Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Or Kill Me => Topic started by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 07, 2009, 08:07:35 pm

Title: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 07, 2009, 08:07:35 pm
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.

Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Sister_Gothique on February 07, 2009, 08:16:12 pm
AMEN!


Very well put.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 07, 2009, 10:34:34 pm
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:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Reginald Ret on February 08, 2009, 08:14:07 pm
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:

thats how i understood this
Quote
As long as your meat-bag continues to function, you continue to exist, and you are you.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: East Coast Hustle on February 08, 2009, 09:10:32 pm
FUCK YEAH NIGEL.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 09, 2009, 04:38:46 am
:thanks:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: ͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅ ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 09, 2009, 04:47:55 am
:mittens:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Template on February 09, 2009, 05:06:40 am
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:

Still, a thing != its labels.  No reason to construct your arbitrary identity according to arbitrary-but-popular beliefs about your body
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bu🤠ns on February 09, 2009, 05:14:25 am
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
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 09, 2009, 06:43:31 am
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


That's beautiful!
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 09, 2009, 07:04:50 am
I am not a meatbag. I am a spirit trapped in a meatbag for a relatively short amount of time.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 09, 2009, 07:15:52 am
However you want to view it, it's still a fucking meat-bag. Or a skin-sack full of meat, whatever.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 09, 2009, 07:17:04 am
However you want to view it, it's still a fucking meat-bag. Or a skin-sack full of meat, whatever.

whatever.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 09, 2009, 07:19:16 am
Yes.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 09, 2009, 07:22:42 am
Here's the thing. One can choose to view life from any angle, I choose to view life from a different angle than you.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: ͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅ ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 09, 2009, 07:23:36 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 09, 2009, 07:25:01 am
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.


Go fuck yourself.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 09, 2009, 07:25:04 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 09, 2009, 07:26:36 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 09, 2009, 07:27:36 am
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, or what happens after the meat-bag wears out.

Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 09, 2009, 07:29:17 am
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.



In my mind the two are inseperable.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 09, 2009, 07:30:42 am
Maybe you should write about that? I'd be interested.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 09, 2009, 07:33:40 am
Simple. I existed prior to this human experience and I will continue to exist after this human experience. The art is to remain focused on the goal, not the immediate journey.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 09, 2009, 08:20:38 am
My point was that your body does not define who you are, or the nature of your spirit, if you will, and cautions against falling into the trap of believing that  it does. Do you think that what I wrote conveyed something different from that, and how do you feel I could rewrite it in a way that would make my point more clear?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Raphaella on February 09, 2009, 08:51:51 am
I thought it was pretty clear. I like this idea very much. It's unfortunate that I am geared in such a way as to judge myself and others based upon these tags like ugly, pretty, male, female, black, white, hispanic and all that.
It is very hard for me to break that particular bar in my prison. Not that I go around passing ill judgment on strangers, but I tend to look at new people and form a preconceived notion about them based upon the things that I can identify and put into categories and the like.
Thanks for giving me something to ponder!
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 10, 2009, 12:01:09 am
Sweet, someone just asked me permission to let the PSU Queer Resource Center send it to students who might be interested. :)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 10, 2009, 03:09:51 pm
Simple. I existed prior to this human experience and I will continue to exist after this human experience.


:cn:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on February 10, 2009, 03:17:04 pm
:popcorn:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 10, 2009, 04:55:11 pm
Simple. I existed prior to this human experience and I will continue to exist after this human experience.


:cn:

It's religion. Religion is, by nature, exempt from the citation rule.

It's OK, I got religion too. I'm just not arguing with anyone's essays on the basis of my irrational beliefs.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 10, 2009, 05:11:02 pm
Quote
Religion is, by nature, exempt from the citation rule.


Tell that to the Talmudic Jews.


Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 10, 2009, 05:18:11 pm
Sweet, someone just asked me permission to let the PSU Queer Resource Center send it to students who might be interested. :)

Nicely written Nigel.  As someone who identifies as a Pan-sexual I think that it works quite well within queer theory, etc.  Keep up the good work!! 
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 10, 2009, 05:21:11 pm
Quote
Religion is, by nature, exempt from the citation rule.


Tell that to the Talmudic Jews.




Citing one's own irrational beliefs is circular, so it doesn't count.
Title: ATTN Talmudic J00s
Post by: Cain on February 10, 2009, 05:23:41 pm
Quote
Religion is, by nature, exempt from the citation rule.


Tell that to the Talmudic Jews.

:cn:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 10, 2009, 05:28:38 pm
Citation:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/zdm/index.htm
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cain on February 10, 2009, 05:30:26 pm
Give me the email to a Jewish organization and I shall send an email which reads:

"Your religious beliefs :cn:"

Naturally, I shall share any response.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 10, 2009, 05:34:21 pm
 :lulz:


How about...

Rabbi Arthur Waskow, director of The Shalom Center!

Awaskow@shalomctr.org
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cain on February 10, 2009, 05:49:48 pm
(http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/2200/83315673za2.jpg)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 10, 2009, 06:01:09 pm
"R Drake"?


 :lol:



I love you.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cain on February 10, 2009, 06:12:59 pm
He was, when all was said and done, the most magnificent of several magnificent bastards in Illuminatus!

When I get a reply, I'll post it here.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bu🤠ns on February 11, 2009, 05:30:57 am
HOLY Mecheieh, :mittens: , CAIN that made my nacht!
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Jasper on February 11, 2009, 07:07:30 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 11, 2009, 08:35:42 am
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:
Quote
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.

"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 is
That would seem to imply that wherever "you" arrive to is above the body you will be dropped or fall into.

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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: ͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅ ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 11, 2009, 09:52:34 am
Sweet, someone just asked me permission to let the PSU Queer Resource Center send it to students who might be interested. :)

:awesome:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: ͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅ ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 11, 2009, 09:53:59 am
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:
Quote
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.

"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 is
  • "You" Arrives From (???) to (???)
  • "You" is abruptly dropped or falls into A Body
That would seem to imply that wherever "you" arrive to is above the body you will be dropped or fall into.

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.

:lulz:

SRSLY?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on February 11, 2009, 02:49:43 pm
Well gosh, I guess no one should ever use metaphorical or figurative language to make a point!
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Jasper on February 11, 2009, 04:54:20 pm
DK: MIssing the point, but in a hilarious way.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: East Coast Hustle on February 11, 2009, 05:53:38 pm
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.

:lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 11, 2009, 07:10:10 pm
Looks like you have some pretty major religious hang-ups, and you're VERY busy projecting them.

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:
Quote
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.

"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 is
  • "You" Arrives From (???) to (???)
  • "You" is abruptly dropped or falls into A Body
That would seem to imply that wherever "you" arrive to is above the body you will be dropped or fall into.

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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 11, 2009, 07:11:28 pm
Well gosh, I guess no one should ever use metaphorical or figurative language to make a point!

Heaven forbid! Oh noes, I used the word "heaven"... that must mean I'm appealing to a metaphysical entity!  :lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 11, 2009, 07:29:54 pm
ITT, we learn that "pedantic perfectionism" is not the same as "intelligence".
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 11, 2009, 11:39:13 pm
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:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 11, 2009, 11:41:43 pm
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:

 :emo:

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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 11, 2009, 11:43:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 11, 2009, 11:45:51 pm
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.

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?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Jasper on February 12, 2009, 12:04:10 am
ITT: New posters trying to prove how smart they are.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 12:07:40 am
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.

Oh, now that's just pathetic.  Surely you can do better than that?  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.

Seriously, is this really how you defend your ideas?  By attacking anyone who criticizes them?  By off handily dismissing education and the pursuit of knowledge?  Do you just not get how pathetic that is?  It's like admitting you're an intellectual lightweight who can't hold their own in a debate.  

I really have to wonder at the quality of the mind that vomits up rebuttals like "Nuh-uh, you only think that because you went to college!" as a defense.  What a baby you are. Maybe I should go get you a binkie and pacifier.

Quote
What position am I supposed to be defending?

Fucking pay attention dipshit, I've already told you twice now:  The mind-body dualism and ego-identification invoked throughout your essay.

Quote
You can't even articulate what point you believe I'm trying to make with the essay... so what's to discuss?

I think I could articulate your point, better than you have at least, but in order to articulate your point I would have to make a long series of assumptions.  The first assumption I would have to make is that you do not mean what you have said, and that you have not said what you mean.

But I don't like doing that.  I prefer to read what people have written and assume it means what it says.  Because if I assume that others do not mean what they have said, and that they have not said what they mean, I am essentially thinking for them, and not actually listening to them.  I'm pretty sure I know what you meant (and I'm not impressed at all, as it's neither a new nor exciting idea), but I'm far more fascinated by the train wreck of how you expressed the idea.

What you said is a bunch of unintelligent tripe, the sort of bargain basement philosophy churned out by brain-dead stoners who should've spent more time focusing on their studies and less time contemplating their navel.  
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Jasper on February 12, 2009, 12:17:47 am
Dude, you're totally missing it.  She never mentions dualism at all. 

It's essentially an informal rant that urges the reader to disregard gender roles and to take care of yourself.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on February 12, 2009, 12:22:50 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 12:27:22 am
Pretty much what Felix said.

Informal rant, ten minutes at the keyboard, the end.

If you're looking for debates on High Philosophy, you'll have to look elsewhere. You came out of the gate with insults, so it's pretty clear that you're just stewing to pick a fight about dualism and don't care for discussion on the actual topic, which boils down to "NO, YOU ARE NOT A FUCKING DRAGON".

Plus, it takes you forever to compose a reply.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Messier Undertree on February 12, 2009, 12:30:32 am
The OP is mired in Cartesian duality and ego-identification.

Did you really just say that?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Messier Undertree on February 12, 2009, 12:31:43 am
Your mom is mired in dicks.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Messier Undertree on February 12, 2009, 12:32:30 am
critique this motherfucker(http://i41.tinypic.com/245d6wn.jpg)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 12:33:16 am
The OP is mired in Cartesian duality and ego-identification.

Did you really just say that?

And he's really intent on believing it, too.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Pariah on February 12, 2009, 12:36:55 am



Your essay did nothing to convince me that you aren't a psuedointellectual wank

Look who's talking.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on February 12, 2009, 12:39:29 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Pariah on February 12, 2009, 12:41:18 am
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
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Messier Undertree on February 12, 2009, 12:42:12 am
Dead Kennedy sounds like one of those annoying "deep" high school kids who just discovered Nietzsche, I have to say.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on February 12, 2009, 12:42:21 am
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

Oops! :oops:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Pariah on February 12, 2009, 12:44:05 am
Dead Kennedy sounds like one of those annoying "deep" high school kids who just discovered Nietzsche, I have to say.

My guess is that his post didn't sound smart enough so he copy pasted some words from wikipedia's philosiphy page and called it good.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Pariah on February 12, 2009, 12:48:30 am
or should I say "My ego existentialist guess is that his subsituationislit anarchomaterialistic post was full of neo-ergoestitism copy pasta"
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on February 12, 2009, 12:49:51 am
Oh, I'm sure this fellow is well-read and understands what he's saying, even if he doesn't much care about what other people are trying to say.

