Toxic Gender Philosophy

[Immanuel Can]

...a Christian fundamentalist par excellence...

Ad hominem. And waaaaay too long and rambling. And wrong again. So boring.

Not bothering.

What you cannot challenge and refute, here among your peers, stands Immanuel.

You have such profound delusions about your own importance! It's just stunning.

No, mon ami..nobody owes you anything. And wrong and confused remains wrong and confused, even if nobody bothers to correct you.

Your personal tribunal is the adjudicator of nothing whatsoever.

Amazing. Such self-confidence! It's rarely seen; it's never deserved.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You’re bullshitting, Manny. But it is your prerogative.

It doesn’t change my approach though.

[LuckyR]

How is a tiny minority of privileged people supposed to be the topic, and the vast majority not? That's absurd. My focus is fine; yours needs a little tuning, maybe.

Uummm... because access to wealth and power is where advantages and disadvantages are more easily seen and felt.

But those "privileges" over ordinary proles and serfs were had by both elite men and women; and women's lot in the elite, even when less than that of equivalent men, was never very hard by comparison to the lives of those "lower" types. So while the distance may be "seen and felt," it's not a distance between men and women, but rather a distance between the elite and the ordinary person.

Meanwhile, the lot of women was to survive things like marriage and childbirth, and the lot of lower-class men was to survive coal mines and wars. I'm not seeing this "privilege" you're so mad about.

So based on your read of history as stated, I suppose world political, military and corporate leaders must have been equally distributed between (elite) men and women, right?

[Immanuel Can]

Uummm... because access to wealth and power is where advantages and disadvantages are more easily seen and felt.

But those "privileges" over ordinary proles and serfs were had by both elite men and women; and women's lot in the elite, even when less than that of equivalent men, was never very hard by comparison to the lives of those "lower" types. So while the distance may be "seen and felt," it's not a distance between men and women, but rather a distance between the elite and the ordinary person.

Meanwhile, the lot of women was to survive things like marriage and childbirth, and the lot of lower-class men was to survive coal mines and wars. I'm not seeing this "privilege" you're so mad about.

So based on your read of history as stated, I suppose world political, military and corporate leaders must have been equally distributed between (elite) men and women, right?

It's always interesting to me when somebody tries to "make me say" something I never said. I always know what it means: they ran out of justified objections to what I actually DID say, and so feel the need to make stuff up, hopefully to introduce some fallacy into the statement, which they then hope to exploit.

But again, that's not very hard to detect. As soon as somebody tries to put words in one's mouth, one knows it's going on, instantly. So why don't you just tell me what error you're trying to "make me say," and what fallacy you think it contains, and how you hope to exploit it? That would be better.

[Immanuel Can]

You’re bullshitting, Manny. But it is your prerogative.

It doesn’t change my approach though.

I never thought it would. You're so in love with yourself, apparently, that nothing could do that.

Well, you have a fan club of one, I'd say. Good luck to you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You’re bullshitting, Manny. But it is your prerogative.

It doesn’t change my approach though.

I never thought it would. You're so in love with yourself, apparently, that nothing could do that.

Well, you have a fan club of one, I'd say. Good luck to you.

You continually avoid the content that I focus on because it threatens your entire presentation. You have various (bullshit) excuses why you do this but they are transparent.

My approach -- what I think, why I think it, and my designations -- are 100% fair and above board.

You do not have the capability to counter the views that I express. It is best therefore that you take the coward's route. I am cool with that.

But no part of my approach will change.

[Immanuel Can]

You’re bullshitting, Manny. But it is your prerogative.

It doesn’t change my approach though.

I never thought it would. You're so in love with yourself, apparently, that nothing could do that.

Well, you have a fan club of one, I'd say. Good luck to you.

You continually avoid the content that I focus on because it threatens your entire presentation.

No. Because it's never right. There's never any premise in it worth pursuing, so it's just tedious work to correct all the errors.

And it's always, always boringly ad hom. Oh yes...and you love your own 'voice' so much that you write reams of self-indulgent nonsense in response to even the simplest of replies. You're not a conversationalist, but a ranter.

So yeah, that's all pretty dull stuff to deal with.

[Alexis Jacobi]

There's never any premise in it worth pursuing, so it's just tedious work to correct all the errors.

