What do you think of feminism

[ProxyAmenRa]

No, you have created that system in order that you may have a strawman to argue against. I'm not retarded y know.

No. I read what you wrote. The only rule posited that I could identify had to do with how dumb and entity is. Ergo, the Dumb Theory of Morality.

It really didn't take a long time for you to turn this into the good ol binary left vs right debate. Cba to elaborate on my position when in the end all I'm going to be doing is acting as the punching bag you need to express your hatred towards leftists.

I did no such thing. I just thought the way in which you were characterizing your opponents was similar to the video. If someone disagrees with you obviously they must be an idiot. And what does that make you? The person who debates with idiots.

The Dumb Theory of Morality did have some similarities to what would occur in the USSR. If a person did not agree with their philosophy, they were characterized as being mentally ill. The USSR did regularly kill mentally ill people.

All morality is based upon emotions/sympathy/empathy (ESE). If a person cannot feel ESE for another object (rock, person, semen, infant), the person will have no problem destroying that object.

You are forgetting something that is quite important, that is reason. Reason allows for the codification of what is moral. Intuitions about what is moral is fine for black and white cases. The grey cases absolutely requires the precise codification. Now we get to abortion. Abortion is very grey.

 

[k9b4]

You are forgetting something that is quite important, that is reason. Reason allows for the codification of what is moral. Intuitions about what is moral is fine for black and white cases. The grey cases absolutely requires the precise codification. Now we get to abortion. Abortion is very grey.

There is no logical reason not to kill a person, other than punishment by law. The cause of all morality and ethics is emotion.

This dumb theory of morality is quite correct. We empathize most strongly with other objects which are most similar to ourselves. Therefore, the greater the difference between ourselves and another object, the more we empathize with that object, and the less we want to destroy it.

Is it okay to destroy a human? What about a prehistoric human? What about an ape? How far back can we go until it's okay to destroy the object? Is it okay to destroy a bacteria? What about a rock? What about an electron? Is it morally 'wrong' to kick an electron?

What is moral and what is not moral is entirely subjective, and based purely on emotions/empathy/sympathy.

The only reason we need laws is so that psychopaths don't kill everybody.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

What is moral and what is not moral is entirely subjective, and based purely on emotions/empathy/sympathy.

There is some subjectivity to the concept of morality. Each individual has a slightly different idea. Now let's just say that two individuals with different ideas of what is moral in society are in conflict due to the difference in these ideas. How can this conflict be resolved? Who is in the right? Who has the highest claim? What is the just remedy? Do they fight to the death? Does society degrade into the law of the jungle?

 

[k9b4]

There is some subjectivity to the concept of morality. Each individual has a slightly different idea. Now let's just say that two individuals with different ideas of what is moral in society are in conflict due to the difference in these ideas. How can this conflict be resolved? Who is in the right? Who has the highest claim? What is the just remedy? Do they fight to the death? Does society degrade into the law of the jungle?

I think I see your point. You're getting at law and politics, what should and should not be enforced.

Honestly I have no idea. I do not think about, nor give a shit about politics. Everyone can just do whatever the fuck they want in my opinion.

 

[Cherry Cola]

No. I read what you wrote. The only rule posited that I could identify had to do with how dumb and entity is. Ergo, the Dumb Theory of Morality.

Moral theories tend to be heuristic in nature. I could have elaborated to make it clear that no I'm basing my thoughts on the solely on intelligence, but would it have mattered? I don't think so. You were going to tear down whatever I wrote with skepticism anyway. You would've found some flaw because moral theories are heuristic in their nature. Since we don't know how consciousness works we can't say how it relates to an individuals capacity for suffering.

Furthermore, people do use the Dumb Theory of Morality a lot when it doesn't come to humans. When it's a human it doesn't matter if it's braindead it still has inherent value in the eyes of most people because they don't have the guts to admit that they only reason they think so is because they are genetically programmed to favor their own species. A Braindead person has no inherent value, but it has value in how it effects the emotions of other people. It's the same thing with fetuses that have yet to develop a sophisticated nervous system.

I did no such thing. I just thought the way in which you were characterizing your opponents was similar to the video. If someone disagrees with you obviously they must be an idiot. And what does that make you? The person who debates with idiots.

Yeah it just happened to be a video of leftists. Granted it's not like the video doesn't have a point, it does. But it doesn't really pertain to the subject matter. What I took from it is that I'm not just arguing abortion here; by extension I'm arguing against the Big Bad Wolf that is how you view leftists. From which it follows that the whole debate is probably going to be fruitless in the same way as when you try to discuss something with Cognizant and it becomes apparent that he's got you saddled with his own Big Bad Wolf which is subjectivism.

The Dumb Theory of Morality did have some similarities to what would occur in the USSR. If a person did not agree with their philosophy, they were characterized as being mentally ill. The USSR did regularly kill mentally ill people.

