It isn’t merely a few who do it now and then. It has been going on since the dawn of Man by a very large portion of the societies in just about every society. The intelectuals merely do it in an intellectual way while others are doing the exact same thing, but in a less intellectual way. And that turns out to be the majority of people, mothers, father, children, scientists, priests, politicians, carpenters … everyone is trying to alter the world to fit their preferences in at least some small, very often stupid way.
If this was 100 years ago, I would probably go along with that. But the truth is that social manipulation has gotten to the extreme point wherein people are already acting in very insidious ways to reform nature even to the point of dispensing with gender entirely (by several ways). It isn’t like I am inspiring a new social movement here.
And then since such things are going on anyway, why not get the question out in the open and resolve the question of actual need rather than ignore it and leave it up to the most insidious thinkers on the planet.
But all that is going to happen is that “homo-sapian” is going to be gradually redefined until it has actually been extinct for a very long time before anyone notices; “mutants”, cyborgs, Rev2, “new and improved”,…
At the very least, there are different health and safety concerns that correspond to the physiological differences between genders. So, from, say, a medical perspective, gender differences are important. There are also gender differences in crime rates and social risks that are important to recognize.
Because the question doesn’t have an answer. What’s the purpose of the difference between men and women? What’s the purpose of ANYTHING other than in how it relates to some agenda? What’s the purpose in having people at all? If you define things according to their purpose, then you are granting the insidious thinkers the lion’s share of their argument already- that things persist or can be done away with based on how they fit into their designs. That’s what should be criticized.
Right, case in point. So what’s the purpose of anything then? Purpose as you seem to be using it is a teleological question- the only possible answer to a question of purpose is “Because God wants it that way” or “Because Marx needs it that way to accomplish X” or “because the citizens of Iceland want it that way” or something similar. Answering such a question with an answer based on material conditions is a category error. If you’d asked the purpose of gender differences in the natural sciences forum, the answer would have something to do with reproduction and that would be the right answer- because in that context the question isn’t teleological, and thus the fact that it might not be needed later is irrelevant to the question of what it’s purpose is today.
But this is still in the making. The process has not ended yet. And as long as it has not ended yet, we should do what we use to do. And don’t underestimate the coincidence!
If there were no differences we would get bored and create differences.
We would have no right hands.
Humanity would destroy the world.
Love would die.
You seem to have a very defeatist attitude toward clear definitions; “If I clearly define my words and concepts, I will lose my argument!”
So there is no purpose to life with which to answer to a “Should”. There is no “good”.
So your answer is “No”. (I guess I should have made this into a poll).
I tend to think that there are universal advantages in some things and thus there are “universal shoulds” to be considered, objective good. Granted they are abstract, not easily identified, easily debatable by shallow thinkers, but they are none the less objective.
Well again, you are addressing what IS. I am asking of what “SHOULD be”, as if you could change what is into a “better design” (because people are already doing that. We might as well see if there is any good to it).
But you still are not telling me WHY? And you are implying that as long as there are differences in male and female, humans will be able to beat up the androids … ???
Geeezz … I should have guessed beforehand. As usual, I get the most direct answers from the women (whether right or wrong).
Your (1) could be handled easy enough through the same entertainment ploys used today for everything else. I have no idea what you meant by (2). And (3) seems to be happening anyway, so what does it have to do with ensuring that male and female are distinct? And then (4) is certainly true between men and women (already being proven throughout the West) but the intent has been to cause love of government, that extreme and total dedication to the higher father formerly known in the priesthood in all religions. When people have nothing more obvious to love in their lives, they will reach out to esoteric, vague concepts such as "the Governance of the World (Global Unity), Gia, the Hive Queen, or whatever. That has also already been proven and is very largely the designed intent of gender neutralization and dissatisfaction.
So I get the general impression that your answer is “Yes, else humanity will screw things up even worse.” But I’m not getting any reasoning as to exactly WHY such would occur other than “boredom”. Couldn’t we just get rid of boredom instead?
