Weininger

[cousinbasil]

As to Dave's banning of Carmel, he didn't forbid her return. People fluctuate, and Carmel was in the hells. She had no respect for reason in that incarnation. So I believe he's taken the initiative of helping her control herself, and go away for a break to get her moods and thoughts in better shape. When she's made some progress and reborn closer to the human realms, I'm quite sure she'd be made very welcome.

You must have gone to Bullshit School, you are exceptionally good at it. David simply bullied Carmel out.

[Kelly Jones]

Carmel actually needed another person to help her articulate something of substance. Dan's attempt to facilitate Carmel's reasoning process ought not to have been necessary. But when he did her thinking for her, teasing out the subtleties of her statements, and basically doing a Virgil through the Commedia, she started to explain herself. Who on earth needs that kind of babying? A person who isn't thinking clearly.

Rather than David bullying Carmel, Carmel was definitely not functioning rationally. He was right to set some boundaries.

It may come across as bullying if one is immersed in a soft, mindlessly tolerant culture that sees any individual setting high standards, and not backing down on them, apologising for himself, or grovelling for acceptance, as dictatorial and arrogantly masculine. But then, as so often happens, people in those cultures aren't actually highly tolerant. They have great vitriol against anyone they believe doesn't fit their culture: the slogan is "Tolerate every dissenting opinion means: tolerate anyone who says this, but don't tolerate those who dissent."


.

[cousinbasil]

Rather than David bullying Carmel, Carmel was definitely not functioning rationally. He was right to set some boundaries.

Set some boundaries? He banned her.

Carmel's reasoning process ought not to have been necessary. But when he did her thinking for her, teasing out the subtleties of her statements, and basically doing a Virgil through the Commedia, she started to explain herself. Who on earth needs that kind of babying? A person who isn't thinking clearly.

I'll bet you even have a diploma from Bullshit School which you proudly display.

"Carmel was definitely not functioning rationally." Just where is this Bullshit School and how do I get in? If Carmel was not "functioning" rationally, why is it that I could understand her posts?

I don't know Carmel from a hole in the ground. But it is clear that she annoyed David and he felt like exercising his prerogatives.

Would that life were so easy. If I could just snap my fingers, then every criticizing female voice would cease.

[Russell Parr]

Rather than David bullying Carmel, Carmel was definitely not functioning rationally. He was right to set some boundaries.

Set some boundaries? He banned her.

"Carmel was definitely not functioning rationally." Just where is this Bullshit School and how do I get in? If Carmel was not "functioning" rationally, why is it that I could understand her posts?

I don't know Carmel from a hole in the ground. But it is clear that she annoyed David and he felt like exercising his prerogatives.

Surely you're sharper than this. All of her recent responses that I've seen have been completely shallow in regards of an actual argument. She rarely expanded on any argument of her own, and when she did, it was executed extremely poorly and had no legs to stand on. I pointed this out with an example on page 1 and Dan Rowden's conversation with her also made this clear. She often finished her side of the conversation with some useless, irrelevant counter point, insert some sort of victory smiley, then pop up the next time she sees an opportunity to claim misogyny and irrationality in others. Rinse and repeat.

Quite boring indeed.

[Dennis Mahar]

Bas,
carmel has a 'home' forum that delights in visiting and tormenting QRS, feels triumph in receiving banning from QRS, etc..,spends much of it's time obsessing about QRS.
It's a backstory of drama, intrigue, peurile motive.
I guess you are unaware about the what's so of it.
there it is.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

You must have gone to Bullshit School, you are exceptionally good at it. David simply bullied Carmel out.

Carmel demanded to be banned, repeatedly. After she repeated "yappy, misogynistic dogs" multiple times...

If you want me to leave, so be it.

Ban me.

You missed the most important part of my post, which was:

"Ban me". :)

Thanks in advance, sugarmuffin...or would you prefer it if I call you "babycakes".