Right, because this follows from what I wrote. I'm not at all swimming up-streams in the phantom imagery of your mind which you project unto me. This objection presumes that I'm some kind of idiot who wants his ideas implemented in a fascist fashion. It's really an entirely superfluous comment which you would never have written were it not for reasons already mentioned.

You are forgetting something that is quite important, that is reason. Reason allows for the codification of what is moral. Intuitions about what is moral is fine for black and white cases. The grey cases absolutely requires the precise codification. Now we get to abortion. Abortion is very grey.

Okay I'ma reply to this part because I wrote a reply before realizing this wasn't directed at me.

It is only grey because it has to do with humans. When it comes to vegetarianism and animal rights the same reasoning doesn't apply. Indeed it is perfectly fine for people to mock vegetarians and animal rights activists all the while thinking abortion is murder. This does upset me, there is no reason to assume that killing a newborn baby is any worse than slaughtering a cow. Yet it is assumed, with conviction and fervor.

It is perfectly fine to raise under and slaughter animals by the masses in order to have tasty steaks and whatnot, but when it comes to giving people the opportunity to prevent them from having babies in situations where they shouldn't; thereby, saving some poor kid from a life of misery then things get oh so grey all of a sudden.

Now from whence does this greyness stem? We can trace the development of the nervous system in fetuses; thereby, we are granted some insight into whether the fetus is conscious and on what level it is so. That is not very grey to me. Unless we assume that at some unspecified point in its development the baby may develop a soul or something else that requires magical thinking.

The greyness simply can't stem from the fact that abortion involves the killing of a very primitive form of consciousness or just the ending of something that isn't conscious at all yet (depending on the stage of development which the fetus is in). Again, such killing is only considered murder when it comes to humans.

 

[Cherry Cola]

All morality is based upon emotions/sympathy/empathy (ESE). If a person cannot feel ESE for another object (rock, person, semen, infant), the person will have no problem destroying that object.

The problem is, different people feel different amounts of ESE for other objects. For example - one person may relate very strongly to a tree, and demand that nobody cut down any trees because they are living organisms, just like us humans.

A lot of people may laugh at this person, because they do not feel the same way. They will have no problem cutting down trees, because they do not feel ESE for a tree the same way the tree-hugger does.

This is why I do not like it when other people force ethics onto others. Ethics is subjective, not objective.

Why is it illegal to kill a human, but not a cockroach?

Rules are made for people who cannot think for themselves.

Or instead of having morals be a realm of thought where everything goes by using a retarded definition of it we can attempt to postulate a more sophisticated system of morality that considers more things. Things such as capacity for suffering. Y know trees don't feel pain, they aren't conscious. So why should I care if some loony thinks trees have rights? If he wants to protect trees than he can buy them.

 

[The Grey Man]

Moral theories tend to be heuristic in nature. I could have elaborated to make it clear that no I'm basing my thoughts on the solely on intelligence, but would it have mattered? I don't think so. You were going to tear down whatever I wrote with skepticism anyway. You would've found some flaw because moral theories are heuristic in their nature. Since we don't know how consciousness works we can't say how it relates to an individuals capacity for suffering.

Furthermore, people do use the Dumb Theory of Morality a lot when it doesn't come to humans. When it's a human it doesn't matter if it's braindead it still has inherent value in the eyes of most people because they don't have the guts to admit that they only reason they think so is because they are genetically programmed to favor their own species. A Braindead person has no inherent value, but it has value in how it effects the emotions of other people. It's the same thing with fetuses that have yet to develop a sophisticated nervous system.

How is favoring one's own species less reasonable than favoring things that are intelligent? Regardless of how well-defined your idea of inherent value is in your mind, I don't think it's any more universally applicable or self-evident to others than those of other people. You'll hate me for saying this, but it's all very subjective.

It is only grey because it has to do with humans. When it comes to vegetarianism and animal rights the same reasoning doesn't apply. Indeed it is perfectly fine for people to mock vegetarians and animal rights activists all the while thinking abortion is murder. This does upset me, there is no reason to assume that killing a newborn baby is any worse than slaughtering a cow. Yet it is assumed, with conviction and fervor.

It is perfectly fine to raise under and slaughter animals by the masses in order to have tasty steaks and whatnot, but when it comes to giving people the opportunity to prevent them from having babies in situations where they shouldn't; thereby, saving some poor kid from a life of misery then things get oh so grey all of a sudden.

Now from whence does this greyness stem? We can trace the development of the nervous system in fetuses; thereby, we are granted some insight into whether the fetus is conscious and on what level it is so. That is not very grey to me. Unless we assume that at some unspecified point in its development the baby may develop a soul or something else that requires magical thinking.

The greyness simply can't stem from the fact that abortion involves the killing of a very primitive form of consciousness or just the ending of something that isn't conscious at all yet (depending on the stage of development which the fetus is in). Again, such killing is only considered murder when it comes to humans.

