• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Blurred Lines

Ex-User (9086)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 7:48 AM
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,758
---
It has been scientifically proven that men and women are not equal.
What good is science if we are talking about evaluating and balancing the society? Would science have some good models to control our interactions or to show us what we are supposed to do?
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 7:48 AM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,424
---
Location
Schmocation

It has!
Depending on what we are claiming to be equal. ^^

for example: height, vocal range, strength, brain size, etc...

What good is science if we are talking about evaluating and balancing the society? Would science have some good models to control our interactions or to show us what we are supposed to do?

There are many models that work; some work better than others depending on the primary objective.

The problem we have in society is that too many want to have their cake and eat it at the same time, i.e., sexism is flexible when it suites.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today 6:48 PM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,253
---
Location
69S 69E
It has been scientifically proven that men and women are not equal.

Biological inequality isn't really to do with the issues being raised in this thread though.
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 7:48 AM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,424
---
Location
Schmocation
Biological inequality isn't really to do with the issues being raised in this thread though.

Not entirely no; however, I have to actually work for my tips at my workplace, unlike the women who simply flap their eyelids and act all "ditsy"...

To be fair, they are rather pretty though. ^^
 

Ex-User (9086)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 7:48 AM
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,758
---
:pueh: :beatyou:
Game theory?
I know that there are vast domains of bio-social sciences that describe unit, group and mass behaviour and describe societies, culture creation etc. It doesn't mean that if you show that we differ in respect to one another biologically then we cannot treat men equally. Obviously every unit is different and in a perfect model an account is taken for every difference of every person.

There are many models that work; some work better than others depending on the primary objective.

The problem we have in society is that too many want to have their cake and eat it at the same time, i.e., sexism is flexible when it suites.
Yes there are working models, however these are scientific studies of models that humans had built for themselves. The whole struggle of pre modern era was to establish equality and basic rules that everyone adheres to.

Most of the rules are flexible, in that when men feel opressed they protect themselves with ethics and law. When men are in a position of power they discard regulations.

There are many cases of inequal treatment of men by women etc.

What I was asking was If science is any relevant to provide us with a good way of living and a set of values that we can incorporate to the system. Science could at most describe that inequalities in humans tend to separate them by the levels of fitness and control they posess over others.
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 7:48 AM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,424
---
Location
Schmocation
Yes there are working models, however these are scientific studies of models that humans had built for themselves. The whole struggle of pre modern era was to establish equality and basic rules that everyone adheres to.

Most of the rules are flexible, in that when men feel opressed they protect themselves with ethics and law. When men are in a position of power they discard regulations.

There are many cases of inequal treatment of men by women etc.

What I was asking was If science is any relevant to provide us with a good way of living and a set of values that we can incorporate to the system. Science could at most describe that inequalities in humans tend to separate them by the levels of fitness and control they posess over others.

Is that not the sole purpose of science? To provide us with knowledge of a system in order to manipulate it ourselves.

There is an equation for love, hate, beauty, etc...

So yes, science is totally relevant if you want to find the most efficient way to live.
 

Ex-User (9086)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 7:48 AM
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,758
---
Is that not the sole purpose of science? To provide us with knowledge of a system in order to manipulate it ourselves.

There is an equation for love, hate, beauty, etc...

So yes, science is totally relevant if you want to find the most efficient way to live.
Well, so you propose that considering equality is inefficient in respect to every unit? Or was that just a random fact that man and woman are different biologically?

To each according to his needs etc. We can accept the inequalities, but what do we do with them? Inequalities cause problems too.
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 7:48 AM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,424
---
Location
Schmocation
Well, so you propose that considering equality is inefficient in respect to every unit? Or was that just a random fact that man and woman are different biologically?

To each according to his needs etc. We can accept the inequalities, but what do we do with them? Inequalities cause problems too.

The problem with equality is that it creates an equilibrium. When a system reaches equilibrium, feck all happens. ^^

Our societies are built upon inequality.
 

Ex-User (9086)

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 7:48 AM
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,758
---
The problem with equality is that it creates an equilibrium. When a system reaches equilibrium, feck all happens. ^^

Our societies are built upon inequality.
Yes, the nature of equilibrium is so perfect that cannot be maintained.
edit:
I think that science won't help us resolve morality and ethical problems that are part of what we are and that we choose to consider.

