Philosophy isn't at all practical. You can't use philosophy in your ordinary life. — Wheatley

Doesn’t Socrates’ way of living refute this? Or Diogenes perhaps? What about Buddhism, or Hedonism?

Why, so I can be exposed to more gang members? :lol:

I acknowledge that sombreros are a Mexican tradition, and Burkas are an Afghanistanian tradition, but I don't look at someone's clothing and say "yeah he dresses like a Mexican" because for one, I don't know their nationality just by observing them and two, more ethnic cultures are not homogenous. — Anaxagoras

That’s not what I’m doing either. I’m not saying someone dresses like a black person, I’m saying they dress like a gang member.

There is no gang attire per se, however there are pieces of clothing that can be gang affiliated. I mean, if I sag my pants, or wear a particular brand of shoe that doesn't necessarily mean one is in a gang. — Anaxagoras

I agree, and interpret those pieces of clothing as markers or signals that the person wearing them may be a gang member, and judge them accordingly.

That is false. For someone who lives in an area that doesn't have many blacks you're making a lot of assumptions here. — Anaxagoras

Ok, but there are clothing styles that can be eliminated, right? Do black gang members typically wear leather jackets, dress suits, etc.?

I wonder why you're singling out black people period. — Anaxagoras

Because this thread is about my personal experience. I haven’t encountered anyone other than black people that appeared to be gang members.

I mean there are dangerous white bikers who dress a certain way, not sure why you're not mentioning them. My question is why black people in general? You could've picked any other ethnic group. — Anaxagoras

Yeah, there are definitely dangerous people that belong to other gangs and ethnicities, but I haven’t encountered them. Also, I would never question whether or not I was racist if my reactions were directed towards a member of my own race.

No it is appropriate because all black gang members don't dress alike. I know, I grew up in the lifestyle and have family in that lifestyle. — Anaxagoras

I don’t know if that’s true or not. Could you give me a couple examples? But either way, just saying gang members excludes those that are not gang members, but appear to be.

So maybe you should have changed your thread to "black people, fashion, and racism" then. — Anaxagoras

Maybe, but when racism is talked about in America, it’s almost exclusively about black people.

I wonder what this has to do with philosophy because you don't even know how gang members dress to begin with. — Anaxagoras

Do black gang members not typically have tattoos, bandannas, brightly colored clothing, or loose fitting pants?

You really need to do some self-reflection and check your own biases. — Anaxagoras

Umm... ok?

No. Grow some balls look them in the eye and acknowledge them like a human being. — Anaxagoras

First of all, if I did this, and my assumption was correct, would it increase my likelihood of being harassed, mugged, etc.? If so, then how is that the correct action to take?

End Thread — Anaxagoras

Lol, nice try, but you may exit the conversation any time you feel the need to do so. Although, I hope you stick around.

As far as differentiating I guess because I live in California and exposed to different groups of people, I don’t associate clothing with ethnicity. — Anaxagoras

Really? Not even sombreros or burkas?

Then just say gang members. Don’t say “I think black people dress aggressively on purpose” because clearly your categorizing a certain behavior with a clothing type. — Anaxagoras

I’m speaking specifically about black people who dress like gang members. I’m willing to make the statement that black gang members have a distinct look that is distinguishable from gang members of other races. So when I refer to black people within the context of this thread, that is the group I’m referring to. Therefore, just saying “gang members” isn’t appropriate. Firstly because that term is more general than the group I’m discussing, and secondly because I’m not going to assume that every black person dressed this way is an actual gang member. Most likely the vast majority of them that I have encountered are not.

I mean you sure didn’t mention the Hells Angels of Nazi Skin heads or the Yakuza. — Anaxagoras

Because I have no known interactions with with either group, or people who appear to belong to either group. Therefore, I can’t say whether or not I would feel intimidated and have the same response or not. Presumably I would, but I would never be viewed as racist against white people, who I assume make up the majority of the Hells Angels and Skinheads, considering that I’m white as well.

I didn’t begin this thread with a generalization, you did. — Anaxagoras

I’m generalizing all black people who appear to be gang members, as gang members. That’s it. Doing so seems justified to me, but like I mentioned in an earlier post, others view doing so as racist.

SMH. I mean gang signs for one. Tagging, tattoos, where you’re located at for starters. — Anaxagoras

I mean how should I react when I see a black person that looks like a gang member? Should I be cautious and avoid eye contact, etc.?

