You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Education’ category.
Against human trafficking? Against slavery? Necessarily, you must also be against pornography.
Only a taste gentle readers of the abundant multiloquence of pants-on-head-stupid over at “Enlightening Science” – with the ever so ironic tagline ‘with knowledge comes power’. Dammit, there went the irony meter – again.
Prepare yourselves for a sagacious trip into the dark netherworlds of dudely logic and mansplination (line breaks added for readability):
“Imagine a situation.
Peter and his new girlfriend Janice are going to dinner. During the dinner they have lots of fun, but when Peter and Janice are walking home and she mentions that she is a feminist, Peter asks why isn’t feminism called equalism instead if the movement is fighting for equal rights among females and males. And this was Peter’s mistake. Janice flips out, starts calling him a misogynist with his male privilege and that he only thinks about sex. Peter seeing how Janice is reacting to his question, decides to leave her.
The next day the police shows up at his apartment to arrest him, because he is accused of rape. Peter spends two weeks in jail and gets raped there multiple times. When he goes to court he says that he didn’t rape Janice and she admits it. The charges Peter was facing are dropped and Janice walks away without any charges. When Peter returns, his boss tells him that Peter is fired because of false rape charges, and Peter struggles to find another job because he was accused of rape. Do you see what’s is wrong with this story?
Firstly, Peter was raped and no feminist gives a damn about it, no equal rights for him. Secondly, Janice destroys Peter’s life with false rape charges and she isn’t charged with anything, even though she falsely accused somebody of raping her. And these situations are occurring worldwide and no feminist cares about them. All they care about is dominating men. Okay, not all feminists do that, but those who do are what’s known on the internet as feminazis.”
I’ve left a comment on this dude’s blog, I’ll reprint it here, because somehow I have this feeling that it might not clear moderation:
[ed:I haven’t the intestinal fortitude to reproduce this dudely masterwork in full, open a new tab to read side by side if you really need to see the amazing thesis for yourself.]
“Is feminism any good or is it rotten to the core?”
Starting with fallacy of the excluded middle. Banner start. I’m guessing hilarity will ensue.
“As you may already know, feminism is a civil rights movement, fighting for women equality, so that women could be equal to men in all aspects.”
Dictionary definition of feminism. Par for the course.
Feminism is the struggle by women to be liberated from the oppressive patriarchal structures of society. There can be no ‘equality’ in a societal structure that is inherently unequal.
“Imagine a situation.”
Hypotheticals? Wow, this usually indicates that a fine beating, of the very first order, on arguments made of straw is about to happen.
“Peter asks why isn’t feminism called equalism instead if the movement is fighting for equal rights among females and males.”
Is it Janice’s fault that Peter doesn’t know jack-shit about feminism. It isn’t, of course, but if we know anything about how patriarchal society works it is this: men blame women for men’s problems.
Let’s see how that goes…
“Peter spends two weeks in jail and gets raped there multiple times.”
Name the problem: Male violence expressed in the form of rape.
Who do we blame? – Janice, obviously. (???)
Rape is under-reported in society because of the systemic barriers in place that make it difficult if not impossible for women to seek justice when they have been raped. (rainn.org for statistics and facts about reporting rape)
I see you have the words ‘enlightening’ and ‘science’ in the title of your blog. Let’s see if you live up to the name. The above link is to a specific page, but judging by the content of this post, most of the rainn.org’s site is required reading.
“And these situations are occurring worldwide and no feminist cares about them.”
As you stated earlier this is a hypothetical (‘imagining’ in your words) – by definition these situations are NOT occurring world wide.
“and no feminist cares about them. All they care about is dominating men. Okay, not all feminists do that, but those who do are what’s known on the internet as feminazis.”
So certain feminists should be associated with Nazi Germany. How refreshing that you’ve Godwin’ed yourselfin only the second paragraph of your fact laden treatise.
So please explain how these feminists are like the National Socialists in Germany in WW2, I eagerly await your learned response.
“Well they don’t want equal rights among females and males, they want to dominate men.”
Which feminist works say this? Please show us the evidence of your assertion, otherwise you are just talking out of your ass.
“Because the judge wanted to keep a public image of him not being a misogynist, because giving her a normal sentence would receive feminazi hate.”
