It's the rabid extreme right wing bigots, racists, elitists and misogynists who moan most about people trying to censor them when they read a comment critical of their ramblings.
The [string of ad hominems]s here are a larger group of people who are tired of being labeled [string of ad hominems] because they don't think you alone should be able to declare who deserves "mutual respect" and "tolerance" and who doesn't. Nor that you should be the arbiter of whose ramblings deserve criticisms (not your own of course!) Apparently you think a lot of things deserve to be insulted (not too respectful really) including being "right wing".
Never have I seen such a succinct example of why people get annoyed with what has now become known as "SJW". "I'm just a morally superlative person that believe in mutual respect and you're a dumb, horrible [string of insults] that does nothing but ramble." Brilliant.
... nor did i say that men and women are not different biologically.
No but you did say that thinking these biological differences might cause, you know, differences was ignorant. And that's just a flat out stupid thing to say.
the key is that those difference do not extend to our brains.
Yeah, yeah they do. I mean you can keep repeating that but it makes it about as true as a creationist saying evolution is wrong.
i never said society is evil
No sweat- I was just mocking you.
you get a fail for reading comprehension and logic.
Excuse while I put little weight in the grading of comprehension and logic from someone that believes thinking biological differences could cause differences is ignorant of biology. Seriously- I find the fact that that train of thought could exist in someone's head fascinating.
Girls may like pink because it is associated with "girly" things but that in no way proves or indicates that they like girly things because they are "taught" to. Things are considered girly because girls tend to like them. Colours are a fashionable thing and preferences tend to change seasonally. So you are right to state that there is little reason to think colour choice is strongly influenced by biology. Congrats but that would be a red-herring in the discussion of sexual dimorphism.
Biologically there is considerable sexual dimorphism in almost all primates including their behaviour. Humans are included in this group. Claiming that biology cannot influence differences in the way boys/men and girls/women act is not just ignorant. It's flat out absurd.
Holy shit how many times has this been said (by you, even) in this thread and been corrected. Your science denialism would make a young earth creationist blush.
That is not the naturalistic fallacy. "Fallacy" is not some word you can just throw around to feel smart. If the discussion is about whether someone/some group/some thing is naturally inclined to behave a certain way it is not a fallacy to posit that it may be natural.
But you go ahead and tell your daughters that liking princesses is bad and they aren't allowed to do it. You sound like a great parent. You should probably prevent them from listening to devil music too. Oh- and dancing with boys. That leads to kissing, nookie and being a house wife (which is super bad, just like liking princesses).
But daddy I like it!
That's a naturalistic fallacy brat! You will like what I tell you to like! Now tell your friends you can't come out to play because you have Knuth to read and big O drills. You will be a woman in tech.
the notion that it is AT ALL biological is rooted in ignorance. Ignorance of biology...
Men and women are biologically different. Stating that differences between the two can be biological in nature is not ignorance of biology. Asserting that any differences are absolutely not biological is ignorance of biology.
Consider that when pink first took on gender connotations,
Well doesn't that just prove that all differences between men and women are because evil society is forcing pink on women.
So how do you measure intelligence if not through IQ tests?
Realistically you don't. It is a hard enough job simply defining "intelligence" so without the parameters to define intelligence how can we objectively measure it? At best we can say that IQ is correlated with intelligence.
I'm not sure not selling phones is a good business plan for a company that was in the process of hemorrhaging market-share. Their drop had nothing to do with this move. If anything the countries in question saw an opportunity to pressure the weakened RIM at that time.
What kind of threat would that be anyway? "Won't sell us phones? Alright, our people will buy iPhones instead which already do what we want".
Who said that philosophers can't identify 'serious' philosophy? I
If they could then there would be some kind of metric. There are plenty of nonsensical and/or completely contradictory philosophies. There are reasons for this, of course. They all boil down to things being "unknowable" though. So philosophers cannot identify serious or "correct" philosophies.
For another, I don't see a problem with imagining that a "respectable" field would be one that you talk about with your friends.
If children were performing science on equal level with tenured professors then yeah I would say it is not exactly respectable. Likewise if my high conversations with friends are indistinguishable from serious topical discussion then it isn't the most respectable.
I guess everything could be defined as "philosophy", in much the same sense that anything can be defined as anything.
That was a complete non-sequitur. Science can be described using philosophy. You might be able to define science as a philosophy but saying science is philosophy is useless.