Globally, whites are portrayed favorably. Ask Indians of India. Ask the Japanese and other cultures what pigmentation would they like to be or are encouraged to be? — Anaxagoras

I’m not arguing against this. My point is that all races are sometimes portrayed negatively, and all races are sometimes portrayed favorably. It seems like in light of this, the question is how much negative portrayal is needed to form a racial bias? IOW’s why am I not biased towards other races I’ve seen be negatively portrayed? And that question is meant to be hypothetical, not an admission to only being biased against black people.

See above....You...said...black people....You said black people....that means me, my friends from college...everyone that identifies as black.......You did not say some, or those in your community, you said black people. — Anaxagoras

So you differentiate between racial and clothing biases based on the use of the term “black people?” I guess that is my mistake then, but I thought it was clear that I was only referring to a specific type of black person. After this clarification, does your position still stand?

Then where does your issues regarding clothing in relation to black people come from? I mean whites dress a certain aggressive way, Asians, Arabs, and other people dress in a certain aggressive way why do you single out black people if you don't live in an impoverished community because I wonder where it comes from? — Anaxagoras

Specifically when I’ve traveled and encountered the types of black people I’ve described. If you’re looking for an explanation, it’s that I associate the type of black person I’ve described with violence/aggression due to him appearing to be a gang member. And that is the case because gang members are violent and have a similar appearance.

BTW, should I be offended or consider you to be racially biased since you didn’t say some white people, Asians, or Arabs?

You need to formulate your words differently between black people, some black people, or black people you know or are around. — Anaxagoras

Ok. I advise you do the same.

A gang member nothing more. MS-13 is a Salvadorian gang but that is not an accurate representation of people who live in El Salvador. It is a gang nothing more. — Anaxagoras

Ok, and what should the default reaction be to someone you assume is a gang member?

I'm just giving you a perspective as a black man and how it appears to me. — Anaxagoras

Your perspective is appreciated.

Sounds like you have some inherent racial bias. Whether you want to admit it or not societal stimuli which imparts negative cultural impressions in this case against black people have surely invaded your subconscious. — Anaxagoras

That may be true. I’d like to think that it is only in regards to a particular type of black person, but as you say, I’m biased. Black people aren’t only portrayed negatively, and white people are portrayed negatively as well. Why would the bias only work in one case and not the other?

Regardless of clothing there is an internal racial bias on your part that is subconscious — Anaxagoras

How can you be so sure? How do you differentiate between a racial bias and a clothing(?) bias?

however these internal biases may become apparent based on living in an impoverished urban community. — Anaxagoras

I don’t live in an impoverished urban community, unless you’re meaning something else. In which case I’m misunderstanding you.

Perhaps you're making the associations of what you see in media with where you live. — Anaxagoras

No. There’s basically no black people where I live, and the vast majority of those who do dress similar to how everyone else dresses.

This is quite offensive. I'm a black man. I'm a professional social worker and I'd be damned if I dress in a way that not only invokes fear but police attention. Again you may have retained some prejudices you haven't really acknowledged and by the above quote, it is quite clear. I am not even sure what "intimidating clothes" looks like considering the style of urban wear are changing. — Anaxagoras

It wasn’t meant to be offensive, but I’m not claiming that only black people do this, or that all black people do this. Well, my example wasn’t strictly about clothing, it included tattoos and hairstyles, but if you want to dive into what intimidating clothing is I’ll oblige. Firstly, I believe that humans are wired to interpret certain colors, or hues, as dangerous or threatening in some way. Possibly this is due to the fact that poisonous plants and/or insects are often brightly colored. Secondly, I don’t know about the intricacies of inner city fashion, but I would assume that gang members still have a particular look, generally speaking. Am I wrong? If I were to conjure a guess, I would say that in some circumstances inner city youth idolize this gang/thug mentality, and try to imitate their style in order to feel like they are part of the group. This presents an issue, because it leads to those kids being viewed as gang members. After all, if it looks and walks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. But issues arise when someone is judged as a gang member, but isn’t. So, intimidating clothing can be defined as clothing worn by people who are associated with criminal activity, specifically violence and drug related crimes.

No doubt colored bandannas and tattoos associated with their color may have gang references but that is a gang affiliation thing not an ethnic culture thing. — Anaxagoras

Right, but gangs are often racially or ethnically grouped. For example, MS-13 is a Hispanic gang, correct? So, we have specific gangs whose members are of a specific race/ethnicity, and have a specific style. What then should the default assumption be when I see someone of this specific ethnicity/race exhibiting this specific style?

