• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • "Eh, dude, sure you want to keep that debate going? I know what you're trying to do, but there comes a point in time when you gotta move on and leave them behind.

    Federation and Aegiscaliber kind of think the way robots do and think of life in terms of scientific processes, patterns, and self-programmed regulations as opposed to living a fresh, free, and enlightened life. That, and they bash religion and faith to try to reaffirm their defeatist mindset. It takes a strong and enlightened person to pledge allegiance to God, and they're just not strong enough to do it. Since they aggressively desire to remain disconnected, there's nothing you can do for them. They must bear the outcomes of their choices on their own.

    The other thing is they'll never be able to discern the meaning of life, how the universe was created, why we were created, and what the purpose of mankind is until they find and search for God, and it's clear that they'd rather disconnect themselves and believe whatever the narrow-minded men in the white lab coats tell them to believe unconditionally. Why? Because it's the easy way out. Rather than step up and face the challenge to remain faithful, honest, and devoted to God to learn wisdom and enlightenment despite the hardships and challenges we must endure in this world to be strong, they'd rather surrender themselves to the idea that they're just slowly decaying organic matter with no ultimate purpose or aspiration in the future of the accidental universe. Man that sounds awful. See, that's exactly the reason why I'd never be an atheist."

    Courtesy of Avenger Angel. I got a few chuckles, I figured you would.
    Mhm. I found it article > quote. I only ever remember Emerson by confusing him with Rudyard Kipling, because for some reason I keep wanting to attribute Kipling's "If" to him. =x

    Yeah. It was disappointing to see how emawerna's position turned out; same old fact-barren Christian persecution complex. He/she had started out very engaging. It was a decent rhetorical choice on his/her to use Coraline instead of religion. ^_^;
    Mm, the goal of perfectly free and open debate is a little on the idealistic side. Moderating such an environment can get tricky, especially with really polarizing topics like politics, religion and apparently feminism. One has to attempt to counterbalance for one's own stance. I know I occasionally had to devote some extra time to considering how to mediate religious versus atheistic and scientific scuffles. So I wouldn't hold a little bit of bias against anyone. =P

    I know that one explanation would be that many folks get tired of re-answering the same poor arguments and fallacies over and over again; they get tired of the pattern of redundant explanation and resort to teasing the opposition for a spell. Problem with that is that everyone can feel that way regardless of whether they're right or wrong. So you end up with YECs sighing in exasperation as they explain for the thousandth time how obviously global geography is perfectly accounted for by the Noahic flood. But particularly in a debate setting, you've got to resist that temptation born of self-assurance.

    Nah, I understand the concern. But there really is a lot of staff work that we can't see, so it is rarely the case that such suspicions are entirely accurate. Pesky just mentioned in-thread about being infracted for something, so there's proof things are being addressed. The leniency built into the infraction system here has its benefits and its detriments, but it's overall a very fair and flexible system.
    Suggesting that these elements weren't integral to true feminism is what got me into trouble to begin with. Part of my inability to debate to my full potential is that the thread is under lock and key of those who believe such elements aren't to be excluded from feminism, because they are essential for reasons I don't understand and others aren't willing to explain. I would love to discuss just like this with he others whose stance on debating the topic is... let's just say it's radically different than what's acceptable for a reasonable person.

    It took over a page for a response. Over a page. Why is that? It's not that feminism is unreasonable, it's that so many of its proponents, the mainstream advocates, aren't willing to calmly and rationally discuss their own movement. They often ask, "Why is it that you think feminists are unreasonable? Who have you talked to?" The people I talked to elsewhere are like you, I might have answered, if I didn't care about a ban.

    All I want is to discuss the topic like I have with my former debate and English literature teacher, or with Psychic or you, because it's so much more productive and simple. The abrasive personal jabs often go unpunished because people wouldn't want to provoke their white knights... is what I would say, but I don't know if anyone has actually been scolded for their behavior or not. I can only assume they haven't, because they continue to behave like children.
    Well, I don't disagree that humanism is competent enough. I've no trouble believing the goals of humanism subsume the goals of feminism, but I guess I also understand why womens' issues are pressing or unique enough to deserve more specialized treatment, too. And if people in reality want both movements, that's cool. And I agree with Sogeking that we can't really abstain from a whole social movement just because we dislike a few vocal fringe monkeys. (But, in the thread, I think what you disagreed with - rape culture and The Patriarchy - are not fringe but core elements of modern feminism, which would justify your self-exclusion from the movement. In that regard I think he read you wrong.)

    I didn't appreciate the response to BigLutz either. I agreed he was wrong (or, the assumptions underlying his question were flawed), but found it tough to watch half a dozen posts fallaciously mock him before Sogeking finally explained why he was wrong. I would be curious how they'd reply if a male poster were to copy-paste something verbatim off an obscure female-authored feminist blog, something that lightly challenges mainstream feminist theory. Would it be dismissed out of hand? Their attitude sucks because feminism is reasonable (I beg pardon, if you disagree), and reason is available to all genders and races, even if cultural experiences are not.

    Edit: Yeah, haha. Dan Dennett does a fair job of dismantling it.
    I once posted that I prefer humanism to feminism, but just because I'm for "human" rights over and above being for "female" rights. Or: if I support women's issues, it's not because they're women being mistreated but because they're humans being mistreated. But that's just a clever way of communicating a weak argument. Humanism is just as established and baggage-bearing a movement as feminism, and when push comes to shove the labels don't really matter. So if feminists want to label me one of them or not, that's their decision, not mine. As far as men and gendered discrimination: I think the war question is illustrative. It is true to say women are devalued when told they're "too weak" to go fight, while men are seen as stronger. But it is just as true that men are devalued by being disposable, while women are valuable. I think there are lasting gender-binary roles built into society to this day, and that they harm men, women, and whatever other gender identities there are. But I do not challenge feminists on this point, because it is also clear that women almost universally get the shorter end of that stick. It would not be a gentlemanly argument to make.

    Well, I wasn't going for smirks, but I know what you mean. It is a seriously painful problem for me. (Speaking of the logic of subjective knowledge's, have you heard of Mary, the vision scientist?)
    I am not 100% sold on rape culture and the capital-P Patriarchy, at least not the way I've read about them (e.g. I think what is called rape culture is part of a larger negative cultural phenomenon around sexual and recreational behavior, and might be usefully examined from some other critical lens in addition to the feminist one). I have questions and disagreements with specific concepts, but acknowledge that it's plausibly due to some ignorance on my part. What is frustrating is the pushback one receives from asking these questions or articulating these disagreements. It is as though you either swallow the whole feminism pill, uncritically, or you hate women.

    And that last is what hurts. Along with the automatic devaluation of any thought or reason that comes from a male (as though the men who are feminists are just blank-brained lapdogs who happily but ignorantly nod along with whatever any female says, without being capable of intelligently understanding it? No, of course men can engage intelligently with the problems of feminism). It's true enough that I can't experience misogyny in the 1st person, but to then claim it is categorically impossible for me to understand a woman's plight or to have anything intelligent to add to the discussion is, well, I'll just say awful. There are women I love and care for so deeply that every slight and pain of theirs weighs heavily on my heart, and I do not need to brandish the tragedies of the women I love like some badge of womanhood giving me the authority to be part of the conversation despite my evil testes. =/

    Well, your VMs are set to private, but staff can still see them. Better to restrict such concerns to PM.
    Ahaha, they say the only thing a degree in philosophy is useful for is teaching philosophy. But to be honest, I would have added it as another major if my school offered that option. I'll say I disagree that feminism is based in philosophy: like almost everything, it can be explained in the language of philosophy (and it necessarily employs the tools of philosophy; anything claiming either reason or fact must), but it seems to me it really is a sociological theory/movement. Or I mean to say, it's more appropriate to say feminism belongs to sociology than to philosophy. And while my thoughts about feminism very closely resemble yours, I think Pesky Persian is winning that thread, hands down and justifiably so.

    I appreciate the props to reasonability. And the comparison to Psychic; I was worried about leaving the Debate forum in the charge of others, but ended up glad and grateful to have Psychic take over. And yes, the religion question was never difficult with my family either. =P

    Mm. Well, mind complaining about such things in public venues like VMs here. I believe it's some sort of rule that "whining" about infractions or reputations in public are infractable offenses themselves? I agree about the value of heated debate, wholeheartedly. A lot of the joy in being dedicated to truth lies in the arguments you have while getting there! ^_^
    It hurt me to hear the way some of them talked down about philosophy. We don't need to ask that everyone experience the subject with as much delight and interest as we do, but you'd think, or hope at least, coming from the mouths of folks who go on about tolerance and respect and truth and all that, that there might be the slightest hesitation in their mockery. =/

    I doubt that. I'm very good at sounding smart, but am not as smart as I sound. I've just recently completed my bachelor's (minoring in philosophy, like John Madden apparently), and am about to close my first semester of graduate school. I was raised in a nominally Catholic family, but have never been particularly spiritual. Like you, I am most accurately described as an agnostic atheist. I hope that tells you much of what you wanted to know, aha. ^_^

    We had an Atheist thread here, in the Clubs forum. It never got heavy traffic nor, unfortunately, heavy topics. I think it would have been enjoyable to have you there.
    It's been interesting and occasionally enlightening to follow some of the discussions you've been having, Federation. I paid attention to your conversation on evolution with ansem, your exploration of moral agency with Aegiscalibur, and (despite my better judgment) your ongoing exploits in the feminism debate. In regards to that last, I'm sorry you have such an unpleasant front to face. =s
    Ah! I guess the only holiday we have here that can relate is Christmas. I remember of a game that had that holiday. It was Harvest Moon (ever heard of it?). I always thought people would bake cake and pies and give them to other people. Guess I was wrong! It sounds fun, though!
    How is thanksgiving? It seems to be "important" or rather traditional holiday in U.S.A. How it works?
    Hey, Federation! Long time no see! Man, I totally lost that PM of ours.

    Oh well... How you're doing?
    If you need help, feel free to ask me and I shall see what I can do.

    Also, I made a link button!

  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…