownish meat-bag filled with red and white.
"When you arrive?" Who is "you?" Where is "you" arriving from? For that matter, where is "you" arriving to?
"You" must be separate from the body, because "you" is dumped into a "meat-bag." Meat-bag is clearly idiomatic Jerkass for the body.
Does "the first thing that happens when you arrive" mean that the sequence of events isThat would seem to imply that wherever "you" arrive to is above the body you will be dropped or fall into.
- "You" Arrives From (???) to (???)
- "You" is abruptly dropped or falls into A Body
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.
Though I really enjoy the use of the word dumped. That opening line evokes images of angels swooping down from Heaven and crapping souls into little babies.
Here's the thing. One can choose to view life from any angle, I choose to view life from a different angle than you.
How is it different?
I deliberately left out the spiritual aspect, because I felt that it was irrelevant to my point.
By the idea that I am a spiritual being having a human experience rather than the other way around.
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/new_page_2.htm
Enjoy yuor human experience.
The OP is mired in Cartesian duality and ego-identification. :boring: I could barely keep my eyes open.
Look at the assumptions in the premise:QuoteSo the deal is, the first thing that happens when you arrive is you get dumped into a yellowish or brownish meat-bag filled with red and white.
"When you arrive?" Who is "you?" Where is "you" arriving from? For that matter, where is "you" arriving to?
"You" must be separate from the body, because "you" is dumped into a "meat-bag." Meat-bag is clearly idiomatic Jerkass for the body.
Does "the first thing that happens when you arrive" mean that the sequence of events isThat would seem to imply that wherever "you" arrive to is above the body you will be dropped or fall into.
- "You" Arrives From (???) to (???)
- "You" is abruptly dropped or falls into A Body
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.
Though I really enjoy the use of the word dumped. That opening line evokes images of angels swooping down from Heaven and crapping souls into little babies.
Well gosh, I guess no one should ever use metaphorical or figurative language to make a point!
Looks like you have some pretty major religious hang-ups, and you're VERY busy projecting them.
Looks like you have some pretty major religious hang-ups, and you're VERY busy projecting them.
Looks like you have trouble dealing with criticism.
My hang-ups are entirely irrelevant to the criticism I offered. I'll let it slide this time, but just so you know, I generally consider rebuttals such as the tripe you've offered here as an invitation to mock and belittle the intelligence of the person offering them.
Your essay did nothing to convince me that you aren't a psuedointellectual wank, the intellectual equivalent of a thirteen year old with his dick in hand. Your defense of your position not only dismisses any possible conjecture about your intelligence, it also marks you as thin-skinned asswipe.
At any rate, your essay continues to be mired in Cartesian dualism, and is essentially nothing more than the quasiphilosophical musings of a garden variety fuckwit who clearly has no real grasp of philosophy.
In short: Your essay is the sort of poorly argued, poorly conceived, and poorly considered mindless crap that most of us got over when we were still in our teens, and your VERY OBVIOUS attempt to defend your piece by attacking me -- who you know nothing at all about -- only serves to illustrate how very pathetic the mind that produced this pathetic essay is.
:lulz:
DK: MIssing the point, but in a hilarious way. :lulz:
DK: MIssing the point, but in a hilarious way. :lulz:
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.
----
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.
You haven't critiqued a damn thing, you're just trying to pick a fight by regurgitating something you heard in discussion group for your sophomore year philosophy class.
What position am I supposed to be defending?
You can't even articulate what point you believe I'm trying to make with the essay... so what's to discuss?
DK: MIssing the point, but in a hilarious way. :lulz:
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.
----
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.
The OP is mired in Cartesian duality and ego-identification.
The OP is mired in Cartesian duality and ego-identification.
Did you really just say that?
Your essay did nothing to convince me that you aren't a psuedointellectual wank
My hang-ups are entirely irrelevant to the criticism I offered. I'll let it slide this time, but just so you know, I generally consider rebuttals such as the tripe you've offered here as an invitation to mock and belittle the intelligence of the person offering them.
My hang-ups are entirely irrelevant to the criticism I offered. I'll let it slide this time, but just so you know, I generally consider rebuttals such as the tripe you've offered here as an invitation to mock and belittle the intelligence of the person offering them.
Well, you'll fit right in! Unlike many other forums, many of us here rather enjoy sinking our teeth into those we perceive to be idiots.
For example: you claimed you were going to "let it slide this time," and then went on to mock and belittle her intelligence anyway. In fact, you did so in that very same post! It's as if you had forgotten what you had written only moments before.
My hang-ups are entirely irrelevant to the criticism I offered. I'll let it slide this time, but just so you know, I generally consider rebuttals such as the tripe you've offered here as an invitation to mock and belittle the intelligence of the person offering them.
Well, you'll fit right in! Unlike many other forums, many of us here rather enjoy sinking our teeth into those we perceive to be idiots.
For example: you claimed you were going to "let it slide this time," and then went on to mock and belittle her intelligence anyway. In fact, you did so in that very same post! It's as if you had forgotten what you had written only moments before.
Damn you just set him up for an "I HAVE SOME SORT OF MENTAL DEFICICENCY WHEN IT COMES TO MEMORY STOP MAKING FUN OF ME" excuse
Dead Kennedy sounds like one of those annoying "deep" high school kids who just discovered Nietzsche, I have to say.
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.
Looks like you have some pretty major religious hang-ups, and you're VERY busy projecting them.
Dude, you're totally missing it. She never mentions dualism at all.
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.
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-imageSo when a person uses a metaphor, that person is necessarily endorsing the idea that the metaphor is literally true :?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Since LLOF said that Felix spoke for her, I'll respond to his comment first:QuoteDude, 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.
It's GARBAGE.
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.
QuoteYou'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-imageSo when a person uses a metaphor, that person is necessarily endorsing the idea that the metaphor is literally true :?
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?
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.
NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOUR PHILOSOPHICAL "CREDENTIALS".
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".
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.
Well fuck you, I liked it.
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?
The OP is mired in Cartesian duality and ego-identification. :boring: 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.
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.
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.
QuoteYour 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.
QuoteWell fuck you, I liked it.
No accounting for the tastes of the feeble-minded.
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.
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]
My love for you is an ocean.
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.
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.
Premise: The mind and the body are separate. (Cartesian duality)
Premise: You are your mind. (ego-identification)
Conclusion: Gender is socially constructed.
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.
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.
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.:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
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.
That conclusion is only true if the premises are true. if they are only "metaphorically true" then the conclusion is only "metaphorically true."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.
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
So... you're suggesting that only people with philosophy degrees should write?
So... you're suggesting that only people with philosophy degrees should write?
No, I'm suggesting that if you want to write on philosophical topics, then perhaps you should learn something about those topics. Otherwise you are just making noise. You are doing exactly what you decried other people doing in your SHUT THE FUCK UP rant. It's hypocritical.
I'd also like to point out that you are now defending your essay from the charge that it's crap by citing the fact that you apparently put neither time, effort, or serious thought into it, and are not a philosopher.
It seems to me that this defense only makes sense if you have implicitly agreed with me that it's garbage.
Funny that.
You are doing exactly what you decried other people doing in your SHUT THE FUCK UP rant. It's hypocritical.
Dead Kennedy, it's obvious that you are both intelligent and educated. Unfortunately, you're also a raging, pompous, and completely insufferable dick, and apparently pathologically incapable of engaging with other people unless it's on a level that insults and demeans them.
Here's a trick: Don't rely on demeaning me as a person to defend ideas that you hammered out quickly without giving them proper consideration
Dead Kennedy, it's obvious that you are both intelligent and educated. Unfortunately, you're also a raging, pompous, and completely insufferable dick, and apparently pathologically incapable of engaging with other people unless it's on a level that insults and demeans them.
Actually, I have to point out that you insulted me first. I only said that I found your essay boring and deeply flawed. I never attacked the author. You decided to make it personal when you responded to my criticism of your essay with criticism of me.
What you have discovered is that I can be a raging, pompous, and completely insufferable dick. What you will discover with time is that I only become a raging, pompous, and completely insufferable dick when dealing with nitwits who can't engage with criticism and keep it about the ideas.
Here's a trick: Don't rely on demeaning me as a person to defend ideas that you hammered out quickly without giving them proper consideration.
Seriously, if your first response to me had been "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." then we wouldn't be here now.
But your first response was to accuse me of having a hang-up about religion, with the implication that I was only criticizing your essay because of some neurotic emotional problem, and not because it was a deeply flawed essay.
