All things Transgender related
Comments
-
Cool straw man.brianlux said:ecdanc said:
It's true. I'm still miffed that my parents raised me with such strict and antiquated notions of gender.brianlux said:amethgr8 said:I am 53, female. Raised very traditionally, married to a male. And maybe a little bit of wanting to be married with children like a good wife. But four of us raised the same environment, but two boys and two girls,boys got motor cycles and we got horses. They had to shovel the do lawn and we cleaned and cook.
I hated wearing dresses and have never worn make up. There may have been a little envy, boys could do so much different. But now I see maybe they could have looked at us the same, who knows. I don't think it matters much, kids grow and do what they want as adults, there has to be a baseline.
I think 50 years from now, all the labels will be gone, people will have little pretense about what they or their parts "should" look like as they all deliver intimatcy, love and organism. It will just be people that can carry babies and people that don't.
IDK, I got thru 6pages of this post and had to give my 2cents.
On the other hand (and I know I will get clawed by some cat for saying this), but on the other hand, some of this reminds me of the way some of my generation thought back in the sixties- all that age of Aquarius bullshit and living on communes etc. Many of my peers thought they were "enlightened" and shoved these ideas onto their kids, gave then weird names like Wavy Gravy did (who also did some fine work, so I'm not saying it was all b.s.), or brought them up in squalor and that that was groovy. But then a lot of these kids grew up and rejected theirs parents notions a far fetched, and some (and I know some of these people well, so this is not conjecture), some even hated their parents for a time for raising them under conditions that they later considered questionable at best. Young parents would do well to consider that not everything they believe will be seen as gold by their kids as they grow up."Antiquated notion of gender"? WTF?Anyway, so I take it you're cool with letting your kids figure out what gender they are and wouldn't fill their heads with confusion about why Timmy has a penis and Jane has a vagina and wouldn't tell both that maybe they have the wrong parts or that it's not cool to think of ones self as a man or a woman. Cool. But if your bring them up with the notion that they are an "it", you may find that kind of parenting can be like a nasty boomerang.0 -
No, because I know what they do. They mostly work for me. I encounter a bunch of MBAs. Maybe your co-workers could make your argument convincingly, but you're not.ecdanc said:
Do you ever talk to your coworkers about what they do? I basically don’t have anyone I encounter frequently who doesn’t have a PhD. Our conversations cover a lot of ground.mrussel1 said:
You read one book on the topic. Good for you. I cant' believe you don't see the thick irony of your arguments.ecdanc said:
I know because what I’m telling you doesn’t require expertise. It’s a really basic thing. See there’s a big distance between “scholar” and knowing nothing. I read. My expertise is philosophy adjacent, so it’s not a stretch for me.mrussel1 said:
So if you're not a philosophy scholar and you don't work in that field, then how the hell do you know what "most scholars" think? Did you take a survey? And it's just freakin' hilarious that someone that acts as if they're steeped in philosophy doesn't understand that one of the four pillars is essentially "can anything be certain"? Yet you make statements of certitude.ecdanc said:
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.mrussel1 said:
So weird.. you say you're a philosophy scholar, and yet you are making unassailable statements of fact. That seems to be quite the contradiction. I'm sure Plato thought he had it all figured out too.ecdanc said:
As I already told you, that's a statement of fact. There is no "case" to be made. I can try to disabuse you of your erroneous knowledge in the area, but I can't convince you (because it's not an argument). But, I do encourage you to go confirm the fact (note "confirm," not "convince"" for yourself. I suggest you start with some basic reading in the philosophy of science. A quick Google search brings up some useful primers with reading lists. For instance, this site might offer a starting point--it includes a lengthy syllabus of reading for your pleasure.mrussel1 said:
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?ecdanc said:
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.mrussel1 said:
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.ecdanc said:
The ground of the argument has shifted slightly, as I've adapted to the various statements thrown at me (e.g., appeals to science as a sort of infallible arbiter required us to go down the rabbit hole we now find ourselves). But it's you who have actually tried to shift not so much the grounds of the argument, but it's rules: you assert that since mine is the less common position, I bear the burden of convincing you. When I say, "that's not true amongst scholars," I'm not making an argument; I'm stating a fact. It is not convincing or unconvincing; it is true or false. To clarify the exact nature of my factual statement, I'd like to be precise about what I'm saying. We find ourselves right now primarily discussing whether science is a social construction. That is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical one. More exactly, it's a question explored by philosophers of science. Science does not consider it's own nature--that's largely outside the scope of it's epistemology. All I can tell you, then, is that quite certainly mine is the dominant position amongst scholars who consider this question. I can't speak for what is more common amongst all people, and will not try to do so, but I find it absurd to defer to "common" understanding (as that which must be overturned) rather than the general understanding of people who study the topic.mrussel1 said:
Like no. Who could possibly deny that but Trump? I deny that you've made your case with any efficacy whatsoever. You move goalposts and cherry pick sentences. You disparage the motives of others, call them bigots, tell them to go fuck themselves, and everything in between. Yet you can't understand why people just...won't....buy...your arguments. It's because they are weak and ineffectual, not because we aren't 'scholars' like you. And by the way, several of us have advanced degrees.ecdanc said:
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
Ugh..