Black Americans or all Africans of the diaspora are not homogeneous nor are we a monolith. — Anaxagoras

Of course not. I never insinuated that they were.

Obamas dress style reflects his professionalism and his standard of living. — Anaxagoras

Right, but doesn’t the same logic apply to those whose dress reflects their criminality?

Often times clothing reflects where we live, who were are personality wise, where we are in life. — Anaxagoras

Right again, but that’s precisely what I’m doing; judging someone’s personality, intentions, etc. based on their clothing.

But I think you have some unacknowledged racial prejudices as I've indicated in the above. — Anaxagoras

Isn’t that what I’m doing in this thread? Exposing my prejudices so that they can be acknowledged and categorized accordingly?

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. We are no longer “ one consciousness experiencing a small part of the world and influenced through your particular society or culture.” We are exposed to a global culture that has no centre. The COVID virus has raged across the world, but I personally have only lived it through television and the internet. But the culture I live in is loose and uncentered and it’s influence on those around me is less than it once was. In fact I might go so far to say there is no longer a sense of culture. There is something but I’m not sure how to define it. — Brett

That’s all somewhat true, but I’d argue that there is a big difference between vicariously experiencing “culture” and living it. Regardless of how connected you are to the rest of the world, where you specifically live has a profound effect on your perceptions, opinions, etc. Perhaps you live in a cosmopolitan, multicultural area, but you’re still influenced by your local political system, predominant religion, reward system, education system, etc.

Any intelligent person would realise how little they know. But to realise that then one needs to be intelligent. And what makes someone intelligent? Is it information, opinion, experience, exposure to news stories? What would it, should it, be? And who decides what it is, how it’s taught, how it’s passed on, how it’s used? — Brett

I’ll go with knowledge and culture. Culture defines what is important to know, and reinforces actions that acquire knowledge or use it. Therefore it is passed on through memes, history, etc. Knowledge is justified true belief, but also more than that, like knowing how to do something, how to work within a system, etc.

I think you mean “without understanding them. And, to answer your question, sometimes. I may see what a statement means, but not understand why it is being stated. Much like your first post, which seemed to claim that I needed to understand him, but not see what he meant or ask for evidence. That statement seems pedantic at best. As if you attempting to make some arbitrary distinction between the phrase “see what you mean” and the term “understand” makes any significant contribution to the conversation or is relevant in any way.

So you see, I saw the meaning of your statement, but not the purpose or intent of it. As a result, I asked what you meant. To be more specific, was that statement sarcastic? Meant to call me out for not pressing unenlightened on his evidence for his claim? Meant to point out some grammatical flaw I made in using the phrase “see what you mean” instead of understand? Something else?

Meaning precedes understanding, and is a requirement for it. For example, I see no meaning in your first post, therefore I don’t understand you, or your point, if there was one.

What? If I want to understand him, then I do need to see what he means. I’m not looking to agree/disagree with him or debate him on his opinion. I was just curious.

I'm bothered when I trust someone because they 'look honest' and they ain't. — unenlightened

Yeah, but the person being judged as such isn’t. That’s what I was referring to.

It's not a fact that white faces are safer, and it's not an ideology for most people either. It's an unconscious prejudice that operates in our lives because it is built into our education and experience. Unfortunately it's a comfortable prejudice if your face fits, and many people don't want to see their own prejudice, or how they benefit from others' prejudice. — unenlightened

Oh, ok. I see what you mean.

@Brett In order for things to be exciting and new, there must first be new and exciting things left to discover. Are there? As you point out, everyone is already set in their beliefs.

I read a book called The Island of Knowledge. I don’t remember the author, but the metaphor throughout the book was that our knowledge is like an island, where the surrounding ocean represents the unknown. As our knowledge grows, the island expands, but so does it’s shore, which is to say the more we learn the more we realize how much there is we don’t know. What do you think?

Also, it’s good to remember that you are essentially a microcosm; one consciousness experiencing a small part of the world and influenced through your particular society or culture. From what I understand, things are quite exciting in the jungles of Papua New Guinea. Perhaps you should move there if you seek excitement :wink:

A medal for honesty is on its way you. — unenlightened

Hooray!

