rules about how men and women can talk about alleged sexual/gender differences — Bitter Crank
"Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them." — Baden
It may be sexist to suggest that women are not as good at math, or music, or art as men are, but that seems to me to be a possible opinion. Camille Paglia noted in her book Sexual Personae that women have had two centuries of extensive access to art instruction and art materials without producing much notable art. Is that sexist? — Bitter Crank
If someone asks us why shall a good man support Trump - then we shall answer that Trump is the truth of man, and we want our brother to have an honest look at himself. How can we change the world if we refuse to look at our own face, maybe for the first time? Those cowards, some of whom make their presence felt in this thread by protesting against Trump, are pony-hugging liberals in disguise. They hate Trump because they hate themselves - they will refuse to see their own wretchedness reflected in Trump - so they have to get rid of Trump, only to suppress their own selves.
How utterly hilarious to see them crying about Trump slighting the Truth, when their favorite TV shows slight the Truth each and every day, and behold, they keep on watching? Have they just now awakened and opened their eyes onto the world? Have they been fast asleep, so drawn into their petty play not to know the world they're living in? One has to wonder how deep blindness and stupidity can go.
They would all like to be the overmen on Wall Street, only that they lack the strength - they lack the opportunity. If only power were placed in their hands. But being weak, they hide their desire from themselves - so that they may be able to live with themselves. Instead they promote a fake morality - a hypocritical morality - motivated by their ressentiment and hatred of themselves and of the powerful (whom they nevertheless want to emulate). So on the one hand they condemn theft - but on the other they reward the thief by doing business with him. On the one hand they condemn adultery - on the other they enjoy seeing it in their movies. With one hand they take away, and with the other, behind their backs so that their eyes do not see, they give back what was taken!
That is their pity, for they have never actually rejected immorality. They have just deceived themselves, thinking that they have rejected what is immoral. But they haven't. The sad part is that their so called morality is a reaction to immorality, and not authentic and in-itself, and has the same illusory and shadowy constitution that its parent has. That is why when push comes to shove, they shall once again resort to immorality. If their daughter can marry that unrighteous rich man, then they will immediately agree, and at once will have forgotten all their concerns about morality.
The world pretends to hate men like Trump but actually loves them. The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones. In the polls they pretend not to vote for Trump - but when they're alone, with themselves inside the booth, they cast their vote where their hearts are. It is good - they imagine - to pretend to morality but act immorally. We all knew, when we were speaking of morals, that it was merely speaking after all. When we hurt the other - we will retort by "I thought you'd be doing the same" - for we know that what we say is mere politics and nothing more. Indeed, we are surprised by those who expect us to keep our word - that person is really an Idiot for us. Suddenly the mask will go off, and our real face will show.
And the world pretends to love men like Marcus Aurelius, but actually hates them to the core, for true morality disrupts hypocrisy and pulls the cover. And men are too afraid to look at their own faces, and will do anything to keep the veil covering it. They will then start speaking of the complete acceptance of life as it is - as if there was anything more in there than a covert pleading to accept immorality, to drop the pretence. For their heart truly lusts for what is unclean, and their mind only pretends that it is otherwise. They envy Trump, instead of pity him. Indeed, they condemn pity, as the emotion belonging to the weak. But it is only the strong man who can look down on another with compassion and pity, for only the strong man knows what the other lacks. The weak can only look up at what they deem to be the strong with envy. And the one they deem to be the strong shows what their real values are.
When theft, adultery, promiscuity, deception, and the like become the standard - then the immoral shall look up to people exemplifying these "qualities". Even as they condemn them - they shall condemn - but it will be only in speaking, for in reality they will secretly envy those people. For their hearts have not yet renounced evil - nor have their minds seen evil as evil - rather they persist in secretly seeing evil as good.
Few and treasured as the stars in the heavens are those who are truly moral in their hearts, and love God with all their mind, heart, body and soul. — Agustino
No, postmodernism and other pseudo science is not evidence. Let me provide you with some actual medical articles cited in MEDICAL/SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS, not philosophy pretending to be science by your favorite authors:Some resources for those interested -
On the myth that testosterone largely accounts for differences in behaviour between men and woman:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-02/testosterone-rex-stop-blaming-sexism-on-hormones/8310854 [article]
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/18/testosterone-rex-review-cordelia-fine [article]
https://www.amazon.com/Testosterone-Rex-Myths-Science-Society/dp/0393082083 [book]
On the institutional basis of gender differences in art:
http://www.writing.upenn.edu/library/Nochlin-Linda_Why-Have-There-Been-No-Great-Women-Artists.pdf [essay, pdf]
On the general myths regarding biological difference and behaviour, with respect to the recent 'Google memo' fracas:
http://www.salon.com/2017/08/08/the-ugly-pseudoscientific-history-behind-that-sexist-google-manifesto/ [article]
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/men-have-always-used-science-to-explain-why-theyre-better-than-women/ [article]
Other resources re: biological difference and behaviour:
https://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393340244
https://www.amazon.com/Brain-Storm-Flaws-Science-Differences/dp/0674063511
https://www.amazon.com/Myths-Gender-Biological-Theories-Revised/dp/0465047920 — StreetlightX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Nochlin - art historian, not a scientist.
Bullshit non-medical articles.
Academic psychologist.
Academic psychologist (same as before).
The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones. — Agustino
None of them are sexist. The middle one saying that women (and men) should be more submissive is a fact. We're all too arrogant. The last one is the only possible one which you can argue about, but it is based on statistical evidence that we have in leadership. If you read the thread, I gave examples of it such as:I think women (in the modern age, and in the West) are NOT submissive to men.
I think women (in the modern age, and in the West) are NOT submissive to men sexually, nor intellectually.
I think philosophers are generally dominating. Indeed, being dominating is a trait required for success in philosophy.
I think women should be more submissive (as should men by the way) than they currently are - generally speaking. I'm saying this just cause most people are bloody selfish at the moment - which is the opposite of submissive.
I don't think women should be more submissive to men sexually, but neither should they use sex as a way of dominating men, which, unfortunately, I see more and more women doing in the West.
Women should be more submissive to men intellectually than they currently are, on average, as men seem to make better decision makers. Why? Because men can be ruthless, aggressive and competitive much more frequently than women, traits which are required for making great decisions in the world. This largely has to do with biological makeup (testosterone). — Agustino
Now they have the education and opportunity. Are they as successful as men in terms of leadership capability? No. On average they'll probably never be as successful as men in terms of leadership, because again, they are just programmed differently biologically. Women don't want to dominate, to engage in conflict, etc. Why not? Because they have lower testosterone levels. Such desires are necessary for effective leadership, maybe less so in some areas of the world today, but fundamentally they are. Only 4.2% of Fortune 500 companies have a woman CEO. Really there's no competition, here, most women simply do not have the biological drive to compete with men in terms of leadership. They excel in other attributes - peace, compassion, emotional resilience etc. being some of them. — Agustino
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shenegotiates/2012/04/10/brain-scientists-tackle-possible-biological-basis-for-gender-leadership-gap/#4d5991706154I said on average. There can be exceptions. So yes, if I see that historically men are more effective leaders than women, generally speaking, I will conclude that they are better suited to be leaders, in the absence of any other evidence. — Agustino
So you claim that none of the women on TV for that matter want to have sex with Trump or even be dominated be him?! You claim it's incoherent that any of the woman in question have such a desire? Is that your claim? Because I can tell you that most men would want to have sex with someone famous, as would most women, by the way. That's what our society encourages (badly), not me.1. Thanks for the reminder of the context. I still think it's profoundly sexist: you claim to know what women secretly want, and you don't — mcdoodle
Can you please cite one instance of me being sexist towards Mongrel or TL?I think you were sexist towards Mongrel, and to and about TimeLine. — mcdoodle
No, I think what's rude is accusing me publicly based on no evidence for being a sexist. That's indeed rude.Responding to a thread about a complaint with a long diatribe as you did at the beginning of this thread was rude and bullying. It's a rhetorical way of saying, If you complain about me, I'll harangue you in return. — mcdoodle
Agreed. I am welcoming to women, I even speak with some of them frequently via PMs. So I have no idea what you're talking about with regards to me.We should be welcoming to all, and focus on philosophy, not personalities. — mcdoodle
No, that's not sexist. Context matters. It is polemic writing, hyperbolic at times, to emphasise a point. — Agustino
No, they believe in postmodernist philosophy :PAfter reading through this thread I am more convinced than ever before; Feminists (not all but most) are those who most of all hold to ressentiment values these days. But what do they believe in? Religion/spirit? Most of times no. Biology? They may claim it, but in truth no. — Beebert
You mean my criticism on doctor's diagnosing people with regards to, especially, mental illnesses? What does that have to do with this? :s Yes I distrust the diagnosis of practicing doctors, not the knowledge that doctors who work in research are accumulating.Oh, whatever happened to Agustino's skepticism of doctors and medicine. — Πετροκότσυφας
You are right, it is. That's why I wrote it, to show how disgusting our society is. It's a critique, not an agreement.Nah, it's pretty fucking disgusting, tempered only by the fact the whole piece of writing is so numbingly overwrought and self-unaware that the only way to read any of it is as inadvertent self-parody. — StreetlightX
Oh, so the issues of gender differences must be discussed by postmodernist feminist philosophers, otherwise they're wrong and have to be shamed in public as you advocated right?(1) to think that issues of gender difference can only be legitimately discussed by medical or scientific sources exclusively is already to illegitimately pre-suppose the terms of discussion — StreetlightX
Right, what does this have to do with medical research? :s I clearly trust medical research, otherwise how do you think I gained a decent grasp of medicine? How can I question a doctor and distrust him when he wants to treat me, if not by referring to medical research? :sSorry, I forgot to mention that against any evidence or appeal, he can always appeal to independent thinking. Reason. — Πετροκότσυφας
You are right, it is. That's why I wrote it, to show how disgusting our society is. It's a critique. — Agustino
Oh, so the issues of gender differences must be discussed by postmodernist feminist philosophers, otherwise they're wrong and have to be shamed in public as you advocated right? — Agustino
So again, please explain to me how I will distrust my doctor if not by appealing to medical research? I can give you one specific example of when I distrusted my doctor, and we can discuss it if you want. This should be very easy for you to explain, granted that you think my grasp of medicine is minimal (although I've been told my doctors that my grasp is similar to a 3rd year medicine student). In fact, here's an explanation of what can account for shortness of breath to Tiff in the Shoutbox:I don't think you've gained any decent grasp of medicine, fella. I think you're among the most inconsistent and intellectually dishonest persons around here. — Πετροκότσυφας
Hmm I just saw this now, didn't move on the previous page until now. Yes, anemia can definitely cause such symptoms. If there's not enough hemoglobin cells to carry oxygen around your body, then even if your heart is pumping right, and your lungs are oxygenating right, then there will not be enough oxygen going around, and you will start feeling short of breath.
Think of it like this. Your hemoglobin cells are like railcars. Your heart is the engine of those railcars. And your lungs are the factory where the railcars get their goodies from. The railcars need to transport a certain level of goodies in order to supply for everyone who needs them (that is the rest of your body). So maybe there's not enough railcars (anemia - low hemoglobin). Maybe the right goods are replaced with poisonous goods (such as carbon monoxide poisoning). Maybe the engine of the railcars isn't working well - so they don't get around the body (that's the heart). Maybe the factory doesn't produce enough oxygen (that would be the lungs). Or maybe the control centre (the brain) fires off the wrong signal (can happen with a variety of conditions, including very often psychological ones, such as anxiety disorders). These are some of the possibilities that can account for shortness of breath. Oh - useful thing to remember is that blood oxygenation is measured as a percentage of railcars (hemoglobin) that are full, and are passing by wherever you have the pulse oxymeter placed (typically the finger). It doesn't matter what they're full with, whether it's oxygen or carbon monoxide. But that's what it would indicate. Say 97% of hemoglobin are carrying something. So you can imagine the conditions where you'd have a high level of SpO2 and yet still have a problem using the metaphor above. Anemia for example would be one of them.
:-}I think you're among the most inconsistent and intellectually dishonest persons around here. — Πετροκότσυφας
So you claim that none of the women on TV for that matter want to have sex with Trump or even be dominated be him?! You claim it's incoherent that any of the woman in question have such a desire? Is that your claim? — Agustino
I agree with that though. Of course I don't. I'm arguing that just some of them are like that, of course not all, that would be silly.I believe his claim was just that you don't know that all the women on TV who claim to be disgusted by Trump are just pretending and secretly desire what Trump does to women. — Michael
So please, I'm waiting for you to respond. You've made two claims, (1) that I have a poor grasp of medicine, and (2) that I'm contradicting myself by distrusting my doctors during treatment and by trusting medical research with regards to gender differences and other things. So now please show us how you're right. Because I think you're just slandering, and you should be ashamed of yourself to tell you the truth.I don't think you've gained any decent grasp of medicine, fella. I think you're among the most inconsistent and intellectually dishonest persons around here. — Πετροκότσυφας
Yes, he would have been right if I made that assertion in a context which leaned itself to be interpreted as a categorical statement. But in the context of the rest of the writing, which is just exaggerated for polemical and rhetorical effect, it cannot be interpreted as anything else but hyperbolic.And as you have now just admitted that "of course not all, that would be silly", you must also admit that mcdoodle was right to call you out on your claim. — Michael
Yes, how about you worry about Nietzsche's writings then, will you?! If what I wrote is sexist, then what Nietzsche wrote is racist, sexist and psychotic to the extreme. But of course it seems you will selectively distinguish between polemic writing, depending on who the author happens to be.A polemic, sexist piece of writing. — StreetlightX
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.