Comments on: Fat and Feminism? http://shorno.net/2005/12/20/fat-and-feminism/ Journal : Critique & Commentary: On the Human Condition Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:57:43 +0000 hourly 1 By: Avtandil http://shorno.net/2005/12/20/fat-and-feminism/comment-page-1/#comment-580842 Avtandil Thu, 06 Nov 2008 02:25:19 +0000 http://sonia.opencoop.org/?p=162#comment-580842 Well done! Unlike the author of the topic ;-) Well done! Unlike the author of the topic ;-)

]]> By: girl http://shorno.net/2005/12/20/fat-and-feminism/comment-page-1/#comment-161780 girl Tue, 24 Apr 2007 03:46:17 +0000 http://sonia.opencoop.org/?p=162#comment-161780 be serious you piles FAT is feminism respect yourselves. be serious you piles

FAT is feminism
respect yourselves.

]]> By: sonia http://shorno.net/2005/12/20/fat-and-feminism/comment-page-1/#comment-1813 sonia Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:39:03 +0000 http://sonia.opencoop.org/?p=162#comment-1813 well done. Bihari Babu - if that's what you believe how can you defend the great Capitalist USA's wars ..ho ho. follow this line of reasoning - as you'd have to agree that they result in the death of humans- and as you yourself have wonderfully highlighted - "The earth and rest of the universe belongs to humans. Every action, every entity must serve the cause of humans. And that is the underlying basis of all morality" - the death of humans is not serving the cause of humans, and therefore is bad. Therefore the great capitalist USA's wars are resulting in bad actions. well done. Bihari Babu - if that’s what you believe how can you defend the great Capitalist USA’s wars ..ho ho. follow this line of reasoning - as you’d have to agree that they result in the death of humans- and as you yourself have wonderfully highlighted - “The earth and rest of the universe belongs to humans. Every action, every entity must serve the cause of humans. And that is the underlying basis of all morality” - the death of humans is not serving the cause of humans, and therefore is bad. Therefore the great capitalist USA’s wars are resulting in bad actions.

]]> By: Bihari Babu http://shorno.net/2005/12/20/fat-and-feminism/comment-page-1/#comment-1800 Bihari Babu Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:40:07 +0000 http://sonia.opencoop.org/?p=162#comment-1800 "ah what a shame - no response from our friend Bihari Babu. do you think he was scared off by Tom’s post? " ------------- Sonia, good to see that your blog is going gteat guns! I am only tired of trying to refute again and yet again the same old cliche ridden arguments that imbecilic communists keep prattling everytime. “ah what a shame - no response from our friend Bihari Babu. do you think he was scared off by Tom’s post? ”

————-
Sonia,
good to see that your blog is going gteat guns!

I am only tired of trying to refute again and yet again the same old cliche ridden arguments that imbecilic communists keep prattling everytime.

]]> By: Bihari Babu http://shorno.net/2005/12/20/fat-and-feminism/comment-page-1/#comment-1799 Bihari Babu Wed, 18 Jan 2006 08:37:23 +0000 http://sonia.opencoop.org/?p=162#comment-1799 Tom, I was only ignoring you because you are too little to be noticed from my ivory tower. Grow up! Kant for your information is the intellectual grandfather of every slimy little leftist around the world. That is why diehard communists like you love to prattle Kant. Because Kant's whole BS about categorical imperitive hinges on denying reason. If you look at the history of Europe, you will find that the rise of communism has been concomitant to rise of Kant's influence. Hegel has based his works on Kant and Marx based his on Hegel's. The riffraff called Stalin and Lenin based their concentration camps and murder squads on the theories of all the three scumbags- Kant, Hegel and Marx. "Since of course we can only guess the consequences of our actions and cannot be sure of how effects will differ from case to case, then morality is a grey area in which we weigh up pro’s and con’s of various courses of actions. " This is typical Kant. Why? Look for yourself. Morality is not a grey area. Any action that causes upliftment for humanity is good. Any action that does not is bad. The earth and rest of the universe belongs to humans. Every action, every entity must serve the cause of humans. And that is the underlying basis of all morality. Tom,
I was only ignoring you because you are too little to be noticed from my ivory tower. Grow up!
Kant for your information is the intellectual grandfather of every slimy little leftist around the world. That is why diehard communists like you love to prattle Kant. Because Kant’s whole BS about categorical imperitive hinges on denying reason.
If you look at the history of Europe, you will find that the rise of communism has been concomitant to rise of Kant’s influence. Hegel has based his works on Kant and Marx based his on Hegel’s. The riffraff called Stalin and Lenin based their concentration camps and murder squads on the theories of all the three scumbags- Kant, Hegel and Marx.