We judge strangers on the information we immediately have; first appearance, then accent, possibly smell, demeanour, and so on. — unenlightened

Do you consider this to be good/bad, or does it depend on something else? It seems negative judgements are bad, but no one bothers getting upset at being judged favorably due to appearance, or whatever else that isn’t actions.

All this is not fact, and it is not ideology, so it is not something one can reasonably argue for or against. — unenlightened

Then what is it? Biology? Are you saying your statements aren’t factual?

These threads take scripture or revelation as a starting point for discussion; theology, not philosophy. — Banno

Personally, I don’t see the issue with this. Can’t philosophical methods be used in theology? As you note, the starting point is an assumption that many would consider false or unjustified, but can’t philosophy still be used within those parameters? For example, discussing whether or not Calvinism’s view of free will is warranted. This seems similar to political discussions; discussing a particular feature within a particular system (I.e. the concept of property in socialism).

God is not a suitable tool for philosophical explanation because god is omnipotent and omniscient. — Banno

I agree, but I don’t think that’s what was going on in the threads you mentioned. We can discuss the merits of Judas without using god as a justification for our view, for example.

using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument — Banno

The other bullets I have no contention with, but this seems relevant in certain contexts. If I want to claim that Jesus promoted homophobia, I would need to provide scripture as evidence/justification of my claim.

Isn't clothing dipped in a semiotics of racialisation anyway? — fdrake

Admittedly, the rest of your post exposes my ignorance of the UK, so I can’t comment on the specific examples you referenced. If you’re asking if certain clothing is typically associated with a particular race, then yes. Du-rags in the US come to mind as an example of that. Is that what you meant?

Yeah, at least then we could tell them apart.

Sure, the idea’s applicable to different groups. Although, I haven’t seen many police officers with face tattoos :lol:

Ok. I’m not arguing. Just think it’s an interesting viewpoint. I agree about cultural appropriation, just not sure about the rest.

I disagree with the idea that there is a "black culture" to begin with and I'd say the term is racist. — Judaka

Interesting. Even though this term is used by black people? As an aside, what are your thoughts on things like cultural appropriation?

If you're just going to assume someone's characteristics by their culture and their culture by their race then you're assuming characteristics by race which you agreed was racist. — Judaka

Perhaps gang/thug culture would be a better term? But then again, isn’t their variance between different types of gangs? So in order to use that term and be specific you would have to say something like “culture associated with [enter particular gang].”

You could save yourself the trouble and be more careful with your language. — Judaka

That makes sense. Point taken.

Fair enough. Appreciate the feedback.

You seem to be backpedalling from the position I thought you were taking and saying that it is about black people (and their "look") rather than about particular clothes on anyone. So, I agree with Judaka now on a less charitable interpretation. — Baden

That’s my fault. I’m using “look” just as a generic term meaning clothing, accessories, and/or hairstyles.

Yeah, but if you only have this reaction to black people then that's racism. You still haven't said you're equally frightened by whites wearing these clothes. Are you? — Baden

Yeah, or whatever particular fashion is equivalent for that particular culture. I thought I said as much here:

yeah I’ve noticed this reaction with white people as well. Have basically no exposure to other ethnicities or races though. Which undoubtedly is also part of the issue, my issue. — Pinprick

If you think that "x race" are "lazy people" and that's just an opinion and not an effort on your part to be hateful, I'd still call that racism. — Judaka

Me too.

Any biases based on race can be called racism but what about biases on culture? — Judaka

Especially if it’s specifically a culture that primarily only belongs to one group (I.e. black culture) that you’re biased about. I think that discriminating against black culture could be used as an excuse to be racist, for example. “I’m not racist, I just don’t like black culture” becomes indistinguishable from “I don’t like black people.” However, if the former statement is sincere, is it still racist?

You need to use language that doesn't associate the race with the behaviour. — Judaka

The issue is that there are behaviors that are *almost* only associated with a certain race, like a particular style of dress or appearance.

I would say your OP is rather unambiguously racist. — Judaka

Ok.

You can say someone looks like a gangster or a hooligan and treat them with suspicion and it's not racist. Once you associate those characteristics to a race and then prejudice against that race because of that association then that's racist. — Judaka

I don’t think I’m the one that associated that particular look with black people. Regardless, it seems to be true. Is my stating this truth what’s racist? Also, I don’t have this reaction towards all black people, does that make any difference in your opinion?