Well, Robert didn't like when I called him "dear", so I figure calling you a diminutive name would make the job of my banning easier on you, you sweet lil' nugget of sunshine and enlightenment. :)

but even then, she expressed that she didn't want to take responsibility for her decision:

No can do. I've already seen several flaws in reasoning in this thread that I either will or won't address dependant upon your decision to ban me. I have no intention of trying to persuade you one way or the other. The decision is yours and yours alone.

so by doing what the woman wanted him to do, he gets booed as the mean, nasty man bullying her. Now she gets her trophy banning from GF, which is kind of a badge of honor at KIR, gets they sympathy, and gets to watch people taking pot-shots at David.

Set some boundaries? He banned her.

He tried explaining things to her first.

BTW, just in case you didn't realize this, repeating "Bullshit School" is not an example of great debating skills.

Would that life were so easy. If I could just snap my fingers, then every criticizing female voice would cease.

Huh? This quote looks like it fell out of another post, probably even by another poster. After doing all that defending of Carmel, you want to snap your fingers and shut up her and every other female?

[cousinbasil]

Carmel demanded to be banned, repeatedly. After she repeated "yappy, misogynistic dogs" multiple times...

One would hope you don't really believe that. Obviously if her intent was to be banned, she would never have posted anything in the first place.

but even then, she expressed that she didn't want to take responsibility for her decision:

It wasn't her decision. It was David's.

so by doing what the woman wanted him to do, he gets booed as the mean, nasty man bullying her. Now she gets her trophy banning from GF, which is kind of a badge of honor at KIR, gets they sympathy, and gets to watch people taking pot-shots at David.

No one is taking pot shots at David. And while I know what KIR is, I could not care less about it since I neither visit the site nor have any intention of doing so.

BTW, just in case you didn't realize this, repeating "Bullshit School" is not an example of great debating skills

Oh, thank you very much. I was trying to goad Kelly, not you. In case you haven't noticed it, Kelly is a major shit shoveler for this forum. Which wouldn't be so bad if she weren't off the mark so often. You see what you did? You forced me into having to try another tactic to goad our good Mr. Spike.

Huh? This quote looks like it fell out of another post, probably even by another poster. After doing all that defending of Carmel, you want to snap your fingers and shut up her and every other female?

I said criticizing female voices, yes, unless it is constructive criticism.

[Kelly Jones]

Rather than David bullying Carmel, Carmel was definitely not functioning rationally. He was right to set some boundaries.

Set some boundaries? He banned her.

It would be very rough if Dave banned Carmel without giving her reason/s and the time to think about them and then respond. This has happened to me, being banned suddenly without knowing why. It only happens when the administrator is agitated and can't stand the person to be around.

If Carmel was not "functioning" rationally, why is it that I could understand her posts?

Maybe you sympathised with her distress?

Her arguments weren't understandable. For instance:

1. she mistakenly accused me of calling women rocks, dogs, etc., whereas I had merely likened the causal forces driving women's instinctive behaviour to the impersonal forces of gravity, atmospheric pressure, the weather, mineral content of rocks, magnetic fields, etc.?

2. She regarded the argument in 1. (nothing more than a strawman argument on her part) as an example of spiritual retardation, but called Valerie Solanas bat-shit-crazy without any rebuke from her conscience. She justified it by saying Solanas was crazy, according to her.

3. When I gave examples of the irrationality of women, she refused to respond.

4. When Dan pointed out that she didn't understand Weininger's point of view, and thus wasn't analysing it in context, she declared that she wouldn't discuss the topic further with him. Soon after, she posted a link to a critique of Weininger.

5. She declared Weininger was completely useless, but was fond of using a word he invented, i.e. "henid".

But it is clear that she annoyed David and he felt like exercising his prerogatives.

Would that life were so easy. If I could just snap my fingers, then every criticizing female voice would cease.

Then why hasn't Pam been banned? Or Donna Thompson? Many females have criticised the misogynist dialectic and have been given just as much room to express their opinions (and haven't been banned for doing that). For instance: Elizabeth Isabelle, myself, Leyla Shen, Marsha Faizi, Sheherezade, Shardrol? Because what you claim isn't the case. Carmel was banned because of her lack of substantial arguments, and the ongoing vilification.... but there was no mention of her being permanently banned.

