Satyr: Here is my response, ignoring the insults. It is untrue that your thinking is so deep that nobody is intelligent enough to understand you. You presume too much. I made no reference to the past being inferior to the present. What prejudices do you imagine I have? Just that I'm incapable of sitting apart from the dominant paradigm, as you are? By the way, I've actually made no references to mainstream science; that's something you introduced. Right back at you. I have observed that you tend to start the name calling. Is there anybody you consider is not a moron, by the way? I think I can be excused for my ignorance of your personal observations and deep-thinking insight. I don't have access to your private thoughts. I can only go on what you write. So far, I haven't learned anything new from you. If you claim I'm ignorant, then tell me something I don't know. I doubt you've even worked out where I live, let alone my views on the state of democracy. This is a straw man. I have not demanded graphs and statistics. Why post in one? Why not publish your thesis in book form, for example? Or subject it to peer review by non-retards? Or is nobody qualified enough to evaluate your great work? Again, you say this like you imagine it is news to me. This would be a good place for specific examples, but I know you consider such things unnecessary. I'm having trouble parsing your first sentence. As to the rest, I disagree with your claim that all activities are motivated by need. Nice rhetoric, but empty. Obviously, but that doesn't in any way go to showing that collectivism is inferior to individualism. I'm not sure you understand the biological concept of "fitness". It doesn't necessarily mean "strongest" or "most dominant" or "most aggressive", as you appear to think. What I get is that you don't like democracy. You'd prefer government by the intelligent elite, which would, of course, include yourself while excluding all the "morons". Tell me, how would you guarantee that the elite would remain the unbiased intelligensia, and that your preferred system would not become dominated by the self-interest of the self-appointed "elite"? This is what democracy is supposed to guard against, after all. Who decides? You decide, among all the other members. I do not write all the posts here. The content of any forum such as this is determined by the combined efforts of the community, not by any one individual. Perhaps, with your preference for individuality above community, you'd be more comfortable with a blog than a "democratic" forum like this, where people can question your wisdom. (Do you have a blog already? I'd be surprised if you didn't.) You see self-censorship as a problem. I do not, or at least not in the extreme way you do. In what way do you consider me "weak"? Too much care about others? Not enough individuality for you? Too much respect for morons? Dare I say, too many friends? I'm not sure how you interpreted my statement. Perhaps I didn't spell it out clearly enough. I was thinking about the biological fact of sexual differentiation. The "robustness" I mentioned is a genetic robustness, which includes such things as resistance of a population to disease and adaptiveness to environmental change. If you're reading gender politics of human beings into my statement then you've taken it the wrong way. I don't know why you couldn't have written the last three sentences without the first two.
This struck a chord with me. It occurs to me that it's only in the past 30 years or so that the female half of humanity has begun to shake off its shackles and fulfil its true potential. Barely a hundred years have passed since they've been able to exercise their democratic rights at the ballot box (and considerably less than a hundred years in many countries; indeed, in some, they still don't have that right today). And then, even where the law has placed them on an equal footing, social and cultural prejudices have for a long time rendered the apparent equality practically useless. It seems to me that it's only very recently - since the 1980s, maybe - that the ground has shifted enough for us to say that, yes, here in the West we're at last paying more than lip service to the question of sexual equality. So the question is, Satyr: don't you think our social institutions have restricted women's potential for far too long for you to yet make an accurate assessment of what women are and what they're capable of? That women can't compete with man's physical prowess is beyond doubt - it's how man came to dominate in the first place. But it should be interesting to see how they compete intellectually, all other things being equal - don't you think?
Unfortunately a lot of people think that those shackles are natural. They think it they are the logical extension of Darwinian theory and cannot see how much culture was involved in the ways women have been oppressed and kept in boxes. That there have been cultures that were vastly more equal both far back in time but also outside (or inside) Western cultures is poo pooed. Rather than facing their fears about what it is like to negotiate with, create with, be partners with WOMEN many men need to see femininity as unnatural, as counterproductive. They can't see how so many of the problems in society are caused by 'masculinity' divorced from balance. They also tend to project their emotional needs onto nature and see it in survival of the fittest terms. Recent work in evolultionary theory, some not surprisingly done by women, has shown that partnership, symbiosis and coevolution are vastly more common than previously thought. He does not warrent the respect implied in your questions.
