Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total)
48 online now:
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Happy Birthday: Diomedes
Post Volume: Total: 877,646 Year: 9,394/23,288 Month: 409/1,544 Week: 123/561 Day: 26/50 Hour: 5/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How accurate is this email?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 93 (386232)
02-20-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
02-20-2007 12:54 PM


Re: Answering the critics
its the killing of an innocent life, but the sparing of a guilty one who has taken other innocent lives. That's ironic.

Another way to look at it is preserving the lives of sentient humans, and not allowing those lives to be irrevocably altered by that which has no sentience. That's consistent.

But sex education is more about telling kids to wear condoms and less to do with any actual academic standard.

Since condoms go on the penis, how is that not about physiology?

Which is pretty silly considering the root of 49 has nothing to do with race.

Hey, great. If that was all that was on so-called "standardized" tests, they probably wouldn't be racist.

But it's not. And so many of the supposedly-universal situations and examples are universal only to white people - which is what makes them racist.

Did you know that, even in the 70's, IQ tests - supposedly designed to measure intelligence absent any culturally-confounding factors - used examples of bowling scoring to test intelligence? Absent any explanation of the rules of bowling, of course. Now, I'm a white guy from Minnesota, and even I don't know how to score bowling. Because I hate bowling. Can you imagine growing up in a community where nobody ever bowled, and then seeing that question on a test? How many points did you just lose from your putative "intelligence" because you weren't a white person from the suburbs?

Unfortunately, the ideology writes checks that it can't cash.

I think socialism works pretty well when all participants know each other pretty well. For instance, families are nearly universally socialist. Churches, too. Socialism is, in fact, one of the most common "emergent" economies at small scales. So to say it doesn't work is to ignore the myriad examples of socialism working just fine in a number of situations. You just don't think of them as "socialist", usually, but that's exactly what they are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 12:54 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Taz, posted 02-20-2007 3:45 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 5:09 PM crashfrog has responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 6026
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 47 of 93 (386233)
02-20-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Jon
02-17-2007 12:50 PM


quote:
You think that Iran and North Korea have been trying to get hold of nuclear weaponry because of the invasion of Iraq? I'm not seeing the correlation. Can you connect the dots for me?

If you saw a crazed psycho running down the street stabbing everyone he met, wouldn't you remove your handgun from your purse and ready yourself for the fight? I mean, it's not like you can just pick up your country and run inside.

What did this have anything to do with what I posted?

quote:
By the Federal Government though?

I guess we could always ask Britain to fund it for us.

Or here's an idea. How about people fund it themselves like every one else in the world has to do? The sole function of the government is to protect its citizens. Art doesn't factor in to that.

quote:
Call me old fashion, but I think schools should be going to an actual education. Its the job of parents to teach their kids about sex, not some fruitloop that I didn't give permission to.

Then let the parents teach, and when the kids get to school, they will be a good week ahead of the rest of the students whose parents were too busy working two jobs just so they could pay for the food and rent which aren't completely covered by the low government funding for such things that help people with low incomes and requires that they still slave like mine monkeys.

Strawman. Just because some people spend less time with their kids than they like doesn't mean they can't take five minutes out of their day to learn about the birds and the bees. But this is besides the point. Schools are to foster academic learning, not learn about social ideas. If they are going to teach about social mores, then they could also teach how to have effective relationships, not how to place a piece of plastic on your penis. America is already woefully behind academically as it is. I think we need all of the alloted time going to learning.


"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Jon, posted 02-17-2007 12:50 PM Jon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2007 1:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 93 (386235)
02-20-2007 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Hyroglyphx
02-20-2007 1:15 PM


How about people fund it themselves like every one else in the world has to do?

What the hell are you talking about? The only countries in the world that don't have public funding for the arts are the dysfunctional countries that don't even have public funding for things like sewers and roads.

Public funding for the arts is a feature of every modern, functional government I'm aware of. What on Earth are you talking about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 1:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18329
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 49 of 93 (386237)
02-20-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Fosdick
02-20-2007 1:11 PM


Re: Gender Roles & Nature
Hoot Mon writes:

But if it's nitty-gritty you want, then "gender" is only a literary term, not a biological term.

That should have been your first clue that we're not talking about biology.

(The fact that this is not a science forum should have been your zeroth clue.)


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Fosdick, posted 02-20-2007 1:11 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Fosdick, posted 02-20-2007 1:39 PM ringo has responded
 Message 51 by Chiroptera, posted 02-20-2007 1:41 PM ringo has not yet responded

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4049 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 50 of 93 (386238)
02-20-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ringo
02-20-2007 1:25 PM


Re: Gender Roles & Nature
Ringo wrote:

What does homosexuality have to do with gender roles? Males are still males and females are still females...

That should have been your first clue that we're not talking about biology.


Sorry. I was unaware that males and females are not biological...which makes me wonder how they accomplish non-biological sex. That would seem kind of dull to me.

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 02-20-2007 1:25 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2007 1:46 PM Fosdick has not yet responded
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 02-20-2007 1:47 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 93 (386239)
02-20-2007 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ringo
02-20-2007 1:25 PM


Proposed new forum rule:
From now on, only Dan Carroll gets to respond to Hoot Mon.

No offense, Ringo.


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 02-20-2007 1:25 PM ringo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-20-2007 1:53 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 52 of 93 (386240)
02-20-2007 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Fosdick
02-20-2007 1:11 PM


Re: Gender Roles & Nature
Right, sort of, in your signature pedantic way.

Like you weren't being pedantic? Like you're still not? Please, HM. I've got no problem with a little pedanticism, but don't act like it's beneath you even as you're doing it, ok? (And at least when I'm being pedantic, HM, I'm also being factual. No such luck for you.)

