I said in my essay: "The natural differences between the sexes in physical performance, i.e. upper body strength, make it plausible, when science is underdeveloped, to claim that there are natural differences in mental performance."
Mr. Lecturer commented: "But might "physical strength" itself have been determined by children's socialization? Boys fight and girls play house? Boys wear pants and girls dresses?"
Ladies and gentlemen, behold Queer Theory - out of all the fashionable philosophies of the day, undoubtedly the most cretinous.
In reply I state: no Mr. Lecturer - are you some kind of moron?
Just because you want a theory you like to be true, doesn't mean it is. Biology is quite clear that strength is not just a condition of socialization. It may further shock you to know that the natural sciences do actually have some worth, and do need to be listened to. I know, given your comments on that essay of mine where I discussed the similarities between Heidegger and the Theory of General Relativity*, that you don't know the first thing about science and clearly think that the conclusions it bases on years of research and mountains of empirical evidence should play second fiddle to the theories that a group of French thinkers dreamt up out of nowhere in a couple of years, but I don't. Because my IQ, unlike yours, is not 3.
The sheer vacuous stupidty of the comment simply astounds me. No doubt Mr. Lecturer would retort that biology has been corrupted by our sexist society. So are we to believe that we somehow exercise female dogs less, and this is why they are not as strong as male dogs? That female Chimpanzees play with dolls while male Chimpanzees fight? That mantis society is sexist towards males and thus the females grow bigger? Or does he intend instead that we should ignore generations of research and claim that humanity is unique and not biologically like any other species?
Are we to believe that his household is so regressive that he was beaten everyday with iron bars and forced to fight 9 times a day thus accounting for his physical strength? As a child I did not go around fighting, but played with lego sets, computer games, and read. Are perhaps lego bricks much heavier than dolls, and thus I was unknowingly increasing my physical prowess when I thought I was just constructing a police station? Maybe his family gave him lego bricks which were made out of solid lead so as to make him "strong like bull!"
But of course biology is to be discounted, like all natural sciences. Because the natural sciences are hopelessly corrupt and don't achieve the truth. That's how we've visited the moon, fly from one continent to another, vaccinate against diseases, construct impossibly tall buildings, generate electricity from lumps of coal, and broadcast images around the world - why all this proves that the natural sciences have everything all wrong!
It's obvious that the sciences are completely dictated to by society. I can't think of any scientific discoveries that went against the culture of the day. It would be different if we could ever think of times were science had led the way. You know, if, say, in the 16th century there had been some guy who overturned the church mandated (as in, people who disagreed were tortured by the inquisition) view that the sun revolved around the earth. Or like if there had been some scientist in the 19th Century who undermined the religious and traditional view that life was designed and didn't just adapt in response to contingent environmental factors. But alas there wasn't, and we can see that science only ever does what it is told.
Or maybe Mr. Lecturer and all his queer theorist friends are just a bunch of fucktards.
* About that: I did not create the theory. If you have problems with accepting that gravity and acceleration can be viewed as the same thing, don't mark me down, go take it up with physicists you dullard.
Recent Comments