hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 873 of 891 FirstFirst ... 373773823863870871872873874875876883 ... LastLast
Results 17,441 to 17,460 of 17817

Thread: Political Shots Fired Thread

  1. #17441
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    17,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    I'm willing to bet cash money that in 5-10 years time all of you biological essentialists will quietly have disavowed (or more likely, remember only through a revisionist lens) your views on this topic.
    I have literally stated that if the evidence is present then I will change my POV. That is what being a scientist means, not denying the evidence.
    Oh yeah? What evidence would it take to persuade you that gender is a social construct not a biological extrapolation?

  2. #17442
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    I'm willing to bet cash money that in 5-10 years time all of you biological essentialists will quietly have disavowed (or more likely, remember only through a revisionist lens) your views on this topic.
    I have literally stated that if the evidence is present then I will change my POV. That is what being a scientist means, not denying the evidence.
    Oh yeah? What evidence would it take to persuade you that gender is a social construct not a biological extrapolation?
    Is brain chemistry a social construct or a biological one?

    I think this is what gets at the crux of this argument for most people.
    meh

  3. #17443
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    11,749
    When glorious Fascism takes over it will be simple. If you have a willy you're a bloke. If you have a fanny you're a woman. anything else is slave labour and beneath a gender assignment for official records.

  4. #17444
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Duckslayer View Post
    When glorious Fascism takes over it will be simple. If you have a willy you're a bloke. If you have a fanny you're a woman. anything else is slave labour and beneath a gender assignment for official records.
    No one gives a shit about your dead philosophy.
    meh

  5. #17445
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    11,749
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Duckslayer View Post
    When glorious Fascism takes over it will be simple. If you have a willy you're a bloke. If you have a fanny you're a woman. anything else is slave labour and beneath a gender assignment for official records.
    No one gives a shit about your dead philosophy.
    Fuck

  6. #17446
    Timaios's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    I'm willing to bet cash money that in 5-10 years time all of you biological essentialists will quietly have disavowed (or more likely, remember only through a revisionist lens) your views on this topic.
    I have literally stated that if the evidence is present then I will change my POV. That is what being a scientist means, not denying the evidence.
    Oh yeah? What evidence would it take to persuade you that gender is a social construct not a biological extrapolation?
    Is brain chemistry a social construct or a biological one?

    I think this is what gets at the crux of this argument for most people.
    Let me give you a second viewpoint.

    Are our actions completely deterministic or is there free will?

    Or in other words, if brain chemistry is what solely drives our actions and thoughts, then why even discuss things like "social phenomena"? If brain chemistry is affected by our actions and thoughts, then why argue that brain chemistry somehow represents the final truth?

    This reminds of logical positivism, a movement a century ago that posited that all discussion eventually could be decided by reducing the issue into mathematics and formal logic. Then Gödel showed that it does not work.

    Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. - Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 277

  7. #17447
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    I'm willing to bet cash money that in 5-10 years time all of you biological essentialists will quietly have disavowed (or more likely, remember only through a revisionist lens) your views on this topic.
    I have literally stated that if the evidence is present then I will change my POV. That is what being a scientist means, not denying the evidence.
    Oh yeah? What evidence would it take to persuade you that gender is a social construct not a biological extrapolation?
    Is brain chemistry a social construct or a biological one?

    I think this is what gets at the crux of this argument for most people.
    Let me give you a second viewpoint.

    Are our actions completely deterministic or is there free will?

    Or in other words, if brain chemistry is what solely drives our actions and thoughts, then why even discuss things like "social phenomena"? If brain chemistry is affected by our actions and thoughts, then why argue that brain chemistry somehow represents the final truth?

    This reminds of logical positivism, a movement a century ago that posited that all discussion eventually could be decided by reducing the issue into mathematics and formal logic. Then Gödel showed that it does not work.
    Well obviously it's all a system. I have enough experience with systems to know that sometimes the links between variables are sometimes difficult to predict. Clearly brain chemistry is part of the final truth, it simply must be. How much and/or how the feedback loop between how outside stimuli affect brain chemistry doesn't seem particularly well understood.

