tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post3641950570474014286..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Massimo’s PicksUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51050602532707897042011-02-12T01:35:59.441-05:002011-02-12T01:35:59.441-05:00James, I hate to tell you (well not really) but th...James, I hate to tell you (well not really) but the reason I appeared to address the audience and not you, was because I was addressing the audience and not you. (But I did suspect that you were listening.)<br />And by the way, the sentencing process IS a part of the adversarial system, as is the appeal process, etc. On my part of the planet anyway.<br /><br />And yes, men differ from women in regard to their species. Still having a problem with that?<br /><br />And yes I really "can take a handful of facts and extrapolate from them a rich character profile."<br />I do it for amusement, and of course to entertain the audience.<br />Audiences thrive on the inferential by the way - its what they EXPECT. <br /><br />Example:<br />"I was happy to let him lead the argument in that direction, but now that it's led nowhere, he'll hopefully be inspired to investigate into his somewhat outdated view of social dynamics."<br /><br />I'm fascinated by the exercise of this fun type of fallacy. Oops, bad faith? My bad?Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72565130132980455242011-02-11T19:49:40.400-05:002011-02-11T19:49:40.400-05:00- insert romantic montage-ready soundtrack -
“Oh ...- insert romantic montage-ready soundtrack -<br /><br />“Oh and as to the level of his understanding that James takes pride in, here's an example that's a classic: [insert statement by James]” - Baron P.<br /><br />Fallacy: the belief that by merely repeating a statement you have mounted a rebuttal or added information in some way.<br /><br />“James, your alleged Rawlsian intuition [...]” - Baron P<br /><br />Fallacy: the belief that referring conspiratorially to an attribution somehow amounts to an argument against the validity of that attribution.<br /><br />“OK, I didn't have a lot of time for this, but what he hell, it's James I'm dealing with. If it only serves to irritate him then it can't be all bad. “<br /><br />Fallacy: the belief that acting in bad faith is somehow ethical or admirable.<br /><br />“You can't see that all your argumentation is [...]” and “come on, can't you see that you've set up a series of [...].”<br /><br />Fallacy: the belief that the mere allegation of an argument's falsity amounts to an argument or proof of falsity.<br /><br />“[...] men have evolved to take more risks, but for the benefit of their survival as a species.” - Baron P<br /><br />Fallacy: that men differ from women in regard to species.<br /><br />“Your argumentative style is to debate, and with you it seems to be a lying contest. You come up with some fictional proposition that you pretend to know is true, and if another shoots you down, you come up with a different back story. “ - Baron P<br /><br />Fallacy: posting to the internet while drunk is wise.<br /><br />“Yours [purpose] seems to be to pass on what you think you've learned from a few semesters at whatever school you're now attending ... your purpose is to prove to yourself you've learned it. “<br /><br />Fallacy: the belief that one can take a handful of facts and extrapolate from them a rich character profile.<br /><br />Seriously man, you need to get a grip. The real list is much longer than this. I don't mind because I dissect arguments for fun - the way other people do crosswords. You're just entertainment for me at this point. If you want to keep going, I'm happy to do so, but if you want to continue without being an embarrassment to yourself, you're going to have to mount a more focused campaign. Try picking a very focused point, and making a thorough argument in its favour rather than the shotgun approach. <br /><br />Be disciplined. Focus. Don't let your emotions string you along. You can do it.Just Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11306519568976890754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68088521089215396022011-02-11T19:46:44.094-05:002011-02-11T19:46:44.094-05:00Thanks Kostos. If I wasn't the one being abuse...Thanks Kostos. If I wasn't the one being abused, I would have lost interest long ago. You're a more patient person than I.<br /><br />O.k., so, instead of my usual style of addressing every (attempt at) an argument, I'll just tackle one.(Notice the ridiculous rhetorical flourish I'm employing here, the one where I talk as if I'm not addressing Baron, but am addressing some larger and grander audience... so lame. Sorry B.)<br /><br />"James writes: 'My complaint was that victim impact statements were OUTSIDE the adversarial system. How exactly does that amount to a criticism OF the adversarial system?' I don't see where James said they were outside it, or consequently made that a criticism. He simply/simplistically made a rather stupid comment about the sneakiness of the prosecution, and in fact the whole post was hopelessly simplistic.” - Baron P.<br /><br />Well, let's look back at what I've said, shall we Baron? Since we're such good friends now, and such honest interlocutors.<br /><br />“The second is where victim impact statements are presented to a judge before the judge passes sentence. This is often used as a sneaky way of introducing evidence. Victim impact statements are filled with information that, had it been available before conviction, could have led to a different judgement. I don't mind the idea of victim impact statements as long as they are entered into evidence before conviction, and are subject to cross-examination and all the other rules of evidence. “ - James<br /><br />What to make of all these complicated words? Let's draw our attention to “I don't mind the idea of victim impact statements as long as they are entered into evidence before conviction”. That sounds a lot like James (talking about myself in the 3rd person is perversely amusing btw) is advocating that victim impact statements be treated like evidence, and drawn into the adversarial portion of the legal system rather than tacked onto the end of the trial process, where the adversarial process (and cross-examination) is no longer in effect. Doesn't it seem to say that? I really think it does. So, how does “I [Baron P.] don't see where James said they [victim impact statements] were outside it [the adversarial system], or consequently made that a criticism” attest to anything other than your poor comprehension skills? <br /><br />Wow, how many fallacies have I collected in you honour Baqron P? It's become quite a list. But let's, just for fun, take a quick tour of the car accident that has been Baron P ...Just Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11306519568976890754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-16956742672088810292011-02-11T14:31:14.375-05:002011-02-11T14:31:14.375-05:00Oh and as to the level of his understanding that J...Oh and as to the level of his understanding that James takes pride in, here's an example that's a classic:<br /><br />"You should also look up the word “expectation”. People do not bring expectations on themselves, and men are EXPECTED to provide."Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42897547038189929252011-02-11T14:04:18.873-05:002011-02-11T14:04:18.873-05:00But wait, could not the victim just as well presen...But wait, could not the victim just as well present her feelings to court during trial?<br />Not, unfortunately, if by the rules of evidence they rank as opinions that are deemed prejudicial. In other words there are things the judge can supposedly consider objectively that the jury can't. And thus not trickery to have him hear them. And if in some odd sense these opinions would have been otherwise exculpatory, the defense can request at the very least a mistrial. <br />So our 'sneaky' scenario seems to fail on all counts. Unless of course the prosecutor's shifty motive would be to have the victim lie to the judge, which for some odd reason wouldn't have been possible to the jury. The judge presumably unable to suspect or spot a lie as well as the jury. The prosecutor as an officer of the court presumed willing to risk presenting what he/she had to know to be a lie beforehand.<br /><br />Not bloody likely.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-91062573511034012032011-02-11T14:03:14.008-05:002011-02-11T14:03:14.008-05:00OK, I didn't have a lot of time for this, but ...OK, I didn't have a lot of time for this, but what he hell, it's James I'm dealing with. If it only serves to irritate him then it can't be all bad.<br /><br />James writes: "My complaint was that victim impact statements were OUTSIDE the adversarial system. How exactly does that amount to a criticism OF the adversarial system?"<br /><br />I don't see where James said they were outside it, or consequently made that a criticism. He simply/simplistically made a rather stupid comment about the sneakiness of the prosecution, and in fact the whole post was hopelessly simplistic.<br />And if there was no criticism to be had about the adversarial system, it could be that he's sublimely unaware of its inadequacies. Rawls hasn't sent him any thoughts to that effect apparently.<br /><br /><br />James, your alleged Rawlsian intuition hasn't thought the problem through - the Rawlsian intellect's gone missing, He was for example rather good at the process of elimination, and so far you haven't been. <br /><br />As I wrote earlier, to be consistent with your "sneaky" scenario, the victim would have to have withheld exculpatory information rather than the substantive, and expect somehow to use it against the defendant in the sentencing process.<br /><br />And what else but the exculpatory would be in the victims interest to withhold in the business of obtaining a conviction, since the punishment desired for retaliatory or other purposes must rest first on getting that conviction? But since the offense convicted of may, despite all efforts, be of less severity than the actual circumstances warrant, the victim's incentive at the sentencing stage would surely be to get in evidence earlier disallowed in the interests of the defense, and thus against the interests of the victim. <br />So anything the prosecution would "sneak" in later would be something they would have wanted entered earlier that was, in the victims view, unfairly hidden by the rules - such as is most hearsay evidence, or speculation, or sound but uncorroborated assumptions, etc.<br /><br />So then how would this be the prelude to sneaky if it's all about an open process?<br />And if the rules had not allowed the victim to present some testimony earlier to the jury, how is it 'sneaky' to present same later to the judge under the presumption that he'll not only allow it but find it useful? And you perhaps are unaware that the defense will seize on any chance to appeal on the basis that evidence that bore substantive examination has somehow been sneaked past them.<br /><br />All this leaving the victim with the items to be avoided during trial as stuff to be seized on by the defense as exculpable. But you don't 'cross examine' the exculpable until it's otherwise attainable voluntarily. "Is there anything else you want or need to tell me," doesn't usually work if the prosecution doesn't want it to. And if it does, then there goes the conviction that the victim needed first. <br />So in short, the victim has no motive to withhold evidence that by so doing would jeopardize the conviction, and no motive to put forward anything that would do so as well.<br />So what's in theory left that could be presented to the judge at sentencing that had not been subject earlier to cross examination? Why, the exculpatory! But how to twist that to advantage would seem to be the problem, unless James can explain it.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-92093255801040294112011-02-11T13:13:02.723-05:002011-02-11T13:13:02.723-05:00James, you do, as Massimo said, live on a differen...James, you do, as Massimo said, live on a different planet. As to the basic structure of argumentation, you've left out that the structure will be dependent on its purpose. My purpose, misguided though it may be, is/was to pass on what I think I've learned from experience. Yours seems to be to pass on what you think you've learned from a few semesters at whatever school you're now attending. Stuff nobody but you has learned that well before? Except apparently your purpose is to prove to yourself you've learned it. <br />Your argumentative style is to debate, and with you it seems to be a lying contest. You come up with some fictional proposition that you pretend to know is true, and if another shoots you down, you come up with a different back story.<br />You can't see that all your argumentation is almost hopelessly simplistic, a tower of rationalistic babble in which you take great joy in the construction. <br />So as to your gender fantasy, I've said all I have to say, and rather than revisit the substance of our arguments, you want us both to somehow do a rewrite of yours. And I'm expected to cooperate because its all my fault that you've been misunderstood.<br />There's a reason why I'm the only one left here to deal with you - no-one else wants to. Nor do I any longer. <br />Except I really should address your abject ignorance as to the real life workings of the adversarial system. Not that I expect you'll benefit, because you've only seen that system work in your fantasy world - while I and others have actually experienced and learned from it.<br />So stay tuned for some music from the real world.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89875789706086915602011-02-11T11:15:43.176-05:002011-02-11T11:15:43.176-05:00Hey i am reading it too!Hey i am reading it too!Kostashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02273878568006862059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50056297987256437802011-02-11T09:53:09.989-05:002011-02-11T09:53:09.989-05:00Oh yea, I forgot this too.
"And no, I'm...Oh yea, I forgot this too. <br /><br />"And no, I'm not going to go back and show him where he's asked what I think he's asked, or said what I think he's said, because if he thinks he didn't ask or say those things, and he's content with that, then he's successfully avoided any further argument. Moot." - Baron P.<br /><br />It's hilarious that you refuse to reiterate what you think my argument is only two short paragraphs after you reiterate what you think my argument is. How do you expect to understand what other people are writing when you can't get straight about what you've written?<br /><br />I'm also not trying to trick you. Here, I'll do you a favour and lay out the basic structure of argumentation.<br /><br />Person A: makes claims.<br />Person B: reiterates those claims to show that he's understood them.<br />Person B: critiques claims.<br />Person A: reiterates person B's critique to show that he's understood them.<br />Person A: critiques critique.<br />repeat...<br /><br />Also, the rhetorical pretense of addressing a crowd of comrades rather than addressing the person you're actually speaking addressing is, well, cowardly and bullying. But considering you and I are the only ones still reading this thread, it's more sad than anything.Just Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11306519568976890754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37020441760979153192011-02-11T09:26:04.932-05:002011-02-11T09:26:04.932-05:00Baron P,
“It seems that James' argument, stra...Baron P,<br /><br />“It seems that James' argument, straight from Rawls, boils down to this ...” - Baron P,<br /><br />I'm referring to Rawl's theory of social justice which says, grossly oversimplified, that disparity at the top is acceptable as long as all changes that redistribute benefits and burdens preferentially benefit the worst off in society. This is the framework of justice that underlies my entire argument. It's why the absence of women in prestigious tenured positions is far less important than the over-representation of males in prisons (and the long list other factors I mentioned). Remember, prison was Massimo's choice, not mine. I've been arguing to his advantage, not mine. So, you're wrong about the role Rawls plays in my argument. Now you know.<br /><br />“... that it's men's burden to provide, but it's not to their benefit, and therefore unjust and therefor men are discriminated against, but it has nothing to do (or not directly) with the rights or burdens of women.” - Baron P<br /><br />I didn't say it wasn't to a man's benefit to provide. I said that it wasn't a woman's burden. I also didn't say that it had nothing to do with women's burdens; however, while women are not suffering in prisons, soup kitchens, unemployment lines and so on, to the same degree that men are (not even close), clearly this arrangement is more of a burden for men than women's burden's are to them.<br /><br />“And if it's not the fault of nature somehow gone awry (because nature doesn't grant or take responsibilities) then men have brought this on themselves.” - Baron P<br /><br />I've said nothing of the sort. Remember... I'm agnostic about nature versus nurture. You should also look up the word “expectation”. People do not bring expectations on themselves, and men are EXPECTED to provide.<br /><br />'Feminists, who allegedly (via Wiki) "took Rawls to task for failing to account for injustices found in patriarchal social relations and the gendered division of labor, especially in the household," were simply wrong, and haven't met their burden of proving otherwise.' - Baron P<br /><br />Which arguments are you referring to? The feminist arguments that I know of, yes, were wrong. Mostly because they were confused about the limits of measuring burdens and benefits. They believed that household duties could not be measured because no currency is involved in the transactions, but that's just nonsense. We weigh things without financial transactions all the time. Of course, maybe you're referring to another argument. I can't really know as you've not really said anything.<br /><br />“He's gone on now to tell us how the adversarial rules of evidence in our justice system could be used more to the victim's advantage (cue the big guffaw), so I guess we're done here. And no, I'm not going to go back and show him where he's asked what I think he's asked, or said what I think he's said, because if he thinks he didn't ask or say those things, and he's content with that, then he's successfully avoided any further argument. Moot. “ - Baron P<br /><br />My complaint was that victim impact statements were OUTSIDE the adversarial system. How exactly does that amount to a criticism OF the adversarial system? Face it, you have no idea what you're talking about and couldn't mount a coherent argument if your life depended on it. Adopting an arrogant attitude does not compensate for an absence of understanding. <br /><br />Any more questions?<br /><br />P.S. the comment after the one I'm responding to here is a serious accomplishment. You've almost managed to misunderstand everything that possibly could be. *commence sarcastic applause*Just Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11306519568976890754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-22650393394666358472011-02-10T17:50:47.730-05:002011-02-10T17:50:47.730-05:00Straight out of Rawls again? But I don't thin...Straight out of Rawls again? But I don't think he said anything about cross examination in that context. Perhaps because the victim often tends to be the main witness for the prosecution, already subject in that case to cross examination. <br /><br />And as to the "sneaky" scenario presented, if during the trial process the victim would have reason to withhold exculpatory information so that somehow that same information would be detrimental to the defendant in the sentencing process , the cross examination opportunities will be wasted from the getgo. <br /><br />If one has any experience at all in the courtroom they would know that the 'sneakiness' would more involve the defense's efforts to suppress evidence of guilt, than the prosecution's misguided efforts to use it to better effect in the retributory portion of the trial.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67219342394951925682011-02-10T12:46:57.362-05:002011-02-10T12:46:57.362-05:00It seems that James' argument, straight from R...It seems that James' argument, straight from Rawls, boils down to this, that it's men's burden to provide, but it's not to their benefit, and therefore unjust and therefor men are discriminated against, but it has nothing to do (or not directly) with the rights or burdens of women. And if it's not the fault of nature somehow gone awry (because nature doesn't grant or take responsibilities) then men have brought this on themselves.<br /><br />Feminists, who allegedly (via Wiki) "took Rawls to task for failing to account for injustices found in patriarchal social relations and the gendered division of labor, especially in the household," were simply wrong, and haven't met their burden of proving otherwise.<br /><br />He's gone on now to tell us how the adversarial rules of evidence in our justice system could be used more to the victim's advantage (cue the big guffaw), so I guess we're done here. <br />And no, I'm not going to go back and show him where he's asked what I think he's asked, or said what I think he's said, because if he thinks he didn't ask or say those things, and he's content with that, then he's successfully avoided any further argument. Moot.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30068358040064802652011-02-10T00:00:01.292-05:002011-02-10T00:00:01.292-05:00@ianpollock re: victim impact statements/sentencin...@ianpollock re: victim impact statements/sentencing<br /><br />Yay, a change of subject!<br /><br />I have two worries. <br /><br />The first is that criminal justice isn't for the victim's benefit, but for all our benefits. The victim has no more right to specify sentencing than I do or you do.<br /><br />The second is where victim impact statements are presented to a judge before the judge passes sentence. This is often used as a sneaky way of introducing evidence. Victim impact statements are filled with information that, had it been available before conviction, could have led to a different judgement. I don't mind the idea of victim impact statements as long as they are entered into evidence before conviction, and are subject to cross-examination and all the other rules of evidence.Just Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11306519568976890754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-55056325330895777292011-02-09T23:46:01.810-05:002011-02-09T23:46:01.810-05:00'And spare us the "standard nomenclature&...'And spare us the "standard nomenclature" excuse for what otherwise could well be your error.' - Baron P<br /><br />Oh boy. So, let me get this straight. I would have made an error had the words I used meant what you thought they meant rather than what I have said I intended them to mean? Can it really be my error while the meanings of the words are yours? <br /><br />"And if what you're espousing is political philosophy, it's some version that would even make Locke wince." - Baron P<br /><br /><i>Even</i> Locke! Read Rawls' "A Theory of Justice". What I have been espousing, in terms of social justice, is more or less lifted straight off those pages. Welcome to the 20th century. Winces and all. <br /><br />"And if as you say you don't know the answers to the questions you have arbitrarily posed ..." - Baron P<br /><br />What questions do you think I've posed? <br /><br />"... how did you come up with the presumptions that those were even relevant to the subject of male risk taking versus females - who take one hell of risk in having children in what may be an evolutionary trade off - or does that raise a somehow irrelevant question as well?" - Baron P<br /><br />What "presumptions"? What does "those" mean? How do the risks of childbirth refute anything I've said? Is there an argument anywhere? I don't see one. You might want to start with what you think I've said, and move forward from there.Just Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11306519568976890754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81720392666108621152011-02-09T20:28:07.205-05:002011-02-09T20:28:07.205-05:00Come on, can't you see that you've set up ...Come on, can't you see that you've set up a series of dichotomies that pass for the only questions to be dealt with here, and on some arbitrary basis that to the rest of us is not at all persuasive? And spare us the "standard nomenclature" excuse for what otherwise could well be your error. (And if what you're espousing is political philosophy, it's some version that would even make Locke wince.)<br />Representative example: Why men are "still taking the brunt of the risk" involves more questions that the "either-or" set that you've confidently come up with.<br />"Is it because of how men are, or because of how they are taught to be? Or so goes the question."<br />No, that's only how the question goes to those whose curiosity will be limited to the expected answers. <br />Did the forerunners of our males evolve because the risks came first in nature, and strategies were formed to deal with them, and replicative gender centric strategies in some cases, while in others not? That's just the beginning of many that would follow from that one alone.<br />And as to "taught," is it how men have only recently been taught to be (and if so, by who and what), or how some earlier teachings in that respect would seem to have become instinctive, or the other possibility that your thinking seems to fit with - that things just happen? <br />And if as you say you don't know the answers to the questions you have arbitrarily posed, how did you come up with the presumptions that those were even relevant to the subject of male risk taking versus females - who take one hell of risk in having children in what may be an evolutionary trade off - or does that raise a somehow irrelevant question as well? Such as did women learn to bear children, and of so, because they had a choice and took it, or didn't have? Or is the whole idea of learning to be male as opposed to female just that little bit ridiculous?Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29950745125824633432011-02-09T19:06:17.855-05:002011-02-09T19:06:17.855-05:00Now that the battle of the sexes appears to be win...Now that the battle of the sexes appears to be winding down (and I shall be reading Fine's book when I have a chance, I think), what did people think of the victim-input-in-sentencing article?<br /><br />Seems like a largely bad idea to me. For one thing, I like a legal system that sees me as a number, not a person. For another, it would probably only increase the already way too huge role of moral luck in punishment.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61355666574719760102011-02-09T18:47:24.613-05:002011-02-09T18:47:24.613-05:00Baron P,
By agnostic I mean, I do not have that k...Baron P,<br /><br />By agnostic I mean, I do not have that knowledge. That's what the word means. <br /><br />That men are expected to provide is an empirical fact (to the degree that any social fact, is a fact). Is is the role assigned to them socially, particularly if they are poor. I'm not "getting away" with anything by pointing to it.<br /><br />"If it's men's burden to provide, then by your own argument it must be to their benefit." - Baron P<br /><br />Just to straighten out some misunderstandings in language. "Burdens" and "benefits" are standard nomenclature is political philosophy. They refer to how we weigh social justice. The basic idea is: if I have fewer burdens than you, or more benefits than you, we would point to that discrepancy as an unjust distribution. Think of it as an economy of social relations, or of the social justice versions of debits and credits.<br /><br />At no point in my argument do I say anything remotely to that effect that every burden is met with a reciprocal benefit, nor is it entailed by my argument; however, I did say that human societies benefited by men taking the brunt of the risk - in that the society survived. Women also benefited, but without the burden.<br /><br />Where nature versus nurture becomes important is as an explanation for why men are still taking the brunt of the risk. Is it because of how men are, or because of how they are taught to be? Or so goes the question. I simply do not know the answer to that question (hence my agnosticism).Just Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11306519568976890754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84612334860366153282011-02-09T17:40:54.616-05:002011-02-09T17:40:54.616-05:00James, if by agnostic, you mean that "nothing...James, if by agnostic, you mean that "nothing is known or can be known" about what you see here as the "question of nature versus nurture," then the problem we got is not just in Houston.<br />You can't make some simplistic statement like "men are expected to provide," and get away with it by an agnosticism as to why such expectations exist. <br />If it's men's burden to provide, then by your own argument it must be to their benefit. And is that then some automatic/axiomatic rule of justice in the universe that exists regardless of the nature of our nurture, or vice versa? Regardless of how the providential herring came equipped with redness?Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68861593789579994582011-02-09T13:40:21.719-05:002011-02-09T13:40:21.719-05:00"You could have also mentioned the fact that ..."You could have also mentioned the fact that men are faster and stronger than women. Just saying." - Ritchie the Bear<br /><br />I'm afraid you've gotten the cart in front of the horse - creatures tend to get relatively large and fast when they bear the brunt of the dangerous work. Regardless, small men have never been exempt from warfare, and the physical size and speed of individuals is far less important than the number of individuals. After all, if it was only about strength and speed, the most successful peoples would have been the ones where men and women both fought, the more the merrier. It just hasn't worked out that way.<br /><br />Don't sweat it though, the myth of male might gives a lot of people problems. As a rule, it's generally nonsense: two average people have a considerable advantage over one average person, no matter what sex they are (except in the movies of course).<br /><br />Baron P,<br /><br />I was explicitly agnostic on the question of nature versus nurture. Massimo's fixation on discrimination is a red herring anyway, so don't get too carried away by it. Social justice is a matter of burdens vs. benefits, not discriminations vs. irrelevancies. I was happy to let him lead the argument in that direction, but now that it's led nowhere, he'll hopefully be inspired to investigate into his somewhat outdated view of social dynamics.Just Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11306519568976890754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54544502841602997732011-02-08T21:55:04.229-05:002011-02-08T21:55:04.229-05:00What I should have also said was it seems James is...What I should have also said was it seems James is now arguing that it could be nature that's discriminatory. But that gives nature some credit for abusing its own sense of order - and while I think it has one, I doubt that it's a gender centric one.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-25758795817130774572011-02-08T21:42:30.070-05:002011-02-08T21:42:30.070-05:00James,
