Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Malakas, Apr 29, 2008.
Dare to define:
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Sexism: Attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
Racism: The belief that there is a biological basis for different human races (race equals subspecies) today.
Meaning what, old, or passe, or previous?
Stereotypes? Define a stereotype.
Is a species a stereotype?
Meaning that there's not or that such beliefs are unwanted?
Are there different dog breeds?
Are there different species?
Describe how a species is created using evolution theory.
I contend that most people are guilty of selective reasoning.
They apply one standard in one context and another in another context.
Because they hold onto positions not because they've thought them through ion their own but because they've been taught them by others.
Because of this they believe often self-contradicting things.
In the case of both sexism and racism the underlying rational is empirical.
But, because these concepts are currently in the west considered 'evil' or unwanted these minds pretend that they are above discrimination when consciousness itself is a discriminating process.
These indoctrinated, weak, minds use sensual interpretations in one instance and then consider it bads to use the same sensual information in another; they generalize and simplify in one instance and then pretend that they are above such primitive practices; they employ dualistic reasoning in one case and then claim to be beyond dualism in another.
They are hypocrites of the vilest kind, the kind that can then kill and die for a childish inanity, they are self-hypocrites.
Deary, do you have anything to add?
If not shut up and go away. There are plenty of threads about dicks and shiny things. Go there.
See, oh dear moderators, how mediocrity derails all threads?
Dear, stupid, fucking pseudo-intellectual moderators, see what your precious forum has become? A reflection of your qualities.
I hope the money is good.
What, no one of you modern, normal minds has the balls to put your ego on the line and defend your world views?
Let's use the Socratic method...
Show me where this love of mankind is seated.
Tell me about your righteousness and new-aged enlightenment.
Something in accord with tradition. Something conventional, customary or established.
A standardized or simplified view that is held in common by a group.
There is not.
All dogs are of the same subspecies. So again, there really is no biological basis to name different races.
Of domesticated dog ? No.
All domesticated dog are of the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris. They are thus a subspecies of the Grey wolf (C. Lupus).
"A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies."
Although I don't know of what relevance this is..
Are you questioning all definitions ? Because if you are, we might as well quit discussion all together.
Fuck. Am I the only one replying.. ?
You see these turds you call yuor intelligent community only like to participate in chit chat and high school antics.
Give them something challenging and they're nowhere to be seen.
It's more easy to insinuate intelligence than to actually display it.
Here's a try:
Sexism: The convicition that a particular person's worth is as defined by the general social roles (that are in use within a particular social group) ascribed to the person's biological sex.
Racism: The convicition that a particular person's worth is as defined by the general social roles (that are in use within a particular social group) ascribed to the person's biological race.
(The same principle would apply for religionism, nationalism, socio-economical status recognition, and what else there might be that a society deems a relevant criterion to distinguish between people.)
Of course, these -isms suppose that "social group", "social role", "biological sex", "biological race" and even "particular person" exist objectively, obvious for all to recognize and thus not needing any further definition or explanation - that they are self-evident, go without saying.
Attempts to actually define these terms (ie. "social group", "social role" etc.) usually leads to endless quibbling, and so also the meaning of those -isms based on these terms can become void.
I'd actually go further than that and say sexism is actually oppressing someone (usually female) based on an unfounded view of superiority. Same goes for Rascism.
Value is defined by the environment.
Saying that one type is different than another does not diminish their value within the environment.
These roles are not heaven sent. They are, themselves, a continuance of a process that began before the social context emerged to sublimate them and use them.
Here you are implying that there's a deeper, reality, perhaps a duality, where appearance is other than essence.
I will admit that sensual interpretations are flawed and incomplete, but that's more a result of inferior judgment.
To say that the apparent is not the essence is to imply a hidden world over which this one resides like a Buddhist illusion or like a Christian paradise lost or like an idealists utopia.
Also to imply that one form of sensual interpretation is revealing in one context and not revealing in another is selective reasoning.
A phenomenon's every characteristic is an interpretation of its entire Becoming. It represents the sum of its past.
To exclude color, for example, as being relevant is to also include it in every other context or to also exclude form and taste and smell and form. If it is not then selective reasoning is at play, no different than a Christians who believes in cause/effect when it suits him but then draws a line of a causeless effect, contradicting himself.
To say that sexual roles were only aesthetic or cultural constructs is such an instance of selective reasoning.
To assume that the environment had an effect on the physical form but none n the mind, is to resort to dualistic reasoning.
There we have the cultural imperative.
There's no implication of treating the other badly by mentioning that they are different.
Superiority/inferiority is how evolution works.
Disputing the basic premises of evolution is selective reasoning.
Why one group dominates another is not accidental or a moralistic product. It is rooted in that group's heritage.
I did say
The convicition that a particular person's worth is as defined by the general social roles ...
- so issues of superiority automatically come in as soon as we speak of worth.
In Buddhist theology it states the mind is the creator of it's environment, it's experiences etc., and so it is the mind which creates these conditions which are experienced. I'm not sure how cause and effect might cancel oneself out though. Which I think you were saying. A concept difficult for we westerners to swallow perhaps, and this small post wont elucidate much, but that's ok. We're just bouncing ideas and the objective truths can't really be measured in such a subjective matter.
Sorry, I meant it went beyond the mere thinking and moved into the area of actions, rather than the point about feeling superior.
And so value is changed when environment is changed.
In this case the previous environment, the natural one, is pushed aside to be replaced by a man made one. This man made one, let us call it artificial, is not free of value judgments it just replaces the old ones and constructs those that satisfy a systemic need.
In this case biology is prevented from being used as a value judgment, even though we do so every time we go to the supermarket or choose a mate, and it is replaced with productivity, in the west.
An individual's value is in how much or what he produces and subsequently consumes.
Here we find the leveling into uniformity where natural identification markers are excluded to be abstracted, and thusly controlled, into a number.
There are many ways in which to dominate. Nothing is accidental, obviously. Neither is it governed by a moral code. If that was the case there would be no crime, etc. What does dominate are people's delusions and their inability and/or unwillingness to superceed them with intelligence. Most people aren't that bright, and so this would state that the gene for ignorance has won over. I don't subscibe. I would say that there are a few people leading those sheep into the pen, which makes it genetic anomalies the ruling force.
I'm off to work now.
Just a final clarification.
For me what separates man from beast is only a degree of intellect.
In all other aspects beast is superior to man.
For this reason I measure man in accordance with his intellect.
A definition of Intelligence
The ability to gather sensual information in detail, integrate it into a mental model (abstraction) and then use this abstraction to project self into the unknown.
The quality of these projections are determined by each individual's intellectual quality, as it has been determined by his/her heritage (nature as the sum of all past nurturing) and experiences (personal environmental conditioning) that hones this inheritance or stunts it.
For this reason whenever I speak of superior/inferior I mean it in this, and only this context.
No, I'm not imlpying that. But I am not an objectivist/realist, but more a constructivist.
They are cultural constructs - but constructs that are relevant within a particular social group.
I argue from the relative relevancy of a feature, not from the essence of a feature.
In effect, when something is relevant enough, it can be said to be essential. However if something truly were essential, it would remain so regardless of context. For example, if the essence of a female person was femininity, then this would remain so even when the female person would become poor, ill, and old. One has to be very selective in one's observations to confirm this.
If you are coming from an objectivist/realist position, then yes.
Not necessarily. To say that the apparent is not the essence is to say that value is defined contextually, by the environment.
Oh, but you say yourself -
Value is defined by the environment.
Depends on who is spaking about a phenomenon.
Color sometimes is relevant, and sometimes it is not, depending on what we are talking about and for what purpose.
For example, I care not whether my tissues are yellow or white or blue. But I do care whether my teeth are yellow or white or blue - but so only when I am not eating vanilla or orange popsicles or blueberries ...
Do you think that I am resorting to this?
Other than that, I do not subscribe to the distinction "natural environment" and "man-made environment".
Wherever man lives, he makes a "man-made environment" - the difference is only in the ways it is man-made.
Separate names with a comma.