You're rejecting other people's assumptions about what is moral and replacing them with your own. This is why discussions about abortion typically result in either agreement or an endless cycle of rebuttal, with neither side very likely to change their mind.

 

[Bock]

Give me one coherent argument against abortion.

 

[Bock]

How is favoring one's own species less reasonable than favoring things that are intelligent?

The first one is a basic self-preserving urge, the second one is a conclusion reached via reason.

 

[crippli]

No whether or not abortion is okay morally has nothing to do with the laws, and I don't think you should force doctors to carry out abortions when it comes to private healthcare, if its publicly funded healthcare they should. But Doctors who refuse to carry out abortions should've picked a job which doesn't come with duties that interfere with their personal moral beliefs; if they actually were to be forced I wouldn't care that much.

Abortion shouldn't be publicly founded. It's more or less similar to cosmetic surgery. If a doctor wish to do so, for free or paid. Great. I can only see publicly founded abortions as constructive in over populated areas. Otherwise it is a waste of money. A medical situation is different.

 

[Cherry Cola]

How is favoring one's own species less reasonable than favoring things that are intelligent? Regardless of how well-defined your idea of inherent value is in your mind, I don't think it's any more universally applicable or self-evident to others than those of other people. You'll hate me for saying this, but it's all very subjective.

Well for starters one is completely arbitrary, the other is an attempt regardless of what you think about it. I don't think intelligence equals worth either. It's not that simple, there is nothing pointing towards there being a linear relationship between an individuals capacity for suffering, and for wanting to live and intelligence. At the same time killing a stupid insect isn't the same as killing a mammal. If I knew more about biology I'd go into detail about how an insect simply doesn't have the cognitive assets required to experience suffering in the same way as more sophisticated animals.

You're rejecting other people's assumptions about what is moral and replacing them with your own. This is why discussions about abortion typically result in either agreement or an endless cycle of rebuttal, with neither side very likely to change their mind.

Yeah of course I am. I mean that's what you do when you discuss stuff. This is not the problem. The problem is that people treat morals like they do religion. It's sacred ground and you gotta tread carefully for some reasons. People who get all touchy when they are told that what they think and do is actually morally wrong should get over themselves. I do a bunch of things that are morally wrong too. Everyone does. We really shouldn't be vain about what it is to be human.

Also I am drunk now so if anything I wrote in this post sucks and is wrong it's 100% because of alcohol and 0% because of me being stupid

 

[Jennywocky]

...Also I am drunk now so if anything I wrote in this post sucks and is wrong it's 100% because of alcohol and 0% because of me being stupid

It better have been decent booze, if it's going to subject the rest of us to your nuttiness.

It's definitely a thought that I think we should consider more (about getting our undies in a wad regarding personal values); humanity seems to take itself so seriously. Fallibility is a given, even if it's not necessarily something to endorse.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Abortion shouldn't be publicly founded. It's more or less similar to cosmetic surgery. If a doctor wish to do so, for free or paid. Great. I can only see publicly founded abortions as constructive in over populated areas. Otherwise it is a waste of money. A medical situation is different.

what no

wtf man

gtfo I cba with this shit

sorry am douche but wtf

I mean for 1 it involves the child that may or may not be and not just the mother wtf

 

[The Grey Man]

The first one is a basic self-preserving urge, the second one is a conclusion reached via reason.

Good point. However, to preserve a newborn is to preserve intelligence. Just because I am nourishing myself with mac and cheese at the moment, and therefore instantaneously contributing nothing to society, does not mean that I ought to be fair game for termination. With time, I will resume my employment and education. A newborn has a potential for intelligence that a brain-dead person lacks, but needs time, sustenance, and education to realize that potential. If intelligence is what we're after, why destroy a prospective intelligence?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

The first one is a basic self-preserving urge, the second one is a conclusion reached via reason.

True and not true, I've reached similar conclusions at some point.

The ability to define and/or state ones desire to survive would be the borderline for murder imo. Not to mention the obvious contributive potential a child has.
If the parents want to kill it, it could become state property by law and could be trained/used for their purposes until it reaches enough maturity.

Not to mention the growing market for surrogate and sold children, with so many people desiring it, surely the whole process could be more decodified and legalised with leniency.

 

[Cherry Cola]

@The Grey Man:

Yes, but the people that need to get more abortions are not the ones whose offspring are going to contribute to the global intelligence pool in any positive sense.

White trash aside, the world hardly needs more people. So there's no reason to produce offspring that wont be properly taken care of.

 

[Belak]

I agree to a certain extent that we don't need more people, but I believe it is still morally wrong to kill a fetus.

You got knocked up, you deal with the consequences(excluding rape victims and bad condoms)

 

[crippli]

I mean for 1 it involves the child that may or may not be and not just the mother wtf

What does that have to do with public founding?