This whole conversation is about whether science was achieved by philosophy instead of in spite of it. Which you have agreed with. A few philosophers realized they couldn't get meaningful results using traditional philosophy and had to develop better methods. That they were classified as "philosophers" by the context of the time means science no more came from philosophy than it did from theology.
There is virtually no programming problem in a ruby application that makes me grumble because I "have to deal with it" or it will "take years to fix" because it's so easy to fix.
I'm going to have to assume that's because you've never seen Ruby used for anything more complicated than "display this html". Congrats on sounding like you work in a marketing department though. With your nice baseless assertions like:
When I learned that on the fly I could inject or replace a method in a core object at load time and in 3 lines of code solve a system wide problem no matter what design pattern, coding style, or good/bad architectural decision was made by a previous developer it pretty much changed my life as a programmer
I'm also not sure you should be allowed near anything more complicated that "display this html" with an attitude like that. The "bad architectural decisions made by previous developers" that people complain about are usually made by previous developers with that exact attitude.
Lack of organization and ad-hoc development rarely scales well.
the question of how you tell who is a "serious" philosopher, and whether there's such a thing as an "objective metric", is a question for philosophers.
That would be my point."You can't identify which of us is useful or "serious" that's up to us to decide but we can't". You have reduced a so-called "respectable" field into nothing better than what I engage in with my friends while passing left. Philosophy has its place but this current arrogant attitude of it being supremely important because everything can be technically defined as "philosophy" is exactly why it is currently useless.
Chemistry largely came from alchemy but it would be asinine to declare alchemy is an important or insightful field of study because of the gains from chemistry. Likewise it is asinine to claim gains from science as directly from philosophy. Sophistic arguments about how philosophy is an overarching discipline singularly important to everything are pointless.
And I know, there are people who think that philosophy is just a bunch of silly idiots arguing about nonsense that can't be proved or disproved. Ironically, those people are generally subscribing to a specific philosophic viewpoint, and not a very well thought out one.
Which is funny because that is exactly how you just defined it.
Philosophy is of extreme importance to philosophers but it takes a scientist to make anything useful or concrete out of it.
It's clear you do not know what serious (as opposed to populist) philosophers are concerned with.
And being as the only way to tell who is a "serious" philosopher is using some kind of objective metric I guess you agree that the "scientific method" was achieved in spite of and not because of philosophy.
What you are doing is no different than Christians claiming that the scientific method was born from Christian research and therefore science is an extension of Christianity. Nothing but apologetics based on reduction that everyone in science has heard a million times before.
Biology is just applied Chemistry. Chemistry is just applied Physics. Physics is just applied Math. They are all just applied philosophy. The difference being philosophy has no real means of maintaining coherence. No way to tell if something is insightful or complete nonsense. Bad science will become known given a bit of time. Bad philosophy just gets apologists.
That you can define something as philosophy does not mean that everything defined as philosophy is equally useful. You are working backward to prove a conclusion. A fossil is just a rock but that doesn't mean all rocks are equally interesting or useful.
Maybe stop misusing the word "misogyny" to make things seem scarier than they are then? If you used the word correctly maybe people wouldn't be misinterpreting what you "mean" so often.
it ceases to be a free market once a monopoly (or cartel) exists
Incorrect. A monopoly can exist through lack of competition or lack of adequate competition. The free market still exists for others to compete however.
Once an "entity" has that kind of monopoly power they will usually use their market force to perpetuate that power. The hypothetical in all of this is whether or not they could maintain that power in a free market if they really didn't deserve it.
You and I may have a different definition of "simple trespass". A simple trespass is wandering around the woods and ending up on a farm. Storming the White House is.. Well I had always assumed it was a sure-fire way to get shot to be honest.
They seem to use muscles and arrows quite successfully though.
Idealized male stereotypes will appeal to both men and women. Idealized female stereotypes will appeal to both men and women. Seriously look at things marketed to women; the women there are every bit as sexualized and so are the men. The difference is men don't seem to feel entitled to dictate women's fantasies on any broad scale.
Like every other character in a video game? You seem to have a serious misunderstanding about what a video game is. I'll help you out: it's not reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Contrasted with Java which is a kitchen sink language also but has a whole in it to helpfully keep it from filling up with usefulness.
Personally I'm a little confused about the assertion that seems to be completely contradicted by reality.
It's the rabid extreme right wing bigots, racists, elitists and misogynists who moan most about people trying to censor them when they read a comment critical of their ramblings.
The [string of ad hominems]s here are a larger group of people who are tired of being labeled [string of ad hominems] because they don't think you alone should be able to declare who deserves "mutual respect" and "tolerance" and who doesn't. Nor that you should be the arbiter of whose ramblings deserve criticisms (not your own of course!) Apparently you think a lot of things deserve to be insulted (not too respectful really) including being "right wing".
Never have I seen such a succinct example of why people get annoyed with what has now become known as "SJW". "I'm just a morally superlative person that believe in mutual respect and you're a dumb, horrible [string of insults] that does nothing but ramble." Brilliant.
... nor did i say that men and women are not different biologically.
No but you did say that thinking these biological differences might cause, you know, differences was ignorant. And that's just a flat out stupid thing to say.
the key is that those difference do not extend to our brains.
Yeah, yeah they do. I mean you can keep repeating that but it makes it about as true as a creationist saying evolution is wrong.
i never said society is evil
No sweat- I was just mocking you.
you get a fail for reading comprehension and logic.
Excuse while I put little weight in the grading of comprehension and logic from someone that believes thinking biological differences could cause differences is ignorant of biology. Seriously- I find the fact that that train of thought could exist in someone's head fascinating.
Girls may like pink because it is associated with "girly" things but that in no way proves or indicates that they like girly things because they are "taught" to. Things are considered girly because girls tend to like them. Colours are a fashionable thing and preferences tend to change seasonally. So you are right to state that there is little reason to think colour choice is strongly influenced by biology. Congrats but that would be a red-herring in the discussion of sexual dimorphism.
Biologically there is considerable sexual dimorphism in almost all primates including their behaviour. Humans are included in this group. Claiming that biology cannot influence differences in the way boys/men and girls/women act is not just ignorant. It's flat out absurd.
Holy shit how many times has this been said (by you, even) in this thread and been corrected. Your science denialism would make a young earth creationist blush.
That is not the naturalistic fallacy. "Fallacy" is not some word you can just throw around to feel smart. If the discussion is about whether someone/some group/some thing is naturally inclined to behave a certain way it is not a fallacy to posit that it may be natural.
But you go ahead and tell your daughters that liking princesses is bad and they aren't allowed to do it. You sound like a great parent. You should probably prevent them from listening to devil music too. Oh- and dancing with boys. That leads to kissing, nookie and being a house wife (which is super bad, just like liking princesses).
But daddy I like it!
That's a naturalistic fallacy brat! You will like what I tell you to like! Now tell your friends you can't come out to play because you have Knuth to read and big O drills. You will be a woman in tech.
Something changed around 2000 that affected the IT industry? But it was so stable and risk free around that time; I wonder what it could have been.
the notion that it is AT ALL biological is rooted in ignorance. Ignorance of biology ...
Men and women are biologically different. Stating that differences between the two can be biological in nature is not ignorance of biology. Asserting that any differences are absolutely not biological is ignorance of biology.
Consider that when pink first took on gender connotations,
Well doesn't that just prove that all differences between men and women are because evil society is forcing pink on women.
So how do you measure intelligence if not through IQ tests?
Realistically you don't. It is a hard enough job simply defining "intelligence" so without the parameters to define intelligence how can we objectively measure it? At best we can say that IQ is correlated with intelligence.
I'm not sure not selling phones is a good business plan for a company that was in the process of hemorrhaging market-share. Their drop had nothing to do with this move. If anything the countries in question saw an opportunity to pressure the weakened RIM at that time.
What kind of threat would that be anyway? "Won't sell us phones? Alright, our people will buy iPhones instead which already do what we want".
Who said that philosophers can't identify 'serious' philosophy? I
If they could then there would be some kind of metric. There are plenty of nonsensical and/or completely contradictory philosophies. There are reasons for this, of course. They all boil down to things being "unknowable" though. So philosophers cannot identify serious or "correct" philosophies.
For another, I don't see a problem with imagining that a "respectable" field would be one that you talk about with your friends.
If children were performing science on equal level with tenured professors then yeah I would say it is not exactly respectable. Likewise if my high conversations with friends are indistinguishable from serious topical discussion then it isn't the most respectable.
I guess everything could be defined as "philosophy", in much the same sense that anything can be defined as anything.
That was a complete non-sequitur. Science can be described using philosophy. You might be able to define science as a philosophy but saying science is philosophy is useless.
This whole conversation is about whether science was achieved by philosophy instead of in spite of it. Which you have agreed with. A few philosophers realized they couldn't get meaningful results using traditional philosophy and had to develop better methods. That they were classified as "philosophers" by the context of the time means science no more came from philosophy than it did from theology.
There is virtually no programming problem in a ruby application that makes me grumble because I "have to deal with it" or it will "take years to fix" because it's so easy to fix.
I'm going to have to assume that's because you've never seen Ruby used for anything more complicated than "display this html". Congrats on sounding like you work in a marketing department though. With your nice baseless assertions like:
When I learned that on the fly I could inject or replace a method in a core object at load time and in 3 lines of code solve a system wide problem no matter what design pattern, coding style, or good/bad architectural decision was made by a previous developer it pretty much changed my life as a programmer
I'm also not sure you should be allowed near anything more complicated that "display this html" with an attitude like that. The "bad architectural decisions made by previous developers" that people complain about are usually made by previous developers with that exact attitude.
Lack of organization and ad-hoc development rarely scales well.
the question of how you tell who is a "serious" philosopher, and whether there's such a thing as an "objective metric", is a question for philosophers.
That would be my point."You can't identify which of us is useful or "serious" that's up to us to decide but we can't". You have reduced a so-called "respectable" field into nothing better than what I engage in with my friends while passing left. Philosophy has its place but this current arrogant attitude of it being supremely important because everything can be technically defined as "philosophy" is exactly why it is currently useless.
Chemistry largely came from alchemy but it would be asinine to declare alchemy is an important or insightful field of study because of the gains from chemistry. Likewise it is asinine to claim gains from science as directly from philosophy. Sophistic arguments about how philosophy is an overarching discipline singularly important to everything are pointless.
And I know, there are people who think that philosophy is just a bunch of silly idiots arguing about nonsense that can't be proved or disproved. Ironically, those people are generally subscribing to a specific philosophic viewpoint, and not a very well thought out one.
Which is funny because that is exactly how you just defined it.
Philosophy is of extreme importance to philosophers but it takes a scientist to make anything useful or concrete out of it.
It sounds to me like: We don't need to understand the exact mechanics of why things fall to make something fly.
It's clear you do not know what serious (as opposed to populist) philosophers are concerned with.
And being as the only way to tell who is a "serious" philosopher is using some kind of objective metric I guess you agree that the "scientific method" was achieved in spite of and not because of philosophy.
What you are doing is no different than Christians claiming that the scientific method was born from Christian research and therefore science is an extension of Christianity. Nothing but apologetics based on reduction that everyone in science has heard a million times before.
Biology is just applied Chemistry. Chemistry is just applied Physics. Physics is just applied Math. They are all just applied philosophy. The difference being philosophy has no real means of maintaining coherence. No way to tell if something is insightful or complete nonsense. Bad science will become known given a bit of time. Bad philosophy just gets apologists.
That you can define something as philosophy does not mean that everything defined as philosophy is equally useful. You are working backward to prove a conclusion. A fossil is just a rock but that doesn't mean all rocks are equally interesting or useful.
Maybe stop misusing the word "misogyny" to make things seem scarier than they are then? If you used the word correctly maybe people wouldn't be misinterpreting what you "mean" so often.
Who stole that bike? A black dude, of course.
I doubt anyone would be so "it's just a statement of fact" about that statement.
it ceases to be a free market once a monopoly (or cartel) exists
Incorrect. A monopoly can exist through lack of competition or lack of adequate competition. The free market still exists for others to compete however.
Once an "entity" has that kind of monopoly power they will usually use their market force to perpetuate that power. The hypothetical in all of this is whether or not they could maintain that power in a free market if they really didn't deserve it.
You and I may have a different definition of "simple trespass". A simple trespass is wandering around the woods and ending up on a farm. Storming the White House is.. Well I had always assumed it was a sure-fire way to get shot to be honest.
Well mines are pretty frowned upon. Mexicans and Canadians are both capable of swimming so moats wouldn't actually keep anyone out.
So against treaties and completely ineffectual.. You're right- that does sound like it is within the mandates of the US government.
They seem to use muscles and arrows quite successfully though.
Idealized male stereotypes will appeal to both men and women. Idealized female stereotypes will appeal to both men and women. Seriously look at things marketed to women; the women there are every bit as sexualized and so are the men. The difference is men don't seem to feel entitled to dictate women's fantasies on any broad scale.
And women are never attracted to powerful, rich and muscly men. They will equally go for the fat, poor, slovenly guy.
Like every other character in a video game? You seem to have a serious misunderstanding about what a video game is. I'll help you out: it's not reality.
And that's not an ad-hominem, genetic fallacy or poisoning the well.
Yep, that's a good point.