A Common Pattern: Obscessive Compusive Rational Thinking

I'm all for free speech. Therefore I submit that Truthseeker has every right to say whatever he wants as long as he directs his threads to the appropriate forum. I had asked Porfiry to appoint a moderator for the Math/Physics forum so that Truthseekers threads could be moved to the appropriate forum if need be. I have not heard anything back. But I digress.

The following quote is as relevant to this and any other forum as it was in its original context. We should always keep it in the back of our minds. The second part of the quote is appropriate to Truthseeker and anyone else we might consider.

This should be adequate in supporting the Q's decision.

The First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution.

Justice John M. Harlan, Cohen v. California (1971)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Adam: So it's polite to treat a lady as inherently stupid? What the fuck?!

Since when was respect 'PC'?

Q: You're right, I suppose. Ignoring Nelson is almost....closed minded. I don't want to do that. And it is almost like censorship....

However, I tire of his insults and so I think I will take a break for a while.

But please, try to be understanding of him.

If Pofiry likes, I'll moderate Physics and Math.

Oh yes, and Adam, I demand that you respect my status as a serious intellectual sort or I will throw another lemon-creame pie at you!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I never said that at all.

I think you're one of the most rational people on sciforums. But you have a serious problem with tossing pies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is not being-close-minded to disengage from senseless chatter. It is certainly not censorship, as Nelson is certainly free continue "preaching". I view it more like changing the channel on a television.

(hmmmm.. i wonder if wrestling is on??)


Peace.

 

I know, but it seems implied...or perhaps I ought to put down the bong.

I lay the blame soley on the 'Three Stooges' movies I watched as a child.

*Sobs*

I am innocent! Society is to blame!

Sorry. Will stop hyjacking the thread.

Goofyfish:
Hmm, I suppose that it can be compared to watching Crossfire....

If Cris Matthews has Jerry Falwell on, and Jerry starts ranting, I can change the channel. I am ignoring Jerry, not censoring him.

Who is harmed? Not Jerry. Not Cris Matthews. Not CNN.

So the only harm that would come of it would be to me if Jerry is
A: Right, and I miss him proving that he is right
B: Would make me think of somthing, in which case I miss that.

You are right (quite vacilliating, woman!). It is perfectly fine to ignore, and not so much closed-mindedness as not wasting time.

 

Ahhhhh...

Total abdication of personal responsibility!!
Ain't it a GREAT time to live in America!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Peace.

 

The way this works for me is:

I like women. I like civilised behaviour. I live by my rules, not those shouted from the podium of political correctness rallies.

If a woman is a complete rude bitch to me, that is her right. I like free speech. That doesn't mean I should sacrifice my standards and behave the same way. If I think I should be polite to women, then I will be.

Genders, numbers, religions, borders, the weather, and any other such factor does not dictate how/whether my principles should change or remain static.

 

Goofyfish:

I'm getting the urge to sue somone....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Adam: You misunderstand me. I respect your honor, however, I am explaining how the presumption of weakness is, well, rude.

And if your principles are wrong? There's a fine line to be walked between being honorable and pig-headed...not that I am calling you pig-headed.

 

I don't presume weakness. That would be to let someone else guide my principles. My standards remain the same whether the person I am dealing with is strong or weak. Their state has nothing to do with it.

What if I'm wrong? Then I will consider the options and possibly rethink my principles. But that choice does not come from external factors. Principles come from inside, not outside.

 

Adam:

But you have a different set of standards for women and men, no?

Why?

Hmmmm.

Are principles logical?

Where does logic come from? Outside, right? So principles do come from outside, but honor (sticking to one's principles) comes from inside....

 

Yep. And it remains the same whether the woman I am dealing with is strong or weak. Perceptions of strength have nothing to do with it.

Principles are, to me, the behavioural rules we set for ourselves to facilitate social function. However, you might say that greater social facility might be achieved by being a lying thieving scoundrel. Maybe so. But principles are also based on what we like, and what we would like our society and ourselves to be.

