2
   

The Feminization of Man

 
 
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 06:48 am
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 4,056 • Replies: 56
No top replies

 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 06:56 am
Pay no attention to me. I'm just poking around the various threads, searching for my bra and panties.

Nope, not here.

Carry on.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 07:09 am
I have a 'hard' time trusting a PhD with 'Gangsta' in his name. It's just a quick step to 'D Gangsta' isn't it? I'm guessing you copy and pasted this from your files, but some paragraphing might make it easier for people to read.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 07:25 am
Re: The Feminization of Man
Wanderer wrote:


Care to explain the illogical segue*?

*Fallacy: non sequitur

Quote:
Many will accuse me of generalizing, for this is the favourite defence of those seeking to find an escape from insulting or hurtful premises they cannot contradict directly, but I will remind them that any exception to the rule only serves to prove the existence of a rule.


This is a falsehood.

Firstly, generalizations often have value. Instead of making the case for the value you simply make a daisy chained fallacy, making a pre-emptive ad hominem on the basis of guilt by association.

You go on to make a spectacular logical brainfart when you claim "exception to the rule only serves to prove the existence of a rule".

This is mere wordplay that seeks to fudge the difference between a rule your attempt to make the case for one.

In the latter, exceptions do not "prove" your rule so much as question its validity.

And puerile wordplay is not an adequate response to said challenges to the validity of the "rule" you seek to make the case for.

Quote:
If it were not so then science itself would be impossible and specific studies would have to be conducted for each and every individual alive on any given time.


You are confusing the legitimacy of generalizations with the legitimacy of yours.

True, generalization per se is not fallacious, that does not mean yours is not, so you'll have to do more than invoke this obviousness to make the case for your generalizations.

Quote:
There would have to be a science focused entirely on me, one on you and every category and label would be absurd and meaningless.


Indeed, but again, this does not mean you thesis is not absurd, just that an inability to discern between fallacious generalization and non-fallacious generalization is flawed.

Quote:
But more than all this, the following critical analysis of man and woman in social contexts are based on my personal observations and deductions and will not be defended using popular beliefs, political-correctness, scientific studies, or any third-party sources even if this is also is possible.


Gotcha, it is duly noted for the record that this thesis will remain in the realm of an ipse dixit.

Quote:
It is clear that one can find a study defending most perspectives making the studies themselves and the way they are conducted questionable.


Indeed, and your reliance on your ipse dixit and desire to exclude other realms of study make this a prime candidate for classification as demand-side ratiocination.

Quote:
Those dependants on the assessment of others, to create personal beliefs, inadvertently expose their weaknesses and limitations.


Those exclusively dependant on their own accessments, to create personal beliefs, willingly not only expose their weaknesses and limitations but then proceed to rely on them with exclusivity.

Far more daft.

I'll also note that this introduction is long past logorrhea and has yet to introduce any validity to your thesis. A thesis that spends most of it's time pre-empting refutation with exlusionary disclaimers 'inadvertently exposes its weaknesses and limitations'.

Quote:
In areas where direct observation is impossible a reliance on second-hand accounts is understandable, but in areas where personal experience is possible and sensual awareness is feasible a personal assessment, is often, more preferable and constructive.


Unless, of course, personal bias detracts from objectivity.

You can't make a decent case for "personal observation" being more objective than peer-review.

This is a crutch for the inability to survive peer-review.

Quote:
What follows is my perspective, based on my personal experiences and observations, using my senses and mental faculties.


Again, I note the declaration of it being an ipse dixit and laud your good sense in using this disclaimer.

Quote:
Any contradiction of popular scientific or other common beliefs is understandable and irrelevant.


Huh? Make the case for the irrelevance you claim.

I've never seen someone actually take pride in ipse dixits and an inability to substantiate their opinion, so I'm not sure if this is just another of the "the moon is cheese and don't ask me to proove it" things you do or if you think you can actually substantiate your claim.

Quote:
You cannot judge the accuracy of an idea by its popularity but by the strength of its argument, the supporting evidence and the ordered reasonable manner by which it is presented.


And the disclaimer rambles on...

Look, you have yet to establish either popularity of an idea or strength of an argument.

Heck, thus far it's all disclaimer to prevent you from having to actually make arguments to substantiate your opinions. Laughing

Quote:
I will expect nobody to take my word for anything or to simply agree with me; I actually expect scepticism and personal supporting or contradicting observations to prove or disprove the precision of my opinions.


The best thing you've said thus far.

Quote:
This entire following text is meant to promote free-thinking and personal intellectual effort and to encourage debate and individual awareness that may promote choices and free-will.


Hey, if you can't make a good argument the next best thing is to "provoke thought".

    Person B: That is a silly thesis. Person A: It may well be, but at least it made you think.


Compare it to:

"I was just testing you".

Quote:


Any intent to take to beyond a disclaimer before halftime?

Quote:
To dismiss me as being a sexist, a male chauvinist or one suffering from some mental or psychological ailment or sexual dysfunction is to not deal with the subject at hand but on my apparent human imperfections upon which much speculation can be dedicated.


I agree, and for this reason the fallacy and brainfarts will be what I focus on.

Well, I've exhausted my break time and must go back to work. It's a pity that I only got halfway through the disclaimer. Laughing

I did, however, skim the rest and there's not much of a thesis there, just a lot of logorrhea.

How about summarizing your thesis in a paragraph (doesn't have to contain it's supporting arguments)? It would make it more appealing for others to read.
0 Replies
 
Wanderer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 08:10 am
Craven de Kere
Quote:
Care to explain the illogical segue*?

Just mentioning how small divergence can have large consequences.

Quote:
Firstly, generalizations often have value. Instead of making the case for the value you simply make a daisy chained fallacy, making a pre-emptive ad hominem on the basis of guilt by association.

All human thought is a generalization and a simplification of much more complicated phenomena.

