I didn't mean to argue that people are not partially defined by biology - I'm sure they are - only that dominance/submission is not a gendered dichotomy, as your children demonstrate.
I'm not sure what you mean by your last paragraph. I can surely think of a number of books I read when I was younger that influenced my personality. Several of them fantasy novels, for instance, describing chivalrous knights and adventurers that I attempted to live up to for quite some time. And I don't think it's only "the other people" who are susceptible to ideas and role models in books. Reading books is experience, and it is experience more than biology, I would argue, that defines who we are.
It is not a "fact" that we are "biologically wired" for dominance or submission depending on our sex. It is much more of a social conditioning phenomenon. And books like PA's, when read by kids and young teens who are still in their formative stages, certainly can help to foster sexist views about masculinity and femininity. I'm not saying kids shouldn't read them (I enjoyed Xanth, Adept, and Mode in middle and high school) but I think parents should take care to teach their children that characters in this type of story often fit into unrealistic stereotypes of "male" or "female" behavior.
I just got a Sony Vaio r505, the kind with the docking station (media drives and half the hard drive). So with a small 14.1 screen and sans docking station its incredibly small and light. Great for tossing in the backpack and taking to class. But I wouldn't concentrate gaming or movie watching on it, that's what the PS2 is for!
Yes, free speech is *supposed to be* a human right, and yes *in theory* human rights take precedence over national ones.
The key point is that in *reality,* there are no such things as inherent human rights. To speak of them as if they had any basis in reality is to mock people whose "rights" have been violated.
It would take a very gullible person to believe that rights cannot be taken away by the government. I would venture to say that it happens often. Which is why I prefer to refer to them as privelages. There are no such things as "inalienable rights."
Those so far replying to The AJofOZ: that's not what he's saying. He's saying that the right to free expression is not some right you inherently get for being human. He's saying it is a privelage you get for belonging to certain groups, such as the USA. And he didn't say there are NO other groups besides the USA who offer this, he just meant there are plenty that don't.
That's utilitarianism. It's no more correct (in an ultimate sense) than a moral system handed down by a deity, but I'm basically for it, if it's refined a bit of course.
Unfortunately, logic has doomed me to take up a position seldom understood by others. So here I go again: Yes, I support the contention that might makes right. No, this does not mean that I desire to be ground underfoot by the government, or stabbed or raped or mutilated or killed or forced into servitude or eaten by godzilla.
As I have previously argued, giving up the idea of a *universal* good and evil (which leads me to my might makes right conclusion) does not preclude me from having opinions. I can still dislike being ground underfoot by the government, stabbed, raped, etc. I can also choose to campaign against governments which I dislike, or which I consider unjust. I can even choose to defend myself from assailants.
When I say might makes right, that "right" is not universal. It is a function of the possessor of the might. So when a cruel government does something to me that I dislike, it is not "good" in a universal sense (which is impossible) just because the government has all the might. It is simply unopposable. So even the words "right" and "wrong" lose their meaning. Might makes right in this situation simply means those with power can do whatever they want. Which is absolutely, unequivicably true. Just look at all of human history if you need evidence.
Your 2nd paragraph seems to imply that you think "good" is defined as whatever results in the greatest happiness/prosperity/liberty for the greatest number. But this kind of uninhibited utilitarianism (although I am in support of it) does not preclude what some call the "tyranny of the majority," or situations in which slavery, genocide, torture, human sacrifice, etc would result in a greater good for society when measured against the lesser degree of evil inflicted on the victim(s). So these things are not necessarily evil, depending on your mathematics of morality.
Also in your 2nd paragraph, you assume that cultures and societies generally evolve in a positive direction. What about cultures like the Taleban? They advocate a return to a barbaric, fundamentalist social order. If they had their way, society would de-evolve. (Note - for ideas about society's de-evolution, listen to a bunch of Devo) It is poor logic to say that simply because society Y occurs later chronologically than society X, Y must be more evolved morally than X.
Finally, if you discard the idea of a universal good, you do *not* discard the ability to consider these things to be evil, or to criticize them. You still have the idea of a subjective good. You can still dislike slavery, even choose to campaign against it, if the idea of liberty appeals to you. This doesn't mean that liberty is an ultimate good or a universal right, it just means you personally find it to be a worthwhile idea.
