|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 11, 2017 19:30:50 GMT
That's not what spurious means. How is being more understanding of people "political"? It's called being a decent person. Also, gender is social. So the evidence of one culture, won't be the same as evidence across all cultures.
You're missing the point. It wasn't only the religionists (not a word) who believed those things. Many pure scientists saw homosexuality as a choice.
They don't. You think they do because they don't agree with you.
Great. I'm glad you finally got that. Took you a while.
Incorrect again. Social sciences help us progress as a society. It's thanks to social sciences as much as natural sciences that we've waved goodbye to eugenics. It's thanks to social sciences that we understand mental health much better. It's thanks to social sciences that we had civil rights and feminism. Why gay marriage was finally legalized.
Gender is a social construct, remember? As such, there'd be no biological indicators.
|
|
|
Post by woozlewuzzle on Apr 13, 2017 3:58:38 GMT
Still can't back up your claims? Still back crying?
|
|
|
Post by woozlewuzzle on Apr 13, 2017 3:59:50 GMT
That's not what spurious means. How is being more understanding of people "political"? It's called being a decent person. Also, gender is social. So the evidence of one culture, won't be the same as evidence across all cultures. You're missing the point. It wasn't only the religionists (not a word) who believed those things. Many pure scientists saw homosexuality as a choice. They don't. You think they do because they don't agree with you. Great. I'm glad you finally got that. Took you a while. Incorrect again. Social sciences help us progress as a society. It's thanks to social sciences as much as natural sciences that we've waved goodbye to eugenics. It's thanks to social sciences that we understand mental health much better. It's thanks to social sciences that we had civil rights and feminism. Why gay marriage was finally legalized. Gender is a social construct, remember? As such, there'd be no biological indicators. I love how you didn't actually quote his message so he wouldn't get notified and you could get the last word. Coward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 11:36:58 GMT
Still can't back up your claims? Still back crying? But you don't have anything to back up what you said?
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 13, 2017 13:32:40 GMT
That's not what spurious means. How is being more understanding of people "political"? It's called being a decent person. Also, gender is social. So the evidence of one culture, won't be the same as evidence across all cultures. You're missing the point. It wasn't only the religionists (not a word) who believed those things. Many pure scientists saw homosexuality as a choice. They don't. You think they do because they don't agree with you. Great. I'm glad you finally got that. Took you a while. Incorrect again. Social sciences help us progress as a society. It's thanks to social sciences as much as natural sciences that we've waved goodbye to eugenics. It's thanks to social sciences that we understand mental health much better. It's thanks to social sciences that we had civil rights and feminism. Why gay marriage was finally legalized. Gender is a social construct, remember? As such, there'd be no biological indicators. I love how you didn't actually quote his message so he wouldn't get notified and you could get the last word. Coward. Silly little boy. There's a button that shows when a thread's had activity. Just because you need your hand held doesn't mean everyone does. If you can't figure out when you've been responded to, then you're too slow to be on the internet. Not to mention, I do quote him several times. Man, you are stupid. Well, back to ignoring your existence. I just wanted to point out how dumb you are. And to make sure you know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 13:57:28 GMT
Um, yes it is. You might see it as "being more understanding" because it happens to be something that you agree with but others see it as pandering to a group for political reasons. Millions of people believe in God but the social sciences generally don't pander to them by bringing God into the discussion. That you believe there are more than two genders is no more ludicrous or personal. You believe it... great. Still isn't true. And when did "being a decent person" become criteria for accepting the tenets of a social science? Firstly, Religionist is a word. Someone of very basic intelligence ought to be aware of that. Secondly, I'm not even sure you grasp the point given that you failed to understand it then failed to understand that you failed to understand it. Scientist of any ilk could not make a determination about whether homosexuality was a choice or not WITHOUT first accepting its place in nature. That's the point you missing. Nope. I think they do just like everyone thinks they do (including you). We have already established that it is word that becomes instantly meaningless in the context of biological science. Keep up. LOL. But that's MY argument. Gender is not scientific. It is a cultural term appropriated by those with a political agenda. A word biologists would use interchangeably with sex but now have abandoned to placate the zealots (who own it). You could just as easily argue that God is not a scientific word but hey, theologian scholars say it is and if you disagree, you're a hate-filled