As I noted earlier, when someone decides to make the argument about me and not about the ideas being discussed, I consider that an invitation to rake them over the burning hot coals of my staggering intellect.
:lulz:
I never attacked the author. You decided to make it personal when you responded to my criticism of your essay with criticism of me.
The OP is mired in Cartesian duality and ego-identification. :boring: I could barely keep my eyes open.
My entire defense of the alleged crime of engaging Cartesian duality is "Huh. That's not what I was going for".
I was actually kind of trying to walk a middle line, which is what RA objected to because I wasn't dualist ENOUGH. But I was trying to keep it fairly neutral and mostly in the realm of first-person parable because the wherefores behind our existence is kind of irrelevant to my point, which was that gender, as a separate factor from biological sex, is a social construct, and kind of a limiting one.
now i wonder.
will he take another 45 minutes to come up with some long winded retort that bores the shit out of me?
My entire defense of the alleged crime of engaging Cartesian duality is "Huh. That's not what I was going for".
Again, maybe you should have thought about it some more before ranting about it. Then, perhaps, your rant wouldn't have come across as ignorant and vapid NOISE.QuoteI was actually kind of trying to walk a middle line, which is what RA objected to because I wasn't dualist ENOUGH. But I was trying to keep it fairly neutral and mostly in the realm of first-person parable because the wherefores behind our existence is kind of irrelevant to my point, which was that gender, as a separate factor from biological sex, is a social construct, and kind of a limiting one.
Except the "wherefores behind our existence" are extremely relevant to your point.
That's the whole problem. You hand wave off the "wherefores behind our existence" with some superstitious malarkey, which is the only way you can arrive at your point.
I don't think that gender can be separated from biological sex. I think gender is a function of biology, and that only the particulars of gender are socially constructed.
Bloody obvious social studies rambling
now i wonder.
will he take another 45 minutes to come up with some long winded retort that bores the shit out of me?
So, what's your excuse for insulting everyone else on the board while you were at it?
So, what's your excuse for insulting everyone else on the board while you were at it?
I don't believe that ever happened. I suspect you have misread something, or are simply a jackass who can't be bothered to limit yourself to truthful statements, and are thus demanding that I defend myself from a hyperbolic straw men.
My entire defense of the alleged crime of engaging Cartesian duality is "Huh. That's not what I was going for".
Again, maybe you should have thought about it some more before ranting about it. Then, perhaps, your rant wouldn't have come across as ignorant and vapid NOISE.QuoteI was actually kind of trying to walk a middle line, which is what RA objected to because I wasn't dualist ENOUGH. But I was trying to keep it fairly neutral and mostly in the realm of first-person parable because the wherefores behind our existence is kind of irrelevant to my point, which was that gender, as a separate factor from biological sex, is a social construct, and kind of a limiting one.
Except the "wherefores behind our existence" are extremely relevant to your point.
That's the whole problem. You hand wave off the "wherefores behind our existence" with some superstitious malarkey, which is the only way you can arrive at your point.
I don't think that gender can be separated from biological sex. I think gender is a function of biology, and that only the particulars of gender are socially constructed.
That is to say that I think the the idea "Pink is for girls, blue is for boys." is socially constructed, but that the need to gender things is innate to human existence. In many ways I think gender is like language: Every culture has its own language, but every culture has a language and a society cannot function without a language. Likewise, I don't think that a society can function without gender roles, and I think that the idea that gender is entirely socially constructed had caused incredible damage to modern society. I think it's caused a huge portion of society to become postively neurotic about gender roles.
I don't think rants like yours help. I think you are an agent of the endarkening, that you are helping to pull the wool over people's eyes, using bullshit superstitious arguments to justify nonsensical positions that make people go crazy -- both by embracing the nonsense, and by resisting the nonsense.
There are basically three groups of people in modern world:
There are men who are comfortable being men, and women comfortable being women, and they make up the largest group. The people in this group rarely think about gender, they simply go with the flow and embrace what society expects of them, staking out some amount of individuality in the undisputed middle grounds. These are the people who accept that masculine does not have to mean macho superman, and the feminine doesn't have to mean submissive doormat.
There are men uncomfortable being men, and women uncomfortable being women, who become neurotic travesties,focusing all of their energy on their gender. They cut themselves off from the first group by insisting that gender is "only" a social construct, and acting as if being social constructed means that it's not necessary. They call themselves genderqueer or other silly labels, and they waste all their energy fighting gender to no effect.
Finally there are men and women who are terrified by the lack of clear gender roles, and so they cling desperately to ever more neurotic and tyrannical definitions of gender. They cannot go with the flow. The men become macho blowhards, the women submissive doormats, and they go bugnuts crazy trying to impose gender certainity on society.
Look at what has happened in the last thirty years since feminists first started advancing this theory of socially constructed gender. Has gender gone away? No, quite the opposite!
A good friend of mine, Jackson Katz, directed a film about masculinity called Tough Guise (trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3exzMPT4nGI)) in which he shows some of the changing images of feminity and masculinity over the last several decades.
There are three sets of images that stand out. The first compares images of professional wrestlers with images of professional models. Over the last few decades wrestlers have gotten larger and larger, with ever more stereotypical masculine features,while professional models, who have become thinner, more waifish, more delicate, more stereotypically feminine.
Another set of images compares Star Wars figures from 1977 to figures from 1997. Han Solo is the figure. The 1977 Kenner Han Solo action figure has a realistic masculine build, just like Harrison Ford. The 1997 Han Solo has ridiculously exaggerated muscles -- he's buff like a wrestler. Han Solo, one of the most iconic male images of the 70's, is not masculine enough for the kids of 1997.
The final set of images compares male leading actors in crime thrillers. First is the poster for the Maltese Falcon: doughy, flabby and jowly Humprey Bogart, with his kind face and big puppy dog eyes holding a small snub nosed revolver at his side. Next up is Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry, tougher,leaner, meaner, scowling, a huge pistol held menacingly in his hand. The last image shows Sly Stallone in Cobra, huge oiled muscles, shades to block his eyes from showing emotion, scowling and holding a fucking machine gun in one hand.
What's going on? My theory is that by attacking gender, feminists have provoked a defensive reaction from society to circle the wagons around the concept of gender and defend it, strengthen it, allow no questioning of it. By challenging gender's right to exist, we have only made the problems associated with gender worse.
I actually have read Judith Butler, so I know just how sketchy and fact-free the argument in support of the "gender is socially constructed" idea is. I know why you had to handwave off the "wherefores behind our existence" to make your point: because being mindful of those wherefores seriously undermines and challenges the validity of your point.
i wouldn't be bothered by it Nigel.
it's obvious what's going on here.
notice the response time, what's said and how it doesn't always fit with the original point.
now i wonder.
will he take another 45 minutes to come up with some long winded retort that bores the shit out of me?
No doubt he'll be at it all night. I hereby dub him Jefe.
now i wonder.
will he take another 45 minutes to come up with some long winded retort that bores the shit out of me?
No doubt he'll be at it all night. I hereby dub him Jefe.
DONT DOUBT HIS INTELLECTUAL PROWESS
I think it was somewhere around where you declared yourself to be the smartest guy in the room, Jefe, and expressed sorrow that this kind of shit is being written on a Discordian board.
:lulz: @ this thread.
i'm still wondering if Cain had received a response yet.
I think it was somewhere around where you declared yourself to be the smartest guy in the room, Jefe, and expressed sorrow that this kind of shit is being written on a Discordian board.
So, basically what you're saying is that I was right, and it did never happen?
It is my opinion that I am possibly the smartest person on this board based on a few days of participation. The horde of morons cheering each other on for their pathetic embrace of antiintellectualism, this Cult of Lowered Expectations that seems to thrive here, only strengthens that perception. That does quite possibly make me an arrogant ass, but -- and this is important -- my high opinion of myself does constitute an insult against you, or anyone else on this board.
If you are insulted that I think I'm quite possibly smarter than you, then you are merely insecure. That's really not my problem. If you want me to lie and say I think someone else is smarter than I am, then that's your problem and I am not obligated to denigrate myself just to make you feel better about yourself.
Also, that I find it sad to see Discordianism -- a philosophy I associate with clear thinking, new model agnosticism, and other enlightened ideas -- embraced by a groupof people sohungry forendarkenment.
