Should Reason, Rationality and Logic Be the End all Be all?

Page 6 of 6 [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 78
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

25 May 2014, 9:29 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:
the treatment of women on wrongplanet

StarvingArtist and Dox

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt259526.html


Global capitalism has written off the human race

Adb and I

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf252502-0-15.html


Why I fail to take most of feminism seriously!

Dox and Nights_Like_These

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt259302.html

There are certain assumptions that have been made by certain members and these are just two examples. I got into a debate with Adb and he was looking at things through pure rationality and pure economics. Dox got into a debate with StarvingArtist and Nights_Like_These.

A certain theme came up that has led me to question certain assumptions that some members are laboring under. The theme Logic, Rationality, and Reason should be the absolute sole governors as to how to live our lives and how to interact with each other on both the micro and macro levels.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. These are my interpretations and if I'm wrong in the interpretations please show me so my reasoning can be more sound.

Both StarvingArtist and Nights_Like_These and other women on here were offended, slighted and hurt by the sexism and misogyny that may or may not be going on around wrongplanet. I believe there has been some going on. Dox's objection was that there was no empirical evidence and there was no logic basis for implementation of the policing of the sexism in the Love and Dating sub-forum.

Dox was trying to look at things in this rational, objective and logical manner. Nights_Like_These was trying to get Dox to understand how she felt and that certain things were subjective and I have to agree with Nights_Like_These based upon my own experiences.

I was trying to get Adb to look at things in a wider context. He was trying to factor out ethics and morality when it came to economics and science. To me things have to be interrelated as a whole. In a science experiment and business one has to factor in morality and ethics in addition to economics.

I believe all of this is a microcosm of what happens globally.

Should logic, rationality, and reason be the sole way we interact and deal with each other or is logic, rationality and reason just one part of the tapestry of human understanding that interrelates together in a complex web? Should empathy and emotion be interrelated to rationality. Is it possible for one to be absolutely objective and should one always be objective? Should emotional processing, ethics, empathy be factored rationality on how we relate to each other and how we live our lives not just on wrongplanet but as an inter-connected global village and society?

Should we treat things as one interrelated whole in a gigantic web in which the strands inter-connect with each other instead of separate, distinct and disparate components?

I believe the answer is yes if we're to develop a better society that we all can truthfully live in and live our lives with virtue, logic and understanding.

How shall we all then live?


Hi cubedemon6073.

"Should we treat things as one interrelated whole in a gigantic web in which the strands inter-connect with each other instead of separate, distinct and disparate components?

I believe : yes. I visualize a universe of multiple dimensions, including time and social interaction (but just don't ask me what it "looks" like). :)

"How shall we all then live?"

In Buddhism it's believed the best way to "abide" (live your life) is in Loving-Kindness, called by some "Metta." It is believed the benefits of this thoughtful way of life are received by giver and receiver equally. I'm attempting to practice this now and find it truly beneficial (in this terribly contentious politically divided world) in my interactions with others.

I hope this makes some sense friend.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,787

25 May 2014, 10:16 am

I would like to hear more. Would you explain more if you do not mind?



ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 78
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

25 May 2014, 12:41 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
I would like to hear more. Would you explain more if you do not mind?


Hi cubedmon6073. I'll do what I can.

But first please let me "beg off" on good explanations.

Why? Because a few years ago I had an "incident" which got me thinking about myself, and this lead me to discover my AS (I'm so glad) and along the way, searching for answers, I stumbled across Buddhism, began to learn and continue to learn today. But this makes me the greenest of students and totally unsuited to answer complex questions, so to answer you I have to send you to Wikipedia for beginning answers. I would suggest Googling "Metta" for starters and for references. My personal experience has brought me a lot of satisfaction, but this is hard to transmit to others correctly when you're as unskilled and emotionally involved as I.

For the subject of visualization I keep the thought in mind of our planet spinning and all the people moving about in their lives, as the earth and moon and sun and solar system and galaxy go spinning through the universe, creating our track through time and space. Now take your infinite sword and slice across the fabric of space and time and create a cross section to view. Or better yet view it like it was shown in that old Beatles cartoon movie Yellow Submarine where the "shadow image"(?) of their bodies stayed behind and attached as they proceeded forward through time ("told" you I wasn't good at this :) ).

EDIT ADDED: Until I get to the thinking of how to mix in human emotions, social issues, and etc. into the map/cross section, I do OK. But a good way of visualizing the above with human issues mixed in and involved has not occurred to me. Sorry, d

I think I'd better stop here.



ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 78
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,730
Location: On top of the world

25 May 2014, 11:25 pm

Back again cubedemon6073 Sorry for the delay.

As I was looking around I found a good explanation of Loving-Kindness and how it relates to a good way to lead our lives, here:

http://www.buddhanet.net/metta_in.htm

I hope this helps answer your present questions. :)



Nights_Like_These
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 722
Location: Ontario, Canada

26 May 2014, 12:00 am

While I don't want to really get involved in this debate, I WOULD like to point out that I'm a he and not a she, just so there is no confusion. lol :D


_________________
"There are things known, and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception."

--Aldous Huxley


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,563
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 May 2014, 7:03 am

sly279 wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
sly279 wrote:
for you're example that is public knowledge not to be true there's polls and such . yet this doesn't stop a few women on this site saying all guys want is sex. generalize off of my experience. the government does this companies do this, marketing does this. It is impossible to get to know every person alive. one must there fore get to know as many as possible then use that data to generalize. Should i just assume all women are nice and like you despite what i've seen over and over. Isn't assuming they are all like you worst?
I only mean the ones in my area as thats all the data i have to go off. I never say all women nore to I intend to lump all women . There are tons of examples of lumping people though on this site that aren't all modded. the majority of women i've meet or read their profiles of both in my state and the few out of my state have been a certain way. This doesn't mean all women are, I feel its more of a society thing rather then a gender issue, I hear males tend to be more the same way. I however don't deal with males. so If there is a better way to express my frustration based of my data gathered then i'm sorry that I lack the skills of wording it properly. Would " the majority of women in my state" be better?


no, you should assume that every single woman in the world (including every woman you ever encounter) is different from the next woman. full stop.


but that isn't true, everyone is not 100% different then everyone else. or we wouldn't have groups or common interests. we wouldn't have political parties.
also when almost every woman I encounter says they want abc, and list it excatly the same . how is it wrong to group them together.

like when you group everyone who likes the yankes as yanke fans.

do they have different interests, likes, and personalities yes. but they are common in that they all demand a guy have a job, car, house, be fit and attractive.

I like guns so i tend to be grouped with others who like guns. i don't assume everyone likes guns, but when i see the majority of people in a area say they like guns, it is reasonable to say that area likes guns.

my state is grouped and generalized as a democrat state, only cause a slim majority vote democrat yet people say that state is a blue state or democrat state. they don't say that state is mostly democrat.

I only mean to say that it seems that most of the women in mare area are B. these women openly state they are b. I am not saying "all" women are B. IF I said "all" women are b then i could understand why you'd be upset. For this reason I tend to not use words that would imply to include the entirely of women.

like when a person gets mad and says ugh pens suck. you'd probably be like hes upset at that pen hes using and not take it as he hates all pens. I would imagine you have said things that sound bad but weren't meant to be all inclusive . Being you're human and all .

if we were all different we wouldn't have nations. a nation is just a group of people with commonalities on a land mass. we can have differences but share common things too.

Your issue is really a dating and relationships issue.

Starvingartist is actually right, though. You're somehow limiting your dating pool to ONLY women who hold those attitudes. So when you come back and post about your frustrations about 100% of women want alpha males and don't really want nice guys, what you're really saying is 100% of women YOU try to pick up are like that.

Men and women are free to hold whatever attitudes they want. If you want to be a SCUM Manifesto Feminazi, be a SCUM Manifesto Feminazi. You want to be a MRA, be a MRA. Even if you hold attitudes on the extreme fringes, you don't get to treat anyone like dirt, whether male or female. Making generalizations to the effect "100% of women (x)" is unfair and inaccurate, and you come across as being a whiny jerk. That's not going to help your cause.

Seriously, if 100% of the women you know are like that, I'm wondering just how many women you've honestly tried to pick up. You mentioned being in a college town?the good news for you is you have a steady influx of young, naïve freshman ladies to get to know. There's a decent girl for you in there SOMEWHERE. You just need to find out where the action is and hang out there long enough to find her. She may not perfectly match your criteria for suitable dating or a relationship from the first impression, but give her a chance. I speak from experience here. I went to school a long way from home as a grad student and became highly attracted to a lovely freshman woman. She was a piano major, and I noticed her while she was accompanying another clarinet student. I made a point of being her page turner, and soon after I was asking to hang out with her at every opportunity. We started dating, and it was a beautiful thing while I was there. The thing is, I'm a conservative, evangelical Baptist, while she was a liberal Unitarian/Universalist. We were a VERY unlikely pair, neither one of us were really looking to change our respective world views, but there was a lot more to our relationship than that. I'm not saying you SHOULD look for your exact opposite, I'm just saying be open to anything. It's possible, if unlikely, for a MRA and a radical feminist to hook up. But not EVERY woman out there is a radical feminist, and very few radical feminists out there are foaming-at-the-mouth androphobes.

If your issue is that the only women you ever meet are androphobic, butch-lesbians with rabies*, you SERIOUSLY need to get out more and stop whining about it. But aside from that, nobody here is going to really stop you from whining about it. Actually, in The Haven, you can whine about anything all day long. I even go there and whine about stuff from time to time. But saying "all women?" comes across as misogynist. Be honest. Have you gone out and taken a survey of every single woman in your dating range asking what their attitudes towards men are? Btw, my age range would be 19-50 (I'm 36), and I have a strong preference for never-marrieds and widows--no divorcees, please. "Would be" being the operative term here--I'm already married. Since high school and before getting engaged, I went out with 7 women, slept with 6 of them, and only 4 were even remotely serious relationships--and 2 of THOSE I had no business pursuing in the first place, one being an abusive relationship and the other being, well, just embarrassing. The women I've been with were either looking for serious LTRs like I was or we were both rebounding or experiencing problems in a current relationship. I don't believe that most men are that fortunate, and if even casual dating proves difficult for you, then you really need to focus on just getting first dates with as many women as you can. The more women you get to know on a slightly more personal level, I think you'll find MOST women out there aren't really like the women you've been describing.

That you're having issues with finding women isn't sexist. It's the way you describe it that's inappropriate. You DO use sexist language, and I don't think you actually mean it that way. If you'd said "I've met x-number of women, and ALL of them y?" it would be more appropriate. I've tangled with both starvingartist and LKL on here and they aren't like the women you describe. I think if you look at it more objectively, you'll find more often that it's really just your attitude that stinks.

*Just so we're clear, I'm fully aware that what I'm describing is a hyperbolic stereotype. I'm half-joking. The serious half is that IF there is such a woman, and I've met a few in varying degrees, this isn't the type of person any self-respecting man actually wants to date, nor is she really the type who is interested in dating. My purpose here is to question why sly or anyone even really cares what these women have to say, or why those attitudes would dominate a man's dating choices. Frankly, I don't care because rabid militant types are not the kind of girls I'm even remotely interested in. I don't hang out with them, and what they have to say doesn't impact me one way or the other--didn't even when I WAS dating, and likely wouldn't even now if I were still dating.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

26 May 2014, 6:06 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Your issue is really a dating and relationships issue.

Starvingartist is actually right, though. You're somehow limiting your dating pool to ONLY women who hold those attitudes. So when you come back and post about your frustrations about 100% of women want alpha males and don't really want nice guys, what you're really saying is 100% of women YOU try to pick up are like that.

Men and women are free to hold whatever attitudes they want. If you want to be a SCUM Manifesto Feminazi, be a SCUM Manifesto Feminazi. You want to be a MRA, be a MRA. Even if you hold attitudes on the extreme fringes, you don't get to treat anyone like dirt, whether male or female. Making generalizations to the effect "100% of women (x)" is unfair and inaccurate, and you come across as being a whiny jerk. That's not going to help your cause.

Seriously, if 100% of the women you know are like that, I'm wondering just how many women you've honestly tried to pick up. You mentioned being in a college town?the good news for you is you have a steady influx of young, naïve freshman ladies to get to know. There's a decent girl for you in there SOMEWHERE. You just need to find out where the action is and hang out there long enough to find her. She may not perfectly match your criteria for suitable dating or a relationship from the first impression, but give her a chance. I speak from experience here. I went to school a long way from home as a grad student and became highly attracted to a lovely freshman woman. She was a piano major, and I noticed her while she was accompanying another clarinet student. I made a point of being her page turner, and soon after I was asking to hang out with her at every opportunity. We started dating, and it was a beautiful thing while I was there. The thing is, I'm a conservative, evangelical Baptist, while she was a liberal Unitarian/Universalist. We were a VERY unlikely pair, neither one of us were really looking to change our respective world views, but there was a lot more to our relationship than that. I'm not saying you SHOULD look for your exact opposite, I'm just saying be open to anything. It's possible, if unlikely, for a MRA and a radical feminist to hook up. But not EVERY woman out there is a radical feminist, and very few radical feminists out there are foaming-at-the-mouth androphobes.

