All things Transgender related
Comments
-
It's basic. You learn it right away in philosophy. Go Google Keynesian economics now. I can talk about that even though that's also basic economics and on Google. Next Google Age of Jackson and let's discuss Robert Remini's white washing of Jackson's record on Indian Removal.ecdanc said:
Get the picture? Just because you heard of something for the first time today doesn't mean I did.0 -
An area I definitely defer to expertise over common sense!brianlux said: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!)
0 -
You crack me up. The exact language you used earlier is in the top link if you search “pillars of philosophy.” It’s fine. Just own it.mrussel1 said:
It's basic. You learn it right away in philosophy. Go Google Keynesian economics now. I can talk about that even though that's also basic economics and on Google. Next Google Age of Jackson and let's discuss Robert Remini's white washing of Jackson's record on Indian Removal.ecdanc said:
Get the picture? Just because you heard of something for the first time today doesn't mean I did.
And I’d be happy to discuss Jackson and the genocide of native Americans with you. I teach it regularly.0 -
cincybearcat said:
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.)
Just don't forget who to refer to as "Professor"!"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
amethgr8 said: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.
0 -
Dr. ecdanc works too. 😁brianlux said:cincybearcat said:
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.)Just don't forget who to refer to as "Professor"!0 -
And mean-spirited.cincybearcat said:This thread has been very disappointing.
0 -
What’s the nice way to say “you have literally no idea what you’re talking about in this specific instance?”hedonist said:
And mean-spirited.cincybearcat said:This thread has been very disappointing.0 -
Of course it would be the top. Use your damn brain. It's how Google actually works.ecdanc said:
You crack me up. The exact language you used earlier is in the top link if you search “pillars of philosophy.” It’s fine. Just own it.mrussel1 said:
It's basic. You learn it right away in philosophy. Go Google Keynesian economics now. I can talk about that even though that's also basic economics and on Google. Next Google Age of Jackson and let's discuss Robert Remini's white washing of Jackson's record on Indian Removal.ecdanc said:
Get the picture? Just because you heard of something for the first time today doesn't mean I did.
And I’d be happy to discuss Jackson and the genocide of native Americans with you. I teach it regularly.
Cincy, didn't I ask you to shame me?0 -
you poorly cribbed a very basic website, man.mrussel1 said:
Of course it would be the top. Use your damn brain. It's how Google actually works.ecdanc said:
You crack me up. The exact language you used earlier is in the top link if you search “pillars of philosophy.” It’s fine. Just own it.mrussel1 said:
It's basic. You learn it right away in philosophy. Go Google Keynesian economics now. I can talk about that even though that's also basic economics and on Google. Next Google Age of Jackson and let's discuss Robert Remini's white washing of Jackson's record on Indian Removal.ecdanc said:
Get the picture? Just because you heard of something for the first time today doesn't mean I did.
And I’d be happy to discuss Jackson and the genocide of native Americans with you. I teach it regularly.
Cincy, didn't I ask you to shame me?0 -
mrussel1 said:
Of course it would be the top. Use your damn brain. It's how Google actually works.ecdanc said:
You crack me up. The exact language you used earlier is in the top link if you search “pillars of philosophy.” It’s fine. Just own it.mrussel1 said:
It's basic. You learn it right away in philosophy. Go Google Keynesian economics now. I can talk about that even though that's also basic economics and on Google. Next Google Age of Jackson and let's discuss Robert Remini's white washing of Jackson's record on Indian Removal.ecdanc said:
Get the picture? Just because you heard of something for the first time today doesn't mean I did.
And I’d be happy to discuss Jackson and the genocide of native Americans with you. I teach it regularly.
