It's like arguing with the religious.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Society/Culture Woke. Can you tell real from parody? - Part 2 -
- Thread starter Frank Bunn
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Ghost Patrol
Incognito Moderatore
- Sep 17, 2019
- 27,527
- 42,099
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #1,827
Is this like during covid, when you wanted to ignore the scientists?
Or ignoring the climate scientists, because caring about the environment is woke?
I don't ignore scientists, ever.
sr36
TheBrownDog
Isn't it the non-woke who've spent decades trying to shut up climate scientists?
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Ghost Patrol
Incognito Moderatore
- Sep 17, 2019
- 27,527
- 42,099
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #1,830
What do scientists say about the effects of bullying minorities and lack of empathy?
- Apr 18, 2005
- 32,054
- 28,161
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
I like Richard Dawkins. He is presenting a very strong argument for not a god or supreme entity creating life. As we don’t know what created the Big Bang lets not then fill that void with a religious postulation because it seems to make sense. It’s not just the hypothesis of a god, it’s the power religion has been able to exert upon human beings that’s led to divide and disparity in humanity.
I am pretty comfortable with gender also being binary. It’s scientifically logical.
I am pretty comfortable with gender also being binary. It’s scientifically logical.
- Feb 16, 2020
- 6,440
- 15,797
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Dawkins is 84 years old and quite frail now. He saw what happened to Rushdie and probably figures he has said all he has needed to about religion including Islam by this point in his life.
Do you think I promote bullying of minorities?
Yes. Don't assume I'm promoting one side of the extreme just because I oppose the other.
sr36
TheBrownDog
As an embracer of "woke" as a derogatory term, you most certainly are promoting an anti-environment, anti-science message. Because the term is used to include support for environmental issues. Whether that's your viewpoint or not, you're arguing for the oil companies against scientists.
Last edited:
I wouldn't think so. Don't presume I support Collingwood just because I hate Carlton.
Climate change is a real issue. I find it abhorrent that some treat Muslims and transgender women as lesser people.
sr36
TheBrownDog
I didn't say you support it. I said you promoted it.
Woke is an emotive word dropped to discredit an argument. For many it's all they need to hear on the topic to take a side. You use "woke" for opinions you don't like, which helps to embed its impact and makes it work more effectively for some "woke" issues that you may agree with - the way you use woke promotes fossil fuels against climate science, whether that's what you're trying to do or not.
Nonsense. You've accepted a definition of the term 'woke' that suits your political bent.
Let's label the SRP as 'woke' for example. How would Australia look like 5-10 years from now if a consensus SRP government dictated policy? Inverted Trump.
sr36
TheBrownDog
No I haven't. I'm describing how it's used. It's used for environmental issues as well as social issues and it's used to dismiss without consideration.
If you platform one side of the coin, I see no reason to silence the other.
Should the views of conspiracy nutjobs be considered?
Ghost Patrol
Incognito Moderatore
- Sep 17, 2019
- 27,527
- 42,099
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #1,841
Free trade, free dental, legalised marijuana.
Is that a bit too libertarian for your mindset?
sr36
TheBrownDog
It's about persuasive techniques. If you're using woke as a derogatory silencer of ideas, it's silencing more than the individual idea that you're targetting - it's silencing all the ideas it's used to silence.
"Conspiracy nutjobs" is the same thing. "woke" "nutjob" - they're used to silence and dismiss views and they silence all views that can be categorised that way - they silence climate science, they silence genuine critiques of covid policy, they silence anti-discrimination laws - they're used to silence and dismiss views. You use them to do so, assisting the silencing of views you consider valid.
Last edited:
While I believe most views should be quickly dismissed, I'm philosophically opposed to silencing anyone.
I hire a plumber when I have a plumbing problem.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Apr 18, 2005
- 32,054
- 28,161
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
I believe I said scientifically logical. I couldn’t care less if anyone identifies otherwise but there is by scientific logic only two genders.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 34,408
- 54,725
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Intersex has been scientifically recognised for a very long time.
Sexes you mean. Sex = biological function. Gender = identity. They were interchangable terms in times past so that's where the confusion lies I guess but these descriptors have become more exact as we've come to know more about the human condition.
Gethelred
Moderator
- May 1, 2016
- 32,519
- 62,098
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #1,849
I know. That's what I asked you to elaborate.
I have a few reactions to this.
One: the phrase 'scientific logic' genuinely means nothing. Logic is a thought process originating within philosophy allowing you to achieve the closest to a not wrong answer from a series of undemonstrable statements. Science is too broad a term to define successfully in a sentence, but I assume you meant the scientific process of review based upon repeatability and observation to demonstrate hypotheses, which is how we arrive at what's demonstrable over the fullness of time. Together, the phrase loses either meaning; logic might suggest via Occam's razor that two genders makes sense; the scientific process of review might over time test the theory of gender and arrive at two genders. Together, neither word adds any weight and makes you look a bit silly.
Two: it might be logical to state that there are two genders, but that does not mean your logic is sound. Logic is a system of reasoning based on the use of supplied information to establish a conclusion, and it provides two types of reasoning, inductive and deductive. For an example of inductive:
A: all clouds are in the sky.
B: There is a cloud.
Therefore, that cloud is in the sky.
You might dispute this one on the basis of premise A being incorrect: a cloud could exist at ground level, that's what fog is. This is known as an incorrect premise. An argument is sound if the conclusion cannot be escaped if the premises are true. See here:
A: All circles are round.
B: Shape A is a circle.
Therefore, Shape A is round.
You cannot escape the logic there. The conclusion must be accepted, because there is no other option.
You need to provide your basis for establishing that the two genders are distinct, and you haven't done so. Simply put:
A1: for logic to function, you need to provide your premises.
A2: for logic to function, those premises must be true.
A3: for logic to function, those premises must directly support your conclusion.
B: you have not supplied premises, only a conclusion.
Therefore, your conclusion is not supported.
From a deductive perspective, the argument need not be so strong - the conclusion is likely, not definitive - but you still need to provide premises to support your conclusion.
So, your statement itself is not logical.
Three: human beings are one of the least sexually dimorphous species on the planet, and the theory of gender was contrived in part to align with the biblical delineation of man-woman as biology wasn't co-operating with them. Biological categorisation is also a slap-dash affair; while there are distinct categories that different types of creature fall into, within those categories there is plenty of difference/mutation/abberance from the mean because that's the nature of nature. The point of Natural Selection is that these differences gives rise to advantage in individuals over others, and those advantages are passed on through their genes to the next generation. As JackOutback points out, intersex people exist; there are deviations from the mean and individual differences within the spectrum of biological sex that give rise to at least a blurring of the lines as opposed to a neat one to one delineation.
Four: this smacks of the conflation of gender and biological sex. Gender is a sociological term, and sociology is studied with the scientific method just as much as a supposedly harder science is; you can certainly check upon things to review them as part of the literature, but denigrating sociology as a 'soft science' undermines the scientific process as a whole. So, when I ask you 'is it?', I'm asking you to elaborate upon what you mean: are you casting aspersions over the term, gender, as defined within a sociological framework? Are you referring to biological sex? What specifically are you talking about?
The statement provided is a curious one for a variety of reasons.
Last edited:
Similar threads