Do you know what endarkenment is? That's from Robert Anton Wilson (or was it Leary?). It's the opposite of enlightenment. It's what Republicans preach. It's what you preach. It's what everyone here who thinks that knowing what you're talking about is lame, who thinks that referencing philosophers undermines one's arguments, who thinks acting like a brain-dead fucking idiot is cool, is engaged in. It's the glorification of being small-minded and afraid of things you don't understand. It's the need to be coddled even when you're being a fucking moron. It's the inability to own your ignorance without feeling shame.
That's you. You're the endarkened. You're not the Legion of Dynamic Discord -- there's nothing dynamic about your discord, it's not intentional noise, you're all just being noisy because you're like monkeys in a cage. You can't rise above your own crappulance, because you ask nothing from yourselves but permission to be useless twits.(http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/f86/3b4/f863b420-34b8-4d8b-9dc5-f54381474735)
Your King, Fred Mertz
:lulz: @ this thread.
i'm still wondering if Cain had received a response yet.
That's you. You're the endarkened. You're not the Legion of Dynamic Discord -- there's nothing dynamic about your discord, it's not intentional noise, you're all just being noisy because you're like monkeys in a cage. You can't rise above your own crappulance, because you ask nothing from yourselves but permission to be useless twits.
Who is this guy even talking to?
:lulz:
It all just runs together and makes no sense
Also, that I find it sad to see Discordianism -- a philosophy I associate with clear thinking, new model agnosticism, and other enlightened ideas -- embraced by a groupof people sohungry forendarkenment.
Do you know what endarkenment is? That's from Robert Anton Wilson (or was it Leary?). It's the opposite of enlightenment. It's what Republicans preach. It's what you preach. It's what everyone here who thinks that knowing what you're talking about is lame, who thinks that referencing philosophers undermines one's arguments, who thinks acting like a brain-dead fucking idiot is cool, is engaged in. It's the glorification of being small-minded and afraid of things you don't understand. It's the need to be coddled even when you're being a fucking moron. It's the inability to own your ignorance without feeling shame.
Who is this guy even talking to?
:lulz:
It all just runs together and makes no sense
and now yet again... preaching to us what discordism is, like you know we never read RAW or Leary
oh yay Dead Kennedy your definitely not new
your act has been done, and was boring then too
Quoteoh yay Dead Kennedy your definitely not new
your act has been done, and was boring then too
Oh, because you're so very original, aren't you?
the endarkenment was mentioned in Angel Tech: A Modern Shamans Guide to a pregnant universe with a pic of fred mertz not sure its the original source of the idea.
the endarkenment was mentioned in Angel Tech: A Modern Shamans Guide to a pregnant universe with a pic of fred mertz not sure its the original source of the idea.
Antero Alli, i haven't ever seen it in anything by RAW or Tim Leary, i have read most of there works so i would say strong chance its a antero alli idea..the endarkenment was mentioned in Angel Tech: A Modern Shamans Guide to a pregnant universe with a pic of fred mertz not sure its the original source of the idea.
I would actually be interested in knowing, cause I have been hearing it online a lot lately
My entire defense of the alleged crime of engaging Cartesian duality is "Huh. That's not what I was going for".
Again, maybe you should have thought about it some more before ranting about it. Then, perhaps, your rant wouldn't have come across as ignorant and vapid NOISE.QuoteI was actually kind of trying to walk a middle line, which is what RA objected to because I wasn't dualist ENOUGH. But I was trying to keep it fairly neutral and mostly in the realm of first-person parable because the wherefores behind our existence is kind of irrelevant to my point, which was that gender, as a separate factor from biological sex, is a social construct, and kind of a limiting one.
Except the "wherefores behind our existence" are extremely relevant to your point.
That's the whole problem. You hand wave off the "wherefores behind our existence" with some superstitious malarkey, which is the only way you can arrive at your point.
I don't think that gender can be separated from biological sex. I think gender is a function of biology, and that only the particulars of gender are socially constructed.
That is to say that I think the the idea "Pink is for girls, blue is for boys." is socially constructed, but that the need to gender things is innate to human existence. In many ways I think gender is like language: Every culture has its own language, but every culture has a language and a society cannot function without a language. Likewise, I don't think that a society can function without gender roles, and I think that the idea that gender is entirely socially constructed had caused incredible damage to modern society. I think it's caused a huge portion of society to become postively neurotic about gender roles.
I don't think rants like yours help. I think you are an agent of the endarkening, that you are helping to pull the wool over people's eyes, using bullshit superstitious arguments to justify nonsensical positions that make people go crazy -- both by embracing the nonsense, and by resisting the nonsense.
There are basically three groups of people in modern world:
There are men who are comfortable being men, and women comfortable being women, and they make up the largest group. The people in this group rarely think about gender, they simply go with the flow and embrace what society expects of them, staking out some amount of individuality in the undisputed middle grounds. These are the people who accept that masculine does not have to mean macho superman, and the feminine doesn't have to mean submissive doormat.
There are men uncomfortable being men, and women uncomfortable being women, who become neurotic travesties,focusing all of their energy on their gender. They cut themselves off from the first group by insisting that gender is "only" a social construct, and acting as if being social constructed means that it's not necessary. They call themselves genderqueer or other silly labels, and they waste all their energy fighting gender to no effect.
Finally there are men and women who are terrified by the lack of clear gender roles, and so they cling desperately to ever more neurotic and tyrannical definitions of gender. They cannot go with the flow. The men become macho blowhards, the women submissive doormats, and they go bugnuts crazy trying to impose gender certainity on society.
Look at what has happened in the last thirty years since feminists first started advancing this theory of socially constructed gender. Has gender gone away? No, quite the opposite!
A good friend of mine, Jackson Katz, directed a film about masculinity called Tough Guise (trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3exzMPT4nGI)) in which he shows some of the changing images of feminity and masculinity over the last several decades.
There are three sets of images that stand out. The first compares images of professional wrestlers with images of professional models. Over the last few decades wrestlers have gotten larger and larger, with ever more stereotypical masculine features,while professional models, who have become thinner, more waifish, more delicate, more stereotypically feminine.
Another set of images compares Star Wars figures from 1977 to figures from 1997. Han Solo is the figure. The 1977 Kenner Han Solo action figure has a realistic masculine build, just like Harrison Ford. The 1997 Han Solo has ridiculously exaggerated muscles -- he's buff like a wrestler. Han Solo, one of the most iconic male images of the 70's, is not masculine enough for the kids of 1997.
The final set of images compares male leading actors in crime thrillers. First is the poster for the Maltese Falcon: doughy, flabby and jowly Humprey Bogart, with his kind face and big puppy dog eyes holding a small snub nosed revolver at his side. Next up is Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry, tougher,leaner, meaner, scowling, a huge pistol held menacingly in his hand. The last image shows Sly Stallone in Cobra, huge oiled muscles, shades to block his eyes from showing emotion, scowling and holding a fucking machine gun in one hand.
What's going on? My theory is that by attacking gender, feminists have provoked a defensive reaction from society to circle the wagons around the concept of gender and defend it, strengthen it, allow no questioning of it. By challenging gender's right to exist, we have only made the problems associated with gender worse.
I actually have read Judith Butler, so I know just how sketchy and fact-free the argument in support of the "gender is socially constructed" idea is. I know why you had to handwave off the "wherefores behind our existence" to make your point: because being mindful of those wherefores seriously undermines and challenges the validity of your point.
What damage specifically has been caused by this war on gender?
Establish the causal connection of feminism to exaggerated gender roles.
If biology determines gender than how do you account for people who are intersex?
Should we just put them in the ovens?
the endarkenment was mentioned in Angel Tech: A Modern Shamans Guide to a pregnant universe with a pic of fred mertz not sure its the original source of the idea.
I think you missed the point
I think you missed the point
Is the point that I'm a troll?
How exactly am I troll?
Because I wrote something critical about Nigel's post?
Because I shot snark back at everyone who has taken potshots at me?
Because I'm a different sort of asshole than all the other assholes in this thread?
At some point troll is just a word for someone you disagree with.
Noooo... it's a word for someone who writes antagonistic, bizzarre or out of place posts solely for the purpose of drawing attention to themselves, gaining a large number of responses, or disrupting a forum. You have 2 out of 3.
Despite my attempts to discuss your essay. it seems whenever I criticize your ideas, you criticize me.
I think you're a hypocritical cunt. :)
And I think you're a kind of stupid philosophy parrot. w00t.
We are all having a great deal of fun at the expense of a great deal of your time and effort.
Thin-skinned implies that I'm actually upset. Maybe you should contrast how much effort I've put into my responses with how much effort you've put into yours, and apply some logic to that.
I love your your scope is so limited that you can only TRY to understand something after you've forced it into a very narrow frame of reference.