If your issue is that the only women you ever meet are androphobic, butch-lesbians with rabies*, you SERIOUSLY need to get out more and stop whining about it. But aside from that, nobody here is going to really stop you from whining about it. Actually, in The Haven, you can whine about anything all day long. I even go there and whine about stuff from time to time. But saying "all women?" comes across as misogynist. Be honest. Have you gone out and taken a survey of every single woman in your dating range asking what their attitudes towards men are? Btw, my age range would be 19-50 (I'm 36), and I have a strong preference for never-marrieds and widows--no divorcees, please. "Would be" being the operative term here--I'm already married. Since high school and before getting engaged, I went out with 7 women, slept with 6 of them, and only 4 were even remotely serious relationships--and 2 of THOSE I had no business pursuing in the first place, one being an abusive relationship and the other being, well, just embarrassing. The women I've been with were either looking for serious LTRs like I was or we were both rebounding or experiencing problems in a current relationship. I don't believe that most men are that fortunate, and if even casual dating proves difficult for you, then you really need to focus on just getting first dates with as many women as you can. The more women you get to know on a slightly more personal level, I think you'll find MOST women out there aren't really like the women you've been describing.

That you're having issues with finding women isn't sexist. It's the way you describe it that's inappropriate. You DO use sexist language, and I don't think you actually mean it that way. If you'd said "I've met x-number of women, and ALL of them y?" it would be more appropriate. I've tangled with both starvingartist and LKL on here and they aren't like the women you describe. I think if you look at it more objectively, you'll find more often that it's really just your attitude that stinks.

*Just so we're clear, I'm fully aware that what I'm describing is a hyperbolic stereotype. I'm half-joking. The serious half is that IF there is such a woman, and I've met a few in varying degrees, this isn't the type of person any self-respecting man actually wants to date, nor is she really the type who is interested in dating. My purpose here is to question why sly or anyone even really cares what these women have to say, or why those attitudes would dominate a man's dating choices. Frankly, I don't care because rabid militant types are not the kind of girls I'm even remotely interested in. I don't hang out with them, and what they have to say doesn't impact me one way or the other--didn't even when I WAS dating, and likely wouldn't even now if I were still dating.


I dont' really belive in the whole alpha male beta male stuff. they guys with good paying job,s bmw,s etc aren't necessarily jerks, I think their might be more likely to find jerks and people who have come to believe they are better then others cause of the things they own though. I've meet nice ones, but i have seem to seen more bad ones. or at least they come off that way with their comments. my frustrations have nothing to do with jerks and nice guys, but people thinking that in order to be a good mate you have to have a good job, nice car, own house, and fit, but in reality those are things and things don't make a person good or bad or worthy or not worthy. I mean the most evil men in our past hard all those things and more, and some of our greatest people have had almost nothing. I think its the Buddhist monks that believe one must have very little materiel things to find happiness. saw a film once about one and he hand nothing but the robs and a bowl. Now i don't go to that extreme, though i feel when who you are as person is gotten from what you own vrs your actions then that can be a problem.

I never used the word all for that reason, then i tried most or some, but apparently even stating that there's women out there like that is sexist. I would feel super creepy trying to date a 18 -21 year old. i mean if they asked me out eh, i'll give it a try but i won't seek them out just seems creepy for a 26 year old dating women that young. I'm not very picky theres things i would like yes, but there are few disqualifies and most are mutual. I don't think being with someone very liberal(antigun, super pro obama) would be a good ideal cause we would likely fight alot, most who are that way though list that they won't date anyone who isn't left leaning. so its meh. the others is meanness, smoking, and attraction(something no one can control) to be honest i'm probabaly willing to accept someone who is mean to me. I realized i have to lower my few standards, so if i end up in a abusive relationship i guess its just something i have to accept.