However, when you're the self-declared smartest person on the forum, there can be an awful lot of pressure to maintain that. Poor bloke set the bar awfully high for himself.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Precious Moments Zalgo on February 12, 2009, 01:17:13 am
I most certainly have critiqued your essay.  My critique can be summed up in single sentence:  Your essay is mired in Cartesian duality and ego-identification.
No, it isn't.  The essay merely uses it as a metaphor to contrast personality with physical attributes, and the point of it was not to let what you look like define who you are. 

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

LLOF had it exactly right when she said
Quote
Looks like you have some pretty major religious hang-ups, and you're VERY busy projecting them.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 01:30:42 am
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.

That was so much fun.

Cainad gets a point for catching that I said I'd let it slide and then proceeded to not let it slide.  I almost called myself out on that.  Not that anyone has reason to believe me now that I've been called out on it.  So Cainad, you caught me: I was pretending to be fair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster added:

Quote
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.

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

It's GARBAGE.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 01:43:21 am
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?

I am interested in the very different ways in which people are reading it. Kai, RA, and this DK spag all seem to have gotten extremely different things from it.



Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Precious Moments Zalgo on February 12, 2009, 01:44:08 am
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.

Quote
The term meat-bag clearly refers to the body.
You had to read that far?  I got it from the thread title.

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

You must be WAY smarter than me because I am completely unable to follow your logic.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Precious Moments Zalgo on February 12, 2009, 01:45:44 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 01:48:43 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Nast on February 12, 2009, 01:55:05 am
So LLOF is a chick.  How much of this sudden onslaught of "defenders" is a case of Virgin Knights In Shining Armor rallying out from their basements to the defense of A Real Live Girl?
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

It's GARBAGE.

Well fuck you, I liked it.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 02:00:38 am
I can see how you got to be the self-proclaimed smartest person on the board.  I can't wait to read your essay.  I'm sure others here can't either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I saw that you mentioned gender, but from the context I assumed that you simply don't understand the concept of gender at all.  I still think that.  Especially when you say silly things like "gender is a social construct."  Oh Judith Butler, what evil you have set loose on the world.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 02:12:04 am
LLOF has the balls to defend herself. We're just chiming in because you're shitting all over her thread with your pretentiousness. And it's silly.

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

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

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

:lulz:

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.

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

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

Quote
Well fuck you, I liked it.

No accounting for the tastes of the feeble-minded.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Precious Moments Zalgo on February 12, 2009, 02:15:57 am
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.

Quote from: Dead Kennedy
It would be closer to say that if you use a metaphor as the premise of your argument, then your argument will necessarily require that the metaphor be true.
Really?  I would have thought that it would have only required that the metaphor be applicable.  So you are saying that a metaphor has to be literally true to be usable, not just metaphorically true?

I wish I was the self-proclaimed smartest person on the board.  Then I'd KNOW these things. <kicks self>
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 02:19:19 am
I am capable of defending myself, I'm just kind of bemused by your posts and have no reply. I'm not sure what the level of engagement you're looking for here is... I sat down the other day and banged out a little rant about something that irritates me, and you want me to rise to the level of a philosophy graduate and defend it as if it were a dissertation.

Sorry, man, I'm not a philosopher. I make pretty baubles out of glass, and I'm more interested in math than philosophy.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 02:21:12 am
Keep in mind that the way you embarked upon your "critique" was to be insulting:

The OP is mired in Cartesian duality and ego-identification. :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.

So really, where is there to go with that besides "fuck off"?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 02:32:32 am
The one thing that amazes me about DK is how much, and how vociferously, he writes in response to very little stimulus. Also, how often  he uses variations on the word "idiot". It's fascinating.

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

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

Just 95% incomprehensible and 100% pointless.

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

SHUT THE FUCK UP! SHUT THE FUCK UP! SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.

What's the point of your essay again?  That gender is a social construct?

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

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

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

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

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

WEAKSAUCE.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Nast on February 12, 2009, 02:33:47 am
NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOUR PHILOSOPHICAL "CREDENTIALS".

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

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

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

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

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

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

PLEASE SPARE US LESSER PEONS FROM YOUR THROBBING INTELLECT!

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

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

It's more of a shrill giggle.

Quote
Well fuck you, I liked it.

No accounting for the tastes of the feeble-minded.

Go sit in a corner with your little MENSA friends. We're obviously not capable of interacting with such an erudite being as yourself.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 02:57:02 am
Yeah, he's so vehemently opposed to the idea of duality that the merest hint of it puts him in full battle mode.  Now that we know he's so easy to set off, we can have fun poking him with sticks.

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

Quote from: Dead Kennedy
It would be closer to say that if you use a metaphor as the premise of your argument, then your argument will necessarily require that the metaphor be true.
Really?  I would have thought that it would have only required that the metaphor be applicable.  So you are saying that a metaphor has to be literally true to be usable, not just metaphorically true?[/quote]

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

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

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

Here's a metaphor:
Quote
My love for you is an ocean.

If I were writing a poem, I could very well use that metaphor in a poem:
Quote
My love for you is an ocean, full of waves of love and devotion
My love for you is complex, its not just your looks or the great sex.

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

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

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

That, simplified, is what LLOF has done.

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

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

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

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

Thus my opinion that it's a craptacular argument with no convincing power if you recognize what's going on.  And as I've already pointed out, you don't need to know the conclusion to know that it's wrong (or at least not proved by the argument).
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 02:59:14 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 03:04:47 am
Holding your nose in the air and going on about the wealth of knowledge you hold on the subject of philosophy that we clearly lack is giving your "credentials". Note the use of quotation marks that imply a figurative meaning.

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

PLEASE SPARE US LESSER PEONS FROM YOUR THROBBING INTELLECT!

It's more of a shrill giggle.

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

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

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

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

It makes me sad.  :x
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Pariah on February 12, 2009, 03:06:56 am
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:


Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 03:16:10 am
you want me to rise to the level of a philosophy graduate and defend it as if it were a dissertation.

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

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

So... you're suggesting that only people with philosophy degrees should write?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 03:20:03 am
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.

In other words, a perfect Internet troll. Have you considered joining HIMEOBS?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Precious Moments Zalgo on February 12, 2009, 03:27:54 am
That conclusion is only true if the premises are true.  if they are only "metaphorically true" then the conclusion is only "metaphorically true."

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

Thus my opinion that it's a craptacular argument with no convincing power if you recognize what's going on
That's all true, but none of that is relevant.  She didn't post it as a formal logical proof.  It was just a rant.

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

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

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

I bet you were the guy in the theater watching "Freaky Friday" who threw his drink and the screen and stormed out screaming about how the move was promoting Cartesian duality.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 03:32:02 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 03:33:42 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 03:36:05 am
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.

Doesn't everything that isn't science have the possibility of being classified as "philosophy", though?

Also, I think that most self-described philosophers are morons, and completely full of shit.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 03:45:08 am
You are doing exactly what you decried other people doing in your SHUT THE FUCK UP rant.  It's hypocritical.

Whut

how did you manage to miss that my "shut the fuck up" rant (which you so charmingly accused me of plagiarizing from Douglas Adams) was about people making NOISE WITH THEIR STUPID NOISY NOISEHOLES? It was about pointless sounds, not ideas. It was, in fact, about me venting because someone near me would not SHUT THE FUCK UP while I was trying to do my own thing.

The written word is easy to ignore, because it's not yammering five feet from my head about nothing all fucking day long. For that matter, if someone wants to TALK about their ideas or viewpoints, that's not meaningless empty noisemaking, either.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 03:56:09 am
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:

Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Pariah on February 12, 2009, 03:59:56 am
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

People like new ideas as long as they're not covered with a thick slime of a prick.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 04:01:53 am
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:



Your intellect is clearly a marble tower! I mean, really, I am shamed to be so much as kneeling before it.

No, actually, you remind me of another pompous philosophy major I know, who also doesn't grasp sarcasm too well.

You started right off by being a completely insulting cock. This is not a writer's board; this is a rager's board, and you stepped right in it. Stupid, pompous assfuck. Why do you think it's called "Or Kill Me"?

Learn to read, and comprehend, where you are before you come out of the gate with your wank-emote, dipshit.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 04:07:01 am
 I never attacked the author.  You decided to make it personal when you responded to my criticism of your essay with criticism of me.

So, what's your excuse for insulting everyone else on the board while you were at it?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 04:21:24 am
The OP is mired in Cartesian duality and ego-identification. :boring:  I could barely keep my eyes open.

By the way, asshole, "OP" can be translated as "Original poster" as well "Original post" and is usually used interchangeably. Learn to write what you mean CLEARLY, THEN criticize me.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Sir Squid Diddimus on February 12, 2009, 04:23:48 am
dude this guy's posts are so full of inane dribble that it makes em hard to read.
in fact, i didn't read most of them for that reason.

Nigel i liked your OP.

DK- eat dick, doo doo head.

how's that for pathetic nonsensical popsicle fuckwit drivel
ask me more, i'm full of it, douche bag.
in fact, if you think Nigel's rant is -- whatever the hell it was you were trying to say about it, you haven't met the childish grawkitude that is me.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 04:50:54 am
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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Sir Squid Diddimus on February 12, 2009, 04:54:13 am
fweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Sir Squid Diddimus on February 12, 2009, 05:01:11 am
now i wonder.
will he take another 45 minutes to come up with some long winded retort that bores the shit out of me?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Nast on February 12, 2009, 05:02:05 am
now i wonder.
will he take another 45 minutes to come up with some long winded retort that bores the shit out of me?

I made dinner and caught a cold in the time he took to write that. What a blowhard!
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 05:02:39 am
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.

Quote
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.

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.

Bullshit, you incompetent sack of shit. I evaded that den of snakes in order to avoid instantly turning off anyone who happens to have some sort of mystical religious notions about our existence.

Quote
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.

So do I, you reading-comprehension-impaired fuckwit. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ESSAY WHICH YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ BECAUSE YOU WERE SO HUNG UP ON CARTESIAN DUALITY, which is apparently so great a bugaboo for you that it turns your brain off.

Quote
Bloody obvious social studies rambling

Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 05:03:47 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 05:12:12 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 05:23:53 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Sir Squid Diddimus on February 12, 2009, 05:27:47 am
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.




Title: Re: Your body
Post by: ͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅ ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 12, 2009, 05:43:43 am
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.

Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 05:46:52 am
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.


Also, that he's totally trolling.

For one thing, nobody who was sincere would continuously cite a bunch of philosophy wankers.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 12, 2009, 06:02:39 am
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
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Sir Squid Diddimus on February 12, 2009, 06:07:08 am
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



(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2367/2087409633_b66e314d1f.jpg?v=0)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 12, 2009, 06:13:11 am
HEY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PERSON WHO DEDUCED HOW THE NAZIS WERE THE "LAST" CULTURE TO GLORIFY VIOLENCE
SRSLY THEY WERE


 :lulz: :lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bu🤠ns on February 12, 2009, 06:16:23 am
 :lulz: @ this thread.

i'm still wondering if Cain had received a response yet.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 06:17:35 am
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
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 12, 2009, 06:18:44 am
:lulz: @ this thread.

i'm still wondering if Cain had received a response yet.

