Gender Documentation and Definition

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10664
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Gender Documentation and Definition

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:42 am

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:No, maybe in England it is, but British English is oftentimes ass backwards to American English. I have a friend from Birmingham who told me not to pee once, and I couldn't figure out why I suddenly wasn't allowed to. Turns out you guys have a bizarre phrase called Holding The Piss which has nothing at all to do with not peeing. ...
I think you mean arse and it's 'taking the piss'.
You can with absolute certainty call a Vagina a Vag in the US, and to be honest, I don't think it even has occurred to the left yet to be upset by the word Vag yet. You can't shorten Penis to Pen cause we already have a word spelled Pen. A woman asking her boyfriend for some Pen might have a ballpoint pen tossed to her. ...
So you say to your girlfriend 'I want some vag?' How quaint.

Penis is the scientific biological name and you used it in reference to a biological classification so why not the scientific term "vagina"? Why not say male=dick or pr*ck female=vag or c*nt?(apparently I can't use these terms on the forum)

But I accept that you say its a harmless American slang word, it's not over here so once again two cultures separated by a common language.
We also shorten other words too, like Vietnam is Nam. It isn't a word of derision, and Vietnamese people don't stand around crying every time someone shortens it. ...
No they stood around crying from napalm.
People outside of San Francisco call the city Frisco (nobody in the city does this) and while it annoys, it by no means comes off as demeaning. ...
Maybe because it's not about genitalia?
The U.K. isn't the center of the English language anymore, and you don't get to dictate what is what in common useage anymore. US has a much, much larger population, and heck, India has far more English speakers. At this point, even if the U.K. tried to pull a fast one and legislate the grammar, like the French and other European countries do, nobody would play along outside of the U.K., as Parliament and the Queen has so very little pull over the proper usage of the English language. ...
We'd never do this and it's the reason why you and everyone else can speak English badly.
I will continue to call a Vagina a Vag, and won't take flak for it, feel ashamed, or feel I'm remotely doing anything wrong. It is like saying Nips instead of Nipples. Nobody is going to jail for saying Nips. If the city of Lancaster is coming out in defense of Nipples, saying proper feminism demands the full word, tough..... nobody who says nips will feel the slightest bit insulted. If the Scottish Parliament passes anti-discriminatory nip laws, nobody will play along, and will continue calling nip's nips, vag's vags, Nam Nam. Got that? Simple, ain't not issue with common English.
I thought a vag in America was a vagrant?

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1561
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Gender Documentation and Definition

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:56 pm

xman wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:43 am
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:03 am
Hmm why not do science.

Put 1000 babies in a scientifically controlled environment without gender roles. Then see what happens.

THEN MAKE A TOPIC ABOUT IT.

NOT MAKE A TOPIC DISCUSSING NON-EXISTENT CONCLUSIONS BEFORE THE EXPERIMENT IS ACTUALLY MADE.

Scientific method is...
You make an experiment.
You draw conclusions from the experiment.

Scientific method is NOT...
You look at traditions and social norms.
You draw conclusions from traditions and social norms.
I would be interested to read how you ground your argument formally. I suggest you would run into trouble if you tried. Your reasoning seems to presume an identity or at least an analogy between the way we do science and the way we do morality--between what Kant might describe as the Law of Nature and the Universal Law (Groundwork, Ch. 1 and, well, the whole book). To do so in a meaningful way would demand that you show us how this identity or analogy can be derived. I reject the idea that you can do so, because you would be confusing Ends with Means. In the sciences like physics, chemistry and the like, your End is knowledge and the objects you are dealing with (particles, galaxies, gravity waves) are not rational beings and thus can be treated as Means to your end--no one gets hurt. This falls under Kant's Kingdom of Nature. In the social sciences, however, we are dealing with real, live human beings--rational beings--who are inhabitants of the Kingdom of Ends. Human beings cannot be treated only as Means; they must be treated in the final analysis as Ends. This distinction is a basic one built into reality; it is not derived from reasoning but is a presumption of reasoning. To mix the two is a contradiction and cannot stand. It is, in the kind of situation in front of us here, also extremely cruel. I mention 3 examples that point to this distinction. I just mention the first two because you probably already know of them, and you can google them if you don't: the Milgram experiment, which was bad enough, and the Bowlby experiment which was a real horror show. Both are now illegal. The third is probably closest to your suggestion, and I will describe it. A European king in, I believe, the 1st millenium CE, was told by his advisors that the natural language of mankind was the language spoken in heaven--Hebrew. So, to test this out, he got a large group of neonates, raised them in isolation with deaf mute nurses to care for them and NOT able to influence the language the kids would speak naturally, and waited to see what happened. As you might suspect, the kids ended up not speaking any language, they passed the threshold of native language acquisition and so had No native language, and were basically fucked up. That is what comes of treating rational beings as Means (to discovering a contingent truth) rather than as the Ends they truly were. Is this what you would actually will for the kids you want to experiment on: "Put 1000 babies in a scientifically controlled environment without gender roles. Then see what happens."??
Jesus christ. You are litterally saying my experiment needs to be shut down, BECAUSE OF SOME MEDIEVAL EXPERIMENT MADE 1000 YEARS AGO THAT WASNT EVEN THE SAME EXPERIMENT.
NO CHILDREN WILL BE HARMED IN THIS EXPERIMENT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? THIS IS THE 21ST CENTURY. STOP COMPARING ME TO SOME MEDIEVAL FUCKING EXPERIMENT WITH RATS AND THE BLACK PLAGUE. This will all be done, with the safety of the children in mind.