True, the fact that we do not know what the moral ideal is exactly does not mean it doesn't exist, but it *does* mean we ought not to presume that we DO know what it is exactly. Just as a religious fanatic sometimes believes s/he understands what God is all about, even though (as I understand it) God is supposed to be 100% unknowable to the mortal intellect. I bet God gets pissed at all the people who put words into His/Her mouth.
It's a good thing you're around to tell the rest of us what is good and what is evil. Otherwise how would we know? (i.e. please cite the ultimate definitions of good and evil)
No, I can't provide any, because that's just my point. It's *not* legal, but it happens anyway under the auspices of our government. So while you're correct in saying that any American has the same rights as any other *theoretically,* I'm just saying that in reality, some Americans have more rights than others.
I guess the concept of a "right" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What does it mean to say that a person has right X if that right can be trampled upon by the government? Can it really be a right if it can be taken away so easily? If so, then are "rights" simply flimsy fantasies we tell ourselves so we can sleep at night? All men are created equal. Some are just more equal than others.
Well put.
It always seems that oppression comes from people who have seen the light of an ultimate truth, which differs from the view of the oppressed. I say there is no good and evil in any ultimate, universal sense. There is only what you and I perceive as acceptable or distasteful to ourselves. The rest is a projection of this internal dichotomy onto all of the external world.
It's nice to be part of a society that allows for a subjective worldview that takes society itself into account, eh?
Dude, it's called "racial profiling."
You've got to separate "real" rights from theoretical ones.
For example, where I live, near Milwaukee, WI, we operate under the same Constitution as the rest of the US. But that doesn't mean black males have the same rights as white males. We have a violation here called DWB - Driving While Black - that the police can pull you over for, and search you for. While this is technically, theoretically an illegal violation of rights, that doesn't stop it from happening under the legitimizing authority of the government.
Sounds like the days of the French Bastille (sp?), the one that was eventually stormed by angry peasants who were sick of their rights being taken away...
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't mean to argue that people are not partially defined by biology - I'm sure they are - only that dominance/submission is not a gendered dichotomy, as your children demonstrate.
I'm not sure what you mean by your last paragraph. I can surely think of a number of books I read when I was younger that influenced my personality. Several of them fantasy novels, for instance, describing chivalrous knights and adventurers that I attempted to live up to for quite some time. And I don't think it's only "the other people" who are susceptible to ideas and role models in books. Reading books is experience, and it is experience more than biology, I would argue, that defines who we are.
It is not a "fact" that we are "biologically wired" for dominance or submission depending on our sex. It is much more of a social conditioning phenomenon. And books like PA's, when read by kids and young teens who are still in their formative stages, certainly can help to foster sexist views about masculinity and femininity.
I'm not saying kids shouldn't read them (I enjoyed Xanth, Adept, and Mode in middle and high school) but I think parents should take care to teach their children that characters in this type of story often fit into unrealistic stereotypes of "male" or "female" behavior.
I just got a Sony Vaio r505, the kind with the docking station (media drives and half the hard drive). So with a small 14.1 screen and sans docking station its incredibly small and light. Great for tossing in the backpack and taking to class. But I wouldn't concentrate gaming or movie watching on it, that's what the PS2 is for!
Yes, free speech is *supposed to be* a human right, and yes *in theory* human rights take precedence over national ones. The key point is that in *reality,* there are no such things as inherent human rights. To speak of them as if they had any basis in reality is to mock people whose "rights" have been violated.
It would take a very gullible person to believe that rights cannot be taken away by the government. I would venture to say that it happens often. Which is why I prefer to refer to them as privelages. There are no such things as "inalienable rights."
Those so far replying to The AJofOZ:
that's not what he's saying.
He's saying that the right to free expression is not some right you inherently get for being human. He's saying it is a privelage you get for belonging to certain groups, such as the USA. And he didn't say there are NO other groups besides the USA who offer this, he just meant there are plenty that don't.
That's utilitarianism.
It's no more correct (in an ultimate sense) than a moral system handed down by a deity, but I'm basically for it, if it's refined a bit of course.
Unfortunately, logic has doomed me to take up a position seldom understood by others. So here I go again: Yes, I support the contention that might makes right. No, this does not mean that I desire to be ground underfoot by the government, or stabbed or raped or mutilated or killed or forced into servitude or eaten by godzilla.