I could almost guarantee
he wont....
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 12, 2009, 06:19:18 am
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

whats that
sorry
I fell asleep between responses
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: ͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅ ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 12, 2009, 06:27:05 am
:lulz: @ this thread.

i'm still wondering if Cain had received a response yet.

Link?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 06:28:38 am

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.

Holy shit, this is one of the best testimonials EVER.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Sir Squid Diddimus on February 12, 2009, 06:29:10 am
Who is this guy even talking to?
 :lulz:

It all just runs together and makes no sense
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 06:29:35 am
P.S. it's "crapulence", and it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 06:31:57 am
Who is this guy even talking to?
 :lulz:

It all just runs together and makes no sense

I don't think he's really communicating, because he decides in advance what people are trying to say, and persistently replies to his rigidly held conceptions rather than engaging in a discourse intended to result in mutual understanding.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 12, 2009, 06:34:04 am

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.


and now yet again... preaching to us what discordism is, like you know we never read RAW or Leary
soon he'll be telling us how to be discordist

oh yay Dead Kennedy your definitely not new
your act has been done, and was boring then too



now for endarkenment... don't remember who originally coined that, as Im not a big fan of RAW or Leary, but I hear it all the time used in the secularist movement and the so called new atheists
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 12, 2009, 06:36:08 am
Who is this guy even talking to?
 :lulz:

It all just runs together and makes no sense

that's been done too
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Zenpeanut on February 12, 2009, 06:38:35 am
How nice...he broke his 50th post by continuing to be a tard.

There once was a fucktard named DK
Who was an ass not resembling the kind that would bray
But was instead a holy grail
Which flowed not wine, but shit covered lail
Indeed was that fucktard named DK

Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 06:39:28 am
and now yet again... preaching to us what discordism is, like you know we never read RAW or Leary

I'm sure most of the people responding to me haven't, and if they did they sure as hell didn't grok what they were reading.

Quote
oh 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?  
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: fomenter on February 12, 2009, 06:40:33 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 12, 2009, 06:41:28 am
holy shit another post in LESS THEN 20 MINUTES
 :jebus:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 12, 2009, 06:42:51 am

Quote
oh 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?  

I think you missed the point












 :troll:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 06:45:33 am
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.

Ah, thank you.  That's exactly where I got it from.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 12, 2009, 06:45:50 am
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
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: fomenter on February 12, 2009, 06:49:44 am
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
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..
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: ͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅ ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 12, 2009, 06:51:18 am
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.

Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bu🤠ns on February 12, 2009, 06:52:21 am
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.

good book..i highly recommend it.


---

i think what nigel said about having a conversation resulting in mutual understanding is key here...You're literate, DK, we get it. Is mutual understanding a worthy cause here?  I'm just making a simple request toward cohesion over alienation here.--if you're up for it?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 07:07:13 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 07:10:51 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 12, 2009, 07:17:22 am
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.


lets put it this way
if it wasn't 2 am and I had some time on my hand I probably could do a search and find each one of those above questions said by others under similar circumstances

and I probably wouldn't have to go as far back as the civil war which more or less predated me joining the board
that's what Im talking about

I DEFINITELY would find your "I'll have to tell you what discordism is and how your all not real discordists endarkened
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 07:19:50 am
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.

I didn't write an antagonistic, bizarre or out of place post solely for the purpose of drawing attention to myself.

I did write a mildly dismissive critique of the hastily written, poorly thought out essay you posted -- primarily because everyone else was giving you totally undeserved mittens, and I wanted to offer a counterpoint.

You decided to attack me, and your loser friends rushed in to defend you, and that's when the thread turned into a discussion of me.  Despite my attempts to discuss your essay.  it seems whenever I criticize your ideas, you criticize me.

I think you're a hypocritical cunt.  :)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 07:24:56 am
And I think you're a kind of stupid philosophy parrot. w00t.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Sir Squid Diddimus on February 12, 2009, 07:26:39 am
(http://wordwatcher.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/brainy_smurf.jpg)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: ͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅ ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 12, 2009, 07:37:14 am
Despite my attempts to discuss your essay.  it seems whenever I criticize your ideas, you criticize me.

I think you're a hypocritical cunt.  :)

:lulz:

What better way to debate the idea and not the person by calling them a cunt in the next breath.

 :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
 :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
 :lulz:
 :lulz:
 :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
 :lulz: :lulz:
 :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
 :lulz: :lulz:
 :lulz: :lulz:
 :lulz:


 :lulz:
 :lulz:
 :lulz:
 :lulz:




 :lulz:








 :lulz:









 :lulz:
 :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
 :lulz:
 :lulz:
 :lulz:






 :lulz:











 :lulz:

LAILTASTIC!
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 07:41:30 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 07:46:16 am
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.

Anyway, thanks for helping me while away a relatively boring evening, goodnight.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on February 12, 2009, 08:08:09 am
Dead Kennedy, we're really all friends here, so I'm going to let you in on a special secret:

Your approval is not our concern.


In fact, have another:

We are all having a great deal of fun at the expense of a great deal of your time and effort.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 12, 2009, 08:14:50 am

We are all having a great deal of fun at the expense of a great deal of your time and effort.

not me
 :sad:

unless someone agrees to do two weeks of chemistry assignments for me tonight
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 08:20:49 am
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.

Thinking and writing require little effort for me.  I practice constantly.  I try to use my brain at least 75% of the time I'm awake.  I'm guessing you shoot for closer to 25%.  And I'm being generous.

Quote
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.

I dare you to actually explain what you mean by that.  That doesn't mean anything.

It's just empty words.  I don't have to "try" to understand what you wrote.  I understood it just fine.

Your problem is that you, like most idiots, think that what you "meant" is more important that what you actually said.  So you say something stupid, and then you get called on it, and what? Now I'm close-minded because you can't express yourself clearly and don't know what you're saying actually means?

Say what you mean, mean what you say.  Words to live by.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: ͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅ ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on February 12, 2009, 08:22:26 am
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.

Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cain on February 12, 2009, 09:25:06 am
Oh man, if I only I had read philosophy for the past 6 years.  Then I would be able to keep up with this conversation.  I don't even know who this Nietzsche fella is.  Name sounds kinda familiar...did he make those garlic sausages that are so popular in parts of Bavaria?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 09:38:50 am
What damage specifically has been caused by this war on gender?


I attribute the hyper-gendered behavior that has followed in the wake of feminist attempts to dismantle gender roles to that attempt to dismantle gender roles.

Essentially my theory is that feminist attacked traditional gender roles and made them appear to be "oppressive to women,"  so feminists abandoned them for the male gender role.  They were highly successful in this reframing of traditional roles as "oppressive of women," and most of society agreed in principle.

But as it turns out, this is an unworkable scenario, and creates society wide confusion about what people are supposed to do.  People are, of course, domesticated primates.  They expect society to tell them what to do.  How to think, how to behave, how to be.  Without marching orders they get confused and scared.

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.  

Quote
Establish the causal connection of feminism to exaggerated gender roles.

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.

Quote
If biology determines gender than how do you account for people who are intersex?

I don't. There are only two genders because there are only two sexes.  Intersexed is a big catchall category for a wide range of birth defects. The idea that the intersexed are a "third gender" is just the ideological dogma of the gender warriors.  You'll notice that traditional gender schemes generally do not account for the intersexed.  When they do -- some Southeast Asian cultures, most pre-Christian societies -- the intersexed are generally regarded in religious terms, and seen as specially touched by the gods.  Importantly this role places them outside the pair-bonding/parenting concepts of their society.

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.

Quote
Should we just put them in the ovens?

Whut?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on February 12, 2009, 10:40:56 am
If I hear "cartesian duality" one more time I'm going to assrape a puppy :evilmad:

Here's the deal DK - Mind is an emergent property of biology. Congratulations - you got that bit.

Emergent does not mean "FUCKING COMPOSED OF" This is where you're tripping up.

Yes, some mouldy old philosophy dudes refuted some even mouldier, older philosophy dudes positions on the concept of "soul" but, back then they didn't get the concept of emergence.

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:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 11:53:16 am
Emergent does not mean "FUCKING COMPOSED OF" This is where you're tripping up.

I sense a straw man coming.

Quote
Fast forward to 2009 and we DO (all except you who seem to think emergence == composed of)

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."  Any argument based on the premise that I think "emergent" mean "composed of" will necessarily be a straw man argument.

Quote
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".

Yes, and when you do that you have failed to understand what emergent means, and you have engaged in the flaw of Cartesian dualism.  Go rape a puppy.  You cannot take an emergent property "out" of the events from which it emerges.

Emergent properties are properties that emerge ("rise up from") from the complex interaction of dynamic systems.  They are never separate from the system from which they emerge. As soon as you separate the emergent property from its system, it ceases to function.

Think of a car.  Speed is the car's emergent property.  It moves.  Movement is not "composed of" the car, it is an emergent property of the functioning of the car.  You cannot take the movement "out" of the car, because without the car the movement is meaningless.

See,it is in fact YOU that is using the flawed model.  Your model separates mind and body and because you artificially limit your understanding of mind, "you fail to appreciate the totality and potential of the emergent phenomenon."

Quote
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.

Wow dude, spew some more nonsense.

The line "robotic insistence on adherence to canonical Wittgenstein" is priceless.  I bet you don't even know what you just said.  I bet you are actually, in fact, so fucking stupid that you have no clue what you just said.

Canonical Wittgenstein?  So what would that be?  Books by Wittgenstein that are actually by Wittgenstein?   What a fucking dumbass you are, trying to sound like you know something about something.

I would bet real money that you couldn't explain what you said in any meaningful way.  I'll bet everything you know about Wittgenstein comes from what I've told you, and that you are making a Hail Mary Bluff Pass.  You're a total fake, a sham, a charlatan. You're some ignorant fucking high school twat who hasn't learned a thing yet.  You have no idea what you're saying.

Sorry dude, won't fool me.  Pulling tricks like that only clues me in that I'm dealing with a preening pseudointellectual asswipe.  You want to go head-to-head with me, you're going to have to actually go READ A FUCKING BOOK FIRST. You can't bluff your way through this.  That might fool your dumbass stoner friends back at your high school, but I'm not going to fall for it,because unlike your idiot friends, I actually do have a real education.

Also the statement "ironically the argument you seem to be making with your "cartesian" gobshite" is a big red flag that say "I was incapable of following the argument."  And putting the word Cartesian in scare quotes only illustrates that you're fucking ignorant. It's a real word.  It means of or relating to the French philosopher and mathematician Ren Descartes.  That's the guy who said "cogito, ergo sum." 

But you're a fucking piece of shit, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to your dumb ass.  Throw yourself a party.

Quote
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.

No, I made fully justifiable assumptions based on what I read.

I'll bet you think you wouldn't entertain superstitious notions , just like I'll bet you lack the intellectual discipline to actually do it.

Quote
Newsflash - you're not the smartest person on this board (Cain is)

Well, he's at the very least smart enough to not make an ass out of himself by trying to talk tough on subjects he clearly doesn't understand.

You should borrow a page.

Quote
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:

Yes, I have "bad interpersonal skills" because I don't bend over and kiss the ass of jackasses such as yourself, and instead mock you for the fools you are.  I've heard it on every forum I've ever been, and it's always the idiots saying it. 

