3 ms·

No, again, you got it wrong. Preferences are not addictions or anxieties. They are possible choices, by definition. They are basically informed answers to a hon

by js8 9y ago

No, again, you got it wrong. Preferences are not addictions or anxieties. They are possible choices, by definition. They are basically informed answers to a honest question, "what do you want?". It's your approach that's very patronizing. You are effectively saying that you know better than somebody else. I believe people should be considered to have free will (not saying they actually have it, by the way) and make their own choices in life (mostly - children and mentally ill are the exceptions). I hear the same argument you present in other contexts. For example, muslim women should not be allowed to wear hijab because it's a sign of oppression. No, sometimes these women decided to do it, because they consider it as a part of their culture, and it has nothing to do with oppression. Unfortunately, some people choose to misinterpret it as a political choice, but that's an error those people make. Or it was raised against gays - that what they do is immoral and therefore they should change their sexual behavior. > I didn't even tried for now to talk about how girls average attitude to math affects society in a way to make society more unequal for girls who like math Because that's a bad argument to begin with. The girls have some preferences, and make some choices, and whatever they are, those girls should not be held morally responsible for how society treats them as a result! That's blaming the victim. It's the same argument as the one against hijabs, which I mention above. It's important that they have the choice (also known as "non-discrimination"), and that's it. (Actually also important is that they can change their mind later, if they want.) > If you was a PhD in social sciences I might want to get two days pause to rethink all my understaning of inequality and personality before continuing to argue. Don't give me that! Again, it's very patronizing and undemocratic idea (coming from Plato, among other places), that people who don't have PhD in social science or what not cannot have a preference in social issues. Or that we cannot make an informed choice. Yourself, you show not understanding even elementary philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem Of course I am a democrat and leftist and I have an excellent idea why and what these terms mean. > Therefore there are more likelihood that their views is not better then average. Of course, my view is not better than average, and you should understand it by now. I don't have a better idea about life than a young woman who decides not to work in computing, or to wear a hijab. Unlike you, who would probably want to dictate them. And you should totally read this after two days and rethink your position. Because your position is actually more conservative (patronizing) than mine.

ordu 9y ago
> I believe people should be considered to have free will (not saying they actually have it, by the way) and make their own choices in life (mostly - children and mentally ill are the exceptions). Yes. I agree with it. It maybe tempting to change preferences of adults without asking them first, but it is unethical and therefore forbidden. I'm not arguing to change preferences of adults. Its up to them. They can like everything that they want to like. But society has his rights, and it could demand to exclude sexism or racism from speech, if there are reasons for it. One can be racist, it is his free will, but he shouldn't speak about it publicly. If society wants gender equality and too few women in STEM leads to inequality rise, than society can change it by foridding sexism talk, by changing education practices, by using media to educate adults and so on. Society can create environment where any sensible parent would try to make her daughters to like math and her sons to not being sexist. > Again, it's very patronizing and undemocratic idea (coming from Plato, among other places), that people who don't have PhD in social science or what not cannot have a preference in social issues. Or that we cannot make an informed choice. Stop thinking politics. Here and now we involved in discussion, not in democratic voting. Try to see the difference. You can speak what you want, but it is mine decision would I change my mind or I wouldn't. It is not your decision, and not decision of society. It is mine decision. You tried beautiful argument "I'm leftist", I answer you that such an argument has negative value for me, it devalues your opinion in my eyes. > Yourself, you show not understanding even elementary philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem Yes. I do not understand this problem. I have read those article before, and was unable to find some concrete example of such a problem. And, you know, I cannot understand abstractions without examples. Have never succeed with such a task. Can you explain what mistake I've done on this concrete example without referring to some abstract ideas? > Of course, my view is not better than average, and you should understand it by now. I don't have a better idea about life than a young woman who decides not to work in computing, or to wear a hijab. If your view is not better that average then why do you bother youself explaining it? Are you think that I'm lower than average and didn't understand average views already? If so, do you really believe than you are better at explaining than others, and you can explain me some average ideas which I cannot understand? > Unlike you, who would probably want to dictate them. No. Maybe I failed to explain myself clearly, but I didn't say nothing like this. > And you should totally read this after two days and rethink your position. Because your position is actually more conservative (patronizing) than mine. One more time: its not more patronizing. But the idea is: I would not spend two days on thinking only because someone in internet believes that my views conservative or patronizing. I could spend two days if I have reasons to. For example if someone who is clearly knows better than me cannot agree with me. Or if I encounter some arguments which show me that my views is contradictory. But I will not spend two days thinking just because someone marked my opinion with some political labels.

by js8 9y ago

ordu 9y ago

> I believe people should be considered to have free will (not saying they actually have it, by the way) and make their own choices in life (mostly - children and mentally ill are the exceptions). Yes. I agree with it. It maybe tempting to change preferences of adults without asking them first, but it is unethical and therefore forbidden. I'm not arguing to change preferences of adults. Its up to them. They can like everything that they want to like. But society has his rights, and it could demand to exclude sexism or racism from speech, if there are reasons for it. One can be racist, it is his free will, but he shouldn't speak about it publicly. If society wants gender equality and too few women in STEM leads to inequality rise, than society can change it by foridding sexism talk, by changing education practices, by using media to educate adults and so on. Society can create environment where any sensible parent would try to make her daughters to like math and her sons to not being sexist. > Again, it's very patronizing and undemocratic idea (coming from Plato, among other places), that people who don't have PhD in social science or what not cannot have a preference in social issues. Or that we cannot make an informed choice. Stop thinking politics. Here and now we involved in discussion, not in democratic voting. Try to see the difference. You can speak what you want, but it is mine decision would I change my mind or I wouldn't. It is not your decision, and not decision of society. It is mine decision. You tried beautiful argument "I'm leftist", I answer you that such an argument has negative value for me, it devalues your opinion in my eyes. > Yourself, you show not understanding even elementary philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem Yes. I do not understand this problem. I have read those article before, and was unable to find some concrete example of such a problem. And, you know, I cannot understand abstractions without examples. Have never succeed with such a task. Can you explain what mistake I've done on this concrete example without referring to some abstract ideas? > Of course, my view is not better than average, and you should understand it by now. I don't have a better idea about life than a young woman who decides not to work in computing, or to wear a hijab. If your view is not better that average then why do you bother youself explaining it? Are you think that I'm lower than average and didn't understand average views already? If so, do you really believe than you are better at explaining than others, and you can explain me some average ideas which I cannot understand? > Unlike you, who would probably want to dictate them. No. Maybe I failed to explain myself clearly, but I didn't say nothing like this. > And you should totally read this after two days and rethink your position. Because your position is actually more conservative (patronizing) than mine. One more time: its not more patronizing. But the idea is: I would not spend two days on thinking only because someone in internet believes that my views conservative or patronizing. I could spend two days if I have reasons to. For example if someone who is clearly knows better than me cannot agree with me. Or if I encounter some arguments which show me that my views is contradictory. But I will not spend two days thinking just because someone marked my opinion with some political labels.