An open challenge to Amicus

[amicus]

Shanglan...

Read carefully through your thoughts twice and then scanned a third time, all the while hoping for inspiration to drive my fingers to type a response.

Aside from your very patient civility, you are essentially saying the same thing most do on this forum, although with a great deal more depth and rationality, and I do appreciate that.

Let me state, just for the record, that I am painfully aware of the inhumane brutalities visited upon released slaves, following the Civil War, aware of the shameful treatment of Native American's as westward settlement continued, and the harsh oppression of women throughout the ages.

None of those events are unique to America, rather common place through out history in all regions.

What is unique, in all of world history, is the attempt by the United States, to deal with those past tragedies in an humane manner.

I can also understand, but not necessarily justify, treatment of Japanese American citizens at the outset of world war two, or the treatment of some Italian and German American's suffered during the same period.

Perhaps you sense a 'singling out' of those groups as a fault, I think it merely underlines those groups who have recently gained full freedom, in opposition to the more privileged, 'white men', who had full participation since the inception.

I have gone through long period of self imposed celibacy during my life time, as I became more selective in my sexual partners and then as I did not desire emotional attachment at other times.

I mean by that, that it is possible to refrain from sexual encounters by choice, if one so chooses. Looking for a Greek word signifying 'pleasure seekers', but it won't pop at the moment and I don't feel like pausing so search, insert word please.

I imply by that several suppositions, the alcoholism of Reservation Indians and the Russian population in general, released from oppression, seeking only pleasure.

The African American population, finally free, seeking ancestral and tribal origins alien to European/American traditional culture, note the voodoo, the music, the rituals.

And women, in general, sexually repressed to the point of even denying pleasure from the act for so long...finally free to experiment and discovery their own sexual preferences.

Please note, none of the above is original thinking on my part, but an accumulation of years and years of speculation by trained and educated specialists in the various fields of sociology.


"...But with that said, let me offer one other thought. If you recall, some time back, we exchanged some thoughts on the desirability of knowing why people believe what they believe. I'll hazard this observation: if women and minorities do more commonly oppose your point of view re: free markets and lack of governmental interference, they've got reasons for that. You may not agree with their reasoning, but it is there. If you really feel that a strictly limited government and a free capitalist market is the answer, then surely the path forward is clear: identify their reasons for preferring something else, and demonstrate to them that your system can meet their concerns. Can it? Has it?..."\


In one of 'Handprints' informative essays, he referred to a class of people subject to buying used cars from dealers and sub prime, low interest loans to high risk borrowers.

Many people seek to gain 'something for nothing', a free pass to a better life.

Socialism is like that used car salesman. Promising a wonderful future and dreams fulfilled. They, like the used car salesmen and sub prime lenders, never tell the customer that you sell your soul to acquire that dream.

If freedom, free enterprise, a free market place, capitalism, were easy to acquire and maintain, everyone would have it.

Roxanne attempts, over and over again to illustrate the practical efficiency of a free market over a command market. I try, again and again, to illustrate the moral and ethical foundation of the fundamental concepts of human liberty.

We both seem to struggle without much success on this forum. I could, we could, perhaps choose surroundings more welcoming of our thoughts, but this left wing fortress is a challenge and I shall keep beating against the walls of ignorance as long as I find the challenge continues.

With all that said...I wish to reposit a question to you concerning gender differences, in general, not specific.

I maintain,as a general statement, that male and female are so entirely different in all aspects of life, that a 'complimentary' toleration of opposites is the optimum relationship possible by definition, between the two.

How say you? (smiles)



amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Shanglan...

Read carefully through your thoughts twice and then scanned a third time, all the while hoping for inspiration to drive my fingers to type a response.

Aside from your very patient civility, you are essentially saying the same thing most do on this forum, although with a great deal more depth and rationality, and I do appreciate that.

Let me state, just for the record, that I am painfully aware of the inhumane brutalities visited upon released slaves, following the Civil War, aware of the shameful treatment of Native American's as westward settlement continued, and the harsh oppression of women throughout the ages.

None of those events are unique to America, rather common place through out history in all regions.

What is unique, in all of world history, is the attempt by the United States, to deal with those past tragedies in an humane manner.

I can also understand, but not necessarily justify, treatment of Japanese American citizens at the outset of world war two, or the treatment of some Italian and German American's suffered during the same period.

Perhaps you sense a 'singling out' of those groups as a fault, I think it merely underlines those groups who have recently gained full freedom, in opposition to the more privileged, 'white men', who had full participation since the inception.

Many of these white men deeply and oftimes violently resent what they see as an encroachment on their privileges, let us not forget.

I have gone through long period of self imposed celibacy during my life time, as I became more selective in my sexual partners and then as I did not desire emotional attachment at other times.

I mean by that, that it is possible to refrain from sexual encounters by choice, if one so chooses. Looking for a Greek word signifying 'pleasure seekers', but it won't pop at the moment and I don't feel like pausing so search, insert word please.

The word is "Hedonism" Authors of erotica might be defined as a hedonistic group-- no matter what sex, race, or other variables might be involved. This might have something to bear on the general mindset on this forum.

We write about fucking, sucking, pricks and pussy. This is the forum that celebrates hedonism.

I imply by that several suppositions, the alcoholism of Reservation Indians and the Russian population in general, released from oppression, seeking only pleasure.

This implies to me, a depth of misunderstanding that baggles the mind.

The African American population, finally free, seeking ancestral and tribal origins alien to European/American traditional culture, note the voodoo, the music, the rituals.

Voudoun? Not many African Americans follow voudoun, most of them are Christians-- or Moslem these days, because, and this is quite true, the Moslem social structure does not discriminate against dark skin and woolly hair. (However, that structure does discriminate against tits and pussy; I guess nothing's perfect.)

Music? Do you mean-- Jazz, Rock and Roll, Rap? It must be very distressing to you to witness the way white folks has latched on to these primitive rhythms. It must be a taint in the blood that turned three generations of western society into rock n roll hedonists.

Rituals? Now, here I must confess complete ignorance. Are there secret Negro rituals that you have somehow witnessed that the rest of us never hear about?
What rituals, Ami?

And women, in general, sexually repressed to the point of even denying pleasure from the act for so long...finally free to experiment and discovery their own sexual preferences.

But-- that's not what has you so upset, is it? I thought you were upset that women are interfering with the way society works, sticking their dear little noses into what doesn't concern them. I had no idea that sexual experimentation was your prime concern. It's very kind of you to be so forgiving and understanding about it though.

Please note, none of the above is original thinking on my part, but an accumulation of years and years of speculation by trained and educated specialists in the various fields of sociology.

ASide from the first words that sprang to mind-- If you have names of any of these trained and educated specialists, I'd love to read more on these subject.

"...But with that said, let me offer one other thought. If you recall, some time back, we exchanged some thoughts on the desirability of knowing why people believe what they believe. I'll hazard this observation: if women and minorities do more commonly oppose your point of view re: free markets and lack of governmental interference, they've got reasons for that. You may not agree with their reasoning, but it is there. If you really feel that a strictly limited government and a free capitalist market is the answer, then surely the path forward is clear: identify their reasons for preferring something else, and demonstrate to them that your system can meet their concerns. Can it? Has it?..."\


In one of 'Handprints' informative essays, he referred to a class of people subject to buying used cars from dealers and sub prime, low interest loans to high risk borrowers.

Many people seek to gain 'something for nothing', a free pass to a better life.

Socialism is like that used car salesman. Promising a wonderful future and dreams fulfilled. They, like the used car salesmen and sub prime lenders, never tell the customer that you sell your soul to acquire that dream.

If freedom, free enterprise, a free market place, capitalism, were easy to acquire and maintain, everyone would have it.

Ami, you have ignored what the horse said. You have only repeated what you think are the reasons for these people's beliefs, which is, of course, insulting, as well as foolishly subjective of you. You have not taken the time to understand anyone else's position, you simply assign one of your own liking. Nor do you try to show why you think your way is better.

Roxanne attempts, over and over again to illustrate the practical efficiency of a free market over a command market. I try, again and again, to illustrate the moral and ethical foundation of the fundamental concepts of human liberty.

We both seem to struggle without much success on this forum. I could, we could, perhaps choose surroundings more welcoming of our thoughts, but this left wing fortress is a challenge and I shall keep beating against the walls of ignorance as long as I find the challenge continues.

Roxy, at least, makes the attempt, and once in a while she actually can pass through the rhetoric and achieve some mutual understanding. Your methods of teaching morality aren't working, my friend, and as we all know-- one who cannot accept the fact that the wall will not yield is destined to a mighty bloody forehead. Regarding your "walls of ignorance," I will say that batter as you like, you, Amicus, will never break free of them, for they surround you. All of your learning is but a little thing, and useless to you because the wisdom that learning should impart is not in you.

With all that said...I wish to reposit a question to you concerning gender differences, in general, not specific.

I maintain,as a general statement, that male and female are so entirely different in all aspects of life, that a 'complimentary' toleration of opposites is the optimum relationship possible by definition, between the two.

How say you? (smiles)



amicus...

I say that must be true in your specific case. It is not true in general.
And I further state that the reason it's true for you is that you so fervently believe it to be true; that your mind translates the simplest of English sentences into gibberish when they are spoken by a woman. It's a terrible affliction, it looks like ass's ears.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Perhaps you sense a 'singling out' of those groups as a fault, I think it merely underlines those groups who have recently gained full freedom, in opposition to the more privileged, 'white men', who had full participation since the inception.

Yes. I understand that that is what you are doing - comparing these groups to white males. I'm asking why this seems to you to be an important thing to do. What does it accomplish? What do we learn from it?

I see your suggestions that people who have full freedom in their actions can sometimes do destructive things, but we didn't need to single out women and minorities to learn that; we can see it quite clearly in white male behavior too. It's true, but then I don't think anyone would have disputed that it was true. In what way do you feel that race or gender plays a significant differentiating role?

In one of 'Handprints' informative essays, he referred to a class of people subject to buying used cars from dealers and sub prime, low interest loans to high risk borrowers.

Many people seek to gain 'something for nothing', a free pass to a better life.

Socialism is like that used car salesman. Promising a wonderful future and dreams fulfilled. They, like the used car salesmen and sub prime lenders, never tell the customer that you sell your soul to acquire that dream.

If freedom, free enterprise, a free market place, capitalism, were easy to acquire and maintain, everyone would have it.

Roxanne attempts, over and over again to illustrate the practical efficiency of a free market over a command market. I try, again and again, to illustrate the moral and ethical foundation of the fundamental concepts of human liberty.

We both seem to struggle without much success on this forum. I could, we could, perhaps choose surroundings more welcoming of our thoughts, but this left wing fortress is a challenge and I shall keep beating against the walls of ignorance as long as I find the challenge continues.

I am, I promise, quite honestly and sincerely attempting to direct you to a door.

Let's take this in a couple of steps:

(1) You feel that a free market, while not easy to maintain, is ultimately a more effective and real agent of human progress than socialism ever could be.

(2) You'd like to convince people of this fact, but you recognize that socialism can lure people in with its promise of easy gains.

(3) You feel that women and minorities are somehow more closely tied to socialist tendencies than white males.

What I'm saying is this: if most of the human race likes the idea of something for nothing, then that accounts for some of socialism's popularity with people in general. But if women and minorities are, as you claim (and for now I won't dispute that claim) attracted to socialism in disproportionate numbers, such that their greater political power makes socialism more likely, then there is something about socialism that appeals specifically to them - some need it is filling or some perception it appeals to that is more keen in those groups than it is in white males.

What is it?

I'll offer one opening suggestion: socialism and communism have always had their strongest appeal to people who either are socially, economically, or politically oppressed or who feel that their society is oppressive in those ways. They evidently feel that capitalism doesn't deal with such oppression well, and perhaps they have a point.

Even once oppressive laws and practices are stamped out, whoever held all the marbles before still has them. They've got all of the capital, and that counts for a lot in an economic system that is built around and takes its name from capital. That's quite a tough playing field to face if you're a freed slave who has just been told that now that you're no longer deemed property, everyone is equal and it's time to make your own way in the world. I think that the slave in question might be forgiven for thinking that somehow things are not quite equal when the rule is "everyone keeps whatever he was holding when the music stopped."

Now, it's an unending evil morass to try to sort out any other solution, as African countries trying to deal with land ownership in the aftermath of colonialism can attest. On the one hand, you've got a bunch of property owners who paid their own money for their property, and property rights say that they get to keep it. On the other hand - and these are the people to pay attention to, because they are the ones who keep turning to communism and socialism - you've got a bunch of poor people with very little to their names other than the clothing on their backs, and they make up a very substantial portion of the population. They've never been allowed to own property, they haven't been given any education, and now they have to compete for their living in marketplace in which everyone with capital is a member of a group that has been long accustomed to think of them as something less than human.

What I want to know is, what does capitalism offer the latter group? It will have to be remarkably good, because they've got an incredibly uneven battle ahead of them if they want to try to compete in the marketplace with people who hold every card. How can capitalism appeal to people who started with a massive artificial imbalance of capital, with zero on their side? How can you convince them that the game isn't rigged against them from the start?

With all that said...I wish to reposit a question to you concerning gender differences, in general, not specific.

I'll be happy to have a fling at it. However, being without a gender, I can't promise anything clever.

I maintain,as a general statement, that male and female are so entirely different in all aspects of life, that a 'complimentary' toleration of opposites is the optimum relationship possible by definition, between the two.

How say you? (smiles)



amicus...

I say that that has not been my experience - and that therefore if we are speaking of what is possible, you cannot be correct, as I can produce examples of cases in which a thing that you claim impossible has occurred. However, I also realize that it might be more useful to speak of that which is common, and that is a different matter.

There's a great deal in what you mean by "tolerate." I rather prize the aspects of many of my friends and loved ones that are most different to my own nature, as they continually challenge me to examine new perspectives, and they offer me insights I would not have come to on my own. If that's what you mean by "tolerate," I think that anyone does well to tolerate differences in his or her close acquaintance, and indeed to embrace them.

If, on the other hand, you mean "put up with as an undesirable characteristic, but one that cannot be changed," I think that's a problem. It's not that I don't think that some things simply must be put up with; I'm reminded of that fact every time my parents come to visit. However, teaching ourselves that most or all differences are unfortunate deviations from our own superior norm is a dangerous habit. Assigning other people the role of "incomprehensible, incorrect person with irrational motives" is equally seductive and perilous. It stops us from examining our own behavior and from comprehending others.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I think gender an unhelpful guide through those sorts of decisions. It's much easier to say "Oh, that's just the way wo/men are" and dismiss the motives and reasons of the other person, but it's also problematic for everyone involved. If we really want to understand the motives of any human being, we have to engage that person as an individual and find out what really makes him or her tick. It's a complicated, lengthy business - much more effort than simply assigning the other person a set of motives and assumptions based on gender. It is also, however, infinitely more accurate and useful.

Most importantly, it's impossible to get to so long as the chief question we're asking is, "Why might half of the entire population of the planet choose to act this way?" Of course the other gender will look mystifying and incomprehensible if we approach them that way, because they're not clones of each other. There isn't any answer that fits 3 billion people at once. So long as that's what we're looking for, yes, the best we'll ever manage is an uneasy truce - but that's because we're asking the wrong question.

I would thus say to your question, that tense toleration is about the best anyone will get with the opposite sex so long as he or she insists on looking at individual people largely in terms of gender and trying to comprehend them as a gender. The thing (unified set of fe/male motives and nature common to every fe/male human being) doesn't exist, and trying to construct a relationship with an actual person based on assumptions about a nonexistent thing is bound to fail. It can be helpful to know some general patterns common to a gender to see if they might shed light on the individual's actions, but common trends can only tell us what is common, not what is true about any specific person. The moment the focus shifts from trying to understand an individual human being to trying to assign half the population of the planet one central mindset, I think that any real understanding is doomed.

 

[Stella_Omega]

This is in no wise a new thought, but it hasn't been addressed yet. Since Amicus never hesitates to tell us what we are thinking, I have no qualms in putting my words in his mouth;

(3) You feel that women and minorities are somehow more closely tied to socialist tendencies than white males.

I wonder if Ami's thoughts might be running along these lines;
Women have long been treated as a minority. But women in fact equal fifty percent (and a little more) of the human population. White women are part of that group-- all women are, regardless of race.

Those racial minorities that Ami wants so badly to re-educate comprise a proportion I am not going to look up just now. BUT-- they are comprised of both men and women (who were already in a minority position, remember). Therefore, the fifty percent of human beings that are alienated for their sex, plus any number at all of male human beings who are alienated for their race-- becomes the majority.

The single most beleaguered, outmanned minority of all? White males, who long ago tossed half of their race to the other side because they were females.

Isn't it extraordinary that approximately three-quarters of a people can be considered a minority? I think so. But that is the world that Amicus and others of his kind find themselves in.

It's possible that Ami's desperation comes from a sense that he is badly outnumbered out there in the real world. He's right, in a way, but it's his mindset that, we hope, is part of a rapidly diminishing minority.

 

[amicus]

Yes. I understand that that is what you are doing - comparing these groups to white males. I'm asking why this seems to you to be an important thing to do. What does it accomplish? What do we learn from it?

I see your suggestions that people who have full freedom in their actions can sometimes do destructive things, but we didn't need to single out women and minorities to learn that; we can see it quite clearly in white male behavior too. It's true, but then I don't think anyone would have disputed that it was true. In what way do you feel that race or gender plays a significant differentiating role?



I am, I promise, quite honestly and sincerely attempting to direct you to a door.

Let's take this in a couple of steps:

(1) You feel that a free market, while not easy to maintain, is ultimately a more effective and real agent of human progress than socialism ever could be.

(2) You'd like to convince people of this fact, but you recognize that socialism can lure people in with its promise of easy gains.

(3) You feel that women and minorities are somehow more closely tied to socialist tendencies than white males.

What I'm saying is this: if most of the human race likes the idea of something for nothing, then that accounts for some of socialism's popularity with people in general. But if women and minorities are, as you claim (and for now I won't dispute that claim) attracted to socialism in disproportionate numbers, such that their greater political power makes socialism more likely, then there is something about socialism that appeals specifically to them - some need it is filling or some perception it appeals to that is more keen in those groups than it is in white males.

What is it?

I'll offer one opening suggestion: socialism and communism have always had their strongest appeal to people who either are socially, economically, or politically oppressed or who feel that their society is oppressive in those ways. They evidently feel that capitalism doesn't deal with such oppression well, and perhaps they have a point.

Even once oppressive laws and practices are stamped out, whoever held all the marbles before still has them. They've got all of the capital, and that counts for a lot in an economic system that is built around and takes its name from capital. That's quite a tough playing field to face if you're a freed slave who has just been told that now that you're no longer deemed property, everyone is equal and it's time to make your own way in the world. I think that the slave in question might be forgiven for thinking that somehow things are not quite equal when the rule is "everyone keeps whatever he was holding when the music stopped."

Now, it's an unending evil morass to try to sort out any other solution, as African countries trying to deal with land ownership in the aftermath of colonialism can attest. On the one hand, you've got a bunch of property owners who paid their own money for their property, and property rights say that they get to keep it. On the other hand - and these are the people to pay attention to, because they are the ones who keep turning to communism and socialism - you've got a bunch of poor people with very little to their names other than the clothing on their backs, and they make up a very substantial portion of the population. They've never been allowed to own property, they haven't been given any education, and now they have to compete for their living in marketplace in which everyone with capital is a member of a group that has been long accustomed to think of them as something less than human.

What I want to know is, what does capitalism offer the latter group? It will have to be remarkably good, because they've got an incredibly uneven battle ahead of them if they want to try to compete in the marketplace with people who hold every card. How can capitalism appeal to people who started with a massive artificial imbalance of capital, with zero on their side? How can you convince them that the game isn't rigged against them from the start?



I'll be happy to have a fling at it. However, being without a gender, I can't promise anything clever.



I say that that has not been my experience - and that therefore if we are speaking of what is possible, you cannot be correct, as I can produce examples of cases in which a thing that you claim impossible has occurred. However, I also realize that it might be more useful to speak of that which is common, and that is a different matter.

There's a great deal in what you mean by "tolerate." I rather prize the aspects of many of my friends and loved ones that are most different to my own nature, as they continually challenge me to examine new perspectives, and they offer me insights I would not have come to on my own. If that's what you mean by "tolerate," I think that anyone does well to tolerate differences in his or her close acquaintance, and indeed to embrace them.

If, on the other hand, you mean "put up with as an undesirable characteristic, but one that cannot be changed," I think that's a problem. It's not that I don't think that some things simply must be put up with; I'm reminded of that fact every time my parents come to visit. However, teaching ourselves that most or all differences are unfortunate deviations from our own superior norm is a dangerous habit. Assigning other people the role of "incomprehensible, incorrect person with irrational motives" is equally seductive and perilous. It stops us from examining our own behavior and from comprehending others.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I think gender an unhelpful guide through those sorts of decisions. It's much easier to say "Oh, that's just the way wo/men are" and dismiss the motives and reasons of the other person, but it's also problematic for everyone involved. If we really want to understand the motives of any human being, we have to engage that person as an individual and find out what really makes him or her tick. It's a complicated, lengthy business - much more effort than simply assigning the other person a set of motives and assumptions based on gender. It is also, however, infinitely more accurate and useful.

Most importantly, it's impossible to get to so long as the chief question we're asking is, "Why might half of the entire population of the planet choose to act this way?" Of course the other gender will look mystifying and incomprehensible if we approach them that way, because they're not clones of each other. There isn't any answer that fits 3 billion people at once. So long as that's what we're looking for, yes, the best we'll ever manage is an uneasy truce - but that's because we're asking the wrong question.

I would thus say to your question, that tense toleration is about the best anyone will get with the opposite sex so long as he or she insists on looking at individual people largely in terms of gender and trying to comprehend them as a gender. The thing (unified set of fe/male motives and nature common to every fe/male human being) doesn't exist, and trying to construct a relationship with an actual person based on assumptions about a nonexistent thing is bound to fail. It can be helpful to know some general patterns common to a gender to see if they might shed light on the individual's actions, but common trends can only tell us what is common, not what is true about any specific person. The moment the focus shifts from trying to understand an individual human being to trying to assign half the population of the planet one central mindset, I think that any real understanding is doomed.

~~~

Oh, my...where to begin...

Let me begin by clarification, if I can accomplish that:

I am openly advocating and defending Capitalism, individual human freedom and liberty, the economic expression of which is the free market.

You chose not to advocate or defend socialism, yet that seems to be the default mode that has fallen to you.

It is still, as it usually is, a defense of freedom from assault on all sides, nothing essentially has changed.

Clear enough?

Then in your 'three steps', you postulate that I "feel", "like", "feel", as if rational thought plays no part. I object to your supposition.

"""...(1) You feel that a free market, while not easy to maintain, is ultimately a more effective and real agent of human progress than socialism ever could be.

(2) You'd like to convince people of this fact, but you recognize that socialism can lure people in with its promise of easy gains.

(3) You feel that women and minorities are somehow more closely tied to socialist tendencies than white males.

What I'm saying is this: if most of the human race likes the idea of something for nothing, then that accounts for some of socialism's popularity with people in general. But if women and minorities are, as you claim (and for now I won't dispute that claim) attracted to socialism in disproportionate numbers, such that their greater political power makes socialism more likely, then there is something about socialism that appeals specifically to them - some need it is filling or some perception it appeals to that is more keen in those groups than it is in white males.

What is it?

I'll offer one opening suggestion: socialism and communism have always had their strongest appeal to people who either are socially, economically, or politically oppressed or who feel that their society is oppressive in those ways. They evidently feel that capitalism doesn't deal with such oppression well, and perhaps they have a point...."

***

I ask you to consider that the entire world was pretty much already taken when North America was discovered. In other words, Kings, Queens, the Aristocracy, Popes, Warlords, Dynasty's, a whole host of Rulers determined the usage of almost every square inch of land and resources, one way or another.

A scholar could perhaps trace back to the first conceptual realization of private, individual ownership of land, when no such thing was possible, so perhaps the preconceived notion was there without the possibility of bearing fruit.

To Cloudy's dismay, I discount the indigenous population of North America, and view it as 'unowned land', perhaps the first the world has known since the Stone Age.

Thus with the idea of private ownership and individual rights and the availability of unowned land, I refute your assertion that the oppressed people turn to socialism, they did not, in this example.

Since there has been a continual influx of immigrants seeking the right to 'own' their own lives and property in America, I challenge the entirety of your assertion.

***

"...What I want to know is, what does capitalism offer the latter group? It will have to be remarkably good, because they've got an incredibly uneven battle ahead of them if they want to try to compete in the marketplace with people who hold every card. How can capitalism appeal to people who started with a massive artificial imbalance of capital, with zero on their side? How can you convince them that the game isn't rigged against them from the start?..."

Superficially an interesting point since every square inch of available land is now, private property, except the nearly fifty percent of land the fucking government stubbornly holds title to, creating an artificial scarcity.

I suggest it was a much more difficult and risky task to settle and improve and thereby gain title to a forty acre plot of land back then, than it is to work, accumulate capital and purchase the land at your ease and convenience.

I think it can be seen that it is not the 'system' of free enterprise or 'capitalism' that is the limiting factor, rather the 'will' of the people involved, which circles back to my original assertion, that some people choose the easy way, the 'something for nothing', approach simply because they are lazy and lacking initiative and want big brother, in one form or another to make decisions for them.



***

"...And that, in a nutshell, is why I think gender an unhelpful guide through those sorts of decisions..."

You know what you wrote and anyone else can scroll back and look, but the 'nutshell' is what I wish to address in a small way.

Just as you and Stella accuse me of living in my own little self made fantasy, I also wonder where you folks have lived all your lives.

Perhaps within that rose colored aura or myth of 'unisex', where gender differences have been denied and repressed?

My God, people, there are Soap Opera's, women's television that men cannot be paid to watch, female literature and films, 'chick lit and flicks', that we all recognize as the complete opposite of male preferences.

The average male spends a few minutes shaving and running a comb through his hair, the female spends a sizable portion of her time and income on her appearance! Be ye blind?

The male prefers soft and curvy, the female, hard and angular...where are you looking?

The differences are so great, so numerous, so apparent, so 'in your face', that I cannot conceive of the method by which you deny them.

The Emperor is stark naked and his dong is hanging out and you still don't see it.

If you confront by stating that these are superficial differences and thus meaningless, then I ask you where the fuck do you think they originated?

In a different mind, with different chemistry, different anatomy, different hormones, different degrees of perception and understanding on levels common to one gender and alien to another.

Stella insultingly asked for a reading list, try beginning pre Freud to the present day, of psychologists, sociologists, those prior to the 1970's who were not attempting to gloss over the differences for politically correct motivations. The gall of Stella, egads, even if I liked your thoughts I would still say, educate yourself, get your own damned box.

It is the opinion of many of these scholars that the current intellectual attitude towards gender has created a generation of people unable to determine their own sexual identification and have withdrawn from even trying and settled into alternative lifestyles instead of continuing the search. Drug companies love you folks.

I don't back off a millimeter from stating that male and female sexuality is so opposite as to be barely comprehended and functions, minimally as one complimenting the other. Equality be damned.

And pulease, keep the personal and subjective out of your accusations towards me, I know who the hell I am sexually, even if you don't. (not directed at you Shanglan)

Tell me, truthfully Shanglan, if I am right or wrong, in suspecting that your overwhelming desire for there to be equality between the sexes, blinds you to the reality of the differences?

I do not in any way suggest superior or inferior, just differences innate to each, that, happily, in rare circumstances, compliment.


Amicus...

 

[Liar]

Let me state, just for the record, that I am painfully aware of the inhumane brutalities visited upon released slaves, following the Civil War, aware of the shameful treatment of Native American's as westward settlement continued, and the harsh oppression of women throughout the ages.

None of those events are unique to America, rather common place through out history in all regions.

What is unique, in all of world history, is the attempt by the United States, to deal with those past tragedies in an humane manner.

Textbook etnocentrism there, ol' bean.

Commendable? Yes.
Useable as a model for others? Partly, yes.
Better than many other places? Yes.
Unique? Not very.

 

[amicus]

Textbook etnocentrism there, ol' bean.

Commendable? Yes.
Useable as a model for others? Partly, yes.
Better than many other places? Yes.
Unique? Not very.

~~~

Ethnocentrism, eh?

You may not appreciate the superior history of Western society going back to before the Greeks, but I do.

Perhaps it is only because you are not aware of the impact that culture has had on the world that leads you to question the superiority, or is it just prejudice and hatred?

Amicus...

 

[Liar]

~~~

Ethnocentrism, eh?

You may not appreciate the superior history of Western society going back to before the Greeks, but I do.

Perhaps it is only because you are not aware of the impact that culture has had on the world that leads you to question the superiority, or is it just prejudice and hatred?

Amicus...

I've just spent a year in college classes studying exactly how the Aristotelian and Platonian legacy have shaped Western, society, science tradition and general culture. I'm ethically, politically and contextually more neo-Arestotelian in nature than anything else myself. So I appreciate it just fine, thank you.

And now that that irrelevant ad hominem on your behalf is out of the way...

1. You specifically singled out the United Stated of America, not "Western society", which is larger and contains many more nations. So again, the United States is not unique in that perspective. Don't dodge the issue, please. I believe I phrased it simple enough.

2. And I'm not even sure if the Western tradition is unique in having a humane way of dealing with past inhumanities. But that's your preogative to believe. I won't stop you.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I am openly advocating and defending Capitalism, individual human freedom and liberty, the economic expression of which is the free market.

You chose not to advocate or defend socialism, yet that seems to be the default mode that has fallen to you.

Ah, no. I'm not an advocate of it. What I was trying to do was to suggest why other people might find it appealing. That, to me, is necessary to determine if one wishes to convince them that capitalism is a better system. If I don't know why they find socialism appealing, then I can't show them how capitalism will do a better job of addressing their concerns.

Well, I say "I," but what I'm really asking is that you give it a try. I'd like to see what capitalism has to offer at its best. I'm trying to pick out what looks to me like likely reasons for people to prefer socialism and then to hear from you, the advocate of capitalism, how that system addresses those sort of concerns. I figure that that way I'll learn more about capitalism and see what it can do to address the areas that have traditionally been its weak spots.

Then in your 'three steps', you postulate that I "feel", "like", "feel", as if rational thought plays no part. I object to your supposition.

I am very sorry, and please to accept my apologies. I was not attempting to make such a distinction. I am quite happy for you to read the words "think" or "believe" or "have come to the conclusion that" in any of those places. Truly, my intention was in no way to offend or to suggest that it wasn't a rational process. Just loose wording on my part. My mind is in a half-dozen places at once this evening.

I ask you to consider that the entire world was pretty much already taken when North America was discovered. In other words, Kings, Queens, the Aristocracy, Popes, Warlords, Dynasty's, a whole host of Rulers determined the usage of almost every square inch of land and resources, one way or another.

A scholar could perhaps trace back to the first conceptual realization of private, individual ownership of land, when no such thing was possible, so perhaps the preconceived notion was there without the possibility of bearing fruit.

To Cloudy's dismay, I discount the indigenous population of North America, and view it as 'unowned land', perhaps the first the world has known since the Stone Age.

I ... beg your pardon? Unowned? Land that was occupied and in some cases sold to the arriving colonists?

Whatever you may personally feel on the topic, the fact that colonists paid for some of the land seems to indicate that they did in fact recognize it as "owned."

Thus with the idea of private ownership and individual rights and the availability of unowned land, I refute your assertion that the oppressed people turn to socialism, they did not, in this example.

Ahem. Whether we accept your premise that the land was "unowned" or whether we recognize that the owners were driven off of it, the fact remains that those colonists had an option that neither women nor freed slaves had when their hour rolled 'round: the option of grabbing massive amounts of property for free. It's hardly surprising that they didn't turn to socialism to supply them with a chance at capital when it was being handed out for free, or at the triflng cost of murdering some people who didn't look much like them while knowing that they would not be legally prosecuted for those actions. However, that has not been an option available to any of the groups of people I've mentioned.

So. What does capitalism do when there isn't a continent worth of land to throw to people?

Superficially an interesting point since every square inch of available land is now, private property, except the nearly fifty percent of land the fucking government stubbornly holds title to, creating an artificial scarcity.

I suggest it was a much more difficult and risky task to settle and improve and thereby gain title to a forty acre plot of land back then, than it is to work, accumulate capital and purchase the land at your ease and convenience.

Hogwash. The Homestead Act granted 160 acres, not 40, and the title was gained in just five years. The only requirement was to build a house on the land and live in it. Show me any likely way for someone to start with nothing today and earn the money to buy 160 acres of land in five years.

I think it can be seen that it is not the 'system' of free enterprise or 'capitalism' that is the limiting factor, rather the 'will' of the people involved, which circles back to my original assertion, that some people choose the easy way, the 'something for nothing', approach simply because they are lazy and lacking initiative and want big brother, in one form or another to make decisions for them.

I don't suppose there's any chance that you'll have another go at this? I am actually interested in hearing a good perspective on capitalism and its ability to address unusual circumstances, but this isn't helping. It's a collection of unpleasant assumptions about whole races of people rooted in factually inaccurate assumptions. Might you possibly recognize that an entire continent worth of free land was not in the equation for later groups of people, and address how capitalism was likely to work for them in its absence?

You know what you wrote and anyone else can scroll back and look, but the 'nutshell' is what I wish to address in a small way.

Just as you and Stella accuse me of living in my own little self made fantasy, I also wonder where you folks have lived all your lives.

Perhaps within that rose colored aura or myth of 'unisex', where gender differences have been denied and repressed?

No. I quite freely granted that there were likely to be trends common in either gender. I only pointed out that they aren't useful ways of dealing with individuals because they don't apply to everyone. I could observe that it's common for white males to go bald, but it doesn't mean that you're bald; I could observe that it's common for women to enjoy romance novels, but it doesn't mean that Stella does. If I'm trying to market romance novels or baldness cures, it's useful for me to know those trends. If I'm trying to live peaceably with Stella in a snug little stable, it's more useful for me to listen to Stella and learn what she's like.

My God, people, there are Soap Opera's, women's television that men cannot be paid to watch, female literature and films, 'chick lit and flicks', that we all recognize as the complete opposite of male preferences.

Again, a trend. Undoubtedly a common trend. But I've known men who liked all of those things. It was a man who recommended "Bridget Jones's Diary" diary to me, and it's a woman who keeps trying to drag me off to see the tarantula migration. It's more useful for me to know what the tarantula enthusiast herself likes than what is common to the half of the world that shares her gender.

The average male spends a few minutes shaving and running a comb through his hair, the female spends a sizable portion of her time and income on her appearance! Be ye blind?

No. Be ye average?

The male prefers soft and curvy, the female, hard and angular...where are you looking?

The differences are so great, so numerous, so apparent, so 'in your face', that I cannot conceive of the method by which you deny them.

The Emperor is stark naked and his dong is hanging out and you still don't see it.

If you confront by stating that these are superficial differences and thus meaningless, then I ask you where the fuck do you think they originated?

You seem very agitated upon this topic, Amicus. It's difficult to know what else I can say to you. Yes, I see trends that are common in each gender. I also see people who buck the trends - and not just individual people who buck all of them at once, but a wealth of varied people who each fit some typical patterns and don't fit others. I don't deny that some traits are more common in one gender than another; I just fail to see what earthly use this information is to anyone dealing with a specific individual. At best, it might give me some inspiration where my knowledge of the individual ends - but then, that's only a way of making a semi-educated guess, when it would be better to obtain certain knowledge.

In a different mind, with different chemistry, different anatomy, different hormones, different degrees of perception and understanding on levels common to one gender and alien to another.

Alien? Surely not. I wouldn't even call my dog's or cat's thought processes, motives, and desires alien to me, and they from wholly different species. Different? Potentially challenging? Possibly. Alien? Only to someone wholly unwilling to engage with them as actual people. They're really not at all that mysterious.

It is the opinion of many of these scholars that the current intellectual attitude towards gender has created a generation of people unable to determine their own sexual identification and have withdrawn from even trying and settled into alternative lifestyles instead of continuing the search. Drug companies love you folks.

And it is the opinion of others that the idea of two distinct and absolute genders, two and only two options that rigidly define every element of one's social, political, economic, biological, and familiar roles, is, was, and always has been a silly canard that was never rooted in reality. Perhaps these people "unable to determine their own sexual identification" have simply recognized that they don't fit into either one of two artificially constructed and unhelpful boxes, and are looking for a better model.

I don't back off a millimeter from stating that male and female sexuality is so opposite as to be barely comprehended and functions, minimally as one complimenting the other. Equality be damned.

And pulease, keep the personal and subjective out of your accusations towards me, I know who the hell I am sexually, even if you don't. (not directed at you Shanglan)

Amicus. I see that you're upset this evening, and for that I will try to set aside those of your words that I find hurtful. However, I must ask you this, because to me there is no more final answer.

I have been with the SO for ten years now, and have found a depth and richness of contentment I would not trade for anything in the world. No person I have ever known has understood me half so well, or could command a tenth of the devotion I feel for my most beloved. Yet what are the options, Amicus, if I take your line of reasoning? Either we're of opposite genders and it should be impossible that we could comprehend each other, or we're of the same, and we're not a loving couple at all. We're a manifestation of a pathological mental state.

If you are right, and I am wrong, why am I happy?

 

[Stella_Omega]

And on the heels of the horse's post, comes mine.

I find one huge negative about discussions like this one, conducted on forums like this one; which is that, if one person is convinced he is right and everyone else is wrong, the thread begins to look like a wholesale attack on the single fellow, and he, of course, will never stand down, because, by god, the world is going to know he was a hero. Ami gets to pretend that I have not the courage of my convictions, but am only parroting what everyone else says. Trust me-- I know how this goes, I've been the Lone Ranger once myself.

So, although this has been.. interesting, this is my last post to our amicable opponent. We know each other's positions. Women are too alien, evidently, for Ami to understand, and I don't care enough for his opinion to try to improve myself in his eyes.

~...

I am openly advocating and defending Capitalism, individual human freedom and liberty, the economic expression of which is the free market....

It is still, as it usually is, a defense of freedom from assault on all sides, nothing essentially has changed.

Clear enough?

only if everyone agrees that Capitolism positively equals Freedom. You'd have to get everybody to agree that your first postulate is true. Everyone knows how thoroughly you believe it; to the extent that you cannot imagine that you might, possibly be wrong.

I can prove it; You are going to discount the words I just said as lies and ignorance.

Then in your 'three steps', you postulate that I "feel", "like", "feel", as if rational thought plays no part. I object to your supposition.

See? You did it to Shanglan, right there.

I ask you to consider that the entire world was pretty much already taken when North America was discovered. In other words, Kings, Queens, the Aristocracy, Popes, Warlords, Dynasty's, a whole host of Rulers determined the usage of almost every square inch of land and resources, one way or another....
To Cloudy's dismay, I discount the indigenous population of North America, and view it as 'unowned land', perhaps the first the world has known since the Stone Age.

Thus with the idea of private ownership and individual rights and the availability of unowned land, I refute your assertion that the oppressed people turn to socialism, they did not, in this example.

Since there has been a continual influx of immigrants seeking the right to 'own' their own lives and property in America, I challenge the entirety of your assertion.

Now, Ami; In other arguments, you have bolstered your contention that women are second-class citizens by referring to the Authority of the Centuries Past; to churches and governments that have worked so very hard to keep women at their proper job of making babies.

yet, when those very same hoary monuments of authority posit something you don't like, such as public property, why-- you toss three thousand years of history out the window!

And of course, your argument starts with the supposition that this country was not already "owned" by the millions of people who were already here. That has nothing to do with Free Enterprise, it has everything to do with killing someone and taking what he has for oneself. You, Mr Objective Morality, should know better than that. Or, at least, you should pretend to know better.

Superficially an interesting point since every square inch of available land is now, private property, except the nearly fifty percent of land the fucking government stubbornly holds title to, creating an artificial scarcity.

I suggest it was a much more difficult and risky task to settle and improve and thereby gain title to a forty acre plot of land back then, than it is to work, accumulate capital and purchase the land at your ease and convenience.

I think it can be seen that it is not the 'system' of free enterprise or 'capitalism' that is the limiting factor, rather the 'will' of the people involved, which circles back to my original assertion, that some people choose the easy way, the 'something for nothing', approach simply because they are lazy and lacking initiative and want big brother, in one form or another to make decisions for them.

1) What does public land have to do with the question Shanglan asked? You can't possibly mean that capitalism will work for the disenfranchised if only the government lets go of its holdings of public land. You know damn well how that pie would be sliced; The rich get Central Park and the Rockies, and the poor get the Dakota badlands and the Los Angeles sewer system.

2)As Shang has already pointed out, it wasn't quite as difficult as all that, to create a homestead. In this day and age, it's more likely for the minimum wage earner to work, and see his money flow into the gaping hole of rent, sustenance, insurance, utilities. You keep complaining about taxes-- Buddy, taxes are the least of my burdens.

3) It seems that you are saying that anyone who can't get ahead via the capitalist system has failed because they are lazy and stupid. How will you convince these lazy cretins that they can, in fact, win at the game? How can you prove to them that the massive imbalance was not artificially created? Because shouting insults won't work. Nor will preaching about Morals and Initiative, as if you were Pat Robertson. I swear, you are the most old-testament, dogmatic, self-righteous, atheist I have ever known. "Accumulate capitol," indeed. Those of us who are in the position of "accumulating capitol" would like to invite you to join in the fun. We'd like you to show us that it is actually possible. You can start at minimum wage, like we do. Not the minimum wage that you remember from the good old days- Minimum wage right now, as mandated by the government. You can make that wage cover the things you need, priced courtesy of that good old capitalist system.
You can manage on 30-hour work weeks, because your company prefers to pass on its profits to the stockholders, instead of giving you health insurance-- and that because they have to, unless they can weasel out of it, because there is no nationwide insurance plan. And, you can care for your children, at the very same time.

Go on-- we are counting on your fine example to inspire us..

My God, people, there are Soap Opera's, women's television that men cannot be paid to watch, female literature and films, 'chick lit and flicks', that we all recognize as the complete opposite of male preferences.

Well, no, actually, that's just an advertising buzz-word, that "chick-lit, chick-flick" catchphrase. Generally, it's considered a humorous reference for films with a lot of character development and an emphasis on interpersonal relationships. Many men enjoy these films, really. And plenty of women prefer action films and thrillers for entertainment, and don't care for nuanced performances. Huge numbers of women prefer World Wrestling to anything else.

The average male spends a few minutes shaving and running a comb through his hair, the female spends a sizable portion of her time and income on her appearance! Be ye blind?

The male prefers soft and curvy, the female, hard and angular...where are you looking?

The differences are so great, so numerous, so apparent, so 'in your face', that I cannot conceive of the method by which you deny them.

The Emperor is stark naked and his dong is hanging out and you still don't see it.

If you confront by stating that these are superficial differences and thus meaningless, then I ask you where the fuck do you think they originated?

In a different mind, with different chemistry, different anatomy, different hormones, different degrees of perception and understanding on levels common to one gender and alien to another.

I really have no problem with these beliefs of yours, Ami; the fact that I, a woman, rather prefer to be "angular and hard" (so to speak) will never impinge on your sensibilities. You wouldn't be attracted to me, and I am quite all right with that.

The only problem, I know you won't believe me, is that you actually think these things impinge on my intellect. You think that the fact that you cannot convince me that you're right-- is because of my chemistry, my hormones, my anatomy. You actually think I cannot understand you.

I know that a) your beliefs regarding men and women are wrong; and b) my knowledge will be discounted by your secure belief.

(There is no Emperor at all, by the way.)

Stella insultingly asked for a reading list, try beginning pre Freud to the present day, of psychologists, sociologists, those prior to the 1970's who were not attempting to gloss over the differences for politically correct motivations. The gall of Stella, egads, even if I liked your thoughts I would still say, educate yourself, get your own damned box.

So; You want me to accept the authority of nameless experts? That would be unreasoning and female of me. And then you could point and laugh. No, I'm going to pretend I'm a big, strong man, and ask you to back up your claims, here.

I don't need a reading list, I want to know who you've read. What gall you have, egads, thinking that I crave your approval!

It is the opinion of many of these scholars that the current intellectual attitude towards gender has created a generation of people unable to determine their own sexual identification and have withdrawn from even trying and settled into alternative lifestyles instead of continuing the search. Drug companies love you folks.

which of these scholars? C'mon, Ami, be a man-- name a name.

I don't back off a millimeter from stating that male and female sexuality is so opposite as to be barely comprehended and functions, minimally as one complimenting the other. Equality be damned.

And pulease, keep the personal and subjective out of your accusations towards me, I know who the hell I am sexually, even if you don't. (not directed at you Shanglan)

Never implied a thing about your sexuality, mate. I've implied plenty about your intellect, though. I'm sorry about that: It's so difficult to avoid doing so.

Tell me, truthfully Shanglan, if I am right or wrong, in suspecting that your overwhelming desire for there to be equality between the sexes, blinds you to the reality of the differences?

I do not in any way suggest superior or inferior, just differences innate to each, that, happily, in rare circumstances, compliment.


Amicus...

Come on! you cannot berate women for being inferior and claim that you don't think they're inferior-- not in the very same post, at any rate. People are going to think you're lieing, about one or the other-- to someone or another.

 

[amicus]

In order, BlackShanglan, Stella_Omega, let me express my appreciation and gratitude for the time and thought you have given to this thread.

Regardless of what you may think or how you may take this, I enjoy the repartee and the give and take that has gone on; I learn from the exchanges and I am continually pleasured and amazed at the means by which you undertake to confront my arguments.

As you suggest, sometimes in unkind terms, I am indeed content with the sum of my knowledge and the accumulated self evident conclusions I have reached. And, no, they are not self evident to only me, but shared by many, although unheeded by many, that does not mean I stand alone in opposition to the predominant relativism of this era.

I am going to attempt to clarify the source of our deep rooted differences in an effort to expose both my and your fundamental assumptions in this ongoing debate.

I have done so before and met with little success and so I have no great expectations this time either, nonetheless, I make the effort.

In the 'hard' sciences, I have occasionally gained reluctant acknowledgment of the absolute nature of such knowledge as the K of the speed of light or the Chemical chart of periodic elements, indicating that the human mind can indeed perceive, catalogue and categorize absolute knowledge about absolute, objective, reality, i.e., that which is, independent of the subjective opinion of others.

The old Aristotelian concept of A is A, a thing is what it is.

As I noted, I have gained, sometimes, a reluctant acquiescence to the concept of absolute truth. Reluctant because the clever instantly realize that if the concept of absolute truth is valid, and that the mind of man can comprehend such truths, then the door is open to application to other, less, 'hard science' areas of intellectual endeavor.

Such as human behavior.

Thus, I have proceeded, for over half a century, to determine what areas of human behavior possess such absolute truths and if the mind of man, (mine included) can comprehend them.

The subject is human nature. What is the true 'nature' of a human being, homo sapiens, aside from my personal, subjective opinion? Does it exist? Can it be discovered and studied and learned?

Few will confront the science that tells us we must breathe an atmosphere with about twenty-one percent oxygen to survive. Few will contest the necessity of the intake of fluids and nutrients at a certain level to maintain existence. Few will argue with the science that determines body temperature and the necessity of maintaining a body temperature within certain parameters for survival.

Shanglan, for reasons of (its) own, prefers to address the more abstract areas of human existence as, 'trends', in (its), latest post, (may I used 'his' as a non gender identifying generality?

That appears to me, to be an avoidance of addressing that human beings have a definite, absolute, nature, that is a natural occurrence and not just a transitory trend.

The two areas being addressed in the past several posts are capitalism and socialism, which I define as freedom and slavery, and human sexuality, which I define as male and female, each having separate definitions as opposed to non absolute sexual proclivities, or trends.

Two basic subjects; one at a time.

Human freedom, freedom of choice. From the moment of birth a human infant strives to express its own individuality. It must do so on its own, from learning to crawl, to learning to walk, for defending its own toys, from fighting for a breast from which to nurse. It progresses through many stages including leaving the nest and striking out on its own, subject to the reality of existence, what ever that may be in the environment the child finds itself, but still, regardless of that environment, seeking expression of self.

The societal guidelines best suited to enable that new individual human being to realize the potential of his existence are those that permit the most freedom of individual endeavor within the boundaries of protecting the right of each individual a similar parameter.

That guideline is called freedom, expressed economically by a free market, or, yes, the dreaded word, capitalism.


Point the second; human sexuality. What does it mean? What does nature naturally imbue the human child with?

Hard science tells us that the human female child is born with three to five hundred, 'egg's within her body that carry the genes and chromosomes of all her past ancestry. Who am I to argue with science?

Nature also equipped that female child with a body and a body chemistry centered on one and one only aspect of survival and continuation of the species, ah, lovely evolution, can't beat it with a stick.

The entire gamut and spectrum of human sexuality is founded on the nature that has evolved to insure procreation and continuation of the species. All else is peripheral and inconsequential in the overall scheme of things, in nature's terms.

I am not involved, personally or subjectively in any of this. I have made an objective and non personal quest to comprehend the nature of existence and what you read of my conclusions, however poorly expressed, are merely a reflection of my ability, or lack of it, to understand and communicate that which I have learned.

This is not intended as a thread killing post, I rather hope it is not, I hope to entice Stella to continue even though she has stated otherwise. Shanglan and Stella both, I still may reply to each point you both made, I only wanted to establish my foundation, if possible, so that further discussion may take into consideration my fundamental premises and perhaps move on from there.

Whatever the result, thank you both for your very challenging thoughts.

regards...


Amicus...

 

[Liar]

The old Aristotelian concept of A is A, a thing is what it is.

Parmenidian actually, but yeah, Ari subscribed to the Elean poet's ideas.

 

[amicus]

Parmenidian actually, but yeah, Ari subscribed to the Elean poet's ideas.

~~~

Chuckles...I mentioned that I stood on the shoulders of giants, perhaps I am only a satyr sitting on the shoulders of those who stand on shoulders...such a deal!

Ami...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

~~~

Got a little close to a 'sore point' with you, eh, LT?

It happens a lot on this forum as I dare challenge the prevailing wisdom and it does not trouble me that you defensively 'pretend', not to comprehend my logic.\

No biggee...


Amicus...

Yes, your misogynistic views are a sore point with me. So sue me.

 

[BlackShanglan]

As you suggest, sometimes in unkind terms, I am indeed content with the sum of my knowledge and the accumulated self evident conclusions I have reached. And, no, they are not self evident to only me, but shared by many, although unheeded by many, that does not mean I stand alone in opposition to the predominant relativism of this era.

In the 'hard' sciences, I have occasionally gained reluctant acknowledgment of the absolute nature of such knowledge as the K of the speed of light or the Chemical chart of periodic elements, indicating that the human mind can indeed perceive, catalogue and categorize absolute knowledge about absolute, objective, reality, i.e., that which is, independent of the subjective opinion of others.

The old Aristotelian concept of A is A, a thing is what it is.

As I noted, I have gained, sometimes, a reluctant acquiescence to the concept of absolute truth. Reluctant because the clever instantly realize that if the concept of absolute truth is valid, and that the mind of man can comprehend such truths, then the door is open to application to other, less, 'hard science' areas of intellectual endeavor.

Here's the difficulty, Amicus - and perhaps we're simply attempting different things, but I think that your own post suggests that we aren't. If there is such a thing as absolute knowledge, it's not the same thing as absolute certainty. Being very very certain that one is correct is not, unfortunately, at all related to being correct (although I may be a bit cynical from spending too much time with the newer intake - nothing is so remarkably certain as a 19-year-old). If there is such a thing as absolute knowledge, surely the only way to attain it is to continue to test, question, and examine one's ideas. You've said as much to us - for instance, when you insist that you bring women and minorities so conspicuously into your posts in order to test and question the assumptions on which people base their systems of thought. Certainly that sort of process is to me the really interesting part of any debate.

Yet, you then write a paragraph like the first above - essentially saying that you are no longer willing to test, examine, and question any of your own beliefs or reasoning. How is that consistent with a quest for knowledge? You often return to this position when you're asked to explain what appear to be contradictions or factual inaccuracies in your arguments, and yet the only way in which anyone can really aspire to attain knowledge is by facing those contradictions or problems and figuring out how to resolve them. When, instead, you simply say "I know what I know and I'm not interested in examining or explaining anything that others think might be logically or factually unlikely," you're leaving behind the only mechanism anyone has for gaining knowledge. In the marketplace of free ideas, you're folding up shop and going home, with nothing bartered or sold.

I don't see how one can hope to attain this absolute knowledge if one takes one's ideas, sets them on a shelf, and leaves them untouched for the rest of one's life.

Shanglan, for reasons of (its) own, prefers to address the more abstract areas of human existence as, 'trends', in (its), latest post, (may I used 'his' as a non gender identifying generality?

Please do use any pronoun that seems handy to you. I don't wish to be a grammatical burden to anyone.

That appears to me, to be an avoidance of addressing that human beings have a definite, absolute, nature, that is a natural occurrence and not just a transitory trend.

Ah. Allow me to explain, then. I used the word "trends" or the phrase "common behaviors" to signify attributes or attitudes that one might often see in one gender or the other. I chose those words in order to indicate that I do accept that some things are more frequently encountered in one gender than the other. Women, for instance, might reasonably be described as much more commonly wearing skirts. However, some women don't, and some men do - so it's not something inherent to all women. It's just a behavior that is commonly associated with them.

I don't deny at all that any human being has an actual nature inherent to him or her, although it's difficult for me to see how "absolute" can be applied when people grow and change continually throughout their lives. Still, I think that where we disagree is not in whether or not there is an absolute reality; it's in how many people you can nail a single absolute reality to at the same time. Some absolute realities (like the biological ones you gave as examples) I would agree to apply to the entire human race; others, like your ideas of gender types, I think you apply too broadly to support so absolute a use, or too absolutely to support so broad a use. That's not saying that there is no absolute reality; that's saying that I think you're not correct about what it is.

The societal guidelines best suited to enable that new individual human being to realize the potential of his existence are those that permit the most freedom of individual endeavor within the boundaries of protecting the right of each individual a similar parameter.

That guideline is called freedom, expressed economically by a free market, or, yes, the dreaded word, capitalism.

This, to me, is an example of a thing about which you are absolutely certain - and I respect that - but which you haven't convinced me is an absolute reality. Some of the assumptions that you make, such as your focus on individualism, aren't things you've offered to prove; they are things that you believe. So, for instance, when I say, "I think that public education should be provided because ultimately individuals are less free when they are ignorant," and you say, "I think that the immediate freedom of being able to decide not to go to school is more important than the long-term freedoms granted by education," neither of us is saying something that we've proven to be absolutely true. We're discussing what we value, and we're not offering empirical proof. I'm not certain that it's possible to, given that we're discussing, essentially, not "what is," but "what is good."

It's a bit like arguing that a brick exterior on a house is better than vinyl siding. We can offer a certain amount of factual support for each position - cost, upkeep, environmental impact, aesthetic appeal - but ultimately there isn't a single answer, because people have different priorities. If I like the look of brick and I am scandalously lazy about upkeep, I'm going to stick with it even if it costs a great deal more and you think it's hideous. There's an absolute reality in all of the things we listed as facts, but ultimately what we value is a personal thing, and there isn't an absolute answer that will be true for everyone. Otherwise, our houses would all look very similar.

Point the second; human sexuality. What does it mean? What does nature naturally imbue the human child with?

Hard science tells us that the human female child is born with three to five hundred, 'egg's within her body that carry the genes and chromosomes of all her past ancestry. Who am I to argue with science?

Nature also equipped that female child with a body and a body chemistry centered on one and one only aspect of survival and continuation of the species, ah, lovely evolution, can't beat it with a stick.

Amicus. This is very silly. Hyperbole is not the tool of the true seeker of knowledge.

Nature has, in fact, designed some sexes of some species solely and only for reproduction. They're pretty easy to pick out. They are the animals that literally cannot do anything else. There's the male anglerfish, for instance, that lives its life as a tiny parasite attached to the female, who is in the order of a hundred thousand times its mass. There's the queen bee, immobile, continually producing eggs, eating only because others bring food to her. Indeed, these are creatures that exist solely to produce children.

And then there are female humans. They certainly can reproduce; so can male humans. Yet Nature is a flint-fisted creature; she doesn't lavish gifts on her creations when she knows that they can do without them. Ask the poor male anglerfish, who barely has a digestive system. So when I look at the female of the human species and notice the many other functions of which she is capable, I see that Nature has fitted her out for more than a single role in life.

The entire gamut and spectrum of human sexuality is founded on the nature that has evolved to insure procreation and continuation of the species. All else is peripheral and inconsequential in the overall scheme of things, in nature's terms.

I don't dispute that procreation is nature's chief goal in any species. However, there is a great deal more to surivival of a species than simply the act of mating and the bearing of the offspring. That's why Nature is such a delight. She teaches ants to herd aphids, she persuades blue-footed boobies to dance with each other, she compels elephants to re-landscape entire forests. There's all of that living business to do, in and around the mating, and she equips her creations for that as well. Actual physical mating and childbirth are only a small part of any species' survival strategy, and they are only a small part of any species' nature.

In addition, if we're looking at any species even on the physical animal level, there's a great deal that both sexes do in common in the same way, as well as differences between them. You have presented individual biological facts as if they inherently meant that any behavioral conclusion you drew from them was also factual, but I don't agree with your process of reasoning. To say, "Look, in nature there are physical structures and behaviors that are specific to one sex or another in these animal species" is a very cry from "Therefore, in human beings, anything I choose to identify as a gender-based difference must also be so, and be so absolutely for all members of that gender."

I am not involved, personally or subjectively in any of this. I have made an objective and non personal quest to comprehend the nature of existence and what you read of my conclusions, however poorly expressed, are merely a reflection of my ability, or lack of it, to understand and communicate that which I have learned.

It's not the communication of what you've learned thus far that troubles me, at least. It's the assumption that you're done and your quest is complete. Knowledge never is. It never can be, either, if we stop examining our own reasoning and evidence and decide that we are correct because we are comfortable with the feeling of being correct.

But one last word. I am sorry, Amicus, but I really must persist in asking you to explain your comments on two earlier issues, as their resolution is important to me. I refer to these two matters:

To Cloudy's dismay, I discount the indigenous population of North America, and view it as 'unowned land', perhaps the first the world has known since the Stone Age.

I ... beg your pardon? Unowned? Land that was occupied and in some cases sold to the arriving colonists?

Whatever you may personally feel on the topic, the fact that colonists paid for some of the land seems to indicate that they did in fact recognize it as "owned."

I think it can be seen that it is not the 'system' of free enterprise or 'capitalism' that is the limiting factor, rather the 'will' of the people involved, which circles back to my original assertion, that some people choose the easy way, the 'something for nothing', approach simply because they are lazy and lacking initiative and want big brother, in one form or another to make decisions for them.

I don't suppose there's any chance that you'll have another go at this? I am actually interested in hearing a good perspective on capitalism and its ability to address unusual circumstances, but this isn't helping. It's a collection of unpleasant assumptions about whole races of people rooted in factually inaccurate assumptions. Might you possibly recognize that an entire continent worth of free land was not in the equation for later groups of people, and address how capitalism was likely to work for them in its absence?

I wish to listen to your ideas with an open mind and to weigh your reasoning fairly, but so long as these two thoughts trouble me, it is difficult for me to do so.

Shanglan

 

[Stella_Omega]

In order, BlackShanglan, Stella_Omega, let me express my appreciation and gratitude for the time and thought you have given to this thread.

Regardless of what you may think or how you may take this, I enjoy the repartee and the give and take that has gone on; I learn from the exchanges and I am continually pleasured and amazed at the means by which you undertake to confront my arguments.

As you suggest, sometimes in unkind terms, I am indeed content with the sum of my knowledge and the accumulated self evident conclusions I have reached. And, no, they are not self evident to only me, but shared by many, although unheeded by many, that does not mean I stand alone in opposition to the predominant relativism of this era.

Alright, I'll bite one last time

In the above passage, you say that a) You learn from these conversations, and that b) you are positive that you have nothing left to learn.

This leaves me with the unpleasant notion that what you learn from me is that-- your position is invincible. As I said, you discount anything I say, because you have already made up your mind that there is nothing you can learn from me.

I am going to attempt to clarify the source of our deep rooted differences in an effort to expose both my and your fundamental assumptions in this ongoing debate.

I have done so before and met with little success and so I have no great expectations this time either, nonetheless, I make the effort.

In the 'hard' sciences, I have occasionally gained reluctant acknowledgment of the absolute nature of such knowledge as the K of the speed of light or the Chemical chart of periodic elements, indicating that the human mind can indeed perceive, catalogue and categorize absolute knowledge about absolute, objective, reality, i.e., that which is, independent of the subjective opinion of others.

The old Aristotelian concept of A is A, a thing is what it is.

As I noted, I have gained, sometimes, a reluctant acquiescence to the concept of absolute truth. Reluctant because the clever instantly realize that if the concept of absolute truth is valid, and that the mind of man can comprehend such truths, then the door is open to application to other, less, 'hard science' areas of intellectual endeavor.

Such as human behavior.

Ah. In other words, you conflate "facts" with "Truth." The periodic table is a fact, the speed of light is a fact, the human mind can indeed catalogue and chart facts. It's a given, it's basic to human nature. In fact, it's so basic, that, when we have no actual facts to catalogue, we invent them-- this is what we call "Belief." Belief fills the same need as knowledge does. And, unfortunately, it does it so well that it's often difficult to replace a belief with a fact, when one shows up.

Among your beliefs, Ami, is the idea that human behaviour can be expressed as absolute Truths.

And, when reality confronts you with the infinite number of variables that human nature exhibits-- giving the lie to your belief-- you take refuge once again in that belief.

Now, I ask you, how can an argument with such a one as yourself be satisfying to me? I have no chance of convincing you of any new thing, however meagre, and I know-- for you have told me so, often-- that you believe I am intellectually inferior, and, furthermore, a Mystery that is barely Human (read; "not male").

Thus, I have proceeded, for over half a century, to determine what areas of human behavior possess such absolute truths and if the mind of man, (mine included) can comprehend them...

...That appears to me, to be an avoidance of addressing that human beings have a definite, absolute, nature, that is a natural occurrence and not just a transitory trend.

I note that Past Perfect tense in your fist sentence; "I HAVE determined." You're never going to learn a new trick, you old dog you.

Ami, what you seem to have determined, to your ultimate and immoveable satisfaction, has been based on very selective evidence.

These "trends' that you dismiss have been evident for the entire history of the human race. If you insist that newly accepted behaviours have no validity, I suggest you continue in this absolute vein and eschew the very Democracy you so trumpetingly champion. No computers for you, no automobiles-- horses and carts were good enough for your ancestors, they are good enough for you. (remember that computers were concieved of in the 1700s-- but not constructed yet because the technology of power supply wasn't far enough along.)

In any case, you have stated the absolute parameters by which you will argue any subject. I do not agree with your parameters, and offer some alterations. But, since your parameters are absolute, you reject my suggestions, will not budge, and we argue fruitlessly about parameters.

I enjoy being silly, but this kind of clowning around is bootless.

The two areas being addressed in the past several posts are capitalism and socialism, which I define as freedom and slavery, and human sexuality, which I define as male and female, each having separate definitions as opposed to non absolute sexual proclivities, or trends.

Two basic subjects; one at a time.

Human freedom, freedom of choice. From the moment of birth a human infant strives to express its own individuality. It must do so on its own, from learning to crawl, to learning to walk, for defending its own toys, from fighting for a breast from which to nurse. It progresses through many stages including leaving the nest and striking out on its own, subject to the reality of existence, what ever that may be in the environment the child finds itself, but still, regardless of that environment, seeking expression of self.

We're talking psychology , right?
You express the need for nurture as "a battle;" defending its own toys, fighting for a breast. Yet in reality, no mother I've ever known has asked her infants to compete for the breast. hell, I know one woman who breast-fed triplets-- It wore her to shreds, but not one of those children ever hated another for getting what he was denied. And most children are introduced to the concept of sharing quite early. Most children, in fact, know that there are some possessions that are entirely and without question, their own. No one will ever, ever touch that toy without is owner's permission, on pain of parental intervention. And children quickly understand that sharing toys means everyone has more toys to play with.

Freud is rightly known as "The father of psychoanalysis" but he is only the "father." He had no giant's shoulder's to perch upon, and his view was truly limited-- to his own class in society, and in many cases to his own personal experiences. He made judgements that could be correct if you happened to be living in an upper-middle-class Viennese family in the late nineteen-forties. His world did not encompass the fact of human sexual mutability, for instance, which has been documented since forever-- you can tell if only by the attempts to suppress it, down the annals of history. (and since those attempts have never been successful, you can probably guess that it's an innate part of our nature, and will never be expunged)

The societal guidelines best suited to enable that new individual human being to realize the potential of his existence are those that permit the most freedom of individual endeavor within the boundaries of protecting the right of each individual a similar parameter.

That guideline is called freedom, expressed economically by a free market, or, yes, the dreaded word, capitalism.

Sez you. It's often been noted that your "freedom" is a little different from other people's "freedom"-- especially when we come to that "boundaries of protecting the rights of other individuals".

Point the second; human sexuality. What does it mean? What does nature naturally imbue the human child with?

Hard science tells us that the human female child is born with three to five hundred, 'egg's within her body that carry the genes and chromosomes of all her past ancestry. Who am I to argue with science?

Nature also equipped that female child with a body and a body chemistry centered on one and one only aspect of survival and continuation of the species, ah, lovely evolution, can't beat it with a stick.

The entire gamut and spectrum of human sexuality is founded on the nature that has evolved to insure procreation and continuation of the species. All else is peripheral and inconsequential in the overall scheme of things, in nature's terms.

So we humans, with our powerful brains and our unmatched ability to change and destroy nature if she gets in our way-- an ability that you often laud-- must be slaves in this one thing. Sorry, Nature doesn't get her way here. By your logic, all girls would be pregnant within two months of their first menses, and be popping them out one a year for the nest twenty. And all men would be rapists, the moment the hair had grown on their balls. We'd be rutting dogs.

Let me posit something for you; Since, in your view, women are solely concerned with the propagation and continuation of the species;
Might it not be, that since women are the ones who keep the species viable, that they might not be best suited to control the society of said species?

And, since, in your view, women are completely incomprehensible to you;
What makes you assume that the Male Intellect is the superior one?
I have to tell you that any woman can easily understand you. That they don't necessarily agree with with you makes no difference; women tend to understand men like you all too well.

In nature, any observation will tell you that any species-- be it dogs, leopards, or cattle-- have other concerns besides procreation. And, when these animals are involved in those other concerns, sex differences go pretty much out the window.

Even with lions, who exhibit spectacular sex-based hunting techniques; When, as often happens, extra males are ejected from the pride, those males re-create the team pattern that the pride uses, placing themselves in the ambushing and chasing roles. Big bad men that they are, they still have to eat.

Nature is not, has never been, a dictator of absolutes. The nature of life itself utterly depends on the flexibility, adaptive nature of organisms. Those that cannot change behaviours are subject to extinction when circumstances change. And human beings are very, very adaptable (in general-- some individuals, of course, are less so).

I am not involved, personally or subjectively in any of this. I have made an objective and non personal quest to comprehend the nature of existence and what you read of my conclusions, however poorly expressed, are merely a reflection of my ability, or lack of it, to understand and communicate that which I have learned.

This is not intended as a thread killing post, I rather hope it is not, I hope to entice Stella to continue even though she has stated otherwise. Shanglan and Stella both, I still may reply to each point you both made, I only wanted to establish my foundation, if possible, so that further discussion may take into consideration my fundamental premises and perhaps move on from there.

Whatever the result, thank you both for your very challenging thoughts.

regards...


Amicus...

Trust me, I completely understand your foundation. It's been clear as crystal from the get-go. As I said above, your foundation is so unshakeable that it's truly wasted effort to discuss it with you.
I can't help thinking, that you have forgotten that science is a process, rather than a single monolithic compendium of facts. No real scientist talks about Truth with a capital "T" . The object of science is to steadily increase the sum of human knowledge, and to do that with all deliberate care. Each observation and theory must be proven, before being accepted-- and even then, it is considered "proven as far as we know." There is always, always, the possibility that some hitherto unforeseen fact will come to light that disproves any theory-- no matter how well regarded that theory has been.
There are, once again, always individuals who call themselves scientists, who are so in love with some theory or another that they cannot discard it no matter what. History is full of these people. They do no real harm.