#1 January 9th, 2005 01:18 AM

samknox

Member

Theda, Liz, Merricat: I have to say...

...that you don't seem to have a very high tolerance for dissenting thoughts.

   Anyway, what difference does it make if feminism is an academic discipline or not, or even if there's any such thing as "feminism" at all?

   Aren't women capable of thinking for themselves?

theda

Member

Re: Theda, Liz, Merricat: I have to say...

...that you don't seem to have a very high tolerance for dissenting thoughts.

   Anyway, what difference does it make if feminism is an academic discipline or not, or even if there's any such thing as "feminism" at all?

   Aren't women capable of thinking for themselves?

I find your continued comments really insulting, so I'm asking you kindly if we could now discontinue this conversation as I feel it's inappropriate given the nature of this site. Also, you don't need to dedicate entire threads to particular people, myself included. I would really prefer if you pm'd me or left it in my folio comments.

I won't be saying anymore on this subject.

Merricat

Member

Re: Theda, Liz, Merricat: I have to say...

...that you don't seem to have a very high tolerance for dissenting thoughts.

   Anyway, what difference does it make if feminism is an academic discipline or not, or even if there's any such thing as "feminism" at all?

   Aren't women capable of thinking for themselves?

People always seem to get confused here: we're disagreeing with you. That doesn't mean we're "not tolerant" of your thoughts, it means we're speaking our own opinions. When you say something on a public forum, people might not agree with you. People might even post something to say why they don't agree. LOTS of people might not agree.

That doesn't mean they want to silence you or to make you stop thinking dissenting thoughts, it means they're trying to have a discussion.

And I think you can see women thinking for themselves right here. And all over this site. If you have to ask that question, you've got some issues.

Also, starting a thread just to "call out" people is lame. Why couldn't you have just posted this in the discussion we were already having?

samknox

Member

Re: Theda, Liz, Merricat: I have to say...

People always seem to get confused here: we're disagreeing with you. That doesn't mean we're "not tolerant" of your thoughts, it means we're speaking our own opinions. When you say something on a public forum, people might not agree with you. People might even post something to say why they don't agree. LOTS of people might not agree.

That doesn't mean they want to silence you or to make you stop thinking dissenting thoughts, it means they're trying to have a discussion.

And I think you can see women thinking for themselves right here. And all over this site. If you have to ask that question, you've got some issues.

Also, starting a thread just to "call out" people is lame. Why couldn't you have just posted this in the discussion we were already having?

I don't agree.

You say I"ve got "issues" and I'm "lame"; "wantingscott" says I'm an "ass"; Theda says I'm "insulting" and "resentful"; Angelene thinks I should "shut it"; Liz thinks I'm "nonsensical"; "voyeur2" thinks I'm "ignorant" and "intellectually rigid".

These aren't disagreements, they're personal attacks on me.

Where people have asked legitimate questions or made legitimate arguments I've tried to respond in kind.  I don't think I'm being unreasonable by observing that, for the most part, I have not been extended the same courtesy.

Merricat

Member

Re: Theda, Liz, Merricat: I have to say...

I don't agree.

You say I"ve got "issues" and I'm "lame"; "wantingscott" says I'm an "ass"; Theda says I'm "insulting" and "resentful"; Angelene thinks I should "shut it"; Liz thinks I'm "nonsensical"; "voyeur2" thinks I'm "ignorant" and "intellectually rigid".

These aren't disagreements, they're personal attacks on me.

No, I think it's disturbing that you'd have to ask if women can think for themselves, and I think it's "lame" to start a thread calling people out. The action was lame, I didn't say you were.

I can't respond to other people's comments towards you, but it might be a good idea to respond to them individually, in the threads that were already established, instead of starting a whole other thread naming names and centered on how attacked you seem to feel.

samknox

Member

Re: Theda, Liz, Merricat: I have to say...

No, I think it's disturbing that you'd have to ask if women can think for themselves, and I think it's "lame" to start a thread calling people out. The action was lame, I didn't say you were.