I think I've only met one person that could be called a butch lesbian. My problems with lesbians is that well they want women and I'm a guy so it seems that it wouldn't work out. no problem we can be friends. again I've never said all women. unlike the people that here that say all men want sex. or all men watch sports etc. because even when I'm frustrated, I don't hate women or believe they are all that way. I've read probably like 3,000+ profiles I actually take the time to read them all, i do so on a few dating sites and Craigslist. I've had only two "dates" met maybe 5 women in person. now this doesn't include women who've ideas and comments i've read on various sites, though those arent limited to my area. and i'd say of those 1/3 ish probably were like starving and nice, the others were various levels on the issue of guys must have _____ or virgins are bad. If i ever win the lottery I do plan to do a wider official study . I honestly know there are lots of good women. Starving seems to be one, though we may have different opinions on stuff. the problem seems to be that most are already in relationships, and those left seem to be outnumbered at least in my area. it has been suggested i move, and if the time ever comes I can afford such thing I plan to move to Montana especially if i win any money. but that's not likely so I'm stuck here.

i have no problem with divorced or separated women, except on craigslist, where the spammers tend to use the word separated. kids eh, I have issues due to my abuse as a kid, my not liking touching people, and germifobic, so i don't wish to jump into having a 6 year or 2 6 year old kids. I'd much rather have a relationship before kids then start from babies, so i can over come the issues slowly. also baby's dady issues are scary. Al i am focused on is getting messages, then first dates. need to date and get to know then turn into a ltr can't just jump into one. my problem is finding a woman i can message, who will reply which could lead to a first date. I hope you're right unfortunately they put of this wall using the list. if its about not wanting to pay for the guys things, then just say must be able to provide for yourself, i mean its just a date, why such limitations I do provide for myself, providing for others a little bit .

as for feminist, if they aren't the extremist kind, then i like them, i actually support a lot of their goals, I've been friends with some. most women around here are at least slightly feminist, we have a idea of being equal if not women more powerful it seems here. I can't think of many feminist protest in our state. We had a occupy wall street protest(that went on for a year), both pro and anit gun protests, and we have pro gay events, we also have a lot of fund raisers for different disabilities and such.
over all the women are quite pretty, they all are different in various ways and interests. it is just that most of them post that list in an almost identical form or use a phrase that describes it. maybe its just that they feel they have to cause its what most are doing , maybe they don't even care about it, but its there telling me i can't message them cause I don't meet all of it. its very frustrating when i find someone that makes me smile, that seems like a great person, we have so much in common, i meet her likes of personality but then at the end she puts the list. :'( i could other wise probably make her happy and laugh and have a good time, but i lack a job title so f**k it.

i'm not the best at wording things or phrasing thing right. I just worry i'll word something wrong , have it come across different then what i intended and get banned forever with out a chance to explain. I am afraid of losing my safe area.



NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 619

28 May 2014, 8:14 pm

starvingartist wrote:
NobodyKnows wrote:
Should sexist posts like this one also be banned:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt231460.html are you speaking of the OP or the entire thread? i read the OP and didn't see anything overtly sexist in it (it generalises about MRAs, but i've been told that it was ok to generalise about political affiliations--ie. one can generalise about feminists, but not about all women), but i really don't want to go through 34 pages--can you find some specific posts from the thread to illustrate what you mean? i don't think it's fair that the OP generalises about MRAs but doesn't provide any evidence to support his claims about MRAs--and yes i know i have done that in the past myself and have admitted it, and that i was frustrated when i did so. if i were to make such a claim now, i understand i need to back it up with some kind of evidence if i expect it to stand.

That particular thread went on for 34 pages without being locked, even though the original post was meaner than most anti-feminist posts that I've seen here.

I recently had one of my threads locked faster than you can make a cup of coffee, because the mod thought that it was an example of what you're talking about. I was comfortable that I'd done my homework and that it was in-bounds:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt258868.html

It seems that they're already doing what you wish fairly zealously.


as i understand it, when the moderator/s contacted you and you explained your intent with the thread, they unlocked it. where is the problem with that?


OK, I'll confess: it's only spurious and bigoted. Fair enough.

What do you mean "where is the problem with that?" How often have you had your posts locked in under 20 minutes without a legitimate reason? Your argument is that sexism is rampant here, and that the current moderation is insufficient. The counter argument is that over-zealous enforcement will shut down legitimate discussion, which I gave suport to.

