"Critique of Womankind"

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Psychology - Psychotherapy Forum » "Critique of Womankind"

Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2

Author

Message

R. Steve Walz

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:58 pm

Guest

The_Sage wrote:

Quote:

Reply to article by: "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com

We do not have to understand what they are in order to observe what they are.

WRONG! It is easy to mistake something cultural for something inherited.

And how do you tell the difference between the two? Wild arse guessing? Blind
faith assertion? Denial?
-------------------------

I never have any trouble. All I do is see if the behavior by itself
matches that of another culture but not all cultures. Since everybody
doesn't do that, but some do, it is cultural and learned. If it were
inherited it would be so universal there wouldn't be this diascussion,
there couldn't be, no one would understand such a thing.

Quote:

This is why memes have to be distinguished from genes.

Memes are an example of where people have to learn to distinguish the difference
between science and science fiction.
----------------------------

Memes are simply the notional ideas behind learned behavior.

Quote:

Memes are not a scientifically validated concept, they are another pop
psychology fad.

The nature of memes has nothing to do with some magical particles like
atoms or genes, memes are admittedly and affirmatively ONLY IDEAS,
and we KNOW how ideas are propagated, you inflict them on children!

If memes are only ideas, why not just only call them ideas instead of memes?
--------------------------------

You could, but they aren't ideas, because while you think them, you
don't "think them up" as you can some ideas. Meme is a fairly good and
distinguishing descriptive for ideas we ar afflicted with and which we
can inflict on children and the gullible.

Quote:

Behaviors can be inherited and not be just "merely cultural"...

That assertion cannot BE demonstrated with ANY certainty.

It has already been done with absolute certainty. Where do you think migratory
behaviors come from?
------------------------

What I meant is that human behaviors aren't.

Quote:

"Consider for instance, those animals that have specifically differentiated
anatomical characteristics, those of the teeth or something like that. Well,
they have a mental behavior which is in accordance with those organs"
(CONVERSATIONS WITH JUNG, by Richard Evans, pg 83)

You mean they chew?

No.
-------------------------------

Well, then tell us.

Quote:

That's NOT any kind of a thing we're talking
about, more we are discussing here the things they seem to choose
to chew, or the mythology that they have developed ABOUT chewing.

Such anatomical allegations of behaviors is NOT psychological, and
then consequently NOT sociological or anthropological.

WRONG. We are talking about behaviors that go along with sharp teeth and sharp
claws of a tiger for example. Do tigers act like chickens? No. They are
agressive, violent, and predatory.
--------------

So are chickens. Ever try to catch one? They hunt bugs and even mice.

In any case, we're NOT talking about humans, and predators are often
tame-able, meaning their behavior is far from wholly instinctive.

Quote:

Their behaviors match their physiques, and
they don't have to learn how to act like tigers, they are born with those
behaviors already built in.
--------------------------

Not relevant to human problems.

Quote:

Women are not a separate species from men, so whatever is in their brains is in
yours as well.

Sure. But there may be varations, we simply don't know the limits of
the cultural.

The limits of the cultural are geographic and racial.
-----------------------

Nonsense.

Quote:

Why do
you think that it was women that have been repressed and oppressed by men for
all these thousands of years and not the other way around? Luck of the draw?
Pure chance?

Duh! Physical size and strength??

Then why did dinosaurs go extinct? Evolution favors the survivial of the
fittest, not the strongest or biggest or even the most intelligent, just the
fittest.

Sure. But political oppression occurs by violence or the threat of
violence.

WRONG. Political oppression starts due to the passive behavior of the ones being
oppressed.

We're not disccussing any speciel survivability.

Correct.

Also, this oppression was far from
universal, and far from long-term even in most western societies. The
evidence from the Neolithic tells a different story.

That oppression is universal today and it was universal back then.

We simply do NOT see the historical marks of such a thing in the
Neolithic.

That proves nor disproves anything since behaviors and culture cannot be
fossilzed.
----------------

Not true, we see it implied in their art, their tools and their
architecture.

Quote:

It is the
exceptions to the rule that you are trying to make out to be the rule.

When the exceptions are the majority, they ARE the rule.

There is no such thing as a "majority of exceptions". That's just nonsense.
----------------------------

And that's what *I* said.

Quote:

And that is
so, like it or not. Peoples had very different takes on the roles of
men and women in recent prehistory.

You are confusing interpretation with observation -- they are not the same
thing.
--------------------------------

No.

Quote:

Individuals are not the topic here -- men as a whole are.

Irrelevant.
If men could be taken as a group, we wouldn't be discussing anything.

