FFT: Gender as a social construct — what is the vid below telling us on where our intellectual culture has now reached?

_{kairosfocus
June 10, 2017

Academic Freedom, Evolutionary Incoherence, Logic and Reason, rhetoric, worldview

1}_{Categories
Academic Freedom
Evolutionary Incoherence
Logic and Reason
rhetoric
worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Someone gave the link, I think we need to watch a comparison of real vs fake papers on gender:

I ask us to ponder:

Where have we now reached, why? END

Comments

Kpuddle 394 is your best comment so farEugen_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

Hmmm. Something happened to kmp's post. Was that you, kmp, or someone else? This is the first time I am seeing the one-dot post, c 11:05 pm loc time. KFjdk_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

.kmidpuddle_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

kwm, ---"If you want to play word games rather than have an honest discussion, you will find that you are only convincing yourself. Any person with even a room temperature IQ can see through this nonsense." Why is it nonsense to ask you where you are getting your information? ---"1) she used Eurostat data about Spain to draw her conclusion." Maybe she did, but she doesn't say so in any of the 6 accounts I read of her public statements. How did you find out? ---"2) she concluded that Spain marital data was reasonably stable and then declined dramatically after SSM was legalized." Correct. She said as much in her public statement, which I read. ---"3) she included actual values in her statement for three years to illustrate the stability, followed by the value for 2009, after the legalization of SSM." Maybe so, but none of this was in any of the 6 version of her public statements, so I have no way of knowing. How do you know? ---"4) these values in isolation strongly suggested a dramatic decline in the marriage rate in 2009." You keep providing me with interpretations of facts when I am asking you to verify the facts. ---"4) she did not include the values from 1960 and 1970 in her statement, even though they were the only other two points in the Eurostat report." How do you know she didn't include them? Where do you get that information? Again, it isn't in her public reports. ---"5) when these two points are included, it is obvious that the 2009 value falls along the same trend line that started in 1960" And yet you do not provide a shred of evidence to support your claim that they were not included or, if they were not included, that the author didn't provide a reason for it.StephenB_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Everyone draws the line somewhere regarding sexual behavior. Everyone has their own dogma...even a/mats. I know where I draw the line, and that's really all that matters to me. You all can draw the line wherever you want. To some people, their are no sexual perversions at all...just animals being animals. I completely understand that thinking, even though I don't share it.Truth Will Set You Free_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

OT https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reverse-engineering-mysterious-500-million-year-old-fossils-that-confound-our-tree-of-life/ Does something need to be engineered to be reverse engineered or do they mean the illusion of?"es58_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

KF, I wonder, from your perspective, what is the purpose of the female breast? This is now absurd (given that we are mammals) and is bordering on being ill suited to something fitting for a general audience. KF
Talking about breasts is not fitting for a general audience, even though we have talked about masturbation, oral sex, and even bestiality? Are breasts the final straw? And the obvious purpose of breasts is to provide milk for the young. Thus does it violate the natural moral law and become immoral to make caressing and kissing them part of sex? What about doing so if it isn't part of "completion"? This is all so hard to understand! :-)jdk_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

LT:
I think I understand what you mean. But broaden your thinking: people may still well understand that sex means sexual intercourse, yet they also know that the term covers more than just this one activity.
Thankfully so. I really feel sorry for anyone who thinks that sex is limited to the missionary position in those few days where the possibility of conception is the lowest. Birth control, experimentation, lotions and batteries certainly make for a more fulfilled life. If you can lay aside the sex is s sin BS.kmidpuddle_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

SB:
f you couldn’t find any scientific part of her report, then you have no way of knowing if she misrepresented data or omitted data points.
If you want to play word games rather than have an honest discussion, you will find that you are only convincing yourself. Any person with even a room temperature IQ can see through this nonsense.
You certainly can’t get that kind of information from her public summary, nor is it available on Eurostat.
When she references a Eurostat report and then makes claims based on a cherry picker portion of that report in her public summary, you certainly can. Let's summarize: 1) she used Eurostat data about Spain to draw her conclusion. 2) she concluded that Spain marital data was reasonably stable and then declined dramatically after SSM was legalized. 3) she included actual values in her statement for three years to illustrate the stability, followed by the value for 2009, after the legalization of SSM. 4) these values in isolation strongly suggested a dramatic decline in the marriage rate in 2009. 4) she did not include the values from 1960 and 1970 in her statement, even though they were the only other two points in the Eurostat report. 5) when these two points are included, it is obvious that the 2009 value falls along the same trend line that started in 1960. So, if you would like to discuss the data and her conclusions, I am willing to participate. If you are going to continue to play these word games, I will say goodbye. That type of nonsense is better suited for KF.kmidpuddle_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

