David Icke

[Dan Rowden]

That's not a half-bad idea. Can you really program your F keys to do that? I never use anything above F9.

But seriously, anyone who claims history here and needs that explanation, just isn't paying attention.

[1otherS]

You're a funny guy, Dan.

One more thing:

Why did Weininger label everything psychologically and morally bad 'feminine'?

Couldn't he have prevented much confusion and tragedy if he just called it 'unvirtuous'?

[Ataraxia]

.

-Heroin - If I didn't have a life and no responsibility to anyone, this'd be my drug of choice ;-)

"It's funny 'cause it's true"--Homer (Simpson)

VietNam veteran - 1971

Drugtaking Veteran- previously

[1otherS]

You're a funny guy, Dan.

One more thing:

Why did Weininger label everything psychologically and morally bad 'feminine'?

Couldn't he have prevented much confusion and tragedy if he just called it 'unvirtuous' and then explain what this adjective means in full detail?

[Dan Rowden]

You're a funny guy, Dan.

One more thing:

Why did Weininger label everything psychologically and morally bad 'feminine'?

Couldn't he have prevented much confusion and tragedy if he just called it 'unvirtuous'?

You don't know why? Tell me what I mean by "feminine".

[1otherS]

You have a better knowledge of Weininger than I do, so correct me if I'm wrong:

'Feminine' is equivalent to 'flowiness': a tendency to easily conform with others and never standing up for what you believe.

I wouldn't call this 'flowiness' a 'feminine' thing though... I would call it 'passiveness'-a character-trait equally present among both sexes.

[Kevin Solway]

I would call it 'passiveness'-a character-trait equally present among both sexes.

What evidence do you have that it is equally present in both sexes?

[Dan Rowden]

You have a better knowledge of Weininger than I do, so correct me if I'm wrong:

'Feminine' is equivalent to 'flowiness': a tendency to easily conform with others and never standing up for what you believe.

I wouldn't call this 'flowiness' a 'feminine' thing though... I would call it 'passiveness'-a character-trait equally present among both sexes.

A feminine, flowie person will stand up for what they believe if it's the fashion to do so. Indeed, what they believe - itself - will be grounded in that self-same fashion. You will never, ever see a feminine, flowie person holding and standing up for unfashionable beliefs.

[1otherS]

I would call it 'passiveness'-a character-trait equally present among both sexes.

What evidence do you have that it is equally present in both sexes?

Look at all the workers slaving away for a shiny cellphone or sports-car or whatever.
Look at the labourers not knowing their work-rights...

Those are signs of 'passiveness' in male types.

[1otherS]

Dan Rowden
A feminine, flowie person will stand up for what they believe if it's the fashion to do so. Indeed, what they believe - itself - will be grounded in that self-same fashion. You will never, ever see a feminine, flowie person holding and standing up for unfashionable beliefs.[/quote]

1otherS
Look at those female scientists you call feminine. They stand up for principles getting fiercely attacked by religious zealots. They aren't going with fashion, they want to make a valuable contribution: they have the same values as you do.

[Dan Rowden]

A feminine, flowie person will stand up for what they believe if it's the fashion to do so. Indeed, what they believe - itself - will be grounded in that self-same fashion. You will never, ever see a feminine, flowie person holding and standing up for unfashionable beliefs.

Look at those female scientists you call feminine. They stand up for principles getting fiercely attacked by religious zealots. They aren't going with fashion, they want to make a valuable contribution: they have the same values as you do.

I think you underestimate the scope and depth of fashion in society. They do all this with the entire edifice of the science community behind them. When one of them stands up for a new scientific concept against that very edifice, then you'll have a point. This occasioanlly happens, and when it does, such persons are not being feminine and flowie.

[1otherS]

I agree with your last point Dan and think we already see women who go against this edifice you're speaking of.

[Shahrazad]

Dan,

This occasioanlly happens, and when it does, such persons are not being feminine and flowie.

You're getting close to the no-true-Scotsman fallacy.

[Dan Rowden]

The true Scotsman fallacy is only a fallacy wherein the term "true Scotsman" is not clearly defined (or contains equivocation). It is not logically fallacious to say that "no true Scotsman would ever be cowardly" if the absence of cowardice were part of the definition of a "true Scot". It might make the definition entirely impractical, but it wouldn't make certain "no true Scotsman" statements logically fallacious.

[1otherS]

OK, Dan. Here's a statement:

"No true woman would ever be very masculine"

Do you agree or disagree?

[Dan Rowden]

I can't agree or disagree with such a statement without knowing how "true woman" is being defined. Armed with that knowledge I could judge the logical quality of the statement. So, for example, a "true woman" might be defined as one who is biologically female and highly feminine psychologically, in which case the statement would be valid enough. If, on the other hand, "true woman" was defined merely as a biological woman, it would not be valid.

[Shahrazad]

Dan, I had not seen this post until now:

The true Scotsman fallacy is only a fallacy wherein the term "true Scotsman" is not clearly defined (or contains equivocation). It is not logically fallacious to say that "no true Scotsman would ever be cowardly" if the absence of cowardice were part of the definition of a "true Scot". It might make the definition entirely impractical, but it wouldn't make certain "no true Scotsman" statements logically fallacious.

Ok, so if I define "true woman" as a "biological female human", and you say "no true woman would act masculine", do you agree that would be a no-true-Scotsman fallacy?

.

[Dan Rowden]

What?

[Shahrazad]

You want me to repeat all that?

When you say something like "No true woman would stand up for her unconventional beliefs", people who read it may be defining woman as a biological female -- I know I do. That's where the equivocation occurs.

[Dan Rowden]

I have never - well, I don't think I have - nor would ever use a phrase like "no true woman". It's a meaningless phrase to me. This is what I said:

You will never, ever see a feminine, flowie person holding and standing up for unfashionable beliefs.

[1otherS]

I still find you thinking in Weininer's framework too much, Dan.

[Dan Rowden]

I still find you completely oblivious to what his framework actually was. Quite an impasse, really.

[1otherS]

Bullshit, Dan. You just twisted your panties because I called Weininger's thesis malformed.

I have stated my reasons for doing this but...you don't seem interested in discussing these, do you?

[Dan Rowden]

Bullshit, Dan. You just twisted your panties because I called Weininger's thesis malformed.

I have stated my reasons for doing this but...you don't seem interested in discussing these, do you?

You made it very clear in the short discussion with Leyla that you in fact do not grasp Weininger's schema at all. This is evidenced by the fact that you continually cite mundane cultural and political examples of women "doing stuff" as counter-arguments, when such examples are barely, if at all relevant.

[1otherS]

I grasp Weininger's schema as ordinary sexism and misogyny.

Your complete dismissal of women's strides in the last 40 years is no better.

Before you want to talk down to me, explain in a detailed post why I'm "wrong" about Weininger.