Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:The worst offenders don't seem to be that young. Young guys tend to like women. I wasn't suggesting you throw them out, I was making the point that no one on here seems to call them out on it, male or female. It's not just this forum of course; it's a societal thing. Someone on here said we shouldn't take it seriously; in other words they are just 'boys being boys' ho hum. I don't buy that of course, but I'm a lone voice.

Has it ever occurred to you that the people you object to are probably still here still here because they continually get replies to the nonsense they write? They're not here to be debated, they're here to goad and offend and they do it quite effectively, because if they were here to debate they wouldn't present their ideas (well, Satyr's ideas generally) in the way they do.

They're toying with this forum because they find it amusing.

John wrote: Has it ever occurred to you that the people you object to are probably still here still here because they continually get replies to the nonsense they write? They're not here to be debated, they're here to goad and offend and they do it quite effectively, because if they were here to debate they wouldn't present their ideas (well, Satyr's ideas generally) in the way they do.

They're toying with this forum because they find it amusing.

well johnnyboy , what can i say, i have guilty pleasure tormenting douchebags & pretentious pseudo intellectuals on this forum.

johngalthasspoken wrote:

John wrote: Has it ever occurred to you that the people you object to are probably still here still here because they continually get replies to the nonsense they write? They're not here to be debated, they're here to goad and offend and they do it quite effectively, because if they were here to debate they wouldn't present their ideas (well, Satyr's ideas generally) in the way they do.

They're toying with this forum because they find it amusing.

well johnnyboy , what can i say, i have guilty pleasure tormenting douchebags & pretentious pseudo intellectuals on this forum.

You flatter yourself.

Luckily we've progressed beyond the myth that specialization imposes some costs upon the specialized form and we know that since we men and women share DNA we all have the same potentials in all areas.
History proves it...and what inequality is shown through the study of the past can only be attributed to bad people doing bad things to good innocent people.

We now know that fat ugly females are not chosen as mates, except by desperate males, because evil males have imposed a law which prohibits being attracted to ugliness....and it is not because natural selection uses beauty to expose symmetry and genetic health and fitness.

We now know that no attribute, no mutation, results in an advantage but that the organism must only endure, survive, long enough to pass on its genes.
It's really a waiting game.

Therefore, all those men who are not chosen as mates because they are short, ugly, or fat, must only wait, hoping some woman will eventually be desperate enough to give them a chance...or discover their inner wealth and beauty.

And, also, me saying all that only means I hate females...and males.

Wow... there are so many layers of biting irony in that post that it is almost completely incomprehensible.

Don't mind me...I hate.

reasonvemotion wrote:The whole point of this discussion has been lost and the perpetrator remains (wisely) tight lipped in the background.

Are all women deserving of respect and Judeo-Christian "love", just because they are born with a vagina?
Should males be disadvantaged, and hated, just because we are born with a penis?
If a man castrates himself, then is he deserving of love, since he has lost his "hateful" part?
Are men automatically born evil, and women automatically born good and forever blameless?
Doesn't posing these questions, make the questioner evil?
Shouldn't it be a crime to ask these questions?
When will there be a first female philosopher, in world history, or a notable female mathematician or physicist? Never?

Are all women deserving of respect and Judeo-Christian "love", just because they are born with a vagina? NO
Should males be disadvantaged, and hated, just because we are born with a penis? NO
If a man castrates himself, then is he deserving of love, since he has lost his "hateful" part? NO
Are men automatically born evil, and women automatically born good and forever blameless? NO
Doesn't posing these questions, make the questioner evil? NO
Shouldn't it be a crime to ask these questions? NO
When will there be a first female philosopher, in world history, or a notable female mathematician or physicist? Never?

May I put forth "[Simone Weil's] passionate embrace of truth … and her unbudging insistence on having the right view, call into question her compatibility with postmodern readings of truth claims."

Atthet wrote:When will there be a first female philosopher ...?

... or more accurately, when will the women-haters admit that there already are great female philosophers? Good question, Atty!


... you cowards, ...
lol no u!

mickthinks wrote:

Atthet wrote:When will there be a first female philosopher ...?

... or more accurately, when will the women-haters admit that there already are great female philosophers? Good question, Atty!

mickStinks - name one on a par with Nietzsche, Heidegger..ect? Face it , Women are forever destined to mediocrity.

mickStinks

lol Bravo, jonnie! You are a like an Oscar Wilde for the 21st century!


name one on a par with Nietzsche, Heidegger...

That's easy! But naming a woman that you, Atty, and the other woman-haters would concede was on a par with Nietzsche et al—that's probably impossible, so I won't bother.

Atthet wrote: When will there be a first female philosopher, in world history, or a notable female mathematician or physicist? Never?

mickthinks thinks you won't accept any of the names the rest of us could easily put forward. However, for you to justify your rejection of them you would first have to clarify what you mean by "notable". Could you do that now, please?

If we take your question as a straightforward request for information, then it seems to me like a completely appropriate question to ask in this section. If there really had been no notable philosophers, mathematicians or scientists in history then that would certainly be a fact worth discussing. In fact, despite the practical disadvantages and social discouragement faced by female scholars in most eras, there have been quite a few of 'em.

The earliest important female mathematician we still remember was Hypatia. She lived in Alexandria in the 4th-5th century AD, was head of the Platonist school there and was murdered by a Christian mob. Doesn't the fact that her name has continued to be known among scholars throughout the 16 centuries since then, that she has been the subject of commentaries and other writings, and that she is still well known today, mean that she was "notable"? I'd have thought it was a good indicator, at least - but if you mean something else by 'notable' do please say so, and tell us exactly how notability should be measured.

reasonvemotion wrote:Are all women deserving of respect and Judeo-Christian "love", just because they are born with a vagina? NO
Should males be disadvantaged, and hated, just because we are born with a penis? NO
If a man castrates himself, then is he deserving of love, since he has lost his "hateful" part? NO
Are men automatically born evil, and women automatically born good and forever blameless? NO
Doesn't posing these questions, make the questioner evil? NO
Shouldn't it be a crime to ask these questions? NO
When will there be a first female philosopher, in world history, or a notable female mathematician or physicist? Never?

May I put forth "[Simone Weil's] passionate embrace of truth … and her unbudging insistence on having the right view, call into question her compatibility with postmodern readings of truth claims."

Such declarations, my sweet.

Never?
Perhaps when female/male types cease to exist, and mankind takes the form it is headed for, of uniform femininity.
Then, with the aid of machines, some female might push a button to begin a mechanical process that might result in something creative.

There are reasons why females are more interested in emotions, children, stability, uniformity, relationships and men are more interested in usurping, challenging, competing, questioning norms and establishments and thinking outside the box.
There's a genetic reason, based on specialized sexual roles, which make females hover around mediocrity, never surpassing the upper limit or declining to its lower limit (in relation to the average), and why males often do just that.

johngalthasspoken wrote: mickStinks - name one on a par with Nietzsche,

nietzche said something to the effect of - you are going to a woman - do not forget your whip

most women could have taken the whip away from him and given him a good as the british call it trashing because nietzche was wuss

allemotion, you surprise me

reasonvemotion wrote:Are all women deserving of respect and Judeo-Christian "love", just because they are born with a vagina? NO
Should males be disadvantaged, and hated, just because we are born with a penis? NO
If a man castrates himself, then is he deserving of love, since he has lost his "hateful" part? NO
Are men automatically born evil, and women automatically born good and forever blameless? NO
Doesn't posing these questions, make the questioner evil? NO
Shouldn't it be a crime to ask these questions? NO
When will there be a first female philosopher, in world history, or a notable female mathematician or physicist? Never?

Then which women deserve love, and which women do not?
Which woman is worth sacrificing for, and which women are not?
Is a woman's highest value in life, based on anything more than beauty?
If two women were trapped in a burning building, and one could be saved, one is beautiful and the other ugly, then save which one?

reasonvemotion wrote:May I put forth "[Simone Weil's] passionate embrace of truth … and her unbudging insistence on having the right view, call into question her compatibility with postmodern readings of truth claims."

Never heard of her, I'd listen to a woman claiming to know and value truth, if she does not hesitate answering all questions put forth against her, no matter the nature of the question. Otherwise, a woman is not worth the time to question or participate in the realm of philosophy.
If a woman claims to be a philosopher, then she should debate regularly on a philosophy forum, and win such debates resoundly, against men.