i swear this is just like that scene in My Cousin Vinny where Joe Pesci just doesn't get it. All the has to do is say Guilty or Not Guilty - but instead he keeps on going and going and going until he's ultimately found in contempt of court.
Vinny: My clients were caught completely by surprise. They thought they were getting arrested for shoplifting a can of tuna. Judge Haller: What are you telling me? That they plead not guilty? Vinny: No. I'm just trying to explain. Judge Haller: I don't want to hear explanations. The state of Alabama has a procedure. And that procedure is to have an arraignment. Are we clear on this? Vinny: Yes, but there seems to be a great deal of confusion here. You see, my clients-- Judge Haller: Uh, Mr. Gambini? (motions for him to approach the bench) All I ask from you is a very simple answer to a very simple question. There are only two ways to answer it: guilty or not guilty. Vinny: But your honor, my clients didn't do anything. Judge Haller: Once again, the communication process is broken down. It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directly to trial, skip that, and get a dismissal. Well, I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it. The next words out of your mouth better be "guilty" or "not guilty." I don't want to hear commentary, argument, or opinion. If I hear anything other than "guilty" or "not guilty", you'll be in contempt. I don't even want to hear you clear your throat. Now, (enunciating) how do your clients plead? Vinny: (enunciating) I think I get the point. Judge Haller: No, I don't think you do. You're now in contempt of court. Would you like to go for two counts of contempt? Vinny: Not guilty. Judge Haller: Thank you
Of course, one could also make the rather plain point that females are remarkably endowed with obvious flagrant symbols of their sexual fertility which signal nothing about their underlying personhood and which men have been shaped for our entire history to latch onto. That portion of the equation is not a moral one- it is fact, and men have at least 1 similar adornment (our incredibly large penis (by primate standards)).
What are you trying to say with this point?
It seems few people in this thread however have any real interest in debating points in an intelligent way
Are you serious, because several people have made totally valid points.
I am not going to keep doing this but I am truly curious as to your point and I just think it is disrespectful to say people are not interested in debating in an intelligent way because they have.
Post by HecticDialectic on Apr 28, 2011 15:14:41 GMT -5
The point of the above is that there are likely very real reasons we see the patterns of behavior that we do, the most obvious being that evolution produces traits which are signals of fertility or sexual ornaments with no other functional benefits- i.e. things that men (and women) can both latch onto as convenient ways to objectify each other. None of these traits have anything to do with our personalities, but are nonetheless important cues for things like mating value, which as advanced as we like to consider ourselves is still what drives us forward.
Men are also more likely to seek multiple matings, and this, because it is so prevalent in nearly every animal, cannot be explained as a peculiarity of our socialization.
Stormy, some people did at first attempt to make points- if you move back the last few pages however whenever I made a point it was greeted almost entirely with personal attacks. I understand people get riled up in discussions like this, especially on the internet, but it's no reason to make it personal.
Post by Friendly Destroyer on Apr 28, 2011 15:54:57 GMT -5
@hectic. Listen, obviously we have differing personalities and probably won't see 100% eye to eye on this thing. My main frustration with your comments are that you seem to be addressing this issue as if it existed in a vacuum. You seem to intellectualize the problem the same as you would a computer program, to me that is a luxuary that only those who are white, male and straight can posses when discussing inequality.