:up:

None of what you mentioned would I associate with anything other than being young and wanting to fit in. — Baden

Sure, that’s a possibility, but isn’t part of “being young and wanting to fit in” about learning what your ascribing to by “fitting in?” And you only learn by having to experience the consequences of your decision. So if fitting in means that you appear intimidating to the point that other people are afraid to approach you or interact with you, shouldn’t the lesson learned be that “fitting in” isn’t worth it? Shouldn’t you learn that by choosing this appearance you are going to become associated with a negative stereotype of your race, which in turn reinforces racism? Stated more bluntly, if you don’t want to be judged as a negative stereotype, don’t appear to be that stereotype.

If you don't like certain types of clothes, fine, but you can't infer from the fact that you find something intimidating that it is intended to be intimidating. — Baden

Maybe in some circumstances, but I’d consider it to be common knowledge what type of appearance is associated with gang or thug mentality.

And even if it is, so what? — Baden

Then one should not be chastised for being intimidated or displaying the natural behaviors that occur with this feeling.

In some environments, you need to look intimidating to survive. — Baden

Very true, and a good point. I guess this illustrates the circular nature of it all. I can’t expect you to not dress intimidatingly if that means you’re less likely to survive. But at the same time you can’t expect me to not be intimidated m.

Maybe we should check if George Floyd was wearing a bandanna when he was publically lynched. All these protests for nought... No, this is just stupid. — Baden

You’re misreading me. Lynching someone is bad regardless of color, clothing, or anything else. I’m just wondering if there are situations that are labeled racist, but that the skin color is just circumstantial, and that maybe their appearance in general aside from their skin color is a contributing factor. That type of situation doesn’t seem all that unlikely to me. But that isn’t to excuse any sort of unprovoked aggression. Again, that is wrong regardless of color, clothing, or anything else.

“Pinprick, would you feel the same way about other ethnicities whose clothing you associated with violent/criminal people such as whites wearing biker gang colours or perhaps well dressed japanese men with chest/back tattoos and missing pinky fingers?” — DingoJones

Funny examples, but yeah I’ve noticed this reaction with white people as well. Have basically no exposure to other ethnicities or races though. Which undoubtedly is also part of the issue, my issue. I guess I was kind of triggered by the comments I was seeing recently that referred to people that behaved as I do as somehow complicit or part of the problem. Which may or may not be true, but if they’re going to make statements like that, then I expect the same level of criticism to be directed at those black people who intentionally dress a certain way in order to appear intimidating or thug-like. That seems fair to me, but I’m not making up the rules. I’d just like some clarity on what those rules are exactly.

No, I'm not, actually. I'm assuming he's the only one who knows (or could know) what it's based on. And the idea of asking us is a waste of time. And all the not-dressed-like-Obama, bandanna, loud clothes stuff is funny to me. — Baden

I would typically agree, but the way the racist label is tossed around I guess it had me second-guessing my actions. But anyway, to expand the topic, I was also wondering about how this could also apply to things like accusations of police profiling. For example, police may very well pull over black people at a higher rate than white people for simple infractions like speeding. Some people, upon seeing this data, will then jump to the conclusion that the police are racially profiling. But, what if a large portion of these people pulled over dress in the way I’ve described? Do police have the right to become literal fashion police? I guess the point I’m getting at is that the issue of racism is much more nuanced than it is portrayed to be. It isn’t as simple as “white person treats black person bad, therefore racism.”

lmao — darthbarracuda

I had the same reaction :lol:

It is probably from both sides. One feels the need to stare, gaze. The other feels the need to be gazed perhaps. As others have said, the problem only lies when one goes out of the boundaries into diminishing the other's agency or not recognizing it, etc. — schopenhauer1

I agree.

So I think the word "objectified" is just an odd choice of word. If it means assigning no agency to someone who is clearly a thinking person, why would one do that? If it means find something attractive then, that seems the wrong way to apply that term. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, I don’t know how much anyone agrees on the meaning of the term. To me it means making someone feel violated in some way, whether intentional or not, due to valuing only a part of the person as opposed to the whole. Only appreciating someone for their looks, status, profession, etc. would all qualify in my opinion. Anytime you select an aspect of their person and value them solely based on their ability to meet your standards in that regard.

I guess the point is that some people can't get past how attractive they find someone, which is not the problem of the attractive person. But, as I said as a culture the whole attractiveness thing can be diminished all together. — schopenhauer1

The issue is that no matter how horny someone makes you, you don’t have the right to judge their value based solely on that criteria. Or, conversely, no matter how repulsive you find someone to be, you don’t have the right to discriminate against them for that reason alone.