If we are to simply accept inequality and the system as it is, then we can as well end this discussion as there seems to be no need of discussing an uneven system that we choose to agree, that works fine.
 
Last edited:

JennaSayQuoi

Member
Local time
Today 12:48 AM
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
29
---
Location
Boise, Idaho
You said that among advocates of gender equality, a lot of them were extreme feminists. Do you really think that?

Definition:
Adv. 1. a lot - to a very great degree or extent

'To a very great extent' - perhaps this is simply my interpretation, but to me this implies a majority. When as far as I can tell, extremist views on feminism are little more than a vocal minority. It can seem like a lot because they are so vocal, however like I've already pointed out - just because they're the ones you hear about, it doesn't mean that a lot of Muslims are suicide bombers, or that most religious people are similar to the ones from the Westboro Baptist Church.

Okay, that may be a fair interpretation.

I don't, personally, have any intent to claim to know what amount of the whole population of feminists are extreme, etc. So many things would have to be defined, and then still you would need data to have any sort of provable finding (And even then, there's no saying that studies or polls are accurate, etc.). Without those things, I believe, it remains as merely opinion or personal experience.

To make my statement more accurate to my intention, I suppose I should make it "a lot of the people I've talked to" or "some people" or something to that effect. My point was that some of us who don't want to jump on board with feminism as a movement, and/or as a group of people, have reasons and experiences as a basis. We're not pulling it out of our asses.

You, and others I've talked to that share your beliefs, seem to believe that anyone that isn't with you is against you. You have made no visible attempts to try to see where we're getting our opinions, other than your statement about men getting their's from men so that they, apparently, automatically don't count. You try to argue that we're wrong and that we're bad and that we should not have a differing opinion, because somehow us not agreeing with you, or your behavior, entirely, is hurting people on a large scale.

People that have spoken to me about feminism have largely acted and spoken the way that you are acting. It is offensive to me in many ways.

If anything that I have actually personally said is hurting someone or demeaning them somehow, I would like that pointed out and described directly. If it's something that another person has done or said, I would like it not to be assumed about me, and applied to me.

Part of communication is listening and honestly putting yourself in the other person's shoes. I think your competitive behavior and argumentative style are not conducive to honesty or openness.

Part of why I continued this conversation was in an attempt to bridge a gap, and show that I don't like feminists that I have met, but I don't hate women, nor am I *against* them having rights, nor am I holding anti-female views. Not everyone who doesn't agree with feminists is evil or hateful or stupid. You seem to be very offended by any hint of that idea.
 

Minuend

pat pat
Local time
Today 8:48 AM
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
4,142
---
Is that not the sole purpose of science? To provide us with knowledge of a system in order to manipulate it ourselves.

There is an equation for love, hate, beauty, etc...

So yes, science is totally relevant if you want to find the most efficient way to live.

Science only shows us what's there. It's entirely a matter of perspective what we choose to value.

If some people are taller than others, that doesn't tell us anything about whether people who are taller are worth more, less or even if being tall is something we should care about at all.

Science doesn't tell us that the most efficient way to live is the correct one. Wanting to be more efficient is something humans decided to value. Even the fact that "science" (here represented by putting weight on facts and discovering the world) is relevant at all is something humans determine to be so.
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 7:48 AM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,424
---
Location
Schmocation
Science only shows us what's there. It's entirely a matter of perspective what we choose to value.

If some people are taller than others, that doesn't tell us anything about whether people who are taller are worth more, less or even if being tall is something we should care about at all.

Science doesn't tell us that the most efficient way to live is the correct one. Wanting to be more efficient is something humans decided to value. Even the fact that "science" (here represented by putting weight on facts and discovering the world) is relevant at all is something humans determine to be so.

There isn't a correct way to live. Morality is objective, but always acted upon subjectively. Science provides the knowledge to manipulate the system and fulfil the required criteria of the current society's values.

Understanding what pisses a person off provides a way to manipulate that person. Trolololology 101
 

Hawkeye

Banned
Local time
Today 7:48 AM
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,424
---
Location
Schmocation
What do you mean "morality is objective"?

By this I meant that certain moral values exist in every culture to the point where they can be considered to be universal (global). Granted, it's not absolute objectivity, more like global subjectivity (but this sounds silly).
 

Minuend

pat pat
Local time
Today 8:48 AM
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
4,142
---
Like an argumentum ad populum ?

I disagree, but I don't even know what this thread is about anymore so w/ever
 
Top Bottom