Lar Tanner
Obviously, you agree with Wright’s perspective and conclusions. My overall point is that Wright doesn’t do justice to either.
I think it takes a while for someone with a background in science fiction to put on the philosopher's hat and anticipate all possible objections. Until recently, he was a life-long atheist. His point is to get in the face of a perverse culture and move things in the opposite direction. He is unique inasmuch as he rejects the conventional wisdom (which is also my (view)) that once a culture enters serious decline, there is no coming back. For me, providing remedial education for subjectivists is a rear-guard action; for him, it is the start of a new day.StephenB_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

KF @370:
When people no longer understand that “sex” is short for “sexual intercourse,” no longer understand what specific “natural” act is meant by “sexual intercourse,” and fail to understand why other acts of sexual nature were for cause termed “unnatural,” we have a serious problem. Newspeak comes to mind.
I think I understand what you mean. But broaden your thinking: people may still well understand that sex means sexual intercourse, yet they also know that the term covers more than just this one activity. The word has expanded its range of meaning, and such expansion is a common feature of language. As a result, any serious conversation on a controversial topic such as sexual morality requires that we have extra clarity on key words, even seemingly obvious terms such as "sex." Another excerpt from your comment:
Lastly, as for J C Wright, I find him quite clear enough though the article is obviously not a finished one. I tend to recall, too, that I have seen some rather stringent dismissals of the writing and speeches of Sir Winston Churchill. I am fairly sure, however, that the dismissive critics could never have rallied a nation and a civilisation in the face of existential crisis. Churchill, whatever the infelicities of his language use, did.
My problem with Wright is not his lack of clarity. My problem is what I see as his sloppy argumentation. You may well find his article as inspirational as one of Churchill’s war time speeches, but I would suggest that there’s much, much more to recommend Churchill’s prose. StephenB @382: Thanks for your comment. I’m not going to address every point where you think I’ve got it wrong, but I will say that we partially agree on “Cursory inspections.” Like you, I see that that cursory inspections provide evidence. My issue with Wright’s piece is that he doesn’t identify that evidence at all. So, his statement is just sweeping and lazy assertion. Obviously, you agree with Wright’s perspective and conclusions. My overall point is that Wright doesn’t do justice to either.LarTanner_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

kwimpuddle
That might be very difficult. I couldn’t find any scientific part of her report. There was very little in the way of any empiracle data. That is why I concentrated on the Spain data. Which was misrepresented.
If you couldn't find any scientific part of her report, then you have no way of knowing if she misrepresented data or omitted data points.You certainly can't get that kind of information from her public summary, nor is it available on Eurostat. So where did you first get this notion?StephenB_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

SB:
Irrelevant. You said that you read the scientific and quantitative parts of Dr. Morgans report, not just the verbal summary @315. I am asking you to reproduce that section of her scientific report where the omissions and misrepresentations are alleged to have occurred.
That might be very difficult. I couldn't find any scientific part of her report. There was very little in the way of any empiracle data. That is why I concentrated on the Spain data. Which was misrepresented. If you want to provide a possible reason why she excluded important data, knock yourself out. But playing games like you are doing does not speak well for your position.kmidpuddle_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