SO. DON'T. CARE.

Also, accusing me of plagiarizing ideas without any evidence?

You know how fucking CHINTZY that is?  Accusing me of copying from Wikipedia when you have no evidence, just because you're too fucking stupid to make or follow an argument?   That's low.   That's no different than lying through your teeth.

You're a fucking coward, and you only say craven shit like that because you're too slow-witted and stupid to present or follow a serious discussion.   Don't fucking call me a thief just because you're too fucking dim to think for yourself, okay maggot?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on February 12, 2009, 12:17:21 pm
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.

Whether or not they copied it or came up with it themselves is neither here nor there, the fact that it's shit is what I object to.

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.

Here's where I'm coming from with the seperation aspect. I'm a software engineer (congrats your estimation was about 20-odd years off) I deal with software which is an emergent property of complex semiconductor arrays. My programs use abstracted data modelling techniques which, although entirely dependent on the hardware, have, to all intents and purposes, nothing to do with it in either form, function or design.

To put it another way - DaVinci's Mona Lisa - work of art or a bunch of lightwaves scattering off some dried up organic compounds?

I'm getting kinda bored with you now. You seemed interesting to begin with but really, for someone who portrays themselves as a mastermind intellect you really do seem to have fuck all much to say, aside from regurgitating past its sell by date medieval literature.

Hint: we get pissed off when people regurgitate 60's counterculture literature round these parts. You are a fucking historical pinealist.

Anyway, I'm done with you. Troll away...
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Precious Moments Zalgo on February 12, 2009, 01:38:08 pm
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?

Quote from: Dead Kennedy
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: mcjof on February 12, 2009, 02:34:44 pm
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      :)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 12, 2009, 02:44:05 pm
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/319047856_dbf1ef3e92.jpg)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on February 12, 2009, 02:55:19 pm
DK, it hurts my feelings that you didn't address this post of mine, several pages back. :sad:

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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Raphaella on February 12, 2009, 02:58:20 pm
I just read this whole thread in one go.   :sadbanana:

I liked the rant, I also kinda liked this thread. It gave me much more to ponder than the rant alone did in the first place.

DK I watched the trailer you linked to. I think that it brings up some really interesting points regarding gender. I don't believe that this over masculine guise is a product of feminism though.

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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on February 12, 2009, 03:04:18 pm
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.

I totally forgot about that. :lulz: Do you suppose sanjay was their sole intelligent member?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Raphaella on February 12, 2009, 03:30:10 pm
I don't know. Did sanjay ever actually post in the Safari thread?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on February 12, 2009, 03:30:58 pm
That's why I'm wondering. Never saw hide nor hair of that one, but they kept talking about her.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cain on February 12, 2009, 03:37:16 pm
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.

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 my plotting book.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Raphaella on February 12, 2009, 03:41:23 pm
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.

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 my plotting book.
ZOMG!! HE HAS POSTED!! (I came.) 

:argh!: why is this always about YOUUUUUUUUUUU!

so Sanjay is a she hummm, I did not get to poke around over there too much and now their server is down.

Edit, cause I said so.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bu🤠ns on February 12, 2009, 04:07:55 pm
ok---Nigel was speaking from the heart. DK -- criticized Nigel's emotional rhetoric from an intellectual perspective.  what a prick thing to do.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Sir Squid Diddimus on February 12, 2009, 05:13:23 pm
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      :)

THIS is constructive criticism.
DK has yet to say anything constructive.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 12, 2009, 05:36:40 pm
Hi there, DK.

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:
Quote
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.

"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 is
  • "You" Arrives From (???) to (???)
  • "You" is abruptly dropped or falls into A Body
That would seem to imply that wherever "you" arrive to is above the body you will be dropped or fall into.

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.
 


This is a very interesting response to the original post.

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.


Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 12, 2009, 05:57:39 pm
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.

Sorry this thread ended up pissing me off.   :argh!:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 12, 2009, 06:11:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: East Coast Hustle on February 12, 2009, 06:16:13 pm
I wanted to post in this fascinating and intellectually stimulating thread earlier, but I was busy getting laid.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: fomenter on February 12, 2009, 06:17:59 pm
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.

 :lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bu🤠ns on February 12, 2009, 06:19:54 pm
THIS is exactly why we love LMNO
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 12, 2009, 06:20:33 pm
I wanted to post in this fascinating and intellectually stimulating thread earlier, but I was busy getting laid.

Clearly, ECH is the most intelligent person on the board.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: East Coast Hustle on February 12, 2009, 06:30:10 pm
: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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 12, 2009, 06:34:11 pm
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



The above DK quote is what really got to me.  Sorry for being thin skinned about the whole gender issue.  I assume that DK must be a 'straight, white, male' and I used to fit into that category myself but I grew up and found life to be a little more interesting and a lot more fun.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dysfunctional Cunt on February 12, 2009, 06:34:43 pm
Nigel - I liked your original post.  

My only issue with it is the actual term meat-bag and that is just me.  I say it and get this mental image of a huge bag of entrails with pieces dangling down.....

As for the rest of this thread.....

I don't like DK.  Can we shoot him?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Jasper on February 12, 2009, 06:36:36 pm
I think ECH just won the thread.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Sir Squid Diddimus on February 12, 2009, 06:40:27 pm
: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.

<3 <3
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: East Coast Hustle on February 12, 2009, 06:43:38 pm
this guy actually pissed me off (unlike most of the second-rate trolls that try their hand here) because the two or three times he dropped his act and tried to make a valid point, he made some good ones. It's too bad he's clearly more concerned about trumpeting his own intellect loudly to himself than he is about finding common ground for discussion here.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Jasper on February 12, 2009, 06:46:09 pm
Yeah, it's true.  But everyone's got potential

Joke 'em if they can't take a fuck.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: East Coast Hustle on February 12, 2009, 06:49:31 pm
it is the lamentable nature of potential that those who still have it are those who could benefit most from actually exercising it.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Jasper on February 12, 2009, 06:56:12 pm
My gut tells me he's still in college.  Something in the way it all seems so fresh in his mind.

So it's probably not a total loss, yet.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 12, 2009, 06:57:00 pm
He has claimed to be in his 30s, mind you.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 12, 2009, 07:00:19 pm


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.


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...
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: fomenter on February 12, 2009, 07:08:58 pm
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.
 
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 07:13:46 pm
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.

I didn't say I am ignorant of philosophy, though not being a philosophy student I am obviously ignorant of the work of many philosophers. I said that I am not a philosopher, and not terribly interested in philosophy.

It's fairly easy to spot parroting, especially when I've seen the same type of parroting before, and even more especially when you liberally lace your parroting with citations. Do I give a shit whether you agree with this philosopher over that one? Not really.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 12, 2009, 07:32:25 pm
Nigel, if you don't mind I'd like to share this (rant) with my gf, she's bi as well, and I think she'd appreciate it.
I know it'll lead to some interesting conversation that's for sure.

thanks, zen_magick




*note to self* rent and watch the Gore Vidal "Middlesex" documentary
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 07:41:42 pm
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.         
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 12, 2009, 07:48:39 pm
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.         

 :lulz: :lulz: that's why your my hero!!
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 12, 2009, 07:51:05 pm
Incidentally, what's the "Internet white knight" fallacy?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: fomenter on February 12, 2009, 07:53:53 pm
anyone who defends a "female poster " is basement dweller who's motivations for proffering a defence  are sexual in nature
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bu🤠ns on February 12, 2009, 07:54:12 pm
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.
 

see it's a mulititude of gems like this that contribute to making an already great thread super (all the way back from the first OP).
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Nast on February 12, 2009, 07:55:15 pm
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...
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 12, 2009, 07:56:49 pm
Ah.  "You're disagreeing with me just because you want to get into her pants."


Gotcha.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 07:57:43 pm
Incidentally, what's the "Internet white knight" fallacy?

It's when someone tries to discredit their opponents' arguments based on the presumption that they are defending/trying to impress a (ZOMG!) Real Live Girl on the Internet.

I've seen Internet White Knights in action, it's not that it doesn't happen, but it's a pretty weak argument to launch solely on the basis that someone has referred to your antagonist as female. Especially on a board as laden with females as this one is.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cain on February 12, 2009, 07:58:08 pm
(http://www.disarm.se/data/bildunttext_nsfw/internet_white_knight.jpg)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 07:58:48 pm
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...

It only becomes a fallacy when it's used presumtively as an argument against your opponents.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 08:01:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Messier Undertree on February 12, 2009, 08:07:39 pm
: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.

:mittens:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 12, 2009, 08:08:07 pm
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:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 12, 2009, 08:13:50 pm
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)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 12, 2009, 08:16:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 12, 2009, 08:16:43 pm
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...
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Jasper on February 12, 2009, 08:18:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 12, 2009, 08:24:24 pm
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
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 08:24:27 pm
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.

Somehow, neither do I.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 12, 2009, 08:29:40 pm
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


WHOO!!!  :fap:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 08:46:02 pm
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.

Quote
Don't even get me started on "cogito, ergo sum." that shit is three and a half centuries out of date "regurgitatum, ad nauseum" You want to talk geometry then yeah, he did some interesting shit but philosophically he was a fucking primate. Get over it.

Actually that's my point.   You seem to think that I am arguing in favor of Cartesian duality, which I can only explain by assuming you're a fucking moron who hasn't actually been reading the thread. 
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 12, 2009, 08:49:02 pm
Ah.  Welcome back, DK.  You might want to take a few minutes to read over a few of your threads.

There's a lot of people who want to talk with you.




Sadly, I now must leave for the day.  Enjoy your stay.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Akara on February 12, 2009, 08:52:12 pm
Dead kennedy:

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

this video reminds me of you. alot.

P.S.
Nigel, i <3 your original rant.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 12, 2009, 09:01:01 pm
Hey DK, that's a pretty sexy intellect ya got there.

Wink, Wink....
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 12, 2009, 09:04:33 pm
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.

Quote
Don't even get me started on "cogito, ergo sum." that shit is three and a half centuries out of date "regurgitatum, ad nauseum" You want to talk geometry then yeah, he did some interesting shit but philosophically he was a fucking primate. Get over it.

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

'fucking moron' isn't a very useful way of communicating. In fact, one could argue that it shows a lack of intelligence, as the noise ratio is far higher than the signal in your comments due to that sort of thing. I mean, do as you will... but it might be something to consider.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 09:06:56 pm
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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basically this entire post amounts to a rather feeble attempt by you, LMNO, to spin my criticism of the bad reasoning in Nigel's poorly written post into a failure on my part to know things that I cannot possibly know (i.e. you're taking me to task for responding to what Nigel did say, instead of responding to what I think she meant to say.)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 12, 2009, 09:10:07 pm
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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you confuse the level of writing that differentiates an Internet Rant from a philosophical treatise on Existence. Please use the correct map for the territory.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 09:16:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 09:18:30 pm
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.

