moralist Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Race, gender and class are definitely not the primary foci of my view, of which you have no knowledge but your own subjective stereotype. Class in all its manifestations is an interest of mine however. So far you have not displayed a lot of it. Although you are claiming that gender is not your focus, your behavior says otherwise when you keep trying to misdirect this into an issue of gender, when it is clearly a moral issue. This difference in focus accounts for our two divergent views on this matter. Whenever the moral distinction between females and women or males and men is invoked, it's bound to generate some personal offense. So your reaction is completely normal and is to be expected. Greg (I am Brant's evil twin): Carol, you are misusing "class," maybe, by encompassing two different definitions of the word, maybe--a fallacy, maybe. And Greg is reducing all his arguments to ad hominems. Greg is reversing the usual argument to the man by making arguments from the man. Not that he would care, I think, except to care to keep doing it. --Kant (sob) See what I mean, Carol? Brant is just offended, as you are. Right from the get go this is a touchy subject to broach, because it cuts so close to the quick. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Race, gender and class are definitely not the primary foci of my view, of which you have no knowledge but your own subjective stereotype.Class in all its manifestations is an interest of mine however. So far you have not displayed a lot of it.Although you are claiming that gender is not your focus, your behavior says otherwise when you keep trying to misdirect this into an issue of gender, when it is clearly a moral issue. This difference in focus accounts for our two divergent views on this matter. Whenever the moral distinction between females and women or males and men is invoked, it's bound to generate some personal offense. So your reaction is completely normal and is to be expected.Greg (I am Brant's evil twin): Carol, you are misusing "class," maybe, by encompassing two different definitions of the word, maybe--a fallacy, maybe. And Greg is reducing all his arguments to ad hominems. Greg is reversing the usual argument to the man by making arguments from the man. Not that he would care, I think, except to care to keep doing it.--Kant(sob)See what I mean, Carol?Brant is just offended,as you are.Right from the get go this is a touchy subject to broach, because it cuts so close to the quick.Greg(I am Brant's evil twin): See, Carol? It's all ad hominem land. It's not a logical fallacy to Greg for he's outside logic.--Kant('s quick)what's wrong when being offended is right when wronged because of wrong?Greg won't argue "view" and won't argue logic and won't argue--no, he'll just keep dumping and winning by claiming views are views and good for you and good for me for we're all in the same "view" boat even if you don't know it (but he does [but he actually doesn't]): he gets to row his boat but we don't get to row ours.--Kantwake up OL!--wake up before it's too late; Greg is going to destroy us all! (He's an electrician but he talks like a psychiatrist talking to his patients--since he won't grant you any epistemological credit you are comparably really nothing.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Race, gender and class are definitely not the primary foci of my view, of which you have no knowledge but your own subjective stereotype. Class in all its manifestations is an interest of mine however. So far you have not displayed a lot of it. Although you are claiming that gender is not your focus, your behavior says otherwise when you keep trying to misdirect this into an issue of gender, when it is clearly a moral issue. This difference in focus accounts for our two divergent views on this matter. Whenever the moral distinction between females and women or males and men is invoked, it's bound to generate some personal offense. So your reaction is completely normal and is to be expected. Greg (I am Brant's evil twin): Carol, you are misusing "class," maybe, by encompassing two different definitions of the word, maybe--a fallacy, maybe. And Greg is reducing all his arguments to ad hominems. Greg is reversing the usual argument to the man by making arguments from the man. Not that he would care, I think, except to care to keep doing it. --Kant (sob) See what I mean, Carol? Brant is just offended, as you are. Right from the get go this is a touchy subject to broach, because it cuts so close to the quick. Greg (I am Brant's evil twin): See, Carol? It's all ad hominem land. It's not a logical fallacy to Greg for he's outside logic. --Kant('s quick) what's wrong when being offended is right when wronged because of wrong? Greg won't argue "view" and won't argue logic and won't argue--no, he'll just keep dumping and winning by claiming views are views and good for you and good for me for we're all in the same "view" boat even if you don't know it (but he does [but he doesn't]): he gets to row his boat but we don't get to row ours. --Kant wake up OL! Wake up before it's too late! Greg is going to destroy us all! Jeez... what a dramaqueen. ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Ha, ha!--Brant (I mean Kant)it's still all ad h. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 Can we get some definitions here:malemanfemalewomanYou first Greg, if you do not mind.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Can we get some definitions here: male man female woman You first Greg, if you do not mind. A... Sure. A man is what a male should aspire to become. A woman is what a female should aspire to become. Everyone begins life as females and males. But not everyone grows to become men and women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 Can we get some definitions here:malemanfemalewomanYou first Greg, if you do not mind.A...Sure.A man is what a male should aspire to become.A woman is what a female should aspire to become.Everyone begins life as females and males.But not everyone grows to become men and women.Thanks.Those are not "definitional," however, they are helpful.