My view is that readership here will and should decide.

Try this: ask your peers here to give their honest assessments of the interpretations I offer of your general orientation.

It is important stuff, Manny, and the validity should be decided on.

You are again bullshitting when you speak of error. Errors can be corrected by coherent rebuttals. But you lack that substance.

My assessments of your position stand.

[Alexiev]

Hmmm. You tell people what they think, and then whine about ad hominems? You really like whining, don't you?

She accuses me of "whining" by appealing to yet another ad hominem argument.

No, I object to ad hominems for the same reason: not because of hurt feelings, but because they're a fallacy, and hence, bad thinking.

What "rigor" do you expect from anthropology?

I don't expect any.

They don't have a distinct discipline. They don't have a strict adherence to the data. They don't even subject themselves to basic rules of evidence. They rely heavily on imaginative narrative-making, rather than observation. They are heavily propagandized. Why would I expect rigour from that?

Your ridiculous generalizations (as if all anthropologists think alike) are simply silly. So is your use of ad hominem -- it is not a fallacy to insult someone. Especially when the insults are so well deserved as they are in your case. William Paden, by the way, is not an anthropologist, so any unsupported insults levied at him have no bearing on your unsupported and naive claims about anthropology. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

[Immanuel Can]

There's never any premise in it worth pursuing, so it's just tedious work to correct all the errors.

My view is that readership here will and should decide.

I think that anybody with half a brain has already decided.

[Immanuel Can]

Hmmm. You tell people what they think, and then whine about ad hominems? You really like whining, don't you?

She accuses me of "whining" by appealing to yet another ad hominem argument.

No, I object to ad hominems for the same reason: not because of hurt feelings, but because they're a fallacy, and hence, bad thinking.

What "rigor" do you expect from anthropology?

I don't expect any.

They don't have a distinct discipline. They don't have a strict adherence to the data. They don't even subject themselves to basic rules of evidence. They rely heavily on imaginative narrative-making, rather than observation. They are heavily propagandized. Why would I expect rigour from that?

Your ridiculous generalizations (as if all anthropologists think alike) are simply silly.

I didn't say a single word about "anthropologists." I spoke solely of the alleged discipline known as "anthropology." So you've missed your mark completely.

So is your use of ad hominem -- it is not a fallacy to insult someone.

https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resourc ... minem.html

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

[Jesus asked], “And why do you not even judge by yourselves what is right?' (Luke 12:57)

[Jesus commanded], "Do not judge by the outward appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (John 7:24)

[Paul wrote], "Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?" (1 Cor. 6:3)

And so on. We are only forbidden to judge the value of persons (which would be ad hominem, anyway). We are positively commanded to judge issues and truth.

But this is something that somebody who is unfamiliar with the ad hominem fallacy, or with the difference between criticizing an anthropologist and the discipline of anthropology would surely find challenging to grasp. She would think every argument is about a person, and none are about issues or truth.

However, it's a distinction worth knowing. We debate issues. We don't argue about persons. At least, logical arguers do it that way.

[Alexiev]

She accuses me of "whining" by appealing to yet another ad hominem argument.

No, I object to ad hominems for the same reason: not because of hurt feelings, but because they're a fallacy, and hence, bad thinking.


I don't expect any.

They don't have a distinct discipline. They don't have a strict adherence to the data. They don't even subject themselves to basic rules of evidence. They rely heavily on imaginative narrative-making, rather than observation. They are heavily propagandized. Why would I expect rigour from that?

Your ridiculous generalizations (as if all anthropologists think alike) are simply silly.

I didn't say a single word about "anthropologists." I spoke solely of the alleged discipline known as "anthropology." So you've missed your mark completely.

So is your use of ad hominem -- it is not a fallacy to insult someone.

https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resourc ... minem.html

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

[Jesus asked], “And why do you not even judge by yourselves what is right?' (Luke 12:57)

[Jesus commanded], "Do not judge by the outward appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (John 7:24)

[Paul wrote], "Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?" (1 Cor. 6:3)

And so on. We are only forbidden to judge the value of persons (which would be ad hominem, anyway). We are positively commanded to judge issues and truth.

