Being a woman
(07-08-2014, 10:53 PM)Tiamat Wrote: Rowan? I wonder if you ever actually discuss. You only seem to interact when you smell blood. when it's reasonable questioning and theorizing, you remain silent.


Please define "reasonable questioning and theorizing".

Personally, I like to find people with points of view that differ from mine and have rational discussions with them, explaining my point of view, explaining what I find wrong with theirs or why I don't agree with it, and I expect them to do the same to mine. Ideally, we address each other's points, calmly and in a friendly manner, understanding that we come from a different mindset, and are trying to both understand each other and explain ourselves while also defend ourselves against the other person's (hopefully articulate) arguments.

On this forum, however, that's almost impossible to find. I present my case and I get personal attacks. Or I get people who don't bother addressing any of my arguments and only present their own, usually without anything to back it up but their own opinion and very little reasoning—certainly little resembling premises supporting a conclusion.

I can't be sorry that my desire for intellectual debate doesn't meet your standard for normal forum conversation of knowing who the forum bullies are and watching what you say around them, or wanting to follow the flow of shallow conversation rather than stay on the deeper topic.
Reply
I was not raised from a cookie cutter. My family was very conservative and voted the republican way. I was a carefree child and the folks always said I could go do the same stuff that my two older brother did. My parents never said to marry, have children, or wait till marriage before sex. It was very important to be good citizens and not be a burden on society. I was not a girl in the family, just the youngest of 3. Off to Crater Lake for a fun filled day. Bye Bye
Reply
(07-08-2014, 10:14 PM)Tiamat Wrote:
(07-08-2014, 08:56 PM)csrowan Wrote: However, you may be missing the point—there is no "girly" or "boyish" outside of what is imposed by society. After all, pink used to be a boy's color.

So, when do the lines blur, Rowan? A woman gives birth, the woman nurses the child, nurtures the child and assumes care for it, because biologically she is the "creature" designed by nature to do so. Then she has more children. Whilst she does that, the male mate assumes roles for insuring survival. Now the children will look at their adults and mimic the behaviors they see. Let's say that no societal norms are being imposed about what is appropriate for male or female behavior. The likelihood that the female children will model their play and behavior on that of the mother, and the males after that of the father are pretty high. Is this "imposition"? Societal norms exist. But they didn't arise out of a vacuum Rowan. Right or wrong, they evolved out of existing situations.

EXACTLY. Rowan keeps on blaming society for shaping how men or women act.
You hit the nail right on the head and you are saying exactly what I've tried to say all along.
There is indeed girlish and boyish outside of what society "imposes. and you CLEARLY explained why.
Reply
(07-08-2014, 11:36 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(07-08-2014, 10:53 PM)Tiamat Wrote: Rowan? I wonder if you ever actually discuss. You only seem to interact when you smell blood. when it's reasonable questioning and theorizing, you remain silent.


Please define "reasonable questioning and theorizing".

Personally, I like to find people with points of view that differ from mine and have rational discussions with them, explaining my point of view, explaining what I find wrong with theirs or why I don't agree with it, and I expect them to do the same to mine. Ideally, we address each other's points, calmly and in a friendly manner, understanding that we come from a different mindset, and are trying to both understand each other and explain ourselves while also defend ourselves against the other person's (hopefully articulate) arguments.

On this forum, however, that's almost impossible to find. I present my case and I get personal attacks. Or I get people who don't bother addressing any of my arguments and only present their own, usually without anything to back it up but their own opinion and very little reasoning—certainly little resembling premises supporting a conclusion.

I can't be sorry that my desire for intellectual debate doesn't meet your standard for normal forum conversation of knowing who the forum bullies are and watching what you say around them, or wanting to follow the flow of shallow conversation rather than stay on the deeper topic.

So, #279 is reasonable enough? It's attacking? It's personal? It doesn't address your ideas? That's the problem, Rowan. What is? I've been trying to debate with you on this thread for days but you won't go there. But TV raises your ire and you are so quick to respond. Doesn't add up.
Reply
Yes, it's reasonable enough, if we had actually been holding a reasonable discussion on that topic in the first place.

How many pages of this have we had? Anyone care to see how many tangents this has taken from the original concept? How many definitions of "instinct" "culture" and "nature" are we using? Is anyone even talking about the same thing?

Has TV even once directly addressed any of my arguments? You realize that all of this was a diversion from his failure to directly address another post of mine, and the supporting evidence?







And now for something completely different:

Reply
Jeeze dude you are like three weeks late, who gives a crap anymore about you being a womanLaughing


Rowan... Has TV even once directly addressed any of my arguments? You realize that all of this was a diversion from his failure to directly address another post of mine, and the supporting evidence?

A diversion eh?Confused Have you recently switched to medical marijuana? Do you realize that no one knows what you are talking about. Including yourself.Big Grin
Reply
Medical marijuana is a hell of a drug.
Reply
(07-31-2014, 08:22 PM)tvguy Wrote: Jeeze dude you are like three weeks late, who gives a crap anymore about you being a womanLaughing


Rowan... Has TV even once directly addressed any of my arguments? You realize that all of this was a diversion from his failure to directly address another post of mine, and the supporting evidence?

A diversion eh?Confused Have you recently switched to medical marijuana? Do you realize that no one knows what you are talking about. Including yourself.Big Grin

Well, I came here to post the video, but noticed that the last post was directed at me, so I answered it.

And diversion in the sense of — diversion: an instance of turning something aside from its course. Not a diversion as in consciously trying to steer the conversation away from the original topic to avoid having to address it.
Reply
You say diversion, I say diversion. Lets call the whole thing offSmiling
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)