The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Tags: Atheist, Constitution, atonement, drugs, economic, education, guns, laws, new, police, More…politics, prison, profiteering, restitution, rights, woman
Join Atheist Nexus
I went on from there because women do not tend to have as many pounds as men (of muscle), and if they do, they have probably worked much harder to get there. That's just science. To then say the playing field is equal is not correct because of the amount of work that would have gone into getting the same level of physical prowess is very different. That's the whole idea behind communism; no matter how much work you put in, we're gonna treat you the same, and that's just not equality.
I've done quite a bit of martial arts myself (Tang Soo Do, Shotokan and Capoeira), and I'm aware that not everyone is suited to every style. There are styles specifically adapted for women, for men, for people who are heavy, for people are who are short, etc. If I were a little asian woman, I would not try boxing with a 7 foot tall black man because that style is well-adapted to people with a long reach and a lot of upper body strength. I'd consider using Wing Chun, or just grabbing a gun, lol.
To make that a comparison to what we're talking about, if you put men against women in, say, basketball, the women are mostly going to lose, plain and simple. There are plenty of statistics from the NBA and WNBA that can validate that, and the same can be said of most sports. Certainly there are some sports where the playing field would be more level, but I think more than not, women would be at a disadvantage, even pound per pound. Almost across the board, men's records in sporting events exceed those of women. How then could it possibly be fair to pit them against each other? And that's not to say that I don't think women should have the option, butt hey should also have the option to have their own sports leagues so that they don't get discouraged by losing moreoften than not, or having to work far harder to acheive that same results.
I don't really understand the kitty kitty thing. I saw you do that with John, and frankly I think it looks like an attempt to demean and frustrate. If that's not your intent, you should really consider doing away with that because I think it's likely to insight anger in people who are trying to have a serious discussion with you. I am not a kitty. I am a person, and if you respect women as much you claim to, you will address me as a person, not a pet.
The reason philosophers lose track of common sense is that they find out it doesn't exist. There is no sense, no idea, that is common to all people. We can't even get people to agree that something like murder is bad, much less the myriad intricacies of living. That's the whole point of the discussion about subjective and objective truth. If there were objective truth, we could find something on which we all agree and use that as a foundation for universal justice. But as it is, your idea of improving society is someone else's idea of making it worse. Your idea of benefit is someone else's idea of harm.
So you agree but disagree. You wrote: "Pound for pound certainly". Why go on from there? The rest is limitations put forth by social and mental conditioning. Again - I have real life evidence! Proof! I'm a martial arts instructor. I've been teaching little Asian women and men martial arts for nearly 20 years now. Teaching fitness since 1984. This isn't just some crazy idea I came up with or a hypothesis.
re: John. I'm glad someone stepped up to bat to clarify his comment. I'm familiar with the various classical philosophers. You wrote that he was referring to the age old question: "What evidence do you have that you are not dreaming right now?"...
Breath. Relax. Here kitty kitty, nice kitty.
I sustain my question: What does this have to do with trying to improve the quality of living for us and the benefitial creatures around us?!!!! The problem with many philosophers and philosophy students is they lose command of basic common sense. I don't think it's appropriate to wax philosophical while children are starved and brutalized. Women are raped and murdered.
I have a game I've played for a long time with female Christians. I ask them what god looks like. 100% of them have said "He doesn't look like anything." They say HE doesn't look like anything. Nothing. But nothing certainly has a penis!
Thank you for your response. - Z
Pound-for-pound, certainly, because muscle is muscle regardless of whether your a woman or a man. How an individual's muscles function depends on how they use them, but men are predisposed to have greater overall muscle mass than women because of the level of testosterone in their bodies. On average, men have 20 times more of this steroid in their bodies than women, and this affects how easily and how much muscle will result from exercise. Even if you had comparably fit men and women competing together, the women will have worked much harder to be able to compete on the same level (unless they have a testosterone imbalance which puts them on par with the men). Again, I can't call that equality. I wouldn't discourage any women from attempting this, and certainly some have done so and succeeded, but can you honestly say that men don't have a distinct advantage in this arena?
As for the point John C. was trying to make (although I don't presume to speak for him; this is just my interpretation - Where are you John?), it's an old, old conundrum, as he mentioned. The argument he was bringing up is called the Dream Argument. It has been discussed by many prominent philosophers throughout history, including Plato, Aristotle, DesCartes, Kant and Zhuangzi, among others. It's summed up nicely with this question: What evidence do you have that you are not dreaming right now?
As far as I know, no one has ever postulated a satisfactory answer to the question*, and the result of that is that all sensory evidence can ultimately be doubted. Any "truth" obtained by sensory evidence must therefore be regarded as relying on assumption, including science. There have been attempts to circumvent this problem by distinguishing between a priori and a posteriori evidence, the former being an assertion that does not rely on sensory evidence but on pure logic for it's foundation. However, the a priori concept has thus far failed to become a sound epistemological tool, for reasons that would require a whole other blog post to explain. I studied epistemology for a few years in college, and I can tell you that the general consensus is that there is no such thing as a priori knowledge.
The reason I called that a dead end is not because it gets us nowhere, but because it only gets us to the idea of subjective knowledge. Without a foundation that cannot be doubted, there is no possibility of objective, or universal knowledge. In order for laws to be truly just, there would have to be objective knowledge that could allow us to designate some things as "absolutely wrong" and some things as "absolutely right." Otherwise, they are just the dictates of the majority, and I think we can probably agree that the majority is not always right, since the majority of people on this earth believe in some kind of god.
*There has been at least one notable attempt at solving the dream argument. I forget where I heard it now, but the idea was basically that an artificial reality could not contain any true randomness. The same way that gambling machines use a core algorith to generate apparent randomness, an artificial reality would have to be generated from some core algorithms which could, presumably, be figured out. So if we ever arrived at an all-encompassing theory of reality, commonly called a GUT (grand unified theory), we might be able to assume that we were in an artificial reality. However, the solution is not entirely sound because it relies on the assumption that actual reality contains actual randomness, which has never been proven. In fact, the idea of actual randomness contradicts the primary assumption of science, which is the Principal of Causality. So in order for the solution to work, all of science would have to be proven wrong, lol. I don't know which would be worse.
@ Glen. No I'm not high on anything. So you also like contemplating dead ends... to each his own. As a martial arts instructor I've taught plenty of woman how to kick ass that could actually take on men bigger than them. re: women being weak: It's like saying black people are poor and stupid. The statement is "correct" to a degree but not on its own. Suppression (external and internal) is the culprit - not the skin color... or gender in this case.
I'd appreciate you leaving personal slander out of your comments Mr. Rosenberg. -Z
@ Sam. Women weak! Ha. I defy ANY man to try giving birth. They would die from the pain.
I agree that John is onto something that very few will ever contemplate. Also that it is a dead end in that the probability of finding it is near zero.
S . F. Z,
What are you high?
Women do not on average have anywhere close to physical strength of men. Greater flexibility, can compete well in ultra-marathons, otherwise fagedabout it.
@ Sam... You also wrote: "The law exists, like all laws, for what its practicioners consider to be good reasons." But then you write: "no list of laws, however well-meaning, will ever be considered justice by everyone". Wouldn't you say that this is also dead end thinking? The comments themselves are "true" but the logic starts to suffer when you combine the ideas.
We are not trying to create heaven. Just fair and human like behavior amongst civilized peoples. FYI I don't discount anarchy but it seems a bit bloody (as does capitalism).
@ Samhita. Thanks for the response. Your comment regarding women being the weaker sex is common but untrue. Pound for pound women can be as strong and athletic as men. It's just not promoted or allowed. This is a gross misconception. Women being denied equal rights and equal access isn't correct.
That John was trying to actually make a point... glad you could decipher it. All I saw were abstract concepts piled upon each other. How do you equate dead end thinking as being "completely logical"? The poor guy is going to loose his mind.
You wrote: "no list of laws, however well-meaning, will ever be considered justice by everyone"... so you think we should have Anarchy too? Hummm. re: right and wrong. This is just a vernacular term to mean "more accurate" and "less accurate". Laws should certainly be revised to help serve and protect the greater common.
Wow, really!? You don't think the physical disparity would be a little unfair? That's like expecting honest MLB players to prevail against dopers like Bonds and McGuire. History has proven that it simply isn't feasible, for the most part. Certainly there are exceptions to the rule, but it tends to be pretty rare that a woman can rival a man physically, so pitting men against women in athletics is not really my idea of equality. When I play sports, I don't consider it sporting unless my hard work and determination gives me an actual chance to win. Against men, it wouldn't really matter how hard I trained, or what kind of shape I was in, or even how smart I was. Men are just built Ford tough, but of course that's why women are sexier, lol.
This also brings to mind a debate I had with a friend of mine several days ago. We were watching TV, and saw something on the news about women in the middle east. My friend commented on the oppresive treatment of women in those countries, giving the specific example of burqas (or burkas). He expressed the opinion that the garment constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment for the women forced to wear it. I suprised myself a bit (being that I am a woman) by taking the opposing side of the argument (with regards to burqas, not necessarily all of the treatment of women in the middle east). I happened to have read a few things about burqas, and have learned that the western opinion of this practice is largely exagerrated and misdirected. There are very few places in the world where its actually a law for women to wear the garment (previous regime of Afganistan, some of Egypt, some of Iran). It is mostly fundamental Islamic areas in which the law persits, although the practice predates Islam by several hundred years, at least.
The law exists, like all laws, for what its practicioners consider to be good reasons. The Qu'ran explains quite explicitly that the intent is to spare harassment to both men and women. The book does not fail to encourage men to have self control over their sexual drive, but the burqa is an additional measure intended to aid that process, for the benefit of both sexes. Women don't like to be sexually assaulted, and men to like to be needlessly tempted. The burqa is an attempt at eliminating some of the sexual tension in society, and a lot of Muslim women are on board with the idea. Many, many women spoke out against the French ban on burqas, defending their right to wear them.
The point I'm making is that it would be very difficult to find a consensus as to what women's (or men's) rights actually are. Even women will not agree as to what their rights are. Some think it's a woman's pride and duty to devote their time and energy to maintaining a family, raising children and supporting their man. Other's find that idea oppresive. In the end, I think it comes down to what an individual thinks his or her rights are, and I'm not sure I can say it's ever someone else's right to tell them otherwise. Of course, when my idea of my rights conflicts with your idea your rights, we have problems, but I can't really see an argument for which side of the conflict should have the authority to enforce their ideas on the other side. I think that's the whole point John C. was trying to make, and I'm curious why you only dismiss his comments. I found them to be completely logical, if a bit of a dead end. We are kind of stuck at the point of subjective determination of "right" and "wrong," and unless there is a sound arguement for an objective determination of those ideas, then no list of laws, however well-meaning, will ever be considered justice by everyone.
Just my thoughts. This is a very interresting post, though. I'm glad you brought it up.
@ Will re #1- simple. Chicks rule. It's where our species originate. Today men are merely fertilizers in the field. (pun intended) In China and many places in the world women are less than dogs. I love dogs but I love women even more. Women are the longest standing "victims" of inequality. Secure womens rights around the world and you've hit many birds with one stone. Women have been victims for so long it's become highly convoluted as to what their rights are or should be.
Female presidents. Females playing with males in sports and other typically male activities. I want to see a man fight a women in the UFC cage!
Welcome toAtheist Nexus
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.