Is there something wrong with the baby that is to be terminated? If not, what is the difference to cosmetic surgery? The similarity is that both are not necessary for survival, if not a medical situation. Yes, clearly there are differences, like removal of life support. But so is not offering an egg or sperm to not let both sperm cells and eggs die off day after day, and month after month. All of this is really not offering life support, and most everyone does it constantly.

If a man does not want to fuck, and instead let it go into the toilet. Fine. If a woman wish do abortion. Fine. It's their bodies.

Public founding aspect is important, as it is connected to who one can force. Why should this be publicly founded? And not cosmetic surgery? Is it better to indirectly cause involuntary death, then a shine of the nose? That is what you are saying. And I'm not sure why you mean this. Doesn't make sense to me. The doctors are the ones who does this. If there is a bit of artists in them, the choice should be an easy one.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

What does that have to do with public founding?

Is there something wrong with the baby that is to be terminated? If not, what is the difference to cosmetic surgery? The similarity is that both are not necessary for survival, if not a medical situation. Yes, clearly there are differences, like removal of life support. But so is not offering an egg or sperm to not let both sperm cells and eggs die off day after day, and month after month. All of this is really not offering life support, and most everyone does it constantly.

If a man does not want to fuck, and instead let it go into the toilet. Fine. If a woman wish do abortion. Fine. It's their bodies.

Public founding aspect is important, as it is connected to who one can force. Why should this be publicly founded? And not cosmetic surgery? Is it better to indirectly cause involuntary death, then a shine of the nose? That is what you are saying. And I'm not sure why you mean this. Doesn't make sense to me.

I'm assuming you'd also require that men pay for their own medicine for erectile dysfunction? Also the male that impregnated the women that wants an abortion, should contribute half the cost of the abortion?

 

[crippli]

I'm assuming you'd also require that men pay for their own medicine for erectile dysfunction?

Erectile dysfunction may be a medical problem, not sure. Medical problems should be founded, psychological or physical. Including abortion.

Also the male that impregnated the women that wants an abortion, should contribute half the cost of the abortion?

hmmm. Not so sure. If the female is to have the rights, the cost should be included. Otherwise, the male will have a 50% vote in the matter of abortion. That is wrong for me.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

...there is no reason to assume that killing a newborn baby is any worse than slaughtering a cow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U06jlgpMtQs

 

[The Grey Man]

Yes, but the people that need to get more abortions are not the ones whose offspring are going to contribute to the global intelligence pool in any positive sense.

White trash aside, the world hardly needs more people. So there's no reason to produce offspring that wont be properly taken care of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOSVAHXF4oI#t=97

On the other hand...maybe producing offspring is the entire point of our existence. Certainly, intelligence is no end. Maybe life is more valuable, since without it, nobody can enjoy the fruits of intelligence. Is it ours to deny human consciousness when the goal of intellectual pursuits is to enhance it? Why exactly do you value intelligence? Does it not tie into an appreciation for human life at some point?

 

[Cherry Cola]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U06jlgpMtQs

You're proving my points you know.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

You're proving my points you know.

What point would that be?

 

[OrLevitate]

what could you people possibly be discussing; at best, gender equality?

lol?

i almost didn't post, then this shit kept going, is this pure ego inflation? I'm down.



Women were equal a while ago in most cultures (probably the ones we're talking about)
Women being inequal is pretty much the foundation for feminism, isn't it? plz prove me wrong. cuz you got equality, right? If you think you don't, try uh, looking at the other side of the coin, and see if men have equal rights in the regards you think you're being unfairly treated, and include every possible negative that men might have, and weigh it with women.
How can one be so dense as to think that women are like, governmentally ill-treated?

 

[Cherry Cola]

what could you people possibly be discussing; at best, gender equality?

lol?

i almost didn't post, then this shit kept going, is this pure ego inflation? I'm down.



Women were equal a while ago in most cultures (probably the ones we're talking about)
Women being inequal is pretty much the foundation for feminism, isn't it? plz prove me wrong. cuz you got equality, right? If you think you don't, try uh, looking at the other side of the coin, and see if men have equal rights in the regards you think you're being unfairly treated, and include every possible negative that men might have, and weigh it with women.
How can one be so dense as to think that women are like, governmentally ill-treated?

Incomprehensible :O

Edit: or maybe not so much upon rereading, sry

 

[OrLevitate]

Yea alright I'm out, too much 4 me.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Incomprehensible :O

what? very comprehensible.

 

[Cherry Cola]

What does that have to do with public founding?

Is there something wrong with the baby that is to be terminated? If not, what is the difference to cosmetic surgery? The similarity is that both are not necessary for survival, if not a medical situation. Yes, clearly there are differences, like removal of life support. But so is not offering an egg or sperm to not let both sperm cells and eggs die off day after day, and month after month. All of this is really not offering life support, and most everyone does it constantly.