Carmel is driven by her emotional attachment to feminine dimensions of consciousness, and that's why she can't cope with coolly reasoned responses. She refuses to respond, or she starts name-calling.

Even when David asked her to take responsibility for her behaviour, and start offering some calm, self-controlled, dispassionate arguments, she refused point-blank. Her solution was instead the imperative tone: "Ban me." She couldn't even take responsibility for being an unwelcome guest. It was very rude and, truly, ungracious.


.

[Kelly Jones]

Bas,
carmel has a 'home' forum that delights in visiting and tormenting QRS, feels triumph in receiving banning from QRS, etc..,spends much of it's time obsessing about QRS.
It's a backstory of drama, intrigue, peurile motive.
I guess you are unaware about the what's so of it.
there it is.

It's interesting that the Latin word for boy is associated with immaturity, but the word for girl is associated with beauty and innocence. Can't we hope that the most salient quality of the youthful female is a need to grow up, and get beyond the need to be a pretty thing, attractive to all and sundry?

Men shouldn't need to depict women as epitomes of their greatest ideals, like embodied muses.


.

[Dennis Mahar]

It's interesting that the Latin word for boy is associated with immaturity, but the word for girl is associated with beauty and innocence. Can't we hope that the most salient quality of the youthful female is a need to grow up, and get beyond the need to be a pretty thing, attractive to all and sundry?

Men shouldn't need to depict women as epitomes of their greatest ideals, like embodied muses.

I noticed a point you made to Laird I think, about how 'worldly' men control women by persistently affirming or denigrating their body shape. 'Looking Good'.
That gets women handled in an activity based in seeking approval concerning body shape.
Keeps them occupied and relatively quiet.
The amount of money spent on body issues is staggering.
Gets women being coquettish as a survival tool.

Why?
worldly men can't handle what is called a fierce woman in men's folklore.

a fierce woman isn't an opinionated, snarky, shaming bitch as the term could be misread.

what it means is a woman who can demonstrate reasoning skills that can stay with the best of men...

QRS clearly supports women desirous of eschewing worldly values and attaining superb reasoning skills.
I would be completely astonished if I was mistaken in this matter.

[David Quinn]

David simply bullied Carmel out.

I saw it as ejecting a bully. For that was what Carmel essentially was, at least in the past few months. Very aggressive, very abusive, her main intent was try and shut down all deeper conversation about the woman issue with force.

I don't mind her, really. I quite like her, she has a bit of spunk, but for the past few months she was like a snarling terrier clamping tight onto our collective ankle and wouldn't let go. I thought it best to put an end to that.

She's welcome to come back at a later date, providing she is less abusive and more open-minded.

-

[David Quinn]

QRS clearly supports women desirous of eschewing worldly values and attaining superb reasoning skills.

Absolutely. And such women would fully understand why the woman issue is discussed in the way that it is and be fully supportive of it, the same with anyone who seeks to go entirely beyond womanhood.

-

[David Quinn]

If it helps, I often think about the terms masculine and feminine, woman and man, as equivalent to vertical and horizontal, up and down, north and south. Direct contrasts, like opposite points on a spectrum, yet there is this middle ground where boundaries begin to blur and distinctions can be difficult to determine, but can be perceived if examined closely enough.

Yes, these terms are easily understood by anyone who is mentally flexible, intellient and can think deeply about things. No problem whatsoever.

On the other hand, those with mental blocks, conventional thought-processes and strong attachments will always have difficulty, as they are using crude tools to deal with an issue that they don't really want to fathom in the first place. For them, life is all about preserving the mystery of woman and squeezing every drop of enjoyment from her.

I see, so you basically go with the man/masculine = everything noble, moral, rational and worthy; woman/feminine = everything ignoble, amoral, irrational/emotional and worthless? Where did you get such a debased notion of the feminine from?

They are traditional definitions.

And how are you able to so readily ignore the failings in men?

You're a man, aren't you?

Everything that QRS seem to want to say in philosophical terms about the value of rationally based conscious thought as distinguished from emotionally driven, irrational urges can be said completely without reference to gender.

The trouble is, it's not your call to make. The promotion of wisdom is not something you have the slightest interest in, so why do you imagine that you can start dictating to others how it should be promoted?

I have my reasons for utilizing the woman issue. It is a powerful, stimulatory tool that impacts on many different levels. I have no intention to cease using it, so you might as well save your breath on that front.

And besides, apart from any other consideration, just the fact that it deeply agitates you and your kind is reason enough to continue using it.

The fact that gender is brought into it and that biological women are specifically referenced indicates that there's more to it than just a philosophical paradigm of consciousness versus unconsciousness: there is at work here a very real and emotionally-driven prejudice against women.

You don't see the contradiction here? My attempts to highlight the power that women have over all our minds is, according to your line of thinking here, due to my being burnt by women's power in the past .......

-

[guest_of_logic]

guest_of_logic: I see, so you basically go with the man/masculine = everything noble, moral, rational and worthy; woman/feminine = everything ignoble, amoral, irrational/emotional and worthless? Where did you get such a debased notion of the feminine from?

David: They are traditional definitions.

Oh, really? Which traditions are those? Not Taoism, a tradition with which you claim consistency. And since when was tradition the arbiter of wisdom? Get with the times, man. Modernity is here, and it brings with it far more evolved ideas of gender.

guest_of_logic: And how are you able to so readily ignore the failings in men?

David: You're a man, aren't you?

Evidently a more honest one than you if you're not prepared to acknowledge the role that our gender's innate aggression and territoriality has had on current and historic human suffering.

guest_of_logic: Everything that QRS seem to want to say in philosophical terms about the value of rationally based conscious thought as distinguished from emotionally driven, irrational urges can be said completely without reference to gender.

David: The trouble is, it's not your call to make.

Oh, that's right - because I haven't self-appointed myself as an arbiter of wisdom yet. Maybe after you send me the brochure...

The promotion of wisdom is not something you have the slightest interest in, so why do you imagine that you can start dictating to others how it should be promoted?

Wisdom I'm very interested in; QRS dogmatism I'm happy to do without.

I have my reasons for utilizing the woman issue. It is a powerful, stimulatory tool that impacts on many different levels. I have no intention to cease using it, so you might as well save your breath on that front.

I'm not writing primarily to influence you, I'm writing primarily for those on the fence.

And besides, apart from any other consideration, just the fact that it deeply agitates you and your kind is reason enough to continue using it.

How utterly puerile.

guest_of_logic: The fact that gender is brought into it and that biological women are specifically referenced indicates that there's more to it than just a philosophical paradigm of consciousness versus unconsciousness: there is at work here a very real and emotionally-driven prejudice against women.

David: You don't see the contradiction here? My attempts to highlight the power that women have over all our minds is, according to your line of thinking here, due to my being burnt by women's power in the past .......

How readily you reveal yourself. I mentioned nothing of being burnt by women's power, merely that you bear a prejudice, which formed who knows how. In case you'd forgotten, prejudices are often formed against our equals or even our betters, sometimes out of jealousy and resentment, even whilst you would see women solely as man's inferior.

[Kelly Jones]

Laird, since you regard yourself as someone who knows what wisdom is, why don't you expound on that? Sarky remarks don't explain anything of why you disagree.

If you respond by saying, "I could say, but you'd never understand" then, remember, you're not writing to David (or anyone you believe agrees with David) but to those on the fence, who would like you to give a substantial and reasonable account of your views.

(Yes, we realise you believe everyone who agrees with David is irrational, literally, a pack of mindless and dogmatic drones uttering meaningless babble, but the fence-sitters might take a more open-minded view, and recognise some sense in what I ask).


.

[David Quinn]

guest_of_logic: I see, so you basically go with the man/masculine = everything noble, moral, rational and worthy; woman/feminine = everything ignoble, amoral, irrational/emotional and worthless? Where did you get such a debased notion of the feminine from?