You are wrong on one small point. You assume we are being pressed in a role that does not fit our nature because society has changed and our nature has not. It's rather more simple. Our social environment has changed and so has our nature under the influence of natural selection.
I did not intend to imply such a thing. The environment pressures the organsim to adapt. If the environment persists over a long enough period it results in the organism being naturally selected for that particular environment. Our anture is changind, that`s the whole point. James R Not anybody....you and your band of imbeciles. You implied it, imbercile, with your reference to the 19th century. If jut by mentining the past, you imply to the needy mind that the present and the future is better or more clear than the past then that`s your problem. I`ve mentioned your prejudices. The past being inferior to the present. The sanctity of life. How a benefit does not entail a cost. Your dependance on authority figures to evaluate existence and the world around you. What`evidence did you imply with your original post? Unsupported by whom? Statistics produced by what? Hard facts?!!! That was funny. Yes. Why would I care? Huh? See above. Where do I go? Why is making news to you relevant to this topic? Learning dissabilities, dysfunctions and a variety of syndroms that explain away deficiency. Must go.
That's not even a small minority of academics. It's a large number of posters on message boards, but those don't count as "people" to be strict. Half of them are bitter because no woman will ever live up to their mom (whose house they probably still live in) and the other half were trying for hipster irony and failed. It is, depending on how you use the term "natural." Much of what we would see as feminine is the mentality of an oppressed class. Read anything by Axelrod? He was my dad's professor and I've sat in on a few of his lectures. Basically he uses a bit of game theory and computer simulations to show how cooperative strategies evolve. Great stuff! Welcome to Sciforums, where anyone else as consistently abusive as Satyr would be banned. I get penalized for saying "fuck," he's coddled because being a bastard is just that edgy. So the rest of us have to abide by rules while he doesn't because some mod or another has taken him as a pet.
Oh please. We're an adaptable species, monkey. Look at all the people who get in car accidents, damage the left hemisphere of their brain and have to train the right to do some of the functions that were once the domain of the left.
No, there is actually quite a lot of evidence showing our brains have been evolving fast in recent times. I know that there is a myth that we are the 'super' adaptable species. Not influenced by the environment because we make the environment. It's all very boastful, but in reality we are merely another animal which is under the same pressures as any other animal. And the possibility that we have been shaped by the recent changes in our environment is rather plausible. http://www.spuriousmonkey.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=908 recent brain evolution: The agricultural revolution started about 10,000 years ago. http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/genetics/brain/lahn_2005_aspm_microcephalin_science.html
James R Nice comeback: A statement with no accompanying argument. You suck....there I did it also. Who said that, idiot?!!! This emntire essay is about how the collective of weakness subdues the superior individual. Wake the fuck up!!!! Is that so? Thanks for the newsflash. Did you think that`s what I meant by it? What part of Timocracy didn`t you get? And that`s what makes you an idiot. Trying to percieve a world as you would like it to be rather than the way it is. That`s a sign of weakness. Yes, and this robustness does not necesitate two sexes with different roles? No, I guess not. Fasinating that you repeat this: And you then ask for supporting evidence. Do you want me to chew your food for you also?
I can't seem to figure out Satyr's position on this topic, he seems to be wavering from philosophy, sociology, to pseudo science. I tried reading his opening link but I got bored and stopped after about 10 lines ,which by the way is why I am a science student. Satyr, in a clear concise manner, what exactly is your opinion? Thanks, and absolutely no offence.