@cincybearcat - tear me out of this thread please. Shame me if I post again.0 -
I’m not making an argument. I’m stating a fact. Do the MBAs have to repeat themselves a lot too?mrussel1 said:
No, because I know what they do. They mostly work for me. I encounter a bunch of MBAs. Maybe your co-workers could make your argument convincingly, but you're not.ecdanc said:
Do you ever talk to your coworkers about what they do? I basically don’t have anyone I encounter frequently who doesn’t have a PhD. Our conversations cover a lot of ground.mrussel1 said:
You read one book on the topic. Good for you. I cant' believe you don't see the thick irony of your arguments.ecdanc said:
I know because what I’m telling you doesn’t require expertise. It’s a really basic thing. See there’s a big distance between “scholar” and knowing nothing. I read. My expertise is philosophy adjacent, so it’s not a stretch for me.mrussel1 said:
So if you're not a philosophy scholar and you don't work in that field, then how the hell do you know what "most scholars" think? Did you take a survey? And it's just freakin' hilarious that someone that acts as if they're steeped in philosophy doesn't understand that one of the four pillars is essentially "can anything be certain"? Yet you make statements of certitude.ecdanc said:
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.mrussel1 said:
So weird.. you say you're a philosophy scholar, and yet you are making unassailable statements of fact. That seems to be quite the contradiction. I'm sure Plato thought he had it all figured out too.ecdanc said:
As I already told you, that's a statement of fact. There is no "case" to be made. I can try to disabuse you of your erroneous knowledge in the area, but I can't convince you (because it's not an argument). But, I do encourage you to go confirm the fact (note "confirm," not "convince"" for yourself. I suggest you start with some basic reading in the philosophy of science. A quick Google search brings up some useful primers with reading lists. For instance, this site might offer a starting point--it includes a lengthy syllabus of reading for your pleasure.mrussel1 said:
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?ecdanc said:
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.mrussel1 said:
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.ecdanc said:
The ground of the argument has shifted slightly, as I've adapted to the various statements thrown at me (e.g., appeals to science as a sort of infallible arbiter required us to go down the rabbit hole we now find ourselves). But it's you who have actually tried to shift not so much the grounds of the argument, but it's rules: you assert that since mine is the less common position, I bear the burden of convincing you. When I say, "that's not true amongst scholars," I'm not making an argument; I'm stating a fact. It is not convincing or unconvincing; it is true or false. To clarify the exact nature of my factual statement, I'd like to be precise about what I'm saying. We find ourselves right now primarily discussing whether science is a social construction. That is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical one. More exactly, it's a question explored by philosophers of science. Science does not consider it's own nature--that's largely outside the scope of it's epistemology. All I can tell you, then, is that quite certainly mine is the dominant position amongst scholars who consider this question. I can't speak for what is more common amongst all people, and will not try to do so, but I find it absurd to defer to "common" understanding (as that which must be overturned) rather than the general understanding of people who study the topic.mrussel1 said:
Like no. Who could possibly deny that but Trump? I deny that you've made your case with any efficacy whatsoever. You move goalposts and cherry pick sentences. You disparage the motives of others, call them bigots, tell them to go fuck themselves, and everything in between. Yet you can't understand why people just...won't....buy...your arguments. It's because they are weak and ineffectual, not because we aren't 'scholars' like you. And by the way, several of us have advanced degrees.ecdanc said:
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
Ugh..
@cincybearcat - tear me out of this thread please. Shame me if I post again.0 -
My sister in law had a female and her olderest male came home from school and said he does not want to decide the baby's gender and will refer to her as it.
