Gelsamel wrote:Why does this bullshit always come in the form of unfalsiable claims about other people's consciouses or thoughts or opinions? It's even worse when those unfalsifiable claims are claimed to then be the direct cause of the emergent property of a chaotic system.
"You have this revelation"
"Uh, no, I don't"
"Yes you do, even if you don't know it, you do"
You? Who said anything about you, or anyone else alive today?
Gelsamel wrote:Fuck off. Unfalsifiable claims require no evidence to dismiss.
I make no claims at all. Everything I've said has been mainstream theory camouflaged with loaded words. Everything everyone's been arguing has been semantics.
Gelsamel wrote:"In fact, the reason that society is exhibits this effect is BECAUSE individuals like you have this revelation"
"So you're saying without evidence that a certain behavior, thought, or action is the direct causal force of an emergent property of our chaotic social system?"
Fuck off x2. Show us a predictive model based off hard evidence (Of which you cannot possibly have any, because your claim is both unfalsifiable and unverifiable) that predicts succesfully the nature of the social system throughout all cultures and history and then you might have my ear about whether your hypothesis might be worth a damn.
I'm not sure what claim you think I'm making. The argument I'm making regards the scope of concepts. Of course it makes no predictions, but it is rooted in falsifiable objective claims.
The Great Hippo wrote:
SocialSceneRepairman wrote:You're right. It isn't. To think it is is the Naturalistic Fallacy write large.
What, did words become magically inconsequential when I wasn't looking or something? Referring to a set of organisms as 'robots' and another set as 'all life itself' is not an intrinsic value judgment?
Of course it isn't. Life is better than simulacra? Why? Because it's more natural?
When I hear people talk about "the search for intelligent life," or science fiction authors introducing "intelligent life," I'm amazed at their strange kind of... I guess "vital chauvinism." (..."chauvinism" is probably a really bad word for me to be using right now, but there's no real way around it...) Even those who pride themselves on leaving "carbon chauvinism" in the dust seem to be imagining that a process similar to life will spring up, just with different chemicals. I see no reason why "intelligent" needs to be followed by "life." It's accepted that humans can possibly create artificial intelligence that will match us without meeting any meaningful definition of "life" in the way cats, trees, or bacteria are alive, so, in such a large and chaotic universe, why can't it happen somewhere some other way? I imagine that if we ever do find an extraterrestrial intelligence with which we can communicate meaningfully, it will in only the absolute broadest sense be "life."
The Great Hippo wrote:One of the big problems you encounter with evolution is that people insist on anthropomorphizing everything. Even our terminology reveals it--'Natural Selection'--the fuck are you talking about? Nature doesn't select things. Things just work out really well and end up flourishing because of that.
This is very true. However, the phenomenon that's described as "natural selection" is very real, and most people who aren't busy reading about an invisible sky wizard and his self-important son understand no one's actually "selecting" but the pressures of the environment.
The Great Hippo wrote:That's what you're doing here. Males are not created in the image of females to perform a service--that is completely arbitrary and a denial of a very complex interdependent relationship.
A denial of a very complex interdependent relationship that well postdates sexual reproduction, varies wildly from species to species and even within species, and is always, with rare exceptions, alongside the essential
productive behavior of males to fail to mate without harming the next generation's size, thus allowing more positive traits to be passed on. There are exceptions, but not of the primates.
The Great Hippo wrote:You might as well just reverse it and argue that females are created in the image of males to perform a service (carry on our genetic material and serve as incubators for our children)--the argument would carry the same amount of weight.
It would not. Life is nothing more than a self-replicating chemical process, and as bad as it sounds, the female body, across species, is a reproductive factory surrounded by self-preservation and line-preservation mechanisms of various levels of abstraction. In a few species (such as seahorses) a true synergy has evolved, but it's done just that.
The Great Hippo wrote:Males and females exist in a complex relationship wherein both are required for reproduction, and both work together to perpetuate each other's genetic material--both sides are integral, both sets of DNA get something out of it, neither side is 'servicing' the other.
Both are required for reproduction. Both work together to perpetuate each other's genetic material. Both are integral. Both sets of DNA get something out of it.
The male services the female. Females have the egg, which does require sperm to grow, but the rest of the male's sperm can do what it likes, while the rest of the eggs (there are often multiple eggs, but it's not all at once) are sitting out for a bit. The egg is the constant, the element of continuity.
They do not, generally
, work together. Because the male has no investment in the sperm itself, in a large number of species, males are "promiscuous," "competitive," and "jealous," whereas females are "cautious" and often more likely to mate with a male based on his number of partners. I don't mean to say that this is or should be human behavior on any level, but it does create a "conflict of interest" such that males and females cannot be said to work together.
The Great Hippo wrote:Edit: The reason I am coming down like a fucking lightning storm on this--and I suppose I should apologize for that--is because your narrative reads like just another one of those 'Just So' stories that are unverifiable and ultimately serve as a moral justification for oppression (the question you asked at the end of your post--"Is that a bad thing"--is deeply troubling, and not a question I think ever belongs in a discussion wherein biology and oppression intersect. Yes, oppression is a bad thing, regardless of the biology involved in its justification).
That's understandable. To be honest, what inspired this was a friend of a friend mocking a lecture someone gave him that language and deductive logic were tools to oppress women, to which my reaction, from what little I knew of biology, Marxism, and feminist theory was "of course they are!" Then my more scientific part led, slowly, to "...and is that so wrong?" And then came this comic, an R.G.O.O.M.H. moment, my earlier posts, and then that mini-rant explaining them.
So yes, I am trying to justify oppression, because oppression encompasses enough that it needs to be justified. Certainly there is unjustifiable oppression, but I'm trying to make the case that there is justifiable oppression that fits under the broad umbrella of "oppression," in any real sense other than as pure invective.
Gelsamel wrote:Thing is, that is a convention of labeling. When the branch that evolved into what we know as XX/XY today "happened" (I use this word losely because it's not as though genetic paradigms shift in single events) both points on the paths leading to XX and XY were equally similar to what ever came before. This is, afterall, the definition of a branch, the function is continuous. The convention of calling what came before "female" is simply that, convention. "Female" has exactly zero meaning in the absence of the XX/XY paradigm and it's likely that one calls what came before "female" on the basis that it was capable of baring "daughters" (the fact we call them daughters is also convention).
If that were the case, why would the convention be "female" and "daughters"? Male is the default in this culture, isn't it? By what convention do we call animals or buds male or female? Seahorses? It's who supplies the bulk of the resources in the earliest stages of the offspring's growth. It's not precisely the same, with the necessity of a male, but the female is closer to the asexual ancestors in mode of reproduction. It's convention, but there's a reason for it.
Gelsamel wrote:That is why I said my sarcastic comment about apes. It's the same mistake creationists make. Apes and humans at the time of the genetic split were equally similar to our non-ape-non-human predecessor. Apes do not evolve into humans and XX did not evolve into XY, humans are not simulacra of apes. Something else evolved into the XX/XY paradigm in the exact same way that something else evolved into the Ape/Human paradigm. The labeling of our predecessor as "less evolved" and apes as "less evolved" and thus the "trunk" is a fallacy. The branch is a 'Y' not a 'Ψ.
...that's true because
of sexual reproduction!
Gelsamel wrote:Edit: Not that any of this matters given that Mr. Social's claims are totally unfalsifiable even if the core of the idea wasn't rotten.
Falsifiability is a punchline outside of the hard sciences. The idea of falsifiability is as thoroughly drummed out of your head in the social sciences as rigor is drummed in in math. I've had professors who've gone so far as to try to convince me that it's an obsolete concept in science; of course, I know better than that
, but I don't present my claims as falsifiable, although they're based on falsifiable truths. What do you even think I'm claiming? I'm claiming only that a sufficiently, not unreasonably, broad definition of "oppression" or "misogyny" can encompass things that would generally be recognized as good.