brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Insomniac insomniac at winterslight.org
Sat Aug 24 01:06:07 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message
news:4Wz99.2486$Ic7.355790 at news2.west.cox.net...
>
> "Tom Breton" <tehom at REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote in message
> news:m3it212v2e.fsf at panix.com...
> > Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> writes:
> >
> > > Tom Breton <tehom at REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> writes:
> > > >> Tom Breton <tehom at REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote:
> > > >First, let me get this out of the way:
> > > >> >Thus when a prize is shared between man and woman, there's a
> > > >> >legitimate suspicion that the man provided disproportionately more
> of
> > > >> >the gravitas and credibility, since the woman also provided the
> > > >> >rewarded quality of being female.
> > > >>
> > > >> Only for bigots like you who thing that one must be a man to have
> > > >> gravitas and credibility.
> > > >
> > > >Bob, please.  I have only respect for you.  Can you at least try to
> > > >respond to my points without personally attacking me?
> > >
> > > Sorry, but that is what I get from the line.
> >
> > There is no valid way to get it from that line.  One can't logically
> > disagree with a conclusion without disputing either a premiss or the
> > logic used.
> >
> > Let me help you digest it into logical form:
> >
> >   Premiss A:  When a prize is given to a joint ticket of A and B,
> >                 AND we know that running mate A has quality QA,
> >                 AND we know that running mate B lacks quality QA,
> >                 AND we don't know the distribution of quality QB,
> >                 AND we know that both quality QA and QB are rewarded,
> >                 THEN we should suspect that candidate B provided
> >                 disproportionately more of quality QB
> >         (Common sense)
> >
> >   Premiss B: The Nobel committee rewards the quality of being female
> >         (Established by argument here)
> >
> >   (plus some trivial premisses instantiating the other variables for
> >   the Nobel situation)
> >
> >   Conclusion: IF a Nobel prize is shared between man and woman, THEN
> >         we should suspect that the man provided disproportionately
> >         more of the gravitas and credibility.
> >
> > Just to remind you of the way logic operates, one disagrees with one
> > or more premissess, or with the logic, or does not disagree.
> >
> > Just so it's clear, the logic used consists of unifying the variables
> > in premiss A with the particulars of the Nobel situation, so I don't
> > believe there's a real possibility of logical flaws.
> >
> > > You would no doubt scoff
> > > at "Thus when a prize is shared between man and woman, there's a
> > > legitimate suspicion that the woman provided disproportionately more
> > > of the gravitas and credibility, since the man also provided the
> > > rewarded quality of being male." as being sexist AND wrong.
> >
> > Because the facts demonstrate the opposite.  I'd also scoff because
> > Feminists have cried wolf with exactly that claim unbelievably loud,
> > long, and often.
> >
> >
> > > Your
> > > statement presumes that women were being rewarded with Nobel prizes
> > > merely for being female.
> >
> > It doesn't "presume" that.  First, you've twisted my words again.  I
> > precisely denied that being female was the *only* criterion, and
> > repeatedly.  In my very first paragraph to you, I said:
> >
> >         And certainly no-one is plucked off the street to be given a
> >         Nobel solely because of their birth group.
> >
> > I also concluded that post with this paragraph:
> >
> >         Of course, favoritism to women is not the only factor, it's
> >         probably not even the dominant factor, but one shouldn't
> >         overlook it.
> >
> > You owe it to yourself to have a long think about why you feel so
> > strongly that you should attribute this position to me, when it's
> > clearly incompatible with what I said.
> >
> > Secondly, I did not presume but *showed* that Marie Curie benefitted
> > from favoritism for her sex.
> >
> >
> > > That is not only an insult to the women
> > > getting the prize, but to the Nobel committee.
> >
> > They'll just have to feel insulted, then.  Their feelings don't make
> > things true or false, and they don't make anti-male bias OK.
> >
> > It would particularly please me if the Nobel committee felt insulted.
> > I'd also like the chance to tell them off about awarding the peace
> > prize to Arafat.
> >
> >
> > We could continue this, but since you stand by calling me a "bigot"
> > (your word), I doubt rational discussion would ensue.  Besides, it
> > distresses me to see you committing Feminism.  I'm sure that in a few
> > years you will look back on this exchange and feel bad, but I want you
> > to know that I have already forgiven you.
> >
> > --
> > Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom.  http://www.panix.com/~tehom
>
>
> Do you know what you're dealing with here, Tom?
>
> Women's intuition.
>
> John Knight
>

And do you know who is doing the asking, Tom?  An admitted racist, bigot,
and member of the Aryan Nation, who can't seem to get his genders straight,
since Bob LeChevalier is male.

The Shadow Dancer





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list