Perhaps all aspects of the revealing/concealing game would be diminished and then society would have to find other ways to promote attraction for the unfortunate effect of procreation. — schopenhauer1

And we would end up right back where we are now. The new qualities of attractiveness, for lack of a better phrase, would just be objectified again. It seems that if attractiveness is promoted at all, or attended to by males, females will feel objectified, no?

There's that word "present" again. Present yourself appropriately if you wish to be judged as a "whole person" is the admonishment made. If you don't do so, well then expect to be considered something other than a whole whole person. You're just asking for that. — Ciceronianus the White

What word would you prefer I use? I’m simply stating that wishing, or rather expecting, to be perceived as something you do not appear to be is an unreasonable demand. Is that wrong in some way? The point is some women want to be treated like a piece of meat, and those women tend to dress a certain way so as to express that desire. Therefore, if you choose to dress in a similar way, you run the risk of being perceived in a similar way. And being perceived in a certain way increases the likelihood that you will be treated a certain way. Therefore, if you don’t want to be treated that way, you should dress in a way that distinguishes yourself from those who do.

Regardless of why she dresses that way, you don’t have permission to treat her as a piece of meat. Likewise, if I think that wearing slouchies is dressing like a hobo, that’s my problem, not yours. I don’t get to treat you like a hobo just because you dress like I think a hobo dresses. These are people - talk to them. — Possibility

Sure, but presumably one dresses a certain way because they want people to perceive them accordingly. This isn’t an absolute rule, of course. People could have limited options, or simply not care about others perceptions of them, etc. So it seems that making certain assumptions based on someone’s appearance is warranted. You assume the person in the police uniform is a police officer, and treat him accordingly. The fact of the matter is that perspective is a two way street. My judgements and assumptions about people are what they are partly due to how they present themselves. Do I have my own biases, agendas, and discriminations? Of course. But that doesn’t mean that my assessment of you is strictly my problem. Some women present themselves in hyper-sexualized ways, because that is precisely what they are offering; sex. Regarding communication, could you give an example of how one is supposed to have this type of conversation without offending the person whose appearance is being judged? I can’t seem to think of a way to ask someone if they’re homeless, a prostitute, etc. without doing so.

Personally, I’m not offended by men flirting, gazing or complimenting me on aesthetic appeal, but I will object to assumptions that my choice of attire is for their benefit - that I’m ‘walking around with a cart full of food’ as if to say “look at all this food I have that you don’t”. — Possibility

Good for you, but some (most?) women are. That’s not the way I intended the analogy, though. It’s more about you having something others desire, openly displaying your possession of it, and being offended/shocked by people calling attention to that fact (which it seems doesn’t apply to you).

I happen to be a sexual being - that should not be interpreted as an affront to you, and I should not be expected to hide it because it’s something YOU want. If you ask for some food and I have it, I would happily share, but my body and my sexual identity is NOT food, it is ME. — Possibility

That’s fine, as long as I’m not expected to not pursue something I want. And the issue here is that are men not made to feel ashamed or morally corrupt by doing so? Even just asking or “complimenting” can result in shaming, or even violence (slapping). Also, can you explain what you mean by your “sexual identity?” Do you mean whether you’re heterosexual or LBGTQ? If so, I’m not seeing how that’s relevant. I assume your body would appeal to both heterosexual males, and lesbians alike. So it’s not that you choosing to wear more conservative clothing somehow limits your ability to express your sexual identity. I don’t think you can always determine one’s sexual identity strictly by their appearance.

Well, I’m not going to tell you what to do in private, but as a woman I don’t appreciate being thought of as an object at all. I’d prefer you to think of me as a whole person, because that’s what I am. — Possibility

This is perfectly reasonable too. But I would suggest that you present yourself as a whole person if that’s how you want to be judged. And I’m not implying that you, personally, don’t, but more generally to all women.

@Possibility

Regarding your reply to me, it seems I misunderstood you. As a result, we probably agree more than we disagree. However, I wanted to explain that the issue I have with women who complain about men objectifying them is when their complaint is not warranted, as in the case of staring; or when they pretend to act so naive that they’re shocked that their attire draws unwanted attention. I think women of that sort need to own up to the responsibility/consequences of their choice of attire. Basically, if you don’t want to be viewed as a piece of meat, then don’t present yourself as such. Just like if I don’t want people thinking I’m poor, I shouldn’t dress like a hobo.