You are wrong.  I dismissed the post because the "turn of phrase" used by Nigel was used as the premise of her argument, which lead to a nonsensical argument.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Demolition_Squid on February 12, 2009, 09:19:54 pm
Quote from: Dead Kennedy
It appears that you are accusing me of having read what was written, instead of reading "what was meant."  But that's a ridiculous accusation. Nigel is shitty writer, that means her ideas will tend to be shitty.  She's posting half-assed philosophy full of bad logic and unjustifiable hidden assumptions.

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

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

I just thought I'd point that out.

Then you posted your little rant at Zen_Magick above. Are you actually going out of your way to be an abrasive, arrogant, and condescending individual, or are you trying to engage with the other posters here? Because if you aren't going out of your way to look like an asshole, I don't think Nigel is the one who can be accused of 'bad' writing here.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 12, 2009, 09:20:34 pm
So according to DK all homosexuals, lesbians, bi-sexuals. are just plain neurotic.  Somehow I just can't avoid being offended by this.  Gender is a little more complex than his black and white definition and his lack of any knowledge of feminism and queer theory is more than a little apparent.

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 09:27:31 pm
Put bluntly, the intersexed are failures of biology.  They are not "supposed" to be, anymore than people born without eyes, or with no legs, are "supposed" to be...

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

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

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

I have never seen the continuum idea presented outside a feminist context, and I don't believe the debate is actually between medical researchers. I believe the debate is between scientists and ideologues, much like the debate over creationism.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: That One Guy on February 12, 2009, 09:28:03 pm
It appears that you are accusing me of having read what was written, instead of reading "what was meant."  But that's a ridiculous accusation. Nigel is shitty writer, that means her ideas will tend to be shitty.  She's posting half-assed philosophy full of bad logic and unjustifiable hidden assumptions.

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

If you want your criticism to be taken seriously, try using fewer logical fallacies in your posts as they tend to undermine your posturing of being a paragon of logic and philosophy.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 09:28:49 pm
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:

F2M all the way, baby. ;)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 09:32:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 09:33:38 pm
'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."
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 12, 2009, 09:34:59 pm
It's ok, DK your still so sexy to me with that huge intellect hanging out all over the place.

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

Leslie Feinberg
Kate Bornstein
Jonathan Dollimore

Na Na Na  :D
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 09:37:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 12, 2009, 09:45:56 pm
'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."

Actually, if you feel that there's nowhere for the conversation to go... you can just stop posting to that conversation, rather than acting like a 12 year old in need of a beating. I mean, obviously you should do whatever you want, but in the grand scheme of things, I'm not sure its helping you. My initial thoughts on your posts were quite good. I don't necessarily agree with your positions, but thats par for the course.

However, the subsequent posts have greatly diminished my perceptions about you. For me, an intelligent person needs to be able to communicate well, either to inform, or to harass. Your comments have gone from reasoned and thoughtful to crass and less than cohesive. One can almost visualize spittle and bulging veins.

I'm just making an observation on my personal perception here. Take it as you wish.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Aufenthatt on February 12, 2009, 10:08:31 pm
Dk, I liked your ideas, but you come across as a wiki pirate (not a reference to your 'lifting').

Is not pure logic an oxymoron?

No human is capable of true logic because of our limited view of the universe.
We are the product of what continues to exist (we think), and our logic is mainly based around the act of keeping our DNA in existence. A circular existence, but it could not exist anyother way (my logic suggests to me).

All our opinions are irrevocably irrelevant, including this one.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 12, 2009, 10:11:40 pm
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!!!
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 12, 2009, 10:17:29 pm
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!!!

I'm not sure how he had homophobia inherent in his comment.

Certianly there MAY be a genetic marker that contributes toward sexual preference. However, it seems equally possible that sexual preference may have an equal or greater contributing cause that has roots in early imprints, psychology, sociology etc. We don't yet have a gene to point to, nor do we have hard evidence that its 'all' psychological. I personally think both may be in play, with some people being more heavily influenced by genetics and others more influenced by experiences and their social environment.

Calling someone a homophobe because they favor one theory over another seems like name calling rather than anything useful.

Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 10:32:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Aufenthatt on February 12, 2009, 10:42:55 pm
My post has been ignored and forgotten in the inferno of flaming around it.

It makes me sad.

 :cry:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 12, 2009, 10:44:16 pm
Sorry to resort to name calling, I' ve notived how seldom that has been done in this thread.  

But this is a bit personal for me so I just think I'll cool off awhile.  

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.


Although, "the hot in the butt for Wittgenstein" gets me kinda randy  :eek:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 10:52:37 pm
My post has been ignored and forgotten in the inferno of flaming around it.

It makes me sad.

 :cry:

Don't feel too bad, he ignores every challenge that makes an inconvenient point.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Aufenthatt on February 12, 2009, 10:58:25 pm
I don't think hes been online since I made it.
Its not that that bothers me, I was going to use the reaction to it as a judge of whether or not the idea is worth its own thread.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 12, 2009, 10:58:42 pm
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:
Quote
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.

"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 is
  • "You" Arrives From (???) to (???)
  • "You" is abruptly dropped or falls into A Body
That would seem to imply that wherever "you" arrive to is above the body you will be dropped or fall into.

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.

You are truly an arrogant fuck. My discussion with the OP was from a desire to further probe and see where the topic went. I think it was well written with some serious thought put into it. You on the other hand sling around meaningless phrases with no other intent than to try to impress someone. <fail>
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 12, 2009, 11:00:27 pm
Simple. I existed prior to this human experience and I will continue to exist after this human experience.


:cn:

No citation available. You know I am not religious, what does a spirit have to do with religion?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 12, 2009, 11:01:52 pm
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!
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Aufenthatt on February 12, 2009, 11:18:59 pm
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 agree.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 12, 2009, 11:19:14 pm
Hm, so while I was out drinking and having a sleepover, this thread basically went from 2 to 16 pages overnight.

OHNOES THERE IS A NOOB TROLLING US WHATEVER SHALL WE DOOOO~  :lulz:

From the whole trolling perspective, this one is both original (as they seem to have at LEAST some educational background) and at the same time an unoriginal pompous and banal windbag. HOLYSHIT SOMEONE IS WRITING A RANT ABOUT STUPID HUMANS TAKING THEIR SEX AND RACE TOO SERIOUSLY WTFOMG~~!!

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 and you think you are so superior in your intellect for it. Your stuck in your ivory tower just like the rest of so called academia (and I KNOW academics, I deal with them on a daily basis), and you THINK, because of your INTELLECT, your MENTAL prow-ESS, out of another stupid superiority complex you deserve the awe of your audience, and constant gratitude for every word that leaks out your shit filled mouth.

That said, I await your response for my enjoyment. I find internet srs buizznesz people so entertaining.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 12, 2009, 11:24:39 pm
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.

between scientists and other scientists as peer review goes
like I said Im very unfamiliar with genetics and with the debate
and I don't know diddly squat about feminism, so I wouldn't know anything about that
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 12, 2009, 11:27:05 pm
[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...[/quote]


repeated for BMW... figure you might now more
sorry about grammar really busy
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 12, 2009, 11:27:53 pm

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...


repeated for BMW... figure you might now more
sorry about the grammar Im really busy as its the last few days before reading week
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 11:39:02 pm
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.

(I only hate the living ones, Jefe. A dead philosopher is a good philosopher.)

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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 11:48:20 pm
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?   
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 11:50:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 12, 2009, 11:55:37 pm
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.

I have never made any claims of the sort.  What I have suggested is that hating on philosophers when one clearly knows nothing about philosophy is anti-intellectual.

Is the glorification of ignorance.   Essentially many people are using the argument "You appear to have an education, therefore you must be wrong.  And elitist!"

That's fucking retarded.

Quote
At the same time, English, writing, and reading comprehension don't seem to be his strong points...

BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!!

Oh, that is too damn funny.

Quote
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.

I'm a screenwriter.  I write for television.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 11:56:59 pm
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?   

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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2009, 11:58:22 pm

I'm a screenwriter.  I write for television.

 :spittake:

You write THAT shit????

 :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Does any of it get used?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2009, 12:02:45 am
Never mind! I don't really care. You're a disrespectful, unoriginal drone pratting around trying to pick fights about Descartes, and you write SCREENPLAYS FOR TELEVISION.  :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: Could it get any better?

Go stuff yourself full of more philosophical drivel so you can regurgitate it for us, monkey. Dance!
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 12:03:59 am
[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...


repeated for BMW... figure you might now more
sorry about grammar really busy
[/quote]

It is. Sexes, for humans at least, are fixed from birth, since we have binary sex chromosomes, and when I say sex, I mean genetic sex. I mean, you get an X and a Y or an X and an X or an X or an X and an X and a Y or a X and a Y and a Y, and thats it, you can't change that. HOWEVER, secondary sexual characterics (the phenotype) are a continuum, as is gender. Hell, you CAN get true hermaphrodites provided there is some sort of chimeralism going on, but its more general that an intersexed person will have some sort of gradient of secondary sexual characteristics. Indeed, there is no absolute as far as what is male and what is female sex wise culturally EXCEPT genes.

And then theres gender.... :lulz: not even gonna go there, gone there too much. My feelings are pretty similar to the ones in the OP.

Now, in insects for example, there aren't binary sex chromosomes, theres only one, its called X. If there are two x's then its what entomologists would consider female sexed, and if it has only one x then its male. Now, because there is only one type of sex chromosome, you can get all sorts of sexual weirdness in insects, like bilateral gynandromorphs, where one half is male, complete with testis and adeagus, and the other half is female with an ovary, a true hermaphrodite, and this happens more often than people think. There are insects that can change sex halfway through their lifecycle, can determine the sex of the egg, and then theres parthenogenesis, where females give way to female clones until its time to mate and then males get made, all by /removing a sex chromosome during development/.

Also, spotted hyenas, but don't get me started about those.  :lulz:

Unless you want to argue that gender is the same in all cultures, and that gender is always related to sex, and that sex is immutable and always binary everywhere, DK really has no arguement. If phenotypic sex (meaning the sex that is expressed, like if I have a penis and wide hips and breasts, or a vagina and face stubble) is a continuum/gradient, then why would gender be any different? The only reason someone would argue for the binary sex/gender arguement is that they are either militantly stupid, or they need it to justify their mysogynistic/mysandric worldviews.

Yeah, thats right. DK is just another sexist xenophobic libertarian wannabe.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 13, 2009, 12:06:05 am
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. 

Quote
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.

Aww.  You're still a moron.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 12:07:12 am
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.

 :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

 :lulz: :lulz:

 :lulz:


 :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:


 :lulz: I've got a BS in biology and in the process of getting a masters. I grew up in a library.  :lulz: There is nothing you can say that will make me do more than laugh at you and your pittiful....SCREENWRITING!!  :lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2009, 12:11:20 am
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. 

Says the fuckwit who thinks my rant about people's nonstop running off at the mouth also applies to written communication.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 12:15:47 am
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:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2009, 12:17:33 am
Jefe, if you hardly put any effort at all into your long-winded posts, why should anyone respect you for them?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2009, 12:18:55 am
Uh-oh, now you done pissed off Kai, and Kai is one badass motherfucker in the knowing-shit department.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 13, 2009, 12:21:30 am
yo Kai can you hook me up with some reading on the subject next week... just pm them or link them
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on February 13, 2009, 12:37:17 am
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:

FUCKIN RAH!!!! :D

Also screenwriter, BA in Philosophy, non basement dwelling sock fucker  :cn:

I'm guessing pretty much everything he's said so far has been googled. Fair to medium troll, with no idea where he's stumbled into, getting raped every which way by some of the best in the business. If he's still posting by the time I wake up in the morning he'll get +1 point for tenacity but that's about it.