“Since of course we can only guess the consequences of our actions and cannot be sure of how effects will differ from case to case, then morality is a grey area in which we weigh up pro’s and con’s of various courses of actions. ”
This is typical Kant. Why? Look for yourself. Morality is not a grey area. Any action that causes upliftment for humanity is good. Any action that does not is bad. The earth and rest of the universe belongs to humans. Every action, every entity must serve the cause of humans. And that is the underlying basis of all morality.

]]> By: sonia http://shorno.net/2005/12/20/fat-and-feminism/comment-page-1/#comment-1790 sonia Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:59:25 +0000 http://sonia.opencoop.org/?p=162#comment-1790 ah what a shame - no response from our friend Bihari Babu. do you think he was scared off by Tom's post? ah what a shame - no response from our friend Bihari Babu. do you think he was scared off by Tom’s post?

]]> By: tom http://shorno.net/2005/12/20/fat-and-feminism/comment-page-1/#comment-1723 tom Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:33:43 +0000 http://sonia.opencoop.org/?p=162#comment-1723 hi bihari babu, erm nice try :) ... but if you are going to start laying down theories of moral value then I think you need to be somewhat clearer than that. To be absolutist about morals can be consistent if you take a "duty" based approach to morals rather than a "consequentialist" approach. For instance Kant said "will the maxim you would have become universal". Therefore he said it is always wrong to lie since if everyone were to lie then no-one would be able to trust anything! Therefore he said it is a "categorical imperative" that we don't lie. Kant would agree with you evidently. However such theories of morals evidently disregard effects in the real world. For instance, if I were in a situtation, such that if I lied I could prevent a massacre of thousands of people, thwart the plans of a tyrant to take over a democracy or whatever, was it still wrong or are there some other factors to take into account. In most theories of morals that attempt to seriously reflect what we mean by morals, there is at least some question of the consequences of our actions when deciding whether the effects are "good" or "bad". Since of course we can only guess the consequences of our actions and cannot be sure of how effects will differ from case to case, then morality is a grey area in which we weigh up pro's and con's of various courses of actions. It would be NICE if it were and black and white, but its not, and to think otherwise is just wishful thinking or blissful ignorance. I can understand such wishful thinking coming from someone who hails from the most corrupt state in the corrupt country of India..."if only no one would accept or give bribes then there would be no corruption and no need to keep bribing" but the reality of each individuals situation is of course much more pragmatic and game theoretic... "I am trying to do X which is a good thing, and I first need Y, in order to get Y then I must bribe someone". Is it right or not? It is right because, and to the degree that, X is good, and it is wrong to the degree that one bribe contributes to the overall situation of corruption in which all people must bribe to get anywhere. How do you deal with these kind of situations with a "code of virtue" in which everything is black and white? bihari babu no doubt would say that all bribes are absolutely bad, so he probably had to move out of Bihar to get anything done - this doesnt improve the situation in Bihar. bihari babu I apologise for being offensive in my previous post, however the reason I got angry enough to address you, is that you claim to be making "philosophical" statements, without understanding the first thing about the philosophy of the subject areas you discuss e.g. philosophy of ethics, science and scientific methodology. try reading a range of these articles ( http://lgxserver.uniba.it/lei/filpol/filpole/indicere.htm ) if you want to be taken seriously in such debates. hi bihari babu, erm nice try :) … but if you are going to start laying down theories of moral value then I think you need to be somewhat clearer than that. To be absolutist about morals can be consistent if you take a “duty” based approach to morals rather than a “consequentialist” approach. For instance Kant said “will the maxim you would have become universal”. Therefore he said it is always wrong to lie since if everyone were to lie then no-one would be able to trust anything! Therefore he said it is a “categorical imperative” that we don’t lie. Kant would agree with you evidently. However such theories of morals evidently disregard effects in the real world. For instance, if I were in a situtation, such that if I lied I could prevent a massacre of thousands of people, thwart the plans of a tyrant to take over a democracy or whatever, was it still wrong or are there some other factors to take into account. In most theories of morals that attempt to seriously reflect what we mean by morals, there is at least some question of the consequences of our actions when deciding whether the effects are “good” or “bad”. Since of course we can only guess the consequences of our actions and cannot be sure of how effects will differ from case to case, then morality is a grey area in which we weigh up pro’s and con’s of various courses of actions. It would be NICE if it were and black and white, but its not, and to think otherwise is just wishful thinking or blissful ignorance.

