Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
d180586

About a Woman President

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

At the time, Natzis thought that "differing sizes in the cortex" and other physical differences can prove something about an individual's personality, claiming that a hierarchical order exists between races. A notion like the one I've just quoted reflects the same thinking with one execption: claiming that an hierarchical order between human genders exist.

There are a number of well-known USENET Rules for posting on newsgroups and forums. One of these is Rule #4, known as Godwin's Law, a corollary of which states:

"When you have no argument to offer, invoke Hitler or the Nazis."

That a self-proclaimed Objectivist would liken my statement of fact to the horror of a Nazi rationalization, is truly pathetic. That a (presumed) Jew would choose to invoke the Nazis to make a slur in lieu of a rational argument, is doubly pathetic. If all of Tomer's previous posts here were not enough to adequately demonstrate the muddleheadedness which passes for thought in his "arguments," then I would hope no doubt remains as to the status of his arguments, as well as the status of his character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"differing sizes in the cortex"

The fact IS that STEPHEN brought up this deterministic argument(whether he chooses to aknowlegde it or not) to support HIS opinion. It is also a FACT that the Nazies used THIS SAME argument(applied to races) to support their racism. These are undeniable facts(available to anyone). Tomer simply stated a fait accompli.

Stephen is stating a deterministic view. He sets himself up when he points out that the bottom line is that consciouseness is volition, and then suggests that there are differences affecting our mental behavior(in other words, our free will). Who is denying his nature?

---

Stephen, let me ask you something- are you going to answer to the point?? You are being a bully. It doesn't matter wheather you use a formal register(with your passive-aggressive rhetoric and unrelated to the discussion, personal cynisism for example) or foul language(when you insult someone on a personal level). (Keep in mind that whenever suggested that you were out of line, you became rather panicky).I don't care wheather you act this way towords everyone or just towords one person because you think he's stupid, this is not adequate to a civilized adult society. I went down to this level once, it was not pretty.

---

Just because the "Godwin's Law" exist, doesn't mean every person addressing Nazism has nothing to say. This is a dubious fallacy.

---

Now, I ask again- are you going to answer to the point, or attack me instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because the "Godwin's Law" exist, doesn't mean every person addressing Nazism has nothing to say. This is a dubious fallacy.

You could also ask him whether Leonard Peikoff applied the Godwin's Law when writing "The Ominous Parallels". :D Or is it only applicable on the internet forums?

d180586, leave him be... he is not an equel (and knows it perfectly well) yet you treat him as one.

Leave him to his insults and cynisism. Try to focus on other rational individuals. There are many excellent users here... THEY ARE WORTH IT! but not him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
d180586, leave him be... he is not an equel (and knows it perfectly well) yet you treat him as one.

Is this what you called "an hierarchical order "?

VES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this what you called "an hierarchical order "?

VES

What does "VES" means?

I follow the best teacher I've ever had:

"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone."

*Ayn Rand, The 35th anniversary edition of Atlas Shrugged, pg. 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does "VES" means?

I follow the best teacher I've ever had:

"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone."

*Ayn Rand, The 35th anniversary edition of Atlas Shrugged, pg. 3

VES are my initials.

The question stands.

VES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VES are my initials.

The question stands.

VES

You are taking two unrelated issues out of context.

I wrote that:

At the time, Natzis thought that "differing sizes in the cortex" and other physical differences can prove something about an individual's personality, claiming that a hierarchical order exists between races. A notion like the one I've just quoted reflects the same thinking with one execption: claiming that an hierarchical order between human genders exist.

Do you consider yourself equal to those who spend their time trashing you without a shred of a reasonable argument? That would mean pure egalitarianism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you consider yourself equal to those who spend their time trashing you without a shred of a reasonable argument? That would mean pure  egalitarianism.

How many threads have you been in discussion with Stephen? Just this one or have there been others? Is it on the basis of this one thread that you deem that Stephen is not your "equal"? Have you ever discussed anything in which you later found flaw in your reasoning, or have you reached perfect reasoning? I think you have a reached a premature conclusion, based on insufficient evidence, which you cannot prove.