Also,

I’m conscious that exposing these parts of my body has arousal value for men, but frankly, I’m not going to hide my sexuality just because you might be inconvenienced with a boner. Not my problem. — Possibility

Agreed, but any issue I have would be regarding how you react to flirting, gazing, “compliments,” or other non-criminal actions that you receive from men as a result of this choice of attire. Also, to a certain extent, this is similar to walking around with a cart full of food in a village full of hungry people. You shouldn’t be surprised if most people ask for some food, or if some try to steal it from you. Not that stealing is in anyway an acceptable act, just that it’s to be expected.

Also, just a general question/comment. If objectification is thinking of someone as an object, then, strictly speaking it is a thought. Whereas if it is treating someone as an object, strictly speaking it is an action. So me objectifying someone in thought in private while I masturbate, for example, is permissible, but masturbating in front of someone without their permission, a la Louis CK, is not. Agree?

So, all actions are permissible unless explicitly stated? — Possibility

I think that has to be the assumption, right? Of course, laws have to be included in all of this. But if I work at Walmart, for example, I should assume that the customers are allowed to do anything that isn’t illegal or against company policy. Therefore, a certain level of rudeness, for example, should be expected. If I can’t handle people being rude to me, maybe I shouldn’t take the job. That doesn’t make it ok to be rude, but it’s the business owner’s right to tolerate, and expect it’s employees to tolerate, certain behaviors. And it’s my responsibility, as an employee, to do so.

Do I need to set the ground rules for every interaction, or can I simply expect you to treat me as a human being, given that I am a human being? — Possibility

Well, what that means is different for different people. Besides, their are some professions that basically do require it’s employees be treated without dignity or respect at times. Consider brothels, or a bunny ranch, where males have fetish requests that the female is expected to provide. Some fetishes can be very dehumanizing.

Should a sign stating “We will not tolerate groping or leering” be placed at every coffee shop entrance, too? Does it need to be placed at the entrance to a doctor’s office? Or is the sign necessary only if the doctor is female? — Possibility

I think you can apply some common sense to these situations. Unwanted groping is illegal, but can I grope my wife in a coffee shop if I want to? It probably will depend on how the owner feels about it. But regardless, signs of this sort only make sense in certain locations; those where the employee/customer interactions present the risk of those actions occurring.

I understand what you’re trying to say, but objectification is not a narrow view of purpose - it’s a narrow view of intention. It isn’t just that his only value is to address your health concerns, it’s that he is otherwise subject to your will. — Possibility

Not sure I understand what you mean. Intent only matters if acted upon, right? I’m guessing you mean that I shouldn’t have “bad intentions” when interacting with someone? But what exactly are bad intentions? Trying to get him to do what I want? For example, I don’t really care if the doctor finds it dehumanizing to have to give me a prostate exam. If I need one, it’s his job to fulfill my heath needs. Just like I don’t care if the stripper finds it dehumanizing for me to stare/leer at her tits. If that’s what arouses me, it’s her job to fulfill that need.

Now, the situation is different if we are just two strangers who pass on the street. In these interactions, there is no responsibility towards each other. And again, anything illegal is obviously considered wrong to do. But consider this scenario. I see a scantily clad woman. I have no way of knowing what her intentions or reasons for dressing this way are. However, I assume that it’s because she wants to draw attention to herself. So I stare at her. If my assumption of her intentions is correct, she will have no issue, but if I’m wrong she will. But how can I rightfully be blamed for assuming incorrectly? In both instances I’m objectifying her, but in the one case the objectification is welcomed. So objectifying can’t be wrong in an absolute sense. The suggestion that I ask before assuming seems ridiculous. “Excuse me, mam, I noticed your breasts are hanging out of your shirt. Would it be alright if I stared at them?” Even the women that want this to happen wouldn’t admit it, and those who don’t would be just as offended by my question as the act. It’s a catch-22 situation. The only way around this that I see is for only women who want sexual attention from males to dress scantily. Dressing a certain way is never permission for being touched, but exposing body parts in public seems to invite observing.

The way I see it, part of the issue is that people are multifaceted, but very often we only see one side of them. In a way, I objectify my doctor, because I only see him in this narrow, shallow category. So to me his only value is his ability to address my health concerns. With a stripper it’s the same thing. Her only value is her ability sexually arouse me. Now, this is completely dependent on my having no other interactions with them. If I knew either person personally, my perspective would change. I would be aware of their personality, interests, etc. so that they would not appear shallow. Also, if I go to a strip club, and that club does not expressly state that I cannot grope, leer, etc., then wouldn’t that lead me to believe that those actions are acceptable? And as a stripper, wouldn’t that mean the same thing? That men are allowed to perform those behaviors?