Oh. I'm surprised by this. I would've thought that, as two of the Old Guard, you'd be quite comfortable in each other's presence. I like Satyr. I like him a lot, and I'd hate to see him go the way of poor Dr. Lou (also sadly missed). I like his insults and his wanton aggression. I like his arrogant, automatic assumption of superiority. It's not possible to take him seriously - many manage to, but I don't know how. To me he's an highly amusing caricature of a psychotic, brain-damaged little monkey that I can't help feeling sorry for. P.S. Satyr: what is the rationale for the constant stream of invective? I know there is one - it's surely not born of something as mundane, as pedestrian, as mere rage! - but I can't work out what it is. Help me out here. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh I don't have beef with Satyr. I just dislike the hypocrisy. Not "the." Just "a." Humans are as prone to stagnation as any animal. And, of course the latter. Better nutrition is the first thing that comes to mind, I can think of another couple off the top of my head.
No species is prone to stagnation. Better nutrition will indeed influence natural selection of a species. As in it can result in adding selective pressure as opposed to removing selective pressure. That's why in the last 10.000 year a substantial part of the human population acquired the ability to digest lactose after the age of 6. Moreover, this population coincides with the historical development of herding animals as a means of survival and eventually domestication. Better nutrition, in this case an abundance of milk, led to a rapid evolution of a local population acquiring the ability to digest milk at a later age. So I am afraid you just prove my point. There is no reason why the brain wouldn't be under the influence of the same cultural developments that occured during the agricultural revolution. Similarly we have gained a tolerance for wheat products. You can ask a person who doesn't have this how shitty that is in our modern society. We haven't always been adapted to eat wheats efficiently. It evolved also recently.
Any species can plateu in its evolution, like trilobites staying more or less the same for millions of years. And we're not immune. That's all I mean. But, I'm not disagreeing. I mentioned nutrition affecting selection in my last post. In fact, I've thought that a lot of the leaps in technology and culture - the periods of growth then stagnation - must be in part related to nutrition. Turns out that people are really dumb if they don't get enough protein and b-vitamins when they are infants.
Crocs and Sharks are two others that fit that bill. Sharks have been more or less unchanged for the better part of 450 million years. Partnerships, symbiosis and coevolution for what species is more common? I'm not quite following you on this. Can you elaborate? How does it tie in with feminism? Haha...the last type of girl I would want to date would be one that's like my mom. How would femininity be seen as a mentality of an oppressed class?
Aye, my boyfriend and I went to a "feed the caimans" event at the zoo the other weekend. Those mothers are primitive, and it's really fracking cool to watch them leap for food. And there are cealocanths (sp?), and of course the loch ness monster. More common than the idea of "nature red in tooth and claw" would lead one to believe. Submissiveness, docility, fatalism, passivity. You can interpret the historical conditions as you like. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ok you weirdo. I posted in this thread for a reason. I think I have some valid opinions of this matter. Your bs is not going to "dis-interest" this... understand? LOL I don't think we've gotton off the philosophy. You're the only one left on the philosophy- moron who can only speak one language Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have a hard time napping, these days Satyr. I don't feel like discussing your bo-bain points, weirdo.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Damn- weird shit!- I forgot what you said LOL You are a weird shit, that's for certain. More bullshit. Let's see. What the fuck don't I get- moron. Not meant for me. Your long lecture about bullshit that I have clarified a bit is not meant for me. I guess you're stupid. Absolutely. Make sure you take it seriously, though ... hmm Who the fuck cares, you dimple. Hmm. I didn't think I'd get any compliments from you. But you're taking back your retardness.. lol. I forgot what I said. Too many pages and I'm too lazy. I remember this one. The main point in all liklyness. "The feminization of man is a necessity of society" or some bullshit like that. That's all mostly what it all is. Go ahead, criticize it you idiot. I don't give a shit. Your criticisms smell like farts. LOL Oh yeah. It is needed for our society. It is more of an interpretation. But you forget to classify your long winded bullshit thinking. YOu are more of a moron than you even believe you are. You are infact in more trouble than you know you are. You are a pathetic thinker, satyr. Anyway. Why don't you share it for us, give us the answer all straight up and plain, so we can bring the debate to the forefront. I want to see this idiocy done with. So do it. You can't though. It's impossible for you. You're just talking garbage. I don't care how stupid I am. Infact, I would be proud if what you say is true. Is that a sign of in-decency, or .. Sure. If you don't understand it, it's a good point. lol Only because you have a small penis