mom said, she is a she until she tells me different. I don't think a baseline is bad, they are going to have one anyway. As long as they know they can become who they want and parents are their to support and help them find their way even tho it's not the way mom and dad went, or dad n dad, etc.Amy The Great #74594
New Orleans LA 7/4/95 reschedule 9/17/95
Chicago IL 1998, 10/9/00, 06/18/03, 05/16/06, 05/17/06
08/23/09, 08/24/09, Lolla 08/05/07
Champaign IL 4/23/03
Grand Rapids MI VFC 10/03/04
Grand Rapids MI 19May06
Noblesville IN 05/07/10 Cleveland OH 05/09/10
PJ 20 2011
Baltimore MD, Charlottesville VA, Seattle WA 2013
St. Louis MO, Milwaukee WI 2014
Tampa FL, Chicago IL, Lexington KY 2016
Missoula MT 20180 -
You should just stop. It’s not going anywhere. Now he is trying to flaunt phDs.... I bet he’s or sorry, I bet they is a real hoot in the real world. This one is easy to call.mrussel1 said:
No, because I know what they do. They mostly work for me. I encounter a bunch of MBAs. Maybe your co-workers could make your argument convincingly, but you're not.ecdanc said:
Do you ever talk to your coworkers about what they do? I basically don’t have anyone I encounter frequently who doesn’t have a PhD. Our conversations cover a lot of ground.mrussel1 said:
You read one book on the topic. Good for you. I cant' believe you don't see the thick irony of your arguments.ecdanc said:
I know because what I’m telling you doesn’t require expertise. It’s a really basic thing. See there’s a big distance between “scholar” and knowing nothing. I read. My expertise is philosophy adjacent, so it’s not a stretch for me.mrussel1 said:
So if you're not a philosophy scholar and you don't work in that field, then how the hell do you know what "most scholars" think? Did you take a survey? And it's just freakin' hilarious that someone that acts as if they're steeped in philosophy doesn't understand that one of the four pillars is essentially "can anything be certain"? Yet you make statements of certitude.ecdanc said:
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.mrussel1 said:
So weird.. you say you're a philosophy scholar, and yet you are making unassailable statements of fact. That seems to be quite the contradiction. I'm sure Plato thought he had it all figured out too.ecdanc said:
As I already told you, that's a statement of fact. There is no "case" to be made. I can try to disabuse you of your erroneous knowledge in the area, but I can't convince you (because it's not an argument). But, I do encourage you to go confirm the fact (note "confirm," not "convince"" for yourself. I suggest you start with some basic reading in the philosophy of science. A quick Google search brings up some useful primers with reading lists. For instance, this site might offer a starting point--it includes a lengthy syllabus of reading for your pleasure.mrussel1 said:
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?ecdanc said:
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.mrussel1 said:
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.ecdanc said:
The ground of the argument has shifted slightly, as I've adapted to the various statements thrown at me (e.g., appeals to science as a sort of infallible arbiter required us to go down the rabbit hole we now find ourselves). But it's you who have actually tried to shift not so much the grounds of the argument, but it's rules: you assert that since mine is the less common position, I bear the burden of convincing you. When I say, "that's not true amongst scholars," I'm not making an argument; I'm stating a fact. It is not convincing or unconvincing; it is true or false. To clarify the exact nature of my factual statement, I'd like to be precise about what I'm saying. We find ourselves right now primarily discussing whether science is a social construction. That is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical one. More exactly, it's a question explored by philosophers of science. Science does not consider it's own nature--that's largely outside the scope of it's epistemology. All I can tell you, then, is that quite certainly mine is the dominant position amongst scholars who consider this question. I can't speak for what is more common amongst all people, and will not try to do so, but I find it absurd to defer to "common" understanding (as that which must be overturned) rather than the general understanding of people who study the topic.mrussel1 said:
Like no. Who could possibly deny that but Trump? I deny that you've made your case with any efficacy whatsoever. You move goalposts and cherry pick sentences. You disparage the motives of others, call them bigots, tell them to go fuck themselves, and everything in between. Yet you can't understand why people just...won't....buy...your arguments. It's because they are weak and ineffectual, not because we aren't 'scholars' like you. And by the way, several of us have advanced degrees.ecdanc said:
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
Ugh..
@cincybearcat - tear me out of this thread please. Shame me if I post again.hippiemom = goodness0 -
He want to know how I know things. What else am I supposed to say? Reading and listening to experts. That’s how.cincybearcat said:
You should just stop. It’s not going anywhere. Now he is trying to flaunt phDs.... I bet he’s or sorry, I bet they is a real hoot in the real world. This one is easy to call.mrussel1 said:
No, because I know what they do. They mostly work for me. I encounter a bunch of MBAs. Maybe your co-workers could make your argument convincingly, but you're not.ecdanc said:
Do you ever talk to your coworkers about what they do? I basically don’t have anyone I encounter frequently who doesn’t have a PhD. Our conversations cover a lot of ground.mrussel1 said:
You read one book on the topic. Good for you. I cant' believe you don't see the thick irony of your arguments.ecdanc said:
I know because what I’m telling you doesn’t require expertise. It’s a really basic thing. See there’s a big distance between “scholar” and knowing nothing. I read. My expertise is philosophy adjacent, so it’s not a stretch for me.mrussel1 said:
So if you're not a philosophy scholar and you don't work in that field, then how the hell do you know what "most scholars" think? Did you take a survey? And it's just freakin' hilarious that someone that acts as if they're steeped in philosophy doesn't understand that one of the four pillars is essentially "can anything be certain"? Yet you make statements of certitude.ecdanc said:
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.mrussel1 said:
So weird.. you say you're a philosophy scholar, and yet you are making unassailable statements of fact. That seems to be quite the contradiction. I'm sure Plato thought he had it all figured out too.ecdanc said:
As I already told you, that's a statement of fact. There is no "case" to be made. I can try to disabuse you of your erroneous knowledge in the area, but I can't convince you (because it's not an argument). But, I do encourage you to go confirm the fact (note "confirm," not "convince"" for yourself. I suggest you start with some basic reading in the philosophy of science. A quick Google search brings up some useful primers with reading lists. For instance, this site might offer a starting point--it includes a lengthy syllabus of reading for your pleasure.mrussel1 said:
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?ecdanc said:
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.mrussel1 said:
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.ecdanc said:
The ground of the argument has shifted slightly, as I've adapted to the various statements thrown at me (e.g., appeals to science as a sort of infallible arbiter required us to go down the rabbit hole we now find ourselves). But it's you who have actually tried to shift not so much the grounds of the argument, but it's rules: you assert that since mine is the less common position, I bear the burden of convincing you. When I say, "that's not true amongst scholars," I'm not making an argument; I'm stating a fact. It is not convincing or unconvincing; it is true or false. To clarify the exact nature of my factual statement, I'd like to be precise about what I'm saying. We find ourselves right now primarily discussing whether science is a social construction. That is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical one. More exactly, it's a question explored by philosophers of science. Science does not consider it's own nature--that's largely outside the scope of it's epistemology. All I can tell you, then, is that quite certainly mine is the dominant position amongst scholars who consider this question. I can't speak for what is more common amongst all people, and will not try to do so, but I find it absurd to defer to "common" understanding (as that which must be overturned) rather than the general understanding of people who study the topic.mrussel1 said:
Like no. Who could possibly deny that but Trump? I deny that you've made your case with any efficacy whatsoever. You move goalposts and cherry pick sentences. You disparage the motives of others, call them bigots, tell them to go fuck themselves, and everything in between. Yet you can't understand why people just...won't....buy...your arguments. It's because they are weak and ineffectual, not because we aren't 'scholars' like you. And by the way, several of us have advanced degrees.ecdanc said:
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
Ugh..
@cincybearcat - tear me out of this thread please. Shame me if I post again.
0 -
Holy crap, go take a philosophy course. You obviously did not in college. Talking to co-workers and skimming books is not helping you influence. In fact, between your temper tantrum yesterday and this discussion, you are just about as bad as it gets at influencing people. You somehow check every box of the caricature of a Millenial.ecdanc said:
I’m not making an argument. I’m stating a fact. Do the MBAs have to repeat themselves a lot too?mrussel1 said:
No, because I know what they do. They mostly work for me. I encounter a bunch of MBAs. Maybe your co-workers could make your argument convincingly, but you're not.ecdanc said:
Do you ever talk to your coworkers about what they do? I basically don’t have anyone I encounter frequently who doesn’t have a PhD. Our conversations cover a lot of ground.mrussel1 said:
You read one book on the topic. Good for you. I cant' believe you don't see the thick irony of your arguments.ecdanc said:
I know because what I’m telling you doesn’t require expertise. It’s a really basic thing. See there’s a big distance between “scholar” and knowing nothing. I read. My expertise is philosophy adjacent, so it’s not a stretch for me.mrussel1 said:
So if you're not a philosophy scholar and you don't work in that field, then how the hell do you know what "most scholars" think? Did you take a survey? And it's just freakin' hilarious that someone that acts as if they're steeped in philosophy doesn't understand that one of the four pillars is essentially "can anything be certain"? Yet you make statements of certitude.ecdanc said:
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.mrussel1 said:
So weird.. you say you're a philosophy scholar, and yet you are making unassailable statements of fact. That seems to be quite the contradiction. I'm sure Plato thought he had it all figured out too.ecdanc said:
As I already told you, that's a statement of fact. There is no "case" to be made. I can try to disabuse you of your erroneous knowledge in the area, but I can't convince you (because it's not an argument). But, I do encourage you to go confirm the fact (note "confirm," not "convince"" for yourself. I suggest you start with some basic reading in the philosophy of science. A quick Google search brings up some useful primers with reading lists. For instance, this site might offer a starting point--it includes a lengthy syllabus of reading for your pleasure.mrussel1 said:
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?ecdanc said:
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.mrussel1 said:
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.ecdanc said:
The ground of the argument has shifted slightly, as I've adapted to the various statements thrown at me (e.g., appeals to science as a sort of infallible arbiter required us to go down the rabbit hole we now find ourselves). But it's you who have actually tried to shift not so much the grounds of the argument, but it's rules: you assert that since mine is the less common position, I bear the burden of convincing you. When I say, "that's not true amongst scholars," I'm not making an argument; I'm stating a fact. It is not convincing or unconvincing; it is true or false. To clarify the exact nature of my factual statement, I'd like to be precise about what I'm saying. We find ourselves right now primarily discussing whether science is a social construction. That is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical one. More exactly, it's a question explored by philosophers of science. Science does not consider it's own nature--that's largely outside the scope of it's epistemology. All I can tell you, then, is that quite certainly mine is the dominant position amongst scholars who consider this question. I can't speak for what is more common amongst all people, and will not try to do so, but I find it absurd to defer to "common" understanding (as that which must be overturned) rather than the general understanding of people who study the topic.mrussel1 said:
Like no. Who could possibly deny that but Trump? I deny that you've made your case with any efficacy whatsoever. You move goalposts and cherry pick sentences. You disparage the motives of others, call them bigots, tell them to go fuck themselves, and everything in between. Yet you can't understand why people just...won't....buy...your arguments. It's because they are weak and ineffectual, not because we aren't 'scholars' like you. And by the way, several of us have advanced degrees.ecdanc said:
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
Ugh..