  8. #17448
    Super Moderator Global Moderator QuackBot's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 7, 2012
    Posts
    20,806
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post

    Is brain chemistry a social construct or a biological one?

    I think this is what gets at the crux of this argument for most people.
    What is this fucking amateur hour?

  9. #17449
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    17,027
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    I'm willing to bet cash money that in 5-10 years time all of you biological essentialists will quietly have disavowed (or more likely, remember only through a revisionist lens) your views on this topic.
    I have literally stated that if the evidence is present then I will change my POV. That is what being a scientist means, not denying the evidence.
    Oh yeah? What evidence would it take to persuade you that gender is a social construct not a biological extrapolation?
    Is brain chemistry a social construct or a biological one?

    I think this is what gets at the crux of this argument for most people.
    Let me give you a second viewpoint.

    Are our actions completely deterministic or is there free will?

    Or in other words, if brain chemistry is what solely drives our actions and thoughts, then why even discuss things like "social phenomena"? If brain chemistry is affected by our actions and thoughts, then why argue that brain chemistry somehow represents the final truth?

    This reminds of logical positivism, a movement a century ago that posited that all discussion eventually could be decided by reducing the issue into mathematics and formal logic. Then Gödel showed that it does not work.
    Well obviously it's all a system. I have enough experience with systems to know that sometimes the links between variables are sometimes difficult to predict. Clearly brain chemistry is part of the final truth, it simply must be. How much and/or how the feedback loop between how outside stimuli affect brain chemistry doesn't seem particularly well understood.
    That's exactly it.

    So when someone asserts that sometimes they express their gender as a dude and other times a chick, is the correct response to go "cool mate, you do you and I'll support you in that!" or is it to go "YOU NEED TO PROVE THIS CURRENTLY UNPROVABLE THING TO ME USING SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUES THAT DONT EXIST YET AND MAY NOT EVEN BE RELEVANT OR ELSE I WILL IGNORE YOUR PREFERENCES AND EVEN DENY YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE THEM, BECAUSE ANYTHING ELSE IS JUST "PANDERING" WHATEVER THAT MEANS IN THIS DUMB AS FUCK CONTEXT"
    Last edited by Lallante; September 7 2017 at 04:06:50 PM.

  10. #17450
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    I'm willing to bet cash money that in 5-10 years time all of you biological essentialists will quietly have disavowed (or more likely, remember only through a revisionist lens) your views on this topic.
    I have literally stated that if the evidence is present then I will change my POV. That is what being a scientist means, not denying the evidence.
    Oh yeah? What evidence would it take to persuade you that gender is a social construct not a biological extrapolation?
    Is brain chemistry a social construct or a biological one?

    I think this is what gets at the crux of this argument for most people.
    Let me give you a second viewpoint.

    Are our actions completely deterministic or is there free will?

    Or in other words, if brain chemistry is what solely drives our actions and thoughts, then why even discuss things like "social phenomena"? If brain chemistry is affected by our actions and thoughts, then why argue that brain chemistry somehow represents the final truth?

    This reminds of logical positivism, a movement a century ago that posited that all discussion eventually could be decided by reducing the issue into mathematics and formal logic. Then Gödel showed that it does not work.
    You're simplyfying trying to argue it's either. In reality it's both. Believing that our actions and thoughts govern our brain chemistry completely is on the same level as believing that best treatment for clinical depression is telling people to stop being sad and useless, schizos to act normal etc.

  11. #17451
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    11,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    I'm willing to bet cash money that in 5-10 years time all of you biological essentialists will quietly have disavowed (or more likely, remember only through a revisionist lens) your views on this topic.
    I have literally stated that if the evidence is present then I will change my POV. That is what being a scientist means, not denying the evidence.
    Oh yeah? What evidence would it take to persuade you that gender is a social construct not a biological extrapolation?
    Is brain chemistry a social construct or a biological one?

