Feminist type.

[Vurhurlanders]

What's with the anti-sex thing?

You do know that without sex, nobody here would actually exist, right?

On what basis do you say that sex is wrong? What evidence do you have that sex in and of itself inflicts harm on society or individuals?

My anti-sex view is very complicated, and it's hard to explain in a few sentences.

We also wouldn't be here without the genocide of the Native Americans. That doesn't mean that manifest destiny was therefore justified.

Ha! speak for yourself. I would still be here.

But really, comparing sex to genocide? I think some explanation is in order as to why sex is bad, and some evidence to back up that claim.

[Four-sided Triangles]

IF this were so then saying that someone is equal to someone else would be synonymous with saying that they are the same person.
Nobody could be equal with anyone except for themselves (and only with themselves at that exact same moment in time!)

Not true. Under the relation of homeomorphism, a sphere and a cube are equivalent, but it's quite clear that a sphere and a cube aren't the same object.

[Dakini]

i agree with your first point. i'm surprised someone else has agreed with me on this point, because when i've stated this belief to others, they often say "you know nothing about feminism" or "feminism has changed a lot since the 1960s." so what? we should change our feminist beliefs just cuz everyone else does? what conformists! people should think for themselves, not just follow the trends!

Orgasms ≠ trends

Seriously, sex (with a good and respectful partner) is so much better than chocolate.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Ha! speak for yourself. I would still be here.

But really, comparing sex to genocide? I think some explanation is in order as to why sex is bad, and some evidence to back up that claim.

I'm American, so I wouldn't exist.

Nonetheless, I wasn't comparing sex to genocide. I was simply pointing out that "I wouldn't be here if not for x." is not the same as "X is a good thing."

[Vurhurlanders]

IF this were so then saying that someone is equal to someone else would be synonymous with saying that they are the same person.
Nobody could be equal with anyone except for themselves (and only with themselves at that exact same moment in time!)

Not true. Under the relation of homeomorphism, a sphere and a cube are equivalent, but it's quite clear that a sphere and a cube aren't the same object.

"Equivalent" =/= "Equal"

[Vurhurlanders]

Ha! speak for yourself. I would still be here.

But really, comparing sex to genocide? I think some explanation is in order as to why sex is bad, and some evidence to back up that claim.

I'm American, so I wouldn't exist.

Nonetheless, I wasn't comparing sex to genocide. I was simply pointing out that "I wouldn't be here if not for x." is not the same as "X is a good thing."

But you still fail to show why sex is anything but a good thing.

[Natapoc]

IF this were so then saying that someone is equal to someone else would be synonymous with saying that they are the same person.
Nobody could be equal with anyone except for themselves (and only with themselves at that exact same moment in time!)

Not true. Under the relation of homeomorphism, a sphere and a cube are equivalent, but it's quite clear that a sphere and a cube aren't the same object.

This violates your previous statement. A sphere and a cube are not equivalent in the way you specified. They are only of the same Topology.

This is equivalent to saying that males and females are equivalent in terms of moral worth but not in some other areas.

If you believe otherwise please show how the identity principle allows it.

[Vurhurlanders]

IF this were so then saying that someone is equal to someone else would be synonymous with saying that they are the same person.
Nobody could be equal with anyone except for themselves (and only with themselves at that exact same moment in time!)

Not true. Under the relation of homeomorphism, a sphere and a cube are equivalent, but it's quite clear that a sphere and a cube aren't the same object.

Not to mention that once again that is a relationship among mathematical objects and not people.

[Magnificent Angkar]

Hell, it's simultaneously possible for men to be worse than women on average and for most men to be better than most women, due to the fact that median and mean are not always the same.

No. This is madness.

[Four-sided Triangles]

about the second point - just because "most" men are better at spatial reasoning doesn't mean that ALL men are. that is why it is sexist to automatically assume that men will ALWAYS be better than women at spatial reasoning. and there are men who are good at multi-tasking too. and there are women who suck at multi-tasking. each individual has different strengths and weaknesses. to make assumptions about a person based on their gender is sexist. think of it like racism. are all black people gonna be great at basketball? are all asians gonna be great at math? it's racist to think so. there are some blacks who don't like basketball and are not good at it; there are some asians who don't like math and aren't good at it. the only definite real difference between men and women that is ALWAYS true is that men have penises and women have vaginas.

