Quote from: Ken/Kendra on April 09, 2007, 01:28:32 AMThe only thing I asked for in the beginning was "what" replaces (full details) the explaination of the inner child and the village theory that Underground Panther presented.
Panther produced a theory that is not falsifiable and therefore is not scientific.
QuoteTo explain how we present ourselves as different gender behavior to different people. What I got was the Objective Movement philosophy listed with 5 terms and 1 concept, which doesnt explain the process or hypothesis clearly, as to what actually happened in the presented theory, which was refuted in 7 points.
You have not refuted any single point given, you simply gave an opinion.
QuoteSo I wanted to see how the objecivism proved the 6 controversial issue points as being correct despite the absence from being realistic and practical in any human society. Rather it seems as though its just a mental imaginary philosophy for stuff like the fiction books she wrote. Certainly fiction is just good to think about, not always practical in real life. Fun to talk about though.
Fallacy, you're assuming that because it's philosophical therefore it's not true. The fact is this, thousands of people follow the philosophy in their lives, myself included, therefore it is of enormous value. Rand never stated that her philosophy was the norm for which everyone follows, but rather how things ought to be in that it improved the lives of people. Ought =/= Is, not for me, and not for Rand. You seem to confuse many things in the discussion.
QuoteThis advance from the concept and terms, didnt yet explain the phenomenon above.
It doesn't have to, that's the way philosophy works. Neurological activity is what you want to know, the village argument does not provide any case studies, nor any experiments to validate its terms. This proposition as I've provided is talking about the general behavior of rational animals, whether they use neurological mechanisms, or gravity waves to represent these procedures. In short, they are not medium or substrate dependent, they are algorithmic.
QuoteCertainly one can choose to decide to discriminate. Others can choose (in your words, have the moral right) to retaliate. Laws do not protect people, nor force people. Rather they state possible enforce consequences if such action is chosen (retaliation). Sometimes the retaliation is called justice.
And how does discrimination truncate into complete disregard for human life? It doesn't, discrimination has absolutely nothing to do with the violation of the right to life. It simply one's right to be left alone. Whether it's irrational or not. You don't have the moral right, nor the legal right, to force anyone to like you, to employ you, and to love you. To do so is a moral absurdity and a legal one too.
QuoteFreedom is a great thing. When someone unfairly discriminates me, my freedom diminishes. Freedom does exist in many countries now days.
Fallacy yet again. Here are your freedoms as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence which echoes that of John Locke. Life [JL: Life], Liberty [JL: Liberty], and the Pursuit of Happiness [JL: Property]. So that's all you get, logically. Where are there positive rights in these three liberties? None. You don't have a right to a job. You don't have a right to a house. You don't have a right to be included in the lives of others. You get no positive rights. You get all negative rights, everyone gets them too because no law is required to enforce them save for in times where there are those that believe they have the positive right to divest you of them. And that's where we get justice, the protection and restitution of these violations of Life, Liberty, and Property [Pursuit of Happiness] come under justice, and therefore law. There is no moral basis for law to tell me to like fundy christians. Or to like people who wear green socks. Or to like kids. Or to even help them in any capacity. And so on. That's why you seem to be dodging every time on this.
QuoteSome people do not have the freedom. In more Totalitarianism type societies (communist, some emperors, some kings, dictators) that freedom is non existent. Although protective freedoms are not always needed, by doing so creates a punishment for not adhering to such protected freedom. In this case, if a business discriminates and such protections are in the law, they are liable to be sued. Period. Justice would allow such retaliation. And the judicial systems would have a basis for demanding financial punishment for doing such discrimination. This is the reality of free thinking countries and societies today.
More fallacies again, read the prior paragraph reply and carefully so.
QuoteJust like sex and race discrimination are protected in many constitutions, androgyny, and gender are and can be protected. It doesnt prevent others from choosing to do such discriminating actions, but creates a punishment for being judged guilty on such charges. Although sex and race discrimination laws are in existence, doesnt mean there are no women, men, africans, hispanics, asian, etc... So creating such protective laws for gender would not mean that androgyny would disappear.
You want positive rights. There are not afforded under the Constitution nor under a valid moral theory. Not even Kant, as I say to people.
QuoteLiberty isnt a freedom to do what you want. As you can see from here, liberty comes in different flavors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty.
Doesn't matter, because the Constitution only covers one kind of liberty, a liberty which requires
no governmental force and
no tyranny of the majority nor of the minority to enforce. It simply exists on its own, and it's called
negative liberty. And I, as a Constitutional Originalist, will abide any addition nor subtraction of it.
QuoteViolence towards transgendered persons is very real. Injustice is very real. Read the news clippings that come across posted on this site. TG fired from job for being a tg, person killed for being a tg. These are results of learned discrimination. Justice should demand punishment for the firing of a person qualified that is tg, as well as a person killed for being tg.
Then prosecute under the current negative liberty laws. Any violation of life, liberty, and/or property is not valid. You don't get extra laws because you're a green sock wearer. You get the same equal opportunities, but you don't get the same equal outcomes. That is how justice works. And that is how our world works.
QuoteOn an individual basis, not on a all inclusive basis.
Doesn't have to.
QuoteTo be able to generally state that part of the statement as fact or reason, since reason does dictate there are exceptions to the statement in that women can look up, down, or equally to women, men, or intersexed (as well as other variations), logic and reason dictates the untruthfulness of such conclusion. And the philosophical rules of truth of reason and logic dictate that there is ample evidence, facts, and reasons show femininity can be towards other women, and feminine women can even look down towards men, even while retaining femininity towards other women or androgynes.
Lets understand one key point. Intersexed conditions are never ever related to being androgynous in the regards to self-expression, psychology, and personal values. They are medical conditions, they are not trivial, and they are not here to support your ideas, nor mine. They are something for the realm of the medical sciences to discuss and to resolve the best courses to handle such individuals that have them. Therefore, that means the rest of our propositions are within the realm of aesthetics and ethics. That means we're philosophizing. No amount of science can save you from the fact that you're trying to leap from quantification of particular facts to unparticular aesthetic principles that have very little to do with each in a single bound. That's a problem here, because you're riding two horses that go two different ways, and essentially, they split your argument in half. I suggest you consider critically your current argument and look at it from value based logic. Consider what your goal is, consider what particulars in science really are valid in it. And divest yourself of those that don't.
QuoteAnd the statment doesnt address the masculinity in women, which I dont know how she stood on that issue.
Because Rand didn't really think it through. In Atlas Shrugged, her character Dagny Taggart could have been considered an androgyne due to the fact that she herself often did not consider having the highest of fashions to clothe herself in, nor did she put too much emphasis on her makeup, and so on. She did wear what was typical of women in general, but she did not attempt an overly emphasized display of femininity. In fact, on some cases in the book she jokingly said she was Mr Taggart of the family, since she ran the railroad and her brother didn't. Also, in her relationships with Rearden and D'Anconia, they were not based on a male and a female getting together rather two people that have the same passion for life getting together. And even Rearden seemed to have the same passion as he did for Dagny for D'Anconia. So, really, I don't see why you want gender roles to be so important, when it's personal values [virtues], that make the person. Not what signals of their preferred gender and sex are.
QuoteAnimal instinct = drive
No, and on the grounds that drives [desires] are not instinctual.
QuoteI believe sex is on the most basic form a drive, which combines with our preferences (or lack of preferences in some cases), and interacts with fears, dreams, obsessions, sometimes fantasies. And sometimes its just sometimes its just a tool. Sometimes its something to fear: aka rape, std, prostitution. Androgynes many times are pansexual in that the gender of the partner doesnt really matter.
Wrong again on the grounds that if one follows sexuality in this form, it denies the nature of the human mind. It simply makes a person surrender to sensation of sex, and to forsake the goal which humans can derive. So, again this part of your argument does not follow from the nature of being human. It's
sub-optimal.
QuoteAnd sometimes that drive is lacking as in asexual, or is directed towards the self as in autosexual (by choice or circumstance).
That's when people are not fully integrated.
QuoteThe philosophy of science (logic and reason) are not separate from science. Its a part of the scientific method. The scientific method is the current measurement and tool of science, and judge to the validity of any conclusion, truth of statement, hypothesis made, and evidence/facts/measures/reasoning/methods/logic used. The scientific method is science together with the knowledge gathered by such methods.
Actually, no scientist to my knowledge has to study philosophy, beyond logic that is. Therefore, no scientist has to be a philosopher. They take on statistical inferences based in mathematics, using that to isolate variables, and then to make a conclusion. No philosophy required, but it is required if you and I want to integrate their discoveries into philosophy, but not the other way around.
QuotePhilosophies try to explain how you know or can know something is true. There are various schools of thoughts each differing and subjective to the rules each follows. The measurable comments are based off of the earlier stated reason that "First, the biggest hole is that none of the features of psychoanalytic theory is falsifiable as a means to test it experimentally." Science is based off of the scientific method.
And the psycho-analytic theory has
no means to experiment with it. It's all based on case study. That's why behavioralism and cognitivism are often the primary schools of psychology in North America. And I believe Behavioralism is the dominant school in the UK and Europe.
QuoteIn philosophy, reason is the ability to form and operate upon concepts in abstraction, in accordance with rationality and logic—terms with which reason shares heritage. Philosophy exists as a metaphysic to help define what is true. ... Pure objective philosophy of reason is logic and agruments. Philosophy of reason and logic to find truths and meaning is science.
Not entirely true due to the fact that we have philosophy of law, ethics, and aesthetics.
So here's my summary as follows.
Reason requires of us to consider all possibilities, but more importantly some possibilities are not falsifiable, namely anything that declares something true but it doesn't provide a sufficient reason to accept it either in a case that it can never be false, or in a case where it's assumed automatically true without any antecedent propositions which are related to any axiomatically true premises. More importantly, Rand's aesthetics, as I've derived them rather than as she wrote them in the Romantic Manifesto, follow true from rational agents that look for the best in life. Now, neither I nor Rand have concluded that this the default state of human being, but it is the optimal state of human being in that humans that use the faculty of reason will follow a life based on virtues and not based on random feelings. Moreover, as this relates to androgyny, it means that androgyny is a value judgment, when we're not discussing individuals who are intersexed such that we're not taking in biology as the standard, rather we're taking our general capacity to reason as the standard. Therefore, no scientific study can explain virtue driven androgyny, because it's a quality of being that does not automatically come from our biology. It's emergent like our minds. It evolves, like our minds. And it's one of the sub-sums of our minds. For the fact that it does not pre-exist the person in biology, it exists at the time of the virtues chosen. []
-- Brede
