welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

[4/29/13] She Misandried Me!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Reader1



Joined: 04 Feb 2012
Posts: 111

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Finnegan wrote:
inferring any characteristics or abilities based solely on sex is sexism. saying white people are smarter than blacks because they have historically out performed them on intelligence tests is racist, so how is making similar claims about the abilities of men and women not sexist?


based on your definition that means that assuming a person's genitalia, the ability of a woman to carry a baby assuming she's healthy, and the inability of a man to do the same, if based off of sex, is sexist... don't think i agree with that one. saying white people "WERE" smarter than blacks, although it sound's inflammatory and racist... isn't. thatís history, it was shaped by oppression. saying that they didn't or don't have the capacity to be as smart as whites, thatís racist. intelligence tests did prove that blacks, through lack of education and being told that they were incompetent, weren't as smart as whites, a trend that continues today mostly for the same reasons(google rates of graduation based on race and compare them to the country's racial distribution). the idea is that the test was being used to justify something that it had nothing to do with, capacity vs capability. people can have the capacity for something but not be capable of it because they haven't been conditioned well enough, ex. i could be ok at basketball if i practiced more. saying i'm terrible at basketball is true, assuming i can't get better or will always be terrible for a reason that isnít based on fact is discrimination. if you say it's because of my ethnicity then itís racism, sex: sexism, age: ageism. also, so long as a statement is backed by "relevant" facts how can you call it discriminatory?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Felgraf



Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reader1 wrote:
Finnegan wrote:
inferring any characteristics or abilities based solely on sex is sexism. saying white people are smarter than blacks because they have historically out performed them on intelligence tests is racist, so how is making similar claims about the abilities of men and women not sexist?


based on your definition that means that assuming a person's genitalia, the ability of a woman to carry a baby assuming she's healthy, and the inability of a man to do the same, if based off of sex, is sexist... don't think i agree with that one. saying white people "WERE" smarter than blacks, although it sound's inflammatory and racist... isn't. thatís history, it was shaped by oppression. saying that they didn't or don't have the capacity to be as smart as whites, thatís racist. intelligence tests did prove that blacks, through lack of education and being told that they were incompetent, weren't as smart as whites, a trend that continues today mostly for the same reasons(google rates of graduation based on race and compare them to the country's racial distribution). the idea is that the test was being used to justify something that it had nothing to do with, capacity vs capability. people can have the capacity for something but not be capable of it because they haven't been conditioned well enough, ex. i could be ok at basketball if i practiced more. saying i'm terrible at basketball is true, assuming i can't get better or will always be terrible for a reason that isnít based on fact is discrimination. if you say it's because of my ethnicity then itís racism, sex: sexism, age: ageism. also, so long as a statement is backed by "relevant" facts how can you call it discriminatory?


Well, for starters, there's a difference between 'intelligence' and 'education'.

Intelligence is an intrinsic quantity,a nd honestly actually really, REALLY hard to judge via a test. It deals with learning, capacity to learn/figure out, etc. etc. One can be intelligent without being able to read, if one was actively prevented from learning to read.

Education is a hell of a lot easier to test.

So, er, no, there isn't really information that shows that blacks were less *intelligent* than whites. Less *educated*, perhaps.
_________________
"No, but evil is still being --Is having reason-- Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
-Ed, from Digger
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Felgraf



Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reader1 wrote:
Finnegan wrote:
inferring any characteristics or abilities based solely on sex is sexism. saying white people are smarter than blacks because they have historically out performed them on intelligence tests is racist, so how is making similar claims about the abilities of men and women not sexist?


based on your definition that means that assuming a person's genitalia, the ability of a woman to carry a baby assuming she's healthy, and the inability of a man to do the same, if based off of sex, is sexist... don't think i agree with that one. saying white people "WERE" smarter than blacks, although it sound's inflammatory and racist... isn't. thatís history, it was shaped by oppression. saying that they didn't or don't have the capacity to be as smart as whites, thatís racist. intelligence tests did prove that blacks, through lack of education and being told that they were incompetent, weren't as smart as whites, a trend that continues today mostly for the same reasons(google rates of graduation based on race and compare them to the country's racial distribution). the idea is that the test was being used to justify something that it had nothing to do with, capacity vs capability. people can have the capacity for something but not be capable of it because they haven't been conditioned well enough, ex. i could be ok at basketball if i practiced more. saying i'm terrible at basketball is true, assuming i can't get better or will always be terrible for a reason that isnít based on fact is discrimination. if you say it's because of my ethnicity then itís racism, sex: sexism, age: ageism. also, so long as a statement is backed by "relevant" facts how can you call it discriminatory?