    I think this is what gets at the crux of this argument for most people.
    Let me give you a second viewpoint.

    Are our actions completely deterministic or is there free will?

    Or in other words, if brain chemistry is what solely drives our actions and thoughts, then why even discuss things like "social phenomena"? If brain chemistry is affected by our actions and thoughts, then why argue that brain chemistry somehow represents the final truth?

    This reminds of logical positivism, a movement a century ago that posited that all discussion eventually could be decided by reducing the issue into mathematics and formal logic. Then Gödel showed that it does not work.
    Well obviously it's all a system. I have enough experience with systems to know that sometimes the links between variables are sometimes difficult to predict. Clearly brain chemistry is part of the final truth, it simply must be. How much and/or how the feedback loop between how outside stimuli affect brain chemistry doesn't seem particularly well understood.
    That's exactly it.

    So when someone asserts that sometimes they express their gender as a dude and other times a chick, is the correct response to go "cool mate, you do you and I'll support you in that!" or is it to go "YOU NEED TO PROVE THIS CURRENTLY UNPROVABLE THING TO ME USING SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUES THAT DONT EXIST YET AND MAY NOT EVEN BE RELEVANT OR ELSE I WILL IGNORE YOUR PREFERENCES BECAUSE ANYTHING ELSE IS JUST PANDERING"
    Quoting to see if lal is post editing a post

    Called it.

    I think almost everyone will go "cool mate you do you". Has anyone said they wouldnt? Are you just being wilfully ignorant of any of the serious posts we have made?
    Last edited by Duckslayer; September 7 2017 at 04:08:52 PM.

  12. #17452
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    17,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Duckslayer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    I'm willing to bet cash money that in 5-10 years time all of you biological essentialists will quietly have disavowed (or more likely, remember only through a revisionist lens) your views on this topic.
    I have literally stated that if the evidence is present then I will change my POV. That is what being a scientist means, not denying the evidence.
    Oh yeah? What evidence would it take to persuade you that gender is a social construct not a biological extrapolation?
    Is brain chemistry a social construct or a biological one?

    I think this is what gets at the crux of this argument for most people.
    Let me give you a second viewpoint.

    Are our actions completely deterministic or is there free will?

    Or in other words, if brain chemistry is what solely drives our actions and thoughts, then why even discuss things like "social phenomena"? If brain chemistry is affected by our actions and thoughts, then why argue that brain chemistry somehow represents the final truth?

    This reminds of logical positivism, a movement a century ago that posited that all discussion eventually could be decided by reducing the issue into mathematics and formal logic. Then Gödel showed that it does not work.
    Well obviously it's all a system. I have enough experience with systems to know that sometimes the links between variables are sometimes difficult to predict. Clearly brain chemistry is part of the final truth, it simply must be. How much and/or how the feedback loop between how outside stimuli affect brain chemistry doesn't seem particularly well understood.
    That's exactly it.

    So when someone asserts that sometimes they express their gender as a dude and other times a chick, is the correct response to go "cool mate, you do you and I'll support you in that!" or is it to go "YOU NEED TO PROVE THIS CURRENTLY UNPROVABLE THING TO ME USING SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUES THAT DONT EXIST YET AND MAY NOT EVEN BE RELEVANT OR ELSE I WILL IGNORE YOUR PREFERENCES BECAUSE ANYTHING ELSE IS JUST PANDERING"
    Quoting to see if lal is post editing a post
    I did, indeed.

  13. #17453
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    8,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    I'm willing to bet cash money that in 5-10 years time all of you biological essentialists will quietly have disavowed (or more likely, remember only through a revisionist lens) your views on this topic.
    I have literally stated that if the evidence is present then I will change my POV. That is what being a scientist means, not denying the evidence.
    Oh yeah? What evidence would it take to persuade you that gender is a social construct not a biological extrapolation?
    Is brain chemistry a social construct or a biological one?

