• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: Senior Staff

Bisexuals! hey you. i have a question...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lysis said:
Every stereotype starts with a truth.
Click to expand...

... No, stereotypes start with an observation. Observations are not truths, they are molded by the human mind.

I think there is more than one side of idealism here. I wish bisexuality was easier to express and easier for others to understand, but hey, homosexuality wasn't understood until very recently. Maybe in another couple hundred years, people will better understand bisexuality too, hm?
 
^ The problem with my statement is that I'm right, but I can't elaborate because some delicate little flower will report me.

poe had it right. It starts with truth and gets sensationalized and parodied, but the initial stereotype is a truthful observation of a particular culture or group of people (gender, sexuality, etc).
 
like i said a lot of stereotypes begin with a truthful observation that gets more untruthful shit tacked onto it.
 
Lysis said:
^ The problem with my statement is that I'm right, but I can't elaborate because some delicate little flower will report me.

poe had it right. It starts with truth and gets sensationalized and parodied, but the initial stereotype is a truthful observation of a particular culture or group of people (gender, sexuality, etc).
Click to expand...

What you fail to realize is gender in and of itself also holds no truths. It's just a concept made up by human beings. Therefore, how can a truth exist about something that isn't truthful to begin with?

And thank you for the compliment. I am a flower, aren't I?
 
Simply_Live said:
What you fail to realize is gender in and of itself also holds no truths. It's just a concept made up by human beings. Therefore, how can a truth exist about something that isn't truthful to begin with?

And thank you for the compliment. I am a flower, aren't I?
Click to expand...

But see, just because something is made up by humans, doesn't mean it's not real in some sense. Examples: National Borders (Go cross the border into Iran from the mountains on foot with no travel documents and see what happens.) or Money. (If money is not 'real', would please send me your money?)

How can a truth exist about something that is not truthful to begin with? Well, a) You give me no definition of what you mean by truth, but I'll try.
Vacuous truths: More or less consist of an operator on the member(s) of an empty set. E.G. "All of Rangrz's manned missions to Mars have been successful." It's trivially true. Related, are logical conditionals on statements which are absurd/never happened/can't happen. E.G. "The CN Tower is in Kinshasa, If and only if Rangrz is the King of England." Is true on these grounds: The CN Tower is not in Kinshasa; Rangrz is not the King of England. Which is factually true.
Truths can be set by definition/axiomatically."The velocity of propagation of electromagnetic radiation in vacuum is EXACTLY 299 792 458 meters per second." Why? Because the meter is DEFINED as the distance traveled by a photon in free space over the course of 1/299 792 458th of a second. Ergo, it's analytically true. More analytic truths "This apple is a fruit." Is analytically true because meaning of "apple" already encompasses being a fruit. Or to see it the other way around, the category of fruits, as defined, admits all such objects which meet the criteria of "apple." There exists no object which can be admitted to the set of apples but excluded from the set of fruits.
Other examples of by definition or axiom are Law. "If you possess some MDMA without a license, you are guilty of an offense." and religion "It's a Sin for a Catholic to have pre-martial sex". These are both truth within the framework of that legal system or religious groups doctrine.
Negation of a non-truth is itself truthful. "1+1=2 /\ ~1+1=3".
Another quasi example: Under Newtonian gravitation, an object with a negative rest mass would be attracted to an object with a positive rest mass, the one with the positive mass would be repelled from the negative. The negative one would "chase" the positive one, perpetually. (Perpetual motion) and it wouldn't even violate conservation laws because the motion of the negative rest mass object would have negative kinetic energy, which would balance out the positive's Ke, and the total system energy would be zero. General Relativity says an object with imaginary rest mass would always travel faster then the speed of light.
These are both mathematically true. However, the notion of negative or imaginary rest mass is unphysical and a frank absurdity. Is the statement thus true or is it false?

Godels incompleteness theorem touches on the issue too. Handwaving time (Please, my mathematically educated peers, remember I am handwaving here and don't flame me over the nature of.) More or less, it shows any consistent set of axioms which can provide truths about the natural numbers will always be unable to list all truths about them. Any system that could provide all truths would be internally inconsistent, unable to prove it's own proofs. The lack of internal consistency means that it would also give rise to falsehoods, despite giving truths too.
 
rangrz said:
But see, just because something is made up by humans, doesn't mean it's not real in some sense. Examples: National Borders (Go cross the border into Iran from the mountains on foot with no travel documents and see what happens.) or Money. (If money is not 'real', would please send me your money?)

