Degrees of Feminism

[Helios]

When you say "generic feminism," you're talking about both formal definitions of "feminism", correct? I'm basing that on your equation above. Here are the formal definitions I'm referring to:

1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.

It's the second definition that disturbs you, no? (As represented by the second half of your equation.) Because of the unknown and the knowns of what that entails in the present. Which explains why you don't care about the history of the feminist movement. You are only concerned with the present state of affairs that affects you now and not what led up to it. Am I right??

So you coined the term "generic feminism" to encompass the second definition of feminism (above) and all of its 'knows' and 'unknowns' to *you*, correct?

In summary, you agree with the first definition of equality for the sexes, but not the second definition, as it also applies to the present state of the feminism movement, which you don't agree with 100% of what's being advocated there, correct?

Not quite, but you're considerably closer than anyone else in this thread. It's rather refreshing.

Now:

"2. The movement organized around this belief."

and

"{miscellaneous propositions}"

are not synonymous. As subsequent elaboration has explained, the propositions populating the "{miscellaneous propositions}" category are all manifestly false ("absurd"); I could just as easily name this category "{manifestly false miscellaneous propositions}". Moreover, it'd be fair to say that the propositions all share some relation to "gender issues". Additionally, the category holds millions of propositions, some of which have yet to be conceived of in the mind of any person.

What matters is that when someone assents to Feminism, they are likely assenting to "generic Feminism"; when they assent to generic Feminism, they accept at least one of the propositions belonging to the {miscellaneous propositions} category (all of which are (manifestly) false!); and, in doing this, have bought into a ludicrous ideology.

I hope this is clear for you. If not, I welcome any further queries.

 

[Orangey]

How tedious this is. All Helios has done is make a definition which allows him to say that feminism is false without engaging in any sort of substantive discussion on the subject or properly defending his position. It's like me saying that "I believe Christianity to be false, if Christianity means belief in things that I believe to be false."

The problem, which I have been saying over and over, is that Helios is failing to recognize that no matter how much he says that the {miscellaneous propositions} are all false, that cannot possibly be true in reality unless he's excluding other gender-feminism-related propositions that are true but which, for some reason, are not included in the formula. And if he's doing that, then the definition makes no sense because those propositions should certainly be included, but if they were, then his rejection of "generic feminism" would be incorrect.

 

[rav3n]

Helios: I wouldn't say I hate watermelons if they didn't have seeds. Without seeds I would like watermelons. But since there are watermelons with seeds, I reject watermelons.

Other members: Not all watermelons have seeds.

Helios: If all watermelons were seedless, I would like watermelons. But since there are watermelons with seeds, I hate watermelons.

Other members: But not all watermelons have seeds. They're mostly sold seedless nowadays.

Helios: But there are still watermelons with seeds so I hate watermelons.

Other members:

 

[Helios]

Helios: I wouldn't say I hate watermelons if they didn't have seeds. Without seeds I would like watermelons. But since there are watermelons with seeds, I reject watermelons.

Other members: Not all watermelons have seeds.

Helios: If all watermelons were seedless, I would like watermelons. But since there are watermelons with seeds, I hate watermelons.

Other members: But not all watermelons have seeds. They're mostly sold seedless nowadays.

Helios: But there are still watermelons with seeds so I hate watermelons.

Other members:

Not even vaguely analogous to the present situation. What a pity. I should also note that the post to which I'm responding and your post previous to it both beg the question.

Incidentally, is English your first language?

 

[Thalassa]

Not even vaguely analogous to the present situation. What a pity.

Incidentally, is English your first language?

Her example makes perfect sense to me and I majored in English literature. It is a perfectly apt metaphor, as was her previous strawberry example, as was Orangey's "greeb" example.

 

[Helios]

Relevant. A more authoritative source :

A stipulative definition imparts a meaning to the defined term, and involves no commitment that the assigned meaning agrees with prior uses (if any) of the term. Stipulative definitions are epistemologically special. One has a right to stipulatively define terms as one sees fit; the constraints here are practical, not epistemological.

