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.
It's true. I'm still miffed that my parents raised me with such strict and antiquated notions of gender.
Why? Do you think you would have turned out different or maybe think you missed out on something?
Yes. I think the toxic masculinity of my upbringing (I had only a brother and my mother was largely absent; my parents were vey traditional with their sense of gender; my church reinforced that, as did my school)--along with a number of other factors--has contributed to my depression and anxiety from adolescence to now. I work to change where I can, but even at 40 I find myself reverting back to the hypermasculine competitiveness of my youth.
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.
It's true. I'm still miffed that my parents raised me with such strict and antiquated notions of gender.
Why? Do you think you would have turned out different or maybe think you missed out on something?
Yes. I think the toxic masculinity of my upbringing (I had only a brother and my mother was largely absent; my parents were vey traditional with their sense of gender; my church reinforced that, as did my school)--along with a number of other factors--has contributed to my depression and anxiety from adolescence to now. I work to change where I can, but even at 40 I find myself reverting back to the hypermasculine competitiveness of my youth.
And that's your parents fault, and in no way connected to centuries of evolution and testosterone.
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.
This is a really good analogy. Perhaps the woke culture of today will create a reactionary one with their children.
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
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.
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.
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?
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.
It's true. I'm still miffed that my parents raised me with such strict and antiquated notions of gender.
Why? Do you think you would have turned out different or maybe think you missed out on something?
Yes. I think the toxic masculinity of my upbringing (I had only a brother and my mother was largely absent; my parents were vey traditional with their sense of gender; my church reinforced that, as did my school)--along with a number of other factors--has contributed to my depression and anxiety from adolescence to now. I work to change where I can, but even at 40 I find myself reverting back to the hypermasculine competitiveness of my youth.
And that's your parents fault, and in no way connected to centuries of evolution and testosterone.
No one can control where they come from and the influences that formed them initially. Even bad parents believe they are doing their bast or maybe they don't care, not everyone has completely unpacked their baggage by the time we have kids. I don't know if I would have turned out differently, to a certain degree, but if I wanted to date or be with someone other than who I'm with, I doubt my upbringing would have made a difference. I kept several things under wraps cause I didn't want the judgement back then, but now it would be take it or leave it, live n let live.
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 2018
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
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.
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.
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?
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.
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
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.
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.
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?
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.
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.
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
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.
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.
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?
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.
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.
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
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.
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.
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?
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.
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.
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.
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. Ugh..
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
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.
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.
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?
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.
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.
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.
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. Ugh..
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.
Aren't we all walking social science specimens really, everyone from a different test tube, resulting in certain and different chemicals reactions in our brains at certain times in our life all to bring us to why we believe. Can we say it's blended or complicated
Post edited by amethgr8 on
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 2018
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
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.
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.
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?
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.
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.
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.
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. Ugh..
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.
You read one book on the topic. Good for you. I cant' believe you don't see the thick irony of your arguments.
@cincybearcat - tear me out of this thread please. Shame me if I post again.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,760
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.
It's true. I'm still miffed that my parents raised me with such strict and antiquated notions of gender.
"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.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
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.
This is a really good analogy. Perhaps the woke culture of today will create a reactionary one with their children.
Maybe that's the role of parent: to give their kids a good reason to tell them at some point to fuck off, lol. I did that and, thankfully, they and I lived long enough to become close again.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
i think "most" might be a stretch, maybe better words "most that I know"
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 2018
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
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.
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.
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?
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.
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.
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.
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. Ugh..
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.
You read one book on the topic. Good for you. I cant' believe you don't see the thick irony of your arguments.
@cincybearcat - tear me out of this thread please. Shame me if I post again.
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.
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.
It's true. I'm still miffed that my parents raised me with such strict and antiquated notions of gender.
"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.
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
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.
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.
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?
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.
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.
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.
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. Ugh..
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.
You read one book on the topic. Good for you. I cant' believe you don't see the thick irony of your arguments.
@cincybearcat - tear me out of this thread please. Shame me if I post again.
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.
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.
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
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.
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.
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?
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.
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.
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.
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. Ugh..
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.
You read one book on the topic. Good for you. I cant' believe you don't see the thick irony of your arguments.
@cincybearcat - tear me out of this thread please. Shame me if I post again.
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.
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.
I’m not making an argument. I’m stating a fact. Do the MBAs have to repeat themselves a lot too?
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 2018
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
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.
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.
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?
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.
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.
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.
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. Ugh..
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.
You read one book on the topic. Good for you. I cant' believe you don't see the thick irony of your arguments.
@cincybearcat - tear me out of this thread please. Shame me if I post again.
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.
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.
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.
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
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.
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.
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?
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.
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.
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.
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. Ugh..
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.
You read one book on the topic. Good for you. I cant' believe you don't see the thick irony of your arguments.
@cincybearcat - tear me out of this thread please. Shame me if I post again.
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.
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.
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.
He want to know how I know things. What else am I supposed to say? Reading and listening to experts. That’s how.
Like do you take pleasure in denying that others might know more about something than you?
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.
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.
You made the statement, so yeah it's up to you to make the case. That's kind of how arguments work.
I don't even know to what statement you're referring here.
About the fucking science is a social construct bs... you know..what we've been arguing about for 5 hours?
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.
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.
I have never said I’m a philosophy scholar. And saying “most scholars agree” is not a philosophical statement.
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. Ugh..
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.
You read one book on the topic. Good for you. I cant' believe you don't see the thick irony of your arguments.
@cincybearcat - tear me out of this thread please. Shame me if I post again.
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.
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.
I’m not making an argument. I’m stating a fact. Do the MBAs have to repeat themselves a lot too?
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.
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 2018
Comments
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 2018
Ugh..
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 2018
@cincybearcat - tear me out of this thread please. Shame me if I post again.
Maybe that's the role of parent: to give their kids a good reason to tell them at some point to fuck off, lol. I did that and, thankfully, they and I lived long enough to become close again.
i think "most" might be a stretch, maybe better words "most that I know"
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 2018
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.
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 2018
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 2018