Well, for starters, there's a difference between 'intelligence' and 'education'.

Intelligence is an intrinsic quantity,a nd honestly actually really, REALLY hard to judge via a test. It deals with learning, capacity to learn/figure out, etc. etc. One can be intelligent without being able to read, if one was actively prevented from learning to read.

Education is a hell of a lot easier to test.

So, er, no, there isn't really information that shows that blacks were less *intelligent* than whites. Less *educated*, perhaps.
_________________
"No, but evil is still being --Is having reason-- Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
-Ed, from Digger
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jody



Joined: 29 Apr 2013
Posts: 139

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Felgraf wrote:
So, er, no, there isn't really information that shows that blacks were less *intelligent* than whites. Less *educated*, perhaps.


I stopped lurking and got an account just so I could log in and say THANK YOU.

Also, hello. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1055

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And you can't fairly say that was actually determined by the race of the person, but more their opportunities, social support, childhood and lifetime nutrition, and other -privilege.-

That's not a racial trait. Stating it like it is, is a classic fallacy: mistaking correlation with causation.

And doing that when it comes to describing a historically disadvantaged group of people is not only a bad logical move, it's kind of a jerkface move as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Reader1



Joined: 04 Feb 2012
Posts: 111

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Felgraf wrote:
Well, for starters, there's a difference between 'intelligence' and 'education'.

Intelligence is an intrinsic quantity,a nd honestly actually really, REALLY hard to judge via a test. It deals with learning, capacity to learn/figure out, etc. etc. One can be intelligent without being able to read, if one was actively prevented from learning to read.

Education is a hell of a lot easier to test.

So, er, no, there isn't really information that shows that blacks were less *intelligent* than whites. Less *educated*, perhaps.


very true, although i feel that intelligence is a more malleable attribute then it is often times made out to be. we may all have an individual limit to how intelligent we can become but knowledge and the ways in which we think have a large effect on intelligence. IMO since we can learn to think, take in information, and draw conclusions in better ways intelligence can also be improved.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Finnegan



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 1080
Location: in that cool mountain air, on an appalachian trail

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks for that link, dogen, what I've gotten through of it so far is interesting.

Felgraf wrote:
Reader1 wrote:
Finnegan wrote:
inferring any characteristics or abilities based solely on sex is sexism. saying white people are smarter than blacks because they have historically out performed them on intelligence tests is racist, so how is making similar claims about the abilities of men and women not sexist?


based on your definition that means that assuming a person's genitalia, the ability of a woman to carry a baby assuming she's healthy, and the inability of a man to do the same, if based off of sex, is sexist... don't think i agree with that one. saying white people "WERE" smarter than blacks, although it sound's inflammatory and racist... isn't. thatís history, it was shaped by oppression. saying that they didn't or don't have the capacity to be as smart as whites, thatís racist. intelligence tests did prove that blacks, through lack of education and being told that they were incompetent, weren't as smart as whites, a trend that continues today mostly for the same reasons(google rates of graduation based on race and compare them to the country's racial distribution). the idea is that the test was being used to justify something that it had nothing to do with, capacity vs capability. people can have the capacity for something but not be capable of it because they haven't been conditioned well enough, ex. i could be ok at basketball if i practiced more. saying i'm terrible at basketball is true, assuming i can't get better or will always be terrible for a reason that isnít based on fact is discrimination. if you say it's because of my ethnicity then itís racism, sex: sexism, age: ageism. also, so long as a statement is backed by "relevant" facts how can you call it discriminatory?


Well, for starters, there's a difference between 'intelligence' and 'education'.

Intelligence is an intrinsic quantity,a nd honestly actually really, REALLY hard to judge via a test. It deals with learning, capacity to learn/figure out, etc. etc. One can be intelligent without being able to read, if one was actively prevented from learning to read.

Education is a hell of a lot easier to test.

So, er, no, there isn't really information that shows that blacks were less *intelligent* than whites. Less *educated*, perhaps.