One wonders why several members of Typology Central seem to take such exception to this.

 

[Thalassa]

I think you're either a troll or a highly verbose individual who has mistaken a large vocabulary full of academic jargon and grammatical precision for ability to both present and comprehend SUBSTANCE.

You fail on both making good examples for the substance of your argument and also for the ability to comprehend the substance in others'.

You're blinded by words. You miss the forest for the trees. You have an overwhelming amount of Si/Fe.

 

[Orangey]

Relevant.

Definist

The definist fallacy occurs when someone unfairly defines a term so that a controversial position is made easier to defend. Same as the Persuasive Definition.

Example:

During a controversy about the truth or falsity of atheism, the fallacious reasoner says, “Let’s define ‘atheist’ as someone who doesn’t yet realize that God exists.”

 

[rav3n]

Not even vaguely analogous to the present situation. What a pity. I should also note that the post to which I'm responding and your post previous to it both beg the question.

Denying an analogy doesn't make it inaccurate.

Incidentally, is English your first language?

Difficult to say since there were three being absorbed simultaneously.

 

[Viridian]

Not the Dodge one. It just makes me want to wring someone's neck.

How dare those women expect men to behave with some sort of civility? It's as if we were something other than beer-drinking troglodytes!

Also, Lol @ cussing being automatically taken as, somewhat ironically, emotional outbursts just because it came from a woman. Or are you going to try and salvage your "somewhat ironic" snide remark and try to say it wasn't hinting at the fact that you feel women cannot debate without emotional outbursts?

Women can't argue, silly, they can only nag and overreact! Haven't you read my post circa page three of this thread?

 

[Helios]

Denying an analogy doesn't make it inaccurate.

Perhaps it is accurate. Unfortunately, you've done nothing to justify a claim that it is-and thus you are question begging.

Difficult to say since there were three being absorbed simultaneously.

This explains some things for me. Thanks.

 

[Thalassa]

Perhaps it is accurate. Unfortunately, you've done nothing to justify a claim that it is-and thus you are question begging.

This explains some things for me. Thanks.

It explains nothing. I understand her perfectly.

Your little show isn't doing anything to further your cause. We've all justified the claim that you don't know what you're talking about, as you made up the term generic feminism and seem to know nothing about first wave feminism, second wave feminism, or third wave feminism, which are very basic things. You could have learned quite simply without having ever taken a women's studies class or anything that would offend you that deeply.

Having an argument about subject matter which you do not understand, and making up your own words, but then turning around and acting like you know better than the people you're discussing it with is pretentious and pseudo-intellectual at best, and absolutely absurd at worst.

 

[Helios]

In the interest of fairness, I'll properly address Jenaphor's previous attempt at justification, which she has declined to clarify:

Therein lies the rub. There's no objectivity to the flow of your logic.

I haven't the faintest idea what this phrase means.

Language is a form of communication. If everyone disagrees with your definition of a word

It makes no sense to "disagree" with a stipulative definition, since they are neither right nor wrong. At most, one could disagree that a stipulative definition is useful, but no more. As said earlier:

Relevant. A more authoritative source :

A stipulative definition imparts a meaning to the defined term, and involves no commitment that the assigned meaning agrees with prior uses (if any) of the term. Stipulative definitions are epistemologically special. One has a right to stipulatively define terms as one sees fit; the constraints here are practical, not epistemological.

One wonders why several members of Typology Central seem to take such exception to this.

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.

I don't what it means to believe in a definition of a word. I did not interpret the term "generic Feminism"; I (stipulatively) defined it.

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.

Neither definition is "accurate", because it is inappropriate to talk of "accuracy" in this context: you've simply provided a lexical definition of "strawberry" as well as a stipulative one. I don't what it means for a definition to "surround" something.

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.

I've no idea what's being said here. It seems to be some sort of conclusion, which, given the quality of the foregoing attempt at justification, is probably inaccurate.

 

[Thalassa]

You certainly use a lot of words for someone whose comprehension is so poor. You seem quite adept at your specialized jargon but can't even work out the meaning of a post that I would presume any intelligent, educated person could understand.

Your logic (the way it flows) is not objective. Your logic is subjective. It is not based upon any external measurable thing.

Language *is* a form of communication. We are saying that you presenting the argument that you disagree with generic feminism is not a reference to anything that has been established as a real, feminist theory. You're disagreeing with some particular manifestation of feminism, and then saying that all feminism is incorrect based upon this premise. You are not using terms that suggest you even understand feminist theory in the slightest.

Your definition "surrounds" something by encompassing the abstract concept she's attempting to illustrate with strawberries.

You can't defend an argument for feminism being incorrect if there are no objective parameters for what you're disagreeing with. You're going to have to actually refer to something in feminist theory and say that the entire movement of feminism is "incorrect" for some inherent reasoning in feminist theory, which you appear to have no knowledge of.

I think you're an ISFJ (note that I love ISFJs [but not you, sir]); I just think you use way too much Si and Fe for INTP...and just have a lot of Ti for an ISFJ.

Either that or you're like teenaged INTP college student who is in a hellacious Ti/Si loop (still doesn't explain the Fe, though) who then fell face first into a philosophy book and forgot to use his Ne.

 

[onemoretime]

Now that I've finished prepping dinner in the kitchen (yes, honestly! ), I can apply myself for a bit to this discussion.

Disagree. Objective logic considers all aspects of the viewed concept or object. Once all aspects are considered, it's no longer rationale that's focused on solely the negative.

The problem is that what is considered to be "all aspects" ultimately ends up as a subjective evaluation. It's quite frankly impossible to conceive of all aspects, because there are essentially an infinite number of aspects associated with any concept, in its broader and narrower scales.

Did you notice that not once did I say he wasn't entitled to his view? I recall saying that he was entitled to his view but that his definition was based on rationale, instead of objective logic. And considering how he's been purporting to logic in his rebuttal to a number of members, it's necessary to illustrate his own subjectivity.

His logic clashes with your own logic. There's no harm in that. What's the point of all this fighting, then?

This is a two-fold issue. The first issue is his rationale, that he believes his views to be objective in nature where they're highly subjective. He's welcome to believe his subjective view but if he wants to improve his world view, he might want to opt out of his subjective reasoning, taking all parts of the whole concept in mind, prior to rejection.

A very subjective line of reasoning, in and of itself. There's nothing wrong with subjectivity; embracing it can be a very refreshing experience. Or it might not be. That's what makes it so interesting to me.

And quite frankly, it's disappointing to see a Ti-dom who's incapable of objective logic.

Now, come on, let's stop ascribing these things to functions. That's just silly.

 

[rav3n]

Perhaps it is accurate. Unfortunately, you've done nothing to justify a claim that it is-and thus you are question begging.

The accuracy is blatantly obvious to everyone but yourself and yet, you still continue playing semantical games. Mayhaps English isn't your first language hence the opaqueness? It would be preferable to believe there's a struggle with an online translator since anything else would point to the unflattering.

This explains some things for me. Thanks.

What does it explain to you? You're welcome.

In the interest of fairness, I'll properly address Jenaphor's previous attempt at justification, which she has declined to clarify:

Declined? It appears you've stipulatively defined my actions.

I haven't the faintest idea what this phrase means.

Provided are a number of definitions from an authoritive source.. In the interests of brevity, not all words have been defined, only the ones that might be considered challenging to you. Hope this helps with comprehension.

