robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You may have misread me. Gender is a biological fact, and I was asking how do all these “woke” (?) people explain that, according to them, humans, who are animals, have 27+ (?) genders,
Hi Thomas,
I think you might have the terms the wrong way round but I am no expert on this subject. Still, according to WHO:
“Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.
Gender is hierarchical and produces inequalities that intersect with other social and economic inequalities. Gender-based discrimination intersects with other factors of discrimination, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, age, geographic location, gender identity and sexual orientation, among others. This is referred to as intersectionality.
Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs. Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.”
(https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1)One final comment – I became aware of the controversy surrounding Jordan’s Twitter post because someone on the Ultras v Tankies FB group tagged me to get me to explain how or where Jordan acquired what he called these transphobic views. I have challenged this group to explain in what way Jordan was being transphobic and have yet to receive a coherent response. It seems many people in this FB group don’t understand the meaning of the term phobic. That didn’t stop them expelling Jordan from the group in a typical display of woke intolerance.
No wonder the Left is in such disarray
We wouldn’t qualify (not enough followers, at least not yet) and wouldn’t accept the condition to carry advertising as well ( would we?).
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72851?hl=en
I think the American comrades were discussing the possibility of advertising on FB so it might be possible…
Pass the bucket. I am starting to feel quite queasy at the very thought of it.
How anyone with the slightest sympathy for the socialist cause could identify or associate with this disreputable thoroughly opportunist organisation, god only knows. Its so patently obvious Labour is just the alternative team (to the Tories) for running capitalism. The grey suits on both teams are to all intents and purposes, indistinguishable
Dunno if there is anything in this but someone on one of the FB groups I am on suggested China might have been a player in the background as far as the coup was concerned. Anyone heard anything about this or is it just more fake news?
My main criticism of religion is that it has held back all of humility in the spheres of science
James
Hmmmm I think it is not quite so cut and dried as you suggest (BTW I assume you meant to type “held back all of humanity in the sphere of science”)
Natural theology or the religious study of nature prior to the emergence of modern science as we know it, though inspired by the desire to discover god’s purpose in creation, actually laid the basis for modern science by seeking out causal connections operating in the natural world. I am thinking of people like the 18th century parson-naturalist, Gilbert White, who was a pioneer in the field of ecology and many other such “gentleman scientists” as they were called
Or take the part of the world where I live – Spain. Under Moorish rule what was called the Golden Age of Islam, science flourished and Jews, Christians and Muslims all collaborated to produce some wonderful architectural structures, as in the city of Cordoba, in a social climate of relative tolerance. Here around Granada we are still benefitting from that marvellous innovation introduced under Muslim rule – the acequia system. This is the massive network of irrigation channels and pantanas (water deposits) that still tap the meltwater from the Sierra Nevada mountain range. Compared to the Christians after the 15th century “Reconquest”, the Muslims were lily-livered liberals (or at least part of the time). However, even the Christians were not so dumb as to abandon Muslim technology and though they expelled the Moors after the Morisco uprising in the Alpujarras valley south of Granada in the 16th century, they allowed 2 Moorish families to remain in each Alpujarran village to pass on their knowledge of the acequia system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion_of_the_Alpujarras_(1568%E2%80%9371)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
I think it is important not to be to be too rigid about the relationship between religion and science / scientists. After all many eminent scientists are themselves religious. Of course there are cases were religious dogma can be downright anti-science – as in the debate on evolution vs creationism- but each case needs to be judged on its own merits
I hope nobody here is going to suggest that this is part of the struggle against corporate capitalism and that workers should show sympathy for the small investors in their class struggle against the corporates!
Definitely not, Adam, but it is interesting that market libertarians and anarchocapitalists should jump on this example of GameStop as a way to mount an assault on corporate capitalism. As if. The notion that you can have capitalism without the large corporations that dominate the economic landscape today is pure pie in the sky – as is the suggestion among some of them (the Ancaps rather than the Minarchists) that you can get rid of the capitalist state under capitalism
Alan, you make the point that ” there is a benefit in distinguishing structural varieties of capitalism from superficial appearances. Corporate capitalism versus crony capitalism.” I agree but I have always thought that corporate capitalism is what the market libertarian crowd mean by crony capitalism . In other words, the incestuous “you-scratch-my-back-and-i-will-scratch-yours” relation between corporations and the state
Those pesky small investors…
https://medium.com/discourse/turns-out-wall-street-isnt-fond-of-the-free-market-da32d445999f
Actually Thomas it was the religious ritual of the mass that turned me off religion as a catholic teenager – it was so insufferably boring. I recall each time I went to mass I would grab a Catholic Truth Society pamphlet in the rack at the back of the church and read through it instead of attending to what was being said. One of these pamphlets (I think on the topic of sin) got me thinking and seriously questioning my religious faith
But fair enough , each to their own. Some of the things you like I like too and I’m sorry, Ozy, but its patently ridiculous to infer from a love of “the Latin Mass and the Greek Liturgy” , an endorsement of the horrific acts you mention committed by “Bon Secours Sisters” at Tuam in Ireland. That’s way over the top. I suspect most religious people would be horrified too by such acts
Just as I don’t think you need to have read Marx or whoever to become a socialist so I don’t think its going to matter terribly much that many people are still likely to hold religious ideas in some shape or form for the indefinite future. Its not going to prevent such people from wanting or working to achieve socialism
What is more probable than the secularisation thesis is that the form and practice of religion and religious beliefs will change over time and particularly so in response to the growth of the socialist movement itself
Historical materialism rather than philosophical materialism is what we should be concentrating on
This might be of interest. Genetically modified human beings
Hannah, By all means, feel free to use what I’ve written. Better still invite the person you are debating with to join this forum so we can deal with the arguments directly…
Hi Hannah
One of the things I find very strange about (some) of our critics of socialism is that they should feel it necessary to impute “perfection” to human beings in order for socialism to work. Behind this is the (unquestioned) assumption that human beings need to be 100% altruistic in order for socialism to work. That is to say, it should entail the complete negation of any kind of self-interested motive.
Its complete nonsense of course. Every conceivable kind of society is predicated on a mixture of both altruistic and egoistic motives – including both capitalism and socialism, Socialism does not require people to be “perfect” in the above sense. On the contrary it is very much in the self-interest of workers as a class and individually to establish socialism. If anything is indicative of excessive altruism it is the willingness of said workers to allow themselves to be exploited and abused by a tiny parasite class under our present system of capitalism. Talk about masochism…
Concerning the comment you posted perhaps you might ask the author how it is that for well over 95% of our time on this planet our species lived under a social arrangement completely at variance with the kind of society we live under today: “immediate return”, food sharing, communistic, hunter-gatherer bands (not to be confused with “tribes”). If anything defines human nature it is our Paleolithic and Mesolithic past – since our genetic make up has not changed significantly since then – not the kind of society we live under today. However, having said that, personally I think the only thing one can confidently say about human nature is that we are 1) social animals and 2) highly adaptable. Anything else tends to veer towards speculation
As for greed and jealousy bringing about the collapse of socialism how exactly is this supposed to work in a society in which goods and services are freely accessible to everyone without any quid pro quo exchange? If you want to gain the respect and esteem of your fellows in a socialist society the only course of action available to you is what you contribute to society, not what you take out of it. That’s no bad thing either.
The problem with so many critics of socialism is that they don’t really understand what it is they purport to be criticising and I think this is true of the person you quote….
Hannah
What aspect of the human nature argument interests you? There are several sub-arguments and it is worth focussing one them one at a time
The Lazy person argument
The Greedy Person argument
The Violent person argumentetc etc
I could list anthropologists and others who have made contributions under these headings. On violence and war, for example, Brian Ferguson of Rutgers University would be an excellent person to start with. He is reputedly the world’s leading authority on prehistoric violence and a stern critic of the likes of Stephen Pinker
You need to access a full list of his writings but here is just a random piece by him with an interesting list of links if you scroll down to the bottom
It looks like there is gonna be a Catalonia-style independence bid from Scotland in its quest to “take back our sovereignty” etc etc. Brexit has truly opened up a Pandora’s box
