Quote:
Originally Posted by tofu
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.
|
It is a mistake, and I said exactly why. If you think being told the truth is "patronizing", you won't learn much.
Quote:
|
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.
|
That would be a logical remark, were it not in complete opposition to all the factual information presented in this rather long thread. Are you choosing to simply ignore the thread? Will that be your position here, that on
page 23 of this thread, wherein much data has been presented to utterly refute your "suggestion", it is still simply a "statement" to make a claim that is completely unsupported by anything? No, you're right, you are being victimized, this is nothing but a sincere question that you have, and the thread is just too long to read. So forget all that victimization, I shall simply summarize the thread for you:
1) Plenty of evidence exists, and is cited, that as environmental conditions equalize, women show equal math aptitude as men. Read the thread.
2) Evidence does exist that there are innate physiological differences between men and women. Most people are actually aware of this. No relevance to the issue of the thread could ever be established by a single post in 23 pages.
3) Conclusions that are in agreement with a "politically correct" attitude are not automatically false, nor are they automatically a result of political correctness-- when scientific evidence says something is true, it is still true if it seems politically correct.
I'm glad I could clear that up for you, it is indeed a long thread. If you think my summary is the least bit inaccurate, you are welcome to read the thread and point out where you think it says something else.
Quote:
|
Everyone should be free to discuss something without fear of ad hominem attacks.
|
Of course, those are the rules of the forum. The relevance of your remark is....? You must be talking about something other than this thread, somewhere that ad hominem attacks against you have been levelled. I'm sorry you seem to experience that often elsewhere, but it has not happened here.
Quote:
|
So it's not about truth, it's about the environment in which the statement is made.
|
Do you mean that you do not understand the definition of sexism? Yes, it's about the environment. Perhaps that would be a good place for you to start your understanding of it.