------------------------------------------------
S: objectivity, objectiveness (judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices)
------------------------------------------------


Noun

• S: flow, flowing (the motion characteristic of fluids (liquids or gases))
• S: flow, flow rate, rate of flow (the amount of fluid that flows in a given time)
• S: flow, stream (the act of flowing or streaming; continuous progression)
• S: flow (any uninterrupted stream or discharge)
• S: stream, flow (something that resembles a flowing stream in moving continuously) "a stream of people emptied from the terminal"; "the museum had planned carefully for the flow of visitors"
• S: stream, flow, current (dominant course (suggestive of running water) of successive events or ideas) "two streams of development run through American history"; "stream of consciousness"; "the flow of thought"; "the current of history"
• S: menstruation, menses, menstruum, catamenia, period, flow (the monthly discharge of blood from the uterus of nonpregnant women from puberty to menopause) "the women were sickly and subject to excessive menstruation"; "a woman does not take the gout unless her menses be stopped"--Hippocrates; "the semen begins to appear in males and to be emitted at the same time of life that the catamenia begin to flow in females"--Aristotle

Verb

• S: (v) flow, flux (move or progress freely as if in a stream) "The crowd flowed out of the stadium"
• S: (v) run, flow, feed, course (move along, of liquids) "Water flowed into the cave"; "the Missouri feeds into the Mississippi"
• S: (v) flow (cause to flow) "The artist flowed the washes on the paper"
• S: (v) flow (be abundantly present) "The champagne flowed at the wedding"
• S: (v) hang, fall, flow (fall or flow in a certain way) "This dress hangs well"; "Her long black hair flowed down her back"
• S: (v) flow (cover or swamp with water)
• S: (v) menstruate, flow (undergo menstruation) "She started menstruating at the age of 11"

------------------------------------------------


Noun

• S: logic (the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference)
• S: logic (reasoned and reasonable judgment) "it made a certain kind of logic"
• S: logic (the principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation) "economic logic requires it"; "by the logic of war"
• S: logic (the system of operations performed by a computer that underlies the machine's representation of logical operations)
• S: logic, logical system, system of logic (a system of reasoning)

--------------------------------------------------

It makes no sense to "disagree" with a stipulative definition, since they are neither right nor wrong. At most, one could disagree that a stipulative definition is useful, but no more. As said earlier:

Relevant. A more authoritative source :

I see. So if I were to stipulatively define "Helios" as "He who uses obfuscation and semantics to avoid admitting that his beliefs and understanding about Feminism are irrational and deliberately ignorant", this would be acceptable? After all, it makes no sense to "disagree" with a stipulative definition, since they're neither right or wrong. At most, one could disagree that a stipulative definition is useful, but no more...

One wonders why several members of Typology Central seem to take such exception to this.

I don't what it means to believe in a definition of a word. I did not interpret the term "generic Feminism"; I (stipulatively) defined it.

Neither definition is "accurate", because it is inappropriate to talk of "accuracy" in this context: you've simply provided a lexical definition of "strawberry" as well as a stipulative one. I don't what it means for a definition to "surround" something.

Refer to my above response.

I've no idea what's being said here. It seems to be some sort of conclusion, which, given the quality of the foregoing attempt at justification, is probably inaccurate.

In order to suggest inaccuracy, it's necessary to comprehend the prior.

 

[rav3n]

The problem is that what is considered to be "all aspects" ultimately ends up as a subjective evaluation. It's quite frankly impossible to conceive of all aspects, because there are essentially an infinite number of aspects associated with any concept, in its broader and narrower scales.

Redefining the scope to a pinpoint somewhere in left field, isn't the answer.

His logic clashes with your own logic. There's no harm in that. What's the point of all this fighting, then?

If you feel this discussion is pointless, then why are you challenging my posts? While you have the right to do so, it makes no sense to suggest a cease discussion when your actions reflect the exact same actions you're reviling.

A very subjective line of reasoning, in and of itself. There's nothing wrong with subjectivity; embracing it can be a very refreshing experience. Or it might not be. That's what makes it so interesting to me.

Considering his condescending tone with other members, the least he can do is to admit he's being irrational.

Now, come on, let's stop ascribing these things to functions. That's just silly.

Distinction, Ti-dom not Ti.