The internet equivalent of a missionary taking the word of god to the vatican

:facepalm:

free advice section: people who know about philosophy are as likely to mention Descartes in conversation as rocket scientists are to mention lego.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 13, 2009, 12:42:51 am
You write THAT shit????

What shit?  There is a lot of stuff on television.  Some of it is crap, some of it is brilliant.

Quote
Does any of it get used?

Yes, though not much.  It seems that the majority of my sales end up in development hell.   I once sold a treatment and series bible for a children's cartoon based entirely on Discordianism -- St. Gulik was a character! -- but it ended up going nowhere, and the production company eventually folded (and I never got the fucking rights back).
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 13, 2009, 12:46:53 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 01:08:06 am
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.

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.

EVERYBODY, APPARENTLY ANYONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE A BA IN ENGLISH IS ILLITERATE.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cramulus on February 13, 2009, 01:12:30 am
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/forum/argue.jpg)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 01:14:03 am
I know, isn't it great?  :lulz:

Kai,

Honestly can't stop laughing.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2009, 01:18:05 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 01:31:06 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Pariah on February 13, 2009, 01:41:56 am
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.

For being a "smart person" DK doesn't have a very large vocabulary judging that most of his posts either have some variation of fuck or pointless philosophical terms
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2009, 01:53:19 am
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.

She is.

I talked to the Spanish teacher today, and apparently EFO just wasn't paying attention before. She was always busy drawing or somesuch instead of being engaged with the class, but now she's engaged and aiming for an A.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 13, 2009, 02:29:14 am
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?

Are you attempting to prove that there is, in fact, such thing as a stupid question?

It means none of those things.  What it means is that having advanced knowledge of biology does not make one an authority on literary criticism.

In other words, being an expert on nuclear physics doesn't make one an authority on law enforcement. 

It does not mean that "literacy is only for English majors." That's a ridiculous and stupid question, and that you are asking it can only mean one of two things:

a) You are functionally retarded.
b) You have confused being a disingenuous twat with being clever.

Quote
Note: when an essay is about biology, it is very easy for a BIOLOGIST to recognize the premise. Savvy?

That makes no sense. It's an entirely absurd argument.  Following that logic, a nuclear physicist would find it very easy to recognize the plot of an action movie involving nuclear physics.

You're not very bright, are you?

Quote
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?

The first premise of chapter four of On the Origin of Species is "We shall best understand the probable course of natural selection by taking the case of a country undergoing some physical change, for instance, of climate."  There may be more -- he covers several topics in each chapter -- but I don't want to read the whole chapter right this moment.

That's the only request you've made that's relevant to the discussion at hand.

I also didn't need to know a single thing about biology to figure that out.  Instead I relied on the things I learned in Language Arts and English programs.  Because that's the area of knowledge that is actually relevant.

Quote
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.

Actually, every single science class I took in both college and high school was focused on biology, evolution and paleontology.  I've even read Origin of the Species.  I've also read Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.  So i actually have spent years of my life studying this self, though I don'tconsider myself an expert, merely well-informed.

Quote
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.

My areas of expertise are irrelevant.  I am able to recognize the premise of an essay, or a chapter, because I paid attention in school.  In elementary school.  The ability to recognize the premise of an essay is something you should have learned by about 4th grade, at the latest.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 03:03:48 am
 :lulz:

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.

*pats the trolls head* You were doing so well. So sad.

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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 13, 2009, 03:08:37 am
personally Im in Cains boat now
not worth my time
srsly I got a ton of better things to do
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 03:09:22 am
personally Im in Cains boat now
not worth my time
srsly I got a ton of better things to do

True true.

I like having a punching bag though.  :D
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 13, 2009, 03:09:52 am
I knew a professional writer once. Probably one of the most read authors of our day.



Just open any box of stuff........
Insert tab A into slot B..........
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 13, 2009, 03:11:17 am

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.


Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Precious Moments Zalgo on February 13, 2009, 03:15:31 am

And just for fun...
ZOMG! cARTESIAN dUALITY!!11!!sHIFT+oNE!!
 \
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=2049;type=avatar)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Pariah on February 13, 2009, 03:19:40 am

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.



I just sent that entire post to DK
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 13, 2009, 03:19:57 am

And just for fun...
ZOMG! cARTESIAN dUALITY!!11!!sHIFT+oNE!!
 \
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=2049;type=avatar)

 :spittake:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 03:28:00 am
Don't they teach things like metaphor, simile, oxymorons and all that in grade school?

DK missed that class I guess.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 13, 2009, 03:29:11 am
Don't they teach things like metaphor, simile, oxymorons and all that in grade school?

DK missed that class I guess.

My guess is that's not all he missed.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 03:35:40 am
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?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Pariah on February 13, 2009, 03:40:07 am
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?
Worship
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 13, 2009, 03:40:38 am
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?

What set me off was his abrasive heavy handed 'criticism' and belittlement of the OP. The piece was well thought out and well written and thought inducing.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 03:43:56 am
It was a good rant, it was persuasive to the audience it was intended for.

That audience didn't include pompous windbags in their ivory towers, so I don't think it failed in the least.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Telarus on February 13, 2009, 03:47:09 am
The only contribution to this thread that I want to make so far:



"There is no US and THEM.... but THEY.... THEY do not think the same."
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 13, 2009, 04:02:46 am
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.

Hello Straw Man!  The bolded part of your quote is false.  A true premise (my argument is that the OP doesn't know the premise of their own essay) and a false premise (I supported this argument by referencing my personal education level) equals what?   The false conclusion you don't actually state.  Armchair psychology says: you can't bring yourself to actually state your false conclusion, because you know you're a disingenuous shitweasel.

So what is it Kai? Are you retarded, or a fuckwit?  I'm leaning towards retarded fuckwit.

Quote
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.

You're wrong.  Your insight has failed you.  I will demonstrate why in my next post.

Quote
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.

I'm not trolling. I had no idea this was going to go off the rails like this.  I thought my original post would be more or less ignored.  Copper Carbonate and Obelcald turned it into the barbecue it is now.  I'm just tossing logs on the fire.  I don't really see how anyone participating so far can fault me for that, since inevitably that's all you're doing yourself.

Anyways, I'm not bored.  I love this shit.  I'm also not running any experiment. I also don't expect anyone to come around to my position.  I just enjoy being right.  I like arguing like some people like Soduku and crosswords.  I enjoy dismantling arguments and taking them apart, breaking them.  Sometimes I get frustrated with people like you, who present horribly stupid and inane arguments and are incapable of recognizing good arguments, fuckwits who don't know when they're outsmarted.  But mostly I just love the thrill of the chase, teasing and tearing people's arguments -- and people themselves, when they make it personal -- apart.

There's no agenda.  There's no plan.  I'm just an argumentative asshole opportunist.

But if you are bored, if you aren't having fun still, you can just stop responding.

:lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Pariah on February 13, 2009, 04:08:49 am
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:


Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Sir Squid Diddimus on February 13, 2009, 04:14:41 am
SO.. to sum it up

Straw Man
retarded fuckwit
false
cartesian duality
philosophy
moran
stupid
flaw
intelligence
BLAH BLAH BLAH

yeah. got it.  :roll:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bu🤠ns on February 13, 2009, 04:15:04 am
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:



not to derail the thread or anything, but isn't it fuckTARD?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 13, 2009, 05:52:41 am
Dissecting the OP.

Your body

The title makes the broad topic of the clear, and prompts the reader to ask "What about my body?"

Quote
Hey, how do you like that thing? Pretty neat, isn't it? I mean, if you think about it.

Preamble.  Irrelevant to the argument.

What follows is the actual argument.   The argument is presented as a standard 5 paragraph essay (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/five_par.htm), with an introduction, three paragraphs presenting supporting arguments, and a conclusion.  This is the format we are all taught in high school.  You may want to actually read that page to refresh your memory if it's been awhile, as I will be making many references to the five paragraph essay.

Quote
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.

The Introduction.  True to standard form, the thesis or premise is presented in the very first line of the argument:  "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." 

"So the deal is" is a very clear and powerful statement.  What is the deal with this essay? "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."

Essentially what Nigel is saying is "The premise of this essay is that Cartesian dualism is real."  She uses the term "you" and "person" exclusively to refer to the Mind, and uses the pronoun "it" to refer to the body.  The person is not the body, they are the mind.  This is textbook Cartesian dualism, with the body presented as a biological machine controlled by Mind.  The usage of "it" is powerful, as it is used to represent an inanimate thing or a person or animal whose gender is unknown or disregarded.  This characterization of the body as a thing  -- Nigel even uses that exact word, thing -- separate from Mind is important to Nigel's argument, and will appear again.

On to the Body of the essay:

Quote
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.

The first paragraph should present the strongest argument.  Nigel doesn't actually present a strong argument at all, in fact the purpose of this paragraph is extremely unclear.  It has no actual point.  Nigel says "For some reason people (Mind) inhabiting the meat-bags have decided to define themselves based on [various factors]" but never explains why people "decide" to do this.  That would seem to be the relevant point, but instead Nigel simply tells us that people do these things.  She apparently doesn't understand why.

I object to the characterization of this behavior as "deciding," but that's tangential.  Actually,I object to her characterization of every single element she describes, but we have bigger fish to fry.  On to the second paragraph of the Body of the essay:

Quote
Yes, they actually do this! I'm not even making it up.

What kind of lazy ass writing is this?  The second paragraph is supposed to contain the second strongest argument, but instead it simply reasserts the first paragraph.  In this second paragraph we learn that people do all the things we learned they do in the previous paragraph, and Nigel still can't believe it.

Quote
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.

I don't know how anyone denies that this is Cartesian dualism after a doozy like "The hard thing to keep in mind, once you're here, is that your meat-bag is actually just a really cool biological machine."  That is Cartesian in a nutshell: The body is a biological machine. Here's Rene himself:  ""I regard the body as a machine so built and put together...that still, although it had no mind, it would not fail to move."

If that's not enough, Nigel goes on to evoke the "car and driver" metaphor when she says "your vehicle will need a certain amount of care while you're in it." 

The rest of the paragraph reinforces the idea of the mind as a ghost in the machine.  The mind as separate and different from the body, which is only "incidental" to the mind.  The mind is the real person,the body is only some trivial object.  It "influences" the behavior of the mind, but the mind is clearly presented as separate from the body, with its own independent existence -- it must have an independent existence in order to be "influenced," even is such influence is "incidental."  As Nigel says, like a proper Cartesian, "you would still be you in a void."

Quote
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 first sentence, the cajoling to treat oneself well, isn't supported anywhere in the Body of the essay, but it's always nice to say something no one will disagree with right before you state your conclusion, to create a yes yes effect.  So here is the conclusion.  "It's all a crapshoot; you could have ended up in this bag, and I could have ended up in that one." 

Like any proper five paragraph essay the premise ties directly to the conclusion. Nigel actually does an artful job of tying the bow on this otherwise ridiculous essay.  Consider:  "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's all a crapshoot; you could have ended up in this bag, and I could have ended up in that one."

Nicely done.  But here's the problem:  Nigel twice uses the metaphor of the Mind having an existence independent of the body.  The phrase "you arrive" implies that "you" arrives from some other place, just as the phrase "you could have ended up in" implies that you started off from some other place.

That's metaphysics.  That's religion.

So here is a summary of the argument presented by Nigel:

The Mind comes to inhabit the Body, which is a machine. [1] 
The Mind inhabiting the Body defines itself based on various incidental factors.[2]
The Mind has an existence independent of the Body that remains true regardless of the Body. [3]

Except the mind is an emergent property of the body.  My mind could never arise in your body.  My mind is a unique product of my body, and only a body exactly like mine could produce my mind.  Some of the factors that Nigel list are not at all incidental to the mind, and when changed result in a different person.

There is no ghost in the machine that can exist independent of the body.  It is not a crapshoot.  The mind is an emergent property, it does not come from anywhere



[1]"The first thing that happens when you arrive is you get dumped into a yellowish or brownish meat-bag filled with red and white."/"The hard thing to keep in mind, once you're here, is that your meat-bag is actually just a really cool biological machine."

[2] "For some reason people (Mind) inhabiting the meat-bags have decided to define themselves based on [various factors]"/"The main thing to never forget is that the ... [various factors] are all incidental."

[3] "You would still be you in a void..."/"It's all a crapshoot; you could have ended up in this bag, and I could have ended up in that one." 
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Pariah on February 13, 2009, 06:08:36 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 13, 2009, 06:11:58 am
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.

Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Sir Squid Diddimus on February 13, 2009, 06:19:23 am
(http://www.unknownwriter.com/photos/animals_cute/1_kitty_hug.jpeg)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 13, 2009, 06:25:22 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 13, 2009, 06:30:35 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Zenpeanut on February 13, 2009, 06:58:57 am
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 13, 2009, 07:02:25 am
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.

Flounce Flounce Flounce!

Hey Asshat, how does that prove I am incapable of defending your position?

Let me guess:  A WIZARD DID IT!
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 13, 2009, 07:06:06 am
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.

Silly Zenpeanut. Introducing logic AND semantics into an emo argument.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: fomenter on February 13, 2009, 07:34:17 am
fuck i should stick to my first instinct and stay out :argh!: but oh well

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
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 13, 2009, 08:01:19 am
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.

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

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

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

I'm not an English major, so I'm going to cite an external authority, The Guide to Grammar and Writing (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/five_par.htm) from Capital Community College Foundation:
Quote
The second paragraph of the body should contain the second strongest argument, second most significant example, second cleverest illustration, or an obvious follow up the first paragraph in the body....The third paragraph of the body should contain the weakest argument, weakest example, weakest illustration, or an obvious follow up to the second paragraph in the body.

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

No?

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

I think maybe you are.

Quote
Human 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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Nast on February 13, 2009, 08:01:20 am
Has DK fucked off yet or is he still pounding out the shitty-internet-argument-version of War and Peace?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on February 13, 2009, 08:07:15 am
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.

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

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

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

I'm not an English major, so I'm going to cite an external authority, The Guide to Grammar and Writing (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/five_par.htm) from Capital Community College Foundation:
Quote
The second paragraph of the body should contain the second strongest argument, second most significant example, second cleverest illustration, or an obvious follow up the first paragraph in the body....The third paragraph of the body should contain the weakest argument, weakest example, weakest illustration, or an obvious follow up to the second paragraph in the body.

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

No?

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

I think maybe you are.

Quote
Human 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.

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

Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 13, 2009, 08:27:03 am
Cartesian duality is a model, true in some sense false in some sense meaningless in some seance etc etc (you  should know the rest).

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

Quote
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.

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


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

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

Quote
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?

Quote
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?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: fomenter on February 13, 2009, 09:09:28 am
Cartesian duality is a model, true in some sense false in some sense meaningless in some seance etc etc (you  should know the rest).

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

Quote
so what if Nigel used that model?
Quote
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 ...

Quote
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...

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

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

Quote
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.
Quote
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.

Quote
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
Quote
A success by what standard of measure?
the standard that all of her audience except you got it...
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dead Kennedy on February 13, 2009, 10:59:33 am
the mythopoetic sense has its place, wolves don't talk to little girls in red capes but the story has a point that contains information and conveys a meaning to its readers (the same can be said of goddesses that chuck golden apples at other gods parties), most of religion is a metaphisical wank that makes people happy, which i feel free to use or not use depending on the situation, provability in a scientific proof of truth way is irrelevant, transmitting useful information is the measure of its success

There was no useful information in Nigel's post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
Quote
A success by what standard of measure?
the standard that all of her audience except you got it...

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

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

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

But why do you agree with the point?   You don't know.  You can't explain.  You just have faith that it is true, and will agree with any argument, no matter how stupid, as long as it concludes by stating something you already agree with.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2009, 11:06:12 am
Holy shit, bitch... are you still seriously awake? Goddamn, try some sleep or something. I watched a couple of movies with some guy but I wish I'd gone to bed earlier. Try it, it's more fun than this bullshit. Night!
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 02:54:57 pm
*shrug* I'm basically done at this point.

Its all just slinging insults over an argument from someone who fails so hard at getting it. Of course, she barged in here not knowing the context of this rant (which is very different than an essay)  whatsoever. I can take shit out of context and make it mean whatever I want too. Are we amazed yet? No. That's not likely to change either.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 03:08:52 pm

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


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

Since you don't plan on contributing anything and are going to continue being an argumentative asshole opportunist in a completely nonconstructive way, I think its time to ignore you.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 13, 2009, 03:13:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 13, 2009, 03:18:01 pm
Good morning, DK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


Hey LMNO, I like that map you got there...  :lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Precious Moments Zalgo on February 13, 2009, 03:23:10 pm
*shrug* I'm basically done at this point.

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

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

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

--
@LMNO  :mittens:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 03:24:43 pm
:mittens: to LMNO

I think you're wasting your time though.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 13, 2009, 03:33:15 pm
OK, we all know by now that DK has "MR Right" syndrome.  I can let that go but getting back to the OP could we discuss how we view our own gender/identities?  I think that would be far more fruitfull than yelling at the wall.

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

I don't know where I was going with this, I need to get a cup of coffee, BRB.
 
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 03:40:01 pm
ZM, I'm also gender fluid.

I liked the op because it urges me to just live my life not trying to fit myself into anyone else's identification box, and not care too much about labels.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cain on February 13, 2009, 03:41:35 pm
*shrug* I'm basically done at this point.

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

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

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

--
@LMNO  :mittens:

He has discovered the true hidden meaning of the text through semiotic engagement in its imagery and use of language, which mere peasants such as you and myself could never hope to accomplish.  Roland Barthes is quietly weeping somewhere, but his ilk will suffer the worst, when DK and his structuralist hordes overrun the halls of academia and cast out the post-structuralists from the temple.  Begone, ye defilers!  We shall have no destablization of text here.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 13, 2009, 03:47:09 pm
ZM, I'm also gender fluid.

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

Yea!!  That was my first reaction to the text.  I'm in a good mood this morning so I'm going to try not to argue today.  My point, I think, was that no matter how 'open' I am there is a certain amount of stereotyping that we all have to deal with. 
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 13, 2009, 03:47:19 pm
 :lulz:

holy shit Cain... im going to piss myself
 :lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 13, 2009, 03:49:08 pm
I am not gender fluid. I have a gender. However, what that means to me and what that means to a lot of other guys may be very different. People have seen me cry. I don't really play tough guy and I learned to fence for the flair and romanticism, rather than to pick up a martial art (though I found that was a great side effect). Though it was previously mentioned that not being a 'man's man' leads to less sex. I've found this to be incorrect... in the extreme.

For me being a guy just means that I have a outie dangling down there, rather than an inie... and I can't has babies. I don't really think there's much question on these two point. Another part of being a guy, I suppose that affects me is that I'm pretty proud of my outie. However, all the other 'Man' properties that are normally associated with the label may appear or not, based on what I'm doing, who I'm with and how I want to be perceived.

I don't think of the body as a meat-sack... I mean, its the only way I know of which allows me to experience anything at all. I'm pretty damned pleased about having one. However, the specifics about any given transport vehicle (dual exhaust, hybrid, All Terrain etc) seem less important than making sure that I actually go driving in it as much as possible ;-)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cain on February 13, 2009, 03:54:01 pm
:lulz:

holy shit Cain... im going to piss myself
 :lulz:

Who knew literary theory could be so lol?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 13, 2009, 04:18:24 pm
Gender Identity is still a tough thing for me, I went through a lot of shit and had major body issues which included not being able to let anyone touch me for a majority of my life.  Hence when I worked my way through it and began actually to be able to have sex it never ocurred to me that a 'sexual identity' was necessary.

I guess, I never based my identity on the fact that I had no sex life and now that I do, I don't think that it makes me a different person depending on what gender the person is that I'm sleeping with.

My gf says that, "I'm not Bi, I'm just easy."  I think I agree... :)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 13, 2009, 04:19:07 pm
: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?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: fomenter on February 13, 2009, 04:52:36 pm
: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?
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.
but have fun with it.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 05:30:04 pm
yeah, if you're having fun with it its not a waste LMNO  :)

I just wouldn't expect an intelligent response.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2009, 06:05:47 pm
:mittens: LMNO

I think you stated it better than I could have.

Also, mittens to PMZ for the Time Cube Guy analogy!  :lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 06:08:21 pm
I think its a nice contrast between the good noobs (aka Zappathrusa) and the dumb noobs (aka Dead Kennedy) in this thread.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2009, 06:20:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: fomenter on February 13, 2009, 06:20:55 pm
on the up side, having declared himself to be the smartest and having misused rhetoric to make an argument against a rant that it does not apply to,
 i can see every comment he makes from now on being torn up in a way that may be a source of epic lols  
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2009, 06:26:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 13, 2009, 06:29:16 pm
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.....
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 13, 2009, 06:31:04 pm
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.


This is the reason this thread Rocks!   :mittens:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: fomenter on February 13, 2009, 06:33:56 pm
this had turned into a troll long before i got involved, a repetition of the same argument (wrong) and the same insults, you didn't miss any thing by skimming

Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 13, 2009, 06:49:03 pm
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?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2009, 06:52:14 pm
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.....

She can't read. How can someone who has very poor reading comprehension write well? I am skeptical.

Her claim to be a "professional writer", after being clarified by saying that she really hasn't sold any of her work, is completely nullified. I am a professional artist, and I've served on committees with my guild DEFINING what the hell that means in our industry. "I make stuff but I don't really sell any" is a fucking dilettante. Not a professional. Good luck "breaking in".

I have a few friends who are professional writers. How do I know they're professionals? They pay the motherfucking bills with the proceeds from selling their writing. The end.

I still can't believe an aspiring TV screenwriter thinks she's some sort of genius philosophy maven. Well, I guess "genius" can be a relative perception, illustrated by her statement that "some TV is genius".

