So...I'm marching through the "archive" to see what I missed in the past few weeks... I almost avoided it, but written on the very day I left and not to mention quite stale and rancid, what do I step in but-
>When discussing philosophy reminds one of their girlfriend/ boyfriend and
elicits fear >of fighting, loss of sexual privileges, and public humiliation regarding one's >masculinity-- and assuming a dependence on the relationship, prior public >humiliation, and concerns about one's masculinity; then, the argument professed >regarding one's logic is subverted by one's need to restore one's manhood, one's
>relationship, and one's public image... such "philosophy" will become mere
>justification and reveal only such "philosophers" attempts to condone the
perspective >of the one who controls the sexual purse-strings (often feminine rhetoric espoused by >macho eunics). No wonder the philosophical content of this list so often devolves into >popularity contests and "female" (subjective/ relativistic) interpersonal drivel!
I wouldn't have piped up now, were it not for this last sentence.
How can what you call a "subjective/relativistic" viewpoint be "female"? According to you, if you happen to be blessed with the X/Y chromo-combination and a penis, you are capable of seeing everything with an *objective* perspective, but if you're handicapped by (oh I dunno...pick a cliche; 'womb hysteria' perhaps?) that extra mysterious X-factor, then the capabilities of one's mental faculties are diminished. And you can prove this absurd assertion because after all, you have the superior objectivity (it has superpowers: the ability to transcend your own swelled male ego, inexperience, and everything) that allows you to judge all matters, and speak on the behalf of the entire female sex. Bravo.
By claiming that you are not hindered by subjectivity (because you don't believe in it, incidently), wouldn't that make you almost God-like? You place yourself and your *opinion* (you regard it as fact) above others, and more specifically what you call a "female" perspective. Your words Brett, not mine. Sounds quite like the unquestioning Bible-thumper. In summation: "Things are what they are because that's the way they are, and they are the way they are because **I say so**, and God says so. I can say so because God [or objectivity, granted by oneself] says I can. And God says that he IS, and so it is. You are a sinner (subjective plebian) because this books says so, and it was written by God, and whatever he says goes. See? You can't argue with that."
Oh, I understand now. When I share my opinion, it's feminine "drivel". Worthless and limited by my own "female" outlook. But when you drench the list in your nonsensical Brett-spew (only good for removing mildew stains, but it leaves a foul odor), it's PHILOSOPHY! Or perhaps that's what you call your prized "recreation"- antagonizing us.
You're doing nothing here but proving how very little you know about womenzilch. Look, you can't even get your own rhetoric correct- it would be macho *eunuchs" (quite an oxymoron, in itself). One thing I've learned: If it quacks like a sexist fool, then it MUST be a sexist fool. Actually, I think you *are* a complete quack. Even talking sausages make more sense.
really quite happy to return to the welcome arms of CoV, only it took the pressing of the red misogyny-button to summon me, ~kjs
ps: Brett, you want evidence that all are self-destructive? You're looking right at it. (Apparently, the mirror.) I would call the dismissal of understanding and the choice to denounce others and gain enemies instead "self-destructive".