Jump to content
270soft Forum
NYrepublican

Why skepticism of truth is ridiculous

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

 

Since this video looks annoying and I won't subject myself to watching it - let me ask two questions? What are you presenting as "truth" (or whose view of "truth" is to be considered the default "truth), and how far or narrowly is the definition of "relativism" being used?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Patine said:

Since this video looks annoying and I won't subject myself to watching it - let me ask two questions? What are you presenting as "truth" (or whose view of "truth" is to be considered the default "truth), and how far or narrowly is the definition of "relativism" being used?

1.Empirical reality

2.Skepticism of the existence of or neccessity to adhere to that reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

1.Empirical reality

2.Skepticism of the existence of or neccessity to adhere to that reality.

I need to hit a blunt and read that again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

What are you presenting as "truth" (or whose view of "truth" is to be considered the default "truth)

So, do you have a Doctorate in Colour or something? (line from the video)

(the video is 2 min. and lighthearted, perhaps worth watching - although I was thinking about how colour is an interesting example to use, as different people do see objects as having different colours ...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

1.Empirical reality

2.Skepticism of the existence of or neccessity to adhere to that reality.

The problem with number one is none of us can perceive enough of reality at once, because of physical sensory limits, to rule out being misinformed, lied to, receiving outdated information of things outside our empirical, sensory limits, or just utterly empirical knowledge, or assuming it MUST correlate to something we empirically know, but without fully knowing, to know that the "truth" is 100%, infallibly, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Patine said:

 The problem with number one is none of us can perceive enough of reality at once, because of physical sensory limits, to rule out being misinformed, lied to, receiving outdated information of things outside our empirical, sensory limits, or just utterly empirical knowledge, or assuming it MUST correlate to something we empirically know, but without fully knowing, to know that the "truth" is 100%, infallibly, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt accurate.

I have in mind demonstrable empirical facts like macroevolution, the theory of relativity, the existence of different sexes,Trump being POTUS etc. I think we can safely rule that out in those cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

the existence of different sexes,

Ah, so something that everyone already agrees upon? Liberals aren't concerned with sex. They are concerned with gender, which is another empirical reality that is often ignored by conservatives wishing to dismiss the entire argument as liberals who don't know anything about Male vs Female bodies. (This is more of a general statement, I've no clue your knowledge on sex and gender)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

hey are concerned with gender, which is another empirical reality that is often ignored by conservatives wishing to dismiss the entire argument as liberals who don't know anything about Male vs Female bodies.

Do you understand the words 'male' and 'female' to refer to gender or sex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Do you understand the words 'male' and 'female' to refer to gender or sex?

Male and female are biological sexes. There's also other variations of sexes that exists with certain chromosome defects, but trans people aren't claiming that it's their body that is different. 

Obviously there's are also male and female gender roles that we have socially fabricated, but I usually use the term man and woman a bit more frequently here rather than male and female as there needs to be a bit more distinction in the vernacular.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

I usually use the term man and woman a bit more frequently here rather than male and female as there needs to be a bit more distinction in the vernacular.  

Ok, so by 'man' and 'woman' do you mean gender or sex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

I have in mind demonstrable empirical facts like macroevolution, the theory of relativity, the existence of different sexes,Trump being POTUS etc. I think we can safely rule that out in those cases.

How do I, myself, with my personal limits of empirical knowledge, know Trump is U.S. President, is not a big hoax (which it almost seems like, at times). I've never met Trump, or laid eyes upon him in person, or met someone in person who actually has.

37 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

Ah, so something that everyone already agrees upon? Liberals aren't concerned with sex. They are concerned with gender, which is another empirical reality that is often ignored by conservatives wishing to dismiss the entire argument as liberals who don't know anything about Male vs Female bodies. (This is more of a general statement, I've no clue your knowledge on sex and gender)

 

29 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Do you understand the words 'male' and 'female' to refer to gender or sex?

What if you're an amoeba or an earthworm. And ants and bees have very different takes on sex and gender - the queen is the fertile female, but the workers are sterile females, and they differ radically in role, body shape, and even, to a degree, internal anatomy. Some species of fish are fully functional males, including reproductively, in a younger stage of life, and then morph into a fully functional female, including reproductively, later in life, while some fish reproduce through parthenogenesis. Assuming that human gender roles and self-concept are simplistic and binary, especially given the notorious psychological edge of "overthinking" (or pondering at all), and the immense complexity of human society, compared to all other species in the world, and evidence (though not proof - but solid proof does not yet exist to the contrary point of view, either) that "gender confusion" (and old lump term, I know, but bear with me here) may be a VERY ingrained thing in humans, and even have an evolutionary purpose and benefit to occur in a minority, like homosexuality, according to certain well-backed theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Ok, so by 'man' and 'woman' do you mean gender or sex?

I mean gender. 

The term man or woman is used to describe the social role you typically play as a result of your sex. 

Liberals don't argue that there are two main sexes, they argue that there are more than two main genders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

I mean gender. 

The term man or woman is used to describe the social role you typically play as a result of your sex. 

Liberals don't argue that there are two main sexes, they argue that there are more than two main genders. 

Strict gender roles are only truly necessary, anthropologically, in a pre-Industrial society. Notice the women's rights and suffrage movement started during the Industrial era, at about the same time the Labour movement got started. Industrialization changed the very face of the norms of society, and the very necessity of maintaining certain old social conventions and mores, by pragmatism. WWI, when women were needed en masse to fill factory jobs, because most of the young men were off fighting at the front (and the biggest exemptions - physically disabled, or tied to agriculture, made such unavailable for factory, too), was a big tipping point, and the U.S., U.K., Canada, France, Germany, and a bunch of other countries gave women's suffrage, during, or shortly after, WW1. The post-Industrial era has only further broken down the absolute need and biggest benefits of strong gender roles in society. However, though it is already a rising trend in many two-income families, a return to the traditional role of grandparents from even older days, when extended families living together in one village or neighbourhood was very common, to make up childrearing slack, might be beneficial. However, cuts to pensions and unstable and unreliable private investments make secure retirements not what they used to be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Herbert Hoover said:

I mean gender. 

The term man or woman is used to describe the social role you typically play as a result of your sex.

It seems to me the major debate here is not about biology or social roles, it's about how certain words ought to be used.

'Man' and 'woman' historically have been used to refer to the biological sex of a human ('man' sometimes also meaning humans in general, as in 'mankind'). What some are advocating is the replacement of the meaning of certain words (man, woman, him, her, he, she, and so on) based on biological sex with a meaning based on something more loosely tied to biological sex (something more about an individual's psychology and behaviour).

It seems to me the real debate is about the appropriateness of such a switch.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

It seems to me the major debate here is not about biology or social roles, it's about how certain words ought to be used.

'Man' and 'woman' historically have been used to refer to the biological sex of a human ('man' sometimes also meaning humans in general, as in 'mankind'). What some are advocating is the replacement of the meaning of certain words (man, woman, him, her, he, she, and so on) based on biological sex with a meaning based on something more loosely tied to biological sex (something more about an individual's psychology and behaviour).

It seems to me the real debate is about the appropriateness of such a switch.

 

Not universally in history, even in this sense. The Tungusic language family (which notably includes Manchu), the Kartvelian language family (which notably includes Georgian, Jozef Stalin's native tongue), the Bantu language family, which covers a huge swath of Central, Eastern, and South Africa, and a few Indigenous Western Hemisphere and New Guinean language families, have absolutely no grammatical gender, not even in the pronouns, title, or differentiating nouns of "one who does <verb>", except such basics as "mother" and "father," and even "man" and "woman," "bull," and "cow," "stallion," and "mare," and other such terms as stand-alone terms, and not otherwise intrinsically built into grammar. In fact, archaeologist had, for years, assumed the Medieval Georgian Queen Regnant, Tamar, was a man, because no grammatical indication said otherwise, and Medieval art was horribly unevocative in that way. Also, the issue of eunuchs, men emasculated socially and in role, who had to live, and be referred to, as female, to justify a more dominant partner in older cultures where roles were permissible for men to engage in homosexual relations, or certain cultures, like the Scythians, the Dahomey, and a few other, which had "warrior women," - and special cases, like the rarely invocated, but extent, samurai's widow whose husband died dishonourably, who takes up her husband's katana to avenge him (a trope heavily romanticized in a certain sub-genre of Japanese film, mostly from the '70's and '80's), or even arguably corner cases like Joan of Arc - where in all cases, the women lived and behaved "like men." But, a uniformity and consensus of "tradition," "family values," "gender roles," "view of homosexuality and transsexuality," and other areas until the "evils of Progressivism, Liberalism, and Marxism," that destroyed and degraded a "better, more virtuous, halcyon, golden age" (that never actually existed) is a BIG plank pushed commonly by Social Conservatives, relentlessly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Patine said:

Not universally in history

I am referring here to the received sense of 'man', 'woman', 'he', 'she', and so on, in English.

It seems you're not contesting the point (that the real debate is about what certain words should mean), but rather saying in some languages there are no correlates of the historically understood English words 'he' and 'she', and so on, and so these words could indeed be stripped of their biological meaning and substituted with a psychological-behavioural meaning that is in some sense derivative of the biological meaning. Of course they *could*, just as we could start using the word 'cat' to refer to dogs and 'dog' to refer to cats - the question is whether we ought to do so. What are the benefits and detriments of doing so? is I think the major question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

I am referring here to the received sense of 'man', 'woman', 'he', 'she', and so on, in English.

It seems you're not contesting the point (that the real debate is about what certain words should mean), but rather saying in some languages there are no correlates of the historically understood English words 'he' and 'she', and so on, and so these words could indeed be stripped of their biological meaning and substituted with a psychological-behavioural meaning that is in some sense derivative of the biological meaning. Of course they *could*, just as we could start using the word 'cat' to refer to dogs and 'dog' to refer to cats - the question is whether we ought to do so. What are the benefits and detriments of doing so? is I think the major question.

If you read the other half of my post, there, I am also saying that the solid view of "gender roles" and "who possesses what gender, in a social and psychological sense," was not a solid, universal consensus across history around the world until VERY recently, like Social Conservatives push as one of their main ideological foundations of debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that you're saying the idea of gender (and so 'man' and 'woman' understood psychologically-behaviourally) has varied across cultures.

That doesn't really address the main point I'm trying to make - that the debate isn't really about factual questions concerning biology (although some of it is that), but rather about a proposed change in the meaning of English words (and correlates in other languages in other debates happening in other cultures), and that in turn is about the advantages or disadvantages of such a proposed change.

For example, is referring to people using the word 'he' and 'she' meaning their biological sex useful? Or is it more useful to use 'he' and 'she' to refer to how they tend to behave or their psychology? Or should we come up with new words to describe the latter (and we already have some words that do that, such as 'masculine' and 'feminine').

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I get that you're saying the idea of gender (and so 'man' and 'woman' understood psychologically-behaviourally) has varied across cultures.

That doesn't really address the main point I'm trying to make - that the debate isn't really about factual questions concerning biology (although some of it is that), but rather about a proposed change in the meaning of English words (and correlates in other languages in other debates happening in other cultures), and that in turn is about the advantages or disadvantages of such a proposed change.

For example, is referring to people using the word 'he' and 'she' meaning their biological sex useful? Or is it more useful to use 'he' and 'she' to refer to how they tend to behave or their psychology? Or should we come up with new words to describe the latter (and we already have some words that do that, such as 'masculine' and 'feminine').

Ah. If THAT'S what the question is, it's a form of pedantry being used by both Social Conservatives and Social Liberals to force agendas on the whole population and enact broad-scale social engineering through linguistics. Non-gendered terms (like the language families I listed above) would be more pragmatic, and put an impediments in the social tyranny and "shoving-down-the-throat-with-forced-points-of-view-and-intolerance-of-dissent" of both the Far Right- and Far Left-Wing Orwellian social manipulators, BOTH driving society to a ruin and a new Dark Age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

social engineering through linguistics

Yes, this is what I'm saying. It's a debate about the usefulness of certain attempts at what amount to social engineering through linguistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Yes, this is what I'm saying. It's a debate about the usefulness of certain attempts at what amount to social engineering through linguistics.

Then take a leaf from the Manchus, Georgians, and Bantus, and be done with it, if I had my way. Take away a tool of social tyranny from both sides. I have opined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Herbert Hoover said:

Obviously there's are also male and female gender roles that we have socially fabricated, but I usually use the term man and woman a bit more frequently here rather than male and female as there needs to be a bit more distinction in the vernacular.  

I dislike the term "fabricated", it implies that these roles were chosen purely arbitrarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I dislike the term "fabricated", it implies that these roles were chosen purely arbitrarily.

Maybe not CHOSEN arbitrarily in the first place, but the original roles as they first existed in society and their usefulness, even vital usefulness, to a pre-Industrial society kind of wane in an Industrial and post-Industrial society to the point of being less useful and needed and, even in areas, a burden and impediment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 6:56 PM, Patine said:

Maybe not CHOSEN arbitrarily in the first place, but the original roles as they first existed in society and their usefulness, even vital usefulness, to a pre-Industrial society kind of wane in an Industrial and post-Industrial society to the point of being less useful and needed and, even in areas, a burden and impediment.

Any response to this one, @NYrepublican?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...