iambiguous wrote:AutSider wrote:Honor killings are great, subordination of women is awesome, and damn right women should live in fear. Yes, you're a filthy feminist and when the day of the rope comes, that's how you shall be treated.
But at least you honestly admitted you are a feminist. This means you'll get a quick, merciful death.
"highly emotional response" that's inaccurate woman projection all over again.
"project a person of valour or masculinity" You think I seek some sort of appraisal from you people here?
My own reaction to this sort of subjunctive fulmination revolves less around whether his arguments are correct and more around how we might explain the reason that he opted for choosing them. Why these particular opinions and not others?
Clearly, there was a point in time when he first began to think about race and gender in what "intellectuals" construe to be a "political" or "philosophical" frame of mind. In other words, that point in time when all of the experiences he had had -- experiences that had predisposed him to one set of political prejudices rather than another -- were more or less set aside and he commenced to do some serious research on the subjects. That way after "studying the matter" he could convince himself that there was indeed an optimal frame of mind to be had here and that if you delved deep enough into these matters you could discover it.
Or maybe even invent it. Your very own explanation for why most folks do what they do historically, culturally. Instead of what they ought to do naturally.
What he discovered is that, as with folks like Satyr, only when you acknowledged that 1] human interactions revolved first and foremost around biological imperatives and that 2] it was possible to grasp the necessary assumptions to understand them were you then able to both prescribe or proscribe human behaviors -- all of them apparently -- as either in sync with or not in sync with nature itself.
The nature.
Which is why I would be curious to know how he did come to make that distinction between memes and genes here. What actual experiences did he have in his life that predisposed him to embrace his current rather dogmatic political agenda. And how does he know that all of the knowledge and information that he has acquired in order to transcend "I" as an "existential contraption" reflects an optimal mix of ideas and arguments?
Finally, can he really say with any degree of certainty that new experiences, new relationships, new sources of information and knowledge etc., won't upend his current assessment and take him in a whole other direction?
Or, instead, is my own frame of mind -- that folks embrace one of another religious or secular dogma in order to embody the "psychology of objectivism" -- a more reasonable manner in which to grasp his rutting fulminations here.
If you study anything of sociological significance concerning society race has everything to do with social cohesion construct or not.