As I have previously argued, giving up the idea of a *universal* good and evil (which leads me to my might makes right conclusion) does not preclude me from having opinions. I can still dislike being ground underfoot by the government, stabbed, raped, etc. I can also choose to campaign against governments which I dislike, or which I consider unjust. I can even choose to defend myself from assailants.
When I say might makes right, that "right" is not universal. It is a function of the possessor of the might. So when a cruel government does something to me that I dislike, it is not "good" in a universal sense (which is impossible) just because the government has all the might. It is simply unopposable. So even the words "right" and "wrong" lose their meaning. Might makes right in this situation simply means those with power can do whatever they want. Which is absolutely, unequivicably true. Just look at all of human history if you need evidence.
In a very real sense, assuming the non-existence of any universal, ultimate good and evil, might does make right.
Your 2nd paragraph seems to imply that you think "good" is defined as whatever results in the greatest happiness/prosperity/liberty for the greatest number. But this kind of uninhibited utilitarianism (although I am in support of it) does not preclude what some call the "tyranny of the majority," or situations in which slavery, genocide, torture, human sacrifice, etc would result in a greater good for society when measured against the lesser degree of evil inflicted on the victim(s). So these things are not necessarily evil, depending on your mathematics of morality.
Also in your 2nd paragraph, you assume that cultures and societies generally evolve in a positive direction. What about cultures like the Taleban? They advocate a return to a barbaric, fundamentalist social order. If they had their way, society would de-evolve. (Note - for ideas about society's de-evolution, listen to a bunch of Devo) It is poor logic to say that simply because society Y occurs later chronologically than society X, Y must be more evolved morally than X.
Finally, if you discard the idea of a universal good, you do *not* discard the ability to consider these things to be evil, or to criticize them. You still have the idea of a subjective good. You can still dislike slavery, even choose to campaign against it, if the idea of liberty appeals to you. This doesn't mean that liberty is an ultimate good or a universal right, it just means you personally find it to be a worthwhile idea.
True, the fact that we do not know what the moral ideal is exactly does not mean it doesn't exist, but it *does* mean we ought not to presume that we DO know what it is exactly. Just as a religious fanatic sometimes believes s/he understands what God is all about, even though (as I understand it) God is supposed to be 100% unknowable to the mortal intellect.
I bet God gets pissed at all the people who put words into His/Her mouth.
It's a good thing you're around to tell the rest of us what is good and what is evil. Otherwise how would we know? (i.e. please cite the ultimate definitions of good and evil)
sorry, you'll have to eliminate the space between the "art" and the "2001"...
*sigh*
a rt 2001-65.htm
Will this appease your hunger for proof?
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen04/news/
Or just do a search for "racial profiling" and "milwaukee"...
No, I can't provide any, because that's just my point. It's *not* legal, but it happens anyway under the auspices of our government. So while you're correct in saying that any American has the same rights as any other *theoretically,* I'm just saying that in reality, some Americans have more rights than others.
I guess the concept of a "right" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What does it mean to say that a person has right X if that right can be trampled upon by the government? Can it really be a right if it can be taken away so easily? If so, then are "rights" simply flimsy fantasies we tell ourselves so we can sleep at night?
All men are created equal. Some are just more equal than others.
Well put. It always seems that oppression comes from people who have seen the light of an ultimate truth, which differs from the view of the oppressed. I say there is no good and evil in any ultimate, universal sense. There is only what you and I perceive as acceptable or distasteful to ourselves. The rest is a projection of this internal dichotomy onto all of the external world. It's nice to be part of a society that allows for a subjective worldview that takes society itself into account, eh?
Dude, it's called "racial profiling." You've got to separate "real" rights from theoretical ones. For example, where I live, near Milwaukee, WI, we operate under the same Constitution as the rest of the US. But that doesn't mean black males have the same rights as white males. We have a violation here called DWB - Driving While Black - that the police can pull you over for, and search you for. While this is technically, theoretically an illegal violation of rights, that doesn't stop it from happening under the legitimizing authority of the government.
Sounds like the days of the French Bastille (sp?),
the one that was eventually stormed by angry peasants who were sick of their rights being taken away...