Pindi:
KF, I wonder, from your perspective, what is the purpose of the female breast?
More importantly, what is the purpose of the male nipple? What was god thinking? Even more tangential. KFkmidpuddle_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Lar Tanner on John Wright:
“Cursory inspections” are not evidence.
Bad logic: Wright did not say that cursory inspections are evidence. He said that cursory inspections *provide” evidence. The provider cannot also be the thing provided.
the terms “virtue” and “vice” have a moral component by their very definition, so to state “there is a moral component to virtue and vice” is to beg the question of how to define and distinguish virtuous and vicious behavior.
More bad logic. It is only by a definition that you can make the distinction. If you haven’t defined A, you have no way of knowing its difference from B, which must also be defined. More precisely, if you don’t define virtue as habitual behavior that is good for humans and consistent with their nature, then you cannot make the contrast with habitual behavior that bad for humans and inconsistent with their nature. You also need definitions to identify the objects of your “cursory inspection.”
LT: This summary is a strawman. Subjective moral judgments can indeed and in fact be legitimate.
The irony here is that it is you who is making circular arguments. If the definition of legitimate includes subjective moral judgments, then of course, they are legitimate. But legitimate means something entirely different than according to one’s personal judgment. “Letigimate: conforming to the law or to rules. "his claims to legitimate authority" synonyms: legal, lawful, licit, legalized, authorized, permitted, permissible, allowable, allowed, admissible, sanctioned, approved, licensed, statutory, constitutional; More
”One senses that that Wright considers any opinion but his own on the subject of moral judgments to be either deliberately or unintentionally dishonest.
Subjective morality cannot be rationally defended. If you think otherwise, go ahead and try to defend it. This thread is full of failed attempts which always end in the subjectivist’s decision to run away from scrutiny and avoid hard questions, as in the case of jdk and kwimmuddle.
More importantly, he doesn’t engage the topic fairly. In his closing remarks, he says “It is very important to the partisans of the Sexual Revolution to support the idea that religious sentiment AND NO OTHER CAUSE can impel and opposition to their program.”
Wright is right again. Jdk tried to play that trick on me time after time--without success. When I explain that we can apprehend the natural moral law, he changes the subject and resorts to the claim that I was merely referring to my Catholic faith. So when I explain that perverse sexual behavior violates natural law, he denies that any such knowledge is possible since all such things must be taken on faith. Jdk proves Wright’s point beautifully.StephenB_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

kwimmuddle
I quoted her statements at 315.
Irrelevant. You said that you read the scientific and quantitative parts of Dr. Morgans report, not just the verbal summary @315. I am asking you to reproduce that section of her scientific report where the omissions and misrepresentations are alleged to have occurred.StephenB_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

KF, I wonder, from your perspective, what is the purpose of the female breast? This is now absurd (given that we are mammals) and is bordering on being ill suited to something fitting for a general audience. KFPindi_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Pindi, you full well know the distinction between sexual intercourse and other acts of a sexual nature. The repeated attempts to blur that difference now begin to carry the implication that the distinction is so significant that arguments to advance sexual anarchy cannot proceed without blurring them, much as it seems the distinction of male and female -- directly connected to the significance of sexual intercourse -- is being distorted through gender bending games. All I will say is that if one sets a crooked yardstick as standard, what is genuinely true or accurate cannot pass the test of conformity to the crooked standard. Accordingly, it seems that what is sexual intercourse now joins with what is a man and what is a woman as plumbline testing truths that correct crooked yardsticks. They reveal just how much of a surreal distorted picture is being imposed in order to advance an agenda that cannot face such basic facts of life. KFkairosfocus_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

SB:
I am asking you to reproduce that section of Dr. Morgan’s report in which the omissions and misrepresentations are alleged to have occurred.
I quoted her statements at 315.kmidpuddle_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

KF, are desert foods, foods? Yes. Is oral sex (to completion and just for the fun of it) sex? Yes. If I read you right, you are equating gay sex (or indeed any form of sex that you do not approve of) as equivalent to eating food with arsenic in it?Pindi_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Yes, 368 addresses the key faulty argument that several here continually fall back on: the false dichotomy that if one doesn't acknowledge universal moral laws, or whatever they are called, then there is no basis for making any moral claim. Good job, LarTanner.jdk_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

kwimpuddle I am not asking you to reproduce 180 pages of graphics and tables. I am asking you to reproduce that section of Dr. Morgan's report in which the omissions and misrepresentations are alleged to have occurred.StephenB_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

SB:
I am asking you to reproduce the report that you said you read so that I can read it. I don’t have it.
You are referencing excerpts from a report to support your position but can't find the report that you are quoting from? If you are referring to the Eurostat report, I found it in five seconds by copying and pasting the reference from Patricia Morgan's report to parliament into Google. It is over 180 pages with graphics and tables. It can't be reproduced here.kmidpuddle_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

kwimpuddle
No. I know it from reading her report and then checking out the primary source of data that she referenced. Its really not that difficult.
I am asking you to reproduce the study containing the omitted and misrepresented data so that I can also read it.StephenB_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

