Women's Olympic Boxing

[CouchPotato]

Just now, Black Dog said:

No I don't have an answer, why are you being obtuse.

You're implying there is a standard, so who sets that standard and enforces it?

I am not implying anything. I am asking you if there is one. If there is no standard, then all definitions become equally valid. All opinions become equally valid simply by having been conceived.

[Black Dog]

Just now, CouchPotato said:

I am not implying anything. I am asking you if there is one. If there is no standard, then all definitions become equally valid. All opinions become equally valid simply by having been conceived.

 

11 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Social norms arbitrate what is accepted, and those norms change and differ from one place to the next.

 

[Nationalist]

3 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Genetics determines if an organism is male or female, it does not determine what is or is not a woman.

Lol...what a foolish thing to say...in public.

A "woman" IS a female. She has XX chromosomes. She has boobies, a vagina and a womb. They have different focuses than men as a direct result of their physical construction. 

Males...or men...have the XY chromosome. They have no ability to give birth or nurse a baby. Males are physically bigger and stronger than females. A trait that cannot be altered by doctors and their knives.

Now...pup...you can continue to warp reality if you wish. But you will never be correct about this. It's simply impossible to wage war on nature. Inevitably nature will win and the consequences will be tragic for those who started said war.

Enjoy that...

[CouchPotato]

21 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Social norms arbitrate what is accepted, and those norms change and differ from one place to the next.

So validity is determined by consensus of society. If society were to deem it acceptable to do most the heinous acts imaginable does that become acceptable?

If everyone is a Nazi, is Nazism acceptable?

Edited August 3 by CouchPotato

[Matthew]

6 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

The colour itself is not a social construct.

Then why did most ancient cultures have no word for blue, or the words and concepts they do have for such  colors do not neatly correspond to our own?

14 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Family is a static reality that exists in all mammals

The differences between family concepts over time and space prove there is nothing static about it. I agree that there are many biological caregiving and nesting behaviors that transcend human culture. But most of our family traditions and concepts are cultural products.

19 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

What's that got to do with unalterable reality?

Well like these other examples,  there is the root objective reality, in this case human learning and socialization. But every aspect of how it is done is a cultural creation.

[Black Dog]

8 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

So validity is determined by consensus of society. If society were to deem it acceptable to do most the heinous acts imaginable does that become acceptable?

In that society, yes. 

[CouchPotato]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

In that society, yes. 

So then Nazism or any other horrific ideology is just as valid as any other as long as society at large agrees to it?

[Matthew]

12 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

So validity is determined by consensus of society. If society were to deem it acceptable to do most the heinous acts imaginable does that become acceptable?

Yes, at least in the eyes of that society. Why do you think our society accepts so many injustices through history and today?

You're making a wishful thinking argument. Just because you wish for reality to be simpler doesn't mean the way it actually works is false.

Edited August 3 by Matthew

[CouchPotato]

Just now, Matthew said:

Yes, at least in the eyes of that society. Why do you think our society accepts so many injustices through history and today?

If the definition of what constitutes an injustice is determined by the norms of society in the first place, how can you say that an injustice occurs?

[Black Dog]

3 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

So then Nazism or any other horrific ideology is just as valid as any other as long as society at large agrees to it?

Valid within that society. 

Do you think there's a different, objective arbiter of what is valid other than the social consensus?

[Matthew]

1 minute ago, CouchPotato said:

If the definition of what constitutes an injustice is determined by the norms of society in the first place, how can you say that an injustice occurs?

Because society is not homogeneous. Not everyone has the same social norms and moral priorities. Others confrom to the consesus.

[CouchPotato]

4 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Valid within that society.

So if all societies on Earth were to collectively align under the banner of Nazism, does Nazism then become valid and acceptable?

Edited August 3 by CouchPotato

[Black Dog]

4 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

So if all societies on Earth were to collectively align under the banner of Nazism, does Nazism then become valid and acceptable?

To that society, yes. Who else would there be to say otherwise? Space aliens?

[Matthew]

2 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

So if all societies on Earth were to collectively allign under the banner of Nazism, does it then become acceptable?

This question you keep asking is circular reasoning. If most people in location X thought something to be acceptable, would it be acceptable?

[CouchPotato]

2 minutes ago, Matthew said:

This question you keep asking is circular reasoning. If most people in location X thought something to be acceptable, would it be acceptable?

It's not circular. It is a yes or no question.

Is validity determined by consensus?

Edited August 3 by CouchPotato

[Black Dog]

4 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

It's not circular. It is a yes or no question.

Is validity determined by consensus?

How else would it be determined?

[CouchPotato]

Just now, Black Dog said:

How else would it be determined?

So in a village of one-hundred people, if ninety-nine people in the village have one opinion on a subject and one villager has another, is his opinion invalid?

[Matthew]

10 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

It's not circular.

Ok, you're asking if most people in the world accepted something bad,  would it be acceptable. Acceptable to who?

[User]

56 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Genetics determines if an organism is male or female, it does not determine what is or is not a woman.

OMG, no wonder why you ran away from me on here. You are still here doing the same dumb thing, conflating woman and female. 

And you still have not defined what female or woman means. 

[Black Dog]

4 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

So in a village of one-hundred people, if ninety-nine people in the village have one opinion on a subject and one villager has another, is his opinion invalid?

To the other 99, yes. Again, who else would decide?

1 minute ago, User said:

OMG, no wonder why you ran away from me on here. You are still here doing the same dumb thing, conflating woman and female. 

And you still have not defined what female or woman means. 

A female is a biological female, woman is a constructed social identity. Whomp whomp boomer.

[CouchPotato]

Just now, Black Dog said:

To the other 99, yes. Again, who else would decide?

But does that make his opinion invalid?

[Michael Hardner]

For reference, West, reason10, and Perspektiv have defined womanhood in terms of vagina ownership on this board in the past.

 

I don't know if they posted here on this thread, but it shows that these things cross party lines.

[User]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

A female is a biological female, woman is a constructed social identity. Whomp whomp boomer.

Keep running coward. Keep running. 

Lets see you define what a Woman is in any meaningful way. 

[Black Dog]

Just now, User said:

Keep running coward. Keep running. 

Lets see you define what a Woman is in any meaningful way. 

I just did you chucklef*ck.

2 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

But does that make his opinion invalid?

To the other 99 yes. Again: who else would determine it? 

[User]

Just now, Black Dog said:

I just did you chucklef*ck.

No, you didn't. Saying woman is a social construct is not a definition. Keep running coward.