Pinprick :point: Told ya! :yawn: — 180 Proof

:roll:

You are not using logic to show it is unlikely that any gods exist. You are using stubbornness to show that you do not have the ethical qualities needed to acknowledge that it cannot be done. — Frank Apisa

Lol, logic is stubborn...

The finest minds that have ever lived on our planet have tried IN BOTH DIRECTION...and failed miserably. But you suppose you have done it here in this forum!!! — Frank Apisa

How many of these “finest minds” support your claims?

I’m disappointed in you Frank, but not surprised. I gave you every opportunity to demonstrate where my faults are and you refuse to engage me. You just resort to parroting yourself. Maybe eating your own words will make point easier to digest...

Yup...just insults and mocking comments.

If you could defeat the argument...you would do it in an instant. But you cannot — Frank Apisa

Enjoy your just deserts Frank. Bon appetit. :vomit:

You are the one making the assertion that the existence of a god would violate physics. — Frank Apisa

Yeah, because it would. At the very least a definition of God includes an immaterial being that causes physical effects through creation or somehow interfering in our day to day lives. That is physically impossible, because we are able to explain all effects through physical causes.

The existence of a god might not violate physics that we simply do not yet know. — Frank Apisa

Unless the physics of the future refutes physical causality the existence of God would still violate physics.

I'm willing to go with your definition. — Frank Apisa

Then explain how science depends on faith instead of reason.

That is the worst attempt at a syllogism I've seen in quite a while. You did not even come close, but thank you for the laugh. — Frank Apisa

Then show which premise is incorrect, or fallacy I committed.

Ummm...only three words there. Which one did you not understand? — Frank Apisa

I mean why would it be more likely to fall towards the Earth? If it’s because the laws of physics make it more likely to do so, then you’re implying that it is unlikely for the laws of physics to be violated, which is precisely the same logic I’m using to show why it’s unlikely that any Gods exist.

Thanks, Pinprick! — 180 Proof

:up:

You posit that "the existence of a god violates physics." That is as much a "belief" as the theistic guess that there is a GOD. — Frank Apisa

Ok. If you want to argue that God’s existence would not violate physics, then you would need to provide a definition of God that shows that to be true. Good luck.

Actually, most "science" requires as much "faith" as does a "belief in a god." Perhaps you meant math. — Frank Apisa

How do you define faith? To me it’s believing something without evidence/reason to do so. It must mean something different for you, unless you think we have no reason/evidence to believe in gravity, etc.

BUT...perhaps we will discover that things exist that most people think cannot possibly exist. — Frank Apisa

Irrelevant. All things we have, or ever will, discover are physical. There’s no way we could ever discover God, if that’s what you’re implying.

Please provide the P1 and P2 that gets you to it. — Frank Apisa

P1: Science has discovered physical facts about the universe that are up to this point inviolable.

P2: The existence of God would violate these facts, namely the fact that all real objects and forces are explainable in physical terms, but also causality/determinism.

C: Therefore it is more likely that no Gods exist.

I also have a question for you. If I drop a ball, which is more likely to happen? That it falls towards the Earth, or that it floats up towards the sky? I would also like you to explain your answer.

Well...perhaps there are "facts" that are not physical in nature. Perhaps there are "facts" that humans cannot discern. Perhaps we are not nearly as advanced as we think we are. Perhaps we are to truly intelligent beings...what ants are to us. — Frank Apisa

All of that can be true, but it misses the crux of the issue; that the existence of a god violates physics. At the moment I have every reason to believe in science, and no reason to believe something that contradicts it. If there was some justification that could explain rationally why science is incorrect, then and only then would both propositions be considered to have an equal probability of being true. But as it stands, belief in the existence of a God requires absolute faith, whereas science does not.

And just as pre-history people made guesses about the nature of things that we find laughable today...perhaps all that science stuff you are touting will be laughable to humans of a couple hundred years from now. — Frank Apisa

Some of it may be, but wouldn’t you agree that some things we’re right about? Electromagnetism isn’t going anywhere, and neither is inertia or thermodynamics. We understand/know some fundamental things about the world we live in.