Please show us this case, and the judges ruling – specifically the part about the judge bowing to the ‘feminazi’ pressure, otherwise you’re making shit up and calling it ‘factual’.
“So she was cat called only 0.5% of all her walk time. That is so low that you couldn’t even misogyny.”
Well thank you helpful dude for quantifying for women what is harassment and what isn’t for women. It is not like women should do that for themselves considering that they, not you, are the targets of street harassment.
“She was wearing provocative clothes and she, although I love my girlfriend and I don’t find anyone else attractive, biologically speaking she was attractive. So no wonder she got attention.”
This, this right here is, is in the most classic sense blaming the victim. How amazingly stupid do you think men are – it would seem that you think that men cannot act like decent human beings because of the clothing choices of women.
Okay hard question time – what should women wear so they won’t get attention? Or did you realize that the only necessary variable for catcalling is being female. See Stop The Catcall for evidence of this.
“The third variable is biology. Males are high-wired to be attracted to attractive women and due to our society’s set standards for males, males have to approach the females to set up a family.”
So males get act like shitty human beings because biology. Males, as you describe them, seem to be pretty stupid and weak – if they cannot even control themselves when they see a woman.
“Or do you know the so called wage gap? People are saying that females earn only 0.77$ for every 1$ a man makes. Do you really think this is true?”
It is true. Here is the evidence for the wage gap being true. I’ve noticed that you just say a lot things, and then fail to provide any evidence that the things you are saying are true. This is pretty much as unenlightened and anti-science as once can be. Perhaps you should consider changing the name of your blog to better reflect reality.
“In our society you have really great double standards – everybody is into stopping female rape, but male rape is “non-existent according to feminazis,”
Citation needed, or its bullshit. Guess which one I think it is. (hint: the smelly option)
“There is no male privilege but there is a female privilege.”
Yep, women sure are privileged. They are raped more often, get paid less, suffer more domestic abuse, are aborted more world wide, have strict rules governing their reproductive health, are less educated, make up the majority of the world’s poor.
But I guess that all doesn’t matter because of ‘female privilege’. Right on dude. Right on.
I’ve read about somewhat arcane nature of piano tuning and the various temperaments used through the ages, but Minute Physics succinctly describes what is going with all the math behind the production of sound.
Many factors cause pianos to go out of tune, particularly atmospheric changes. For instance, changes in humidity will affect the pitch of a piano; high humidity causes the sound board to swell, stretching the strings and causing the pitch to go sharp, while low humidity has the opposite effect. Changes in temperature can also affect the overall pitch of a piano. In newer pianos the strings gradually stretch and wooden parts compress, causing the piano to go flat, while in older pianos the tuning pins (that hold the strings in tune) can become loose and don’t hold the piano in tune as well. Frequent and hard playing can also cause a piano to go out of tune. For these reasons, many piano manufacturers recommend that new pianos be tuned four times during the first year and twice a year thereafter.
An out-of-tune piano can often be identified by the characteristic “honky tonk” wah-wah or beating sound it produces. This fluctuation in the sound intensity is a result of two (or more) tones of similar frequencies being played together. For example, if a piano string tuned to 440 Hz (vibrations per second) is played together with a piano string tuned to 442 Hz, the resulting tone beats at a frequency of 2 Hz, due to the constructive and destructive interference between the two tones. Likewise, if a string tuned to 220 Hz (with a harmonic at 440 Hz) is played together with a string tuned at 442 Hz, the same 2 Hz beat is heard. Because pianos typically have multiple strings for each piano key, these strings must be tuned to the same frequency to eliminate beats.
The pitch of a note is determined by the frequency of vibrations. For a vibrating string, the frequency is determined by the string’s length, mass, and tension. Piano strings are wrapped around tuning pins, which are turned to adjust the tension of the strings.
Piano tuning became a profession around the beginning of the 1800s, as the “pianoforte” became mainstream. Previously musicians owned harpsichords, which were much easier to tune, and which the musicians generally tuned themselves. Early piano tuners were trained and employed in piano factories, and often underwent an apprenticeship of about 5–7 years. Early tuners faced challenges related to a large variety of new and changing pianos and non-standardized pitches.