@cincybearcat - tear me out of this thread please. Shame me if I post again.0 -
If I’m a millennial, does that mean you’re going full boomer?0
-
Just curious, since now you’re claiming to be more of an expert than me: how many philosophy classes have you taken?0
-
A little off topic, think we should circle around to pertinent inquiries, not resumes.Amy The Great #74594
New Orleans LA 7/4/95 reschedule 9/17/95
Chicago IL 1998, 10/9/00, 06/18/03, 05/16/06, 05/17/06
08/23/09, 08/24/09, Lolla 08/05/07
Champaign IL 4/23/03
Grand Rapids MI VFC 10/03/04
Grand Rapids MI 19May06
Noblesville IN 05/07/10 Cleveland OH 05/09/10
PJ 20 2011
Baltimore MD, Charlottesville VA, Seattle WA 2013
St. Louis MO, Milwaukee WI 2014
Tampa FL, Chicago IL, Lexington KY 2016
Missoula MT 20180 -
ecdanc said:
Do you ever talk to your coworkers about what they do? I basically don’t have anyone I encounter frequently who doesn’t have a PhD. Our conversations cover a lot of ground.mrussel1 said:
You read one book on the topic. Good for you. I cant' believe you don't see the thick irony of your arguments.ecdanc said:
I know because what I’m telling you doesn’t require expertise. It’s a really basic thing. See there’s a big distance between “scholar” and knowing nothing. I read. My expertise is philosophy adjacent, so it’s not a stretch for me.mrussel1 said:
So if you're not a philosophy scholar and you don't work in that field, then how the hell do you know what "most scholars" think? Did you take a survey? And it's just freakin' hilarious that someone that acts as if they're steeped in philosophy doesn't understand that one of the four pillars is essentially "can anything be certain"? Yet you make statements of certitude.ecdanc said:
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.mrussel1 said:
So weird.. you say you're a philosophy scholar, and yet you are making unassailable statements of fact. That seems to be quite the contradiction. I'm sure Plato thought he had it all figured out too.ecdanc said:
As I already told you, that's a statement of fact. There is no "case" to be made. I can try to disabuse you of your erroneous knowledge in the area, but I can't convince you (because it's not an argument). But, I do encourage you to go confirm the fact (note "confirm," not "convince"" for yourself. I suggest you start with some basic reading in the philosophy of science. A quick Google search brings up some useful primers with reading lists. For instance, this site might offer a starting point--it includes a lengthy syllabus of reading for your pleasure.mrussel1 said:
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?ecdanc said:
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.mrussel1 said:
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.ecdanc said:
The ground of the argument has shifted slightly, as I've adapted to the various statements thrown at me (e.g., appeals to science as a sort of infallible arbiter required us to go down the rabbit hole we now find ourselves). But it's you who have actually tried to shift not so much the grounds of the argument, but it's rules: you assert that since mine is the less common position, I bear the burden of convincing you. When I say, "that's not true amongst scholars," I'm not making an argument; I'm stating a fact. It is not convincing or unconvincing; it is true or false. To clarify the exact nature of my factual statement, I'd like to be precise about what I'm saying. We find ourselves right now primarily discussing whether science is a social construction. That is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical one. More exactly, it's a question explored by philosophers of science. Science does not consider it's own nature--that's largely outside the scope of it's epistemology. All I can tell you, then, is that quite certainly mine is the dominant position amongst scholars who consider this question. I can't speak for what is more common amongst all people, and will not try to do so, but I find it absurd to defer to "common" understanding (as that which must be overturned) rather than the general understanding of people who study the topic.mrussel1 said:
Like no. Who could possibly deny that but Trump? I deny that you've made your case with any efficacy whatsoever. You move goalposts and cherry pick sentences. You disparage the motives of others, call them bigots, tell them to go fuck themselves, and everything in between. Yet you can't understand why people just...won't....buy...your arguments. It's because they are weak and ineffectual, not because we aren't 'scholars' like you. And by the way, several of us have advanced degrees.ecdanc said:
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
Ugh..
