RE: Hjernevask

RE: Hjernevask (Full Version)

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

Message

PeonForHer -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 2:28:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Are you trying to go for a scorched earth policy here? Because to accept that claim would reduce the discussion to nothing more than a battle between two differing ideological priesthoods. Well, no. Priests tend to have a certainty about their beliefs. The best of scientists don't. K, look, you've got to accept that you're not the only one who gets to deconstruct everything around here.

tweakabelle -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 2:55:11 AM)
The question under discussion is *not* biological gender determinism vs cultural gender determinism. I have made no claims whatsoever about cultural gender determinism and FWIW it's not something that I am persuaded by either. Nor is it an either/or proposition, a binary choice as Kirata is suggesting. There are many other ways of understanding how gender develops, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. The issue at dispute is the scientific invalidity of any theory of biological gender determinism. To agree with that proposition does not imply acceptance of any other theory of how gender develops. It is to eliminate biological gender deterministic theories as scientifically invalid and nothing more.

Kirata -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 3:03:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Nor is it an either/or proposition, a binary choice as Kirata is suggesting. Where did I suggest any such thing? Quote, please. K.

Kirata -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 3:07:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer K, look, you've got to accept that you're not the only one who gets to deconstruct everything around here. Yeah, that must be my problem. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 3:15:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Nor is it an either/or proposition, a binary choice as Kirata is suggesting. Where did I suggest any such thing? Quote, please. K. Your post #78 makes it very clear that you view this discussion as one involving cultural gender determinists vs biological gender determinists. You are the only person to use this phrase - no one else has until I mentioned it in my previous post. Here is your post in full: "Well silly me! I would have thought that the topic of the thread was the reaction of believers in cultural determination to science-based evidence that conflicts with their views. But of course, since I am regrettably lacking in your mind-reading abilities I can only rely on what he actually said. What is interesting to me is that when confronted with the science-based findings of the nature-nurture researchers, the big believers in cultural determinism come up looking like religious zealots. Their rebuttal to experiments which conflict with their beliefs is to reassert those beliefs. They don't actually have any science to justify their theories. " Up to this point no one else had mentioned or advocated cultural determinism. Everyone was talking about biological gender determinism. You are the only person to pose this discussion as a binary choice between biological and cultural gender determinism. You lost this argument a long time ago Kirata. Theories of biological gender determination suck scientifically and they always will. Give it away before you do any more damage to your reputation.

Kirata -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 3:20:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Nor is it an either/or proposition, a binary choice as Kirata is suggesting. Where did I suggest any such thing? Quote, please. Your post #78 makes it very clear that you view this discussion as one involving cultural gender determinists vs biological gender determinists. You are the only person to use this phrase - no one else has until I mentioned it in my previous post. Here is your post in full: "Well silly me! I would have thought that the topic of the thread was the reaction of believers in cultural determination to science-based evidence that conflicts with their views. But of course, since I am regrettably lacking in your mind-reading abilities I can only rely on what he actually said. What is interesting to me is that when confronted with the science-based findings of the nature-nurture researchers, the big believers in cultural determinism come up looking like religious zealots. Their rebuttal to experiments which conflict with their beliefs is to reassert those beliefs. They don't actually have any science to justify their theories. " Actually, here is my post in full, without omitting what I responding to: quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The topic here is what is the source of gender identity and what standard of evidence is necessary. Well silly me! I would have thought that the topic of the thread was the reaction of believers in cultural determination to science-based evidence that conflicts with their views. But of course, since I am regrettably lacking in your mind-reading abilities I can only rely on what he actually said. What is interesting to me is that when confronted with the science-based findings of the nature-nurture researchers, the big believers in cultural determinism come up looking like religious zealots. Their rebuttal to experiments which conflict with their beliefs is to reassert those beliefs. They don't actually have any science to justify their theories. What my post makes "very clear" is that the OP views this discussion as one involving cultural vs biological determinism. That's why I quoted him. Do you have some kind of mental disorder, or are you really this fucking dishonest? K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 3:44:09 AM)
But Kirata no one has been advocating cultural determinism. No one at all. Certainly not me. This is a bit like Don Quixote and windmills isn't it? You have made all these posts arguing against cultural determinism (or so you would have us believe) yet no one has been advocating cultural determinism. Not a clever look is it? Just like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. In Don Quixote's case, at least the windmills actually existed, which appears to more than you can say for the people you seem to be arguing with (if your claim is true!) And if your claim isn't true then we don't have to waste any time on it do we? The only thing that I have advocated is the impossibility of biological gender determinism being scientifically valid. That has been the point of contention since I made my first post in this thread. Funnily enough that claim of mine that I have been consistently advocating seems to be the thing that you are avoiding commenting on directly. That's because you are unable to counter my claim in any meaningful way. And all this is just shadow boxing to try to obscure your silence on that central claim. It seems you are guilty of the priestly zealotry you are so fond of criticising in others.

Kirata -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 4:02:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle no one has been advocating cultural determinism. No one at all. Certainly not me. If you dismiss research that demonstrates a biological component, as you have done, only cultural determinism is left. quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle You have made all these posts arguing against cultural determinism... I haven't made any posts arguing biological determinism against cultural determinism in humans as an "either or" proposition. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 4:16:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle no one has been advocating cultural determinism. No one at all. Certainly not me. If you dismiss research that demonstrates a biological component, as you have done, only cultural determinism is left. Thank you for finally conceding that you view the issue in binary terms. A few posts ago (in post #83) you were insisting that I produce evidence to support my claim when I stated you were viewing the question as a binary choice. Now you are stating that it is a binary choice openly. So it seems we a making a little progress at last ..... As it happens you are incorrect. There are theories of gender development that are not deterministic. For instance ,any explanation of gender development from a post modernist perspective would assert that gender is never fully determined, that it is always to one extent or another open ended. That's just one alternative non-deterministic approach. There are others. So it's not a binary choice between biological and gender determinism as you are mistakenly asserting here. The central point which you have studiously avoided commenting on thus far is the impossibility of theories of biological gender determinism being scientifically valid. Do you agree or disagree with this statement and if you disagree, why?

Kirata -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 4:27:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle There are theories of gender development that are not deterministic. It's a miracle, then? K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 4:48:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle There are theories of gender development that are not deterministic. It's a miracle, then? K. More obfuscation. The central point which you have studiously avoided commenting on thus far is the impossibility of theories of biological gender determinism being scientifically valid. Do you agree or disagree with this statement and if you disagree, why?

Kirata -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 4:54:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle no one has been advocating cultural determinism. No one at all. Certainly not me. If you dismiss research that demonstrates a biological component, as you have done, only cultural determinism is left. Thank you for finally conceding that you view the issue in binary terms. A few posts ago (in post #83) you were insisting that I produce evidence to support my claim when I stated you were viewing the question as a binary choice. Now you are stating that it is a binary choice openly. So it seems we a making a little progress at last ..... Yeah, no. That statement does not "concede" that I view the issue in binary "either or" terms. Rather it suggests that in humans neither can be dismissed. If you think there are other factors in play besides biology and culture, I'd be curious to know what you imagine them to be. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 5:02:15 AM)
You really are determined not to address the central point of this entire discussion aren't you? Despite repeated invitations to comment on or address it, you decline to do so and fail to offer any reason to do so. Despite being asked explicitly. Yet for some reason you seem to believe that you are in a position to ask me questions and presumably expect answers. Why do you expect others to do as you refuse to do? This discussion cannot progress until you declare your position on the central issue - that it is impossible to develop a scientifically valid theory of biological gender determination. If you want the discussion to continue please address this point. If not go and waste some one else's time,

Kirata -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 5:02:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The central point which you have studiously avoided commenting on thus far is the impossibility of theories of biological gender determinism being scientifically valid. Do you agree or disagree with this statement and if you disagree, why? It should, by now, be abundantly clear that I don't think either biological or cultural theories can be the whole answer. Is that too obscure for you to grasp? K.

Kirata -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 5:05:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle You really are determined not to address the central point of this entire discussion aren't you? This notion of yours that it is the "central point" is peculiar to yourself. K.

Kirata -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 5:06:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle There are theories of gender development that are not deterministic. It's a miracle, then? More obfuscation. Heh ...you're stuck, aren't you. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 5:08:13 AM)
Moronic.

Real0ne -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 6:56:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle You really are determined not to address the central point of this entire discussion aren't you? Despite repeated invitations to comment on or address it, you decline to do so and fail to offer any reason to do so. Despite being asked explicitly. Yet for some reason you seem to believe that you are in a position to ask me questions and presumably expect answers. Why do you expect others to do as you refuse to do? This discussion cannot progress until you declare your position on the central issue - that it is impossible to develop a scientifically valid theory of biological gender determination. If you want the discussion to continue please address this point. If not go and waste some one else's time, I am waiting for you to throw us so much as one little bone of evidence in support of your naked assertion. Based on the present status of your [attempted] argument I am forced to conclude you are not familiar with scientific process.

tweakabelle -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 7:31:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I am waiting for you to throw us so much as one little bone of evidence in support of your naked assertion. Based on the present status of your [attempted] argument I am forced to conclude you are not familiar with scientific process. My position and one of the reasons underwriting it have already been explained at least half a dozen times this thread. Others seem to have understood it clearly. So I guess if you have read the thread and haven't grasped it by now, you aren't ever going to grasp it, no matter what I or anyone else says or does. It may be that you haven't read the thread in which the proper thing to do would be to read it before posting any more of your gibberish.

Real0ne -> RE: Hjernevask (10/24/2016 8:14:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I am waiting for you to throw us so much as one little bone of evidence in support of your naked assertion. Based on the present status of your [attempted] argument I am forced to conclude you are not familiar with scientific process. My position and one of the reasons underwriting it have already been explained at least half a dozen times this thread. Others seem to have understood it clearly. So I guess if you have read the thread and haven't grasped it by now, you aren't ever going to grasp it, no matter what I or anyone else says or does. It may be that you haven't read the thread in which the proper thing to do would be to read it before posting any more of your gibberish. Reread what I wrote. The question is not about 'your position' [which is a naked assertion], a naked assertion is a claim without supporting evidence that you used to draw your conclusion. The question points out your failure to support your position with any scientific evidence what so ever to that effect. If you believe gender is nondeterminalist to the exent that no conclusions can be drawn to the contrary then you must expect those who understand to demand you provide some kind of supporting evidence. If you do not want to that is fine, but then I am forced as I said to conclude you do not understand the scientific method.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625