It is so appropriate that you assume that the only reason a women only board was formed is to hide from oppression.
You love and embrace the victim mentality so much that you literally cannot see anything else. It is quite entertaining.
Looking for all the non-sexists to join in
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
It is so appropriate that you assume that the only reason a women only board was formed is to hide from oppression.
You love and embrace the victim mentality so much that you literally cannot see anything else. It is quite entertaining.
Can you elaborate? I'm a bit skeptical of any claims regarding 'human nature'. What do you mean by fundamentally? Clearly humans have the capacity for rational thought. It is also obvious that rational problem solving has come to play a more significant role in more and more areas. Even modern philosophy tries to be as empirical and objective as possible. Even theologians now attempt to be rational. Emotion and logic are both just cognitive tools. They don't need to be used in a mutually exclusive manner. You can work toward the emotional idea of self-improvement, but you must act logically if you hope to achieve good results.
Where did I indicate that was the only reason it was formed?
However, I'll put it this way for you: do you think they made the board woman-only to prevent men from commenting?
Basically, a great deal of human thought processing, judgments, etc. is affected by irrelevant surroundings. For one example, you give two different groups of people the same essay to read. If the presenter of the essay gives an endorsement to one group before the student reads the essay, and the disparagement to the other group, the group that heard the endorsement will almost always give more favorable opinions of the essay; ye3t both groups will say they were not affected by the presenter. For all we like to think we rationally determine the worth of what we read, who says something, how other people thank about that speaker, etc. have massive influences on how we understand information. That is profoundly non-rational.
Oh, that's perfectly fine. A lot of those tools stuck around because they give an evolutionary advantage. For example, the credibility of whoever presents the information affects how people receive it. That serves to filter out misinformation without spending the time to required evaluate every idea out there. While it is true that pure computer-like objectivity is impossible, it is not necessarily even desirable. The issue we face is much larger than a collection of inherent cognitive biases. It is the socialization of children into ideological folds that give them cultural and ideological expectations in comprehensive packages without teaching them the tools of achieving legitimate knowledge. Every opinion thereafter must go through the heaps of unjustified nonsense before the brain can accept it, regardless of the amount of factual support. Just look at how many people reject biological evolution. This habit becomes very difficult to break as ones gets older and their world view becomes more established. It becomes a serious challenge to even get the average person to reach the point where the speaker would only influence the audience's objectivity. People will freely make significant decisions with far reaching implications on others solely based on gut feeling or arbitrary religious impulse.
The conflict of ideas and opinions will always persist, even if we become as rational as Vulcans. I would be contended living in a society where different opinions exist because of competing objectives or honest differences of interpretation of the facts. At least then, we would be able to efficiently settle differences through trial and error, or through the collection of better data.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Haha this is perfect.
I believe you are saying the effects of multiple prior speakers seems to be additive (if not linearly so). I would agree with this.
I agree with the goal. I think a rational society would also be one that recognizes human limitations and the importance of social justice concerns, as well. However, I don't want social justice to have stay on the back burner until humans think better.
We are all impressed with both the display of technical wizardry so demonstrated, and the bravery required to say you will publicly declare a poster not worth listening to, and refuse to listen to any response by said poster. Well done! Bravo!
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Hahahaha! Jesus Christ, you are an artist. You really are.
Edit: also you do not speak for me.
still looking?
I <3 colon, dash, and right parenthesis, yes I do!
I <3 colon, dash, and right parenthesis, yes I do!
Come again?
If you already know this than please refrain from attempting to do so.
Wow. To think you accuse me of being humor-impaired.
You are. What you said wasn't funny. Also, I just enjoy messing with you.
still looking?
I <3 colon, dash, and right parenthesis, yes I do!
somehow, this is sort of funny...