But this is something that somebody who is unfamiliar with the ad hominem fallacy, or with the difference between criticizing an anthropologist and the discipline of anthropology would surely find challenging to grasp. She would think every argument is about a person, and none are about issues or truth.

However, it's a distinction worth knowing. We debate issues. We don't argue about persons. At least, logical arguers do it that way.

Let's see. You say, "They don't have a distinct discipline. They don't have a strict adherence to the data. They don't even subject themselves to basic rules of evidence. They rely heavily on imaginative narrative-making, rather than observation. They are heavily propagandized."

Hmmm. Aren't you talking about anthropologists? Who is that "they" you constantly refer to?

Arguing with you is like shooting an unarmed man. Victory is easy, but there's not much glory in it. Anyone stupid enough to claim he is not talking about anthropologists after that string of "theys" is incapable of basic reasoning.

I'll add that anyone who constantly whines about ad hominem arguments when he is insulted doesn't know what an ad hominem argument comprises. Not all remarks about individuals constitute ad hominem arguments. Many are not arguments at all. In fact, some people are actually interested in other people and like talking about them and studying them. Such people are sometimes called, "anthropologists".

[Immanuel Can]

Your ridiculous generalizations (as if all anthropologists think alike) are simply silly.

I didn't say a single word about "anthropologists." I spoke solely of the alleged discipline known as "anthropology." So you've missed your mark completely.

So is your use of ad hominem -- it is not a fallacy to insult someone.

https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resourc ... minem.html

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

[Jesus asked], “And why do you not even judge by yourselves what is right?' (Luke 12:57)

[Jesus commanded], "Do not judge by the outward appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (John 7:24)

[Paul wrote], "Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?" (1 Cor. 6:3)

And so on. We are only forbidden to judge the value of persons (which would be ad hominem, anyway). We are positively commanded to judge issues and truth.

But this is something that somebody who is unfamiliar with the ad hominem fallacy, or with the difference between criticizing an anthropologist and the discipline of anthropology would surely find challenging to grasp. She would think every argument is about a person, and none are about issues or truth.

However, it's a distinction worth knowing. We debate issues. We don't argue about persons. At least, logical arguers do it that way.

Let's see. You say, "They don't have a distinct discipline. They don't have a strict adherence to the data. They don't even subject themselves to basic rules of evidence. They rely heavily on imaginative narrative-making, rather than observation. They are heavily propagandized."

I said none of those things. I said the same statements, but about the discipline of anthropology. You will look in vain for a single statement I made about particular persons who do anthropology. Their discipline is corrupt. I never even remotely suggested that particular persons were corrupt.

But to understand that, you have to know that ad hominems are fallacies. Did you even look at the website? My guess is, NO. If you had, you would not still be fooling yourself about that.

Maybe you should find out what an ad hominem fallacy is. Here: https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and- ... d-hominem/ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/ad-hominem-fallacy/ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writ ... acies.html Choose one at your level, and you'll soon know why you've been wrong, and how you can stop being wrong as we continue to talk.

[Alexiev]

Good grief! Everyone knows what ad hominem means, especially since every incompetent interlocutor (like you) over uses the Latin phrase. Writing in English is not, apparrntly, one of your strengths.

I also know that "they" is a pronoun that refers to.people (that's English for "hominems"). Oh, well. Whine and whimper on, IC.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Their discipline is corrupt. I never even remotely suggested that particular persons were corrupt.

In order for you to demonstrate that the discipline is corrupt — say by susceptibility to “propagandizing” and those “secular meta-narratives” and “imaginative narrative -making”, you would have had to encounter a corrupt anthropologist.

The discipline itself can do nothing — can’t imagine, invent, propagandize, etc. — and only an anthropologist or anthropologists can.

So you could propose that (in your opinion) the field has tended to the corruption you identify, but only because of the activity of many anthropologists in that field. It would have to have been corrupted by individuals.

Your abhorrence of the discipline, as I suggest, is really rooted in what specific anthropologists have done, said, and proposed through the work they have done. Like Margaret Mead for one example.

In Mexico I met •applied anthropologists• who were hired by the government to introduce modernization models among remote and semi-remote Indian groups. It had a social-political motive. Like social workers working under a specific agency of government.

The criticism is not invalid — it is ultra soft-science and deeply prone to the dangers of subjectivity'.

I hope that clears things up.