If a man does not want to fuck, and instead let it go into the toilet. Fine. If a woman wish do abortion. Fine. It's their bodies.

Why does something need to be wrong with the baby? If the situation into which the baby is born isn't the right one the baby's gonna grow up wrong even if it was born right. If you look at the consequences over time I don't think it's comparable to cosmetic surgery.

Public founding aspect is important, as it is connected to who one can force. Why should this be publicly founded? And not cosmetic surgery? Is it better to indirectly cause involuntary death, then a shine of the nose? That is what you are saying. And I'm not sure why you mean this. Doesn't make sense to me. The doctors are the ones who does this. If there is a bit of artists in them, the choice should be an easy one.

I'm really not seeing the cosmetic surgery comparison :S Abortion has major effects in ways that cosmetic surgery doesn't. For one it can save an unborn from growing up with parents that weren't ready for her/him, or the kind of people who should ever have children at all because they could never give them what they need to grow up into mentally sound adults. There's a lot more at stake here than in the case of cosmetic surgery IMO.

Plus abortion is really great for the environment!

 

[The Grey Man]

You're proving my points you know.

Did you just watch the video? Because it was barely related. I don't really see how I proved anything. What I was trying to do was clarify certain aspects of your position by asking questions.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Did you just watch the video? Because it was barely related. I don't really see how I proved anything. What I was trying to do was clarify certain aspects of your position by asking questions.

Was a reply to Proxy's post not yours. You were asking some pretty big questions I'm still thinking about those :O

Basically intelligence is valuable because it helps us to uncover more of existence. Indeed it is no end in itself. I guess it does tie into human life the way you say. I don't think there's any big overarching meaning to be found, not in the natural order of things like evolution nor in any moral systems of ours. The only meanings and purposes that exist are those which are phenomenally experienced by living beings like us and animals. Those that are found in qualia. So basically meaning and purpose are localized, found in the conscious experiences of living beings. We can talk of meaning and purpose on a grander scale but it's all going to draw from the phenomenal. ^

But this is a little bit what I was talking about before with Proxy. Why do I have to put forth some kind of holistic all encompassing view on the universe and meaning of life just to be able to argue that abortion is overall pretty awesome? Do we really have so little in common that such elaboration is necessary in order to find where we differ and where we have common ground so as to be able to carry on discussing? I don't see how this relates to my stance on abortion. It feels like you're putting all the burden on me by just asking me questions.

Proxy thinks I'm retarded for thinking that killing a newborn baby wouldn't be any worse than killing a cow (if the parents of the baby and their reaction to its death are taken out of the equation, if that's included then killing the baby is way worse than killing the cow ofc), but I'm not sure why. I think it's just because the thought seems absurd and perverted to him intuitively. As it seems to do to most people. But I don't know because he's mostly been asking me questions.

Indeed it's easy to win an argument against someone by continually asking them to elaborate until their argument starts showing flaws without ever having to explain your own thoughts on the matter.

 

[The Grey Man]

Was a reply to Proxy's post not yours. You were asking some pretty big questions I'm still thinking about those :O

Ohhh. Sorry for the misunderstanding and thanks for the well thought out response.

Basically intelligence is valuable because it helps us to uncover more of existence. Indeed it is no end in itself. I guess it does tie into human life the way you say. I don't think there's any big overarching meaning to be found, not in the natural order of things like evolution nor in any moral systems of ours. The only meanings and purposes that exist are those which are phenomenally experienced by living beings like us and animals. Those that are found in qualia. So basically meaning and purpose are localized, found in the conscious experiences of living beings. We can talk of meaning and purpose on a grander scale but it's all going to draw from the phenomenal. ^

Agreed.

But this is a little bit what I was talking about before with Proxy. Why do I have to put forth some kind of holistic all encompassing view on the universe and meaning of life just to be able to argue that abortion is overall pretty awesome? Do we really have so little in common that such elaboration is necessary in order to find where we differ and where we have common ground so as to be able to carry on discussing? I don't see how this relates to my stance on abortion. It feels like you're putting all the burden on me by just asking me questions.

I already knew where we differed. I wanted to know why we differed, which was a difference somewhere else. I didn't mean to make you work hard or write too much, I'm just feeling around for the point at which we diverge when all is said and done, which appears to go waaay back if you catch my drift.

The part that I'm struggling with is why it might be a good idea to prevent consciousness because it (probably) won't contribute to the global intelligence pool in a meaningful way, even though consciousness is the only thing that validates intelligence, by your own axiom. I don't think it's ours to deny others the experience of phenomena.