@cincybearcat - tear me out of this thread please. Shame me if I post again.Oh brother. Piled High and Deep. Look man, it's not that I don't value education. I have somewhere between 200 210* college credits. But that shit means nothing compared to common sense. If you're going to flaunt a degree around here like that, you won't get a lot of oohs and ahhs.(*I honestly don't remember any more. More than enough to Pile High and Deep.)Post edited by brianlux on"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
I would imagine that should depend on the topic.brianlux said:ecdanc said:
Do you ever talk to your coworkers about what they do? I basically don’t have anyone I encounter frequently who doesn’t have a PhD. Our conversations cover a lot of ground.mrussel1 said:
You read one book on the topic. Good for you. I cant' believe you don't see the thick irony of your arguments.ecdanc said:
I know because what I’m telling you doesn’t require expertise. It’s a really basic thing. See there’s a big distance between “scholar” and knowing nothing. I read. My expertise is philosophy adjacent, so it’s not a stretch for me.mrussel1 said:
So if you're not a philosophy scholar and you don't work in that field, then how the hell do you know what "most scholars" think? Did you take a survey? And it's just freakin' hilarious that someone that acts as if they're steeped in philosophy doesn't understand that one of the four pillars is essentially "can anything be certain"? Yet you make statements of certitude.ecdanc said:
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.mrussel1 said:
So weird.. you say you're a philosophy scholar, and yet you are making unassailable statements of fact. That seems to be quite the contradiction. I'm sure Plato thought he had it all figured out too.ecdanc said:
As I already told you, that's a statement of fact. There is no "case" to be made. I can try to disabuse you of your erroneous knowledge in the area, but I can't convince you (because it's not an argument). But, I do encourage you to go confirm the fact (note "confirm," not "convince"" for yourself. I suggest you start with some basic reading in the philosophy of science. A quick Google search brings up some useful primers with reading lists. For instance, this site might offer a starting point--it includes a lengthy syllabus of reading for your pleasure.mrussel1 said:
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?ecdanc said:
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.mrussel1 said:
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.ecdanc said:
The ground of the argument has shifted slightly, as I've adapted to the various statements thrown at me (e.g., appeals to science as a sort of infallible arbiter required us to go down the rabbit hole we now find ourselves). But it's you who have actually tried to shift not so much the grounds of the argument, but it's rules: you assert that since mine is the less common position, I bear the burden of convincing you. When I say, "that's not true amongst scholars," I'm not making an argument; I'm stating a fact. It is not convincing or unconvincing; it is true or false. To clarify the exact nature of my factual statement, I'd like to be precise about what I'm saying. We find ourselves right now primarily discussing whether science is a social construction. That is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical one. More exactly, it's a question explored by philosophers of science. Science does not consider it's own nature--that's largely outside the scope of it's epistemology. All I can tell you, then, is that quite certainly mine is the dominant position amongst scholars who consider this question. I can't speak for what is more common amongst all people, and will not try to do so, but I find it absurd to defer to "common" understanding (as that which must be overturned) rather than the general understanding of people who study the topic.mrussel1 said:
Like no. Who could possibly deny that but Trump? I deny that you've made your case with any efficacy whatsoever. You move goalposts and cherry pick sentences. You disparage the motives of others, call them bigots, tell them to go fuck themselves, and everything in between. Yet you can't understand why people just...won't....buy...your arguments. It's because they are weak and ineffectual, not because we aren't 'scholars' like you. And by the way, several of us have advanced degrees.ecdanc said:
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
Ugh..
@cincybearcat - tear me out of this thread please. Shame me if I post again.
