Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Why are some people so caught up in a need to distinguish nationalities?

Because it appears to be a trait here that the Yank needs to assign gender to others thoughts?
So you've done a survey?

Here the word "needs" is merely your projection, as how could one possibly know what a stranger may "need."

Maybe we're just more astute, and can readily discern the difference.

You Brits are all alike, always asserting your false sense of self importance upon others. But everyone knows where the number one university is located, and has been since 2003, when they first started being ranked. A bit envious of the yanks, are we? Why? Because they threw you're fucking tea in the bay and then proceeded to out do you, eh?

It was just a pronoun used to reference you, because I'm pretty sure you're a female, and not meant to indicate anything else. Though I would argue that there is a difference in the mental process's of men and women, that is a result of the different hormones.

Depends what you mean by 'mental processes'? What makes you think I'm a female? What did you base your assignment upon?
Early on I sensed it in your character, but since then I've seen others indicate as much in other threads.

But I absolutely love women, and not just for the physicalities.

Pretty meaningless statement I think.
Yes I'm sure that's your perception!

Why are you so concerned about someone indicating your sex, what can be said of someone that doesn't want their sex known?

Who said I didn't? But I find little need or purpose in proclaiming it. I'm more 'concerned' about why someone needs to do such indicating? And how they think they can in such a medium?
You do understand the usage of a pronoun, right? Sheeesh!

And I say that this last question indicates that you never wanted (feared) it being known because you felt you'd be unjustly diminished in some peoples eyes. If so, what does that say about your self image as a female?

Maybe that your whole preoccupation with (calling attention to) this topic is indicative of your need to deny your sexuality because you actually believe that it somehow taints your effectiveness as a human. If so, then I'm sorry!

lancek4 wrote:<snip>

But i think most people don't want to be told.

<snip>.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:<snip>

But i think most people don't want to be told.

<snip>.

For the record, regardless of how I came off, I've always 'told' you what it was that I believed, not that you were necessarily wrong. One thing we all have to keep in mind on a daily basis is that none of us necessarily knows absolutely. As we have concluded, absolute truth is extremely difficult to realize

I shall try and further curtail my emotion and rephrase future assertions in a more symbiotic nature.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:<snip>

But i think most people don't want to be told.

<snip>.

For the record, regardless of how I came off, I've always 'told' you what it was that I believed, not that you were necessarily wrong. One thing we all have to keep in mind on a daily basis is that none of us necessarily knows absolutely. As we have concluded, absolute truth is extremely difficult to realize

I shall try and further curtail my emotion and rephrase future assertions in a more symbiotic nature.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:So you've done a survey?

Here the word "needs" is merely your projection, as how could one possibly know what a stranger may "need."

Maybe we're just more astute, and can readily discern the difference.

You Brits are all alike, always asserting your false sense of self importance upon others. But everyone knows where the number one university is located, and has been since 2003, when they first started being ranked. A bit envious of the yanks, are we? Why? Because they threw you're fucking tea in the bay and then proceeded to out do you, eh?

Early on I sensed it in your character, but since then I've seen others indicate as much in other threads.

Yes I'm sure that's your perception!

You do understand the usage of a pronoun, right? Sheeesh!

And I say that this last question indicates that you never wanted (feared) it being known because you felt you'd be unjustly diminished in some peoples eyes. If so, what does that say about your self image as a female?

Maybe that your whole preoccupation with (calling attention to) this topic is indicative of your need to deny your sexuality because you actually believe that it somehow taints your effectiveness as a human. If so, then I'm sorry!

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:So you've done a survey?

Just experience upon this site.
Could you please post your findings, categorically, using either numbers or percentages?

Here the word "needs" is merely your projection, as how could one possibly know what a stranger may "need."

A Fraudian to boot! See the question mark in my words? Still, I take your point. What intention does such an assignment of gender do for you?
Gender had nothing to do with it, it was purely in keeping with proper English. Would you prefer that I'd referred to you as an 'it?'

Maybe we're just more astute, and can readily discern the difference.

Tell me how you do it?
It can't be taught, as near as I can tell, it's a product of an internal working model of social relationships that was initiated during my infancy.