Logic is what we do on the inside to rationally explain what's on the outside. Logic, principles, honour, all on the inside, to deal with the outside. But how we deal with the outside is the point.

 

Adam:

But you are assuming that a woman is ipso facto weaker than a man (intellectually speaking), right?

If that is true, why debate us at all?
If it is false, why hold such an assumption?

Yeah, you're right. Logic is internal.

 

There was a time when out shopping that I opened the door to a store for my girlfriend. She ignored me and opened another door for herself.

Her comment was that I was being demeaning because my opening the door for her implied that she was incable of doing it herself. I refrained from chivalry after that.

The next girlfriend seemed upset when she was expected to open doors for herself.

Ahhh, women. Sigh!

Cris

 

Originally posted by Q:

~~~

I’m all for free speech, too. Don’t think that’s what the real issue is, however.

The best way to counter obnoxious speech is not a “set in stone” rule or remedy. Consider the environment. This is not Washington D.C. where those with opposing views are standing on opposite sides of the street shouting at one another until the police arrive or until one side has argued the other into a physical retreat. Anyone posting on an Internet forum has the advantage of anonymity; a form of protection; a reduced risk of being made to stop when crossing some lines of normal, civilized behavior. And every single member here has a choice: to post obnoxiously, to reply obnoxiously, to behave civilly, maturely, to ignore, etc.

Those who are being obnoxious are likely to continue to do so for as long as anyone is willing to argue with them. They have no incentive to stop. These are individuals not organizations. And these are individuals who have given little or no evidence to show they have any intention to do other than what they always have.

Those who would stand up for rationality--or against irrationality--need only look at the evidence. A braggart, a trouble-maker, a spammer, a game-player... these sorts have no justifiable reason to be as unrelentingly disruptive or obnoxious as they are, and yet they are, and it appears that being so is their primary goal; their main purpose for posting anything. How much “reasoning” and “persuasion” is too much?

If a preacher stands on a street corner shouting ‘hellfire and brimstone’ to too few people who respond or react, what does he do? He moves to another, busier street corner. If an abusive spouse finds that his weary, battered wife has disappeared never to return, he looks for another victim.

We are not a court of law, we are group of individuals, with individual choices. What does your rational human mind tell you is the most productive thing to do in this situation?

The individuals being objected to here have their freedom of speech--and give every sign of understanding that they do. There is no need to think of taking it away from them. Let them speak. To an empty auditorium. No one is obligated to play a game that cannot be won; indeed, was never meant to be won by one who would come down on the side of "rationality."

In these kinds of situations, you win the game by not playing at all.

Thx,

Counterbalance

 

Cris: Well, you were already asking for it taking one of us shopping...

But I am referring to intellectual respect.

Incidentally, the 'who will open the door' routine started in the Middle Ages or thereabout. The first person to leave a castle ran the risk of facing an enemy, so the strongest person would leave first. Leaving first was both a mark of honor and a way of self-protection.

Or so my history teacher tells me. Does anyone know it it's true?

So basically, you're trying to make her face the hail of arrows, or whatever.

 

That story is more than likely false. A lady in recent times (talkin' the last few centuries) was never expected to do much for herself. That was seen as unladylike in general.

And Xev.......velman and xev eh.......sexy.

I honestly don't believe women, in general, are as smart as men. Being in high school right now I'm witnessing it every day.

I see a couple classes of people in school;

Intellects; The few and far between who are naturally gifted and understand advanced (relatively) concepts the minute they hear them. I would consider myself one of these people solely because I have never found any concept difficult in school. We spent 3 fuckin' days on the Atomic structure and NO ONE udnerstood it one year. Pissed the hell out of me. In my school there's (pause.....tyler is thinking of all the kids in his school)maybe......5 others in the group. 1 of which is a girl. Average mark for us 5 is about 82. Two of the guys are like me and dont work so their average is like 78-80, the girl works relatively hard and gets about 85 and the other guys work hard and get 84 and 85 I think. Then there's me, no homework for 3 years runnin' and 89, 86 and 87 averages in each year.