Oh brother. Piled High and Deep. Look man, it's not that I don't value education. I have somewhere between 120 and 130 college credits. But that shit means nothing compared to common sense. If you're going to flaunt a degree around here like that, you won't get a lot of oohs and ahhs.0 -
At least I know the pillars. You fail to grasp high school level philosophy.ecdanc said:0 -
“What do most philosophers of science think about science’s social constructedness” isn’t really a question “common sense” can answer.ecdanc said:
I would imagine that should depend on the topic.brianlux said:ecdanc said:
Do you ever talk to your coworkers about what they do? I basically don’t have anyone I encounter frequently who doesn’t have a PhD. Our conversations cover a lot of ground.mrussel1 said:
You read one book on the topic. Good for you. I cant' believe you don't see the thick irony of your arguments.ecdanc said:
I know because what I’m telling you doesn’t require expertise. It’s a really basic thing. See there’s a big distance between “scholar” and knowing nothing. I read. My expertise is philosophy adjacent, so it’s not a stretch for me.mrussel1 said:
So if you're not a philosophy scholar and you don't work in that field, then how the hell do you know what "most scholars" think? Did you take a survey? And it's just freakin' hilarious that someone that acts as if they're steeped in philosophy doesn't understand that one of the four pillars is essentially "can anything be certain"? Yet you make statements of certitude.ecdanc said:
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.mrussel1 said:
So weird.. you say you're a philosophy scholar, and yet you are making unassailable statements of fact. That seems to be quite the contradiction. I'm sure Plato thought he had it all figured out too.ecdanc said:
As I already told you, that's a statement of fact. There is no "case" to be made. I can try to disabuse you of your erroneous knowledge in the area, but I can't convince you (because it's not an argument). But, I do encourage you to go confirm the fact (note "confirm," not "convince"" for yourself. I suggest you start with some basic reading in the philosophy of science. A quick Google search brings up some useful primers with reading lists. For instance, this site might offer a starting point--it includes a lengthy syllabus of reading for your pleasure.mrussel1 said:
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?ecdanc said:
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.mrussel1 said:
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.ecdanc said:
The ground of the argument has shifted slightly, as I've adapted to the various statements thrown at me (e.g., appeals to science as a sort of infallible arbiter required us to go down the rabbit hole we now find ourselves). But it's you who have actually tried to shift not so much the grounds of the argument, but it's rules: you assert that since mine is the less common position, I bear the burden of convincing you. When I say, "that's not true amongst scholars," I'm not making an argument; I'm stating a fact. It is not convincing or unconvincing; it is true or false. To clarify the exact nature of my factual statement, I'd like to be precise about what I'm saying. We find ourselves right now primarily discussing whether science is a social construction. That is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical one. More exactly, it's a question explored by philosophers of science. Science does not consider it's own nature--that's largely outside the scope of it's epistemology. All I can tell you, then, is that quite certainly mine is the dominant position amongst scholars who consider this question. I can't speak for what is more common amongst all people, and will not try to do so, but I find it absurd to defer to "common" understanding (as that which must be overturned) rather than the general understanding of people who study the topic.mrussel1 said:
Like no. Who could possibly deny that but Trump? I deny that you've made your case with any efficacy whatsoever. You move goalposts and cherry pick sentences. You disparage the motives of others, call them bigots, tell them to go fuck themselves, and everything in between. Yet you can't understand why people just...won't....buy...your arguments. It's because they are weak and ineffectual, not because we aren't 'scholars' like you. And by the way, several of us have advanced degrees.ecdanc said:
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
Ugh..
@cincybearcat - tear me out of this thread please. Shame me if I post again.
Oh brother. Piled High and Deep. Look man, it's not that I don't value education. I have somewhere between 120 and 130 college credits. But that shit means nothing compared to common sense. If you're going to flaunt a degree around here like that, you won't get a lot of oohs and ahhs.
0 -
I got the bullshit and the more shit but stopped before pulling it higher and deeperbrianlux said:ecdanc said:
Do you ever talk to your coworkers about what they do? I basically don’t have anyone I encounter frequently who doesn’t have a PhD. Our conversations cover a lot of ground.mrussel1 said:
You read one book on the topic. Good for you. I cant' believe you don't see the thick irony of your arguments.ecdanc said:
I know because what I’m telling you doesn’t require expertise. It’s a really basic thing. See there’s a big distance between “scholar” and knowing nothing. I read. My expertise is philosophy adjacent, so it’s not a stretch for me.mrussel1 said:
So if you're not a philosophy scholar and you don't work in that field, then how the hell do you know what "most scholars" think? Did you take a survey? And it's just freakin' hilarious that someone that acts as if they're steeped in philosophy doesn't understand that one of the four pillars is essentially "can anything be certain"? Yet you make statements of certitude.ecdanc said:
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.mrussel1 said:
So weird.. you say you're a philosophy scholar, and yet you are making unassailable statements of fact. That seems to be quite the contradiction. I'm sure Plato thought he had it all figured out too.ecdanc said:
As I already told you, that's a statement of fact. There is no "case" to be made. I can try to disabuse you of your erroneous knowledge in the area, but I can't convince you (because it's not an argument). But, I do encourage you to go confirm the fact (note "confirm," not "convince"" for yourself. I suggest you start with some basic reading in the philosophy of science. A quick Google search brings up some useful primers with reading lists. For instance, this site might offer a starting point--it includes a lengthy syllabus of reading for your pleasure.mrussel1 said:
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?ecdanc said:
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.mrussel1 said:
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.ecdanc said:
The ground of the argument has shifted slightly, as I've adapted to the various statements thrown at me (e.g., appeals to science as a sort of infallible arbiter required us to go down the rabbit hole we now find ourselves). But it's you who have actually tried to shift not so much the grounds of the argument, but it's rules: you assert that since mine is the less common position, I bear the burden of convincing you. When I say, "that's not true amongst scholars," I'm not making an argument; I'm stating a fact. It is not convincing or unconvincing; it is true or false. To clarify the exact nature of my factual statement, I'd like to be precise about what I'm saying. We find ourselves right now primarily discussing whether science is a social construction. That is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical one. More exactly, it's a question explored by philosophers of science. Science does not consider it's own nature--that's largely outside the scope of it's epistemology. All I can tell you, then, is that quite certainly mine is the dominant position amongst scholars who consider this question. I can't speak for what is more common amongst all people, and will not try to do so, but I find it absurd to defer to "common" understanding (as that which must be overturned) rather than the general understanding of people who study the topic.mrussel1 said:
Like no. Who could possibly deny that but Trump? I deny that you've made your case with any efficacy whatsoever. You move goalposts and cherry pick sentences. You disparage the motives of others, call them bigots, tell them to go fuck themselves, and everything in between. Yet you can't understand why people just...won't....buy...your arguments. It's because they are weak and ineffectual, not because we aren't 'scholars' like you. And by the way, several of us have advanced degrees.ecdanc said:
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
Ugh..