LT@368, I just want to compliment you on your summary. It is very clearly written and logical.kmidpuddle_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

SB:
Here is what I understand you to be saying: Dr Patricia Morgan, the British family policy researcher, consistently misrepresented data from original sources, not for any good methodological reason, but solely to create a false impression about several cultural trends.
I only looked in detail at the claims about Spain, simply because they were based upon easily located statistics. And for that claim, the answer is yes, she clearly misrepresented the data. Any claim that she misrepresented everything else would be speculation, but it definitely calls into question her ability to competently interpret data and to draw logical conclusions from them.
If she did, indeed, misrepresent the data, in some cases omitting key details, how do you know that?
The source data that she used for her study came from the 2010 Eurostat demography report. For Spain, the demography report includes only six data points for six different years, not a lot for her to work with. In her report she stated that marriage rates were reasonably stable in Spain, citing values from 1980, 1990 and 2000 to illustrate this stability, and then declined dramatically in 2009 (following the legalization of SSM). However, the only way that anyone could say that the marriage rates were reasonably stable would be if you ignored the numbers from 1960 and 1970. When those numbers are added back to the data set, the 2009 value clearly follows the same trend that has been occurring for several decades. That, in anyone's books, is a misrepresentation of the data. Either intentional or innocent.
Do you know it from a secondary source that read a section of her report that provides those kinds of details? If so, who is that source?
No. I know it from reading her report and then checking out the primary source of data that she referenced. Its really not that difficult.kmidpuddle_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

LT, part of the problem is that there has been a systematic -- and in many ways, quite calculated -- distortion of the meanings of key words. When people no longer understand that "sex" is short for "sexual intercourse," no longer understand what specific "natural" act is meant by "sexual intercourse," and fail to understand why other acts of sexual nature were for cause termed "unnatural," we have a serious problem. Newspeak comes to mind. So does, kidnapped words. The willful corruption of language is a first step to manipulation and deception. Lastly, as for J C Wright, I find him quite clear enough though the article is obviously not a finished one. I tend to recall, too, that I have seen some rather stringent dismissals of the writing and speeches of Sir Winston Churchill. I am fairly sure, however, that the dismissive critics could never have rallied a nation and a civilisation in the face of existential crisis. Churchill, whatever the infelicities of his language use, did. KFkairosfocus_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

kwimpuddle
Forgive me for calling you on hypocrisy. But You expect us to take the SSM report funded by The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, an organization that has openly claimed to be opposed to SSM, seriously, yet dismiss the information provided by Seversky because it was not produced by a disinterested party. I hope that you are enjoying that cake.
*Mainstream social scientists* say that the methodology was just fine. *Gay marriage partisan*s have an agenda. So yes, you should accept the report because the methodology is sound according to those who don't have an axe to grind. I will take the word of disinterested social scientists any time, especially when it s clear that partisans like yourself just can't handle the truth. Speaking of partisanship, you have not really dealt with the alleged problems from the other study: Here is what I understand you to be saying: Dr Patricia Morgan, the British family policy researcher, consistently misrepresented data from original sources, not for any good methodological reason, but solely to create a false impression about several cultural trends. My question, then, is threefold: If she did, indeed, misrepresent the data, in some cases omitting key details, how do you know that? Do you know it from a secondary source that read a section of her report that provides those kinds of details? If so, who is that source? Or do you know it from actually having read that section yourself? If so, could you simply copy and paste that section for me so that I can evaluate it?StephenB_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

