>Again, I find it extremely difficult to attempt to discuss your points
>when you persist in engaging in basic fallacies left and right! To
>wit--
Is this a defense mechanism on your part to see fallacies where they do not
exist. Further, you persist in reading my comments in the most negative
way possible: what happen to charitable readings? Thus I find it extermely
difficult to discuss points which you continually ignore or do not see that
I make. Cases in point: the following:
>> I never said that sexuality was not constructed, you seem to be either
>> conflating or equivocating. Why must I show that if sex is just sex, than
>> the construction of males as violent has nothing to do with gender. Being
>> male is being gendered!!!! What I take your point to be, however, is that
>> I must show that haveing a penis and bveing socially constructed to be
>> violent are unrelated. That is a non-sequitur! As hunter-gatherers, women
>> were kept in the "house" because they carried children, etc. Men went
>> hunting, thus engaging in violence. From this simple
>> biological-environemntal matrix, genders arose. It probably has a lot to
>> do with hgow we evolved from apes and became meat eaters which probablyt
>> occured beofre homo sapiens appeared on the scence.
>
>Classical example of the hasty generalization. From what set of
>observations are you making this inductive leap? Further, in order
>for your point to work , you have to be able to disprove
>counter-examples. If I find one culture that doesnt' behave in this
>way, then what? How is it exactly that we have transcended the
>situation?
For a series of statements to amount to a hasty generalization, the author
must take one or a very few particular instances and generalize from them
concering the whole class of objects. I did not do this in the above
analysis.
1) my point was that I never said sexuality was constructed,
2) I then attempted to provide an example of how I thought sexuality might
be constructed,
3) I then suggested that what was important in this instance is information
about our ancestors which we do not have,
4) as far as I know, there was a time in our history which anthropologists
label the hunter-gatherer period, during which time it is beleived that
women gathered and men hunted,
5) I then posited that from this matrix, genders arose: which does not
appear to be leaping to me but a good inference.
6) I never said this was how all societies developed, for which then your
could have labeled my claims as hasty generalizations,
7) nor do I need to show, as you imply, that every culture must have
developed in this way and that one or even several counter-examples to my
scenario would destroy my whole inference. In order for that to happen, I
would have had to made a determinitic claim that worked backwards: viz,
that every culture which has gendered roles arose from a culture of
hunter-gatherers in which women gathered and men hunted and no other
culture variations would be possible. Biut it is OBVIOUS that I made no
such claim! Not being ignorAtn of differences between cultures, it would
be ridiculous of me to claims such a thing because I realize that there are
many cultural variations amongst people. Indeed, one of my previous
examples was of Native Americans which, presumably take this
hunter-gatherer cultural-form but in which I suggetsed that the women were
seen as strong, from which claim anyone should have been able to conclude
that I am not the determinist which I would have to be to make the claim
you imply that I do.
>
>My point here was that your original statement had no explanatory
>value; rather, it was a classic example of circular
>argumentation--your conclusion is contained in your premises. "Men
>find the penis to be a locus of signification; therefore they use it
>in significant ways" is equivalent to "the team lost the game becuase
>they scored fewer points than the other team."
THe following is the original statment from the person against whom I was
arguing and my reply to which the above statement of COnnor's is a reply:
">-the aggression of so-called anger rapists and power rapists is directed
>against *female sexuality*. The Anger -Rapist's aggression seeks to hurt
>precisely those parts of a woman's body that distinguish her as a woman.
>The Power-Rapist's aggression seeks to control women in particular.
>For both the choice of the vagina or anus as the object of aggression is
>not accidental but essential.
It seems to me that men find the focus of their "power" in their sexual
organ- the penis. It is no surprise, then, that when a male wants to hurt
someone and exercising power over someone he would do it as much through
his sexual organ as possible, and he would attack the sexual organs of
others becuase he sees it as their locus of power."
My point, as you can see, is not some circular argument but rather an
explanation of why men attack vaginas and anuses. The fact that my
conclusion onm the first sentence is contained in my premis does not make
it acircular argument, other wise all syllogistic logic would be circular.
Further, philosophers such as Plato, Descatres, Locke and Leibniz held
that one can attain new knowledge through suyllogisms BECAUSE the
conclusion is contained in the premises. A cricular argument is one which
attempts to establish a questionable conclusion on equally and for the same
reason questionable premises. This is not what I attempted. Again, being
charitable to an author would save some needless confusion and irritation.
>>I'm sorry but there are no undefined terms. I am not interested in
>>the abnormal buyt the normal. The seriel killer is abnormal and
>>should not be the way he/she is. How that person repsonds to killing
>>someone is a product of bad socialization or faulty wiring. In any
>>case, I am open to {snip}
>
>You must be using some strange new use of the word 'normal' that I am
>not accustomed to if rape is seen as normal in your view, since your
>analysis seems to depend quite a lot on using phenomenological
>evidence gleaned from the analysis of rape to discuss the 'normal'
>situation of 'man.'
>
Again, my point was not that rape was normal,nor do I say this anywhere.
Rather my claim is that if we are to understand rape, then we should not
use abnormal cases of rape by which to understand it: for example, the
seriel killer which you mentioned. In terms of people who rape, a seriel
killer is abnormal because most rapists are not seriel killers (otherwise,
no one would be able to reprot rapes).
I must say that you have failed to provide an example of a fallacy on my
part of which you have accused me twice. Your replies, further, have shown
a lack of charitableness toward my statements and a gross misrepresentation
and mis-understanding of my views.
In any case, I have discovered new (to me) information, for which my
original post was a challenge to anyone to provide, on which I will amend
my previous comments on the subject of rape and violence. This to
follow....
Jeff
>when you persist in engaging in basic fallacies left and right! To
>wit--
Is this a defense mechanism on your part to see fallacies where they do not
exist. Further, you persist in reading my comments in the most negative
way possible: what happen to charitable readings? Thus I find it extermely
difficult to discuss points which you continually ignore or do not see that
I make. Cases in point: the following:
>> I never said that sexuality was not constructed, you seem to be either
>> conflating or equivocating. Why must I show that if sex is just sex, than
>> the construction of males as violent has nothing to do with gender. Being
>> male is being gendered!!!! What I take your point to be, however, is that
>> I must show that haveing a penis and bveing socially constructed to be
>> violent are unrelated. That is a non-sequitur! As hunter-gatherers, women
>> were kept in the "house" because they carried children, etc. Men went
>> hunting, thus engaging in violence. From this simple
>> biological-environemntal matrix, genders arose. It probably has a lot to
>> do with hgow we evolved from apes and became meat eaters which probablyt
>> occured beofre homo sapiens appeared on the scence.
>
>Classical example of the hasty generalization. From what set of
>observations are you making this inductive leap? Further, in order
>for your point to work , you have to be able to disprove
>counter-examples. If I find one culture that doesnt' behave in this
>way, then what? How is it exactly that we have transcended the
>situation?
For a series of statements to amount to a hasty generalization, the author
must take one or a very few particular instances and generalize from them
concering the whole class of objects. I did not do this in the above
analysis.
1) my point was that I never said sexuality was constructed,
2) I then attempted to provide an example of how I thought sexuality might
be constructed,
3) I then suggested that what was important in this instance is information
about our ancestors which we do not have,
4) as far as I know, there was a time in our history which anthropologists
label the hunter-gatherer period, during which time it is beleived that
women gathered and men hunted,
5) I then posited that from this matrix, genders arose: which does not
appear to be leaping to me but a good inference.
6) I never said this was how all societies developed, for which then your
could have labeled my claims as hasty generalizations,
7) nor do I need to show, as you imply, that every culture must have
developed in this way and that one or even several counter-examples to my
scenario would destroy my whole inference. In order for that to happen, I
would have had to made a determinitic claim that worked backwards: viz,
that every culture which has gendered roles arose from a culture of
hunter-gatherers in which women gathered and men hunted and no other
culture variations would be possible. Biut it is OBVIOUS that I made no
such claim! Not being ignorAtn of differences between cultures, it would
be ridiculous of me to claims such a thing because I realize that there are
many cultural variations amongst people. Indeed, one of my previous
examples was of Native Americans which, presumably take this
hunter-gatherer cultural-form but in which I suggetsed that the women were
seen as strong, from which claim anyone should have been able to conclude
that I am not the determinist which I would have to be to make the claim
you imply that I do.
>
>My point here was that your original statement had no explanatory
>value; rather, it was a classic example of circular
>argumentation--your conclusion is contained in your premises. "Men
>find the penis to be a locus of signification; therefore they use it
>in significant ways" is equivalent to "the team lost the game becuase
>they scored fewer points than the other team."
THe following is the original statment from the person against whom I was
arguing and my reply to which the above statement of COnnor's is a reply:
">-the aggression of so-called anger rapists and power rapists is directed
>against *female sexuality*. The Anger -Rapist's aggression seeks to hurt
>precisely those parts of a woman's body that distinguish her as a woman.
>The Power-Rapist's aggression seeks to control women in particular.
>For both the choice of the vagina or anus as the object of aggression is
>not accidental but essential.
It seems to me that men find the focus of their "power" in their sexual
organ- the penis. It is no surprise, then, that when a male wants to hurt
someone and exercising power over someone he would do it as much through
his sexual organ as possible, and he would attack the sexual organs of
others becuase he sees it as their locus of power."
My point, as you can see, is not some circular argument but rather an
explanation of why men attack vaginas and anuses. The fact that my
conclusion onm the first sentence is contained in my premis does not make
it acircular argument, other wise all syllogistic logic would be circular.
Further, philosophers such as Plato, Descatres, Locke and Leibniz held
that one can attain new knowledge through suyllogisms BECAUSE the
conclusion is contained in the premises. A cricular argument is one which
attempts to establish a questionable conclusion on equally and for the same
reason questionable premises. This is not what I attempted. Again, being
charitable to an author would save some needless confusion and irritation.
>>I'm sorry but there are no undefined terms. I am not interested in
>>the abnormal buyt the normal. The seriel killer is abnormal and
>>should not be the way he/she is. How that person repsonds to killing
>>someone is a product of bad socialization or faulty wiring. In any
>>case, I am open to {snip}
>
>You must be using some strange new use of the word 'normal' that I am
>not accustomed to if rape is seen as normal in your view, since your
>analysis seems to depend quite a lot on using phenomenological
>evidence gleaned from the analysis of rape to discuss the 'normal'
>situation of 'man.'
>
Again, my point was not that rape was normal,nor do I say this anywhere.
Rather my claim is that if we are to understand rape, then we should not
use abnormal cases of rape by which to understand it: for example, the
seriel killer which you mentioned. In terms of people who rape, a seriel
killer is abnormal because most rapists are not seriel killers (otherwise,
no one would be able to reprot rapes).
I must say that you have failed to provide an example of a fallacy on my
part of which you have accused me twice. Your replies, further, have shown
a lack of charitableness toward my statements and a gross misrepresentation
and mis-understanding of my views.
In any case, I have discovered new (to me) information, for which my
original post was a challenge to anyone to provide, on which I will amend
my previous comments on the subject of rape and violence. This to
follow....
Jeff