Quote:
In the latter, exceptions do not "prove" your rule so much as question its validity.

I never said my theory is fact.
Can you define fact?

Quote:
Indeed, and your reliance on your ipse dixit and desire to exclude other realms of study make this a prime candidate for classification as demand-side ratiocination.

I wouldn't "exclude other realms of study" if it is also noted that these other realms are dependant on and influenced by human factors, as well.
Popularity or labels of quality, themselves a product of systemic forces are no proof of anything.
Faith is a requisite part of all acceptance of opinion not based on personal observation.
Some place faith in self-flattering and self-saving beliefs of omnipotence and omniscience, others place it on scientific methodology practiced by unknowns.

Quote:
Those exclusively dependant on their own accessments, to create personal beliefs, willingly not only expose their weaknesses and limitations but then proceed to rely on them with exclusivity.

"Exclusivity" is your word, not mine.

I'm only reminding you that even your dependence on second-hand accounts that somehow follow some more objective path is fraught with subjective reasoning.

Quote:
I'll also note that this introduction is long past logorrhea and has yet to introduce any validity to your thesis. A thesis that spends most of it's time pre-empting refutation with exlusionary disclaimers 'inadvertently exposes its weaknesses and limitations'.
Quote:
Unless, of course, personal bias detracts from objectivity.
Quote:

You can't make a decent case for "personal observation" being more objective than peer-review.

This is a crutch for the inability to survive peer-review.
Am I not posting it on a Forum?

Quote:
Huh? Make the case for the irrelevance you claim.
Quote:
I've never seen someone actually take pride in ipse dixits and an inability to substantiate their opinion, so I'm not sure if this is just another of the "the moon is cheese and don't ask me to proove it" things you do or if you think you can actually substantiate your claim.
Define 'proof' and I will offer you some.

Quote:
Hey, if you can't make a good argument the next best thing is to "provoke thought".
No, the next best thing, is to, like you, accept the argument of another.

Quote:
Well, I've exhausted my break time and must go back to work. It's a pity that I only got halfway through the disclaimer.
Funny then how you claim to know I make no arguments.
Off top work, little one, the bourgeoisie demands upon your intellect take precedence over free thinking.
You've replaced one faith for another. Typical.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 09:13 am
Wanderer wrote:
Craven de Kere
Quote:
Care to explain the illogical segue*?

Just mentioning how small divergence can have large consequences.


Using the "chaos theory"?

This sounds like pop-science, but it's trivial.

Quote:
Quote:
Firstly, generalizations often have value. Instead of making the case for the value you simply make a daisy chained fallacy, making a pre-emptive ad hominem on the basis of guilt by association.

All human thought is a generalization and a simplification of much more complicated phenomena.


That would be an excellent refutation of a blanket indictment of generalizations.

However, I made no such indictment and this is a red herring/straw man (depending on how you look at it).

Quote:
Quote:
In the latter, exceptions do not "prove" your rule so much as question its validity.

I never said my theory is fact.
Can you define fact?


I did not use the word "fact" even once in my post.

You are asking me to define words I did not use. Laughing

Quote:
I wouldn't "exclude other realms of study" if it is also noted that these other realms are dependant on and influenced by human factors, as well.
Popularity or labels of quality, themselves a product of systemic forces are no proof of anything.


Yes yes, and to cut the logorrhea short the terms for such a claim is fallacious argumentum ad populum.

No need to make the case for the logical axioms, just reference the terms and you can say it in a few words.

Quote:
Quote:
Those exclusively dependant on their own accessments, to create personal beliefs, willingly not only expose their weaknesses and limitations but then proceed to rely on them with exclusivity.

"Exclusivity" is your word, not mine.


Irrelevance and the exclusion of them were elements of your disclaimer.

It's right up there above, we can bring citations should you desire.

Quote:
I'm only reminding you that even your dependence on second-hand accounts that somehow follow some more objective path is fraught with subjective reasoning.


I made no claim of any dependence on second-hand accounts. I merely made an indictment on your ipse dixit logic.

Quote:
It's only based on experience with the posting of this subject from other Forums and pre-empts specific replies.


I know, it was clear that you are used to holding contested and eminently contestable positions.

Quote:


This is a fallacious straw man. I have never said, or even come close to implying, any reliance at all on other people's work. Much less a "total reliance".

This is a good demonstration of the straw man tactic in debate.

Quote:
A theory created using personal effort and contemplation is always more beneficial than one that is adopted and accepted.


I call bullshit. This is a false logical axiom.

I will be happy to illustrate that for you should it be necessary.

Quote:
The first method exposes you to the full spectrum of possibility and forces you to deal with the multiplicity of side-matters connected to the subject, not all of which can be dealt with in a single essay; the second method of knowledge gathering simply offers you the end result the answer.


I'm perfectly willing to agree that one method has advantages over the other, but your claim was a different one, to the effect that the end result was "always" better.

That, was a brainfart and demonstratably false.

Quote:
Quote:
Unless, of course, personal bias detracts from objectivity.
You may have fallen for that myth about objectivity but I have not.


Objectivity is not a myth. Laughing

Quote:
All human thought is subjective.


To varying degrees. Which makes pure objectivity a concept, not a myth. ;-)

Quote:
Quote:

You can't make a decent case for "personal observation" being more objective than peer-review.

This is a crutch for the inability to survive peer-review.
Am I not posting it on a Forum?


Yes, with a disclaimer on all the refutations you will arbitrarily deem "irrelevant".

Your "peer-review" seems to come with your own rules crafted to your own advantage. <shrugs>

Quote:
Quote:
Huh? Make the case for the irrelevance you claim.
Popularity is not proof of validity.


That is a case against the "appeal to popularity" not to the claim you made:

"Any contradiction of popular scientific or other common beliefs is understandable and irrelevant."