Sorry, I've recieved a warning. I've decided to go back and do another response. Leaving the ****s*** post I just made just for satyr to interpret however he feels like it. This is what I said: Satyr get off the feminism. Does it make you superior to think about feminism. Get off the philosophy. Quit thinking about how feminism and feminazation of man is going to affect man kind. If you have the answer you would not be spreading it. I think. It's bizare. Express it clearly. Point form. This is why feminism is going to take hold. Feminism is going to show how the feminazation of man is actual. Feminization of man is something necessary to society. Instead of getting caught up in very lengthy posts about a disentegration of man or whatever. Care to explain? Now. I'm going to clarify what I had meant. Satyr obviously doesn't understand. I am the only one capable of understanding what I write apparently. Satyr: Get off the feminism. It is in all liklyness going to do you no good whatsoever. Why do you think about it, I wonder.. :shrug: I don't know why you think about it. Probably some inferiority complex.. lol Why would you think about feminism? It's already done, there's an answer somewhere out there. If you knew the answer you wouldn't be talking about nonsense. Am I not right? The answer in feminism lies in the things which have not been uncovered. Everything that has been covered- great. It's done and over with. I don't know what new response satyr has made in his thread. I don't know what new points have been explored. I don't really care. It's not something that can affect me. Moreover it isn't something that can affect him. It's that simple. Does it make you superior to think about feminism? It probably does. You love to stuff your face full of feminsim. And guak at how it amazes you. Get off the philosophy. Er... care to take this one away? Quit thinking about feminism and how feminization fo man is going to affect man kind. Seriously. lol If you had the answer you would not be spreading it. Now. You said here something like are you giving me homework? You need the homework. You can come up with nothing better. But this is true. Don't spread something that you already know. Right. Something like that. Anyway. After some more "mindless dribble" I then said this: Feminization of man is something necessary to society. Sure. It's necessary. I am not sure how. I am not sure you know how. I am not sure why we should care :shrug: But if it's so necessary to society, then this is apparently exactly what this thread is about. Care to elaborate? Yeah, it's absolutely necessary. But we need the points clarified. More than likley, I would critizie it until I see a good point. Spread the good points. What are the good points. Christ, I don't want to know what the good points are. I'll take it. Nah. Never mind. It's probably already been taken a little bit. I'll be glad when you put a rest to this crap, anyway. Care to explain? Okay. Probably a lot of bs. But Satyr. You need to share with us how this works. I'm not going to read a ton of BS just to come to some understanding of .. some other bs got it?
A science student...well woopdy-doo. Was that supposed to provide us with evidence that you are some kind of 'expert' or that you know what the hell you are talking about? Aaaaah....okay....clear.....and concise.... Y-o-u a-r-e a p-u-s-s-y! You are welcome...none taken. redarmy11 How nice. This way you can continue going through life as the same old lovable idiot that you already are. No effort required. Stay as you are. Xev Talk about hypocrisy....What hypocrisy? Oh palease...spare me the liberal gospel. "Oppressed class"?!!! You've been worshiped and placed on a pedestal for some time. Wars have been fought over you...well not you specifically. Oppressed class!!! We'll have to wait for the revolutionary thinknig that comes out of those brains of yours now that you are not "oppressed". Are female chimpanzees also an oppressed class? What about female gorillas? What about female orangutans or lions or wolves...all of them could not escape paternalism? Figures. Why do you think you are an "oppressed class"? Has your mind also been oppressed? Does adversity produce overcoming or not? Why has it not in the females case? Even feminism is a male invention, a byproduct of democracy and egalitarianism; a product of a culture of incorporation and assimilation. I love that you had to resort to Marxism to support your downtrodden excuses. Communism always attracted, just like Christianity, the weakest and most vulnerable groups and inspired retribution in them, promising social justice, whatever that means, and a paradise on earth based on sharing and loving and subduing every human instinct of self. Give me a break. You're good at breaking things. you must be aching to mention the fact, or the illusion, that you now have a boyfriend...oops there it is... Is this supposed to make you happy or is it supposed to make you normal? existabrent Yadda, yadda, yadda...and you say nothing at all... Here are a few