Relevant.
Just because you supposedly don't oppress women, doesn't prove that men as a
whole do not oppress women.
----------------------

You're asking that we remove me from the category "men" because I
don't suit your preconceived notions. Illegitimate.

Quote:

In fact, just because you claim to not consciously
oppress women, doesn't mean you don't unconsciously oppress women.
-----------------------------------

If you wish to digress into things we can't see, we'll have to call
your priest. My understanding of oppression has always been that of a
real thing, and that has always served me about every other kind.

Quote:

The rich were/are the oppressors.

Rich MEN.
-------------------

Oh no, rich women do the same kind of oppression.

Quote:

Women have oppressed women nearly as often as men have.

History proves you wrong.
-----------------------------

It may, but you not being history, it's clear that YOU HAVEN'T!

Quote:

What we see today when women try to shame one another to keep each
other in line with the majority culture. Just the use of the word
"slut" by women is evidenciary.

In other words, you have no SCIENTIFIC evidence to back up that assertion.
---------------------------

None is needed. It's a simple observation, cited by most people.

Asking for cites on Usenet is disingenuous and dishonest.
This is NOT a peer-reviewed venue, and no such can be evaluated.
I'm afraid that you'll just have to make sense instead.

Quote:

I did not say that it is ONLY in women's heads, just that they oppress
their own sex nearly as much as men do.

Give me some HISTORICAL examples of women oppressing women.
---------------

Whenever one woman has called another woman a slut, a whore, or a
floozy. Whenever one woman has told another that her mode of dress
is too revealing, whenever they have brainwashed their daughters
about revealing clothing. Those are self-oppressions of women by
women just as serious as oppression by the Taliban!

You know, something

Quote:

that doesn't require an "explanation" or re-interpretation, just something that
fits the definition for oppression: arbitrary and cruel exercise of *POWER*
-------------------

Social power is of any form that is effective in shaming or making
another person afraid or humiliated.

Quote:

Then why are your off the cuff explanations for women being oppressed so
simple-minded and naive?

Disingenuous.
That's merely your dishonest posture, since you seem unable or
unwilling to demonstrate that.

So you say without a shred of evidence.
--------------------------

I have provided plenty and obvious, above.
Steve

The_Sage

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:58 pm

Guest

Quote:

Reply to article by: "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
Date written: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:58:21 -0700
MsgID:<469EE15D.595C@armory.com

We do not have to understand what they are in order to observe what they are.

WRONG! It is easy to mistake something cultural for something inherited.

And how do you tell the difference between the two? Wild arse guessing? Blind
faith assertion? Denial?

I never have any trouble.

That doesn't answer the question, that is a dodge and evade. Tell us *HOW* you
tell it is done, not *IF* you can do it.

Quote:

All I do is see if the behavior by itself
matches that of another culture but not all cultures. Since everybody
doesn't do that, but some do, it is cultural and learned. If it were
inherited it would be so universal there wouldn't be this diascussion,
there couldn't be, no one would understand such a thing.

You have no credibility until you can answer that last question. You can blindly
assert you can see this or you can see that, but it science you are conducting,
but religion.

The Sage

=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm

"Ours is the age that is proud of machines that think and
suspicious of men who try to" -- H. Mumford Jones
=============================================================

R. Steve Walz

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:14 pm

Guest

The_Sage wrote:

Quote:

See the next paragraph.

Quote:

All I do is see if the behavior by itself
matches that of another culture but not all cultures. Since everybody
doesn't do that, but some do, it is cultural and learned. If it were
inherited it would be so universal there wouldn't be this discussion,
there couldn't be, no one would understand such a thing.

Quote:

You have no credibility until you can answer that last question.
-------------

You haven't the credibility to question MY credibility!

Get the fuck over yourself, you're not the Arbiter of Truth, you're
not even very good at arguing. All you do is demand citations quite
inappropriately and spew your opinion ABOUT arguing without ANY logic
or structural defense of any point that the thread is arguing ABOUT!

Quote:

You can blindly assert you can see this or you can see that, but
it science you are conducting, but religion.
The Sage
------------------

Since we're not doing Science here, but logic, and since the absence
of logic is fairly religion, YOU'RE doing religion because you WON'T
do LOGIC, and I'm stuck doing logic and NOT Science by myself because
you're too stupid to grasp the difference!
Steve

The_Sage

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:40 pm

Guest

Quote:

Reply to article by: "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
Date written: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:14:04 -0700
MsgID:<46A0287C.1F94@armory.com

We do not have to understand what they are in order to observe what they are.

