User Tag List

First 5131415161725 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 276

  1. #141
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    It may be a "staple method", but that doesn't make the disciplines "inseparable". Perhaps we're talking past one another on this point, and since it is tangential to this thread's subject matter, I will say nothing more on it.
    I'll repeat my point one last time. If your goal was to understand "the society of now," and you sought, therefore, to avoid history by looking to the fields of sociology and psychology for an explanation, then you would be disappointed, because very little macro-level sociological or social-psychological research is ahistorical. History would most likely be incorporated into the work you read in those fields, so what is the point of excluding pure history when it is bound to be present in these other fields? Unless, are you saying that you would only read sociological or psychological research which was experimental and quantitative?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    I'm not looking for a causal explanation of contemporary society, as is already clear; I am interested in its present state. "Contemporary society" means "the society of now". No further discussion of this term will be had, lest we wibble.
    Well, wouldn't simply understanding the functioning of "the society of now" be an incomplete understanding? Nevermind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    I didn't suggest that you ought to. To repeat myself yet again: I expected you to ask for the definition, which you did:

    I cannot be any more lucid on this point, and so will not repeat myself again.
    Perhaps I could be more lucid, then, because something is obviously impeding your ability to understand simple points. I said that generic feminism does not exist because the term is not widely recognized. You may be the only person on Earth using the term at all, and if you're not, then the other two people using it probably mean something completely different. So, no, the term does not exist, regardless of whatever definition you've invented for it.

    Perhaps a better way of saying "does not exist" would be to say "not widely recognized as having any fixed meaning." Like I said with my green=greeb example, just because I say a word exists does not make it so. I am therefore failing to understand where you find a contradiction between my declaring the word nonexistent without waiting for your definition. If the word had existed outside of your head, then I wouldn't have had to ask in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    I didn't imply that you were.
    You are becoming tiresome. Let's go over this one last time.

    1. You said that feminism was not correct.
    2. I asked you specifically what you meant by "feminism is not correct," and also what you meant by "feminism."
    3. You said you meant by "feminism is not correct" that "feminism is false." Then you said that by "feminism" you meant "generic feminism."

    In response #3 I had originally expected you to answer the question directly by actually giving your definition of feminism, which would include the specific propositions which you found to be false, and explaining why each of them was false. That would be productive to the conversation. Instead, I got a literal response. If you were not trying to be a smartass, and you were not trying to imply that I needed to know that "feminism is not correct"="feminism is false," then why did you give that response? Are you just extremely literal-minded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    These two remarks indicate an abject failure to comprehend what I have said, which, in virtue of my statements' complexity and your performance so far, is probably unsurprising.

    Frankly, though I've been exceptionally (and uncharacteristically) patient and generous so far, I'm now tired of explaining the same points multiple times to people who seemingly lack the necessary intelligence to comprehend them, not to mention the ability to exercise even a semblance of control over their cognitive vices. Debate is only enjoyable when the person with whom you are debating is a peer, rather than an inferior.

    Thus, since you are unable to ask questions or make comments which tell me that you have understood, our discussion is over. Feel free to have the last word.

    Apologies if this all sounds a bit blunt, by the way, but there is no other way to to communicate what I want to say.
    Nice meltdown.

    The only reason you're having to explain yourself multiple times is because you inexplicably refuse to say anything else in response to rebuttals. You insist that no one is understanding you when it is in fact you who is failing to understand anyone else, so like a child, you put your hands over your ears and continue shouting the same thing over and over again. Now I suppose you're at the point where you realize that the shouting doesn't work, so you've resorted to childish attacks on others' intelligence ("no, you're dumb!") What's most delicious is that for someone apparently so obsessed with other people's levels of detachment, you sure have a low anger threshold yourself.

    Oh well, go whine pathetically about how "no one understands me, they're all so dumb" somewhere else.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  2. #142
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Shut it.

    A woman should open her mouth for only two reasons.

    The second one is to thank me for letting her suck my dick.

  3. #143
    Senior Member Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    So subtle that it doesn't make any sense to go out of my way to distinguish them. "History is impotant!! I love it! But not when it comes to feminism. I'm not going to use it at all to come to my conclusions in this particular matter, because other things are better imo.." is the same as saying "History is useless here."
    Not useless, but there are better ways of understanding present society. I feel I have made this clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    What difference are you trying to convey? It isn't just *my* lack of understanding.. THREE people have 'mistaken' your words now. Something isn't communicating right, and apparently it isn't the way we're reading your post. That's all I was saying.
    There is a difference between understanding x and understanding the cause(s) of x. Simple stuff. Your appeal to the number of people who have not understood me is informally fallacious.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    All I said was you're mistaken in thinking she's completely emotionally invested in what you've said. And it's a bit crazy that you seem to think that people only throw insults around when they're being emotional. Sometimes people just call others out on what they believe to be bullshit. I can think of a slew of INTJs that would prove your reasoning wrong alone.
    The evidence I've adduced is sufficient to conclude that she has been exceptionally emotional. I see that she has again berated me about my signature-in spite of the fact that I ended our dialogue some time ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Feminism is a very heated topic--I don't doubt passion will come through for people who want to debate it. But I'm saying she wasn't being emotional.. just passionate in the way she debates.
    I'd say she was being both.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    I communicate with her all the time--I'd hope I'd know the difference between when something TRULY is upseting her, and when she finds something absurd. She's being blunt, and brutal... but that's just the way she is. She's always been that way. There isn't emotional connection involved. Again, that's all I was pointing out.
    I don't agree. In my view, the evidence is not only sufficient-it's overwhelming.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    If you say so.. But posting in a feminist thread, about how a woman you're debating with (while ever-so gracefully pointing out that you think feminism is a crock of shit) is becoming emotional about your posts.. I suppose it's a knee-jerk reaction to come to the conclusion I did.
    I suppose so.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    They're saying that you created this definition in your own head that NO ONE Else knows about. It's like saying, "I think Churches are horseshit." And everyone goes "WHAAT!?!" and you go, "Oh, I meant the restaurant.. I know ya'll don't have them here where you live and never heard of them, but if you were to ever try them, they're total shit."
    The term to which you refer was defined immediately after a definition was requested. I have also elaborated on that definition considerably.