David: They are traditional definitions.

Oh, really? Which traditions are those? Not Taoism, a tradition with which you claim consistency.

Taoism does use the terms a little differently, employing the masculine and feminine as metaphysical principles, rather than psychological ones. But even here, the masculine is defined to be the active component of the universe, and the feminine the passive.

guest_of_logic: And how are you able to so readily ignore the failings in men?

David: You're a man, aren't you?

Evidently a more honest one than you if you're not prepared to acknowledge the role that our gender's innate aggression and territoriality has had on current and historic human suffering.

That's obviously the case and no one is denying it. But one also shouldn't forget that men fight wars on women's behalf ("territory" in large part means home, wives, children, family, etc) and that women are usually just as angry with those men who refuse to fight as men are. In the American Civil War, for example, they used to parade the pacifists and conscientious objectors down the streets so that the womenfolk could spit on them.

Men need to sublimate their masculinity away from feminine concerns of happiness, comfort, wealth, etc, and direct it towards the conquering of ignorance and attachment. That is the only way the wars will end.

And besides, apart from any other consideration, just the fact that it deeply agitates you and your kind is reason enough to continue using it.

How utterly puerile.

It challenges these people's deeper attachments and shocks them out of their complacent, politically-correct worldview, which is vital work.

guest_of_logic: The fact that gender is brought into it and that biological women are specifically referenced indicates that there's more to it than just a philosophical paradigm of consciousness versus unconsciousness: there is at work here a very real and emotionally-driven prejudice against women.

David: You don't see the contradiction here? My attempts to highlight the power that women have over all our minds is, according to your line of thinking here, due to my being burnt by women's power in the past .......

How readily you reveal yourself. I mentioned nothing of being burnt by women's power, merely that you bear a prejudice, which formed who knows how. In case you'd forgotten, prejudices are often formed against our equals or even our betters, sometimes out of jealousy and resentment, even whilst you would see women solely as man's inferior.

A person only becomes resentful towards a thing if he has, in some way, been burnt by it. It's an expression of helplessness in the face of the thing's power.

The issue is pretty simple. Do women have power over our minds or not? If they don't, then how could I become resentful towards them? It would be like becoming resentful towards a speck of dust. If they do, then how can philosophically encouraging people to break free of this power be considered prejudice?

Do you have a prejudice against freedom?

even whilst you would see women solely as man's inferior.

I don't see women as being inferior to men. Indeed, I don't see anyone or anything as being inferior to anything else. All is equal in my eyes. But that is another issue entirely.

-

[Bobo]

It challenges these people's deeper attachments and shocks them out of their complacent, politically-correct worldview, which is vital work.
-

The agitator of galille was put to the cross. The naked rambler to the jail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_GC89L9 ... r_embedded

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Obviously if her intent was to be banned, she would never have posted anything in the first place.

So, you think that if one desired to be banned from GF, the most effective means to that end would be to never post to GF? No. If she never posted to GF, she simply never would have posted to GF - not incurred a banning.

It wasn't her decision. It was David's.

She decided she wanted to be banned, and worked to that end. David decided to ban her. They both made decisions. Carmel just didn't want to own up to hers.

No one is taking pot shots at David.

Oh? I considered the comment that David had bullied her out to be a pot shot, and I'm pretty sure Carmel got her own thread about her banning at KIR, complete with the usual disparaging remarks. Remember that I was talking about the attention that she was seeking, not about whether or not David would see all the comments.

And while I know what KIR is, I could not care less about it since I neither visit the site nor have any intention of doing so.

If we are to analyze what happened here and dig into Carmel's actions and motivations, KIR must be taken into account.

I was trying to goad Kelly, not you.

Well, I'm glad that you recognize that what you were doing was goading, not debating. You missed the point if you think that I got goaded though. As a third party observer, I was able to call a foul.

In case you haven't noticed it, Kelly is a major shit shoveler for this forum. Which wouldn't be so bad if she weren't off the mark so often.