Jesus you liberals are worthless. Here I am trying to help the liberal cause, and you attack me and try to shut me down, with your pathetic modern hypocritical moral codes.

xman
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:30 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Gender Documentation and Definition

Post by xman » Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:13 pm

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:56 pm

Jesus christ. You are litterally saying my experiment needs to be shut down, BECAUSE OF SOME MEDIEVAL EXPERIMENT MADE 1000 YEARS AGO THAT WASNT EVEN THE SAME EXPERIMENT.
NO CHILDREN WILL BE HARMED IN THIS EXPERIMENT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? THIS IS THE 21ST CENTURY. STOP COMPARING ME TO SOME MEDIEVAL FUCKING EXPERIMENT WITH RATS AND THE BLACK PLAGUE. This will all be done, with the safety of the children in mind.

Jesus you liberals are worthless. Here I am trying to help the liberal cause, and you attack me and try to shut me down, with your pathetic modern hypocritical moral codes.
Your subtlety and nuance of reasoning are truly impressive. Your posts give new meaning to "critical thinking" and "profundity of insight." Shyly, you shake your head saying No, I hear you shaking your head. You might consider professional help.

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1561
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Gender Documentation and Definition

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:27 pm

xman wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:13 pm
Your subtlety and nuance of reasoning are truly impressive. Your posts give new meaning to "critical thinking" and "profundity of insight." Shyly, you shake your head saying No, I hear you shaking your head. You might consider professional help.
Genius post right there, could have been written by a 4 year old.

"Seek professional help" That's the best you got? That's about as original as it gets, never heard that one before.
People often use it to cover what they don't want to understand.

"The thing about smart people, is they sound crazy to dumb people." - Albert Einstein

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10664
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Gender Documentation and Definition

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:21 pm

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:...

"The thing about smart people, is they sound crazy to dumb people." - Albert Einstein
And the thing about the deluded is they misquote geniuses to justify their delusions.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Gender Documentation and Definition

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:17 pm

Not reading your quote stack reply Chicken Little, you know this. Put your reply in a single reply (of any length) and I'll read it. I don't read most people's attempts to write that way, it is a piss poor rhetorical format. I know you got it in you to do better.

And Trixie, apply yourself a bit more stringent in actually responding to the substance of people's posts, if you reply to them. Target ideas in his response to you, and respond back in a manner that suggests you actually read and comprehend what he wrote. You can't just upchuck crazypasta, that could be thrown in any thread, on any kind of forum. This is a philosophy forum, reply as the philosophers would. Show some effort was applied in your analysis, that you reflected upon it, understood it, and can refute it with better knowledge. Source a better philosopher if you can as well, when you know a precedent exists. I do that in many threads here.

Come on, try again, make a new post to XMan's original post. He was blabbering on about Immanuel Kant, just look up the wiki pages of the basic ideas like "Kingdom of Ends" and figure out how they relate, compared to his arguments, and either accept it, or form a rebuttal in part. All you are doing is showing off you know nothing. Philosophers have higher standards in debate. If you apply yourself a bit more systematically, you'll be better understood in your positions, and perhaps even respected. Yes, it takes a bit of effort, but that's what we do out of mutual respect for not just one another, but for philosophy and the dialectic process.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ends

All I did was google that, you can do the rest of the searches. It is a very short article, and given it is all Immanuel Kant (who wasn't medieval, he was a enlightenment thinker from Prussia) you'll find additional papers online, and topics all over to build from.

It takes time, but you can apply yourself systematically. Remember Zorro started off as a impulsive, irrational fool, but built himself up into a great man by sticking to a basic, self civilizing methodology. Be like Zorro. Learn of Kant, and try to properly reply to his post again.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Gender Documentation and Definition

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:25 pm

And know your not the first to stumble into a philosophers den largely ignorant. This isn't shameful, it is a stroke of luck you have a instinct to stick around. But if you keep hanging around on philosophy forums, people are going to get increasingly annoyed if you take up baseless positions and never bother to learn how to properly defend your ideas, or debate others. Your one of thousands who had to start from scratch. Nothing wrong with this, you don't have to accept anyone's ideology or ideas, but you certainly should learn and emulate the patterns of dissecting ideas some show evidence of doing.

