quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrissy:
Hey Sithiee...kiss my arse
You guys want HARD SCIENTIFIC PROOF of what Im saying. First of all read a few sociological journals and then read some philosophical texts (like the ones Ive mentioned time after time after time) See the thing is no one actually wants to take the time to do any of these things and Im guessing there are several reasons for this.
1. Time
2. Laziness
3. You might actually have to think
4. Your precious opinion MIGHT be changed
I refuse to allow myself to be badgered on these posts because you guys don't want to take the time to even LOOK into my point of view. I have read a lot on the differences between "men" and "women" (after all I am a soc major part of the course is to deal with gender "differences") You think I pull all these thoughts where? OUT OF MY FUCKING ARSE? I don't-they come from readings of done, papers that have been writen (both by me and others) and from discussion and PLAIN OLD OBSERVATION.

I refuse to post until somone besides me reads a little bit more on what Im saying.

---

We disagree on a lot of things, chrissy, and i had hoped that you would not get personal because of it.

I am here for an intellectual discussion. If you want people to read information on your point of view, post links. We arn't all doing sociology degrees, so don't assume we should know everything you do on the subject, and i resent the implication that our opinions are not thought out just because they disagree with your own. If you are going to act like you need to have all the same qualifications as you before we can talk to you, then i'm sorry, i'm not going to engage in days worth of reading on everyone's opinion, does this mean i am not qualified to speak to you? if it does it means everyone else here is also, and you should talk to people in your class instead.

My arguments have always been founded on logic and science, and i will use whatever science i know to formulate sensible opinions and statements.

If you care for a civilised discussion, i am always open to this, but if you are more interested in a childish slanging match i shall not oblige.

[This message has been edited by DuSTman (edited June 23, 2000).]

The vast majority of male geniuses have had the traits of female mentality that allow the male part, to be how can I say "enhanced" - to be able to make that creative jump in thought and understanding.

Despite your denials of the truth, Chrissy the vast majoity of studies that have taken place in neuroscience over the last five years have backed up DuSTman's case - it is also one of the reasons why funding in these projects has been cut - it is simply not acceptable to people these days, that this could be the case

------------------
"When aiming three blocks away at a 4th story window from your apartment with a high powered air gun and scope. Always make sure there is not a walking patrol cop below your building."

I'm glad to see that you provided your source and filled in some of the details. If I get the time, I'll look for the article myself. However, that doesn't really take care of some of the remarks you made earlier.

quote:

---

"There are WAY more male than female geniuses, and guess who contributes the most to society? The great scientists : the geniuses. Male intelligence will continue to add more to society, more to science and give more to the race than female intelligence.

---

I speculate that you made your sexist comments in anger. And I can 'partially' sympathize because I get tired of the endless tirades that are launched against men. The 'logic' behind male-bashing seems to be that 'two wrongs make a right.' Regardless, I think it would have been simpler if you'd just called the guilty parties on their game. As it stands, the wording of your post makes it appear as if you're using science to justify a sexist agenda ("Male intelligence will continue to..."). It puts you in a negative light, and if intentional, is a clear misappropriation of science.

Other issues: To start off, you should be aware that 'correlation does not equal causation'. i.e. Just because there have been more male scientists in the past, and men have different brain structures, does not mean that men have brains that make them better suited for scientific genius-hood (Even if men have more neural connections, what does this mean? Do you know how those connections are utilized? If you do, stand up and get your Nobel prize). A more parsimonious explanation for the skewedness of the sexes in the scientific community is that women have traditionally been barred and discouraged from scientific pursuits.

Secondly, attempting to back up any argument with findings from the cognitive sciences puts you on really shaky ground. Despite all the hoopla going on, and the frenetic pace that books on consciousness and neuroscience are being published at, we still know very little about how the human mind functions. Findings are continually being overturned, and there's very little consensus among community members. Check out any newsgroup or mailing list on the subject and you'll see that the 'truth' is continually being debated and revised.

Thirdly, science isn't the end-all, be-all. The 'truths' that scientists unearth have the power to take us to greater heights, but they can just as easily be abused (perhaps more so). I get a little bit worried when people glorify science. Zealotry, whether you're a religious fanatic or a science nut, is a bad thing - it means that you've got a pair of blinders on. Dangerous stuff.

[This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited June 23, 2000).]

Not yet, admittedly, everything, but macrological systems are predictable.

Science will progress. Science will give more to society. What makes you proud to be a human? it's the achievements mostly. The complexity of our buildings, the phenomenal events, which are mostly bourne of science.

What do people associate most with human greatness? the moon landing. given to us by science. Science may not contribute everything to society, but it contributes a hell of a lot.

However, my conclusion was far stronger than my evidence. I have no sexist agenda. We must not lynch people simply because they state differences between the sexes, of which many do exist. However, as my evidence was not very reliable (a hazily remembered magazine article months back), and what i said appears to have caused a deal of offence, i apologise. It was not my agenda to promote a "male brains are better mindset" although i was a little strong for this not to be interpreted in this light. Again, i apologise.

[This message has been edited by DuSTman (edited June 23, 2000).]

-Tony

------------------
w00t.

anyway, i was away all weekend and didn't know the mayhem i'd caused here. sorry!

------------------
PEBKAC: Problem exists between keyboard and chair.

AND IT'S A THREAD ABOUT BREASTS.

I really think that speaks...Something of the average detonate.net forums poster.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.