Teaching Satyr Evolution

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Atthet
Posts: 348
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:53 am

Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution

Post by Atthet »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I heard that there are lots of misogynistic gay men out there and that they are more vicious and bitchy than any female ever is. I wonder why that is :?: :?
I agree with your relevant curiosity, to this thread, and discussion, veggy. I, too, wonder why all those misogynistic gay men out there are bitchier than any female ever is. I know! Let's ask our resident, female philosopher, allemotion, why this is. And she will tell us, since she is a philosopher, on a philosophy forum.
We can depend on her authority, judgment, and cool, rational, reasonable confidence, to supply us with a trustworthy answer.
Allemotion, what say you?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9157
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Atthet wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I heard that there are lots of misogynistic gay men out there and that they are more vicious and bitchy than any female ever is. I wonder why that is :?: :?
I agree with your relevant curiosity, to this thread, and discussion, veggy. I, too, wonder why all those misogynistic gay men out there are bitchier than any female ever is. I know! Let's ask our resident, female philosopher, allemotion, why this is. And she will tell us, since she is a philosopher, on a philosophy forum.
We can depend on her authority, judgment, and cool, rational, reasonable confidence, to supply us with a trustworthy answer.
Allemotion, what say you?
I just thought that you of all people would know. Just saying.
Atthet
Posts: 348
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:53 am

Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution

Post by Atthet »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I just thought that you of all people would know. Just saying.
Why would I know th---wait, are you implying that I'm a gay misogynist who is more emotional than every woman?! You, you...you bitch! I hate you!
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1643
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution

Post by reasonvemotion »

Answer my fucking questions
WTF..... this gal has lost it! talking to ME like that. LOL
mickthinks
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution

Post by mickthinks »

Atthet wrote:If this vagina cannot answer, immediately, then her "female philosopher" status can be revoked. She is a coward, like all vaginas.
lol This is what you consider "thought", Atty, and it is why most of us just ignore* you.


*The forum software can help people to ignore hate-mongers and other troublemakers automatically. Just visit their profile page (there's a button which takes you directly to a poster's profile page at the bottom left of each of their posts) and click on the "add foe" option under their login name. Suddenly it is as if they no longer post in your PhiNow forum.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution

Post by Satyr »

[DELETED BY RICK]
User avatar
Kuznetzova
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution

Post by Kuznetzova »

Atthet wrote:Sometimes the inferior are utilized, sometimes they are avoided, sometimes they are killed off. It depends on the particular species and the peculiar characteristics of any superior/inferior judgment directed against an other organism. Science is utilitarian. Does this organism have a use to me? And if not, is it a threat?
Do I understand science and the perspective of objectivity? Yes, absolutely
This paragraph is a jumbled mess -- indicating very muddy thinking. Perhaps you wrote this in haste, or maybe you were very tired (or drunk).

Your first sentence refers to some sort of extrinsic, objective inferiority. But then the second sentence says it is a "judgement directed against an other organism." Well, which one is it? Is superiority an extrinsic objective phenomenon, or is it just a passive judgement fleetingly made by a mortal?

Then things get worse. You refer to superiority and inferiority as being equivalent to a utility for a particular organism. Well cold viruses have "utilized" me quite effectively to make copies of themselves. The virus found my warm, wet eye surface "useful" and therefore used it for its own ends. Does that make me the "inferior" organism, since I was simply used by the virus? I'm certain my blood has been used by mosquitoes who later went on to reproduce. They were the superior user who utilized poor little inferior me for their own ends -- or is that not what you meant?

What then, does Atthet mean by "inferior" and "superior"? Does he believe that things which are strong, violent, competitive, independent (,and male) qualify as superior? And further, if his answer is "yes" to that question, then does he suppose there is a direction to evolution? (Perhaps a direction towards faster, stronger, more competitive, and more violent?) If that's what he believes and thinks, he should say so.
Atthet
Posts: 348
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:53 am

Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution

Post by Atthet »

Kuznetzova wrote:This paragraph is a jumbled mess -- indicating very muddy thinking. Perhaps you wrote this in haste, or maybe you were very tired (or drunk).

Your first sentence refers to some sort of extrinsic, objective inferiority. But then the second sentence says it is a "judgement directed against an other organism." Well, which one is it? Is superiority an extrinsic objective phenomenon, or is it just a passive judgement fleetingly made by a mortal?
No, jean, you missed my point. Judgment itself is objective. It is a social and biological phenomenon. For example, when you see two little underage girls, and you find one "prettier" than the other, do you believe that you are making a conscious effort to pass judgment on beauty, or is it an unconscious judgment? Kant dealt with judgment by asserting a priori and a posteriori forms of human knowledge and intellect.