VES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jrshep

Tomer and d180586,

The fact is that there are significant physical, biological differences between men and women. I don't think that either of you take issue with that.

The question is, what psychological (and therefore romantic) differences, if any, do those differences give rise to?

Although I said that even young children are aware of these differences upon first seeing the naked bodies of the opposite gender, their understanding of these differences is only just beginning. But aware of the differences they certainly are.

The fact that consciousness is volitional does not mean that consciousness is omnipotent. There is no joy in banging one's head against reality, choosing to not accept something that is so by its nature. Some of our choices have to do with accepting or not accepting what is, including our own gender.

This issue of the romantic differences between men and women and how they relate to each other has nothing to do with issues of morality or political rights. Such differences do not make one inferior or superior morally or politically.

The idea that gender differences wouldn't or couldn't or shouldn't give rise to psychological differences affecting how men and women relate to each other romantically makes as much sense as saying that being born, or becoming, blind makes no difference in how a person will relate to the world about him.

Assuming that I give you two the benefit of the doubt, and that your contentions that the claim that there are significant differences in how the genders should relate to each other romantically due to their physical, biological differences, would lead to political persecutions, your own egalitarian view doesn't help you at all.

That people have used biological differences to support injustices does not imply that one needs to deny biological differences to assure justice, but that one needs to identify and defend individual rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many threads have you been in discussion with Stephen?  Just this one or have there been others?  Is it on the basis of this one thread that you deem that Stephen is not your "equal"?  Have you ever discussed anything in which you later found flaw in your reasoning, or have you reached perfect reasoning?  I think you have a reached a premature conclusion, based on insufficient evidence, which you cannot prove.

VES

Have you read our entire correspondence? All through it, Stephen behaved in an uncivilized manner. THIS is unacceptable. I am open to reason, but not to slurs.

If the subject is of any interest to you, I ask you to take the time and read the whole thread. It'll be much clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact is that there are significant physical, biological differences between men and women. I don't think that either of you take issue with that.

This is not true. Try to read my entire argument.

The question is, what psychological (and therefore romantic) differences, if any, do those differences give rise to?
"If any," would be the first question. Notice that some use the fallacy of "begging the question" (borrowing Peikoff's words)when asking that question while leaving out the "if any", which means that they presuppose that psychological differences exist between men and women.

Although I said that even young children are aware of these differences upon first seeing the naked bodies of the opposite gender, their understanding of these differences is only just beginning. But aware of the differences they certainly are.

I assume you are speaking of physical differences. Am I right?

The idea that gender differences wouldn't or couldn't or shouldn't give rise to psychological differences affecting how men and women relate to each other romantically makes as much sense as saying that being born, or becoming, blind makes no difference in how a person will relate to the world about him.
I can't see the logical connection here. "Couldn't" is a metaphysically given (in that context), "should't" is not. I hope that mistake was not made intentionally. In the way you said it, (if you ment that both assertions are acting against reality) with the mistake, I agree.

Assuming that I give you two the benefit of the doubt, and that your contentions that the claim that there are significant differences in how the genders should relate to each other romantically due to their physical, biological differences, would lead to political persecutions, your own egalitarian view doesn't help you at all.

What, on earth, made you think that??? Egalitarian views all individuals as equals.

I'm an extra-extra-extreme capitalist. I know that is not possible. But it is the mind and only the mind that is the subject of differentiation between individuals (my proof was that volition is possible).

would lead to political persecutions

I can't imagine what made you say that. it was never an issue here.

Again, try reading my entire argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you read our entire correspondence? All through it, Stephen behaved in an uncivilized manner. THIS is unacceptable. I am open to reason, but not to slurs.

If the subject is of any interest to you, I ask you to take the time and read the whole thread. It'll be much clearer.

You left my questions unanswered again. I'll make it simple so it will be clearer to you. Are you basing your opinion of Stephen's equality in comparison to you on this one thread of discussion?