  4. #144
    Senior Member Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    Helios, perhaps the way to approach it is to admit that your disbelief in Feminism isn't based on objective logic but subjective rationale, opinion and interpretation of definition. It might garner you a bit more respect.
    I'm sure it might garner me some respect. I'm not sure why I'd want to state a falsity to win respect I don't particularly desire, though.

  5. #145
    A window to the soul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    Perhaps some, but I resent the use of history as a tool to understand the present, especially when the aforementioned disciplines are clearly far better placed to do so.

    I'm referring to generic Feminism. When I say that I don't think that Feminism is correct, I mean that Feminism is false.
    I'd like to try and clarify some of the confusion...

    "Feminism" is historical by its very definition (or at least one of its formal definitions); there are two, which is where I think the disconnect is. There's a well cited write-up about "Feminism" on Wikipedia, which focuses on one of the definitions. I'll throw in an excerpt:

    "Feminism" is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women. Feminism concepts overlap women's rights concepts. Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men's liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles. "Feminists" are people with beliefs and behaviors that are based on feminism (as defined at the beginning of this paragraph).

    Because "feminism" means a collection of movements - depending on the time, culture and country you are talking about (and "time" is the keyword here) - feminists around the world had different causes and goals; thus, it had different meaning to different people.

    There's also another definition of "feminism". Some of you are using the above definition and some of you are using another more general definition, which is in the dictionary alongside the definition I stated (above). It appears @onemoretime comes close to defining that in his question (quoted below). I'm also understanding Helios to be referring to the very same general definition out of the dictionary when saying, "generic feminism". I think they are talking about this <--please click the link and see definition 1.

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Quick question: is there any reason, other than tradition, that we still call it "feminism" and not "gender egalitarianism?"

  6. #146
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,023

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    I'm sure it might garner me some respect. I'm not sure why I'd want to state a falsity to win respect I don't particularly desire, though.
    Therein lies the rub. There's no objectivity to the flow of your logic.

    Language is a form of communication. If everyone disagrees with your definition of a word, while subjectively you have the right to your belief in the definition of the word, it doesn't make your interpretation accurate as it relates to the word, particularly for everyone else.

    As an example of such, let's take the word strawberry. Most people would take it for a red coloured fruit, shaped where the cylindrical top tapers down to a point on the bottom. There are many tan coloured seeds that are attached to the outside of the fruit, most often sweet and rich in flavour but sometimes a bit tart. Now your definition is that it's actually a fruit that's greenish in colour, where it's not cylindrical, more oval from a top view where it does taper to a blunt end on the bottom but not to a point. You also state that it's sour and sometimes bitter.

    While both definitions are somewhat accurate, most people are looking at the positives, as well as the average nature of strawberries. Your definition appears to surround unripe strawberries that aren't of average shape or flavour.

    It's very much the same logic as the law analogy expressed in my last post. To use an old adage "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". There are no perfect people or concepts and to discard the concept due to a lack of perfection particularly when focused on the extreme negative elements of the concept, isn't an objective view or logical in nature.

  7. #147
    Senior Member Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    273

    Default

    I've no idea what Jenaphor is trying to say.

  8. #148
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,023

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    I've no idea what Jenaphor is trying to say.
    What part don't you understand so I can try to explain it in a way that you do understand?

  9. #149
    Senior Member Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    What part don't you understand so I can try to explain it in a way that you do understand?
    All of it. It seems like waffle, to me.

  10. #150
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,023

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    All of it. It seems like waffle, to me.
    What does the word waffle mean to you?

Similar Threads

  1. Enneagram: degree of frequency of the differents variants.
    By Speed Gavroche in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 11-29-2017, 05:51 PM
  2. Testing your degree of Trumpness
    By Typh0n in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 07-24-2017, 08:38 AM
  3. Works of fiction and feminism
    By Viridian in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-21-2011, 10:29 PM
  4. To those who identify with some aspect(s) of feminism....
    By Qre:us in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 194
    Last Post: 08-13-2010, 06:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO