I didn't make a claim about what Agustino said in that sense, I pointed out what he was doing-- that the way in which he was acting which do not fit h...
His intention is clear: to divert any discussion of the actions of abusive men into questions about whether a woman was dressing decently. It's sexism...
Whether dressing in certain way causes people to be assaulted or harassed and the legal and moral responsibility in the sense you are talking about, a...
I was referring you. The issue is that the topic of discussion is not how a women might prevent instances of harassment or assault, but rather how the...
The accusations of sexism are right becasue there is still an underlying objectification of women occurring in their accusations of responsibility. As...
Yes, they are. We can see in someone's actions whether they are sexist. One literally cannot hide it. For it to be hidden, we would literally have to ...
How? They're always already out in the open because they are acts taken towards other people. I mean you're right that people might try to hide their ...
Right, and that shaming was not some attempt to hide issues beneath a taboo. It was to have them out in the open: to describe the immorality of sexism...
Yes, it is. You directly attacked SLX, Timeline, baden (and maybe me; I can't remember if I had joined at that point) for daring to shame sexism in th...
I'm talking about the shame you brought up: the various attacks that people in this thread had toxic understandings and behaviours. That's not hiding ...
Well, that's why I said you've not understood what shame is in this context nor what is being shamed. Shame in this thread is exactly the opposite of ...
I’ve gone through about three different arguments with you so far, but I’ll return to the first one because I think it's the one you mean. The argumen...
Sure. No argument from me there. The problem is you then running to conclusions or implications that I'm not saying anything, simply because you haven...
To which I say: so? How does that justify claiming nothing I've written make any sense, given there we whole section about he topic which didn't have ...
That was a typo/autocorrect; it was meant to be "because." I also call bullshit. There's no way I've made so many errors that I'm somehow utterly unin...
Clearly... My point is understanding someone is immoral is shaming; they are said to be wrong, to have negative value, to need to change their actions...
It can only be morally right for you to shame me (in the sense of pointing out I'm wrong and its seriousness); you are describing the moral significan...
Teaching women how to handle unwanted attention from men. As discussed here: "If you want to teach young men to respect young women as persons -- whic...
That's entirely tangential to the point though, as the issue here is not: "How do women handle men who would by them unwanted attention?" but rather t...
The point is understanding an action is immoral is shame. It means one holding someone has a value of failure becasue of the action they have taken. T...
Yeah, that wrong; as said earlier, it's the basic understanding someone has taken and immoral action, the awareness is something ought not be done. If...
That would be a strawman; we are shaming objectification, not sexual desire or sexual attraction. Our point is there is no need for attraction or desi...
That's wrong. Shame is a critical aspect of ethical teaching. We use it all the time to project immoral significance of and communicate how a person h...
By exactly the sort of arguments made in this thread (amongst other things): pointing out the objectification is unacceptable (and that it's not attra...
It means we are shaming them for thinking attraction to women is equivalent to getting what you desire, rather than men being attracted to women. We a...
My point is you have misunderstood the shame. The issue with the arguments of several people in this thread isn't feeling attraction. It's their under...
They ought to be shamed. It is their view of women which is the issue here. In the case, the issue wasn't sexual mores per se (e.g. men ogling women) ...
I don't think that has anything to do with it. The question isn't if one scared to belong to another or couldn't be the slave to a master; I think is ...
For then they are not one: only the one is present, a master who believes the relationship is constituted only in himself, his value and his desire-- ...
I mean to one thinks the heart of another at their control. Like one could make another want them no matter what, without any reference to what the pe...
Depends which sort of erotic conquerer you are talking about. Plenty could care less about the woman wanting them, viewing their exchange purely in te...
People enacted them. That is their origin. For the most part, they are not planned at all, but driven by an instinctual response to the presence or ab...
I'm not sure what to say. In some instances, I think it has been too strict, in others, not strict enough (or at least things were allowed to spiral o...
The actual argument has to do with how people were position by the economic and social systems of control to be adverse to homosexuality-- it breaks t...
I assume you mean in comparison to the "bodily self." Both are real. One the one hand their are logical significances of the self, such as what one me...
Having to with the self, it actually has a lot to do with metaphysics, perhaps more than bodies with respect to how someone is talked about or related...
By recognising the present. We might return to your initial question about going back in time to kill Hitler. If we were to send someone back, kill Hi...
For sure... but this shows the dualist argument to be incoherent. In the dualist arguing that both "substances" are real, he poses them in relation, a...
In a sense you're probably using the world, not much... but it's important to remember this isn't talking about distinctions of "real" and "illusion."...
The lecturer is right about biological sex (at least in terms of the body; it is correct to say biological sex exists as a socially formed understandi...
In a way, but it's more than that. I'm saying Substance means the being or existence of anything that might exist or be in relation. It doesn't just h...
Substance. Spinoza's point is about the logic of having things that interact or in relation in the first place. If I have two states that are connecte...
Fear that scientific understanding will be destroyed is founded in doing science backwards, as if we were describing or understand bodies by finding a...
I don't think so, to me it seems more like you are attacking the ease with which people can view, listen or know about art-- that there is so little w...
Half the people in question don't know what they are talking about. The tree is in front of them and they haven't noticed it. And then some of them th...
Only if you are commit about three equivocation fallacies, such that you equate criticising sexists with attacking women. At least in most cases. Ther...
My point was never that there was a universally understood concept of sexism. Just the opposite, that sexism is a logical expression objectively defin...
Sexism is an objective phenomena. If your are treating women as lesser, that is an objective expression of the world. If you are specifically attackin...
Comments