My entire defense of the alleged crime of engaging Cartesian duality is "Huh. That's not what I was going for".
Again, maybe you should have thought about it some more before ranting about it. Then, perhaps, your rant wouldn't have come across as ignorant and vapid NOISE.QuoteI was actually kind of trying to walk a middle line, which is what RA objected to because I wasn't dualist ENOUGH. But I was trying to keep it fairly neutral and mostly in the realm of first-person parable because the wherefores behind our existence is kind of irrelevant to my point, which was that gender, as a separate factor from biological sex, is a social construct, and kind of a limiting one.
Except the "wherefores behind our existence" are extremely relevant to your point.
That's the whole problem. You hand wave off the "wherefores behind our existence" with some superstitious malarkey, which is the only way you can arrive at your point.
I don't think that gender can be separated from biological sex. I think gender is a function of biology, and that only the particulars of gender are socially constructed.
That is to say that I think the the idea "Pink is for girls, blue is for boys." is socially constructed, but that the need to gender things is innate to human existence. In many ways I think gender is like language: Every culture has its own language, but every culture has a language and a society cannot function without a language. Likewise, I don't think that a society can function without gender roles, and I think that the idea that gender is entirely socially constructed had caused incredible damage to modern society. I think it's caused a huge portion of society to become postively neurotic about gender roles.
I don't think rants like yours help. I think you are an agent of the endarkening, that you are helping to pull the wool over people's eyes, using bullshit superstitious arguments to justify nonsensical positions that make people go crazy -- both by embracing the nonsense, and by resisting the nonsense.
There are basically three groups of people in modern world:
There are men who are comfortable being men, and women comfortable being women, and they make up the largest group. The people in this group rarely think about gender, they simply go with the flow and embrace what society expects of them, staking out some amount of individuality in the undisputed middle grounds. These are the people who accept that masculine does not have to mean macho superman, and the feminine doesn't have to mean submissive doormat.
There are men uncomfortable being men, and women uncomfortable being women, who become neurotic travesties,focusing all of their energy on their gender. They cut themselves off from the first group by insisting that gender is "only" a social construct, and acting as if being social constructed means that it's not necessary. They call themselves genderqueer or other silly labels, and they waste all their energy fighting gender to no effect.
Finally there are men and women who are terrified by the lack of clear gender roles, and so they cling desperately to ever more neurotic and tyrannical definitions of gender. They cannot go with the flow. The men become macho blowhards, the women submissive doormats, and they go bugnuts crazy trying to impose gender certainity on society.
Look at what has happened in the last thirty years since feminists first started advancing this theory of socially constructed gender. Has gender gone away? No, quite the opposite!
A good friend of mine, Jackson Katz, directed a film about masculinity called Tough Guise (trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3exzMPT4nGI)) in which he shows some of the changing images of feminity and masculinity over the last several decades.
There are three sets of images that stand out. The first compares images of professional wrestlers with images of professional models. Over the last few decades wrestlers have gotten larger and larger, with ever more stereotypical masculine features,while professional models, who have become thinner, more waifish, more delicate, more stereotypically feminine.
Another set of images compares Star Wars figures from 1977 to figures from 1997. Han Solo is the figure. The 1977 Kenner Han Solo action figure has a realistic masculine build, just like Harrison Ford. The 1997 Han Solo has ridiculously exaggerated muscles -- he's buff like a wrestler. Han Solo, one of the most iconic male images of the 70's, is not masculine enough for the kids of 1997.
The final set of images compares male leading actors in crime thrillers. First is the poster for the Maltese Falcon: doughy, flabby and jowly Humprey Bogart, with his kind face and big puppy dog eyes holding a small snub nosed revolver at his side. Next up is Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry, tougher,leaner, meaner, scowling, a huge pistol held menacingly in his hand. The last image shows Sly Stallone in Cobra, huge oiled muscles, shades to block his eyes from showing emotion, scowling and holding a fucking machine gun in one hand.
What's going on? My theory is that by attacking gender, feminists have provoked a defensive reaction from society to circle the wagons around the concept of gender and defend it, strengthen it, allow no questioning of it. By challenging gender's right to exist, we have only made the problems associated with gender worse.
I actually have read Judith Butler, so I know just how sketchy and fact-free the argument in support of the "gender is socially constructed" idea is. I know why you had to handwave off the "wherefores behind our existence" to make your point: because being mindful of those wherefores seriously undermines and challenges the validity of your point.
What damage specifically has been caused by this war on gender?
Establish the causal connection of feminism to exaggerated gender roles.
If biology determines gender than how do you account for people who are intersex?
Should we just put them in the ovens?
What damage specifically has been caused by this war on gender?
Establish the causal connection of feminism to exaggerated gender roles.
If biology determines gender than how do you account for people who are intersex?
Should we just put them in the ovens?
Emergent does not mean "FUCKING COMPOSED OF" This is where you're tripping up.
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) :lulz:
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.
DK: MIssing the point, but in a hilarious way. :lulz:
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.
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.
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.ZOMG!! HE HAS POSTED!! (I came.)
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 myplottingbook.
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 :)
The OP is mired in Cartesian duality and ego-identification. :boring: I could barely keep my eyes open.
Look at the assumptions in the premise:QuoteSo the deal is, the first thing that happens when you arrive is you get dumped into a yellowish or brownish meat-bag filled with red and white.
"When you arrive?" Who is "you?" Where is "you" arriving from? For that matter, where is "you" arriving to?
"You" must be separate from the body, because "you" is dumped into a "meat-bag." Meat-bag is clearly idiomatic Jerkass for the body.
Does "the first thing that happens when you arrive" mean that the sequence of events isThat would seem to imply that wherever "you" arrive to is above the body you will be dropped or fall into.
- "You" Arrives From (???) to (???)
- "You" is abruptly dropped or falls into A Body
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.
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" (http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/style.htm).
DK, please correct me if I am wrong.
I wanted to post in this fascinating and intellectually stimulating thread earlier, but I was busy getting laid.
:hammer:
also, I checked out our boy DK.
turns out, he's posting from a couple miles down the street. I had gotten myself pretty excited about the idea of pooping in a bag (I ate taco bell AND curry yesterday), tracking down some pseudo-intellectual eastside twatwaffle, and "redecorating" his car and his bedroom window when the sad thought occured to me that DK doesn't drive (never got license after telling test administrator how dumb he was for not realizing that "traffic" is an emergent property of "cars" and therefore "merging" is a logical fallacy) and that his mom's basement, in fact, has no windows.
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.
And I think you're a kind of stupid philosophy parrot. w00t.
Yes, but you can't actually back up that entirely baseless accusation. You have already told us that you are ignorant of philosophy, so your claim that I am "parroting" some other person -- and by implication not thinking for myself (and fuck you too, cunt) -- must be entirely uninformed.
How could you possibly recognize that I was parroting some philosophical source unless you were,in fact, very familiar with philosophy?
Logic bitch, it'll get you every time. So yeah, color me: unimpressed by this bland, unoriginal, and thoroughly witless attempt at an insult.
Say something else. Give me even more reason to think you're a thin-skinned, hypocritical idiot who can't handle what she so readily hands out.
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.
based on the writing style i am guessing a mad philosopher that followed the safari back after their site vanished..
i give a high grade for potential but he will have to realise the difference between being philosophical (exploring the relationship between your ideas about the world and your perception and experience of it) and being a philosopher (arguing minutia using big words for ego strokes and career advancement/university tenure)
pd leans toward being philosophical and abuses philosophers attempts to get strokes for being wordy and smart.
anyone who defends a "female poster " is basement dweller who's motivations for proffering a defence are sexual in nature
Incidentally, what's the "Internet white knight" fallacy?
anyone who defends a "female poster " is basement dweller who's motivations for proffering a defence are sexual in nature
But that's more of a behavior than a fallacy...
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?
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.
:hammer:
also, I checked out our boy DK.
turns out, he's posting from a couple miles down the street. I had gotten myself pretty excited about the idea of pooping in a bag (I ate taco bell AND curry yesterday), tracking down some pseudo-intellectual eastside twatwaffle, and "redecorating" his car and his bedroom window when the sad thought occured to me that DK doesn't drive (never got license after telling test administrator how dumb he was for not realizing that "traffic" is an emergent property of "cars" and therefore "merging" is a logical fallacy) and that his mom's basement, in fact, has no windows.
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.