Cincy, didn't I ask you to shame me?
hippiemom = goodness0 -
After the little plagiarism gambit, I’m not sure he’s capable of shame.0
-
Ain't no way to do it! And lest I be accused of "sniping", I'm talking about the overall vibe of this thread, beginning on the first page.ecdanc said:
What’s the nice way to say “you have literally no idea what you’re talking about in this specific instance?”hedonist said:
And mean-spirited.cincybearcat said:This thread has been very disappointing.0 -
Man, you violated the most basic tenant of philosophy by declaring that your opinion was unassailable. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? And you claim to speak for scholars when you have zero formal education on the topic. My formal education is history and economics. But at least I have a rudimentary background in philosophy as one is required to take 3000 level courses in philosophy for a history degree. Your arguments failed the challenges that HFD and I put forth because you're parroting pieces of information you gather from co workers. That's a recipe for failure.ecdanc said:
you poorly cribbed a very basic website, man.mrussel1 said:
Of course it would be the top. Use your damn brain. It's how Google actually works.ecdanc said:
You crack me up. The exact language you used earlier is in the top link if you search “pillars of philosophy.” It’s fine. Just own it.mrussel1 said:
It's basic. You learn it right away in philosophy. Go Google Keynesian economics now. I can talk about that even though that's also basic economics and on Google. Next Google Age of Jackson and let's discuss Robert Remini's white washing of Jackson's record on Indian Removal.ecdanc said:
Get the picture? Just because you heard of something for the first time today doesn't mean I did.
And I’d be happy to discuss Jackson and the genocide of native Americans with you. I teach it regularly.
Cincy, didn't I ask you to shame me?0 -
I never said I have no formal education in philosophy. I said I’m not a scholar or expert in the field. That’s not the area in which I teach and publish. I’m in the humanities, so I have more philosophy background than most. Doesn’t make me an expert. And no, that is not the most basic tenet of philosophy. You’re just being silly now.mrussel1 said:
Man, you violated the most basic tenant of philosophy by declaring that your opinion was unassailable. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? And you claim to speak for scholars when you have zero formal education on the topic. My formal education is history and economics. But at least I have a rudimentary background in philosophy as one is required to take 3000 level courses in philosophy for a history degree. Your arguments failed the challenges that HFD and I put forth because you're parroting pieces of information you gather from co workers. That's a recipe for failure.ecdanc said:
you poorly cribbed a very basic website, man.mrussel1 said:
Of course it would be the top. Use your damn brain. It's how Google actually works.ecdanc said:
You crack me up. The exact language you used earlier is in the top link if you search “pillars of philosophy.” It’s fine. Just own it.mrussel1 said:
It's basic. You learn it right away in philosophy. Go Google Keynesian economics now. I can talk about that even though that's also basic economics and on Google. Next Google Age of Jackson and let's discuss Robert Remini's white washing of Jackson's record on Indian Removal.ecdanc said:
Get the picture? Just because you heard of something for the first time today doesn't mean I did.
And I’d be happy to discuss Jackson and the genocide of native Americans with you. I teach it regularly.
Cincy, didn't I ask you to shame me?
0 -
-
By your standards, I’m an expert in a bunch of areas!ecdanc said:
I never said I have no formal education in philosophy. I said I’m not a scholar or expert in the field. That’s not the area in which I teach and publish. I’m in the humanities, so I have more philosophy background than most. Doesn’t make me an expert. And no, that is not the most basic tenet of philosophy. You’re just being silly now.mrussel1 said:
Man, you violated the most basic tenant of philosophy by declaring that your opinion was unassailable. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? And you claim to speak for scholars when you have zero formal education on the topic. My formal education is history and economics. But at least I have a rudimentary background in philosophy as one is required to take 3000 level courses in philosophy for a history degree. Your arguments failed the challenges that HFD and I put forth because you're parroting pieces of information you gather from co workers. That's a recipe for failure.ecdanc said:
you poorly cribbed a very basic website, man.mrussel1 said:
Of course it would be the top. Use your damn brain. It's how Google actually works.ecdanc said:
You crack me up. The exact language you used earlier is in the top link if you search “pillars of philosophy.” It’s fine. Just own it.mrussel1 said:
It's basic. You learn it right away in philosophy. Go Google Keynesian economics now. I can talk about that even though that's also basic economics and on Google. Next Google Age of Jackson and let's discuss Robert Remini's white washing of Jackson's record on Indian Removal.ecdanc said:
Get the picture? Just because you heard of something for the first time today doesn't mean I did.