So then we're back to male-female roles in nature, which have played out quite well for billions of years.

Sure. Males donate sperm. Women carry offspring to term. In humans, anyway. Of course, male and female roles differ by species. (Billions of years? I think you'll find that sexual reproduction is a pretty recent, and still rare, development in organisms.)

What does that have to do with gender roles, which is what we were talking about?

I'd hate to see where we would be today if Nature had chosen homosexuality over heterosexuality as way to put her males and females into service.

Gosh, you mean like the vast majority of living things on Earth, which have no sex? I mean what are bacteria (in your world where there's only homosexuality and heterosexuality) if not tiny, microscopic, bathhouse buggerers?

I have to ask - do you think about the things you write before you hit post? Or are you so convinced that the drivel you generate from your colossal ignorance about the natural world is so insightful that it merits absolutely no review? Have you gotten the point yet that we don't, for the most part, consider you the vast, shining mind in science matters that you apparently style yourself to be?

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Fosdick, posted 02-20-2007 1:11 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Fosdick, posted 02-20-2007 3:05 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 93 (386241)
02-20-2007 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Fosdick
02-20-2007 1:39 PM


Re: Gender Roles & Nature
Hey, no pedanticism, right, HM? We know how you hate to bite ankles, and all. Or something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Fosdick, posted 02-20-2007 1:39 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18329
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 54 of 93 (386242)
02-20-2007 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Fosdick
02-20-2007 1:39 PM


Re: Gender Roles & Nature
Hoot Mon writes:

Sorry. I was unaware that males and females are not biological....

Then try to increase your awareness.

The discussion of gender roles in this topic is about sociology (and possibly psychology).


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Fosdick, posted 02-20-2007 1:39 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 93 (386244)
02-20-2007 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Chiroptera
02-20-2007 1:41 PM


Re: Proposed new forum rule:
Do I get a neat title, like AdminMasochist or something?


"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Chiroptera, posted 02-20-2007 1:41 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4049 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 56 of 93 (386251)
02-20-2007 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
02-20-2007 1:42 PM


Re: Gender Roles & Nature
Gosh, you mean like the vast majority of living things on Earth, which have no sex? I mean what are bacteria (in your world where there's only homosexuality and heterosexuality) if not tiny, microscopic, bathhouse buggerers?

Don't tell that to the countless millions of E. coli, conjugating lustily in your lower intestines. Here's a picture of such an orgy:

—HM

Edited by Hoot Mon, : added photo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2007 1:42 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2007 3:32 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 93 (386255)
02-20-2007 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Fosdick
02-20-2007 3:05 PM


Re: Gender Roles & Nature
Here's a picture of such an orgy:

That's pretty gay, don't you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Fosdick, posted 02-20-2007 3:05 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1841 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 58 of 93 (386260)
02-20-2007 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by crashfrog
02-20-2007 1:15 PM


Re: Answering the critics
crashfrog writes:

Another way to look at it is preserving the lives of sentient humans, and not allowing those lives to be irrevocably altered by that which has no sentience. That's consistent.


Not that I don't agree with you... scratch that I really don't agree with you. But you better be careful with what you are saying. After all, it's really up for debate whether a 5 day old newborn is sentient or not. My dogs are smarter... or rather act smarter than my 5 months old nephew.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2007 1:15 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2007 5:39 PM Taz has responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 6026
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 59 of 93 (386275)
02-20-2007 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by crashfrog
02-20-2007 1:15 PM


Re: Answering the critics
Another way to look at it is preserving the lives of sentient humans, and not allowing those lives to be irrevocably altered by that which has no sentience. That's consistent.

We'll be sure to pull the plug on you in the event you lose consciousness. That aside, you do realize that even a fetus is sentient, (as if that were an argument for the cause). They are completely aware even if they don't yet possess the intellectual capacity to know where they are. But if you still want to assert this, when exactly does "sentience" develop in humans? Magically at birth?

Since condoms go on the penis, how is that not about physiology?

Then so is putting your shoes on by the same premise.

Since you seem to agree that standardized tests are in fact "racist," can you explain to all of us what it is that makes it racist? Because I'm mystified at how such an argument ever formulated in the first place.

But it's not. And so many of the supposedly-universal situations and examples are universal only to white people - which is what makes them racist.

Did you know that, even in the 70's, IQ tests - supposedly designed to measure intelligence absent any culturally-confounding factors - used examples of bowling scoring to test intelligence? Absent any explanation of the rules of bowling, of course. Now, I'm a white guy from Minnesota, and even I don't know how to score bowling. Because I hate bowling. Can you imagine growing up in a community where nobody ever bowled, and then seeing that question on a test? How many points did you just lose from your putative "intelligence" because you weren't a white person from the suburbs?

This sounds like a legitimate grievance so long as they did not, in fact, explain the scoring system used in the game of bowling. This is an interesting topic and I'd like to go more in to detail on it. I'm gonna write up a thread on IQ when I'm done with this post.

I think socialism works pretty well when all participants know each other pretty well. For instance, families are nearly universally socialist. Churches, too. Socialism is, in fact, one of the most common "emergent" economies at small scales. So to say it doesn't work is to ignore the myriad examples of socialism working just fine in a number of situations. You just don't think of them as "socialist", usually, but that's exactly what they are.

Love should be socialist, not an economy. Anyway, maybe I'll expound on that later, but I want to delve in to the IQ thread right now.


"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2007 1:15 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2007 5:58 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

nator
Member (Idle past 719 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 60 of 93 (386278)
02-20-2007 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by GDR
02-20-2007 10:43 AM


It comes down to this.

Being against abortion is being in favor of forced birth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by GDR, posted 02-20-2007 10:43 AM GDR has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020