Your brain selects data, using other data. The exact methods of human judgment remain unknown and philosophical, a matter of neuroscience and understanding biology, genetics too. However, it does not matter how you judge, whether it is conscious or unconscious, you still act as though you had judged, beauty. And you did, and you do. Beauty is one of the most readily accessible human judgments, because it is most immediate. It is superficial, and not skin deep. It is above the skin, it is the skin. It is your most immediate and recognizable access to the power of another person or individual. Beautiful people have real worth, in every society, and it is not as "subjective" as people believe. It is not confined to just culture, but to genetics and biology too.

Kuznetzova wrote:Then things get worse. You refer to superiority and inferiority as being equivalent to a utility for a particular organism. Well cold viruses have "utilized" me quite effectively to make copies of themselves. The virus found my warm, wet eye surface "useful" and therefore used it for its own ends. Does that make me the "inferior" organism, since I was simply used by the virus? I'm certain my blood has been used by mosquitoes who later went on to reproduce. They were the superior user who utilized poor little inferior me for their own ends -- or is that not what you meant?
Every superior/inferior judgment requires a context. If you want to talk about the superiority of an organism to invade another organism, then yes, the virus is "superior" than you. But, the human body has viruses of its own, and these viruses can also spread, making the human body "superior" with respect to its own viruses.

Thought is a form of virus. If I spread thoughts, on the internet, and they spread quickly through a population, and there is no resistance against them, then this is another form of a superior "virus". Stronger and more popular ideologies tend to spread this way. Consider "science", consider authorities all people take for granted, don't these thoughts "spread like a virus" quicker than all other thoughts and ideas? Yes, they do, which is why people believe the world is spherical, round, and they accept this idea, this thought, as true. It is another form of a virus.

Kuznetzova wrote:What then, does Atthet mean by "inferior" and "superior"? Does he believe that things which are strong, violent, competitive, independent (,and male) qualify as superior? And further, if his answer is "yes" to that question, then does he suppose there is a direction to evolution? (Perhaps a direction towards faster, stronger, more competitive, and more violent?) If that's what he believes and thinks, he should say so.
There are various forms of power, strength, speed, wealth, charisma, intelligence, etc
People tend to favor the forms of power that they can improve and access higher levels of male competition. Females, women, compete against each other, in terms of seduction, and beauty, which are again, other forms of power. Women make men their primary objective, in terms of acquiring power. Men do not, necessarily, do the same. A man finds power by directing himself against nature herself, not against women necessarily. This is why men are interested in industry, exploration, and warfare, while women are not.

Women are naturally cowards, naturally stupid, and naturally inferior in many areas in life. Women, instead, to compensate for this, have developed superior forms of socializing, making friends, and thinking in terms of "group think", rather than as individuals and independents. Women are the opposite, dependent, meek, frail, and within their stupidity, often unintentional, claim innocence, or "ignorance is bliss". This also demonstrates an innate female privilege, based on nothing more than gender. And the ideology of feminism reveals this fatal flaw, and gives rise to a stronger form of control over the very weakness women want to deny.
User avatar
Kuznetzova
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution

Post by Kuznetzova »

Atthet wrote:It is a social and biological phenomenon. For example, when you see two little underage girls, and you find one "prettier" than the other, do you believe that you are making a conscious effort to pass judgment on beauty, or is it an unconscious judgment? Kant dealt with judgment by asserting a priori and a posteriori forms of human knowledge and intellect.
None of this supports any objective measurement of beauty.
There is still no extrinsic metric for superiority and inferiority presented here.
(In my case with underage girls, rest assured I am making conscious effort. But that's a point for another thread on another website).

Atthet wrote: Your brain selects data, using other data. The exact methods of human judgment remain unknown and philosophical, a matter of neuroscience and understanding biology, genetics too. However, it does not matter how you judge, whether it is conscious or unconscious, you still act as though you had judged, beauty. And you did, and you do. Beauty is one of the most readily accessible human judgments, because it is most immediate. It is superficial, and not skin deep. It is above the skin, it is the skin. It is your most immediate and recognizable access to the power of another person or individual. Beautiful people have real worth, in every society, and it is not as "subjective" as people believe. It is not confined to just culture, but to genetics and biology too.
None of this establishes an extrinsic metric for superiority or beauty. If you equivocate beauty with outward metrics of internal health --that would mean the attraction to the outside of the skin is a method for quickly selecting the healthy individuals under a scenario of sexual selection. But then we are left sitting at the end of the day with nothing more than "this sexual attraction metric helps humans make copies of themselves".