That is a falsehood, and the fact that many appeals to popularity are fallacious does not make your false statement true.

Note that not all appeals to popularity are fallacious. I can elucidate if necessary.

Quote:
Someone claiming heliocentric solar systems centuries ago would have been ridiculed by his scientific peers.


<smiles>

I hope you don't think you are a visionary and all...

Sure, some "voices crying in the wilderness" eventually get vindication, but far too many think they qualify than do so.


Quote:
Could he offer proof of his theory, at that time? No.


And you can't either? I ask, because you haven't summarized your theory yet. Just a bunch of fallacy-ridden disclaimers up to where I got.

Quote:
Quote:
I've never seen someone actually take pride in ipse dixits and an inability to substantiate their opinion, so I'm not sure if this is just another of the "the moon is cheese and don't ask me to proove it" things you do or if you think you can actually substantiate your claim.
Define 'proof' and I will offer you some.


At the moment I will settle for:

a) a summary of your thesis (sans any supporting arguments).

once you get that small part done (might be difficult to eek out of you because, like me, you like to ramble) I'll settle for:

b) supporting arguments

Quote:
Quote:
Hey, if you can't make a good argument the next best thing is to "provoke thought".
No, the next best thing, is to, like you, accept the argument of another.


Like me? Well, this should be an easy question for you:

Whose argument do you claim I "accept"? Laughing

Note: by being more careful in debate you can avoid sloppy mistakes like this, I never claimed to rely or accept other people's arguments, I merely indicted your dismissal of them as "irrelevant".

Quote:
Quote:
Well, I've exhausted my break time and must go back to work. It's a pity that I only got halfway through the disclaimer.
Funny then how you claim to know I make no arguments.


In the part I got through you made no position-specific arguments.

I made no claim of you never having made an argument in your life, just not any to support the thesis in the parts I read.

I expect there should be at least some in the parts I will later read, and I hope they are of better caliber than the support for the disclaimers.

Again, if you summarize your thesis we can get you on paper with a position, and avoid the possibility of volume-based ambiguity.

Quote:
Off top work, little one, the bourgeoisie demands upon your intellect take precedence over free thinking.
You've replaced one faith for another. Typical.


<smiles>

You aren't making sense.

Who says my work does not involve "free thinking"?

Nevermind, it's just a dig at me, it doesn't bother me that it's non-sensical. ;-)
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 09:18 am
First, Wanderer, i would like to welcome you to a2k;

At first reading *, i found your treatise well thought out, generally accurate, and in keeping with many of my own views of humanity, and the challenges currently opposing our "breakout"!

I have copied the text in order to print it out (so sue me! :wink: ) in order to digest it further before comment (having scanned Craven's response, i find i balked at many of the same places) .
Good thoughts - should be a valuable discussion (if we can avoid it's degradation into a debate!).

[* i would suggest that, in future, you give your work a more thorough editing, and use the 'spellcheck' option, to render your piece a quicker read without grammatical interruption.]
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 09:18 am
Wanderer,

This does seem rather like the beginning of a Sophmore term paper for a class in Philosophy. Probably not better than a C effort, and Craven's comments are on point.

You need to adapt your presentation to this particular media and audience. Don't go away, we expect more of you.
0 Replies
 
Smartsux
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 09:37 am
I don't mean to lighten the mood any...no, I wouldn't dare...but, I have one very, very important word.















metrosexual!
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 10:09 am
Re: The Feminization of Man
Wanderer wrote:


I'm heartened that you don't ascribe it to a conspiracy. But saying it's natural put's it at odds with your previous text (emphasis mine):

Quote:
altering, in this way, human nature and degenerating, in my opinion, the human spirit into indistinct oblivion.


Define "human nature" and explain how this alledged process is any less a part of "human nature".

Quote:
A fundamental characteristic of weakness, as a concept, is its willingness to sacrifice a part of itself to save its entirety.


This has a base emotional appeal but in logic it's simply not more than clever wordplay, more prose than critical thought.

You can construct a null hypothesis by making a reverse wordplay that is just as good:

"A fundamental characteristic of weakness, as a concept, is its unwillingness to sacrifice a part of itself to save its entirety."

Quote:
Weakness is furthermore characterized by its inconspicuousness, its ability to blend and vanish into the multitude, its non-confrontational incorporation into more powerful entities, its expendability, its commonness, its malleability, its reliability and willingness [when conscious] to conform and adapt.


I contend that you are delineating a very specific (if arbitrary) definition of "weakness" and depending on how you use it subsequently you run the risk of commiting the fallacy of equivocation.

Quote:


This truism is undermined by the faulure to delineate between:

a) If you can't beat them (x), join them (x).

and

b) If you can't beat them (y), join them (y).

I suspect that for the purpose of supporting your thesis only one is appropriate and I suspect it's the one that is not the more common part of natural evolution. Let's see.

Quote:
In the west, where centuries of world domination and due to its contamination by Judeo-Christian ethical systems and altruistic ideologies that were the product of a slavish resentment of all things superior and because of a general decadence caused by attrition and complacency, the paternalistic system has eroded enough to make equalitarian impoverishment and spiritual degradation possible.


Do you consider non-paternal societies to be a "contamination" from a paternal ideal?

Quote:
Democracy is the result of weariness, caused by the constant conflict and uncertainty of previous political systems, and the natural consequence of population explosions that enabled individuals, of questionable quality, to unite and achieve political relevance through the strength of numbers; it is also the expected result of increasing demands for resources, caused by a prospering civilization, shrinking spaces and a human psychological predisposition for peace and stability.


Emphasis mine.

Define "quality" in your accessment.

Quote:
This trend towards larger and more malleable populations, existing within smaller spaces and dwindling resources, has made equalitarian, servile moralities essential and vital.


Yet objectionable to you?