WRONG! It is easy to mistake something cultural for something inherited.

And how do you tell the difference between the two? Wild arse guessing? Blind
faith assertion? Denial?

I never have any trouble.

That doesn't answer the question, that is a dodge and evade. Tell us *HOW* you
tell it is done, not *IF* you can do it.

See the next paragraph.

Yet another dodge and evade.

Quote:

All I do is see if the behavior by itself
matches that of another culture but not all cultures. Since everybody
doesn't do that, but some do, it is cultural and learned. If it were
inherited it would be so universal there wouldn't be this discussion,
there couldn't be, no one would understand such a thing.

Quote:

You have no credibility until you can answer that last question.

You haven't the credibility to question MY credibility!

Yes I do because I have logic and facts and you have no clue what those are!

Quote:

Get the fuck over yourself, you're not the Arbiter of Truth,

Neither are you, dumbshit.

Quote:

you're not even very good at arguing.

You mean I don't dodge and evade the issues like a coward as you do?

Quote:

All you do is demand citations quite
inappropriately and spew your opinion ABOUT arguing without ANY logic
or structural defense of any point that the thread is arguing ABOUT!

All you do is spew your uneducated nonsnese while arguing without any citations
or logic or facts.

Quote:

You can blindly assert you can see this or you can see that, but
it science you are conducting, but religion.

Since we're not doing Science here, but logic, and since the absence
of logic is fairly religion, YOU'RE doing religion because you WON'T
do LOGIC, and I'm stuck doing logic and NOT Science by myself because
you're too stupid to grasp the difference!

You are all mouth and no facts.

The Sage

=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm

"Ours is the age that is proud of machines that think and
suspicious of men who try to" -- H. Mumford Jones
=============================================================

R. Steve Walz

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:12 pm

Guest

The_Sage wrote:

Quote:

No, you just didn't like the answer. You require citations and I have
told you I don't do "cites" here for quite responsible and respectable
reasons, namely, that this is NOT a peer-reviewed forum, and therefore
anyone can lie or present other phony cites in response, and then lie
when confronted, as there is NO publishing oversight of a peer-review
board, thus the effort is wasted, and when many or most demand cites
on Usenet it is nothing but a distraction meant to delegitimize any
logical analysis that is merely structural and obvious, in favor of
the unanalyzed and derived allegation of research whose methodology
or analysis can fairly be questioned, but whose author and lab logs
are totally unavailable! Further, disingenuously demanding cites is
constantly being used on Usenet as a way to sidetrack any thread in
which one person is losing the logical argument, into the vague dark
never-neverland that few other readers of the thread wished to bother to
follow because then all participants are both out of their depth,
and then they are also in the uselessly vast realm of competing cites,
and the nearly infinite number of them someone might wish to wave at
to distract and evade, instead of competeing ideas. It is obvious why
some people like competing cites rather than having their pet ideas
contradicted with reason and logic. They don't get trashed by logic!

Illustrative cites here and there are useful, but demanding them of
others is not!

Demanding cites is the last refuge of a logically challenged coward
who knows that his pet idea doesn't really make sense!

It is evidence that the thread has been ended and their opponent has
won!

Quote:

You haven't the credibility to question MY credibility!

Yes I do because I have logic and facts and you have no clue what > those are!
---------------------------

And we are supposed to determine that how? Are we just supposed to
believe you, or the surrogate who wrote the cite you quote who is
invariably out of reach to any of us, which is super-convenient for
assholes like you who only try to distract from the argument when
you're losing or contradicted??

Quote:

Get the fuck over yourself, you're not the Arbiter of Truth,

Neither are you, dumbshit.
---------------------

Nor do I have to be.

Quote:

you're not even very good at arguing.

You mean I don't dodge and evade the issues like a coward as you do?
--------------------------------

No, I mean you're unable to make any reasoned logical sense all by
yourself. You have to call on "x-spurts" who aren't actually available
to be questioned, they are safely out of our reach, which is convenient
for you no end!

Quote:

All you do is demand citations quite
inappropriately and spew your opinion ABOUT arguing without ANY logic
or structural defense of any point that the thread is arguing ABOUT!

All you do is spew your uneducated nonsnese while arguing without any citations
or logic or facts.
----------------------------

Wrongo, liar!

Your classic gambit is that you state something, I trash it with
reason and logic by structural argument, and THEN you demand cites
and deprecate me for refusing to play your little game of distraction
and evasion from the fact that your initial statement MADE NO SENSE
LOGICALLY!