So if I rush to DK's defense just because I want to get into his pants does that still make me an internet White Knight? (angry sex can be fun, too)
I can only imagine what DK will think when he logs back in and sees these two exploded threads.
Sadly, he'll probably pick and choose only the ad hominem arguments to rail against.
So if I rush to DK's defense just because I want to get into his pants does that still make me an internet White Knight? (angry sex can be fun, too)
That would not be a White Knight, but a hot and sweaty night...
I can only imagine what DK will think when he logs back in and sees these two exploded threads.
Sadly, he'll probably pick and choose only the ad hominem arguments to rail against.
If he's smart he'll ignore us. Which I do not foresee.
So if I rush to DK's defense just because I want to get into his pants does that still make me an internet White Knight? (angry sex can be fun, too)
That would not be a White Knight, but a hot and sweaty night...
Ahhh, indeed. An Internet Fairy Princess just doesn't have the same ring to it! But I'm game, hehe
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.
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.
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.QuoteDon'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.QuoteThe 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.QuoteNow, 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.)
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.
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" (http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/style.htm).
DK, please correct me if I am wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
'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.
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.
'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."
DK quote - 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.
Excuse me, but DK did bring up sexuality as a part of gender - AND BASH QUEERS! If he doesn't want to acknowledge his homophobia that's his deal. I'm proud to be neurotic!!!
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.
And I think you're a stupid fuckhole who revels in anti-intellectualism, and that you should SHUT THE FUCK UP.
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.
And I think you're a stupid fuckhole who revels in anti-intellectualism, and that you should SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Dude, you don't even know the difference between a premise and an opening statement, you can barely parse a fairly simple sentence, and yet you expect that everyone will roll over and worship your lofty intelligence because you're hot in the butt for Wittgenstein and don't like Descartes? Please.
My post has been ignored and forgotten in the inferno of flaming around it.
It makes me sad.
:cry:
The OP is mired in Cartesian duality and ego-identification. :boring: I could barely keep my eyes open.
Look at the assumptions in the premise:QuoteSo the deal is, the first thing that happens when you arrive is you get dumped into a yellowish or brownish meat-bag filled with red and white.
"When you arrive?" Who is "you?" Where is "you" arriving from? For that matter, where is "you" arriving to?
"You" must be separate from the body, because "you" is dumped into a "meat-bag." Meat-bag is clearly idiomatic Jerkass for the body.
Does "the first thing that happens when you arrive" mean that the sequence of events isThat would seem to imply that wherever "you" arrive to is above the body you will be dropped or fall into.
- "You" Arrives From (???) to (???)
- "You" is abruptly dropped or falls into A Body
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.
Though I really enjoy the use of the word dumped. That opening line evokes images of angels swooping down from Heaven and crapping souls into little babies.
Simple. I existed prior to this human experience and I will continue to exist after this human experience.
:cn:
Here's the thing. One can choose to view life from any angle, I choose to view life from a different angle than you.
How is it different?
I deliberately left out the spiritual aspect, because I felt that it was irrelevant to my point.
By the idea that I am a spiritual being having a human experience rather than the other way around.
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/new_page_2.htm
Enjoy yuor human experience.
Here's the thing. One can choose to view life from any angle, I choose to view life from a different angle than you.
How is it different?
I deliberately left out the spiritual aspect, because I felt that it was irrelevant to my point.
By the idea that I am a spiritual being having a human experience rather than the other way around.
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/new_page_2.htm
Enjoy yuor human experience.
That was actually very interesting!
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.
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...
Dude, you don't even know the difference between a premise and an opening statement...
As for your whole take on gender, eat a dick, twatface. Yes, I am insulting you. No, I will not waste my time pretending anything you say is greater than useless drivel. :lulz: You're just another one of those needle dicks with a BA in Philosophy...
It's really fascinating that Little Jefe seems to believe that philosophy is the ONLY form of intellectualism possible, and to dislike philosophers = anti-intellectual.
At the same time, English, writing, and reading comprehension don't seem to be his strong points...
despite his claim to be a "professional writer", which sounds suspiciously like "blogger" to me. Probably a Very Important blogger, too, with practically dozens of other Important Modern Philosophers (unemployable co-sycophantic web pedants) following his frequently-updated (due to being unemployable) Very Important Drivel.
Dude, you don't even know the difference between a premise and an opening statement...
Are you really so stupid that you can't even identify the premise of your own post?
I'm a screenwriter. I write for television.
[quote author=Thurnez Isa link=topic=19634.msg657868#msg657868 date=1234465219
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...
The premise is that biology is simply what it is, and to decide that you are something else based on social constructs is just a story you're telling yourself.
And you are a complete fucking idiot. At one point I was convinced that you were pretty smart, but an asshole. It's more and more evident that you're one of those people who can memorize but not think. And an asshole.
As for your whole take on gender, eat a dick, twatface. Yes, I am insulting you. No, I will not waste my time pretending anything you say is greater than useless drivel. :lulz: You're just another one of those needle dicks with a BA in Philosophy...
I do not have a BA in Philosophy. My major was criminal justice, my minor was women's studies. I'm just well read. Unlike you.
The premise is that biology is simply what it is, and to decide that you are something else based on social constructs is just a story you're telling yourself.
No, that was not the premise of the piece you wrote.
The premise is that biology is simply what it is, and to decide that you are something else based on social constructs is just a story you're telling yourself.
No, that was not the premise of the piece you wrote.
The premise is that biology is simply what it is, and to decide that you are something else based on social constructs is just a story you're telling yourself.
No, that was not the premise of the piece you wrote.
Yes, yes it was the premise, as a BIOLOGIST, I got /IT/. Okay? You can go on and on about criminal justice or women's studies or screenwriting or whatever you want to do, but when it comes to biology I'M THE SMARTEST MOTHERFUCKER HERE.
And I don't much like you acting you know anything about biology, okay? Thats MY domain, and I am sure any person here will tell you I am DAMN GOOD at biology. So back the fuck off until you've read Darwin, Mendel, Watson and Crick, McClintock and everything else I've read about the subject, not to mention all the interdisciplinary work I've done in geology, chemistry and physics.
Fucktard. DO NEVER STEP. Specially not on Darwin's birthday. :lulz:
You write THAT shit????
Does any of it get used?
Yes, yes it was the premise, as a BIOLOGIST, I got /IT/. Okay?
Yes, yes it was the premise, as a BIOLOGIST, I got /IT/. Okay?
No, it was not. You screaming will not change that fact.
You may be a biologist. That's utterly irrelevant to your ability to recognize the premise of an essay. Now,if you were an English major then that might be relevant, but being a biologist gives you no special ability to recognize the premise of an essay.
free advice section: people who know about philosophy are as likely to mention Descartes in conversation as rocket scientists are to mention lego.
free advice section: people who know about philosophy are as likely to mention Descartes in conversation as rocket scientists are to mention lego.
My 5th-grader is studying Descartes right now in Spanish, which she has mysteriously pulled out of the dumpster in about a week.
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.
And I think you're a stupid fuckhole who revels in anti-intellectualism, and that you should SHUT THE FUCK UP.
free advice section: people who know about philosophy are as likely to mention Descartes in conversation as rocket scientists are to mention lego.
My 5th-grader is studying Descartes right now in Spanish, which she has mysteriously pulled out of the dumpster in about a week.
That sounds about right for her. Shes a smart cookie.
So, literacy is only for english majors now, huh?
Does that mean music is only for music majors?
Oh, Oh, I KNOW, that means SEX is only for PORN STARS!
Do you know how ridiculous you sound?
Note: when an essay is about biology, it is very easy for a BIOLOGIST to recognize the premise. Savvy?
Tell me, what is the premise of of chapter four of On the Origin of Species (first ed.), actually, tell me ALL ABOUT the premise of the Origin, since you are so incredible, and list for me, not only all the hurdles he had to jump in publishing that book, but also all the 20th century biology he anticipated. Huh huh?
See, you can't, not because you are illiterate, but because you didn't spend years of your life studying the science that Darwin spawned.
Also, in reference to the op, who the fuck is a CRIMINAL JUSTICE and WOMENS STUDIES major to tell what the premise of an essay is? As far as I can see, thats not an english major.
personally Im in Cains boat now
not worth my time
srsly I got a ton of better things to do
Hey, how do you like that thing? Pretty neat, isn't it? I mean, if you think about it.