Quote:
The more complacent, unaware and gullible a population is the more governable and controllable it becomes. It is therefore understandable why unsettling ideas must be quarantined and eradicated, why free thought must be restricted and why defiance and uniqueness must be controlled and punished as an example to be avoided before it becomes one to be emulated.


The leap from thought to behavior should be more carefully examined.

There is a causative link, but in proximity it is largely the behavior that is the issue, not mere thought.

Quote:
In our modern western world this dummying-up of the masses has resulted in populations that, despite their relative affluence, learning access and general prosperity, display the apathy, ignorance and naïveté of the less fortunate in third-world countries.


Where do you substantiate the behavioral evolutions from proximity being "dummying-up"?

And furthermore, please substantiate your last comment.

I have lived in many 1st and 3rd world countries and will challenge your attempt to substantiate your claim (with personally observed data to boot ;-) ).

Note: It's just a playful reminder of your text, don't expect me to make a fallacious appeal to authority on that basis.

Quote:
The complete indoctrination of man into artificial [manmade] environments, sometimes demanding behaviours contrary to more primitive natural ones....


This is a common fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy or the appeal to nature.

Beyond your inability to support the notion of "unnatural" you subsequently rely on the appeal to nature.


Quote:
....has moreover been facilitated by the gradual diminution of man through unnatural sexual selection...


Again, define "natural". You have no basis on which to declare what is, and what is not "natural sexual selection" and subsequently no basis upon which to deem either the ideal.

Quote:
...re-education and the slow eradication of the, before mentioned, human characteristics that made man a natural dominator and a survivor in a threatening universe.


"Human characteristics"? You simply mean the ones you favor, as you have no basis upon which to declare that the evolving characteristics and not "human".

This whole screed is just a fallacious argumentum ad antiquitatem.

Quote:
It is derisive that the very intellectual superiority that resulted in human dominion is also contemporary society's greatest foe, that must be controlled and even narrowed, and the very male spiritual attitude that knelt to no natural demand and accepted no holy authority is now to be atrophied and warped.


1) You can't substantiate that human intellectual superiority over animals is "contemporary society's greatest foe" (because it's a ludicrous claim).

2) You can't substantuate that it is "very male". Laughing


More later. Please post the summary, the screed doesn't improve as it progresses and some clarity of thought on your part would be advisable.

Note: It's not a linguistic preference, but a call to clear critical thought to emerge from a rambling screed.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 11:01 am
Ahhhhhhhh, I thought I was done reading lengthy metascientific mumbo jumbo for the day. I'll come back to read this when I don't already have to study for two highly theoretical anthropology classes tommorrow.
0 Replies
 
Wanderer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 02:25 pm
Reply
rufio
Quote:
Ahhhhhhhh, I thought I was done reading lengthy metascientific mumbo jumbo for the day. I'll come back to read this when I don't already have to study for two highly theoretical anthropology classes tommorrow.
Craven de Kere
I'm glad you took time off from your busy schedule and from your prestigious profession to acknowledge my presence.

Quote:
I'm heartened that you don't ascribe it to a conspiracy. But saying it's natural put's it at odds with your previous text (emphasis mine):
Living up to your expectations, dear sir, is what I'm here for.
A man with your, obvious, intellectual power can only flatter with his interest and attentions.

Quote:
Define "human nature" and explain how this alledged process is any less a part of "human nature".
Quote:
This has a base emotional appeal but in logic it's simply not more than clever wordplay, more prose than critical thought.

You can construct a null hypothesis by making a reverse wordplay that is just as good:

"A fundamental characteristic of weakness, as a concept, is its unwillingness to sacrifice a part of itself to save its entirety."

Perhaps you need to think it through first.
I would say the accuracy or inaccuracy of the two phrases can be deduced by how well they adhere to perceivable phenomena.

Anything weak gets assimilated into something stronger by necessity.
The cells in your body are independent life forms that found a survival benefit in sacrificing parts of their selves to a greater whole, thusly proving an inherit weakness in them in relation to a given environment.
All social animals sacrifice parts of their free-will and independence to a group.

The fact that there needs to be a sacrifice made at all, only speaks of weakness.

Now I will recognize that you are realizing the personal implications of what I'm saying and it insults your conformist sensibilities. This is why you are so forcefully and insultingly objecting to them.
For you the sacrifice of part of your self to survive proves adaptability and therefore superiority when in essence it does the reverse.

By the way isn't it a contradiction to "sacrifice a piece of" and "save an entirety"?
How can you save an entirety and sacrifice a piece of, at the same time?
But you're obviously smarter than me so I'm sure there's a logical explanation

Quote:
Do you consider non-paternal societies to be a "contamination" from a paternal ideal?
Yes.

For our species, at least.

Quote:
Define "quality" in your accessment.

All measurements are comparisons of a specific unit to another or of a specific unit to a perceived average.

Quote:
Yet objectionable to you?

When morons get into authority positions simply because they are morons, yes.
When positions of power are inherited and passed down with no effort on the part of the one inheriting, yes.
When privilege and power is possessed by a position or a seat and not the individual sitting in it or possessing it and all that is asked is that one conforms to the ideal or that values are mirrored in near perfection, yes.
When idiots hold the same political power as intellectuals, yes.
When this means that individuality will become a thing of a bygone era and the super-organism will replace the organism, yes.
When my individual interests are threatened, by masses of idiots, yes.
When quality takes a back seat to quantity, yes.

Quote:
The leap from thought to behavior should be more carefully examined.

There is a causative link, but in proximity it is largely the behavior that is the issue, not mere thought.
Denial is a terrible thing.

Quote:
Where do you substantiate the behavioral evolutions from proximity being "dummying-up"?

And furthermore, please substantiate your last comment.