You also argue that women's concerns are treated as less important than those of gays, etc. I can't comment, since I haven't taken a survey yet, but a thread asking a much more charged question about homosexuality went on for 6 pages before being locked: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf256180-0-75.html

Maybe you should post the evidence to a public thread rather than just bombing Alex's mail box with links. That way we could all see what you're upset about. (You could also point to such a thread if it exists. I did a quick look and didn't find one.) We've had several threads locked recently, at least two more involving gender, and both the speed of moderation and the general meanness was pretty comparable.



starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,032

28 May 2014, 8:53 pm

NobodyKnows wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
NobodyKnows wrote:
Should sexist posts like this one also be banned:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt231460.html are you speaking of the OP or the entire thread? i read the OP and didn't see anything overtly sexist in it (it generalises about MRAs, but i've been told that it was ok to generalise about political affiliations--ie. one can generalise about feminists, but not about all women), but i really don't want to go through 34 pages--can you find some specific posts from the thread to illustrate what you mean? i don't think it's fair that the OP generalises about MRAs but doesn't provide any evidence to support his claims about MRAs--and yes i know i have done that in the past myself and have admitted it, and that i was frustrated when i did so. if i were to make such a claim now, i understand i need to back it up with some kind of evidence if i expect it to stand.

That particular thread went on for 34 pages without being locked, even though the original post was meaner than most anti-feminist posts that I've seen here.

I recently had one of my threads locked faster than you can make a cup of coffee, because the mod thought that it was an example of what you're talking about. I was comfortable that I'd done my homework and that it was in-bounds:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt258868.html

It seems that they're already doing what you wish fairly zealously.


as i understand it, when the moderator/s contacted you and you explained your intent with the thread, they unlocked it. where is the problem with that?


OK, I'll confess: it's only spurious and bigoted. Fair enough.

What do you mean "where is the problem with that?" How often have you had your posts locked in under 20 minutes without a legitimate reason? Your argument is that sexism is rampant here, and that the current moderation is insufficient. The counter argument is that over-zealous enforcement will shut down legitimate discussion, which I gave suport to.

You also argue that women's concerns are treated as less important than those of gays, etc. I can't comment, since I haven't taken a survey yet, but a thread asking a much more charged question about homosexuality went on for 6 pages before being locked: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf256180-0-75.html

Maybe you should post the evidence to a public thread rather than just bombing Alex's mail box with links. That way we could all see what you're upset about. (You could also point to such a thread if it exists. I did a quick look and didn't find one.) We've had several threads locked recently, at least two more involving gender, and both the speed of moderation and the general meanness was pretty comparable.

the reason i "bombed" alex's mail box, as you put it, is because he specifically asked for examples to be sent to him. should i have ignored his request just to please you personally by anticipating that my sending examples to alex rather than posting them for your inspection first would bother you? i wish you would direct your hostility elsewhere, it is misplaced with me.



NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 619

28 May 2014, 9:15 pm

starvingartist wrote:
i wish you would direct your hostility elsewhere, it is misplaced with me.


That's quite a double standard, Mz. Post Stalker. Until I called you out on it, you were one of the most frequent contributors of non-rebuttals to my posts. Most were cheap one-liners and angry demands to be treated better than you had treated others.

Also, when I first came back to WP in March, one of the first things that I saw was a string of particularly nasty, judgmental posts of yours in PPR. It's hard to not suspect that you want the rules changed now because you weren't getting your way.

And in typical form, you didn't address the meat of my post:

NobodyKnows wrote:
Your argument is that sexism is rampant here, and that the current moderation is insufficient. The counter argument is that over-zealous enforcement will shut down legitimate discussion, which I gave suport to.

You also argue that women's concerns are treated as less important than those of gays, etc. I can't comment, since I haven't taken a survey yet, but a thread asking a much more charged question about homosexuality went on for 6 pages before being locked: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf256180-0-75.html



Last edited by NobodyKnows on 28 May 2014, 10:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

hyena
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2014
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

28 May 2014, 9:35 pm

Logic was one of my main areas of study in university and I tell you it is pretty impotent by itself. Logic cannot tell you how to live your life, nor can science, nor can reasoning (unless it is biased). Generally speaking, logic takes premises and gives you conclusions based on those premises. But if you want to get a useful conclusion you have to use extra-logical premises. The only things you can get entirely from logic are tautologies which by themselves are pretty useless. An example of a tautology is: The closest extra solar planet is more massive than Earth or less massive than Earth (useless statement). If you want logic to be useful you have to use premises which do not come from logic. They can come from observation, mathematics, your emotions, your moral principles etc.
When it comes to morality, it cannot come from science, logic or math. It necessarily requires basic moral principles. We often use logic, science and math alongside moral principles to derive new moral conclusions, but by themselves, logic, math, and science will never give you morality. I am a believer in foundationalism so the basic moral principles cannot be justified, they are simply accepted. For example, I cannot give justification for why innocent people should not be bothered, it is simply something I accept without justification. It is one of the base principles of my morality. But again by themselves, logic, math and science will never give you morality. Hope that that is clear :)