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Everyone knows who Grace Kelly was and has seen her in movies and photos. Ditto for Miley Cyrus and Ayn Rand for that matter.I'd never heard of Miley Cyrus before, and I bet there are folks (discounting young children) in the US who still have never heard of Ayn Rand.EllenI wanted to edit that, but our Internet connection was acting up and kept cutting me off, then I was busy yesterday.I know there are folks past childhood in the US who still have never heard of Ayn Rand. About an average of every couple months I get asked "Who is Ayn Rand?" by someone or other who's first asked what book I'm reading when I'm reading something Rand related over dinner at one of the local restaurants. Some of the people who have inquired are Tea Party people but have nevertheless not heard of Ayn Rand. What I wonder is what percentage of the adult US population still doesn't so much as know the name.EllenPS: Thanks, Deanna, re Bonnie Parker (#302). I didn't know Bonnie's last name and still don't know Clyde's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 In this universal male-female dichotomy discussion, with all the back and forths in this thread and elsewhere, I keep having quirk attacks.So here's a monkeywrench I dredged up from dark recesses of my mind--it's something I read years ago:Necrophilia among ducks ruffles research feathersby Donald MacLeodThe Guardian8 March 2005From the article:The strange case of the homosexual necrophiliac duck pushed out the boundaries of knowledge in a rather improbable way when it was recorded by Dutch researcher Kees Moeliker.. . .Ducks behave pretty badly, it seems. It is not so much that up to one in 10 of mallard couples are homosexual - no one would raise an eyebrow in the liberal Netherlands - but they regularly indulge in "attempted rape flights" when they pursue other ducks with a view to forcible mating. "Rape is a normal reproductive strategy in mallards," explains Mr Moeliker.As he recounts in his seminal paper, The first case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard anas platyrhynchos, he was in his office in the Natuurmuseum Rotterdam, when he was alerted by a bang to the fact a bird had crashed into the glass facade of the building. "I went downstairs immediately to see if the window was damaged, and saw a drake mallard (anas platyrhynchos) lying motionless on its belly in the sand, two metres outside the facade. The unfortunate duck apparently had hit the building in full flight at a height of about three metres from the ground. Next to the obviously dead duck, another male mallard (in full adult plumage without any visible traces of moult) was present. He forcibly pecked into the back, the base of the bill and mostly into the back of the head of the dead mallard for about two minutes, then mounted the corpse and started to copulate, with great force, almost continuously pecking the side of the head."Rather startled, I watched this scene from close quarters behind the window until 19.10 hours during which time (75 minutes) I made some photographs and the mallard almost continuously copulated his dead congener. He dismounted only twice, stayed near the dead duck and pecked the neck and the side of the head before mounting again. The first break (at 18.29 hours) lasted three minutes and the second break (at 18.45 hours) lasted less than a minute. At 19.12 hours, I disturbed this cruel scene. The necrophilic mallard only reluctantly left his 'mate': when I had approached him to about five metres, he did not fly away but simply walked off a few metres, weakly uttering a series of two-note 'raeb-raeb' calls (the 'conversation-call' of Lorentz 1953). I secured the dead duck and left the museum at 19.25 hours. The mallard was still present at the site, calling 'raeb-raeb' and apparently looking for his victim (who, by then, was in the freezer)."Mr Moeliker suggests the pair were engaged in a rape flight attempt. "When one died the other one just went for it and didn't get any negative feedback - well, didn't get any feedback," he said.Moeliker won the Ig Nobel prize for his research paper.But I read this years ago, so I wondered if it was actually a hoax. Over time. somebody would have uuncovered the truth. I Googled it.Lo and behold, Moeliker did a TED talk about this very case. It's true! I wonder where the eternal masculine and feminine fit in here. This seems to be one of the cracks in the Cosmic Plan.I do know that if I were religious in a Christian manner, I would have to say that both ducks are God's creation and He loves them equally. I don't see how to get away from that.So what was He thinking?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dldelancey Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Race, gender and class are definitely not the primary foci of my view, of which you have no knowledge but your own subjective stereotype.Class in all its manifestations is an interest of mine however. So far you have not displayed a lot of it.Although you are claiming that gender is not your focus, your behavior says otherwise when you keep trying to misdirect this into an issue of gender, when it is clearly a moral issue. This difference in focus accounts for our two divergent views on this matter. Whenever the moral distinction between females and women or males and men is invoked, it's bound to generate some personal offense. So your reaction is completely normal and is to be expected.GregActually, Greg, you made it an issue of gender when you redefined the words man, male, woman, and female. These words, to everyone except you, define gender. YOU put the focus on gender. WE are trying to take the focus off gender.By the way, why must a woman be married and a mother in order to fulfill her womanhood? Does it count if she's married to another woman and adopted her children rather than giving birth to them? Or what if she's a mother, but not married?(Now I'm going to search for the self-control to stop feeding the troll. Carol, shall we start a support group?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Which view did you choose?The decent one.Are you incapable of answering a direct question directly? What's with the Clinton-like vagueness and evasiveness? You should start behaving like a man and stop playing your little boy games.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Race, gender and class are definitely not the primary foci of my view, of which you have no knowledge but your own subjective stereotype.Class in all its manifestations is an interest of mine however. So far you have not displayed a lot of it.Although you are claiming that gender is not your focus, your behavior says otherwise when you keep trying to misdirect this into an issue of gender, when it is clearly a moral issue. This difference in focus accounts for our two divergent views on this matter. Whenever the moral distinction between females and women or males and men is invoked, it's bound to generate some personal offense. So your reaction is completely normal and is to be expected.GregActually, Greg, you made it an issue of gender when you redefined the words man, male, woman, and female. These words, to everyone except you, define gender. YOU put the focus on gender. WE are trying to take the focus off gender.By the way, why must a woman be married and a mother in order to fulfill her womanhood? Does it count if she's married to another woman and adopted her children rather than giving birth to them? Or what if she's a mother, but not married?