It seems now you're arguing or concludi...James,<br />It seems now you're arguing or concluding that nature is discriminatory when the question addressed earlier was whether modern cultural practices are discriminatory. My guess is that we'd need to know which is which before deciding what if anything to do about it.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68398598337485126052011-02-08T21:04:04.560-05:002011-02-08T21:04:04.560-05:00"Also, men are not less risk adverse because ..."Also, men are not less risk adverse because of war. Fighting wars fell to men because men were already predisposed to risk. Men were relatively predisposed to risk because human societies which risked women did not survive. Societies which risked women did not survive because population growth is limited by the number of females, not by the number of males, making recovery after crisis and population gain difficult. This is the source of the initial division of labour that we are currently disentangling. Of course, whether this is a nature or nurture characteristic is up in the air. That men are less risk adverse is a fact. The question is only whether it's because of how men are taught to be men, or because of a biological propensity, or because of some combination. Whichever is the case will determine how we proceed with regard to men."<br /><br />You could have also mentioned the fact that men are faster and stronger than women.<br /><br />Just saying.Ritchie the Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10249784344018510589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1217109930036565062011-02-08T20:25:18.090-05:002011-02-08T20:25:18.090-05:00Oh boy, my comments keep getting eaten. I think it...Oh boy, my comments keep getting eaten. I think it's because I'm closing the browser too early. <br /><br />Ok, Massimo and Baron P,<br /><br />I'm not sure why you're both looking for a direct line of discrimination from women to men. Men are just as capable of discriminating against men as women are capable of discriminating against women. <br /><br />Men are expected to provide. Some people are poor. Poor people commit crimes mostly because they are poor and need a way to provide. It follows that mostly men will commit crimes. Mostly men go to jail. Therefore, male misfortune is a direct result of discriminatory gender roles. It's actually much more complex than this, including more explicit forms of discrimination from enforcement to legislation, but this is a nice causal chain.<br /><br />Also, men are not less risk adverse because of war. Fighting wars fell to men because men were already predisposed to risk. Men were relatively predisposed to risk because human societies which risked women did not survive. Societies which risked women did not survive because population growth is limited by the number of females, not by the number of males, making recovery after crisis and population gain difficult. This is the source of the initial division of labour that we are currently disentangling. Of course, whether this is a nature or nurture characteristic is up in the air. That men are less risk adverse is a fact. The question is only whether it's because of how men are taught to be men, or because of a biological propensity, or because of some combination. Whichever is the case will determine how we proceed with regard to men.<br /><br />Back to Symbolic Logic, again!Just Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11306519568976890754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-174483921518203552011-02-08T19:40:41.749-05:002011-02-08T19:40:41.749-05:00cvc, you just don't get it, do you? It ain'...cvc, you just don't get it, do you? It ain't got nothing to do with people's feelings. It has to do with discrimination in education and job opportunities. If people by into the idea that women are genetically/biologically/whatever less good than men at certain jobs, then their teachers discourage them to go into those professions, and employers are less likely to hire them. And yes, there are plenty of data showing that this isn't an hypothetical. Again, see the references cited by Fine. Oh, right, *she* is biased...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26060966429358564402011-02-08T19:09:16.171-05:002011-02-08T19:09:16.171-05:00I fail to see how Summers remarks have "serio...I fail to see how Summers remarks have "serious consequences" for anyone. That we should avoid discussing what the majority of researchers in a field think is true, because doing so might hurt some people's feelings, is ludicrous.C. Van Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09918883799053031223noreply@blogger.com