I can't respond to other people's comments towards you, but it might be a good idea to respond to them individually, in the threads that were already established, instead of starting a whole other thread naming names and centered on how attacked you seem to feel.

I didn't say I thought women couldn't think for themselves.  I asked if that's what you thought.

Regarding other people's comments;  you were trying to tell me that what was going on here was "disagreement".  I tried to show, using several examples, that you were incorrect.

voyeur2

Member

Re: Theda, Liz, Merricat: I have to say...

I don't agree.

You say I"ve got "issues" and I'm "lame"; "wantingscott" says I'm an "ass"; Theda says I'm "insulting" and "resentful"; Angelene thinks I should "shut it"; Liz thinks I'm "nonsensical"; "voyeur2" thinks I'm "ignorant" and "intellectually rigid".

These aren't disagreements, they're personal attacks on me.

Where people have asked legitimate questions or made legitimate arguments I've tried to respond in kind.  I don't think I'm being unreasonable by observing that, for the most part, I have not been extended the same courtesy.

Actualy you have misquoted and slandered my name with this statement.  My statement was (quote) The more ignorent and intellectually rigid the person the greater the discomfort with change. (end quote) the next paragraph asked you if you fit the description.

It shows either intellectual dishonesty, or the inability to read and analyse sentences in English.

It causes me to wonder if you have any academic qualification whatsoever to make these broad and insulting statements.

You have noticed an amount of angry response to your ideas, and serious questions as to their provenance or legitimacy but continue to dodge the questions with non responsive replies.  A position taken by many who are in losing positions in debate.

Perhaps you should listen to the response and re-evaluate your position.

And I do not think you have any academic qualifications, based on reading this stuff you put forth.

Scholarship is not what you state it is.  It is a process.

Scholarship is merely the application of systematic approaches to the acquisition of knowledge through intellectual activity.  Its applied by learning, teaching, demonstrating, presenting and practising this acquired knowledge.
You get a PHd for discovering something new and significant using this process, and successfully defeding your thesis or discovery in front of a panel of other scholars who question the ideas.

so - to be clear, here is the question.

What academic qualification do you have for making the statements? 

I will assume none if there is no response to this.  And if you have none, your statements are pretty good proof of that.

---

Have I ever lied to you before?

samknox

Member

Re: Theda, Liz, Merricat: I have to say...

You have noticed an amount of angry response to your ideas, and serious questions as to their provenance or legitimacy but continue to dodge the questions with non responsive replies.

My replies are only "non responsive" if you don't understand them.

  A position taken by many who are in losing positions in debate.

Obviously, I'm not an unbiased observer, but I think I'm doing pretty well.

Perhaps you should listen to the response and re-evaluate your position.

Surely you don't think this is the first time I've had this discussion?

Scholarship is merely the application of systematic approaches to the acquisition of knowledge through intellectual activity.  Its applied by learning, teaching, demonstrating, presenting and practising this acquired knowledge.

I have to give credit where credit is due.  I like your definition of "scholarship".  It doesn't change my opinion about the relationship between scholarship and feminism, however.

You get a PHd for discovering something new and significant using this process, and successfully defeding your thesis or discovery in front of a panel of other scholars who question the ideas.

Wow.  This is patently untrue.  Sometimes you get a PhD. for nothing more than a dogged adherence to "the party line".

What academic qualification do you have for making the statements? 

Wow, again.  This should be in the philosophy dictionary next to "ad hominem arguments".

My, or anyone else's, "academic qualifications" have absolutely no bearing on the truth or falsehood of any statement I, or they, make.

I will assume none if there is no response to this.  And if you have none, your statements are pretty good proof of that.

That's a relief.  I thought you were going to tell me: "I'm rubber and you're glue..."

;-)

Sam

samknox

Member

Re: Theda, Liz, Merricat: I have to say...

What academic qualification do you have for making the statements? 

Come to think of it, since we're on the subject of "qualifications", I have a question for you:

What academic qualifications does it take in order to be certified as a horse's ass?

(Now, before you get excited, keep in mind that I didn't say you were a horse's ass.  I just asked what the qualifications are.)

;-)

Sam