highlights... Ummm...isn't that what I said? That much is clear. *Back on-topic* The issue also seems to be a metaphysical one. The idea of appearances not meaning anything important or not determining anything, rests upon the assumption that there is a mind/body dichotomy or that there is a thing-in-itself underlying the superficial apparent. In the first case the implication is that what differences appear or are made apparent - interpreted by the mind into abstractions - do not reflect essence. That is that what we observe is divided into the physical and the spiritual. The physical can display multiplicity whereas the spiritual remains singular and so an unchanging absolute. In the second case the world becomes a facade, a Buddhist illusion hiding the emptiness or hiding a deeper identity. The Kantian bullshit meant to preserve the idea of morality and 'goodness' and the idea of God and soul. The most an honest mind can say is that what appears is the only thing perceived and so no further assumptions are necessitated. To assume that soemthing is hidden is to resort to an unjustified belief for something you can neither prove or ever become aware of and it is to beleive that the universe is playing games with man or that man, being a product of this universe this process, was somehow not produced in a way which would help him survive or understand and interpret his environment. The honest mind can only say that what appears is complete, because there is no need for a facade and because the senses were produced to interpret the very thing that is perceived in a manner which would be accurate enough for the organism which is served by these senses to continue perceiving. Therefore our very survival proves that our abstractions of what is apparent are good enough for us to become successful using them. Now we proceed. The apparent is not superfluous nor is it accidental. It is the end result of a process, a temporal flow. The apparent displays essence fully, no mater if we understand it accurately using our abstractions of it or if our senses perceive all that is to be perceived. Therefore multiplicity is not accidental or a superfluous process producing phenomena at a whim. What appears is all and the way it appears, its characteristics, display its essence fully. The manner in which our mind abstracts this essence is but a simplification which corresponds to soemthing actual. So, a phenomenon's shape, size, texture, smell, look, color, taste etc. are all interpretations of the essence of what appears. All differences are not superficial but display something actual about that which differs. This is why the different is used by the mind to comprehend and to establish abstracted unities or identities or categories. That which makes something appear different, no matter how minute the difference may be, is not irrelevant. Therefore that which appears different must be different both aesthetically and in its essence. Conclusion. The external, the external differences between males and females are not merely aesthetic. They display a difference in essence: Essence being the sum of a phenomenon's past Becoming, culminating in the apparent which ceases to be the moment it is perceived due to temporal flux. I find it as a sign of selective reasoning and the absence of integrity the practice of using empiricism to make judgments on most phenomenon, determining using sensual information the quality of the apparent, and to then pretend that these same standards now do not apply in determining the quality of other phenomena which might have personal or socio-economic connotations. It would appear that for some the phenomenon's historical background, its heritage and its essence is displayed in its appearance and the characteristics that make it up, an appearance that determines it, whereas when it suits them then this heritage is irrelevant. They pretend they have overcome their own pasts and our now independent free-willing entities, beyond all labels and determining factors; they have overcome their own nature. In the case of gender they pretend they have overcome their sexual role all the while clinging onto the sexual identity that attaches them to this historical past. They do this by flipping the rational and claiming that it was culture that created gender roles and not that it was nature and the, biological necessity of reproduction. In fact all culture does is it restricts or determines the symbols this sexual role is to live under. In recent times in western cultures it is culture itself that creates the idea that there is no such thing as gender differences and gender roles. This because western systems have reached such a stage of sophistication that sex has been made almost obsolete and technology have leveled all differences into a matter of purchasing power - money. A weakling can become powerful by buying a gun. An ugly woman can become pretty by getting operations or by using makeup. A dumbass can pretend he is smart by buying wisdom at the bookstore. If we are to say that appearances are superficial or irrelevant then we must do away with any notions of species or categories or with empiricism altogether. Picking and choosing which categories matter and when sensual data is relevant and when it is not is, to say the least, hypocritical.