You Brits are all alike, always asserting your false sense of self importance upon others. But everyone knows where the number one university is located, and has been since 2003, when they first started being ranked. A bit envious of the yanks, are we? Why? Because they threw you're fucking tea in the bay and then proceeded to out do you, eh?

But you did this so as to become a fully-fledged part of the British Parliament.
Never mind, apparently you didn't see it, though it too, is a matter of history.

But you're right, I'm gutted as I only went to the 8th best in the world

Did you go to the first?
We're talking about your problem with yanks, not me.

Early on I sensed it in your character, but since then I've seen others indicate as much in other threads.

What magical sense is this?
Again, as near as I can tell, it's a product of an internal working model of social relationships that was initiated during my infancy.

Yes I'm sure that's your perception!

It is.
As ones perception is defined by ones limits.

You do understand the usage of a pronoun, right? Sheeesh!

I do. How do you know you are assigning it correctly?
The gathering of data from various sources, not that I tried, mind you, it's merely a function of visiting various threads and memory. But of course that was after I sensed it.

And I say that this last question indicates that you never wanted (feared) it being known because you felt you'd be unjustly diminished in some peoples eyes. If so, what does that say about your self image as a female?

I see, I can't discern needs but you can discern fears? Why would I be ashamed to be female?
I don't know, why would you, it would just seem so with your preoccupation.

What does it say about your cultural conditioning that gender is an issue when it comes to thinking?
I don't believe that I have any cultural conditioning such as you beieve. I have read and found that men seem to be more logical than women, overall. Typically I'm not one to compete and see that everyone has their forte'.

Maybe that your whole preoccupation with (calling attention to) this topic is indicative of your need to deny your sexuality because you actually believe that it somehow taints your effectiveness as a human. If so, then I'm sorry!

Your Fraudian slips are showing but no need to be sorry. How about I called attention to it because you raised it and I wondered why you would do this?
Not in this thread, but earlier in another thread, when I initially noted the possibility of your being a female, I did call attention to it. I did this because in that case, what I sensed, I had witnessed before, and it was not conducive to an effective exchange.

Edit: Actually it may have been this thread, but it was some time ago..

lancek4 wrote:First, I respect auks comments wether It is a man or woman. And consider and respond regardless.

But indeed there is some difference in how I would come upon It in this forum. Admittedly; In thinking about it, I would be effected. I'm not sure how or why, but I would be. Probably not in the quality of consideration of comments or respponses to them, but something ...

But your guys banter is humorous, and I'm glad not to know who is what sex (gender Is a whole other issue). What if I told you I am homosexual transvestite transsexual ?
I wouldn't care, one way or the other, but I'd remind you that it's impossible to be all three of those at the same time. And ask when you're going to tell your wife and child? I'm sure that's going to go over well

But then again knowing what sex and gender people are here does allow me a certain 'subtextual' processing of reality.

And hey, Spheres of Balance sure tries to express balance (a good thing). And can be an sob at times. Chaz whyman certainly begs one to ask why he is the way he is and he himself doesn't often overtly ask why. Godfree likes to express his freedom from god and ironically depends upon a godlike effect. Puto is a dog. Typist types and is a type. What uk is rising? Are you partiotic to the crown or something?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Could you please post your findings, categorically, using either numbers or percentages?

Gender had nothing to do with it, it was purely in keeping with proper English. Would you prefer that I'd referred to you as an 'it?'

It can't be taught, as near as I can tell, it's a product of an internal working model of social relationships that was initiated during my infancy. ...

Again, as near as I can tell, it's a product of an internal working model of social relationships that was initiated during my infancy. ...

The gathering of data from various sources, not that I tried, mind you, it's merely a function of visiting various threads and memory. But of course that was after I sensed it. ...

Never mind, apparently you didn't see it, though it too, is a matter of history.

We're talking about your problem with yanks, not me.

As ones perception is defined by ones limits.

I don't know, why would you, it would just seem so with your preoccupation.

I don't believe that I have any cultural conditioning such as you beieve. I have read and found that men seem to be more logical than women, overall. Typically I'm not one to compete and see that everyone has their forte'.