Workers; Those who really arent smart but do about 3-5 hours of homework a night (I can't even begin to understand how they do it). The average mark for these people is like 81 or 80 with some high and some slightly lower. I see waaaaaay more women in this group than men.

Mild-Intellects; Those who dont really work but pull off a 73-78. Which in my school is a good mark. I'd say almost every one of these people are men. They tend to be about as naturally smart as the Workers, but just don't work. Some of the ones here are quite smart though.

The Rest; People who either are not smart at all and dont work or are not smart at all and work a decent amount but not enough to get a B.

One of The Workers if they did about hte amount of work I did, would get somewhere near 68. Which is why I have no respect for them. Stupid drones...

Anyway. I honestly believe in my experiences there are a significantly larger amount of men who are naturally smart. And a significantly larger number of women who are better workers.

And does the Q really look like Arnold? Tyler has been mistaken for Prince William twice. Of course, one of those times it was an 80 year old woman.

 

Let me correct myself, I forget to put something in.

I in no way think women can not reach the same heights that men can. And in no way prejudge a person based on their gender.


Thought taht was important.

 

The Fish casts a panic-stricken glance around the room for Xev, and runs like hell for the nearest shelter!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Peace.

 

*Pouts* (Edit to respond to Goofyfish: Oh crap, do I have to throw a lemon-creame pie at Tyler?)

Seriously, if you are talking about the people I know, yes. I don't know why it is, but...

For instance, I had the lab partner from the pits of hell about a month ago. Granted, she was blonde, but an utter idiot! The instructions for preparing the solutions we were using in our reaction - I will not bore you with the details - were printed out, and quite simple. So what does she do? She asks me the stupidest questions "Is this a 500 mL Erhlemyler flask?" "Is this .5 M HCL" (the molarity, M, is printed on the container).

I was about ready to brain her with my textbook by the end of the three hour lab. Of course, you get a moron lab partner, you have to do all the work by yourself, for three hours, at six am in the morning, and - right, no ranting.

As a general rule, if you want to talk about politics, or philosophy, or science, or 'intellectual' things, you will end up talking to a guy. Even online....look at us 'compulsive-obsessive rationalists'.

Of course, a lot of this is conditioning. I firmly believe that most is, and will go away if we straighten out education and indoctrination.

And yes, women do 'play dumb'. And yes, I have had dates flee in horror (well of course

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) when I tried to discuss 'intellectual' things.

 

"Seriously, if you are talking about the people I know, yes. I don't know why it is, but..."

I don't know why either.

"Of course, a lot of this is conditioning. I firmly believe that most is, and will go away if we straighten out education and indoctrination."

I wonder about that. It's a possibility, without a doubt. Is it indoctrination? I'm a pretty good judge of character and am able to easily spot out the people who 'play dumb' (male or female). Even the ones who do this seem to not be that intelligent. I think women are naturally the workers and men tend to naturally hit either extreme more often (intellectual or really dumb). Though I don't know why!

The main gripe I have in the sex war is sports. A girl in my class gave her speech on why women's sports deserves entirely equal press and money as mens sports. This is such bull. Men are better at most sports. Without a doubt. For one, womens sports have only recently become huge. For two, our bodies are better shaped for a large number of sports. For three, men on average are larger and stronger. There is no shame in this, it's just a simple fact.

I look at women's hockey as a perfect example. My school's girls team went the whole season loosing one game. My varsity team placed 3rd in the city. When we played them, we won 22-0. It was a disgrace. One of the girls on team is being recruited by NCAA schools. She came to play shinny with some guys one day and left after 20 minutes because she couldnt keep up. Granted, we were almost all good hockey players there, but if a guy who was going NCAA jumped on the ice, he would have walked around most of us. Most (NOT ALL) women's sports simply aren't as good as mens sports. People don't spend $160 (all figures Canadian....so yanks, that's like I think $1.50 to you) to go see junior hockey, so why would they spend that much to go see womens? We dont have front page coverage of Junior A hockey in Canada - the hockey capital - so why would we do it for womens?

P.S. The women have gotten front page coverage.