So the deal is, the first thing that happens when you arrive is you get dumped into a yellowish or brownish meat-bag filled with red and white. It grows, and if you're lucky it all works like it's supposed to; totally sweet functional legs for perambulation, arms with dexterous graspers on the end, built-in audio and video perception devices, a noisemaker. Pretty fucking awesome! If you're lucky, you get to keep this thing for upward of 90 years, which is a pretty sweet deal even though it starts to break down a bit before the end. These things come in roughly three varieties; male, female, and both. The male ones have primarily external sexual reproductive organs at the lower limb Y-junction, and the female ones have primarily internal sexual reproductive organs for incubating more meat-bags, with the entrance at the same Y-junction. The both ones have some combination of the two and are somewhat of an anomaly.
For some reason a lot of the people inhabiting the meat-bags have decided to define themselves based on what sort of meat-bag they happen to have gotten dumped into. They've made up all kinds of fairly arbitrary assignations like "pretty" and "ugly", which are subject to change at any time for no reason whatsoever, then they identify their self-ness based on these assignations. They've also created categories for different colors of meat-bag, and for different forms of sexual behavior. They have created behavioral categories for the male and the female, which they call "gender". People are expected to pick one to identify with, and this identity dictates their behavior.
Yes, they actually do this! I'm not even making it up.
The hard thing to keep in mind, once you're here, is that your meat-bag is actually just a really cool biological machine. It gets hard to remember, because almost all of the people in their meat-bags all around you are totally buying into the idea that their bags define their personhood, but it's all bullshit. I mean, of course the thing influences your behavior; odds are high that you'll have the desire to mate with other meat-bags, mostly other-sex ones, and all of the machinations of your meat-bag, the chemicals it releases to control various functions, will affect your thoughts and feelings. But still, those aspects are fairly incidental; your vehicle will need a certain amount of care while you're in it, and it may be kind of eccentric and require special care, but that's only to be expected. The main thing to never forget is that the color of it, the sex of it, whether it is at any given moment in time "pretty" or "ugly"... these are all incidental. You would still be you in a void with a thought-operated keyboard for communication. You would still be you if all of these incidentals were excised from you and you were just a featureless blob in a jar. As long as your meat-bag continues to function, you continue to exist, and you are you.
So take care of the damn thing, appreciate it, and don't place too much value on identifying your person-hood based on what kind you got. It's all a crapshoot; you could have ended up in this bag, and I could have ended up in that one.
Also, fuck you Kai.
ZOMG! cARTESIAN dUALITY!!11!!sHIFT+oNE!!
And just for fun...
And just for fun...Hey, how do you like that thing? Pretty neat, isn't it? I mean, if you think about it.
So the deal is, the first thing that happens when you arrive is you get dumped into a yellowish or brownish meat-bag filled with red and white. It grows, and if you're lucky it all works like it's supposed to; totally sweet functional legs for perambulation, arms with dexterous graspers on the end, built-in audio and video perception devices, a noisemaker. Pretty fucking awesome! If you're lucky, you get to keep this thing for upward of 90 years, which is a pretty sweet deal even though it starts to break down a bit before the end. These things come in roughly three varieties; male, female, and both. The male ones have primarily external sexual reproductive organs at the lower limb Y-junction, and the female ones have primarily internal sexual reproductive organs for incubating more meat-bags, with the entrance at the same Y-junction. The both ones have some combination of the two and are somewhat of an anomaly.
For some reason a lot of the people inhabiting the meat-bags have decided to define themselves based on what sort of meat-bag they happen to have gotten dumped into. They've made up all kinds of fairly arbitrary assignations like "pretty" and "ugly", which are subject to change at any time for no reason whatsoever, then they identify their self-ness based on these assignations. They've also created categories for different colors of meat-bag, and for different forms of sexual behavior. They have created behavioral categories for the male and the female, which they call "gender". People are expected to pick one to identify with, and this identity dictates their behavior.
Yes, they actually do this! I'm not even making it up.
The hard thing to keep in mind, once you're here, is that your meat-bag is actually just a really cool biological machine. It gets hard to remember, because almost all of the people in their meat-bags all around you are totally buying into the idea that their bags define their personhood, but it's all bullshit. I mean, of course the thing influences your behavior; odds are high that you'll have the desire to mate with other meat-bags, mostly other-sex ones, and all of the machinations of your meat-bag, the chemicals it releases to control various functions, will affect your thoughts and feelings. But still, those aspects are fairly incidental; your vehicle will need a certain amount of care while you're in it, and it may be kind of eccentric and require special care, but that's only to be expected. The main thing to never forget is that the color of it, the sex of it, whether it is at any given moment in time "pretty" or "ugly"... these are all incidental. You would still be you in a void with a thought-operated keyboard for communication. You would still be you if all of these incidentals were excised from you and you were just a featureless blob in a jar. As long as your meat-bag continues to function, you continue to exist, and you are you.
So take care of the damn thing, appreciate it, and don't place too much value on identifying your person-hood based on what kind you got. It's all a crapshoot; you could have ended up in this bag, and I could have ended up in that one.
Also, fuck you Kai.
ZOMG! cARTESIAN dUALITY!!11!!sHIFT+oNE!!
And just for fun...
\
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=2049;type=avatar)
Don't they teach things like metaphor, simile, oxymorons and all that in grade school?
DK missed that class I guess.
He comes barging in here, like every other self proclaimed know-it-all, acting as if we will see his glory and bow down before him and his arguments. Then it backfires on him and he gets defensive.Worship
Pretty soon hes gonna be saying "I was just trolling you, this is all a social experiment!"
And so it goes, over and over, a boring cycle of boring n00btrolls.
I mean, what does he expect?
He comes barging in here, like every other self proclaimed know-it-all, acting as if we will see his glory and bow down before him and his arguments. Then it backfires on him and he gets defensive.
Pretty soon hes gonna be saying "I was just trolling you, this is all a social experiment!"
And so it goes, over and over, a boring cycle of boring n00btrolls.
I mean, what does he expect?
I love it how you start off with one argument aka the OP doesn't know the premise of their own essay, supporting that with your personal education level, and then turn that around by saying the last statement in the post above.
So, lets get back to slinging stupid insults over stupid arguments, for example, the way you completely conflated this thread with your retarded post and missing completely the point of the OP's rant. Hint hint: it had nothing to do with dualism, cause if it did I wouldn't have liked it. I am strongly non dualist, because I know the mind is simply an emergent property of neural function. I also, unlike you, know the context that the rant was written in, and therefore have better insight into the language and dare I say it(?) the premise.
What I find truly hilarious is that you continue to stand on your own on this forum insulting quite a few people with your drivel, and that you expect, at some point, for someone to actually come round to what you are saying. Or maybe you're just another dumb troll running yet another dumb social experiment on these forums. Its so BORING, and so done to death.
So what is it Kai? Are you retarded, or a fuckwit? I'm leaning towards retarded fuckwit.
not to derail the thread or anything, but isn't it fuckTARD?So what is it Kai? Are you retarded, or a fuckwit? I'm leaning towards retarded fuckwit.
Fuckwit is not an actual word silly! :mrgreen:
Your body
Hey, how do you like that thing? Pretty neat, isn't it? I mean, if you think about it.
So the deal is, the first thing that happens when you arrive is you get dumped into a yellowish or brownish meat-bag filled with red and white. It grows, and if you're lucky it all works like it's supposed to; totally sweet functional legs for perambulation, arms with dexterous graspers on the end, built-in audio and video perception devices, a noisemaker. Pretty fucking awesome! If you're lucky, you get to keep this thing for upward of 90 years, which is a pretty sweet deal even though it starts to break down a bit before the end. These things come in roughly three varieties; male, female, and both. The male ones have primarily external sexual reproductive organs at the lower limb Y-junction, and the female ones have primarily internal sexual reproductive organs for incubating more meat-bags, with the entrance at the same Y-junction. The both ones have some combination of the two and are somewhat of an anomaly.
For some reason a lot of the people inhabiting the meat-bags have decided to define themselves based on what sort of meat-bag they happen to have gotten dumped into. They've made up all kinds of fairly arbitrary assignations like "pretty" and "ugly", which are subject to change at any time for no reason whatsoever, then they identify their self-ness based on these assignations. They've also created categories for different colors of meat-bag, and for different forms of sexual behavior. They have created behavioral categories for the male and the female, which they call "gender". People are expected to pick one to identify with, and this identity dictates their behavior.
Yes, they actually do this! I'm not even making it up.