I think you misread my second point. I agree with you here. I'm saying that, for what are probably biological reasons, men average better than women in spatial reasoning and women average better than men in verbal communication. Of course, none of this means that no man is ever better than any woman at verbal communication. You should still evaluate people as individuals, but evaluating people as individuals does not require you to pretend that biological effects don't exist. Never assume that a women sucks at spatial reasoning before getting to know her. However, do still accept that women aren't as good at spatial reasoning on average.

[Pyravar]

I hope this topic doesn't degenerate into arguments about my view of sex.

Okay, I hold to feminism, but a very unconventional form of it. I have three positions were are all considered controversial in feminism, but none of them are universally rejected.

1. I do not think that sex is a good thing, and I do not think that women "empower" themselves through promiscuity. Women empower themselves through self-respect and through earning the respect of others.

Be glad someone thought sex was a good thing or you'd not exist.

[Natapoc]

If you believe that men are inferior then you are a misandrist (not a feminist)
If you believe that women are inferior then you are a misogynist(not a feminist)

Not necessarily. Saying "After weighting the averages of ability, importance, and moral character, I've been able to determine that men are, on average, slightly worse than women." is not the same as "All men are evil." nor is it even "All men are worse than all women."

Hell, it's simultaneously possible for men to be worse than women on average and for most men to be better than most women, due to the fact that median and mean are not always the same.

It's not necessary to believe that men are evil in order to be a misandrist. You must only believe that men have less worth, value, importance, or advocate that men should have less chances than a woman do to the fact that he is a man.

[Four-sided Triangles]

This violates your previous statement. A sphere and a cube are not equivalent in the way you specified. They are only of the same Topology.

Yes they are. Homeomorphism obeys all three criteria of an equivalence relation. It's an elementary proof shown in every introductory topology class.

Two topological spaces are homeomorphic iff there exists a continuous bijection from one into the other such that the bijection has a continuous inverse.

1. The identity map is always continuous, bijective, and invertible, so every space is homeomorphic to itself.

2. If there's a continuous bijection with a continuous inverse from A into B, then the inverse of that bijection is a continuous bijection with a continuous inverse from B into A. Thus, if A is homeomorphic to B then B is homeomorphic to A.

3. By composition of functions, it's quite easy to see how homeomorophism is transitive, so I won't spell it out here.

Conclusion: Homeomorphism is an equivalence relation. QED

[Four-sided Triangles]

It's not necessary to believe that men are evil in order to be a misandrist. You must only believe that men have less worth, value, importance, or advocate that men should have less chances than a woman do to the fact that he is a man.

If it turns out that men, on average, have less worth than women, that doesn't mean that all men have less worth than all women. Thus, I should still evaluate everyone as an individual, which means giving the same opportunities to anyone who proves themselves worthy.

[Volozogul]

I hope you kindly abstain from duplicating parts of your genetic material.
Lord knows the world should not have to put up with more people like you.

[Natapoc]

This violates your previous statement. A sphere and a cube are not equivalent in the way you specified. They are only of the same Topology.

Yes they are. Homeomorphism obeys all three criteria of an equivalence relation. It's an elementary proof shown in every introductory topology class.

Two topological spaces are homeomorphic iff there exists a continuous bijection from one into the other such that the bijection has a continuous inverse.

1. The identity map is always continuous, bijective, and invertible, so every space is homeomorphic to itself.

2. If there's a continuous bijection with a continuous inverse from A into B, then the inverse of that bijection is a continuous bijection with a continuous inverse from B into A. Thus, if A is homeomorphic to B then B is homeomorphic to A.

3. By composition of functions, it's quite easy to see how homeomorophism is transitive, so I won't spell it out here.

Conclusion: Homeomorphism is an equivalence relation. QED

Your proof is true but it does not prove what you said earlier (you proved something but you did not prove what we wanted to prove)

You said before that:

1. a = a for all a
2. a = b implies b = a for all a and b
3. a = b and b = c implies a = c for all a, b, and c

Let A be a Sphere.
Let B be a Cube.

Show that A=B. Not that A is homeomorphic to B because that's not what you said. You must show that A = B.

A homeomorphic relationship is a specific property of a type of object. Not the object. It's similar to saying John and Paul have two legs therefore they both have an equal number of legs.

Your allowing for homeomorphic equality, if anything, demonstrates that you are inconsistent in your definition of equality.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Your proof is true but it does not prove what you said earlier (you proved something but you did not prove what we wanted to prove)

You said before that:

1. a = a for all a
2. a = b implies b = a for all a and b
3. a = b and b = c implies a = c for all a, b, and c

Let A be a Sphere.
Let B be a Cube.

Show that A=B. Not that A is homeomorphic to B because that's not what you said. You must show that A = B.

A homeomorphic relationship is a specific property of a type of object. Not the object. It's similar to saying John and Paul have two legs therefore they both have an equal number of legs.

Your allowing for homeomorphic equality, if anything, demonstrates that you are inconsistent in your definition of equality.

"=" is just a stand-in for the equivalence relation in question. Anything that obeys those properties is a kind of equality.

[Four-sided Triangles]

I hope you kindly abstain from duplicating parts of your genetic material.
Lord knows the world should not have to put up with more people like you.

People like me? What kind of people would those be, pray tell?

[The Congregationists]

1. I do not think that sex is a good thing, and I do not think that women "empower" themselves through promiscuity. Women empower themselves through self-respect and through earning the respect of others.

2. I think that some degree of biological essentialism HAS TO BE true. It's absurd to suggest that there are no statistical psychological differences between the genders, given that sexual dimorphism is universal in mammals. Most men are better than most women at spatial reasoning, probably for fundamentally biological reasons. Most women are better at multitasking and verbal communication, also likely for biological reasons. Of course, these differences are STATISTICAL which means that we still have to evaluate people as individuals.

3. I don't like the language of "equality." I don't think we're all equal. We're not equal in ability. We're not equal in moral character. We're not equal in importance. I think the real way to oppose racism, sexism, and homophobia is not with the idea that we're all equal, because we're not. The real way to oppose prejudice is to hold that we should judge people as individuals, rather than according to the arbitrary demographics they happen to belong to.

What kind of feminist would you say that I am?

I'd go with those here who say you're probobly more conservative than feminist, at least based on the above alone. Most self described feminists would abhor clauses 2 and 3 and a majority wouldn't care too much for 1 either, at least the bit about sex not being a good thing. Everything after that they might agree with. Indeed, most "feminists" I've encountered are actually pretty frisky when it comes to that sort of thing; it's like they're trying to live down their MacKinnon/Dworkin reputations. Now before you jump down my throat, know that I'm Canadian and that conservatism up here is a bit different than it is Stateside, though for how long remains to be seen now that Harper's been crowned king. Keep in mind that feminism and conservatism are less mutually exclusive than people who adhere strongly to either side would like to admit. Notice how they tend to ally on issues like pornography, tend towards moral elitism, authoritarianism and law and order agendas.

Speaking of Law and Order, I think you'd make a great lead character on Law and Order S.V.U. Maybe you could take Ice-T's place so he can get back to rappin'. Wouldn't THAT be sweet?

I'd also suggest you move to Calgary, Alberta, Canada, should the opportunity ever arise. THere's actually jobs up here, so that's a plus. But pretty much everybody here thinks the way you do. I - who am actually swinging back towards being very ambivalent in my views on sex, look like a perverted radical compared to most people here. The people, like the climate, are quite frigid.

[Volozogul]

I hope you kindly abstain from duplicating parts of your genetic material.
Lord knows the world should not have to put up with more people like you.

People like me? What kind of people would those be, pray tell?

People with your views.

[Four-sided Triangles]

People with your views.

That sex is bad?

[Natapoc]

Your proof is true but it does not prove what you said earlier (you proved something but you did not prove what we wanted to prove)

You said before that:

1. a = a for all a
2. a = b implies b = a for all a and b
3. a = b and b = c implies a = c for all a, b, and c

Let A be a Sphere.
Let B be a Cube.

Show that A=B. Not that A is homeomorphic to B because that's not what you said. You must show that A = B.

A homeomorphic relationship is a specific property of a type of object. Not the object. It's similar to saying John and Paul have two legs therefore they both have an equal number of legs.

Your allowing for homeomorphic equality, if anything, demonstrates that you are inconsistent in your definition of equality.

"=" is just a stand-in for the equivalence relation in question. Anything that obeys those properties is a kind of equality.

Exactly. Which means that the statement: Men and women are equal Is valid because the statement is a particular type of equivalence relation.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Exactly. Which means that the statement: Men and women are equal Is valid because the statement is a particular type of equivalence relation.

How is the equivalence relation defined? X and Y are equal iff ___.

[Volozogul]

People with your views.

That sex is bad?

Well if that is your view then it would be the height of hypocrisy to spread your genetic material.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Well if that is your view then it would be the height of hypocrisy to spread your genetic material.

1. I don't plan on doing so.

2. I want society to externalize reproduction through technology so that sex is no longer necessary.