'An Appalling Report'

[adamdavid80]

How are you defending ratiojnal debate when youre refusing to respond?  Wishful thinking?  hardly.

And no,  I mean *YOU* FLOR.  JAY F was so disgusted by your bigotry he deleted his membership and left and took his business elsewhere.  If you see his past posts, it now registers as "guest".  You're the reaon why.  And one other left as well.

Unaware of that?  Great.  

But you know what?  You've proven your point.  Some people are incapable of learning.  Some people aren't worth the effort and expense.  

[Josquin des Prez]

I haven't read him. Could you summarize his views for me?

Can't get into it now since i'm at work, but you can find a free English translation of his book here:

http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/sexcharh.html#

Some of his ideas my appear to be out of whack at first (though upon further reflection this impression may change), but consider he was only 23 when he wrote this and he committed suicide shortly afterwards, so he never got the chance to develop and expand upon his work.

[Florestan]

How are you defending ratiojnal debate when youre refusing to respond?  

No, Adam. It was you who refused to respond to JdP. I did nothing but quoting you.

And no,  I mean *YOU* FLOR.  JAY F was so disgusted by your bigotry he deleted his membership and left and took his business elsewhere.  If you see his past posts, it now registers as "guest".  You're the reaon why.  

Please produce proof that I ever addressed him.

Besides that, if my views hurt some sensibilities to the point of leaving, the problem lies there and not with me.

I have been involved in many controversies and never left. I'm a man.

[mn dave]

I'm a man.

With a manly avatar.

[Florestan]

With a manly avatar.

That's my feminine part. 

[Josquin des Prez]

That's my feminine part. 

That's the spirit. 

[Bulldog]

Ho wow, shame tactics, trying to get in touch with your femininity now? 

Make all the jokes you want, but I'd bet that you are very unfamiliar with women.  That would account for your ignorant views about them.

[Josquin des Prez]

Make all the jokes you want, but I'd bet that you are very unfamiliar with women.  That would account for your ignorant views about them.

Maybe it is precisely because of my lack of contact with the "fairer" sex that i am capable of dealing with the matter of their nature in a far more objective manner. This seems to be what happened to cartoonist Dave Sim when he incidentally discovered the true essence of the female psyche:

http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/tangents.html



Ether way, all this is irrelevant. You were attempting to discredit my argument by discrediting the person behind it. That was a fallacy. If you believe my ideas demonstrate ignorance, then please, take the time to refute them in a proper logical manner.

[karlhenning]

Does this mean you are taking on the challenge?

Hardly seems a challenge.  You imagine that only men can be possessed of genius. Why?  Because genius is (supposedly) a male trait.

If you fail to see that for circular reasoning and a non-starter, nobody can open your eyes for you.

[Bulldog]

Maybe it is precisely because of my lack of contact with the "fairer" sex that i am capable of dealing with the matter of their nature in a far more objective manner.

But you know so little of their nature, and the result is ridiculous comments.  However, the worst aspect of your views is that you make judgements on a group basis.  Reasonable adults judge the individual.  In effect, your arguments are no different than from those who believe that African Americans are less intelligent than white ones.

[adamdavid80]

No, Adam. It was you who refused to respond to JdP. I did nothing but quoting you.

Please produce proof that I ever addressed him.

Besides that, if my views hurt some sensibilities to the point of leaving, the problem lies there and not with me.

I have been involved in many controversies and never left. I'm a man.

Firstly, Don just nailed it.  Judging on a person's qualities on their gender, race, etc. is a flaw.  And the fact that J takes pride in limited exposure - but thinks that gives him the ability to make an informed assessment - to women...any scientific study depends on a control group.  No scientist can claim to be a scientist without proper study. 

"There goes a black man.  I bet he likes Tina Turner.  I know this bc three black people I've met like her music too."

This is akin to anyone who doesn't like classical music simply bc a) the last time they heard it was either in 3rd grade or a butter commercial, or b) they think it all sounds the same.

Flor, I agree that Jay's leaving had more to do with him than with you, in the sense he's not the type to either overlook or simply deal with something he vehemently disagrees with.  But nonetheless, you were simply unaware of how insensitive your comments in another thread here in the diner were.  And that IS your problem, because you're alienating people and you're not even aware of it. 

If someone were to make a comment along the lines of "Hey, Romanians don't deserve equal rights, and their existence is an abomination according to the Bible" and they said this completely aware of your heritage, than they're flat-out racist bigots.  If that comment is made unaware of your heritage being Romanian, then that comment is either ignorant, narrow-minded, bigoted, or a combination of all three.  Overall, you seem like a friendly person who might be unawares of some traits (who isn't?), but sometimes, I get a very different impression.

And the reason I won't engage J in conversation is he likes to push buttons.  If he beleives half the crap he spews...by definition, someone who is a radical is NOT a moderate.  And that's an extemist.



On topic, here's something from todays NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/opinion/18salins.html?ref=opinion

[Josquin des Prez]

But you know so little of their nature, and the result is ridiculous comments.

I think it is you who knows very little on the subject. Experience clouded by emotional involvement only leads to misunderstanding. There is no objectivity in the way most men look at women.

In effect, your arguments are no different than from those who believe that African Americans are less intelligent than white ones.

No doubt, since i'm one of those people.

[karlhenning]

No doubt, since i'm one of those people.

That's not a very intelligent thing to think.

[Bulldog]

I think it is you who knows very little on the subject. Experience clouded by emotional involvement only leads to misunderstanding. There is no objectivity in the way most men look at women.

One doesn't gain knowledge out of ignorance.  You have bigoted attitudes, and you look for ridiculous studies that will support your bigotry.

You need to ask yourself the following:  Why do I insist on believing that women and those of different color are lesser beings?  

Anyways, I wish you luck in your quest for some sense.  If you never do change your views, I pity the woman who ends up with you.

[Josquin des Prez]

You have bigoted attitudes, and you look for ridiculous studies that will support your bigotry.

Nonsense. I merely see reality for what it is, and i collect informations to supplant the knowledge i already acquired through observation, inquiry and contemplation. If this conflicts with your complacent fairy world, so be it.

You need to ask yourself the following:  Why do I insist on believing that women and those of different color are lesser beings? 

I never stated any such thing and i consider your interpretation of my views to be misleading and reductive. If you need some time to get acquainted with those concepts, i'd recommend perusing this website first, then comment on the data contained there in:

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/index.html

[PSmith08]

It is hardly "reality" to develop a tautology philosophically, apply that tautology to data as a discriminating function, and then declare that the data support your tautology.

Analogy:

All ice-cream is chocolate-flavored.
I refuse to consider any non-chocolate-flavored frozen salt milk as ice-cream.
Ergo, all ice-cream is chocolate-flavored.

My colleague sitting next to me informs me this very instant that this is called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I submit, then, that this is what we're dealing with here. I don't see how fallacious argument is "rational" or reflects "reality." Once again, it's OK to hold irrational beliefs. Everyone does.

[karlhenning]

Once again, it's OK to hold irrational beliefs. Everyone does.

The Voice of Reason!

[PSmith08]

The Voice of Reason!

Don't go that far. There's still a merit judgment to be made about the beliefs in question.

[karlhenning]

Granted (with alacrity).

[adamdavid80]

Granted (with alacrity).

Have you noticed the quotient of people with "henning" in their names are far more likely to use the word "alacrity" in their posts that use parentheses?  Surely, this displays that "henning"s are much more apt to be products of a liberal, communist education.