How can a truth exist about something that is not truthful to begin with? Well, a) You give me no definition of what you mean by truth, but I'll try.
Vacuous truths: More or less consist of an operator on the member(s) of an empty set. E.G. "All of Rangrz's manned missions to Mars have been successful." It's trivially true. Related, are logical conditionals on statements which are absurd/never happened/can't happen. E.G. "The CN Tower is in Kinshasa, If and only if Rangrz is the King of England." Is true on these grounds: The CN Tower is not in Kinshasa; Rangrz is not the King of England. Which is factually true.
Truths can be set by definition/axiomatically."The velocity of propagation of electromagnetic radiation in vacuum is EXACTLY 299 792 458 meters per second." Why? Because the meter is DEFINED as the distance traveled by a photon in free space over the course of 1/299 792 458th of a second. Ergo, it's analytically true. More analytic truths "This apple is a fruit." Is analytically true because meaning of "apple" already encompasses being a fruit. Or to see it the other way around, the category of fruits, as defined, admits all such objects which meet the criteria of "apple." There exists no object which can be admitted to the set of apples but excluded from the set of fruits.
Other examples of by definition or axiom are Law. "If you possess some MDMA without a license, you are guilty of an offense." and religion "It's a Sin for a Catholic to have pre-martial sex". These are both truth within the framework of that legal system or religious groups doctrine.
Negation of a non-truth is itself truthful. "1+1=2 /\ ~1+1=3".
Another quasi example: Under Newtonian gravitation, an object with a negative rest mass would be attracted to an object with a positive rest mass, the one with the positive mass would be repelled from the negative. The negative one would "chase" the positive one, perpetually. (Perpetual motion) and it wouldn't even violate conservation laws because the motion of the negative rest mass object would have negative kinetic energy, which would balance out the positive's Ke, and the total system energy would be zero. General Relativity says an object with imaginary rest mass would always travel faster then the speed of light.
These are both mathematically true. However, the notion of negative or imaginary rest mass is unphysical and a frank absurdity. Is the statement thus true or is it false?

Godels incompleteness theorem touches on the issue too. Handwaving time (Please, my mathematically educated peers, remember I am handwaving here and don't flame me over the nature of.) More or less, it shows any consistent set of axioms which can provide truths about the natural numbers will always be unable to list all truths about them. Any system that could provide all truths would be internally inconsistent, unable to prove it's own proofs. The lack of internal consistency means that it would also give rise to falsehoods, despite giving truths too.
Click to expand...

As a maths major myself, I should have been more specific.

What I mean is we can make up all kinds of stuff about whatever we want. If I say "rangrz went on a mission to suck an alien penis if he went anywhere", it's a truthful statement because you didn't go anywhere, so the entire statement is true. However, tell too many of these "truth" statements and you end up looking silly. We can't claim all of these things, even if they are mathematical truths/ logical truths because not many people understand that logic says we can believe the whole thing because we know the first part not to be true.

In short, I accept Lysis' statements about stereotyping and gender identity because I accept that gender identity is no truthful, which means the whole statement truthful.
 
Say what?

I'd rather say Lysis blatantly relies on her own set of heuristics to help her get through the days.
 
Hmm, I'd say gender identity could be analytically true. Defining what attributes/qualities/properties are members of the set {Female gendered} and {Male Gendered} {Various other options}. In the same something which meets the criteria to be an apple is therefore a fruit.

Rangrz is attracted sexually to females. Rangrz is male. Rangrz is not homosexual. (Using sex, not gender) is true statement, and all parts are true. Is sexual orientation more truthful than gender identity? It's a little more concrete for sure. But sexual orientation seems to be a valid construct. If it is and gender identity is not valid, what is the difference?

Constructing these conditions that define gender identity is left as an exercise to the reader.
 
Ah, but do you know if I like you, or which women I like?

Rangrz likes at least one female sexually --> Rangrz ∉{homosexuals} But does not tell us if Rangrz ∈ {heterosexual} \/ {bisexual} \/ {Pansexual} It does also show Rangrz ∈~{Asexual}.

