A few things:
On what basis do we define gender/sex?
On what basis do we define rationality/irrationality?
Last but not least, is appearing logical the same as being logical in an actual sense?
How do we define and understand logic?
With these questions in mind, I think it is logical to surmise that the OP says more about how he in particular sees the world and the logical biases he operates on when understanding said world, than it does about the reality he's trying to understand.
Your questions are all fair, but your synthesis is crap.
The point of the thread is to discuss these questions, and no particular position was given in the OP - it was merely a question.
I get that you're new here, so you might not get that this is how I do things, but for future reference, don't try the philosophical oneupsmanship on me, especially not when the "oneupsmanship" you're attempting not only was implicit in the OP, but are issues the OP dealt with philosophically 10 years ago.
So...if I wanted to continue the drama on this forum, Id start a thread titled:
'Are women on average more "emotionally balanced" than men?'
God, I don't even know if that's what it ought be called.
Balanced?
I'd call it "more in touch with their emotions".
Amargith said:
After all, society encourages women to deal with and express their emotions, whereas men are often told to keep their emotions to themselves, and ignore them instead of dealing with them properly.
And for that matter, could one argue that women therefore have more of a shot of being actually rational, since their emotional mastery will prevent their emotions from actually interfering with the use of rationality?
Meanwhile, men are encouraged to be more rational, one could argue that as their emotional baggage is more likely to actually affect their reasoning capabilities and encourage instead a faux-rational facade.
As Coriolis said, one could make that argument.
But one would be looking at a very specific part of the total picture, a part which comprises no more than ~30% of the whole.
It's a worthwhile part to pay attention to, but don't mistake the forest for some of the trees.
Perhaps this counter-argument is crap?
Perhaps it is; or perhaps it's spot on.
Truth is, I didn't even state the counterargument(s).
I just stated the conclusion.
fia said:
I am presenting hypothesis not declarations...
Just fyi, your posts almost never read this way.
And that's not just a subjective opinion/read on things, it's an objective analysis of the way you use language to present your arguments.
It's also one of the primary reasons I can't stand your posts.
fia said:
...and I'm willing to admit any flaws in my position if presented with reasons that it is incorrect...
Do you really not recognize how utterly futile arguing about fundamental axioms (over the internet, no less) tends to be?
fia said:
...but how you feel about it is irrelevant.
Actually, that's not true at all, and is egregiously false if my feelings about it are based on sound reasoning.
I'm not sure if the irony was intentional (I somewhat doubt it), but if a man were to say such a thing to a woman, you would likely be one of the first to call it gaslighting.
fia said:
Edit: so maybe you are giving a completely subjective, personal feeling and opinion based response to kid about ego being irrational? Because you are demonstrating what I was talking about by making it look like the opinion of your subjective self is enough to demonstrate truth?
That's one of about three to five things I was going for.
You clearly did not get it in its entirety, tho.