It is a very good thing to take the time to develop. Shows you are applying yourself. We are not upset with you, your not asked to leave, but at the same time, your asked to apply yourself a bit more. Make a effort. I know it is hard, but you can do it.

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1561
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Gender Documentation and Definition

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:44 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:21 pm
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:...

"The thing about smart people, is they sound crazy to dumb people." - Albert Einstein
And the thing about the deluded is they misquote geniuses to justify their delusions.
Shouldn't you be somewhere enslaving citizens and shoving RFID chips up their arms against their will?

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1561
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Gender Documentation and Definition

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:47 pm

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:17 pm

Come on, try again, make a new post to XMan's original post. He was blabbering on about Immanuel Kant, just look up the wiki pages of the basic ideas like "Kingdom of Ends" and figure out how they relate, compared to his arguments, and either accept it, or form a rebuttal in part. All you are doing is showing off you know nothing. Philosophers have higher standards in debate. If you apply yourself a bit more systematically, you'll be better understood in your positions, and perhaps even respected. Yes, it takes a bit of effort, but that's what we do out of mutual respect for not just one another, but for philosophy and the dialectic process.
Xman's post was just a whiny rant, about weak and whiny ethics. It's the same as those religious folk who think human cloning is evil and needs to be banned. Just religious sounding whiny pandering.

And he compared the experiment done to crappy ones in the medieval times. So what? We can do it better. The children will be fed. The children will be taught. No harm will come to the children.

Any talk about shoddy poorly-setup medieval experiments is hogwash. The fact is, the Experiment has never been done actually.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10664
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Gender Documentation and Definition

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:26 pm

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Shouldn't you be somewhere enslaving citizens and shoving RFID chips up their arms against their will?
:lol: Well given you can defeat them with a bit of tin-foil I think you should be searching for that old hat of yours.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10664
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Gender Documentation and Definition

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:30 pm

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:Not reading your quote stack reply Chicken Little, you know this. Put your reply in a single reply (of any length) and I'll read it. I don't read most people's attempts to write that way, it is a piss poor rhetorical format. I know you got it in you to do better. ...
Not interested in rhetoric but conversation thanks.

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1561
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Gender Documentation and Definition

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:30 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:26 pm
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Shouldn't you be somewhere enslaving citizens and shoving RFID chips up their arms against their will?
:lol: Well given you can defeat them with a bit of tin-foil I think you should be searching for that old hat of yours.
So anyone who is against your fascist tyranny you label as some conspiracy theorist with a tin-foil hat.

Where'es the conspiracy? You're openly admitting you want to force RFID chips in people. Conspiracies are hidden.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10664
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Gender Documentation and Definition

Post by Arising_uk » Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:20 am

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:So anyone who is against your fascist tyranny you label as some conspiracy theorist with a tin-foil hat.
Show me where I advocate a 'fascist tyranny'?

You are a conspiracy theorist.
Where'es the conspiracy?
In your head.
You're openly admitting you want to force RFID chips in people. ...
Show me were I advocate implanting RFID's chips against someone's will?
Conspiracies are hidden.
Exactly and yet you appear to know about them, for example, 'aids was a plot of the global government'.

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1561
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Gender Documentation and Definition

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:41 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:20 am
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:So anyone who is against your fascist tyranny you label as some conspiracy theorist with a tin-foil hat.
Show me where I advocate a 'fascist tyranny'?

You are a conspiracy theorist.
Where'es the conspiracy?
In your head.
You're openly admitting you want to force RFID chips in people. ...
Show me were I advocate implanting RFID's chips against someone's will?
Conspiracies are hidden.
Exactly and yet you appear to know about them, for example, 'aids was a plot of the global government'.
You were saying rfid chips were better than this and better than that, sounds pro-agenda to me.

Also my friend saw the Feds inject aids into gays several decades ago. They punched them into submission then injected aids into them. This is why I hate society and the evil government.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10664
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Gender Documentation and Definition

Post by Arising_uk » Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:09 am

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:You were saying rfid chips were better than this and better than that, sounds pro-agenda to me. ...
No, just that they might be preferable to wearing a tag in public or maybe people might like to give up carrying cards, etc.
Also my friend saw the Feds inject aids into gays several decades ago. They punched them into submission then injected aids into them. ...
How did they know it was Aids?

They were tested or died afterwards?

Given Aids was only three decades ago I think your friend might be exaggerating.
This is why I hate society and the evil government.
You mean you hate American society and the evil American government, you really need to stop confusing America with the world.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Greta and 4 guests