Didnt say that at all, I said purpose is relative to an agenda. Some agendas are better than others, I would have thought that would be obvous by putting 'God' and "Marx' on my list of examples. I realize that you're still mad about me showing you up in Mundane Babble, but there's no reason to jump to conclusions here. :wink:
[/quote]
I have no problem with any of that, I agree with it. The point I’m trying to make is that if you make the justification of something about it’s purpose, then you make it’s justification contingent on convincing people of your agenda. So, if I say “Well, gender roles are important because obviously God created a natural order that they should be that way and they are a foundation of every human relationship and allow us to build a foundation of family and love independant of the State,” then I’ve tied gender differences to people accepting an entire world view that then has to be defended. Implicitly, then, if they reject all that, they are free to reject gender differences - I’ve taught them so, that differences between people only matter insofar as an agenda is endorsed. What I think is the more important point is that people fuck off and let others live their lives, and that screwing with gender differences because they don’t fit into some grand design (that is, somebody else’s agenda), is problematic.
So that’s why I reject the premise- whether or not you think gender roles have a purpose says nothing about if they should be allowed to persist.
I did not want to go into details. There are many aspects which refer to the human reproduction: biological differentiation (for example: pregnancy), other differentiations, for example in the sense of specialisation or division of labor (for example: homework versus other works, gathering versus hunting, … and so on …), … and so on …
The only thing that you showed was that getting you pathetically irate and mindless is a trivial effort and that you cannot conceive of some pretty trivial concepts … and I suspect those are related.
Well, emmm… yeah … (duhh)…
Huh???
What have you been smoking?
Empathizing with Ecmandu too much already??
So you have become paranoid and jaded. That answers the question of what you have been smoking… or perhaps “touched” with.
Have you ever tried that argument with me? NO!!
… but lets not get technical, huh.
The evolution of the human beings implies the differentiations / specialisations. If there had not been such a specialisation, there would never have been any human being.
When these human differentiations / specialisations will vanish, then the human beings will vanish. That’s clear.
So, I thought that I did not have to explain to you ( ) what “to pevent the extinction of homo sapiens” means, because it implies these differentiations / specialisations.
Again: Males and females should be different in order to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens. Without their differentiations / specialisations they would never have become humans and will never survive.
Imagine a world where every one is damn near identical, where you know your neighbors without knowing them. Oh sure you might not know their hobbies, jobs or preference but, over all they are like you… so we would begin breeding differences.
We are left and right, our differences mentally and physically compliment each other in general and as friends and mates.
To be same, ever the same, constantly the same would cause species suicide. There would be an end to adaptability. And so we would kill and die… suicide.
We love our challenges and changes. We don’t love repetition. Love dies.
What if everyone loved to be the same and accepted and appreciated it?
I don’t think strictly that total sameness = suicide.
It’s like solitude. Some people, well, many people would loose their marbles if they were in solitary confinement. But some people would enjoy it.
Wanting to die instead of wanting to live as a multitude, that’s just weakness and nihilism.
Things like ants survive as a species even though there’s nothing unique about them.
I know the people tend to talk bad about borg and ants and any collective, but that’s just culture talking. Nature says different. Nature says if it works, do it.
If we were hive or collective you are right but we are not.
To become so would take thousands of years of forced living as so or massive intricate genetic manipulation. Why change our core? Why not just teach love, acceptance and mostly patience…that would be more feasible.
Do you teach love, acceptance and mostly patience ?
When our immune system kills a tumor, it’s not done out of love or out of hate.
Taking hold of human evolution should have been done long ago and done right.
But that is a matter of true history.
Morality disconnected from reality.
We will have tumor’s rights groups.
Someday we’ll even vote a tumor in as president over all the healthy normal cells.
) what “to pevent the extinction of homo sapiens” means, because it implies these differentiations / specialisations.