@cincybearcat - tear me out of this thread please. Shame me if I post again.Oh brother. Piled High and Deep. Look man, it's not that I don't value education. I have somewhere between 200 210* college credits. But that shit means nothing compared to common sense. If you're going to flaunt a degree around here like that, you won't get a lot of oohs and ahhs.(*I honestly don't remember any more. More than enough to Pile High and Deep.)hippiemom = goodness0 -
Do you mean branches?ecdanc said:0 -
ecdanc said:
I would imagine that should depend on the topic.brianlux said:ecdanc said:
Do you ever talk to your coworkers about what they do? I basically don’t have anyone I encounter frequently who doesn’t have a PhD. Our conversations cover a lot of ground.mrussel1 said:
You read one book on the topic. Good for you. I cant' believe you don't see the thick irony of your arguments.ecdanc said:
I know because what I’m telling you doesn’t require expertise. It’s a really basic thing. See there’s a big distance between “scholar” and knowing nothing. I read. My expertise is philosophy adjacent, so it’s not a stretch for me.mrussel1 said:
So if you're not a philosophy scholar and you don't work in that field, then how the hell do you know what "most scholars" think? Did you take a survey? And it's just freakin' hilarious that someone that acts as if they're steeped in philosophy doesn't understand that one of the four pillars is essentially "can anything be certain"? Yet you make statements of certitude.ecdanc said:
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.mrussel1 said:
So weird.. you say you're a philosophy scholar, and yet you are making unassailable statements of fact. That seems to be quite the contradiction. I'm sure Plato thought he had it all figured out too.ecdanc said:
As I already told you, that's a statement of fact. There is no "case" to be made. I can try to disabuse you of your erroneous knowledge in the area, but I can't convince you (because it's not an argument). But, I do encourage you to go confirm the fact (note "confirm," not "convince"" for yourself. I suggest you start with some basic reading in the philosophy of science. A quick Google search brings up some useful primers with reading lists. For instance, this site might offer a starting point--it includes a lengthy syllabus of reading for your pleasure.mrussel1 said:
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?ecdanc said:
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.mrussel1 said:
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.ecdanc said:
The ground of the argument has shifted slightly, as I've adapted to the various statements thrown at me (e.g., appeals to science as a sort of infallible arbiter required us to go down the rabbit hole we now find ourselves). But it's you who have actually tried to shift not so much the grounds of the argument, but it's rules: you assert that since mine is the less common position, I bear the burden of convincing you. When I say, "that's not true amongst scholars," I'm not making an argument; I'm stating a fact. It is not convincing or unconvincing; it is true or false. To clarify the exact nature of my factual statement, I'd like to be precise about what I'm saying. We find ourselves right now primarily discussing whether science is a social construction. That is not a scientific question; it is a philosophical one. More exactly, it's a question explored by philosophers of science. Science does not consider it's own nature--that's largely outside the scope of it's epistemology. All I can tell you, then, is that quite certainly mine is the dominant position amongst scholars who consider this question. I can't speak for what is more common amongst all people, and will not try to do so, but I find it absurd to defer to "common" understanding (as that which must be overturned) rather than the general understanding of people who study the topic.mrussel1 said:
Like no. Who could possibly deny that but Trump? I deny that you've made your case with any efficacy whatsoever. You move goalposts and cherry pick sentences. You disparage the motives of others, call them bigots, tell them to go fuck themselves, and everything in between. Yet you can't understand why people just...won't....buy...your arguments. It's because they are weak and ineffectual, not because we aren't 'scholars' like you. And by the way, several of us have advanced degrees.ecdanc said:
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
Ugh..
@cincybearcat - tear me out of this thread please. Shame me if I post again.
Oh brother. Piled High and Deep. Look man, it's not that I don't value education. I have somewhere between 120 and 130 college credits. But that shit means nothing compared to common sense. If you're going to flaunt a degree around here like that, you won't get a lot of oohs and ahhs.
Good. Then let's talk about waste management (it's too late for the boots, save your watches!)
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help