I wasn't saying that it was a true statement and I have no idea what, if anything, research says on the matter (and I am aware of the difference between intelligence and education). It was supposed to be a fallacious statement that I hoped would illustrate the point I was making, though it's obvious that I did a poor job of making it clear. Basically all I was saying is that to judge any individual's abilities based on the group they belong to (whether it be age, sex, race, etc.) is discriminatory.

edit: sorry, felgraf, for some reason I thought you were addressing me as opposed to reader1 and reacted a little too defensively.
_________________
Formerly Green_Finn

hey! rock bottom's not that bad
we've got glow-in-the-dark fish down here that's rad


Last edited by Finnegan on Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Finnegan



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 1080
Location: in that cool mountain air, on an appalachian trail

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jody wrote:
Felgraf wrote:
So, er, no, there isn't really information that shows that blacks were less *intelligent* than whites. Less *educated*, perhaps.


I stopped lurking and got an account just so I could log in and say THANK YOU.

Also, hello. Smile


hi, jody, welcome. check out the newbie waystation thread in forum guidelines if you want to introduce yourself to everyone else.
_________________
Formerly Green_Finn

hey! rock bottom's not that bad
we've got glow-in-the-dark fish down here that's rad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10880
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reader1 wrote:
very true, although i feel that intelligence is a more malleable attribute then it is often times made out to be. we may all have an individual limit to how intelligent we can become but knowledge and the ways in which we think have a large effect on intelligence. IMO since we can learn to think, take in information, and draw conclusions in better ways intelligence can also be improved.

Do you have evidence for any of this? Have you studied how intelligence is measured? Are you familiar with concepts like fluid and crystallized intelligence, and how they differ from "the three R's?"

If you can increase intelligence by learning, you're not measuring intelligence. You're measuring learning.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3429
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salpta wrote:
stripeypants wrote:
Salpta wrote:
Stripey, That entry has one glaring flaw: Female privilege exists and is used as a power against men as well. Much like any privilege though, those with it rarely see it as a privilege.

Without making an itemized and incomplete list of female privilege, I will posit the following: Women control most of the family and procreation privileges; and women extract more leniency from the law & society.

As I was told once, and as I tell others: When talking about privilege, you need to check yours at the door.


No, female privilege does not exist, and this is an example of an argument that has to be had over and over and over and over again, wearing people down. Are you watching, folks who complain about snarky, insulting feminists?

That's your opinion, and I think you're wrong. Again: those with the privilege rarely see it as such.


Here, read this thread starting from here:

http://www.sinfest.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=6672&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=military&start=225

This subject has been covered.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reader1



Joined: 04 Feb 2012
Posts: 111

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
Do you have evidence for any of this? Have you studied how intelligence is measured? Are you familiar with concepts like fluid and crystallized intelligence, and how they differ from "the three R's?"

If you can increase intelligence by learning, you're not measuring intelligence. You're measuring learning.


just did a quick brush up and it depends on how you define intelligence.

one of Wikipediaís definitions - "A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundingsó"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do."

all of those can be improved through learning. if you go with the liquid/crystal theory, while its true that each person has a starting intelligence before they've formed any crystal intelligence its not something that's easily measured. Felgraf was right when he said its hard to test for, especially if what you want is base intelligence, that might just be impossible. measureable intelligence, in accordance with the theory, is affected by both base intelligence and what has been learned. not just knowledge like the three r's which fall into crystal intelligence, but more like processes of thinking. you can learn to think more abstractly by practicing which means you can increase fluid intelligence from your base level... not sure you're "supposed" to be able to do that but IMO you can. for the most part that makes the ďbaseĒ intelligence you seem to be talking about irrelevant doesn't it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ronald



Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 3323

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 3:33 am    Post subject: Re: [4/29/13] She Misandried Me! Reply with quote

Wait a minute:

Valerie wrote:


Isn't that guy that guy?


http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4612

In Panel 3 there? Only as not a Devil?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aboutwhistles



Joined: 28 Oct 2012
Posts: 140

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

...no, I'm pretty sure the dude Nurse Beth is checking out is not the Devil. Not even a pre-Devil Devil (Lucifer the angel?). The Devil's got a pretty distinctive face in all the strips he's in.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aboutwhistles



Joined: 28 Oct 2012
Posts: 140

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 3:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also: "When I grow up, fresh and clean
Number one boy when I step out on the scene"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTSGrsNj1h8

Someone make a fanart of the Devil and lil'E dancing to this song?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Finnegan



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 1080
Location: in that cool mountain air, on an appalachian trail

PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

well I think that's obviously supposed to be the devil and lil' e but he really doesn't look anything like the way the devil has ever been drawn and really does look remarkably like that other dude.
short answer: I'm pretty sure he's not but he totally is.
_________________
Formerly Green_Finn

hey! rock bottom's not that bad
we've got glow-in-the-dark fish down here that's rad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 8 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group