I suppose, to a lowest common denominator audience, yes, it is. Which also explains why she's so stunningly impressed by Wittgenstein and thinks that anything outside of "philosophy" is "anti-intellectual". 
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Cain on February 13, 2009, 06:54:29 pm
I am a professional hitman.

I haven't killed anyone yet.  :sad:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2009, 06:55:23 pm
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?

There is absolute biological meaning to being male or female, or even both. And your biology absolutely affects how you think and react, and who you are.

Shift your interpretation of my argument to the opposite side of what you think I'm arguing, and it might make more sense.

I think I was far too ambiguous in my treatment of the subject. I wanted it to be ambiguous, but not so much that the point was obscured.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2009, 06:59:52 pm
I am a professional hitman.

I haven't killed anyone yet.  :sad:

 :lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 13, 2009, 07:01:21 pm
Hands Cain a short list with one set of initials on - DK
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: AFK on February 13, 2009, 07:03:30 pm
Poor Don King. 
He's been so misunderstood. 
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Thurnez Isa on February 13, 2009, 07:11:09 pm

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.


No, but unfortunately that describes virtually all the first year philosophy students I've come to know...
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Dysfunctional Cunt on February 13, 2009, 07:14:42 pm
Hands Cain a short list with one set of initials on - DK


WAIT!!!  I said to shoot it first!!!! 




Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 13, 2009, 07:37:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Aufenthatt on February 13, 2009, 07:40:58 pm
Ugh, the cunt still didn't answer my post.  :argh!:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2009, 07:45:12 pm
Ugh, the cunt still didn't answer my post.  :argh!:

She ignores everything inconvenient to her ongoing hysterics as "irrelevant" or "lacking a point".  :lulz:

Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 07:47:53 pm
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?

Actually, human bodies tend to have levels of all the sex hormones. The differences are the levels, and the sensitivity to, but these aren't on some fixed male/female binary either.

I'm much more of the mind (heh) that things like gender are created by social expectations and "nurture".

Both affect to some extent, but when you get right down to it, biology is an origin, thats all. I do not think there is anyone here that will argue the mind (or the brain for that matter) is an inmalleable structure. Since the mind is malleable, why would gender be some static thing? Nothing else about the mind is static, hell, even the singularity of consciousness is not fixed (those who know me better know what I'm talking about). Rather, its a bit more complex like that, to the point where rigid expectations of things like gender are just plain stupid. Yes, theres an effect on biology, but if biology of sex  is (pretty much) all the same then it doesn't explain the variation we see; not that I believe sex doesn't vary as well.

Most people here know I have a weird gender identity/nonidentity (among other aspects heh). Is it social or is it biologial? Obviously the mental need for this rejection of binary male/female is real in some respect, that is, in my mind its a very real thing. Where does it come from then? My opinion is that where it comes from is only important if you want to CHANGE it. Well, it doesn't need changing. Its good the way it is, its FINE for me to reject male/female binaries, perhaps even EXCELLENT, if your goal is to render male and female as less important distinctions. I think gender is just another way that power dictates how people act so other people can act as THEY please. Kinda like race. Or Religion. or any other social label.

tl; dr: Biology affects the mind but we should not allow it to dictate our purpose or differences. People should live and act as they feel like, and not let mandates tell them how.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 13, 2009, 07:50:28 pm
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.

Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 07:57:39 pm
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".
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 13, 2009, 07:58:43 pm
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.





Evolutionary struggle, perhaps?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Kai on February 13, 2009, 08:00:14 pm
Social internalization and expectations, I think.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2009, 08:03:25 pm
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".

Truth.

Most people are a lot more complex than that.

And on the other hand, if what I long to do is bear babies, cook, keep a neat home, and tend to my man, it may be partially compelled by biological imperative, but it's still my choice to make, and a valid one.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 13, 2009, 08:04:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 13, 2009, 08:06:27 pm
Social internalization and expectations, I think.

Ah, the Monkey see ~ monkey do theory.

On the other hand isn't the physical make up of the human bean changing a little? Evolution is a very slow process filled with growing pains.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: AFK on February 13, 2009, 08:08:59 pm
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.  
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 13, 2009, 08:09:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 13, 2009, 08:11:19 pm
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.  

Ever see a mom protecting her young? Now THAT is frightening!
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2009, 08:11:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 13, 2009, 08:12:21 pm
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.

:mittens:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 13, 2009, 08:13:36 pm
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.

Err... thats what I thought I was saying.... sorry if it was not clear.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2009, 08:15:21 pm
I was mostly distressed by the way you appeared to be arguing with each other, but saying the same things. :)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 13, 2009, 08:31:23 pm
I consider myself lucky, I'm in a relationship with my gf where she is definitely the man.  And believe me I don't mind moaning like a little bitch when she does me.   :eek:

Playing with different roles is a good way to learn about yourself, that's for sure!
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Aufenthatt on February 13, 2009, 08:36:05 pm
Some of the things we see to be different about genders are nothing to do with any of the things most people consider.

The way men have to pay more money for car insurance because young males cause more damage in the sense of cost to repair than females.
Except they don't.

I grew up on a garage, when it came to crashes (serious crashes) I saw roughly the same amount of people male/female with heavy damage. If you assume that the males are driving recklessly then there would be more males as they would crash into everyone else equally, thus meaning I would have seen more guys.

This leads me to think that women are more likely to have people crash into them.
One thing that I never realised when I was small was that for minor things the girls dads would often come in to deal with the problem. Maybe that shows less confidence.
With the big crashes you get brought straight from the crash to the garage in the recovery truck, (its better than any bus) so you know exactly who was involved.

The girls did lots of minor things, suggesting a slower speed and worse spacial awareness (the second supported by my bemusement while watching girls play netball, why were they so crap?).
A large amount of crashes are from the rear of the car. Legally you are required to maintain adequate breaking distance from the car in front, but if the person in front misjudges the distance or isn't aware of you they can drive pretty erratically from your point of view.

There is such a thing as driving too slowly, worse than this is to keep changing speed, and while legally the person that hits you will always get the bullet, it may not be their fault.

I think that guys pay more because it is easier and more cost effective to blame the male than work out what is really fair.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Adios on February 13, 2009, 08:36:39 pm
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.

Didn't mean to frustrate you, just enjoying the discussion. It seems this is a normal offshoot of the OP and is the most interesting conversation I have seen on the board in a long time.

Now I must ask of one of our better scientific minds. We all have DNA strings. These seem mysterious to me but very complicated. Isn't expecting the DNA strings to pop out perfect every time a long stretch?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on February 13, 2009, 08:44:03 pm
I was mostly distressed by the way you appeared to be arguing with each other, but saying the same things. :)

The issue here might be resolved with reference to Learys 8 circuit model. Discounting, for the purposes of this excercise, the "taking off into space" bollox, so we are left with the 4 we are most familiar with, we seem to have two circuits which are governed largely by the body and two which are governed by a meta-level of mind itself.

Not to say the physical being doesn't have a degree of effect over the symbolic and the domestic circuits but I don't think it always will (bodies can be calmed by force of concentration) And the degree of freedom/constriction will differ from individual to individual. Bottom line is that to have any degree of control over your own mind there must be a duality - a thinker who is governing the mind.

This is Cartesian Duality as I understand it and apparently Wittgenstein has proven it wrong. Not sure if this was before or after he became a christian but hey, smartest guy on the internets reckons he was right then who am I to argue  :lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 13, 2009, 09:36:41 pm
Damn It! :argh!:

Where's DK I was hoping to hit on him some more and see how uncomfortable I could make 'em feel.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on February 13, 2009, 09:39:59 pm
Damn It! :argh!:

Where's DK I was hoping to hit on him some more and see how uncomfortable I could make 'em feel.


He's run away weeping like a little bitch with a skinned knee and it's all these bastards faults cos they couldn't back off and let him think he was pwning us 
:walken:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2009, 01:16:49 am
Split.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Jasper on February 15, 2009, 04:55:33 am
We sure do generate a lot of posts in the process of haranguing people. :lulz:
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: East Coast Hustle on February 15, 2009, 06:44:14 am
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?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Jasper on February 15, 2009, 06:45:26 am
People are actually reading this crap?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 15, 2009, 06:49:07 am
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 turns out that there wasn't any cohesion, anyway.  The posts are all the same, on all the threads he posted in.

It's true.  I threw everything in the unlimited thread, and it all fit together 169% seamlessly.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 15, 2009, 06:52:39 am
True. It flows surprisingly smoothly. I discovered this after I got over my temper tantrum upon realizing he was merging shit WHILE I WAS READING.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Jasper on February 15, 2009, 06:55:30 am
This is why I don't read the stuff.  It's all just an undifferentiated wall of text that generates a lot of smoke and heat, but very little light.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Akara on February 16, 2009, 08:58:48 pm
trolls: the real cause of global warming.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: BADGE OF HONOR on February 23, 2009, 10:51:13 pm
I really liked the OP Nigel, shame DK had to show up and ruin what was shaping up to a good discussion.  Anyway, I'm of the personal opinion that it is impossible to separate the corporeal from the spiritual, and saying that a body is just a body, which may or may not affect your behavior is akin to saying that water may or may not get you wet.  Sorry if this got said before by someone else, I stopped reading at like page two.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2009, 11:06:37 pm
Thanks!

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying... your body is what it is. You're not secretly, magically a dragon inside that body. What it is is what it IS. You can imagine that you really for reals look different or "are" a boy or a girl or a cat or a raccoon or a dragon, but until you can conjure up a really for reals different body, you're stuck with the real-life one you have, which is exactly what it is, and there you are, for as long as you live.

Title: Re: Your body
Post by: BADGE OF HONOR on February 23, 2009, 11:14:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: zen_magick on February 23, 2009, 11:18:11 pm
Just a word of encouragement for the OP.  I've showed it to a few friends (all grad students) and they all liked the post.  So fuck DK and his dualism.  Keep writing and ranting, some of us really enjoy what you say.

z_m
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2009, 11:36:53 pm
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.

Post when you come back!

Also, thanks ZM. :)
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: BADGE OF HONOR on February 24, 2009, 09:59:31 pm
Eh, it turned into a How Not To Be Depressed Guide, so I'm not sure how relevant it is any more.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 25, 2009, 01:21:54 am
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?

Just think of it as a collage of fucktardery.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 25, 2009, 06:47:44 am
It's ART.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 25, 2009, 06:26:46 pm
It's a METAPHOR!
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: Vene on February 25, 2009, 06:34:00 pm
 :argh!: It's Cartesian Duality you spags.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: AFK on February 25, 2009, 06:53:04 pm
It's it!

What is it?

Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 25, 2009, 06:58:48 pm
It's it!

What is it?


A Red Hot Chili Peppers ripoff?
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: AFK on February 25, 2009, 07:01:45 pm
It's it!

What is it?


A Red Hot Chili Peppers ripoff?

Oh, you went there didn't you? 
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: LMNO on February 25, 2009, 07:04:26 pm
You bet.  Cuz it's true.
Title: Re: Your body
Post by: AFK on February 25, 2009, 07:08:09 pm
Yeah, so is your mom!

Or something.   :lol: