RE: Hjernevask

RE: Hjernevask (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Hjernevask (10/20/2016 10:27:49 AM)
ORIGINAL: Awareness ORIGINAL: PeonForHer We can see this most clearly at the level of non-human nature as a whole - Nature, with a capital 'N'. It's when we humans have read into and back from this entity that we've made the worst balls-ups, of course - thus, Nature as 'red in tooth and claw' (cf Nazism) Actually no - that's Charles Darwin. You, clearly, have not read darwin. "Survival of the fittest" does not mean what you seem to think it means. Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

PeonForHer -> RE: Hjernevask (10/20/2016 11:24:36 AM)
quote: Actually no - that's Charles Darwin. quote: You, clearly, have not read darwin. "Survival of the fittest" does not mean what you seem to think it means. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. Yep. Darwinism was picked up by a movement that was labelled 'Social Darwinism', associated most of all with Herbert Spencer. It turned Darwin's theory into something a lot more brutal. It was this that historians think contributed to the ideas behind Nazism.

thompsonx -> RE: Hjernevask (10/20/2016 12:03:41 PM)
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Yep. Darwinism was picked up by a movement that was labelled 'Social Darwinism', associated most of all with Herbert Spencer. It turned Darwin's theory into something a lot more brutal. It was this that historians think contributed to the ideas behind Nazism. The voyage of the beagle is little more than a phamphlet. Origin of specie is a somewhat larger tome. Somewhat larger than the attention span of those who think they are referencing it.

tweakabelle -> RE: Hjernevask (10/21/2016 4:29:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle If that pathetic attempt at evasion, at changing the topic, at misdirection is the best you can do, then it seems you have run out of sensible things to say, you clearly don't have any way of resolving the problems I have outlined, that you have nothing left. In short you've lost. Game Set and Match. I hate to have to break this to you, but you are living in an imaginary world. K. You are the one advancing a proposition that is impossible, not me. I am merely pointing out the impossibility of your claims. That locates you very firmly in the realm of the imaginary , not me.

Kirata -> RE: Hjernevask (10/21/2016 4:38:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I am merely pointing out the impossibility of your claims. Really? What "claims" would those be, precisely? With quotes this time. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Hjernevask (10/21/2016 4:58:43 AM)
I am finding your silly games tedious. Unless you can find a way around the problem of objectivity I outlined earlier, any further discussion is useless. Until this problem is solved, any scientific proposal for biological gender determination is impossible under the rules of science as they are currently constituted. As there is no reason to believe that this problem will be resolved either now or in the foreseeable future, the current probability of anyone developing a scientifically sound theory of biological gender determination is zero. So it's up to you. Either solve the problem, or agree that the current probability of anyone developing a scientifically sound theory of biological gender determination is zero or find someone else to play your games with.

Kirata -> RE: Hjernevask (10/21/2016 5:32:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I am finding your silly games tedious. Yes, I understand. Being asked to support your facile assertions with actual quotes is tedious. How unfortunate for you. Get used to it. K.

Awareness -> RE: Hjernevask (10/21/2016 8:38:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I am finding your silly games tedious. Unless you can find a way around the problem of objectivity I outlined earlier, any further discussion is useless. ROFL! God, you're full of shit. The objectivity problem you supposedly 'outlined' is batshit-crazy nonsense. You're making a false claim because you know full well your gender theory idiocy is completely unsupportable. I'm also vastly amused at a man-hating feminist who thinks she's qualified to do a meta-analysis of papers published by actual scientists and use her lack of understanding to support her emotional need for her ideas about gender to be supported. You are an idiot. Your contentions - like Peon's - are the result of regurgitation. You're incapable of logic and reason. Watching you fumble about trying to support the lies you've told yourself is amusing as fuck.

PeonForHer -> RE: Hjernevask (10/21/2016 8:48:01 AM)
Jesus Christ... [:D] It's almost impossible to know where to begin with you. Awareness, you're a fruitcake.

Awareness -> RE: Hjernevask (10/21/2016 9:06:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Jesus Christ... [:D] It's almost impossible to know where to begin with you. Awareness, you're a fruitcake. You two are FUCKING hilarious. I mean, sociology is one of the most useless degrees out there and your need to try and feel better about having wasted your life is so obvious. I'd say you're incompetent, but with the standard of thinking you idiots have exhibited, I'm beginning to think that's a fucking requirement for your degree. Christ, what a pair of losers.

PeonForHer -> RE: Hjernevask (10/21/2016 9:27:22 AM)
quote: I mean, sociology is one of the most useless degrees out there and your need to try and feel better about having wasted your life is so obvious. As opposed to your own armful of degrees, hmmm, Awareness? Like I said earlier: you have a contempt for any knowledge that contradicts your fave beliefs, but it's clearly not that kind of contempt that's bred by familiarity. With most people, I'd say 'Google is your friend'. But with you, that's not the case. Too often, you google something with too feverish an aim to assert your own mishmash of old and tired notions about biological determinism, etc, etc. One result is that you never even grasp that what you imagine to be 'cutting edge ideas' that 'sweep away stale old knowledge' are exactly the opposite. You keep decanting old wine into new bottles, without once realising that said wine is now so old it smells of horsepiss.

Awareness -> RE: Hjernevask (10/21/2016 10:39:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: I mean, sociology is one of the most useless degrees out there and your need to try and feel better about having wasted your life is so obvious. As opposed to your own armful of degrees, hmmm, Awareness? Like I said earlier: you have a contempt for any knowledge that contradicts your fave beliefs, but it's clearly not that kind of contempt that's bred by familiarity. With most people, I'd say 'Google is your friend'. But with you, that's not the case. Too often, you google something with too feverish an aim to assert your own mishmash of old and tired notions about biological determinism, etc, etc. One result is that you never even grasp that what you imagine to be 'cutting edge ideas' that 'sweep away stale old knowledge' are exactly the opposite. You keep decanting old wine into new bottles, without once realising that said wine is now so old it smells of horsepiss. chuckle As opposed to a STEM degree which will get you a decent job. Sociology qualifies you to be a social worker or a prison guard. Or, apparently, a useless academic who contributes nothing to the world. What you don't appear to understand is that neither of you has even a remote clue about the scientific method. I can't emphaise how ignorant Tweakabelle's "there is no objectivity so no science is possible" statement reveals her as being. I mean, this alleged woman is clearly fucking clueless about science and is constructing fairy stories to make herself feel better. Scientists tend to exhibit certain traits. Curiousity, an inquiring mind and a reluctance to make absolute pronouncements - they understand that knowledge is a dim candle in the dark. You two, possess none of these. You're arrogant, insular, uninterested in anything which challenges your beliefs and dismissive of scientists who are - it has to be said - far more acquainted with science, than you two are. Oh, and you cannot argue for shit, which is absolutely astonishing in anyone who claims to be degree qualified.

thompsonx -> RE: Hjernevask (10/21/2016 10:53:53 AM)
ORIGINAL: Awareness Scientists tend to exhibit certain traits. Curiousity, an inquiring mind and a reluctance to make absolute pronouncements - they understand that knowledge is a dim candle in the dark. Of course a scientist would never say something like 2+2=4 or state the speed of light was this or that absolute number. But they all teach at the university of dumbass where you were a janitor.

respectmen -> RE: Hjernevask (10/21/2016 9:44:19 PM)
I thought this video would fit beautifully in this thread. Are gender specific toys a hazard to children? \| FACTUAL FEMINIST https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZtU69eJLdI&index=1&list=PLytTJqkSQqtr7BqC1Jf4nv3g2yDfu7Xmd

tweakabelle -> RE: Hjernevask (10/21/2016 10:14:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I am finding your silly games tedious. Yes, I understand. Being asked to support your facile assertions with actual quotes is tedious. How unfortunate for you. Get used to it. K. What you are referring to as "facile assertions" and Awareness, in his own unique style, is calling "batshit-crazy nonsense" are actually some of the most basic and fundamental rules of Science. It is a basic rule of Science that, in order to practice Science properly and to deliver accurate and scientifically valid findings, one needs to adopt a value free objective position from which to consider the evidence. Unless this perspective is adopted whatever happens afterwards is NOT science. It is self evident that with respect to gender, achieving a value free objective position from which to consider the evidence is impossible for any human. Therefore, the unavoidable conclusion is that currently there is no possible scientific basis for theories of biological gender determinism, and that any existing 'theory' or assertion of biological gender determinism cannot be scientifically valid. This will remain the case until humans can achieve an objective position from which to consider the evidence about gender, which means in practice, it will remain the case for the foreseeable future if not forever. You can like or dislike this conclusion at your whimsy but the logical validity and conclusions are not open to disputation on a scientific or logical basis. So whether you agree or disagree with this conclusion matters, in the great scheme of things, not very much at all. However negative reactions to this conclusion does tell us something about a person's intellectual honesty and commitment to knowledge.

Kirata -> RE: Hjernevask (10/22/2016 5:19:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I am finding your silly games tedious. Yes, I understand. Being asked to support your facile assertions with actual quotes is tedious. How unfortunate for you. Get used to it. What you are referring to as "facile assertions" and Awareness, in his own unique style, is calling "batshit-crazy nonsense" are actually some of the most basic and fundamental rules of Science. Yeah, no. That's not what I'm referring to. So unless you're just deliberately being a douche, get a fucking grip and try to follow the thread. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Many times I have seen you assert that all 'scientific' knowledge requires an act of faith to believe in it. I don't recall having advanced the position that "all scientific knowledge requires an act of faith in order to believe it." But since you claim that I've asserted this "many times," it should be easy enough to come up with an example. The only thing I can remember that might come close is my observation that the history of science comprises a laundry list of theories that turned out to be wrong, and that we would be foolish to regard our current level of understanding as carved in stone, which isn't quite the same thing, and I don't see how it helps your argument. Your second facile assertion was to dismiss that response as an empty denial, which to my mind fits the douche theory since I only said that I had no recall. I didn't deny anything. But hey, you can still post a quote to support the first of your claims. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Hjernevask (10/22/2016 5:31:30 AM)
Gee, you are almost as bad a loser as Trump. We both know that the central and key issue in this discussion is the impossibility of practising Science in the realm of gender. You have persistently avoided this issue and your latest post in only the latest in a series that try to evade this issue and change the topic to something else, anything else. The reason for this is simple and straightforward - there is no possible way to dispute this impossibility on a scientific or logical basis. All you have is constant evasions and furphies. You have no way of contesting this point but refuse to concede it. Tedious. Until such time as you address the substantive issue, any discussion with you is pointless.

Kirata -> RE: Hjernevask (10/22/2016 7:13:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle We both know that the central and key issue in this discussion is the impossibility of practising Science in the realm of gender. You have persistently avoided this issue and your latest post in only the latest in a series that try to evade this issue and change the topic to something else, anything else. You're making shit up again. I haven't avoided the issue. I just don't subscribe to your ideologically driven evidence-free claims. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Bless you for your faith, but male and female brains are different at birth and gendered toy selection results obtain even in non-human primates. Studies of laboratory animal models -- for which social biases and constructs such as gender are absent-- have revealed significant anatomical differences between the brains of males and females that arise in fetal and early postnatal development, as well as a role for hormones, which differ greatly between the sexes, in the functioning of the adult brain. ~Source K.

dcnovice -> RE: Hjernevask (10/22/2016 8:56:06 AM)
FR Looks like an interesting series. Thanks for the heads-up. In the part I've watched so far, I was struck by the nursing/care (it wasn't clear if they were all RNs) staff that was entirely female, and I wonder how typical that is. I've spent far too much time in and around hospitals the past few years, and male nurses, while still the minority, have been a definite presence. And I've had strong, effective doctors of both sexes. It would be fascinating to know what the folks who study this stuff make of the "Rosie the Riveter" phenomenon during the World Wars. Is it an indication that folks can step into nontraditional roles--swiftly and effectively--when it's culturally sanctioned/necessary? Is it an exception that proves the rule? A bit of both? Something else entirely?

PeonForHer -> RE: Hjernevask (10/22/2016 10:07:57 AM)
quote: It would be fascinating to know what the folks who study this stuff make of the "Rosie the Riveter" phenomenon during the World Wars. Is it an indication that folks can step into nontraditional roles--swiftly and effectively--when it's culturally sanctioned/necessary? Is it an exception that proves the rule? A bit of both? Something else entirely? I think it shows, above all, that we humans can make ourselves into what we want. Since the dawn of time the Forces of Fartdom have said 'You can't do X or Y if you're a man or a woman, or are one of the lower orders, or of the wrong race' ... and yet, pop, just like that, at so many times in history, said forces have been proven wrong.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875