And I’d be happy to discuss Jackson and the genocide of native Americans with you. I teach it regularly.
Cincy, didn't I ask you to shame me?0 -
you are an expert in quoting yourself and looking like you are talking to yourself.ecdanc said:
By your standards, I’m an expert in a bunch of areas!ecdanc said:
I never said I have no formal education in philosophy. I said I’m not a scholar or expert in the field. That’s not the area in which I teach and publish. I’m in the humanities, so I have more philosophy background than most. Doesn’t make me an expert. And no, that is not the most basic tenet of philosophy. You’re just being silly now.mrussel1 said:
Man, you violated the most basic tenant of philosophy by declaring that your opinion was unassailable. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? And you claim to speak for scholars when you have zero formal education on the topic. My formal education is history and economics. But at least I have a rudimentary background in philosophy as one is required to take 3000 level courses in philosophy for a history degree. Your arguments failed the challenges that HFD and I put forth because you're parroting pieces of information you gather from co workers. That's a recipe for failure.ecdanc said:
you poorly cribbed a very basic website, man.mrussel1 said:
Of course it would be the top. Use your damn brain. It's how Google actually works.ecdanc said:
You crack me up. The exact language you used earlier is in the top link if you search “pillars of philosophy.” It’s fine. Just own it.mrussel1 said:
It's basic. You learn it right away in philosophy. Go Google Keynesian economics now. I can talk about that even though that's also basic economics and on Google. Next Google Age of Jackson and let's discuss Robert Remini's white washing of Jackson's record on Indian Removal.ecdanc said:
Get the picture? Just because you heard of something for the first time today doesn't mean I did.
And I’d be happy to discuss Jackson and the genocide of native Americans with you. I teach it regularly.
Cincy, didn't I ask you to shame me?hippiemom = goodness0 -
Stupid phone.cincybearcat said:
you are an expert in quoting yourself and looking like you are talking to yourself.ecdanc said:
By your standards, I’m an expert in a bunch of areas!ecdanc said:
I never said I have no formal education in philosophy. I said I’m not a scholar or expert in the field. That’s not the area in which I teach and publish. I’m in the humanities, so I have more philosophy background than most. Doesn’t make me an expert. And no, that is not the most basic tenet of philosophy. You’re just being silly now.mrussel1 said:
Man, you violated the most basic tenant of philosophy by declaring that your opinion was unassailable. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? And you claim to speak for scholars when you have zero formal education on the topic. My formal education is history and economics. But at least I have a rudimentary background in philosophy as one is required to take 3000 level courses in philosophy for a history degree. Your arguments failed the challenges that HFD and I put forth because you're parroting pieces of information you gather from co workers. That's a recipe for failure.ecdanc said:
you poorly cribbed a very basic website, man.mrussel1 said:
Of course it would be the top. Use your damn brain. It's how Google actually works.ecdanc said:
You crack me up. The exact language you used earlier is in the top link if you search “pillars of philosophy.” It’s fine. Just own it.mrussel1 said:
It's basic. You learn it right away in philosophy. Go Google Keynesian economics now. I can talk about that even though that's also basic economics and on Google. Next Google Age of Jackson and let's discuss Robert Remini's white washing of Jackson's record on Indian Removal.ecdanc said:
Get the picture? Just because you heard of something for the first time today doesn't mean I did.
And I’d be happy to discuss Jackson and the genocide of native Americans with you. I teach it regularly.
Cincy, didn't I ask you to shame me?0 -
Let's not try and define "common sense" I don't have a degree but im following the conversation. Seems little about transgender issues now.ecdanc said:
“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.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
https://youtu.be/Y90N5XsasN0
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