Taking the Red Pill- the importance of being aware of your own best interest

[[Fl...]]

Awww Megan we were just starting to get past that stuff and have some interesting conversation. Please don't lock it.

 

I agree. Most people here are being very reasonable and I think we might all learn something from this but I support whatever the admins and mods decide to do. The BB team is fair and they always have the best interest of the community in mind.

[[co...]]

mutuuraia, you are obviously very intelligent and I bet the F part of your INFP is not 100% and crosses into the T category. I also consider myself somewhat of an idealist and the T in my INTP was about 65%. I'm not going to answer your question only because we might get into trouble, although as I said I was viewing it strictly from a moral teaching aspect. I hope you continue to come back as I enjoy nothing more than an agile mind. I think we're past most of the rancor (hopefully anyway!). I really think we could make some progress if we narrowed our scope. As you and others point out, a word like feminism is absolutely freighted with meaning and it's easy to yell past each other when we may agree on a number of parts within that whole.

 

abcd, I'm mostly with FG, I'm not a fan of Molyneux and I don't think FG is either. But even a blind squirrel finds nuts and he has discovered a few controversial ones worth discussing. I apologize because I tend to forget and discount emotions so sometimes my statements can be inflammatory without my realizing it. (Haha, read the INTP profile, it was scary accurate!)

 

Azalea, I know it felt like it to you but no one was attacking you. Really, your perspective is needed but if you feel that this type of discussion is too intense for you at this stage of your taper you should bow out. And I mean that as a kindness. I am not an emotional person at all but early in my withdrawal I found myself constantly apologizing for emotional outbursts. So I know where you're coming from. Gotta go, take care all.

[[...]]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

width=500 height=300http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/Mfw+i+m+in+an+argument+over+the+internet_cb7329_4278303.gif[/img]

 

 

 

[[co...]]

Lol! I bet that cat winds up writing Hamlet!

[[be...]]

Thank you so much! I've been wanting to know how for a while

 

No problemo........

[[be...]]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

width=500 height=300http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/Mfw+i+m+in+an+argument+over+the+internet_cb7329_4278303.gif[/img]

 

 

:laugh: abcd: I love cats and also Carrey.........He's a crazy dude.

[[co...]]

I thanked you too bets, what am I, chopped liver?  ;D

[[ho...]]

Got it! No problems here...I'm not one to blatently disregard the rules... I think we can all be guilty at times of over doing it! I shall tone things down...😉See all you guys around the site! Btw....I really enjoy each and everyone here!!! Thx!!😙😙😙✌

[[Fl...]]

Really, FG? I thought we'd been through this already.

 

This statement isn't wrong because it's stigmatizing, it's wrong because it's simply <i>not true</i>. Once again, Molyneux is reducing a single set of statistics to "truth" without looking at all of those pesky complexities and variables that might expand or even contradict his statements about this subject. If he were really interested in truth, he would be sure to look at this statistical evidence from all angles - social, cultural, biological, environmental, educational, political, nutritional, psychological, linguistical, economical, and so on, and so forth. For example: what do we know about IQ tests and how they work? Are there limitations to the tests, or cultural biases? How do we justify or measure these differences? What other statistical factors (besides race) do we know correlate with lower IQ scores? Can poverty, inadequate education, poor nutrition, and stress also lead to lower IQ levels? How does intelligence develop, and what do we mean by "intelligence" anyway? Could there perhaps be multiple types of intelligences, as proposed by some cognitive researchers, and if so, how does the IQ test account for this? I could go on, but I think (read: sincerely hope) you get the point. For a more integral look at the issue of race and IQ tests, please do more research. Here is a good place to start: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/why-people-keep-misunderstanding-the-connection-between-race-and-iq/275876/

 

The problem is that you will never acknowledge validity to any study or statistic that goes against the equalist narrative so you will automatically dismiss anything and everything I bring to the table. That's even more convenient to do when you can't find stats of your own to back up your argument. It's a convenient way of avoiding all of these uncomfortable points that go against your narrative that everyone is equal and therefore everything must be due to some sort of injustice. So you throw up more smoke and mirrors and cite the heavily biased mainstream media (that I will remind everyone has a steadily declining 6% approval rating) to supposedly refute my claims. Not back up your own claims with any scientific evidence, mind you, just to shoot holes in mine.

 

If we can't rely on any sort of studies or statistics how are we supposed to develop any realistic solutions? Your "it's all very complicated" non-argument is nothing more than a diversion and evasion tactic that allows you to circle back around to the idea that all of these problems are a result of victimization. The worst thing about it is that not only does it not solve any problems, it also increases these problems exponentially when we teach people that all of their problems are the fault of someone or something else.

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't question statistics, but any reasonable person should be able to see that when no one is able to come up with stats that refute the evidence that there is probably something to it.

[[wa...]]

Ooops read enough posts to figure out this is a front for Libertarian chat and some poor BBers in recovery have taken FG's bait.  FG  - come on, have a care and rename it or something.  WBB 

[[me...]]

Really, FG? I thought we'd been through this already.

 

This statement isn't wrong because it's stigmatizing, it's wrong because it's simply <i>not true</i>. Once again, Molyneux is reducing a single set of statistics to "truth" without looking at all of those pesky complexities and variables that might expand or even contradict his statements about this subject. If he were really interested in truth, he would be sure to look at this statistical evidence from all angles - social, cultural, biological, environmental, educational, political, nutritional, psychological, linguistical, economical, and so on, and so forth. For example: what do we know about IQ tests and how they work? Are there limitations to the tests, or cultural biases? How do we justify or measure these differences? What other statistical factors (besides race) do we know correlate with lower IQ scores? Can poverty, inadequate education, poor nutrition, and stress also lead to lower IQ levels? How does intelligence develop, and what do we mean by "intelligence" anyway? Could there perhaps be multiple types of intelligences, as proposed by some cognitive researchers, and if so, how does the IQ test account for this? I could go on, but I think (read: sincerely hope) you get the point. For a more integral look at the issue of race and IQ tests, please do more research. Here is a good place to start: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/why-people-keep-misunderstanding-the-connection-between-race-and-iq/275876/

 

The problem is that you will never acknowledge validity to any study or statistic that goes against the equalist narrative so you will automatically dismiss anything and everything I bring to the table. That's even more convenient to do when you can't find stats of your own to back up your argument. It's a convenient way of avoiding all of these uncomfortable points that go against your narrative that everyone is equal and therefore everything must be due to some sort of injustice. So you throw up more smoke and mirrors and cite the heavily biased mainstream media (that I will remind everyone has a steadily declining 6% approval rating) to supposedly refute my claims. Not back up your own claims with any scientific evidence, mind you, just to shoot holes in mine.

 

If we can't rely on any sort of studies or statistics how are we supposed to develop any realistic solutions? Your "it's all very complicated" non-argument is nothing more than a diversion and evasion tactic that allows you to circle back around to the idea that all of these problems are a result of victimization. The worst thing about it is that not only does it not solve any problems, it also increases these problems exponentially when we teach people that all of their problems are the fault of someone or something else.

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't question statistics, but any reasonable person should be able to see that when no one is able to come up with stats that refute the evidence that there is probably something to it.

 

Ooops read enough posts to figure out this is a front for Libertarian chat and some poor BBers in recovery have taken FG's bait.  FG  - come on, have a care and rename it or something.  WBB 

 

 

OK, that's it.  That's enough.  This discussion has clearly gone into an area of conflict and controversy, which as I said on the previous page, is forbidden territory on this forum.  I'm not going to quote Colin again - see Reply#222.  I'm simply going to lock this thread now.