Not in this thread, but earlier in another thread, when I initially noted the possibility of your being a female, I did call attention to it. I did this because in that case, what I sensed, I had witnessed before, and it was not conducive to an effective exchange.

lancek4 wrote:Chaz whyman certainly begs one to ask why he is the way he is and he himself doesn't often overtly ask why.

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Chaz whyman certainly begs one to ask why he is the way he is and he himself doesn't often overtly ask why.

I never beg!

And my surname is Wyman!!!!!!!!!

If you were making a pun of my name I can only say that I'd never noticed the similarity of my name to a question and no one else has ever done so. Congratulations!

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Could you please post your findings, categorically, using either numbers or percentages?

Where in my reply did you hear I've taken a statistical survey?
Exactly!

Gender had nothing to do with it, it was purely in keeping with proper English. Would you prefer that I'd referred to you as an 'it?'

I'd have thought you of the type to have used "He" as the term when the gender is unspecified? How new-man of you to use "she" in this sense.
As I said, I believe that I have evidence that you are female, hence the usage of "her." Even still, I am modern in my views. I think that in some ways it would be better if we had a matriarchal society, so there!

It can't be taught, as near as I can tell, it's a product of an internal working model of social relationships that was initiated during my infancy. ...

Again, as near as I can tell, it's a product of an internal working model of social relationships that was initiated during my infancy. ...

The gathering of data from various sources, not that I tried, mind you, it's merely a function of visiting various threads and memory. But of course that was after I sensed it. ...

Time to revisit childhood then and your data-gathering skills seem a touch pauce.
What word did you mean to use when you used "pauce?" Because that spelling is not present in several dictionaries I've referenced.
But even without that word, it would seem that you ask me to explain myself and then attempt to compete/berate me for it. I'm sorry!

Never mind, apparently you didn't see it, though it too, is a matter of history.

That it is. Are you saying what I said was not a historical fact?
No, I'm saying that you missed the point I was trying to make, so lets move on!

We're talking about your problem with yanks, not me.

But I have no problem? I like Americans and dislike Yanks.
Oh it's meant as a racial slur, so you are a bigot. I thought so. OK, I thought it would be the same as in Australia because there it has a much kinder meaning. I took your's to be one in the same, and adding to the fact that I was born in a state that I've always been proud of because of their stance during the US civil war. I was always proud of being a 'Yankee' and not a 'Rebel.' Us Yankees don't believe in racial slurs, I'm sorry that you do, help yourself to me if it somehow makes you feel better about yourself. And don't bring up the Brit bit, as I was just providing a mirror for you to peer into. But if you keep that type of attitude I shall consider you a Chaz clone and ignore you via the forums interface, because I have no time for immature people that call others names.

As ones perception is defined by ones limits.

How could we tell?
Apparently, you're telling me.

I don't know, why would you, it would just seem so with your preoccupation.

Nope, my preoccupation is why you assigned the gender to me?
Evidence!

I don't believe that I have any cultural conditioning such as you beieve. I have read and found that men seem to be more logical than women, overall. Typically I'm not one to compete and see that everyone has their forte'.

LMAO!
So what sex did you say you were, again?

Not in this thread, but earlier in another thread, when I initially noted the possibility of your being a female, I did call attention to it. I did this because in that case, what I sensed, I had witnessed before, and it was not conducive to an effective exchange.

LMAO! Twice. Good job theres no cultural conditioning then.
I mention empirical data and you scream "cultural conditioning??" Sounds like a female to me!

lancek4 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Chaz whyman certainly begs one to ask why he is the way he is and he himself doesn't often overtly ask why.

I never beg!

And my surname is Wyman!!!!!!!!!

If you were making a pun of my name I can only say that I'd never noticed the similarity of my name to a question and no one else has ever done so. Congratulations!

I am being absolutely lighthearted my noticing of screennames. Consider it an excersize in irony. Sob was quite instrumental in this, as his actual sn is spheres of balance, and against my notions appears to me a concordant opposite, and as such tends to appear to me as a type of balance, yet also when I would abbreviate his name (sob) I noticed that my remarks were drawn out by a peculiar tend for rebuttal where I was commenting to myself that he was effectively quite a son of a bitch, and that further some of his responses to me elicited from me a strange kind of awareness of how odd yet sensible he sounded, where I went 'well, son of a bitch'.