I know what Kelly is. Although she still has improvements to make, I'm actually quite impressed with the amount of progress that she has made in the last few years. Throwing fouls at her is simply bad form on your part.

You see what you did? You forced me into having to try another tactic to goad our good Mr. Spike.

Goading is a tactic of the weak. You have it in you to be strong.

Huh? This quote looks like it fell out of another post, probably even by another poster. After doing all that defending of Carmel, you want to snap your fingers and shut up her and every other female?

I said criticizing female voices, yes, unless it is constructive criticism.

Ah - but you can repeat "Bullshit School" a few times in a row because you are male.

[Kelly Jones]

I said criticizing female voices, yes, unless it is constructive criticism.

Elizabeth is right there. Your criticism wasn't constructive, but rather ad hominems launched in a crude state of vainglorious man running to the rescue of a loudly advertising distressed female (Carmel).

Anyway, what would you do if someone had no rational arguments to offer, but ceaseless ad hominems, and refused to co-operate with reasonable, good-willed requests, using everything you say as an ad hominem and an excuse to attack your view points? You'd get pretty tired of it, and would probably see their obsessive, stalking behaviour as self-harming as well.

[cousinbasil]

Ah - but you can repeat "Bullshit School" a few times in a row because you are male.

Fuckin A.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Averages run in small packs. You see them often appearing and disappearing at this forum in little groups , displaying a strange fascination with their own imagined popping of imaginary genius balloons. Sometimes defending each other because of their particular shared delusion of being able, having the capacity intellectually, morally or humanly, to actually raise valid criticism or attacks on the driving ideas at this forum. When banning occurs, this delusion forces them to conclude one so average couldn't have been banned out of some annoyance with the repetitive unhealthy mediocrity or the underhanded mounting emotional hysteria sticking out as a sour thumb to the observant (and never ever to themselves), but that somehow they are "silenced" or having touched a "sensitive nerve" somewhere. This then lifts them for a few moments out of their hole of mediocrity before they move on chewing the grass of the day.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

More context on the suicide and depression angle, to get back on topic:

From Ludwig Wittgenstein's Transmogrification of Death

Turn-of-the-century Austrians, of whom Wittgenstein was one, killed themselves at alarmingly high rates. One can speak of a virtual epidemic of suicide ideation. ...Wittgenstein also endured at least four suicides of unique personal significance. His brother Hans a "musical prodigy of Mozartian talents" ... Another brother Rudi, likewise rebelling against his father's wishes by seeking a life in theatre, drank cyanide in a pub, .... in 1906 suicide of Ludwig Boltzmann... Shortly before that suicide, Wittgenstein had made plans to study under Boltzmann in Vienna

We can see that Wittgenstein has as wel a strong inclination toward suicide, at least in thought: "I have continually thought of taking my own life, and the idea still haunts me sometimes". So we can safely say that the context of time and philosophy, or art, made the suicidal element rather common.

Some more interesting quotes from Weininger's Sex and Character, to explore the possible depression angle:

• It results from their periodicity that, in men of genius, sterile years precede productive years, these again to be followed by sterility, the barren periods being marked by psychological self-depreciation, by the feeling that they are less than other men; times in which the remembrance of the creative periods is a torment, and when they envy those who go about undisturbed by such penalties. Just as his moments of ecstasy are more poignant, so are the periods of depression of a man of genius more intense than those of other men. Every great man has such periods, of longer or shorter duration, times in which he loses self-confidence, in which he thinks of suicide; times in which, indeed, he may be sowing the seeds of a future harvest, but which are devoid of the stimulus to production; times which call forth the blind criticisms "How such a genius is degenerating!" "How he has played himself out!" "How he repeates himself!" and so forth.

• That things must be present in pairs of contrasts if we are to be conscious of one member of the pair is shown by the facts of our colour-vision. Colour-blindness always extends to the complementary colours. Those who are red blind are also green blind; those who are blind to blue have no consciousness of yellow. This law holds good for all mental phenomena; it is a fundamental condition of consciousness. The most high-spirited people understand and experience depression much more than those who are of level disposition. Any one with so keen a sense of delicacy and subtilty as Shakespeare must also be capable of extreme grossness.