The hard thing to keep in mind, once you're here, is that your meat-bag is actually just a really cool biological machine. It gets hard to remember, because almost all of the people in their meat-bags all around you are totally buying into the idea that their bags define their personhood, but it's all bullshit. I mean, of course the thing influences your behavior; odds are high that you'll have the desire to mate with other meat-bags, mostly other-sex ones, and all of the machinations of your meat-bag, the chemicals it releases to control various functions, will affect your thoughts and feelings. But still, those aspects are fairly incidental; your vehicle will need a certain amount of care while you're in it, and it may be kind of eccentric and require special care, but that's only to be expected. The main thing to never forget is that the color of it, the sex of it, whether it is at any given moment in time "pretty" or "ugly"... these are all incidental. You would still be you in a void with a thought-operated keyboard for communication. You would still be you if all of these incidentals were excised from you and you were just a featureless blob in a jar. As long as your meat-bag continues to function, you continue to exist, and you are you.
So take care of the damn thing, appreciate it, and don't place too much value on identifying your person-hood based on what kind you got. It's all a crapshoot; you could have ended up in this bag, and I could have ended up in that one.
The second paragraph is supposed to contain the second strongest argument, but instead it simply reasserts the first paragraph.
The second paragraph is supposed to contain the second strongest argument, but instead it simply reasserts the first paragraph.
Wouldn't the second paragraph be the weakest. I mean both first impression or first paragraph and last impression or last paragraph are probably going to be of more lasting power.
Dear Dead Kennedy.
1) Please STFU.
2) Some of us are capable of reading a simple rant for exactly what it is.
3) Your over(read under)whelming showing off is certainly not impressing anyone.
4) Did the rant make you jealous?
5) We get little wannabes like you here all the time, you are nothing new or different.
6) The fact that you are here indicates your other 'intelligent' buddies ran your simple ass off.
The second paragraph is supposed to contain the second strongest argument, but instead it simply reasserts the first paragraph.
Wouldn't the second paragraph be the weakest. I mean both first impression or first paragraph and last impression or last paragraph are probably going to be of more lasting power.
Traditionally the third paragraph of the body (the fourth paragraph of the essay) presents the weakest argument. There's no reason not to switch them around, but the default is to present arguments from strongest to weakest.
Regardless, the second argument should not be "See the first argument."Dear Dead Kennedy.
1) Please STFU.
2) Some of us are capable of reading a simple rant for exactly what it is.
3) Your over(read under)whelming showing off is certainly not impressing anyone.
4) Did the rant make you jealous?
5) We get little wannabes like you here all the time, you are nothing new or different.
6) The fact that you are here indicates your other 'intelligent' buddies ran your simple ass off.
Dear Asshat,
1) No.
2) That statement is functionally meaningless. It's empty words.
3) Bluster. The monkey howls.
4) No. I just think it's stupid superstitious nonsense.
5) More bluster. The dog pisses on its territory.
6) The implication of this statement is that every person on this forum was chased here by their "intelligent" buddies.
The above proves beyond a doubt you are incapable of defending your position. Your idea of discussion is obviously ridicule and to insult. You are no longer worthy of my time. Do not respond to me again and assume if I mention you I am talking about you, not to you. I've had more intelligent responses while trolling pagan boards.
Dude. Two sentences does not constitute a paragraph and treating it as such as mechanical stupidity. The point of it was to showcase the absurdity of the strict male-female gender structure.
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. Human memory tends to work that way.
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.QuoteThe 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.QuoteAlso, 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 (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/five_par.htm) from Capital Community College Foundation:QuoteThe 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.QuoteHuman memory tends to work that way.
:cn:
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.
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.QuoteThe 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.QuoteAlso, 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 (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/five_par.htm) from Capital Community College Foundation:QuoteThe 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.QuoteHuman memory tends to work that way.
:cn:
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.
Cartesian duality is a model, true in some sense false in some sense meaningless in some seance etc etc (you should know the rest).
so what if Nigel used that model?
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...
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.
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
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 successCartesian 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.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."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.
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?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...
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
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 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.
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.
QuoteA success by what standard of measure?the standard that all of her audience except you got it...
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.
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.
*shrug* I'm basically done at this point.I'm new here, I didn't know the context of the rant, and I still got what Nigel was going for.
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.
*shrug* I'm basically done at this point.I'm new here, I didn't know the context of the rant, and I still got what Nigel was going for.
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 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 :mittens:
ZM, I'm also gender fluid.:mittens:
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.
:lulz:
holy shit Cain... im going to piss myself
:lulz:
:mittens: to LMNO
I think you're wasting your time though.
nicely said LMNO good points, i tried to help dk to get it, and all i got for my effort was insults in return, had he bothered to make a reasonable reply to my points i might have continued, but i am certain his purpose is to troll :troll: don't expect an intelligent response from the self proclaimed smartest man on the forum.:mittens: to LMNO
I think you're wasting your time though.
Thanks, Kai.
I figure it's not a waste of time if I'm enjoying what I'm doing, right?
Her writing style is so fucking dull that I mostly stopped reading it sometime yesterday afternoon.
I sort of skim it.
No wonder the ignorant ass can't sell her screenplays; she writes like a goddamn piece of plywood, and wouldn't know compelling prose if it snuck up behind her and lubed her in the anal cleft.
FWIW, after playing with the gender dysphoria concept for a few years I concluded that it really kind of doesn't matter, because my body is just my body KTHXBYE. I can fuck with it to all kind of degrees to try to make it look different, but making it look different really isn't the issue... the issue is that there is a social concept of "gender" which is separate from "sex", and this concept of detached, compartmentalized "gender" dictates that I can't *really* be a guy if I'm a little soft curvy female human.
I struggled with this for an idea, because something about it rang false. Finally, I realized I was struggling with an artificially limiting made-up construct of what defines gender, and decided to call bullshit.
My body is just my body. The end. It is what it is, it's pretty goddamn awesomely functional, and I do not fucking give a shit whether made-up gender constructs say I can't be a guy because I'm a woman.
What gender constructs of that nature do is tell us that we have to change our bodies to match our imaginary gender construct, if the imaginary socially-imposed, inherently sexist gender construct doesn't match the gender role expected of our body's sex. Fuck them. In the face. To death.
How is it sexist? A man who identifies as "female" is expected to "live as a woman". Holy fucking shit, what does that mean? What is "living like a woman"? Oh wait, it means closing yourself up in a gender role artificially imposed by society. I AM a woman. Does that mean I have to "live like" one? BULLFUCKINGSHIT. How about I just live like a human being and FUCK THAT SHIT IN THE FACE TO DEATH? I don't have to change anything about my body to live how I fucking want to live. No one should have to.
Decorate your body however you like, live however you like.
Fucking retards can argue that because I am referring to "my body" that I'm introducing the superstition of Cartesian duality, but that itself is a completely bullshit fallacy because I bet that ignorant motherfucker hasn't gone the last week without referring to some body part in the first-person possessive.
My body
is
My body.
It fucking rocks. Whether I am solely a product of my body or not is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It's what I've got, and I am hell of down with that motherfucker.
So, eat a dick, asshole.
Her writing style is so fucking dull that I mostly stopped reading it sometime yesterday afternoon.
I sort of skim it.
No wonder the ignorant ass can't sell her screenplays; she writes like a goddamn piece of plywood, and wouldn't know compelling prose if it snuck up behind her and lubed her in the anal cleft.
Well, I don't think that's really fair... DK might write quite well in a particular niche, interpersonal communication over philosophical hogwash isn't really a fair sampling to judge screenwriting from.
On the other hand, I haven't really seen anything in DK's posts which support the claim of professional writer.....
Nigel, if I may turn debate into discussion...
While the social roles of what it "means" to be a man or a woman are flexible, there is still a practical and pragmatic "meaning" to be either male or female.
Specifically, the genitals, and the different hormonal surges associated.
I do feel that if, as Kai suggests, "mind" is an emergent process of "brain", and "brain" is affected by the chemicals the body produces, and if differently gendered bodies tend to produce different chemicals, then different genders tend to produce different kinds of minds.
Arbitrary social roles aside, would you say that biology can indeed affect the mind?
I am a professional hitman.
I haven't killed anyone yet. :sad:
Well, I don't think that's really fair... DK might write quite well in a particular niche, interpersonal communication over philosophical hogwash isn't really a fair sampling to judge screenwriting from.
Hands Cain a short list with one set of initials on - DK
Nigel, if I may turn debate into discussion...
While the social roles of what it "means" to be a man or a woman are flexible, there is still a practical and pragmatic "meaning" to be either male or female.
Specifically, the genitals, and the different hormonal surges associated.
