FemNazis are at it again!

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Smiley
Women
Men
Robots

Will Smith
iRobot
The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air
Independence Day
That chick in iRobot that acted without emotions

[Japher]

A guy a work with hired a design engineer who is a lady about 3 years ago. She is single, has a kid... but she is the best worker we have. She rocks! Not to mention that in the time she has worked for us she has gone to night school to get a cooking degree and has continued to take care of her kid and continued to do excellent work for us.

Still.

The matter of fact IS women are generally worse or lesser workers than men. Why is this? I don't know. However, using statistics as a basis for an argument and is stupid, and is a two edge sword at best, as I can quote the figures of the number of women who stay home instead of furthering their career. Is that because men get a better salary? I seriously doubt it, and I see no reason to argue the contrary.

[Agathon]

I'd hit the robot chick.

And isn't the correct spelling "Feminazi"?

[Japher]

Femanazi?

Who knows, he's a Finn

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kidicious

There is a value to being a women which they are not compensated for.

Value ? To whom ? If it is to "society" , then let "society" pay her . Don't make the employer do it . But that's the problem , you see . "Society" cannot pay it . Only individuals can .

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Japher
Who knows, he's a Finn

And as everyone knows, Finns have strange habits (besides carrying knives)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Value ? To whom ? If it is to "society" , then let "society" pay her . Don't make the employer do it . But that's the problem , you see . "Society" cannot pay it . Only individuals can.

Raise taxes! Pay the women!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Secondly, I would put sociology in the same category as economics. Namely voodoo. A scientific theory must be able to be falsified. How do you do that with sociology?

It's just like the economists who do the same thing. I noticed that the biologists are the ones claiming that sociology is a science too. No coincidence.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Value ? To whom ? If it is to "society" , then let "society" pay her . Don't make the employer do it . But that's the problem , you see . "Society" cannot pay it . Only individuals can .

Aneeshmization attempt detected.

You remind me too much of Kid. Goodbye.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

I assume the "self-evident apect" is free will? Now, there's much to say about free will from the philosophical viewpoint, but I'll just note here that if it exists, it comes from brains, and is thus a biological issue whether you accept a biological foundation for sociology or not.

First of all, there is this thing called "emergent properties." It may seem fuzzy and indeed it is, but many researchers argue that emergent properties do exist. For example, take intelligence. Individual neurons aren't intelligent, but if you weave a massive number of them into a vast network, intelligence emerges - it is a property of the entire system, not a property of any individual members.

Secondly, I would put sociology in the same category as economics. Namely voodoo. A scientific theory must be able to be falsified. How do you do that with sociology?

How does either of these relate to what I said?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's just like the economists who do the same thing. I noticed that the biologists are the ones claiming that sociology is a science too. No coincidence.

Studying human behavior isn't science? Why should studying the behavior of humans be any different than studying the behavior of other animals?

[Agathon]

Studying human behavior isn't science? Why should studying the behavior of humans be any different than studying the behavior of other animals?

Intensional states?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Agathon

Studying human behavior isn't science? Why should studying the behavior of humans be any different than studying the behavior of other animals?

Intensional states?

WTF is that?

[Elok]

To be fair, there's always the behaviorist objection to be applied to the social sciences, or at least sociology: it's impossible to know for sure what somebody's thinking, only what he or she is doing. Sociology can describe trends, but beyond that it's limited by the nature of its field of study until such time as we invent a mind-reading device, at which point said device will be destroyed instantly by the ACLU. Postulating on behavior is of very limited value without the ability to confirm its cause or reason. It's like we can say "**** happens," but can't describe the digestive system.

Which is not to say that Sociology is "not a real science." I don't know enough about it to say that, though I'm told Sociology is the art of using many words to turn a painfully obvious statement into a profound scientific truth. But who knows?

[Agathon]

WTF is that?

Beliefs and desires. Especially beliefs: the background of belief that goes into explaining any human action is massive.

Of course, you could be an eliminativist, but not many people are.