    I think this is what gets at the crux of this argument for most people.
    Let me give you a second viewpoint.

    Are our actions completely deterministic or is there free will?

    Or in other words, if brain chemistry is what solely drives our actions and thoughts, then why even discuss things like "social phenomena"? If brain chemistry is affected by our actions and thoughts, then why argue that brain chemistry somehow represents the final truth?

    This reminds of logical positivism, a movement a century ago that posited that all discussion eventually could be decided by reducing the issue into mathematics and formal logic. Then Gödel showed that it does not work.
    Well obviously it's all a system. I have enough experience with systems to know that sometimes the links between variables are sometimes difficult to predict. Clearly brain chemistry is part of the final truth, it simply must be. How much and/or how the feedback loop between how outside stimuli affect brain chemistry doesn't seem particularly well understood.
    That's exactly it.

    So when someone asserts that sometimes they express their gender as a dude and other times a chick, is the correct response to go "cool mate, you do you and I'll support you in that!" or is it to go "YOU NEED TO PROVE THIS CURRENTLY UNPROVABLE THING TO ME USING SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUES THAT DONT EXIST YET AND MAY NOT EVEN BE RELEVANT OR ELSE I WILL IGNORE YOUR PREFERENCES AND EVEN DENY YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE THEM, BECAUSE ANYTHING ELSE IS JUST "PANDERING" WHATEVER THAT MEANS IN THIS DUMB AS FUCK CONTEXT"
    I'm pretty curious. Not to fix anything mind, but yeah. Discounting something because "tradition" seems very anti-scientific to me.
    meh

  14. #17454
    Steph's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    9,186
    Quote Originally Posted by QuackBot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post

    Is brain chemistry a social construct or a biological one?

    I think this is what gets at the crux of this argument for most people.
    What is this fucking amateur hour?
    Quote Originally Posted by QuackBot View Post
    Canadians are usually cooler.
    Thermonuclear Banana Split - A not-really-weekly Eclipse Phase campaign journal

  15. #17455
    Lief Siddhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 15, 2011
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    5,511
    quackbot crits gender discussion for over 9000

    it's super effective

  16. #17456
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    13,536
    If someone with a willy thinks they shouldn't have one and want to wear pretty dresses instead then let them.

    Now then, how do we stop the systemic exploitation of the labouring classes by those who own capital?
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  17. #17457
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    17,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    If someone with a willy thinks they shouldn't have one and want to wear pretty dresses instead then let them.

    Now then, how do we stop the systemic exploitation of the labouring classes by those who own capital?
    Fabian Societies.

  18. #17458
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    13,536
    I really dislike fabians.

    Especially since their ridiculous universal basic income push and their abandonment of free access policies. And their obsession with hierarchy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  19. #17459
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    17,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    I really dislike fabians.

    Especially since their ridiculous universal basic income push and their abandonment of free access policies. And their obsession with hierarchy.
    By "free access policies" do you mean things like "healthcare free at the point of service" or free-access to the European single market, or something else?

  20. #17460
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    13,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    I really dislike fabians.

    Especially since their ridiculous universal basic income push and their abandonment of free access policies. And their obsession with hierarchy.
    By "free access policies" do you mean things like "healthcare free at the point of service" or free-access to the European single market, or something else?
    I'm mean free at the point of access state provisioned services with ringfenced budgets. Not the bollocks of government paying profit seeking companies to provide services free at the point of access.

    Free at the point of access is a lousy term which hides the nuance and important differences between the motivating factors of those providing the service.

    Free access to the single market is whole different kettle of fish because it backs people into annoying ideological corners because there are so many grey areas associated with sprawling hierarchical bureaucracies. Thinking about it makes my head hurt.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •