Philosophy Now Forum

Age to I.C. wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 10:50 pm When, and if, you learn how the Mind and the brain work, then you will start to understand what has been going on here.

Do you think you have learned this, despite having a mental disorder -- which you've acknowledged, right?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 10:50 pm What is 'it' that you think, assume, and/or believe that I am not understanding?

Apparently, you don't even understand what you don't understand. But time will cure that, we can hope.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 10:56 pm

Age to I.C. wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 10:50 pm When, and if, you learn how the Mind and the brain work, then you will start to understand what has been going on here.

Do you think you have learned this,

I think I know how the Mind and the brain work, which is continually being verified correct to me everyday. One example, of countless others, of how the brain works is if, for example, someone was to say: "There are many different examples of how men and women are essentially different? And that one is then asked to clarify what those examples are exactly, but that one cannot provide just one, of the so called "many", examples other than to provide the one example that was already explained to them.

See, the brain can only put out knowledge from the information that it has gained. The brain works exactly like a computer does. So, if, for example, the brain has been fed information that "there are many different examples of how men and women are essentially different" but that is the only information fed into that brain regarding this, then that brain can start thinking that 'this' is actually true but have no actual evidence nor proof. Once that brain mixes that information with other previously gained information and starts assuming that "it is true there are many different examples of how men and women are essentially different", then that brain will start looking from this perspective. Then, if there is absolutely any thing further seen, which is believed to verify the currently held assumption, then that incoming information then furthers supports the current thinking and assuming brain, and then that brain starts believing that 'this' is true, then that becomes a belief within that brain, and there is nothing within the whole Universe that can be seen otherwise to that believing brain.

Although what can be clearly seen witnessed and seen through questioning is that that brain actually has absolutely NO actual evidence nor support at all for that belief it has, that brain will still continue to believe that "there are many different examples of how men and women are essentially different".

As can be clearly seen in this thread, no matter how many times that brain is asked to provide some actual examples, that brain can not. Even though it will keep believing and insisting that it knows what the actual Truth of things IS.

The brain, while assuming and/or believing, is NOT open at all. The brain is also not OPEN to being inquisitive, to learning, nor to understanding. The brain can just gather and store information, and share that as knowledge.

Whereas, the Mind is always completely OPEN. The Mind is what allows humans to always be able to learn, understand, and reason any and every thing.

The Mind, also, 'knows' what is right and true, whereas, the brain can only 'think' what is right and true.

If you would like to have a more in depth discussion about how the Mind and the brain actually work, in another thread, then I am more than happy to proceed.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 10:56 pm despite having a mental disorder -- which you've acknowledged, right?

What was the supposed "mental disorder", which I have supposedly acknowledged?

And if you do answer that question, then, explain why that type of what you call "mental disorder" would prevent me from discovering how the Mind and the brain work.

By the way, do you know of anyone who is perfectly ordered in their thinking?

If there was anyone who was not mentally disordered, then this would imply that they would be omniscient, or at least would always be right and correct in what they say and think.

Is not everyone somewhat disordered mentally in one way or another, anyway? Or, maybe you believe that you are fully and completely ordered, mentally?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 1:33 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 10:50 pm What is 'it' that you think, assume, and/or believe that I am not understanding?

Apparently, you don't even understand what you don't understand. But time will cure that, we can hope.

Obviously, and of course, one does not yet understand what they do not yet understand. This is just an irrefutable fact, which does not even need saying.

Also, what is obvious is you do not even know what you say you understand.

Remember, it is you who can not tell us just one of what you say are, and understand as; "many essential differences between men and women". Except of course the ONLY one you can mention is the exact same one I told you.

Now, I have already pointed out that to me;
Besides the sexual organs of the physical body there is NO difference at all between men and women. Unless of course some thing can be shown otherwise.

The Truth IS if nothing else can be shown, then there is NOTHING ELSE.

What is happening here is it is you who is NOT understanding.

You are so confused, distorted, ignorant, unwilling, or maybe some thing else to clarify what 'it' is that you say I do not understand. Or, it is just the case that maybe you do not even know nor understand what 'it' is, yourself, and so you are completely incapable of just saying what 'it' is?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 10:15 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 9:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 19, 2020 8:26 pm
Hey, it's the Feminists who picked those two,

Please cite.

https://genderedinnovations.stanford.ed ... inism.html

This article is an attempt to categorise a very wide field.
And in this partial examination of feminisms, where exactly reside your two caricatures?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 1:55 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 10:15 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 9:56 pm

Please cite.

https://genderedinnovations.stanford.ed ... inism.html

This article is an attempt to categorise a very wide field.
And in this partial examination of feminisms, where exactly reside your two caricatures?

Not "caricatures," Sport. Logic.

If you can do logic, then you know this:

1. "Difference Feminism" says "there is an essential difference."

2. "Egalitarian Feminism" says "there is no essential difference."

There is no middle point between "there is" and "there is no." If there is even a little bit, then there is a difference. If there is none, then there is, by definition, not even a little bit.

And as you can see (if you do logic) there is no alternative but one or the other.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 3:19 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 1:55 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 10:15 pm
https://genderedinnovations.stanford.ed ... inism.html

This article is an attempt to categorise a very wide field.
And in this partial examination of feminisms, where exactly reside your two caricatures?

Not "caricatures," Sport. Logic.

If you can do logic, then you know this:

1. "Difference Feminism" says "there is an essential difference."

2. "Egalitarian Feminism" says "there is no essential difference."

There is no middle point between "there is" and "there is no." If there is even a little bit, then there is a difference. If there is none, then there is, by definition, not even a little bit.

And as you can see (if you do logic) there is no alternative but one or the other.

Depends.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 12:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 3:19 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 1:55 pm
This article is an attempt to categorise a very wide field.
And in this partial examination of feminisms, where exactly reside your two caricatures?

Not "caricatures," Sport. Logic.

If you can do logic, then you know this:

1. "Difference Feminism" says "there is an essential difference."

2. "Egalitarian Feminism" says "there is no essential difference."

There is no middle point between "there is" and "there is no." If there is even a little bit, then there is a difference. If there is none, then there is, by definition, not even a little bit.

And as you can see (if you do logic) there is no alternative but one or the other.

Depends.

Does not.

"Exist" versus "Not Exist." No middle.

Law of the Excluded Middle.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 1:47 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 12:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 3:19 pm
Not "caricatures," Sport. Logic.

If you can do logic, then you know this:

1. "Difference Feminism" says "there is an essential difference."

2. "Egalitarian Feminism" says "there is no essential difference."

There is no middle point between "there is" and "there is no." If there is even a little bit, then there is a difference. If there is none, then there is, by definition, not even a little bit.

And as you can see (if you do logic) there is no alternative but one or the other.

Depends.

Does not.

"Exist" versus "Not Exist." No middle.

Law of the Excluded Middle.

Not applicable in this and many other cases.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 1:47 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 12:09 pm

Depends.

Does not.

"Exist" versus "Not Exist." No middle.

Law of the Excluded Middle.

Not applicable in this and many other cases.

Incorrect. But you could show me very easily if you were right...

What's the middle ground between "it exists" and "it does not exist"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:30 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 1:47 pm
Does not.

"Exist" versus "Not Exist." No middle.

Law of the Excluded Middle.

Not applicable in this and many other cases.

Incorrect. But you could show me very easily if you were right...

What's the middle ground between "it exists" and "it does not exist"?

Not relevant.
"....two positions is to be considered genuinely "Feminist"...."

Of the two ("it exists" and "it does not exist"?), which is the consider the most GENUINE?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 4:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:30 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:23 pm
Not applicable in this and many other cases.

Incorrect. But you could show me very easily if you were right...

What's the middle ground between "it exists" and "it does not exist"?

Not relevant.

Heh.

I warned you this would only make sense to somebody who can do logic.

Drop the word "genuine," and you've got the same problem. You're just weaselling. You can't answer the question, and you know it.

And since I know it too, who do you think you're fooling?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 5:16 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 4:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:30 pm
Incorrect. But you could show me very easily if you were right...

What's the middle ground between "it exists" and "it does not exist"?

Not relevant.

Heh.

I warned you this would only make sense to somebody who can do logic.

Drop the word "genuine," and you've got the same problem. You're just weaselling. You can't answer the question, and you know it.

And since I know it too, who do you think you're fooling?

You are truly stupid.
Everything you have typed so far is weaseling. You are just too dull to know the difference.
The question you posed was which version of feminism was most genuine.
That is a question asked by an idiot.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 5:31 pm The question you posed was which version of feminism was most genuine.

It isn't. What I posed to you was this:

If you can do logic, then you know this:

1. "Difference Feminism" says "there is an essential difference."

2. "Egalitarian Feminism" says "there is no essential difference."

There is no middle point between "there is" and "there is no." If there is even a little bit, then there is a difference. If there is none, then there is, by definition, not even a little bit.

And as you can see (if you do logic) there is no alternative but one or the other.

I challenged you to show me the midpoint between "exists" and "does not exist."

You can't. You were wrong. You just don't like that you're so clearly wrong.

Joe can pretend to be a woman, may actually believe he's a woman, but Joe is a man.

Betty can pretend to be a man, may actually believe she's a man, but Betty is a woman.

No amount of surgery or hormone therapy can change a man into a woman, or a woman into man.

No consensus will change a man into a woman, or a woman into man.