 

[Engineer]

And welcome to Stage 3 of Forum Discussion Syndrome: Arguing About the Motivations of the Other Poster's Post
Already you're showing signs of moving into Stage 4: Arguing About the Specific Definitions of Words the Other Poster Is Using

On topic, I actually would consider myself a feminist (though I am but a lowly man)-- I'm for women being completely equal with men, so long as we both understand that we are gifted in different ways. On a baseline, we're all the same, but there are some things women are naturally better at than men, and vice-versa. I feel like one of the problems with the radical feminists is that they take their views so extremely that people (average men-people especially) take their motivations as being "I want to be a man" rather than "I deserve the same rights as men". That and anyone yelling things loudly and angrily gets people mad at them. No one like extremists.

 

[Helios]

The accuracy is blatantly obvious to everyone but yourself and yet, you still continue playing semantical games. Mayhaps English isn't your first language hence the opaqueness? It would be preferable to believe there's a struggle with an online translator since anything else would point to the unflattering.

I don't agree that I have played "semantical games"; I don't agree that I've been unclear; English is my first language. Feel free to inform me when you're prepared to justify the claims that you've made here-I've more than done the same for my own. If you don't agree that I have, it seems we're at an impasse.

What does it explain to you? You're welcome.

A few of the expressions you used made me wonder whether you were a fluent, but non-native, English speaker.

Declined? It appears you've stipulatively defined my actions.

Er, what? I haven't proffered a stipulative definition. I've simply described your actions: you were given an opportunity to clarify your remarks, but did not.

Provided are a number of definitions from an authoritive source.. In the interests of brevity, not all words have been defined, only the ones that might be considered challenging to you. Hope this helps with comprehension.

I now know what you mean by "objectivity". Regrettably, the meanings of the other terms as you used them remain obscure: listing all the lexical definitions you can find for the words doesn't help me understand what you meant when you used them above. It thus doesn't help me understand what's meant by the rather unusual phrase "There's no objectivity to the flow of your logic".

It's like me saying to a friend that "God is good" and, upon being asked what I mean by "good", appealing to this. My friend would understandably be pretty confused.

I see. So if I were to stipulatively define "Helios" as "He who uses obfuscation and semantics to avoid admitting that his beliefs and understanding about Feminism are irrational and deliberately ignorant", this would be acceptable? After all, it makes no sense to "disagree" with a stipulative definition, since they're neither right or wrong. At most, one could disagree that a stipulative definition is useful, but no more...

Sure: you can stipulatively define any term-even ones which don't exist-in any way you want. I could take the term "jenaphor" and stipulatively define it as an adjective meaning "late, i.e. tardy", and then truly say "The train is jenaphor". I'm not sure why I'd want to, though. This is all philosophy 101.

 

[onemoretime]

Redefining the scope to a pinpoint somewhere in left field, isn't the answer.

It's an answer. Just not your answer.

If you feel this discussion is pointless, then why are you challenging my posts? While you have the right to do so, it makes no sense to suggest a cease discussion when your actions reflect the exact same actions you're reviling.

Mostly because it's interesting to me. Forgive me if I have implied that I revile your actions. That was not my intention. Instead, I'm just asking for you to consider that, perhaps, what he's talking about reflects an accurate assessment of reality as he perceives it. Furthermore, this assessment is just as valid as your own. Finally, if this is the case, perhaps it would be better to discuss the finer points of each others' perceptions, rather than dismiss each other forthwith. I'm asking you to do this, and not him, because I perceive you as the more reasonable person in the discussion, even if we may not agree on all points.

Considering his condescending tone with other members, the least he can do is to admit he's being irrational.

What purpose would that serve? Are you so unsure as to the reasonableness of your disagreement that you need him to validate it? If he's going to be a dick, he's going to be a dick. You debase yourself by caring about what he thinks.

Distinction, Ti-dom not Ti.

Point still stands. Functions describe preferences and tendencies, rather than processes.