Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken G
Your mistake is thinking that the issue is whether or not the claim is flattering.
|
Drop your patronizing tone. "My mistake?" I posted a message. Disagree with it if you like. Don't presume it to be a mistake without at least presenting some sort of counter argument.
I'll repeat my concern: Paracelsus labels one side of a debate sexist whether that side is right or wrong. Imagine two statements, A and B. Which one is sexist? To answer that, according to the model that Paracelsus appears to be using, you do not need to know which of those statments is true. It is enough to know that statement A is morally disagreeable. On that alone, we know to call anyone who even wants to discuss A a sexist. And anyone who disagrees with statement A is "defending my gender against sexist hogwash."
This is an unacceptable situation. Everyone should be free to discuss something without fear of ad hominem attacks. If I want to discuss intelligent design, don't call me an atheist heathen - don't call me a religious nut. If I want to discuss the apollo hoax, don't call me an america hater - don't call me a government disinformation agent. And if I want to discuss gender differences, don't call me a sexist.
Quote:
|
The real issue is, whether or not the claim is supported by unbiased evidence.
|
You say that now, but in the very next sentence you contradict yourself:
Quote:
|
If you claim women have innately better language skills in a society that is female dominated, you would indeed be sexist, if you cannot support the claim.
|
So it's not about truth, it's about the environment in which the statement is made. You have a set of moral values. You believe that our society is male dominated and anyone who holds a position that you are morally opposed to is a sexist. Of course they can't support their claims, Ken! Their claims are wrong! They must be sexist. That explains it all!
Do you not see how this line of thinking is exactly what you'll run into if you go to a religious message board and make statements about evolution?
That's not going to fly, Ken. You have to be a dispassionate advocate for the truth regardless of your closely held moral values. We have to be free to discuss gender issues without fear of ad hominem labels.
Quote:
|
Hang on, a moment ago you claimed to be merely posing a question, but now you are admitting that you "suggested" something.
|
yeah. See, this statement, like your little "my mistake" statement above, shows that you aren't willing to have a rational discussion. You're just playing games. Please don't waste my time.
Quote:
|
You see, if sexism and ignorance were not rampant, then there would probably be no cause for offense, as you say.
|
I'd be happy to post examples of rampant sexism against males. There's a lot of hate in the world. You can't use that as an excuse for your ad hominem labels, any more than the existence of corruption in Nixon's administration can be used as an excuse for calling Jay Utah a government shill. It just doesn't work.
All that you have the right to say is that people who disagree with you are wrong. You are not allowed to get on your moral high horse and also say, "not only are you wrong but you are morally bankrupt and sexist - I am fundamentally better than you because of my enlightened views." What I'm trying to explain to you Ken, is that when you do that, you chill the conversation and lower the level of discourse. Freedom of thought and freedom of speech, even for thoughts and speech that are wrong.