Proxy thinks I'm retarded for thinking that killing a newborn baby wouldn't be any worse than killing a cow (if the parents of the baby and their reaction to its death are taken out of the equation, if that's included then killing the baby is way worse than killing the cow ofc), but I'm not sure why. I think it's just because the thought seems absurd and perverted to him intuitively. As it seems to do to most people. But I don't know because he's mostly been asking me questions.

I agree with this. Take all humans out of the equation, and there will be nobody left to care about the dead baby. But that's not really your point as far as I'm concerned. Rather:

Indeed it's easy to win an argument against someone by continually asking them to elaborate until their argument starts showing flaws without ever having to explain your own thoughts on the matter.

I disagree. No argument is won where your propositions aren't related to the topic, and therefore not accepted by the other side as an outcome.

Still, I see what you mean. To clarify, the goal of my posting was not to "win", but to form an image of a winning, or logically consistent side. I scrutinize myself and other debaters. It's an INTP thing.

I now see that the posting burden was disproportionately on you. This is because my internal contradictions usually don't play out in writing. Apologies.

 

[Absurdity]

This thread needs more glitter text!
​

[bimgx=500]http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/sparklee/2014/11/22/ffbc0404c897a92c059d64b08d9bd980.gif[/bimgx]

New thread rule: all responses must be in glitter text.
​

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Victim level morality indeed.

 

[The Grey Man]

Absurdity said:

[bimgx=500]http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/sparklee/2014/11/22/ffbc0404c897a92c059d64b08d9bd980.gif[/bimgx]
/quote

Spoiler

 

[Absurdity]

[bimgx=500]http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/sparklee/2014/11/22/5bfd28969eadc3207494f5515cd67f6b.gif[/bimgx]

[bimgx=500]http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/sparklee/2014/11/22/5513ba3470f8723775e9de93cd4617c5.gif[/bimgx]

[bimgx=500]http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/sparklee/2014/11/22/4e2437b8bf081336df0210c8466f28ef.gif[/bimgx]

[bimgx=500]http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/sparklee/2014/11/22/26079beb64b9dc53a5f62717d80e17cf.gif[/bimgx]

 

[The Grey Man]

Absurdity said:
[bimgx=500]http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/sparklee/2014/11/22/4e2437b8bf081336df0210c8466f28ef.gif[/bimgx]

[bimgx=500]http://img-s3-01.mytextgraphics.com/sparklee/2014/11/22/26079beb64b9dc53a5f62717d80e17cf.gif[/bimgx]
/quote

Spoiler

 

[Sinny91]

I appreciate all those feminists who assured me the rights I have today as a western woman. And I appreciate those who still seek to rid of any inequalities that still exist.
I find militant feminists slightly scary and a bit bat crazy - but I wouldn't stop them in their tracks, after all, it's not my blood they're after

 

[Alias]

 

[Seteleechete]

I appreciate all those feminists who assured me the rights I have today as a western woman. And I appreciate those who still seek to rid of any inequalities that still exist.
I find militant feminists slightly scary and a bit bat crazy - but I wouldn't stop them in their tracks, after all, it's not my blood they're after

BLOOD FOR THE BLOODGODDESS, DICKS FOR THE DILDOTROPHY!!

Spoiler

Pretty much how I see the craziest ones.

 

[INTPWolf]

wheres the white history month? or what about the straight rights movement?

little known fact is that right along with the blacks, the Irish were slaves also.
That's why so many of us have irish roots, and proof that if we would just shut up about it, black people would never mention it, and it wouldn't be a factor anymore.

im irish, so wheres my month?
no we don't want one, nor do we expect any form of sympathy, it wasn't in this generation, just let it fade into history's cracks.

Same goes for feminism, yes i totally agree, ladies you should be payed just as much as we are when you put out the same. But it's an old thing that's slowly fading away.
Everyones life sucks to some extent, you can pinpoint one aspect of life or society that garners sympathy, or you can look around you and see that we all as human beings are suffering to some extent. [bimgx=400]http://i.imgur.com/zOB9OO3.png[/bimgx]

 

[Sinny91]

Somethings never change, the establishments are still not averse to shooting the fuck outta blacks and Irish, cease fire in Ireland was only made in 2005, but I suspect even that is superficial.
Western establishments are still statistically inherently racist.

 

[Yellow]

little known fact is that right along with the blacks, the Irish were slaves also.
That's why so many of us have irish roots, and proof that if we would just shut up about it, black people would never mention it, and it wouldn't be a factor anymore.

im irish, so wheres my month?
no we don't want one, nor do we expect any form of sympathy, it wasn't in this generation, just let it fade into history's cracks.

I'm not trying to be offensive here, I have some sliver if Irish heritage somewhere myself, I'm just parroting what I remember from 10+ year old research in my sparse history classes in college...

I was under the impression that early Irish immigrants were not traded or owned as slaves in the US, at least, but were often considered to be of lesser worth than actual slaves. This was because slaves cost money. If your slave dies before you've had your use from him/her, then it's a loss of investment. So for really dangerous jobs like especially risky mining (and I really can't think of another example), they'd hire Irish immigrants at a very low wage, counting on them dying before having to pay them most of their nearly-starvation wages.