Chaz, as I have engaged with you I found myself asking myself 'why is he being so obstinate' and so likewise came accross in myself a similar irony.

Puto is just plain childish and attempts to front but is really a little puppy that barks louds; puto is 'dog'.

Typist types a lot and though there is some introspection going on, he is on a particular kind of philosphical path: a type of path.

Bill is on a consistent track in his comments.

Barbara Brooks runs at the typewriter like a stream; and also brooks up discourse by dominating a one way uni-logue.

Arising UK. I am stumpt. It could appear that his comments come up from the unknown depths.

lancek4 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Chaz whyman certainly begs one to ask why he is the way he is and he himself doesn't often overtly ask why.

I never beg!

And my surname is Wyman!!!!!!!!!

If you were making a pun of my name I can only say that I'd never noticed the similarity of my name to a question and no one else has ever done so. Congratulations!

I am being absolutely lighthearted my noticing of screennames. Consider it an excersize in irony. Sob was quite instrumental in this, as his actual sn is spheres of balance, and against my notions appears to me a concordant opposite, and as such tends to appear to me as a type of balance, yet also when I would abbreviate his name (sob) I noticed that my remarks were drawn out by a peculiar tend for rebuttal where I was commenting to myself that he was effectively quite a son of a bitch, and that further some of his responses to me elicited from me a strange kind of awareness of how odd yet sensible he sounded, where I went 'well, son of a bitch'.

Chaz, as I have engaged with you I found myself asking myself 'why is he being so obstinate' and so likewise came accross in myself a similar irony.

Puto is just plain childish and attempts to front but is really a little puppy that barks louds; puto is 'dog'.

Typist types a lot and though there is some introspection going on, he is on a particular kind of philosphical path: a type of path.

Bill is on a consistent track in his comments.

Barbara Brooks runs at the typewriter like a stream; and also brooks up discourse by dominating a one way uni-logue.

Arising UK. I am stumpt. It could appear that his comments come up from the unknown depths.

Godfree wrote:

lancek4 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
I never beg!

And my surname is Wyman!!!!!!!!!

If you were making a pun of my name I can only say that I'd never noticed the similarity of my name to a question and no one else has ever done so. Congratulations!

I am being absolutely lighthearted my noticing of screennames. Consider it an excersize in irony. Sob was quite instrumental in this, as his actual sn is spheres of balance, and against my notions appears to me a concordant opposite, and as such tends to appear to me as a type of balance, yet also when I would abbreviate his name (sob) I noticed that my remarks were drawn out by a peculiar tend for rebuttal where I was commenting to myself that he was effectively quite a son of a bitch, and that further some of his responses to me elicited from me a strange kind of awareness of how odd yet sensible he sounded, where I went 'well, son of a bitch'.

Chaz, as I have engaged with you I found myself asking myself 'why is he being so obstinate' and so likewise came accross in myself a similar irony.

Puto is just plain childish and attempts to front but is really a little puppy that barks louds; puto is 'dog'.

Typist types a lot and though there is some introspection going on, he is on a particular kind of philosphical path: a type of path.

Bill is on a consistent track in his comments.

Barbara Brooks runs at the typewriter like a stream; and also brooks up discourse by dominating a one way uni-logue.

Arising UK. I am stumpt. It could appear that his comments come up from the unknown depths.

Bloody hell , what does one have to do to get on this list ,
agree or dissagree but surely I at least deserve a mention,
there has been many speculations about the sex and beliefs of the members ,
Typist , woman , or man , and I see someone thinks Arising uk is a woman ,
I would like to see what religion you each have ,
I'll bet I'v been chatting to people who are theists ,but they seldom admit , it ,
like they can avoid being pigeon holed as stupid ,
by playing philosophical hide and seek ,
man up and fess up , woman up ,??
I'm 54 year old male ,Atheist , single ,one daughter ,,New Zealand ,,