I do feel that if, as Kai suggests, "mind" is an emergent process of "brain", and "brain" is affected by the chemicals the body produces, and if differently gendered bodies tend to produce different chemicals, then different genders tend to produce different kinds of minds.
Arbitrary social roles aside, would you say that biology can indeed affect the mind?
Ugh, the cunt still didn't answer my post. :argh!:
Nigel, if I may turn debate into discussion...
While the social roles of what it "means" to be a man or a woman are flexible, there is still a practical and pragmatic "meaning" to be either male or female.
Specifically, the genitals, and the different hormonal surges associated.
I do feel that if, as Kai suggests, "mind" is an emergent process of "brain", and "brain" is affected by the chemicals the body produces, and if differently gendered bodies tend to produce different chemicals, then different genders tend to produce different kinds of minds.
Arbitrary social roles aside, would you say that biology can indeed affect the mind?
Nigel, if I may turn debate into discussion...
While the social roles of what it "means" to be a man or a woman are flexible, there is still a practical and pragmatic "meaning" to be either male or female.
Specifically, the genitals, and the different hormonal surges associated.
I do feel that if, as Kai suggests, "mind" is an emergent process of "brain", and "brain" is affected by the chemicals the body produces, and if differently gendered bodies tend to produce different chemicals, then different genders tend to produce different kinds of minds.
Arbitrary social roles aside, would you say that biology can indeed affect the mind?
What gender constructs of that nature do is tell us that we have to change our bodies to match our imaginary gender construct, if the imaginary socially-imposed, inherently sexist gender construct doesn't match the gender role expected of our body's sex. Fuck them. In the face. To death.
Nigel wrote the above and I completely agree. Let's reverse it as I think LMNO suggested and look at it from What the nature of the gender construct tells us to do. Is this a false statement or is there some merit to it. Is it just a perception based on the things Nigel has posited in the OP?
In more primitive time the stronger (male) was the hunter and protector while the weaker (woman) stayed home. In todays society this no longer applies. I wonder in how many cases the perceptions came from a need of survival.
Nigel, if I may turn debate into discussion...
While the social roles of what it "means" to be a man or a woman are flexible, there is still a practical and pragmatic "meaning" to be either male or female.
Specifically, the genitals, and the different hormonal surges associated.
I do feel that if, as Kai suggests, "mind" is an emergent process of "brain", and "brain" is affected by the chemicals the body produces, and if differently gendered bodies tend to produce different chemicals, then different genders tend to produce different kinds of minds.
Arbitrary social roles aside, would you say that biology can indeed affect the mind?
What gender constructs of that nature do is tell us that we have to change our bodies to match our imaginary gender construct, if the imaginary socially-imposed, inherently sexist gender construct doesn't match the gender role expected of our body's sex. Fuck them. In the face. To death.
Nigel wrote the above and I completely agree. Let's reverse it as I think LMNO suggested and look at it from What the nature of the gender construct tells us to do. Is this a false statement or is there some merit to it. Is it just a perception based on the things Nigel has posited in the OP?
In more primitive time the stronger (male) was the hunter and protector while the weaker (woman) stayed home. In todays society this no longer applies. I wonder in how many cases the perceptions came from a need of survival.
Well, I think that there were likely many causes involved with the definition of gender roles. Some tribal societies exist where survival is still a major issue... and the women are much more closely considered equals, rather than 'weaker' (No I'm not making noble savage argument). I think the earliest examples of gender identification can be seen in some other species. The male is loud, shiny and seems built to get attention, the female is much less loud, shiny and doesn't get attention... cause she has Teh Babies. From an evolutionary standpoint, loud, brave (foolhardy?) males were, at one time, probably more likely to pass on genetics (or for their passed on genetics to survive). As times changed, police replaced the MANLY need to keep the rapists and murderers off, society took care of the Lions and Tigers and Bears... so the Man protected his DNA stock with Resources and MONIES. In these Strange Times, even that is no longer a necessity. It seems that some men can't adjust to the idea that we don't NEED to protect the women anymore, while others seem to embrace the concept completely.
A person is not their origin. ~A close friend of mine
Example: Is your purpose in life to carry on your parents genes to your offspring? If you look at the physical biological reason of your birth, that is the meaning and purpose you come up with.
How many people REALLY BELIEVE that is their meaning and purpose in life?
In the same way, being via chance born with two X chromosomes does not dictate your meaning and purpose in life be related to the biological OR social definition of "woman".
Social internalization and expectations, I think.
Social internalization and expectations, I think.
I'll admit that to some degree I have the "I'm a man so I need to protect my woman" programming. Though I don't tend to look at it from a perspective where she's weak or anything. Hell, my wife would kick some serious ass if she needed to. But it was a learned idea from my parents. My dad earned the money my Mom stayed home and raised me. My Mom came from a family that was like the Waltons. A big farm clan. My gramps was ex-military and the proud and noble patriarch of the family. So I was constantly surrounded by that kind of idea. Of course I came to grow my own set of ideals and ideas about gender roles and such, but I still have the innate desire to be the protector of my girls.
Social internalization and expectations, I think.
Maybe... though I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the hormones and DNA that mark them as Boy, might also end up confusing them in these Strange Times. I think social programming provides a strong basis for a lot of what we consider 'gender', but it seems like a mistake to me, to assume that our actions are based entirely on nurture and social expectations. Particularly since other animals seem to have some gender specific behavior as well.
I think that choice plays a large part as well. I could choose to be a straight, white male and live a vanilla lifestyle (I was at one point) with in the confines of the binary boxes. Or I can be me, a fun loving fruit who wants to experience as much as I can in this lifetime. I realize that some want genetics to explain it all, I like the mystery myself.
Social internalization and expectations, I think.
Maybe... though I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the hormones and DNA that mark them as Boy, might also end up confusing them in these Strange Times. I think social programming provides a strong basis for a lot of what we consider 'gender', but it seems like a mistake to me, to assume that our actions are based entirely on nurture and social expectations. Particularly since other animals seem to have some gender specific behavior as well.
I'm feeling really frustrated right now, by the way that many people are persistently splitting this into a biology/social programming dichotomy.
STOP: YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT
It seems like when someone mentions that biology plays a role in gender, someone steps up to talk about social gender roles, and vice versa, as if they somehow contradict each other.
They don't. That's it. Biology plays a role in gender, AND social gender roles are made up. They're superimposed over what we think we know about biological roles. This is where we end up with the idea of the "feminine" man and the "masculine" woman. Rather than be content to accept that there is a spectrum of behavior for both genders, we insist on imposing the label of "male" to some behaviors and "female" to others, and then take it a step further and claim that these social gender labels supersede biological gender, effectively socially CREATING gender dysphoria.
Social internalization and expectations, I think.
Maybe... though I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the hormones and DNA that mark them as Boy, might also end up confusing them in these Strange Times. I think social programming provides a strong basis for a lot of what we consider 'gender', but it seems like a mistake to me, to assume that our actions are based entirely on nurture and social expectations. Particularly since other animals seem to have some gender specific behavior as well.
I'm feeling really frustrated right now, by the way that many people are persistently splitting this into a biology/social programming dichotomy.
STOP: YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT
It seems like when someone mentions that biology plays a role in gender, someone steps up to talk about social gender roles, and vice versa, as if they somehow contradict each other.
They don't. That's it. Biology plays a role in gender, AND social gender roles are made up. They're superimposed over what we think we know about biological roles. This is where we end up with the idea of the "feminine" man and the "masculine" woman. Rather than be content to accept that there is a spectrum of behavior for both genders, we insist on imposing the label of "male" to some behaviors and "female" to others, and then take it a step further and claim that these social gender labels supersede biological gender, effectively socially CREATING gender dysphoria.
I was mostly distressed by the way you appeared to be arguing with each other, but saying the same things. :)
Damn It! :argh!:
Where's DK I was hoping to hit on him some more and see how uncomfortable I could make 'em feel.
Split.
Split.
you fucker. how am I supposed to read an 82 page thread that's comprised of the failings of 3 or 4 other threads in no cohesive order whatsoever?
Cool I'm glad we're on the same page. Also as soon as I posted that I had to go write something profound, but basically saying that not sleeping, eating badly etc have a more profound effect on people (in terms of personality, behavior, sanity, etc) than anyone seems to realize. I have to go do some errands otherwise I'd post that fucker.
Split.
you fucker. how am I supposed to read an 82 page thread that's comprised of the failings of 3 or 4 other threads in no cohesive order whatsoever?
It's it!
What is it?
It's it!
What is it?
A Red Hot Chili Peppers ripoff?