(Now I'm going to search for the self-control to stop feeding the troll. Carol, shall we start a support group?)That's yet more evidence that Greg is on the Looter/Moocher side of his 2-worldview system: He doesn't treat individuals as individuals, but assigns them characteristics and identities based on broad generalizations of their genders. That makes him a collectivist rather than an individualist.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 It must be only physical, when you are looking at the face of a person you do not know, or know anything about.Yes it is.But it doesn't take long for the truth to reveal itself.There are "beautiful" people who are ugly,and "ugly" people who are beautiful.Incidentally you never commented on the female photo strip yet. Mother Teresa is pretty ugly, no?In solely physical terms, yes.But that is not the only criteria for beauty.I just wanted to go back and highlight the above post. I think it's hilarious. It's my favorite post of Greg's so far. It's the moment when a particle of reality appeared to be making it through the la la land bubble, but was swatted away by Greg.It appeared that Greg was on the verge of grasping what everyone has been talking about, but then he not only reverted to his metaphorical use of the terms "beautiful" and "ugly," but took a new step even further from reality by using scare quotes when referring to the literal concepts of "beautiful" and "ugly"!!! Heh.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 J:As I have an understanding of General Semantics and using the " function.has nothing to do with what I hear when I hear "scare quotes." What do you mean by scare quotes, obviously, I am outt of that loop.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Putting a common word or phrase in quotes, Scare-quoting, means "s0-called". It indicates that the writer does not subscribe to the commonly-held definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Deanna, as fe-men in Randishland we are already in our own support group! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 Carol:Why, then, the use of a connotatively laden term like "scare quotes?"What is scary about it?A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Beats me. It can be a useful device, but mostly it is annoying. "Air quotes" are worse, so cringingly mega-annoying, that people should lose a finger everytime they etch them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Wikipedia on scare quotes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotesGoogle search results - https://www.google.com/#q=scare+quotesEllen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 The deliberately provocative "decent wives and mothers" phrase, reminded me of something MSK wrote, I forget where, about the continuation of the human species and the Objectivist attitude towards it. Most religions and statist thought leaders have been generally in favour of such continuation, the latter in particular instituting policies to further it -- Lebensborn, La Revanche de la Creche,modern baby bonuses. Emperor Augustus even tried to force upperclass Romans to have more children through legislation and browbeating (great episode of I Claudius). A couple of notable exceptions were indifferent to it. Catharism, a hugely popular medieval Christian cult I have discussed elsewhere, believed that as this world is an illusion of the devil, it was better to abstain from the flesh to avoid re-peopling it. Rand's views on the primacy of the individual in the present over considerations for the future are well known. Throughout most of this, "decent wife and mother". a necessary appendage to other persons, a nurturer-parasite, has been the main role assigned by prevailing cultures and their spokesmen. Actual individual women have looked at their husbands and fathers and sons and employers and friends and lovers and made their own individual judgments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 A couple of notable exceptions were indifferent to it. Catharism****, a hugely popular medieval Christian cult I have discussed elsewhere, believed that as this world is an illusion of the devil, it was better to abstain from the flesh to avoid re-peopling it. Rand's views on the primacy of the individual in the present over considerations for the future are well known.Carol:Any connection to the Shakers?A...****http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 I don't think so, it is unlikely that Ann Lee ever heard of them. But there are fascinating parallels! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Catharism, a hugely popular medieval Christian cult I have discussed elsewhere, believed that as this world is an illusion of the devil, it was better to abstain from the flesh to avoid re-peopling it.In the early centuries of Christianity, there were a number of variants that saw reality as a battleground between a good god and an evil god (or gods). Reading about those groups in Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted..., I saw parallels to what Rand calls the morality of Life versus the morality of Death.EllenADD: But Rand's morality of Life is almost oblivious to the connection between sex and babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 "Air quotes" are worse, so cringingly mega-annoying, that people should lose a finger everytime they etch them.What's even worse is when people use the phrase "quote unquote" incorrectly.They'll say something like:He's a real, quote unquote, genius.Written out, that would be:He's a real "" genius.There's nothing between the quote and the unquote! Dopes!It should be:He's a real, quote, genius, unquote.Such quote-unquoters should be burned, open parenthesis close parenthesis, at the stake.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 "Air quotes" are worse, so cringingly mega-annoying, that people should lose a finger everytime they etch them. [....]Such quote-unquoters should be burned, open parenthesis close parenthesis, at the stake.JAnd you folks think the tunnel scene is excessive! Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now