Matthew Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 1 hour ago, Nationalist said: This happens to be one of the wildest departures from reality I have seen in a long time. It's not a departure from reality to acknowledge that some things exist only in human culure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Matthew said: It's not a departure from reality to acknowledge that some things exist only in human culure. Maybe it would be more convincing, if you introduced this idea as "these things are social constructs". Ideas we develop to make life better. Money for example. And they become real when they're part of our culture for so long that we can't think of A time before they existed. But then again, you have to be talking to people who are open to ideas, and don't react to them the way Frankenstein responds to fire. Edited August 3 by Michael Hardner 1 Quote  Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 14 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: Is it valid for anyone with any combination of any characteristics to claim they belong to any gender? Is it valid for two completely similar people with all the same characteristics to identify themselves one with "woman" and the other with "man"? Validity is irrelevant. There is no basis for one person to judge the thoughts another person has about their own self. But if a person appeared to me to be male, that's what would be communicated to me and I would reciprocate with them on that basis unless they comminate some reasonable preference for being regarded in some other way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 22 minutes ago, Matthew said: It's not a departure from reality to acknowledge that some things exist only in human culure. The colour blue, family, even education...these are not made up social contsructs. They are static, inevitable realities. This is a big problem for you Libbies. In order to defend your nonsense, you are forced to outright lie about reality. To warp it into unnatural forms and hope the dumb-ass sh1t sticks. It does not. 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Maybe it would be more convincing, if you introduced this idea as "these things are social constructs". Ideas we develop to make life better. Money for example. And they become real when they're part of our culture for so long that we can't think of A time before they existed. But then again, you have to be talking to people who are open to ideas, and don't react to them the way Frankenstein responds to fire. Nice backhand Mike. Care to man-up and take me on directly? Pfft... There are "ideas" that are simply wrong. So while money may be a social construct, the colour blue is definitely not. But I suspect you know this yet will argue the contrary...or "support" the contrary...in order to not have to admit that common sense and nature itself, disprove these Tweenkie-ass warped "ideas". 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 (edited) 9 hours ago, Hodad said: Woman is a gender. Female is a sex. You are cowardly hiding from me... but this question will be rhetorical anyhow, as you will never answer it: Can you define what a woman is and define what a female is meaningfully? You can't. You won't. It destroys your entire narrative here. Edited August 3 by User 1 Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: But then again, you have to be talking to people who are open to ideas, and don't react to them the way Frankenstein responds to fire. Funny, figuring this was your first comment on this thread: "Ah good... I was just looking at my watch wondering when we would get around to this VITAL TOPIC..." You are not open to ideas here, you want to avoid the whole discussion. I have my presumptions as to why, likely for the same reason some of the others on here have spent pages floundering around trying to offer any kind of reasoning as to what makes female different from woman in any meaningful way as they desperately grasp at straws trying to defend men pretending to be women... Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CouchPotato Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Matthew said: Validity is irrelevant. There is no basis for one person to judge the thoughts another person has about their own self. They are yes or no questions. If you are asserting that there is no basis for one to judge the thoughts another person has about their own self, then I assume you are saying that those things are valid. But I want to hear it from the horse's mouth. Is it valid for two people with completely the same characteristics to define themselves one as a "man" and one as a "woman"? Is it valid for any person with any combination of traits and characteristics to define themselves as any gender? Two questions, both yes or no. Very simple. Edited August 3 by CouchPotato 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 6 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: Is it valid for two people with completely the same characteristics to define themselves one as a "man" and one as a "woman"? Is it valid for any person with any combination of traits and characteristics to define themselves as any gender? Two questions, both yes or no. Very simple. I would say you need to be a bit more specific. It is not that they can't think whatever they want to about themselves, but its that what they think about themselves isn't necessarily reality. But maybe that is what you meant by valid. They can think they are something they are not... but it isn't valid. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CouchPotato Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 (edited) 19 minutes ago, User said: I would say you need to be a bit more specific. It is not that they can't think whatever they want to about themselves, but its that what they think about themselves isn't necessarily reality. But maybe that is what you meant by valid. They can think they are something they are not... but it isn't valid. I am trying to determine if he thinks any and all definitions are sane, if there is any limit to what is reasonable or valid. Edited August 3 by CouchPotato 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 12 hours ago, CouchPotato said: No, what I am doing is challenging Black Dog's definition of woman (or female) as a gender. He said that the term woman can refer to either a sex or a gender. So, I asked him to give me some defining features of woman as a gender. Do you agree with his answer? He said... Actually I didn't say it was either/or. I said it was both. Quote America...."the worlds largest, best-armed shopping mall."-Ivor Tossell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CouchPotato Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 Just now, Black Dog said: Actually I didn't say it was either/or. I said it was both. Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 11 hours ago, CouchPotato said: In that case the only defining feature of gender is that it is what one defines oneself as. If it is some nebulous social construct which anyone can define in their own way, it doesn't exist. And therefore the only thing you are left with which is real and tangible is biological sex. People can have a conception of self that differs from others' perception of them. Both "exist". 1 hour ago, CouchPotato said: But can they? Is it valid for anyone with any combination of any characteristics to claim they belong to any gender? Is it valid for two completely similar people with all the same characteristics to identify themselves one with "woman" and the other with "man"? All yes or no questions. What do you mean by "valid"? Who is the arbiter of whether or not something is valid or not? Quote America...."the worlds largest, best-armed shopping mall."-Ivor Tossell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CouchPotato Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Who is the arbiter of whether or not something is valid or not? I think you can just answer the question then. If there is no standard for arbitrating what is valid, then the reasonable conclusion is that your answer is yes to both of those questions. Edited August 3 by CouchPotato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 41 minutes ago, Nationalist said: The colour blue, family, even education...these are not made up social contsructs. They are static, inevitable realities. The range of frequencies that we call blue are static objective realities, but how we conveice it culturally and and label it is a fabrication. Being biologically related to someone is objective, but every aspect of the family concept is a cultural creation and changes over time and is done differently by peoples around the world. Same is obviously true for educational methods, norms, and institutions from one culture to the next. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 30 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: They are yes or no questions. They aren't though. Sorry that reality is more complex than you wish it to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 13 minutes ago, Black Dog said: People can have a conception of self that differs from others' perception of them. Both "exist". What do you mean by "valid"? Who is the arbiter of whether or not something is valid or not? GENETICS! Welcome to natural, unalterable reality.! Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 On 8/2/2024 at 9:16 AM, Michael Hardner said: Ah good... I was just looking at my watch wondering when we would get around to this VITAL TOPIC... Talk of women's rights makes Mike's skin crawl... unless it's abortion rights, of course, and then he perks right up. Â 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CouchPotato Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 (edited) 1 minute ago, Matthew said: They aren't though. Sorry that reality is more complex than you wish it to be. Yes they are. You just won't answer them. Either all definitions are equally valid or they aren't. Edited August 3 by CouchPotato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 16 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: I think you can just answer the question then. If there is no standard for arbitrating what is valid, then the reasonable conclusion is that your answer is yes to both of those questions. LOL no because the premise of the questions depend on establishing who decides whether or not something is "valid". Since you asked the questions, perhaps you can clarify the premise. Quote America...."the worlds largest, best-armed shopping mall."-Ivor Tossell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 16 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: If there is no standard for arbitrating what is valid Social norms arbitrate what is accepted, and those norms change and differ from one place to the next. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 5 minutes ago, Nationalist said: GENETICS! Welcome to natural, unalterable reality.! Genetics determines if an organism is male or female, it does not determine what is or is not a woman. Quote America...."the worlds largest, best-armed shopping mall."-Ivor Tossell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CouchPotato Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Matthew said: Social norms arbitrate what is accepted, and those norms change and differ from one place to the next. So your answer is yes. 7 minutes ago, Black Dog said: LOL no because the premise of the questions depend on establishing who decides whether or not something is "valid". Right. So if there is no standard for what is valid, then everything is valid. The very act of conceiving of any opinion on any issue no matter how ridiculous is self-validating. No one can arbitrate whether or not the opinion is valid. Therefore, it is. Edited August 3 by CouchPotato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 5 minutes ago, Matthew said: The range of frequencies that we call blue are static objective realities, but how we conveice it culturally and and label it is a fabrication. "Blue" is the "word" we have in English to lable that range of spectral frequency. The colour itself is not a social construct. That idea is garbolla.! 9 minutes ago, Matthew said: Being biologically related to someone is objective, but every aspect of the family concept is a cultural creation and changes over time and is done differently by peoples around the world. Again...that's horseshit. Just ask any mother. Family is a static reality that exists in all mammals. Probably most reptiles...like birds...as well. Family is an instinct. 12 minutes ago, Matthew said: Same is obviously true for educational methods, norms, and institutions from one culture to the next Perhaps. What's that got to do with unalterable reality? Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted August 3 Report Share Posted August 3 7 minutes ago, CouchPotato said: So your answer is yes. No I don't have an answer, why are you being obtuse. Quote Right. So if there is no standard for what is valid, then everything is valid. The very act of conceiving of any opinion on any issue no matter how ridiculous is self-validating. No one can arbitrate whether or not the opinion is valid. Therefore, it is. You're implying there is a standard, so who sets that standard and enforces it? Quote America...."the worlds largest, best-armed shopping mall."-Ivor Tossell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.