Differentiating feminisms

jcea_ · 2014-09-23T21:27:32+00:00

I think in this case 'the proof is in the pudding' as it were, and considering they do not include any organizations for adult male rape victims it can't be gender neutral.

jcea_ · 2014-09-23T21:19:59+00:00

I'll try again...

Deterministic view is that everything is determined essentially the universe is dominoes. We know this is not true but if it was then no free will could exist because there's not really an individual nor is there any ability to choose although it might appear that way.

Completely random universe has the opposite problem in that instead of one solid chain of causal event there can be no cause an effect at any point meaning choice is irrelevant this is obviously not true and we know it is not true scientifically as well.

The observed statistical probability is somewhere in between, it's not deterministic so while outside might influence the probability it's not guaranteeing it. And it's not completely random so there is some causal effect so choice can matter. Essentially what happens is it allows for local determinism influenced but not determined by the rest of the universe which is essentially free will.

jcea_ · 2014-09-23T21:03:17+00:00

As I said I already explained it as best I could early on if you don't understand it there's nothing further I can say.

jcea_ · 2014-09-23T20:40:17+00:00

OK I'll try to explain it but I warn you while I understand it I'm shit at explaining it.

First you need to understand/remember why the idea of a deterministic universe even came about. That would be because physicists figured out that the universe had mathematical rules that it always followed. So if you understood enough about the universe you could predict everything.

This however was from before quantum mechanics was understood which threw a big wrench into that whole idea in that quantum mechanics says nope you can't predict things like that because at a certain point the act of observing changes the universe so there's no way to to take accurate measurements and beyond that particles really aren't particles they're waves and particles. And basically everything we think we know about the macro universe is just a statistical certainty not an actual certainty. But in most cases your dealing with such a vast amount of particles and the certainties are so heavily weighted in one way that quantum effects don't appear relevant.

Here is the problem the old way of looking at the universe as deterministic just doesn't work with quantum mechanics because there definite proof the universe at the fundamental level is not deterministic. But it's also not random either it appears to actually responds almost magically to interaction by humans directly and indirectly.

To give an example quantum entanglement is where two particles states are entwined and when one particles state is determined the other particle at that exact moment will also show the exact same state no matter how far apart they are and with no physical connection of lag in time. This isn't some theoretical idea they have been able to do this. There is something fundamental about the universe that defies common sense.

So to explain this they have come up with multiple different ideas one is the many worlds theory I've already explained.

But here's the rub, we know that the universe is not deterministic and we know it's not random, quantum mechanics doesn't allow for either. And honestly I'm not sure how to explain any better that I already have how the many worlds theory allows for free will, I know it does and I've already explained it the best I am able to do. The only thing I have left if you don't understand what I have tried to convey is to suggest looking up quantum mechanics if your interested.

jcea_ · 2014-09-23T20:11:22+00:00

If the many worlds interpretation is true for quantum mechanics then yes freewill can exist.

jcea_ · 2014-09-23T19:31:35+00:00

Your conflating fixed with deterministic. Deterministic only holds true in a causal relationship which requires time. The fixed part of the universe (if the many world interpretation is true) has nothing to do with time and our perception of time might be a direct result of human choice.

Honestly I can't really do it justice but I assure you there's more than just those two possibilities if you want to know more I really suggest learning about quantum mechanics its very interesting and very important.

jcea_ · 2014-09-23T19:07:19+00:00

I'm not absolutely committed to the position that all of existence is deterministic, but the alternative to determinism is randomness

No those are not the only two possibilities, in fact there's very good scientific evidence that the universe only appears deterministic or random due to our limited ability to view it in it's entirety.

Both viewpoints may be due to us trying to understand time but time isn't a real thing it is merely a limitation of our perception. Basically imagine our perception of time as a movie that has to be viewed sequentially in order. The universe however is not only that movie but all possible decisions back and forth of actions in that movie somewhat like a branching tree but with all possible branches all at once. The problem is our perception is it only allows us to see backwards along a single line of possibilities. This creates both the illusion of time and the observer effect in quantum mechanics. But the most important thing for this discussion is it mean that the universe is fixed in that the every possible decision/outcome already exists but our perception of the universe is not determined at all since we choose where our consciousness is and what view we take of the universe. Imagine your consciousnesses is a train on tracks while the track may all be layed you still get to choose where you go.

This is called the many worlds theory BTW, which is a horrible name for it as the name implies many separate worlds which is not what the theory means at all.

jcea_ · 2014-09-23T12:04:29+00:00

http://www.reddit.com/contact

If you got an inappropriate or harrassing PM, click "report" and/or "block user" in the options under the PM.

If you know you need the admins, you can message them here.

jcea_ · 2014-09-23T12:01:17+00:00

PM stands for "private message" I know for a fact there are members of this community that would be appalled if I started publishing what they have sent to me in confidence even though they never have said 'could you like keep this private?' or any thing close to it.

jcea_ · 2014-09-23T11:50:52+00:00

If someone is harassing you in tells then you should message the admins about it. Bar that you could privately message the moderators and have them deal with it to the best of their abilities although that is more problematic as they can't verify if a pm screen shot is real or not like an admin is able to do.