KF @335 I used the word "seems" in my comment (#324) to indicate that I was offering what appeared to me to be your argument. There was no intention to lay out a strawman on my part. So, if I got your position incorrect, then it should be true now to say that your opinion is that same-sex SEX is not really sex. If I have this right, then there's a follow-on discussion I'd like to have later. But please take some well-intentioned advice. Writing is a central part of my living, so I have most always taken the attitude that if someone mis-interprets what I write, then I as the writer was not as clear as I needed to be. If I cannot get your opinion on whether (yes versus no) same-sex SEX is sex, then I ask you try to be unmistakably clear about it in your writing. As I suggest just above, the words yes and no can be a help for you here in getting across your true point. On to a new point: You have directed people to John C. Wright's "On the Sexual Nature of Man." I have read this, and my opinion is that it's an incoherent, useless piece for anyone seriously pursuing the subject of sexual morality. Because the whole essay is ponderous and riddled with logical deficiencies, I want to present an annotated assessment of just one section, 1.2 "On the Objectivity of Morals":
Even a cursory inspection of the human condition provides us ample evidence that there is a moral component to virtue and vice.
LT: “Cursory inspections” are not evidence. Plus, the terms “virtue” and “vice” have a moral component by their very definition, so to state “there is a moral component to virtue and vice” is to beg the question of how to define and distinguish virtuous and vicious behavior.
Aside from the merely practical arrangement of the passions and appetites needed in order to sate one’s hungers efficiently, the reason makes a judgment on the fitness, wholesomeness, goodness or righteousness of the passion or appetite. The seat of moral judgment is called the conscience. There are those who claim these judgments are relative, or arbitrary, or are the by-product of Darwinian social evolution, or are the product of a programming imposed by economic class-interests. Their claim is that the judgments of the conscience either have no jurisdiction outside a narrow sphere, or have no jurisdiction at all. Their claim, simply put, is that all moral judgments are subjective, therefore illegitimate. To prefer virtue to vice (so the argument goes) is as arbitrary and personal a judgment as to prefer pie to cake.
LT: This summary is a strawman. Subjective moral judgments can indeed and in fact be legitimate. Tellingly, Wright chooses here not to engage any serious, scholarly research into the science of ethics and morality.
We can dismiss the claim that moral judgments are all subjective merely by inquiring whether or not we ought to inquire into the claim.
LT: Wright now proceeds to attack the strawman he set up. Another telling phase: “dismiss the claim.” Wright ought to be fairly assessing and examining arguments, not dismissing claims. His unfortunate phrasing indicates he is interested in pontificating, not reasoning.
Ought we to inquire whether or not all moral judgments are subjective? If the answer is no, the question is closed. If the answer is yes, then ought we to make this inquiry honestly, or dishonestly? If the answer is that we ought to make this inquiry dishonestly, then (a fortiori) we are not bound the results. For a dishonest thinker is under no moral obligation to accept a conclusion to which his logic drives him; even if he loses the argument, a dishonest thinker is not under a duty to change his mind or mend his ways. For what will impose the moral duty upon the dishonest thinker to conform his thoughts to the conclusions dictated by reason? Why must he be truthful even to himself? Why listen to his conscience? If the answer is that we ought to make this inquiry honestly, we necessarily thereby acknowledge at least one universal moral duty: the duty to think honestly. This duty is universal because the only other possibility, that we have no duty to think honestly, is not something we honestly can think.
LT: Wright states that thinking “honestly” is a “universal moral duty.” Again, using loaded language like “honestly” simply begs the question of how to achieve honesty in thought. Anyone pursuing a question in good faith will be doing so honestly. But can two honest pursuits lead to different conclusions? One senses that that Wright considers any opinion but his own on the subject of moral judgments to be either deliberately or unintentionally dishonest.
So we can at the minimum conclude that there is at least one moral duty to which the conscience prompts us, and this duty is a universal, which means it is an absolute, which means that the statement that all moral duties are relative is false.
LT: Wright never explains what makes thinking honestly morally obligatory versus practical, useful, and beneficial. Some people do not think honestly on some subjects—as Wright himself admits—so how can he call thinking honestly “universal,” and how does he know thinking honestly is a duty and not just a smart idea?
The whole essay is like this. Wright comes across in this piece as a blowhard. More importantly, he doesn't engage the topic fairly. In his closing remarks, he says "It is very important to the partisans of the Sexual Revolution to support the idea that religious sentiment AND NO OTHER CAUSE can impel and opposition to their program." Instead of telling "the opposition" what is very important to them, he might do his readers better service by treating opposing arguments--and "arguments," versus just claims alone, is an important concept--with more consideration. In any case, on the subject of sexual morality and philosophical/cultural views of same-sex sex, surely there are better thinkers to consult than Wright or his essay.LarTanner_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

SB:
Find something from a disinterested source and I will take it under advisement.
Forgive me for calling you on hypocrisy. But You expect us to take the SSM report funded by The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, an organization that has openly claimed to be opposed to SSM, seriously, yet dismiss the information provided by Seversky because it was not produced by a disinterested party. I hope that you are enjoying that cake.kmidpuddle_{June 21, 2017
June
06
Jun
21
21
2017
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 20 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply