Hyerdahl wrote:

> Dustbin wrote:
>
>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dustbin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>(edit)> >>
>>>
>>>The question is not one of whether or not there ARE some  brain
>>>differences, but rather whether those differences preclude any one
>>>group (male or female) from achieving equally.
>>
>>That is, by virue of the fact, an absurdity. If
>>the brains work differently and have influences
>>upon our behaviour and ability in various tasks,
>>equality is a nonsense.
>
>
> Not really.  Today women are doing everything men are doing PLUS
> gestating.
>
They are not. Idiot - look at the fact before
you open your mouth.

D.
>
>>D.
>>
>>   Obviously, if there are
>>
>>>brain differences, and I think there are some, those differences
>
> should
>
>>>inspire us to teach to that difference.  IOW, if we all deserve
>
> equal
>
>>>rights by virtue of being human then...how best to teach with those
>>>differences.
>>
>  You introduce the arbitrary requirement of
>
>>equality on the basis only of the fact that we
>>reproduce together (e.g., are of the same
>>species) and then expect it to extend to
>>whatever suits you.
>>
>>This is not a valid expectation.
>
>
> Are you kidding me?  We CLASSIFY based on what animals, vegetables and
> minerals have in common long before we classify the differences, i.e.
> Genus and Species, etc.   For example, we don't protect minerals in
> some kind of MPCA organization the same way the SPCA protects animals.
> :-)  In that regard, women and men are accorded the same rights based
> on their features in common, their very humanity.
>
Jeeeeez what a tosser. Your nights must be very
lonely.

To taxonomically classify by grouping things
together is the same as grouping things
differently. If you can't detect difference you
won't know what is the same. You have the
intelectual capicity of a cow pat.

D.
>
> Also, if you are going to compare the differences between > female and
> male brains, you should also talk about what they have in> > common;
> their brains and bodies have much more that's similar than> >
> different.
>
Why? What they have in common is not interestng
in the least. It is studied only for its own
sake not for its similarirty.

D
>>Idiot. It is not what is the same that is
>>interesting it is what is different.
>
>
> Well, sexists are certainly interested in excluding women because of
> the differences, but that doesn't preclude scientists from letting them
> know just how stupid and insecure they are.  ;-)
>
Your presumption. And another invalid one at that.

D.
>
>



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/30/05 12:47:47 AM ---