I was further under them impression that this pattern continued until after the abolition of slavery, and this exploitation of European immigrants are what lead to concepts such as unions, minimum wage, and worker's rights.

I also remember learning that 11% of slaves were of Native decent. They were just harder to keep because they knew the land and were more likely to escape successfully.

Anyway, Irish-American Heritage month is in March.

 

[TBerg]

This pretty much belies pervasive female victimization:

http://freakonomics.com/2010/12/17/the-truth-about-gay-and-lesbian-income/
http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2010/12/lesbian-pay-gap.html
http://www.thewire.com/business/2010/12/why-do-lesbians-earn-more-than-straight-women/21705/

 

[INTPWolf]

I'm not trying to be offensive here, I have some sliver if Irish heritage somewhere myself, I'm just parroting what I remember from 10+ year old research in my sparse history classes in college...

I was under the impression that early Irish immigrants were not traded or owned as slaves in the US, at least, but were often considered to be of lesser worth than actual slaves. This was because slaves cost money. If your slave dies before you've had your use from him/her, then it's a loss of investment. So for really dangerous jobs like especially risky mining (and I really can't think of another example), they'd hire Irish immigrants at a very low wage, counting on them dying before having to pay them most of their nearly-starvation wages.

I was further under them impression that this pattern continued until after the abolition of slavery, and this exploitation of European immigrants are what lead to concepts such as unions, minimum wage, and worker's rights.

I also remember learning that 11% of slaves were of Native decent. They were just harder to keep because they knew the land and were more likely to escape successfully.

Anyway, Irish-American Heritage month is in March.

Thanks for correcting me, i feel like a real ass for posting that without the proper knowledge. doing some better research and digging a little deeper.

edit1;one sec i i'm still researching this, im finding a lot of conflicting information.
edit2: it seems like a lot of good sources say that, yes, the Irish were slaves. But you know the net isnt the best place to find such info, but the majority of sites, including reputable ones are drawing the same conclusions.

 

[Yellow]

Thanks for correcting me, i feel like a real ass for posting that without the proper knowledge. doing some better research and digging a little deeper.

edit1;one sec i i'm still researching this, im finding a lot of conflicting information.
edit2: it seems like a lot of good sources say that, yes, the Irish were slaves. But you know the net isnt the best place to find such info, but the majority of sites, including reputable ones are drawing the same conclusions.

Wow, you're right! The internet really is conflicted over this topic.
This article is written in a reasonable tone, but I've never heard of the organization before. Ooh! a college paper with decent citations.
Then there's Irish Central's article. and a book review saying otherwise.

Both groups seem to be agreeing on the facts, but not the interpretation. They seem to be saying that Irish "criminals" were sent to the colonies as chattel or indentured servants. While treated very poorly, this was not a multi-generational thing, they were usually released when their sentence was up, and they had the right to legal appeals. This was done by the English government, and the practice seems to have went extinct about a century before colonial independence.

What I was talking about was more common in the late 1700's until well after the Civil War.

This pretty much belies pervasive female victimization:

http://freakonomics.com/2010/12/17/the-truth-about-gay-and-lesbian-income/
http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2010/12/lesbian-pay-gap.html
http://www.thewire.com/business/2010/12/why-do-lesbians-earn-more-than-straight-women/21705/

So you're saying I could make more money if I chased some tail? Damn my heterosexuality!

 

[TBerg]

I don't think it has to do with the sexuality per se but more to do with the career choices lesbians make. I think lesbian workers behave more like male workers, even beyond explaining it using stereotypes.

 

[Yellow]

I don't think it has to do with the sexuality per se but more to do with the career choices lesbians make. I think lesbian workers behave more like male workers, even beyond explaining it using stereotypes.

I suppose that makes sense. I've always valued my own financial independence, and outside one company that systematically paid men more than women, I've never experienced a wage disparity. In fact, my annual income has exceeded that of every man (but one) I've romantically cohabitated with. So it's possible that I fall under the lezzy category.

Also, I think it's true that some women are unambitious with their careers, on the assumption that they'll someday have to make career sacrifices for childbirth/rearing, and that a husband/boyfriend will take on the higher wage responsibilities to support the family. If both parties keep up their ends of the bargain, I suppose that's fine. I just can't imagine being so trusting. I don't mind being depended upon. In fact, I've often thought about how convenient it would be to have a house-spouse to take care of everything, reducing my day-to-day responsibilities down to just making money. But I don't think I could ever trust another person enough to choose to be un/underemployed. What if he is fiscally irresponsible? What if he becomes abusive? What if he falls out of love with me? What if I need to re-enter the workforce? Could I make ends meet with my shredded work history?