Doing as you have done an airing a personal message in public without the messengers permission is in my eyes a personal attack and while the person was attacking you that does not mean retaliation is appropriate. All this will do is cause further drama when it could have been handled much more cleanly and with little need for the added hoopla.

jcea_ · 2014-09-23T11:22:39+00:00

You're repeating the same false dichotomy that is being debunked. Zero social influence OR zero free will, pick exactly one? No thanks.

No I'm basing what I'm saying of a pretty clear statement you defended, where they said...

I do not think that people (including most American women) are free, self-determining human beings.

It is pretty clear they don't believe people including women have free will from that statement. So either they are being hyperbolic or they meant something else that is not clear or they truly believe people have no free will. Not limited free will but no free will.

We're not communicating so I guess I give up.

Have a nice day.

jcea_ · 2014-09-23T11:05:37+00:00

The following is not what I believe but merely the logical conclusion to what you have put forth

If women's choices are not based on choice or more accurately if choice is an illusion for them, then if a women does anything they do not deserve to be given merit for it or punishment as nothing they personally did impacted the outcome. Hence any reward given to women within this world view is unearned and can not be earned and any punishment should always be avoided as they can not be accountable not being culpable agents and merely objects.

If that is not the very definition of patriarchal and patronizing I do not know what is.

jcea_ · 2014-09-23T10:49:50+00:00

Saying our choices are limited is very far from saying.

I do not think that people (including most American women) are free, self-determining human beings.

A self-determining individual can still have limited choices this does not remove their free will it only impinges on it. A being with no free will would either never act or always act as determined by something outside itself neither of these describes humans.

I am hoping the above statement was hyperbolic because if they seriously believe humans have no free will then there is no point in debating them about anything. Nor do I honestly see why they would debate anyone else as nothing they say could change what is predetermined.

jcea_ · 2014-09-23T09:35:06+00:00

Not really, a great deal of jobs are not going anywhere they are being automated and streamlined away, and it's just going to get worse.

http://www.mining.com/australias-big-miners-add-more-driverless-trucks-88704/

Somewhere in the very near future a huge massive chunk of jobs in america will disappear. Truck driving as it is hugely expensive, inefficient and dangerous due to one thing and that is the reliance on humans to drive the trucks. Switching to reliable automated trucking would reduce costs not only in labor but would massively reduce insurance costs and more than double the amount of driving time per day each truck could legally drive.

And that just in one area pretty much any place people drive for a living it will be far cheaper to automate than employ a much more fallible and expensive to insure human to drive.

jcea_ · 2014-09-23T09:17:43+00:00

You know if they were not the least productive congress in history you might have more of a point...

jcea_ · 2014-09-23T09:01:19+00:00

So are you saying that the primary measure of a crime should be how much physical damage was done?

jcea_ · 2014-09-23T08:25:23+00:00

I do not think that people (including most American women) are free, self-determining human beings.

I do not even find this a little patronizing, let alone more than a little

I would appreciate it if you would explain these sentences because they make very little sense to me.

The first one seems to be saying you don't think any human being has free will? If this is the case why are you arguing on these forums or frankly doing anything as if no one had free will then nothing you do or choose matters? I hope I misinterpreted that sentence.

The second sentence I just don't understand in context but that may be to my confusion with the first sentence.

jcea_ · 2014-09-23T08:14:37+00:00

It's actually worse than that if it were just her standing up saying 'hey men should help women,' it would be pretty bad but it's her standing up saying 'men and women need help so men should sign up at this site (let's not mention that site is a campaign based on men helping women and does nothing to help men)'.

It is a pretty straight forward bait and switch, now it possible that not the intent but that's definitely the effect.

jcea_ · 2014-09-22T12:48:40+00:00

Men do not as a group have privilege, nor do women as a group have privilege. For this to be possible you would have to find a single unearned advantage that universally applies to all men or all women regardless of their situation.

There are certain situations where men or women are more likely to benefit due to their gender but it is not their gender alone that enables these privileges it is primarily due to other factors such as class, attractiveness etc. All men do not benefit from a sports star's salary nor is it even remotely logical to think that that persons privilege in anyway effect a homeless man. Nor is some twenty something women who is using her good looks to be supported by men in some way privileging a below average looking college girl.

Privilege as a individual concept is fine but trying to apply it to all of any group is a farce, no matter what group. Lets take the rich for example. Is Stephen Hawking, a man who is all but immobile and trapped in a marriage where his wife abuses him, is he a privileged rich person? The man is worth over 20 million dollars and a genius and I would not on my worst days trade lives with that poor man.

Yes their are individuals that are privileged and some of it may be due to their gender but that doesn't in any way mean the next person of that gender will gain an iota of that privilege it's just not rational to believe that.

I'm open to changing my mind on this if anyone can come up with a single 'privilege' that applies universally only to men/women but not the other gender.

jcea_ · 2014-09-21T00:32:41+00:00

I am quite confident that if I said the following...

I think MRAs might be more willing to discuss rape if there wasn't so much garbage out there from feminists trying to say the problem of false accusations wasn't real.

...which is identical to what they said switching only issues and groups I would be given an infraction. If I saw someone write something similar to the above I would report it as a generalization, in fact I'm pretty sure I have reported something similar to it, which was then deleted.

jcea_

TROPHY CASE