So, the concept of a sexual orientation has some validity. IMO, it can be a use back of the envelope approximation. Ditto with gender identity. Of course, the scientist notes that Empirical reality trumps theory every single time, and as such when you encounter an observational disagreement with the model, you need to adjust the model or accept a margin of error. So, that while not every person is well described by the sexual orientation or by binary gender identity, one does not need to throw the entire model out, only proceed with an understanding that the model is only valid under certain conditions. Much like Newtonian mechanics is not that good when velocity>.5c does not mean it has to be discarded, just that it's limitations kept in mind.
 
I would think you don't like women you think are unattractive. :P obviously, I'm not going to ask which category I'm in. Shyness, ftw.

I suppose your "model" is accurate to a specific degree. However, making a claim that stereotypes beging with truth is not a claim based on a model. It's a claim of absolutivity which we know is not true, even if we try to make a model for it.

Your model on creating a basic gender identity is accurate, but claims of absolutivity drive me bonkers.
 
people who use language as though it is maths- this is too much. its like when you get ten levels of theory of mind. he said that she said that he said that she said that he thinks what she over heard him say that that guy told our friend who overheard it from her etc.

overuse of logic just makes normal conversation impossible


augustaB - thats what i'm saying. if you have the option of doing things the natural way its what your gonna go for out of ease and many other factors in its favour
 
But we overwhelm them when you provide the mathematical treatments needed to make an algorithm for their PS3 work, or when someone like me keeps their lights on, with the added bonus of not having a superprompt critical power excursion at the generating station.

In short, I think geeks should go on strike.
 
I dumb down what I say sometimes so that people aren't totally put off, but honestly, if the average person can't handle my intelligence, then fuck them. The way I talk and write is not out of arrogance, it's just how I conceptualize ideas and express myself. It has made me socially isolated IRL though. The circle of friends I have, it's taken a long time to form. Every person that I count as a good friend is able to follow me in conversation no matter how wildly intellectual I get, and that means a lot to me.

Our society rewards dumb far more than it rewards original, out of the box thinkers.
 
you need to alter the way you speak for the person you are speaking to. lets be honest if you cannot communicate an idea its as much a failure on your part as theirs. after working with learning disabled severely autistic people you are the one responsible for getting them to understand as you have the advantage in every way. there is always a way to simplify a concept so that it doesn't go over (almost) everyone's head.

i live with a guy who is doing a physics degree and his thinking/use of language is so rigid its representative of a rigid mind and while i easily understand it i tend to gloss over the waffle as i get disinterested (bored). i was relatively good at maths at school i just didn't like it. its not impossible to understand it just bores my balls off. i read a book on logic a while back and after a while it was a case of- hmm i get this, its just boring and using it too much will alienate people thus the message will not pass to them.

sorry for that off topic discourse
 
Foreigner said:
I dumb down what I say sometimes so that people aren't totally put off, but honestly, if the average person can't handle my intelligence, then fuck them. The way I talk and write is not out of arrogance, it's just how I conceptualize ideas and express myself. It has made me socially isolated IRL though. The circle of friends I have, it's taken a long time to form. Every person that I count as a good friend is able to follow me in conversation no matter how wildly intellectual I get, and that means a lot to me.

Our society rewards dumb far more than it rewards original, out of the box thinkers.
Click to expand...

pofacedhoe said:
you need to alter the way you speak for the person you are speaking to. lets be honest if you cannot communicate an idea its as much a failure on your part as theirs. after working with learning disabled severely autistic people you are the one responsible for getting them to understand as you have the advantage in every way. there is always a way to simplify a concept so that it doesn't go over (almost) everyone's head.

i live with a guy who is doing a physics degree and his thinking/use of language is so rigid its representative of a rigid mind and while i easily understand it i tend to gloss over the waffle as i get disinterested (bored). i was relatively good at maths at school i just didn't like it. its not impossible to understand it just bores my balls off. i read a book on logic a while back and after a while it was a case of- hmm i get this, its just boring and using it too much will alienate people thus the message will not pass to them.

sorry for that off topic discourse
Click to expand...

I agree with the both of you. There has to be analogies when you're explaining higher levels of thinking to others. Of course, some people don't want to waste their breath explaining things at all. A conundrum, it is!

I'm told I'm good at explaining things in multiple ways. Not everyone knows how to "dumb it down".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top