Page 3 of 16
Re: Sex bias
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:44 pm
by vegetariantaxidermy
Re: Sex bias
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:46 am
by uwot
artisticsolution wrote:lol... seems to me all the good people tread a little too softly on this Earth. They are the only ones who know ya can't reason with fools.
Yeah. But if you don't argue with fools, they end up running the place.
Re: Sex bias
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:56 am
by Walker
How apropos:
Walker: Food stamps used to be a helping hand. Now, it's a way of life.
VT: Ummm, I think food has always been a 'way of life'.
That certainly ends the begging of the question of definitely.
Re: Sex bias
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:57 am
by Walker
artisticsolution wrote:W: Joining with your energy as indicated by the quotes, you’re quite the clever little snot, aren’t you.
And judging by your other postings, quite the judge of the world.
Quite.
AS: this is what Republicans do... you are trying to "morality shame" but you cant...because you can't shame something that is good. Shame only works on 'bad".
I quite enioy being good. Being good is liberating. Gone are the shackles of trying to see who's got something I don't. There is no thought of jealousy, pettiness, greed or ego. With morality I can simply enjoy life , free from the shackles of devising the next plan to harm humanity.
W: You do realize that during the Obama administration, the government actively promoted food stamp use. Food stamps used to be a helping hand. Now, it's a way of life. To snottily suggest that pointing this out, is to advocate misery for people, is dishonest. You should be ashamed.
AS: There you go again. Worrying about who got something you didn't. Is this any way to live life? Let it go. Food stamps cost is a pittance compared to the entire government waste. If you want to save government the big bucks...start rallying against corporate welfare! Lol...petty minds Crack me up.
And another thing. Don't be stupid. Look into what the future is likely to bring. There is sure to be a new system, one that is based on socialism, and it won't be a poor system. Why? Because the people demand it and the leaders can breathe easy when people are fed, clothed and privy to the niceties of life. With kindness comes "good". With "good" comes civilized behavior. No Shame there.
However, you keep being petty and you'll see a dystopia like no other...and why exactly? Because you didn't want a poor person to get a free food voucher. Really? Lol...quite laughable.
Not much of an improvement.
Still sounds like snot.
Re: Sex bias
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:33 am
by vegetariantaxidermy
Walker wrote:How apropos:
Walker: Food stamps used to be a helping hand. Now, it's a way of life.
VT: Ummm, I think food has always been a 'way of life'.
That certainly ends the begging of the question of definitely.
Is that it?
Re: Sex bias
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:48 am
by Walker
Arising_uk wrote:Er!? You mean his dad already made it.?
Yes, pointing out the different world views is most insightful. The European model that you present sees an inheritance as making it, as getting what someone gives to you, and venturing no further than the boundaries of Queens.
However President Trump, representing the energy and opportunity that characterizes America, sees a helping hand as an opportunity for self-actualization. He is more of an earner. In manifesting the principle of America, Trump saw Manhattan as the benchmark of making it. Likely he heard Sinatra sing “if you can make there you can it anywhere,” and he took it to heart, making it first in Manhattan and then the world, after learning his trade from his trusted father.
Re: Sex bias
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:48 am
by Walker
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Walker wrote:How apropos:
Walker: Food stamps used to be a helping hand. Now, it's a way of life.
VT: Ummm, I think food has always been a 'way of life'.
That certainly ends the begging of the question of definitely.
Is that it?
Yes. Sad, isn't it, taking your triple-headed laugh as irony.
Re: Sex bias
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:51 am
by Walker
as wrote:I quite enioy being good. Being good is liberating.
Doesn't wash. Good people say good things about people.
Re: Sex bias
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 12:06 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
Walker wrote:as wrote:I quite enioy being good. Being good is liberating.
Doesn't wash. Good people say good things about people.
I think good people have to do more than that to qualify as 'good'. And being good also involves not say good things to some people.
Being good is standing up to lies and delusions.
What was the purpose of posting your gender changing video, BTW?
Re: Sex bias
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 12:37 pm
by Walker
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Walker wrote:as wrote:I quite enioy being good. Being good is liberating.
Doesn't wash. Good people say good things about people.
I think good people have to do more than that to qualify as 'good'. And being good also involves not say good things to some people.
Being good is standing up to lies and delusions.
What was the purpose of posting your gender changing video, BTW?
You know what would be a primary step in beginning to walk the path of philosophy which may someday lead to the superhighway? It would be to hear a Trump denier make an honest case, rather than a farcical compendium of belief, for the reality of Trump’s existence, by using good truth words. That would be proof of intellectual detachment, which is always a refreshing change from all the emotional belief stuff. This is because written communication is an intellectual exercise, although the motive force and and the energy source has roots in the emotional. The thing is, could a Trump denier even do that? Why wonder? Because given the evidence, the basis of Trump denial is emotionalism.
How the hell can you refute Trump if you don't even understand him, and worse, refuse to? Because rest assured, inquiry that goes no deeper than name calling is ignorance in action, and not the good.
Why was the link posted?
1.The name of this sub forum is gender philosophy. The link is about how the presenting gender affects understanding.
2.Unless wails of not understanding are mere faux, that is to say ostensible cover for being good via violent words that only communicate ignorance of understanding, then the link offers insight suitable to those who don’t get it, as can be easily understood from the link itself.
3.From the link itself:
"People across the board were surprised that their expectations about what they were going to experience were upended," said Salvatore.
NYU sums up the mostly academic, liberal audience's reaction:
Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.
Re: Sex bias
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:02 pm
by Walker
Greta wrote:I didn't see the original debate. In this one I thought the woman was a total a-hole, constantly interrupting and shouting, basically being insufferable, portraying all issues as black and white. Horrible. I definitely preferred the man in that debate.
Anyone who shouts and interrupts constantly and doesn't listen is not to be trusted because those tactics are intended to prevent the kind of calm debate that would expose them.
In the actual debate, Trump was calm and the Hillary shimmy was Clinton's defining moment. Too bad that’s not in the clip of the play.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaECKYARbss
What do you think a man’s man is?
Re: Sex bias
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:07 pm
by Hobbes' Choice
Walker wrote:Hobbes' Choice wrote:Walker wrote:
Doesn't wash. Good people say good things about people.
I think good people have to do more than that to qualify as 'good'. And being good also involves not say good things to some people.
Being good is standing up to lies and delusions.
What was the purpose of posting your gender changing video, BTW?
You know what would be a primary step in beginning to walk the path of philosophy which may someday lead to the superhighway? It would be to hear a Trump denier make an honest case, rather than a farcical compendium of belief, for the reality of Trump’s existence, by using good truth words. That would be proof of intellectual detachment, which is always a refreshing change from all the emotional belief stuff. This is because written communication is an intellectual exercise, although the motive force and and the energy source has roots in the emotional. The thing is, could a Trump denier even do that? Why wonder? Because given the evidence, the basis of Trump denial is emotionalism.
How the hell can you refute Trump if you don't even understand him, and worse, refuse to? Because rest assured, inquiry that goes no deeper than name calling is ignorance in action, and not the good.
Why was the link posted?
1.The name of this sub forum is gender philosophy. The link is about how the presenting gender affects understanding.
SO what do you think the video of Trump as a woman shows?
Re: Sex bias
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:15 pm
by Walker
Hobbes' Choice wrote:SO what do you think the video of Trump as a woman shows?
Hello Hobbes.
Like a mouse imitating a lion, the actress paid careful attention to mimicking body language and the energetic quality of Trump’s voice. Like a mouse she seemed rather shrill, no mountains rumbling style-wise such as when candidate Trump said, to paraphrase,
If I was in charge you would be locked up. Hillary heard and her knees almost buckled, she almost retorted but thought better of it.
The man talks nonsense, as Clinton did.
The woman is just as intellectually convincing as Trump was in the debate, which he won, along with the election, although he certainly did not make the measured delivery of either William F. Buckley, or his actor imitators.
You will appreciate Chomsky’s observation in this clip, in which he says the serious and rational share a burden of guilt. He is targeting Babbitt:
William Buckley threatens to punch chomsky in the face
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEIrZO069Kg
Here, he threatens for real, civilized and face-to-face, with Vidal.
Sex bias dictates such civilized speech does not include women.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8
Re: Sex bias
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:47 pm
by artisticsolution
Walker wrote:as wrote:I quite enioy being good. Being good is liberating.
Doesn't wash. Good people say good things about people.
No , good people speak the truth.
Re: Sex bias
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:58 pm
by Walker
artisticsolution wrote:Walker wrote:as wrote:I quite enioy being good. Being good is liberating.
Doesn't wash. Good people say good things about people.
No , good people speak the truth.
The truth is good, not bad.
Truth will set you free.
Truth is in the doing and saying, not the frozen abstract.
Doing and saying the goodness of truth is truth existing, rather than memory or theory of truth.