Nope.

Edit:
I guess this is why I don't worry about the lingering wage statistics. I'm free to support myself. The vast majority of employers hold no gender-based pay scales. I am not hindered from choosing my field of education, nor am I denied any levels of achievement.

The only "workforce" area I think is left to focus on isn't STEM, but labor. Jobs like welding, waste management, plumbing, auto-mechanics, ditch-digging, crane-operating, etc. Those jobs often come with the stigma that it's "impractical" to hire women. As if our strength differences were really that significant (trust me, we all know how to use shovels). Most of those jobs employ simple (or complex) machines where brute strength is required, anyway.

I think the resistance stems from the fact that these are are all reasonably paying jobs that don't require a lot of education. Unfortunately, if a qualified woman applies for such a job, she's unlikely to be hired. Now, like many fields, it would never be 50/50. More women are teachers, more men are cops. It's not a problem. But right now, a men and women in those fields are not being hired equally for their qualifications, and that's kind of a big deal.

 

[Grayman]

Everyones life sucks to some extent, you can pinpoint one aspect of life or society that garners sympathy, or you can look around you and see that we all as human beings are suffering to some extent.

I agree with this argument.

There are so many ways beyond the main 'protected groups' to discriminate against people. I think people are so blind seeing only racism(Discrimination on skin color) and sexism without realizing that there are several of ways they are discriminating all the time. "He is rich and so is greedy and empathetic" "They have a southern accent so must be uneducated." "They are old so probably drive slow." "They are young so likely will be impatient and due somethign stupid." "Their lawn is long so they must be lazy people." "Their children are loud and are running around so the parents must be shitty non caring parents." "They smoke so they are disgusting people." "He hasn't had sex yet so he must be gay." "He plays video games so he probably one of those kids who wastes his whole life doing nothing important and living off his parents." "He's a liar or I mean lawyer."

I am not saying there isn't sexist/racist hate but that there is just so much hate all over that the media focusing on a few crazies and getting everyone up in arms seems so misguiding to the real situation. The real situation is that everyone is full of hate and dislike of various people for so many different reasons that are stupid. I just wish everyone could look at themselves a little more and point the finger a little less.

 

[Brontosaurie]

i'm very much with INTPWolf on this one. i don't know why people have come to believe that they are responsible for the organic structural changes that come gradually with wealth, technology and science, just because they're screaming ceaselessly and redundantly about the obvious emancipatory benefits not yet perfectly implemented. i also agree with Grayman that the prejudice that is socially acceptable and safe to criticize isn't where it's really at, if for any purpose one should desire to assess what prejudice is critically effective currently or, in other words, where the frontier is. getting personal, emotional, vulnerable and probably slightly tasteless for a bit, i consider myself way more "structurally oppressed" than most of the feminist facebook activist women. i've had a life riddled with misunderstanding & inhibition simply because of my personality and specific circumstances and there's no movement to which i could delegate my interests. i've had a wealthy upbringing in a safe neighbourhood and i'm a white male, yet i'm crippled at life. many have it way worse than me, but those many are also lonely about it. when it becomes a big trend and a group movement that's even sanctioned by majority culture, it makes no sense to talk about oppression.

prejudice is a mode of risk-aversion, a natural response to scarcity. the less scarcity, the less prejudice. activism complaining about prejudice does nothing to eliminate it. desperate people will not quit building harsh societies just because someone finds it immoral.

men and women are different. it will continue to express itself in economic and social structure, even if hypothetically we rid ourselves of ALL sex prejudice. the current feminist movement doesn't account for that. it knows no limits. it romantically and irrationally presupposes the essential likeness of men and women, contrary to scientific evidence that even infants and monkeys have (distributively, not absolutely) sex-coded object preferences. the structuralist tabula rasa view may have had some kind of incentivizing function but it's always been a lie and now it's clearly spent. we need a better paradigm.

furthermore, feminism is in itself a residual patriarchal movement since in its emancipation it shames female-dominated nurturing behaviors, in favor of careerism and sports and other predominantly male endeavours. i don't know why one should completely dismiss the sound conclusion that females are naturally better at child rearing, unless it were for this patriarchal bias which seems to blindfold people to the possibility of emancipation without conformity. child-rearing is immensely noble and important, much more so than careerism. if anything we should seek to promote female core values. right now feminism is emancipating men within the patriarchal frame of reference.

patriarchy is no historical contingency and feminism is not the solution. patriarchy is primitive or a transitory phase and the progress of civilization will bring about its demise. there is never a need for activism. there is never a need for hammering readily available information into people with verbal force. it doesn't work, it's met with resistence. those who accept it will do that anyway. at best it will be entirely inconsequential, at worst counter-productive. it's not enlightening, it's nagging. now on the other hand real oppression always warrants anger and vengeance. stealing from the rich is never a crime.