I can understand such wishful thinking coming from someone who hails from the most corrupt state in the corrupt country of India…”if only no one would accept or give bribes then there would be no corruption and no need to keep bribing” but the reality of each individuals situation is of course much more pragmatic and game theoretic… “I am trying to do X which is a good thing, and I first need Y, in order to get Y then I must bribe someone”. Is it right or not? It is right because, and to the degree that, X is good, and it is wrong to the degree that one bribe contributes to the overall situation of corruption in which all people must bribe to get anywhere. How do you deal with these kind of situations with a “code of virtue” in which everything is black and white?

bihari babu no doubt would say that all bribes are absolutely bad, so he probably had to move out of Bihar to get anything done - this doesnt improve the situation in Bihar.

bihari babu I apologise for being offensive in my previous post, however the reason I got angry enough to address you, is that you claim to be making “philosophical” statements, without understanding the first thing about the philosophy of the subject areas you discuss e.g. philosophy of ethics, science and scientific methodology. try reading a range of these articles ( http://lgxserver.uniba.it/lei/filpol/filpole/indicere.htm ) if you want to be taken seriously in such debates.

]]> By: Bihari Babu http://shorno.net/2005/12/20/fat-and-feminism/comment-page-1/#comment-1696 Bihari Babu Sat, 24 Dec 2005 04:44:46 +0000 http://sonia.opencoop.org/?p=162#comment-1696 Tom, you are a fool. "things are always in black and white"-- this is a philosophic statement that only means that all humans must strive for values that are in black and white. I repeat the concept of black and white applies only to 'strive for values' or to a 'code of virtue'. Not to anything else. There can never be a value worth aspiring for that is good and evil at the same time. it has to be one or other. Tom, you are a fool.

“things are always in black and white”– this is a philosophic statement that only means that all humans must strive for values that are in black and white.

I repeat the concept of black and white applies only to ’strive for values’ or to a ‘code of virtue’. Not to anything else.

There can never be a value worth aspiring for that is good and evil at the same time. it has to be one or other.

]]> By: Cimurai http://shorno.net/2005/12/20/fat-and-feminism/comment-page-1/#comment-1690 Cimurai Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:07:19 +0000 http://sonia.opencoop.org/?p=162#comment-1690 Are you play ‘sensor’ this time Sonia? Are you play ‘sensor’ this time Sonia?

]]> By: tom http://shorno.net/2005/12/20/fat-and-feminism/comment-page-1/#comment-1689 tom Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:11:19 +0000 http://sonia.opencoop.org/?p=162#comment-1689 wow sonia, you have managed to attract such a bunch of weirdos to your blog! ic seems like more of a prankster than anything else. I mean no one could seriously hold such downright stupid and self-contradictory views. I think he just enjoys winding people up, which is why I can't blame people from the guardian for ignoring him, but feel sorry for anyone who take him seriously. the "fat-headed" comment though, is a new low for this chap - does make him look more like a childish moron than a provocateur or confused troll. Got to hand it to him for his blog title though "Things are always in black and white, whether we like it or not…" - hilarious :) . Just a few quick words on that, "things might be in black and white or there might be grey areas. whether you like it or not you are never going to know". In human affairs its pretty obvious that whether there is some ultimate truth or not, humans don't know it, so inconsistent information always exists and in practice all information is grey. Only an unquestioning fool thinks that everything is black and white and that he already knows the answer (oh sorry we are talking about Ayn Rand readers here). Reason is the path between premises and conclusions, that is the path between what we know, and what is self-evident from what we know. i.e. reason tells us nothing new, and if we know nothing reason will tell us nothing. Fine if you think reason is absolute (i don't) but still what is black and what is white? This depends on your premises. If you don't question your own premises then you are a fool. Many who dont like to question their own premises like to shroud their arguments in "rationality" and arguments of objectivity. Science is not objective, nor do the philosophers of science claim it to be. science may tend towards truth (if there is absolute truth). If science tends towards truth then this is because it attempts to account for empirical facts about how the world is observed to be, not because science uses some kind of rational deduction to arrive at a conclusion out of thin air. all our observation is through individual perception, therefore defacto science is not objective but an attempt to refine conjectures based on continued observation of phenomena across many instances. IC's blog posts on environmentalism, combine a complete disregard for the process of scientific consensus, with the belief that one can claim that global warming is not real without the need to offer evidence that. Strange to combine such obscure conspiracy theories with a belief in objectivism. Presumably everyone else is objectively wrong and he is objectively right. And then to add to the confusion he calls the environmentalists "polemical". If there was a prize for causing most confusion it would have to go to IC! If there was a prize for using big words that contradict each other and not understanding them it would go to IC! Aren't objectivists "polemical" IC? Don't objectivists think polemic is the only way. duh. http://www.anoopverma.blogspot.com/ wow sonia, you have managed to attract such a bunch of weirdos to your blog! ic seems like more of a prankster than anything else. I mean no one could seriously hold such downright stupid and self-contradictory views. I think he just enjoys winding people up, which is why I can’t blame people from the guardian for ignoring him, but feel sorry for anyone who take him seriously. the “fat-headed” comment though, is a new low for this chap - does make him look more like a childish moron than a provocateur or confused troll.

Got to hand it to him for his blog title though “Things are always in black and white, whether we like it or not…”
- hilarious :) . Just a few quick words on that, “things might be in black and white or there might be grey areas. whether you like it or not you are never going to know”. In human affairs its pretty obvious that whether there is some ultimate truth or not, humans don’t know it, so inconsistent information always exists and in practice all information is grey. Only an unquestioning fool thinks that everything is black and white and that he already knows the answer (oh sorry we are talking about Ayn Rand readers here). Reason is the path between premises and conclusions, that is the path between what we know, and what is self-evident from what we know. i.e. reason tells us nothing new, and if we know nothing reason will tell us nothing. Fine if you think reason is absolute (i don’t) but still what is black and what is white? This depends on your premises. If you don’t question your own premises then you are a fool. Many who dont like to question their own premises like to shroud their arguments in “rationality” and arguments of objectivity. Science is not objective, nor do the philosophers of science claim it to be. science may tend towards truth (if there is absolute truth). If science tends towards truth then this is because it attempts to account for empirical facts about how the world is observed to be, not because science uses some kind of rational deduction to arrive at a conclusion out of thin air. all our observation is through individual perception, therefore defacto science is not objective but an attempt to refine conjectures based on continued observation of phenomena across many instances.

IC’s blog posts on environmentalism, combine a complete disregard for the process of scientific consensus, with the belief that one can claim that global warming is not real without the need to offer evidence that. Strange to combine such obscure conspiracy theories with a belief in objectivism. Presumably everyone else is objectively wrong and he is objectively right. And then to add to the confusion he calls the environmentalists “polemical”. If there was a prize for causing most confusion it would have to go to IC! If there was a prize for using big words that contradict each other and not understanding them it would go to IC! Aren’t objectivists “polemical” IC? Don’t objectivists think polemic is the only way. duh.

http://www.anoopverma.blogspot.com/

]]>