I hope we're not going to take this into a nature vs. nurture debate. That subject has remained unresolved since the renessance and will stay that way for as long as the division exist between humanistic and natural sciences.
Jostein knarf <knarftheria...@gmail.com> wrote: >No I am not appealing to authority. Paul was. > >Paul made the assertion that we're hard wired in a certain way basing >that claim on "studies". The authority was "studies". That's what he >was appealing to. Hence: Appeal to Authority. > >The problem with it is that I can't refute it. I don't know to which >studies he refers. I don't know anything about these studies: their >methodologies, their premises, who might be funding them, who they >studied, etc. > >So the statement "studies say" is meaningless and doesn't add to the >argument. > >As for your assertion that I've appealed to authority, well, I haven't. > At all. > >And I don't have to refute the "hard wired" theory. It's up to the >person making the assertion to prove it. It's not up to me to disprove >it. Otherwise anyone could say any outlandish thing they want, >something completely without merit, and then say, "Well can you prove >it wrong? Then it must be true!" > >All I said Is "I don't buy it," and that was because it hadn't been >proven. > >I really don't think I have the energy to address the rest of your post >right now. It's late and I'm tired. Maybe tomorrow. > >As much as I'd like to visit you and your country you'll have to >explain what any extended stay has to do with this discussion. > >Cheers, >frank > > > >Boris Liberman <bori...@gmail.com> wrote: >>Frank, purely for the matter of argument, not in any disrespect to you >>or your reasoning, but didn't you just do the same (appeal to >>authority)? >> >>I mean - who says that we're not hard wired as Paul indicated? Are >>there >>studies to support that this specific part of our nature can be >>modified >>through proper nurture? >> >>Who said that this problem while having ethical aspects in it, does >not >> >>stem from the way the human "nature is", as you put it? >> >>You really would benefit from coming over here and spending here more >>than just a vacation, may be live here for some time. It may prove >very >> >>interesting. >> >>Boris >> >>On 12/10/2013 6:50 AM, knarf wrote: >>> I don't agonize but I am concerned. And my concern is that the >>> blatant sexualization of women in the media is degrading to them. >>> >>> If you don't see it by now you never will. >>> >>> Btw what you're doing is called the appeal to authority and it's a >>> logical fallacy. >>> >>> Who says that? Please cite authors and studies. If you're going to >>> pull "studies" out of your hat I'll call you on it. >>> >>> Who says we're hard wired that way? And how do they know it? And >just >>> because we're hard wired (which I don't buy) how does that make it >>> right? >>> >>> Finally, nature doesn't "dictate" anything. It just is. In any event >>> this isn't a natural problem, it's a human problem. It has to do >with >>> how we humans treat each other. It's an ethical issue. >>> >>> But, as with so many discussions that we have Paul, we've reached a >>> stalemate. I don't think either of us will change the mind of the >>> other. >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> Cheers, frank >>> >>> Paul Stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Paul via phone >>>> >>>>> On Dec 9, 2013, at 10:35 PM, knarf <knarftheria...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I know I said I was done with this thread. Apparently I lied. >>>>> ;-) >>>>> >>>>> But I had to jump in to completely disagree with your assertion >>>>> wrt >>>> the underlying premise. >>>>> >>>>> To my mind the premise is that there is a huge disparity in the >>>>> way >>>> that women and men are portrayed in the media including the arts. >>>> Women tend to be sexualized far more than men and often in >>>> denigrating and offensive ways. That includes but doesn't have to >>>> mean nudity. >>>>> >>>>> People can point to exceptions but that doesn't change the fact >>>>> that >>>> women are sexualized far more often and in different ways than >>>> men. >>>>> >>>>> This doesn't mean that sex is dirty or wrong or that it doesn't >>>>> make >>>> the world go 'round. >>>>> >>>>> A bit of balance would be nice, that's all... >>>> >>>> But those who study human sexuality contend that while men take >>>> considerable pleasure in female nudity, most women are not deeply >>>> aroused by the male body. Seems to be the way we're wired. Why >>>> agonize over it? Nature doesn't dictate balance in all things. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, frank, back to spectating - for now >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Walt <ldott...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> I think the underlying premise -- that to portray a human as a >>>> sexual >>>>>> being is to inherently denigrate other aspects of their >>>>>> humanity -- >>>> is >>>>>> a false one. >>>>>> >>>>>> All of this calls to mind a recent discovery for me: a woman >>>>>> named Susan Oliver. I just happened to see her in an episode of >>>>>> the Andy >>>> Griffith >>>>>> Show that was on the TV at the bar where I worked and was >>>>>> struck by just how beautiful a woman she was, and as it turned >>>>>> out, a woman at the >>>> bar >>>>>> >>>>>> happened to know her name. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, I started doing a little reading up on her on the internet, >>>>>> and >>>> as >>>>>> it turned out, she was an absolutely fascinating person. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, to be sure, my initial impression of her was that she was >>>>>> just drop-dead gorgeous -- which is an observation I wouldn't >>>>>> likely make >>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>> a male, no matter how handsome he might be. My interest just >>>>>> isn't captured by attractive men. So, the very fact that I >>>>>> noticed Susan Oliver at all could be laid at the feet of sexual >>>>>> objectification, >>>> or >>>>>> sexism, whatever you want to call it. >>>>>> >>>>>> But, as I started to learn more about her and her >>>>>> accomplishments, I >>>> >>>>>> developed a more wide-ranging kind of admiration for her. The >>>>>> fact >>>> that >>>>>> >>>>>> my initial interest in her was sparked by sexual attraction >>>>>> didn't >>>> in >>>>>> any way detract from my appreciation of her as an accomplished >>>>>> woman any more than learning more about her considerable >>>>>> achievements >>>> minimized >>>>>> my appreciation of her as a smokin' hot sex kitten. >>>>>> >>>>>> It >>> >>> “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>PDML@pdml.net >>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>follow the directions. > >“Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
