Orangey
Blah
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,354
- MBTI Type
- ESTP
- Enneagram
- 6w5
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.