Historically, keyboard instruments were tuned using just intonation, pythagorean tuning and meantone temperament meaning that such instruments could sound “in tune” in one key, or some keys, but would then have more dissonance in other keys. The development of well temperament allowed fixed-pitch instruments to play reasonably well in all of the keys. The famous “Well-Tempered Clavier” by Johann Sebastian Bach took advantage of this breakthrough, with preludes and fugues written for all 24 major and minor keys. However, while unpleasant intervals (such as the wolf interval) were avoided, the sizes of intervals were still not consistent between keys, and so each key still had its own distinctive character. During the 1700s this variation led to an increase in the use of equal temperament, in which the frequency ratio between each pair of adjacent notes on the keyboard was made equal, allowing music to be transposed between keys without changing the relationship between notes.
Pianos are generally tuned to an A440 pitch standard that was adopted during the early 1900s in response to widely varying standards. Previously the pitch standards had gradually risen from about A415 during the late 1700s and early 1800s to A435 during the late 1800s. Though A440 is generally the standard, some orchestras, particularly in Europe, use a higher pitch standard, such as A444.
Ever wondered about your writing style and the message your ‘word medium’ conveys?
The Tone Analyzer will tell you. :)
I put one of my previous endeavours through the mill. This is what was returned.
I’m still looking into if any of the analysis is congruent with reality. If it isn’t at least it puts pretty colours around your text. :)
A tonic against the slash and burn capitalism we’re supposed to worship.
Autumn approaches; the obnoxious university ‘Week of Welcome’ orientation drones are yelling insipid, yet inclusive, chants at each other; and of course, more stupid post mostly made of straw languidly emerge from the turbid depths of the wordpress “patriarchy” tag. Like appreciating the subtle fireworks of the turning of the leaves, one can appreciate the flawed assumptions and ignorance on display over at A Reasonable Faith. But Lo! The coming of Fall and the exudation of a steaming pile of Herp-Derp always leaves one gasping for breath at the enchanting majesty of nature in all her glory in the first case, and in wonderment at the raw-stupid on display in the other. (hurrah for awkward parallel sentence construction!)
Two concepts that will help us in our merry cavalcade of fail will be that of the (1.)Naturalistic Fallacy(with due consideration to Hume) and the concept of a (2.)Social Construct lets define them:
- The Naturalistic Fallacy – […] the term is sometimes used loosely to describe arguments which claim to draw ethical conclusions from natural facts. Even more distantly, the term is used to describe arguments which claim to draw ethical conclusions from the fact that something is “natural” or “unnatural.”
- Social Construct – A social construction, or social construct or a social concept is an invention or artifact of a particular culture or society which exists solely because people agree to behave as if it exists, or agree to follow certain conventional rules.
Most of the problems with the post I’m about to critique will default to a lack of understanding of these concepts and how they work in our society. I would be remiss to also point out that there is, of course, a generous helping of strawwoman arguments that serve to undermine the authors arguments and credibility.
So let loose the doges of war, and we shall have at it:
“If there’s one truth that would impact culture for good more than just about any other if it were more male-female-brainwidely believed, accepted, and embraced, it’s this: males and females are quite different from each other. We are. And not just anatomically but physiologically and emotionally”
Sounds good right? Too bad its almost entirely bullocks. Let’s take a peek at what people who study sex and gender differences have to say:
“A 2005 analysis of 46 meta-analyses that were conducted during the last two decades of the 20th century underscores that men and women are basically alike in terms of personality, cognitive ability and leadership.”
Hmm…it would seem that the some of the research directly contradicts your claim..but wait!!! There might be hope, there are differences!!!!
“Only a few main differences appeared: Compared with women, men could throw farther, were more physically aggressive, masturbated more, and held more positive attitudes about sex in uncommitted relationships.”
Whooops… you’re still wrong.
“Hyde found that gender differences seem to depend on the context in which they were measured. In studies designed to eliminate gender norms, researchers demonstrated that gender roles and social context strongly determined a person’s actions. For example, after participants in one experiment were told that they would not be identified as male or female, nor did they wear any identification, none conformed to stereotypes about their sex when given the chance to be aggressive. In fact, they did the opposite of what would be expected – women were more aggressive and men were more passive.”
We could simply drop the mic here and be done with this piffle (flawed assumptions leading to flawed conclusions and all that), but where is the fun in that?
Let us soldier on brave readers! Bewarned and wary, forward we must go fellow travellers(of the loquaciously impenitent persuasion), to further reconnoitre this curiously(willfully?) ignorant realm.