VES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped reading Tomer's post after the pathetic absurdity of his Nazi comment, to which I put in the proper context of immorality. Going back and looking at his post further, the rest also wreaks of intellectual dishonesty.

Is he suggesting that those differences control our process of thinking?? That the process of consciousness is controled by "the hormonal structure"??

Were this a simple question from a perplexed person, one might understand the possibility of confusion. But, the rest of Tomer's post is another pathetic attempt to smear, making believe that his question actually represents my view. And, he does this, with full evidence that I had explictly stated otherwise. My words were clear:

"This is not behaviorism -- the consciousness of a human being remains volitional -- but physical brain structures and biochemical interactions set the physical context within which a consciousness acts."

I explictly state that consciousness is volitional, and Tomer dishonestly represents that as meaning "control our process of thinking," and "consciousness is controled[sic]." I can (almost) understand an ignorant person not fully grasping what a "physical context" means, but then such an ignorant person would just honestly seek clarification. Instead, Tomer continues with a rant in his post, waving the Objectivist flag of volition as if he is the proud owner, and I am an antagonist to that. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who has ever read a single post I wrote, would know the sheer absurdity of such an accusation. But Tomer is not out to offer arguments, he is out to smear.

Virtually every single post which Tomer has made in this thread is devoid of substantive argument, and lacking that he resorts to smears instead. I think it is time to publicly ask the moderators to judge Tomer's actions, and publicly decide where the line between ignorance and dishonesty should be drawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You left my questions unanswered again.  I'll make it simple so it will be clearer to you.  Are you basing your opinion of Stephen's equality in comparison to you on this one thread of discussion?

VES

I base the opinion I posted of Stephen based on this one thread. And to be more clear, my opinion was that he was rude. I am not rude. I see rudness as a vice, therefore I concluded that we are not equal from THAT one perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is time to publicly ask the moderators to judge Tomer's actions, and publicly decide where the line between ignorance and dishonesty should be drawn.

For the first time I agree.

I am a visitor here and know that I'm here only with permission. If the owners wish that I won't be registered, I'll leave. I respect their rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact IS that STEPHEN brought up this deterministic argument

No. The fact is, that both you and Tomer seem to be incapable of understanding what an argument actually is. Both of you have repeatedly made unsupported assertions as if they were absolutes, and have treated real arguments from others as if they were assertions. The fact is, whether from ignorance or intentional, your inability to understand an argument does not give you a license to smear.

It is also a FACT that the Nazies used THIS SAME argument

The perversion of your intellect and your character knows no bounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I base the opinion I posted of Stephen based on this one thread. And to be more clear, my opinion was that he was rude. I am not rude. I see rudness as a vice, therefore I concluded that we are not equal from THAT one perspective.

It's good that you clarified that because the following suggests you were comparing your respective abilities to use reason:

QUOTE (Tomer @ Jun 1 2004, 12:50 PM)

What does "VES" means?

I follow the best teacher I've ever had:

"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone."

*Ayn Rand, The 35th anniversary edition of Atlas Shrugged, pg. 3

Rudeness and reasoning are not necessarily indicative of one another. There may be valid reasons for being rude, such as being falsely maligned or misrepresented.

From that perspective, I believe Stephen has defended his statements rather well.

VES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
d180586, leave him be... he is not an equel (and knows it perfectly well)

Well, finally something from Tomer with which I can agree. If there were ever two people I am not the "equel[sic]" of, it is you two.

Try to focus on other rational individuals. There are many excellent users here...

Wow, another statement with which I agree. But, you might want to consider why so few of these others ever engage either one of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephen, I'm glad you stopped making direct replies.  You have been more than accomodating and patient with your opposition.

Thank you for the acknowledgement.

Personally, I think the behavior of Tomer and d180586 (Dolev) to be so bizarre and so disgraceful, that they offer no benefit to this forum other than disruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the physical differences.

I take it that you accept that there are physical differences between men and women, given that you can at least identify them as man and woman (grasping at least that their genitals differ), but that you challenge my claim that the differences are either significant, or biological, or both.

Which?

Not challenging. both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...