bigot. Once again, I repeat. I do not think that word means what you think it means. Literally none of the examples you give are the reasons why civil rights, feminism or gay marriage exists. The social sciences happen AFTER the cultural shift. You think the suffragettes did women's studies degrees? You think gay people pushed for rights because the social sciences (which we've established previously condemned them as mentally ill) inspired them? LOL. Where are you getting such gibberish? Social sciences are a reaction to culture, not an instigator of it. Good grief. The belief that one race was superior to another was also a social construct. Once we allowed bad, unscientific people to promote it, they quickly found biological indicators to support their beliefs. Funny that. The point being, if it is unscientific to begin with and prone to split the room based on their political ideology, it's very probably, what I like to call... pure, fried bullshit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 19:00:42 GMT
Literally none of the examples you give are the reasons why civil rights, feminism or gay marriage exists. The social sciences happen AFTER the cultural shift. You think the suffragettes did women's studies degrees? You think gay people pushed for rights because the social sciences (which we've established previously condemned them as mentally ill) inspired them? LOL. Where are you getting such gibberish? Social sciences are a reaction to culture, not an instigator of it. Good grief. Yes, while it is impossible to pinpoint change to one thing, you'd have to say the main instigator for change in all these things was public protests and pressuring the government (maybe to a slightly lesser extent with gay marriage). Although changing the hearts and minds of people is maybe another thing, I think that happens through a variety of ways, literature, TV, films, public debates and perhaps social sciences play a role in reinforcing these ideas. Perhaps. I wouldn't get too bogged down though about social sciences labelling homosexuality as a mental dysfunction. It is just a label, and I suspect it sounds much worse through our 2017 eyes than it was intended to at the time. That said, I'm not an expert in the history of psychology. But the job of any person involved in science is to look at it through an objective lens and take personal prejudices out of the equation. I guess that becomes harder to do when you are studying something as complex as human behaviour, there isn't anything more complex that we know of in the universe than the human brain. If you were trying to express the human brain in the form of numbers or formulas, the mathematical confluents would be way beyond our current abilities, it would be impossible to do, at least today. But then psychologists don't try to tackle their discipline in this manner (maybe neuroscience will eventually head in this direction), and I don't think any psychologist would try to pretend it is even close to a complete science, it is probably much further away from being complete than any of the other more traditional sciences. Personally, I prefer the more exact sciences, like physics, I'm attracted to the certainty of it, but psychologists certainly throw up plenty of interesting papers. The biggest problem is when you have ideas that aren't falsifiable. For example, Freud would say every boy dreams of sleeping with his mother, or every little girl has penis envy. You can't prove these statements are true or false, but then I don't think these kinds of ideas are fashionable in psychology today. Well, I'd be surprised if they were. All that said, there must have been bad eggs at least loosely involved in social sciences and some of those must have been influential. You look at the way Alan Turing was treated, chemically castrated, you could say that was political but someone must have the idea of chemically castrating homosexuals in the first place, even if it was a politician who came up with the idea academics must have gone along with it in order for it to happen. You might say they failed to be objective, they failed to leave their prejudice at the door. They might argue though, that they were being exactly how a scientist should be, cold and objective, and homosexuality was a human behavioural problem that needed to fix. Through our 2017 lens, clearly that view is appalling, but at the time they must have felt it was a justifiable position. But then no science is completely free of controversy, even the most influential grand daddy of modern science, Galileo Galilei, caused a major moral storm for merely pointing out truths about our solar system. So much so he spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Anyway, I'm waffling on a bit now, and I'm guilty of not following your debate in its entirety, but I would just say this, subjects like psychology and economics, they are actually far more complex to model than subjects like physics or chemistry, hence the reason why they are so much more prone to making massive gaffes. The volatility of them and the huge amounts of variables involved make them harder to obtain a full understanding. But that's not to say they are worthless or not useful. Our understanding of them is just still quite infant. They just need to keep plugging away, that's all you can do.
|
|
|
Post by woozlewuzzle on Apr 18, 2017 6:00:49 GMT
But you don't have anything to back up what you said? Back crying again and still no proof of 118 genders?
|
|
|
Post by woozlewuzzle on Apr 18, 2017 6:02:11 GMT
I love how you didn't actually quote his message so he wouldn't get notified and you could get the last word. Coward. Silly little boy. There's a button that shows when a thread's had activity. Just because you need your hand held doesn't mean everyone does. If you can't figure out when you've been responded to, then you're too slow to be on the internet. Not to mention, I do quote him several times. Man, you are stupid. Well, back to ignoring your existence. I just wanted to point out how dumb you are. And to make sure you know. Except you are a coward that didn't quote him and I called you out in front of everybody and you got triggered. Thanks for the laugh, punk.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 9:21:40 GMT
But you don't have anything to back up what you said? Back crying again and still no proof of 118 genders? But you don't have anything to back up what you said?
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 18, 2017 13:26:23 GMT
No, it isn't.
Faulty analogy. Unlike god, we see those people walking around the streets. So being decent is not political. It's realistic.
Considering they also considered witchcraft having a place in nature, maybe you shouldn't look to the past to help out your arugment. In any case, as I said, they thought it was choice. They were wrong. We learn and move on. That's progress. Please, keep up with it.
LOL. No, it wasn't: "A meaningless distinction." Your words when I informed you sex is biological and gender is cultural. You should've changed your other post if you were going to lie.
Incorrect, again, Charlie Brown. And yes, there were studies. Not as ubiquitous as now, but people did do studies on women and gay rights. And yes, the social sciences did condemn them. But once again, progress. Progress is how we move forward. And a lot of it is due to the social sciences.
No one is saying one gender is better than the others. Just to allow people to live as they feel comfortable when they don't hurt anyone else or their rights. Thanks to the social sciences and natural sciences.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 21:48:40 GMT
Yup... totes is, I'm afraid. From the dictionary that brought you Religionist - Spurious. You not do so good wid dee English so far. Yeah, I don't think you grasped what I meant (this is becoming a pattern). It's not about people seeing God, it's simply about people having a firm belief that there is a God. That prevalence of belief doesn't qualify the belief as having substance. And I still don't see what being decent has to do with it. Um... no they didn't. I think you may have gone off the deep end here. You're starting to embarrass yourself slightly. Which scientists considered Witchcraft to have a place in nature? You're really losing it here fella. I think I may have drained you or something. Lets recap: You're arguing that gender is a scientific term (albeit one that is located in the social sciences). This has been demonstrated by your continual insistence that gender is to be viewed as more than just a personal expression of individuality (and your repeated defence of the social sciences). You want it to be recognised as such (rather than simple individualism). My argument is NO, it isn't scientific at all (either in hard biological science or the fuzzy realm of social science). It is simply an aspect of a liberal ideology that wants individualism to be given a semblance of scientific credence. I said it was a meaningless distinction because people like you are attempting to cleave gender from its biological origins and turn it into a culturally accepted term that simultaneously isn't scientific (that would be biology) and yet somehow is (that would be social sciences). That absolutely is a meaningless distinction. Dude, this is embarrassing. You must feel pretty silly. You thought the social sciences brought about change. How we Lolled. This is a bit of a non sequitur from what I said but anyway... We have a similar outlook regarding depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, etc. We want those people to be happy, to be accepted (to not be put in concentration camps) but we also have an obligation not to pander to them. They are mentally ill. Doesn't make them bad people or anything. But they are. Additionally, should a man want to become a woman because it makes them happy, that's perfectly fine (because that gender (woman) actually exists). What doesn't exist is a spectrum of genders that highly politicised university students are prone to buy into due to a misplaced sense of academic freethought and solidarity (they'll grow out of it). You're conflating individuality with gender. If Dave wants to wear a dress, make-up, high heels etc then Dave is... a unique individual. He is not a unique gender.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 16:11:37 GMT
There's 3 genders actually:
1. Male 2. Female 3. Non Binary
|
|
|
Post by Ass_E9 on May 1, 2017 0:37:45 GMT
Not counting those who have hidden a gender.
|
|
|
Post by woozlewuzzle on Nov 6, 2017 7:21:46 GMT
Not counting those who have hidden a gender. Sure thing, pal.
|
|