• The more types and their contrasts a man unites in his own mind the less will escape him, since observation follows comprehension, and the more he will see and understand what other men feel, think, and wish. There has never been a genius who was not a great discerner of men. The great man sees through the simpler man often at a glance, and would be able to characterise him completely.

• There is no great man who does not well know how far he differs from others (except during these periodical fits of depression to which I have already alluded)

[guest_of_logic]

guest_of_logic: And how are you able to so readily ignore the failings in men?

David: You're a man, aren't you?

guest_of_logic: Evidently a more honest one than you if you're not prepared to acknowledge the role that our gender's innate aggression and territoriality has had on current and historic human suffering.

David: That's obviously the case and no one is denying it.

So, you acknowledge it: then you must also acknowledge that your schema which has masculinity as only that which is noble etc is lacking. You're deliberately blinding yourself to the darker side of masculinity in your entrenched male chauvinism. This wouldn't be a problem if you were genuinely trying to focus on the best in both genders, but you're not: you're deliberately choosing the best from masculinity and the worst from femininity - and then you criticise people who call foul on this obvious bias.

And besides, apart from any other consideration, just the fact that it deeply agitates you and your kind is reason enough to continue using it.

guest_of_logic: How utterly puerile.

David: It challenges these people's deeper attachments and shocks them out of their complacent, politically-correct worldview, which is vital work.

What you're doing is comparable to referring to black people using the N word because that "shocks people out of their complacent, politically-correct worldview". It's still puerile: a childish desire to shock and offend.

guest_of_logic: The fact that gender is brought into it and that biological women are specifically referenced indicates that there's more to it than just a philosophical paradigm of consciousness versus unconsciousness: there is at work here a very real and emotionally-driven prejudice against women.

David: You don't see the contradiction here? My attempts to highlight the power that women have over all our minds is, according to your line of thinking here, due to my being burnt by women's power in the past .......

guest_of_logic: How readily you reveal yourself. I mentioned nothing of being burnt by women's power, merely that you bear a prejudice, which formed who knows how. In case you'd forgotten, prejudices are often formed against our equals or even our betters, sometimes out of jealousy and resentment, even whilst you would see women solely as man's inferior.

David: A person only becomes resentful towards a thing if he has, in some way, been burnt by it. It's an expression of helplessness in the face of the thing's power.

David[cont]: The issue is pretty simple. Do women have power over our minds or not? If they don't, then how could I become resentful towards them? It would be like becoming resentful towards a speck of dust. If they do, then how can philosophically encouraging people to break free of this power be considered prejudice?

No one is denying that women hold a place in our minds, and if you want to call that "having power over our minds" then you're free to do that - but so do many other things, including men. I say you reveal yourself because it appears that Carmel is right: that the issue is at least in part one of resentment - resentment of the power that you believe women have over your mind. This resentment then forms an unhealthy desire to diminish women until you have made them out to be so small that you are no longer threatened by the power that you originally feared. It's psychological, not philosophical.

guest_of_logic: even whilst you would see women solely as man's inferior.

David: I don't see women as being inferior to men.

I'm talking about attitudes like this, from WOMAN:

"There is nothing in me that desires to put women down. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't do it - women are already as low as they can get and cannot be put down any further."

Anyway, as I said to Robert, I'm not so interested in rehashing this issue, so I don't promise to keep up this exchange, although I might if something particularly interesting comes up.

[Dennis Mahar]

Laird,
What you are saying is:
On the subject, Woman.
Don't mess with woman.
On woman, she's unmessable with.

I mean, there must be some kind of picture you have there that can't be messed with.
You're taking a stand on it.

I would like you to drop that for a minute please and read this.

Ready.

QRS in disclosing 'woman'.
Is referring to men and women of a style that is oblivious to true nature.

Understand?

[pointexter]

The "woman issue" in a nutshell is...

They want to pretend that they're not pretending and everyone else to pretend they are not pretending.