Anders Sandberg has suggested,
> Ah, the "logic is just a rhetorical weapon" people. Yes, arguing
> against them is hard and messy. I think the best way to deal with them
> is to give examples and simple, clear explanations that make it very
> easy to see where the non-rational approach doesn't work.
That approach hasn't worked with "Feminists" as you can see by reading the
following article.
Feminism against science
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Goldberg/science.html
Brief Summary: Feminist scholars have attempted in past years to use
Margaret Mead's work to justify sex-role reversibility. Even Mead stated
repeatedly that men have dominated societies as 'leaders in public affairs
amd the final authorities at home.' Feminism seeks to impose its own
ideological interpretation.
__________________
Stay hungry,
--J. R.
Useless hypotheses:
consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:43 MDT