You have completely dodged your responsibility to show that this process necessarily gives rise to greater beauty, greater strength, greater superiority in an extrinsic sense. We are left were we started, with a directionless process of organisms making copies of themselves. Of course you can run around the internet simply stating (as if it were a fact) that the process trends towards greater beauty in the subsequent generations. Well then you have committed yourself to saying it has a direction. Does it have a direction or not? Oh wait.. you answered this in the other thread. You said Natural Selection has no direction and is "chaotic". Did you not?

Atthet wrote: Thought is a form of virus. If I spread thoughts, on the internet, and they spread quickly through a population, and there is no resistance against them, then this is another form of a superior "virus". Stronger and more popular ideologies tend to spread this way. Consider "science", consider authorities all people take for granted, don't these thoughts "spread like a virus" quicker than all other thoughts and ideas? Yes, they do, which is why people believe the world is spherical, round, and they accept this idea, this thought, as true. It is another form of a virus.
This is memetic forms of argument. This again, depicts a process where the only metric that matters is whether the thought can make a copy of itself. Again, you can simply insert the word "Strong" to perform some sort of semantic trick. You have not demonstrated why the process of memes being copied from person to person trends towards "stronger ideologies." You simply blindly stated "Stronger and more popular ideologies tend to spread this way". You just stated it. You have not demonstrated why the process intrinsically favors those kinds of ideologies. Just stating your opinion does not make it true.

Atthet wrote: There are various forms of power, strength, speed, wealth, charisma, intelligence, etc
Now you are going to play a common game used all over the internet on forums and chat rooms alike. You are now going conflate several words together, who in common english have different meanings, but you will pretend like your original point didn't mean what it said. This tactic is very common and I've seen it a thousand times. "Well I didn't mean that, I meant this". Then I will demonstrate the argument does not hold up to scrutiny, and again you will change words again and say, "Well I didn't mean that, I meant this". . Then I will demonstrate yet again that your argument does not hold up to scrutiny, and you will backpedal and substitute words again and say "Well I didn't mean that, I meant this". .

Atthet wrote: People tend to favor the forms of power that they can improve and access higher levels of male competition. Females, women, compete against each other, in terms of seduction, and beauty, which are again, other forms of power. Women make men their primary objective, in terms of acquiring power. Men do not, necessarily, do the same. A man finds power by directing himself against nature herself, not against women necessarily. This is why men are interested in industry, exploration, and warfare, while women are not.
People favor lots of things. The peculiarities of human social behaviors in modern industrial settings say nothing about any extrinsic process to natural selection towards "superiority". "A man finds power" you say. Is power some sort of substance out there that humans mystically tap into? Do you therefore, think that natural selection trends towards tapping into a Nietzschean Vital Essence Will-to-Power substance?

Atthet -- you could answer "YES" to that question, and I will respect that answer. I will respect your opinion.

However, you should know that nothing in the process of evolution by NS supports this view. You are welcome to have any philosophy here that you want to talk about and we should respect that. It is when you pretend that something in the science of biology supports it that you and I will clash.

The human condition depicted within the context of Natural Selection is very bleak. It looks like a cosmos full of freezing vacuum that cares little or not at all whether our species continues or goes extinct. There are no vital essences in the theory. Organisms are agile containers for DNA sub-strings who are good at making copies of themselves. Life is an end-to-end chemical reaction. There is no direction and seemingly no grander point or purpose to it.

Atthet wrote: Women are naturally cowards, naturally stupid, and naturally inferior in many areas in life. Women, instead, to compensate for this, have developed superior forms of socializing, making friends, and thinking in terms of "group think", rather than as individuals and independents. Women are the opposite, dependent, meek, frail, and within their stupidity, often unintentional, claim innocence, or "ignorance is bliss". This also demonstrates an innate female privilege, based on nothing more than gender. And the ideology of feminism reveals this fatal flaw, and gives rise to a stronger form of control over the very weakness women want to deny.
Thank you for this wall of text. But uh, this has nothing to do with anything in this thread or anything I was talking about.
Last edited by Kuznetzova on Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Atthet
Posts: 348
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:53 am

Re: Teaching Satyr Evolution

Post by Atthet »

Evolutionary theory is an artifice applied to natural selection.
Selection is the reality, evolution is the theory.
Post Reply