I have lived in many 1st and 3rd world countries and will challenge your attempt to substantiate your claim (with personally observed data to boot ).
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 02:51 pm
Just briefly ... I don't believe Craven is a product of the US educational system. He is without formal degrees, but that only underscores the brilliance of his natural intellect. In my opinion, Craven's potential is very great and I hope that he does pursue formal degrees.

This is one of Craven's "hot buttons", but what he lacks most is the maturity one associates with age. Great promise in Craven.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 03:40 pm
Don't worry, wanderer, no self-respecting anthropologist would ever claim to be writing about "fact". That's way too objective a term for the academic elite. Razz

Since I didn't read your thesis, I'm not commenting on the content - only on the length and the clarity.

The real reason your theory on whatever social construction or context or role or whatever comes after the ones I am reading is because I actually get a grade for reading and attempting to understand them. There are enough wordy, pretentious academics in this world. Please don't try to become another one.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2004 05:09 pm
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2004 01:32 am
Re: Reply
Wanderer wrote:
Craven de Kere
I'm glad you took time off from your busy schedule and from your prestigious profession to acknowledge my presence.


I think you are being sarcatic and trying to insult, but in case I am wrong: you're welcome.

Quote:
Living up to your expectations, dear sir, is what I'm here for.
A man with your, obvious, intellectual power can only flatter with his interest and attentions.


Again, I get the feeling you wish to make sarcastic quips instead of discuss anything, but in case I am wrong; thank you.

Quote:
Quote:
Define "human nature" and explain how this alledged process is any less a part of "human nature".
Ah, very good.
It is one of those terms that need definition. ....

We can say that even the products of the human intellect and human ingenuity are natural consequences of evolution.


Indeed, as in all that occurs within nature.

Quote:


The definition is as arbitrary as it is restrictive. You simply moved the goal posts one step further to a new undefined variable ("product of natural selection").

So, pray tell, what is your definition of "product of natural selection" which, in turn, holds the key to the definition of "natural".

I have yet to see you post a summary of your position, but thus far it seems to rage against what may well be a "product of natural selection" through the use of a naturalistic fallacy.

This is why I seek the definition you are operating under, and making it once removed to another arbitrarily defined definition doesn't improve the logic any.

Quote:
I exclude all products of the human mind.


I don't think you do. Nor do I think you can. But I'd be happy to hear how you think you do this.

Afterward, I'd be interested in knowing the basis on which you deem this exclusion worthy. After all, the next question is whether the mind is unatural.

Quote:
Human interventions within pre-existing (to mans appearance) systems I consider unnatural or artificial.


I know, but I am asking for the basis for this distinction.

Quote:
For example:
If a cow is sick and man injects said animal with chemicals that would otherwise not be available to it thusly saving it from a natural death, I call this an unnatural intervention.


And upon what do you base the validity of this distinction? This is a textbook naturalistic fallacy, and you need to be able to demonstrate the validity of your construct, simply calling it "natural" and "unatural" according to an arbitrary definition does not make your case.

Quote:


This does not, in any way, make the case for "natural" vs. "unatural". It does, however start to retreat from the naturalistic fallacy into a logical cost/benefit analysis. I think you'd make more headway by simply getting down to this analysis instead of invoking the natural/unatural issue, as you'd circumvent the naturalistic fallacy in your arguments.

Quote:


Again, note that you have shown no basis for the delineation between "artifical" from the "enclosed".

You seem to only be invoking emotional appeals along the lines of "green = natural/chemical = unatural".

Quote:
For instance, mans need for resources required vast population that had to be taken out of the natural selection system, through which populations and population health is regulated, and placed in a manmade social/cultural system, we call civilization.


This sentence lacks coherence.

But what it seems to be trying to say is, once again, held up only by an arbitrary delineation of what you consider part of the natural selection system and what you consider to be foreign to this system.

It's not an axiomatic delineation, as it's eminently arguable that it is simply impossible to escape natural selection. It only evolves to work on different criteria.

Quote:
Now we all know the benefits of civilization, but how many have considered the detrimental ramifications and the prices for them?


This is where your argument should be made, in the cost/benefit analysis and not the invocation of the naturalistic fallacy.

Quote:


This is a given, which means the next logical step is to outline the negative consequences you alledge.

Quote:
When we protect the weak and we allow them to propagate, we may be ensuring working hands to collect resources, even if we may tell ourselves it is out of strictly ultruistic motivations, but we are also allowing weakness itself to propagate.


There are many forms of weakness. Many times, what is "weak" in one metric is not in another.

Consider this:

Person A = physically strong
Person B = beautiful

Person C = Protects person B, because of Person B's beauty

Person D may describe the transaction as protecting the weak and a divergenve from "natural selection", but the metric of beauty and its influence is part of nature and is a power unto itself.

So I caution against claiming that weak are protected without giving consideration unto the possibility that this is so because of their strenths elsewhere (if only their power to convice others to protect them).

Quote:
I believe cancer and most mental and physical ailments today are a direct result of overpopulation and the nurturing of flaws within our genetic code.


I'd love to hear your substantiation for this claim. Do note that said ailments occur at a lesser rate today than in less populated ages.

Population density can contribute to many ailments merely because of its relationship with proximity, but to make the case for a causative link of the nature you describe is to ignore more significant causative links.

In any case, feel free to make your case for it.

Quote:
They are a result of mans intervention upon nature.


Man is a part of nature, as are mans' interventions. Mans' interventions can be shown to have lessened said ailments so you will have a hard time making such a simplistic case.

Quote:
Nature has a method of weeding out flaw and weakness, usurping her methods demands further genetic interventions to undo the results; something currently occurring.
The feminization of man is but a symptom of this genetic degradation.


You have failed to even establish the existence of what you now attempt to explain the cause for.

You might want to get the basic logic of that argument sorted out.

Quote:
Those most insulted by the implications are the ones most benefiting from the current system and so have an invested interest in maintaining things the way they are.


This, is a transparent attempt to ascribe motivations for refutation of your positions on the basis of ad hominems (against the messenger rather than their arguments) against the individuals.

You would do better to address the logic of their refutations.

Quote:
Comfort and ease are attractive to the human mind weary of suffering and struggle and unsure if it could measure up to natures more stringent and unforgiving standards.
That means you, my 'latin using' friend.


Your arguments would be better served to address arguments, rather than ascribe characteristics to those who bring them.

Quote:
Quote:
This has a base emotional appeal but in logic it's simply not more than clever wordplay, more prose than critical thought.

You can construct a null hypothesis by making a reverse wordplay that is just as good:

"A fundamental characteristic of weakness, as a concept, is its unwillingness to sacrifice a part of itself to save its entirety."

Perhaps you need to think it through first.
I would say the accuracy or inaccuracy of the two phrases can be deduced by how well they adhere to perceivable phenomena.


You would do so in error, as the subjective interpretation of what consitutes weakness (your version is not sacrificing self) would be a variable present in the evaluation of adherence to "perceivable phenomena".

In short, your test of the null hypothesis fails because it again relies on the interpretation of "weakness" in the perception.

This is why either are merely wordplay without first nailing down the nature of weakness.

Quote:
Anything weak gets assimilated into something stronger by necessity.


You have proposed an axiom. You need to substantiate it or ad qualifiers to address its flawed absolutism and reliance on your interpretation of weakness.

Quote:
The fact that there needs to be a sacrifice made at all, only speaks of weakness.


Only according to a definition of "weakness" that is circular in its logic and ultimately relies only on an ipse dixit.

Quote:
Now I will recognize that you are realizing the personal implications of what I'm saying and it insults your conformist sensibilities.


You are projecting. This does not insult my "conformist sensibilities" and you know nothing of whether I am conformist.

This is just another of your arguments against the man rather than the man's arguments and it only weakens your position.

Argue the arguments, ascribing characteristics to the messenger is a fallacy whose employment you sought to pre-empt against yourself while being willing to use it on those who disagree with you in copious quantity.

Quote:
This is why you are so forcefully and insultingly objecting to them.


You continue to project. I simply argue forcefully, and I am neither insulted by your position nor insulting due to it.

I am pointing out its flaws, and your reaction is to characterize me negatively.

This is a risible circular argument, in which you declare that the refutation of your positions is, in fact, evidence of the validity of your positions.

Quote:
For you the sacrifice of part of your self to survive proves adaptability and therefore superiority when in essence it does the reverse.


I do? Sounds like another unsubstantiated ipse dixit to me.

Quote:
By the way isn't it a contradiction to "sacrifice a piece of" and "save an entirety"?


Only if you think sacrifice is always the opposite of save.

Quote:
How can you save an entirety and sacrifice a piece of, at the same time?


By realizing that sacrifice does not always constutute the opposite of save.

Quote:
But you're obviously smarter than me so I'm sure there's a logical explanation


There's a simple linguistic explanation that one not need be too smart to recognize. The queries you posed only rely on selective definitions to construct wordplay.

Quote:
Quote:
Do you consider non-paternal societies to be a "contamination" from a paternal ideal?
Yes.

For our species, at least.


Wanderer, I have asked repeatedly for you to nail down your thesis. This is the start so whatever your subsequent response, please address this line of inquiry:

Why?

See, now we are getting a clear outline.

1) You consider non-paternal societies to be a "contamination" from a paternal ideal in the human species.

2) Why do you consider the paternal construct an ideal?

Quote:
Quote:
Define "quality" in your accessment.

All measurements are comparisons of a specific unit to another or of a specific unit to a perceived average.


The basis on your perception is what the query is about, as it's clear that it is based on it.

Quote:
Quote:
Yet objectionable to you?

When morons get into authority positions simply because they are morons, yes.


This is an understandable objection.

Quote:
When positions of power are inherited and passed down with no effort on the part of the one inheriting, yes.


This is an understandable objection (and, I will note, a staple of paternal societal constructs).

Quote:
When idiots hold the same political power as intellectuals, yes.


By definition, they don't. They may hold the same political power only on certain metrics.

Quote:
When this means that individuality will become a thing of a bygone era and the super-organism will replace the organism, yes.


Whether or not it means that at all is the question Wanderer.

Quote:
When my individual interests are threatened, by masses of idiots, yes.


By its nature, individuality is always threatened by masses Wanderer.

Quote:
When quality takes a back seat to quantity, yes.


I get the sense that you are talking about people.

Quote:
Quote:
The leap from thought to behavior should be more carefully examined.

There is a causative link, but in proximity it is largely the behavior that is the issue, not mere thought.
Denial is a terrible thing.


Wanderer, yet again you simply ascribe a characteristic to me (in this case denial), in leiu of addressing my argument.

It weakens your position to argue in this manner.

Quote:


Which nations? We can test the participation theory against statistics and laws and eliminate the need to rely on your anecdotal evidence.

Quote:
As affluence increases so does complacency.
Human nature.


The opposite is also true. Think of the "keeping up with the Joneses" soundbyte in comparison to the soundbyte you used.

Quote:
I appreciate your desire to display your intellectual fortitude by sprinkling Latin amongst your very insightful commentary, but, if I'm not mistaken, this conversation is using the English language.


I use the terms that have been established by others. It is not sourced in a desire to reflect on my intellect. I am of the opinion that you are merely projecting, and once again enaging in your negative characterisations.

But I will be happy to provide colloqial English terms for the fallacies you engage in.

For example, this is another one of your ad hominems (against the man).

Quote:
If you wish to respond by only using Latin, that would be fine with me if you also allow me to show-off my knowledge of Greek by answering you using it.


Again, I do not use latin out of a desire to "show off". You may be projecting on me.

Quite frankly, my grasp of latin is rudimentary. I use the terms because they are the names for the logical errors you indulged in. The basis in latin is not my choosing. They were all coined before me.

I suspect that your objection is primarily sourced in having said logical errors demonstrated, but I'm sure you can understand that it would not be reasonable to ask that demonstrations of logical fallacy in your argument be excluded.

So I hope that a suitable compromise will be my inclusion of English translations to the terms.

Quote:
Now your job, your knowledge of Latin, your car, your portfolio or the labels of social and cultural compliance you place before your name to prove worth, do not interest me and should only be used to wow those in your immediate environment.


I have said nothing about my job except to remark that your attempt to use it to insult me was not founded in knowledge of wherther I employ "free thought" in its functions.

I have said nothing at all about my car to you. Quite frankly it's unimpressive. It's my first one so it will do, but my co-worker has convinced me that it is "girly" (no relation to your thesis).

I have no portfolio, you are grasping at straws to make ad hominems (against the man) here.

When you say "the labels of social and cultural compliance you place before your name to prove worth" I suspect you speak of degrees. I don't have any. I only attended 9th grade in full.

Now I would make a request of thee.

If your reliance on ad hominems (against the man) and insults are to continue, I ask only two things of you.

1) That aside from your digs, you actually address the arguments.

2) That you make a "best effort" at constructing more realistic insults. For example, the above seems to center on your assumption that I "wow" those in my proximity with my job, car, degrees, portfolio et all (and all). I think you assumed in error.

Now I know the assumptions are not too relevant to the topic, they are just insults. But when insulted I like a little veracity, otherwise I end up helping correct the insults as well (which is an odd position).

Quote:
I'm sure that towards them a few Latin remarks are enough to make them wonder at your superior mind but towards me they are just a cause of boredom.


I suspect they are a source of irritation, as they have been used to reference your logical fallacies.

Quote:
I would say that you have replaced religious dogma with the modern scientific dogma, which requires just as much unquestionable faith as the previous one.


I would say that you are putting more effort into the ad hominems (against the man) than the positions and arguments.

Quote:
You find strength in numbers and your safety and comforts are the things you relish the most.


You seem to place more faith in your deductive powers based on message board text than I. <shrugs>

Quote:
I believe that because, in our time, science is totally dependant on public funds that its objectivity must be questioned.


Then question its objectivity. Simply issuing insults and soundbytes doesn't make much of a case.

Quote:
Public funds come from public coffers under public control.


This does not make a case for lacking objectivity in science, it's just a facile attempt to cast suspicion on it.

Quote:
We all know what the average public quality of mind is, now don't we?


I don't deign to speak for the "we" you reference,

Quote:
When science is reliant on moneys that come from a population still believing in ghosts and UFO's, one must wonder at how many theories are denied utterance because they lack absolute substantiation.


I like substantiation, and have been asking you for yours only to be met with ranting and insults.

Quote:
When one considers the effects of scientific specialization and the state of the educational system that teaches what to think but not how, one wonders at the objectivity and critical thinking of those engaged in science.


A big part of critical thinking is avoiding logical fallacy. Another big part is clarity of thought.

Quote:
Scientists are human as well and so subject to the same psychological pressures and cultural influences, everybody else is.
Furthermore science is under the jurisdiction of the state, with its own motives and prejudices.


And your point would be? << the prevailing theme of this exchange IMO
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2004 01:35 am
Asherman wrote:
This is one of Craven's "hot buttons.


Asherman,

My lacking formal education is not a "hot button" for me. It (education of all varieties) is, however, a goal.
0 Replies
 
Wanderer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2004 08:03 am
Reply2
Craven de Kere
Quote:
So, pray tell, what is your definition of "product of natural selection" which, in turn, holds the key to the definition of "natural".
All those that predate mans appearance.

Quote:
I don't think you do. Nor do I think you can. But I'd be happy to hear how you think you do this.

Afterward, I'd be interested in knowing the basis on which you deem this exclusion worthy. After all, the next question is whether the mind is unatural.
Quote:
I know, but I am asking for the basis for this distinction.
The basis of this distinction I mention above, its purpose is to delineate between environments pre-existing mans appearance and out of his control and those that became a product of his actions and thoughts.

Quote:
And upon what do you base the validity of this distinction? This is a textbook naturalistic fallacy, and you need to be able to demonstrate the validity of your construct, simply calling it "natural" and "unatural" according to an arbitrary definition does not make your case.
Quote:
It's not an axiomatic delineation, as it's eminently arguable that it is simply impossible to escape natural selection. It only evolves to work on different criteria.
Exactly, we can say that the process of evolution is itself evolving.
Mans intellect has been such a powerful creation within pre-existing rules that it now warps or diverts the rules.
With many benefits but with many dire consequences also.

Quote:
Person A = physically strong
Person B = beautiful

Person C = Protects person B, because of Person B's beauty

Person D may describe the transaction as protecting the weak and a divergenve from "natural selection", but the metric of beauty and its influence is part of nature and is a power unto itself.
A parasite, as you describe beauty to be here, is not powerful but only protected because it offers something to the strong and expendable when it ceases to do so.
What is powerful relies on nothing else but its own self.

There are many strategies utilized in nature for the weak to find protection, you mentioned one.

Power can be measured by how self sufficient it is, anything reliant on something else is not powerful.
Now you will notice that there is nothing which does not depend on something else in our universe or at least within the realm of our human perceptions, which only proves that there is no known instance of absolute power but only degrees of it.

The degree of power something possesses can only be perceived by the degree it is self-reliant and independent.

The weaker something is, the larger the sacrifice is necessitated for it to maintain existence.

Quote:
I'd love to hear your substantiation for this claim. Do note that said ailments occur at a lesser rate today than in less populated ages.

Population density can contribute to many ailments merely because of its relationship with proximity, but to make the case for a causative link of the nature you describe is to ignore more significant causative links.
These "more significant causative links"-which you neglect to mention- can be traced back to population density and civilization.

Take some of your own advice and substantiate your arguments against me.

Quote:
Man is a part of nature, as are mans' interventions. Mans' interventions can be shown to have lessened said ailments so you will have a hard time making such a simplistic case.
Quote:
In short, your test of the null hypothesis fails because it again relies on the interpretation of "weakness" in the perception.
Reality, as Kant said, is an interpretation of sensual phenomena.

This is my interpretation.
What is yours?

Quote:
You have proposed an axiom. You need to substantiate it or ad qualifiers to address its flawed absolutism and reliance on your interpretation of weakness.
My axioms rest on a bedrock of personal experiences and observations.
Where do yours come from?

Quote:
Only if you think sacrifice is always the opposite of save.
Quote:
By realizing that sacrifice does not always constutute the opposite of save.
This depends on the definition of identity is.
Name one instance where sacrificing is not the opposite of saving and let us dissects it

Quote:
See, now we are getting a clear outline.

1) You consider non-paternal societies to be a "contamination" from a paternal ideal in the human species.

2) Why do you consider the paternal construct an ideal?
Quote:
By its nature, individuality is always threatened by masses Wanderer.
My point.


Quote:
The opposite is also true. Think of the "keeping up with the Joneses" soundbyte in comparison to the soundbyte you used.

"Keeping up with the Joneses" forces economic and social participation not a political one.
Most Americans and western man in general, can participate as consumers and as lively social animals but how many care or are aware of the political situations or the world implications?
I've known children in Europe more politically adept than many Americans I've spoken to.

The current close race in the US only proves how pathetically moronic the average American is.

Quote:
I like substantiation, and have been asking you for yours only to be met with ranting and insults.
That's funny, since it was you who first defined my views as "mind farts".
I would say that, in keeping with your metaphor, you are suffering from mental constipation and should air-out your mind a bit.
I suspect you have been force-fed enough garbage to create a blockage there.

rufio
Quote:
"Who" is this ancestor to whom you compare us?
Primordial man.

Quote:
We might also say that cooporation was found to be superior to the lack thereof...
The need for cooperation only exposes weakness.

Quote:
Whence does this "individuality" come, if not from the above-mentioned socialization?
So you consider your self as a product of society and nothinf else?

Quote:
Why is it a weakness to sacrifice a part to save the whole? Or to change and adapt? Is it not equally weak to accept alien ideas into your own belief system as it is to let your own ideas join another?
Yes.
So?
Do you think
I am presenting myself as an example of strength?

Quote:
Why are the creations of man "artificial"? Is man "artificial"?
No the products of his mind are.
Consciousness is based on the limited perspective on phenomena that are interpreted by the mind but never truly known.
Therefore all creations derived from these limited perspectives are based on inaccurate or incomplete sensual interpretations and therefore imperfect.

Quote:
Since when do human beings have a predisposition for "peace and stability"?
They have a predisposition to find peace and stability attractive.
Peace and stability themselves are impossible in this universe.


Quote:
If it is the fault of the modern world and Judeo-Christian ethics that this "degredation," as you say, has happened, than why would the same "degredation" exist in third-world countries? I thought you were going to nostalgicly remenisce about the "noble savage" archetype.
It is true that these same elements exist in other religious and cultural environments, but since I can only draw information from my own I use it as my template.

Quote:
Is man not still the dominant animal in the world today?

As a group, yes; as an individual you wouldn't last a minute out there.
This dominance is having some detrimental effects on the general health of the species.
Can you perceive them?

Quote:
There have always been cultural constraints on sexual expression, most notably on incest, even for the "noble savage".
The difference being one of degree not one of absolutes.

Quote:
Not our personal quality, but our social place. I would think you would have known the difference by now.
For the majority they are one and the same.

Quote:
By this, do you mean "the natural world around us" or "the world that we have built around us"? In the one case, I don't see why you're unhappy, and in ther other, isn't it only natural that we should mirror the things we have built?

First question: Both
Second question: Depends what is mirrored back and if it was truly I that built it and it wasn't built for me by others.

Quote:
Whence come the "natural rules" that ownership has "usurped"?
Quote:
Are you saying that we are reshaping our own nature? If you are, than who are you to say that that is a bad thing?
First question: Yes
Second question: I am me, I am human, I am mind.
Who are you to question me, then?

Elitism is what I'm all about.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2004 08:12 am
Re: Reply2
[quote="Wanderer]Elitism is what I'm all about.[/quote]

Finally, a statement this poor uneducated foraging creature understands completely......... Laughing
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2004 08:12 am
Naw, Craven, the "hot button" I was referring to was that you are young and may see things differently as you get older. There is such great certainty of things when we are young, but in we tend to rethink and our values often shift. I think our fundamental values may stay pretty much the same, it is our perceptions that change. We see things somewhat differently. The experiences of a long life have an impact more profound than the sharp clarity of a young intellect. Most of us never stop growing.

When I was your age, I was just as convinced of the "rightness" of my views as either my son Crumbly Donut, or yourself. You both remind me a lot of myself when I was young. For awhile there I was an in-your-face radical/liberal/pacifist marching and agitating against LBJ's War. Now I've rethought what seemed so simple and clear then. I've changed my mind about Vietnam. Where once I was a Democrat, now I prefer to be called a Federalist. Perhaps I was always a Conservative, but it took half a life to realize it.

As I've said before to you, I think you have a brilliant mind and almost unlimited potential. You do need, I think, the seasoning that comes with a sound formal liberal education. The academic discipline and interchange with students and professors will do you good. I expect that you will find some Phds to be startlingly ignorant, even in their own field. You have already acquired a better knowledge base than many of the students I've done graduate work with.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Feminization of Man
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/11/2019 at 01:23:35