Quote:

You're all name-calling and no reason or logic.
Steve

The_Sage

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:58 pm

Guest

Quote:

Reply to article by: "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
Date written: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:12:34 -0700
MsgID:<46AA5FC2.414B@armory.com

That doesn't answer the question, that is a dodge and evade. Tell us *HOW* you
tell it is done, not *IF* you can do it.

See the next paragraph.

Yet another dodge and evade.

No, you just didn't like the answer.

You didn't have any answer. Please cut and paste your alleged answer here...

<Insert quote here>

Make sure that your quote tells us exactly in what way *YOU* distinguish the
difference between what is cultural and what is inherited. You said you could,
now let's see you to it. I'm not interested in citations or references, just
tell us how you do it.

Your disdain for anything scientific does nothing for your credibility -- not to
mention it says little about your education in the matter. Peer review is an
essential part of the scientific method because that is how scientists find
flaws in their methodology. Peer review always works, the problem is finding the
proper peers. You are clearly not interested in peer review because all you care
about it being right, even if you are wrong. At least you will be happy because
ignorance is bliss they say.

The Sage

=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm

"It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind
with the most important social, political, and adaptive
challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years.
Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of
ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children,
our species" (Lowell Ponte, 1976)
=============================================================

R. Steve Walz

Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:42 pm

Guest

The_Sage wrote:

Quote:

You're a pompous posturing little piece of shit. How's that?

Quote:

Make sure that your quote tells us exactly in what way *YOU* distinguish the
difference between what is cultural and what is inherited. You said you could,
now let's see you to it. I'm not interested in citations or references, just
tell us how you do it.
----------------------------

Anything which is ABSOLUTELY UNIVERSAL among ALL human societies and
peoples is inherited, and we are barely aware of these things at all
because they are so fundamental to us. They are INSTINCTS! They are
UNCONSCIOUS, and they need NO STRICTURE OR ENFORCEMENT, since nobody
can do other than express them unconsciously!!

But:
Anything which varies with the societies or peoples, in quality, in
specifics, and in intensity, is LEARNED and can be UNLEARNED, and
can be included in a society's mores or discarded as desired.

Among the inherited traits, nothing we don't already nearly agree
on. Among the learned, every-fucking-thing else.

Quote:

Your disdain for anything scientific
------------------------

More simplistic hater nonsense. If you knew anything about Theory of
Science you'd know better.

Quote:

does nothing for your credibility -- not to
mention it says little about your education in the matter.
-------------------------

My education in the matter is WELL beyond YOURS, COUNT ON IT!

Quote:

Peer review is an essential part of the scientific method
----------------------

But not on Usenet, or any forum for open discussion.

You don't even grasp the Scientific Method. Your notions have been
described as Science by Statistic, wherein the moronic adherent to
the Evidenciary side makes no use of the Reasoning/Logical side to
filter his efforts, and winds up reproving the obvious or pretending
he can interpret statistics without logical rational analysis and
insight!

Quote:

because that is how scientists find
flaws in their methodology. Peer review always works, the problem is finding the
proper peers. You are clearly not interested in peer review because all you care
about it being right, even if you are wrong. At least you will be happy because
ignorance is bliss they say.
The Sage
--------------------------------

Peer-review is wonderful IN ITS PLACE, which is NOT here, never in an
open public forum, and never in place of Reasoning to aim the bow of
discovery and knowledge.
Steve

The_Sage

Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:31 am

Guest

Quote:

Reply to article by: "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
Date written: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:42:13 -0700
MsgID:<46AE22F5.D92@armory.com

That doesn't answer the question, that is a dodge and evade. Tell us *HOW* you
tell it is done, not *IF* you can do it.

See the next paragraph.

Yet another dodge and evade.

No, you just didn't like the answer.

You didn't have any answer. Please cut and paste your alleged answer here...

Insert quote here

You're a pompous posturing little piece of shit. How's that?

That's a perfect example of the level of your reasoning ability. Does your mommy
and daddy know you are using their computer?

The Sage

=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm

"It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind
with the most important social, political, and adaptive
challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years.
Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of
ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children,
our species" (Lowell Ponte, 1976)
=============================================================

R. Steve Walz

Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:54 pm

Guest

The_Sage wrote:

Quote:

Being 57 years old I'm assuredly using my own, thanks.

If the very best you can do is to quote only my insult of you in
response to your insult, and if you're actually unable to respond
to the other quite logical 90% of my post WHICH YOU DELETED, then
you're certainly NO SAGE!

And you're clearly nothing but s little inept coward.
Steve

Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Tue Oct 07, 2008 3:31 am Science Forum Index